[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4289, COLORADO WILDERNESS ACT OF 2009
=======================================================================
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
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, March 11, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-47
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-394 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON 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
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Jeff Flake, Arizona
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Louie Gohmert, Texas
Jim Costa, California Rob Bishop, Utah
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Adrian Smith, Nebraska
George Miller, California Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon John Fleming, Louisiana
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Mike Coffman, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Islands Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Diana DeGette, Colorado Tom McClintock, California
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
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
Vacancy
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
Grace F. Napolitano, California Elton Gallegly, California
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Carolina
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Louie Gohmert, Texas
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Islands Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Diana DeGette, Colorado Mike Coffman, Colorado
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Lois Capps, California Tom McClintock, California
Jay Inslee, Washington Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South officio
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
Vacancy
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, March 11, 2010......................... 1
Statement of Members:
DeGette, Hon. Diana, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Browns Canyon Wilderness Area Supporters................. 6
Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition ``Wild Ten''
Endorsers.............................................. 8
Coloradans Express Strong Support for Wilderness
Protection............................................. 6
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Brown, Chris, Director, Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers
Programs, National Forest System, Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.................................. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Burke, Marcilynn A., Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior................ 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Dice, Jenn, Government Affairs Director, International
Mountain Bicycling Association, Boulder, Colorado.......... 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Dvorak, Bill, President, Dvorak Rafting & Fishing
Expeditions, Nathrop, Colorado............................. 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Goodtimes, Art, Commissioner, San Miguel County, Norwood,
Colorado................................................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Holsinger, Kent, Holsinger Law, LLC, Denver, Colorado........ 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Salazar, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Smith, Steve, Assistant Regional Director, The Wilderness
Society, Denver, Colorado.................................. 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Stansfield, John, Coordinator, Central Colorado Wilderness
Coalition, Monument, Colorado.............................. 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Additional materials supplied:
Graham, Glenn, President and Chairman of the Board, Colorado
Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, and Don Riggle, Director of
Operations, Trails Preservation Alliance, Letter
submittedfor the record.................................... 58
Houpt, Tresi, Commissioner, Garfield County, Colorado,
Statement submitted for the record......................... 22
List of documents retained in the Committee's official files. 63
Moreland, Edward, Vice President, Government Relations,
American Motorcyclist Association, Letter submitted for the
record..................................................... 64
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4289, TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN THE
STATE OF COLORADO AS COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION
SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. (COLORADO WILDERNESS ACT OF 2009)
----------
Thursday, March 11, 2010
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 11:09 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, The Honorable Raul
M. Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Bishop, Heinrich, and
DeGette.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. I call to order the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests and Public Lands for our legislative hearing
today. The Committee will come to order.
Today we will receive testimony on H.R. 4289, the Colorado
Wilderness Act of 2009. The legislation proposes designating
approximately 850,000 acres across the State of Colorado as
part of a National Wilderness Preservation System. Our
colleague, Representative DeGette, has been a tireless champion
of the Colorado Wilderness Act. She understands the unique
threats facing her state's last pristine areas, and she has
modified her legislation over the years to address the changing
landscape and to protect its highest priorities.
We recently heard legislation as well from the gentleman
from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act,
also introduced during this hearing. We heard again about
collaboration and the need to protect important pristine areas
in Colorado. Our colleague, Mr. Heinrich, has also joined us
today. He is part of the Committee, and I look forward to a
good hearing and a good discussion.
Before Ranking Member Bishop arrives. let me turn the time
over to the sponsor of the legislation, Ms. DeGette, for any
opening comments she might have regarding her legislation.
[The prepared statement of Chairman 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 H.R. 4289: Colorado Wilderness
Act of 2009. The legislation proposes designating approximately 850,000
acres across the State of Colorado as part of the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
Our colleague, Representative Diana DeGette, has been a tireless
champion of the Colorado Wilderness Act. She understands the unique
threats facing her state's last pristine areas, and she has modified
her legislation over the years to address the changing landscape and to
protect the highest priority areas.
Recently, the Subcommittee heard testimony on another Colorado
wilderness bill, the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act, introduced by
Representative John Salazar. During the hearing, it was clear that
despite the sometimes controversial nature of land management issues,
Mr. Salazar had walked a path of collaboration and compromise that led
to a strongly endorsed piece of legislation.
As a wilderness champion myself, I recognize that there are
multiple ways to successfully pass wilderness legislation. I look
forward to hearing from the witnesses about the Colorado Wilderness Act
and the lands across Colorado proposed for designation. The citizens of
Colorado are lucky to have representatives that are so dedication to
the preservation of the unique areas across their state.
I would now like to turn to Ranking Member Bishop for any opening
statement he may have.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DeGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for having
this hearing today. I have been waiting 11 years to have this
hearing, so I really appreciate it.
As you said, I have introduced my newest version of the
Colorado Wilderness Act, a version that I have introduced each
Congress for the last decade. This bill was put together by a
coalition of Colorado citizens who are committed, as I am and
as all of us are, to protecting the few remaining wild places
in our state, and I do not need to tell you that Coloradans
from Carbondale to Colorado Springs, from Denver to Durango,
live in our state because of the very special outdoor heritage
that we have and because of the outdoors.
The bill before us today, the Colorado Wilderness Act of
2009, protects some of the most cherished areas in our state.
Many of the lands in my bill are lower lying canyon areas,
foothills and lower elevation terrain, and I sent a book to
each one of your offices that was written about my bill,
``Colorado Canyon Country'' that talks about the very special
areas that we have, the canyon areas, and how important it is
that we protect those areas. Here it is.
This type of landscape is not well represented among our
current wilderness areas because almost all of the existing
wilderness in Colorado is above 9,000 feet in elevation. Part
of the reason we don't have lower lying canyon areas in our
wilderness inventory now is because the original Wilderness Act
that Congress passed directed the Forest Service and the
National Park Service, but not the BLM to study lands under
their control for potential wilderness designation.
Congress remedied this in 1976 in the Federal Land Policy
Management Act. The BLM then undertook the process of
inventorying lands in Colorado and elsewhere to determine their
suitability for wilderness. In 1991, the BLM presented its
final list of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). These areas from
1991, almost 20 years ago, continue to be managed to preserve
their natural position and wilderness character. About three-
quarters of the land in the bill we are talking about today
consist of BLM-managed Wilderness Study Areas.
In the early 1990s, after the WSAs were designated, a group
of dedicated citizens took it upon themselves to review the
areas that BLM had recommended and to suggest additional areas
that might have outstanding wilderness characteristics. These
thorough citizen inventories were conducted by volunteers who
spent countless hours on the ground mapping and looking at
areas that merited the wilderness designation.
In 1994, those citizens published their first proposal for
Colorado wilderness on BLM lands. For the next decade they
continued to review and inventory wilderness-quality areas.
They held public meetings across western Colorado seeking input
on the proposal, and as a result of those efforts a revised
citizen proposal was published in 2001, and another revision
took place in 2007. This bill stemmed directly from those
citizen efforts.
Over the last decade, the bill has evolved in significant
ways, and I expect, Mr. Chairman, that it will continue to
evolve through this hearing and the legislative process. The
full citizens' wilderness proposal is 62 areas, comprising 1.6
million acres.
While I support the vision of that original citizens'
proposal, I have scaled back my bill over time to focus on
those areas that are most deserving of protection and have the
fewest potential conflicts. I have done this in consultation
with local citizens, other Members of Congress, and local
elected officials. I have also made significant changes, Mr.
Chairman, to the legislative language over time. For example, I
removed the Federal reserve water right that was in earlier
versions of the bill, and I made specific boundary adjustments
as a result of direct local input.
The current bill that I introduced late last year contains
34 areas consisting of roughly 850,000 acres. It would leave
unaffected over 90 percent of BLM-managed lands which would
remain open to oil and gas drilling, mining, off-road vehicle
use and other development.
Since I introduced the first version of this bill in 1999,
I have consulted with interested groups, local leaders and
other Members of the Congressional Delegation to focus on
select areas. I have personally traveled the state, visiting 14
of the areas by foot, horse and boat. On those trips, I was
joined by landowners, ranchers, business leaders, elected
officials, and many others. I have also held a number of public
meetings and discussions on the proposal, soliciting feedback
from all interested parties.
Last year, before I reintroduced my bill, I released a
discussion draft of this revised proposal and accepted public
comments from citizens and elected leaders all over the state.
As a result of the feedback from this process, I am actually
personally sorry to say I made the tough decision to remove the
Roan Plateau from the final bill. While the Roan Plateau is a
remarkable area that deserves to be protected, it is entangled
in litigation over energy development and the ongoing
settlement discussions should be given a chance to succeed
before Congress intervenes.
My proposal has received significant local support over the
last decade. It has been endorsed by 350 businesses and
organizations from across the state, 14 Colorado counties and
municipalities have expressed their support for wilderness, and
just last summer over 14,000 Colorado residents signed cards in
support of the wilderness areas proposed in our bill.
I am going to leave it to the witnesses, Mr. Chairman, to
talk about the many benefits for Colorado that wilderness has,
but as you said, increased pressures on the public lands for
population growth, mining, natural gas drilling and diverse
forms of recreation have made it even more important to
preserve our few remaining wild places, and I think that it is
not contradictory to both preserve wilderness and also
encourage oil and gas drilling and other types of public lands
use.
For all of these reasons, over 70 percent of Coloradans
supported additional wilderness designation in a 2007 statewide
poll, including majorities in all parts of the state and from
both political parties. In that same poll, over 90 percent of
Coloradans agreed that wilderness was important for the tourism
it supports, and 71 percent agreed that wilderness-quality
lands should not be sacrificed for energy development. Seventy-
three percent of the people who live on the western slope of
Colorado, where most of these lands occur, support more BLM
wilderness.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, has seen a decade of work for me
and my staff and from the many citizens statewide who have been
involved. The proposed areas have been reviewed and inventoried
by the BLM, the Forest Service, and local citizens for even
longer. But Mr. Chairman, I recognize and I think Mr. Salazar
recognizes too, today's hearing is not the end of the process.
I look forward to continuing to work with local residents and
leaders, and all of the Members of the Congressional Delegation
going forward to continue to refine this proposal, and I
welcome the feedback and input of today's session.
Our public lands are valued for many reasons, for motorized
recreation and resource extraction, to their ability to find
solitude and unblemished landscapes. But I strongly believe,
Mr. Chairman, that we must conserve a small portion of those
very most special public lands for future generations. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DeGette follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate you holding this
hearing today.
I have introduced a version of the Colorado Wilderness Act each
Congress for the last decade. This bill was brought to me by Colorado
citizens committed to protecting the few remaining wild places in our
state. Colorado has a remarkable outdoor heritage. Its residents--from
Carbondale to Colorado Springs, from Denver to Durango--live in
Colorado because of the outdoors. As Coloradans, our quality of life is
enhanced tremendously from access to our state's magnificent public
lands. The outdoors is central to our lifestyle, and is essential to
our state's economy. Our natural lands bring in millions of tourist
dollars every year and support industries from outfitters to gear
manufacturers.
The bill before us today, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009,
would protect some of the most cherished lands in our state. Many of
these lands are lower lying canyon areas, foothills, and lower
elevation desert terrain. This type of landscape is not well
represented among our current wilderness areas. Nearly all existing
wilderness in Colorado is above 9,000 feet in elevation.
Part of the reason for this oversight is historical. The original
Wilderness Act directed the Forest Service and the National Park
Service--but not the BLM--to study lands under their control for
potential wilderness designation. Congress remedied this in 1976 in the
Federal Land Policy Management Act. The BLM then undertook a process of
inventorying lands in Colorado and elsewhere to determine their
suitability for wilderness. In 1991, the BLM presented its final list
of Wilderness Study Areas. These areas continue to be managed to
preserve their natural condition and wilderness character.
Approximately three-quarters of the land in this bill consist of BLM-
managed Wilderness Study Areas.
In the early 1990's, after the Wilderness Study Areas were
designated, dedicated citizens took it upon themselves to review the
areas BLM had recommended and to suggest additional areas that had
outstanding wilderness characteristics. These thorough citizen
inventories were conducted by volunteers who spent countless hours on
the ground mapping areas that merited wilderness designation. In 1994,
the citizens published their first proposal for Colorado wilderness on
BLM lands. For the next decade, they continued to review and inventory
wilderness-quality areas. They held public meetings across Western
Colorado, seeking input on their proposal. As a result of these
efforts, a revised citizen proposal was published in 2001, and another
revision took place in 2007.
This bill has stemmed directly from the citizen efforts. Over the
last decade, the bill has evolved in significant ways, and it will
continue to evolve through this hearing and the legislative process.
The full citizen's wilderness proposal is 62 areas consisting of 1.65
million acres. While I support the vision of the citizen's proposal, I
have scaled back my bill over time to focus on those areas that are
most deserving of protection and have the fewest potential conflicts. I
have done this in consultation with local citizens, other Members of
Congress, and local elected officials.
I have also made significant changes to the legislative language
over time. For instance, I removed the federal reserve water right that
was in earlier versions of the bill, and I made specific boundary
adjustments as a result of direct local input.
The current bill contains 34 areas consisting of roughly 850,000
acres. It would leave unaffected over 90% of BLM-managed lands, which
would remain open to oil and gas drilling, mining, off-road vehicle use
and other development.
Since I introduced the first version of this bill in 1999, I have
consulted with interested groups, local leaders, and other members of
the Congressional delegation to focus on select areas. I have traveled
the state, visiting 14 of the areas by foot, horse, or boat. On these
trips, I was joined by landowners, ranchers, business leaders, and
elected officials. I have also held a number of public meetings and
discussions on my proposal, soliciting feedback from all interested
parties.
Last year before I reintroduced my bill, I released a discussion
draft and accepted public comments from citizens and elected leaders
all over the state. As a result of feedback from this process, I made
the tough decision to remove the Roan Plateau from the final bill.
While the Roan Plateau is a remarkable area that deserves to be
protected, it is entangled in litigation over energy development and
the ongoing settlement discussions should be given a chance to succeed
before Congress intervenes.
My proposal has received significant local support over the last
decade. It has been endorsed by 350 businesses and organizations from
across the state. Fourteen Colorado counties and municipalities have
expressed their support for wilderness. And just last summer, over
14,000 Colorado residents signed cards in support of the wilderness
areas proposed in our bill.
Wilderness has many benefits for Colorado. With increased pressures
on our public lands from population growth, mining, natural gas
drilling, and the diverse forms of recreation Coloradans now pursue, it
is incredibly important to preserve our remaining wild places. I think
it's important to have energy development, but on the other hand, I
don't think it's contradictory to preserve wilderness. Wilderness areas
are available for many low-impact recreational activities, including
hiking, hunting, fishing, rafting, camping, rock climbing, and
horseback riding. Wilderness provides important ecological benefits,
protecting wildlife habitat, watersheds, and air quality. Also,
wilderness designation contributes significantly to the local economy
by attracting tourism, and can increase local property values.
For all of these reasons, over 70% of Coloradans supported
additional wilderness designation in a 2007 poll, including majorities
in all parts of the state and from both political parties. In the same
poll, over 90% of Coloradans agreed that wilderness was important for
the tourism it supports, and 71% agreed that wilderness-quality lands
should not be sacrificed for energy development. Seventy percent of
Western Slope residents supported additional BLM wilderness.
This bill has seen a decade of work from me and my staff, and the
proposed areas have been reviewed and inventoried by the BLM, the
Forest Service, and local citizens for even longer. But I recognize,
and I know Mr. Salazar recognizes too, that today's hearing is not the
end of the process. I look forward to working with local residents and
leaders, and all members of the Congressional delegation going forward
to continue to refine this proposal. And I welcome the feedback and
input of today's witnesses.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Coloradans Express Strong Support for Wilderness Protection
A May 2007 poll conducted by Talmey-Drake found that a solid
majority of Colorado voters favor additional wilderness designation of
federal public lands in Colorado. This support is shared widely among
Coloradans across geographic, political party affiliation and gender
categories, and is nearly identical whether respondents hunt, fish or
recreate in other ways. Specific results are highlighted below.
Nearly Three-Quarters of Coloradans Statewide Agree
Wilderness Quality Lands Are More Important for Recreation, Tourism and
Wildlife than for Energy Development and Motorized Recreation. When
read pro-wilderness and anti-wilderness statements, nearly three-
quarters (71%) of those surveyed agreed with the pro-wilderness
argument, versus 24% who aligned themselves with the anti-wilderness
statement. This support was consistent across all geographic regions of
the state (ranging from 59% to 76%, with both Denver and West Slope at
76%). There was also majority support for the pro-wilderness statement
across all political parties; although support was higher among
Democrats (85%) and Independents (76%), Republicans also favored BLM
wilderness (52% supporting versus 43% opposed).
Supporters of more wilderness protection say Colorado's
population has grown 20 percent in the past eight years and new
development uses up about 250 acres every day. They also point
out that tourism, recreation and hunting are some of the
largest contributors to Colorado's economy, and that this rapid
growth, as well as increased drilling of oil and gas on our
public lands, is putting intense pressure on Colorado's
national parks, wilderness areas and forests. Therefore more of
the state's remaining wild places should be protected for
recreation, wildlife, and our children before it's too late.
Further, they say that we can never drill our way to energy
independence and we ought to implement sustainable energy
alternatives before we damage these last best wild places.
Opponents of more wilderness protection say there are already
enough protected areas in Colorado. They say the state has more
than 30 million acres designated as national parks and forests,
state parks, and open space, and more than ten percent of this
30 million acres is already locked up as wilderness, where off-
road vehicles users and mountain bikers are prohibited.
Further, they say that locking up more wilderness areas goes
too far by banning oil and gas exploration at a time we need
more domestic oil and gas production to provide greater energy
independence from the Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia,
Iraq and Iran.
Now, with which do you tend to agree more--the statement in
support of more wilderness protection, or the statement opposed
to more wilderness protection? [n=617]
Voters Favor Protection of Wilderness-Quality Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Lands. About one million out of the eight million
acres of public lands managed in Colorado by the BLM meet the criteria
for wilderness designation. Nearly two-thirds of Coloradans statewide
(64%) support wilderness designation of these BLM lands--70% strongly
so--versus 27% who opposed this proposal (55% strongly so). Again,
support for this wilderness proposal was consistent across all
geographic regions of the state and political parties.
West Slopers Strongly Support Additional Wilderness near
their Communities. Seventy percent of West Slope respondents favored
designation of wilderness-quality Forest Service or BLM lands in or
near the county where they live, 84% strongly so. Only 23% of those
surveyed on the West Slope were in opposition (75% strongly opposed).
This support was particularly high among Democrats (78%) and
Independents (77%), but less so among Republicans (48% supportive
versus 41% opposed).
Coloradans Believe Wilderness is Important to the Economy
and their Quality of Life. When read statements about wilderness, more
than 90% agreed that wilderness areas were important economically for
the hunting, fishing and tourism they support, versus 9% who opposed.
This result was very consistent across political party and geographic
region.
Strong support (80%) was also found for the statement that ``[t]he
presence of nearby wilderness helps define Colorado and is an important
reason why I choose to live here.'' While high across all geographic
regions, this sentiment was highest on the West Slope (89%, with 67%
feeling strongly) and lowest on the Eastern Plains at 68%.
Coloradans Are Not Swayed by Energy and Motorized
Recreation Arguments Against Wilderness. Only 33% of respondents agreed
with a statement that wilderness-quality lands are needed for domestic
energy development, while 71% supported an alternative statement that
wilderness-quality lands should not be sacrificing for energy
development but clean energy alternatives pursued instead.
Similarly, a statement suggesting that wilderness unfairly
restricts off-road vehicles users and mountain bikers from recreation
opportunities received much less support (37%) than an alternative
statement arguing that these uses have ample access to the majority of
public lands while additional wilderness is necessary for quiet uses
(78%). Notably support for this statement was highest on the West Slope
and North Corridor (Larimer and Weld counties) at 83%.
Methodology
The survey was conducted by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy, Inc.,
a public opinion and market research firm in Boulder, Colorado. The
results of this survey are based on 617 random telephone interviews
with Colorado residents, conducted from May 1st to 14th, 2007. Quotas
were established to obtain equal representation for men and women, and
an appropriate representation from among certain counties 1.
The West Slope was then oversampled to obtain approximately 100
completed interviews on the West Slope. Results were then weighted to
reflect the actual population of the West Slope. A random sample of 617
has a worst-case 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 3.9% about
any one reported percentage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Quotas were established for Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver,
Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa, Pueblo and Weld.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The poll was commissioned by Colorado Environmental Coalition, The
Wilderness Society and Wilderness Workshop. For more information,
please contact: Elise Jones, CEC, 303-534-7066, x1504; Suzanne Jones,
TWS, 303-650-5818, x102; or Sloan Shoemaker, WW, 970-963-3977.
______
Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition ``Wild Ten'' Endorsers
(the ``Wild Ten'' including Browns Canyon)
Aiken Audubon Society--Colorado Springs, CO
American Lands Alliance--Boulder, CO
Arkansas River Outfitters Association--Salida, CO
Arkansas Valley Audubon Society--Pueblo, CO
Audubon Colorado--Colorado
Catamount Institute--Colorado Springs, CO
Center for Native Ecosystems--Denver, CO
Colorado Environmental Coalition--Colorado
Colorado Mountain Club--Colorado
Colorado Native Plant Society--Fort Collins, CO
Colorado River Outfitters Association--Buena Vista, CO
Colorado Wild--Denver, CO
Environment Colorado--Denver, CO
Friends of Browns Canyon--Salida, CO
Great Old Broads for Wilderness--Durango, CO
Mountain Chalet--Colorado Springs, CO
Quiet Use Coalition--Buena Vista, CO
Rocky Mountain Recreation Initiative--Nederland, CO
San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council--Alamosa, CO
Sierra Club--Rocky Mountain Chapter
The Evergreen Naturalists Audubon Society (TENAS)--Evergreen, CO
The Wilderness Society-- Four Corners Regional Office, Denver, CO
Trails and Open Space Coalition--Colorado Springs, CO
University of Colorado Environmental Center--Boulder, CO
Western Resource Advocates--Boulder, CO
Western Slope Environmental Resource Council--Paonia, CO
Wild Connections--Florissant, CO
Wildlands Center for Preventing Roads--Missoula, MT
Wildlands Project--Colorado
Wilderness Study Group--University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
Wilderness Workshop--Carbondale, CO
______
Mr. Grijalva. Let me now ask our Ranking Member if he has
any opening comments.
Mr. Bishop. No, I will waive and we can get on with the
testimony.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Mr. Heinrich, any opening comments? No?
Thank you.
The first panel consisting of a panelist, Representative
Salazar from Colorado's Third District. Welcome, sir, and I
look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. SALAZAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Salazar. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for having this very important hearing, and I do want to
commend Mrs. DeGette from Colorado who has been a strong
advocate for wilderness and protecting our environment in
Colorado.
As many of you know, I represent the Third Congressional
District, it is the most beautiful district in the entire
country, and I appreciate having this opportunity to comment on
Colorado wilderness. Let me first say at the outset that no one
has been a greater champion for protecting Colorado than Ms.
Diana DeGette, and I appreciate that. She has tenaciously
worked for over 11 years to ensure that worthy areas that help
define the beauty that is Colorado are preserved for future
generations, and I applaud her for that.
The bill before the Committee today would designate as
wilderness hundreds of thousands of acres that are located
within the Third and the Second District of Colorado, and some
in Mr. Lamborn's district. The Congresswoman and I have had
several opportunities and several conversations about her
proposal, and I agree that some of these areas deserve further
review and potential consideration. However, it is my strong
belief that there is a right way to proceed with wilderness
legislation in my district.
As many of you recall, the Committee recently held a
hearing on H.R. 3914, the San Juan Mountain Wilderness Act
which designates 62,000 acres in my district as wilderness and
other protected designations. The way we developed this bill, I
believe, was the right way to proceed. The San Juan bill is a
product of three years of hard and detailed work. We spoke with
all the interested stakeholders in the region, including
landowners, oil and gas companies, recreational groups,
ranchers, conservation groups, elected officials, the Forest
Service, and others in order to resolve the issues and develop
a bill that receive wide support and almost 100 percent
consensus.
It was a time-consuming process but I believe that the
result is a wilderness bill that protects pristine natural
areas and habitat, and that has support of the major
stakeholders in the area. It was a win/win for our region. I
think it is critical that we weigh the competing demands when
considering areas for wilderness protection. We cannot impose
wilderness designations from the outside but instead must be a
carefully considered process.
Although I know the Congresswoman has pursued some of these
areas for over 11 years and has garnered some support for her
proposal, I have found that numerous obstacles remain in
virtually most of the proposed areas. As a Member of Congress
who represents these areas, I cannot support simply imposing
wilderness on my constituents. I believe it must be negotiated
and worked out with all the various stakeholders in order to
achieve a consensus.
There are some specific concerns about this bill that I
would like to highlight, and the language used for water issues
in this legislation would cause major problems with the water
use in the western slope of my district. The Congresswoman
addressed the issue of Federal reserve and non-Federal reserve
water rights which has been addressed. However, there is a
delicate balance that we have and there are major concerns
among the Dolores water users, and with the delicate balance of
water distribution in these basins. Major water uses could be
curtailed, causing sever economic hardship in my district, and
the most important part of it is it could jeopardize interstate
compact agreements.
This bill also does not have language that protects the
existence of ditches and reservoirs that are within the areas
proposed for wilderness. Each and every specific area must be
addressed differently. While one ditch may not seem like a big
deal to some, to a farmer who depends on it for his livelihood
it is, and he should be protected.
This bill in its current form closed numerous motorized
routes, snowmobile areas and mountain bike trails. These are
important activities in my district that contribute to both the
quality of life that my constituents enjoy as well as being a
major economic activity in these communities. I believe that we
will hear testimony about how the San Juan Wilderness Bill will
improve the economics of the Telluride and San Miguel County
areas.
There are some areas in this bill that some say have all
their issues resolved. However, I call your attention to the
fact that there are still some critical issues that need to be
resolved, even in some of these cases. For instance at the
Palisade, the Powderhorn and the Roubideau, there are motorized
routes that would be closed by this legislation. In short, even
in the area some argue that they are most ready for designation
as wilderness, some critical issues still need to be discussed
with local communities.
To shed more light on these issues, I would like to
introduce for the record the letters, and I have shared these
with the Congresswoman, that I have received from entities in
my district expressing their concern about the legislation.
Finally, I share the concerns that I have heard from the
U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management for this
legislation, which you will be hearing about later on in the
testimony. I do appreciate you holding this hearing today, Mr.
Chairman, and I commend Mrs. DeGette for her efforts. Our
staffs have spoken, and it is my understanding that the
Congresswoman's intention of moving this bill is one of using
it as a means to identify potential wilderness for future
discussions, and if that is the case, I can assure you that I
will continue to work with the interested parties and I will
continue to work with Ms. DeGette to identify areas in my
district which may be appropriate for wilderness consideration,
and I will work to form a consensus with stakeholders just as I
did with the San Juan Mountain Wilderness Bill.
I want to thank you for your time and allowing me to
testify. We may differ in the details but we share the same
goal of seeing more wilderness created in Colorado. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Salazar follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John T. Salazar, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Colorado
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate having this
opportunity to comment on H.R. 4289, The Colorado Wilderness Act of
2009,
Let me first just say at the outset that no one has been a champion
for protecting natural areas like Congresswoman DeGette has been. She
has tenaciously worked to ensure that worthy areas that help define the
beauty that is Colorado are preserved for future generations. And I
applaud her for that. But there is a right to do this, and there is a
wrong way. And as the representative of the district in which most of
the proposed designations are located, I am going to insist that this
process be done the right way. And that has not yet happened in this
case.
The bill before the Committee today would designate as Wilderness
hundreds of thousands of acres that are located within the 3rd
congressional district of Colorado, which I represent. The
Congresswoman and I have had several conversations about her proposal,
and I agree that some of these areas deserve further review and
potential consideration.
However, it is my strong belief that there is a right way to
proceed with wilderness legislation in my district and, unfortunately,
H.R. 4289 does not meet what I believe are the appropriate standards of
discussion and negotiation with my constituents who would be affected.
As you'll recall, the Committee recently held a hearing on H.R. 3914,
the San Juan Mountain Wilderness Act, which designates 62thousand acres
in my district as Wilderness and other protective designations The way
we developed this bill is, I believe, the right way to proceed.
My San Juan bill is the product of three years of hard and detailed
work. We spoke with all the interested stakeholders in the region,
including landowners, recreational groups, ranchers, conservation
groups, elected officials, and the Forest Service, in order to resolve
issues and develop a bill that received wide support and consensus. It
was a time consuming process, but I believe the result is a Wilderness
bill that protects pristine natural areas and habitat and that has the
support of the major stakeholders in the area. It is a win-win for our
region.
It is critical that we weigh the competing demands when considering
areas for wilderness protection. We cannot impose a wilderness
designation from the outside, as H.R. 4289 would do, but it instead
must be a carefully considered process. Although I know the
Congresswoman has pursued some of these areas for a number of years and
has garnered some support for her proposals, I have found that numerous
obstacles remain in virtually all of the proposed areas. As the Member
of Congress who represents these areas, I cannot support simply
imposing Wilderness on my constituents--it must be negotiated and
worked out with all the various stakeholders in order achieve a
consensus.
There are some specific concerns about this bill that I would like
to highlight. The language used for water issues in this legislation
would cause major problems with water use on the Western Slope of my
district. By creating a federal reserved water right on major rivers
such as the Dolores, the delicate balance of water distribution in
these basins would be forever lost. Major water uses could be curtailed
causing severe economic hardship in my district. This bill also does
not have language that protect the existence of ditches and reservoirs
that are within the areas proposed for Wilderness. While one ditch may
not seem like a big deal to some, to the farmer who depends on it is
their lifeblood and should be protected.
This bill in its current form would close numerous motorized
routes, snowmobile areas and mountain bike trails. These are important
activities in my district that contribute to both the quality of life
that my constituents enjoy as well as being a major economic activity
in these communities. In addition many of the areas proposed for
Wilderness designations in my district have existing mineral leases
that are important to our nation's energy supply and an important part
of the economy in my district. As you know a Wilderness designation on
top of an existing mineral lease is just not something Congress does
without the cooperation, or at least consultation with the lease
holder. To do so compromises energy companies private property rights
and I cannot support that.
There are some areas in this bill that some are saying have all
their issues resolved. However I call your attention to the fact there
are still some critical issues that need to be resolved even in these
areas. For instance at The Palisade, Powderhorn and Roubideau there are
motorized routes that would be closed by this legislation. Perhaps the
community in these areas will support this closure if they want to see
the protection that Wilderness would give these areas, but the
discussion has to take place at the community level before that
decision can be made. In the Thompson Ridge area this legislation would
close a mountain bike trail. In short even in the areas some argue are
most ready for designation as Wilderness some critical issues still
need to be discussed with local communities.
To shed more light on these issues I would like to introduce for
the record letters I have received from entities in my district
expressing their concern with this legislation.
Mr. Chairman I would also like to take the time to update you on
several processes under way in the third Congressional District that
may result in a community consensus to pursue legislation. Some of the
areas included in H.R. 4289 are directly impacted by these processes
All across Western Colorado the difficult patient work of many
communities are working to explore the possibility of designating more
Wilderness Areas that will have broad based support. I believe it is
important to let these processes proceed at their own pace at the
community level before Congress acts. The people of these communities
who live and work in these areas are best positioned to make these
recommendations and decisions to us, not the other way around. These
are some of the processes ongoing in my district that I am monitoring
and participating in:
Hermosa Creek Workgroup
For over two years the Hermosa Creek workgroup has met to work
towards a consensus set of recommendations to me about how to proceed
with a legislative approach to protect this amazing watershed. This
group is composed of all interested parties that have a stake or an
interest in the Hermosa Creek watershed including outfitters,
conservationists, sportsmen, property owners, mining advocates, water
district officials, motorized users, mountain bikers and local elected
officials. In short anyone who has an interest was invited to the table
for two years worth of meetings and all options were on the table and
just this last month I received an official communication from this
group that they are requesting that I draft legislation to implement
their recommendations. I am currently taking a hard look at this
request and if I decide local support for this proposed legislation is
strong enough then I will indeed introduce legislation for this area.
This legislation could provide permanent protection for around 150,000
acres of this watershed, including a new 50,000 acre Wilderness west of
Hermosa Creek.
Alpine Triangle
Trout Unlimited and other stakeholders have been working at the
grassroots level in Hinsdale, Ouray and San Juan Counties to explore
the possibility of creating an Alpine Loop National Conservation Area
that could include a Wilderness designation for some or all of the
proposed Redcloud and Handies areas from H.R. 4289. This effort may
result in legislation the local communities can support. But both the
counties and Trout Unlimited do not support an effort to push any
federal designations through before the extensive on the ground work is
done. This community discussion should be given time to unfold at its
own pace and reach its own conclusion. While this effort is in its
early stages if the discussion yields a community consensus with broad
support for a legislative approach I would be happy to introduce
legislation for this area.
Lower Dolores Plan Working Group
Just this week the Lower Dolores Plan Working Group formed a
subcommittee to forge a proposal for a legislative approach to
management of the Dolores River between McPhee Reservoir and the town
of Bedrock. While it is far too soon to tell if this will result in an
actual recommendation from this community to seek legislation, if it
does then I will carry forth legislation on behalf of this community.
This legislation could designate as Wilderness many of the areas
proposed for designation in H.R. 4289 in the Dolores River basin.
To act now on designating any of these areas before the community
based processes can conclude is quite simply disrespectful to the
constituents of my district. Many of my constituents have put in long
nights away from home to come and gather around a table and meet with
the other members of their community. This is long difficult work that
requires patience and perseverance. I commend and thank each and every
one of my constituents who have participated in these work groups. I
feel strongly that to act to designate these areas before these
discussions have a chance to conclude is something I simply cannot
support. I will continue to monitor all of these ongoing efforts and
feel the chances are good at least some of them will result in
legislation. Mr. Chairman please do not be surprised to see me back
here before you in the near future with legislation that I will bring
to this committee on behalf of my constituents.
I appreciate your holding this hearing today, Mr. Chairman, and I
commend Ms. DeGette for her efforts. However, I cannot support her bill
today. I will, though, continue to work with interested parties to
identify areas in my district which may be appropriate for wilderness
consideration and will work to form a consensus with stakeholders, just
as I did with the San Juan Mountains Wilderness bill.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. As you informed me,
you have pending business right now after this hearing and you
are going to have to leave immediately, as I understand it. I
want to thank you for your testimony and I am sure if there is
any follow-up that members of the panel will be more than glad
to provide those requests for information or requests to you
directly, so let me thank you.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman. I just wanted--
Mr. Grijalva. Please.
Ms. DeGette. If I could just say one thing. I want to thank
Mr. Salazar for coming and I also want to thank him for all the
work he has done with my office and all of the discussions we
have had. I think I can fairly say we consider ourselves to be
brother and sister. Now sometimes we argue and sometimes we can
agree, but we have agreed that we both care about wilderness.
We have agreed to work on all of these issues--not just in my
district, but throughout the state--to make sure that we make
the state the best place, and I just really appreciate him
coming.
I would also ask unanimous consent to put his letters in
the record because he has shared those with me.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
[NOTE: A list of documents submitted for the record and
retained in the Committee's official files can be found at the
end of this hearing.]
Mr. Grijalva. Again, thank you, Mr. Salazar. I appreciate
your time.
Mr. Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I just wanted to
say that this has been a great opportunity. This is the first
time that I have been able to sit at the table by myself. I
feel a little bit lonely, like a bull's eye. However, I do
appreciate it, sir, and anyone who may have questions for me I
would be happy to submit written responses to them. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
Let me now invite the second panel up, please. Thank you
very much for being here. Let me begin with Ms. Marcilynn
Burke, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management. Welcome, and
thank you for your time. I am looking forward to your comments
regarding the legislation before us. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MARCILYNN A. BURKE,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Ms. Burke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on H.R.
4289, the Colorado Wilderness Act.
The department strongly supports the constructive
resolution of public lands issues and wilderness designation
issues in Colorado and across the western United States. H.R.
4289, as you know, proposes to designate 34 wilderness units on
BLM-managed lands and U.S. Forest System lands totaling nearly
850,000 acres to be added to the National Wilderness
Preservation System. These designations are largely focused in
western Colorado and includes spectacular canyons, vast open
spaces, unique habitats, diverse wildlife, and nationally
significant cultural resource sites.
The Bureau of Land Management has not undertaking a
detailed analysis and review of each of the many areas,
however, proposed for wilderness designation under the bill.
Such a review would take a careful look at the myriad of land
use issues, including wilderness character or quality, boundary
manageability, and conflict with current uses, including
motorized recreation and energy development.
Many of the areas proposed for designation have important
wilderness values and deserve protection. There are also
several areas proposed for wilderness designation under H.R.
4289 where conflicts exist with existing and proposed uses,
making manageability of wilderness here problematic.
As always, we welcome the opportunity to work cooperatively
with the sponsor of the legislation, the Committee, and all the
Members of the Colorado Delegation on wilderness issues in
Colorado. However, we suggest a more narrow geographical focus
here. Our nation's wilderness system includes many of our most
treasured landscapes and ensures that these untrammeled lands
and resources are conserved with these outstanding wilderness
characteristics intact as they are passed down from one
generation of Americans to the next.
Through our wilderness decisions, we demonstrate a
stewardship and conservation that is uniquely American and is
sensibly balanced with the other decisions we make that affect
public lands. Colorado's exquisite deserts, canyons, cliffs,
and peaks deserve our careful attention and thoughtful review.
We recommend a more limited approach here so that we can assure
proper review and consultation. Working cooperatively with
local and national constituencies, this Subcommittee, the
sponsor of the bill, and the Colorado Congressional Delegation,
we can protect these very special places.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burke follows:]
Statement of Marcilynn A. Burke, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
H.R. 4289, the Colorado Wilderness Act. The Department strongly
supports the constructive resolution of public lands and wilderness
designation issues in Colorado and across the western United States.
Enactment of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (Public Law 111-11)
last year provided resolution of wilderness issues for a wide array of
lands in California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon and Utah.
The scope of H.R. 4289 is vast; covering over 615,000 acres of
lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM has
not undertaken a detailed analysis and review of each of the many areas
proposed for wilderness designation. Such a review would require
detailed mapping by the BLM and a careful look at a myriad of land use
issues including: wilderness quality, boundary manageability, and
conflicts with current uses, including motorized recreation and energy
development.
As always, we welcome the opportunity to work cooperatively with
the sponsor of the legislation, the Committee, and all members of the
Colorado delegation on wilderness issues in Colorado. However, we
suggest an approach that utilizes a narrower geographical focus.
Our Nation's wilderness system includes many of our most treasured
landscapes and ensures that these untrammeled lands and resources are
conserved with these outstanding wilderness characteristics intact as
they are 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
The Department strongly supports the constructive resolution of
public lands and wilderness designation issues in Colorado and across
the Western United States. The Omnibus Public Land Management Act (P.L.
111-11) signed by the President a year ago, added to America's
treasured landscapes and included designation in Colorado of the
66,000-acre Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Area within a larger 210,000-
acre National Conservation Area (NCA). In January of this year, we
testified in support of designating 8,600 acres as the McKenna Peak
Wilderness in San Miguel County, Colorado. Both of these proposals are
the result of consensus and cooperation, bringing together all
interested parties to the debate.
The BLM understands that numerous citizen volunteers have spent
countless hours combing the cliffs, valleys, canyons, and mountains of
western Colorado, and have contributed to the proposal before us. These
individuals care deeply about the land and its protection, and we share
that commitment.
H.R. 4289
Colorado's treasured landscapes are recognized for their powerful
impact on the human spirit and are a source of inspiration. The BLM is
committed to managing wildlands responsibly in the context of our
multiple-use mission. H.R. 4289 proposes to designate 34 wilderness
units on BLM-managed lands and U.S. Forest System lands, totaling
nearly 850,000 acres, adding them to the National Wilderness
Preservation System. These designations are largely focused in western
Colorado. These include spectacular canyons, vast open spaces, unique
habitat, diverse wildlife, and nationally significant cultural resource
sites. The DOI defers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding
proposed designations on National Forest System lands.
Many of the areas proposed for designation by H.R. 4289 have
important wilderness values and deserve protection. I would like to
highlight three areas where existing uses and land management are well-
suited to wilderness designation.
Known for its spectacular beauty, the proposed Palisade Wilderness
contains nearly 27,000 acres of remarkable scenery and varied plant and
wildlife species. The Palisade itself is an iconic fin--a three-mile
rocky spine slicing through the area. A 12-mile cliff line with steep
slopes characterizes the southern area of the proposed wilderness and
deep rugged canyons dominate the eastern areas. Extraordinary
backcountry hiking and backpacking provide challenges to experienced
travelers. The North Fork of West Creek and West Creek waterways
running through the Palisade area exhibit unusually high species
diversity and density, and are eligible for Wild and Scenic River
designation.
The proposed Castle Peak Wilderness consists of over 16,000 acres
of steep rugged slopes, rolling hills, deep basins, and sprawling
meadows. The region is home to a vibrant assortment of wildlife,
including elk, deer, black bear, mountain lion, bobcat, and raptors.
Hunting and fishing are popular activities in the area and are
consistent with wilderness designation.
The proposed Browns Canyon Wilderness is one of rugged beauty,
colorful outcroppings, and abundant wildlife. The 3,000-foot deep
canyon along the Arkansas River forms the western boundary of the
proposed wilderness. From there the land climbs dramatically to an
elevation of 10,000 feet to the east. While a single ecosystem, the
land is divided administratively. The BLM manages the western portion,
including the canyon, while the Forest Service manages the eastern
portion. A significant herd of bighorn sheep resides within Browns
Canyon, and it is an important winter range for deer and elk. Views
from the area across the Arkansas Valley to the 14,000-foot peaks of
the Collegiate Range are among the most spectacular in Colorado. The
Arkansas River is one of this country's most popular white water
rafting destinations, with more than 300,000 visitors floating it
annually. Nearly half of these visitors float the nationally renowned
Browns Canyon segment, which is adjacent to the proposed wilderness but
is not included in the proposed wilderness.
There are also several areas proposed for wilderness designation
under H.R. 4289 where conflicts with existing and proposed uses make
manageability as wilderness problematic. Recreational use has exploded
on public lands throughout the West, including in Colorado. While many
recreational activities, such as hunting, fishing, and hiking are
compatible with wilderness designation, others, such as mountain biking
and off-highway vehicle use, are not. Some of the areas proposed for
wilderness designation contain popular motorized or mechanized
recreation areas.
The proposed Bangs Canyon Wilderness is bisected by the nationally
recognized Tabeguache Trail. Almost 9 miles of the 142-mile Tabeguache
Trail connecting Grand Junction and Montrose pass through the area
proposed for wilderness designation. This trail receives about 30,000
visitors annually and accommodates both mountain bikes and motorized
recreationists, both of which are incompatible with wilderness
designation. Approximately 8,000 of the acres of the proposed
wilderness are managed by the BLM for these mechanized and motorized
uses. The BLM manages approximately 13,000 acres of the ``heart'' of
the proposed wilderness (Bangs Canyons East and West) as a back-country
primitive area.
Existing and proposed energy development pose inherent conflicts
with wilderness designations, creating the challenge of managing
extensive active mining claims and oil and gas leases within a
designated wilderness. For example, all 27,569 acres of the proposed
South Shale Ridge Wilderness are currently leased under 44 leases for
oil and gas and include 11 producing wells. This area, part of the
Piceance Basin, has been identified by the BLM as an oil and gas
emphasis area for over 20 years.
Likewise, nearly half of the proposed Snaggletooth Wilderness is
currently under lease for oil and gas development, with 27 leases
existing within the area. Active uranium mining is also currently
underway within this area.
Similarly the proposed Table Mountain Wilderness includes over 300
active mining claims (largely for uranium). An extensive network of 47
miles of primitive roads supporting uranium exploration crisscrosses
the area.
Conclusion
The Department of the Interior looks forward to future
opportunities to expand the protection of treasured American
landscapes. Colorado's exquisite deserts, canyons, cliffs, and peaks
deserve our careful attention and thoughtful review. However, we
recommend an approach more limited in scope so that we can assure
proper review and consultation. Working cooperatively with local and
national constituencies, this subcommittee, the sponsor of the bill,
and the Colorado Congressional delegation, we can protect these special
places.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Chris Brown, Director of Wilderness and Wild and Scenic
Rivers Programs, Forest Service. Welcome, Mr. Brown. Look
forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS BROWN, DIRECTOR, WILDERNESS AND WILD AND
SCENIC RIVERS PROGRAMS, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity today to
testify and share the department's view on H.R. 4289, the
Colorado Wilderness Act. I am Chris Brown. I am the Director of
Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers for the Forest Service.
Wilderness, the lands designated by Congress possessing
truly special characteristics and beauty are part, a unique
part of our American heritage. The management of these lands is
the responsibility that we in the Forest Service take very
seriously, and I am proud to lead a national program which
includes well over 50 percent of the units in the Wilderness
Preservation System.
H.R. 4289 would designate 34 parcels of Federal land in
Colorado, comprising a little over 850,000 acres as new
components of the national system. Some of these parcels would
be stand alone, and some would expand existing wilderness
areas. Most of the Federal land addressed by the act, about
615,000 acres, is managed by my colleagues at BLM. The
department defers to the Interior Department in regards to
those lands.
But about 218,000 acres lying in 14 of 34 parcels
identified in the act include National Forest System lands. All
14 parcels have public land administered by BLM contiguous with
the Forest Service lands, and I want to state that we are
really proud to partner with BLM in our wilderness management
on some of our nation's most treasured lands.
We have not completed an extensive review of each of the
proposed areas. However, during the development or revision of
our forest land and resource management plans each national
forest conducts a thorough evaluation of potential wilderness
to assure recommendations fully satisfy the definition of
wilderness found in Section 2 of the Wilderness Act.
Extensive public involvement and input from many interested
user groups goes into the development of those forest plans.
They are the foundation by which we evaluate any proposal
related to our national forests, and many of the areas cited in
this bill were not recommended for wilderness designation in
their respective forest plans.
In an initial assessment of the parcels shows them falling
into three distinct categories for us. Areas we support with
minimal adjustment or changes, areas that merit further
discussion and modification, and areas on which we feel
different management options or designations would be more
appropriate to best balance the interests of many user groups
and fulfill our multiple use mission.
We respectfully ask to work with the Committee and the
bill's sponsor, Representative DeGette, to address these
concerns. I am submitting a more detailed breakdown of each of
the proposed parcels as part of my written testimony. In
general though the areas we support include Browns Canyon, the
majority of the Thompson Creek area, and a small portion of the
Flat Tops Addition. Areas that we feel merit further
consideration and more discussion include Badger Creek, Beaver
Creek, Grape Creek, Roubideau and West Elk Addition. Parcels
that we do not support as potential wilderness areas include
Handies Peak, Norwood Canyon, Sewemup Mesa, Snaggletooth,
Unaweep and Deep Creek.
Most of these areas that we are not supporting have
extensive motorized vehicle trails, roads, other kinds of uses
through them, conflicting uses such as existing mineral, oil
and gas leases. In addition, the White River National Forest
Plan specifies that the Deep Creek area be managed for wild and
scenic river objectives, pending the completion of a
suitability study we were doing with the Bureau of Land
Management. If as a result of that study the river is
determined suitable, we would be pleased to support the river's
addition to the National Wild and Scenic River System. Also, in
the Deep Creek area, we have the issues of military aviation
training that is a consideration for us.
So, in summary, some of the proposed areas in this bill
merit wilderness designation or at least further discussion, at
the same time many of the parcels cited in the bill have a
variety of conflicting uses and human impacts that are
inconsistent with wilderness character. We want to work with
the Committee to take a close look at some of these proposed
wilderness areas to identify those nonconforming uses in detail
and adjust boundaries, where possible, to identify manageable
areas that include high quality wilderness characteristics.
So, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, thank you
again for the opportunity to be here today. That concludes my
statement. I would be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Statement of Chris Brown, Director, Wilderness and Wild and Scenic
Rivers Programs, National Forest System, Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity today to provide the Department's view on H.R. 4289, the
Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009. I am Chris Brown, Director of the
Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Programs for the USDA Forest
Service.
Wilderness--those lands designated by Congress possessing truly
special characteristics and beauty--is a part of our uniquely American
heritage. The management of these lands is a duty the United States
Forest Service takes very seriously. I am proud to lead a national
program that manages well over half of the Federal land units
designated for wilderness.
H.R. 4289 would designate 34 parcels of federal land in Colorado--
comprising 850,134 acres--as new components of the National Wilderness
Preservation System (NWPS). Some of these parcels would be stand-alone
wilderness areas, and some would expand existing wilderness areas. Most
of the federal land addressed by this Act--about 615,000 acres--is
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Department defers
to the Department of the Interior in regards to the proposal to
designate BLM lands. A total of about 218,000 acres, lying in 14 of the
34 parcels identified in the Act, include National Forest System (NFS)
lands. All 14 parcels also have public land administered by BLM
contiguous to the NFS lands. I also want to state how proud we are to
partner with the BLM on managing some of our nation's most treasured
lands.
The proposed legislation would designate 13 of the 14 areas having
National Forest System Lands as components of the National Wilderness
Preservation System upon enactment. The parcels are Badger Creek,
Beaver Creek, Browns Canyon, and Grape Creek on the Pike and San Isabel
National Forests; the Flat Tops Addition and Thompson Creek on the
White River National Forest; Norwood Canyon, Roubideau, West Elk
Addition and Unaweep on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison
National Forests (GMUG); Sewemup Mesa on the Manti-LaSal and GMUG;
Snaggletooth on the San Juan National Forest; and Handies Peak on the
Rio Grande, San Juan, and GMUG. In addition, Deep Creek, on the White
River National Forest, is identified as a ``Potential Wilderness
Area.''
Evaluation of Proposed Wilderness Areas
We have not completed an extensive review of each of the proposed
areas. However, during the development or revision of a forest land and
resource management plan (LRMP), each national forest conducts a
thorough evaluation of potential wilderness or wilderness study areas
to assure recommendations fully satisfy the definition of wilderness
found in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Extensive public
involvement and input from many interested user groups goes into the
development of these plans. They are the foundation by which we
evaluate any proposal related to our national forests. Many of the
areas cited in this bill were not recommended for wilderness
designation in their respective forest plans. An initial assessment of
the parcels show them falling into 3 distinct categories: areas we
support with minimal adjustment or change, some that merit further
discussion and modification; and some we feel different management
options or designations would be more appropriate to best balance the
interests of our many user groups and fulfill our multiple use mission.
We respectfully ask to work with the committee and the bill's sponsor,
Representative DeGette, to address these concerns.
NFS Proposed Wilderness Areas on the White River National Forest
The Department supports wilderness designation of 830 acres of the
16,392 acres in the Flat Tops Addition Proposed Wilderness Area, as
recommended in the White River National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (2002). The remaining acres would present management
problems, such as a cherry-stemmed road intersecting the middle of the
area that would encourage the spread of unauthorized motorized trails;
a developed campsite; a private resort development directly adjacent to
the proposed wilderness; and frequent snowmobile use.
The Department supports wilderness designation of Assignation
Ridge, an area comprising 11,752 acres of the 17,114 acres in the
Thompson Creek Proposed Wilderness Area, as recommended in the White
River Land and Resource Management Plan. The Braderich Trail, heavily
used by mountain bikers, lies within the proposed wilderness boundary.
Adjusting the western boundary to reflect the forest plan
recommendation would exclude the trail from wilderness, and allow the
continuation of mountain biking opportunities while minimizing concern
about mechanized trespass. Leasable minerals, three oil and gas leases,
and adjacent private lands needing wildland urban interface fuels
treatments are additional concerns that argue for limiting the proposed
wilderness area to that recommended in the forest plan.
The Department does not support ``Potential Wilderness''
designation for the 16,392-acre NFS portion of the Deep Creek Proposed
Wilderness Area. The White River National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan specifies that Deep Creek be managed for wild and
scenic river objectives pending completion of an ongoing joint BLM/FS
suitability study. If, as a result of this study, the river is
determined suitable, we would be pleased to support its addition to the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (WSRS).
The Act specifies that the Deep Creek area would be designated
wilderness ``upon the Secretary publishing in the Federal Register a
notice that all nonconforming uses'' have ceased.'' The non-conforming
uses relate to High-Altitude Aviation Training Site (HAATS) activities
(aerial navigation training maneuver exercises) that occur in this area
under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) among the Colorado Army
National Guard, Forest Service, and BLM. It should be noted that the
correct date of this MOU is November 19, 2007, not August 4, 1987.
The Act specifies that HAATS exercises may continue under the MOU,
but the MOU and associated operating plan shall be reviewed by the
parties not later than 180 days after enactment of Act, and annually
thereafter. The review is to include consideration of alternative
locations for HAATS activities on NFS lands or lands administered by
the BLM, other than designated wilderness or potential wilderness
areas.
NFS Proposed Wilderness Areas on the Pike and San Isabel National
Forests
The Department supports designation of the Browns Canyon Proposed
Wilderness Area. However, we are concerned that the Act would allow
continued motorized use of the Turret Road. The road extends 3.25 miles
from the proposed wilderness boundary into the heart of the proposed
area, virtually bisecting it. This use is problematic for several
reasons: some motorized users are driving off the road, creating a
system of informal trails that damage vegetation and soil, and disturb
wildlife; motorized use creates noise that is inconsistent with
wilderness character; and motorized use complicates management of the
area for wilderness. Therefore, we suggest that the road be closed to
motorized use at Green Gulch, on the border of the proposed wilderness
area.
The Department would like to further discuss designation of the
14,696 acres in the Badger Creek Proposed Wilderness Area. 14,440 acres
are inventoried roadless acres. The remaining acres contain motorized
roads that would complicate management. We therefore would suggest
adjusting the boundary of the proposed wilderness area.
The Department would also like to further discuss designation of
the Beaver Creek Proposed Wilderness Area. This 4,326-acre area is
classified as inventoried roadless with no non-conforming uses.
However, there are concerns that designating this area as wilderness
could inhibit our ability to actively fight fire in the wildland urban
interface.
The Department does not support designation of the 16,913-acre
Grape Creek Proposed Wilderness Area. Much of the proposed area is a
network of motorized roads that would not offer a true wilderness
experience. Other nonconforming uses include power transmission lines
and pipelines under special-use permit.
At the same time there is a smaller portion of this area-5,866
inventoried roadless acres known as West Tanner Peak-that we feel would
merit further consideration. The westernmost portion of the Tanner Peak
area, adjacent to BLM lands, makes a more manageable topographic
boundary and would exclude motorized trails.
NFS Proposed Wilderness Areas on the Rio Grande, San Juan and Grand
Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG)
The Handies Peak Proposed Wilderness Area has a number of uses that
would not conform to the Wilderness Act and that could complicate its
management as wilderness. Wager Gulch is a heavily used motorized
corridor on the east side of the proposed wilderness area; numerous
roads would encourage motorized trespass. Moreover, a land exchange in
Wager Gulch is currently being analyzed. Mountain bike use occurs in
the Cuba Gulch area, and there is a private in-holding. The Hard Rock
100 foot race also crosses a portion of the area. We do not support
wilderness designation for this area.
NFS Proposed Wilderness on the GMUG
The Norwood Canyon Proposed Wilderness Area has a number of
nonconforming uses, including existing and pending oil and gas leases;
a power line; past and planned forest management treatments,
plantations and fuel treatment projects; and a four-mile cherry stem
that would complicate management as wilderness. We do not support
wilderness designation of this area.
The NFS portion of the Roubideau Proposed Wilderness Area adjoins
the BLM's Roubideau Wilderness Study Area. This 2,161 acre parcel has
no motorized or non-conforming uses. Rather than discussing the merits
of this smaller parcel, we would like to be involved in any future
discussions regarding the designation of the entire Roubideau
Wilderness Area.
The Department does not support designation of the 39,392-acre
Unaweep Proposed Wilderness Area. Most of this area has a number of
nonconforming uses including motorized use, extensive vegetation
management (pinyon, juniper, and oakbrush), timber harvest, mechanical
fuels treatments, water transportation ditches, and reservoirs.
The Department would like to further discuss designation of the
West Elk Addition Proposed Wilderness Area. Currently the West Elk
Wilderness is managed as a single-unit by the GMUG. The proposed
addition comprises lands adjacent to it that are managed by the Forest
Service, BLM, and National Park Service. The complexity of managing the
proposed addition could be reduced by consolidating management of the
federal lands in the proposed addition under one agency. It should be
noted that the proposed area was identified in the Final Resource
Protection Study/EIS for the Curecanti National Recreation Area (NRA)
(August 2008) as land to be added to the NRA.
Manti-LaSal and GMUG National Forests
The Sewemup Mesa Proposed Wilderness Area straddles the state line
of Colorado and Utah. There are old uranium mines at the lower end of
Roc Creek, and uranium and active oil and gas leases within the
proposed wilderness. Limited public access and uncontrolled motorized
traffic would also pose significant problems. We do not support the
proposed wilderness designation of Sewemup Mesa.
San Juan National Forest
The Snaggletooth Proposed Wilderness Area has a large number of
nonconforming uses, including 27 oil and gas leases, roads that are
used for recreation and permitted uses, active uranium mine claims,
potash prospecting permits, timber treatments, wildlife habitat
improvements, and fuels treatments. We do not support the proposed
wilderness designation for this area.
Summary
In summary, some of the proposed areas in this bill merit
wilderness designation or at least, further discussion. However, many
of the parcels cited in the bill have a variety of conflicting uses and
human impacts that are inconsistent with wilderness character. We want
to work with the Committee to take a close look at some of the proposed
wilderness areas to identify these nonconforming uses in detail and
adjust boundaries, where possible, to identify manageable areas that
include the highest-value wilderness characteristics. In addition, we
strongly support the water provisions in the Act, which state that the
Secretary shall obtain and exercise water rights pursuant to the laws
of the State of Colorado for federal purposes necessary for wilderness
and wilderness uses.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. I don't have any questions at this point. We
have six votes coming up and I am going to ask for the
panelists' indulgence to come back. I know we have follow-up
questions for you.
Let me at this point ask Mr. Bishop if he has any comments
before we break for voting?
Mr. Bishop. If we are going to vote right now, I would move
to vote and then come back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. We have six votes.
Mr. Bishop. I would obviously ask this request for the
panel however long this goes that we have the right to submit
written questions with the expectations they will be coming
back, and I think we can vote and come back afterwards if that
is OK with you.
Ms. DeGette. I do have questions for the panel.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Bishop. OK. After the voting?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, after the votes.
Mr. Bishop. Fine.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, so we are going to recess until after
these votes--a half an hour or so. That's the hope. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Grijalva. After that short interlude, will the
panelists come back up? Thank you.
And again thank you. Obviously my prediction of a half an
hour was a little bit off, but thank you for waiting through,
and to the witnesses that are coming up in the next panel thank
you as well.
Deputy Director Burke, your testimony mentions that you
would support a narrower geographic focus. Is that because of
the level of support in certain areas is stronger than in
others or are there other reasons for the narrower approach?
Ms. Burke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We think that the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of
2009 gives us several good models about how to go about
designating wilderness in the future, the Washington County
portion of that bill, for example, or the Ouray County portion
of the bill. So that was one county at a time. Certainly we can
look at multi-county proposals as well, but our concern here is
that we haven't had an opportunity to thoroughly evaluate the
land in order to make a good management decision.
It is very rare, in fact, I am only aware of one case where
we have had active development in a wilderness area.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Brown, could you expand a little bit on
why potential wilderness designation is not acceptable to the
Forest Service?
Mr. Brown. We in our forest plans look at the potential for
wilderness and evaluate the areas, roadless areas for possible
designation, but from a management point of view we would
prefer to have a designation, if Congress wants to designate a
specific name, something like a special management area, it is
difficult for us to manage with a trigger or the sort of
uncertainty created by potential wilderness. We would rather
have the definitiveness of a special particular designation
such as special management area.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. The same question that I asked Ms.
Burke, mining claims, oil and gas leases, there are some, you
mentioned there are some in Forest Service areas, how have you
handled similar leases in other wilderness areas?
Mr. Brown. Well, when an area is designated by law, the
area is withdrawn from oil/gas leasing new leases subject to a
valid existing claims. Where there are operations underway,
those operations will continue. We will honor the authority
under which those are being conducted. We will typically review
the conditions, the stipulations that they are being conducted
under, but they do continue. We have, for example, an operation
underway in a wilderness area in Texas. It is not common but it
does occur.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, thank you. Thank you, both.
Ms. DeGette, any questions?
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask
my questions I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter
into the record the results of the 2007 wilderness poll that I
referenced in my opening statement.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
Ms. DeGette. A list of supporters from the Central Colorado
Wilderness Coalition; a list of supporters from the proposed
Browns Canyon Wilderness Area; a survey on the economic impact
of hunting and fishing, and a statement from Tresi Houpt, who
is a Garfield County Commissioner in support of my legislation.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Tresi Houpt, Garfield County
Commissioner, submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Commissioner Tresi Houpt, Garfield County Commission
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this
opportunity to comment on H.R. 4289, the Colorado Wilderness Act of
2009.
I am honored to say that I am a native Coloradan and proud 15 year
resident of Garfield County, Colorado. My county is a diverse county in
every sense of the word, from our flat top peaks, lush riparian river
valleys to our sage brush covered desert highlands. Our economy spreads
from tourism to growing natural gas development across the county. What
makes our county special are our unique residents who range from old-
time ranchers, workers in the service industry, and workers on a
drilling rig. However, the fabric which binds us together in Garfield
County is the land, the Roaring Fork and Colorado Rivers which run
through it, and the wilderness all around us.
Garfield County contains one of the first reserves ever established
by the federal government under President Theodore Roosevelt and one of
the earlier wilderness areas set aside in the Wilderness Act of 1964--
the Flat Tops Wilderness.
Even back then, the process of establishing wilderness in Colorado
brought controversy with views ranging from those who felt the land
should never be set aside if it had even the potential for economic
production, to those who felt that every acre of land ``untouched'' by
humans should be set aside for wildlife and recreation. However, people
came together, as they do today, talked about what was possible,
compromised, and put together a wilderness proposal that was
reasonable, attainable and yet visionary.
The citizens of Colorado and Congresswoman Diana DeGette have put
together a similar proposal--the Colorado Wilderness Act--which was
closely considered, ground-truthed by citizen volunteers and federal
agencies, and vetted for the proposed lands' wilderness potential and
characteristics.
Colorado is a fast-growing state with a population that has spread
itself out as we have grown. Moreover, my county and the western slope
of Colorado, has seen a proliferation of energy development--benefiting
our economy, but impacting our citizens and our land. So it is truly
remarkable to say there are remaining public lands still worthy of
wilderness protection. The Colorado Wilderness Act before you today
contains many of these remaining areas.
I applaud the work of Congresswoman DeGette who has engaged our
elected officials and local residents on the areas in the Colorado
Wilderness Act of 2009. Without her leadership of proposing these areas
and encouraging public debate and discussion of wilderness in
Colorado--in particular the lower-elevation Bureau of Land Management
areas which are the focus the Congresswoman's legislation--we may never
have had this historic hearing.
There are some areas in this proposal that will require renewed
review with local officials and citizens across the State who want to
have additional opportunities for input. But that doesn't mean we
should not be initiating discussions on these areas or that they should
not be considered for the very special federal designation of
wilderness.
As I look at my county today and western Colorado as a whole, I
embrace the changes we have seen but I am also concerned for what may
be lost in the future, particularly to our public lands. In the areas
which do qualify for wilderness across our State and where citizens can
move forward together, as generations have done before, we must embrace
our opportunities and protect our wilderness lands so our children and
grandchildren can enjoy the beauty and splendor of what makes the
Colorado we love today.
I would like to close by stating that I fully support Congressman
Salazar's San Juan Wilderness Bill and the process he followed for
identifying wilderness boundaries. In developing wilderness
legislation, it is critical to engage local officials and citizens, as
well as state and federal agencies. I appreciate the promise of
collaboration demonstrated by Ms. DeGette and Mr. Salazar and the
commitment to continued dialogue in Colorado as we move through this
process.
______
[NOTE: The other documents submitted for the record can be
found on pages 6 and 8.]
Ms. DeGette. I want to thank both of you for testifying
today and ask you a couple of questions about your testimony.
Ms. Burke, I want to thank you for your testimony today, and I
appreciate the BLM support for several areas in my bill.
Are there additional areas that you believe the BLM could
support with boundary fixes or other kinds of fixes on oil and
gas, minerals language, other kinds of language?
Ms. Burke. We would welcome the opportunity to work with
you and to determine what areas would be appropriate for the
designation.
Ms. DeGette. And many of the areas in my legislation are
area that were identified by the BLM in the original wilderness
inventory back in the early 1990s, correct?
Ms. Burke. Yes, there are a number of WSAs, or Wilderness
Study Areas that were identified.
Ms. DeGette. Of those Wilderness Study Areas, all of those
areas have been managed as if they were wilderness since that
date, is that correct?
Ms. Burke. That is correct.
Ms. DeGette. And so for the areas, the BLM Wilderness Study
Areas that have been managed as such, what that would mean is
there would be no legal motorized use, ATVs, or other kinds of
motorized use in those areas, would that be correct?
Ms. Burke. Those sorts of uses would be precluded in
wilderness areas.
Ms. DeGette. And also in the Wilderness Study Areas that
are being managed as wilderness?
Ms. Burke. Correct.
Ms. DeGette. All right. So for people who might talk about
use of motorized vehicles or other types of vehicles that are
not allowed in wilderness areas, for the last 20 years or so
the WSAs that are managed by the BLM have been managed without
those kinds of motorized uses?
Ms. Burke. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. OK. I also wanted to ask you, Ms. Burke, about
Handies Peak because this is an interesting area. Handies and
Red Cloud are two of the areas in my bill that I, frankly, am
particularly attached to because Handies Peak is the highest
peak managed by the BLM outside of Alaska, and there is a
16,000-acre Wilderness Study Area in Handies that the BLM did
not recommend for wilderness designation. My understanding is
back when the BLM did the original inventory this was because
of mining potential. And my question to you is, now it has been
over 15 years since that inventory was conducted. Has there
been any interest in mining on Handies since that time?
Ms. Burke. I am not aware of any interest in mining on that
area. We are currently managing it as a primitive or semi-
primitive recreational area, and I understand from my staff in
Colorado that it is really a spectacular back country
recreational area.
Ms. DeGette. Yes, and I will say as someone who has been up
there, I mean, it is a gorgeous alpine area, and so I would
imagine anybody's management plans for that, since it is alpine
tundra, would not include ATVs or other kinds of--I mean, one
of the management problems they have, one of the management
problems your agency has right now with Handies, there is a
road that cuts right through Handies and Red Cloud which we
cherry stem in my bill, but then they have a problem with
unauthorized ATV use and other use in that area which might be
helped by wilderness management.
Would your agency be willing to work with me on boundaries
and other kind of issues in Handies if we wanted to move
forward with that particular area?
Ms. Burke. Absolutely.
Ms. DeGette. OK, thank you very much.
Mr. Brown, I just have a couple of questions for you. Your
testimony and your written testimony, and you reflected it
today, your agency supports seven of the Forest Service-managed
areas in my bill with some modification or additional
discussion, and I appreciate that, and I want to thank you for
saying, as Ms. Burke does, that you are willing to work with me
as we go forward. I want to talk to you about two of the
specific issues.
The first one is Browns Canyon. One of the areas you
identify is Browns Canyon but the Forest Service says it is
concerned that the bill might leave the turret trail open and
the Forest Service would like to see it closed. I am wondering
if you can explain that rationale for that particular area.
Mr. Brown. We do support Browns Canyon for wilderness
designation, and we would like to see the road closed. It is a
road that bisects the area and really provides for access for
motorized use that would lead to trespass, very difficult to
manage, and creates enforcement issues for us. So without the
road closure on that, we just don't think--well, the job of
managing the wilderness would be very difficult, so we are
very----
Ms. DeGette. And do you think that if we closed that trial,
that would hamper peoples' access into the Browns Canyon area?
Mr. Brown. Well, I think for wilderness users that would
not be a problem. There is adequate access for them.
Ms. DeGette. OK. One last question, Mr. Chairman. I know in
your written testimony you said that your agency supports the
water language in my bill. I am wondering if you could just
describe briefly what are the advantage of requiring the
Federal government to obtain water rights pursuant to Colorado
versus the old language we used to use of the Federal reserve
water rights?
Mr. Brown. Well, the language in your bill tracks with the
language that is in the Great Sand Dunes National Park Preserve
Act of 2000, and that is language we are very comfortable with
because it does assert that the Federal government can gain a
water right, but it is working within the State of Colorado
system for appropriation and that is really what we are
comfortable with, so we appreciate very much your having that
language in your bill.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have no further questions of this panel.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, and let me thank the panelists for
your comments and information, and also for your patience.
Thank you.
Ms. Burke. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me invite the next panel up, please, and
we will go out of order and ask Commissioner Goodtimes of San
Miguel County Commissioner to be the first one because I think
he has a pending exit somewhere that he has to be at.
Thank you very much, and again thank you for waiting us
out. I appreciate it and thank you for those that come a
distance for being here. It is an important piece of
legislation and we appreciate you being here and your comments,
we are looking forward to them.
Commissioner, if you don't mind.
STATEMENT OF ART GOODTIMES, COMMISSIONER,
SAN MIGUEL COUNTY, COLORADO, NORWOOD, COLORADO
Mr. Goodtimes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an
honor to be once more before your Committee, to be here with
Congresswoman DeGette, the Committee Members and staffers.
I would like to echo the testimony of Representative John
Salazar, who is my elected official here in the House, and
applaud Congresswoman DeGette for all of her great work as a
protector of wild places and for seeking to preserve a few of
our natural systems relatively free of human influences in this
great State of Colorado.
I count her as the esteemed dean of the Colorado
Congressional Delegation. She has been an environmental ally,
an ideological colleague, and a personal political friend, and
I just want to again take this opportunity to commend her for
her great work with wilderness.
You know, I believe her championing of this Omnibus
Colorado Wilderness Bill, House Bill 4289, in doing that she
has given our centennial state a grand vision of wilderness
that we need to work toward putting into law. Many of these
areas are most suitable for wilderness designation by the
Congress, and it is something that I think a lot of us support
in the grand picture, but I think this isn't a final picture. I
think the omnibus bill needs to be fine tuned in some places.
We need to have the kind of face-to-face hearings that
Representative John Salazar and his staff had on the San Juan
Mountains Wilderness Bill where ranchers were sitting down with
the environmental community. We had hunters with motorized
users, hikers, and bikers with rafters and professional guides.
We had politicos from all different jurisdictions, along with
special-interest groups. I think it is that kind of broad-
ranged collaborative processes that are really critical as we
move forward in the 21st Century into putting wild lands into
protective status. We understand the needs of communities for
strong economies, particularly in this downturn. At the same
time, we have to preserve for the future some of these amazing
areas that we have.
I think we also need kind of a full vetting process in
which folks closest to the wilderness boundaries have as much
say as their distant constituencies, and I believe that deeply
as both as a progressive and a local elected official. I think
we have started a national coalition of gateway communities
specifically to address at the national level the ability of
local communities to have a say in decisionmaking.
You know, we have couched it as local control, and that is
not appropriate on Federal lands, but it is appropriate, I
think, to have real local input and local influence and
decisionmaking. So I think we need a full round of negotiations
and collaborations, some round table discussions that are
happening in western Colorado right now, things like the
Dolores River dialogue in Cortez, and the public lands
partnership in Montrose. I think those are great examples of
collaborative efforts that have taken quite some time, but have
been very, very useful to getting us to a better place in terms
of understanding our needs both for a strong economy and for
strong ecology.
I think we heard testimony from our agency people that we
need to do a little bit more review on some of these areas.
Some of them, as the Congresswoman has pointed out, I think are
perhaps are close to ready, but some aren't. Personally I have
been a life-long champion of wilderness. I have been a member
of numerous community groups devoted to wilderness protection.
I have been an activist who founded a local environmental group
in my county, and so I know it is really important about
wilderness, and so many of my constituents have worked very
hard, particularly on Representative Salazar's bill.
I am Chair of the San Miguel County Board of Commissioners,
I am Chair of my state association's Public Lands Committee,
and I am also chair of this new National Association of County
Gateway Community Subcommittee.
So, again, the effect of public lands on all aspects of
peoples' lives, both as a driver for tourism, as a place of
refuge for our biome, and also for a way to move forward and
protect these special places. I think all of these places have
real meaning for us.
You know, 11 years ago I was one of the few commissioners
that supported Congresswoman DeGette when she came forward with
this wilderness bill, and I think my quote appeared in the
Colorado Coalition's brochure in support at that time.
In those years since that time of the initial support I
have met and talked with many of my Colorado citizen
constituents, and those who are for wilderness and those who
have been against wilderness, and I think I have learned a
number of controversies and on-the-ground skepticism expressed
by rural commissioner, both progressive and conservatives,
regarding House Bill 4289. I think personally what
Congresswoman DeGette has offered us is am omnibus bill is a
road map for investigation that can begin the arduous and
lengthy task of vetting meetings, hearings, tours and detail
work that will get us to a wilderness designation for suitable
public lands in these areas.
I also would like to just stand by thanking her for her
vision. Without this kind of vision, without this kind of idea
of the areas that are so special, I think it would be a lot
harder for us to move forward. But I also hope you will defer
consideration on this omnibus bill at this time and commend
wilderness advocates to undertaking the region by region
process that Representative Salazar's bill has demonstrated, a
process that I personally would hope will become a template for
how wilderness designations should be done in our country.
With that, I thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Congresswoman,
Members and staffers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodtimes follows:]
Statement of Commissioner Art Goodtimes, San Miguel County
I applaud Rep. Diana DeGette for being a protector of wild places
and of preserving natural systems relatively free of human influences.
I count her as the esteemed dean of the Colorado congressional
delegation, environmental ally, ideological colleague, and political
friend.
I believe by championing this omnibus Colorado wilderness bill, she
has given the Centennial State a grand vision of wilderness that we
need to work towards putting into law. There are many areas most
suitable for wilderness designation by the Congress included in the
bill. But it's not a final picture. It's a rough draft.
The Omnibus bill needs to be fine-tuned. Ground-truthed. We need to
have the kind of face-to-face hearings that Salazar's San Juan
Mountains Wilderness Bill had, where ranchers sit down with enviros,
hunters with motorized-users, hikers and bikers with rafters and
professional guides, politicos with special-interest groups.
We need a full vetting process in which folks who live closest to
wilderness boundaries have as much say as distant constituencies. We
need a full round of negotiations, collaborations, round-table
discussions like are becoming more common in rural Colorado, from the
Dolores River Dialogue in Cortez to the Public Lands Partnership in
Montrose.
I have been a lifelong champion of wilderness, a member of
countless community groups devoted to wilderness protection, an
activist who helped found our local environmental group in San Miguel
County--where I live and which is supporting Salazar's wilderness bill.
I'm chair of the San Miguel County Board of Commissioners, chair of
my state county organization's Public Lands Steering Committee, and
chair of the National Association of Counties' Gateway Communities
Subcommittee.
I publicly supported Rep. DeGette's omnibus Colorado wilderness
proposal when she first introduced it a number of years ago. My quote
appeared on the Colorado Environmental Coalition brochure supporting
her bill. The bill has not won a hearing before this committee until
this very year.
In the years since I first supported it, I have met and talked with
many Colorado citizens, both those for and those against wilderness.
I've listened to constituents who know many of these areas intimately,
and I've learned of numerous controversies and seen the on-the-ground
skepticism of my rural commissioner colleagues, both progressive and
conservative.
What Rep. DeGette has offered us in the omnibus bill here is a
roadmap for investigation to begin the arduous and lengthy task of
vettings, meetings, hearings, tours and detail work that will get us to
wilderness designation for suitable public lands and some other
suitable designation compatible with developing forest and resource
management plans in Colorado forests.
I thank her for her vision. But I hope you will defer consideration
of this omnibus bill at this time, and commend wilderness advocates to
undertaking the region-by-region process that Rep. Salazar's bill has
demonstrated--a process that should become the template for bringing
new wilderness to fruition in Colorado
______
Mr. Grijalva. And before you depart, Commissioner, Ms.
DeGette have any comments?
Ms. DeGette. I just want to thank Mr. Goodtimes for making
the long trip here, a trip which was made even longer by the
collapse of one of our main roads in Colorado, which is why
Commissioner Houpt couldn't be with us today. So thanks for
coming. I appreciate it. We will keep working on this.
Mr. Goodtimes. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
Mr. Grijalva. And Commissioner, I am fascinated by the
point that you are making because we see it all the time, that
collaboration and consensus building and accommodation now has
to be part and parcel of the wilderness designation process as
we go forward. Local communities, interested groups, whatever
kind having to be part of it.
The question that lingers for me, at what point is that
process over or is it an ongoing process and never ends because
that is the reverse criticism of it.
Mr. Goodtimes. Mr. Chairman, that is an excellent question.
I guess I would answer it by saying what I have discovered,
particularly with the public land partnership, is that we
establish a table of trust, and it took seven, eight, nine
years to get that table of trust in place where when the woman
who represented the timber industry spoke, I actually believe
her. When the motorized community said that this was important
to them, I really believe what they were saying, and they began
to hear when we said that this are was very critical
environmentally, they began to listen. Even though it took a
long time, I think that process of building a table of trust is
almost the most important element. Once you get to the table of
trust and you begin listening to each other, then I think we
begin to make the accommodations that make this a successful
bill, and I think that is what has happened with Representative
Salazar's 30,000 acres. It took us two and a half years.
Congresswoman DeGette has been working at this for 11. I
think it takes awhile sometimes, but you are right, there is a
point at which when you can't get people together, when you
have done very reasonable thing, that you finally have to say
that is enough, we need to make legislation, and with your good
graces I believe that is your authority and I appreciate your
willingness to take a look at that.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. I agree with a lot of what Mr. Goodtimes says.
In fact, one of the key areas in Mr. Salazar's bill is an area
from my bill, that was originally in my bill, McKenna Peak, so
those kinds of collaborative efforts have been happening and I
am sure they will continue.
Mr. Grijalva. Appreciate your time, Commissioner. Thank
you. Good to see you again.
Mr. Goodtimes. It is an honor, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Steve Smith, Assistant Regional Director,
The Wilderness Society. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF STEVE SMITH, ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THE
WILDERNESS SOCIETY, DENVER, COLORADO
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be
here to take this generous opportunity to comment on H.R. 4289.
I am always happy to speak about the remarkable splendor of
Colorado wildlands in general, and the importance of promptly
protecting more of our enduring resource of wilderness.
My name is Steve Smith. I live in Glenwood Springs,
Colorado. I am speaking today for The Wilderness Society as
well as for our associate organizations, Colorado Environmental
Coalition, Colorado Mountain Club, Environment Colorado, and
Wilderness Workshop.
We are especially pleased to see our state's Congressional
Representatives here today, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, of
course, whose visionary legislative proposal is the topic of
today's hearing, and Congressman John Salazar who was here
earlier, in whose district so many of these wonderful lands are
found and who has taken important wilderness protection
initiatives of his own.
Colorado is generously blessed with an astounding heritage
of wilderness, some already recognized and designated by
Congress, and still others so deserving of that designation. In
addition to more typical wilderness of high showy mountain
peaks, Colorado also boasts serpentine sandstone canyons, rich
and vibrant desert ecosystems, and temperate elevation lands
that provide essential seasonal habitat for wildlife and year-
round respite and recreation for people.
In the pursuit of protection of this more complete tapestry
of Colorado's wonder that brings us here today to seek your
help. Congresswoman Diana DeGette has long stood as a true
wilderness champion in Colorado. Over the past decade she has
proposed variations of wilderness designations that help
complete that tapestry. Her legislation before you is a well-
considered installment on those new protections that are
needed.
The lands in this proposal have been carefully researched
on the ground to embrace the key features of these wildlands
and to avoid conflicts with a variety of non-wilderness
activities. We are proud to have helped with those field
inventories of the areas which come from our citizen-crafted
Colorado's Canyon Country Wilderness Proposal. For all that we
have done on that proposal we recognize that significant work
still remains focused on learning and incorporating the views,
recommendations and commitments of local elected officials, of
local people in general, and of the broader Colorado citizenry.
The protection of natural stream flows in wilderness is an
important policy question in Colorado, and H.R. 4289 proposes
straightforward language for protecting streams based on
Colorado water law. Normally we would endorse this clear and
simple approach. Last year, however, we saw Congress approve
new Colorado customized water protection language for midstream
wilderness areas. That language directs Federal managers to
work directly with the State of Colorado to establish state-
held in-stream flow water rights for wilderness streams. This
new Federal/state partnership is, I believe, the new model for
midstream wilderness. Combined with the head waters language,
also Colorado crafted and first approved by Congress in 1993,
we think we have a good creative approach to water protection
in wilderness.
Another key policy issue, the Wilderness Act declares that
historical grazing is compatible with wilderness. H.R. 4289
affirms that declaration, and we support that.
Military helicopter training is a unique issue in a few of
the areas proposed in this legislation, and the bill includes
accommodations for that important training program based on the
Congresswoman's extensive discussions with the military and
Federal managers.
More recent discussions with the national guard and army
are nearing agreement on a new version of legislative
provisions that will protect these areas. Once finished, we
will encourage their use.
In all instances, even where we have made good progress in
these and other technical issues, we all need to do more to
incorporate local knowledge and to secure local support for
these deserving areas, and to help facilitate a team approach
among our congressional wilderness champions. Specifically
critical to that teamwork, areas proposed in Colorado's Third
Congressional District need to be shepherded through Congress
with the insights and leadership of Congressman Salazar, who
has undertaken specific wilderness negotiations and legislation
in that part of our state.
In addition to the bills already introduced, we will soon
bring to our representatives and to you additional proposals to
establish mid-elevation wilderness in central Colorado in the
White River National Forest, and as you will hear shortly, some
marvelous areas along the Arkansas River Watershed.
We are blessed to have both diverse wilderness in our state
and we are also blessed with a team of wilderness advocates in
our Congressional Delegation. We are now poised to add to both
these legacies the legacy of wilderness itself and the legacies
of wilderness champions working together. This is the way
successful wilderness legislation has always worked in
Colorado, and this is the way we must approach the work now.
We will provide our help to getting this done. With such
remarkable places at stake, each detail of their permanent
protection must be resolved carefully. With so many pressures
on these lands we must act quickly to protect them before we
lose the opportunity to do so. Carefully and quickly are the
watch words for successful wilderness legislation.
We thank Congresswoman DeGette for pressing a Colorado
wilderness vision. We thank our Delegation Members for joining
in that effort, and we thank the Committee for giving it its
timely attention. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Statement of Steve Smith, Assistant Regional Director,
The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for this
opportunity to comment on H.R. 4289, the proposed Colorado Wilderness
Act of 2009, to speak about remarkable splendor of Colorado wildlands
in general, and to support an array of legislative opportunities to
protect the best of those lands as ``an enduring resource of
wilderness''.
I live in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, where I serve as Assistant
Regional Director for The Wilderness Society. I speak today in behalf
of The Wilderness Society, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Colorado
Mountain Club, Environment Colorado, and Wilderness Workshop.
We are especially pleased to see our state's congressional
representatives here today--Congresswoman Diana DeGette, of course,
whose visionary legislative proposal is the topic of today's hearing;
Congressman Mike Coffman, who represents so many of our fellow citizens
who enjoy the outdoors; Congressman Doug Lamborn, whose district
includes several rich areas proposed for wilderness; and Congressman
John Salazar, in whose district so many of these wonderful lands are
found.
Colorado is generously blessed with an astounding heritage of
wilderness, some already recognized and designated by Acts of Congress,
others still waiting for--and ever so deserving of--additional
protective designation.
Our state is home to more towering, snow-capped peaks over 14,000
feet high than in any other state. Many of those are in wilderness.
Colorado also boasts deep, serpentine, sandstone canyons, rich and
vibrant desert ecosystems, and more temperate elevation lands of
gnarled oak, pinyon pine, and western juniper that provide essential
seasonal habitat for wildlife, and year-round respite and recreation
for people.
It is the pursuit of enduring and reliable protection for this more
complete tapestry of Colorado's wonder that brings us here today, and
we seek your help in securing that protection.
Congresswoman Diana DeGette has long stood as a true wilderness
champion in Colorado over the past decade, proposing variations of new
wilderness designations that will help complete that tapestry. Her
Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009, before you today, is the latest
refinement of that proposal and a well-considered installment on the
new wilderness protections that are needed.
The lands in this proposal have been carefully researched on the
ground, both to embrace the key features of these wildlands, and to
avoid conflicts with a variety of non-wilderness human activities and
needs. We are proud to have helped with those field inventories and
with crafting the individual wilderness proposals in this package as
part of our larger Colorado's Canyon Country Wilderness Proposal.
Many of those areas are formal BLM wilderness study areas; others
are recommended for wilderness by the U.S. Forest Service. All will add
essential mid-elevation wilderness, so uniquely under-represented in
the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Congresswoman DeGette has visited many of these areas herself,
deliberately taking along local officials and on-the-ground experts in
order to engage in thorough discussions of issues, boundaries, and
local concerns.
For all that we and others have done on that proposal, we recognize
that significant work still remains.
This work must be focused on learning and incorporating the views,
recommendations, and commitments of local elected officials, of local
people in general, and of the broader Colorado citizenry. In many
regions of the state, we are doing that work, meeting with local
citizens, advocacy organizations, and local governments. In other parts
of the state, this proposed legislation queues up that needed work and
those discussions to come.
We are committed to seeing the areas in our proposal, and in this
bill, protected as wilderness, and we will continue this work, with
sensitive attention to local needs, even if that means that some of the
areas need to move at a later date.
This is a good bill in that it includes some areas that are, by
practical measure, ready for congressional action, and in that it
provides the foundation and stimulus for additional discussions and
work toward consensus on other areas.
Some of the additional work that is needed relates to general
policy issues, some of it to boundaries and other details of individual
areas.
Wilderness proposal issues
Water
The protection of natural streamflows in wilderness is one of those
policy questions, and H.R. 4289 proposes straightforward language
directing the establishments of water protections secured through
negotiations and acquisitions based in Colorado water law. Normally, we
would endorse this clear and simple approach.
A year ago, however. we saw Congress approve new Colorado-
customized water protection language for mid-stream wilderness areas.
That language directs federal managers to ensure that protective water
rights are secured to protect wilderness streams--in that instance, at
the new Dominguez Canyon Wilderness. The legislation simultaneously
directs federal officials to work directly with the Colorado Water
Conservation Board, with the preferred intention that the board
establish state-held instream flow water rights for the wilderness
streams. If this partnership with the state is successful--as we think
it will be--no federal water rights will be needed.
Another passage of Colorado-crafted water protection language for
headwaters wilderness areas, first approved by Congress in 1993,
completes the water templates for future wilderness legislation. This
headwaters language recognizes the importance of healthy wilderness
streamflows but prohibits the use of federal water rights to protect
those flows and also prohibits construction of new water projects in
the wilderness. This works simply because the wilderness areas
involved--and their streams--lie at the top of watersheds, with no
opportunity for water diversions upstream and, correspondingly, no
conflict with other water rights.
This combination of provisions ensures healthy wilderness streams
while affirming the continued operation and maintenance of key water
diversion and delivery facilities for agriculture and for communities.
We recommend that H.R. 4289, and any upcoming Colorado wilderness
legislation, use these carefully negotiated and well reasoned
approaches to wilderness water protection.
Grazing
The Wilderness Act declares that historical grazing is compatible
with wilderness. H.R. 4289 affirms that declaration, and we support
that principle. The bill appropriately references Section 4(d)(4) of
The Wilderness Act, finer detail provided in the Colorado Wilderness
Act of 1980, and the grazing clarifications presented in House Report
101-405.
Wilderness advocates and Members of Congress need to be sure that
farmers and ranchers who use wilderness lands are both familiar and
comfortable with those provisions.
Military training
Military helicopter training--with periodic landings and low-
altitude flights--is a unique issue in some of the lands proposed in
this legislation. H.R. 4289 proposes accommodations for that important
training program, based in the congresswoman's discussions with the
military and with federal land managers.
More recently--even in the months since H.R. 4289 was introduced--
wilderness advocates have been working diligently with the Colorado
National Guard and with the United States Army toward agreement on a
new version of legislative provisions that will protect the wilderness
values in those areas while ensuring the continued operation and
success of the military training.
We will be pleased to work with Congresswoman DeGette, and with
other members of our congressional delegation, once those agreements
are completed, to incorporate the new agreements into any new
legislation affecting areas used the National Guard's High Altitude
Aviation Training Site.
Areas
All the areas in this bill are eminently qualified for wilderness
protection. All the areas contain the remarkable wildland features that
are the essence of Colorado's beauty.
The practical, on-the-ground details of least some of the areas
proposed protection in H.R. 4289 are resolved or very nearly resolved.
These well-worked areas include Beaver Creek, Brown's Canyon, Castle
Peak, Bull Gulch, Maroon Bells Addition, Powderhorn Addition, West Elk
Addition, The Palisade, Roubideau, a newly modified Thompson Creek/
Assignation Ridge, and, soon, Pisgah Mountain.
Some other areas in the proposal need additional technical
refinement--certainly additional discussion--to be certain that policy
questions, boundary details, and local support are put in clean and
final form.
Many technical questions have been addressed or are being actively
addressed. Just a few examples of the extensive research and outreach
undertaken by our wilderness network and by Congresswoman DeGette are
instructive.
Private land inholdings in some of the proposal areas
can, under the proposed legislation, be acquired only for willing
sellers.
Portions of the Thompson Creek wilderness proposal that
contain existing oil and gas leases have been removed, deferring
instead to a community approach that will help retire or mitigate those
leases in order to ensure continued healthy grazing use of that land.
Existing major water diversion and delivery facilities
have been drawn out of proposal areas.
Boundaries for Dolores River Canyon proposal, a stunning
icon of southwestern canyon country, have been carefully drawn to
exclude used roads, powerlines, and other potential conflicts.
Former coal leases in Little Book Cliffs have been
relinquished, and gas development has been dropped there; existing
motor routes are outside the proposal area.
The Palisade proposal area provides remarkable backdrop
to the growing successful tourism economy for the adjacent community
and region.
In all instances, even where basic technical issues appear to be
simple or resolved, we need to do more to gain support, from citizens
and from local officials, for areas that are otherwise fully deserving
of wilderness designation.
One element very essential to those continuing discussions and
refinements will be combined and collaborative work of all key members
of our Colorado congressional delegation. Much of this has already been
undertaken with Congresswoman DeGette's leadership and urging, starting
the process that now continues.
Specifically critical to that delegation collaboration, areas
proposed in Colorado's Third Congressional District in particular need
to be shepherded through Congress with the insights and leadership of
Congressman Salazar, who has also undertaken specific wilderness
negotiations and legislation for that part of our state.
Mr. Salazar has engaged in vigorous discussions with local
stakeholders in his wilderness efforts. This approach is important both
to the citizens of his district and to the success of wilderness
protection itself. This is the model to guide continuing Colorado
wilderness negotiations.
Certainly, Congresswoman DeGette's wilderness initiative, and her
steadfast promotion of wilderness protection, have also contributed to
this principle of involvement. We thank her for setting in a motion a
wilderness agenda for Colorado. We are pleased that other congressional
members have also taken up the task of securing strong and enduring
protection for deserving lands.
In addition to being blessed with extensive and diverse wildlands
in our state, therefore, we also continue to be blessed with a team of
wilderness advocates within our congressional delegation.
This is the way successful wilderness legislation has worked in
Colorado in the past and present, and it is the way we must approach
this work now.
Colorado's congressional representatives have always approached
this essential task of wilderness protection in a combined, collective,
patient, and respectful coalition manner. Fourteen times, beginning in
1964, Colorado's leaders have teamed up to pass wilderness legislation.
Personalities as diverse as Aspinall, Allard, Brown, Campbell,
Hefley, Kogovsek, McInnis, Salazar, Schroeder, Skaggs, and Wirth have
variously come together to protect places with names like Dominguez,
Sangre de Cristo, Flat Tops, Never Summer, Ptarmigan, and O-Be-Joyful--
all areas originally championed by citizens and ultimately negotiated
with local and statewide partners.
Now we are poised to add to both those legacies--the legacy of
Colorado wilderness itself, and the legacy of wilderness champions
working together--respectfully, and efficiently--to create and expand
that wilderness tapestry.
Each of our congressional representatives, in his or her own way,
recognizes the significance of Colorado's wildlands and the importance
of permanently protecting those lands while there still is opportunity
to do so.
This is timely. A place as attractive as Colorado faces relentless
population growth and, with that, increasing pressures on our public
lands--for development, road-building, motor travel, and general wear
and tear. Just as there is no better time than now to plant a tree,
knowing that its full benefits will really come in the distant future,
there is no better time than now to protect more wilderness.
In addition to the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009 before you
today, Congress is now considering bold and carefully crafted
legislation from Congressman John Salazar--H.R. 3914, the proposed San
Juan Mountains Wilderness Act of 2009--that will protect sweeping
alpine vistas and rugged canyons in southwestern Colorado. That bill
has some lands in common with H.R. 4289. Prompt action by Congress on
Mr. Salazar's legislation is important to this larger collaborative and
coalition effort.
Soon, we will also bring to you additional measures establishing
mid-elevation wilderness in the rich and scenic mountains of central
Colorado--in and around White River National Forest--adding to the
collection of protected lands and to the collaboration of leaders. As
you will hear from other witnesses, we also have rich landscapes in the
Arkansas River watershed that warrant the highest of protections.
In each of these instances, and in their combination, we look
forward enthusiastically to providing any and all help we can to our
team of Colorado wilderness champions in Congress, always putting first
focus on the land and on the benefits that come from protecting that
land.
We urge the committee to help guide and encourage these
discussions. Wilderness legislation is necessarily a team effort. With
such remarkable lands at stake, and with their permanent protection the
question before us, each detail must be resolved carefully, and each
leader must be consulted and engaged. Only this approach will ensure
that diverse support for wilderness protection will be as enduring as
the protection itself.
Make no mistake; the pressures on these lands are immense, and we
must act quickly if we are to protect them before we lose the
opportunity to do so. All the more reason for us foster open,
respectful, and active engagement among our elected leaders, building
on the knowledge and advice of their citizen constituents.
Thank you again.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Bill Dvorak, President of
Dvorak Rafting & Fishing Expeditions. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF BILL DVORAK, PRESIDENT, DVORAK RAFTING & FISHING
EXPEDITIONS, NATHROP, COLORADO
Mr. Dvorak. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and
Members of the Committee. My name is Bill Dvorak, and I am
President of my own outfitting company, Dvorak Rafting &
Fishing Expeditions, and I am here to talk today about the
benefits of wilderness designation for businesses like mine.
I have been an outfitter in Colorado since 1975, and have
the privilege of holding the first river-issued recreation
outfitter license, Serial No. 001. Since 1984, I have owned an
outfitting business and I am proud to say that our business has
grown to be one of Colorado's most respected outfitters. I have
served on the board of directors of some of the outfitter
industry's leading organizations, including the Colorado River
Outfitters Association and America Outdoors. I have also been a
member of the Colorado Tourism Board and was elected to be the
recreational representative for the Colorado Travel & Tourism
Authority for three terms.
My company runs rafting trips on nine different rivers in
five different states, as well as we do some international
trips in New Zealand and Nepal. We employ about 30 to 40 people
with guides and backup staff, and we have been honored by the
National Geographic Adventure Magazine as one of the best 10
river-oriented adventure companies in the world for the last
two years.
Colorado has a vibrant recreation community and culture. We
have hundreds of outfitting businesses like mine throughout the
state. Colorado is also home to lots of different gear
manufacturers, rental shops, and all these folks rely on the
outdoors for their livelihood. These businesses means jobs for
Coloradans. The tourism sector employs about 144,000 people in
Colorado, making tourism, I believe, the second largest
industry in the state after manufacturing.
In 2008, the total amount spent in the state was about
$15.3 billion. Commercial rafting is a fairly small part of
that. We only generate about 142 million. But other industries
like skiing, I think are about 2.1 billion. A lot of people
don't realize that hunting and fishing account for 2.5 billion
of that tourism recreational industry, and that tourism of
hunting and fishing very much relies on wilderness areas,
particularly when we are getting all of the additional kinds of
pressures on other sorts of areas, a lot of people, hunters in
particular, are having to go into wilderness areas to find the
game that they are after because there is, again, a lot of
other pressure, particularly vehicle pressure in other areas.
As an outfitter, my livelihood is based upon those
protected lands and rivers in which we raft, fish, and paddle.
We have the benefit of operating in a state with truly
remarkable natural assets, but many of these areas are
undergoing pressures from increased demand on public lands.
Wilderness designation is one of the vital tools the Federal
government has to set aside some of our most cherished land for
low impact recreation.
Colorado wilderness areas are potent draws for both in-
state and out-of-state recreation. When an area is designated
as wilderness, this raises its profile and acts as a draw to
recreationists from around the country. Expanding wilderness in
Colorado would keep rafting and the tourism industry growing
and would create new jobs in the outdoor industry.
Wilderness is valuable for many non-economic reasons as
well. Wilderness areas serve as sanctuaries for wildlife of all
kinds. As private land across Colorado is seeing more
development and population growth, our public lands serve as a
final refuge for many species.
The Colorado National Heritage Program based out of
Colorado State University has assembled the most complete data
of critical areas for sensitive species and natural communities
in Colorado. Based on this data, the CNHP ranks in Colorado,
depending on how important the habitat is to bio diversity.
Many of the areas in the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009 rank
highly in those maps. For example, the proposed Sewemup Mesa,
Palisade, Handies Peak, South Shell Ridge and West Elk Addition
Wilderness Areas all contain areas classified as having
outstanding bio diversity significance, the most critical need
category.
The bill focuses on many of the landscapes that matter to
me most, low-lying canyon lands that provide outstanding
opportunities for rafting, fishing, and paddling. These areas
are not well represented in our current wilderness areas in
Colorado. Almost all the wilderness areas that we have now are
high elevation alpine areas. The bill proposes to protect some
of our outstanding low elevation lands, which provide unique
opportunities for recreation and are no less striking in their
beauty and wilderness characters.
I am familiar with many of these proposed wilderness areas
in the bill. My company actively leads rafting trips every year
on several of the rivers protected by the bill. For example, we
run the Dolores River, which is actually my favorite river in
Colorado, and my only true real claim to fame is that I
actually had more runs of Snaggletooth Rapid, a Class 4 or 5
rapid, of any person alive, 17 in a day, I did 12 in a kayak,
and five in a raft one time.
I floated through the Dolores River Canyons, Sewemup Mesa,
Palisade, Snaggletooth areas. The Dolores River actually runs
through a pristine desert area containing some of the most
outstanding canyon scenery in Colorado. In some areas the cliff
rise 700 feet above the water. In my opinion, the float through
Slick Rock Canyon from Slick Rock down to Bed Rock is probably
the prettiest Slick Rock Desert Canyon in the Southwest. I
would actually rate a five or six-day trip on the Dolores River
as one of the three best river trips in the country. It ranks
right up there with the Grand Canyon and the Middle Fork of the
Salmon River, and I think it is one of those things that really
needs to be preserved.
I know there are some issues about maybe gas and oil leases
on the rim, but the central corridor down in the canyon is
definitely worth wilderness protection.
I am actually proud to say that my company usually has more
commercial use on the Dolores than all the other river
companies combined. My company also leads trips down the
Colorado near the proposed Bull Gulch Wilderness Area, and wile
Bull Gulch does not actually include the Colorado River, it
would protect remarkable lands above the river, including
golden aspen, dark green spruce, and cliffs of blinding white
sandstone.
The area I care about most about though is Browns Canyon
along the Arkansas River in Chaffee County. It lies just in
front of my home, and it is our bread and butter river. Almost
a third of my trips through Browns Canyon are wilderness
camping multi-day trips, and the main-attraction selling point
for those trips is the fact that people do get to camp in a
wilderness area, and because it is a wilderness are they get to
see lots of critters.
Browns is one of the last pristine canyons in the state.
The area includes important habitat for elk, deer, eagles,
hawks, coyotes, bears, big horn sheep, mountain lions, bobcats,
and I have even seen a couple of antelope in that area. It
provides needed sanctuary for these critters. It is a stunning
landscape with picturesque vistas and rugged rock outcroppings.
Browns Canyon is actually the heart of the Arkansas River which
is the most popular white water river in the world, and about
half of the use of the Arkansas River happens in Browns Canyon.
I think we had over 200,000 people that floated that canyon
last year, and again the reason people come there is because it
is good. The white water is good, the scenery is good, the
canyon is beautiful, and that is why people want to come to
that magical place.
I am not alone in wanting Browns Canyon to be protected. In
addition to Representative DeGette's efforts, bills to protect
Browns Canyon have been introduced by former Senator Ken
Salazar, former Senator Wayne Allard and former Representative
Joel Hefley. When Representative Hefley introduced his
legislation in the 109th Congress to protect Browns Canyon, the
bill was co-sponsored by every Colorado Member of the House of
Representatives. Wilderness protection to the canyon has also
been endorsed by dozens of local and statewide organizations
and businesses, as well as The Denver Post.
In sum, I am a strong supporter of new wilderness in
Colorado. Wilderness protection will increase tourism, increase
jobs, and preserve some of the most special places in our state
for future generations. I have spoken in favor of Wilderness
protection for many years in Colorado, and appreciate the
opportunity speak to Congress about the importance of
protecting the areas proposed in this bill.
Thank you for having me here today and I am glad to answer
any questions, and again I would love to thank Representative
DeGette for having the foresight to bringing these areas to our
attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dvorak follows:]
Statement of Bill Dvorak, President,
Dvorak Rafting & Fishing Expeditions
Good morning Chairman Grijalva and members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Bill Dvorak and I am President of my own outfitting company,
Dvorak Rafting & Fishing Expeditions. I am here today to talk about the
benefits of wilderness designation in Colorado for businesses like
mine.
I have been an outfitter since 1975, and have the privilege of
holding the first-issued River Recreation Outfitter license, serial
number 001. Since 1984, I have co-owned an outfitting business, and am
proud to say that our business has grown to be one of Colorado's most
respected outfitters. I have served on the Board of Directors for some
of the outfitting industry's leading organizations, including the
Colorado River Outfitters Association, and America Outdoors. I have
also been a member of the Colorado Tourism Board, and was elected as
the recreational representative to the Colorado Travel and Tourism
Authority for 3 terms.
My company leads rafting trips on 9 different rivers in 5 different
states, as well as international trips to New Zealand and Nepal. We
employ about 30 to 40 guides and support staff. We have also been
honored by National Geographic Adventure Magazine as one of the 10 best
river-oriented adventure travel companies in the world.
Colorado has a vibrant recreation culture and economy. In addition
to my own outfitting company, there are dozens of others throughout the
state. Colorado is also home to hundreds of outdoor gear manufacturers
and retail goods shops that rely on customers who love the outdoors.
These businesses mean jobs for Coloradans. The tourism sector
employs 144,000 people in Colorado, making tourism one the largest
industries in the state. In 2008, the total amount spent in the state
from tourists was $15.3 billion. Commercial rafting alone contributes
about $140 million annually to Colorado's economy, while providing
river trips to around 500,000 people.
As an outfitter, my livelihood is based on having protected land
and rivers in which to raft, fish, and paddle. We have the benefit of
operating in a state with truly remarkable natural assets. But many of
areas are under growing pressures from increased demands on our public
lands. Wilderness designation is one of the vital tools the federal
government has to set aside some of our most cherished land for low-
impact recreation.
Colorado's wilderness areas are one of the potent draws for both
in-state and out-of-state recreation. When an area is designated as
wilderness, this raises its profile and acts as a draw to
recreationalists from across the country. Expanding wilderness in
Colorado would help the rafting and tourism industries grow, and would
create new jobs in the outdoor industry.
Wilderness is valuable for many non-economic reasons as well.
Wilderness areas serve as sanctuaries for wildlife of all kinds. As
private land across Colorado is seeing more development and population
growth, our public lands serve as the final refuge for many species.
The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP), based out of Colorado
State University, has assembled the most complete data of critical
areas for sensitive species and natural communities in Colorado. Based
on this data, the CNHP ranks areas in Colorado depending on how
important the habitat is to biodiversity. Many of the areas in the
Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009 rank highly on the CNHP maps. For
example, the proposed Sewemup Mesa, Palisade, Handies Peak, South Shale
Ridge, and West Elk Addition Wilderness Areas all contain areas
classified as having Outstanding Biodiversity Significance--the most
critical need category.
This bill focuses on many of the landscapes that matter most to
me--low-lying canyon lands that provide outstanding opportunities for
rafting, fishing and paddling. These areas are not well represented in
our current wilderness areas in Colorado. Almost all of the wilderness
areas in Colorado are high-elevation alpine areas. This bill proposes
to protect some of our outstanding low elevation lands, which provide
unique opportunities for recreation and are no less striking in their
beauty and wilderness character.
I am very familiar with many of the proposed wilderness areas in
this bill. My company actively leads rafting trips every year on
several of the rivers protected by the bill. For example, we run the
Dolores River, which is my personal favorite river trip and my only
true claim to fame. I have more runs of the class 4-5 Snaggletooth
Rapid than any other person. My record in a day was 17 runs, 12 kayaks
and 5 rafts.
I have floated through the proposed Dolores River Canyon, Sewemup
Mesa, Palisade, and Snaggletooth areas. The Dolores River runs through
pristine desert areas containing some of the most outstanding canyon
scenery in Colorado. In some areas, the cliffs rise 700 feet above the
water. In my opinion the float through Slickrock Canyon is the
prettiest slickrock canyon trip in the Southwest. I would rate a 5-6
day Dolores River trip as one of the 3 best trips in the lower 48,
right up there with the Grand Canyon and the Middle Fork of the Salmon
River in Idaho. Rafting on the Dolores also provided over $150,000 in
economic impact in 2009, with over 500 user days. I'm proud to say that
my company usually has more commercial use on the Dolores than all
other outfitters combined.
My company also leads trips down the Colorado River, near the
proposed Bull Gulch wilderness area. While the Bull Gulch proposal does
not include the Colorado River itself, it would protect the remarkable
landscape above the river, including golden aspen, dark green spruce,
and cliffs of blinding white sandstone.
The area I care about most deeply, though, is Browns Canyon, along
the Arkansas River in Chaffee County. It lies just in front of my home
and is our bread and butter river. Almost one-third of my trips through
Browns Canyon are wilderness camping, multi-day trips. The main
attraction or selling point for these trips is the true wilderness
aspect of camping in that area.
Browns Canyon is one of the last pristine canyons in the state. The
area includes important habitat for elk, deer, eagles, hawks, coyotes,
bear, bighorn sheep, mountain lions, and bobcats. I've even seen a few
antelope in there. It provides needed sanctuary for all these critters.
It is a stunning landscape with picturesque vistas and rugged rock
outcroppings.
Browns Canyon is also one of the most popular rafting rivers in the
state. In 2009, there were over 200,000 user days on the river,
generating over $60 million in economic benefit. The rafting run at
Browns Canyon is 16 miles of challenging Class II and Class III rapids
slicing through beautiful, solid pink granite. Protection of the
remarkable wild country surrounding the river canyon would be a boon to
our vital rafting business along the river and would help protect a
truly magical place.
I am not alone in wanting Browns Canyon to be protected. In
addition to Representative DeGette's efforts, bills to protect Browns
Canyon have been introduced by former Senator Ken Salazar, former
Senator Wayne Allard, and former Representative Joel Hefley. When
Representative Hefley introduced legislation in the 109th Congress to
protect Browns Canyon, his bill was co-sponsored by every Colorado
member of the House of Representatives. Wilderness protection of the
Canyon has also been endorsed by dozens of local and statewide
organizations and businesses, as well as The Denver Post.
In sum, I am a strong supporter of new wilderness in Colorado.
Wilderness protection will increase tourism, create jobs, and will
preserve some of the most special areas in our state for future
generations. I have spoken in favor of wilderness protections for many
years in Colorado, and appreciate the opportunity to speak to Congress
about the importance of protecting the areas proposed in this bill.
Thank you for having me here today and I'll be glad to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir, and you ran over your time
but after I butchered your name I felt it was the least I could
do. I apologize for that.
Mr. Dvorak. It has happened before, believe me.
Mr. Grijalva. Jenn Dice, Government Affairs Director,
International Mountain Bicycling Association. Welcome. Look
forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF JENN DICE, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS DIRECTOR,
INTERNATIONAL MOUNTAIN BICYCLING ASSOCIATION, BOULDER, COLORADO
Ms. Dice. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you
for inviting me to speak today. I will begin by asking you to
imagine yourself visiting Colorado. It is not a work trip. You
have come to enjoy yourself, to vacation and to recreate like
so many visitors do each year. You might imagine yourself
hiking in one of our gorgeous mountains or casting a fishing
line into a sparking river, or maybe you are a skier, or maybe
you will take the opportunity to get back on a bicycle.
Remember when you were a kid and you had that wind-in-your-
face feeling of freedom riding a bike? Well, thousands of
visitors come to Colorado each year to mountain bike on our
incredible trails. After all, it is revered as one of the best
places in the world to enjoy our majestic scenery.
My name is Jenn Dice, and I work for IMBA, the
International Mountain Bicycling Association, and mountain
bikers are passionate about the outdoors. We cherish the places
that we can take epic forays into the back country. We love
trails and are amount the very first to volunteer to build and
repair them. Annually, mountain bikers contribute almost 1
million volunteer hours building and repairing environmentally
sound sustainable trail, and advocating for public land
protection.
We share a concern with conservationists and fellow trail
users that the pressures of growth in industry threaten the
very qualities that make our favorite trails special. Now,
wilderness designations are one of the most historically
important methods for protecting natural areas. However,
because bicycling is not allowed in wilderness, IMBA recommends
the use of companion designations such as national conservation
areas, national protection areas or national scenic areas to
complement wilderness, protect more land and maintain bicycle
access to Colorado's world renowned mountain bike trails.
We believe mountain biking has been caught in the cross
fire of well-intentioned legislation to protect public lands.
Colorado's natural areas need to be protected from poorly
planned resource extraction. However, they don't need to be
protected from bicycles. Fortunately, we know that land
protection proposals can be crafted in a way to include
mountain biking as this Committee has done in the past for
several states. We believe there are many tools in the toolbox
to protect public lands.
And H.R. 4989, IMBA can support 13 proposed units totaling
more than 230,000 acres of wilderness, but we believe that
there are significant improvements that can be made to the
bill. We object to the approximate 200 miles of dirt trails and
roads that would be closed to bicycling. We hope to see our
traditional use protected in several parcels included in my
written testimony, including Thompson Creek and Banks Canyon.
Colorado has a long history of protecting public lands
through inclusive collaborate processes. We believe this bill
needs to go through some more community vetting to make sure
that those closest to the land have an opportunity to draw
boundaries and to write robust land protections. IMBA has 30
clubs in Colorado and we stand ready to participate.
Although research shows that the impact of bicycling are
much less than those caused by motorized recreation and
equestrian use, and similar to hiking, outdated Forest Service
regulations often equate bicyclists to motorized users, and
inappropriately group bicycles into categories with motorized
and mechanized in their analysis.
The Forest Service needs better management tools to address
our quiet, low impact sport. We hope to work with Congress, the
Forest Service, the BLM and others to write robust, strong
public land protections that give land managers better forest
and recreation management tools that are inclusive of our human
power use.
At a time when every Federal public land agency has
initiatives to get kids exercising, to get them outdoors, to
get them to experience their public lands, we don't understand
why we would exclude bicycles. Bicycles create future public
land stewards. They make national forests more relevant to
today's youth, and bicycling is fun.
In closing, mountain biking is an extremely popular sport
with more than 47 million Americans participating. IMBA has
inspired, trained, and organized one of the most committed
volunteer corps in our nation's history. We are proud that our
members have embraced the ethic of trail stewardship and we
will continue to protect the water, wildlife, clean air and
back country landscapes for the foundation of America's great
outdoors.
In closing, I will thank you for the opportunity to speak
and we would love to take you and your staff on a bike ride in
Colorado anytime soon. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dice follows:]
Statement of Jenn Dice, Government Affairs Director,
International Mountain Bicycling Association, Boulder, Colorado
On behalf of the International Mountain Bicycling Association
(IMBA) and our Colorado IMBA-affiliated clubs, thank you for the
opportunity to offer comments on the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009
H.R. 4289.
IMBA is a national and international education and advocacy
organization whose mission is to create, enhance, and preserve great
trail experiences for mountain bicyclists worldwide. Nationally, we
represent 750 IMBA-affiliated clubs, 32,000 individual members, and
more than 800 corporate partners and bike shops. Annually, mountain
bikers contribute almost one million volunteer hours advocating for
public land protection and building environmentally sustainable trails.
We begin by thanking Congresswoman DeGette for her outstanding
support for Colorado public lands. There are many special places across
our beautiful state threatened by resource extraction, development, and
road building. IMBA agrees that Colorado's most treasured places must
be safeguarded. Our hope is to see them protected from detrimental
activities while still allowing for healthy, low-impact recreation,
such as mountain biking.
Wilderness designations are one of the most historically important
methods for protecting natural areas. However, because bicycling is not
allowed in Wilderness by regulation, IMBA suggests a strategy of
employing ``companion designations,'' such as Natural Conservation
Areas, National Scenic Areas, and Natural Protection Areas, to
complement Wilderness areas and maintain access for Colorado's world-
renown mountain biking trails.
Bicycling Brings $133 Billion to U.S. Economy and Supports 1.1 Million
Jobs
Bicycling, both on road and off, contributes $133 billion annually
to the U.S. economy, supports nearly 1.1 million jobs across the U.S.
and generates $17.7 billion in annual federal and state tax revenues.
Bicycling produces $53.1 billion annually in retail sales and services,
including $6.2 billion in bicycling gear sales and services and $46.9
billion in bicycling trip-related expenditures (Outdoor Industry
Foundation 2006).
In the mountain states--combining Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New
Mexico, Montana, Utah, Nevada, and Wyoming--bicycling contributes $6.2
billion annually to the regional economy. Bicycling supports more than
$1 billion in annual state and federal tax revenues and produces nearly
$4.1 billion annually in retail sales and services.
Colorado a Top State for Mountain Bicycling
In Colorado, IMBA represents 30 IMBA-affiliated mountain bike clubs
and five volunteer mountain bike patrols. The state has 312 independent
bicycle dealers that support our work. Tourism in Colorado industries
is strongly influenced by mountain biking, including some of the
nation's most popular races and festivals, plus guiding services,
touring companies, and hut-to-hut travel.
Colorado is truly an epicenter for the mountain bike industry, with
almost 100 companies building and making mountain bike frames,
components, accessories, and apparel. Many prominent outdoor companies
that promote outdoor recreation and mountain biking are based here,
including national and regional bicycling magazines and firms that deal
in events marketing, public relations, advertising, and media services.
Bicycling, in general, supports more than 60,000 jobs across the Rocky
Mountain region (OIF 2006), with mountain biking comprising
approximately 40 percent of that figure.
Mountain bicycling is an extremely popular sport nationally.
According to the National Survey on Outdoor Recreation and the
Environment (NSRE 2007), the sport attracts 47 million participants,
making it more popular than golf, hunting, backpacking, or horseback
riding.
Many young people enjoy mountain biking, helping counter a
distressing trend toward youth obesity and inactivity. The Outdoor
Foundation's Outdoor Recreation Participation Study (2008) shows that
overall youth (ages 6 to 17) participation in the outdoors declined
16.7 percent over the last three years. However, youth participation in
mountain bicycling, hiking, backpacking, kayaking, and skiing all
showed increases. This research affirms that outdoor activities like
bicycling and hiking are popular, accessible, and often lead to
participation in other healthy activities.
Mountain Bicyclists Are Enthusiastic Supporters of Public Lands
Protection
Mountain bicyclists are passionate about the outdoors. We believe
in managing public lands as a public trust and a priceless national
treasure. We cherish the places where we can enjoy epic forays into the
backcountry. We love trails and are among the first to volunteer to
build and repair them. We share a concern with other trail users that
the pressures of growth and industry threaten the qualities that make
our favorite rides special.
That's why Wilderness designations are such a difficult issue for
us. Existing Wilderness protections near trails can contribute to the
peace, quiet, and solitude that make them special. At the same time,
Wilderness expansions and new Wilderness designations block access to
those same trails.
Fortunately, we know that land protection proposals can be crafted
to include mountain biking, as they have been in Colorado, Washington,
Oregon, California, Georgia, and Virginia. IMBA champions the strategy
of combining Wilderness protections with other land protection
solutions--such as National Scenic Areas, Recreation Areas, or
Protections Areas. In this manner we can both safeguard the land and
preserve local mountain biking traditions. We believe that there are
many tools in the toolbox to protect public lands. Preserving Colorado
public lands doesn't have to be at the expense of mountain bicycling.
We believe there are significant improvements that can be made to
the bill. In its present state, the legislation fails to acknowledge
the large number of bicycle trails that would be closed by Wilderness
boundaries. We believe that the addition of more companion
designations, and corresponding adjustments to Wilderness boundaries,
would create a better, more inclusive, bill.
Areas Appropriate for Wilderness in H.R. 4289
IMBA can support roughly 216,958 acres for Wilderness in the
Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009. IMBA believes that these parcels are
appropriate for Wilderness: Badger Creek (25,229), Beaver Creek
(38,378), Browns Canyon (20,025), Cross Canyon (25,947), Deep Creek
(20,843), Flat Tops (16,427), Grand Hogback (11,701), Little Bookcliffs
(30,557), Maroon Bells (316), McIntyre Hills (17,318), Platte River
(33), Powderhorn (3,306), and West Elk (6,878).
Areas That Need to Be Further Examined for Partial Wilderness,
Companion Designations, and Boundary Adjustments
Large segments of the following parcels could also be supported as
Wilderness but IMBA needs to work with Congresswoman Degette and local
stakeholders to determine if boundaries need to be redrawn for existing
roads and trails or if a companion designation would be a more
appropriate land protection.
Further research and ground-truth efforts need to be conducted for
the trails in these areas: Bull Gulch (15,155), Castle Peak (16,263),
Demaree Canyon (25,881), Dolores River Canyon (41,133), Granite Creek
(14,089), Norwood Canyon (13,288), Pisgah Mountain (15,679), Redcloud
Peak (38,594), South Shale Ridge (27,569), Table Mountain (27,888),
Weber-Menefee Mountain (14,598).
IMBA can support the Snaggletooth Wilderness (32,050), so long as
the boundary of the Wilderness respects the existing Snaggletooth Trail
important to local bicyclists. The current map is unclear and it is
difficult to determine if this trail is in or outside of the Wilderness
boundary.
Areas Important to Bicyclists That Could Be Protected Through A
Companion Designation
There are many trails that would close under H.R. 4289 and areas we
cannot support for Wilderness: Bangs Canyon (21,110), Grape Creek
(44,372), Handies Peak (72,397), McKenna Peak (33,467), The Palisade
(26,914), Roubideau (22,604), Sewemup Mesa (65,448), Thompson Creek
(25,285), and Unaweep (39,392).
IMBA estimates that close to 200 miles of trails or dirt roads will
close to bicycle use in the bills current form. In some places a simple
boundary adjustment or non-Wilderness corridors would allow for
continued use. In other places, trails split parcels and a companion
designation may be more appropriate, such as a National Protection
Area, National Conservation Area, or National Scenic Area. In all
instances, IMBA wants to make sure the land is still protected. We hope
to work will the bill's sponsor and the committee to write a robust
protection that complements some of the key Wilderness areas.
Bangs Canyon
IMBA would not support Wilderness for Bangs Canyon. This parcel
provides mountain bike access on dirt roads accessible for winter
riding around Grand Junction as well as the nationally famous
Tabeguache Trail.
Grand Junction is a world-renowned mountain bicycling destination.
This area hosts an abundance of year round singletrack opportunities.
IMBA's local club, the Colorado Plateau Mountain Bike Trail Association
(COPMOBA), is a dedicated group of volunteers who organized in 1989 and
were recently inducted into the Mountain Bike Hall of Fame for their
stewardship. This group includes a board of directors and numerous
member volunteers who work with land managers to protect resources in
the Grand Junction, Fruita, Gateway, and Montrose areas. This group has
been dedicated to maintaining trails such as the Tabeguache, Paradox,
and Kokopelli trails.
The proposed Bangs Canyon parcel would close approximately five
miles of the Tabeguache Trail. This trail, in its entirety, is 144
miles from Montrose to Grand Junction and was put together by the
COPMOBA in 1990. The Tabeguache is also part of the three legs of the
Grand Loop, a large triangle formed by the Kokopelli and Paradox
trails. The closure would bi-sect this important long-distance trail
and prevents completion of the Grand Loop. COPMBA has been working with
the Grand Junction Bureau of Land Management Field Office to re-route
this section of trail, but nothing official has come of the process.
Grape Creek
IMBA would not support Wilderness for the Grape Creek parcel as
local bicyclists of the Colorado Springs (Medicine Wheel Trail
Advocates) and Canyon City (Lower Arkansas Mountain Bicycling
Association) enjoy several trails that would be closed under the
proposal: Bear Gulch Trail, Tanner Peak Trail, and Stultz Trail. The
Grape Creek area is featured in a well-known guide, Mountain Biking
Colorado Springs Guide Book, by David Crowell (Falcon Publishing).
Handies Peak
IMBA does not support the Handies Peak Wilderness proposal. This
proposed area includes the Colorado Trail, which is of critical
importance to mountain bikers. It is a premier backcountry singletrack
experience and certain segments are an international destination. Many
bicyclists put this long-distance trail on their ``must-ride'' list of
epic backcountry rides and aspire to bike the entire distance from end
to end. There is a tremendous amount of Wilderness already in the area
that restricts local bicyclists. The CO Wilderness Act of 2009 would
needlessly close a critical segment (#23) that would make bicyclists
detour around yet another parcel of Wilderness in the Handies Peak
Proposed Wilderness. Mountain bikers love this trail and would be upset
to be excluded.
Already there are several Colorado Trail segments that require
challenging and onerous reroutes. The Lost Creek Wilderness is a good
example. Here, bicyclists must bike 71.6 miles on state highways and
dirt roads to bypass roughly 20 miles of trail with no alternative
trail route available. This is an enormous burden on our community. If
segment #23 were closed, this would require a similar problem for this
segment and require an extensive reroute for mountain bikers to stay
outside of Wilderness. Other trails that would be affected in this area
are West Lake Creek and Pole Creek.
McKenna Peak
IMBA would not support Wilderness for major segments of McKenna
Peak. There are several dirt roads that bicyclists use to view wild
horse populations in the Spring Creek area.
The Palisade
IMBA would not support the Palisade (26,914) proposal. With
mountain biking on the rise in Gateway, we need to keep in mind
amenities that go along with the sport such as camping. The Wilderness
boundary cuts off small roads that allow for camping in the area. There
is limited camping in the canyon and this area has provided bikers with
numerous camping opportunities.
Roubideau
IMBA does not support the Roubideau Wilderness proposal. This
section bisects a very popular long distance trail, the Tabeguache
trail. As previously mentioned in the Bangs Canyon proposal, this trail
is in its entirety is 144 miles from Montrose to Grand Junction. The
Tabeguache is also part of the three legs of the Grand Loop, a large
triangle formed also by the Kokopelli and Paradox trails.
The proposal would eliminate the #3 Transfer Road section (7.1
miles) and #4 Roubideau Trial section (21.3 miles). This trail offers
an experience for riders exploring diverse geologic areas and applying
remote backcountry riding skills, a unique trail system for mountain
bikers. Trail surface consists of gravel road, maintained dirt road,
primitive 4WD paths, and singletrack.
Sewemup Mesa
Sewemup Mesa is another area with an important trail to bicyclists
and we ask there be boundary adjustments for this parcel. Sewemup Mesa
is a wonderfully wild area, but H.R. 4289 goes outside the original BLM
Wilderness Study Area proposal and would impact access to existing jeep
roads near the Paradox Trail. The 100-mile Paradox Trail follows the
stunning Paradox valley from Colorado's high plains to Moab's desert
along trails and jeep roads and was put together by the COPMOBA in
1995. Included in this proposal are a number of short sections of road
and trail that mountain bicyclists currently use. Beehive Canyon is
also an area that has a short section of singletrack that is important
to bikers. The boundary could be adjusted to exclude these areas that
our constituents find important.
Thompson Creek
IMBA does not support Wilderness designation for Thompson Creek.
This parcel borders the town of Carbondale, a destination for mountain
biking and home to a very active IMBA club, the Roaring Fork Mountain
Bike Association. There are many important trails in this parcel
including Tall Pines and Braderich Creek trails that would close under
the current proposal. IMBA suggests a companion designation for this
unit. We cannot support the permanent restriction of mountain bike
access to this areas urban trail development.
Unaweep
IMBA would not support the Unaweep parcel for Wilderness
designation. In the Unaweep area there are currently trails used by
mountain bikers, which include: Lower Ute Creek (2.5 miles), Ute Creek
#608 (7.7 miles), and Snowshoe #607. Although it is only 1.5 miles
long, Snowshoe #607 is an important connector trail. This area provides
opportunity for loop trail rides in the area. There are currently three
trails that were closed in 2002, but COPMBA has been working with the
U.S. Forest Service to reopen these three trails: #601, #654, and #650.
A Wilderness designation would eliminate the option of allowing bikes.
H.R. 4289 Needs More Community Vetting
IMBA hopes to work with Congresswoman Degette on conducting town
hall meetings across the state to better collaborate with community
groups affected by the legislation. Colorado has a long history of
protecting public lands through inclusive processes that bring many
interest groups to the table. We believe this bill needs to go through
more community stakeholder meetings to make sure those closest to the
land have been involved in drawing the boundaries.
IMBA recently worked with Colorado Congressman John Salazar (D-3)
over the course of several years to craft H.R. 3914 the San Juan
Mountains Wilderness Act of 2009, which we support. The bill includes
numerous boundary adjustments for critical trails and dirt roads that
our community uses in southwest Colorado. Further, the legislation
includes both Wilderness and a Special Management Area that allows our
historical use to continue on one trail system. The bill recognizes the
importance of outdoor recreation and also allows the Hard Rock trail
running race, and heli-skiing and snowboarding, to continue on these
newly protected lands.
IMBA also worked collaboratively for years with then U.S.
Representative Mark Udall (D-2) on shaping the James Peak Wilderness
and Protection Area (H.R. 1576, P.L. 107-216 or 16 USC 5391). James
Peak is another great example of complementing Wilderness through a
companion designation of a National Protection Area, as it allows for
bicyclists to continue riding an important, high-alpine trail.
Last year, IMBA supported the Dominguez-Escalante National
Conservation Area and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Area Act (S. 3065)
after working with then Colorado U.S. Senator Ken Salazar to draft a
proposal that included a companion of a National Conservation Area,
which protected public lands and allowed our traditional use along many
important trails.
IMBA is now working with Colorado Congressman Jared Polis (D-2) and
the Hidden Gems coalition to craft a robust protection measure that
includes Wilderness and a companion designation for Summit, Pitkin,
Eagle, and Gunnison counties.
Forest Service Needs Better Management Tools for Human-Powered
Recreation
IMBA believes the time has come for the Forest Service and Congress
to consider another robust public land protection that gives clear
guidance to the Forest Service for management. The Forest Service has
specific regulations and management guidance for Wilderness, and needs
better direction for companion designations.
IMBA is asking the Forest Service to help address the disparities
that unfairly restrict mountain bicycle access. Although research shows
that the impacts of bicycling are much less than those caused by
motorized recreation, Forest Service regulations often equate
bicyclists to motorized users and inappropriately group bicycles into
the category of ``motorized and mechanized'' in their analysis. Too
often, environmental and social science research is based on the
impacts of motorized users, ignoring the need for a unique analysis
specific to bicycling as a low-impact, human-powered activity. The
Forest Service needs better management tools to address our sport.
IMBA believes it is important that this committee consider the
congressional intent of the Wilderness Act and the inspiration behind
that important moment in history. It is clear from the congressional
record and study group reports, which recommended the parameters of the
legislation, that even back in the late 1950's, Americans were becoming
too sedentary. The pressures of development were starting to erode
these treasured areas and Congress wanted places people were required
to get to under their own human-power. No people movers, no motors, and
no mechanized transport--which the Forest Service in 1966 defined as,
``propelled by a non-living power source'' (36 CFR Sec. 293.6). Since
bicycles are obviously powered by a living power source, they were not
contemplated by the Act. IMBA believes the congressional intent was to
prohibit motorized vehicles completely and any non-motorized but non-
human powered devices used to deliver people or supplies. Examples of
the latter would include animal-powered wagons and mining carts.
In addition, Congress has recognized that bicycling is compatible
with Wilderness values in the Rattlesnake Wilderness Act (1980) where
it found that ``bicycling'' was a form of ``primitive recreation''
fitting for Wilderness.
``The Congress finds that--(1) certain lands on the Lolo
National Forest in Montana have high value [as Wilderness].
This national forest area has long been used as a
wilderness...as a source of solitude...and primitive
recreation, to include such activities as hiking, camping,
backpacking, hunting, fishing, horse riding, and
bicycling....''
I mention this to further dispel the idea that bicycles are an
incompatible use of pristine places. Almost 30 years have passed since
the first invention of the mountain bike and twenty-five years since
the 1984 Forest Service regulatory ban of bicycles in Wilderness. We
have learned a lot in the last 30 years on recreation ecology and
management of mountain bikes.
We now know that the resource impacts of mountain biking are
similar to hiking and much less than horses, two allowed uses of
Wilderness. For example, a study published by Dr. Jeffrey L. Marion,
Assessing and Understanding Trail Degradation: Results from Big South
Fork National River and Recreational Areas, United States Department of
the Interior (2006), demonstrates that mountain bike trails were the
least eroded, narrowest, and least muddy of the trails studied (.6
percent), including hiking (1.4 percent), equestrian (9.0 percent), ATV
(24.0 percent) (See also Attachment B--Environmental Impacts of
Mountain Biking: Science Review and Best Practices, Jeff Marion and
Jeremy Wimpey). We have also learned a tremendous amount about the
management of mountain bikes and shared-use trails and have hundreds of
examples across the country where hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians
successfully share trails. (See Minimum Tool Rule, Attachment B).
Relying solely on Wilderness designations has other drawbacks. The
Forest Service is restricted in Wilderness as to what tools they can
use for forest restoration, watershed protection, forest thinning, and
mechanized trail building. Further, Wilderness prevents fixed anchors
for climbers and backcountry structures such as yurts that back-packers
and cross-country skiers would appreciate.
At a time when every federal public land agency has initiatives to
get more kids exercising, into the woods, and out experiencing their
public lands, why would we exclude bicyclists? Bicycling creates future
public land stewards; it makes national parks and national forests more
relevant to today's youth.
As a community, mountain bikers can add a valuable new voice to
campaigns to protect America's forests, water, wildlife, and scenic
landscapes. Ask any mountain biker what they think about public land
protection. They absolutely do not want the lands around their trails
mined, developed, or turned into road systems. The fervently agree in
protecting public lands.
But the one-size fits all approach of Wilderness is no longer an
adequate solution. Mountain bikers are slowly changing the national
conversation on public land protection and introducing companion
designations in legislation around the country. We hope to work with
Congress, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and others to
write better public land protections that are inclusive of our human
powered use.
In closing, I want to emphasize that IMBA has inspired, trained,
and organized one of the most committed volunteer trail corps in this
nation's history. We're proud that our members have embraced the ethic
of trail stewardship so wholeheartedly and we will continue to promote
riding that respects all trail users. We will continue to protect the
water, wildlife, clean air, and backcountry landscapes that are the
foundation of America's matchless outdoor recreation heritage.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony.
______
ATTACHMENT A
Summary Excerpt: Environmental Impacts of Mountain Biking: Science
Review and Best Practices.
By Jeff Marion and Jeremy Wimpey
Mountain biking is still a relatively new activity whose
environmental impact and contribution to trail degradation is poorly
understood. As with all recreational pursuits, it is clear that
mountain biking contributes some degree of environmental degradation.
In the absence of adequate research, land and trail managers have
frequently been cautious, implementing restrictive regulations in some
instances (Edger 1997). Surveys of managers have shown that they
frequently perceive mountain biking to be a substantial contributor to
trail degradation but lack scientific studies or monitoring data to
substantiate such concerns (Chavez and others 1993; Schuett 1997). In
recent years, however, a small number of studies have been conducted
that help clarify the environmental impacts associated with mountain
biking. This article describes the general impacts associated with
recreational uses of natural surface trails, with a focus on those
studies that have examined mountain biking impacts. [...]
Conclusion
While land managers have long been concerned about the
environmental impacts of mountain biking, there are still very few good
studies published in peer-reviewed journals. White and others (2006)
and Hendricks (1997) note that the majority of mountain biking research
has focused on social issues, such as conflicts between trail users. As
a consequence, the ecological effects of mountain biking on trails and
natural resources remain poorly understood.
Still, an emerging body of knowledge on the environmental impact of
mountain biking can help guide current management decisions. All of the
existing scientific studies indicate that while mountain biking, like
all forms of recreational activity, can result in measurable impacts to
vegetation, soil, water resources, and wildlife, the environmental
effects of well-managed mountain biking are minimal.
Furthermore, while the impact mechanics and forces may be different
from foot traffic, mountain biking impacts are little different from
hiking, the most common and traditional form of trail-based
recreational activity.
Key observations about the environmental impacts of mountain
biking:
1. Environmental degradation can be substantially avoided or
minimized when trail users are restricted to designated formal trails.
Many studies have shown that the most damage to plants and soils occur
with initial traffic and that the per capita increase in further impact
diminishes rapidly with increasing subsequent traffic. Many
environmental impacts can be avoided and the rest are substantially
minimized when traffic is restricted to a well-designed and managed
trail. The best trail alignments avoid the habitats of rare flora and
fauna and greatly minimize soil erosion, muddiness, and tread widening
by focusing traffic on side-hill trail alignments with limited grades
and frequent grade reversals. Even wildlife impacts are greatly
minimized when visitors stay on trails; wildlife have a well-documented
capacity to habituate to non-threatening recreational uses that occur
in consistent places.
2. Trail design and management are much larger factors in
environmental degradation than the type or amount of use. Many studies
have demonstrated that poorly designed or located trails are the
biggest cause of trail impacts. As evidence, consider that use factors
(type, amount, and behavior of trail visitors) are generally the same
along the length of any given trail, yet there is often substantial
variation in tread erosion, width, and muddiness. These impacts are
primarily attributable to differences in grade and slope alignment
angle, soil type and soil moisture, and type of tread construction,
surfacing, and drainage. This suggests that a sustainable trail that is
properly designed, constructed, and maintained can support lower-impact
uses such as hiking and mountain biking with minimal maintenance or
degradation.
3. The environmental degradation caused by mountain biking is
generally equivalent or less than that caused by hiking, and both are
substantially less impacting than horse or motorized activities. In the
small number of studies that included direct comparisons of the
environmental effects of different recreational activities, mountain
biking was found to have an impact that is less than or comparable to
hiking. For example, Marion and Olive (2006) reported less soil loss on
mountain bike trails than on hiking trails, which in turn exhibited
substantially less soil loss than did horse and ATV trails. Similarly,
two wildlife studies reported no difference in wildlife disturbance
between hikers and mountain bikers (Taylor & Knight 2003, Gander &
Ingold 1997), while two other studies found that mountain bikers caused
less disturbance (Papouchis and others. 2001, Spahr 1990). Wilson and
Seney (1994) found that horses made significantly more sediment
available for erosion than hikers or mountain bikers, which were
statistically similar to the undisturbed control.
One final point to consider, however, is that mountain bikers, like
horse and vehicle users, travel further than hikers due to their higher
speed of travel. This means that their use on a per-unit time basis can
affect more miles of trail or wildlife than hikers. However, an
evaluation of aggregate impact would need to consider the total number
of trail users, and hikers are far more numerous than mountain bikers.
Mountain Bike Management Implications
So what does this mean for mountain biking? The existing body of
research does not support the prohibition or restriction of mountain
biking from a resource or environmental protection perspective.
Existing impacts, which may be in evidence on many trails used by
mountain bikers, are likely associated for the most part with poor
trail designs or insufficient maintenance.
Managers should look first to correcting design-related
deficiencies before considering restrictions on low-impact users. By
enlisting the aid of all trail users through permanent volunteer trail
maintenance efforts, they can improve trail conditions and allow for
sustainable recreation.
______
ATTACHMENT B
Minimum Tool Rule
THE MINIMUM TOOL RULE
Public land managers who seek to provide high-quality recreation
experiences on trails face the challenge of increasing user conflicts.
Successful resolution of this problem depends on the management
approach. The International Mountain Bicycling Association recommends
that managers adopt the ``minimum tool rule'': Use the least intrusive
measures that will solve the problem.
This approach is explained well in ``Conflicts on Multiple-Use
Trails: Synthesis of the Literature and State of the Practice,'' by
Roger Moore (1994):
The nature of the recreation experience limits the manager's
options in addressing the potential negative impacts of trail
use. Freedom, and freedom of choice in particular, are
essential for high-quality outdoor recreation on and off
trails. Multiple-use trail managers must be sensitive to this
fact and avoid restriction and manipulation whenever possible.
The 'minimum tool rule'' proposed by Hendee, Stankey, and Lucas
(1990) for wilderness management is an appropriate guideline
for the management of most multiple-use trails as well. They
advocate using the least intrusive measures (whether physical
or managerial) that will still achieve area objectives. This
sensitivity is critical to maintaining the freedom and
naturalness so important to most trail-based recreation.
Some managers, unaware of this principle, have fallen into a more
simple and less successful approach. Andy Kulla, a recreation manager
in the Lolo National Forest of Montana, calls it ``Ignore or
Restrict:...New uses are ignored until they conflict with a traditional
established use and then are managed by prohibition or
restriction...The manager then tries to resolve a conflict between two
or more often very angry and alienated user groups. By then it's often
too late...Positions are taken, heels are dug in, and emotions rather
than rational thought dominate the negotiations.''
Kulla developed a list of possible management actions and arranged
them according to the minimum tool rule. His hierarchy of solutions
offers excellent guidance to all recreation managers.
REFERENCES:
Moore, Roger, ``Conflicts on Multiple Use Trails: Synthesis of the
Literature and State of the Practice,'' U.S. Federal Highway
Administration, Report No. FHWA-PD-94-031, 1994.
Kulla, A., ``A New Perspectives Approach to National Forest
Recreation and is Application to Mountain Bike Management.''
Unpublished paper prepared for Utah State University's Professional
Development for Outdoor Recreation Managers/Planners Shortcourse, 1991.
A hierarchy of options for managing trail user conflict
by Andy Kulla, USDA Forest Service--Lolo National Forest 1994
Listed from most preferable to least preferable.
Signing
Urge cyclists to stay on routes, slow down, limit party size,
consider other users, etc. voluntarily through signing. Use signs to
make sure that cyclists who care, but don't know proper etiquette, have
enough information to monitor themselves. Present a good map depicting
areas that are open, closed, congested, or whatever.
Peer Pressure
Encourage your friends and other cyclists to patrol their own ranks
in a positive way.
Education
Work with bike shops, local clubs, universities, other user groups,
city bike programs, mountain bike outfitters and guides, and other
interested parties to educate bicyclists about low impact use,
etiquette, and consideration for other users. Develop posters,
brochures, and a logo or trademark to become a recognized reminder or
symbol of considerate cycling.
Use Closed Roads
Emphasize and encourage use of closed roads as bike routes because
single track trails become congested quickly and have high potential
for conflict.
Soft-Cycling Training Programs
Develop training programs on low impact cycling for adults and
school children to be presented by clubs, organizations, bike shops.
Trail Design
On new trails or trails that can be reconstructed, include design
features that restrict speed and enhance sight distance, and build
wide, or pull-out, sections to facilitate safe passing of cyclists,
horses, and hikers.
Barriers To Control Speed
Leave or install barriers in the trail to control speed. Things
like protruding rocks, roots, bumps, sharp curves, down trees, speed
barriers and waterbars will help.
Requested Walking Zone
Request or require that cyclists walk their bikes in certain areas
where speed, recklessness, or congestion are potential problems.
One-Way Only
Designate the direction of travel on trails with very heavy use to
avoid the potential for head on collisions.
Post Speed Limits
Set maximum allowable or recommended speeds for cyclists. Encourage
voluntary compliance or involve local cyclists in positive enforcement.
Encourage speeds that allow a cyclist to stop in less than half the
distance they can see.
Patrolling
Use properly trained volunteer groups to patrol and talk with
cyclists.
Restrict Cyclists By Time
Allow for mountain bike use only at certain times of day.
Restrict Cyclists By Day
Allow for mountain bike use on only certain days when other use may
be at lower levels. (odd/even days or weekend/week day)
Separate Sections
Construct separate routes for mountain cyclist use where there is
the greatest congestion (like at trailheads).
Construct Separate Routes
Construct separate trails for mountain bikes where there is strong
user support (like money and/or labor) and where no other solutions are
feasible.
Zoning
Close certain areas to cycling and then allow and encourage that
use in other designated areas. This method is dependent on having other
areas available and usable.
Close Area To Cyclists
This should be only used as a last resort after other efforts have
proven ineffective.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. John Stansfield, Coordinator, Central Colorado
Wilderness Coalition. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JOHN STANSFIELD, COORDINATOR, CENTRAL COLORADO
WILDERNESS COALITION, MONUMENT, COLORADO
Mr. Stansfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congresswoman
DeGette.
I am John Stansfield, representing Central Colorado
Wilderness Coalition. CCWC is a regional all-volunteer
organization founded in 2002, with the goal of working to
secure designation of new wilderness areas in central Colorado,
particularly in the Fifth Congressional District. We have 250
members working in collaboration with local groups whose
membership totals 3,000-plus, and more than 30 organizations
and businesses have endorsed our wilderness proposal, which
includes six of the areas in the Colorado Wilderness Act of
2009.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of H.R.
4289. CCWC endorses the testimony of Steve Smith presented
today on behalf of our group and others. In addition, we would
like to comment specifically on five areas in the bill located
in our region about which we know a fair amount and for which
we care greatly. These wild and natural parcels are Beaver
Creek, Grape Creek, Table Mountain, McIntyre Hills, and Badger
Creek. We are also strong advocates for Browns Canyon, which
Bill Dvorak has discussed in detail today.
Our group has explored, inventoried, mapped and continues
to promote these areas for wilderness designation. We heartily
endorse your legislative efforts to make these designations a
reality in the near future.
As for myself, I have 40 years' experience as a volunteer
in wild land inventory and assessment, especially in central
Colorado. With a master's degree in education, I have conducted
hundreds of back country educational, recreational and service
trips for people of all ages in Colorado and Wyoming.
In central Colorado's Fremont County, the ancient Arkansas
River and its tributaries have created countless canyons
intermingled with steep-sided ridges and peaks. It is in this
rugged terrain the five islands of wildness, strong like uncut
jewels on the chain of river flourish in close proximity to the
rapidly urbanizing front range. We believe that as development
takes place in the region wild public lands become inherently
more valuable ecologically and recreationally.
Like many of the proposed wildernesses in H.R. 4289, the
Fremont County areas are the mid-elevation range of 6,000 to
10,000 feet. In terms of ecological diversity, the importance
of permanent protection for the lower elevation wildlands
cannot be understated. Beaver Creek, for example, is situated
in a biological cross roads of plains, mountain and New Mexican
habitats blending prairie rattlesnakes and big blue stem grass
with big horn elk and Engelmann spruce along with road runners,
Mexican spotted owls, pinon-juniper woodland and ring tail;
quite a mix, while only a few miles away Grape Creek and the
other areas, a few air miles away Grape Creek and the other
areas have their own blends of diverse plant and animal
species.
Mid-elevation areas make for a variety of primitive
recreation as well. CCWC has conducted hiking trips into each
of the Arkansas River areas every month of the year. While
higher streams are ice bound, year-round fishing is common in
Badger Creek and Grape Creek because some wildlife species,
wild turkey for instance, occur at lower elevation, so do
varied hunting opportunities.
All five of the wilderness candidates have pending
congressional action, receive some form of interim protection
from their land management agencies in recognition of their
wild and roadless values. The interim protections for each area
are listed in my written testimony.
However, administrative interim protections can be lost.
Water storage projects or alterations in agency regulation, for
example, can spell rapid change or elimination of wilderness-
quality lands. Only congressionally-designated wilderness can
effectively preserve their values.
There are resource issues in two of the areas of which the
Committee should be aware. There is use of motorcycles, ATVs
and mountain bikes in some of the Forest Service roadless are
portion of the Grape Creek proposed wilderness. A draft Federal
energy corridor proposal on BLM land may impact the potential
southern wilderness boundary of Badger Creek. We believe that
both of those issues can be successfully mitigated via public
and agency participation during the legislative process.
CCWC is extremely grateful for the de facto, and I say ``de
facto'' interim protections all be they unofficial provided by
Representative Diana DeGette's Colorado Wilderness Act
proposals during the past 11 years. The recurring bills have
assisted us in keeping the areas we treasure in front of the
public and enabled us to keep up hope on the long road to
wilderness designation, and now at last we have a hearing.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stansfield follows:]
Statement of John Stansfield, Coordinator,
Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
I am John Stansfield, Post Office Box 588, Monument, Colorado
80132. I represent Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition (CCWC). CCWC
is a regional, all-volunteer organization founded in 2002 with the goal
of working to secure designation of new wilderness areas in central
Colorado, particularly in the Fifth Congressional District.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify for H.R. 4289, the
Colorado Wilderness Act of 2009. CCWC is a member group of Colorado
Wilderness Network and endorses the testimony of Steve Smith presented
today. In addition, we would like to comment specifically on five areas
in the bill, located in our region, about which we know a fair amount
and for which we care greatly. These wild and natural parcels are
Beaver Creek, Grape Creek, Table Mountain, McIntyre Hills, and Badger
Creek. Our group has explored, inventoried, mapped, and continues to
promote these areas, as well as Browns Canyon, for wilderness
designation. We heartily endorse your legislative efforts to make these
designations a reality in the near future.
As for myself, I have 40 years of experience as a volunteer in wild
land inventory and assessment. With a master's degree in education, I
have conducted hundreds of backcountry educational, recreational, and
service trips for people of all ages in Colorado, Wyoming, and Alaska.
My first wilderness inventory experience took place in Beaver Creek
in spring 1971. My cohorts and I, all unfamiliar with the area, forced
our way up the canyon bottom, fording the icy, thigh-deep water again
and again, until we came to a seemingly impassable narrows, only 30
feet wide with vertical walls 100 feet high, and the creek falling in
rapids through it. We baled out of the stream bed. After climbing hand-
over-hand through a steep, brushy gulch, all of a sudden there was a
trail. We were so pleased to walk the scenic path back to the
trailhead, unaware of the cases of poison ivy we would soon be
scratching. The surprises I had that day in 1971 were only the first of
many I have had over the years in my wild land inventories.
In central Colorado's Fremont County, the ancient Arkansas River
and its tributaries have bored their ways through tough igneous and
metamorphic rock, creating countless canyons intermingled with steep-
sided ridges and peaks. It is in this rugged terrain that the five
islands of wildness, strung like jewels on the chain of river, flourish
in close proximity to the rapidly urbanizing Front Range. We believe
that as development takes place in the region, wild public lands become
inherently more valuable--economically, ecologically, recreationally.
And we can back up that contention. Our sister organization, Wild
Connections, recently released a professional paper: (http://
www.wildconnections.org/images/
Ecosytem_Services_Economic_Value_Land_Use_Planning_Wild_
Connections_2010.pdf) documenting substantial previously unquantified
economic values provided by ``ecosystem services'', those goods,
including fresh water, the regulation of wastes, the control of
climate, the formation of soil, and protection from natural hazards,
which an ecosystem provides for human use.
Like many of the proposed wildernesses in H.R. 4289, the Fremont
County areas are in the mid-elevation range of 6,000 to 10,000 feet.
(Most Colorado wilderness being at 9,000 feet and up.) In terms of
ecological diversity, the importance of permanent protection for lower
elevation wild lands cannot be understated. Beaver Creek, for example,
is situated at a biological crossroads of plains, mountain, and New
Mexican habitats, blending prairie rattlesnakes and big bluestem grass
with bighorn, elk, and Engelmann spruce, along with roadrunners,
Mexican spotted owls, pinon-juniper woodland, and ringtail. Quite a
mix! While only a few air miles away, Grape Creek has its own blend of
diverse plant and animal species.
Mid-elevation wilderness areas make for variety in primitive
recreation, as well. CCWC has conducted hiking trips into each of the
Arkansas River areas in every winter month. While higher streams are
icebound, year-round fishing is common in Badger, Grape, and Beaver
Creeks. Because some wildlife species, wild turkey, for instance, occur
at lower elevation, so do varied hunting opportunities there. When I
meet outdoor people who enjoy the sandstone canyonlands of southeast
Utah, I encourage them to also visit the soaring granite canyonlands of
Beaver Creek or the slot canyons and rain water pour-offs of McIntyre
Hills for a new experience.
All five of the wilderness candidates have, pending congressional
action, received some form of interim protection from their land
management agencies, in recognition of the wild and roadless values
they contain. Interim protections include:
Badger Creek--Forest Service roadless area designation
Beaver Creek--BLM Wilderness Study Area, Forest Service roadless
area designation, Colorado Stewardship Trust Program (state trust
inholdings only)
Grape Creek--BLM Wilderness Study Area and Area of Critical
Environmental Concern designations, Forest Service roadless area
designation, Colorado Stewardship Trust Program (state trust inholdings
only)
McIntyre Hills--BLM Wilderness Study Area, Colorado Stewardship
Trust Program (state trust inholdings only)
Table Mountain--BLM Area of Critical Environmental Concern and
Research Natural Area designations for portions of the area
However, administrative interim protections can be lost. Water
storage projects, or energy-related developments, or alterations in
agency regulation, for example, can spell rapid alteration or
elimination of wilderness-quality lands. Only congressionally-
designated wilderness can effectively preserve values on BLM and Forest
Service lands which the people deem important for our nation's longterm
wellbeing.
There are resource issues in two of the areas of which the
committee should be aware. There is use by motorcycles and ATVs in some
of the Forest Service roadless area portion of the Grape Creek proposed
wilderness. A draft federal energy corridor proposal on BLM land may
impact the potential southern wilderness boundary of Badger Creek. We
believe that both of these issues can be successfully mitigated via
public and agency participation during the legislative process.
In closing, I would like to share a highlight, factual or personal,
about each of the proposed wildernesses to give you something of the
experience of being there:
The top-of-the-world view looking down from the expansive grass-
covered mesa top of Table Mountain into Devil's Hole and the Arkansas
River 3,000 feet below.
A high school biology class discovering a bighorn ram skeleton
lying at the bottom of the 200-foot-high precipice that marks the
confluence of East and West Beaver Creek.
Broad, parallel fingers of wan fall grass and bright yellow aspen
reaching downslope more than a mile to touch Badger Creek.
History rising through boot soles treading the grassy roadbed of
the short-lived railroad that once traversed Grape Creek valley.
The feeling, in McIntyre Hills, of being what Colorado conservation
pioneer Enos Mills called ``watched by wildlife'', and then glimpsing
on the ridge above a mountain lion in motion.
CCWC is extremely grateful for the de facto interim protections,
albethey unofficial, provided by Rep. Diana DeGette's Colorado
Wilderness Act legislative proposals during the past 11 years. The
recurring bills have assisted us in keeping the areas we treasure in
front of the public and enabled us to keep up hope on the long road to
wilderness designation. And now, at last, we have a hearing.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Kent Holsinger of Holsinger Law, Denver, Colorado.
Welcome, sir, and look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF KENT HOLSINGER, HOLSINGER LAW, LLC, DENVER,
COLORADO
Mr. Holsinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman
DeGette. My name is Kent Holsinger. I am the managing partner
of Holsinger Law LLC. We are a Denver, Colorado-based natural
resources law firm that specializes in lands, wildlife, and
water law.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here to testify today to
express the great concerns that I have personally and many of
my clients, many colleagues have with this legislation of both
a procedural and substantive nature.
First and perhaps foremost is a real concern with local
input into this legislation. This would designate vast swaths
of land, many of which are crisscrossed by roads, trails,
pipelines, and other manmade facilities into the most
restrictive Federal land use designation possible.
Club 20's Public Lands Committee, Club 20 is the
organization representing 20 West Slope counties has expressed
concerns with how wilderness bills are implemented and
ultimately enacted. Their latest resolution on this subject
says that wilderness bills should be passed only with the
strong support of the county commissioners representing the
most immediately affected counties.
Action 22, the coalition of 22 southeastern Colorado
counties, has opposed H.R. 4289, again with concerns over local
input. As Action 22 stated, this piece of legislation
designating public lands as wilderness is the most restrictive
of all Federal land designations and severely limits the
opportunities for the public's use of their lands as well as
the local economic benefits associated with those uses.
Colorado Counties, Inc., their own policy on wilderness
designation is that wilderness be supported by the county
within which the designation is proposed.
In addition to these concerns in regard to local input, we
represent many folks that are interested in water in Colorado.
I should note that the Colorado River Water Conservation
District opposes H.R. 4289 as drafted. They have raised
significant concerns, and I would echo those concerns of
Congressman Salazar that this legislation could affect our
compact apportioned waters, the very life blood to Colorado,
our ability to grow crops and recreate and provide for domestic
and municipal uses.
The Southwest Water Conservation District has raised
similar concerns and have expressed their opposition to 4289 as
drafted. My clients, the Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company
have grave concerns about impacts that this legislation could
have on them, their ability to continue to farm and even their
ability to do good things to the downstream environment.
My clients, the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association
have concerns with regards to potential impacts on their goals
to create renewable hydropower on their existing water
facilities. The Jackson County Water Conservancy District also
has concerns with this legislation and its impacts on water.
Many of our other clients, the Colorado Cattlemen's
Association, the Colorado Wool Growers Association, have great
concerns with access to public lands with multiple uses and
recreation, continued grazing, the ability to do new and
improve existing water developments and reach their allotments.
Recreation interests have concerns as well. The Colorado Off
Highway Vehicle Coalition, Colorado Snowmobilers Association,
the Blue Ribbon Coalition and the American Motorcyclist
Association all oppose H.R. 4289 as drafted.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, we have great concerns that this
legislation would have significant economic impacts at a time
when Colorado faces a billion dollar budget deficit. We urge
the Committee to oppose this legislation. We urge the
Congresswoman to work with local communities and continue the
significant efforts I know her and her staff have devoted to
this bill unless and until local communities support it.
With that, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman
DeGette.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holsinger follows:]
Statement of Kent Holsinger, Holsinger Law, LLC
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this
legislation. I respectfully urge the members of the subcommittee to
oppose H.R. 4289 unless and until the serious concerns of many of the
individuals, companies, organizations and local governments we work
with are addressed. Holsinger Law, LLC is a small, Denver-based law
firm that specializes in lands, wildlife and water law. I am testifying
as the manager of Holsinger Law, LLC. In that capacity, I can attest to
the impacts this sweeping legislation would have on many of our clients
such as individual landowners, agricultural entities, water providers
and energy producers. Many clients, colleagues and friends have also
authorized me to pass along their opposition, or at least their real
concerns, with this legislation as drafted.
There are ample substantive and procedural shortcomings in this
bill. With its clear aim at restricting domestic energy production, I
believe H.R. 4289 is bad for Colorado and bad for our economy. Even
worse, H.R. 4289 equates to a massive federal takeover of private land
and compact-apportioned water in Colorado. This will come at a huge
social and economic cost and cause much to harm Colorado's economy.
Incredibly, it also comes at a time of deep recession, joblessness and
budget deficits.
I. H.R. 4289 is Bad for Colorado Water
Wilderness designations coupled with implied, if not express,
federal reserved water rights claims at the state line are tremendous
and unheralded threats to Colorado's lifeblood--its compact apportioned
water.
In addition to the grave concerns of our clients, the Montezuma
Valley Irrigation Company, the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users
Association and the Jackson County Water Conservancy District, we
understand the Colorado River Water Conservation District and the
Southwestern Water Conservation District have expressed their
opposition to this legislation.
II. Lands Do Not Qualify for Wilderness Designation
The Wilderness Act of 1964 was passed to protect lands untrammeled
by man. Colorado boasts some of the most spectacular wilderness areas
in the nation. Many of the lands included in this bill have not been
designated as wilderness--and for good reason. Acreage crisscrossed by
roads, trails, powerlines and pipelines should clearly be excluded from
consideration. So too should lands subject to leasing, or potential
leasing, for energy development. We urge the subcommittee to require
careful surveys, mapping and legal descriptions of the proposed
wilderness prior to enactment rather than after-the-fact.
III. Concerns Expressed by Club 20, Action 22 and Colorado Counties,
Inc.
H.R. 4289 was crafted with little-to-no input from the people that
would most be affected by it. For example, Club 20's Public Lands
Committee passed a resolution which relates to many of my concerns with
H.R. 4289. This resolution will be considered before the Club 20 board
early in April. A copy of this good work is included, along with many
other statements and concerns.
I have been authorized to represent that Action 22, a coalition of
22 counties in southeastern Colorado, opposes H.R. 4289 as written.
Colorado Counties Inc. (CCI) policy supports multiple uses of
public lands and strongly encourages wilderness designation be based on
county input. A copy of their policy, as well as a similar National
Association of Counties (NACO) policy is attached.
IV. H.R. 4289 Would Harm Domestic Energy Development and Production
Now is hardly the time to impose even more restrictions on domestic
energy. Congress should be working to reduce, rather than increase,
economic burdens and impacts to jobs. Many of the lands proposed for
wilderness designation are subject to mineral leasing and development.
The Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS) has
documented extensive overlap and conflict in its attached presentation.
V. H.R. 4289 is Bad for Colorado Agriculture
Our clients the Colorado Cattlemen's Association and the Colorado
Wool Growers Association oppose this legislation as drafted given their
concerns with the lack of local input and support, federal land
management, grazing, mechanized use, access and water.
VI. Opposition from Recreational Interests
The Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition (COHVCO), the Blue
Ribbon Coalition, Colorado Snowmobile Association and the American
Motorcyclist Association opposes this legislation.
VII. Impacts to Aviation
As a private pilot, I also have concerns that H.R. 4289 could
impact aviation in Colorado. H.R. 4289 overlaps with at least three
important Military Operations Areas (MOAs) including the Airburst MOA
and the La Veta High and La Veta Low MOAs that are used for training
and testing military aircraft. In addition, many of the areas proposed
for designation overlap with commonly used visual flight rules (VFR)
airways. Some areas appear to overlap with airstrips and could
potentially interfere with the ability to land and take-off from public
or private airstrips. These could all adversely affect aviation,
commerce, and the ability for our military to train its pilots.
VIII. H.R. 4289 Lacks Meaningful Local Support
Wilderness legislation should be introduced, and enacted, only with
significant local support. H.R. 4289 clearly lacks meaningful local
support. Many of our colleagues, friends and clients have expressed
that wilderness legislation should be carried by the Member in which
the lands are situated. I whole-heartedly agree.
IX. Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. Please include this
testimony, as well as the attachments hereto, in the record for this
proceeding. This legislation would have severe and lasting impacts to
private property, water rights, energy development and production and
access to private and public lands in Colorado. It would do much harm
to Colorado, the economy and our national defense. I urge the
Subcommittee to oppose H.R. 4289 unless and until these concerns are
adequately addressed.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me ask a couple of quick
questions and turn it over to Congresswoman DeGette.
Mr. Holsinger, let me go back a little bit. The interests
that you represent or the opinion that you represent is well
taken. During the discussion of the legislation that
Congressman Salazar brought before this Committee, were those
interests in opposition or in support of that particular piece
of legislation given the concerns?
Mr. Holsinger. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, which legislation
is that?
Mr. Grijalva. Congressman Salazar's legislation which was
referred to earlier, were the interests that you represent in
favor or for it or----
Mr. Holsinger. You know, Mr. Chairman, I have no talked to
my clients about that specific legislation, but I do know
several of the entities that authorized me to speak today and
to relay the positions they have on 4289 are in support of
Congressman Salazar's efforts.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, thank you.
There was one question that I had for Mr. Smith from The
Wilderness Society. You made the point about the process having
to be careful but quick in terms of getting these designations
done, and I agree with you.
How long does the Society believe it will take to work out
the problems outlined let us say by agencies or by Mr.
Salazar's earlier testimony? What would be the timeline since
time is one of the issues that keeps coming up in all of these
discussions?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the
timeline will vary according to which area you talk about or
which watershed you talk about because it depends primarily on
those local discussions and those local attitudes and some are
gong to come sooner than others. We are delighted to work with
our full delegation, especially with Congresswoman DeGette, to
cue this up on a timeframe, on a time plan to get these done.
Mr. Grijalva. In a designation process and you are going
through a public process, hypothetically you reach a point that
can't be accommodated on the designation. Those irreconcilable
differences are going to occur. They occur in any one of these
processes, and the suggestion that we wait or get a check off
at some point on any wilderness designation on these
differences to wait interminably until who knows when is
something that concerns me because it has always been like a de
facto veto on moving forward on some of these designations.
Your opinion on what happens when you reach that crucible
before you cannot reconcile.
Mr. Smith. I think that is very astute, Mr. Chairman. I
will offer two quick thoughts. One is that, yes, eventually you
cannot get to the perfect. You cannot get to absolute
agreement, but you will come so close that most of the
participants will feel satisfied, and all of the participants
will realize that they can live with what happened.
The second thought is we found in several of these
negotiations on these areas and on other wilderness proposals
in Colorado after perhaps months of lots of posturing where
organizations will say, we are sweepingly against this, when we
actually sit down with maps and actually talk about specific
places, we find resolution within weeks.
Mr. Grijalva. There are points of tolerance.
Ms. Dice, IMBA supports the San Juan Mountains Wilderness
Act. Can you tell us how long it took in that process to work
out the issues in that legislation because I assume there must
have been some issues at the beginning of that process, and how
long do you think it would take your organization in particular
to work out some of the issues that you raised today regarding
the Colorado Wilderness Act?
Ms. Dice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It took us about two
years to work through the issues with the San Juan Wilderness
legislation, and if you look at each one of the parcels or the
units in that legislation, a lot of times you can see right
outside of the boundary of the wilderness is a trail system
that the local mountain bike community enjoys.
That legislation also has a companion designation of a
special management area that allows us to continue to ride
until there is a trigger point that turns it into wilderness in
the future. So it took us about two years.
With the Colorado Wilderness Act, I could guess probably
the same thing. You know, one to two years. Like Steve said,
when you sit down and you look at the maps and you get to the
specific places, there are a lot of things that can be worked
out on the ground: boundary adjustments, companion
designations, and corridors for trails.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Following up, Ms. Dice. You know, I
really appreciated your testimony because even though I myself
am not a mountain biker I will take you up on your offer as
long as it is not one of those really steep.
Ms. Dice. Nice, make it flat.
Ms. DeGette. On those trails I prefer to hike or go
horseback riding, but I will come with you, and I also agree
that we really need to have--I think that the mountain bike
community needs to have a conversation with the Forest Service
about some of these trails, and I also think that the
Congressional Delegation can help you with that.
But I will say in the areas of my bill that are currently
being managed as Wilderness Study Areas as you know because of
the current Forest Service rules mountain bikes are not allowed
in those areas. So if we designated a lot of those areas that
would not be removing mountain bike usage, correct?
Ms. Dice. Correct.
Ms. DeGette. and I also want to thank you for your
endorsement of 13 of the areas in my bill that you did not
mention in your verbal testimony today, and I also want to say,
and this goes with just about everybody here, I think we can
work out some of the specific areas that you talk about by
boundary adjustments and natural discussions.
For example, the Tabawatch Trail I known in Banks Canyon is
really important to the mountain bike community, so I am going
to take a closer look at that to see if wilderness designation
is appropriate for Banks Canyon or if we should look at
something else, and like with Thompson Creek, I think we can
look at some boundary issues to preserve those trails. They
still have wilderness designation but allow the mountain
biking.
I just want to ask you, will your association agree to work
with me to keep trying to resolve the issues with the
additional areas that you flagged for discussion?
Ms. Dice. Absolutely, and we look forward to working with
you on it, and we look forward, of course, to taking you on a
bicycle ride.
Ms. DeGette. OK.
Ms. Dice. But I think more so than just a boundary
adjustment for existing trails like the Tabawatch Trail, we
don't want the boundary to be moved and the land around our
trails still mined or logged or leased.
Ms. DeGette. Right. You want those other kinds of
designations----
Ms. Dice. Exactly.
Ms. DeGette.--that will still preserve the wilderness
characteristics but allowing mountain bikes.
Ms. Dice. Exactly.
Ms. DeGette. I want to ask you, Mr. Stansfield, in the
Forest Service's testimony regarding Beaver Creek they mention
that the area has no nonconforming uses, but they are concerned
about the ability to fight fires in this area if it is
designated wilderness. You mention in your written testimony
that Beaver Creek was the first area you inventoried back in
1971.
Have you ever heard this concern about fires in your many
years of work, almost 30 years? No, I am sorry, 40 years----
Mr. Stansfield. That is OK.
Ms. DeGette.--of work on these issues.
Mr. Stansfield. I may not look that old but I really am.
Ms. DeGette. Yes, I know. Me too. Have you ever heard a
concern about that, and does the Wilderness Act allow for fire
fighting in wilderness areas?
Mr. Stansfield. I will answer both if I can.
Ms. DeGette. Super. Thanks.
Mr. Stansfield. No, I have never until very recently heard
that concern raised about the little bit less than the 5,000
acre portion in your bill--Forest Service portion in your bill
regarding Beaver Creek. So it was a surprise, and I have
already talked with several of the Forest Service
representatives here today, and we will continue to explore
that concern and bring the results of that discussion to you,
and make you part of it as well.
Regarding generally fire, yes, the Wilderness Act does
allow for appropriate methods and in some place extreme, all
methods to be allowed to be approved by the agency to fight
forest fires, where needed, in designated wilderness.
Ms. DeGette. And also to take care of other emergencies. If
a hiker, for example, falls, they are allowed to be evacuated
by helicopter, et cetera----
Mr. Stansfield. Absolutely.
Ms. DeGette.--under the Wilderness Act, correct?
Mr. Stansfield. Absolutely.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Dvorak, thank you so much for your
wonderful testimony today, and Mr. Chairman, I am going to
reiterate my offer to take you on one of Mr. Dvorak's raft
trips.
I want to ask you if you agree with Mr. Holsinger's
statement that this bill would cause harm to Colorado's
economy?
Mr. Dvorak. Well, no. I guess what I actually see is that
it kind of is an addition to Colorado's economy because a
designated wilderness area, in my experience, has proved to be
an actual good marketing tool, and I have seen that over the
years wild and scenic river designation, national park
designation, wilderness designation, all of those things
actually add to your ability to sort of market to both domestic
and international clientele.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, that is all the
questions I have. I just want to sort of tell some of the folks
who are here today, and also you, I agree with some of what
folks have said, is that, you know, this is an omnibus bill
that has been in progress for a number of years, even before I
introduced it, and so my concept, and I have talked to Mr.
Salazar and the rest of the delegation about this, is to really
go through and determine which areas are pretty ripe, just need
maybe a few boundary adjustments, some water language or
something like that. They have really good community support,
and so we just need to go back and talk once again to those
communities, and then there are some other midterm ones. So we
are going to be talking about how we proceed forward, but we
think that time is of the essence, and we agree with you, and
also Chairman Rahall, that we can't just let this drift along
indefinitely, that at some point we have to act to preserve
these very special resources, especially as the witnesses have
seen in Colorado, as the population growth throughout our state
on the western slope but also in our front range cities, as
that continues to grow and put additional pressure, so we will
be coming to you with that very, very shortly.
And I also wanted to just say one last thing about the
water language. I agree with Mr. Salazar and also with Mr.
Smith that the water language has now evolved even since the
sand dunes language that Secretary Salazar originally
negotiated, so we are going to be incorporating that language
into our legislation, and that is going to help alleviate a lot
of the water concerns that people have expressed.
With that, let me just thank you on behalf of myself and
also everybody else who has worked on this bill for holding
this hearing today. This is the day we have been waiting for--
for many, many years
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Congresswoman. I couldn't agree
with you more that the pressure on those of us that are out in
the West in terms of population growth, shifting demography,
and the need to still try to retain some of the special places
before they are overgrown, for lack of a better word, is
essential. So I understand the process. I believe it is
essential to get collaboration and get a good product, and get
community support, but there is an underlining urgency that I
think we all recognize to get some of these things moving and
done, so that is why I concentrated on a lot of time questions
today, because these things can go on forever and ever and
ever, and I don't think anyone of us wants it to go on that
long.
So thank you very much.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A letter submitted for the record by Glenn Graham,
President and Chairman of the Board, Colorado Off-Highway
Vehicle Coalition, and Don Riggle, Director of Operations,
Trails Preservation Alliance, follows:]
March 10, 2010
The Honorable Raul Grijalva
Chairman House Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
United States House of Representatives
1440 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0307
The Honorable Rob Bishop
Ranking Minority Member
House Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
United States House of Representatives
123 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-4401
Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop:
We are writing in opposition to H.R. 4289, the Colorado Wilderness
Act of 2009 sponsored by Representative Diana DeGette and scheduled for
hearing on March 11, 2010, in the House Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests, and Public Lands. Please incorporate into the record the
following comments and attachments of the Colorado Off-highway Vehicle
Coalition, (COHVCO) and the Trails Preservation Alliance (TPA).
Additionally, the American Motorcyclist Association and its sister
organization the All-Terrain Vehicle Association opposes H.R. 4289.
COHVCO is a volunteer based non-profit conservation organization
that has focused on preserving and enhancing opportunities for all off-
highway vehicle (OHV), and snowmobile users in Colorado since 1987.
COHVCO represents nearly 200,000 Coloradans, and thousands of visitors
from outside Colorado, who enjoy recreating on our public lands with
off-highway vehicles. We represent motorcycle, 4WD, ATV and snowmobile
enthusiasts. COHVCO, its participating clubs, and enthusiasts not only
provide thousands of volunteer hours, but also contribute over $2.5
million dollars each year to public lands, through Colorado's OHV
Registration Grant Program. These funds provide maintenance, signage,
restoration and opportunity on trails and roads on federal public lands
in Colorado and are indispensable given continuing cutbacks in federal
funding in these areas. These funds also contribute to enforcement
activities and education programs for motorized recreation enthusiasts.
The Trails Preservation Alliance is a Colorado based IRS 501(c) (3)
organization. It represents over 2500 members (of which a majority are
military veterans), who are dedicated to preserving public access to
public lands. The TPA has generated over $500K in OHV funding to the
U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to build and
preserve single track trails for all recreational user groups. The TPA
is dedicated to public recreation on public lands. The TPA has a long
history of working with Region 2 of the U.S.D.A. Forest Service and
other state and federal agencies in Colorado.
A recently completed study on the economic contribution to the
State of Colorado by both winter and summer motorized recreation showed
that these activities are responsible for about 12,000 jobs and a cash
flow of over $ 1 billion. Many of the jobs and a significant part of
the total cash flow benefit smaller communities located within or near
large tracts of federal public lands. In addition, the Colorado
Division of Wildlife (DOW) estimates that approximately 70% of hunters
use OHVs (almost exclusively ATVs) to facilitate their hunt and use 4
wheel drive vehicles to reach the general area of the hunt. Additional
loss of access for this majority of hunters could have a negative
effect on game management and hunter success.
Not one acre of any of the land recommended for Wilderness
designation in Representative DeGette's bill is located within her
district and the people and communities most affected by her proposal
are not her constituents. Therefore they have no opportunity to show
their opposition or support by voting for or against her in any
election. In order to avoid problems and conflicts within the state and
amongst organizations and local governments, the process of developing
a Wilderness bill must include all affected parties. This collaborative
process was not present in the development of the DeGette bill.
While Representative DeGette's website describes this proposal as a
``Citizen's Wilderness Proposal'', and claims that all stake holders
have been involved, neither COHVCO, TPA nor any of their individual
members or member clubs were contacted or asked for input to avoid
conflict with existing multiple use (including, but not limited to
motorized) activities. The maps posted on her website that show the
individual areas proposed for Wilderness designation are so poor in
quality and lacking in any geo-reference information that it has proven
to be extremely difficult and time consuming to perform any analysis
for any potential conflicts. With one exception, all of the maps appear
to have been created by the Colorado Environmental Coalition, an avowed
anti-motorized access group.
Individuals who actually live near, and recreate in the areas
identified as suitable for Wilderness designation by Representative
DeGette have, on their own initiative, provided comments identifying
access conflicts. By their very nature, these existing uses violate the
criteria for consideration as Wilderness. Those site specific comments
are shown in the attachment titled On the Ground Comments. In addition,
the attachment also contains a sampling of detailed map examples that
show the existing conflicts and shortcomings of the maps presented on
Representative DeGette's website.
In summary, our objections to H.R. 4289 can be identified as a
failure to subject this legislation to previous review by all affected
parties, a failure to consider the negative economic consequences to a
faltering economy in the most difficult of times, a failure to consider
far more practical and less restrictive means of protecting lands short
of a Wilderness designation, and the lack of identification of
conflicts in areas as identified by the sponsor's maps.
Parts I through III, following, contain more detailed comments on
substantive and procedural flaws in the content of and process of
development of H.R. 4289.
PART I
The Public and the Resource are better served by Designations other
than Wilderness; such options were not considered
By some estimates, the population of Colorado will triple in the
next 35 years. The current, greatest demand for public lands is for
recreation of all forms allowed under the Multiple Use and Sustained
Yield Act. Couple this with a Colorado population that is, at this very
moment, growing dramatically older, and Wilderness designation becomes
a poor choice. Americans are looking for viable alternatives to
Wilderness that are friendlier to the majority of the recreating
public.
Further, Wilderness designations are not in the best interests of
Americans. A century or more ago, mining, mineral and timber
production, and protection of watersheds were of critical importance to
the nation. Extraction was the primary activity on public land then. It
now appears obvious that the predominant use of public land in the 21st
century may well be recreation. A recent National Visitor Use
Monitoring study for the USFS shows very interesting results.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This USFS data demonstrates that only 3% of visits to National
Forests are to designated Wilderness areas. The study goes on to
demonstrate that there is a decrease in the length of visits, and that
preferred visits are those to developed facilities, from campgrounds,
to trailheads, and resorts. The means of access to enjoy these
resources is most often motorized, whether it is via auto, or off-
highway vehicle.
Millions of acres of wild lands in Colorado are already protected
as Wilderness; specifically, 3.5 million acres. But this is only a
small part of the complete picture. Over 4.8 million acres of Forest
Service Lands are designated as Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA).
Colorado has 2 National Parks and 6 National Monuments including a list
of non-multiple use prescriptions such as Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern that, once added to the unusable and impassable
areas of the mountains and canyon lands, leaves precious little left
for a state and a nation seeking recreational opportunity and release.
All forms of motorized and mechanized recreation are prohibited in
Wilderness and that includes the simple but beloved family outing by
car to view the land.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
While some areas shown above are worthy of the Wilderness
prescription, and no one is arguing the set aside of lands for National
Parks and Monuments, the fact must be faced that the management
prescriptions for these lands severely limit access to a significant
majority of the recreating public. Wilderness areas, above all other
designations, are available only to an elite few with the time and
physical capability to enjoy them. The vast majority of citizens find
Wilderness an obstacle to their enjoyment of public lands. Further, the
amount of congressionally designated Wilderness to date has far
surpassed the amount of Wilderness contemplated in the original
Wilderness Act of 1964.
How far have we moved from the promises of the Wilderness Act? The
USFS has recommended 11,000 acres of Wilderness from 4.8 million acres
in Colorado IRAs. Yet what began as an inventory has been translated
into a limited use prescription despite the absence of suitability as
Wilderness. De facto Wilderness is not provided for in law and it can
be argued violates the Multiple Use Act and the National Environmental
Policy ACT.
Some lands in Colorado do need protection and this protection is
available in practical and useful designations that can be tailored to
fit resource values and public need equally well without locking out
much of the population and threatening the very security of the nation
by forever holding precious commodities out of reach in times of crisis
and need.
In short, the vast majority of lands held up as suitable for
Wilderness not only do not meet the criteria of the Wilderness Act, but
most are clearly at odds with what the land management professionals
believe should be managed as Wilderness. Congress has two well known
tools that provide answers to administrative paralysis; National
Conservation Areas and National Recreation Areas (NCA and NRA
respectively). COHVCO and TPA also support a third designation
developed by the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a nationally respected
recreational advocacy group. That alternative is the Back Country
Recreation Area, which will protect the land but will also allow it to
be used and enjoyed by the public.
History has shown that administrative action has been unable to
resolve the conflict associated with public land recreation and
Inventoried Roadless Areas. It is imperative that Congress take some
specific action to put this issue to rest. Congress needs to establish
a land designation that provides the protection the public demands for
these lands while at the same time providing the managing agencies with
the necessary flexibility to respond to recreational demands and to
address critical concerns of forest health, fire prevention and
wildlife habitat enhancement.
Much of our public land reflects an undeveloped, back country
character. Evidence of man's activities may be present and obvious to a
knowledgeable observer. However, this evidence is not dominant and the
landscape is generally perceived as possessing natural, primitive, or
back country characteristics. It is important that these
characteristics be maintained under any land designation category
established by Congress.
These lands provide a very valuable resource for recreational
activities that allow people to experience and enjoy these natural
appearing landscapes. They provide opportunities for people to escape
from the pressures of large crowds and the more developed world. This
can include a wide range of recreational activities including use of
ATVs and off-highway motorcycles, hunting, snowmobiling, fishing,
hiking, bicycling, horseback riding and 4-wheel driving. At the same
time, many of these lands are threatened by insect and disease
epidemics, and by catastrophic wildfires that could destroy the very
values that the public wants to see preserved. Therefore, it is
essential that this land designation also allow the managing agencies
the ability to apply the minimum level of management to deal with these
threats.
Any management activities that are planned for these areas must
also be subject to all the existing laws, regulations and policies that
address the protection of the environment and cultural and historic
resources. Any public land management process must also apply to these
lands. In this way the public's ability to participate in and influence
the process is preserved.
The establishment of a Congressional Back Country land designation
can achieve all of these objectives. The land will be protected and the
public will still be able to experience and understand the values of
these unique areas and the countless court cases and legal challenges
can be reduced. Congress needs to begin the process to make this new
land designation a reality.
Representative DeGette's bill does not provide the best balance
between protection of the resource and the public's desire for
recreation.
PART II
H.R. 4289 was not Developed with Input from all Recreational users nor
was it Developed in full Cooperation with Local Government
The Colorado Off-highway Vehicle Coalition is the umbrella
organization representing individuals and families that recreate with
all-terrain vehicles, trail bikes, full size 4 wheel drives, and
snowmobiles. The approximately 200,000 individuals engaged in motorized
recreation are represented locally by clubs all over Colorado. The
Trails Preservation Alliance likewise has statewide participation.
Representative DeGette's bill shows a failure to engage the motorized
recreation community in Colorado at any level. It further seems that
not all local governments directly affected by this Wilderness proposal
have been a part of the process. This raises further questions
regarding the level of contact with sportsmen, mountain bikers,
equestrians and other major recreational groups.
Without question, neither COHVCO nor TPA has ever been approached
by Representative DeGette or her staff on this proposal. Representative
DeGette is a Representative of the City of Denver proper and while it
may be her prerogative to run legislation directly affecting
constituents in other Districts, it should also certainly involve
engaging important affected parties. None of the 50 plus COHVCO clubs
has been approached and, indeed, some of those clubs, such as the Mile
High Jeep Club, whose members live in the Denver Metropolitan area, and
who are her constituents, were never contacted for their opinion. A
critical element of their comments would relate to the numerous
conflicts existing in the proposed Wilderness areas that infringe on
the access and multiple use of such lands. These conflicts raise issues
of suitability, and suitability is an essential element of a Wilderness
proposal where land is withdrawn for what has been treated as final
prescription.
Winter recreation has not been spared the negative impacts of the
bill nor have the snowmobile clubs of Colorado been consulted. The
Colorado Snowmobile Association, the statewide organization of
snowmobile clubs has this to say about the legislation:
The process, or lack thereof, exhibited by the Congresswoman's
office has been unprofessional and completely lacking in representation
of the citizens of Western Colorado. Our opposition to H.R. 4289 also
encompasses the fact that this proposal is so very piecemeal in nature.
There is little apparent consistency in the reasons for proposal other
than appealing to a small constituency that wants exclusive access to
public land and promotes a desire to close off large chunks of land to
the majority of other users.
Colorado (using 2007 statistics) has 3,431,176 Wilderness acres
made up of 41 Wilderness areas and covers over 5% of Colorado public
land. Couple that with the 4.1 million acres proposed in Colorado's
Roadless Rule (another 6+% of Colorado public land) and much of the
most beautiful part of Colorado is accessible by a minority population.
A plethora of recreationists, motorized and non-motorized, are now
denied the opportunity to recreate in these areas. Adding more closures
through Wilderness is not in the best interest of Colorado residents or
visitors.
Most, if not all, of the parcels in the Congresswoman's proposal
will have a negative impact on winter motorized recreation. The forests
in Colorado do not restrict snowmobiles to designated trails (with a
few rare exceptions in winter wildlife habitat areas) so most areas
that get adequate snow are open to snowmobiling.
More specifically, we think it is fair to say that any of the
parcels in Gunnison, San Juan, Hinsdale, Eagle and Garfield County
would greatly affect winter activity. These would be the West Elk
Addition, Powderhorn Addition, Handies Peak, Redcloud Peak, Flat Tops
Addition, Bull Gulch, Deep Creek, etc. Handies and Red Cloud are winter
spots.
There are a few areas where the statement ``BLM has prohibited
motorized use'' that may apply to summer use only. A couple of them are
high altitude areas and the probability that these areas remain open to
winter motorized use are high, but are not identified as such in the
proposal.
The American people seek transparency in all matters of government
including how their public lands are to be used. Providing website maps
of a proposal that fails to identify all open roads and trails is not
transparency. To the contrary it seems to indicate a guarded approach
to a very public process.
Even more disconcerting is that not all County Commissioners have
been consulted for their position on the impact of this bill and the
various consequences to their constituents. Of course, when the bill
seems to be attempting to stop future extraction of what may be
critical resources, a job killing Wilderness bill of this magnitude is
not a topic of polite conversation.
PART III
Failure of the DeGette Wilderness Maps to Include Sufficient
Information on Transportation Systems within Proposed
Wilderness Areas
The public information provided on Representative DeGette's website
does not meet the standard of quality that this issue requires. It is
critical that these deficiencies be considered, as they relate directly
to the suitability for Wilderness designation and analyses of the
effects of the proposed action on surrounding communities.
See attached On The Ground Comments & Conflict Analysis Maps.
The accompanying maps display the following features: The Pink
areas are the boundaries of the proposed Colorado Wilderness Act (CWA).
The Blue areas are the boundaries of the BLM Wilderness Study Areas
(WSA). Blue areas overlay to form a Purple layer that defines where the
WSA and the Wilderness proposal come together and where study has been
done and budgets have been used to determine the suitability of the
land for wilderness designation.
The maps make it immediately apparent that the proposed Wilderness
segments far exceed the areas of study recommended by the agencies. To
the best of our understanding, those segments that coincide with the
National Forest Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) were not recommended
to be Wilderness, failing to have the necessary Wilderness' values.
The several types of bold Red lines show the actual road and trail
networks that are de-emphasized or completely missing from
Representative DeGette's website. The absence of this critical
information in the DeGette maps made public makes it impossible to
determine what part of the terrain is actually suitable for Wilderness
designation and does not contain numerous existing roads and trails.
It is clear that IRA and WSA studies were not properly considered
in determining the appropriate boundaries for wilderness, and it is
obvious that the pre-existing roads and trails in virtually every
segment of the proposed Colorado Wilderness act make them unsuitable
for wilderness designation.
There is a clear lack of accurate information necessary for local
government and the public to make informed decisions.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/Glenn Graham
Glenn Graham
President and Chairman of the Board
COHVCO
/s/Don Riggle
Don Riggle
Director of Operations
Trails Preservation Alliance
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
[The documents listed below have been retained in the
Committee's official files.]
Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition ``Economic
Contribution of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation in Colorado,'' Executive
Summary, July 2009
IPAMS Building a Sustainable Energy Future: ``Small and
Temporary? Assessing the Impacts of 100 Years of Oil and Natural Gas
Development in Western Colorado''
``2006 Colorado Summary,'' 2006 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation--Colorado, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
The following individuals have submitted documents for the
record, which have been retained in the Committee's official
files:
In opposition to H.R. 4289:
Brown, Allen, Commissioner, Hinsdale County
Chappell, Steve D., Commissioner, Montezuma County Board of
Commissioners (2 letters)
Dolores County Commissioners
Koppenhafer, Gerald W., Commissioner, Montezuma County Board of
Commissioners (2 letters)
Kukuk, Janelle, President, Colorado Snowmobile Association
Martin, John, Chair, Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
Porter, John, President, Southwestern Water Conservation District
Porter-Norton, Marsha, Facilitator, Dolores River Dialogue, Lower
Dolores Plan Working Group
Preston, Michael, General Manager, Dolores Water Conservancy District
(2 letters)
Rule, Larrie D., Commissioner, Montezuma County Board of Commissioners
(2 letters)
Salazar, The Honorable John T., a U.S. Representative in Congress from
the State of Colorado
Samson, Mike, Commissioner, Garfield County Board of County
Commissioners
Treese, Christopher J., Manager, External Affairs, Colorado River
District
No Position on H.R. 4289
Churchwell, Ty, Backcountry Coordinator, Trout Unlimited
In Support of H.R. 4289
Browns Canyon Wilderness Area Supporters
Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition ``Wild Ten'' Endorsers
DeGette, The Honorable Diana, a U.S. a Representative in Congress from
the State of Colorado, Document for the record, Talmey-Drake
Poll
Houpt, Tresi, Commissioner, Garfield County Commissioner
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 2006 Colorado Summary
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Edward Moreland, Vice
President, Government Relations, American Motorcyclist
Association, follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]