[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 86, H.R. 118, H.R. 1925, H.R. 2689, H.R. 2781 & H.R. 2888
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, October 1, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-37
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[TIFF NOT AVAIALBLE IN GRAPHICS FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
-------------------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-627 PDF WASHINGTON: 2009
______________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Elton Gallegly, California
Grace F. Napolitano, California John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Jeff Flake, Arizona
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Carolina
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Louie Gohmert, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Islands Mike Coffman, Colorado
Diana DeGette, Colorado Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Tom McClintock, California
Lois Capps, California Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Jay Inslee, Washington officio
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, October 1, 2009........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 3
Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 28
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 7
Hinchey, Hon. Maurice D., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York...................................... 9
Holt, Hon. Rush D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey........................................ 31
Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wyoming....................................... 29
Statement of Witnesses:
Abbey, Robert V., Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 32
Prepared statement on H.R. 86............................ 33
Prepared statement on H.R. 118........................... 34
Prepared statement on H.R. 1925.......................... 35
Prepared statement on H.R. 2689.......................... 38
Prepared statement on H.R. 2781 and H.R. 2888............ 39
Anderson, Ross C. ``Rocky,'' Former Mayor, Salt Lake City,
Utah....................................................... 78
Prepared statement on H.R. 1925.......................... 79
Bell, Hon. Gregory S., Lieutenant Governor, State of Utah,
Salt Lake City, Utah, on behalf of Governor Gary R. Herbert 63
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Utah....................................................... 15
Campbell, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 27
Garbett, Bryson, Former Utah State Legislator, Salt Lake
City, Utah................................................. 73
Prepared statement on H.R. 1925.......................... 74
Hatch, Hon. Orrin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah..... 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 1925.......................... 14
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.................... 40
Prepared statement on H.R. 2888.......................... 41
Jones, John, Carbon County Commissioner, Price, Utah......... 65
Prepared statement on H.R. 1925.......................... 67
Matheson, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 1925.......................... 21
McIntosh, William A., President and CEO, National D-Day
Memorial Foundation, Bedford, Virginia..................... 50
Prepared statement on H.R. 2689.......................... 52
Metcalf, Peter, CEO/President & Co-Founder, Black Diamond
Equipment Ltd., Utah....................................... 68
Prepared statement on H.R. 1925.......................... 70
Moody, Michael, President, Molalla River Alliance, Molalla,
Oregon..................................................... 53
Prepared statement on H.R. 2781.......................... 55
Perriello, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia.......................................... 22
Prepared statement on H.R. 2689.......................... 24
Schrader, Hon. Kurt, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 25
Prepared statement on H.R. 2781.......................... 26
Stahl, Andy, Executive Director, Forest Service Employees for
Environmental Ethics, Eugene, Oregon....................... 58
Prepared statement on H.R. 2888.......................... 60
Additional materials supplied:
Herbert, Hon. Gary R., Governor, State of Utah, Letter
submitted for the record on H.R. 1925...................... 64
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 86, TO ELIMINATE AN UNUSED LIGHTHOUSE
RESERVATION, PROVIDE MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY BY BRINGING THE ROCKS AND
SMALL ISLANDS ALONG THE COAST OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND MEET
THE ORIGINAL CONGRESSIONAL INTENT OF PRESERVING ORANGE COUNTY'S ROCKS
AND SMALL ISLANDS; H.R. 118, TO AUTHORIZE THE ADDITION OF 100 ACRES TO
MORRISTOWN NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK; H.R. 1925, TO DESIGNATE AS
WILDERNESS CERTAIN FEDERAL PORTIONS OF THE RED ROCK CANYONS OF THE
COLORADO PLATEAU AND THE GREAT BASIN DESERTS IN UTAH FOR THE BENEFIT OF
PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS (AMERICA'S RED ROCK
WILDERNESS ACT OF 2009); H.R. 2689, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO STUDY THE SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF DESIGNATING THE
NATIONAL D-DAY MEMORIAL IN BEDFORD, VIRGINIA, AS A UNIT OF THE NATIONAL
PARK SYSTEM; H.R. 2781, TO AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT TO
DESIGNATE SEGMENTS OF THE MOLALLA RIVER IN OREGON, AS COMPONENTS OF THE
NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM; AND H.R. 2888, TO PROVIDE FOR
THE DESIGNATION OF THE DEVIL'S STAIRCASE WILDERNESS AREA IN THE STATE
OF OREGON, TO DESIGNATE SEGMENTS OF WASSON AND FRANKLIN CREEKS IN THE
STATE OF OREGON AS WILD OR RECREATION RIVERS (DEVIL'S STAIRCASE
WILDERNESS ACT OF 2009).
----------
Thursday, October 1, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Honorable Raul M.
Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Bishop, Hastings,
DeFazio, Heinrich, Hinchey, Chaffetz, and Lummis.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me call the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands to
order.
Today's agenda is H.R. 86, H.R. 118, H.R. 1925, H.R. 2689,
H.R. 2781 and H.R. 2888. I first of all would like to ask for
unanimous consent that Congressman Chaffetz and Congressman
Frelinghuysen be allowed to join us at the dais. If there is no
objection, so ordered.
I also need to announce that we will probably be called to
vote shortly, and those votes will be soon.
Let me take the time to welcome some people: the newly
confirmed BLM Director, Mr. Abbey, welcome. We look forward to
working with you in the coming months on some very pressing
issues that confront BLM, and look forward to your leadership
and your vision for that agency. I also want to thank Senator
Hatch from Utah for taking the time to come over here and
discuss H.R. 1925. I also want to thank Senator Bennett for
being here to discuss H.R. 1925, as well as the Lieutenant
Governor of Utah.
I know that the Red Rocks Wilderness bill has garnered just
a bit of attention today, and I know that the debate will be a
constructive one, so I am looking forward to that. I also hope
that as we go through it, we are able to discuss some of the
needs in the legislation and that some of the changes, if any,
are talked about.
We have other good pieces of legislation before us,
including the Devil's Staircase Wilderness in Oregon and
additional pieces of legislation that my colleagues from the
House are going to speak to during the first panel and the
second panel.
So, with that, let me turn for any opening comments to the
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop, and then if the
Ranking Member of the full Committee also would like to make
some comments, they are welcome, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
The Subcommittee will now come to order. Thank you. Today we will
receive testimony on six bills.
I would like to note that today marks the first congressional
appearance of newly confirmed BLM Director Bob Abbey. I was delighted
to spend some time with Director Abbey earlier this week, and I welcome
him here today. I look forward to working with you on the many pressing
issues facing the BLM.
I would also like to thank the Senators from Utah for taking time
today to come over and discuss H.R. 1925--as well as the Lt. Governor
of Utah. I know this Red Rocks wilderness bill has garnered just a bit
of attention today! And I know the debate on Red Rocks wilderness might
be a contentious one. But, I hope that we can still strive to be
constructive despite differences.
We are actually hearing testimony on two wilderness bills today.
Besides America's Red Rock Wilderness in Utah, we will also hear about
Devil's Staircase Wilderness in Oregon. I am proud of what we have
accomplished this Congress, so far, on wilderness designation in the
passage of Public Land 111-11. And I have made clear that I intend to
continue to support efforts to protect wilderness quality lands and to
enhance the responsible stewardship of our public lands in general.
H.R. 1925, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, introduced by our
good friend on the Subcommittee, Congressman Hinchey, would designate
as wilderness 9 million acres of land managed by the BLM in the state
of Utah. Many of these lands are world-renowned for their narrow,
sandstone slot-canyons, slick-rock cliffs and stone walls covered with
petroglyphs. The rugged mesas and buttes provide outstanding
recreational opportunities, critical habitat for a variety of
endangered species and contain important remnants of ancient cultures.
I think we can all agree that dramatic landscapes like these are
worth protecting. The canyon country of Utah is certainly unique, and
definitely irreplaceable. It's an important place to all Americans.
But I am also aware that a proposal of this size and complexity,
presents some unique challenges, and has invoked strong emotions--on
both sides of the issue.
In today's hearing, I look forward to hearing about both the
benefits of this legislation, as well as the concerns. And again, I
look forward to an honest and rigorous discussion about the merits of
this bill.
H.R. 2888, Devil's Staircase would protect 29,600 acres of National
Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands. The area is considered one
of Oregon's most remote locations. As our colleague Congressman DeFazio
found out first hand, the hike to the Devil's Staircase waterfall
within the proposed wilderness area is not for the faint of heart. I am
interested in learning more about this unique location.
H.R. 118 would authorize the National Park Service to acquire up to
100 additional acres for Morristown National Historical Park.
H.R. 2689, would authorize a study of the National D-day Memorial
in Bedford, Virginia for possible inclusion in the National Park
System.
H.R. 2781 would add 21.3 miles of the Molalla River in Oregon to
our national wild and scenic rivers system.
We appreciate all of our witnesses and sponsors for joining us
today.
With that said, I'd now like to turn to Ranking Member Bishop for
any opening statement he may have.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
opportunity and, in honor of our Senators being here, this is
the beginning of a filibuster, so thanks for everything here.
I would also be remiss if I did not thank some of the
people who are here as well. I am very happy to have Senator
Hatch, Senator Bennett and Congressman Matheson from our
delegation as well as Congressman Chaffetz--this is one of the
few times all five of us will ever be together, and, as
Congressman Matheson says, ``We will all be speaking on the
same page''--especially Lieutenant Governor Bell coming in here
from the State of Utah. I appreciate that as well as the county
commissioner from Carbon County. I appreciate him coming this
way. I think there are a couple of county commissioners out
there, but he will be speaking on their behalf.
I would also like to thank Bryson Garbett for coming in
here. I just have to tell you that we go back a long way. When
I was first elected to the State Legislature, I was the
youngest member there, and, as such, I was given this ugly baby
doll that I had to keep. For the first three terms in the State
Legislature, I had to keep that stupid baby doll until my
fourth term when finally Bryson Garbett was elected from the
West Side of Salt Lake, and I was able to pass that doll on to
somebody else who was finally younger than I in the Utah State
Legislature. So I appreciate him being here, and I apologize
for losing your cell number. Sometime I will have to tell you
what happened to the racket, the squash racket that I had to
buy because of you. But I appreciate having them all here.
For all of you here, for all the bills, I appreciate the
chance of being here and our fellow Members here, but let me
talk specifically about the one bill that is of unique impact
to those of us here in the State of Utah.
One of the things that will be presented in here is the
concept of land and land use. This is not an either/or
supposition. It is not that we will either have wilderness or
we have degradation of this particular land. All of the land
here is already public land. It has a form of protection
associated with it that is currently being done by
professionals in the field.
If we could start with the first slide up here, just to
give you an idea of why this bill becomes of significant
interest to the State of Utah, the bill that you can actually
see that just covered my congressional district and is now
going back to the others is the State of Utah. Everything that
is colored in there is owned by the Federal government, which
means 67 percent of my state is owned by the Federal
government. That produces certain concepts and certain issues
with which we will always be dealing. Go to the next one if you
would.
The reason why I am Chairman of the Western Caucus, if for
no other reason, is because all the colored land in there is
land that is owned by the Federal government, and if you even
go to the larger one, which is the third one, which is looking
at the entire nation, you will see that once again the land
that is in red and the land that is colored is land that is
owned by the Federal government. It seems to be
disproportionate if you look at the map in where it has to be
generated.
There are 653 million acres of land owned by the Federal
government. One in every three acres is owned by the Federal
government, and 90 percent of that land is congregated in the
West where one out of every two acres is owned by the Federal
government except in states like Utah where that percentage is
even higher.
Utah is larger than all of the New England states put
together, and in the State of Utah, we have 8 million acres of
Forest Service land, 3 million acres of Park Service land, 24
million acres of BLM land, 9 million acres of state land, and
10 million acres owned by the private sector. There are 10
million acres of private land.
We now want to create nine million acres of wilderness.
That means 18 percent of Utah has to support the rest of the
state. That is almost analogous to if New York City was
supposed to provide all the services to those cities only by
generating money that can come from taxes from Staten Island,
and it is one of the reasons why Utah has a significant
interest in this bill and why you will find that the Utah
delegation is united in this opposition to this particular form
and parse and process in the bill.
I want you to hold up a couple of maps that I have over
here too. The first one is the infamous blue map I hope, the
infamous blue map. The blue map has blocked with the amount of
Federal acreage in every state in the nation, and you see once
again there is a unique phenomenon to that.
Now hold up the one that deals with education funding. The
states in red in this one are the states that have the most
difficult time in funding their public education, the states
where the growth of public education is slowest, and you will
notice there is almost a one-to-one correlation between public
land states and the inability of funding education. Thanks.
One of the problems I have with this particular bill is
that every state in the West with all of those public lands was
promised elements that would help their public education
funding when they were made states with the enabling act. None
of those promises have ever been delivered.
So it is one of those simple situations that whenever you
do changes to public lands in Utah there will be collateral
damage, and there will be collateral damage that hits kids. My
kids' education is put in danger. When 77 leases were pulled
unilaterally in the State of Utah, not only did it make base
unemployment go from one and a half percent to eight percent
almost overnight, but it sterilized other lands not part of
those leases, and it also inhibited the ability of funding
education in the State of Utah.
If my kids are going to have a decent education in Utah, my
state has to have a balanced economy, which includes
development of manufacturing and a mining base to go along with
tourism because tourism by itself is not enough.
Utah State University did a study on the impact of
wilderness. It is the only real conclusive study that has been,
and as they found, while there are numerous impacts that are
not quantifiable, the economic gains from wilderness recreation
appear to be inconsequential and may likely be more than offset
by losses associated with the decline in activities
incompatible with wilderness. They went on further to say that
the research concluded that some user communities will be
severely impacted by wilderness designation and that wilderness
designation could seriously impede economic development in some
areas of the state.
The economy of states is not uniformly impacted, but it has
impacts, and this is why I would like now to make a motion of
unanimous consent that a letter from the Utah State Board of
Education be inserted into the record, who is opposed to this
proposal; that the School Institutional Trust Land Association
testimony be inserted into the record, which is opposed to this
legislation; that the National Education Association letter,
which is opposed to this legislation, be put in the record as
well as a letter from the Governor of the State of Utah opposed
to it, a resolution from the State Legislature opposed to it, a
letter from the state legislative leaders opposed to it, a
letter from the 15 counties impacted by this unanimously
opposed to it, a resolution from the National Association of
Counties that is opposed to this particular legislation. I
would like to make that as a motion, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. With no objection, so ordered.
[NOTE: The information submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let me go into a couple of other
pictures if we could for a minute because there are four
concerns that I have with this piece of legislation. One is the
impact it has on the State of Utah; the second, the impact it
has on public education; the third is simply the process of
this particular bill.
This bill, produced without a map so we know exactly where
they want to do, has had some research done, and it is now
called the Red Rocks bill with the association that there is
beautiful scenery out there to be protected. There is, but that
is not what these nine million acres will be, and remember that
``wilderness'' by Federal definition has to be land that is
untrammeled by human nature. This would be part of the Red Rock
Wilderness bill. These, as you notice, are some of those areas
that would be included in the inventory. Even though the bill
is not specific to get to nine million acres, you have to have
this. That of course on the bottom right is not a man-made
institution. That came there by nature.
If you flip back up there again, the road that goes through
this area obviously was made by some glacier during the
Jurassic Period because man did not do that at all. This is
part of the beautiful red rock scenery which probably will not
make it on one of the calendars that you want to sell from this
area but I am sure would have somebody from back East wanting
to backpack through those particular areas. There are
beautiful, pristine areas of Utah that need to be protected,
but this bill goes far, far beyond that.
Go to the next one too.
This is another one of those that would be included. That
of course is not a man-made structure for oil and gas
development. Those are molecules of nature that are showing
their sense of humor by developing in that particular way,
obviously something you would want to protect.
Go to the next one if you would as well because embedded in
this acreage are acres of stories that are natural gas, oil
areas, mining areas, all of which have an impact on the economy
of those particular areas. But the problem with this bill is
the map is not there, the homework has not been done.
The second problem with this bill is it undoes the
Washington County bill, it undoes the Cedar Mountain bill, and
everything we have done to move forward in the State of Utah to
make progress will be undone by the sloppy craftsmanship of
this particular bill, and the process is appalling.
I am happy that our good friend from New Jersey is with us.
He will be proposing one of the other bills--we have a hearing
in here--which expands the area, and I do not know whether it
is right to do it or not, but the difference is his entire
delegation from the State of New Jersey is in favor of it. This
bill has the entire delegation from the State of Utah opposed
to it.
When we did the Cedar Mountain Wilderness bill, we did an
inventory of every private property and holding that is there.
That has not been done on this particular bill. We moved the
lines to meet the needs of private property holders. We had one
private property holder that was running pipes along his land
which could have been included in the wilderness to water wild
horses. We moved that because we had the professionals on the
ground working with us to come to the order where we needed to
be. That is what happens.
There have been over 100 bills in the last few years that
have been passed that deal with the wilderness designation. All
of them have the same pattern: small bills in which you get
local consensus, local people coming together, in which you
actually have local government in consensus. None of that
happens for this particular bill.
What we need to do is go forward with the process that
almost every editorial in the State of Utah says: Try to come
to local consensus with people coming together where the
government agrees with individuals, not having something coming
from Washington crammed down the throat of the people in Utah.
Our goal should be to empower people, not make mandatory
solutions. Our goal should be to try and look to the future,
which small bills like the Washington County bill and the Cedar
Mountain bill to move us forward is the raise of the future.
This particular bill is a relic from the past. It has not been
successful since the Age of Disco and will not be successful
now or in the future, and we should not be spending our time on
this. We should be spending our time trying to find proper
solutions that will pass.
That is only the first half. Are you ready for the second
part, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Grijalva. I would prefer Mr. Hastings for a while if
you do not mind.
Mr. Bishop. If I have to do that, let me just ask one last
statement. This is the last thing, the last unanimous consent
request to having statements from the following groups in Utah:
The Americans for Responsible Recreation Access, the American
Motorcycle Association, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the
Motorcycle Industry Council, the Offroad Business Association,
the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles Association, the
Specialty Vehicle Institute, the Independent Petroleum
Association of the Mountain States, and the Utah Farm Bureau
Association, all of which have written letters in opposition to
this bill. I ask those be placed in the record as well.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection, so ordered.
[NOTE: The information submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Bishop. And with that, I will yield to whomever you
would like to hear now.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Let me turn to the Ranking Member of the full Committee,
Mr. Hastings, for any comments.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I assume your
previous comment alluding to whether Mr. Bishop was done was a
compliment. I hope it is a compliment after I finish my
remarks.
Mr. Chairman, there are six bills on the Subcommittee's
agenda today. Five of the bills affect public land issues
relating to the congressional district represented by the bill
sponsors. These are representatives looking after matters in
their areas of the country in which they were directly elected
by their neighbors to serve in Congress. These bills stand in
stark contrast with the sixth, H.R. 1925 that Mr. Bishop was
alluding to, which would designate one-fifth of the entire
State of Utah as a Red Rock Wilderness Area.
As of yesterday, this bill has 146 co-sponsors, and yet not
a single one is from the State of Utah. The Subcommittee is
going to hear statements from all of the Utah delegation, and
it is going to be all in opposition to this bill.
This situation, Mr. Chairman, is very similar to that of
H.R. 980, the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act. A
hearing was held on that bill in May. The primary sponsor of
that bill, like the Red Rock designation, is a Member from the
State of New York, yet he was proposing in that legislation to
lock up millions of acres of land in the western states. Like
the Red Rocks bill, not a single co-sponsor of the Northern
Rockies bill represented a district affected by that
legislation.
As the Ranking Republican on this Committee and as a
Congressman representing a rural western district, I am deeply
troubled by legislation whose sponsors live far from the
communities and districts whose legislation they are targeting.
Clearly, such legislation is being pushed by interests that are
out of touch and do not represent the views of those American
citizens that would be directly affected by this legislation.
The communities and districts that will be affected by such
legislation would suffer real economic harm and lost jobs if
these bills were ever to become law. We have nearly 10 percent
unemployment in this country. Constituents face very tough
economic times in every single congressional district in this
country, and yet some Members of Congress apparently have the
luxury of time to divert from helping their hurting
constituents to press for extreme policies that would devastate
the livelihoods and jobs of thousands of Americans living in
small towns and communities far away from that Member's
district.
When it comes to some legislation, I would suggest that
this Committee and Members of the House certainly have far
better time and energies than to pursue these bills. We can and
should protect America's great natural spaces, yet it should
not be done in a dictatorial manner that freezes out and
refuses to even consider the views of local citizens and local
leaders that would be directly affected.
Successful and responsible conservation should and will be
achieved when Americans who have the most at stake are listened
to and respected and not treated as a nuisance and deemed
irrelevant. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the courtesy
of allowing me to sit on this Subcommittee, and, with that, I
yield back my time.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. One of the Members asked
to make an opening statement. Let me clarify we are going to go
to the panel. We have busy people that need to get to theirs,
and I will certainly turn to that Member as soon as the first
panel is done for any opening statements that you might have.
Let me now begin with the Member of the full Committee, Mr.
Hinchey, who is one of the sponsors of the legislation that is
being discussed at this point, and ask him for any opening
comments he may have, and five minutes are yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MAURICE D. HINCHEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I
appreciate your scheduling this hearing and giving us all the
opportunity to be here to talk about this as some of us already
have, and I thank them very much for their comments. I also
want to express my deep appreciation and what a pleasure it is
to see our two United States Senators from Utah here today and
our Member of the House of Representatives. Thank you very
much, and it is a great pleasure to work with you. Even though
we are not entirely agreed on everything here, nevertheless, it
is a great pleasure to be here with you.
It is also a great pleasure to be here with other witnesses
who will be speaking later who have traveled here today from
Utah to speak about the Red Rock bill, and we greatly
appreciate all of them taking the time from their busy lives to
come to Washington to discuss this issue.
The first version of the Red Rock bill was introduced in
1989 by the late Wayne Owens, who was a distinguished Member of
the House of Representatives from Utah and who I am very proud
to say was a very good friend of mine. When Wayne Owens left
Congress in 1993, he asked me to continue introducing his bill,
which I considered a deep honor to do so and I have. A lot has
changed since, but we are still working to protect wild public
lands in Utah, and this year's bill reflects updated inventory
information.
The Red Rock bill is one of the great examples of a
citizen-led initiative. The bill was developed in response to
the Bureau of Land Management's initial wilderness inventory in
the 1980s that significantly undervalued the public wilderness
resources in the state. In response to that, countless
volunteers put in thousands of hours documenting the millions
of acres and drawing boundaries around these areas that
qualified as wilderness. This still stands as one of the
largest nongovernmental inventories of land ever.
We are now in the twentieth year of this effort, but it is
just the latest chapter in nearly 140 years' effort to protect
and preserve our nation's most pristine natural resources for
generations to come.
The first success in this effort was achieved in 1872 with
the establishment of Yellowstone National Park, and yet,
despite the vast amount of time that has elapsed since that
great event, many of the arguments against this bill are the
same ones that were made over a century ago when the first
parcels of wilderness were designated for protection.
There has also been a desire to push short-term private
interests over long-term public interests. A century ago it was
loggers trying to chop down the giant redwoods. Today it is
others trying to dig up the red rocks. Those of us who believe
we should preserve our natural treasures for future generations
have an obligation to do all that we can to continue the
efforts of those individuals like Teddy Roosevelt who fought so
hard to protect our wildlands.
The Red Rock bill would designate as wilderness over nine
million acres of public lands owned by the American people and
managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Just as the Grand
Canyon, situated in the State of Arizona, belongs to all of us
and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge situated in Alaska
belongs to all of us, so too do the splendid public lands in
Utah that are subject to this wilderness bill.
The areas protected in this legislation are some of the
great landscapes the world has ever seen. They include the vast
areas of roadless desert in Tule Valley, red rock formation in
Fishers Tower and awe-inspiring Desolation Canyon, which is the
single largest area in this bill. These lands are rich with
archeological remnants of prehistoric cultures, and they are a
haven for outdoor recreation enthusiasts, scientists, hikers,
educators, wildlife enthusiasts and many, many more.
While photos do not do these great vistas justice, I have
brought some along so that those present can see what we are
trying to protect. They include the Tule Valley at Cricket
Mountains in Millard County. It is a little small to see it
from back there, but believe me it is impressive. The second is
the Fishers Tower in Grand County and the third Desolation
Canyon in Uintah County.
The Bureau of Land Management has already verified that
over 75 percent of the public lands protected by this
legislation have wilderness characteristics through its past
inventories of the land, the Bureau of Land Management's
inventories. This is a remarkable fact given the lack of
progress on wilderness protection that we saw over the past
eight years under the previous administration. The majority of
the remaining lands have not yet received an updated inventory
analysis, but we are confident that that 25 percent will also
qualify if and when the new analysis ever takes place.
To further put this legislation into perspective, we have
to note that the lands that would be designated for wilderness
by this bill encompass just 40 percent of the 23 million acres
of public land inside Utah's border. The remainder of the
public lands in Utah will still be open for any kind of
activities that others think are appropriate there.
Given the beauty and the awe these great landscapes
inspire, support for protecting these public lands is
widespread. The legislation before us has 146 bipartisan
cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It has also been
endorsed by over 200 national, regional and local
organizations. These are not just environmental organizations.
They include recreation organizations, business groups and
religious communities.
Support for this legislation is not limited to us so-called
``outsiders.'' There is also clear and growing support within
Utah to protect these public lands. The bill itself was
developed by citizens of Utah. Multiple Utah newspapers,
including the Salt Lake Tribune, have editorialized in support
of more BLM wilderness in Utah, and a statewide poll of Utah
residents conducted in the first week of September by Dan Jones
and Associates, a respected research company based in Salt Lake
City, found that over 60 percent of those surveyed supported
designating as wilderness between nine million and 23 million
acres of the public lands in Utah.
Members of 10 different religious communities in Utah
worked together to create an interfaith statement about the
spiritual importance of Utah's wildlands and the need for
actions to protect these special places.
Finally, protecting these public lands is not limited to a
political party or any ideology. The witnesses who are
testifying in support of the Red Rock bill are evidence of
that, very clearly so. Their views span the spectrum from the
left, center and right. They are all respected statesmen from
Utah, and we should strongly consider their views on the
underlying legislation and the importance of designating these
public lands as wilderness.
Opponents of this bill will talk about how this is a
proposal pushed by outsiders, but as I have already indicated,
that is hardly the case. They will claim it blocks access to
critical oil and gas resources, as they already have, yet the
red rock lands hold less than a few days' worth of oil and a
few weeks' worth of gas according to the Energy Information
Agency. This is less than one percent of the nation's oil
reserves and less than two percent of the nation's gas
reserves. Additionally, the industry already has more than five
million acres of oil and gas leases in Utah, yet of those five
million acres, only 1.5 million or 30 percent, less than a
third of those leased lands, are actually in production.
Some may even try to argue that there are no maps to
identify which lands this bill affects. In case there is any
confusion, here is a map of the lands that we are discussing,
and you can come and take a much closer look at it.
Fortunately, we have seen a lot of progress on wilderness
designation in Utah over the last 20 years. Some of the people
who are opposed to this bill support alternative methods to
protect wilderness like the Washington County bill that passed
in the Omnibus Public Lands Act earlier this year.
I and others that I work with am absolutely open to
alternative methods for protecting our wild public lands in
Utah. However, I am concerned that if we choose a small,
piecemeal strategy for protecting the lands in the Red Rock
bill by designating a few hundred thousand acres each Congress,
it could take at least another 20 years before we designate as
wilderness just 50 percent of the precious resources that we
seek to protect in this bill.
Many people are asking, why are we even having this hearing
today? My response to that is that it could not come at a more
important time, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The great wildlands of Utah that are owned by the American
people are under threat. At the tail end of the previous
administration, BLM released six resource management plans that
would decimate the lands we seek to protect in this bill by
opening two and a half million acres of the lands to oil and
gas development and designating over 3,500 miles of new offroad
vehicle routes. While these management plans are legally
deficient and will likely be overturned, they exemplify the
need for Congress to permanently, legally, lawfully, correctly
protect these wild public lands.
It is fitting that we are having this hearing while PBS is
airing Ken Burns' new documentary, ``The National Parks:
America's Best Idea.'' While we are not seeking to establish
new parks, the sentiment is the same, that the most special
places in the Nation should be preserved not for royalty, not
for the rich but for every single American citizen across this
country.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have some unanimous
consent requests that I would like to mention if I may.
Mr. Grijalva. Please.
Mr. Hinchey. I ask unanimous consent to insert into the
record an op-ed written by Robert Redford in support of
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act that appeared in yesterday's
Huffington Post; to insert into the record an interfaith letter
on behalf of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act signed by 61
individuals representing a range of religions in Utah. I ask
unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter signed by
six different religious communities in support of America's Red
Rock Wilderness Act.
I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter
from the Salt Lake City mayor, Ralph Becker, to the Committee
on Natural Resources in support of today's hearing. I ask
unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter from 21
families from Vernal, Utah, to the Committee on Natural
Resources in support of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, and
I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a resolution
from the Unitarian Universalist Association in support of
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.
I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a
statement in support of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act and
accompanying testimonials from Women Protecting Wilderness, a
Utah-based advocacy group. I ask unanimous consent to insert
into the record a statement in support of America's Red Rock
Wilderness Act from the Utah Wilderness Coalition, a network of
over 200 local regional organizations organized in 1985.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the opportunity to
make this statement, and I thank you deeply for holding this
very important hearing.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, and without objection, so ordered
entered into the record.
[NOTE: The information submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Grijalva. Let me now begin with our distinguished panel
today and thank you for being here and for taking time,
beginning with Senator Hatch. Thank you very much, sir, for
your time, and I look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ORRIN HATCH, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hatch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman Grijalva. We
appreciate this and also our Ranking Member from our own state
and Ranking Member Hastings. We appreciate your comments.
I want to be identified with the comments of our
distinguished Ranking Member on the Subcommittee. I think he
expressed it pretty effectively, and I am very grateful that we
have two excellent Members of our House on this Committee in
Congressman Bishop and Congressman Chaffetz, people who
understand our state very well.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to
address this Committee with regard to H.R. 1925, America's Red
Rock Wilderness Act of 2009. I also want to thank the witnesses
from Utah who have come to provide testimony today on both
sides of this legislation. In particular, I want to thank
Lieutenant Governor Greg Bell of Utah. His views were of
significant value to us during the consideration of this
proposal. We will also hear from Carbon County Commissioner
John Jones; Peter Metcalf, the president of Black Diamond
Equipment; Bryson Garbett, a former Utah state legislator; and
Rocky Anderson, the former mayor of Salt Lake City.
First off, I note the title of the bill under
consideration. The authors of the legislation were careful to
name it America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, not Utah's Red Rock
Wilderness Act, even though the bill's only purpose is to
designate more than one-sixth of my state, of our state, as
former wilderness. According to the authors of this
legislation, Utahans have no special claim to those nine
million acres within our state's boundaries. After all, Mr.
Chairman, these are Federal lands, and they belong to all
Americans they argue.
Well, there may be some truth to that point of view, but it
is an intentionally simplistic view, and any Member of Congress
with Federal lands within his or her district will quickly
recognize that. I would be surprised if there were many Members
of Congress who would not take at least some offense at a
proposal to set aside a sixth of their state or district
without their consultation or input.
It is true that all Americans are stakeholders in the
management of our Federal lands, but in law and in
policymaking, stakeholders are not always equal. It is a basic
principle of policymaking that stakeholders should be involved
in the formulation of policies that would affect them, and it
follows, Mr. Chairman, that the voices of those stakeholders
most impacted by legislation should be given the greatest
weight.
This proposal turns that principle on its head. Certainly
those Americans who live on and around public lands and
sometimes make their living on them have the greatest stake in
the management decisions affecting those lands. It is wrong
that this legislation turns a completely deaf ear to these most
significant stakeholders.
Year after year, we have seen this legislation introduced
in Congress. The bill is monumental in its scope: nine million
acres of land within only one state. It would cover an area
that is actually larger than a number of states put together,
but it is also a monument to an old way of approaching
wilderness designation. To be more precise, it is a monument to
a failed approach to wilderness designation.
The special interest groups who are behind this bill have
raised tens of millions of dollars over the years with the
promise to their donors that the money would be spent to
protect important tracts of beautiful red rock in Utah. I have
seen some of their past brochures, and to be honest, a lot of
the pictures they show are of areas already protected from any
development. Their strategy has been to play to America's
emotions rather than to constructively work to win actual
wilderness protection.
In fact, all of that money and all of that effort has
produced exactly zero acres of new wilderness in Utah.
Meanwhile, members of the Utah congressional delegation have
done the hard work of doing wilderness the right way. We have
listened to all interested parties and especially to those
stakeholders with the most at stake, as we should, and by
collaboration and inclusion, we have had success, and, Mr.
Chairman, we continue to seek areas of agreement among broad
sets of stakeholders for the designation of more wilderness
within our beautiful state.
I know that the authors and co-sponsors of this
legislation, none of whom are from Utah, are sincere in their
effort to provide protections for the important areas in Utah
even if they have never even seen those areas. To those
colleagues who have put their names on this proposal, I say
thanks, but no thanks. I think as a congressional delegation we
have proven we can handle the question of wilderness in Utah,
and we intend to handle it well, and we have in the past, and
we have two excellent Members on this Committee alone who I
think have worked very hard in this area and will continue to
work hard in this area. Certainly Congressman Matheson, I have
a lot of faith in him in this area, and Senator Bennett and I,
we are all unified. We want good wilderness, but we want to do
it the right way, and this is certainly not the right way.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have to get back to the Finance
Committee where we are marking up healthcare reform, so I hope
that you will excuse me so that I can get back.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, a U.S. Senator
from the State of Utah, on H.R. 1925
Mr. Chairman I am grateful for the opportunity to address this
committee with regard to H.R. 1925, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act
of 2009. I also want to thank the witnesses from Utah who have come to
provide testimony today on both sides of this legislation. In
particular, I thank Lieutenant Governor Greg Bell of Utah. His views
are of significant value to us during the consideration of this
proposal. We will also hear from Carbon County Commissioner John Jones;
Peter Metcalf, the president of Black Diamond Equipment; Bryson
Garbett, a former Utah State Legislator; and Rocky Anderson, the former
mayor of Salt Lake City.
First off, I note the title of the bill under consideration. The
authors of the legislation were careful to name it AAmerica's Red Rock
Wilderness Act,@ not Utah's Red Rock Wilderness Act, even though the
bill's only purpose is to designate more than one-sixth of my state as
formal wilderness. According to the authors of this legislation, Utahns
have no special claim to those nine million acres within our state's
boundaries. After all, Mr. Chairman, those are federal lands, and they
belong to ALL Americans, they argue. Well, there may be some truth to
that point of view, but it's an intentionally simplistic view, and any
Member of Congress with federal lands within his or her district will
quickly recognize that. And I would be surprised if there were many
Members of Congress who would not take at least some offense at a
proposal to set aside a sixth of their state or district without their
consultation or input.
It is true that all Americans are stakeholders in the management of
our federal lands. But in law and in policymaking, stakeholders are not
always equal. It is a basic principle of policymaking that stakeholders
should be involved in the formulation of policies that would affect
them. And it follows, Mr. Chairman, that the voices of those
stakeholders most impacted by legislation should be given the greatest
weight. This proposal turns that principle on its head.
Certainly, those Americans who live on and around public lands, and
sometimes make their living on them, have the greatest stake in
management decisions affecting those lands. It is wrong that this
legislation turns a completely deaf ear to these most significant
stakeholders.
Year after year, we have seen this legislation introduced in
Congress. The bill is monumental in its scope: nine million acres of
land within only one state. It would cover an area that is actually
larger than a number of states put together. But it's also a monument
to an old way of approaching wilderness designation. To be more
precise, it's a monument to a failed approach to wilderness
designation.
The special interest groups who are behind this bill have raised
tens of millions of dollars over the years, with the promise to their
donors that the money would be spent to protect important tracts of
beautiful red rock in Utah. I've seen some of their past brochures, and
to be honest, a lot of the pictures they show are of areas already
protected from development. Their strategy has been to play to
American's emotions, rather than to constructively work to win actual
wilderness protection. In fact, all that money and all that effort has
produced exactly zero acres of new wilderness in Utah.
Meanwhile, members of the Utah Congressional delegation have done
the hard work of doing wilderness the right way. We've listened to all
interested parties, and especially to those stakeholders with the most
at stake. And by collaboration and inclusion we have had success. And,
Mr. Chairman, we continue to seek areas of agreement among broad sets
of stakeholders for the designation of more wilderness in our state.
I know that the authors and cosponsors of this legislation--none of
which is from Utah--are sincere in their effort to provide protections
for important areas in Utah B even if they have never seen those areas.
To those colleagues who have put their names on this proposal I say:
Thanks, but no thanks. I think as a congressional delegation we have
proven we can handle the question of wilderness in Utah.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Hatch. Thank you so much. It has been an honor to be
here, as always. We respect the House of Representatives and
appreciate working with you very much.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you for your courtesy.
Mr. Hatch. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me now invite the distinguished senator
from Utah, Senator Bennett, for your comments relative to the
legislation at hand. Sir?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT F. BENNETT, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here. As I hear Congressman
Hinchey talk about Wayne Owens, that takes me down memory lane,
and I would like to go there for just a minute with you before
I get into some of the more prepared remarks I have made.
I knew little or nothing about wilderness until I ran for
the Senate in 1992 and discovered that it was one of the major
and most contentious issues in the State of Utah, and my
opponent in that election was Wayne Owens. As we fought that
election across the state, I learned a great deal about
wilderness, and I learned that there was a tremendous amount of
opposition to Wayne's position.
Interestingly, Wayne learned that there was a tremendous
amount of opposition to his position as well, and in the
process of that election debate, he kept backtracking from the
position he had taken before the Congress. He kept lowering the
amount of acreage that he wanted, and at one point in one of
our debates, he said, ``I never said we should have 3.5 million
acres of wilderness,'' and I had to say to him, ``Wayne, you
introduced a bill in the House of Representatives with 3.5
million acres of wilderness.'' He said, ``Well, that was just a
beginning of a starting point. I never thought we needed that
many acres. I just kind of wanted to put that out, but I have
never really been strongly for the 3.5,'' and we have seen the
3.5 now grow to 9.8.
Well, I learned about the issue. Frankly, as I look back on
that campaign, my position in opposition to Wayne's bill was
one of the reasons I won that election.
After the election was over, Wayne and I sat down. I gave
him a call and I said, ``Wayne, we have been friends for 20
years. We can be friends again. Why don't you come up to the
Senate? I will buy you a hot meal, and let us reestablish our
relationship.'' He did. We sat down in the Senate Dining Room.
The bells rang for a vote, and I said, ``I am sorry, I have to
go vote.'' He said, ``I will be happy to do that for you if you
would like.''
In the course of our conversations, Wayne said to me,
``Bob, I think you have the temperament to be the one who can
finally broker a solution to the wilderness problem in the
State of Utah. I know it will be hard, but I think you can do
it. I am not sure the other members of the delegation can, but
I think you can.'' I took that as a challenge and an
opportunity and I have been trying, working on wilderness
issues ever since that time.
It is very interesting that in that process I have
discovered that a statewide wilderness bill similar to the Red
Rock bill simply will not fly in the U.S. Senate whether it is
the State of Utah or anything else. I was involved in the
wilderness bill that Senator Feinstein introduced that was done
in California, and there was so much blood on the floor when
that was over that I watched members of the Senate say we are
never going to go through this again. We are not going to deal
with this kind of wilderness bill when there is so much local
opposition as there was from the local congressmen in the area
that was being designated.
And Senator Feinstein and I talked about what might be done
in the State of Utah, and again, she said ``I hope you can work
out something that will finally get a break in the logjam on
Utah wilderness.''
A few years ago I took up that challenge once again in
Washington County. I was encouraged to do it by the example of
the man who is now the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, not
known as being an enemy to the environmental viewpoint. Indeed,
the year he began his efforts to try to get things done in
Nevada he was given the environmental group's Man of the Year
award, Senator Harry Reid. And he recognized that a single
statewide wilderness bill for Nevada didn't make any sense, and
he went to work trying to solve the problem on a county-by-
county basis.
And I talked to Senator Reid and said ``How can we do this
in the State of Utah?'' And he said, ``Bob, I will do
everything I can to help you get this done in the State of
Utah.'' And he has been true to his word.
We used the Nevada template to guide us in how we put
together a solution to the wilderness problem, and I reached
out to Congressman Matheson, who had become the congressman
representing Washington County. We picked Washington County
because it was the most controversial. Washington County has
some of the most magnificent wilderness in the entire world in
it, and the fight over how to protect that wilderness has been
hotter in Washington County than any other.
So we took the most difficult one to start with, and we
used the Nevada pattern as the way to go. Indeed, we used the
language from the Nevada bills, bills which passed this House,
bills which passed the Senate, in some cases unanimously. And
then people said ``Oh, you are not doing it right.'' And some
people said to me ``You are setting a precedent.'' I said ``How
can I possibly be setting a precedent when I am using language
that has already passed both Houses of the Congress of the
United States?''
So we started. With Congressman Matheson's support, Senator
Patch's co-sponsorship we started. We established a regional
process in Washington County that was successful for the first
time in the history of Utah of getting wilderness designated
with the exception of the bill that Congressman Bishop referred
to up in northern Utah that had another aspect to it that was
not driven by the kind of controversy that we had here.
But for the first time addressing truly controversial lands
we created a regional process, and Congressman Matheson and I
went to work on it and we were successful. We were successful
because we started from the ground up with a working group
composed of stakeholders, and by stakeholders, we incorporated
the local leaders, we incorporated the local land management
agencies and we incorporated those from national and
international environmental groups.
We talked to the National Wilderness Society, and we got
representatives of the National Wilderness Society to join with
us. We examined every acre in the county either by air or on
foot or in many cases both. We chose the places that could be
designated as wilderness without creating a management
nightmare for BLM, and I will refer to that in just a moment.
We worked with the Congressional committees to come up with the
management language that made sense. And most importantly, we
looked at the county as a whole and developed a comprehensive
solution to the county's problems.
Our bill was supported by the entire Utah Congressional
delegation and nearly every user and conservation group from
the local level to the state level to the national level,
including some international people who came in and expressed
their interest in Utah wilderness. The result was a permanent
protection of special lands in the county without affecting
day-to-day operations. It was a successful balancing of all
interests, and I am proud to have been involved in this effort
along with Congressman Matheson.
Now the new model that we created building on the Nevada
model recognizes that true conservation can never be achieved
with a one size fits all approach as the Red Rock bill
proposes. Congressman Hinchey refers to the PBS series and the
Yellowstone National Park. We should recognize that Yellowstone
National Park is not a wilderness. People can go into
Yellowstone National Park. There are roads in Yellowstone
National Park. You can drive a car in Yellowstone National
Park. All of that is denied wilderness. Let us not say that
Yellowstone National Park is a model for wilderness because it
clearly is not.
We have more national parks than any other state, and one
of the things we did in our bill, Congressman Matheson and I,
was to designate wilderness in Zion National Park. There were
parts of Zion National Park that needed the wilderness
designation for protection, and we did it. Before we passed
that bill those parts of the national park were open for
intrusion from human activity that would have damaged those
parts. So we looked very carefully everywhere.
But let us not make the mistake of assuming that something
that is gorgeous that needs to be protected can only be
protected with a wilderness designation. As the PBS series
shows, Yellowstone National Park, one of America's most
magnificent treasures, has been protected without being
designated wilderness. Let us keep that in mind.
So our process enabled us to develop alternatives such as
National Conservation areas in places that deserved protection
but where wilderness is simply not an option. And let me give
you an example that we had with a conversation with the BLM
field manager in St. George that demonstrated this.
We were discussing an area that under the Red Rock approach
would have been wilderness. Under our bill it is not. We were
talking to the people who managed the area, and the BLM field
manager told me his biologists were pleading with him do not
let this area be designated as wilderness. Why? Because it
contained an endangered specie, the desert tortoise, and their
biologists had to go on the land to manage the endangered
specie activity with respect to the desert tortoise and it
would mean they would have to take mechanical vehicles on the
land with them as they went in to do that, and if it were
designated wilderness, they could not do that.
That sensitive area is protected in the Washington County
Land Use bill that Congressman Matheson and I put together and
that is now passed. It is protected as a conservation area, not
as wilderness. The people on the ground understood that
wilderness was the wrong way to protect the land, but let us
understand the land is protected and it is protected by a
careful examination of the way to do it and it is protected by
the act of Congress that went into it.
Now that kind of flexibility in dealing with the protection
of the land, the attention to the management details on the
ground, is simply not present in the Red Rock bill. It is the
logical thing to do, and the Red Rock bill does not do it that
way. The Washington County Land Use bill represents a
significant paradigm shift from the past, and we believe it
provides the model to follow in the future.
And our success is a departure from the area that was
characterized for over 20 years by saber rattling and political
gamesmanship of which both sides frankly have been guilty. We
proved with our bill that if we bring responsible people to the
table who are actually interested in results, not fundraising
or political posturing, we can develop a meaningful proposal
with broad support.
Now the bill before the Committee in my view is a
centerpiece of the old paradigm. It carries forward the all or
nothing approach to wilderness that harms the land rather than
enhances its values. It does not incorporate a single element
of the successful process that has worked in Nevada and that we
have undertaken and made work in Washington County. It
perpetuates the very mindset that we have spent so long trying
to overcome.
In fact, it doesn't even acknowledge the areas that we have
already designated as wilderness in Washington County even
though it was introduced after the President signed our bill,
and interestingly many of the proponents of the Red Rock bill
turned around and tried to take credit for the work that
Congressman Matheson and I had done. The Red Rock bill belongs
on the shelf with the rest of Utah wilderness bills that were
never serious proposals. If the proponents of the bill are
truly concerned about protecting land in Utah, their efforts
could be better spent participating in the new process as we
move to other counties.
Now the statement has been made ``That will take too long.
We won't get it done fast enough.'' Well, they have been trying
the statewide approach for over 20 years and haven't produced
as a result of it. In the words of one of their former
supporters who came to see me in my office as we were working
on the Red Rock bill or working on the Washington County bill,
he said ``I am moving from that side to your side because I
have been supporting them with my time and my money for over 20
years and they haven't produced a single acre.''
If time is the issue, Mr. Chairman, our approach has
history on its side. We have produced wilderness in Utah. We
have done it in a short timeframe, and we are poised to do it
again and again. After we had the success of the Washington
County Land Use bill, over a half a dozen, maybe more, county
commissioners have come into my office and Congressman
Matheson's office and said ``We are ready. We are ready. We are
tired of this fighting. We are ready to move on wilderness in
our counties. The olive is out of the bottle. We are ready to
go. And if we stop the progress that we have made in Washington
County to haggle over the Red Rock bill, we will slow down the
designation of wilderness in Utah.''
My door is always open. I will be happy to talk to anybody
because I am as committed as anybody in getting this problem
solved. Wayne Owens asked me to be the broker to finally get it
done. I believe we have done it in Washington County and we are
prepared to do it, and I say again to the Committee if you are
anxious in getting wilderness designated in Utah and getting
lands protected in Utah, we have a way to do it, we have a
track record, we have accomplishment in doing it and we are
prepared to do it again. H.R. 1925
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Senator, for your time and your
courtesy.
Let me now ask our colleague, Mr. Matheson from Utah, his
comments on 1925. Sir?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM MATHESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Matheson. Well, thank you, Chairman Grijalva. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify on the Red Rock
Wilderness Act of 2009.
I think in the State of Utah there is probably no more
contentious public lands issue than the establishment of
wilderness areas, and in some ways, this is ironic because Utah
is a land that has wild character, rugged, remote and isolated
by river canyons and deserts. But discussions about wilderness
in Utah have usually taken on a polarized dynamic that has led
to a great amount of emotional rhetoric and very little
progress.
The 1964 National Wilderness Preservation System Act
created the policy of Congress to secure for the American
people of present and future generations the benefits and
enduring resource of wilderness. It required the public land
agencies to inventory their lands and make recommendations to
Congress regarding wilderness. Now, on paper, that sounds very
straightforward. In practice in Utah, it has long been a
torturous case of taking two steps back for every step forward.
Mr. Chairman, today you are going to hear a tremendous
amount of passion. You already have and you will continue with
the other panels. You will hear a tremendous amount of passion
from the various witnesses who testify before you today both
for and against the proposed legislation. This passion
illustrates the challenges of what has been a polarized debate
in Utah. It also oversimplifies the complexity of the issue.
There are many, many stakeholders with different perspectives
of Utah public land issues. And if we want to make progress, a
collaborative process that engages all of those stakeholders
needs to occur.
Since the late 1970s, Utah wilderness proposals have run
the gamut ranging from zero acres to the bill before you today.
That gives you an inkling of how disparate the views are among
local elected officials, the state, private landowners, the
state Institutional School of Trust Lands Administration,
ranchers, oil and gas, timber, mining, sportsmen,
mountainbikers, water managers, backcountry horsemen, climbers,
Native American tribes, environmentalists and the general
public. I thought I would let you know how many stakeholders
are out there.
A wilderness process overseen by my father, Governor Scott
Matheson, took seven years. It resulted in the 1984 passage of
the Utah Wilderness Act, which designated about 700,000 acres,
mainly on Federal Forest Service land. No one got everything
they wanted, but in the end, everyone had a seat at the table
for the negotiations and they had ownership in the outcome.
That is the model of how public lands issues can be resolved.
However, that model has rarely been followed in Utah.
There are many examples from other states where a
collaborative bipartisan effort has resulted in consensus
wilderness designations. These include the Oregon Badlands
Wilderness Act, the Owyhee Bruno Wilderness Act in Idaho and
the Rocky Mountain National Park and Dominguez Canyon
wilderness designations in Colorado. All of these bills were
the result of following a collaborative inclusive model.
That is the model that was followed when I joined Senator
Bennett in a bipartisan effort a few years ago to write the
Washington County Growth and Conservation Act. It was an honest
attempt to balance diverse points of view. It was not just a
wilderness bill, but it did designate more than 256,000 acres
of wilderness. It also designated the first ever wild and
scenic river in Utah. It provided for the removal of a dam site
within an environmentally sensitive habitat. It established a
national conservation area for the Federally threatened desert
tortoise, and it provided funding for development enforcement
of a dedicated OHV trail.
I think the Senator will confirm it was contentious and
hard-fought, the whole process. Some local elected officials
and some environmental groups actively opposed it initially,
but in the end, they proclaimed their support. That approach
allowed us to address local concerns and specific features of
the land. It wasn't easy, but in the end, significant progress
on this most contentious public lands issue was achieved.
And so as we sit here today, I can tell you as the Senator
mentioned in his testimony other Utah counties are sponsoring
local working groups. They are holding discussions about
possibly duplicating the Washington County model. Together
Senator Bennett and I have established what I think is a
bipartisan roadmap for future legislative success on Utah lands
issues.
You know, as the largest daily newspaper in Utah
editorialized this past Sunday, wilderness needs to be
homegrown. It cannot be the work of only one group of
stakeholders no matter how extensive or sincere. That is a
major reason why I do not support H.R. 1925. It does not
reflect the collective views of the many stakeholders in Utah.
As legislators, it is our job to achieve progress, and I am
committed to being a partner with all stakeholders in a
collaborative effort that dissolves gridlock and provides a
true legacy for future generations in Utah. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Matheson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Matheson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Utah, on H.R. 1925
Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, for the opportunity to testify before
the Committee regarding the Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2009.
In Utah, there is probably no more contentious public lands issue
than the establishment of wilderness areas. In some ways, this is
ironic because much of Utah is land that has wild character--rugged,
remote, and isolated by river canyons and deserts. But discussions
about wilderness in Utah have usually taken on a polarized dynamic that
has led to a great amount of emotional rhetoric, and very little
progress.
The 1964 National Wilderness Preservation System Act created the
policy of Congress ``to secure for the American people of present and
future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of
wilderness.'' It required the public land agencies to inventory their
lands and make recommendations to Congress regarding wilderness. On
paper, it sounds straightforward. In practice in Utah, it has long been
a torturous case of taking two steps back for every step forward. Mr.
Chairman, you will hear a tremendous amount of passion from the various
witnesses who testify before you today, both for and against the
proposed legislation. This passion illustrates the challenges of the
polarized debate in Utah. It also oversimplifies the complexity of the
issue. There are many, many stakeholders with different perspectives of
Utah public land issues. If we want to make progress, a collaborative
process that engages all stakeholders must occur.
Since the late 1970s, Utah wilderness proposals have run the
gamut--ranging from zero acres--to the bill before you today. That
gives you an inkling of how disparate the views are among local elected
officials, the state, private land owners, the State Institutional
School Trust Lands Administration, ranchers, oil and gas, timber,
mining, sportsmen, mountain-bikers, water managers, backcountry
horsemen, climbers, Native American tribes, environmentalists and the
general public. A wilderness process overseen by my father--Governor
Scott Matheson--took seven years. It resulted in the 1984 passage of
the Utah Wilderness Act which designated 700,000 acres--mainly on
federal forest land. No one got everything they wanted. But in the end,
everyone had a seat at the table for the negotiations and had ownership
in the outcome. That is the model of how public lands issues can be
resolved. However, that model has rarely been followed in Utah.
There are many examples from other states where a collaborative,
bipartisan effort has resulted in consensus wilderness designations.
These include the Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act, the Owyhee-Bruneau
Wilderness in Idaho, and the Rocky Mountain National Park and Dominguez
Canyon Wilderness designations in Colorado.
All of these bills were the result of following a collaborative,
inclusive model.
That is the model that was followed when I joined Senator Bob
Bennett in a bipartisan effort a few years ago to write the Washington
County Growth and Conservation Act. It was an honest attempt to balance
diverse points of view. It was not just a wilderness bill. But it did
designate more than 256,000 acres of wilderness; the first ever Wild
and Scenic River in Utah; removal of a dam site within environmentally-
sensitive habitat, establishment of a National Conservation Area for
the federally-threatened desert tortoise; and funding for development
and enforcement of a dedicated OHV trail. It was contentious and hard-
fought. Some local elected officials and some environmental groups
actively opposed it initially, but in the end, proclaimed their
support. That approach allowed us to address local concerns and
specific features of the land. It wasn't easy. But in the end,
significant progress on this most contentious public lands issue was
achieved.
As we sit here today, other Utah counties are sponsoring local
working groups. They are holding discussions about possibly duplicating
the Washington County model. Together Senator Bennett and I have
established a bipartisan roadmap for future legislative proposals.
As the largest daily newspaper in Utah editorialized this past
Sunday, ``Wilderness needs to be home-grown.'' It cannot be the work of
only one group of stakeholders, no matter how extensive or sincere.
That is a major reason why I do not support H.R. 1925--it does not
reflect the collective views of the many interested stakeholders in
Utah. As legislators, our job is to achieve progress. I am committed to
being a partner with all stakeholders in a collaborative effort that
dissolves gridlock and provides a legacy for future generations.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Let me know ask Representative Perriello, and the
legislation is H.R. 2689. Sir, welcome. Thank you for your
patience.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS PERRIELLO, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, 5th DISTRICT
Mr. Perriello. Thank you very much, Chairman, Ranking
Member Bishop, respected members of the Committee. Thank you
for today's hearing to discuss H.R. 2689. I am glad so many
people are here to hear about that one.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Perriello. This bill will authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of
designating the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia,
as a unit of the National Park System. I am also honored today
to be joined by Dr. William McIntosh, President of the National
D-Day Memorial Foundation. I first spoke to him many months ago
about the dire financial situation of the memorial, and I have
since worked with him as well as with Senators Warner and Webb
and others to help find a solution to resolve the difficulties
facing the memorial.
Simply put, the community has reached the limits of how
much support it can give to what is a national treasure for all
of our veterans and for all Americans, including those from
Utah. The National D-Day Memorial remembers and preserves the
lessons and legacies of D-Day, forever memorializing the lives
lost on June 6, 1944. Of the 34 soldiers from Bedford, 19 died
in combat. As the city's population at the time was only 3,200,
Bedford suffered the highest proportional loss of life of any
American city on D-Day. The men we lost were local heroes, but
the freedom and security bought with their sacrifice is a
national treasure.
This story of sacrifice at D-Day is not just a story that
took place on the beaches of Normandy but a tale of local
communities across America. The battlefield may have been in
Europe, but the losses were felt here at home. This memorial
was authorized by President Bill Clinton in 1996 and dedicated
by President George W. Bush in 2001. This past June was the
65th anniversary of D-Day, and just shortly before that
anniversary, Elisha Nance, the last surviving Bedford boy,
passed away at the age of 94.
In August, the National Park Service made a site visit to
the memorial to follow up on a request from the Secretary of
the Interior, Ken Salazar, to study the suitability of using
the Antiquities Act to preserve the memorial. In the words of
the Secretary, ``The memorial stands as a symbol of the courage
and sacrifices of all members of the United States and allied
forces who began the liberation of northwest Europe as part of
Operation Overlord. The question of the suitability of using
the Antiquities Act, while an important road to consider, is
separate and distinct from the more traditional method to
authorize a full study of the feasibility of designating the
National D-Day Memorial as part of the National Park Service.''
I am not here to speak about the ongoing activities within
the NPS and studying the Antiquities Act but rather to advocate
for the legislation before the Subcommittee that would provide
for the protection and preservation of the memorial through the
traditional processes should the Antiquities Act be found
unsuitable.
I am also happy that this has the bipartisan support of Mr.
Goodlatte, whose district neighbors mine and has taken a very
conservative approach to the question of public lands but
understands the incalculable treasure of this particular
memorial.
Anyone who visits the memorial will see that it is far more
than just a structure dedicated to preserve the lessons and
legacies of D-Day. The memorial works to educate all
generations about the valor, fidelity and sacrifice of the
allied forces. The memorial works to teach current generations
about the greatest generation and what life was like not just
for those fighting but their friends, families and communities
back home.
The National D-Day Memorial Foundation has a Victory Garden
in which at-risk youth are taught about the war effort at home
by growing their own fruits and vegetables in the area. The
memorial also works with veterans of World War II to preserve
oral histories and their memories of D-Day and the war. This is
a national treasure that serves as a permanent reminder of the
bravery and heroism of our American armed forces.
I was recently there for a Memorial Day celebration,
handing a Gold Star flag to a Gold Star mom of a son who died
in Iraq. He had been inspired to join the Marines by visiting
the D-Day memorial. He went back there with his father to tell
him that he had decided to enlist after September 11. And when
he was killed, his family came back there to celebrate and
memorialize his heroism.
This is a living memorial that keeps alive this memory and
makes that courage and sacrifice animated again through future
generations. It stands in the shadows of the Peaks of Otter
near Smith Mountain Lake in one of the beautiful slices of the
Commonwealth of Virginia. It is an area of national treasure
and national beauty, both for God's creation and the sacrifices
that man has made for our great country and its freedom. And I
thank the Committee for its consideration and appreciate your
time and hearing today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perriello follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Thomas Perriello, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia
Chair Grijalva, Ranking member Bishop, and respected members of the
committee, thank you for today's hearing to discuss H.R. 2689. This
bill will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the
suitability and feasibility of designating the National D-Day Memorial
in Bedford, Virginia, as a unit of the National Park System. I am also
honored to be joined by Dr. William McIntosh, President of the National
D-Day Memorial Foundation. I first spoke to Dr. McIntosh many months
ago about the dire financial situation of the Memorial and I have since
worked with him to help find a solution to resolve the difficulties
facing the Memorial.
The National D-Day Memorial remembers and preserves the lessons and
legacy of D-Day, forever memorializing the lives lost on June 6, 1944.
Of the thirty-four soldiers from Bedford nineteen died in combat. As
the city's population at the time was only 3,200, Bedford suffered the
highest proportional loss of life of any American city on D-Day. The
men we lost were local heroes, but the freedom and security bought with
their sacrifice is a national treasure. This story of sacrifice at D-
Day is not just a story that took place on the beaches of Normandy but
a tale of local communities across America. The battlefield may have
been in Europe but the losses were felt here at home. The National D-
Day Memorial was authorized by President Bill Clinton in 1996, and
dedicated by President George W. Bush in 2001. This past June was the
65th Anniversary of D-Day. Just shortly before the Anniversary Elisha
Ray Nance, the last surviving ``Bedford Boy,'' passed away yesterday at
the age of 94.
In August, the National Park Service made a site visit to the D-Day
Memorial to follow up on a request from Secretary of the Interior Ken
Salazar to study the suitability of using the Antiquities Act to
preserve the Memorial. In the words of Secretary Salazar, ``The
memorial stands as a symbol of the courage and sacrifices of all
members of the United States and Allied Forces who began the liberation
of northwest Europe as part of Operation Overlord.'' The question of
the suitability of using the Antiquities Act, while an important road
to consider, is separate and distinct from the more traditional method
to authorize a full study of the feasibility of designating the
National D-Day Memorial as part of the National Park System. I am not
here to speak about the ongoing activities within the National Parks
Service in studying the Memorial and the Antiquities Act, but rather
advocate for the legislation before this subcommittee that would
provide for the protection and preservation of the Memorial through the
traditional process should the Antiquities Act be found unsuitable.
Anyone who visits the Memorial will see that it is far more than
just a structure. Dedicated to preserving the lessons and legacy of D-
Day, the Memorial works to educate all generations about the valor,
fidelity, and sacrifice of the Allied Forces. The Memorial works to
teach current generations about the Greatest Generation and what life
was like not just for those fighting on D-Day but their friends,
families, and communities back home during the war. The National D-Day
Memorial Foundation has a Victory Garden in which at-risk youth are
taught about the war effort at home by growing their own fruits and
vegetables. The Memorial also works with veterans of World War II to
preserve oral histories and their memories of D-Day and the war. This
is a national treasure that serves as a permanent reminder of the
bravery and heroism of our American armed forces.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
Let me ask Congressman Schrader for his comments on H.R.
2781. Sir, welcome and again thank you for your patience.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT SCHRADER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON, 5th DISTRICT
Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Bishop, members of the Natural Resources Subcommittee
for the opportunity to speak on House Resolution 2781. This
bill would designate more than 21 miles of the Molalla River as
a protected natural resource under the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System.
I also want to thank the President of the Molalla River
Alliance, Michael Moody, for making the trip from Oregon and
representing the alliance and the 45 civic and local Oregon-
based groups who recognize the social, cultural and economic
benefits of this bill. I appreciate and commend their
dedication to the Molalla River and the hard work over the last
few years protecting the river and educating their communities
on proper river stewardship.
The Molalla River is nothing short of an historic and
national treasure in my state. Historically it serves as both
the trail for indigenous Molalla River Indians and as a vital
trade route between pioneers in the Willamette Valley and
inhabitants of eastern Oregon. Its Table Rock Trail, which is
also known as the Huckleberry Trail, was used by members of the
Warm Springs Tribe in search of huckleberry and salmonberry
picking areas. Early settlers used its fertile lands and
drinking water for homesteading and its Ogle Mountain Mine
attracted migrants during the goldrush.
Today the Molalla River is known by residents in Clackamas,
in Marion County and across Oregon for its many recreational
purposes, which include hiking, diving, fishing, kayaking,
whitewater rafting, picnicking, mountainbiking and horseback
riding. It still serves as a water source for many citizens of
Molalla and my hometown of Canby. It provides spawning beds for
threatened steelhead trout and chinook salmon, and it is also
an essential wildlife area for the pileated woodpecker, red
tree vole, red-legged frog, northern spotted owl, pacific giant
salamander and both golden and bald eagles.
Designating the Molalla River as recreational under the
National Wild and Scenic River System would have tremendous
economic, cultural and environmental benefits for this region.
Economically it would attract more tourism and create many more
new jobs, something the State of Oregon desperately needs.
Environmentally it would protect the character of the river,
thereby preserving it so future generations could recognize its
rich cultural, historical and social benefits.
Protecting our environment and protecting local economies
are not mutually exclusive. We can preserve the scenic beauty
of the Molalla River while also maintaining the Federal land
base available for timber management in Oregon. Under my bill,
there are approximately 420 acres of timber management areas or
matrix lands that would be impacted. While this represents a
relatively small amount of the impacted timber lands, I am
sensitive to that reduction. Therefore, as the Committee moves
forward, I would ask the Chairman and Ranking Member to work
with me and my staff to ensure there will be no net loss of
acres available for timber management in my state and the BLM
area as a result of this legislation.
Once again, I thank my colleagues for providing me the
opportunity to speak on this important legislation and urge the
Committee to pass H.R. 2781 and designate this section of the
Molalla River as part of the National Wild and Scenic River
System. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schrader follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Kurt Schrader, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Oregon, on H.R. 2781
Thank you Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of
the Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and
Public Lands for the opportunity to speak about H.R. 2781. This bill
would designate more than 21 miles of the Molalla River as protected
under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. I also want to thank
the President of the Molalla River Alliance, Michael Moody making the
trip from Oregon and representing the Alliance and the 45 civic and
local Oregon-based groups who recognize the social, cultural, and
economic benefits of this bill. I appreciate and commend their
dedication to the Molalla River and hard work over the past few years
protecting the river and educating their communities on proper river
stewardship.
The Molalla River is nothing short of a historic and natural
treasure in my state. Historically, it served as both a trail for
indigenous Molalla Indians and as a vital trade route between pioneers
in the Willamette Valley and residents of Eastern Oregon. Its Table
Rock Trail, which is also known as ``Huckleberry Trail,'' was used by
members of the Warm Springs tribe in search of huckleberry and
salmonberry picking areas. Early settlers used its fertile lands and
drinking water for homesteading and its Ogle Mountain mine attracted
migrants during the gold rush.
Today, the Molalla River is known by residents in Clackamas and
Marion Counties and across Oregon for its many recreational purposes
which include hiking, diving, fishing, kayaking, whitewater rafting,
picnicking, mountain biking, and horseback riding. It still serves as a
water source for many citizens of Molalla and my home town of Canby. It
provides spawning beds for threatened Steelhead Trout and Chinook
Salmon and is also an essential wildlife area for the pileated
woodpecker, red tree vole, red-legged frog, northern spotted owl,
pacific giant salamander, and both golden and bald eagles.
Designating the Molalla River as recreational under the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System would have tremendous economic, cultural,
and environmental benefits for the region. Economically, it would
attract more tourism while creating many new jobs--something the state
of Oregon desperately needs. Environmentally, it would protect the
character of the river thereby preserving it so future generations can
recognize its rich cultural, historical, and social benefits.
Protecting our environment and protecting local economies are not
mutually exclusive. We can preserve the scenic beauty of the Molalla
River while also maintaining the federal land base available for timber
management in Oregon. Under my bill there is approximately 420 acres of
timber management acres or ``matrix'' lands that would be impacted.
While this represents a relatively small amount of impacted timber
lands, I am sensitive to the reduction. Therefore, as the committee
moves forward, I would ask the Chairman and Ranking Member to work with
me and my staff to ensure there will be no net-loss of the acres
available for timber management as a result of this legislation.
Once again, I thank my colleagues for providing me the opportunity
to speak on this important legislation and I urge the committee to pass
H.R. 2781 and designate this section of the Molalla River as part of
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Let me ask Congressman Frelinghuysen for his comments on
H.R. 118. Sir, thank you.
Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you for shoehorning me in here. I
appreciate the elevated status up here on the dais. And, Mr.
Bishop, thank you for your support and advice.
H.R. 118 seeks to authorize the addition of 100 acres for
the Morristown National Historical Park in my congressional
district of New Jersey, the oldest historical park in the
nation, so we would raise the limit such that the people wanted
to make private donations or that we had willing sellers that
we could add to the park. This bill has no controversy
identified with it. As Mr. Bishop said, it is supported by all
Members of Congress in the New Jersey Congressional delegation.
I ask for its favorable consideration. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, sir.
Three votes have been called, and so let me thank the
colleagues that are here for their comments today, and we will
recess for about 30 minutes and come back and continue with the
second panel. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Heinrich [presiding]. We are back, and we are going to
start with Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell, if you want to get
started on H.R. 86. Thank you for making it over.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CAMPBELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Campbell. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member Bishop and Members. This should be considerably less
controversial than the last bill you dealt with. This bill
deals with approximately 40, and I will call them rocks, off
the coast of California within my district. We will show you
pictures to show what they are now.
They are large. They are kind of house sized rocks. In
1935, by an act of Congress, those rocks were put under the
purvey of the Coast Guard in order to potentially put
lighthouses on them and otherwise use them for civil defense
during what became World War II.
Those uses are no longer anticipated or practical for any
purposes going forward, and frankly, the rocks are kind of too
small to really locate much of a lighthouse on and they are not
very far off the coast, as you can see from this picture here,
because that is some coastal aloe on the coast, so they are not
that far away.
What this bill would do is very simple. It would just move
these 40 rocks under the purvey of the California Coastal
National Monument and to be administered as for public use and
parks, and frankly, for marine life preservation and
enhancement in the area. That is all this bill would do is
move.
To show you where the rocks are roughly, here is the map.
Each one of those little black and green dots along there in
Newport Beach, Laguna Beach and Dana Point are one, or two, or
three of these 40 rocks. All this bill would do is change
something that was done in 1935 because prior to that these
rocks were actually part of the park system, and so it would
return them to being national coastal monument. I yield back,
Mr. Chairman. happy to take any questions.
Mr. Heinrich. Are there any questions for members on the
panel?
[No response.]
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you very much for joining us. We are
going to go to Mr. Chaffetz and then start Panel No. 2. Thank
you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JASON CHAFFETZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Thank you. Ranking Member Bishop, I appreciate the opportunity
to participate in this very important hearing. I appreciate our
Senators, Hatch and Bennett, Lieutenant Governor Bell who is
here with us, former Mayor Anderson, various county
commissioners and other residents and interested parties from
the State of Utah, SUWA, for instance. I appreciate you all
being here.
As the newest member of Utah's congressional delegation, I
had the benefit of building on the successes of former and
current Members of Congress. For example, in Utah, the Cedar
Mountain and Washington County bills were the culminations of
years of hard work, negotiations and give and take by all
parties involved, as was described by Mr. Matheson and Senator
Bennett.
I am now emulating the successful models I foresee with
wilderness proposals in my own district, the 3rd Congressional
District of Utah. I would encourage the Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance and Representative Hinchey to do the same,
to work cooperatively with all stakeholders and don't offer up
a bill that has been flatly rejected by the overwhelming
majority of elected local officials in the State of Utah.
Former Salt Lake City Mayor Anderson will mention in his
testimony that in 2006 over 1.2 million visitors came to the
arches in Canyonlands National Park spending some $99 million--
by the way, I question that number--during their visits. There
is no doubt that the national parks in Utah benefit the local
economy, and we love having them; however, the economies in my
district and other parts of the state also rely upon multiple
use aspect of public lands.
The small Utah towns that depend on ranching, outdoor
motorized recreation and energy production would see their
economies decimated because of the restrictive burdens created
by this bill, the purported America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.
While some may argue that more wilderness acres would attract
more tourism to those towns, I would like to reference a recent
economic report from the Governor.
In 2007, the Utah natural resources and mining-based jobs
made up four percent of our state's economy and pay a high
monthly salary of $5,664. On the other hand, the leisure and
hospitality industry makes up less than four percent, roughly
3.4 percent, of the economy and their salaries averaged the
lowest of any other industry at just $1,258 per month.
Utah enjoys one of the lowest unemployment rates in the
country, and if the Red Rock Wilderness bill were to pass,
thousands of well-paying jobs would be replaced by low paying,
seasonal tourism jobs. Energy production and tourism are not
mutually exclusive. They coexist now, and they will coexist in
the future. There is no need to decimate one at the expense of
others.
Now, lest I be labeled as someone who wants to tear up our
Federal lands, I would ask a legitimate question. Should
certain lands receive extra protections and designations?
Absolutely yes, and I am committed to protecting those areas,
but I would like to know where is the end game for wilderness
alliances?
For example, the original BLM proposal was roughly three
million acres, then SUWA countered with 5.1 million acres, then
it became 5.7 million acres, and now we have a hearing today
that would designate 9.4 million Utah acres as wilderness. If
the goal is to designate wilderness in areas truly worthy of
that highest and most restrictive designation, then you have a
partner.
If the end goal is to further inflate the acreage in this
bill thus allowing the organizations to exist in perpetuity,
then it is going to be a long, rocky road. When will enough be
enough? We have a chart here and we had a graphic of it. I
don't know if we can put the graphic up on this thing. I think
Fred here will just show it. Congressman Bishop has shared this
before.
While roughly 70 percent of Utah is owned by Federal and
state government, many states to the east, such as New York,
enjoy less than one percent of their land owned by the
government. Perhaps it is time for the representatives from
those states to push for wilderness in the east where it is
obviously needed.
When all is said and done, the reality is this: the Red
Rock Wilderness Act is an archaic, antiquated model for
designating wilderness. An overwhelming majority of Utahans,
and Americans for that matter, have rejected the Federal one
size fits all approach to wilderness in Utah. I would challenge
Mr. Hinchey and SUWA to put aside their environmental
fundraising campaigns which are sponsored by this bill and work
for an inclusive solution.
Most Utahans would like to see truly pristine lands
designated, but we must also respect the input of people whose
livelihoods depend on the shared use of Federal lands. Other
members in this delegation have shown that all sides are able
to come together and achieve both wilderness designations and
continued multiple use access for all. I hope that after today
all parties involved can come together and truly do the same.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Heinrich. Congresswoman Lummis?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA LUMMIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to align
myself with the remarks that have been made previously by all
of the gentlemen from Utah who have spoken thus far. It is my
experience in the west that the greatest threat to western open
lands, it is not oil and gas because oil and gas wells are
reclaimed once the resource is recovered, it is not mining
because mines are reclaimed pursuant to America's state-of-the-
art reclamation laws once mines are reclaimed, it is houses.
Houses are the biggest threat to open lands in the western
states. Instead of taking lands that are already opened and
making them less open we should be more concerned about
conserving land that is open and put into productive use now in
order to keep view sheds, landscapes, water cleanliness, air
cleanliness, and all of those things come from, and are
filtered by, open land.
Furthermore, it is houses and buildings and roads that emit
a lot of carbon into the atmosphere, where it is open lands
that absorb carbon, sequester it, because of the plant life on
those open lands. So we should be concentrating our
conservation efforts in the west on conserving open land, not
on changing the status of currently open land to even more
restrictive uses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. Mr. Hinchey?
Mr. Hinchey. Thanks very much. I just wanted to inform my
good friend on the other side of the aisle here about some of
the things that we are doing and some of the things that have
been done. For example, we are in the process now of trying to
get Federal recognition of certain areas in New York, including
in the Hudson Valley, which would be very marvelous and it is
something that would be very important to do.
We are in the process of doing it, and we would appreciate
your support. I would also like to inform you that we have two
very large state parks in New York, the Catskill Park and the
Adirondack State Park. The Adirondack State Park is larger than
any national park anywhere in the country and it was set up
long before most of the national parks were set up in other
places around the country.
So the example that New York sets is something important
and significant, and I just wanted to let you know what is
going on.
Mr. Chaffetz. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Hinchey. Sure.
Mr. Chaffetz. An honest question. How much land are you
currently pursuing in your state to get these Federal
designations? Like, give me a sense of----
Mr. Hinchey. We are pursuing a very significant area in the
Hudson Valley. The exact acreage is still unclear because we
are trying to make it as large as possible.
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, whatever it is, let us make it bigger,
and I would be happy to support that.
Mr. Hinchey. Yes, we will make it bigger, but we are also
making it in the context of the largest state park anywhere in
the country, and again, for your information, larger than any
of the national parks anyplace in the country, so it is not all
New York City. Stop around and visit us once in a while.
Mr. Chaffetz. I would love to. I will come out and take a
tour. I am sure it is absolutely beautiful. If the gentleman
will yield to just one more question.
Mr. Hinchey. Sure.
Mr. Chaffetz. I really do believe that there is a proper
role and responsibility that we have. I thought Senator
Bennett, in particular, really articulated the fact that we
can, and have, particularly in the west, set aside such hugh
portions of our land.
What I would hope that what you would be supportive of is
when we go to try to get more money for PILT payments out west
as compensation for the fact that we have such a huge
percentage, more than half of our state set aside, that when we
go to fund and get authorization and then truly fund those PILT
payments, that you would come to our support because it is the
education component that really, as Congressman Bishop points
out, gets underfunded along the way.
Mr. Hinchey. I have been supporting that for I think
roughly about 16, 17 years here.
Mr. Chaffetz. Well, thank you.
Mr. Hinchey. So I will continue to support it very, very
effectively, as strong as I can, and perhaps, even in the
context of the new organization that we have here in the
Congress, it might be possible to do it. So I appreciate what
you are saying and also want to note that the public lands at
prices across the country where most of them are in the west,
those are national public lands and they were set up as
national public lands because they were abandoned by the states
in which they are now located.
Mr. Chaffetz. I don't know that they were necessarily
abandoned, but I think that is----
Mr. Hinchey. Well, they were--yes. They were not paid any
attention to, they were not settled, they were not interested
in. They were places that were essentially----
Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Hinchey?
Mr. Hinchey.--not having any attention paid to them.
Mr. Chaffetz. I think the record would reflect it a little
differently.
Mr. Heinrich. We are going to have another round of votes
called here before long, and so if we can move to a quick
statement from Mr. Holt, and then I want to hear from our
second panel.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Holt. I thank the Chairman. I did want to just state
briefly my support for Mr. Frelinghuysen's legislation, which
is, by the way, relevant to the discussion that was just under
way. We want to set aside and protect additional land with
regard to the Morristown National Historical Park. In New
Jersey we are doing everything we can. In fact, there is a
specific goal of setting aside protecting a third of the
existing open space in the state.
Now, much of that is not as suitable for wilderness
designation as are the red rocks as designated in Mr. Hinchey's
designation, but to the extent that we can preserve these
eastern lands, we want to do that. With regard to the Utah
lands, these are by any measure that I could come up with are
eminently worthy of the highest level of protection.
The history of conservation in this country has been a
history of overcoming opposition, some of it parochial, some of
it narrow-minded, some of it legitimate at the time, but
history has judged that these protected areas have been to the
great benefit of this country. In fact, it is being chronicled
with respect to the national parks every night this week, some
of the opposition that had to be overcome in order to get this
level of protection, and the resulting benefit that has come to
this entire nation.
So I just wanted to add my strongest support to Mr.
Hinchey's legislation, and I thank the Chairman for the time.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. We are going to get started with
Panel No. 2, and I want to welcome Mr. Abbey and Mr. Holtrop
from our National Forest System and from our Bureau of Land
Management. I am going to let you guys dive right in so that we
can hopefully hear as much of your testimony as we can before
we go to the next round of votes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY TERRENCE D. MOORE, CHIEF OF PLANNING
AND COMPLIANCE, NORTHEAST REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Abbey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am Bob Abbey and I am the Director of the Bureau
of Land Management, and I thank you for inviting the Department
of the Interior to testify on bills of interest to the Bureau
of Land Management and the National Park Service. I am
accompanied by Terrence Moore, Chief of Planning and Compliance
for the National Parks Service's northeast region who will be
happy to answer any questions on H.R. 118 and H.R. 2689.
I want to keep my remarks brief because we have provided
the Committee members with our written testimony which provides
the rationale for the positions that we are taking on each of
these positions. I did want to highlight some of the comments
that we do have on each piece of legislation. H.R. 1925
proposes to designate 218 units of BLM managed lands in Utah
comprising 9.4 million acres as components of the National
Wilderness Preservation System.
These designations span the State of Utah and include
extraordinary landscapes with unmatched wild land resources.
The Department strongly supports the constructive resolution of
public lands and wilderness designation issues in Utah and
across the United States. Through our wilderness decisions we
demonstrate a sense of stewardship and conservation that is
uniquely American and is sensibly balanced with the other
decisions that we make that affect public lands.
The passage by Congress and signing by the President of the
omnibus Public Lands Management Act, Public Law 111-11, earlier
this year constituted a very positive sign that we are moving
these issues forward. The history of wilderness proposals in
Utah is a contentious one. Resolution and certainty will serve
all parties, including the conservation community, extractive
industries, OHV enthusiasts, local communities, state
government and Federal land managers.
An important milestone in this effort was reached with the
inclusion of the Washington County Act as part of the omnibus
Public Lands Management Act. We hope that this collaborative
model can be extended to the rest of Utah, and we suggest an
approach that is more geographically focused. We would welcome
the opportunity to work cooperatively with sponsors of this
legislation, the Committee and the members of the Utah
delegation to address, and hopefully resolve, wilderness issues
in Utah.
Now, if I may, I would like to comment on H.R. 86. The BLM
supports H.R. 86 which would eliminate old withdrawals on
public lands off the coast of Orange County, California, and
allow the inclusions of these rocks, islands and exposed reefs
within the California Coastal National Monument. We look
forward to passage of this legislation which would ensure the
long-term protection and preservation of these important
coastal features and pave the way for important local community
stewardship initiative.
The National Park Service supports H.R. 118, a bill to
amend existing law that would increase authorization for
additional lands at Morristown National Historical Park from
615 to 715 acres. Authorizing this additional 100 acres will
enable the park to better protect important revolutionary war
resources as they become available from willing sellers in the
future.
Relating to H.R. 2689, the National Park Service recommends
deferring action on H.R. 2689 to allow the National Park
Service to complete a report on a preliminary assessment as to
whether the D-Day memorial would be eligible for inclusion into
the National Parks System. This would give Secretary Salazar an
opportunity to review the report and to share his contents with
the members of the Virginia delegation.
Relating to the Molalla Wild and Scenic River, the BLM
supports H.R. 2781 which proposes to designate 15.1 miles of
the Molalla River and 6.2 miles of the Table Rock Forest of the
Molalla in northern Oregon as components of the National Wild
and Scenic River System. We recommend that these river segments
be designated as recreational under the Wild and Scenic River
Law.
Relating to Devil's Staircase Wilderness, H.R. 2888
proposes to designate nearly 30,000 acres of Federal land near
the coast in southwestern Oregon as wilderness, as well as
portions of both Franklin Creek and Wasson Creek as components
of the Wild and Scenic River System. The majority of the lands
proposed for designations are on lands managed by the Forest
Service and we defer to the Forest Service on those
designations.
The Department of the Interior supports the designations on
BLM lands and recommends that we work together for minor
modifications to this legislation. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Committee, I thank you for inviting me to
testify on behalf of the Department of the Interior, and I
would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Abbey, and we will go to Mr.
Holtrop.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Abbey follows:]
Statement of Robert V. Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 86
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
H.R. 86, which would add certain rocks and small islands along the
coast of Orange County, California, to the California Coastal National
Monument managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM
supports H.R. 86.
Background
The California Coastal National Monument, part of the BLM's
National Landscape Conservation System, was established by a
Presidential Proclamation by President Clinton on January 11, 2000, to
protect:
``all unappropriated or unreserved lands and interest in lands
owned or controlled by the United States in the form of
islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles...within 12
nautical miles of the shoreline of the State of California.''
Covering more than 20,000 rocks and small islands spread along
1,100 miles of the California coastline, the Presidential Proclamation
protects the Monument's overwhelming scenic quality and natural beauty.
The Proclamation specifically calls for the protection of the geologic
formations and the habitat that these rocks and small islands provide
for seabirds, marine mammals, and other plant and animal life, both
terrestrial and marine.
Some particularly significant public rocks and islands off the
coast of Orange County in the Laguna Beach area provide important
habitat for a wide variety of upper rocky intertidal species, as well
as various shorebird species. Additionally, four rock locations--Bird
Rock and Two Rocks off the City of Laguna Beach, San Juan Rocks off the
City of Dana Point, and San Marcos Rocks off the southern portion of
the City of San Clemente--provide important roosting habitat for
seabirds (including cormorants and the Federally-listed brown pelican)
and haul-out areas for seals and sea lions.
In the process of working with local communities on planning for
the California Coastal National Monument, the BLM discovered that the
rock features off the coastline of Orange County were under
Congressional withdrawals dating from the 1930s and, therefore, were
not included within the Monument. These withdrawals include more than
40 offshore rocks, small islands, exposed reefs, and pinnacles located
within one mile of the coast of Orange County, California, totaling
approximately two acres above mean high tide. More than 70 years old,
the withdrawals were originally intended to temporarily reserve the
Orange County offshore rocks and small islands for ``park, scenic, or
other public purposes'' (1931 Act), and reserve three specific offshore
rock clusters for the possibility of future lighthouses (1935 Act),
which were never built. These withdrawals were ultimately never
utilized and are no longer needed.
The Laguna Ocean Foundation has led a community-wide effort to
include these significant areas within the California Coastal National
Monument. The Foundation has worked with the City of Laguna Beach and
other local groups, including the Audubon Society and the Surfrider
Foundation, on a variety of city and area-wide coastal protection and
monitoring projects, which resulted in H.R. 86.
H.R. 86
H.R. 86 would eliminate the existing withdrawals on these public
lands off the coast of Orange County and place these features within
the existing California Coastal National Monument.
The BLM supports the revocation of the old withdrawals and the
inclusion of these rocks, islands, and exposed reefs within the
Monument.
The BLM has been working with partners along the 1,100 mile
California coast to create a series of California Coastal National
Monument Gateway community initiatives. These Gateway initiatives are a
means to support organized local stewardship of various California
coastal areas through the development of a consortium of the area's
resource managers and advocates. The Laguna Beach community has
expressed strong interest in developing a California Coastal National
Monument Gateway initiative for the Orange County coastal area.
Inclusion of these rocks and islands within the Monument will allow the
BLM to work with the community to provide responsible, long-term
stewardship of these valuable areas.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 86. We
look forward to passage of this legislation which would place these
significant features off the coast of Orange County within the
California Coastal National Monument, thus ensuring their long-term
protection and preservation, and paving the way for an important local
community stewardship initiative.
______
Statement of the National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 118
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 118, a bill to authorize the addition of 100 acres to Morristown
National Historical Park in the state of New Jersey. The Department
supports enactment of this legislation.
H.R. 118 would amend existing law (16 U.S.C. 409g) by increasing
the authorization for additional lands at Morristown National
Historical Park from 615 to 715 acres. Authorizing this additional 100
acres will enable the park to begin to better protect important
Revolutionary War resources as they may become available from willing
sellers in the future. This legislation, if enacted, would also enable
the park to quickly respond to past offers by Harding Township to
donate nine acres for inclusion in the Jockey Hollow unit.
The 2003 General Management Plan for Morristown National Historical
Park proposed an increase of up to 500 acres to the park's boundary,
predominately through easements, to protect critical properties
including those adjacent to Washington's Headquarters, Jockey Hollow,
Fort Nonsense, and the New Jersey Brigade unit.
Morristown National Historical Park was the first national
historical park established by Congress on March 2, 1933, Public Law
72-409. The park currently contains 1,711 acres consisting of four non-
contiguous units: Washington's Headquarters with the Ford Mansion and
Headquarters Museum, the Fort Nonsense Unit, the Jockey Hollow Unit,
and the New Jersey Brigade Area. The Jockey Hollow Unit includes the
Wick house (headquarters of General Arthur St. Clair), five
reconstructed soldier huts, and approximately 27 miles of walking
trails.
During two critical winters of the Revolutionary War, 1777 and
1779-80, the countryside in and around Morristown, New Jersey,
sheltered the main encampments of the American Continental Army and
served as the headquarters of its commander-in-chief, General George
Washington.
General Washington twice chose Morristown for encampment due to its
strategic location, including proximity to New York City, defensible
terrain, important communication routes, access to critical resources,
and a supportive community. The park encompasses ground occupied by the
army during the vast 1779-80 encampment, and the site of the
fortification from the 1777 encampment. The Ford Mansion, where
Washington made his headquarters, is an important feature of the park
and recalls both military and civilian contributions to the winning of
our nation's independence.
The park's museum collection includes close to 350,000 items
including archeological objects from the encampments; paintings by the
Peales, Stuart, Savage, Sully, and other early American artists; 18th
century furniture; archival material; Revolutionary War arms and
equipment; and, a collection of items, letters and books belonging to
George Washington.
Morristown National Historical Park is situated in the heavily
populated region of northern New Jersey, a center for that state's
continuing growth and development. It is important for the park's
future viability, protection of its important Revolutionary War
resources, and the enjoyment of its close to 300,000 annual visitors,
that lands adjacent to its boundaries be protected from adverse
development impacts. H.R. 118 will assist in ensuring the future
integrity of this special place that commemorates and interprets
seminal events of Revolutionary War history and the sacrifices of those
who served during that time to enable the birth of our nation.
As noted at the beginning of this statement, this authorization
would enable the park to acquire an additional 100 acres as they may
become available in the future by sale or donation from willing
landowners. It would enable the park to continue discussions on the
possible donation of 9 acres to the National Park Service for inclusion
in the Jockey Hollow unit. Because acquisition of these 9 acres would
be by donation, the costs of acquisition would be minimal and would
likely include survey and title work. The Park Service estimates that
full fee acquisition of the remaining acreage authorized would be
slightly less than $6 million. However, the preferred method of
acquisition would be by donation or the purchase of easements. The
estimated cost for acquisition of easements would be approximately $4.8
million or approximately 80 percent of the full fee acquisition cost.
The 9 acres, referenced above, is open space adjacent to the park
boundary with no structures. There would be no costs for capital
improvements or annual operations and maintenance as the open space
would remain in its natural state. Posting new boundary markers for the
full 100 acres, if acquired in fee simple, would cost approximately
$50,000. Regardless, any funding necessary for these acquisition and
related costs would be subject to National Park Service priorities and
the availability of appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or members of the committee may have regarding
the Department's position on H.R. 118.
______
Statement of Robert V. Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1925
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
H.R. 1925, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. The Department strongly
supports the constructive resolution of public lands and wilderness
designation issues in Utah and across the western United States. The
passage by Congress and signing by the President of the Omnibus Public
Land Management Act (Public Law 111-11) earlier this year constituted a
very positive sign that we are moving these issues forward. While BLM
has not had an opportunity to review many of the proposed designations,
we would welcome the opportunity to work cooperatively with the
sponsors of the legislation, the Committee and the members of the Utah
delegation to resolve wilderness issues in Utah. We suggest an approach
that is more geographically focused. The Washington County Act's
wilderness provisions in Public Law 111-11 may provide a good example.
America's wilderness system includes many of the Nation's most
treasured landscapes, and ensures that these untrammeled lands and
resources will be passed down from one generation of Americans to the
next. Through our wilderness decisions, we demonstrate a sense of
stewardship and conservation that is uniquely American and is sensibly
balanced with the other decisions we make that affect public lands.
Background
Substantial work on this proposal has been undertaken in Utah by
citizen volunteers who care deeply about the land and its protection.
The history of wilderness proposals in Utah is a contentious one.
Resolution and certainty will serve all parties--including the
conservation community, extractive industries, OHV enthusiasts, local
communities, State government, and Federal land managers. An important
milestone in this effort was reached with the inclusion of the
wilderness designations within the Washington County Act as part of the
Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which was enacted earlier
this year. We hope that this collaborative model can be extended to the
rest of Utah.
H.R. 1925
H.R. 1925 proposes to designate 218 units of BLM-managed lands,
comprising 9.4 million acres, into the National Wilderness Preservation
System. These designations span the State of Utah, from the Great Basin
region of western Utah, to the Canyonlands in the southeast; from the
Uinta Basin and Book Cliffs in the northeastern corner of the State, to
the Mojave Desert in southwestern Utah. Many of these lands are
extraordinary, with unmatched wild land resources. The legislation
breaks these designations into ten distinct areas:
Great Basin wilderness areas (44 areas)
Zion and Mojave Desert wilderness areas (14 areas)
Grand Staircase-Escalante wilderness areas (52 areas)
Moab-La Sal Canyons wilderness areas (15 areas)
Henry Mountains wilderness areas (11 areas)
Glen Canyon wilderness areas (9 areas)
San Juan-Anasazi wilderness areas (12 areas)
Canyonlands Basin wilderness areas (14 areas)
San Rafael Swell wilderness areas (21 areas)
Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin wilderness areas (26 areas)
The BLM reviewed some of the areas proposed for designation under
H.R. 1925 through its recently-completed resource management plans.
However, given the scope of the bill, the BLM has not undertaken a
detailed analysis of each proposed designation in the context of
designated wilderness. Should the Committee wish to move forward with
the legislation, the BLM would carefully review each of the 218 areas
to assess wilderness quality, boundary manageability, and conflicts
with current uses, including motorized recreation and energy resource
development. In addition, detailed mapping is necessary. Undertaking
such a review and creating maps of these areas is both critically
important to moving forward and a monumental task.
Below are a few examples of areas that an initial review, based on
available information, indicates may deserve protection.
Desolation Canyon in eastern Utah, proposed for designation under
section 110(b)(6) of H.R. 1925, is an extraordinary treasure, and is
deeper in places than Arizona's Grand Canyon. This adventure
destination draws visitors to study, explore, float, and hike through
spectacular landscapes. Red rock canyons, white sand beaches, and
cottonwood groves define this exceptionally picturesque area that
supports a vibrant river outfitting community. The remoteness and
simplicity of the area enhance its appeal.
Section 109 designates a number of wilderness areas throughout the
San Rafael Swell. The unique character of the San Rafael Swell area
began to form 50 million years ago when a massive uplift formed a
geologic structure called an anticline. This bulge in the earth's crust
was later eroded to leave high mesas, deep canyons, domes, and
spectacular arches and spires. The terrain varies from sheer cliffs and
dazzling canyons to more gently eroded badlands broken by shallow
washes. San Rafael Reef extends through the southeast side of the area
with dramatic sheer-walled cliffs, pinnacles, knobs, twisted canyons
and valleys of stunning colors. It is a geological classroom of amazing
proportions.
On the western edge of Utah, the Deep Creek Mountains, addressed in
section 101(b)(10) of the proposed legislation, are a mountain oasis
isolated within the Great Salt Lake Desert. Rising dramatically from
the desert, granite canyons lead upward to snow-capped peaks. The
vertical extremes have created rare ecological niches with exceptional
biological diversity. In addition, numerous archaeological sites from a
wide span of history are prevalent in the area.
Southeastern Utah's Grand Gulch, addressed in section 107(b)(6) of
the proposed legislation, is another remarkable area. One of Utah's
most popular wild land hiking areas, the Grand Gulch is home to rock
art, ancient cliff dwellings, and other ceremonial structures that are
located throughout the cliff-face area. More than 1,000 years ago the
ancestors of modern Puebloan people inhabited much of the Grand Gulch,
and today the preserved cultural resources are protected in this
remote, primitive setting.
We also know that some of the areas proposed for designation
present serious challenges because of existing and conflicting uses.
For example, recreational use has exploded on public lands throughout
the West, including in southern and eastern Utah. While many
recreational activities, such as hunting and hiking, are compatible
with BLM wilderness designation, others, such as mountain biking and
OHV use, are not.
One use that conflicts with wilderness is mountain biking; an
increasingly popular outdoor activity on BLM lands. In the Moab area,
for example, both BLM's Bar M Mountain Bike Focus Area and parts of the
Klondike Bluffs Mountain Bike Focus Area are within the Arches Adjacent
area proposed in section 104(b)(1) of the legislation. Both of these
areas, specifically designated by the BLM for mountain biking, receive
substantial use--as many as 20,000 bikers annually on a single bike
trail--which would be inconsistent with wilderness designation.
OHV use, either in designated motorized use areas or on designated
road networks, also presents serious conflicts in a number of
wilderness areas proposed in H.R. 1925, including Goldbar Canyon
(section 104 (b)(8)) and Duma Point (section 108 (b)(5)). About 70
percent of the proposed Goldbar area is within BLM's Gemini Bridges/
Poison Spider Mesa Backcountry Motorized Touring Focus Area; as many as
800 vehicles per day access this area. Similarly, we estimate that over
21,000 OHVs use the Duma area annually.
Some existing or proposed energy development activities may pose
inherent conflicts with some of the designations in the bill. In the
Uinta Basin in eastern Utah, oil and gas development has increased
dramatically over recent years. Some of the proposed wilderness areas
include existing leases, some of which are currently producing, and
others that we expect will produce in the future. Areas with these
conflicts include Winter Ridge (section 110(b)(25)), Lower Bitter Creek
(section 110(b)(13)), and Cane Spring Desert (section 106(b)(1)). In
some cases the production areas could be carved out of the boundary of
the proposed wilderness, but in others it may make designation
impractical.
In addition, the recently-designated Westwide Energy Corridors may
overlap portions of a number of the areas proposed for designation. In
the case of the Upper Kanab Creek (section 103(a)(2)(N)), a 3 1/2 mile
segment of the corridor bisects the wilderness area proposed in the
bill.
Utah's west desert has potential for solar, wind, and geothermal
development that the BLM would like to further review as well, and we
hope that the Committee will consider this potential. For example,
locations within the Antelope Range (section 101(b)(1)) and San
Francisco Mountains (section 101(b)(34)) are currently under
consideration for wind energy development. High-potential geothermal
sites intersect the Crater Bench (section 101(b)(7)), Cricket Mountain
(section 101(b)(9)), Drum Mountains (section 101(b)(11)), Sand Ridge
(section 101(b)(35)) and Granite Peak (section 101(b)(15)) areas.
Finally, section 102(b) of the bill provides for wilderness
designations in the Zion and Mojave Deserts of southwestern Utah. We
note that Title II, subtitle O of the Omnibus Public Land Management
Act, Public Law 111-11, designated nearly 130,000 acres of BLM
wilderness in this same area and many of the proposed designations in
this subsection appear to overlap with the provisions of that law.
Conclusion
The beauty and power of Utah's red rock canyons, mountains, deserts
and plateaus defy easy description. These extraordinary natural
features include an expansive range of ecosystems. We support moving
the discussion on designating wilderness in Utah forward. Our hope is
that this hearing will be the impetus for the hard work that needs to
be undertaken in order to make thoughtful decisions about these
important lands. The Department of the Interior looks forward to
working cooperatively with local and national constituencies, this
subcommittee, the sponsor of the bill, and the Utah Congressional
delegation toward that end.
______
Statement of the National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2689
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 2689, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study
the suitability and feasibility of designating the National D-Day
Memorial in Bedford, Virginia, as a unit of the National Park System.
The Department recommends deferring action on H.R. 2689 to allow
the National Park Service to complete a report on a preliminary
assessment, requested by Secretary Salazar, as to whether the D-Day
Memorial would be eligible for inclusion into the National Park System.
This would also give the Secretary an opportunity to review the report
and to share its contents with the members of the Virginia delegation.
H.R. 2689 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
a study to determine the feasibility and suitability of designating the
National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia as a unit of the National
Park System. The study also would include cost estimates for any
acquisition, development, operation, and maintenance of the area and
identify alternatives for management, administration, and protection of
the area. We estimate that this study would cost approximately
$250,000.
The landing of Allied forces on the beaches of Normandy, France on
June 6, 1944 was a seminal event in World War II and in the American
military chronicle. It marked the greatest amphibious landing in
history, the beginning of the liberation of France, and led to the
eventual defeat of Adolph Hitler's Germany. On that day, too, some
4,500 Allied servicemen were killed displaying their valor and fidelity
while making the ultimate sacrifice. In the rural community of Bedford,
Virginia, families learned that 19 of their 34 sons landing on the
beaches did not survive the day.
The National D-Day Memorial is located on an 88-acre site in
Bedford, Virginia. It rises from a hill overlooking the community and
commemorates the sacrifices of all who lost their lives on June 6,
1944. It consists of a series of plazas and architectural and
sculptural features commemorating the planning of Operation Overlord,
the English Channel crossing, the landings, and the march into France
and ultimate victory. The major feature at the center of the memorial
is the 44.5 foot granite veneered Overlord Arch. A water feature
depicting the landing approach is designed to emit spurts of water
simulating the gun fire encountered by those approaching the beaches.
Numerous bronze plaques devoted to involved military units and
individuals, as well as memorial donors, are placed against walls. The
names of those who died on June 6, 1944 are contained on a separate
necrology wall. A small visitor contact station and book store is
adjacent to the memorial.
The memorial was designated a National Memorial by Congress in
Title X, Section 1080 of the National Defense Authorizations Act of
1997 (Public Law 104-201). It was largely constructed through private
fund raising efforts of the National D-Day Memorial Foundation
(Foundation) and was dedicated on June 6, 2001 by President George W.
Bush. The Foundation continues to complete construction and manage the
memorial, but has encountered severe financial difficulties in meeting
its close to $2.4 million annual operational costs. The memorial is
open for visitation 362 days a year and received approximately 80,000
visitors between July 2008 and June 2009. Approximately 19,000 of these
visitors came during the month of June due to the observance of the
65th anniversary of D-Day. The Foundation records revenues of $509,653
and slightly over $1 million in contributions for this 12-month period.
On June 25, 2009, ten members of the Virginia congressional
delegation, including this bill's sponsor and co-sponsors, wrote to
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar requesting that he work with
President Barak Obama to establish the D-Day Memorial as a National
Monument pursuant to the authorities granted to the President by the
Antiquities Act of 1906, and that management of the monument be
undertaken by the National Park Service. Secretary Salazar responded to
the request on August 6, 2009 indicating that he had asked a team of
National Park Service representatives to conduct a site visit to the
memorial to undertake a preliminary assessment as to whether it may be
eligible for inclusion into the National Park System. The Secretary
further indicated that he would share the team's report with the
delegation once it was completed.
On August 25 and 26, a National Park Service team toured the site
and met with Foundation staff, including its executive director. The
team received a great deal of information regarding the design and
construction of the memorial, current visitor services and
interpretation, and maintenance and operational protocols and costs.
The team is currently in the process of analyzing the documents
provided and expects to complete its report to Secretary Salazar this
fall.
In light of this current analysis, the Department believes it is
premature to consider the authorization of a Special Resource Study. We
respectfully request that the committee defer action on this bill until
the Secretary has had an opportunity to review the National Park
Service team report and to share its contents with the members of the
Virginia delegation.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or members of the committee may have regarding
the Department's position on this legislation.
______
Statement of Robert V. Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2781 and H.R. 2888
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
H.R. 2781, designating portions of the Molalla River in Oregon as
components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System and H.R. 2888, the
Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2009. The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) supports both of these bills as they apply to lands we manage,
and we would like to work with the sponsors and the Committee on minor
refinements to both bills.
H.R. 2781--Molalla Wild and Scenic River
The Molalla River begins its journey to the sea on the western
slopes of the Cascade Mountains of Oregon. At an elevation of 4,800
feet, the Molalla flows undammed for 49 miles west and north until it
joins the Willamette River. For years, the Molalla suffered from too
much negative attention from its visitors, including vandalism. To
address these problems, local residents joined together several years
ago and formed the Molalla River Alliance (MRA). The MRA, a nonprofit
all volunteer organization, has over 45 public and private partners,
including Federal, State, and local government agencies, user groups,
and conservationists. Working cooperatively with BLM's local field
office, the MRA has provided the Molalla the care it needed. Today, we
are pleased that this subcommittee is considering designating
approximately 21 miles of the river as a component of the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System.
The Molalla River is home to important natural and cultural
resources. Protection of this watershed is crucial as the source of
drinking water for local communities and the important spawning habitat
it provides for several fish species, including salmon and steelhead.
Within an hour's drive of the metropolitan areas of Portland and Salem,
Oregon, the Molalla watershed provides significant recreational
opportunities for fishing, canoeing, mountain biking, horseback riding,
hiking, hunting, camping, and swimming. A 20-mile hiking, mountain
biking, and equestrian trail system draws over 65,000 visitors
annually.
H.R. 2781 proposes to designate 15.1 miles of the Molalla River and
6.2 miles of the Table Rock Fork of the Molalla as components of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In earlier planning analyses,
the BLM evaluated the Molalla River and the Table Rock Fork of the
Molalla River and determined that most of these two rivers should be
considered for designation as wild and scenic rivers. As a result, the
designation called for in H.R. 2781 would be largely consistent with
management currently in place, and would cause few changes to BLM's
current administration of most of this area. The 5,500-acre Table Rock
Wilderness, designated by Congress in 1984, is embraced by the Molalla
and Table Rock Fork, and designation of these river segments would
reinforce the protections in place for the wilderness area.
Wild and scenic rivers are designated by Congress in one of three
categories: wild, scenic, or recreational. Differing management
proscriptions apply for each of these designations. H.R. 2781 does not
specify which classification the river should be given. The BLM
recommends a recreational classification of the river segments
identified in the legislation. This classification is consistent with
the strong recreational values of this area, as well as the presence of
roads along the course of the river segments and numerous dispersed
campsites along its shorelines.
H.R. 2888, Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act
The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness, near the coast of
southwestern Oregon, is not for the faint of heart. Mostly wild land
and difficult to access, the Devil's Staircase reminds us of what much
of this land looked like hundreds of years ago. A multi-storied forest
of Douglas fir and western hemlock towers over underbrush of giant
ferns, providing critical habitat for the threatened Northern Spotted
Owl and Marbled Murrelet. The remote and rugged nature of this area
provides a truly wild experience for any hiker.
H.R. 2888 proposes to designate nearly 30,000 acres as wilderness,
as well as portions of both Franklin Creek and Wasson Creek as
components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The majority of these
designations are on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The
Department of the Interior defers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
on those designations.
Approximately 6,100 acres of the proposed Devil's Staircase
Wilderness and 4.2 miles of the Wasson Creek proposed designation are
within lands managed by the BLM. The Department of the Interior
supports these designations and would like to work with the sponsor and
the Committee on minor boundary modifications to improve manageability.
We note that while the vast majority of the acres proposed for
designation are Oregon &California (O&C) lands, identified under the
1937 O&C Lands Act for timber production, however, the BLM currently
restricts timber production on these lands. These lands are
administratively withdrawn from timber production by the BLM, either
through designation as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern or
through other classifications. Additionally, the BLM estimates that
nearly 90 percent of the area proposed for designation is comprised of
forest stands that are over 100 years old, and provides critical
habitat for the threatened Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl.
The 4.2 miles of Wasson Creek would be designated as a wild river
to be managed by the BLM under H.R. 2888. The majority of the acres
protected through this designation would be within the proposed Devil's
Staircase wilderness designation, though 752 acres would be outside the
proposed wilderness on adjacent BLM lands.
The designations identified on BLM-managed lands under H.R. 2888
would result in only minor modification of current management of the
area and would preserve these wild lands for future generations.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of these two
important Oregon designations. The Department of the Interior looks
forward to working with the sponsors and the Committee on minor
modifications to the legislation and to welcoming these units into the
BLM's National Landscape Conservation System.
______
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
I will be brief and I thank you for the opportunity to provide
the views of the Department of Agriculture on H.R. 2888, the
Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act. The Department supports the
designation of the Devil's Staircase Wilderness, as well as the
Wild and Scenic River designations, on National Forest System
lands.
The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness provides an
outstanding representation of the Oregon coast range and would
enhance the National Wilderness Preservation System. The
Department recommends the Committee consider conversion of the
existing 4100 road to a foot and horse trail compatible with
wilderness uses. Removing the road would result in the
Department being able to manage the wilderness as a whole
rather than two halves.
The road is currently brushy and difficult to travel and
making restoration of a wilderness setting a viable option.
H.R. 2888 would also designate approximately 10.4 miles of
streams on National Forest System lands as part of the national
Wild and Scenic River System, 5.9 miles of Wasson Creek and 4.5
miles of Franklin Creek, both on the Siuslaw National Forest.
Both Wasson and Franklin Creeks contain Coho Salmon
critical habitat, a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act. The Department supports designation of the 5.9
miles of the Wasson Creek on National Forest System lands based
on the segment's eligibility under the Siuslaw National Forest
Plan.
Regarding Franklin Creek, the Department does not oppose
its designation under this proposed legislation. Subsequent to
the 1990 eligibility study, the Forest Service has found that
Franklin Creek provides critical habitat for Coho Salmon and
serves as a reference stream for research because of its
relatively pristine character which is extremely rare in the
Oregon coast range.
We would like to work with the bill sponsors and the
Committee on several minor map revisions and modifications that
would enhance wilderness values and improve our ability to
manage resources in the area. I will be happy to answer any
questions the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief for National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 2888
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture on
H.R. 2888, the ``Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2009.''
H.R. 2888 would designate an area known as the ``Devil's
Staircase'' as wilderness under the National Wilderness Preservation
System. In addition, H.R. 2888 would designate segments of Wasson and
Franklin Creeks in the State of Oregon as wild rivers under the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act. The Department supports the designation of the
Devil's Staircase wilderness as well as the Wild and Scenic River
designations on National Forest System lands. We would like to offer
minor modifications to H.R. 2888 that would enhance wilderness values
and improve our ability to manage resources in the area.
Devil's Staircase Wilderness Designation
The Devil's Staircase area lies in the central Oregon Coast Range
north of the Umpqua River and south of the Smith River. Elevations in
the area range from near sea level to about 1,600 feet. The area is
characterized by steep, highly dissected terrain. It is quite remote
and difficult to access. A stair step waterfall on Wasson Creek is the
source of the name ``Devil's Staircase''.
The proposed wilderness encompasses approximately 29,600 acres of
National Forest System (NFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands.
NFS lands are approximately 23,500 acres, and BLM lands are
approximately 6,100 acres. Approximately 7,800 acres of the NFS lands
are within the Wasson Creek Undeveloped Area under the Forest Plan for
the Siuslaw National Forest and were evaluated for wilderness
characteristics in the 1990 Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan. While the Forest Service remains committed to the
forest planning process, the agency did not have the opportunity to
recommend wilderness during the development of the 1990 Siuslaw
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Congress passed
Public Law 98-328, the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984. That Act provided
specific language regarding the wilderness recommendation process that
exempted the Forest Service from having to further review a wilderness
option for unroaded lands in the forest planning process since Congress
had just acted on the matter. The Act does specify that during a forest
plan revision the agency is required to revisit the wilderness options.
For this reason, the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan did not include a wilderness recommendation. The 1990
Record of Decision determined that the Wasson Creek inventoried
Roadless Area would be managed for undeveloped recreation
opportunities.
All NFS lands that would be designated as wilderness are classified
as Late Successional Reserve under the Northwest Forest Plan, which
amended the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
in 1994. This land allocation provides for the preservation of old
growth (late successional) habitat. There are no planned resource
management or developed recreation projects within the NFS portion of
the lands to be designated as wilderness.
Most of the area is forested with older stands of Douglas fir and
western hemlock, and with red alder in riparian areas. All three tree
species are under-represented in the National Wilderness Preservation
System, relative to its abundance on NFS lands in Washington and
Oregon. These older stands provide critical habitat and support nesting
pairs of the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, which are
listed as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness provides an outstanding
representation of the Oregon Coast Range and would enhance the National
Wilderness Preservation System. The Oregon Coast Range has been largely
modified with development, roading, and logging. Three small wilderness
areas currently exist along the Oregon portion of the Pacific Coast
Range, and the proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness would more than
double the acres of old growth coastal rainforest in a preservation
status. Wilderness designation would also preserve the Devil's
Staircase which is a unique landscape feature.
Road and Road Decommissioning
There are approximately 24 miles of National Forest System roads
within the proposal boundary. 10.5 miles of these roads are not needed
for administrative use and would be decommissioned or obliterated.
The remaining 13.5 miles of road comprise Forest Service Road 4100
that bisects the proposed wilderness. The Department recommends the
committee consider conversion of the existing road to a foot and horse
trail compatible with wilderness uses. Removing the road would result
in the Department being able to manage the wilderness as a whole rather
than two halves. The road is currently brushy and difficult to travel,
making restoration of a wilderness setting a viable option. The Forest
Service would use a minimum tool analysis to determine the appropriate
tools necessary to complete activities associated with the road.
Wild and Scenic River Designations
H.R. 2888 would also designate approximately 10.4 miles of streams
on National Forest System lands as part of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System: 5.9 miles of Wasson Creek and 4.5 miles of Franklin
Creek, both on the Siuslaw National Forest.
Both Wasson and Franklin Creeks have been identified by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as critical habitat for coho
salmon (Oregon Coast ESU [Evolutionarily Significant Unit] of coho
salmon), a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
The Department defers to the Department of the Interior in regard
to the proposal to designate the 4.2-mile segment of Wasson Creek
flowing on lands administered by BLM.
The Forest Service conducted an evaluation of the Wasson and
Franklin Creeks to determine their eligibility for wild and scenic
rivers designation as part of the forest planning process for the
Siuslaw National Forest. However, the Agency has not conducted a wild
and scenic river suitability study, which provides the basis for
determining whether to recommend a river as an addition to the National
System. Wasson Creek was found eligible as it is both free-flowing and
possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational and ecological
values. The Department supports designation of the 5.9 miles of the
Wasson Creek on NFS lands based on the segment's eligibility.
At the time of the evaluation in 1990, Franklin Creek, although
free flowing, was found not to possess river-related values significant
at a regional or national scale and was therefore determined ineligible
for designation. Subsequent to the 1990 eligibility study the Forest
Service has found that, Franklin Creek provides critical habitat for
Coho salmon, currently listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act, and also serves as a reference stream for research because
of its relatively pristine character which is extremely rare in the
Oregon Coast Range. The Department does not oppose its designation.
Designation of the proposed segments of both Wasson and Franklin Creeks
is consistent with the proposed designation of the area as wilderness.
The actual Devil's Staircase landmark is located on Wasson Creek.
We would like to work with the bill sponsors and the committee on
several amendments and map revisions that we believe would enhance
wilderness values and improve the bill.
I would be happy to answer any questions the committee has on these
designations.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. We are going to go to Mr. Chaffetz
first and try to get as many questions as we can before--we
have a series of votes that have been called, so, Mr. Chaffetz,
why don't you get started.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, and thank you both for being here.
Mr. Abbey, is it the policy of the administration to reduce
energy development in Utah?
Mr. Abbey. No, it is not.
Mr. Chaffetz. How would you define the administration's
position on development of energy in Utah?
Mr. Abbey. The administration is very aggressive as far as
moving forward with proposals that come before the Bureau of
Land Management and other----
Mr. Chaffetz. What evidence is there of that? Can you name
anything that would demonstrate evidence of what you just said?
Mr. Abbey. Well, we continue to hold lease sales in the
State of Utah for oil and gas.
Mr. Chaffetz. But you have also canceled quite a few along
the way too, so what has been the net effect?
Mr. Abbey. Well, we have canceled a couple of lease sales.
Mr. Chaffetz. More than a couple, I believe.
Mr. Abbey. Well, we have withdrawn some areas that have
been nominated for oil and gas and for very good reasons. We do
want to move forward and review each of the areas that have
been nominated for oil and gas leasing in a careful manner.
Mr. Chaffetz. So how many lease sales have we had so far in
2009?
Mr. Abbey. In the State of Utah?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
Mr. Abbey. I would have to get back with you on that
specific answer, but I do know----
Mr. Chaffetz. But you believe that it has been a lot.
Mr. Abbey. Well, no, I didn't say--we hold lease sales on a
quarterly basis and Utah is no exception to that.
Mr. Chaffetz. And how many have actually gone through then
entire process? You don't have any numbers as regards to that?
Mr. Abbey. I don't have that with me.
Mr. Chaffetz. So, again, just to clarify the overriding
policy and directive that you have been given at BLM, help me
define and characterize again energy development in Utah.
Mr. Abbey. Is to move forward, review all the nominations
that come before the Bureau of Land Management to determine
whether or not they merit leasing based upon decisions that we
would then make. Based upon that review, we would go forward
and offer those parcels that we think are deserving.
Mr. Chaffetz. The bill that we were talking about, the Red
Rock Wilderness designation, there are many of us that believe
that it is vague in the description of each area. How would the
Department of the Interior put the legislation into boundaries
on the map, and who would actually make the determination of
those boundaries?
Mr. Abbey. Well, we would certainly recommend boundary
adjustments based upon an on the ground type of review. That is
one of the reasons why I mention in my testimony that we would
be willing to, and hopefully able, to work with members of this
Committee on those areas that we believe are also worthy of
designation as wilderness, but it will require further review
and analysis of what makes sense on the ground.
Mr. Chaffetz. So there is no map?
Mr. Abbey. We have seen, you know, different maps at
different times, but there are maps that have been produced.
The Bureau of Land Management has not produced any maps with
our recommended boundaries.
Mr. Chaffetz. And so you want to move forward on this even
though we haven't seen a map and there needs to be more on the
ground work. Is that fair?
Mr. Abbey. I think what we are, well, what we are
testifying to is that we believe that there are areas in Utah
that are deserving of wilderness designations, just like you
have testified to in your comments.
We do want to work with the various stakeholders in the
State of Utah fashioned on the Washington County legislation so
that we could try to reach a consensus at the local level, as
well as take into account the interests of citizens from
outside Utah who also have a stake in what is designated in the
future, and then hopefully we would be able to come up with
something that makes sense as far as which areas are deserving
and would then be designated through legislation.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. In the interest of time, we have
votes on the Floor, I yield back the balance of our time.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. Mr. Hinchey, do you have some
questions for the panel?
Mr. Hinchey. Well, thank you. Thank you very much.
Gentlemen, thank you very much. I very much appreciate your
being here and the things that you said. I just wanted to
restate a fact about the oil and gas reserves in the area that
we are attempting to designate under the Red Rock Lands bill.
To be precise about it, the land that we are trying to
designate holds less than a few days worth of oil and a few
weeks worth of gas, and that is according to the Energy
Information Agency, which have looked at this very carefully
and closely, and so they know exactly what the potential is
there.
So while there is less than one percent of the nation's oil
reserves and less than two percent of the nation's gas
reserves, but there are some other oil and gas elements in
Utah, and the industry that is interested in securing those oil
and gas reserves has already secured more than five million
acres of oil and gas leases in Utah but they are not really
paying very much attention to it because they are only dealing
with one and a half million, or less than 30 percent, of what
they have.
So it is important, I think, to just understand that and
make it clear what exactly the situation is with regard to that
set of circumstances. Is that knowledgeable to you?
Mr. Abbey. I think you are absolutely correct in your
statement. You know, whether or not an area has oil and gas
resources is just one of many factors that should be taken into
account when reviewing and making recommendations as to which
of these areas could possibly be designated as wilderness.
There are other factors that would also come into play.
I certainly don't take exception to anything you said as
far as, you know, the significance, or the lack of
significance, of oil and gas resources that may exist under
some of these proposed areas.
Mr. Hinchey. Sure. Absolutely. Well, thank you very much. I
also want to tell you I was impressed with your testimony, your
statements. One of the things, one of the many impressive
things that you said was, ``the beauty and power of Utah's red
rock canyons, mountains, deserts and plateaus defy easy
description''. I must say that I absolutely agree with you. I
have been there many times.
I had an opportunity to see them at a distance and up
closely, and it is very true, it is absolutely magnificent. It
is something that for those reasons, for the beauty, the
uniqueness, the striking colors, the dramatic aspects of it,
for all of those, and many other reasons, this is some part of
the country that should be protected and given the kind of
recognition that it deserves on behalf of the population of
America that owns this land, and also, to draw more attention
to it because one of the main elements of the advanced commerce
activities in Utah comes about as a result of the way in which
the beauty of that state attracts people from other places
around the country and from other places outside of the
country. Could you tell us a little bit about that?
Mr. Abbey. I would be happy to. You know, I, too, have seen
many of these areas up close and personal. In the mid-1990s I
helped lead an effort on behalf of the Bureau of Land
Management at the direction of then Secretary Bruce Babbitt to
go into Utah and revisit some of the areas that had not been
identified through the wilderness inventory as having
wilderness characteristics.
So as part of that team we did go into Utah, looked at some
of these extraordinary areas and came up with the conclusion
that approximately 3.6 million acres, in addition to the three
million acres that had been previously identified as wilderness
study areas, had wilderness characteristics. Now, let me be
careful in these comments so that you fully understand what
that means.
The fact that areas have wilderness characteristics does
not necessarily mean they should be designated as wilderness.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other factors that should be
taken into account prior to legislation that would designate
any area as part of the National Wilderness Preservation
System.
The fact that these areas, or at least 3.6 million acres in
our review, have wilderness characteristics, I think it lends
itself to further review and further studies and analysis
whether or not which of those other areas should be considered
as part of any legislation. Our proposal, and certainly our
position, would be that we think it is best done through more
of a geographically styled study and legislation instead of a
statewide.
Mr. Hinchey. My understanding is that the Bureau of Land
Management has looked at a lot of this area, not all of it, and
of the area that is designated within the Red Rock bill they
have concluded that 75 percent of that acreage deserves to be
declared wilderness, is that correct?
Mr. Abbey. Well, I think what we have declared, and I don't
know the specific percentage, but what we have declared is 6.6
million acres of public lands management at the Bureau of Land
Management and Utah have wilderness characteristics already.
Mr. Hinchey. And the other remaining acres have not been
looked at carefully enough to make a conclusion about that?
Mr. Abbey. Well, again, we would hope for an opportunity in
the future to work with citizens groups and other stakeholders
to maybe review some of those other areas that were not
included as part of our earlier reviews.
Mr. Hinchey. Yes. I am not negating what----
Mr. Abbey. No. I understand.
Mr. Hinchey. I am just saying that a lot of attention has
been paid----
Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Hinchey?
Mr. Hinchey.--to a lot of it.
Mr. Heinrich. We are going to need to get across to a vote
just now. Would you be willing to hold the rest of your
questions until we come back from the recess.
Mr. Hinchey. Yes. Just one left. A lot of attention has
been paid to part of it, but there are other elements that have
to be paid more attention to, isn't that correct?
Mr. Abbey. Well, there are a lot of factors that should
come into play before any area is designated as wilderness.
That is correct.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Heinrich. We are going to submit a number of questions
for the record but I think there are some more questions, so if
you wouldn't mind hanging around for a little bit we will
recess for 30 minutes and get back as quickly as we can.
[Recess.]
Mr. Heinrich. Welcome back. We are going to continue with
questions, and I think we are going to start with Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have questions
first for Mr. Abbey. First off, congratulations on your
position.
Mr. Abbey. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. DeFazio. Look forward to working with you. You have a
unique set of lands in my state which are called the O&C lands,
the most productive timberlands, virtually the only productive
timberlands BLM has under its jurisdiction. I have proposed the
wilderness called the Devil's Staircase and I appreciate the
support of the administration and both departments on this
issue.
Just a couple of things that need to be clarified. There
has been concern expressed because some of the acreage are O&C
lands and when timber activities take place on O&C lands, the
counties share in the revenues. Within this proposed
wilderness, there is some acreage that is O&C. However, it has
been designated an area of critical environmental concern, and
also, under the Clinton Forest Plan, there are 6,100 acres that
are late successional reserves and critical habitat.
What I want to get to here is that I can't envision any
scenario under which any timber activities might take place on
these lands. I know that none are currently planned and
wouldn't be allowed. Can you substantiate that?
Mr. Abbey. Well, I think you are absolutely correct,
Congressman. You know, from what I have been told, it is 99
percent of the lands that would be designated by this
legislation are administratively withdrawn from timber
production anyway, so I think any impact to the timber industry
would be very, very minimal. I am talking about the lands
management of the Bureau of Land Management.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Then there is a second question which is a
little broader, and hopefully if you are not prepared to answer
now, we are certainly going to have an opportunity to discuss
this. It is about the management of the O&C lands in Oregon. As
you know, Secretary Salazar withdrew something called the
whopper, which, you know, as kids we all knew it was a big lie,
and it was a big lie put forward by the Bush administration.
It was political science. Unfortunately, what he did is we
lost a number of years of potentially resolving, you know,
conflicts and planning for a sustainable harvest on those lands
and for forest health. We had been told, at the time when they
were withdrawn the Secretary said you would be putting forward
the projects to provide interim supply and working on a longer
term plan. I would just like a brief update on where we are at
on that.
Mr. Abbey. Well, Congressman DeFazio, we are doing that
just as we speak. We are putting together a list of sales that
we believe we can go forward with to allow, you know, the
industry to have an opportunity to compete for those sales.
They are not going to be major, you know, timber sales by any
means, but we do believe that we have parcels of timber that
could be made available and we intend to do just that.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Look forward to discussing this in more
detail. I have also forwarded to the Secretary, and it may come
to your office, a draft of legislation I propose to change the
management on these lands and on the Forest Service lands and
would like both agencies to be evaluating that legislation in
looking at both what you think its timber yield could be, and
also, whether or not you agree with the principles that are
embodied in that.
Mr. Abbey. Great. We look forward to reviewing that and
commenting on it. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. And so, Mr. Holtrop, there is one
issue. An adjacent landowner, Roseberg Forest Products, has
raised they are concerned about the management of these lands.
There is sort of a common myth out there that if something is a
wilderness we won't fight fire. Could you address that?
Mr. Holtrop. We do fight fire in wilderness. We don't lose
sight of the fact that as we fight it that it is wilderness,
but at the same time, we do fight fire aggressively and
especially if the fire has potential for affecting private
lands.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. My understanding, the current management
on this entire forest within which these lands are contained is
for full suppression, that there is no policy to, or you deem
that there is not a resource benefit in wildfires, these are
areas that are considered to be infrequent but high intensity
in terms of their burning. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Holtrop. The ecological aspects that you just described
are consistent with my understanding. I am not prepared to tell
you what exactly the policy is, although that seems consistent
with the fact that they are low intensity, infrequent fires.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, high intensity.
Mr. Holtrop. High intensity, low frequency. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. Yes. OK. The Forest Service has
proposed, there is a road that bisects the wilderness, to close
it, Road 4100. Has that road been inventoried? Do you have
details on the current condition, usage of the road, et cetera?
Mr. Holtrop. I have some general information on it. It is a
ridge top road, it is a Class 2 road, it is fairly heavily
brushed in, high clearance vehicles. We think the current state
of the road does lend itself to being restored into either a
trail or totally obliterated, and what that would accomplish is
then the entire area could be designated wilderness without the
bisecting road in the middle. We think that is consistent with
the wilderness characteristic.
Mr. DeFazio. Obviously there is tremendous concern,
particularly when we are trying to do wilderness on the Senate
side, about any costs that are incurred. Do you have any
estimates or plans on either if it was converted to a trail or,
I mean, could it be just, I mean how would we deal with it in a
low cost way?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes. Generally what we would do, it is about
14 miles of road so there are probably large segments of the
road that doing nothing would probably be sufficient for
allowing it to continue to brush in and become more trail-like
than road-like. Being ridge top, there are probably not very
many culverts to be removed. Where there is work to be done,
generally our cost per mile is around $15,000 per mile to do
this type of work.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Great. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those
are all the questions I have for this panel.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. Mrs. Lummis?
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Abbey, I would
like to ask you about the Red Rock Wilderness Act. I understand
that your agency has not finished inventorying all the proposed
parcels. Is that the case?
Mr. Abbey. Well, we have not formally taken a position on
all the proposed parcels, and certainly, before anything would
be designated we would like another opportunity to go back,
revisit each of these areas that are being proposed for
designation and to work with the various members of this
Committee and others on what we might believe to be more
manageable boundaries and to address some potential conflicts
that currently exist in some of these areas.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. To each of you, regarding Devil's
Staircase, I would like to ask about the buffer zone language.
Do you support the language or have any specific
recommendations come to your attention from your agencies on
the legality of wilderness area buffer zones? Any comment on
that particular language?
Mr. Abbey. The language that says there is to be no buffer
zone adjacent to the wilderness is what you are saying?
Mrs. Lummis. Correct.
Mr. Abbey. We are comfortable with the bill as written.
Mrs. Lummis. Very good. Mr. Holtrop, the Devil's Staircase
Wilderness Act authorizes the Forest Service to acquire lands
within the proposed wilderness boundary. How many inholdings
are there in this parcel? Do you know?
Mr. Holtrop. In the north end, there is a 160-acre
inholding. I believe the bill as drafted has mistakenly
included three islands in the river that are actually private
lands, but I think that is one of the technical corrections
that we wanted to work with the Subcommittee on.
Mrs. Lummis. OK. Are the owners of, well, I should say is
this one inholding, the 160-acre inholding, is the owner of
that aware and supportive of this legislation? How would their
rights be affected by the designation?
Mr. Holtrop. My understanding, and let me hasten that, if
there are other inholdings, I am not familiar with them. There
might be some other small inholdings, but I don't think they
are significant. The 160-acre inholding, I believe, is held by
Roseberg Resource, Incorporated, and they have utilized that
for helicopter logging in the past. The terrain is rugged, and
steep and difficult, and their access to that parcel would not
be affected by the bill. The current access that they have had
on it is by helicopter.
Mrs. Lummis. OK. Very good. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Holtrop, it is good to see you
again. Too bad I don't have anything for you, but it is nice to
talk to you again. Mr. Abbey, I appreciate your testimony so
far. You stated that this administration supports an approach
to wilderness that is more geographically focused.
Mr. Abbey. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Can you just elaborate what you mean by that?
Mr. Abbey. Well, basically it is what would make sense on a
landscape scale basis. It could be county by county. If that is
more amenable to the members of the public and to the
stakeholders who might be affected by wilderness legislation,
then we would certainly support that. We also think that you
can look at certain areas geographically, like the Western
Desert, and, you know, where it may encompass more than one
county you could possibly look at a legislation that would
encompass more than one county.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that, and I also want to tell you,
and I think I mentioned this briefly as we talked down there,
just to reemphasize how much I appreciate the BLM personnel,
the professional staff on the ground in Utah. They do
understand what the land is like, they understand where they
are.
When we were trying to craft the wilderness legislation
before, both in Washington and as well in Cedar Mountain, they
were incredibly helpful in going out with us to make sure that
what was logical was included and what was illogical was not
included. Even when we overrode them, they still understood
what was logical. So I want you to take that back, that Selma
and her staff do a marvelous job in the State of Utah. I am
extremely proud of them.
I would like to know, though, if this particular bill, and
I am referring to the Utah specific bill, what sort of mapping
would have to be required before this bill could become law
from your office?
Mr. Abbey. It would be extensive mapping. It would be quite
a bit of workload, which is currently not planned or funded.
Again, what we would do is, well, we would take directions from
this Committee and other Members of Congress as far as
responding to any specific requests you might have from the
Agency to do mapping.
As far as our own review, we would, you know, have to
travel to each of the individual sites, conduct an on the
ground type of analysis and review of what we think the
boundaries should be so that we could enforce their
manageability.
Mr. Bishop. OK. And there would be a cost associated with
that?
Mr. Abbey. There would be----
Mr. Bishop. But it is currently not planned?
Mr. Abbey. There is.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Let me just ask one last question because I
am not quite sure exactly how this does. This bill makes
reference to Cedar Mountain wilderness that was passed a while
ago. Within there there were certain WSAs and certain
agreements within the WSAs that surround that particular area.
Do you know what impact this would have on the prior
legislation passed? Would it replace it, expand it, or would
that depend on the map that you eventually draw?
Mr. Abbey. Well, if you introduce and pass new legislation
addressing those wilderness study areas that have previously
been dropped--is that your question?
Mr. Bishop. No, they were not dropped, but there were
certain requirements or conditions that were placed on how they
would be managed in the future.
Mr. Abbey. Well, this new legislation would direct us on
how they would be managed in the future.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Abbey. You are welcome.
Mr. Heinrich. Any other questions?
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, if I could just for a moment?
Mr. Heinrich. You bet.
Mr. DeFazio. Just for the record, my staff informed me that
the one inholding which was previously mentioned is Roseberg
Forest Products. It has no road access so it is not going to
lose road access. It was previously helicopter logged and they
will be able to helicopter log it in the future, so their
property rights are not affected in any way.
Mr. Heinrich. Well, I want to thank Mr. Abbey and Mr.
Holtrop, and I want to especially thank you for your patience
as we moved back and forth in vote. We are going to let you go
and move on to our third panel now.
Mr. Abbey. Thank you.
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you.
Mr. Heinrich. So welcome, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Moody and Mr.
Stahl. As soon as you are all settled in, we are going to hear
from Mr. McIntosh first. Mr. McIntosh, you could get started
whenever you are ready. Can you pull the microphone just a
little bit closer, please.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. McINTOSH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL
D-DAY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION, BEDFORD VA
Mr. McIntosh. Better still if I turned it on, I suspect. In
September of 1996, Congress gave this memorial project its
warrant and the National D-Day Memorial its designation. The
memorial to be constructed by the National D-Day Memorial
Foundation in Bedford, Virginia is hereby designated a national
memorial to be known as the National D-Day Memorial.
Sited on an 88 acre parcel in the shadow of the Blue Ridge
Mountains the memorial rises on nine consecrated acres leaving
the balance of the land open. The President of the United
States addressed an audience of 24,000 when he participated in
its dedication on the 57th anniversary of D-Day. This year, the
memorial marked the 65th anniversary of the Normandy landing
with a public commemoration and follow-on programs that over
the course of the day drew a total audience of 9,000.
The National D-Day Memorial is every bit the physical plant
the World War II Memorial is and many times more the memorial.
Chief among the reasons for that are the gravitas and dignitas
that hallmark it. Not merely a destination, the National D-Day
Memorial is a sacred place. Memorial staff and volunteers make
sure visitors understand that before they enter it.
They also make sure visitors understand its location,
Bedford, Virginia. It is less about that particular town than
it is about that town's function as an emblem of this nation's
communities large and small that have provided, and provide
still, citizens who answer the call to serve in our military,
naval and air forces. On the 65th anniversary of D-Day, more
than 100 active duty veterans of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan turned up at the memorial in uniform.
The divisional shoulder patches and regimental crests worn
by many of them were the same ones worn by those who came in at
Normandy, as well as those who in later years served in Korea,
Vietnam, Desert Storm and Bosnia.
Presenting the D-Day Memorial and D-Day as a climax of
World War II this facility celebrates its subject in such a way
as to number it among the most veteran welcoming sites in the
country, branch, place and period of service notwithstanding,
and one of the most instructive for the large population of
visitors who know nothing of national service.
Since its dedication, the memorial has received more than
one million visitors and delivered a broad range of educational
programming to some 100,000 school children who have come from
10 different states. Whether the memorial should have been
built is beside the point. The fact is it has been. Today it is
a significant destination not only for Virginians but for the
rest of the Nation as well.
Indeed, fewer than half the memorial's annual visitors
altogether, some 80,000, come from Virginia. Despite its well-
tended grounds and gardens, robust physical appearance, worthy
purpose and rich educational programming, the memorial exists
on sustenant rations. Is the foundation going to go into debt
to keep the memorial open? No. Is the memorial worth keeping
open? Yes.
Can it be kept open? Yes, if the Congress that gave it its
warrant in 1996 to become the National D-Day Memorial will do
what it should have done then: enact legislation to help place
it under the umbrella of the National Park Service. Thank you.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you very much, Mr. McIntosh. Thank you
for being here today. We are going to go to Mr. Moody next.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntosh follows:]
Statement of William A. McIntosh, President and CEO,
National D-Day Memorial Foundation, Ltd., on H.R. 2689
The D-Day landing of the Allied Forces in Normandy, France, on 6
June 1944--the largest air, land, and sea operation ever undertaken--
included 5,333 ships and boats, some 11,000 aircraft, 50,000 military
vehicles, and over 175,000 soldiers, to say nothing of participating
sailors and merchant seamen. The Allies suffered 9,758 casualties,
among them 6,603 from the United States. On D-Day they took the war
back to its maker. Performing heroically, they assaulted Fortress
Europe a hedgerow at a time and gave the lie to Hitler's dream of world
domination. D-Day was the turning point of World War II. Liberated
Europe never lost sight of that, but its monumental significance soon
faded in the public consciousness of this nation. But for the fleeting
appearance of the print and film versions of Cornelius Ryan's The
Longest Day and Ronald Reagan's ``Boys of Point du Hoc'' speech on the
40th anniversary, it disappeared.
Sitting in dimming twilight at the end of a cookout some twenty
years ago, a small group of World War II veterans fell to swapping
stories. Not unlike the ashes beneath the grill they had cooked supper
on, their memories had begun to cool and dissolve. As they sifted
through them in the gathering darkness to search for adventure, lost
friends, and times long gone, what first appeared to be a tentative
stirring in the ash soon emerged as a youthful phoenix. In the weeks
following, that fledgling gained strength and built itself a nest: The
National D-Day Memorial Foundation. Incorporated in the spring of 1989,
the Foundation set about the task of establishing a D-Day memorial in
the United States.
For the next half-dozen years, a number of dedicated people came
and went as members of a Roanoke-based board trying to identify and
secure an appropriate site for a D-Day memorial. Roanoke had peopled
one of twelve Virginia National Guard infantry companies of the 29th
Infantry Division's 116th Regiment whose storied antecedents include
General Thomas Jackson's Stonewall Brigade. Roanoke suffered terrible
losses on D-Day as did Farmville, Lynchburg, Charlottesville, Chase
City, South Boston, and most of the other communities whose young men
served in the other companies of that regiment. Bedford, with a wartime
population of some 3,000, experienced the severest per capita losses on
D-Day, and by 1995 had worked with the Foundation to establish a D-Day
memorial there.
In September of 1996, Congress gave the project its warrant and the
National D-Day Memorial its designation: ``The memorial to be
constructed by the National D-Day Memorial Foundation in Bedford,
Virginia, is hereby designated a national memorial to be known as the
``National D-Day Memorial'' (Public Law 104-201, Sec. 1080). Sited on
an 88-acre parcel in the shadow of the Blue Ridge Mountains, the
Memorial rises on nine consecrated acres, leaving the balance of the
land open and available for additional construction as needed. The
President of the United States addressed an audience of 24,000 when he
participated in its dedication on the 57th anniversary of D-Day. This
year the Memorial marked the 65th anniversary of the Normandy landing
with a public commemoration and follow-on programs that, over the
course of the day, drew a total audience of 9,000.
Between the 57th and the 65th anniversaries, the phoenix that had
risen from ashes in 1989 burst into flames. Over that same period, the
National D-day Memorial Foundation went in and out of bankruptcy,
endured two Federal trials with no convictions, cleared a $6 million
residual debt dollar for dollar, and finished construction of the
Memorial. At the end of all that, a new phoenix rose from its ashes,
which brings us to today.
The National D-Day Memorial has never been better than it is today.
And it is not as good as it will be tomorrow. It is every bit the
physical plant the WWII Memorial is and many times more the memorial.
Chief among the reasons for that are the gravitas and dignitas that
hallmark it. Not merely a destination, the National D-Day Memorial is a
sacred place. Memorial staff and volunteers make sure visitors
understand that before they enter it. They also make sure visitors
understand that its location--Bedford, Virginia--is less about that
particular town than it is about that town's function as an emblem of
this nation's communities, large and small, that have provided, and
provide still, citizens who answer the call to serve in our military,
naval, and air forces.
On the 65th anniversary of D-Day, more than a hundred active-duty
veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan turned up at the Memorial
in uniform. The divisional shoulder patches and regimental crests worn
by many of them were the same ones worn by those who came in at
Normandy as well as those who served in Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm,
and Bosnia.
If, at first blush, the Memorial's focus on D-Day seems too narrow,
a closer look reveals that it exists in tribute to the valor, fidelity,
and sacrifice of the Allied forces on D-Day. Writ large, that tribute
also includes the D-Day contributions made on the Eastern Front of the
European Theater and in the American, Mediterranean, China-Burma-India,
and Asiatic-Pacific Theaters, without which the story would have had a
different ending.
The Memorial uses that story as a foil to highlight its subject:
Character. Presenting D-Day as the structural climax of World War II,
the Memorial tells the story and celebrates its subject in such a way
as to number it among the most veteran-welcoming sites in the country--
branch, place, and period of service notwithstanding--and one of the
most instructive for the large population of visitors who know nothing
of national service. Since its dedication, the Memorial has received
more a million visitors and delivered a broad range of educational
programming to some 100,000 school children.
Thanks to the largesse and confidence of its donors and unstinting
service of its volunteers, the National D-Day Memorial Foundation has
continued to operate the Memorial in direct support of its educational
mission: To preserve the lessons and legacy of D-Day. The Foundation is
straight-arrow, debt-free, frugal, disciplined, and mission-driven. Few
non-profits exceed its scrupulosity. Even so, alas, it cannot sustain
itself as an independent entity.
Whether the Memorial should have been built is beside the point:
The hard fact is, it has been. Today, it is a significant destination
not only for Virginians but for the rest of the nation as well; indeed,
fewer than half of the Memorial's annual visitors (altogether some
80,000) come from Virginia. Despite its well-tended grounds and
gardens, robust physical appearance, worthy purpose, and rich
educational programming, the Memorial lives on subsistence rations
gathered from a modest larder.
Is the Foundation going to go in debt to keep the Memorial open?
No. Is the Memorial worth keeping open? Yes. Can it be kept open? Yes--
if the Congress that gave it its designation in 1996 to become the
National D-Day Memorial will do what it should have done then: Enact
legislation to help place it under the umbrella of the National Park
Service.
In the last two decades, this memorial phoenix has twice risen from
its own ashes, and in this 65th anniversary year of D-Day is releasing
occasional wisps of smoke. If you think the Committee on Natural
Resources should work to find a way to keep it from bursting into flame
yet again, please make that finding plain; if not, at least pause to
acknowledge the valor, fidelity, and sacrifice that will go unremarked
should the National D-Day Memorial close its gates.
10 Attachments (Copyright-free images of the National D-Day
Memorial at Bedford, Virginia)
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MOODY, PRESIDENT,
MOLALLA RIVER ALLIANCE, MOLALLA, OREGON
Mr. Moody. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. As
Congressman Bishop said, my experience with the BLM--I am sure
Mr. Abbey has probably slipped out--has been of the same ilk,
extremely professional, thorough, foresightful. A really
interesting group of people to work with. My name is Mike
Moody, I am President of the Molalla River Alliance. We
initiated and lead the efforts before you today seeking Wild
and Scenic River designation for the Molalla River.
The Molalla River is one of Oregon's historic rivers. It is
vital to local communities. Among other attributes, the Molalla
River is the primary source of drinking water for the
communities of Canby and Molalla. However, for far too many
years the Molalla River corridor has been wracked with
destructive, unacceptable, and, at times, illegal human
behavior.
The response to this is the Molalla River Alliance. This is
a grass roots, communitywide, unprecedented local
collaboration. The Molalla River Alliance is an all volunteer
coalition of more than 45 nonprofit civic and conservation
organizations, Federal, state and local agencies, numerous user
groups, individual property owners and individual
conservationists.
We are dedicated to preserving the water quality of the
Molalla River, sustaining the wildlife, plants and fish that
inhabit its watershed while promoting a safe and healthy
environment that encourages diverse enjoyment of the recreation
corridor, including tourism and family friendly activities. We
have forged a productive partnership of diverse, divergent and
frequently opposing groups.
We have wild fish advocates sitting next to hatchery fish
advocates. We have antilogging advocates sitting next to timber
growers. We have hunters sitting next to horseback riders and
hikers. We have fly fishermen sitting next to bait fishermen.
The Molalla River Alliance has taken a leading role in
galvanizing numerous stakeholders, scientists and policymakers,
and this group of nontraditional allies works because all found
a common bond between us which is the shared passion for this
river.
Why are we seeking Wild and Scenic River designation? 1] We
have a practical reason. This is a source of drinking water for
more than 20,000 citizens in Molalla and Canby and designation
assures sustained access to that clean water.
2] Wild and Scenic Rivers will benefit our local community.
In the state with the third highest unemployment rate in the
nation, Molalla has one of the highest rates in Oregon,
approaching 13 percent. Both the City of Molalla and Clackamas
County commissioners support Congressman Schrader's bill and
believe that Wild and Scenic status will bring with it a
certain cache that will attract more visitors.
In a community previously dependent upon the boom/bust
cycles of the forest products industry we are confident
designation will generate much needed economic activity through
enhanced tourism.
The Molalla River corridor offers myriad recreational
opportunities, including hiking, kayaking and white water
rafting, touring, mountain bike riding, camping, horseback
riding, hunting, fishing, swimming, picnicking, et cetera,
there are more than 30 miles of nonmotorized trails as well,
all conveniently accessible to a population that is quickly
approaching two million people.
In addition, designation can be instrumental in attracting
funding. The vetting process for Wild and Scenic Rivers helps
the river to stand out. It becomes elevated among funding
agencies and foundations who know that their money is more
likely to be used effectively. This is especially obviously in
an era of tight funding that we are living through today.
3] Wild and Scenic Rivers will benefit fish and wildlife
that inhabit its watershed. The stretch under consideration
provides critical spawning and rearing habitat for Steelhead
Trout and Salmon, and two of these species are currently listed
as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
4] Widespread support from our community through the broad-
based Molalla River Alliance confirms Wild and Scenic Rivers as
a priority for area stakeholders and decisionmakers.
5] Because the act confers no Federal authority over
private land use or local zoning, there is no practical impact
on private property. To that end, there is no organized
opposition to this effort, and there is no organized opposition
to this proposal.
6] No less vital is an enhanced sense of community
associated with designation. This fosters goodwill and serves
to motivate stakeholders with diverse interests that might
otherwise not cooperate.
Finally, No. 7, the Molalla River Alliance and the Bureau
of Land Management, which would be the managing agency for this
river, have a well-established and close working relationship.
The BLM has found that the Molalla River is both eligible and
suitable as a Wild and Scenic River. In conclusion, our
efforts, we believe, represent a rare opportunity to safeguard
and preserve in perpetuity an ecological, historical and
geological treasure offering myriad recreational opportunities
while providing a much needed economic boost to our community.
I wouldn't be a good businessman if I didn't ask you for
the order. I am asking, and respectfully asking you to support
our request to legislate the Molalla as a Wild and Scenic
River. On behalf of my community, my contemporaries and myself,
I appreciate this opportunity today. I would be happy to answer
any questions, or attempt to answer any questions, that you
might have.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Moody. We are going to hear
from Mr. Stahl and then start with a round of questions. Mr.
Stahl?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moody follows:]
Statement of Michael Moody, President,
Molalla River Alliance, on H.R. 2781
The Molalla River is an Oregon natural treasure. It is vital to
local communities in Oregon's Willamette Valley. Among other
attributes, the Molalla River is the primary drinking water source for
the cities of Molalla and Canby.
However, for far too many years the Molalla River corridor has been
wracked with destructive and inappropriate human behavior including:
Extensive dumping
Littering
Vandalism
Violence
Drug use and underage drinking parties
Illegal camping
Human waste
Degradation of the health of the fishery
The Molalla River Alliance
These unacceptable activities prompted creation of an unprecedented
and broad-based local collaboration. Established in early 2008, the
Molalla River Alliance (``Alliance'') is an all-volunteer coalition of
more than 45 non-profit civic and conservation groups, regional, local,
state and federal agencies, numerous user groups and a rapidly growing
list of individual conservationists and property owners.
Over the past year, the Alliance has evolved into an important
community forum for improving the safety and quality of the Molalla
River Recreation Corridor. The Alliance initiated and leads efforts to
secure Wild and Scenic Rivers legislation. The Alliance also was the
impetus for a much-needed increase in law enforcement in the Corridor,
resulting in a dramatic and sustained decline in lawless and
inappropriate behaviors.
The key goals of the Molalla River Alliance are to preserve water
quality of the river, sustain the wildlife, fish and plants that
inhabit its watershed, while promoting a safe and healthy environment
that encourages diverse enjoyment of the recreation area, including
tourism and family-friendly activities.
The Alliance has taken a leading role in galvanizing numerous
stakeholders, scientists and policy makers whose commitment first is to
the health of the river and its ecosystems, for consequential enjoyment
by all people.
The Alliance has successfully forged a productive partnership of
diverse, divergent, and frequently opposing groups such as wild fish
advocates sitting next to hatchery fish advocates; anti-logging
advocates sitting next to timber growers; hunters sitting next to horse
riders and hikers; and, fly fishermen sitting next to bait fishermen.
This group of non-traditional allies works because all have found a
common bond, which is the shared passion for this storied river.
For these efforts to be successful Alliance members endorse an
``ecosystem-based management'' approach which simply means it places
benefits to the river above those of any single species, activity, or
group, including humans. No goal or priority of the Molalla River
Alliance favors the interests of any single group or individual.
The Alliance is confident its efforts represent a rare opportunity
to safeguard and preserve in perpetuity an ecological, geological and
historical treasure, offering myriad recreational opportunities,
convenient to a major metropolitan area.
The Molalla River
The Molalla River supports bountiful ecosystems and offers year-
round recreational opportunities within an hour's drive of a major
metropolitan area. It provides extensive native fish habitat including
critical cold tributary spawning streams. It is home to wild winter
steelhead and salmon runs, an abundance of wildlife, and geological and
cultural wonders.
From its headwaters beyond the Table Rock Wilderness in the Cascade
Mountain Range, the crystal-clear and biologically diverse Molalla
River originates in coniferous forests and tumbles through private and
public forests and agricultural lands to its confluence with the
Willamette River approximately 53 miles away.
The Molalla River cuts through basalts and lava, forming deep
canyons and beautiful rock out-crops including columnar rosettes and
basalt columns which can be seen on the canyon walls. Carbon dating
fossil leaves has placed the Molalla formation in the upper Miocene
period, or 15 million years ago.
The Molalla River and its watershed support vital fish habitats,
including native winter steelhead and salmon runs, resident rainbow and
cutthroat trout, and a naturalized population of Coho salmon. The upper
river and its major tributaries provide critical spawning and rearing
habitat.
Distinct populations of Molalla River steelhead and salmon are
listed as ``threatened'' under the Endangered Species Act.
This area also serves as an important wildlife corridor containing
breeding and rearing habitat for northern spotted owl, pileated
woodpecker, red tree vole, red-legged frog and pacific giant
salamander. It provides habitat for bears, elk, cougars, bobcat, deer,
beaver, otter, hawks, osprey and both golden and bald eagles.
Recreational and Cultural Uses
The Molalla River Recreation Corridor is also of significant
cultural, historic and recreational significance. Formerly the site of
working steam donkeys, railroads and logging camps, today it offers
year-round recreational opportunities.
Annually, thousands of recreationalists visit the Corridor for
hiking, kayaking and white water rafting, touring and mountain biking,
camping, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, swimming, picnicking,
nature watching, or to simply enjoy nature. There are more than 30
miles of non-motorized trails.
Historically, an extensive system of trails existed along the
Molalla River. These trails were principal trade routes across the
Cascades between indigenous peoples of the northern Willamette Valley
and Eastern Oregon. The Molalla Indians used one such trail in the
early 1800's which is now called the Table Rock Historic Trail. During
the 1920's this same trail was utilized by Native Americans from the
Warm Springs Reservation to reach traditional berry picking areas near
the Molalla River and Table Rock. Searching for gold and land to
homestead, Euro-Americans began moving into the area during the late
1800's.
The Molalla River is less than 50 miles from downtown Portland,
Oregon's largest city. This proximity likely means more and more people
will visit as the population of the metropolitan area grows. In 2008
the Corridor saw a 33% increase in use compared to the previous year--a
record number of visitors.
The Molalla River Alliance, including its members American Rivers,
Oregon Wild, Native Fish Society and Molalla RiverWatch, are working
together to secure Wild and Scenic designation for nearly 22 miles of
the upper Molalla River. Designation would protect a quarter mile
buffer on both sides of the river, and would therefore protect
approximately 7,000 acres of riparian land essential for viable fish
and wildlife habitat. These protections include a segment of the main
Molalla River (15.1 miles) and also the Table Rock Fork (6.2 miles).
The upper river is also benefiting from river restoration efforts
by numerous Molalla River Alliance members that will enhance native
fish migration and overall river health. These current actions provide
an opportunity for decision-makers to ensure that the Molalla River and
its values are protected and managed for the benefit and enjoyment of
the local ecology and communities.
Wild and Scenic River Protection
Sustainable management of forest lands and river restoration
efforts are both necessary and essential to achieving a healthy river
and watershed. A vital expedient to safeguarding the Molalla River and
its values is to successfully legislate it a Wild and Scenic River.
This designation will provide the Molalla one of our nation's strongest
conservation tools for rivers.
Rivers listed under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are afforded a
specific set of protections, including
Preservation of the river's ``outstandingly remarkable
values'' (ORVs) and its free-flowing character;
Protection of the existing uses of the river;
Ban on dams and any federally licensed water project that
would have a ``direct and adverse'' effect on the river's free-flowing
character, water quality or outstanding values;
Creation of a 1/4-mile protected riparian buffer corridor
on both sides of the river;
Protection of the river's water quality (The Molalla
River is the source of drinking water for the cities of Molalla and
Canby);
Preservation of the river's unique historic, cultural,
scenic, ecological, and recreational values.
Because the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act confers no federal authority
over private land use or local zoning, there is no practical impact on
private property. Riverside landowners will not be told what to do with
their property or have their land confiscated by the federal
government.
To the point, not a single property owner has voiced opposition to
Wild and Scenic designation for the Molalla River.
The river was studied and found suitable for Wild and Scenic Rivers
designation by the Bureau of Land Management. The Outstandingly
Remarkable Values attributed to the Molalla River are recreation,
scenic and geology. The federal agency's implicit support is an impetus
to ensure designation is achieved.
Even more so, widespread support of the local community through the
broad-based Molalla River Alliance confirms Wild and Scenic protection
is a priority for area stakeholders, policy makers and river users.
Designation by Congress would mean the river's values will be protected
in perpetuity. Wild and Scenic River protections will benefit the local
community and economy because the designation serves as a stimulus to
visitors and tourists.
Benefits of a Wild & Scenic Molalla River to Local Communities
The City of Molalla's and Clackamas County's interest in the
Molalla River, and in obtaining Wild and Scenic River status, is very
practical. First, it's Molalla's sole source of drinking water. So it's
very much in Molalla's interest to ensure that the Molalla River
continues to run pure and clean. The city believes Wild and Scenic
River status will help protect this critical resource from any future
degradation.
The second reason Molalla and Clackamas County support Congressman
Schrader's bill is that Wild and Scenic River status brings with it a
certain cachet that will attract more visitors to Molalla. City leaders
see Molalla becoming a destination point for tourism. Visitors drawn by
the appeal of a Wild and Scenic River may discover Molalla's numerous
other tourist-based activities. Restoring and enhancing wild salmon and
steelhead runs in the river means more visits to Molalla by anglers and
campers, more stops at restaurants and motels, more business for
outfitters and guides.
One of the city's challenges has been to ensure that this
recreation corridor is safe for families to come and play. That has not
always been so, but we have made unprecedented strides in the right
direction.
Until the last year or two, the Molalla River Recreation Corridor
had a reputation that didn't really lend itself to being a family
destination. There was unregulated squatting and camping, underage
alcohol and pot parties, illegal dumping, vandalism, poaching, no
communications, and little if any law enforcement.
In the summer of 2008 that began to change. Prompted by the Molalla
River Alliance, the City of Molalla applied for and was designated a
``Weed and Seed'' site by the U.S. Justice Department, and it began
receiving federal funds to carry out measures aimed at weeding out
crime and seeding the community with projects and activities to
strengthen community connections and opportunities. One of the most
effective outcomes so far has been enhanced and interagency law
enforcement patrols in the Molalla River Recreation Corridor
These patrols were supplemented by patrols by Clackamas County
Sheriff's office, the Oregon State Police, Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Department, and the Bureau of Land Management. A magnetized door logo
was created to stick on patrol vehicles to give visitors reassurance
that this was a coordinated effort. This also put others on notice that
it wasn't going to be business as usual.
All of this has resulted in a dramatic and, more important,
sustained reduction in lawless behavior, vandalism and dumping.
Families are now the primary demographic visiting and camping in the
Molalla River Recreation Corridor.
The city is confident that Wild and Scenic River status will help
establish a positive, inviting image for this remarkable stretch of
river and attract even more conservation-minded individuals and
organizations to work with us in protecting this great resource for
future generations.
Additional Benefits of Wild and Scenic River Designation
Beyond the direct ban on dams and other federally-assisted water
projects that could have a harmful effect on the designated river,
numerous identifiable examples exist of ways in which Wild and Scenic
Rivers designation has effected positive changes for rivers and nearby
communities.
Clearly, designation generates an increase in public awareness and
appreciation of a river. Knowledge and education about the importance
of the health of the river can foster goodwill in the community and be
a positive force for river restoration efforts. Public interest and
support can also bring together stakeholders with diverse interests
that might not otherwise cooperate, for the sake of the river.
Coordination among multiple agencies facilitates the river being
managed in a holistic manner.
For numerous Northwest rivers (including the Deschutes, North Fork
of the John Day, Salmon, Cascade, Big Marsh Creek, Metolius, Skagit and
White Salmon), Wild and Scenic Rivers designation has provided
instrumental leverage and garnered additional resources for protection,
river-related restoration and management of the rivers. In many cases,
Wild and Scenic Rivers designation priorities a particular project in
the eyes of government agencies and other funding organizations.
Because a Wild and Scenic River has been vetted through the
designation process, a river stands out and is elevated among funding
agencies who know their money is more likely to be used effectively.
Increased public awareness can be a powerful and effective force to
obtain funding to better manage, protect and restore a river.
In an era of tight funding, Wild and Scenic Rivers designation
garners attention when agencies are developing resources. Designation
can be instrumental in attracting funding for acquisitions and
conservation easements of key parcels in the river corridor. Parcels
may need to be acquired in the river corridor to ensure their
protection or to provide additional public access, among other reasons.
Wild and Scenic designation provides a point of focus that attracts
interest and naturally lends itself to the formation of partnerships.
Through Wild and Scenic designation local, state and federal agencies,
landowners, recreation users, non-profit organizations and others have
a framework to come together and work to protect, restore and ensure
public access to the river. Designation elevates the public's
perception of the river as an important national resource.
CLOSING
On behalf of the Molalla River Alliance and the community of
Molalla, I urge the Committee to support Wild and Scenic Rivers
designation for the many benefits it will provide to natural and human
communities along the Molalla River.
______
STATEMENT OF ANDY STAHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOREST SERVICE
EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS, EUGENE, OREGON
Mr. Stahl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Andy Stahl,
I am the Executive Director of Forest Service Employees for
Environmental Ethics, a 10,000 member coalition of civil
servants who manage our national forests, combined with the
citizens who own them. I want to thank you for holding this
hearing on H.R. 2888, a bill to designate the Devil's Staircase
Wilderness and to protect segments of Wasson and Franklin
Creeks as wild or recreation rivers.
I especially want to thank Representatives Blumenauer,
Schrader and Wu for cosponsoring the bill, and Senators Wyden
and Merkley for introducing its companion, S-1272, in the
Senate. On behalf of all of my fellow Oregonians who care about
our state's wildest places, I want to give a special thanks to
Representative DeFazio. I had the pleasure, with Peter, of
making a descent into the rarely visited Devil's Staircase last
fall.
It was an eight-hour bushwack through Oregon's steepest,
most remote geography. We were fortunately led by two Forest
Service scientists who knew the area better than we did. We
traveled through 300 year old forests, thickets of impenetrable
Vine Maple, and Evergreen Huckleberry and Devil's Club, and we,
with no small amount of luck, actually made it to the staircase
itself.
Only the second time in my life I had ever been there, it
was an epic trip and it demonstrated just what a wilderness
area is really like when it is wild. In 1983, Oregon Senator
Mark Hatfield first brought attention to this wild place. He
held field hearings on H.R. 1149 which became the 1984 Oregon
Wilderness bill, and he heard testimony in support of Devil's
Staircase, then called Wasson Creek, from a number of Oregon
citizen groups and Oregonians.
By 1984, the Devil's Staircase area lay at the heart of a
forest policy crisis over logging related landslides in
Oregon's coast range. A Federal District Judge had ruled that,
``The steep slopes make the Mapleton District particularly
susceptible to soil erosion. It has the highest concentration
of landslide prone land types in the Siuslaw National Forest.''
The Judge went on to explain that as early as 1963 Forest
Service personnel noticed that timber harvesting damaged soil,
watershed and fish habitats in the district, and throughout the
1960s soil specialists warned that logging and road
construction could seriously affect soil and watershed
stability.
In 1969 the regional forester placed a moratorium on timber
harvesting in the part of the Mapleton District between the
Smith and Umpqua Rivers. That is precisely the area proposed
for protection in this bill. In 1995, after a 10 year planning
process, the Bureau of Land Management designated its portion
of Devil's Staircase as an area of critical environmental
concern making it unavailable for timber harvest.
As part of the Northwest Forest Plan, the Forest Service
designated its lands as a late successional forest reserve. The
area is also critical habitat for both the Northern Spotted Owl
and Marbled Murrelet protected under the Endangered Species
Act. Today, Devil's Staircase remains Oregon's most wild, most
remote and most unexplored corner. Its deeply canopied forests,
some of whose trees are hundreds of years old, is the least
fragmented in Oregon's coast range.
It has wildlife, like the aforementioned Pacific Giant
Salamander we heard in the hearing today. Also has a wonderful
little lake, Wasson Lake, created by a recent landslide to
which people picnic and hike. It is not a place I recommend for
recreation. This is a rugged and inaccessible terrain. There is
no trail into the area. Modern technology is of little use in
navigating the steep slopes.
It is a place where man himself is only an infrequent and
weary visitor. H.R. 2888 would ensure that Devil's Staircase
remains Oregon's wild place forever. I thank you for this
opportunity to testify, and happy to answer any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stahl follows:]
Statement of Andy Stahl, Executive Director of Forest Service Employees
for Environmental Ethics, on H.R. 2888
My name is Andy Stahl. I am the Executive Director of Forest
Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a 10,000-member coalition
of civil servants who manage our national forests and citizens who own
them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on H.R. 2888, a
bill to designate the Devil's Staircase Wilderness in Oregon and to
protect segments of Wasson and Franklin Creeks therein as wild or
recreation rivers. Thanks also to Representatives Blumenauer, Schrader
and Wu for co-sponsoring this bill and to Senators Wyden and Merkley
for introducing its companion, S. 1272, in the Senate.
On behalf of all Oregonians who care about our state's wildest
place, I want to give special thanks to Representative DeFazio. Peter
went above and beyond his legislative duty by trekking last fall to the
rarely-visited Devil's Staircase waterfall in the heart of this
eponymous wilderness. The eight-hour bushwhack through Oregon's
steepest and most remote geography took our small group, led by two
Forest Service scientists, through 300-year-old forests, thickets of
native vine maple, evergreen huckleberry, and Devil's club, down
precipitous bedrock debris slides, and, ultimately (with no small
amount of luck) to the Devil's Staircase falls itself. It was an epic
trip, as has been the journey of this land towards wilderness
protection.
In 1983, Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield first brought legislative
attention to Oregon's most wild place. At field hearings on H.R. 1149,
which became the 1984 Oregon Wilderness bill, Senator Hatfield heard
testimony in support of Devil's Staircase (then called ``Wassen
Creek'') from the Portland Audubon Society; the Wassen Creek Wilderness
Committee; Siuslaw Task Force; from a hydrologic engineer who pointed
out the landslides that result from clearcutting these steep slopes;
and, from Marriner Orum representing the Sierra Club's Many Rivers
Group (I can report that Marriner, at 92, is still riding his bicycle
in Eugene).
By 1984, the Devil's Staircase area lay at the heart of a forest
policy crisis over logging-related landslides in Oregon's Coast Range.
Federal district court Judge Gus Solomon had ruled that ``steep slopes
make the Mapleton District [in which Devil's Staircase lies]
particularly susceptible to soil erosion. It has the highest
concentration of landslide-prone landtypes in the Siuslaw National
Forest.'' Judge Solomon explained that ``[a]s early as 1963, Forest
Service personnel noticed that timber harvesting damaged soil,
watersheds, and fish habitats in the district. Throughout the 1960's,
soil specialists warned that logging and road construction could
seriously affect soil and watershed stability. In 1969, the Regional
Forester placed a moratorium on timber harvesting in the part of the
Mapleton District between the Smith and Umpqua Rivers,'' which is the
area proposed for protection in this bill. National Wildlife Federation
v. United States Forest Service, 592 F. Supp. 931, 934 (D. Or. 1984).
In 1995, after a 10-year planning process, the Bureau of Land
Management designated its portion of Devil's Staircase as an ``Area of
Critical Environmental Concern,'' which makes the forest ``not
available'' for timber harvest. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/exrmp/
coosbay/tables/table3.html. A subsequent land use planning process (the
Western Oregon Plan Revision), although recently withdrawn by Secretary
Salazar for unrelated legal infirmities, reaffirmed the area's ACEC-
protected status.
Concurrently, as a part of the Northwest Forest Plan, the U.S.
Forest Service designated its lands contained within the proposed
Devil's Staircase wilderness as a late-successional forest reserve,
thus withdrawing these lands from the commercial timberland base. The
Devil's Staircase area is also federally-protected critical habitat for
two threatened bird species--the northern spotted owl and marbled
murrelet.
Today, Devil's Staircase remains as Oregon's most wild, remote, and
unexplored corner. Its deeply-canopied forest, some of whose trees are
hundreds of years old, is the least fragmented in Oregon's Coast Range.
Its major streams, including Wasson, Franklin and Harvey Creeks are
habitat for native salmon species, including coho, steelhead, Chinook,
and cutthroat trout, while its upland habitat sustains Roosevelt elk,
black bears, and Pacific giant salamanders. People visit Wasson Lake, a
geologic oddity created by a recent landslide, to picnic and hike, and
they explore, if sufficiently adventuresome, its remote and beautiful
forested slopes.
But it is not for its recreational assets that Devil's Staircase is
most appreciated. This is a rugged and inaccessible landscape. No trail
marks the way into these wild lands. Modern GPS technology is of little
use in navigating its heavily-dissected ridges and ravines. In the
words of the Wilderness Act, not only is Devil's Staircase untrammeled
by man, man himself is only an infrequent and wary visitor. H.R. 2888
would ensure that Devil's Staircase remains Oregon's wildest place
forever.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Stahl. I am going to ask you,
actually, one quick question and then we will go to the Ranking
Member and make our way around. I wanted to ask you how
familiar you are personally with the high clearance two track
that runs through the area that bisects the proposed
wilderness, and how you feel about potentially turning it into
a foot and horse path.
Mr. Stahl. I think that would be a very appropriate
conversion. We have seen the same thing work in the Cummins
Creek Wilderness, which lies just a couple of dozen miles north
in the coast range where an old, unused logging road has now
been converted to one of the major hiking trails that accesses
Cummins Creek.
So this road has had no maintenance by the Forest Service
in years, the brush is growing in, it is all forested along its
length, and if you take a high clearance vehicle in there, you
had better not care about your paint job.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. Mr. McIntosh, in your testimony
one of the things you stated was that Congress should have made
this memorial part of the National Park System in 1996. From
your perspective, why do you believe that was not done?
Mr. McIntosh. Because I think honestly that the chances for
its going up seemed so distant and so remote that it was an
inappropriate thing to do at that time.
Mr. Heinrich. OK.
Mr. McIntosh. The point of my making that remark was when
people come to representatives seeking congressional support
for this, that or the other project, it would be well, I think,
if they were really closely vetted, they being the projects
themselves, because there are a lot of things that have come
into existence that have turned out to be larger than they
ought to have been and which really do require a tremendous
amount of support that was unanticipated.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. Mr. Moody, do you agree with the
BLM that the appropriate category or status for the Molalla is
a recreational status?
Mr. Moody. In terms of reading what the characteristics
are, in terms of wild scenic or recreational, we far more
adhere to those conditions than frankly and honestly than we do
for wild or scenic. Yes.
Mr. Heinrich. Great. Mr. Moody, can you tell me about just
what has been done in recent years to clean up this stretch of
the mall?
Mr. Moody. I would be happy to, and I appreciate that
opportunity. The canyon has been victim of extensive dumping,
littering, vandalism, violence, drug use, drinking, illegal
camping, riparian damage, degradation of the fishery, et
cetera. At our second meeting, we organized and realized that
the goals that we have established have no chance of being
achieved if we weren't able to eliminate that element, that
behavior in the corridor.
So we organized a interagency enhanced patrols into that
corridor with the local police department, the Clackamas County
Sheriff Molalla Police Department, Oregon State Patrol, and the
Bureau of Land Management Patrol as well. We have had a
dramatic and now sustained impact in reducing that element in
that corridor. The demographic of the type of visitor to our
corridor today is now a family of four, and the drinking
parties et cetera have been dramatically reduced.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you very much. That concludes my
questions for this round. And we will go to Ranking Member
Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Moody, I appreciate, in fact I appreciate
all three of you being here and your patience in coming to this
point. Mr. Moody, as I understand, the river of which you speak
is already being administered as wild scenic recreational?
Mr. Moody. It is.
Mr. Bishop. So the change of designation would really not
have a significant impact on how the administration of this
stretch of river is being handled right now?
Mr. Moody. As I have been told by Bureau of Land Management
personnel in the Salem district, that is exactly correct. But
the transition I think should be seamless.
Mr. Bishop. But the bill itself does not state what the
designation ought to be, is that correct?
Mr. Moody. I think that it does. And if it doesn't, as the
Chairman had asked, it is for recreational designation.
Mr. Bishop. Well we will double check on the bill itself,
but it would be wise simply if the legislation did make that
designation clear.
Mr. Moody. And I too will look into that.
Mr. Bishop. OK.
Mr. Moody. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Mr. Heinrich. Mr. DeFazio, did you have some question? No.
Mr. Hinchey?
Mr. Hinchey. I have no questions, but I just want to join
Mr. Bishop and express my appreciation to all three of you for
being here and for the contents of the testimony that you gave
and the response to the questions. I found it very, very
interesting and very intriguing in many ways. So thank you
very, very much for being here, and thank you for all that you
are doing.
Mr. Moody. Thank you.
Mr. Heinrich. I want to express that too. Thank you very
much for your advocacy and thank you for your patience as we.
And Mr. Bishop wants to add something as well.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Moody, I am just looking at this again, I
would ask you to go back with your group here, the analysis
that I have says the bill does not specify which
classification. I think I agree with you, there ought to be a
specific statement of what the classification ought to be if
this bill goes forward.
Mr. Moody. I agree with you, and I will talk with
Congressman Schrader about that.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Mr. Moody. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Heinrich. Thanks again.
Mr. Heinrich. We are going to go now to our fourth panel,
we are going to hear from The Honorable Gregory Bell,
Lieutenant Governor of Utah; Commissioner John Jones from
Carbon County; Mr. Peter Metcalf, the President, CEO, and Co-
Founder of Black Diamond Equipment; and Bryson Garbett, former
Utah State Legislator from Salt Lake, and Rocky Anderson, the
former Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah.
Welcome, gentlemen. Since I believe the Lieutenant Governor
is en route, actually he is here, so we will give him a minute
to settle in. Welcome, Lieutenant Governor Bell, and feel free
to get settled in and start at your leisure.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GREGORY BELL, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF
UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and
Honorable Members of the Committee. I am delighted to be here
today, and I appreciate so much your giving us this time. I am
here on behalf of Governor Herbert, Governor of the State of
Utah. We appreciate the many citizens who have come today to
weigh in on this important issue, and we certainly do not
resent the attention to public lands which are located in the
State of Utah.
Of course we have very strong feelings how those lands are
treated, we are the ones who live with them, we recognize the
Federal ownership of those lands, we also recognize the
necessity of treating those lands in a nuanced way. I think we
are past now the age of one size fits all. We have all realized
that these issues have become so polarized that it is almost
impossible to deal from any one perspective.
And while the examples of the Washington County and Cedar
Mountain examples have been very, very successful, there are
some who don't even support those processes. But I think going
forward we would make two simple comments without being
redundant. And that is that, we in the State of Utah are
committed to a nuanced look at the public lands in the State of
Utah. No longer can we treat this issue as a paint brush would
paint the side of a barn. This has to be more like sculpting or
like surgery, where with a scalpel or with a knife or a little
chisel we are going to take area by area a look at these lands.
These lands comprehend so many different kinds of property,
kinds of interest, the layers, the wires, if you will, running
underneath the floor are so many, the local interests, the
economic, the aesthetic, the spiritual, all of the people who
have weighed in have made such tremendously good comments about
the values which are at work in these public lands. Therefore
those have to be treated with in, again, a very sophisticated
way.
The second comment that we make in our letter is that we in
Utah have been pretty good. We have been very good about not
only reaching good processes and achieving things, but also in
addressing and managing the lands themselves. And so, while
these are public lands, they need to be dealt with taking into
account the interests of those who live around them, those who
hike there, those who bike there, those who camp there
certainly, but those who live there.
It is so important that people who have grown up on these
lands, around these lands, who make their livelihood related to
these properties, that they be consulted and that they be given
a sense of self determination. We don't want to railroad
anybody, we don't want to run over people, and particularly
those folks who live around these remote, desolate in some
cases, lands. Those interests have to be accounted for. So we
appreciate so much your attention to these things, but our hope
is that we can get to more of a delicate and multilayered
process rather than the concept we find before us.
[The prepared statement of Governor Gary R. Herbert
follows:]
[A letter submitted for the record by Governor Gary R.
Herbert, State of Utah, follows:]
September 29, 2009
Rep. Raul M. Grijalva
Chairman
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests and Public Lands
Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Grijalva:
Utah has a long history of responsible stewardship of the land,
dating back to Native American and early pioneer times. Those who lived
here in the past, and continue to live here today, have learned to work
with the land, and the arid climate that helped sculpt it, in order to
make a living. Today, the livelihood of residents of rural Utah depends
on development of the natural resources in the energy and minerals
business, outstanding stewardship of the land through comprehensive and
coordinated grazing of the land, the natural beauty of the state
through the tourism and recreational industries, and, increasingly,
from renewable energy resources in the state.
Wilderness, as defined by the United States Congress, has been a
contentious issue in Utah for decades. Positions on the issue range
from the belief that the designation of Wilderness locks people out of
an area and forecloses all economic opportunity on one side, to the
assertion that, without Congressional Wilderness, the land and
landscapes are lost forever on the other. Neither extreme is accurate.
Looking forward, the discussion must move from these unproductive
polarized positions to a careful examination of the resources and
beauty of the land, human uses of the land, and the best management
tools available. Unfortunately, through this long debate, common sense
in the management of the land has often been lost.
Before the Subcommittee on October 1, 2009, will be a hearing on
H.R. 1925, a bill to designate a huge portion of the State of Utah as
Congressional Wilderness. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey
of New York, is not supported by a single member of the Utah
delegation. The amount of land proposed for this designation is
overwhelming--it is the approximate equivalent of the size of the State
of Maryland. The State of Utah recognizes that the lands proposed for
wilderness designation by this bill, lands that are managed by the
Bureau of Land Management, are owned by the American people. However,
we also find this proposal is, and always has been, an unrealistic and
unvetted allocation of the natural resources of this great State. The
proposal has not been presented by the sponsor to the many stakeholders
in this issue, particularly the rural citizens who feel so passionately
about the matter. Nor has the sponsor sought to balance the laudable
goal of preserving our stunning scenic resources against the nation's
needs for wildlife conservation, recreational pursuits, and energy,
Utah has a history of nuanced collaborative efforts to address
thorny issues. I have been active in many such efforts and note that
Utah's Lieutenant Governor, Greg Bell, formerly served as the chairman
of Envision Utah, an internationally acclaimed honest broker and
facilitator for urban, rural and wilderness issues.
The sponsor's proposal has been publicized as a responsible effort
by citizens to survey the resources of the State and make a
determination of the lands that should be designated Congressional
Wilderness. Yet, this result is entirely dependent upon a determination
by those citizens that the public lands are roadless, do not contain
human intrusions (or those intrusions are substantially unnoticeable),
and there are no competing resource needs. Similar comprehensive
surveys by local government are ignored, as are efforts by the State
and local governments to seek recognition of historical roads. Recent
decisions by the federal courts have clarified the nature of these
historic roads--cases that postdate the citizens' work in this area.
Management of Congressional Wilderness is also a point of concern
for the State. Recent efforts by Utah's delegation on a comprehensive
land management bill for Washington County in Southern Utah established
that a National Conservation Area, not Congressional Wilderness, is the
most appropriate management tool for areas where the desert tortoise
lives. In addition, Congressional Wilderness embodies a particular
vision for management of the resources through natural processes, a
vision that can be at odds with the needs of nearby human uses. This
difference came into play in Utah this past summer with a decision to
let a lightning-caused fire burn in Congressional Wilderness for some
weeks, only to have it flare-up and threaten homes outside the
boundaries later in the summer. Active management of the fuel in the
forest area, or ignition of a prescribed fire at a more appropriate
time of year, may have alleviated the situation, yet was unavailable to
the forest land managers.
The State of Utah supports the efforts of Utah's Congressional
delegation to seek a balanced review of Utah's lands for wildlife
conservation, energy production (including renewable energy resources),
recreational pursuits and tourism, and wilderness and other
conservation designations. These efforts involve collaboration between
conservation advocates, resource stewards such as ranchers and
recreational providers, resource users such as energy companies, local
governments, and state agencies. The State urges the Chairman to
require the sponsor and citizens who have spent time preparing the work
behind the bill to engage in these efforts. Only then will a true,
workable balance of conservation and human use emerge. Moreover, the
huge amount of land targeted by this bill should be addressed on an
area-by-area basis, because a one-size-fits-all approach will produce
the wrong results. Again, we recommend to you the Washington County
experience as a model of nuanced treatment of a spectrum of lands and
values affecting those lands.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on a matter of
such grave importance, not only to the State of Utah and its citizens,
but the entire Intermountain West and the Nation.
Sincerely,
Gary R. Herbert
Governor
cc: Senator Orrin Hatch
Senator Robert Bennett
Congressmen Jim Matheson
Congressman Rob Bishop
Congressman Jason Chaffetz
______
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor.
We will now hear from Commissioner John Jones from Carbon
County.
STATEMENT OF JOHN JONES, CARBON COUNTY COMMISSIONER, PRICE,
UTAH
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Bishop, and the
Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify on
behalf of the people of rural Utah on HR-1925 for the objective
of Representative Hinchey's affection. My name is John Jones
and I represent Carbon County, a historical mining community
with a strong tradition of organized labor who have provided
utilities across this country for some of the nation's finest
high BTU low sulfur coal.
Ours is the most democratic county in Utah, and like you,
Mr. Chairman, we are proud democrats who are concerned about
providing good jobs and stable economic opportunities. As I
look at the impacts of the Red Rock Wilderness bill, I see
imminent destruction statewide to thousands of miles of roads,
mine sites, well pads, cabins, landing strips, and stock ponds,
complete with some of their supporting structures. It is not
uncommon as we travel these roads to run into people who are
both working the land and out enjoying these historical sites.
True management of multiple use lands, including
recreation, is accomplished through trails and road systems
that provide access to these areas. If this doesn't prove that
this area has been touched by man, I don't know what could.
Moreover, the evidence of man throughout this proposed Red Rock
Wilderness has been and remains the primary ticket to rural
Utah's prosperity. Carbon County, like many other counties in
Utah, has just participated in a grueling seven-year public
process working with the BLM to develop a balanced resource
management plan which protects lands and truly outstanding
environmental qualities and leaves open for development crucial
oil- and gas-rich lands.
This was no last minute, eleventh hour backroom deal. Mr.
Chairman, we had high expectations for this Administration and
supported it last November. Since then, without any
explanation, Interior Secretary Salazar overturned our seven-
year effort to create a price area RMP by blocking legitimate
oil and gas areas upon which our people depended for work and
economic opportunities, not to mention that his devastating
actions are driving away energy production companies that pay
about 60 percent of Carbon County's property taxes, of which
$12 million went to local school districts last year. The same
is true with other RMPs developed across Utah.
Passage of HR-1925 would place a nail in the coffin of
rural Utah communities and render impossible any long term
economic opportunities for the people in our counties who are
surrounded by government owned land and whom we were elected to
serve and represent. The idea that SUWA, and its lackey Mr.
Hinchey, represents the voice of rural Utah is like saying King
George III represented the American colonies on issues of
taxation. It just isn't so.
Our people have asked, how is it that a wilderness bill
offered by a New Yorker on behalf of SUWA is treated seriously
by this Committee when a BLM RMP developed locally over the
course of seven years through a legitimate public involvement
process is thrown out by our own Administration, thus
squandering employment opportunities for our people in the
process? This is not what we elected President Obama to do.
Things in Washington, D.C., are seriously off track.
We support reasonable protection for all public lands,
wilderness designation when necessary to protect truly
outstanding national treasures in their pristine state.
However, the proposed Red Rock Wilderness bill targeting Utah
devastates our local economies even more so during the economic
recession and at a time our county should be moving away from
foreign energy.
Moreover, the majority of the lands covered by this bill
would actually suffer environmental degradation if subjected to
leave-it-alone wilderness style management regimes. When lands
are not managed, they are fire prone and lose their usefulness
for grazing, wildlife, and watershed, and recreation. Earlier
this year, HR-147, the Omnibus Public Lands Package which was
signed into law by President Obama, proved to be a much better
way to protect our public lands including wilderness values.
That package included such measures as the Washington
County bill in Utah, the Owyhee Initiative in Idaho, and the
Carson City bill in Nevada. These measures are the models for
successful resolutions of these land protection issues going
forward, and they are far superior to the overreaching
approaches of the past which HR-1925 represents. Particularly
troubling is the fact that HR-1925 still includes acreage in
Washington County which the new Washington County law
specifically released from wilderness classification. So much
for SUWA keeping its word. I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of the people from Utah. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Statement of John Jones, Carbon County Commissioner, on H.R. 1925
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Bishop and members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate this opportunity to testify today on behalf of the people of
rural Utah who are the object of Representative Hinchey's affection.
My name is John Jones and I represent Carbon County, a historic
coal mining community with strong traditions of organized labor who
have provided utilities across the country with some of the nation's
finest high BTU low sulfur coal. Ours is the most Democratic County in
Utah and like you, Mr. Chairman, we are proud Democrats who are
concerned about providing good jobs and stable economic opportunities.
As I look at the impacts of the Red Rock Wilderness bill, I see the
imminent destruction statewide to thousands of miles of roads, mine
sites, well pads, cabins, landing strips and stock ponds, many complete
with their supporting structure. It is not uncommon as you travel these
roads to run into people who are both working the land and out enjoying
these historical sites. True management of multiple use lands including
recreation is accomplished through trail and road systems that provide
access to these areas. If this doesn't prove that an area is touched by
man, I don't know what could. Moreover, this evidence of man throughout
the proposed Red Rock Wilderness has been and remains the primary
ticket to rural Utah's prosperity--it is not in the view of those who
live there--detrimental, but the highest and wisest use of the land.
Carbon County, like many other counties in Utah, has just
participated in a grueling seven year public process working with the
Bureau of Land Management to develop a balanced Resource Management
Plan (RMP) which protects lands with truly outstanding environmental
qualities and leaves open for development crucial oil and gas rich
lands. This was NO last minute 11th hour backroom deal.
Mr. Chairman, we had high expectations for this Administration and
supported it last November. Since then, without any explanation,
Interior Secretary Salazar, overturned our seven year effort to create
the Price area RMP by blocking legitimate oil and gas areas upon which
our people depend for work and economic opportunity. Not to mention
that his devastating actions are driving away energy producing
companies that pay about 60% of Carbon County's property taxes--of
which over $12,000,000 went to the local School District last year. The
same is true with other RMPs developed across Utah.
Now, under the guise of a contrived effort by the Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), to portray the Red Rock Wilderness bill
offered by New York's Representative Hinchey as a Utah ``citizens''
bill, passage of H.R. 1925 would place a nail in the coffin for rural
Utah communities and render impossible any long-term economic
opportunities for the people in our counties who are surrounded by
government-owned land and whom we were elected to serve and represent.
The idea that SUWA and its lackey, Mr. Hinchey, represents the voice of
rural Utah is like saying King George III represented the American
colonists on issues of taxation--it just isn't so!
Our people have asked, how is it that a wilderness bill offered by
a New Yorker on behalf of SUWA is treated seriously by this Committee
when a BLM RMP developed locally over the course of seven years through
a legitimate public involvement process is thrown out by our own
Administration thus squandering employment opportunities for our people
in the process? This is not what we elected President Obama to do.
Things here in Washington, D.C. are seriously off track. This bill
threatens the very survival of rural Utah.
We support reasonable protections for all public lands and
wilderness designation when necessary to protect truly outstanding
national treasures in their pristine state. However, the proposed Red
Rock Wilderness bill targeting Utah would devastate our local economies
even more so during this economic recession and at a time our country
should be moving away from foreign energy. Moreover, the vast majority
of the lands covered by the bill would actually suffer environmental
degradation if subjected to leave-it-alone wilderness style management
regimes. When the lands are not managed they are fire prone and lose
their usefulness for grazing, wildlife, watershed and recreation.
Earlier this year, HR146, the Omnibus Public lands package which
was signed into law by President Obama, proved to be a much better way
to protect our public lands including wilderness values. That package
included such measures as the Washington County bill in Utah, the
Owyhee Initiative in Idaho, and the Carson City bill in Nevada. These
measures are the models for successful resolution of these land
protection issues going forward, and they are far superior to the
overreaching approaches of the past, which H.R. 1925 represents.
Particularly troubling is the fact that H.R. 1925 still includes
acreage in Washington County which the new Washington County law
specifically released from wilderness classification. So much for SUWA
keeping its word.
Without the buy-in of the people who are actually impacted by the
management decision or in this case wilderness, there is little chance
those decisions will ever be honored or respected. Locally driven
processes like the 7-year BLM RMPs developed across Utah or like the
Washington County, Utah Wilderness bill developed on a case-by-case,
area-by-area basis is the only proven way to resolve the wilderness
impasse in Utah or anywhere else. That is the model this committee
should follow, not the overreaching, overbearing approach embodied in
the Red Rock bill. The people of Carbon County and the rest of rural
Utah trust our Utah Congressional delegation to represent us because
they understand Utah and have shown us that they listen. We hope that
this Committee will see the Red Rock bill for what it is,
unrepresentative of our views and counterfeit in its creation. The
future of the land we love and care for, rural Utah itself hangs on
your decision.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of
rural Utah.
______
Mr. Heinrich. Commissioner Jones, I would just remind you
that we have a certain decorum here, and I would ask that you
not refer to any Member of this Committee in the future as a
lackey. I don't think those were appropriate words for this
Committee. I do very much appreciate the rest of your
testimony.
We are going to go now to Mr. Metcalf. You can start
whenever you like.
STATEMENT OF PETER METCALF, CEO/PRESIDENT &
CO-FOUNDER, BLACK DIAMOND EQUIPMENT LTD., UTAH
Mr. Metcalf. I would like to begin by thanking the sponsors
of this legislation, especially Congressman Hinchey and
Chairman Grijalva. The citizens who helped craft this bill and
those who have worked to protect Utah's Red Rock Country for
more than 25 years are deeply grateful for your vision and
steadfast commitment to these magnificent wild lands. A
September, 2009 Dan Jones & Associates statewide poll in Utah
showed that over 60 percent of Utahns who had a position on the
issue supported protecting 9 million acres or more of Utah BLM
wilderness. So the citizens of my state thank you as well.
My name is Peter Metcalf. I am a Utah resident and
president and Co-Founder of Black Diamond Equipment, a Utah
based outdoor equipment company with annual sales of
approximately 90 million and approximately 250 Salt Lake City
based employees, another 30 in Europe, and another 100 more in
Asia. I am also appearing before the Committee today in my
capacity as a member of the Board of Directors and the Vice
Chair of the Outdoor Industry Association, which is a national
trade association with many hundreds of members nationwide
whose mission is to ensure the growth and success of the
outdoor industry.
Our members include some of the nation's preeminent and
iconic outdoor companies, including Coleman, L.L. Bean,
Cabelas, REI, The North Face, EMS, and Patagonia. 18 years ago,
my company made a deliberate decision to relocate its
headquarters to Utah from California because it was a world
class active outdoor recreation destination. Utah pretty much
has it all. Many of these activities take place in BLM
administered public lands, such as Indian Creek, the San Rafael
Swell, and Desolation Canyon, all proposed wilderness areas
that currently lack protection.
These iconic landscapes are directly linked to the
strengths and resonance of our global brand. To protect these
remarkable landscapes, the Outdoor Industry Association
strongly supports passage of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act,
a grassroots initiative that is homegrown, field checked, and
time tested. In crafting the original bill, citizen volunteers
spent thousands of hours in the field documenting wilderness
characteristics and carefully mapping the boundaries of the
proposed wilderness areas. These volunteers included Black
Diamond employees.
Their efforts resulted in one of the most comprehensive
land inventories ever conducted by a nongovernmental
organization. The citizens' inventory has been largely
validated by the BLM. To date, the Agency has verified the
wilderness character of an overwhelming majority of those
proposed for designation in this bill. Active outdoor
recreation is a strong and vital part of the nation's economy,
especially in rural areas. In 2005, 159 million Americans
participated in outdoor recreation, with the greatest numbers
in the gateway sports of hiking, camping, and paddle sports.
In Utah alone, the active outdoor industry contributes over
$6 billion annually to the state's economy. Protecting the
public lands that support outdoor recreation is critical to
establishing and sustaining balanced local economies across the
Nation and especially in the West. Several years ago, the
Outdoor Industry Foundation with the support of others
completed a study on the contributions of active outdoor
recreation to the U.S. economy. It concluded that active
outdoor recreation among other things touches over 8 percent of
America's personal consumption expenditures, more than one in
every $12 circulating in our economy.
In times of difficult economic hardship, Americans always
return in large numbers to the great outdoors. During the first
11 months of the current recession, industry outdoor product
sales grew an extraordinary 10 percent as families returned to
affordable outdoor activities. At the same time, many state and
Federal lands are seeing a dramatic increase in visitation. For
this reason, outdoor gear sales and recreational outings will
play a significant and growing role in maintaining vibrant
outdoor businesses, strong communities, and healthy citizens.
America's Red Rock Wilderness, with its soaring arches,
plunging canyons, is a landscape that captures the soul and the
imagination. No other landscape in the United States or even
the world compares to what we have. It is one of our country's
greatest assets, one that can't be copied in China, done more
cheaply in Bangladesh. These lands in part are our competitive
advantage, and as a state and as a nation.
And as Steward Brand once said, ``National systems are
priceless in value and nearly impossible to replace, but they
are cheap to maintain. All you have to do is defend them.'' So
please protect this national treasure for future generations by
casting a vote for America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. Rest
assured it will be good for wildlife, good for our air and
water, good for the outdoor industry and a clean, sustainable
outdoor economy, and good for the American public. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Metcalf follows:]
Statement of Peter Metcalf, President & Co-Founder: Black Diamond
Equipment, Ltd., Salt Lake City, Utah; Vice Chair & Board Member:
Outdoor Industry Association, on H.R. 1925
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee
regarding America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, H.R. 1925. My name is
Peter Metcalf. I am a Utah resident and the president and founder of
Black Diamond Equipment, a Utah-based outdoor equipment design and
manufacturing company with annual sales of approximately $90 million
per year with approximately 250 Salt Lake City based employees, another
30 in Europe and a 100 more employees in Asia. I am also appearing
before the committee today in my capacity as a member of the board of
directors and vice-chair of the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA.) OIA
is a national trade association whose mission is to ensure the growth
and success of the outdoor industry.
First, I'd like to thank the sponsors of this legislation,
especially Congressman Hinchey and Chairman Grijalva. The citizens who
helped craft this bill, and those who have worked to protect Utah's
redrock country for more than 25 years, are deeply grateful for your
uncommon vision and steadfast commitment to these magnificent wild
lands.
I also applaud both chambers of Congress for working to pass the
Washington County Growth and Conservation Act earlier this year as part
of the Omnibus Public Lands package.
I appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and
Forests back in 2006 to register our concerns about the original
version of this bill. It has since been signed into law as a vastly
improved and widely celebrated example of public land policy which
grants real protection to 180,000 acres of Utah's Zion-Mojave
wilderness. Yet, as important as this conservation victory is, it
represents just a tiny fraction of the qualifying wilderness lands in
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.
Overview of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act
Introduced in 1989 by the late Congressman Wayne Owens, America's
Red Rock Wilderness Act seeks to protect what remains of Utah's
unspoiled BLM wild lands--from the serpentine canyons of the Green and
Colorado Rivers to the ancient cultural sites of Cedar Mesa; from the
island mountain ranges of Utah's West Desert to the wildlife-rich
forests of the Tavaputs Plateau. Proposed wilderness lands in the bill
include such poetically named places as Arch Canyon, the Burning Hills,
Comb Ridge, the Vermilion Cliffs, Labyrinth Canyon, Wild Horse Mesa,
the Deep Creek Mountains, and Desolation Canyon, to name a few.
So unique and jaw-droppingly beautiful are these public lands that
people come from all corners of the globe to see them. They provide the
prelude and the backdrop for Utah's five national parks, yet they are
threatened every day by oil and gas development, mining, exploding off-
road vehicle use, and the endless proliferation of roads.
To protect these remarkable landscapes, the Outdoor Industry
Association strongly supports passage of America's Red Rock Wilderness
Act--a grassroots initiative that is home-grown, field-checked and
time-tested. In crafting the original bill, citizen volunteers spent
thousands of hours in the field documenting wilderness characteristics
and carefully mapping the boundaries of proposed wilderness areas.
These volunteers included Black Diamond employees. Their efforts
resulted in one of the most comprehensive land inventories ever
conducted by a non-governmental organization. Now updated to include
9.4 million acres of proposed wilderness, this citizens' inventory has
been largely validated by the BLM. To date, the agency has verified the
wilderness character of 74 percent of lands proposed for designation in
the bill.
Utah Wilderness and the Outdoor Industry
Active outdoor recreation is increasingly a strong and vital part
of our nation's economy, especially in rural areas. In 2005, 159
million Americans participated in outdoor recreation, with the greatest
numbers in the gateway sports of hiking, biking, camping and paddle
sports. In Utah alone, the outdoor industry contributes over 6 billion
dollars annually to the state's economy. Protecting the public lands
that support outdoor recreation is critical to establishing and
sustaining balanced local economies across the nation, especially in
the West.
Several years ago, the Outdoor Industry Foundation, with the
support of many other trade groups including the travel industry,
completed the industry's first study quantifying the contribution of
active outdoor recreation to the U.S. economy. We looked at eight
activity categories: bicycling, camping, fishing, hunting, paddling,
snow sports (including downhill skiing, snowboarding, cross-country/
nordic, snowshoeing), hiking and backpacking (including mountaineering/
canyoneering), and wildlife viewing. The study concluded that active
outdoor recreation:
contributes $730 billion to the U.S. economy;
generates $289 billion annually in retail sales and
services across the U.S.
touches over 8 percent of American's personal consumption
expenditures--more than 1 in every 12 dollars circulating in the
economy;
generates $88 billion in annual state and national tax
revenue; and
supports nearly 6.5 million jobs across the U.S.
In times of difficult economic hardship, Americans always return in
large numbers to the great outdoors. During the Great Depression and in
every recession since, we have utilized the outdoors as our national
place for renewal. In the coming years, outdoor gear sales and
recreational outings will play a significant and growing role in
maintaining healthy outdoor businesses and strong communities.
During the first eleven months of the current recession, industry-
wide outdoor product sales grew an extraordinary 10% as family's
returned to camping, cycling and other affordable outdoor activities.
At the same time, many state and federal lands are seeing a dramatic
increase in visitation.
My company is headquartered in Utah because it is a world class
recreation destination. With outstanding opportunities for camping,
hiking, skiing, mountain biking, climbing, canyoneering and river
running, Utah pretty much has it all. Many of these activities take
place on BLM-administered public lands in areas like Indian Creek, the
San Rafael Swell, and Desolation Canyon: all proposed wilderness areas
that currently lack protection. These iconic landscapes are directly
linked to the strength and the resonance of our global brand.
Threats to Utah Wilderness
Threats to these landscapes come in many forms. Controversial plans
to sell oil and gas leases near several Utah parks and in proposed
wilderness areas have made national headlines lately, as has the recent
federal bust of an archaeological looting ring centered in Utah's San
Juan County. Other threats are more insidious: like the rapid spread of
off-road vehicles into nearly every corner of Utah's backcountry.
Illegal trails often find their way onto BLM route maps due to pressure
from off-road vehicle groups. Just a few of these routes, once
established, can disqualify thousands of acres from future wilderness
consideration.
The rallying cry of wilderness opponents is ``More access!'' and
they accuse conservationists of ``locking up the land.'' The truth is,
a full 70 percent of the lands within America's Red Rock Wilderness Act
are within just one mile of a vehicle route--that's about 10 city
blocks in Washington, DC. If the Red Rock bill were passed today, there
would still be tens of thousands of miles of primitive dirt roads and
trails available for motorized use on Utah's BLM lands. At the same
time, lands protected in the bill would remain open to hiking,
backpacking, horseback riding, camping, river running, hunting,
fishing, guiding, scientific study, fire and insect control, and even
existing livestock grazing.
When it comes to energy, the vast majority of BLM land would still
be available for oil and gas development after passage of the Red Rock
bill. Even now, the industry cannot keep up with the leases it holds.
At the end of Fiscal Year 2008, five million acres of BLM land were
under lease in Utah, yet only 1.5 million acres of those lands were in
production.
According to the federal government's Energy Information
Administration, the state of Utah holds approximately 2.5 percent of
the country's proven natural gas reserves and a mere one percent of the
country's proven oil reserves. Only a fraction of that lies beneath
proposed wilderness. In fact, government figures show that
``technically recoverable'' undiscovered natural gas and oil resources
on lands within America's Red Rock Wilderness Act amount to less than 4
weeks of natural gas and roughly 4 days of oil at current consumption
levels. Such a trivial amount will hardly make or break our nation's
energy independence. On the other hand, as Wallace Stegner famously
noted, ``Wilderness, once we have given it up, is beyond our
reconstruction.''
Protecting Wilderness and Mitigating Climate Change
If passed, America's Redrock Wilderness Act would permanently
preserve some of the most stunning landscapes on earth, protect
critical water sources and native plants, safeguard archaeological
treasures, and preserve large blocks of habitat for native animals like
bear, cougar, bald eagle, and bighorn sheep.
Wilderness designation is also the best strategy for making our
public lands as resilient as possible to the effects of climate change.
The United States Geological Survey predicts that the Colorado Plateau
will become hotter and drier over the next century, leading to more
wildfires, increased water demands, and dwindling water resources. The
result will be large dust storms, which we've already begun to see in
southern Utah. This dust is carried on the wind all the way to
Colorado, where it's deposited on mountain snowpack high in the
Rockies. The dark colored dust absorbs heat, causing earlier spring
run-off, which impacts everything from wildlife to agriculture to
Colorado's multi-billion dollar ski industry. Protecting Utah's
roadless BLM lands from the soil disturbance that accompanies roads and
development would help mitigate this cycle of environmental damage
while protecting the agricultural and recreational economies that rely
on seasonal snowpack.
Support for Utah Wilderness
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act is supported by 139 member of the
U.S. House and 21 members of the Senate. It is also endorsed by the
Sierra Club, Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council, The
Wilderness Society, and over 200 member organizations of the Utah
Wilderness Coalition. Most importantly, Americans throughout the state
of Utah and across the nation support this visionary bill. In a
September 2009, a Dan Jones statewide poll showed that just over 60% of
Utahans that had a position supported protecting 9 million acres or
more of Utah BLM wilderness.
Conclusion
America's Red Rock Wilderness--with its soaring arches and plunging
canyons--is a landscape that captures the soul and the imagination. It
is the land of Old West Outlaws and Navajo legends, a place where
ancient cultures have left their stories etched in stone. No other
landscape in the United States--or even the world--is quite like it. It
is one of the country's greatest assets; a global draw that can't be
copied in china or done more cheaply in Bangladesh. These lands are, in
part, our competitive advantage, yet because we did not sacrifice in
their creation there are those who are challenged to understand that
their highest economic and societal value is to leave then as they are.
As Steward Brand once wrote: ``Natural systems are priceless in value
and nearly impossible to replace, but they're cheap to maintain. All
you have to do is defend them''.
Let us remember that these wild lands have played an integral role
in forging the uniquely American character and defining our humanity.
When they are gone we will have lost something uniquely American.
Please protect this national treasure for future generations by casting
a vote for America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. Rest assured it will be
good for wildlife, good for our air and water, good for the outdoor
industry & the clean, sustainable outdoor economy, and good for the
American public.
Thank-you.
______
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Metcalf.
We are going to hear from Bryson, is it Garbett?
Mr. Garbett. Garbett.
Mr. Heinrich. Welcome, Mr. Garbett.
STATEMENT OF BRYSON GARBETT, FORMER UTAH STATE LEGISLATOR, SALT
LAKE CITY, UTAH
Mr. Garbett. Thank you, it is nice to be here. Parunuweap
Canyon is a great example of the incomparable red rock lands
that we have in Utah. I have returned many times to show it to
friends and family. I have even gone through with my family, we
spent four days. My toddler Mary was carried through this
canyon by her oldest brother. My then 5-year-old Sam carried a
backpack with an extra change of clothes and some snacks. His
older brothers carried his sleeping bag and food. And you can
see here a picture of my family, uncle, and some aunts and some
cousins.
Parunuweap is a beautiful oasis ringed by a rugged dry
landscape. The stream that runs through it is clear and cool.
Everywhere there are cottonwood trees and lush vegetation.
Above this crystal clear stream rise the cliffs of the canyon.
I have spent many nights looking up at the river of stars
created by these sheer cliffs. On my first visit to Parunuweap
I did notice one faint pair of offroad vehicle, or ORV, tracks
in the canyon bottom that would disappear and reappear as we
hiked along. There was certainly no route or road there.
As I have returned over the years, those ORV tracks have
increased, creating definite impact. It was shocking to see the
damage done in the stream bottom. Now, unfortunately I
understand that the Bureau of Land Management has designated
this as a permissible route for ORVs. I am a witness of
something that has gone from nonexistent to permitted within a
few short years. If this use is allowed to continue, the canyon
and all those species that depend on it will be substantially
harmed.
My name is Bryson Garbett. I am from Utah. My wife Jan and
I have eight children that we have raised in Utah. In 1982 at
the age of 28, I was elected as a Republican to the Utah
Legislature. After my time in the Legislature, I turned my
attention to my business and service in the community. I helped
start Foundation Escalera, I served for six years on the Board
of Directors of Salt Lake Habitat for Humanity and served one
year as the president. I am the president of Garbett Homes. We
provide work for hundreds of employees and subcontractors. I
have been active in our trade association and am now the
president of the Salt Lake Home Builders Association.
Utah is an amazing place, unique in all the world with its
beautiful and wild scenery that can be enjoyed in rare
solitude. It is accessible and healing to all walks of life.
Now it is facing daily threats, and only Congress can stop
them. But it must act now or we may lose this amazing resource.
Our current Federal wilderness areas such as the High Uintas
are highly prized by both those in the state and those that
come to visit. No one would say that this is a mistake.
I have heard and read comments from people to the effect
of, no Utahn likes this bill. Do these naysayers mean that no
Utahn likes wilderness? This is ridiculous. People in Utah are
no different than anywhere else. Those who have had experience
with wilderness love it. They are uplifted by it and do not
want to see it disappear. Most people in Utah have experienced
wilderness. As well as hiking in it, they drive by it, they see
pictures of it, they camp in it, they hunt and fish in it. I am
only one of a majority of Utahns that want our wild areas
preserved.
I have heard others argue that 9 million acres are too
much. To simply dismiss the bill based on that reason is a
disservice to Utahns and Americans. It does not make sense. You
must look at each area we are trying to protect and talk about
the specific issues. America's Red Rock Wilderness Act was not
just put on the map arbitrarily or fashioned by people juggling
acreage numbers. It was formed by countless volunteers and
professionals from Utah spending thousands of hours on the
ground identifying mapping these areas.
As a former legislator, I have been in your position. You
must take a complicated issue and understand it and decide what
is best. You do this day in and day out. I have great respect
for the issues and challenges you face continually. I hope that
you will give this issue the time and attention that it
deserves. I have gone into Utah's wilderness with my young
children and my older children. They love it. It is part of
them. I know my experience is not unique among Utahns and
Americans.
For the millions of young Americans that want a chance to
experience the beauty of wilderness, I ask you to support
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. I ask you to give this bill
the serious time and effort it deserves. If you do not act,
Utahns will lose out, Americans will lose out, and worst of
all, future generations will lose out. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garbett follows:]
Statement of Bryson Garbett, Former Utah State Legislator,
Salt Lake City, Utah, on H.R. 1925
My name is Bryson Garbett. I am from Utah. My great grandmother and
my great great grandfather were Utah pioneers. They made the journey
from England across the ocean and then by covered wagons across the
plains. I was born and raised in Utah and I was taught to appreciate
those pioneers that made so many sacrifices to settle Utah.
I am married to Jan VanDenBerghe Garbett. Her great great
grandfather, Lemuel Hardison Redd, was one of the scouts for the Hole
in the Rock expedition, which traversed much of Utah's redrock country
and stopped in southeastern Utah. That is where he settled.
We have eight children that we have raised in Utah. They were
educated in our public schools.
From the time I was a young man I have been involved in politics.
At eighteen I voted in the first national election an eighteen-year-old
could vote in. At twenty-two I was elected as a delegate to the
Republican state nominating convention. It was 1976. We nominated a
young attorney by the name of Orrin Hatch to run against the long time
incumbent, Ted Moss. At twenty-eight, in 1982, I was elected to the
Utah Legislature. Those were tough times for Utah's economy; I was the
chief sponsor of the Interstate Banking Act. This bill revamped banking
and capital in Utah and allowed banks from other states to come and do
business in Utah. Before that it was very difficult for banks to do
that. It brought much more capital into the state.
After my service in the Legislature I turned my attention to my
business and service in the community. I am one of the founders of
Foundation Escalera, a humanitarian organization providing a step up to
impoverished communities in Mexico. We do this through education,
thereby giving young people the tools they need to stay in Mexico and
provide for their families. I served for six years on the board of
directors of Salt Lake Habitat for Humanity and served one year as the
President in 2007-2008.
I am the President of Garbett Homes which provides work for
hundreds of employees and sub contractors. We have been a leader in
building good communities with homes that Utahns can afford. Even in
these very tough economic times we continue to sell homes. I have been
very active in our trade association and I am now the President of the
Salt Lake Home Builders Association.
We are here today to talk about America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.
I have visited many of these areas over my lifetime. My father was a
loan guaranty officer for the Veteran's Administration. He would travel
the state to check on homes and borrowers. He would take me with him.
In the early 1960s we would drive throughout Utah visiting many small
towns. I still remember being in the government car driving on the
backroads of our state. It was summer and the windows would be down and
the warm wind would rush in. We would pass green pastures with cows and
horses, old barns, and miles of barbed wire fences with old pine poles.
We would stop in little towns and eat broasted chicken in the cafe on
Main Street. What I remember best were the large open spaces with
redrock everywhere and hardly anyone on the road. I would stick my head
out to get a closer look at those huge red mountains and wonder if
anyone lived up on top of those red mesas with the shear red walls and
the green table tops.
This was the spark for my interest in these isolated and wild
places. I have now been in many of those places that we drove by in the
early 1960s.
Wilderness in Utah is unique in all the world and it is one of our
greatest state and national resources. It is incredibly beautiful but
also very fragile.
I mentioned earlier that I have eight children. Raising a family is
the hardest thing I do. As a young father I looked for something that
we as a family could do together. I could not afford a boat, as many
families could. In fact there were many things I could not afford.
However, I did think we could backpack. I was a novice, so we learned
together. When we went into these areas proposed for wilderness we were
isolated. It was just us and what we could carry on our backs. No
iPods, no phones, no TVs, no newspapers. We grew closer together and we
visited wondrous places. I have seen other families in Utah have this
same experience. Our experience is not unique.
The first place we went was to Grand Gulch, which is proposed for
wilderness designation in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. I was
nervous and a little afraid. I hoped we would make it out alive. As we
started on the trailhead I scanned the comments left by those on their
way out in the trail register. ``Amazing!, Great Ruins!'' and even ``It
changed my life.'' That trip would change our lives. We survived. There
is something I can't describe about being on your own. Leaving all the
modern noise behind and living in the open and surviving. However on
that trip I had new boots and my feet were pretty beat up so I wrote in
the register, ``changed my feet.''
Since then we have been to many areas proposed for wilderness
designation in America's Red Rock Wilderness act: Dark Canyon; the San
Juan River, which includes Lime Creek and Valley of the Gods; the Dirty
Devil River (I have included a picture of this area with my testimony);
Upper Horseshoe Canyon; Mexican Mountain; Death Hollow; Labyrinth
Canyon; Little Wild Horse Canyon; Muddy Creek; Devil's Canyon (picture
included at the end of my testimony); North Escalante Canyon, Paria-
Hackberry Canyon; Parunuweap Canyon (also pictured); Orderville Canyon;
Notch Peak; the Wah Wah Mountains; and the White River. I have also
been to Canaan Mountain, Goose Creek, and Kolob Creek, which are places
in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act that are now protected thanks to
the efforts of Utah's Senator Bennett and Representative Matheson. And
not to leave out Representative Bishop, my family has greatly
appreciated the Cedar Mountains Wilderness Area--an area formerly
included in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act--that he worked to
protect.
Parunuweap Canyon
Parunuweap Canyon is a great example of the incomparable redrock
lands that we have in Utah. I have returned many times to show it to
friends and family. Eventually flowing into Zion National Park,
Parunuweap--a Piute word meaning whitewater or roaring water canyon--
was formed by the East Fork of the Virgin River. Parunuweap was visited
by the explorer John Wesley Powell. We pass the plaque erected to him
on the canyon wall when we leave the canyon.
I have even explored it with my whole family. My daughter, Mary,
was carried by her oldest brother and shared a sleeping bag with her
older sister. My then five-year-old, Sam, carried a backpack with an
extra change of clothes and some snacks. His older brothers carried his
sleeping bag and food.
Parunuweap is a beautiful oasis ringed by a rugged, dry landscape.
The stream that runs through it is clear and cool. Everywhere there are
cottonwood trees and other species. Above this crystal clear stream
rise the cliffs of the canyon. As you travel farther downstream the
walls become higher, straighter, and closer together until they are
only a few yards apart. I have spent many nights looking up at the
river of stars created by these sheer cliffs. The canyon is full of
freshwater springs where we loved to refill our water bottles and eat
watercress growing nearby.
As a side note, a former Representative from Utah once proposed a
wilderness bill that would have designated Parunuweap Canyon as
wilderness but would have allowed for the construction of a reservoir,
transmission lines, and a road in this area. (See Utah Public Lands
Management Act of 1995, H.R. 1745, 104th Cong. Sec. 9(1)(C) (1995)).
On my first visit to Parunuweap I did notice one faint pair of off-
road vehicle, or ORV, tracks in the middle of the canyon in the stream
bed that would disappear and reappear as we hiked along. There was
certainly no route or road in the canyon bottom. As I have returned
over the years those ORV tracks have increased, creating definite
impacts. It was shocking to see the damage done in the riparian stream
bottom, a rare gem in the middle of the desert. Now, I understand, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has designated this as a permissible
route for ORVs. I am a witness of something that has gone from non-
existent to permitted within a few short years. If this use is allowed
to continue there is a real danger the canyon, and all of those species
that depend on it, will be substantially harmed.
White River
The White River is located in northeastern Utah. It is a remarkable
deep canyon that sits as an island in a sea of oil and gas development.
It is an easy place to visit and an easy river to run. We canoed it. If
we could do it, anybody can do it. I did it with my young boys and
another family and we knew nothing about how to paddle a canoe but we
wanted to see that part of the country. I only learned about this area
because it was part of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act and my son had
read about it in Wilderness at the Edge (the Utah Wilderness
Coalition's detailed description of its earlier wilderness proposal).
In the canyon and on the river we enjoyed the scenery and the
solitude. I remember the sweeping bends and the beautiful placid water
that reflected the rugged cliffs looming above us. As we approached the
river and as we left we saw one gas well after another. We understand
that those wells are important to Utah's economy. However, the White
River's deep canyon is so spectacular that surely a small inconvenience
to unfettered development is worth the price. It will offer a welcome
relief, a refuge, to all who paddle down its placid waters from the
development around it. With thought and clear boundaries this area can
easily be preserved. To that end, I understand that supporters of
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act were able to reach an agreement with
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (the federal lessee in parts of this
area) which clearly defined acceptable areas for natural gas
development while protecting much of the northern half of the proposed
White River wilderness.
Unfortunately, the remainder of the White River is still
threatened. With no planning it will clearly be lost.
Labyrinth Canyon
The Green River is a singular river that flows through a good part
of the state. It has many varied phases in the miles it covers. As is
approaches Canyonlands National Park from the north it becomes calm and
tranquil. It is the perfect place to take families for a great time on
a remarkable river in the middle of redrock country. It would also be a
perfect place to take the infirm or those with disabilities who might
not be able to access the rugged heart of wilderness on foot. There are
no rapids in Labyrinth Canyon, any novice could float it.
I spent three days on this trip. It was in March. The air was crisp
and the sun bright. We traveled through the wide canyon with beautiful
redrock walls. As we lazily paddled, the most amazing scenery floated
by us. It is not just the scenery that makes Labyrinth Canyon special
but as each mile goes by the hustle and stress of another world seems
to fade. Nothing was threatening; the water was easy, we saw huge
herons and cranes, we basked in the silence and stillness of this
gentle place. The river reflected the canyon walls. When we were hungry
we snacked as we paddled or found a sunny spot and pulled our canoes
over, maybe napping for a moment or two after lunch.
Labyrinth Canyon is part of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.
Unfortunately, the BLM has not recognized, nor afforded this entire
spectacular, tranquil canyon the wilderness-like management and respect
it deserves.
On the second day of my trip through Labyrinth Canyon the
remarkable silence of the area was shattered by the noise and dust of
two very loud motorcycles. I was shocked to learn that the BLM was
allowing motorcycles to travel down Labyrinth Canyon and along the
Green River. This seemed ill advised; no place in Utah was better
suited for making a true wilderness experience accessible to all walks
of life. That day, when the stillness of the canyon was shattered by
the roaring of the bikes, was a stark reminder of the fleeting and
sensitive nature of wilderness. It was as if the city had been plopped
into the middle of wilderness. It was out of place and made no sense in
that setting.
Devil's Canyon
Devil's Canyon was a hard hike through a fantastic part of
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. Not only was it a spectacular,
narrow redrock canyon but it was easy to access. It runs right next to
I-70. When we first started the hike we could even hear the cars
traveling on the freeway but that soon faded. It was challenging but
unlike other places I have been. There was no running water. We had to
drink from an alkali spring full of hair from cows. I did not know you
could drink such bad tasting water and live. We did just fine.
The day we climbed out of the canyon to start the long hike back to
our car I was amazed. As we made our way from the bottom of the canyon
to the desert above the route we took seemed like a spiral staircase
circling round and round with fantastical rock formations on the canyon
wall. I have never forgotten it.
On all our trips we are very careful where we walk. The floor of
the desert is so fragile. It is often kept from eroding by small
organisms living on top of the soil. One step in the wrong place can
destroy these sensitive organisms and may mean erosion and lost soil.
On our Devil's Canyon trip we spent three days carefully watching
where we stepped and walked. However, not everyone shared our caution.
On exiting the canyon we heard the high-pitched whine of motorcycles.
We shortly came upon their tracks and were angered to see all of the
damage that they had wrecked from a few moments of joy riding in an
area miles away from any roads. In the sensitive desert, where even an
errant footstep can have noticeable impacts you can understand what
kind of unnecessary havoc the churning, spinning, careening tire of a
motorcycle will cause. We were all very sad to see such destruction.
Wilderness Is Important
I have been a few places throughout the world. Utah is an amazing
place; unique in all the world with its beautiful and wild scenery that
can be enjoyed in rare solitude. It is accessible and healing to all
walks of life. Now, it is facing daily threats and only Congress can
stop them. But it must act now or we may lose this amazing resource. We
are just beginning to see the economic value of all this to our state
and country. Our current federal wilderness areas such as the High
Uintas are highly prized by both those in the state and those that come
to visit. No one would want to turn back the clock on the High Uintas
and prevent it from being designated wilderness.
I have heard and read comments from people to the effect of ``no
Utahn likes this bill.'' Do these people mean that no Utahn likes
wilderness? That is ridiculous. People in Utah are no different than
anywhere else. Those who have had experience with wilderness love it.
They are uplifted by it and do not want to see it disappear. Most
people in Utah have had experience wilderness. As well as hiking in it,
they drive by it, they see pictures of it, they camp in it, and they
hunt and fish in it. Every person in the Salt Lake, Utah, and Cache
valleys can see federally-protected wilderness areas as they face east
and look at the Wasatch Mountains. Likewise, those people living in
Tooele, Nephi, Brigham City, and Washington County can easily glimpse
protected wilderness from their homes. It seems that two-thirds of our
entire state may have a view of a federal wilderness area from some
window in their house.
Elected officials and promoters for the state realize what we have.
When they market their counties to others the first thing they pitch is
usually the beautiful natural areas of Utah, including wilderness
areas.
I have heard others argue that ``9 million acres are too much.'' To
simply dismiss the bill based on that reason is a disservice to Utahns
and Americans. It does not make sense. You must look at each area we
are trying to protect and talk about the specific issues. America's Red
Rock Wilderness Act was not just put on the map arbitrarily or
fashioned by people juggling acreage numbers to see what sounded good.
It was formed by countless volunteers and professionals spending
thousands of hours on the ground identifying and mapping these areas.
How much land should be protected is a valid point of discussion.
There are many questions that could and should be asked. ``What is it
you would like to take out of this proposal? What is it that you think
should not be protected? What do you think should be protected?'' These
are good questions that deserve responses from both sides of the issue.
I do not think there is anyone that has been to Utah, that has seen
these lands, and that is interested in future generations that would
say that nothing should be preserved. So for an elected official to
dismiss the bill just because it sounds like too much to some vocal
minority does his constituents, future generations, and all Americans a
disservice.
Conclusion
As a former legislator I have been in your position. You must take
a complicated issue and understand it and decide what is best. You do
this day in and day out. I have great respect for the issues and
challenges you face continually. I hope that you will give this issue
the time and attention that it deserves.
I have gone into Utah's wilderness with my young children. They
love it. It is a part of them. For the millions of young Americans that
want a chance to experience the beauty of wilderness I ask you to
support America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. If you do not act Utahns
will lose out, Americans will lose out, and, worst of all, future
generations will lose out.
______
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Garbett. We have just had our
last vote of the week called, so we are going to take a quick
recess here, it shouldn't take us long to come back, and then
we will resume with Mr. Anderson's testimony.
[Recess.]
Mr. Heinrich. Welcome back. We are going to get started
here again and finish up the panel with Rocky Anderson, former
mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. Mr. Anderson, you can get
started whenever you are ready.
STATEMENT OF ROSS C. ``ROCKY'' ANDERSON,
FORMER MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much. My name is Ross C.
``Rocky'' Anderson. I have lived all but three years of my life
in Utah and was privileged to serve as mayor of Salt Lake City
from 2000 to 2008. Thank you, Congressman Hinchey, for your
long time commitment to America's Red Rock Wilderness Act,
particularly after you took the torch from the initial sponsor,
former Utah Congressman Wayne Owens, a remarkable man who
understood the tremendous responsibility we have to preserve in
their untrammeled state majestic places that make the State of
Utah so magnificently unique.
This bill was initially developed in 1989, but there is a
real urgency now because of the imminent, constant threat to
the wilderness character of these lands posed by the explosion
of offroad vehicle use and the consequences of climate change.
If nothing is done now, these last remaining wild places will
succumb to desecration by offroad vehicle abuse and other forms
of development. My support for Utah wilderness is informed by
the experiences I have had hiking and camping in Utah's wild
lands as well as experiencing the direct benefits of leading
Utah's capital city adjacent to thousands of acres of
designated wilderness.
For me as well as for millions of others, the experience of
getting away to hike, explore, and camp in wilderness areas
away from the noise, pollution, and land corrupting
mechanization of our times is soul inspiring beyond measure.
Just a few weeks ago my son and I backpacked in the proposed
Death Hollow Wilderness, near Escalante, Utah, and will never
forget the beauty, the solitude, and the utter wildness of the
spectacular landscape.
Wilderness designation is often controversial. The Wasatch
Wilderness area is adjacent to Salt Lake City for a case and
point. Here you can see Salt Lake City and thousands of acres
of designated wilderness, the Mt. Olympus Wilderness, Twin
Peaks Wilderness, Lone Peak Wilderness, Mt. Timpanogos
Wilderness, Deseret Peak Wilderness, and the Cedar Mountain
Wilderness. Thanks very much.
When wilderness designation of those areas was under
consideration, some of those areas, especially the Lone Peak
Wilderness area, Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake Health
Department actually argued against designating Lone Peak as
wilderness. They made many of the same arguments that we hear
today in opposition to Wilderness designation. They said they
feared that wilderness designation would make it difficult to
protect the water quality of this area. In fact the experience
has been just the opposite.
Both of Utah's House Members at that time opposed
wilderness designation for Lone Peak. Now we know that they
were all wrong on every count. I doubt that any member of
Utah's Congressional Delegation or any elected official or just
about anybody throughout the State of Utah would support the
repeal of that wilderness designation today. Wilderness
adjacent to Salt Lake City has been of tremendous benefit to
our community because it creates needed open space for the
increasingly dense urban population of Salt Lake Valley and
surrounding areas, world renowned recreational opportunities,
and vital protection for our watershed.
The dynamic occurring now is typical. Almost every time
lands are proposed to be protected as national parks, national
monuments, or wilderness, there are naysayers who raise many of
the same complaints we hear today about America's Red Rock
Wilderness Act. Yet after the protections are in place, people
look back with gratitude for the farsightedness and leadership
of those who made certain the exquisite nature of these
magnificent places will be preserved for our children and for
later generations.
A recent Dan Jones poll, as indicated earlier, we hear a
lot about this top down approach, actually of those who have
decided on the matter, 60 percent of Utahns who have developed
an opinion want to see 9 million acres or more of Federal lands
in Utah protected as wilderness. Millions of Americans
understand that Federal stewardship and protection of these
amazing places are not a burden but are of tremendous benefit
and are a great treasure to our state and our nation.
When considering this vital measure, please harken to the
words of Utah native Terry Tempes Williams, ``If you know
wilderness in the way that you know love, you would be
unwilling to let it go.'' Utah's Red Rock wilderness is a gift
we should not squander. Please embrace this farsighted
opportunity without any further delay in service to the world
and to later generations.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Statement of Ross C. ``Rocky'' Anderson, Former Mayor,
Salt Lake City, Utah, on H.R. 1925
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee
regarding America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, H.R. 1925. My name is Ross
C. ``Rocky'' Anderson. Except for three years of law school in
Washington, D.C., I have lived my entire life in Utah and was
privileged to serve as Mayor of Salt Lake City from 2000-2008.
Thank you Congressman Hinchey, for your commitment to this
legislation, particularly after you took the torch from former
Congressman Wayne Owens, a remarkable man who understood the tremendous
responsibility we have to preserve, in their untrammeled state, the
majestic places that make the State of Utah so magnificently unique.
Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, for co-sponsoring America's Red Rock
Wilderness Act and for giving us this opportunity to discuss the
critical and timely issue of protection for Utah's--and and America's--
wild lands.
This far-sighted bill was initially sponsored by Congressman Owens
in 1989, but there is a real urgency now because of the imminent,
constant threat to the wilderness character of these lands posed by the
explosion of off-road vehicle use and the consequences of climate
change. If nothing is done to assume the responsibility we have as
stewards of these lands, the matter of Utah wilderness will be decided
by default when these last remaining wild places succumb to desecration
by off-road vehicle abuse and other forms of development.
In 1960, Wallace Stegner, a westerner and former Utahn, articulated
the imperative for wilderness with these words:
``Something will have gone out of us as a people if we ever let
the remaining wilderness be destroyed; if we permit the last
virgin forests to be turned into comic books and plastic
cigarette cases; if we drive the few remaining members of the
wild species into zoos or to extinction; if we pollute the last
clear air and dirty the last clean streams and push our paved
roads through the last of the silence, so that never again will
Americans be free in their own country from the noise, the
exhausts, the stinks of human and automotive waste.''
Wallace Stegner, The Wilderness Letter, 1960.
The warning in these words is unmistakable, but I have confidence
in our ability, as Americans who value the preservation of these wild
places and who recognize our responsibilities toward future
generations, to exercise the wisdom to prevent Wallace Stegner's grim
depiction of a landscape without wilderness from ever happening.
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act is a bold vision for Utah
wilderness born out of the work of thousands of Utahns who care deeply
for our wild lands. It lays the framework for what is possible to
protect the ``wild west'' landscapes of Utah's Colorado Plateau, and
the starkly beautiful Basin and Range landscapes of our West Desert.
My support for Utah wilderness is informed by the experiences I've
had hiking and camping in Utah's wild lands, as well as experiencing
the direct benefits of leading a major urban area adjacent to thousands
of acres of designated wilderness.
My experiences of Utah's wild landscapes are part of the reason I
chose to move back to Utah after law school. For me, as well as for
millions of others, the experience of getting away to hike, explore,
and camp in wilderness areas--away from the noise, pollution, and land-
corrupting mechanization of our day--is soul-inspiring beyond measure.
Just a few weeks ago, my son and I backpacked in the proposed Death
Hollow wilderness, adjacent to the Box Death Hollow Wilderness Area
near Escalante, Utah, and will never forget the beauty, the solitude,
and the utter wildness of the spectacular landscape.
As Mayor of Salt Lake City, I was so pleased to introduce visitors
to our nearby wilderness areas, assets to our city whose tremendous
uniqueness and value is no longer questioned--although, before the
wilderness designations of those areas, many of the same arguments were
made by opponents that we hear now in opposition to the Red Rock
Wilderness Act.
In fact, before the wilderness designation of Lone Peak wilderness,
both Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City-County Health Department
argued against the designation. They expressed fears that wilderness
designation would make it difficult to protect the water quality of
this area. Both of Utah's House members at that time opposed wilderness
designation for Lone Peak. (U.S. Forest Service, Uinta National Forest-
Wasatch National Forest, Intermountain Region, Region 4, ``Lone Peak
Wilderness Study, Study Report, Final Environmental Statement,'' 1976,
1, Appendix B; ``Lawmakers Ask to Keep Lone Peak as 'Scenic,''' Deseret
News, 3 March 1977).
Today, everyone would agree that those concerns and fears were
entirely misplaced. The naysayers were wrong on every count. Wilderness
adjacent to Salt Lake City has been of tremendous benefit to our
community. It creates needed open space for the increasingly dense
urban population of Salt Lake Valley and surrounding areas, world-
renowned recreational opportunities, and vital protection for our
watershed.
The dynamic of opposition and fear is typical. Almost every time
lands are proposed to be protected as National Parks, National
Monuments, and wilderness, vocal opponents raise many of the same
complaints we hear today about America's Red Rock Wilderness Act Yet
after the protections are in place, people generally look back with
gratitude for the foresightedness of those who made certain the
exquisite nature of these magnificent places will be preserved for our
children and for later generations.
Our realization as a community about the importance of undeveloped
wild lands to our water supply and quality of life was demonstrated
during my tenure as Mayor when Salt Lake City purchased 155 acres in
Big Cottonwood Canyon to create the Willow Heights Conservation Area
and another 149 acres to preserve Donut Falls, both of which will now
be protected in perpetuity from development. We knew that, once
developed, these pristine areas would be destroyed forever.
Most Utahns support Utah wilderness. Over the years Salt Lake City
residents have frequently told me how important this issue is to them.
This support shows up in the bright yellow ``Protect Wild Utah'' bumper
stickers that are on so many vehicles in the Salt Lake City area,
including my own. This support was demonstrated recently by a statewide
survey of Utahns conducted by Dan Jones and Associates, which reflects
that 60% of people who have developed an opinion on the matter want to
see nine million acres or more of the federal lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management protected as wilderness. (Dan Jones &
Associates, A Study Conducted for Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance,
General Public Study, Longitudinal Data, September 2009).
Those in Utah who resist protection of these places should take a
clue from the visitors to our state who come to Utah, and keep coming
back, because they are in awe of the geography they find there. Where
else in the world can you go from the inspiring granite peaks of
mountains like the Wasatch to the red rock splendor of the San Rafael
Swell in a four hour drive?
The beauty of the landscape is an astounding resource for Utah that
sets it apart from most other places in the world, providing Utahns
remarkable opportunities for outdoor recreation and serving as a magnet
for tourists from other parts of the country and world. In a study of
the economic impact of National Parks in Southeast Utah by the National
Parks and Conservation Association, released in 2009, the authors
report that: ``In 2006, over 1.2 million visitors came to Arches and
Canyonlands National Parks, spending some $99 million during their
visits.'' Economists estimate that this spending supported 2,315 jobs.
(National Parks and Conservation Association, Landscapes of
Opportunity: The Economic Influence of National Parks in Southeast
Utah, April 2009, p. 7).
Long-term, sustainable economic development is best promoted by
providing for low-impact recreational use. It will help generate the
greatest monetary benefit from federal lands for the longest period of
time.
Adaptation to the impacts of climate change is another significant
benefit of protecting large swaths of wild lands on the Colorado
Plateau and in the west desert. The U.S. Geological Survey predicts
that by 2050 soil conditions on the Colorado Plateau will be worse than
those typical of the Dust Bowl. And, as we know from the Dust Bowl
years, dry soil, especially if it is disrupted by human activity,
easily becomes airborne, forming dust storms. Studies by the U.S.
Geological Survey also show that undisturbed dry soil develops a
fragile, but important crust, and the accompanying ecosystem of
symbiotic life forms growing in that crust helps to keep it in place
during high winds. Disruption of the soil by off-road vehicles results
in crushing of plants, soil crust, and anything else in the way,
loosening the soil to be carried away. (U.S. Geological Survey, Impacts
of Climate Change on Water and Ecosystems in the Upper Colorado River
Basin, August 2007).
Dust from Utah's Colorado Plateau is already a problem in Colorado,
landing in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Scientists have been tracking
these dust storms for six years. In 2009, a record number occurred. As
the red dust from the Colorado Plateau lands on snow, it increases the
heat absorption of the snow, causing it to melt much faster. (Thomas
Painter, Presentation, ``Dust on Snow Panel: What's the Dirty Secret of
Dirty Snow?,'' Colorado River District Annual Water Seminar, September
18, 2009; Thomas H. Painter et al., ``Impact of Disturbed Desert Soils
on Duration of Mountain Snow Cover,'' Geophysical Research Letters,
Vol. 34, L12502, 2007).
A contributing factor to soil disruption is the dramatic increase
of off-road vehicle use. The pressing need for thoughtful management of
these vehicles grows stronger with each new one that enters Utah's wild
lands. Unless protections are enacted soon, there will be very few
places for humans to go without the noise, pollution, and destruction
of the land caused by ORVs.
Even with enactment of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, there
will still be 17,000 miles of dirt roads, jeep trails, and old mining
tracks for off-road vehicle enthusiasts to enjoy on BLM lands on the
Colorado Plateau. That figure does not include all trails in the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Those who say we are ``locking
up the land'' and no one will have access to it except for backpackers
and horse-packers should understand that they will have access too
because 70% of the land proposed for wilderness designation within
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act is within eight city blocks of a
motorized route.
Another argument we hear against America's Red Rock Wilderness Act
is that it will inhibit energy development in Utah. But the facts don't
bear this out. Utah holds approximately 2.5% of the country's proven
oil reserves. The technically recoverable, undiscovered natural gas and
oil resources on land within America's Red Rock Wilderness Act amount
to less than twenty-three days of natural gas and approximately 6.5
days worth of oil at current rates of consumption. (U.S. Department of
Energy, Energy Information Administration, visited September 2009).
Some are worried about the impact of Utah wilderness designation on
school trust lands. Wilderness designation is actually a good thing for
Utah's schools and students. Trust lands within wilderness can be
traded for federal land with greater revenue-generating potential.
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act can serve as a catalyst for
exchanging the scattered, difficult-to-develop school trust lands for
amalgamated blocks of land in areas more appropriate and more promising
for development. For example, when the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument was designated it created impetus for a large land
exchange to remove all trust lands within the monument's boundaries.
The United States gave Utah's school kids $50 million in cash and large
acreages of land productive for energy development. Trust lands within
the Monument were traded for federal land at Drunkards Wash, near
Price, Utah, among other places. Drunkards Wash is an extremely
profitable natural gas field. In 2006, this field alone provided 60% of
all state trust land oil and gas revenue. (State of Utah, School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Tenth Anniversary Report
(July 1, 1994 to June 30, 2004); Report to the Utah Legislature, A
Performance Audit of the School & Institutional Trust Land
Administration (SITLA), Number 2006-01, January 2006, pp. 8-9).
Finally, there are those, including Representatives from Utah, who
argue that the federal government was required, constitutionally or
otherwise, to give up its lands in Utah at the time of statehood. The
Congressman from Utah's First Congressional District has maintained in
a recent op-ed piece in Utah's major daily newspaper that the U.S.
Constitution contains a provision giving rise to the Equal Footing
Doctrine and that somehow that doctrine forbids federal ownership of
lands in states at the time of statehood. Actually, Article IV of the
Constitution, cited by the Congressman, says no such thing. Further,
the 1894 Enabling Act for Utah to be admitted to the Union makes
several references to continued federal ownership of lands, including,
under Section 3, (1) a requirement that Utahns disclaim all right and
title to the unappropriated public lands lying with the boundaries of
the State; (2) a requirement that until the United States extinguishes
its title to lands, they shall remain subject to the disposition of the
United States; and (3) a prohibition that ``no taxes shall be imposed
by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may
hereafter be purchased by the United States.'' (Emphasis added.)
Were the county supremacists correct about the Equal Footing
Doctrine, one wonders why they have not pursued their claims in the
courts. The United States Court of Appeals rejected that very claim
(United States v. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314 (9th Cir. 1997))--and the U.S.
Congress obviously gives it no credence because of the many bills it
has passed relating to the management and control over federal lands,
which the Property Clause of the Constitution clearly contemplates.
While it is true the federal government does not pay property taxes
on the land it owns in Utah, it does provide the state with ``payment
in lieu of taxes,'' under which Utah receives the third highest amount
in the nation. Also, Utah ranks 18th in the nation, on a per capita
basis, of land within the state that is not owned by the federal
government.
Many good reasons support enactment of America's Red Rock
Wilderness Act. When considering this vital measure, please hearken to
the words of Utah native Terry Tempest Williams:
``If you know wilderness in the way that you know love, you
would be unwilling to let it go.''
(Terry Tempest Williams, Testimony, Milkweed Editions, 1996)
Utah Congressman Wayne Owens understood this, Utahns understand
this in greater numbers than ever before, and people outside of Utah
understand this. Utah's red rock wilderness is a gift we should not
squander. Please embrace this far-sighted opportunity, in service to
the world and to later generations, without any further delay.
______
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. I have a couple of questions, and
then we will move on to the rest of the panel. I wanted to ask
Commissioner Jones, I believe you mentioned in your testimony
that you thought that many stock ponds would be obliterated as
a result of wilderness designation, and I am curious what you
meant by that because I have worked very closely with
Congressman Tom Udall for example on the Ojita Wilderness Act
in New Mexico, there are a number of stock ponds in that
designated wilderness now and they continue to be maintained.
How would stock ponds be obliterated by wilderness designation?
Mr. Jones. I have been led to believe that in wilderness
areas that you are not allowed to take equipment in. So stock
ponds and so forth that has been built out in that rugged
terrain where they have used backhoes and so forth to maintain
them would no longer be available, not only for the cattle but
for big game and so forth that is living in those areas.
Mr. Heinrich. You might want to take a look at that,
because I believe the Agency is actually allowed to maintain
those facilities with the least intrusive tool, and that has
resulted in many stock ponds in wilderness areas throughout New
Mexico, Arizona, and other places being maintained for many
years. So I would just encourage you to look closely at that.
Mr. Metcalf, you mentioned in your testimony that in times
of economic hardship people turn to the great outdoors. And you
stated that the outdoor industry is seeing extraordinary growth
in sales. Why should wilderness matter to folks who are in the
midst of a difficult economic downturn?
Mr. Metcalf. That is a good question, thank you. It appears
through our history that in difficult economic times people do
turn to the wilderness for their recreation, rejuvenation, I
think in part because it is inexpensive to do, you can get some
gear and it is not expensive, I think in part because they look
for physical challenge, and I think they look for the spiritual
inspiration that places like wilderness give them, getting away
from the city, the urban setting, and a lot of other people. So
it is just what human beings seem to do in periods of economic
downturns.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. Mr. Garbett, I know you mentioned
that in your time looking at these places that you have seen an
increase in ORV use. And as a former outfitter guide myself who
spent a number of years taking kids on educational trips into
the midst of the proposed wilderness in southeastern Utah,
particularly in places like Cedar Mesa, I have seen more and
more offroad vehicle use and more offroad vehicle use in places
that it clearly didn't have routes before, oftentimes in
blatant disregard for signage. What are your real concerns with
this issue, and can you describe the trend that you have seen
over the years?
Mr. Garbett. Yes, I think I can do that with a couple of
examples. When we go into the wilderness with a group like you
saw in the picture here, we go in and we are very careful about
where we go. We take out everything that we pack in, we don't
even have fires, so that you wouldn't even know that we had
been there if you came the day after we had been there.
And one time, let me give you an example of, we were in
Devil's Canyon, and we were very careful for three days of
where we were walking, and on the way out we heard, you know,
that whiny noise of motorcycles. And as we came over the rise
we could see where they had been, and the landscape was just
devastated, it was sad to see how much had been torn off, they
were off the road. And you probably have all seen vacant lots
in your neighborhood where motorcycles have been. Nothing grows
there.
And when you see motorcycles, when they go through there,
it is decades before that damage is repaired. The same thing
happened when we were going down the Green River, and we were
two days of floating down that river, which is very calm.
Anybody can go on that river and the scenery is beautiful. But
on the second day, again, we heard the motorcycles and it was
just like the city all of a sudden came crashing back. And two
motorcycles were going up and down the Green River, and I
understand that by Labyrinth Canyon, the BLM is now allowing
motorcycles to do that, but the same damage was done there. And
it takes a long time to repair that kind of damage.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. I assumed when you said the Green
River and calm, you must be describing Labyrinth Canyon.
Mr. Garbett. Labyrinth Canyon, exactly.
Mr. Heinrich. And not Desolation and Gray Canyon and a
number of other stretches.
Mr. Garbett. Not Desolation, no. You must know them well.
Mr. Heinrich. I have spent a lot of time in that country. I
am going to waive the balance of my time and turn things over
to the Ranking Member Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate once again all of you
coming out from Utah and the tremendous patience that it takes
to be here as a panelist for these meetings, especially
Lieutenant Governor Bell. By the way, Gary used to say if you
covered his left eye it looked like Governor Herbert, so is it
now still Governor Bell when you do that?
Mr. Bell. I make no pretense on that.
Mr. Bishop. OK, fine. But having served in the Legislature,
and with Bryson, I hope you get the frustration that many of us
who have served in legislative bodies have with this area. This
is a place of horrendous time management, which means, as you
know in Utah, when there is a committee hearing it is
anticipated everyone will be in the committee. Committee
actions are there, and there is no overlap between Floor time
and committee time. Someday, if I live long enough, that is
going to be one of the reforms we actually make around this
place so we don't have these kind of 30-minute vacations for
you in the middle of it all.
Lieutenant Governor, I do want to talk to you for just a
minute about some of the experiences you have had prior to
becoming the Lieutenant Governor of Utah working with Envision
Utah and some of the efforts you had in transportation issues.
Could you just explain how the collaborative effort was done
and what result took place because of that?
Mr. Bell. I guess it is called the third way, or whatever
you want to refer to it as, but I think almost every speaker
has alluded to it, and that is that because there now are
stakeholders recognized almost on a 360 degree basis around so
many contentious issues that the process really becomes more
important at the first than the substance in that it brings
people together of good faith, and people come in, check their
bombs at the door, and try to cooperate and get to yes.
And we have seen that progress in a multitude of contexts.
Envision Utah is internationally acclaimed for having done that
around urban, then transportation, regional planning, and has
now moved into suburban and even some wilderness issues.
Envision Utah just has the concept that this is a bottom up,
not a bottoms up, that is a drinking term, so it is a bottom up
process by which people come together, sit around a big table,
it may take time, may take energy, may take a little money, but
they are the honest broker.
And Envision Utah has been very successful along the
Wasatch front, but now has gone into the Wasatch back, into
Washington County, throughout our state. And now you have
Envision Montana, Envision whatever, Envision Central Texas. We
have been copied and gladly share our secrets around the
nation. And some kind of effort in this context along those
lines seems to me to have tremendous fruit to bear where we
could have a collaborative process.
We just have to take account of Representative Hinchey's
more national public investment point of view, public
ownership, versus the local interests, the recreationalists,
both at Mr. Garbett's end of the spectrum and also those
offroad enthusiasts with motors. And there are a hundred other
points of view on that, but that to me promises real success.
Mr. Bishop. OK, thank you, I appreciate that. Commissioner
Jones, I appreciate you coming out here. You are a County
Commissioner and an elected Democrat, an endangered species in
Utah I recognize. But could you just simply explain, I know the
passion that you have already felt in here, the sentiments of
your constituents, you have to listen to them to be elected,
toward this particular bill. And I do want to talk about the
land management plan with both of you in just a minute.
Mr. Jones. They are utterly against it. The majority of the
people that I talk to, rarely occasionally you will find
somebody that is for locking up wilderness land in Carbon
County, but the majority of the people that are there are
against it because they depend on it for their livelihood. We
depend on Federal land to build an economy.
Mr. Bishop. The land management plan that was referred to
earlier, in terms of how it was rushed through or in terms even
that it was, ``illegal'' is one of the words that was thrown
about about this, how long did that land management take to try
and develop?
Mr. Jones. It took us in Carbon County about seven years.
Mr. Bishop. Was Carbon County part of the process in
discussion with BLM that particular land plan?
Mr. Jones. Sure, there was Carbon County, I believe SUWA
was involved in those talks and several other groups.
Mr. Bishop. Lieutenant Governor Bell, I understand that
before the land plan was actually finalized by BLM, the State
of Utah and their experts also had to sign off on every part
that was part of that plan?
Mr. Bell. Absolutely. We have been big players.
Mr. Bishop. So one of the processes, I don't know how seven
years can be a rush to judgment on anything, it is a long time
in coming, but part of it is also that when you unilaterally
decide to throw that out and start over again, it has
ramifications on the expert testimony of those who are on the
ground who are working within the Federal agencies as well as
the counties as well as the states, all of whom came up to a
common consensus before the bell went further with that. I
realize I am over by 30 seconds, so let me wait until my next
round and let others ask questions if they would.
Mr. Heinrich. We will go on to Mr. Hinchey then.
Mr. Hinchey. I want to thank you gentlemen very, very much
for being here, and I very much appreciated everything that you
said in the context of your testimony. And I agreed with a lot
of it, more than 60 percent easily. But I appreciate everything
that you said, and it was in some ways very informative. I
think that fundamentally there is not a clear understanding of
what the wilderness designation would be, what would be the
effects of that. It wouldn't be locking the place up, it would
have it open so that people could go in and enjoy it, and if
there are things that need to be done in there you could bring
the vehicles in to do them, there is no problem with that.
But this is something that is very important, and I just
wanted to ask a few questions in the short time that we have.
Mr. Metcalf, if I may, in your testimony you spoke about the
importance of the outdoor industry in the United States and the
strong economic impact that that industry has in Utah. And I
know that you are a businessman, you are directly connected
with this, and I know that the things that you do are very
important and they provide a lot of benefits for the people who
are your customers.
And I wonder if you could tell us more about what the
designation of this land is likely to do with regard to
improving the economic circumstances in Utah. That is one of
the things that strike me so clearly. This is one of the most
important aspects of economic development in Utah. And why you
believe preserving these lands in Utah will create economic
opportunities and jobs in the State of Utah?
Mr. Metcalf. Yes, thank you. Let me begin by saying that
outdoor recreation, active outdoor recreation, are activities
such as hiking, camping, canyoneering, climbing, backpacking,
canoeing, kayaking, fly fishing, hunting. All these activities
require wild lands to do the activities, or at the very least
some of these are close to home activities but everybody
aspires to go to the wilder places.
I was just down near Hanksville this fall canyoneering, and
I was really pleased to see the number of young people out
there in groups engaged in canyoneering, wanting to hike in and
be in some wild place and engage in technical slot
canyoneering. These activities really do require wild places to
do them, and without preservation of these environments to do
these activities, we no longer have a viable industry. It is
kind of like saying we want to have factories but we zone
everything for residential.
The activities that the outdoor industry rely on, these
active outdoor pursuits, not only are they healthy for our
children and us as citizens, but they require places to go that
aren't zoned for things like motorized recreation or mining or
oil and gas extraction, those are two mutually incompatible
uses. But I think the point that the outdoor industry is trying
to make is that this isn't about locking lands up for
preservation purposes versus jobs, it is jobs versus jobs.
It is what kind of jobs do you want to have? Do you want to
have a sustainable economy that is entrepreneurial in nature
made up of a lot of small businesses that make their money off
of outdoor recreation, or do you want to have a boom and bust
cycle? I spent two years as a roughneck drilling for oil in
Utah and in Wyoming during the first oil boom, and I witnessed
firsthand what it was like when the oil boom crashed.
I think that our approaches to how you balance your own
savings, balance portfolio, is how we should approach also jobs
in the West. Outdoor recreation requires us to save and
preserve some of the lands for this very viable industry that
contributes $750 billion a year to our GNP, but not to the
exclusion of some of these other industries, but it is taking a
balanced approach. And what we have right now in Utah with
these new management plans that the BLM has put forth is a
total weighting toward extractive industries and motorized.
And in the plan of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, we
are only asking that 3,500 miles of designated roads out of
20,000 in those management plans get pulled. That is a fraction
when our own statistics, the BLM's own statistics show that in
a place like Moab, only 8 percent of the visitors are engaged
in motorized recreation. The rest are engaged in human powered
active recreation. So clearly those two are incompatible, and
those are the drivers of the recreation economy in America.
Thank you.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much. If I may, Mr. Garbett, I
know that your family, you and your family, are one of the
oldest families in the State of Utah. And I appreciated hearing
about the experiences that you had, the kinds of things that
you have done. And I know that you have insight with regard to
the economic circumstances and Utah and how positive it is to
open up these wilderness lands and present them to the people
in Utah and everyone else around the country so that they could
come there and enjoy it, and what an impact that does make on
the economy.
And also if you would say something else about the offroad
vehicles and the poorly managed circumstances there and the way
in which that damages the land there. And to some extent I have
heard speculations about how that damaging of land is
contributing to the global warming problem that we are having
as well. So if you could touch on that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Garbett. My family has been in Utah for a long time,
and my interest was sparked when I used to go throughout the
state with my father, he was a loan guarantee officer for the
Veterans Administration and would travel through all the small
towns in Utah. I hope that those that are on the other side of
the issue of wilderness don't feel that we are not interested
in what happens in Utah and what happens in their towns.
I agree with Peter, I think that this would be a very
viable way of creating jobs in Utah so that the children of the
residents in southern Utah can stay there and don't have to
move out. I have started many companies, and I think we are
just seeing the beginning of the potential. Offroad vehicles,
and I am glad that you asked that question, the dust that is
created from offroad vehicles, the removal of vegetation which
holds the dust in place, there is evidence now that that is
actually affecting the ski industry in Colorado, and what it
does is it covers the snow so it melts faster. Some estimates
think that that is maybe as much as a month and a half faster,
which also hurts agriculture if that runoff comes that much
earlier.
Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Bishop stuck to his five minutes, so I am
going to try and keep things moving along here. Mrs. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bell, I
understand that the multiple uses currently allowed on the land
in question are economic drivers in the State of Utah, whether
through energy development, ranching, or recreation. Do you see
the sweeping wilderness designations included in this bill
raising or depressing revenue for the State of Utah and its
local communities?
Mr. Bell. I think the chart we saw this morning about the
impact Federal lands have on our education for our children is
really quite foundational. When you try to run an economy with
public lands approaching 80 percent, when you take into account
the Indian reservations, the Federal lands, the state
ownership, it is really quite a burden, and of course we
recognize the great advantage that these lands have as well,
but still we are working with essentially 20 percent of our
land to make a tax base for our state, so it is very difficult.
And let me just continue by saying, I was in the Uinta
Basin, which is the Vernal area which has enjoyed somewhat of
an oil boom and a gas boom in the last two or three years, that
economy now is reeling from the pullback of those energy
facilities. And while it is encouraging over the long long term
to say, well there might be entrepreneurial opportunities, it
is really difficult to walk the streets of Vernal today and say
for the next year or two or three or five, the RMPs have been
rejected, the permits have been slowed down, the rigs have cut
down to about a third, we have an energy problem in our
country, it is almost impossible to deal with the current
situation.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. We have similar situations in
Wyoming, it sounds like a very parallel story. Commissioner
Jones, why do you think the Washington County and Cedar
Mountain wilderness designations recently done in Utah were
successful, and what do you think the sponsors of this bill can
learn from those pieces of legislation?
Mr. Jones. Well, community input. People had the
opportunity to have input on those. I am opposed to large land
grabs, as I call this because it is huge. And they are not
really taking a look on the economic gestures or, you know,
people who live that country, they ranch that country, they use
the country for petroleum and energy influences. None of that
was taken into consideration on this bill. And I believe that
whenever Washington County's bill was looked at, they looked at
those issues. And that is important to our economy in rural
Utah whenever we build an economy on Federal lands.
Mrs. Lummis. Both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Garbett, I would
like you to consider this question. You are former public
servants in Utah, and so I think you understand what kind of
pressures we are facing here. One of my concerns with this bill
is, the language is pretty broad and vague describing the
number of acres and the lack of a map defining the areas to be
designated. Whether it is wilderness or wind energy sites, do
you think it is good policy for Congress to sign off on bills
without knowing all those specifics? What kind of issues does
that create for the implementers?
Mr. Anderson. I read the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Act last
night, and I saw that the map was to be presented by the
Interior Secretary to define those areas. I think certainly the
marking up of this bill presents a great opportunity for
everybody to get together and determine the specifics. But we
saw a map today, there is as great a clarity with respect to
what this wilderness would be as with other wilderness acts,
and I think that that all is going to be resolved as this bill
is marked up and the details attended to. And that would
include of course the wilderness area in Washington County that
needs to be removed from the bill.
Mr. Garbett. I have seen maps. It looks clear to me. I have
also read the bill, and it is fairly detailed in the amount of
acreage that it calls for in each area.
Mrs. Lummis. OK, Mr. Garbett, excuse me, I had
mispronounced your name earlier. It is Garbett, right?
Mr. Garbett. Yes. Yes, it is. That is no problem.
Mrs. Lummis. OK. Thank you. I apologize.
Mr. Heinrich. Mrs. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. What I saw, Mr. Chairman, was references to
things like 10,000 acres more or less. And, you know, I have a
ranch that is 10,000 acres more or less. I know that that is--
--
Mr. Heinrich. And you would prefer a ranch that was 10,000
acres more as opposed to less.
Mrs. Lummis. You have it, exactly. And one more question,
or is my time up?
Mr. Heinrich. It is. We will do another round if that is
OK.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Let me just do a couple, and I appreciate the
gentlelady from Wyoming bringing that up because I was the one
that did the Cedar Mountain bill and the map had to be there
and it had to be specific before we had the hearing. Otherwise,
Chairman Pombo would not let us go forward with that, and we
had done it on the ground and had made specific changes to the
map. So it was there, it was specific, it was not labeled as
XX. There is a difference in the process in which we are going
with this.
There is just one other question I have of Mr. Bell
perhaps, Lieutenant Governor Bell. And maybe Mr. Hinchey would
help me with this because there was one element of revisionist
history that became just abundantly unusual to me when you said
that the reason the Federal Government has all this land is
because the states abandoned this land. That is a unique
concept there. Do you want to clarify what you mean by ``states
abandoning this land''? And, Lieutenant Governor Bell, did
anyone in Utah ever use that as the philosophy of what we have
when we try to talk about these territories as these parcels,
which was supposed to supply a state fund for education by the
way, of being abandoned? That is just such a bizarre verb ever
to be used.
Mr. Hinchey. Obviously, Mr. Bishop, there is a clear
misunderstanding of the situation here. The circumstances of
the lands that are overseen by the Federal Government in this
country comes about as a result of the fact that the states
were not interested in them and did not organize them in any
way, none of the property was being sold to individual citizens
back at that time. And that is basically, Mr. Bishop----
Mr. Bishop. If I could reclaim my time, can I ask you where
you actually got that concept?
Mr. Hinchey. If I were you, Mr. Bishop, I would let
somebody that you ask a question finish it before you try to
interrupt them.
Mr. Bishop. Just if you can tell me where you got that
concept though.
Mr. Hinchey. Mr. Bishop, that is the fact. All you need to
do is go back and look at the history, the early history of the
country, and you see that that is how basically the open lands
in a great many states were organized in that way, and how they
came about and how the Federal Government's oversight of that
land eventually came about.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bell, have you ever heard that one before?
Mr. Bell. Well, it is my understanding these public lands
from statehood have never been owned by the State of Utah, and
our authority over those has been nonexistent. So I don't know,
perhaps we are missing a defined term here. We do have of
course school lands in every section, and it is somewhat
difficult to manage those scattered lands because you can't
sell them if they are surrounded by Federal lands, and perhaps
that is what the good Representative is talking about. But in
the last 30 years Utah has aggressively organized itself to
manage state trust lands for the benefit of the students of
Utah, and that has yielded tremendous returns.
Mr. Bishop. Let me, I don't mean to cut you off here, but I
am going to run out of time here very quickly. And I appreciate
the concept you went in there because once again, when we had
to present the map, we had to go in there and find out not only
what were the private holdings but we also had to go upon the
state trust lands and make sure that we were not imposing upon
them something that still has to be done. That is a very time
consuming concept that is there.
And it is also unique because simply, these lands that were
taken at statehood were supposed to provide a state trust fund
for the education in the State of Utah, hardly the concept of
abandonment. I think what we probably have to do here is get
some lexicon discussions going as to what the word
``abandonment'' means, but for those of us in the West that is
a unique concept that is not historically part of the history
we are looking at. And I appreciate that, and perhaps we are
just dealing with semantics at this stage of the game, but it
is an unusual and unique semantics game in which we are
engaged. I will yield back.
Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, I
think that this is a very interesting discussion, and again I
want to express my appreciation to all of you for being here.
These things are very important. One of the things that we are
interested in, those of us who are sponsoring this bill, is to
try to do everything that we can for this particular state in
the context of this extraordinary land that it has, and how
that land can be used in that state effectively for the people
in that state, and how it can be enjoyed more by people in
other places that are neighbors to that state and other places
around the country. That is basically what we are trying to do
here.
You are dealing with something that is absolutely the most
startlingly beautiful lands almost anywhere on the planet. So
that is one of the main focuses of our attention. And I wanted
to ask Mayor Anderson if he would respond to a question or so,
there are so many things that have been done in the context of
your experience as mayor, and I very much appreciate the
testimony that you gave. That city is a wonderful place and it
is the largest and most important city in Utah.
And one of the things that you mentioned in the context of
your discussion with the display, that picture that you showed,
how the public lands around the City of Salt Lake have had a
positive impact, and maybe you could talk a little bit more
about that. But also, I know you are a former trial attorney
and you have an extensive background in issues of
Constitutional law, and I know that some of the people opposed
to this bill have argued that the Federal Government was
required by the Constitution to relinquish its Federal lands in
Utah upon the state's admission to the union. Perhaps you could
talk to us a little bit about that as well.
Mr. Anderson. I am going to take the latter one first if I
may. There has been, to use the politest term I can think of, a
very strange legal argument used by those who call themselves
``sage brush rebels'' or ``the county supremacists,'' who say
that there is an equal footing doctrine. Congressman Bishop
wrote about this in an op-ed piece saying that it is in Article
4 of the United States Constitution, which coming from a strict
constructionist I would think that you would want to look at
the language of Article 4, you see that there is nothing of the
sort in Article 4 or anywhere else in the Constitution.
Their concept is that all of the states after the original
13 states were to be admitted to the union on an equal footing,
and so they say that means since there was no Federal land in
the first 13 states, therefore there couldn't be any land at
the time of statehood in any of the new states. Absolutely no
basis for it. There was one old Supreme Court decision where
they said that the beds and banks of navigable streams are part
and parcel of a state's sovereignty, so that when a state
becomes a state if the Federal Government owned the banks and
the beds of navigable streams then that goes to the state. That
is as far as it goes.
And in fact this theory has been expressly rejected by the
United States Court of Appeals. So there really is nothing to
that. The inconsistent argument that I have also read from
Congressman Bishop is that somehow the enabling act for Utah
becoming a state requires that the Federal Government sell all
of its lands and give 5 percent of the proceeds to the state.
It doesn't say that at all. It uses the word ``shall'' the
first time in the section that he refers to in the context of,
if the government shall sell the lands then it gives 5 percent
of the proceeds.
And that has to be the meaning because in Section 3 of the
enabling act it provides all sorts of explicit requirements and
prohibitions that clearly contemplate that those Federal lands
will be retained by the Federal Government, which of course is
what the property clause under Article 4 of the United States
Constitution contemplates as well. And that means that Congress
shall determine the use and the management for those lands.
Regarding the value of the these wilderness areas around
the Salt Lake City area, it is really interesting when you go
back and look in the archives, Deseret News, March 3rd, 1977,
everybody, Salt Lake City, Utah's two House Members were
recommending that wilderness designation for Lone Peak be
rejected. Same thing in 1984 regarding Deseret Peak, Stansbury
wilderness area. These articles read exactly like what we are
hearing from the opponents of the Red Rock Wilderness Act in
terms of the objections.
It is something that we have seen in the Ken Burns
documentary now in terms of preserving our Federal lands either
as national parks, national monuments. We know that in every
one of these instances, and certainly it is the case with
regard to all these wilderness areas around Salt Lake City.
Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Anderson, because your time is expires, I
am just going to ask you to wrap it up.
Mr. Anderson. OK. We know that everyone now looks back with
gratitude for those who stood up against the opposition and
made certain that these lands were preserved for later
generations.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you very much for that. And I think that
what we are trying to focus on here is some of the
misunderstanding that is generating opposition to the kinds of
things that are trying to be done on behalf of the people of
the State of Utah. And I thank you very much for your answer.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Congressman. Mrs. Lummis, do you
want to go to your next question?
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Metcalf,
one of the areas recommended in this bill is only 390 acres in
size, far below what the Wilderness Act requires. This is less
than one square mile, it is only about a half a square mile.
How do you think that particular area known as Sooner Bench
meets the requirements of the Wilderness Act?
Mr. Metcalf. I have to be honest with you, I don't know the
specifics of that piece of property, but I will tell you this,
that as somebody who has moved a business to Salt Lake that is
located only about two miles from a wilderness boundary and I
go there at lunch, I can cross into the wilderness and look
over my shoulder and see tractor trailer rigs rumbling along
and hear the noise, but it doesn't remove for a moment the
sense of wonderment I get from being in that wilderness, seeing
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep, elk, deer, et cetera. So I don't
see necessarily a contradiction that you may be referring to,
but I don't know the specifics of that parcel.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Chairman, anyone, know that parcel?
[No response.]
Mrs. Lummis. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. If no one else has other questions, I realize
our guests have been here forever and are trying to go on. I
have other questions, obviously I can go on all night, but if
no one else has other questions I will refrain and we will just
go on with this. Let me just thank our good friends for coming
up here, coming back here, I appreciate your participation, I
appreciate your willingness to be here. Thank you so much for
your time and dedication. And look to 1848 for some Supreme
Court cases.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. And I too want to express our
thanks to all of our panelists today in all four panels. Go
ahead, Mr. Hinchey.
Mr. Hinchey. If you don't mind, one of the issues that was
brought up was the issue of education and how potentially the
expansion of wilderness land is going to have a negative impact
on education. But we know from our experience that it is quite
the opposite. And so I would ask you, if we could start with
the mayor first and come back, talk to us a little bit about
education and the way in which education needs to be funded and
how this would be beneficial to that process.
Mr. Anderson. Well, we have the small parcels of STLE
lands, the State Trust Lands for Education, and you will see
those at little blue dots, little squares on the maps. This Act
actually requires the Secretary of the Interior to trade out
those lands that would be within the wilderness area for other
lands of at least equal value.
The fact is that the designation, for instance of the Grand
Staircase Escalante Monument, has been a boon for Utah's
schools because they took all of those isolated tracks that
were very unproductive and that were separated from each other,
and up in I believe it is called Drunkard's Wash up in the
Price area, the BLM has traded those properties in the Grand
Staircase Escalante Monument for contiguous properties up near
Price, Utah, and 60 percent of all the gas and oil revenues
that have gone to the state school trust has come from those
lands.
So this would be of great benefit to our schools. But in
arguing about these STLE lands, one must recognize that only
about six tenths of 1 percent of our entire education budget
comes from these lands. So anything we can do to increase the
productivity, as has been accomplished, through designation,
protection of these Federal lands I think is of great benefit
to the state, to our students, to our teachers.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Garbett?
Mr. Garbett. As a former legislator, education is the
number one concern of the State of Utah, and trying to find the
money to educate our kids. It is hard, we have a lot of
children, not a lot of money. And my support for this bill is,
based on from what I have seen, that it will not have effect on
ways of earning money, oil, gas, and the effect there will be
very minimal. And so that we can continue to receive those
revenues as well as save our valuable resource for those
children that go to school and for future generations in our
state and across America.
Mr. Hinchey. Thank you. Mr. Metcalf?
Mr. Metcalf. I think the only thing I can add to those
excellent answers is simply that I think we want to be sure we
don't lose sight of the fact that Utah is not just a one-
industry state. We keep talking about oil and gas, oil and gas.
We have seen the boom and bust cycles over the last three
decades since I have lived in the West. And what this bill
helps do is to preserve the lands that allow for another
industry to remain relevant for many, many generations to come,
that of active outdoor recreation.
And that is without even going into the aspects of global
warming, obesity, making sure that we get our children
outdoors. And as somebody who is an active outdoor participant,
it is wonderful to see the number of Utah schoolchildren who
get out to use these wild lands that we have. So that is an
important issue too. But a balanced business portfolio is
essential to the livelihood and vibrancy of this state's
economy in the decades to come.
Mr. Hinchey. I thank you very, very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. When we come back for a markup on this bill, we
will have a nice discussion on Utah's equalization formula for
education and the recapture program and how that actually has
happened historically in the State of Utah. But I realize we
are trying to get out of here so I am not trying to prolong
this with more questions.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. I want to thank once
again all of our panelists today for coming all the way to
Washington to make your testimony, and I want to thank all of
you for your patience with us as we moved back and forth
between here and the House Chamber. And we will wrap this up.
Thank you so much.
[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]