[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2578, TO AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT RELATED TO A
SEGMENT OF THE LOWER MERCED RIVER IN CALIFORNIA; AND H.R. 1581,
``WILDERNESS AND ROADLESS AREA RELEASE ACT OF 2011''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-53
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-649 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Tom McClintock, CA Betty Sutton, OH
David Rivera, FL Niki Tsongas, MA
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, July 26, 2011........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Denham, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 5
Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 7
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts..................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Abbey, Robert V., Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 1581.......................... 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 2578.......................... 19
Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Former Secretary of the Interior........ 41
Prepared statement on H.R. 1581.......................... 42
Barrasso, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 1581.......................... 12
Connelly, Hon. Kent, Chairman of the Board, Lincoln County
Commission, Lincoln County, Wyoming........................ 50
Prepared statement on H.R. 1581.......................... 51
Freeland, Dave, District Ranger, Retired, Sequoia National
Forest..................................................... 88
Prepared statement on H.R. 1581.......................... 89
Horgan, Chris, Executive Director, Stewards of the Sequoia... 80
Prepared statement on H.R. 1581.......................... 82
Hugelmeyer, Frank, President and CEO, Outdoor Industry
Association................................................ 91
Prepared statement on H.R. 1581.......................... 92
Kleen, Dan, President, Board of Directors, National Off-
Highway Vehicle Conservation Council....................... 57
Prepared statement on H.R. 1581.......................... 59
McCarthy, Hon. Kevin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 8
Prepared statement on H.R. 1581.......................... 9
Noel, Hon. Michael E., Utah State Representative, District
#73, Utah House of Representatives......................... 45
Prepared statement on H.R. 1581.......................... 47
Pearce, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico........................................ 13
Prepared statement on H.R. 1581.......................... 15
Sherman, Harris, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture................ 21
Prepared statement on H.R. 1581.......................... 22
Simpson, Melissa, Director of Government Affairs, Safari Club
International.............................................. 77
Prepared statement on H.R. 1581.......................... 78
Additional materials supplied:
List of documents retained in the Committee's official files. 102
LLEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2578, TO AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC
RIVERS ACT RELATED TO A SEGMENT OF THE LOWER MERCED RIVER IN
CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 1581, TO RELEASE
WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT THAT ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR WILDERNESS DESIGNATION
FROM CONTINUED MANAGEMENT AS DEFACTO WILDERNESS AREAS AND TO
RELEASE INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS WITHIN THE NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM THAT ARE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR WILDERNESS DESIGNATION FROM
THE LAND USE RESTRICTIONS OF THE 2001 ROADLESS AREA
CONSERVATION FINAL RULE AND THE 2005 STATE PETITIONS FOR
INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA MANAGEMENT FINAL RULE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES. ``WILDERNESS AND ROADLESS AREA RELEASE ACT OF 2011''
----------
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Broun, McClintock, Tipton,
Noem, Denham, Pearce, Grijalva, Kildee, Heinrich, Garamendi,
and Markey [ex officio]
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. All right, the Subcommittee will come to order.
I note the presence of a quorum. The Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests and Public Lands is meeting today to hear
testimony on two pieces of legislation, H.R. 2578, which will
amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of
the lower Merced River in California and for other purposes,
and H.R. 1581, to release wilderness study areas administered
by the Bureau of Land Management that are not suitable for
wilderness designation and from continuing management as
defacto wilderness areas and to release inventoried roadless
areas of the National Forest Service that are not recommended
for wilderness designation and from certain land use
restrictions and for other purposes, which is called the
Wilderness and Roadless Area Act of 2011.
Under the Committee Rules, opening statements are limited
to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, however
I ask unanimous consent to include any other Members' opening
statements in the hearing record if submitted to the clerk by
the close of business today. Hearing no objection, it will be
so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from California, Mr. Denham, and the gentleman from New Mexico,
Mr. Pearce, after he gives his testimony, be allowed to join us
on the dais and participate in the hearing. Without objection,
so ordered. You just heard the gavel bang.
Today we are going to hear the testimony on the two bills.
We are going to do the first one first, so I would invite
Senator Barrasso, Representative Pearce, Mr. Abbey, and Mr.
Sherman from the Forest Service if they would come up and take
the dais in the first place, but I am also going to ask that we
actually talk about the bills, first of all the Merced River
bill and then we will discuss the Wilderness and Roadless Areas
Release Act. Today in the testimony on these two bills we are
going to first do the one by Congressman Denham, which adjusts
the Merced Wild and Scenic River's boundary to coincide with
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission operational boundary
for the Merced Irrigation District's New Exchequer Dam Project
No. 2179 at Lake McClure, which is on the Merced River.
Now the Public Law that was enacted has the Merced Wild and
Scenic River already encroaching a half a mile into the
existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission operational
boundary, and even though this already floods most of the time,
this legislation will simply allow the generation of an
additional 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy electricity
that will stimulate job growth, agriculture, and recreation
activities in the area. This is something that the locals
desire in this particular area and bureaucrats back here in
Washington want to have done so they can be secure in
reprocessing and continuing on with this project.
The other bill that we are looking at today is H.R. 1581,
the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act, it is another
important bill and deserves our thoughtful consideration. Even
though the decisions on the issues of this should have been
made in 1991 on what is wilderness and what is multiple use, we
still have wilderness study areas that abound. This would
release all wilderness study areas that have been evaluated and
recommended as not suitable for wilderness designation by the
Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest System.
This is logical, this is the role that Congress should
take. There are those who will talk about the values and the
benefits of effective management through multiple use and the
serious problems that arise when we default on the management
position, which is anything but management. This bill simply
would end the blanket Washington-knows-best approach, and it
would provide local control and local decisions and land use
decisions. And the areas in which people live would actually be
determined, and they would be determined for what is suitable
for wilderness designation and yet managed as wilderness
designation, and that which is not suitable would not be
managed as such.
The Administration and others may claim that the WSAs,
wilderness study areas, retain that category until Congress
acts. Well, that is what we are doing today. Congress is
acting. Our failure to do anything in the past has not helped
the situation and, in fact, has made it impossible for
mechanized conservation, commercial activities, motorized
access, road structures, facilities become extremely limited in
these areas, and it hurts people. This is not management.
Management that puts it in the most restrictive use is not
management and it hurts people, so we are going to be talking
about that.
We are also going to be talking about the concept of
preventive maintenance. Just as you need it on the vehicles,
you need it in the forest, for example. The Forest Service is
currently removing less than 10 percent of new growth on our
National Forests. In other words, the volume of these forests
is increasing approximately 90 percent each year, which means
we end up with unhealthy forests subject to infestation and
catastrophic wildfire. The past few years that has become the
norm. That norm is unacceptable. Congress needs to act. This is
the vehicle in which they can act.
Contrary to what some will claim, this bill is not a
handout to special interests. That argument is as ludicrous as
it is demagogic. But without Congressional action, we are
failing to use the tools in the toolbox to effectively manage
our areas and make America's resources more accessible and
available to all Americans. It is an important bill that we are
going to be dealing with today. I will yield to the Ranking
Member for any opening statement he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 2578 sponsored
by our colleague, Representative Denham, is nearly identical to
legislation the Subcommittee considered last month and would do
real harm to the Merced Wild and Scenic River. Congress has
never before authorized the flooding of a designated Wild and
Scenic River, and this measure must be considered very, very
carefully. However, the potential damage done to the Merced by
H.R. 2578 pales in comparison to the destruction that would
result from Mr. McCarthy's Wilderness and Roadless Area Release
bill.
This bill would strip environmental protection from tens of
millions of acres of public lands, opening up some of our
country's most scenic forests and wild lands to destructive
development. Congress has provided our Federal land management
agencies clear direction to identify Federal land with
wilderness characteristics and preserve those characteristics
until Congress can make a final decision to designate those
areas or to release them.
Congress also directed the agency to provide
recommendations regarding which areas should be designated. By
protecting these areas until Congress can take action, BLM is
preserving the right of Congress to make the ultimate decision
on how these pristine places should be managed. Rather than
preserving the right to make the ultimate decision, this bill
would short-circuit the process by releasing all wilderness
study areas that were not recommended for wilderness
designation by the agencies, in effect turning the decision
over to BLM and the Forest Service.
From the Bully Mountains in California to the Ocala
National Forest in Florida, hundreds of potential wilderness
areas would be lost to logging, mining, road construction, and
other activities that would permanently deface the natural
landscape. Once these wilderness characteristics are gone they
can never be replaced, and by removing the protection from
these lands prematurely Congress makes that loss more likely
and ties its own hands in future efforts to designate
wilderness areas.
The legislation would remove existing protections for
nearly 60 million acres of unroaded national forest. These
lands were set aside in 2001 by the Roadless Rule, which
established a nationwide conservation policy for roadless
areas. This rule followed years of public outreach to local
stakeholders, yet despite the popularity of that initiative,
H.R. 1581 would exempt the National Forest System from that
rule. All told, H.R. 1581 would have devastating impacts on
some of our nation's most pristine public lands.
If these natural wonders are destroyed by unchecked
development, it would be ruinous for small business that thrive
on hikers, bikers, anglers, and hunters who enjoy this area. It
would degrade the quality of life for millions of Americans who
live and work near these protected places, and it would deprive
future generations of the chance to enjoy our country's rich
natural heritage. Simply throwing our hands up and passing an
across-the-board release is irresponsible.
It is unfair to the local communities and it is shirking
the responsibilities that Congress reserved for itself when it
passed the Wilderness Act more than 40 years ago. In closing,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome all our witnesses here
today. In particular I appreciate Secretary Babbitt's decision
to testify and for being here. His extensive record of public
service and expertise on these issues will make his testimony
invaluable. With that, Mr. Chairman, let me yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, gentleman from Arizona. We note the
presence of the Ranking Member of the Full Committee. Does Mr.
Markey have a statement he wishes to make?
Mr. Markey. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I may be recognized.
Mr. Bishop. How long do I have to make that decision?
Mr. Markey. As long as you want, Mr. Chairman, it is in
your discretion.
Mr. Bishop. All right, the rules say you are recognized,
you are recognized right now.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, I thank the Chairman very much.
Mr. Bishop. I recognize you immediately.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. I thank the Chairman. Too often in politics the
justifications offered for a legislative proposal are not the
real reasons behind the bill. This is part of what gives
politicians a bad name. They spend too much time using
arguments that don't hold water because they know that if they
tell the public what they are really up to, the American people
will not support them. That is what is going on with H.R. 1581
today. Most of the arguments you are going to hear if you stop
and actually consider them are completely unpersuasive.
For example, we will hear that we need to release
wilderness study areas and inventoried roadless areas that were
not recommended for wilderness because Congress should not be
bound by recommendations made by the Executive Branch 20 or 30
years ago. Does that sound like something Congress should do?
Just as we don't base our health policy on 30-year-old science
or our defense policy on 30-year-old maps, we should not bind
ourselves to agency recommendations based on field work done
during the Reagan Administration.
Once more, the Republican majority in this House has made
attacking Federal agencies and employees an art form. To come
in now and say Congress needs to follow these bureaucrats'
recommendation to the letter lacks credibility. And most
telling is the fact that the legislation before us only follows
agency recommendations to release wilderness study and roadless
areas. These recommendations were accompanied by
recommendations to designate new wilderness, but proponents of
this bill think those suggestions aren't worth following.
The other arguments we will hear today are similarly
suspect. The Wilderness Act already allows any action needed to
fight fires or to protect public safety. We already have
hundreds of thousands of miles of roads crisscrossing our
National Forests providing fully adequate recreational access.
Hunting and fishing are already allowed in wilderness and
wilderness study areas. Since enactment of the Wilderness Act
many of the fastest growing communities in the country have
been those that will have large areas of beautiful protected
open spaces.
H.R. 1581 is not really about any of these things. That is
why these claims fail even to withstand minimal scrutiny. The
truth is this bill is no different from much of the legislation
that has come from the majority on this Committee this year.
H.R. 1581 is simply a wealth transfer from the American people
to the oil and gas and mining and timber industries. If you
scratch the surface of this bill, you will find ``Drill, Baby,
Drill.''
The stunning vistas, the open spaces, the recreational
opportunities, wildlife, clean air, clean water provided by
these areas belongs to all Americans. It is part of our
American heritage. It is something that has been passed on to
us, and as Americans we have a responsibility to pass on to
those Americans who come after us. And this bill would simply
bundle it up and transfer it to oil and gas and mining and
timber companies to convert into corporate profits. That is not
part of our American ethos.
We have a responsibility to be balanced, we have a
responsibility to ensure that all Americans have this treasure
that is left for them. Those areas were passed into our hands
by our predecessors here in Congress, and H.R. 1581 is an
abrogation of our responsibilities, a failure of our
stewardship. It is by definition not balanced because they did
not listen to all of the recommendations, only those that
selectively benefit the imbalance that benefits corporate
America and not all Americans, which were also part of that
package. So I urge that all who are listening keep that in mind
until we can have a discussion, a debate, that is something
that is balanced, which is produced from this Committee. And I
thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
joining us and for his statement. We are going to deal with
H.R. 2578 first, and because of that I am going to recognize
Mr. Denham for a statement he has on the bill.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF DENHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Denham. Well, thank you, and this bill does hold water
and I look forward to having bipartisan support out of this
Committee as we do in the Central Valley, Republicans and
Democrats coming together to solve a problem in California.
First of all, I would like to thank Chairman Bishop for
bringing my bill, H.R. 2578, before the Subcommittee for this
legislative hearing. This legislation before the Committee
today is a simple bill that will provide much needed water
storage during wet years in the Central Valley of California,
which occur on average only every three to five years.
The additional water storage in these years will be
temporary and only occur for three months. This past winter was
considered a wet water year for California. Currently dams are
in flood control operations and releasing thousands of acre-
feet of water due to the lack of sufficient storage. There is a
common saying, to save for a rainy day. When talking about
water and farming, the saying needs to be tweaked a little bit
to say, save on a rainy day, meaning that when we have water,
we have to make sure that we can store the excess water in wet
years for when the inevitable drought does occur.
The Central Valley of California is home to the world's
most productive farmland. The economies of most communities in
the valley are buoyed by the agriculture production that occurs
throughout the valley. My district continues to suffer from
unacceptable high unemployment. Currently unemployment is
hovering around 17 percent, which is almost double the national
average. We are dependent on water for jobs, communities to be
sustainable, and livelihoods associated with farming
operations.
H.R. 2578 is a much needed piece of legislation to create
desperately needed jobs and much needed water storage where
both are so greatly needed. Simply stated, the bill will allow
FERC to consider a proposal by the Merced Irrigation District
to improve existing spillways that will cause the level of Lake
McClure to rise by 10 feet for 60 days during a wet water year.
With this legislation the Merced Irrigation District will be
able to apply with FERC for the proposed spillway modification.
Their application will still be subject to full FERC review
once the application is filed.
It is the intent of the Merced Irrigation District to add
10 feet to the spillway gates at the New Exchequer Dam. This
addition will not inundate the river any more than is naturally
occurring right now today. This legislation will provide up to
70,000 acre-feet of additional water, which can serve 1,700
homes and generate roughly 10,000 megawatt hours of clean
renewable electricity on an annual basis. Finally let me also
inform this Committee that this project will not cost any state
or Federal funds. Who wouldn't be for this one? Again, we have
bipartisan support in the valley, Republicans and Democrats
coming together to solve a problem where we have huge
unemployment in California. Again, let me thank Chairman Bishop
for bringing H.R. 2578 before this Committee.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate the gentleman from California. Mr.
Abbey, Mr. Sherman, I don't know if you have testimony specific
to this, I am going to give you the option if you do you can
either respond now or if you want to kind of add that into your
testimony of both bills together, whichever you would prefer to
do.
Mr. Abbey. I believe I could go ahead and incorporate our
comments on both bills together.
Mr. Bishop. That is your option.
Mr. Abbey. OK.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Sherman, I don't know if you have testimony
about this?
Mr. Sherman. I do not have any testimony, Mr. Chairman, on
this particular legislation.
Mr. Bishop. OK. We have had one hearing on this one
already. Is there any other issues? Mr. Garamendi, you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Garamendi. When this bill came up earlier, the issue
was about a FERC license, that the bill was necessary to allow
the Irrigation District to proceed to get a hearing or to be
able to proceed with the FERC licensing, the relicensing of the
reservoir. I don't believe anything has changed about that, and
that the real intent of the bill was to allow FERC to consider
the issue. It now appears as though the argument is that we are
somehow going to create jobs and water and the FERC licensing
has not yet been completed. Is that the case, Mr. Denham?
Mr. Denham. Very little has changed of the bill. We are not
looking for a new study that will take this out years, no new
committee hearings. We just want to give the local community
the opportunity to go before FERC on a project that doesn't
cost anything that has bipartisan support in the local area.
Again, this is about jobs. When you come to the Central Valley
and see the high unemployment and the amount of people that are
out of work----
Mr. Garamendi. Reclaiming by time, sir. You did talk about
jobs, but this is really about changing the Wild and Scenic
River law ahead of the FERC licensing process. You have jumped
way, way ahead of what is actually taking place, and that is an
attempt, a necessity by the Merced Irrigation District to renew
its license to even use the Merced River and the reservoir. And
I don't know why you think it is necessary at this point to
modify, change the Wild and Scenic River law when it was
suggested earlier that all you really need to do is to allow by
law FERC to consider as it goes through the relicensing process
the request by the Merced Irrigation District to allow for
seasonal inundation. Now it may very well be that FERC says, no
you can't do that even with this law in place. So I think it is
an incorrect way to go about allowing the Merced Irrigation
District to bring this issue to FERC for their licensing
procedures, in other words a step or a river too far. With that
I will yield back my time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate it. With that we will
conclude our testimony on the hearing for H.R. 2578, although
Mr. Abbey and Mr. Sherman may incorporate testimony in their
comments as well. We will then turn to H.R. 1581. We have the
full panel out here with us, we are happy to have you here. Let
me go from, let me start actually with Mr. McCarthy from
California who is the author of this bill, then we will go to
Senator Barrasso, I understand both of you are on tight
schedules. As soon as your testimony is over, if you need to
leave to other commitments, feel free to do that.
Representative Pearce will go next. Once again the same
situation, if you can stay with us you are welcome to join us
on the dais, if you need to go, you need to go. Then Mr. Abbey
and then Mr. Sherman. You all know the ritual here. The written
testimony is there, we prefer the oral one. You see the lights
in front of you, yellow mean you have a minute, red means I
have to use the gavel, I haven't done that yet, please don't
make me. Mr. McCarthy, you are on.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN McCARTHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McCarthy. Well, thank you, Chairman Bishop, thank you
for holding this legislative hearing. Right now, the Bureau of
Land Management and the United States Forest Service
administers over 400 million acres of land in the United
States. Now what does that mean? 45 percent of all of
California, almost 60 percent of Utah, and nearly 85 percent of
Nevada are owned by the Federal Government. This means the
government has significant control over how the lands in our
state are used, what is done on them, and how the American
people can access and enjoy them.
Starting in 1960, Congress enacted several laws that
require that millions of acres under Federal control to be
administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed,
and wildlife and fish purposes. In other words public lands has
to be just that, open to the public. However, today there are
over 42 million acres of wilderness study areas and inventoried
roadless areas which have been deemed unsuitable for wilderness
by BLM and the Forest Service respectively.
Because of the current law and regulations, these lands
must be managed essentially as if they are wilderness areas,
the most restrictive management practice which prohibits most
activities and deny Americans the ability to fully and
appropriately enjoy their public lands. These lands remain
under lock and key until Congress chooses to make them
wilderness areas or release them for multiple use, a decision
that has been pending for decades. Simply put, my common sense
bill would release wilderness study areas and inventoried
roadless areas deemed not suitable for wilderness by the
existing agencies so they are no longer needlessly held in
regulatory limbo, which deny the American people full and
appropriate access to them and require that they be managed for
multiple use.
The bill would also return these lands to the local
management process where decisions on what and can't occur on
them are made by local land managers, communities and
stakeholders in and around the areas, consistent with existing
environmental protections. Why is this bill important? Allowing
these lands to be managed for multiple use enable local land
managers and communities to potentially allow for reasonable
resources development, better healthy forest management, more
reliable grazing, and numerous recreational activities
including motorized sports and increased areas for better
hunting and fishing.
These activities could create jobs and generate new revenue
by many rural and outlying communities across the country that
depend on visitors to our National Forests and public lands. In
addition, opening up these lands would make it much easier to
clear fallen and rotten trees and underbrush, reducing the
danger of the out-of-control wildfires that have been prevalent
in California and around the Nation in recent years.
Where I represent there are 11 wilderness study areas in
which more than 18,000 acres have been deemed unsuitable for
wilderness. There are 7 roadless areas within the Sequoia
National Forest around Lake Isabella, with over 200,000 acres
that have been recommended not suitable for wilderness.
Actively enjoying the land through recreational activities
benefit our local communities across the West. In conclusion,
all this bill does is to act on the recommendations of BLM and
the Forest Service to release a small percentage of the 400
plus million acres these agencies are responsible for which has
been deemed unsuitable.
As President Theodore Roosevelt, one of the greatest
champions for our natural wonders said, conservation means
development as much as it does protection. I recognize the
right and duty of this generation to develop and use the
natural resources of our land. I am honored today to have two
constituents that are going to testify later, Chris Horgan and
Dave Freeland. And they will tell you from first hand, being a
ranger, being a committed conservationist that can help
protects, that as you narrow down the land that you open up you
actually destroy more land, because those who are able to enjoy
it have a smaller area and trample over more.
What this bill does takes the studies that this Congress
paid for by the BLM and the Forest Service and they actually
take the study and apply them to what they said would be the
best outcome while protecting the local environmental by having
the locals in control. If you have ever been to California, if
you have ever watched the news and you see the out-of-control
fires, we know we can have a better way, we know we can open it
up for more people to enjoy. That was the intent of the
beginning in the 1960 of opening up these lands. And I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCarthy follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Kevin McCarthy, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Well thank you Chairman Bishop, thank you for holding this
legislative hearing.
Right now, the Bureau of Land Management and the United States
Forest Service administers over 400 million acres of land in the United
States. Now what does that mean? 45 percent of all of California,
almost 60 percent of Utah and nearly 85 percent of Nevada are owned by
the Federal government. This means the government has significant
control over how lands in our state are used, what is done on them and
how the American people can access and enjoy them.
Starting in 1960, Congress enacted several laws to require that
millions of acres under Federal control be ``administered for outdoor
recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.''
In other words, public lands has to be just that--open to the public.
However, today there are over 42 million acres of Wilderness Study
Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas, which have been deemed unsuitable
for wilderness by BLM and the Forest Service, respectively. Because of
the current law and regulations, these lands must be managed
essentially as if they are Wilderness Areas--the most restrictive
management practice, which prohibits most activities, and denies
Americans the ability to fully and appropriately enjoy their public
lands.
These lands remain under lock and key until Congress chooses to
make them Wilderness Areas or release them for multiple-use. A decision
that has been pending for decades.
Simply put, my common sense bill would release Wilderness Study
Areas and Inventoried Roadless Areas deemed not suitable for wilderness
by the existing agencies so they are no longer needlessly held in
regulatory limbo, which denies the American people full and appropriate
access to them, and require they be managed for multiple-use. The bill
would also return these lands to the local management process, where
decisions on what and can't occur on them are made by local land
managers, communities and stakeholders in and around the areas,
consistent with existing environmental protections.
Why is this bill important?
Allowing these lands to be managed for multiple-use enables local
land managers and communities to potentially allow for reasonable
resources development, better healthy forest management, more reliable
grazing and numerous recreational activities, including motorized
sports and increased access for better hunting and fishing. These
activities could create jobs and generate new revenue for many rural
and outlying communities across the country that depend on visitors to
our national forests and public lands.
In addition, opening up these lands would make it much easier to
clear fallen and rotten trees and underbrush, reducing the danger of
the out-of-control wildfires that have been prevalent in California and
around the nation in recent years.
Where I represent, there are 11 Wilderness Study Areas in which
more than 18,000 acres have been deemed unsuitable for wilderness.
There are seven roadless areas within the Sequoia National Forest
around Lake Isabella, with over 200,000 acres that have been
recommended not suitable for wilderness. Actively enjoying the land
through recreational activities benefit our local communities across
the West.
In conclusion, all this bill does is to act on the recommendations
of BLM and the Forest Service to release a small percentage of the 400
plus million acres these agencies are responsible for, which have been
deemed unsuitable.
As President Theodore Roosevelt, one of the greatest champions for
our natural wonders, said, ``Conservation means development as much as
it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation
to develop and use the natural resources of our land.''
I'm honored today to have two constituents that are going to
testify later. Chris Horgan and Dave Freeland, and they will tell you
from firsthand, being a ranger, being a committed conservationist that
can help protect. As you narrow down the land that you open up you
actually destroy more land. Because those who are able to enjoy it have
a smaller area and trample over more. What this bill does takes the
studies that this Congress paid for, by the BLM and the Forest Service,
and they actually take the study and apply them to what they said would
be the best outcome; while protecting the local environment by having
the locals in control. If you've ever been to California, if you've
ever watched the news and you see the out-of-control fires. We know we
can have a better way. We know we can open it up for more people to
enjoy. That was the intent, from the beginning in the 1960s of opening
up these lands. And I yield back.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative McCarthy, and as I
said, if you need to go to another event you need to go, but
you are welcome to stay as long as you can. Senator Barrasso,
who is also the Chairman of the Senate Western Caucus but as I
also understand the chief sponsor of a companion bill in the
Senate, we welcome you over here to the right side, the correct
side of the Capitol, and we want to recognize you as well.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I really appreciate your leadership, your opening remarks, and
I want to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify in
support of the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act. I have
introduced a companion bill in the Senate along with Senators
Murkowski and Enzi and Hatch and Heller, and it is really a
pleasure to participate in the hearing today along with
Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and House Western Caucus Chairman,
Representative Steve Pearce.
I also want to welcome Wyoming County Commissioner Kent
Connelly, he is going to be testifying today, and acknowledge
his work on public land issues in Wyoming. Commissioner
Connelly's testimony will provide insight on how this
legislation will provide relief, relief needed from Federal
bureaucratic roadblocks in western rural counties. Now, Mr.
Chairman, Congress did not designate any wilderness in the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. What Congress
did do was set aside over 70 million acres to temporarily study
for possible wilderness designation.
Federal agencies would make recommendations to Congress and
then Congress would then decide what areas should receive this
wilderness designation. However, the 1976 law created a giant
loophole. The loophole allows all lands set aside for
wilderness study to essentially be perpetually managed under
wilderness criteria, not by multiple use and sustainable yield
provisions. The effect of this loophole was to create defacto
wilderness areas across the West without Congressional
approval. That is why the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release
Act is needed.
Of the over 12 million acres of wilderness study areas, BLM
recommended about half of those acres as not suitable for
wilderness designation. The U.S. Forest Service recommended
that 36 of 61 million acres are not suitable. These decisions
have been made for over 20 years. This Act ends the cycle of
indefinite wilderness review and management of these
nonwilderness recommended lands. This legislation allows local
Americans and stakeholders to work with agency officials to
develop management plans that best balance recreation, multiple
use, and conservation.
Every released acre and activity will be subject to the
respective Forest Service and BLM land use planning process.
Mr. Chairman, you have heard it as well as I have, critics have
called this bill extreme. They declare passage would result in
unchecked development and ecological disasters. Well, there is
nothing extreme about allowing and following nonwilderness
recommendations, nothing extreme about local stakeholders
participating in the planning process, nothing extreme about
land returning to the Forest Service or BLM land use planning
process, and there is nothing extreme about proactively
managing forests impacted by the mountain pine beetle.
I will tell you one of the biggest roadblocks in Wyoming to
any management activity of the pine beetle is the 2001 Roadless
Rule. The fact is that this bill today is a common sense bill.
Opponents want to rewrite history. They want to pretend that
Congress designated wilderness with the passage of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act. They want to maintain the do-
nothing status quo. They want to prevent local stakeholders and
land management agencies from making land planning decisions,
and they are obstructing healthy forest management.
Former Secretary Babbitt is here, and he has stated that
those who support this bill he said are operating in the
shadows. I disagree. Those who support this bill are standing
in the sunshine. I am here in a public setting advocating for
public participation in land management. This is in stark
contrast, Mr. Chairman, to secretive events creating the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument in your home state in
Utah which was announced from Arizona. This is in stark
contrast to last year's leaked Treasured Landscapes Internal
Effort by the Department of the Interior officials.
This is in stark contrast to the December 23rd Wildlands
Announcement, made the day before Christmas Eve, and it said if
you wanted to, it wasn't wilderness they said, but if you
wanted to access their talking on the conference call the
access code was wilderness. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is
not in the shadows, this is in the light of day. This Act is
good land management policy. Doesn't dictate what will or will
not happen on the released lands.
Rather, it returns management to the respective agencies.
It provides them the flexibility to manage our public lands for
a multitude of activities. Most importantly it gives local
Americans, those who live and work and play on public lands, a
voice. So I fully support this legislation. I commend
Representative McCarthy for his leadership on this issue. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barrasso follows:]
Statement of The Honorable, John Barrasso, a U.S. Senator from the
State of New York, on H.R. 1581, ``Wilderness and Roadless Area Release
Act of 2011''
Thank you Chairman Bishop. I appreciate your leadership and your
opening statement. I want to thank you and Members of the Committee for
inviting me to testify in support of the ``Wilderness and Roadless Area
Release Act.''
I introduced the companion bill, S. 1087, in the Senate, along with
Senators Murkowski, Enzi, Hatch, and Heller. It is a pleasure to
testify in favor of this bill along with Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy
and House Western Caucus Chairman Rep. Steve Pearce.
I also want to welcome Wyoming County Commissioner Kent Connelly,
who will testify today, for his work on public lands issues in Wyoming.
Commissioner Connelly's testimony will provide insight on how this
legislation will provide relief, from federal bureaucratic roadblocks
in western rural counties.
Congress did not designate any wilderness in the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act in 1976. What Congress did do was set aside
over 70 million acres to temporarily study for possible wilderness
designation. Federal agencies would make recommendations to Congress.
Congress would then decide what areas should receive Wilderness
designation.
However, the 1976 law created a giant loophole. The loophole allows
all lands set aside for wilderness study to essentially be perpetually
managed under wilderness criteria, not by multiple-use and sustainable
yield provisions. The effect of this loophole was to create de facto
wilderness areas across the West without Congressional approval.
That is why the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act is needed.
Of the 12.27 million acres of Wilderness Study Areas, BLM
recommended 6.7 million acres as not suitable for wilderness
designation. The U.S. Forest Service recommended 36 of the 61 million
acres as not suitable. These decisions have been made for over 20
years.
This act ends the cycle of indefinite wilderness review and
management of these non-wilderness recommended lands. The legislation
allows local Americans and stakeholders, to work with agency officials
to develop management plans that best balance recreation, multiple-use,
and conservation. Every released acre and activity will be subject to
the respective Forest Service or BLM land-use planning process.
Critics call this bill extreme. They declare passage would result
in unchecked development and an ecologic disaster.
There is nothing extreme about following non-wilderness
recommendations. There is nothing extreme about local stakeholders
participating in the planning process. There is nothing extreme about
land returning to the Forest Service or BLM land-use planning process.
And there is nothing extreme about proactively managing forests
impacted by the Mountain Pine Beetle. One of the biggest roadblocks in
Wyoming to any management activity for the Pine Beetle is the 2001
Roadless Rule.
The fact is this is a common sense bill. Opponents want to rewrite
history. They want to pretend Congress designated wilderness with the
passage of Federal Land Policy Management Act. They want to maintain
the do-nothing status quo. They want to prevent local stakeholders and
land management agencies from making land-planning decisions, and they
are obstructing healthy forest management.
Former Secretary Babbitt has stated those who support this bill are
operating in the shadows. I disagree. Those who support this bill are
standing in the sunshine. I am here in a public setting, advocating for
public participation in land management.
This is in stark contrast Mr. Chairman to the secretive events
creating the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in your home
state of Utah, and announced from Arizona. This is in stark contrast to
last year's leaked ``Treasured Landscapes'' internal effort by
Department of Interior officials. This is in stark contrast to the
December 23rd `Wild Lands' announcement. The day before Christmas Eve,
the phone access code for the BLM's `Wild Lands' call was wilderness.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is not in shadows, but in the light
of day. This Act is good land management policy. It does not dictate
what will or will not happen on the released lands. Rather, it returns
management to the respective agencies. It provides them the flexibility
to manage our public lands for a multitude of activities. More
importantly, it gives local Americans, those who live, work, and play
on public lands a voice.
I fully support this legislation and commend Representative
McCarthy for his leadership on this issue. Thank you Mr. Chairman for
the opportunity to testify.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. Representative Pearce is
the Chairman of the Western Caucus here. We will be pleased to
hear from you now.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE PEARCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Grijalva, and members of the Subcommittee. We appreciate you
holding the hearing on H.R. 1581 today, the Wilderness and
Roadless Area Release Act of 2011. I appreciate Mr. McCarthy's
leadership in bringing that forward. As Chairman of the
Congressional Western Caucus, I am proud to be an original
cosponsor of this legislation. As we are speaking, large areas
of the West continue to burn. These fires burn hotter and
faster than they ever have in years past. This endangers the
life of humans, plants, animals, and destroys any possibility
of species benefitting from the forest.
The fires are burning because of the management of our
public lands, decades of trees have been allowed to accumulate
as fuels and now Mother Nature has shut off the water, and the
drought plus the explosive loads of fuels in our forests are
causing the fires. The West is very familiar with wilderness
designations, and my district knows them as well as any other.
One of the first declared wilderness areas under the 1964
Wilderness Act, the Gila Wilderness, is in my district.
While I do not oppose the designation of wilderness in
areas that qualify by the strict definitions of the 1964 Act,
it is a costly decision that the Federal Government continues
to treat millions of acres that do not qualify and it treats
them as defacto wildernesses. For example, a wilderness area is
defined as an area of undeveloped Federal land that generally
appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of
nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially
unnoticeable, this is according to the text of the Act.
The Gila fits this definition. However, as with other areas
throughout the West there are wilderness study areas within my
district that do not meet this criteria by this definition, but
they are being managed by the Wilderness Act. The WSA in Dona
Ana County, for example, the Robledo Mountains WSA is deemed
unsuitable for wilderness because of frequent motorized vehicle
use and air traffic from Las Cruces International Airport, but
it is being still managed as wilderness. The Sierra de las Uvas
WSA is considered unsuitable due to off-road vehicle use. 20
years later both of these WSAs are still governed by the same
regulations as actual wilderness, despite the Department of the
Interior deeming them unsuitable.
This means that no chainsaws can be used to clear
underbrush and dead timber for fire prevention. Trucks cannot
come in to haul off material that can set these areas ablaze.
Last week 4,500 acres of the Gila Wilderness burned due to
lightning, and the fire crews had difficulty navigating the
rugged terrain of the wilderness to actually fight the fires.
While much of the West continues to burn, how much sense does
it make to keep unsuitable areas under such restrictive
regulation?
These areas are tinderboxes just waiting for a lightning
strike or some other spark to ignite conflagration. This story
plays out time and time again across the West. It makes much
more sense to release these WSAs than to just keep them in this
constant state of limbo. Releasing them will keep them under
Federal ownership and opens them up to the same management
practices available on other Federal lands. This will allow the
various Federal agencies to conduct proper land management to
prevent the spread of wildfires and to keep these lands healthy
for both people and animals to enjoy.
Preventing us from releasing these WSAs only keeps us from
implementing common sense solutions that can keep our forests
thriving and maintaining thriving habitats that actually
benefit wildlife. The way to do this is to move these WSAs into
the multiple use category. Some people hear multiple use and
think that it leads to degradation of the environment. It does
not. It maintains a proper balance to keep the forest and other
natural areas alive, it maintains a healthy wildlife balance,
plus it can lead to economic growth through managed timber
harvesting.
When we consider the area of Roadless Rules, recently our
district was host to a large public meeting. The Forest Service
had claimed they had public meetings talking about declaring
the Roadless Rules in the Gila National Forest. Keep in mind
that the Gila Wilderness is almost a million acres right next
door to the almost 2 million acres of National Forest. The
Roadless Rule was going to create almost 3 million acres of
defacto wilderness in one area of our state.
Now the agency had described public meetings in which they
had gotten all the public input they got. But when we
advertised for a week that the Forest Service was talking about
eliminating people out of 95 percent of the Gila National
Forest we had 800 people show up on a weekend to testify and to
say enough is enough. 95 percent of that forest would be
unavailable to anyone, much less people with disabilities. If
you Google the word ``roadless'' and U.S. Forest Service, the
first pages that come up deal with stopping timber. This is the
agenda of the Roadless Rule and the U.S. Forest Service. Let us
release these areas and get common sense management. And I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearce follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Steve Pearce, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Mexico
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the
Subcommittee: thank you for holding this hearing today on H.R. 1581,
Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011. As Chairman of the
Congressional Western Caucus, I am proud to be an original cosponsor.
At no point in time has legislation like this been more important. As
we speak, large portions of the west continue to burn. And these fires
burn hotter and faster than they have in years past. This endangers the
lives of humans, plants and animals, and destroys any possibility of
any species benefitting from the forest.
The West is very familiar with wilderness designations, and my
district knows them better than any other. One of the first declared
wilderness areas under the 1964 Wilderness Act, the Gila Wilderness, is
in my district. While I do not necessarily oppose the designation of
wilderness in areas that qualify by the strict definitions of the 1964
Act, it is absurd that the federal government continues to treat
millions of acres that do not qualify as de facto wilderness. For
example, a wilderness area is defined as an area of undeveloped federal
land that ``generally appears to have been affected primarily by the
forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially
unnoticeable'', according to the text of the Act. The Gila fits this
definition.
However, as with other areas throughout the West, there are
Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) within my district that do not meet the
criteria of this definition, according to the Department of the
Interior's New Mexico Wilderness Study Report from 1991, which is the
last comprehensive study of WSAs. In Dona Ana County, for example, the
Robledo Mountains WSA is deemed unsuitable because of frequent
motorized vehicle use and air traffic from Las Cruces International
Airport. The Sierra de Las Uvas WSA is also considered unsuitable due
to off-road vehicle use. 20 years later, both of these WSAs are
governed by the same regulations as actual wilderness, despite the
Department of the Interior deeming them unsuitable. This means that no
chainsaws can be used to clear underbrush and dead timber for fire
prevention. Trucks cannot come in to haul off material that can set
these areas ablaze. Last week 4,500 acres of the Gila Wilderness burned
due to lightning, and fire crews had difficulty navigating the rugged
terrain of the wilderness to actually fight the fires. While much of
the West continues to burn, how much sense does it make to keep
unsuitable areas under such restrictive regulations? These areas are
tinderboxes, just waiting for a lightning strike or some other spark to
ignite a conflagration. This story plays out time and time again across
the West.
It makes much more sense to release these WSAs than to just keep
them in this constant state of limbo. Releasing them will keep them
under federal ownership, and opens them up to the same management
practices available on other federal lands. This will allow the various
federal agencies to conduct proper land management to prevent the
spread of wildfires, and keep these lands healthy for both people and
animals to enjoy. Preventing us from releasing theses WSAs only keeps
us from implementing commonsense solutions that can keep our forests
thriving, and maintain thriving habitats that actually benefit
wildlife. The way to do this is to move these WSAs into the Multiple
Use category. Some people hear Multiple Use and think that it leads to
degradation of the environment. It does not. It maintains a proper
balance to keep the forests and other natural areas alive. It maintains
a healthy wildlife balance. Plus, it can lead to economic growth
through managed timber harvesting.
Similarly, in 1979, the Forest Service recommended that 36 million
acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) in its last comprehensive
study of roadless areas, known as the Roadless Area Review and
Evaluation II (RARE II). In RARE II, the Forest Service recommended 36
million acres of IRAs are not suitable for wilderness designation,
about the size of the state of Michigan. Nearly 1.2 million acres in
New Mexico are not suitable, which equates to the state of Delaware.
This bill would lift the restrictive practices on these giant tracts of
land that put the welfare and livelihood of the West at risk, and
preclude job creation.
Another positive benefit of releasing these WSAs will be in our
watersheds. Overgrown forest areas dry out our aquifers and rivers,
leaving the West ready to burn, and cutting off needed water for our
communities to use for basic services, including fire fighting.
I am proud to be here today as an original cosponsor of this
important piece of legislation, and urge my colleagues to support it.
H.R. 1581 is good for the West and good for America. It will allow more
Americans to enjoy our federal lands, and allow us to actually protect
the habitats of wildlife through proper land management. Again, I think
the Chairman and Ranking Member for conducting this hearing today, and
I look forward to answering your questions.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman Pearce. Once again you
are welcome to stay with us throughout the entire, to join us
on the dais when you wish to. Mr. Abbey, and also once again if
you need a little bit more time to come in on both bills, feel
free to use that as well. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Abbey. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and again it is
a pleasure to appear before this Subcommittee and to speak to
the members of this group. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify on H.R. 1581 as well as H.R. 2578. The Bureau of Land
Management opposes H.R. 2578, which would for the first time
de-designate a segment of the river previously designated by
Congress as a Wild and Scenic River, and would inundate
additional portions of that river possibly affecting up to
three Bureau of Land Management-managed areas of critical
environmental concerns.
We recommend that an assessment of the impacts be performed
prior to the Congress passing this legislation, so that we
fully understand the true impacts of the inundation on the
values of the river and adjacent areas of critical
environmental concern. Among potential resource implications of
this inundation are habitat loss for protected and threatened
species, also significant cultural and historic resources in
the area, including the Yosemite Valley Railroad and historic
goldmine sites would likely be degraded or destroyed.
I would like to spend the remainder of my time discussing
H.R. 1581. The Administration strongly supports the
constructive resolution of wilderness designations and
wilderness study areas release on public lands across the
United States. However, the Administration opposes H.R. 1581
which would unilaterally release 6.6 million acres of
wilderness study areas. H.R. 1581 is a one-size-fits-all
approach that fails to reflect local conditions and community-
based interests. It is kind of like using a 30-06 to shoot a
small rabbit. It is much more of a weapon than is needed, and
there is not a lot of meat left on that rabbit after you shoot
it.
Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 directed the Bureau of Land Management to identify
areas with wilderness characteristics. This inventory was
completed in 1980. The Bureau of Land Management identified
over 800 wilderness study areas in that process, encompassing
over 26 million acres of BLM-managed lands. Each of these
wilderness study areas met the criteria for wilderness
designation established by the Wilderness Act.
Today approximately 12.8 million acres of the original 26
million acres remain as wilderness study areas and are awaiting
final Congressional resolution. The second step of the process
was to study each of the wilderness study areas and make a
recommendation to the President on the suitability or
nonsuitability of each area. The central issue addressed by the
studies was not to determine whether or not areas possess
wilderness characteristics. That fact had been previously
established through the inventory process.
Rather, the question asked was, was this area more suitable
for wilderness designation or more suitable for non-wilderness
uses? Among the elements considered at that time were mineral
surveys, conflicts with potential uses, manageability, public
opinion, and a host of other elements. The process was not a
scientific one by any means, but rather a consideration of
various factors to reach a recommendation.
These recommendations are now over 20 years old, and the
only ground work associated with them is as much as 30 years
old. In that time resource conditions have changed, our
understanding of mineral resources has changed, and public
opinion has changed. If these suitability recommendations were
made today, many of them would be different. A blanket release
of lands from wilderness study area status that is based on
data that is over 30 years old does not allow for meaningful
review of these lands or their resource values in today's
society.
The status of wilderness study areas need to be resolved,
but in the interim they should be continued to be managed to
keep Congressional options open. Mr. Chairman, you can bet I am
just as frustrated as many members of your Subcommittee as to
how long it is taking for us to determine which of these
wilderness study areas should be designated as wilderness and
which ones should be released for other purposes. The answer is
to move forward in the footsteps of Washington County, Utah,
and Owyhee County, Idaho, and so many other collaborative
efforts, not to seek an all encompassing solution to a complex
issue.
America's wilderness systems include many of the nation's
most treasured landscapes and ensure that these untrampled
lands and resources will be passed down from one generation of
Americans to the next. Through our wilderness decisions we
demonstrate a sense of stewardship and conservation that is
uniquely American and is sensibly balanced with the other
decisions that we make that affect public lands. These
decisions should be thoughtfully made and considered, not the
result of a one-size-fits-all edict. Resolution and certainty
will serve all, and this Administration stands ready to work
cooperatively with Congress toward that end.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Abbey follow:]
Statement of Robert V. Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1581, Wilderness and Roadless Area
Release Act of 2011
Thank you for the invitation to testify on H.R. 1581, the
Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act. The Administration strongly
supports the constructive resolution of wilderness designation and
Wilderness Study Area (WSA) release issues on public lands across the
western United States. However, the Administration strongly opposes
H.R. 1581 which would unilaterally release 6.6 million acres of WSAs on
public lands. H.R. 1581 is a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach, that
fails to reflect local conditions and community-based interests
regarding WSAs managed by the Department of the Interior.
Much as the Department of the Interior would oppose a blanket
designation of all WSAs as wilderness, we oppose this proposal to
release over 6.6 million acres of WSAs from interim protection. We
encourage Members of Congress to work with local and national
constituencies on designation and release proposals, and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) stands ready to provide technical support in this
process. Public Law 111-11, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of
2009, serves as an excellent model for wilderness designation and WSA
release decisions thoughtfully conceived and effectively implemented.
The Department of the Interior defers to the Department of
Agriculture on provisions of the bill affecting lands managed by the
U.S. Forest Service.
Background
In 1976, Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA), which provides a clear statement on the retention and
management of lands administered by the BLM. Section 603 of FLPMA
provided direction under which the BLM became a full partner in the
National Wilderness Preservation System established by the Wilderness
Act of 1964.
The first step of the Section 603 process, to identify areas with
wilderness characteristics, was completed in 1980. The BLM identified
over 800 WSAs encompassing over 26 million acres of BLM-managed lands.
Each of these WSAs met the criteria for wilderness designation
established by the Wilderness Act: sufficient size (5,000 roadless
acres or more), as well as naturalness, and outstanding opportunities
for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Today,
approximately 12.8 million acres (545 units) of the original 26 million
acres remain as WSAs and are awaiting final Congressional resolution.
Section 603(c) of FLPMA directs the BLM to manage all of these WSAs
``in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for
preservation as wilderness. . .'' WSAs are managed under the BLM's
``Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review.''
The second step of the process, begun in 1980 and concluded in
1991, was to study each of the WSAs to make a recommendation to the
President on ``the suitability or nonsuitability of each such area or
island for preservation as wilderness. . .'' The central issue
addressed by the studies was not to determine whether or not areas
possessed wilderness characteristics, this fact had been previously
established. Rather the question asked was ``is this area more suitable
for wilderness designation or more suitable for nonwilderness uses?''
Among the elements considered were: mineral surveys conducted by the
U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines, conflicts with other
potential uses, manageability, public opinion, and a host of other
elements. This process was not a scientific one, but rather a
consideration of various factors to reach a recommendation. Between
July 1991 and January 1993, President George H. W. Bush submitted these
state-by-state recommendations to Congress.
These recommendations are now 20 years old, and the on-the-ground
work associated with them is as much as 30 years old. During that time
in a number of places, resource conditions have changed, our
understanding of mineral resources has changed, and public opinion has
changed. If these suitability recommendations were made today, many of
them would undoubtedly be different.
Examples of Recent Designations
Examples abound of WSAs recommended nonsuitable which Congress
later designated as wilderness after careful review, updated analysis,
and thoughtful local discussions. A number of such designations were
incorporated into Public Law 111-11, the Omnibus Public Land Management
Act of 2009, which designated over 900,000 acres of new BLM-managed
wilderness and also released well over 250,000 acres from WSA status.
The Granite Mountain Wilderness designated by P.L. 111-11 is
located east of Mono Lake in central California. In 1991, the entire
WSA was recommended nonsuitable in large part due to reports of high
potential for geothermal resources. Subsequent reviews of mineral
potential, including several test wells on nearby lands, showed a low
potential for geothermal resources. In 2008, the BLM provided testimony
in support of Representative Buck McKeon's legislation, H.R. 6156,
designating the Granite Mountain Wilderness.
P.L. 111-11 also included broad-scale wilderness designation and
WSA release in Utah's Washington County and Idaho's Owyhee County. Both
of these successful efforts were the result of hard work by the local
Congressional delegations, working with local elected officials,
stakeholders, and user groups along with technical support from the
BLM. They did not rely on decades old suitability studies, but rather
sought common ground and comprehensive solutions to specific land
management issues. In Owyhee County, what was once 22 individual WSAs
is now over half a million acres of wilderness in six distinct
wilderness areas, as well as nearly 200,000 acres of released WSAs.
Many acres the BLM recommended nonsuitable in 1992 were designated;
likewise acres recommended suitable were released by the legislation.
Similarly, the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness
Act, P.L. 109-362, designated a number of wilderness areas in northern
California, including Cache Creek Wilderness located 60 miles northwest
of Sacramento in the Northern Coast Range. Cache Creek WSA was
recommended nonsuitable in 1991 due in large part to the presence of
550 mining claims within the area. Fifteen years later, when
designating legislation was proposed, all of these claims had been
abandoned due to the area's low mineral potential.
Numerous other examples exist, but suffice it to say, every
situation with every WSA is distinct and deserves to be examined
individually in a congressionally-driven process involving local and
national interests and a wide range of stakeholders. This process
should place stronger emphasis on current resource conditions and
opportunities for protection, than on decades old recommendations. The
Wilderness Act and FLPMA put the responsibility for wilderness
designation and release squarely with Congress. It is an awesome
responsibility, which has in the past, and must in the future, be
carefully discharged.
H.R. 1581
H.R. 1581(section 2) provides that BLM-managed WSAs which were
recommended ``nonsuitable'' have been adequately studied for wilderness
designation, and are released from the nonimpairment standard
established in section 603(c) of FLPMA. This section further provides
that these released lands are to be managed consistent with the
applicable land use plan and that the Secretary may not provide for any
system-wide policies that direct the management of these released lands
other than in a manner consistent with the applicable land use plan.
Finally, section 2(e) provides that Secretarial Order 3310 (Wild Lands
Order) shall not apply to these released lands.
The Administration strongly opposes section 2 of H.R. 1581. A
blanket release of lands from WSA status does not allow for a
meaningful review of these lands and their resource values. Every acre
of WSA should not be designated as wilderness; neither should 6.6
million acres of WSAs be released from consideration without careful
thought and analysis.
The status of WSAs needs to be resolved but in the interim they
should continue to be managed to keep Congressional options open. I
share the frustration of many Members of Congress that resolution has
taken much too long. The answer is to move forward in the footsteps of
Washington County, Utah and Owyhee County, Idaho, and so many other
collaborative efforts reflected in Public Law 111-11, not to seek an
all encompassing solution to a complex issue.
We concur with the bill's approach in section 2(c) that lands
released from interim protection, which we would hope would take place
in a thoughtful process in the context of overall wilderness
designation and release legislation, should be managed consistent with
local land use plans. It is the local planning process through which
the BLM makes important decisions on management of these lands,
including, among other things, conventional and renewable energy
production, grazing, mining, off-highway vehicle use, hunting, and the
consideration of natural values.
Conclusion
America's wilderness system includes many of the Nation's most
treasured landscapes, and ensures that these untrammeled lands and
resources will be passed down from one generation of Americans to the
next. Through our wilderness decisions, we demonstrate a sense of
stewardship and conservation that is uniquely American and is sensibly
balanced with the other decisions we make that affect public lands.
These decisions should be thoughtfully made and considered, not the
result of a top-down, one-size-fits-all edict. Resolution and certainty
will serve all parties--including the conservation community,
extractive industries, OHV enthusiasts and other recreationists, local
communities, State government, and Federal land managers. The
Administration stands ready to work cooperatively with Congress toward
that end.
______
Statement of Robert V/Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2578, Amends the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act for the Lower Merced Wild & Scenic River
Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 2578, a bill amending
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Act) to reduce the length of the Merced
River which is designated as a component of the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System, while increasing the allowed level of Lake
McClure in central California. H.R. 2578 would, for the first time, de-
designate a segment of river previously designated by Congress. The
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act prohibits the Federal Energy Regulatory
Agency (FERC) from licensing any project works ``on or directly
affecting any river which is designated'' as Wild & Scenic. H.R. 2578,
by removing the Wild and Scenic designation of this segment of the
Merced River, would enable the FERC to consider the relicensing of FERC
hydroelectric project No. 2179. The Department of the Interior believes
such precipitous action deprives the public of the opportunity to
evaluate the potential loss of the wild and scenic values previously
accorded to the River and opposes H.R. 2578.
Background
Section 1 of the 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-
542) sets forth Congress' vision for management of the Nation's rivers:
``It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States
that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their
immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable
scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic,
cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-
flowing condition, and that they and their immediate
environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment
of present and future generations. The Congress declares that
the established national policy of dam and other construction
at appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States
needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other
selected rivers or section thereof in their free-flowing
condition to protect the water quality for such rivers and to
fulfill other vital national conservation purposes.''
From its headwaters in the snow-fed streams of the Yosemite
National Park high country, the Merced plunges thousands of feet
through boulder lined canyons before emptying into Lake McClure. Over
122 miles of the Merced River in central California have been
designated by Congress as components of the National Wild and Scenic
River System.
In 1992, Public Law 102-432, extended the previously designated
Merced Wild and Scenic River by an additional eight miles to the 867
feet spillover level of Lake McClure. The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) manages the upper five miles as a recreational river and the
lower three miles as a wild river. Under the provisions of P.L. 102-
432, the level of Lake McClure may not exceed an elevation of 867 feet
above mean sea level, a level intended to balance water and power needs
of the local community with protection of the outstanding remarkable
values of the lower Merced River.
The lower Merced River is noted for having some of the most
outstanding scenery and whitewater boating opportunities in California
and the nation. Every summer over 10,000 whitewater enthusiasts test
their skills on the river. The BLM currently permits 12 commercial
businesses, which guide most of these recreationists on this section of
the Merced River.
The communities of Mariposa and El Portal benefit from these
whitewater boaters who contribute to the local tourism economies.
Boaters generate important economic activity during the traditionally
lower visitation times of spring and early summer, expanding the length
of the Yosemite region tourism season. This river-dependent tourism
provides a greater level of economic and employment stability for these
communities.
H.R. 2578
H.R. 2578 is a short bill with unprecedented effects. The full
implications of H.R. 2758 are not clear. Before the Committee takes
action on the legislation, the BLM recommends that the impacts of de-
designation and inundation to the values of the Merced River that BLM
manages as part of the Wild and Scenic River System be fully analyzed
through the lens of the agency entrusted with management of its values
and resources, which would also include an opportunity for public
comment.
Potential impacts from inundation could be substantial to both
natural resources and local economies. H.R. 2578 reduces the current
designated segment of river from 8 miles to 7.4 miles and changes the
water surface level of Lake McClure from 867 feet mean sea level to the
current Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) project boundary at
879 feet. The result of the increase in the FERC project boundary is
likely an approximately one and one-quarter mile inundation, likely
resulting in still water conditions, over half a mile of which will
impact the remaining Merced Wild and Scenic River System.
Among the potential resource implications of this inundation are
habitat loss for both the limestone salamander (a California designated
Fully Protected Species) and the elderberry longhorn beetle (a
federally listed threatened species under the Endangered Species Act).
Portions of the BLM Limestone Salamander Area of Critical Environmental
Concern and the BLM Bagby Serpentine Area of Critical Environmental
Concern would be flooded. Inundation would include the destruction of
thousands of individual BLM sensitive listed plants and their seed
banks. Habitat for the yellow-legged frog, a BLM sensitive species,
would be inundated from reservoir levels backing up and into the
Sherlock Creek drainage. Impacts would also include loss of riparian
vegetation and degradation of the scenic values of the corridor.
Additionally, significant cultural and historic resources in the area,
including the remains of the Yosemite Valley Railroad and historic
gold-mining sites would be degraded.
A variety of recreation activities within the river corridor could
also be impacted by the legislation. For whitewater boaters, inundation
would add another one and a quarter miles to an already arduous paddle
across flat water to an alternate take-out. In addition to boaters, the
canyon is becoming increasingly utilized as a recreational destination
for hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrian riders who could be
displaced by a likely inundation of five miles of the existing Merced
River trail.
H.R. 2578 would, for the first time, weaken the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act by de-designating a segment of a river and allowing for the
inundation of portions of the remaining Wild and Scenic River, and
could set a troublesome precedent. Such an unprecedented action would
result in a wild river segment becoming more like a lake than a river
and could compromise the integrity of the Wild and Scenic River System,
the purpose of which is to preserve rivers in their ``free-flowing
condition.''
Conclusion
Before further action is taken on H.R. 2578, the BLM recommends
that all of these implications of de-designation of Wild and Scenic
River and changes to the level of Lake McClure be more fully explored.
The Department believes the values for which Congress initially
designated the Merced Wild and Scenic River should not be sacrificed
without a full analysis through the prism of the BLM.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. You got both bills in within five
minutes, congratulations, I am impressed. Mr. Sherman, I
apologize for forgetting your name at the very beginning, I am
old, I am gray, it is going to happen a lot.
Mr. Sherman. Me too.
Mr. Bishop. The Under Secretary for Agriculture and Natural
Resources Environment. Same thing, we recognize you for five
minutes, if you wish to talk about both bills we can fudge
around with the time.
STATEMENT OF HARRIS SHERMAN, UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Sherman. OK, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the chance to discuss H.R. 1581, the 2001 Roadless
Rule, and general considerations about both. At the outset I
would like to clarify that the President and Secretary Vilsack
strongly support roadless values in our National Forest and the
2001 Rule. The 2001 Rule is important for a variety of reasons.
These are large, intact, unfragmented lands, they constitute
about 2 percent of the landmass of the United States, and they
are critically important in protecting a number of key values.
Over 20 percent of Americans, some 66 million Americans,
get their drinking water from our National Forests. Over 300
municipal water districts have roadless areas within their
watersheds. Roadless areas save these communities millions of
dollars within their watersheds through the treatment that is
provided naturally by these forests. As a former water
commissioner in the City and County of Denver, I can tell you
that these roadless areas were very important for the city and
its future water supplies.
Roadless areas provide also key habitat for 25 percent of
the nation's threatened and endangered species. These areas
provide habitat for 65 percent of candidate species and species
of conservation concern, these are species that we clearly want
to keep off the threatened and endangered list. Roadless areas
provide a bulwark against the spread of nonnative invasive
species, which is a growing serious problem in the West and
throughout the country.
And roadless areas are heavily relied upon for disbursed
recreation by hunters, fishermen, sportsmen, hikers, campers,
snowmobilers, bikers. In our National Forest System we have
some 110 million Americans that engage in disbursed recreation
activities where roadless areas are critically important to
them, and in turn these activities help support communities and
help to provide jobs.
Now while providing these key values, roadless areas also
have a certain amount of flexibility in accommodating other
users and needs. Let me give you a few examples. Forest
restoration work, including the thinning and the clearing of
timber, can occur within roadless areas to reduce fire risk and
hazardous fuels. Under certain circumstances hydroelectric
facilities are authorized under the 2001 Rule. Projects under
the 1872 Mining Act are allowed to proceed. Mechanized and
motorized activities can occur in roadless areas.
Since 2001 and the establishment of the Roadless Rule, we
have seen a decrease in the amount of litigation that has
occurred on National Forests. Before 2001 many decisions that
involved roadless areas became a flashpoint for litigation and
strained the relationship between stakeholders. Since the 2001
Rule I think it is fair to say there has been more
collaboration between stakeholders, concerning forest
restoration and concerning timber production.
Our Forest Service personnel are now focusing more on
projects that have the chance of proceeding, and we are
pursuing larger landscape scale projects. Let me also say that
the 2001 Rule allowed us to focus our limited road funds on
maintaining existing roads. The Forest Service has some 370,00
miles of roads within its boundaries, which is eight times what
the Interstate Highway System has. Our current budget allows us
only to handle a fraction of the maintenance associated with
the current road system.
To build new roads in roadless areas would be very
expensive. These are far away areas, they often are in
difficult terrain, they are very costly, and they would quickly
eat up the limited budget that we have. We do not think this is
a wise use of our limited resources. So for these reasons and
others we oppose H.R. 1581 and I would be happy to answer any
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:]
Statement of Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, United States Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 1581, the
Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department of
Agriculture's views on H.R. 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area
Release Act of 2011. I am Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural
Resources and Environment at the Department of Agriculture.
H.R. 1581 would direct that the provisions of the 2001 Roadless
Area Conservation Final Rule and the 2005 State Petitions for
Inventoried Roadless Area Management Final Rule are no longer
applicable to inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest
System (NFS), except those that are recommended for designation as
wilderness and have been designated as wilderness by Congress prior to
the enactment of this bill, and would direct that such lands be managed
according to the applicable land and resource management plan instead.
The bill would also prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from issuing
any system-wide regulation or order that would direct management of the
lands released by this bill in a manner contrary to the applicable land
and resource management plan. We defer to the Secretary of the Interior
to provide views on the provisions in the bill relating to the release
of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
The President and the Secretary strongly support roadless values
and the 2001 Roadless Rule. By making the 2001 Roadless Rule's
provisions inapplicable to inventoried roadless areas, and by
precluding the Secretary from establishing any other system-wide
management direction for such lands, this bill would undermine the
ability of the Forest Service to carry out its responsibilities for
conserving critical resource values. It would also subject local forest
management efforts to increased conflict, expense and delay, as
disputes about roadless area protection are reopened and replayed from
one project proposal to the next, drawing limited capacity away from
other efforts that could elicit broader support and deliver more
benefits to rural communities. For these reasons, the Administration
strongly opposes this bill.
Roadless areas play an important role in preserving water,
biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and recreation opportunities including
hunting and fishing: that's why they are an integral part of the
Secretary's vision for America's forests. As development continues to
fragment landscapes and watersheds around the nation, the remaining
large tracts of undeveloped land represented by inventoried roadless
areas are increasingly critical in protecting these values.
Roadless areas cover all or part of over 300 municipal watersheds
in the U.S., supplying clean and abundant drinking water for millions
of Americans. Maintaining them in a relatively undisturbed condition
saves downstream communities millions of dollars in water filtration
costs. Roadless areas support biodiversity by contributing habitat for
approximately 25% of all Federally listed threatened and endangered
animal species and 65% of species identified as needing protection in
order to avoid such listing. They protect landscapes and resource
commodities by serving as a bulwark against the spread of nonnative
invasive species. They provide important backcountry experiences for
elk hunters, mule deer hunters, trout fisherman and other sportsmen and
women. And they provide countless opportunities for other forms of
recreation, including hiking and camping, biking, kayaking,
snowmobiling, and more. These recreation opportunities connect people
to the great outdoors, and support outdoor recreation and tourism
businesses important to local economies.
The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule strengthens the
Secretary's ability to protect these values by prohibiting road
construction and timber harvesting that may result in long-lasting
impacts on roadless area characteristics. However, the Rule also
provides important flexibility to permit beneficial management
activities and allow the Agency to address issues of importance for
public health and safety. For example, roads may be constructed,
reconstructed or realigned in order to protect public health and
safety, provide access to reserved or existing rights including for
mining or oil and gas leases, conduct actions under CERCLA, or prevent
resource damage from existing roads. Timber may be cut, sold and
removed where needed to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire
effects, improve habitat for threatened and endangered species,
maintain or restore ecosystems, or provide for administrative or
personal use including firewood collection, or where the removal is
incidental to a management activity not prohibited by the rule or there
was substantial alteration of an area in the inventory prior to January
12, 2001. Furthermore, the 2001 Rule places no restrictions on any form
of motorized or non-motorized use.
Recent examples of projects that would meet the provisions
described in the 2001 Rule include forest restoration work to reduce
fire hazard near towns throughout the West; hydroelectric facility
developments in Alaska that provide electricity for Sitka, Petersburg,
Wrangell, Ketchikan, Upper Lynn Canal, and Hoonah; development of an
aerial tram recreational facility in Ketchikan, Alaska; access roads
that provide access to State Forest lands in Minnesota; clean-up
activities at the Monte Cristo and Azurite mines in Washington;
realignment of roads to reduce erosion effects in Montana, Alaska,
Wyoming, and Utah; permits to drill methane vents to provide for worker
safety at the Oxbow mine in Colorado; and mineral explorations under
the 1872 General Mining Law in Utah, Nevada, Montana, Washington, and
Alaska.
In addition to providing a flexible framework that protects
resource values while permitting important forest management activities
at the local level, the 2001 Rule allows local managers and
stakeholders to focus on projects that have broader support and greater
promise for delivering real benefits to communities. Previously,
proposals for projects in roadless areas were often accompanied by
acrimonious procedural battles requiring studies, appeals and
litigation whose costs exceeded the value of any project benefits. We
now see more collaborative relationships bearing fruit on individual
forests in the form of stewardship contracts, landscape restoration
projects, hazardous fuels reduction efforts, and other important
activities, reflecting a broader zone of agreement than seen in decades
about the need for a healthy forest products industry to support the
infrastructure for maintaining and restoring healthy forest landscapes.
If this bill becomes law, successes such as these could become a thing
of the past as we return to the pre-2001 mode of legal challenges to
individual projects proposed in roadless areas.
We note that Idaho and Colorado have both petitioned for
rulemaking, under the Administrative Procedure Act (P.L. 79-404), to
establish state-specific roadless area management direction. In the
case of Idaho, we believe the rule there is on balance comparable or
even more protective than the 2001 Roadless Rule. Likewise, in
Colorado, the propose rule is comparable or more protective on balance
than the 2001 rule. Idaho's rule was completed in 2008, while the
public comment period on Colorado's proposed rule closed on July 16,
2011. Since much of the roadless area covered by the two state
petitions is included in the inventory that would revert to applicable
forest plan direction under the bill, we are concerned about how the
legislation would impact these respective state efforts.
We also note that there are multiple cases involving the 2001 Rule
that have come before the Federal courts, including the following
three: a California district court decision and Ninth Circuit appeal
ruling that reinstated the 2001 Rule within the Ninth Circuit and New
Mexico; a Wyoming district court decision, which we have appealed to
the Tenth Circuit, that enjoins the agency from applying the 2001 Rule
nationwide; and an Alaska district court decision that overturns a
regulatory exemption for the Tongass National Forest and reinstates the
2001 Rule in that location. The Department has issued interim direction
reserving to the Secretary the authority to approve or deny projects in
inventoried roadless areas on a case-by-case basis.
In closing, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1581 because
its prohibition on applying the 2001 Rule or any other system-wide
management direction for an entire category of lands would compromise
roadless area protections and hamper the Forest Service's ability to
carry out its responsibilities, ultimately undermining the agency's
ability to protect our Nation's forests while delivering benefits to
rural communities.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. You did it within the five minutes
as well and you actually were 15 seconds faster than Abbey, so
congratulations with that. With that, that is right, so
actually, never mind. With that we are open for questions
either for Mr. Abbey or for Mr. Sherman, or Congressman Pearce
can answer questions at this time on this particular panel. I
am going to ask the Ranking Member if he wishes to go first
with any questions for these three.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Just a couple. I think
the first one to all the panelists is a general question, that
there are currently about 10 million acres of public land that
the Departments of Agriculture and Interior have recommended
for wilderness designation. Some of these recommendations have
been waiting for decades here in Congress for action. If we
were to follow the logic of the legislation, which is still
questionable, if we were to follow the logic, then we would be
releasing land and the recommendations not to designate certain
lands as wilderness would be followed, but at the same time the
agencies have recommended those 10 million acres for
designation. And my question is if we were to follow that, if
we are really following what the agency did in terms of
recommendations wouldn't it be a good thing to do the
wilderness designations as part of the package? And it is not
in the legislation, but it is a question.
Mr. Abbey. Well, Congressman, let me take the first stab at
it and let me first respond to the Chairman's statement why
Harris took 15 seconds less than my statement, he doesn't have
the Southern accent so he can speak faster. But I will say that
the inventories and studies that form the Bureau of Land
Management's recommendations regarding wilderness study areas
are now 20 and 30 years old. It doesn't matter whether or not
we had recommended these areas as unsuitable or suitable. I do
think it is important that we go back and assess each of these
areas through localized bills or smaller bills so that we can
deal with these wilderness issues on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Sherman. I might just add that as we do our forest
plans throughout the country we will recommend certain
wilderness designation for portions of those lands if they are
suitable, but we bring that recommendation back to Congress and
it is up to Congress to make the decision as to whether it
wishes to include it in the wilderness system.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Abbey, and correct these
figures for me if I am wrong, but only 1 percent of BLM lands
in the Rocky Mountains is protected as wilderness with that
designation, and just 8 percent is currently WSA. Yet over 42
percent is currently under lease for oil and gas industry, and
so we heard a lot about a balanced approach, so my question is
that a balanced approach? Furthermore, the lands under lease,
only about 22, 23 percent are actually in production. So it
begs the question, does the industry really need more lands
when it is already sitting on a bunch of leased land with
approval permits to drill and is not drilling? So the balance
question which we have heard a lot about, and if you wouldn't
mind responding to that?
Mr. Abbey. Congressman, right now we have almost 40 million
acres under lease for oil and gas. Of those 40 million acres we
have 12.4 million acres that are actually in production. In
this Fiscal Year alone, 2011, we have leased, the Bureau of
Land Management has leased 650,000 acres for oil and gas. We
have also made another 6,400 acres available for lease under
coal and we have dedicated 40,000 acres that we have approved
for solar, wind, and geothermal projects. We are trying our
best to bring some balance back to multiple use. We believe
conservation is a component of multiple use management.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And right now 76 percent of our
National Forest and BLM lands are open to development. Under
this legislation we move to 88 percent of that open to
development. I would say that the balance question continues to
be on a scale that is not balanced to say the least. Mr.
Sherman, poll after poll has demonstrated that Americans are
overwhelmingly favor increased environmental protection of the
public lands, yet this bill would remove existing protections
that have been in place for decades for tens of millions of
acres of American lands. Doesn't this fly in the face of what
the American people have not only through polls but through
their advocacy for these special places, that what they want?
Mr. Sherman. When the 2001 Rule was promulgated, there was
an enormous amount of public input that went into the
development of the Rule. The Forest Service received over a
million and a half comments on the proposed rule, the
overwhelming majority were in favor of the 2001 Rule. The uses
that occur in roadless areas, I want to emphasize that there
are multiple uses that do occur in roadless areas. These areas
are not being locked up, these area areas that can be used for
a wide variety of recreational uses and other types of uses. So
I think there continues to be support for the Roadless Rule.
Within the Roadless Rule our forest plans, we manage these
areas, we listen to what the public says about how they want to
manage it under that umbrella, and I think it has worked
reasonably successfully in the past and hopefully we can
continue to do it in the future.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Yield back, thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Representative McClintock?
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chairman, may I reserve my time? I am
still getting up to speed on this.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Representative Tipton, do you have
questions?
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I think we
have to be very clear, I think, you know, if we were to poll
this room everyone is in favor of being able to protect our
public lands. But it seems to me we almost get it at cross
purposes. If this bill were to proceed and to pass, do all
restrictions, all management of this land go away? Director
Abbey?
Mr. Abbey. No, Congressman, they would not. They would be
managed consistent with the local land use plans.
Mr. Tipton. So there still are protections for the land?
Mr. Abbey. There could be some protections for some of
these lands. In some cases there would not be protection.
Mr. Tipton. Isn't the BLM's purpose to manage those lands
so you have the authority to make some of those determinations,
correct?
Mr. Abbey. We could, by amending land use plans to come up
with different management prescriptions for the appropriate
future management of each of these areas.
Mr. Tipton. OK, so we are clear that should this bill pass,
protections don't go away, it is still going to be managed by
the BLM, the Forest Service, and determinations will be made by
these agencies in terms of development?
Mr. Abbey. They would be managed for multiple use, and
those management prescriptions would be defined by land use
planning.
Mr. Tipton. Great. Mr. Sherman, we are both out of
Colorado, and we talk about the Roadless Rule and access. I
know in our state a lot of the area that has been labeled as
roadless has roads running all over it, and we are now seeing
those roads blocked. And I have a real concern and I think you
probably do as well in terms of some of the potential problems
that we have with forest fires with the beetle kill that has
gone on.
I have visited with some folks out of your office and they
said that they have a computer model in the event of fire, but
they are continuing to block some of these roads. Are you very
confident that the Forest Service is going to be able to
guarantee us that we will have access to be able to get in and
not only to protect the lives of the forest firefighters but
also surrounding areas, that that plan can guarantee us that we
will have the access necessary?
Mr. Sherman. Congressman, as I mentioned earlier, we have
some 370,000 miles of roads in our National Forests. And in
some of these roadless areas, between the 1979 inventory up to
2001, additional roads were built in roadless areas. Most of
these roads are available for use. And our biggest problem to
date has been that we lack sufficient funding to maintain the
roads that we have. But where we have roads in place and we
need to utilize those roads to deal with fire issues we are
able to do that.
Mr. Tipton. OK, great, and I guess concern that I have, and
this is one that expressed, and Mr. Sherman coming now the same
state and perhaps both of you would like to be able to address
this, I have a constituent out of Montrose, Colorado, fought in
the Korean War, was shot up and was somewhat ambulatory, but
now to be able to get back to his favorite fly fishing area he
needs to be able to get in on a small four-wheeler. That access
is now being limited. Have you expressed direct concern for
Americans with disabilities in terms of some of the access into
these wilderness areas?
Mr. Sherman. Well, the Forest Service has an active program
to help disabled people access our National Forest lands. In
certain roadless areas if there are trails and you have an off-
road vehicle you can use that to get into particular areas. The
Roadless Rule itself again is about building new roads. But
with existing roads and with existing trails these areas are
open to people coming in and using ORVs, using mechanized or
motorized equipment.
Mr. Tipton. You know, we might want to discuss that,
because we do have photos down in southwest Colorado of
boulders being placed in the road so there isn't access, those
are being blocked off. And I want to do that. Before I run out
of time I do have one other concern. In Colorado, we have the
most complex water law in the entire country, and what that
means is first in right, and access to be able to get up to
clean out head gates, to be able to get delivery of water, in
terms of some of the road closures that are going on and
limiting access to these areas, how are you going to be able to
assure that Colorado farmers and ranchers are going to be able
to access their water?
Mr. Sherman. We need to sit down with these individuals or
water districts and talk about the access that they need. Now
generally speaking again these water districts have access to
their storage facilities and their reservoirs and their
pipelines, that has generally been the case. If there are
instances where that isn't the case, then we need to sit down
and discuss how we can work with them.
Mr. Tipton. Well, I would agree with you that this
generally is kind of the fly in the ointment, if you will,
because that water is precious as you know in our state. I am
sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am out of time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Heinrich.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Abbey, I know my
colleague from southern New Mexico mentioned a couple of areas,
several of which are under the administration of the BLM. The
Gila Wilderness obviously is under Forest Service management,
but the Robledo Mountains unit and the Sierra de las Uvas
wilderness study areas were mentioned as we need to be able to
get into these areas to be able to control wildfire and to make
sure that we don't have some conflagration. Are you familiar
with the kind of forest types that are in those WSAs?
Mr. Sherman. I am. And there is nothing under wilderness
study status or even designated wilderness status that would
preclude us from moving forward and taking the actions that are
necessarily required to deal with emergency situations.
Mr. Heinrich. Because if my recollection is correct, having
spent quite a bit of time in Unit 21 doing some deer hunting in
that area, the forests that I remember in places like the
Sierra de las Uvas are primarily prickly pear, a little bit of
ocotillo, and quite a bit of yucca, there is an occasional
juniper tree, but I don't remember any of those areas being the
high risk mixed conifer kind of fire conditions that we have
seen----
Mr. Pearce. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Heinrich. I would absolutely yield to my colleague from
New Mexico.
Mr. Pearce. I am reading my testimony here and I don't see
where I mentioned anything at all about access and forest fires
in those particular areas. I mentioned that they are not
suitable for wilderness designation.
Mr. Heinrich. If I recall correctly, Congressman Pearce,
what you said is we need to be able, you described a situation
in the Gila and said we need to make sure we don't designate
these areas so that we can actively manage them to prevent
forest fire. And my point is if you look at the Sierra de las
Uvas and the Robledos we are painting a very broad brush with
this legislation that doesn't apply to each and every WSA.
And if you look at the issue of local control in particular
you would see that the City of Las Cruces, the City of Sunland
Park, the Dona Ana County Commission, the Town of Mesilla, and
dozens and dozens of organizations have suggested that some of
these areas including the Sierra de las Uvas and the Robledos
actually do have wilderness characteristics that deserve
designation. A couple of years ago we had a place in New Mexico
called Sabinoso. It was designated in the last omnibus lands
bill as a wilderness area. If we applied the standard in this
legislation to that area, Mr. Abbey, do you remember whether
the Sabinoso was actually recommended for wilderness by the
Bureau of Land Management?
Mr. Abbey. I don't, Congressman, but I will say this. That
of the 221 wilderness areas that have been designated by
Congress and administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 98
of those 221 areas that have been designated were, or had been,
recommended as nonsuitable by the Bureau of Land Management.
Mr. Heinrich. And the Sabinoso was one of those 98 because
it was described at the time as too remote and difficult to
access. Now I am not sure with how that doesn't square with
wilderness characteristics, but the local community decided
that it obviously did and it was designated. I want to switch
gears real quick because of something that Under Secretary
Sherman said and pose a question. You mentioned 373,000 miles
of roads on our National Forests, many of which are in severe
disrepair. Back in the 1990s the estimated backlog to bring
those up to speed and make sure that they were safe and
workable was about $10 billion. Do you have any idea what that
figure would be today and how many years it would take you to
actually deal with that backlog even if you were adequately
funded?
Mr. Sherman. I don't have any precise figures, but I do
know just to deal with passenger vehicle roads, to maintain and
repair roads that handle passenger vehicle automobiles, that
would be about a $3 billion expense at the present time. And as
for the other roads in the system I am sure we could get you a
figure. But our budget, I think our budget for roads is about
$250 million a year, so you can just do the math to begin to
see the magnitude of the maintenance problem that we have.
Mr. Heinrich. There also, Under Secretary Sherman, there
seems to be some confusion among some of the folks between the
differences in how we manage inventoried roadless areas,
wilderness study areas, and designated wilderness. Could you
real quickly go over the difference in how the Forest Service
manages those different designations in conjunction with
travel?
Mr. Sherman. There is a significant difference between
roadless areas and wilderness areas. Wilderness areas you
cannot have any sort of mechanized or motorized uses that
occur. Whereas in roadless areas mechanized and motorized uses
are recognized and can occur. Many activities occur in roadless
areas ranging from grazing, if there are preexisting before
2001 mineral leases those are recognized, as I mentioned the
1872 mining law allows activities to occur in roadless areas.
There can be situations where there is directional drilling for
oil and gas outside of roadless areas into roadless areas as
long as there aren't roads. Existing roads, existing roads in
the system can be used in roadless areas whereas they could not
be in wilderness areas. So there is a substantial difference
and I think there is a misconception that there is a so-called
lockup of our lands with roadless areas.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. You went over your 15 seconds you
earned earlier, I am sorry.
Mr. Abbey. OK, thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Noem, do you have questions for this group?
Mrs. Noem. Thank you. Mr. Abbey, I am from South Dakota
which has a significant amount of BLM land in it. I am curious,
how many millions of acres does BLM have authority over in this
country?
Mr. Abbey. 245 million acres.
Mrs. Noem. 245 million. And, Mr. Sherman, could you tell me
Forest Service land?
Mr. Sherman. 193 million acres.
Mrs. Noem. OK. All right, what is the potential, Mr. Abbey,
for economic development on these acres?
Mr. Abbey. Substantial.
Mrs. Noem. Such as?
Mr. Abbey. Oil and gas leasing, coal development, renewable
energy development, grazing, forest management. The list just
goes on and on.
Mrs. Noem. Is there a potential for businesses to be
established in these areas as well?
Mr. Abbey. There are quite a few permits that we issue
authorizing small businesses, including those that are related
to tourism activities.
Mrs. Noem. I am curious, a lot of the conversation today
has circulated around the fact that you don't have enough
resources to adequately maintain your land, yet we have
continued to see an explosion in growth of land that has
continued to come under your jurisdiction. So I am curious as
to how many acres would be enough, do you think, what would be
the optimal level of BLM lands in this country that you think
would fit under your authority?
Mr. Abbey. Well, Ms. Noem, I don't have that figure. You
know, again you have not heard me make any mention of our
budget or the lack thereof. We do our best to manage public
lands, those that are already under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Land Management and those that are deserving of
public ownership, to the best of our abilities with whatever
means that Congress appropriates.
Mrs. Noem. Mr. Sherman, would you answer that question as
well for me, as far as what do you think would be the optimal
number of acres in this country that you think, I know that
your resources you have referred to a couple of times have been
limited and the ability to maintain those lands has been
difficult at times, so I am curious to see how many more acres
you believe that you would be able to manage?
Mr. Sherman. I don't think we are actively trying to expand
the size of the U.S. Forest Service. I mean there are certain
situations where we have inholdings which are problematic,
which we try to either acquire or exchange lands to. But the
Forest Service's land base has remained relatively steady over
the past years.
Mrs. Noem. Mr. Abbey, your agency recommends that nearly
half of its wilderness study areas is not suitable for
wilderness designation yet you want to keep control of these
lands. What do you intend to do with them?
Mr. Abbey. Well, that is up to the Congress. You know,
these wilderness study areas will be managed to prevent
impairment activities up until the time Congress makes a
determination whether or not to designate them as wilderness or
to release them for other purposes.
Mrs. Noem. I have heard from many different people in our
state that are concerned about the impact of not having
motorized recreation occur on these lands, which is a much
needed economic development in a lot of the rural areas of our
state, and won't the wildlands order simply shut out a lot of
the motorized recreation in many of the BLM lands and
negatively impact the economic viability of some of these rural
areas where the options are limited?
Mr. Abbey. Well, we are not pursuing any kind of wildland
initiative at this time due to the rider that has been placed
by the Congress. I will say this, Congresswoman, is that we
actually manage very little land in South Dakota as far as
surface acres. We do manage an extensive amount of mineral
estate in South Dakota. Nationwide the Bureau of Land
Management manages 526,000 miles of motorized routes on BLM-
managed lands.
There are 68.9 million acres of BLM-managed lands that are
open to unlimited OHV use. You know, in Utah alone in the state
where the Chairman is from, we manage 12 sites specifically for
OHV recreation and have identified over 200,000 acres that have
been dedicated to OHV activities or play areas. We do that in
most of the BLM states that we have holdings.
Mrs. Noem. Well, South Dakota has about 8.7 million acres
of BLM-designated wilderness areas in our state, so it is a
significant amount of acres. So this designation certainly is
extremely important to our state, and as far as when we are
looking at the impact of Federal lands on a rural state like
South Dakota--where there are few options--we are certain you
appreciate the authority for some local decision-making to have
some control and input into the process.
Mr. Abbey. Yes, and I appreciate that and, you know, you
may have that many acres of wilderness in your state but they
are not managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
Mrs. Noem. We have, according to this, about 17 percent of
the Federal land, of our land is Federal land, BLM has about
8.7 million acres according to what I have on my records, and
then we have about 13 million that is currently looking at
wilderness study areas as well.
Mr. Abbey. Let us correct that record for you, and I will
be happy to do so after this hearing.
Mrs. Noem. Sure, thank you, I appreciate it. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Love those riders, don't we? Mr.
Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This particular
piece of legislation simply removes a large area of America
from the Wilderness Study Act, and yet this Committee over the
last couple of years has managed to look at these areas in a
case-by-case way based upon studies that have been done
locally. I am looking at the Omnibus Lands Act, wilderness,
that passed this Committee in the 111th Congress. Some areas
were wilderness study areas that did, that were designated as
not suitable for wilderness that upon further study actually
became wilderness areas, and some wilderness areas became open.
That kind of case-by-case analysis is really what we ought
to be doing rather than a blanket approach which is what this
particular bill is. I would like each of the witnesses to
describe one such case that they may be familiar with, for
example Mr. McKeon's bill last year that became law in the
111th Congress in the Mono County area. Are familiar with that,
Mr. Abbey?
Mr. Abbey. Yes.
Mr. Garamendi. Could you just briefly describe the process
and what actually happened?
Mr. Abbey. Well, again it is a process that worked. Again,
at the local level, the public and the various stakeholders
came together, they talked about the pros and cons of
designating certain acreage as wilderness and releasing other
acreage from wilderness consideration. Working through the
local Congressman and through legislation the Congress, passed
an Act that did designate some areas and release others. We see
that often.
As frustrating as it is for some of us in managing some of
these lands, we would like to see a more timely action on the
part of Congress to resolve the wilderness issue once and for
all, I think overall the Congress has acted very responsibly in
dealing with the wilderness issue and taking the time necessary
to try to reach a consensus at the local levels to make sure
that those areas that are worthy of wilderness designations are
the ones that are actually designated.
And then those public lands that are managed under
currently wilderness study area status that are not worthy of
designation could be released for other purposes. We see that
example over and over again. Again, we have testified in
opposition or raised concerns about the bills that propose
sweeping designations. A couple of examples, if I may,
Congressman, is the Colorado Wilderness Act that we testified
in opposition to in March of 2010, the American Red Rocks
Wilderness Act that we testified in opposition to in October of
'09, and then the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act
that we testified in opposition to in May of '09.
Again, those bills were very encompassing and they dealt
with designating everything that was before the Congress at
that point in time as wilderness and had very little acreage
being considered for release. We need a balanced approach when
we discuss which areas should be designated and which ones
should be released.
Mr. Garamendi. So it really is a case-by-case or region or
area-by-area analysis. This particular bill with regard to the
wilderness study area simply wipes out and does not take into
account the individual attributes of an area. Mr. Sherman, if
you could speak to the roadless issues and the way in which
that has worked over the last couple of years, rather than a
blanket approach a case-by-case approach?
Mr. Sherman. Yes. As I think I said earlier, we have about
58 million acres of roadless in this country. These lands,
while they are protected from new roads generally, although
there are exceptions from time to time that are allowed under
the Rule, each of these areas is governed by a forest plan, and
when these forest plans are updated we look at areas that might
be suitable for wilderness designation and where they are we
propose this to the Congress. But if it isn't accepted by the
Congress, clearly we continue to manage these lands for
multiple uses in the future. But we do this on a case-by-case
basis, and we think a broad sweep where all lands, all roadless
lands would be potentially subject to roaded areas would be
unwise.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. It seems to me that
this bill is a rather easy way for those of us, Members of
Congress, to avoid our district responsibilities, to avoid the
responsibility that we have to work with our constituents in
our district to resolve these questions of whether an area
should be wilderness, whether it should be roadless, and that
it is our responsibility to bring before this Congress specific
pieces of legislation, and that a blanket approach such as we
are seeing here is an abdication of our personal responsibility
to our constituents and to our district. And I think for that
reason we ought to put this bill aside and get on with doing
our homework. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Kildee is the last member of our
Committee who is here. Do you have some questions, Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Just a couple, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
had another hearing this morning. Several years ago when I
first arrived here in Congress I got passed the Michigan
Wilderness Act, which has done wonders for Michigan, 92,000
acres of land, and the Michigan Scenic Rivers Act, 1,000 miles
of rivers in Michigan. And those will need protecting no matter
what happens with this legislation. But I would like to address
a question to Mr. Abbey.
My home State of Michigan is blessed with great natural
beauty. It is surrounded by the Great Lakes, the rivers that
run into those Great Lakes, refurbishing them regularly with
the largest body of freshwater in the world, rivaled only by
Lake Baikal in Russia, but so it is blessed with that natural
beauty. If H.R. 1581 is implemented, how do you see it
affecting the outdoor recreation economy in Michigan and
throughout the country?
Mr. Abbey. Well, Congressman, the Bureau of Land Management
does not manage any wilderness study areas in Michigan. I will
say this, that Michigan is a beautiful state and sometimes I
wish that we would have some lands in Michigan that we manage,
but we do not today. But directly to your point, this
legislation could have detrimental impacts to the local
economies of some of the areas where wilderness study areas
would be released.
You know, what gets lost in some of the discussion and some
of the debates is the amount of money that conservation and the
conservation of these public lands bring to the local
communities. We talked about tourism related economies, we
talked about, you know, the permits that we issue for
outfitters and guides, we talk about the special experience
that our recreationists have when they go and visit a roadless
area. These are very special places for those of us who live in
this great nation, and I think that we need to be very, very
responsible as we go forward in making some long term decisions
on how they should be managed.
Mr. Kildee. Good, I appreciate that, and I am comforted by
the fact that there are people out there yet who are really so
aware of some things that we should leave just as they came
from the hand of God, and that is what I tried to do when I
came down here. And there are just some marvelous areas and it
would be just, as a matter of fact I introduced the bill to
purchase Grand Island, it is about the size of Manhattan
Island. A company was going to clear cut about 25 years ago the
whole island.
And I arranged, when Sid Yates was on the Appropriations
Committee Chairman, God bless Sid Yates, Chicago, and we
finally had one of the conservation groups get an option to buy
and Sid Yates bought that for the people of the United States.
And you go up there and you see what it was like a thousand
years ago, and it is marvelous. And we should know, I am not
against, my dad was a lumberjack and I am for lumbering, but we
should know what we should be able to cut and harvest and what
we should leave in its natural state, and use that wisdom to
make that distinction. So I am glad we have done that to some
areas in Michigan, I would like to see some more areas I have
in mind. Thank you very much for what you do.
Mr. Abbey. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. Let me ask a couple
questions of my own if I might. I have to tell you both, I have
already scratched the surface of the bill and all I found was
page 2. So maybe you all can help me, you all can help me, Mr.
Abbey, or so. There have been a few that have said that, you
know, as soon as this bill was passed that development would be
of land, significant number of lands would be given to oil and
gas and logging and new roads and everything. Mr. Abbey,
wouldn't any new lands released in this bill be under the
current or revised management lands managed with the same kind
of public input?
Mr. Abbey. Again, the future management of these areas if
they were to be released would be subject to the provisions of
the local land use plans.
Mr. Bishop. So the number of acres that would actually be
immediately thrust open is actually zero. Mr. Sherman, I think
the same thing I would like to ask you. If this bill were
passed under those processes and authorities, how many acres
would immediately be opened up to timber, mining, oil, and gas
drilling?
Mr. Sherman. Initially these lands would be continue to be
managed under the current land management plans.
Mr. Bishop. OK, so the number once again is zero. Mr.
Abbey, do you have any idea how much of your budget you spend
on litigation, settlements, attorney's fees?
Mr. Abbey. I do not.
Mr. Bishop. Nor do I. Someday maybe you can find that out
for me. Since we have not got the Solicitor's opinion that was
promised as far as the wildlands issues, are you currently
planning or studying or viewing any other potential national
monuments?
Mr. Abbey. I am not, no.
Mr. Bishop. Or under wildlands as well?
Mr. Abbey. No.
Mr. Bishop. Or the Department?
Mr. Abbey. I am not aware of any action that is being taken
by the Bureau of Land Management or the Department of the
Interior that is contrary to the rider that is currently in
place or pursuing any kind of national monument designation.
Mr. Bishop. Appreciate that, I would still also appreciate
the Solicitor's opinion at some particular time. You mentioned
that there have been 98 occasions when Congress has made
wilderness areas that were not necessarily designated for
wilderness.
Mr. Abbey. Or deemed suitable.
Mr. Bishop. I understand that because I did it, I
designated wilderness areas. They weren't, it was not
wilderness characteristics, there was another reason. But that
as I understand it is indeed the role that Congress has, to
designate it or not to designate it. And as my ecclesiastical
leader will always tell me, just because somebody sins does not
give me justification to sin as well. You testified though just
a moment ago that you all came and testified against the Red
Rock Wilderness Bill, yet at the same time that bill has been
used to justify decisions that have been made by your
Department and those underneath your Department simply because
that bill is out there and is floating.
So what I am going to suggest here is there is a reason
that perhaps Congress should get involved in these kinds of
decision making whether it fits the limitations or not. If
indeed decisions were thrown on a process in a blanket reform,
sometimes a blanket approach is needed to roll that back before
you can actually deal with the situations one-on-one so we are
not always coming back here with the ``oops let us do this,'' a
do-over approach, which seems to be constantly used on lands,
once decisions are made then we come up with another do-over. I
was going to yield. Obviously there is no one here to yield so
I am going to yield back to myself. And I thank you for your
presence being here. We have two other potential questioners,
the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Markey, am I
assuming that you have questions of these gentlemen? You are
recognized.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And thank
you both for being here. Mr. Sherman, how many acres does the
Forest Service manage and how many of those acres are
wilderness?
Mr. Sherman. The Forest Service manages approximately 193
million acres. I think the wilderness lands constitute
somewhere between 30 to 35 million acres.
Mr. Markey. And how many are inventoried roadless?
Mr. Sherman. 58 million acres are inventoried roadless.
Mr. Markey. You mentioned that roadless areas serve a
number of important goals including biodiversity, recreation,
watershed protection. Can you expand on how a lack of roads
serves those other goals as well?
Mr. Sherman. Yes. I had mentioned in my opening statement,
from the standpoint of protecting drinking water, roadless
areas play a very important role in purifying and cleaning
water which is used by hundreds of municipalities. I mentioned
that some 66 million people in the United States get their
drinking water from the National Forests. Roadless areas
protect a great number of endangered species or candidate
species or species of conservation concern that we want to keep
off the endangered species list.
And roadless areas are extremely important in allowing
quality outdoor experiences and recreation with hunters,
fishermen, sportsmen, hikers, bikers, campers. So we think that
those values are important and we can also at the same time
accommodate certain other multiple uses without the building of
new roads into these areas.
Mr. Markey. How many miles of road are there in the
National Forest System?
Mr. Sherman. We have over 370,000 miles of roads.
Mr. Markey. How many more miles are user created roads?
Mr. Sherman. There are many additional user created roads
that are unauthorized.
Mr. Markey. What would you estimate that to be?
Mr. Sherman. I would have to get back to you with an
estimate.
Mr. Markey. Can you give me a ballpark?
Mr. Sherman. It would be difficult for me to do that, but I
will get back to you with an estimate.
Mr. Markey. Wouldn't even have to be Fenway Park, it could
be Yellowstone Park, just a broad estimate?
Mr. Sherman. I really can't give you an estimate, I am
sorry.
Mr. Markey. Well, is it your view that those seeking
motorized recreational activities on the National Forest areas
have other places that they can go?
Mr. Sherman. There is no question that we have, I mean we
have some 200,000 miles of roads that are open to ORV use in
our National Forest System. Our problem as I had mentioned
earlier is that we have difficulty maintaining the roads that
we have.
Mr. Markey. Is hunting allowed in roadless areas?
Mr. Sherman. Yes.
Mr. Markey. It is. In your testimony you mentioned that
Idaho and Colorado have submitted state roadless plans. How
would this bill impact those plans?
Mr. Sherman. I am concerned that this bill might complicate
or even negate those plans. I mean we would have to look into
this further, but the inventoried lands that are contained in
both state petitions obviously overlap with much of the
inventoried 2001 roads, and the extent to which those roads
would be turned back to management under local forest plans
could potentially complicate both of those state petitions.
Mr. Markey. OK, is hunting allowed in wilderness areas?
Mr. Sherman. Yes.
Mr. Markey. It is. Does the Wilderness Act provide the kind
of flexibility you need to manage wilderness areas?
Mr. Sherman. Well, it is a different form of management.
Wilderness areas are less managed than roadless areas, but to a
certain extent there is management, it is just not through
mechanized or motorized uses.
Mr. Markey. So for questions of your management of fire or
public health and safety issues, do you have the capacity to be
able to manage those issues in the wilderness areas today?
Mr. Sherman. Yes, we are able to suppress fires in
wilderness areas. We typically do it through areal suppression
when we believe it is necessary.
Mr. Markey. In your testimony you provided several examples
of wilderness bills that were passed by Congress that included
areas not recommended for designation by the agency. Why was
that the right outcome in those cases?
Mr. Sherman. Are you talking about the Forest Service now
or are you talking about BLM?
Mr. Markey. BLM. I am sorry, for Mr. Abbey, I am sorry.
Mr. Abbey. OK, thanks. Well, again I think it is a
recognition on the part of the Congress that the inventories
and studies that were used to form our initial recommendations
that were included as part of our wilderness study reports were
somewhat outdated and they needed a fresher look. And through
the wisdom of this Congress and other Congress and with the
input of public land stakeholders, legislation was introduced
that addressed some of those areas and designated some as
wilderness and released others for other uses.
Mr. Markey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Pearce, do you have any
questions of yourself or these witnesses on the condition that
you give me the first minute?
Mr. Pearce. No, thank you, sir, I will just pass if that is
the case. I will give you the first minute, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Pearce. I thought you were going to answer a question I
was asking myself, that is the reason I was holding out.
Mr. Bishop. Let me take the first minute if I could.
Mr. Pearce. OK.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Sherman, and I am only going to do this
because you just said this again. In your testimony you
maintained that roadless areas and maintaining roadless areas
in relatively undisturbed conditions save downstream
communities millions of dollars in water filtration cost. In
Denver water they had to spend millions of dollars to remove
debris that had infiltrated their reservoirs because of the
2002 Hayman fire that burned through roadless areas in which
post-fire restoration was limited. You have 28 seconds to tell
me how that actually is consistent with saving communities
money and supplying clean drinking water.
Mr. Sherman. Well, the City and County of Denver has
focused on how to protect its watershed both because of fires
near Denver and back country watersheds, the city has decided
it must protect these watersheds. The watersheds in roadless
areas are in certain ways better protected because there aren't
roads going through them, and roads from time to time are a
complication in terms of sedimentation into streams, impacts to
water quality. So that is one of the vehicles by which----
Mr. Bishop. All right, I was serious, I only got that 28
seconds to do it and it didn't happen. Mr. Pearce, do you want
the rest of the 3:42 now?
Mr. Pearce. Sure. Following up on the idea of water, sir,
we had a hydrol--[phonetic] just recently come into Cloudcroft,
New Mexico, in the Forest Service and said if we just logged in
1,000 acres we could provide 100-year supply of water to a
community that is out. The truth is that the trees crowd out
the grass, the grass is what slows the water from rushing off
the hills and the grass allows the water to permeate into the
aquifer.
So trees actually crowd the grass out, the water runs off,
it is what carries the silt down into the streams, contaminates
them. Nature did not have the number of trees in the forest
that you are allowing and it is killing the watersheds, the
watersheds in the West are dying. Now you mentioned that the
mechanized access is allowed, that vehicles can go into
roadless areas. Is that sort of your testimony?
Mr. Sherman. Yes, vehicles can use existing roads.
Mr. Pearce. OK, so I am going to use your statements here
and I am going to advertise them publicly in Silver City, New
Mexico, and with respect to the 95 percent of the Gila that was
recently put off limits by the new Roadless Rule and you don't
think that would be a conflict in the minds of the Forest
Service there?
Mr. Sherman. Well, I am not familiar with this specific
instance.
Mr. Pearce. And would it be a problem anywhere that I can
go and use your testimony and say, no matter what these local
foresters say that you can't drive your vehicle out here, the
man in Washington says it is OK?
Mr. Sherman. Well, again I think it depends on the site
specific nature of the issue, but----
Mr. Pearce. I suspect it does. If I could go ahead and
reclaim my time, you said it is possible to hunt, it is
possible to hunt in roadless areas. How far can you drive your
vehicle off to pick up an animal that you have shot, say a
1,500 pound elk in the Gila, how far off of the roadless area
can you get, how far off of the established roads?
Mr. Sherman. Well, you can't go off the established roads.
Mr. Pearce. Right, so basically you can hunt as long as you
can find a deer or an antelope or an elk that will walk into
the road and you can shoot it there, otherwise you have to
backpack the thing out. Mr. Abbey, you said that oil and gas is
possible in WSAs?
Mr. Abbey. I did not.
Mr. Pearce. You did not say that?
Mr. Abbey. No. I said that it would be possible if the
areas were released from WSA status.
Mr. Pearce. OK, so that is, the wilderness study areas do
significantly impact the area like New Mexico to make a living.
Yes, I will just leave that dangling. How much Forest land and
how much BLM land is east of the Mississippi?
Mr. Abbey. There are a couple of thousand acres managed by
the Bureau of Land Management as far as surface acres.
Mr. Pearce. OK. Mr. Sherman, a couple of thousand acres
compared to millions?
Mr. Sherman. There are millions of acres of Forest Service.
Mr. Pearce. Millions.
Mr. Sherman. Yes, under the Weeks Act.
Mr. Pearce. OK. The reduction in litigation you mentioned,
who brings most of the litigation? What groups, are they trying
to get more access or less access into the forest?
Mr. Sherman. There are a variety of litigants.
Mr. Pearce. The majority, if you are going to go to 51
percent or more, who would bring most of the lawsuits, more
access or less access are they seeking that?
Mr. Sherman. I can get back to you with a figure, I don't
have it off the top of my head.
Mr. Pearce. I suspect since they are all, they are repaid
by EGA [phonetic] I suspect that those would be groups that
would not be seeking more access to public lands. Finally, Mr.
Abbey, do you manage the Camino Real? It is a small museum in
New Mexico. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to, just let
us take it that you probably do. There might be a museum
sitting out there that recognizes Camino Real which was back in
the 1600s, 1500s. Now also in New Mexico we are now assigning
water rights based on historical use by Native Americans back
1,000 years ago based on aerial maps showing the lines where
crops may have been grown.
And you tell me that we are not going to see that the 30-
year-old data is somehow insignificant? You are the one that
managed the dadgum museum recognizing from the 1400s, and it
does, you can still see the effects of that trail. And so when
I see the language in the Act that you can't see the signs of
man's interference, I don't think 30 years is going to really
make that big a deal when you are talking about, well, we have
to have new data that means Congress needs to appropriate more
money and somehow you are going to come up with something
different when you are managing something from the 1400s, just
doesn't make sense. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to
locate a letter, which I finally did, from a county supervisor
in Butte County, California. It speaks to the increasingly
draconian restrictions that the Forest Service has been placing
on existing roads but it speaks very much to the subject that
this bill addresses, and I would like to see what would be your
response to the people that you are hurting with these
restrictive policies.
He says the restriction applies to such activities as
collecting fire wood, retrieving game, loading or unloading
horses or other livestock, and camping. Besides being
inconvenient in many cases, when children and animals are
involved it clearly can be a safety concern. The National
Forests are part of the local fabric, the roads within the
National Forests are used by thousands of residents and
visitors for transportation and recreation.
These activities generate revenue for our rural communities
which are critical for their survival. How do you respond to
the communities that once were thriving because of the ranching
activities, the mining activities, the timber activities on
these public lands, recreational activities like hunting,
horseback riding, and camping, that you are systematically now
removing from the public lands?
Mr. Sherman. Congressman, I don't believe the Forest
Service is systematically removing roads from the system. I did
explain earlier that we do have a challenge maintaining these
roads in a condition that will work for the public. That is
one----
Mr. McClintock. You are closing them, you are closing
public access to these roads. If you want to take a look at
Plumas, for example, your testimony that you are not
systematically closing these roads is simply false.
Mr. Sherman. Well, I will get back to you with the
specifics of that, but I will tell you that we need to maintain
these roads, and when we can't maintain these roads in certain
cases we may be forced to close them. There may be other issues
that come up that we would have to look into the specifics of,
but as a general matter we provide roads into our National
Forests that provide recreation for 110 million visitors.
Mr. McClintock. Roads on the public lands are absolutely
essential for the public to be able to use those public lands,
and it seems to be the policy of this Administration to remove
the public from the public's lands.
Mr. Sherman. I don't believe that is a fair
characterization, but----
Mr. McClintock. I will tell you the folks in my region who
are flooding my office with complaints believe that it is.
Mr. Sherman. Well, I would be happy to sit down with you, I
would like to understand the specifics of the situation that
you are addressing and maybe we can address it.
Mr. McClintock. Do we have, Ms. Noem asked the question
earlier regarding the economic opportunities that are there to
revive a lot of these communities that once thrived and are now
withering because of the restrictions, do we have an actual
number attached to that?
Mr. Sherman. To what, I am sorry?
Mr. McClintock. To the economic activities being stifled by
the increasing restrictions on the public lands?
Mr. Sherman. Well, we certainly have figures about the
economic activities that have benefitted from our uses of
public land. I am not sure I have figures that address the
issue the way you just phrased it.
Mr. McClintock. And I would like to emphasize to both of
you that, yes, there is a crucial responsibility to preserve
the public lands for future generations, but that does not mean
denying the public lands to the current generation, and
unfortunately that appears to be the policy and I am glad to
see legislation beginning to redress that issue. And with that,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield my final minute to Mr.
Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Congressman. Director Abbey, I just
wanted to do a little bit of a follow up. I had a query come
from the Colorado State Board of Education. There has been, as
you are probably aware, trading of state lands for Federal
lands, but Colorado retained the right to those mineral rights.
Under these areas that the BLM has determined now not suitable
for designation as WSAs, will the State of Colorado? This is
important because it is for children; it is for the Secure
Rural Schools funding that is going through.
Mr. Abbey. Yes.
Mr. Tipton. Is Colorado going to be able to have its right
to access to those resources so that we can support education?
Mr. Abbey. We will grant access to those inholdings as
appropriate. And we are working very closely with the State of
Colorado on that very issue.
Mr. Tipton. And what is appropriate if we have this
designation?
Mr. Abbey. What kind of designation?
Mr. Tipton. If there is a WSA designation currently on some
lands that have been traded?
Mr. Abbey. Again, it would be the least impacting access to
that inholding. What we would do is look at the needs of the
state relative to how they want to manage that inholding, we
would try to work with them to mitigate the impacts that might
be caused to the wilderness study area if such development
occurred, including moving forward with some exchanges as you
indicated as a tool. In lieu of an exchange or if the State of
Colorado did not want to exchange out their inholding then we
would work with them on an appropriate access route.
Mr. Tipton. So the state will have access to those
resources and be able to use it for the secure rural schools?
Mr. Abbey. That would be our goal.
Mr. Tipton. Great, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. All right, thank you. Mr. Abbey and Mr.
Sherman, we appreciate you spending two hours with us.
Mr. Abbey. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. More important I spent two hours with you here
at the same time. We have two other panels to join us. I am
going to flip the panels from what we have originally said. The
second panel that I would like to invite up is the panel that
is consisting of our elected officials and former elected
officials, so we would like to invite The Honorable Bruce
Babbitt, Former Governor of Arizona also Former Secretary of
the Interior, to be with us.
The Honorable Mike Noel, State Representative from Utah,
Kane County. The Honorable Kent Connelly is the Chairman of the
Board for Lincoln County Commission in Lincoln County, Wyoming,
he is also Chairman of the Coalition Local Governments in
Wyoming which include Lincoln, Uinta, Sublette, and Sweetwater
Counties in Wyoming. And because we are being pressed for time
here I am going to ask Mr. Dan Kleen who is the Elected
President of the Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council to be
here so we can balance out the remaining panels. We also have
one other panel after this as well to hear.
So we appreciate you all being here with us. Again, the
same situation I think exists as we mentioned earlier. The
lights in front of you, green is when your time will begin,
yellow means you have a minute, red allegedly means that the
time is over and we need to move on. Your written testimony
will appear as written. We would ask you simply to add oral
supplements to that testimony at the same time. And once again
I think we are all prepared now, maybe.
And we do appreciate very much your presence here with us
as well as what you do in your communities. And your name tags
are OK. What you have OCD, Casey, what is this? But the name
tags look very nice, thank you. We will begin if we could with
Mr. Babbitt then go to Representative Noel who I watch to
mention is not a State Senator, you are on the right side in
the Utah Legislature as well, the Statehouse, then Commissioner
Connelly, then Mr. Kleen in that order if we could. And we
welcome your oral testimony. Mr. Babbitt?
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT,
FORMER SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will
try to be even more brief than the five minutes. Let me start
by acknowledging that I have, in fact, characterized this bill
as extreme, and I would like very briefly to suggest why that
is. Let me start with the BLM wilderness study area issue. I
have a long history working this issue. It began in 1980 when I
was approached by Senator Goldwater and Congressman Udall, who
during my tenure as Governor said, let us get together as
Arizonans and see if we can resolve the wilderness study issues
in our state.
It began a protracted and ultimately very productive
experience in which all the way across the spectrum, from
Senator Goldwater, the Arizona Mining Association, to
Congressman Udall, we put together a series of wilderness
bills, brought them to this Congress, had them enacted both in
terms of designating wilderness and releasing those areas which
were not designated. What I learned from that process and have
had occasion to work with in the intervening 30 years is that
the Wilderness Act and its accompanying relationship to FLPMA
really is an extraordinary legislative achievement.
What the Wilderness Act does with the FLPMA backup is
create an architecture of state, Federal, local participation
in which wilderness decisions are driven by the state
congressional delegations, in which the local participation is,
in fact, required to provide the impetus for the delegations to
come back and resolve these wilderness issues on a state-by-
state basis, always with the final decision reserved to the
U.S. Congress.
Now the great enduring mystery to me is why it is there is
now a proposal to change that manifestly successful process and
switch over to a preemptive decision coming from on high which
says to Governors, congressional delegations, mining
associations, you all can abandon the search for site specific
consensus which will involve a detailed discussion of every
acre under consideration to decide whether or not it should be
wilderness or whether or not it should be released back into
multiple use. And I think that is, in fact, an extreme measure.
Just a word about the Roadless Rule. I participated
extensively in the formulation of this Rule. In some measure
because of my own experience growing up in a western logging
town where I saw the devastation caused by clear cutting of a
vast ponderosa forest in northern Arizona, which had
deleterious effects on hunting, fishing, water quality, and
recreational opportunities, and the Roadless Rule, as Harris
Sherman described it, is to me an attempt to modify that and to
recenter these roadless issues to prevent that kind of
devastation.
I would like to finish with respect to the fire issue. I am
a certified firefighter, I have spent months out on fire lines,
and I can tell you that this idea that building roads and
logging reduces fire risk is mistaken. It is quite the
opposite. The proliferation of roads, the cutting of old growth
timber, the scattering of slash on the floor of the forest, the
removal of the fire-resistant large trees, and the increased
incidence of human-caused fires as a result of a casual driver
through traffic are, in fact, increasing the fire risks in
forests. And it is for all of these reasons that I conclude
right where I started. This is an extreme measure, it is
unnecessary, and yes it is a giveaway to the commercial logging
and other interests. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Babbitt follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Former Secretary of the
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1581
I would like to begin by thanking the Committee for the opportunity
to appear before you today to testify on H.R. 1581. It is more than ten
years since I left office as Secretary of the Interior, and this is the
first time that I have accepted an invitation to testify on pending
legislation.
I have accepted your invitation today because this bill, H.R. 1581,
is not just another run-of-the-mill proposal. H.R. 1581 is the most
radical, overreaching attempt to dismantle the architecture of our
public land laws that has been proposed in my lifetime. This bill must
not gather momentum in the legislative backwaters of yet another
routine committee hearing. It needs to be brought out into the sunlight
of extended public discussion so that the American people can see and
clearly understand the threat it poses to our public land heritage.
Among other provisions, H.R. 1581 would eliminate existing
protections for more than 55 million acres of land within our National
Forests. Further, this legislation would eliminate existing protection,
provided under the Federal Land Management Act and the Wilderness Act,
for nearly 7 million acres of public land managed by the Bureau of Land
Management.
These lands, which together equal an area nearly the size of the
entire state of Michigan would be released from protection by H.R.
1581. Were this legislation to become law, these lands would
immediately lose their existing protection, to become available for
industrial timber cutting and oil and gas exploitation. Simply put,
this legislation trades protection of wildlife habitat, clean water,
and clean air for corporate profits. It is nothing more than a giveaway
of our great outdoors.
BLM-managed Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs)
The Wilderness Act is perhaps the single greatest achievement in
America's long and illustrious history of public lands management. The
Wilderness Act, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a
vote of 373 to 1, set in motion a unique process that charged federal
land management agencies with assessing public lands to identify which
lands should be preserved in perpetuity as federally protected
Wilderness. The Wilderness Act defines Wilderness as:
``in contrast with those areas where man and his own works
dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where
the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man,
where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.
An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an
area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and
influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is
protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and
which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the
forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially
unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a
primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five
thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable
its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also
contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific,
educational, scenic, or historical value.''
The Wilderness Act, as passed by Congress and signed into law by
President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, did not originally apply to the
public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In
1976 Congress rectified this oversight with passage of FLPMA which
directed the BLM to review its land holdings in accordance with the
Wilderness Act. Areas identified as possessing the qualities outlined
in the Wilderness Act were to be identified and managed as Wilderness
Study Areas (WSAs) by the BLM until such time as Congress decides how
these lands should be managed long term.
The enduring success of the Wilderness Act, its public acceptance,
and the fact that it has served our country well for nearly a half
century is, in my judgment, due in no small part to the manner in which
it incorporates the best aspects of our Federal-state system of
government.
The Wilderness Act (and FLPMA) delegated to the land management
agencies the task of defining and mapping areas eligible for wilderness
consideration. The Act, however, reserves to Congress the ultimate
authority to designate those areas identified by the agency as
wilderness or to release eligible lands from further consideration.
Wilderness bills generally originate with the Congressional delegation
from the state in which the lands are located. This process assures
that all stakeholders with an interest in the enormous variety of lands
and resources on our public lands, have a voice in how these lands are
managed.
Since enactment of the Wilderness Act some 155 wilderness bills,
many of them designating multiple wilderness areas, have been approved
by Congress. Some of these bills released areas from further study,
while others did not. Some bills passed without controversy; others
were enacted only after prolonged debate.
While this process can be slow and cumbersome, it has produced a
resource of permanently protected wilderness that is nothing short of a
national treasure.
Some days ago, I looked over a list of the remaining Wilderness
Study Areas, and I noticed that my State of Arizona has largely
completed the process of designating and releasing Wilderness Study
Areas. Serious discussions about the future of Arizona's BLM lands
began some thirty years ago, during my tenure as Governor. Two members
of Congress, Senator Barry Goldwater and Representative Morris Udall
led the process. Extensive consultations among environmental groups,
sportsmen groups, as well as resource users (led by the Arizona mining
industry), extended for several years, ultimately resulting in several
state-wide wilderness bills which finally determined the status of most
wilderness study areas.
It is this process, sanctioned by more than forty years of success,
that H.R. 1581 proposes to destroy. Instead of locally-driven processes
that result in well-supported decisions, this legislation imposes a
preemptive federal decision, imposed on all states and areas, without
participation of local, state, and national stakeholders.
National Forest Roadless Areas
In addition to destroying existing protections for BLM-managed
Wilderness Study Areas, H.R. 1581 also proposes to hand over more than
55 million acres of our most pristine National Forest areas for
industrial logging and oil and gas exploitation. H.R. 1581 would
facilitate this giveaway of our great outdoors by means of a blanket
repeal of the forest protection policy established by the Clinton
Administration.
As a member of that administration, I can tell you that the reason
the National Forest Roadless Rule was proposed by the Clinton
Administration is both simple and compelling. Over the last century,
the timber industry has taken more than its share from our national
forests. More than half of the land managed by the Forest Service has
already been handed over to timber interests.
Growing up in one of the largest of western logging communities, I
personally witnessed this process over my lifetime as most of the great
old growth ponderosa forests of the Coconino Plateau were successively
destroyed by road building and clear cutting. I watched as watersheds
were decimated, as wildlife shrank to the margins, and the great yellow
belly pine forests were reduced to fragments on the sides of
inaccessible canyons and mountainsides.
Today, only about 20 percent of our National Forests are included
within established wilderness areas. What little remains of our old
growth forests outside of these wilderness areas are the areas now
demarcated as Roadless Areas, which together amount to only about 58
million acres (30% of the entire base of our National Forest System).
The question posed by H.R. 1581 is simply this: Do the American
people want to allow these last remaining areas to be delivered over to
the industrial timber and oil and gas industries, or should we take
this last chance to protect what is left?
In 2000 the Clinton Administration put forth the proposed rule on
the management of our roadless national forest lands for consideration
by the American people. The result was the most extensive and
transparent rule making process in history. More than 23,000 people
attended over 400 hearings, and the Forest Service received well over 1
million comments. Many governors provided public support of the
initiative as well. On the basis of this public process, the policy
that provides protection for the Forest Service's roadless areas was
adopted.
Opening areas to new road construction, as proposed by H.R. 1581,
has myriad negative effects. Roads cause habitat fragmentation impacts
on big game species and degrade backcountry hunting opportunities. The
hunting experiences described by Theodore Roosevelt in the Grand Canyon
region are no longer available in many of today's autumn forests.
In addition to destroying backcountry hunting and fishing
opportunities, H.R. 1581 would also destroy the forest health and
watershed protection benefits of roadless areas. Further, the inverse
relationship between water quality and road density is widely
documented. Downstream communities benefit directly from intact
watersheds. H.R. 1581 will cost downstream communities money as
sediment loads increase and water quality deteriorates.
Claims that more road building will reduce the incidence of
destructive wild fires are not supported by the facts. Studies show
that logging of old growth actually increases fire risk as a result of
the scattering of fine fuels and slash on the forest floor. And road
building increases the amount of casual traffic which in turn increases
the incidence of human-caused fires.
The Clinton Administration, as a result of my urging, recognized
that some thinning of undergrowth, including by mechanical means, is a
necessary aspect of ecological restoration. The Roadless Rule
specifically allows for access necessary for fire reduction and
ecological restoration.
Claims that the Roadless Rule discourages public access are
likewise untrue. To the contrary, by excluding industrial logging and
road building for oil and gas development, this policy provides a clear
management direction to the agency that on these select lands, other
public, sustainable uses have priority. These uses include, but are
certainly not limited to wildlife viewing, hiking, biking, backpacking,
hunting, fishing, and protection of watersheds for downstream
communities. And motorized recreation is not precluded by the Rule.
Over the years road building has become part of the institutional
DNA of the Forest Service. Today, there are over 348,000 miles of roads
in our National Forests. This represents nearly ten times the mileage
in the entire Interstate Highway System. The Forest Service road
maintenance backlog is now approaching $10 billion. The Roadless Rule
both ensures that we leave some vestiges of our primordial forests and
that we do not load still more costs onto the Forest Service.
Summary
H.R. 1581 would destroy the protections established by the Roadless
rule; it would degrade backcountry hunting and fishing opportunities,
increase fire risk, destroy recreation economies, impose increased
water treatment costs, and add to the Forest Service's maintenance
backlog. H.R. 1581 would terminate time honored and successful
Wilderness Act procedures for lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management.
H.R. 1581 should be entitled ``The Great Giveaway''. The only
beneficiaries of this legislation would be industrial timber and oil
and gas corporations. The losers will be the American public, our
children and grandchildren and generations to come.
I urge you to reject this legislation.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Representative Noel.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE NOEL,
UTAH HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DISTRICT 73
Mr. Noel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I am going to call myself the on-the-ground guy that
comes to this Committee. I am a farmer and a rancher, been so
for over 35 years. I also worked for the Bureau of Land
Management for 22 years. I now am the Director of the Kane
County Water Conservancy District which manages the water
resources in my county. And I am a state legislator for the
past 9 years. I actually ran on a platform that does some of
the things that this bill proposes, which is to get us back
onto a management of the public lands.
I felt like if I ever got a chance to sit next to the
Secretary of the Interior I would tell him how disappointed I
was in the creation of the Grand Staircase in my county and the
eight different counties that I represent, both Garfield
County, because it has been an extreme disaster what happened
there. The environmental impact statement that was written did
not identify any impacts to antiquities on the land and it was
strictly a political move, and it has created huge problems for
me not unlike the WSAs that are in my district.
It is interesting that now that this WSA program which has
gone on for some 35 years, the recommendation in Utah was under
President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt was that only 3.2
million acres of BLM land had wilderness characteristics, and
they recommended that 1.9 million acres of those are suitable
for wilderness designation. So the Clinton Administration was
the one that said we should remove these and went through an
extensive review, an extensive process, and here we are 36
years later and we are still sitting here with these WSAs.
What do WSAs do to my state, my eight counties that I
represent? They are very restrictive, they are extreme. When
you talk about fighting wildfires, I was on the fire line for
22 years, worked my way up to the incident commander. I was on
the national forest fire in Yellowstone National Park which
burned for 225 days. We were not allowed to go into the
Absaroka wilderness area when there were three small fire, the
Lovely, the Clover, and the Mist fire. We had to pack up mules
and go in. That allowed that to burn for 225 days, cost
millions and millions of dollars. So going in the fire line and
trying to fight a fire in a roadless area, in an area that is
WSA, is impossible with modern conditions.
We can manage forests. The Secretary talked about, I am
sure the Kaibab National Forest once employed 350 people in
Fredonia, Arizona, over my border. By the way my great
grandfather was the first county commissioner in Apache County,
Arizona, Prime Thornton Coleman, and one of my grandfathers is
buried in Alpine, so I know a little bit about Arizona. My
grandmother was born in St. Johns in 1897. I know the state. We
had lots and lots of people in the logging business in Kanab.
That has been shut down because of the goshawk and other issues
there.
What happened here three years ago? The Kaibab National
Forest burned and burned up thousands of acre of timber. What
did that do to watershed? It destroys watershed. Go look at the
Dixie National Forest where bark beetles were allowed to come
in. You have up there Douglas fir trees that are completely
gone, and the urban interface between the private property
where one-half of the assessed valuations in Kane County are
located you have an area there that is just waiting to burn.
The Forest Service has done nothing to protect that area, and
that is going to burn and it is going to reduce the assessed
valuations of over a billion dollar in my area and destroy
watershed.
Watershed is something you need to protect, and you can
protect it with management. You can't do it. I have heard
testimony here today that WSAs actually allow for management.
They don't allow for management at all. You don't have any
management in WSA, you just leave it alone, you don't do
anything with it. This is a multiple use piece, the public
lands should be done by multiple use, not by single use, and
that is what happens here.
We used to have a movie filming industry in Kane County. We
don't have it. It was called Little Hollywood. When the Grand
Staircase was created, they precluded any movie filming. You
can't even film a movie in a wilderness area. You can't bring a
bicycle into a wilderness area, into a wilderness study area.
It is absolutely insane. When I worked for the agency, we used
to do multiple-use management. And when you talk about we are
going to open these lands up to destruction, hasn't anybody
heard about the National Environmental Policy Act? Hasn't
anybody heard about resource management plans?
This planning will continue to go on. Every single action
that occurs on the National Forest on public lands in any state
including Utah will require a full environmental analysis, and
I know because I have testified in Federal court as an expert
witness on NEPA. You can't just go in there and willy nilly go
in and put roads in and put actions in and put drilling in. Let
us talk a little bit about drilling. We need to drill in the
public lands. You can recover those public lands under APDs and
those processes, you can come back and you can restore those
public lands such that they haven't even been used before. So
this is all hogwash that you have heard here about destroying
these public lands and open them up, you will still be
susceptible to the National Environmental Public Act.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Noel follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Michael E. Noel, Utah State Representative
District #73, Utah House of Representatives, Kane County Water
Conservancy District, on ``H.R. 1581, Wilderness and Roadless Release
Act of 2011''
I am grateful for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1581 which due
to the economic conditions that exist in my state and district, is
legislation that needs to be passed and implemented as soon as
possible. I have lived in rural Kane County for over 36 years and have
served in the Utah House of Representatives for the past 9 years. I
represent House District #73 which is the most rural district in the
state and includes all or part of 9 counties. I am a cattle rancher and
a hay farmer. I am also the executive director of the Kane County Water
Conservancy District which supplies culinary and secondary water to
customers in Kane County. I have an extensive background in public land
management, specifically with the Bureau of Land Management where I
worked for over 22 years. I have testified in federal court as an
expert witness on the National Environmental Policy Act and I have an
extensive background on federal land planning and Environmental Impact
Statements. During the period of my employment with the BLM which
started shortly before the passage of the Federal Land Management and
Policy Act (FLPMA) in 1976, I had a front row seat as the agency
strayed from its congressionally mandated multiple-use management
mission, to an agency that now seems to be taking their directions
directly from grant driven environmental organizations.
I was the project manager for the Andalex Coal EIS which resulted
in the creation of the 1.9 million acre Grand Staircase Escalante
National Monument in Kane and Garfield Counties locking up over 5
billion tons of low sulfur, high Btu coal that could be used by Utah
and the nation to meet our critical energy needs. The creation of the
monument resulted in me leaving the BLM and starting on a new path in
life. I found out first hand that despite taking oaths to uphold the
constitution and to obey the laws, the truth doesn't matter to many
elected politicians and their appointed cabinet members. In reasons
given for the creation of the GSENM, the truth of the matter is that
there was never any threat to any antiquities or resources in Utah. The
Draft EIS prepared by the BLM and OSM which was never allowed to be
released, stated as much. The reasons given by the Clinton/Gore/Babbitt
administration for creating the GSENM were in fact bald faced lies as
are many of these WSA policies that have come about since the passage
of FLPMA.
Impacts of WSA's and Special Designations on Utah and Other Western
States: Since this hearing is focused on the release to multiple use
management of non-suitable Wilderness Study Areas, I will focus my
attention on the impacts of these special designations to the people of
Utah and the citizens of this country. Of the nearly 85,000 square
miles of surface area in Utah, 17,884 square miles are in private
ownership-which is about 21%. In Kane County only 423 square miles (or
about 11%) of 3,992 square miles in the county is privately owned.
Other counties in District 73 have even less private land, Wayne County
(4%), Garfield County (5%) while Beaver (13%), Piute (13%) Washington
(18%) and Sevier (19%) and Iron (36%) are still greatly dominated by
federal lands. There is a huge disparity between private vs. federal
lands in relation to the Eastern States where no states east of an
imaginary vertical line from Montana to New Mexico has more than 14% of
its land federally owned. In contrast no state west of that line has
less than 27% of its land federally owned (with the exception of
Hawaii). Four Western states have more than 62% of their land federally
owned (Alaska, Idaho, Nevada and Utah).
Not being able to collect property taxes on 79% of the land in my
state creates problems in trying to meet the vital state and local
governmental services including public and higher education. The
Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) legislation was supposed to make up for
this disparity but it has never been adequate. It is no wonder that the
10 year Resource Management Plans, developed by the land management
agencies such as BLM and the Forest Service are so critical to the
economic viability of these western states. When the federal land
management agencies create special designations such as Wilderness
Study Areas (WSA's), Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC's),
Class I Air Regions, Class I Visual Resource Management Areas, National
Landscape Conservation System, among other designations, the impacts to
the multiple uses of public lands and to adjacent private and state
trust lands can be devastating.
The FLPMA and National Forest Management Act (NFMA) mandated only a
limited one time review of BLM and Forest Service lands to determine
which of these lands should be recommended for Wilderness designation.
The only broad scale wilderness creation effort ever authorized by
congress was the 15 year Wilderness Study Area effort authorized under
section 603 of FLPMA. This 15 year review was completed and submitted
to congress in 1993 by the Clinton Administration identifying which
lands had wilderness characteristics and created the WSA's. In Utah,
the Clinton Administration found 3.2 million acres of BLM land that had
wilderness characteristics sufficient for WSA classification and 1.9
million of those acres suitable for wilderness designation. This is why
H.R. 1581 should become law because it merely carries out the results
of the FLPMA 15 year review and implements the Clinton administration's
1993 suitability recommendation which in Utah was: release 1.4 million
of 3.2 million acres of WSA's for multiple use management.
In Utah, any discussion on Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas
(WSA's) involves the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) an
organization that has led the fight to lock up over 9.1 million acres
of lands in wilderness in Utah. Although very small in numbers (less
than 14,000 members, most of which do not live in Utah) yet heavily
funded, this environmental organization has built its reputation by
taking an uncompromising approach for single use land management and
wilderness designation which includes the 9.1 million acres Red Rock
Wilderness Bill. Using the federal courts, SUWA has engaged in a
multitude of lawsuits against the state and counties, and in essence,
the taxpayers of Utah who have expended untold millions of dollars in
litigation. SUWA's strategy has been to sue, delay and stop the
implementation of land management plans and actions, row's, RS2477 road
designations, mining and drilling, timber harvesting resulting in
economic losses of billions of dollars in revenue to the state of Utah
and the federal government. SUWA is particularly focused on the OHV
community and their desire to access public lands via existing county
roads. The 20 year battle to maintain access to private lands, school
trust lands and public lands by the Utah Association of Counties and
the State of Utah has been fought with SUWA and the Utah Wilderness
Alliance. The WSAs in Utah are the main reason the RS2477 road issue
has taken so long to resolve even though FLPMA specifically recognized
these county roads in the law.
Background Information on SUWA: Although this radical environmental
organization has fewer members than found in a Utah legislative
district they have been able to influence federal land management
agencies throughout Utah. In the late 1990s, SUWA began building a
large endowment from grants. The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Wyss
Foundation were particularly generous. As of 2004, SUWA had amassed
almost $5 million. Swiss-born billionaire Hansjorg Wyss joined the
board of SUWA in 1996 and later financed a new $1.4 million Salt Lake
City headquarters. Though SUWA has been able raise large sums of money
over the last decade its membership numbers have declined 30% from a
high of 20,000 to 14,000. Still, SUWA maintains that 70 percent of
their funding comes from membership dues and donations, and states that
roughly 80 percent of the organization's income is spent on program
work. SUWA presents itself as a grass roots organization with mainly
Utah membership which is far from the truth. It is in fact an elitist
grant driven litigation machine. In May 2007, New York millionaire Bert
Fingerhut, who served on the SUWA board of directors for 18 years, pled
guilty to one count of conspiracy in connection with a plot to reap
more than $12 million in illegal profits by circumventing rules
controlling how private banks are converted to public ownership. As
part of his plea deal, he forfeited $11 million. On August 3, 2007 he
was sentenced to two years in federal prison. In October 2007 Mark
Ristow, SUWA's treasurer and a SUWA trustee for about 20 years, pled
guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in a
scheme similar to Fingerhut's. In February 2008, he was sentenced to 20
months in federal prison and forfeiture of $2.8 million in profits.
On March 1, 2008, a letter signed by 45 members of the Utah House
of Representatives requested detailed financial records from SUWA. The
letter which was addressed to then SUWA board Chairman and Swiss
billionaire Hansjorg Wyss, referred to the guilty pleas of Fingerhut
and Ristow and said, ``given SUWA's large amount of financial
contributions and outside sources of funding, and especially SUWA's
long-time association with these two individuals, the citizens of Utah
demand your accountability with regard to these matters.'' SUWA never
responded to the request. Billionaire Wyss who is chairman of a medical
devices company called Synthes in West Chester, Pennsylvania has his
own legal problems including 52 felony counts against his company
stemming from allegations that Synthes illegally experimented on
patients, three of whom died. Federal prosecutors in Philadelphia did
not name or charge Wyss, but their June 2009 indictment describes a
``Person No. 7,'' who was a major shareholder and chief executive
officer of the company when the alleged illegal conduct occurred, from
2001 through 2004. A Synthes representative confirmed that Wyss was CEO
then.
I bring this information to the committee's attention simply for
the reason that while as an elected official in the State of Utah, I
have some minimal influence over the use of public lands in my
district. However, it pales in comparison to the influence of these
wealthy foundations, and the Grant Driven Green Groups such as SUWA
that they support. SUWA and other environmental organizations are
having undue influence in my district, my state, and on the public
lands throughout the west in general. I don't believe that the United
States Congress ever intended for this to happen. The Sagebrush
Rebellion of the 1970's and 1980's has re-emerged in Utah. For the
third year in a row, thousands of Utahans who want equal access and
multiple use of the public lands in Utah will be again marching to the
Utah Capitol August 20th, to demand that Utah be allowed to have more
input into how public lands in Utah are managed.
I am excited about H.R. 1581 and would like to see it signed into
law as it would help settle a this contentious debate over how public
lands designated as Wilderness Study Areas are managed in Utah. At
present, these WSA are not managed for multiple uses. They are simply
put off limits to any type of management. Kane County is known as
Little Hollywood where over 160 mostly western movies have been filmed.
Gunsmoke, How the West Was Won, and Maverick are just a few of the old
westerns that we all remember and love were filmed in the county.
Wilderness and WSA's are so restrictive such that a commercial film or
even still photo cannot be done in a WSA. It is time to release those
acres that were found unsuitable. Management of these non-suitable
lands is more restrictive than designated wilderness. In addition,
passing HR1581 would help settle the majority of the RS2477 road
litigation and quiet title actions that are literally filling the
federal courts in Utah thereby wasting precious state and federal
monies.
In conclusion, I quote at statement on the website of one grant
driven environmental organization (the Pew Environment Group) regarding
their strong opposition to the proposed legislation. ``This legislation
would take away protections that have been in place for decades,
including those for our most pristine backcountry. America's tradition
of managing our lands on the multiple use principle would be upended.
Mining, logging and drilling are already allowed on more than half of
our national forests and other public lands. This legislation proposes
to open up most of the rest putting drinking water for 60 million
Americans at risk, compromising outdoor recreation and the billions of
dollars in revenue it generates annually, damaging fish and wildlife
habitat, and undoing years of work by lawmakers and diverse
stakeholders to craft balanced land use proposals.'' This statement is
pure fiction and like SUWA they distort the truth by calling Wilderness
multiple use management, when it is common knowledge that WSA
designations preclude almost any other use of the protected lands. In
regard the statement that drinking water would be put at risk by
removing WSA designations, the truth is that the creation of WSA's and
Wilderness Areas does more to put drinking water at risk by allowing
uncontrolled wildfires, beetle infestations of forests, erosion of
soils in critical watersheds and by generally eliminating the ability
to maintain watersheds in good ecological conditions via vegetative
manipulation.
I support this legislation and would like the congress to go one
step further which is to allow the 11 individual western public land
states to manage the BLM lands and Forest Service lands within their
boundaries. I think the savings to the federal treasury would be huge
and the revenues to the states and the federal government would be
greatly increased. In 1976 the BLM was returning billions of dollars
each year to the federal treasury. In fact only the IRS contributed
more to the federal budget than the BLM. The radical shift from
multiple use management to what is essentially a lock it up and keep
the public and resource users off the land has resulted in another
federal agency that spends more money than it takes in. FLPMA states
that '' the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the
Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber
from the public lands including implementation of the Mining and
Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1876, 30 U.S.C. 21a), (13) the
Federal Government should, on a basis equitable to both the Federal and
local taxpayer, provide for payments to compensate States and local
governments for burdens created as a result of the immunity of Federal
lands from State and local taxation. Utah doesn't want the federal
government paying us for the loss of taxation that if properly managed
could in fact come from these federal lands. I believe Utahans and most
westerners just want the federal government to allow the states to
management these public lands for multiple use and sustained yield.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative. Commissioner
Connelly.
STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONNELLY,
COUNTY COMMISSIONER, LINCOLN COUNTY, WYOMING
Mr. Connelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate that
you bring the local level in here. When Mr. Noel said that they
were down close to the public, I am representing the public
here today. The public themselves call me constantly on this
issue. Up before you is a map that we sent out to you. I would
like you to take a good look at it if you would. As a
Commissioner, I come from an extensive background in a lot of
different areas, but I also sit as a cooperating agency on 13
different plans right at the moment, so I have a broad spectrum
of how many things are going on on these lands that you are
discussing.
The map before you, if you look dead center in it, there is
one white area right in the middle. There is a road at the top
of that map right there where you come to an intersection where
I have been to nine recent Forest Service meetings. The
discussion at that meeting is this. You can go over here on
your side, this side over here, and it says not suitable for
sedans. You can come back to the other side over here and it is
a scenic byway. That scenic byway was built in cooperation with
the Forest Service and the taxpayers' money, who I represent.
The way you can't go on with the sedan, you can go in there
and do treatments and get some of the logs out. The Bridger-
Teton National Forest projection for 2013 is 90 percent of it
will be dead. If you were to allow that to happen in
Washington, D.C., right here, I would challenge you to be able
to say to you, would you be doing something about it? Would you
be getting rid of those trees so that they don't burn you down?
Because in this same map, take a very good look over toward the
bottom, that is the watershed for five communities.
Inside of that watershed, yes it is pristine, but it is
also a place where the water comes out of the ground, you know,
the size of this room, literally. Goes about two miles, drops
into a sink. In that sink in there then it is naturally
filtered and comes back up for the drinking water I use in my
home. In a recent meeting at that intersection with the Forest
Service the discussion was this. We don't dare go off the road
for 300 feet, it is designated roadless.
And when they argue the 300 feet, don't think that they are
not handcuffed, because they will stand right there in those
meetings and tell you, we don't know whether that is this tree
that is 300 foot tall or this one that is 300 foot tall. We are
only talking about 300 feet of coverage, that particular area,
not when it burns, I mean if it burns, it is when, bottom line.
Because the map you are looking at when you go north is
Yellowstone, it is the Tetons, it is the Wind Rivers. Those is
what is north of me up there.
I watched Yellowstone burn. As a Commissioner, we already
have an emergency declaration in place that we took to the
Governor of the State of Wyoming because of the pending
disaster that poses in this area right here. We are working
with the Forest Service to try to get this taken care of so
that I don't lose the watershed. Anybody that tells you that a
roadless area protects the water needs to come to my area. We
will give you a hands on look at it, any time you would like to
come, and anybody that doesn't think the Forest Service isn't
handcuffed by these.
The two other gray areas out there, those are WSAs. They
have been there the entire time as this goes on. Both of those
are skirted by roads. Remember the green area you are looking
at is listed as roadless, and as you look at all the squiggly
lines, by the way that is a roadless area with roads in it.
There is not one of those roads, by the way, that has had a
blade on them that the county and my taxpayers hasn't been able
to put money into, the Forest Service doesn't have the money to
do it, they are not maintaining their roads.
All you have to do is show up and take a look, don't take
my word for it, don't take an impassioned speech at this table.
On the ground this is what is going on up there. This is a
roadless area with roads in it, it is impacting a watershed.
The WSAs, I am in my second term as a County Commissioner, I
have never sat in a meeting, I am on 13 cooperating agencies, I
have never sat in a meeting and discussed what is going on in
there. The BLM doesn't have enough money to literally take care
of their restrooms out in these outlying areas let alone sit
down in a meeting and discuss what they are going to do in a
WSA.
I will say that again, they come to me to clean their
restrooms. My taxpayers, what do they tell me when they call
me? They want to know what is going on with the National
Forests because they drive up a road and it says roadless. They
don't know what else to do but turn around and go home. There
are 2,000 four-wheelers come through my community every
Saturday, they are going somewhere. They are going into areas
that people don't know what to do and how to handle them.
I am going to leave you with one final thing so I can keep
this moving forward. This is of particular interest to me as a
taxpayer also. The Federal fire budget is in the billions. When
you were managing the forest and taking care of it as a
renewable resource, they were in the millions. Where are we
spending our billions versus our millions? Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connelly follows:]
Statement of Kent Connelly, Chairman of the Board of Lincoln County
Commission, Lincoln County, Wyoming; Chairman of the Coalition of Local
Governments (Lincoln, Uinta, Sublette, Sweetwater Counties Wyoming), on
``Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011.''
By January 2001, inventoried roadless areas had been evaluated for
potential wilderness in the planning process for the development or
revision of land management plans for all units of the National Forest
System. The inventoried roadless areas were evaluated for potential
recommendation as wilderness in the plan development and revision
processes. Based on site-specific analyses during the planning process
and public involvement, management direction was developed for
inventoried roadless areas during the planning process that included:
(1) protection of wilderness values in relation to an administrative
recommendation to Congress that the area be designated wilderness; (2)
total or partial restriction of certain uses and development activities
such as road construction or timber management; or (3) minimal
restrictions to resource management and development actions and other
allowable uses.
However, in 2001, via a legally infirm rulemaking, the Clinton
Administration fundamentally changed the Forests Service's longstanding
approach to management of inventoried roadless areas by establishing
nationwide prohibitions generally limiting, with some exceptions,
timber harvest, road construction, and road reconstruction within these
areas of the National Forest System. These nationally-applied
prohibitions superseded the management prescriptions for inventoried
roadless areas applied through the development of individual land
management plans as described above, and would not have been able to be
revisited through subsequent plan amendments or revisions.
Since the 2001 Roadless Rule's promulgation, there have been nine
lawsuits filed in United States District Courts in Idaho, Utah, North
Dakota, Alaska, the District of Columbia, and Wyoming. In fact, Wyoming
is still currently involved in active litigation over the 2001 Roadless
Rule.
Notably, on July 14, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District
of Wyoming issued a permanent injunction and set aside the 2001
Roadless Rule. The District Court held that the Roadless Rule was both
procedurally and substantively unlawful under the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act of 1964, in part
because the timber harvest and road construction prohibitions
constituted the establishment of de facto wilderness, and pursuant to
the Wilderness Act, only Congress can designate wilderness areas.
In response to the Wyoming District Court's holding, then-
Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman proposed a new rule that would
establish a process for individual governors to work with the Forest
Service to develop locally-supported rules for conserving roadless
areas in their respective states. After a lengthy comment period during
which 1.8 million comments were received, on May 5, 2005, the State
Petitions Rule was issued, replacing the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Some of the key features of the State Petitions Rule include: (1)
Governors had until November 13, 2006, to submit a petition to the
Secretary of Agriculture for rulemaking; (2) The process was voluntary.
If a Governor did not want to propose changes to the existing
management requirements for inventoried roadless areas contained in
currently approved land management plans, then no petition need be
submitted; (3) the Secretary would then establish a national advisory
committee to assist with the implementation of this rule. Members of
this committee would be representatives of national organizations
interested in conservation and management of inventoried roadless
areas; (4) the advisory committee members have 90 days to review each
petition submitted and provide the Secretary with advice and
recommendations, with a response due from the Secretary within 180 days
to the state petitioner.
After the State Petitions Rule was promulgated, several states and
environmental groups challenged its propriety in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. See California ex rel.
Lockyer v. USDA, 450 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Cal 2006). The Lockyer
District Court held that the State Petitions Rule was also unlawfully
promulgated and set it aside. In the meantime, the District of
Wyoming's order setting aside the 2001 Roadless Rule was vacated on
appeal by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, the Lockyer
District Court reinstated the 2001 Roadless Rule. In light of the
reinstatement of the Roadless Rule and the vacatur of the State
Petitions Rule, on January 12, 2007, the State of Wyoming renewed its
challenges to the 2001 Roadless Rule in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Wyoming. On August 12, 2008, the District Court once again
held that the 2001 Roadless Rule violated the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Wilderness Act, and again set aside the 2001
Roadless Rule. After the second District of Wyoming judgment was
entered, the Forest Service appealed that decision to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals. The case has been fully briefed and argued, and the
State of Wyoming has been awaiting a decision from the Tenth Circuit
for more than sixteen months.
In 2009, the Secretary of Agriculture withheld final approval of
all decisions affecting inventoried roadless areas, even though the
Wyoming District Court held that the 2001 Roadless Rule was unlawful.
The Secretary has delegated this approval authority to the Chief of the
Forest Service. The effective result is that local and regional Forest
Service officials cannot approve any forest management activity, such
as logging or vegetation treatments, that involves road construction or
reconstruction without approval from the Chief and the Secretary of
Agriculture. This approval has not been given, despite meetings with
the Under Secretary.
The legal wrangling which has ensued has caused substantial
impairment to local and state policymakers in addition to local federal
land managers, leaving them unable to make sound, responsible decisions
related to active forest management. Until the case is decided by the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Wyoming District Court's setting
aside of the 2001 Roadless Rule is the current ``law of the land''
within Wyoming. However, the question that policy makers and land
managers struggle with is how to actively engage in management
practices on lands that are designated as inventoried roadless areas.
This legal no man's land and the tremendous confusion in Wyoming about
the legal authority to take action have resulted in many Forest Service
managers electing to take no action, leaving the National Forests
effectively unmanaged. As a consequence, and despite the the Wyoming
District Court's order holding the Rule unlawful, inventoried roadless
areas continue to be treated as de facto wilderness areas. As it now
stands, for any action to be taken by the Forest Service in an
inventoried roadless area, the Forest Service must embark on a lengthy
and costly process yielding a document similar to an environmental
impact statement, and then ask the Secretary of Agriculture, through
the Chief of the Forest Service for final approval. This adds
additional layers of unnecessary governmental ``red tape,'' meanwhile,
our already stressed forests continue to degrade.
The enacting of the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of
2011 will enable Forest System lands to be freed from the bureaucratic
trap in which they are undeniably held. There are hundreds of thousands
of acres of Forest System lands designated as inventoried roadless
areas that have not been designated as wilderness and were not
recommended for designation as wilderness. Yet, these lands continue to
be treated as de facto wilderness areas with burdensome restrictions
placed on development in order to protect the areas' ``roadless
characteristics.'' The economic, social, and health consequences to the
State of Wyoming are incalculable as our beautiful forests continue to
be ravaged by drought, overcrowding, wildfire, and bark beetle
epidemics.
Locally, inventoried roadless areas in Lincoln and Sublette
Counties total more than 1.4 million acres, or about one-third of the
inventoried roadless areas in the State of Wyoming, specifically: (1)
the Grey Back Ridge roadless area encompasses 301,136 acres, (2)
Gannett Hills Spring Creek encompasses 45,460 acres, (3) South Wyoming
Range includes 85,774 acres, (4) Salt River Range encompasses 241,494,
(5) Riley Ridge encompasses 4,765 acres, (6) Nugent Park Ham's Fork
Ridge encompasses 21,241 acres, (7) North Mountain encompasses 9,798
acres, (8) Munger Mountain encompasses 12,826 acres, (9) Little
Cottonwood encompasses 5,468 acres, (10) Lake Alice Commissary Ridge
encompasses 166,705 acres, and (11) the West Slope area encompasses
143,248 acres. Further, there are another 30,000 acres of lands
classified as roadless on the Ashley National Forest in the Flaming
Gorge National Recreation Area. These lands are located in Uinta and
Sweetwater Counties to the south of Lincoln County and are used widely
by Lincoln County residents.
Local Effects of Current ``Roadless'' Management:
Critically important to Lincoln County is the Bridger-Teton Nation
Forest (BTNF). This Forest encompasses over 3.4 million acres of some
of Wyoming's most scenic landscape. The Forest is located in western
Wyoming in close proximity to Grand Teton and Yellowstone National
Parks. In fact, the BTNF is a major component of the Great Yellowstone
Ecosystem and is a repository for some of the Nation's most important
natural assets. In 2001, the Secretary of Agriculture identified more
than 3.2 million acres of inventoried roadless conservation areas in
Wyoming of which 1.4 million acres are in the Bridger-Teton National
Forest. Of the 872,739 acres encompassed by the Bridger-Teton National
Forest, 80% or 702,594 acres are classified as inventoried roadless
areas.
The Bridger-Teton National Forest straddles five Wyoming Counties:
Fremont, Lincoln, Park, Sublette, and Teton. In four of these counties
(Park County is excluded in the analysis due to its geographic
location) over 80,000 residents are employed in more than 60,000 jobs.
These workers earn over $1.75 billion per year with a mean annual wage
of about $29,000. According to a 2004 estimate, personal income in the
region totaled approximately $3.18 billion. This figure includes
government transfer payments and investment income as well as labor
earnings to residents.
Due to its natural amenities, Lincoln County draws a significant
number of outdoor recreation enthusiasts of all types. The County's
economy reflects this, with its high levels of travel and tourism and
second home development. Additionally, mineral development has become
significantly more important to the region with the discovery of large
deposits of natural gas. Moreover, agriculture remains an important
part of the regional economy and lifestyle.
In the absence of the clear ability to manage National Forest
System lands, Wyoming, and specifically Lincoln County, is losing
valuable resources every day.
Wood Products:
A total of 2.8 million board feet (MMBF) of timber was commercially
harvested in the five BTNF Counties in 2005. Of this total 1.8 MMBF
(62.4%) was harvested in Fremont County, 1.0 MMBF (35.0%) was harvested
in Lincoln County, 42,000 board feet (1.5%) was harvested in Teton
County, and 23,000 board feet (0.8%) was harvested in Sublette County.
These figures represent harvest from all types of land, not just the
BTNF.
There were a total of 15 wood product facilities in four of the
BTNF Counties in 2005: 6 sawmills, 5 log home operations, 3 log
furniture operations, and 1 post and pole operation. With the decline
of access to a stable supply of timber, the labor earnings from the
lumber and wood products industry declined steadily from approximately
$19.1 million in 1978 to just $2.0 million in 2000.
Permitted Livestock Grazing:
Data from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic
Analysis indicate that the gross revenue for agricultural operations in
the five BTNF Counties was $153.4 million in 2004. Of this total $121.2
million (79%) came from livestock operations, $19.1 million (13%) came
from crop production, and $13.1 million (9%) came from other sources.
Clearly, livestock production is critically important to these
Counties.
Between 1970 and 2006 the beef cow inventory for the BTNF Counties
averaged nearly 120,000 head. During the same time period, 1970 to
2006, the sheep inventory of the BTNF Counties declined substantially.
In 1970, the total breeding sheep inventory in the four county area was
nearly 200,000 head.
Currently, there are approximately 122 permits to graze cattle and
12 permits for sheep grazing on the BTNF. These grazing permits
currently support approximately 39,000 head of cattle and 51,370 head
of sheep.
Wildlife and Big Game:
According to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the BTNF
provides 32 percent of the total seasonal range, 40 percent of the
spring/summer/fall seasonal range and 76 percent of the migration
corridors for elk in the four county area. Elk, deer, and pronghorn
hunting resulted in over 300,000 hunter days annually in the region.
This hunting generated $57.7 million in revenue. The non-local portion
of these revenues supported 1,828 jobs and $26.7 million in labor
earnings. The average earnings per job for this employment were
$14,610. Accordingly, the BTNF plays a significant role in supporting
this economic activity in Lincoln County.
Fishing is estimated to represent about 4.3 percent of the 2.8
million annual visits to the BTNF. This represents approximately
120,000 annual fishing related visits. Of these visits, 84,000 (70%)
were estimated to be by non-local visitors, supporting 100 jobs in the
local economy and generating $2.2 million in labor earnings.
Revenue Impacts:
Revenue impacts felt in Lincoln County include: (1) foregone energy
development, yielding less sales and use tax revenues and fewer local
jobs; (2) a truely glacial pace of vegetation treatments and logging,
again yielding fewer sales and use tax revenues and fewer local jobs;
(3) decreased tourism, and its attendant decrease in local economic
activity, due to reduced access; and (4) severe economic impacts should
catastrophic wildfire destroy larges areas of the County and force
people from their homes and displace wildlife.
These are the concrete impacts from the current Forest Service
management of inventoried roadless areas that Lincoln County faces each
year the Forest Service fails to follow the law and address the serious
resource issues after being asked time and time again by local elected
officials.
Minerals:
In 2006, in four of the five Counties in the BTNF area, the total
mineral assessed valuation was $5.9 billion. Of that total, natural gas
production represented more than 90% of the mineral assessed valuation,
crude oil represented nearly 7%, coal represented slightly more than
1%, and sand and gravel represented slightly less than 1%.
The only non-energy mineral production operations occurring in the
BTNF are sand and gravel operations and landscape rock production.
These commodities are important to two sectors of Wyoming's economy:
transportation, where these common varieties are necessary for road
maintenance and winter sanding; and the construction sector, where
concrete and landscaping stone are employed. Indeed, almost 1.8 million
tons of sand and gravel was produced in the region in 2005, employing
232 people.
Energy Resources:
The assessed valuation of natural gas in the BTNF Counties has
increased more than 17 times, from $273.4 million in 1990 to $4.7
billion in 2006. Currently, 150,587 acres of the BTNF are leased for
energy development and the leases for 44,600 additional acres are under
appeal. In the BTNF, at least 14 gas wells are currently in production.
In 2004, those wells produced 131.0 billion cubic feet, up from 81.5
billion cubic feet in 1987. It is estimated that the 2005 natural gas
production on the BTNF had a value of $822.1 million. Moreover, it is
estimated that BTNF natural gas production supported 248 jobs (direct
and secondary) throughout the economies of Lincoln, Sublette, and
Sweetwater Counties. Labor earnings associated with that employment
were estimated to be nearly $13 million. Tax revenues collected in 2005
from natural gas generated in the BTNF were $35.7 million in ad valorem
taxes, $34.3 million in severance taxes and $30.8 million in federal
mineral royalties for Wyoming. The total tax revenue to Wyoming from
the 2005 production was estimated to be $100.9 million.
Energy Projects:
Energy projects, which hold promise for jobs and revenues in the
communities of Lincoln County, have been canceled, put on hold or
otherwise reversed, in large part due to the impacts on these
inventoried roadless areas. While the Forest Service has repeatedly
stated that the 2001 Roadless Rule does not preclude mineral leasing,
the process to offer a lease has been delayed time and again without a
decision and with the outcome that energy development in Lincoln County
has been stymied. Examples of this delay to development include: (1) an
environmental impact statement (EIS) supporting a 44,720 acre lease was
appealed, reversed, and its analysis revised. Despite that, no decision
is slated until December 2012 (Lincoln County does not expect that
deadline to be met); (2) a 2008 Geothermal programmatic EIS was
approved but the project was then cancelled in 2010; (3) True Oil's
master development plan has been placed on hold; (4) Noble and Plains'
exploration development plan has also been placed on hold; and (5)
rights-of-way for wind electricity or natural gas are continuously
directed away from National Forest System lands.
Visitor Amenities:
In 2005, the estimate for visitor spending in four of the five BTNF
Counties was $682.5 million. These expenditures represent overnight
trips to the area that were not of a local commuting nature. Direct
employment from travel spending in the four County region was
calculated in 2005 to be 8,690 jobs. What these figures demonstrate is
that that BTNF is a cornerstone of the local economies. Lincoln County
has suffered significant impacts due to the continued implementation of
the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Local Access Issues:
Inventoried roadless areas in the BTNF actually contain many roads
that provide critical access to homes, recreation, hunting, and
livestock grazing permittees. Access to and through the National Forest
is essential to the citizens of Lincoln County and other surrounding
counties. We have large areas of Forest that are within the
``roadless'' boundary where there are contour ditches, previous timber
harvests, and engineered roads. These areas should not have been
classified as ``roadless,'' yet continue to be classified as such.
Please refer to Exhibit 1 for a map depicting the Lincoln County areas
described.
The limits on land uses in roadless areas are felt throughout
Lincoln County. The Lincoln Board of County Commissioners is repeatedly
faced with these limits. For example, the Forest Service has undertaken
unannounced road closures in the roadless areas, without notifying the
county governments, permittees, or the public. In one sadly comical
case in the summer of 2008, the Forest Service landlocked a sheep
permittee by placing trees across the road. The road closure prevented
him from driving out with his sheep after grazing on the National
Forest during the summer. In fact, the Forest Service has unilaterally
closed many popular forest roads in Lincoln County in the BTNF. Again
we find this most often occurs in the inventoried roadless areas, with
the effect of denying access to hunters and recreationists as well as
ranchers who have grazing permits.
Catastrophic Fire Danger:
Catastrophic wildfire in the BTNF is imminent. At this point, it
could be any day when hundreds of thousands of acres of Forest System
lands erupt in conflagration. Though direly needed, hazardous fuels
reduction projects simply are not conducted in inventoried roadless
areas. Moreover, Lincoln County estimates that between 40 and 50
percent of the lands on its National Forests are composed of diseased
timber, trees infested with pine beetle, or both. Statewide, by 2010,
Wyoming has experienced 3.1 million acres of tree mortality due to bark
beetle since the mid-1990s. Clearly, this is a ticking time bomb that
will result in western Wyoming looking like the gates of hell, much
like northeastern Arizona did earlier this summer when uncontrollable
flames erupted.
The Forest Service has recognized this situation for more than
seven years but has not exhibited either the will or the ability to
address the threats of catastrophic wildfire. Lincoln County at one
point has had to rescind its memorandum of cooperation with Forest
Service fire agencies due to the high risk of fire and the agency's
unwillingness to conduct fuel management that might mitigate or prevent
wildfire.
Had Lincoln County not seen a high snowfall during the winter and a
wet spring, there could have been extensive, devastating wildfires
already this year. And we are not in the clear just because the
moisture levels have increased in the local trees, shrubs, and grasses.
Indeed, heavy winter and spring precipitation have increased the amount
of on-the-ground vegetation, which, once dried in the summer and fall
months, will yield even higher fuel loads that will readily support a
wildfire. At the same time, western Wyoming has long suffered from
drought, contributing to the current epidemic of pine beetles and
related pine diseases. These effected trees are dead or rapidly dying.
As another justification for denying wildfire mitigation projects,
the Forest Service points to a perceived need to conserve habitat for
Canada lynx. Apparently little or no thought is given to the
significant loss of Canada lynx habitat that will occur if western
Wyoming suffers the catastrophic wildfire that it is sure to result
unless fuel mitigation projects are allowed to go forward. The Forest
Service rarely acknowledges the other environmental impacts of
wildfires, like soil erosion, noxious weed invasions, and the direct
mortality of wildlife, not to mention air quality degradation.
Moreover, the stream degradation that will surely result from
wildfire will significantly impact local water supplies. In Lincoln
County, the Hams Fork Drainage is the major municipal water supply for
five Wyoming towns. When the Forest burns and the watershed is
destroyed, where will these municipal residents find domestic water?
How will the livestock and wildlife drink? These are issues that remain
in the forefront of discussion of which there does not seem to be no
satisfactory answers from the Forest Service.
Vegetation Management:
Vegetation management projects that are proposed and actually
implemented are very small in comparison to the size of the problem.
The salvage and vegetation treatments that are approved involve a scant
few hundred acres each, despite that more than a million acres are at
risk. It is more alarming that these projects often have been delayed
or abandoned altogether. Included is a specific list of local efforts
which have been stymied: (1) the LaBarge Aspen treatment was put on
hold, revised, and now may be implemented in September 2012; (2) the
Pine Creek vegetation treatment has also been put on hold; (3) the Hams
Fork vegetation treatment has now entered a scoping period; (4) the
Star Valley vegetation treatment environmental assessment was scoped in
2011 but has resulted in no further movement; (5) the Hobble Creek
treatment has been canceled; and, (6) the Pole Creek project was
started in 2010 and took more than a year to complete.
Without proper vegetation management, flooding and redirection of
stream flow is of crucial concern in many Wyoming Counties. This year,
Carbon County experienced an unprecedented amount of water flow causing
serious and catastrophic flood levels. It cannot be ignored that much
of the Medicine Bow National Forest's timber is dead and those stands
that would have mitigated runoff are no longer functioning. Four people
have died as a result of the flooding. It is time that the Forest
Service take proactive steps regarding vegetation management instead of
waiting for more people to lose their lives in unnatural flood events.
Conclusion
With 2,619,816 acres of federal lands in Lincoln County, the local
economy depends on multiple use principles that support our existing
customs and culture. People do not live and work in Wyoming to go to
the opera. We are here because we love to hunt, fish, ride our horses,
hike, camp and use our four-wheelers. Certainly most of our photo
albums contain pictures of the wide open spaces and breathtaking views,
but nearly every picture also contains us. We are hunting. We are
fishing. We are hiking. We are moving cows. We are drilling. We are out
there. This is truly our custom and our culture, in addition to being a
mainstay of our way of life and our way of making a living.
If Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot were alive today, they would
be appalled at the forest conditions in Wyoming. Consider the following
statement from Theodore Roosevelt to the Society of American Foresters
in 1903:
``And now, first and foremost, you can never afford to forget
for one moment what is the object of our forest policy. That
object is not to preserve the forests because they are
beautiful, though that is good in itself, nor because they are
refuges for wild creatures of wilderness, thought that, too, is
good in itself, but the primary object of our forest policy, as
the land policy of the United States, is the making of
prosperous homes. . .Every other consideration comes as
secondary.''
``You yourselves have got to keep this practical object before
your minds; to remember that a forest which contributes nothing
to wealth, progress or safety of the country is of no interest
to the Government, and should be of little interest to the
forester. Your attention must be directed to the preservation
of forests, not as an end in itself, but as a means of
preserving and increasing the prosperity of the nation.''
(Evergreen Magazine, Winter 1994-1995 Edition).
To close, in the absence of clear statutory authorization to
release these areas of land that we call ``roadless'' that are stuck in
federal governmental purgatory, Wyoming County Commissioners continue
to be placed in a position with their constituents that defies all
reason or common sense. Almost daily, County Commissioners are asked by
citizens, ``Why can't we just cut them down and put them to a good use,
instead of seeing our beautiful sea of green turn to a dismal black?''
Another frequent question is, ``What do you mean this area is
`roadless' there are several roads already in the forest?''
My fellow County Commissioners and I are asked to answer these
questions daily; we are without the ability to give an answer because
of inconsistent federal practices and layer upon layer of governmental
process. Our Forests are part of our identity in Wyoming, and the
wildlife that resides there embodies the spirit of our State. As
inventoried roadless areas are being lost simply because of a lack of
active forest management, the United States government is doing
irreparable harm to our environment, our economy, but more importantly,
our state and local customs and culture. This waste is reprehensible
and cannot be permitted to continue. The examples provided in this
testimony are real and the economics associated with this ill-thought
policy are real for working Wyoming citizens determined to make a
living and remain in the place where they love.
Only Congress can designate a wilderness area, and with the
proposed legislation, we will once again return to the Congressional
intent of the Wilderness Act, not the poorly conceived agency rules or
the political pressures placed by environmentalists that forever change
the Wyoming landscape, and not for the better.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Kleen?
STATEMENT OF DAN KLEEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE
CONSERVATION COUNCIL
Mr. Kleen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
Subcommittee members. My name is Dan Kleen, I live in
Pocahontas, Iowa, I am President of the Board of Directors of
the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, or
NOHVCC, and I appreciate this opportunity to testify before you
today in support of H.R. 1581 and to share with you a different
point of view when it comes to access to our public lands. I
have been involved with NOHVCC for 16 years and I have also
been involved with the Iowa Off-Highway Vehicle Association for
more than 20 years.
My involvement with these groups has not only allowed me to
meet with some super people in this country, but it has also
given me the opportunity to visit and enjoy some of our
beautiful public lands. I have been able to ride in 19 states
and parts of Canada, and I have truly appreciated each trip.
None of these experiences would have been possible for me
without my use of my OHVs.
Many of the areas I have had the privilege of riding were
in Forest Service lands or Bureau of Land Management lands. I
would support H.R. 1581 which would release these areas that
have been deemed nonsuitable for wilderness designation by the
appropriate agency and to allow them to be used for multiple
uses. While I understand that OHV recreation isn't acceptable
on every acre of public land, I believe that managers should
have the ability to manage and H.R. 1581 would allow them to
make better decisions on these areas that have been locked up
for decades.
Almost 20 percent of Americans are living with some sort of
disability. This is the combined populations of California and
Florida. Wheelchair users like myself make up for 3.3 million
of that total. When you look at the aging of America, it is
estimated by 2030 71 and a half million Americans will be over
the age of 65. One in every five of us in this room either are
already dealing with some sort of disability or may have to
deal with a disability in our lifetime. Hopefully all of us
will get to deal with the aging issue.
How and where Americans with special needs choose to
recreate with their families friends may vary. For myself and
many others off-highway vehicles make it possible to
participate in and enjoy more experiences while lessening the
burden on those we want to spend time with. Improving
independence for people with disabilities also improves quality
of life. In 1987 I was injured in a diving accident. I am an
incomplete C-6 quadriplegic and a full time wheelchair user.
I spent nine months in the rehab hospital. During that
stay, I spent a lot of time thinking of how I may adapt to
continue to get outdoors and enjoy my favorite sports. At that
time many off-highway vehicles were less user friendly and for
people with limited mobility than they are today. But now many
machines can be used with little or no modifications, making
them easier and less expensive to use. Automotive type hand
controls which have been used for years can easily be adapted
to recreational off-highway vehicles are commonly called side
by sides.
We have been able to introduce several of our wounded
veterans who have suffered lower leg amputations to our sport
with the help of this type of hand control modifications. It
has been a long personal goal to establish a national program
to introduce wounded veterans to the experience that off-
highway vehicles can provide. Through NOHVCC and other
organizations I hope to get such a program off the ground in
the future.
I would like to share with you one particular ride that
stands out. As we were getting ready to leave Richfield, Utah,
on our ATVs, another small group of riders stopped and asked us
for suggestions on trails that they may enjoy that day. We
invited them to join us on our ride. Our destination was Monroe
Mountain, more than a 70-mile ride that would take us through
parts of the Fishlake National Forest and the Richfield
District of the BLM, Monroe Mountain is still one of my
favorite places to visit.
When we and our new friends arrived at the top of the
11,200-foot peak, I told one of them that if she wanted to talk
to God it was a local call from up here. That particular day I
did not take my wheelchair with me, and it was not until that
evening and we returned back to Richfield and I got off my ATV
back in my wheelchair that our new friends even realized I had
a disability.
One of them had a pretty good laugh and commented that I
had just ridden over 70 miles up over 11,000 feet and without a
problem, but when I got back to the parking lot a six-inch curb
made me push a half a block out of the way to join them at the
campfire. I sometimes wonder, in closing, I wish you would
consider these access opportunities of the 54 million Americans
with disabilities are elderly and veterans on your decision on
H.R. 1581 or any other possible legislation for public
responsible access. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kleen follows:]
Statement of Dan Kleen, President, Board of Directors,
National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Subcommittee Members.
My name is Dan Kleen, I live in Pocahontas, Iowa. I am the
President of the Board of Directors for the National off-Highway
Vehicle Conservation Council (NOHVCC) and I appreciate this opportunity
to testify before you today in support of H.R. 1581 and to share with
you a different point of view when it comes to access to our Public
Lands.
I have been involved with NOHVCC for 16 years, and I have also been
involved with the Iowa Off-Highway Vehicle Association for more than 20
years. My involvement with these groups has not only allowed me to meet
some great people, it has given me the opportunity to visit and enjoy
some of our beautiful Public Lands. I have been able to ride in
California, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, New
Mexico, Texas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri,
Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, North Carolina and parts of Canada. I
have truly appreciated and enjoyed each trip. None of these great
experiences would have been possible without the use of my Off-Highway
Vehicles.
Many of the areas I had the privilege of riding were on Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. As a result I support H.R.
1581, which would release areas that have been deemed not suitable for
wilderness designation by the appropriate agency and allow them to be
used for multiple uses. While I understand that OHV recreation isn't
appropriate on every acre of public land, I believe that land managers
should have the ability to manage and H.R. 1581 would allow them to
make better decisions on areas that have been in limbo for decades.
I would also like to take this opportunity to share with you how
many of the over 54 million Americans with disabilities may use Off-
Highway Vehicles (ATVs, Side by Sides, Motorcycles, Full Size 4X4s and
other vehicles) to recreate on some of our nation's most beautiful
areas with our families and friends.
Almost 20% of Americans are living with some sort of disability.
That is the combined populations of California and Florida. Wheelchair
users like myself make up 3.3 million of that total. When you look at
the aging of America it is estimated that by 2030, 71.5 million
Americans will be over the age of 65. One in every Five of us in this
room are already dealing with, or may have to deal with a disability in
our lifetime. Hopefully all of us will get to deal with the aging
issue.
How and where Americans with special needs choose to recreate with
their families and friends may vary. For myself, and many others, Off-
Highway Vehicles make it possible to participate in and enjoy more
experiences while lessening the burden to those we want to spend time
with. Improving independence for people with disabilities also improves
quality of life.
I grew up on an Iowa farm. Some of my fondest memories are of
hunting, fishing, riding motorcycles, snowmobiles and horses with my
family and friends. In 1987 I was injured in a diving accident, I'm an
incomplete C-6 quadriplegic and a fulltime wheelchair user. I spent 9
months in a Rehab Hospital and during that stay I spent a lot of time
thinking about how I would need to adapt to continue to get outdoors to
enjoy my favorite sports.
At that time most Off-Highway Vehicles were less user friendly for
people with limited mobility than they are today. But now many machines
can be used with little or no modification, making them much easier and
less expensive to use. Automotive style hand controls that have been
used for years can easily be adapted for use on Recreational Off-
Highway Vehicles (commonly called, Side by Sides). We have been able to
introduce several of our wounded veterans who have suffered lower leg
amputations to our sport with the help of this type of hand control
modifications. It has long been a personal goal to establish a national
program to introduce wounded veterans to the experience that off-
highway vehicles can provide. Through NOHVCC and other organizations we
hope to get such a program off the ground in the future.
One example of what an outreach group can accomplish is the
Adaptive Sportsmen group located in Wisconsin. For the last 7 years
they have held an annual 2-day ATV ride for people with disabilities in
northern Wisconsin with 25 to 30 riders participating each year. This
has been a very successful program. Several of the new riders being
introduced to the sport at these rides have commented that learning
from and riding with an experienced rider who also has a disability
made it much more enjoyable.
I would like to share with you one ride in particular that stands
out. It was a beautiful September day in Utah. As we were getting ready
to leave Richfield, Utah on our ATVs another small group of riders
stopped us and asked us for suggestions of trails they may enjoy riding
that day. We invited them to join us on our ride. Our destination was
Monroe Mountain. A more than 70mile ride that would take us through
parts of the Fish Lake National Forest and the Richfield District of
the BLM. Monroe Mountain is still one of my favorite places to visit.
When we and our new friends arrived on the top of the 11,200 foot peak
I told one of them that if she would like to talk to God it is a local
call from up here. That particular day I did not take my wheelchair
with me on my ATV. And it was not until that evening when we returned
to Richfield and I got off my ATV that our new friends even released I
had a disability. We had a pretty good laugh when one of them commented
that I had just ridden over 70 miles and up over 11,000 feet without a
problem and yet a 6 inch curb in the parking lot made me push my
wheelchair over a \1/2\ block out of my way to join them at the
campfire.
I sometimes wonder that if being from Iowa where we have no Federal
lands to enjoy and where 98% of our State is privately owned does not
make me appreciate each of the Nation's public areas I have visited
even more. I do know that without the opportunity to responsibly use my
Off-Highway Vehicles on these Public Lands I could not have enjoyed
them.
In closing, I ask you to please consider the access opportunities
of the 54 million Americans with disabilities, our elderly and veterans
in your decision on H.R. 1581 and any legislation that may address
access for responsible Americans.
Thank You!
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, I appreciate the testimony
of all four of you, I appreciate how religiously you held to
that five-minute clock there even cutting things off in mid
sentence, so thank you very much. I am going to ask my
questions last. Ranking Member Mr. Grijalva, do you have
questions for these four?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, thank you. Let me just thank you,
Secretary, for being here today. Some figure that we heard
today was 60 million Americans secure their drinking water from
the National Forests. The question I think is if anything these
WSAs and wilderness the biggest resource that we protect worth
billions and billions of dollars is water. And my question is
what would be the impacts if the supply if tens of millions of
forest land are opened to oil and gas drilling and potentially
other polluting activities, have the impact on that drinking
water availability to those millions of Americans? To you, Mr.
Secretary Babbitt.
Mr. Babbitt. Well, I think that that is really the set of
issues underlying the adoption of the Roadless Rule. 50 percent
of the National Forest lands are today open and being used for
timber cutting, clear cutting, road building, oil and gas. The
question we have here is whether or not there should be, could
be a different management regime for another 30 percent of the
National Forests. And the Roadless Rule was crafted to say
those lands will be open for recreation, they will be open for
motorized recreation, there will be access for forest thinning
and forest health activities written into the rule.
The decision that was made in the Roadless Rule was that
there are two activities that are manifestly incompatible with
vigorous robust public recreation, ecological health and
watershed protection of upstream communities, and the issue
simply is not whether this is wilderness, it isn't. It is not
whether or not Mr. Kleen has access to the 30 percent 55
million acres under the Roadless Rule. You do have access. The
question is what are the minimum exclusions necessary to ensure
a robust ecosystem including a watershed provision for most
western communities. That is the Roadless Rule.
Mr. Grijalva. A process question, Mr. Secretary. The role
of agency recommendations in this process that we are talking
about, and so the agency is making the recommendation, what
should the role of Congress be? Since this bill seems to be
taking us in another direction.
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Grijalva, obviously Congress has the final
say in the management of public lands. The question is how best
to exercise that oversight. The reason I believe this bill is
extreme is because rather than getting into the details of
management prescriptions it simply blows away the protections
in terms of the wilderness study areas and by repealing the
Roadless Rule.
I thought Mr. Sherman's description of the Roadless Rule
issues was really worth listening to because they are not
wilderness areas, they have a spectrum of uses. And my advice
to the Congress would simply be, those are the issues that
should be debated in this Congress. Maybe the Roadless Rule
should be reshaped, but I think it is wrong and against the
manifest will of the majority of Americans simply to blow it
off and say we are going to give it away to extractive
interests.
Mr. Grijalva. I have an additional question, but I will
yield.
Mr. Bishop. All right, we will have another round obviously
to go through here. Mr. McClintock, do you have questions for
these witnesses?
Mr. McClintock. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Noel, as
I listened to Governor Babbitt, it sounds like he is saying,
look we are not closing the public lands we are just closing
the roads in the public lands. How do you respond to that?
Mr. Noel. Well, Congressman, they are closing the road. Let
me just tell you, you have heard of Revised Statute 2477, that
was the law that was passed in the 1800s that allowed for
counties to acquire access to public lands. This has been the
entire debate of the wilderness group such as the Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance and the Wilderness Society, that is why in
Utah we have spent untold millions of dollars to try to get our
roads open. These are roads that were built by taxpayers, that
have been maintained by taxpayers, and in 1976 when FLPMA was
passed those roads were grandfathered in.
These WSAs, and you know what the definition of a
wilderness area is, 5,000 acres of roadless areas, this is
where the battle is right at the pinnacle is on these roadless
issues, on these issues that deal with roads on BLM, to try to
obtain these roads and get them the name of the counties that
access private lands, that access state lands, that access
resources, and access the public lands that would stay here.
This is the whole issue behind this, no one wants to talk about
this but this is why we are fighting this battle.
Right now we are in court with five or six different
lawsuits. We have been to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
twice and we have won on these issues. We are going to court
next month, we should get, the first RS 2477 road recognized
was in my county, in Kane County. I have been fighting this
battle for 14 years now and we are finally getting to a head.
But this WSAs, they were recommended by the Secretary, Former
Secretary's Administration that we release these. This was the
plan when FLPMA was passed.
This is what the absurdity of all this is. FLPMA was passed
as a multiple use bill. You remember the sage brush? I remember
that time. I just joined the agency in 1975 right before 1976,
a month before this all started, and the whole issue was, you
can have access to the minerals, you can keep your water, you
can have control of the state trust lands, and this whole thing
has changed in the last 35 years.
Mr. McClintock. Well, these extremists understand that if
you can close the roads or prevent roads from being used you
can close the public lands to the public.
Mr. Noel. Absolutely.
Mr. McClintock. And that I am convinced is their objective.
I reflect on the days of Plantagenet England when the crown
closed one-third of the land area of southern England declaring
it a royal forest, became the private preserve of the crown,
the royal foresters, and the favored constituents of the crown,
and it became such an object of the public disgust and outrage
that no fewer than five clauses of the Magna Carta were devoted
to a redress of the public's grievances, and I think that we
are watching that same phenomenon, something in our own human
nature that tends to drive government to want to extend
exclusivity over vast amounts of land, and that is exactly what
it appears to me that they are doing.
Now let me just ask panelists, is there anybody here who is
advocating clear cutting of our forests? Of course not. So that
is just a straw man, that is a device, an intellectually
dishonest device. Nobody is suggesting that. The problem is we
have now gone to the other extreme where we can't even salvage
fire killed timber after a forest fire. And I think that there
is a big difference between clear cutting and the sustainable
forest management practices that once produced not only much
healthier forests than those we have today but also a much
healthier economy and much healthier revenues coming to the
public treasury.
We are now having far more frequent forest fires, far more
intense forest fires because of the policy shifts of the last
20 or 30 years. Because the Federal Government is now
forbidding the removal of overpopulation and overgrowth of
timber and as one forester told me, that overgrowth is going to
come out of the forest one way or another, it will either be
carried out or it will be burned out, but it will come out.
When we carried it out, we had healthier forests and a
healthier economy. Since the radical extremists seized control
of our public policy 20 or 30 years ago we are now watching
that overgrowth being burned out in devastating forest fires
and there is nothing more environmentally devastating to a
forest than a forest fire, and it is these policies that are
promoting that sorry condition.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Heinrich.
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. Representative Noel, I
wanted to ask. There are currently several million acres of
public land that both the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of the Interior have also recommended for wilderness
designation. Some of these recommendations as you know go back
just as long, 20 or 30 years depending on the inventory. If
Congress acts on the recommendation in this legislation to
release certain WSAs, how would you feel about at the same time
including language that would designate the portions that were
recommended as wilderness in those same inventories?
Mr. Noel. I haven't been a strong proponent of wilderness
in my own but I know some of these Congressional bills that
have come forward, Congressman, have been compromises. So I
think that should be up to the individual state and the
congressional delegation of those states. I think there needs
to be input from the Legislature, the State Legislature,
because they are on the ground.
Mr. Heinrich. I don't disagree with you, Representative
Noel, but I question why there should be local input into
designation but no local input into the release of tens of
millions of acres of WSAs, including places in New Mexico where
the local communities have very strongly said we want these
WSAs even though they are not recommended to be designated as
wilderness. So why the double standard?
Mr. Noel. I am not proposing that, I never have. I think
there should be local input if there is a particular area.
But----
Mr. Heinrich. This legislation takes that input away
because it says that those WSAs in New Mexico that have local
support will be released under this legislation, including in
places like we heard about before from Congressman Pearce, the
Sierra de las Uvas, the Robledos, and many, many others.
Mr. Noel. But I thought you were talking about wilderness
areas per se, not the ones that were found unsuitable. I think
we have to follow the law, which says if it is found
unsuitable, there are court cases in the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals that said if it is unsuitable it can't be managed for
wilderness. So if these were found unsuitable they shouldn't be
in that category. If you want to propose a bill from a local
area and a Congressional bill and that comes before Congress,
that is a different situation than what this legislation does.
This talks about an existing law that has been in place since
'76 that allows for these lands to be released, and I think
that is all we are doing, under this Administration, under the
Clinton Administration.
Mr. Heinrich. So we are going to do half our job but we are
not going to do the other half of our job. We are going to
release the ones that were found unsuitable and we are not
going to designate the ones that were found suitable?
Mr. Noel. I am saying the ones that were found suitable,
again that is a different process, that is a two-prong process.
The first process is the release of WSAs.
Mr. Heinrich. No, in many of these bills over the last 30
years including the case you heard about in Arizona we did all
of this together with local input, and I think it is worth
looking at that model. And that even applies to places like the
Cedar Mountains, which our Chairman designated as wilderness
despite the fact that much of that was not recommended as
wilderness. Commissioner Connelly, you mentioned Yellowstone
National Park, and we all know the scale of the fire in 1988.
How many of those roads were effective fire breaks in the
summer of '88 in Yellowstone National Park, those critical
roads for fire breaks?
Mr. Connelly. All of them were.
Mr. Heinrich. How many of them were successful fire breaks?
Mr. Connelly. Some were, some weren't enough----
Mr. Heinrich. Not a single road held. The only successful
fire break in the summer of '88 to my knowledge was Yellowstone
Lake. That was the one place where spotting didn't jump because
it is a lot more than two miles wide.
Mr. Connelly. The map you are looking at right in front of
you is from the Fontenelle Fire, and the road that is right
above the line right in there if you take a look at an aerial
photograph on it and I would be more than willing to send you
that, that stopped that fire. Cost my county $4 million.
Mr. Heinrich. I will look forward to taking a look at that.
I think I have a minute and 15 seconds left. I think the last
thing I would like to address is the fact that Congressman
Pearce brought up the idea that if you can't get an ATV into
the back country you can't harvest an elk. Now I haven't
actually seen a 1,500 pound elk. I would love to see a 1,500
pound elk. This is more on the order of maybe 750 pounds that I
harvested about as a crow flies maybe five miles from a road,
it was a longer pack than that.
The reason why I was able to harvest it on the first
morning of hunting season was because it was a roadless area,
and because of that habitat security that elk seem to move to
where they don't have access via off-road vehicles, via four-
wheel-drives. I have hunted the Jemez extensively, I took an
elk out of a roadless area last year. In other parts of the
Jemez where the road density was dramatically higher you can't
find an elk during hunting season because all of them move to
the places where they have habitat security. So with that I
will before I run out of time and break the Chairman's rules I
will leave it back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Heinrich. You know, we talked
about this before, you were able to do it because you were
young and vigorous. Fat old people like me can't do that
anymore here.
Mr. Heinrich. I am going to reserve my right to dispute
either part of that allegation.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Heinrich,
I want to bring you up to Colorado. We have elk standing in the
middle of Highway 145, so come up there, we will get a little
bit easier for you. Mr. Babbitt, Secretary Babbitt, thank you
for taking the time to be here. And I did want to ask you a
question. You claim that H.R. 1581 strips Congress of its right
to make individual determination on wilderness areas. However,
under a WSA lands are managed as defacto wilderness, which
Congress did not authorize, even though it is being managed as
defacto wilderness in many respects. So how does the managing
of lands as wilderness without local consensus and the
characteristics of Congressional wilderness actual designation
give any greater deference to Congress and the constituents
impacted?
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Congressman, the release of the lands from
WSA as Mr. Abbey explained dumps that land back into other
buckets of BLM management. Now there may be an entire spectrum
of possibilities, but the one thing that does not automatically
happen is the maintenance of that land as suitable for a
wilderness designation by this Congress.
Mr. Tipton. Now, Former Secretary of the Department of the
Interior, as Mr. Abbey just made in his comments, you can
assure us that that land still does have protection even
without that WSA?
Mr. Babbitt. No, I certainly can't assure you of that.
Mr. Tipton. You can't assure us of that, there are no
regulations under BLM?
Mr. Babbitt. That is up to the land managers.
Mr. Tipton. And those are regulations?
Mr. Babbitt. Along with statutory direction.
Mr. Tipton. And so there are regulations?
Mr. Babbitt. Well, there are administrative rules and
regulations spanning----
Mr. Tipton. Which would require approval?
Mr. Babbitt. By whom?
Mr. Tipton. If an application is made to change the usage
of that land, who makes the determination?
Mr. Babbitt. Well, it falls back obviously into the
resource management plan.
Mr. Tipton. So there are regulations.
Mr. Babbitt. Into the RMPs.
Mr. Tipton. So the land is still protected?
Mr. Babbitt. It depends on the administrative criteria that
are being applied either under the resource management plan or
generically across that landscape by the Bureau of Land
Management.
Mr. Tipton. Maybe you can----
Mr. Babbitt. It will if it is released from the wilderness
study area it will not have the protections afforded by the
Wilderness Act for that land pending a determination by this
Congress.
Mr. Tipton. Great, let us follow that up. You know, I
respect the BLM and our men and women in our Forest Service and
the BLM, you know, for their efforts on our land. Maybe you can
help me understand some of the challenge I think many of us
wrestle with on this is when we are talking about lands by the
BLM that are deemed not suitable, they have been deemed not
suitable, what is the resistance to saying, we don't need to
study this anymore?
Mr. Babbitt. Well, as I believe Mr. Heinrich and perhaps
Mr. Markey explained--I am sorry, would you ask me the question
again?
Mr. Tipton. You bet. When we are deeming, and this is per
the BLM----
Mr. Babbitt. What is the resistance?
Mr. Tipton. Yes, what is the resistance to it? They have
said it is not suitable.
Mr. Babbitt. That is merely one administrator's decision in
time. As they explained, this Congress has on multiple
occasions overruled that determination because that is the
function of the Wilderness Act and the power reserved to
Congress. There are multiple occasions in which this body has
said, notwithstanding that the Administration has said it is
not suitable we the Congress determine that it is suitable and
proceed to make a statutory wilderness area.
Mr. Tipton. OK, and so you kind of followed this process.
Many of us are not career politicians in Washington, and coming
in, if some land is, is there any prohibition against any
Member of Congress if they think that it needs to be designated
introducing legislation to designate?
Mr. Babbitt. There is already a statutory process for the
Congress to do that.
Mr. Tipton. Right. And so we have lands that for 30 years
have been under study areas that have been deemed maybe by one,
two, three, we don't know how many people that are on the
ground looking at it as not suitable for wilderness and it
hasn't been introduced, and so we may have a bit of an answer
on some of that, don't you think?
Mr. Babbitt. No, because the Wilderness Act provides the
solution. It is for you and the Colorado delegation to get
together, call folks together, and bring legislation to this
Congress.
Mr. Bishop. OK, thank you. Now I have questions for the
first round but Mr. Grijalva has another appointment here. I am
going to yield to him for his second round questions first. Mr.
Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, because, and Secretary Babbitt, because
of the history discussion we have been having here, going back
to the Magna Carta, the premise of this bill to me is that
Congress should blindly follow agency recommendations made
decades ago. I find that full of problems and problematic to
begin with. But during these time periods where the wilderness
suitability determination was made, and are they still relevant
today, Mr. Babbitt? Haven't, I think, haven't public values and
our knowledge of the lands themselves changed considerably and
these recommendations since then could be dated and when they
were established? So if that is the premise and we are looking
now from a historical perspective and Congress's role in the
determination, don't you feel that the information has changed
in two decades, a decade?
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Grijalva, I think it is fair to say that
when a wilderness study area went into effect that the
decisions that were made about designation versus release would
always have a shifting character as a function of the
composition of the Congress, the desires of the local people,
technological advances in the kinds of uses and impacts on the
area, and that each Congress going forward would undoubtedly be
looking at these issues in a shifting matrix of facts and
events and the opinions of the elected officials.
That is as true today as it was 30 years ago. But it
doesn't for me alter the architecture of the Act, which says it
is for Congress to make the decision. What Bob Abbey may have
recommended 30 years ago or 10 years ago or yesterday is
nothing more or less than advice for this Congress to take into
consideration when it meets its statutory function of making
the decision.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I think the point
is that we could resolve all these issues, Mr. Chairman, if
Members of Congress would do their homework. You get the
stakeholders in the room, you get out the maps, a Sharpie, and
you go to work with the people that have an investment in a
potential designation. And it is really hard work, having
learned that painfully with the Tumacacori Highlands as we went
through that process.
And you start with the old agency recommendations, then the
compromising process begins, then you have an understanding and
you craft legislation, you bring it to your colleagues, and
then you try to pass it. And I think across-the-board releases
or designations is not the process and it is not the path to
lasting success in these issues. With that let me yield back
and thank you for your courtesy.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. Let me have a chance
to ask a couple of questions. I have some questions for all of
you and some things I would like to read at the same time. So
let me start the first one and just ask all of you a yes or no
question. It has been claimed that this bill is an extreme
bill. I want your answer on if you think this bill is an
extreme bill, just yes or no, starting with Mr. Kleen? No. Mr.
Babbitt?
Mr. Babbitt. In order to be consistent with my prior
testimony my answer is yes.
Mr. Bishop. I think that was accurate, yes. Mr. Noel?
Mr. Noel. No.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Connelly?
Mr. Connelly. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. All right, let me talk just simply about the
reality that we have in the process that we are talking about
here. It seems that what we do around this place is we say, OK,
this is considered wilderness, we will designate it as such,
that is the end of the discussion, it is over. Anything that is
not considered wilderness we are going to do do-overs and
reconsider and reconsider until we finally make it wilderness.
At no time do we ever reverse that process.
You are right in saying it is Congress's decision. This
bill is Congress's decision. Now whatever standard we want to
work with it, that is Congress's decision. We don't go
backwards on wilderness area but we always go forwards in this
process. The process in reality is screwed up, and that is why
it is simply unacceptable. Let me ask some questions then I
want to do some reading. Let me start with Mr. Kleen if I could
and try and go down there as much as we can. Mr. Kleen, I would
like you to give me some more personal examples, it is a
wonderful story you have, of the difficulty you have or how it
is that you are able to take veterans, however you are able to
use different kinds of equipment as you go out in the efforts
that you do on the lands that we have here.
Mr. Kleen. Yes, sir. Again, most of the machines are very
user friendly these days, and the adaptives of the hand control
that I mentioned. There are lower-leg amputees, wounded
veterans coming back, who can't operate a car or a side-by-side
without the use of these hand controls. One thing that has
really been rewarding as well is we have the issue that not all
disabilities are visual where it is. Obviously, I am in a
wheelchair. Some of these are called closed-head injuries, and
they cannot operate a machine with hand controls or not. But
those soldiers and those people with that type of disability
can go out and recreate and ride as a passenger safely on these
vehicles.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate it. Commissioner
Connelly, in your experience and especially dealing with the
pine beetle, could you contrast what has happened in areas that
are roadless areas versus those areas where mechanical vehicles
have been able to go in and do treatment for the pine beetle
and other insect manifestations?
Mr. Connelly. It is very glaring. When I mentioned earlier
about the map up there, where the mechanical treatment is being
done, and the Fontenelle Fire was stopped in mechanical
treatment on roads because that was where the Forest Service
had the tools to fight with. The green new growth stopped the
Fontenelle Fire. It is very glaring on a map. Management of the
forest is essential in preventing forest fires. A healthy
mosaic forest means everything to how it operates. It is no
different than the lawn out here just outside. If you don't
thatch it, it overgrows and it dies. The National Forest is no
different. And if you treat it that way it will grow and
prosper and do well.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I am just going to have to do a
second round as well. Mr. Noel, you got a minute and a half
here to tell me how this land's designation impacts education
funding in my state, because I am still on retirement from the
system.
Mr. Noel. Well, it impacts it because we have the state
trust lands, Section 216-32 and 36, that are surrounded in many
cases by these WSAs. We were supposed to be able to get revenue
as a state from those lands. When you have a WSA in those
areas, number one, many of them don't have access, number two,
if you try to develop anything on the state trust lands or even
private lands and you have to access those through a WSA the
costs are greatly increased. You cannot go through a WSA, you
can't put a pipeline in the ground that is substantially
unnoticeable, you can't do anything in a WSA.
So the normal land laws, the Title V FLPMA rights of ways
that were given to us in FLPMA cannot be exercised on WSAs. So
you have limited the ability of the State of Utah to get those
monies that were given to the children of the State of Utah,
and again on private property, you have limited the building on
private property, where we get property taxes. You get zero
property taxes from the Federal lands. And so they not only
limited the property taxes on Federal land, they have
eliminated it on trust lands and on private property because
you can't get any rights of ways and access those lands.
Mr. Bishop. So it doesn't come as a surprise to you that
the 13 states that have the slowest growth in their education
funding happen to be the 13 states that are public lands in the
West?
Mr. Connelly. Comes as no surprise to me. I said I manage
the Kane County Water Conservancy District, we draw on about 20
percent of the land in the county, we draw about a million
dollars in tax revenue from property taxes, guess how much we
get from the Federal Government. Zero. Yet 3 million tourists
come through there that want water, want access, want phones,
want motels. So we lose on that accord. And WSAs and special
designations makes it even more difficult to fund education.
Mr. Bishop. The ratio is actually two to one, 68 percent
growth in the East, 39 percent growth in the West. We are on
our second round. Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. My apologies for having to duck
in and out, a lot of things going on. First, Secretary Babbitt,
thank you for all that you have done over these many, many
years to protect and preserve and make available to Americans
in so many different ways their land. This is not the Federal
Government land, this is the land that belongs to the American
people. And we debate forever, I think going back to the very
earliest days of the western portion of the United States,
about how those lands should be used, so it is no surprise that
we continue to debate it today. But, Secretary Babbitt, thank
you for all that you have done.
What I have found in a series of hearings that we have had
on various bills is that problems that exist in one or another
place in the United States have ballooned into legislation that
affects all of the United States. Mr. Chairman, you had a bill
that took 100 miles along the American border and basically
opened, gave the Homeland Security Secretary power over a 100-
mile stretch of America along all of its borders when, in fact,
there was a specific problem, I believe it was in Arizona, that
needed to be addressed. And we have a similar situation here
today in which we have problems in a given area, and we just
discussed at length the Utah situation, that deserves the
attention of the Congress and should be brought to the Congress
in a specific bill dealing with that particular set of
circumstances.
Instead we have a bill before us that is all across America
and takes all WSAs and all roadless areas and says, forget it,
we are going to deal with them in one sweeping move, when in
fact we have had legislation as recent as a year ago, a year
and a half ago, that dealt with specific areas and made
adjustments, in some cases WSAs becoming wilderness even though
they were designated as non-wilderness, and in other cases
being returned to multiple uses.
That is what we ought to be doing here. And I think it is a
very serious mistake to do a blanket approach across the entire
nation. Mr. Babbitt, Secretary, if you would comment on that, I
have noticed you nodding as this issue has come back and forth,
if you could comment on a site specific or a region specific
versus a blanket approach such as we have before us today?
Mr. Babbitt. Well, Mr. Garamendi, I would like to do that
by going back to the Utah example that was discussed. The
creation of parks, monuments, and protected areas in Utah has
resulted in a massive increase of the assets and funding
available to the Utah School Trust. How did that happen? In
1999 I sat down with Governor Levitt who was expressing concern
about how Utah could develop its hundreds of thousands of
inholdings of school trust land in parks, monuments, and
protected areas.
We sat down and worked out a land exchange in which Utah
gave up these lands, landlocked, in the protected areas and got
what? A cornucopia of coal reserves up in the Book Cliffs,
which vastly increased the economic return and economic future
to the Utah School Trust. A nice example initiated by a
Governor of a deal which was worked out, put into legislation,
and brought to this Congress for site specific passage. Now I
believe that is the template for dealing with these issues.
Another example is Commissioner Connelly who talks about
the need for managing for fire health to get mosaic style
forests. That is absolutely true. That is a excellent
management objective. It is underway today because it was
initiated in the Clinton Administration as forest health
legislation, which was brought to this Congress in September of
2000 to initiate the process of getting at thinning west wide
to clear out overgrown forests including with mechanical means.
So it is a fiction to say that there is anything in this
bill that is going to have any useful effect on forest health
and the real need to do forest thinning. It is the kinds of
generalizations that sweep along on these bills. I would refer
you back to the legislation of September of 2000, and if you
are really interested in getting at the conceded fire problem
in National Forests, to look at what is being done and to
examine the levels of funding by this Congress and what are the
main obstacles to the forward motion of those programs.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you for bringing up the Utah
education system. I take it you will be my first cosponsor on
the Utah Apple Act, which I am dropping in September. I
appreciate your agreement to that, sir.
Mr. Babbitt. I would be delighted to work with you.
Mr. Bishop. No I am putting your name on already, we have
gotten past that here. Where am I? Second round, Mr.
McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Just a couple of points. We were talking
about extreme policies, I wonder if I could ask do you believe
it is an extreme policy to prevent the harvesting of fire
killed timber after a forest fire?
Mr. Babbitt. The issue of harvesting fire killed timber is
complex. It needs to be made by land managers on a case-by-case
basis. A lot of trouble with salvage in the Pacific Northwest
because of the erosion problems that were created by getting in
over those damaged landscapes. In other areas the fire damaged
landscape tends to be, fires typically do not blacken
landscapes uniformly. They have a kind of if you will a mosaic
pattern to them that makes it very complicated and often quite
destructive to get at the salvage logging. So the answer is,
there isn't a single nationwide prescription.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Kleen, do you think that is an extreme
policy, to prevent the salvaging of fire killed timber?
Mr. Babbitt. There are circumstances----
Mr. McClintock. Yes, no, Mr. Babbitt, I heard your answer.
Mr. Kleen?
Mr. Kleen. Please repeat the question?
Mr. McClintock. Do you think it is an extreme policy to
prevent the harvesting of fire killed timber, that is timber
that is killed by a forest fire, after the fire goes through
there and kills the timber? Do you think it is an extreme
policy to prevent its salvage?
Mr. Kleen. No, sir, I am no expert on fire forests, being
from Iowa, but I do know that on the trails with the downed
wood and the downed trees maintenance and management is a plus.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Noel?
Mr. Noel. No, I have a background in biology and a master's
in plant ecology, and I can tell you right now this is an
extreme policy that the environmental community, which
unfortunately the Babbitt Clinton Administration bought into on
many of these issues, and it is absolutely insane that you
can't go in and harvest dead burned trees and get them out of
there.
What happens after you harvest those trees in many cases
are the timber companies go in and replant new trees in that
area, as opposed to leaving them sitting there and rotting. If
you talk about real and gully erosion and problems with
erosion, that is where you are going to get it, in those fire
areas. You look and see the mud slides we get in Utah after we
have had a fire that goes down and destroys the watershed,
destroys private property. The extreme position is not to
harvest it, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Connelly?
Mr. Connelly. He is absolutely correct. The extreme version
is not to harvest it. As the son of a 37-year retired Forest
Service employee, they have plans that they can use to do it,
they know how to do it. We should be letting them do it.
Mr. McClintock. Governor Babbitt, I particularly want to
thank you for your candor in this, I think that this pulls into
very sharp focus the fact that I guess extremism is in the eye
of the beholder. And I find it hard to understand a philosophy
that views it extreme to open public lands to the public that
have already been designated as not fit for designation as
wilderness. That is an extreme policy, but the government
preventing the harvesting of fire killed timber after a forest
fire is in your view not an extreme policy.
And I find that fascinating and I think it offers us very
clear choice between two different approaches to these issues.
I might also add, I know the Ranking Member has left, but he
suggested that instead of this we ought to just pull together
the stakeholders and come to an agreement. I was reminded of
the Quincy Library Group in my district where almost 20 years
ago they did exactly that, they pulled together all of the
stakeholders. They met in the Quincy Library so that nobody
could yell at each other. They ultimately came up with a pact
to provide for the very limited harvesting of surplus timber in
that region. Everyone agreed to it, great concessions were
made, and Congress ratified it.
It has never been implemented because of extremist
environmental groups from San Francisco keep filing lawsuits to
prevent its implementation. And the human result of that is we
have had now three mill closures, Quincy, Sonora, and Camino in
the last couple of years because these lawsuits have prevented
the implementation of this pact that was agreed to by all the
local stakeholders including all the local environmental
organizations. 300 jobs at each one of those mills, 300
families without work. That is extremism.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Tipton, do you have any questions on this
round?
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, maybe just one more.
Mr. Babbitt, one of your comments that you just made was that
the single greatest obstacle for management is funding, a
moment ago. I think I probably know your answer, but I do want
to ask the question. Is it sensible for us given the economic
circumstances that we are facing right now in the country,
limited resources, to not take advantage of that opportunity
for the wilderness areas that we have already designated to
make sure that those are managed properly, to continue to
expend resources on study areas as defacto wilderness? And this
is with respect, and I do respect you, sir, to land that has
been under study for over 30 years.
And your commentary seemed to indicate that effectively
once it is designated as a study area it is in perpetuity at
that point, it can always change, but if we go back to the
authoritative body of Congress there would be no problem if at
some point in the future to take a look again. But in the mean
time these areas have been studied, we need to be able to free
up resources. Wouldn't it be a sensible thing right now to be
able to preserve and protect some of those very significant
areas that have already been designated, free up those
resources, eliminate these WSAs, and use those resources now?
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Congressman, with all due respect, I don't
agree. What I do agree with is that there have been plenty of
studies in these wilderness study areas. The issue in my
judgment is not expending money for studies. The issue is using
the procedures that are already in law to move toward a locally
state consensus driven piece of legislation in each state and
area of concern. Now I understand that consensus may not always
be possible. I think it is underrated.
We used a consensus process in Arizona for 30 years and
have largely resolved our wilderness issues. Now my suggestion
for Colorado is, you are right, you don't need any more
studies. What you need to do in Colorado is to take these
wilderness study areas, get out to your constituents, and say,
I am ready to draft release language. Let us have a Colorado-
based discussion, see how much consensus we can get, and then
bring that bill back with the benefit of that process and make
a decision.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Babbitt, let me ask a few, I
didn't leave you out the first time on purpose, I just had a
few specifically for you this time around here. Let me ask
first of all, because you mentioned the Arizona Wilderness Act
of 1984 in which you had a part, do you consider that Act to be
a success?
Mr. Babbitt. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry?
Mr. Babbitt. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. OK, maybe you need to pull that.
Mr. Babbitt. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you then. There are some things also if I
could just briefly. ``If Congress perceives that the national
interest is at stake, it ought to identify that interest
through legislation rather than leaving identification to
agency administrators. For state natural resource managers they
are weakened by the possibility of interpretation of the
language of the statutes, administrative practices are marked
by inconsistency in the degree of shared decision making.
The lack of judicial recourse for states under most
statutes leave the states at the mercy of the departmental
administrators who have the authority to decide what proposal
programs is or is not in the national interest. Experience with
many projects indicates that BLM permitting decisions are often
made independent of land use plans. Land use plans tend to
merely catalog BLM decisions rather than to guide them. The
states must be given more meaningful role in planning
development on Federal lands within their borders. In fact, as
a general rule, no use of public land should be permitted that
is prohibited by state or local zoning.
Mr. Babbitt, when you were Governor of Arizona those words
were wonderful, and those words I wish were the exact concept
that we should be using today. You also took me to task
personally, by name, in a speech you gave at the press club
here in which you criticized one of my proposed amendments. I
just want you to know that even though you criticized that I am
still giving you credit for its birth because indeed it was
your idea when you were Governor of Arizona that two thirds of
the state should be given the power to sunset or repeal Federal
laws, it was one of your proposals.
I put it into a constitutional amendment form instead of
statute, but I thought it was a damn good idea you had when you
were Governor and I still think it is a good idea whether you
criticize me for that or not, it is still a darn, darn good
idea. Can I ask you since you did go into, no, Mr. Noel first
of all. You talked, Secretary Babbitt, Former Governor Babbitt
talked about the deal that was made with the Department as well
as Governor Leavitt. Washington County lands I know for a long
time were held up, we never got title to those lands. Do we
actually have title to those lands now?
Mr. Noel. We don't. We have not. In fact, in the planning
process, Congressman, what is happening now, those bureaucrats
that are doing the bill are actually putting in, instead of
putting in the wilderness areas and restricting development,
they are putting in ACECs so that the Lake Powell Pipeline
Project may be precluded because of the way they are writing
the land use plan on this bill.
Mr. Bishop. All right, 15 seconds. The Book Cliffs land had
coal production. Was that ever put in production, does that
compare to what was in Kaiparowits?
Mr. Noel. No it doesn't at all.
Mr. Bishop. All right, Mr. Babbitt, this is the problem,
when you said you solved our education issues by that deal,
that deal was never consummated, the land that was promised
still has not been given to the state, the production
opportunities still was not given to the states. Secretary
Udall, one of your predecessors, once looked at the Kaiparowits
and said, that is the future engine of the economics of this
nation.
The Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument done by use and I
think misuse of the Antiquities Act took that economic engine
of the United States away, out of production, and the school
kids in Utah have never been able to reap the benefits of that
nor have they been able to reap the benefits of the alleged
exchange that was made between the United States government and
the Secretary Leavitt, who had no idea this was happening until
the morning of its announcement, despite what was told to him
by both the Department of the Interior as well as the White
House.
Mr. Babbitt, there are three reasons on why an Antiquities
Act can be used to create designation. One of them has to be an
emergency situation for a specific reason, specific
archeological or cultural reason and for the smallest footprint
possible. Do you remember back to those halcyon days when you
came up with this concept and used the Antiquities Act, what
were those three reasons specific to Grand Staircase-Escalante?
What was the emergency, what was the specific article that was
to be preserved, and what was the smallest footprint possible
to do that?
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, my memory after ten years is not
perfect, but first of all with respect to the area to be
preserved, Theodore Roosevelt took that on when he used the
Antiquities Act to protect roughly a million acres in Grand
Canyon. It was litigated and affirmed. There is no emergency
provision to my knowledge in the Antiquities Act, that was not
a consideration. With respect to the objects to be protected,
again I would go back to what Theodore Roosevelt had to say
about Grand Canyon, it is archeology, geology, biology,
wildlife, scenic values, all of the values that prompted prior
generations of Utah representatives to protect many of the
areas that kind of went into the matrix in Bryce and the other
monuments and parks right on the western boundary. Same
considerations, it is a huge marvelous integrated landscape.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Babbitt----
Mr. Babbitt. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, just one thing. I
hear you about the Book Cliffs, and I must say I will leave
this conference room even though I am now out to pasture with a
real vivid commitment to try to understand and do what I can,
because I think that was a part of a deal that I expected to be
carried out when I made it with the Governor.
Mr. Bishop. I thank you for that, and I do take you at the
word, I believe you will actually do that. I also realize it is
somewhat unfair to ask me to go back past two administrations
and ask for the details. The problem I have with that is when
Ms. McGinty was asked that a month after the fact she couldn't
answer those three questions either. But please when we are
talking about footprint, in the debate that passed the
Antiquities Act in the first place the question was asked,
would this be 100 acres?
And they said, no it may be more, it may be 3 to 600 acres,
that is what was envisioned. You created in this one monument
alone, just this one, 1.9 million acres, you created a monument
that was bigger than eastern states. You created a monument
that was 60 percent the size of Connecticut, 50 percent the
size of New Jersey. And neither you nor your solicitor at the
time nor anyone else that was working, especially Ms. McGinty,
can to this date tell me what it was you were trying to
protect.
That statute says there has to be something that is in harm
otherwise it should not be used, and there has to be something
specific. So I appreciate I think it is unfair to ask what the
specifics were, I will accept your answer for that. But I want
to say that we have never heard the specifics, and this is
still a sore point. And I appreciate your willingness to go
back and look at that because the so called deal was never
consummated, it was never helped in any particular way. And I
apologize for going over, which means I won't ask another
question of this panel but I do appreciate you. Is there anyone
that wants another round of questions? Mr. Garamendi. I have
another bill that you can sponsor too depending on the answer
on this one as well. Oh I don't, go ahead, you are recognized.
Mr. Garamendi. Like I said, always willing to work with
you, Mr. Chairman. I think the major point about this
particular piece of legislation is that it is blanketing the
entire nation and touches many different regions in a way that
may be good, may be bad, we just don't know. And I would much
prefer to see legislation come before us that is site specific
or region specific. Obviously the Grand Staircase-Escalante has
been controversial, I know it was when I was the deputy at the
Department of the Interior working with Mr. Babbitt on it, and
it remains so today listening to the Chairman of this
Committee.
If there are specific things that need to be done there,
that should be brought to us in a piece of legislation and we
should deal with it. And with regard to the way in which we
manage the forests, there really is a funding problem. I am
very familiar with the forests in the West, particularly in
California, and there is a serious problem of funding the
necessary studies to go forward to deal with the harvesting of
burned timber as well as the harvesting of timber in any
particular National Forest. The personnel is simply not there,
and I would call to the attention of Mr. McClintock and others
that are concerned about it as am I that if we want to move
forward with harvesting burned timber we need to do it in a way
that follows the law, and that requires personnel.
And so efforts that have been made, and this is most
recently in the bills that we have seen on the Floor in the
last month and a half to two months, those pieces of
legislation reduce the funding for the Forest Service, and
hence we should not be surprised when forest harvest plans are
not expeditiously handled. With that, a question to the
Representative from Utah, Mr. Noel. You said in your testimony
that one of the problems you have is trying to deal with the 3
million visitors that come through your area. Are they just
passing through or are they stopping or are they buying soda
pop and wine and beer or whatever else?
Mr. Noel. Most of them go to the Lake Powell area in
Arizona. Unfortunately even though most of the lake is in Utah
all the concessions are in Arizona so they get all the benefits
of that. But they do come through and we do have tourism, there
is no question about it, they do come through our area and we
benefit from that. Again, those monies do not accrue to the
school kids like property taxes would.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, that would be an issue for you as a
state representative to make a modification so that those might
actually go to the school kids.
Mr. Noel. Well, when you have two-thirds of your state, Mr.
Congressman, in Federal land ownership, any of these
designations has an impact, and we do a pretty good job in Utah
to educate our kids and we do have a balanced budget.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, I am pleased to see that that is the
case, but the issue that you raised was the sales tax revenue
not available for the school kids, and that is something you
could deal with as a representative.
Mr. Noel. It is available to the school kids but not like
property taxes. It is a three-prong approach to how we educate
our kids, and property taxes is a huge part of that, so we do
need that.
Mr. Garamendi. My point is that with the application of
your----
Mr. Bishop. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman
yield to that point?
Mr. Garamendi. If I get an extra 30 seconds, of course.
Shall we negotiate this?
Mr. Bishop. Just keep talking, I won't gavel you down
anyway. I think what Mr. Noel is trying to tell you very
quickly is in Utah all income tax is dedicated for schools.
Property tax the majority is dedicated for schools. Sales tax
is not dedicated for schools, but the State Legislature when it
fills the coffers uses sales tax money, so it does do that,
they are using that approach to it.
Mr. Garamendi. That is my point is that there are options
available with regard and tourism is a very, very important
part of it. One of the things that the Grand Staircase-
Escalante provides for the future is an extraordinary portion
of American land, public lands, that are available forevermore
in the future in their natural state. I understand that there
are individual problems that were in the '90s when we were
working with this that there are certain parcels of land that
for one reason or another preclude development on adjacent
land.
Those need to be worked out in a specific piece of
legislation that deals with the controversies and the
opportunities that are present. Again, this particular piece of
legislation is a blanket on and covers all of America where the
roadless issues and where the wilderness study areas are
existing. And my point is that it is much wiser for us to take
these things in a reasonable arena rather than coming in and
taking all of it in one fell swoop. And that is my last comment
after four times around on it.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. You are penciled in there, it is
there. Does anyone else, I know that was just the call for
votes, does anyone else have a question for this round? If not,
to the four of you once again we thank you very much for your
attendance here, for your testimony, which will be in the
record, and for your frank response to the questions that have
been asked.
Mr. Babbitt. Mr. Chairman and Committee members, thank you.
Mr. Noel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Let me invite the last panel up here, let me
try and explain what is happening here. We have just been
called for votes. We have three votes scheduled as well as an
activity that I am estimating will take about a half hour, but
this first vote will not be completed for another 15 minutes.
So what I would like to do if possible if we can invite the
next panel up and at least get two or three of the witnesses'
testimony done and then ask you if it will be kind enough of
you just to cool your heels and wait for us to come back after
this series of votes. And I apologize for that situation, this
is just the way it is.
So, nothing personal, but I want you guys to go away. And
we can invite, thank you, Mike, we can invite up to take seats
at least for a while here Ms. Melissa Simpson from the Safari
Club International, Mr. Chris Horgan, the Executive Director of
the Stewards of the Sequoia, Mr. Dave Freeland, a retired
District Ranger from Sequoia National Forest, Mr. Frank
Hugelmeyer, I hope I pronounced that properly, the President
and CEO of the Outdoor Industry Association.
And if it is possible, you know the drill about the five-
minute rule and yellow light, the green light, and the red
light and all that bit. We still have your written testimony,
we would ask you if you would add your oral testimony for the
record. We will go for at least a couple of witnesses, see how
many we can get in here before we have to break for the votes,
and then we apologize, it is a nice place in Washington to sit
around for a half hour. All right, I am lying, but we will come
back in about a half hour from that. So, Ms. Simpson, if I
could ask you to start with your oral testimony I would
appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF MELISSA SIMPSON,
SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Simpson. Sure. Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here before you
today. It has been a very interesting afternoon and I am very
happy to have an opportunity to speak with you. My name is
Melissa Simpson, I serve as Director of Government Affairs for
Safari Club International, SCI. I am pleased to be here to
share with you the views of SCI and the mainstream hunting
conservation community, the vast majority of which supports
H.R. 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of
2011.
SCI's missions are the conservation of wildlife, protection
of hunting, and education of the public concerning hunting and
its use as a conservation tool. SCI believes in the legacy of
Teddy Roosevelt and his definition of conservation. President
Roosevelt described conservation as meaning sound development
as much as it means protection, and that natural resources must
be used for the benefit of all people.
SCI strives to uphold this legacy encouraging the
sustainable use of our natural resources and the expansion of
recreational opportunities on public lands where suitable. We
strongly support H.R. 1581 because it would release lands
identified by BLM and the Forest Service from the most
restrictive of management policies and direct that these lands
be managed for multiple use, including recreation.
Mr. Chairman, one of the main concerns of the sportsman's
community is that by managing public lands as wilderness the
BLM and Forest Service are greatly reducing the ability of
hunters to access this land. Detractors will argue that hunters
can access these lands by foot. But hunters are understandably
reluctant to hunt in areas where any harvested game cannot be
readily accessed for transportation out of the field.
From a larger perspective, members of this Committee
understand that hunters and anglers contribute the majority of
dollars spent on conservation through license fees and excise
taxes. The hunting and fishing industry also supports local
economies, helps fuel jobs, and creates economic growth in
rural America. The most recent data available shows that
hunting and fishing supports 1.6 million jobs across the
nation, and these cherished pastimes directly contribute $76
billion to the national economy.
In addition to this direct impact hunting and fishing
create an economic ripple effect of $192 billion per year.
Hunters and anglers keep people working in gas stations,
retail, restaurants, and hotels. By releasing the lands in H.R.
1581 Congress would be increasing hunting and fishing access
and increasing the economic benefit those outdoor sports
provide to rural economies. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
highlight the impacts that the restrictive management of
wilderness has on disabled, elderly, and youth hunters.
These hunters are faced with specific access issues that
are illustrated in the BLM and Forest Service's own wilderness
decision tool. This tool is used to guide agency decisions
about the use of wilderness areas by persons with disabilities.
The document is attached to my written testimony and contains
case studies that exemplify how restrictions are being imposed.
One of the case studies centers around a disabled hunting group
requesting to use simple carts to help disabled hunters remove
harvested game through hunting trips.
The decision tool states that this request should be denied
because a deer cart does not meet the definition of a
wheelchair, nor is it a medically prescribed assistive device.
Even worse, exceptions to allow wheelchairs may only apply to
persons with approved disabilities and wheelchairs must be
suitable for indoor use. It is not likely that a battery
powered wheelchair is going to meet the challenges of back
country terrain.
The current agency policy for managing areas in H.R. 1851
discriminates against hunters who are unable to maneuver
through rough territory but may not be technically considered
disabled. Releasing these lands to multiple use would remove
onerous restrictions on land and allow disabled, elderly, and
youth hunters access to all of the public lands. SCI members
cherish our outdoor heritage. We have worked to bring back game
populations from the brink during the 20th century, and we are
proud stewards of the land.
Today all we are asking for is the ability to reasonably
access and enjoy our public lands. There are far better ways to
conserve treasured hunting lands than to continue a one-size-
fits-all approach that has been rejected by land managers for
decades. I thank this Subcommittee for addressing this
important issue to the sportsman's community and to the health
of the rural economies. We look forward to working with
Congress, the agencies, and others to open these lands so they
can be enjoyed by hunters and anglers. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Simpson follows:]
Statement of Melissa Simpson, Director of Government Affairs, Safari
Club International, on H.R. 1581 the Wilderness and Roadless Area
Release Act of 2011
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Melissa Simpson. I
serve as the Director of Government Affairs for Safari Club
International (SCI). I am pleased to be here to share the views of
Safari Club International, and the mainstream conservation community,
the vast majority of which supports H.R. 1581, the Wilderness and
Roadless Area Release Act of 2011.
SCI's missions are the conservation of wildlife, protection of
hunting, and education of the public concerning hunting and its use as
a conservation tool. SCI believes in the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt and
his definition of conservation. President Roosevelt described
conservation as meaning ``sound development as much as it means
protection'' and that ``natural resources must be used for the benefit
of all people.'' SCI strives to uphold this legacy, encouraging the
sustainable use of our natural resources and the expansion of
recreational opportunities on public lands where suitable.
For this reason we strongly support H.R. 1581. The legislation
would release all Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Inventoried
Roadless Areas (IRAs) that have been evaluated and recommended as not
suitable for a wilderness designation by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) or the U.S. Forest Service. It will release these lands from the
most restrictive management, and direct that these areas be managed for
multiple-use, including recreation. Between the BLM and the Forest
Service over 42 million acres would be opened, immediately resulting in
increased access for hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation.
It is important to emphasize that all of the lands affected by this
legislation have been evaluated by the BLM and Forest Service and these
agencies have determined that these lands are not suitable for
wilderness designation by Congress. Therefore, these lands have been
managed under the most restrictive management regime for decades even
though the federal land managers disagree with the designation.
Mr. Chairman, one of the main concerns of the sportsmen's community
is that by requiring these lands to be managed as wilderness, the BLM
and Forest Service are greatly reducing the ability of hunters to
access this land. Hunting plays an unquestionably significant role in
recreation, wildlife management and conservation throughout our public
lands. Hunters developed and implemented the North American model of
wildlife conservation, which has been central to the successful efforts
to return wildlife to abundant populations in the United States.
Detractors argue that hunters can access these lands by foot, but
hunters are understandably reluctant to hunt in areas where any
harvested game cannot be readily accessed for transportation out of the
field.
From a larger perspective, members of this committee understand
that hunters and anglers also contribute the majority of dollars spent
on conservation through license fees and excise taxes. The hunting
industry also supports local economies, and fuels jobs and economic
growth in rural America. The most recent data available shows that
hunting and fishing support 1.6 million jobs across the America, and
these cherished pastimes directly contribute 76 billion dollars to the
economy.
In addition to this direct impact, hunting and fishing create an
economic ripple effect of $192 billion a year. Hunters and anglers keep
people working in gas stations, retail, restaurants and hotels. By
releasing these lands Congress would be increasing hunting and fishing
access and increasing the economic benefit those outdoor sports provide
to rural economies. http://www.sportsmenslink.org/sites/
sportsmenslink.org/files/Bright%20Stars%20of%20the%20Economy.pdf)
Mr. Chairman, hunters and anglers are also concerned about the
impact that the restrictive management of Wilderness Study Areas and
Inventoried Roadless Areas has on disabled, elderly and youth hunters.
These hunters are faced with two additional problems when attempting to
access the type of lands that would be released by H.R. 1581.
First, these hunters have a particularly difficult time getting to
hunting destinations that are inaccessible due to being located in a
Roadless Area. If indeed they are able to access a hunting area located
within one of these areas, they have difficulty negotiating the often-
demanding terrain without assistance. And of course, they have an even
larger problem in attempting to transport harvested game out of the
field.
As our population ages it is vital to continue to provide quality
hunting opportunities to older and disabled hunters, and to promote
youth hunting to grow the next generation of hunters. SCI believes that
there are many less restrictive land designations that would be more
appropriate for these lands that would allow for increased hunter
access and other multiple use activities while protecting them from
exploitation.
A prime example of the application these unnecessary restrictions
on disabled hunters can be found in the BLM and Forest Service's own
Wilderness Access Decision Tool. This tool is to be used by federal
land managers to make consistent decisions about the use of wilderness
areas by persons with disabilities. This document, which is attached to
my written testimony, contains case studies that exemplify how rules
should be imposed. One of these case studies centered around a disabled
hunting group requesting to use simple carts to help disabled hunters
remove harvested game during hunting trips. The decision document
states that this request should be denied as, ``a deer cart does not
meet the definition of a wheelchair, nor is it a medically prescribed
assistive device.'' (Wilderness Access Decision Tool at 21)
Even worse, exceptions to allow wheel chairs only apply to persons
with approved disabilities, and wheelchairs must be approved for indoor
use. (Wilderness Access Decision Tool at 7) This discriminates against
elderly or youth hunters who may have a hard time maneuvering through
rough terrain but may not technically be considered disabled, thus
ineligible for any consideration by land managers. There is no need for
these absurd restrictions. Releasing these lands to multiple-use would
remove these onerous restrictions on land use and allow disabled,
elderly and youth hunters and anglers to enjoy all of our public lands.
SCI members cherish our outdoor heritage. We have worked to bring
back game populations from the brink during the 20th Century, and we
are proud stewards of the land. Today, all we are asking for is the
ability to reasonably access and enjoy our public lands. There are far
better ways to preserved treasured hunting lands than to continue a
one-size fits all approach that has been rejected by land managers for
decades. Land managers can use travel management plans and other land
designations that do not impose an undue burden on hunters and
recreational interests. The time has come for Congress to act and
release these areas that land managers have already designated as not
suitable for wilderness.
I thank the subcommittee for addressing an issue that is very
important to the sportsmen's community and to the health of rural
economies. We look forward to working with Congress and the agencies to
release these lands so that they can be enjoyed by hunters, anglers and
other multiple-use activities.
I would be happy to answer any questions that the Committee might
have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Horgan, if you would?
STATEMENT OF CHRIS HORGAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STEWARDS OF THE
SEQUOIA
Mr. Horgan. Sure, Mr. Chairman. Dear Mr. Chairman and
Committee members, thank you very much for this opportunity to
appear before you.
Mr. Bishop. Can you pull it right to your mouth so we can
hear that?
Mr. Horgan. My name is Chris Horgan. I am Executive
Director of Stewards of the Sequoia. We are the largest on-the-
ground volunteer organization in the Sequoia National Forest.
We have 2,400 members who care deeply about the lands in the
Sequoia National Forest. Stewards of Sequoia is based out of
Lake Isabella, California, with a population of about 16,000.
Our award-winning Trail Appreciation Program has performed
maintenance on over 1,900 miles of trail since 2004. We have
formally adopted nine trails and have a stewardship agreement
with the Forest Service.
Stewards volunteers have also planted hundreds of trees in
order to help speed reforestation after the devastating McNally
150,000-acre wildfire. Stewards of the Sequoia mission is to
promote responsible recreation and environmental stewardship.
But those are not just words, we roll up our sleeves and put
our time and sweat into the stewardship of the public lands we
hold so dear. I am here today to talk to you about three
things, the environment, the economy, and the public, and how
they are affected by this bill.
H.R. 1581, Wilderness and Roadless Release Act of 2011,
fully embodies both recreation and stewardship, so this bill is
something every reasonable person can heartily support by
releasing lands which decades ago were determined by the Forest
Service and the BLM to be unsuitable for wilderness
designation. These lands have a rich history of ranching,
mining, timber harvesting, and recreation. Even without the
reports we can easily see they are unsuitable for wilderness,
but look for yourselves. These pictures were all taken on the
unsuitable lands proposed for release in the Sequoia National
Forest.
These lands contain cabins, roads, mines, cell towers,
lookout towers, developed campgrounds, motorized trails, and
even hazmat sites. There is no doubt these lands do not meet
the Wilderness Act criteria of untouched by the hand of man.
These unsuitable lands have languished in many case for over 20
years awaiting release back to their intended uses. During that
time, many of the uses on these lands have been restricted as
if they had actually been designated wilderness but without
Congressional approval or authority.
This bill is about sharing the land and embracing the
environment. Under the Wilderness and Roadless Release Act
families would continue or again enjoy all forms of recreation
on these lands including camping, mountain biking, hunting,
dirt bike riding, 4-by-4, hiking, and fishing. These unsuitable
lands could once again benefit from active management as needed
to promote forest health and prevent wildfires.
These unsuitable lands could once again provide renewable
resources and minerals, reduce dependency on foreign sources.
These unsuitable lands could once again generate revenue
instead of being a cost burden as they are now. Releasing these
unsuitable lands from further consideration for the wilderness
designation would not release them from management. These lands
and all activities on them would still have to meet the
strictest regulations in the world for multiple use lands, such
as riparian regulations, habitat regulations, density
regulations, erosion regulations, botanical regulations,
seasonal regulations, water quality regulations, air quality
regulations, threatened species regulations, Endangered Species
Act, National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic
Preservation Act, and more.
Wilderness is not the only form of land management.
Multiple use lands allow recreation and renewable resource
harvesting only if they at a minimum meet all these
regulations. So you see there are more than enough adequate
protections to ensure these unsuitable lands remain in
excellent condition for future generations. With the passage of
H.R. 1581 the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM would no longer
have their hands tied and will be able to actively manage our
public lands and promote forest health and reduce catastrophic
wildfires.
Should these unsuitable lands ever be designated as
wilderness there would be few if any places left for people to
enjoy most forms of recreation. There is little doubt the
communities around Lake Isabella would dry up and there would
no longer be enough population or business to support it. A
good example of this was when the State of California recently
restricted fishing on some segments of the Kern River for a
period of about one year. As a result of this restriction on
fishing, the local chamber of commerce stated that many
businesses closed or came near to closing, and others
complained of a drastic reduction in sales which, if continued,
would have forced them to close also.
There are probably wilderness advocates who will demand
that these lands, which are clearly unsuitable for wilderness,
continue to be studied, reviewed, and held in limbo until they
can somehow find someone that is willing to ignore the facts
and find them suitable. These public lands have languished in
limbo for too long. I encourage this Congress to fulfill their
promise and release these unsuitable lands. This bill is good
for the environment, good for the economy, and good for the
public. And I have here with me today over 3,000 letters that
were submitted by the public in support of H.R. 1581, and these
are just a small portion of the letters which have been
submitted. I will give this to the Clerk. Thank you for your
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horgan follows:]
Statement of Chris Horgan, Executive Director,
Stewards of the Sequoia, on H.R. 1581
My name is Chris Horgan. I am the Executive Director of Stewards of
the Sequoia, the largest on the ground volunteer organization in the
Sequoia National Forest. We have over 2400 members who enjoy all forms
of recreation. The Stewards of the Sequoia formed in 2004 and is based
out of Lake Isabella, California with a population of about 16,000.
Our award-winning Trail Appreciation program has performed
maintenance on over 1900 miles of trails since 2004. We have formally
adopted nine trails and have a stewardship agreement with the Forest
Service. Steward's volunteers have also planted hundreds of trees in
order to help speed reforestation after the devastating McNally 150,000
acre wildfire.
Stewards of the Sequoia mission is to Promote Responsible
Recreation and Environmental Stewardship, but those are not just words,
we roll up our sleeves and put our time and sweat into stewardship of
the public lands we all hold so dear.
OVERVIEW
All Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) and Roadless areas in Sequoia
National Forest and adjacent BLM lands have been evaluated by the BLM
and Forest Service and almost all were found to be unsuitable for
Wilderness Designation back in 1988.
Yet twenty two years later many of these lands continue to be
subject to inappropriate management regulations as if they were
Wilderness, because they have yet to be released.
Active Fire Management is needed, but prohibited in these areas.
Recreation and other land uses desired by the community and the public
are needlessly restricted or prohibited, such as Mountain Bike, Off
Road recreation and other uses.
Our public lands were set aside in order to meet the need for
future generations. Our rural communities depend not only on access to
their public lands for all forms of recreation or multiple use, but
also the income from tourists who come for the same reason.
The long overdue Release of Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) and
Roadless Areas is hampering land management and harming the environment
in our Sequoia National Forest and surrounding BLM Lands, and likely in
other areas of public lands. A significant amount of resources and
funding are wasted each year in patrolling and monitoring these lands
for Wilderness standards, even though they are not suitable for
Wilderness.
BACKGROUND
1. All Roadless Areas are required to be evaluated and
considered for recommendation as potential Wilderness per
Section 219.17 of the 1982 CFR by the USDA Forest Service.
Likewise the BLM must evaluate and recommend all Wilderness
Study Areas that are suitable for Wilderness Designation under
Section 603 of FLPMA no later than fifteen years after the 1976
approval of the FLPMA.
2. Under FLPMA section 603 (b) the President has two years
after each Wilderness area report is provided to the Secretary
of the Interior to determine if an area is suitable for
Wilderness.
3. Both agencies must consider a number of criteria such as
Wilderness Value, Feasibility of Wilderness management and
anticipated long term changes in plant and wildlife communities
should the area be designated as Wilderness.
DETERMINATIONS
Both the Forest Service and BLM have done the required
comprehensive evaluations.
As an example in the Lake Isabella area in California:
1. None of the Roadless Areas on the Sequoia National Forest
Service lands were found to be suitable for Wilderness
Designation as shown in the attached 2000 Inventoried Roadless
Area Map from the Sequoia Forest Service (Exhibit 1, 2 & 3)
2. Out of nine Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) near the community
of Lake Isabella, only part of one is suitable for continued
Wilderness Study. The rest were found not suitable for
Wilderness Designation. (Exhibit 4)
3. The BLM determined the entire 5,213 acres of WSA lands were
unsuitable for Wilderness (Exhibit 5) from the 1988 BLM Piute
Cypress (CA-010-046) WSA report. These lands need to be
released from further consideration as Wilderness and be
returned to Multiple Use lands.
4. The BLM found the following 4123 acres of WSA lands to be
unsuitable for Wilderness Designation. They need to be released
from further consideration as Wilderness and be designated as
Multiple Use lands:
Owens Peak WSA (CA-010-026) 310 acres
Piute Cypress WSA (CA-010-046) 3,453 acres
Rockhouse WSA (CA-010-029) 130 acres
Sacatur Meadows WSA (CA-010-027) 140 acres
An example of the need to release these lands is the Piute Cypress
tree, which requires fire to reproduce, but in a WSA active management
is not allowed, so the fires will run rampant in the overgrown brush
and likely harm the valued Piute Cypress.
The Secretary of the Interior Record of Decision determined 4.8
million acres in 147 BLM Wilderness Study Areas in the State of
California should be released from further consideration as Wilderness
and designated as Multiple Use lands (Exhibit 6).
The BLM, Forest Service and Park Service currently manage over 109
million acres of lands designated by Congress, so we have a very
considerable amount of land already under Wilderness Designation. H.R.
1581 does not seek to remove any of those lands from Wilderness
Designation.
H.R. 1581 would release non Wilderness lands that have been
determined to be unsuitable for Wilderness from further consideration
for Wilderness.
LACK OF SUITABILITY AS WILDERNESS
The agencies have identified many reasons that these areas are
unsuitable for Wilderness including but not limited to:
1. Lack of wilderness qualities
2. Military over flights
3. Existing Mining claims within the areas
4. Adjacent to existing communities
5. Difficulty in signing and patrolling
6. Difficulty in fencing
7. Existing historical motorized use
The government made a promise to release lands found unsuitable for
Wilderness consideration, however the release of these lands also makes
sense when considers how it would benefit:
The Environment
The Economy
And The Public
H.R. 1581 Wilderness and Roadless Release Act of 2011 fully
embodies both recreation and stewardship, so this bill is something
every reasonable person can heartily support by releasing lands which
decades ago were determined by the Forest Service and the BLM to be
unsuitable for Wilderness designation.
1. These lands have a rich history of ranching, mining, timber
harvesting and recreation. Even without the reports we can
easily see they are unsuitable for Wilderness, but look for
yourself. These pictures were all taken on the unsuitable lands
proposed for release in the Sequoia National Forest. These
lands contain cabins, roads, mines, cell towers, lookout
towers, developed campgrounds, motorized trails and even hazmat
sites. There is no doubt these lands do not meet the Wilderness
Act criteria of untouched by the hand of man.
2. These unsuitable lands have languished in many cases for
over 20 years awaiting release back to their intended uses.
During that time, uses on many of these lands have been
restricted as if they actually had been designated Wilderness,
but without Congressional approval or authority.
3. Many of the trails on these unsuitable lands were built
with and are maintained by motorized recreation fee dollars
from the Recreation Trails Program, California Off Highway
Motor Vehicle Green Sticker Program or appropriated motorized
funds.
This bill is about sharing the land and embracing the environment.
Under the Wilderness and Roadless Release Act:
1. Families would continue or again enjoy all forms of
recreation on these lands including camping, mountain biking,
hunting, dirt bike riding, 4x4, hiking and fishing.
2. These unsuitable lands could once again benefit from active
management as needed to promote forest health and prevent
wildfires.
3. These unsuitable lands could once again provide renewable
resources and minerals to reduce our dependency on foreign
sources.
4. These unsuitable lands could once again generate revenue
instead of being a cost burden as they are now.
Releasing these unsuitable lands from further consideration for
Wilderness designation would not release them from management. These
lands and all activities on them would still have to meet the strictest
regulations in the world for multiple use lands such as:
1. Riparian regulations
2. Habitat regulations
3. Density regulations
4. Erosion regulations
5. Botanical regulations
6. Seasonal regulations
7. Water Quality regulations
8. Air Quality regulations
9. Threatened Species regulations
10. Endangered Species Act
11. National Environmental Policy Act
12. National Historic Preservation Act and more
Wilderness is not the only form of land management. Multiple Use
lands allow recreation and renewable resource harvesting only if they
at a minimum meet all these regulations. So you see there are more than
adequate protections to ensure these unsuitable lands remain in
excellent condition for future generations.
With the passage of H.R. 1581, the U.S. Forest Service and BLM will
no longer have their hands tied and will be able to actively manage our
public lands to promote forest health and reduce catastrophic
wildfires.
More and more agencies have recognized the need to actively manage
our forests to reduce catastrophic wildfires which destroy
irreplaceable forest lands. For example the Sierra Nevada Conservancy
in cooperation with the Forest Service and Tahoe Conservancy developed
a Climate Change Action Plan in 2009 to determine how best to address
Climate Change which states:
WILDFIRE: Reducing the risk of catastrophic fire is critical in
terms of maintaining carbon storage and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions from fires, not to mention protecting the natural
resources and human health, lives and property put at risk
during catastrophic fire episodes. Many forests are choked with
overstocked biomass ``fuels''--which contribute to conditions
that support large, fast-moving and high-intensity wildfires.
The urgency of this issue is no better demonstrated than
through the devastation of the 2009 Station Fire.
According to Matthew Goldstein of Reuters News Service, 3
''[t]he so-called Station Fire is the largest in the history of
Los Angeles County and one of the 10 biggest ever in
California. It has burned 157,220 acres (63,600 hectares)--an
area larger than the city of Chicago.'' Not only can this type
of fire destroy life, habitat and property, create air quality
health hazards and destroy carbon storage potential, it can
also weaken mature tree growth, and makes trees susceptible to
pests like the bark beetle. Fire risk reduction and maintaining
healthy resilient forests can include the controlled and
sustainable removal of dangerous and damaging levels of
biomass4. Managed properly this biomass has secondary benefits
as well, creating a tremendous opportunity for renewable energy
production, providing funding for sustainable forest management
and creating jobs in the Sierra's rural communities.
The threat of loss of the resources of the Sierra, many of
which cannot be replaced, has devastating implications
throughout California and beyond. The potential for climate
change impacts to dramatically alter provision of these
services and continued existence of the habitat and species of
this area is high, and, as emerging research is demonstrating,
is increasing each year.
Fire/Forest: Because climate change and its predicted
temperature increases throughout this century are expected to
increase the intensity and duration of uncontrolled,
catastrophic wildfires in the region, the SN CAP's first focus
is on reduction of dangerous levels of fire fuels through
application of sustainable land management practices. In a
related effort, this plan also supports development and
promotion of consensus community decision-making models to
promote collaborative planning and reduce traditional regional
conflict and resistance to changes in forestry land management
practices. (THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN OF THE SIERRA NEVADA: A
Regional Approach to Address Climate Change Version 1.4 9/8/
2009 www.sierranevada.ca.gov )
It should be kept in mind that Wilderness lands or Wilderness Study
Areas prohibit active management. H.R. 1581 would allow agencies to
actively manage lands in order to address Climate Change to preserve
irreplaceable forests and ecosystems.
Should these unsuitable lands ever be designated as Wilderness
there would be very few if any places left for people to enjoy most
forms of recreation. There is little doubt the communities around Lake
Isabella would dry up, as there would no longer be enough population or
business to support it. A good example of this was when the state of
California recently restricted fishing on some segments of the local
Kern River for a period of about one year. As a result of this
restriction on fishing, the local Chamber of Commerce stated that many
businesses closed or came near to closing and others complained of a
drastic reduction in sales, which if continued would have forced them
to close also.
Many people retire to rural areas such as Lake Isabella in order to
be able to be near where they can easily enjoy all forms of recreation.
Many depend on Off Road Vehicles to get to where they hunt or fish,
because they are no longer able to walk in. Many people have vacation
homes or live in the area in order to be able to enjoy Off Road
Recreation, Mountain Biking and other types of recreation which are not
allowed in Wilderness. One of the main reasons many people live in the
area is to enjoy multiple use recreation.
The attached short 5 minute video ``National Forests Our Trails Are
In Trouble'' illustrates the need to release these unsuitable lands to
disperse use and reduce impacts and why we need to keep our roads and
trails open to everyone. You can also view it on the web at
www.TrailsInTrouble.org
The 2008 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE -
Ken Cordell et al) states that:
``An estimated 94.5 percent of the population reported that
during the 12 months just prior to their interview for the NSRE
in 1994-95, they participated in one or more of the activities
included in the survey activity list.''
This works out to over 189 million people each year enjoying
outdoor recreation. Many if not most of the activities these people
enjoy are prohibited in Wilderness areas. While hiking and bird
watching are allowed in Wilderness, many people prefer to enjoy them on
multiple use lands due to easier access. Many people lack the time or
ability to hike the long distances required to fully access Wilderness
lands. Multiple Use lands are where the majority of the public
recreate.
The public, including environmental groups and recreation groups,
have worked with the Forest Service over the past five years to draft
plans for most of the lands contained in this bill. All that work would
be undermined and the public process ignored if these unsuitable lands
are ever designated as Wilderness.
There are probably Wilderness Advocates who will demand that these
lands, which are clearly unsuitable for Wilderness, continue to be
studied, reviewed and held in limbo until they can somehow find someone
that is willing to ignore the facts and find them suitable.
These public lands have languished in limbo for too long. This bill
is good for the environment, good for the economy and good for the
public.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7649.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7649.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7649.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7649.004
[NOTE: Exhibits 5 and 6 have been retained in the Committee's
official files.]
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Freeland.
STATEMENT OF DAVE FREELAND, DISTRICT RANGER, RETIRED, SEQUOIA
NATIONAL FOREST
Mr. Freeland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Pull it right to your mouth please.
Mr. Freeland. There we go.
Mr. Bishop. Good.
Mr. Freeland. Thank you. I support H.R. 1581. I retired
from the United States Forest Service in 2006 after
successfully completing 34 years of public service. During my
time with the Forest Service, I served in a variety of
professional and administrative positions, including Acting
Deputy Forest Supervisor and a District Ranger for 15 years. I
am a professional forester and have been a member of the
Society of American Foresters for approximately 35 years.
While with the Forest Service, I participated on the
command staff of several national interagency incident
management teams that respond to significant natural and human-
caused disasters, including catastrophic wildfire. I have
personally worked on these dangerous fire lines and have
mourned the deaths of fellow firefighters. During my career, I
have witnessed substantial acreage of National Forest System
lands reallocated from a multiple use category into more
restrictive designations termed specially designated areas.
Since the time of the Wilderness Act, the Wild and Scenic
River Act, the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final
Rule, and the state petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area
Management Final Rule, over 95 million acres, or over 50
percent of the 193 million acre National Forest and Grassland
System is in wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and
inventoried roadless areas. On the Sequoia National Forest
where I retired, only 22 percent of this 1.1 million acre
forest currently remains in multiple use.
As one of those district rangers who had their hands tied
and as a former local Federal land manager, this conspicuous
imbalance concerns me for the following reasons. One, most
recreation visitor use occurs on multiple use designated lands.
With an ever increasing population of visitors being confined
to a shrinking multiple use land base adverse consequences
occur such as unattended resource damage, increased conflicts
between visitors, and additional law enforcement problems.
Two, specially designated areas can significantly diminish
the enjoyment of public lands by limiting and/or prohibiting
the responsible use of motorized and mechanized equipment such
as off-road vehicles and mountain bikes. Three, individuals
with physical disabilities and older Americans have difficulty
or are completely denied access to a large portion of their
public lands due to the lack of roaded access. This adverse
situation will only intensify as millions of baby boomers will
be retiring over the next couple decades.
Four, specially designated areas do limit Federal land
management agencies from adequately treating vast acreages of
land that are overstocked with trees and other vegetation,
which contribute to the risk of catastrophic attack by insects,
disease, and wildfire. Americans lose the benefit of byproducts
produced from these silvicultural treatments in the form of
thin trees that contribute to the nation's need for wood fiber
such as dimensional lumber, wood chips, and other wood
products. Healthy forests and wood fiber are of critical
importance to our nation's economy and livelihood.
In conclusion Congress and the U.S. Forest Service made a
commitment to the American people that when the roadless area
review was accomplished those lands not suitable for
additionally Congressionally designated wilderness would revert
back to multiple use. Congress and the U.S. Forest Service need
to meet their commitments. The U.S. Forest Service is equipped
to manage and conserve multiple use lands in perpetuity as
guided by the National Environment Policy Act of '69 and by
each forest, land, and resource management plan and
accompanying environmental impact statement as required by the
Forest and Range Land Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974
as amended.
H.R. 1581 is a well thought out piece of legislation
because it helps get the agencies out of their current analysis
paralysis, which they are often in, and because it supports
moving those lands into the nation's wilderness preservation
system that truly have special characteristics while releasing
back into multiple use those lands that have no special
attributes deserving of wilderness classification. Multiple use
lands provide more Americans with the widest variety of
resource and social benefits. Multiple use lands best exemplify
the Forest Service's time tested principle of the greatest good
for the greatest number of people in the long run. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeland follows:]
Statement of Dave Freeland, District Ranger (Retired),
Sequoia National Forest
My name is Dave Freeland and I support H.R. 1581--The ``Wilderness
and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011.''
I retired from the USDA Forest Service in 2006, after successfully
completing 34 years of public service. During my time with the U.S.
Forest Service, I served on three national forests and seven ranger
districts within California, in a variety of professional and
administrative positions, including District Ranger and Acting Deputy
Forest Supervisor. I'm a professional Forester and have been a member
of the Society of American Foresters for approximately 35 years.
Additionally, I participated on the command staff of several
National Interagency Incident Management Teams. These teams respond to
significant natural and human-caused disasters, including catastrophic
wildfires.
I currently work as a part-time private consultant for the County
of Kern assisting the County with complex and sometimes controversial
land management issues.
During my career, I have witnessed substantial acreage of National
Forest system lands reallocated from a multiple-use category into more
restrictive designations termed ``Specially Designated Areas.''
Since the time of the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Wild & Scenic
Rivers Act of 1968, the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final
Rule of 2001, and the State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area
Management Final Rule of 2005, approximately 166 million acres or 86%
of the 192 million acre National Forest and Grassland system is in
wilderness, wild & scenic rivers and inventoried roadless areas. On the
Sequoia National Forest where I retired, only 22% of this 1.1 million
acre forest currently remains in multiple-use.
As a former federal land manager, this conspicuous imbalance
concerns me for the following reasons.
1) Most recreation visitor use occurs on multiple-use
designated lands. With an ever increasing population of
visitors being confined to a shrinking multiple-use land base,
adverse consequences occur such as unintended resource damage,
increased conflicts between visitors and additional law
enforcement problems.
2) Specially designated areas can significantly diminish the
enjoyment of public lands by limiting and/or prohibiting the
responsible use of motorized and mechanized equipment such as
off-highway vehicles, mountain bikes and mechanized deer
carriers.
3) Individuals with physical disabilities and older Americans
have difficulty or are completely denied access to a large
portion of their public lands due to the lack of roaded access.
This adverse situation will only intensify as millions of
``Baby Boomers'' will be retiring over the next couple of
decades.
4) Specially designated areas can limit federal land
management agencies from adequately treating vast acreages of
land that are over stocked with trees and other vegetation
which contribute to the risk of catastrophic attack by insects,
disease and wildfire. Americans lose the benefit of by-products
produced from these silviculture treatments in the form of
thinned trees that contribute to our nation's need for wood
fiber such as dimensional lumber, wood chips and other wood
products. Wood fiber is of critical importance to our nation's
economy and livelihood.
In summary, Congress and the U.S. Forest Service made a commitment
to the American people that when the roadless area review was
accomplished; those lands not suitable for additional congressionally
designated wilderness would revert back to multiple-use. Congress and
the U.S. Forest Service need to meet their commitments.
The U.S. Forest Service is equipped to manage and conserve
multiple-use lands in perpetuity, as guided by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and by each Forest's Land and
Resource Management Plan and accompanying Environmental Impact
Statement, as required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974, as amended.
H.R. 1581 is a well thought out piece of legislation because it
supports moving those areas into the nation's wilderness preservation
system that truly have special characteristics while releasing back
into multiple-use those lands that have no special attributes deserving
of wilderness classification.
Multiple-use lands provide more Americans with the widest variety
of resource and social benefits. Multiple-use lands best exemplify the
Forest Service's time tested principal of ``The greatest good, for the
greatest number of people, in the long-run.''
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Hugelmeyer.
STATEMENT OF FRANK HUGELMEYER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, OUTDOOR
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hugelmeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee, for inviting me to testify. My name is Frank
Hugelmeyer. As President and CEO of Outdoor Industry
Association, title sponsor of the world's largest outdoor
products trade show which serves 4,000 manufacturers and
retailers in the outdoor recreation industry, there are three
thoughts I want to discuss.
One, as Congress struggles with budgets, declining
revenues, and economic recovery, I urge you to support a
balanced economic approach. The outdoor industry is a large and
diverse sector that creates jobs and bolsters tax revenues at
all levels. In the U.S. the industry has an annual $730 billion
economic impact, employs 6.5 million Americans, and contributes
$88 billion in state and national tax revenues, enough to fund
the entire Department of the Interior for several years.
Two, the outdoor recreation industry is growing, and vital
to every community urban and rural. At nearly $300 billion in
annual retail sales and services our industry prospered during
and after the recession when others have not, and is leading
America's recovery. In 2010 our world class specialty outdoor
industry grew by 6 percent, boosting jobs and tax revenues from
Washington, D.C., to Coeur D'Alene.
Three, I ask you to approach H.R. 1581 as a responsible
CEO. It is bad business to make a sweeping decision based on
30-year-old data. Unfortunately, this bill does just that. It
releases all wilderness study areas and roadless areas without
understanding the true consequences for communities and the
industry. Our nation's protected lands and waters attract
millions of tourists, recreationists, and sportsmen, of which I
am one. They support sustainable and dependable economies in
rural and gateway communities, balancing the negative effects
of boom and bust industry so common on 75 percent of the
Federal estate.
Back in the 1950s policy makers viewed oil, gas, and timber
as the only economically productive use of our lands. This old
world view no longer holds true and dates back before the
innovative outdoor industry broadly existed. Today protective
lands support an entrepreneur-led and dynamic economic engine
that must be given equal consideration to extractive
industries. America's healthiest local economies now offer a
balanced mix of extractive, agricultural, recreation, tourism,
and other jobs.
Like a good retailer provides a wide array of products, the
Federal estate must also continue to offer the full spectrum of
recreational zones, from multi-use high access trails to
roadless and wilderness areas. Preserving a diverse public
infrastructure enables the American public to choose from and
outdoor businesses to provide the widest selection of
experiences and adventures. The new value proposition of our
nation's public lands requires a 21st-century approach that
prioritizes protections where the recreational value is high,
and I will repeat that. To prioritize protections where
recreational value is high.
So what is our recommendation? In 2001 the American people
voted overwhelmingly for the protection and enjoyment of
roadless areas. The Roadless Rule was founded after careful
inventories, agency planning, and nearly 600 public hearings.
The sheer volume of public comment makes it the most vetted and
supported USDA rulemaking ever. The American people have spoken
and we urge you to stand by this decision.
While wilderness study areas have been in limbo, it is not
in the nation's best interest to make a single sweeping
decision. Outdoor businesses support efforts to move forward on
wilderness review and designation and recognize the value of
collaborative resource management plans. Following this
approach will ensure that significant recreation areas are not
lost. However, until progress is made on this front protections
for these wilderness study areas must remain in place.
At the heart of this matter are the hundreds of millions of
Americans who spend time in the outdoors hiking, biking,
camping, paddling, hunting, fishing, or wildlife viewing. Our
nation is blessed to have these lands and activities, and it is
part of the core American experience to enjoy them. In
conclusion the outdoor industry will work hard to serve the
Nation in these challenging times by trying to maintain our
current growth trajectory. We only ask that you do not pass
harmful legislation like H.R. 1581 which puts thousands of
outdoor businesses on the defensive and in the position of
having to defend the very infrastructure upon which their
economy and customers depend. Thank you for your time and
attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hugelmeyer follows:]
Statement of Frank Hugelmeyer, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Outdoor Industry Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting
me to testify.
As president and CEO of Outdoor Industry Association, title sponsor
of the world's largest outdoor products tradeshow, which serves 4,000
manufacturers and retailers in the active outdoor recreation industry,
there are three thoughts I want to discuss:
1) As Congress struggles with budgets, declining revenues and
economic recovery, I urge you to support a balanced economic
approach. The outdoor industry is a large and diverse sector
that creates jobs and bolsters tax revenues at all levels. In
the U.S., the industry has an annual $730 billion economic
impact, employs 6.5 million Americans and contributes $88
billion in state and national tax revenue, enough to fund the
entire Department of Interior budget for several years.
2) Outdoor recreation is growing and vital to every
community--urban and rural. At nearly $300 billion in annual
retail sales and services, our industry prospered during and
after the recession, when others have not, and is leading
America's recovery. In 2010, our world-class specialty outdoor
industry grew by 6%, boosting jobs and tax revenues from
Washington D.C. to Coeur d'Alene.
3) I ask you to approach H.R. 1581 as a responsible CEO. It is
bad business to make a sweeping decision based on 30-year-old
data. Unfortunately, this bill does just that--it releases all
Wilderness Study Areas and Roadless Areas without understanding
the true consequences for communities and the industry.
Our nation's protected lands and waters attract millions of
tourists, recreationists and sportsmen. They support sustainable and
dependable economies in rural and gateway communities, balancing the
negative effects of boom and bust industries so common on 75% of the
federal estate.
Back in the 1950s, policy makers viewed oil, gas and timber as the
only economically-productive use of our lands. This old world view no
longer holds true and dates back before the innovative outdoor industry
broadly existed. Today, protected lands support an entrepreneur-led and
dynamic economic engine that must be given equal consideration to the
extractive industries. America's healthiest local economies now offer a
balanced mix of extractive, agricultural, recreation, tourism and other
jobs.
Like a good retailer provides a wide array of products, the federal
estate must also continue to offer the full spectrum of recreational
zones, from multi-use high access trails to roadless and wilderness
areas. Preserving a diverse public infrastructure enables the American
public to choose from, and outdoor businesses to provide, the widest
selection of experiences and adventures.
The new value proposition of our nation's public lands requires a
21st century approach that prioritizes protections where the
recreational value is high. So what is our recommendation?
In 2001, the American people voted overwhelmingly for
the protection and enjoyment of Roadless Areas. The Roadless
Rule was founded after careful inventories, agency planning and
nearly 600 public hearings. The sheer volume of public comment
makes it the most vetted--and supported--USDA rulemaking ever.
The American people have spoken, and we urge you to stand by
this decision.
While Wilderness Study Areas have been in limbo, it
is not in the nation's best interest to make a single sweeping
decision. Outdoor businesses support efforts to move forward on
wilderness review and designation, and recognize the value of
collaborative resource management plans. Following this
approach will ensure that significant recreation areas are not
lost. However, until progress is made on this front,
protections for these Wilderness Study Areas must remain in
place.
At the heart of this matter are the hundreds of millions of
Americans who spend time in the outdoors hiking, biking, camping,
paddling, hunting, fishing, or wildlife viewing. Our nation is blessed
to have these lands and activities, and it is part of the core American
experience to enjoy them.
In conclusion, the outdoor industry will work hard to serve the
nation in these challenging times by maintaining our current growth
trajectory. We only ask that you do not pass harmful legislation like
H.R. 1581 which puts thousands of outdoor businesses on the defensive
and in the position of having to defend the very infrastructure upon
which their economy and customers depend.
Thank you for your time and attention today.
______
Mr. Bishop. I thank the four of you for the testimony so
your oral testimony will be added to the record as well. I hate
to do this to you but we are going to suspend for I am going to
estimate about 20 minutes, 15 to 20 minutes. They are still on
I think the first vote. They have just started the second vote,
there are still two more votes plus an activity that is up
there. So let us, if I could have you reconvene say around 15
minutes, 20 minutes roughly, give or take. And my goal is to
try and finish the questioning so that you can go, but I
appreciate once again your testimonies, I appreciate you
sticking around this long with us and I appreciate your coming
here as well as bringing everything that you brought with you.
So we are in recess roughly 15 to 20 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Bishop. We will call this, whatever we are,
Subcommittee hearing back to order. We once again thank you for
your patience in waiting for us. We have a few questions still
to go through for this panel as well. We will, and obviously we
are somewhat flexible on the time here but we do still want to
get out at a reasonable manner. I will turn to the Ranking
Member, Mr. Grijalva, if he has a few questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, thank you. Ms. Simpson, if I may, do you
know how many miles of roads already exist in the National
Forests? How many miles of user created roads and trails exist,
is there a number you can share with the Committee?
Ms. Simpson. I don't have a current number on that, we can
get back to you. Under Secretary Sherman may have, Harris
Sherman may have put that out there earlier.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Horgan, and I think in your testimony you
state that the problem is that these areas are already being
managed as wilderness and that it is hurting your community,
but at the same time in the testimony you talk about many
people retire in rural areas such as Lake Isabella in order to
be able to be near where they can easily enjoy all forms of
recreation. If these areas are harmful, why would anybody be
wanting to retire in the community? And if they are popular and
very rural and the alternative being talked about is they are
opened up to oil, gas, and timber development, doesn't that
contradict the purpose and the rationale for people coming
there? It is just a question, I was confused, I thought there
was a contradiction in those statements.
Mr. Horgan. People come to rural areas as I mentioned in my
testimony to enjoy all forms of recreation. Public lands have
many different activities on them. One of them may be timber
management, not necessarily, and that would have to be done
under the strictest regulations in the world. So there is a way
of having recreation and timber management work together. Not
all the forests are clear cut, as a matter of fact most
management programs don't allow any clear cutting so the timber
management would just be a matter of thinning, which makes the
area more healthy.
It also is usually more aesthetic to the eye, a forest that
is heavily overgrown you can't hike through. We have to do
maintenance on the trails and I can tell you over this past
spring there were over 130 trees per mile down on the trail and
we have to clear those off the trail. A forest that is
healthier requires less maintenance and management. But the
people come there to enjoy.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, so in your mind there is no contradiction
with the harmful effect on your community that you mentioned in
your testimony and the fact that people will come to this rural
setting in order for them to be able to recreate in the areas
that you had stated because of the management of them was
harmful, there is no contradiction there?
Mr. Horgan. Well, I am not in agreement about the harm. I
think the management promotes forest health, and we have seen
both recreation and active management of the forest work well
together and the people have come there for the forest that is
actively managed and healthy.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, thank you, appreciate it.
Mr. Horgan. You are welcome.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Hugelmeyer, you have a number of
companies who sell products to hunters and anglers, is that
correct?
Mr. Hugelmeyer. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. And you feel that those customers are well
served by having wilderness areas available for hunting and
fishing?
Mr. Hugelmeyer. Yes, absolutely, yes.
Mr. Grijalva. One of the things, one of the remarks about
wilderness areas or WSAs is that it is wasted space. Is
development in the sense that that has to be the highest and
the best use for all Federal land?
Mr. Hugelmeyer. Well, our opinion in the industry is that
you have to provide a full spectrum of opportunities. You need
to be able to provide a menu of recreation options. And
roadless and wilderness areas provide what we consider the most
pristine and quiet type of recreation, and not all uses and
activities should be within the wilderness zone. This has been
something that Americans have been exploring, the natural
wilderness, since the beginning of the founding of the country.
It is as old as Lewis and Clark's exploration, and we still
have that same spirit as Americans.
In fact we are seeing a lot of companies right now creating
particularly around the adaptive sports areas and disabilities
where they are taking veterans and folks with disabilities into
wilderness areas as part of recreational therapy. There is even
an adaptive sports industry growing out of this where they are
creating tools to row, to climb, hike, bike, paddle, and we are
seeing nonprofits start up around these active areas as well.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let me ask a couple questions if I
could. May I start with Ms. Simpson. I understand you are here
today representing the Safari Club. Are you aware of other
hunting groups that support this particular piece of
legislation?
Ms. Simpson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I have a letter
from, including Safari Club, nine other hunting organizations
representing over 5 million hunters across the Nation that have
written to the Committee in support of the bill based on the
very issues that I raised in my testimony.
Mr. Bishop. All right, and you will submit those to us as
well?
Ms. Simpson. Yes I will.
Mr. Bishop. As a sportsmen organization, I am assuming that
the Safari Club works closely with state game and fish
agencies. If so, do you know the positions on wilderness policy
and other wilderness characteristics of these groups?
Ms. Simpson. We work very closely with individual state
game and fish management agencies as well as with the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies here in D.C. Not to
speak on their behalf, but I do know that they have a letter
that has gone to BLM Director Abbey raising concerns regarding
wilderness study areas and wilderness characteristics being
allocated to public lands. Because of issues with the state
game and fish having inconsistent direction from how the
Federal agencies are managing those properties, it causes
problems for the game and fish agencies to manage the wildlife,
and we of course being a hunting organization are concerned
about game.
Mr. Bishop. So in your opinion is it more cost effective to
manage areas identified in this bill, H.R. 1581, for multiple
use or the current status quo?
Ms. Simpson. Oh definitely more cost effective to manage
for multiple use.
Mr. Bishop. Do you feel that one offers better conservation
than the other?
Ms. Simpson. I think getting back to our site specific
discussions that have been raised earlier that would depend.
Our support for this bill is based in part on the fact that
these lands would go back into multiple use consideration and
be part of the land management planning, so that would be up to
the public and the land managers on individual parcels.
Mr. Bishop. OK, thank you. Mr. Horgan, if I can ask you a
couple of questions. The 2001 Roadless Rule has been called the
most vetted and supported in USDA rulemaking history. Is that
actually factually correct or would you have a different
perspective on that?
Mr. Horgan. Well, in my experience, I understand that it
has been litigated by a number of states, so I think being most
vetted would be inaccurate, or supported. As well, I did some
research and found that over 88 percent of the agencies who
submitted comments were opposed to the Roadless Rule. There
were also some comments made that it was illegal. So I would
disagree that it is the most vetted and supported.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Mr. Hugelmeyer, when you state that our
nation's protected lands and waters attract millions of
tourists and recreationists, sportsmen, are you referring to
wilderness lands or National Forest lands or other types of
lands?
Mr. Hugelmeyer. It is all interconnected, it is one part of
a large connected infrastructure on which we depend. So from
our perspective, Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that the
areas that are most recreationally significant have some sort
of protection so that we can make sure that our activities that
our customers depend on and that our businesses depend on are
able to be supported on those public lands.
Mr. Bishop. So you need more than just wilderness lands to
protect your business?
Mr. Hugelmeyer. We need the full spectrum of recreational
zones, yes.
Mr. Bishop. So when you were also talking about the
potential of people who are paraplegics or those who have
handicaps, sometimes it is not possible for them to do the
kinds of recreation that they are capable of doing solely on
wilderness lands?
Mr. Hugelmeyer. No, they need the full spectrum as well
just like our industry does. But wilderness is part of that
portfolio of public lands.
Mr. Bishop. So, Ranger Freeland then, you know, at the time
of its founding what percentage of the U.S. forests were
managed as multiple use and do you have any way of relating to
that to what percentage is used today?
Mr. Freeland. Well, I can speak for the Sequoia National
Forest where I came from, and I think it is pretty typical of a
lot of your National Forests. You know, and we are forgetting
that there are other special designated areas like Wild and
Scenic Rivers, there are miles of Wild and Scenic River
corridors, about a half a mile swath. And on the Sequoia
National Forest I think only about 20 percent of the Sequoia
National Forest remain in multiple use, as compared to when I
first started with the Forest Service, in fact, back when it
was created, it was 100 percent multiple use, you know, back in
the day. So very little is left for multiple use, which
provides more opportunity for more people.
Mr. Bishop. So if there are a greater number of tourists
and recreationists today concentrated on fewer and fewer
remaining multiple use lands that presents a problem, a
difficulty in times then?
Mr. Freeland. Yes it does. I have seen it, I have lived it
as a district ranger, because it is obvious when you put more
and more people on a smaller land base not only do you receive
damage to your roads and trails and your wildlife habitat, your
rivers, but you also get social conflicts too. You get people
together and I have had experiences where snowmobilers are
trying to run cross-country skiers off the trail and cross-
country skiers trying to throw their ski poles at, you know, it
gets to a contentious situation when you get that many people
together.
Mr. Bishop. OK, I am not trying to cut you off but my time
is over, but thank you. Mr. Tipton, do you have any questions
for this panel?
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess, Ms.
Simpson, I admire what your organization does. I would just
like to have your comment. It has been my experience, I come
from a rural part of Colorado, we grew up loving our public
lands and access to them, I come from a farm and ranch
community, hunting community. Is it pretty much your experience
that the industry that is our sportsmen, farm and ranch
community, have been good custodians of public lands?
Ms. Simpson. Absolutely. The sportsmen community would say
that they are first and foremost the true conservationists. It
is their money that goes back toward conservation, funds the
state game and fish agencies through excise taxes from
equipment sales.
Mr. Tipton. Right, I would agree with that. And, Mr.
Freeland, I wanted to go back just to your comment.
Mr. Freeland. Sure.
Mr. Tipton. And I just want to clarify that. Sequoia
National Forest when you started it was 100 percent multiple
use and then?
Mr. Freeland. Well, I am talking about the National Forest
System when it first started.
Mr. Tipton. Right.
Mr. Freeland. You know, back in Pinchot's day.
Mr. Tipton. Right.
Mr. Freeland. But in the 30 years I was there off and on, I
have transferred around, a significant amount of the land base
in the Sequoia National Forest has been converted to Wild and
Scenic Rivers. We had legislation that converted the Kern River
to a Wild and Scenic River, and we have in my ranger district
three fairly large wilderness areas, and then we had roadless
areas for consideration as well.
Mr. Tipton. Right.
Mr. Freeland. So when you add all that together, you know,
about 20 percent is left for that what used to be a lot of
multiple use is a very small area.
Mr. Tipton. And so has it been your experience since we
have restricted access to the people's public lands that we are
actually creating and damaging some of that 20 percent more
than would really be necessary if we had more freedom?
Mr. Freeland. Yes. I think it is just logical if we can
spread more people out not only does that give them more
opportunities but it also lessens the degree of resource damage
and social conflicts and law enforcement problems all the way
around. So I think it is good sense.
Mr. Tipton. And was it your experience in the Forest
Service you still manage that? It wasn't like all of a sudden,
Katie bar the door, that people could do anything that they
wanted at any time? You still impose some restrictions?
Mr. Freeland. You know, there is an impression out there
unfortunately that if these lands are released back into
multiple use it is a free for all. That is farthest from the
truth. These lands have the most stringent environmental laws
in the world on multiple use lands as well as all the other
National Forest lands. So there is an extensive environmental
analysis and public involvement process you have to go through
for any kind of activity on the National Forest including
multiple use lands. And that includes fire killed timber that
you want to harvest, has to go through that process as well.
Mr. Tipton. Right. I appreciate that. And, Mr. Hugelmeyer,
I would just kind of like to ask you a question from a Colorado
standpoint. I do have some real concern particularly driving up
toward Vale. You know, we see red hillsides right now. We are
literally, and we hear the words echoed by Members from both
sides of the aisle that come from the West, that we are very
concerned about that one lightning strike, that one spark that
is hitting.
And we have the Colorado Roadless Rule and I know that a
lot of work had gone into that, but I am still very concerned,
are we going to have that ability to be able to get equipment
in, to be able to address a forest fire where we continue to
have problems in southwestern Colorado, at where we only have
one mill left in Colorado right now and it is in receivership
to be able to harvest the timber. And is there a better way to
do this?
Mr. Hugelmeyer. Well, as a fellow Coloradan, I share that
concern, and go up there often to go fishing into the great
gold medal waters up there. That is why we supported the
Roadless Rule and why we were able to get 10,000 executives
from the industry to sign a support of the Roadless Rule,
because of the fire protection portion of that. We also worked
very hard to support the Flame Act, because what we have seen
is of great underfunding of the Forest Service budget to be
able to support the fire prevention across the country. So we
are in great support of what you are bringing up and hope that
Congress will continue to fund those areas, but not at the
expense of the recreation management.
I think as I have been listening to the Committee over the
course of the day there has been a lot of concern about roads
and the degradation of roads and the ability of the Forest
Service to be able to do its job. And it is sort of a catch-22
when it is underfunded, they don't have the resources to be
able to do that and we see the appropriations process actually
fail what the concerns have been from what I have heard from
many of the Members here today.
Mr. Tipton. Mr. Chairman, may I do just one more follow up
on that? I guess one point I would like to explore just a
little further with you is, with some of the restrictions that
obviously the Roadless Rule put into place, because as a
Coloradan you and I have both seen a lot of roads that are
already carved through there now that are going to be blocked
off. I will go back to a question that I had asked Director
Abbey, and I do have a deep concern for that one constituent,
one person that brought it to my attention out of Montrose, who
is a handicapped veteran, still ambulatory, he can walk down a
hallway, but he isn't able to negotiate, he isn't really going
to have access getting into some of these areas. Does that
concern you?
Mr. Hugelmeyer. See that is not our experience that we see
these areas as locked up. And I hear folks talk about
challenges, limitations, and we see opportunity and a business
industry growing when you have nonprofits and adaptive
businesses starting to focus specifically on the veteran you
are talking about to help them go into and explore wilderness
areas in their most pristine. So it is an actual industry that
is growing and in my written testimony I have actually attached
some of those adaptive sports groups who are now supporting
that community.
So it is not our experience that these are locked up. As
far as the roads on roadless areas being shut, I personally
have not experienced that. We share that concern. We would not
want to see roads being closed off. But again we see that as an
issue of the funding and the underfunding of the Forest Service
and that is why that is happening, because they don't have the
dollars to maintain it.
Mr. Tipton. I yield back, Mr. Chairman, thanks.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Grijalva, do you have some more?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes just a couple of quick ones, and, Mr.
Chairman, without objection to enter letters of opposition to
the legislation that we are discussing right now?
Mr. Bishop. Without objection.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Just, Mr. Hugelmeyer,
just a couple of questions. When companies are looking to
relocate or open new locations, they consider the quality of
life in an area and what it might provide to their employees.
What are some of the factors as a business person when people
are relocating businesses, what are some of the factors that go
into determining what that quality of life is, schools, et
cetera, if you don't mind?
Mr. Hugelmeyer. Well, we are actually seeing across the
West and where there are the largest and greatest number of
public lands the best companies, the best tech companies, the
best health companies, it attracts the best employees. So a
quality of life economy, which we feel the outdoor recreation
is a key part of, actually has really helped grow many of the
best western economies and healthiest ones that we are seeing
today.
Colorado and Utah come to mind, and I know the Chairman can
speak to this himself, the quality of life in Utah is one of
the great environments in all of the country, and it continues
to attract some of the best outdoor companies there. But it is
because of the wild and scenic areas and the availability of
that that really brings these companies there. Obviously tax
benefits, the regular business issues that any business is
going to decide in terms of incentives, making sure that there
are great incentives in that area, but wildlands, public lands,
and a wide variety of them and a full spectrum of them is one
of the key reasons we are seeing some of the best western
economies grow.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I think the wildlands concept
hasn't worked really well with Arizona because I think people
have been fixated on the wildlands that is our local State
Legislature, so it has been kind of difficult to attract a lot
of relocations. I was going to talk, as a business person one
more question, sir. What does the term due diligence mean to
you? And for is the solution to the issue that Congress do
their due diligence on these individual proposals that might
come in for designation? And does this bill in its present form
deal with the concept of due diligence and does it serve that
purpose?
Mr. Hugelmeyer. In our industry's opinion it does not and
in my personal opinion it does not. It seems to bring a hammer
to a problem that needs a scissor. And the reality is there are
a lot of different abilities to carve out, particularly the
WSAs that have already seen approval, they shouldn't be thrown
out with the ones that have been found unsuitable. And this
packages them together from our perspective in the way the
language reads, along with the roadless areas itself.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman,
and thank you.
Mr. Bishop. I think you need to reread the details of that
particular bill. Ms. Simpson, amongst the groups, the other
groups that had given you letters, which I once again I hope
that we make sure that we put those letters in the record as
well, was the National Rifle Association one of those groups?
Ms. Simpson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Mr. Freeland, I understand that you are
also a member of the Back Country Horsemen as well as a retired
Forest Service district ranger?
Mr. Freeland. Well, I am not an actual member, but I
participate with them both when I was a ranger and now that I
am retired.
Mr. Bishop. Have you had any personal experience with
problems in accessing WSAs?
Mr. Freeland. I have had trouble not so much there, but we
are dealing with the roadless areas where I am at. However, we
had some trouble in a wilderness area that had burned in 2000,
called the Domeland Wilderness, and as a result, and that was
10 years ago, and trees, dead trees have continued to fall
because we couldn't harvest them obviously, it is a wilderness
area. But trying to get permissions, the Back Country Horsemen,
from the Forest Service to use chainsaws to clear those trails
out has been a major undertaking, and we still don't have the
approvals. It forces them to have to use hand equipment, we
call them misery whips, they are back cut saws, and that is
impractical.
And so, you know, even though there is, they say that laws
and regulations allow you to do certain things, it is easier
said than done. And as a result we are getting fairly
significant damage now in the Domeland Wilderness because
people are going around those dead trees that have fallen and
livestock are in jeopardy trying to get around those things in
the brush fields, and it puts people in jeopardy that are using
hand tools because of the risk of trees falling on them. So,
you know, these roadless areas are almost treated like
wilderness, and because the Forest Service takes this very
restrictive approach on those the likelihood of that occurring
in roadless areas is pretty high too of getting permissions to
work in those areas for both safety and prevent resource
damage.
Mr. Bishop. So there is, and I guess maybe Mr. Horgan, you
can both speak to this, there is the ability then by the way
the reality works that some of these areas that ought to have
access can be closed off to access simply because the ability
of maintaining them is not allowed or does not have the
capability of going forward. And I am assuming, Mr. Horgan,
your group has faced something similar to that?
Mr. Horgan. That would be correct. As I mentioned earlier,
we are seeing over 130 trees down per mile on many of the
trails, opening up the trails this spring. And that is
something you have to do every year is clear the downed trees
off the trail to eliminate resource damage, to make it so that
it is successful for everybody, and with that amount of
downfall it is very difficult to have the manpower to do it
with hand tools, virtually impossible. So you really need to
have chainsaws and in most of these areas they don't allow it.
I will note that the Forest Supervisor Terrell went out on
a limb and did allow chainsaw use to clear down trees in the
wilderness area, and the Sierra Club pitched such a fit over it
that now no one is going out on a limb to allow anything, they
are gun-shy. And I said, geez, if you guys want to clear the
trails why don't you come and clear the multiple use trails? If
the Sierra Club doesn't want you in the wilderness, we would be
more than happy to have you on the multiple-use lands. It is a
lot of work to clear trail.
Mr. Bishop. I have sometimes found just anecdotally over
the years that those people who are working on the ground
usually have a different perspective and an easier way of
trying to solve problems than some who stay back here, without
trying to cast aspersions anywhere. Let me just ask you the
question I did on the second panel, yes or no, do you consider
this to be an extreme piece of legislation? Ms. Simpson?
Ms. Simpson. No.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Horgan?
Mr. Horgan. No.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Freeland?
Mr. Freeland. No, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Hugelmeyer?
Mr. Hugelmeyer. I consider it overreaching.
Mr. Bishop. Of a region?
Mr. Hugelmeyer. Overreaching.
Mr. Bishop. Oh, overreaching, I am sorry.
Mr. Hugelmeyer. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. I thought that was a form of veganism. Let me
just say one last thing. We do have the concept of recapture in
the State of Utah for our education system. Are you aware of
any effort where recapture, which means an area was able to
produce more for the revenue than it is necessary to reach the
state minimum for funding education and they were able to
exceed that amount, do you have any recollection of the outdoor
industry ever being able to generate that type of revenue for
the education system in Utah?
Mr. Hugelmeyer. What we know is that the dollars that the
outdoor industry brings in has not been appropriated in that
way by the local appropriators. We know what we bring in.
Mr. Bishop. That is not what I asked you. Has the
generation of income ever been recaptured in the State of Utah?
And I will make it easy for you, the answer is no.
Mr. Hugelmeyer. It has not, but it is big enough.
Mr. Bishop. And I do agree with what you are saying that
jobs are attracted by the quality of life. Unfortunately it is
usually by golf clubs and golf courses, but that is OK, it is
still a positive that happens to be there. I don't want to
eliminate any industries that happen to be out there, I just
want to make sure that all of those industries have the
capability and especially those that provide for a responsible
base for building the economy of the State of Utah and paying
for our infrastructure and paying for our kids are allowed to
be there. I don't have any other questions. Mr. Grijalva, do
you have anything else?
Mr. Grijalva. Not at all.
Mr. Bishop. With that, if there are no other questions, I
would like to thank the witnesses, you four who stayed here to
the bitter end, I appreciate it very much. Those that have
abandoned you that were our prior panels, I thank you for being
here, for your staff, your participation. Members of the
Subcommittee have additional questions they may be asking you
and we would ask you to respond to those questions. The other
panels that have already left, they have the same obligation
they just don't know about it yet. But I thank you for doing
that. The hearing record will be open for ten days to receive
responses, and if there is no other business, we stand
adjourned. Thank you once again for being here.
[Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
The documents listed below were submitted for the record
and have been retained in the Committee's official files.
American Whitewater, Letter in opposition to
H.R. 2578
American Fly Fishing Trade Association,
Letter in Oppostition to H.R. 1581
American's for Responsible Recreation;
American Council of Snowmobile Associations; American
Motorcyclist Association; BlueRibbon Coalition;
Motorcycle Industry Council; National Off-Highway
Vehicle Conservation Council; Off-Road Business
Association; Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle
Association; Specialty Equipment Association; Specialty
Vehicle Institute of America; and United Four Wheel
Drive Association, Letter in support of H.R. 1581
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
Letter in opposition to Secretary Order 3310
Barnett, Cara, Program Director, Sun Valley
Adaptive Sports, Letter in opposition to H.R. 1581
Campfire Club of America; Conservation Force;
National Rifle Association; National Trappers
Association; North American Bear Foundation; Rocky
Mountain Elk Foundation; Safari Club International;
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance; Whitetails Unlimited, Letter
in support of H.R. 1581
Crimmins, Tom, Professionals for Managed
Recreation, Letter in support of H.R. 1581
Maggard, Mike, Chairman, Kern County Board of
Supervisors, Letter in support of H.R. 1581
Outdoor Alliance, Letter in opposition to
H.R. 1581
Podliska, Rick, American Motorcyclist
Association, Letter in support of H.R. 1581
Public Lands Council; American Sheep Industry
Association; National Cattleman's Beef Association;
Arizona Cattle Grower's Association; California
Cattleman's Association; Colorado Wool Growers
Association; Idaho Cattleman's Association; Idaho Wool
Growers Association; Montana Association of State
Grazing Districts; Montana Public Lands Council;
Montana Stock Growers Association; Nevada Cattleman's
Association; Oregon Cattleman's Association; South
Dakota Cattlemen's Association; Utah Wool Growers
Association; Washington Cattleman's Association; and
Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Letter in support of
H.R. 1581
Quinn, Hai, President, The National Mining
Association, Letter in support of H.R. 1581
The National Association of Counties, Letter
in support of H.R. 1581
The Conservation Alliance, Outdoor Industry
Association, Letter in opposition to H.R. 1581
Washington Off Highway Vehicle Association,
Letter in support of H.R. 1581
Webster, Joel, Director, Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership, Letter in opposition to H.R.
1581
White, Melissa M., Regional Council of Rural
Counties, Letter in support of H.R. 1581
Wickman, Bill, Chairman, Plumas County
Economic Recovery Committee, Letter in support of H.R.
1581
Wickman, Bill, and Laurel Brent-Dumb,
Sustainable Forest Action Coalition, Letter in support
of H.R. 1581