[Senate Hearing 112-642]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-642
PUBLIC LANDS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
COMMITTEE ON
of the
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 303 S. 1129
S. 1473 S. 1492
S. 1559 S. 1635
S. 1687 S. 1774
S. 1788 S. 1906
S. 2001 S. 2015
S. 2056
__________
MARCH 22, 2012
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
77-160 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont RAND PAUL, Kentucky
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DANIEL COATS, Indiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
MARK UDALL, Colorado RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware DEAN HELLER, Nevada
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming................... 2
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator From Montana...................... 4
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator From Washington............... 34
Crary, Dusty, Choteau, MT........................................ 51
Gann, Doug, National Forest Homeowners, Kirkland, WA............. 54
Kerr, Andy, Advisor, WildEarth Guardians......................... 47
Magagna, Jim, Executive Vice President, Wyoming Stock Growers
Association, Public Lands Council, Cheyenne, WY................ 42
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 3
Pool, Mike, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior..................................... 10
Strahan, David, Grants Pass, OR.................................. 39
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 8
Weldon, Leslie A.C., Deputy Chief, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 27
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 71
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 83
PUBLIC LANDS BILLS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The subcommittee will come to order. Let me
also say that all our guests and my good friend, Chairman
Baucus, apologies for being a few minutes tardy. Today has been
bedlam.
This afternoon the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
is going to consider 13 bills involving National Forests and
Public Lands.
The agenda includes S. 303, Senator Murkowski's bill
addressing claim maintenance fee waivers for small miners.
S. 1129, Senator Barrasso's bill concerning grazing
management.
S. 1473, Senator Heller's Mesquite Nevada Land Conveyance
bill.
1492, another bill relating to Nevada, relating to the
Three Kids Mine.
S. 1559, Senator Cantwell's bill to establish the San Juan
Islands National Conservation Area.
S. 1635, Senator Udall's San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act.
S. 1687, Chairman Bingaman's bill to modify the boundaries
of the Carson National Forest in New Mexico.
S. 1774, Chairman Baucus' Rocky Mountain Front Heritage
Act.
S. 1778, Senator Reed and Senator Heller's bill to
designate the Pine Forest Range Wilderness in Nevada.
S. 1906, Senator Tester's bill to establish a new formula
for cabin fees on National Forests.
S. 2001, my bill to expand the Wild Rogue Wilderness Area
in Oregon and to designate additional segments of the Rogue
River to the National Wild and Scenic River system.
S. 2015, sponsored by Senators Enzi and Barrasso which
would convey BLM land in Wyoming to the Powell Recreation
District.
Finally S. 2056, sponsored by Senator Hatch and Senator
Enzi, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain lands acquired for the Scofield Project in Utah.
The subcommittee, obviously, has a full agenda this
afternoon. We've had many hearing requests. So the point of
today's subcommittee's hearing is especially is to hold a
hearing to look at as many bills as possible since we know that
a number of these bills are of particular interest to members
of the committee.
Given the fact that we're starting a bit late Chairman
Baucus and others have been waiting, I'm going to put my
remarks into the record, but just by way of one quick thought,
the Rogue River legislation which I have authored with
colleagues to expand the Wild Rogue Wilderness Area by 60,000
acres. This is a part of our country that is one of America's
premier recreation destinations. Famous for free flowing waters
which provide numerous rafting, fishing, backpacking and hiking
opportunities, spectacular cannons, diverse natural areas with
habitat for Bald Eagles, elk, bears, green sturgeons, salmon
and steelhead, among other species.
So I'm going to put the rest of my remarks into the record.
But would only note and I've heard Chairman Baucus and others
talk about it that so many of the bills that we're talking
about allow us to protect America's great treasures. Are also
good for the economy and good for business because we see so
many American businesses supportive of recreation and the
values these bills represent.
Senator Wyden. With that let me turn to Senator Barrasso. I
also see the ranking minority m ember is here. We'll put
everybody's statement into the record. I thank my colleagues
for their attendance.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wish
to welcome Senator Baucus and also wanted to welcome Jim
Magagna from the Wyoming Stock Growers Association. There are 3
bills related to Wyoming included in this hearing. I wish to
address S. 1129, the Grazing Improvement Act of 2011, S. 2015,
the Powell Shooting Range Land Conveyance Act and S. 1906, the
Cabin Fee Act of 2011.
Livestock grazing on public lands has a strong tradition in
Wyoming and the West. Ranchers are proud and responsible
environmental stewards of the land. Yet ranchers face too much
uncertainty surrounding their grazing permits.
Hard working ranching families are routinely attacked by
extreme anti-grazing and pro-litigation groups. Uncertainty and
litigation undermine all businesses. It is especially true for
rural ranching communities.
These family ranches in many communities across the West
are the driving force of rural economies. That's why I
introduced the Grazing Improvement Act of 2011. This is an act
that is needed by livestock grazing permit holders and the
Federal Land Management Agencies themselves.
Additionally for over a decade agencies have relied on year
to year appropriation rider language to reissue grazing
permits. My bill codifies this important language. The BLM and
Forest Service simply cannot keep up with the required NEPA
analysis due to limited funding and a backlog of lawsuits by
the anti-grazing, pro-litigation groups. This bill provides the
respective Secretaries with the needed flexibility when
reissuing grazing permits. Such reforms will provide greater
certainty and stability to the livestock grazing community, the
rural economies and wildlife they support and our Federal land
agencies.
Additionally I'm pleased the committee is considering S.
2015, a bill Senator Enzi introduced and I have co-sponsored.
This legislation would convey land currently used as a shooting
range to the Powell Recreation District in the State of
Wyoming. The land has been used as a public recreational
shooting complex since 1980. Once conveyed it will continue to
operate as a public shooting range.
The Powell Recreation District has been working to obtain
this land since 2005 but has been unable to make progress due
to questions of ownership. Senator Enzi and I looked at every
option. We believe the most appropriate option for moving
forward is passage of S. 2015. I hope the Department will agree
with that assessment.
Finally I want to say a word about S. 16--I'm sorry, 1906,
the Cabin User Fee Act of 2011. This is the second time
Congress has been asked to modify the Forest Service Cabin User
Fee law. The Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 has proven
unworkable and has resulted in excessive fees for cabin owners.
I know my colleagues from Oregon, California, Washington and
other States have heard from cabin owners who lease Federal
Forest Service land for their cabins. Unless changes are made
to the 2000 fee structure a good number of these folks will
lose their cabins.
I want to thank our witnesses, and appreciate their
testimony. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move
these important pieces of legislation forward.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. We always recognize
our Chair and our Ranking Minority Member. Senator Murkowski I
know you've got a bill to be considered as well today.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. I do, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
committee's hearing this bill along with so many. As Senator
Barrasso has outlined, there's a lot of small things. You've
mentioned trying to move some things through.
But a lot of small things have, I think, profound impact on
men and women that are trying to make things happen. Whether
it's out on the grazing lands or in the forests or up in Alaska
where I'm focusing on an issue today as it relates to small
mining operations. I have a bill, S. 303, that is up for
consideration today.
A number of years ago, the Congress created the Small Miner
Waiver bill, which allows small plaster miners with fewer than
ten claims to avoid paying their $125 claim fees provided that
they perform minimum annual work required on the claims. The
language was pretty clear that if the miners made a mistake in
filing their waiver applications they'd be given 60 days after
receipt of written notification to correct any defects for any
reasons. It was pretty clear what the intent of Congress was.
Small miners were going to get some pretty simple due
process and have a chance to fix their mistakes before they
lost their mining claims which they'd been working on for a
considerable period of time. Instead what we're seeing is the
BLM's Appeals Board has ruled that if an applicant's defect is
an initially tardy arrival date, even by just 1 day, then the
miner loses all claims. They lose them for good. They've ruled
that there is no appeals process for the loss of the claims in
this scenario.
It doesn't matter whether the U.S. mails were late. It
doesn't matter if the BLM personnel put the wrong time and date
stamp on it. It doesn't make any difference if the computers
were down at the BLM office as they were in the situation of
the constituent in Alaska that we're speaking with. It doesn't
make a difference if somebody had a bad day.
It's just done. It's over. There is no process after that.
The miner loses everything.
I don't think, Mr. Chairman, this is what Congress had
intended. It was pretty clear. So what my bill does is it
requires BLM to notify a miner that his or her application was
not received in a timely fashion. It gives the miner the same
60 days to correctly file it or to pay their work maintenance
fees and then if it doesn't happen then they lose the claims.
So there's a process out there.
This bill isn't going to cost the government much of
anything. I can't believe that CBO is going to score this for
more than a few thousand dollars for the time the clerk might
have to spend to actually send notice letters to the dozen
miners a year that I would suspect might be in this situation.
But it is an extremely important measure to provide a modicum
of due process protections to our small miners and making them
petition a Congressman for private relief legislation every
time something like this happens, I think is a waste of time.
It risks their livelihood. It undercuts the respect for the
basic fairness of the institution.
So I hope that this committee would show some understanding
here because the current practice by BLM, I don't think, is
fair. I've had a tough time trying to explain to my
constituents why we haven't already been able to remedy this. I
hope we can advance the bill which, by the way, passed the
Senate in 2007. Didn't clear the House this year, so we're
going to give it another try.
I want to submit for the record statements in support of
the legislation by both the National Mining Association, the
Northwest Mining Association and a statement by Alaska miner,
John Trautner, who has been impacted by this issue.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. I'm looking
forward to the testimony and working with you.
Chairman Baucus, you've been extremely patient. I know
you're trying to protect a breathtaking part of your State.
We're anxious to hear your remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Chairman Wyden, Senator Barrasso, Murkowski, Udall. It's a real
honor for me to tell you how much we like Montana and how much
this legislation is going to just help us in our State. It
memorializes and take advantage of our great outdoors.
We're an outdoor State, just like Alaska and Utah and like
Oregon and Colorado and New Mexico and all these States. I like
to think, I don't know if it's true or not, but I think we have
more fishing licenses per capita and more hunting licenses per
capita than any other State in the Nation. Although Senator
Murkowski might take issue with that.
Senator Wyden. There will be a competition.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. We're--but we really love the out of doors.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, much of our, you alluded to it,
our economy is recreation, is tourism. So this is jobs in
Montana as well.
But thank you for allowing me to testify in support of the
Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act. This is a bill I introduced
after talking to a lot of groups at home over a long period of
time. I went back to them over and over and over again.
If you talked to the ranchers, if you talked to the miners,
you talk to the motorized vehicle folks. You just make sure you
talk to all the groups that are like really relevant is oh,
yes, we have or do we have their support. We're getting it.
Don't come back to me until you have their support. It's--
that's how this bill developed. I must say it embodies really
who we are as a State.
I'd like to start out by giving to you some idea how
special a place the Front is. On your left is a photograph of
Ear Mountain. Now I'm the guy there on the right.
I must say to my friend from Colorado, this is not Everest.
It's not K2. But sometimes, sir, I'd like to take you up Ear
Mountain.
It's a very special place in our part of the country.
People climb here with some frequency. As you can tell the
great view over the plains in Eastern Montana.
On your right is the Sawtooth Ridge in the Front. Let me
just tell you what the Front is. The Front is this.
When James Hill was building the railroad, the Great
Northern, coming West and homesteaders coming west, they'd
stop, some even on their wagons. They come across the dusty,
flat, Eastern part of Montana and then all of a sudden. Wow. Up
sprung this mountain range right out of the plains and that's
the Rocky Mountains, it's the Front.
It's incredible. It's just so stunning. It's hard to get a
picture of it with these two pictures, but it's a very special
spot in our State. It's the Rocky Mountains. It's the Eastern
side of the Rocky Mountains in Montana.
Let me just read to you the Preamble of our Constitution to
give you a sense of the State Constitution, what this means.
``We the people of Montana, grateful to God for the quiet
beauty of our State, the grandeur of our mountains, the
vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the
quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the
blessings of liberty for this and future generations, do ordain
and establish this constitution.''
We were the last State to write a constitution. It was back
about 1970, 1972. I was there. I worked on the staff when this
was written. This captures who we are as a State and protecting
our great outdoors.
Of course we want jobs. We work hard to get jobs. We've got
the Bakken formation, huge oil and gas reserves being developed
in Montana. In fact the Bakken formation is even starting at
shale that's being fracked is coming all the way up close to
the Front. But Montana is going to keep the Front the way it is
because we want to develop oil and gas in other parts of our
State. This is what defines us.
Let me give you a couple of quotes.
A guy named Ben Long from Kalispell, Montana wrote me a
letter about how important this is. Another about climbing
about Ear Mountain, another lady, Allisa Carrow of Stevensville
thanked me. Here's what she said. ``Having access to wild lands
is very important for hunting, not just for bringing home your
own meat and for filling your own freezer, but also to get out
and connect with the land.'' This is our heritage.
Sportsman in Montana spend about ten million every year
during hunting season on the Front. Good paying jobs rely on
mineral leasing that's booming very close by in Teton and
Pondera counties. But this bill will not stop that development.
That development should go ahead and proceed.
The point of the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act is to
keep that heritage the way it is. This is a made in Montana
bill. No one sat down in Washington and started to draw lines
on a map.
Let me tell you also what's captured this bill. The Western
author Wallace Stegner said this. ``Who built the West as a
living place? Frugal, hard, gloriously satisfying civilizations
scrabbling for its existence against the forces of weather in a
land as fragile as it is demanding was not rugged individuals,
but cooperators.'' I add, underline rugged cooperators. That's
who put this together, people cooperating.
Dusty Crary, whom you'll hear from later, and Karl Rappold
both here, they ranch along the Front. They know how important
it is to Montanans and to their livelihood, their businesses.
Gather around the kitchen tables in small towns like Choteau,
Augusta and Fairfield. These ``rugged cooperator'' came up with
the bill we're here to talk about.
They came up with a good balance. 200,000 acres of
conservation management areas, 67,000 acres of wilderness
additions and a plan to block the invasion of noxious species
like Spotted Knapweed that damage valuable forest. We have a
strong weed control provision in here. We're going to make sure
we do our very best to control weeds.
Dusty is testifying because the bill was basically his
idea. But it's also the idea of an awful lot of other ``rugged
cooperators.'' They sat down and put this thing together.
After hearing from many ranchers let me tell you something
I insisted on. That's grazing. Make sure ranchers get billed to
graze.
I very much appreciate your bill, Senator, you know, the
Grazing Improvement Act. I fully appreciate it. I'm sensitive
to it and agree with the points you're making.
Montana ranchers, I'm sure are just like Wyoming ranchers.
They want to make sure they've got a lot on the National Forest
land that it's--they're not being jacked around, that they can
keep it. They can get access to it, to their ponds and they can
fence and so forth.
I made that point over and over and over again to the
people who wrote this bill. How we're protecting grazing
rights. Went back over and over again and made some adjustments
and changes to help make sure that that's the case.
So I'll just stop there by saying just, I think this is a
no-brainer. There's no conflict. People worked very hard to
make this happen. I just hope that we can get this passed this
year because it would mean a lot to a lot of people.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Chairman Baucus.
I don't have any questions myself. I'll turn it over to
colleagues. But obviously you have done this in, kind of,
vintage Baucus style, which is to really spend the time working
through an issue again and again and again until you find that
consensus.
I've got written down, ``Made in Montana with rugged
cooperators.'' I think that's a pretty good theme. I
congratulate you for your good work.
I'd just like to note for the record you've been very
favorable. It was ``Made in Montana,'' but there were very
favorable comments from the Natural Resources agencies here
about your bill. That's to your credit as well.
Senator Baucus. If I might just say, Chairman, too. I've
been involved in wilderness bills done the other way.
Senator Wyden. Right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. Top down. It doesn't work. It just does not
work. So I'm very hopeful we can do it this way.
Now it's not unimportant to note that all these people, who
have worked so hard on this bill and took every person's view
into consideration, it would be a tragedy is a bit too strong,
if we let them down. Here they've done it the right way. They
haven't tried to jam something down anybody's throat. They
haven't come to Congress and said, do this because it's my way
or the highway.
Rather they worked and worked and worked to try to work
with people that are in any way related to it. So I think it's
important to uphold that effort. A lot of people who really
want to work together at home to be able to reach conclusions
where we justify, legitimize, we validate, you know, what they
do. So long as it seems to make sense and clearly this bill
makes a lot of sense.
Senator Wyden. Said.
Colleagues, questions for Chairman Baucus?
Alright, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thanks.
Senator Wyden. I look forward to working closely with you
and getting it out.
Senator Baucus. You mentioned a lot of bills here and I'd
like to help work with all of you too on the committee for
those bills, get those passed as well.
Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman, if I might?
Wallace Stegner was a marvelous writer and he's a
touchstone for all of us Westerners and if I can I'm going to
borrow the ``rugged cooperators'' concept.
Senator Wyden. Right.
Senator Udall. He also talked about stickers, people who
stuck to the land. But I would note for the record that Senator
Baucus is a rugged individual as well, but you could have been
even more rugged if you'd climbed Ear Mountain in your bare
feet like the man that's there in the picture with you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. My buddy took his shoes off at the top.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. Senator Murkowski would have climbed the
mountain in her bare feet because we know how rugged she is.
She's from Alaska.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. We're not as tough as Alaskans.
Senator Udall. But kudos to Senator Baucus.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Colorado and I are going to speak briefly in
a moment or two, but we're trying to do the same thing, follow
your example.
Senator Baucus. Thanks.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Let's bring forward Mr. Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau
of Land Management at the Department of Interior.
Ms. Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief, Forest Service, Department
of Agriculture.
Oh, as you all are coming forward let me also recognize
that several colleagues came in and would like to be able to
make some comments.
Senator Udall, would you like to say something at this
point?
Senator Udall. I would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a--
--
Senator Wyden. Senator Risch, would you like to say
something at this point too?
Senator Risch. No.
Senator Wyden. OK.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Udall. I've got some brief comments. I know we're
eager to hear from people who have come to testify. Thank you
for holding this hearing. Thank you for including S. 1635, the
San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act.
As Senator Baucus so compellingly pointed out, the out of
doors is an important part of our way of life, not just in
Montana, but in Colorado, all over the West. I dare say, all
over our country. But we're pretty proud and particular, to our
part of the country.
For many outfitters and small business owners, preservation
of our State's majestic mountains and valleys is critical to
their livelihoods and vital to their ability to create jobs.
I've been committed to ensuring that Coloradans have a wide
variety of options for recreation. Including places to bike,
ski and snowmobile as well as back country trails and wide
open, pristine lands will be preserved, frankly, for
generations.
Wilderness is one of our State's great economic engines.
The bill that I mentioned is co-sponsored by my colleague,
Senator Michael Bennet and was first introduced in 2009 by our
former colleague and Congressman John Salazar. I want to
express my deep appreciation for the work that Congressman
Salazar and his staff did with all the stakeholders to develop
the original bill in 2009.
Let me tell you a little bit about the bill.
It would designate over 33,000 acres of National Forest and
Bureau of Land Management land in Southwestern Colorado as
wilderness, mostly as expansions of existing Lizard Head and
Mount Sneffels wilderness areas.
It would also establish a new area called McKenna Peak,
which presides over imposing sandstone cliffs that rise 2,000
feet above the plains.
I don't have to tell you these are very important lands
that possess critical wildlife habitat, clean water and other
scenic valleys. They would be very, very worthy additions to
the National Wilderness Preservation System.
S. 1635 would also protect 28,000 acres on Sheep Mountain
and Naturita Canyon with other special designations.
Now the bill protects existing water rights, allows
continued grazing, does not affect the continued operation of a
hydro electric plant, continues to allow established heli-
skiing on Sheep Mountain and does not interfere with an
important and popular foot race called the Hard Rock 100.
It does not affect any current legal motorized or
mechanical access.
The bill reflects extensive collaboration done over several
years with local leaders and interested stakeholders.
Because of this community based effort a large group of
citizens, local leaders and other stakeholders from across
Southwestern Colorado have officially come out in support. I'd
like to mention these stakeholder groups: Ouray, San Miguel and
San Juan County Commissions, the city of Ouray and the Towns of
Ophir, Ridgway, Mountain Village, Telluride and Norwood as well
as a number of local homeowner's associations and land owners.
It was also endorsed by groups representing hunters and anglers
including the Colorado based Bull Moose Sportsman Alliance,
Colorado Back Country Hunters and Anglers and Trout Unlimited.
Finally, a long list of small businesses in the region
endorse the bill because they know that protecting the public
landscapes helps create jobs and draws new residents, tourists
and businesses to surrounding communities.
This region, in fact I would say much of my State, depends
on our surrounding public lands, not only for recreational
opportunities, hunting and fishing and scenic vistas, all of
which are vital to our local economies, but also for protecting
municipal water supplies and clean air. Colorado's population
is expected to double by 2050 and we need to be proactive so
that future generations can experience the beauty, clean air
and water and wildlife that we have today.
I'm proud of my successful past work to designate
wilderness at James Peak in Rocky Mountain National Park. I
look forward to this bill and to my new, collaborative,
community driven processes that I hope will ultimately lead to
additional legislation to protect two other very special places
in my State, the Central Mountains and the Arkansas River and
Browns Canyon.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding this important
hearing.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Udall. We'll be working
closely with you on your legislation.
Mr. Pool, Ms. Weldon, welcome and why don't you, if you
would, just summarize your oral remarks. Some of you may have
heard me over the years say that I know there's almost a
biological compulsion to just read and make sure that every
single word is read. If you could just, kind of, summarize your
remarks, that would be very helpful because I know we've got a
lot of guests here and a lot of interest.
Mr. Pool.
STATEMENT OF MIKE POOL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Pool. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting
the Department of Interior to testify on ten bills of interest
to the BLM. I will briefly summarize our position on each of
these bills and ask the entire statements be included in the
record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, it's ordered.
Mr. Pool. In addition I'm submitting a statement for the
record on behalf of the Bureau of Reclamation, S. 2056, the
Scofield Land Transfer Act. The Department would like to work
toward addressing revisions outlined in their statement. I'm
accompanied today by Richard Beeman, the Bureau of
Reclamation's Regional Liaison to the Upper Colorado Region.
We'll be happy to answer any questions regarding S. 2056.
The Department of Interior supports each of the 5 bills
providing for conservation designations on lands managed by the
BLM.
These bills are S. 1559, the San Juan Islands National
Conservation Act.
S. 1635, the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act.
S. 1774, the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act.
S. 1788, the Pine Forest Range Recreational Enhancement
Act.
S. 2001, the Rogue Wilderness Area Expansion Act.
Most of these proposals were included in Secretary
Salazar's November 2011 preliminary report to Congress on BLM
lands deserving protection. We welcome this additional
attention to conserving these special places.
Just some of the remarkable features including these areas
are cold, sub Alpine lakes, rivers running through canyons of
dense forest, prime destinations for hunters and anglers and a
string of small islands and rocks from which Orcas, porpoises
and sea lions can closely be observed. There's a long history
of bipartisan support in Congress for the conservation of
America's special places. These 5 diverse, unique and valued
areas deserve swift Congressional action.
Three of the bills provide for specific land conveyances.
The BLM supports Senate bill 2015, the Powell Shooting Range
Conveyance Act. Under the bill the BLM would convey
approximately, excuse me, an isolated 322 acre tract of public
land, Southeast of Powell, Wyoming to the Powell Recreation
District for continued use as a shooting range. We welcome this
opportunity to work with local community and to improve
recreational activities.
The BLM also supports the goals of two Nevada land
conveyance bills, Senate bill 1492, the Three Kids Mine
Remediation Reclamation Act and Senate bill 1473 which is the
Mesquite Lands Act of 1986. Senate bill 1473 renews the city of
Mesquite's exclusive right to buy lands for economic
development purposes until the year 2021 and allows some of the
proceeds to fund a multi-species conservation plan for the
nearby Virgin River. The economic downturn and other factors
have made the extension necessary.
The other bill, S. 1492, offers an innovative solution to a
long standing issue surrounding the abandoned Three Kids Mine
in Henderson. S. 1492 provides for the conveyance of the public
lands to the Henderson Redevelopment Agency at fair market
value less the estimated cost to assess, remediate and reclaim
the site. The Federal Government would be released from all
liabilities arising from the contamination of the site.
The Department of Interior opposes S. 303. The bill
requires the BLM to offer relief to miners with ten or fewer
claims from long standing regulatory requirements. It also
singles out for special treatment two mining claimants whose
claims had been deemed forfeited as read in the legislation
would effectively eliminate the deadlines for filing a small
miner waiver in an affidavit of annual assessment work.
Defining an untimely filing as ``defective'' would require the
BLM to accept filings after the deadline no matter how late.
This change will place an excessive Administrative review and
notification burden on BLM and would vastly increase the cost
of administering the small miner waiver program.
Finally I'd like to address S. 1129, the Grazing
Improvement Act. The BLM recognizes that sustainable use of
public lands is important to people who make their living on
these landscapes. People like our livestock permitees.
Livestock grazing is an important part of BLM's multiuse
mission. At the right levels and timing grazing can serve as an
important vegetative 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. Take seriously as charged 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.
Now where the Department cannot support S. 1129 because of
the provisions for automatic permit renewal without assurances
that permitees are meeting land held standards and because of
the limitations on the bill--because of the limitations the
bill would place on BLM's ability to provide for appropriate
environmental review and public involvement. We view this as
critical components of BLM's multiuse management of public
lands.
The BLM would like to work with the committee to make
progress on these shared goals 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 public lands.
Thank you for, again, the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pool follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Pool, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior, on S. 303
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on S. 303, which
would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to allow mining
claimants a chance to ``cure'' their failure to meet the required
filing deadlines. This bill would also give private relief to two
particular mining claimants whose mining claims have been deemed
forfeited or abandoned for failure to comply with applicable laws and
regulations, and would give one of those claimants the opportunity to
obtain fee title to the reinstated mining claims from the Government.
The Department of the Interior opposes S. 303 because of the
enormous administrative burden it would generate, and because it
singles out two mining claimants for special treatment and leaves open
the question as to how other mining claimants in similar situations
would be affected.
Background
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-66
Sec. Sec. 10101 to 10106, 107 Stat. 312, 405-07 (Aug. 10, 1993)
(maintenance fee statute), established an annual maintenance fee for
unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites. This annual
maintenance fee is currently set by regulation at $140 per mining claim
or site. The maintenance fee statute also gave the Secretary of the
Interior the discretion to waive the annual maintenance fee for certain
``small miners''--mining claimants who hold 10 or fewer claims or
sites.
Following the enactment of the maintenance fee statute, the
Department promulgated regulations that exercised the Secretary's
discretion to allow the ``small miner waiver.'' These regulations state
that in order to qualify for this ``small miner waiver'' under the
maintenance fee statute, the claimant must, among other things, file a
maintenance fee waiver request that certifies that he and all related
parties hold 10 or fewer mining claims or sites. Under the original
regulations, the deadline for filing the maintenance fee waiver request
for the upcoming assessment year was August 31, which was the same day
as the statutory deadline for filing annual maintenance fees. When
Congress changed the statutory annual maintenance fee deadline to
September 1, the Department changed the deadline for maintenance fee
waiver requests to also be September 1 for the coming assessment year.
The Secretary's decision to make the regulatory deadline for filing
maintenance fee waiver requests the same as the statutory deadline for
paying annual mining claim maintenance fees took into consideration the
statutory constraint that maintenance fee waivers could not legally or
practically be sought any later than the deadline for the maintenance
fee itself.
The same year that Congress changed the deadline for paying the
maintenance fee to September 1, it amended the maintenance fee statute
to allow claimants seeking a ``small miner waiver'' to cure a
``defective'' waiver certification. Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental 3 Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Pub. L. No.
105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-235 (1998) (codified as amended at 30 U.S.C.
Sec. 28f(d)(3)). The amendment required the BLM to give claimants
filing timely ``defective'' maintenance fee waiver requests notice of
the defect and 60 days to cure the defect or pay the annual maintenance
fee due for the applicable assessment year.
Another change in the administration of mining laws and regulations
occurred in the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-332 Sec. Sec. 112-113, 108
Stat. 2499, 2519 (Sept. 30, 1994), which placed a moratorium on the
patenting of new mining claims or sites, and the further processing of
existing patent applications; this moratorium has continued unbroken
through subsequent appropriations language. The processing of a patent
application to completion can result in the transfer of fee title or
``patent'' to the claimant for the Federal lands where the claims and
sites are located.
Congress provided an exemption from the patenting moratorium for
applicants who had satisfied the requirements of the Mining Law of 1872
for obtaining a patent before the moratorium went into effect. Only
patent applications for which a ``First Half of Mineral Entry-Final
Certificate''(FHFC) had been issued were considered exempt or
``grandfathered'' from the moratorium. Over 600 patent applications
were pending with the BLM when the moratorium went into effect on
October 1, 1994. Of those, 405 patent applications had received a FHFC
by September 30, 1994, and were determined to be ``grandfathered'' from
the moratorium. Mining claimants in a ``grandfathered'' patent
application are not required to comply with the maintenance fee statute
after the FHFC was issued.
The remaining 221 patent applications were considered ``non-
grandfathered'' and subject to the moratorium. The BLM did no further
processing of these patent applications and the mining claimants were
responsible to continue to meet annual maintenance requirements--timely
payment of the annual maintenance fee, or filing a small miner waiver
and completing the required annual assessment work--in order to keep
their mining claims active and their ``non-grandfathered'' patent
applications pending.
S. 303
Section 1(a) of S. 303 would require the BLM to provide holders of
10 or fewer mining claims or sites with written notice of any
``defect'' in their maintenance fee waiver request or their affidavit
of annual assessment work associated with the request. Unlike the
current maintenance fee statute, failure to timely file the waiver
request or affidavit of annual assessment work would be considered a
``defect'' under S. 303. As under the current statute, mining claimants
would have 60 days from the receipt of written notice to correct that
defect or pay the applicable maintenance fee.
The BLM opposes the provision in Section 1(a) to amend the
maintenance fee statute to make failure to timely file a small miner
fee waiver request a curable ``defect.'' The BLM also opposes amending
the maintenance fee statute to allow claimants to ``cure'' defective
affidavits of annual assessment work, including failure to timely file
the affidavits as required by section 314 the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act. Currently, the cure provision in 30 U.S.C. Sec.
28f(d)(3) applies only to maintenance fee waiver requests.
As written, the legislation would effectively eliminate the
deadlines for filing a small miner waiver and affidavit of annual
assessment work. Defining an untimely filing as ``defective'' would
require the BLM to accept late filings after the deadline, no matter
how late. This change will place an excessive administrative review and
notification burden on the BLM and would vastly increase the cost of
administering the small miner waiver. Further, it would enable a mining
claimant to avoid filing the waiver or affidavit of annual work and
hold the claims or sites in suspense until the BLM is able to identify
the deficiency and notify the claimant.
Under Section 1(a) of S. 303, if a mining claimant either files an
untimely maintenance fee payment or waiver or fails to make any filing
at all, the BLM would no longer be able to simply declare the mining
claim void by operation of law, as authorized under the current
maintenance fee statute since 1994. Rather, under this new provision,
if any claimant fails to pay the annual maintenance fee by the
deadline, the BLM will have to first determine whether the claimant is
qualified as a small miner and, if so, give notice and opportunity to
cure--whether or not the claimant had any intention of filing a
maintenance fee waiver request.
This additional administrative step would be required even if the
holder of the mining claim or site had not filed a maintenance fee
waiver in the past, for two reasons. First, fewer than 13,000 mining
claimants among those who are eligible for a maintenance fee waiver
each year actually request a waiver, and S. 303 does not restrict the
``cure'' provisions to those claimants who had intended to file a
waiver but missed the deadline. Second, verifying eligibility for the
``cure'' provisions of S. 303 would be required each year for any
mining claimant who missed the payment deadline because eligibility for
a maintenance fee waiver depends on the number of mining claims and
sites on the date that the maintenance fee payment was due. See 30
U.S.C. Sec. 28f(d).
It would be costly and difficult for BLM to assess whether every
mining claimant who either makes an untimely filing or fails to file
anything is eligible to invoke the ``cure'' provisions of S. 303.
Moreover, because the agency would have no way to determine if a
claimant holding 10 or fewer claims or sites had simply decided not to
pay the fee or file the fee waiver request and intentionally relinquish
his claims, the BLM would have to send a ``defect'' notice to all such
claimants who fail to either timely pay their maintenance fees or
timely file a maintenance fee waiver request and give them the
opportunity to cure. This effectively extends the payment deadline for
any claimant holding 10 or fewer mining claims by removing any penalty
for failing to pay in a timely manner.
In addition, this increased administrative burden would so
drastically increase the processing time for all mining claimants as to
allow some claimants to continue to hold and work their claims for
months or potentially years after what would have been forfeiture by
operation of law under the current statute without providing payment.
It would be challenging for the BLM to reliably determine if a mining
claimant intended to relinquish his mining claim or site. Action on the
part of individuals wishing to maintain a claim to a Federal resource
is a basic responsibility found in many of our Federal programs.
Relieving individuals of this basic responsibility is contrary to the
interest of the general public that owns the property.
In addition, the BLM opposes the bill's provisions outlined in
Section 1(b) under ``Transition Rules'' on behalf of two mining
claimants who forfeited their claims for failure to meet the filing
requirements discussed above. Section 1(b) is essentially a private
relief bill that gives special treatment to two sets of claimants,
allowing their mining claims to be reinstated, and allowing one of them
to have his patent application considered ``grandfathered'' from the
patent moratorium.
The mining claims described under Sec. 1(b)(1) belonged to a
claimant from Girdwood, Alaska. The claimant owned nine mining claims
located in the Chugach National Forest in southeastern Alaska. The
claimant had filed a patent application for these mining claims, but
his application had not received a FHFC by the deadline. As such, his
patent application was considered ``non-grandfathered'' and his mining
claims were subject to ongoing annual maintenance requirements. The BLM
determined these mining claims to be statutorily abandoned in January
2005 when the claimant failed to file his annual assessment work
documents in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976, and the Interior Board of Land Appeals subsequently upheld the
BLM's decision. The bill would give the claimant the opportunity to
``cure'' the defects that led to his mining claims being declared
abandoned and void, and to pay prior maintenance fees or seek a waiver
of those fees for his mining claims.
The bill would also consider the claimant ``to have received first
half final certificate'' for these voided mining claims before
September 30, 1994, thereby ``grandfathering'' his patent application
from the patent moratorium. A portion of the land formerly covered by
these claims is now closed to mineral entry, because the State of
Alaska has filed Community Grant Selection under the authority of the
Alaska Statehood Act. Considering the claimant's patent application
``grandfathered'' would give him priority over the State of Alaska with
respect to these lands, and may mean that he, rather than the State of
Alaska, would obtain the fee title.
The forfeited mining claims described under Sec. 1(b)(2) belonged
to claimants from Homer, Alaska, and are located on the Seward
Peninsula in western Alaska. In 2009, the BLM declared the claimants'
mining claims to be forfeited for failure to timely pay maintenance
fees or file a maintenance fee waiver request, and the Interior Board
of Land Appeals upheld the BLM's decision in 2010. The claimants are
now challenging the Department's voidance decision in Federal court in
Alaska. The bill would allow the claimants' forfeited mining claims to
be reinstated by ``curing'' their untimely maintenance fee waiver
request or paying the applicable maintenance fees. The claimants are
seeking private relief because the State of Alaska has selected these
lands under the authority of the Alaska Statehood Act. As discussed
above, selection by the State of Alaska has closed these lands to
mineral entry, so the claimants may not relocate their claims.
The BLM's final concern with respect to this legislation requiring
the BLM to consider failure to timely file a maintenance fee waiver
certificate a curable ``defect'' is that the bill is unclear as to the
retroactive effects on other small miners who have forfeited or
abandoned their mining claims because they failed to timely file a
small miner waiver or affidavit of annual assessment work. This
includes those small miners who have lost their challenges of BLM
decisions declaring their claims forfeited or abandoned at the IBLA.
Furthermore, the Department of Justice advises that, as a practical
matter, it seems likely that small miners will pursue a ``cure'' for
failure to pursue a small miner waiver only where the claim owner
cannot simply relocate that claim, which might occur if, for example,
intervening rights have been granted or the land has been conveyed or
assigned other uses. If that has happened, then reinstating any
forfeited or abandoned mining claims would create confusion, and
generate litigation, and could arguably create takings liability on the
part of the United States.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on S. 303. I would
be glad to answer your questions.
ON S. 1129
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 1129, 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 S. 1129 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.
S. 1129
S. 1129 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. S. 1129 also doubles the duration of grazing permits from 10
to 20 years. 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, S. 1129 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. 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, S. 1129 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 S. 1129, 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 S. 1129 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 S. 1129. 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.
ON S. 1473
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on S. 1473, which amends the Mesquite Lands
Act of 1986 in order to renew the exclusive right of the City of
Mesquite, Nevada, to purchase certain public lands for development, and
allows for proceeds from land sales to be used to implement a habitat
conservation plan for the Virgin River and any associated groundwater
monitoring plan. The Department of the Interior supports the goals of
the bill, however, we believe we can achieve the purposes of the bill
administratively, such as through sales under the Federal Land Policy
Management Act (FLPMA) or the issuance of an airport lease.
Background
The Mesquite Lands Act of 1986 (PL 99-548) as amended by PL 104-
208, PL 106-113 and PL 107-282,has provided the City of Mesquite, a
community located in eastern Clark County, Nevada, between Las Vegas
and St. George, Utah, the exclusive right to purchase lands to its west
for a replacement airport and related development. To date, the city
has acquired approximately 7,700 acres of public lands from the BLM.
These authorities expired on November 29, 2011.
In addition to identifying lands for sale, the Mesquite Lands Act,
as amended, provides that a portion of the proceeds from the sale of
certain parcels be deposited in an account established under the
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA). It also
provides that these funds would be available to pay for, among other
things, the BLM's costs to convey land to the City of Mesquite and the
development of a multispecies habitat conservation plan for the Virgin
River, also in Clark County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in
cooperation with the BLM, has begun work on the plans for the Virgin
River. These authorities also expired on November 29, 2011.
S. 1473
S. 1473 renews until November 29, 2021, the City of Mesquite's
exclusive right to purchase parcels of public lands identified in the
PL 106-113 amendment to the Mesquite Lands Act, which are near lands
already acquired by the City. It also allows for the proceeds from
previous land sales to Mesquite to be used to implement a multispecies
habitat conservation plan for the Virgin River in Clark County and any
associated groundwater monitoring plan. It also extends the withdrawal
of the lands from all forms of location, entry and appropriation under
the public land laws, including mining laws, and from operation of
mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing
rights.
The BLM supports the bill and its goal of providing for the
economic development needs of Mesquite, Nevada. Some of the lands that
may be acquired through enactment of the bill have been identified for
a proposed replacement airport and related development. The legislation
will provide additional time for the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) to complete an environmental evaluation under the National
Environmental Policy Act for the replacement airport and to identify
mitigation measures, if necessary. The BLM is working with the FAA and
the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office to develop appropriate
measures to mitigate potential impacts to the Old Spanish National
Historic Trail as a result of the proposed replacement airport. The
additional time provided by this legislation will aid this effort.
Conclusion
That concludes our prepared testimony in support of S. 1473. We
would be glad to answer your questions.
ON S. 1492
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 1492, the Three Kids
Mine Remediation and Reclamation Act. S. 1492 seeks to resolve
longstanding issues surrounding the abandoned Three Kids Mine, in
Henderson, Nevada. During the past four years, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) in Nevada has worked with Nevada governmental entities
in search of administrative remedies to the problems posed by the
abandoned mine. The BLM supports the goals of S. 1492, which aims to
provide legislated solutions to the issues surrounding the Three Kids
Mine area and clear the way for its eventual development. However, we
have concerns and the legislation needs a number of modifications.
Background
The Three Kids Mine is an abandoned manganese mine and mill site
located along the south side of Lake Mead Drive, across the highway
from Lake Las Vegas, in Henderson, Nevada. The mine and mill operated
from 1917 through 1961 on 314 acres of private land, in part providing
steel-strengthening manganese to the defense industry and contributing
to the United States' efforts in World War I and II. Federal manganese
reserves were stored in the area from the late 1950s through 2003. S.
1492 directs 948 acres of the public lands adjacent to the private site
be conveyed, bringing the total size of the project area to 1,262
acres. Of the 948 acres of public lands, 146 acres are contaminated and
will require mine reclamation and environmental remediation. The most
severe contamination appears to be on the 314 private acres where the
mine and mill were located. No viable former operator or responsible
party has been identified to remediate and reclaim the abandoned mine
and mill site. Today, the site's deep open pits, large volumes of mine
overburden and tailings, mill facility ruins, and solid waste disposal
areas pose significant risks to public health, safety and the
environment. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP)
identified the Three Kids Mine site as a high priority for the
implementation of a comprehensive environmental investigation,
remediation, and reclamation program.
Representatives of the BLM, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the
Department of the Interior Solicitor's Office have worked with the City
of Henderson and representatives of developer Lakemoor Canyon, LLC, to
find solutions to the complex challenges this site presents.
Discussions have focused on overlapping Federal agency jurisdictions,
land management designations and other resource issues, Resource
Management Plan amendments, future liability, and an important utility
corridor that traverses the site.
S. 1492
S. 1492 designates the combined 314 acres of private land and 948
acres of public land as the 1,262-acre ``Three Kids Mine Project Site''
and provides for the conveyance of the public lands to 2 the Henderson,
Nevada Redevelopment Agency. The legislation further provides that fair
market value for the Federal lands to be conveyed should be determined
through standard appraisal practices. Subsequent to that determination,
the Secretary shall determine the ``reasonable approximate estimation
of the costs to assess, remediate, and reclaim the Three Kids Mine
Project Site.'' That cost would then be deducted from the fair market
value of the public land to be conveyed. The Henderson Redevelopment
Agency would pay the adjusted fair market value of the conveyed land,
if any, and the Federal government would be released from ``any and all
liabilities or claims of any kind arising from the presence, release,
or threat of release of any hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, petroleum product (or derivative of a petroleum product of
any kind), solid waste, mine materials or mining related features'' at
the site in existence on or before the date of the conveyance.
While the BLM has not established a range for the cost of cleanup,
a proponent of the transaction, Lakemoor Canyon, LLC, estimates the
cost of remediating the public and private lands at between $300
million and $1.3 billion. While it is possible that the cost of
remediating and reclaiming the entire project area might exceed the
fair market value of the Federal land to be conveyed, the cost of the
transaction will only be known after the Secretary completes the
appraisal process outlined in the legislation. There has been no
determination regarding the Federal government's liability for
reclaiming the private lands in the project area.
The BLM supports innovative proposals to address the cleanup of the
Three Kids Mine, and we do not oppose this proposal to transfer the
entire 948 acres of public land to the Henderson Redevelopment Agency
at fair market value, subject to valid existing rights. However, the
BLM has concerns about the legislation. Most importantly, the BLM
recommends the bill be amended to clarify that the Federal land in the
Project Area is conveyed to the Henderson Redevelopment Agency after
the Secretary appraises the Federal land and the cost of remediating
and reclaiming the site and before the remediation and reclamation
activities begin.
Additionally, there are a number of minor and technical concerns
that need to be addressed, including the timeframes for conducting an
appraisal and for securing a Phase II environmental assessment from the
Hendersonville Redevelopment Authority. The BLM also notes that under
the legislation, the subsurface mineral rights would be included in the
sale of lands and should be included in any appraisal of the value of
the land. The BLM recognizes that the transfer would include a small
portion of the River Mountains ACEC, and we would like to discuss with
the committee opportunities to mitigate that loss. Finally, the Bureau
of Reclamation would like to work with the bill's sponsors and the
Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to ensure that SNWA's current
needs for access to and protection of critical water and utility
infrastructure are specifically addressed in the legislation.
Conclusion
Thank you for inviting the Administration to testify on S. 1492.
The Three Kids Mine problem needs to be resolved, and we look forward
to working toward a solution that protects the environment and serves
the public interest. I would be happy to answer your questions.
ON S. 1559
Thank you for the invitation to testify on S. 1559, the San Juan
Islands National Conservation Area Act. The Department of the Interior
supports S. 1559 and urges Congress to move swiftly to designate
Washington State's San Juan Islands as a National Conservation Area
(NCA). Secretary of the Interior Salazar has made several trips to the
San Juan Islands, most recently in February of this year, and has heard
from local citizens about their strong support for protecting this
special place. 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
San Juan Islands NCA as a proposal deserving Congress' prompt
attention.
Background
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) currently administers nearly
1,000 acres of the proposed NCA land in the San Juan Islands of Puget
Sound, Washington. These lands include portions of a few large islands
and over 50 small islands, rocks, pinnacles, and outcroppings. These
islands have been molded and shaped through tens of thousands of years
of glacial forces.
Anglers, hikers, and wildlife watchers are all attracted to the
diverse and abundant biological resources of the islands. BLM lands in
the San Juan Islands include forests, sandy beaches, woodlands,
grasslands, and wetlands. Bald eagles and peregrine falcons are among
the many species of birds that soar above the landscape, while orcas,
porpoises, and other marine mammals ply the waters. The proposed NCA is
not only biologically complex, but also culturally diverse. Two
historic lighthouses built in the late 19th century are included in the
proposed NCA, as are several archaeological sites of the Coast Salish
people who have walked these lands for the last 12,000 years.
S. 1559
S. 1559 would designate the lands administered by the BLM within
the San Juan Islands as a 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 4 of S. 1559
honors these principles, and the BLM supports the proposed NCA
designation.
The BLM would like the opportunity to work with the Sponsor and the
Committee on a modification to the map and related bill language to
ensure that all rocks and islands managed by the BLM within the San
Juan Islands are included within the NCA.
Finally, S. 1559 establishes an Advisory Council to advise the
Secretary and the BLM on preparation and implementation of a management
plan. We support this provision, which recognizes the important role
that the local citizens have played, and will continue to play, in the
conservation of these lands. A wide-ranging group of local residents,
stakeholders, and enthusiasts have joined with Senator Cantwell,
Senator Murray, and Representative Larsen to support permanent
protection for the BLM-administered lands in the San Juan Islands.
Today's hearing is the culmination of those efforts.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1559, the
San Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act. The Department urges
Congress' swift passage of the bill.
ON S. 1635
Thank you for the invitation to testify on S. 1635, the San Juan
Mountains Wilderness Act. The Department of the Interior supports the
wilderness designation of the McKenna Peak area on lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Additional protection for the McKenna
Peak area was highlighted in Secretary Salazar's November 2011
Preliminary Report to Congress on BLM Lands Deserving Protection as
National Conservation Areas, Wilderness or Other Conservation
Designations. We urge swift Congressional action to protect this
special area.
We defer to the Department of Agriculture regarding designations on
lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (FS).
Background
The McKenna Peak Wilderness Study Area (WSA) covers nearly 20,000
acres of BLM-managed lands in San Miguel and Dolores Counties in
southwestern Colorado. This WSA is currently managed by the BLM to
protect its wilderness characteristics while awaiting Congressional
action.
This area is rich in wildlife, including mule deer, elk, mountain
lions, black bear, and a variety of raptors. The McKenna Peak area is
also home to the Spring Creek wild horse herd. Geologically, the area
is quite diverse and includes 100 million year-old remnants of inland
seas (now black Mancos shale rich in invertebrate marine fossils). This
area offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities, including
hunting, hiking, horseback riding, snowshoeing, and cross-country
skiing, all of which are compatible with this wilderness designation.
S. 1635
S. 1635 is the result of a collaborative process, including the
Colorado Congressional delegation, county commissioners, adjacent
landowners, ranchers, conservationists, recreationists, and other
interested parties. The results are the proposed wilderness
designations on both BLM- and FS-managed lands in San Miguel, Ouray,
and San Juan Counties.
Section 3 of the bill designates 8,600 acres of the existing BLM-
managed McKenna Peak WSA as wilderness. The BLM supports this
designation. The legislation covers only those areas of the WSA in San
Miguel County. The remaining almost 11,000 acres of the WSA, which
include the eponymous McKenna Peak, are south of the proposed
wilderness in Dolores County and are not addressed in the legislation.
These acres will remain in WSA status, pending Congressional action.
The BLM and the Department support future designation of this area in
order to improve the manageability of the area. The BLM is currently
completing a careful review of the boundaries of the proposed
wilderness area to ensure manageability and would welcome the
opportunity to work with the sponsor on possible minor modifications.
Section 6 of S. 1635 provides for the release from Wilderness Study
Area (WSA) status of those portions of the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness
Study Area that were not designated as Wilderness under Title II,
Subtitle E of Public Law 111-11, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act
of 2009. Section 2403 of that Act designated the Dominguez Canyon
Wilderness Area. However, small portions of the underlying WSA totaling
approximately 3,035 acres were neither designated wilderness nor
released from WSA status, which would allow the consideration of a
range of multiple uses. This release would benefit the BLM's ongoing
management by removing narrow strips and scattered tracts of remaining
WSA. These areas remain within the Dominguez-Escalante National
Conservation Area (NCA), also designated by Public Law 111-11 and will
be managed consistent with the rest of the NCA.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1635. We
look forward to its swift passage and to welcoming the covered area
into the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System.
ON S. 1774
Thank you for the invitation to testify on S. 1774, the Rocky
Mountain Front Heritage Act which designates approximately 208,000
acres of Federal land in Montana as the Rocky Mountain Front
Conservation Management Area. S. 1774 primarily affects lands managed
by the United States Forest Service (FS). The Department of the
Interior defers to the Department of Agriculture regarding designations
on lands managed by the FS. Over 13,000 of the acres proposed for
special designation under the bill are managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The Department of the Interior supports the
designation of the BLM lands as part of the Rocky Mountain Front
Conservation Management Area (CMA).
Background
A unique and stunningly beautiful area in west-central Montana, the
Rocky Mountain Front is located within Pondera, Teton, and Lewis and
Clark Counties and contains unparalleled cultural, recreational,
scenic, and biological resources. The lands administered by the BLM are
dominated by massive limestone cliffs rising to an elevation of 7,700
feet and include grasslands, shrub lands, and limber and white-bark
pine forests. Numerous wildlife and fish populations are supported by
the highly varied topography and diverse vegetation that for
generations has provided an outstanding experience for hunters, anglers
and other recreationists. Huntable populations of elk, mule deer, big
horn sheep, mountain goats and black bear all occur within the area
being considered in the proposed legislation. In addition, threatened
species including grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and bull trout are found
on these BLM-managed lands.
Congress recognized this priceless region in 2006 when it included
the withdrawal of the entire area from new mining claims and mineral
leasing in section 403(a) of Public Law 109-432. The BLM currently
manages these lands for their important resource values as
administratively-designated Outstanding Natural Areas (Blind Horse, Ear
Mountain, Chute Mountain and Deep Creek-Battle Creek).
S. 1774
S. 1774 designates over 200,000 acres of federal land in Montana's
Rocky Mountain Front as the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation
Management Area. Approximately 13,000 acres of public land managed by
the BLM would be included in that designation. Running along the
eastern edge of the CMA, the lands managed by the BLM are largely
closed to motorized access and include a trail system popular with
those seeking a wilder recreational experience.
The overall management scheme envisioned for the CMA is consistent
with current BLM management of these lands. Under the provisions of S.
1774, motorized vehicles within the CMA would be limited to roads and
trails designated for their use and grazing would be allowed to
continue where it currently exists.
The BLM recommends that the bill be amended to specify that the
BLM-managed lands within the CMA be included in the BLM's National
Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). The CMA is very similar to BLM's
National Conservation Areas (NCAs) and inclusion in the NLCS is
appropriate.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1774 as
it applies to lands managed by the BLM.
ON S. 1788
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 1788, the Pine Forest Range Recreation Enhancement Act. The
Department of the Interior supports S. 1788, which designates the Pine
Forest Range Wilderness in Humboldt County, Nevada, on lands managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). We urge the Congress to move
swiftly to pass this bill.
It is gratifying to see Congress moving to protect this area that
was highlighted in Secretary Salazar's November 2011 Preliminary Report
on BLM Lands Deserving Protection as National Conservation Areas,
Wilderness or Other Conservation Designations. There is a long history
of bipartisan support in Congress for the conservation of America's
special places. Members from both parties have been essential to
passing every major public lands bill that has been enacted in recent
years. This type of cooperative and bipartisan approach to designating
special lands for protection as wilderness, national conservation
areas, or similar designations has historically been a regular practice
for Congress. The designation of the Pine Forest Range has strong
support from County government and local citizens. It is a wonderful
example of how people can come together to protect one of America's
real gems.
Background
The Pine Forest Range in northern Nevada's arid Great Basin is a
rare and exceptional area of abundant streams and clear, cold subalpine
lakes. Nestled in a cirque and fed by snowmelt and springs, these lakes
are not only visually stunning but also possess an excellent trout
fishery. The lakes are surrounded by a rare remnant population of white
bark and limber pines. Stands of quaking aspen and mountain mahogany
are also found throughout the proposed wilderness. Fall brings an
abundance of color found in few other places in northern Nevada.
The spectacular scenery and vistas, combined with outstanding
recreational opportunities, draw thousands of visitors annually.
Despite being one of the most highly visited recreational areas in the
region, the proposed wilderness still appears pristine. Day hiking,
horseback riding, rock climbing, hunting, fishing, and camping are all
popular in the area. Visitors enjoy a true primitive recreation
experience, without trails or facilities. Even during peak visitation
periods, solitude is easy to find in the rugged terrain. Abundant
wildlife coveted by sportsmen includes trophy mule deer, antelope,
bighorn sheep, mountain lion, and chukar.
A wide range of stakeholders began working cooperatively in 2009
and 2010 to bring together diverse interests in a grass-roots effort to
protect this special area. In the fall of 2010, the Humboldt County
Commission voted unanimously to approve the final recommendations of
the Pine Forest Range Working Group to designate the Pine Forest Range
Wilderness. The Nevada State Legislature subsequently passed a
resolution praising the process used in arriving at the consensus
represented by S. 1788.
S. 1788
S. 1788 proposes to designate the 26,000-acre Pine Forest Range
Wilderness in Humboldt County, Nevada, on public land managed by the
BLM. This wilderness area is largely formed by the Blue Lakes and Alder
Creek Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Under the bill, approximately
1,150 acres of land within those WSAs would not be designated as
wilderness and would be released from WSA status, thereby allowing the
consideration of a full range of multiple uses.
Section 13 of S. 1788 provides for land exchanges to improve the
manageability of the Pine Forest Range Wilderness Area and nearby
public lands while likewise allowing private landowners the opportunity
to consolidate their holdings. The land exchanges are discretionary and
would be completed consistent with the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) and other applicable laws. The BLM supports this
provision. In addition, these land acquisitions may be undertaken
through existing authorities such as purchase or donation.
The Pine Forest Range Wilderness meets the definition of
wilderness; the land and its community of life are largely untrammeled.
It has retained its primeval character and has been influenced
primarily by the forces of nature, with outstanding opportunities for
primitive recreation or solitude. The BLM strongly supports this
designation. We would like to work with the sponsor and the Committee
on some minor technical modifications to management language to insure
consistency and to ensure an updated map reference.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1788. We
look forward to the swift passage of this legislation designating the
Pine Forest Range Wilderness.
ON S. 2001
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 2001, which would expand the existing Wild Rogue Wilderness by
nearly 60,000 acres and extend the existing Rogue Wild and Scenic River
by designating an additional 35 Rogue River tributaries to the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The Department supports S. 2001, and
would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee and the
members of the Oregon delegation on modifications to the bill to
improve manageability.
Additional protection for the Rogue River was highlighted in
Secretary Salazar's November 2011 Preliminary Report to Congress on BLM
Lands Deserving Protection as National Conservation Areas, Wilderness
or Other Conservation Designations. S. 2001 has wide support at state
and local levels, as well as from a wide range of local citizens and
stakeholders. It is a wonderful example of how people can come together
to propose protection of such a beautiful and dramatic area.
Background
The Rogue River's headwaters begin near Crater Lake. It then rushes
215 miles through the mountains and valleys of southwestern Oregon,
eventually emptying into the Pacific Ocean near the town of Gold Beach.
Over millions of years, the Rogue has patiently carved its way through
western Oregon's mountains creating 3,000 foot canyons, rugged valleys
and inspiring scenery. Dense, old-growth forests flank the Rogue
providing habitat for older forest-dependent species, including the
Northern Spotted Owl and the Marbled Murrelet. The cold, clear waters
of the river provide a home for Pacific salmon, steelhead trout, and
green sturgeon.
Recreationists are drawn to the entire Rogue River watershed to
experience nature in a multitude of ways. These recreationists are a
critical economic engine for local economies and include commercial and
sport fishing, rafting and jet boat tours, and hiking and backpacking.
The untamed landscape offers countless opportunities for challenge,
exploration, and discovery.
The 36,000-acre Wild Rogue Wilderness was designated by an Act of
Congress (Public Law 95-237) in 1978. Located primarily on lands
managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the Wild Rogue includes
approximately 8,600 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). In 1968, Congress passed the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act (Public Law 90-542), establishing the Wild and Scenic River System
and designating eight original rivers. As one of these initial eight
rivers, Oregon's Rogue River has long been recognized for its beauty,
exceptional recreational opportunities and extraordinary resource
values.
For several years, Senator Wyden and other members of the Oregon
Congressional delegation have worked with local stakeholders,
governments, recreationists, and the conservation community to enhance
protections of the Rogue River watershed. S. 2001 is a result of those
concerted efforts.
S. 2001
S. 2001 proposes to enlarge the existing Wild Rogue Wilderness by
adding nearly 60,000 acres of land administered by the BLM. The bill
also extends the existing Rogue Wild and Scenic River by adding 93
miles of 35 tributaries of the Rogue to the wild and scenic river
system. In addition, the bill withdraws 50 miles of 20 other Rogue
River tributaries from operation of the land laws, mining laws, and
mineral leasing laws, and prohibits the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) from licensing new water resource projects and
associated facilities along these tributaries.
The BLM supports the expansion of the Wild Rogue Wilderness as
provided by S. 2001. This wild and rugged area is largely untrammeled.
It has retained its primeval character and has been influenced
primarily by the forces of nature, with outstanding opportunities for
primitive recreation or solitude. Protection of these wilderness
characteristics is largely consistent with the current management
framework for these lands. We would like the opportunity to work with
the bill sponsor and the Committee on some modifications to the map and
the legislation.
The BLM also recommends that the legislation include language
directing the Secretary of the Interior to manage the BLM portion of
the current Wild Rogue Wilderness. When the Wild Rogue Wilderness was
established in 1978, the legislation called for the Secretary of
Agriculture to manage all of the lands within the wilderness boundary.
With this expansion we would like to correct that previous oversight
and ensure that both the original and the additional BLM-managed lands
within the Wild Rogue are managed by the BLM. Management of this area
would be a cooperative exercise with the U. S. Forest Service and
involve many of the same staff that jointly manage the Rogue's
successful river program.
The bill excludes over 500 acres of BLM-managed lands on the north
side of the river within the external boundaries of the wilderness
addition from designation as wilderness. This could leave these lands
open to future development and potentially complicate management of the
surrounding lands as wilderness. These lands show visible effects of
past logging activities and existing primitive roads that do not meet
the naturalness criteria of the Wilderness Act. The BLM would like to
discuss the possibility of designating them as ``potential wilderness''
(as was done, for example, to California's Elkhorn Ridge Potential
Wilderness Area through the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage
Wilderness Act--Public Law 109-362). If these lands were to be actively
or passively restored to wilderness conditions in the future, they
could then be formally added to the Wild Rogue Wilderness.
The BLM would also like to work with the Oregon delegation on
boundary modifications of the wilderness expansion to improve
manageability. There are portions of the proposed wilderness where
minor modifications to follow a road would allow for a more
recognizable and manageable boundary. In addition, a few areas
identified for wilderness designation on the southeast side of the
proposed expansion may raise manageability concerns. Specifically, the
inclusion of areas south of Bailey Creek and east of the Rogue appears
to present conflicts with existing uses. The BLM would like the
opportunity to discuss these conflicts further with the Committee and
the bill's sponsor.
In 1968, when Congress established the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System, it designated the Rogue as one of the original eight
rivers included in this system. Section two of S. 2001 further enhances
that initial designation by adding specific tributaries of the Rogue to
the national system, thus conserving the greater Rogue River watershed.
In general, the proposed stream segments are located in steep sloped
canyons with mature and structurally complex forest stands that have
high conservation values. We support maintaining and enhancing those
conservation values through this designation.
Finally, S. 2001 (Section 5) prohibits FERC from licensing the
construction of any new water or power projects along 50 miles of 20
Rogue River tributaries. Additionally, the bill would withdraw land for
one-quarter mile along either side of these tributaries from operation
of the land laws, mining laws and mineral leasing laws. This withdrawal
will protect valid existing rights but would prohibit the sale or
exchange of any of these federal lands; the location of new mining
claims; new mineral or geothermal leases; and sales of mineral
materials. These withdrawals will provide additional protections to
this important watershed, and the Department supports these provisions.
Conclusion
One of the earliest masters of the American western novel, Zane
Grey, proclaimed the historic beauty of this area, and made it his
home. ``The happiest lot of any angler'' wrote Grey ``would be to live
somewhere along the banks of the Rogue River, most beautiful stream of
Oregon.''
S. 2001 seeks to preserve and protect the beauty Zane Grey saw for
generations to come. This bill is the product of many years of
discussions and collaboration with the local community, stakeholders,
and other interested parties by the Oregon Congressional delegation and
we would like to be part of those continuing discussions. The
Department urges swift passage of S. 2001 and looks forward to
welcoming these important conservation additions into the BLM's
National Landscape Conservation System.
ON S. 2015
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on S. 2015, the Powell Shooting Range Land
Conveyance Act, which conveys an isolated 322-acre tract of public land
to the Powell Recreation District (District) in northwestern Wyoming.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supports S. 2015.
Background
Powell, Wyoming, is a town of approximately 5,000 people in
northwestern Wyoming. This region of Wyoming is generally irrigated
farmland with scattered BLM-managed public land parcels.
In 1980, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) granted the District a
Special Use Permit (SUP) for a 25-year period to construct and operate
a shooting range on this isolated tract of public land southeast of the
town of Powell. The District constructed the facilities and
infrastructure for the shooting range over 30 years ago, and has
operated the range ever since. The District is a local entity created
under state statute for the purpose of providing public recreation
programs. It is funded from local property taxes and has authority to
acquire land and facilities appropriate to carry out its recreational
purposes.
The SUP for the shooting range expired in 2005. That year, the
District filed an application for a Recreation and Public Purposes Act
conveyance of this land to continue the shooting range operations. The
BOR extended the SUP pending transfer of the land to the District. In
2010, the BLM discovered that, as a result of a 1950 land exchange with
the state of Wyoming, the parcel is actually under the BLM's
jurisdiction and not the BOR's jurisdiction as was previously
understood. The BLM has used the authority of a Special Recreation
Permit to temporarily authorize the use of the existing shooting
complex until long-term resolution of the land use issues could be
achieved. BLM authorities for conveyance of land under the Recreation
and Public Purpose Act do not permit the transfer of this land
administratively to the District under its current use as a shooting
range.
S. 2015
S. 2015 requires the BLM to convey an isolated 322-acre tract of
public land southeast of Powell, Wyoming, to the Powell Recreation
District. The bill requires that the parcel of land be transferred
subject to valid existing rights, and be used only as a shooting range
or for any other public purpose consistent with the Recreation and
Public Purposes Act.
If the land conveyed to the District ceases to be used for its
intended purpose then the land shall, at the discretion of the
Secretary, revert to the United States.
S. 2015 requires the Powell Recreation District to pay
administrative costs to prepare the patent and transfer title as well
as costs necessary to complete environmental, wildlife, cultural,
historical studies, and NEPA review prior to the transfer. The bill
also releases and indemnifies the United States from any claims or
liabilities that may arise from uses carried out on the land on or
before the date the Act is signed.
The BLM supports the bill as it represents an opportunity to
resolve land use issues on an isolated tract of public land that has
been used as a shooting range for over 30 years and is identified for
disposal in current land use plans. The legislation facilitates a
reasonable and practicable conveyance of lands to the Powell Recreation
District.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of S.
2015.
ON S. 2056
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the Administration's views on S. 2056,
legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain interests in Federal lands acquired for the Scofield Project in
Carbon County, Utah. The intent of the legislation is to resolve
certain issues associated with decades-long encroachment on Federal
lands in the Scofield Reservoir basin. If the revisions described below
are made, the Department would not oppose an amended S. 2056.
The Scofield Project is located on the Price River about 85 miles
southeast of Salt Lake City, Utah. It provides irrigation and municipal
and industrial water to Carbon County, Utah. The reservoir is a popular
fishing destination. Under contract with Reclamation, the State of Utah
operates a state park at the site.
At Scofield Reservoir, the vertical distance between the normal
water surface elevation of the reservoir and the flood surcharge
elevation (the level to which the water level may rise in a flood
event) is approximately 19 feet. Given the sloping sides of the
reservoir basin, this flood surcharge capacity translates into a wide
band of land around the perimeter of the reservoir above the normal
water surface elevation and below the flood surcharge elevation. The
United States owns in fee most of the lands within this band.
In the 1950s, an individual purported to subdivide and sell some of
these flood surcharge lands--in spite of United States' ownership. The
purported ``owners'' (referred to in the Scofield Land Transfer Act as
``claimants'') began locating mobile homes and building cabins on these
lands. There are over sixty encroaching cabins and trailers today.
These encroachments pose a dam safety issue because a flood event may
float debris or structures into the spillway, reducing its capacity and
threatening the dam.
In 2000, Reclamation initiated a quiet title action on lands within
the band on the east side of Scofield Reservoir and was joined in that
action by 15 claimants. A 2009 decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed ownership by the United States. Reclamation has
removed the encroachments on the lands that were the subject of the
quiet title action. Because of similar underlying facts, quiet title
actions associated with the remaining encroachments would likely affirm
United States' ownership.
The bill proposes to resolve these encroachments on Federal lands
by authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to transfer a fee interest
or life estate to those who claim ownership of United States' lands
within the Scofield Reservoir basin in exchange for fair market value.
Claimants have a period of five years during which they may seek a fee
interest or life estate. If a claimant does not elect to acquire a fee
interest or life estate, Reclamation will remove the encroachment under
existing law and policy, including the removal of encroaching
structures.
Although the bill addresses in part key objectives for Reclamation,
the ideal scenario for Reclamation is for no structures or dwellings to
fall within a facility's flood surcharge elevation. Having said that,
the bill does address concerns such as: improved protection of public
safety and resolving certain issues of encroachment on United States'
lands. In addition, the bill imposes conditions on transferred lands.
First, it limits the number and types of structures to those in place
on the date of enactment. Second, it requires that structures be
anchored to foundations to prevent displacement during a flood event
and the associated potential for compromising the dam and causing harm
downstream. Third, it requires Reclamation to retain the ability to
store flood flows on the transferred lands without liability to the
United States.
While Reclamation supports, in general, some specific provisions in
the bill, the legislation perpetuates occupancy within the flood
surcharge elevation, which poses public and dam safety concerns.
Reclamation believes it would be prudent to conduct an assessment of
the risk to the safety of the dam imposed by structures that would
remain within the flood surcharge elevation. In addition, the bill's
language raises a number of technical concerns:
Cost of Implementation--The proposed legislation does not provide
any monies to fund Reclamation's work in surveying, appraising, and
transferring fee interest or life estates to claimants. The legislation
furthermore does not provide any monies to conduct environmental
compliance, provide notice to Claimants of existing trespasses or
encroachments on Federal lands, or to enforce deed restrictions. These
costs should not be absorbed by the Federal government.
Cost of Administration--After the legislation is fully implemented,
Reclamation will likely face a patchwork of ownership (private fee
interest, private life estates, and Reclamation fee interest) at the
reservoir in the band between the normal water surface elevation and
the flood surcharge elevation. On the transferred lands, Reclamation
will be required to monitor construction and the retrofitting of
structures to ensure that they are properly secured. In addition,
Reclamation will be required to preserve public access to Reclamation
fee lands that are not encumbered by life estates. The administration
costs and enforcement obligations pursuant to any conveyance
restrictions are best left to the local government, subject to
oversight by Reclamation.
Scofield Reservoir Fund--The proposed legislation calls for
revenues from the sale of fee interests and the sale of life estates to
be deposited into a ``Scofield Reservoir Fund.'' The fund would be used
to finance ``enhanced recreation opportunities at Scofield Reservoir.''
Because the costs and administrative burdens associated with the
conveyance would be redirected toward the beneficiaries of the
conveyance through the Scofield Reservoir Fund, the Department of the
Interior has serious concerns about the establishment and use of the
Scofield Reservoir Fund.
Precedent--On one level, the proposed legislation amounts to
rewarding encroachment with an opportunity to purchase or acquire
private exclusive use of Federal lands. The Department of the Interior
is concerned about the bill setting a precedent or expectation that
there can be a path from encroachment to ownership. However, the
Department finds merit in amicably resolving encroachment issues on the
Scofield Reservoir without embarking on protracted litigation,
Report to Congress--Reclamation believes the bill's objectives can
be accomplished consistent with Congressional intent and with support
from the local community. Because of the proliferation of required
reports to Congress, and the demand on finite budget resources, the
Department in general does not support new and narrow reporting
requirements.
In addition to those issues raised above, Reclamation has a number
of technical concerns:
Life Estate--The definition of life estate creates a reversion ``on
the date of death of the claimant.''The legislation assumes that all
claimants will be individuals. Claimants may claim joint ownership or
may be partnerships, corporations, or other entities.
Securing Structures--Ensuring that any remaining structures are
fully secure is critical to public safety. For this reason, Reclamation
is concerned that the conveyance requirements do not adequately ensure
that structures will be secured against inundation. One approach to
correcting this would be to add the word ``and'' between
(3)(b)(2)(C)(i) and (3)(b)(2)(C)(ii).
Land Disputes--Among claimants there are disputes about the
boundaries of their claims. The resolution of these claims would likely
erode the five years that the claimants have to decide whether to
submit notice of a desire to acquire a fee interest or life estate. The
legislation could direct claimants to accept the result of the
Reclamation survey required under (3)(a)(1).
Spillway Crest--In referring to the normal water surface elevation,
the proposed legislation refers to the ``lip of the spillway.'' This
term is ambiguous and should be replaced with ``crest of the
spillway.''
Hold Harmless Clause--The life estate option requires the claimant
to hold the United States harmless for damages due to ``design,
construction, operation and replacement.'' The list of causes from
which damages may arise should also include ``maintenance.'' In
addition, there is no requirement for claimants seeking fee interest in
claimed land to hold the United States harmless. Reclamation recommends
that a hold harmless requirement be added to the fee interest option.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)--The proposed legislation should
explicitly state that PILT payments will be discontinued for lands
transferred in fee to claimants.
Mineral Rights--The proposed legislation should state that there
will be no conveyance of subsurface or mineral rights.
Water Rights and Sewer System--A number of the claimants have
developed wells that are also part of their encroachment. To the extent
these wells are supported by valid State of Utah water rights, the
legislation should address the fate of these wells under conveyance in
fee or life estate.
The sewer system serving encroachments is included in a Reclamation
license agreement for the State Park. The license agreement is with the
Scofield Special Service District for which Carbon County has oversight
responsibility.
Sunset--The proposed legislation requires claimants to submit
notification to the Secretary of their interest in a fee interest or
life estate in the claimed portion of the Federal land within five
years of the date of enactment of the proposed legislation, in order to
stay enforcement proceeding on the Federal land. This could allow
claimants to submit notice of their intent to receive a fee interest or
life estate, without requiring affirmative action to effectuate the
transfer. The proposed legislation should contain a sunset provision,
whereby notice and transfer must occur within a reasonable timetable.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, Reclamation recognizes that, in spite of
its serious concerns, the proposed legislation does offer a relatively
acceptable five-year solution to a problem Reclamation has wrestled
with for many years. In light of this, the Department of the Interior
will not oppose S. 2056 if appropriate clarifying language and
revisions are added.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
Ms. Weldon.
STATEMENT OF LESLIE A.C. WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Weldon. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden and Ranking
Member Barrasso. I will work on summarizing my remarks.
I will just say as it relates to the S. 1129 we share that
perspective of the value and importance of grazing lands as
ecosystems, as important parts of our landscapes from an
economic and cultural and traditional standpoint. Value the
relationships we have with our grazers.
What I'll do is just let you know that S. 1635 to convey
the lands as wilderness in Colorado as well as the Rocky
Mountain Front Conservation Management Act, 1774 and the S.
1687, to adjust the boundary of the Carson National Forest. We
are supportive of those. As it relates to the Rocky Mountain
Front Conservation Management area in the Lewis and Clark
National Forest we'd like to work with the committee on some of
the timeframes that have been put in place for developing the
non-motorized recreation plan as well as the noxious weeds
plan.
On the bill to create wilderness, S. 1635, in Colorado, we
would like to work with the committee on the Hard Rock 100,
this long established event that will, with the designation of
wilderness actually cross into wilderness area by about two
miles. We want to ensure that we're able to meet the intent of
wilderness values as well as to have this long standing and
popular, important event continue to occur.
The Grazing Improvement Act of 2011, we would like to work
with the committee. There are many portions of it that we
support and share some of the same concerns as expressed by the
Bureau of Land Management. In particular as it relates to the
definition we would like to have in place in defining minor
modifications for categorical conclusions. We would prefer our
rangers, decisionmakers, have an option to use a categorical
exclusion rather than making that a requirement within the act
with the intent of ensuring that we're able to make the most
appropriate decision as to what the landscape prevents for us
in the specific conditions on the ground.
We are also concerned about and would like to work with the
committee on the proposal for a new appeals process. The Forest
Service and the Department feel we have a process in place. A
process that we're developing that will also help streamline
and keep in place a fair review process when challenges do come
to permits in through our appeal process.
The Cabin User Fee Act of 2011, S. 1906, we're very happy
to have worked with the Association and with the committee in
coming up with solutions over the last few years for this bill.
We feel very comfortable with the proposals. However there are
a couple of areas that we would like to continue to work with
the committee.
One of those has to do with the tiers that were set up.
There were several levels of tier for assessing fees. We'd like
to work with the committee on whether or not those suite of
tiers are appropriate or if one additional tier may be needed
to be added in that situation.
In addition other minor things have to do with our desire
when a challenge does come up to have that challenge reviewed
in the area where the cabin actually exists rather than where
the cabin owner lives. We look forward to working with the
committee on getting through these last points of resolution
and getting a bill in place that will greatly make our process
more efficient and reduce the undue burdens that are on our
cabin fee owners.
That's it.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weldon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leslie A.C. Weldon, Deputy Chief, Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture, on S. 1129
The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide its views on
S. 1129, the ``Grazing Improvement Act of 2011''. 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 S. 1129 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.
S. 1129 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 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 as long as the extension is of a
limited duration until the completion of the NEPA process. 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 S.1129 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 S. 1129 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.
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.
ON S. 1635
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today and provide the Department of
Agriculture's views regarding S. 1635, the ``San Juan Mountains
Wilderness Act of 2011''. I am Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief for the
National Forest System.
The Department supports S. 1635 and would like to offer minor
modifications to the bill that would enhance wilderness values, clarify
the special management area designation, and improve our ability to
manage resources in the area. We thank Senator Udall for his
collaborative approach and recognize the local involvement that has
contributed to the wide support in Colorado for this bill.
The Department defers to the Department of the Interior in regard
to the proposal to designate approximately 8,600 acres of Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) lands as the McKenna Peak Wilderness.
S. 1635 would designate nine parcels of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre
and Gunnison National Forests as wilderness under the National
Wilderness Preservation System. These areas, totaling approximately
24,400 acres, encompass some of Colorado's most majestic, remote
landscapes with many abundant wildlife species including elk, deer,
bighorn sheep, bears and a variety of birds. Several world-class trout
streams are also found in the areas. These areas also provide
opportunities to experience solitude and primitive recreation use for
members of the public seeking areas to connect with nature.
These parcels would be additions to two existing wildernesses:
Lizard Head and Mount Sneffels. In addition, S. 1635 would designate
the Sheep Mountain area as a Special Management Area to be managed to
maintain the area's existing wilderness character and potential for
inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Also, S. 1635
would provide for a mineral withdrawal within a portion of Naturita
Canyon.
Lizard Head Wilderness Additions
The Lizard Head Wilderness lies astride the spectacular San Miguel
Mountains, 10 miles southwest of Telluride, Colorado on the Uncompahgre
and San Juan National Forests. Elevations in the area range from 9,500
to over 14,000 feet. The wilderness is evenly split between the two
national forests and is 41,200 acres in size. The proposed wilderness
additions include five parcels, encompassing approximately 3,150 acres
of National Forest System lands adjacent to the existing wilderness.
Though neither of the Forest Plans recommends these areas for
wilderness designation, wilderness designation would be consistent with
current management of the area. No summer motorized recreation is
currently allowed and effects to winter motorized recreation will be
minimal as there is very little snowmobile use of the area.
Mount Sneffels Wilderness Additions
The Mount Sneffels Wilderness comprises more than 16,500 acres on
the Uncompahgre National Forest between the communities of Telluride
and Ouray, Colorado. Elevations range from 9,600 to 14,150 feet at the
top of Mount Sneffels.
The proposed wilderness additions include four parcels that
encompass approximately 21,250 acres of National Forest System land
adjacent to the existing wilderness. As with the Lizard Head Additions,
even though this area was not recommended as wilderness in the Forest
Plan, designation is generally aligned with forest plan direction and
will have minimal effects on summer and winter recreation.
We would like to work with the subcommittee to address some
technical aspects of the bill. We recommend changing the wilderness
boundary near Telluride to provide for a more definitive boundary by
following a cliff formation. This would exclude the commercial foot
race from the wilderness and follow a more recognizable topographic
feature for the wilderness boundary.
Sheep Mountain Special Management Area
S. 1635 would also designate an area of about 21,600 acres of NFS
land that lies south of the town of Ophir, Colorado as a special
management area. About 10,850 acres are within the Uncompahgre National
Forest and about 10,750 acres are within the San Juan National Forest.
This area contains some lands purchased recently with funds provided by
Congress as part of the Ophir Valley Land and Water Conservation Fund
project.
Elevations in the area range from 10,200 to almost 13,900 feet at
the top of Vermillion Peak. The area is dense with spruce and fir trees
at the lower elevations. Above timberline are high alpine valleys with
numerous lakes, tarns and waterfalls beneath dramatic 13,000-foot peaks
and serrated ridges. The Forest Plans identify half of the area to be
managed for semi-primitive non-motorized recreation and the other half
for other recreation purposes.
The Department recognizes the desire of the bill sponsors to
preserve the characteristics of Sheep Mountain as a Special Management
Area for potential designation as wilderness. With respect to water
rights and water development, Section 4(d)(3) would prohibit new water
development projects in the special management area. This provision is
more restrictive than section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act under which
the President of the United States may exercise discretion to authorize
such facilities within designated wilderness areas if they are
determined to be in the public interest. We support amending this
provision so that it is consistent with the discretion authorized by
the Wilderness Act.
Naturita Canyon Withdrawal
S. 1635 would also provide for a withdrawal on approximately 6,600
acres of National Forest System lands within Naturita Canyon on the
Uncompahgre National Forest, about five miles south of the community of
Norwood, Colorado. Naturita Canyon is a relatively low-elevation river
drainage (7,000 feet) with steep canyon walls that tower 1,000 feet.
There are no current leases within the area proposed for withdrawal.
Impacts on available oil and gas resources for this withdrawal are
unknown. Further exploration information would be needed for a
conclusive assessment.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
ON S. 1687
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today and provide the Department of
Agriculture's views regarding S. 1687 the ``Carson National Forest
Boundary Adjustment Act of 2011''. I am Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief for
the National Forest System.
S. 1687 would modify the boundaries of the Carson National Forest
in the State of New Mexico to include approximately 5,000 acres of
private land known as ``Miranda Canyon'' that is adjacent to the
existing National Forest boundary. The Department supports the
adjustment of the boundary because it will create an opportunity for
the acquisition of Miranda Canyon property as part of the Carson
National Forest.
The Miranda Canyon Property is currently owned by Weimer Properties
and is located approximately four miles south of Taos, New Mexico.
Weimer Properties spent several years proposing to develop a
subdivision and seeking to acquire approval from the Taos County Board
of Commissioners. Approval of the subdivision was not granted and the
Taos County Commissioners requested the New Mexico Congressional
delegation consider placing this land under the stewardship of the U.S.
Forest Service.
The Miranda Canyon Property is an expansive piece of property that
ranges in elevation from 7,200 ft. to 10,800 ft. The property has
various vegetative types from low elevation sagebrush and pinon-juniper
to high elevation mixed conifer forest including large aspen clones.
The landscape has numerous ridges and peaks that provide breathtaking
views of the Rio Grande Gorge to the west and of Wheeler Peak (highest
peak in New Mexico) to the north. The property contains historical
features such as the Camino Real Trail and unique geologic features
such as a small volcano and Miranda granite-1.7 billion year old rock
outcrops that rival the age of rock found at the bottom of the Grand
Canyon. There are also numerous meadows and riparian vegetation that
provide excellent habitat for wildlife.
The proposed boundary adjustment has wide grass roots support from
the local residents, the Taos County Board of Commissioners, the
Village of Taos, and local Native American Tribes and Pueblos. To date,
there has been no opposition voiced to adjusting the boundary of the
Carson National Forest. The adjustment of the Forest boundary would
open the door to potential federal acquisition of Miranda Canyon from a
willing seller. The cost of acquiring the Miranda Canyon property would
be approximately $10,500,000, and amount that would be subject to the
availability of appropriations. The Weimar Properties has agreed to a
conservation sale to the United States through an agreement with a 3rd
party non-profit organization. This agreement keeps the property from
being developed or sold on the open market until funding is
appropriated. The acquisition would provide additional recreation
opportunities for hunting, sightseeing, camping, hiking,
interpretation, and horseback riding for the public.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1687. The
Department supports the acquisition of the Miranda Canyon property
because it would make an outstanding addition to the National Forest
System.
ON S. 1774
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today and provide the Department of
Agriculture's views regarding S. 1774, the ``Rocky Mountain Front
Heritage Act of 2011''. I am Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief for the
National Forest System.
The Department supports S. 1774 and would like to work with the
Committee to define and clarify questions of scope and timing for the
noxious weed management and the non-motorized recreation opportunities.
The Rocky Mountain Front area of Montana on the Lewis and Clark
National Forest lies just to the south of Glacier National Park and the
Blackfeet Indian Reservation. It is an area where the plains meet the
great continental divide. The area is marked by spectacular scenery and
lush grasslands and that is home to a broad range of Montana's fauna
and flora. The west side of the area is adjacent to the 1.5 million
acre Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex most of which was designated by
the original 1964 Wilderness Act. The east side of the area is bordered
by vast private ranchlands that have helped define Montana's western
heritage.
S. 1774 would designate approximately 195,000 acres of Federal land
managed by the Forest Service and approximately 13,000 acres of Federal
land managed by the Bureau of Land Management as the Rocky Mountain
Front Conservation Management Area (CMA). The bill would also designate
additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System of
approximately 50,400 acres to the Bob Marshall Wilderness and
approximately 16,700 acres to the Scapegoat Wilderness; both areas
would be managed by the Forest Service.
The Department defers to the Department of the Interior on the
designation of lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Management Area would be
managed to conserve, protect, and enhance its recreation, scenic,
historical, cultural, fish, wildlife, roadless, and ecological values.
Within the Conservation Management Area, S. 1774 would permit the use
of motorized vehicles only on existing roads, motorized trails and
designated areas. S. 1774 would allow for the construction of temporary
roads as part of a vegetation management project in any portion of the
Conservation Management Area not more than , mile from designated
roads. The bill also would authorize the use of motorized vehicles for
administrative purposes including noxious weed eradication or grazing
management. Livestock grazing would continue within the Conservation
Area and Wilderness Areas where established prior to the date of
enactment.
S. 1774 would require the Secretary to prepare a comprehensive
management strategy for the Rocky Mountain Ranger District on the Lewis
and Clark National Forest to prevent, control, and eradicate noxious
weeds. The Secretary also would be required to conduct a study to
improve non-motorized recreation trail opportunities.
For decades, the Forest Service has worked in partnership with
landowners to protect the economic and social value of the land
considered for designation as the Conservation Management Area. There
are 21 Federal land grazing allotments in the CMA. The landscape also
provides some of the best backcountry recreation experiences in the
world. Because of the popularity of the area, Federal and private land
managers have realized that there must be specific management emphasis
placed on how the lands are used and protected. As more people enjoy
and use this area, influxes of noxious weeds have occurred that could
change the native ecosystem structure and function and seriously impact
the private ranches. S. 1774 calls for measures that would direct
federal agencies to work with state and private organizations to
implement projects that concentrate on the prevention, control and
eradication of invasive plants such as spotted knapweed (Centaurea
maculosa Lam.) that are threatening to change the ecosystem. The Lewis
and Clark National Forest routinely works with other agencies and land
owners to address weed concerns. The Lewis and Clark National Forest is
in the process of developing a memorandum of understanding with the U.
S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources and Conservation Service
(NRCS) that will addresses how the agencies will work together
regarding noxious weed control measures on the interface between
private and Federal lands. The Department supports the intent described
in the bill to address noxious weeds.
The Department also supports the National Forest System lands
identified for motorized and non-motorized recreation use, including
mountain biking, in the conservation areas. The provisions in S. 1774
are consistent with the current travel management plan for the Rocky
Mountain Ranger District. The travel management plan was approved by
the Lewis and Clark National Forest Supervisor in October of 2007 after
extensive public participation. Approximately 67,000 acres of land are
identified in the forest plan for the Lewis and Clark as either
recommended to Congress for wilderness designation or for further study
for their potential as wilderness. The Department supports the
wilderness designations included in this bill.
The Department recognizes the management of vegetation along
current motorized forest roads is an important component of this bill.
Public safety is an important consideration in an area that is impacted
by mountain pine beetle, which has created physical risk to the
roadways and possible increased fire risk due to ignitions from road
users. The Beaver-Willow Road, a previously established road, crosses
through the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan inventoried roadless area. As
we understand the bill, the road's location in an inventoried roadless
area would not preclude timber harvest within , mile of the Beaver-
Willow Road.
The bill also calls for a study to identify opportunities to
improve non-motorized trails in the proposed Conservation Area. The
Department would like to work with the Committee to further define the
scope of this part of the proposed legislation.
All of the measures called for in this bill fall within the
administrative authority of the Forest Service except for Wilderness
designation and as stated, are consistent with current Forest Service
management goals for the area. Several of the components such as
comprehensive weed management strategies, treatment of vegetation and
recreation opportunity studies are needs that exist throughout the
Northern Region and Forest Service. The managers of the National Forest
System must prioritize this work based on workforce capacity and other
resources. Extending the required timeframes for the comprehensive
noxious weed management strategy from 1 to 3 years and the study to
address improved non-motorized trails from 2 to 3 years would allow
more time for the required consultations and manage workload and
resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill today and I
will be happy to answer any questions from the Committee.
ON S. 1906
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today and provide the Department of
Agriculture's views regarding S.1906, the Cabin Fee Act of 2011. I am
Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief for the National Forest System. The
Department appreciates the cooperative relationship between the Forest
Service and the over 14,000 cabin owners, their representatives and the
recreational experiences they enjoy on the National Forests.
S. 1906, which would replace Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000
(CUFFA) on National Forest System (NFS) lands reserved from public
domain, would revise the procedures for determining the amount an owner
of a cabin on a National Forest must pay to lease the underlying
federal property. There are advantages to S. 1906 from an
administrative perspective. It would reduce the agency's cost of
performing appraisals, and it would provide certainty for cabin owners
in terms of anticipated fees. However, S. 1906 also presents challenges
as currently written. The Forest Service has had constructive dialogue
with the National Forest Homeowners Association and the Committee in
attempting to resolve the issues we are raising in this testimony. The
Forest Service welcomes the opportunity to work with Congress to create
a bill that is fair to cabin owners, other users of the National
Forests, and the taxpayers, and that can be administered without undue
burden on the agency or cabin owners.
Before describing the challenges of this bill, it is important to
consider the history of this program. In the early part of the
twentieth century, the Forest Service began introducing Americans to
the beauty and grandeur of their National Forests. One way to
accomplish this objective was to permit individuals to build cabins for
summertime occupancy within the National Forests. Cabin owners were
permitted to occupy NFS land during the summer months in exchange for a
fee. In 1915, the agency began to issue permits of up to twenty years
for occupancy of NFS land. At that time, there was relatively little
recreational use of the National Forests. Today, the National Forests
host over 175 million visitors per year. When this recreational cabin
program began, there was limited interest in building and owning a
remote cabin on NFS land. Today, similar land at ski resorts, near
lakes, and remote mountain settings are highly prized. In the early
years, fees were nominal, but since the 1950's, the Forest Service has
been mandated to obtain fees approximating market value and therefore
provide a fair return to the American people for the use of NFS land.
Increasing fees have led to controversy and have resulted in enactment
of multiple fee moratoriums and caps over the years. CUFFA was the
latest attempt to achieve an equitable fee for the use of NFS land.
CUFFA prescribes parameters for the appraisal process. Fees under
CUFFA are based on five percent of the appraised market value of the
lot under permit. The agency began the appraisal process pursuant to
CUFFA in 2007, and plans to complete the remaining appraisals and
resolve the appraisal appeals by the end of 2013. Some cabin owners
raised concerns and requested relief. In some instances there were
dramatic increases because the old fees were based on appraisals
completed ten to thirty years ago. In response, appropriations acts
have included limits on fee increases.
The bill would replace CUFFA on National Forest System (NFS) lands
reserved from the public domain. It would create nine payment tiers, or
categories, and provide for an additional payment on the sale or
transfer of the cabin. It would require the agency to place cabins in
the nine categories utilizing the most recent appraisals. All
appraisals are scheduled to be completed by 2013. CUFFA would remain in
place for cabins on acquired NFS lands.
Here are our concerns with the bill as written:
Cabin Transfer Fees--S.1906 requires the Department to obtain
payment based on a percentage of the amount of the cabin sale.
The Department is concerned about the administrative challenges
of obtaining accurate sale information. Also we have concerns
that the U.S. Government would be receiving proceeds tied to
the value of the privately owned structure. The U.S. government
has no stake in the value of the structure, only the lease
value of the public land. The Department is not opposed to
collecting a standard fee when the permit is transferred.
Fee Amounts--Our analyses indicate that many of the proposed
fees, particularly for the higher valued lots, would be less
than those which would be paid under current law and which
results in fees being below market value. As previously noted,
fees below market value can lead to substantial profits when
cabins are sold, as the sale prices will reflect the value of
the locations more than the value of the cabins. To reduce the
likelihood of these profits, the proposed fee schedule should
be more closely tied to market value.
Judicial Review--The Department recommends that the venue for
any action brought before the U.S. District Court be in the
judicial district in which the cabin is located and not where
the permit holder resides. While we do not anticipate a
significant number of legal challenges, the administrative
costs could otherwise be a significant burden for the agency.
Different Fee Systems based on Land Status--The bill applies
to cabins on NFS lands reserved from the public domain which is
the status of NFS land in much of the western U.S. However, the
NFS also consists of lands acquired from other ownerships. Most
of the eastern and mid- western National Forests are comprised
of acquired lands. We estimate that seven to ten-percent of the
estimated 14,000 cabins nationwide are located on acquired NFS
lands and would be subject to a different fee system. It would
be burdensome to administer two separate fee systems. To
simplify the process and reduce the administrative burden, the
Department recommends that the same fee system apply to all
cabins on all NFS lands.
Technical Changes--Additionally, there are a number of
additional technical suggestions which we would like to share
with the Committee.
Several years ago, the Forest Service conducted a study that
estimated that the annual cost of administering the Recreation
Residence Program. In California the administration of this program was
estimated to account for over fifteen percent of the total recreation
budget. On the El Dorado National Forest in California, the Forest
Service estimates that one third of the recreation budget is spent
administering this program. While there are some 14,000 cabin owners,
there are 175 million visitors to the National Forests each year.
S.1906 would reduce that administrative burden by reducing appraisal
needs. This would increase the availability of funding in the
recreation budget for the Forest Service to provide a quality
recreational experience and protect the environment for all who use the
National Forests.
We welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to complete
legislation that is fair to the taxpayer, the cabin owner, and other
users of the National Forests and Grasslands, and can be administered
without undue burden on the agency or cabin owner. Again, we appreciate
the recent forthright and productive discussions regarding these
concerns. We can support this legislation if these concerns are
addressed.
Senator Wyden. Alright. Does that conclude your remarks?
Ms. Weldon. That concludes my remarks.
Senator Wyden. Alright. Very good.
My colleague from Washington State has been very patient.
Would you like to make any remarks, Senator Cantwell?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I'm
getting to the hearing late here. But I thank you for holding
this important hearing.
I'm pleased to see that the committee is considering the
San Juan Island National Conservation Area Act that I've worked
so closely on with many people in San Juan and obviously with
my colleague in the House, Congressman Larson and my colleague
here, Senator Murray. I'm very pleased that the Bureau of Land
Management is here today.
You probably know that last month the Acting Director and
the Secretary were out in the Northwest for a community
listening session and had a lot of input from residents of the
area. I would also like to welcome Mr. Doug Gann of Kirkland,
Washington, who is here to discuss the Cabin Fee Act. It is
good to see that we have people here talking about legislation
that Senator Tester and the Forest--that we're all working
together to make sure that there are not unreasonable fees on
those cabins.
The San Juan Island legislation is truly important. I think
I'll wait to my questions to go into more detail. But the fact
remains for such a pristine and unbelievable area of our
country there is no long term comprehensive management plan in
place.
Since we just went through a process in 2005 with the State
Department of Natural Resources, when a unilateral decision was
made to divest a property in San Juan County including Mitchell
Hill, which is a very popular and scenic hiking trail in San
Juan Island. While these lands were actively pursued by
private, out of State real estate developers, we were proud to
work with the local community to make sure that these areas
were protected. But like this situation there's no protection
for permanent protection for the Bureau of Land Management on
these lands and these are very, very special places. So that is
why we have introduced this legislation.
If enacted, it would designate all 1,000 acres of the BLM
land in the San Juan Island area as a National Conservation
Area ensuring that they would remain a national treasure. So I
look forward to hearing more testimony specifics today from Mr.
Pool. But thank you very much for being here.
We certainly want to make sure that I think from our
listening session in the community, I could tell you that
everybody wants to make sure that the land continues in its
current status. The question is how best to do that. We think
this provides a very positive step forward.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll wait for my questions.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. I note that you
have put your usual due diligence to this cause and that your
bill has the support of the relevant agencies. So thank you and
appreciate your good work.
Let me start with you, Ms. Weldon, if I could with a
question about cabin user fees. Your testimony suggests that
the proposed fee schedule, in your view, ought to be more
closely tied which you describe as the market value of the land
used for cabin sites. How do you envision this actually
working? I heard you say something about tiers or something.
I think as much as anything, you know, folks in our part of
the country want to get a sense of how you all envision
something like this actually working.
Ms. Weldon. You know, the most distinct way to say that is
that there's been great work done, I think, to establish the
set of tiers. Which generally correlate with what we see as a
fair way of looking at the different land values that are
associated with cabins. You know, that may occur in high value,
high value recreation in real estate areas compared with others
that might not be that way.
We're simply saying that there's an opportunity for us to
look at adding one additional tier on the high end that would
assist in rounding out what we would see as fair as it relates
to the some of the higher end valued, land values associated
with the cabins.
Senator Wyden. Alright.
Question for you also on grazing. Mr. Pool testified that
the Bureau of Land Management has an estimated backlog of 4,200
unprocessed grazing permits. Ms. Weldon, does the Forest
Service have a similar backlog and if so, can you give us any
sense of the numbers of unprocessed grazing permits on Forest
Service land?
Ms. Weldon. Thank you for your question, Senator. At this
point the Forest Service does not have a backlog of unprocessed
grazing permits.
Senator Wyden. Alright.
One last question deals with S. 1129 and particularly, so I
can understand your thoughts on this, you know, categorical
exclusion issue. Both of you offer in your statements concern
about that provision that categorically, S. 1129, categorically
excludes a grazing permit renewal or transfer from the NEPA
statute if the decision continues the current grazing
management of the allotment. Now, it's been my understanding
that you all essentially have the authority to,
administratively, establish categorical exclusions under NEPA
for specific activities.
Do you all use that now? Let's just get for the record your
agencies, you know, position about whether you're using
categorical exclusions for grazing management activities.
Mr. Pool. We do on certain, I would call them custodial
type actions whether it be fence replacement, fence repair,
emergency feeding, replacement of a cattle guard. It's the day
to day things that a rancher carries out to maintain his
allotment.
Senator Wyden. Ms. Weldon.
Ms. Weldon. What I would add is similar situation. We don't
have a category right now that fits as far as reauthorization
and renewal decisions more for the operational side.
Senator Wyden. OK.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Weldon, first I appreciate the Department's support of
the intent of the grazing bill. I just wanted to know if you'll
commit to working with my staff to address the specific
language in the concerns that you've addressed?
Ms. Weldon. Yes, we're committed and we really appreciate
your assistance with this bill.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
I want to ask one other question of you. The groups such as
Western Watershed Project and the WildEarth Guardians
repeatedly sue to put family farms and small ranchers out of
business. Recently the Oregon Natural Desert Association
requested, I think, nearly a million dollars of taxpayer money
to reimburse their attorney's fees from suing the Forest
Service to shut down grazing in Eastern Oregon.
What's the impact on an agency budget such as yours on an
agency's time and personnel when it comes to defending against
these types of, what I believe to be, extreme anti-grazing
lawsuits?
Ms. Weldon. Thank you for your question, Senator.
The--we don't formally track the impact as it relates to
cost in resource time. We, as part of our current process, you
know, have gotten to the point where we anticipate and plan
base on our analyses have gone to see where there may be
challenges. Our goal is to do as much as we can through a new
process to--of objections to resolve those up front.
We know that the more agreement we have up front than the
more successful we can be with having sustainable economically
beneficial activities such as grazing occurring on public
lands. Equal Access to Justice Act is something that we're
required to follow. The payments that we make do come out of
our appropriated programs to do that.
Senator Barrasso. So while you haven't specifically tracked
the specific dollar figures in terms of the budgets, the time
and the personnel, there is clearly an impact and it does
affect other programs.
Ms. Weldon. That's correct.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Mr. Pool, with respect to S. 2015, I appreciate the BLM
being supportive of this land conveyance. So thank you.
I did want to ask about section 123 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2012. It provided flexibility when
considering NEPA analysis for trailing or crossing permits.
With the spring turnout approaching for permit holders, how's
the BLM interpreting and implementing the law?
Mr. Pool. Thank you for that question, Senator.
First of all the 2-year rider was welcome relief for the
Bureau as has been the case with previous riders. We're
currently--the rider did emphasize and grant BLM the
discretionary authority to use CXs for trailing permits. So
we've offered that to the discretion and judgment of our
managers in the field.
Trailing permits can vary in size and duration and
proximity to other values. So we're allowing our managers to
address local conditions and then make a determination as to
what appropriately NEPA coverage should be applied.
Senator Barrasso. OK. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. OK. I thank my colleague.
Senator Cantwell, any questions?
Senator Cantwell. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pool, I wanted to ask you about I mentioned this
Mitchell Hills situation that happened on the San Juan Islands.
The Department of Natural Resources made a decision to get rid
of that land and then a challenge into whether we were going to
be able to preserve it or not. So is there anything in current
law that prevents a future administration from deciding to
divest itself of the BLM lands on the San Juan Islands?
Mr. Pool. Not if in fact they've been specially designated
as being proposed under this bill as a National Conservation
Area. That would be exceedingly difficult if the Congress
elects to designate the 1,000 acres rocks and islands.
Senator Cantwell. Unless they do, you're saying there's
nothing that protects them in the future?
Mr. Pool. I think, well, currently we're managing them for
their conservation value. Portions of the rocks and islands
have an administrative designation. We call that an area of
critical environmental concern.
But it does not carry the weight as a Congressional
designation would in terms of long term protection and
preservation.
Senator Cantwell. OK. If this legislation was passed,
obviously, the management plan and implementation is critically
important to the local community. How would the Bureau of Land
Management commit to fostering a, kind of, community
environment on the management, you know, an advisory plan or
drafting or implementation or management. How would that
function work?
Mr. Pool. I think it would include all of the above which
we've done on similar type designations. We would develop a
plan for the area. Obviously in close concert with the affected
citizens.
We have other conservation templates out there. State of
Washington and Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service, they're
all represented in the providence. So we're kind of the new
kids on the scene here. Obviously we're going to respect some
of the conservation strategies and principles that they've also
adopted and be very similar to that.
Senator Cantwell. OK. What do you think that those kinds of
plans would affect? I mean, I heard some concerns by local land
owners that maybe it would affect lands outside of the area
such as adjacent properties.
Mr. Pool. The rocks and islands primarily constitute the
1,000 acres that's under consideration for NCA management
designation. They have been protected and conserved for many,
many years. They're----
Senator Cantwell. I'm trying to get at the point would you
have any effect on private landowners?
Mr. Pool. No.
Senator Cantwell. OK, thank you.
Mr. Pool. No, ma'am.
Senator Cantwell. Would you have any effect on if we came
up with this plan, would that have any effect on boating and
fishing activities?
Mr. Pool. Only as regulated by other State entities. We
would respect that.
Senator Cantwell. OK. Then any property that was adjacent
wouldn't be impacted?
Mr. Pool. No, ma'am.
Senator Cantwell. OK.
So basically if we move forward on this legislation we
could come up with something that's more concrete for the
future, work with the community, and would that be a continued
process?
Mr. Pool. It would be. Yes, the development of a plan, plan
implementation and then we usually use a community based
planning type initiative. We want the public to participate and
help the BLM identify how these rocks and islands should be
better protected and conserved.
Senator Cantwell. OK. Alright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Pool, before we want to wrap up I also want to tell you
how much I appreciate your comments about my Rogue legislation.
In our State there's a tradition of bringing stakeholders
together to protect special places. President Obama signed a
number of our bills early in 2009 that came about because all
over Oregon folks got together and tried to work and find
common ground.
You look at a lot of these, you know, protected landscapes.
The fact of the matter is these landscapes are just magnets for
recreation. They're incredibly valuable to the economy.
That's why when a group of citizens can come together and
protect a treasure and also do it in a way that folks did on
the Rogue with scores of businesses, you know, supporting it, I
think you're showing that, particularly, right now in a tough
economy, people see recreation really is a path to some jobs
and economic vitality that's much needed, often in rural areas
that are hard hit. So we thank you for your favorable comments.
If my colleagues don't have any other questions at this
point, we'll excuse both of you and go to our next panel. Thank
you both.
Our next panel.
Mr. David Strahan of Grants Pass, Oregon.
Mr. Jim Magagna, Executive Vice President of Wyoming Stock
Growers Association.
Mr. Doug Gann, National Forest Homeowners of Kirkland,
Washington.
Mr. Dusty Crary, I hope I'm pronouncing this right,
Choteau, Montana.
Mr. Andy Kerr, Advisor to the World Earth Guardians in
Washington, DC.
If you all will come forward.
Dusty, did I do too much damage to your hometown?
Mr. Crary. Nope, you didn't.
Senator Wyden. OK. Pretty good for government work. OK.
Mr. Strahan it is a long trek from beautiful Grants Pass to
Washington, DC. We really appreciate your coming.
We'll make your prepared remarks a part of the record. If
each of you could take 5 minutes or so and just summarize your
main concerns. I know everybody just, as I indicated earlier,
just almost feels this and only Dr. Barrasso would probably
understand almost a physiological desire to actually read all
the words. But all the words are going to be part of the
hearing record. That will offer the most time for colleagues to
ask questions.
So, Mr. Strahan, thank you and go ahead.
STATEMENT OF DAVID STRAHAN, GRANTS PASS, OR
Mr. Strahan. Honorable Chairman Wyden and fellow members of
the Subcommittee on Public Lands, thank you for inviting me to
testify regarding S. 2001, a bill to expand the Rogue
Wilderness and add additional wild and scenic river
designations to tributaries along the lower Rogue corridor in
the State of Oregon. It is truly an honor to be here today to
speak in favor of this legislation.
As Honorable Senator Wyden said, my name is Dave Strahan. I
live in Grants Pass, Oregon, where I was born. Grants Pass is a
city that straddles the Rogue with a population of around
35,000 people in a region of over 300,000 people.
The Rogue has long been an international draw for tourists.
It has also provided sanctuary for notable celebrities over the
years. Our river has provided inspiration for George Foreman,
Zane Grey and countless other river lovers. Zane Grey
proclaimed the historic beauty of this area and made it his
part time home. ``The happiest lot of any angler,'' wrote Grey,
``would be to live somewhere along the banks of the Rogue
River, the most beautiful stream of Oregon.''
Growing up the Rogue and its watersheds provided my family
and me countless hours of outdoor recreation and enjoyment.
Family camping, fishing, hunting and boating is what we did
when I was growing up as was the case with most of my peers.
Many of my fondest memories include times spent on or near our
river. I continue to create those memories today with my own
family.
When I graduated from high school in 1972 the majority of
my friends moved to larger cities to take advantage of more
varied education and employment opportunities. My love of the
Rogue, its watersheds and all they have to offer compelled me
to stay in the Rogue Valley and create a life for myself and to
raise my family. My oldest daughter will make me a grandfather
in May and my youngest graduates from high school this spring.
When I die, I hope to leave a Rogue River that my kids, my
grandkids and their peers can continue to build memories around
for generations to come.
While attending college in Ashland, Oregon, another Rogue
basin community, I began selling sporting goods as a retail
clerk, part time in 1975. Since that time I have made my living
and supported my family selling outdoor recreation equipment in
the sporting goods industry. I had the best job in the world
selling the tools for the activities I so enjoy and have been
such a large part of my life in one of the most beautiful and
bountiful regions of our great Nation.
Since 1995 I have proudly been a territory salesman for Big
Rock Sports. Big Rock Sports is the largest distributor of
sporting goods in the Nation. Big Rock Sports, headquartered in
Morehead City, North Carolina, provides well paying jobs all
across our country with facilities in North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Montana, California and Oregon. We
partner with and help thousands of small family businesses
throughout the country and proudly present the values and
culture that are such an important part of our country's
heritage and quality of life.
But my passion for being here today is not just about me,
my career and my love of the Rogue and all it has to offer. I
am also here today representing 110, the 110, Oregon businesses
and organizations that support expansion of the Wild Rogue
Wilderness. I also speak for the Northwest Sport Fishing
Industry Association, a Northwest industry group made up of
approximately 300 outdoor recreation businesses in the Pacific
Northwest.
A 2009 economic study by Econ Northwest, an economic
analyst group, estimates economic benefits generated from
fishing, white water rafting and hiking along the Rogue River
brought in an annual income of over 18.1 million dollars to our
region. The Rogue basin's local economy, culture and heritage
is based on the Rogue River and its supporting watersheds. With
all this in mind it is with great passion and a great deal of
empathy for the hundreds of businesses in our region, as well
as our quality of life in the Rogue basin and the entire
Pacific Northwest, that I urge you to advance Senate, S. 2001
and work to ensure that our irreplaceable Rogue River and its
supporting watersheds are protected for future generations.
Thank you for your time. Once again, I thank Senator Wyden
and all of you for the opportunity to speak on something that
is so important to me. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Strahan, Grants Pass, OR
Honorable Chairman Weldon and fellow members of the Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Forests of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify regarding S. 2001, a
bill to expand the Wild Rogue Wilderness Area in the State of Oregon,
and to provide additional protections for Rogue River tributaries via
additional Wild and Scenic river designations in the lower Rogue River
area. It is an honor to have this opportunity to speak in favor of this
legislation.
My name is Dave Strahan. I was born, raised and still live in
Grants Pass, Oregon. Grants Pass is a city with a population of around
35,000 people in a county of roughly 83,000 people. Grants Pass
straddles the Rogue River in the heart of the Rogue Basin in Southern
Oregon. The Rogue Basin is home to several other cities, larger and
smaller, creating an area population of approximately 300,000 people.
The Rogue River's headwaters begin near Crater Lake, a national
treasure in its own right. It then flows 215 miles through the
mountains and valleys of southwestern Oregon, eventually emptying into
the Pacific Ocean near the town of Gold Beach.
The steep, rugged basin, stretching from the western flank of the
Cascade Range to the northeastern flank of the Siskiyou Mountains
varies in elevation from 9,485 feet at the summit of McLaughlin in the
Cascades to sea level, where it meets the ocean.
The Rogue has long been an international draw for tourists. It has
also provided sanctuary for many notable celebrities over the years. I
have my mother's 1943 Grants Pass High School year book with Clark
Gable's autograph in it. Our river has provided inspiration for George
Foreman, Zane Grey and countless other river lovers. Zane Grey
proclaimed the historic beauty of this area, and made it his part time
home. ``The happiest lot of any angler'' wrote Grey ``would be to live
somewhere along the banks of the Rogue River, the most beautiful stream
of Oregon.''
The Rogue has been an integral element in my family's life for
generations. In the late 1800's my great grandparents on my father's
side homesteaded on a tributary of the Rogue, just a few miles south of
Grants Pass. My grandparents on my mother's side moved to Grants Pass
in 1927 and built Kamp Kathleen, a motor court named after my mother
that catered to salmon fishermen, as well as other tourists.
Growing up, the Rogue and its watershed provided my family and me
with countless hours of enjoyment and outdoor recreation. Family
camping, fishing, hunting and boating is just what we did when I was
growing up, as was the case with most of my peers. Many of my fondest
memories include time spent on or near our river, and I continue to
create those memories today, with my own family. As a sort of rite of
passage, I made my first raft trip down the lower Rogue canyon as a
16th birthday present in 1969 with my older brother Mike. Since then, I
have made hundreds of trips down our river and have had the pleasure of
introducing many, many awestruck visitors to our special place.
When I graduated from high school in 1972, the majority of my
friends moved to larger cities to take advantage of more varied
education and employment opportunities. My love of the Rogue, its
watersheds and all that they have to offer, compelled me to stay in the
Rogue valley to create my life and raise my family. My oldest daughter
will make me a grandfather in May and my youngest graduates from high
school this spring. When I die, I hope to leave a Rogue River that my
kids, my grandkids and their peers can continue to build memories
around for generations to come.
While studying business administration and marketing for four years
at what is now Southern Oregon University in Ashland, Oregon, another
Rogue basin community, I began selling sporting goods as a retail clerk
part time in 1975. Since that time, I have made my living and supported
my family selling outdoor recreation equipment in the sporting goods
industry. I have the best job in the world, selling the tools for the
activities I so enjoy and that have been such a large part of my life,
in one of the most beautiful and bountiful regions of our great nation.
Since 1995 I have proudly been a territory salesman for Big Rock
Sports, the largest distributor of sporting goods in the nation. Big
Rock Sports, headquartered in Morehead City, North Carolina, provides
well--paying jobs all across our country with facilities in North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Montana, California and Oregon. We
partner with and help support thousands of small family businesses
throughout every state in our country, and proudly represent the values
and culture that are such an important part of our country's heritage
and quality of life.
But my passion for being here today is not only about me, my career
and my love of the Rogue and all it has to offer. I am also here today
representing the 110 plus Oregon businesses and organizations that
support expansion of the Wild Rogue Wilderness and Wild and Scenic
protections on the Rogue. I also speak for the Northwest Sportfishing
Industry Association, a northwest industry group made up of
approximately 300 outdoor recreation businesses in the Pacific
Northwest. Additionally, I am on the Stream Restoration Alliance of the
Middle Rogue's board of Directors. The Stream Restoration Alliance, a
watershed council dedicated to restoring urban streams through
volunteer efforts, is also a supporter of the proposed legislation.
Other organizations representing thousands of people across
southwest Oregon and throughout our region--such as the Middle Rogue
Steelheaders, the Native Fish Society, the Oregon Council of Trout
Unlimited and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations--have thrown their support behind our Rogue River and the
proposed legislation.
Besides just the business and outdoor recreation communities, a
recent poll conducted in rural southwestern Oregon by Moore Polling
showed that 77% of those polled support protection of Rogue River
tributaries. Even when told the details of the proposal and what it
would disallow, the majority still support expansion of the Wild Rogue
Wilderness. Pollster Bob Moore observed: ``The majority of voters
clearly favor additional protection . . . ''
Also, as part of an unprecedented agreement negotiated by
conservation organizations and the American Forest Resource Council
(AFRC), a timber industry association, AFRC agreed not to oppose this
legislation. Tom Partin of AFRC was quoted in the Grants Pass Daily
Courier on May 25, 2010, ``The area you view from the Rogue River is
not going to be (logged). A lot of it is too rugged and wild. There is
not a lot of timber value that we would be giving up if it went into
wilderness values.''
Bear in mind that the Rogue River is the largest producer of
Pacific salmon in Oregon outside of the Columbia River, with
historically 100,000 salmon and steelhead returning from the ocean each
year. Rogue River salmon and steelhead travel great distances along the
Oregon and northern California coasts and support a significant portion
of our ocean salmon fisheries. With that, they also provide the
backbone for sport and commercial fishing economies worth billions of
dollars annually to our west coast. The very tributaries under
consideration in this piece of legislation are essential to the future
of these fish and the sustainable economy they support. Salmon and
steelhead need and thrive on the clear, cold water that these
tributaries provide.
A 2009 economic study by ECONorthwest, an economic analyst group,
estimates the economic benefits generated from fishing, white water
rafting, (just over 13,000 people floated the lower Rogue in 2007) and
hiking, (5,000 people hike along the Rogue River in the proposal area
on average), occurring entirely within the proposal area to be $18.1
million in economic activity and nearly 300 full and part-time jobs
annually. When one considers the economic ripple effect in terms of
restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores and motels, it is clear that
the outdoor recreation industry is a very substantial contributor to
our economy. While tourism may not support our entire economy, the
diversity it brings certainly adds to the stability of our economy.
There are millions of dollars more in benefits associated with the
quality of life in the region provided by a clean, attractive river
corridor with healthy fish runs and intact watersheds. My Rotary group,
Gateway Rotary, recently heard a presentation from the CEO of Three
Rivers Hospital in Grants Pass. He explained to us how when recruiting
doctors and other health care professionals, our river and the wild
areas around it are important elements in luring these folks to our
community. In my eight years serving on the Three Rivers School
District Board of Directors, I was a part of many hiring committees for
Administrators, and our outdoor quality of life was a very large factor
in attracting applicants. These professionals all contribute to our
economy, often with more discretionary income than others. An
investment in our Wild and Scenic Rogue is an investment in the
stability of our economy.
The Rogue Basin's local economy, culture and heritage is based on
the Rogue River and its supporting watersheds. With all of this in
mind, it is with great passion and a great deal of empathy for the
hundreds of business people in our region, as well for our quality of
life in the Rogue Basin and the entire Pacific Northwest, that I urge
you to advance S. 2001 and work to insure that our irreplaceable Rogue
River and its supporting watersheds are protected for future
generations.
Thank you for your time. And once again, I thank Senator Wyden and
all of you, for the opportunity to speak on behalf of something so
profoundly important to us all.
Senator Wyden. Thank you and thank you for a very helpful
statement.
Mr. Magagna, thank you and we're glad to hear from the
Wyoming Stock Growers and Public Lands Council.
STATEMENT OF JIM MAGAGNA, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, WYOMING
STOCK GROWERS ASSOCIATION, PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL, CHEYENNE, WY
Mr. Magagna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be
here today and certainly with Ranking Minority Member, Senator
Barrasso, a good friend of mine. I appreciate this opportunity.
I've been a public land grazing permitee for over 50 years
both with the Forest Service and until just recent years--with
the BLM and until recent years with the Forest Service. I've
watched the evolution of grazing on public lands, the evolution
of the livestock industry and the evolution of the science of
range management on public lands. I view S. 1129 as a response
to that evolution and therefore something that's critically
important to us and certainly one that the public land
livestock industry supports as essential because they're
essential to restoring a stable business environment to our
industry.
As a representative of Public Lands Council, Mr. Chairman,
for the record, I'm also speaking on behalf of the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the--or the American Sheep
Industry Association and the Association of National
Grasslands, all of whom are affiliates of the Public Lands
Council.
Historically grazing was viewed as one of the multiple
uses, the earliest multiple use, in fact, of our federally
managed lands. Today it's also come to be recognized, as was
noted I believe in the previous testimony from the two land
agencies, as an important tool for the management of these
lands. It's really more than just managing a piece of land.
It's a tool for managing Western ecosystems or watersheds as
you may prefer to term them.
In our case approximately 40 percent of the beef cattle in
the West and half of the Nation's sheep spend some time on
public lands. So it's critical as well to our industry. Today
we have a lot of threats to that industry, mostly could all be
summed up by uncertainties brought on by competing demands at
much higher values for the private lands that are associated
with these public lands via State taxes, by government
regulation and certainly by a lack of certainty in our grazing
permits. Together these create a business environment that's
less promising and less certain than I've known in any time in
my over 50 years involved in the Public Land Livestock
industry.
Long term grazing permits are really at the foundation of
not only a stable industry, but the evolving science of
rangeland management. It's become--grazing has come to be
recognized by range scientists, land management agencies and
ranchers as an important tool in achieving resource management
objectives. For a long time we looked at grazing in terms of
what do we this year different than we did last year.
That hasn't lost some of its importance. What the science
of rangeland management has taught us is that it takes a long
term look. You're able to change grazing systems and thereby
change the resource itself to a more favorable State by long
term commitments.
So certainly a 20-year grazing permit based on that science
alone just makes sense today. It will provide more ability to
apply rangeland science. Of course it will provide certainty
and agency efficiency. I would emphasize that agency
efficiency.
So much of what the Federal land agencies do today in
addressing livestock grazing is done superficially, not through
any fault of these agencies. But through a lack of resources
and the hurriedness that comes from having to renew permits in
a timely fashion every 10 years from having to do a standards
and guidelines assessments in the short term.
Second, the proposal to codify the language simply takes
something that Congress has been doing and we appreciate it,
for each of the last 10 years. Finally puts that in a permanent
form so you're not having to deal with it.
Finally I would turn to the provisions applying
Administrative Procedures Act to livestock grazing and
particularly emphasize the Forest Service. I was pleased to
hear them state today that they're looking at some changes.
Whether those changes are what's contained in this bill today
or something else, our industry has stocked for over 35 years
to bring some changes to the Forest Service process so that an
appeal is not simply being decided by the next line officer who
is a supervisor of the individual who issued the original
decision.
Finally we can't ignore the public benefits that come from
livestock grazing. Preventing land fragmentation of private
lands, protecting wildlife habitats, scenic vistas and keeping
these land ecosystems together. There are certain times when
small actions can produce great results. I view S. 1129 as
being one of those times and urge the committee to support this
bill and to move it forward with it in an expeditious manner.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Magagna follows:]
Statement of Jim Magagna, Executive Vice President, Wyoming Stock
Growers Association, Public Lands Council, Cheyenne, WY, on S. 1129
I am Jim Magagna, Executive Vice President of the Wyoming Stock
Growers Association, the 140-year-old voice of the Wyoming cattle
industry. I am also a lifelong sheep producer and former president of
the American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) and the national Public
Lands Council (PLC). I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to share the western livestock industry perspective on S. 1129,
the ``Grazing Improvement Act of 2011''.
Today I am representing both the Wyoming Stock Growers Association
(WSGA) and PLC. WSGA has approximately 1000 members, of which over
fifty percent graze livestock on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or
U.S. Forest Service lands. Affiliates of PLC include the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), the American Sheep Industry
Association (ASI), the American National Grasslands Association (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 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.\1\ 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.\2\ While 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fact Sheet on BLM Management of Livestock Grazing, September
2011, Table 3-8 pc. Fiscal Year 2010.
\2\ USDA--Forest Service, Annual Grazing Statistical Report,
Grazing Season 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The public land livestock industry seeks and supports the essential
legislative changes incorporated into S. 1129 for one primary reason-
they are essential steps in restoring a stable business environment to
our industry.
Today's public land livestock industry is not the industry of the
early 20th century. 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. Burgeoning
government regulation demands ever-greater investment of both financial
and human resources. Agricultural lenders are demanding greater long-
term certainty that the operation, including public land grazing
permits, will be kept intact. Altogether, these and other factors
create a business environment that is less promising and less certain
than ever.
Long-term certainty of grazing permits is also at the foundation of
the evolving science of rangeland management. Over the past forty
years, livestock have become recognized as an important tool for
rangeland management on both public and private lands. While
appropriate levels of utilization remain important, timing and
intensity of grazing have become key management tools. Sophisticated
analytical systems allow livestock grazing to be utilized to bring
about significant changes in forage composition over long periods of
time. One example of such a system is the State and Transition Model
(STM), which has been embraced in recent years by both BLM and Forest
Service. These approaches demand a long-term commitment to a grazing
system.
When I began my career in ranching in the 1960s, renewal of my 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. I signed and returned it and shortly
thereafter received a signed copy for my files. 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 my permit renewals are subject to compatibility with a
Resource Management Plan or Forest 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 I 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 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. It just makes
sense to codify language that has been approved annually by Congress
for over a decade.
From the perspective of livestock production, modern range science
and land agency work load, a longer-term approach to the permitting of
public land grazing is needed today. Section 2 of the Grazing
Improvement Act of 2011 directly meets this need by extending term
permits 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.
Section 3 of S. 1129 takes an additional important step in
providing certainty and stability to the industry by incorporating into
statute language that makes permanent the protection that has been
provided by the appropriations rider on permit renewal. It recognizes
that the renewal, reissuance or transfer of a permit does not, per se,
have a resource impact so long as there is no 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 torenewed, 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.
Over the past ten years, 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. Nevertheless, the 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 will enable the agencies to be more
thorough when analyzing actions that actually impact the resource. It
will 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 hundreds of thousands, annually.
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 agencies and the grazing permittees all stand to benefit from
these adjustments.
The stability of individual ranching operations will be further
assured by the passage of Section 4 of S. 1129, which requires 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 is a particularly critical provision 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) that 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% of appeals under this structure
are upheld. Frankly, I most often advise Forest Service permittees that
an administrative appeal of a 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 the ranching operation
based on a decision that may be overturned through the administrative
appeal. Section 4 will assure that the decision is suspended and that
current grazing is allowed to continue until the appeal is resolved.
There is, appropriately, an exception where failure to implement the
decision would result in an immediate deterioration of the resource.
To this point I have focused my discussion on the benefits to the
ranching industry, the resource and the agencies that would accrue from
passage of the Grazing Improvement Act of 2011. I will now turn my
attention to the benefits that will be derived by the public.
All but the most ardent of opponents of public land 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. The resulting land fragmentation results in 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 land
ranching. Over ten years ago, WSGA established the Wyoming Stock
Growers Land Trust. Our sole reason for doing so was to provide another
tool to keep private ranchlands in ranching. To date, we have succeeded
in placing over 160,000 acres of Wyoming lands under conservation
easements. 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 S. 1129, Senator Barrasso 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
continuation of the broad public benefits provided by both public and
private lands in the West. On behalf of the Wyoming Stock Growers
Association, 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 your
consideration of my testimony.
Senator Wyden. That was very helpful.
Mr. Kerr, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ANDY KERR, ADVISOR,
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS
Mr. Kerr. Thank you, Senator Wyden and Senator Barrasso for
inviting me today. I'm here today testifying on behalf of
WildEarth Guardians.
S. 1129 would double the length of a term grazing permit on
Forest Service and BLM lands from 10 to 20 years. Congress has
directed that the two agencies revise their management plans
every 15 years. I would suggest that term grazing permits
should not be longer than the life of the resource management
plan that it's based on.
Moreover, the environmental conditions change and public
values evolve and the grazing permit renewal process is the way
that Congress has established for the management agencies to
review, to see how the agency's permitees are doing in meeting
the terms and conditions of their permit. As importantly how
the lands, soil, water, wildlife and other resources are faring
under these grazing allotments.
The second thing the bill would do is waive or truncate
long established processes intended to protect and restore
public lands and resources. NEPA is the process that Congress
has established for the agency to take a hard look at
management decisions. It can sometimes be inconvenient.
Congress hasn't, in my opinion, funded enough money for the
agency to do their job in this regard.
In terms of categorical exclusions if there is no
environmental impact the categorical exclusion is a good idea.
It's fine. But there is environmental impact from livestock
grazing, very serious environmental impacts.
The third thing the bill would do would be to create a
special track for administrative review available only to
grazing permitees, a track that would favor the permitees and
be against the public interest. This separate track would not
apply to anybody but grazing permitees. So that provision also
tries--it would change the burden of proof for the process, the
appeals process that the agency would have to prove that it was
right rather than requiring the affected permitee to prove a
decision is wrong.
Jurisprudence in this country and Public Land law and
administrative review of Federal agency decisions has given
great deference to the agencies in terms of making decisions.
Only if a court finds that an agency actually was ``arbitrary,
capricious and abusive discretion or otherwise not in
accordance with law,'' I'm quoting the Administrative Procedure
Act, will a court remand a decision to the agency to reconsider
that decision. Switching the burden of proof from appellants to
the agency would be a radical change to administrative and
judicial review.
The theory of NEPA and the National Forest Management Act
and the Federal Lands Policy Management Act is that good
process will result in good decisions. The process is not
working. Congress has been granting riders the agency is
behind. The agency is not taking a hard look. So that's the
process that the reason there is litigation.
By the way, you know, to win a lawsuit the agency really
has to screw up. You know, it's a hard burden for a plaintiff
to prove to a judge that the agency acted in an arbitrary and
capricious manner. I think what gets lost in this debate about
raising permit renewal is the impact, the consequences of
livestock grazing on endangered species, on ecosystems and
watersheds.
Most permits allotments are not meeting rangeland health
standards. Many have water quality limited streams. Many are
habitat for listed species on the Endangered Species Act.
Despite how some seek to portray conservationists, lawsuits
are not our preferred method of engagement on public land
grazing. Instead most of the conservation community strongly
favors voluntary grazing permit retirement. Instead of the if
the permitee wants to retire the permit, the option should be
available to them for a third party, like a conservation
organization, sporting organization to come in and offer them
money to equitably end their livestock grazing in controversial
areas.
Grazing permit buyout is economically rational. It's
economically imperative. It's fiscally prudent. It's socially
just and politically pragmatic.
The recent Congresses have extended voluntary grazing
permit retirement option on certain lands such as the Cascade-
Siskiyou National Monument in Oregon, the Owyhee Wilderness
Areas in Idaho and the California Desert Conservation Area and
others. So we would rather be buying Federal grazing permits
from willing sellers than constantly having to take the Forest
Service and the BLM to court for flawed decisionmaking. Not
that the court overturns their decision, but says in the
process they made usually was not followed. But Congress hasn't
given us the choice to use permit retirements except in very
limited circumstances.
So I would suggest that extending voluntary permit
retirement options on all public lands would be a win/win/win
for public lands, for the ranchers, for public land users and
taxpayers as opposed to S. 1129 which I think wo uld surely be
a loser for public lands and healthy watersheds and native
wildlife.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerr follows:]
Statement of Andy Kerr, Advisor, WildEarth Guardians, on S. 1229
My name is Andy Kerr\1\ and I testify today as an advisor to
WildEarth Guardians,\2\ an environmental conservation organization
based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, with additional offices in Tucson,
Arizona and Denver, Colorado. WildEarth Guardians works to protect and
restore wildlife, wild places and wild rivers in the American West. I
also consult for several other conservation organizations working to
designate additional wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers and
national monuments on public land, conserve and restore Pacific
Northwest old-growth forests, and conserve the greater sage-grouse and
their habitat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ [email protected], www.andykerr.net
\2\ www.wildearthguardians.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for inviting me to
testify today.
S. 1129 would change federal public lands grazing policy in three
major ways:
1. Double the length of a term-grazing permit on Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management lands from 10 to 20
years.
Congress has directed that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management revise land management plans not less than every 15 years. A
term grazing permit should not be longer than the life of the plan upon
which it is based. Moreover, environmental conditions change and public
values for public land management evolve. The grazing permit renewal
process is an opportunity for land management agencies to review how
the permittee has done in fulfilling the terms and conditions of their
permit and how the land, soil, water, wildlife and other resources are
faring on the grazing allotment. It is also the time to ensure that the
new grazing permit comports with the current land use plan and to
consider alternatives to current management. Reducing the frequency of
review reduces the oversight of the agency and the public, limits the
ability of managers to adapt to changing conditions, and takes away
opportunities to correct improper grazing management on 260 million
acres of public land.
2. Waive or truncate long-established processes intended to
protect and restore public land and resources.
The permit renewal process is the chance for the public to
participate in public lands grazing management in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Lands Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) and National Forest Management Act (NFMA). S.
1129 would legislate new categorical exclusions under NEPA for grazing
permits under which most would never be subject to any environmental
review.
Council on Environmental Quality regulations already allows the use
of categorical exclusions for decisions that have no environmental
impact. If a federal action has no environmental impact, a categorical
exclusion is appropriate. However, the grazing of livestock on public
lands has environmental impact.\3\ NEPA requires the agencies to take a
``hard look'' at the activities it permits, and the impacts of
livestock grazing should be subjected to this scrutiny. S.1129 would
result in even fewer grazing permits receiving environmental review
than do now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On public land across the West, millions of non-native
livestock (including cattle, sheep, goats and horses) remove and
trample vegetation, damage soil, spread invasive weeds, despoil water,
deprive native wildlife of forage and shelter, accelerate
desertification and even contribute to global warming. See Mark Salvo.
2009. Western Wildlife Under Hoof: Public Lands Livestock Grazing
Threatens Iconic Western Species. WildEarth Guardians. Santa Fe, NM.
Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt has written that federal
public lands livestock grazing ``is the most damaging use of public
land.'' Bruce Babbitt, B. 2005. Cities in the Wilderness: A New Vision
of Land Use in America. Island Press. Washington, DC: 148.
3. Establish a special track for administrative review
available only to grazing permittees and weight that process in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
favor of permittees and against the public interest.
S.1129 would establish two tracks for administrative review of
agency decisions regarding grazing permits: one for the public and one
for permittees. This is fundamentally unfair. The rules for
administrative review should apply to all parties equally.
It also unfairly changes the current appeals process by
automatically halting agency decisions until the agency can prove
itself right rather than requiring the affected permittee to prove the
decision wrong. It allows existing management to continue until appeals
are resolved, effectively preventing necessary management changes while
an appeal winds its way through the administrative process.
According to an attorney who advocates for public lands grazing
interests:
[S.1129] ``changes'' the current appeals system by requiring
the BLM [and the Forest Service] to prove its decision is
legally and scientifically correct; rather than forcing the
permittee to prove why the decision is legally and
scientifically wrong.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Karen Budd Falen. ``Leveling the Playing Field: Support for the
Grazing Improvement Act of 2011, ``May 23, 2011. Available at
www.klamathbasincrisis.org/Grazing/grazingimprovmntactintro053111.htm.
The jurisprudence that has developed on public land law-and
administrative review of federal agency decisions--upholds agency
deference in decisionmaking. Only if a court finds that an agency's
action was ``arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law''\5\ will it remand a decision to
the agency to reconsider its decision. S witching the burden of proof
from appellants to the agency would be a radical change for
administrative and judicial review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 701-
708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Congress decides to legislate such a radical change to current
law, it should apply to all parties engaged in public lands grazing
management, not just federal grazing permittees.
The chief sponsor of S.1129 has articulated three basic arguments
for this legislation:
1. [E]xtreme environmentalists have hijacked the permitting process
with endless lawsuits aimed at eliminating livestock from public
lands.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Senator John Barrasso. ``Barrasso Bill Helps Ranchers by
Preserving Grazing Rights'' (news release), May 27, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservationists don't file litigation over federal grazing permits
just because we are troubled with the massive environmental impacts of
public lands grazing. We are, but we don't litigate unless there is
evidence that the law has been violated. In most cases, federal judges
have agreed with the conservation community. Congress should address
federal agencies long history of flagrantly and routinely violating the
law, rather than finding ways to protect a few poorly managed livestock
operations from having to operate under the same rules that apply to
others.
2. These irresponsible tactics overwhelm permitting agencies and
leave ranchers at risk of losing their grazing permits.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Senator John Barrasso. ``Barrasso Bill Helps Ranchers by
Preserving Grazing Rights'' (news release), May 27, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal agencies wouldn't be overwhelmed by public participation in
grazing permit renewals if they would just follow the law. The
framework of NEPA and the bases of NFMA and the FLPMA are that good
information and good process will result in good decisions. What
federal courts generally find in our litigation is not whether the
decision was good or bad, but that it didn't use the best information
or was produced using improper process. Congress could improve the
decisionmaking process by appropriating more funds for it.
3. [The] bill gives ranching communities the certainty and
stability they desperately need.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Senator John Barrasso. ``Barrasso Bill Helps Rangers by
Preserving Grazing Rights'' (news release), May 27, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has tolerated a grazing fee based on an archaic formula
that results in nearly free grazing on the federal public lands in the
West.\9\ Congress spends at least six times as much to facilitate
public lands grazing as permittees pay for the privilege.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``BLM and Forest Service Announce 2012 Grazing Fee'' (news
release), January 31, 2012.
\10\ Government Accountability Office. 2005. Livestock grazing:
federal expenditures and receipts vary, depending on the agency and the
purpose of the fee charged. GAO-05-869, Government Accountability
Office. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The public lands grazing industry faces major challenges on and off
public lands that are not addressed by S.1129.
For one, increasingly more Americans are visiting their public
lands and place a higher priority on wildlife, recreation, watershed
and scenery than they do on the miniscule amount of the livestock
forage it provides (less than 2% of the nation's forage supply comes
from federal public lands).\11\ Their preferred non-consumptive uses of
public lands often conflict with livestock grazing, making the
industry's instability a reflection of a cultural shift. Limiting
public participation disenfranchises public lands users who value it
for more than forage production. Second, the forage is better on
private lands. The average acre of private grazing land in the East is
78 times more productive as the average acre of BLM public land in the
West.\12\ Where grazing is measured in acres per cow rather than cows
per acre-as on public lands-it's a marginal economic activity even when
livestock prices are high. This phenomenon cannot be resolved by
limiting public or environmental review of grazing permit decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform '94
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM, Washington, DC.
\12\ WildEarth Guardians. ``Economic Contributions of Federal
Public Lands Livestock Grazing'' (factsheet). Available at
www.sagebrushea.org/pdf/
factsheet__Grazing__Economic__Contributions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What often gets lost in the debate over the renewal of public lands
grazing permits are the consequences of livestock grazing on native
species, ecosystems and watersheds. Most grazing allotments in the West
do not meet the federal standards for rangeland health. Most have water
quality-limited streams listed under the Clean Water Act. Many are
habitat for species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Streams
are polluted and species are imperiled because of livestock grazing on
public lands. And the federal taxpayers are paying for it.
For these and other reasons, the conservation community opposes
S.1129.
Despite how some seek to portray conservationists, lawsuits are not
our preferred method of engagement on public lands grazing. Instead,
most of the conservation community strongly favors voluntary federal
grazing permit retirement to resolve grazing conflicts. Permit
retirement is ecologically imperative, economically rational, fiscally
prudent, socially just and politically pragmatic.
With voluntary grazing permit retirement, ranchers choose if and
when they want to retire their grazing permit. The conservation
community would compensate ranchers to waive their permit, often at
several times the fair market value. Ranchers could use their
compensation to pay off debt, reconfigure their operations solely on
private land, start new businesses or retire.
Recent Congresses have authorized voluntary grazing permit
retirement on select public lands, including in the Cascade-Siskiyou
National Monument in Oregon, Owyhee wilderness areas in Idaho, the
California Desert Conservation Area, and areas in the West where
domestic sheep grazing conflicts with native bighorn sheep recovery.
Ranchers across the West are interested in voluntary grazing permit
retirement. The conservation community would rather be buying out
grazing permits from willing sellers than constantly having to sue the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management for flawed decisionmaking.
But Congress hasn't given us the choice to use permit retirement except
in very limited circumstances.
Extending voluntary federal grazing permit retirement to all public
lands would be a win-win-win for public lands ranchers, other public
lands users and taxpayers, as opposed to S.1129, which is surely a
loser for public lands, healthy watersheds, and native wildlife.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Kerr, thank you. We'll have questions in
a moment.
Mr. Crary.
STATEMENT OF DUSTY CRARY, CHOTEAU, MT
Mr. Crary. Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso and
members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. My name is Dusty
Crary. I'm a rancher and an outfitter from Choteau, Montana.
I'm also a member of the Coalition to Protect the Rocky
Mountain Front.
Our working group developed the proposal resulting in S.
1774. I'd like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for
having this hearing so we can have this opportunity to testify
today. You've got my written testimony and I couldn't improve
on Senator Baucus? superlative. So I'll just go right to the 3
components of this bill.
The first would be an addition of 67,000 acres of
wilderness. These 5 parcels all fall within lands currently
managed by the Forest Service as recommended for wilderness.
They also adjoin current wilderness boundaries.
I'd like to assure everyone that the subject of wilderness
in this process has been well vetted in the over 5 years that
we've been working on this project. We reached out to and got
feedback from those who could be affected by wilderness
designation and made changes to address those concerns. We've
also heard from advocates who felt there was not enough
wilderness in this proposal and considered their thoughts as
well.
We feel the parcels selected strike a good balance and are
an appropriate addition to the Bob Marshall complex.
Although an iconic land use designation with a clear
template to follow we knew that wilderness was not a good fit
for most of the land within this proposal. But it's the
multiple use land between wilderness and private ranches has
provided livestock grazing, firewood cutting, cabin sites and a
host of recreational opportunities for many Montanans and folks
from even farther away than that.
People love the Front just the way it is. Keeping it the
way it is is the intent of the second part of this legislation.
It's what we came up with.
This is called a Conservation Management Area or CMA. The
CMA would cover the remaining 208,000 acres of U.S. Forest
Service and BLM land on the Front that's non wilderness. The
CMA ensures current uses continue, protects against an
uncertain future and provides land managers the flexibility
they need and would not have with full designated wilderness.
The private ranchlands along the Front are one of the most
vital, ecological aspects of the Front. These large blocks of
land provide critical habitat and winter range for much of the
wildlife in this area. Federal land grazing is an important
element to many of these multigenerational operations.
Protecting these permits has been the highest priority
throughout this process. This legislation will in no way
jeopardize any grazing permit and in fact provides additional
language emphasizing their importance and safeguarding their
continued use. The CMA ensures the integrity of the entire
system.
Noxious weeds, primarily Spotted Knapweed and Leafy Spurge
are two invasives that threaten the Rocky Mountain Front.
Native plant communities, wildlife and agricultural production
are all at risk from these invaders. There's a high level of
commitment among private landowners and agencies to reduce and
contain infestations on State and private lands.
The third part of this bill would build on this foundation
to ramp up efforts to control noxious weeds on Federal lands.
Language in this bill would direct the Forest Service and BLM
to develop comprehensive weed management plans and encourage
increased efforts which is really needed. To protect property
values and wildlife habitat the Forest Service and BLM must be
fully committed to fighting noxious weeds on Federal lands.
In closing I want to personally thank Senator Baucus, not
just for his political support in introducing this bill, but
also for really, truly understanding and sharing the passion of
the people on the Front and our love for this incredible
landscape. If ever there was a start from scratch, kitchen
table proposal. This is it.
We're just a small group of citizens, who realize if you
want to keep your home range intact, you need to put it in
writing. This bill does just what it needs to and not one thing
more. My kids are the fifth generation to grow up and work on
the ranch that my great grandfather started. This is our
homeland security bill and it's our hope that you'll give it
your favored consideration.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crary follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dusty Crary, Choteau, MT, on S. 1774
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of the
subcommittee:
Good afternoon, my name is Dusty Crary. I am a rancher and
outfitter from Choteau, MT. Along with my wife Danelle and three
children, we operate Four Seasons Cattle and a backcountry outfitting
business. I am also a member of the Coalition to Protect the Rocky
Mountain Front. This working group developed the proposal resulting in
S.1774. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for holding
this hearing and for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee. I also want to thank Senator Baucus for his commitment to
preserving this special place.
The Rocky Mountain Front (RMF) rises abruptly from the mixed grass
prairies of North Central MT to take its place on the eastern edge of
the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. The outer peaks of the Front are
the gateway and guardians of that celebrated centerpiece of North
American conservation, the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex.
There are 3 components to this legislation. The first would be an
addition of 67,000 acres of designated Wilderness. These parcels are
within USFS recommended wilderness lands and adjoin current Wilderness
boundaries. Currently the USFS manages about 93,000 acres along the RMF
for its wilderness characteristics. After much debate and discussion
amongst our working group, all of whom are intimately familiar with the
landscape, we arrived at the boundaries as shown. We feel these parcels
selected strike a good balance, and are an appropriate addition to the
Bob Marshall Complex. In the case of each of the five proposed
Wilderness additions, we took a hard look at how people were using the
land. For example, at the southern end of the Front there are several
outfitters who routinely lead trail rides into these areas and rely on
chainsaws to clear deadfall each spring. When we were working on the
boundaries we talked to all the guides and livestock operators in
advance to make sure that the Heritage Act would not hurt their ability
to make a living off the land. The final version of the Heritage Act is
better because of the input from the folks on the Front.
Although an iconic American land use designation with a clear
template to follow, we knew that big ``W'', wilderness, was not a good
fit for much of the land within the proposal. In fact, it is this land
that lies between wilderness and private land that has been the focus
of our efforts. This multiple-use land has provided firewood cutting,
livestock grazing, and recreational opportunities for local residents
and visitors from afar. In a survey conducted in 2002, respondents from
Teton County differed on their opinions of wilderness, motorized use,
and oil & gas development, but replied that they like the Front just
the way it is. Our aim was to develop a proposal that does just that,
keeps the Front the way it is. What we arrived at is the 2nd part of
this bill, the Conservation Management Area (CMA). The CMA would cover
the remaining, non-wilderness federal lands, comprising 208,000 acres.
The CMA is flexible enough to allow the FS and BLM to effectively
manage wildfire, grazing and recreational use and strong enough to
protect the character of the land for future generations.
The private ranchlands adjacent to the federal lands are one of the
most vital ecological aspects of the front. These large blocks of
private land provide critical habitat and winter range for much of the
wildlife in this area. This interface has been referred to as the
American Serengeti and still has the complete compliment of species
that were here when the Corps of Discovery traversed the area in 1805
and 1806, including bison, although in private herds. The riparian
corridors hold the largest concentrations of Grizzly Bears in the lower
48. These ranches are not only ecologically crucial; they are
culturally significant to the fabric of the region. Federal land
grazing is an important element to many of these multi-generational
operations. Protecting these grazing permits has been the highest
priority throughout this entire process. It is paramount to the
integrity of the entire system that these large ranches remain intact.
Keeping them economically viable is the best way to insure that. This
legislation will in no way jeopardize any grazing permit and in fact
provides additional language emphasizing their importance and
safeguarding their continued use. Many of these ranches are under
conservation easement with various agencies and conservation
organizations and there is strong interest to do easements among
additional operations. With the addition of the Conservation Management
Area, the integrity of the entire system would be insured. The CMA
provides crucial balance that allows for the continuation of historical
uses and protection for the future.
Invasive species is an oft heard term these days. It seems every
region has an invasive plant or animal to deal with. Noxious weeds,
primarily Spotted Knapweed and Leafy Spurge, are two invasives that
threaten the RMF. Native plant communities, wildlife, and agricultural
production are all at risk from these invaders. Fortunately there is a
high level of commitment from landowners, agencies, and NGO's currently
in place to contain and reduce infestations on state and private lands.
The third leg of this legislation would build on this existing
foundation to ramp up the efforts to control noxious weeds on federal
lands. We can have the best land protection in place but that alone is
insufficient if noxious weeds create a monoculture across the
landscape. Language in the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act (RMFHA)
will direct the Forest Service and BLM to develop a comprehensive weed
management plan with the input of private landowners, tribal members
and the general public. To protect property values, wildlife habitat
and water quality, we need the FS and the BLM to be fully committed to
fighting noxious weeds on public lands.
In closing I would like to re-emphasize the intent of the Coalition
to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front. This legislation was not generated
at the federal level and sent down for comment. If ever there was a
start from scratch, kitchen table proposal, this is it. We are a small
group of ordinary citizens who are passionate about our landscape and
have a thorough understanding of why it is important to keep it intact.
And like most everyone else, we like it the way it is. We just realize
that unless you put it in writing there is no guarantee that it will
stay the same. We wanted this legislation to do just what it needs to
and not one thing more. And that quite simply is the goal of the RMFHA.
It is an insurance policy for the future. My kids are the fifth
generation of Crarys growing and working on the ranch my great
grandfather started. This is our Homeland Security Bill, and it is our
hope that you will give the RMFHA your favorable consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Crary. We'll have some
questions here in a moment.
Mr. Gann, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DOUG GANN, NATIONAL FOREST HOMEOWNERS, KIRKLAND,
WA
Mr. Gann. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. My family's cabin is located on the Wenatchee
National Forest in the State of Washington. I'm speaking today
on behalf of the National Forest Homeowners in support of the
Cabin Fee Act.
More than 14,000 cabin owners have permits for recreation
residences and all have a vital interest in this legislation.
Over the last several years long time cabin owners of modest
means, whose families have loved and maintained their cabins
for generations have expressed deep concern their cabin
stewardship is being jeopardized by sharply escalating and
sometimes excessive and unfair fees. The use of fee simple land
appraisals that set fees as mandated by the current statute,
commonly known as CUFFA, fails to determine the actual market
value because the highly restrictive nature of the permitted
use is not considered in the appraisal process.
Interdependent equity interest, where the permitee owns the
cabin while the government owns the land are difficult and
subjective to separate. The lack of private recreation land
suitable for appraisal comparisons also contribute to
inconsistent appraisal results, sometimes resulting in fees
that are well above market and in other cases potentially below
market. The CFA addresses these challenges and offers needed
reform.
We believe nearly 35 percent of the cabin owners will reach
their affordability break point under CUFFA over the next
couple of years. When these folks try to sell their cabin and
some won't be able to because of above market fees. We estimate
that 10 to 15 percent of the cabins will have to be torn down
and removed at owner expense resulting in the permanent loss of
Federal fee revenue, local tax revenue and other economic
benefits.
It's important to note that the 10 to 15 percent of the
cabins that will be lost will result in greater than a 20
percent loss of revenue because it's the permits with the
highest fees that are lost, not your average fees. This act
provides for a reasonable user fee indexed annually that will
provide predictable fee increases while maintaining cabin
value. CFA fees will range from $500 as a minimum to 4,500
where the highest fee is 9 times the lowest. Once implemented
the annual CFA program revenue will be more than twice the fee
revenue collected in 2008 and will have a budget neutral impact
as determined by the Congressional Budget Office.
This new fee structure also compares favorably to the
broader market of similar public and private cabin lease
programs. A comprehensive study conducted for the NFH examined
the market for cabin programs similar to the Forest Service
program. While user fees varied by location, permit and lease
terms, the average user fee of approximately 1,000 dollars was
less than half the proposed average fee under the CFA. This
further demonstrates the proposed fee structure provides more
than a fair return and is supported by sound market principles
and validates the use of public land for recreation resident's
purposes.
An NFH survey found that 95 percent of the cabin owners
were dissatisfied with the current CUFFA system. That 93
percent support the CFA as a replacement. While this bill does
have broad support a recent discussion with the Forest Service
has led us to support several changes to improve the bill
further.
The CFA calls for a transfer fee of $1,000 to be paid when
a cabin changes ownership and a new permit is issued, plus a
surcharge of 5 to 10 percent of the cabin sale price if the
cabin sells for an unusually high price. Concerns raised by the
Forest Service suggest that this surcharge creates a bigger
problem for them than the problem it was intended to solve.
Therefore the cabin owners support removing the surcharge
portion of this fee while retaining the $1,000 transfer fee.
To help mitigate a slight reduction of revenue from the
transfer fee revision, as well as ensure user fees apply fairly
to cabins with premium locations, the cabin owners support an
additional fee tier of $5,000.
We also seek several technical language changes required to
clarify the intent of certain aspects of the bill as well as
satisfy other concerns raised by the Forest Service.
In short we support the changes mentioned by Deputy Chief
Weldon a little earlier.
The strength of the CFA is its simplicity. The simple and
straight forward fee structure provides a predictable and
affordable fee for the cabin program, as well as significant
administrative time and cost savings for the Forest Service.
The bill appropriately balances the interest and needs of the
cabin owner with the public interest by obtaining a fair return
for the use of these public lands. The Cabin Fee Act will
preserve a cherished program that's been a major source of
outdoor recreation for thousands of American families for a
century.
We ask for your support and urge the CFA be enacted into
law.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gann follows:]
Prepared Statement of Doug Gann, National Forest Homeowners,
Kirkland, WA
Introduction
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
My name is Doug Gann from Kirkland, Washington and my family's
cabin is located on the Wenatchee National Forest in the State of
Washington. I'm pleased to present this statement on behalf of the
National Forest Homeowners and the C2 Coalition of Cabin Organizations
in support of the Cabin Fee Act. More than 14,000 cabin owners have
permits for recreation residences on the National Forests and all have
a vital interest in this legislation.
Over the last several years, long-time cabin owners of modest
means, whose families have loved and maintained their cabins for
generations, have expressed deep concern that their cabin stewardship
is being jeopardized by sharply escalating fees, some of which are
excessive, above market, and unfair.
Problems with CUFFA
Since the passage of the Organic Act in 1915, the Recreation
Residence Program has been a longstanding valid use of National Forest
lands, but is now being threatened by the fee setting process specified
in the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000, commonly referred to as
CUFFA. (Note: We will refer to the more commonly used terms ``cabin
program'' and ``cabin owners'' instead of the more technically correct
``Recreation Residence Program'' and ``recreation residence permit
holder''). The current use of a fee simple land appraisals to set fees
as mandated by CUFFA, fails to determine actual market value because
the highly restricted nature of the permit use is not valued in the
CUFFA appraisal process. Also, both location and the cabin structure
influence market value and sale prices. Interdependent equity interests
where the permittee owns the cabin while the government owns the land
are difficult and subjective to separate. The lack of private
recreation land suitable for appraisal comparisons also contributes to
very inconsistent appraisal results, sometimes resulting in user fees
which are well above market value, while in other cases user fees are
set potentially below market value.
The Cabin Fee Act (CFA) will simplify and improve the fee-setting
process. It will encourage better relationships between the Forest
Service and cabin owners and will reduce agency administrative workload
and expenses. The CFA provides fair compensation to the U.S taxpayer,
while recognizing that cabin owners convey value to the land and
location at their expense. Cabin owners must maintain the site; remove
dangerous trees and non-native vegetation. They often provide and pay
for utility infrastructure including power, water systems, septic and
sewer systems that become attached to the land and benefit all users of
the forests.
Survey data, compiled by the National Forest Homeowners, indicates
almost 35% of cabin owners will reach their affordability breakpoint in
the current CUFFA appraisal cycle over the next few years. These cabin
owners will attempt to sell their cabins when fees reach a level which
is beyond what the cabin owner can afford, or is willing to pay for the
benefit received. Some of the cabin owners may be able to sell their
cabin to owners of greater means, while others won't be able to sell
their cabin, at any price. When these folks can't sell, we estimate 10-
15% of cabins (upwards of 2,000) will have to be torn down and removed
at the owner's expense. Under CUFFA, U.S. Treasury revenue will decline
approximately 20-30% from the total potential fee revenue since it's
the highest permit fees which will be lost, not the average fees. In
addition to Federal Government fee revenue loss, local governments and
communities will also suffer tax revenue loss, loss of tourism dollars,
and other related economic benefits derived from cabin owners. Cabin
losses will also reduce volunteer labor, including substantial
involvement in youth programs and first responder services, forest
stewardship, and infrastructure support provided by cabin owners.
The Cabin Fee Act
This Act establishes an affordable User Fee, indexed annually, that
provides predictable fee increases, while helping to maintain cabin
value and not destroying the ability to sell the cabin if the current
owner cannot, or chooses not to pay the fee. Instead of fees ranging
from $125 to an astonishing $76,000 annually under CUFFA, annual User
Fees under the CFA will range from $500 to $4,500 per year. The lowest
tier of $500 is sufficient to cover the estimated cost to administrator
this program, while the highest tier of $4,500 is supported by what the
market will bear for premium cabin locations. The User Fee range was
determined by balancing the rights and privileges that all permit
holders share, regardless of location, while acknowledging that
location does influence the value of the permitted use. This balance of
common rights with differences for location yields a fee structure
where the highest fee is nine times the lowest fee. This contrasts with
fees under CUFFA where the highest fees are more than 100 times greater
than the lowest fees.
The Cabin Fee Act requires the assignment of each permitted lot to
one of nine fee tiers, based on the rank order of current appraised
values. The lowest 8% of appraised lot values are assigned to the $500
tier. The highest 7% are assigned to the $4,500 tier. Following this
process, User Fee revenue is projected to be about $32.5M when fully
implemented, more than twice the $14M fee revenue collected in 2008
from this program.
User Fees are adjusted annually by a rolling average of the IPD-GDP
index. This broadly-used Department of Commerce index provides for a
reasonable, straightforward method for increasing fees annually, while
ensuring that user fees keep pace with the market. The Transfer Fee is
a $1,000 additional fee which is collected when a cabin changes
ownership and a permit is issued to the new owner. Cabin marketability
is not encumbered, because cabin owners will have full knowledge of the
indexed annual User Fee and both a seller and buyer can factor the
Transfer Fee into their negotiations at the time of sale.
Cost estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show CFA
fee revenue will be equal to CUFFA fee revenue over a 10-year period
(2013-2022). In addition, elimination of the appraisal process under
CUFFA will save nearly $1 Million annually, allowing these resources to
be put to better use by the Forest Service. The complexity and expense
of the appraisal process will be replaced with a cost effective fee
system and greatly simplified program administration.
We can compare the CFA fee structure to the broader market of
similar public and private cabin lease programs. A comprehensive study
conducted for the NFH examined the market for cabin programs similar to
the Forest Service Recreation Residence Program. The 11,000 cabins
reviewed by the study validate the use of public forest lands for
recreation residence purposes. While user fees vary by location,
permit, and lease term considerations, the average user fee of
approximately $1,000 was less than half the average fee of $2,250 under
the Cabin Fee Act. We offer this as clear evidence that the proposed
CFA fee structure provides a more than fair return to the U.S.
Government and is supported by sound market principles.
With predictable and affordable fees under the Cabin Fee Act, we
expect all 14,000 current permits to remain active, keeping the Forest
Service Program within reach of the typical American family. By
contrast, while CUFFA is expected to provide similar total revenue over
time, we project that unaffordable high fees and uncertainty will
result in a decline in the number of permit holders under CUFFA to less
than 12,000 over the next decade, thus reducing the typical American
family's participation in the Program. This same pattern of permit loss
is likely to be repeated in future appraisal cycles under CUFFA,
further eroding the Recreation Residence Program and producing less
revenue than the proposed CFA fee system over a longer period of time.
The strength of the Cabin Fee Act is its simplicity. The simple and
straightforward fee structure provides long-term predictability and
affordability for the cabin program, as well as, significant
administrative time and cost savings to the Forest Service. These cost
savings allow for the redeployment of Forest Service resources away
from managing appraisals, re-appraisals and permit fee appeals to a
more productive delivery of programs and public services. The Cabin Fee
Act provides a true win-win outcome for the cabin owner and the U.S.
Forest Service.
In summary, the Cabin Fee Act ensures the long-term viability of
the Recreation Residence Program and produces cabin permit fees that:
1) Are affordable as determined by the `cabin market';
2) Are simple, understandable and predictable;
3) Are revenue neutral, maintaining current revenues and fair
return to the U.S. taxpayer;
4) Impose fees for actual benefits received;
5) Maintain the ability to sell cabins.
Recommended Changes
Cabin owner support for this bill was confirmed by a NFH survey
which found that 95% of cabin owners were dissatisfied with the current
CUFFA fee system and that 93% supported the CFA as a replacement. While
this bill has broad support, recent discussion with the Forest Service
has led us to support several changes to improve the bill further,
which we feel confident can be addressed during the mark-up of the
bill. They are:
(1)Modification of the Transfer Fee--The bill calls for a fee of
$1,000 to be paid when a cabin changes ownership and a permit is issued
to the new owner, plus a surcharge of 5-10% of the cabin sale price if
a cabin sells for an unusually high price. The intent of the surcharge
is to discourage cabin owners from over improving cabins or buyers from
paying a premium for choice locations, while collecting additional fees
in these rare situations. Market surveys show only 3% of cabins sell
each year and less than 7% of sales are for amounts that would trigger
the transfer fee surcharge, so the total number of transactions subject
to the surcharge is very small. Discussions with the Forest Service
suggest the administrative burden placed on the Forest Service to
implement this fee creates a greater problem than the problem this
provision was intended to solve. The cabin owner's support removing the
surcharge portion of this fee, while retaining the $1,000 fee.
(2)Additional fee tier--To help mitigate a slight reduction of
revenue from the transfer fee revision, as well as to ensure that user
fees apply fairly to cabins with premium locations, the cabin owners
support an additional fee tier of $5,000. Slight changes to the
percentage of permits assigned to each tier will be necessary to re-
allocate permits across the full $500-$5,000 range, while maintaining a
reasonable distribution which places most fees in middle tiers, with
fewer placed in the lower or higher end of the range.
(3)The cabin owners also seek several technical language changes--
required to clarify the intent of certain aspects of this bill, as well
as, satisfy other concerns raised by the Forest Service. Of significant
importance is language pertaining to the 25% cap on annual fee
increases during the transition from current fees to assigned CFA fees
that provide for fee amounts to be ``phased in'' for those facing
higher fee increases.
Summary and Conclusions
We appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf
of the National Forest Homeowners, the C2 Cabin Coalition and nearly
14,000 cabin owners throughout the nation. We believe the cabin program
is not only an invaluable source of multi-generational family outdoor
recreation but that it makes a significant contribution to the health
of the national forests and the economic vitality of local gateway
communities. Unfortunately, as a result of the appraisal based fee
system imposed by CUFFA, many cabin owners are facing a dramatic
escalation in their fees and this historic program is threatened and
its many contributions are in jeopardy.
The Cabin Fee Act will preserve a nearly century old, cherished
program while continuing to provide a fair return to the Treasury. It
is an equitable approach that balances the interests and needs of cabin
owners with the public interest in obtaining a fair return on these
public lands.
We ask for your support to pass and enact into law the Cabin Fee
Act of 2012 (S.1906).
Thank You.
Attachment.--Cabin Fee Act Questions and Answers
NATIONAL FOREST HOMEOWNERS & CABIN COALITION 2
Question 1. Aren't cabins on the National Forest a privileged use?
Answer. Participation in the Recreation Residence Program is not
restricted. Until recently, cabins have been bought and sold with
regularity and the program has been broadly available to all interested
people. Congress has recognized cabins by law as an appropriate and
authorized recreational use since at least 1915 and as one among the
many multiple uses of the National Forests. Most cabin owners are
middle class and have small rustic cabins that are used as family
gathering places where their children and grandchildren can experience
and develop an appreciation for the outdoors and good forest
stewardship. The Recreation Residence Program provides an opportunity
for members of the public to have cabins on the National Forest, but
excessive and inconsistent fees for this opportunity using the
procedures under CUFFA are undermining the very purpose of the Program.
CUFFA does nothing to further the availability of the Program to the
general public or maintain the long-term public interest and general
affordability.
Question 2. If the fee determination system is changed for cabin
owners won't other special use permit holders will want a change as
well?
Answer. The Recreation Residence Program is a unique private/public
relationship that is not for profit. Other special use permittees, such
as, ski resorts, grazing rights and utility companies are intended to
profit from their uses. It makes little sense to equate such commercial
uses with non-commercial uses of the Cabin Program.
Question 3. CUFFA works fine, why are changes needed?
Answer. More than 95% of cabin owner respondents to the 2009 NFH
Cabin Sales and Appraisal Survey said that they were dissatisfied with
the appraisal process under CUFFA.\1\ Even Forest Service field staff
have recognized the concerns of cabin owners and suggested that we seek
legislative change. Mr. James Sauser, USFS Region 6 Special Uses, has
been quoted in news articles\2\ about the failures of the appraisal
process, ``the appraisals are time consuming and result in fees that
are either too high or too low''. Finally, the 10-year appraisal cycle
can take more than five years to implement. In fact, due to Forest
Service budget deficiencies, the process in Region 5 is expected to
take nine years to complete\3\. Even those involved with the creation
of CUFFA recognize it does not produce results that make sense.\4\
Change is needed!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sales Data and Appraisal Survey Report, NFH & Cabin Coalition
2, November, 2009.
\2\ The Seattle Times, Wednesday, September 9, 2009, Soaring Forest
Service leases to drive families out of cabins they've had for
generations.
\3\ recreation Residence Assessment, Pacific Southwest Region, USDA
Forest Service, June 10, 2009, Updated November 12, 2009, Pg. 9, First
Paragraph.
\4\ See Statement of Mary Clarke Ver Hoef, former National Forest
Homeowners Board of Directors, now Executive Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4. CUFFA determines `market value' by appraisal. How does
the CFA address `market value' concerns?
Answer. CUFFA attempts to define `market value' within the
appraisal process. However, the process compares the permitted cabin
lots to fee simple ownership of land, effectively ignoring the negative
restrictions imposed by the permit and its inherent risks. This
approach results in an inflated `market price' for such a restricted
use. The 5% fee factor, said by some to adjust appropriately for the
restrictions, is much too high a factor. Simply changing the percentage
will not produce fair results. A fee that is fair at the high end
results in a low end fee that is too low. Conversely, a fee that is
fair at the low end will result in a high fee that is unjust. It is all
too common that the geographic proximity to resort areas unfairly
results in high fees for modest cabin tracts. The Comparison of
Recreational Land Lease\5\ study clearly demonstrates that the CFA
produces above `average market revenues' for similar leased (or
permitted) recreation land use and that CUFFA far exceeds `market'
rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Comparison of Recreational Land Leases, National Forest
Homeowners, January 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ability to keep a cabin in place on public land is subject to
the terms of a permit. We don't have any sort of leasehold or ownership
interest in the underlying land, so we have no property interest and
therefore a land value appraisal process is clearly inappropriate. The
CFA establishes a fair market fee for our term special use permits now
and into the future. The fee structure will maintain Program
affordability for average Americans and ensure cabin marketability,
while also providing the revenue due the U.S. taxpayer for the benefits
received from the use of public lands. This will best help ensure the
long-term viability of the Program.
Question 5. Only a few appraisals are very high. Why change the
appraisal system based on a few outliers?
Answer. Current appraisal data show that over 20% of all fees are
or will be $4,000 annually or higher. Survey data\6\ suggests $3,000 to
$4,000 is the point where most cabin owners question the value and
affordability of owning a cabin. This implies that at least 20% of all
cabin owners are at or above their breakpoint under CUFFA. This large
segment of cabin owners is simply not an outlier. This overly
generalized statement is inaccurate given the current appraisal data.
These comments ignore the continued expansion of excessive fees in
future appraisal cycles and the associated negative impact on
affordability for average Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ `Breakpoint Data', from Sales Data and Appraisal Survey Report,
NFH & Cabin Coalition 2, November, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 6. Don't cabin owners reap a `windfall profit' when their
cabins sell?
Answer. The Forest Service (FS) has cited high cabin sales prices
where the sale price appears to be beyond the value of the cabin
structure. The FS contention is that the location (i.e., the land which
is not owned by the seller) was the major contributor to the sales
price, hence the `windfall'.
These cases are few and far between, so establishing a fee setting
mechanism using such outliers is unfair to other cabin owners. The
Sales Data and Appraisal Survey Report states a projected average sales
price for all respondents of $163,525\7\. Plus, the review of actual
cabin sales from 2000 to 2009 revealed an average sales price of only
$138,421\8\, with 92% of all sales under $250,000. We adopted the
Transfer Fee provision to address this concern in the few cases that it
occurs. More importantly, cabin owners contribute to land and location
values at their expense. In complying with the terms of the permit,
cabin owners are responsible for removing near-by diseased or hazard
trees, plus noxious and non-native vegetation. Utility infrastructure,
provided by the cabin owner, becomes part of the land, including water
systems, septic systems and sewer capital expenses and hook-ups. Plus,
on many forests, cabin owner purchased water rights are being required
to name the U. S. government as the owner with no compensation for the
cost involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Sales Data and Appraisal Survey Report, NFH & Cabin Coalition
2, November, 2009, Item #16.
\8\ Sales Data and Appraisal Survey Report, NFH & Cabin Coalition
2, November, 2009. Item #14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the location value contribution is minimal at the low
and mid-range sale prices simply due to the cost of re-construction.
The average 1,200 sq. ft. cabin built at a cost of $200.00/sq. ft.
would be valued at $240,000. This acknowledges that many cabins are
historic, rustic and include unique interiors. Supplies and contract
labor must travel long distances and/or by unusual means (water or pack
animal) to remote sites, substantially adding to the cost. No new cabin
sites are being added to the Program, creating a scarcity that also
artificially adds to the value of the cabins. This illustrates that
there are a lot of factors that should be considered before the charge
is made that cabin owners are reaping a `windfall profit'.
When researching this issue, we identified a second reason cabins
may sell for an unusually high price, that is where a cabin owner may
have ``over improved'' a cabin. Adding on, or building a cabin which is
significantly larger and utilizes superior materials compared to the
typical cabin is out of character with the rustic cabin in the woods
generally associated with this program. While this is the rare
exception, it provides a deterrent to discourage cabin owners from over
improving cabins.
Question 7. Isn't it only the wealthy cabin owners that have high
fees under CUFFA?
Answer. This is an inaccurate and unfair characterization. The vast
majority of cabin owners are middle class.\9\ Survey data\10\ confirms
that there are many cabin owners with CUFFA fees starting at $5,000 and
higher, who are not wealthy and very much fit the picture of average
Americans. This mischaracterization diverts the discussion away from
the real issue, which is the extreme variation in fees under CUFFA from
$125-$76,000 for a recreation residence's restricted use of public
lands. An individual's financial status or `ability to pay' should not
be the litmus test for determining a fair fee for a use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 2009 NFH Economic Impact Survey final Report.
\10\ Sales Data and Appraisal Survey Results, Item 9, November,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 8. How many cabin owners are very upset over CUFFA
appraisals? Isn't it just a relatively small minority?
Answer. No, it is not a small minority. In fact, a recently
completed survey found that 95.3% of participating cabin owners were
dissatisfied with the current appraisal process under CUFFA and that
92.7% supported the User Fee / Transfer Fee proposal that is contained
in the Cabin Fee Act (CFA).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Sales Data and Appraisal Survey Results, Item 9, November,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 9. Isn't the average cabin permit fee under CUFFA actually
quite reasonable ($2,500-$3,000) in view of the special privilege of
having a cabin on a magnificent national forest?
Answer. Looking at an average fee confuses the overall issue. Under
the current system, some fees are so low that they certainly fail to
cover the costs to administer the Program. Some fees are so high that
all cabin value is lost. In some states, for example, some are paying
less than $500 while in other regions those with very similar amenities
are paying over $6,000. Most cabin owners seriously consider selling
their cabin (or even abandoning it) when their annual fee exceeds
$3,000 to $4,000.\12\ This is true particularly when use is limited by
weather to three or four months a year. Many cabins become accessible
only after July 4th and heavy snow can fly in September. Also, many
cabins on lakes with dams face serious drawdown beginning in September
resulting in a less desirable location and loss of access when it is by
water only. Furthermore, the Forest Service provides no services or
amenities and the cabin owner must provide his or her own structures
and improvements, pay state and county taxes, in addition to the permit
fee, and provide for his or her own maintenance and security. Please
refer to the `Comparison of Recreational Home Site Leases' for a more
complete evaluation of average `lease' fees on public and private
lands.\13\ Finally, the results from the current appraisals thus far
show a vast range of fees based upon location that has no relationship
with the cabin's use of the forest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Sales Data and Appraisal Survey Results, Item 8, November,
2009.
\13\ Comparison of Recreational Home Leases, National Forest
Homeowners, Jan. 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 10. Do cabin owners know what they really want?
Answer. Yes, cabin owners want to keep their cabins. They want to
keep them affordable for their family using a fee determination method
that is simple, understandable and relatively predictable. Through
numerous communications and meetings, NFH and Cabin Coalition 2 have
engaged, informed and polled cabin owners from across the United
States. 92% support the Cabin Fee Act as the replacement for CUFFA.
Question 11. Cabin Owners supported CUFFA, so why did they wait so
long to object?
Answer. Yes, CUFFA was supported. But what was supported and the
end result were not the same. Key language was dropped from the final
legislation under the premise that its purpose was addressed elsewhere.
When adjustments for the permit restrictions were removed from inside
the appraisal process itself, the ``Fee Fairness'' of the 2000 CUFFA
legislation was gutted. A FS report published in July 2009 confirmed,
``It is worthy of note that CUFFA, as drafted at the time of the
hearings, included detailed language requiring significant adjustments
in the appraisal process for permit restrictions as well as directing
the appraiser as to appropriate weight to be placed on comparable
sales.''\14\ (Emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Pacific Northwest Region Briefing Paper ``Cabin Users Fee
Fairness Act of 2000 (CUFFA)'', July 17, 2009, pg. 5 last paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The concept that a fee simple value can be made equivalent to the
value received in a special use permit, without the consideration of
the many and varied use restrictions is clearly false. The restrictions
have never been part of the appraisal and we continue to hear that the
5% factor adjusts for all the restrictions. Full adjustment for the
fair market value of all the restrictions is what we sought in 2000.
But, this is not what resulted. The long delay in implementing the
Rules and Regulations meant that appraisals did not begin until 2007,
at which time it became very clear that the CUFFA 2000 legislation was
seriously flawed. It subsequently produced a range of annual fees from
$125 to $76,000, an extreme range that is difficult to comprehend let
alone justify. In fact, Congress, the Forest Service and the cabin
community failed to understand fully the ultimate impact of the
legislation (as passed) until it was applied on the ground. The primary
sponsor of the CUFFA Bill, Senator Larry Craig, reaffirmed that the
intent of CUFFA was to include all permit restrictions and limitations
in the CUFFA appraisal process in his letter to Undersecretary Mark Rey
on July 2, 2008.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Senator Craig letter to Undersecretary Mark Rey, July 8, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 12. How many cabin owners truly want and would support
this sweeping change? How can Congress be confident that cabin owners
will be satisfied?
Answer. As with any change there will inevitably be some who will
not be satisfied; however, without change we believe the long-term
viability of the Cabin Program is threatened. With that said, an
overwhelming majority of cabin owners surveyed, more than 95%\16\, want
to see a change from the appraisal process. We have reviewed and
considered all suggestions for changing the fee methodology. Eight
cabin organizations and our sharpest minds have been engaged in an
intensive review and formulation process. Professional, legal and
appraisal consultation has informed the development of the User Fee /
Transfer Fee proposal. Plus, cabin owner ``Think Tanks'' in several
geographical areas have also reviewed and commented on the work. The
result is solid support from cabin owners across the country for Cabin
Fee Act of 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Sales Data andAppraisal Survey Results, Item 9, November,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 13. This fee proposal is too complicated. Won't it be just
as hard to administer as CUFFA?
Answer. On the contrary, once fee tiers and transfer fee percentage
thresholds are set, the implementation and administration of this
system is easy and predictable and provides fee certainty into the
future. In addition, this process saves the substantial costs in time
and money that are spent on the appraisals. The current appraisal
process may seem simple conceptually, but we clearly see now that `the
devil's in the details'. The appraisal process is very subjective,
often requiring repeat appraisals. It is time consuming and expensive
to implement and administer for both Forest Service and cabin community
personnel alike. An excellent example of how complex this process can
be has been demonstrated on the cabin tract at Lake Wenatchee, WA.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Plampgam-Wenatchee N.F. Orders New Appraisal For Recreation
Residence Fees, USDA Forest Service, News Release, Jan. 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 14. What is the purpose of the fee tiers anyhow?
Answer. The fee ranges were determined by balancing the permitted
rights and privileges, which all permit holders share, with the
recognition that location and associated amenities influence the value
of the permitted use. The proposed CFA places the vast majority of
annual user fees in the $1,000 to $3,000 range, which we believe
represents the fair value of the permitted use.\18\ Fewer permits are
assigned to the $500 and $4,500 tiers, which recognize the lower and
higher end outliers. In developing the proposal, long-term
predictability was a key component, as was an affordable annual fee.
The CFA provides for affordable, predictable fees going forward, unlike
the current appraisal methodology which could have dire impact every
ten years. Annual fee affordability helps maintain the marketability of
cabins. Predictable fees and marketability of cabins will help ensure
the long-term viability of the Program, which has been the focus of
cabin owner leadership during development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Comparison of Recreational Home Leases, Jan. 2010. See average
fees comparison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 15. Why should one pay a transfer fee for an intra-family
transfer or opening of a trust?
Answer. In both these cases there is a transfer of value to another
party (a family member or a trustee). To charge no fee under these
circumstances would be to create a special and privileged group. The
CFA applies a $1,000 transfer fee to all transfers, including when
little or no money changes hands.
Question 16. What will be the fiscal impact of the Cabin Fee Act
over the next 5-10 years? Will it generate net revenue comparable to
that projected from CUFFA appraisals?
Answer. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has formally assessed
the CFA bill in the U.S. House of Representative (H.R.3397) and
informally reviewed Senate CFA Bill (S.1906). The CBO found the Senate
CFA Bill will at least equal the future fees collected by the Forest
Service under CUFFA. Net revenue neutrality will be maintained
currently and over the long-term, because the projected CUFFA revenues
are overstated. Cabins will be abandoned under CUFFA when the owner
can't afford the high fee and also can't sell because of the high fee.
This impacts net revenues under CUFFA, which will diminish over time,
due to the gradual abandonment of cabins nationwide. Over a longer
period of time, we believe the CFA will turn revenue positive for the
U.S. Taxpayer by retaining all 14,200 cabins in the Cabin Program.
Question 17. Isn't it risky to change from a familiar appraisal
process, however flawed, to a new, untried system? How can we be sure
it will not be worse than the status quo?
Answer. There is a risk in any change we make in our lives. The
simplicity of the Cabin Fee Act virtually guarantees stable and
predictable fees for cabin owners and reliable revenues for the Forest
Service and US taxpayer. It ensures lower administrative costs to the
FS, reduces risk of unknown future financial events and provides
certainty for all parties. There may be some administrative issues that
must be addressed. That is why we have been trying to engage the Forest
Service in meaningful discussions about issues relating to
administration. Finally, for cabin owners across America, the status
quo is not acceptable\19\ and it should be a concern for the Forest
Service, as administrators of the Cabin Program for the public. High
annual permit fees will result in the eventual loss in revenue as fee
payments decline and cabins are removed from the National Forest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Sales Data and Appraisal Survey Results, Item 9, November,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 18. Wouldn't the CFA just replace the current set of
unhappy cabin owners with two new sets (those who would have to pay
more and those who would pay a fee upon sale of the cabin)?
Answer. The User Fee/Transfer Fee proposal that the CFA embodies
has been vetted nationwide and there have been relatively few
complaints regarding the above concerns. If our proposal were enacted
in its entirety, less than 20% of the permit fees would be subject to a
minor increase. Does an increase from $250 to $500 seem unfair? We
agree with the Forest Service that the $500 dollar first tier fee is
the minimum required to administer the Program effectively. We believe
the federal government should at least be compensated at this minimum
level for their costs to run the Program, which include costs
associated with issuing a new permit upon cabin sale.
Question 19. Have other alternative appraisal approaches been
considered? Wouldn't it be better than the User Fee/Transfer Fee
mechanism?
Answer. Many alternatives have been explored. Other approaches fail
to provide simplicity, predictability, cost savings and revenue
neutrality that the User Fee/Transfer Fee model offers.
Question 20. Are there other ways to reduce costs to the Forest?
Answer. Yes, greater responsibility by cabin tracts for self-
inspections for compliance, work certifications, clearing land, trail
and road maintenance could be considered and it should be noted that
many of these commonly occur. In addition, elimination of the appraisal
process under CUFFA will save nearly $1 Million annually, allowing
these resources to be put to better use by the Forest Service. The
complexity and expense of the appraisal process will be replaced with a
cost effective fee system and greatly simplified program
administration.
Senator Wyden. Very good. I'm going to let my colleagues
ask questions first.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gann, I just want to make sure I got this right. If the
bill is not passed and the Forest Service reverts to the last
authorizing legislation, how many cabin owners did you say you
believe will lose their cabins?
Mr. Gann. Approximately 35 percent will be forced or
attempt to sell their cabins. We estimate 10 to 15 percent will
be permanently lost.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Mr. Magagna, thanks so much for being here. I appreciate
it. I know you've been very busy with the Wyoming legislature.
It's good to spend time with you and the Wyoming Stock Growers
there. I very much appreciated your testimony here today.
Your testimony to me clearly explains why long term
stability is needed, not just for grazing permit holders, but
for rural economies, for wildlife as well as for public access.
So I was wondering that since the passage of the Taylor Grazing
Act, BLM permits have typically been issued for a term of 10
years. Why are 20-year permit terms needed now?
Mr. Magagna. As the Senate realized, I would say that
there--from the industry's perspective as other uncertainties
have been introduced into our business, we would benefit from
at least having from greater certainty there. But let me
emphasize, more importantly, I think it takes me back to the
science of range management. As we've learned how these
ecosystems function, how we can change them to meet whatever
objectives may be.
Those are long term approaches. They involve ongoing
monitoring of the rangelands. A 10-year permit does not provide
the certainty to institute the types of rangeland and livestock
management practices that will allow us to make those changes.
Senator Barrasso. Yes, I think you used the word certainty
in there. Is the marketability of public land dependent ranches
affected by the uncertainties surrounding permit renewal.
Mr. Magagna. Senator, very much so. I can just look at our
own State of Wyoming. The ease with which a ranch in Eastern
Wyoming that's primarily private and state lands can be put on
the market and sold today.
In Western Wyoming where they're primarily public land
ranchers they can't. Ranchers continually tell me I would like
to sell my public land ranch if I could acquire a comfortable
private land ranch.
Senator Barrasso. You alluded to in the beginning you had
spent time with BLM land as well as Forest Service land in your
long career. Tell me about you own experience with the Forest
Service and with BLM appeal processes, if you wouldn't mind?
Mr. Magagna. Senator Barrasso, I've not had personal
experience as a rancher. I've never had to appeal any decisions
that they've rendered. But in my capacity with Wyoming Stock
Growers I've been involved in a number of those appeals and
particularly in the case of the Forest Service it's been a
sense of frustration.
Numbers that I've seen indicate that in 85 percent of the
cases the line officer, who is the supervisor of the original
decisionmaker, simply affirms those decisions. Until you
finally go to the judicial system our permitees feel like they
don't really have an avenue to get a fair hearing under the
current Forest Service process.
Senator Barrasso. You know, Congress recently passed an
amendment to the budget bill to address the need for
environmental analysis on trailing permits. Has that addressed
your concerns?
Mr. Magagna. Senator, I was very pleased to hear today from
the BLM that apparently their local decisionmaker managers are
to be given discretion to exercise that. Our concern was that
while the language passed by Congress clearly exempted those
training permits from litigation, it didn't necessarily exempt
them from NEPA analysis. Apparently that discretion will be
provided, if I understood correctly. I believe that has the
potential at least to address that problem and address it in a
timely fashion.
Senator Barrasso. I have a question about fragmentation. I
think about grazing permits when they're lost. Could you
explain what happens to wildlife to open space and to public
access as a result of that kind of fragmentation?
Mr. Magagna. Certainly, Senator. It goes back to the
concept of watersheds or ecosystems. The land pattern in the
West is a mixed one. When the public lands are lost the
livestock grazing in many, many cases the private lands
associated with those do not lend themselves to being viable
economic ranching operations.
The attractive alternative today is rural subdivisions
which is a loss of--it causes fragmentation. It causes loss of
wildlife habitat. It really diminishes the public value of the
public lands when the associated private lands are developed.
Senator Barrasso. So would you explain a little bit about
how a longer grazing permit term will help provide ranch owners
a stable business environment? Help them obtain the needed long
term operating capital?
Mr. Magagna. Certainly, you know, the banking community is
reluctant, quite frankly, to make loans that are tied to an
operation with the public land grazing permits because of the
uncertainty of those permits. Another very good example, our
association also manages a land trust to put land into
conservation and protect it. What our experience has been that
our public land ranchers are very reluctant to put their lands
into a perpetual conservation easement because of the
uncertainty associated with the public land grazing permit.
If they had greater certainty, they would do that. Without
that, they said, but if I lose my grazing permit next year or
in 10 years, I'm going to be forced to subdivide and develop
those lands. So I'm not going to provide the permanent
protection that they would like to provide that I think all of
us as citizens would like to see provided on those lands.
Senator Barrasso. Yes, Senator Baucus was here a little
earlier and he talked about Montana ranchers. I think, I want
to make sure I have him accurately quoted here. He said,
``Ranchers don't want to be jacked around.''
Does that--do you think that is fair assessment of what you
see in Wyoming as well, Mr. Magagna, from your----
Mr. Magagna. He is more brilliant with those words than I
would have been, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Magagna.
A question for Mr. Kerr, in your article, ``Don't try to
improve grazing, abolish it!'' You state, ``What should the
environmentalist strategy be?'' You said, ``We must fight a war
of attrition. We must pick our battle and our battlegrounds.
Our battle must be no grazing. Our best battlefield is in the
courts, not the Congress and the Administration, either in the
White House or the Agencies.''
To me this seems like an extreme position. It is why rural
grazing and timber communities are suffering. I want to just
clarify for members of this committee that your preference is
to completely eliminate grazing on public lands. Is that
correct? Yes or no?
Yes, is it a--my time is expired, a yes or no question?
Mr. Kerr. That is not conducive to a yes or no question. I
will answer later then if you're going to limit me to yes or
no. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. I'll ask for writing, your
answer in writing.
Mr. Kerr. I'd be happy to answer that in writing.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Answers are found in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Wyden. Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gann, thank you so much for being here today. I had a
couple questions about your testimony.
Mr. Gann. Yes.
Senator Cantwell. Do you--first of all, do you believe in
this market based rate concept in general? Do you think that
that's the way? I know it's part of our Federal system today to
say it should be market based rates and then it wasn't really
implemented until fairly recently.
But do you think that's the right model for this?
Mr. Gann. So if you look at the current system and while
CUFFA was--became statute in 2000. It substantially did not
change the practice that had been in place for the last 40 to
50 years. So the current appraisal system has not worked for
the last 40 or 50 years.
CUFFA was an attempt, the last attempt to make it to work.
It's failed. In simple terms, it does not produce a market
based user fee.
If fees are driven beyond the point where any consumer will
pay it, by definition it's not a market fee.
Senator Cantwell. But you think the payment structure
should be based on market rate? Is that right?
Mr. Gann. I think if you look at the proposed CFA fee, it
is based on the market, but the market is defined as other
recreation programs in the public domain and what they charge.
The proposed CFA suggests that that, the proposed fees, are
actually a little higher than ``the market.'' But ``the
market'' is challenging to define and challenging to
administer.
Senator Cantwell. OK. If we implemented what you're talking
about where do you think it would be in 10 or 15 years?
Mr. Gann. You would see a steady increase of fees based on
the department of current index which essentially means, user
fees go up at the rate of inflation, at the rate of cost of all
goods and services year by year.
Senator Cantwell. So you're----
Mr. Gann. So over a long period of time it will maintain
market value over a long period of time.
Senator Cantwell. So the fees wouldn't be flat?
Mr. Gann. The fees would go up every year with the index.
If you look at the last 25 years that was two to two and a half
percent a year.
Senator Cantwell. OK.
Mr. Gann. So over a longer period of time it continues to
go up.
Senator Cantwell. OK. So you're supporting legislation with
the changes outlined.
Mr. Gann. Yes. Yes, we've had a significant dialog with the
Forest Service recently. They've raised several concerns that
we have tried to work with them to address. We believe we're on
the same page in terms of the needed changes.
Senator Cantwell. OK. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Just a few additional questions.
Mr. Strahan, you mentioned an economic study in your
testimony. You have heard me refer a number of times this
afternoon to, kind of, the economic value of the treasures, the
economic value of the river. What can you tell us in terms of,
kind of, flushing out what you all have found in terms of the
economic benefits as a result of this legislation for
businesses in your area?
Mr. Strahan. In 2000, excuse me, in 2008 Econ Northwest
conducted a study of the economics of the Wild Rogue section.
They determined that just within this section that's being
addressed in your bill has brought to us over $18 million in
economic benefits in Southern Oregon as well as 300 plus, full-
and part-time jobs. Then one extrapolates that and looks
further up river, which is also a Wild and Scenic River
designation, but it's managed differently under the BLM, we
found that there was a $30 million economic input to our region
there and across the State of Oregon.
So clearly the Wild and Scenic and Wilderness designation
has been paramount in the economics of Southern Oregon.
Then the neat thing that we need to remember about these
sorts of--this sort of legislation and these sorts of resources
is that these fish bring jobs wherever they go. As a territory
salesman of sporting goods, I've witnessed, since 1975, the
impact on the Southern Oregon coast. We're talking Brookings,
Gold Beach, Coos Bay. Our Rogue River fish provide ocean
fisheries in that manner as well as when they migrate upstream.
We have a recreation income coming from Gold Beach, Grants
Pass, Gold Hill, Rogue River, Medford, Oregon. Besides the
direct impact to my industry and to what we do, we have
restaurants. We have convenience stores. We have gas stations.
It's just a very large encompassing economic benefit to the
region.
Senator Wyden. Alright.
Let me ask you, Mr. Kerr, with respect to--excuse me. Yes,
Mr. Kerr, if a grazing permit renewal or transfer doesn't
change the use or management of the land what is, in your view,
the implications of a categorical exclusion from NEPA?
Mr. Kerr. I think it's complicated by--I think the argument
is that it's merely administerial. I can't make a strong
argument to that. I do know that there is a, as was stated
earlier by the BLM, quite a backlog. I know the Forest Service
doesn't have a backlog.
So we want the agency to do their job, take a hard look and
evaluate these permits. If there's an opportunity arises to--
that the agency should take to do that, we want to have them do
that. You know, it's better to get the agencies adequate
resources to do these permit renewals in a methodical and
thoughtful manner. But I think the language regarding a
categorical exclusion would be applied much broader than the
particular circumstance that you're asking about.
Senator Wyden. Alright.
Mr. Crary, one question for you. With respect to S. 1774,
what is your assessment of this legislation with respect to
grazing operations?
Mr. Crary. As far as it would impact this would have? Is
that?
Senator Wyden. Yes, yes. How your folks see it?
Mr. Crary. The permitees?
Senator Wyden. Yes.
Mr. Crary. How do they see it?
Senator Wyden. Yes.
Mr. Crary. Most of them are not in favor of it. But when
asked they'd have to say just because. As far as being able to
point to any specific reason that this would jeopardize their
permit in any way they're really not able to.
Senator Wyden. Gentlemen, would you all like to add
anything? It's been a long afternoon and you all have been
patient. I always like to give our witnesses the last word.
I'm struck by, as I listened to my colleagues ask
questions. It's not only is there a sense of protecting these
special places. It's recognizing that there's economic benefit.
You've heard Senators say again and again they're looking
at the kind of work and the kind of effort that goes into
these. A bill that is going to be sustained with popular
support, you know, in the West doesn't happen by osmosis. I
mean, these are issues that can get people polarized and off in
separate corners pretty darn quickly.
What you all have shown in a lot of these issues that we've
dealt with and it's sort of a common, common theme is an
ability to get beyond that. That, in my view, is making policy
in the West at its best.
We thank you for your patience. We're going to have
certainly additional areas we're going to have to follow up on,
the agencies in a number of instances, desire some
modifications. But I'm looking forward to working with all of
you and my colleagues.
This committee does its work in a bipartisan basis. I think
we can move forward expeditiously on today's agenda.
Do any of you have any last words that you'd like to offer
up?
Mr. Gann. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to thank you for
holding this hearing. You are correct that our organization has
worked very closely with the stakeholders, Forest Service as
well as certain Members of Congress to really, thoroughly, vet
this new fee system. It's really designed to last.
This is the second time in a decade we're back here
promoting a new fee system. We assure you that this is one
designed to last for decades and decades to come. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. The end is in sight on this topic.
Mr. Gann. Yes. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Alright.
Mr. Strahan, I understand you'd like to say something.
Mr. Strahan. Yes, sir. Thank you for the opportunity.
Senator Wyden. Only fitting that Oregon have the last word.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Strahan. I try too.
Senator Wyden. Go ahead.
Mr. Strahan. Anyway, just to kind of play up on what you
were saying in terms of collaboration of negotiation. I wanted
to point out that this particular bill is not being opposed by
the American Federal or--excuse me, the American Forest
Resource Council to an unprecedented negotiation with
conservation. They have agreed not to oppose this.
I think it plays into the importance of a diverse economy.
We can't have a timber industry and we can't have a recreation
industry. I think we'd all agree that a diverse economy creates
a stable economy and I'd just like to leave you with that
thought.
Thank you once again for the opportunity.
Senator Wyden. We thank all of you.
Mr. Recorder, let's make Senator Lee's statement a part of
the record as well.
Mr. Kerr. Senator Wyden, may I say something?
Senator Wyden. Mr. Kerr, please.
Mr. Kerr. I would note, it did occur to me that I am the
only public witness in opposition to any of the bills on the
list today. I think it's indicative of the nature of S. 1129.
It was not developed collaboratively. We were not consulted.
The livestock industry did not reach out to us in any way.
That compares greatly to the other bills that are being
heard today. Also as your bill compared to what happened with
the Oregon Eastside Forest bill that you have done so much work
on. You know, I think it's the difference of approach. So that
puts us in opposition today.
We offer an alternative of voluntary grazing permit
retirement that we think is a better way. You know, perhaps the
conservation community will be consulted by the livestock
industry on this and something could be worked out. But we
haven't been so far.
Senator Wyden. But just to finish that last thought, Mr.
Recorder, let's make Senator Lee's statement a part of the
record.
Just on your point, you know, Mr. Kerr, and I've worked
very collaboratively with Senator Barrasso over the years. Of
course, worked with you on a number of instances, so let's see
what we can do to find some common ground here. There may be
more to work----
Mr. Kerr. We'd appreciate that, Senator.
Senator Wyden. There may be more to work with than meets
the eye. Two people that I've enjoyed working with over the
years, Senator Barrasso and yourself, and of course, you played
an absolutely key role in putting together the Eastside bill in
Oregon and certainly in our state. When it comes to natural
resources policy people will long remember that John Shelk, one
of our most distinguished timber men over the years said he
never could conceive of working with you on anything, let alone
agreeing with you on anything.
Of course that's what you were able to do on the Eastside
bill. As has been noted before in this subcommittee, that even
before we've gotten that bill enacted into law the trust that
has been developed between the timber industry and
environmental folks has led the agencies to actually start
living under that approach even before it is formally enacted
into law. So I think that's an important note to wrap up with.
I intend to work closely with Senator Barrasso and you and
other interested parties to try to find some common ground.
So with that the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
WildEarth Guardians,
March 31, 2012.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chair, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Wyden and Barrasso:
This letter follows up on my testimony before the subcommittee on
Thursday, March 22, 2012. I request that it be included in the official
hearing record.
I wish to address two issues.
Question 1. Livestock Grazing Damages Public Lands and Resources.
Answer. As I noted in my testimony, livestock grazing on federal
public lands is not benign, but rather causes serious ecological and
hydrological damage to western lands and watersheds. Following is a
summary from the report by WildEarth Guardians (2009) entitled
``Western Wildlife Under Hoof: Public Lands Grazing Threatens Iconic
Species.''
Livestock have done more damage to the Earth than the
chainsaw and bulldozer combined. Not only have livestock been
around longer than developers, miners, and loggers, but they
have grazed nearly everywhere. On public land across the West,
millions of non-native livestock (including cattle, sheep,
goats and horses) remove and trample vegetation, damage soil,
spread invasive weeds, despoil water, deprive native wildlife
of forage and shelter, accelerate desertification and even
contribute to global warming. Former Secretary of the Interior
Bruce Babbitt has written that federal public lands livestock
grazing ``is the most damaging use of public land.''
Livestock grazing has had a profound effect on arid
landscapes in the West. Archeological and palynological
(pollen, spores) evidence indicates that the introduction of
domestic livestock has had a greater impact on the Great Basin
than any event in the previous 1,000 years. More than 99
percent of remaining sagebrush steppe has been affected by
livestock and approximately 30 percent has been heavily grazed.
Research in southeastern Arizona has similarly found that
grazing has probably had greater effect on the vegetation,
soil, fire ecology, and the spread of nonnative weeds than any
other land use in the region. Ubiquitous, constant grazing is
deemed the most potent cause of desertification in the United
States.
The impacts from grazing are even more apparent in riparian
areas. Western streams were historically viewed by the
livestock industry and managed by the federal government as
``sacrifice areas`` for domestic livestock. Decades of heavy
grazing in riparian zones has cost western ecosystems
generations of willows and cottonwoods, eliminated American
beaver from much of the landscape, burdened hydrological
systems with millions of tons of sediment, and significantly
reduced fish and other wildlife to a fraction of their historic
range. Further, nearly all surface waters in the West have been
fouled with livestock waste that produce harmful waterborne
bacteria and protozoa such as Giardia. [citations omitted]
Omitted citations in the above quotation may be found among the 73
references in the report, most of which are of government reports or
peer-reviewed scientific articles. The entire report may be downloaded
at:
http://www.wildearthguardians.org/support_docs/report-WWUH-4-
09_lowres.pdf.
Question 2. Answering Senator Barrasso's Question Regarding My
Position on Public Lands Grazing.
Answer. In a question to me, Senator Barrasso insisted that I
answer--with a mere ``yes'' or ``no''--whether it was my ``preference
is to completely eliminate grazing on public lands.`` I refused to
answer under such terms, but I did offer to submit a more informative
answer for the record. He had made reference to an article I wrote for
High Country News in 1994 entitled ``Don't Try to Improve Grazing;
Abolish It!'' I have included the entire article below.* At the time I
wrote the article I worked for Oregon Wild (then known as Oregon
Natural Resources Council) and had no relationship with WildEarth
Guardians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Article has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I favor the end of abusive livestock grazing on public lands. The
evidence is voluminous and compelling that grazing harms species,
ecosystems, and watersheds (see above). Livestock grazing also
conflicts with most forms of recreation. Approximately 2 percent of the
nation's livestock feed comes from federal public lands. This miniscule
amount of forage could easily be made up through increased production
on private grasslands. I also object to the federal government
subsidizing livestock grazing on federal public lands by spending many
times more than it receives in grazing fees.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Government Accountability Office. 2005. Livestock Grazing:
Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending on the Agency and the
Purpose of the Fee Charged. GAO-05-869. Government Accountability
Office. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both my beliefs and actions have evolved on public lands grazing in
the nearly two decades since I wrote the article the Senator Barrasso
quoted. In that time, I have:
Worked with Senator Wyden to enact the Steens Mountain
Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, which
established-with the consent of local grazing permittees-the
first legislatively designated livestock-free wilderness in the
United States, covering approximately 100,000 acres.
Worked with Senator Wyden to enact legislation to facilitate
voluntary federal grazing permit retirement for grazing
allotments in and near the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument,
with the support of affected grazing permittees.
Advised conservation organizations on a voluntary grazing
permit retirement provision that was included in legislation
that designated new wilderness in Idaho's Owyhee canyonlands.
Local grazing permittees agreed to the inclusion of the
provision.
I am currently working with Senator Wyden to enact the Oregon Caves
Revitalization Act, which includes a voluntary grazing permit
retirement provision, which is supported by the affected grazing
permittee.
When I reread the article that Senator Barrasso quoted, I
discovered that:
I called for compensating grazing permittees who lost their
grazing privileges on public lands. I began advocating for
compensating ranchers in 1994 when even the conservation
community objected to the concept. Now, in 2012, voluntary
federal grazing permit retirement has become the preferred
method for equitably resolving livestock grazing conflicts on
the nation's public lands.
Some of my ideas in 1994 were good ones, while others were
not.
My position on public lands grazing has evolved.
I misattributed the quote ``You can get more with a kind
word and a gun than just with a kind word'' to Che Guevara. In
fact, I later learned it was the character ``Al Capone''
(played by Robert De Niro) in a television episode of The
Untouchables.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee.
Sincerely,
Andy Kerr,
Advisor.
______
Responses of Leslie A.C. Weldon to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. In your testimony you said the Forest Service doesn't
track payments made under the Equal Access to Justice Act or other fee
shifting statutes. Using the Oregon Natural Desert Association's
(plaintiff) application for interim fees and costs against Secretary
Vilsack (defendant) for almost $1 million dollars as an example, what
do you estimate, on this one application, was the impact on the agency
budgets, time, and personnel? The plaintiff's motion seeks fees between
October 2001 and February 2012.
Answer. Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) has filed a motion
with the court seeking almost a million dollars for costs through June
2009. We've responded and are awaiting a ruling. Although we have been
tracking Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) fees and other litigation
fees paid to attorneys in natural resource litigation, we have not been
tracking those other costs associated with litigation, such as Agency
personnel costs. Forest Service employees generally do not track their
time for specific projects or cases.
For over a decade, various Forest Service personnel in the Pacific
Northwest Region, on various forests, have had to address a number of
law suits filed by the Oregon Natural Desert Association. A
considerable amount of time has been spent in this endeavor. There have
been costs to the Malheur National Forest, Pacific Northwest Regional
Office and the Washington Office as well as the Office of General
Counsel to respond to the litigation at various levels, however
attempts to estimate costs to the agency are speculative since there is
no way to develop an accounting for that time. Also, the Forest Service
doesn't track the cost of the litigation for the Department of Justice
(DOJ). We would defer to the Department of Justice for an accounting of
litigation costs.
For Endangered Species Act claims, plaintiffs are entitled to
recover costs, but those come from the DOJ's judgment fund. For
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) claims, the recovery is under
EAJA and those are paid by the agency from its funds. The current
request is for almost a million dollars. If the court awards fees in
connection with Plaintiffs' NFMA claims, that t the Forest Service
would only be required to pay the costs for litigating the NFMA claim.
Question 2. According to the FY 2013 budget, the Forest Service
plans to complete NEPA decisions for 125 allotments, compared to a
target of 250 in FY 2012 due to anticipated increase in NEPA analysis
costs. With the costs associated with NEPA decisions, how important is
codifying Rescissions Act flexibility to the agency's ability to
determine the priority and timing of environmental analysis?
Answer. Codifying flexibility for the Forest Service in determining
the priority and timing of environmental analysis documentation for
livestock grazing activities on National Forest System lands is
essential given limited agency budgets, fluctuating resource conditions
on-the-ground and emergencies such as wildfires and post wildfire
emergency rehabilitation. The flexibility is not found in the 1995
Rescissions Act, but first appeared in the 2003 Appropriations Rider.
The Rescission Act itself didn't provide any flexibility and that was
the problem because of the language requiring adherence to the
schedule.
Question 3. In the last ten years, how many grazing permits have
been reissued using current appropriation rider language while the NEPA
process is still being completed?
Answer. From 2003 through 2011, 5,689 term grazing permits were
issued under the recurring appropriation rider and the Rescissions Act.
Question 4. What impact would S. 2001 have on accessing possible
rare earth deposits? What studies or inventories have been conducted to
know what rare earth deposits may be deposited?
Answer. S. 2001 would withdrawal lands the land designated as
wilderness from location, entry, and patent the mining laws subject to
valid existing rights. Except where mining claims already exist and
claimants can demonstrate valid existing rights, all new exploration
and development of rare earth minerals would be prohibited.
The Forest Service has conducted no studies or inventories for the
existence of rare earth minerals. The United States Geological Survey
(USGS) is the federal agency tasked with conducting and publishing
mineral resource assessments. The Forest Service defers to the USGS for
the current status of mineral assessments.
Responses of Leslie A.C. Weldon to Questions From Senator Murkowski
s. 1129
Question 1. Please clarify MS. Weldon's assertion that the Forest
Service has no backlog of grazing permits. Did she mean to suggest that
all of the existing or renewed grazing permits had NEPA completed
before they were re-let?
Answer. Ms. Weldon did not mean to suggest that NEPA has been
completed for all allotments before permits are renewed, but rather
that the Forest Service does not have a backlog of permits needing
issuance, reissuance or transferal, awaiting the completion of NEPA
because it issues permits under the authority of the recurring
appropriations rider, as well as the Rescissions Act, pending the
completion of NEPA. The Forest Service completes NEPA on grazing
allotments, not grazing permits in accordance with the Rescissions Act
schedule. NEPA is not based on the timing of permit expiration. It is
important that the Agency is able to issue the permits so that
permittees can continue their use uninterrupted as we work toward NEPA
completion on the allotment.
Question 2. Please tell us how many grazing permit applications for
renewal there were in each year since 2003.
Answer. The Forest Service does not track renewals as a subgroup of
permits issued each year. The following data represent total permits
issued each year for NFS lands, including renewals.
2003 416
2004 466
2005 520
2006 1003
2007 578
2008 563
2009 730
2010 658
2011 755
Question 3. Please tell us how many years passed before all the
NEPA was completed on all of the grazing permits that were renewed in
1995?
Answer. As a result of changing priorities and funding levels from
those used to develop the 1995 allotment NEPA schedule, the Forest
Service has not completed NEPA analysis for all of the allotments with
permits that were issued in 1995. Therefore, the need exists to
continue the Secretary's authority and sole discretion in setting
priority for the completion of allotment NEPA analyses.
Question 4. Please tell us how many grazing permit application for
renewal will be renewed in 2012?
Answer. Local units manage and process the applications for term
grazing permits, whether renewals, transfers or new applications and
the agency does track how many total permits are issued each year.
However, we are unable to provide the number of term grazing permits
issued so far in 2012, because we compile the data on an annual basis.
Question 5. Please tell us how many years it will take the Forest
Service to complete the NEPA work that will be needed to underpin the
grazing permits that are renewed in 2012?
Answer. The 2010 Rescissions Act Schedule identified 3,605 grazing
allotments that will need NEPA completed between 2011 and 2019.
However, because conditions can and do change on our grazing
allotments, that number is likely to change. Annually the Forest
Service units will develop their NEPA needs; and in 2013, the Forest
Service would again issue an agency wide updated schedule that would
include any changes.
Question 6. If Congress does not renew Interior Appropriations
special provision number 415 and S. 1129 is not signed into law, how
many grazing permits would you be forced to terminate?
Answer. The Forest Service relies on the Rescission Act as well as
the recurring appropriations rider to provide the authority to continue
issuance of grazing permits where NEPA has not been completed on the
associated allotment. Therefore, since we would continue to have
authority to reissue permits under the Rescissions Act, there will be
no forced terminations of grazing permits if section 415 is not renewed
or S. 1129 is not enacted.
Question 7. Do you agree that Special Provision 415 relates to both
the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior?
Answer. Yes, section 415 relates both to the Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior.
Question 8. Can you provide data or an analysis on what the
economic impact would be to the ranchers who hold these permits and the
communities they live in if Sec. 415 or S. 1129 were not in place?
Answer. Under the Rescissions Act, there would be no economic
impact to the permittee or the community. Because the Forest Service is
required to issue, transfer, or renew permits under the authority of
the Rescissions Act, there would be no break in use of the grazing
permit. Grazing would continue, whether those provisions have been
enacted or not because the permits would be issued with the same terms
and conditions as the expired or transferred permit.
Question 9. Please explain how you are able to describe that only
25% of your grazing permit renewals currently do not have the required
NEPA completed?
Answer. The Forest Service conducts analysis, documentation and
disclosure pursuant to NEPA on grazing allotments and then issues the
term grazing permits to the applicants. To clarify, approximately 1,700
allotments do not have the analysis, documentation and disclosure
pursuant to NEPA completed. For these allotments SEC. 415 of the FY
2012 Interior Appropriations and Related Agency law and Section 325 of
Public Law 108-108 (117 Stat. 1307), allow the issuance of 10-year term
grazing permits to applicants who graze their livestock on the affected
allotments.
Question 10. With a proposed 27% cut in the grazing program, please
provide an estimate of the number of grazing allotment decision notices
that will be completed in FY 2013 and please provide a detailed
explanation of how you will accomplish that level if your estimate is
higher than 142 permit decisions?
Answer. In the Forest Service FY 2013 Budget Request, the agency
has requested a 27 percent reduction in spending on grazing management;
proposing to drop grazing funding from $55.3 million down to $40.4
million dollars. Nevertheless, the FY 2013 President's Budget requests
$13, 730,000 to complete livestock grazing NEPA analysis and decisions
for 125 allotments.
S. 1906, a bill to modify the Forest Service Recreation Residence
Program as the program applies to units of the National Forest System
derived from the public domain by implementing a simple, equitable, and
predictable procedure for determining cabin user fees;
Question 11. Can you describe the areas of potential agreement
related to this legislative proposal?
Answer. It is my understanding that there have been productive
discussions between the Forest Service and groups that represent cabin
users who have leases within the National Forests. The bill would
reduce the cost of administering the recreation residence program
because there would no longer be a need for fully developed lot
appraisals once lots are placed into their corresponding tiers.
Representatives of the cabin owners' organization also agreed to add an
additional tier on the upper end in order to better capture higher lot
values. The representatives also have agreed to removal of the
provision requiring the agency to assess a transfer fee that was tied
to the sale value of the cabin. Because the agency does not have an
interest in cabin values (only lot values) and because it would have
required administrative resources to track those sales, we are
supportive of removing that provision from the bill.
Question 12. Can you describe the areas of disagreement that still
must be worked out?
Answer. The agency can support the most recent draft amendments to
S. 1906 if changes are made as described in testimony and in the answer
to Question 11, and if the provision requiring the agency to assess a
transfer fee at the point of cabin sale is removed.
Question 13. Given this Administration's beliefs about global
warming and the drying of the Intermountain West, does the Forest
Service think it wise to impose these restrictions on water development
in this bill?
Answer. Section 4(d)(3) of S. 1635 would prohibit the development
of any new irrigation or pumping facility or other specified water
structures in the covered land. No, it may not be wise to impose water
restrictions because there are existing reservoirs in these areas.
Also, in general, it is preferable to expand reservoirs at high
elevations (all these lands are above 10,000 feet) because
substantially less evaporative water loss occurs at these elevations.
The Forest Service testimony on S. 1635 addressed water rights and
water development in Section 4(d)(3) which would prohibit new water
development projects in the special management area. This provision is
more restrictive than section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act under which
the President of the United States may exercise discretion to authorize
such facilities within designated wilderness areas if they are
determined to be in the public interest.
We note, however, that the prohibitions on water develop in the
Sheep Mountain special management area would consistent with the
prohibitions in wilderness subject to the Colorado Wilderness Act of
1993, including the wilderness additions that would be designated by
this bill.
Question 14. Is the Forest Service willing to forgo the opportunity
to develop wildlife stock ponds or guzzlers within this Wilderness if
climate change does result in seasonal drying in this area?
Answer. We see no need to develop wildlife stock ponds or guzzlers
either in the Sheep Mountain SMA or in the wilderness additions that
would be designated by S. 1635. The wildlife species of most concern at
these high elevations is the bighorn sheep and water availability (or
lack thereof) is not a limiting factor.
Section 5 (a) of this bill says the Secretary may continue to
authorize the competitive running event permitted since 1992 in the
vicinity of the Special Management Area and the Liberty Bell addition
to the Mount Sneffels Wilderness designated by section 2(a)(21) of the
Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (as added by section 3) in a manner
compatible with the preservation of the areas as wilderness.
Question 15. Would you describe the restrictions the Forest Service
has placed on these events in the past?
Answer. The Forest Service has not placed any non-typical
restrictions through the special use permit on the competitive running
event in the Special Management Area and the Liberty Bell addition.
Question 16. Would you describe the restrictions the Forest Service
will likely place on these events in the future?
Answer. We would likely consider capping the total number at the
organizer's current cap of 100 runners.
Question 17. Do you believe that this type of imprint by man
conforms to the original 1964 Wilderness Act and the solitude that most
users expect when they enter into and recreate in a Wilderness Area?
Answer. A competitive event is not consistent with Forest Service
wilderness policy, which reflects the Wilderness Act prohibition
against commercial enterprise. This type of imprint by man does not
conform to the original 1964 Wilderness Act. The competitive foot race
would not be in the proposed wilderness additions.
Section 4 on the Sheep Mountain Special Management Area Management
Area says the purpose of the Special Management Area is to conserve and
protect for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations
of the geological, cultural, archaeological, paleontological, natural,
scientific, recreational, wilderness, wildlife, riparian, historical,
educational, and scenic resources of the Special Management Area. The
Special Management Area would preserve options for later designation as
Wilderness by the Congress, if the current uses would cease.
Question 18. If these uses are to continue, why is this area any
different than any other parcel of developed or undeveloped recreation
land managed by the Forest Service and why modify its purpose?
Answer. The difference is that this bill would allow for
continuation of only the existing helicopter activities, which include
heliskiing and helicopter access for a utility company's access for
annual dam inspection. As compared to any other parcel of developed or
undeveloped land, there would only be two such uses now and for at
least the near future. The geographic impact of these uses, however, is
not insignificant in that the heliskiing operation is authorized to use
about 6,000 acres of the proposed SMA, which represents about 27
percent of the total acreage proposed for designation.
Question 19. In your mind, do the restrictions within the purposes
make this more like a Wilderness Area or more like undeveloped
recreation land allocations currently utilized in Region Two of the
Forest Service?
Answer. The allowance of the helicopter uses makes this SMA more
like undeveloped recreation land currently utilized by the Rocky
Mountain Region. For this reason, we support designation of this parcel
as a Special Management Area.
S. 1774, a bill to establish the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation
Management Area, to designate certain Federal land as wilderness, and
to improve the management of noxious weeds in the Lewis and Clark
National Forest;
Question 20. Are there any oil and gas operations or potential oil
and gas deposits within the areas to be designated Wilderness additions
or the Conservation Management Area in this bill?
Answer. The lands identified in the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage
Act were congressionally withdrawn from oil and gas entry in 2006 by
Section 403(a) of Public Law 109-432. There are no leases remaining on
these lands. There are no active oil or gas operations on the Lewis &
Clark NF (L&C NF) lands being considered in S. 1774. The Rocky Mountain
Front on the Lewis & Clark is part of the Montana Overthrust Belt. This
area is structurally similar to areas that are highly productive for
oil and gas in Canada, Wyoming and Utah. USGS has ranked it as highly
prospective for hydrocarbons. Analysis in the 1997 L&C NF Oil and Gas
Leasing FEIS ranked the entire area as ``high'' potential for the
occurrence of oil and gas. Gas production has occurred in and adjacent
to the forest in the Blackleaf Field. One well in the field was located
on the L&C NF. It was productive from 1981 to 1991.
Question 21. What are the known mineral deposits and potentially
developable mineral deposits within the proposed Wilderness additions
and the Conservation management area?
Answer. The mineral withdrawal in Section 403(a) of Public Law 109-
432 also applies to locatable minerals and geothermal claims. The
geologic setting contains rock formations that may contain (low to
moderate potential) undiscovered copper and silver mineral resources.
Question 22. I am wondering if the Forest Service has any other
land use designations that are analogous to the proposed Conservation
management areas. It seems to me this is typically a land allocation
used within the vernacular of the Bureau of Land Management. Does this
land allocation title cause the Forest Service any concern?
Answer. The Northern Region of the Forest Service does not have a
land allocation analogous to the term Conservation Area; however, the
Forest Service does not have any concerns if Congress chooses to use
that terminology.
Question 23. If not, how long will it take you to develop a plan
for the management of the area and do you need additional specific
direction on what is or isn't going to be allowed in this area?
Answer. S.1774 does not specifically require development of a new
management plan for the area. National Forest lands encompassed within
the area covered by S.1774 would largely continue to be managed
according to existing management plans, policies, and regulations.
Areas newly designated as Wilderness would be treated as additions to
the adjacent Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex (BMWC) and would be
managed consistent with other Wilderness lands lying within the complex
(for example, current management plans and direction that apply to the
BMWC include the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex Guidebook for Wildland
Fire, BMWC Recreation Management Direction plan, and special orders
covering topics such as food storage and camping stay limits). Lands
receiving the Conservation Area designation would be managed in
accordance with the current Forest Plan direction. Additionally, the
legislation creates two new planning mandates: developing a
comprehensive weed management strategy and conducting a study to
improve non-motorized recreation opportunities. We need a minimum of
three years to develop a quality comprehensive weed strategy and to
conduct the trails opportunity study. Attempting to complete the weed
strategy or trail study in less than three years would require us to
divert resources from important ongoing management tasks such as
treating weeds and maintaining trails. Additionally, requiring the
completion of the weed strategy in one year and the trails study in two
years could have the undesired effect of limiting opportunities for
other stake holders such as Indian tribes, State and local agencies,
weed districts, or other members of the public from fully collaborating
in the process.
______
Response of Mike Pool to Question From Senator Bingaman, on S. 303
Question 1. Am I correct in my understanding that S. 303 provides
that certain claims listed in the bill be considered to have received
what is called a ``first-half final certificate'' before September 30,
1994, thus making the claimant eligible to receive a ``patent''--or fee
simple title--to these federal lands and minerals under the Mining Law
of 1872 for $2.50 per acre?
Answer. Deeming a claimant to have received a first half first
certificate before September 30, 1994, will allow the BLM to continue
to process the pending patent application for the mining claims listed
in the bill. To be eligible for a patent, the claimant would need to
pay the purchase price, which is $2.50 per acre for a placer claim, and
satisfy all the other requirements for patenting under the Mining Law
of 1872, including demonstrating, and verifying the existence of a
valuable mineral deposit as of the date the claimant satisfied all the
requirements for patenting. If the applicant, satisfies these
requirements, then the applicant would receive a patent.
Responses of Mike Pool to Questions From Senator Barrasso, on S. 1129
Question 1. What impact does litigation have on the BLM's resources
and ability to issue grazing permits in a timely manner?
Answer. Litigation work associated with administration of the
grazing program varies greatly by state and region across the Bureau.
In some Field Offices there is little to no litigation workload, while
in other offices it may account for a substantial amount of staff time.
The timing of litigation can further influence the capability for on-
the-ground range management. For example, if staff must prepare case
files, prepare briefings, or offer testimony during the field season
(usually spring and summer months) then their ability to perform
monitoring, compliance checks, and NEPA work necessary to support fully
processing permits becomes limited.
Question 2. In the last ten years, how many grazing permits have
been reissued using current appropriation rider language while the NEPA
process is still being completed?
Answer. Based on information readily available, the BLM has issued
an average of 1,300 permits per year under the appropriation riders for
the past 5 years. Actual annual numbers for the last five years are
shown in the table below. The BLM rangeland administration databases do
not include the number of permits issued under appropriations riders
prior to 2007 but the number of permits issued annually is likely
similar to the number of permits issued over the last five years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM Grazing Permits & Leases Issued or Processed from 2007-2011
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit Status 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued using Appropriations Language 1068 1333 1741 1286 1203
Authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued after completion of NEPA 2011 2168 2554 1843 1945
Process
========================================================================
Total Issued 3079 3501 4295 3129 3148
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. Section 123 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2012 provided flexibility when considering NEPA analysis for trailing
or crossing permits. As mentioned in your response to my question about
how the BLM is interpreting and implementing the law, will you provide
documentation about how the local field offices will be determining or
handling this issue?
Answer. The BLM has prepared guidance on administration of crossing
permits and associated NEPA documentation. This guidance has been
transmitted to the field as an instruction memorandum and is available
at the following website: www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/
Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2012/
IM_2012_096.html.
Question 4. The BLM budget proposes to cut $15.8 million from the
Rangeland Management program for grazing administration. How do you
justify cutting rangeland management programs when your agency has a
backlog of NEPA allotments to complete, and is struggling to complete
allotment management plans, rangeland health assessments, and process
permits?
Answer. The FY 2013 budget requests a decrease of $15.8 million,
which will bring the budget to the 2010 levels. The Budget includes
appropriations language for a three-year pilot project to allow BLM to
recover some of the costs of issuing grazing permits/leases on BLM
lands. BLM would charge an administrative fee of $1 per Animal Unit
Month, which would be collected along with current grazing fees. The
budget estimates the administrative fee will generate $6.5 million in
2013, and that it will assist the BLM in processing pending
applications for grazing permit renewals.
Responses of Mike Pool to Questions From Senator Murkowski, on S. 303
Question 1. On average, how many miners a year fail to submit their
small miner waiver request applications and thus lose their mining
claims for failure to file their applications on time? Are we talking a
handful, dozens or hundreds? How many small miner waivers do you
process each year and what is the total universe of miners who hold
less than 10 claims and thus qualify for the waiver program? What is
the total cost currently of sending a letter to a miner informing him
that his application did not arrive in a timely fashion and that his
claims are being revoked?
Answer. Currently, almost 30,000 claimants hold 10 or fewer claims.
In 2011, a total of approximately 41,000 claims were forfeited by small
miners and entities holding larger numbers of claims. Mining claims are
forfeited for many reasons, and the number of claims forfeited can vary
widely from year to year. Often, claimants voluntarily forfeit their
mining claims because the claimant has evaluated the claim and found no
mining opportunity worth pursuing at this time; however, the BLM has no
way of knowing whether a forfeiture is voluntary or inadvertent. On an
average for the last five years, the BLM has processed approximately
21,000 waivers annually. The BLM estimates that the total cost
currently of sending a letter to a miner informing him that the BLM did
not timely receive the statutorily required maintenance fees and that
his claims have been forfeited by operation of law is about $41.50,
including staff time.
Question 2. How many appeals of claim forfeiture caused by miners
failing to meet the required filing deadlines are currently pending?
What is the cost of an average appeals process to adjudicate such
forfeitures?
Answer. The BLM tracks if an appeal is filed but does not track the
action the mining claimant is appealing. Between October 1, 2010, and
September 30, 2011, 71 appeals were filed involving 352 claims, but as
stated, there is no consolidated record of the reason or reasons for
the appeals. Without knowing the reason for the appeal or the number of
claims involved, estimating the cost to adjudicate each appeal of a
forfeited claim is not possible.
Question 3. The Department, in its testimony on the bill, objects
to it because of the ``enormous administrative burden'' it would cause
the Department to comply. The Department is apparently concerned that
miners in great numbers would file their applications late should S.
303 pass. Would the Department's concerns be alleviated if a penalty
would be added for late filings to provide a continued financial
incentive for miners to file their forms on time, but not lose their
claims as the automatic response to late filings, or in cases where the
Department may have improperly processed filings? What might be an
acceptable level of penalty to encourage on-time filing, a fine of $1
per claim per day for a late filing, a fine of $5 a day per claim for a
late filing? How high would such a penalty need to be to likely make a
modified process revenue neutral to the BLM?
Answer. Imposing a late fee or fine would not relieve the
administrative burden to the BLM under S. 303, although it would
recover some of the associated costs of the new administrative duties.
For all claimants who submit an untimely waiver as well as for
claimants who did not pay the maintenance fee or file a waiver at all,
the BLM would still be required to check its records and determine
whether the claimant was eligible for a waiver on the date the payment
was due, and, if so, send a notice to those claimants and provide a 60-
day period in which to cure by filing a proper waiver or paying the
maintenance fee. If the claimant didn't respond to the 60-day cure
notice, the BLM would then have to issue an appealable decision
declaring the claim(s) forfeited. Imposing the late fee or fine would
not remove the additional administrative steps of investigating the
ownership of each claim and then sending out notices for which claims
for a timely fee payment or waiver was not received.
The BLM estimates the cost of approximately $400,000 annually to
implement the provisions of S. 303.
Question 4. Why does the BLM feel that the language which says that
miners should have the ability to cure any ``defect for any reason''
doesn't apply to the primary potential defect, that of not having the
application recorded as being timely received?
Answer. The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act of October 21, 1998 (Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681-235) that created the 60-day cure period, codified the
Department's existing regulatory practice of providing a cure period
for timely filed but defective maintenance fee waivers. There is no
evidence that Congress intended to alter the Department's regulatory
interpretation that allowed a claimant to cure a defective maintenance
fee waiver only if the waiver was filed on time[delete extra space ].
Rather, the history of the Act indicates that the purpose of amending
the United States Code was simply to extend the cure period from 30
days under BLM's regulations to 60 days. The Interior Board of Land
Appeals (IBLA) has repeatedly affirmed this regulatory interpretation
that allows a mining claimant to avoid forfeiture only where a timely,
but defective waiver certification is filed, and the claimant
thereafter cures the defect or pays the maintenance fee. The IBLA's
reasoning is that the Secretary has no discretion to allow a cure
because the claim becomes forfeited by operation of law when the
deadline passes and the BLM has not received payment or a valid waiver.
The IBLA's decisions on this issue represent the final decision of the
Department, and have never been overturned in Federal Court.
Question 5. Can the Department suggest any changes in the allowable
grounds for appeals that would solve the current issue that applicants
have no effective appeals process to overcome the burden of ``presumed
administrative regularity'' in the processing of small miner waiver
applications by the government when they believe that the Department,
by clerical error, did not credit arrival of their mining waiver
request forms on time?
Answer. The Department's regulations at 43 CFR Part 4 allow any
party adversely affected by a decision of the BLM to appeal to the
IBLA. Mining claimants who believe that their mining claims were
improperly declared void can appeal a decision under the Department's
appeal regulations, and all decisions made by the BLM include specific
instructions telling mining claimants about their appeal rights. If the
mining claimant receives an adverse decision on appeal, the mining
claimant can challenge the Department's decision in the U.S. District
Courts. The BLM mining law adjudicators remind claimants that when they
mail their documents, they should always send the documents by
certified mail, return receipt requested, keeping a copy of what they
sent. Additionally, BLM offices also remind claimants they should send
duplicate copies to the BLM so the copies can be date stamped and
returned to the claimant. The claimant should also make their filing
well in advance of the September 1 filing date so that should a
document not be received, there would be ample time to re-file the
document if necessary.
s. 1788
Question 6. Given this Administration's beliefs about global
warming and the drying of the Intermountain West, does the BLM think it
wise to impose these restrictions on water development in this bill?
Answer. These restrictions only apply to BLM-managed lands within
the proposed wilderness area and there are extensive BLM-managed lands
in the surrounding area on which there are no restrictions on water
developments. Similar language has been included in many wilderness
designation bills.
Question 7. Is the Bureau of Land Management willing to forgo the
opportunity to develop wildlife stock ponds or guzzlers within this
Wilderness if climate change does result in seasonal drying in this
area?
Answer. Section 10(d) of the bill specifically gives the BLM the
authority to authorize new wildlife water developments including
guzzlers (where appropriate) within the Pine Forest wilderness area.
s. 1559
Question 8. At this point in time, what is the Bureau's land
management plan for these lighthouse reserves?
Answer. Of the approximately 1,000 acres of islands and rocks, most
are currently withdrawn from mining. The lands are currently managed
for their scenic, recreational, historic, cultural, and natural
resource values. There is currently no land use plan covering the lands
proposed for the San Juan Islands NCA; however, BLM would prepare a
land use plan as directed by S.1559, if it is enacted.
Question 9. How would the designation called for in this
legislation change the day-to-day management and use that is occurring
on these lighthouse reserves?
Answer. While there would be very little change in the day-to-day
management, the designation would provide a permanent, consistent
management scheme allowing for the continued protection of the
important natural, scientific, cultural and historic values of the
public lands within the San Juan Islands. The bill adds a consistent
overlay of permanent management protections of these resources while
continuing to allow the current recreational uses.
Question 10. Can you assure me that recreational users such as
people walking their dogs will not be harassed by DOI law enforcement
personnel if this legislation is passed?
Answer. We have not had, nor do we anticipate having, any problems
with dog walkers within the proposed San Juan Island National
Conservation Area.
Question 11. Should we expect any new restrictions will be placed
on access or use of these areas if this legislation is passed?
Answer. We do not anticipate any new restrictions on access.
s. 2001
Question 12. How many acres of suitable timber base will be lost if
this bill is signed into law?
Answer. The BLM has not identified any ``suitable timber'' in the
proposed areas. There is currently one past sale (sold, awaiting
protest resolution) potentially affected by S. 2001 which covers 16
acres. There are four additional sales planned for future years. The
total for all of these possible sales is less than 1,100 acres. The
timing of the passage of this bill may preclude all of these timber
sales.
Question 13. Approximately how much revenue could have been
generated over the next five decades from this timber base on an annual
basis assuming 2012 stumpage rates in the area?
Answer. Of the total nearly 60,000 acres being proposed for
wilderness designation less than 1,100 acres, or 1.8 percent contain
planned timber sales.
Question 14. There are several miles of wild and scenic river
designations in this bill; do those designations cut off areas of
suitable timber base from access?
Answer. Most of the wild and scenic river designations in S. 2001
are within the designated wilderness, therefore the wild and scenic
overlay would have no additional affect. For those parts of the
corridor outside of the designated wilderness, it would depend upon the
specific designation (wild, scenic, or recreational). In ``wild''
segments the cutting of trees is generally not permitted except for
protective purposes such as wildfire suppression. On ``scenic'' or
``recreational'' segments, designation is not likely to significantly
affect timber harvesting or logging practices beyond existing
limitations to protect riparian zones and wetlands which are guided by
other legal mandates and planning direction.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Hon. Mike Lee, U.S. Senator From Utah, on S. 2056
Thank you, Senator Wyden. And I'd also like to thank Senator Baucus
and the witnesses today for coming in to provide testimony on these
pieces of legislation. At the outset, I'd like to speak in support of
the Scofield Land Transfer Act, which, if passed, would resolve an
issue that has existed for more than a decade.
The Scofield Land Transfer Act proposes to remedy a discrepancy
between local residents in Carbon County, Utah and the Bureau of
Reclamation by authorizing certain transfers to residents who claim
ownership of Federal land within the Scofield Reservoir Basin in
exchange for the fair market value of the land.
Many of these residents have invested time and money in these
properties, and if this bill is passed, these Utahans will be able to
enjoy the benefits of Scofield Reservoir in the future. The bill also
addresses safety concerns raised by the Bureau of Reclamation and
strikes a good balance between these concerns and the continued
enjoyment of Scofield Reservoir. And while there may be further details
to sort out, I believe the bill in general provides a sensible and
satisfactory resolution to what has been a long and drawn out dispute.
I look forward to working with the Bureau of Reclamation and my
colleagues here to bring this issue to a final resolution. Thank you
and I look forward to the testimony on this and the other bills we have
before us today.
______
Prepared Statement of Debbie Sease, National Campaign Director, Sierra
Club, on S. 1635, S. 1774, S. 1788, S. 2001, S. 1559
On behalf of the Sierra Club's 1.4 million members and supporters
across the country, I want to thank you and the Public Lands and
Forests Subcommittee for your continued work to protect American lands,
water, and wildlife.
Tomorrow's hearing includes four bills that would establish new
wilderness areas as well as legislation that would establish a new
national conservation area. Congress has not established new wilderness
in three years and this hearing is a step in the right direction toward
crafting a bipartisan bill that protects America's wild legacy. We
thank you and all the members of your committee for working across the
aisle to get the bills this far and look forward to seeing them move
forward.
The Sierra Club urges you to support the following bills:
S.1635, San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act of 2011--would
protect nearly 55,000 acres in southwest Colorado, 33,000 of
which would be wilderness. The bill would expand both the
Lizard Head and Mt. Sneffels wilderness areas and establish the
McKenna Peak wilderness area in western San Miguel County. It
would provide further protections by creating the Sheep
Mountain Special Management Area, where existing uses would be
allowed to continue. This stunning corner of Colorado is worthy
of protection and as such the bill is widely supported by local
businesses, conservationists, hunters nd anglers, biking
groups, and many other local stakeholders.
S. 1774, Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act of 2011--would
designate over 67,000 acres of wilderness and create 208,000
acres of Conservation Management Areas in western Montana. The
area is world-class wildlife habitat and has some of the
highest diversity of animals and plants in the entire Rocky
Mountain Range. This legislation would ensure protected and
connected areas between summer and winter habitat, creating a
refuge area prized by hunters and outdoor enthusiasts alike.
S. 1788, Pine Forest Range Recreation Enhancement Act of
2011--would create the 26,000 acre Pine Forest Range Wilderness
in northwest Nevada. The area is key habitat for mountain
lions, mule deer, sage grouse, pronghorn antelope, and
California bighorn sheep. It is also renowned for providing
some of the best hunting and fishing opportunities in the
state. The legislation is the result of a long long
collaborative process that involded more than 50 people
representing a long list of relevant stakeholders. They
successfully came to an agreement that provides permanent
protection and provides a potential boost to the local economy.
S. 2001, Rogue Wilderness Area Expansion Act of 2011--would
add more than 58,000 acres of wilderness to the Wild Rogue
Wilderness Area in southwest Oregon. It would also protect more
than 90 miles of the Rogue River and its tributaries as Wild
and Scenic and increase protections for another 50 miles from
mining and dam building. The area is a world-class destination
for recreation and fishing and provides habitat to key species
such as cougars, salmon, steelhead, and bears.
S. 1559, San Juan Islands National Conservation Act of
2011--would protect over 1000 acres in the San Juan Archipelago
in Washington. The area includes dozens of small islands and
reefs that are havens for nesting sea birds, harbor seals, rare
plants and contains numerous cultural and historic sites. It
also has an abundance of recreational activities such as
kayaking, camping, bird-watching, hunting and fishing, boating,
and wildlife viewing.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has already
reported out a long, bipartisan list of important land protection
measures this Congress. This list includes legislation that would
establish Wilderness Areas, Conservation Areas, and Wild and Scenic
Rivers. All told the five bills highlighted above would protect more
than 400,000 acres as wilderness or other designated protected areas.
Four of them (S. 1635, S. 1788, S. 2001 and S. 1559) have also been
identified by the Bureau of Land Management as areas deserving of
protection in a report that was sent ot Congress in November 2011.
These locally-driven public lands protection bills would support
jobs in local communities, assist wildlife adapting to changing
conditions, and preserve unparalleled recreational opportunities for
millions of Americans. They represent many years of on-the-ground work
of conservationists, local elected officials, and Congress. Thanks to
the diligent work of the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee as well
as the Energy and Natural Resources Committee there is an opportunity
to pass meaningful lands protection bills before this Congress
adjourns. We look forward to working with you to continue moving these
forward.
______
Statement of Hon. Dean Heller, U.S. Senator From Nevada, on S. 1473,
S. 1788, S. 1492
Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Barrasso, I want to start by
thanking you for holding this hearing today. As you both know, 87
percent of Nevada's lands are controlled by the federal government--so
the health of our communities is intertwined with our public lands and
the actions of land management agencies.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the three bills for
Nevada that are being considered today.
I authored S. 1473, the Mesquite Land Conveyances Act of 2011, to
provide the City of Mesquite continued flexibility to grow in a smart
and responsible manner in the future. The bill gives the City of
Mesquite an extension of the deadline for the City to purchase federal
lands set aside by previous legislation for the purpose of planning and
sustainability. The City is not presently in a position to purchase the
final sections of lands due to the severe economic conditions that
continue to plague Southern Nevada. The City of Mesquite remains
committed to ensuring that its growth is done in a positive manner, and
this bill will allow them that flexibility. S. 1473 is very simple, has
no cost associated with it, and is the right thing to do for the
community.
S. 1788, the Pine Forest Range Recreation Enhancement Act, will
resolve outstanding issues related to Wilderness Study Areas in the
range. The Pine Forest Range is a popular destination for sportsmen and
recreationists alike. It is the culmination of a two-year, locally
driven process that was transparent and will result in enhanced
recreation opportunities and better land management. I am pleased to
support this bill and offer it as an example of how public land
designations should be handled.
S. 1492, the Three Kids Mine Remediation and Reclamation Act, will
provide a way to remediate the 1,260 acre abandoned manganese mine and
mill site in Henderson at no cost to the federal government. The bill
will convey the federal land within the project site to the Henderson
Redevelopment Agency. This innovative solution to a long-standing
problem will allow the site to be fully reclaimed and subsequently
developed.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting these important pieces of
legislation.
______
Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator From Nevada, on S. 1492
Thank you Chairman Wyden and Senator Barrasso for the opportunity
to address your subcommittee about a bipartisan proposal to facilitate
the remediation and redevelopment of a dangerous abandoned mine site
near Lake Mead.
Last August, I introduced the Three Kids Mine Remediation and
Reclamation Act of 2011 together with Senator Heller. A companion bill
was introduced in the House, where it is backed by all members of the
Nevada congressional delegation. Last month the House measure was
successfully reported out of committee.
The onset of World War I nearly 100 years ago required the U.S.
military to replace foreign natural resource imports with domestic
supplies, including manganese needed for steel production. Therefore,
the Three Kids Mine in Henderson, Nevada began producing manganese in
1917, and continued to support the building of warships and tanks
through 1961, after which it was mostly abandoned and used occasionally
as a storage site for federal manganese reserves. The Three Kids site
was forgotten for decades, until the population explosion in southern
Nevada put the mine right in people's backyards.
Today, the Three Kids Mine site is littered with hazards, including
three large mine pits that are hundreds of feet deep, ruins from the
mine facility, and a sludge pool of mine tailings made up of arsenic,
lead, and diesel fuel.
As a result of how the mine was developed and managed, about three-
quarters of the site is federal land managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the Bureau of Reclamation, while the remaining
portion is privately owned. Unfortunately, because of the complicated
land ownership pattern and the immense cost of cleanup, the federal
government was never able to initiate the reclamation process.
To turn the Three Kids Mine site into a job-creating opportunity
while also cleaning up this public health and safety hazard, my
legislation directs the BLM to convey the 948 acres of federal land on
the site to the Henderson Redevelopment Agency at fair market value,
after taking into consideration the cost of cleanup for the whole mine
site. Upon conveyance, the U.S. would be released from liability for
the contamination on the site.
The City of Henderson will then be able to take advantage of Nevada
redevelopment laws designed to address blight conditions such as the
Three Kids Mine. The land conveyance directed by S. 1492 would allow
Henderson to work with local developers to finance and implement a plan
to remediate the abandoned toxic mine site. The cleanup will be
undertaken to meet stringent state and federal standards.
Local officials and developers will finally be able to turn this
wasteland into safe, productive land for the local community.
The project will take decades from start to finish, but the City of
Henderson and the developers are committed to the effort, and have
worked hard to put together a viable plan to fix this old problem
without costing taxpayers a dime for cleanup. Keeping our communities
safe, healthy, and livable is critical. Removing this physical and
environmental hazard from Southern Nevada is a high priority for the
City of Henderson, and for our delegation.
I look forward to working with this committee to move S. 1492
through the legislative process.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here with you today. I
request that my statement be included in the record.
on s. 1788
Thank you Chairman Wyden and Senator Barrasso for the opportunity
to address your subcommittee about our bipartisan proposal to create
26,000 acres of new wilderness in northern Nevada.
Last November, I introduced the Pine Forest Recreation Enhancement
Act of 2011 together with the rest of the Nevada congressional
delegation.
The Pine Forest Recreation Enhancement Act of 2011 would designate
26,000 acres of public lands within the adjoining Blue Lakes and Alder
Creek Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) as the Pine Forest Range Wilderness
Area, while releasing 1,500 acres of existing WSA lands. The bill also
directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to exchange federal lands
near ranches in Humboldt County for private parcels within the existing
WSAs. These exchanges will allow the BLM to more effectively manage the
wilderness area, while at the same time increasing economic development
opportunities for ranching operations by providing land for
agricultural uses.
Protecting these untouched natural lands in Nevada is important to
me and to the people of Humboldt County. Known as the ``Pine Forest
Range'' it is one of the most beautiful and wild places in northern
Nevada, with streams teeming with Lahontan Cutthroat Trout as big as
your leg.
This bill was the product of a comprehensive local process that
took into consideration the concerns of local landowners, sportsmen,
conservationists, former state officials, and other interested parties
in Humboldt County.
This diverse group of stakeholders came together from the ground up
to develop a compromise proposal through a series of public meetings
and field trips. The process was so successful that, for the first time
that I can remember, a wilderness proposal was presented by the county
commission to our delegation with almost unanimous support. The Nevada
State Legislature also passed a joint resolution endorsing the work of
the county commission and the Pine Forest Working Group.
With the partisanship that divides us on so many other issues in
these times, it was heartening to see a disparate set of constituents
with various interests come together for the common cause of preserving
Nevada's treasured landscapes for future generations to enjoy.
Beyond the widespread state and local support, there is no question
that the pristine natural lands and wildlife habitat in the Blue Lakes
and Alder Creek WSAs should receive the strongest level of protection
we can provide for public lands. Rising from the confluence of the
Great Basin and Owyhee deserts, the foothills of the Pine Forest Range
back up to the Black Rock Desert, and its peaks climb from over 5,000
feet to more than 9,000 feet. You will find there alpine lakes
surrounded by granite spires that create a habitat far different from
surrounding ranges.
The Blue Lake complex, including Onion Valley and Knott Creek
reservoirs, is a destination for many anglers. The area is home to a
variety of large trout, including rainbow, brook, cutthroat, tiger, and
the Lahontan Cutthroat--which is native only to Nevada.
The thick forests of aspen and pine that blanket these mountains
provide a stronghold for mule deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep. The
area is also well known by sportsmen across the west for its world
class chukar hunting--a favorite fall pastime for many Nevadans.
I look forward to working with the Senate Energy Committee to move
this legislation forward.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here with you today. I
request that my statement be included in the record.
______
National Mining Association,
Washington, DC, March 19, 2012.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, U.S. Senator, Senate Dirksen 304, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Murkowski,
On behalf of the National Mining Association (NMA), I write to
express our support for the passage of S. 303, a bill to require the
BLM to provide waivers for small miners. This is an important bill for
small miners across the United States who mine minerals and metals
vital to our economic success, but are sometimes overwhelmed with the
myriad of paper work. The minor changes proposed will correct a problem
that has resulted in unintended claim forfeitures by small miners over
past several years.
S. 303 clarifies that the current cure, or opportunity to correct,
provision applies to the failure to timely file a small miner waiver
application or affidavit of annual labor. A question has arisen whether
the original language of the statute included these situations. The
bill will aid individuals who could lose their claims and their
livelihoods by this type of clerical error, and cannot pursue a cure
under the current inflexible interpretation of the law.
NMA thanks Sen. Murkowski for her leadership on the introduction of
S. 303. NMA urges members of Congress to support this important
legislation and oppose any amendments that would be detrimental to job
growth and economic development.
Sincerely,
Hal Quinn,
President & CEO.
______
Northwest Mining Association,
Spokane, WA, March 19, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate
Washington, DC.
Re: S. 303--Small Miner Waivers to Claim Maintenance Fees
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski:
The Northwest Mining Association (NWMA) is writing in support of S.
303, which would clarify a cure provision already in law. S. 303 is an
important bill for small miners with federal mining claims. The
legislation clarifies the cure provisions already in law apply to the
failure to timely file a small miner claim maintenance fee waiver and
affidavit of annual labor. Current law provides:
If a small miner waiver application is determined to be
defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of
60 days after receipt of written notification of the defect or
defects by the Bureau of Land Management to: (A) cure such
defect or defects or (B) pay the $100 (now $140) claim
maintenance fee for such a period (emphasis added).
While the language seems straight forward, several of our members
have lost their mining claims in cases where the waiver and affidavit
were mailed in a timely manner, but due to clerical errors by BLM
staff, mailing delays or unexplained reasons, the waiver and affidavit
were not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion. BLM has
then taken the position that the cure provision does not apply, and the
claims are null and void.
In some cases, this has resulted in needless litigation and
substantial expense. Many of the small miners adversely impacted by the
current interpretation of the right to cure have substantial investment
in their mining claims. We believe S. 303 clarifies the original intent
of Congress that claim holders have a right to know their applications
have not been processed, and time for them to cure application/claim
defects.
NWMA is a 117 year old, 2,300 member, non-profit, non-partisan
trade association based in Spokane, Washington. NWMA members reside in
44 states, including 240 members in Alaska, and are actively involved
in exploration and mining operations on public and private lands,
especially in the West. Our diverse membership includes every facet of
the mining industry including geology, exploration, mining,
engineering, equipment manufacturing, technical services, and sales of
equipment and supplies. NWMA's broad membership represents a true
cross-section of the American mining community from small miners and
exploration geologists to both junior and large mining companies. More
than 90% of our members are small businesses or work for small
businesses. Most of our members are individual citizens.
We urge you to support this important legislation. Thank you for
your consideration. Sincerely,
Laura Skaer,
Executive Director.
______
Alaska Miners Association, Inc.,
Anchorage, AK, March 16, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Energy Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Senate Energy Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman and Senator Murkowski:
I am writing on behalf of the Alaska Miners Association in support
of Senate Bill 303, which would clarify a cure provision already in
law.
The Alaska Miners Association is a non-profit membership
organization established in 1939 to represent the mining industry in
Alaska. The AMA is composed of more than 1400 individual prospectors,
geologists and engineers, vendors, suction dredge miners, small family
mines, junior mining companies, and major mining companies. Our members
look for and produce gold, silver, platinum, lead, zinc, copper, coal,
limestone, sand and gravel, crushed stone, armor rock, and other
materials. Many of our members have federal mining claims.
This is an important bill for small miners in Alaska who know how
to mine but do not have an office staff that monitors the myriad of
necessary filings. The minor changes proposed will correct a problem
that has adversely impacted a number of these small family mines over
past several years.
Senate Bill 303 makes it clear that the cure provision, already in
the law, applies to the failure to timely file a small miner waiver
application or affidavit of annual labor. A question has arisen whether
the original language of the statute included these situations. The
bill also will aid two individuals who have lost their claims and their
livelihoods by this type of clerical error and were not able to pursue
a cure under the existing inflexible interpretation.
Thank you for holding a hearing on this matter. We urge prompt
passage of Senate Bill 303 by the Committee.
Sincerely,
Fred Parady,
Executive Director.
______
Grand Canyon Trust,
Flagstaff, AZ, March 29, 2012.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chair, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
In re: S.1129
Dear Chair Wyden and Ranking Member Barrasso,
Grand Canyon Trust respectfully requests this letter be included in
the official record.
S. 1129 would fail the public, who are legitimate stakeholders in
management of grazing, just as permittees are.
1. S. 1129 would extend the length of a term-grazing permit on
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands from 10 to 20 years.
Locking term permits into a once-every-20-year review will merely
increase a growing sense of many that public lands livestock grazing
may have to be eliminated because it is publicly unaccountable while so
often directly and/or indirectly causing or exacerbating adverse
environmental impacts to vegetation, soil, streams, fish, and/or
wildlife.
The public must insist on accountability on their public lands.
Reviewing the potentially adverse conditions associated with a given
term permit once every two decades is patently unresponsive to the
public, science, and climate trends.
2. S. 1129 would allow for a publicly unaccountable ``categorical
exclusion'' from public review of conditions on an allotment.
The permit renewal process is one of the few chances for the public
to participate in public lands grazing management in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Lands Policy
and Management Act (FLPMA) and National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
Under S, 1129, most term grazing permits would be exempt from any
meaningful public environmental review.
The use of categorical exclusions is already allowed under NEPA
regulations for decisions that actually have no environmental impact.
It is telling that the federal agencies rarely even attempt to issue or
renew a term permit under a categorical exclusion, knowing as they do
that livestock grazing alone and in conjunction with other activities,
e.g., oil and gas development and motorized dispersed camping, has
multiple and often severe impacts to wildlife, fish, vegetation, soil,
and water systems.
3. S, 1129 would establish a special track for administrative
review available only to grazing permittees.
Livestock grazing is by its very nature a multi-stakeholder issue,
because of livestock impacts so often documented and observed on water
systems, fisheries, big game, birds, flowers, springs, aspen,
streambanks, and other ecosystem services depended upon by downstream
communities, hunters, anglers, campers, and wildlife-watchers. The
application of particular appeal provisions in S, 1129 that apply only
to permittees are discriminatory.
The review of allotment conditions as well as agency responses to
allotment conditions that need improvement must be appealable equally
by all stakeholders--permittee and non-permittee alike.
Grand Canyon Trust works closely with permittees, the Forest
Service, BLM, conservationists, scientists, local residents, and local
and state agencies in numerous term permit decisions. The intent of S.
1129 to eliminate all incentives for such collaborative work through
unaccountable term permit issuance and renewal is fundamentally
arbitrary and hostile to the vast majority of stakeholders in the
nation's federal lands.
Sincerely,
Mary O'Brien Ph.D.,
Utah Forest Program Director.
______
Statement of Jon Marvel, Executive Director, Western Watersheds
Project, on S. 1129
I. Introduction
The following comments are submitted on behalf of the staff and
members of Western Watersheds Project,\1\ an environmental conservation
organization based in Hailey, Idaho, with additional offices in Boise,
Idaho, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, California, and Utah. Western
Watersheds Project works to protect and restore western watersheds and
wildlife through education, public policy initiatives and litigation
with a primary focus on the negative impacts of livestock grazing on
250,000,000 acres of public lands. Western Watersheds Project includes
a staff and active volunteer membership of scientists, former agency
personnel, and citizens who have intimate first-hand knowledge and on-
the-ground experience with the management and conditions of wildlife
populations and the hundreds of millions of acres of public lands that
are the subject of the legislation being considered at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ www.WesternWatersheds.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WWP's active involvement in public lands management includes public
oversight of Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture
federal regulation and rule-making efforts, federal landscape-level
management plans, federal site-specific grazing decisions, and all
federal actions involving the administration of livestock grazing on
federal public lands. Our day-to-day activities involve reviewing,
documenting and often challenging agency implementation of federal
laws. It is with this interest and experience that Western Watersheds
Project urges the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests to oppose S.
1129 in its entirety.
II. S.1129 Misses the Mark
Proponents of S. 1129 and Western Watersheds Project share a common
recognition that there exist significant problems in the administration
of the federal grazing program. It is true that the federal grazing
programs need improving. However, the main problem with the federal
public lands grazing program is not the permit length, the National
Environmental Policy Act requirements, or the administrative review
process that S.1129 seeks to remedy. The problem is that federal
agencies' administration of public lands across the west has failed to
meet very basic environmental standards as directed by Congress in the
agencies' respective organic acts\2\ and as established by other
environmental statutes and direction. This failure to lawfully
administer grazing on federal public lands is ubiquitous across the
western landscape.\3\ The current bill is designed less to improve
conditions than to entrench them in spite of a great majority of
Americans' clear interest in clean water, abundant wildlife, and
healthy ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Federal Land Policy Management Act, National Forest Management
Act, etc.
\3\ GAO. 1993. Rangeland Management: BLM's Range Improvement
Project Data Base Is Incomplete and Inaccurate. RCED-93-92. General
Accounting Office. Washington, DC. GAO; GAO. 1992. Rangeland
Management: Interior's Monitoring Has Fallen Short of Agency
Requirements. RCED-92-51. General Accounting Office. Washington, DC.
GAO; GAO. 1990. Public Rangelands: BLM Efforts to Prevent Unauthorized
Livestock Grazing Need Strengthening. RCED-91-17. General Accounting
Office. Washington, DC GAO; GAO. 1988. Public Rangelands: some riparian
areas restored but widespread improvement will be slow. RCED-88-105.
General Accounting Office. Washington, DC; GAO. 1988. Public
Rangelands: More Emphasis Needed on Declining and Overstocked Grazing
Allotments. RCED-88-80. General Accounting Office. Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each substantive part of S. 1129 would change federal public lands
grazing policy to the detriment of land managers' ability to properly
manage, the public's interest, and the condition of the landscape
itself. For example:
SEC. 2. Extends grazing permits and leases to last 20 years instead of
the current 10-year terms.
Grazing permits and leases would outlast the Resource
Management Plans that guide them, making overarching changes
harder to implement.
Limits opportunities for public and agency oversight, since
most allotments only get evaluated and monitored in advance of
permit or lease renewals, and limits opportunities to identify
and address adverse impacts.
Fails to address the need for change in response to changing
public values, environmental conditions, and legal obligations
in a timely fashion.
This would affect thousands of permits that have already
been reissued for ten years under Congressional riders that
have endured decades of environmental degradation given agency
inattention. In some cases, a 20 year renewal would mean up to
40 years without environmental oversight.
Backlog in the permit renewal process exists because the on-the-
ground environmental conditions of allotments are problematic, thus
environmental review and scientifically justifiable response is
properly demanded of the agency under the law. Arbitrarily deferring
attention and responsive management for an additional decade would
sweep those problems under the rug and violate the public trust
responsibilities of the agencies.
SEC. 3. SEC. 405. RENEWAL, TRANSFER, AND REISSUANCE OF GRAZING PERMITS
AND LEASES.
(c) Terms and conditions continue until the permit or lease
is reissued
Where a permit was extended for 20 years, this proposed
change would mean that agencies would not be able to
incorporate new information based on overarching guidance such
as that in a land use plan or for emerging science for nearly
two decades.
(e) (1) Categorically excludes permit and lease renewals
from the requirement to prepare an environmental
analysis if the decision continues the current
grazing management of the allotment.
The determination to continue the current management of the
allotment should be made in the context of a range of
alternatives and only after taking a hard look in a full
environmental analysis. The change proposed under S.1129
subverts NEPA by requiring the land managers to determine at
the outset what the outcome would be. Without a full assessment
of resource conditions, a review of the environmental context,
an updated compilation of current management and public
resources, there is no basis for determining to continue
current management.
Categorically excluding permit renewals disenfranchises
public lands users by limiting their ability to participate in
the full NEPA process. Without environmental review, there is
no opportunity for the agency to solicit and consider new
information and evidence that could help in decision-making.
OR, (2) If only minor modifications to the permit are
required, a categorical exclusions will be applied
when monitoring indicates conformance with Land Use
Plan objectives and there are no extraordinary
circumstances.
Any modifications to a permit should be considered within
the context of full NEPA. This subpart fails to identify who
would be making the determinations about which modifications
are necessary, fails to define ``minor,'' and leaves the
application of the categorical exclusion to manager discretion,
with no public involvement.
Monitoring results should be documented, disclosed and
compared with Land Use Plan objectives in a way that is
transparent and defensible, i.e. through a full environmental
analysis.
Taken together, subparts 1 and 2 of this section would essentially
allow nearly all management to be done without any public
participation, contrary to the provisions of NEPA, the Federal Lands
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and National Forest Management Act
(NFMA).
(f) Allows Secretary the sole discretion to set the timing
for grazing permit renewals where an EA does need
to be completed under (e)(1) and (2), and the
analysis to be scheduled with consideration of the
environmental significance of the allotment and the
available funding.
Paired with Sec. 405(c), this would allow grazing permit
renewals to be deferred indefinitely on lands where an
environmental analysis is required, i.e. the lands where
monitoring does not support conformance with Land Use Plan
objectives, where more than minor modifications are necessary,
and where management changes are necessary.
This incentivizes underfunding the range program, because
without funds, no full NEPA analysis could be required and no
changes would have to be made. Too much is left to Secretarial
discretion that remain legally mandated instead.
Basing environmental analysis on funding considerations
allows congressional budgets to dictate the conditions of our
public lands and undermines other regulations requiring
oversight at regular and frequent intervals.
Ultimately, this section emphasizes maintaining the status quo on
most allotments and limits the application of NEPA to very few permit
renewals. Without full oversight and public participation, the non-
livestock uses of these federal lands are de-prioritized and the
current conditions and management will persist indefinitely.
SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT TO GRAZING
APPEALS. (a) and (b) amend 16 USC 1612 and 43 USC 175 to
establish permittee appeals in accordance with the APA.
This section creates separate appeals processes for the
permittee and the public, which is unfair since all Americans
have equal stake in public lands management.
Permittee appeals cause the decision to automatically be
suspended pending resolution, creating a de facto automatic
``stay'' that could last years. (Unless the Secretary declares
an ``emergency regarding the deterioration of resources.'')
This is the reverse of the burden on the public, which requires
the demonstration of likely irreparable harm if the decision is
to go forward. The burden of proof to stay a grazing decision
should be the same, no matter who brings the appeal.
Appeals processes can last years, and under the proposed
legislation, permittee appeals would automatically forestall
agency-approved changes while the appeals are resolved, rather
than the current process wherein a petition for stay must be
granted in consideration of the facts of the appeal. Even
frivolous appeals could thwart management for years.
Permittee appeals would also be provided an evidentiary
hearing, which would make FS grazing decisions subject to
external review rather than line officer adjudication. This
differs from the current public appeals process and will be
very different if the appeals regulations are modified to the
``objection process'' as described under the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act (HFRA).
None of these legislative changes to agency regulations would
address the real problems of the public lands' grazing programs: the
direct and indirect ecological impacts of this land use in the arid
west and the mismanagement that has plagued the agency administration
since the Taylor Grazing Act was enacted. Instead, S. 1129 effectively
directs the land management agencies to turn a blind eye to the
environmental impacts on the ground, reducing and outright eliminating
the frequency by which those publicly supported environmental standards
are monitored, considered and enforced pursuant to law.
III. S.1129 Ignores the Environmental Consequences of the Livestock
Grazing Program
Public lands ranching is the most ubiquitous use of public lands in
the country, occurring on over 250,000,000 acres of land, an area
roughly the size of the states of California and Texas combined. Make
no mistake, despite the unfounded claims of proponents of S.1129,
researchers have suggested livestock grazing is ``the most severe and
insidious of the impacts on the rangeland'' and that grazing is the
``most insidious and pervasive threat to biodiversity on
rangelands.''\4\ Wildlife and species populations have declined as
direct conflict with livestock and shared habitats sustain a myriad of
ongoing impacts from public lands ranching. Direct impacts associated
with livestock includes the widespread pollution of water,\5\ the
removal of vegetation--i.e. direct competition with wildlife for
food,\6\ the alteration of complex habitat structures and composition
including the most significant contributor to desertification of the
western landscape,\7\ the physical impairment of stream-bank (riparian)
habitats\8\ that a majority of wildlife depend on for survival in the
semi-arid and arid west, soil disturbances which allow for displacement
of native vegetation with exotic weeds,\9\ the introduction and
continued exposure of disease and a host of additional direct impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Fleischner, ``Ecological Costs,'' 629. Noss and Cooperrider,
Saving Nature's Legacy, 221, 230, 258. See also generally Lauenroth et
al., ``Effects of Grazing on Ecosystems,'' 69.
\5\ Nearly all surface waters in the West are fouled with livestock
wastes that produce harmful waterborne bacteria and protozoa such as
Giardia. Suk, T., J. L. Riggs, B. C. Nelson. 1986. Water contamination
with giardia in back country areas in Proc. of the National Wilderness
Conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212. USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain
Res. Stn. Ogden, UT: 237-239. Livestock grazing is the single largest
contributor to non-point source pollution in New Mexico, accounting for
approximately 15 percent of the water quality impairments statewide. J.
Rankin. Plan to take better care of water quality is earning accolades;
conservationists disagree. Albuquerque Journal (May 15, 2005).
\6\ In one study, scientists found that domestic livestock grazing
consumed 88.8 percent of the available forage (cattle and
[domesticated] horses 82.3 percent, free-roaming horses 5.8 percent,
sheep 0.7 percent), leaving 11.2 percent to wildlife species (mule
ddder 10.1 percent, pronghorn 0.9 percent, bighorn sheep 0.1 percent,
elk 0.1 percent). Cited in R.R. Kindschy, C. Sundstrom, and J.D.
Yoakum, 1982, Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands-the Great Basin
of southeastern Oregon: pronghorns, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW 145, USDA-
Forest Service; USDI-BLM, Portland, OR: 6.
\7\ ``Improving grazing . . . has been the most potent
desertification force, in terms of total acreage [affecting 225 million
acres or 351,562 square miles], within the United States.'' Chaney, E.,
W. Elmore, W.S. Platts. 1993. Livestock grazing on western riparian
areas. Northwest Resource Information Center. Eagle, ID: 5 (fourth
printing; produced for the Environmental Protection Agency). Council on
Environmental Quality. 1980. The global 2000 report to the president of
the United States: entering the twenty-first century. Pergamon Press.
New York, NY.
\8\ Livestock grazing has damaged 80 percent of the streams and
riparian ecosystems in the arid West. Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, S.
Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian
ecosystems in the western United States. J. Soil & Water Conserv.
54(1): 19 (citations omitted). ``Extensive field observations int he
late 1980s suggest riparian areas throughout much of the West were in
the worst condition in history.'' Chaney E., W. Elmore, W.S. Platts.
1993. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. Northwest Resource
Information Center. Eagle, ID: 5 (fourth printing; published by the
Environmental Protection Agency). In 1988 the General Accounting Office
concluded that ``poorly managed livestock grazing is the major cause of
degraded riparian habitat on federal rangelands.'' GAO. 1988. Public
Rangelands: some riparian areas restored but widespread improvement
will be slow. RCED-88-105. General Accounting Office. Washington, DC:
11
\9\ ``At the community scale, livestock may be the major factor
causing weed invasions.'' Livestock cause weed invasion by grazing and
trampling native plants; clearing vegetation, destroying the soil crust
and preparing weed seedbeds through hoof action; and transporting and
dispersing seeds on their coats and through their digestive tracks.
Belsky, A.J. and J.L. Gelbard. 2000. Livestock grazing and weed
invasions in the arid west. Oregon Natural Desert Association. Bend, OR
(citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Water Quality
Mismanagement of public lands ranching has resulted in the
diminished quality and quantity of water originating from mountain
springs and streams, many of which once ran clear and clean enough to
drink from directly, a western American pastime. On several public land
allotments in Wyoming, the Bighorn National Forest conducted water
quality testing on streams running through permitted allotments and
found levels of E coli so high that the water was unsafe to touch with
exposed skin, let alone drink from as is the intent of state standards
promulgated by Congress as established by the Clean Water Act. In 2010,
the Journal of Water and Health published the results of an independent
study that was conducted in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California,
the chief source of drinking water for as many as 20 million American
citizens.\10\ Researchers found livestock grazing on public lands to be
the primary source of fecal coliform and E. coli contamination of
drinking water. In addition, researchers found that livestock may be
depositing enough Giardia-transmitting protozoa to infect the entire
city of Los Angeles each day. The Forest Service refuses to
appropriately respond by reducing livestock impact to California's
drinking water supply. On a vast majority of waters originating on
public lands grazed by livestock, agencies refuse to test, let alone
adequately consider water quality impacts in their environmental
reviews of permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Derlet, R.W., C.R. Goldman, and M.J. Connor. 2010. Reducing
the impact of summer cattle grazing on water quality in the Sierra
Nevada Mountains of California. Journal of Water and Health. 8(2): 326-
333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Infrastructure
In addition, livestock grazing infrastructure, commonly bought and
paid for by the American tax-payer, has quite literally tamed the once
wild West. Hundreds of thousands of miles of fencing on public lands
have obstructed natural wildlife movement and migration, and water
developments built to facilitate livestock use of public lands have
dewatered springs, seeps, and streams which serve as critical habitats
for a variety of wildlife across the west.
In administering public land ranching, agencies have subjected
public lands to widespread habitat alteration projects. One example
took place on public lands just outside of Yellowstone National Park, a
renowned public landscape celebrated by a majority of Americans for its
wildlife attraction and breathtaking beauty. On one grazed public
landscape near the Antelope Basin/Elk Lake area of Madison Valley over
50 square miles of open, mountain sagebrush grassland habitat was
subject to aggressive habitat manipulation, managers prescribed
herbicide eradication of sagebrush and forbs, multiple prescribed
burnings, and other impacts significantly diminishing wildlife habitat
to provide more forage for livestock use of the public land. This type
habitat manipulation to maintain and increase livestock use has
occurred, and continues to occur, on millions of acres of western
public lands that once teemed with wildlife and championed other
recreational opportunities impaired by livestock that the Department of
Interior recently found contribute an order of magnitude greater
economic value to local economies than public lands ranching.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Report: The Department of Interior's Economic Contributions--
June 21, 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Species and Habitat
As a direct consequence of agencies' continued prioritization of
livestock use on public lands and the widespread failure of management
to make ``significant progress'' toward improving public lands habitat
conditions on the ground on a significant number of permits throughout
the west, species endangerment continues to escalate at an alarming
rate. Livestock grazing is a contributing factor to more than 175
threatened and endangered species,\12\ twenty one percent of imperiled
species considered for listing on the Endangered Species Act, an amount
roughly equal to logging and mining combined.\13\ Agencies have been
unable or unwilling to adequately respond by reducing the duration of
livestock use or the number of livestock permitted in order to curtail
impact.\14\ Political pressure ensures that livestock is always the
unchanged factor in management decisions and managers spend reams of
bureaucratic resources and time justifying status quo levels of use in
light of the obvious impact on the ground. As habitat continues to
diminish, species continue to decline and the administrative burden in
response to clear Congressional intent to prevent species extinction,
make significant progress toward habitat improvement, and protect
environmental values continues to build.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform '94
Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 26. See
also B. Czech, P. R. Krausman, P.K. Devers. 2000. Economic associations
among causes of species endangerment in the United States. BioSci.
50(7): 594 (table 1) (reporting that authors' analysis of several
studies suggests that 182 species are endangered by livestock grazing)
and USDA-NRCS. 1997. America's private land: a geography of hope.
Program Aid 1548. USDA-Nat
\13\ Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J Dubow, A Phillips, E. Losos.
1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States:
assessing the relative importance of habitat destruction, alien
species, pollution, over-exploitation and disease. BioScience 48(8):
610.
\14\ Candidate Species List-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service http://
ecos.fws.gov/tess__public/pub/
SpeciesReport.do?listingType=C&mapstatus=1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. S.1129 Does Not and Cannot Solve the Problems of Public Lands
Ranching
The livestock industry wants S.1129 to protect it from
``instability,'' and industry testimony on the bill claimed 20-year
permits are critical for securing bank loans and leveraging assets.
Grazing permits are a privilege, not a right, and they can be withdrawn
at any time. This was the intent of the Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C.
Sec. 315b), has been articulated in agency regulations (e.g. 36 C.F.R.
222.3(b)), and upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as 2000.\15\ The
stability of a livestock operation comes from the operators'
conformance with the applicable laws and regulations; if a grazing
operation is in compliance with management parameters, the permit will
be renewed. Current grazing operations have priority to renew on the
allotment. We know of very, very few cases where grazing privileges
have been revoked, and those instances involved long-term trespass or
other legal violations. The industry has not been destabilized by ten-
year permits and has not provided compelling evidence that a longer
permit would do anything other than disenfranchise and diminish other
public land users and the agencies' opportunities to review their
operations impact on the ground and conformance with the law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728, 741 (2000)e
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The livestock industry also claims that S.1129 will prevent
fragmentation of western landscapes by preserving continuous open
space. This is flatly unfounded. The sale of private lands is
independent of grazing lease renewal; private land-owners sell for a
variety of reasons, none of which are tied to grazing permit expiration
dates.
Whereas pro-conservation litigation gets blamed for administrative
difficulties, in reality, this litigation is brought in an attempt to
improve the process. Conservation interests cannot win lawsuits unless
the agency is found to be in violation of the law, which requires of
conservationists that they demonstrate the lofty legal standard that
agency has acted in an ``arbitrary and capricious'' manner in making
their decisions. S.1129 seeks to undermine this pro-active
participation by eliminating opportunities for non-industry interests
to weigh in. It allows the fox to guard the hen house and prevents the
farmer from ever counting the flock. It is for these reasons that the
conservation community opposes S.1129 and, presumably, why the agencies
themselves have serious concerns and oppose the bill.
V. Conclusion
Because S.1129 does nothing more than promote administrative
practices that would further degrade our public lands and deter public
participation, the bill should be soundly rejected. It offers no remedy
for the problems that do exist with the federal lands grazing programs,
and instead guarantees that those problems will get worse. We strongly
urge the Senate's Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to reject S.1129 and
acknowledge that the administrative problems with the federal public
lands grazing program cannot be solved by entrenching special interests
and removing the oversight and protection of federal laws.
Respectfully submitted this 28th Day of March 2012.
______
San Juan County Council,
Friday Harbor, WA, March 20, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 703 Hart
Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman:
We are writing to offer our views on S. 1559, a bill to establish
the San Juan Islands National Conservation Area in the San Juan
Islands, Washington, which will be the subject of the Committee's
hearing on March 22, 2012.
The great majority of the locations comprising the proposed
National Conservation Area are in San Juan County.
The San Juan County Council supports without qualification S. 1559
and sincerely thanks Senators Cantwell and Murray for their leadership
on this issue and their ongoing dedication to protecting this
nationally important area.
The lands in question include popular recreation areas, three
historic lighthouses, a number of islands, headlands, and ecologically
important areas. These BLM properties have clear historic, ecological,
scenic and recreational value and many members of the community have
invested a great deal of time and energy conserving these values.
As specified in S. 1559, the National Conservation Area planning
process would allow citizens of the county to have considerable input
into establishing management goals and practices for these areas. The
NCA designation will provide a great degree of certainty in how these
lands will be managed into the future.
For these reasons the San Juan County Council adopted a resolution
of support for a National Conservation Area designation in November,
2010 [Resolution 48-2010]. Our support for a National Conservation Area
designation remains undiminished and we urge the speedy passage of S.
1559. We ask that this letter and the attached copy of Resolution 48-
2010 be made part of the hearing record.
Sincerely,
Lovel Pratt,
Member, District No. 1.
Richard Peterson,
Member, District No. 2.
Howard Rosenfeld,
Member, District No. 3
Richard Fralick,
Member, District No. 4.
Patty Miller,
Chair, District No. 5.
Jamie Stephens,
Vice-Chair, District No. 6.
______
Islanders for the San Juan Islands National Conservation
Area,
March 21, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 703 Hart
Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman:
On behalf of Islanders for the San Juan Islands National
Conservation Area, I am writing to offer our views on S. 1559, a bill
to establish the San Juan Islands National Conservation Area in the San
Juan Islands, Washington, which will be the subject of the Committee's
hearing on March 22, 2012. Islanders for the San Juan Islands National
Conservation Area is a group of citizens in the San Juan Islands that
has worked for three years in pursuit of permanent protection for the
BLM lands in the San Juan Islands and a strong community voice in the
management of those lands. We strongly support S. 1559 (The San Juan
Islands National Conservation Area Act) and urge its speedy passage.
The San Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act (S. 1559) would
protect important lands
The bill provides permanent protection to lands that are
treasured by our community. These lands provide recreation for
residents of and visitors to our islands, are home to
diminishing natural habitats, house historic lighthouses,
protect sites of local cultural and archaeological
significance, provide a natural classroom for our children and
help make the San Juan Islands an attractive destination for
visitors, residents and businesses. These lands are heavily
used, with over 65,000 visitors a year. Our local economy is
heavily dependent on tourism and that tourism is based on our
unique and healthy natural landscape. The bill would
permanently protect important parts of that landscape.
The San Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act (S. 1559) would
only affect BLM lands
The bill only affects the BLM lands in the islands. As
locals, we are particularly interested in assuring that the
bill protects those lands without having impact on neighboring
private property. The bill also ensures that any future
acquisitions in the area would be only through exchange,
donation, or purchase from a willing seller. We believe these
aspects of the bill are in the best interest of the community.
The San Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act (S.1559) gives the
community a voice
The community is strongly impacted by the way these lands are
managed and needs to have a voice in that management. The bill
directs the BLM to work closely with the community in
developing the management plan for the National Conservation
Area. This community voice in the management of these lands is
an important goal of ours.
The San Juan Islands National Conservation Area Act (S.1559) has broad
community support
The lands affected by this bill are currently cared for by
the community. Volunteer groups monitor these lands, build and
maintain trails on these lands, restore and interpret the
historic lighthouses on these lands and conduct citizen science
research on these lands. The BLM lands in the San Juan Islands
make up less than one quarter of one percent of BLM lands in
Washington State but attract more volunteer hours per year than
the rest of the state's BLM lands combined. The groups that
engage in that volunteer work are among the driving forces in
our efforts to seek a National Conservation Area designation
for these lands. The broader community is also strongly behind
this protection. We have received support from over 300 local
governments, businesses, organizations and individuals. From
the governments of San Juan, Skagit and Whatcom Counties to the
Samish Indian Nation and the San Juan Visitors Bureau, the
community has come out strongly in support of a National
Conservation Area designation for these lands.
The Islanders for the San Juan Islands National Conservation Area
supports without qualification S. 1559 and sincerely thanks Senators
Cantwell and Murray for their leadership on this issue and their
ongoing dedication to protecting this nationally important area.
We have attached a list of governments, businesses, organizations
and individuals who have written in support of this effort as well as a
description of some of the unique characteristics of these lands.
Sincerely,
Asha Lela,
Chair.
______
Statement of The Wilderness Society, Sheep Mountain Alliance, San Juan
Citizens Alliance, Ridgway-Ouray Community Council, Silverton Mountain
School, Colorado Mountain Club, Colorado Environmental Coalition,
Colorado Wild, Environment Colorado, Campaign for America's Wilderness
on s. 1635
On behalf of The Wilderness Society and its half million members
and supporters nationwide, and the organizations listed above, we would
like to thank the Committee for considering the San Juan Mountains
Wilderness Act. This bill would not only protect some of Colorado's
beloved scenic wild country, it is also the product of years of
painstaking research and consultation with a myriad of interested and
affected stakeholders in southwest Colorado. We would especially like
to thank Senator Udall for his long-standing dedication to land
protection, and commitment to protecting these deserving areas. We also
want to thank Senator Michael Bennet, who is an original cosponsor of
S. 1635.
Colorado has a long and rich tradition of wilderness protection,
with nearly twenty bills enacted over the last 45 years. All of these
have shared the characteristics of broad citizen and stakeholder
support and cooperation among the State's delegation members. The San
Juan Mountains Wilderness Act is carrying on this proud Colorado
tradition.
This legislation had its genesis with the interest of San Miguel
County citizens in adding deserving wild land areas to the already
designated Mt. Sneffels and Lizard Head Wildernesses, and adding
statutory protection to several other spectacular and qualifying
backcountry landscapes. Residents of neighboring counties also
advocated protection for deserving contiguous lands outside San Miguel
County, and by the Spring of 2009, the proposal included lands in three
counties (San Miguel, Ouray, and San Juan), and enjoyed nearly
universal support in the region. More detail about that follows.
Colorado's San Juan Mountains offer a myriad of benefits and
services to residents of Colorado and visitors from across the nation.
Spectacular mountain vistas, clean water and air, ongoing ranching
operations, healthy wildlife populations, and a wide variety of world-
class recreational opportunities, from hunting and angling to skiing,
hiking, and boating. In decades past, hard rock mining was a major
force in the region's development; evidence of this history is
scattered across the landscape in the form of weathered mill sites,
mine shafts, and tailings piles. As the economic drivers in the
intermountain West steadily evolved during the post-war 20th century,
and outdoor recreation grew in popularity, local communities looked
increasingly toward tourism and recreation as a significant part of
their economic foundations. Visitors come to the region in large
numbers to enjoy not only backcountry challenges, but also to
experience the area's rich history. Thousands of tourists ride the
original narrow gauge train from Durango to Silverton each year, to
wander the town's historic main street or learn about the region's
mining history.
As one measure of this modern economy, hunting and fishing alone
brought in, in direct expenditures, $7.2 million in San Miguel County,
$2.4 million in Ouray County, and $1.3 million in San Juan County in
2002. Hunting and fishing groups routinely emphasize the importance of
protected lands as the basis for healthy game populations.
As the economy of the San Juan Mountains region has evolved into
what it is today, and as more and more people visit to experience the
natural and recreational values offered by the area's public lands, the
protection of those lands has become increasingly valued by local
residents, stakeholders, and elected officials. This phenomenon has
occurred concurrent with our increasing knowledge of the importance of
large areas of undisturbed land for a broad array of wildlife, both to
maintain functioning natural systems, and for the human benefits that
healthy wildlife populations provide. Protective designations also help
to ensure the resiliency of these areas in the face of climate change.
Protected public lands provide a critical benefit to local
communities in the form of clean water and air. Each of the areas
proposed for permanent protection in this legislation contain portions
of the watersheds that comprise the water supplies of Telluride, Ouray,
Ridgway, and Silverton. Wilderness will keep those watersheds intact
and ensure they are able to provide clean water to those communities in
perpetuity.
Natural and Human Values of the San Juan Mountains
The San Juan Mountains, and pointedly the areas proposed for
protection in this legislation, offer a rich array of natural and
environmental values. The existing Mt. Sneffels and Lizard Head
Wilderness areas are the headwaters of the San Miguel, Dolores, and
Uncompahgre Rivers, and many of their tributaries, such as Deep Creek,
Dallas Creek, Bilk Creek, and Wilson Creek. Areas in the legislation
make up large portions of the municipal water supplies for towns in all
three counties. These waterways also offer some of the West's finest
fishing opportunities-anglers from across the country come to southwest
Colorado to fish for many species, including the iconic Colorado
Cutthroat Trout.
What wildlife of all kinds needs more than anything is space -
large areas of land in which to feed, grow, and bear their young. The
mountain areas in the legislation will expand the core habitat already
protected in the Mt. Sneffels and Lizard Head Wildernesses, and
increase the elevation range of existing protected areas by adding
habitat rich down-slope areas. The Sheep Mountain designation would add
another significant core habitat area, and improve the wildlife
connectivity to protected areas on the San Juan National Forest, like
the Weminuche Wilderness. These mountain designations will benefit
existing populations of Black bear, elk, bighorn sheep, and bird
species such as the white-tailed ptarmigan, and provide critical
habitat for other wildlife such as Canada lynx and Northern goshawk.
Moving down from the higher mountain areas, the proposed McKenna
Peak Wilderness and mineral withdrawal for Naturita Canyon would
protect mid-elevation lands critical as winter range for deer and elk
(North Mountain, which borders McKenna Peak, contains one of the
largest deer and elk herds in Colorado), as well as habitat for such
species as mountain lion, bald eagle, and peregrine falcon. The mineral
withdrawal proposed for Naturita Canyon would protect more of these
vital lands, benefitting not only the resident deer, elk, bobcat,
raptors and rare birds like the Mexican spotted owl; but a rich
riparian zone as well.
Ecosystem representation, or selecting areas for protection that
represent a full range of habitats and vegetation types, is a way of
ensuring protection of the species that rely on these various
ecosystems for survival. The Nature Conservancy, which practices this
``coarse filter'' method, estimates that 85% to 90% of all species in a
region can be protected via ecosystem representation. Protecting down-
slope mountain landscapes, as well as mid-elevation areas like McKenna
Peak and Naturita Canyon would expand ecosystem representation in the
region; this helps fulfill the purposes not only of the 1964 Wilderness
Act, but of conservation biology overall.
Agriculture has a rich history in the San Juan Mountains, and not
only provides a long-standing livelihood for multi-generational
families, but also forms an essential part of the cultural fabric of
the entire region. There are nearly a dozen working ranches with
allotments that overlap the areas in the legislation. These ranch
operators were all consulted as the legislation was crafted. One, Ouray
County rancher Liza Clarke, owner of the Ferguson Family Ranch, wrote:
I was happy to learn that the proposed boundaries avoid any
substantial conflict with existing uses and private property. I
understand that grazing leases will continue under any new
wilderness designation.'' ``I respectfully request that you
introduce legislation to expand the Sneffels Wilderness Area in
Ouray County. This proposal has widespread support in our
County and includes signature views, including Mount Sneffels
itself which is currently only partially contained in its
namesake Wilderness Area.''
Recreation and tourism is the backbone of the San Juan Mountains
regional economy. For visitors who come to explore the region's
history, go on a jeep tour, or ride the Durango-Silverton train, the
backdrop views of majestic mountain peaks is essential to the
experience. Winter recreation is dominated by skiing, including the
developed alpine resort of Telluride, the recently developed Silverton
Mountain area, and Colorado's only heli-skiing operation. Backcountry
skiing is hugely popular across the range.
In the warmer months, recreational users comb the mountains. Hikers
enjoy thousands of miles of trails, whether to see the spectacular
views of the Telluride valley from atop its enclosing cliffs, or
through a multi-day backpack into the beautiful Ice Lakes Basin out of
Silverton. Climbers challenge themselves against the iconic 14,150 foot
Mt. Sneffels, the rock walls near Telluride, and the famous frozen
waterfalls just outside of Ouray. The San Juan Mountains are a world
class destination for mountain biking, and many trails skirt the edges
of the areas in S. 1635. The famous Hard Rock 100 footrace-one of most
grueling of its kind in the nation-courses through the heart of the
region.
Outreach to Regional Stakeholders
The process of outreach for, and vetting of, the San Juan Mountains
Wilderness proposal has been detailed and comprehensive. Thanks to the
leadership of local citizens groups in the three counties - Sheep
Mountain Alliance in San Miguel County, the Ridgway-Ouray Community
Council in Ouray County, the Silverton Mountain School in San Juan
County, and the San Juan Citizens Alliance for the McKenna Peak
proposal-the original proposal was crafted with extensive and intimate
familiarity of the landscapes of interest. Each of these local groups
worked closely with their respective county governments in carefully
considering the ramifications and benefits of protective designations.
San Miguel County first expressed support for wilderness legislation in
June 2007, followed a short time later by the Commission of Ouray
County. San Juan County followed in 2009, with an endorsement of
expanding the proposed Sheep Mountain Special Management Area.
Extensive outreach to stakeholders that could directly or
indirectly be affected by the legislation was conducted for over two
years before legislation was introduced, involving painstaking work to
consult with, and respond to, anyone with a stake in these
designations. Every livestock operator with a permit in the proposed
areas was contacted, as were the owners of private land inside the
areas (mostly patented mining claims), water right holders, recreation
interests, State agencies, and local governments. Numerous adjustments
were made to the areas in the bill to accommodate concerns of these
parties. Just a few examples follow.
The Sheep Mountain area was originally proposed for-with strong
local support-designation as wilderness. Early in the outreach process,
wilderness advocates were approached by the helicopter-supported skiing
company Helitrax, who informed us that Sheep Mountain was the heart of
their operation, in which they land helicopters to drop off skiers.
This particular use would not be allowed in a wilderness and therefore
a compromise was crafted to accommodate this use while protecting the
wild character of Sheep Mountain via a Special Management Area. This
also includes a provision that would designate the area as wilderness
if the company ever were to cease operations in the area.
Another example of efforts to make the legislation work for
stakeholders is with the Towns of Telluride and Ophir. Both Towns had
either historic or potential new water supply facilities in the
proposed areas (Telluride in the proposed Liberty Bell addition to Mt.
Sneffels Wilderness, and Ophir in the Sheep Mountain SMA); staff from
both Towns were consulted with to adjust boundaries to make sure that
designations wouldn't interfere with the development or operation of
these water supplies.
Motorized recreation is an important piece of the recreational
landscape in the San Juan Mountains, and thousands of visitors come
each year to experience the Ophir Pass jeep road and Alpine Loop. Great
care was taken to ensure that motorized routes would not be closed by
the legislation, and boundaries were drawn or adjusted meticulously to
achieve that. For example, the boundaries of McKenna Peak and Naturita
Canyon were reduced significantly from what was originally proposed to
eliminate known motorized routes. Similarly, the boundaries of the
Whitehouse and Last Dollar additions to the Mt. Sneffels Wilderness
were adjusted to provide for snowmobile access to backcountry huts
operated by San Juan Huts for stocking and maintenance.
Although southwest Colorado makes important contributions to energy
production, the areas in this legislation are not part of that. No
existing oil and gas leases are affected by the proposed designations,
and exploratory wells recently drilled near McKenna Peak have not
discovered developable deposits.
A number of boundary adjustment recommendations were made to
improve manageability or to eliminate specific potential conflicts.
These changes assured a steadily increasing degree of support
throughout the outreach and vetting process.
Support for the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act
The result of the consultation with numerous stakeholders and
adjustments made to the proposal is legislation that enjoys support
both deep and broad. Written support for the legislation has been
received from:
San Miguel County Board of County Commissioners
Ouray County Board of County Commissioners
San Juan County Board of County Commissioners
Town of Telluride
Town of Ophir
Town of Mountain Village
Town of Ridgway
City of Ouray
San Miguel County Open Space Commission
San Miguel Conservation Foundation
Telluride Tourism Board
Telluride Open Space Commission
Rancher and grazing permittee Liza Clark
Hidden Lakes Home Owners Association
San Bernardo Home Owners Association
Many adjacent landowners
Telluride Helitrax
Hard Rock 100 Endurance Run
San Miguel County Sheriff
Prominent members of the local mountain biking community
Numerous local, regional, and national conservation and
recreation organizations.
We hope that the information and history included here will be of
help with Committee members as they consider the merits of S. 1635. The
Wilderness Society along with all the other supporters of this
legislation stand ready to help in any way, and we encourage the
Members of this Subcommittee and the full Energy and Natural Resources
Committee to support this legislation, and report it expeditiously for
consideration by the full Senate.
We'd like to again thank Senator Udall for his excellent work in
crafting this legislation, and also thank the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to submit our views on S. 1635.
______
Montana Wilderness Association,
Helena, MT, March 19, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman,
On behalf of the Montana Wilderness Association, and our more than
5000 members, thank you for the opportunity to submit this written
testimony in support of S. 1774, the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act.
I also want to express my deep gratitude to Senator Baucus for
sponsoring the Heritage Act. For the record, the Montana Wilderness
Association strongly and enthusiastically supports the Heritage Act.
About the Montana Wilderness Association
The mission of the Montana Wilderness Association is to protect
Montana's wilderness heritage, quiet beauty, and outdoor traditions,
now and for future generations. Founded 53 years ago by Montana
hunters, conservationists and small business owners, The Montana
Wilderness Association was established to prevent further loss of
Montana's wilderness heritage. Our founders were instrumental in the
passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and the Montana Wilderness
Association subsequently led the fight to win designation for virtually
every wilderness area in the state, including the Scapegoat, Absaroka-
Beartooth, Rattlesnake, Lee Metcalf, Great Bear, and Welcome Creek, as
well as Wild and Scenic designations for the Flathead and Missouri
rivers.
Our members view Montana's remaining wild country as a public trust
that should be managed so Montanans will always have access to great
hunting, fishing, camping under the stars, and quiet mountain trails.
The Rocky Mountain Front
Known as the place in Montana where the Great Plains meet the Rocky
Mountains and where grizzly bears still venture out onto their native
prairie habitat, the Rocky Mountain Front is a wild and rugged land
that provides clean water for nearby communities and habitat for prized
big game animals such as elk and bighorn sheep. By providing some of
the highest quality backcountry experiences and opportunities for
solitude, the Rocky Mountain Front supports a way of life for many
Montanans. Whether it be hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or just
watching wildlife, the Rocky Mountain Front holds the essence of that
what defines Montana. To put it simply, Montana would not be Montana
without the Rocky Mountain Front.
The backcountry recreation opportunities provided by the Rocky
Mountain Front also have a significant economic impact on local
communities. According to data collected by Montana Fish Wildlife and
Parks over the past five years, sportsmen have been spending $10
million each year as they hunt along the Rocky Mountain Front. It is
the local hotels, restaurants, taverns, grocery stores, and gas
stations that feel the benefits of this $10 million pulse of economic
activity. Protecting the Rocky Mountain Front so backcountry recreation
opportunities remain tomorrow as they do today will ensure the economic
impact of the Rocky Mountain Front is sustained and local communities
benefit well into the future. Protecting the Rocky Mountain Front will
maintain a lifestyle and quality of life that attracts people to
Montana's communities to establish new businesses and raise families as
well as contribute to the current and future economic prosperity and
stability of those communities.
The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act
Often referred to as a ``made in Montana'' solution, the Heritage
Act is the result of a five-year effort aimed at protecting the wild
backcountry of the Rocky Mountain Front while ensuring livestock
grazing opportunities and maintaining access for hunting, fishing,
horseback riding, hiking, and camping. This effort required eight
public meetings, countless kitchen table discussions, and small group
meetings with local permittees, elected officials, and landowners. This
locally driven collaborative effort resulted in many substantive
changes being made to the Heritage Act. These changes to the Heritage
Act ensure there is a place for a variety of uses and activities on the
Rocky Mountain Front while still protecting the wild backcountry that
makes the Front such a special place for both people and wildlife.
The Heritage Act protects a substantial portion for the Rocky
Mountain Front by designating approximately 67,160 acres of Lewis and
Clark National Forest as additions to the Bob Marshall and Scapegoat
Wilderness areas. In addition, the Heritage Act designates 208,112
acres of Lewis and Clark National Forest and Bureau of Land Management
lands as a Conservation Management Area. In this Conservation
Management Area, The Heritage Act limits the construction of new roads
while ensuring the public use of current motorized routes, which
provide public access for hunting, fishing, biking, and grazing. These
routes are also used to achieve vegetation management objectives such
as thinning, post and pole, and firewood gathering.
The Heritage Act also prioritizes the eradication and prevention of
noxious weeds on approximately 405,272 acres of U.S. Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management lands along the Rocky Mountain Front.
Prioritizing noxious weed eradication and prevention on public lands
along the Rocky Mountain Front will help to protect adjacent private
ranchlands and ensure important wildlife habitats remain intact.
Through the designation of wilderness additions to the Bob Marshall
and Scapegoat Wilderness Areas, the designation of a Conservation
Management Area on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
lands, and the prioritizing of the eradication and prevention of
noxious weeds, the Heritage Act will maintain the wild backcountry and
wildlife habitats that make the Rocky Mountain Front such a wild and
special place to Montanans.
Conclusion
The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act is a shining example of how
Montanans can put their differences aside and work together to preserve
our state's wild backcountry while meeting the needs of local
communities. The Montana Wilderness Association strongly and
enthusiastically supports S. 1774, the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage
Act, and the permanent protections it provides. We urge the Committee
to approve the bill and send it to the floor for consideration by the
Senate.
Sincerely,
Brian Syber,
Executive Director.
______
Montana Bowhunters Association,
Billings, MT, April 4, 2012.
Hon. Max Baucus,
113, 3rd St. North, Great Falls, MT.
Dear Max--
As one of Montana's leading sportsman's organizations, the MBA is
very interested in the future of the Rocky Mountain Front as critical
wildlife habitat. We understand the importance of protecting it from
further development, and realize that effort requires assistance from
many organizations. We are pleased to add our endorsement to the Rocky
Mountain Front Heritage Act, and thank you for your support of this
collaborative effort.
Sincerely,
Joelle Selk,
President.
______
Statement of Dawn Baker, Choteau, MT, on S. 1774
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of the
subcommittee:
We farm and ranch ten miles north of Choteau, MT and are in the
heart of the controversy about the Heritage Act. I appreciate the time
and energy that has gone into the development of the Heritage Act. It
is thoughtful and includes all local interests. Yes there is some
opposition but these local people who don't normally take time to enjoy
the wilderness anyway. Many of them are the same folks who oppose
anything that does not have to do with development and making money. We
live simply and can afford to enjoy those beautiful and breath taking
areas that we hope you will protect.
I would appreciate your consideration in getting this important act
passed. Our wilderness future on the Rocky Mountain Front depends on
it!
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Statement of The Wilderness Society, on S. 1774,
The Wilderness Society (TWS), representing over 500,000 supporters
and members, supports S. 1774, the ``Rocky Mountain Front Heritage
Act'' introduced by Montana Senator Max Baucus.
Montana's Rocky Mountain Front (the ``Front``) is truly an
outstanding natural and cultural resource of national significance. It
is a place where jagged limestone mountains rise up from the Great
Plains in an unbroken 110-mile chain along the eastern side of the
Continental Divide. This collision of vast landforms has created a
foothill transition zone that is among the finest wildlife habitat in
the lower 48 states. It is also a world-class destination for outdoor
recreation in a natural setting of unparalleled splendor. Flanking the
public wildlands are large working ranches and family farms along with
guest ranches; many of these properties have been passed down from
generation to generation.
The Front lies adjacent to the Bob Marshall Wilderness (``the
Bob''), named in honor of Bob Marshall; forester, wilderness
preservation pioneer, and cofounder of The Wilderness Society. The Bob
was originally set aside as the South Fork, Pentagon, and Sun River
Primitive Areas between the years of 1931-1934 then, congressionally
designated as Wilderness in 1964. Adjoining the Bob to the north is the
Great Bear Wilderness and to the south of the Bob is the Scapegoat
Wilderness. Taken together, these three Wilderness areas total
approximately 1.5 million acres of carefully preserved public lands,
that along with Glacier National Park comprise a critical piece of the
larger landscape called the Crown of the Continent.
To the Blackfeet Nation, the Front is known as Miistakis, the
Backbone of the World, and is a part of their ancestral homeland.
Fragments of the Old North Trail are still visible along this wild and
sparsely inhabited landscape, primarily in the form of ruts left by the
travois the continent's first natives pulled. Much of the pristine
130,000-acre area for the northern end of the Front, referred to as the
Badger-Two Medicine area has been nominated for inclusion in one of the
nation's largest Traditional Cultural Districts. A.B. Guthrie Jr.,
Montana's native son, Pulitzer Prize winning novelist, and resident of
the Front, eloquently describes the Rocky Mountain Front in The Big
Sky:
Overhead there was more sky than a man could think, curving
deep and far and empty, except maybe for a hawk or an eagle
sailing.The eye could follow the river winding and see where
canyons notched the blue mountains. One peak looked like an ear
turned up on its side. Trees and river and the wide valley and
the brown hills on either side floated in the fall haze, lazy
and comfortable and sleepy now in autumn. It was as pretty a
place as a man could wish, a prime place . . .
No place could be prettier than this valley, with two buttes
rising to the south and the tan hills ridged wide on the sides,
and cottonwood and black birch and sagebrush growing, and elk
and deer about and buffalo coming down from the benches to
drink. It was a place a man could spend his whole life in and
never wish for better . . .
S.1774 Continues the Tradition of Collaborative Conservation--
Recognizing the unique and superlative qualities of the Rocky Mountain
Front, Montana citizens from all walks of life joined together to
develop the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act. The goal of this loose-
knit and diverse group, known as the Coalition to Protect the Rocky
Mountain Front (the ``Coalition''), was to develop legislative language
that provides meaningful protection for the federally-owned public
lands of the Front while preserving traditional uses consistent with
protecting this special place. For more than five years, the members of
the Coalition (which includes TWS) have worked diligently to include
diverse perspectives, provide ample opportunities for public scrutiny,
respond to everyone that provided input and whenever possible
accommodate the needs of diverse stakeholders (Appendix A*). The Rocky
Mountain Front Heritage Act follows in the footsteps of other Front
collaborative partnerships that have successfully conserved the
wildlife, water, and ranching heritage of the area (Appendix B). Almost
a century ago, sportsmen purchased lands around the Sun River's
headwaters to create the state's first wildlife refuge, the 200-000-
acre Sun River Game Preserve. The nation's premier Wilderness area, the
Bob Marshall, includes some areas of the Front and Congress recently
put an end to oil and gas leasing on all the Front's federal lands.
State wildlife officials have set aside key areas for wildlife, such as
the Blackleaf and Sun River wildlife management areas, to protect
important winter range for elk and other big game. In addition, many
private landowners have been full partners in Front conservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All appendixes have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.1774 Will Protect the Front's Rich Array of Wildlife and Game
Species--TWS supports S. 1774 because it will protect the vital
National Forest and BLM lands that connect the alpine Wilderness to the
west and the vital wildlife winter range on the prairie to the east.
The land encompassed in S.1774 represents an irreplaceable biological
link, providing habitat for more than 290 wildlife species and at least
700 plant species, a full third of Montana's total. Except for wild
bison, the Front continues to harbor all the species present when Lewis
and Clark first laid eyes on these limestone reefs as they paddled up
the Missouri River 200 years ago.
The Front is the last place where grizzly bears still roam onto the
Great Plains. Other threatened species, such as Canadian lynx and gray
wolf, persist in numbers rivaled in few other places. Also present are
healthy populations of bobcats, wolverines, swift and red foxes, moose,
golden and bald eagles, harlequin ducks, badgers, peregrine falcons,
native cutthroat trout, at least seven species of owl, and at least 11
species of hawk. The main wildlife attraction, however, is big game.
Elk, bighorn sheep, mule and whitetail deer, and mountain goats all
depend on the lower-elevation landscapes of the Rockies' eastern front,
where mild Chinook winds clear enough snow for winter forage and easier
travel.
Economic Contribution of Hunting on the Front--Along the Rocky
Mountain Front, expenditures by hunters and anglers have held steady
through the most recent recession, making these popular outdoor
pursuits a rare bright spot when compared to the struggles of the
broader economy.
According to Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MTFWP) data, hunter
expenditures along the Front, over a five year period from 2006 to
2010, have held steady despite the broader economic challenges facing
other industries during the recent recession.
In real terms, during 2006, at the peak of the last business cycle,
sportsmen hunting along the Front spent $9.8 million; growing to $10.4
million in 2008 in the middle of the recession; and falling only
slightly in 2010 to $10.1 million.
These impressive numbers show that the high quality of the hunting
resources on the Rocky Mountain Front is known not only to local
residents but also to hunters from across the region and the country.
In 2010 alone, MTFWP measured more than 90,000 hunter days on its
districts along the Front.
According to MTFWP most hunters visit the Front for upland game
birds, deer, and elk while a smaller number of sportsmen hunted
antelope, big horn sheep, moose, and mountain goats. In 2010, sportsmen
hunting upland game birds spent more than $4 million and those hunting
deer and elk spent more than $5 million.
The Wilderness Society Strongly Supports all Three Components of S.
1774
Currently there is no permanent plan in place to protect existing
uses on the Front's over 400,000 acres of Forest Service and BLM lands.
This means that future land management could look very different from
today. Montanans from all walks of life want the Front to maintain its
current character and S. 1774 accomplishes this goal through its three-
pronged approach described below.
Conservation Management Area (CMA)
208,160 acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land
would be managed under the CMA which is intended to keep things the way
they are and protect against an uncertain future.
Wilderness
The Heritage Act would add 50,401 acres to the Bob Marshall
Wilderness and 16,711 acres to the Scapegoat Wilderness for a total of
67,112 acres. The Forest Service currently manages all of the proposed
acres for their wilderness character.
The legislation makes clear that grazing shall continue within
wilderness areas, and TWS supports the continued grazing of livestock
consistent with the Wilderness Act in the proposed wilderness
additions.
Noxious Weeds Management
Exotic and invasive species are a common enemy for ranchers,
sportsmen, private landowners and public land managers and S. 1774
would require the Forest Service and the BLM to prioritize noxious weed
management on the public lands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) has identified noxious weeds as one of the top three threats to
the outstanding biological diversity on the Front. The threat of
noxious weeds is real on the public lands of the Front and is an issue
that federal land managers can and must address to protect the
ecological and economic integrity of the public and adjacent private
lands (see Appendix C).
Other Management Considerations
Fire Management and Vegetation Management
The Heritage Act ensures that land managers maintain the ability to
control wildfires. Section 4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act states that
``such measures may be taken as necessary in the control of fires,
insects and diseases'' within wilderness. The Heritage Act reaffirms
this authority.
The Heritage Act also provides the Forest Service the authority to
carry out vegetation management projects within the CMA, consistent
with the purposes of the Act.
Motorized Use and Public Access There are currently 155 miles of
legal motorized roads and trails on the Front. S. 1774 authorizes
motorized vehicle use to continue within the CMA on designated routes.
The Act would not close any route that is currently open to motorized
vehicles.
Mountain Bicyclists
The Heritage Act retains over 300 miles of trails and roads for
cyclists on the Front and gives flexibility to create new bike trails
in the future.
Conclusion
S. 1774 is truly ``bottom-up'' and represents the product of
neighbors and even adversaries sitting down long enough to get to know
one another, learning to respect one another, and forging a common
vision for the management of our public lands. Through a laborious
process requiring ranchers, landowners, outfitters and others to
volunteer hundreds of hours of their time, the Coalition was able to
come to agreement on how the Front should be managed in the future. S.
1774 reflects this vision.
TWS supports S. 1774 and is committed to working with Senator
Baucus, the committee and the administration to address concerns, and
ensure that the Heritage Act is the best possible legislation for
Montana and the nation. We look forward to seeing this legislation
signed into law and urge the committee to advance it as expeditiously
as possible.
______
Statement of Ann M. Drake, President, Winnemucca NV, on S. 1788
I am writing in support of S. 1788-Pine Forest Range Recreation
Enhancement Act, a bill to designate the Pine Forest Range Wilderness
area in Humboldt County, NV, included in the miscellaneous public lands
bills presented during the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee
hearing Thursday, March 22, 2012.
As part of the original working group, I am pleased and satisfied
that this final product, if enacted into legislation, will protect the
unique and spectacular nature of this area while providing clear and
reasonable guidelines for use.
Clarity was the motivation for many of the stakeholders who
participated in the process, which was presented as an effort to move
forward on two long-standing Wilderness Study Areas. A variety of
backgrounds were represented, each with very different interests and
agendas. The one common thread was the value we all placed on the lands
in consideration. Exactly what was of value to each of us was as
diverse as the group itself, and included much more than monetary
considerations.
Meeting for the first time was uncomfortable for many of us, unsure
of how our interests could be protected amidst the varying (and
seemingly opposite) agendas. Respect, experience, common sense, and
some level of intelligence proved potent, and resulted in the
development of the final recommendations. We started in meeting room
chairs, gathered around tables with maps, toured the actual land under
consideration, and returned to the meeting room. Ideas and perspectives
may have changed through the process, but I believe the end product
accomplished exactly what we intended from the beginning, which was to
protect our vested interests in an area of priceless value.
______
Friends of Nevada,
Reno, NV, March 19, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, 703 Hart
Senate Office Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman:
I want to thank you so much for holding a hearing on S. 1788, a
bill to designate the Pine Forest Range Wilderness in Humboldt County,
Nevada.
As one of the Pine Working Group members, representing wilderness,
I wanted to let you personally know how productive our meetings and
field tours were as we worked together to find common sense solutions
for boundaries for the Pine Forest Range proposed wilderness. Jim
Jeffress from Trout Unlimited did an exceptional job heading up the
process.
Everyone brought their ideas, values and concerns to the table and
we learned from each other and shared stories on why this area is so
important to us and worth protecting.
Friends of Nevada Wilderness and our volunteers are looking forward
to getting together with the Bureau of Land Management and our fellow
Pine Forest Working Group members to do on-the-ground projects that
will improve wildlife habitat, recreation access, and help keep this
gem of an area wild for future generations.
Please know our 1,400 members are extremely supportive of this
process and its outcome.
Let us know if there is anything that we can do to help you move
this process along. Again, our deepest thanks go out to you.
Sincerely,
Shaaron Netherton,
Executive Director.
______
Humboldt County Board of Commissioners,
Winnemucca, NV, March 12, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 703 Hart Senate
Office, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman:
In August 2009, the Humboldt County Commission sanctioned a new
approach in reviewing the remaining Wilderness Study Area Inventory
within Humboldt County. The recommended process focused on the two
WSA's in the Pine Forest Range. A collaborative group ``Pine Forest WSA
Working Group'' with over twenty members from diverse interest groups
across northern Nevada was formed. The group formulated and moved
forward twelve issues which were resolved and found full consensus by
the Humboldt County Commission through a series of public meetings.
We need to continue to move this legislation forward. In so much as
this effort had complete consensus among the Pine Forest Working Group
and their affiliates, full support of the Humboldt County
Commissioners, a concurrent resolution of support from the Nevada
Legislature 2011, and numerous other supporters, we look forward to
your support in moving this legislation through Congress.
We are especially proud that this grass-roots effort and the
recommendations brought forward to not only benefit Humboldt county,
but the state of Nevada to insure that special designation of this
unique part of Nevada is attained for further generations.
If you have questions, please contact the Humboldt County
Administrator, Mr. Bill Deist. Mr. Deist will serve as the primary
point of contact for the commission.
Regards,
Mike Bell,
Chairman.
______
Trout Unlimited,
Arlington, VA, March 22, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa A. Murkowski
Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S.
Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: S. 1788, the Pine Forest Range Recreation Enhancement Act of 2011
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski,
I write on behalf of Trout Unlimited (TU) and its 140,000 members
to express our strong support for S. 1788, the Pine Forest Range
Recreation Enhancement Act of 2011. The legislation is the result of
the collaborative efforts of the Pine Forest Working Group, a group of
local citizens from northern Nevada, and will create a new 26,000-acre
official wilderness area in the northwestern part of the state from two
existing wilderness area study areas (WSA) through a unique series of
land exchanges and creative compromises.
The proposed wilderness, which augments the Blue Lakes WSA but
releases 1,000 acres of the Alder Creek WSA for multiple use
management, would conserve an area of Nevada that provides some of the
best hunting and fishing opportunities in the state. Mule deer,
pronghorn antelope and California bighorn sheep thrive in a landscape
that ranges from 5,400 to over 9,000 feet of elevation, and also
provides habitat for sage grouse, chukar partridge and valley quail.
Three fishable lakes, the Blue Lakes complex and both Onion Valley and
Knott Creek reservoirs, are a point of destination for thousands of
anglers that visit each summer and fall.
The bill is the result of a truly collaborative effort that won the
unanimous support of the Humboldt County Commission, as well as working
group members representing sportsmen, off-highway vehicle users,
ranchers, the Humboldt County Administrator, Nevada Department of
Wildlife, guides and outfitters, wilderness advocates, miners and the
Humboldt County - University of Nevada Extension Agent. The process by
which the recommendations were developed has received the endorsement
of the 2011 Nevada State Legislature and the Nevada Association of
Counties.
TU strongly supports S. 1788. We thank you for holding a hearing on
this important legislation, and for including this letter in the
hearing record.
Sincerely,
Steve Moyer.
______
Statement of Peter D. Bailey, Tacoma, WA, on S. 1906
I was asked to testify at this hearing, but personal circumstances
preclude my attendance, however I wish to share my thoughts with the
sub-committee. I ask that you support and help facilitate the prompt
passage of this legislation. The reasons are many. 1. It is a revenue
neutral bill that has been reviewed by the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO). 2. The bill has genuine bi-partisan support, with the following
co-sponsors: Jon Tester [D- MT] (Sponsor), John Barrasso [R-WY], Max
Baucus [D-MT], Michael Enzi [R-WY], Dianne Feinstein [D-CA], Charles
Grassley [R-IA], and James Risch [R-ID]. 3. Forest Service leadership
also supports the passage of the Cabin Fee Act with some modifications
that we agree with. We believe the Forest Service will express such
support at the hearing. 4. This bill will solve a long standing problem
within the Recreation Residence Program that has been a huge burden to
cabin owners and the Forest Service alike. Everyone looks forward to
the resolution the bill provides. Please support the passage of the
bill out of committee and early vote in the Senate.
______
Statement of Roberta Ulrich, President, Priest Lake Permittees
Association, Beaverton, OR, on S. 1906
On behalf of the 121-member Priest Lake Permittees Association I
thank the subcommittee for conducting this hearing on S1906. I hope
this testimony will explain to you why the Cabin Fee Act is so vital to
us. To put it in stark terms, a number of our members would not be able
to pay the fees imposed by CUFFA, the current controlling act. They
would be forced to sell, if a market remains in the face of such high
fees; if they could not sell they would be forced to demolish their
cabins and surrender their permits. Many of these families have had
their cabins for four and five generations. Descendants of the man who
built the original permitted cabin on Priest Lake in 1911 still gather
there. I tuck my great grandson into a bunk on the sleeping porch where
I tucked in his grandfather and my other son half a century ago.
Perhaps a bit of history and description is in order. Although
there were a few permitted recreation cabins n national forests early
in the 20th Century, the formal recreation residence program was
established by Congress in 1915, largely to draw middle income families
into the national forests for recreation. At that time, Priest Lake in
Idaho 90 miles northeast of Spokane, WA, and stretching almost to
Canada was considered pretty remote. As late as the late 1940s the
final 20 plus miles was dirt or gravel and the preceding pavement
wasn't all that good. But the reward for that trip was a narrow 20-
mile-long lake that partially filled a glacier dug canyon with water so
clear you could count fish 20 feet below the surface. Mountains more
than 7,000 feet high guard both shores. On their flanks and in the
nearby valleys are mixed conifer forests ranging from 2,000-year-old
cedars to upstart lodgepole pine. I've been told this area with its
rare inland maritime climate is the only place that still has all the
wildlife that was present when Lewis and Clark went through Idaho
farther south.
The beauty was enough to draw people over the bone rattling dusty
roads to claim a small lot for a cabin. Because the program was
designed to pull less-than-rich people into the forests, the fees were
low and less-than-rich people responded -teachers, office workers,
craftsmen. We maintain that diversity today. With perhaps one or two
exceptions, we are still the middle income people the cabin program was
designed for.
Our permits carry restrictions that make a national forest cabin
far different from private property. The land remains public land
except for the footprint of the cabin and any out buildings. Anyone may
legally pitch a tent and settle down for the night next to my deck. We
are limited in the size, color, building materials, and type of
construction; most landscaping and the planting of non-native plants is
forbidden. In my personal view, these restrictions have been good
because they preserved the character of the forest and lake shoreline.
But still they restrict what people can do with the cabins. In addition
we pay county taxes (on the buildings), provide our own water, sewer,
electrical and telephone service. The Forest Service provides none of
these.
I will leave it to the experts of the National Forest Homeowners
Association to discuss how the CFA would leave the government income
intact while providing relief to us. I will say only that we have no
desire to deprive the government of legitimate revenue or to seek a
subsidy for the cabin program. We want to pay a price that is fair to
the government and fair to us, a price that will enable us to afford
the annual fees.
I leave you with this: my fee this year with the moratorium on
implementing CUFFA was $6,355. Had CUFFA gone into effect the bill
would have been $12,950.
______
Statement of David Moryc, Senior Director, River Protection Program,
American Rivers, on S. 2001
On behalf of American Rivers' thousands of members and supporters
thank you for holding a hearing on S. 2001, a bill to protect Oregon's
Wild Rogue River and tributaries. We applaud Senator Ron Wyden for
leading the effort to protect the Wild Rogue River. American Rivers is
the nation's leading conservation organization fighting for healthy
rivers and communities. Protecting Wild and Scenic Rivers was at the
heart of our mission when we were founded in 1973 and we continue to
support the protection of our nation's most outstanding rivers through
the benefits of Wild and Scenic River designation.
American Rivers strongly supports S. 2001, a bill to expand the
Wild Rogue Wilderness and designate 93 miles of tributaries of the
Rogue River as National Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Rogue River is one
of the most iconic rivers in the United States, providing freshwater
habitat to important ocean-going salmon runs and possessing flora and
fauna diversity unmatched anywhere in the Pacific Northwest. The Rogue
is the largest producer of Pacific salmon and steelhead in Oregon
outside of the Columbia River basin, with over 85,000 anadromous fish
returning from the ocean each year.
The Rogue River and its fish-bearing streams are of critical
economic importance to local communities and to the state of Oregon. A
recent economic study determined that rafting, fishing and other
recreation along the Rogue annually generate $30 million in economic
output statewide, including 445 jobs. This includes local economic
impacts of approximately $16 million Josephine County, OR, alone.
Furthermore, another study concludes that West Coast residents enjoy
more than $1.5 billion in economic benefits each year from the entirety
of the Rogue River salmon and steelhead runs. These benefits include
quality of life, and the importance placed on salmon by Oregonians and
other West Coast residents. Consequently, it is clear that the Rogue
River's fish populations are valued beyond just local communities, and
even beyond the state of Oregon.
Southwest Oregon voters favor additional protections for the Rogue
River according to a recent poll conducted by Moore Information. Over
75 percent of respondents support protection of the Rogue for its
importance to the economy, scenic beauty and the health of fish and
wildlife populations. The 300 participants from Josephine, Douglas,
Jackson and Curry counties favor the pending legislative proposal by a
clear majority. Rogue's cold-water tributaries are critical to the
health and survival of these massive fish runs, yet most are currently
unprotected. By expanding the Wild Rogue Wilderness and designating 93
miles of Rogue tributaries as National Wild and Scenic Rivers, we can
ensure that this economic engine is protected.
Finally, we urge the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
to favorably report two additional bills concerning Wild and Scenic
Rivers in Oregon as soon as possible-S. 403, the Molalla River Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act, and S. 764, the Chetco River Protection Act. Both S.
403 and S. 764 have overwhelming support from local communities who
cherish the Molalla River and Chetco Rivers for the many benefits they
provide.
Thank you again for holding a hearing on the Rogue River. We urge
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to support S. 2001.
Sincerely,
______
Statement of Jack H. Swift, Vice-Chairman, Southern Oregon Resource
Alliance, Grants Pass, OR, on S. 2001
Southern Oregon Resource Alliance is a local association of
businesses, farmers, loggers, miners and concerned citizens dedicated
to the responsible utilization of our natural resources. For nearly
three decades SORA and our members have attempted to take an active
role in the development and implementation of federal plans for the use
of our resources. Generally, the results of management by bureaucracy
from afar have not been good for our community or our resources. We ask
to be heard regarding the present proposal to expand the Wild Rogue
Wilderness Area and establish Wild and Scenic River protections within
the watershed of the lower Rogue River.
SORA opposes these expansions unequivocally, whether as a stand
alone bill or whether as an inclusion in a larger scheme of management.
This opposition is based on the fact that the lands in question are
not wilderness and that the protections for these lands, and the
attendant restrictions on use, serve no useful purpose. Moreover, the
cost to the local community and the nation, both in terms of local
government solvency and the mineral withdrawals proposed, is more than
we and the nation can reasonably afford.
The lands in question have been the subject of repeated evaluation
and consideration by the Medford District BLM as wilderness. There was
an initial evaluation and rejection in 1980. In that evaluation, the
land was rejected because of its obvious economic value as revested
Oregon and California Railroad lands dedicated to timber production as
a means of support for local government and contribution to the local
economy. SORA would point out that scheme worked exceedingly well and
much of the proposed ``wilderness'' really is regeneration forest
brought about under that scheme of management.
The Medford District BLM has done repeated wilderness and wild/
scenic river evaluations on the area. One in 1995. Another in 2007. At
best, 5667 acres in the Whiskey Creek area have been deemed to have
wilderness characteristics. That is less than 10% of the withdrawal
being proposed. Four of the tributaries to the Rogue proposed for wild
and scenic designation and other protections were deemed to have the
requisite wild and scenic characteristics.
Most insightful are two watershed analyses undertaken by the
Medford District BLM. These are ``Wild Rogue North Watershed Analysis''
dated December, 1999 and ``Wild Rogue-South Watershed Analysis'' dated
March, 2000.
In terms of the area being roadless, the studies make clear that
there are extensive roads in the area created by timber operations,
mining operations, fire fighting and as access to private property.
Several access agreements remain in place in the area regarding
historic interests. One should be aware that in these analyses the BLM
recognizes several categories of roads: maintained roads, un-maintained
roads and ``ways.'' Ways are defined as old un-maintained roads that
have been reclaimed to varying degrees by vegetation. Of no consequence
to the BLM and not recorded in their road inventories, these old fire
roads or logging skid roads are of immense value to hunters and so-
called ``off-roaders'' and there are lots of them. In sum, the area
does not present the traditional roadless characteristic one associates
with wilderness.
The proposed bill attempts to deal with this road problem by
excluding the areas of heaviest concentration of roads. These
exclusions give the resulting map of the area the look of Swiss cheese.
In combination with the history of intensive timber management and
plantation regeneration, the entire effort is analogous to declaring
the drainage ditches around an Iowa cornfield to be wilderness. This
area is not wilderness, not factually, not legally, not realistically.
A simple drive through the area by those interested would make the
facts abundantly clear.
It is alleged that the additional protections are necessary to
preserve the ``iconic'' Rogue River, its value to tourism and its
``world class'' fishery.
The Rogue River and the adjacent viewscape are already protected by
its Wild and Scenic River designation. The river in this area has
carved its way through the mountains in a deep and spectacular canyon.
The terrain abutting the river is steep. The watershed analyses point
to the fact that this terrain has gradients ranging from 40 degrees to
perpendicular. Because of the depth of the canyon, it is impossible to
see the lands proposed from the river. The only access by tourists to
the river is by permitted rafting and by hiking the one trail that
follows the river's edge the entire length of the wild and scenic
portion. What lies above and beyond the tops of the canyon is
irrelevant to the viewscape of these tourists.
An arguable threat to the fishery could arise from commercial
activities along the tributaries owing primarily to the presumed threat
of sedimentation. However, as the watershed analyses point out, the
primary sources of such questionable sedimentation are roads. Their
conclusion has been that this threat is negligible in this area because
fewer than 5% of the roads in the area are within 200 yards of a
stream.
The studies also point out that owing to the steep gradients in the
area, the streams present very little gravel which is crucial to
spawning of the anadromous species. Moreover, repeated studies have
shown that the water temperatures are not conducive to salmon and
steelhead who prefer cold temperatures. These waters are too warm. The
Rogue itself is colder than its tributaries in this area because the
Rogue is artificially cooled by regulated discharges from Lost Creek
and Applegate dams. The area presents the unusual circumstance that the
river is cooler than its tributaries. The result is that the river is
highly important to the fish as a route to their spawning grounds in
the cooler waters of the higher elevations. But these tributaries
proposed for protection to protect the fish are not utilized by the
fish.
According to the BLM watershed analyses, the waters of the
tributaries are irrelevant to the spawning of anadromous fish such as
the salmon and steelhead. The waters are not used by these fish. That
has been the historic pattern and there is nothing that is likely to
change that situation.
On the cost side of the equation, the price is dear, both for our
county and the nation as a whole. All of the studies of the area, up to
and including the recent FEIS for the Western Oregon Plan Revision
speak to the hazard of catastrophic fire in the area owing to ladder
fuel build up under a regime of fire suppression and lack of fuel
management. These studies consistently rate these forests as 86%
extreme or high fire hazard, with the overwhelming majority being
extreme. Not so long ago we had the experience of the Bisquit fire in
the Kalmiopsis Wilderness area. We are left with hundreds of thousands
of acres of scorched lands with no esthetic or economic value and no
regeneration management. While regulations would allow, at the
discretion of the BLM, mechanical intervention for purposes of fire
suppression, there are no regulations nor is it the scheme of
management to mechanically remove ladder fuel accumulations in a
wilderness area. This fire hazard can only be increased by wilderness
designation. One wonders what the effect would be on tourism and the
``iconic'' Rogue River canyon if it were visited by a stand replacement
fire event.
The lands proposed for wilderness designation consist entirely of
revested Oregon and California Railroad lands. These are lands that
were originally granted to the Oregon and California Railroad in
compensation for building a railroad linking Sacramento and Portland in
the late 1800s. As intended, they were enrolled on the tax rolls of the
respective counties as a revenue foundation for the local governments
brought about by the creation of the rail infrastructure. The removal
of those lands from the local tax base created a financial crisis for
the counties which led in turn to their dependence upon federal support
-a situation that is unique in the country. In 1937 Congress solved the
problem effectively by dedicating those lands to permanent sustained
yield timber production and sharing the revenues generated with the
counties. Until the current Northwest Forest Management Plan arrived in
the course of the Clinton/Gore administration, that system worked quite
well. Since then, the counties have once again been dependent upon
federal subsidy. We submit that the solution to the funding problem for
these counties is a simple Congressional declaration to the effect that
the general northwest forest management plan does apply to the specific
and unique O&C lands. But that is the opposite of what this bill
attempts.
This bill proposes the permanent withdrawal of the largest block of
contiguous O&C lands in the system. This bill would remove these easily
managed lands from production forever, whatever the fate of the
northern spotted owl. As such, they could never contribute to the
economy or the finances of the county, whatever management plan might
arrive in the future. We submit that the counties cannot afford this
and that it is a needless expense to the federal government.
Most significant to the entire proposal is the provision for the
mineral withdrawals set for the watershed and its tributaries. The area
in question covers a large portion of the Josephine ultramafic sheet,
well known for producing chrome, nickel and other valuable strategic
materials. During WWII Josephine County was a source for chrome and
supported a chrome smelter in Grants Pass. Should there arise a need
for such resources in the future, the area should not be closed to
exploitation.
The area is highly mineralized and encompasses two historic mining
districts: the Mt. Reuben Mining District and the Galice Mining
District. Both districts have produced vast quantities of gold over the
years and there are several active mines in the area. In addition, the
area has been identified as a source for tellurium, critical to the
production of solar panels While the area has not been surveyed for
commercial concentrations of rare earth elements, the history and
disposition of the land, especially its placer mining success, rank it
according to the USGS as an excellent candidate for prospective REE
development. We respectfully suggest that the watershed should not be
the subject of a mineral withdrawal without a full evaluation of the
cost to the nation and the community.
As this is a bad investment for the nation, it is an incredible
extravagance for the community. 70% of Josephine County is owned by the
federal government. Of that, 10%, more than 70,000 acres, is already
invested in wilderness or wild and scenic withdrawals. There is a large
part of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, part of the Red Butte
Wilderness Area, the Oregon Caves National Monument, the Wild and
Scenic River and the Wild and Scenic River corridor. Josephine County
cannot afford greater investment in wilderness. Please reject this
bill.
______
Statement of the Wild Rogue Alliance, on S. 2001
The Wild Rogue Alliance is a coalition of 114 businesses,
organizations and associations that organized over the last five years
to advocate protecting the economically, socially and ecologically
important roadless area in the lower Rogue River Canyon, known locally
as the Zane Grey roadless area, and the tributary streams in the same
area.
Protecting this area for future generations is important to many
local values:
Fishing, hunting, rafting, camping, hiking, and other family
recreation activities;
Economic output of $30 million annually from the proposal
area, which acts as a foundation for the areas growing tourism
economy;
Critical habitat for the endangered northern spotted owl,
and coho salmon; and
Vast swaths of rare ancient forests.
With this letter we send our support for S. 2001. This should not
be interpreted as support for any other legislation.
We urge you to advance the bill.
Sincerely,
American River Touring Association
American Rivers
American Whitewater
Andy & Bax Sporting Goods
Andy Buckingham Guide Service
Andy's Wild Water Adventures Arrowhead River Adventures
Ashland Mountain Supply
Ashland Outdoor Store
Bear Creek Watershed Council
Big Rock Guide Service
Birdseye Creek Anglers
Black Bird Shopping Center
Blue Stone Bakery Cafe
Bullet Watercraft
Caddis Fly Angling Shop
Cascade Designs, Inc.
Cascadia Wildlands Project
Catherine Freer Wilderness Therapy Programs
Circle J's Cafe
Clear Creek Family Practice
Cricket Hill Winery
Destination Wilderness Adventure River
Center Resort
Dragons Lair
ECHO River Trips
Eco Tots
Ferron's Fun Trips
Fly Water Travel
Garden Gypsies
Guerrero Dental Lab
Heartsong
Helfrich's Tightlines Fishing and Rafting
Herb Pharm
Herb Shop
Home Waters Fly Fishing
Indigo Creek Outfitters
International Mountain Biking Association
Jefferson State Financial Group
Katalyst, Inc.
Keen Footwear
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center
Kokapelli River Guides
Listen Here CD's
Madrone Hill Mobile Home Park
Matt Ramsey Fishing Guides
McKenzie Flyfishers
McKenzie Outfitters
McKenzie River/Upper Willamette Trout Unlimited
Middle Rogue Steelheaders
Momentum River Expeditions
Morrison's Rogue River Lodge
Motel del Rogue
Mountain Gear
Native Fish Society
Never a Bum Steer
Noah's River Adventures
Noah's Wilderness Adventures
Northwest Nature Shop
Northwest Outdoor Store
Northwest Rafters Association
Northwest Rafting Company
Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association
OARS (Outdoor Adventure River Specialists)
Orange Torpedo Trips
Oregon Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers
Oregon Council of Trout Unlimited
Oregon Outpost
Oregon River Experiences
Oregon River Sports
Oregon Wild
Outdoor Industry Conservation Alliance
Outlaw Guide Service
Outward Bound
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
Pacific Rivers Council
Paul's Bicycle Way of Life
River Trail Outfitters
Rogue Art
Rogue Coffee Roasters
Rogue Flyfishers
Rogue Klamath River Adventures
Rogue River Journeys
Rogue River Outfitters
Rogue River Raft Trips
Rogue Riverkeeper
Rogue Valley Runners
Rogue Wilderness Inc.
Rosso's
ROW Adventures
Saturday Artisan & Crafters Market
Sawyer Paddles and Oars
Siuslaw Guide Service
Soda Mountain Wilderness Council
Spin Cycles Inc.
Stream Restoration Alliance of the Middle Rogue
Summer Jo's Farm, Garden and Restaurant
Sundance Kayak School
Sunday Afternoons
Sunshine Natural Food & Vitamins
Swiftwater Guide Service
The Alpine Experience
The Bead Merchant
The Kitchen Company
The McKenzie Angler
The Riverhouse
Tierra Del Sol
Trium Winery, Talent, OR
Troy's Guide Service
Turtle River Rafting Co.
U-Save Gas and Tackle
Waterwatch
Weisenger's
Whitewater Warehouse
Wooldridge Creek Winery
Yale Creek Ranch
______
Statement of Maynard Flohaug, President, Middle Rouge Steelheaders,
Grants Pass, OR, on S. 2001
This letter is in support of adding 93 miles of Rogue River
tributaries to the national Wild & Scenic Rivers System.
I am writing on behalf of the Middle Rogue Steel headers LLC.,
headquartered in Grants Pass, Oregon. Our primary purposes are to
conserve, protect and restore coldwater fisheries and their watersheds.
We operate as a non-profit, non-political, and nonsectarian
organization. We function for charitable, educational, and scientific
purposes, while supporting sports fishing for members and the general
public. Our web site is http://www.rogue-steelheaders.org/.
As you know, recreation and tourism on the Lower Wild and Scenic
Rogue River are a very important part of southern Oregon's economic and
social fabric. This outstanding landscape should be managed and
protected to preserve these values for current and future generations.
We urge you to take specific action to protect the wildlands and
tributaries of the Lower Wild and Scenic Rogue River because of their
importance to the Steel head and Salmon of the Pacific Northwest.
Therefore we ask you to consider Wilderness and Wild and Scenic
designations for some of the most remote, unspoiled, and pristine areas
of this landscape, as a way to preserve this important area for future
generations.
______
Statement of Margaret Goodwin, Josephine County, OR, on S. 2001
Honorable Chair and members of the Senate subcommittee on Public
Lands and Forests, I would like to offer the following testimony on S
2001, the Rogue Wilderness Area Expansion Act of 2011.
I live in Josephine County, Oregon. Over 80% of the lands that this
bill proposes to withdraw for Wilderness and/or Wild & Scenic
designations and ``additional protections for Rogue Tributaries'' are
in Josephine County. The community and the local government here in
Josephine County are predominantly opposed to this bill. It will hurt
our local economy, and will lock people out of access to this land for
the common recreational purposes for which it is used today.
On March 7, 2012, the Josephine County Board of County
Commissioners officially passed a resolution opposing any further
Wilderness expansion or Wild & Scenic River designations in our county,
and specifically opposing this Rogue Wilderness Area Expansion Act (S
2001). Prior to the Board voting on the resolution, Mr. David Strahan,
who testified before this subcommittee, and Mr. Shane Jimerfield, of
the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, made a joint presentation to the
Board of Commissioners in support of the Rogue Wilderness expansion.
The Board also took testimony from citizens for over an hour and a half
at the same meeting. The testimony ran 3:1 opposed to the wilderness
expansion.
Even without the local opposition, this bill should be rejected on
legal grounds because over 90% of the 58,100 acres this bill would
designate as Wilderness do not meet the federal criteria for Wilderness
designation. The BLM has done several studies on this area, the latest
in 2008, and has repeatedly found that only 5,667 acres qualify for
Wilderness designation under Federal criteria.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BLM, 2008, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Western
Oregon Plan Revision (Vol 1, Table 3-73)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BLM also found that only 5,083 acres (just under 16 miles of
creeks) in the designated area meet the Federal criteria for Wild &
Scenic Rivers, where this bill would designate 93.2 miles of creeks as
Wild & Scenic Rivers.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ BLM, 2008, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Western
Oregon Plan Revision (Vol 1, Tables 2-34, 2-35, 3-76)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be very wrong for our federal government to willfully
designate lands as Wilderness and Wild & Scenic for purely political
purposes, knowing that they do not meet the legitimate criteria for
those designations. This would render the criteria for these
designations meaningless, and make a mockery of the very laws that
define Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers.
I would also like to respond to the testimony presented at the
subcommittee hearing by Mr. David Strahan, who was the only witness who
specifically addressed this bill. Mr. Strahan represents a special
interest and his opinion on wilderness expansion is not representative
of the community sentiment in Josephine County.
In his testimony to this subcommittee, Mr. Strahan mentioned 110-
plus Oregon businesses that support the Wilderness expansion. Only one
third of the businesses on that list are actually located in Josephine
County, and a number of them are not even located in the state of
Oregon. About 10% of them are not businesses, but environmentalist
organizations, like the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Rogue
Riverkeeper, WaterWatch, Oregon Wild, American Rivers, Cascadia
Wildlands Project, Conservation Alliance, Pacific Rivers Council,
Stream Restoration Alliance of the Middle Rogue, etc.
Mr. Strahan also referred to a recent poll stating that 77% of
those polled support the Wilderness expansion. This poll was conducted
by Bob Moore, a pollster who was famously investigated by the New
Hampshire attorney general in 2008 for conducting ``push polls.'' (Push
polling means using the pretext of a poll to spread propaganda in
support of a position advocated by the organization that commissions
the poll.) That was not the first time this pollster has come under
fire for push polling.
This particular poll was commissioned by the environmental
organization, American Rivers. Only 300 people were polled, and they
were asked if they support additional protection of the Rogue River for
its importance to the economy, scenic beauty and the health of fish and
wildlife populations. They were not advised of any potential drawbacks
of the Wilderness designation, such as the impact on the economy of
permanently withdrawing these lands from all future timber and mineral
production. Nor were they advised that the logging and mining roads
that provide recreational access to these lands for local citizens
would be permanently closed off by this wilderness designation. The
poll was designed to present only one side of a complex issue to elicit
a desired response.
When local citizens were exposed to both sides of the issue, as
they were at the Board of County Commissioners meeting on March 7, they
overwhelmingly opposed this wilderness expansion. Mr. Strahan is
presenting to this subcommittee the same one-sided presentation of the
same complex issue. Please be aware that his views do not represent the
views of the majority of the citizens of Josephine County. The
resolution passed by our Board of County Commissioners officially
opposing the Rogue Wilderness Area Expansion Act should be given more
weight than Mr. Strahan's personal opinion.
Mr. Strahan also testified that the American Forest Resource
Council (AFRC) did not oppose this legislation as of May, 2010. At the
time of his testimony, Mr. Strahan could not have been aware that, on
March 22, 2012, the same day he was testifying, the AFRC officially
reversed its position on this bill and announced its opposition to S
2001 as a standalone wilderness expansion bill.
When asked by Senator Wyden to elaborate on the economic benefits
of S 2001, Mr. Strahan referred to the EcoNorthwest study, which was
commissioned by the Save the Wild Rogue Campaign. Mr. Strahan stated
that this study determined the existing Wild & Scenic section of the
Rogue River produced ``over $18 million in economic benefits in
Southern Oregon, as well as 300-plus full- and part-time jobs.``
Apparently, Mr. Strahan was confusing statewide impacts with local
economic impacts in Southern Oregon. The study actually determined that
the total economic impact in Josephine County associated with the Wild
& Scenic section of the Rogue River was less than $7.7 million, and the
total number of ``direct, indirect, and induced'' jobs in Josephine
County was only 140.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EcoNorthwest, 2009, Regional Economic Impacts of Recreation on
the Wild and Scenic Rogue River (p. 27, Table 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, there was a timber sale for 10.64 million board feet of
timber in the proposed Wilderness expansion area (the Kelsey-Whisky
timber sale). Every million board feet of timber harvested supports 24
jobs.\4\ That timber sale alone would have supported 255 local jobs.
But the same environmentalist groups who are now promoting this
wilderness expansion succeeded in halting that timber sale, killing all
of those jobs. The timber sale was quite far from the river, and would
have had no impact at all on river recreation. This area could have
easily sustained both the 140 river recreation jobs and the 255 timber
jobs. Blocking that one timber sale had a far greater impact on the
local economy than the entire tourism and recreation industry on the
Wild & Scenic section of the Rogue River that year. And designating
this land as Wilderness will make that negative economic impact
permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Oregon Department of Forestry, 2010, Northwest Oregon State
Forests Management Plan (p. 2-75).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Strahan went on at some length about his boyhood and adult
adventures on the Rogue. I would like to point out that all of those
wonderful experiences occurred without the Wilderness protections that
are being sought in this bill. Furthermore, all of the economic
benefits of recreational use of the Rogue River have accrued without
these additional Wilderness protections. The fact is that all of the
lands that can be seen or accessed from the Wild & Scenic section of
the Rogue are already protected under the existing Wild & Scenic River
designation.
Designating an additional 58,100 acres, which cannot be seen or
accessed from the river, as Wilderness will have no impact whatever on
river recreation. But it will have an enormous and permanent negative
impact on our local economy by eliminating any future timber production
on these lands, and any future mineral exploration and extraction on
150 miles of creeks in one of the most highly mineralized areas in the
state of Oregon. Additionally, this Wilderness designation will cut off
recreational access to these lands for most of the local residents who
use the logging and mining roads to access them today.
We are a poor county, with already high unemployment, and we cannot
afford more Wilderness.
Thank you for this opportunity to present the other side of the
story.
______
Carbon County,
Price, Utah, March 14, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 703 Hart
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman, Bingaman:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our testimony in support of
the Bill to authorize the Department of Interior to convey certain
interests in Federal Land that was acquired for the Scofield Project in
Carbon County, Utah.
The Scofield Dam was built to provide water to sustain the citizens
of Carbon County and to protect the railroad which was the primary
route to deliver coal to steel mills during World War II. Over the
years, generations of Carbon County families have lived, worked and
recreated in and around the Scofield Reservoir.
As the Carbon County Board of Commissioners, we recognize that
there are a number of concerns including the advancement of technology
which has evolved over the years to help USGS determine accurate
elevation levels of the reservoir. As a result, conflicting information
arose based on outdated technology.
We believe the County and local stakeholders have worked hard to
identify a course of action that is favorable to local stakeholders,
the Federal Government and Carbon County. We feel that our efforts have
been collaborative, open and committed to finding a fair and balanced
resolution to this problem. And, even though this resolution is not
perfect, we feel it is a fair and reasonable compromise for everyone.
With the passage of this language, stakeholders will continue to
have access to property that has been in their families for
generations. It will also enable the Bureau of Reclamation to meet
compliance standards for Scofield Dam.
If this Bill fails to pass, sixty-five families will be left with
nothing more than a memory of years where families were raised and
weekends spent in homes near the lake and of building a sense of
community pride that helped fortify them during times of adversity as
well as prosperity.
Many of these families have worked hard to improve and develop the
area and have paid taxes the entire time so that they and their
families can continue to enjoy the benefits of homeownership in the
Scofield community. The county, state and federal governments also
committed financial resources to develop infrastructure in the area
including sewer, roads and utilities.
Most homes are simple and the people who own them are from modest
backgrounds. The only reason many of them are able to have a house in
the area is because it was passed down from one generation to the next.
In today's world, these people would not be able to afford to replace
these houses if they were forced to build elsewhere. Most of these
people are now retired and have planned to spend their retirement years
at their property. They will not be able to do that if the Bill does
not pass.
The Carbon County Commission will continue to work in a
collaborative spirit with local stakeholders and federal agencies to
resolve this issue.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present these comments. We
respectfully request and sincerely hope that Congress passes S. 2056.
Please feel free to contact us if you or any committee member has
questions or would like to discuss this further.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Milovich,
Chairman.
______
Statement of Bruce Dunn, Richard Dunn, Clyde (``Bud'') Pannier, Joseph
Lamb, E. Jay Sheen, Salt Lake City, Utah, on S. 2056
Some of the history from the documents the Bureau of Reclamation
produced in the quiet title action referred to in the agency's
statement on this bill.
1. In the letter from Parley R. Heeley inquiring of the BOR, dated
January 16, 1944, the 1927 Jorgensen deed to Price River Water
Conservancy District is described as follows: ``This Warranty Deed is
subject to the right to graze or otherwise use any portion of said
lands where not actually covered by water of grantee's reservoir,
heretofore granted to Neil M. Madsen and Andrew C. Madsen.`` Mr. Heeley
goes on to inquire as follows: ``You are requested to advise as to
whether the United States has sufficient title in these lands . . . to
convey to the State of Utah rights of way for relocation of the highway
. . . ''
2. The BOR map of the Scofield Reservoir dated 11-17-59 has legends
that show a large portion of the disputed land as ``Fee title in U.S.
subject to grazing and any other use except when inundated.'' The map,
with its legends, has separate signatures for submitted, recommended
and approved, each of which were initialed by relevant BOR employees.
3. The BOR map dated 03-29-67 shows the same property as either
``Flowage Easement (only) in U.S.'', or ``Fee Title in U.S. subject to
grazing and other use except when inundated.'' This map too, with its
legends, has separate signatures for submitted, recommended and
approved.
4. In a 1968 appraisal prepared by the BOR, it is noted that:
``Land in Catergory II is designated on project maps as owned by the
United States, in fee title, subject to grazing and any other use when
not inundated . . . Three daughters of Anna W. Madsen are being
assessed by Carbon County and are paying taxes on the subject tract.''
5. By letter dated May 31, 1988, A. J. Butler indicated that a
meeting was held on May 17, 1977 in Conference Room 7102 at the Federal
Building, between Ron Staten, an attorney for the BOR (Solicitor's
Office), deceased before the date of the letter, and Joseph J. Palmer,
attorney for Lazy CP, predecessor to the Dunn's, and other landowners.
The representation was made by Mr. Staten to Mr. Palmer, that ``he was
recommending to Washington that the United States did not own the land
in question but only possessed a surface flood easement. Apparently,
Mr. Staten was terminally ill at the time but stated that if he did not
finish his report to Washington, that a Mr. Roland Robinson, another
attorney in the office, was fully advised on the matter and would
follow through.'' Mr. Palmer made a note to his file, dated October 10,
1977, stating essentially the same thing: ``Ron Staten told me, on my
inquiry, that his file has a draft report and recommendation to
Washington to the effect that government has only a surface flood
easement.`` The handwritten note from someone at BOR dds further
credence to the notion that everyone left the meeting waiting to hear
of the implementation of Justice's recommendation.
6. Plat map in the BOR file, dated May 9, 1981, shows the
predecessors of the persons noted above as ``owners'' of the lots
indicated.
7. Letter stamped March 19, 1987, with appraisal attached states
the following: ``Because of the expediency of the work at this time
[referring to the reconstruction in 1943 and thereafter], rights-of-way
were not carefully prepared and documented. Fee title lands in the
United States were acquired; flowage easements only were acquired; fee
title lands in the United States, subject to grazing and any other use
except when inundated (``funny title''), were acquired . . . The Bureau
of Reclamation has been trying for several years to clear up trespass
problems and deal with the ``funny title'' problem. Funding to do such
is nonexistent.'' The appraisal, done by Foster R. Lamb for the BOR in
late 1986, regards the subject land, ownership of which is described in
the appraisal as: According to what the Appraiser can best determine
fee title to the subject tract is held in the United States, subject to
grazing and any other use except when inundated by Schofield [sp]
Reservoir. The right to use the subject parcel for other purposes is
owned by the Madsen Family. The Madsen family members have in turn
leased the property along with other land to Mr. Mike Singleton for a
recreational trailer and boat camp.''
Mr. Lamb indicated he contacted Clyde ``Bud'' Pannier in connection
with the appraisal. The only thing Mr. Pannier could have taken from
that contact was that the U.S. continued to recognized his family's
title in the property and were considering making an offer to purchase
it, based on the outcome of the appraisal.
8. The commitment for title insurance dated May 3, 1988, prepared
by USA Insurance Corporation, for BOR, showed the confused state of
title when it noted the exceptions to the commitement, Schecule B-II:
``19. Subject to the claims of interest of Boyd W. Hafer, Johanna M.
Hafer, Bladys P. Butler, Louise M. Watts, Evelyn M. Jacobsen, Leoann M.
Gunderson and Della L. Madsen as Grantees under various Deeds of
record. NOTE: These interests appear to derive from the interest of
Neil M. Madsen which was extinguished by that certain Order and Decree
described above.'' The insurance company was only willing to insure
with the exception noted.
9. The letter to Mike Jackson, Superintendent of Scofield State
Park, from P. Kirt Carpenter, Project Manager, referenced the ``Funny
Title'' lands: ``These lands were acquired in fee title by the United
States as part of the Scofield Project. The deeds reserved the rights
of the former owners to retain grazing and other uses except when
inundated.''
10. The transaction by which the U.S. claims to have purchased
interests in the property from the Madsens and the Watts was not
concluded for many years. Payment was still being discussed in November
of 1950, more than seven years after the contract of sale was dated.
The communication from Mr. Neeley, in November of 1950, indicated that
payment had yet to be made. We still have no evidence payment was made
or received by the sellers.
11. Possession of the property by third parties has been open and
obvious for decades. Other governmental entities have recognized the
property rights of the persons occupying the property, not the U.S. For
example, water and sewer were built to the houses under the auspices of
a Special Improvement District. The Dunns or their predecessors
obtained a permit to construct and operate a well on his property, and
the permit was renewed and modified at different times. Carbon County
continues to this day to assess property taxes on the land.
The government, for its own account, recognized its limited title
to the property over and over again in its internal documents, in
communications to and from third parties, and over a span of decades.
From 1927 until 1945, the Madsens continued to use the Scofield
Reservoir property (as it was then being called) as they had since
acquiring that property. They grazed cattle and sheep on the property.
They farmed parts of the property. They treated the property as their
own.
That had been part of the original agreement that had originated
with Mr. Jorgensen. The Madsens would be able to use the Scofield
Reservoir Property when not inundated by water, so long as that use did
not to interfere with use of the reservoir or the flow of water into
the reservoir. After the new dam was finished in about 1946, life went
back to normal in Scofield. People moved in and out. Families grew up,
children moved away. The Scofield Reservoir became a gathering place
for families. Reunions, hunting trips, recreation, fishing. And still
the Madsens and their family used the property for grazing, farming and
leased parts of the Scofield Reservoir Property to others for boat
camps, sheep farming and other uses.
In the summers, the lake was a bustle of activity. Tents, trailers
and campers lined the lake. Houses began to spring up and permanent
structures erected for stores, restaurants, cafes and both seasonal and
permanent accommodations that were a vast improvement over a tent or
camper floor. Life at Scofield continued in this fashion from 1948 to
1972, without any concern being raised by any government authority
regarding any trespass by Defendants or their predecessors.
In June of 1976, the Government sent a notice to property owners
occupying the Scofield Reservoir Property that they were trespassing on
government land.
This news created a stir among the property owners as most had been
raised on the notion that their family owned the Scofield Reservoir
Property since nearly the turn of the century.
A meeting was held in Salt Lake City, at the federal building, on
May 17, 1977. Presiding over that meeting was Ron Staten, a
representative from the United States Department of the Interior.
Each participant at the May 17, 1977 meeting believed that, after
the meeting, the matter of ownership of the Scofield Reservoir Property
had been resolved in favor of the acknowledgment of the use right.
After that meeting, the Government took no further action in relation
to its claim of ownership for another 22 years. From 1927 until just
recently the Madsens and their successors - as well as the Government
and its agencies-acted consistent with the reservation of the right to
use the Scofield Reservoir Property for any and all purposes not
inconsistent with the flowage or storage of water thereon.
The parties desire to be treated equal to those landowners on the
other side of the resevoir.