[Senate Hearing 111-730]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-730
PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
S. 3294
S. 3310
S. 3313
__________
JUNE 16, 2010
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-594 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
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
Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator From Idaho........................ 4
Dart, Bill, Representative, Idaho Recreation Council............. 23
Edoff, Scott, South Dakota Rancher, Hermosa, SD.................. 43
Ensign, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Nevada...................... 6
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 14
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota................ 1
Johnson, Rick, Executive Director, Idaho Conservation League,
Boise, ID...................................................... 29
O'Brien, Dan, South Dakota Rancher, Hermosa, SD.................. 40
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator From Nevada....................... 22
Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 3
Rountree, Carl, Director, National Landscape Conservation System,
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.......... 10
Simpson, Hon. Michael K., U.S. Representative From Idaho......... 8
Sisolak, Steve, Commissioner, Board of County Commissioners,
Clark County, NV............................................... 19
Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From South Dakota................. 7
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 51
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 53
PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS LEGISLATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 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 2:35 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH
DAKOTA
Senator Johnson [presiding]. Senator Wyden will be here
shortly, but asked me to start this hearing in his absence.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider three bills
pending before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests.
They are S. 3294, the Central Idaho Economic Development and
Recreation Act, sponsored by Senators Crapo and Risch.
S. 3310, my legislation, to designate certain wilderness
areas in South Dakota.
S. 3313, the Sloan Hills Withdrawal Act, sponsored by
Senators Reid and Ensign.
Several of our colleagues have asked to speak on these
bills today. In addition we have representatives from the BLM
and Forest Service and a panel of five witnesses from South
Dakota, Nevada and Idaho testifying this afternoon. So we have
a lot of ground to cover in a limited amount of time.
I'd like to take a few minutes to speak on S. 3310. Then
following that, recognize Senator Barrasso for any opening
statement he would like to make.
I thank Senator Wyden for holding today's hearing and the
opportunity to consider landmark legislation protecting
America's Great Plains grasslands. I want to welcome Dan
O'Brien and Scott Edoff. Thank them for taking the time to
travel to Washington, DC, to share their perspectives on these
important matters.
In May I introduced the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley
Conservation Act to establish the first grasslands wilderness
area in the U.S. and provide the public with a unique
experience to enjoy these public lands. These lands are already
managed as wilderness. The Cheyenne River Valley and the
Buffalo Gap National Grassland includes some of the finest
prairie wilderness in the U.S. Located among isolated buttes
and the wide Cheyenne River Valley these lands remain
undisturbed in the form that the native people, who first
inhabited these lands long ago would recognize.
The effort to protect these ancient lands is citizen driven
and buttressed, by the support of groups representing over
100,000 South Dakotans. In 2002 the U.S. Forest Service under
the Bush Administration recognized the value of part of
wilderness in the Buffalo Gap and recommended certain lands for
inclusion in the National Wilderness Prevention System. I have
heard from a number of people regarding wilderness over the
years.
Sportsmen have contacted me describing the unique
experience of hunting in areas far from the reaches of modern
civilization. They talk about experiencing hunting as previous
generations did and wanting to pass along that experience to
their kids and grandkids. I have also heard from
conservationists about the value of this area for native
prairie plants and wildlife. Others have pointed to the
potential economic benefits of wilderness as these outstanding
lands draw in travelers who in turn contribute to the regional
economy.
My bill is a modest proposal, less than 10 percent of the
lands in the Buffalo Gap National Grassland. I have made
several compromises that will enhance the public enjoyment
while allowing for common sense management and respect for
ranchers holding permits to run cattle on these lands. Grazing
is an important component of the grassland ecosystem and this
wilderness legislation ensures continuation of grazing for
those who have made their living off these lands.
Sound management and long standing restrictions on
motorized travel have preserved the outstanding natural quality
of these areas. My legislation provides the Forest Service the
tools to manage the lands to maintain their character in
perpetuity. The bill allows for the control of fire, insects
and invasive species. It also ensures that the Forest Service
can continue to appropriately manage prairie dog populations on
these lands.
In most respects I have followed the Forest Service
recommendations in the purpose of preserving important access
to the areas. I am pleased that the Forest Service supports
this legislation. By designating a portion of the Cheyenne
River Valley as wilderness it is possible to protect its
undeveloped character from encroaching motorized recreation
while providing hunters, rock collectors, campers and hikers a
new way to enjoy prairie grasslands.
In closing I want to share with the committee why I came to
name this bill in recognition of my long time friend and great
advocate for South Dakota's open spaces, the late Tony Dean. It
is his words in describing the purposes of creating a
grasslands wilderness bill that I turn to for the best
explanation for why this bill is necessary. Tony said that,
``let's relate wilderness from the perspective of a hunter. It
does not take a rocket scientist among hunters to recognize
that once the opening salvo takes place on opening morning of
the big game seasons no matter where you live the best hunting
is almost always found far from the nearest road.''
That sentiment is what, in part, this legislation is aimed
at creating. A place where the public and future generations
can enjoy a unique wilderness experience found in a few places
outside my great State of South Dakota.
Before turning to the first panel of witnesses, let me
recognize Senator Risch.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Senator. Welcome
everyone. We're here today to hear about three proposals. The
one, of course, most interest to me is S. 3294 which is the
CIEDRA, what we call in Idaho the CIEDRA bill. Which has been
crafted and worked on by Senator Simpson over about a decade
now. Is that correct Senator--or Congressman Simpson?
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Senator Risch. The time flies, doesn't it when you're
having fun?
You know in Idaho we have the largest block, I believe, of
wilderness in the continental United States of contiguous
wilderness area. It was put in place a number of decades ago.
It was done through a process that's very much different than
the way we do these things today. That is it was done from the
top down.
Today and after those initial forays into resolving the
land use issues on these types of Federal lands really the
process was high centered for a number of decades. Recently
again, we have waded into attempting to do the kinds of things
that this bill does. That is dealing with the use of Federal
lands. But we did it a different way. We did it from the bottom
up. We did it a collaborative way. We did it in a way that
reached consensus as far as the land is concerned.
Senator Crapo, who is with us today, did that in the Canyon
lands properties in Idaho. Certainly that wound up being a
great success. It was difficult. These things are difficult.
They're not impossible. But they are difficult.
I had the opportunity to do that when I was Governor with
9.2 million acres of road less. We have the only Roadless Rule
in America. It was developed, again, from the bottom up.
It was a consensus driven process. I worked with
conservation groups. I see Rick Johnson is going to be here to
testify on this matter representing what I think is probably
our flagship conservation group in Idaho, the Idaho
Conservation League.
We worked with users of the land both motorized users, non-
motorized users, from all the other stakeholders, industry and
citizens who just have a general interest in seeing how their
property is used in the State. Through this process we were
able to really resolve most of the, if not all of the issues
regarding these properties. A resolution, which was a consensus
resolution, was adopted. The, as I said, these things are
difficult, but not impossible.
The 9.2 million acres I dealt with are probably some of the
most diverse properties going from very magnificent peaks all
the way to general forest lands. We were able to sit down and
go through them a piece at a time and give and take to the
point where there was consensus. So I know that it's possible.
Congressman Simpson deserves a tremendous amount of
gratitude of the people of the State of Idaho in recognition
and appreciation for the work that he has done on the CIEDRA
bill. As I understand it, however, there are still some pending
issues that are going to need, perhaps, some more of the
collaborative process and in order to reach this consensus that
we've talked about. I'm interested today in hearing how we're
going to get there.
I understand that we're going to hear testimony about the
good parts of the bill, the bad parts of the bill and all that.
I wasn't involved in the details of it. I don't think Senator
Crapo was, perhaps more than I was, but I wasn't. So, but
Representative Simpson was involved in that. He knows this
backward, forwards and what have you.
Today, from my standpoint, I'm interested more in hearing
on the procedural basis, how we get to the consensus that we
need in order to get these adopted. So, thank you very much.
With that, I yield back.
Senator Wyden [presiding]. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I was
late. I very much appreciate your stepping in. Why don't we go
right to our witnesses?
We've got a distinguished group. Know I've kept them
waiting. With your pleasure why don't we just go right ahead to
them? Colleagues all.
Senator Crapo, let's start with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you
Chairman Johnson and Chairman Wyden.
Senator Wyden. There are chairmen everywhere.
Senator Crapo. That's right. Senator Risch, I appreciate
your, not only your service on this committee, but your
participation in this process as we move forward. I appreciate
the invitation to address the subcommittee regarding S. 3294,
the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act, also
known as Senator Risch indicated, as CIEDRA in Idaho.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to address the
subcommittee today. I also want to thank our witnesses for
being here.
Rick Johnson, the Executive Director of the Idaho
Conservation League and Bill Dart, representing the Idaho
Recreation Council. Rick has been in his position for 15 years.
Bill has a long history in land use advocacy over the last 25
years. I'm very pleased that these two men could join us today.
Nestled in the rugged, pristine expanse of Central Idaho
are the Boulder/White Cloud Mountains located in and adjacent
to the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and surrounded by the
communities of Sun Valley, Ketchum, Stanley, Challis, Mackay
and Clayton, the Boulder/White Clouds are truly wild and
exquisite. The area has significant value for the many groups
that visit it every year from hunters to hikers to off-road
vehicle users and others. In addition to its diversity of
elevations and habitat the biological diversity is incredible
with spawning salmon and steelhead and big game such as elk,
mountain goat, big horn sheep and black bear, among others.
Simply put, this area is one of Idaho's greatest assets.
The discussion over how to most effectively manage and
protect the Boulder/White Clouds dates back decades. In the
1970s when Republican Senator Jim McClure and Democrat Governor
Cecil Andrus found themselves in the middle of a spirited
debate over how to balance development, recreation and resource
extraction with conservation and environmental protection in
the interior West. They took a stab at it.
Faced with the pressures of development and the increasing
popularity of the area for many of the user groups inside and
outside Idaho, interest groups, elected officials and everyday
citizens began discussing the need to manage the area in a way
that acknowledged and protected the many uses of these lands
while also preserving it for future generations by protecting
its pristine nature. Senator McClure and Governor Andrus worked
across party lines and made two attempts during the 1980s to
find a way forward. But those efforts did not succeed.
I got involved in 1993 shortly after I was sworn in as the
Representative for Idaho's Second Congressional District. I
held collaborative meetings across the State in an effort to
get this done. While we were hopeful at the beginning the
political dynamics changed and we faced a stalemate for years.
In 1999 after I came to the Senate, Representative Mike
Simpson, who was at that time the newly elected Representative
of the Second District decided to take another stab at it. Mike
decided to start from scratch and see if he could bring the
various interests together to forge an agreement that the
parties could support. These efforts have taken years. I want
to acknowledge Mike Simpson, his staff and their partners in
this process for their hard work.
While this bill is not perfect, and does need some more
work, Senator Risch and I are going to continue working with
the stakeholders from the motorized recreation community to
address access issues. We will also continue working with the
State of Idaho to address its concerns regarding the value of
and access to State land in-holdings and the need to
effectively manage wildlife within the proposed wilderness
areas, among other issues. On that note, Mr. Chairman, Idaho
Governor Butch Otter has provided Senator Risch and me with a
letter describing the State of Idaho's concerns with the
legislation. I would ask that that letter be made a part of the
record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, it's so ordered.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. Like you, Mr. Chairman, I believe
that public land management issues require locally based,
collaborative efforts in order to find true, sustainable,
solutions to the many challenges we face. These decisions ought
to be made as a result of on the ground, collaborative work
between all of the parties involved and affected.
For example, I worked for many years on a similar project
in Southwestern Idaho that Senator Risch mentioned. Now I'm
working on another in North Central Idaho. So I know personally
how difficult this task is.
We have to undertake these efforts together in a consensus
based manner. If we do not, we will never find our way forward.
You and your staff know this all too well, Mr. Chairman, as is
evidenced by your recent work to resolve forest management
challenges in Eastern Oregon, for example.
To conclude, I thank our witnesses again for joining us
today. I also thank Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member
Murkowski for working with me and Senator Risch on this bill. I
also thank their staffs, who have worked closely with me and my
staff on this and other bills over the years. David Brooks and
Scott Miller with Chairman Bingaman and Frank Gladics with
Ranking Member Murkowski have treated my office with great
respect and have put in many hours of hard work on legislation
to address public land issues in Idaho.
I greatly appreciate them. Look forward to continuing our
work together. Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
inviting me to speak here today and for holding this hearing.
Senator Wyden. Senator Crapo, thank you. I know you put a
lot of time and effort into this. We'll work closely with you.
Here's our challenge. We've got 12 minutes and we've got
two votes. So we could have each of you take 4 minutes if you
wanted to hypothetically, you know, do that. I see----
Senator Ensign. I'll try to do mine in three.
Senator Wyden. Perfect. Let's try.
Senator Ensign. Ok.
Senator Wyden. Senator Ensign, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other members
of the panel. I'm here to testify on the Sloan Hills Withdrawal
Act of 2010. I'd also like to thank Senator or Commissioner
Sisolak from my State for coming out here. He'll be testifying
on this bill as well. It indicates how much community support
there is for the bill in opposition to what would be going on
if we don't withdraw this land.
About 640 acres of BLM land is what we're talking about
here. If you think about it it's a donut hole within the city
of Henderson, the third largest city in Nevada. We're talking
about something that would be used as a gravel pit. That's what
the proposed use of it is.
The people who live near there, their anthem is a master
plan development that is right near there, about 12,000
residents. They are in overwhelming opposition. They have a
petition where 5,500 people have signed that petition opposing
the gravel pit there. They're supporting the legislation to
withdraw this land from being used as a gravel pit.
These folks in this area would be impacted by noise, dust,
blasting, digging, traffic and obviously, decreasing home
values in an area where home values have already taken a major
hit. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can move this
legislation. It's important.
It's supported by the entire Nevada delegation. I would say
that it has broad support, other than obviously, the people
interested in having a gravel pit there, has really brought
support across the areas that are affected in Nevada. I will
keep my testimony that short so you can get on with the rest of
them. But know that we really need this legislation.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Ensign. I know Senator
Reid feels very strongly about this as well. He's talked to me
about it. That's a priority. We'll work very closely with you
all and get it moving.
Senator Thune, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to
share a few words on S. 3310 which is a bill that would
designate 48,000 acres of Federal lands within the existing
Buffalo Gap National Grasslands as wilderness. In particular I
want to introduce Mr. Scott Edoff of Hermosa, South Dakota to
the committee today. He will be testifying on a later panel.
Scott and his wife, Veronica ranch Southeast of Rapid City.
The Edoff Family has been grazing livestock for four
generations in the proposed wilderness area. I would argue, Mr.
Chairman, that nobody cares more about health of the Buffalo
Gap National Grasslands than previous, current and future
generations of the Edoff Family. I thank him for traveling all
the way from Western South Dakota to testify before this
committee today.
Scott's testimony before the committee reflects not only
his family's views but also the concerns of 30 government,
trade, recreation, tourism and agriculture associations that
have weighed in against the proposed wilderness designation in
South Dakota. I think his testimony is also compelling because
it echoes the concerns of a great number of the current grazing
permit holders within the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands.
Growing up in Murdo, which is just east of the Buffalo Gap
National Grasslands, I have met with several of these ranchers
and local organizations who are concerned by the potential long
term impacts of a permanent wilderness designation.
While I appreciate Senator Johnson's intention with this
legislation I share their concerns of how such a designation
would ultimately impact pest management, natural disaster
mitigation, grazing permits and recreational activities within
the proposed area. Along with Governor Rounds, I'm also highly
concerned about how a wilderness designation in the Buffalo Gap
Grassland would impact existing low altitude training for the
South Dakota Army National Guard, notwithstanding the
exemptions that are stipulated in the legislation. Currently
there are ample land use restrictions already in place that
have successfully kept this area in pristine condition for
generations. I would strongly caution this committee against
imposing additional restrictions against the will of the local
stakeholders.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I believe these types of land use
decisions should be made from the bottom/up. Like many of the
past wilderness designations this committee has considered
permanent wilderness designation should enjoy broad local
support from a diverse group of stakeholders. Unfortunately
that degree of broad support does not exist today for the lands
and the individuals who would be impacted by S. 3310.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, while Governor Rounds could not join
me in person here today to reiterate his concerns on behalf of
the State of South Dakota, I would like to submit for the
record a letter from Governor Mike Rounds expressing his
opposition to this bill.
Senator Wyden. Without objection it's so ordered. We'll
follow up on your views. Of course your views and Senator
Johnson's views are very important to the subcommittee. We'll
follow up with you.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Mike Simpson, welcome. Good to see you and--
--
Mr. Simpson. Nice to be over here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Congressman, glad you're here. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
IDAHO
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on a bill that, as Senator Crapo
and Senator Risch mentioned I've been working on for some 10
years since I got into Congress. It's been a conflicted area
that I think needs to be resolved. I've thought that. I've
worked with local communities, with conservation groups,
recreation groups, with ranchers and others to try to solve a
problem that's existed for many, many years in Southeast Idaho
and that is land management in the Boulder/White Clouds area.
As Senator Crapo mentioned this attempt has been made many
times by many different individuals. Things are different
today. Lawsuits, national monument threats, ESA protections,
Fish and Wildlife, as well as a myriad of other restrictions
and conflicts have forced all parties to reconsider their
approach to this and how they might need to compromise in order
to reach a solution of how we manage these public lands called
the Boulder/White Clouds.
I've sought to be inclusive and to recognize the needs of
the surrounding communities, motorized users, the ranchers who
live in the area and those who recreate in the Boulder/White
Clouds region and the conservation groups. The old approach of
wilderness, of sacrificing the needs of one individual or
specific user group to benefit the others will not work
anymore. I began this process with the assumption that those
who are affected by wilderness creation must be part of the
solution. In short the needs of the people who live and
recreate in the area are as important as the lines that we draw
on a map.
Let me briefly say what this bill does. This bill releases
four wilderness study areas that are currently wilderness study
areas, treated as de facto wilderness, releases them, a total
of 130,453 acres back to general, multiple use. Most people
forget that. They think we're just creating wilderness. We are
actually releasing some wilderness study areas back to general,
multiple use.
It also creates three new wilderness areas, the Hemingway-
Boulder Wilderness, the White Cloud Wilderness and the Jerry
Peak Wilderness, totaling 332,000 acres. Grants have already
been secured based on this legislation for Custer County and
the surrounding Boulder/White Clouds' communities for economic
development, a community center, a county health clinic, EMT
support and improvements to Tail Creek Highway. Funding has
already been secured for the Sawtooth National Recreation for
trail maintenance and improvements including maintenance and
improvements of existing motorized trails and to provide
primitive wheelchair access and for acquiring the land to build
a mechanized bike snow machine access trail between Redfish
Lake and Stanley.
Through the bill, though the bill selected East Fork--
through the bill selected East Fork permitees may be eligible
to voluntarily, voluntarily I emphasize, retire their grazing
permits in exchange for compensation from private resources. It
provides land conveyances in Custer and Blaine Counties for
public purposes including use for fire stations, bus school
turn arounds, parks, campgrounds, a shooting range, waste water
transfer site and a water tower and water treatment facility.
It keeps Germania Creek trail which has been really the source
of a lot of the conflict over the years. It keeps that corridor
open to motorized travel.
It closes the Grand Prize trail quarter to motorized and
mechanized travel. The Frog Loop Lake is excluded from
wilderness and will remain open under its current use for
motorized and mechanized travel. Snowmobilers will maintain
their access to the traditional high elevation snow machine
areas in the Fourth of July Washington Basin Champion Lakes and
Warm Springs area it also creates a primitive, non-paved,
wheelchair accessible trail into wilderness, first one ever.
Additionally, I'd like to mention as Senator Risch
mentioned, that there are Governor Otter has sent a letter and
he has some concerns and is opposed to the legislation because
of the concerns he's listed. I'd like to address those for just
a minute.
His first one is about conveyances of these public lands to
these local communities and so forth and his concern that they
won't be conveyed and so forth and that of the State parcels
that are within the Jerry Peak Wilderness.
We have put language in the legislation which directs the
Federal Government to negotiate with the State for the transfer
either of those lands to trade lands with other lands that the
State of Idaho might want to acquire or to actually purchase
those lands outright. The conveyances to the communities will
take place immediately upon this bill becoming law. We have
spoken with the Idaho Department of Lands to identify lands
that work for the State in a possible exchange with BLM.
I support helicopter language for wildlife management in
the Boulder/White Clouds, in particular for wolf management.
There is some concerns about that with some people because that
has never been done in Forest Service lands before. It's been
allowed in BLM wilderness areas. But that's and issue that
needs to be worked on. I think we can work that out.
The water language that the Governor mentions needs to be
worked on. Frankly, that was negotiated with State attorney
general's office and Senator Crapo. I think the water language
that currently exists in the bill is the water language that
ought to be in this bill.
Finally, I'm always supportive of providing funds to
eradicate and prevent weed infestations. I think we can all
agree with that.
The fact is the scope and breadth of the bill is one of the
greatest detriments in that it provides its critics an
opportunity to read, interpret and disseminate their views in
any manner they see fit. When I spoke in 2006 before this
committee I said, this is not a perfect bill. However, it's the
compromise that best balances the needs of people who live near
and use and enjoy the Boulder/White Clouds. I continue to stand
by that statement today.
This is a complex issue. On the one hand if any landscape
ever deserved the designation of wilderness it is this pristine
area. It should be preserved for future generations to enjoy.
On the other hand unresolved disputes over land use have
left many Idahoans who are dependent on the land for their
livelihoods with few choices for the future.
Senator Wyden. Congressman, I feel badly. We're just out of
time, literally.
Mr. Simpson. So am I.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. If you'd like to after the 2 votes we can
start back up and give you a couple of additional minutes.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, I have one sentence left and
that will be included in my statement for the record.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. Perfect. Thank you. We'll be following up
with you.
We're going to take a break for 2 votes and then we'll
reconvene right after that.
[RECESS]
Senator Johnson [presiding]. Welcome, Mr. Rountree and Mr.
Holtrop.
Mr. Carl Rountree is the Director of the Office of National
Landscape Conservation System and Community Partnerships,
Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior.
Joel Holtrop is Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Rountree, proceed.
STATEMENT OF CARL ROUNTREE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
CONSERVATION SYSTEM, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Mr. Rountree. Thank you. Thank you for inviting the
Department of the Interior to testify on S. 3294, the Central
Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act and S. 3313, the
Sloan Hills Withdrawal. I will briefly summarize my statements
and ask that the full statements be included in the hearing
record.
Now the Department of the Interior supports S. 3294 as it
applies to lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and
would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and
committee on technical modifications to the legislation. We
defer to the Department of Agriculture regarding provisions of
S. 3294 which apply to the National Forest System lands.
Section 101 of the bill designates three new wilderness
areas: the Jerry Peak Wilderness, White Cloud Wilderness and
Hemmingway-Boulders Wilderness. Approximately 32,000 acres of
the proposed Jerry Peak Wilderness are managed by the BLM along
with approximately 450 acres of the proposed White Cloud
Wilderness. The Department of the Interior supports the
proposed wilderness designations on lands managed by the BLM.
Section 102(e) of S. 3294 establishes the Boulder/White
Clouds grazing area on nearly 770,000 acres of public lands
administered by the Forest Service and BLM surrounding and
including the three areas designated as wilderness. Under the
provisions of this section ranchers with Federal grazing
permits or leases within this area may choose to voluntarily
donate their permits or leases to the Secretary of Agriculture
or Interior. Now the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture
are required to accept these leases and to permanently
terminate grazing on the land covered by the permit or lease.
We support the proposal by the Idaho Delegation to allow
voluntary and permanent reductions in grazing in these unique
and environmentally sensitive areas.
Title II of S. 3294 provides for the conveyance at no cost
of 12 small tracts of public lands to local governments for
public purposes. The BLM supports the conveyances of ten
individual parcels of BLM administered lands to local
governments and defers to the Forest Service on two conveyances
of National Forest System lands. As provided in the bill each
of the conveyances of lands managed by the BLM would be for
purposes consistent with public purposes allowed under the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
With respect to the Sloan Hills Withdrawal, the Department
of the Interior defers taking a position on S. 3313. S. 3313
would withdraw approximately 640 acres of BLM administered,
public land in Clark County, Nevada from all forms of location,
entry and patent under the Mining Laws and of disposition under
all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing or
mineral material sales subject to valid existing rights. Under
the terms of the settlement agreements the BLM is currently in
the process of analyzing two proposed competitive mineral
material sales in the Sloan Hills area through an environmental
impact statement. In 2004, the BLM contested two mining claims
in the Sloan Hills area. The contests were eventually settled
resulting in the BLM agreeing to analyze two competitive
mineral material sales.
In 2007, the BLM initiated an environmental impact
statement to analyze the impacts of the two proposed sales. If
approved, the projects would consist of two open pit, limestone
quarries that would operate for approximately 20 to 30 years.
The draft EIS is planned for release later this summer at which
time BLM will solicit public comments on whether it should
authorize the proposed sales.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on S.
3294 and S. 3313. I'll be happy to answer any questions that
you might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rountree follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carl Rountree, Director, National Landscape
Conservation System, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the
Interior
Thank you for the invitation to testify on S. 3294, the Central
Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act. The Department of the
Interior supports S. 3294 as it applies to lands managed by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) and would like the opportunity to work with
the sponsor and the committee on technical modifications to the
legislation. We defer to the Department of Agriculture regarding
provisions of S. 3294 which apply to National Forest System Lands.
Background
The Boulder-White Clouds area of central Idaho captivates the
imagination with crystal lakes, high mountain backcountry, and abundant
wildlife. Hunters, hikers, ranchers and other stakeholders have come
together to support preservation of these unique and treasured lands
managed by the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the BLM.
The lands managed by the BLM in this region represent diverse
ecosystems ranging from lower elevation sagebrush and grasses to
lodgepole and limber pine at the higher elevations. There are large
forested areas in the upper reaches of Bear, Mosquito, Sage, and Lake
Creek drainages. The highest point is Jerry Peak at over 10,000 feet
where there are spectacular vistas of the surrounding mountain ranges.
Herd Lake, at over 7,000 feet, is a small blue gem within the steep
rocky terrain. From the small Herd Lake campsite visitors can hike the
trail along the creek to Herd Lake. The shores of the lake have
scattered pines and there are wonderful opportunities to fish for
rainbow trout.
This varied and magnificent terrain provides habitat for wildlife
including deer, elk, black bear, mountain lion, bighorn sheep, and
antelope. Coyotes and golden eagles are also common. The area is
attractive to hunters and a significant portion of the yearly
visitation occurs during hunting season.
s. 3294
S. 3294 is the result of many years of collaborative efforts by the
Idaho Congressional delegation. Their dedication to resolving public
land use issues in central Idaho is commendable.
Section 101of the bill designates three new wilderness areas--Jerry
Peak Wilderness (128,000 acres), White Cloud Wilderness (90,000 acres),
and Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness (110,000 acres). Approximately 32,000
acres of the proposed Jerry Peak Wilderness are managed by the BLM,
along with approximately 450 acres of the proposed White Cloud
Wilderness. The FS manages the other federal lands within the proposed
wilderness areas. The Department of the Interior supports the proposed
wilderness designations on lands managed by the BLM and would welcome
the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the committee on minor
boundary modifications to the Jerry Peak Wilderness to improve
manageability. We would also like to recommend minor modifications to
management language to be consistent with usual wilderness management
language. Section 108 releases nearly 80,000 acres of BLM-managed lands
in four wilderness study areas (WSAs) from WSA restrictions thereby
allowing a full range of multiple uses.
Livestock grazing on the public lands designated as wilderness, and
in the surrounding area, is addressed in section 102(e) of the bill.
The BLM supports this standard language on the management of livestock
grazing on public lands within designated wilderness.
Section 102(e) also establishes the ``Boulder White Clouds Grazing
Area'' on nearly 770,000 acres of public lands administered by the FS
and BLM--surrounding and including the three areas designated as
wilderness. Under the provisions of this section, ranchers with Federal
grazing permits or leases within this area may choose to voluntarily
donate their permits or leases to the Secretary of Agriculture or
Interior. The Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture are required to
accept these donations, and to permanently terminate all grazing on the
land covered by the permit or lease. Partial donation and congruent
partial termination of grazing is also provided for under this
subsection.
Grazing can be a compatible use within wilderness, and there is a
long history of legislation accommodating grazing within wilderness
designations. However, we also recognize and support the proposal by
the Idaho delegation to allow voluntary and permanent reductions in
grazing in these unique and environmentally sensitive areas.
Title II of S. 3294 provides for the conveyance, at no cost, of 12
small tracts of public lands to local governments for public purposes.
The BLM supports the conveyances of ten individual parcels of BLM-
administered lands to local governments, but notes that these
conveyances could largely have been accomplished administratively under
the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act. We defer to the FS on
two conveyances of National Forest System lands. As provided in the
bill, each of the conveyances of lands managed by the BLM would be for
uses consistent with public purposes allowed under the R&PP Act.
The R&PP Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease or
convey public lands at nominal cost for recreational and public
purposes, including parks and other facilities benefiting the public.
In general, the BLM supports appropriate legislative conveyances if the
lands are to be used for purposes consistent with the R&PP Act, and if
the conveyance includes a reversionary clause to enforce this
requirement.
Among the proposed conveyances of BLM-administered public lands are
10 acres for a fire hall and 80 acres for a waste transfer site to
Custer County, and 23 acres to the city of Clayton for a cemetery. The
BLM has reviewed each of these conveyances in the bill. We believe they
are in the public interest, and support their no-cost conveyance to the
local governments to address local public needs consistent with uses
that would be allowed under the R&PP Act.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 3294. We
look forward to working cooperatively with members of the Idaho
delegation and the committee to protect these significant landscapes
and provide important public benefits to local communities.
s. 3313
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 3313, the Sloan
Hills Withdrawal Act. S. 3313 would withdraw approximately 640 acres of
BLM-administered public land in Clark County, Nevada, from all forms of
location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and from disposition
under all laws pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing or mineral
material sales, subject to valid existing rights. The BLM is presently
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for two proposed
competitive mineral material sales which would result in two open pit
limestone quarries in this area, as required by settlement agreements
between the BLM and two mining companies. Since the BLM is still in the
process of analyzing the proposed sales, we defer taking a position on
this legislation. However, if this area is legislatively withdrawn, the
BLM would recommend a boundary adjustment to include additional acreage
to the withdrawal area.
Background
The Sloan Hills area is located approximately 15 miles south of the
City of Las Vegas, and consists of approximately 800 acres of BLM-
administered public lands. The area is surrounded by public lands that
are within the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA)
boundary. The SNPLMA allows the BLM to sell land within this disposal
boundary and use the sale proceeds to acquire lands elsewhere in Nevada
that possess higher natural resource values. When Congress expanded the
SNPLMA disposal boundary in 2002 (through PL 107-282), the Sloan Hills
area was not included.
The Sloan Hills area has an extensive mineral development history.
Separate, but overlapping mining claims were filed on the site almost
thirty years ago, with little development occurring until the early
1990s. The two mining claimants in the area subleased their claims to
CEMEX (formerly Rinker Materials West, LLC) and Service Rock Products
Corp. (Service Rock). CEMEX subsequently filed a mining plan of
operations. When the BLM receives a plan of operations for materials
that may be common variety minerals and the mining claims were located
on or after July 23, 1955, mining operations may not begin until the
bureau completes a ``common variety determination'' to determine
whether the materials are locatable under the Mining Law of 1872 (43
CFR 3809.101).
Since the two mining claims overlapped, the BLM completed a common
variety determination in 2004 for both sets of claims. The BLM
concluded that the claimed materials (limestone and dolomite) were not
locatable under the Mining Law of 1872. As a result, the BLM contested
the mining claims. The contests were eventually settled, resulting in
the BLM agreeing to analyze two competitive mineral materials sales.
The settlement agreements do not restrict the BLM's discretion in
approving or denying the proposed sales and the sales must comply with
all applicable statutes and regulations (43 CFR 3600).
In 2007, the BLM initiated an EIS to analyze the impacts of the two
proposed competitive mineral materials sales. If approved, the projects
would consist of two open pit limestone quarries that would operate for
approximately 20 to 30 years, eventually merging into one open pit. The
Draft EIS is planned for release in the summer of 2010, at which time
the BLM will solicit public comments on whether it should authorize the
proposed sales. The Draft EIS will address potential impacts to: air
quality, noise, water resources, and socio-economic conditions. The
area surrounding Sloan Hills (located within the SNPLMA disposal
boundary) is likely to be developed for housing, commercial, and/or
industrial uses during the lifetime of the potential sales contracts.
During the Draft EIS scoping process, a number of Henderson, Nevada
residents expressed their concerns with the proposed sales.
s. 3313
S. 3313 would withdraw approximately 640 acres of BLM-administered
public land in Clark County, Nevada, from all forms of location, entry,
and patent under the mining laws, and of disposition under all laws
pertaining to mineral and geothermal leasing or mineral material sale
subject to valid existing rights.
A withdrawal from the mineral materials laws would prohibit the BLM
from selling mineral materials in the Sloan Hills area, and would
prohibit any future mineral use of the withdrawn lands, subject to
valid existing rights.
The BLM understands the concerns of Senator Reid, the Nevada
Congressional delegation, Clark County and the City of Henderson
regarding the proposed mineral materials sales and potential operations
and associated air quality and noise impacts that would occur in close
proximity to many neighborhoods. These and other issues will be
considered in the Draft EIS. If this area is legislatively withdrawn,
the BLM would recommend expanding the boundary to the entire 800 acres
of BLM-administered public lands remaining within the Sloan Hills area
that are excluded from the SNPLMA disposal boundary.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. In accordance with the
terms of the settlement agreement, the BLM is in the process of
analyzing the proposed sales. Consequently, the BLM defers taking a
position on the legislation at this time. The Bureau will continue to
actively engage the public through an open and transparent EIS process
to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed mineral
materials sales unless Congress chooses to legislate this withdrawal.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Holtrop.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to share the Administration's
views on the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation
Act and the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act.
The Idaho delegation has been hard at work for many years
on the Central Idaho bill and we would like to recognize and
applaud their efforts. The current bill is representative of
that hard work. I can attest first hand that balancing the many
interests and uses of our national forests can be a daunting
one. The Idaho delegation has conducted a considerable amount
of outreach and has worked collaboratively for a number of
years and we appreciate their efforts.
I will limit my remarks to the provisions of the bill
related to the lands and activities managed by the Forest
Service and will defer to the Department of the Interior on
provisions relating the lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management.
The Department of Agriculture supports this bill. We would
like to work with the sponsor and subcommittee to address some
concerns with the bill.
Title I would add additional areas in Central Idaho to the
National Wilderness Preservation System in the Sawtooth and
Salmon Challis National Forests to be known as Hemmingway-
Boulder Wilderness, the White Clouds Wilderness and the Jerry
Peak Wilderness. We support the designation of these wilderness
areas. Most of the acres proposed for wilderness designation
were recommended in their respective forest plans.
We would, however, like to work with the sponsor and
committee on technical issues for the language of Section
102(e)(2) regarding the donation of grazing permits.
Section 201(a) would require the Forest Service to identify
an appropriate site within the Sawtooth National Recreation
area in the vicinity of the Smiley Creek community on which the
Smiley Creek rural fire protection district would construct and
use a fire station. We appreciate the flexibility offered under
this provision and look forward to working with the community
of Smiley Creek to mutually determine a site that does not
impair Sawtooth National Recreation area values.
Section 301 of the bill would provide specific management
direction for several trails. In general the Forest Service
prefers that the determination of how National Forest System
trails will be managed to be determined through land management
planning and site specific national Environmental Policy Act
processes. That allows us the flexibility to respond to
changing user demand and resource issues.
We would also like to work with the committee on some other
technical considerations primarily related to the referenced
trails, associated maps and proposed boundaries.
Next I would like to address S. 3310. If enacted S. 3310
would establish the first wilderness area designated under the
Wilderness Act on national grasslands. The Department supports
S. 3310. We thank Senator Johnson for his appreciation of
grassland landscapes and his interest in representing them in
the National Wilderness Preservation System.
S. 3310 would designate as wilderness three areas within
the Buffalo Gap National Grassland in South Dakota comprising
about 48,500 acres.
The Indian Creek area has a variety of land forms from the
Cheyenne River Valley to Sheep Mountain Table that attract
hunters, hikers, horseback riders, birders and others who love
exploring rugged terrain of the Great Plains.
The Red Shirt area has striped buttes rising to stunning
plateaus. This magnificent landscape provided shelter, food and
medicinal plants to the Lakota for centuries.
Chalk Hills is famous as the setting of the movie, Dances
with Wolves.'' Its cedar and juniper canyons, sheer cliffs and
grasslands provided refuge for Lakota warriors during the
Indian wars at the end of the 19th century.
Most of the proposed Indian Creek wilderness and Red Shirt
wilderness areas are recommended for wilderness designation in
the forest plan. The proposed Chalk Hills area is not
recommended in the forest plan, but its character is consistent
with wilderness and we support its designation. We would like
to work with the sponsor and committee on some boundary
adjustments.
We also support the language in the bill that provides for
continued grazing of livestock and maintenance of existing
facilities related to grazing.
We also strongly support language that reaffirms the right
of Indian tribes to access the proposed wilderness units for
tribal activities including spiritual, cultural and food
gathering activities.
This concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to share the Administration's views on S. 3294, the
``Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act.''
We recognize the Idaho delegation has conducted a considerable
amount of outreach and has worked collaboratively for a number of years
with an array of communities of interest in the development of this
bill, and we applaud their efforts.
I will limit my remarks to the provisions of the bill related to
the lands and activities managed by the Forest Service, and will defer
to the Department of the Interior on provisions relating to the lands
managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
The Department of Agriculture supports S. 3294. However, we would
like to work with the sponsor and subcommittee to address some concerns
with the bill.
TITLE I--WILDERNESS DESIGNATIONS
Title I would add additional areas in central Idaho to the National
Wilderness Preservation System--110,370 acres in the Sawtooth and
Challis National Forests to be known as the ``Hemingway--Boulder
Wilderness,'' 90,888 acres in the Sawtooth and Challis National Forests
to be known as the ``White Clouds Wilderness,'' and approximately
131,670 acres in the Salmon-Challis National Forest and Challis
District of the Bureau of Land Management to be known as the ``Jerry
Peak Wilderness.''
Overall we support the designation of the Hemingway-Boulders, White
Clouds and Jerry Peaks Wilderness areas as portrayed on the maps
referenced in the bill. Most of the acres proposed for wilderness
designation were recommended in their respective forest plans. The
areas that were not recommended are either inventoried roadless areas,
or their current management direction is compatible with Wilderness
designation. The cherry-stem roads and trails are not ideal for
wilderness management purposes, and we would like to work with the
committee on some proposed adjustments.
Livestock grazing on the public lands designated as wilderness, and
in the surrounding area, is addressed in section 102(e) of the bill.
The Department of Agriculture supports this standard language on the
management of livestock grazing on public lands within designated
wilderness. Grazing can be a compatible use within wilderness, and
there is a long history of legislation accommodating grazing within
wilderness designations. However, we also recognize and support the
proposal by the Idaho delegation to allow voluntary and permanent
reductions in grazing in the designated areas. We would like to work
with the sponsor and committee on technical issues with the language of
Section 102 (e) (2) regarding the donation of grazing permits.
TITLE II--LAND CONVEYANCES FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES
For 36 years, the federal government has made a strategic
investment of more than $65 million in the Sawtooth NRA for acquisition
of scenic or conservation easements to ensure that the purposes for
which the NRA was established under Public Law 92-400 are achieved.
Section 201(a) would require the Forest Service to identify an
appropriate site within the Sawtooth NRA and in the vicinity of the
Smiley Creek community on which the Smiley Creek Rural Fire Protection
District could construct and use a fire station. The agency would be
authorized to issue a special use authorization for use of the site or,
in the alternative, to convey the site to the District without
consideration. We appreciate the flexibility offered under this
provision, and look forward to working with the community of Smiley
Creek to mutually determine a site that does not impair Sawtooth NRA
values.
Section 201(b) would require the Forest Service to issue a special
use authorization or convey without consideration a parcel of land in
Blaine County for use as a school bus turnaround. The bus turnaround
can be authorized without the need to convey the land. The Department
also does not support the conveyance of land without consideration.
This is consistent with the longstanding policy that the United States
receives market value for the sale of National Forest Lands.
TITLE III--TRAVEL MANAGEMENT
Section 301 of the bill would provide specific management direction
for several trails. Two of the trails, Germania Creek and Frog Loop
Lake, provide for motorized use, which is inconsistent with wilderness
designation. We appreciate the establishment of the motorized corridor
on acres not designated as wilderness. However, this establishes a
motorized trail corridor, surrounded by Wilderness.
In general, the Forest Service prefers that the determination of
how National Forest System trails will be managed, including types of
uses allowed and trail design be determined through land management
planning and site-specific National Environmental Policy Act processes.
These processes work well because they allow for public participation,
and allow for decision making to be made locally. It also allows us the
flexibility to respond to user demand and resource issues.
We would also like to work with the committee on some other
technical considerations, primarily related to the referenced trails,
associated maps and proposed boundaries.
This concludes my prepared statement on S. 3294. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
S. 3310, TONY DEAN CHEYENNE RIVER VALLEY CONSERVATION ACT OF 2010
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the view of the Department of Agriculture on S.
3310, the ``Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010''.
I am Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief for the National Forest System, United
States Forest Service.
Wilderness--the most natural and undisturbed areas in our country--
is part of our American heritage. The Forest Service takes great pride
in managing these special lands. If enacted, S. 3310 would establish
the first wilderness area designated under the Wilderness Act on
National Grasslands administered by the Forest Service.
The Department supports S. 3310. We thank Senator Johnson for his
appreciation of grassland landscapes, and his interest in representing
them in the National Wilderness Preservation System. We would like to
offer some minor modifications that would improve our ability to manage
resources in the three areas identified in the bill.
Bill Summary
S. 3310 would designate as wilderness three areas within the
Buffalo Gap National Grassland in South Dakota comprising about 48,500
acres--Indian Creek, Red Shirt, and Chalk Hills.
The Indian Creek area--about 27,500 acres--has a variety of
landforms, from the Cheyenne River Valley to Sheep Mountain Table, that
attract hunters, hikers, horseback riders, birders and others who love
exploring rugged terrain of the Great Plains.
The Red Shirt area--about 16,000 acres--has striped buttes rising
to stunning plateaus. This magnificent landscape provided shelter,
food, and medicinal plants to the Lakota for centuries.
Chalk Hills--about 4,500 acres--is famous as the setting of the
movie ``Dances with Wolves.'' Its cedar and juniper canyons, sheer
cliffs, and grasslands provided refuge for Lakota warriors during the
Indian wars at the end of the 19th Century.
Forest Plan Recommendations
Most of the proposed Indian Creek Wilderness and Red Shirt
Wilderness areas (except for small piece of Red Shirt) are recommended
for wilderness designation in the 2001 Revision of the Land and
Resource Management Plan for the Nebraska National Forests and
Grasslands (Forest Plan). We would like to discuss with you the 1173
area proposed as Red Shirt Wilderness east of the Highway This smaller
portion is separated by the road and does not meet the size criteria
typical for wilderness consideration (5,000 acres), although we
acknowledge that it could be preserved as wilderness due to physical
terrain and natural conditions. The proposed Chalk Hills area is not
recommended in the Forest Plan, but its character is consistent with
wilderness, and we support its designation.
Suggested Boundary Adjustments
A road easement parallels the Cheyenne River in the northwest
corner of the proposed Indian Creek area. To prevent motorized
intrusion into the area, we suggest a minor boundary adjustment to
exclude the road easement and several structures associated with it.
We would also like to work with the Committee on some minor
boundary adjustments for the proposed Chalk Hills area. The adjustments
would change the boundary to follow easily identifiable landmarks such
as fences rather than un-posted section lines, making the boundaries
more manageable and enforceable.
Military Activities
The bill provides for the continuation of aerial military
activities in the proposed wilderness areas. Local Forest Service
managers and the South Dakota National Guard are working on a
memorandum of understanding that will provide for annual coordination
and communication regarding overflights. On-the-ground operations are
being evaluated for Forest Service authorization outside the proposed
wilderness areas.
Prairie Dog Management
Section 4 authorizes the Secretary to continue to manage prairie
dog populations. Recent amendments to the Forest Plan provide direction
for prairie dog management, including control of prairie dogs
encroaching on private lands from national grasslands. Several prairie
dog towns within the proposed wilderness units have encroached on
private lands and have been treated in the past. We suggest that the
term ``public lands'' be replaced with ``lands designated as wilderness
by this act'' to ensure that the provision only applies to lands
designated by S. 3310.
Other Provisions
We support the language in the bill that provides for continued
grazing of livestock and maintenance of existing facilities related to
grazing. We also strongly support language that reaffirms the right of
Indian tribes to access the proposed wilderness units for tribal
activities, including spiritual, cultural, and food-gathering
activities.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Holtrop. At this point I
would enter into the record letters of support for S. 3310 from
several organizations including the Black Hills Sportsmen club,
the South Dakota Wildlife Federation, the Back Country Hunters
and Anglers among other sportsmen and conservation groups.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy Chief Holtrop, the Forest Service has the authority
under the Wilderness Act and the Congressional Grazing
Guidelines to manage wilderness lands for fire, insects,
disease and invasive species. Can you give an example of this
in practice in the Nebraska National Forest?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes, I can. The importance of the Nebraska
National Forest, it is the forest that manages the Buffalo Gap
National Grassland. There is a wilderness on the Nebraska
National Forest called the Soldier Creek Wilderness which
currently has authority for some limited motorized use for
grazing management purposes, for some fire suppression
activities and for the treatment of invasive species.
Senator Johnson. How many acres is in the Nebraska
wilderness area?
Mr. Holtrop. Currently existing? I don't have that
information for you. But I'd be happy to get it for you.
Senator Johnson. Grazing permits are central to the
livelihood of a number of families in this area. Will this
legislation allow grazing to continue? How does the Forest
Service manage grazing permits and associated activities in the
wilderness, for example, in the instance of extreme drought
will a permitee be allowed to haul hay to cattle?
Mr. Holtrop. The way we would manage grazing in designated
wilderness is consistent with the grazing guidelines that we
have received from Congress and included in that are any
existing activities or any existing uses that--if mechanized
use is necessary to continue that activity, we would provide
it. In specific answer to the question would a permitee be able
to bring/haul grass in case of extreme drought? The answer is
yes.
Senator Johnson. The Nebraska National Forest recently
issued a final travel and management plan for the Buffalo Gap
National Grasslands. Both Indian Creek and Red Shirt areas
remain closed to motorized travel under the plan with the
exception of the Indian Creek Road. The plan also prevents
motorized recreation in Chalk Hills.
Is S. 3310 consistent with the Forest Service's view of the
best management of these areas? Absent the wilderness
designation, could these areas be open to motorized recreation
in the future?
Mr. Holtrop. First of all, our current forest plan
direction in the travel management plan is consistent with S.
3310. It would be unlikely that a decision would be made to
change, administratively, allowing motorized use in these
areas, although that would be something that we would look at
over time, again, if administratively that were to be the case.
I think the only thing that's different about our current
management direction in those three areas in this piece of
legislation and the current forest plan direction is the forest
plan direction also allows for some--look at oil and gas and
mineral activities that this bill would take that out.
Senator Johnson. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch Thank you very much. Very briefly, both of
you have complemented--on S. 3294 and as much as we like to
take credit for about anything. Let there be no mistake about
it, Congressman Simpson is the person who has done--has put in
all the hours on this.
He's the one that's worked on it. So we're happy to help
out as we can. Once we resolve some of these other issues
perhaps we'll be able to move forward.
But I want the record to be very clear that the credit
clearly goes to Congressman Simpson. But thank you very much
for your kind words.
Mr. Rountree. Thank you.
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you.
Senator Johnson. I will submit Senator Wyden's questions
for the record.
Mr. Rountree. Thank you.
Mr. Holtrop. Thank you, sir.
Senator Johnson. The next panel consists of the Honorable
Steve Sisolak, Commissioner, Clark County, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Bill Dart, Representative, Idaho Recreation Council of
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Rick Johnson, Executive Director, Idaho Conservation
League, Boise, Idaho.
Dan O'Brien, Rancher and Lessee of Hermosa, South Dakota.
Scott Edoff, Rancher and land owner of Hermosa, South
Dakota.
Your whole statement will be received in the record. But
could you please limit yourself to 5 minutes?
Mr. Sisolak.
STATEMENT OF STEVE SISOLAK, COMMISSIONER, BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, CLARK COUNTY, NV
Mr. Sisolak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am deeply honored to have the opportunity to be
here today. I left Las Vegas last night at midnight. We had a
commission meeting yesterday afternoon and took the red eye
because it was important enough for me and the constituents
that I represent in the Anthem area of Henderson.
I'm here regarding S. 3313, the Withdrawal Act of the Sloan
Gravel Pit. Senator Reid has introduced a bill with the co-
sponsorship of Senator Ensign. There's a cold bill, I guess, on
the House side relating to the exact same issue.
I'll just reiterate a little bit. I'm not going to read my
testimony word for word. I've been on the other side of the
Dias there and I know what it's like. I'm sure you've taken the
time to read it. I do appreciate that.
The pit is basically in an area, an island, a county island
in the middle of Henderson. What happened is when it was
proposed for a pit many, many years ago, over a decade ago,
there was no development in the immediate area now. Presently
this area of Henderson is home to approximately 15,000
residences. There's plans for 20,000 more residences to be
built in the area.
The concern of the individuals that live there, are
profound. I've had approximately six neighborhood meetings in
the area attended by up to 600 people talking about this issue.
One of the things I want to present, the community members have
written letters, individual, handwritten letters to the members
of this committee that I've submitted to the record and asked
to be entered in.
Also, I've got a t-shirt here that I've asked to be
delivered to each of your offices. But if you ever do make it
down to Clark County, I encourage you to come. We welcome the
tourism in Clark County. You'll see these t-shirts all over
Henderson that basically say, Stop the Sloan Hills gravel
pit.'' There's over 1,000 of these t-shirts currently being
worn in the area of Henderson because the residents are just
fearful of what could potentially come.
It's not just the declining home values that they're
concerned about. Two of the largest communities out there are
senior citizen communities. They're affected by the quality of
life that results from the 24 hour a day, 7 day a week for 30
years blasting that would result from this mine.
We're having dwindling water resources at Lake Mead. The
lake is dropping precipitously and with the mining operation
would necessitate the pouring of thousands of acre feet to the
desert to remediate the dust.
I'll conclude by just saying I'm humbled by the confidence
that the citizens of Henderson have placed in me to elect me to
come forward and represent them on this bill. I'm deeply
indebted, as are my constituents, to Senator Reid for proposing
this bill. It's definitely a quality of life issue for my
residents.
I thank you very much for the time to be here today, the
opportunity to present my testimony. I'd be available to answer
any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sisolak follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Sisolak, Commissioner, Board of County
Commissioners, Clark County, NV
Chairman Wyden, members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Commissioner Steve Sisolak and I am here representing the Board of
County Commissioners for Clark County, Nevada in support of S. 3313,
the Sloan Hills Withdrawal Act introduced by Senator Harry Reid and
Senator John Ensign. I want to express appreciation to Senator Reid for
his leadership on this important local issue and thank the other
members of the Congressional delegation for introducing this bill to
withdraw from location, entry, and patent under the federal mining
laws, approximately 640 acres located in the Sloan Hills area of my
Commission District. The Clark County Board of County Commissioners has
adopted two resolutions with the first on May 19, 2009, opposing the
development of the Sloan Hills limestone/gravel mine. Almost a year
later on May 18, 2010 we passed a second resolution in support of S.
3313 and H.R. 5219, which is the House version of this Bill.
Within the first few months following my election to the County
Commission, I became involved with this issue and immediately started
seeking to find a mechanism to stop the development of this limestone/
gravel mine being proposed by California-based Service Rock Products
(owned by Mitsubishi) and the Mexico-based mining company Cemex on 640
acres of federal land, that is only 2.5 miles from the edge of the
large master planned Anthem Community. I soon learned that local
government is quite limited in our ability to influence federal land
use decisions.
Local residents are right in raising a variety of concerns,
including noise and vibration issues, the possibility of aggravating
health conditions such as respiratory problems, and air quality
problems that would have a negative impact on the quality of life of
residents in Southern Nevada. The proposed mining operation, which
would involve blasting and crushing rock, would also necessitate the
use of Southern Nevada's dwindling water resources to partially dampen
dust clouds that contribute to the degradation of the particulate air
quality in the valley. In a community that pays people to remove their
lawns to conserve water, it makes no sense to allow a commercial mining
enterprise to continually spray water on the desert to control dust.
If allowed to proceed, the limestone/gravel mine would operate 24
hours a day, seven days a week, for an estimated 20 to 30 years.
Routine mining activities would include blasting and digging with
significant surface disturbance and foster a dangerous 24-hour parade
of heavy dump trucks to haul away the rock products from the site,
which is in close proximity to I-15.
The project was proposed nearly a decade ago, long before 40,000
homes were built in the clean family neighborhoods of Anthem. Protests
began in 2007 at the first public meeting on the mines, and residents
are remaining committed in their opposition to this project. I have
personally participated in at least 6 neighborhood meetings and town
halls and have received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls
from constituents who are outraged at living in such close proximity to
heavy machinery, explosives, and potentially toxic dust. These
residents uniformly say the mine would threaten both their quality of
life and the value of homes that have already lost as much as 50
percent in value due to the recession. I am vehemently opposed to the
mine as are the constituents I represent who have voiced their
opposition to this in many ways, including over 1,000 of these T-shirts
being touted. I have ensured each of your offices has received one of
these T-shirts and have extras here as a reminder of how strong local
opposition is.
The Sun City Anthem, senior living community where 12,000 people
live formed a five-member committee opposing the project and has
collected over 6,000 signatures on a petition against the mine. The
committee has also enlisted the help of the boards of directors at
other communities such as the Anthem Highlands, Anthem Country Club,
Inspirada and Madeira Canyon.
During the EIS process for the proposed mine, the BLM has received
thousands of petition signatures and at least 1,000 individual letters
opposing the mine. Originally the draft environmental study was
scheduled to be completed this year, but now the target date is June
2010. Unless S. 3313 is enacted to stop the process, the draft
environmental-impact study will soon be published and once public input
on the document is received, the final decision approving the mine is
scheduled to be made by the BLM in May of 2011, just a year from now.
Finally, I want to raise another significant concern with the
project and its potential to adversely impact the Sloan Canyon National
Conservation Area, which contains valuable petroglyphs believed to be
thousands of years old and which is located just five miles to the
south and east of the mine site. The Federal law which created this NCA
requires the BLM to ``conserve, protect, enhance and manage''
conservation areas ``for the benefit and enjoyment of present and
future generations.'' S. 3313 will insure that this occurs by removing
the threatened impacts from a nearby mining operation. I thank you for
allowing me to testify today and strongly urge you to approve S. 3313
to stop the development of the Sloan Hills Limestone and Gravel mine.
Thank you.
Senator Johnson. Would Harry Reid care to make a statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Reid Yes, allow me to do so. If you don't mind
I'll just stay here.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my friend, Steve
Sisolak, I appreciate your allowing me to talk and kind of out
of order.
The 2 of you can see this. This is a picture of where they
want to put the gravel pit which is right here. Here is the
homes that we're really worried about. But next to it is
something that I also want you both to take a look at.
One of the things that I did legislatively is create a
conservation area called Sloan Canyon. It is a remarkable
place. It's closer than the homes. It is a place that Indians
have been writing on those canyon walls for more than 1,000
years.
But for me one of the most interesting things is that some
of you know I wrote a book on the history of Searchlight, where
I was born and raised. In one of the chapters in that book
which is--someday I'd like to do a whole book on it, is about
an Indian by the name of Queo. Queo--I won't go into a lot of
detail, but Queo was a renegade Indian, killed probably as many
as 22 people.
As I talk about in my book the first person he killed, my
grandmother and grandfather were working a mine. They were in a
horse and buggy. They saw a man walking to them carrying a 30/
30 rifle. They knew him as Queo. They said hello and he went
and walked toward the river.
That was the first person he killed up at a place we call
Timber Mountain. The reason I go into this long story with you
is when I went to look at Sloan Canyon they had one of the
archeologist from the BLM. He said, you know, we've done some
study here. We think one of the places that Queo hid out was
right here because some of the writing here is new.
That's so interesting to me because he was the largest man
hunts in the history of the State of Nevada were trying to get
this man. He never rode in a car. He never rode on a horse. He
walked with a distinct limp. They tried everything in the world
to catch him and they couldn't catch him. But anyway, you want
to learn more, read my book.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. But my point is we can't let this gravel pit
go in here. If we didn't have these thousands of people living
next door. We should do it just to protect those petroglyps.
It's unbelievable. We can't have dirt spewing into that.
It's a very sensitive area.
For the people that live there this is awful. This is--and
frankly this is one of the few areas in Nevada because we've
been hit so hard with the economic downturn, with foreclosures.
This is an area, as Commissioner Sisolak will indicate, has
held its value pretty well. These homes have held their value
really well. To put in this gravel pit is just the wrong thing
to do.
Thousands of people, who live there have said, don't do
this to us. I'm from the desert. We've got gravel pits all
over. We don't need another one right in a residential area.
I think that this would be a place--they want to place a
major round the clock gravel mine next to existing, growing
neighborhoods in Henderson. That would just not be the right
thing to do. I hope this committee will act favorably on our
legislation.
I missed Senator Ensign. But I'm sure his testimony was
good. I really appreciate Commissioner Sisolak.
Members, thank you very much for allowing me to be here
today.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you. I wonder if Senator Reid would
yield to an inquiry.
Senator Reid. Of course.
Senator Risch. You gave me this map. I'm quite familiar
with the topographic maps. We occasionally have a section that
a little out of whack in Idaho. But looking at these section
lines it appears to me your surveyors were over indulging in
adult beverages when they were setting up these lines.
These sections don't seem to be quite square. Can you
explain that, Senator?
Senator Reid. Only thing I say in defense of that is I
didn't do it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. We'll be happy to get you one that's more in
keeping with your geographic demand.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. But I really don't know. I had trouble
becoming eligible for football. I remember going to Mr.
Galanger. I said, Mr. Galanger, if you give me that D, I'm not
going to be able to play football. So my math skills are
severely limited.
Now by the way, he did give me a C. I probably didn't
deserve it. So----
Senator Risch. I don't know kind of math skills you need to
run a straight line.
Senator Reid. But what I did learn in his class the
shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line.
Senator Risch. That's good. You should play football.
Senator Johnson. But----
Senator Reid. But we'll try to get you a better map. Ok?
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Senator Reid.
Mr. Dart is next.
STATEMENT OF BILL DART, REPRESENTATIVE, IDAHO RECREATION
COUNCIL
Mr. Dart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. I'm really pleased to be able to come to
Washington and speak on an issue of vital importance. My name
is Bill Dart. I'm speaking as a Representative of the Idaho
Recreation Council. We're a group of--a coalition of a variety
of motorized and non-motorized trail recreation folks including
back country equestrians, mountain bikers, trail bike riders,
snowmobilers, back country boaters and back country pilots.
First off, we really don't think that the CIEDRA bill is
necessary in that this area is already a National Recreation
Area, permanently protected from logging or mining or major
development. But given that, you know, it's--we do very much
appreciate the efforts of Congressman Simpson to try to work
collaboratively with the local community and various interest
groups to craft a bill that was palatable to everyone even
though we may not agree with all the elements of it. It was a
lot--a better bill than in the past.
Unfortunately today we have an entirely new CIEDRA. The
bill has been dramatically changed. It's been stripped of most
of the collaborative and comprised language. Now I'd like to
call this the Central Idaho Economic and Recreation Reduction
Act and not an improvement or increase in recreation or
development.
Some of the elements that were stripped out include as part
of a balance for giving up some of the areas that are currently
open to motorized use. There was permanent protection language
for the existing motorized trails that would be outside of the
wilderness boundary, but within the Sawtooth National
Recreation Area indicating it was Congress' intent that those
remain motorized trails in perpetuity. Should there ever be a
compelling reason to close those trails for resource damage
issues reasons or whatever that that be mitigated with
replacement trails of equal quality and quantity.
Additionally there were 2 corridor trails through there
that Congressman Simpson referenced to, the Germania Creek
Trail and the Frog Lake Loop. The Germania Creek Trail has been
watered down somewhat in that it now allows temporary closures
of that trail for non-motorized purposes. We don't understand
why that would be necessary. If there was a permit issued for a
horse event or running event or those kinds of things the
Forest Service has Administrative tools to do a temporary
closure.
The other trail is left as a corridor, but it specifically
states that it's just because it is a corridor in a wilderness
that it's still left to the discretion of the Secretary of
Agriculture whether that remains motorized or not. You know,
one of the attractions of the compromise efforts that
Congressman Simpson did was that we would settle these
questions once and for all. Unfortunately this leaves it wide
open.
We will be having to deal with this again and again with
groups who are not thrilled with motorized recreation. As we
speak the Idaho Conservation League is in litigation with the
adjacent forest because of their travel plan has left open most
of the trails that have been historically open. We can expect
those same kind of challenges in the future in the Boulder/
White Clouds.
The bill also did have some other enticements for the
recreation community. There was an Owyhee park land transfer
near Boise. There was a million dollars for development of that
park. That's all been stripped out.
The economic development elements, while there's still some
land transfers the original plan was for land transfers for
development purposes to help the county build its very small
tax base and to try to bring some jobs. Today that county
already has the largest wilderness in the lower 48 states in
it. Yet it's one of the poorest counties in the State. With
over 87 percent public lands there's very little opportunity
for expansion of their tax base or economics in that county.
So anyway, we also, you know, we question why that this
bill has been changed. You know, our Honorable Senator Reid
here, just recently had a public lands bill in Nevada with
collaboration language in it that included the Silver State OHV
trail. Senator Feinstein has got a new desert wilderness bill
in process right now that includes permanent protections for
five major OHV areas in the California desert also language to
mandate expansion studies to expand those areas and also to
allow for the first time, use of non-street legal off-high
vehicles in a national monument.
All of those types of things that were originally talked
about have been stripped out from CIEDRA today. CIEDRA today is
opposed by over 75 percent of the residents of Custer County.
That doesn't sound like a bottom/up type of bill anymore.
The majority of voters in Idaho have opposed this bill. We
think that we can agree that this is a beautiful landscape that
needs to be kept looking as it does today. But we think that
the National Recreation Area designation already enacted by
Congress already does that job while still allowing recreation
of a variety of types to occur.
Thank you very much. I'll be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bill Dart, Representative, Idaho Recreation
Council
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee,
Thank You for this opportunity to testify on S-3294, the Central
Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA). This
legislation is urgently important to many Idahoans and citizens from
around the country who enjoy these lands today, but will be denied
access if this legislation is approved.
I am speaking today on behalf of the Idaho Recreation Council, a
coalition of both motorized and non-motorized recreation groups that
includes back country equestrians, mountain bikers, motorized trail
bike riders, snowmobilers, and back country pilots. While we use
different means to access and recreate on Idaho public lands, we all
have a common bond, and that bond is our love for Idaho's public lands
that we all cherish and enjoy. We can also agree with Wilderness
advocates that the lands in question, the Boulder and White Cloud
Mountains, are very special and none of us wants to see these lands
developed or the landscape altered.
This is not the first time that these lands have been proposed for
Wilderness designation. Back in the early 70's, proposals for a large
scale molybdenum mine led to a Wilderness proposal. At the same time,
the nearby Sawtooth Mountains Primitive Area was also proposed for
Wilderness designation. As a result, in 1972 the Sawtooths were
designated as Wilderness and a compromise was struck for Boulder/White
Clouds that created the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA). As a
National Recreation Area, the land is permanently protected from
landscape altering development, much like a Wilderness designation, but
a much more diverse range of recreation activities is allowed in a
managed setting, including mountain biking, snowmobiling, and motorized
trail bike riding. Additionally, the Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) have more management flexibility to protect
resources and maintain trails within a National Recreation Area than
the very limited options they have within a Wilderness.
So, our first major point is that this legislation is NOT necessary
to protect and preserve the Boulder/White Clouds landscape; it is
already very well protected and has been for 38 years now. Not only are
the public land protected, private lands in the Stanley Basin within
the SNRA are strictly limited regarding development, and Conservation
Easements have been purchased to preserve the landscape as it is today.
If this area is designated Wilderness the primary recreation users of
the area will be excluded and the Forest Service and the BLM will lose
most of their management options to protect resources and recreation
opportunities.
Of all of the recreation visitors to National Forests, less than 3%
ever visit a Wilderness area. For this tiny percentage of the public
who prefer to recreate in areas where mountain bikes, motorized trails
bikes and snowmobiles are excluded, their needs are more than
adequately served already. Besides the 217,000 acre Sawtooth Wilderness
that is right across the valley, immediately to the north is the
largest Wilderness in the lower 48 states, the 2.3 Million acre Frank
Church/River of No Return Wilderness. Contiguous to that and separated
by only a single dirt road is the 1.3 Million acre Selway/Bitterroot
Wilderness. Adjacent to both of these vast Wildernesses is the 206,000
acre Gospel Hump Wilderness. Additionally, within proposed Boulder/
White Clouds Wilderness, most of the land base is already closed to
summer motorized uses and has been since the SNRA was created in 1972.
While this is the first time CIEDRA has been introduced in the
Senate, the concept was first introduced in the House of
Representatives by Congressman Simpson back in 2002 under the same
name, and subsequently re-introduced with the same language in every
legislative session since then. We will give Congressman Simpson credit
for trying very hard to reach a broad consensus with his proposal and
attempting to satisfy the concerns of recreational interests, local
residents, and county and city governments, as well as Wilderness
advocates, hence the title of the original bill, the Central Idaho
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT and RECREATION Act. Regarding economic
development, Custer County, where CIEDRA is located, is one of the
poorest in Idaho. Over 87% of the land in Custer County is public land,
with little opportunity for economic development to increase the local
tax base or bring in new employment opportunities. Most of the County's
young people find no future there and move away. To solve this serious
problem, the original CIEDRA language included public land transfers to
the cities of Stanley, Clayton, Challis, Mackay and Custer County that
were earmarked for development purposes. Additionally, grants in the
amount of $5,100,000 were included to spur economic development.
Regarding recreation, the other key component in the bill title,
the bill included language to preserve the motorized and mechanized
recreation opportunities that are within the SNRA but outside the
proposed Wilderness boundaries. Congressman Simpson stated he wanted to
settle the debate once and for all about what kinds of recreation would
be allowed within the SNRA, and language was included to state that it
was the intent of Congress that trails outside of the Wilderness
boundary would remain motorized/mechanized in perpetuity, and should a
valid reason ever arise to close any of the trails, new replacement
trails would be constructed to replace those closed. Additionally, the
bill provided for a 1,000 acre land transfer to Idaho Department of
Parks and Recreation to create a new OHV park near Boise, plus an
authorization for appropriation of $1,000,000 to develop and manage it.
To the dismay of everyone involved in the compromise discussions
with Congressman Simpson, almost all of the collaborative language that
was written into earlier versions of CIEDRA has been stripped out of S-
3294, as well as the companion House bill, H.R 5205. When this bill was
first proposed by Congressman Simpson, many of us were concerned that
the compromise language written into the bill would disappear during
the legislative process. Congressman Simpson promised many of us who
participated in the negotiations that he would withdraw the bill rather
than allow it to be passed without the compromise language. Apparently,
however, Congressman Simpson has allowed the majority staff to delete
the compromise language and then persuaded his Idaho Senate colleagues
to introduce a similar bill.
The title, CIEDRA, of this latest incarnation of the bill is truly
disingenuous and represents what I call ``DC Doublespeak'', a name that
says one thing but in reality is something entirely different. In my
opinion, this bill should be renamed the ``Central Idaho Economic and
Recreation Reduction Act, since this is what will actually occur if
this legislation is becomes law. It is this kind of dishonesty that has
led to the highest levels of public dissatisfaction with Congress that
this country has ever witnessed and has already led to the rejection of
many incumbents in special elections and primaries. I am one of the
many voters in this country are fed up with the ``business as usual''
that CIEDRA typifies.
economic development issues
I will explain why we think the current version of CIEDRA is
disingenuous in regard to economic development:
Land Transfers to Custer County and the cities of Stanley,
Challis, Clayton and Mackay that were included in the original
CIEDRA for economic development purposes have been eliminated,
and the smaller land transfers that remain can only be used for
municipal purposes. When no longer needed for those purposes,
the land reverts to the Federal Government. Instead of land
transfers, some uses are to be authorized under special use
permits, something that could be done administratively without
CIEDRA. Of course, lacking a bigger tax base and new employment
opportunities, it will be difficult for local government to
develop and maintain any new municipal facilities.
Grants for $5,100,000 to Custer County and the local cities
for economic development purposes have been stripped out of the
bill.
The bill will ultimately result in removing several ranchers
from grazing permits on public lands and permanently retire all
of those grazing permits. Ranching is one of the major economic
engines in Custer County, and it will be reduced
The net result is a reduction in local industry and no new
opportunities for economic development. How can the title of ``Economic
Development Act'' not be disingenuous?
RECREATION ISSUES
As for Recreation, here are the reasons why this bill will severely
reduce recreation, not enhance or increase it:
Mountain biking is very popular within the SNRA outside of
the existing Sawtooth Wilderness. Mountain biker and motorized
trail biker riders compose the majority of summer trail use,
with the exception of two trails, a short segment from the end
of Fourth of July Creek Road to Fourth of July and Washington
lake Trail. Some 37 trails (see attachment A),* the majority of
trails used by mountain bikers today, are located within the
proposed Wildernesses and will be closed to them. This is the
majority of trails in the SNRA and adjacent lands. How can
closing the majority of trails used by the majority of mountain
biking recreation visitors enhance recreation? Remember, only
3% of National Forest recreation visitors every go into a
Wilderness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Attachments A and B have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although small in number, the 11 trails in the SNRA open to
motorized trail bike use (see attachment A) are vitally
important to the recreationists who use them. Motorized trail
bike riders are the predominant users of all of the trails open
to them. When trails are closed to motorbike use, there is also
a significant loss of trail maintenance capability and funding.
The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) provides
Trail Ranger crews at no cost to the Forest Service to maintain
motorized trails each year. Additionally, Off-Highway Vehicle
Grant funds are available for major trail work, such as the OHV
Grant funded reconstruction work underway today to re-align and
re-construct Big Casino and Little Casino Trails. Motorbike
volunteers also clear many trails every year. Due to
significant number of bark beetle killed trees in the area,
plus the results of a major fire 3 years ago, every time the
wind blows more trees fall down. The trails need constant
clearing to keep them open.
How does closing the majority of trails open to motorbike
recreation visitors, along with losing OHV grant funding
opportunities and the free services of IDPR Trail Ranger crews
enhance recreation opportunities?
The other major recreation visitor group that currently uses
lands within the CIEDRA boundaries is snowmobilers. The White
Cloud Mountains in particular, but also the Boulder Mountains,
have some of the very best mountain snowmobiling in not only
Idaho, but the western United States. Motorized-nonmotorized
conflicts between winter users within the lands affected by
CIEDRA are also almost non-existent. The best terrain for
snowmobiling is over 15 miles from plowed roads, far beyond the
capabilities of all but a handful of extremely fit cross county
skiers.
So, we have a supposed ``Recreation Act'' that closes the majority
of mountain bike and motorbike trails within the CIEDRA boundaries,
closes tens of thousands of acres to snowmobilers, and leaves them open
only to the very smallest recreation visitor segment. How can this
``Recreation Act'' title not be disingenuous?
RECREATION ECONOMICS
Recreation is a key economic engine for the region, including the
town of Challis and especially for the town of Stanley. Not only will
CIEDRA reduce recreation opportunities, it targets its reductions at
motorized recreation, the segment of the recreation community that
spends the most money in local communities, far more than most
Wilderness recreationists. Snowmobilers are at the top of the list of
``big spenders'' Not only do they spend a lot of money on their
equipment, they spend far more on lodging, meals, and fuel than other
recreation visitors. It is too cold to camp out, or even stay in RV's
in Stanley, which is often one of the coldest places in the lower 48
states. Without snowmobiling, Stanley would close virtually all of its
businesses by late October, and stay closed until June.
Motorbike riders also spend a lot of money in the local community.
Typically, they go on day rides and are back in town or at camp at the
end of each day. They spend a lot of money on equipment, but also on
food, lodging, and fuel.
Mountain bikers are also largely day riders who are back in town
each evening; they too spend money in town.
At the bottom of the list are Wilderness hikers. They typically
come to town with a backpack full of freeze dried food they bought
before they came to the area, go into the Wilderness for one or more
days, and maybe buy a meal and a tank of gas on their way out of town.
RECREATION ENHANCEMENT/PROTECTION LANGUAGE FROM ORIGINAL CIEDRA
STRIPPED OUT OF S-3294
The Senate version of CIEDRA, S-3294, bears little resemblance to
the original House version of the bill introduced by Congressman Mike
Simpson and resulting from his collaborative efforts. In Attachment B I
have shown the original language, introduced as recently as the 110th
session. I have highlighted in red the language that is important to
the Idaho Recreation Council, and show in bold the sections of critical
importance.
CLOSING SUMMARY
As I have documented, S-3294 does NOT enhance Economic Development,
and in fact will reduce economic activities. S-3294 does NOT enhance
recreation, but instead, dramatically reduces recreation opportunities.
S-3294 does NOT settle the question of long term motorized and
mechanized recreation within the SNRA, but instead gives it NO
PROTECTION AT ALL! It will instead encourage Wilderness advocacy groups
to continue to push for the total elimination of motorized/mechanized
recreation within the SNRA.
S-3294 renders meaningless the collaborative process that Senators
Crapo and Risch have used in their own public lands legislation and
policy development, as exemplified in Senator Crapo's Owyhee Initiative
and Senator Risch's development of a Forest Service Roadless Lands
Policy for the state of Idaho. S-3294 has been gutted of all of the
collaborative and compromise language and is now a purely ``Winner Take
All'' Wilderness bill. This is NOT the way to develop public land
legislation. It is NOT the way Senator Reid developed his Nevada public
lands bills. It is NOT the way Senator Bennet developed his Washington
County, Utah Wilderness bill. It is NOT the way Senator Feinstein
developed her California Desert Wilderness and National Monument bill.
Do our Idaho Senators want to be known for rejecting collaboration
with Idaho residents in development of public lands policy, and letting
Nevada and California Democrat Senators do a better job at
collaborating with their constituents? Do our Idaho Senators want to
allow DC Majority staff members re-write Idaho legislation and reject
years of collaboration and compromise? Do they want to lock out the
people who use and love these lands for the benefit of Wilderness
advocacy groups who will never have enough Wildernesses? Already, these
groups are developing multiple new Wilderness proposals to lock up even
more Idaho public lands from recreationists and any chance of multiple
uses to sustain rural communities like Custer County. How much
credibility will these Senators have with on-going collaborative
efforts, such as the Clearwater Collaborative Group? Will we ever be
able to trust them again?
Instead, it is time to reject disingenuous, no compromise
legislation. It is not the time to push through a ``DC Doublespeak''
bill that is NOT supported by most Idaho voters. I urge you to reject
this bill as written, and re-examine the basic premise of whether these
lands that are already protected from mining, logging, and development
need further protection. Is it necessary to lock out the people who are
the majority of visitors to them today, visitors that care deeply about
these lands and visit them with reverence for their natural wonders? It
IS time to JUST SAY NO to locking up hundreds of thousands of acres for
the exclusive use of a tiny minority of people who are always clamoring
for more and more. These are our OUR PUBLIC LANDS, not lands just for a
few.
Thank You for taking the time to listen to our concerns.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF RICK JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IDAHO
CONSERVATION LEAGUE, BOISE, ID
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee I
thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. My name is
Rick Johnson. I'm the Executive Director of the Idaho
Conservation League.
From the beginning this legislation was crafted to address
a variety of interests. The bill now sponsored by the entire
delegation has had significant bipartisan involvement in
getting to this point. It is supported by the resort oriented
Blaine County and rural and agricultural Custer County as well
as editorials across the State.
The Boulder/White Clouds are dramatic mountain ranges with
soaring peaks and glittering lakes. The proposal contains
headwaters of four rivers and habitat for a diversity of
species. It includes both summer and winter range for wildlife
and access points for all forms of recreation. It is a proposal
we strongly support.
That said, some of the boundaries in the proposal have
given us pause. Why? Because of the extraordinary measures that
have been taken to provide motorized access recreation access.
Places long recommended by the U.S. Forest Service for
wilderness will now be providing snowmobile access. Trails we
believe should become wilderness will provide trail machine
access for all time. While these boundary and language
concessions have troubled our organization. We support the now
because balance is how collaborative conservation moves
forward.
The bill and related measures contain a set of economic
provisions. A total of $6 million would be provided for
economic development through independent appropriation
measures. Some of that money has already been received.
The bill also authorizes conveyances for public lands--for
Federal lands to Blaine and Custer Counties and affected towns
for public purposes.
The bill authorizes assistance to ranchers in the Boulder/
White Clouds region. Under the legislation the Forest Service
is authorized to accept and permanently retire grazing permits
and leases that are voluntarily donated by the ranchers. Up to
$3 million of private funds have already been lined up for this
purpose.
So what happens when the Idaho public hears the details of
such a proposal? When the public hears it fairly represented,
and that's a key point, they support the bill by a margin of 2
to 1. One of the most respected pollsters in the region just
examined this issue. Every major component of the bill have 57
percent support by the Idaho public or more.
It is good legislation. It should pass. Is the bill
perfect? Of course not, but what is that comes through the U.S.
Congress. It is good legislation and should pass.
The Idaho's Governor has recently provided a set of issues
that I think we'll be talking about. Some of those are policy
issues that should be on the table. Some are ideological issues
that deal with State verses Federal control. They've been with
our State in our debates since we were a territory. We will not
settle those here today.
Those conditions notwithstanding they do not take away from
the incredible amount of work that went into crafting this
bill. This bill is the product of a decade of collaborative
conservation. This bill reflects years of bridge building.
Having built the bridge, I believe it is time for us to cross
it.
Our support for this bill has drawn painful opposition from
the left. More recently the Idaho delegation, who all sponsor
this bill, have been opposed by the right. Today our challenge
is to rise above that and represent the true majority who sit
squarely in the center, the center that wants to see
collaborative conservation move forward in the West.
I'd like to offer my thanks to Senator Jim Risch on the
committee for your sponsorship of this bill. Together we have
worked on collaborative conservation measures before including
the Idaho Roadless Rule. We have more work to do in that
endeavor.
I offer my thanks to Senator Mike Crapo for his leadership.
We too, have traveled this path of collaborative conservation
on the Owyhee Canyon lands.
It's also important to recognize that the collaborative
work that we have been a leader of in the State of Idaho and
have gotten some accolades here today for, began with this work
here in the Boulder/White Clouds. It is this work that is most
being watched by other folks around the country to see if we
really are crafting a new way to advance conservation in the
West.
Finally I'd like to thank Representative Mike Simpson. Long
ago he said, ``If this were easy it would have been done by
now.'' It has not been easy. But together we have come a long
way.
Now is the time for Idaho to step forward and demonstrate
to the country how we are leading the effort to advance common
sense conservation, collaborative solutions to public land
management in the American West. I thank you for the
opportunity to speak today. I look forward to the questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rick Johnson, Executive Director, Idaho
Conservation League, Boise, ID
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today. My name is Rick Johnson and I am the
executive director of the Idaho Conservation League. I ask that these
comments be included in the hearing record.
The Idaho Conservation League was founded in 1973 and our mission
is to protect Idaho's clean air and water, wilderness, and the outdoor
values that provide Idaho its extraordinary quality of life.
The Idaho Conservation League strongly supports this legislation
and we have worked with members of the Idaho congressional delegation,
particularly, Rep. Mike Simpson, to advance various forms of this
measure for nearly a decade. I personally have worked to protect this
area for over 25 years. I have been the executive director of the Idaho
Conservation League for the past 15 years and our organization has
worked with every member of the Idaho congressional delegation to craft
common sense solutions on a variety of conservation measures over many
years.
The Idaho Conservation League's strategic approach to conservation
has evolved over time, and across a broad portfolio of work, we have
become Idaho's leading voice for conservation. Our work in the Boulder-
White Clouds initiative has been a major catalyst to our development of
collaborative approaches to conservation on issues ranging from energy,
mercury pollution, mining, engagement with major businesses already in
or seeking to locate in Idaho, open space protection, and what brings
us here today: public land protection.
Our work with members of the Idaho delegation to create Idaho-based
solutions for federal lands in Idaho has not always been popular, but
we've learned that leadership is about doing what is right for the land
and people. Here in the Boulder-White Clouds, some of our allies and
friends believe we have compromised too much. This has been expressed
over the years in local forums and congressional forums such as this.
In recent weeks, the right flank has been criticizing the Idaho
delegation, all of whom are sponsors of this bill.
The stature of our nation is not shaped by shrill voices from the
left or the right. The stature of our nation rests on the shoulders of
increasingly frustrated hard-working people who stand squarely in the
center, people who are tired of politics of polarization and seek
common sense solutions built from good ideas crafted from various
interests and points of view. They seek balance. And they seek
progress.
This legislation is the culmination of a long attempt to provide
that for a special part of Idaho.
The Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA)
is commonsense conservation that protects a great part of the American
West, yet does so by incorporating the needs of people who live and
work around the affected landscape.
This bill was written by building bridges. This legislation has
been before the U.S. Congress for many years. It is based on
compromise, collaboration, and good faith negotiations concluded with
handshakes, all values and actions we see too little of today. It is
time for the Idaho congressional delegation to affirmatively join with
your colleagues and cross the bridge we have built together,
demonstrating that Idaho can continue to be a leader in spanning the
gulf that often separates federal land management with the daily
concerns of the people who live there.
This is not a perfect bill. But it is a good bill. It should pass
and now is the time.
BACKGROUND
Before the late 1960s few people knew anything about the Boulder-
White Cloud Mountains of Central Idaho. That began to change in 1968.
The American Smelting and Refining Company proposed an open-pit
molybdenum mine at the base of Castle Peak--an aptly named monolith
that rises well above the surrounding peaks in the center of the White
Clouds. The mining industry had never faced any considerable opposition
in Idaho. In fact, the contribution of the industry to the state's
economy is recognized in Idaho's nickname, ``The Gem State.''
The proposed mine ignited a controversy that the mining industry
had never encountered in Idaho before. When the state endorsed the
proposed mine, the Director of the Idaho Department of Parks board,
Ernest Day, resigned his post. His aerial photos of Castle Peak helped
to illustrate to the public where the proposed open pit mine would be
located right at the foot of Castle Peak.
Coincidently a young Cecil Andrus was running for governor. Andrus
took the position that this very special part of Central Idaho was too
important to sacrifice. In 1970, Andrus won the election largely
because of the stance that he took on the need to preserve the Boulder-
White Clouds.
Two years later Senator Frank Church successfully moved legislation
through Congress to designate the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and
Wilderness. The national recreation area withdrew the area surrounding
Castle Peak from mining but punted on the issue of wilderness
designation for the Boulder-White Clouds, leaving the decision to a
future Congress by directing the Forest Service to study the area for
possible future wilderness designation.
PUBLIC SUPPORT
Before I get into details of the bill, I would like to set some
context regarding where the citizens of Idaho are when it comes to this
legislation. A lot of folks suggest they know what the public thinks
when they are seeking to influence public policy. While I do not
suggest that public opinion alone should set the direction of
legislation, we have recently seen advertising against this bill
include creative use of public opinion research.
The Idaho Conservation League just commissioned a public opinion
poll regarding the Boulder-White Clouds. The poll was in the field
statewide in Idaho June 4 and 5 with a sample of 400 voters. Our long-
time pollster is Bob Moore of Moore Information, a firm that has long
worked in Idaho for top-tier business and political clients and is
currently working with various Republican office holders in Idaho. I
believe I am on firm ground when I say Moore Information is one of the
most respected gauges of public opinion working in Idaho. We
assiduously worked to ensure the polling instrument was fair.
In Bob Moore's words:
After respondents hear a summary of the bill, it is favored
by a two-to-one margin (59-30%). There is consensus support
throughout the state among most voter subgroups. Most widely
supportive are Democrats (79-13%), but there is majority
support among Independents (57-30%) and plurality support among
GOP voters as well (50-41%). Snowmobilers (8% of the voting
population) are the only subgroup who opposes the bill. Dirt
bike, motorcycle riders and off-road vehicle users are divided
in their opinions and a majority of hunting and fishing
enthusiasts are supportive.
In addition to exploring overall support for CIEDRA we also
asked about five of the bill's specific components. All five
generate 57% support or higher as shown by the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't Net
CIEDRA elements Favor know Oppose favor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most motorized trails in the area 66% 11% 23% +43%
would be managed exactly as they
are today. One trail would be
closed to motorized use and other
trails would be remain open and
accessible for motorized use (Q12)
The bill would transfer some federal 62% 12% 26% +36%
lands and monies to local
governments to support public
services and would facilitate
economic development in the area
(Q11)
About 330,000 acres of public lands 58% 7% 35% +23%
would be designated wilderness.
This wilderness designation means
the area would remain open to
livestock grazing and most types of
recreation, including hunting,
camping, horseback riding and
fishing, but new roads, mining,
drilling, mountain biking, and
recreational off-road vehicles
would be prohibited (Q10)
The bill was introduced and is 57% 20% 23% +34%
supported by every member of
Idaho's Congressional delegation
(Q14)
Traditional uses, such as livestock 57% 14% 29% +28%
grazing, will be allowed, ranchers
who wish to voluntarily sell their
public grazing allotments could be
bought out with non-government
funds (Q13)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the overall public support demonstrated by this
poll, the collaborative efforts to address longstanding public land
issues in this landscape, including wilderness designation, are
supported by prominent Idaho leaders from both political parties,
including Cecil Andrus (D), former Governor of Idaho and Former
Secretary of the Department of Interior, James McClure (R), former
Idaho U.S. Senator and past chairman of this committee, and Bethine
Church, wife of the late Frank Church, former Idaho U.S. Senator and
one of the great conservation advocates to have served in the Senate.
More than 150 Idaho businesses support Congressman Simpson's
efforts to protect the Boulder-White Clouds area as wilderness.
The two affected counties, Blaine and Custer, as well as most of
the affected city and town governments, have passed resolutions
supporting Boulder-White Clouds wilderness, economic and recreation
protection legislation.
Although the timber industry has not formally endorsed CIEDRA,
representatives for timber interests have said they have no interest in
a timber harvest in the Boulder-White Clouds area due to the small
amount of timber resources in comparison to extraction costs.
WILDERNESS DESIGNATIONS
The Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act would
bring closure to the Boulder-White Clouds wilderness debate that has
lingered since 1972. S. 3294 would designate approximately 332,775
acres of wilderness in the Boulder-White Clouds, including the proposed
White Clouds, Hemingway-Boulders and Jerry Peak Wilderness Areas. These
important designations would protect 150 peaks over 10,000 feet in
elevation, headwaters of four Idaho rivers, spawning beds for salmon,
habitat for wildlife and backcountry destinations for hikers, hunters,
anglers, campers and generations of Americans to come.
CIEDRA would repeal the wilderness study area provision for the
Boulder-White Clouds that has remained unresolved since 1972.
Similarly, S. 3294 will resolve the impasse over four Bureau of Land
Management wilderness study areas. This legislation will release the
entire Corral-Horse Basin Wilderness Study Area and portions of the
Jerry Peak, Jerry Peak West and Boulder Creek Wilderness Study Areas
for multiple use management.
If Congress passes this legislation, 51,100 acres of Forest Service
lands currently recommended for wilderness designation in the Sawtooth
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan will not be
designated as Wilderness. Nearly 80,500 acres of wilderness study areas
managed by the Bureau of Land Management will be released for multiple
use management. This is a combined total of 131,500 acres of public
lands in Central Idaho that are currently managed as de facto
Wilderness that will no longer be studied for wilderness designation.
The Idaho Conservation League believes that many of these eligible
yet not included areas exemplify extraordinary wilderness character
and, to be candid, this has given us pause.
Why? Because these areas were not proposed for wilderness in the
extraordinary measures the bill sponsors took to provide access for
motorized recreation. Places long recommended by the U.S. Forest
Service for wilderness were left out to provide snowmobile access.
Trails we believe should become wilderness were left out to provide
trail machine access for all time.
While these boundary and language concessions have troubled our
organization, we support them because balance among stakeholders is how
collaborative and successful legislation moves forward.
Across this landscape Rep. Mike Simpson has worked hard on many
levels, and one was to make us understand that many interests are
involved in the Boulder-White Clouds proposal and if the Idaho
Conservation League wants to see progress and lasting success, we have
to not only accept needs of others, we ultimately had to become an
advocate for them. We've come to acknowledge and appreciate this fact,
and we commend Congressman Simpson for working relentlessly to take
into account the diversity of these interests. S. 3294 is a well-
constructed piece of legislation that is the right thing to do for
Central Idaho both economically and ecologically. The places protected
by designating the 332,775 acres of wilderness proposed in CIEDRA are
extraordinary, and while places left out are important and worthy, the
final result achieved by this legislation outweighs any pause for
concern that the Idaho Conservation League may have once had.
GRAZING
It is a common misconception that the Wilderness Act of 1964
prohibits grazing operations in wilderness. As this Committee is fully
aware, established grazing operations are permitted within designated
wilderness areas. S. 3294 is consistent with the Wilderness Act by
allowing existing grazing operations to continue in the proposed White
Clouds, Hemingway-Boulders and Jerry Peak Wilderness Areas.
CIEDRA also provides a mechanism for willing ranchers to retire
their grazing leases and permits and receive fair compensation for the
termination of their grazing rights. When a rancher chooses to
voluntarily retire their grazing rights, fair compensation will be paid
by private funding sources already lined up. This important provision
has no negative fiscal impact on the federal budget and ensures that
the quality of rangelands and wildlife habitat in the Boulder-White
Clouds will only improve over time.
OUTFITTING AND GUIDING
S. 3294 allows outfitting and guiding operations within the
proposed wilderness areas when such ventures lead to the realization of
the values of wilderness protections in the Boulder-White Clouds.
STATE JURISDICTION OVER FISH AND WILDLIFE
This legislation does not affect the State of Idaho's jurisdiction
over the management of fish and game species within the wilderness
areas designated by Title I (See Section 102(g)(1)). The Idaho
Department of Fish and Game will continue to regulate hunting and
fishing activities within and outside the wilderness areas designated
by CIEDRA.
When the Idaho Department of Fish and Game believes that it is
necessary to take active steps to manage or monitor populations of fish
and game species within the wilderness areas designated by CIEDRA, the
Department will have authority to do so, as it always has.
The preservation of 332,775 acres in three new wilderness areas
will also benefit hunters and anglers by protecting important habitat
for deer, elk, pronghorn, mountain goats, bears, salmon, steelhead,
trout and numerous other species. Because wilderness designation is the
highest level of protection afforded by Congress, the wilderness
designations in CIEDRA will provide a positive and lasting benefit for
species of fish and game by enhancing and protecting their habitat.
More productive and pristine habitat means that hunters and anglers
will find healthier and stronger populations of fish and game in the
Boulder-White Clouds. The lasting result is a legacy for generations of
sportsmen to come.
STATE OF IDAHO ENDOWMENT LANDS
Within the boundaries of the proposed Jerry Peak Wilderness, there
are four entire sections of state endowment lands as well as portions
of four other sections. Section 107(2) of CIEDRA requires that ``. .
.the Secretary shall seek to complete an exchange for State land
located within the boundaries of the wilderness areas designated by
this title.''
This requirement should be seen by the State of Idaho as a win-win
scenario. The majority of these state lands are currently accessible by
hiking or horseback only. Furthermore, these sections of state lands
are isolated from one another. As a result, these endowment lands
realize little financial return to the state endowment for public
schools.
The exchange required by CIEDRA will provide the opportunity for
the State of Idaho to exchange and consolidate state endowment lands in
locations were more revenue can be generated for the Idaho endowment
fund for public schools. CIEDRA also expedites this exchange by
requiring a three-year time limitation. If the State of Idaho is
concerned that this exchange will not take place in a timely fashion,
Congress might chose to appropriate the necessary financial resources
for the Bureau of Land Management to complete the exchange.
A FEW MYTHS ABOUT CIEDRA RELATED TO MOTORIZED ACCESS
Before addressing the motorized recreation provisions in detail, we
would like to address issues that have recently gained traction.
In recent months we have heard charges that this bill was written
without input from the motorized community.
In fact, when Rep. Simpson began the long path to this hearing
today, he met with the following motorized recreation groups: : the
Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Idaho State Snowmobile Association, Magic
Valley Trail Machine Association, Idaho Trail Machine Association,
Treasure Valley Trail Machine Association, Idaho Recreation Council,
and the Idaho Mountain Biking Association.
In recent months motorized community leaders have suggested they
were cut out of the stakeholder process and indicated they're upset the
bill before us today doesn't include a Boulder-White Clouds Management
Area that was incorporated into pervious versions of CIEDRA.
This provision established a management area that surrounded the
proposed wilderness like a donut. This would have made current
motorized trails outside of the wilderness permanently open by law, no
longer subject to agency discretion and management. Republican majority
staff working for then-Chairman of the House Resources Committee, Rep.
Richard Pombo, expressed what a good deal this was for motorized
recreation. Yet motorized recreation organizations never expressed
support for this provision.
Collaborative work, in our view, rests on your record, and we
believe it is disingenuous for these same groups to suggest that one of
the main reasons to oppose CIEDRA now is because it does not include
the management area they never supported in the past. The reality is
this doesn't matter on the ground, however, because all of the trails
that would have been open to motorized used within the management area
in previous versions of the bill are still open under the current
version.
Some motorized opponents to CIEDRA say it will close 895 miles of
motorized and mountain bike trails.
This is factually wrong.
Our analysis suggests that total motorized trail closures under
this bill will be 35 miles. Mountain bike trails that will be closed
total 218 miles. These closures in no way represent a serious drop in
overall capacity for Idaho recreationists, capacity that has been
hailed by the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation as ``one of the
largest designated trail systems in the country with approximately
19,000 miles of summer trails and 8,000 miles of winter trails.'' The
issue of what trails and routes will remain open in CIEDRA is addressed
more below.
There have recent claims that the delegation backed away from
promises to fund various Idaho motorized recreation programs.
This is factually wrong.
In addition to the economic development provisions provided to
adjacent counties, towns, and ranchers, the Idaho delegation has
already followed through on promised funding for several motorized
recreation programs. These funds are already set aside in the FY 2010
Interior Appropriations bill.
There is $1.2 million for trail maintenance and improvement in the
Sawtooth National Recreation Area, with $500,000 for non-motorized
trail improvements, $500,000 for motorized trails, and $200,000 for
wheelchair trails. The exact FY 2010 Interior Appropriations bill
language follows:
Of the funds appropriated for trail maintenance and
improvement in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, $500,000
is for trail improvements; $500,000 is for maintenance of
existing motorized trails and areas; and $200,000 is for the
improvement of two existing trails to provide primitive
wheelchair access at Murdock Creek and Phyllis Lake.
Additionally, the FY 2010 Interior Appropriations bill provides
$400,000 to provide for the acquisition of the Piva Parcel, on which a
bike path from Stanley to Redfish would be constructed.
Previous versions of CIEDRA included authorization provisions for
these programs, but the delegation has since learned that such language
tends to cause procedural obstacles. Thus, the recently introduced
version of CIEDRA doesn't include authorizing language for the
motorized programs outlined above, with the sponsors concentrating
instead on lining up funding for these programs in the FY 2010
appropriations bills. Appropriations measures control the purse strings
for actual programs. With Rep. Simpson the ranking member of the House
Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, the Idaho delegation has
successfully allocated this funding.
It's unfortunate that motorized groups opposed to CIEDRA have
chosen to misrepresent funding information to scare their memberships
and discredit their delegation.
Last, I want to clarify a commonly circulated myth that no
motorized vehicles are allowed in wilderness, ever. This is not true.
While motorized and mechanized vehicles are not allowed in wilderness
for recreational purposes, vehicles are permitted in wilderness for,
among other things: emergency purposes such as search and rescue,
treatment of fire, insect, and disease, and certain grazing facility
maintenance.
MOTORIZED & MECHANIZED RECREATION
Motorized recreationists are one of the four main constituencies
consulted by Congressman Simpson when crafting CIEDRA. The proposed
wilderness area boundaries in S. 3294 were carefully drawn in a way
that minimizes changes to existing motorized recreational access in the
Boulder-White Clouds.
Furthermore, CIEDRA brings resolution to the wilderness debate in
the Boulder-White Clouds that has lingered since 1972. As we pointed
out earlier, there is a combined total of 131,500 acres of public lands
in Boulder-White Clouds that are currently managed as de facto
wilderness that will no longer be studied for wilderness designation if
this legislation is passed by Congress.
The 2003 Sawtooth National Forest Management Plan and the 1987
Challis National Forest Management Plan collectively recommend over
218,000 acres of Forest Service lands for wilderness designation in the
Boulder-White Clouds. In order to ensure that key areas, roads and
trails remain accessible to motorized vehicles, approximately 51,100
acres of this total would not be designated as wilderness by S. 3294.
Similarly, 80,500 acres of BLM wilderness study areas will be released
from further study and opened to multiple use management.
If CIEDRA does not pass Congress, approximately 328,200 acres of
Forest Service and BLM land will remain in limbo and continue to be
managed as de facto wilderness under wilderness study area provisions
contained in existing laws. Unless this legislation passes Congress,
the federal land management agencies could close any of the lands or
trails under consideration for wilderness if at any point in time these
agencies determine that motorized use is undermining their wilderness
character.
Snowmobiles
The largest concessions made to motorized recreationists are for
winter snowmobile use in the Boulder-White Clouds. Of the 218,000 acre
of lands recommend for wilderness designation by the Forest Service,
more than 51,000 acres would not be designated as wilderness in order
to ensure that snowmobile access may continue in several locations.
Existing high elevation snowmobile access would be maintained in the
following locations since these areas would not be designated as
Wilderness:
Fourth of July Basin
Washington Basin
Champion Lakes
Warm Springs Meadow
North Fork Big Wood River
The North Fork Big Wood River was excluded from the Hemingway-
Boulders Proposed Wilderness in S. 3294 because of an agreement reached
between snowmobilers and backcountry skiers in 2001 that resolved
recreational conflicts in the backcountry areas surrounding Sun Valley.
This legislation honors that agreement.
Off-Road Vehicles
The proposed Wilderness boundaries in S. 3294 also exclude key
motorized trails in the Boulder-White Clouds. In fact, strong and
perhaps unprecedented provisions in the legislation ensure that the
Germania Creek and Frog Lake Trails will remain open to motorcycles.
Title III of the legislation provides legislative guarantees that these
trails will remain open to such use:
Germania Creek.--``The Secretary shall maintain a trail for
single track, 2-wheel motorized and mechanized travel between
the Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness designated by section
101(a)(1) and the White Clouds Wilderness designated by section
101(a)(2).'' (Section 301(a)(1)).
Frog Lake Loop.--``Neither designation of the White Clouds
Wilderness by section 101(a)(2) nor the exclusion of portions
of Forest Service trail 047 and 682 (commonly known as the
``Frog Lake Loop Trail'') from the wilderness shall affect the
management of those trails for motorized or mechanized travel
in accordance with existing laws.'' (Section 301 (c)(1)).
Not only are the Germania and Frog Lake Trails given special
legislative guarantees for the future, but these trails are also
located within ``cherry stem'' wilderness corridors, where dirt bikers
will be able to ride with wilderness areas surrounding them on both
sides of these trails.
Other roads and trails are also excluded from the proposed
wilderness areas in order to maintain motorized and mechanized access
in key locations. These roads and trails include:
Washington Basin Road 197
Washington Lake Trail 109 to Washington Lake (motorcycles)
Fourth of July Road 209 to the Phyllis Lake turnoff
Phyllis Lake Road 053
Pole Creek Road 197
Fisher Creek Road 132
Williams Creek Trails 104 & 332 (motorcycles)
North Fork of the Big Lost River Road 146
Casino Lakes Trails 103, 232, 616, & 646 (motorcycles)
Rough Creek Trails 617 & 647 (motorcycles)
Railroad Ridge Area Roads 667, 669 & 670
French Creek Trail 675 (motorcycles)
Big Lake Creek Trail 678 (motorcycles)
Germania Creek-Bowery Cutoff Trail 114 (motorcycles)
Livingston Mill Road 667
East Fork Road 120 to Bowery Guard Station
West Pass Creek Road 063 to section 10
Big Fall Creek Road 168
Little Fall Creek Road 502
Park Creek Road 140
Herd Creek Road to Herd Lake
Road Creek Road
This list of concessions for motorized recreation paint a pretty
clear picture. The vast majority of existing motorized recreational
opportunities will remain intact. In the case of Germania Creek, , S.
3294 provides even more certainty that these trails will remain open to
motorized access than the Forest Service can assure administratively.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CIEDRA, and related appropriations measures, contain several
provisions to assist adjacent counties develop a more sustainable
economy. Specifically:
A total of $6 million would be provided for economic
development--including item like community centers and health
clinics--through appropriations measures. Some of this money
has already been received.
The bill facilitates economic assistance to ranchers in the
East Fork region of the Boulder-White Clouds who have seen
allotments reduced in recent years. Under the legislation, the
Forest Service and BLM are authorized to accept and permanently
retire grazing permits voluntarily donated by ranchers.
Arrangements have mean made through a private foundation to
provide fair compensations, up to $3 million.
The bill authorizes small conveyances of federal lands to
Blaine and Custer Counties (and affected towns) for public
purposes, including such uses as public parks, cemetery, rod
and gun club, waste water transfer station, fire station, and a
school bus turnaround.
DISABLED ACCESS
CIEDRA authorizes creation of the first-ever wheelchair accessible
trails in wilderness. The trails would be ``primitive access,'' which
means that they would be compacted, somewhat leveled, and cleared of
impassable obstacles like big rocks. These short trails (approximately
1.5 miles) would allow a wheelchair user to navigate them unassisted,
as well as provide recreation opportunities for elderly users.
CONCLUSION
After this long discussion about this bill it's important to go
back to the place.
The White Clouds and Boulders are two stunning mountain ranges and
have provided generations jaw-dropping scenery and memories to last a
lifetime. To the east, the high tundra slopes of Jerry Peak are
commonly home to herds of big game. Throughout this large and diverse
area you can find quiet moments surrounded in scenic grandeur that will
last with you forever. It is time to provide lasting protection for
this Idaho gem.
I have personally been traveling this landscape for decades. I was
part of the first group to traverse the White Clouds on skis and have
caught fish in the lakes and streams, mended blisters formed on the
trails, climbed the peaks, and swum in the lakes. Around campfires and,
yes, around congressional hearing tables back here, I've been talking
about finally getting this area protected for a very long time. And my
work merely picked up the mantle of those who worked to protect Castle
Peak from a mine those many years ago.
These are national lands, held in trust by the federal government,
and while many of us who live in Idaho think of these lands as our own,
these are America's lands. While we are far from the ramparts of Castle
Peak today, where we are is totally appropriate, for it is only
Congress that can provide the protection this landscape deserves. This
bill is the product of a decade of collaborative discussions and
negotiating.
This bill is the product of years of bridge building. Having built
the bridge, it is time to cross it. It is not the time to allow others
to destroy it. Our support of this bill has drawn painful opposition
from the left. The Idaho delegation have been recently been opposed by
the right.
Our challenge today is to rise above the noise and provide
leadership that represents the true majority who sit squarely in the
center and want to see collaborative conservation advance in the West.
CIEDRA is an example of statesmanship and collaboration at its finest.
It's time the legislation moves forward to enactment.
I'd like to offer my thanks to Sen. Jim Risch on the committee for
your support of this bill. Together we have worked on several
collaborative conservation projects, such as the Idaho Roadless Rule,
with more work ahead. I offer my thanks to Sen. Mike Crapo for his
leadership. We, too, have traveled the path of collaboration together,
here, and in the Owyhee Canyonlands. I will also say to Senator Crapo
that you were a catalyst to me to reconsider the strategic path of
conservation in Idaho. I've long advanced conservation outside of
collaborative processes, but it was your encouragement that helped lead
us to this path many years ago.
And while this is a Senate hearing, I must also thank Rep. Mike
Simpson. As you long ago said, ``if this were easy it would have been
done by now.'' It's been far from easy, and you Congressman, have
provided leadership and persistence that truly is worthy of the land
that you have worked hard to protect, and equally significant, worthy
of the extraordinary people who live around it whom you represent.
Now is the time for Idaho to step forward and demonstrate to the
country how we are leading the effort to advance common-sense
collaborative solutions to public land management in the American West.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman? I've got another meeting I've
got to attend. Do you mind if I ask some questions of the last
2 witnesses.
Senator Johnson. Certainly.
Senator Risch. First of all, Rick, let me say thank you and
both of you and Mr. Dart for coming today.
I don't think I've ever had a public setting in a
Congressional setting where I can thank you for the work on the
Idaho Roadless Rule. I said it and I mean it that I believe
that you worked in good faith on it. As you recall we had a
little trouble getting started.
But once we got started we worked in good faith on it. I
found the Idaho Conservation League and you, personally, to be
very reasonable and in the final product that we developed and
it's a product that, I think, Idahoans can be justly proud of,
including yourself, including your organization. So thank you
for that work on behalf of all Idahoans actually.
I've got a couple of questions.
No. 1, Mr. Dart, you recall you and I talked about this
recently and I told you, you know, I am not familiar with the
details of this because I wasn't engaged in the give and take
on it. But I assume you were along with Congressman Simpson.
Rick, could you respond to--and I told you I was much more
concerned about the process and how we get to the goal line
than I am about the details of it because you guys have got to
hammer that out.
But could you respond to Mr. Dart's statements about how--
he made reference to the fact that, as I understood him
correctly, that after the collaboration occurred there's been
some stripping out, I think was his words that occurred. Could
you respond to that?
Mr. Johnson. Certainly. When we are working in any
collaborative manner and I think the Owyhee Canyonlands bill is
a good example of this. You have two different arenas where you
have to work.
One is, and as you alluded to earlier, in the past some of
these processes have been top/down. But if you're going from
the bottom/up, you obviously start in the home turf. You sit
around with Idahoans and you create Idaho solutions. You come
up with your ideas of what you think would be best for
representing all the different interests.
There were a bunch of things that I wanted to get in there.
There were a bunch of things that motorized folks wanted, large
conveyances of public land that were once being talked about as
great as 16,000 acres. So Idaho interest came up with the Idaho
solution, as we saw it.
The Idaho Conservation League was willing to support that.
In earlier drafts of the bill I've sat at this very table to do
that. But there is ultimately the second arena that you have to
work. That is here. That is Washington, DC. That is the arena
of Congress.
In the Owyhee lesson what we had was a package of items
that were brought here to Washington, DC and many of those
things also fell out. Many of those things did not survive in
the final legislation. What did come back to Idaho is an
understanding of what was possible. As they often say, politics
is the art of the possible.
So we did the best job in the Owyhee that we could do. We--
but some things don't stand the heat of the cauldron back here.
But what we did have were handshakes, agreements, how we would
look to the future management in Owyhee County. We're going to
stick with those.
I think that's there's opportunity to create some of the
handshakes and agreements here. But there are certain pieces of
the bill that were created in Idaho that frankly don't--didn't
stand back here. I think it's important. It's an indication
that we have the hearing today that is an indication there was
bipartisan involvement in this bill. I think that it would not
have been scheduled for this hearing, were not some elements of
the bipartisan process in play.
Senator Risch. Last question, Mr. Chairman. Rick, the three
areas that are here that have been designated for wilderness:
Hemmingway, Boulders/White Clouds and Jerry Peak. Those three
are three areas that, in the Roadless rule, when you and I
worked on that that we designated for what is essentially
wilderness designation, although we called it wild land
recreation in order to designate it as such.
Does--what does this bill do as far as changing the
designation or the protection or what have you for those three
areas compared to what it is in the Roadless rule? As I recall,
we had 280 areas. It's hard to remember each one of them. But
as I recall I think virtually everyone agreed that these three
areas were pristine areas, some of the finest in the country
and no one really questioned the judgment that they should be
protected as was done in the Roadless rule.
Does this bill change that at all?
Mr. Johnson. I think one of the key things that's important
to recognize about that very question, Senator, is that
wilderness is something different. Wilderness is the highest
standard that we can provide to protection of land in this
country. For that reason the founders of the Wilderness Act and
this body right here determined that that was not something to
be left in the discretion of the management agencies.
The Roadless rule that you have alluded to that we worked
on together was a process that informed and ultimately helped
provide direction to an agency decision. But that is an agency
decision that can be overturned by different agency leadership,
different administration, what have you. Wilderness obviously
could be overturned too, but it takes an act of Congress.
So our issue with what makes it different is that
wilderness is really the gold standard to protect a landscape.
As you have already alluded to, as many people have, the
Boulder/White Clouds are an extraordinary place, and
extraordinary example of why the Wilderness Act was written. It
was an extraordinary example of why the Sawtooth NRA was
originally passed in 1972. There are a number of reasons why
the Boulder/White Clouds were not included at that time.
But the long and short of it is, no one ever debated
whether or not that area should receive the protection. I
believe that, you know, one reason----
Senator Risch. I appreciate the discussion about the
difference between the rule and the statutory. I agree with
you. From an absolute legal standpoint you're absolutely
correct. From a practical standpoint you and I both know that
before they overturn the rule that we worked on it's going to
be over our collective dead bodies. I suspect over most
Idahoans.
But the specific question I had was the details of what is
done in this bill. As you recall in the Roadless, Chris Wood,
who had written the Clinton Roadless rule agreed that what we
had done in our protection of these areas was a higher level of
protection than actually the Clinton Wilderness or Clinton
Roadless rule did. Does this ratchet it up more? Does it keep
it the same? What are the--what is the level of protection?
Mr. Johnson. The Idaho Roadless rule does not address the
issues related to motorized recreation. Wilderness designation
would do that. I think in the State that it is the sixth
fastest growing State in the country right now. We need to
recognize the greatest places that we have for future
generations, protect those for a variety of different reasons.
While wilderness designation addresses the issue of
mechanizing motorized use proactively and prohibits it, the
work that we did to exclude trails and design boundaries to
protect motorized access, I think, quite fairly deals with that
issue. But the most significant threat to this area over the
long term which is up to administrative decisions in the future
is motorized recreation.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank
you. I appreciate your indulgence. I'm going to have to excuse
myself.
Thank you very much. Gentlemen, thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Johnson. The gentleman from Idaho may be excused.
STATEMENT OF DAN O'BRIEN, SOUTH DAKOTA RANCHER, HERMOSA, SD
Mr. O'Brien. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be here.
It's good to have a chance to speak to this committee and
specifically to you, of course, in my support of S. 3310.
My name is Dan O'Brien and I live and operate a ranch, live
on and operate a ranch adjacent to the Indian Creek Wilderness
area, proposed. My wife and I run both cattle and buffalo. We
hold the largest grazing permit in the Indian Creek area. My
livelihood is absolutely dependent upon the grasslands that
surround my home. So I have a huge stake in this legislation.
I bought my first cattle in 1974. I've long been a member
of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association. I'm an avid
hunter.
I lived on the Great Plains all of my adult life. I've
weathered the winters and the droughts. I've experienced the
violent swings in cattle prices and the stresses of severe
credit crunches.
While I'm a proud member of the community that will most be
directly affected by the wilderness, I've always had an
interest in Western South Dakota as it relates historically,
socially, economically and environmentally to the rest of the
Nation and indeed, to the world. In addition to ranching I
worked as a biologist, a teacher and a writer. My area of
consuming interest is the Northern Great Plains. I've
researched and written a dozen books on the subject.
In addition to my point of view as an in the trenches
rancher, I bring a unique perspective to the question of Great
Plains wilderness. It's my considered opinion that no American
grassland better fits the spirit of the Wilderness Act than the
Indian Creek area. Visitors to Indian Creek are uniformly
awestruck by the beauty and the silence.
From many of the high spots you can see Mount Rushmore.
It's too far away to see the faces, but I can feel Teddy
Roosevelt staring down at me. I know that that good Republican
President, war hero and self proclaimed Dakota man would
approve of this bill. He was one of the first men of power to
recognize that increasing population accompanied by expansion
of settlement and growing mechanization were grave threats to
the silence and solitude that helps keep up all sane.
It's unfortunate that the debate over managing public lands
has become so divisive that testimony is uncomfortable. Though
the majority of South Dakotans are in favor of the Indian Creek
Wilderness, some are adamant in their opposition. Acrimonious
disagreements between neighbors are particularly unproductive.
They can be intimidating in a close knit neighborhood. They can
tend to tamp down valuable debate.
The fact is that nearly all South Dakotans share the desire
to keep our land wild, healthy, free, quiet and grazed. The rub
comes in management of our lands. I'm a believer in America and
the Democratic government that we're participating in today.
The Forest Service is part of that government and I believe
that considering the present low profile of the Buffalo Gap
National Grasslands, that they do a good job.
Is it perfect? Of course not. Would I like to see it done
better? Absolutely.
I appreciate the language that Senator Johnson has inserted
into S. 3310 concerning the management of invasive species,
fire, prairie dogs as well as other issues important to
ranchers. I believe management problems do not stem from a lack
of Forest Service expertise or a complacent staffing. But from
a low position in the Forest Service list of priorities.
Community support and involvement would go much farther at
solving management problems than blind opposition. Elevating
the visibility of Indian Creek is the best bet for improving
its management. I'm a proponent of wilderness designation for
four simple reasons.
First, I find nothing in the Wilderness Act that would
change my ranch's operations. Grazing shall clearly continue
under the Wilderness Act and the Congressional Grazing
Guidelines.
Second, I believe that without this additional layer of
protection the Indian Creek area will eventually fall prey to
the abuse and destruction of ever expanding off road traffic.
Third, a prairie wilderness experience is a rare privilege
that all citizens should be able to access.
Finally, as a rancher and a businessman I believe that
wilderness adds value to South Dakota's economy through
expanding opportunities for tourism, unique hunting experiences
and new forms of income generation for a way of life that has
always needed to adapt to prosper.
Thank you for letting me testify. I'd be glad to answer any
questions that I can.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Brien follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan O'Brien, South Dakota Rancher, Hermosa, SD
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation
Act of 2010 (S. 3310).
My name is Dan O'Brien and I live on and run a ranch, adjacent to
the proposed wilderness area. In fact, our ranch borders and overlooks
a large expanse of the proposed wilderness for a mile and a half. We
run both buffalo and cattle and are holders of the largest grazing
permit in the northern portion of the proposed wilderness area. My
livelihood is dependent upon the grasslands that surround my home, so I
have a large stake in the legislation before you today. I strongly
support S. 3310 for a number of reasons, which I'll outline in my
testimony.
I bought my first cattle in 1974. I have been a member of the South
Dakota Stockgrowers Association since the mid-seventies. I have lived
on the Great Plains all of my adult life. I have weathered the winters
and the droughts of the region. I have experienced the violent swings
in cattle prices and the stresses of severe credit crunches. In recent
years I have taken on the challenges of sustainable, value added
agriculture in the form of Wild Idea Buffalo Company. Our homegrown
South Dakota Corporation encourages sustainable, low input grazing, by
establishing a marketing system that ships grass-fed, field harvested
buffalo meat to every state in the nation from our office in Rapid
City, SD. It is a meat packing and internet company that employs six
people and provides buffalo ranchers, white and Native American, access
to markets that have always been beyond their grasp. Most recently, my
wife and I have begun to experiment with ecological and agricultural
tourism as they relate to possible revenue sources for ranchers in a
changing world.
While I am a proud member of the community that will be most
directly affected by wilderness, I have always had an interest in
western South Dakota as it relates--historically, socially,
economically, and environmentally--to the rest of the nation and,
indeed, to the larger world. I have worked as a biologist for South
Dakota Game Fish and Parks Department, as a teacher, and a writer. I
have made a forty-year study of the American Great Plains, from Montana
to Texas and written a dozen books on the subject. In addition to
ranching, I have also worked in construction and driven a truck. But my
area of consuming interest and, some would say, expertise, is the Great
Plains and specifically the northern Great Plains--which encompasses
the proposed Indian Creek Wilderness Area.
I believe that, in addition to the point of view of an in-the-
trenches rancher, I bring a unique perspective to the issue of Great
Plains wilderness. And it is my considered opinion that no American
grassland landscape better fits the spirit of the 1964 law than the
area described in the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act
of 2010.
The proposed Indian Creek Wilderness Area lies on the east side of
the Cheyenne River--one of the premier prairie rivers that drain the
Black Hills and flows to the Missouri and then on to the Gulf of
Mexico. It is unique in its remoteness, history, biodiversity, and
proximity to other public lands, including the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation--of the Lakota People, Badlands National Park, Buffalo Gap
National Grasslands, and the Black Hills National Forest. Many people
think of western South Dakota as a flat land, but those people seldom
leave the interstate highway. If they would leave that highway at the
little town of Wall, and drive just fifty miles south, then turn west
at the even smaller, and aptly name town of Scenic, SD, they would find
the proposed wilderness area. If they would leave their car and walk
for a bit, they would find the geographic relief breathtaking. When I
take people back there, on foot or on horseback, they are uniformly
awestruck by the beauty and the silence that is woefully lacking in
their lives. If you face west on one of the many high spots in the
Indian Creek area, and squint into your binoculars, you can see Mount
Rushmore. I can't make out the faces of Washington, Lincoln, or
Jefferson, but in that rugged solitude, I can feel Teddy Roosevelt
staring down at me. And I know that good Republican president, war
hero, and self proclaimed ``Dakota Man'' would approve of the Tony Dean
Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010. He was one of the first
men of power to recognize that ``increasing population, accompanied by
expansion of settlement and growing mechanization'' were grave threats
to the silence and solitude that helps keep us all sane. The Indian
Creek Area affords such silence and solitude and deserves maximum
federal protection to help keep it that way.
It is unfortunate that the discussion over management of public
lands is at times divisive. So divisive, in fact that testifying in
front of you today is uncomfortable. Though the majority of South
Dakotans are for the wilderness, some are adamant in their opposition.
There are unfortunate disagreements, sometimes even between neighbors
among whom acrimony is particularly unproductive. Such disagreements
can be intimidating in a close-knit community and they tend to tamp
down constructive debate. The fact is that nearly all South Dakota
shares the desire to keep our land wild, healthy, free, quiet, and
grazed. Everyone wants the Indian Creek area managed in this way. The
rub comes in deciding who is best qualified to manage these public
lands to that end.
I am a believer in the United States of American and in the
democratic institutions we have put in place to manage our affairs. The
Forest Service, functioning under the Department of Agriculture, is
part of that government and I believe that, given the present low-
profile of the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands, they do a good job. Is
it perfect? Of course not. Would I like to see do it done better?
Absolutely. I appreciate the language that Senator Johnson has inserted
into S. 3310 concerning the management of invasive species, fire,
prairie dogs, as well as other issues important to ranchers. I do not
believe that the management problems stem from lack of expertise or
from complacency of staff. More culpable is Buffalo Gap National
Grassland's low position on the Forest Service's list of funding
priorities. Funding constraints make their job very difficult, and
community support and involvement would go much farther in solving
management problems than opposition to this legislation. Elevating the
visibility of Indian Creek is the best bet for improving its
management.
I am a proponent for wilderness designation for four simple
reasons: First, I find nothing in the Wilderness Act that would change
my way of operating my ranch. Grazing shall continue. The laudable
American Horse Culture that I respect and love would continue. In fact,
our way of life would be enhanced. It is the law of the land that
grazing shall continue and with, due diligence on our part of both
Forest Service staff and local ranchers, the protective provisions of
the Wilderness Act and the more recent congressional grazing guidelines
will create a well managed wilderness we can all be proud of.
Second, I believe that without this additional layer of protection
the Indian Creek Area will eventually fall prey to the same abuses and
destruction, in the form of unauthorized or additional authorized off-
road traffic, that other public land in our area has fallen prey to.
ATV's can easily abuse delicate prairies and are great crushers of
silence and solitude. Within a few miles of the proposed wilderness
area there are ``restricted'' public hillsides cut deep by the spinning
tires of motorcycle enthusiasts. On the Great Plains such scars may
never heal. Indeed, the wagon tracks that cut the Dakotas prairies by
Custer's Cavalry in the 1874's can still be seen. It is no accident
that several motorized recreation organizations oppose this bill, even
though the largest two proposed wilderness areas are already closed to
motorized recreation.
Third, I hold the wilderness experience to be a privilege that all
citizens should be able to access. I see a PRAIRIE wilderness
experience to be nearly sacred. Grasslands are the least protected
landscape in world. The American grasslands are under siege from
powerful world forces. If a prairie wilderness experience is to remain
available to the people who own those prairies, a line must be drawn
among the yucca plants.
My fourth reason for being in favor of extending wilderness
designation to the Indian Creek Area in particular is perhaps self-
serving, but let me remind you that I am a business man on several
fronts. I'm sixty two years old and, though I love the old ways of
making a living in Western South Dakota, I have seen the world change
radically in the decades that have passed. I know full well that change
is inevitable and I believe that, unless we preempt the changes on the
horizon, those old ways will die ignoble deaths. Agriculture on the
Great Plains has always been short of cash. Ecological and agricultural
tourism are new revenue centers that we people on the land can live
with. In fact, they may be of great help in protecting that American
Horse Culture that I love so much. Many other countries, and indeed
parts of South Dakota are in the midst of this adjustment in the form
of outdoor recreation, including hunting. To be blunt, I see a
wilderness area in anyone's backyard as a boon to commerce, an elevator
of land values, and excellent medicine for the American spirit.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Edoff.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT EDOFF, SOUTH DAKOTA RANCHER, HERMOSA, SD
Mr. Edoff. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today. My name is Scott Edoff. My wife,
Veronica and I operate a ranch adjacent to the proposed
wilderness areas. I am the fourth generation on this ranch and
I want our children and grandchildren to be able to continue in
our footsteps.
My family has been ranching in this area since before South
Dakota was a State. For nearly 70 years we have had a permit to
graze livestock on what is now the proposed Indian Creek
wilderness. It is ironic that Dan O'Brien and I live only three
miles from each other. When he moved here 7 years ago I never
thought that we would wind up in a hearing in Washington, DC on
opposite positions on wilderness designation.
Wilderness can be divisive. I do not like how it has
divided our communities. The Governor of South Dakota, the
Pennington and Custer County Commissioners have gone on record
as opposed to wilderness designation which indicates to me that
the Forest Service did not do a good job, a good enough job of
building consensus before they made their recommendation for
wilderness designation.
I spent a lot of time studying this proposed wilderness and
concluded this would be detrimental to the land, to our ranch
and to public interest. I've met and discussed this wilderness
proposal with the proponents several times. I do not agree that
the legislation is necessary to protect these areas. It is not
threatened and the advocates for it cannot explain why
wilderness designation is necessary to protect these areas from
the very management that restored them to the place of wonder
and beauty they are today.
Sadly, the wilderness designation will create many losers
starting with the users that have co-existed for decades on
this land. Many will be excluded. I understand that by law
grazing is allowed on wilderness areas. But the Congressional
language does not guarantee that the number of cattle will stay
at the current level. Instead, history from other wilderness
areas is a death by a thousand cut scenario with the Forest
Service continually reducing the number of livestock based on
loss of forage because of their inability to manage properly.
All but two of the other ranchers who have grazing permits
in this proposed area share my concern and my opposition to
this and with good cause. We've all seen firsthand what the
prairie dogs and black footed ferrets have destroyed in nearby
Conata Basin and the Canadian Thistle overrun in Sage Creek
Wilderness in the Badlands National Park. We all see the leafy
spurge epidemic next to the proposed Chalk Hills Wilderness and
the Mountain Pine Beetles have killed most of the trees in the
Black Elk Wilderness.
As Chief of the Folsom Volunteer Fire Department I am
concerned about Forest Service direction to let fires play
their natural role in wilderness. The pesky thing about fires,
prairie dogs, noxious bees is they do not respect borders.
Where I live the whole landscape is the ecosystem. My family
and our family ranch are part of it. Multiple use management
has been successful here. We should continue what is working
and not gamble on a wilderness designation on these grasslands.
The push for wilderness designation was orchestrated by
national organizations. They published slick brochures, stood
outside the entrance into the Badlands National Park asking
tourists to sign postcards and sent thousands of those
postcards, thousands of those postcards, to the Forest Service
during forest plan revision. The Forest Service organized a
collaborative group during the forest plan revision. That
groups did not recommend wilderness designation, but the Forest
Service went ahead and recommended wilderness designation
anyhow.
These areas are not ``untrammeled by man'' as described in
the Wilderness Act. Most of these lands were homesteaded and
still have remnants of those homesteads today. I support the
concept of multiple use management because it's about what is
good for the land, what is good for the people and it's about
our livelihoods.
For many years we've proven we can achieve these objectives
without wilderness. We've been good stewards of the land. We've
protected the land like it was our own. Instead of designating
wilderness areas let's continue the multiple use management
that has worked so well for so many years.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity. Thank you,
Chairman Johnson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Edoff follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Edoff, South Dakota Rancher, Hermosa, SD
BACKGROUND
Thank you Chairman Wyden, Senator Johnson, and members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today regarding S. 3310,
the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010.
My name is Scott Edoff. My wife, Veronica, and I own and operate a
ranch about 40 miles east of Rapid City, South Dakota. My family has
been ranching in this area since before South Dakota was a State. We
have had a permit to graze livestock on what is now the Buffalo Gap
National Grasslands since 1944. I'm the 4th generation on this ranch,
and I hope our children and grandchildren will be able to continue in
our footsteps.
Specific to this Wilderness bill, we have a grazing permit located
in the proposed Indian Creek Wilderness. Consequently, I've spent a lot
of time studying Wilderness and how it could affect management of the
national grasslands.
Indian Creek is a special place of wonder and beauty. I never get
tired of seeing coyotes, turkeys, bluebirds, meadowlarks, deer and
antelope, the lush green grass in the spring, and the colorful badland
sediments. I've met and discussed Wilderness designation with the
Wilderness proponents several times. Some of those discussions weren't
all that pleasant, like Tony Dean's speech when he publicly referred to
me and the other permittees as `welfare ranchers'. The one thing we all
agree on is that we like the national grasslands just the way they are.
However, I disagree that Wilderness legislation is necessary to
``protect'' these areas. Nobody has been able to explain to me exactly
what Wilderness legislation would ``protect'' the proposed Wilderness
areas from. To my knowledge, there are no threats to the Buffalo Gap
National Grasslands that require Wilderness designation. Further, the
historic multiple use management of these areas has allowed a variety
of uses, including motorized access, rockhounding, and grazing, none of
which have apparently adversely affected the areas' Wilderness
qualities.
I've concluded that permanent Wilderness designation would be
detrimental to the land, to our ranch, and to the public interest.
Multiple use management has been successful, and we should continue
what's working. I don't want to gamble on the potential effects of
Wilderness designation, and I cannot support Wilderness designation. To
the extent there are on-the-ground management concerns about the
Buffalo Gap National Grasslands, there are better ways of addressing
those concerns than through Wilderness designation.
EFFECTS ON GRAZING
My biggest concern about Wilderness designation is the effect on
our grazing permit. I've read the Congressional Grazing language and I
understand that grazing is technically allowed in Wilderness areas.
What I fear is `the death by a thousand cuts' resulting from Forest
Service decisions to incrementally reduce our numbers of livestock
based on the loss of forage due to their inability to adequately
control prairie dogs or noxious weeds or fires. Again, the Forest
Service, technically, has the authority to manage wildlife, noxious
weeds and fire in Wilderness areas. However, their options are clearly
more limited, in terms of methods, timeliness, cost, and effectiveness,
inside designated Wilderness than outside of designated Wilderness.
These limitations are the product of the Wilderness Act, the Forest
Service's own policies, and the threat of appeals and/or litigation
from environmental special interests.
Retired U.S. Forest Service Forest Supervisor Hugh Thompson
recently wrote in a letter to the editor submitted to the Rapid City
Journal (see Attachment 1) that--
As a retired Forest Supervisor for the US Forest Service and
a current grazing permittee on a Forest Service allotment with
my family, I completely understand the concerns of the grazing
permittees in the National Grasslands about the effects of
Wilderness designation.
The Wilderness advocates are right about Congressional
language stating that grazing may continue as a permitted
activity in designated Wilderness areas. However, the
Congressional language doesn't say that the number of cattle
will stay at the current level. There's also nothing in the
Congressional language or proposed legislation to ensure that
the Forest Service will aggressively control prairie dogs,
noxious weeds or fires. Just look at what the prairie dogs have
done to Conata Basin, and it's not even Wilderness.
I've discussed Wilderness designation with most of the other
ranchers who have grazing permits in the proposed Wilderness areas.
Only one of them supports Wilderness designation. The number one reason
permittees oppose Wilderness designation is they are afraid their
livestock numbers would inevitably be reduced, or eliminated
altogether. That would have negative effects on their ranches, the
grassland vegetation, on wildlife habitat, on the potential for
wildfires, and on local economies. They are especially concerned about
the Forest Service's inability to control prairie dogs and noxious
weeds and the effect on the grasslands and forage. While not a perfect
comparison, I look at the prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets in the
Conata Basin, the Canadian thistle in the Sage Creek Wilderness in the
Badlands National Park, the leafy spurge next to the proposed Chalk
Hills Wilderness, and the mountain pine beetles in the Black Elk
Wilderness, and I fear for the future of Wilderness areas in the
national grasslands.
Additionally, I'm concerned about wildfires in Wilderness areas.
One of the objectives for Wilderness according to the Forest Service
Manual states, ``Permit lightning caused fires to play, as nearly as
possible, their natural ecological role within wilderness.'' I'm the
Chief of the Folsom Volunteer Fire Department. I support prescribed
burning with clearly identified objectives. But, I'm very concerned
about how the Forest Service would implement allowing lightning caused
fires to play ``their natural ecological role'' in the Indian Creek
Wilderness.
The pesky thing about fires, prairie dogs, and noxious weeds is
that they don't respect borders. Where I live, the whole landscape is
the ``ecosystem'', and my family and our family ranch are part of it.
Together, we need to continue to actively manage it that way.
EFFECTS ON MULTIPLE USE
The Wilderness proponents say we need to protect 48,000 acres of
the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands by designating it Wilderness. Even
if those areas are not designated Wilderness, they will still be
rugged, remote, and inaccessible. That's just the character of the
land.
What will change if these areas are designated Wilderness are the
uses that have co-existed for decades. Wilderness designation creates
winners and losers. The very premise of Wilderness designation includes
restricting or prohibiting other uses and users, even though, in this
case, the users have been able to peacefully co-exist for decades. The
Forest Service has already started restricting uses based on their
decision to recommend the Indian Creek and Red Shirt areas for
Wilderness designation. Old access routes for rockhounds and old two
track roads used by motorized recreationists have already been closed.
Rockhounds can still use the area, but they have to walk further and
further, which means the areas are less and less accessible and
available.
The fact that some people are advocating for Wilderness designation
in the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands is really a testament to the
tremendous success of the multiple use management that they seem not to
appreciate. I don't understand why Wilderness advocates believe that
Wilderness designation is necessary to protect these areas from the
very management that has resulted in the current conditions.
WILDERNESS IMPLEMENTATION
Wilderness seems to invite controversy. Numerous interest groups
have a long history of challenging activities in designated Wilderness
based on perceived violations of the Wilderness Act. Several recent
examples include a) litigation over State of Idaho Fish and Game
landing helicopters in a Wilderness area to dart and collar wolves, b)
Forest Service prohibition on Idaho Public Television filming
conservation work in a Wilderness area, c) controversy over the Swan
Crest Run through proposed Wilderness areas, and 4) a lawsuit
challenging a travel management plan in Minnesota based, in part, on
effects to adjacent Wilderness areas. I am afraid that Wilderness
designation would increase the likelihood of controversy,
administrative appeals, litigation, and delays in Forest Service
decisionmaking that would potentially have adverse effects on the
ability of the Forest Service and/or permittees to implement projects
in a timely and cost-effective manner.
WILDERNESS DESIGNATION
I also want to comment on the process to recommend these areas for
Wilderness designation. The push for Wilderness designation didn't
start as a local grassroots effort. This started with national
organizations asking people to sign postcards supporting Wilderness on
the road into the Badlands National Park. Their talking points were
that Wilderness designation was needed to protect the national
grasslands. They published slick brochures. Then they organized the
mailing of thousands of postcards to the Forest Service during the
forest plan revision.
During the revision of the Nebraska National Forest forest plan,
the Forest Service organized a collaborative group of diverse
stakeholders. That group did not recommend Wilderness designation, but
the Forest Service recommended Wilderness designation anyhow.
The way I read it, the proposed Wilderness areas don't even meet
the Wilderness Act description of Wilderness, i.e., ``A wilderness, in
contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the
landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and
community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a
visitor who does not remain.'' The National Grasslands aren't
``untrammeled by man''. Most of these lands were homesteaded, and still
have remnants of homes, outbuildings, plowed land, fences, roads,
wells, and a windmill.
The following have gone on the record as opposed to Wilderness
designation in the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands:
--South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds
--Pennington County Commission
--Custer County Commission
--Fall River County Commission
--Meade County Commission
--Black Hills Badlands and Lakes Association of South Dakota
--Western Dakota Gem and Mineral Society
--Blue Ribbon Coalition
--Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition
--Association of National Grasslands
--Black Hills ATV/UTV Riders Club
--Black Hills Forest Resource Association
--Black Hills 4 Wheelers--Rapid City Chapter
--BH Snowmobile Club
--Black Hills Women In Timber
--Cottonwood Grazing Association
--Dakota Territory Cruisers
--Hill City Chamber of Commerce
--Off-Road Riders Association
--Pioneer Co-op Grazing District
--South Dakota Farm Bureau
--South Dakota Grasslands Coalition
--South Dakota Off Highway Vehicle Coalition
--South Dakota Public Lands Council
--South Dakota Snowmobile Association
--South Dakota Stockgrowers
--South Dakota Family Farms Association
--South Dakota Trail Riders
--Spearfish Livestock Association
--Western South Dakota Fur Harvesters
Earlier this year, the South Dakota legislature overwhelmingly
passed (49 to 19 in the House and 28 to 6 in the Senate) House
Concurrent Resolution No. 1002. HCR 1002 requests that federal agencies
structure their policies so no area in South Dakota may be designated
as wilderness unless the designation has been approved by a two-thirds
majority in each house of the South Dakota Legislature. To date, the
Legislature has not given that approval for Wilderness designation in
the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands.
CONCLUSION
I support the concept of multiple use management, and sharing these
special places with other users. A lot of people and groups are
concerned about this Wilderness proposal from a recreational
perspective. However, for me and the other permittees, Wilderness
designation is about our livelihoods and the future of our ranches.
We've been good stewards. We've protected this land like it was our
own. But, now, I feel like I'm being penalized for doing a good job.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would
be happy to work with you Chairman Wyden and Senator Johnson to address
the issues raised here today.
Attachment 1
Spearfish, SD, May 17, 2010.
Rapid City Journal, Box 450, Rapid City, SD.
Letter to Editor,
As a retired Forest Supervisor for the US Forest Service and a
current grazing permittee on a Forest Service allotment with my family,
I completely understand the concerns of the grazing permittees in the
National Grasslands about the effects of Wilderness designation.
The Wilderness advocates are right about Congressional language
stating that grazing may continue as a permitted activity in designated
Wilderness areas. However, the Congressional language doesn't say that
the number of cattle will stay at the current level. There's also
nothing in the Congressional language or proposed legislation to ensure
that the Forest Service will aggressively control prairie dogs, noxious
weeds or fires. Just look at what the prairie dogs have done to Conata
Basin, and it's not even Wilderness.
I believe the permittees are entirely justified in their fear of
`death from a thousand cuts' in their opposition to designated
Wilderness. These permittees have done a great job as stewards of the
national grasslands for over 60 years. They deserve our thanks for a
good, well done job, not Wilderness designation that will make a tough
job even tougher.
Hugh Thompson,
W. W. Thompson & Sons, Inc.
Senator Johnson. Thank you. Mr. O'Brien, what portion of
your grazing operation relies in permits to graze on Federal
lands on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland?
Mr. O'Brien. The math comes out to about a half. We run our
animals basically half a year on the Forest Service land and
then back on our deeded land for the other half a year. It's
really more valuable than that because to cut our operation in
half would put us out of business.
So we're really dependent on the Forest Service.
Senator Johnson. Have U.S. Forest Service managers ever
kept you or your ranching operation from doing what you needed
to do?
Mr. O'Brien. I've never had any problem with that. We have
a pretty good relationship with the Forest Service. They seem
to be willing to let me do just about anything that's under the
regulations. No problem there.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Edoff, as you know the bill provides
the Forest Service the authority to control for prairie dogs
and builds on the Forest Service plan to control dogs from
encroaching on private lands from grasslands. If you feel that
that language does not afford adequate protections what do you
believe is the proper method to control prairie dogs?
Mr. Edoff. At the current time the Federal Government has a
contract with the State to reduce prairie dog populations. When
that took place I believe the magic number that the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the State came up with was 150,000 acres
of prairie dogs to keep it at that number. Today they have well
over 400,000 acres of prairie dogs in the State of South
Dakota.
So I'm not really sure that there's really any legislation
that we can put in that will--that can force the Federal
Government to take care of their prairie dogs. They've got
legislation right now and it's not taking place. It's not being
adhered to.
Senator Johnson. I agree with your statement that national
grasslands should be managed for multiple uses. Both grazing
and the establishment and maintenance of wilderness are
consistent with Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act. What do you
think is an appropriate balance for wilderness and other issues
on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland?
Mr. Edoff. With respect to you, Mr. Johnson, I wonder if we
couldn't do some sort of a limited use or a recreational use,
some sort of a limited use of access into there where maybe
there is a main trail, maybe even more trails than what you
have proposed at Indian Creek to allow people to see this
place. I mean, this--I've lived there all my life and with my
grandfather and it's just the greatest place in the world to
me. It's home to me.
Senator Johnson. What is the most valuable, in terms of
wildlife and scenic beauty? Is it the Chalk Hills area, the
Indian Creek area or the Red Shirt area, the three areas of the
Buffalo Gap National Grasslands, which I'm referring to? Are
they all the same or are they different?
Mr. Edoff.
Mr. Edoff. I personally, I think Indian Creek is a lot
prettier and stuff.
Senator Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Edoff. But that's because it's home.
[Laughter.]
Senator Johnson. Understandable.
Mr. Edoff. Yes, but the Red Shirt is just as pretty and
just as scenic as, you know, Indian Creek.
Senator Johnson. Yes.
Mr. O'Brien, from your 40 years of experience studying the
Great Plains combined with your experiences of rancher and
biologist, can you tell us how much wild prairie grassland
exist today compared to 100 years ago?
Mr. O'Brien. That's a pretty tough question. It would be
interesting to have that analysis. But certainly in my
experience traveling up and down the Great Plains, the amount
of grasslands that's truly wild like, Scott and my home, is
pretty small.
There are fragments, of course, that are in pretty good
shape. But to have something on the landscape scale that we're
talking about here is rare indeed.
Senator Johnson. Speaking as a business owner, will passage
of this Wilderness legislation hurt your bottom line, Mr.
O'Brien?
Mr. O'Brien. I don't think so. In fact I think it would do
just the opposite. I think that the opportunities for increased
economic development and value added agriculture, I think they
increase, they're enhanced by a wilderness designation.
Senator Johnson. Some people have said that these lands are
already managed for non-motorized use. Why is wilderness
designation necessary?
Mr. O'Brien. I think that, as was brought up with some of
the other panelists here, what's important is that presently
the travel plan is temporary. It frightens me. We have an area
I know that some good friends of ours have a permit on where
the motorcycles run. It really is an embarrassment. It's pretty
ugly.
I have friends come. They say, what's this, you know? I
don't have an explanation for that.
I believe that the pressure from those groups, if we don't
get wilderness designation, will finally wear people down and
we'll have motorcycles running all over the place.
Senator Johnson. Please give me your estimation of the
importance of the 3 areas in the Chalk Hills, Indian Creek and
Red Shirt areas. Are they all the same in importance or are
they different?
Mr. O'Brien. I think they do have different characters. I'd
have to agree with Scott on that. You know, Indian Creek is
what I know best. It's home, as Scott says. I would, if I had
to rank them, which I prefer not to, I would go from Indian
Creek, Red Shirt and then Chalk Hills.
Senator Johnson. Yes. I want to thank the witnesses today
for their testimony. You have raised important issues. I look
forward to working with you on enacting this bill with whatever
changes are necessary.
Thank you.
Mr. O'Brien. Thank you.
Mr. Edoff. Thank you.
Senator Johnson. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
______
Responses of Carl Rountree to Questions From Senator Barrasso
s. 3294
The Forest Service provided Senator Murkowski with a number of maps
of power withdrawals along the Salmon River and North Fork of the Big
Lost River and Big Wood River. This bill also includes language that
prevents anyone, even the President, from further water development
within the Wildernesses.
In the case of the Salmon River Electric Co-op power withdrawal
along the Salmon River, it appears that parts of the Boulder White
Cloud Wilderness overlap parts of the Co-op's power withdrawal.
Question 1. Does the Bureau of Land Management see this overlap as
an issue to granting power development within the areas withdrawn for
power development? If not, why not?
Answer. This question applies exclusively to lands managed by the
U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management defers to the
Forest Service. We understand that the Forest Service received an
identical question.
Question 2. There are also power withdrawals along the North Fork
of the Big Lost River between the Boulder-White Cloud and Jerry Peak
proposed wildernesses.
Does the Bureau of Land Management see the designation of these
wildernesses, with its water language, as in anyway effected the future
development of any of the power withdrawals in the area covered by this
legislation?
Answer. This question applies exclusively to lands managed by the
U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management defers to the
Forest Service. We understand that the Forest Service received an
identical question.
Responses of Joel Holtrop to Questions From Senator Barrasso
s. 3294
The Forest Service provided Senator Murkowski with a number of maps
of power withdrawals along the Salmon River and North Fork of the Big
Lost River and Big Wood River. This bill also includes language that
prevents anyone, even the President, from further water development
within the Wildernesses.
In the case of the Salmon River Electric Co-op power withdrawal
along the Salmon River it appears that parts of the Boulder White Cloud
Wilderness overlap parts of the Co-op's power withdrawal.
Question 1. Does the Forest Service see this overlap as an issue to
granting power development within the areas withdrawn for power
development? If not, why not?
Answer. The withdrawal for the Salmon River Electric Co-op power
project has been revoked. Therefore, this area is now subject to
National Forest System land regulations, guidelines, and operations,
which also include possible future mineral entry.
Question 2. There are also power withdrawals along the North Fork
of the Big Lost River between the Boulder-White Cloud and Jerry Peak
proposed wildernesses.
Does the Forest Service see the designation of these wildernesses,
with its water language, as in anyway effected the future development
of any of the power withdrawals in the area covered by this
legislation?
Answer. Section 103 of the S. 3294 would prohibit funding,
assisting, authorizing, or issuing a license or permit for the
development of any new water resource facility inside the wilderness
areas designated by the Act. Wilderness designation would have no
impact on power withdrawals and projects located outside of the
wilderness boundaries.
s. 3310
Among other things, 36 CFR 213 regulations direct that: the
national grasslands be ``permanently held'' by the Department of
Agriculture; the national grasslands be administered under ``sound and
progressive principles of land conservation and multiple use, and to
promote development of grassland agriculture and sustained-yield
management of the forage, fish and wildlife, timber, water, and
recreation resources. . .''
Question 1. Does the Forest Service think it can fulfill both its
laws and regulations' call for the development of grassland agriculture
and sustained-yield management on this grassland in South Dakota if
parts of it are made into a Wilderness?
Answer. The Forest Service would manage the designated area in
accordance with the Wilderness Act. To the extent that may conflict
with management to meet the purposes of the Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant
Act, the Wilderness Act would prevail. Nonetheless, wilderness
management would be encompassed within ``recreation resources'' listed
in the 213 regulations. Additionally, existing grazing in the area
could continue consistent with the Congressional Grazing Guidelines.
Continued grazing would be compatible with the Bankhead Jones Farm
Tenant Act purposes of developing grassland agriculture and sustained-
yield of the forage. Grassland agriculture as it has developed in the
area contributes to the qualities of the areas recommended for
wilderness, and these qualities would be maintained consistent with the
wilderness designation.
Question 2. The Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act directs the
Secretary ``to promote more secure occupancy of farms and farm homes''.
How does the proposed Wilderness affect the ability of the
Secretary to meet the fundamental goal of the Bankhead Jones Farm
Tenant Act in this area?
Answer. The Forest Service would manage the designated area in
accordance with the Wilderness Act. To the extent that may conflict
with management to meet the purposes of the Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant
Act, the Wilderness Act would prevail. Nonetheless, the wilderness
designation would likely have limited impact on purposes for which the
designated area is currently managed under the Bankhead Jones Farm
Tenant Act. The agency believes that wilderness designation would
promote more secure occupancy of farms and farm homes in the area
through diversifying the local economy as a result of the increased
recreational use resulting from the wilderness designation. The agency
anticipates that the wilderness designation may result in increased
visitation to the area that could generate associated benefits to the
local economy.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
June 14, 2010.
Hon. Mike Crapo,
U.S. Senate, 239 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. James E. Risch,
U.S. Senate, 2 Russell Courtyard, Washington, DC.
RE: Senate Bill 3294--Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation
Act
Dear Senators, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on
S. 3294--the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act
(CIEDRA). I apologize for not being there to testify in person;
however, I would request this letter be read at the hearing and placed
in the record as my official comments.
I am fully aware of the effort expended by Idaho's Congressional
Delegation, especially Congressman Simpson, in developing CIEDRA.
Congressman Simpson has worked tirelessly for the last decade to make
his dream a reality. Like most Idahoans, I share his goal of preserving
special places for future generations. However, while I support
preserving certain areas, I cannot support protection at the cost of
access, sacrificing recreational or hunting opportunities or impacting
state endowment lands.
My opposition to CIEDRA and additional wilderness areas in Idaho
should not surprise anyone. I recognize the need for economic
development in Custer County, Clayton and the surrounding communities,
but remain unconvinced that the answer is more wilderness acres and
federal red-tape. Even though I support parts of this new bill (i.e.
maintenance of the Murdock Creek Trail as a wheelchair-accessible
trail, releasing wilderness study areas and transferring federal lands
to local communities), I still believe a better alternative exists to
protect the proposed areas, create economic development and
recreational opportunities in the region.
CIEDRA will provide little, if any, additional protection for these
special areas, their character and the landscape. All of the land
proposed as wilderness is protected from future development under the
most restrictive provisions of the Idaho Roadless Rule, which was
authored by then-Governor Risch in 2006. A vast majority of the
proposed lands also receive protection as part of the Sawtooth National
Recreation Area (SNRA), which was developed by Senator Church and then-
Congressman McClure in 1972. Under the Idaho Roadless Rule the three
areas (Hemingway-Boulders, White Clouds and Jerry Peak Wilderness
Areas) are designated as ``Wild Land Recreation,'' which, like
wilderness, directs the U.S. Forest Service to manage in a manner that
shows ``little evidence of human-caused disturbance and [allows]
natural conditions and processes [to] be predominant.'' Similarly, the
SNRA, which covers a large portion of the lands was specifically
created:
In order to assure the preservation and protection of the
natural, scenic, historic, pastoral, and fish and wildlife
values and to provide for the enhancement of the recreational
values associated therewith. . . .
16 U.S.C. Sec. 460aa. The SNRA as a national recreation area is
protected by Congress from development much like wilderness, but
without the limits on recreational opportunities or access associated
with wilderness. Even without CIEDRA the Boulder-White Clouds and Jerry
Peak would be protected from future development under the Idaho
Roadless Rule and SNRA.
As an alternative to designating the proposed lands as wilderness
areas, Congress could consider expanding the boundaries of the SNRA to
cover parts of these areas outside of the recreation area. While this
option is not perfect because of previous judicial decisions concerning
wolf management in the SNRA, it would provide additional certainty and
protection from future development without impacting existing access or
recreation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If Congress explores expanding the boundaries of the SNRA as an
alternative to designating the proposed areas as wilderness it could
also revisit and balance grazing, hunting and wildlife management
interests within the recreational area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunities abound, even without CIEDRA, for people to enjoy and
experience wilderness areas in Idaho. Idaho already has over 4.5
million acres of wilderness in 12 different areas, including the
Sawtooth Wilderness Area (217,000 acres) and the Frank Church/River of
No Return Wilderness Area (2.3 million acres) within an hour or two of
the areas proposed under CIEDRA. Additionally, the Idaho Recreation
Council estimates that less than 3% of visitors to national forests
ever visit a wilderness area. Which again raises the question why these
areas are necessary as wilderness given their close proximity to two
established wilderness areas?
Not only is CIEDRA unnecessary, but it will also impact state
lands. The State of Idaho currently has over 3,700 acres of endowment
land within the proposed Jerry Peak Wilderness Area. Endowment lands
were granted to Idaho at statehood for the express purpose of providing
revenue for various state institutions. The lands in the Jerry Peak
proposal support Idaho's public schools, and we are vitally concerned
about our ability to continue our current and future land management
activities, in light of the proposed wilderness designation. While the
most recent version of CIEDRA includes two provisions that may address
the state's concerns, we are nonetheless fearful that once enacted
these assurances will be undermined through administrative agency
opposition to state land management activities and litigation. I am
concerned that agency and environmental interests may seek to undermine
state management by arguing that access to state parcels is allowed
only to the extent it is consistent with the wilderness designation.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that wilderness values trump access
provided by Section 5(a) of the Wilderness Act.
In the end, I believe CIEDRA will also negatively impact state
wildlife management, mechanized recreation and grazing. Despite my
opposition to CIEDRA, I would offer the following suggestions if
Congress decides to proceed:
CIEDRA should contain language that all conveyances should
be treated as conditions precedent to designating the three
areas as wilderness. Alternatively, should either secretary
fail to complete the required transfers under CIEDRA then the
designated wilderness areas should revert to their former
status;
Provide specific language that imposes an affirmative duty
on the secretaries to purchase or exchange the state endowment
lands inside the Jerry Peak Wilderness Area for parcels outside
of the wilderness area, instead of just providing ``adequate
access'';
CIEDRA should explicitly state that the only limitation on
hunting, fishing or trapping in these areas should be for
public safety only and specific language should be included
permitting Idaho wildlife managers to land in these areas by
plane or helicopter to manage or collar wildlife;
CIEDRA should contain additional language pertaining to
water rights that expressly prohibits, without exception the
establishment of any federal water rights for the wilderness
areas; and
CIEDRA should contain language that requires the Forest
Service and BLM to aggressively eradicate all invasive or
noxious species in the proposed areas.
I understand the sacrifice and devotion Congressman Simpson has
committed to this process, which makes opposing this legislation even
more difficult for me personally. I know there is a better way to
achieve all of the protections necessary to preserve these areas,
increase economic activity and recreational opportunities, without
locking this land up under wilderness. My dream is for these areas to
thrive economically and remain open to all existing uses and
recreational opportunities so Idahoans can continue to access and enjoy
these lands as they do today for generations to come.
As Always--Idaho, ``Esto Perpetua'',
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter,
Governor of Idaho.
______
June 29, 2010.
Hon. Mike Crapo,
Hon. James E. Risch,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Crapo and Risch: On behalf of Trout Unlimited's
140,000 members nationwide, including more than 2,000 in Idaho, we
write to thank you for your leadership and hard work in developing S.
3294, the ``Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act.''
This bill designates three new wilderness areas that will protect
valuable headwaters within the upper Salmon River watershed for salmon,
steelhead and trout. Also important from a fisheries perspective is
Section 102(e), to the extent that such title reduces impacts from
grazing on the East Fork of the Salmon River. But this bill does more
than just protect critical native and anadromous fish populations. It
also includes carefully crafted and important provisions for all those
who use our national forests including motorized users. In addition it
addresses rural economics in Blaine and Custer counties.
This balanced approach to public lands management is something
Trout Unlimited strongly supports. Trout Unlimited has long worked to
conserve, protect and restore Idaho's trout and salmon fisheries. On
average, each Trout Unlimited chapter dedicates 1,000 hours of
volunteer time to conservation and education efforts each year. By
protecting intact habitat in the headwater areas, restoring degraded
habitat, and removing barriers to fish migration we can work toward a
healthy future for Idaho's fisheries. By protecting high quality
habitat, S. 3294 represents a key component of this conservation
strategy.
Trout Unlimited supports S. 3294, and again we thank you for your
work on this important legislation. Please contact us if you have any
questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Scott Stouder,
Idaho Field Coordinator.
Keith Curley,
Director of Government Affairs.
______
Statement of Craig Gehrke, Regional Director, Idaho Office, The
Wilderness Society
Thank you for this opportunity to submit a statement on behalf of
The Wilderness Society (TWS) on S. 3294, the Central Idaho Economic
Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA).
TWS supports S. 3294 and urge the committee to endorse this
legislation.
We appreciate Senator Crapo's leadership in developing this
legislation, and the support of Senator Risch. We would also like to
acknowledge the substantial efforts of Chairman Bingaman in resolving
outstanding issues with earlier versions of the proposal. S. 3294 is a
greatly improved version of CIEDRA and significantly addresses the
majority of TWS's about earlier versions of the legislation.
TITLE I, SECTION 101.--ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS
PRESERVATION SYSTEM
For TWS, the heart of S. 3294 is the permanent protection of the
Boulder-White Clouds as Wilderness. This landscape unquestionably
merits Wilderness designation. Congressman Simpson has worked
tirelessly on CIEDRA and has produced a Wilderness proposal which we
believe merits passage by the U.S. Congress. One primary reason that
TWS remained committed to the effort to modify and enact CIEDRA was the
outstanding diversity of the Wilderness Areas designated in the
legislation. The CIEDRA Wilderness proposal is far more dynamic and
spectacular than either the Forest Service recommended Wilderness or
BLM recommended Wilderness would be if separately considered.
Geographically linking areas under Forest Service jurisdiction with the
land recommended for Wilderness by the BLM--that is, capturing the
rugged high country mountains and the lower elevation sagebrush and
bunchgrass landscapes--will create one of Idaho's most ecologically
diverse Wilderness Areas and protect as Wilderness important wildlife
and fish habitat. The importance of maintaining the integrity of the
Wilderness Areas proposed in S. 3294 to TWS's commitment to seeing
CIEDRA succeed cannot be overstated.
It is important to remember the hard work done over the past
several years by Congressman Simpson and his staff to craft a
compromise that addresses the legitimate interests of many
recreationists who currently use the Boulder-White Clouds.
Conservationists were asked to give up areas recommended for Wilderness
by the Forest Service, like Champion Lakes and the Boulder Mountains
behind the Sawtooth National Recreation Area headquarters, to
accommodate both summer and winter motorized recreationists.
Longstanding motorized trails running between the proposed White Clouds
Wilderness and the Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness are retained to
accommodate motorcycle riders. And in turn, some currently-open
motorized trails were included in the proposed Wilderness, such as the
West Fork East Fork Salmon River Trail. In summary, though, the Idaho
delegation put together a delicate balance that protects widely-used
motorized recreation opportunities while designating remarkable areas
as Wilderness. As in the best of compromises, no one got all they
wanted, but enough was gained to show an improvement over the status
quo.
In regards to the concerns about motorized access within the Jerry
Peak area, TWS conducted extensive, on-the-ground investigations in May
2010 and found that:
Trail #4186 up Pine Creek is not accommodating to public
access, as one has to pass through gated private land to reach
the public land. There are no signs indicating public access or
trailheads, which in all cases routinely severely restrict wide
public use.
Trail #4187 leading up Trail Gulch is posted closed to
motorized use and there is no evidence of motorized recreation
occurring.
Trail #4051--the Herd Creek trail--was posted with one BLM
sign that said no motors allowed, but another, conflicting
Forest Service sign a few yards away indicates the trail open
to motorbikes. Yet another few yards away was another BLM sign
saying this trail was closed to motor cycles. Although
confusing, it is evident that motorized use is not widely
established on Trail #4051. It appears Trail #4051 was opened
to motorized recreationists during the recent Travel Management
Plan process about 1 = mile into the proposed Jerry Peak
Wilderness and is then closed to motors. There is limited
illegal motorcycle use occurring in the closed portion.
Signs on BLM land stating that motor vehicles in Wilderness
Study Areas are allowed on designated roads only.
Claims by motorized recreationists of established use of
Trail #4189, the Sagebrush Creek trail, are simply not true.
This trail is significantly overgrown with chest-high
sagebrush, strewn with rock across the trail tread, and
overgrown by grasses in the tread. There was no evidence of any
motorized travel at any time and without question, no evidence
of any regular motorized travel.
It is also important to note that when the Salmon-Challis National
Forest started the revision of its Travel Management Plan, none of
these trails in question were in the proposed action as trails that
should be open to motorized use. It is not conceivable that the Forest
Service would have omitted from its proposed action trails that were in
fact receiving regular motorized use.
Other important issues in the approximately 12,000 acre area
encompassed by the Pine Creek-Herd Creek trails are the quality of
wilderness and the integrity of wilderness. Herd Creek is a dry, low
elevation, low snowfall, open sagebrush valley with high quality summer
and winter range for deer and elk. While there was no evidence of
motorcycle use in Sagebrush Creek, there was evident pack stock use--
likely from fall hunters. Herd Creek is a salmon stream. The entire
valley is remote, little used, scenic, and wild and should be
designated wilderness. To consider carving out a significant portion of
the proposed wilderness, where the boundary now follows a logical line
above the Herd Creek and East Fork Salmon River Roads, would be
detrimental to wilderness integrity and wildlife security. It also
makes no sense when it is not receiving any visible motorcycle use up
in the tributary of Sagebrush Creek.
To honor the multi-year process of compromise and fair negotiation,
to maintain the wilderness integrity, and to recognize appropriate uses
of trails, we urge Congress to keep the Jerry Peak Wilderness
boundaries from the August 30, 2006 map prepared by Congressman
Simpson. We urge you to carry these boundaries to full inclusion in the
CIEDRA legislation and to keep both the wilderness boundaries and the
spirit of compromise intact.
TITLE I, SECTION 102.--ADMINISTRATION
TWS supports the Wilderness Administration section of S. 3294. In
particular, we believe the provisions on fish and wildlife management
are sufficient to address concerns from the State of Idaho that nothing
in this Act affects the State's jurisdiction regarding fish and
wildlife management.
TITLE I, SECTION 103.--WATER RIGHTS
TWS believes Section 103 sufficiently deals with issues regarding
water rights, the Snake River Basin Adjudication, and Section 9 of the
Sawtooth National Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460aa-8).
TITLE I, SECTIONS 104, 105, 106, 107, 108
TWS has no concerns regarding these sections.
TITLE II, SECTIONS 201, 202, 203, 204
TWS believes that the conveyances in S. 3294 are much improved from
past versions of CIEDRA. TWS appreciates that the land conveyances of
S. 3294 have been specifically identified, along with the public
purposes each conveyance fulfills. TWS supports these conveyances as
part of the overall collaborative package of CIEDRA.
TITLE III, SECTION 301
Germania Creek Trail--TWS supports the approach taken by S. 3294
regarding management of the Germania Creek Trail. The Secretary retains
authority to manage this trail in accordance with applicable laws. TWS
supports the provisions allowing the Secretary to temporarily close the
Germania Creek Trail to minimize adverse impacts, protect public
safety, and to provide opportunities for non-motorized uses.
Forest Service Trails 109 and 671--TWS supports the provisions in
S. 3294 regarding management of Trails 109 and 671.
Frog Lake Loop Trail--TWS supports the management provisions of S.
3294 for the Frog Lake Loop Trail.
Accessible Trail--TWS supports the actions necessary to maintain
the first mile of the Murdock Creek Trail as a primitive, nonpaved, and
wheelchair-accessible trail.
In summary, TWS reiterates its support for S. 3294 and urge the
committee to endorse this legislation.
______
June 15, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
RE: Statement on S.3294, Central Idaho Economic Development and
Recreation Act
Dear Chairman Bingaman: On behalf of Wilderness Watch, Western
Lands Project and Friends of the Clearwater, we are providing this
statement for the hearing record on S. 3294, the Central Idaho Economic
Development and Recreation Act.
Our organizations were instrumental in organizing the Committee to
Save the Sawtooth NRA in response to the initial CIEDRA legislation
introduced several years ago. The 47 grassroots, regional and national
organizations that came together under the CSSNRA worked tirelessly to
defeat the bill. Those early versions of CIEDRA would have inflicted
untold harm on the wildlands within and nearby the Sawtooth NRA. Those
bills would have given away more than 5,000 acres of national forest
and other public lands for free. They mandated off-road vehicle
corridors through critical wildlife habitat and established motorized
recreation as the priority use for many areas. The Wildernesses
designated by those bills would have been highly fragmented, and the
protections normally afforded by the Wilderness Act were watered-down
so that the interests of private groups took precedence over the public
good. CIEDRA bestowed the title ``Wilderness'' on lands while failing
to provide traditional wilderness protections. Water rights needed to
protect fish and wildlife downstream were stripped from these bills,
putting endangered salmon populations at greater risk. More than
200,000 acres of potential Wilderness lands were released from current
protections and opened to damaging ORV and other uses.
Through the efforts of our organizations, local concerned citizens,
and wilderness-supporting Members of Congress, and in spite of the
unflinching support for the harmful CIEDRA bills from the Pew
Foundation's Campaign for America's Wilderness, The Wilderness Society,
and Idaho Conservation League, those previous versions of CIEDRA met
their appropriate demise, making it possible to create legislation that
is worthy of one of the most remarkable natural landscapes in America.
We appreciate the efforts of the Committee leadership and Senator
Crapo in reshaping those earlier versions of CIEDRA into the much
improved version introduced as S. 3294.
With regard to S. 3294, the latest version of CIEDRA, we wish to
first acknowledge the many improvements in the legislation over
previous versions. Gone are most of the land giveaways, replaced
instead with much more limited land conveyances aimed at specific
public purposes and more closely adhering to existing law. Gone, too,
are most of the damaging Wilderness provisions that allowed for
extensive motor vehicle use, habitat manipulations, and commercial
special interest rights. Also excised from earlier versions of CIEDRA
are the destructive provisions creating the Boulder-White Clouds
Management Area and its mandated off-road vehicle routes and
prioritization of ORV use for the area. These are all changes that our
organizations advocated for since the first CIEDRA bill, and we're very
pleased to see those changes in the current bill.
While much improved, S. 3294 still contains a number of provisions
that should be changed to provide adequate protection for the natural
values of the area and the public interest. Our concerns and
recommendations follow:
TITLE I--WILDERNESS DESIGNATIONS
The Boulder-White Clouds roadless area, at approx. 475,000 acres is
the largest unprotected national forest roadless area in the Lower 48
States. Together with adjacent BLM-administered wildlands, the area
harbors a potential contiguous, unbroken wilderness of over one-half-
million acres, all of which would be protected in H.R. 980, the
Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act. CIEDRA protects only two-
thirds of the area. Far more troubling, however, the three motor
vehicle corridors in the bill fragment this connected Wilderness into
four smaller parcels, two of which are less than 5,000 acres in size.
Most damaging would be the Germania Creek motorized/mechanized corridor
(section 301(a)) that splits the large roadless area in two. This
corridor greatly reduces the amount of core habitat that would be more
than a couple miles from a road or vehicle corridor, and would preclude
the ability for wilderness visitors to experience wilderness that is
more than a few miles from the sights, sounds, and other influences of
our culture's ubiquitous mechanization. This preeminent wild area can't
serve every demand and still provide its highest and best use to
present and future generations as one of America's premier
Wildernesses. We can do better, and should. The Germania Creek trail
corridor should be removed from the bill and the corridor made part of
a contiguous Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness. Moreover, those areas
released from wilderness study area status should be protected from
degradation by prohibiting any increase in off-road vehicle use or
routes.
We also believe the Railroad Ridge area should be permanently
protected from vehicle use and included in the Wilderness. Previous
versions of CIEDRA included additional protections for Railroad Ridge.
The Senate should include additional protections in this bill.
Sec. 102 Administration
As noted above, S. 3294 does not contain most of the damaging
Wilderness provisions from earlier versions of CIEDRA. However, some
so-called ``savings clauses'' could cause confusion for wilderness
managers and the public, or cause harm to Wilderness, and therefore
should be modified to mimic the language in the Wilderness Act. We do
not believe it is sound wilderness policy to grind away at the
protections afforded by the Wilderness Act in individual bills. We urge
the Committee to modify the language in CIEDRA so that it reflects the
precise language in the Wilderness Act.
(f) Outfitting and Guiding Activities--
For the most part this section restates section 4(d)(5) of
the Wilderness Act except CIEDRA substitutes the phrase
``commercial services. . .are authorized'' in place of the
Wilderness Act provisions stating ``commercial services may be
performed.'' Though the phrases could be interpreted to be
essentially the same, we believe the language in CIEDRA raises
concerns for two reasons.
First, when there has been some dispute about the meaning of
statutory language, the simple fact that Congress changes the
provision could be interpreted to mean that Congress meant to
accomplish something new and different. Second, the phrase
``are authorized'' could be interpreted to mean that an agency
has less discretion than it would under a ``may be performed''
standard to decide whether to allow the services.
The language used in the Wilderness Act has allowed for
appropriate commercial services in nearly every Wilderness in
the National Wilderness Preservation System, and would do so in
the Boulder-White Clouds.
(g) Fish and Wildlife--
While CIEDRA's provisions are similar to the Wilderness Act,
they are not the same, raising questions as to how fish and
wildlife will be managed differently under the bill. In order
to avoid confusion for managers and the public, and minimize
the breadth of special provisions in wilderness laws, we urge
you to modify this language to mimic the Wilderness Act.
(h) Access--
The Wilderness Act provides private landowners with adequate
access or an exchange for land of equal value. CIEDRA excludes
the option of an exchange. The provision for an exchange has in
the past served to protect Wilderness in situations where
``adequate access'' may have resulted in significant damage. In
order to ensure that this provision will be in accordance with
section 5(a) of the Wilderness Act, we suggest adding a phrase
to end of the last sentence that reads, ``or privately owned
land shall be exchanged for federally owned land in the same
State of approximately equal value.''
Sections 104. Military Overflights
We believe the Boulder-White Clouds would greatly benefit if the
bill required the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to enter into
discussions with the Sec. of Defense over ways to lessen the impact of
overflights on the area's wildlife and its human visitors, while still
meeting national security needs. With the vast expanse of airspace over
southern and central Idaho, it seems the Secretaries ought to be able
to identify alternative areas and training practices that would meet
the military's training needs while lessening the impact on the
Boulder-White Clouds and Sawtooth NRA.
TITLE II--LAND CONVEYANCES FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES
Many of the conveyances are qualified by the requirement that the
conveyance be ``consistent with uses allowed under [RPPA].'' We believe
the bill should require conveyances to be ``implemented consistent with
RPPA.'' This would more plainly ensure that conveyances would be
implemented in a manner consistent with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
Section 202(e) Public Purposes
We believe the proposed use for the ``City of Challis''
parcel should be stated, whether it's for a park, wastewater
treatment plant, or other public need. We appreciate that other
conveyances in the bill have stated public purposes, and
believe the Challis conveyance should identify the same. Public
lands should not transfer out of public ownership unless it is
for an identifiable and justifiable public purpose.
TITLE III--TRAVEL MANAGEMENT
Sec. 301. Trail Management
As stated previously, the provisions condemning the area around the
Germania Creek Trail to perpetual motorized and mechanized use will
profoundly impact the wild character of the Boulder-White Clouds. The
impact will be compounded by the ``buffer zone'' provisions in section
105, which virtually ensure wildlife and visitors in the area,
including those in parts of the Wilderness, will not be able to escape
the ``growing mechanization'' that the Wilderness Act sought to prevent
in our nation's wildest areas. With more than one-third of the suitable
Wilderness in the Boulder-White Clouds area being released for other
uses, and nowhere in the proposed Wilderness being even ten miles from
a road or boundary, it is simply unacceptable to exclude the Germania
Trail from Wilderness designation.
The Frog Lake Loop should be closed to vehicle use and included in
the Wilderness. As it stands in S. 3294, this proposed vehicle corridor
would completely sever a tiny parcel of land from the rest of the White
Clouds Wilderness. While we prefer the Frog Lake Loop be included in
the Wilderness, if it is not then the small isolated parcel of land,
which would not truly be manageable as Wilderness, should be deleted
from wilderness designation. Special management provisions could be
included to protect it from vehicle use, road construction or other
developments. A similar situation exists with a narrow triangle of land
isolated from the rest of the Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness by a
corridor running between the East Fork Salmon River Road and Germania
Creek. This corridor should be made part of the Wilderness to maintain
the physical and biological connectivity of the Wilderness.
Sec. 301(d). Accessible Trail.
We support the proposal to make the first mile of the Murdock
Creek Trail a nonpaved, wheelchair-accessible trail. However,
we strongly urge Congress to ``cherrystem'' this trail from the
Wilderness, and to include language preventing any further
developments or activities that would detract from the
primitive experience available on the trail.
Our organizations support the current language in the
Americans with Disabilities Act allowing for wheelchair use in
Wilderness, and we support efforts to make the Murdock Creek
Trail accessible for those who require a wheelchair for
mobility. Both can be met without creating yet another special
provision in Wilderness legislation. We are also concerned
about the precedent-setting potential of this provision.
CONCLUSION
We wish to commend the Committee leadership for its arduous and
critical work to transform this bill from a virtual manifesto against
public land and Wilderness to one that is closer to the ideal. We urge
you to take the additional steps outlined above to make this
legislation worthy of Idaho's splendid public lands and waters and one
of our nation's premier unprotected wild areas.
Thank you for your efforts and your consideration of these
concerns.
Sincerely,
George Nickas,
Wilderness Watch.
Janine Blaeloch,
Western Lands Project.
Gary Macfarlane,
Friends of the Clearwater.
______
Sierra Club,
June 14, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman, On behalf of the more than 1.3 million
members and supporters of the Sierra Club, I am writing to thank you
for holding a legislative hearing on S. 3294, the Central Idaho
Economic Development and Recreation Act.
Sierra Club commends Senator Crapo for his dedication to balancing
the protection of Idaho's irreplaceable wild lands, with the need for
public access and the development of local economies. S. 3294
represents the culmination of many years of hard work to craft a
compromise bill that provides wilderness protections to the Boulder-
White Clouds range. While we recognize the benefits of a collaborative
approach to crafting public land legislation, Sierra Club wishes to
assert that Wilderness is important and valuable in its own right. For
more than a century, we have fought to protect and preserve America's
wild lands heritage. Today, in the face of climate change, wilderness
is more important than ever.
Wilderness and Local Economies
Preserving public lands as wilderness benefits local communities
and economies. Wild lands and natural systems provide numerous
ecosystem services and economic benefits for communities. These
ecosystem services include filtering the air we breathe and the water
we drink, generating fertile soils, controlling pests that destroy
crops, providing habitat for fish and wildlife, controlling floods, and
sequestering carbon.
Throughout the West, and especially within the Northern Rockies,
local economies are closely tied to outdoor recreation and wildlife
related activities such as hunting, fishing, bird watching, hiking and
camping. These economic drivers depend on wild lands and the health of
our natural ecosystems. In fact, one out of every 20 jobs in this
country is linked to wildlife related activities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Outdoor Industry Foundation. 2007. ``The Active Outdoor
Recreation Economy. A $730 Billion Annual Contribution to the U.S.
Economy.'' Available from: http://www.outdoorindustry.org/images/
researchfiles/RecEconomypublic.pdf?26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilderness in a Warming World
Setting aside public land and wildlife habitat provides space for
plants and wildlife to adapt to changing climate and other impacts from
global warming. Congressional wilderness designation, in particular,
provides numerous benefits for wildlife and increases habitat
resiliency in many ways.
Wilderness designation protects habitat from destructive
industrialization and other non-climate stressors such as sprawl, oil
and gas development, mining, and illegal off-road vehicle abuse.
Protecting wilderness and wildlife migration corridors allows wildlife
a chance to migrate and adapt in order to survive. The chances for
successful migration will be greatly improved by the protection of
large core areas of healthy habitat linked together by connecting
migration routes. Wilderness designation also assures the ability of
healthy habitat to absorb excess amounts of carbon in the atmosphere.
S. 3294--THE CENTRAL IDAHO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION ACT
Sierra Club strongly supports the wilderness designations found in
S. 3294. The bill will permanently protect three spectacular wilderness
areas in the Sawtooth and Challis National Forests and the Challis
District of the Bureau of Land Management. Comprising more than 330,000
acres these areas include; the Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness, White
Clouds Wilderness and Jerry Peak wilderness in the Boulder-White Clouds
Range.
Sierra Club would like to commend Senator Crapo's staff and the
Committee Staff who worked tirelessly to revise and improve previous
versions of the legislation. S. 3294 has been improved in many ways.
The updated bill is much more concise than earlier versions of the
legislation (H.R. 3603, 109th Congress, 2006; H.R. 192, January 2009),
and many of the objectionable provisions, such as legislatively
prescribed land management areas and special wilderness management
provisions have been removed or significantly reworked.
In addition, the proposed land transfers have been thoroughly
vetted and reviewed and with a single exception, the public purpose for
each transfer parcel is explicitly identified in the bill. Sierra Club
is particularly pleased that no lands located within the Sawtooth
National Recreation Area are proposed for transfer or disposal, and
that a reversionary clause has been included which requires that the
stated public purposes for each land transfer must be adhered to.
While Sierra Club is supportive of S. 3294, we continue to have
some significant concerns, and look forward to working closely with
Senator Crapo and the Committee staff to make additional improvements
to the bill. Sierra Club's remaining concerns with S. 3294 include:
TITLE III--TRAVEL MANAGEMENT
Sierra Club maintains its long-held opposition to legislative
language that legislates local travel management plans, roads, routes,
or trails. Such language denies local land managers the ability to take
into account multiple related impacts and manage public land in a
comprehensive manner.
Germania Creek and Frog Lake Loop Trails
Sierra Club strongly opposes the legislative designation of the
Germania Creek and Frog Lake Loop Trails as proposed in Title III,
Secs. 301(a) and 301(c).
Section 301. Trail Management.
(a) Germania Creek Trail-
(1) IN GENERAL-The Secretary shall maintain a trail
for single track, 2-wheeled motorized and mechanized
travel between the Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness
designated by section 101(a)(1) and the White Clouds
Wilderness designated by section 101(a)(2).
(c) Frog Lake Loop Trail
(1) IN GENERAL-Neither the designation of the White
Clouds Wilderness by section 101(a)(2) nor the
exclusion of portions of Forest Service trails 047 and
682 (commonly known as the `Frog Lake Loop Trail') from
the wilderness shall affect the management of those
trails for motorized or mechanized travel in accordance
with existing laws.
The Germania Creek and Frog Lake Loop trails would bisect the
Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness area, designated by section 101(a)(1) and
the White Clouds Wilderness area, designated by section 101(a)(2).
These trails fragment the contiguous wilderness units and will provide
an opportunity for illegal motorized entry into the newly designated
wilderness. Additional degradation will be compounded by the ``buffer
zone'' provisions in section 105 which prevents management of these
trails for their impacts on the very essence of the wilderness areas
they bisect. In addition, we are concerned with the potential precedent
set by codifying motorized use on any trail located entirely within
wilderness quality lands.
The Germania Creek trail is a lightly used, primitive single-track
trail that crosses the creek several times along its length. The use of
two-wheel motorized vehicles promotes erosion and siltation in Germania
Creek, which is detrimental to bull trout and cutthroat trout. The
trail also cuts across an important migration corridor for elk, mule
deer and antelope.
While we are pleased to see the inclusion of the Red Ridge area as
wilderness in the legislation, we have strong concerns with allowing
motorized use on the Frog Lake Loop trail. The trail effectively
divides Red Ridge from the rest of the White Clouds wilderness,
reducing habitat connectivity in the area.
Sierra Club strongly objects to these provisions and urges Senator
Crapo and the Committee to close the trails to motorized use.
TITLE I--WILDERNESS DESIGNATIONS
Railroad Ridge
We were disappointed to see that Railroad Ridge would receive no
protections in S. 3294. Sierra Club believes that Railroad Ridge should
be permanently protected from off-road vehicle abuse. Railroad Ridge is
a stunning, broad plateau. It contains unique, threatened plant
communities that have been recognized by the US Forest Service for
special administrative protections. We urge that Railroad Ridge be
protected as wilderness.
Short of permanent wilderness protections, we believe that the
existing ORV trail should be closed at Livingston Mill to limit current
problems with illegally pioneered ORV routes in the area. Closing the
area to motorized access and converting the existing trail to non-
motorized use, would enable the US Forest Service to conduct necessary
rehabilitation in the area and would create new jobs.
Water Rights
SEC. 103. WATER RIGHTS.
(a) Statutory Construction-Nothing in this title--
(1) shall constitute either an express or implied
reservation by the United States of any water rights
with respect to the wilderness areas designated by
section 101;
(2) affects any water rights--
(A) in the State of Idaho existing on the date of
enactment of this Act, including any water rights held
by the United States; or
(B) decreed in the Snake River Basin Adjudication,
including any stipulation approved by the court in such
adjudication between the United States and the State of
Idaho with respect to such water rights; or
Sierra Club believes that the streams and rivers of the Sawtooth
National Recreation Area and the Boulder-White Clouds Range must be
protected for the fish and wildlife that depend on them, especially
spawning salmon. Sierra Club has worked for years to assert a Federal
Reserved Water Right for the Sawtooth NRA. However, in 2000 the Idaho
Supreme Court stripped the Sawtooth NRA of its clean water protections.
We object to Section 103 and believe that the legislation should re-
assert in stream flow protections for the Sawtooth NRA.
TITLE II--LAND CONVEYANCE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES
Public Land Conveyances
Sierra Club is pleased to see that nearly all of the proposed land
conveyances in S. 3294 have explicitly stated public purposes. We also
commend the inclusion of Section 204, which contains a reversionary
provision that will ensure that the lands conveyed in S. 3294 will be
used for the stated public purpose.
Sec. 204, Terms and Conditions of Permits or Land Conveyances
(a) Terms and Conditions-The issuance of a special use permit
or the conveyance of land under this title shall be subject to
any terms and conditions that the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
(b) Reversionary Interest-If any parcel of land conveyed
under this title ceases to be used for the public purpose for
which the parcel was conveyed, the parcel shall, at the
discretion of the Secretary, based on a determination that
reversion is in the best interests of the United States, revert
to the United States.
However, we are concerned that the City of Challis land conveyance,
(Title II. Sec. 202 (e)), does not have a stated public purpose. We
believe that each proposed land conveyance must have a stated public
purpose, in order for Section 204 to ensure that all of the public land
conveyed by S. 3294 be used appropriately.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate Sierra Club's gratitude to
Chairman Bingaman and the other committee members for holding this
important hearing on S. 3294. I also would like to express our
appreciation to Senator Crapo for his leadership in working to protect
the Boulder-White Clouds Range. Sierra Club supports S. 3294, but we
continue to have some significant remaining concerns with the
legislation, as it is currently written. We look forward to working
with Senator Crapo and the other members of the Committee to make
improvements to the bill, in order to offer our full support.
Thank you for your consideration,
Debbie Sease,
National Campaign Director.
______
U.S. Congress,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 2, 2010.
Hon. C.L. ``Butch'' Otter,
Governor, State Capitol, Boise, ID.
Dear Governor Otter: Thank you for your letter written to Senator
Mike Crapo and Senator Jim Risch, and copied to Representative Walt
Minnick and myself, dated June 14, 2010. I appreciate your taking the
time to comment regarding your concerns with S.3294, the Central Idaho
Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA), as introduced by our
Senators.
You have always been up front with me regarding your opposition to
additional wilderness in Idaho and I have always known you would have
difficulties supporting my legislation both while you were my colleague
in the House of Representatives and as our Governor. As the principal
author of CIEDRA, I feel it is appropriate to respond to you directly.
As you know, I have been working since 2000 on CIEDRA, seeking
collaboration and consensus among Idahoans. The resulting bill is the
product of countless discussions, meetings and hearings and numerous
drafts. I am proud of the finished product.
Many Idahoans have decided that leaving land management in the
Boulder-White Clouds in flux, as wilderness study areas and under the
threat of closures and lawsuits, is not acceptable. They have come
together with me to craft this solution that addresses both the need to
conserve this area and the need to protect the livelihoods and
enjoyment of Idahoans who live and recreate in the area.
CIEDRA is not a perfect bill. It is a complicated bill that forces
each side to give a bit in order to find the balance that is needed to
resolve outstanding land management issues. I tried to achieve a
balance where there are no ``winners'' or ``losers.''
The years I have spent discussing and addressing the most
contentious issues in CIEDRA led those who want to find a solution to
this long-standing problem to develop what I believe to be an equitable
compromise in which all will gain security and certainty. Most
importantly, CIEDRA addresses the contentious issues of wilderness,
including the motorized corridors within the Boulder-White Clouds.
Wilderness will be established in areas that have the least impact
on motorized and other existing uses. We have released wilderness study
areas and boundaries have been adjusted to provide for high elevation
snowmobiling and other existing uses in areas that are, in fact,
currently being treated as if they were wilderness and where,
therefore, motorized use is already limited. Of the two existing
motorized corridors, the Grand Prize trail would be closed to motorized
use while the Germania corridor would remain open to motorized use with
explicit protections ensuring that it must remain open into the future.
This is the compromise reached by conservation groups and
recreationists and to which I have remained committed throughout this
process.
I believe it is fair to say that those who are entrenched in their
positions on one or both of these issues are not interested in
compromise and will remain opposed to the bill unless the other side
gives up. It has become clear to me that the path forward to resolving
issues in the Boulder-White Clouds is through the compromises we have
developed in the existing CIEDRA language.
Following, in italics, are the suggestions that you made in your
letter regarding CIEDRA. Corresponding to each suggestion is my
response which I believe should answer or alleviate any concerns you
may have had with your specific suggestion:
CIEDRA should contain language that all conveyances should
be treated as conditions precedent to designating the three
areas as wilderness. Alternatively, should either secretary
fail to complete the required transfers under CIEDRA then the
designated wilderness areas should revert to their former
status.
I appreciate your seeking certainty that the conveyances in CIEDRA
to the cities and Custer County take affect prior to wilderness
being enacted. Each of the conveyances to the public entities
has language specifically stating that the respective Secretary
``shall convey, without consideration'' the specified parcel.
Given this language, once the bill is signed into law. the
Secretaries are required by law to implement the transfers.
As you are aware, there is no precedent of ``trigger'' language
such as you have recommended as a condition precedent to the
implementation of wilderness. I am also unaware of any
instances where a Secretary has ever blocked a transfer of
lands that was specifically directed in legislation.
Specific language that provides an affirmative duty for the
secretaries to purchase or exchange the state endowment lands
inside the Jerry Peak Wilderness Area for parcels outside of
the wilderness area, instead of just providing ``adequate
access.''
In regards to this concern, language has been provided in the bill
to address this issue. Specifically, ``the Secretary may
acquire any land or interest in land within the boundaries of
the wilderness areas by donation, exchange, or purchase from a
willing seller.'' Additionally, language was inserted into the
bill at the request of the Attorney General's office stating
that ``[N]ot later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall seek to complete an exchange for
State land located within the boundaries of the wilderness
areas designated by this title.''
In addition, you have personally expressed to me your desire to
have the Secretaries purchase the state endowment lands. Given
my position on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I am
committed to securing the funding necessary to implement the
purchase of these state endowment lands in FY 2011.
CIEDRA should explicitly state that the only limitation on
hunting, .fishing or trapping in these areas should be for
public safety only and specific language should be included
permitting Idaho wildlife managers to land in these areas by
plane or helicopter to manage or collar wildlife.
I share your concern about ensuring not only that recreational
activities like hunting, fishing, and trapping should continue
in the Boulder-White Clouds area, but also that the Idaho Fish
and Game continues to be able to effectively manage wildlife in
that area. As you know, in 2006, the U.S. Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies to provide a process through which states can
continue to manage wildlife in wilderness areas. It is through
this MOU that the State of Idaho is allowed to use helicopters
for wolf management in the Frank Church-River of No Return
Wilderness Area, a decision that was recently upheld in court.
In order to ensure that the state continues to have the tools it
needs to manage wolves and other wildlife, 1 will propose
adding language affirming the MOU to the CIEDRA language. As
stated above, the existing MOU gives the Forest Service and BLM
the ability to approve the use of helicopters and other
motorized vehicles in wilderness areas for wildlife management
when determined necessary through the Minimum Requirements
Decision Process, even if these activities are otherwise
prohibited under the Wilderness Act. Similar language was
included in P.L. 109-432, the White Pine County Conservation,
Recreation and Development Act. The language in the existing
MOU has already been proven effective in protecting the ability
of our state to manage wolves in wilderness, and I am confident
that including it in CIEDRA will only strengthen that
protection.
CIEDRA should contain additional language pertaining to
water rights that expressly prohibits, without exception the
establishment of any federal water rights for the wilderness
areas.
As you know, the water language in CIEDRA was carefully negotiated
with the water expert in the Idaho Attorney General's office.
The specific water language states that:
Nothing in this title--
(1) shall constitute either an express or implied reservation by
the United States of any water rights with respect to the
wilderness areas designated by section 101;
(2) affects any water rights--
(A) in the State of Idaho existing on the date of enactment of
this Act, including any water rights held by the United States;
or
(B) decreed in the Snake River Basin Adjudication, including any
stipulation approved by the court in such adjudication between
the United States and the State of Idaho with respect to such
water rights; or
(3)(A) establishes a precedent with regard to any future
wilderness designations;
As noted above in Section (1), CIEDRA expressly states that there
shall be no express or implied reservation of water rights with
respect to the wilderness areas nor does it affect any water
rights in the State of Idaho. I find it difficult to imagine a
reason or use in which the federal government would establish a
federal water right in the wilderness areas given that they are
all ``headwaters'' and the federal government is forfeiting its
right to reserve a water right at enactment of this
legislation.
However, given your concerns, I will ask the Senators to either
include report language or to engage in a colloquy on the
Senate floor reinforcing that the intent of the water language
in CIEDRA is that:
1) the water right language was selected based upon the fact that
the Idaho Supreme Court has previously determined that such
language does not create federal reserved water rights;
2) the intent of CIEDRA is that there shall be no establishment
of any federal water rights for these wilderness areas now and
in the future.
CIEDRA should contain language that requires the Forest
Service and BLM to aggressively eradicate all invasive or
noxious species in the proposed areas.
I share your concern about the damage that invasive and noxious
species can do to native vegetation and wildlife, and like you
I think it is important to have effective weed management
strategies in place in the Boulder-White Clouds area. In order
to ensure that the Forest Service and BLM are working
aggressively with the State of Idaho to manage and control
invasive and noxious weeds, I have asked these agencies to work
with the State of Idaho to develop a comprehensive weed
management plan in the Boulder-White Clouds. Similar plans are
already in effect in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness Area and
the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area, allowing
agencies to stop the spread of invasive species and contain the
spread of established non-native plants. I am committed to
providing the funding necessary to implement such an agreement.
You may also be interested to know that the 2006 MOU referenced
earlier provides authority for the Forest Service and BLM to
approve the use of pesticides in wilderness areas. I will
propose adding language to CIEDRA to affirm this authority.
Thank you very much for your attention to my letter. If you have
further questions regarding my letter or CIEDRA I would be happy to
discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
Mike Simpson,
Member of Congress.
______
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers,
May 25, 2010.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
U.S. Senate, 136 Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Johnson: Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is a national,
non-profit group of sportsmen who love to hunt and fish in backcountry
settings. We are pleased to support your recent introduction of the
Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010. This far-
sighted legislation corresponds to BHA's values of keeping backcountry
hunting and fishing opportunities intact for our children and beyond.
Five years ago, we wrote to you and the other South Dakota
delegation members to express our support for this grassland wilderness
proposal, and urged your leadership in the proposal's full support. We
learned of the proposal from one of our original board members in South
Dakota, Rich Gordon, who was passionate about protecting this part of
the prairie grasslands that are unique to our nation's heartland. All
his life, Rich enjoyed and appreciated these lands for what all true
hunters and anglers treasure -- undisturbed habitat for mule deer,
whitetail deer, antelope and numerous species of fish and fowl.
However, there and elsewhere, our great hunting and fishing
traditions face unprecedented challenges as population grows and
sporting technology advances. For everyday folks it's increasingly
difficult to find places for quiet, high-quality hunting and fishing,
blessed by the solitude we seek. It's crucial for big game species to
have undisturbed habitat for security, fawning and calving.
That's why Backcountry Hunters & Anglers want you to know we fully
support the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010 to
conserve a small but significant portion of the Buffalo Gap National
Grassland. Providing the ultimate federal protection to only 8% of this
unique area is not too much to ask. Hundreds of thousands of national
grassland acres in the state would still be left open to motorized use.
Our organization has the conviction to help this worthy proposal become
reality.
We appreciate your leadership on this issue. The measure would not
only protect an irreplaceable part of South Dakota and an integral part
of its prairie pioneer heritage -- it would create the first grasslands
wilderness in the nation. No other prairie state has had the foresight.
We look forward to your response and to working with you on this
important issue. We and the South Dakota sportsmen and women we
represent thank you for supporting this historic effort. Future
generations of hunters will be forever grateful.
Sincerely,
Mike Beagle,
Chairman.
______
Izaak Walton League of America,
June 8, 2010.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Senator, U.S. Senate, 136 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: The Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act, S. 3110
Dear Senator Johnson, Thank you for introducing The Tony Dean
Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act (S. 3110) designating portions
of the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands (BGNG) as a wilderness area. The
area is a national treasure, very deserving this designation and the
protection that goes with it.
The Izaak Walton League of America has a long history of supporting
wilderness. The Ikes were formed in 1922 and have supported wilderness
legislation since 1926. The National IWLA and the South Dakota Division
strongly support this legislation.
Prairie grassland is the most endangered ecosystem on the planet.
We are seeing the destruction of thousands of acres of grassland across
South Dakota. S. 3110 will protect this precious natural resource for
current and future generations.
The Ikes support continuation of activities including: hunting,
hiking, camping, horseback riding, bird watching, recreational rock
collecting, grazing and more. All of these currently exist on the BGNG
and will continue under this legislation. A wilderness designation will
ensure lasting protection for the Red Shirt, Indian Creek, and Chalk
Hills areas which are some of the best public land in our state. The
IWLA believes this wilderness designation will greatly benefit adjacent
communities with increased visitation from people across the nation to
what will be our country's first national grassland wilderness.
This visionary proposal will provide long term benefits to both
residents and non-residents for generations to come. Thank you for this
legislation and fitting tribute to our friend and conservationist, the
late Tony Dean. S. 3110 has the enthusiastic support the Izaak Walton
League of America.
Jerry Schlekeway,
South Dakota Division President.
______
Pew Environment Group,
June 14, 2010.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
U.S. Senate, 136 Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Johnson: On behalf of the Campaign for America's
Wilderness of the Pew Environment Group, thank you for your
introduction of the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act
(S. 3310) and your efforts to move this bill through Congress. If
enacted, your legislation will protect a portion of the Buffalo Gap
National Grassland as wilderness, resulting in the first national
grasslands ecosystem to be represented in the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
In 2002, the Bush Administration recommended that two areas in the
Buffalo Gap--Red Shirt and Indian Creek--be designated as wilderness.
Your legislation would be an important step in making these
recommendations a long overdue reality.
While the Forest Service attempts to manage these areas for
wilderness values, this management is based on administrative decree.
Federal wilderness legislation would provide lasting protection for
these areas.
Protecting a portion of South Dakota's grasslands heritage would be
a significant conservation and scientific achievement and would also
help sustain recreation and tourism opportunities, ensuring the
continued economic vitality of local communities that market themselves
around the stunning hills and vast prairies of southwestern South
Dakota. This is good business sense.
In particular, almost 20 percent of South Dakotans hunt annually
and, together with visitors to the state, spend $223 million on hunting
(SD Game Fish and Parks figures, based on 2001 economic data). Over
5,500 South Dakotans work in jobs related to hunting activities
resulting in over $100 million in salaries and wages. In addition,
based on this 2001 data, 358,000 people spent an estimated $92 million
on wildlife-watching activities.
Although there are provisions in your proposal we consider to be
compromises, the Campaign for America's Wilderness of the Pew
Environment Group recognizes you have worked hard to craft a viable
bill that addresses the needs of diverse stakeholders and constituents.
We would have liked to see the Indian Creek route closed.
Recognizing that keeping the route open was a deal breaker to a
number of other stakeholders, however, we acknowledge this
compromise as necessary to move legislation forward.
Despite exaggerated stories, misquotes, and sometimes
intentional misinformation that has been spread about grazing
in wilderness areas, we are confident in the statutory
protections the Wilderness Act of 1964 provides for established
grazing. Your bill contains strong grazing language that
statutorily respects existing ranchers' rights on the land.
Additionally, we appreciate your efforts to address rancher
and adjacent landowner concerns regarding the ability to manage
wilderness for fire, disease, insects, noxious weeds, and
prairie dogs.
We are confident in the protections the Wilderness Act
provides for inholders (both private and state landowners),
such as accessing their land.
We reiterate our support of wilderness boundaries that would
allow rock collectors to drive up to the popular agate beds in
Red Shirt. These boundaries, in addition to the open Indian
Creek road, would maintain the primary access that rockhounds
currently enjoy.
Senator Johnson, we thank you for your vision, leadership, and hard
work to shape balanced grasslands protection legislation. We look
forward to working with you and your staff to move the Tony Dean
Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act through Congress.
Sincerely,
Mike Matz Director,
Campaign for America's Wilderness.
______
Statement of Chris Hesla, South Dakota Wildlife Federation
On behalf of the South Dakota Wildlife Federation and it's over
3,500 members, we applaud your leadership in introducing The Tony Dean
Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010 (S. 3110), legislation
to protect a portion of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland as
Wilderness in South Dakota.
In 2002, the Bush Administration recommended that two areas in the
Buffalo Gap--Red Shirt and Indian Creek--be designated as wilderness.
Your legislation would be an important step in making these
recommendations a long overdue reality.
As you know, the Forest Service attempts to manage these areas for
wilderness a value, this management is based on administrative fiat.
Federal wilderness legislation would guarantee lasting protection for
these areas.
Protecting a portion of South Dakotans grasslands heritage would be
a significant conservation and scientific achievement--creating the
first grasslands wilderness in the nation--your legislation would also
help sustain recreation and tourism opportunities, ensuring the
continued economic vitality of local communities and Tribes, that
market themselves around the stunning hills and vast prairies of
southwestern South Dakota. This is good business sense.
As you know, 20 percent of South Dakotans hunt annually and,
together with visitors to the state, spend $223 million on hunting (SD
Game Fish and Parks figures, based on 2001 economic data). There are
over 5,500 jobs related to hunting activities resulting in over $100
million in salaries and wages. In addition, based on this 2001 data,
358,000 people spent an estimated $92 million on wildlife-watching
activities.
Although there are provisions in your proposal we consider being
compromises, SDWF recognizes you worked hard with stakeholders and
constituents to craft a viable bill that addresses diverse needs and
concerns.
We would have liked to see the Indian Creek route closed.
Recognizing that keeping the route open was a deal breaker to a
number of other stakeholders, however, we acknowledge this
compromise as necessary to move legislation forward.
Despite misinformation, exaggerated stories, misquotes, and
sometimes intentional misinformation that has been spread about
grazing in wilderness areas, we are confident in the statutory
protections the Wilderness Act of 1964 provides for established
grazing. We respect existing ranchers' rights on the land and
look forward to working with you to ensure that any bill has
strong language to ensure established grazing rights are
statutorily protected.
Additionally, we understand and appreciate your efforts to
address, in statute, rancher and adjacent landowner concerns
regarding fighting fire, disease, and insects in wilderness.
Again, we are confident the Wilderness Act allows these
actions.
We also are confident in the protections the Wilderness Act
provides for in holders (both private and state landowners),
such as accessing their land. We would be very supportive of
restating such assurances in legislation.
We reiterate our support of wilderness boundaries that would
allow rock collectors to drive up to the popular agate beds in
Red Shirt. These boundaries, in addition to the open Indian
Creek road, would maintain the primary access that rock hounds
currently enjoy.
Senator Johnson, we thank you for your vision and leadership in
introducing S. 3110. We look forward to working with you and your staff
during the 111th Congress to make this vision a reality.
______
Statement of Bart Koehler, Senior Wilderness Campaigns Director, The
Wilderness Society's Wilderness Support Center
It is an honor to send you this email on behalf of The Wilderness
Society, a national conservation organization dedicated to protecting
wilderness and helping Americans safeguard wild places, since 1935.
Many of the founders of The Wilderness Society, including Bob Marshall
and Aldo Leopold were vanguard conservation leaders of the U.S. Forest
Service before they created The Wilderness Society. This missive is
sent on behalf of our hundreds of South Dakota members, plus over
500,000 members and supporters nationwide.
The Wilderness Society strongly supports S. 3310, your landmark
legislation which would secure and preserve key wild areas in the
Buffalo Gap National Grasslands. Taking such action would establish (as
you so wisely noted) a ``lasting legacy'' for today and for future
generations of South Dakotans and Americans from all walks of life.
Although only comprising 8% of the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands, the
wild places known as Indian Creek, Red Shirt and Chalk Hills represent
a significant public land heritage that is well worth protecting.
Additionally, protection of these lands would bring about a better
balance of multiple use management for the grasslands; including
grazing, hunting, horseback riding, rock collecting, watershed
protection, etc. We must remember that by law (Section 2 of the
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and other sections in
Wilderness Act of 1964 and subsequent applicable Acts of Congress) that
Wilderness Areas represent an excellent example of multiple-use----
under the sky, under the law and on the ground.
After an eagle-eyed review, I find that the overall legislation is
filled with standard and traditional legislative language for
Wilderness bills dating back to the original Act. Furthermore it
contains rock-solid language found in 1970's Endangered American
Wilderness Act Report language on Fire, Insects and Disease; to the
1980's Congressional Grazing Guidelines included in most all of the
1980's era statewide Wilderness Area laws plus the newer fire language
of California Wilderness Act of 1984 which was layered on the
foundation of earlier Acts; to the Wildlife Management Guidelines in
the 1990's; to the 2000's newer fire language which was again layered
onto earlier bedrock laws; to the 2002 version of wildlife management
language from the Clark County, Nevada Lands Law, and finally to the
2009 Omnibus Lands Law language regarding fire, insects, diseases and
invasive species. (I have not gone into detail about military language,
or American Indian Tribal uses both of which are standard now.)
As I have noted we strongly support your overall legislative
effort. For the record, I'd like to submit these points regarding
specific sections of your bill:
1) No National Park: There significant and sincere concerns
among South Dakota citizens that these proposed Wilderness
Areas would eventually be shifted to National Park Service
management and would then eliminate the existing grazing and
hunting uses of the lands----especially for the Indian Creek
Proposed Wilderness, which is directly adjacent to a unit of
Badlands National Park. While your bill does not include a
specific subsection on this issue it is clear that your bill
ensures that these lands will not become part of the National
Park. The specific subsections are: Section 2 (1) which defines
the Secretary as the Secretary of Agriculture; thereby meaning
that the lands are managed by the Secretary of Agriculture
(therefore USFS and as National Grasslands); and Section 3 (c)
(1), which states that the Wilderness Areas are administered by
the Secretary of Agriculture via the USFS and Buffalo Gap
National Grasslands.
2) Size Doesn't Matter As Long As Areas Are Manageable Units:
a) Chalk Hills is less than 5,000 acres in size, is surely
qualified for Wilderness Area status in adherence to Section 2
(c)(3)----since it is of ``sufficient size as to make
practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired
condition'' and b) this also holds true for Red Shirt East,
which is smaller than Red Shirt West, but is a very unique area
encircled by enforceable boundaries defined by existing roads.
3) A Historically Used Wheeled Route Runs Between Two Units
Of Wilderness: This is the case for both the Indian Creek and
Red Shirt: a) The Indian Creek Route is a Forest System Route
and has been used for hundreds of years----first by the Lakota
and other American Indians by foot and then by horse; second by
wagons; then by pick-up trucks and jeeps, and now by trucks and
some ATVs; and b) State Highway 40 is a realigned update of the
multi-decade route and from Red Shirt to Hermosa and further
south and north of these locales. While the historic stage
route is within part of Red Shirt West, this fact is in keeping
with keeping history alive since historical values are a major
reason for Wilderness. ( The Chalk Hills Area is within sight
and ear-shot of County and Forest System roads.)
***The major point here is that way back in 1978 Congress
enacted the Endangered American Wilderness Act (P.L. 95-237)
along with House Report 95-540. In this report the Congress of
the United States----both the US Senate and US House of
Representatives directed the US Forest Service to abandon their
pure view of Wilderness which was resulting in the agency
refusing to recommended any areas within the ``sights and
sounds of civilization'' to Congress for Wilderness by law.
Furthermore, to boldly underline this Congressional Intent, the
Congress embraced new lands into The National Wilderness
Preservation System by way of this Endangered American
Wilderness Act which included areas directly adjacent to the
city limits of Salt Lake City, Tucson, and other major cities.
So. . . . . .putting this together, the ``sights and sounds''
from Highway 40 or the Indian Creek Route do not, and should
not disqualify these above mentioned lands Congressional
resolve regarding this matter is clearly defined in Section3
(c) (10-A & B) which addresses Adjacent Management of Lands, No
Protective Perimeters or Buffer Zones and Non-Wilderness
Activities.
4) Prairie Dogs: This is a very big issue of concern for a
variety of interested people. This Section 4 re-emphasizes that
both the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior have the
authority from Congress to manage prairie dogs populations and
habitats on public land. This issue needs to be addressed
fairly and with clear-eyed dedication so it is resolved in a
good way.
I'd like to make a few other points:
1) Your wilderness proposals are primarily based on the US
Forest Service's Recommendations for Wilderness which were the
result of a Congressionally-authorized land use planning
process. Anyone who claims that these areas don't qualify for
wilderness status is simply wrong. Yes these lands are National
Grasslands, with their own unique history. However, over time
these areas have been restored by the cycle of life's seasons
to a natural condition that qualifies them for Congressional
consideration. Please recall that the word ``pristine'' never
appears in the Wilderness Act.
2) Wilderness would protect these lands and keep this special
landscape ``like it is''. This is important to note since both
Red Shirt and Indian Creek have been closed to off-road
recreational vehicle use for years. Essentially, wilderness
designations would not impose major new closures in regard to
these two Recommended Wilderness Areas. However, wilderness by
law would ensure that threats from future ATV use would not
succeed. Further, a major decision on your part would keep the
Indian Creek road open for public motorized use. As you know,
this represents a tough compromise for us, but we're willing to
accept it in order that these long-deserving areas can finally
receive the lasting protections they need.
3) Very important to us and many others is the grazing
language you intend to use. As we understand it, you will use
the standard Wilderness Act language that contains the
strongest possible wording which would protect existing grazing
operations with the mandate that ``grazing shall be permitted
to continue...''. Additionally, the Congressional Grazing
Guidelines will serve as THE reasonable regulations referenced
by law. Moreover, the Forest Service will therefore manage
grazing in accordance with the letter and spirit of these
Congressional Grazing Guidelines, thus giving further
protections and added management flexibility to family ranchers
who hold existing and longstanding grazing permits. We think
this is essential.
Lastly, The Wilderness Society wants to thank you again for your
wisdom, foresight, and leadership on this vital issue. We strongly
support your efforts, and we look forward to working with you and your
excellent staff in the wild times ahead.
______
Trout Unlimited,
Washington, DC, June 29, 2010.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
136 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010
Dear Senator Johnson: On behalf of Trout Unlimited's 140,000
members, I write to thank you for your leadership and hard work in
developing S. 3310, the ``Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation
Act of 2010.'' This bill designates three new wilderness areas that
will protect valuable grasslands for their value as habitat to trout,
deer and other wildlife. These unspoiled public lands are used and
enjoyed by the public and represent an enduring legacy for all
Americans.
Trout Unlimited's mission is to conserve, protect and restore North
America's trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. By
protecting these three important areas--Indian Creek, Red Shirt, and
Chalk Hills--we can ensure that fish and wildlife habitat remains
healthy and intact. We thank you for your attention to the need to
conserve and protect these valuable resources, and we strongly support
these wilderness designations for the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands.
Sincerely,
Keith Curley,
Director of Government Affairs.
______
Statement of Cheryl Warren, Manager, South Dakota Wild Grassland
Coalition
The South Dakota Wild Grassland Coalition applauds your
introduction of The Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of
2010, S. 3310. Statewide, our coalition represents well over 100,000
hunters, conservationists, Native American tribal members, businesses,
grassroots group members, scientists and individuals from many
professions and walks of life. National group endorsement raises our
support numbers well into the millions. All of us believe the
extraordinary qualities of the ruggedly beautiful Indian Creek, Red
Shirt and Chalk Hills areas warrant the highest, most enduring
protection the federal government can bestow. Locally and nationally,
we appreciate your leadership and vision in seeking to preserve these
special wild places, as all too few like them are left on the Great
Plains.
As you know, the citizens' wilderness proposal would have closed
the Indian Creek road. While some of our members still prefer this, as
a group we made the decision to accept this compromise in order to
support your choice of longstanding traditional access to the area for
the greater public good.
The National Wilderness Preservation System has blessed Americans
with richly varied and successfully managed wild places like the Bob
Marshall Wilderness in Montana, the High Sierra areas of eastern
California, parts of the Southwest's Sonoran desert, the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness of Minnesota, cypress swamps of the Black
Creek Wilderness on Mississippi's coastal floodplain, Michigan Islands
Wilderness, North Dakota's Chase Lake Wilderness, Wyoming's Encampment
River Wilderness and many more. These areas provide the Wilderness
Act's intended ``outstanding opportunities for solitude. . .a primitive
and unconfined type of recreation'' prized as a necessity by many
Americans. Missing from the system, however, are national grasslands.
Designating the country's first national grassland wilderness in
our own state of South Dakota would be a significant and fitting
tribute to the area's history and culture. A 2010 poll commissioned by
the South Dakota Wildlife Federation and conducted by Moore Information
shows the clear majority of western South Dakotans favor such a
wilderness.
Ranchers who hold grazing permits on the proposed lands are the
stakeholders most affected by a grassland wilderness designation. Our
common ground with these ranchers is that we both want the land to stay
the way it is, undisturbed by motorized recreation or other possible
agency development. We both want their way of life protected. We have
done our best to learn their needs and concerns, and to harmonize those
needs, including boundary adjustments, with wilderness guidelines. We
have worked earnestly to convey understanding of the statutory security
provided by the Wilderness Act and Congressional Grazing Guidelines
that surpasses mere agency regulations.
Still, some are distrustful of Forest Service adherence to
management agreements (in the Forest Plan with public input, in
individual permittee annual operating instructions, and grazing
permits), and are concerned about arbitrary interpretations by agency
staff. That is why we encourage your use of the clearest possible
grazing management language, in accord with the Wilderness Act and
Congressional Grazing Guidelines, to ensure mutual compliance.
We appreciate your published knowledge that insect outbreaks,
noxious weeds, disease and wildfires can indeed be controlled in
wilderness because Congress has given the Forest Service authority to
do so--with mechanized equipment where necessary. (Ref. House Report
95-540 accompanying the Endangered American Wilderness Act, P.L. 95-
237, 1978) The agencies also have as much authority to control prairie
dogs in wilderness as they do anywhere else, especially where
wilderness values are jeopardized by resulting erosion and destruction
of native vegetation.
Regrettably, the mountain pine beetle epidemic in the Black Hills,
including Black Elk Wilderness, has been used by some to categorically
condemn wilderness. First, likening the management hazards of a
mountain conifer forest to those possible on a prairie grassland is
truly ecosystem apples and oranges. Grasslands are vastly less complex
and more resilient. Second, critics do not acknowledge that these
beetle epidemics have caused dramatic tree mortality in the Black Hills
periodically since the late 1800s. These outbreaks typically last 8-13
years. In the 1970s--well before the Black Elk Wilderness was
designated--beetle damage covered most of the Black Hills. Forest
scientists clearly state the real culprit to be forest density caused
by wildfire suppression, which has created ideal habitat for the
mountain pine beetle, with prolonged drought further weakening the
trees' natural defenses.
Nonetheless, the Wilderness Act did not foresee the damage a
century of fire suppression would do to natural wilderness values in
western forests. Lessons are being learned by forest managers. Language
in the California Wilderness Act of 1984, (PL 98-425) Committee Report
# 98-40 describes in detail the need for prescribed fire. More flexible
management should be considered. Committee Report 95-540 (Endangered
American Wilderness Act of 1978. PL 95-237) authorizes ``any means
necessary to control fire, insects, and disease in wilderness areas.
This includes the use of mechanized equipment. . .'' We agree that the
lack of confidence in the Forest Service's effective, timely response
to management challenges is well-founded. Therefore, current problems
should serve as learning opportunities to direct greater agency
accountability and efficiency.
The Wilderness Act's purpose was to make sure that increasing
population, expanding settlement and growing mechanization ``does not
occupy and modify all areas. . .leaving no lands designated for
preservation and protection in their natural condition or unimpaired
for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.''
Fortunately, any purist views of wilderness qualification have long
since proven invalid. ``Untrammeled'' means unhindered, unshackled; it
does not mean untrampled or untouched. The Wilderness Act defines
``land retaining its primeval character and influence. . .which
generally appears to be affected primarily by the forces of nature,
with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable.'' The word
`pristine' appears nowhere in the Wilderness Act.
Thanks to a half-century of beneficial partnership between Forest
Service land managers and conscientious grazing permittees, the
grassland areas proposed for wilderness have been well stewarded. For
30 years, Forest Service roadless classification has helped protect the
health of Indian Creek's and Red Shirt's natural resources from human
impacts. And, for the past eight years, the natural wild beauty of
these two areas has been further safeguarded by the Forest Service
managing them as recommended wilderness. But some have asked, ``Why
wilderness? Why now?''
During past generations of ranching on grasslands, and in 1964 when
the Wilderness Act was passed, no one foresaw the proliferation, size
and power of today's all-terrain vehicles to penetrate farther and
faster into wild, remote, rugged lands. Four-wheel drive used to mean a
Jeep. People drove as far as their two-wheel drive pickup could go, and
from there they walked. Technology has advanced dramatically since
then, and will continue, as will the sport's popularity among an
increasing population.
The Forest Service is required to provide a broad range of
recreation opportunities on the national grasslands, both motorized and
nonmotorized, for a variety of experiences. They are to design an
appropriate mix of these access activities with basic consideration of
effects on the natural resources. ``Not every use on every acre,'' as
you have aptly stated. Motorized riders should and do have the right to
access and enjoy some--but not all--public lands.
Contrary to opponents' claim that many uses will be restricted,
there's really only one significant restriction, and one significant
future threat: motorized recreation. We appreciate your understanding
that leaving a modest eight percent of our country's second-largest
national grassland (591,000 acres) for those who seek quiet solitude
from the noise and intrusions of everyday life is only reasonable. With
no wilderness designation, it is these people who are locked out.
Senator Frank Church (ID) said, ``If the roads never end, there never
will be any wilderness.'' No other recreational use of public lands has
the potential for so few to displace or damage the experience of so
many as does motorized recreation.
The Multiple Use standard is used by some to argue against
wilderness, without recognizing that wilderness recreation is one of
the multiple uses. The 1976 National Forest Management Act, Sec. 6(e),
required that the land and resource management plans ``provide for
multiple use and sustained yield. . .and, in particular, include
coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife
and fish, and wilderness.'' The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act states
that ``the establishment and maintenance of areas of wilderness are
consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Act.'' It also
directs consideration be given to relative values of the various
resources to be managed in harmonious coordination, not necessarily for
the highest economic return. Wilderness, unlike motorized recreation,
poses no resource conflict with active range management and sustained
grazing productivity, nor with other multiple uses pertinent to the
national grassland. Wilderness is therefore a judicious use of these
particular lands.
We appreciate the diligent outreach efforts your staff has made and
continues to make, seeking to understand the perspectives of a wide
variety of stakeholders, group by group. We believe this is an
efficient, productive way to hear, assess and synthesize the various
opinions in a constructive manner.
In these polarized political times, doing the right thing isn't
always easy. Those who oppose wilderness anywhere, anytime, for any
reason speak fervently, as do many who are misinformed. Wilderness
designation has always been hard, uphill work sustained by commitment,
hope and accurate information. Senator Robert Byrd (WV) noted that the
path of wilderness legislation can be as rugged as the land itself. We
therefore commend the courage and resolve of your intention based on
the bigger picture, and we stand ready to provide all possible support
throughout the process.
Many thousands of South Dakotans favor wilderness on these last
wild remnants of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland to ensure our
prairie grassland heritage. All of them, their children and
grandchildren, as well as your own, will be grateful for your farseeing
vision in championing this enduring American Great Plains legacy--
places where the eyes of the future can still see a unique part of the
world as it was.
Thank you, Senator Johnson. We look forward to working with you to
enact S.3310.
______
Statement of Travis Bies and Rittberger Beef, Inc.
We are the ranchers who have the grazing permits on the proposed
Chalk Hills Wilderness. This proposed wilderness site is a narrow strip
of land. The riparian area south of it is not included because of prior
development and the need to maintain that development. The riparian
area adjacent and north of the proposed wilderness is not included
because it is overrun by prairie dogs. The prairie dogs have destroyed
that watershed, and the soil erosion caused by the prairie dogs has led
to an infestation of Canada thistle, a noxious weed. The Forest ServiCe
has not been able, or is reluctant, to control the prairie dogs and
Canada thistle on this riparian area. No effbrt has been made by the
supporters of the wilderness to address this issue or include this last
riparian area. Now, the prairie dogs and noxious weeds are encroaching
the wilderness site. More bureaucratic control which will come with a
wilderness will allow this encroachment to continue on the wilderness
and will destroy that land also.
As lifelong ranchers of this area, we have observed the destruction
of land caused by prairie dogs and noxious weeds. The financial
hardship caused by prairie dogs and noxious weeds is devastating not
only to us, but to our neighbors living next to this wilderness site.
The above written statement is only one of the reasons we are
opposed to the Chalk Hills Wilderness. This wilderness with its
restrictions will increase our operating costs and will only be a
fmancial burden to us. If this wilderness is approved, the land to be
protected will be destroyed as a result of current Forest Service
policies and bureaucratic control which will come with a wilderness
proposal.
The governor of South Dakota opposes this wilderness. Our local
governments represented by the county commissioners of all our
surrounding counties oppose this wilderness. Our tourism industry
represented by Black Hills Badlands and Lakes Association opposes this
wilderness. We all know this wilderness will cause a financial burden
in this area that none of us care to have in this sagging economy.
______
State of South Dakota,
State Capitol,
Pierre, SD, May 25, 2010.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Johnson, I am writing to express my disappointment in
your decision to introduce ``The Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley
Conservation Act of 2010,'' a bill to designate more than 48,000 acres
of land in the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands (BGNG) within the
National Wilderness Preservation System, As you are aware,
``Wilderness'' designations have created numerous problems on federal,
state, and private land in South Dakota, and i oppose this bill.
The problems that arise on lands designated as Wilderness continue
to have a detrimental effect on South Dakotans, and more acres of
Wilderness would only exacerbate the problem. Yet, many of our citizens
have mistakenly been led to believe, under this new designation, many
current land-use practices--such as livestock grazing, prairie dog
control, and noxious weed management--will be allowed to continue
uninterrupted.
However, recent legal actions by special interest groups have
proven that livestock grazing and other current uses will not be
allowed to continue under the Wilderness designation, in spite of the
language included in 8.3310. Recent lawsuits to prevent grazing in
Idaho's Sawtooth National Recreation Area and the Upper Missouri River
Breaks National Monument in Montana foreshadow future litigation
regarding the BGNG.
And, while your bill states, livestock grazing will continue ``in
areas in which grazing is established,'' this practice will be subject
to the discretion of the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. The USFS
Chief can determine the number of cattle or sheep allowed in a
Wilderness and use his discretion regarding the maintenance,
reconstruction, or relocation of existing structures associated with
livestock grazing. In practice, designating the BGNG as Wilderness will
mean fewer animals on fewer acres for a few short years before grazing
is completely discontinued.
Since the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, the federal
government has not demonstrated effective management practices on these
lands, nor has it been a good neighbor to the state or to private
landowners. The rampant Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) epidemic in the
Black Elk Wilderness Area of the Black Hills is just one example of
poor land management directly caused by the limitations imposed in the
Wilderness Act.
While ``management activities'' are conducted in Wilderness Areas,
the methods in which these essential activities can be carried out are
severely limited. For instance, cutting down trees with a handsaw and
removing them from the forest with mules makes little sense when
thousands of acres are plagued with MPB. Gas-powered chainsaws and
four-wheel-drive vehicles cannot be used in the Wilderness, which makes
MPB control extremely inefficient. Likewise, the management of 75
square miles of the BGNG for noxious weeds, invasive species, and
native pests such as prairie dogs cannot be effective without vehicles
and motorized equipment. Wilderness designations remove these time-
tested management tools and replace them with the ``technologies'' of
centuries past. This gross inefficiency hinders the federal
government's ability to effectively manage these lands.
Ranchers have grazed livestock in southwest South Dakota since
George Custer explored the Black Hills in the mid-1870s. For almost 140
years, the land that is now the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands has
been actively managed using the most effective tools at our disposal.
And, because of active engagement, this area remains pristine, under
federal management, and without any possibility for further
development. A Wilderness designation will prevent hardworking South
Dakotans from pursuing their livelihood as they have done for more than
a century, while passing management costs onto state government and
private landowners. Without active management, this beautiful area may
not be around for future generations to enjoy.
Sincerely,
M. Michael Rounds,
Governor.
______
Sierra Club,
South Dakota Chapter,
June 10, 2010.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Senator, 136 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: The Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010
(S.3310)
Dear Senator Johnson: Thank you for introducing The Tony Dean
Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010 (S. 3310) which will
permanently protect the Indian. Creek, Red Shirt, and Chalk Hills areas
in the Buffalo Gap National Grassland as Wilderness, South Dakota
members of the Sierra Club have worked to achieve this protection for
these special lands for more than a decade and we thank you for your
vision and leadership in protecting these special lands.
After reviewing the text of S.3310 and the three accompanying
boundary maps for the areas, the executive committee of the South
Dakota Chapter of the Sierra Club has voted unanimously to endorse and
support 5.3310 as introduced. We are delighted to extend our support
for this legislation. Prairie grasslands are an increasingly endangered
ecosystem and these three areas on the Buffalo Gap National Grassland
are deserving of the designation your legislation confers and of the
protection that comes with it.
Of the Buffalo Gap National Grassland's entire 591,000 acre area,
only the 48,000 acres designated in 5.3310 remain in an untrammeled
condition. These areas are truly special and unique and without
Wilderness protection their present condition and character will eroded
and lost forever.
Sincerely yours,
Jim Heisinger,
Chapter Chair.
______
Statement of Congresswoman Dina Titus (NV-03)
Thank you, Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Barrasso, for the
opportunity to submit testimony in strong support of S. 3313, the Sloan
Hills Withdrawal Act, which was introduced by my friend and colleague
Majority Leader Reid. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 5219, the House
companion to S. 3313, which has the support of the entire Nevada House
delegation.
S. 3313 and H.R. 5219 would withdraw a 640-acre site near the Sun
City Anthem community in Henderson, Nevada, from being made available
for mining purposes. The site had previously been designated by the
Bureau of Land Management as appropriate for gravel and sand
development; and two companies, CEMEX and Service Rock Products, have
applied to lease the property.
I find many aspects of the 640-acre project troublesome. Air
quality deterioration caused by the proposed mining operation is a
serious concern and the communities most directly impacted by the
operation are home to many seniors and children who are especially
vulnerable to air quality-related respiratory diseases. The sheer
magnitude of the proposal will also demand a high level of water usage
at a time when that precious resource grows scarcer every year. There
are also serious concerns about the increase in traffic with estimates
projecting that as many as 500 trucks could use nearby roads every day.
Although the proposed mine site is not in my Congressional
District, the residents of communities that would be most directly
impacted by the project are my constituents. In April 2009, I attended
a public meeting with more than 400 concerned residents at Independence
Center in Anthem. I heard loud and clear that the proposed mine was
unacceptable to my constituents for many of the reasons previously
discussed, including health risks, increased traffic, and the large
amount of water that would likely be necessary for the operation of the
mine. More than 1,000 of my constituents have sent me letters declaring
their opposition to the proposed mine and thousands more have added
their names to a petition in opposition to the project.
I have come to the conclusion that the potential risks of this
proposed mining operation outweigh the potential benefits. Years ago
this site was far from the center of residential development in Clark
County. Today this site is practically in the backyard of many of my
constituents. Although I understand the importance of mining to the
economy of Nevada, I do not believe that this specific project is
appropriate for this location. The Sloan Hills Withdrawal Act would
ensure that an aggregate mine is not developed on this site and will
protect the health and wellbeing of my constituents in Henderson.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony in support
of this important legislation. I strongly believe that this bipartisan
bill is the right approach for Southern Nevada.
______
Sun City Anthem Democrats,
Henderson, NV, June 11, 2010.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden: The Sun City Anthem Democrats Executive Board
submits this letter in support of the passage of The Sloan Hills
Withdrawal Act of 2010 (SB 3313). Due to the nearness of the time for
the hearing it is impossible to obtain a vote of the entire membership
but over the last year, while local meetings were held relating to the
mining issue, the feelings of the Club ran heavily against such mining
usage.
We also respectfully request that you share this letter with the
other members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the hope
that they will also vote to approve the bill. As you know, Senator
Reid, with the support of Senator John Ensign, due to their familiarity
with the area, the environment and the possible effect on the health
and welfare of the affected residents in the area, introduced this bill
to stop the development of the proposed 640 acre gravel pit adjacent to
the homes of more than 30,000 Henderson residents and nearby to the
Sloan Canyon Natonal Conservation Area. The Congressional delegation of
Shelley Berkley, Dina Titus and Dean Heller have also introduced a
companion bill in the House (HR 5219) opposing the mining project.
Moreover, the Clark County Commissioners unanimously adopted the
attached May 18, 2010 Resolution opposing the mining project. Exh. A.*
Although we, a Democratic Club are submitting this letter, the
opposition to the proposed mining is bi-partisan, transcends politics,
and is uniform in that opposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All exhibits have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, on behalf of the approximately 14,000 residents who live in
the senior community of Sun City Anthem, where we are located, and
those members of the rest of the Henderson area who would also be
affected by this project we ask you to consider the potential health
hazards inherent in the Cemex and Service Rock Products mining project
or by any other bidder/claimants to the resources in the property who
might attempt to bid on them in an auction of rights by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM)..
As proposed, the mining lease, with renewal rights, grants a 30
year right to operate, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day all year long.
Based upon the anticipated plans and what would be the economic needs
of the successful bidder or bidders, such operations, even with the
limited controls which might be imposed on them, will pose serious
health risks to people in the area, plus to the environment.
Following are some observations as to problems that will be caused
if the mining is allowed to proceed. Necessarilly, at this time, again,
due to time restrictions, these recitals are general in nature but
would be more specific with documents and evidence if requested or
necessitated by any administrative hearings by BLM under the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) related to administrative hearings and the
BLM specifically. CFR, Part 3600, Secs. 3601 to 3604.27. Where
appropriate there are supporting references attached.
As to health reasons, it is obvious that seniors suffer from
problems not necessarily common in younger residents and there must be
some recognition of extra safeguards that might be needed to protect
them--both physically and emotionally. Additionally, adults and
children with asthma and other respiratory problems must be considered,
particularly children under five (5) and seniors. Weather records for
the area, which must be further analyzed, indicate that there are many
days where the Sun City Area--including an area covered by the proposed
construction of many new homes--would be affected by prevailing winds
(much of Sun City is built on high rising hills with updrafts and
downdrafts) and conversely, at other times, inversions, which severely
affect the atmoshphere. Studies have shown the danger of causing a
disruption of this nature in the environment, creating toxic dust,
including the danger of Valley Fever. A copy of one is attached hereto
as Exh. B. It raises the problem of arsenic, among other deleterious
and obnoxious elements which could be released into the air by the
blasting and mining. The heavy winds experienced in these communities
will carry the dust and pollutants for miles. The person supplying this
information to us is a geologist and has been monitoring the exchanges
which have taken place related to the mining.
Further, the physical blasting, in addition to the release of
particulate into the air, could create a ``tremor'' and earthquake-like
environment, and, obviously, the greater the charges used the further
the explosions will impact and the greater the toxic concentrate found
in the air being breathed. Somewhat palling in comparison but minor in
relation to the extent of the exposure of harm to the people and the
wildlife, the blasting will threaten the foundations and structures of
homes and other buildings located within its physical impact--again,
the larger the blast, the larger the harmful effect. This is
exacerbated by the blasting taking place over existing earthquake fault
lines in the area and will threaten the aquifer upon which it sits.
Most importantly, children and education is at risk if these
operations are allowed to take place. Attached hereto, as Exh. C, is a
map showing the location of public schools in the area. (There are also
private schools and those of higher education in the potentially
affected area.) It does not take a raft of educators to prove to others
that children, particularly the younger ones, can be deeply affected by
noise, episodes of blasting, shaking buildings, and particulate in the
air. Nor should it take a ream of paper to show that even more deeply
affected are ``special education'' students--paricularly those who have
diffculty with ``everyday life'' as it presently exists without
additional disruptions. The effect on the students can be traumatic.
The sparing of these students--as well as consideration of the other
areas of concern treated above should provide the reasons why it is
inappropriate and dangerous to approve mining in this or similar areas
with similar issues and the bill should be passed!!
There are other issues but, except for one that will be discussed
more specifically below, they are not as major in terms of personal
risk or environmental disaster as the ones discussed above but still
require full consideration. They involve the use of heavy trucks and
equipment, increased maintenance of the roads, highway and road safety,
and effect on property values. As to the latter, economics is a ``two
way'' street--the bidders/claimants wanting the property for economic
purposes--and the homeowners wanting to preserve their existing
economic home values--particularly in this present economic catastrophe
the country is going through.
As to the last major factor that should be taken into
consideration, another reason why the bill should be passed and the
mining operations prevented from proceeding--The project requires heavy
use of scarce water resources. The excessive amount of water that would
be used in the operations--a sustainable source of water which does not
exist on the site and which is scarce for all--would require more than
16 million gallons per week!!
Finally, it is imperative that the bill be moved as expeditiously
as possible. As background, two bidder/ claimants for obtaining the
rights to the properties resources, after an administrative judge found
that the parcels, under BLM's guidelines--and the CFR, were subject to
being placed up for sale at a public bid, entered into settlement
agreements with BLM where there would be no appeal of the ALJ's ruling.
BLM must now proceed in accrdance with the mandates, restrictions, and
authority of its statutory existence and the CFR procedures. The
proposals, along with documents and testimony relating to the
environmental soundness of the proposals will come before the Bureau of
Land Management sometime in September, 2010. Opponents have a short
period of time within which to dispute the soundness of the bidders/
claimants Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
As is known under administrative procedures BLM may not just reject
the matter ``out of hand'' (or ``arbitrarily and capriciously''' deny
it). At the same time BLM, under this Administrations instructions to
agencies, are no longer to utilize economic factors as the deciding
factor but, instead to consider the public welfare as the deciding
force. This is in keeping with the CFR, Sec. 3601.6 :
It is Blm's policy:
(a) To make mineral materials available unless it is
detrimental to the public interest to do so. . .
***
(d) To protect public land resources and the
environment and minimize damage to public health and
safety during the exploration for and the removal of
such materials. . .
***
If BLM finds the proposed EIS is sufficient, despite the
communities continued objection, if the bill has not yet then been
enacted, BLM must accept the highest bid--and the mining may commence.
If for some reason the bill is delayed and the adinistrative procedure
is completed in favor of the bidders/ claimants then we would be faced
with issues of the rights of the bidders/ claimants and the effect of
any bill that was passed after an award under the administraitive
procedure. The bill must be timely passed because even if the BLM
procedures did result in a rejection of the EIS there is still the
finding of the ALJ that the parcels are subject to appropriate leases
and sales--and mining--and another battle such as at the present could
again be encountered.
Residents of the Sun City Anthem Community, which includes this
club are adamantly opposed to this mining project and a special Task
Force of Sun City Anthem, appointed by the SCA Board of Directors (and
with which this club had worked with in liaison), has provided Senator
Reid with thousands of petition signatures expressing this view.
We again strongly urge you to vote to support SB 3313 and enter our
letter into the record during the scheduled June 16, 2010 Committee
hearings. Please join with Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign, our
Congressional Representatives Delegation, the County Comissioners, and
the thousands who oppose these mining operations in protecting the
health of the residents of the area and the environment.
Repectfully submitted,
Richard B. Miller,
Chairman.