[Senate Hearing 111-566]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-566
CURRENT PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 1546 S. 2830 S. 2798 S. 2963
__________
APRIL 21, 2010
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-766 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 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK UDALL, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming................... 3
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 4
Conrad, Gregory E., Executive Director, Interstate Mining Compact
Commission (IMCC), Herndon, VA................................. 44
Gibbs, Hon. Dan, Colorado State Senator, Senate District 16,
Denver, CO..................................................... 30
Kulakowski, Dominik, Assistant Professor, Clark University,
Worcester, MA.................................................. 25
Owens, Glenda, Deputy Director, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior........ 16
Reinhardt, Forrest, President, Venture Beyond, Coto de Caza, CA.. 42
Sherman, Harris, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture......................... 5
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 155
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 51
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 55
CURRENT PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:01 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Udall. The subcommittee will come to order.
The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on
several bills pending before the subcommittee. These include S.
1546, the Box Elder Utah Land Conveyance Act; S. 2798, the
National Forest Insect and Disease Emergency Act of 2009; S.
2830, a bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977; and S. 2963, the Cathedral Rock and
Horse Heaven Wilderness Act of 2010.
At this point, I would like to ask that the first panel
come forward and take their seats. I know on behalf of Senator
Barrasso, I would like to welcome the Honorable Harris Sherman,
the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and
Environment, and Glenda Owens, Deputy Director of the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation Enforcement at the Department of
Interior.
I know that we have a long list of bills to go through. So
I would like to ask you to summarize your oral remarks, and we
will include all of your written testimony in the record. But
before we do that, I have a statement I would like to make.
I know, Senator Barrasso, you have got a tight schedule.
Would you like to make your statement first?
Senator Barrasso. No. I will go right after you.
Senator Udall. Let me make my statement, and then I will
turn to the Senator from Wyoming, and then we will hear the
testimony from our 2 witnesses.
I want to thank the chairman for holding this hearing
today. It is important to me and my State. First, I want to
focus on S. 2798, the National Forest Insect and Disease
Emergency Act of 2009, which I introduced with Senator Risch.
S. 2798 will address a real and serious threat to our
Nation's forests and communities, especially in our western
States. This bipartisan bill will provide additional tools and
resources to the Forest Service and, to a lesser degree, to the
Bureau of Land Management to help address the deaths of
millions of acres of trees due to insect infestations.
This bill is in direct response to an especially pronounced
epidemic of bark beetles in western States. This epidemic is
creating serious concerns in our communities regarding our
forested regions, the recreational economies of these areas,
and water supplies and infrastructures that exist on these
lands.
Today, various parts of the U.S., but especially western
States, continue to experience unnaturally large-scale
infestations of bark beetles and other insects that have
resulted from past policies and warming climate conditions.
Recent periods of drought and population growth on land
adjacent to Forest Service land has increased the risk of lost
lives and property due to wildfire and other impacts from
millions of acres killed by insects and disease.
In addition, this large-scale forest condition creates
threats to hundreds of miles of power transmission lines and
dozens of communicationsites, hundreds of miles of roads and
trails, thousands of campgrounds and recreationsites, and
community water supplies in forested headwaters. This sort of
threat is akin to an emergency like any other natural
phenomenon, and I believe we need to treat it as such.
That is what this bipartisan bill does. It creates
emergency insect areas. I should say insect emergency areas.
That is more properly the way it is in the bill. That is areas
defined by the Forest Service as experiencing significant tree
mortality, resulting in increased wildfire threats and risks to
people and infrastructure from falling dead trees.
Within these areas, the Forest Service would be directed to
provide priority treatment to reduce these threats. It would
also provide additional funding sources and incentives to
remove trees and other woody biomass and convert it to energy
use and streamline the National Environmental Policy Act
expedited environmental analysis of the treatment work.
The bill also authorizes the use of good neighbor
authority, which allows the Forest Service to contract with
State foresters to enter Forest Service lands and implement
treatments to reduce threats next to homes and private property
whose owners have, in many cases, removed dead trees and
performed treatments on their own property adjacent to Forest
Service land.
Finally, it makes permanent and authorizes and makes more
effective the successful stewardship contracting tool that
allows the Forest Service to fashion agreements to perform
treatment for trees like insect-killed trees that may not have
high commercial value.
Since the bill was introduced, I have heard from many
interests affected by the current epidemic and others who are
interested in forest health. This includes support from the
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, composed of the
counties in Colorado at ground zero of the current epidemic;
Lake County in Colorado; the National Ski Area Association; the
Colorado Timber Industry Association; and from the Society of
American Foresters. All of these entities appreciate the need
to address this issue, and I thank them for this support.
Let me turn to the second bill that I believe is an
important one on our agenda, and that is S. 2830. That is
Senator Bingaman's bill. I support it. It is a bill that would
ensure States could use abandoned mine land payments for both
coal and non-coal reclamation.
I am disappointed that the Interior Department currently
limits these funds to coal reclamation. Colorado has many
abandoned hard rock mine sites that must be cleaned up, and the
Interior Department should be working with us to make this job
easier, not creating roadblocks. I am pleased to be a co-
sponsor of Senator Bingaman's bill, which would fix this
problem.
Again, I want to thank the chairman, who I think will join
us, for holding this important hearing. I look forward to
hearing from today's witnesses.
With that, I want to turn to my good friend and colleague
from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Chairman Udall. That
sounds good. Thank you for being here to chair this important
hearing.
I want to welcome each of our witnesses today. I want to
make a couple of comments on 2 of the bills before us this
afternoon, and one is the bill that Senator Udall and Senator
Risch have introduced, S. 2798, to reduce catastrophic fire
risk by treating insect and disease infestation in the western
United States.
This bill takes many important steps to mitigate effects of
the bark beetle infestation, and that bark beetle infestation
truly is devastating the Intermountain West. We are facing an
unprecedented forest health epidemic. Three and a half million
acres of forest in Wyoming are infested by bark beetles. The
infestation totals 17.5 million acres across the West.
This situation is presenting many challenges. Two hundred
sixty communities in Wyoming are considered at risk for
wildland fire. We face erosion and habitat loss. Roads and
infrastructure need to be protected. All uses of the land will
have to change, including grazing, hunting, fishing, and
energy. This is a natural disaster unlike any we have faced
before, and the administration must respond accordingly.
I am deeply disappointed to see that the President's budget
does not allocate a single penny to addressing this multi-State
emergency. We need to discuss that issue today. I want to know
how the administration is going to meet its responsibility to
the people of my State and the entire Intermountain West.
Funding is not our only challenge in the face of this
infestation. We must also address long-term efficient
management of our forests. In the face of this emergency, the
administration must ignore politics and focus on results.
The Forest Service should utilize all available management
authorities that will mitigate bark beetle effects. There is no
time for political proposals to eliminate timber sales, road
improvements, or any of the agency's management tools. It is
important that we discuss these issues today as well.
So I want to thank the sponsors of S. 2798 for their hard
work on this. The bill gives the Forest Service important tools
to manage the bark beetle infestation. The provisions to
prioritize insect mitigation are important, and I am glad to
see the good neighbor authority within the bill. S. 2798
recognizes that we are facing a forest health disaster in the
West, and we must respond with the same intensity that we would
to other natural disasters.
Now the other bill that I would like to comment on is S.
2830, sponsored by Chairman Bingaman. The Department is
prohibiting the use of AML funds for hard rock mine
remediation. I want to work with Senators Bingaman, Bennett,
and Udall to address this issue that is so important to New
Mexico, Utah, and Colorado.
I hope the committee will help ensure Wyoming and other
certified States and tribes continue also to receive the AML
money that we are owed. The department has proposed undoing the
2006 bipartisan agreement that paid back States like Wyoming
and Montana, as well as the Indian tribes like the Crow and the
Navajo Nation.
This agreement was reached after more than a decade of
bipartisan negotiation. The money is owed from taxes levied on
coal production within our States and tribal lands. The
President and Secretary Salazar both supported this agreement
when they were members of the U.S. Senate. The administration
and Congress must stand by this commitment.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the hearing.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Let me turn to the chairman of the full committee, who has
joined us, who is the author of one of the bills we are
considering today. Senator Bingaman is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairman Udall and
Senator Barrasso.
Let me just talk a minute about the bill that Senator
Barrasso was just speaking of. S. 2830 is an important bill
that I have introduced and that Senator Udall is co-sponsoring
with me.
I do think since the initial enactment of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act, States and tribes have been
able to use a portion of the abandoned mine land funds to
reclaim abandoned high-priority non-coal mines. Unfortunately,
the department has construed amendments that we enacted in 2006
to preclude this. So this legislation would fix that problem.
It does not increase the amount of funding being
distributed to any State. It merely reinstates the
interpretation of the law that had been in effect since 1977.
So I hope very much we can enact this, and I appreciate you
including it on the list of bills that you are considering
today.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman.
I will extend those thanks to Chairman Wyden of the
subcommittee. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this important
bill.
Let me propose that we do this. Secretary Sherman, we would
like to hear from you, if we might, and then I know Senator
Barrasso has a busy schedule. I would like to extend to him the
courtesy to be able to ask you some questions.
Then, Ms. Owens, if that is acceptable to you, after the
Senator has asked his questions, we will then turn to your
testimony.
So, Secretary Harris, it is wonderful to see you here. As a
fellow Coloradoan, I want you to know how proud we are of the
service you are extending to your Nation. You come with a long
biography, a long involvement in all of these important public
lands issues, and I know we are well served as Americans by
your service.
So thank you for being here, and the floor is yours. We
look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HARRIS SHERMAN, UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE,
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Sherman. Thank you very much, Chairman Udall.
My name is Harris Sherman. I am the Under Secretary at USDA
for Natural Resources and the Environment. It is a pleasure to
be here.
I wanted to offer testimony on 2 bills. One is your bill,
Chairman Udall, S. 2798, and I wanted to briefly address S.
1546. I will start with S. 1546 because I just have a few
comments.
S. 1546 involves a conveyance of about 31.5 acres of Forest
Service land to the Town of Mantua, Utah. We are clearly
willing to work with the Town of Mantua to effectuate this
conveyance, but we want to do so under the terms of the
Townsite Act, which requires us to receive fair market value
for the conveyance.
Our concern with the bill is that it does not provide for
fair market value to Forest Service, which runs counter to
well-established, longstanding policies of the department and
the Forest Service. Under the Independent Offices Appropriation
Act and FLPMA, we are precluded from engaging in conveyances
without fair market value.
So I simply want to say that we stand ready, willing, and
able to work with the town to effectuate a conveyance, but it
needs to be under the Townsite Act, unless Congress decides to
proceed in a different direction.
With that said, let me then turn to the National Forest
Insect and Disease Emergency Act of 2009. At the outset, I want
to say that the Obama administration supports the goals and the
principles of this act.
As Senator Barrasso has said, there are 12 States today
that are facing an epidemic with the bark beetle. As he has
said, this affects some 17 million acres of land in the West.
This is a vast, complicated, challenging situation for many
reasons.
No. 1, it represents significant risk to hundreds, if not
thousands, of communities in the West to the threat of
wildfire. This is wildfire that occurs usually within the
wildland-urban interface area, but there is no question that
these communities need to be prepared for this kind of an
eventuality.
No. 2, it challenges the protection of our watersheds and
challenges the protection of our water supplies, both for
communities within the WUI and for communities outside of these
areas. We need to take steps to protect our intake structures
and our reservoirs. We need to take steps to protect water
quality issues. Millions of Americans get their drinking water
from the national forests.
Last, but not least, how do we protect the public from
falling trees that can jeopardize roadways, rights-of-ways,
trails, campgrounds, ski trails, and so forth? This is a
significant and emerging problem. It is very hard to explain
the magnitude of this problem, but I want to try to use an
example that my colleagues in the Forest Service in Region 2
provided us.
If you take 3 national forests in southern Wyoming and in
northern Colorado, there are 3.5 million acres of dead trees in
these 3 national forests. If you assume roughly 100 trees, 100
dead trees per acre, and you assume that once a tree dies, it
will take approximately 5 to 10 years for that tree to fall
over, we are looking since the late 1990s at a situation where
the trees are now starting to fall over.
If you just do the math for these 3 national forests out of
155 national forests that we have in this country, we are
looking at somewhere in the neighborhood, on average, of
100,000 trees a day, or 1 million trees a day falling in just
these 3 national forests. Most of this will occur in the
backcountry. But a certain percentage will occur where there
are people, there are recreational activities taking place,
where there are power lines and roads, and so forth.
So this is a significant problem that we need to address.
We applaud you for this bill. This bill, first of all, deals
with this situation on a comprehensive regional basis. We
applaud that because it transcends individual States, and it
deals with a collective problem across the western United
States.
It allows the Secretary to prioritize with the Governors
these critical needs. It reaffirms our existing authority to
perform necessary restoration work. Importantly, as you
mentioned, Chairman Udall, it adds certain new authority so
that we can proceed with permanent stewardship contracts, a
very important tool. As you mentioned, Senator Barrasso, it
allows us to expand on this good neighbor effort with State
governments that we want to fully take advantage of.
It also allows the Federal Government to make direct
payments to private land owners to deal with thinning issues
and restoration issues, which we think will be helpful. It
fine-tunes the National Environmental Policy Act to address
emergency designated areas.
The administration does have some concerns with certain
aspects of this legislation, and we wish to work with the staff
of the committee, staffs of Senator Udall and Senator Risch,
and others to address these limited number of concerns we have.
We will do so, hopefully, in the coming weeks.
So, in conclusion, let me say this. There is a real problem
that demands attention. We must deal with this on a landscape-
scale basis. We must bring together the stakeholders in a
collaborative fashion so we are working together, as opposed to
litigating these issues.
We need to maximize our use of biomass materials for wood
products and for energy-related products. We must keep our
timber industry strong because we need our timber industry to
help us do the vital work that is necessary and to provide jobs
for rural communities throughout the West.
We must have a responsive and efficient National
Environmental Policy Act process that responds to this crisis.
We must provide the necessary budgetary resources to address
this problem because it is a very large, complicated problem.
We feel this legislation is a positive, progressive step in
the right direction, and we are looking forward to working with
you on it.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Sherman follow:]
Prepared Statements of Harris Sherman, Under Secretary, Natural
Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture
s. 1546
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity today to present the Department's view on S. 1546. I am
Harris Sherman, USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment. S. 1546 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
convey, without consideration, to the Town of Mantua, Utah, all right,
title and interest of the United States in approximately 31.5 acres of
National Forest System lands in Box Elder County, Utah. These lands are
currently part of the Unita-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The
conveyance would be conditioned upon the town using the conveyed land
for public purposes. If the land is ever used for other than public
purposes, title would revert to the United States at the election of
the Secretary. While the Department does not object to these lands
being made available for conveyance to Mantua, Utah, we object to the
terms of the bill.
The 31.5 acres in question comprise two irregular peninsula-shaped
parcels which are surrounded on three sides by private land. The
parcels are encumbered with several outstanding rights in Brigham City
including three pipelines, a right to construct a pipeline, and use of
four springs. A survey would be required to be made in advance of any
proposed conveyance.
We oppose the bill because it does not require market value
consideration for the conveyance and because of the reverter
provisions.
A general public policy is that the Federal Government receive
market value consideration for the conveyance or use of its property.
This policy is well established in law including the Independent
Offices Appropriation Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), section 102(9) of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701), as well as the
numerous land exchange authorities.
There are also practical problems with S. 1546. The land is
required to revert to the Secretary in the event it is used for other
than ``public purposes.'' However, public purposes are not defined and
could cover a vast array of land uses from municipal waste treatment,
low income housing, to industrial parks. This lack of public purpose
definition could draw a future Secretary of Agriculture into future
local land use controversies. Therefore, we oppose the Reversionary
Clause listed in Section 2 (e).
There are laws on the books which would accommodate the municipal
needs of the Town of Mantua, Utah. Specifically, the Townsite Act of
July 31, 1958 (16 U.S.C. 478a) was enacted to permit established
communities to acquire up to 640 acres of National Forest land to serve
indigenous community objectives. Consistent with the aforementioned
public policy, the Townsite Act requires payment to the United States
of the fair market value of the land. Similarly, the lands could be
made available by exchange for equal value consideration.
s. 2798
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to share the Administration's views on S. 2798, the
National Forests Insect and Disease Emergency Act of 2009.
I would like to express my appreciation to Senators Udall and Risch
for their leadership in addressing insect and disease issues on
millions of acres affecting thousands of communities across the western
United States. This legislation: authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to designate emergency areas in order to mitigate hazards
posed by large scale infestations of beetles and insects; directs that
increased resources are available within each emergency area to
mitigate hazards; and makes existing good neighbor and stewardship
contracting authorities permanent. The legislation directs the
Secretary to give priority consideration to the removal of hazardous
fuels and hazard trees, the restoration of forest health, and the
delivery of assistance to state and local governments, Indian tribes,
and private landowners in the designated emergency areas. The
legislation provides for the application of the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act environmental documentation process and a pre-
decisional administrative review process to provide for a more rapid
response to address these issues. We believe the pathway forward
torestore these areas is to work in close coordination with states and
private landowners.
current challenges
Outbreaks of bark beetles, which are occurring in numerous forest
ecosystems across western North America, are the largest in recorded
history.\1\ Although western forests have experienced regular
infestations throughout their history, the current outbreaks are
notable for their intensity, extensive range, and simultaneous
occurrence in multiple ecosystems. During the last 10 years there have
been 17 million acres affected by bark beetles in the interior west
(CO, MT, ID, WY, UT, SD)\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bentz, et. al. (2009)Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
\2\ USDA, Forest Service--Forest Health Protection Aerial Survey
Data. 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary difference between previous beetle outbreaks and the
current epidemic is that more people now live, work and recreate
throughout the lodgepole pine ecosystem. Removing dead trees and other
fuels can effectively reduce the risk of fire damage at a local scale,
e.g., in the immediate vicinity of a home or community, although the
effectiveness of removing dead trees to reduce fire risk at the forest
landscape scale is less clear.\3\ Communities surrounded by dead trees
are at increased risk of wildfire and damage from falling trees. In
addition, the forest products industry that is vital to the efficient
removal of hazardous fuels and hazard trees has been hard hit by the
down turn in the market. These important differences along with the
scale of infestations require new and innovative approaches that reduce
safety threats to people and property while ensuring that the restored
forests are diverse and resilient to change across the landscape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ see Dominik Kulakowski, Thomas T. Veblen (2007) EFFECT OF PRIOR
DISTURBANCES ON THE EXTENT AND SEVERITY OF WILDFIRE IN COLORADO
SUBALPINE FORESTS. Ecology: Vol. 88, No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
public hazards
Dead trees pose several significant hazards to public safety
including increased risk of catastrophic fire, threats to water
supplies as a result of catastrophic fire, and hazard trees along
utility corridors, roads, trails, and other infrastructure.
Wildfire Implications
The relationship between bark beetle outbreaks and subsequent fire
at the larger landscape scale is not yet fully understood\4\. Outbreaks
in recent years have provided scientists with excellent opportunities
to conduct studies and gather new information about the role of bark
beetles in western forests, but more research remains to be done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the stand level, both crown and surface fire hazards\5\ change
over time after a bark beetle outbreak\6\. The fire hazard in the crown
is high in the period one to two years after pine trees diebecause the
dead needles are retained in the tree's crown, stocking the canopy with
dry, fine fuels that can ignite quickly during weather conditions
conducive to fire.\7\ Importantly, in the grey phase, characterized by
dead standing trees with no needles, the risk of ignition and the risk
of crown fires actually go down, and that lasts for 10 to 20 years
after the tree is attacked.\8\ As the trees lose their needles, the
fire risk in the crowns decreases because there is less fuel. The fire
hazard at the surface increases as dead trees begin to fall and create
a heavy fuel bed with young trees growing up through the tangle of down
logs\9\. In dry, hot, windy weather conditions, fires burning in heavy
surface fuels can move fast, burn extremely hot, and be very resistant
to control\10\. An additional significant concern is the safety of our
firefighters. Large areas of fallen trees limit escape routes for
crews, severely limiting our ability to deploy firefighters in these
areas\11\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The term Fire hazard as used here refers specifically to the
state of fuels in a given stand--independent of variables such as
temperature, wind, and precipitation that influence fuel moisture
content and fire occurrence.
\6\ Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
\7\ Page, W.; Jenkins, M. 2007. Mountain pine beetle-induced
changes to selected lodgepole pine fuel complexes within the
intermountain region. Forest Science 53(4):507-518.
Page, W.; Jenkins, M. 2007. Predicted Fire Behavior in Selected
Mountain Pine Beetle--Infested Lodgepole Pine. Forest Science
53(6):662-674
Hawkes, B. 2008. Effects of the mountain pine beetle on fuels and
fire behaviour. In Mountain Pine Beetle: From Lessons Learned to
Community-based Solutions Conference Proceedings, June 10-11, 2008. BC
Journal of Ecosystems and Management 9(3):77-83.http://www.forrex.org/
publications/jem/ISS49/vol9_no3_MPBconference.pdf
Jenkins, M., Hebertson E., Page, W. and Jorgensen C. 2008 Bark
beetles, fuels, fires and implications for forest management in the
Intermountain West. Forest Ecology and Management 254 (2008) 16-34
\8\ see Dominik Kulakowski, Thomas T. Veblen (2007) EFFECT OF PRIOR
DISTURBANCES ON THE EXTENT AND SEVERITY OF WILDFIRE IN COLORADO
SUBALPINE FORESTS. Ecology: Vol. 88, No. 3, pp. 759-769.
\9\ Bentz, et. al. (2009) Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Western North
America: Causes and Consequences, Bark Beetle Symposium, Snowbird,
Utah.
\10\ Barrows, J. 1951. Fire Behavior in the Northern Rocky
Mountains. Station Paper No. 29. USDA Forest Service, Northern Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Missoula MT. 133 pages
\11\ Alexander, M and Stam, J. 2003. Safety Alert for Wildland
Firefighetrs: Fuel Conditions in Spruce Beetle Killed Forest of Alaska.
Fire Management Today 63 (2) 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A wildfire burning in the heavy fuels close to the soil can
literally bake the soil, sterilizing it and sometimes leaving a water-
repellent surface that sheds rain, and leads to severe gully erosion,
debris flows into reservoirs and streams, and flood damage. We
experienced these effects after the Hayman Fire in central Colorado in
2002. After the Buffalo Creek Fire in 1996, Strontia Springs Reservoir
filled with sediment that washed off burned areas after heavy rains,
and the South Platte River was running brown with mud.
Hazard Trees
In certain areas, dead trees are an immediate hazard because of the
increased risk they may fall and damage property or hurt people. For
example, in the beetle-infested area of northern Colorado and southern
Wyoming, over 900 miles of trails and 3500 miles of roads are lined
with dead trees that are at high risk of falling. There are hazard
trees on more than 21,000 acres of developed recreation sites--such as
campgrounds and picnic areas. Power lines and communication sites are
also threatened by hazard trees. There are more than six thousand acres
of right-of-way corridors for authorized transmission and distribution
lines in the area affected by bark beetle infestation in northern
Colorado and southern Wyoming.\12\ Forest Service resource specialists
have estimated this represents over 1000 miles of transmission lines.
When dead trees within and bordering on transmission corridors fall on
lines they can start wildfires and disrupt power supplies to cities and
towns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Figure derived from data in the Forest Service Special-Use
Database System, Region 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
current efforts
No effective treatment for suppression of large-scale pine beetle
outbreaks currently exists, butthe agencies within the Department are
approaching this problem in a variety of ways based upon their
individual missions, policies, laws, and management mandates under
which they operate. On National Forests that have been affected by bark
beetle, we are actively engaged in numerous on-the-ground efforts to
address the insect and disease outbreak that this legislation targets.
In the areas hardest hit by bark beetles, we modified our 2010 budget
allocations to focus resources to mitigate the outbreak.
When Secretary Vilsack articulated his vision for America's
forests, he underscored the overriding importance of forest restoration
by calling for a commitment to restoration across landscapes--an all-
lands approach to forest restoration--by working closely with other
landowners to encourage collaborative solutions. Restoring our forests
includes mitigating the effects of severe infestations of insects and
disease by removing dead trees where appropriate and working across
boundaries by cooperating with the states, other governments, and
private landowners. Much of the woody material to be removed can be
used as a sustainable energy source for our country and other uses such
as pellets for wood stoves, house logs, furniture, and decorative
items.
As Forest Service Chief, Tom Tidwell, recently stated in testimony
on the President's budget, theagency will integrate traditional timber
activities predominately within the context of larger restoration
objectives, focusing on priority watersheds in most need of stewardship
and restoration work, pursuing forest products when they support
watershed, wildlife, and restoration goals. We will also greatly expand
the use of stewardship contracting authority to meet restoration
objectives and build in longer-term contracting certainty for
communities and the private sector to invest in the kind of forest
restoration infrastructure we will need to achieve these objectives. In
this regard and to the extent that S. 2798 is implemented using a
sciencebased and collaborative approach, engaging multiple and diverse
stakeholders, this bill will be more consistent with the aspirations
and goals of the Administration concerning ecological forest
restoration and rural job development.
The Forest Service recognizes the impact a depressed market is
having on the forest products industry in much of the West. The forest
products industry is a primary partner in accomplishing work integral
to sustaining and restoring the health, diversity, and productivity of
the National Forest System, and can help us in our work to mitigate the
risks of insect and disease. To accomplish the work of effectively and
efficiently restoring National Forest System lands to a healthy
condition, we need skilled forestry operators, vibrant rural
communities, and a healthy forest products industry.
Our experience indicates that an expanded use of the objections
process under the Healthy ForestRestoration Act tends to increase
direct dialogue between the agency and stakeholders and often results
in resolution of concerns before a decision is made, and thus a better,
more informed decision results.
concerns
I look forward to further dialogue with Senators Udall and Risch
and the committee to consider the following suggestions, concerns and
other minor technical input into sections of the legislation.
Biomass
We appreciate the emphasis on biomass production and use to promote
a sustainable and renewable energy source for our country that may lead
to greater diversification of the wood products markets and the
development of new businesses and jobs. However, we would like to work
with the committee to understand and address the relationship between
the bill and the Clean Air Act and existing programs and policies.
Stewardship Contracting
We appreciate and value the recognition of the need for stewardship
contracting authority as a tool to achieve forest restoration goals on
the national forests. We have serious concerns with the methods used to
address the challenges of awarding long-term stewardship contracts, and
do not believe the provisions in Section 7(a) (1) and (3) is necessary
or desirable. The administration has the flexibility to address
relevant requirements and is convening a multiagency working group to
identify and assess options for issues related to stewardship
contracting, and we look forward to apprising the Committee on
progress.
National Environmental Policy Act Provisions
We are concerned about the applicability provisions under Section 4
emergency designations. We are concerned that not subjecting emergency
designations to applicable laws and regulations would give the
impression that the bill circumvents important environmental
protections and we would like to work with you to ensure environmental
protections remain. We would also like to work with you to clarify the
nature and effect of designating insect and disease emergency areas to
better understand applicability to other laws and regulations.
Similarly, the Administration has significant concerns about the overly
broad waiver contained in Section 4(c)(6)(c).
While the bill recognizes NEPA's applicability to treatment
decisions, it does so by expanding the use of the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act (HFRA) provisions for NEPA analysis and documentation.
The bill needs to provide for an effective NEPA process and include
HFRA protections for old-growth forest stands, threatened and
endangered species, and other resources. We would like to work with you
to ensure that management actions will be consistent with land
management plans and consistent with prohibitions and restrictions on
removing vegetation from Federal land including roadless areas.
Good Neighbor Authority
As the Departments of Interior and Agriculture testified before
this subcommittee in October of 2009, we believe our Nation's forests
and public lands face forest health challenges that must be addressed
across diverse land ownerships. In these times of limited resources, it
is important to leverage workforce and technical capacities and develop
partnerships for forest restoration across all lands, while ensuring
compliance with existing applicable laws and regulations. However, we
believe further study and analysis is needed to better understand the
interplay of needs, state and federal contracting and labor law, and
regulation before expansion of the authority is authorized. For
example, where federal or applicable state contracts are awarded, we
would seek to use competition, consistent with current statutory
requirements and the President's March 4, 2009 Memorandum on Government
Contracting. We look forward to working with the committee, States, and
federal agencies to make suggestions to improve the bill in a manner
that meets the needs of key stakeholders.
I want to again thank Senators Udall and Risch for their leadership
and commitment to our national forests, their surrounding communities
and the forest products infrastructure. I look forward to working with
the Senators the committee, and all interested stakeholders on this
bill and to help ensure sustainable communities and provide the best
land stewardship for our national forests.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you mayhave.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Secretary Sherman.
Let me turn to Senator Barrasso for comments and questions
he might have.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, Ms. Owens, thank you for your patience in this. The
committee meeting was moved back a bit, and that has bumped
into other schedules. So, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Sherman, for the comments that you made.
Obviously, you understand the scope and the magnitude of the
problem, and I understand you recently flew over Wyoming to
specifically assess the bark beetle damage in our forests. So,
you have seen firsthand the things that I see every weekend
when I return to Wyoming.
For just a second, could you go over the statistic that you
talked about that since the 1990s with the dying of the trees,
and they are starting to fall over now, and I think you said
100 dead trees per acre? Because it really is an astonishing
number, and I want to make sure that everyone really has a
chance to focus on that number.
Mr. Sherman. Yes. I would be happy to.
In these 3 national forests, we have 3.5 million acres of
dead trees. Once these trees are dead, within a 10-year period,
most of these trees will fall over. Since the late 1990s, this
epidemic has been in full force and effect, and many of these
trees are now starting to fall.
We estimate conservatively that every day in these 3
national forests, 100,000 trees on average will fall. Every 10
days, a million trees will fall. The implications of this for
campgrounds, roads, rights-of-ways, ski trails, you name it,
there are going to be some very, very significant challenges
for us.
Senator Barrasso. So that over the summer, we are looking
at 10 million trees falling between Wyoming and Colorado, in
those 3 national forests. So, obviously, you know what we are
facing. The numbers are astonishingly large.
Then I look at the budgeting. The things that you say in
terms of the commitment and the concerns are the ones that are
important for all of America to hear. In fiscal year 2010, the
Department of Agriculture provided substantial funding to
Wyoming, Colorado, South Dakota, Montana, and Idaho, for bark
beetle mitigation. We know that the infestation has now doubled
in the last year.
But the President's budget doesn't include bark beetle
funding for the Intermountain West in fiscal year 2011. That,
to us, doesn't seem to make sense, having heard all of the
words that you have spoken about commitment. How does the
department intend to meet this responsibility? Can you explain
for us a little bit so we can understand how you plan to deal
with this?
Mr. Sherman. I would be happy to do so, Senator.
The President's 2011 budget contains multiple items, which
will address the bark beetle situation. Let me just briefly
explain what some of those are.
Three hundred fifty million dollars approximately is set
aside for fuel reduction activities. Seven hundred million
dollars is set aside for this integrated resource restoration
category we have, which clearly will impart focus on the bark
beetle epidemic in the West. We are spending well over $1
billion on fire preparation and fire suppression in our Forest
Service system, and a portion of that clearly will be devoted
to these areas in the West where fire occurs in bark beetle
areas.
Through other agencies in USDA, we will be allocating money
for the harvesting, collection, transportation, and storage of
biomass materials through the so-called BCAP program. Through
the Rural Development Agency at USDA, we will be making
opportunities available for new experiments with biomass
facilities in communities in various parts of the country.
We are working very hard on these collaborative efforts
throughout the country and our planning efforts, all of these
things are focused in part on dealing with the bark beetle
challenges that we have.
Senator Barrasso. When you would take a look at those, the
commitment of finances, is that new money or is that money that
is going to come from within current Forest Service programs?
It makes me think are you going to have to cut other programs
that are necessary throughout the Forest Service.
Mr. Sherman. We will have to review very carefully how we
allocate priorities here. I am pleased to say in the
President's budget, the Forest Service was one of a few
agencies that actually had an increase in its budget, rather
than a decrease. I think that is a recognition within the White
House and in the department that these problems are very real,
and we have got to devote a lot of attention to them.
So the Forest Service will look each year at how it is
going to allocate its budget between regions. But clearly, the
bark beetle issue throughout these 12 States will be an
important priority.
Senator Barrasso. In terms of the way that those decisions
are made, it seemed that the agency barely escaped closing
campgrounds recently to pay for bark beetle mitigation. So I
don't know what you are expecting for this year. Will you have
to close campgrounds? Because that is a concern for folks
throughout the tourism industry and folks that live in these
communities. Is that an area that you would have to cut?
Or are you going to be closing down certain areas of the
forest? I am just trying to see what kind of thought process
you are engaged in with this because there are limited
resources.
Mr. Sherman. One of the activities we are undertaking now
is to convene a national incident management team with Region 2
to look at the magnitude of this problem and what the budgetary
needs will be to address all of the issues that you just
mentioned.
I think it is too early to say exactly what we will be
doing, but we are going to have to very thoughtfully prioritize
the needs. This is expensive work. When you are providing for
maintaining roads and campgrounds and water facilities and so
forth, there are a lot of resources that needs to go into these
activities.
So we will be working on this, but we also have other needs
throughout the forest system nationally that have to be
addressed. But we would be happy to report back to you as we
develop this strategy for the coming fiscal year.
Senator Barrasso. Because if a million trees are falling
every 10 days, and we want to give considerable thought to
that, but the bark beetle infestation is continuing. Over the
next year, we are looking at another doubling of acreage. The
impacts are going to be such that the faster that these
decisions can be made, the more helpful it is going to be,
which gets into the issue of management.
I have concerns about timber sale programs and how that
will play into this. You talked about the importance of the
economy, timber, and proper harvesting. Can you give us some of
your thoughts on that?
Mr. Sherman. We are making every effort to look at the
panoply of steps that need to be taken to address moving
forward effectively with timber sales. The stewardship contract
is a very important tool that we want to develop because it
deals with not only the removal of material, but it deals with
the restoration of these areas as well. We are trying to take a
holistic approach at this.
We need to make sure on the front end that we have got
collaborative efforts working because that is a key to moving
forward on these various contracts in timber sales. We need to
make sure the NEPA process is working efficiently because that
is an important step that we have to go through. But if we can
go through it quickly and efficiently, that will help us to get
to where we need to be. We need to work with the timber
industry to develop new markets for these materials and
hopefully develop the biofuels industry that goes with it.
Senator Barrasso. I have a pie chart here that I will ask
you to take a quick look at, if you would, Mr. Sherman. This
talks about the Forest Service's review for 2009, which found
that about 59 percent of Forest Service lands, or about 113
million acres, are at high risk for forest fires. Meanwhile,
less than 15 percent of the agency's acreage has been treated
to reduce the wildfire risk in the past decade.
The chart says, of that 15 percent, 1 percent of the
treatment was conducted under stewardship contracts, about 11
percent from timber sales, prescribed burns about 33 percent,
and then wildfire over half, the other 55 percent. So can you
talk a little bit about how this track record supports the
Department's proposal with the elimination of timber sales and
relies more on some of the other ways?
Mr. Sherman. Let me be clear that we are not eliminating
timber sales. Stewardship contracts are a new tool that
supplements timber sales. I think we will be moving more and
more toward the use of stewardship contracts, but timber sales
are an avenue that will always be available to the Forest
Service as we go forward. It will be right now a blend of the
2.
But I hope that that composite figure of 15 percent will
increase, but it will be a combination of stewardship contracts
and timber sales.
Senator Barrasso. There are some concerns with the
stewardship contracts in terms of bonding requirements, the
length of contracts, and I don't know if that discussion is
taking place in the agency.
Mr. Sherman. It is. In fact, this bill will help to address
a number of the challenges and the issues that we have with
stewardship contracts. We are hoping to fine-tune this tool so
it can be a more effective one going forward.
Senator Barrasso. All right. I think I have used plenty of
time, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I could submit to Mr. Sherman some
additional questions in writing?
Ms. Owens, thank you once again for your patience. I
appreciate it very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
I look forward to working with you as we move forward.
Secretary Sherman has surfaced some important concerns and
opportunities.
We have been joined by the real chairman of the
subcommittee, Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden, I don't know if you
would like to make any opening remarks or direct questions at
Secretary Sherman?
Senator Wyden. Senator Udall, thank you very much, and I am
sorry that I was in the Budget Committee and was detained. I am
very appreciative of your stepping in, Senator Udall.
Let me also thank Mr. Sherman. I know that he and his team
are spending a lot of time and effort working with us on trying
to address our eastside forestry bill, and I think we are
making a lot of headway. Very appreciative of the kind comments
that you have made, Mr. Sherman, to folks in Oregon, and I
thank you for it.
The question I had involves briefly S. 2963. I guess this
will be a question for both of our administration witnesses.
This is the bill that would consolidate a splintered ownership
of land in our home State and protect almost 16,500 acres of
new wilderness along the lower John Day River.
We have put the proposal together the Oregon way, lots of
folks at the local level developing the proposal from the
ground up. It has won the endorsement of private land owners in
the region, all of the affected counties--Wasco, Wheeler, and
Jefferson--a variety of recreational interests, and the
conservation community.
In addition to protecting what is a stunning landscape and
providing 2 consolidated blocks of Federal land that will
provide a host of recreational activities--hunting and fishing
and rafting and camping--the legislation would also solve the
management challenges faced by both private land owners and the
BLM in dealing with land ownership that I think you charitably
could call a checkerboard.
With the equal-value land exchanges included in the bill,
public lands would be consolidated into 2 new wilderness areas.
This would enhance public safety, improve land management, and
increase public access. So there are lots of benefits here--
nearly 5 miles of new river access for the public, 16,500 acres
of protected wildland, better management for private land
owners and the public agencies, and important habitat
protections.
So we also note that it has come to our attention that the
addition of some parcels of Forest Service/BLM land through the
exchange might enable the addition of another 2,381 acres of
wilderness, and certainly, we would like the views of the
agencies on this today.
I will close by way of a point that Mr. Sherman and I have
talked about, and I have appreciated his input. It is obvious
that our wildlands are playing an increasingly important role
in the economic development of Oregon and the West. That is
particularly true in traditionally rural areas east of the
Cascades in my home State.
Visitors come from thousands of miles away to hike, fish,
raft, and hunt. In our desert wilderness, the Cathedral Rock
and Horse Heaven wilderness areas are going to make sure that
there is permanent protection for the landscape for generations
to come. That is good news.
For the 2 administration witnesses at the Forest Service
and the BLM, as you could tell from my opening statement, I
have learned of some additional parcels of Forest Service and
BLM land that might make sense to add to the land exchanges.
These lands face the same management challenges as the parcels
proposed for exchange in the bill and, if possible, would allow
for another 2,381 acres of wilderness to be added.
Now, we have shared maps with your agencies on the proposed
additions, and I would like to have some sense of how you all
at the Forest Service and the BLM would look at it with respect
to the prospect of the possible additional lands.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Chairman.
The Forest Service has not yet had an opportunity to
evaluate either Parcel F1 or F2. But I would say that we have
no objection to either parcel being identified for exchange
with BLM, with the proviso that the environmental documentation
necessary through NEPA would be completed prior to these
parcels going out of Federal ownership. But other than that, we
have no reason to object to what is being proposed here.
Senator Wyden. Very good. Let me ask your colleague at the
witness table, several colleagues at the witness table.
Mr. Roberson. Good afternoon, Senator. Chairman Udall,
Chairman Wyden.
I would like to say that on behalf of BLM, and I know that
Ms. Owens will be giving our testimony momentarily, but I have
reviewed your April 13 letter. I have looked at those parcels.
I have looked at your proposal for Cathedral Rock and the Horse
Heaven wilderness area proposals, and we see that these areas
would be a great asset to the wilderness preservation system.
The amendments that you have supplied to us, the additional
areas, we would be happy to work with you on that. We have
shared this information with our Oregon office, and the folks
there in north central Oregon are going to be willing to work
on the ground cooperatively with your office on this exchange.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. Thank you both.
Mr. Sherman, we will spare you any questions on the
eastside program. Obviously, we think this is exactly the kind
of program that was in the budget for priority consideration as
it relates to hazardous fuels reduction efforts, and we
appreciate your ongoing attention.
I consider this my top priority for the rural part of our
State. We think that this is going to be a breakthrough in
forestry policy in the West because when we get this nailed
down on the east side, save those remaining mills, I think a
lot of the lessons that will be learned can be applied to the
west side of Oregon.
After decades of timber wars, decades of gridlock in the
forest, working in cooperation with you all, I think that on
our watch we can go a long way to ending them. So very
encouraged about the efforts underway.
Thank you for your comments today.
Senator Udall, I know you are on a tight time constraint.
So why don't you just hold forth? I think you have manned the
subcommittee well.
Senator Udall. That means a lot to hear that from you,
Chairman Wyden. You have piqued my curiosity as well about your
talk about your eastern side of the Cascades mill projects. I
am going to take a look at what you are proposing.
In Colorado, we are down to one mill. We have a couple of
wood pellet mills in addition, but they have had some trouble
recently with market downturns. But we do need to have a
sustainable industry----
Senator Wyden. Let us work together.
Senator Udall. I would like to do that.
Senator Wyden. Good.
Senator Udall. I am certainly--if the names of these 2
proposed wilderness areas, Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven, are
any indication of the quality----
Senator Wyden. Those are Udall-like places.
Senator Udall. Those are excellent.
Ms. Owens, you have been patient. I want to thank you for
taking the time to come up to Capitol Hill and testify to the
subcommittee. Please, the floor is yours. If you can keep your
remarks in that 5-minute timeframe, that would be very helpful.
But the floor is yours. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF GLENDA OWENS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE
MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Owens. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Udall and Chairman
Wyden.
Thanks for the invitation to testify on behalf of the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement on S.
2830. We look forward to working with you on matters relating
to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
While we share your concern about abandoned non-coal mine
sites, we cannot support S. 2830. It is inconsistent with the
administration's goal of ensuring reclamation of high-priority
abandoned coal sites before the reclamation fee terminates in
2021. We believe AML funds should be devoted to the highest-
priority coal problems.
Through SMCRA, Congress established OSM for 2 purposes.
First, to ensure that the Nation's coal mines operate in a
manner that protects citizens and the environment during mining
and to restore the land to beneficial use following mining.
Second, to implement an Abandoned Mine Land program to address
the hazards and environmental degradation created by 2
centuries of weakly regulated coal mining that occurred before
SMCRA's enactment.
Title IV of SMCRA established an AML reclamation program
funded by a fee assessed on each ton of coal produced. The fees
collected have been placed in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Fund. The money has been used primarily to reclaim lands and
waters adversely impacted by mining conducted before the
enactment of SMCRA and to mitigate the adverse impacts of
mining on individuals and communities.
Since 2006, section 411(h)(1) of SMCRA has precluded
uncertified States and tribes from using funds that they
receive under that section for non-coal reclamation. S. 2830
would amend SMCRA to allow uncertified States and tribes to use
funds received under section 411(h)(1) for reclamation
activities on non-coal mine sites.
The Department's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget, in
addition to reducing spending, proposes to limit the use of AML
moneys to high-priority coal reclamation projects. The
Department, therefore, cannot support S. 2830 because it is
inconsistent with the 2011 budget proposal.
While we recognize the dangers that abandoned hard rock
mines pose, the current challenging economic conditions,
coupled with this administration's commitment to fiscal
responsibility, heighten the need for AML funds to be focused
on the core objective of high-priority coal reclamation
problems.
However, because we share your concern about non-coal
abandoned mine sites, OSM would be happy to work with the
Congress and this committee to explore other options to address
non-coal abandoned mine reclamation problems.
I am also submitting testimony for the record on behalf of
the Bureau of Land Management regarding S. 2963, the Cathedral
Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness Act. The Department of the
Interior supports the goals of S. 2963, which provides for the
establishment of 2 new wilderness areas along the John Day
River in Oregon.
The bill also provides for the exchange of lands between 3
private parties and the Federal Government, which, if
completed, would allow the consolidation of fragmented land
patterns and provide for 2 wilderness areas. Should the land
exchanges be completed, the additional land would greatly
enhance the wilderness quality and manageability of the 2 areas
proposed for wilderness.
The BLM would like to work with you, Senator Wyden, and the
committee on several concerns and to make adjustments to the
legislation as discussed in the bureau's full testimony.
I am accompanied by Ed Roberson, who has already spoken. He
is an Assistant Director for BLM, and he will be happy to
answer any questions that you might have on S. 2963.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee today and testify on these bills. I look forward
to working with you to ensure that the Nation's abandoned mine
lands are adequately reclaimed.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Owens follow:]
Prepared Statements of Glenda Owens, Deputy Director, Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior
s. 2830
Mister Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
invitation to testify on behalf of the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) regarding S. 2830. I look forward to
working with you on matters relating to the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).
S. 2830 would allow noncertified states and tribes to use certain
SMCRA payments for non-coal reclamation. While we recognize the
importance of addressing hardrock mine hazards, we cannot support this
bill because it is inconsistent with the President's FY 2011 Budget
proposal to limit SMCRA payments to high priority coal sites.
The FY 2011 President's Budget includes a proposal to focus AML
funds on the high priority coal reclamation sites in order to ensure
that the most hazardous issues can be addressed before the AML fee
expires. In addition to terminating unrestricted payments to certified
states and tribes, the proposal will require all noncertified states to
use their funding only for high priority coal reclamation projects.
background
Through SMCRA, Congress established OSM for two basic purposes.
First, to ensure that the Nation's coal mines operate in a manner that
protects citizens and the environment during mining operations and to
restore the land to beneficial use following mining. Second, to
implement an Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program to address the hazards
and environmental degradation created by two centuries of weakly
regulated coal mining that occurred before SMCRA's enactment.
Title IV of SMCRA created an AML reclamation program funded by a
reclamation fee assessed on each ton of coal produced. The fees
collected have been placed in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund
(Fund). OSM, either directly or through grants to States and Indian
tribes with approved AML reclamation plans under SMCRA, has been using
the Fund primarily to reclaim lands and waters adversely impacted by
coal mining conducted before the enactment of SMCRA and to mitigate the
adverse impacts of mining on individuals and communities. Also, since
FY1996, an amount equal to the interest earned by and paid to the Fund
has been available for direct transfer to the United Mine Workers of
America Combined Benefit Fund to defray the cost of providing health
care benefits for certain retired coal miners and their dependents.
Section 402(a) of SMCRA fixed the reclamation fee for the period before
September 30, 2007, at 35 cents per ton (or 10 percent of the value of
the coal, whichever is less) for surface-mined coal other than lignite,
15 cents per ton (or 10 percent of the value of the coal, whichever is
less) for coal from underground mines, and 10 cents per ton (or 2
percent of the value of the coal, whichever is less) for lignite. As
originally enacted, section 402(b) of SMCRA authorized collection of
reclamation fees for 15 years following the date of enactment (August
3, 1977); thus, OSM's fee collection authority would have expired
August 3, 1992. However, Congress extended the fees and fee collection
authority through September 30, 1995, in the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 extended the
fees through September 30, 2004. A series of short interim extensions
in appropriations and other acts extended the fees through September
30, 2007.
The AML reclamation program was established in response to concern
over extensive environmental damage caused by past coal mining
activities. Before the 2006 amendments, the AML program reclaimed
eligible lands and waters using the Fund, which came from the
reclamation fees collected from the coal mining industry. Eligible
lands and waters were those which were mined for coal or affected by
coal mining or coal processing, were abandoned or left inadequately
reclaimed prior to the enactment of SMCRA on August 3, 1977, and for
which there was no continuing reclamation responsibility under State or
other Federal laws.
SMCRA established a priority system for reclaiming coal problems.
Before the 2006 amendments, the AML program had five priority levels,
but reclamation was focused on eligible lands and waters that reflected
the top three priorities. The first priority was ``the protection of
public health, safety, general welfare, and property from extreme
danger of adverse effects of coal mining practices.'' The second
priority was ``the protection of public health, safety, and general
welfare from adverse effects of coal mining practices.'' The third
priority was ``the restoration of land and water resources and the
environment previously degraded by adverse effects of coal mining
practices.''
As originally established, the Fund was divided into State or
Tribal and Federal shares. Each State or tribe with a Federally
approved reclamation plan was entitled to receive 50 percent of the
reclamation fees collected annually from coal operations conducted
within its borders. The ``Secretary's share'' of the Fund consisted of
the remaining 50 percent of the reclamation fees collected annually and
all other receipts to the Fund, and was allocated into three shares as
required by the 1990 amendments to SMCRA. First, OSM allocated 40% of
the Secretary's share to ``historic coal'' funds to increase
reclamation grants to States and Indian tribes for coal reclamation.
However, all the funds which were allocated may not have been
appropriated. Second, OSM allocated 20% to the Rural Abandoned Mine
Program (RAMP), operated by the Department of Agriculture. However,
that program has not been appropriated AML funds since the mid-1990s.
Last, SMCRA required OSM to allocate 40% to ``Federal expense''
funds to provide grants to States for emergency programs that abate
sudden dangers to public health or safety needing immediate attention,
to increase reclamation grants in order to provide a minimum level of
funding to State and Indian tribal programs with unreclaimed coal
sites, to conduct reclamation of emergency and high-priority coal sites
in areas not covered by State and Indian tribal programs, and to fund
OSM operations that administer Title IV of SMCRA.
States with an approved State coal regulatory program under Title V
of SMCRA and with eligible coal mined lands may develop a State program
for reclamation of abandoned mines. The Secretary may approve the State
reclamation program and fund it. At the time the 2006 amendments were
enacted, 23 States received annual AML grants to operate their approved
reclamation programs. Three Indian tribes (the Navajo, Hopi and Crow
Tribes) without approved regulatory programs have received grants for
their approved reclamation programs as authorized by section 405(k) of
SMCRA.
Before the 2006 amendments, States and Indian tribes that had not
certified completion of reclamation of their abandoned coal lands could
use AML grant funds on noncoal projects only to abate extreme dangers
to public health, safety, general welfare, and property that arose from
the adverse effects of mineral mining and processing and only at the
request of the Governor or the governing body of the Indian tribe.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Amendments of 2006
were signed into law as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of
2006, on December 20, 2006 (Public Law 109-432). The 2006 amendments
revised Title IV of SMCRA to make significant changes to the
reclamation fee and the AML program. One change extended OSM's
reclamation fee collection authority through September 30, 2021. The
statutory fee rates were reduced by 10 percent from the current levels
for the period from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2012, and an
additional 10 percent from the original levels for the period from
October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2021.
The Fund allocation formula was also changed. Beginning October 1,
2007, certified States are no longer eligible to receive State share
funds. Instead, amounts that would have been distributed as State share
for fee collections for certified States are distributed as historic
coal funds. The RAMP share was eliminated, and the historic coal
allocation is further increased by the amount that previously was
allocated to RAMP.
Since 2006, the Department has interpreted the language of SMCRA
section 411(h) to require that OSM use grants to provide funds to
eligible States and Indian tribes and to preclude noncertified states
and Indian tribes from using funds that they receive under that section
for noncoal reclamation.
s. 2830
Under SMCRA, states can use some of the AML funds they receive for
non-coal reclamation. S. 2830 would amend SMCRA to allow noncertified
states and tribes to use their mandatory funds received under Section
411(h)(1) from their unappropriated AML Fund balance for reclamation
activities on non-coal mine sites. Noncertified states and tribes can
already use the funds they receive from the ``state share'' and
``historic coal'' formulas for non-coal reclamation.
When Secretary Salazar appeared before the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources to testify about the FY 2011 President's Budget for
the Department of the Interior, he noted that in developing a balanced
budget request for FY 2011, tough choices had to be made. The budget,
in addition to eliminating unrestricted payments to certified states,
also proposes limiting the use of AML payments to priority coal
reclamation projects. The Department cannot support S.2830 because it
is inconsistent with the Fiscal Year 2011 budget.
In an effort to focus the AML program on coal reclamation before
the reclamation fee terminates, the President's FY 2011 budget proposes
to restrict the use of AML funds by noncertified states to high
priority coal reclamation. Because S.2830 is inconsistent with the
Administration's goal of ensuring expeditious coal reclamation, we
cannot support this bill.
While we recognize the dangers that abandoned hard rock mines can
pose, AML funding needs to be focused on the highest priority problems
Congress originally identified in 1977. The challenging economic
conditions, coupled with this Administration's commitment to fiscal
responsibility, only heighten the need for AML funds to be devoted to
the highest priority coal problems. We note that the administration has
continued to invest in AML, both through the Bureau of Land Management
and National Park Service American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 funding and the FY 2011 President's Budget to address hardrock
mine reclamation on Federal Lands.
We share your concern about non-coal abandoned mine sites and would
be happy to share the expertise gained administering SMCRA and work
with the Congress and this committee as we seek to address abandoned
non-coal mine problems.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee
today and testify on this bill. I look forward to working with the
Subcommittee to ensure that the Nation's abandoned mine lands are
adequately reclaimed.
s. 2963
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 2963, the Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness Act. The
Department supports the goals of S. 2963, which would bring into
Federal ownership certain lands along the John Day River in Oregon, and
designate those lands and adjacent public lands as wilderness. However,
we would like to work with Senator Wyden and the Committee on several
concerns and to make adjustments to the legislation as discussed below.
background
Congress recognized the rugged beauty of the John Day River in
central Oregon by designating it as a wild and scenic river in 1988
(Public Law 100-557). Last year, we built on the success of that
designation when President Barack Obama signed into law Public Law 111-
11, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. Title I, Subtitle
J, of that Act provided for a series of land exchanges and the
designation of the Spring Basin Wilderness in Wheeler County along the
east bank of the middle reaches of the John Day River.
Along the western bank of the John Day Wild and Scenic River, just
to the south of Spring Basin Wilderness, are some equally outstanding
lands proposed to become the Cathedral Rock Wilderness. The lands
planned for designation range from the cliffs and canyons along the
river heading westerly to steep rolling hills punctuated by rocky
escarpments. Wagner Mountain is located in the center of the proposed
wilderness and is the highest point in the area. The geology is
dominated by ancient volcanics, composed of andesite flows, plugs, and
domes. The entire area is covered in rhyolite ash-flows which produce
dramatic red, white, and buff colored soils. Hunters and hikers alike
enjoy the breathtaking scenery as well as the resident mule deer and
elk populations, while rafters brave the John Day's rapids. Cultural
sites showcase prehistoric fossils, stone tools, and rock art.
Four miles to the southwest of the Cathedral Rock region is the
proposed Horse Heaven Wilderness. The name reflects Oregon's pioneer
past when the flawless grasslands of the areas were a closely guarded
secret. Today that secret is out and a wide range of recreationists
enjoy the area's many opportunities. At more than 4,000 feet, Horse
Heaven Mountain serves as a worthy centerpiece to a diverse landscape
illustrating Oregon's high and low countries. Traveling south, rolling
plains and steep terrain dominate the area; to the west, Muddy Creek is
the area's lone perennial stream. Prairie steppes throughout connect
hearty shrubs and woodlands that demonstrate steadfast resolve to
thrive in the rocky soil.
s. 2963
S. 2963 provides for the establishment of two new wilderness areas
to become components of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
The bill also provides for the exchange of lands between three private
parties and the Federal government which would allow the consolidation
of fragmented land patterns, and provide for two coherent wilderness
areas. Should the land exchanges be completed, the additional land
would greatly enhance the wilderness quality and manageability of the
two areas proposed for wilderness.
Section 4 of the bill outlines a series of land exchanges with
three private parties. Under section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the
authority to undertake land exchanges that are in the public interest.
Exchanges allow the BLM to acquire environmentally-sensitive lands
while transferring public lands into private ownership for local needs
and the consolidation of scattered tracts. In principle, the BLM
supports the land exchanges envisioned by S.2963; however, we would
like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee to
address a number of specific concerns. Foremost among these concerns is
the need to assess whether all of the lands proposed for acquisition
merit management for wilderness values, and provide for public access
and enjoyment of these lands.
The lands proposed for exchange out of Federal ownership are
largely scattered sections of public land intermingled with private
land. The BLM in Oregon has not had an opportunity to fully assess
these lands (nearly 7,500 acres) to determine if they are appropriate
for disposal or if there are significant impediments to transfer out of
Federal ownership. The BLM believes that there may be cultural resource
sites that could raise serious concerns or require mitigation. We
recommend that the legislation allow the Secretary to withdraw specific
lands from the exchange if any serious impediments are discovered.
Likewise, while the BLM is generally aware of the resource values
on the private lands to be acquired by the Federal government, the BLM
in Oregon would like the opportunity to analyze these lands more
closely. Furthermore, the legislation should also ensure that all non-
Federal parties are responsible for the remediation of any human safety
concerns or hazardous materials on the lands to be exchanged out of
present ownership.
The BLM supports the provisions of the bill requiring that all
three exchanges be equal value exchanges, and that the appraisals be
undertaken consistent with Uniform Appraisal Standards. We recommend
minor modifications to the language to make it consistent with FLPMA.
Section 3 of S. 2963 proposes to designate Cathedral Rock
Wilderness and Horse Heaven Wilderness on the lands that would be
consolidated under the land exchanges envisioned by section 4 of the
bill. When those land exchanges are completed, the Cathedral Rock
Wilderness would include nearly 8,700 acres of public land and the
Horse Heaven Wilderness nearly 7,800 acres. The BLM could manage these
areas as wilderness following the exchanges, assuming that the
exchanges occur and that the private lands exhibit wilderness
characteristics. It should be noted that absent the largest exchange
envisioned under S. 2963, these areas would be impracticable for the
BLM to manage as wilderness. That proposed exchange with ``Young Life''
involves the core of both the proposed Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven
wilderness areas. As previously noted, the BLM would like time to
evaluate the proposed non-Federal parcels for wilderness
characteristics.
The current land patterns of both the proposed Cathedral Rock and
Horse Heaven Wilderness Areas are extremely fragmented. The BLM manages
approximately 4,700 acres in seven non-contiguous parcels within the
Cathedral Rock area and less than 3,000 acres in two separate parcels
within Horse Heaven. The land exchanges are, of course, optional for
the three private parties. If, in the end, the largest private land
owner decided not to pursue the exchange, managing the wilderness areas
would be extremely difficult given the fragmented nature of the BLM
landholdings in these two areas. The BLM encourages the Committee and
the sponsor to address these concerns before moving the legislation
forward. One option may be for the bill to designate these lands as
``potential wilderness,'' which would automatically become wilderness
when the necessary exchanges are completed.
Additionally, the BLM would like to work with the sponsor and the
Committee on boundary adjustments and management language modifications
as is routine in such proposed designations. Specifically, the BLM
would like to discuss boundary modifications to assure public access to
the proposed wilderness areas and to make the areas manageable as
wilderness.
Finally, S. 2963 envisions the land exchanges under the legislation
being completed within two years of the date of enactment. Because of
the complicated nature of the exchanges as envisioned by the bill, two
years would very likely be insufficient time to complete the
transactions.
conclusion
The proposed Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness areas could
be outstanding additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System
if the critical exchanges envisioned by the legislation are completed.
We look forward to working with Senator Wyden and the Committee toward
that end.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Ms. Owens.
I was remiss, and I hope you will accept my apologies. I
didn't properly introduce you. You are Glenda Owens. You are
the Deputy Director at the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, Department of the Interior.
Thank you again for taking the time to come up to the Hill.
Mr. Roberson, if you would, for the record, would you just
state your name and your title and your responsibilities,
please?
Mr. Roberson. Yes, sir. I am Ed Roberson, the Assistant
Director for Renewable Resources and Planning in the Bureau of
Land Management, Department of Interior.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you for that.
Senator Wyden, do you have questions? I will recognize
myself for 2 questions.
Let me start, Ms. Owens, with you, given that you just
shared your testimony with us. As I understand it, ever since
the passage in 1977 of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, finally known as SMCRA, that it allowed the
use of abandoned mine land funds for the reclamation of high-
priority non-coal abandoned mines.
The previous administration interpreted the amendments that
were passed in 2006 to preclude the use of AML funds by States
for non-coal mine cleanup, despite the fact the topic was never
debated and there was no expressed congressional intent to
cutoff the funding. S. 2830 would set this straight and clarify
that States and tribes can continue to use these funds for non-
coal reclamation.
Given the serious problems that these non-coal abandoned
mine sites pose to public health and safety, particularly in my
State of Colorado and Chairman Bingaman's State of New Mexico,
I think certainly in the eastern reaches of the great State of
Oregon, why would the administration oppose the bill?
Ms. Owens. Senator Udall, we do recognize the dangers that
are posed by hard rock mine, abandoned mine sites. However,
this administration feels--believes that the abandoned mine
funds should be focused on the cleanup of coal reclamation, the
initial intent of Congress in 1977 when the SMCRA was enacted.
Senator Udall. I understand wanting to hew closely to what
you think the intent of the law was. But as I understand it,
the States since that time, which is now over 30 years, did use
some of those funds for the non-coal mine cleanup work that
certainly is very, very necessary in States like mine.
So we will continue to have this discussion, obviously. I
will reserve the right on behalf of the committee and the
chairman to extend questions to you and the agency over the
next couple of weeks before we close the hearing record.
Ms. Owens. Certainly. Certainly.
Senator Udall. Let me turn to Secretary Sherman. Senator
Barrasso touched on a lot of the questions that I had and I
think Senator Wyden would have had as well. I know he is going
to enter some additional questions for the record, but I wanted
to direct this question.
I am concerned about future forest conditions, as well as
current forest conditions. If we do nothing about this
epidemic--I think that is an appropriate term--that is, I mean
prioritize treatments and harvest the stands of dead trees to
reduce threats of harm and fire in emergency areas like my bill
would accomplish and, just as important, manage our forests, we
could be right back here with another epidemic of this size and
scope.
Do you agree, and is the Forest Service taking steps to
help produce a healthier, more sustainable future forest?
Mr. Sherman. Senator Udall, there is no question that we
need to look to what the future forests of our country will
look like, and they may look different than the forests of
today. We have to recognize that climate change is a factor,
and we have to recognize in certain areas there will be less
precipitation, warmer temperatures, and so forth.
So we are looking at ways to diversify the species in given
forests. We are looking at ways of diversifying the age classes
of these forests so that we don't have a single, monolithic age
class. We are looking at ways of reducing the density of some
of these forests because they simply don't have the carrying
capacity to serve all of the vegetation that they currently do.
So I think the forests of the future will look different.
We have a very significant research arm within USDA and
within the Forest Service to try to answer these types of
questions. As we go forward with these efforts to restore our
forests, we are going to have to focus on what do we want to
encourage and what types of vegetation, how would they vary
from what have previously existed?
But this is an interesting and a complicated issue. But it
is an issue that certainly has our attention, and we are
working on it.
Senator Udall. Thank you for sharing those approaches with
us.
I know Senator Wyden represents the second most beautiful
State in the Nation. It goes without saying what I represent.
But there is a beautiful area around Bend. The Cascades are a
place in which I have had many adventures and skied and
mountain biked and hiked. I am thinking the Bend ecosystem is
probably similar to the one in the front range of Colorado,
which is Ponderosa-like forests, which have become thicker and
thicker, clogged with the dog-hair trees. But we have grown up
thinking that is what a natural and healthy forest looks like.
So as part of what I think the Forest Service has to do is
educate the public as to what a healthy forest looks like, the
mosaic patterns that you referenced, the more grasses and
shrubs, biomass in more diverse forms than just in the woody
biomass that makes up Ponderosas or lodgepoles or other tree
species. Is that also on your list to work with the public and
explain to us and educate us?
Mr. Sherman. Yes. I think a public education campaign here
is vitally important. Interestingly, our use of prescribed fire
is going to be one of the tools that we look to to determine
what the future of forests in this country look like.
But you are right. People need to understand what a healthy
forest does look like, and I think part of that clearly is the
thinning of these forests, giving larger canopies a chance to
exist within the forest. But again, I am very pleased with the
research effort going on within USDA to focus on this issue. It
is an important issue.
Senator Udall. Yes. I think we all hold the goal of
returning fire to our forests in the low-intensity, ground-
level way that it has historically operated.
I know I have gone through my own evolution of learning
from scientists like Dr. Kaufmann up at CSU as to the key role
forest fire has played in our ecosystems. We want to reach a
point where that kind of fire returns to our forests, but
without great threats and significant threats to our watershed
sheds and our human-built environment.
Senator Risch has joined us, my co-sponsor in the bill we
are discussing. Senator, I would be happy to yield time to you
if you have had a chance to gather your thoughts.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am honored to co-sponsor this bill with you. Probably
before I got here, you spent some time talking about the
conditions that have brought about the situation that we have.
The Intermountain region is a region that is dry anyway, and we
went through a series of years where we had back-to-back
droughts.
Things have gotten better. In fact, we have actually had a
couple, a few good years in there. But that doesn't make up for
the back-to-back droughts that we have. The situation that we
have is we have large--we have some expansive stands of
lodgepole pine that grow in what I think most people in America
would classify as a semi-arid condition.
Since we didn't have the moisture, the trees were not
able--trees obviously are attacked every year by bugs or by
bark beetles, and generally, a healthy tree doesn't have a lot
of trouble. They have lived with it for centuries, and they
pitch the beetle out. But when you have a drought situation,
they can't pitch the beetle out. The result, of course, the
tree gets girdled, and we have large, expansive stands of
lodgepole pine.
When I was Governor, we had--of course, we have fires every
year. But that particular summer, we went out to look at them,
and the particular route we took was over what is called the
Stanley basin in Idaho. I have to tell you, I was shocked at
seeing the expanses. It looked almost like a fire had gone
through, but no fire had gone through. But there were just
expansive stands of this lodgepole pine that are suffering from
this.
So something has to be done. Like I said, we have gone
through some wetter years, although this winter again is going
to put us in a drought situation. But this bill, hopefully,
will address that situation. I am honored to co-sponsor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. I want to thank again Senator Risch. He and
I have an excellent working relationship. Us westerners hang
together, whether we are Rocky Mountain westerners or we are
far westerners like Senator Wyden.
Senator Risch. On a lot of things.
Senator Udall. On a lot of things.
With that, let me thank the panelists, and you are excused,
and we will call up the second set of panelists.
[Paused.]
Senator Udall. We will call Mr. Reinhardt forward as well.
Welcome to all of you. Let me briefly introduce each of you.
Before I do that, though, I wanted to briefly express my regret
that our hearing that was scheduled for March 23rd was
canceled. But I know that we all very much appreciate each of
you making a second trip to testify here in Washington.
We have been joined by--in no particular order, but Forrest
Reinhardt. He is president of Venture Beyond, based in Coto de
Caza, California. Gregory Conrad, with the National Association
of Abandoned Mine Land Programs and Executive Director of the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, based in Herndon,
Virginia. The Honorable Dan Gibbs, Colorado State Senator,
Senate District 16, Denver, Colorado, who happens to be my
State senator. Dominik Kulakowski, who is a Ph.D., assistant
professor, School of Geography, Clark University.
I think you say it ``Wooster,'' Massachusetts. Is that
right? I maybe didn't pronounce your name----
Mr. Kulakowski. ``Woostah''.
Senator Udall. Worcester, Massachusetts. But it is really
appreciated that you are here today.
I have a bit of a tight schedule. So I am going to exercise
a prerogative as the chair and ask the 2 Coloradoans or I
should say the two witnesses that I asked to appear today to
testify and then, if the chairman is willing, extend some
questions to those 2 witnesses. Then, Mr. Conrad and Mr.
Reinhardt, we certainly do want to hear your testimony as well.
So we will start with Dr. Kulakowski. Would you please
share your thoughts with us within about a 5-minute timeframe?
We look forward to hearing what you have to say.
STATEMENT OF DOMINIK KULAKOWSKI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, CLARK
UNIVERSITY, WORCESTER, MA
Mr. Kulakowski. Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Chairman Udall,
and Senator Risch, members of the committee.
My name is Dominik Kulakowski, and I thank you for the
opportunity to be here today.
I have been conducting research on the interactions between
outbreaks of bark beetles and fires for over a decade. During
that time, I have worked as a research scientist at the
University of Colorado, and I am now a professor at Clark
University in Massachusetts, where I continue this line of
research. My testimony is based on the findings of my own
research and on the research of other scientists.
First of all, it is important to recognize that the Rocky
Mountains are being affected by the largest outbreak of bark
beetles in recorded history. The extensive areas of dead trees
have understandably led to widespread concern about forest
health and about the risk of wildfires.
However, the vast majority of scientific studies have found
that fire risk does not increase following outbreaks of spruce
beetle or mountain pine beetle. Consider the following
examples.
Following a major outbreak in Colorado in the 1940s, there
was substantial concern about the increased risk of fire. But
although over 300 fires occurred in that region in the decades
that followed, our research found that these fires were no more
likely to have occurred in beetle-affected forests.
Similarly, after a large fire burned in Wyoming in 1994,
another group of researchers found that stands of lodgepole
pine that had been affected by beetles prior to the fire did
not burn more severely compared to adjacent areas of forests.
Yet another recent study by a different group of
researchers examined fuel conditions in lodgepole pine for 35
years following the outbreaks and concluded that the
probability of active crown fire does not increase following
the outbreaks, even when the red needles are still on the
trees. This list goes on and on.
To understand these scientific findings, which may seem
counterintuitive, we need to consider that in any given
ecosystem, either fuels or climate will be limiting to the
occurrence of wildfire.
The emerging scientific view is that in the vast majority
of forests that are currently being affected by beetles, there
is no shortage of flammable material, regardless of outbreaks.
Therefore, changes in fuels following outbreaks are not as
important a fire risk as we may think.
In most cases, changes in fuels brought about by outbreaks
are overridden by climatic and weather conditions to the point
that the effect of outbreaks does little or nothing to increase
the risk of fire.
There is compelling scientific evidence that outbreaks have
little or no effect on the risk of wildfire in these forests.
There is also compelling evidence that drought conditions have
a major effect on the risk of wildfires. Over the past decades,
we have seen an increase in large fires that have been
associated with drought conditions.
Furthermore, numerous scientific studies have concluded
that large and severe fires have occurred in these forest types
for centuries and that these fires have occurred during periods
of drought.
Over the past decades, firefighters have been using an
extraordinary amount of resources and have been taking
extraordinary risks to try to control wildfires--not because
those fires have resulted from bark beetle outbreaks, but
because they have occurred during drought conditions. It is
climate we should be focusing on if we want to assess and
mitigate fire risk in lodgepole pine and spruce forests.
If conditions are dry enough, then the risk of fire is
likely to be high. If conditions are not dry enough, then the
risk of fire is not likely to be high, regardless of the effect
of outbreaks.
Unfortunately, as a Nation, we are increasingly building
our homes in fire-prone ecosystems. Doing so is like building
our homes in floodplains. We may be lucky for a while, but
eventually the flood will come.
Scientific research concludes that reducing flammable
material in the wildland-urban interface, especially in the
immediate vicinity of structures, and using nonflammable
building materials is the most effective way to protect
structures against fire damage. Pine branches touching wooden
decks are much more relevant a fire risk than is the structure
of remote forests. Replacing wooden shingles with a metal roof
will do much more to protect a home than treating all beetle-
affected forests in the Rocky Mountains.
Although ongoing outbreaks have understandably led to
widespread concern about the increased risk of fire, the best
available science indicates that outbreaks of mountain pine
beetle and spruce beetle do not increase the risk of fire in
most types of forests. Now ongoing outbreaks have not increased
the risk of wildfire as much as they have drawn attention to
the risk that has been there long before the outbreaks began.
My concern is that by focusing treatments in remote forest
areas, we will be using up limited funds and resources while
still leaving homes and communities at risk to wildfire. Doing
so would be like beginning surgery on a patient before first
having the correct diagnosis. We will not address the real
problem, and we may do more harm than good.
We do need to protect our homes and communities from the
risk of wildfire, but the best way of doing so is by removing
flammable material from their immediate vicinity and by using
fire-resistant building materials, not by modifying forest
structure in remote areas that have been affected by beetles.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kulakowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dominik Kulakowski, Assistant Professor, Clark
University, Worcester, MA
Chairman Wyden, Senator Barrasso, members of the Committee: My name
is Dominik Kulakowski. I have been conducting research on the
interactions between outbreaks of bark beetles and fires for over a
decade. During that time I have worked as a research scientist at the
University of Colorado and I am now a professor at Clark University in
Massachusetts where I continue to pursue this line of research. I have
authored numerous scientific papers on this topic and have contributed
to three major scientific literature reviews related to bark beetle
outbreaks, the most recent of which is attached as supporting material
with my testimony. I have also peer-reviewed numerous related
scientific studies and research proposals of other scientists. My
testimony is based on the findings of my own research and on the
research of other established scientists. My goal is to summarize the
best available science on the relationship between beetle outbreaks and
fire risk and on associated mitigation efforts.
1. Outbreaks and the risk of fire
First of all it is important to recognize that the Rocky Mountain
region is being affected by the largest outbreak of bark beetles in
recorded history. The extensive areas of dead trees have understandably
led to real concern about forest health and the risk of wildfires.
However, these concerns need to be informed by the best available
science to ensure that our responses do not have unintended ecological
consequences with potentially undesirable effects. The vast majority of
scientific studies have found that fire risk does not increase
following outbreaks of spruce beetle or mountain pine beetle and some
studies actually have reported a decrease in fire risk following
outbreaks. In contrast, only a couple of studies have reported a minor
increase in fire risk following outbreaks and the certainty of some of
those conclusions was hindered by complications in the research design.
Thus, the premise, such as that contained in S. 2798, that outbreaks
increase the risk of fire is not consistent with the general
conclusions of the scientific work on this topic. Consider the
following examples.
Following a major outbreak of spruce beetle in Colorado in the
1940s, there was substantial concern about the increased risk of fire.
But although over 300 fires occurred in that region in the decades that
followed, our research found that the forests that had been affected by
beetles were no more likely to have burned than other forests.
Furthermore, no major fires occurred in those beetle-affected forests
in the years and decades that followed the outbreak despite the
abundance of dead trees. The most likely explanation for this lack of
large severe fires is that climatic conditions in these spruce-fir
forests are a greater factor in determining fire risk than is the
presence of dead trees. In fact, it was not until a severe drought in
2002 that a large fire affected these forests and during that year
there were many wildfires in Colorado, the majority of which burned
forests with no recent history of outbreaks.During the drought of 2002,
wildfires also burned some forests in northern Colorado that were being
attacked by beetles at that time. It has been hypothesized that the
risk of fire may increase during and immediately after outbreaks of
bark beetles when the dry red needles are still on the trees. However,
our research found that those ongoing outbreaks affected neither the
extent nor severity of fires, most likely because changes in fuels
brought about by outbreaks were overridden by climatic and weather
conditions.
Similarly, after a large fire burned in Yellowstone National Park
in 1994, another group of researchers found that stands of lodgepole
pine that had been affected by beetles prior to the fire did not burn
more severely compared to adjacent areas of forests that had not been
affected by beetles. Yet another recent study by a different group of
researchers examined fuel conditions for 35 years following outbreaks
in lodgepole pine forests and concluded that, depending on wind
conditions, the probability of active crown fire either does not change
or actually decreases following outbreaks. Numerous other independent
studies have also concluded that the risk of fire does not increase
following outbreaks and may decrease in some situations.
To understand these scientific findings, which may seem counter-
intuitive, we need to consider that (1) bark beetles affect fuels in
several ways and (2) several factors are necessary for the occurrence
of wildfires. Recent research indicates that reductions in canopy
density following outbreaks are actually more important to fire risk
than are increases in dead fuel. In other words, beetle-killed trees
rapidly lose their needles and this reduces the amount of potentially
flammable material in the canopy. In contrast, live trees have dense
canopies which are instrumental in the spread of wildfire. Second, and
most importantly, in any given ecosystem either fuels or climate will
be limiting to the occurrence of wildfire. The emerging scientific view
is that fuels are not limiting to the occurrence of fires in the vast
majority of forest types that are currently being affected by beetles
in the western United States. In other words, in forests dominated by
lodgepole pine and Engelmann spruce there is no shortage offlammable
material, even in the absence of beetle outbreaks. These forests are
characteristically dense and during droughts the risk of severe
wildfire will be high, regardless of outbreaks. In fact climate is so
important to fire risk that the effects of outbreaks appear to have
comparatively little or no influence.
2. Climate and the risk of fire
There is compelling evidence that outbreaks have little or no
effect on the risk of wildfires in these forests. There is also
compelling evidence that drought conditions have a major effect on the
risk of wildfires. Over the past decades we have seen an increase in
large fires that have been associated with drought conditions.
Furthermore, using various scientific methods numerous research groups
have examined the history of lodgepole pine and spruce forests over the
past centuries and have concluded that large and severe fires are the
norm in these types of forests and that such fires have historically
occurred during periods of droughts. This has been the case long before
Colorado and Oregon were states and even before the United States was a
country.
Over the past decades fire fighters have been using an
extraordinary amount of resources and have been taking extraordinary
risks to try to control wildfires--not because those fires have
resulted from bark beetle outbreaks, but because they have occurred
during drought conditions. It is climate that we should be focusing on
if we want to assess and mitigate fire risk. If conditions are dry
enough then the risk of fire is likely to be high and if conditions are
not dry enough then the risk of fire is not likely to be high,
regardless of the effect of outbreaks. Although lodgepole pine and
spruce forests that are made up of live green trees may appear not to
be flammable, the fact is that during drought conditions the risk of
wildfire can be extremely high.
An important corollary of the fact that large and severe fires are
the norm in these ecosystems is that fire hazard mitigation in these
forests should not be mistaken for forest restoration. Although it may
not be socially desirable, the occurrence of severe fires during
drought in these forests is not abnormal, and instead represents the
characteristic function of these ecosystems.
3. Strategies for reducing fire risk to homes, communities and public
safety
Unfortunately, as a nation, we are increasingly building our homes
in fire-prone ecosystems. Doing so is like building our homes in
floodplains--we may be lucky for a while, but eventually the flood will
come. Recent scientific research on fire hazard mitigation concludes
that the greatest priority should be given to the wildland-urban
interface, especially in the immediately vicinity of homes--an area
known as defensible space. Forest Service experts point to a 40-meter
zone (about 122 feet) around the home that determines a home's
ignitability. Reducing flammable material in the immediate vicinity of
structures and replacing flammable building materials such as wooden
decks with non-flammable alternatives has beenshown to effectively
protect structures against fire damage. Likewise, as beetle-killed
trees are likely to fall more often than live trees, strategically
removing hazard trees in and around campgrounds, recreation areas, and
certain infrastructure where property is at risk is integral to
protecting public safety.
By design, traditional timber harvest is focused on producing
economically valuable timber and wood fiber and not on reducing fire
severity. This type of harvest will do little to reduce fire risk at
any scale if it primarily removes large trees, because smaller trees,
brush and branches often are the major carriers of a spreading fire. In
fact, stands that had been harvested but in which small, non-
merchantable material had not been removed prior to the 2002 Hayman
fire in Colorado actually burned more severely than stands that had not
been harvested. To be effective at reducing fire hazard to communities,
tree-cutting must be executed in a way that removes all flammable
material (not just economically valuable timber) and must be located in
the immediate vicinity of homes and settlements. Treating forest lands
far from communities is not likely to reduce the risk of fire to homes
and neighborhoods.
Overall, it is going to be much less expensive, more effective and
less ecologically damaging to focus fire-hazard reduction efforts
around communities and homes than it would be to try to make a
wholesale modification of forest structure over large landscapes. Pine
branches touching wooden decks are much more relevant to fire risk than
is the structure of remote forests. Replacing wooden shingles with a
metal roof will do much more to protect a home than treating all
beetle-affected forests in the Rocky Mountains. My concern is that by
focusing treatments in remote forests, we will be using up limited
funds and resources while leaving homes and communities at risk of
wildfire. Doing so would be like beginning surgery on a patient before
first having the correct diagnosis--we will not address the real
problem andwe may do more harm than good.
4. Preventing outbreaks
If a bark beetle infestation is relatively small and concentrated
in a limited area, it may be feasible to reduce the population growth
of beetles by removing infested trees from a forest stand or by
thinning a stand to reduce stress on trees competing for limited
nutrients, sunlight and moisture. For example, if a small stand of
spruce is blown down by a windstorm and populations of bark beetles
begin growing in fallen logs, then it may be feasible to remove all
fallen, infested trees over a small area. However, given the climatic
requirements for beetle population levels to reach epidemic levels, it
is not known whether such a situation would lead to an outbreak. In
other words, a small population of beetles is not sufficient for an
extensive outbreak to occur. Conversely, under climatic conditions
favorable for an outbreak, such as those of the past decade, outbreaks
of bark beetles can erupt simultaneously in numerous dispersed stands
across the landscape. Unfortunately, even if one growing population of
beetles is successfully removed from one stand, under outbreak
conditions beetles from other stands are likely to spread over the
landscape. Given that climate typically favors beetle populations and
stresses trees over very large areas, it is unlikely that all
populations of beetles over an extensive region could be successfully
identified and removed.
5. Conclusion
Although ongoing outbreaks understandably have led to widespread
public concern about increased fire risk, the best available science
indicates that outbreaks of mountain pine beetle and spruce beetle do
not lead to an increased risk of fire in the vast majority of forests
that are currently being affected. We should not let the effects of
bark beetle outbreaks, as spectacular as they may be, distract us from
the real risk. The real concern in that we have built homes,
communities, ski resorts, and other infrastructure in inherently
flammable ecosystems. The ongoing outbreaks have not increased the risk
of wildfire as much as they have drawn attention to the risk that has
been there long before the outbreaks began. Forests of lodgepole pine
and spruce-fir are prone to high-severity fires during drought
conditions, regardless of the influence of bark beetle outbreaks.
There is a need to take effective steps to protect public safety
and especially to protect homes and communities from fire risk that is
associated with drought conditions. The best way of doing so is by
removing flammable material from the immediate vicinity of homes and
communities and by using fire resistant building materials, not by
modifying forest structure in remote areas that have been affected by
outbreaks. The former approach would be less expensive, much more
effective at protecting public safety interests, and consistent with
the best available science.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Doctor.
Let me turn again to my State senator, Senator Gibbs. He
has also been joined here, I should say, in Washington by
Representative Christine Scanlan. Their districts overlap. In
our State, Senator Risch, it is one State senator per 2 State
representatives, give or take.
But I think the fact that they are both here shows the
importance of this concern that is increasingly surfacing in
the great State of Colorado, and I want to thank Senator Gibbs.
Senator Risch. Senator Udall, my senator in Idaho promises
me lower taxes and more services. Does your senator?
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. He does as well. He does as well. I will
leave him to explain how he is going to do that. But again, I
want to thank Senator Gibbs for his passion and commitment and
great knowledge on this topic.
Senator Gibbs, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN GIBBS, COLORADO STATE SENATOR, SENATE
DISTRICT 16, DENVER CO
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman Udall, Mr. Chairman Wyden,
Ranking Member Barrasso, Senator Risch, members of the
committee. It is a great honor to come before you today.
My name is Dan Gibbs. I am a Colorado State senator, and it
is a great honor to have my friend and colleague,
Representative Christine Scanlan, with us here today, who has
been a great champion on forest health issues throughout
Colorado.
In addition to being a Colorado State senator, I am also a
Type 2 wildland firefighter and Summit County's wildfire
mitigation specialist. I have fought fires in Colorado and
California, and I have seen firsthand the difference between
fires in an area where lands have been proactively managed and
those that have not.
Over the last 10 years, I have witnessed a transformation
of our forests in the counties I represent. In Grand County,
which gives rise to the headwaters of the Colorado River, a
source of water and life for major cities and many western
States, most of the lodgepole pine trees are dead. The bark
beetle epidemic is changing Colorado and the West.
This transformation is immediately apparent to anyone
spending time in our national forests. Visitors in my State
often remark about the mountainsides of red trees, and I have
to tell them because it is all dead. The mountain pine beetle
has already killed 2.9 million acres of trees in Colorado.
Current estimates indicate that every lodgepole pine tree will
be dead within a decade.
The vast swaths of dead timber create fire threats and
danger from falling trees. These risks create concerns for
communities throughout the West, such as drinking water,
critical infrastructure, wildlife, tourism, and recreation. In
response, local, State, and Federal agencies, as well as
private businesses, have joined together to address the growing
devastated areas and threats they present.
For example, Colorado has adopted a number of innovative
strategies, including the creation of public-private
partnerships and cross-jurisdictional forest management
techniques. But the costs of forest treatment and utilizing the
woody material is high and represents a major challenge. In my
view, this represents an emergency. It requires immediate
action and more careful land management.
In the short term, the top priority needs to be the removal
of hazard trees and ensuring that sufficient fire suppression
resources are available when a fire does occur. The long-term
response should be an emphasis on producing a future forest
that contains greater age and species diversity and is more
resilient.
Unfortunately, resources are limited. That is why myself
and Representative Scanlan are pleased that Chairman Udall and
Senator Risch have introduced the National Forest Insect and
Disease Emergency Act of 2009. Let me explain how these
provisions would help Colorado's emergency situation.
No. 1, the bill would designate insect and disease
emergency areas. In Colorado, the Forest Service has identified
15 counties that are experiencing significant mortality from
the bark beetles. Throughout the West, the Forest Service has
identified 66 counties and similar levels of mortality that
present a serious risk of fire of hazard trees.
No. 2, the bill prioritizes treatments in these emergency
areas to reduce threats from dead trees and promote forest
health. In the area in Colorado that I represent, which would
also be designated as emergency areas, this would provide
significant assistance to protect communities from fire and
other threats I have mentioned.
No. 3, this bill would benefit Colorado by the use of
Biomass Crop Assistance Program funds to help assist with the
collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of biomass
material.
No. 4, this bill would benefit Colorado by utilizing the
streamlined national environmental policy provisions within the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act for treatment projects in
emergency areas.
No. 5, this bill would benefit Colorado by permanently
authorizing the good neighbor authority for all western States.
Many communities in my region are working cooperatively to
reduce the threats of non-Federal public lands, but the
provision would also help make this work for non-Federal land
effective.
No. 6, this bill would permanently authorize stewardship
contracting. There are many projects in Colorado that would
benefit from this innovative technique.
Finally, this bill would not diminish or affect the right
of private property owners. Such concerns are prevalent in the
West, and this bill would make sure that private property
rights are protected.
These provisions would provide tangible and important
assistance to reduce the emergency threat of massive wildfires
and help promote a healthier, more sustainable forest. We in
Colorado, like many other western States, are doing our part at
the State and local level to help, but we need the assistance
of this bill to augment these efforts and make them effective.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbs follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dan Gibbs, Colorado State Senator, Senate
District 16, Denver CO
Thank you Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso, members of the
committee. It is a great honor to come before you today. My name is Dan
Gibbs, I'm a Colorado State Senator. I have with me Colorado State
Representative Christine Scanlan, who is a long-time resident of Summit
County Colorado and has worked hard to help Western lands and
communities respond to forest health issues.
Over the last ten years, we've witnessed a transformation of our
forest in the counties we represent. In Grand County, which gives rise
to the headwaters of the Colorado River--a source of water and life for
major cities and many western states--most of the lodgepole pine trees
are dead.
The bark beetle epidemic is changing Colorado and the West. This
transformation is immediately apparent to anyone spending time in the
national forests. Visitors to our state often remark about the
mountainsides of red trees, and we have to tell them it's because they
are all dead.
The Mountain Pine Beetle has already killed 2.9 million acres of
trees in Colorado. Current estimates indicate that every lodgepole pine
tree in the state will be dead within a decade. The vast swath of dead
timber creates fire threats and danger from falling trees. These risks
create concerns for communities throughout the west, such as drinking
water, critical infrastructure, wildlife, tourism, and recreation.
In response, local, state and federal agencies as well as private
businesses have joined together to address the growing devastated areas
and the threats that they present. For example, Colorado has adopted a
number of innovative strategies, including the creation of public-
private partnerships and cross-jurisdictional forest management
techniques. But the cost of forest treatment and utilizing the woody
material is high and represents a major challenge.
In our view this represents an emergency. It requires immediate
action and more careful land management. In the short term, the top
priority needs to be the removal of hazard trees, and ensuring that
sufficient fire-suppression resources are available when a fire does
occur. The long-term response should be an emphasis on producing a
future forest that contains greater age and species diversity and is
more resilient.
Unfortunately resources are limited. That's why we are pleased that
Sen. Udall and Sen. Risch have introduced the National Forest Insect
and Disease Emergency Act of 2009.
Let us explain how the provisions of this bill will help Colorado's
emergency situation.
First, the bill would designate Insect and Disease Emergency Areas.
In Colorado, the Forest Service has identified 15 Counties that are
experiencing significant mortality from bark beetles. Throughout the
west, the Forest Service has identified 66 counties with similar levels
of mortality that present a serious risk of fire and/or hazard trees.
Second, the bill prioritizes treatments in these emergency areas to
reduce threats from the dead trees and promote forest health. In the
area of Colorado that we represent, which also would be in designated
emergency areas, this would be of significant assistance to protect
communities from fire and the other threats I have mentioned.
Third, the bill authorizes the use of Biomass Crop Assistance
Program funds to help to assist with the collection, harvest, storage,
and transportation of biomass material. It also allows vegetation
removed from these emergency areas on National Forest Service land to
be eligible for the incentives as a renewable fuel.
Fourth, the bill allows the use of the streamlined National
Environmental Policy Act provisions of the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act for treatment projects in emergency areas. In my region, this would
significantly reduce the costs and delays in getting urgently needed
projects underway and completed.
Fifth, the bill would permanently authorize the ``Good Neighbor
Authority'' for all western states. Many communities in my region are
working cooperatively to reduce the threats on non-federal public
lands. This provision would help make this work on non-federal land
effective.
Sixth, the bill would permanently authorize ``stewardship
contracting.'' There are many projects in Colorado that would benefit
from this innovative contracting option. As the bill makes these more
effective, we can stretch limited resources and get more projects
underway and completed.
Finally, the bill would not diminish or affect the right of private
property owners. Such concerns are prevalent in the west, and this bill
makes sure that private property rights are protect.
These provisions would provide tangible and important assistance to
reduce the emergency threat of large-scale wildfires and help promote a
healthier, more sustainable forest. We in Colorado, like many other
western states, are doing our part at the state and local level to
help. But we need the assistance of this bill to augment these efforts
and make them effective.
the nature of the emergency
Many dead tree stands pose grave threats to Colorado's growing
mountain communities and vital assets. Today, 1 million Coloradans live
in the wildland-urban interface, where homes are adjacent to grasslands
or forest.
In 2008, within the five-county epicenter of the infestation:
12 incorporated municipalities were within impacted forest,
and another 11 adjacent to forest lands.
28 incorporated municipalities that derive most of their
drinking water from sources that flow through dead and dying
forests.
2,000 miles of roadways, including many sole evacuation
routes, jeopardized by dead trees.
1,500 miles of hiking and biking trails spanning three
national forests that are in danger of closure this year.
52 emergency communications sites at risk.
The Colorado River, which supplies seven western states and
major metropolitan areas including Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix
and Southern California with fresh drinking water.
633 miles of electrical transmission lines and 1,300 miles
of electrical distribution lines--including major lines that
feed power to the entire western United States--at-risk from
falling trees and fire.
Tens of millions of people across the west depend on the
electricity that travels across impacted lands, and most everyone in
the country depends on the water that flows downstream from Colorado,
and the food that water is used to grow. Let us make no mistake: the
bark beetle epidemic poses an immediate threat to the United States'
national security.
The impact of a regional power and communications network failure
resulting from fire would be catastrophic to the entire western United
States. According to the TriState Generation and Transmission
Association, if just one dead lodgepole collapses on the wrong
transformer or power line, it could cause a fire that initiates an
uncontrolled cascading power outage in Colorado and neighboring states.
According to Colorado State Forester Jeff Jahnke, the bark beetle
affects more than 100 miles of WAPA, Tristate, Platte River Power
Authority and Xcel transmission lines and an uncalculated number of
smaller distribution lines. Electricity generation in western Colorado
must cross many high-elevation areas to serve Front Range energy
demands, and high-voltage transmission lines can be forced out of
service by smoke or damaged from the extreme heat of wildfires.
Shutting down transmission lines can threaten power in Denver and other
Front Range communities, areas throughout Colorado, and neighboring
states. More than 500 miles of high voltage transmission corridors--
WAPA has a over 350 in USFS Region 2 being addressed in the joint EIS
Xcel and Tristate have at least another 150--in both Colorado and
southern Wyoming can be affected. And the number of miles of lower
voltage distribution lines serving Colorado mountain communities is
even greater. A cascading power outage would, at the very least, cost
billions of dollars to correct.
The threat to our water is equally significant. The Colorado
River's headwaters are located in Colorado, and an estimated 75 percent
of the Colorado River's total flow originates in the state. The river's
tributaries and transmountain diversions--which cut through thousands
of bark beetle-infested areas--serve nearly two million people in
Colorado, and tens of millions across the west. Access to the river,
which provides millions of acre feet of fresh water annually for
agriculture, recreation and drinking in 13 western states, could be
crippled by a severe wildfire stemming from Colorado's tinder-dry
lodgepoles. If the Colorado River became overburdened with refuse from
a fire, the cost to the upper and lower basin states' recreation
economies, and the country's agricultural system, is incalculable.
A fire originating from beetle killed forests would likely burn
incredibly hot, increasing the potential for scorched earth. In turn,
forest regeneration would take longer due to the destruction of organic
matter, increased erosion and flood, and debris flows into our fresh
water supplies--including the Colorado River--would greatly expand.
This type of devastation is not unknown: the Hayman Fire, which burned
more than 138,000 acres along the Front Range in 2002 caused millions
of dollars in damage to Denver's water supply in particular, and
Colorado's more generally. Indeed, cleanup efforts from the Hayman Fire
requiring ``substantial expenditures'' continue to this day, according
to the utility Denver Water.
Moreover, the specter of danger posed to the west's fresh water
supplies is far greater today than in 2002 when the Hayman Fire
occurred due to the rise in dry and dead forestlands (2.2 million
acres).
Additionally, with expanded urbanization comes an unprecedented
risk to people living in both rural and urban settings. Local
communities also face significant economic concerns, as the loss of
Colorado's scenic landscapes and injury to the state's world-class ski
resorts could eventually cause a decrease in all-important tourism
dollars.
Put plainly, the bark beetle epidemic poses a very real threat to
Colorado's local communities and economies, but also national food and
water supplies, as well as our national security.
local solutions
Colorado lawmakers are committed to fighting the fire threat and
restoring our forests. However, the need has simply outpaced our
financial resources.
Likewise, expanded funding over the past two fiscal years has
improved our ability to prevent fires before they occur, and suppress
fires when they happen. But far more is needed to fulfill our
priorities.
Community strategies for living within disturbance-driven
ecosystems such as the lodgepole pine forests of northern Colorado must
address the reliability and long-term protection of assets critical to
our way of life. Essentially, in such environments policy makers are
required to become more flexible and innovative. At the state level, we
have undertaken vigorous efforts to mitigate the threat with a number
of unique collaborations between state and local government and private
industry.
Our creativity stems from necessity; Colorado possesses very
limited resources to apply toward mitigating the infestation. As such,
we have focused on passing enabling legislation to empower communities
to write comprehensive and integrated fire preparedness plans; to
improve information sharing between state, federal and local agencies;
and to create incentives for private businesses that deforest impacted
areas and utilize those resources.
As the scale of the infestation has clarified, policymakers have
been able to strategically target what were once disparate legislative
efforts. For example, this past legislative session, we passed an
aggressive agenda that originated in a special interim committee. The
integrated legislative package not only emphasized mitigating the
threat, but provided new solutions to assist local and federal
officials' partner more effectively, and to encourage private industry
to take advantage of economic growth opportunities that may exist.
The capstone of the General Assembly's legislative efforts was a
sweeping piece of legislation making $3 million available for a series
of initiatives to combat the epidemic. Moneys from the legislation will
assist mountain and Front Range communities plan for forest health
management activities by: addressing the population centers along the
wildland-urban interface; expanding protection for Colorado's
watersheds, local communities and vital infrastructure; and providing
grants for market-based solutions to reduce the overall threat posed by
wildfire.
This new funding is critical, as we have demonstrated that even
small state investments pay large dividends. Each state dollar receives
a matching amount, so with just $1 million in state funding, we've been
able to treat $5--$6 million in forest land.
This year, additional efforts included the following:
We expanded the incentives to utilize woody biomass for
energy and other purposes.
We directed the Colorado State Forest Service to develop
state standards for certified and uncertified prescribed
burners.
We gave Forest Health Improvement Districts the flexibility
to allow money generated to go toward wildfire mitigation.
Last year:
We provided a 5-year exemption from business personal
property taxes for qualified businesses that remove trees
killed by bark beetles when they assist with forest restoration
efforts on the affected land after the beetle-killed timber is
removed. Also creates a fund to provide start-up money for new
Colorado businesses that process and sell beetle-killed timber
and products.
We expanded the ability of counties to raise money to fight
fires. Specifically, the bill removes the limit on property
taxes that a county can collect--with voter approval--for
forest fire fighting.
We required the state forester to establish guidelines for
Community Wildfire Protection Plans with input from state,
local and federal government officials, and other interested
parties.
We streamlined and clarified the roles of state and local
emergency personnel when fires occur, specifically allowing
sheriffs to develop and update wildfire preparedness plans, and
to specify what information should be included in a plan to be
effective.
federal collaboration
There are 22.6 million acres of forestland in Colorado. Of this
acreage, nearly 70 percent is federally owned, including 49 percent
managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Private landowners oversee an
additional 28 percent. Fire knows no boundaries, so fire management
actions must cross-jurisdictional to be effective.
Areas where expanded partnerships may flourish also exist, but
state and local officials must have the appropriate authority to
venture onto private land when necessary to squelch wild fires.
Likewise, and within reason, private landowners must be empowered to
protect their private land when it abuts state or federal property.
Finally, while the epidemic poses a serious challenge to Colorado,
it also poses a unique economic development opportunity. The blue-
tinged wood from beetle-killed timber creates a desirable aesthetic
effect. If harvested early enough, wood from beetle-killed trees may be
used for a variety of wood products, including furniture. The timber
can also be ground into pellets that can provide a cheap, efficient,
and green source of energy. Biomass can be used for both large-scale
and small-scale power production.
Colorado has passed various laws creating incentives to help foster
this industry. However, we believe that local timber harvesting
contractors and wood processing businesses could still better help with
management solutions if they had a long term guarantee of a viable
market for their products. Additionally, these huge swaths of timber
will only be viable for a discrete period of time, as nature and rot
eventually take their toll on the integrity of the wood.
We would encourage Congress to create a permanent and viable market
by continuing and expanding federal incentives for woody biomass, and
creating a new incentive for other beetle-killed wood products.
conclusion
Colorado has been doing our part in this crisis, and we stand ready
to do more. We have undertaken vigorous efforts to mitigate the threat
with limited resources through a number of unique collaborations
between state and local government and private industry. Still, we are
not able to address the infestation adequately without further help,
and so we applaud Senators Udall and Risch in their effort to reduce
the risk of catastrophic wildfire in America's West with the National
Forest Insect and Disease Emergency Act of 2009.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Gibbs.
I want to turn to Senator Risch in 10 seconds. But I wanted
to point out to my colleagues up here that not only is Senator
Gibbs a committed sportsman and a firefighter, but he also
chairs a full committee in the Colorado State Senate that is
the equivalent of the House of Representatives Transportation
Infrastructure Committee.
So as former State legislators, we know what can happen
when you serve in one of those bodies. So, Senator Risch, the
floor is yours.
Senator Risch. That was very informative, and I think that
probably you point out the counterintuitive thought that,
indeed, the issue of whether fire is going to burn or not is
going to be the local climate conditions at the moment.
I guess I do take a little issue as far as--and I don't
know whether you went this far, but it almost sounded like you
said, well, it doesn't make any difference if the trees are
dead or if they are alive. I probably would beg to differ with
you if that was the conclusion that the studies that you cited
reached.
I think most of us have been in a forest early afternoon or
late afternoon when one of these things get going and come
through like a freight train, you know, if they get a little
wind behind them. It is hard for me to believe that a dead
stand, particularly if it has still got needles on it, won't
burn faster and hotter than a live stand will.
Now I can't help but throw in with the proposition that the
whole thing is going to depend upon what the conditions are at
the moment. But given conditions exactly the same, it is hard
for me to believe that a dead stand isn't going to react more
violently and more quickly than a live stand. I would like your
thoughts.
Mr. Kulakowski. Thank you for that question.
It does seem counterintuitive, and I want to stress that
these conclusions are not only those reached by my own research
group, but by several independent research groups at numerous
different universities.
One thing that may help with this is I am not saying at all
that stands made up of dead trees aren't susceptible to fires
that are very large, very fast moving, and very severe. But
what I am saying is that when we look at a stand of green
trees, especially if that stand is lodgepole pine or spruce,
those forests tend to be very dense. Under drought conditions,
it is very probable that if a wildfire starts, it is going to
move very quickly, be very severe, and be very large.
Actually, as counterintuitive as it may seem, the studies
that have looked at what happens when fires actually do burn in
forests that have even red needles on them, the conclusions are
that, indeed, the fires are no more extensive, no more severe
than in live forests.
A couple of examples. In northern Colorado, we had an
outbreak of spruce beetle that began in the late 1990s. In
2002, there was an extreme drought, and there were extensive
forest fires across northern Colorado. Those fires included
burned areas that were affected by bark beetle outbreaks. When
we analyzed how extensive those fires were and how severe the
fires were, we could not find any influence of the ongoing
outbreaks.
Senator Risch. It is interesting. Does that include the
time of the year also? Because it seems to me, and admittedly,
most fires get going in July or August, but it would seem to
me, particularly in the early part of the year where you had a
green forest--and again, it is hard to compare because it is
finding a site exactly like another site. The only difference
being a dead forest and a live forest would be difficult.
But it would seem to me early in the year where the trees
had a lot of moisture in them in a live forest, that there
would be at least some measurable significant difference
between how a fire would burn under those conditions. Again,
admittedly, based on local conditions. Am I right, or am I
wrong on that?
Mr. Kulakowski. Yes. That is a difficult question to
answer. The studies that I referred to are based on a couple of
different methods. One is when wildfires have actually occurred
in beetle-affected forests, scientists have gone in and
analyzed what has actually happened. As you can imagine, we
don't have the benefit of working with this in a laboratory to
test exactly those types of questions. The other set of studies
have used modeling to predict likely fire behavior in beetle-
affected stands.
There was recently a study out of the University of
Wisconsin in Madison, just came out this past year, that
modeled fire behavior in beetle-affected stands. The
conclusions of the study were very interesting because this
study found that 2 things happen immediately following bark
beetle outbreaks.
One is that the needles turn dry and red, which is what we
all notice. But the second thing that happens almost at the
same time is canopy bulk density is reduced, meaning the canopy
thins out. There is less material in the canopy to burn even in
the year or 2 immediately after that outbreak. Under those
conditions, it is actually the thinning of the canopy that is
brought about by the bark beetle outbreak that is more
important to how wildfires spread than the foliar moisture
content.
Senator Risch. Interesting. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Risch.
I continue to probe what I think are counterintuitive
conclusions that many scientists have drawn, and in that
spirit, I want to follow up with what Senator Risch was asking
you.
At the end of your testimony, you conclude by saying that
the premise of this bill rests on the increased fire threats
posed by the dead trees. I would like to point out that I think
in Senator Risch's and my minds, it rests on the premise that
there is an increased potential for catastrophic damage from
fires that may occur, and I want to make that clarification.
So given that premise, even if the number of fires remain
the same, say, 100 on the Medicine Bow, for example, has the
bark beetle outbreak increased the probability of those 100
fires being hotter, larger, and more potentially
catastrophically damaging to forests, soils, watersheds, and
communities? I want to underline those other elements here--
soils, watersheds, and communities. We have talked a lot about
the forest itself.
A follow-on question. If so, wouldn't fuels treatment
reduce that severity? Doctor, I hope I didn't throw so many
questions at you, it made it more difficult.
Mr. Kulakowski. OK. I will do my best to answer that
question.
Most of the research has examined what happens to fire
risks in the years and decades immediately following outbreaks,
and that body of scientific work has concluded that neither
probability of wildfire nor severity of wildfire are increased
as a result of bark beetle outbreaks.
Again, we can talk about this situation where we have the
red needles on the trees, and we have just discussed that
briefly. But then when we think about what happens after that?
What happens after the needles fall off, the twigs start
falling off? Eventually, we have a situation that is analogous
to trying to set fire to a row of telephone poles. There is
simply nothing in the canopy to carry that wildfire.
So the one thing that I would offer is a little bit
uncertain is what happens several decades into the future when
all of the dead trees fall? So if we have an increased surface
fuel load, what will that mean for the severity of fire?
Senator Udall. I was going to follow up, but I don't want
to cut you off.
Mr. Kulakowski. OK.
Senator Udall. OK.
Mr. Kulakowski. Yes, and that part is, I think, least
certain. There have been fewest scientific inquiries into that
particular question.
Theoretically, we could speculate that the intensity of
that fire could increase as a result of there being more dead
fallen trees. But then the questions we have to ask are what is
the likelihood of those fires reaching the canopy? As you know,
living in Colorado, lodgepole pine forests tend to not have
very much undergrowth. They tend to be fairly open in the
understory, and the canopies, the green parts of the canopies
tend to be high in the trees.
The result of that is that fires that spread on the forest
floor tend to have a hard time reaching the canopy, making that
jump up to the canopy. So an increased intensity of surface
fire doesn't necessarily translate to the probability of ground
fire.
Then, if I can, you had a multipart question. So I think
the last part of it is you asked what kind of mitigation
efforts.
Senator Udall. Wouldn't the fuels treatment perhaps reduce
that severity effect?
Mr. Kulakowski. That is right. Would fuel treatments reduce
the severity of those fires? Here again the thing that is
important to consider, I think, is that not all fuel treatments
are the same. It is important to remember that traditional
timber harvest operations are not intended as fire hazard
mitigation operations. Instead, the built-in goal is to produce
timber and wood fiber.
There have been several studies in recent years that have
looked at the efficacy of timber extraction in reducing
subsequent fire risk. There was one study in Oregon that there
was one initial fire that came through, and then there was a
timber harvest operation. A scientific study into that found
that regeneration of the forest actually decreased following
the salvage operations, and the risk of subsequent fire also
increased.
In Colorado, we had a major forest fire, the Hayman fire.
There, similarly, when a group of scientists examined what
influenced the extent and severity of that fire, again,
unfortunately, the group of scientists concluded that timber
harvests prior to the fire actually increased the severity of
the fire.
So I am not saying it is not--I am not saying that it is
impossible that we can somehow reduce the risk of high-
intensity surface fire. But I think the scientific work that is
out there on the subject would conclude that the way that we
approach timber extraction, especially following disturbance,
isn't very effective at that.
Senator Udall. There are certainly those who would suggest
there is a difference between timber harvesting and fuel
reduction and that those are different ways to think about the
activities that take place in those areas at risk.
I have seen some scientific studies that show that once the
dead trees fall to the ground, to pick up on one of the points
you made, that all of that material creates an increased risk
of hot, dangerous fires. We are going to get this jackstrawed
structure. Specifically, I have seen one report whose lead
author is Michael Jenkins, called ``Bark Beetles, Fuels, Fires,
and Implications for Forest Management in the Intermountain
West''--it is dated 2008--that makes this point. In other
words, makes the point that this material creates an increased
risk of hot, dangerous fires.
Do you believe it would be prudent to address this aspect
of the epidemic, especially around and near homes, communities,
infrastructure, and watersheds, which is really where Senator
Risch and I have focused our efforts and why this bill, we
believe, is so important to protect that vital infrastructure.
Mr. Kulakowski. Yes. I think the most important part of
this bill, Senator Udall, is the concentration around homes and
around communities and around infrastructure. I think here,
even setting aside the question of the effect of bark beetle
outbreaks, the reality is, is that in lodgepole pine forests,
in spruce forests across the Rocky Mountain region, the risk of
wildfire is tied to drought, and we have entered a period of
prolonged drought, which means that the risk of wildfire is
going to be high to those homes and communities, regardless of
bark beetle outbreak.
So I think absolutely, yes, it makes sense to prioritize
treatments around homes, around communities, and around
infrastructure. But I would urge the committee to consider that
those fuel treatments should be conducted regardless of the
effect of bark beetle outbreaks.
Senator Udall. I think Senator Risch and I will continue to
probe your summaries and your conclusions.
Senator Risch. Let me follow up. You know, I am somewhat
familiar with how long a tree will stand after a fire or, for
that matter, after a disease outbreak in red fir, Douglas fir.
But I am not in pine. Is there a study on how long the tree
will stand after it has been killed? A range, obviously. Not an
exact, but a range.
Mr. Kulakowski. Yes. In terms of lodgepole pine, I think
the estimates we heard earlier in the previous panel were
accurate, that the rate of tree fall is very rapid, and I
wouldn't doubt the estimates put forth earlier.
Senator Risch. It would be a shorter period of time than
red fir, I would assume?
Mr. Kulakowski. That I don't know.
Senator Risch. Or cedar. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thanks, Senator Risch.
I will just note for the record, Dr. Kulakowski, we are
going to continue to have this conversation that in the Hayman
Fire, which we are very familiar with in Colorado. It was
devastating. It was also part of a drought cycle. There had
been a prescribed fire called the Polhemus prescribed burn. You
may be familiar with it.
When the Hayman fire reached that prescribed burn area, it
dropped to the ground almost immediately and was one of the
reasons that fire ultimately died out after creating enormous
damage.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, to follow up on that, in
Idaho, when we have a fire, and we always do in the summertime.
The fire boss, when you go into the tent there, will have a map
of the previous fires and where they lie, what year they were,
and all that sort of thing because the fire burns very
differently when it hits an area that has previously either
been harvested or been burned previously.
The rate is very much different, and the fire scientists
that are on the fire will advise based on when that last fire
took place.
Senator Udall. I am tempted to get into a discussion about
fuel load reduction versus the use of prescribed burns, but we
may have to direct those questions to you.
I know Senator Gibbs has to catch an airplane, and I know I
have gone way over my time. I know Senator Wyden is eager to
ask a question. But if I could just ask Senator Gibbs 2 quick
questions, and then I know we are going to excuse you and turn
you loose.
Christine--Representative Scanlan and Senator Gibbs
actually have to be formally excused from being in the
legislature today. I don't know if that is how----
Senator Risch. You can write them a note.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. No, it comes from the speaker of the State
house or the president of the State senate. I have no power in
that regard.
Look, you talked about how the State has been engaged, and
you mentioned how the bill could assist in the State's efforts.
In your view, what threats are the highest priorities that need
to be addressed in the immediate future and over the long term?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Not only as a legislator, but also as a wildland
firefighter, my concerns overall are life, property, and
critical infrastructure for the areas I represent. You know, I
would say I think the priority should be in areas where people
live.
In Colorado, we have about 1 million Coloradoans that live
within the wildland-urban interface, where the homes meet the
forested areas. I represent communities that are heavily
dependent on tourism. So I think that we need to look at the
campgrounds, for example. We have had some that have closed
down.
We heard from Under Secretary Harris Sherman earlier that
he reflected that every day there could be 100,000 trees that
are coming down. When you represent areas that are heavily
dependent on tourism, and I have nine ski resorts in my
district, that is problematic, to say the least.
I feel like the folks I represent want action right now,
and I really think that, Chairman, your bill and Senator
Risch's bill would really help achieve what we are missing at
the Federal level, and that is really a long-term approach. I
think making stewardship contracts permanent is very positive.
I represent areas where folks literally live right on the
boundaries of U.S. Forest Service lands. So making good
neighbor authorities permanent is crucial as well. So you can
have that agreement with a land owner, as well as working with
a State forest service or a Federal Forest Service to really be
proactive in taking care of defensible space. I think that
should be a major priority.
So, those are some components. But I think really your
bills will be really positive reflecting that.
Senator Udall. Senator Gibbs, you imply and you actually
were explicit in mentioning the private sector can play an
important role in responding to this as well. Did you want to
make any further comments about how the private sector might
help us respond?
Mr. Gibbs. Most definitely. I mean, we need the private
sector. In Colorado, we are losing our timber mills. In my
district, we have Confluence Energy, which makes wood pellets.
I mean, this is an amazing opportunity to turn a negative into
a positive with creating biomass and actually creating energy,
homegrown energy.
But what is unfortunate is Confluence Energy is shut down
right now. We also have Rocky Mountain Pellet Company, which is
up in Walden in Jackson County, which is shut down right now.
The cost of shipping, especially lodgepole pine where the value
is minimal because we are really looking at small-diameter tree
stands, but the structural integrity is there if harvested
within about a 5- to 10-year timeframe.
There could be great opportunities. We could even make
cellulosic ethanol out of bark beetle kill. So, I do think
there are great opportunities. But I mean, I am here before you
today. But in 5 or 10 years, if I come back, and just imagine
2.9 or 3 million acres throughout the Rocky Mountain West, and
those trees are coming down. You will have your constituents
banging on your door, urging for emergency action right away.
In my opinion, there will be fires in the future.
Depending on if those needles are still intact on those
lodgepole pine trees, the fire severity may be different, and
it may be easier to start a fire and may be harder once the
needles come down. But I really think that we are dealing with
an emergency situation right now. Not tomorrow, but right now.
But I am really hopeful that we can help turn a negative into a
positive with potentially creating jobs out of something really
negative right now.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Gibbs.
I want to thank the chairman for being so gracious and
giving me the opportunity to chair the committee, to sit here
patiently while Senator Risch and I really dove into this
important topic, which also does affect the State of Oregon.
Senator Gibbs, I know you have got to catch a plane. I want
to excuse you. Dr. Kulakowski, hopefully, you can stay because
I think Senator Wyden may well have some questions.
Again, thank you to the other 2 panelists for your
patience.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. [presiding]. OK. Thank you. Look forward to
working with you and our colleague from Idaho on this important
measure.
Forrest Reinhardt, let us welcome you. You have been an
integral voice of Young Life's Washington Family Ranch for a
long, long time, working on public lands management. You have
put an extraordinary amount of time into work in John Day, with
the stakeholders on our legislation, S. 2963.
To you, Mr. Conrad, welcome. Thank you both for your
patience. Why don't we say we will put your prepared remarks in
the record in their entirety. I apologize for the hectic nature
of this afternoon. So we will put your remarks into the record
in their entirety, Mr. Reinhardt, and for you, Mr. Conrad.
I think for both of the witnesses from Colorado, we can
excuse you both at this time. So we will consider you liberated
as well, and we thank you both.
Mr. Reinhardt, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF FORREST REINHARDT, PRESIDENT, VENTURE BEYOND, COTO
DE CAZA, CA
Mr. Reinhardt. Chairman Wyden and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for allowing us to submit testimony
regarding S. 2963 on behalf of Young Life, Derby-Smith
Partners, and the Oregon Natural Desert Association.
Since the testimony has been submitted as written, I will
just address one small subset in my oral testimony. You did a
wonderful job of eloquently and briefly summarizing the
benefits of this multifaceted proposal.
I wanted to note that we strongly support the proposal's
equal-value land exchange between the BLM and the 3 neighboring
land owners outlined in section 4 of the act. This
consolidation will enhance the BLM's ability to effectively
manage the area as wilderness and avoid conflicts between
public and private land use.
It provides access to over 7,000 acres of the BLM lands
previously inaccessible to the public, establishes new
trailheads for camping, hiking, horseback riding, and secures
access to backcountry campsites on nearly 4 miles of the John
Day Wild and Scenic River.
Despite our strong support, we are concerned that the
language in section 4 of the bill might be implemented in a way
that does not meet the intent of the diverse stakeholders who
have forged this effort. Specifically, there are 4 parcels
adjacent to the Cathedral Rock area that are proposed for
exchange from BLM to Young Life and Derby-Smith Partners as
part of the equal-value exchanges.
It is our concern that the BLM may ultimately choose to
retain and develop the parcels in a way that compromises the
private land use instead of solving current problems of private
lands trespass as envisioned in the act, which simply
exacerbate the current problems.
As such, we respectfully request that you include language
in section 4 of the bill that prioritizes the conveyance of
these 4 parcels by the Secretary upon completion of the
exchange. We would welcome the opportunity to work with your
office on this important issue. It is our hope that such
language will ensure that the implementation of the act is
consistent with the intent of the various supporters.
Chairman Wyden, thank you again for allowing me to be here
to testify and being invited. We strongly support the
legislation. We look forward to working with your staff and
committee to finalize the bill that will consolidate land
management and permanently protect Cathedral Rock and Horse
Heaven as wilderness.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reinhardt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Forrest Reinhardt, President, Venture Beyond,
Coto de Caza, CA
Chairman Wyden and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding Senate Bill 2963 on behalf of
Young Life, Derby-Smith Partners and the Oregon Natural Desert
Association also known as ONDA. ONDA is a 1,400 member non-profit
organization whose mission is to protect, defend and restore Oregon's
high desert. Young Life is one of the largest Christian youth
organizations in the United States and serves tens of thousands of
children every year. Young Life and Derby-Smith Partners both own lands
immediately adjacent to the proposed Wilderness areas. We are thankful
for the support of Senators Wyden and Merkley in developing legislation
to permanently protect Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven as federally-
designated wilderness areas.
Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven are natural treasures that merit
permanent protection as Wilderness. Located on the John Day Wild and
Scenic River, the proposed Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven wilderness
areas are a tapestry of rolling hills, providing spectacular vistas of
the river and the surrounding landscape. This unique wild area offers a
profusion of desert wildflowers in the spring, along with recreational
opportunities for boaters, hikers, horseback riders, hunters,
botanists, and other outdoor enthusiasts. The area also provides
valuable habitat for a variety of wildlife including Rocky Mountain
elk, cougars, mule deer, bobcats, mountain bluebirds, prairie falcons
and golden eagles.
The fragmentation of public and private lands is an enduring
problem in the John Day basin. Because land ownership often looks like
a checkerboard, it is not clear when you're on the ground where public
land ends and private land begins. This creates confusion about access
and inevitably results in management conflicts such as trespass and
illegal hunting on private lands.
The proposal considered today is the work of diverse interests
including neighboring landowners, county government officials,
conservationists, and recreationists. As such the proposal accomplishes
several important objectives including the: 1) permanent protection of
Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven as Wilderness, 2) consolidation of land
ownership that will improve public and private land management, and 3)
improved access to public lands.
The land exchanges and proposed Wilderness boundaries of these
areas were set up in a way that greatly expands public access while
respecting the needs of neighboring private landowners. The adjacent
landowners are willing to work with BLM staff to ensure they have the
access that they need to administrate the areas, even if that means
occasionally crossing through private lands. Due to the historic
confusion created by the fragmented parcels, this does mean that one of
the two areas, the nearly 8,000-acre Cathedral Rock area, will be
accessed only via the John Day River. This is not a new concept in the
region. All three wilderness study areas located downstream of
Cathedral Rock, including Northpole Ridge, Thirtymile, and Lower John
Day, are also exclusively accessed by the river. In fact, the greatest
demand on public lands in the John Day basin is for recreational use on
the river corridor. Thousands of boaters and anglers float this stretch
of the river every year. The Cathedral Rock proposal will expand public
ownership by over four miles along the John Day River and thus open up
a dozen new river campsites to the public.
At the same time, the nearby Horse Heaven proposed wilderness area
consolidates over 8,000 acres in a way that will provide clearly-marked
boundaries and two trailheads for parking and associated camping areas.
This will create additional hiking and hunting opportunities and do so
in a way that minimizes conflicts between public and private lands. It
is the combination of the Horse Heaven and Cathedral Rock areas--one
that features roaded access and another that features river access--
that makes this a winning proposal.
We strongly support the proposed equal-value land exchanges between
the BLM and three neighboring land owners outlined in Section 4 of the
Act. This consolidation will enhance the BLM's ability to effectively
manage the area as wilderness and avoid conflicts between public and
private land use. It provides access to over 7,000 acres of BLM lands
previously inaccessible to the public, establishes new trailheads for
camping, hiking and horseback riding, and secures access to backcountry
campsites on nearly four miles the John Day Wild and Scenic River.
Despite our strong support, we are concerned that the language in
Section 4 of the bill might be implemented in a way that does not meet
the intent of the diverse stakeholders who have forged this effort.
Specifically, there are four parcels adjacent to the Cathedral Rock
area that are proposed for exchange from the BLM to Young Life and
Derby-Smith Partners as part of the equal-value land exchanges. It is
our concern that the BLM may ultimately choose to retain and develop
the parcels in a way that compromises private land use and, instead of
solving current problems of private lands trespass as envisioned in the
Act, would simply exacerbate current problems. As such, we respectfully
request that you include language in Section 4 of the bill that
prioritizes the conveyance of these four parcels by the Secretary upon
completion of the exchange. We would welcome the opportunity to work
with your office on this important issue. It is our hope that such
language will ensure that the implementation of the Act is consistent
with the intent of the various supporters.
It is important to note that as part of the exchange proposal,
Young Life has agreed to conservation easements on any lands found to
have cultural values. As part of a long-term plan to protect and
preserve cultural resources, Young Life has agreed to sign a memorandum
of understanding for the inventory of and access to cultural resources.
The easement language has been prepared in collaboration with the
Oregon State Historic Preservation Society and the Prineville District
BLM. The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation is the
proposed easement grantee.
We believe that this proposal represents the kind of solutions that
are possible when diverse stakeholders come together to solve problems.
You need look no further than the numbers to see the public benefits of
this proposal. Prior to the exchange, the public can access 9,112 acres
of their land via roads or the John Day River. Through this proposal,
public access will be expanded to 16,484 acres. That nearly doubles the
amount of public access in the area. Likewise, instead of the public
having access to small chunks or narrow swaths of land that are not
currently usable for activities such as hunting and hiking, the public
will have access to two large blocks of land, each totaling several
thousand acres. This is a win for Oregonians and we hope you will lend
your support.
Chairman Wyden, we thank you for introducing Senate Bill 2963. We
strongly support the legislation and we look forward to working with
your staff and the Committee to finalize a bill that will consolidate
land management and permanently protect Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven
as Wilderness.
That concludes my testimony. Thank you for your consideration of
this bill.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, and thank you for all
your leadership with the Young Life effort. Very exciting. I
will have some questions in a moment.
Mr. Conrad, welcome. I know you have been an awfully
patient soul this afternoon, and we thank you for it.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY E. CONRAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERSTATE
MINING COMPACT COMMISSION (IMCC), HERNDON, VA
Mr. Conrad. As a grandfather helping to raise 3
grandchildren, I have learned that patience is a virtue.
Senator Wyden. You are used to it. Very good.
Mr. Conrad. Good afternoon.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here before the
subcommittee to present our views on S. 2830. I am appearing
today on both behalf of the Interstate Mining Compact
Commission and the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
Programs. The 30 States and tribes represented by these 2
organizations strongly support this important amendment to
Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act,
otherwise known as the Abandoned Mine Lands program.
In testimony we presented to the committee on July 14 of
last year at a legislative hearing on reform of the 1872 mining
law, we noted that, nationally, abandoned mine lands continue
to have significant adverse effects on people and the
environment. As State and tribal governments, we continue to
aggressively pursue programs and partnerships to address hard
rock AML problems through a variety of State and Federal
funding sources.
For States with active coal mining operations within their
borders, the most consistent source of AML funding has been the
title IV grants under the Surfacing Mining Act. Section 409 of
the act allows States to use these grants at high-priority non-
coal AML sites, and that work is generally limited to
safeguarding hazards to public safety, such as closure of mine
openings.
In December 2006, Congress amended title IV of the Surface
Mining Act to, among other things, distribute certain AML funds
to States in an amount equal to those previously allocated
under SMCRA but never appropriated. However, while section 409
was not changed or amended in any way, the Interior Department,
through both a Solicitor's Opinion and Final Rule has now
interpreted SMCRA to prohibit this enhanced funding from being
used for non-coal projects.
This is a significant blow to States such as New Mexico,
Utah, and Colorado that have previously used SMCRA AML funds to
address many of the more serious hard rock AML problems. At
stake for these States is about $9 million annually, and
without access to these funds, New Mexico will have to forego
an average of 200 non-coal AML closures each year. Colorado
will have to postpone some 350 closures, and Utah will have to
shelve upwards of 500 closures.
As was noted in Chairman Bingaman's remarks introducing S.
2830, the bill would remedy the Interior Department's
unfortunate interpretation of the 2006 amendments, and as such,
we strongly support the bill. That interpretation not only
disregards the fact that section 409 was left unamended by
Congress, it also is inconsistent with assurances repeatedly
given to the States and tribes by OSM during the consideration
of the legislation that non-coal work could continue to be
undertaken with these AML funds.
The interpretation would also have the unacceptable result
of requiring States and tribes to devote funds to lower-
priority coal sites while leaving dangerous non-coal sites
unaddressed.
OSM has argued that prior balance replacement funds are
fundamentally distinct from section 402(g) moneys distributed
from the fund. This, according to OSM, is due to the fact that
these prior balance replacement funds are paid from the U.S.
Treasury and have not been allocated under section 402(g)(1).
This is a distinction of convenience and has no basis in
reason or law. The fact is these funds were originally
allocated under section 402(g)(1), are due and owing pursuant
to the operation of that section, and did not change their
color simply because they are paid from a different source.
Without the operation of section 402(g)(1) in the first place,
there would be no unappropriated State and tribal share
balances.
Furthermore, there was never an intent to condition or
restrict the previously approved mechanisms and procedures that
States and tribes were using to apply these moneys to high-
priority coal and non-coal problems. To change the rules based
on such a clever invention is inappropriate and inconsistent
with law.
The urgency of advancing this legislation has been
heightened, Mr. Chairman, by statements in OSM's proposed
budget for fiscal year 2011. Therein, OSM is proposing to
further restrict the ability of States to expend AML funds on
non-coal reclamation projects. This will apparently occur as
part of a legislative proposal that the administration intends
to aggressively pursue in the 111th Congress.
We are uncertain exactly what OSM has in mind with respect
to this aspect of the legislative proposal, but we suspect it
has to do with clarifying the very issue that is the subject of
S. 2830. For all we know, it could be even further reaching.
For the same reasons that Congress needs to clarify this
misinterpretation for non-coal AML work, it should also do so
for the acid mine drainage, or AMD, set-aside program. Section
402(g)(6) has, since 1990, allowed a State or tribe to set
aside a portion of its AML grant in a special AMD abatement
account to address this pervasive problem.
We therefore urge the committee to amend S. 2830 to correct
the current policy interpretation by Interior and allow the use
of unappropriated State and tribal share balances for the AMD
set-aside.
In support of our position on S. 2830, we also request that
you include for the record the attached resolution adopted by
the western Governors that urges the continued use of funds
collected or distributed under title IV of SMCRA for the
reclamation of high-priority, hard rock abandoned mines.
Thanks for the opportunity to submit this statement today.
We look forward to working with the subcommittee to further
this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conrad follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory E. Conrad, Executive Director, Interstate
Mining Compact Commission (IMCC), Herndon, VA
My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I serve as Executive Director of
the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC). I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to present our
views on S. 2830, a bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to clarify that uncertified States and
Indian tribes have the authority to use certain payments for certain
noncoal reclamation projects. I am also appearing today on behalf of
the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs. Both
organizations strongly support this critical amendment to SMCRA.
The Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) is an organization
of 24 states located throughout the country that together produce some
95% of the Nation's coal, as well as important hardrock and other
noncoal minerals. Each IMCC member state has active mining operations
as well as numerous abandoned mine lands within its borders and is
responsible for regulating those operations and addressing mining-
related environmental issues, including the reclamation of abandoned
mines. Over the years, IMCC has worked with the states and others to
identify the nature and scope of the abandoned mine land problem, along
with potential remediation options.
The NAAMLP is a tax-exempt organization consisting of 30 states and
Indian tribes with a history of coal mining and coal mine related
hazards. These states and tribes are responsible for 99.5% of the
Nation's coal production. All of the states and tribes within the
NAAMLP administer abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation programs funded
and overseen by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) pursuant to Title IV
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA, P.L. 95-87).
In testimony we presented to the Committee on July 14th of last
year at a legislative hearing on reform of the 1872 Mining Law, we
noted that nationally, abandoned mine lands continue to have
significant adverse effects on the environment. Some of the types of
environmental impacts that occur at AML sites include subsidence,
surface and ground water contamination, erosion, sedimentation,
chemical release, and acid mine drainage. Safety hazards associated
with abandoned mines account for deaths and/or injuries each year.
Abandoned and inactive mines, resulting from mining activities that
occurred over the past 150 years, are scattered throughout the United
States. The sites are located on private, state and public lands.
Over the years, several studies have been undertaken in an attempt
to quantify the hardrock AML cleanup effort. In 1991, IMCC and the
Western Governors' Association completed a multi-volume study of
inactive and abandoned mines that provided one of the first broad-based
scoping efforts of the national problem. Neither this study, nor any
subsequent nationwide study, provides a quality, completely reliable,
and fully accurate on-the-ground inventory of the hardrock AML problem.
Both the 1991 study and a recent IMCC compilation of data on hardrock
AML sites were based on available data and professional judgment. While
the data is seldom comparable between states due to the wide variation
in inventory criteria, they do demonstrate that there are large numbers
of significant safety and environmental problems associated with
inactive and abandoned hardrock mines and that remediation costs are
very large.
Across the country, the number of abandoned hardrock mines with
extremely hazardous mining-related features has been estimated at
several hundred thousand. Many of the states and tribes report the
extent of their respective AML problem using a variety of descriptions
including mine sites, mine openings, mine features or structures, mine
dumps, subsidence prone areas, miles of unreclaimed highwall, miles of
polluted waterways, and acres of unreclaimed or disturbed land. Some of
the types of numbers that IMCC has seen reported in our Noncoal Mineral
Resources Survey and Report and in response to information we have
collected for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others
include the following gross estimated number of abandoned mine sites:
Alaska--1,300; Arizona--80,000; California--47,000; Colorado--7,300;
Montana--6,000; Nevada--16,000; Utah--17,000 to 20,000; New York--
1,800; Virginia--3,000 Washington--3,800; Wyoming--1,700. Nevada
reports over 200,000 mine openings; New Mexico reports 15,000 mine
hazards or openings; Minnesota reports over 100,000 acres of abandoned
mine lands and South Carolina reports over 6,000 acres.
What becomes obvious in any attempt to characterize the hardrock
AML problem is that it is pervasive and significant. And although
inventory efforts are helpful in attempting to put numbers on the
problem, in almost every case, the states are intimately familiar with
the highest priority problems within their borders and also know where
limited reclamation dollars must immediately be spent to protect public
health and safety or protect the environment from significant harm. In
this regard, we reference a statement we submitted to your Committee on
December 22, 2008 regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) and the potential for funding AML cleanup projects to create
green jobs and stimulate the economy.
Today, state agencies are working on hardrock abandoned mine
problems through a variety of limited state and federal funding
sources. Various federal agencies, including the Environmental
Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, Army
Corps of Engineers and others have provided some funding for hardrock
mine remediation projects. These state/federal partnerships have been
instrumental in assisting the states with our hardrock AML work and, as
states take on a larger role for hardrock AML cleanups into the future,
we will continue to coordinate with our federal partners. However, most
of these existing federal grants are project specific and do not
provide consistent funding. For states with coal mining, the most
consistent source of AML funding has been the Title IV grants under the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Section 409 of
SMCRA allows states to use these grants at high priority non-coal AML
sites. The funding is generally limited to safeguarding hazards to
public safety (e.g., closing mine openings) at hardrock sites.
In December 2006, Congress significantly amended the SMCRA AML
program to, among other things, distribute funds to states in an amount
equal to that previously allocated under SMCRA but never appropriated.
However, while Section 409 was not changed or amended in any way, the
Interior Department, through both a Soliticor's Opinion (M-37014) and
rule (73 Fed. Reg. 67576), has now interpreted SMCRA to prohibit this
enhanced funding from being used for noncoal projects. This is a
significant blow to states such as New Mexico, Utah and Colorado that
have previously used SMCRA AML funds to address many of the more
serious hardrock AML problems.
As you noted in your remarks introducing S. 2830, Mr. Chairman,
your bill would remedy the Interior Department's unfortunate
interpretation of the 2006 Amendments and as such we strongly support
the bill.. That interpretation not only disregards the fact that
section 409 was left unamended by Congress, it is also inconsistent
with assurances repeatedly given to the states and tribes by OSM during
the consideration of the legislation that noncoal work could continue
to be undertaken with these AML funds. The interpretation would also
have the unacceptable result of requiring states and tribes to devote
funds to lower priority coal sites while leaving dangerous noncoal
sites unaddressed. While OSM will argue that this may impact the amount
of funding available to uncertified states to address high priority
coal problems, Congress did not seem overly concerned with this result
but rather deferred to its original framework for allowing both high
priority coal and noncoal sites to be addressed.
In its final rule implementing the 2006 amendments to SMCRA (at 73
Fed. Reg. 67576, et seq.), OSM continued to abide by its argument that
``prior balance replacement'' funds (i.e the unappropriated state and
tribal share balances in the AML Trust Fund) are fundamentally distinct
from section 402(g) moneys distributed from the Fund. This, according
to OSM, is due to the fact that these prior balance replacement funds
are paid from U.S. Treasury funds and have not been allocated under
section 402(g)(1). This is a distinction of convenience for the
Interior Department's interpretation of the 2006 Amendments and has no
basis in reason or law. The fact is, these funds were originally
allocated under section 402(g)(1), are due and owing pursuant to the
operation of section 402(g)(1), and did not change their ``color''
simply because they are paid from a different source. Without the
operation of section 402(g)(1) in the first place, there would be no
unappropriated (i.e. ``prior'') state and tribal share balances. The
primary reason that Congress appears to have provided a new source for
paying these balances is to preserve a balance in the AML Trust Fund to
1) generate continuing interest for the UMW Combined Benefit Trust Fund
and 2) to insure that there was a reserve of funding left after fee
collection terminates in 2021 to address any residual high priority
historic coal problems. There was never an intent to condition or
restrict the previously approved mechanisms and procedures that states
and tribes were using to apply these moneys to high priority coal and
noncoal problems. To change the rules based on such a clever invention
is inappropriate and inconsistent with law.
The urgency of advancing this legislation has been heightened, Mr.
Chairman, by statements in OSM's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2011.
Therein, OSM is proposing to further restrict the ability of states to
expend AML funds on noncoal reclamation projects. This will apparently
occur as part of a legislative proposal that the Administration intends
to aggressively pursue in the 111th Congress. While the primary focus
of that proposal will be the elimination of future AML funding for
states and tribes that are certified under Title IV of SMCRA (which we
adamantly oppose), OSM's explanation of its proposal also contains the
following language: ``Similarly, the proposal will require that
payments to noncertified States are only used for high-priority coal
problems.'' We are uncertain exactly what OSM has in mind with respect
to this aspect of the legislative proposal, but we suspect it has to do
with clarifying the very issue that is the subject of S. 2830. For all
we know, it could be even farther reaching.
For the same reasons that Congress needs to clarify this
misinterpretation for noncoal AML work, it should also do so for the
acid mine drainage (AMD) set aside program. Section 402(g)(6) has,
since 1990, allowed a state or tribe to set aside a portion of its AML
grant in a special AMD abatement account to address this pervasive
problem. OSM's recent policy (and now regulatory) determination is
denying the states the option to set aside moneys from that portion of
its grant funding that comes from ``prior balance replacement funds''
each year to mitigate the effects of AMD on waters within their
borders. AMD has ravaged many streams throughout the country, but
especially in Appalachia. Given their long-term nature, these problems
are technologically challenging to address and, more importantly, are
very expensive. The states need the ability to set aside as much
funding as possible to deal with these problems over the long term. We
therefore urge the Committee to amend S. 2830 to correct the current
policy interpretation by Interior and allow the use of unappropriated
state and tribal share balances (``prior balance replacement funds'')
for the AMD set aside, similar to the use of these balances for noncoal
work. Suggested amendatory language is attached to our statement.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II--Statement of National Association of Abandoned
Mined Land Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 30 years, tens of thousands of acres of abandoned
mine lands have been reclaimed, thousands of mine openings have been
closed, and safeguards for people, property and the environment have
been put in place. There are numerous success stories from around the
country where the states' AML programs have saved lives and
significantly improved the environment. Suffice it to say that the AML
Trust Fund, and the work of the states pursuant to the distribution of
monies from the Fund, have played an important role in achieving the
goals and objectives of set forth by Congress when SMCRA was first
enacted--including protecting public health and safety, enhancing the
environment, providing employment, and adding to the economies of
communities impacted by past coal and noncoal mining. Passage of S.
2830 will further these congressional goals and objectives.
In support of our position on S. 2830, we also request that you
include for the record the attached resolution (No. 07-8)* adopted by
the Western Governors that urges the continued use of funds collected
or distributed under Title IV of SMCRA for the reclamation of high
priority, hard-rock abandoned mines. This resolution is in support of
the Western Governors' policy statement B.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Resolution has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on S.2830.
We welcome the opportunity to work with you to complete the legislative
process and see this bill, as amended, become law.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Conrad.
Mr. Reinhardt, let us talk about the question of trespass
in particular. Are there examples of how trespass in the area
might affect Young Life's ability to conduct your important
youth camps and manage the Washington Family Ranch effectively?
Mr. Reinhardt. Yes, Mr. Chairman, as you noted, the
existing land patterns are a very broad checkerboard of private
and public lands, most of which are not contiguous. Therefore,
the hopscotching processes whereby the public would be
attempting to get to public lands to rightfully hunt on those
public lands is next to impossible and usually results in them,
the public ending up trespassing and getting close to the camp.
One particular incident about 2\1/2\ years ago that really
prompted us reengaging on this opportunity was we had some
hunters who ended up actually within the center area of the
large camp that exists, the Young Life's Wild Horse Canyon,
during hunting season with guns while a camp was going on. When
confronted to let them know they were not on public lands, they
were thoroughly convinced they were on public lands and quite
argumentative with the staff.
It sent the kids running in a bit of hysteria, as you might
imagine, seeing hunters within a matter of about 100 yards with
guns showing up. It certainly wasn't part of the program that
we planned. So that is just one of many examples where we have
had challenges.
Senator Wyden. What would be your assessment of roaded
access to Cathedral Rock wilderness? Where would the various
private land owners be in regard to that issue?
Mr. Reinhardt. The private land owners have a unique set of
circumstances and conditions along what is called ``Muddy
Road.'' It is a very limited-access county road. It is actually
part of the old Dalles to Canyon City toll road from the 1860s,
and it has no base under it. It is basically a 2-lane--or
excuse me, a 2-track jeep trail that goes back through there.
So, the actual physical access is a tremendously
challenging physical access. We have had a number of folks who
have ended up stranded on that road, and we have had to manage
taking care of that.
But more specifically, to the private access issues, the
trespassing becomes a challenge because it is very difficult
for folks who are in that area to know when they are on public
land and when they are on private land. There is very little
demarcation that allows that certainly from the BLM.
Senator Wyden. Is it fair to say that the deal falls apart
without certainty for the private owners?
Mr. Reinhardt. Yes. I would say that, and I would say not
only the private owners, I would argue or suggest that for
Jefferson County, who initiated the concern, because of the
requirements to improve the road that they would likely be
under, they noted that they would likely change their support
if there was public access on that road to Cathedral Rock.
Senator Wyden. Tell me about the potential new additions.
You and other community members are talking about this,
certainly substantial interest in it. Can you give us any
information, any additional information about the new parcels
of land for exchange that are being proposed?
Mr. Reinhardt. Yes, Senator.
The additional proposal of land actually has been in the
works for--the research has been in the works for about a year
and a half to include those other parcels close to the Antone
ranch. It is the same members in the exchange. We are not
adding any new private members to the exchange.
Since we were doing that research at the same time, same
BLM district, same Forest Service district, same watershed, we
felt it was an opportunity to solve 2 problems at one time and
actually accomplish a greater good by adding more land to the
wilderness area at the same time up at Horse Heaven. Have spent
a good deal of time at the district office, both with Forest
Service and the BLM, doing the preliminary work to set the
stage for that opportunity.
Senator Wyden. I think you have really done a terrific job,
and I thank you for it.
Mr. Conrad, you are getting spared largely because I have
got 3 meetings I am supposed to be in between now and 5 p.m.
Mr. Conrad. I understand.
Senator Wyden. We will follow up, the staff on both sides
will follow up with you and work closely with you on it. I know
that this has been frustrating because of the earlier delay and
so much taking place today in the Senate.
But thank you both for your patience. Mr. Reinhardt, there
is great interest in our home State in what you all are trying
to do. As a longtime fan of Young Life, really appreciate the
leadership.
Mr. Reinhardt. Thank you very much.
Senator Wyden. Look forward to working with you closely.
Mr. Conrad, we will be following up with you.
With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Harris Sherman From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. In your testimony, you mentioned many nationwide
baseline accounts for forest management that may be utilized for bark
beetle mitigation. However, the scope of the bark beetle disaster
requires dedicated funding and management. What funding is the Forest
Service prepared to allocate specifically to bark beetle mitigation in
Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota in Fiscal Year
2011? Please indicate the line items where this funding will be made
available and the specific amounts.
Question 2. In your testimony, you indicated that the Department
wants to ``fully take advantage of'' good neighbor authority with state
governments. Could you explain how expanded good neighbor authority
would help address bark beetle issues West-wide?
Question 3. Please provide the Committee with full documentation
produced by the National Incident Management Organization team assigned
to evaluate the bark beetle infestation in USFS Rocky Mountain Region.
a. Please explain why this team's analysis excluded Shoshone
National Forest.
Question 4. I was disappointed in your testimony that the Forest
Service plans to handle the bark beetle epidemic are still being
hatched. You stated that the agency continues to develop cost estimates
and management plans that may be implemented sometime in the future.
This is unacceptable. This epidemic has been growing for years. Please
explain the specific management strategy for bark beetle mitigation in
Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, Montana and South Dakota in Fiscal Years 2010
and 2011.
Question 5. The Forest Service owns 9.2 million acres in Wyoming,
3.4 million of those acres are Wilderness and 3.3 million acres are
inventoried as roadless. We've got 3.5 million acres of bark beetles to
deal with, and the infestation doubles each year. The Forest Service
cannot simply ignore its management responsibility based on arbitrary
boundaries. We have to save communities, watersheds, and wildlife
habitat form bark beetles. Is the Forest Service prepared to manage its
lands as necessary for community and watershed protection, regardless
of arbitrary roadless area boundaries?
Question 6. If the Forest Service continues management at the rate
of the last decade, it will take 58 years to treat all acreage
currently at high risk for wildfire. We don't have that kind of time.
What is the Department's strategy to increase the annual treatment rate
nationwide to reduce fire risk?
Question 7. In your testimony, you indicated that the Forest
Service has discussed reforms necessary to increase efficacy of
stewardship contracting. Please list the reforms that have been
discussed in detail and provide an explanation of whether or not each
reform discussed requires authorization by Congress.
Question 8. Canadian scientists and politicians are suggesting that
the current bark beetle outbreak in Canada will reduce the timber
volume available to harvest resulting in a decrease in Canada's lumber
shipments to the United States for up to a century. If not Canada or
the federal forests in the United States; where do you suggest this
country's builders get their lumber to meet the future housing demand
over the next century?
Questions for Harris Sherman From Senator Murkowski
As I recall you testified before this Committee and delivered some
fairly negative testimony on S.1470 Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and
Recreation Act of 2009. Your written testimony expressed similar
concerns with Senator Wyden's S. 2895, Eastside Oregon forestry bill.
I came across an article that said: ``The Obama Administration
could support the logging mandate in Montana, Senator Jon Tester's
wilderness bill as a `pilot project,' said U.S. Agriculture Secretary
Tom Vilsack.''
That same article reported that ``at the time, Agriculture
Undersecretary Harris Sherman said the logging targets were
`unworkable' for the agency and could set a precedent in which each
national forest is managed differently by Congress.''
Question 1. Can you explain what a ``pilot project'' is and what
changes from S. 1470 the Administration will make to that ``pilot
project'' to make it acceptable to Secretary Vilsack?
Question 2. Now that the Secretary has announced that S. 1470 is an
acceptable ``pilot project'', is it your view that the Tester proposal
can be implemented without legislation?
Question 3. Could this just be done by having the Secretary wave
his administration wand to deem these other bills acceptable too?
Question 4. Do you think the same changes to Senator Udall's bill
converting it into a pilot project would make this bill we are hearing
today acceptable to the Secretary?
Question 5. If the Secretary can just turn the Tester logging
mandates into a ``pilot project'' and find that an acceptable
investment; can he do the same for S. 2895 or for S. 2798 Senator
Udall's National Forest Insect and Disease Emergency Act of 2009?
Question 6. As I recall you testified before this Committee and
delivered some fairly negative testimony on S.1470 Senator Tester's
Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009. Several weeks ago after you
disparaged Senator Tester's bill, the Secretary then came out and said
it could be implemented as a pilot project. Last week your written
testimony expressed similar concerns with Senator Wyden's S. 2895,
Eastside Oregon forestry bill. Yet today your testimony on the Colorado
bill is less harsh.
All three of these bills are more similar than they are different;
please help us understand your testimony and seemingly evolving
thinking on these types of bills?
Question 7. If I heard you correctly; you said you're developing
your strategy for dealing with the nearly complete collapse of the
Lodgepole pine ecosystem in the Intermountain West as we speak. This
fiscal year is half over and the agency received its budget more
quickly this year than in most years in the last decade. I hope you
understand that many Senators find the notion that an insect epidemic
has been raging in this area for the last 4 or 5 years and has almost
completely run its course yet the Forest Service is just getting around
to trying to figure out what to do is more than a little disturbing.
If as you suggested, more than 100,000 trees are falling down every
day in the Routt-Medicine Bow and Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests
aren't you concerned for the people who hike and hunt and recreate in
the Roadless Areas and Wilderness Areas?
Question 8. The Shoshone National Forest has approximately a
million acres of insect impacted Lodgepole pine, yet recently the
Forest Supervisor informed some in Congress that they would be treating
only 13,000 acres this year. That suggests that fuel reduction work
would be completed by about the year 2141.
Is that pace of treatment acceptable to you?
Question 9. Does this casual approach to this unprecedented forest
disaster suggest that the Forest Service has given up on managing large
swaths of the land they have been entrusted to manage?
Question 10. Recently my staff completed an analysis of the number
of acres in fire condition class 2 & 3 compared to the number of acres
managed through prescribed burning, commercial timber sales, or
stewardship contracting. That analysis suggests that in most Regions
half or more of the acres in each region are at high risk to
catastrophic fires (113 million acres out of the 193 million acres
entrusted to the Forest Service). It shows that if the 2009 management
levels are carried on into the future that it would take more than a
century in most regions to mitigate the fire risk. Specifically it
would take Region One 203 years to manage their Fire Risk Condition
Class 2 & 3 Acres; 121Years for Region Two; 73 Years for Region Three;
188 Years for Region Four; 250 Years for Region Five; 89 Years for
Region Six; and 107 Years for Region 9.
The Forest Service is supposed to, according to its original
Organic Administration Act: 1) to improve and protect the forests; 2)
to secure favorable water flows; and 3) furnish a continuous supply of
timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.
Can you show how you are accomplishing any of the three prime
directives given the data from this decade compared to resource health
and production data from the first 70 years of the agency having taken
on the responsibilities articulated in the 1910 Organic Administration
Act?
Question 11. Given the Agency's $4 to $5 billion per year budget
over the last decade can you provide the Committee with an estimate of
the timber value lost to fires and insects since the National Fire Plan
was signed in 2002?
Question 12. Can you provide an estimate of the value of the water
that was degraded as a result of wildland fires on the National Forest
or from insect epidemics?
Question 13. Can you provide an estimate of the number of acres of
Threatened and Endangers Species habit that has been negatively
impacted as a result of wild fires including resulting invasive species
impacts?
______
Question for Glenda Owens From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. In 2006, Congress enacted changes to the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act. The President and Secretary Salazar
supported the final compromise when they served in the Senate. The AML
compromise was a bipartisan agreement achieved after more than a decade
of negotiations. Everyone gave a little to reach a solution that worked
for all parties.
a. Why are you walking away from an agreement you and the
President supported?
b. Why should the people of Wyoming, Montana, Louisiana, the
Crow Nation, the Hopi Nation, or the Navajo Nation ever trust
the Administration if it breaks deals that it previously
supported?
______
Question for Dominik Kulakowski From Senator Wyden
I recently introduced a bill to promote thinning in the Eastside
forests of Oregon to restore the forests there, reduce hazardous fuels,
and protect old-growth, and I worked closely with a number of top
scientists in developing the bill to ensure that it was consistent with
the best available science. As you understand it, are the roles for
mechanical thinning different in the context of bark beetle
infestations of lodgepole pine and spruce, on the one hand, and dry
ponderosa pine forests, on the other?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
[Due to the large amount of materials received, only a
representative sample of statements follow. Additional documents and
statements have been retained in subcommittee files.]
Statement of the Colorado Timber Industry Association, on S. 2798
On behalf of the Colorado Timber Industry Association, representing
Colorado's forest products companies, including sawmills, loggers, and
truckers, please accept the following testimony for the Hearing Record
on S. 2798, the National Forest Insect and Disease Emergency Act of
2009.
The interaction of western bark beetles, fuels and fire in forest
systems is inherently complex and much remains unknown. Mountain pine
beetle killed ponderosa and lodgepole pine typically topple over within
2-10 years, creating heavy fuel loads. Such heavy fuel accumulations
represent challenging wildfire control scenarios, and if the larger
diameter material dries out sufficiently, as has occurred frequently in
the past decade, wildfire severity and intensity is greatly increased
(Kolb 2009).
Typically in the northern Rocky Mountains, very few fires account
for most of the total area burned during a long time period, e.g., one
or two centuries (Turner et al, 1999). In Yellowstone National Park,
researchers found that severe, high intensity fire was more likely to
occur in stands of advanced successional stage and in stands which
experienced high-intensity prior infestations by mountain pine beetles
and mistletoe (Turner et al, 1999).
In Montana, several Indian tribes are using active forest
management as well as rapid salvage and sanitation harvesting to stem
bark beetle epidemics and reduce the probability of catastrophic
wildfire effects in their forests (Kolb 2009). The mitigation of
potentially adverse bark beetles and fire effects is maximized when
treatments occur at landscape scales and integrate the spatial
arrangement of forest types, stand conditions, treatment units, and
prescriptions (Jenkins et al 2008).
After examining the 2007 Monumental and North Fork Fires in central
Idaho, researchers found that fuels treatments modified wildfire
intensity and that burn severity to vegetation and soils within the
areas where fuels were treated was generally less compared to
neighboring areas where fuels were not treated. Researchers also
concluded that fuel treatment location and juxtaposition and the
treatment of surface fuels, ladder fuels, and crown fuels (in that
order of importance) are major determinants of both wildfire intensity
and burn severity (Graham et al 2009).
Looking ahead to `The Next Forest', the greater the percentage of
host trees that are similar in age and size, the greater the
probability of bark beetles successfully attacking and colonizing them
at the same time (Kolb 2009). Conversely, increasing the diversity of
tree species and decreasing the size of similar tree age and size
patches of host trees makes for a more difficult environment for bark
beetles and reduces the ability of epidemics to develop (Kolb 2009).
The Colorado Timber Industry Association strongly supports S. 2798
and commends Senator Mark Udall for his leadership on this important
bill. The bark beetle epidemics in Colorado and other western states
are catastrophic, and will require tremendous resources to plan and
implement projects to mitigate the effects, restore the national
forests, and protect communities and people.
S. 2798 will greatly assist the Forest Service by providing
mechanisms that will allow them to more efficiently and effectively
focus their on-the-ground response to catastrophic bark beetle
epidemics in Colorado and other western states. We urge the Senate
Energy & Natural Resources Committee to advance this legislation as
soon as possible.
In addition to the provisions to establish and manage Insect and
Disease Emergency Areas, other important provisions in the bill will--
designate any biomass removed from Insect and Disease Emergency Areas
as `renewable biomass', extend Good Neighbor Authority to the affected
States, permanently authorize Stewardship Contracts, and exclude
multiyear Stewardship Contracts from cancellation liability
requirements. These important provisions will contribute to the Forest
Service's ability to treat national forest lands within the affected
States.
We have one recommendation. One of the purposes of the bill is ``to
ensure that increased resources are available within each designated
insect and disease emergency area.'' However, the bill does not contain
any provision to actually ``ensure'' those ``increased resources.''
Addressing the bark beetle epidemics in Colorado and other western
United States will be very expensive. We are very pleased that the US
Department of Agriculture targeted $74 million toward the bark beetle
issue in FY 2010. However, that funding will not begin to fully address
the problems, and adequate funding will again be an issue in FY 2011
and subsequent years. Just like fire funding, funding for bark beetle
response should not come from normal program funding. These
catastrophic epidemics should be treated like other major disasters,
and Congress should respond with the resources required to address a
national emergency. We urge the Committee to work with the
Administration to develop a cohesive strategy, including identification
of needed work plus the amount and source of funding, to address the
bark beetle epidemics in Colorado and other western states.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony.
______
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments,
Silverthorne, CO, October 22, 2009.
Hon. Mark Udall,
U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Suite SH-317, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Udall, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments is in
support of the draft National Forest Insect and Disease Emergency Act
of 2009 for the following reasons:
Act addresses both wildfire and falling tree hazards.
Act addresses all components of communities including human
life, homes, businesses, utility corridors, communications
sites, roads, trails, recreation sites, and water structures.
Act specifically addresses headwaters of water supplies.
Act establishes Insect and Disease Emergency Areas on
national forest system lands excluding designated Wilderness
and Wilderness study areas.
--Provides for priority treatments for hazardous fuels and hazard
trees.
--Provides assistance to State and local governments and private
land owners for hazardous fuels and hazard trees.
--Gives priorities for initiatives involving the harvesting of
renewable biomass.
Act makes permanent existing good neighbor and stewardship
contracting authorities.
Act includes twelve Western states.
Considers any woody biomass removed from a designated
emergency area as renewable biomass under Clean Air Act.
The Secretary may apply provisions in the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act of 2003 to hazardous fuels and hazard trees in
designated emergency area.
The Secretary may not obligate funds to cover the cost of
cancelling a multiyear stewardship contract until the date on
which the contract is cancelled.
Act does not modify the National Environmental Policy Act
yet utilizes provisions in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act
of 2003 to speed analysis.
We fully understand and support that this draft bill is purposely
narrow in its scope to focus on emergency mitigation of the current
insect and disease situation in the West which is our highest priority.
We encourage you not to broaden and thereby weaken the draft bill into
a hybrid between emergency mitigation and forest health.
We want toespecially thank you for the services of Doug Young of
your staff who has done a great job in addressing the needs of our
member jurisdictions.
Sincerely,
Gary Severson,
Executive Director.
______
Statement of the Society of American Foresters, on S. 2798
On behalf of the Society of American Foresters (SAF), the national
scientific and educational organization representing the forestry
profession with over 14,000 members, please accept the following
testimony for the Hearing Record on S. 2798, the National Forest Insect
and Disease Emergency Act of 2009. As an organization chartered to
advance the science, education, technology, and practice of forestry
for the benefit of society, the SAF strongly supports S. 2798 and
commends Senator Mark Udall and Senator James Risch for their
bipartisan leadership on this important bill. S. 2798 is a simple,
common sense bill that could be easily implemented by land management
agencies to more-quickly address problems associated with extensive
bark beetle infestation in the western United States. We urge the
Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee to advance this legislation
as soon as possible.
As millions of acres of forests across the western United States
are infested, dead and dying of mountain pine beetle and other insects
and diseases, a great deal of work will be needed to remove dead and
dying trees to protect public safety, roads, trails, power lines,
watersheds and protect communities from catastrophic wildfire. Further,
by preventing uncharacteristically hot wildfires, we can encourage the
establishment of a new forest by protecting forest seed sources,
preventing cooked soils and other damage that hinders or prohibits
forest regeneration.
Given current federal land management laws, regulations and case
law, there is virtually no way this work can be done in a timely
manner. In fact, the Forest Service will only be able to address the
direst of needs even if unlimited funding were devoted to this problem.
S. 2798 will greatly aid the Forest Service by reducing the amount of
time and resources needed to plan and implement projects to protect
life, property and other important forest values.
Again, we commend you for the simple, common sense approach of this
bill, but also have some recommendations:
1. Extend the authorities and designation in the bill to
include Bureau of Land Management (BLM/public lands) lands.
Across the west, many national forests are intermixed with BLM
land and treating both land ownerships is critical (for
example, 22% of Colorado's forestland is managed by the BLM and
over 320,000 acres of forestland in Idaho is managed by the
agency).
2. Authorize 20-year stewardship contracts. Given the
landscape-scale restoration work needed to restore forest
health, 20-year stewardship contracts could serve as an
important tool for land management agencies. These long-term
contracts could encourage larger projects while also providing
more certainty and consistency for forest contractors.
3. Ensure appropriate funding of this legislation.
4. Finally, we also ask that some focus be placed on green
forests that have not yet been infested to prevent mortality
from bark beetles. Published scientific and case studies have
shown that in some forests, if aggressive thinning to a
prescribed density is completed, the forest can survive attacks
from bark beetles. This will be important to protecting
existing habitat and other forest values for the future as a
diverse, multi-aged forest is much more resilient than the
even-aged forests we see today.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.
______
Trout Unlimited,
Arlington, VA, May 5, 2010.
Hon. James E. Risch,
483 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mark Udall,
317 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: S. 2798, the National Forest Insect and Disease Emergency Act of
2009
Dear Senators Risch and Udall: I am writing on behalf of Trout
Unlimited and its 140,000 members nationwide regarding S. 2798. Trout
Unlimited recognizes the challenges posed by large-scale bark beetle
infestation in the West, and believes that it is important for
management approaches to be based on sound science, public involvement
and environmental review.
Trout Unlimited supports the underlying desire to remove dead and
dying trees where it makes ecological and economic sense to achieve
those goals. In the West, the high levels of insect and disease killed
and damaged trees are creating new challenges on many national forests.
We support the goal of reducing the risk these trees pose to
communities, recreational areas, and transportation and utility
corridors. However, we are concerned with S. 2798's overly broad
criteria for defining emergency areas, the lack of public involvement
in designating emergency areas, and the lack of a sunset provision.
The legislation calls for the establishment of insect and disease
emergency areas. The establishment parameters of these emergency areas
are extremely broad and vague, providing extraordinary discretion to
the Secretary in creating them. The definition only requires the areas
to have increased risk to catastrophic fires or increased threats by
hazard trees to utility corridors, communication sites or other
infrastructure. These broad criteria would apply virtually anywhere in
the western United States. We recommend adding additional specificity
to better circumscribe emergency area designation and to focus efforts
on areas surrounding communities and infrastructure as opposed to the
backcountry.
We are also concerned about the lack of public involvement in
mapping emergency areas. Local involvement in the mapping and
designation is important. Such participation is important for a smooth
and efficient NEPA process and public involvement that will occur when
particular treatments are proposed.
Another concern is in how this bill might be applied to other
situations in the future. There does not appear to be any sunset
provision or date. This opens the possibility that the provisions of
this bill could be used in the future to circumvent environmental
protections in unwarranted ways.
The bill excludes designated wilderness and recommended wilderness
from emergency areas. Trout Unlimited supports these exclusions, but
they are not enough to protect important habitats. Inventoried roadless
areas and other locations that harbor critical values need to be
excluded. At a minimum they need to be categorized as areas requiring
special consideration and review before being open to ``treatment''.
Other such important habitats include Wild and Scenic River corridors,
research natural areas and areas within 300 feet of perennial or
intermittent streams. The rationale for including the stream corridors
in the exempted areas is the need for wood recruitment into those
stream systems. One way to help ensure that critical habitats are
adequately protected is to include Healthy Forest Restoration Act
protections for old growth forest stands, older and larger trees,
threatened and endangered species, and other resources.
Finally, from a fisheries conservation standpoint, two of the most
important ways to help native trout cope with fire is to remove roads
in order to reduce sedimentation, and remove culverts that block fish
passage so that fish may move to other habitats in the occurrence of a
fire and then re-colonize the stream when conditions have improved. To
the extent that these activities may be advanced through this bill,
fisheries will be made more resilient to the effects of fire.
We appreciate both of your efforts to protect communities and vital
infrastructure in the forests heavily impacted by beetle kill. There is
a great deal of work to be done, much of it urgent. By creating
opportunity for public involvement, applying the best available
science, and maintaining appropriate protections for critical habitats
this work may be done in a manner that benefits communities and
ecosystems.
Sincerely,
Steve Moyer,
Vice President for Government Affairs.
______
Statement of Vail Resorts, on S. 2798
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on the
National Forest Insect and Disease Emergency Act of 2009 (S. 2798).
Vail Resorts supports this legislation and would like to thank Senator
Udall and Senator Risch for their work on this important legislation.
We would also like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Wyden
and the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests as well as the full
Energy & Natural Resources Committee including Chairman Bingaman and
Ranking Member Murkowski for their work on the FLAME Act that is now
law. Beginning to untangle fire suppression costs from the rest of the
USFS budget is a critical step to let USFS focus resources on forest
health.
Vail Resorts is the premier mountain resort company in the world
operating five of the 10 most visited ski resorts in the United States
which account for 10% of United States skier visits. Vail Resorts
operates its resorts on National Forest System lands under special use
permits from the United States Forest Service (USFS). Our resorts value
the partnership we have with the Department of Agriculture and the USFS
on the district, forest, regional and national level. This partnership
is critical to the day-to-day operations of our resorts and we look
forward to continuing to work closely with the dedicated men and women
of the USFS. Additionally, the Department and the USFS should be
commended for the recent decision to commit additional resources to
USFS Region Two to address forest health needs.
While our resorts are fortunate to be home to diverse species of
trees (including aspen, spruce, and fir), the extent of the Mountain
Pine Beetle (MPB) activity in aging lodgepole pines at our resorts
necessitates an increased level of forest health efforts. In carrying
out these efforts, in conjunction with the USFS, Vail Resorts is
committed to the safety of our guests and the responsible stewardship
of the environment. To that end the identification and removal of
hazard trees is an on-going initiative. Examples of hazard trees
include:
Trees within the wildfire defensible space of resort
structures.
Trees with the potential to dead-fall or blow-down onto lift
lines, buildings, or trails.
Vail Resorts would like to thank the USFS for working closely with
our mountain crews to facilitate the timely removal of hazard trees
presenting safety issues to our guests and infrastructure. The
importance of this work cannot be overstated.
In addition to hazard tree removal, other forest health efforts are
aimed at promoting increased species and age diversity through
selective tree thinning, small patch cuts, and forest restoration work
where the MPB has had or will have the greatest impact. Working closely
with the USFS, we have consolidated this work into updated vegetation
management plans that are in various stages of environmental review and
implementation.
Through our charitable giving, employee engagement, and
environmental stewardship program, Vail Resorts Echo, we have also
engaged our guests to actively support restoration work on the forest
through a partnership with the National Forest Foundation Ski
Conservation Fund. Our guests have the opportunity to support the fund
with $1 when they purchase lift tickets, ski passes, or stay in our
lodges. The National Forest Foundation uses these contributions for on-
the-ground conservation work in the National Forests.
In June, 2009 Vail Resorts was invited to share its views on the
MPB with the U.S. House Subcommittee on Water and Power as well as the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. At that
hearing we stated that:
The MPB outbreak in the West has created forest health
challenges beyond the capabilities of any single stakeholder
and increased partnerships are essential to achieve the desired
outcomes.
The USFS, operating within relevant laws and regulations,
has demonstrated a great willingness to work with stakeholders
in a collaborative and flexible manner to facilitate the
response to MPB related forest health challenges.
Opportunities to respond to the MPB include supporting
forest products infrastructure, biomass energy, providing the
Forest Service with increased flexibility to respond to the
MPB, and reforestation.
In our view, S. 2798 seeks to proactively address the above issues.
It focuses on the impacts that forest insects and disease can have on
our local communities as well as the important role the forests fill as
recreation sites and local, regional, and even national watersheds.
Thank you again for the opportunity to express our support for the
National Forest Insect and Disease Emergency Act of 2009.
______
Statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mined Land Programs,
on S. 2830
My name is Michael Garner. I am the AML Program Director with the
Maryland Department of the Environment and currently serve as the
president of the National Association of Abandoned Mined Land Programs
(NAAMLP). We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for
the record of the legislative hearing on S. 2830, a bill to amend the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify that
uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to use certain
payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects. We strongly support
this critical amendment to SMCRA.
The NAAMLP is a tax-exempt organization consisting of 30 states and
Indian tribes with a history of coal mining and coal mine related
hazards. These states and tribes are responsible for 99.5% of the
Nation's coal production. All of the states and tribes within the
NAAMLP administer abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation programs funded
and overseen by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) pursuant to Title IV
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA, P.L. 95-87).
Since the enactment of SMCRA by Congress in 1977, the AML program has
reclaimed thousands of dangerous sites left by abandoned coal mines,
resulting in increased safety for millions of Americans.
The Association was greatly encouraged with the passage of the 2006
Amendments to SMCRA. The 15-year extension coupled with increased
funding has provided the states and tribes with the ability to focus on
the protection of the public health and safety while ensuring
restoration of abandoned mines nationwide. The reauthorization of the
AML program by Congress did not in any way change the provisions that
allow AML funds to be used to ameliorate either coal or non-coal mine
public health and safety hazards. However, OSM has adopted final rules
implementing the 2006 Amendments (73 Fed. Reg. 67576), based on a
Departmental Solicitor's Opinion (M-37104), that would prohibit some of
this funding from being used to address many of the most serious non-
coal AML problems.
Therefore, we strongly support S. 2830, which makes very minor
changes to SMCRA to correct a misinterpretation by the U.S. Department
of the Interior. S. 2830 will return states to their longstanding role
under SMCRA of directing abandoned mine grant funds to the highest
priority needs at either coal or non-coal abandoned mines.
The NAAMLP has worked closely with the Interstate Mining Compact
Commission and the Western Governors' Association in providing
information to quantify the non-coal AML cleanup effort. While the data
is seldom comparable between states due to the wide variation in
inventory criteria, they do demonstrate that there are large numbers of
significant safety and environmental problems associated with inactive
and abandoned non-coal mines and that remediation costs are very large.
Some of the types of numbers that have been reported by IMCC in
response to information we have collected for the General
Accountability Office (GAO) and others include the following: Number of
abandoned mine sites: Alaska--1,300; Arizona--80,000; California--
47,000; Colorado--7,300; Montana--6,000; Nevada--16,000; Utah--17,000--
20,000; Washington--3,800; Wyoming--1,700. Nevada reports over 200,000
mine openings and Minnesota reports over 100,000 acres of abandoned
mine lands.
States and Tribes are very familiar with the highest priority non-
coal problems within their borders and also have limited reclamation
dollars to protect public health and safety or protect the environment
from significant harm. States and Tribes work closely with various
federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, all of whom have provided some funding for non-coal
mine remediation projects. For states with coal mining, the most
consistent source of AML funding has been the Title IV grants received
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Section
409 of SMCRA allows states to use these grants at high priority non-
coal AML sites. The funding is generally limited to safeguarding
hazards to public safety (e.g., closing mine openings) at non-coal
sites.
The urgency of advancing this legislation has been heightened, Mr.
Chairman, by statements in OSM's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2011.
Therein, OSM is proposing to further restrict the ability of states to
expend AML funds on noncoal reclamation projects. This will apparently
occur as part of a legislative proposal that the Administration intends
to aggressively pursue in the 111th Congress. While the primary focus
of that proposal will be the elimination of future AML funding for
states and tribes that are certified under Title IV of SMCRA (which we
adamantly oppose), OSM's explanation of its proposal also contains the
following language: ``Similarly, the proposal will require that
payments to noncertified States are only used for high-priority coal
problems.'' We are uncertain exactly what OSM has in mind with respect
to this aspect of the legislative proposal, but we suspect it has to do
with clarifying the very issue that is the subject of S. 2830. For all
we know, it could be even farther reaching.
In written statements that we presented to the Committee in
November of 2007, the Association prioritized two issues of highest
concern to us. One involved the restriction noted above regarding the
use of unappropriated state and tribal share balances for noncoal AML
work. The second involves a similar restriction on the use of these
unappropriated balances for the Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) set-aside
program under SMCRA. Congress expanded this program in the 2006
Amendments to allow states and tribes to set-aside up to 30% of their
grants funds for treating AMD now and into the future. AMD has ravaged
many streams throughout the country, but especially in Appalachia. The
states need the ability to set aside as much funding as possible to
deal with these problems over the long term. Again, OSM has acted
arbitrarily in their interpretation of the reauthorizing language by
limiting the types of funds the state may use for the set-aside
program. We have proposed amendatory language that would correct this
misinterpretation and allow the states to apply the 30% set-aside to
their prior balance replacement funds. (Suggested amendatory language
is attached to our statement.)
In summary:
Since the inception of SMCRA in 1977 and the approval of
state/tribal AML programs in the early 1980's, the states and
tribes have been allowed to use their state share distributions
under section 402(g)(1) of the AML Trust Fund for high priority
noncoal reclamation projects pursuant to section 409 of SMCRA
and for the set-aside program for acid mine drainage (AMD)
projects.
In its rules implementing the 2006 Amendments, OSM has
stated that these moneys cannot be used for noncoal reclamation
or for the 30% AMD set-aside.
Pursuant to Section 411(h)(1) of the 2006 Amendments, the
states and tribes assert that these moneys should also be
available for noncoal reclamation under section 409 and for the
30% AMD set-aside. There is nothing in the new law that would
preclude this interpretation. Policy and practice over the past
30 years confirm it.
Over the past 30 years, tens of thousands of acres of abandoned
mine lands have been reclaimed, thousands of mine openings have been
closed, and safeguards for people, property and the environment have
been put in place. Be assured that States and Tribes are determined to
address the unabated hazards at both coal and non-coal abandoned mines.
We are all united to play an important role in achieving the goals and
objectives as set forth by Congress when SMCRA was first enacted--
including protecting public health and safety, enhancing the
environment, providing employment, and adding to the economies of
communities impacted by past coal and noncoal mining. Passage of S.
2830 will further these congressional goals and objectives.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for the
record with respect to the legislative hearing on S. 2830, a bill to
amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to
clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to
use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects.
We welcome the opportunity to work with you to complete the
legislative process and see this bill, as amended, become law.
Attachment.--Suggested Amendment to S. 2830 to include the AMD set-
aside account
(amendments are in bold and italics)
a bill
To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to
clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to
use certain payments for certain noncoal and acid mine drainage
reclamation projects.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
theUnited States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION.
(a) Limitation on Funds.--Section 409(b) of the
Surface MiningControl and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30
U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended byinserting ``or section
411(h)(1)'' after ``section 402(g)''. Section
402(g)(6)(A) of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(6)(A)) is
amended by inserting ``or section 411(h)(1)'' after
``paragraphs (1) and (5)''.
(b) Use of Funds.--Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the
Surface MiningControl and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30
U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) isamended by inserting
``section 402(g)(6)'' before ``section 403'' and
inserting ``section 409'' after ``section 403''.
______
New Mexico Environmental Law Center,
Santa Fe, NM, March 22, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Resources Committee, 703 Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: The New Mexico Environmental Law Center
(``NMELC) strongly supports passage of S. 2830 and appreciates your
efforts to advance this proposed legislation to clarify the intent of
Congress under Title IV, the Abandoned Mine Land (``AML) program of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (``SMCRA).
S. 2830 makes only minor changes to SMCRA, correcting the Office of
Surface Mining of the Department of the Interior's misinterpretation of
an important discretionary provision of the law. Enactment of S. 2830
will give back to New Mexico and other states discretion under SMCRA to
direct abandoned mine grant funds to the highest priority needs, both
coal and non-coal. As it now stands, the Department of Interior's
narrow interpretation of SMCRA's AML provision subverts the
congressional intent underlying that provision and delays or stops
entirely remediation of abandoned non-coal mines in New Mexico.
Section 409 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1239) allows the States to use AML
funds to address high priority abandoned mines, both non-coal and coal
mines. Although New Mexico has abandoned coal mines that need
reclamation, well over 90% of its approximately 15,000 abandoned mine
hazards are located at hard rock mines, including uranium mines. In the
past several decades, all fatalities associated with abandoned mines in
New Mexico occurred at non-coal mines. During the last 6 years, before
the Department of Interior's reinterpretation of AML, New Mexico had
the discretion to divide its annual $1.5 million grant between coal
(55%) and non-coal (45%) projects.
Prior to the Department of the Interior's reinterpretation of
SMCRA's AML provision, New Mexico's regulatory agencies were free to
exercise their best judgment in balancing the need to reclaim abandoned
coal mines with the need to address significant health and safety
threats posed by non-coal mines. The impact of the Interior
Department's interpretation on New Mexico's attempt to remediate the
most serious abandoned mine problems is significant. While New Mexico's
annual AML grant increased to over $4 million, three million can only
be spent on coal projects only and the remainder can be spent on either
coal or non-coal projects. As a result, necessary projects at dangerous
abandoned hard rock mines are being delayed and funds that would have
been applied to remediate these dangers are being diverted to lower
priority abandoned coal mines.
This unnecessary and unwarranted loss of flexibility comes at a
particularly significant time for New Mexico. New Mexico's regulatory
agencies are conducting an inventory of abandoned uranium mines. These
uranium mines have had, and continue to have, adverse impacts upon the
lives of nearby residents, particularly the Navajo people. In fact,
this endemic problem has just begun to receive national attention--such
as the hearings before the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee and the dramatic series of articles that appeared in the Los
Angeles Times and other national media. The availability of AML money
would provide New Mexico with a unique opportunity to finally address
some of the sites that have caused (and continue to cause) great harm
to Navajo and other Native American communities. Under the current
Interior Department restrictions, the possibility of addressing the
long-standing need for remediation of these uranium mines is severely
limited.
The NMELC urges the Committee to correct the Department of the
Interior's misinterpretation of SMCRA and restore the discretion and
flexibility New Mexico's regulatory agencies need in order to address
serious threats to human health and the environment that many abandoned
non-coal mines pose.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Yours Truly,
Douglas Meiklejohn,
Executive Director.
______
Statement of Hon. Bill Richardson, Governor, State of New Mexico,
on S. 2830
Thank you for the opportunity to present a statement on this
important topic.
We appreciate the efforts of Chairman Bingaman and this Committee
to propose legislation that will clarify the intent of Congress under
Title IV, the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program, of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).
The State of New Mexico strongly supports S. 2830. This bill will
make only minor changes to SMCRA to correct a misinterpretation of
SMCRA by the Office of Surface Mining of the Department of the
Interior. S. 2830 will return New Mexico and other states to their
longstanding role under SMCRA of directing abandoned mine land grant
funds to the highest priority needs at either coal or non-coal
abandoned mines.
New Mexico has a long and distinguished history of both coal and
hard rock mining. Centuries of mining have left a legacy of thousands
of mine openings and other mine hazards that pose serious threats to
public health and safety. We estimate that there are more than 15,000
unreclaimed mine hazards across New Mexico. Expanding populations and
increasing recreational uses are increasing the exposure to abandoned
mine dangers. An example of the AML problem is the numerous abandoned
uranium mines located primarily in areas of Native American habitation
in northwestern New Mexico.
The primary funding source for AML projects in New Mexico has been
Title IV of SMCRA. SMCRA includes provisions for the safeguarding of
abandoned coal mines and high priority non-coal mines. Funding from the
fees collected on coal production has helped New Mexico address some of
our most hazardous abandoned mines. Since the inception of the SMCRA
AML program, New Mexico has addressed approximately 4,000 mine features
and reclaimed over 700 acres of mine-disturbed land.
Section 409 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1239) allows the States to use AML
funds to address high priority non-coal abandoned mines as well as coal
mines. While New Mexico still has abandoned coal mines that need
reclamation, well over 90% of New Mexico's 15,000 mine hazards are
located at abandoned hard rock mines. In the past few decades, all of
the fatalities associated with abandoned mines in New Mexico have
occurred at non-coal mines; sadly, another fatality occurred last year
at an abandoned non-coal mine in New Mexico. With our SMCRA grants, New
Mexico has balanced the need to reclaim abandoned coal mines with the
need to address the significant and immediate health and safety threats
posed by numerous non-coal mines. In the 6 years prior to the 2006
amendments, New Mexico's $1.5 million annual grant was roughly split
between coal (55%) and non-coal (45%) projects.
In December 2006, Congress passed the Tax Relief and Health Care
Act of 2006 which included a re-authorization of the AML fee on current
coal production and other amendments to the SMCRA Title IV program. One
of the major changes was the distribution to the States and Tribes of
``state share'' funds that had been previously allocated to the States
under SMCRA, but had never been appropriated by Congress. For New
Mexico, this amounts to approximately $20 million in additional AML
funds distributed over a 7 year period, and presents a tremendous
opportunity to address many of the high priority coal and non-coal
abandoned mine threats.
Under SMCRA, the ``state share'' funds were available for use by
the States at abandoned coal mines and, under Section 409, also at high
priority abandoned non-coal mines. In the 2006 legislation, Congress
did not amend Section 409. However, the Interior Department issued an
opinion in December 2007 prohibiting the additional AML funds from
being used at non-coal abandoned mine projects. The Office of Surface
Mining followed with a rule, adopted on November 14, 2008, which
codified the Interior Department's interpretation.
The new interpretation flies in the face of Congressional intent.
Had the funds been appropriated to the State when they were originally
allocated to the State, there would have been no question that these
funds could be used for either coal or non-coal projects. Congress did
not amend Section 409 of SMCRA in the 2006 amendments. However, the
Interior Department has latched onto Congress' use of a new funding
source to distribute the previously allocated funds to claim that the
intent changed.
Since the beginning of the AML program, New Mexico, Utah and
Colorado have balanced the need to reclaim abandoned coal mines with
the need to address the significant health and safety threats posed by
numerous non-coal mines. With these funds, New Mexico successfully
completed a number of innovative projects that were recognized by OSM.
In the Cerrillos Hills between Santa Fe and Albuquerque, we closed
dozens of non-coal mines along trails in a park and protected park
visitors from mine hazards while showcasing the mining history. This
project received a national award from OSM. New Mexico also received
the highest national award from OSM for the Real de Delores project in
the Ortiz Mountains which safeguarded mine openings within one of the
oldest gold mining districts in America.
The impact of the Interior Department's interpretation is
significant. While New Mexico's annual AML grant increased to over $4
million, three million can only be spent on coal projects only and the
remainder can be spent on either coal or non-coal projects. As a
result, needed projects at dangerous abandoned hard rock mines have
been delayed and funds diverted to lower priority abandoned coal mines.
This loss of flexibility also comes at a particularly significant
time for New Mexico. Under Governor Bill Richardson's direction, the
State is using a variety of funding sources to conduct an inventory of
abandoned uranium mines, many of which are located in areas occupied by
Native Americans in northwestern New Mexico. The impacts of these
uranium mines on the nearby residents, particularly the Navajo people,
have received national attention and have been the subject of hearings
before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. New Mexico
is working cooperatively with the Navajo Nation and the U.S. EPA to
coordinate work on abandoned uranium mines in areas near the Navajo
Indian Reservation. With the new AML money available, we have a unique
opportunity to finally address some of these sites which have caused
great harm to the Navajo communities. With the Interior Department's
restrictions, our options become much more limited, because the money
for non-coal projects is much more limited. We hope you will prevent
that reduction in funds for eliminating hazardous non-coal risks.
S. 2830 will allow New Mexico and other western states to address
some of the highest priority threats to public health and safety from
non-coal mines while continuing to address the inventory of priority
coal mines. Allowing more funds to be spent on non-coal mines may also
result in more jobs. Our experience has been that non-coal AML projects
are much more likely to attract partners and additional funding thus
increasing the size of the project and the number of jobs generated.
The uranium mine assessment project mentioned above is an example. New
Mexico began the project with limited SMCRA funds and has attracted
private, state and other federal funds to more than triple the size of
the project.
This legislation has broad support in New Mexico from the mining
industry, the environmental community and public officials. At the 2010
New Mexico Legislative Session, both houses of the New Mexico
Legislature passed Memorials that requested the Congress to expedite
legislation to allow uncertified states to use SMCRA funds on non-coal
abandoned mine reclamation. (See attached House Memorial 34 and Senate
Memorial 30). Both Memorials passed all Committees and full chambers
without a single dissenting vote. Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee, we thank you for this opportunity to present New Mexico's
position on S. 2830. We urge the Committee to correct the
misinterpretation of SMCRA and restore the flexibility needed by the
States. We look forward to working with the Committee in the future.
______
Statement of Jon J. Indall and Adela M. Dwan, Counsel, Uranium
Producers of New Mexico, on S. 2830
The Uranium Producers of New Mexico (``UPNM') is a group of uranium
exploration and development companies that are working to permit
uranium mining and milling operations in New Mexico in the next two to
four years. Current members of ``UPNM'' include Laramide Resources
Ltd., Neutron Energy, Inc., Rio Grande Resources Corporation,
Strathmore Resources (U.S.) Ltd., and Uranium Resources, Inc.
Senate Bill 2830 requests that Congress amend the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (``SMCRA'') to clarify that the
allocated funding for SMCRA can be used by uncertified states for non-
coal reclamation projects. This amendment is important to New Mexico to
begin the remediation of abandoned mines and to create needed jobs.
New Mexico has a long and notable history of both coal and hard
rock mining. When the Atomic Energy Commission (``AEC'') created the
Uranium Procurement Program in the 1950's, many companies in New Mexico
answered the call for uranium to fuel the federal govemment's defense
needs for nuclear weapons. A uranium mining industry was created almost
over night. New Mexico became the largest uranium producing state in
the nation, with over 380 million pounds produced for the nuclear
weapons program and subsequently for nuclear power reactors. Today, the
uranium industry in New Mexico is reemerging to once again help meet
our country's increasing demands--this time to provide the uranium that
will be essential to growing a nuclear energy supply in the United
States.
The Uranium Procurement Program initiated by the AEC was very
successful and resulted in the operation of numerous mines throughout
New Mexico, mainly in Cibola and McKinley Counties. Unlike today, there
were few standards and no mine closure requirements. As the Procurement
Program met its production goals in the mid 1960's, most of the small
operators gave way to the larger companies and the small company and
individuals' mine sites were abandoned with little or no thought to
reclamation. These uranium sites, along with a number of other hard
rock abandoned mines, make up a legacy of abandoned hard rock mines in
New Mexico. Since these mines were created to fulfill an urgent
national defense priority, the federal government has a responsibility
to assist in reclaiming the abandoned mines in New Mexico and other
western states.
The primary source of funding Abandoned Mine Land (``AML'')
projects in New Mexico has been the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (``SMCRA'') program. Under this program, New
Mexico has successfully addressed approximately 4,000 mine features and
reclaimed over 700 acres of mine-disturbed lands. New Mexico has
successfully balanced the use of its SMCRA funds to accomplish
reclamation on both coal and non-coal reclamation sites. The state
needs to continue this important work, and the additional federal
funding that would be made available by the enactment of S. 2830 would
allow us to do so.
In December 2006, Congress amended SMCRA to allow the distribution
of reclamation funds to states in an amount equal to that previously
authorized to the states under SMCRA. Despite the uncontroverted fact
that Congress did not amend the ability of states to use these funds
for non-coal, hardrock mines, the Department of the Interior (``DOI'')
made such a determination. Senate Bill 2830 is now necessary to once
again amend SMCRA to clarify that the appropriated funding can be used
for non-coal reclamation sites.
The UPNM has worked closely with the Mining and Minerals Division
(``MMD'') of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources
Department on various state projects related to SMCRA. The MMD has
identified a total of l37 abandoned uranium mines in New Mexico. In
cooperation with MMD, UPNM funded the surveying of the first 21 of
these sites located on state, federal and private lands. The MMD has
since contracted the surveying of an additional 35 sites.
The purpose of surveying the abandoned mines is to allow the MMD to
prioritize these sites for reclamation. With 56 of the 137 abandoned
mines now surveyed, New Mexico is ready to begin the actual clean-up
warranted at these sites. This not only means the creation of shovel-
ready jobs but also the beginning of a resolution to a fifty-year
legacy left behind in New Mexico, as a result of the federal
government's call for uranium for its nuclear defense needs dating back
to the 1960's.
Although the many stakeholders in New Mexico do not always agree on
hardrock mining issues, there is overwhelming agreement that New Mexico
needs the SMCRA funding to help address the legacy of abandoned mines
in our state. The New Mexico State Senate and House of Representatives
both recently passed memorials urging the New Mexico congressional
delegation to collaborate to do what is necessary to amend SMCRA. The
New Mexico Mining Association and the Association of Commerce and
Industry have also written letters to the delegation supporting the
amendment. The McKinley County Commission also recently passed a
resolution in support of amending SMCRA. These memorials, letters and
the resolution are attached for your review and the record.
The UPNM appreciates the opportunity to present this statement in
support of S. 2830 and would also appreciate a recommendation from this
Subcommittee to move Senate Bill 2830 forward.
Thank you.
______
Statement of Greg Dyson, Executive Director, Hells Canyon Preservation
Council, on S. 2895
Thank you for extending Hells Canyon Preservation Council an
invitation to provide testimony regarding the Oregon Eastside Forest
Restoration, Old Growth Protection, and Jobs Act (S. 2895) at the
Subcommittee hearing held on March 10, 2010. We strongly support the
concepts behind this bill, however cannot fully support it as written.
Attached please find our letter to Senator Wyden articulating our
concerns in detail.* We reiterate below our key concerns in order to
highlight specific changes that could be made to the bill to gain
support from HCPC and from a broader representation of the conservation
community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Letter has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, one of our most serious concerns continues to be the removal
of the administrative appeals process during the Interim Period. We
know from decades of firsthand experience using this process that it is
an invaluable tool for avoiding litigation. We feel very strongly that
this process provides a forum in which the agency must justify its
decision, seriously consider our legal and ecological concerns and
discuss potential solutions. Eliminating administrative appeals is
counterproductive, particularly given that one of the main objectives
of the bill is to reduce courtroom battles over logging projects.
Moreover, if appeals are eliminated, this bill would create
national inconsistency for how the public and the Forest Service
address projects on federal public lands. The National Forest system is
just that--a national system--and establishing a public participation
framework applicable only to National Forests in eastern Oregon
establishes a precedent for breaking down National Forest policy.
Second, for consistency with the bill's language and purpose, we
recommend removing the second half of the sentence in Section
9(c)(1)(D) to simply read ``each applicable recommendation of the
advisory panel.'' As written, the clause allows the Forest Service
unfettered discretion in determining which of the advisory panel's
recommendations to apply and which to ignore during the Interim Period.
Third, we also feel very strongly that the inclusion of specific
acreage targets during the interim period, as set forth in Section
9(c)(5)(A), will create unrealistic expectations from local industry
that the drafters of this bill will come to regret only after it is too
late to reverse. Why not let the Science Panel determine how many
acres, where, and by what means should any logging occur?
Fourth, an explicit 3-year deadline for the expiration of the
Interim Period should be included in Section 9(c). The bill currently
offers no concrete deadline, and without one, our decades of experience
tell us that this period could easily last upwards of 5 years.
Fifth, Ecological Restoration Projects, as described in Section 9
of the bill, have potentially conflicting mandates. In Section 9(b)(2)
we recommend changing the ``shall'' to ``should'' to help ensure that
timber production is a by-product of restoration projects, and not a
rationale for developing the projects.
Sixth, strengthening the definition of ``decommission'' in Section
3 to read ``. . .the conduct of a restoration activity to return the
road to a natural state'' will go much farther in effectuating the
desire to address ecological damage associated with temporary roads
than the current definition. The definition as written merely requires
the Forest Service to return ``temporary'' roads to a ``more natural
state''--that being a state ``more'' natural than the one to which it
was altered, or in other words a state that is simply less unnatural.
Lastly, we strongly urge changes in the bill adopting a far more
cautious approach to biomass. While biomass is still relatively new and
un-researched it should remain limited to small-scale, local projects.
In summary, we suggest these specific changes to the bill:
Interim Period Appeals, Section 9(c)(2)--delete this
subsection entirely.
Interim Period Agency Discretion, Section 9(c)(1)(D)--delete
the second half ofthis clause so it reads in its entirety
``each applicable recommendation of theadvisory panel.''
Interim period Acreage Targets, Section 9(c)(5)(A)(i)(I),
(II) & (III)--delete thesesubsections entirely.
Interim Period Time Frame, Section 9(c)(1)--delete the first
half of this subsectionthat starts: ``Until the date on which
the Secretary initiates mechanicaltreatments. . .'' Instead,
begin this section with: ``For a period of 3 years from thedate
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare, approve,
andimplement interim projects . . .'' Also, delete Section
9(b)(3)(B).
Ecological Restoration Projects, Section 9(b)(2)--change
``shall'' to ``should.''
Definition of Decommission, Section 3(4)--delete the word
``more.''
Biomass, Section 12(b)(4)--strike ``after a period of 10
years'' and after ``based onsupply conditions'' add ``or Best
Available Science.''
As we have already noted, we fully support many of the concepts
behind this bill. Itcould lead to a fundamental change in the way our
Oregon eastside National Forestsare managed--in a way that benefits all
those involved with this ongoing debate. Wevery much appreciate the
time and effort that has gone into the drafting of this bill.HCPC is
one of the few on-the-ground conservation groups in eastern Oregon, and
welook forward to being part of this process as it moves forward.
______
Statement of the Sierra Club, on S. 2895
Chairman Wyden and Members of the Subcommittee:
On behalf of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club and the more
than 1.3 million members and supporters of the Sierra Club nationwide,
we thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on S. 2895, the
Oregon Eastside Forest Restoration, Old Growth Protection, & Jobs Act.
For more than a century Sierra Club has worked to explore, enjoy, and
protect America's wilderness, forests, and public lands. Today, there
are 65 Sierra Club Chapters and more than 425 Sierra Club Groups across
the country.
With over 20,000 members living in Oregon, the Sierra Club has a
strong interest in the management of the National Forests of Central
and Eastern Oregon. Our staff and membership in Oregon have
consistently worked to ensure sound science-based management of the
National Forests covered by this legislation and have focused efforts
on protecting old growth forests and roadless areas. We support the
creation of forest based restoration jobs that also promote the
recovery of healthy populations of threatened and endangered species,
address the excessive network of roads created through past management,
and to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem resiliency in the face of
climate change.
Over the years, we have been involved in a number of Senator
Wyden's efforts to protect Oregon's old growth forests in Oregon. We
support some of the goals of this legislation, but believe that key
sections as currently written will run directly counter to the some of
the bill's stated restoration goals. We provide the following comments
in the interest of improving Senator Wyden's current proposal, and in
hopes of modifying the legislation to address our concerns.
mandating annual acreage targets
While the bill promotes the use of the best available science to
guide management decisions, it mandates annual acreage targets during
both the interim period and for each covered National Forest
thereafter. Annual acreage targets will force individual forest
managers to plan and implement projects based on this mandate, rather
than on actual restoration needs. This approach will burden taxpayers,
as the Forest Service will be obligated to plan and implement annual
landscape scale projects regardless of whether Congress funds the
implementation of the proposal or whether restoration projects actually
bring in enough revenue to pay for the Forest Service's costs.
Particularly during the interim period, these acreage mandates will be
focused on mechanical entry into forests and the removal of sawlogs,
activities which create unreasonable expectations within the timber
industry for steady and increased levels of logs from National Forests,
expectations which may not be able to be met in the time allotted. For
these reasons, we suggest the removal of specific annual acreage
targets, mandated levels of mechanized activity, and language
emphasizing sawlog production over other values. The bill should not
dictate a desired result but should allow the best available science to
guide which restoration approaches are prioritized in each national
forest based on local needs.
using the best available science
In 1994, the Eastside Scientific Society Panel issued a report to
Congress and the President (Henjum, et al; The Wildlife Society,
Technical Review 94-2, August 1994) which outlined the key strategies
that were necessary to protect and restore old growth forests and
healthy watersheds. The Forest Service adopted some of these
recommendations on what was supposed to be an interim basis in what
became known as the `Eastside Screens.' The scientific recommendations
in the Eastside Scientific Society Panel's Report in 1994 are just as
pressing and relevant today as they were then. While the bill
incorporates some of this science, it is silent on others. The bill
directs a new science panel to finish its report in less than six
months, but does not provide enough direction to them to meet this
ambitious time line. Rather than rushing a new process, we believe the
science panel created by this legislation should be explicitly directed
to incorporate and build upon recommendations of the Eastside
Scientific Society Panel Reportof 1994, and include: protecting large
trees and old growth stands from logging, protecting significant
roadless areas 1000 acres or larger, limiting mechanical entry into
intact forests, curtailing grazing and preventing post-fire salvage
logging.
administrative appeals
During the interim period covering some 300,000 acres and three or
more years, this bill removes an important mechanism that the public
uses to resolve disputes with the Forest Service -- administrative
appeals. Administrative appeals are a fundamental reflection of the
strength of the democratic process, facilitating dialogue rather than
litigation. The Sierra Club has found that administrative appeals do
allow a meaningful way for the public to resolve concerns over projects
without having to go to directly court. During the interim period, the
bill entirely removes the right for the public to administratively
appeal logging projects, including those conducted after fires, in old
growth stands and significant roadless areas. We believe this will lead
to more litigation, not less. We strongly suggest that dministrative
appeal rights be retained for all projects during the interim period.
riparian area protection
We appreciate that the bill incorporates the PacFISH and INFISH
riparian buffers. We do have some concerns because as implemented now,
PacFISH and INFISH currently allow some harmful activities in sensitive
riparian areas. Further, the extent of riparian areas on the landscape
is arguably greater than PacFISH and INFISH provide. The buffers for
non-fish bearing streams and perennial streams are generally inadequate
to ensure the health and recovery of these systems. We suggest that
this legislation start with PacFISH and INFISH as a floor with the
opportunity to administratively expand riparian buffers under the
recommendations of the science panel, make compliance with those
standards mandatory, and incorporates the direction that has been
provided by the NOAA Fisheries the Fish & Wildlife Service through
existing biological opinions on anadramous and inland fish.
road network
Based on our experience on the ground and familiarity with the best
available science, the benefits of logging in a forest are often
outweighed by the negative effects on soils, hydrology and aquatic
systems from ground disturbing mechanical activities and road
construction. We are very concerned that widespread use of mechanical
treatments and `temporary' roads will have extensive and persistent
impacts on soils. Even if the use of a road is claimed to be temporary,
the effects of building the road and its presence often last for
decades. Temporary roads may be temporary as to their use, but it is
well established that the impacts of such roads are not temporary on
the hydrology and water quality of affected watersheds. A road should
only be called temporary if its effects on the land are actually
determined to be temporary based on the best available science.
Decommissioning of all temporary roads must be part of completing the
restoration project. If it is part of a later project, we think it
highly unlikely that the decommissioning will be completed. We further
support strategic and robust efforts to reduce the permanent road
network and suggest legislating more specific goals and benchmarks in
this billto make this a reality.
natural processes & emergencies
There is no scientific consensus on what constitutes ``emergency
status'' or ``uncharacteristic'' events, particularly in the face of
altered ecosystems and a changing climate. Legislating this type of
language will undermine the work of the science panel to soberly assess
restoration needs and priorities on the landscape, paints natural
processes in a negative light, begs the question of when the situation
will no longer be an emergency, and may encourage managers to take
actions counter to the legislation's stated goals. For these reasons,
we suggest that terminology designating the situation in the forests as
an ``emergency,'' as well as the designation of emergency conditions,
should be removed or very tightly constrained to ensure that any
project needing more analysis than a categorical exclusion would not be
covered.
job creation
Economists are increasingly realizing that our forests have value
as sources of clean water, salmon habitat, recreation and carbon
storage. The Sierra Club believes that any new approach to create jobs
in national forest restoration must not focus solely on the economics
of supporting the logging industry, but also on enhancing non-timber
values and diversifying the restoration economy as a whole. To this
end, policies should be enacted to deliberately create a diverse array
of businesses in eastern Oregon through systematic and long-term
investments in ecological restoration activities. If the focus is
primarily on generating logs for the mill, then the boom and bust cycle
of timber prices and housing starts will continue to create economic
uncertainty as they have for decades. This legislation should create
clear targets on improving fish passage, restoring degraded riparian
areas, reducing the dense road network and removing invasive species,
in order to stimulate the creation of new businesses within a diverse
restoration economy. In addition to these activities, within the
wildland urban interface, the focus should thinning brush and small
diameter trees. Outside of those interfaces, a greater focus should
beplaced on utilizing both prescribed and wildland use fie policies to
re-introduce natural processes where ecosystems have been significantly
altered.
conclusion
The passage of S. 2895 would mark a significant shift in management
of Oregon's eastside National Forests. The Sierra Club believes it is
important to codify interim rules in place since 1994 that protect
large diameter trees and riparian areas. However, we believe this
legislation's emphasis on mechanical entry into forests and maintaining
mill infrastructure through sawlog production, combined with mandated
annual acreage targets and removal of administrative appeals for what
could become several years, will undermine the important ecological
restoration goals this bill contains.
We believe that through the removal of annual acreage mandates, the
retention of administrative appeal rights and the more explicit
incorporation of existing eastside science will go a long way towards
addressing our concerns.
______
Statement of Russell Hoeflich, Vice President and Oregon Director, The
Nature Conservancy, on S. 2895
We applaud Senator Ron Wyden for his leadership in bringing
together a diverse group of Oregonians to craft pioneering legislation
that will put people to work restoring Eastern Oregon's forests. We
commend the leaders of conservation and industry groups for their hard
work and willingness to set aside differences to chart a better future
for our eastside forests.
The Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth Protection and
Jobs Act (S. 2895) is a pioneering and historic effort by long-standing
adversaries to put the past behind them and to work together for a
positive solution. This legislation focuses energy and attention where
it belongs--on the significant consensus that exists for implementing
on the ground restoration activities on Oregon's Eastside national
forests.
The Nature Conservancy strongly supports the proposed legislation
as a sound approach to forest and stream restoration that will result
in healthier habitats for fish and wildlife over millions of acres of
public land, while also creating more jobs in rural communities.
In Eastern Oregon, millions of acres of dry forests and riparian
areas are ecologically unhealthy. The Act establishes key principles
and guidance to address past conflicts and respond to the needs of
today, and establishes a restoration and recovery road map for the
future to improve the health of our eastside national forests,
watersheds, and economy that will:
Focus management on restoration--The primary goal of the Act
is to make landscape-scale forest and riparian restoration the
primary goal of federal management on Eastern Oregon's nine
million acres of federal forests.
Base management decisions on sound science--The bill
requires that restoration activities consider the best
available science. Management decisions will be guided by
forest-wide ecological assessments, and the recommendations of
a scientific advisory panel tasked with reviewing and providing
guidance on restoration strategies and projects.
Protect old growth--The legislation establishes protections
for older trees and encourages forest management activities
that will contribute to ensuring old growth characteristics can
eventually predominate in Eastside forests.
Provide immediate near-term timber supply--Eastside mills
are struggling, with lack of timber supply playing a key role.
By creating an interim period that focuses on restoration
projects with sawlogs as an attribute, mills will have
increased access to a stable timber supply.
Maintain timber infrastructure--Meaningful forest
restoration at the scale envisioned requires a stable timber
industry, a difficult undertaking without the surety of a
diverse timber supply base that includes federal forests. A key
goal is to maintain infrastructure sufficient to achieve
restoration goals, reflected in nearly every aspect of the
legislation.
Ensure riparian and aquatic protection and restoration--
Eastside watersheds have been degraded, and greater protection
is needed to support key species and habitats and ensure clean
water. This legislation establishes clear direction to guide
aquatic and riparian restoration efforts, and also recognizes
the need to reduce impacts from existing roads.
Promote collaboration--Collaboration is often a key
attribute of reaching agreement on the restoration of specific
forest landscapes--where they exist, this legislation supports
and emphasizes collaborative efforts, where they do not, it
incentivizes and encourages their creation.
Once the bill is enacted, it will be critical to ensure that
funding is made available to implement it. Given the rare and landmark
nature of the agreement, Eastern Oregon should be a priority for
federal forest restoration funding. We believe the focus on
collaboration and sound science will reduce the costs to plan and
implement restoration projects that produce saw logs as a byproduct.
Forest restoration in Eastern Oregon provides an opportunity to
demonstrate increased cost-effectiveness.
The Nature Conservancy has an extensive history of working on
collaborative and scientific approaches to forest restoration in
Oregon. The Eastside Forest Restoration bill will help us and our
partners apply lessons learned from these efforts and expand them to a
larger scale. Examples include:
The Northwest Fire Learning Network is a collaborative
effort among The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management, state and local agencies,
businesses, landowners, scientists, community groups and others
to restore fire-adapted ecosystems. The Network seeks to foster
partnership, planning and innovation to accelerate the
restoration of fire-adapted forests throughout the Pacific
Northwest, including key efforts at the Upper Deschutes Basin,
Sprague watershed, and Applegate watershed.
The Ashland Forest Resiliency project is a collaborative,
community-based initiative to restore healthy conditions to
7,600 acres of public forest within a larger 22,000-acre area
of public forest that includes the Ashland Creek watershed. The
project goals are to reduce the risk of large-scale wildfire;
help large, old trees survive fire, insects and disease;
restore a healthy forest ecosystem; and provide clean drinking
water, recreation and wildlife habitat. Strong accountability
and performance measures are incorporated in the project and
will be monitored by a diverse group of local stakeholders. The
Nature Conservancy is providing technical and scientific
support to the project.
The Conservancy participated in the Birds and Burns Research
Network at our Sycan Marsh Preserve in Lake County in
cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service and others. The award-
winning project advanced our understanding of the impacts of
forest management and controlled burning on cavity-nesting
birds.
The Forest Landscape Restoration Act, a top priority for the
Conservancy, was signed into law as title IV of the Omnibus
Public Land Management Act of 2009. The Act encourages
collaborative initiatives based on the best available science
to plan and prioritize landscape-scale forest restoration
projects. The Act also authorizes $40 million per year to
supplement local resources and leverage non-federal support to
make large-scale, long-term forest restoration projects
feasible.
The Conservancy helped convene and facilitate four
restoration collaboratives in Oregon and also assisted the
teams with technical GIS support.
The Nature Conservancy is a leading conservation organization
working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and
waters for nature and people. To date, the Conservancy and its one
million members have been responsible for the protection of more than
18 million acres in the United States and have helped preserve more
than 117 million acres in Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia and the
Pacific. In Oregon, the Conservancy owns or manages 47 nature preserves
and has helped protect over 500,000 acres of important habitats, with
support from 21,000 member households.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony, and we want to
extend our appreciation to Senator Wyden and his staff for leading the
effort.
______
Statement of Susan Batterson and JT Batterson, on S. 2963
Chairman Wyden and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding Senate Bill 2963.
We own forty acres of land immediately adjacent to land included in
the proposed land exchange, including land that would be designated as
a new wilderness area. Our land is the former site of the Horse Heaven
Mine on Gosner Road, which at one time was one of the country's largest
producers of mercury and which currently includes a small residence our
family uses as a vacation retreat. The property is approximately
seventeen miles due east from Ashwood, Oregon, Township 10 South, Range
18 East, Section 12, in Jefferson County.
Unless the bill is amended as we suggest below, the land exchange
proposed in Senate Bill 2963 and the preliminary plans of certain
stakeholders for the development of trailhead, parking and camping
facilities to service the Wilderness area would adversely impact the
use and enjoyment of our property and implicates serious issues of
public health and safety. The purpose of our testimony is to outline
those concerns and request that the bill be amended to address them.
horse heaven mine history
To provide context for our testimony, following is a brief history
of our property and the land around it.
In 1931 Raymond Whiting Jr. and Harry Hoy spent a summer at the
current Horse Heaven Mine site prospecting for cinnabar. They
discovered a viable source on the lower half of Horse Heaven Mountain
and as a result Ray Whiting Sr. and Charlie Hayes started the
development of the first level of the mine. Whiting and Hayes owned and
operating the mine from 1931-1934, producing an estimated 2,200 flasks
of mercury. In 1934 the mine was sold to Sun Oil Company. Sun Oil
Company operated the mine until 1958. The mine was the second largest
mercury producer in the country with the estimated production at 17,214
flasks of mercury. The mine had 10 levels and went back into the side
of Horse Heaven Mountain approximately 1,500 feet in various
directions.
The original owners of the Horse Heaven Mine acquired 2,400 acres
of land. The entire 2,400 acres were sold to Sun Oil Company in 1934.
After the mine ceased operations, Sun Oil Company sold the mine and the
2,400 acres to Tom MacDonald. Subsequently, 40 acres where the mine
actually sits today were deeded to Ray Whiting Jr. He and his wife
Clyde Whiting lived at the mine site year round from 1965-1983. In 1986
the mine was deeded to Susan Batterson (daughter of Ray Whiting), who
is the current owner today along with her son JT Batterson.
In 2001 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) took
interest in environmental and human safety issues that the mine
presented. The remains of the mine and its operations consists of large
mine tailing piles, old building structures, mine shafts and large pits
in the side of Horse Heaven Mountain where the tunnels have collapsed.
Studies were conducted and ODEQ issued a Record of Decision, Remedial
Action Plan in December 2005. The primary remedial actions were to
limit access to the site, cap a furnace area and implement measures to
limit overland migration of mine waste offsite. In addition to other
remedial actions, one remedy implemented was the entry of an Easement
and Equitable Servitude to restrict access to and use of the property
in order to prevent the public from moving the tailings offsite (either
intentionally or unintentionally on shoes or clothing).
The only current water source for our property (the primary water
source since 1932) is a spring located approximately one mile to the
southwest on Young Life property that is to be transferred to the BLM
pursuant to the bill. The spring is connected to our property through
steel pipes. Due to the history outlined above, we are not able to
drill for water on our property.
plans for trailhead, parking and camping
Although not explicitly part of the bill, some proponents of the
land exchange and creation of the Wilderness areas have begun planning
for the construction of improvements to facilitate access to the
Wilderness areas. Preliminary maps associated with the legislation
reflected those plans by including in the land exchange the transfer of
a certain portion of property from Young Life to BLM that would not be
designated as wilderness. The proponents of the bill preliminarily
planned to use that property for the construction of a trailhead,
parking and camping area to serve as an access point for the Wilderness
areas. Those proposed facilities would have been located approximately
1,200 feet from the residence on our property.
We have worked with the bill's proponents to identify an
alternative location for the trailhead, parking and camping facilities,
and believe that a consensus is developing around a location
approximately 1.25 miles west of the site that concerns us. We would
approve location of the facilities at that alternative location.
concerns regarding senate bill 2963 and plans for related development
Our primary concerns are as follows:
1. Public Health and Safety
The property exchange and wilderness designation, as well as the
plans of certain promoters of the exchange, contemplate that the 40
acre parcel immediately to the southwest of our property will be
developed as a publicized public access trailhead and campground with
enough parking to accommodate horse trailers. Although the Site Closure
Report prepared for the ODEQ remedial action contemplates an occasional
resident, hiker or camper in the area, it did not contemplate the
development of a permanent, publicized public facility adjacent to the
property. The remedial action implemented at the mine site relies
heavily on restricting access to that area in order to limit exposure
to the mercury and arsenic found on the site. It would be unwise to
place a public access trailhead and campground so close to the site.
The Site Closure Report is attached as Exhibit 1 to this testimony.
We note as well that the mine tunnels on our property are known to
be an important maternity and hibernation resource for the Townsend's
Big Eared Bat, which are identified as a sensitive species in Oregon.
2. Access to Water
We need to preserve access to the spring and piping that provides
water for our property, including the ability to use motor vehicles to
reach the spring and the pipeline to perform maintenance on the system.
An additional, related concern is that the contemplated trailhead,
parking lot and campground would sit directly above the pipe that
connects the spring to our property, potentially impairing its use and
maintenance.
3. Use and Enjoyment of Our Property
A residence at the current mine site is used by family members for
periods throughout the year. If the proposed trailhead, parking and
campsites are located in the 40 acres adjacent to the southwest corner
of our property, it would significantly impact the privacy of the
family members that currently use the site for a personal retreat.
proposed solutions
Through a family representative and legal counsel, we have begun
working with the offices of Senator Wyden and Representative Walden,
participants in the land exchange and the Oregon Natural Desert
Association to identify solutions to the concerns we have raised above.
It is our sincere desire to be able to support Senate Bill 2963, with
amendments that protect public health and safety and our own private
property interests. The solutions include the following, which we
respectfully request be included in amendments to the bill and the
Subcommittee's report:
1. To protect public health, public safety and my family's
use and enjoyment of our property, the contemplated trailhead,
parking lot and campground should not be located in the forty-
acre parcel immediately adjacent to the southwest corner of our
property. This week, representatives of my family and other
stakeholder made separate visits to the area to evaluate
alternative sites for the proposed facilities. Additionally, we
have begun discussions with Young Life about the possibility of
purchasing the subject property from Young Life, for the
purpose of excluding it from the land exchange and preserving
it as a buffer against the public lands. In no event, however,
should that property be developed as initially contemplated.
2. We have begun working with Young Life to formalize a legal
agreement regarding rights to the water and access to the
spring and piping that constitute the only source of water for
our property. We request that the legislation provide that BLM
would take Young Life's property subject to the agreement
between Young Life and us, and that we be permitted to use
motor vehicles to access the spring and pipes for maintenance
purposes notwithstanding any general prohibitions against the
use of motor vehicles in wilderness areas. At a minimum, we
need to retain the ability to use a backhoe to maintain the
water facilities.
Chairman Wyden and Members of the Subcommittee, we thank you for
taking these matters into consideration. We look forward to working
with the stakeholders, your staff and the Committee to address these
matters in a way that protects public health and safety, as well as our
private property rights.
______
Statement of Bob Freimark, Senior Policy Analyst, The Wilderness
Society, on S. 2963
The Wilderness Society is a national, non-profit conservation group
with about 500,000 members and supporters. The mission of The
Wilderness Society is to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to
care for our wild places. Since its establishment in 1935, The
Wilderness Society has advocated for protecting America's wild, special
lands such as Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven.
S. 2963, the Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness Act
designate two new wilderness areas (approximately 16,000 acres) as part
of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The bill also directs
three land exchanges to occur between private parties and the federal
government.
The Wilderness Society supports S. 2963. We do have a legislative
language recommendation for improving the water rights section of the
bill which is detailed below.
S. 2963 will permit the public to better access and enjoy the Wild
and Scenic John Day River by blocking up ownership through land
exchanges enabling additional access to the river. The legislation also
creates a large block of wilderness quality land, while helping
eliminate trespassing occurring both on the current BLM lands, and the
private landowners land. The two wilderness designations include a
diversity of habitat types including grasslands, riparian areas, shrub
steppe and forests. They also provide important habitat for threatened
summer steelhead and Chinook salmon as well as other sensitive species
including the John Day pincushion, Western Toad, pygmy rabbits, and
Ferruginous hawks. The wilderness proposal provides important wintering
habitat for mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk. Over four miles of the
Wild and Scenic John Day River would be added to public ownership. The
land exchanges would be subject to appraisal (using Uniform Appraisal
Standards) and will be equal value. The land consolidation will enhance
the wilderness qualities of the wilderness designations, and will
improve the manageability of the lands involved.
recommendation
The water rights section is in Sec. 3(c)(6) and reads, ``STATE
WATER LAWS-Nothing in this section constitutes an exemption from State
water laws (including regulations).'' We recommend modifying the
legislation to more standard legislative language. It should read as
``As provided in paragraph 4(d)(7) of the Wilderness Act, nothing in
this Act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the
part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water
laws.'').
conclusion
The proposed Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness areas could
be outstanding additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System
with the completion of the land exchanges authorized by the bill. The
land exchanges will benefit the public by consolidating public
ownership and providing the public with high resource value lands such
as the John Day River properties. We thank Senator Wyden for his
leadership on this proposal, and offer our support of having this
legislation signed into law.