[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1241, H.R. 1818, H.R. 2984, AND H.R. 4234
=======================================================================
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
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, March 29, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-104
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-547 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Betty Sutton, OH
Scott R. Tipton, CO Niki Tsongas, MA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Raul R. Labrador, ID John Garamendi, CA
Kristi L. Noem, SD Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Steve Southerland II, FL Paul Tonko, NY
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV
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 Betty Sutton, OH
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
David Rivera, FL John Garamendi, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Vacancy
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Mark Amodei, NV
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, March 29, 2012......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Labrador, Hon. Raul R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho............................................. 16
Lujan, Hon. Ben Ray, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico........................................ 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 1241.......................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Garcia, Hon. Ester, Mayor, Village of Questa, New Mexico..... 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 1241.......................... 8
Martin, Stephanie L., Programs Coordinator, Friends of
Maine's Seabird Islands.................................... 37
Prepared statement on H.R. 2984.......................... 38
Letter submitted for the record.......................... 40
Pool, Mike, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Oral statement on H.R. 1241.... 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 1241.......................... 5
Oral statement on H.R. 2984.............................. 35
Prepared statement on H.R. 2984.......................... 36
Oral statement on H.R. 4234.............................. 20
Prepared statement on H.R. 4234.......................... 21
Richards, Brenda, Secretary/Treasurer, Public Lands Council.. 22
Prepared statement on H.R. 4234.......................... 24
Weldon, Leslie A.C., Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............. 18
Prepared statement on H.R. 1818.......................... 44
Prepared statement on H.R. 4234.......................... 19
Additional materials supplied:
Gardner, Christopher, Chair, Washington County Commissioners,
Letter to Hon. Rob Bishop submitted for the record on H.R.
2984....................................................... 42
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, Statement submitted for the
record on H.R. 1818........................................ 45
Michaud, Hon. Michael, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maine, Statement submitted for the record on H.R.
2984....................................................... 45
Northern New Mexico Stockmen, New Mexico Cattle Growers'
Association, New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc., and New Mexico
Federal Lands Council, Letter to Hon. Ben Ray Lujan,
submitted for the record on H.R. 1241...................... 13
LLEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1241, TO ESTABLISH THE RIO GRANDE
DEL NORTE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA IN THE STATE OF NEW
MEXICO, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``RIO GRANDE DEL NORTE NATIONAL
CONSERVATION AREA ESTABLISHMENT ACT''; H.R. 1818, TO DESIGNATE
MT. ANDREA LAWRENCE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``MT. ANDREA
LAWRENCE DESIGNATION ACT OF 2011''; H.R. 2984, TO DESIGNATE
CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS WITHIN THE CROSS ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE AND THE PETIT MANAN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, PART OF
THE MAINE COASTAL ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX, IN
LINCOLN COUNTY, HANCOCK COUNTY, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, MAINE,
AS WILDERNESS. ``MAINE COASTAL ISLANDS WILDERNESS ACT OF
2011''; AND H.R. 4234, TO AMEND THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1976 TO IMPROVE THE MANAGEMENT OF GRAZING
LEASES AND PERMITS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Thursday, March 29, 2012
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 notice, at 10:28 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Labrador; Kildee and Holt.
Also Present: Representative Lujan.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear
testimony on four particular bills. Under the Rules, the
opening statements are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking
Member. However, I ask unanimous consent that any Member may
submit a statement to the Clerk if done by the close of
business today. And hearing no objection, so ordered.
We are here to hear testimony on four particular bills. In
view of the time, because we are going to try to get this done
as quickly as possible and there are votes that are going to be
continuously interrupting us on the Floor, I am going to forego
any opening statement. Anything I have to say will be put in
the record.
I will turn to Mr. Lujan, who is sitting in for Mr.
Grijalva today, to see if he has an opening statement.
Hopefully not.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I will make a quick one as opposed
to the original one that I had prepared.
We want to thank you and all of the witnesses that are here
today for being with us to talk about this important
legislation bills--one that protects cultural and traditional
uses of land, landscapes in New Mexico; another protects marine
coastal life; and the third is the naming of a peak in
California after a noted Olympian. I am glad that the two
wilderness bills were part of the extensive public involvement,
allowing stakeholders to have a voice in this process.
We also have Congressman Labrador's bill related to grazing
on Federal land. While I appreciate the intent of my fellow
Congressman, Mr. Labrador, his bill is a good beginning to a
conversation on how to address the backlog of grazing permit
renewals. The current situation of grazing permit renewals is
untenable. I hope this conversation is the beginning of what we
can do to help resolve this important issue. I appreciate that,
Mr. Chairman. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bishop. All right. We have four bills that will be
before us today. I realize there are scheduling conflicts,
which means that some of the sponsors of these bills will be
unable to be here. Their statements will appear in the record.
That also means, since they snubbed us, that their bills have
the proverbial chance in--oh, never mind.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. We do have two that will be here. Mr. Labrador
will be here in a minute; I know he is voting and coming back
here right now. And Mr. Lujan, I believe, is speaking on behalf
of Mr. Heinrich's bill?
Mr. Lujan. I actually have a bill myself, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry. Do you want to talk about Mr.
Heinrich's bill? No, I am just kidding.
We will turn to Mr. Lujan first. If he would introduce his
bill, when Mr. Labrador gets here, we will have him introduce
his bill. And then we will go to the panel. Mr. Lujan, please.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And we have a
few witnesses that are with us today, namely, our Mayor, The
Honorable Ester Garcia from Mora. We also have one of our
allottees from the area under question, Mr. Erminio Martinez,
and one of our fellow Commissioners from the County of Mora, in
addition to the responsibilities and hats that he wears, John
Olivas. Thank you all for being here.
Mr. Chairman, this is an area in New Mexico where we talk
about the importance of protecting historic areas, looking at
small towns and villages, an area of New Mexico that actually
pre-dates the United States Government, pre-dates the creation
of the United States Forest Service as well.
Historically, the towns and villages and Pueblos that have
lived off the forests and grasslands in New Mexico pre-date the
creation of the U.S. Forest Service, and we have a close
cultural connection to the land. Both North Americans and
Spanish settlers used these lands for subsistence and
sustenance as well, when we talk about the centuries that they
have accessed these lands and the treasures surrounding them.
For those of you who are not familiar with New Mexico's
rich traditions, a land grant is a communal grant of land given
to a community or village in perpetuity for the purpose of
subsistence and sustenance; an acequia is a centuries-old
irrigation canal which is governed through the collective
maintenance of the water system so that water can move into
areas for watering crops, raising animals--both of which have
allowed New Mexico settlements to thrive and still play an
important role in our culture, our daily lives, and in the
relationships between these communities and our public lands.
We often describe these water systems as the ancient
aqueducts in Rome. They start at the head gates and they move
down through hand-carved canals, if you will, earthen ditches,
that carry this important water.
Before New Mexico was a territory of the Unites States,
land grant communities, rural villages and acequias were
governed through the communal management of natural resources,
including water, timber, grazing lands, wildlife, herbs, and
fields that were the life of these communities.
These traditions still exist today, with many that have
direct ties to ancestors that go back 12, 13, sometimes 16
generations, Mr. Chairman. The Rio Grande del Norte National
Conservation Area, H.R. 1241, is the legislation that we have
before us today. The threat that development poses to these
traditions will negatively impact our culture, making
protection of these lands so critical.
Not only do these lands represent the collective cultural
and traditional history of the communities that surround the
proposed Conservation and Wilderness Area, they also represent
the collective effort between the conservation community and
local stakeholders.
Many years of work went in to the creation of this proposal
with local communities, grazing permittees, land grant
communities, acequia organizations, local businesses, and
conservation organizations. It is truly a reflection of how
partnership can work and what I hope to be an example of model
legislation going forward for the State of New Mexico.
The legislation not only recognizes and reflects the need
to protect these areas, but also takes into account the special
access that needs to be allowed for these lands and traditions
and cultures of the surrounding communities to thrive. I am
confident, with a few technical changes, that the bill can be
strengthened to protect the heritage of New Mexico, and I am
committed to do that.
Mr. Chairman, the environmentally, culturally, and
historically rich landscapes of the San Luis Valley and Rio
Grande Gorge that encompass the proposed Rio Grande del Norte
National Conservation Area are part of New Mexico's rich
treasures.
Growing up in the small community of Nambe, a small farming
community that I still call home, where we still raise sheep,
an area of New Mexico where my grandfather, my dad's dad,
Soledon, actually grazed sheep and ran them right after the
Great Depression, Mr. Chairman. This is something that is very
personal to me. It is something that is important to many
people in New Mexico, and it is something that we look forward
to accomplishing together.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lujan follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ben Ray Lujan, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Mexico, on H.R. 1241, To establish the Rio Grande
del Norte National Conservation Area in the State of New Mexico
Mr. Chairman--I want to thank you for having this hearing today to
talk about the value of protecting our public lands in New Mexico and
the role they play in living out the centuries old cultures and
traditions we have in there. H.R. 1241, a bill to establish the Rio
Grande del Norte National Conservation Area, is a big step forward in
the effort to protect environmentally sensitive areas as well as
recognize the traditional uses of the land that means so much to the
history and future of New Mexico.
Historically--the towns, villages and Pueblos that have lived off
the forest and grasslands in New Mexico pre-date the creation of the
U.S. Forest Service. We have a very close cultural connection to the
land. Both Native Americans and Spanish settlers used these lands for
subsistence, and for centuries have treasured and helped to
successfully manage the resources that the life-giving forests and
grasslands contain.
For those of you who aren't familiar with New Mexico's rich
traditions--a Land Grant is a communal grant of land given to a
community or village in perpetuity for the purpose of subsistence and
sustenance--An Acequia is a centuries old irrigation canal which is
governed through the collective maintenance of the water system so that
water can flow to the fields for irrigating crops--both of which have
allowed New Mexico settlements to thrive and still play an important
role in our culture, our daily lives, and in the relationship between
these communities and our public lands.
Before New Mexico was a territory of the Unites States, Land Grant
Communities, Rural Villages and Acequias were governed through the
communal management of natural resources, including water, timber,
grazing lands, wildlife, herbs, and fields that were the life of these
communities. These traditions still exist today and can be strengthened
by the protection of areas like those outlined in H.R. 1241--The Rio
Grande del Norte National Conservation Area. The threat that
development poses to these traditions will negatively impact our
culture, making protection of these lands so critical, not to mention
the protection of vital wildlife habitat and environmentally sensitive
areas in the region.
Not only do these lands represent the collective cultural and
traditional history of the communities that surround the proposed
Conservation and Wilderness Area, they also represent the collective
effort between the conservation community and local stakeholders to
protect lands that are as beautiful as they are culturally sensitive.
Many years of work went in to the creation of this proposal with
local comminutes, grazing permitees, land grant communities, acequia
organization, local businesses, and conservation organizations. The
legislation not only recognizes and reflects the need to protect these
areas, but also takes into account the special access that needs to be
allowed to these lands for the traditions and cultures of the
surrounding communities to thrive. I am confident with a few technical
changes that the bill can be strengthened to protect the heritage of
New Mexico and I am committed to do that.
Mr. Chairman, the environmentally, culturally, and historically
rich landscapes of the San Luis Valley and Rio Grande Gorge that
encompass the proposed Rio Grande del Norte National Conservation Area
are part of Mexico's rich treasures. Growing up in the small community
of Nambe I know the importance of access to the land and that is why I
appreciate the work that has been done with this proposal which offers
protection of beautiful landscapes, preserves grazing, and specifically
protects our right to carry out the centuries old traditions that make
us uniquely New Mexican.
Thank you
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And I will not make the mistake of
missing your bill again.
The panel that is in front of us right now includes Leslie
Weldon, who is the Deputy Chief of the National Forest System;
Mike Pool, who is the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Land
Management; Brenda Richards, who is the Secretary/Treasurer of
the Public Lands Council; Mayor Garcia, Ester Garcia--we are
happy to have you here--and Stephanie Martin, who is the
Friends of Maine's Seabird Islands Program Coordinator. Did I
miss somebody up there? No? I got you all.
What I am going to do here is we have just gone through Mr.
Lujan's bill, which is No. 1241. So what I am going to do is
ask the comments toward 1241 first. We will check that off.
Mr. Pool, I will go with you first on 1241 only, and then
we will turn to Mayor Garcia. Five minutes each for this
particular bill. Mr. Pool, thank you for being here. You are
on.
STATEMENT OF MIKE POOL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY
JAMES W. KURTH, CHIEF, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM, U.S.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Pool. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 1241, the Rio Grande del Norte
National Conservation Area Establishment Act. The Department of
the Interior supports H.R. 1241, which designates the nearly
236,000-acre Rio Grande del Norte National Conservation Area in
Northern New Mexico, as well as two wilderness areas within the
NCA.
The proposed Rio Grande del Norte NCA lies north of Taos on
the border with Colorado, and straddles Taos and Rio Arriba
Counties. The area includes several volcanic cones jutting up
from the surrounding valley, reminders of the area's turbulent
geologic past. Between these mountains is the Rio Grande, a
wild and scenic river gorge, carving through the landscape and
revealing the basalt rock beneath the surface.
H.R. 1241 is the product of many years of discussions and
collaborations with the local community, stakeholders, and
other interested parties. It protects both the valuable
resources of this area and the way of life in this unique area
of Northern New Mexico.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R.
1241. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pool on H.R. 1241 follows:]
Statement of Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1241, Rio Grande del Norte
National Conservation Area Act
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1241, the Rio
Grande del Norte National Conservation Area Establishment Act. The
Department of the Interior supports H.R. 1241, which designates the
nearly 236,000-acre Rio Grande del Norte National Conservation Area
(NCA) in northern New Mexico as well as two wilderness areas within the
NCA. The Secretary's November 2011 Preliminary Report to Congress on
BLM Lands Deserving Protection as National Conservation Areas,
Wilderness or Other Conservation Designations highlighted the Rio
Grande del Norte as a proposal deserving Congress' prompt attention.
Background
The proposed Rio Grande del Norte NCA lies north of Taos on the
border with Colorado and straddles Taos and Rio Arriba Counties. The
area includes the Cerro de la Olla, Cerro San Antonio and Cerro del
Yuta volcanic cones jutting up from the surrounding valley--reminders
of the area's turbulent geologic past. Between these mountains is the
Rio Grande Wild & Scenic River gorge, carving through the landscape and
revealing the basalt rock beneath the surface.
The human history of the landscape is as diverse as its features.
Early prehistoric sites attest to the importance of this area for
hunting and as a sacred site. Today the area is home to members of the
Taos Pueblo, as well as descendants of both Hispanic and American
settlers. Wildlife species--including bighorn sheep, deer, elk and
antelope--bring both hunters and wildlife watchers, while the Rio
Grande and its tributaries provide blue ribbon trout fishing and other
river recreation. Above it all soar the golden and bald eagles, prairie
falcons, and other raptors.
H.R. 1241
H.R. 1241 designates nearly 236,000 acres of land administered by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as the Rio Grande del Norte NCA.
Each of the NCAs designated by Congress and managed by the BLM is
unique. For the most part, however, they have certain critical
elements, which include withdrawal from the public land, mining and
mineral leasing laws; off-highway vehicle use limitations; and language
that charges the Secretary of the Interior with allowing only those
uses that further the purposes for which the NCA is established.
Furthermore, NCA designations should not diminish the protections that
currently apply to the lands. Section 3 of the bill honors these
principles, and we support the NCA's designation.
Section 4 of the H.R. 1241 designates two wilderness areas on BLM-
managed lands within the NCA--the proposed 13,420-acre Cerro del Yuta
Wilderness and the 8,000-acre Rio San Antonio Wilderness. Both of these
areas meet the definitions of wilderness. They are largely untouched by
humans, have outstanding opportunities for solitude and contain
important geological, biological and scientific features--criteria
outlined in the Wilderness Act of 1964. We support both of these
wilderness designations as well.
Conclusion
H.R. 1241 is the product of many years of discussions and
collaboration with the local community, stakeholders, and other
interested parties. It protects both the valuable resources of the area
and the way of life in this unique area of northern New Mexico.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 1241.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mayor Garcia, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ESTER GARCIA,
MAYOR OF QUESTA, NEW MEXICO
Ms. Garcia. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for holding today's hearing on H.R. 1241, legislation
introduced by The Honorable Ben Ray Lujan and his colleague, a
fellow New Mexican and also a Member of this Committee,
Representative Martin Heinrich.
My name is Ester Garcia, Mayor of the Village of Questa,
President of the San Antonio del Rio Colorado Land Grant and a
Commissioner for the Cabresto Acequia Association. I appreciate
the opportunity to urge you to support H.R. 1241 to establish
the Rio Grande del Norte National Conservation Area. As a
lifelong resident of Northern New Mexico, my family going back
11 generations living and working in this unique and beautiful
landscape, I wish to convey to you my heartfelt belief that
Congress must act to protect what to many of us is truly sacred
land.
and I want to congratulate and publicly thank Congressmen
Lujan and Heinrich, and as well Senators Bingaman and Udall,
for their leadership. This historic legislation will forever
protect a truly amazing place in Northern New Mexico, including
the stunning Rio Grande Gorge, which at some places is a half
mile wide across, dropping to the Rio Grande River 800 feet
below.
Like this Committee, I serve as an elected official within
my community, as Mayor of the Village of Questa, north of Taos,
New Mexico. As an elected official, I know the difficult
choices one must make when representing one's constituents and
the need to balance competing interests.
And this is what has brought me here before you today, on
behalf of not only the citizens I have the pleasure to
represent, but also the vast majority of all Northern New
Mexicans who seek to safeguard these special lands for our
children and grandchildren. I can assure you that support for
this legislation is broad, deep, and strong.
I would like to acknowledge Mr. Erminio Martinez, who made
the journey with me from Taos County. A 12th generation New
Mexican, Mr. Martinez grazes cattle in Taos County as his
ancestors have done for hundreds of years. He has also served
as a Magistrate Judge in Taos County, and has submitted written
testimony for this hearing.
My grandfather, J.P. Real, Jose Plajeres Real, and his
brothers formed a cattle business and general store in Questa
in 1930. When I grew up, there was no running water. We walked
to the store, we grew our own food, and put up our hay for our
cattle. We survived because of the land and the water that
nature has generously provided for us. As my grandfather said,
``Sin tierra, no hay nada; sin agua, no hay vida.'' In English,
``Without land, you have nothing; without water, there is no
life.''
So far I am not aware of any disputes with the proposed Rio
Grande del Norte National Conservation Area. This landscape is
of extraordinary scenic, environmental, economic, cultural, and
recreational value. This area is a high mesa of sagebrush and
grasslands scattered with volcanic cinder cones covered with
pinon juniper woodlands. Here, in the upper reaches of the Rio
Grande Gorge, are vital elk wintering grounds, key habitat for
bighorn sheep, antelope, and deer, and a world-renowned
migratory corridor for birds of prey--peregrine falcons, bad
eagles, and golden eagles.
Across this landscape, we who live nearby and growing
number of visitors enjoy hunting, fishing, bird watching,
photography, hiking, camping, river rafting, mountain climbing,
pinon picking, and the amazing natural scenery. All of this is
vital support for our local economy. Hunting and fishing alone
in the Rio Grande area contributes vital financial resources to
New Mexico's economy.
Communities such as Questa, Rio Hondo, Cerro, Pilar, and
Antonito have been bound economically and spiritually to this
wild landscape for many generations. One of the great virtues
of H.R. 1241 is that it takes a comprehensive approach to the
conservation of this landscape, with full recognition that
there is a long human history to this region and that our small
communities continue to be an essential element of the
landscape. The legislation will protect both the natural
resources and the way of life of this unique area, both of
which link our communities.
Those of us with deep roots in Northern New Mexico
appreciate that the protection of these landscapes preserves
grazing within the National Conservation Area, and specifically
protects our right to hunt, fish, and collect pinon nuts,
herbs, and firewood. It directs the Bureau of Land Management
to preserve the cultural, natural, and scenic resources in the
area. This measure will help ensure that these ancestral lands
will remain as they are for those who will come after us.
Mr. Chairman, there is overwhelming local support for this
legislation. Because of the collaborative way our congressional
delegation has crafted this measure, many groups that have not
always seen eye to eye on conservation issues have come
together to support protecting this special landscape.
Community involvement was extensive, and the considerations
taken in the bill's language to accommodate the needs of
traditional communities were significant. The legislation being
before this Committee today is the product of years of meetings
and discussions amongst those most affected, and I can assure
you that Northern New Mexicans overwhelmingly support this
legislation.
To ensure that you have a complete record illustrating the
very broad support for this legislation in our local
communities, I would like to submit these official documents.
The first is the Resolution of Support of the Taos County
Commission, May 19, 2009. As you will see, the Commission's
resolution mentions the following:
``Recommends that Congress enact the Rio Grande del Norte
National Conservation Area Establishment Act, and that the
legislation include appropriate language to protect the San
Antonio Wilderness and the Cerro del Yuta Wilderness in order
to protect their scenic, environmental, economic, and
recreational values.''
I am submitting for the record a list of some of the vital
support in the proposal.
Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Subcommittee. This concludes my statement. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Garcia follows:]
Statement of Ester Garcia, Mayor, Village of Questa, New Mexico, on
H.R. 1241, The Rio Grande del Norte Conservation Area Establishment Act
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding
today's hearing on H.R. 1241, legislation introduced by my Congressman,
the Honorable Ben Ray Lujan, and cosponsored by his colleague, a fellow
New Mexican and also a Member of this Committee, Representative Martin
Heinrich.
I appreciate this opportunity to urge your support for H.R. 1241 to
establish the Rio Grande del Norte National Conservation Area. As a
life-long resident of northern New Mexico, with my family going back
many generations living and working in this unique and beautiful
landscape, I wish to convey to you my heartfelt belief that the
Congress must act to protect what to many of us is truly sacred land.
And, I want to congratulate and publicly thank Congressmen Lujan and
Heinrich, as well as Senators Bingaman and Udall. With their
leadership, this historic legislation will forever protect a truly
amazing natural gem, including the stunning Rio Grande gorge--which at
some places is a half mile wide across, dropping to the Rio Grande
River 800 feet below.
Like you, I serve in elective office--as Mayor of the village of
Questa, north of Taos, New Mexico. As an elected official, I know full
well the difficult choices one must make when representing one's
constituents and the need to balance competing interests. And, this is
what has brought me before you here today--on behalf of not only the
citizens I have the pleasure to represent, but also the vast majority
of all northern New Mexicans who seek to safeguard these special lands
for our children and grandchildren. I can assure you that support for
this legislation is broad, deep and strong.
I would like to acknowledge Mr. Erminio Martinez, who made the
journey here with me from Taos County. A 12th generation New Mexican,
Mr. Martinez grazes cattle in Taos County as his ancestors have done
for hundreds of years. He has also served as a magistrate judge in Taos
County, and has submitted written testimony for this hearing.
My grandfather, J. P. Real, and his brothers formed a cattle
business and general store in Questa in 1930. When I grew up, there was
no running water. We walked to the store, grew our own food, and put up
hay for our cattle. We survived because of the land and water that
nature had so generously provided us. As my grandfather said, ``Without
land you have nothing, without water there is no life.''
So far as I am aware, no one disputes that the proposed Rio Grande
del Norte National Conservation Area is a landscape of extraordinary
scenic, environmental, economic, cultural, and recreational value. This
is a high mesa of sagebrush and grasslands interspersed with volcanic
cinder cones covered with pinon-juniper woodlands. Here, in the upper
reaches of the Rio Grande Gorge, are vital elk wintering grounds, key
habitat for bighorn sheep, antelope and deer, and an world renowned
migratory corridor for birds of prey--Peregrine falcons, Bald eagles,
and Golden eagles.
Across this landscape, we who live nearby and a growing number of
visitors enjoy hunting, fishing, bird watching, photography, hiking,
camping, river rafting, mountain climbing, pinon picking, and the
amazing national scenery. All of this is vital support for our local
economy. Hunting and fishing alone in the Rio Grande area contribute
tens of millions of dollars to New Mexico's economy annually.
Communities such as Questa, Hondo, Cerro, Pilar, and Antonito have
been bound economically and spiritually to this wild landscape for many
generations. One of the great virtues of H.R. 1241 is that it takes a
comprehensive approach to the conservation of this landscape, with full
recognition that there is a long human history to this region and that
our small communities continue to be an essential element of the
landscape. The legislation will protect both the natural resources and
the way of life of this unique area, both of which are intrinsically
linked in our community.
Those of us with deep roots in northern New Mexico appreciate that
the protection of these landscapes preserves grazing within the
National Conservation Area, and specifically protects our right to
hunt, fish and collect pinon nuts and firewood. It directs the Bureau
of Land Management to preserve the cultural, natural and scenic
resources in the area. The measure will help ensure that these
ancestral lands will remain as they are for those who will come after
us.
Mr. Chairman, there is overwhelming local support for this
legislation. Because of the collaborative way our congressional
delegation has crafted this measure, many groups that haven't always
seen eye to eye on conservation issues have come together to support
protecting this special landscape. Community involvement was extensive
and the considerations taken in the bill's language to accommodate the
needs of traditional communities were significant. The legislation
being before this subcommittee today is the product of years of
meetings and discussions amongst those most affected, and I can assure
you that northern New Mexicans overwhelmingly back it.
To ensure that you have a complete record illustrating the very
broad support for this legislation in our local communities, I would
like to submit these official documents. The first is the Resolution of
support of the Taos County Commission, May 19, 2009. As you will see,
the Commission resolved that it:
. . .recommends that Congress enact. . .the Rio Grande Del
Norte National Conservation Area Establishment Act, and that
the legislation include appropriate language to protect the Rio
San Antonio Wilderness and the Cerro del Yuta Wilderness in
order to protect their scenic, environmental, economic, and
recreational values.''
I am also submitting for the record a list of some of the varied
supporters for the proposal.
Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. This concludes my statement. I look forward to answering
any questions you may have.
Endorsing Newspapers:
Taos News
Santa Fe New Mexican
Albuquerque Journal
Endorsing Organizations:
San Antonio de Rio Colorado Land Grant
Taos County Chamber of Commerce
Mora Valley Chamber of Commerce
Hondo Mesa Community Association
Sustain Taos Rivers and Birds Western Environmental Law Center
Taos Business Alliance
Taos Land Trust
Latino Sustainability Institute
New Mexico Wildlife Federation
New Mexico Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
New Mexico Wilderness Alliance
The Wilderness Society
Business owners:
Act One Gallery
Acuarelas Studio Gallery
Angie Colman Studio
Antiquarians Imports
Art Divas
Bookmarks Literary Services
Brazos Fine Art
Charles Collins Gallery
Chantal
Christmas in Taos Village Shop
Claireworks
Clark and Company
Cold Smoke Photography
Copy Queen of Taos
Coyote Moon
Dragonfly Cafe
Dobson House Bed and Breakfast
Doug West Gallery
El Porvenir
El Rincon Trading Post
Emily Ruffin Design
Enchanted Dreams Foundation
Far-Flung Adventures
Fernandez de Taos Bookstore
Fidget Gallery
For Art's Sake
Francesca's Clothing Boutiques
Frank Seckler Gallery
From the Andes
Garden and Soul
Gypsy 360 Cafe
Hair Bodyworks
Hondo Mesa Community Association
Hotel La Fonda
Import Outlet
Indian Hills Jewelry, Inc.
Jack Leustig Imaging
Jewelry and Painting Studio
La Lana Wools
Las Comadres
La Tierra Mineral Gallery
Leatherworks
Maison Faurie Antiquities
Maverick County Cafe
Mineral and Fossil Gallery
Michael McCormick Gallery
Michael G. Rosenberg and Associates, P.C.
Moby Dickens Bookshop of Taos
Morgan Gallery
Mountain Comfort Furnishings
Nicolas Salads and Soups
North Star Inn
Old Taos Traders
One World
Pitter Patter Collections, Inc.
Robert Mirabal Music Flutes and Native Gifts
Roosters Coffee
Sage Fine Art
Sapo
Sands of Time Glass
Scott Carlson Pottery
Seco Pearl
Southwest Framers
Southwest Sew and Vac
Stephan Killborn Gallery
Shoe-ri-fic
Starving Artists Gallery
Spanish Steps Gallery
Steppin' Out and Steppin' Out 2
Sun Shades of Taos
Stephen Rose, Attorney-at-Law
Starr Interiors
Silvermountain Designs
Tailwater Gallery and Flyshop
Taos Adobe Quilting
Taos Artisans Gallery
Taos Business Alliance
Taos Cookery
Taos Cow, Arroyo Seco
Taos Blue
Taos Cowboy
Taos Fly Shop
Taos Inn
Taos Lending Team
Taos Mercantile Co
Taos Mountain Outfitters
Taos Sunflower Yarns and Fibers
Taos Trading Company
The Bean, Inc.
The Broadsky Bookshop
The UPS Store
Three Dog Art
The Yarn Shop
The Taos Company
The Toy Basket
Total Arts Gallery, Inc.
Twirl
Twining Weavers
Walden Fine Art
Wildsmith Gallery
Wolf Prints
Woodall Fine Art Enterprises, Inc.
Xocoatle Chocolate
______
Testimony of Erminio Martinez
Land Committee Chair, Taos Land Trust
on H.R. 1241, The Rio Grande del Norte
National Conservation Area Establishment Act
Presented to the
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
March 29. 2012
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I wish to thank you
for the opportunity to offer my strong support for H.R. 1241 which will
establish the Rio Grande del Norte National Conservation Area in Taos
and Rio Arriba Counties, New Mexico. I was born and raised in Taos
County, and come from a ranching family that has lived off the land for
eight generations. Today, as a registered grazing permittee, I continue
to run cattle on several allotments throughout the Carson National
Forest. Growing up in the ranching business allowed me the good fortune
of spending most of my life in the great outdoors. Like my father and
grandfather, I quickly learned to love the beauty and fragility of the
wide open landscapes and to understand the importance of sound
conservation of the abundant natural resources on which so many New
Mexicans depend for their livelihoods.
After my military service, I attended New Mexico Highlands
University and then the National Judicial College. I served for many
years as a magistrate judge, and have worked for the Taos tribal
government and the Pojoaque tribal government. I continue to be active
in conservation, including through my service with local land trusts.
To me, the wide open landscape of the Rio Grande del Norte area is
a treasure that we must do all we can to protect. It is not only a
natural treasure, but also a treasury of cultural resources and
associations, evoking the Native American, Spanish, and American
history that contribute to the diverse values of this area. Even though
this region may seem relatively remote, it lies in the path of
pressures for change that could slowly but surely nibble away at the
ecological integrity that makes this landscape so special.
To my way of thinking, conservation is all about exercising
foresight, assuring protection of great places like this today, rather
than leaving it for our grandchildren to try to reclaim the values our
generation enjoys here today. I like what Teddy Roosevelt said about
the Grand Canyon, and think his advice should be our guidance for the
Rio Grande del Norte: ``In the Grand Canyon, Arizona has a natural
wonder which is in kind absolutely unparalleled throughout the rest of
the world. I want to ask you to keep this great wonder of nature as it
now is. Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been
at work on it, and man can only mar it.''
The Grand Canyon, of course, is a national park and is protected
from development that would destroy it. With the Rio Grande del Norte
we have a more complex challenge, for this is a working landscape that
embraces traditional land uses such as ranching, hunting, fishing and
wood and herb gathering. For example, local multi-generational ranching
families like mine rely on their use of portions of these federal lands
for grazing their livestock. This use is well-protected in the
legislation, including assurance of continuation of established
livestock grazing within the two small wilderness areas that will be
designated by this bill.
Under the pending legislation, a comprehensive conservation and
management plan will be prepared, with full opportunity for input from
local residents, including grazing permittees and acequias
associations. In this sense, the legislation creates an overall
conservation framework for the area, and the subsequent conservation
plan will fill in essential details. That will be done in an open,
public, and democratic process, which assures all of us who live and
work here that our voices will be heard in shaping the conservation and
management of this tremendous resource.
I commend Congressman Ben Ray Lujan for introducing this important
measure, and thank Congressman Martin Heinrich for being a cosponsor. I
urge the Committee to approve this bill and the full Congress to pass
it into law this year.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. We will go to questions
now on this particular bill. First of all to Mr. Lujan, if you
have questions.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, as we begin, I would just like to
ask unanimous consent that I submit into the record a letter
from the Northern New Mexico Stockmen, the New Mexico Cattle
Growers Association, the New Mexico Wool Growers, and the New
Mexico Federal Lands Council.
They submitted a letter in which there were some concerns
that they had with the legislation, but I believe that you will
be happy to see, Mr. Chairman, that there are some technical
amendments that we will be able to go through today or with the
staff that will address many of these issues.
Mr. Bishop. Without objection, it will be part of the
record.
[The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Lujan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73547.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73547.004
------
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, in addition, we will be getting the letters
of support that the Mayor referred to in her statement, and we
will be asking unanimous consent to submit those letters into
the record.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Labrador, do you have any questions on this particular
bill?
Mr. Labrador. No.
Mr. Bishop. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Lujan, if you still have
some questions, you still have four minutes. Go for it.
Mr. Lujan. Appreciate that timing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mayor, when we talk a little bit about your involvement
with the land grants and acequias and traditional communities,
the importance of what is happening to bring in many areas. And
if you could highlight as well, I think there is support from
all of the allottees that are on this particular area of land
that is in reference to this piece of legislation. If you could
talk about their support, or any concerns they may have.
Ms. Garcia. Yes, of course. Our grazing permittees are very
much in favor of this. It would protect their rights with the
Conservation Area with their grazing permits. The local people,
the land grant areas, also are very supportive of this
legislation. They do not want to see their land, their common
lands, up for exploration of businesses or for these lands to
be sold. They would like to keep them within their areaships
for the land grants.
The water, of course, we always look to protect our waters
because we feel that that is our livelihood, our waters, and we
want to protect the waters, make sure that they stay clean and
available for our people.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mayor. And in the letter
that we received from the four entities that I stated earlier,
which we very much appreciate their input, there are a few
areas in there that they have talked about that they would
especially like to outline. Can you talk about the importance
of traditional uses and why that is important to include in
this legislation?
Ms. Garcia. Yes. I think my people would like to make sure
that the Treaty of Guadalupe de Hidalgo be honored, and that
our traditional uses of herb gathering, wood cutting, hunting,
the grazing, that all that be protected for us with this bill.
And it is very important--our acequias are very important. Our
water is very important. And so those are important things to
my people.
Mr. Lujan. And Mayor, can you also talk about the
importance, when we talk about the time constraints sometimes
put on us, when you have to go to maintain the comportas, the
head gates, of the acequias, the ditches, the irrigation
system; and then also conversations that you may have had with
the allottees about making sure that they are able to use
existing roads with motorized vehicles when they need to
maintain those lands.
Ms. Garcia. Exactly. Sometimes our head gates are within
these areas, either BLM or Forest Service, and we want the
opportunity to continue to maintain those head gates or clean
our creeks that provide the water into our acequias.
Also, the permittees are very much conservationists. They
always make sure that they work on the areas where they graze
by doing their drinking tanks, that they maintain those. They
do a lot of work that otherwise would not get done. And so we
try to preserve those things.
And the mountain bikes, there are areas that they can
mountain bike that we have no problem with.
Mr. Lujan. And Mayor, last, there is also a concern as we
talk about how the Secretary should support the ability for
many of our allottees to be able to still produce their
animals. And I know we are running out of time here, so after I
ask the question, I will get back to you and we can get
something in writing.
But Mr. Chairman, one of the technical amendments that we
are looking at, and I think this is something that Mr. Labrador
may be able to find some support for as we get a chance to talk
about grazing as well, is making sure that the Secretary
considers these permits based upon the amounts of permits in
the area, date of enactment upon the last tenure of permits.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
having that conversation.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Labrador, now do you have questions on this one?
Mr. Labrador. I do not, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Mr. Kildee, do you have questions on this
bill?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, very
much to Her Honor, the Mayor, this area would have some
conservation area and some wilderness area. Will there be a
balance here where the beauty and the unique aspects will be
maintained, while at the same time improving the economy of the
area?
Ms. Garcia. Yes.
Mr. Kildee. And are you watchful for that for the future?
Ms. Garcia. Yes. It will surely help my community. My
community is not a wealthy community, and so it would really
help my people for the economic reasons, and at the same time
preserve our land, the beauty of the land. I do not, if you
have ever been to Northern New Mexico, but it is beautiful, and
we would like to protect that. But we also need economics for
our community. And the fishing, the hunting, all of that will
bring that to our community.
Mr. Kildee. I appreciate that. I commend you for being
aware of having that balance and trying to maintain that
balance, and help the economy at the same time that people come
and enjoy the wonders and beauty of the area. So I commend you
very much for that.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee. And I am glad to support the bill. Thank you
very much, Your Honor.
Ms. Garcia. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Holt, do you have any questions for this bill?
Dr. Holt. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I really do not have any other
questions as well other than Mr. Lujan has already put into the
record the letter. I want to make sure that we work together so
that those land users have their questions satisfied.
With that, I appreciate your testimony. Appreciate you
being here.
Let us move on to the next bill, which is Mr. Labrador's,
which will be 4234.
Mr. Labrador, I will recognize you first to introduce your
bill, and then we will go to the witnesses on the panel.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL LABRADOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Lujan, for convening this hearing today regarding my
legislation, H.R. 4234, the Grazing Improvement Act. I would
also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for joining me as an
original cosponsor to this bill.
I would also like to welcome Brenda Richards of Murphy,
Idaho who is serving as a witness today. As a rancher, she can
speak from practical experience of the challenges she faces on
a daily basis. Brenda has a unique perspective and will serve
as a huge asset to this panel. She will provide expert analysis
of how this legislation will affect the livestock industry in
my State.
Livestock grazing is an important part of the rich ranching
heritage of Idaho and across the American West. It is an
integral part of our cultural fabric and our economic security.
As such, we must preserve it for future generations.
Ranchers are proud stewards of the land, yet the process to
review their permits is severely backlogged due to litigation
aimed at eliminating livestock from public lands. The Federal
land managing agencies cannot keep up with the pace of
litigation and the required environmental analysis, which
diverts limited resources from these agencies and leaves
ranchers at risk of losing their grazing permits and thus
jeopardizing their livelihood.
Agriculture is a hard way to make a living, but producers
choose this path because it is their livelihood, their passion,
and their way of life. Several researchers in my State of Idaho
have said that if they were to lose their grazing permit, they
would have to subdivide their land. The intent of my
legislation is to provide more stability to this industry.
What my legislation does is, number one, extends livestock
grazing permits from 10 to 20 years in order to give producers
adequate longevity and production stability. Number two, it
codifies existing appropriation language to put into statute
annual riders. Number three, it encourages the respective
Secretaries to utilize categorical exclusions to expedite
permit processing. And, number four, it modifies the
administrative appeals process.
Today's topic is a high priority for the State of Idaho. We
must alleviate the problems caused by a tedious bureaucratic
process created only to satisfy the environmental agenda. Our
ranchers depend upon it.
I commend the Chairman for convening this hearing today to
shed some light on existing statutes that should be modernized.
I believe that protecting our environment can be done in a
manner that does not impede our economic growth; in fact, it
must be done in that manner. It is time that we improve our
regulatory structure so that we continue to prosper as a
Nation. We can no longer allow the Federal Government to
maintain an enormous backlog in processing grazing permits.
I am grateful the Committee is moving my legislation
forward in hopes of ensuring grazing certainty and stability
for America's livestock producers. I look forward to listening
to the input our distinguished panel has to offer. Thank you
for being here today.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
We will now turn to the panel. Once again, for those who
are here for the first time with our committee or are new to
the Committee, the timer is in front of you there. When it is
green, you are good to go, yellow means you have one minute
left, and the red means I would prefer you not talk.
We will go down in the following order: Deputy Chief
Weldon, if you would address this particular bill. Then we will
go to Mr. Pool on this particular bill, and then finally Ms.
Richards on this particular bill.
Ms. Weldon?
STATEMENT OF LESLIE A.C. WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Weldon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Lujan,
Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Leslie Weldon, Deputy
Chief of the National Forest System in the Forest Service. The
Department supports portions of H.R. 4234, the Grazing
Improvement Act of 2012, and would like to work with the
Committee on other portions as written.
Regarding H.R. 4234, the Forest Service enjoys a
cooperative relationship with the fast majority of the over
6800 individuals who hold permits for grazing on approximately
8.3 million animal unit months over 94 million acres of
National Forest and grasslands. Grazing permittees have helped
provide for effective stewardship of our public lands for many
decades.
The Department understands and shares the Committee's
desire for increasing administrative efficiencies for both the
Forest Service and the permittee. The Department supports the
concept of a 20-year permit where allotments are meeting Forest
Plan standards, and it also supports making the annual
appropriations language permanent so that permittees will be
allowed to continue their use uninterrupted while the Forest
Service proceeds to complete NEPA per the Rescission Act
schedule.
While we support providing the line officer with the option
to use a categorical exclusion where the parameters of what
constitutes a ``minor adjustment'' are narrowly defined, we do
not support requiring the use of categorical exclusions. We
would appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee on
specific language that constitutes ``minor modifications'' that
would qualify for categorical exclusions.
We have completed NEPA analysis on three-fourths of our
grazing allotments, and would note that whether we ultimately
utilize a categorical exclusion or an environmental assessment,
the upfront analysis work in determining the conditions of the
range is similar.
The Department does not support the language that provides
for a new appeals process. The Forest Service is currently
completing the revision of appeal regulations in an effort to
provide for a more streamlined and efficient process. We are in
the process of incorporating public comments to this proposal.
We believe regulations will provide for the most appropriate
and effective means to address administrative decisions.
We welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee on
the legislation to develop a bill that both increases the
efficiencies and protects the long-term health of our National
Forests and grasslands. The Department appreciates Congressman
Labrador's support for streamlining the grazing program.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today,
and I look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weldon on H.R. 4234
follows:]
Statement of Leslie A.C. Weldon, Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 4234, Grazing
Improvement Act of 2012
The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide its views on
H.R. 4234, the ``Grazing Improvement Act of 2012''. The Forest Service
enjoys a cooperative relationship with the vast majority of the over
6,800 individuals who hold permits for grazing authorizing at total of
approximately 8.3 million animal unit months on over 94 million acres
of National Forests and Grasslands. Grazing permittees have helped
provide for the effective stewardship of our public lands for many
decades. The Forest Service's grazing program not only helps support
the economies of rural communities across the west, but it also helps
maintain open space on private lands. Most permittees utilize and need
both public and private lands to graze livestock economically. The loss
of grazing on public lands can result in the loss of grazing on private
lands that may lead to the conversion of private open space to other
uses such as subdivision development.
The Department understands and shares the Committee's desire for
increasing administrative efficiencies for both the Forest Service and
the permittee and while the Department supports certain provisions, we
cannot support H.R. 4234 as written. Specifically, the Department has
concerns with: requirements and definitions in the use of categorical
exclusions, suspension of agency decisions until appeals are resolved
and use of a different appeals process than is currently being
developed. The Department is willing to work with the Committee to see
if these differences can be resolved.
H.R. 4234 would revise the permitting process for grazing in the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Specifically, the bill
would extend the duration of the permit from 10 years to 20 years. It
is intended to make permanent the language used in annual appropriation
riders which has required expiring permits to be renewed with existing
terms and conditions if NEPA has not been completed on allotments
associated with the permit. It would establish and require the use of
legislated categorical exclusions from the requirement to prepare an
environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The categorical exclusions would be used if the decision
continues the current grazing management on the allotment and if only
minor modifications are needed to the permit. Consistent with the
appropriations rider, the bill also would provide the Secretary with
the sole discretion to determine the priority and timing for completing
the environmental analysis of a grazing allotment, notwithstanding the
schedule in section 504 of the Rescissions Act. Finally it would create
a new process for appealing Forest Service decisions relating to
grazing permits.
The Department understands and shares the Committee's desire for
increasing administrative efficiencies for both the Forest Service and
the permittee. The Department supports the concept of having the
flexibility to issue a longer term permit where allotments are meeting
Forest Plan standards. The Department also supports making the annual
appropriations language permanent so that permittees will be allowed to
continue their use uninterrupted, while the Forest Service proceeds to
complete NEPA per the Rescissions Act Schedule. While we support
providing the line officer with the option to use a categorical
exclusion category where the parameters of what constitutes a minor
adjustment are narrowly defined, we do not support requiring use of
categorical exclusions. We would appreciate the opportunity to work
with the Committee on specific language regarding what constitutes
minor modifications that would qualify for categorical exclusions. We
have completed NEPA analyses on three-fourths of our grazing allotments
and would note that whether we ultimately utilize a categorical
exclusion or an environmental assessment, the upfront analysis work in
determining the conditions of the range, is similar.
The Department does not support the language in H.R. 4234 that
provides for a new appeal process. The Forest Service is currently
completing the revision of appeal regulations in an effort to provide
for a more streamlined and efficient process (36 CFR 251, subpart C,
``Appeal of Decisions Related to Occupancy and Use of National Forest
System Land''). We are in the process of incorporating public comments
received. We believe these regulations, which will be designated 36 CFR
214 will provide for the most appropriate and effective means to
address administrative decisions. We would also like to work with the
Committee to consider language which would increase the responsibility
of the permittees to ensure some level of self-monitoring of allotments
to assist in ensuring the long-term health of these watersheds and
landscapes.
The Forest Service is also concerned that H.R. 4234 would require
the Forest Service to suspend a decision, if a permittee appeals a
grazing permit or lease decision, until the appeal is resolved. While
there are situations which can wait for the conclusion of the appeals
process, there are others that may require more immediate action; e.g.,
unauthorized use of an allotment, significant impacts to other
allotments, non-payment, unacceptable resource damage, etc. The
Department cannot support the language that requires categorical
exclusions for crossing or trailing permits as the Forest Service
completes the required environmental analyses for these situations
during the allotment NEPA process.
While the Department does not support the bill as written, the
Department supports the intent of the bill and would like to work with
the Committee on specific language and concerns as noted. We do not
want to increase efficiencies at the expense of good land stewardship.
While the majority of the grazing permittees are excellent stewards in
caring for the range resource, we also have examples where permittees
need to take action to improve range conditions.
We welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee on the
legislation to develop a bill that both increases efficiencies and
protects the long-term health of our National Forests and Grasslands.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Pool?
STATEMENT OF MIKE POOL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Pool. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on H.R.
4234, the Grazing Improvement Act.
The ability to analyze complex permits and leases while
engaging the public through the environmental review process
under NEPA is a crucial component of the BLM's multiple use
management of the public lands. At the same time, the BLM
recognizes that sustainable use of public range lands is
important to people who make their living on these landscapes,
people like our BLM permittees.
Livestock grazing is an important part of the BLM's
multiple resource mission. At the right levels and timing,
grazing can serve as an important vegetation management tool,
improving wildlife habitat and reducing the risk of
catastrophic wildfire. The BLM is committed to collaborating
with those who work on the public lands, and takes seriously
its charter to conserve and manage healthy range lands for
current and future generations.
The Department shares the Committee's interest in
increasing efficiencies in public land grazing administration
as well as finding ways to make permit renewal less complex,
costly, and time-consuming. However, the Department cannot
support H.R. 4234 because of the provisions for automatic
permit renewal without assurances that permittees are meeting
land health standards.
The BLM also has concerns with the categoric exclusion from
analysis under NEPA for all livestock crossing permits, as well
as the limitations the bill would place on BLM's ability to
provide for appropriate environmental review and public
involvement.
The BLM, as with the Forest Service, would like to work
with this Committee to make progress on these shared goals
while maintaining the integrity of NEPA, the Nation's bedrock
environmental and citizen involvement law, and the Federal Land
Policy Management Act, a multiple-resource statute requiring
consideration of the many uses and values of public lands.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
too would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pool on H.R. 4234 follows:]
Statement of Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 4234, The Grazing Improvement
Act
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 4234, the Grazing
Improvement Act. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is dedicated to a
broad range of stewardship goals, including the long-term health and
viability of the public rangelands. Our Nation's rangelands provide and
support a variety of goods, services, and values important to every
American. In addition to being an important source of forage for
livestock, healthy rangelands conserve soil, store and filter water,
sequester carbon, provide a home for an abundance of wildlife, provide
scenic beauty and are the setting for many forms of outdoor recreation.
The BLM recognizes that the conservation and sustainable use of
rangelands is important to those who make their living on these
landscapes--including public rangeland permittees. Public land
livestock operations are important to the economic well-being and
cultural identity of the West and to rural Western communities.
Livestock grazing is an integral part of BLM's multiple-use mission,
and at the right levels and timing, can serve as an important
vegetation management tool, improving wildlife habitat and reducing
risk of catastrophic wildfire.
The BLM is committed to collaborating with those who work on the
public lands and takes seriously its challenge to conserve and manage
healthy rangelands for current and future generations.
The Department shares the Committee's interest in identifying
opportunities for increasing efficiencies in public land grazing
administration, as well as finding ways to make permit renewal less
complex, costly, and time-consuming. The BLM would like to work with
the Committee to further these shared goals. However, the Department
cannot support H.R. 4234 as it limits the BLM's ability to provide for
appropriate environmental review and public involvement--critical
components of the BLM's multiple-use management of the public lands--as
well as the BLM's ability to implement permits that have been appealed.
The Department looks forward to continuing a dialogue with the Congress
on these important matters.
Background
The BLM manages approximately 17,750 livestock grazing permits and
leases for 12.3 million AUMs (animal unit months) on over 160 million
acres of public lands in the West. Since 1999, the BLM has evaluated
the health of the rangelands based on standards and guidelines that
were developed with extensive input from the ranching community, as
well as from scientists, conservationists, and other Federal and state
agencies. The BLM collects monitoring and assessment data to compare
current conditions with the standards and land use plan objectives.
This information is used to complete environmental assessments, to
develop alternative management actions, and to modify grazing
management as needed.
The BLM administers the range program through issuance of grazing
permits or leases. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)
provides for a 10-year (or less) term for grazing permits. In a typical
year, the BLM processes over 2,000 permit renewals or transfers. In
1999 and 2000, the BLM saw a spike in permit renewals, when over 7,200
permits were due for renewal. The BLM was unable to process all those
permits before expiration, which resulted in a backlog of grazing
permit renewals that remains today. By the end of the 2012 Fiscal Year,
BLM anticipates that a backlog of 4,200 unprocessed permits will
remain. The BLM is committed to eliminating the backlog of grazing
permit renewals and to issuing permits in the year they expire. An
increase in appeals and litigation of grazing management decisions
continues to pose significant workload and resource challenges for the
BLM.
The BLM will continue to focus on grazing permits for the most
environmentally sensitive allotments, using authorities Congress
provided in the FY 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act concerning
grazing permit renewals and transfers. This strategy will allow the BLM
to address a wide array of critical resource management issues through
its land health assessments and grazing decisions. Additionally, this
strategy will help ensure that the backlog of unprocessed permits
consists of the least environmentally-sensitive allotments that are
more custodial in nature and/or that are already meeting land health
standards.
H.R. 4234
H.R. 4234 provides for automatic renewal of all expired,
transferred, or waived permits, and categorically excludes all permit
renewals, reissuance, or transfers from preparation of an environmental
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if the
decision continues current grazing management of the allotment. Terms
and conditions of the permit would continue until a permit is later
renewed in full compliance with NEPA and other Federal laws. The bill
does not first require a determination that the permittee is meeting
land health standards. H.R. 4234 also doubles the duration of grazing
permits from 10 to 20 years, and stipulates that livestock crossing and
trailing permits are administrative decisions that would also be
categorically excluded from analysis under NEPA. Additionally, it
provides for the transfer of permits without further environmental
analysis when terms and conditions are unchanged, but only for the
remaining term of the permit.
The Department supports the concept of having the flexibility to
issue longer term permits in certain circumstances, as well as the
transfer provision that is currently in place under the FY 2012
Consolidated Appropriations Act. That provision is expected to reduce
the permit renewal workload in 2013 by about 700 permits. The number of
transfers needing processing each year is unpredictable, posing
significant challenges to the BLM as it works to manage staff and other
resources.
However, H.R. 4234 also includes provisions that the Department
cannot support since they provide for automatic permit or lease renewal
without requiring further analysis, or requiring the permittee to meet
land health standards. The bill also limits the BLM's ability to
provide for appropriate environmental review and public involvement. As
written the bill would result in the majority of permits being renewed
under a categorical exclusion, although it is unclear what constitutes
a ``minor modification'' and whether extraordinary circumstances would
need to be applied in situations where current management was being
continued. Also under H.R. 4234, all crossing and trailing permits
would be categorically excluded from analysis under NEPA. The
engagement of the public through the environmental review process under
NEPA is a crucial component of the BLM's multiple-use management of the
public lands.
Further, H.R. 4234 requires that if a permittee appeals a grazing
permit or lease decision, the BLM must suspend the decision until the
appeal is resolved. Under current regulations, a typical BLM grazing
decision is implemented while under appeal unless the permittee or
interested public requests, and the Interior Board of Land Appeals
grants a stay of the decision. By contrast, under H.R. 4234, if a
permittee appealed a grazing decision, the BLM could not implement the
decision unless it determined there was an emergency regarding
deterioration of resources. Otherwise, the permittee could continue
grazing at the current level of use until the appeal was resolved. The
provisions would effectively give a permittee, by the simple act of
appealing any grazing decision, the ability to continue current levels
of use for an indefinite period of time (since appeals and litigation
may take years). Moreover, grazing at the current level could continue
even if the BLM determined land health standards were not being met and
changes to the permit were thus warranted.
In summary, while H.R. 4234 contains provisions that would expedite
permitting, the Department cannot support the overarching impact the
bill could have on the 160 million acres of public lands used for
livestock grazing.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on H.R.4234. The
BLM looks forward to working with the Congress to develop improvements
to the grazing permit renewal process while maintaining the integrity
of NEPA, the Nation's bedrock environmental and citizen involvement
law, and FLPMA, our multiple-use statute requiring consideration of
many uses and values of the public lands. I will be pleased to answer
any questions.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Ms. Richards?
STATEMENT OF BRENDA RICHARDS, SECRETARY/TREASURER, PUBLIC LANDS
COUNCIL
Ms. Richards. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Lujan, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify today on H.R. 4234, the Grazing Improvement Act of
2012.
My name is Brenda Richards, and I am a rancher from Owyhee
County, where my husband and I, along with our three sons, run
a cow/calf operation on private and public lands. I am the
Secretary/Treasurer of the Public Lands Council, and am today
also representing the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and
the Idaho Cattle Association.
Livestock grazing represents the earliest use of public
lands as our Nation expanded westward. Today it continues to be
essential for the livestock industry, wildlife habitat, open
space, and the rural economies of the West. The changes
provided by the Grazing Improvement Act are necessary steps in
restoring a stable business environment for our industry.
By allowing for grazing permit renewals despite agency
paperwork backlogs, extending the life of grazing permits, and
providing greater certainty to ranchers in the appeals process,
this bill will provide environmental, economic, and government
cost-saving benefits.
It is difficult to quantify the importance of stability for
public lands grazing to our family business, rural economies,
and to the industry as a whole. But I can speak to you from
personal experience about the effect the current instability
has had in Owyhee County.
Seventy-eight percent of our land mass in this county is
Federally owned, resulting in a large number of permittees
whose base property depends upon this Federal land for roughly
85 percent of their forage during the spring and summer months.
Agency backlogs and litigation plaguing the grazing permit
renewal process put a tremendous burden on the agency, the
permittees, and our local county government.
American taxpayers have been negatively affected by
frivolous appeals and challenges by extreme anti-grazing
groups. The vicious cycle starts with the agency facing a
tremendous workload of overly burdensome NEPA analysis and
other regulations, often causing them to miss deadlines.
Extreme anti-grazing groups wait in the wings to file suit
on these missed deadlines, which is a procedural aspect, rather
than relating to the actual health of the resource. This adds
to agency workloads, which continues the cycle of more missed
deadlines and backlog. The result for the permittee without
this bill would be delay in the renewal process, which creates
tremendous economic uncertainty.
Grazing as we know it today is important not just for
ranching families and local economies. All but the most extreme
opponents of public land grazing acknowledge that its
continuation is essential to maintaining the integrity of
landscapes in the West.
Stability of permit renewal process keeps private lands
economically viable as ranching units, which in turn prevents
the fragmentation of open space. And additional benefits of
grazing include reduced fuel loads, preventing wildfire,
control of noxious weeds, and improved forage growth.
For these reasons, passing of the Grazing Improvement Act
is crucial. It would offer flexibility to the agencies while
providing stability to the industry by codifying the language
we all hold our collective breath for every year in the
appropriations process.
Thankfully, for more than a decade, Democrats and
Republicans alike in Congress have passed an appropriations
rider that has allowed for the renewal of grazing permits
despite the backlog of NEPA analysis. Codifying this rider is
fundamental to the Grazing Improvement Act.
The bill would also extend the life of grazing permits from
10 to 20 years, further relieving the backlog and allowing for
longer, more beneficial grazing plans. The bill ensures that
agencies will still be able to make annual management
adjustments where and when needed.
The Grazing Improvement Act will further assure this
stability by requiring that appeals of grazing permit decisions
be conducted on the record in accordance with the principles of
the Administrative Procedures Act. This provision is critical
as applied to the Forest Service, where administrative appeals
are heard not by an independent body but by the next level line
officer.
The BLM appeals system is not perfect. While the current
system puts the costly and daunting burden of proof on the
appellant, adherence to the Administrative Procedures Act would
properly place the burden of proof on the agency to show its
decisions are correct in law and fact.
And finally, the bill provides a stay of decision pending
appeal, a provision that would prevent ranchers from being
forced out of business while administrative challenges wind
their way through the administrative or court system. The
language makes an exception to the stay where it would result
in an immediate deterioration of the resource.
Ranching is a career we have chosen. We do it because of
our dedication, our knowledge, and the ability to manage the
resource, the health of which assures the success of our
business. Passage of the Grazing Improvement Act is important
for future generations. This bill will stimulate rural
economies and job growth, save taxpayer dollars, and ensure
that the natural resources of the West continue under the
careful stewardship of ranching families.
Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Richards follows:]
Statement of Brenda Richards, Secretary/Treasurer, Public Lands Council
on H.R. 1234, To Amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 to Improve the Management of Grazing Leases and Permits, and for
Other Purposes
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am Brenda Richards, Secretary/Treasurer of the Public Lands
Council, the only National organization dedicated solely to
representing public land ranchers. I am a cattle rancher actively
involved in the family business with my husband and our three sons, who
are fifth generation in the ranching industry. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to share the western livestock
industry's strong support for H.R. 4234, the ``Grazing Improvement Act
of 2012''.
Today I am representing the Public Lands Council, National
Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Idaho Cattle Association.
Affiliates of PLC include not only NCBA but also the American Sheep
Industry Association (ASI), the Association of National Grasslands
(ANG) and sheep and cattle organizations from thirteen western states.
Livestock grazing represents the earliest use of federally managed
lands (public lands) as our nation expanded westward. Today it
continues to represent a multiple use that is essential to the
livestock industry, wildlife habitat, open space and the rural
economies of many western communities. While grazing was historically
viewed only as a ``use'' of the public lands, today it has also come to
be recognized as an important ``tool'' for the management of these
lands.
The public land livestock industry seeks and supports the essential
legislative changes provided by H.R. 4234, as they are essential steps
in restoring a stable business environment to our industry. By allowing
for grazing permit renewals despite agency paperwork backlogs,
extending the life of grazing permits, and providing greater certainty
to ranchers in the appeals process, H.R. 4234 will provide
environmental, economic, and government cost-saving benefits.
Environmental Benefits of a Stable Public Lands Grazing Industry
Greater business stability leads to grazing practices that better
benefit the resources, allowing federal lands ranchers to think long-
term about the kind of land and resources they want to pass down to the
next generation. This stability is also at the foundation of the
evolving science of rangeland management. By implementing long-term
plans, ranchers are able to bring about significant changes in forage
composition, to the benefit of livestock and wildlife alike.
Sophisticated analytical systems, such as the State and Transition
Model (STM), which has been embraced in recent years by both BLM and
Forest Service, allow livestock grazing to be utilized to bring about
significant changes in forage composition over long periods of time.
But without the assurance that they will be able to hold onto their
permits, many ranchers are hesitant to make the commitment of resources
it takes to implement such plans.
Accompanying the recent advances in range science are the
longstanding benefits of grazing, which will only be bolstered by
better business certainty. Wildlife depend on the habitat and
improvements provided by public land ranching. The improvements
ranchers make to water sources--building, maintaining and protecting
reservoirs and stock ponds, for example--can improve and, in some
cases, create, wildlife habitats \1\. In the West, where productive,
private lands are interspersed with large areas of arid, less desirable
public lands, biodiversity of species depends greatly on ranchland.
According to Rick Knight, a biology professor at Colorado State
University, ranching on both public and private land ``has been found
to support biodiversity that is of conservation concern'' because it
``encompasses large amounts of land with low human densities, and
because it alters native vegetation in modest ways.'' \2\ Knight also
noted that other uses--such as outdoor recreation and residential use--
are not as conducive to the support of threatened or endangered
species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://cesantaclara.ucdavis.edu/files/33367.pdf
\2\ ``Ranchers as a Keystone Species in a West that Works.''
Richard L. Knight. Rangelands Oct. 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wild birds, animals and rodents seek out and thrive in the shelter
provided by natural ranch features, like diverse plant cover and
windbreaks, as opposed to row-to-row crops or bare landscapes. Many
ranchers across the West are purposefully implementing grazing
practices to improve habitat and help prevent the addition of species
such as the Greater Sage-grouse to the Endangered Species List.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, in 2010
ranchers had already employed practices to help save between 800 and
1,000 grouse, and the efforts continue \3\. Well-managed grazing also
reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfire and encourages healthy root
systems and robust forage growth \4\. Large animals such as elk and
deer are known to thrive in areas where cattle graze \5\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA (2010). USDA
Promotes Sage-Grouse Protection Efforts in the Western United States.
Release No. 0630.10
\4\ Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA (2004).
Environmental Benefits of Improved Grazing Management. Illini
PastureNet Papers. Hendershot, R.
\5\ Texas A&M University-Kingsville (2005). Cattle Management to
Enhance Wildlife Habitat in South Texas. Wildlife Management Bulletin
of the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Management Bulletin
No. 6, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other research suggests that livestock grazing helps prevent
invasion by non-native grasses, which threaten plant biodiversity on
the land.\6\ Ranchers' brush control also benefits wildlife, helping
more grass take root and decreasing the spread of cheatgrass, a highly
flammable invasive weed. A study in the Journal of Rangeland Management
concluded that ``from an ecological standpoint we can argue that if we
remove the grazing infrastructure from public rangelands, we would see
some adverse consequences. We'd see less variety and too much ground
cover, for example, as well as more cheatgrass and the potential for
more range fires.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ranching as a Conservation Strategy: Can Old Ranchers Save the
New West? Mark W. Brunson and Lynn Huntsinger. Rangeland Ecology
Management 61:127-147 March 2008.
\7\ ``Vegetation Change after 65 Years of Grazing and Grazing
Exclusion.'' Barry Perryman. Journal of Rangeland Management Dec. 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A study by Mark W. Brunson and Lynn Huntsinger published in the
journal Rangeland Ecology Management explained that ``Saving ranches
has become a focus not only of rural traditionalists and livestock
producers but also of conservationists, who prefer ranching as a land
use over exurban subdivisions.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ranching as a Conservation Strategy: Can Old Ranchers Save the
New West? Mark W. Brunson and Lynn Huntsinger. Rangeland Ecology
Management 61:127-147 March 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Benefits of a Stable Public Lands Grazing Industry
Meanwhile, countless communities across the West depend upon the
continued existence of the public land rancher. In my own county of
Owyhee, 87 percent of the land is publicly owned, and our ranchers'
dependency on public land forage during the spring and fall is about 85
percent \9\. A 1992 Census of Agriculture for two Idaho counties
revealed that two out of three commercially viable ranches held federal
grazing permits \10\. I know that many communities across the West,
where public lands account for roughly half of the landmass, depend
just as we do on the tax base, commerce, and jobs created by the public
land grazing industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Rimbey et al., Ranch-Level Economic Impacts of Grazing Policy
Changes: A Case Study from Owyhee County, Idaho, in CURRENT ISSUES IN
RANGELAND RESOURCE ECONOMICS: PROCEEDINGS OF A SYMPOSIUM SPONSORED BY
WESTERN COORDINATING COMMITTEE 55 (WCC-55), L. Allen Torell, E. Tom
Bartlett, and Rena Larranga (eds.), New Mexico Ag Exp. Station Research
Report 737, available at http:agecon.lib.unm.edu.
\10\ Harp et al., Spatial Distribution of Economic Change From
Idaho Ranches, 53 J. RANGE MGMT. 164, 165 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, the national-level statistics give light to the importance
of public lands grazing. The latest available data show that there were
over 8.7 million animal unit months (AUMs) of grazing authorized on BLM
lands in fiscal year (FY) 2010. This grazing was administered through
17,740 permits and leases.\11\ The Forest Service in the fifteen
western states permitted 6.1 million AUMs on National Forests and an
additional 2.2 million of National Grasslands.\12\ While false data is
often cited showing the relatively small amount of beef or lamb that is
produced on public lands, such statements ignore the importance of
these lands in an integrated ranching operation. Approximately 40% of
beef cattle in the West and half of the nation's sheep spend some time
on federal lands. Without public land grazing, grazing use of
significant portions of state and private lands would necessarily
cease, and the cattle and sheep industries would be dramatically
downsized, threatening infrastructure and the entire market structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Fact Sheet on BLM Management of Livestock Grazing, September
2011, Table 3-8c, Table 3-9c. Fiscal Year 2010-
\12\ USDA--Forest Service, Annual Grazing Statistical Report,
Grazing Season 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Challenges to the Industry
Despite the broadening acclaim for public lands livestock grazing's
environmental and economic benefits, today's public land livestock
industry faces challenges unlike ever before, making the aforementioned
goals of a stable business environment and long-term grazing plans
increasingly difficult to achieve. Private ranchland values in the west
have skyrocketed based on competing uses--primarily rural subdivision
development. Increasing land values render the estate tax--from which
we have failed to secure permanent relief--a bigger threat than ever,
making succession planning an ominous prospect for future generations
of ranching families. Enhanced livestock genetics and current market
prices for sheep and cattle have combined with the rising land prices
to dramatically increase the need for operating capital--and at the
same time, agricultural lenders are demanding greater long-term
certainty in livestock operations. Burgeoning government regulation and
the resulting litigation demand ever-greater investment of both
financial and human resources. Extreme, predatory ``environmental''
groups wage a constant, partly taxpayer-funded war against public lands
grazing \13\. Altogether, these and other factors create a business
environment that is less certain than ever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Budd Falen, K. (2005). Environmental Organization's use of
NEPA to Eliminate Land Use and Obtain Attorneys' Fees Under the EAJA.
Legal Memorandum, November, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding to the uncertainty is the changed nature of the grazing
permit renewal process. In the 1960s, renewal of term grazing permits
every ten years on both BLM and National Forests was little more than
an administrative exercise. The permit renewal routinely arrived in the
mail it was signed and returned to the agency for final execution,
completing the renewal process. Any on-the-ground issues regarding
management were addressed during the many opportunities that the agency
range personnel and I had to spend time together in the field.
Today, permit renewals are subject to compatibility with a Resource
Management Plan or Land Use Plan, prior environmental analysis under
the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), a potential need for
consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the
likely appeal by an anti-grazing organization that has been granted
``interested public'' status by the agency and standing by the courts.
The opportunities that our members once appreciated to spend time in
the field with range personnel have become scarce as agency personnel
are inundated by process, Freedom of Information Act requests and
endless appeals. The NEPA analysis now deemed necessary is seldom
completed in a timely manner. As a result, the public land rancher has,
for the past ten years, been at the mercy of the annual congressional
appropriations rider to allow permits to be renewed in a timely manner.
H.R. 4234 would alleviate this annual cliffhanger, codifying language
that has been approved annually by Congress for over a decade.
Challenges Facing the Federal Land Management Agencies
As noted above, new regulations and resulting litigation have added
dramatically to agency workloads. Over the past decade, the agencies
have operated under pressure to produce environmental analyses on
permit renewals either under a schedule imposed by Congress, or under
self-imposed schedules. These timelines have seldom been met. The
current NEPA backlogs for grazing allotments impacting permit renewals
are 4,200 and 2,700 for the BLM and Forest Service respectively, with
no end in sight. Time pressures have led to NEPA analysis that is
frequently either substantively or procedurally inadequate and is
therefore subject to successful administrative and judicial challenge.
Reducing the requirement for perfunctory environmental analysis, as
H.R. 4234 proposes to do, would enable the agencies to be more thorough
when analyzing actions that actually impact the resource. It would also
help reduce the opportunity for litigation by extreme anti-grazing
groups who, by virtue of fee-shifting statutes such as the Equal Access
to Justice Act, have made a cottage industry out of process-based
litigation, draining agency budgets and reaping taxpayer dollars to the
tune of millions, annually.
H.R. 4234 Offers Solutions
As noted above, proper range management, economic certainty at the
individual, community, and west-wide levels, land management agency
workloads, and taxpayers would all benefit from a longer-term approach
to the permitting of public lands grazing. H.R. 4234 takes a sizeable
step in that direction.
Section 2 of the bill extends the life of grazing permits from 10
to 20 years. This critical change will bring needed certainty, improved
range management and greater agency efficiency. In the context of this
change to a 20 year permit, it is important to note that the ability of
the agency to make needed management adjustments through the annual
authorization to graze (BLM) or annual operating plan (Forest Service)
is not diminished. In addition, the agencies retain the authority to
issue shorter term permits under special conditions. Lengthening term
grazing permits from 10 to 20 years provides more certainty to
permittees and reduces process burdens on the land management agencies,
all while retaining current standards for adjusting on-the-ground
practices.
Section 3: As referenced above, federal lands ranchers have relied
for more than a decade on language being included into annual
appropriations bills to allow the agencies to renew grazing permits on
federal lands under current terms and conditions until the renewal
process is complete. H.R. 4234 would codify that language. The bill
recognizes that the renewal, reissuance or transfer of a permit does
not, per se, have a resource impact so long as there is no significant
change in the grazing management. By categorically excluding these
actions from the requirement to prepare an environmental analysis, this
section restores the role of environmental analysis to its proper
function--an analysis of the potential impacts of a commitment of
resources (changes to an RMP or Forest Plan) or a new on-the-ground
activity. This section also takes a practical approach by properly
acknowledging that minor modifications to renewed, reissued or
transferred permits are acceptable, so long as they do not interfere
with the achievement of or progress toward land and resource management
plan objectives, and so long as extraordinary circumstances do not
indicate a need for further analysis. Additionally, in order to solve a
problem with crossing permits we have seen in my home state of Idaho,
H.R. 4234 would correctly exclude the issuance of crossing and trailing
permits from NEPA analysis. There is no need for endless analysis of an
activity with minimal impact which takes place in an effort to comply
with the terms and conditions of underlying term grazing permits.
Taken together, Sections 2 and 3 represent a major step toward
returning the focus of public land grazing to on-the-ground activities
including management plans and range improvements. The resource, the
land management agencies and the grazing permittees all stand to
benefit from these adjustments. Entities that oppose these commonsense
provisions show their true intensions: removal of all livestock from
public lands with no real interest in the natural resources.
Section 4 of H.R. 4234 will further assure the stability of
individual ranching operations by requiring that all appeals of grazing
permit decisions be conducted ``on the record,'' in accordance with the
fundamental principles of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). This
provision is particularly critical as applied to the Forest Service.
The Forest Service currently lacks an independent body to hear
administrative appeals similar to the Interior Board of Land Appeals
(IBLA), which adjudicates BLM appeals. As a result, permit appeals
within the Forest Service are decided by the next level line officer.
Most often, the deciding officer is the immediate supervisor of the
author of the decision being appealed. It is understandable that
research shows 85 percent of appeals under this structure are upheld.
Frankly, an administrative appeal of a Forest Service permit decision
is little more than a necessary procedural step to set the stage for a
judicial appeal.
While BLM appeals are conducted through a less prejudiced system,
these permittee appeals nevertheless place a tremendous burden on the
appellant. Strict adherence to the APA will properly place the burden
of proof on both federal agencies to show that their decisions are
correct in law and in fact. Because there is no current provision for a
stay of a decision pending appeal, the permittee can be faced with
making significant and costly adjustments to his ranching operation
based on a decision that may be overturned through the administrative
appeal. By then, the rancher may well be out of business. Section 4
will assure that the decision is suspended and that current grazing is
allowed to continue until the appeal is resolved. Permittees should not
be negatively affected by frivolous appeals and challenges while an
administrative challenge winds its way through the system. There is,
appropriately, an exception where failure to implement the decision
would result in an immediate deterioration of the resource.
Conclusion
All but the most extreme opponents of public lands grazing
acknowledge that the continuation of grazing on public lands is
essential to maintaining the integrity of landscapes in the West. Given
the mosaic pattern of land ownership in most public land areas, a
majority of ranches in these areas are not economically viable ranching
operations without access to forage on public lands. These associated
intermingled private lands will often readily find a market as rural
subdivisions and other non-agricultural uses. The resulting land
fragmentation equates to a loss of wildlife habitat, open space and
scenic vistas, and public access. This can diminish the value of the
public lands themselves for recreational use. Keeping ranchers in
business is good policy for conservation of both private and public
land.
Most public land ranchers do not want to develop their private
lands. It is not in the public interest to drive them to do so by
increasing the uncertainly that they face in continuing public lands
ranching. Over the past 10 years, many states have seen an increase in
the use of conservation easements. The primary reason for doing so is
to provide another tool to keep private ranchlands in ranching.
However, as we visit with public land ranchers, we often hear, ``I
would be very interested in placing an easement on my private land if
my grazing permit were more secure. If I lose the permit, I will have
little choice but to subdivide my land.''
There are certain times when small steps can produce large results.
In H.R. 4234, Congressman Labrador takes those small steps. The results
will include greater stability for the livestock industry, a renewed
focus on long-term resource management, enhanced agency efficiency and
flexibility, and continuation of the broad public benefits provided by
both public and private lands in the West. On behalf of the Public
Lands Council and its affiliates and, most significantly, the over
22,000 families dependent on public land grazing, I urge your support
for this legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee
today.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your testimony.
We will now turn to questions. Mr. Labrador, if you would
like to go first, ask any of the witnesses questions.
Mr. Labrador. Ms. Weldon, thank you for being here today.
Last week the Forest Service testified about concern with the
appeals provisions of this bill. There are obvious problems
with the current system, where appeals are handled by the next
employee up the chain. What would you prefer the appeals
process to be for the agency?
Ms. Weldon. Thank you for your question. We are in the
process, the Forest Service, in revising our appeals process
for uses of the National Forests, including grazing and other
special uses, and our objective there is, rather than having a
three-level process, to shorten that to two to emphasize
keeping the decision-making as close to the ground as we
possibly can. We feel that will save time and hopefully put us
in more of a collaborative mode for problem-solving with
appeals that we do receive for special uses.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. The annual appropriations language
rider effectively requires the renewal of permits in spite of
the NEPA backlog. Why is the Forest Service opposed to grazing
permits continuing under the same terms and conditions through
automatic categorical exclusions, when under the grazing rider,
the same flexibility and practice exists today?
Ms. Weldon. Thank you. We are not opposed to use of
categorical exclusions. We would rather be able to describe
specifically those conditions under which it fits. Our concern
is that if we forego--rather, if we use categorical exclusions
for everything, we may miss the opportunity or the need to have
more extensive analysis done based on changed conditions that
may be occurring on certain allotments. So having that
flexibility helps.
So we are not opposed. We just want to be able to define
the conditions under which it makes the most sense.
Mr. Labrador. OK. Mr. Pool, why specifically is the
Department opposed to legislation that provides flexibility and
efficiency to administering the grazing program?
Mr. Pool. Thank you, Congressman. And I just want to share
my thoughts. I share a lot of the concerns that Ms. Richards
expressed.
Being a New Mexico native, growing up in a farming and
ranching community, and having working with this issue in four
different States, it has created a tremendous amount of
administrative burden on BLM. And it has also created a lot of
issues for our permittees.
During the course of the last 13 years when we were
basically directed by the Interior Board of Land Appeals to use
a NEPA interdisciplinary analysis with full public involvement,
we have processed over 30,000 grazing permit renewals in a 13-
year period. And of the 30,000, only 2.5 percent of that amount
has been appealed through IBLA.
A high majority of those actions have occurred in your home
State, including Utah and other Western States. But we have
discovered over time that the majority of these allotments that
have a variety of resource attributes--in some cases we deal
with invasives; we deal with past fire activity; we have to
accommodate forage for wildlife, in some cases wild horses,
including cattle--that it is the NEPA process and the
interdisciplinary process and the range of alternatives in
allowing affected or interested parties to participate that we
think helps us sustain these decisions over the long term, both
in terms of any actions that are appealed before IBLA and also
our attempts to sustain our decisions before the Federal Court.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. Ms. Richards, why is it important
to extend the grazing permits from 10 to 20 years?
Ms. Richards. Thank you, Congressman. Any of us that work
on the resource, on the land, know that there is no long-term
fix if you are looking to have an upward trend or improvements.
A lot of times this would allow anything that we are moving
forward with.
It would allow the stability, the continuity, and it also
allows the permittees to do a cost-share project, which if the
uncertainty is there, a lot of times you are not willing to or
you cannot get financing for a cost-share project on the long
term.
Mr. Labrador. Let's talk about that uncertainty. Does the
uncertainty of the permitting process negatively affect the
value of your operation? And how has your operation been
affected by the NEPA backlog?
Ms. Richards. Thank you, Congressman. It certainly affects
the stability of our operation. As you heard in my testimony,
your base property relies so heavily on spring and summer
forage that you have a permit that you hold for. If you go in
for your budgets for those years, an uncertainty of a permit
renewal is a huge financial burden on the permittee because of
the fact that it is a large part of our operation.
So we take that into consideration, and we definitely have
to be honest with our lenders. In our local communities, our
county government, it affects the local budgets. So the
uncertainty definitely has an effect overall. And also, the
certainty of that keeps our ranches whole and our communities
whole.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Lujan, do you have questions?
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Pool and Ms. Weldon, it is a pleasure to have you both
here with us as well. As we talk about this legislation, it
provides for 20-year permits by replacing 10-year permits with
20-year permits, as was just discussed, in an amendment to the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Would saying ``up to 20 years'' accomplish the same
objective, while providing the agencies more flexibility over
permits in sensitive areas, as we talk about sensitive
watersheds as well? Mr. Pool?
Mr. Pool. Yes. We would like to continue to work with the
Committee on the 20-year option. We think that that would fit
certain allotments, certain categories of allotments, where we
have a lower degree of conflict. In some cases, for example, we
do not have candidate species. We do not have species of
concern. We do not have listed species, which basically
elevates these type renewals to a high-level NEPA analysis.
But for those allotments that we have throughout the West
where we have not had that degree of complexity or those
challenges, we think that the 20-year extension would be of
some utility to us.
Mr. Lujan. Appreciate that.
Deputy Chief Weldon?
Ms. Weldon. Thank you, Congressman. Along the same lines,
we are supportive of the stability that a 20-year permit would
bring, in particular where these permits are meeting Forest
Plan standards. So over a 20-year period, our engagement would
be through the permit, and monitoring and ensuring that we are
meeting those environmental standards, working in partnership
with the permittee.
If during that time period we encounter areas where we may
need to have change, then we would work with the permittee to
fully evaluate those and severe whether those would require
change or continue to support the permit as is.
Mr. Lujan. And, Ms. Richards, if that would not add to the
backlog--I mean, I appreciate very much what our colleague Mr.
Labrador is doing here. If that would not add to the backlog,
is that something that you could take a look and see if, based
on criteria of opening this up for up to 20 years, that that
may be something that you could consider?
Ms. Richards. We definitely believe that this bill allows
the flexibility to the agencies for implementation of those
type of aspects. One of the things that we also feel is there
are already mechanisms in place to allow--if you cannot go that
far, there are mechanisms in place that allows the agencies to
do what is needed for the resource.
So the flexibility within this, or the 10 to 20 years, we
definitely feel that it is supported and it is a good thing
because the mechanisms are already there for any actions that
would need to be taken on the ground.
Mr. Lujan. And in this particular area, Mr. Chairman, and
too many colleague Mr. Labrador, I think that if we are able to
work together, there may be a way to pull a lot more support--
although I know how to count, Mr. Chairman, and that is
something that I appreciate, that lesson early on in life from
my father--but as we are able to try to navigate this policy so
that we are able to work with our colleagues in the Senate, try
to get this to the President's desk so that way we can make
sure that we have a win for people all around the country, it
is something that I know I would be interested in.
Along those lines, Mr. Labrador, I know that we are always
bragging about New Mexico beef. And I do not want to even ask
Ms. Richards about how that compares to Idaho beef. But maybe
there is a way for us to work together. And I have been talking
about trying to brag on New Mexico beef in front of the
Committee here.
Maybe we can work together and get some of that, a little
burger cookoff, if you will, although I will suggest we have a
little bit of advantage now that we have the largest cheese
plant in the country in my district as well. So I know that
that is a little sore subject with our friends from Idaho. But
we also have the competitive advantage of green chili from New
Mexico. So we will chat about that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lujan. But just real quick, with Deputy Chief Weldon--I
appreciate the indulgence of the Chairman here--Ms. Weldon, one
other area that I want to ask for your consideration, and we
can follow up with this: As related to the previous
legislation, you heard me describing the importance of our
acequias, these irrigation systems that pre-date the U.S.
Forest Service.
And it is an invitation that I extended to Ms. Sutley, and
it is one that I would extend to you and to your team, to get
you to New Mexico so maybe we can walk some of these beautiful
areas together and get a deeper understanding, when we talk
about land management and what it means, where our allottees
are working with the conservationists, with the environmental
associations, with the acequia associations, how we can come
together. And it is in our best interest to be able to handle
that together.
And last, Deputy Chief, there were some decisions made in
the Northern part of New Mexico where we had some concerns that
we raised about how allotments were reduced. And we would just
encourage that we are able to work together, that we are able
to use sound science and data to make those decisions. And we
will follow up with you on that as well.
But thank you both for being here very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. To you for the questions. New Mexico wolf
tastes very tasty, as well.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Labrador. Mr. Chairman, he is going to need one of our
potatoes, which is almost as big as his cattle.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. And as long as you can all count up to 20, we
will be OK with this bill.
Mr. Kildee, do you have any questions?
Mr. Kildee. No, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the clarity of
the presentations, and any questions I may have asked have been
presented very well in the presentation itself. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I do have a couple of questions. Ms.
Richards, if I could start with you.
In the President's budget proposal, there is a $1 increase
per AUM for all BLM permittees. It is not on the AUM cost; it
is simply an administrative cost that allegedly can be added to
it. That would impact about a 70 to 75 percent increase on what
you would have to pay for a grazing fee. What impact would that
have on your operations and others?
Ms. Richards. Thank you, Congressman, for asking about
that. As you just indicated, that is a 74 percent increase on a
small business. We are small, family owned businesses, and this
would have a devastating effect. Any time you have that
significant of an increase on your business, it is very hard to
withstand.
We hold these permits with our base property, and they are
a definite part of it. We are taxed on them when we die. So it
definitely is considered a small business. This increase also
does not directly go back into the BLM range program. It goes
into the administrative--wherever the Administration directs
it.
So there is no guarantee that it goes on the ground or into
the range program, and that is of a tremendous concern to us,
especially that we are the ones that will be brunting that 74
percent increase. Our industry opposes, adamantly opposes,
this. We feel that it is somewhat of a misguided idea, and we
would urge Congress to put it aside.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Pool, when you go back to your superiors there, when
the Secretary was here, we asked specifically for the statutory
authority for this $1 administrative fee. We have yet to have
that input from it. We would ask you once again if the agency
could tell us specifically where they claim that kind of
statutory authority for simply an administrative increase to
what is established by statute as the cost per AUM.
Ms. Richards, if I could ask you one other question as
well: If you would elaborate just for a second of how grazing
could be a useful and a very productive tool to help manage
wildlife, especially things like the sage grouse habitat, which
has the potential of destroying us sooner than the Mayan
calendar can. If you would tell us about how that works, I
would be appreciative.
Ms. Richards. Thank you, Congressman. I am very lucky in
our area to be able to have personal experience on how grazing
works as a tool. We have numerous collaborative efforts through
our local sage grouse working groups. We have a Natural
Resources Committee that has been established by our County
Commissioners. And through these aspects, we have developed
what was determined to be potential sage grouse habitat into
sage grouse habitat, completely keeping the multiple use there.
And it is through these grazing efforts that we keep the
noxious weeds down. We have worked on different fire control.
And in our area, the Murphy Complex Fire was one of the most
highly noted fires in the Western United States a couple years
ago, and we have worked diligently on this, that if there had
been the grazing increases that were there, the fuel loads
would have been reduced.
So grazing is definitely a tool, and I would like to
indicate that it is properly managed grazing, which is what we
advocate, and that that is a substantial tool not only for just
the sage grouse but for all wildlife. And we also use that
pretty much as----
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Pool, this time I would ask for a response, if it is
possible. Is the BLM, realizing what grazing can do for fire
prevention in these habitat areas, and for invasive species in
this habitat, is grazing looked at as a management tool by the
BLM, and will it be part of your RMP process in the future?
Mr. Pool. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have always viewed grazing,
for a number of years, as a management tool in managing and
improving the quality of range lands across the West.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. I do have a few
other questions, but it is going to take a little bit more
time.
Mr. Labrador, are there other questions that you have for
these witnesses? We will do a second round?
Mr. Labrador. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Lujan, do you have other questions for
these guys?
Mr. Lujan. No, Mr. Chairman. I would yield my time to you,
sir.
Mr. Bishop. That is good. I am still on my original five
here.
Mr. Kildee, do you have more questions?
Mr. Kildee. No. I have no more questions.
Mr. Bishop. Let me just ask, then, a couple here, and I
appreciate that, and I will be done.
Mr. Pool, has BLM been party to any settlement agreements
regarding grazing permits, specifically subjecting permitting
decisions to NEPA?
Mr. Pool. To my knowledge, we have, as a result of
litigation that has been filed. Oftentimes we will seek
settlement. I cannot provide--I can later, but I do not have
the specific cases with me.
Mr. Bishop. You mentioned about 2.5 percent of the permits
are appealed; you have to go through the process again. What
percentage of that is driven by litigation from other groups?
Mr. Pool. I do not have that information with me. We were
trying to pull up that information yesterday so I could compare
both. But a high number of our permits, particularly in the
State of Idaho, do result in litigation.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Ms. Weldon, could I ask the same
thing? Of the backlog that you have for permittees, how much of
that is driven by litigation?
Ms. Weldon. We too do not have that precise info available
that we can get for you. What I would say is that while we
automatically reissue permits, we are experiencing a backlog
with our allotments as far as a NEPA needs to be completed for
those. And at this point, between now and the year 2019 with
our rescission schedule, we need to complete approximately 3600
additional allotments.
Mr. Bishop. For the record, if you could look up--both of
you--if you could give us that information of how much is
driven by litigation aspects from certain special interest
groups, I would be appreciative of it.
Mr. Pool, how much in the last year or even the last five
years or the last 10 years--I do want this eventually provided
on a year-by-year basis--has BLM paid out for any or all claims
that are pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act? And how
many of those were paid pursuant to the terms of the 2009
settlement with the Western Watershed?
Mr. Pool. I will have to provide that information.
Mr. Bishop. All right. I would appreciate it once again
because EAJA is a specific concern to all of us. That is part
of the information I think is essential.
Let me just conclude by a short rant here. To the agencies,
one of the reasons why we are looking at legislation and it
becomes important is we really do not want you to solve this
issue by regulations. Part of the problem has been solved by
abuse of the EAJA Act and agencies making outside agreements
with certain special interest groups that, in my opinion,
appear to be motivated as much by politics as by the ability of
controlling and helping the land.
There is a reason that Congress has done rider after rider
after rider, and it has been a positive tool for the agencies
to use. The categorical exclusions are a solution to a problem,
and they need to be respected regardless of what kind of
agreements are made outside of courts before a court actually
has to make a decision on those.
So that is one of the reasons why, in all due respect, we
want legislation. I do not want to base it on regulation. I
would appreciate, though, very much both of you mentioning how
the 20-year concept would add stability and planning process,
and that you do have tools that you could still manage; even if
it was a 20-year process, you could still manage, review, and
look at those permits as time goes on.
So I thank you for that. I appreciate it. And if you could
provide that information, I would be greatly appreciative, and
then we will not be yelling at you as much, especially the
statutory language for why you get to do an administrative fee
on those poor grazers.
And I think I get to yield the last minute I have to Mr.
Labrador.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pool, just real quickly, you have mentioned twice that
there are more appeals in Idaho than any other State. Can you
explain to us why?
Mr. Pool. I cannot from the BLM perspective; we have always
got the outside litigants that we have had to contend with.
When Steve Ellis, the State Director, came into Idaho----
Mr. Labrador. Make it quick. I only have one minute,
because I want to ask one question of----
Mr. Pool. I will just say including Idaho, as other parts
of the West, in some areas we could have done a better job on
our NEPA work. That is very clear. And whether we were remanded
by IBLA, in some cases District Court, it was clear that we
could have done a better job. So some of these cases was our
failure to actually address quality NEPA in support of these
renewals.
Mr. Labrador. And just in Idaho.
So Ms. Richards, why do you think that we have so many
appeals in Idaho? And does it have anything to do with the fact
that we have John Marvel in Idaho?
Ms. Richards. That is a loaded question. There is
definitely the litigation that we have in Idaho. There is a
unique aspect. As you indicated, that extreme anti-grazing
group did cut their teeth in my county. We had over a hundred
permittees; 68 of those landed in court on one challenge. So
there is a tremendous amount, and it was all--the basis came
forward just all off of one case. All of those were in one
case.
So that is one of the reasons we would just hugely support
and appreciate the movement of this bill. I think the backlog
and the ability to get the stability to the industry would
alleviate that process, both for us as permittees and also for
the agencies.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I am appreciative of the
testimony of this particular bill.
Ms. Martin, we have been having you sit here by yourself
for a while. Let's move to the bill so that you can actually
have a chance to say something. This is H.R. 2984 by our friend
from Maine. I do not know, Ms. Weldon, are you prepared to give
testimony on this bill, 2984? This is Mr. Pool's bill.
Mr. Pool, if you want go on H.R. 2984, and then we will
turn to Ms. Martin on 2984, please.
STATEMENT OF MIKE POOL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ON H.R. 2984
Mr. Pool. Will do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am submitting testimony on behalf of the Department of
the Interior today and the Fish and Wildlife Service on H.R.
2984, the Maine Coastal Islands Wilderness Act of 2011. The
Department supports passage of H.R. 2984, which designates
specific lands within the Cross Island National Wildlife Refuge
and the Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness.
The 13 Maine Coastal islands proposed for designation as
wilderness under H.R. 2984 are part of the Maine Coastal
Islands National Wildlife Refuge complex, which is comprised of
five individual refuges that span the Coast of Maine. The
refuges support an incredible diversity of habitats including
coastal islands, forested headlands, estuaries, and freshwater
wetlands.
There are no current human uses on these islands that would
conflict with the wilderness area designation, and designation
of these islands would not significantly impact any future
wildlife management capability. The designation of wilderness
under H.R. 2984 will preserve the scenic and wild nature of
these islands, and fulfills the intent of the Wilderness Act.
I am accompanied today by Jim Kurth--he is the Chief of the
National Wildlife Refuge System within the Fish and Wildlife
Service--who is available to answer any questions the
Subcommittee may have on this particular bill.
[The statement submitted for the record by the U.S.
Department of the Interior on H.R. 2984 follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by the U.S. Department of the
Interior on H.R. 2984, The Maine Coastal Islands Wilderness Act of 2011
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to submit its
views on H.R. 2984, the Maine Coastal Islands Wilderness Act of 2011.
The Department supports H.R. 2984, which would designate specified
lands in Maine within the Cross Island National Wildlife Refuge and
within the Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness, and as
components of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS).
The thirteen Maine coastal islands proposed for designation as
wilderness under H.R. 2984 are part of the Maine Coastal Islands
National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which is comprised of five individual
refuges that span the coast of Maine. The five separate refuges are:
Cross Island, Petit Manan, Seal Island, Franklin Island, and Pond
Island national wildlife refuges. Each has separate establishment
histories and refuge purposes, but collectively, they are managed as
the Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
The refuges support an incredible diversity of habitats, including
coastal islands, forested headlands, estuaries, and freshwater
wetlands. There are 56 islands in the refuge complex, many of which
support habitat for colonial nesting birds, puffins, and eiders. The 13
islands proposed for wilderness designation in H.R. 2984 are wild and
relatively untouched by human activity. They are mostly forested and
support mature spruce-fir forest, which provides nesting habitat for
bald eagles and other species. These are gorgeous islands offshore,
many with bold granite coasts and large trees dripping with lichens.
These 13 islands are pristine with no roads or other structures like
lighthouses or helicopter pads. These islands also provide rare
opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Smaller islands
closer to shore with little vegetation, especially those frequented by
numbers of people, do not offer the same opportunities.
The refuge complex's comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) was
finalized in April 2005. The potential for wilderness designation was
addressed in the CCP. There are no current human uses on these islands
that would conflict with a wilderness area designation, and designation
of these islands would not significantly impact any future wildlife
management capability. A portion of Halifax Island, which is located
within Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge, is closed to the public
due to rare plant management. A campsite used by kayakers from the
Maine Island Trail Association, located on one end of the island, would
not be impacted by a wilderness designation. On Bois Bubert Island,
which is also located within Petit Manan National Wildlife Refuge,
there are some private in-holdings with seasonal cabins that are
specifically excluded from proposed wilderness designation referenced
in H.R. 2984. Based on the public CCP process and subsequent meetings
with the landowners, the Service does not anticipate any impacts to or
opposition from these landowners. Commercial fishery and Atlantic
salmon aquaculture concerns are addressed in this legislation by
establishing the wilderness area boundary at the mean high water mark.
The Department supports passage of this legislation, which will
provide excellent opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude,
and outdoor experiences, focused on wildlife-oriented activities. This
designation will preserve the scenic and wild nature of these islands
and fulfills the intent of the Wilderness Act.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Ms. Martin, you have a full five minutes. They just started
with voting, but we are going to get both of these bills in
here. Please.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE L. MARTIN, PROGRAMS COORDINATOR, FRIENDS
OF MAINE'S SEABIRD ISLANDS
Ms. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Lujan and the other Member of the Committee, for the
opportunity to testify before you today. I am Stephanie Martin.
I live in the coastal community of Rockport, Maine with my
husband and my two children.
I am here representing myself and the Friends of Maine's
Seabird Islands, which is a nonprofit organization whose
mission is to encourage conservation and the appreciation of
seabirds, their nesting, and coastal habitats, as well as to
support the Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuge.
I joined the board of the Friends a year ago after
relocating back to Maine. As a child growing up here, I had no
idea of the resources and the beauty that existed off of the
Maine Coast, nor did I know of the conservation efforts
regarding seabirds. I joined the Friends group to help educate
and share the story of seabird conservation, and to help
protect these islands and thus the overall health of the Gulf
of Maine ecosystem.
I want to start by thanking Congressman Michaud for
introducing, and Congresswoman Pingree for cosponsoring, H.R.
2984. Maine citizens are very fortunate to have two
representatives who understand not only the value that nature-
based tourism plays in our economy but who also treasure
Maine's unmatchable natural beauty.
The Maine Coastal Islands Wilderness bill will provide
enduring protection for 13 of the Refuge's 56 islands. These
rugged islands provide Maine residents and visitors an
opportunity to experience solitude and primitive recreation.
Coastal real estate is economically unattainable for most of us
Mainers, and it is a comfort knowing that this legislation
would forever protect the untamed beauty of places like Cross
Island and Washington County.
In addition to the wilderness recreation opportunities,
these islands provide critical habitat to many species of
wildlife and plants. Our Nation's symbol, the American bald
eagle, nests on many of the islands, including Outer Heron and
Little Marshall. Outer White and Johns Islands are frequented
by harbor seals and are birthing and nursing sites for their
pups. And then there are the seabirds, which are supported by
the habitat on many of the islands, such as Old Man Island.
Thousands of people come to Maine to see these beautiful
seabirds annually.
Additionally, Coastal Maine wilderness will continue to
provide shelter for coastal wildlife and act as a living
laboratory for important scientific research. It will also
serve as a classroom for individuals and families in search of
unique outdoor experiences, while finding the risks, rewards,
and self-reliance found only in nature.
I am here today because I want to protect the lands that
are critical to scientific research for the health of the Gulf
of Maine ecosystem. But also I want to set these islands aside
to allow my daughters and grandchildren the opportunity to
explore their personal values while experiencing the risks and
rewards in nature.
I am not alone in my support for wilderness protection of
these islands. Over 600 Mainers submitted positive comments
through emails, phone calls, and written testimony at the four
public hearings when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
presented its draft conservation plan for the refuge, which did
include the designation of wilderness for 13 of its islands.
Additionally, over 100 mid-coast organizations,
conservation groups, individuals, and businesses, including the
Penobscot Bay Regional Chamber of Commerce and residents and
businesses of Washington County, have signed this letter that I
brought today requesting that Congress protect these islands. I
ask that this letter be included in the official record.
Many of you are probably familiar with the slogan on
Maine's license plate, ``Vacationland.'' Wildlife watching and
eco-tourism brings millions of dollars into Maine's economy
annually, supporting guides and boats that bring people to
these beautiful places, as well as hotels, restaurants, gas
stations, and innumerable stores that serve them. Tourism is
our economic engine, and wildlife and wilderness fuel that
engine.
A recent report for the Governor's Council on Maine's
Quality of Place States that annual spending on wildlife
watching in Maine alone totals $287 million. Aside from
seasonal visitors, protected lands attract entrepreneurs,
retirees, and second home residents, who bring disposable
income and job opportunities that help support these local
services.
The Maine Coastal Islands Wilderness bill is a good thing
for seabirds, recreationists, the tourism industry, and for our
Nation. This legislation is appropriate congressional
recognition regarding the importance of these wild islands and
the entire Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuge to
the people of Maine, to our economy, and to the countless
wildlife and seabirds who depend on this important resource.
In conclusion, the Friends of Maine's Seabird Islands urges
you to support H.R. 2984 to protect these important and
irreplaceable islands for our children and grandchildren to
experience, just as we in previous generations have
experienced. Thank you for the opportunity today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Martin follows:]
Statement of Stephanie L. Martin, Friends of Maine's Seabird Islands,
on H.R. 2984, The Maine Coastal Islands Wilderness Act of 2011
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee today. I am Stephanie Martin, and I live in the coastal
community of Rockport, Maine, with my husband and my 5 and 2 year old
daughters. I am here representing myself and the Friends of Maine's
Seabird Islands, a non-profit organization whose mission is to
encourage conservation and appreciation of seabirds, their nesting and
coastal habitats, and to support the Maine Coastal Islands National
Wildlife Refuge. I joined the Friends' Board of Directors 1 year ago
after relocating back to the Maine coast. As a child growing up here I
had no idea of the resources and beauty existing off the Maine coast,
nor did I know about the conservation efforts regarding seabirds. I
joined the Friend's group to help educate and share the story of
seabird conservation and to help protect these islands, and thus the
overall health of the Gulf of Maine.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to you today about
the Maine Coastal Islands Wilderness Act. I want to start by thanking
Congressman Michaud for introducing and Congresswoman Pingree for co-
sponsoring H.R. 2984. Maine's citizens are fortunate to have two
representatives who understand not only the value that nature-based
tourism plays in our economy, but whom also treasure Maine's
unmatchable natural beauty.
The Maine Coastal Islands Wilderness bill will provide enduring
protection for 13 of the Refuge's 56 islands. These rugged islands
provide Maine residents and visitors an opportunity to experience
solitude and primitive recreation. Coastal real estate is economically
unattainable for most of us Mainers and it is a comfort knowing that
this legislation would forever protect the untamed beauty of places
like Cross Island in Washington Country.
In addition to the wilderness recreation opportunities, the islands
provided critical habitat to many species of wildlife and plants. Our
nation's symbol, the bald eagle, nests on many of the islands including
Outer Heron and Little Marshall. Outer White and John's Island are
frequented by harbor seals and are birthing and nursing sites for their
pups. And then there are the seabirds which are supported by the
habitat on many of the islands, such as Old Man Island. Thousands of
people come to Maine to see these beautiful seabirds.
Our National System of wild lands contributes significantly to the
ecological, economic, and social health of our country, but this
specific designation I am speaking of will support the economies of
Maine's coastal communities by drawing in more individuals seeking the
solitude these islands can provide.
In addition, Coastal Maine Wilderness would continue to provide a
shelter for coastal wildlife, act as a living laboratory for important
scientific research, and serve as a classroom for individuals and
families exploring personal values in search of a unique outdoor
experience while experiencing the risks, rewards, and self-reliance
found only in nature.
I am here today because I want to protect the lands that are
critical to scientific research for the health of the Gulf of Maine
ecosystem, but also I want to set these islands aside to allow my
daughters and grandchildren the opportunity to explore their personal
values while experiencing the risks and rewards of nature.
I am not alone in my support for wilderness protection of these
islands: over 600 Mainers submitted positive comments through emails,
phone calls, and written testimony at 4 public hearings when the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service presented its draft conservation plan for the
refuge which included the designation of wilderness for 13 of its
islands. Additionally, 99 mid-coast organizations, conservation groups,
individuals, and businesses, including the Penobscot Bay Regional
Chamber of Commerce have signed this letter requesting Congress protect
these islands and I ask that this letter be included in the official
record.
Many of you are probably familiar with the slogan on Maine's
license plate ``Vacationland''. Wildlife watching and ecotourism brings
millions of dollars into Maine's economy annually supporting guides and
boats bringing people to these beautiful places, as well as hotels,
restaurants, gas stations, and innumerable stores that serve them.
Tourism is our economic engine and wildlife and wilderness fuel that
engine.
A recent report for the Governor's Council on Maine's Quality of
Place states that annual spending on wildlife watching in Maine totals
$287 million. Aside from seasonal visitors, protected lands attract
entrepreneurs, retirees and second-home residents who bring disposable
income and job opportunities and help support local services. An
Outdoor Industry Foundation nationwide study found of seven major
outdoor recreation categories, viewing and photographing wildlife has
grown the most over the past decade. Wilderness classification will be
a thoughtful yet powerful tool in promoting the world-class resources
we value in coastal Maine and will provide an integral first step
toward a more robust and sustainable economy.
The Maine Coastal Islands Wilderness bill is a good thing for
seabirds, recreationists, the tourism industry, and for our nation.
This legislation is not in response to some immediate threat to the
islands but it is appropriate Congressional recognition regarding the
importance of these wild islands and the entire Maine Coastal Island
National Wildlife Refuge to the people of Maine, our economy, and the
countless wildlife and seabirds who depend on this important resource.
In conclusion, The Friends of the Maine's Seabird Islands urge you
to support H.R. 2984, to protect these important and irreplaceable
islands for our children and grandchildren to experience, just as we
and previous generations have experienced. Thank you.
______
Friends of Maine Seabird Islands
PO Box 1231 Rockland, ME 04841
info@maineseabirds.org
http://www.maineseabirds.org
November 10, 2011
Mr. Pat Keliher, Acting Commissioner
Maine Dept. of Marine Resources
21 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
Mr. John Boland
Director, Bureau of Resource Management
Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
284 State Street
Augusta, Maine 04333
Acting Commissioner Keliher and Director Boland:
The Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuge supports
incredible diversity, ranging from coastal islands to salt marshes. Its
56 islands and four mainland units are habitat for migratory seabirds,
waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, songbirds, raptors, and a
diversity of plants and other wildlife. Refuge lands provide Maine
citizens and tourists opportunities for hiking, photography, wildlife
viewing, picnicking, camping, and hunting.
The Refuge's recent Comprehensive Conservation Planning effort
found that 13 of the Refuge's islands (totaling 3,125 acres) qualify
for protection under the National Wilderness Preservation System due to
their wild character, ecological features, and opportunities for
solitude and primitive recreation. Wilderness designation prescribes
management that ensures that mature forest habitat is retained and
motor vehicles are never permitted. There was overwhelming public
support for protecting these islands during public comment on the
management plan.
Below is a list of the 13 islands proposed for wilderness
designation and the towns they are near:
Outer Heron Island and Outer White Island: Boothbay--
forested (eagle) & shrub
Little Marshal Island and John's Island: Town of
Swan's Island--forested & grasslands
Bois Bubert Island: Milbridge--forested
Inner Sand Island: Addison--forested
Halifax Island: Jonesport--botanical preserve
Cross Island Complex (six islands in a geographic
cluster), which includes Old Man (not forested, huge razorbill
colony), Mink, Outer Double Head Shot, Inner Double Head Shot,
Scotch, and Cross Islands: Cutler--forested, bald eagles
Wilderness lands are open to public activities such as wildlife
viewing, hiking, camping, boating, photography, hunting, fishing,
research, and non-motorized recreation. The Refuge's comprehensive
conservation plan [and the wilderness designation bill] favorably
addresses public safety, private landowner access, and adjacent
activities, such as aquaculture and commercial fishing.
The Friends of Maine Seabird Islands (FOMSI) is leading the
campaign to enact wilderness designation for the13 islands. Congress
enacted the Wilderness Act in 1964, which created the National
Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) and reserved to Congress the
authority to designate wilderness areas. FOMSI is working with Maine's
Congressional Delegation in this effort.
FOMSI desires that the departments of Marine Resources and Inland
Fisheries & Wildlife join its efforts to establish wilderness
designation for these remarkable islands and to ensure that they remain
wild for future generations. To this end, FOMSI is seeking a letter of
support from each agency. Given your prominent role in the conservation
and management of coastal wildlife and habitat, your support for
wilderness designation would greatly advance FOMSI's outreach to our
Congressional delegation, as well as organizations, businesses, and
individuals. I look forward to discussing this further with you at our
November 21st meeting in Hallowell.
Wildlife watching and ecotourism bring millions of dollars into
Maine's economy annually. Not only for the guides and boats that bring
people to these beautiful places, but for hotels, restaurants, and
stores that serve them. This classification will be an incredible asset
to promoting the world-class resources we have here in Maine and
building on this sustainable piece of our economy.
Sincerely,
Stephanie L. Martin
Programs Coordinator, Friends of Maine Seabird Islands
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Lujan, do you have any questions?
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, just to let Ms. Martin know we
appreciate her being here with the family. And Mr. Pool, again,
we have some questions we will submit to the record, and just
appreciate you getting back to us.
Thank you so much for your advocacy, and my best to your
family.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Kildee, do you have questions?
Mr. Kildee. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I did receive for my part a letter
who is the Chairman of the Washington County Commission. I ask
unanimous consent that that be put in the record.
[The letter from Christopher Gardner submitted for the
record by Mr. Bishop follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73547.001
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73547.002
.epsMr. Bishop. With that, if there are no other questions,
we thank you. And in all sincerity, questions are because of
the caliber of the testimony that was given. Thank you very
much.
We have one other bill, 1818. Ms. Weldon, I think you are
the one. You have five minutes to testify. If you take that
much time, this bill is dead. We still have eight minutes to go
and vote. Would you like to testify on this bill, briefly?
Ms. Weldon. Briefly, yes. Thank you for the opportunity.
The Department has no objection to the Mt. Andrea Lawrence
Designation Act of 2012. This legislation directs the
designation of an unnamed 12,240-foot peak located on the
boundary between Ansel Adams Wilderness Area and Yosemite
National Park as Mt. Andrea Lawrence. The management of the
proposed Mt. Andrea Lawrence is shared between the Inyo
National Forest and Yosemite National Park.
Ms. Lawrence was a successful Olympic athlete and a
committed public servant, having served 16 years on the Mono
County Board of Supervisors, and founded the Andrea Lawrence
Institute for Mountains and Rivers.
She was a strong supporter of the work of the Inyo National
Forest and Yosemite National Park. She worked tireless to
protect the health and vitality of the environments and
economies of the Eastern Sierra and the Sierra Nevada region as
a whole.
Ms. Lawrence passed away at the age of 76 on March 31,
2009. The Department recognizes the contributions of Ms.
Lawrence to both the U.S. and California, and concurs with the
principles of the legislation. We would update our maps as
quickly as possible once it is passed. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weldon on H.R. 1818
follows:]
Statement of Leslie A.C. Weldon, Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 1818, Mt.
Andrea Lawrence Designation Act of 2012
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
on H.R. 1818, the Mt. Andrea Lawrence Designation Act of 2012. We have
consulted with the U.S. Department of the Interior--National Park
Service in the preparation of this statement.
H.R. 1818--Mt. Andrea Lawrence Designation Act of 2012
This legislation directs the designation of an unnamed 12,240 foot
peak, located on the boundary between Ansel Adams Wilderness Area and
Yosemite National Park approximately six tenths miles (0.6) northeast
of Donahue Peak, as ``Mt. Andrea Lawrence.'' The management of the
proposed Mt. Andrea Lawrence is shared between the Inyo National Forest
and Yosemite National Park.
Ms. Lawrence was a successful Olympic athlete and a committed
public servant, having served 16-years on the Mono County Board of
Supervisors and founded the Andrea Lawrence Institute for Mountains and
Rivers. She was a strong supporter of the work of the Inyo National
Forest and Yosemite National Park. She worked tirelessly to protect the
health and vitality of the environment and economies in the Eastern
Sierra and the Sierra Nevada Region as a whole. Ms. Lawrence passed
away at the age of 76 on March 31, 2009.
The Department has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 1818 and
notes that it would have no adverse impact to the management of the
Inyo National Forest, or the Ansel Adams Wilderness.
However, the Board on Geographic Names was created by Congress in
1947 to establish and maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout
the Federal Government. It is Board policy not to consider names that
commemorate living persons. In addition, a person must be deceased at
least 5-years before a commemorative proposal will be considered. In
accordance with the Board's interpretation of Wilderness Act of 1964,
the Board on Geographic Names discourages naming features in
congressionally designated wilderness areas unless an overriding need
can be demonstrated. Although the Department does not have any
objections to the enactment of H.R. 1818, maintaining consistency with
the longstanding policies of the Board on Geographic Names is
recommended.
The Department recognizes the contributions of Ms. Lawrence to both
the United States and California, and concurs with the principles
embodied in the legislation. Should the legislation be enacted, the
Forest Service would work to ensure that our visitor information maps
reflect the new designation, and understand that the National Park
Service would do the same when their maps, signs, and other
informational materials are replaced or updated.
This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I appreciate.
Do you have any questions on this one?
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, again, Deputy Chief, we appreciate
you being here. We have a few questions we will submit to the
record.
Mr. Bishop. We will offer all of our witnesses--we would
ask you to be prepared to receive written questions from
Members of the Committee. And we would ask for your response to
those written questions if and when they arrive to you.
With that, I appreciate all of you being here. I appreciate
the ability of going through these four bills in a timely
manner. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your
willingness to be here. Some of you have traveled great
distances; I appreciate that very much.
If there are no other issues or questions, we will stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon, a Representative in Congress from the State of California on
H.R. 1818
Good morning, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members
of the committee. Thank you for holding this hearing today and the
opportunity to testify on legislation I introduced, H.R. 1818, the
Mount Andrea Lawrence Designation Act of 2011.
I had the honor to personally know and work with Andrea Mead
Lawrence on several occasions, especially for the protection of the
Eastern Sierra. I have introduced this legislation at the request of my
constituents in the Eastern Sierra of California who recognize the
significant accomplishments of Andrea personally, but more importantly
the lasting positive legacy she left on the region. I would ask
unanimous consent to insert into the record numerous letters of local
support for designation of Mt. Andrea Lawrence.
Andrea Mead Lawrence was born in Rutland County, Vermont on April
19, 1932 where her life-long love of winter sports and appreciation for
the environment was fostered. A skilled skier, she competed in the 1948
Winter Olympics in St. Moriz, Switzerland as well as the 1956 Winter
Olympics in Cortina d'Ampezzo Italy. She also served as the torch
lighter at the 1960 Winter Olympics in Squaw Valley, California. In the
1952 Winter Olympics in Oslo Norway, she won two Gold Medals in the
Olympic special and giant slalom races. To this day, she remains the
only United States double-gold medalist in alpine skiing. For her
significant accomplishments, she was inducted into the U.S. National
Ski Hall of Fame in 1958, at the age of 25.
These remarkable achievements at a young age, however, were just
the beginning of a life of service to her community and environmental
preservation. In 1968, Andrea moved to Mammoth Lakes in the
spectacularly beautiful Eastern Sierra of California. It was in this
special region she spent the rest of her life working to protect the
area's natural treasures.
Never one to rest on her accomplishments, she founded the Friends
of Mammoth to maintain the beauty and serenity of Mammoth Lakes and the
Eastern Sierra. She served for 16 years on the Mono County Board of
Supervisors, where she worked tirelessly to protect and restore Mono
Lake, Bodie State Historic Park, and other important natural and
cultural landscapes of the Eastern Sierra. As a member of the Great
Basin Air Pollution Control District, she worked to reduce air
pollution caused by the dewatering of Owens Lake. In 2003, she founded
the Andrea Lawrence Institute for Mountains and Rivers to protect the
environment and the economic vitality of this important region.
In 2008, she testified before the Mono County Board of Supervisors
in favor of the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage
Act, a bill enacted the day before she died on March 31, 2009 at the
age of 76. Andrea left a rich legacy of a family of five children,
including Quentin Lawrence who will testify today, four grandchildren,
as well as a distinguished record in skiing and, most importantly, her
tireless efforts have left a better legacy for the people who live and
recreate in the Eastern Sierra.
Andrea Mead Lawrence's life philosophy is summed up in her quote
``Your life doesn't stop by winning medals. It's only the beginning.
And if you have the true Olympic spirit, you have to put it back into
the world in meaningful ways.'' Mr. Chairman, in light of the
remarkable life and work of Andrea Mead Lawrence, it is very fitting to
name Peak 12,240 ``Mt. Andrea Lawrence'' both in her honor and as a
visible point of inspiration for future genterations.
______
Statement of The Honorable Michael Michaud, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Maine, on H.R. 2984
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the
Subcommittee--thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 2984, the
``Maine Coastal Islands Wilderness Act.'' I would also like to thank
Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey of the full committee for
their continued efforts to address wilderness issues.
Stephanie Martin will also testify today in support of this bill.
Stephanie is on the Board of Directors of the Friends of Maine Seabird
Islands, and she will discuss the local benefits and support of the
bill. I want to express my appreciation to the Friends of Maine Seabird
Islands for their collaborative efforts to restore seabird wildlife
habitat and promote nature-based tourism. I would also like to thank
Representative Pingree for partnering with me on this legislation,
which includes islands in both of Maine's Congressional Districts.
H.R. 2984 would designate 13 coastal islands--approximately 3,256
acres--as federal wilderness areas within the Maine Coastal Islands
National Wildlife Refuge complex. This wilderness designation will
achieve two important objectives. First, it will increase the
marketability of this area to tourists and give a boost to the local
economy. Second, it will codify the current status of these islands,
which reflects a thoughtful balance between recreational, fishing and
aquaculture, and refuge uses.
The process of drafting this bill has been a long one. In 2004 the
Maine Coastal Islands Wildlife Refuge began their first conservation
planning process. They held two years of public hearings to discuss
various issues relating to the Refuge, including whether or not the 13
islands my bill addresses should receive the federal wilderness
designation. As a result of the broad support for the wilderness
designation, their 2006 final conservation plan included the
recommendation that Congress pass legislation to establish the Maine
Coastal Island Wilderness Area.
Since that recommendation my office has heard from numerous
organizations asking me to introduce legislation that would codify the
wilderness designation for these 13 islands as recommended six years
ago by the Refuge's conservation plan. In addition to listening to
these groups, my office also talked to other constituencies to ensure
that they were on board with this initiative.
This outreach effort raised several legitimate concerns that I have
attempted to address by inserting provisions in this legislation that
are critical to its objective. Because many of these provisions are
unique for wilderness designation bills, I'd like to take the time to
explain them.
First, my legislation clarifies the seaward boundary of each
wilderness island to be the well-defined high water mark to ensure that
motorized boats can still land on these islands, a priority for local
fishermen and recreationists. Second, the legislation clarifies that
there are no buffer zones or impacts to nonwilderness activities
adjacent to the wilderness boundaries to further guarantee fishermen's
and recreationists' access to these islands. Third, although man-made
devices are generally not permitted in wilderness areas, my legislation
allows for the installation of essential navigational devices to
accommodate all public safety concerns. Finally, this bill explicitly
protects private property rights by excluding all private lands and
access right-of-ways from the recommended wilderness boundaries.
I am very grateful for the local organizations' willingness to
collaborate with me on this project to ensure that this bill suits the
communities and industries it seeks to support. I believe the final
result is a balanced approach to conserving these unique island
landscapes while making sure that the public can still enjoy them. If
the Committee believes, however, that any concerns can be more
completely addressed, I am more than happy to work with you to amend
the bill to make it even stronger between now and when it comes to the
Floor.
My primary motivation for introducing this bill was its economic
benefit. As you know, Mainers have a lot of pride in their beautiful
state, and much of our economy depends on getting more people to see
for themselves just how beautiful it is. In that vein, this legislation
will make it easier for these coastal communities to market themselves
and grow their nature-based tourism. The Penobscot Bay Regional Chamber
of Commerce and members of the Ellsworth Area Chamber of Commerce, as
well as many other local organizations, support this wilderness
designation for this reason. During these times of high unemployment
and a stagnant economy, especially in coastal communities where the
fishing industry faces numerous issues, I am a strong advocate of
efforts that encourage private sector job growth. That is why I
introduced H.R. 2984.
My secondary motivation for introducing this bill was to ensure
that these coastal islands remain as they are. My legislation, as you
know, simply assigns these islands the official title of the Maine
Coastal Islands Wilderness Area. But by including the special
provisions that I mentioned above, H.R. 2984 also codifies, and
therefore makes harder to change, the islands' current status and
accessibility. Mainers are very proud and protective of their land,
which is why I've carefully crafted this bill not only to make the
wilderness designation but also to clarify that the land's current uses
will remain the same.
In closing, once again I would 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 opportunity to
provide my testimony today. I ask the committee to support this
balanced effort to help local communities in Maine enhance their
efforts to grow their nature-based tourism sectors while preserving the
accessibility and use of these coastal islands.
Thank you.