[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 41, H.R. 113, H.R. 490,
H.R. 608, H.R. 977, H.R. 1126,
H.R. 1413 AND H.R. 2050
=======================================================================
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, October 25, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-75
__________
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
70-953 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
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, October 25, 2011........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Markey, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.............................. 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Statement of Witnesses:
Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 22
Prepared statement on H.R. 1126.......................... 23
DeFazio, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 25
Prepared statement on H.R. 1413.......................... 25
Dreier, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Oral statement on H.R. 113............ 7
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico, Oral statement on H.R. 490............ 26
Huizenga, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 977........................... 14
Issa, Hon. Darrell, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 41............................ 11
Liesemer, Ronald, Ph.D., Vice President, Citizens for Access
to the Lakeshore........................................... 51
Prepared statement on H.R. 977........................... 52
Pool, Mike, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 27
Prepared statement on H.R. 41............................ 29
Prepared statement on H.R. 490........................... 30
Prepared statement on H.R. 977........................... 30
Prepared statement on H.R. 1126.......................... 32
Prepared statement on H.R. 1413.......................... 34
Reichert, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 608........................... 18
Rosenberg, Erica, Board President, Western Lands Project..... 48
Prepared statement on H.R. 1126.......................... 49
Simpson, Hon. Michael, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 20
Prepared statement on H.R. 2050.......................... 21
Steed, Brian C., J.D., Ph.D., Economics Instructor, Jon M.
Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University......... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Ward, J. Mark, Senior Policy Analyst/Public Lands and Natural
Resources Counsel, Utah Association of Counties............ 35
Prepared statement on H.R. 1126.......................... 36
?
Additional materials supplied:
Camp, Hon. Dave, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Michigan, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 977 65
Freeman, P. Michael, Former Los Angeles County Fire Chief,
Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 113............. 8
Pena, Jim, Acting Deputy Chief for National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statements
submitted for the record, Prepared statement on H.R. 41.... 66
Prepared statement on H.R. 113........................... 66
Prepared statement on H.R. 490........................... 67
Prepared statement on H.R. 608........................... 67
Prepared statement on H.R. 1413.......................... 68
Prepared statement on H.R. 2050.......................... 70
(IV)
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 41, TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN FEDERAL
LANDS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS WILDERNESS, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES. ``BEAUTY MOUNTAIN AND AGUA TIBIA WILDERNESS ACT
OF 2011''; H.R. 113, TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONS TO THE CUCAMONGA
AND SHEEP MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS AREAS IN THE ANGELES AND SAN
BERNARDINO NATIONAL FORESTS AND THE PROTECTION OF EXISTING
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SUCH ADDITIONS, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE TO TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT AND PREPARE FOR WILDFIRES
IN THE CUCAMONGA, SHEEP MOUNTAIN, AND SAN GABRIEL WILDERNESS
AREAS AND ADDRESS THE BACKLOG OF MAINTENANCE IN THE ANGELES AND
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FORESTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
``ANGELES AND SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FORESTS PROTECTION ACT'';
H.R. 490, TO MODIFY THE BOUNDARIES OF CIBOLA NATIONAL FOREST IN
THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, TO TRANSFER CERTAIN BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT LAND FOR INCLUSION IN THE MANZANO MOUNTAIN
WILDERNESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 608, TO EXPAND THE
ALPINE LAKES WILDERNESS IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, TO
DESIGNATE THE MIDDLE FORK SNOQUALMIE RIVER AND PRATT RIVER AS
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``ALPINE LAKES
WILDERNESS ADDITIONS AND PRATT AND MIDDLE FORK SNOQUALMIE
RIVERS PROTECTION ACT''; H.R. 977, TO DESIGNATE AS WILDERNESS
CERTAIN LAND AND INLAND WATER WITHIN THE SLEEPING BEAR DUNES
NATIONAL LAKESHORE IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES. ``SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE CONSERVATION
AND RECREATION ACT''; H.R. 1126, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO SELL CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS IN ARIZONA, COLORADO,
IDAHO, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, UTAH, AND
WYOMING, PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED AS SUITABLE FOR DISPOSAL, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``DISPOSAL OF EXCESS FEDERAL LANDS ACT OF
2011''; H.R. 1413, TO PROVIDE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE
DEVIL'S STAIRCASE WILDERNESS AREA IN THE STATE OF OREGON, TO
DESIGNATE SEGMENTS OF WASSON AND FRANKLIN CREEKS IN THE STATE
OF OREGON AS WILD OR RECREATION RIVERS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
``DEVIL'S STAIRCASE WILDERNESS ACT OF 2011''; AND H.R. 2050, TO
AUTHORIZE THE CONTINUED USE OF CERTAIN WATER DIVERSIONS LOCATED
ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND IN THE FRANK CHURCH-RIVER OF NO
RETURN WILDERNESS AND THE SELWAY-BITTERROOT WILDERNESS IN THE
STATE OF IDAHO, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``IDAHO WILDERNESS
WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION ACT''
----------
Tuesday, October 25, 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 10:06 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Johnson, Hastings (ex
officio), Benishek, Grijalva, Kildee, DeFazio, Heinrich,
Garamendi and Markey (ex officio).
Mr. Bishop. All right. This hearing will be in order. The
Chair notes the presence of a quorum. The Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands is meeting today to
hear testimony on eight bills.
Under the rules, the opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and Ranking Member. 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. And hearing no objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. I want to thank our colleagues who have joined
us here to testify on their bills. We will go through, as I
think is already noticed to you, H.R. 41, H.R. 113, H.R. 490,
H.R. 608, H.R. 977, H.R. 1126, H.R. 1413 and H.R. 2050, all of
them dealing with wilderness. Each of these wilderness
designations is found within the district of the Congressman
who is representing or presenting the bill, which is a
significant issue.
Each of them deals with areas that are obviously areas of
special significance that we want to protect and/or have an
impact on the livelihood of the communities where these areas
are found. But we also recognize that when we lock up lands for
special designations it restricts access for energy, for
recreation, for job activities, and sometimes the brunt of poor
land management is devastating to rural communities where most
of these lands are found.
I am happy, though, that we are doing this process by
dealing with bills on an individual basis rather than having a
comprehensive omnibus bill in which stuff is just added to it
and sneaks by in one fell swoop with very little consideration
of the consequences.
I am also happy that in one of the bills we will be
discussing today, we'll be talking about excess or surplus
property. With the maintenance backlog that we have and our
current budget climate, it is somewhat silly to have government
land that is neither needed or wanted or used and,
unfortunately as is often the case, they don't even know they
own it in the first place.
So we will be talking about both of those issues as we go
forward. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I
recognize the Ranking Member for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Monuments, wilderness and other land-use designations have been a
topic of much debate in this subcommittee. While there are certain
areas of special significance that should be managed as wilderness or
otherwise preserved for future generations, we need to ensure that
those designations are fully vetted and protect the interests and
livelihoods of the communities and stakeholders that could be impacted.
This hearing is an important part of that process. Locking-up lands
throughout the West has the potential to restrict access for energy
production, recreation, and other job-creating activities and devastate
the rural communities that unfairly bear the brunt of poor land
management decisions. It is important to return to a practice of
looking at wilderness proposals thoroughly and individually as opposed
to comprehensive omnibus bills and Administrative actions that seek to
designate millions of acres in one fell swoop with little, if any,
consideration of the consequences.
Secondly, I also look forward to exploring options to reduce the
federal estate, particularly in those cases in which the government has
identified excess or surplus lands. The federal government currently
has a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog for the lands it holds.
Especially given our current budget climate, it makes perfect sense to
free the federal government from land it doesn't need and allow
agencies to focus on our most prized national parks, forests and other
lands.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and I now
recognize the Ranking Member for his opening statement.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the joint
subcommittee hearing in April, the Majority displayed graphic
photographs of mutilated and dead bodies and alleged that the
presence of wilderness near the border contributed to these
violent murders. In addition to the murder, the Majority has
blamed wilderness for undocumented immigration, terrorism, drug
smuggling and economic devastation of all kinds.
The Majority has categorized the designation of wilderness
as an assault on the rights guaranteed under the Second
Amendment. Wilderness supporters have been characterized as
arrogant and even in some cases unAmerican. This labeled
rhetoric and gross mischaracterization has made legitimate
discussion of wilderness proposals difficult. According to
Border Patrol, the presence of wilderness has no impact on
border security.
The economic benefits of wilderness have been well
documented in multiple peer-reviewed economic studies, and
hunting and shooting are not only allowed in wilderness; they
are enriched by it. And those disturbing photos displayed
during the joint hearing turned out to be of murders which did
not even occur in the United States.
It is my hope that today's hearing could provide an
opportunity for a more rational discussion of the concept of
protecting wild places for future generations. The Members
testifying today have all worked through the difficult process
of reaching local consensus regarding wilderness proposals. The
process involves long hours of reviewing maps and agency
recommendations to arrive at boundaries acceptable to a wide
variety of local stakeholders.
Crime scene photos and speeches about border enforcements
are diversions. The real wilderness debate is about the
appropriate balance between preserving wild places and pursuing
oil and gas development, road building and off-road vehicle
use. Currently 2.5 percent of the contiguous United States is
designated wilderness, while roughly one-third of the Federal
land in the Lower 48 is open to some level of oil and gas
development. Two point five for wilderness. Thirty-three
percent for oil and gas development.
The Members testifying today support raising the wilderness
percentage slightly in their districts, and these proposals
deserve an honest assessment and a hearing. Far from the
arrogance, the process of developing a viable wilderness
proposal requires the humility to recognize the importance of
competing land uses and the lasting value of leaving some areas
in the same condition in which we found them.
In signing the Wilderness Act in 1964, President Lyndon
Johnson said: ``If future generations are to remember us with
gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than
the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the
world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through
with it.''
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning more about each of
these wilderness proposals before the Subcommittee. I want to
congratulate the Members for their diligence and hard work in
bringing this legislation forward, and I thank the colleagues
and the witnesses for being here today.
It is a significant hearing in that wilderness has been a
bad word in the discussion before this Committee and the
Natural Resources Committee, and it is refreshing and certainly
a breath of fresh air to discuss wilderness in an open,
rational and factually based discussion. Mr. Chairman, I look
forward to that. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Mr. Chairman, during a joint subcommittee hearing in April, the
Majority displayed graphic photographs of mutilated, dead bodies and
alleged that the presence of wilderness near the border contributed to
these violent murders.
In addition to murder, the Majority has blamed wilderness for
undocumented immigration, terrorism, drug smuggling and economic
devastation.
The Majority has characterized the designation of wilderness as an
assault on the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment. Wilderness
supporters have been characterized as arrogant and even un-American.
This level of rhetoric and gross mischaracterization has made
legitimate discussion of wilderness proposals difficult.
According to the Border Patrol, the presence of wilderness has no
impact on border security.
The economic benefits of wilderness have been well-documented in
multiple, peer-reviewed, economic studies and hunting and shooting are
not only allowed in wilderness, they are enriched by it. And those
disturbing photos displayed during the joint hearing turned out to be
of murders which did not even occur in the United States.
It is my hope that today's hearing will provide an opportunity for
a more rational discussion of the concept of protecting wild places for
future generations.
The Members testifying today have all worked through the difficult
process of reaching local consensus regarding a wilderness proposal.
That process involves long hours reviewing maps and agency
recommendations to arrive at boundaries acceptable to a wide variety of
local stake-holders.
Crime scene photos and speeches about border enforcement are
diversions--the real wilderness debate is about the appropriate balance
between preserving wild places and pursuing oil and gas development,
road-building and off-road vehicle use.
Currently, 2.5% of the contiguous United States is designated
wilderness while roughly one third of the federal land in the lower 48
is open to some level of oil and gas development; 2.5% for wilderness,
33% for oil and gas.
The Members testifying today support raising the wilderness
percentage slightly in their districts and these proposals deserve an
honest assessment.
Far from arrogance, the process of developing a viable wilderness
proposal requires the humility to recognize the importance of competing
land uses and the lasting value of leaving some areas in the same
condition in which we found them.
In signing the Wilderness Act in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson
said, ``If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather
than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology.
We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning,
not just after we got through with it.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to learning more about each of the
wilderness proposals before the Subcommittee today and I thank our
colleagues and the other witnesses for their work on these measures. I
yield back.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We also are happy to have the
distinguished Chairman of the full Committee here. I recognize
Representative Hastings for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very
much for having this hearing. I am glad the Ranking Member
totally agrees with our approach here in having a very open and
transparent process.
A wilderness area is the most restrictive land use
designation that Congress, and only Congress, can apply to our
nation's lands. It greatly limits the American public's access
to their lands. Please note that I specifically said that it is
Congress and only Congress that has the authority to designate
lands as wilderness. The Obama Administration attempted to
bypass the clear letter of the law with its Wild Lands
Secretarial Order, which was a backdoor attempt to create new
wilderness by Executive fiat. They were forced by the actions
of this House, however, to abandon that effort.
Let me be clear. There are lands that should be managed as
wilderness, and in my view most of those lands have already
been designated. However, this hearing today demonstrates that
Chairman Bishop and I are open to the possibility of
appropriately designating new wilderness areas. That is not to
say that I am endorsing each of the bills before us today
because each proposal must undergo careful, individual review,
which this Committee is committed to undertaking.
Decisions on wilderness designations should be made on a
case-by-case basis. They should be done in accordance with the
Wilderness Act. They should have broad local input so as to
enjoy wide local support, and they should include a review of
the potential designation's impact on the public's access,
limitations on recreation, for example, and effect on local
economies and job creation activities.
To reiterate a point that Chairman Bishop made when he
announced this hearing, the lands affected by each of these
bills before the Subcommittee today are located within the
congressional district represented by the bill's sponsor. There
is a near zero--in fact there is a zero--chance that the
Committee will act on or advance bills that seek to designate
wilderness areas in a district or a state that a Member isn't
elected to represent.
I have often said that I respect the knowledge and
prerogative of a Member on proposals that affect their
district, as they were elected to represent that district and
they know it best. However, this respect is not a blank check,
and this Committee has a responsibility to review proposals
carefully.
Let me also be clear that there are times when Congress
must act to address situations that arise after the designation
of a wilderness area. It takes an Act of Congress to create a
wilderness area, and it requires an Act of Congress to fix or
make necessary modest adjustments to an established wilderness
area.
It simply is not reasonable for advocates of establishing
new wilderness to come to this Committee and argue that we
cannot legislate reasonable, common sense modifications to
prior designations that have risen up over time. Mr. Simpson of
Idaho has just a bill before us today, and I myself have
introduced legislation to uphold promises made by prior
designations.
For new wilderness designations to advance and become law,
proposals to make necessary adjustments to existing wilderness
and better manage our public lands as a whole will also need to
advance. The Committee will review and judge each proposed
wilderness bill on a case-by-case basis, but as Chairman of the
full Committee I don't intend to lose perspective on how best
to manage the nation's lands as a whole.
The Federal government owns more lands than it can afford
to properly manage. The deficit on maintaining and caring for
our existing lands runs into the billions of dollars. We must
make thoughtful and careful land use decisions that reflect our
country's current economic situation and the need to keep our
Federal lands healthy and the importance of keeping public
lands as open to the American public as possible for multiple
use purposes.
And with that, thank you for the courtesy, and I yield back
my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee on Natural
Resources, on H.R. 41, H.R. 113, H.R. 490, H.R. 608, H.R. 977, H.R.
1126, H.R. 1413 and H.R. 2050
Thank you, Chairman Bishop. As we have a distinguished panel of our
colleagues arrayed before us waiting to testify, I will be brief.
A wilderness area is the most restrictive land use designation that
Congress can apply to our nation's lands--it greatly limits the
American public's access to their lands. Please note that I
specifically said that it is Congress, and only Congress, that has the
authority to designate lands as wilderness. The Obama Administration
attempted to bypass the clear letter of the law with its Wild Lands
Secretarial Order, which was a backdoor attempt to create new
wilderness by Executive fiat. They were forced by Act of Congress to
abandon that effort.
Let me be clear, there are lands that should be managed as
wilderness, and, in my view, most of those lands have already been
designated. However, this hearing today demonstrates that Chairman
Bishop and 1 are open to the possibility of appropriately designating
new wilderness areas. That is not to say I am endorsing each of the
bills before us today because each proposal must undergo careful,
individual review--which this Committee is committed to undertaking.
Decisions on wilderness designations should be made on a case-by-
case basis, be done in accordance with the Wilderness Act, be informed
by broad local input so as to enjoy wide local support, and include a
review of the potential designation's impact on the public's access,
limitations on recreation, and effect on local economies and job
creation activities.
To reiterate a point that Chairman Bishop made previously, the
lands affected by each of the bills before the Subcommittee today are
located within the congressional district represented by the bill's
sponsor. There is a near zero percent chance that the Committee will
act on or advance bills that seek to designate wilderness in a district
or state that a Member isn't elected to represent. I have often said
that I respect the knowledge and prerogative of a Member on proposals
that affect their district, as they were elected to represent that
district and know it best. However, this respect is not a blank check,
and this Committee has a responsibility to review proposals carefully.
Let me also be clear that there are times when Congress must act to
address situations that arise after the designation of a wilderness
area. It takes an Act of Congress to create a wilderness area, and it
requires an Act of Congress to fix or make necessary modest adjustments
to an established wilderness area. It simply is not reasonable for
advocates of establishing new wilderness to come to this Committee and
argue that we cannot legislate reasonable, common sense modifications
to prior designations that have arisen over time. Mr. Simpson of Idaho
has just such a bill before us today, and I myself have introduced
legislation to uphold promises made in prior designations. For new
wilderness designations to advance and become law, proposals to make
necessary adjustments to existing wilderness and to better manage our
public lands as a whole will also need to advance. The Committee will
review and judge each proposed wilderness bill on a case-by-case basis,
but as Chairman, I don't intend to lose perspective on how best to
manage the nation's lands as a whole.
The federal government already owns more lands than it can afford
to properly manage. The deficit on maintaining and caring for our
existing lands runs into the billions of dollars. We must make
thoughtful and careful land-use decisions that reflect our country's
current economic situation, the need to keep our lands healthy, and the
importance of keeping public lands as open to the American public as
possible for multiple-use purposes.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. With that, we welcome the witnesses,
each who has a bill that we will be talking before us here.
Several of you have already requested--actually four of you
requested--to go first. I can't quite do that, but I recognize
that you also have other commitments, so if it is OK with the
entire panel the three who are here that have other commitments
I would like to be the first three presenters, and then we will
finish the rest of the panel.
I will tell you, though, that once you are done if you
would like to stay and join us on the dais to participate in
the rest of the discussion about any of these bills, please
feel free to do so. We would be more than happy. We can even
seat you closer, closer than my friend from Michigan is, if he
wants to come a little bit closer to the middle of this dais.
Obviously any written statement you have will be part of
the record. We ask you to limit your oral comments to five
minutes. We will start with Congressman Dreier from California,
then Congressman Issa if possible, and then I would like to ask
Congressman Huizenga if he would go third because you three
have already said that you have another commitment at the same
time, so we will try and go in that area.
Congressman Dreier, please.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID DREIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Dreier. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. So suffice
it to say I won't be joining you at the dais following our
testimony here.
Let me say that it is somewhat with mixed emotions that I
appear here. To have Doc Hastings and Rob Bishop wielding the
gavel over me and sitting higher than I am is something that
makes me extremely uncomfortable----
Mr. Bishop. OK. Your time has expired.
Mr. Dreier.--but I think I will survive it. Just wait until
you come to the next Rules Committee meeting.
I want to tell Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Garamendi that we have
made your amendment in order on the bill that was before the
Rules Committee yesterday, so we look forward to consideration
of that.
On the issue that I am here to address, let me just say
that I completely concur with everything that was said in the
opening remarks by the Subcommittee Chairman and the Chairman
of the full Committee. I, too, am one who is very skeptical of
the expansion of wilderness areas, and I thought that it was
just stated by the full Committee Chairman, and yesterday in
the Rules Committee the Chairman of the Subcommittee, you, Mr.
Chairman, made it clear that the Federal government owns and
controls much more land than it should.
That was your statement yesterday during the hearing, and I
concur with that. At the same time, I do believe that we need
to have, as Mr. Grijalva said and you both have said as well, a
focus on balance and recognizing the multiple use of lands.
Two years ago this last summer, I met with the very, very
wide-ranging group of people in Southern California focused on
the Angeles National Forest and the San Bernardino Forest, and
I came to the conclusion that a modest expansion of the
wilderness areas would go a long way toward dealing with the
very, very high degree of sensitivity that we have in Southern
California and around the country to our natural resources and
the beauty that exists there.
The Angeles National Forest I have been told is the most
utilized national forest in the Nation by virtue of its
proximity. In Los Angeles County, and I know, Mr. Chairman--
your daughter lives in Orange County--you know very well. Los
Angeles County has nearly 10 million people and so by virtue of
its proximity these areas are utilized.
So this group had approached me and talked to me about
this, and I came to the conclusion this modest, 17,724 acre
expansion was the right thing for us to do. The interesting
irony and very, very tragic and sad irony is that the day after
the meeting that I had with them, which came after they had
worked with staff and all for a long period of time, we saw a
little fire begin in the area, and that fire, Mr. Chairman,
grew to be the largest fire in the history of Los Angeles
County, 160,000 acres burned and two very courageous
firefighters, Ted Hall and Arnie Quinones, were killed.
I stood with their families and said as we look at this
notion of the expansion of the wilderness areas, I will do
everything that I possibly can to ensure that priority number
one is the issue of saving lives and property, and I will say
that it is for that reason that if you look at the section-by-
section analysis, Section 6 in this bill has raised some
concern from the Forest Service, as I told you, Mr. Chairman,
when we were walking in this morning, and also from some of the
environmental groups.
They are concerned about it, but I feel very strongly about
that Section 6 saying that we need to make sure that we do
everything we can to provide those firefighters with the
ability to get to, access and prevent and deal with the
aftermath of these fires.
So I believe that this is a responsible measure that we
have got. It is balanced. We have taken those things into
consideration. Just a few moments ago, I got the word that the
now retired chief, Chief Freeman of the Los Angeles County Fire
Department, is in support of this section and the legislation,
and I would like to ask that his statement, Mr. Chairman, be
included in the record.
Mr. Bishop. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeman submitted for the
record by Mr. Dreier follows:]
Statement of P. Michael Freeman, Former Los Angeles County Fire Chief,
on H.R. 113, the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests Protection
Act
Natural Resources Committee Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member
Markey, Subcommittee Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and
members of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee,
thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit testimony on H.R.
113, the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests Protection Act.
My name is P. Michael Freeman and I am the former Fire Chief of Los
Angeles County. I recently retired after 22 years of service as the
Fire Chief and 47 total years of experience as a firefighter. As Fire
Chief, I ran a fire department for a county with more than 9.8 million
people and an incredibly diverse landscape, with everything from
coastline to mountains and forests.
One of the many challenges I faced as Fire Chief was ensuring the
safety of our firefighters, residents as well as the communities at the
foothills of the Angeles National Forest during wildfire season.
Multiple factors contribute to this difficult task including rough
terrain, a close urban interface as well as unpredictable fire
patterns. This is why it is vital that firefighters have the resources
and flexibility needed to fight wildfires.
Preventing and containing wildfires is an issue that I have worked
on with Congressman David Dreier for many years. Fighting wildfires in
Los Angeles County can be incredibly dangerous and strenuous. In 2009,
the Los Angeles County Fire Department, along with multiple other
firefighters, battled the Station Fire. This fire ended up burning more
than 160,000 acres and was the largest wildfire in the modern history
of Los Angeles County. Tragically, it also took the lives of two
firefighters, Fire Captain Ted Hall and Firefighter Specialist Arnie
Quinones. In September, 2009, the House of Representatives passed a
resolution honoring these two brave men. I deeply appreciate your
support in recognizing Captain Hall and Specialist Quinones who made
the ultimate sacrifice while serving Los Angeles County.
In the aftermath of the Station Fire, my colleagues and I had many
meetings on the lessons learned from this fire. In addition,
Congressman Dreier and I discussed ways to better protect firefighters
and prevent large-scale forest fires from occurring. The fire
management section included in H.R. 113 is the culmination of these
conversations.
Although I am now retired, ensuring that current and future
firefighters have the ability to properly carry out fire prevention and
suppression activities remains extremely important to me. That is why
it is my hope that the Committee will support the fire management
language in H.R. 113. Thank you for your time and consideration.
______
Mr. Dreier. I believe that this is a very balanced proposal
which can in fact gain strong bipartisan support, and so I
thank you very much for that, and with that I am going to
excuse myself if I may. Thank you all.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
We will now hear from the other gentleman from California.
Congressman Issa, if you would?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DARRELL ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. I am
going to piggyback directly on what Chairman Dreier said. It is
pretty easy to see that you can abuse wilderness as a
designation. My bill, the Beauty Mountain bill, is an attempt
not to abuse, but in fact to, if you will, try to perfect what
is already in place.
Beauty Mountain, half of which is in Congresswoman Bono's
district and is already designated as wilderness and roughly
half of which is in my district, is an area that has been
managed as though it was wilderness by multiple agencies of the
Federal government for the 11 years that I have been in
Congress and actually for the 18 years that Congressman Packard
was my predecessor. It has been clearly designated as not
usable for mining or other energy, and yet it has not really
been prepared to be properly managed.
When Congressman Bono put the first half into wilderness
some I guess six years ago, I asked her to leave Southern
Beauty Mountain out because I didn't feel that we had gone
through a lot of the questions. It has taken us a number of
years. We believe we have answered all the questions.
As the bill goes through this Committee and, Mr. Hastings,
I am particularly concerned that we scrutinize it because I
have done the best I can do, but the resources of this
Committee can allow you to properly give it one more once over.
What we have done is recognized that as it was originally
half done, a road which was to be maintained through the center
of it for the public was never maintained for the public. It is
available in very marginal condition in case of fire and the
chains can be let go, but it hasn't been maintained on the
north or south end the way it should be. My bill attempts to
make it clear that this is a public access.
Additionally, the bill provides not just ingress and
egress, but corridors for offloading equestrian and other
parking requirements so that people can actually either walk or
ride their horses through this area as is intended in the
statute.
We also have tried to set aside additional area for camping
and the like because we believe that the ecotourism that is
envisioned by these no engine areas doesn't happen if you abut
them directly up to areas where there is no opportunity to have
a transition for the public. We think we have addressed all of
that. We certainly have tried.
I would like to very much request that the Committee take
one more look at the bill and see if we have addressed
everything we have attempted to. We have been working with the
Majority and Minority over multiple Congresses and we have
tried to get it right, but the goal for my constituents and for
Congresswoman Bono's constituents is to recognize that if it is
going to be managed by multiple agencies as wilderness without
coordination and without access or maintenance capabilities so
the public gets the benefit then it doesn't serve the intention
at all of the statute.
Last, but not least, we were not able to address, because
of cost, any remediation. This wilderness area includes an area
that to this day still has the remnants of a meth lab, still
has the remnants of an apple orchard, still has remnants. Now,
these are decades old, but they are still there. Well, the meth
lab not decades old, but the previous agricultural use is
decades old.
And so one of the concerns that we have which we hope this
Committee will look at is this is good land for ecotourism.
This is good land for habitat to truly have an opportunity to
be not disturbed by motorcycles or cars, but at the same time
this is an area in which all of the agencies that have
jurisdiction have sort of viewed it as a low cost, low
participation area.
So again, I am very excited to offer the bill. I believe
that completing Beauty Mountain is essential, but getting it
right is essential because we believe that if you are going to
have wilderness, this 21,000 acres--and Mr. Dreier said his was
small; mine is barely larger in totality than his addition, but
it is something that to our community is desirable, but
desirable if we get it right.
So I rely on the Committee's assistance to get it right. I
look forward to having all of my personnel resources of my
staff available to work with you in any way possible. I thank
you for your consideration and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Issa follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Darrell Issa, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, on H.R. 41, the ``Beauty Mountain and
Agua Tibia Wilderness Act of 2011''
I would like to start out by thanking Chairman Bishop and Ranking
Member Grijalva for bringing up my bill H.R. 41, the ``Beauty Mountain
and Agua Tibia Wilderness Act of 2011,'' and other Wilderness bills,
for consideration. I would also like to thank Chairman Hastings and
Ranking Member Markey, of the full committee, for their continued
recognition of the importance of Wilderness.
At this time it would also be appropriate to express my gratitude
and appreciation for the hard work and dedication shown by those who
have been instrumental in helping to formulate the plans, draw the maps
and perfect the overall bill. Without their perseverance this would not
have been possible. They include the individuals at the Bureau of Land
Management, the Conservation Fund, people at the Forest Service,
employees at the Departments of Agriculture and Interior, staff members
on the Natural Resources Committee, my own personal staff and the
public.
H.R. 41 will ensure that some of California's most magnificent
scenery and rich wildlife habitats are conserved for the future. It
will also improve the recreational opportunities and aid the local
economy through increased tourism.
My bill will designate more than 21,000 acres of land, in Southern
California, as new Wilderness. The addition of 7,796 acres to the Agua
Tibia Wilderness, located in the Cleveland National Forest, will ensure
that my constituents, and all Americans, will have even more access to
the beautiful deep canyons and coastal sage scrub located there and
will protect the Cutca Trail for hikers and equestrians.
The addition of 13,635 acres of Wilderness to Beauty Mountain will
expand on the already existing 15,627 acres of rustic and rugged
terrain, majestic oak lands and fascinating rock formations. It will
also secure space for a parking area, campground, corrals and access to
clean water, and safeguard traditional hunting spaces.
Both areas serve as critical plant and wildlife migration corridors
between Anza-Borrego Desert State Park on the east and the coastal
mountains of Riverside and San Diego counties on the west. Agua Tibia
and Beauty Mountain are places that species such as the Coastal Rosy
Boa and the Golden Eagle call home. San Diego State University has even
established a field-school there to study it as an ``evolutionary
hotspot.''
Wilderness is public land that has been protected from development
and vehicle use not to isolate it from humans, but so that humans can
experience nature in its most primal state. This bill will allow
present day Americans to see and encounter terrain, plants and animals
in a state similar to how the Native Americans and the first pioneers
viewed it generations ago.
When crafting this bill, special care was taken to accept comments
and input from local agencies, groups and individuals so that major
concerns were addressed. These were extremely helpful and the end
product is a better piece of legislation due to the open forum. For
example, mining issues were studied and the potential for energy
development was reviewed and in both cases the Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service stated that the areas were not viable
candidates for such activities. In addition, offroading interests were
contacted and toured the areas in the field and as a result the bill
will not close any legally-open roads or trails to vehicles. This will
ensure that hunters and others will still be able to access camp sites
that they have used for generations. This bill also took special
efforts to protect private property rights and to ensure that
firefighting and fire prevention activities would not be impeded.
Lastly, the measure permits immigration enforcement, search and rescue
and other important activities.
This bill preserves land while making sure that the public can
still enjoy it. It is a responsible and sensible step toward protecting
a beautiful natural resource. Equestrians will be able to trot along
beautiful trails, hikers can tackle and challenge themselves on
mountainous terrain while witnessing spectacular views, hunters will
still be able to enjoy traditional game such as deer and quail, and
campers can sleep under the sky and observe the stars near the Palomar
Observatory which is just a few miles south of Agua Tibia. In fact,
this measure is unique in that it calls for the establishment of
equestrian-friendly campgrounds in a region that has many riders but
very few facilities for them.
This bill will also positively impact the economy of businesses in
my district through eco-tourism. During this time of high unemployment
and a stagnant economy, efforts that encourage private sector job
growth should be supported.
This legislation has bi-partisan appeal, with a companion bill
introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer, and support from the
Administration. Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, mentioned H.R.
41 in a letter to Congress regarding designating certain lands as
Wilderness.
In closing, I would once again like to thank Chairman Bishop and
Ranking Member Grijalva for bringing this bill before the Subcommittee
on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and for the chance to be
here. This legislation will protect and preserve lands for use by
current and future generations and I look forward to seeing this bill
brought to the House floor and eventually signed into law.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And once again, if you would like to
stay with us you are welcome to do so.
Actually, I haven't put that in a motion yet. I would ask
unanimous consent that any Member who wishes to stay here be
allowed to be on the dais. Thank you. All right.
Mr. Issa. And without objection, I will go to Judiciary I
am afraid. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. If I object, will you stay?
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I have no rule to hold against you.
I will do as you wish.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, yes. OK. Thank you for being here.
Congressman Huizenga from Michigan? Bill, I hope I have
pronounced that properly.
Mr. Huizenga. You did, Chairman, and when my bill is up in
front of your Committee it doesn't matter how you pronounce my
name.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Congressman Smith, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BILL HUIZENGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Huizenga. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Chairman
Bishop, I appreciate that, and Chairman Hastings and Ranking
Member Grijalva. Thank you for taking this up. This is an
important hearing.
Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore Conservation and
Recreation Act. The legislation which sits before you really is
about establishing reasonable boundaries, preserving historic
landmarks, protecting private property both within and around
the property, around the park, and maintains hunting and
fishing rights exercised for generations and, more importantly,
as Chairman Hastings was talking about, there has been broad
local input.
It enjoys broad public support in Michigan and especially
locally. It is bipartisan, bicameral sponsorship in Congress,
and it really protects a popular unit of the National Park
System in our state.
I would also like to thank Chairman Dave Camp for
partnering with me in this effort and being here as a co-lead
in the House, as well as Congressman Benishek and Congressman
Kildee, who were co-sponsors of this bill, H.R. 977.
Earlier this year, with over 100,000 votes nationwide,
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore was named the most
beautiful place in America by ABC's Good Morning America,
beating such locales as Aspen, Colorado; Cape Cod,
Massachusetts; Hawaii; Sedona, Arizona. With an annual
visitation of about 1.2 million people, it is estimated that
the economic impact of $78 million locally is significant.
And I can tell you that maintaining and protecting access
to the lakeshore is absolutely vital as a part of that economy
because it is entirely dependent on tourism, tourism and
agriculture up in that area. Chairman Hastings had referenced a
little bit about that broad local input and, Chairman Bishop,
you referenced ``locking'' up the land as being significant. I
could not agree with you more, and quite honestly the road to
this piece of legislation has not been an easy one.
In 2002, I was the District Director for my predecessor,
Peter Hoekstra. At that time, the district was coming out of
Congressman Bart Stupak's--I am sorry. This area, this county,
was coming out of Congressman Bart Stupak's district, going and
being split into both Peter Hoekstra and Dave Camp's district.
I remember a press conference up there at the time that had
Carl Levin, Bart Stupak, Peter Hoekstra, Dave Camp all on the
same page saying hey, wait a minute. We need to hit the time
out button here.
And that was because the National Park Service had really
ignored public input and had developed a management plan that
would have brought the park back to ``pre Columbian era'', and
they were talking about tearing up all the county roads to the
beaches, destroying many historic landmarks and making sure
that the park was virtually inaccessible to the public, and
that was just viewed as completely unacceptable.
This quickly resulted, as you can imagine, in just an
amazing outcry in northern Michigan and the eventual formation
of Citizens For Access To The Lakeshore or CAL, a
representative of which, Ron Liesemer, who is here behind me,
will be joining you later in the next panel.
In 2009, after eight years of collaboration among the
park's officials, road commissions, chambers of commerce, local
private business people, rotary clubs and virtually every other
stakeholder imaginable, the Park Service finalized and adopted
a new management plan with vast support throughout the
community. Is it unanimous? No. Is it vast? Absolutely.
There is a consensus within the community that this is the
direction to go. The plan embodied in this legislation is a
balanced proposal that will ensure access to this popular
resource, protecting hunting and fishing, preserving private
property rights while protecting those from the most fragile
aspects.
I believe that an important responsibility of Congress is
to also hold the Executive Branch accountable for their
actions, particularly when they don't consult the public. This
started in 1970. It was also done in the early 1980s and then
in 2002. It has been over Republican and Democrat
Administrations.
But Congress needs to recognize and act on those policies
and recommendations when the public has been fully engaged,
which is what has happened here. This is a perfect example of
that. H.R. 977 has done that. Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act demonstrates how the
process can and frankly should work. The local citizens and
stakeholders have invested significant time and effort in
working with us, with the National Park Service and in
developing the appropriate policies for the area.
Again, I would like to thank the Committee for recognizing
the high level of local involvement that has gone into this,
and it is my hope that the full Committee will soon send this
bill before the full House of Representatives. I appreciate
being here with you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huizenga follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Bill Huizenga, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, on H.R. 977, Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act
Thank you Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and members of
the subcommittee for holding this hearing on the Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act. The legislation,
which would designate approximately 32,557 acres as wilderness, enjoys
broad public support in Michigan, bipartisan, bicameral sponsorship in
Congress and protects an important and popular unit of the National
Park System in our state. I would also like to thank Chairman Dave Camp
for partnering with me in this effort and being the co-lead here in the
House.
Earlier this year, with over 100,000 votes nationwide, Sleeping
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore was named the ``Most Beautiful Place in
America'' by ABC's Good Morning America beating such locales as Aspen,
Colorado; Cape Cod, Massachusetts; Lanikai Beach, Hawaii; and Sedona,
Arizona. With an average yearly visitation of 1.2 million people and an
estimated economic impact of $78 million per year, protecting and
maintaining access to the Lakeshore is absolutely vital as its economy
is almost entirely dependent on tourism.
The road to introduction for this legislation was not easy.
Originally, the National Park Service ignored public input in
developing the management plan. As a result, the Park Service
recommendations were flawed and were rejected by the public and
Michigan's Congressional delegation. However, rather than trying to
move ahead, the Park Service, with prodding from the Congressional
delegation, went back to the drawing board and engaged in a transparent
process with extensive discussions with the local citizens and
stakeholders. The result, embodied in this legislation, is a balanced
proposal that will ensure access to this popular resource while
protecting its most fragile aspects.
An important responsibility of Congress is to hold the Executive
Branch accountable for their actions particularly when they do not
consult with the public. However, Congress should also recognize and
act on those policies and recommendations in which the public has been
fully engaged. An example of this is H.R. 977. The Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act demonstrates how the
process can and should work. The local citizens and stakeholders have
invested significant time and effort in working with us and with the
National Park Service in developing the appropriate policies for this
area.
Again, I would like to thank the Committee for recognizing the high
level of local involvement by scheduling H.R. 977 for action, and it is
my hope that the full Committee will soon send this bill before the
full House of Representatives for consideration.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony from the
gentleman from Michigan.
You indicated you had another engagement as well. You are
welcome to stay here if you would like to. Otherwise, you are
free to hobble on to your next group. Try not to take out some
of the viewers there with your crutches.
Mr. Huizenga. I will try not to. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. With that, let me finish off the rest of the
panel. Once again to the three of you who still remain, if you
would like to stay here, please free to do so.
Representative Reichert, we will have--I am sorry. Mr.
Reichert, we won't have you go yet.
I note the presence of the Ranking Member of the full
Committee, who by right has the opportunity to give an opening
statement. I will recognize Mr. Markey at this time if he would
like to do that.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much and thank
the Members for joining us here today.
Mr. Chairman, it is remarkable that the two sides of this
wilderness debate can look at the same proposals and see very
different things. Where wilderness opponents see a Federal land
grab, we see an attempt to bring balance to Federal land
management policy that is currently tilted wildly in favor of
resource extraction.
Where opponents see wasted space that could be better used
for well pads and roads and open pit mines, we see pristine,
open spaces which protect habitat, provide clean drinking water
and allow visitors from around the world to marvel at the
incredible beauty of this country. And where wilderness
opponents see missed opportunities for multinational
corporations to reap vast profits, we see economic engines
powering local economies with tourism and recreation dollars.
In order to have a rational discussion of wilderness
proposals, the fundamental misconceptions that lead to these
very different views must be addressed.
First, the Wilderness Act does not create wilderness. In
fact, Congress does not even create wilderness. Wilderness was
created long before we arrived by a much higher power. The best
we can do and what the Wilderness Act seeks to do is identify
those areas we have not yet altered beyond recognition and
preserve them so that those who come after us will have some
idea of what this world looked like when it was given to us by
our Creator.
Second, wilderness is a multiple use designation. The fact
that off-road vehicles and oil wells are prohibited does not
mean these areas are locked up. A wide variety of recreational
activities, including hunting and fishing, are allowed and in
fact flourish in wilderness areas. Grazing and even mining
occur in some wilderness areas, and any activity necessary for
the control of insects or fire or the protection of public
safety are allowed in wilderness.
And finally, the choice between preserving wilderness and
energy development is a false one. We have accomplished and we
must continue to do both. Oil production on public lands is at
an almost 10-year high. Gas production is at an all-time high,
and these levels could increase dramatically if energy
companies simply begin production on leases that they already
hold.
Nearly two-thirds of the Federal land in the Lower 48
states is already open to some level of energy production. The
wilderness designations on land where by definition energy
production is not now occurring will have no impact whatsoever
on overall oil and gas production in this country. Previous
Congresses have identified wilderness preservation as an
important goal on par with other uses of our public lands.
Unfortunately, the goals of wilderness preservation has been
undermined, mischaracterized and sacrificed on the alter of
energy development.
The Members testifying today on their wilderness proposals
deserve a fair hearing free of the falsehoods and
mischaracterizations that have been used in the past to inflame
the wilderness debate. I look forward to hearing all of the
witnesses testify today, and we thank each of you for
appearing, and I yield back the balance, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Mr. Chairman, it is remarkable that the two sides of this
wilderness debate can look at the same proposals and see very different
things.
Where wilderness opponents see a federal land grab, we see an
attempt to bring balance to federal land management policy that is
currently tilted wildly in favor of resource extraction.
Where opponents see wasted space that could be better used for
well-pads and roads and open pit mines, we see pristine, open spaces
which protect habitat, provide clean drinking water and allow visitors
from around the world to marvel at the incredible beauty of this
country.
And where wilderness opponents see missed opportunities for
multinational corporations to reap vast profits, we see economic
engines powering local economies with tourism and recreation dollars.
In order to have a rational discussion of wilderness proposals, the
fundamental misconceptions that lead to these very different views must
be addressed.
First, the Wilderness Act does not create wilderness. In fact,
Congress does not even create wilderness. Wilderness was created long
before we arrived by a much higher power.
The best we can do, and what the Wilderness Act seeks to do, is
identify those areas we have not yet altered beyond recognition and
preserve them so that those who come after us will have some idea of
what this world looked like when it was given to us by our Creator.
Second, wilderness is a multiple-use designation. The fact that
off-road vehicles and oil wells are prohibited does not mean these
areas are ``locked up.''
A wide variety of recreational activities, including hunting and
fishing, are allowed, and in fact flourish, in wilderness areas.
Grazing, and even mining occur in some wilderness areas.
And any activity necessary for the control of insects or fire, or
the protection of public safety are allowed in wilderness.
Finally, the choice between preserving wilderness and energy
development is a false one; we have accomplished, and must continue,
both.
Oil production on public lands is at an almost ten year high, gas
production is at an all-time high and these levels could increase
dramatically if energy companies simply begin production on leases they
already hold.
Nearly two thirds of the federal land in the lower 48 states is
already open to some level of energy production.
New wilderness designations, on land where, by definition, energy
production is not now occurring, will have no impact whatsoever on
overall oil and gas production in this country.
Previous Congresses have identified wilderness preservation as an
important goal, on par with other uses of our public lands.
Unfortunately, the goal of wilderness preservation has been undermined,
mischaracterized and sacrificed on the altar of energy development.
The Members testifying today on their wilderness proposals deserve
a fair hearing--free of the falsehoods and mischaracterizations that
have been used in the past to inflame the wilderness debate.
I look forward to learning more about these proposals and thank our
colleagues for their hard work and commitment to balanced federal land
management policy. I yield back.
______
Mr. Bishop. I thank the Ranking Member for his
participation.
All right. Now we will go back to Mr. Reichert and ask you
how you particularly wish to dress the garden.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID REICHERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Reichert. Well, I thank the Chairman for holding this
hearing and the Ranking Member and also full Committee Chairman
Hastings and the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr.
Markey, for attending today and allowing us to present our
thoughts on particular wilderness areas that pertain
specifically to our districts.
And I agree. I would be personally a little bit
disappointed and upset if someone from another district or
another state decided that they wanted to look at an area in my
district and consider it as a project for themselves. In
Washington state, I think as everyone on this Committee is very
well aware, we are very environmentally astute and very
environmentally aware, and we work very closely together on
these issues.
This has been a project in the making since 2007, and we
have done this the right way. We have come together as a
community, as stakeholders in meeting after meeting after
meeting after meeting, drawing and redrawing the boundaries of
the addition to the current Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. Our
hope is that you will continue the good work that you did in
the last Congress in passing this bill out of your Committee
and onto the Floor as it passed last Congress also.
I agree with some of the comments that were made today from
both sides, but especially agree with the points that have been
made regarding individuality specific to districts. Local
control I think is absolutely critical in this area. As I said,
as the community has come together this is a project that has
had people put a lot of heart and soul into finally coming to a
decision and moving forward on this wilderness area.
This is an opportunity for us on the west side of the
Cascades in Washington to add some wilderness area that has
been abused in the past, and I know this from personal
experience as the sheriff in King County for eight years, the
last eight years of my career there, but 33 years there and
knowing this area very, very well as a cop on the streets and
as the sheriff of the county.
This was an area that was used by crooks to dump stolen
goods, stolen automobiles. It was an area used by some of the
community to dump old furniture and dishwashers. It has also
recently become an area, until volunteers came forward and
helped clean up this hopefully protected area here in the near
future, has become an area where people have dumped meth
residue, old meth labs, meth equipment, and it really has
created a problem where some of this residue has seeped into
the rivers and streams nearby.
Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area has not just originated here
on the House side, but it is also supported by people on the
opposite side of the aisle, on both sides of the aisle in the
House, but also there is a companion bill on the Senate side
that Patty Murray has. My staff has given me some facts for you
to show how in-depth we have gone here.
This has been extensive consultation, consensus building
with local stakeholders and, as I said, as late as May 2007
frequent gatherings to collaborate with elected officials,
conservation enthusiasts, recreation groups, property rights
groups and advocates. We constructed this modified proposal.
This is why, one of the many reasons why, this and the original
proposal enjoys strong, broad-based local support.
They have given numbers of 74 elected officials, and this
is a rural area again so there are not a lot of elected
officials out there, but this represents the majority of
elected officials in the area, 115 businessmen and women
ranging from recreational outfitters to restaurants and
retailers.
So again, this we see as an economic opportunity for areas
like North Bend, as the Chairman knows, Snoqualmie, Summit and
other small cities around the area, bicycles, fishing shops and
restaurants, and we appreciate your considering our bill. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reichert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Dave Reichert, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, on H.R. 608, Alpine Lakes Wilderness
Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the
Subcommittee--thank you for holding this hearing on the Alpine Lakes
Wilderness Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers
Protection Act (H.R. 608), and for allowing me to testify in support of
this measure. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the
Natural Resources committee for approving the legislation last year and
the House passing it unanimously. Additionally, I wanted to mention
that Senator Patty Murray has been an outstanding partner in this
bipartisan conservation effort, and I am pleased to have her leadership
and the support of Senator Maria Cantwell on this bill.
H.R. 608 builds upon the proud Washington State tradition initiated
by Senators Warren Magnuson (D-WA), Scoop Jackson (D-WA), and Dan Evans
(R-WA) of working together to protect our public lands and preserve
recreational opportunities for outdoors enthusiasts. The people of
Washington State understand how this bipartisanship works for their
lasting benefit: look no further than Mt. Rainier, Olympic, and the
North Cascades National Parks to see how these anchors of outdoor
recreation are treasured by residents and visitors alike.
The current 394,000-acre Alpine Lakes Wilderness reaches the crest
of the Cascade Mountains just east of the Seattle-Bellevue metropolitan
area. In 1976, the Alpine Lakes Wilderness was designated by Congress
and has become one of the most popular wilderness areas in the country.
Now, 30 years later, H.R. 608 provides an opportunity to permanently
protect key additions to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in my
congressional district that will preserve important wildlife habitats,
existing recreational opportunities, and local economies that rely on
both. The legislation embraces important lower-elevation lands,
completes watersheds, protects two rivers with Wild and Scenic
designations (the Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers), and
provides clean water and flood control for the Middle Fork and South
Fork valleys. Congressionally-designated Wilderness and Wild and Scenic
River designations are the strongest and most durable means to ensure
these special areas are preserved for our children and grandchildren to
experience.
The Middle Fork and South Fork valleys are the closest and most
accessible mountain valleys to residents of the greater Seattle-
Bellevue metropolitan area. The proposed additions have been carefully
crafted with consideration for existing recreational opportunities for
hiking, camping, rafting, kayaking, horseback riding, mountain biking,
and wildlife viewing. It also protects a large area of accessible
lowland forests, preserving hunting and fishing opportunities in
primitive settings.
This proposal also protects an important wildlife habitat that
contains abundant elk and deer populations. And although salmon are not
present in the Middle Fork, there are substantial populations of
resident trout that rely on the streams of the Pratt and Middle Fork
Snoqualmie Rivers. These watersheds are sources of clean water,
important for downstream fisheries and commercial and residential water
users. Preserving the forests as Wilderness would ensure maintenance of
flow during the dry summer months, and aid in flood control. The
Snoqualmie basin is subject to flood events on a regular basis; the
low-elevation forest valleys are critical to controlling run-off rates
here and the proposed additions would preserve intact forest
ecosystems, protecting against increasing flood severity on downstream
infrastructure and residents.
The benefits of the legislation are clear, but the process we
engaged in to reach this consensus measure is equally important for the
Subcommittee to consider. I am proud of the fact that this legislation
is the result of extensive consultation and consensus-building with
local stakeholders. Meetings began as early as May 2007, and frequent
gatherings to collaborate with elected officials, conservation
enthusiasts, recreation groups, and property-rights advocates
constructed and modified this proposal to address concerns raised by
stakeholders. That is one of many reasons why this and the original
proposal enjoys the strong, broad-based local support of 74 elected
officials; 115 businesses, ranging from recreational outfitters to
restaurants and retailers; 15 hunting and angling groups; 14
recreational groups, including paddlers, bikers, and hikers; 25
conservation organizations; and 68 religious leaders.
This collaborative approach is best exemplified by an agreement
worked out between user groups for access to trails along the
wilderness boundary. Through discussions with mountain bikers, hikers,
and conservationists, a consensus plan was crafted to use the trail
adjacent to the proposed wilderness addition on alternate days, so that
those hikers seeking a trail experience without encountering bicyclists
could do so on specific days. Here is an innovative resolution to what
might otherwise have been a festering controversy. This collaboration
is a perfect example of the broad coalition of supporters for this
proposal, and the unity of purpose among them in seeking federal
designation for these wilderness additions.
The additions made by H.R. 608 to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area,
combined with the designation of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River, fit
the Washington State tradition of collaborative, consensus-based,
environmental stewardship. This wilderness will serve vast, untold
numbers of Americans. It serves those who choose to adventure into its
quiet valleys and up to its sentinel peaks. Some of those are hardy
mountain climbers; for others the adventure is an afternoon walk,
grandparents introducing their grandchildren to nature at its most wild
and inviting along a quiet, easy wilderness trail. It serves the larger
group of wilderness users who take pleasure from the wilderness they
view from the Mountains-to-Sound Greenway, an extraordinary corridor of
protected federal, state, and private lands offering all kinds of
recreational opportunities to those who travel across our state on
Interstate 90, which crosses the Cascades just south of the Alpine
Lakes Wilderness. Those who savor the wild scenery from more developed
sites and roadways are no less users of wilderness than the adventurers
who trek to the highest, farther peaks.
Finally, this wilderness serves the future generations for whom we
must act today. As a grandfather, I understand that we have a stake
today in a future I will not live to see. That is the world in which
our grandchildren's children will live their lives, amid whatever kind
of landscape we have left them. Count mine as one solid voice on behalf
of ensuring that the landscape we bequeath to future generations is one
with an abundant, generous, and diverse system of wilderness areas, not
only in the most remote stretches of our beautiful country, but right
here close to home--in a ``backyard wilderness'' such as the Alpine
Lakes.
I urge you to support this legislation and to approve it for floor
consideration. Again, I appreciate your leadership and responsiveness
in scheduling this hearing, and I would be pleased to respond to any
questions.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman.
Representative Chaffetz? If you want to switch, I don't
care. We are going to finish the row at the table somewhere. Do
you want to go first, Representative Simpson?
Mr. Simpson. I will go first. I was very pleased that----
Mr. Bishop. We have a pre-existing relationship, so I can
accept this, can't we?
Mr. Simpson. I was going to say, I was glad to see that the
small gift I brought the Chairman and the Chairman of the full
Committee, the Idaho potato pin, didn't influence your order of
presentation here.
Mr. Hastings. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
Mr. Simpson. I would be happy to.
Mr. Hastings. You didn't tell the whole story about our
conversation on yield per acre. I don't think you mentioned
that.
Mr. Simpson. I knew I shouldn't have brought that up.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL SIMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Simpson. Anyway, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva, Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey, thank
you for holding this hearing today and giving me the
opportunity to testify about H.R. 2050, the Idaho Wilderness
Water Resources Protection Act. This nonpartisan,
noncontroversial legislation is a technical fix intended to
enable the Forest Service to authorize and permit existing
historical water diversions within Idaho wilderness.
Last Congress, one of my constituents came to me for help
with the problem. The Middle Fork Lodge has a water diversion
within the Frank Church-River Of No Return Wilderness Area that
existed before the wilderness area was established and is
protected under statute. The diversion was beginning to leak
and was in desperate need of repairs to ensure that it did not
threaten the environment and watershed, but it turned out the
Forest Service did not have the authority to issue the lodge a
permit to make the necessary repairs.
As we looked into this issue, we discovered that the Forest
Service lacks this authority throughout both the Frank Church-
River Of No Return Wilderness where there are 22 known water
developments and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness where there
are three. These diversions are primarily used to support
irrigation, minor hydroelectric generation for use on non-
Federal lands.
While the critical situation at the Middle Fork Lodge
brought the issue to my attention, it is obvious to me that
this problem is larger than just one diversion. At some point
in the future, all 25 of these existing diversions will need
maintenance or repair work done to ensure their integrity.
H.R. 2050 authorizes the Forest Service to issue special
use permits for all qualifying historic water systems in these
wilderness areas. I believe it is important that we get ahead
of this problem and ensure that the Forest Service has the
tools necessary to manage these lands.
For these reasons, I introduced H.R. 2050. The legislation,
which was passed by the House last Congress, allows the Forest
Service to issue the required special use permits to owners of
historic water systems and sets out specific criteria for doing
so. Providing this authority will ensure that existing water
diversions can be properly maintained and repaired when
necessary and preserve beneficial use for private property
owners who hold water rights under state law.
I have deeply appreciated the cooperation of the Forest
Service in addressing this problem. Not only have they
communicated with me the need to find a system-wide solution to
the issues, but at my request they drafted this legislation to
ensure that it only impacts specific targeted historical
diversions, those with valid water rights that cannot feasibly
be relocated outside of the wilderness area.
H.R. 2050 is nonpartisan and noncontroversial. It is
intended as a simple, reasonable solution to a problem that I
think we can all agree should be solved as quickly as possible.
I am encouraged that the Committee has decided to hold a
hearing on this bill and hopeful that we can move it through
the legislative process without delay so that the necessary
maintenance to these diversions may be completed before the
damage is beyond repair.
I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and inviting
me to testify this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Michael Simpson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Idaho, on H.R. 2050, the Idaho Wilderness
Water Resources Protection Act
Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, I want to thank you
for holding this hearing today and giving me an opportunity to testify
about H.R. 2050, the Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act.
This bipartisan, non-controversial legislation is a technical fix
intended to enable the Forest Service to authorize and permit existing
historical water diversions within Idaho wilderness.
Last Congress, one of my constituents came to me for help with a
problem. The Middle Fork Lodge has a water diversion within the Frank
Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area that existed before the
wilderness area was established and is protected under statute.
The diversion was beginning to leak and was in desperate need of
repairs to ensure that it did not threaten the environment and
watershed, but it turned out that the Forest Service did not have
authority to issue the Lodge a permit to make the necessary repairs.
As we looked into this issue, we discovered that the Forest Service
lacks this authority throughout both the Frank Church-River of No
Return Wilderness, where there are 22 known water developments, and the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, where there are three. These diversions
are primarily used to support irrigation and minor hydropower
generation for use on non-Federal lands.
While the critical situation at the Middle Fork Lodge brought this
issue to my attention, it is obvious to me that this problem is larger
than just one diversion. At some point in the future, all 25 of these
existing diversions will need maintenance or repair work done to ensure
their integrity.
H.R. 2050 authorizes the Forest Service to issue special use
permits for all qualifying historic water systems in these wilderness
areas. I believe it is important to get ahead of this problem and
ensure that the Forest Service has the tools necessary to manage these
lands.
For these reasons I have introduced H.R. 2050. This legislation,
which was passed by the House last Congress, allows the Forest Service
to issue the required special use permits to owners of historic water
systems and sets out specific criteria for doing so.
Providing this authority will ensure that existing water diversions
can be properly maintained and repaired when necessary and preserves
beneficial use for private property owners who hold water rights under
state law.
I have deeply appreciated the cooperation of the Forest Service in
addressing this problem. Not only have they communicated with me the
need to find a system-wide solution to this issue, but at my request
they drafted this legislation to ensure that it only impacts specific
targeted historical diversions--those with valid water rights that
cannot feasibly be relocated outside of the wilderness area.
H.R. 2050 is bipartisan and non-controversial. It is intended as a
simple, reasonable solution to a problem that I think we can all agree
should be solved as quickly as possible. I am encouraged that the
Committee has decided to hold a hearing on this bill and am hopeful
that we can move it through the legislative process without delay so
that the necessary maintenance to these diversions may be completed
before the damage is beyond repair.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Bishop. I thank Congressman Simpson for joining us.
Once again, if you would like to stay, please feel free. If you
have other obligations, everyone else has bailed on us as well.
You can as well.
Mr. Simpson. I would have stayed had I been the first to
testify because I would have done that, but now I have other
obligations.
Mr. Bishop. What is that about first liars never something?
Mr. Chaffetz does not have a wilderness bill, per se, but
we have been talking about creating land designation, as well
as modifications within land designation, and your bill before
us today is one that deals with modifications of land
designation. Mr. Chaffetz, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JASON CHAFFETZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Bishop. Thank
you, Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members of
the Subcommittee. I thank you for allowing me to testify before
you today on H.R. 1126, the Disposal of Excess Federal Lands
Act. I look forward to the discussion and hearing from the
witnesses.
Federal land ownership is a heated, but critical, topic in
my home state of Utah, and I appreciate the Committee for
holding a hearing and advancing this dialogue. One of the
witnesses is from my and the Chairman's home state. Mark Ward,
who will deliver testimony in support of 1126, is a Senior
Policy Analyst, Public Lands and Natural Resource Counsel, for
the Utah Association of Counties.
Among other things, the Utah Association of Counties is
designated to ``securing state and Federal legislation and
administrative action that is beneficial to the counties of
Utah and the county residents.'' Needless to say, I value their
mission, their expertise and their support. I am grateful for
Mark Ward's participation here before the Committee today.
H.R. 1126 directs the Secretary of the Interior to sell
Federal lands that were initially identified in a 1997 report
conducted by the Clinton Administration. The report directed
the Secretary of the Interior to identify Federal lands
suitable for disposal. The Secretary identified roughly 3.3
million acres of BLM land in 10 western states in its final
report. These lands remain in Federal ownership today. Under
the bill, all proceeds from the sales would be directed to the
U.S. Treasury to help reduce the $14.9 trillion debt.
At the time, Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management &
Budget in the Department of the Interior for President Clinton,
Bonnie Cohen, expressed optimism for the report when she said,
``The Department of the Interior is working closely with the
General Services Administration to further identify, evaluate
and dispose of excess Federal property for this important
initiative.''
Unfortunately, the Department and the GSA never quite got
around to finishing the job. The 3.3 million acres identified
remain in Federal control today. These lands amount to just
over 1 percent of BLM land and less than half of 1 percent of
all Federal lands, and given the fact that over 90 million
acres have been acquired since 1997 I believe it is important
to ask the question when is enough Federal land enough.
Throughout the course of U.S. history, the Federal
government has acquired roughly 1.8 billion acres of land.
These acquisitions have come via accession by the colonies,
treaties and purchases. For example, the most well known
acquisition was the Louisiana Purchase in 1801.
Up until passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976, it was generally the policy and intent of the
Federal government to transfer ownership of most lands to
private and state ownership. This policy resulted in the
transfer of approximately 1.2 billion acres of land to private
and state ownership since our country's beginning. Current
estimates place Federal land ownership at approximately 660
million acres.
Current Federal land policies favor acquisition, not
disposal. Between 1997 and 2004, the General Service
Administration estimated that Federal land ownership increased
16 percent, from 563.3 million acres to roughly 653.3 million
acres. By comparison, between 2000 to 2010 net land disposal
under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act totaled
just 7,832 acres.
Many states in the West have more than 50 percent of the
lands that are controlled by the Federal government. In Utah,
this means that just 31 percent of the land is subject to state
and local taxation, a realty that places great burdens on
public education, firefighters and police officers who depend
on state and local taxes for financial support.
Returning certain Federal lands back to state control would
help alleviate these restraints. Removing certain public lands
from Federal control would allow Federal land management
agencies to focus on lands more deserving of active management
techniques. It is neither logical nor responsible for the
Federal government to own and manage surplus lands. Management
of surplus land is more expensive and pulls resources from
lands that are truly deserving of Federal management.
H.R. 1126 is needed to streamline Federal land management.
In closing, I want to reiterate my thanks to the Subcommittee.
Federal land ownership issues are extremely important to my
state and the West at large. The Federal government owns nearly
one-third of the land mass and continues to spend millions of
dollars each year to acquire more and more.
Despite escalating budget deficits and a record high
national debt, the Federal estate continues to grow, not
shrink. This growing portfolio limits local governments'
ability to deliver vital public services such as public
education. There are lands that should continue to fall under
the purview of the Federal government, but we must also work
together to identify and dispose unneeded, excess or surplus
Federal lands.
The current land disposal and exchange system is broken.
Consideration of H.R. 1126 is a good start toward fixing that
problem. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chaffetz follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jason Chaffetz, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Utah, on H.R. 1126
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify before you today on
H.R. 1126, the Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act. I look forward to
the discussion and hearing from the witnesses. Federal land ownership
is a volatile topic and I appreciate the Committee for holding this
hearing and advancing the dialogue.
One of the witnesses is from my--and the Chairman's--home state.
Mark Ward, who will deliver testimony in support of H.R. 1126, is the
Senior Policy Analyst/Public Lands and Natural Resources Counsel for
the Utah Association of Counties. Among other things, the Utah
Association of Counties is dedicated to ``Securing state and federal
legislation and administrative action that is beneficial to the
counties of Utah and to county residents.'' Needless to say, I value
their support and am grateful for Mark's participation.
H.R. 1126 directs the Secretary of the Interior to sell lands that
were initially identified in a 1997 Report conducted by the Clinton
Administration. The Report directed the Secretary of Interior to
identify lands which were suitable for disposal. The Secretary
identified roughly 3.3 million acres of Bureau of Land Management land
in ten western states in its final report--these lands remain in
federal ownership today. Under the bill, all proceeds from the sales
would be directed to the U.S. Treasury to help reduce the $14.9
trillion debt. At the time, Assistant Secretary of Policy, Management,
and Budget Bonnie Cohen, expressed optimism for the Report when she
said, ``The Department of Interior is working closely with the General
Services Administration to further identify, evaluate, and dispose of
excess federal property for this important initiative.''
Unfortunately, the Department and GSA never quite got around to
finishing the job. The 3.3 million acres identified remain in federal
control today, which is troubling, as these lands amount to just over
1% of BLM land and less than one half of 1% of all federal lands. And
given the fact that over 90 million acres have been acquired since
1997, I believe it's important to ask the question, when is enough
federal land enough?
Throughout the course of U.S. history, the federal government has
acquired roughly 1.8 billion acres of land. These acquisitions have
come via cession by the colonies, treaties, and purchases. For example,
the most well known acquisition was the Louisiana Purchase in 1801. Up
until 1976, it was generally the policy and intent of the federal
government to transfer ownership of most lands to private and state
ownership. This policy resulted in the transfer of approximately 1.2
billion acres of land to private and state ownership since our
country's beginning. Current estimates place federal land ownership as
approximately 660 million acres.
Current federal land policies favor acquisition, not disposal.
Between 1997 and 2004, the General Services Administration estimated
that federal land ownership increased 16 percent--from 563.3 million
acres to 653.3 million. By comparison, land disposed under the primary
federal land disposal program totaled just 7,832 acres. Between 2000-
2010 just 25,967 acres were sold under the Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act while 18,135 acres were acquired--a net reduction of
7,832 acres, or just a fraction of a fraction of all federal lands.
In the West, more than 50% of the lands are controlled by the
federal government. In Utah, just 31% of the land is subject to state
and local taxation--a reality that places great burdens on public
education, firefighters, and police officers who depend on state and
local taxes for financial support. Returning certain federal lands back
to state and local control would help to alleviate these restraints.
Removing certain public lands from federal control would allow
federal land management agencies to focus on lands more deserving of
active management techniques. It is not logical nor responsible for the
federal government to own and manage surplus lands. Management of
surplus land is more expensive and pulls resources from lands that are
truly deserving of federal management. H.R. 1126 is needed to
streamline federal land management.
In closing, I want to reiterate my thanks to this Subcommittee.
Federal land ownership issues are extremely important to my state and
the West at large. The federal government owns a disproportionate
amount of land and is seemingly doing little to reverse the trend.
There are lands that should continue to fall under the purview of the
federal government, but we must also work together to identify and
dispose excess lands. The current land disposal and exchange system is
broken. Consideration of H.R. 1126 is a good start towards fixing it.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman. Once again, if you
would like to stay with us we would welcome you to do so.
I have two other witnesses that need to be heard. We have
two other bills before us today, first of all from Congressman
DeFazio and then Congressman Heinrich.
Congressman DeFazio is recognized to introduce your bill if
you would.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETER DeFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for this
opportunity. I have a statement, which I will insert in the
record, and I will summarize to save time for the Committee.
H.R. 1413, Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act. This
legislation passed out of this Committee in the last Congress,
and I am hopeful it will again in this Congress. This is a
truly wild area. It is an area where logging was ceased in the
early 1970s because it is the area of steepest and most
unstable slopes in the coast range of Oregon, and it was found
unsuitable for harvest.
There are two other overlays on the land, so it never will
be actively managed. However, it does merit special designation
as a wilderness. It is trail-less. It is incredibly steep and
varied, multiple canopies of old growth. It has an incredible
population of species, frequently rare species and endangered
species.
I personally made the trek to the Devil's Staircase. Maybe
a couple hundred people have ever gotten there. For a while it
was even rumored whether it existed or didn't exist until about
30 years ago. So it is a truly wild area that does deserve a
special designation and recognition, and I would recommend it
to this Committee.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would just put my statement in
the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Peter DeFazio, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Oregon, on H.R. 1413, Devils Staircase Wilderness Act
Thank you Chairman Bishop for holding this hearing and for
including H.R. 1413, the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act.
My bill would designate approximately 30,000 acres of the Siuslaw
National Forest and the Bureau of Land Management's Coos Bay District
as the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Area. The bill would also designate
a 4.5 mile segment of Franklin Creek and a 10-mile segment of Wasson
Creek as ``wild.'' These feeder streams support federally listed Coho
and Chinook salmon.
Having undertaken the day-long trek to the series of cascading
pools that give the area its name, I can personally attest to the
rugged nature and extraordinary beauty of Devil's Staircase. If there
is a place in Oregon that meets the ``untrammeled by man'' definition
in the Wilderness Act, Devil's Staircase is that place.
H.R. 1413 should not be a controversial bill. The area represents
one of the largest remaining old growth forests and the largest
roadless area in Oregon Coast Range--where less than 10% of the land
remains unlogged.
With 1,800 foot canyons, the area is unsuitable for logging and
road-building. In fact, the forest soils in the area are mostly
classified as the most landside-prone soil type in Oregon and among the
most unstable in the world.
Unstable soils so plagued early efforts to log in the vicinity of
Devil's Staircase that, in the 1970s, the U.S. Forest Service withdrew
from timber management all land between the Smith and Umpqua Rivers--
the location of the proposed wilderness area.
Today, Devil's Staircase is designated as a Late Successional
Reserve, which is managed to protect and enhance the habitat for old
growth-related species under the Northwest Forest Plan. The area is
also designated as critical habitat for the northern spotted owl--a
federally listed species. Even under the controversial 2008 Western
Oregon Plan Revisions, the area was off-limits to logging.
I am currently working with the Oregon Congressional Delegation,
Governor Kitzhaber, and key stakeholders on a long-term management plan
for the O&C Lands--a unique set of lands in western Oregon. Our goals
include providing a more predictable supply of timber to rural
communities, greater financial certainty to forested counties, and
lasting protection for the most sensitive places on the landscape.
In every scenario discussed for the O&C Lands, there is broad and
bipartisan agreement that Devil's Staircase should be protected as
wilderness. Even the Association of O&C Counties has agreed in its
proposal for the O&C Lands that Devil's Staircase should be off the
table.
I have gone to great lengths to accommodate concerns from
neighboring landowners and key stakeholders. In my bill, I explicitly
protect all valid and existing rights between federal land management
agencies and private parties. This includes reciprocal right-of-way,
tail-hold, and access agreements.
I included a section in the bill to protect fishing and hunting
privileges.
I accommodated the Chairman's concerns about ``Buffer Zones'' by
adding language from the previous Congress clarifying that my bill does
not include protective perimeters or buffer zones around the wilderness
area.
And, while not explicitly stated, Devil's Staircase would fully
comply with the Wilderness Act by allowing the respective secretaries
to take necessary measures to control fire, insects, and disease.
I appreciate the Obama Administration's support for H.R. 1413. And,
I look forward to working with you Chairman Bishop and my colleagues on
the committee to move this legislation forward.
I am happy to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Representative Heinrich?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARTIN HEINRICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
witnesses who are here today.
The Cibola National Forest provides a stunning background
to the City of Albuquerque and much of central New Mexico.
Stretching north to south through the Sandia-Manzano Mountains,
this national forest demonstrates the value of preserving back
country opportunities near urban areas.
H.R. 490 would transfer the 896 acre Manzano Wilderness
Study Area from the BLM to the Forest Service and add it to the
existing Manzano Mountain Wilderness Area. Because this is an
isolated BLM parcel bordered on two sides by Forest Service
wilderness, this transfer would streamline management of the
land and permanently protect habitat for local wildlife.
The bill has strong support from residents in my district
and is part of our western values in New Mexico to support our
public lands, wildlife and wilderness that are vital to our
state's natural heritage and to our tourism sector, which is
the second largest private industry in our local economy.
In fact, according to the Outdoor Industry Association,
outdoor recreation spaces like this in New Mexico yield 43,000
jobs and $3.8 billion to the state's economy. On the national
level, the outdoor industry creates seven million jobs and
contributes $730 billion to our economy annually.
We consider it a real blessing to have such a space so
close to our metropolitan area. Thousands of families,
including my own, appreciate the chance to drive a few minutes
to be able to spend a half day or a full day in some of
America's most spectacular public lands. This move is also a
priority for local sportsmen who rely on the Manzano Mountain
wilderness to provide habitat for game species such as turkey,
bear and mule deer, and it is supported by the New Mexico
Wildlife Federation.
This is about keeping our landmark promise to future
generations, and I can't say enough about the importance of
partnerships between sportsmen and other public land
conservationists.
Last Congress an identical bill received bipartisan support
in the full Committee, and I look forward to working with
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and the other Members
of this Subcommittee to see this area protected in my district.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate the witnesses, the Members of
Congress that have introduced their bills.
We are going to now turn to the next panel, and I would
invite them all to come up. We will just have one panel. I
invite Mike Pool, who is the Deputy Director of BLM at the
Department of the Interior; Mark Ward, who is the Senior Policy
Analyst for the Utah Association of Counties; Dr. Brian Steed
from Utah State University of the Huntsman School of Business;
Dr. Ronald Liesemer, who is the Vice President of Citizens for
Access to the Lakeshore; and Ms. Erica Rosenberg, who is the
Board President of Western Lands Project.
If you could all come and take your place at the dais, I
would appreciate it.
[Pause.]
Mr. Bishop. One again, we thank you all for being with us
here today. As has been stated before, for those of you who are
new and those of you who aren't, your written statements will
already appear in the record. We would ask you to summarize
your statements orally in the five minutes that is allowed to
each of you.
The clock in front of you should tell you the time that is
there. When the light is green, we are running well. When the
light turns yellow, there is one minute hopefully to summarize.
When the light turns red, we would like you to conclude your
statements hopefully without a compound sentence.
Someday I am going to get my way on this Committee and we
are going to do bills one at a time. However, because we are
under some time constraints we would like to hear from each of
the witnesses here, and then we will turn to the Committee for
questions.
So, Mr. Pool, especially as you are starting from the
Administration, from the Department of the Interior, we would
ask you to comment on all or any of the bills in which you wish
to, and then we will simply go from left to right down the
line. You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MIKE POOL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Pool. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, for inviting the Department of the Interior to
testify on a number of public land bills. I will briefly
summarize my testimonies and ask that they be included in the
record.
The Department of the Interior supports the expansion of
the Beauty Mountain Wilderness Area by 14,000 acres in San
Diego County. The BLM welcomes the opportunity presented by
H.R. 41 to enhance protection for this important area. We defer
to the Department of Agriculture regarding the expansion of the
Agua Tibia Wilderness Area.
H.R. 490 transfers administrative jurisdiction of the 896
acre Manzano Wilderness Study Area from the Secretary of the
Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture to be managed by the
Forest Service as part of the Manzano Wilderness Area. This
area is adjacent to the Forest Service managed Cibola National
Forest, but isolated from other BLM managed lands. The BLM
supports this transfer.
The Department supports H.R. 1413, Devil's Staircase
Wilderness Act, as it applies to lands managed by BLM. H.R.
1413 proposes to designate over 30,000 acres as wilderness, as
well as portions above Franklin Creek and Wasson Creek as
components of the Wild and Scenic River System. Approximately
6,830 acres of the proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness and
4.2 miles of the Wasson Creek proposed designation are within
lands managed by the BLM. The Department of the Interior defers
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture on those designations on
National Forest System lands.
I am submitting testimony for the record on behalf of the
National Park Service in support of H.R. 977, Sleeping Bear
Dunes National Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act. The
bill will designate 32,557 acres or 46 percent of Sleeping Bear
Dunes National Lakeshore in Michigan's Lower Peninsula as
wilderness. The overwhelming majority of local officials, the
conservation community and the Michigan delegation are united
in their support for this bill as a winning resolution to an
issue that has been debated since the park's establishment in
1970.
I am also accompanied today by Garry Oye, Chief of the
National Park Service's Wilderness Stewardship Division, who
would be happy to answer any additional questions the Committee
may have on H.R. 977.
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1126, the disposal
of excess Federal lands. H.R. 1126 would be costly, harmful to
local economies and communities and undermine important
resource values. It would also be unlikely to generate
significant revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The Administration
instead encourages Congress to reauthorize the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act.
FLTFA addresses many of the impediments to disposal by
providing a careful, thoughtful process for land disposal,
together with the mechanism for funding that disposal.
Furthermore, the proceeds of the sale of BLM managed lands
under FLTFA are used to acquire inholdings from willing sellers
in the most environmentally sensitive areas. Thus, the long-
term interest of the American public in future generations is
protected.
The Administration continues to urge Congress to
reauthorize FLTFA and allow the BLM to continue with the
rational process of land disposal that is anchored in the
public participation and sound land use planning while
providing for land acquisition to strengthen the nation's
conservation heritage.
Thank you for the invitation to testify today. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Pool follow:]
Statement of Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 41, Beauty Mountain and Agua
Tibia Wilderness Act of 2011
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
H.R. 41, the Beauty Mountain and Agua Tibia Wilderness Act of 2011.
H.R. 41 significantly expands the Beauty Mountain Wilderness
established by the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (P.L. 111-11).
The Department welcomes the opportunity to enhance protection for this
important area and supports this wilderness expansion. We would also
like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee on
minor and technical amendments to the bill, and note that the BLM can
administratively accomplish the placement of recreational facilities
described in the bill. The Department defers to the Department of
Agriculture regarding the expansion of the Agua Tibia Wilderness
involving National Forest System Lands.
Background
The Omnibus Public Land Management Act (P.L. 111-11) designated the
Beauty Mountain Wilderness on 15,600 acres of public lands managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Riverside County, California.
This designation constituted the northern half of the Beauty Mountain
Wilderness Study Area (WSA) within Riverside County; the law did not
address the southern half of Beauty Mountain within San Diego County.
The Beauty Mountain area supports a rich complement of wildlife
species because of its location within the transition zone from the oak
woodlands and mountain chaparral of the eastern edge of the Peninsular
Range to the creosote bush scrub at the western edge of the Colorado
Desert. Home to several threatened or endangered desert species, these
public lands enhance important wildlife corridors and landscape
connections to the expansive Anza Borrego Desert State Park. Within an
hour's drive of the major population centers of San Diego and
Riverside, this area is a popular destination for a variety of
dispersed outdoor recreational activities including camping, hiking,
horseback riding and hunting.
H.R. 41
H.R. 41 enlarges the existing Beauty Mountain Wilderness by
approximately 14,000 acres. The expansion of the wilderness area is
critical to maintain open space and to protect this significant area of
chaparral, canyons and forest in northern San Diego County. In 2007 and
2008, the BLM testified in support of the wilderness designation of
Beauty Mountain, but noted that the southern boundary of the area was
arbitrarily cut off at the county line. We welcome the completion of
this wilderness area provided for in this legislation.
H.R. 41 represents several years of collaborative effort by
Representative Issa that involved close coordination with elected
officials, environmental organizations, community groups, adjacent
landowners, and concerned individuals in San Diego County.
Representative Issa worked diligently to seek consensus on the
wilderness expansion from all segments of the public as well as private
landowners adjacent to the wilderness.
There are several minor amendments to H.R. 41 that we would like to
address. First, the BLM prepared a new map for Congressman Issa last
year, dated March 2, 2010. This map more accurately reflects current
land status showing the recent acquisition of private lands (largely
through donation to the Federal government) within the proposed
wilderness area. We recommend that the bill be updated to reference the
new map from 2010, which reflects a wilderness addition of just over
14,000 acres.
Additionally, the BLM would like the opportunity to work on
technical language modifications for consistency with other wilderness
legislation. Finally, while we do not object to the intent of section
201 regarding the placement of recreational facilities such as a
campground, parking areas and related facilities on adjacent lands, we
prefer that these proposals be analyzed through the land management
planning process, which includes public input and review. We request
that it not be included in legislative language as it may reduce the
agency's flexibility in the future. The BLM recommends that these
issues instead be addressed in Committee report language.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify in support of the
provisions of H.R. 41 regarding the expansion of the Beauty Mountain
Wilderness. I will be happy to answer any questions.
______
Statement of Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 490, Cibola National Forest
Boundary Expansion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 490, a bill that
would expand the boundaries of the Cibola National Forest in New Mexico
by transferring to the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service)
administrative jurisdiction of the Manzano Wilderness Study Area (WSA)
and designating it as wilderness. The Manzano WSA is currently managed
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Department of the Interior
supports H.R. 490.
Background
The 896-acre Manzano WSA is adjacent to the existing Manzano
Mountain Wilderness on the southern end of the Cibola National Forest.
The landscape, located on the west face of the Manzano Mountains,
includes pinon-juniper with extensive wildlife populations, such as
mule deer, bear, coyotes, numerous raptors, and mountain lions.
The New Mexico offices of the BLM and the Forest Service
periodically discuss opportunities to adjust boundaries to improve the
management of Federal land in order to manage parcels more effectively
and efficiently on the ground. Through these discussions, the Manzano
WSA was identified as a parcel that could be managed more efficiently
by the Forest Service than by the BLM. We look forward to continuing
our work with the Forest Service to explore opportunities to provide
for more efficient and effective management of BLM and Forest Service
lands.
During the 111th Congress, the House Natural Resources Committee
favorably reported legislation (H.R. 5388) after adopting an amendment
in the nature of a substitute that addressed concerns raised by the
Department of the Interior on the introduced bill. H.R. 490 is
identical to H.R. 5388 as reported by the Committee.
H.R. 490
The bill (Section 1(c)) transfers administrative jurisdiction of
the Manzano Wilderness Study Area from the Secretary of the Interior to
the Secretary of Agriculture to be managed by the Forest Service as
part of the Manzano Wilderness Area. This area is adjacent to Forest
Service-managed National Forest System lands (the Cibola National
Forest), but isolated from other BLM-managed lands. The BLM supports
this transfer. The remaining provisions of H.R. 490 pertain exclusively
to the U.S. Forest Service's management of these lands after the
transfer of administrative jurisdiction. We defer to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture on issues affecting management of National
Forest System lands.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 490. I am happy to
answer any questions.
______
Statement submitted for the record by the U.S. Department of the
Interior on H.R. 977, To Designate as Wilderness Certain Land and
Inland Water Within the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in the
State of Michigan, and for other purposes.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on H.R. 977, a bill to designate the Sleeping Bear
Dunes Wilderness at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in the State
of Michigan.
The Department strongly supports enactment of H.R. 977. This
legislation would designate 32,557 acres, or 46 percent, of Sleeping
Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Michigan's Lower Peninsula as
federally protected wilderness. Management of the wilderness area would
be in accordance with the 1964 Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
P.L. 91-479 established Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore on
October 21, 1970, in order ``. . .that certain outstanding natural
features including forests, beaches, dune formations, and ancient
(glacial) phenomena. . .be preserved in their natural setting and
protected from developments and uses which would destroy the scenic
beauty and natural character of the area. . .for the benefit,
inspiration, education, recreation, and enjoyment of the public.'' This
bill clearly supports the intent of that law.
The park extends nearly 30 miles along the eastern shore of Lake
Michigan. It also includes two large Lake Michigan islands with an
additional 35 miles of shoreline. The park protects and preserves
superlative scenic and recreational resources including towering
perched sand dunes that rise as high as 450 feet above Lake Michigan.
The park contains several federally threatened and endangered species,
including the Piping Plover, Pitcher's Thistle and Michigan
Monkeyflower. The park also includes many historic features,
includingAmerican Indians a lighthouse and three U.S. life-saving
service stations, coastal villages, and picturesque farmsteads.
Permanent wilderness designation will ensure protection of these
significant natural, cultural and historical resources.
The park receives nearly 1.2 million visitors each year who enjoy
the beaches, over 100 miles of backcountry trails and eight
campgrounds. The region surrounding the park is a popular vacation and
summer home destination as visitors and residents take advantage of a
variety of recreational opportunities, including hiking, camping,
backpacking, hunting, fishing, bird watching, boating, cross-country
skiing and snowshoeing. The National Park Service estimates that the
presence of the National Lakeshore brings nearly $78 million of
economic benefit to the local community each year. *
Designation of the wilderness area will not limit public access or
change the way the area is currently being managed for public use and
enjoyment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Stynes, Daniel J. ``National Park Visitor Spending and Payroll
Impacts: 2009.'' National Park Service, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native American use of the area extends some 3,000 years into the
past and is represented today primarily by the Grand Traverse Band of
Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. Nothing in H.R. 977 would modify, alter,
or affect any treaty rights.
The park encompasses a total of 71,291 acres; about 58,571 acres of
land and 12,720 acres of water. Over 30,000 acres of the proposed
32,557-acre wilderness area have been managed as wilderness since 1981,
when a wilderness proposal produced under the park's first
comprehensive General Management Plan (GMP) was published. Since that
time, the five areas of the park proposed as wilderness have provided
outstanding recreational opportunities for hikers, backpackers,
anglers, paddlers, and hunters with hunting being allowed in accordance
with State regulations. A network of hiking trails and numerous camping
opportunities will continue to be maintained in this portion of the
park, even with the wilderness designation. The additional acres in the
current proposal arise from the inclusion of the Sleeping Bear Plateau,
an area only suitable for foot travel that continues to offer
outstanding opportunities for solitude. Since formal wilderness
designation would not change the way in which visitor use is currently
managed in the area proposed as wilderness, there is no reason to
believe it would have any detrimental impact on visitation or the local
economy, and formal designation may actually have a beneficial impact.
The proposed wilderness area does not include any existing county
roads or areas managed primarily for historic resources. This is to
ensure the continued availability of the county roads for visitors
accessing remote trailheads, beaches, backcountry areas and historic
areas. Although the park's boundary extends one-quarter mile out into
Lake Michigan, none of the waters of Lake Michigan are proposed as
wilderness. H.R. 977 would authorize the use of boat motors on the
surface water of Lake Michigan adjacent to the wilderness and beaching
of those boats, subject to applicable laws. This is to ensure continued
access by boaters to the shoreline beach adjacent to the wilderness
area. These have been areas of significant public concern.
Between 2006 and 2009, the NPS developed an updated GMP for the
park. Because of public concern over the 1981 wilderness proposal, and
its inclusion of county roads and historic sites, a formal Wilderness
Study was conducted as part of this comprehensive planning effort.
After extensive public involvement, review, and comment, including
overwhelming public support for wilderness designation, the preferred
alternative in the final GMP/Wilderness Study was approved by the
Midwest Regional Director on January 6, 2009. The area of proposed
wilderness was mapped at 32,557 acres, with a portion in all five
eligible areas, and is the same as the proposed wilderness designation
in H.R. 977. The final GMP/Wilderness Study does not propose wilderness
in several eligible areas, including those areas fragmented by the road
corridors near the Otter Creek area of the Lakeshore; the land within
the Port Oneida Rural Historic District; the lands in the historic
``Cottage Row'' on North Manitou Island; the area in the South Manitou
Island historic farm loop; an area near the historic Bufka Farm
identified for a bicycle trail; and the congested area at the top of
the Dune Climb.
Passage of H.R. 977 would support the vision in the new GMP. The
bill has very strong, broad-based public support. The overwhelming
majority of local officials, the conservation community, and the
Michigan delegation are united in their support for this bill as a
winning resolution to an issue that has been debated since the park's
establishment in 1970. Parties that had been bitterly polarized over
earlier proposals have reached consensus that this bill strikes an
appropriate balance between preserving access and guaranteeing
outstanding primitive recreational opportunities.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment. This
concludes my prepared remarks and I will be happy to answer any
questions you or other committee members might have.
______
Statement of Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1126, Disposal of Excess
Federal Lands Act of 2011
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
H.R. 1126, the Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act. The Administration
strongly opposes H.R. 1126 and instead encourages the Congress to
reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) which
has a proven track record of providing for the thoughtful, efficient,
and economical disposal of appropriate public lands.
Background
Congress has long recognized the national interest in preserving
and conserving the public lands for present and future generations of
Americans. In 1976, Congress declared it the policy of the United
States that ``. . .the public lands be retained in federal ownership,
unless as a result of land use planning. . .it is determined that
disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest''
(Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA); Public Law 94-
579). Section 203 of FLPMA allows the BLM to identify lands as
potentially available for sale through the land use planning process,
provided they meet one or more of the following criteria:
Lands consisting of scattered, isolated tracts that
are difficult or uneconomic to manage;
Lands that were acquired for a specific purpose and
are no longer needed for that purpose; and
Lands that could serve important public objectives,
such as community expansion and economic development, which
outweigh other public objectives and values that could be
served by retaining the land in Federal ownership.
The BLM oversees the public lands through 157 Resource Management
Plans (RMPs). Since 2000, the BLM has completed 70 RMP revisions and
major plan amendments. Additionally, the BLM is currently working on
planning efforts for 46 new RMPs. Each land use planning document is
unique and typically identifies lands as potentially available for
disposal through sale, exchange (typically to further particular
resource goals), or for conveyance under the Recreation and Public
Purposes Act (R&PP) for public purposes such as schools, fire stations,
and community parks. Lands identified for potential disposal may be
available for any or all of these purposes. The BLM may only dispose of
lands that are identified for disposal in the appropriate land use plan
unless otherwise directed by Congress.
Lands that are identified for disposal in RMPs do not represent a
Federal ``multiple listing service'' and there may be substantial
impediments to disposal. The process of identifying these lands as
potentially available for disposal in an RMP typically does not include
site-specific identification of impediments to disposal, such as the
presence of threatened or endangered species, cultural or historic
resources, mining claims, mineral leases, rights-of-way, and grazing
permits. Also not included in this identification process is an
appraisal to establish market value or a specific survey of the lands.
Furthermore, because land use plans typically extend over many years,
lands identified as potentially available for disposal at one point in
time may be found later to be unsuitable because of new circumstances
such as oil and gas leasing, the listing of threatened and endangered
species, the establishment of rights-of-way, or other encumbrances.
Disposal of BLM-Managed Lands
A number of authorities and mechanisms currently exist that provide
for the disposal of BLM-managed public lands. The BLM has the authority
under FLPMA (Section 203) to sell lands identified for disposal. The
proceeds from sales are deposited into the General Fund of the
Treasury. Typically these sales have been for low value lands, for
example isolated parcels surrounded by private land.
FLPMA (Section 206) also provides the agency with administrative
land exchange authority. To be eligible for exchange, BLM-managed lands
must be identified for disposal through the land use planning process.
Exchanges allow the BLM to acquire environmentally-sensitive lands
while transferring public lands into private ownership for local needs
and to consolidate scattered tracts.
Congress also has provided specific direction to the BLM through
legislated land exchanges. For example, the Utah Recreational Land
Exchange Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-53) mandated the exchange of
specific public lands in Grand and Uintah Counties in Utah for state
lands in those same counties. Another example is the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act (Public Law 105-263, as amended), whereby
Congress provided for competitive auction of public lands in the Las
Vegas Valley with the proceeds from those sales used to acquire
environmentally-sensitive lands and other purposes.
The R&PP Act is an extremely important authority utilized by the
BLM to help states, local communities, and nonprofit organizations
obtain at no or low cost lands for important public purposes. Examples
include parks, schools, hospitals and other health facilities, fire and
law enforcement facilities, courthouses, social services facilities,
and public works projects. Since 2000, the BLM has disposed of over
31,000 acres of public land through the R&PP process and currently
leases an nearly 80,000 acres of public land under the Act.
Finally, enactment of the FLTFA in 2000 (Public Law 106-248), which
expired on July 25, 2011, allowed the BLM to sell public lands
identified for disposal through the land use planning process prior to
July 2000, and retain the proceeds from those sales in a special
account in the Treasury. The BLM could then use those funds to acquire,
from willing sellers, inholdings within and adjacent to certain
federally designated areas that contain exceptional resources,
including areas managed by the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Forest Service (FS), and the
BLM. Approximately 26,000 acres were sold under this authority and over
18,000 acres of high resource value lands were acquired.
1997 Lands Report to Congress
In 1996, the Congress (Public Law 104-127, Section 390) directed
the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress on lands that may
be suitable for disposal or exchange to benefit the Everglades
Restoration effort in Florida. The Department of the Interior's May 27,
1997 report to Congress included a list of BLM-managed lands that had
been identified for disposal through the BLM's land use planning
process, while excluding lands that had been withdrawn, segregated, or
identified for other specific purposes detailed in the report. The
report was a general county-by-county summary and did not provide
individual parcel information, though it did include a list of
potential impediments to disposal, including lack of legal access; the
presence of mineral leases and mining claims; threatened and endangered
species habitat; historical and cultural values; hazardous material
contamination; and title conflicts. No appraisals or surveys were
conducted of the lands included in the 1997 report. Lands were not
identified in California or Alaska because public lands in those states
that were identified for disposal were committed to needs identified
under other Acts of Congress.
H.R. 1126
H.R. 1126 directs the Secretary of the Interior to sell at
competitive sale, for no less than fair market value, all lands
included in the Department of the Interior's 1997 Report to Congress.
The bill excludes from consideration lands that are no longer
identified for disposal, under an R&PP application, identified for
state selection, identified for tribal allotments, or identified for
local government use. Under the bill, proceeds from the sale of these
lands are to be deposited in the U.S. Treasury. While a time frame for
sales is not established, a report to Congress is required four years
after enactment that includes a list of unsold lands and the a reason
lands have not been sold. The bill provides no exceptions to the
requirement to dispose of identified Federal land for resource or value
reasons.
Before any parcels could be sold at auction, the BLM may need to
undertake a comprehensive NEPA review of every parcel (including
cultural resource and threatened and endangered species inventories),
and a survey and appraisal of every parcel. These actions would be both
time-consuming and costly, requiring the BLM to redirect limited
resources from other more critical priorities. With limited resources
and competing priorities such as oil and gas leasing, and renewable
energy rights-of-way, a mandate to sell large blocks of land would
severely affect the BLM's ability to respond to the Nation's energy
needs and the needs of local communities. In many cases, the end result
would be costs in excess of any value realized, and further deflated
land values in struggling western communities.
Furthermore, the bill could negatively affect public land ranchers.
Many of the lands identified for disposal are within existing grazing
allotments. In the past, grazing permittees have frequently declined to
acquire these lands when they are offered for sale, for financial or
other reasons. Moving these lands into other private hands could have a
deleterious effect on ranching communities.
Many of the lands that BLM has identified for potential disposal
through the land use planning process are isolated, rural parcels with
minimal market value. Others are in or adjacent to communities that
have seen a dramatic erosion of land values. Flooding those markets
with additional land could further undermine the economic health of
those communities. Still others may have important historic or cultural
sites that deserve to be protected for future generations. Important
energy resources may yet be tapped on other lands which could provide a
revenue stream to the Treasury and state governments.
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1126. H.R. 1126 would be
costly, harmful to local economies and communities, and undermine
important resource values. It also would be unlikely to generate
significant revenues to the U.S. Treasury.
The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act addressed many of
these impediments to disposal by providing a careful, thoughtful
process for land disposal together with a mechanism for funding that
disposal. Furthermore, the proceeds of the sale of BLM-managed lands
under the FLTFA are used to acquire inholdings from willing sellers in
the most environmentally-sensitive areas. Thus, the long-term interest
of the American public and future generations is protected. The
Administration continues to urge the Congress to reauthorize the FLTFA
and allow the BLM to continue with a rational process of land disposal
that is anchored in public participation and sound land use planning,
while providing for land acquisition to strengthen this Nation's
conservation heritage.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We would like to work
with Congress so that the thoughtful, efficient and economical disposal
of public lands appropriate for disposal can go forward.
______
Statement of Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1413, Devil's Staircase
Wilderness Act
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
H.R. 1413, the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2011. The Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) supports H.R. 1413 as it applies to lands we
manage.
Background
The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness, near the coast of
southwestern Oregon, is not for the faint of heart. Mostly wild land
and difficult to access, the Devil's Staircase reminds us of what much
of this land looked like hundreds of years ago. A multi-storied forest
of Douglas fir and western hemlock towers over underbrush of giant
ferns, providing critical habitat for the threatened Northern Spotted
Owl and Marbled Murrelet. The remote and rugged nature of this area
provides a truly wild experience for any hiker.
H.R. 1413
H.R. 1413 proposes to designate over 30,000 acres as wilderness, as
well as portions of both Franklin Creek and Wasson Creek as components
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The majority of these
designations are on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The
Department of the Interior defers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
on those designations.
Approximately 6,830 acres of the proposed Devil's Staircase
Wilderness and 4.2 miles of the Wasson Creek proposed designation are
within lands managed by the BLM. The Department of the Interior
supports these designations.
We note that while the vast majority of the acres proposed for
designation are Oregon & California (O&C) lands, identified under the
1937 O&C Lands Act for timber production, the BLM currently restricts
timber production on these lands. These lands are administratively
withdrawn from timber production by the BLM through various
administrative classifications. Additionally, the BLM estimates that
nearly 90 percent of the area proposed for designation is comprised of
forest stands that are over 100 years old, and provides critical
habitat for the threatened Marbled Murrelet and Northern Spotted Owl.
The 4.2 miles of Wasson Creek would be designated as a wild river
to be managed by the BLM under H.R. 1413. The majority of the acres
protected through this designation would be within the proposed Devil's
Staircase wilderness designation, though 376 acres would be outside the
proposed wilderness on adjacent BLM lands.
The designations identified on BLM-managed lands under H.R. 1413
would result in only minor modification of current management of the
area and would preserve these wild lands for future generations.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of these
important Oregon designations. The Department of the Interior looks
forward to welcoming these units into the BLM's National Landscape
Conservation System.
______
Mr. Johnson [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Pool.
Mr. Ward?
STATEMENT OF J. MARK WARD, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST AND PUBLIC
LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCES COUNSEL, UTAH ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES
Mr. Ward. Thank you. Honorable Subcommittee Members, good
morning. I am Mark Ward with the Utah Association of Counties.
Sometimes we call ourselves UAC. To explain why UAC supports
H.R. 1126 sponsored by Representative Chaffetz, I want to touch
on a national travesty--some call it a tragedy--that has
unfolded and is unfolding on three fronts in the West.
First, the discriminatory impact of Federal land ownership
in the West. Second, the looming and growing unsustainability
of Federal land management budgets. And, third, the emerging
ecological problems on western Federal lands.
First of all, the problems of discriminatory impact of
western Federal land ownership. Western state and local
governments under the burden of excessive Federal land
ownership have taken it on the chin economically in four ways.
First, through property taxes. Western states are losing
hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes annually due
to large-scale Federal land ownership. The map shown here on
the screen tells the whole story. The red in the states in the
West show the percentage of Federal land ownership. As you can
see, there is a great disparity between the percentage of
Federal land ownership in the West and in the East.
In Utah, for example, only 31 percent of the land is
subject to state and local taxation, yet the state and its
counties have to provide basic governmental services throughout
the entire state. For school children in the western United
States, the cherished constitutional ideal of equal protection
under the law has no meaning when it comes to the funding of
public schools due to the fact that in the West we depend upon
scant percentages of private taxable land to fund education.
Second, in enabling acts. Congress in state enabling acts
at statehood promised western states that 5 percent of the
proceeds of the sale of Federal land would benefit public
education and other beneficiaries. At that time, it was assumed
that the Federal government would continue to dispose of the
lands. But that promise has not come to pass as the Federal
government reversed its land disposal policies in the late 20th
century. That is a great breach of trust that cries out for
justice and a remedy more than a century later.
Third, natural resource royalty revenues. States receive
less than half the royalty revenues from the private industry's
use of public lands. Such royalties would go to state and local
governments if the lands were under local control such as is
the case in oil fields in Texas and North Dakota.
Fourth, school trust lands. When Utah and other western
states joined the Union, the Federal government transferred
land to the states in trust for a public education and other
beneficiaries, but the land was conveyed in scattered,
standalone sections across each township of land, making much
of this land difficult to use for the purpose for which it was
conveyed. To make matters worse, Federal policies in the late
20th century have locked up the resource uses in the Federal
lands surrounding these school trust sections, thus making it
hard to realize the economic promise for which those school
sections were conveyed.
It is in this context, the context of the gross failure of
the funding mechanisms' promise to western states at statehood,
that I ask the respected Members of this Subcommittee to
consider the modest Federal land disposal aims of H.R. 1126. A
reasonable and well thought out program to dispose of excess
Federal lands in the West is desperately needed to
counterbalance the grossly unfair and stacked deck against
western states, in light of what I have just stated, as starkly
illustrated in the map on the screen.
The second problem, the looming fiscal collapse of Federal
land management budgets. The Federal budget for maintenance of
some 650 million acres of Federal lands is soaring and is
simply unsustainable in this area of massive budget deficits.
In the face of this maintenance backlog and the soaring
deficits, what is the Federal government's response? Buy up
more and more land.
It is time to call a time out to this pattern. Congress,
beginning with this Subcommittee, should calmly and rationally
convene a reasonable program of land disposal and sale, which
H.R. 1126 represents, if for no other reason than to stave off
national bankruptcy, if not the collapse of Federal land
management budgets.
Finally, the emerging ecological time bomb of western
Federal land management. It is time to realize the truth that
many western counties realize; that is, Federal land
management. The verdict is in. After two decades of leave-it-
alone de facto management policies has rendered many Federal
lands in poor condition. This kind of poor condition would not
have occurred had state and local policies and zoning over
private lands been the rule, not the exception.
For these reasons, we urge passage of H.R. 1126. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ward follows:]
Statement of J. Mark Ward, Senior Policy Analyst/Public Lands and
Natural Resources Counsel, Utah Association of Counties, on H.R. 1126
My name is J. Mark Ward and I reside in South Jordan, Utah, a
suburb of Salt Lake City. I am a natural resources and public lands
lawyer of nine plus years experience, and I am in my 28th year of legal
practice overall. I am employed with the Utah Association of Counties
(referred to as UAC) and my position is Senior Policy Analyst and
Public Lands/Natural Resources Counsel.. UAC is a non-profit Utah
corporation whose membership is comprised of the counties of Utah. One
of the purposes of UAC is to represent the interests of counties
impacted by federal public land policies, including land disposal
policies. UAC also works closely with county associations in other
Western States, specifically the National Association of Counties
Western Interstate Region, on public land issues that transcend the
West and the Nation. UAC member counties are cooperating agencies with
federal land management agencies such as the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the Forest Service in developing resource
management plans and land use plans.
With this background, I am here to testify that public interest in
obtaining and privatizing a reasonable amount of federal public land
through sale and disposal remains very high among the counties of Utah,
and very high among most counties throughout the 11 western public
lands states where some of the country's fastest growing regions are
located. A program of routine and measured federal land disposal is
critically needed for the reasons which I will outline below.
Accordingly, UAC strongly supports passage of H.R. 1126, ``Disposal of
Excess Federal Lands Act of 2011.''
The Grossly Uneven Impact of Western Federal Lands Ownership Without A
Reasonable Federal Land Disposal Program
Over the course of our nation's history, approximately 1.1 billion
acres of public land have passed out of federal ownership under various
land laws. Despite this, approximately one-third of the land area of
the 50 states still belongs to the federal government and over 90
percent of all Federal land lies from the Rocky Mountains west. Average
federal land ownership in the 11 Western States is 50 percent,
exceeding 50 percent in 5 western states, including Utah, and 20
percent in 12 states.
Exhibit A is a map which some of you may have seen before. This map
dramatically demonstrates the disparity of federal land ownership as a
percentage of total land, between the western states and the eastern
states. The public lands in Utah alone are about equal to the total
area of the state of Florida. The entire area of Pennsylvania is
smaller than the Federal public lands in either Wyoming or Oregon. I
ask many of the respected members of this Subcommittee from eastern
states to pause and imagine trying to finance your state's public
educational programs if the tables were turned and less than half of
your state's land area were subject to property taxation to support
public schools. This gross disparity in federal land ownership between
the western and eastern states remains one of the great yet-unsolved
injustices of this nation. The 11 western states truly are not on an
equal footing with eastern states, and the Constitution's cherished
ideal of equal protection under the law has no meaning for western
public school children who depend on county property taxes off the
meager scant percentages of private land in each western state to
support their educational programs.
Moreover, the nature of federal land ownership has dramatically
changed to adversely impact western counties. A U.S. GAO report
entitled Land Ownership, Information on the Acreage, Management and Use
of Federal and Other Lands, GAO/RCED-96-40: (U.S. General Accounting
Office, Washington, D.C. 1996) indicates that the amount of land
managed for conservation purposes--that is national parks, national
wildlife refuges, wilderness and wilderness study areas, wild and
scenic rivers, and areas of critical environmental concern--has
increased 66 million acres from 1964 to 1994, making more than 272
million acres out of 622 million acres of public lands, or 44 percent,
off limits to resource use. The result is dramatically adverse for
rural counties in the West, whose economies depend directly on use of
public lands resources. But the federal government has not stopped with
merely restricting use of its own lands; federal land management
agencies have expanded their rights to use 3 million acres of
nonfederal land, including rights to cross private lands owned by
private parties, nonprofit organizations, or nonfederal government
entities. In addition, from 1964 to 1994 environmental organizations
transferred 3.2 million acres of land to the federal government, all to
be locked up and no longer subject to state and local taxation for
critical services such as public education.
Am I here to advocate a wholesale divestiture of public lands in
the West? No; the Utah Association of Counties asks only that you
consider the very modest aim of H.R. 1126 in the context of the grossly
unfair and outright discriminatory stacked deck against the Western
States according to the facts I have just stated, and as starkly
illustrated in Exhibit A.
Does the modest disposal of federal land called for by H.R. 1126
find support in current public lands law? The answer is an emphatic
yes. The policy and the legal framework of federal land disposal are
very much alive and well, and any claim that the days of federal land
disposal are in the past, is simply incorrect. The Federal Land Policy
Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1701-1784. (FLPMA) governs
how the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers hundreds of
millions of acres of public land in the United States. While FLPMA
repealed most major prior laws providing for disposal of public lands,
Section 203 of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1713(a) still gives the Secretary
of Interior authority, with certain limited exceptions, to dispose of
public lands at fair market value, generally through competitive
bidding, under any or all of three disposal criteria:
1) The land tract is difficult or uneconomic to manage;
2) The purpose for which the land tract was acquired, and any
other federal purpose, no longer apply; or
3) Disposal of the land tract serves important public objectives
including but not limited to community expansion and economic
development which cannot be achieved if the land remains public, and
these objectives outweigh other public objectives and values.
(Exceptions to the foregoing criteria include Wilderness and Wild
and Scenic River, and National System of Trails lands, and lands
classified, withdrawn reserved or otherwise designated not for sale.)
The Secretary of Interior and BLM Director routinely act on this
authority and analyze and identify public lands for disposal either as
part of each BLM Resource Management Plan, or as part of a report done
pursuant to many Congressional mandates, such as the Secretary of
Interior's report of May 27, 1997 to Congress as done pursuant to the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, as referenced
on pages 2-3 of H.R. 1126. All H.R. 1126 seeks to accomplish is to act
on the lands identified as suitable for disposal in that 1997
Secretarial report. Proposed tracts for sale greater than 2,500 acres
must first be submitted to Congress.
A program of consistent disposal of federal lands is necessary to
prevent ever-mounting pressures on rural businesses and agricultural
operations resulting from increased Federal control of traditional
multiple use activities on public lands. Federal control on public and
even private lands in the West continues to expand, adversely affecting
property, recreation, and small business involved in resource
industries--putting many of them out of business.
Returning again to the subject of public education, the eastern
states-western states disparity in ability to fund education cannot be
emphasized enough. One of the biggest challenges facing western states
and western counties is funding for public education. It is imperative
that counties find solutions not only for today, but well into the
future. Returning to Exhibit A, again, western counties are
disillusioned to see that in the eastern states, state and local
governments can tax all but roughly 4 percent of the land, because that
is the average extent of federal land ownership--4%. But in the West,
the federal government owns more than 50 percent, and in Utah's case
even higher.
Federal land ownership in the West impairs public education funding
in at least four ways:
1) Enabling Acts. When Utah and many other western states were
first admitted into the Union, it was agreed in the State Enabling Acts
that 5 percent of the proceeds from the sale of federal land would
benefit public education and other beneficiaries. At the time, it was
assumed that the federal government would continue to dispose of public
lands creating an endowment of hundreds of millions if not billions of
dollars per state for public schools. That promise was shattered when
the federal government reversed its land disposal policies in the 20th
century.
2) Property Taxes. Local school districts cannot assess property
taxes on federal lands. Western states are losing hundreds of millions
in property taxes annually due to unreasonable levels of retained
federal land ownership. The Federal Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT)
program and Secure Rural School (SRS) programs only make up a minute
percentage of this annual loss. Taking a closer look at Utah as a
typical example of the 11 western states, only 31% of the land in Utah
is subject to state and local taxation; yet the state and its counties
have to provide basic governmental services throughout the entire
state:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
3) Natural Resources Royalty Revenues. States receive less
than half of the royalty revenue from private industry's use of public
lands; whereas all of these royalties would go to state and local
governments if the lands were under local rather than federal control,
such as the case for many oil wells in Texas and North Dakota. These
energy royalties in Utah go to fund public education and other critical
state and local governmental services. Even the sub 50% royalty
revenues have declined in the face of an ever-increasing onslaught of
so-called environmental policies which discourage continued mineral and
energy development on public lands. More and more under the current
Administration, the BLM has usurped the Congressional multiple use
mandate of FLPMA, effectively withdrawing energy rich lands that have
traditionally use for energy development, from continued development in
Utah and many other western states.
4) School Trust Lands. When Utah and other western states joined
the Union, the federal government transferred land to the States for a
trust for public education and other beneficiaries. But the land was
conveyed in scattered, stand-alone sections across each township of
land, making much of this land difficult to use for the purpose for
which it was conveyed. Moreover, federal policies of the late 20th
Century have locked up resource uses of many surrounding federal lands,
making it even harder for western states to develop their trust land
sections for economic use. A federal land disposal policy coupled with
a reasonable land exchange policy would free up these trust sections
for reasonable development, thereby making good on the federal
government's promise to the western states when these trust lands were
conveyed in the first place.
It is in the context of this gross failure of the funding
mechanisms promised to western states at statehood, that I ask the
respected members of this Subcommittee to consider the modest federal
land disposal aims of H.R. 1126. Again, if you are from an eastern
state, I respectfully ask you again to try to imagine for a moment
funding the public education programs in your state, under the perfect
storm of an already cut-in-half tax base, an ignored and forgotten
State Enabling Act promise of 5% revenue from the sales of all lands in
your state, and an energy royalty program that is already arbitrarily
cut in half and shrinking more each year due to the never-ending
onslaught of so-called environmental lawsuits and D.C. environmental
lobby influence that effectively shuts down resource use of the
surrounding federal lands and thus renders the isolated state school
trust tracts unusable.
The Advantages That Accrue From a Reasonable Federal Land Disposal
Program
Economic Considerations
The federal government owns so much land that experts can only
provide rough estimates of the total acreage under federal control. The
Congressional Research Service can only estimate that the total is
roughly 650 million acres, or roughly one of every three acres
nationwide, and nearly one of every two acres in the western United
States.
It is little wonder the federal budget for maintenance of these
lands is soaring and simply unsustainable in this area of massive
budget deficits and mounting federal debt. According to a March 1, 2011
GAO report entitled ``Department of the Interior: Major Management
Challenges,'' http://www.gao/new.items/d11424t.pdf, the Department of
Interior faces a maintenance backlog estimated at $13.5 billion to
$19.9 billion. Despite record budget deficits and soaring maintenance
costs, the federal government has spent more than $430 million to
purchase additional land since the most recent recession, and has spent
$2.3 billion to acquire land over the past ten years. Congressional
Research Service, ``Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding
History and Issues,'' August 13, 2010, http://www.crs.gov/Products/RL/
PDF/RL33531.pdf, and Congressional Research Service, ``Interior,
Environmental and Related Agencies: FY 2011 Appropriations,'' May 12,
2011, http://www,.crs.gov/Products/R/PDF/R41258.pdf. Between 1997 and
2004, federal land ownership is estimated to have increased from 563.3
million acres to 653.3 million, an increase of 90 million acres, or a
16 percent increase in just seven years. General Service
Administration: ``Federal Real Property Report,'' See 1997 and 2004
Reports, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/1028880.
In the face of this out-of-control expenditure of funds to hoard up
precious previously private lands, it would seem that the Department of
Interior and the federal government as a whole, might benefit from
bills like H.R. 1126 to bring in much needed revenue and reduce the
cost and burden of maintaining the already swollen and bloated
inventory of federally owned lands. That is a reasonable proposition
given the current era of budget crises and ever mounting federal debt.
It is amazing indeed, to contemplate the opposition to the modest
aims of H.R. 1126 in the face of this voracious onslaught of
irresponsible and out of control acquisition of additional federal land
with mostly borrowed dollars which only swell the federal deficit that
much more, and add to the already grossly swollen backlog of
maintenance needs on the federal lands. Far from criticizing the modest
land disposal goals of H.R. 1126, the public, the Congress and the
honorable members of this Subcommittee, need to turn full scrutiny on
the brazen, out-of-control federal land acquisition program documented
above. Brazen is not a light word, but we do not live in easy times.
The capacity of our federal government to operate on a sound fiscal
state is in grave peril. So is that of many state and local
governments, many of whom depend on property taxation. Thus this
voracious land acquisition program which only saddles the federal
public lands operating budget beyond its breaking point, while taking
lands off of state and local government tax rolls, is bad policy to say
the least.
In this era of unprecedented budget deficits and economy crippling
federal debt, one should apologize for expensive federal land
acquisition programs, not federal land disposal programs. One should
apologize for not employing more federal land disposal programs to
stave off looming national bankruptcy.
Ecological Considerations
The federal government's inherent propensity to mismanage public
lands and allow ecological degradation thereon, and inherently superior
care and attention given to land management by state and local agencies
and private landowners and stakeholders, are well known, almost
universally accepted facts of life throughout rural Western counties.
In the West, we know intrinsically that federal public land management
seldom deliver what the citizens expect, either on the revenue side or
on the environmental side. Many federal land managers at the state and
local level are moral, hard working, honest and well meaning in their
intentions. But they are woefully underfunded and often hamstrung by
non-sensical environmental policies that emanate out of Washington
headquarters. Thus the argument that federal land management agencies
are inherently better land managers than are private owners and state
and local government managers, is suspect in theory and to Western
rural counties, simply unfounded in fact.
On behalf of rural counties throughout Utah and throughout the
West, I will state unequivocally before this Honorable Subcommittee,
that local governments and local land owners are and always will be
better stewards of the land than federal land management agencies. Why?
The answer is simple: Because local citizens, governments, private
landowners, and private stakeholders depend on the land; they know the
land much better; they are literally children of the land, many of whom
are tied to it multi-generationally. Their ancestors and forbears
learned out of life-or-death necessity to keep up a sustainable yield
off the land; which means they learned how to preserve it and beautify
it, not destroy it and degrade through reason-defying, leave-it-alone
policies pushed on the West from the environmental lobby. When the
story of the American West is completed, historians will chronicle the
1990's hatched so-called wilderness/environmental movement imposed on
the American West by the federal government as an aberrational blip on
the screen of an otherwise decades long steady stream of true
environmental stewardship applied to the land by those who settled it
and their descendants. The hundreds of millions of acres of infested
cheat grass and other invasive weeds, and the bark beetle kill and
catastrophic wildfire index on federally owned lands throughout the
west, are monuments to the failure of remote federal mismanagement of
the public lands hatched in the 1990's. Nature is the biggest, most
indicting witness of this mishap. The public lands in the West were
once vibrant when managed according to state and local government and
landowner policy and direction. No more. Many of our the West's public
lands today are massive evidentiary exhibits of failed practices under
the guise of failed ``leave-it-alone'' philosophies that grew out of
the 1990's era wilderness movement. That kind of destruction to many
parts of the West would not have occurred had those lands been subject
to local government and private citizen input. The local authorities of
the American West would not have let matters deteriorate so, plain and
simple. They love the land too much.
Again, does that mean I am here to argue for wholesale conversion
of the public lands to private ownership? I simply raise these points
to refute the false argument that the federal land acres subject to
disposal under H.R. 1126 will somehow suffer environmental harm if
transferred out of federal ownership.
Conclusion
Seriously unsustainable federal land management operating deficits
are the rule any more, not the exception. Federal land managers have
few incentives to cut administrative and road costs that are routinely
higher than revenues. Selling some of these lands out from federal
management would reduce this budgetary strain. But the pain of such
great economic losses would be lessened if the federal government
managed the public lands to be ecologically healthy. They do not. The
West groans the strain of a pseudo wilderness ethic that puts a
relentless assault on virtually all attempts at actively managing the
land. The result; Ecological waste in the name of ecological
conservation, one of the great staggering ironies of the late 20th and
early 21st centuries that American historians will long remember and
chronicle. Ranges are over-populated by deer, elk and wild horses
competing for inadequate forage. Lush native grasslands have succumbed
to pinion and juniper over-growth and wildfire-prone cheat grass which
reduce water yield to farms and communities. Vibrant forests with
diverse stands of aspen and pine, supporting timber activity that kept
the understory clean of debris buildup and enhanced wildlife habitat,
have succumbed to thick over-choked old-growth aspen-less stands full
of dangerous fire-prone understory, that drive off many species of
birds and small mammals. All in the name of what? In the name of
failed, leave-it-alone policies that would not have endured under local
governmental and private influence. Poignant exceptions to this sad
general rule are those state and privately managed tracts of lands
where proper active management is allowed, and certain limited federal
tracts of land where federal land is managed according to the policies
and preferences of state and local governments and nearby private
landowners.
In sum, given the economic and environmental costs of operating the
federal lands under federal ownership and managerial control, the time
has come to consider H.R. 1126 and similar proposals for privatization
of select public lands as recommended by the Secretary pursuant FLPMA
mandate and periodic Congressional mandate. Privately owned, and even
state owned, lands can raise revenue sufficient to maintain such lands
and product a profit. And it is well known to western counties that
private and state ownership can produce environmental advantages.
Allowing the market to provide incentives for allocation and re-
allocation of land uses to those functions that are perceived to have
the highest value, should be of interest to all Americans, both from an
economic and ecological standpoint. Almost two decades worth of
evidence is in: The BLM is a ship in distress, economically and
ecologically. Reasonable federal land disposal is a good program, that
will help right that ship.
For these and other reasons, UAC respectfully urges this
Subcommittee to pass out H.R. 1126 with a favorable recommendation.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Ward.
Mr. Steed, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN C. STEED, J.D., PH.D., JOHN M. HUNTSMAN
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Steed. Thank you. To Members of the Committee, I really
appreciate the invitation to testify today. My name is Brian
Steed. I work at the Huntsman School of Business at Utah State
University.
Myself and colleagues at the Center for Public Lands and
Rural Economics have been engaged in a series of studies
looking at the economic impacts on local communities over the
past few years. I became involved in 2008, and I would like to
talk about some of the research that we have been doing over
the past few years there in the Center for Public Lands and
Rural Economics.
Specifically I guess I am going to start where I thought I
would end. I would like to point out, first of all, that I am
not antiwilderness. Rather, the impetus of the work that I have
done and that I would prefer to testify on today is about the
tradeoffs inherent whenever we designate public lands. We
designate in restrictive land use categories that are in fact
things that are taken off the table.
My studies talk to those in some detail. Specifically, I
will speak on three studies that we have undertaken over the
past few years, first of all looking at the economic impacts of
wilderness; second, looking at the economic impacts of the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; and, third, I will
finish with an examination of the treasured landscapes memo
specifically looking at the tradeoffs inherent in designating
national monuments within these proposed areas.
First on wilderness, recently colleagues and myself
finished a study where we examined all 3,000 counties in the
United States to examine the difference between wilderness and
nonwilderness counties. We were funded by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture in conducting this study, and really the impetus
behind this study was the major disconnect between those who
advocate on behalf of wilderness and those who reside in local
communities.
Wilderness areas often are praised by environmental groups
as providing great economic benefits and bemoaned by local
communities as providing huge economic costs. Myself and my
colleagues in the Center for Public Lands and Rural Economics
were interested in this disconnect. We examined all 3,000
counties. We specifically were interested in three economic
indicators. First of all, average household income; second,
total payroll; and, third, total tax receipts.
In examining each of these variables of interest, we
constructed a regression model looking at these variables from
1995, 2000 and 2005 and controlled for other variables,
including the percent of public lands and other traditional
demographic variables. In conducting the study, we found that
in fact wilderness counties were associated with diminished
economic conditions.
Specifically, we found that wilderness counties had an
estimated household income of $1,446 less than nonwilderness
counties. Total payroll in wilderness counties was $37,500 less
than in wilderness [sic] counties, and total tax receipts were
estimated to be $92,910 less in wilderness counties than in
nonwilderness counties.
What is interesting about these studies is that ideally we
would have been able to collect data prior to the designation
of all these wilderness areas and compare the counties over
time with matched counties that did not have wilderness
therein. Unfortunately, the data for that type of research is
unavailable and would be extraordinarily costly to compile.
Therefore, we conducted a much smaller scale study on the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument, and I will be talking
about that next.
What is nice about the Grand Staircase is that it provides
an insular study to where we can control for a variety of
economic conditions, as well as examine conditions in Garfield
and Kane Counties prior to the designation of the monuments, as
well as after the designation of the monument, and compare
those counties with other counties in the United States.
We conducted a similar study to the one I just described
with wilderness and found that in fact Garfield and Kane
Counties, when compared to other similarly matched counties,
did not show massive economic improvements. Rather, we found a
null result to where we can't say with any certainty that
economic conditions were improved by the designation of the
Grand Staircase National Monument. This study did not look at
the opportunity costs where we look at what was given up over
time.
In the Grand Staircase it is well known that local
conditions were ripe for mining, as well as other attractive
industries. Those were not pursued because of the designation,
and locals frequently complain that there are opportunity costs
when those are taken off the table. We conducted a similar
study looking at the Treasured Landscapes National Monuments
and found similarly that they would involve opportunity costs
for energy resources.
And with that, I am happy to take questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Steed follows:]
Statement of Brian C. Steed, JD, PhD, Economics Instructor, Jon M.
Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University
It is a pleasure to be in attendance at today's hearing to talk
about research activities that have been going on over the past few
years at the Center for Public Lands and Rural Economics at Utah State
University and Southern Utah University. In 2008, Dr. Randy Simmons and
I at Utah State University and Dr. Ryan Yonk, who is now at Southern
Utah University, began a serious investigation of the relationship
between the designation of Wilderness pursuant to the Wilderness Act of
1964 and local economic conditions. The impetus of the study stemmed
from the vastly different claims made by environmentalists and local
governmental officials in the Western United States surrounding the
economic impacts of designated Wilderness. Environmentalists claim that
Wilderness has quite positive results on local communities, by inviting
tourism revenue and through increasing amenity values that draw
business to the area. Contrary to these claims, local officials
frequently bemoan the designation of Wilderness for permanently
limiting land use options.
My interest in this area of research stemmed from my own personal
life experiences as a Westerner and from my professional experience
working in the mid-2000s as a Deputy Iron County Attorney in Southern
Utah. In each of these settings, I have personally witnessed the
genuine concern of local citizens that Wilderness designations cut off
access to public lands for economic and recreational activities that
would otherwise be potentially available.
Additionally, I am personally interested in natural resource and
environmental management. I hold a Certificate in Natural Resource and
Environmental Law from the University of Utah. I also hold a PhD in
Public Policy from Indiana University with a focus on environmental
policy. While at Indiana, I studied under Dr. Elinor Ostrom, a world
renowned expert in environmental management and Nobel Prize winning
economist. Dr. Ostrom's work principally focuses on creating the
appropriate rules that allow human populations to sustainably manage
natural resources over long time horizons. Her work has shown that
local populations are often able to sustainably manage natural
resources in the absence of external governmental intervention.
Given my background and training, I have taken a particular
interest in Wilderness issues. My colleagues and I in the Center for
Public Lands and Rural Economic initially became intrigued by
Wilderness because of the disconnect between what environmentalists and
local officials assert about local economies and Wilderness. A series
of environmental group reports has found overwhelmingly positive local
economic benefits from Wilderness. The Wilderness Society, for
instance, notes ``[d]esignated wilderness areas on public lands
generate a range of economic benefits for individuals, communities, and
the nation--among them, the attraction and retention of residents and
businesses.'' i The Sonoran Institute similarly finds,
``protected natural places are vital economic assets for those local
economies in the West that are prospering the most.'' The Sonoran
Institute further notes, ``Wilderness, National Parks, National
Monuments, and other protected public lands, set aside for their wild
land characteristics, can and do play an important role in stimulating
economic growth--and the more protected, the better.'' ii
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ The Wilderness Society, ``The Economic Benefits of Wilderness:
Focus on Property Value Enhancement,'' Wilderness Society Science and
Policy Brief No. 2, March, 2004.
\ii\ R. Rasker, B. Alexander, J. van den Noort, and R. Carter,
Prosperity in the 21st Century West: The Role of Protected Lands, The
Sonoran Institute, 2004, p. ii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In direct contrast to these views, local officials frequently claim
that Wilderness harms local economies. A supermajority of Utah State
Legislature in 2008, for instance, passed House Joint Resolution 10
encouraging the United States Congress to not designate any additional
federal Wilderness Areas in Utah. The Resolution asserted that Utah
relies on public lands for crucial economic activities including ``oil
and natural gas development, mining, outdoor recreation and other
multiple uses, rights of way for transportation, waterlines, electric
transmission, and telecommunication lines'' (HJ 2008, 2). The Utah
State Legislature claimed that limiting these multiple uses of public
lands would result in substantial economic hardship for the state. By
passing the Resolution, the Utah State Legislature echoed the belief of
many local elected officials and residents that Wilderness is not good
for local economies.
To evaluate the claims on both sides, we sought funding from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture to specifically investigate the economic
impact of Wilderness in 2008. I will detail the findings of our
research today.
1. Wilderness Generally
Before delving into the details of our research, it may be helpful
to have a brief reprise of Wilderness policy. The Wilderness Act of
1964 defines Wilderness as:
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his
own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an
area where the earth and 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.
As so defined, Wilderness is the most restrictive land use
designation of public lands in the United States. To preserve the land
as being ``untrammeled by man,'' a variety of uses are restricted in
designated Wilderness areas. Restricted uses listed by Congress
include:
``no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any
wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary
to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area
for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in
emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within
the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor
vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of
aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no
structure or installation within any such area.'' (Section
4(c)).
Other uses that are expressly allowed by the Wilderness Act are
more difficult based on the other rules associated with Wilderness.
Although mining claims were statutorily allowed for the first 20 years
after the Wilderness Act passed, mining and mineral exploration are now
generally prohibited within Wilderness. Valid existing mining rights
may remain in effect after new designations, but mining activities must
strive maintain Wilderness characteristics, including limiting
mechanized travel and equipment. Although logging is not expressly
proscribed by statutory language of the Act, the restrictions on
mechanized travel, mechanized equipment, and road construction
generally preclude large-scale logging activity. Grazing is expressly
allowed in Wilderness Areas, but administrators may make ``reasonable
regulations'' including the reduction of grazing to improve range
conditions.
In addition to the prohibitory language found in the Wilderness
Act, courts have aggressively blocked a variety of activities in
Wilderness and areas adjacent to Wilderness. Uses of land surrounding
Wilderness often receive more stringent review. The 10th Circuit Court
of Appeals, for instance, in 1972 upheld an injunction of logging in an
area that approached a Wilderness Area (Parker v. United States 448
F.2d 793 cert. denied 405 U.S. 989). Wilderness Areas also often raise
review standards under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Under NEPA, land uses near Wilderness Areas may be found to have a more
``significant'' impact than actions near lands not under federal
protection.
Wilderness is managed by four federal agencies: the National Forest
Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Wilderness Areas dramatically vary
in size from the Pelican Island Wilderness in Florida, which occupies a
mere six acres, to the 9,078,675-acre Wrangle Island Wilderness in
Alaska. Due to the stringent requirements laying out Wilderness
characteristics, the majority of Wilderness Areas are found within
largely rural and lightly populated counties within Alaska, California,
Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
Only six states contain no Wilderness: Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa,
Kansas, Maryland, and Rhode Island.
2. Research Results
Today I will be presenting the results of three separate studies we
have recently conducted at the Center for Public Lands and Rural
Economics. The first directly involves the economic impact of
Wilderness. The second examines the impact of the Grand Staircase
Escalante National Monument in Southern Utah. The third examines the
potential designation as National Monuments the properties identified
in the Treasured Landscapes memorandum.
A. Wilderness Study
We focused our first study on economic impacts of Wilderness at the
county level. We conducted research on all counties in the United
States to compare economic conditions on Wilderness and Non-Wilderness
Counties. Wilderness Counties are defined as those counties containing
any portion of federally designated Wilderness. The study does not
address BLM Wilderness Study Areas or areas managed by the Forest
Service as Roadless Areas.
In comparing Wilderness and Non-Wilderness Counties, we sought to
identify metrics of County economic conditions that would be applicable
across different counties. We settled on three separate metrics:
average household income, total payroll, and total tax receipts. The
U.S. Census Bureau gathers average household income and total tax
receipts. The Bureau of Labor Statistics gathers total payroll figures.
Average household income is calculated by dividing the sum of all
income of the residents over the age of eighteen in each household by
number of households. Average household income has the advantage of
specifically addressing how individual households are on average
affected by Wilderness designation in these counties. It has the
disadvantage of being self-reported to the U.S. Census Bureau and,
accordingly, may not be as valid as a more direct measure.
Total payroll is a broader metric that captures those under the age
of eighteen and commuters who may live outside but work within a
county. Further, it is a measure of the economic situation of
individuals rather than households. Another approach would have been to
use total receipts. We selected total payroll rather than total
receipts on the assumption that payroll dollars are more likely to be
spent in the geographic area than are total receipts, which may include
corporate profits that leave the area. Total payroll is not a perfect
proxy because it does not capture the capital investment, county
residents who work outside the county, or most importantly, retirees
who do not receive payroll.
Total tax receipts is a measure that has at least two advantages
over the others measures. First, the data are largely complete; local
governments are required by state and federal statute to correctly
report tax receipts. These requirements provide some confidence in the
data that self-reporting does not provide. Second, tax receipts
represent all taxable transactions in the county. This provides a
useful metric of economic activity. Tax receipts, however, are not a
perfect proxy as there are significant institutional differences across
states, regions, and often counties themselves about how, when, and why
taxes may be collected.
None of these variables is a perfect proxy for economic conditions,
but, when taken together, they help paint a relatively complete picture
of the economic conditions found at the county level.
We next constructed a model testing economic conditions in each
county in the United States for the years 1995, 2000, and 2005. We also
included a variety of other variables to account for other factors
influencing economic conditions. We included information on the percent
of different types of public lands within the county. Finally, we
included traditional demographic variables that have been shown in the
academic literature to contribute to economic growth. These variables
include population, land area, number of households, birth rate and
school enrollment, infant death rate, high school graduates, median
household income, poverty rate, crime rate, government employment,
unemployment rate, and social security recipients.
We then ran each of the three models. In each case, we found that
Wilderness had a statistically significant negative relationship with
county economic conditions. In the case of Average Household Income, we
found that household incomes in Wilderness Counties were estimated to
be $1,446.06 less than Non-Wilderness Counties. Total payroll in
Wilderness Counties is estimated to be $37,500 less than in Non-
Wilderness Counties. Total Tax Receipts in Wilderness Counties is
estimated to be $92,910 dollars less than in Non-Wilderness Counties.
It is important to note that these findings are specific to
Wilderness and not to public land generally. Indeed, our models
indicate that BLM Lands, Forest Service Lands, Bureau of Reclamation
Lands, Fish and Wildlife Lands, and National Park Lands did not have as
significant or negative an impact on county economic conditions as
Wilderness.
Ideally, we would have run this study dating back prior to 1964 so
we could track Wilderness county economic conditions pre-designations
and post designation. To minimize the likelihood that other economic
factors drove the economic conditions, it would have also been helpful
to compare Wilderness Counties with other counties that match the
Wilderness Counties on a variety of conditions, but that do not contain
Wilderness. Such a ``pre-post, matched-pair'' design could provide very
useful information on to what extent Wilderness impacts economic
conditions. Unfortunately, the data necessary to conduct such a study
does not exist and compiling it would be overwhelmingly costly.
However, we have conducted a similar study on a much smaller scale that
I will discuss next.
B. Grand-Staircase Escalante National Monument
The Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument was created by
President Clinton in 1996. The Monument spans nearly 1.9 million acres
in south-central Utah along the Arizona border. The monument lies
completely within Utah, and occupies the majority of Kane County and
much of Garfield County. The designation of the Monument provides the
opportunity to conduct the type of pre-post, matched pair design
discussed above. Specifically, we can evaluate the county conditions of
Garfield and Kane counties prior to the designation of the Monument and
the county economic conditions after the designation of the monument.
We can also compare county economic conditions within the two Monument
counties with other similar counties across the United States.
To conduct this research, we used essentially the same methodology
we used on the Wilderness study. We used total tax receipts and total
payroll for our dependent variables. We again looked at county economic
conditions in 1995, 2000, and 2005 and included the same demographic
variables as the Wilderness Study to control for other factors that
could be driving economic conditions. For the Grand-Staircase study, we
included an additional step in matching Garfield and Kane Counties with
other counties throughout the United States. The counties were matched
with the 100 most similar counties in the United States based on land
area, population, income, and education levels. This approach allows us
to draw better conclusions regarding the impact of the Monument
designation compared to what would have happened in the absence of the
designation.
In running these models, we find little evidence that the Grand-
Staircase Escalante National Monument has had a significant positive
economic impact on county economic conditions. Rather, we mostly find a
null result--that the impact has had no impact on the local county
economies. In only one instance, tax receipts in Kane County, can we
reject the null hypothesis of no effect of the designation. In that
case, it appears that the designation of the Monument was associated
with a statistically significant rise in additional tax revenues in
Kane County, compared with the matched non-monument counties. However,
the evidence for the other dependent variable, total payroll, shows no
such effect. This is interesting in that total payroll may be a better
indicator of gross economic activity in Kane County. It appears from
this result that while the total tax revenues increased in Kane County,
the payroll did not, leaving serious questions about the effects of the
designation on the overall economic situation in Kane County. Further,
Garfield County shows no such effect with relation to the comparison
counties and exhibits no evidence that the designation of the monument
is either helping or hurting the economy of Garfield County. We
conclude that designating the Grand Staircase Escalante National
Monument has had little or no effect on the economic situation of the
host counties.
Moreover, our study of the Grand Staircase Escalante National
Monument does not include the opportunity costs (those opportunities
given up) of the Monument designation. At the time leading up to the
Monument designation, various groups were preparing plans for energy
development. Located in a geologically diverse region, the Grand
Staircase contains a treasure trove of mineral deposits. The area
contains an estimated 62 billion tons of coal. The area also contains
an estimated 270 million barrels of oil. In the early 1990s, Andalex
Resources Company, a Dutch based coal mining company, had acquired
permits to mine coal from the area. Conoco Oil, PacifiCorp, and various
other companies had also acquired permission to develop other
extraction activities in the area.
Locals in Garfield and Kane Counties frequently note that when the
Monument was designated, these economic activities were forever taken
off of the table. While we do not actually know what development
activities would have occurred had the Monument not be designated, or
what impact those activities would have had on the local communities,
we do know that the choice to designate protected areas involve
tradeoffs.
C. Treasured Landscapes
Finally, I would like to touch on a recent study that more fully
explores the opportunity costs of designating protected areas. In 2011
we conducted a review of the fifteen areas identified by the
``Treasured Landscapes'' memorandum leaked by the BLM discussing the
necessity of additional designations of National Monuments. Rather than
comment on whether the proposed monuments should or should not be
designated, we focused on what would be given up if the Monuments were
designated. To explore this question we use data from the U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, local
environmental groups, energy development companies, and state agencies
to identify what resources exist in the proposed areas. In the end, we
narrowed our study to focus principally on energy resources as an
example of the types of opportunity costs that might be incurred.
In conducting the inventory of energy potential for each site we
focused on both traditional fossil fuel energies and the renewable
potential of each site. We found that only a few the sites contained
significant fossil fuel reserves, although many of the sites had the
potential for shale extraction. The costs to alternative energy
generation potential, however, were more significant. The majority of
the potential monuments were found to have significant renewable energy
possibilities that would likely be foreclosed by increased protections.
In fact, 80% of the proposed monuments were found to have potential for
multiple types of renewable energy development. By seeking increased
environmental protection through the designation of the proposed
monuments, we may incur additional difficulties for large-scale roll
out of clean energy generation.
3. Conclusions
The stream of research I have detailed today contains a primary
theme: the designation of any protected area involves tradeoffs. The
creation of protected areas clearly forecloses other land use
opportunities. In designating Wilderness, local populations are forever
proscribed from a great number economic and recreational activities
ranging from mining to mountain biking. Such designations may
significantly change how local populations interact with the
environment in which they live, including limiting economic gains
potentially available from public lands. While there may be some local
gains from increased tourism or other area attraction, we do not find
uniformly positive economic gains from the protected areas we have
studied. But, ensuring local economic growth was not the primary focus
of the Wilderness Act or other enabling language for protected areas.
Rather, Wilderness and other protected areas are established for
emotional, ecological, and cultural purposes. Our results indicate that
those ends are not accomplished without some costs to local
populations.
The policy implications from our research are twofold. First,
policy makers must carefully consider the tradeoffs inherent in public
lands decisions. We cannot assume that all additional protected areas
will sizably benefit local populations. Second, if policy makers seek
to minimize the costs to local populations, they should seek input from
local land users when making land use decisions. Local populations are
often the most familiar with the potential economic opportunities
present on public lands. By seeking local input in public lands
decisions, policy makers can better assure that policy decisions are
not disproportionately borne by local communities.
______
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Steed.
Ms. Rosenberg, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERICA ROSENBERG, BOARD PRESIDENT, WESTERN LANDS
PROJECT
Ms. Rosenberg. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on H.R.
1126. I submit this testimony on behalf of the Western Lands
Project.
Ours is the only organization in the country that focuses
solely on monitoring Federal land exchanges, sales and
conveyances and seeks to prevent the privatization of our
public lands. We track all BLM and Forest Service
administrative land sales in the 11 western states and Alaska.
H.R. 1126 mandates the sale of up to 3.3 million acres of
Federal lands. The lands directed to be sold are the same lands
identified in a 1997 report to Congress, the intent of which
was to fund through land sales in other states ecosystem
restoration in the Florida Everglades once Florida lands were
exhausted. The intent of H.R. 1126, by contrast, is to put the
proceeds of land sales in the Treasury for deficit reduction.
We oppose H.R. 1126 both on principle and in practice. We
are against mandates that treat our public lands as liquid
assets and their disposal as a quick fix for deficit reduction
and economic development. Proposals like this are a common,
reflexive response to tough economic times, and they fail for
two main reasons. One is that when the public learns of plans
to sell off our national heritage people of every political
strife vociferously oppose them. The other is that under closer
scrutiny these plans are impractical and ineffective.
Federal land retention, but for land whose disposal serves
the national interest, is longstanding Federal policy. BLM
already has the authority to dispose of land. This bill removes
the agency discretion, discretion that allows the agency to
respond to the needs of, among others, local communities who
benefit from the land.
Since 1976, BLM has had the authority to sell land under
FLPMA. Lands are identified as suitable for disposal through
RMPs formulated every 10 years or so by BLM offices with public
input. These lands must meet certain criteria, including that
their disposal would serve important public objectives.
However, simply being identified at the planning level as
suitable for disposal does not mean that a parcel will or
should be sold. Although identified as excess or of no use to
the agency, a parcel may ultimately be found unsuitable for
sale or may be undesirable for private purchase. Once BLM staff
determines that market or development conditions are ripe to
put a piece of land up for sale, they do so under a public
process, which includes the possibility that an adjacent
landowner will protest the sale.
An appraisal designed to protect the taxpayers who own the
land must be conducted. Analysis must be done to determine and
disclose whether there are obstacles to the sale, such as the
presence of cultural resources, wetlands, endangered species
habitat or, as important, its use by the community.
For example, we have monitored land sales conducted by
BLM's Redding, California, field office for many years, and in
one area where they had identified excess lands in the most
recent RMP local jurisdictions have gradually built a trail
network surrounding the land that is heavily used by the local
populous.
To sell these BLM lands now would be patently counter to
the interests of local citizens, for most parcels or areas
described in the 1997 report identify serious impediments to
sale, including high disposal costs, hazardous materials,
wetlands, critical natural or cultural resources, existing mine
claims and title issues.
These parcels were not ready to go even then. According to
BLM, many lands identified appear to have conflicts, which may
preclude them from being considered for disposal. Furthermore,
the circumstances around much of the land listed in the report
may have changed dramatically in the 14 years since it was
compiled.
In reality, those most likely to be adversely affected by a
broad brush expedited disposal of Federal land are not
environmentalists and public interest groups such as ours, but
members of the community who have a day-to-day relationship
with their public land.
Overall, Federal lands are not a liability but a boon to
local economies. In this economy, selling off public land would
contribute at best trivial amounts to deficit reduction at the
expense of the well-being of local communities. Ironically,
proposals to use our public lands as a bank account increase
during economic downturns when demand is low and their sale
would have the least effect on the deficit. Regardless, we
believe the value of these lands and public ownership far
outweighs their monetary value.
H.R. 1126 is less a substantive piece of legislation than
expression of an orientation that sees public land as
expendable for quick cash and development. We fundamentally
disagree with this stance.
Based on our experience with and knowledge of Federal land
use planning and sale transactions, the bill cannot achieve the
deficit reduction through land sell off that it aspires to and,
even if it could, would harm rather than benefit taxpayers in
the communities that use and value these public lands.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenberg follows:]
Statement of Erica Rosenberg, Board President,
Western Lands Project, on H.R. 1126
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to testify today on H.R. 1126. I submit this testimony on behalf of
the board, staff, and members of the Western Lands Project. Founded in
1997, ours is the only organization in the country that focuses solely
on monitoring federal land exchanges, sales, and conveyances and seeks
to prevent the privatization of our public lands. We track all BLM and
Forest Service administrative land sales in the 11 western states and
Alaska.
H.R. 1126 mandates the sale of up to 3.3 million acres of federal
lands. The lands directed to be sold are the same lands identified in a
1997 report to Congress, pursuant to Section 390(g) of Public Law 104-
127, the intent of which was to fund, through land sales in other
states, ecosystem restoration in the Florida Everglades. The intent of
H.R. 1126, by contrast, is to put the proceeds of land sales in the
General Treasury for deficit reduction.
We oppose H.R. 1126 both on principle and in practice. We are
against mandates that treat our public lands as liquid assets and their
disposal as a quick fix for deficit reduction and economic development.
Proposals like this are a common, reflexive response to tough economic
times. And they fail, for two main reasons. One is that when the public
learns of plans to sell off our national heritage, people of every
political stripe vociferously oppose them; the other is that under
closer scrutiny, these plans are impractical and ineffective.
Federal land retention but for land whose disposal serves the
national interest is long-standing federal policy. A common complaint
of Western counties is that because of the extent of public land within
their boundaries, growth and development are severely restricted. Thus,
Congress has responded again and again to this perceived imbalance, as
well as to the need for agencies to improve land management, by giving
agencies a myriad of authorities for land disposal and acquisition
against a showing of need.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) already has the authority to
dispose of land. This bill removes agency discretion--discretion that
allows the agency to respond to the needs of, among others, local
communities who benefit from the land. Since 1976, the BLM has had
authority to sell land under the Federal Land Management & Policy Act
(FLPMA). Lands are identified as suitable for disposal through Resource
Management Plans (RMPs) formulated every ten years or so by BLM
offices, with public input. These lands must meet certain criteria:
Their location or other characteristics make them
difficult and uneconomical to manage;
They were acquired for a specific purpose for which
they are no longer needed; or
Their disposal would serve important public
objectives, such as expansion of communities and economic
development, that cannot be achieved on other than public land
and which outweigh other public objectives and values such as
recreation and scenic values served by keeping them in public
ownership.
However, simply being identified at the planning level as
``suitable for disposal'' does not mean that a parcel will or should be
sold. Although identified as ``excess'' or of no use to the agency, a
parcel may ultimately be found unsuitable for sale or may nevertheless
be undesirable for private purchase. Once BLM staff determines that
market or development conditions are ripe to put a piece of land up for
sale, they do so under a public process--which includes the possibility
that an adjacent landowner will protest the sale. An appraisal,
designed to protect the taxpayers who own the land, must be conducted.
Analysis must be done to determine and disclose whether there are
obstacles to the sale, such as the presence of cultural resources,
wetlands, endangered species habitat, or contamination--or as
important, its use by the community.
For example, we have monitored land sales conducted by the Redding,
CA Field Office of the BLM for many years, and in one area where they
had identified excess lands in the most recent RMP, local jurisdictions
have gradually built a trail network surrounding the land that is
heavily used by the local populace. To sell these BLM lands now would
be patently counter to the interest of local citizens.
For most parcels or areas the 1997 report describes, it identifies
serious impediments to sale, including high disposal costs, hazardous
materials, wetlands, critical natural or cultural resources, existing
mining claims, and title issues. These parcels were not ``ready to go''
even then.: according to BLM ``. . .many lands identified appear to
have conflicts which may preclude them from being considered for
disposal. . .'' Furthermore, the circumstances around much of the land
listed in the report may have changed dramatically in the 14 years
since it was compiled. Some parcels may already have been sold, while
others may now be considered unsuitable for disposal--and all of them
would have to undergo up-to-date appraisals and analyses, which cannot
be done overnight.
In reality, those most likely to be adversely affected by a broad-
brush, expedited disposal of federal land are not environmentalists and
public-interest groups such as ours, but members of the community who
have a day-to-day relationship with their public land. Overall, federal
lands are not a liability but a boon to local economies. In this
economy, selling off public land would contribute at best trivial
amounts to deficit reduction at the expense of the well-being of local
communities.
H.R. 1126 reflects an oversimplified concept of how BLM land sales
should and can occur. It cannot achieve what it purports to achieve--
deficit reduction thru land sell-off--in part, because while Congress
can order the Secretary of the Interior to sell these lands, it cannot
force people to buy them, and our experience in the last several years
has shown that, with a few rare exceptions, there is not a crying
demand to buy public lands. Ironically, proposals to use our public
lands as a bank account increase during economic downturns when demand
is low and their sale would have the least effect on the deficit.
Regardless, we believe the value of these lands in public ownership far
outweighs their monetary value.
H.R. 1126 is less a substantive piece of legislation than an
expression of an orientation that sees public land as expendable for
quick cash and development. We fundamentally disagree with this stance.
In addition, based on our experience with and knowledge of federal land
use planning and sale transactions, the bill cannot achieve what it
aspires to do. Even if it could, it would harm rather than benefit
taxpayers and the communities that use and value these public lands.
______
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mrs. Rosenberg.
Mr. Liesemer, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF RONALD LIESEMER, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT, CITIZENS
FOR ACCESS TO THE LAKESHORE
Dr. Liesemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Grijalva and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for this
opportunity. My name is Ron Liesemer. I am Vice President of
Citizens for Access to the Lakeshore, an all volunteer group of
citizens formed in 2002 in response to threatened diminishment
of public access at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
My remarks will describe the nine year effort that led to
this legislation. I will explain why it is needed and ask you
to support it. We are grateful to the bill's sponsors,
Representative Bill Huizenga and Representative Dave Camp, who
represent the two counties wherein the park is located, the
bill's seven co-sponsors in the House and our two Senators who
have sponsored an identical bill in the Senate. The effort has
been bicameral and bipartisan since inception.
The park is young. After a decade of opposition in the
1960s, incorporation in the National Park System began with
enabling legislation in 1970. Around the year 2000, local
communities learned that the Park Service intended to close
county roads which provided the only vehicular access to the
beaches. Only those strong enough to hike and backpack would be
able to cover the miles involved to get to the starting point
for their activity.
The Park Service answered that changes were mandated by
Congress. A wilderness study done in 1981 recommended over half
the park be designated wilderness despite county roads and
buildings. In 1982, the park's enabling legislation was opened
to address problems and to instruct the Park Service to
maintain lands within the 1981 wilderness study. The outcome
created de facto wilderness without public input procedures
required by the Wilderness Act.
Our organization brought these problems to our elected
officials. The Park Service appointed a new superintendent and
assistant superintendent, who immediately began talking and
listening to people's concerns at every rotary club and
township meeting possible. In 2006, they began developing a new
general management plan and wilderness study, soliciting public
input extensively.
In 2009, a new general management plan and wilderness study
were adopted. Both are enthusiastically supported by a vast
majority of the park's stakeholders. The newly proposed
wilderness assures public access and resource protection.
However, because of the 1982 statute, a new plan cannot be
fully implemented until Congress corrects the 1981 wilderness
study by formally designating the access friendly wilderness
boundaries recommended in the new study. H.R. 977 does just
that.
Let me close by summarizing three points. This is a win/win
for proponents of wilderness and conservation, as well as for
those who want public access and varied recreational usage.
Two, the process that enabled consensus is a good model not
only for the Park Service, but anywhere government and citizens
interface on tough issues. And, third, and most important, we
respectfully ask the Subcommittee to report it to the Committee
and then on to the House.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this
Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Liesemer follows:]
Statement of Jeannette A. Feeheley and Ronald Liesemer, Ph. D.,
President and Vice-President, Citizens for Access to the Lakeshore
(CAL), Benzie County, Michigan, on H.R. 977, Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the
Subcommittee,
Thank you for allowing me to submit this testimony to express our
organization's support of H.R. 977. Its introduction represents the
result of over nine years of work by the National Park Service (NPS)
and input by us and hundreds of other organizations and individuals
into NPS proceedings to establish a new General Management Plan and
Wilderness Study for Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (SLBE),
which runs for seventy gorgeous miles along prime Lake Michigan
shoreline in Northwest Michigan. The NPS in 2009 finalized and adopted
its new General Management Plan for this Lakeshore, but significant
parts of it cannot be implemented unless and until its accompanying
Wilderness proposal is adopted by Congress and signed into law. The
Wilderness Boundary Map attached to the legislation is Map Number 634/
80, 083B dated November 2010.
We are extremely grateful to the nine House co-sponsors of this
bill, especially the Honorable Bill Huizenga, who represents Benzie
County, and the Honorable Dave Camp, who represents Leelanau County,
the two Counties in which the Lakeshore is located. We are likewise
grateful to our two U.S. Senators who represent Michigan, the Honorable
Carl Levin and the Honorable Debbie Stabenow, who have co-sponsored an
identical bill, S. 140, in the U.S. Senate. The legislation has been a
bi-chamber, bipartisan effort from inception.
In 2002, a public outcry erupted in Benzie and Leelanau Counties
where the Lakeshore is located over the then current General Management
Plan (GMP) proposals that were nearing their final stage and well on
their way to adoption by the NPS. Until the 2002 NPS Newsletter had
been released that gave details of Four Alternatives the NPS was
considering at that time, along with their Preferred Alternative, most
of the general public in the area were unaware of its implications. A
few members of the public began publicizing those implications, and
many in the area became incensed. After studying the matter and
attending NPS hearings on such, some of my neighbors and I realized
that there was no public nor local governmental body nor volunteer
organization sufficiently manned to mount the sustained effort it would
take to get the NPS to listen and respond to our concerns, so we formed
Citizens for Access to the Lakeshore (CAL) as a nonprofit, citizen
advocacy group to do so. We recruited membership, elected a Board of
Directors and collected dues and donations sufficient to support our
newsletters, public presentations, educational outreach and the
development and maintenance of a CAL Web Site.
At our founding, CAL never expected it would take nine years for
the issues to get addressed, nor had we any idea that it would require
new legislation to be passed by Congress, but the tedious and
painstaking efforts by all concerned will be worth it if the
legislation before you is passed. The bill is needed in order to allow
the Park Service to implement the 2009 outcome of NPS proceedings and
negotiations with the public which became, over eight years time, a
true collaboration, in our view, among the Park Service and all its
stakeholders.
We are very grateful to SLBE Superintendent Dusty Shultz for the
new GMP and Wilderness Study subsequently developed and approved at the
agency level in 2009. Superintendent Shultz had not been a part of the
development of the former GMP proposals in the early 2000's, having
arrived at the Park as its new Superintendent after they had already
reached their final stage. When the Secretary of Interior, in response
to public outrage, requested withdrawal in October 2002 of that
previous GMP, Superintendent Shultz responded by thenceforth devoting
much staff time and resources to learning why the community was so
alarmed and why the NPS had been so taken by surprise by the outrage.
Those early years also saw the appointment of a new Director of the
NPS Midwest Region, Mr. Ernie Quintana, who came to SLBE to view the
Lakeshore, which had become one of his new responsibilities. During
that visit, he was kind enough to meet with CAL Board members in the
presence of Superintendent Shultz. After listening to us, he expressed
his view that we seemed to have legitimate concerns, that the NPS could
address them, and that he would be supportive in that effort. He has,
indeed, been supportive at all crucial, NPS/internal review and
approval stages over the many years on these efforts, and we are very
grateful to Director Quintana and his Midwest Region Staff in Omaha.
One of the first steps taken by the NPS during that contentious
time was to send new personnel to SLBE who had expertise in public
relations. CAL and others wondered at the time if Mr. Tom Ulrich had
been sent simply to tell the local population that we didn't know or
understand anything and to admonish us for having dared to question the
federal bureaucracy. However, we soon learned that Mr. Ulrich was not
sent for window dressing or simply to smooth ruffled feathers. Instead,
we found him to be a dedicated public servant who was committed to
listening to the concerns of the agency's stakeholders and who adeptly
helped establish a working relationship among what had become, by that
time, two distinct adversaries: the National Park Service vs. the
SLBE's surrounding local communities.
CAL strongly believes that, from 2002-2009, these two sides learned
to listen and talk with each other as never before, and that the NPS
adopted a new view that it is better to aggressively publicize its
processes and actively and genuinely solicit input up front rather than
assume all is well only to learn late in the game that its stakeholders
had not understood the implications of what it planned to do. The
materials developed by the NPS in this particular effort are a vast
improvement over what was available to the public before. For instance,
after the GMP process was resumed in 2006, inter-active communication
tools were newly available to the public on an improved NPS Web Site
that made it much easier for the general public to access, read and
submit formal comment on each NPS proposal. It also appeared that the
NPS liberalized, or, at least, publicized better, that any citizen who
so desired could be put onto their mailing list to receive NPS
proposals each step along the way where there was opportunity for
public input.
In addition, ever since 2002, CAL had been speaking at local and
county government meetings, road commission hearings, Chamber of
Commerce meetings, Rotary Clubs, etc., in an attempt to inform as many
people as possible about our discoveries of the implications of the NPS
proposals. So the NPS spent the time and resources necessary to do the
same and more: Superintendent Shultz and Deputy Superintendent Ulrich
and other NPS staff began to attend meetings of their stakeholders/
customers' organizations to make themselves available for questioning
at their stakeholders' convenience and on their stakeholders' own
territory. And, once the new GMP process was restarted in 2006, the NPS
developed a Power Point Presentation they took ``on the road'' rather
than relying on the few standard NPS Open Hearing dates which the
public may or may not be able to attend.
As for the substance of the problem, it was, in a nutshell, that in
1981 the NPS had concluded a Wilderness Study and made a wilderness
recommendation at a very young Park still deep in a contentious
acquisition phase, its enabling legislation having only been passed in
1970. The full impact of that Study would not become apparent to the
public until much later, after most of the land had come under Park
Service ownership. Two and a half decades passed with issues simmering
in seemingly piecemeal NPS actions that the public only saw as
separate, isolated irritants. However, the full implications of the
1981 Wilderness Study and its inherent incompatibility with reality
surfaced explosively in the 2002 GMP.
Complicating matters was that this Park had not originated with
vast amounts of never-used or never-privately-owned land, but of land
that had been mostly held and used by small, private landowners for two
centuries, along with two small areas of state park land. In order for
the Park to become a reality, most of those private owners had to be
removed from their land after the 1970 enabling legislation was passed.
Many of the land parcels had been in the owners' families' possession
for generations. Some were very willing to sell, some were not, and
some were taken by eminent domain or its perceived threat. Another
acquisition method was a sale in which the owners were allowed to
reside for a specified time, usually through a twenty-five year lease.
Although generally beloved by the most of the local populace now,
the Park's very creation had been wrenching and painful. Indeed, it had
taken the whole decade of the nineteen sixties for proponents of a new
federalized Park to win sufficient support inside the State of Michigan
for the 1970 enabling legislation to pass. The promise held out to all
at the time was that, by taking the land and making it a federal
Lakeshore, its woods and dunes and beautiful beaches would forever more
be saved for the recreational uses of the general public rather than
swallowed up and transformed by large-scale private developers.
So, in 1981, the general public had little idea that
``wilderness'', if applied where roads already existed, would require
the removal of those roads. The Wilderness acreage recommended in 1981
did, indeed, include many county roads in both Benzie and Leelanau
Counties, roads which have provided the historical access to the
beaches. The general public also had little idea that the 1981
``wilderness'' would be interpreted by the NPS as a call for the
destruction of many historical features throughout the Park. Indeed, it
took two other citizens' groups, with the help of Senator Levin, to get
the NPS to recognize that there were historical resources and cultural
viewscapes worth saving within a Park where acquisition and a return-
to-nature agenda were on full throttle. Never-the-less, enough was
understood about the 1981 Wilderness Recommendation that it was
politically highly contentious from its inception: the Secretary of
Interior would not approve it nor move it along for further approval.
The Congress at that time reacted to the Secretary's inaction by
inserting a few sentences about the 1981 Wilderness Study in a 1982
amendment to the Park's 1970 enabling legislation. The purposes of the
1982 amendment had mostly to do with making the acquisition process
fairer to all property owners and with removing certain areas of land
around Glen Lake from the Park boundaries. Even though the 1982
legislation's intent and purposes had nothing to do with wilderness,
Congress inserted language into that bill that instructed the NPS to
manage all the land within the 1981 Wilderness Study as if it was
``wilderness'' unless and until Congress said otherwise. The effect, as
noted in the Congressional Record at the time, was a wilderness
designation imposed by the back door, a de facto wilderness where none
had been formally designated by Congress according to the procedures of
the Wilderness Act.
Over the years, the NPS attempted, from time to time, to acquire
the county roads within those de facto wilderness areas, per the 1982
Congressional action. However, for thirty years, the Counties have
adamantly resisted federal acquisition of their roads, having no wish
for their residents and tourists to lose public access to the beaches.
The Park Service was never successful in eliminating the historical
vehicular access on the mainland, but was successful on the Park's two
islands, North and South Manitou, by disallowing use of the landing
piers by cars and by a 1987 letter to South Manitou residents.
The building tension over the NPS's repeated attempts to acquire
the counties' roads came to a head in the 2002 GMP proposals. Having
little familiarity with the long forgotten 1981 Wilderness Study and
having little acquaintance with the fact that the Study's effects had
become federal law in 1982, most local people were completely
dumbfounded in 2002 on a number of levels:
Why did the 2002 GMP call for the acquisition and
demolishment of the county roads, which provide the only
vehicular access of the general public to the beaches?
Why did the 2002 GMP propose ``mouldering'' many of
the area's historical resources?
Why did the 2002 GMP proposals portray half the
Lakeshore as a place where the human foot had left no mark and
where only ``wilderness'' had existed? In this aspect, the
GMP's tone, as well as the content, was highly offensive to
local people who themselves or their parents had been uprooted
from the very land now called a ``wilderness'' where,
allegedly, no one had ever settled. In reality, the local
populace had first hand knowledge that said lands had been
farmed, settled and lumbered for generations, and that Native
Americans and lumbering companies had worn trails that still
exist and are used to this day. South Manitou Island, with its
great natural harbor and nautical refuge in Lake Michigan, had
been settled, farmed and lumbered even before the City of
Detroit was developed. The 2002 GMP proposals were not only
offensive for proposing that the general public lose its access
to the beaches, the very purpose of the enabling legislation,
but added insult to injury by attempting to wipe out the
magnificent human history of the area's forebears.
And why did Park Service staff, in attempting to
explain these matters to an outraged citizenry, keep saying
that it had all been ``mandated'' by Congress?
It took CAL much study of past legislation and NPS documents to
track down all the historical events leading to the disastrous 2002
collision between the Park Service and SLBE's local communities.
Once CAL identified the 1981 Wilderness Study and the 1982 law as
the cause of much of the problem, CAL sought to have the offending
lines in the 1982 legislation removed, which would have freed the Park
Service from any wilderness ``mandate'' and would have allowed them to
begin afresh a new GMP unencumbered with de facto wilderness. However,
we ascertained, to our initial disappointment, that there was no
Congressional, political or agency will for such. It appeared that
doing so might be interpreted and maybe contested by wilderness
proponents as a removal of ``wilderness'' from the Lakeshore, even
though such had never been officially designated.
However, our Senators and Congressmen actively supported the
public's desire to be heard, and, at the same time, they actively
supported the Park Service's desire to allow for a cooling off period
and to give the NPS time to look anew at the problems and situation.
Our Senators and Congressmen supported the NPS' entering into a long,
multi-year, continuing dialogue with the local communities. Our elected
officials also supported CAL whenever it appeared to us that the NPS
was not listening nor understanding us. Thanks to our Senators and
Congressmen, we learned to read and speak Park Service-ese, and the NPS
learned to understand us, even though we weren't always conversant or
familiar with the multitudinous NPS procedures, policies and technical
terms.
It worked! The 2009 GMP/Wilderness Study addresses and corrects all
the unresolved issues of the previous Wilderness Study. Now the areas
proposed for wilderness make sense, and will provide that the
primitive, natural areas can remain as much of the local population
wishes--in their natural state--without cutting off public access where
it is needed.
The bill before you, if adopted, will finally, finally throw out
the flawed 1981 Wilderness Study that has had our Lakeshore tied up for
so long in administratively applied wilderness sanctions where they
were inappropriate and unenforceable, and will replace it with the new
2009 Wilderness recommendation that puts the Lakeshore's counties'
roads, beaches, fundamental historical resources and all remaining
private inholdings outside wilderness jurisdiction. At the same time,
the bill would give a true, Congressionally approved wilderness
designation to those areas of the Park, a good half of its acreage,
where a wilderness designation is appropriate and can be easily
enforced by the Park Service and supported by its stakeholders.
The bill is a win/win for proponents of wilderness and conservation
as well as proponents of public access and varied recreation usage. It
is not a bill where the proponents give grudging, reluctant support,
feeling compromised and unhappy about something. Rather, this is a bill
wherein almost everyone involved has emerged quite satisfied.
CAL highly supports this bill and respectfully asks your
consideration for its passage.
______
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Liesemer, and thank you all for
your testimony.
At this point we will begin questions of the witnesses, and
to allow all of our Members to participate and to ensure we can
hear from all of our witnesses today Members will be limited to
five minutes for their questions. However, if Members have
additional questions we can have more than one round of
questioning.
I now recognize myself for five minutes, and I will turn to
Mr. Pool first. In relationship to H.R. 41 and Section 201 or
with respect to Section 201, is the BLM currently planning to
construct a facility under the donation agreement from the
Conservation Fund?
Mr. Pool. Congressman, I don't have an answer to that
question today. I would be glad to get back to the Committee on
that.
Mr. Johnson When do you think you----
Mr. Pool. I don't have that information. I would be glad to
provide that.
Mr. Johnson When do you think you can get back to us?
Mr. Pool. I should be able to get back with you within a
week's time.
Mr. Johnson OK. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Pool,
also in relationship to H.R. 41 can you elaborate on the
language modifications you would like to see ``for consistency
with other wilderness legislation''?
Mr. Pool. Well, I think that in terms of the wilderness
designation, as one of the Members made reference to earlier,
clearly that authority rests with Congress. What I was
advocating in response to the bill that was introduced that the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act has been an
invaluable tool for BLM.
Many of the designated wildernesses, National Park Systems,
National Forest Systems and units of BLM's National Landscape
Conservation System do have substantial inholdings, and many of
these inholders are willing sellers. Our goal is to try to
facilitate the acquisition of those inholdings, and the FLTFA
has been an invaluable mechanism for us because what it does,
we make lands available for competitive sale.
We utilize those same receipts to put an administrative
account, which gives us added capacity to survey, appraise,
conduct the wildlife and cultural inventories and make those
properties available for disposal. In turn, we use those same
receipts that have been generated through BLM's sales program
working with Park Service, Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife
Service to acquire those same inholdings that are in designated
areas.
Mr. Johnson OK. Thank you. Mr. Pool, also in relationship
to H.R. 490 has the Manzano Wilderness Study Area been
identified as being suitable for wilderness?
Mr. Pool. I believe it has. I would have to double check
that fact. I am a little embarrassed about that because I am a
New Mexico native, but I will confirm that.
The reason being because of its small size there may be a
size issue there, but because of it being adjacent--it abuts
actually the Cibola National Forest. In terms of future
legislation considerations, it may have been deemed suitable.
Mr. Johnson OK.
Mr. Pool. We support that addition to the Forest Service.
Mr. Johnson OK. In regard to H.R. 1413, Mr. Pool, were the
BLM lands proposed for wilderness designation ever managed for
timber production pursuant to the ONC Act before being
administratively withdrawn?
Mr. Pool. I don't believe so. I think we have had pretty
strong protective measures in that area for a number of years
because of the resource values involved.
Mr. Johnson Can you confirm that?
Mr. Pool. I can. I can get back and confirm that.
Mr. Johnson OK. Mr. Liesemer, in regards to H.R. 977 your
testimony recounts the creation of the park and acquisition of
private lands. You say that the park used eminent domain or its
perceived threat to take these lands. Can you explain how the
threat of eminent domain was used by the Park Service?
Dr. Liesemer. That goes back to the early days. When the
park was formed there was a much larger area that they intended
to take. There was the usual discussion that took place that
narrowed it to the current boundaries.
There was also an additional--I don't know the number of
cases that were eminent domain. In a number of cases there was
a 25-year lease that was offered to people as a way of making
it more palatable or facilitating the acquisition. Those were
beginning to expire about the year 2000 when the Park Service
looked like they were going to be closing roads.
Mr. Johnson OK. Would you support language in the bill to
protect motorboat access and to prevent the establishment of
buffer zones?
Dr. Liesemer. The language that is there was worked out
through extensive discussions between the Park Service and
different communities. The primary interest of many of the
communities was to ensure that there was access to Lake
Michigan from the roads, mainly M-22, so the odds are yes.
Mr. Johnson The bill that was introduced last year
protected motorboat access and prevented buffer zones. So you
say you would support that in this current version?
Dr. Liesemer. Yes. Yes. If my memory is correct on that it
was removed for technical reasons. I think as the Park Service
was writing the bill they said this really doesn't apply.
Mr. Johnson OK. But back to the question. Would you support
language in the bill to protect motorboat access and prevention
of the establishment of buffer zones?
Dr. Liesemer. I would have to look at the details of that,
but based on the spirit of it I think the answer is yes.
Mr. Johnson OK. All right. Thank you. I would like to
recognize the Ranking Member now for any questions that he may
have.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to focus
the initial question I have. Hopefully in the second round I
will have some others. I am going to focus in H.R. 1126. Since
we heard from one of the witnesses the very fate of the Nation
rests with the passage of this legislation, so I would like to
get at some facts before we put that fate to test.
Mr. Pool, just to be clear, BLM and other Federal land
management agencies have the authority to sell Federal land
under certain circumstances. Are we pursuing those land sales
routinely? Is that an accurate assessment?
Mr. Pool. That authority does reside with the Bureau of
Land Management, Congressman. Since the 1997 report was
submitted to Congress, all 3.3 million acres that we identified
at that time through our land use plans, we have disposed of
1.7 million acres since 1997.
I might clarify. The percentages of lands that we disposed
of and how many of those lands are in that 1997 report, I would
have to confirm that information, which would be very labor
intensive, but the dynamics of our land use planning system as
it continues to evolve over time and we continue to identify
lands to be retained and lands to be disposed of.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. For time's sake, do you currently have in
place the personnel that is required to accomplish all the
current land sales?
Mr. Pool. The mechanism under the Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act allowed the BLM to keep 20 percent of those
receipts for administrative purposes. Since that legislation
was not authorized, it is really taxing our capacity, our Real
Estate Divisions.
Mr. Grijalva. So, the point being that additional budgetary
resources would be required in order to meet----
Mr. Pool. That is correct.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Pool. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. And the legislation we are talking about does
not address that issue at all. Would diverting BLM resources to
that task of land sales divert let us say from oil and gas
permitting, renewable energy permitting and the like and those
kinds of----
Mr. Pool. All our decision making at the grant level is
based on an interdisciplinary approach and so by not having
that 20 percent revenue coming in under FLTFA does greatly
impair our capability to----
Mr. Grijalva. You have grazing leases on some of this land,
I presume. What would happen to those leases if the land was
sold under the four year mandate that is in the legislation?
Mr. Pool. Well, for all the parcels we have identified for
disposal we did look at expressions of interest. Typically
those that are identified for disposal are in the high urban
interface zones because of their appreciative value and it
generates more revenue.
As it relates to our grazing permittees, sometimes we have
isolated public land tracts, very small tracts, and typically
we will afford them the opportunity to purchase those tracks,
but before we allow those lands to be disposed of we have to go
through and conduct a survey, the appraised values and a series
of other inventories to make sure that there is no significant
natural resource values being lost with that transaction.
Mr. Grijalva. The 12.5 royalty collected on oil and gas
development on public lands. If these lands were sold as we are
talking about does that mean less revenue to the Treasury? Do
we know?
Mr. Pool. Well, typically the lands that we identify for
disposal don't have a high economic value associated with it
other than the surface value, but we do evaluate these tracts
for their mineral potential. If they have high mineral
potential that would generate public revenue then typically we
retain those lands.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Let me in the time, Ms. Rosenberg. Is
there a demand to buy public land right now? Has there been any
analysis since the lands were listed in the 1997 inventory to
determine what the actual demand for these lands are? We are
working on a presumption now, and I would just like to know if
there is any real fact attached to this.
Ms. Rosenberg. Well, I believe there is not a crying demand
for public lands right now. The exception, the recent
exception, was in Las Vegas where land sold quickly and for
huge amounts, and there was a great demand to sell them and BLM
had a variety of authorities----
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Ms. Rosenberg.--under which to sell the land, but that was
an aberration.
It is no longer the case, particularly in these economic
times. It would benefit communities to keep as much public land
in public ownership for their scenic and recreational value
during these times.
Mr. Grijalva. And for their own land values. Mr. Chairman,
thank you. I don't think I will have any follow-ups.
I would like to just indicate that in the first round of
questions you pointed out that seven of the eight Members of
Congress here today testified on wilderness proposals that are
under their jurisdiction or shared jurisdiction with another
Member, but Mr. Chaffetz's bill, the disposal bill, wants to
sell land that is in other districts. I kind of find that an
irony, and I yield back.
Mr. Johnson Thank you to the distinguished colleague for
yielding back.
I would like to yield now to my good friend, Mr. Kildee. We
will go a little bit out of order here. I want to make sure he
has an opportunity to get his questions in.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate, first of all, your work on this Committee. You
indicate that this Committee can do bipartisan work. You
usually sit right in front of me, and I have your back all the
time. I appreciate that.
Mr. Johnson Thank you very much.
Mr. Kildee. I want to commend, Mr. Liesemer. This is hard
work negotiating these things. I have been involved with
Sleeping Bear Dunes since 1970 when I was in the state
legislature and Phil Hart introduced the organic bill at that
time.
I will tell you, I was kind of standing on the curb being
back in Lansing watching this. I got nicked by a truck once in
a while standing there on the curb. But it takes a lot of hard
work, and I commend you for bringing so many people together
who have shades of differences and sometimes more than shades
of differences.
I can recall when we created the wilderness study area, and
I can recall there was one small area that had we discovered a
fern that apparently grew only there. It wasn't many acres. How
many acres did we do? About 32,000 for wilderness. We added
about another 40 acres where that fern was growing. I don't
know whether we ever found a fern any place else, but I know
all the difficulties. I remember the speedboat struggle that
went on. That has been resolved and the boats can come up to
the shore now.
I think you have done an excellent job and those you have
been collaborating with and leading, and I think this is a very
good bill. Phil Hart was a personal friend of mine outside of
the political arena even. We used to go to mass together and
pray for good laws too hopefully. I think you have helped us do
some good lawmaking here.
Several controversial issues have been hotly debated. Is it
the case that H.R. 977 is part of a plan to resolve all those
various issues in this one bill?
Dr. Liesemer. Yes, that is the case. Our group and I thank
you for your comments. The Park Service also deserves credit on
this. The attitude changed from this is what the Congress has
mandated to let us find a solution together.
It takes a lot of time--as I mentioned, nine years--to
accomplish this, and sometimes well, we always hear the devil
is in the details. Sometimes the solutions are in the details,
and they dug into some of the details to find ways to make it
work. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee. Well, you used patience, knowledge and
determination because, as I say, I have been following this
since 1970.
It is not always easy, but with that knowledge and that
determination and that patience we can resolve these things. I
just wanted to commend you for your role in this. That is all I
have to say. I think you have done a great job.
Dr. Liesemer. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Johnson Thank you very much.
[inaudible] Ms. Rosenberg mentions in her testimony that
selling public land would come at the expense of the well-being
of local communities. In your research on rural economics, have
you come across any negative impacts on private land ownership?
Dr. Steed. No, sir, I have not come across that. The nature
of our research has been to look at the economic impacts of
different designation types, and what we know about different
designation types is any time we do designate there are in fact
tradeoffs. Those tradeoffs may include access to different
economic activities, different recreational activities.
When you designate wilderness you take everything from
mining to mountain biking off the table and in fact change how
locals interact with the property in which they live or the
area in which they live. And so I don't find that there are
negative impacts for private property. However, there may be
some benefits from public land ownership as well. Mostly this
depends on context, what is there.
Mr. Johnson OK. Thank you. Are you familiar with Headwaters
Economics and their analysis of the impact of national
monuments on the surrounding counties?
Dr. Steed. I am, yes.
Mr. Johnson Why do their conclusions differ from those of
yours and your colleagues, and what have you found to be the
impact on the counties where national monuments and/or borders
are affected?
Dr. Steed. I think it is a fair question. Headwaters
recently concluded a study of the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument. We were doing a study at the same time that
they were, and let me walk through the differences between our
study and theirs.
Their study looks at a standard growth model to where you
look at Time 1 as the economic conditions in Time 1, whole cost
in dollars, and compare economic conditions of Time N, whenever
the time ends. In looking at that study, what you don't have is
any comparison of economic conditions in those counties of
interest and other similarly situated counties.
I think our study addresses that in a better way, and the
way we do that is looking at the economic conditions in
Garfield and Kane Counties before the designation of the
monument, track those, compare economic conditions after the
designation of the monument and compare those changes with
other similarly situated counties.
In our study we have identified 100 closely matching
counties, and we find when we do that study we don't find the
same degree of economic benefit as identified in the Headwaters
study.
Mr. Johnson OK. And maybe you just answered this, but let
me make sure. Did any of their analysis include the lost
economic opportunity of land designations?
Dr. Steed. That is a second issue, in fact, that we don't
include in our study as well. This is the issue of opportunity
costs.
Whenever you make a designation you in fact change what can
happen with that property going forward. In the case of
wilderness or a national monument, by and large we consider
those to be in perpetuity. And so we didn't include those
opportunity costs, although we know they exist.
In the Grand Staircase-Escalante, there were large coal
reserves, as well as petroleum reserves, which were taken off
the table. We don't include those in the study because in fact
we don't know what would have happened had the monument not
been designated. We don't know if they would have proceeded or
not. However, local communities, especially in Garfield and
Kane Counties, made the claim that it would have been by far
better off to have those go forward.
In addition to that, and look at just the opportunity cost
question, referring to the Treasured Landscapes documents. BLM
recently released or I guess leaked a document saying that
there should be at least 15 more national monuments. We took a
look at what opportunity costs might be given up had those
monuments been designated. We looked specifically at energy
resources. We find that in fact if those monuments are
dedicated there will be a cost in terms of energy resources
that could be developed.
Interestingly, the bulk of the cost will be in renewable
energies that could be developed on those properties. Again,
this is not to say that this should or should not happen.
However, we just have to go forward knowing that there are
tradeoffs in whatever land use designations we make.
Mr. Johnson Did your study find any initial financial
benefits from monument designations? In other words, did
tourists flock to a new designation following the
proclamations?
Dr. Steed. In the Grand Staircase we did not find a marked
change in economic conditions compared to nondesignation
counties. In fact, mostly we find a null result, meaning that
we can't say yes or no that this was good for the economy.
We do find in Kane County a statistically significant
increase in tax revenues that is not matched in total payroll
and no impact in Garfield County that we can identify.
Mr. Johnson OK. Thank you. We will turn back now to the
Ranking Member for his second round of questioning.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just follow up, Mr. Steed. At a hearing two weeks
ago, your colleague, Dr. Yonk, testified as well. Is the
research that you are commenting and testifying on today, that
you are describing today, the same work that Professor Yonk has
testified on?
Dr. Steed. Yes. Dr. Yonk and I both work in the Center for
Public Lands and Rural Economics.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Dr. Steed. I work at Utah State. He works at Southern Utah
University.
Mr. Grijalva. So just to follow up, since it appears that
your work is going to become a linchpin to much of this
discussion, have you sought to have the work published, or has
it been published?
Dr. Steed. At this point we are currently seeking to
publish it.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Dr. Steed. As to the one we have----
Mr. Grijalva. Let me follow up. Has it been peer reviewed?
You have had this research that much credibility has been given
to.
Dr. Steed. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. Has that been peer reviewed?
Dr. Steed. The piece that is published as part of my
testimony today, the economic cost, was peer reviewed through
the environmentaltrends.org group.
Mr. Grijalva. So it is self-published?
Dr. Steed. It went through a peer review process.
Mr. Grijalva. If you would at least provide the Committee
additional information on that process----
Dr. Steed. Certainly.
Mr. Grijalva.--and the participants? I think it is very
valid as we go through. Your work and your research of you and
your colleagues is becoming central to this discussion. I think
your academic and scholarly credibility should also be part of
the discussion.
Professor Yonk testified that the establishment of the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has had no impact
on the local county economics. Do you agree with that
assessment?
Dr. Steed. As I have testified today, I think the only
economic impact that we have identified in that study is a
statistically significant rise in total tax revenues.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Dr. Yonk also testified, just to get both
sets of testimony in the right balance, that if the monument
had not been designated there was no guarantee that coal would
have been mined in the region. Do you agree with that----
Dr. Steed. Absolutely I agree.
Mr. Grijalva.--opportunity/lack of opportunity analysis?
Dr. Steed. Honestly I don't know what would have happened
in the Grand Staircase. I mean, there is reason to believe,
based on current regulations facing the development of coal
energy, that that may not be--that the Andalex Mine may not
have gone forward. I just don't know what would have happened.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Ms. Rosenberg, let me turn to you.
Briefly, not to get you into the opportunity cost discussion,
but about the economic value of public lands. If you could just
briefly outline that part of the discussion as you see it?
Ms. Rosenberg. What I can say is that Ray Rasker was here
testifying from Headwaters Economics testifying about the
economic values of public lands. There have been studies that
support the view that having a national park or national
monument or public lands in your vicinity raises income,
improves the economies of local communities. Apparently there
are studies on the other side.
I would say beyond economic value there are intangible
values that public lands may offer such as scenic and wildlife
and recreation and watershed that cannot be quantified in an
economic study, but there are certainly economic studies that
support the benefits of public land ownership.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. There are values opportunity, but I
don't know how you quantify that. I appreciate it, and I yield
back.
Mr. Bishop [presiding]. Thank you. If I have a chance to
give a couple of questions here?
Mr. Pool, if I can hit you up first? Is there a single
database, a web page, something, that maintains a consolidated
running total of BLM lands available for disposal?
Mr. Pool. Congressman, there is not one single database.
Those lands that have been identified are all associated with
our resource management plans. We produce on average we have
about 150 resource management plans, and those lands are all
contained in those plans.
Mr. Bishop. Such a database would be helpful. I know many
times when we are talking about land exchanges often times the
agency doesn't really know that they actually own the land in
the first place until we did an exhaustive land review of some
kind.
Dr. Steed, if I could ask you? Or actually Mr. Ward. Let me
just go down the list if I could here. To what extent do county
payments reimburse counties that are blessed with designated
wilderness and monuments?
Mr. Ward. Blessed with wilderness and to what extent are
they reimbursed?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, through county payments.
Mr. Ward. Well, if they are Department of the Interior
lands, BLM lands like Grand Staircase, then it depends upon the
nebulous, insecure and unstable PILT program, which always
struggles for recognition.
Mr. Bishop. Would you just compare, because we do have PILT
payments, and some people have criticized PILT payments on the
Floor of Congress saying it is welfare to the West.
Do the PILT payments--sorry about the P with the
microphone. Do the PILT payments actually in some way meet what
could be done if the land was in some way taxable, even on the
lowest rate of taxation?
Mr. Ward. Only in the most minute way, Chairman. Let us put
it this way. Kane and Garfield Counties, where the monument is
located, spend untold percentages of their budgets providing
governmental services throughout all of those millions of acres
of land, but they can't tax it, and the PILT payments are only
a fraction of what they could get otherwise.
Mr. Bishop. Dr. Steed, if I could ask you a couple of
questions? You responded, and I think you responded accurately,
to the Ranking Member's question about whether you could
predict that coal would have been developed in the Grand
Staircase-Escalante Monument. Under monument status will it
ever be developed?
Dr. Steed. To my knowledge, no. I think that is taken off
the table.
Mr. Bishop. That is one of the problems that we have down
there. Obviously for academic reasons you are very careful on
what you say. Obviously the people who live there locally are
much more verbose and direct in how they would answer those
questions.
Let me ask you one more question. States like Utah have a
productive state land policy Act. Do you evaluate the economic
benefits from state-owned lands, as opposed to similar
Federally owned lands?
Dr. Steed. Our studies to date haven't looked at that
question, but I can say that from my experience working in
Southern Utah as an attorney, those lands that are state owned
often have much more productive economic uses than similarly
held public land held by the Federal government.
Mr. Bishop. Your study that you did along with Dr. Yonk
down at Southern Utah University were highly different from
what the Headwaters Economics group, for example, did as far as
growth formula.
I think you touched on that briefly. Is there anything more
you want to say as to the difference between your approach
versus theirs?
Dr. Steed. Simply to point out I think there is a value in
comparing wilderness or even national monument properties or
national monument counties to counties that don't contain
those.
The Headwaters study simply have a growth study over time
and looking at this where you can compare empirics it is a
better claim if you are able to compare this with counties that
don't have similar designated properties, and I think that our
studies do that in a way that their studies don't.
Specifically, the Grand Staircase-Escalante study has
comparison to similarly situated counties where we don't find
the same dramatic economic growth as shown in the Headwaters
study.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. I have one minute
let.
Mr. Ward, let me finish off with you, if I could. Do you
consider FLTFA to be an effective method of disposal of Federal
lands?
Mr. Ward. FLPMA by itself and Section 203 of FLPMA has a
criteria for disposal of lands, but, as Mr. Pool alluded to and
others, it is a very complex, conditional type of process.
Congress needs to supplement that process, Chairman Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Let me ask you. I have 30 seconds here. I am
chewing gum and speaking at the same time. I can do it. It was
not FLPMA though I tried to say. It is Federal Land Transfer,
FLTFA.
Mr. Ward. Oh, I am sorry. I mis-heard you. I am going to
confess, I am not intimately familiar with that Act so I can't
help you there, Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. That is fair enough. I appreciate that. My time
has expired.
Are there other questions? Representative Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Just a personal one to Mr. Liesemer. Where did
you get your Ph.D.?
Dr. Liesemer. I am a Detroit guy. I grew up there. I got my
Master's and Ph.D. at Wayne State University in Organic
Chemistry.
Mr. Kildee. Very good. I noticed also that you have been
very active in the recycling of plastics, which is a very good
thing for our environment.
Dr. Liesemer. Thank you. You have done some homework. Yes.
I can say I think I am the guy that made plastic recycling a
reality in the United States.
Mr. Kildee. Well, for that we really thank you. That is
very, very important----
Dr. Liesemer. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee.--because that could be an enormous problem were
not someone willing to address that in a very massive and broad
way and one that has been very effective. We can always make
things better, but I think you deserve a great thanks for that
role too.
So we thank you for really being a public spirited person
who just makes our environment a lot better so we can enjoy it
and recognize what should be done to certain areas and what
should not be done to certain areas and know the difference. I
just admire someone who has the diligence that you have. Again,
thank you.
Dr. Liesemer. Well, thank you. And that effort was a joint
effort, a lot of joint work between government, primarily
counties and cities and private industries through the trade
association that I represented. I thought it worked very well.
The plastic industry put millions of dollars into it, and I
have to give them credit for backing me with that.
I certainly didn't have structural authority to tell these
government organizations what to do, but when we showed them
how to do it, they did it. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee. That was very effective, and we again thank you
for your work on that. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative Kildee. Congressman
Kildee is a gentleman to everybody here in this House, but when
he meets somebody from Michigan he is especially kind to you,
so you got treated royally by one of the nice guys.
If there are no other questions, I want thank this panel
for your willingness to come here and testify before us today.
It was very kind of you. I will personally apologize for having
to leave and come back, but I have had a chance of reading your
testimony and I thank you for your time and effort to be here
with us and make this panel and this hearing a success.
If there are no other questions and no further business,
without objection this Subcommittee will stand in adjournment.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Dave Camp, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, on H.R. 977
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased you are holding this hearing today and
appreciate the opportunity to submit my comments for the record.
My statement today is in support of legislation Rep. Bill Huizenga
(R-MI) and I introduced that will implement a new General Management
Plan for Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Since 2003, I have
been proud to represent the District that includes the Sleeping Bear
Dunes, a true national treasure. In fact, earlier this year the
television show Good Morning America conducted a national poll in which
Americans voted Sleeping Bear Dunes ``The Most Beautiful Place in
America.''
H.R. 977 is the culmination of years of work to craft and implement
a new General Management Plan. In 2002, the National Park Service began
an attempt to revise the park's management plan, pursuing the most
restrictive set of policies available including cutting off public
access to the beach. The public resoundingly rejected the proposed
plan, which did not address their input and concerns. As a result, the
Park Service eventually withdrew it.
In 2006, the effort to update the management plan for Sleeping Bear
Dunes resumed, but this time it was done the right way. The public,
local stakeholders and the National Park Service came together and
produced a compromise General Management Plan that adequately balances
preservation with public use. This management plan ensures that this
national treasure will be enjoyed by generations of Americans to come
by preserving access to its beaches on land and watercraft, maintaining
hunting and fishing rights, and protecting the most vulnerable aspects
of the ecosystem.
While stakeholder and public agreement has been reached, the plan
must still be passed into law. Last Congress, I was pleased to work
with Mr. Huizenga's predecessor, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, and with Senators
Levin and Stabenow to craft legislation to codify the General
Management Plan into law. Mr. Huizenga has taken great leadership on
this issue and, if the Committee sees fit to approve our bill, I am
confident he will be able to finally see this new management plan
across the finish line.
To conclude, I once again thank the subcommittee for the
opportunity to submit my comments, and urge the swift passage of the
bill.
______
Statement of Jim Pena, Acting Deputy Chief for National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 41--Beauty
Mountain and Agua Tibia Wilderness Act of 2011
Thank you for inviting the Department of Agriculture to testify on
H.R. 41, the Beauty Mountain and Agua Tibia Wilderness Act of 2011. We
will confine our remarks to the provisions of the bill that are related
to lands managed by the United States Forest Service, specifically the
Agua Tibia Wilderness Area. We defer to the Department of the Interior
on provisions relating to the Bureau of Land Management regarding the
Beauty Mountain Wilderness Area.
The Department supports the additions to the Agua Tibia Wildernss
and the additional protections that will be provided to the current
Cutca Valley Inventoried Roadless area.
Agua Tibia, which means ``warm water'' in Spanish, is a scenic area
of deep canyons with chaparral-covered slopes that give way to stands
of fir, pine and oak. H.R. 41 would designate as wilderness 7,796 acres
known as the Cutca Valley inventoried Roadless area adjacent to the
existing Agua Tibia Wilderness Area within the Cleveland National
Forest in the State of California. The acres included in this proposed
addition are consistent with recommended wilderness designation in the
current Land Management Plan of the Cleveland National Forest.
______
Statement of Jim Pena, Acting Deputy Chief for National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 113, Angeles
and San Bernardino National Forests Protection Act
H.R. 113 would designate approximately 18,983 acres (Cucamonga
Wilderness area) and 53,889 acres (Sheep Mountain Wilderness area) in
the San Bernardino National Forest in the State of California as
components of the National Wilderness System. In addition, this bill
contains provisions regarding private property and water rights
protections and permissible activities in the wilderness additions;
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to take measures in the
Cucamonga, Sheep Mountain, and San Gabriel Wilderness Areas that are
necessary for the control of fire, insects, and diseases; directs the
Secretary to assess a specified maintenance backlog in the Angeles and
San Bernardino National Forests; and requires completion of the studies
regarding the potential addition of portions of the San Gabriel River,
San Antonio Creek, and Middle Fork Lytle Creek in California to the
national wild and scenic rivers system.
We support the additions of the Cucamonga and Sheep Mountain areas
to the National Wildernesses Preservation System. In fact, we would
like to request the Committee also consider inclusion of an additional
5,167 acre area to the Sheep Mountain Wilderness as recommended in the
San Bernardino Forest Land Management Plan. This unit has solitude,
outstanding scenic vistas, and superb all-season primitive backcountry
recreation opportunities. It is identical in nature to the existing
Sheep Mountain and Cucamonga Wildernesses and has a manageable boundary
The Department was notified of this hearing on October 17, 2011.
Due to the lack of sufficient time to prepare for the hearing, we are
unable to offer detailed thoughts on H.R. 113. However, among other
things related to this bill, we are concerned about the impacts of
eliminating the backlog of deferred maintenance on other capital
improvement activities. To address the numerous issues related to this
bill, a more detailed analysis will be provided to the Subcommittee at
a later date.
______
Statement of Jim Pena, Acting Deputy Chief for National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on HR. 490--Cibola
National Forest Boundary Expansion
The Department supports the transfer of the ``Manzano Strip''
parcel to the Forest Service and it being added to and designated as
part of the Manzano Mountain Wilderness.
H.R. 490 directs the Secretary of the Interior to transfer a parcel
of land currently under the administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) to be incorporated into and managed as part of
the Cibola National Forest. This parcel abuts the northwest corner of
the Manzano Mountain Wilderness on the Mountainair Ranger District.
This 896-acre parcel is known as the Manzano Wilderness Study Area. Per
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, BLM currently manages this
area so as to not to impair its wilderness characteristics until
further direction is provided by Congress.
______
Statement of Jim Pena, Acting Deputy Chief for National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 608, To Expand
the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in the State of Washington, to Designate
the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River and Pratt River as Wild and Scenic
Rivers, and for Other Purposes
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the
Department of Agriculture on H.R. 608, the Alpine Lakes Wilderness
Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers Protection Act.
This legislation would designate approximately 22,173 acres as a
component of the National Wilderness System and approximately 37 miles
of river as components the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System on
the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in the State of Washington.
The Department supports, in concept, this legislation and we would like
to work with the Committee to address some technical issues as outlined
below.
We would also like the Committee to be aware that although we have
completed suitability studies for the wild and scenic rivers, we have
not completed a wilderness evaluation of the area to be designated
under this bill. The area that would be designated wilderness is
currently managed in an undeveloped manner as Late Successional Reserve
under the Northwest Forest Plan. A wilderness designation would be
compatible in this area. We thank the delegation for its collaborative
approach and local involvement that have contributed to this bill.
The proposed additions to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness lie in the
valleys of the Pratt River, the Middle and South Forks of the
Snoqualmie River. The existing 394,000 acre Alpine Lakes Wilderness is
one of the jewels of our wilderness system, encompassing rugged ice
carved peaks, over 700 lakes, and tumbling rivers. The lower valleys
include stands of old growth forest next to winding rivers with native
fish populations. The area is located within minutes of the Seattle
metro area. Trails accessing the area are among the most heavily used
in the Northwest as they lead to some exceptionally accessible and
beautiful destinations. The proposed additions to the Alpine Lakes
Wilderness would expand this area to include the entire heavily
forested Pratt River valley and trail approaches to lakes in the
wilderness area in the Interstate 90 corridor. These lands have not
been analyzed as part of the forest plan to determine their suitability
to be designated wilderness. However, the Forest Service would support
their designation with a few technical adjustments.
We would like to work with the Subcommittee to address some
technical aspects of the bill. These include:
The entire Pratt River Trail #1035 is included within the
boundary of the proposed wilderness. The first mile of this trail
currently is used by large numbers of people and groups. The trail,
which would be a primary access corridor for the newly designated
wilderness, is currently undergoing reconstruction by contract and
volunteer crews. The Department suggests that the wilderness boundary
be drawn to exclude approximately three miles of this trail so that
wilderness use limitations relating to solitude do not factor into
future management concerns that may limit public access to this area.
This change would not alter the wilderness proposal significantly, but
would allow the current recreation opportunities for high-use and large
groups along this stretch of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie to continue.
This adjustment also would reduce operation and maintenance costs along
this segment of the Pratt River Trail as it would ease any future
reconstruction efforts and allow for motorized equipment to be used in
its maintenance.
The northwestern boundary of the wilderness proposal
includes two segments of Washington State Department of Natural
Resources lands totaling about 300 acres. We recommend that the
boundary of the proposed wilderness be adjusted so that only National
Forest System lands are included, as the legislation does not include
authority for these lands to be acquired from the State of Washington.
In T.23 N, R.9 E, Section 24, there are two Forest
Development Roads proposed for decommissioning. These roads are within
the proposed wilderness. It is likely that the decommissioning project
will require the use of motorized equipment to help restore the
wilderness setting. We anticipate analyzing the use of motorized
equipment under the Forest Service's minimum requirements analysis
process.
H.R. 608 also would designate two rivers as additions to the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: approximately 9.5 miles of the
Pratt River from its headwaters to its confluence with the Middle Fork
Snoqualmie River; and approximately 27.4 miles of the Middle Fork
Snoqualmie River from its headwaters to within \1/2\ mile of the Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest boundary. Each river was studied in
the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Plan and determined to be a
suitable addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The Pratt River has outstandingly remarkable recreation, fisheries,
wildlife and ecological values. The corridor provides important hiking
and fishing opportunities in an undeveloped setting. The river supports
resident cutthroat trout and its corridor contains extensive deer and
mountain goat winter range and excellent riparian habitat. Its corridor
retains a diverse riparian forest, including remnant stands of low-
elevation old-growth.
The Middle Fork Snoqualmie River also has outstandingly remarkable
recreation, wildlife and fisheries values. The river is within an easy
driving distance from Seattle and attracts many visitors. It provides
important whitewater boating, fishing, hiking and dispersed recreation
opportunities. The river corridor contains extensive deer winter range
and excellent riparian habitat for numerous wildlife species. This is
the premier recreational inland-fishing location on the National Forest
due to its high-quality resident cutthroat and rainbow trout
populations.
Adding these rivers to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
will protect their free-flowing condition, water quality and
outstandingly remarkable values. Designation also promotes partnerships
among landowners, river users, tribal nations and all levels of
government to provide for their stewardship. We therefore support the
designation of these rivers into the National Wild and Scenic River
System.
The Department has one concern with the wild and scenic river
designations relating to the management of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie
River Road. We are currently in the process of improving this road and
feel that this work is needed to protect the wild and scenic values
associated with this river while improving visitor safety and watershed
health. Approximately 20 years ago, the U.S. Forest Service submitted
the Middle Fork Road to the Federal Highway Administration for
reconstruction via their enhancement program. The project has been
approved, design work is approximately 50% complete, and construction
is planned for 2013 or 2014. The Federal Highway Administration has
expended approximately $3.5 million to date on the project.
Notwithstanding designation as a Scenic River under this legislation,
we would like to work with the Committee to find language which would
allow the Middle Fork Road project to proceed as designed and assure
that long term maintenance objectives of the road are not adversely
impacted by this designation.
______
Statement of Jim Pena, Acting Deputy Chief for National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 1413, the
``Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2011''
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture on
H.R. 1413, the ``Devil's Staircase Wilderness Act of 2011.''
H.R. 1413 would designate an area known as the ``Devil's
Staircase'' as wilderness under the National Wilderness Preservation
System. In addition, H.R. 1413 would designate segments of Wasson and
Franklin Creeks in the State of Oregon as wild rivers under the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act. The Department supports the designation of the
Devil's Staircase wilderness as well as the Wild and Scenic River
designations on National Forest System lands.
Devil's Staircase Wilderness Designation
The Devil's Staircase area lies in the central Oregon Coast Range
north of the Umpqua River and south of the Smith River. Elevations in
the area range from near sea level to about 1,600 feet. The area is
characterized by steep, highly dissected terrain. It is quite remote
and difficult to access. A stair step waterfall on Wasson Creek is the
source of the name ``Devil's Staircase''.
The proposed wilderness encompasses approximately 30,520 acres of
National Forest System (NFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands.
Approximately 7,800 acres of the NFS lands are within the Wasson Creek
Undeveloped Area under the Forest Plan for the Siuslaw National Forest
and were evaluated for wilderness characteristics in the 1990 Siuslaw
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.
All NFS lands that would be designated as wilderness are classified
as Late Successional Reserve under the Northwest Forest Plan, which
amended the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
in 1994. This land allocation provides for the preservation of old
growth (late successional) habitat. There are no planned resource
management or developed recreation projects within the NFS portion of
the lands to be designated as wilderness.
Most of the area is forested with older stands of Douglas fir and
western hemlock, and with red alder in riparian areas. All three tree
species are under-represented in the National Wilderness Preservation
System, relative to its abundance on NFS lands in Washington and
Oregon. These older stands provide critical habitat and support nesting
pairs of the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, which are
listed as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
The proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness provides an outstanding
representation of the Oregon Coast Range and would enhance the National
Wilderness Preservation System. The Oregon Coast Range has been largely
modified with development, roading, and logging. Three small wilderness
areas currently exist along the Oregon portion of the Pacific Coast
Range, and the proposed Devil's Staircase Wilderness would more than
double the acres of old growth coastal rainforest in a preservation
status. Wilderness designation would also preserve the Devil's
Staircase which is a unique landscape feature.
Wild and Scenic River Designations
H.R. 1413 would also designate approximately 10.4 miles of streams
on National Forest System lands as part of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System: 5.9 miles of Wasson Creek and 4.5 miles of Franklin
Creek, both on the Siuslaw National Forest.
Both Wasson and Franklin Creeks have been identified by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as critical habitat for coho
salmon (Oregon Coast ESU [Evolutionarily Significant Unit] of coho
salmon), a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
The Department defers to the Department of the Interior in regard
to the proposal to designate the 4.2-mile segment of Wasson Creek
flowing on lands administered by BLM.
The Forest Service conducted an evaluation of the Wasson and
Franklin Creeks to determine their eligibility for wild and scenic
rivers designation as part of the forest planning process for the
Siuslaw National Forest. However, the Agency has not conducted a wild
and scenic river suitability study, which provides the basis for
determining whether to recommend a river as an addition to the National
System. Wasson Creek was found eligible as it is both free-flowing and
possesses outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational and ecological
values. The Department supports designation of the 1.7 miles of the
Wasson Creek on NFS lands based on the segment's eligibility.
At the time of the evaluation in 1990, Franklin Creek, although
free flowing, was found not to possess river-related values significant
at a regional or national scale and was therefore determined ineligible
for designation. Subsequent to the 1990 eligibility study the Forest
Service has found that, Franklin Creek provides critical habitat for
Coho salmon, currently listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act, and also serves as a reference stream for research because
of its relatively pristine character which is extremely rare in the
Oregon Coast Range. The Department does not oppose its designation.
Designation of the proposed segments of both Wasson and Franklin Creeks
is consistent with the proposed designation of the area as wilderness.
The actual Devil's Staircase landmark is located on Wasson Creek.
We would like to work with the bill sponsors and the committee on
several amendments and map revisions that we believe would enhance
wilderness values and improve the bill.
I would be happy to answer any questions the committee has on these
designations.
Statement of Jim Pena, Acting Deputy Chief for National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 2050, the
``Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act''
The U.S. Forest Service supports H.R.2050, which would direct the
issuance of a special use permit, if certain conditions are met, for
the continued use of a water storage, transport, or diversion facility
located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church-River of No
Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Idaho.
Currently, there are over 22 water developments within the Frank Church
and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Areas that predate establishment
of the wilderness, in some cases by decades. These developments include
irrigation, domestic water uses and small private hydropower
developments. The legislation establishing both wilderness areas did
not address these pre-existing water developments. H.R. 2050 would
direct the Forest Service to issue special use authorizations, if the
Secretary makes the following determinations: the facility was in
existence when the wilderness area on which the facility is located was
designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System; the
facility has been in substantially continuous use to deliver water for
the beneficial use on the owner's non-Federal land since the date of
designation; the owner of the facility has a valid water right for use
of the water on the owner's non-Federal land under Idaho State law,
with a priority date that pre-dates the date of designation; and it is
not practicable or feasible to relocate the facility outside the
wilderness and achieve the continued beneficial use of water on non-
Federal land. We understand that the bill does not create any rights
beyond what is provided in the special use permit and that both
maintenance responsibilities and liabilities continue with the permit
holder, and not the Federal government.