[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 5780, TO PROVIDE GREATER CONSERVATION, RECREATION, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL LANDS IN UTAH, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, ``UTAH PUBLIC LANDS INITIATIVE ACT''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-51
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-547 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
John Fleming, LA CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
Glenn Thompson, PA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Jared Huffman, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Duncan, SC Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Norma J. Torres, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Jeff Denham, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Paul Cook, CA Lois Capps, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR Jared Polis, CO
Garret Graves, LA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Dan Newhouse, WA Vacancy
Ryan K. Zinke, MT
Jody B. Hice, GA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Thomas MacArthur, NJ
Alexander X. Mooney, WV
Cresent Hardy, NV
Darin LaHood, IL
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman
NIKI TSONGAS, MA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Louie Gohmert, TX Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Glenn Thompson, PA Jared Huffman, CA
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Debbie Dingell, MI
Doug LaMalfa, CA Lois Capps, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR Jared Polis, CO
Dan Newhouse, WA Vacancy
Ryan K. Zinke, MT Vacancy
Jody B. Hice, GA Vacancy
Thomas MacArthur, NJ Vacancy
Cresent Hardy, NV Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Darin LaHood, IL
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, September 14, 2016.................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 9
Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 14
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts..................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Benally, Rebecca, Commissioner, San Juan County, Monticello,
Utah....................................................... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Koontz, Clif, Executive Director, Ride with Respect, Moab,
Utah....................................................... 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Kornze, Neil, Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC................. 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Questions submitted for the record....................... 29
Lopez-Whiteskunk, Regina, Co-Chairwoman, Bears Ears Inter-
Tribal Coalition, Towaoc, Colorado......................... 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
Ure, Dave, Director, Utah School and Institutional Trust
Lands Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah................. 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Weldon, Leslie, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.................. 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Access Fund & Outdoor Alliance, Prepared statement of........ 85
Carbon County Board of County Commissioners, July 13, 2016
Letter to Congress......................................... 46
Deseret News, August 26, 2016 Article, Amy Joi O'Donoghue,
Big money, environmentalists and the Bears Ears story...... 10
Emery County Board of Commissioners, Letter to Rep. Chaffetz. 47
Enefit American Oil, September 15, 2016 Letter to Chairman
McClintock................................................. 88
Friends of Cedar Mesa, July 19, 2016 Letter to Reps. Bishop
and Chaffetz............................................... 73
Friends of Cedar Mesa, Prepared statement of................. 89
Grand County Council, August 16, 2016 Letter to Reps. Bishop
and Chaffetz............................................... 75
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 111
Madsen, Hilda, et al., Prepared statement of................. 94
National Parks Conservation Association, September 12, 2016
Letter to Natural Resources Committee...................... 65
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Prepared statement
of......................................................... 68
Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, & Southern
Utah Wilderness Alliance, September 14, 2016 Letter to
Reps. McClintock and Tsongas............................... 98
Navajo Nation, Russell Begaye, President, Prepared statement
of......................................................... 99
Outdoor Industry Association, Prepared statement of.......... 70
Pew Charitable Trust, Prepared statement of.................. 100
San Juan County Commission, May 3, 2016 Letter to President
Obama...................................................... 47
Savory Institute, Testimony given at September 13, 2016
Hearing of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, Subcommittee on the Interior....................... 77
Schwartz, Judith D., Testimony given at September 13, 2016
Hearing of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, Subcommittee on the Interior....................... 79
Summit County Council, September 21, 2016 Letter to Reps.
McClintock and Tsongas..................................... 102
Uintah County Commissioners, Letter to Chairman McClintock... 103
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, September 9, 2016 Letter to Congress. 15
Ute Indian Tribe, Prepared statement of...................... 107
Wilderness Society, September 13, 2016 Letter to Reps.
McClintock and Tsongas..................................... 64
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 5780, TO PROVIDE GREATER CONSERVATION,
RECREATION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL LANDS
IN UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``UTAH PUBLIC LANDS INITIATIVE ACT''
----------
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom
McClintock, [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McClintock, Lummis, Westerman,
Hardy, Bishop (ex officio); Tsongas, Lowenthal, Dingell, Polis,
and Grijalva (ex officio).
Also Present: Representative Chaffetz.
Mr. McClintock. The hearing will come to order.
The Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets today to hear
testimony on H.R. 5780, the ``Utah Public Lands Initiative
Act.''
Before we begin, I would ask unanimous consent that
Representative Jason Chaffetz, the co-sponsor of this
legislation, be allowed to join us on the dais and participate
in today's hearing.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
We will begin with 5-minute opening statements by myself,
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee, and without
objection, Mr. Chaffetz.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. The subcommittee measures bills according
to three over-arching objectives for Federal lands management:
to restore public access to the public lands; to restore sound
management practices to the public lands; and to restore the
Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities
directly impacted by the public lands.
Of all the bills I have seen during this Congress, I
believe no one has tried harder to adhere to these principles
than Chairman Bishop in the bill before us today, the ``Utah
Public Lands Initiative Act.''
Although the Federal Government owns only seven-tenths of 1
percent of the state of New York, 1.1 percent of Illinois, 1.6
percent of Massachusetts, and 1.8 percent of Texas, it owns
nearly half of my home state of California, four-fifths of
Nevada, and two-thirds of Congressman Bishop's and Congressman
Chaffetz's home state of Utah.
This creates enormous problems and economic distress on the
communities that are impacted by Federal land ownership, and
the bill before us is a result of many years of work,
collaboration, and compromise by Chairman Bishop and
Congressman Chaffetz that has produced a locally-driven
solution to some of Utah's most daunting land management
issues.
His bill promises to expand public recreational access,
protect grazing, and ensure the continued use of off-highway
vehicles. The PLI includes protections against Federal over-
reach and ensures the state of Utah can have control over its
own economic and energy future.
This bill is a give-and-take for all who were involved, but
ultimately ensures certainty and resolution in land use policy
in the state of Utah. And, by the way, to be clear, I would not
support the compromises in this bill if they were stand-alone
legislation. It designates millions of acres for wilderness
that makes scientific land management nearly impossible. It
confers 360 miles of new wild and scenic river designations
that have proven disastrous at Yosemite, where the Merced River
designation is now being used to remove long-standing visitor
amenities, including bicycle and horse rentals, historic stone
bridges, and lodging.
But these concessions were made in order to provide
certainty and stability for other lands that are exchanged and
consolidated for the beneficial use of the public, and
inclusion of local and tribal governments in many land
management decisions from which they were previously excluded.
Most importantly, this bill preempts arbitrary and
capricious designations threatened in the final throes of the
Obama administration. Mr. Obama's threatened national monument
designations are focused on appeasing out-of-state interests at
the expense of local people who are struggling to have good
paying jobs and keep their public schools open after national
monuments engulf their communities.
In contrast, this bill seeks to create a national monument
that the people of Utah and its tribes actually support.
This President has relied on the Antiquities Act,
originally written in 1906, to provide temporary protection for
archeological sites from looting, to lock up 548 million acres
of land and water on a whim. That is an area larger than the
states of California, Texas, Oregon, Wyoming, Colorado, and New
Mexico combined. This abuse of power means the public is
largely forbidden from enjoying traditional recreational
pursuits on the public lands, including snowmobiling, hunting,
fishing, shooting, and off-highway vehicle use.
In my own district, these same special interests are trying
to convert the Sierra National Forest into a 1.3 million acre
Sierra National Monument, obliterating the last remaining
timber jobs in our communities and making the management of our
public lands impossible at a time of severe drought and beetle
infestation. If successful, I think a more apt name for it
would be the ``Burnt Forest National Monument,'' where
schoolchildren can come to see what leftist environmentalism
has done to the environment.
I am not sure who President Obama thinks he is accountable
to, but here in Congress, we believe it is our constituents.
Ultimately, it is up to our elected officials, such as Chairman
Bishop, Congressman Chaffetz, and Commissioner Rebecca Benally,
who is here today, to represent their local residents and be
held accountable for their land use choices.
I hope the Administration officials here today pay close
attention to the loud and resounding opposition to a unilateral
national monument designation and let local elected officials
decide the fate of local lands in Utah.
With that, I look forward to hearing testimony from today's
witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Federal Lands
Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets to
hear testimony on H.R. 5780, the Utah Public Lands Initiative Act,
brought to us by the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr.
Rob Bishop.
This subcommittee measures bills according to three over-arching
objectives for Federal lands management: to restore public access to
the public lands, to restore sound management practices to the public
lands and to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to the
communities directly impacted by the public lands.
Of all the bills we have seen during this Congress, I believe no
one has tried harder to adhere to these principles than Chairman Bishop
in the bill before us today, the Public Lands Initiative (PLI).
Although the Federal Government owns only .7 percent of New York,
1.1 percent of Illinois, 1.6 percent of Massachusetts, and 1.8 percent
of Texas, it owns nearly half of California, four-fifths of Nevada and
two-thirds of Congressman Bishop's home state of Utah.
This creates enormous problems and economic distress on the
communities impacted by Federal land ownership, and the bill before us
is the result of many years of work, collaboration and compromise by
Chairman Bishop that has produced a locally-driven solution to some of
Utah's most daunting land management issues.
His bill promises to expand public recreational access, protect
grazing, and ensure the continued use of off-highway vehicles. The PLI
includes protections against Federal over-reach and ensures that the
state of Utah can have control over its own economic and energy future.
This bill is a give and take for all who were involved, but
ultimately ensures certainty and resolution to the state of Utah.
To be clear, I would not support the compromises in this bill if
they were stand-alone legislation. It designates millions of acres for
wilderness that makes scientific land management nearly impossible. It
confers 360 miles of new Wild and Scenic River designations that have
proven disastrous at Yosemite, where the Merced River designation is
now being used to remove long-standing visitor amenities including
bicycle and horse rentals, historic stone bridges and lodging.
But these concessions were made in order to provide certainty and
stability for other lands that are exchanged and consolidated for
beneficial use by the public, and inclusion of local and tribal
governments in many land management decisions from which they were
previously excluded.
Most importantly, this bill preempts arbitrary and capricious
designations threatened in the final throes of the Obama
administration. Mr. Obama's threatened monument designations are
focused appeasing out-of-state interests at the expense of local people
struggling to have good paying jobs and keep their public schools open
after monuments engulf their communities. In contrast, this bill seeks
to create a national monument that the people of Utah and its tribes
actually support.
This President has relied on the Antiquities Act--originally
written in 1906 to provide temporary protection of archeological sites
from looting--to lock up 548 million acres of land and water on whim.
That's an area larger than the states of California, Texas, Oregon,
Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico combined. This abuse of power means
the public is largely forbidden from enjoying traditional recreational
pursuits on the public lands, including snowmobiling, hunting, fishing,
shooting, and off-highway vehicle use.
In my own district, these same special interests are trying to
convert the Sierra National Forest into a 1.3 million-acre Sierra
National Monument, obliterating the last remaining timber jobs in our
communities and making the management of our lands impossible at a time
of severe drought and beetle infestation. If successful, I would
suggest naming it the ``Incinerated Forest National Monument,'' where
schoolchildren can come to see what the surface of the moon looks like.
I'm not sure who President Obama thinks he is accountable to, but
here in Congress we believe it's our constituents. Ultimately, it is up
to our elected officials, such as Chairman Bishop and Commissioner
Rebecca Benally, to represent their local residents and be held
accountable for their land use choices.
I hope the Administration officials here today pay close attention
to the loud and resounding opposition to a unilateral monument
designation and let local elected officials decide the fate of lands in
Utah.
With that, I look forward to hearing testimony from today's
witnesses and I now recognize the Ranking Member for her opening
statement.
______
Mr. McClintock. I now recognize the Ranking Member for her
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF NIKI TSONGAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Nearly 5 years ago, Chairman Bishop began the task of
developing this bill. Along the way, he and his staff have
conducted hundreds of meetings all over Utah. It is a worthy
effort to develop a comprehensive blueprint for 18 million
acres of land, roughly the size of Massachusetts and New Jersey
combined, that are clearly so deeply cherished by all who live
there; but this endeavor does not ultimately fulfill its
potential of reaching a bipartisan solution.
Our Nation's public lands protect some of the places that
have shaped and defined who we are as a people and a country,
and would not have been protected without support from the
Federal Government.
While necessarily resident in a particular state, states do
not have the right to unilaterally set policy on these lands
that belong to all Americans. Though state lands are often
managed to maximize profitability, our Nation's public lands
are managed for a wide range of activities and on behalf of all
Americans.
As stewards of these lands, we must work to find a balance
between compelling, yet sometimes competing, interests and make
sure that the Federal Government is a good neighbor to local
communities.
Unfortunately, instead of looking for bipartisan policy
solutions to protect treasured natural resources and wild
areas, promote recreation, and support responsible economic
development, the legislation before us today fails to strike
the appropriate balance between these priorities. In fact, a
closer examination of the so-called conservation provisions
demonstrates a clear pattern of loopholes, rolled back
protections, and an undermining of Federal land management
authority, all of which threaten the long-term conservation
value of these areas. It could be said that this is a wolf in
sheep's clothing.
For example, Title I of the legislation purports to
designate over 1.6 million acres of wilderness, but contradicts
the Wilderness Act by indefinitely allowing motorized vehicle
use and construction of new water infrastructure. This is a
violation of the Wilderness Act's promise to preserve certain
Federal lands, ``for the use and enjoyment of the American
people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future
use and enjoyment as wilderness.''
The National Conservation Areas and Special Management
Areas in Titles II and IV have loopholes that allow for
thousands of miles of off-road vehicle routes, mining,
drilling, deforestation projects, and livestock grazing,
activities that are inherently inconsistent with a Federal land
manager's duty to protect the natural, cultural, educational,
and scientific resources.
The National Conservation Area that is intended to protect
Bears Ears, a Native American ancestral homeland, would allow
motorized recreation, grazing in areas where it is currently
prohibited, and block Federal agencies from protecting the
wilderness quality of hundreds of thousands of acres of land.
This puts the region's many Native American cultural and
archeological sites at risk of permanent destruction.
The watershed management areas created under section 3
claim to protect water quality, but the bill also requires
mandatory levels of grazing and snowmobile access, authorizes
the construction of permanent roads, sets new requirements for
water use, and allows for timber operations, severely limiting
Federal land managers' ability to best protect water resources.
Even conservation designations that are more familiar to
average Americans, such as national parks, national monuments,
and wild and scenic rivers are not exempt from harmful policies
in this legislation.
Sections of this bill related to these special areas are
also ridden with loopholes that loosen rules for logging, allow
motorized vehicle use, prohibit protections for air quality,
and allow commercial activities without full and careful
consideration of the impacts to natural resources, once again
undermining their long-term conservation value to the American
public.
All told, despite the many years of effort, this is not a
legislative proposal that has a realistic chance of being
passed by the Senate or signed into law by President Obama.
Last month, Grant County in eastern Utah sent a letter to the
Utah delegation expressing their opposition to the proposal,
detailing nine significant departures from the recommendations
they developed with the input of their stakeholders, partners,
and citizens.
The Salt Lake Tribune wrote in an editorial that, ``A
negotiated settlement would have been better, but a Bears Ears
monument declaration looks like the only viable solution at
this point.''
And perhaps most significantly, last week, Governor Gary
Herbert, a Republican, announced in a press conference that he
may soon bring forth his own proposal to the Obama
administration regarding the long-term protection of the Bears
Ears region, further indication that the legislation before us
today has little chance of successfully becoming law.
I would like to thank all of the witnesses for their
participation, many of whom have traveled across the country to
be with us today, and I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tsongas follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Niki Tsongas, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Nearly 5 years ago, Chairman Bishop began the task of developing
this bill. Along the way, he and his staff have conducted hundreds of
meetings all over Utah. It is a worthy effort to develop a
comprehensive blueprint for 18 million acres of land, roughly the size
of Massachusetts and New Jersey combined, that are clearly so deeply
cherished by all who live there, but this endeavor does not ultimately
fulfill its potential of reaching a bipartisan solution.
Our Nation's public lands protect some of the places that have
shaped and defined who we are as a people, and a country, and would not
have been protected without support from the Federal Government. While
necessarily resident in a particular state, states do not have the
right to unilaterally set policy on these lands that belong to all
Americans. Though state lands are often managed to maximize
profitability, our Nation's public lands are managed for a wide range
of activities and on behalf of all Americans. As stewards of these
lands, we must work to find a balance between compelling yet sometimes
competing interests and make sure that the Federal Government is a good
neighbor to local communities.
Unfortunately, instead of looking for bipartisan policy solutions
to protect treasured natural resources and wild areas, promote
recreation, and support responsible economic development, the
legislation before us today fails to strike the appropriate balance
between these priorities. In fact, a closer examination of the so-
called conservation provisions demonstrates a clear pattern of
loopholes, rolled back protections, and an undermining of Federal land
management authority, all of which threaten the long-term conservation
value of these areas. It could be said that this is a wolf in sheep's
clothing.
For example, Title I of the legislation purports to designate over
1.6 million acres of wilderness but contradicts the Wilderness Act by
indefinitely allowing motorized vehicle use and construction of new
water infrastructure. This is a violation of the Wilderness Act's
promise to preserve certain Federal lands ``for the use and enjoyment
of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for
future use and enjoyment as wilderness.''
The National Conservation Areas and special management areas in
Titles II and IV have loopholes that allow for thousands of miles of
off-road vehicle routes, mining, drilling, deforestation projects, and
livestock grazing, activities that are inherently inconsistent with
Federal land managers' duty to simultaneously protect the natural,
cultural, educational, and scientific resources. The National
Conservation Area that is intended to protect Bears Ears, a Native
American ancestral homeland, would allow motorized recreation, grazing
in areas where it is currently prohibited, and block Federal agencies
from protecting the wilderness-quality of hundreds of thousands of
acres of land. This puts the region's many Native American cultural and
archaeological sites at risk of permanent destruction.
The watershed management areas created under section 3 claim to
protect water quality but the bill also requires mandatory levels of
grazing and snowmobile access, authorizes the construction of permanent
roads, sets new requirements for water use, and allows for timber
operations, severely limiting Federal land managers' ability to best
protect precious water resources.
Even conservation designations that are more familiar to the
average American, such as national parks, national monuments, and wild
and scenic rivers are not exempt from harmful policies in this
legislation. Sections of this bill related to these special areas are
also ridden with loopholes that loosen rules for logging, allow
motorized vehicle use, prohibit protections for air quality, and allow
commercial activities without full and careful consideration of the
impacts to natural resources, once again undermining their long-term
conservation value to the American public.
All told, despite the many years of effort, this is not a
legislative proposal that has a realistic chance of being passed by the
Senate or signed into law by President Obama. Last month Grand County,
in eastern Utah, sent a letter to the Utah delegation expressing their
opposition to the proposal, detailing nine significant departures from
the recommendations they developed with the input of stakeholders,
partners, and citizens. The Salt Lake Tribune wrote in an editorial,
that, ``A negotiated settlement would have been better, but a Bears
Ears monument declaration looks like the only viable solution at this
point.''
And perhaps most significantly, last week Governor Gary Herbert, a
Republican, announced in a press conference that he may soon bring
forth his own proposal to the Obama administration regarding the long-
term protection of the Bears Ears region, further indication that the
legislation before us today has little chance of successfully becoming
law.
I would like to thank all of the witness for their participation,
many of whom have traveled across the country to be with us today. I
look forward to hearing your testimony.
With that, I yield back.
______
Mr. McClintock. And, without objection, we will go out of
order to the Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it.
As Ranking Member Tsongas already indicated, and I
associate myself with her comments, this is a grand bargain for
public lands in Utah that has been a priority for Chairman
Bishop for almost 5 years now. I would like to acknowledge the
tremendous amount of work that went into drafting this
legislation. The holdings of hundreds of meetings and
attempting to bring diverse stakeholders together to craft a
compromise is never an easy task.
Chairman Bishop and all of those who participated in the
PLI process in good faith deserve our thanks. Unfortunately,
this bill, which resulted from that process, is a non-starter.
H.R. 5780 falls far short of what it would take to reach a
legitimate compromise and leaves many of the stakeholders,
including the region's Native American communities, no choice
but to oppose the legislation.
This legislation impacts the administration of 18 million
acres of public land. In doing so, it undermines bedrock
conservation laws, like the Wilderness Act, the Endangered
Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, just to name a few.
In too many instances, rather than seeking appropriate
management of Federal lands in Utah, H.R. 5780 seeks to resolve
the management conflicts by simply giving Federal land away.
Time and time again, the proposal tilts the scales
dramatically in favor of development and motorized vehicle use,
and away from responsible conservation.
H.R. 5780 also includes proposals with significant impacts
on Indian land, including the transfer of 100,000 acres of the
Ute Indian Tribe's reservation to the state of Utah. This is an
unprecedented give-away of Native American assets that every
member of this committee should oppose and question.
This and other provisions impacting tribes forced the
National Congress of American Indians to oppose the draft of
this legislation, and unfortunately, the bill we are
considering still contains this devastating provision.
Furthermore, the bill leaves out significant acreage included
in the proposed Bears Ears National Monument.
At a minimum, H.R. 5780 merits a second hearing in the
Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee so that
we can hear from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and others in the
Native American community to truly assess the bill's overall
impacts.
There are representatives from the Navajo Nation and the
Ute Indian Tribe here in the audience today. The Ute are the
only tribe in the Chairman's district and in the bill that have
significant impacts on their land. It is unfortunate that they
were unable to testify today.
Finally, it is important to note that this is not the only
public lands bill that deserves our attention. There are
Members on and off this committee with bills developed from the
ground up that deserve a hearing and consideration from this
committee. We may disagree on the merits of a particular
designation or the specifics of management language, but just
like this bill, they deserve the consideration of a hearing. We
should not go this entire Congress without considering even one
Democratic wilderness bill.
In closing, I respect the process used to attempt to reach
agreement on a Public Lands Initiative in Utah, but I join NCAI
and others in opposing the final product.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back and thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A grand bargain for public lands in Utah has been a priority for
Chairman Bishop for almost 5 years. And I would like to start off by
acknowledging the tremendous amount of work that went into drafting
this bill. Holding hundreds of meetings and attempting to bring diverse
stakeholders together to craft a compromise is no easy task.
Chairman Bishop and all those who participated in the PLI process
in good faith deserve our thanks.
Unfortunately, the bill which resulted from that process is a non-
starter. H.R. 5780 falls far short of what it would take to reach a
legitimate compromise and leaves many of the stakeholders, including
the region's Native American communities, no choice but to oppose the
bill.
This legislation impacts the administration of about 18 million
acres of public land. In doing so, it undermines bedrock conservation
laws like the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act, just to name a few.
In too many instances, rather than seeking appropriate management
of Federal lands in Utah, H.R. 5780 seeks to resolve management
conflicts by simply giving Federal land away.
Time and again, the proposal tilts the scales dramatically in favor
of development and motorized use, and away from responsible
conservation.
H.R. 5780 also includes proposals with significant impacts on
Indian land, including one that would transfer 100,000 acres of the Ute
Indian Tribe's reservation to the state of Utah. This is an
unprecedented giveaway of Indian assets that every member of this
committee should oppose.
This and other provisions impacting tribes forced the National
Congress of American Indians to oppose the draft of this legislation
and unfortunately, the bill we are considering still contains this
devastating provision. Furthermore, the bill leaves out significant
acreage included in the proposed Bear's Ears National Monument.
At a minimum, we should have a second hearing in the Indian,
Insular and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee so that we can hear from
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and others in the Native American
community to truly assess the bill's impacts.
There are representatives from the Navajo Nation and the Uintah
Ouray Ute here in the audience today. It is my hope that Members will
seek these tribal representatives out and really listen to their
concerns.
Finally, it is important to note that this is not the only public
lands bill that deserves our attention. There are Members on and off
this committee with bills developed from the ground up that deserve a
hearing and consideration by this committee. We may disagree on the
merits of a particular designation or the specifics of the management
language, but just like this bill, they deserve the consideration of a
hearing. We shouldn't go a whole Congress without considering even one
democratic wilderness bill.
In closing, I respect the process used to attempt to reach
agreement on a Public Lands Initiative for Utah, but I join NCAI and
others in opposing the final product.
______
Mr. McClintock. The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of
the Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Bishop, for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, and I appreciate the witnesses who
are here, and, Neil, I need to talk to you after the meeting.
Otherwise, you have to call me.
I also want to thank the Chairman very much for having this
hearing. I want it to be noted that this is not the hearing of
this bill, it is a hearing of this bill. We have had hearings
of this bill for the last 3 years. There have been over 1,200
meetings and hearings, and 50 field trips on this bill with
small groups, large groups, the public, and stakeholders. It
can easily be said I do not think any bill has had this kind of
public input ever before that has been before this committee or
this Congress.
No one has been cut out of this process. Everyone has had
their say, including having this online and allowing online
reports to come in. We have had over 65 changes represented by
120 different groups, and that was as of January. That does not
count everything that we have done this year.
What this bill tries to do is four major things, bring
finality in four areas:
One, guarantee recreation opportunities for Utahans that
will be there permanently.
Two, to provide areas that the primary purpose will be for
economic development so the business community knows where they
can and cannot invest.
Three, provide permanent conservation done by Congress, not
by fiat which can be undone by fiat; provide conservation in
there in a permanent way.
And, four, give areas to the states so they can develop
destination spots that would improve the value of that land and
the value of the economy of the state of Utah.
And over that, for every 1 acre of economic development and
recreation that we guarantee, there are 4 acres of conservation
that are guaranteed in here, and yet there are voices out there
that are saying, ``That is not enough.'' A four-to-one ratio is
not good enough, which is amazing.
One of the problems we have had in these 3 years is we are
asking groups to get together who have never compromised
before. There are certain groups that are distrustful. I have
grazers out there that realize what has happened to them,
especially in Grand Staircase-Escalante. They believe they have
been deceived, and I think in many cases they are accurate.
I have other special interest groups that have never
actually compromised on anything and do not seem to be willing.
In fact, I was amazed when one of the participants who is with
us came to me one time and said, ``You know, I feel sorry for
you, that both you and Chaffetz were very sincere in what you
were attempting to do, but there are groups that have been part
of this process that were never sincere about actually being
there at the final end.''
In fact, you have seen attack ads come on this process
before a discussion draft was actually printed and handed out.
That misinformation from those original attacks continues on,
and you have heard it again here today.
There are shrill voices out there realizing that if we
actually bring finality in this issue, they will be out of
work. There are shrill voices out there that are not trying to
find a compromise and a solution, let alone a consensus.
There is a song in ``Hamilton.'' I do not know whether it
is sung by Jefferson or Madison because I cannot afford a
ticket, but they are talking about Alexander Hamilton's
relationship with George Washington, and the phrase is, ``It
must be nice, it must be nice to have Washington on your
side.''
Unfortunately, there are some environmental groups that are
out there that think it is really nice to have Washington on
your side, and rather than sit down in good faith and actually
negotiate something, they can run back here to Washington and
see if they can get a sweetheart deal worked out. Neil, you are
still part of the problem.
So, here is where we are. In addition to those shrill
voices that you will hear, you are also going to hear voices of
reason, voices that want a solution, voices that want to end
the internal litigation, the time, and the cost of litigation.
So, to all of the attorneys in here, I apologize, but you are
simply not worth it. There has to be a better way. There has to
be a better solution.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would also ask unanimous consent
to introduce into the record as part of my testimony an article
that appeared in one of the reputable newspapers in the state
of Utah which tried to take a balanced approach at the issue of
Bears Ears and the funding source of Bears Ears from both
sides, the side that we are trying to do with the PLI and the
side that is trying to get a national monument.
I would ask unanimous consent to have that entered into the
record as well.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Big money, environmentalists and the Bears Ears story
By Amy Joi O'Donoghue
Published: Aug. 4, 2016; Updated: Aug. 26, 2016
SALT LAKE CITY--In October 2014, a group of people sat around a table
and discussed their campaign to bring a monument designation to
southeast Utah for the region they called Bears Ears.
This wasn't a group of Native American tribal leaders from the Four
Corners, but board members from an increasingly successful conservation
organization who met in San Francisco to discuss, among other things,
if it was wise to ``hitch our success to the Navajo.''
Many Utah Navajo are against a monument designation for Bears Ears, but
the out-of-state tribal leaders behind the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition who support it insist the effort is one that is locally
driven, locally supported and grass-roots in nature.
``None of the drivers of this are coming from the environmental
community. It is purely Native American led. This is a Native American
led effort. Any suggestion otherwise is not true,'' said Gavin Noyes,
the executive director of Utah Dine Bikeyah, a nonprofit, Salt Lake
City organization that works to protect indigenous lands for future
generations.
But the campaign is fueled in part with $20 million in donations from
two key philanthropic foundations headquartered in California--the
Hewlett and Packard foundations--that cite environmental protections as
a key focus for the grants they award.
Both foundations directed grants to groups like The Wilderness Society
for the Bears Ears campaign, or for Colorado Plateau protections to the
Grand Canyon Trust or to Round River Conservation Studies, of which
Noyes served as director.
In mid-July, the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation announced its biggest
ever round of grants for environmental causes--some $15.6 million--with
some of that going to the Bears Ears campaign via Utah Dine Bikeyah.
Regina Lopez-Whiteskunk, councilwoman for the Ute Mountain Tribe and
co-chairwoman of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, said it is an
insult to Native Americans for people to accuse them of being
influenced by special interest groups.
``It is absolutely, really absurd to say that. It is an insult to say
that. (These groups) serve a good purpose for research and support,''
she said.
Another monument supporter, Utah Dine Bikeyah's board chairman Willie
Grayeyes, said much of that support is with technology.
``They know how to produce mass communications and do social media. We
don't do social media. That is why we utilize their skills and
connections. People say we are being paid under the table. We are not
being paid and are not on salary.''
Byron Clarke, vice president of the Navajo community group Blue
Mountain Dine and a member of the Aneth Chapter of the Navajo Nation,
does not support a monument designation and said he's bothered by the
implications from the San Francisco meeting of the Conservation Lands
Foundation.
``The whole tone of it seems like the tribes are generally being used
as pawns for the environmental groups to get what they really want,''
Clarke said. ``They are being played. It is somewhat insulting.''
Cedar Mesa
In the 2014 meeting, board members discussed the progress of the
``Cedar Mesa campaign,'' which is the Bears Ears area, with chairman Ed
Norton inquiring about the dynamics of the tribes and how they were
working together.
``There have been some bumps in the road, but progress is being made to
gain support from multiple tribes for protection of the Cedar Mesa
region,'' the minutes of the meeting read.
The minutes, too, acknowledge that the Obama administration had more
interest in Cedar Mesa than the Greater Canyonlands proposed monument
because of tribal leadership.
Calls by environmental groups for the Greater Canyonlands monument
designation have all but dimmed. From 2012 to 2014, there was a flurry
of activity, with repeated urgings by groups to the White House for
monument protection and a letter of support issued by 14 U.S. senators.
The focus then apparently shifted.
In the board meeting, Norton questioned if the group was ``hitching our
success to the Navajo and if so what would happen if we separate from
them or disagree with them. Without the support of the Navajo Nation,
the White House probably would not act; currently we are relying on the
success of our Navajo partners,'' the minutes read.
The minutes also indicate the local campaign ``agreed to the name Bears
Ears to move away from a Navajo name,'' and it became the area and name
to push.
Brian O'Donnell, executive director of the Conservation Lands
Foundation, said the organization has sought protections for Cedar Mesa
since its founding nearly 10 years ago.
``Instead of pushing our Cedar Mesa proposal, we decided it was more
important to support theirs,'' he said.
O'Donnell said the Navajo leaders were already working on ways to
protect the Bears Ears region and the meeting was a discussion of other
tribes' support of the effort.
``That was a report on how the Navajo was doing with other tribes,'' he
said. ``I am frustrated by the continued accusations which imply the
tribes can't come up with their own proposal, which is frankly
insulting.''
With discussion that detailed an upcoming meeting between foundation
staff and the then-director of the White House Council on Environmental
Quality (tasked with vetting monument proposals) the minutes describe
the group's access--and challenges--associated with top Interior
Department officials, including Secretary Sally Jewell.
``She is not being a strong advocate for the Antiquities Act, but
continues to show gradual improvement. With strong leadership from the
White House, this has become less of a roadblock,'' the minutes read.
The Antiquities Act allows the president of the United States to
designate national monuments at his discretion.
Gaining access
The effort made to increase access to top Interior Department officials
appears to have worked.
Both the Conservation Lands Foundation and The Wilderness Society had
staffers who accompanied Jewell on a leg of her ``listening tour'' last
month in Grand and San Juan counties and the Bears Ears region.
Jewell also met with San Juan County commissioners--who are adamantly
opposed to the monument designation--but commission member Bruce Adams
said they were not invited to tag along on any field visits in their
county.
The trip also included top staffers from the offices of Reps. Jason
Chaffetz and Rob Bishop, two Utah Republicans who are pushing passage
of a massive public lands bill they say will provide adequate
protections for the region.
The compromise measure, released last month, is roundly criticized by
environmental groups that say it does not go far enough to protect
natural resources.
Yet even as the crafting of the public lands bill was ramping up with
more than 1,000 meetings across the state involving multiple groups
like Native Americans, environmental organizations and county
commissions, the push for a monument designation started down an
alternative path trod by players still at the negotiating table.
Board members of Utah Dine Bikeyah expressed frustration at the
planning process to San Juan County commissioners in a letter in 2013,
noting their work with Round River Conservation Studies was providing
them with the ``research, advice and information we desire in a
professional manner.''
At that time, Noyes had yet to become Utah Dine Bikeyah executive
director and was still at Round Rivers, and Grayeyes, Utah Dine
Bikeyah's board chairman, complained that San Juan County leaders were
not taking their efforts seriously.
``The county's persistence in challenging RRCS' role is unsettling and
threatens our ability to move forward,'' Grayeyes wrote.
Adams said Utah Dine Bikeyah has been untruthful about being cut out
of the public lands bill, and instead bolted from talks when
commissioners weren't 100 percent on board with their proposal and
leaders questioned the depth of environmental groups' influence.
The coalition
On its website, the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition describes how the
coalition was founded in July of 2015 by the leaders of five tribes who
came together.
The coalition's formation, however, was written about months earlier in
a rock climbing magazine, which listed Friends of Cedar Mesa, the
Conservation Lands Foundation, the Grand Canyon Trust and Utah Dine
Bikeyah as groups that had ``banded together.''
Josh Ewing's group, Friends of Cedar Mesa, was still in talks that same
year with Chaffetz and Bishop over provisions in the yet-to-be unveiled
public lands bill that promised the establishment of national
conservation areas for the region--designations that differ from
monument protections.
Ewing, however, registered the coalition's domain name in 2015 and is
listed as its administrative contact. The Grand Canyon Trust notes on
its website the voluntary assignment to create the map for the proposed
Bears Ears monument and its Native American program manager sends out
press releases for the coalition as the media contact.
Those close ties lead monument critics to question the authenticity of
the movement.
``This is not a grass-roots Native American effort to protect sacred
lands,'' said Blanding City Manager Jeremy Redd. ``This is an effort by
environmental groups to get what they want. People feel like they are
being run over by the money and the organization that these special
interest groups have. Sadly, local people don't have that kind of money
behind them.''
Redd added that the Utah portion of the Navajo nation, Native Americans
who live off reservation in San Juan County and the Blue Mountain Dine
are nearly ``across the board,'' opposed to the monument designation.
``The general consensus among local people is they feel the process has
been co-opted by the environmental groups and special interest groups
who want to use the power of the federal government to get their way.''
``The farther you get away from being local, the more you are
influenced by special interest groups and the money they have,'' Redd
said.
Common ground
Ewing said it is natural for Friends of Cedar Mesa to help the tribes
because of the common goal of all entities to protect cultural
resources in the region.
``Those who don't have common ground with the tribes and want to
continue the status quo are trying to manufacture something that
doesn't exist,'' he said. ``It is no secret we have worked to find
common ground and we have common interests in protecting cultural
resources.''
Support for a Bears Ears monument includes outdoor business leaders,
who came together Thursday in a press conference at the Outdoor
Retailer Show. In a packed room in downtown Salt Lake City, they
outlined why 15 leading companies are in support of a national monument
designation.
``It is a place that is absolutely iconic in the form of recreational
opportunities that are available such as climbing, hiking and water
sports. It is an incredible treasure in the state of Utah,'' said Hans
Cole of Patagonia. ``As an industry we rely on these protected places,
and so for us it is an economic driver. But it is also deeply personal
because of the landscape.''
Carlton Bowekaty, a Zuni tribal councilman from New Mexico, was at the
Bears Ears meadows gathering in July, addressing Jewell on the need for
protections in the area.
Later, he dismissed the notion that his people had been overly
influenced by environmental groups.
``We rely on them for support, but if I felt like it was not something
I could personally support, I would not bring it to the Zuni people.''
Bowekaty said.
But Clarke said most of the tribal leaders who visited Bears Ears for
the Jewell meeting had probably never been there before and likely will
not be back again.
``The more distant you are as a Navajo and tribal member the more
likely you are to support the monument because you view it as an
abstraction or concept or theory of tribal sovereignty,'' he said.
``The closer you get to the monument, the more likely you are to view
it as land that can and should be used properly.''
The Conservation Lands Foundation boasts on its website that the
marathon listening meeting in Bluff attended by more than 1,500 people
for Jewell was an ``incredible success,'' with huge showings from their
Friends Grassroots Network that includes multiple Colorado-based
organizations.
Supporters of monument designations sported blue T-shirts to draw
attention to themselves at the event designed for Jewell to hear the
issues surrounding the monument debate.
``Secretary Jewell, you came to Utah seeking local input.
Unfortunately, what you saw and what you heard was theater staged by
radical environmentalist outsiders intent on smothering local voices.
This wasn't local grass roots. This was Astroturf,'' blogged Matthew
Anderson, the Sutherland Institute's policy analyst for the Coalition
for Self Government in the West.
Chaffetz said he has no doubt tribal leaders are being influenced by
environmental groups seeking monument designation.
``I sat with the president of the Navajo Nation last August and he had
no idea what Bears Ears was or where it was,'' he said.
Clarke wonders at what he says is a contradiction inherent in the
monument designation.
``Everybody who came out here says it's beautiful, it's wonderful and
pristine and we want to keep it that way. I say `thank you,` because we
have been taking care of it the last 100 years,'' he said.
Monument opponents, he said, are characterized as extreme conservatives
who don't care about the land.
Clarke said he doesn't believe tribal officials who support a monument
designation could name the landmarks at Bears Ears or know if wood
gathering is good at places like Babylon Flat, Duck Lake, Little Dry
Mesa or Sweet Alice Springs.
``I'd be met with blank faces. The people who came here from a distance
and will return to a distance had to GPS the Bears Ears to get there.
I've never had to use GPS out there,'' he said. ``Their idea of
protection is to essentially make it famous. How is making it famous
and putting it on the map for careless visitors protect it.''
______
Mr. Bishop. With that, I yield back, glad though that as
this circus begins, that we are going to hear from my cohort
down there, Mr. Chaffetz, who is a master at the art of circus.
He has mastered the high wire act perfectly and will be a
perfect solution to this process.
I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Without objection, I will now yield to the master of the
high wire, Mr. Chaffetz.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON CHAFFETZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Chaffetz. There is this great place in Bears Ears where
we can put this high wire. I am just teasing.
Thank you for the time. I do appreciate it, and I really do
appreciate the leadership of Congressman Bishop.
We have tried from our heart of hearts to develop a
bipartisan and balanced approach to this solution. The easiest
thing for me to do politically is just to say, ``to heck with
the Federal Government,'' because that is what I really do feel
in my heart, but I also know that a viable, long-term solution
requires a bipartisan solution.
We have to develop something and the place that we turn to
do that is to look to the local communities. What you see in
Rebecca Benally, the Commissioner in San Juan County, is a
registered Democrat who at the beginning of this did not start
as a fan of the potential process, but ultimately came to this
conclusion that the Public Lands Initiative is the viable
solution.
We have had more than 1,200 meetings. So, as you look at
this option, the arrogance of a national monument is offensive.
It is good if it goes our way. There is only one bipartisan
suggestion that is now encompassed in a bill, and that is the
Public Lands Initiative.
For all of the lip service the Democrats give to
``bipartisan'' and ``meeting'' and ``we want to accomplish
this,'' it seems to be their way or no way. We have bent over
backwards to accommodate as much as we possibly can. There are
people that are opposed to certain things, there are people
that are in favor of certain things, but there is but one
option if you want a bipartisan solution to this, and that is
the Public Lands Initiative.
It would be entirely arrogant and offensive to a lot of
people, people who have lived there for generations, to have a
President who has never been there and will never go there
unilaterally change the designation on millions of acres,
change their lives forever.
Most of us on this panel will never even visit there, so
what we are trying to do as members is develop a local
solution. We have 29 counties in Utah and we are dealing with
7, just a handful. Now, they are big; a lot of these are bigger
than states.
But let the locally-driven process prevail. It is done in a
bipartisan way. The locally-elected officials do not support a
national monument, but they do support, by and large, this
Public Lands Initiative. So that is what we are asking for,
that consideration.
I would hope that you would give deference to those that
represent this area who want to do best for their constituents,
just as you would want in your own districts. And we are not
doing it unilaterally. We are not just blowing past everybody
here. We are doing it in an open, transparent way with 1,200
meetings, years of work, bipartisan in its approach, locally-
elected officials on both sides of the aisle supporting it, and
a ratio of conservation compared to economic development that
is unprecedented.
As I conclude here, I would like unanimous consent to enter
into the record a September 9, 2016 letter we have received
from the White Mesa, Utah part of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. I
would like to enter that into the record if that is
appropriate.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
September 9, 2016
Please hear our voices from White Mesa, Utah, part of the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe.
We are the people who have originated and also are descendants of
the Posey Band of Utes of San Juan County, Utah.
The Allen Canyon allotment lands located close to the Bears Ears
Mountain was given to the White Mesa community members through or by
inheritance from the original Posey Band of Utes of San Juan County.
The Posey Band fought the government to keep the allotted lands
years ago and won. And to this day, the elders with their families
travel to Allen Canyon to gather willows for basket making; picking
herbs; hunting deer, elk, to provide food for their families through
the winter months; also hauling wood for cooking and warming their
homes; cutting of cedar trees for the annual Bear Dance on Labor Day
Weekend; and the gathering of sage for medicine for ceremonial
purposes.
One elder said they left Allen Canyon to live in White Mesa so that
Allen Canyon allotment lands will remain sacred and will always furnish
their needs through generations to come.
There are two cemetery or burial sites in Allen Canyon and the
people bury their loved ones at these cemeteries to this day. For this
reason, we say NO! Ka'ch to Monument--we want to be able to enter and
leave whenever we want to our sacred allotment lands and continue to
care for it as our ancestors did years ago.
The teaching of the past to the young Ute Mountain Utes of White
Mesa is very sacred and valuable, understanding their genealogy and
history which ties them to the allotment lands of Allen Canyon is
priceless. We know and understand how much to take from the land, we
give tobacco to Mother Earth for her continuous providing of our
traditional needs, it will forever be acknowledged through prayers by
the Posey Band descendants of White Mesa, Utah.
Sincerely,
Thomas L. Morris
Loretta N. Morris
Marissa Lameman
Mariah Posey
Lorlicia Posey
Janelle Morris-Cowboy
Leighton Cowboy
Marticia Posey
Belicia Posey
______
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
I appreciate the consideration. There is a lot of work that
has been done by a lot of people, and if the White House would
come in earnest and work with us to develop a solution, I am
sure we could get this bill to sail through in record time.
Do not play the charade with us if all you want to do is
just go with your environmentalist lobbyists, environmentalist
friends, and screw the rest of Utah. That is not the way it
should be. If it was the other way around, you would hate it,
and you should. It is arrogant, it is offensive, and it should
not be tolerated in this Congress.
I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Are there any other opening statements?
[No response.]
Mr. McClintock. If none, we will proceed to our witnesses.
Each witness' written testimony will appear in the hearing
record. I would ask that you keep your oral testimony to 5
minutes. That is for your protection because that is about the
maximum attention span of a Member of Congress. After that
elevator music begins playing in people's ears.
To help you keep within those rails, we have a timing
device. When you have the green light, you have 5 minutes. The
yellow light will go off with a minute remaining, and with the
red light, you have lost your audience, so you might as well
quit.
Thank you all for being here, and first I would like to
recognize Ms. Rebecca Benally, the Commissioner for San Juan
County, Utah, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA BENALLY, COMMISSIONER, SAN JUAN COUNTY,
MONTICELLO, UTAH
Ms. Benally. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members, and members of
the subcommittee, we are here today to talk about the Utah
Public Lands Initiative, the PLI. As a Navajo woman and the
first to serve as a San Juan County Commissioner, I want to say
that despite what others have said, the PLI has been a process
that has included all San Juan County residents.
And, mind you, San Juan County is the poorest county in the
state of Utah. The PLI specifically benefits the grassroots
residents of San Juan County. It will benefit the Utah Navajos
with mineral rights on McCracken Mesa and will allow the White
Mesa Utes continued access to their allotted lands and
community cemetery. These are the descendants of the Posey
Band.
I became a Commissioner to represent my people and to
protect the interests of my community. I consider it a sacred
duty to speak on their behalf. This is why I am here today.
My constituents are Utah Navajos who have historically been
forgotten or bullied by the Federal Government and their own
tribe. Now, so-called environmentalists and their corporate
benefactors are adding their own chapter to this sad story, by
using a few members of our community who are desperate for a
paycheck to advance the agenda of outside interests.
The Bears Ears National Monument campaign is a cynical,
political stunt that, if successful, will deny grassroots Utah
Navajos access to their sacred and spiritual grounds.
Traditional Utah Navajos depend on that land for their
necessities: to gather medicinal plants, firewood, pinon nuts,
as well as to hunt and practice sacred ceremonies.
Traditional Utah Navajo people are not conspiring with
lawyers in boardrooms in Salt Lake City and San Francisco.
Traditional Utah Navajo people are not collecting $20 million
from corporations and actors to sponsor this toxic divide-and-
conquer campaign.
Traditional Utah Navajo people are not magazine
environmentalists, but are real stewards of the land whose
interests will be destroyed by a Bears Ears National Monument.
Grassroots Utah Navajo people do not support this effort to
convert our sacred land into a Federal designation that will
subjugate them to micromanagement by bureaucrats in Washington,
DC.
The Bears Ears National Monument supporters claim the
Federal Government will allow us to have continued access to
our sacred lands. ``Trust us,'' they say. In the interest of
time, I will give you two reasons why we should not:
Canyon de Chelly--since becoming a national monument,
Canyon de Chelly has been raided by the National Park Service,
who have removed over 300 sets of ancestral remains and
cultural artifacts. The Navajo Nation has been tied up in
lawsuits since the 1990s to regain custody of these sacred
remains from the NPS because the Department of the Interior
continues to defend their actions.
Little Colorado River Valley--since becoming a national
monument, Navajos have lost access to the Little Colorado River
Valley. The national monument designation systematically
eliminated Navajos from this land. Today, what was once a
thriving community of hundreds of Navajos is a wasteland of
abandoned homesteads, home only to a single Navajo elder woman
whose house will revert to Federal ownership upon her death.
Trusting the Federal Government, especially agencies within
the Department of the Interior, has not worked well for the
Navajo people. If history is our guide, we would be foolish to
do so again and expect a different result. Two hundred years of
broken promises and treaties should tell us all we need to
know. I spent a day at the Native American Museum yesterday
looking through all the treaties and, yes, they are broken time
and time again.
Honorable members of this committee, Native American
support for the Bears Ears National Monument campaign is a
hoax. I am here to help you unmask it. I beg this Congress,
this Administration, and the next President of the United
States to stop what has become the most cynical divide-and-
conquer campaign waged by outside interests against Navajo
people since the Navajo-Hopi relocation.
I support the PLI process. It has unified the residents of
San Juan County: the Navajo people, White Mesa Utes, San Juan
Southern Paiutes, the Anglos, the Hispanics, and others. We are
of one mind and one voice when we say no national monument, and
we support the continuance of the PLI process. It is a people's
process, and it is for people.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Benally follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rebecca Benally, San Juan County Commissioner
We are here today to talk about the Utah Public Lands Initiative
Act, the PLI.
As a Dine woman, a Navajo woman, and the first to ever serve as a
San Juan County Commissioner I want to say, that despite what others
have said, the PLI has been a process that has included all San Juan
County residents.
The PLI specifically benefits the grassroots residents of San Juan
County. It benefits the Utah Navajos with mineral rights on McCracken
Mesa, and allows the White Mesa Utes the continued use of their Alloted
Lands and community cemetery.
I became a Commissioner to represent my people, to protect the
interests of my community. I consider it a sacred duty to speak on
their behalf. That is why I am here today.
My constituents are Utah Navajos who have historically been
forgotten or bullied by both the Federal Government and their own
tribe. Now so-called environmentalists and their corporate benefactors
are adding their own chapter to this sad story, using a few members of
our community who are desperate for a paycheck to advance the agenda of
outside interests.
Bears Ears National Monument campaign is a cynical political stunt
that, if successful, will deny grassroots Utah Navajos access to their
sacred and spiritual grounds.
Traditional Utah Navajo people depend on that land for their
necessities of life: to gather medicinal plants, fire wood, pinon nuts,
as well as to hunt and practice sacred ceremonies.
Traditional Utah Navajo people are not conspiring with lawyers in
boardrooms in Salt Lake City and San Francisco. Traditional Utah Navajo
people are not collecting $20 million from the Hewlett and Packard
foundations and Leonardo De Caprio to sponsor this toxic divide-and-
conquer campaign. Traditional Utah Navajo people are not magazine
environmentalists but are real stewards of the land whose interests
will be destroyed by a Bears Ears National Monument.
Grassroots Utah Navajo people do not support this effort to convert
our sacred lands into a Federal designation that will subjugate them to
micromanagement by bureaucrats in Washington, DC.
The Bears Ears Monument men claim the Federal Government will allow
us to have continued access to our sacred lands. ``Trust us,'' they
say. In the interest of time, I will give you just two reasons why we
should not:
1. Canyon de Chelly: Since becoming a national monument, Canyon de
Chelly has been raided by the National Park Service (NPS).
NPS has removed more than 300 sets of ancestral remains and
cultural artifacts. The Navajo Nation has been tied up in a
lawsuit since the 1990s to regain custody of those sacred
remains from NPS because the Department of the Interior
continues to defend that action.
2. Little Colorado River Valley: Since becoming the Wupatki National
Monument, Navajos lost access to the Little Colorado River
Valley. After generations of herding sheep there, Navajo
were told by NPS that environmental concerns took priority
over Native access to lands that Navajo families had
managed since the 1870s. The National Monument designation
systematically eliminated Navajos from this land. Today,
what was once a thriving community of hundreds of Navajo is
a wasteland of abandoned homesteads, home only to a single
Navajo elder woman whose house will revert to Federal
ownership upon her death.
Trusting the Federal Government, especially agencies within the
Department of the Interior, has not worked out well for the Navajo
people. If history is our guide, we would be crazy to do so again and
expect a different result. Two hundred years of broken promises should
tells us all we need to know.
Honorable members of this committee, Native American support for
the Bears Ears Monument campaign is a sham. I am here to help you
unmask it. I beg this Congress, this Administration, and the next
President of the United States to stop what has become the most cynical
divide-and-conquer campaign waged by outside interests against Navajo
people since the Navajo-Hopi relocation.
I support the PLI. It has unified the residents of San Juan County:
the Navajo, White Mesa Utes, San Juan Paiutes, Anglo, Hispanic, etc. We
are of one mind and one voice when we say ``No National Monument.''
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you very much for your
testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Neil Kornze, the Director of
the Bureau of Land Management in Washington, DC, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF NEIL KORNZE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Kornze. Mr. Chairman, all the Chairmen here, Ranking
Members, other members of the committee, thank you for your
time today.
The ``Utah Public Lands Initiative Act'' provides direction
for the future management and use of public lands across broad
areas of eastern Utah. This is a vast undertaking, and I
commend Chairman Bishop and Chairman Chaffetz for the time and
commitment that they and their staffs have given to this
process.
Unfortunately, the Department cannot support the bill as
written. Eastern Utah has been blessed with spectacular natural
beauty, important ancient Native American ruins and cultural
sites, and world class outdoor recreation destinations. The
public lands in this area are also used for mining, grazing,
and energy development.
In July, Secretary Jewell and I had the opportunity to
visit eastern Utah, along with several staff from the Utah
congressional delegation and a member of the governor's staff.
At the San Rafael Swell, we joined Emery County Commissioners
to see Utah's Little Grand Canyon, and it is spectacular.
We visited the challenging cliffs at Indian Creek, which
are known to rock climbers around the world. In the Bears Ears
area, we hiked with your staff deep into canyons that revealed
rock art and incredible ancient cliff dwellings.
In many of these areas, we found the ground littered with
pieces of pottery that were left there by former inhabitants
many hundreds of years ago.
Many tribes have a long and rich history in this area,
including the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Ute Mountain
Utes, the Pueblo of Zuni, and the Ute Indian Tribe. These lands
continue to hold special significance for them today.
Throughout our visit through eastern Utah we heard a strong
common theme, one that is embodied in parts of this
legislation. There is a broad consensus that many areas deserve
special attention, conservation, and protection.
Now, moving to some of the details of the legislation, this
bill would establish a significant number of conservation units
through eastern Utah. Unfortunately, the bill strays
significantly from the standard, time-tested management
language that this Congress and other Congresses have used for
decades when it protects public lands.
We are very concerned that the areas in focus would be left
without the real protection that they deserve. For example, we
applaud the sponsors' choice to designate a variety of
spectacular landscapes as National Conservation Areas,
including the San Rafael Swell, Indian Creek, and Bears Ears.
These areas contain some of the most significant cultural and
natural resources anywhere in the West.
However, the management language in the bill undermines the
BLM's ability to actually protect these special areas.
We also strongly believe that the tribes deserve and must
have a meaningful seat at the table in managing the Bears Ears
area.
Division B of the bill proposes significant land exchanges
between the BLM and the state of Utah, provides for the
transfer of lands to local communities, and would require the
disposal of large areas of public lands. While we can support
many of these goals, the Department continues to believe that
there are more efficient and cost-effective ways to reach the
same end.
As we have repeatedly testified, the reauthorization of the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, FLTFA, would be a
better answer in many of these cases.
H.R. 5780 would also transfer management of oil and gas
activities on Federal lands in six counties to the state of
Utah and would seriously limit the BLM's management of grazing,
which could prevent us from making reasonable adjustments when
they are needed.
The Department opposes these provisions and draws the
subcommittee's attention to the BLM's long history of safe and
effective management of both energy and grazing on the public
lands.
We greatly appreciate the work of Chairman Bishop and
Chairman Chaffetz to address these challenging land issues. The
Department supports many of the goals of this bill, although we
cannot support it in its current form.
The state of Utah has been blessed with some of the most
remarkable areas in the country. I share the Chairman's
commitment to conserving these areas for future generations. My
written statement provides much greater detail on the
challenges that are still before us, and I look forward to
continuing to work with the sponsors and their staffs.
We can accomplish a great deal by working together.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kornze follows:]
Prepared Statement of Neil Kornze, Director, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 5780, the Utah
Public Lands Initiative Act, which is a sweeping bill that provides
direction for the future management and use of Federal lands within
Summit, Uintah, Carbon, Emery, Grand, Duchesne, and San Juan Counties
in eastern Utah. H.R. 5780 establishes numerous public land units that
are somewhat similar to existing conservation designations, including
41 wilderness areas, 11 National Conservation Areas (NCAs), 6 Special
Management Areas (SMAs), a National Monument, approximately 357 miles
of Wild and Scenic Rivers, an approximately 120-mile National Historic
Trail, and an expansion of Arches National Park on lands currently
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service
(NPS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The bill also proposes a large-
scale land exchange with the state of Utah's School and Institutional
Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), directs a number of land
conveyances, requires the sale of some public lands, designates 13
recreation zones, and establishes an off-highway vehicle (OHV) trail.
Finally, H.R. 5780 includes several land management provisions that
would transfer the BLM's permitting authority for all energy
development to the state of Utah, require that grazing continue at
current permitted levels in perpetuity, restore grazing in areas where
it has been reduced or eliminated for resource protection, and grant
perpetual, no-cost rights-of-way for certain roads claimed by counties
and the state of Utah.
The Department of the Interior (Department) sincerely appreciates
the sponsors' efforts to address a broad range of challenging resource
and management issues in eastern Utah. Due to the length and complexity
of the bill, this testimony will briefly summarize the views of the
Department. While the Department supports many of the goals of H.R.
5780, we have significant concerns with numerous provisions and are
opposed to the bill as it is currently written. In particular, the
Department opposes the nonstandard management language for many of the
proposed conservation and special management designations, which are
repeated throughout the bill and would result in significantly less
protection than in other similarly designated areas. Additionally, the
Department strongly opposes the unprecedented language transferring all
energy development and permitting authority within the affected
counties from the Federal Government to the state of Utah, proposed
limits on the BLM's management of grazing, and the automatic granting
of Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 right-of-way claims that are currently
subject to active litigation with no showing that they have satisfied
applicable legal standards. A number of additional important concerns
are detailed below. We defer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
regarding provisions in the bill concerning the lands and interests in
lands under their administration.
background
Eastern Utah is a land of spectacular natural beauty, important
historical resources, and areas of special significance to a number of
tribes. The lands managed by the BLM and NPS in this region range from
rolling uplands and snow-capped peaks to free-flowing rivers and
colorful red-rock canyons. This varied and magnificent terrain provides
habitat for a variety of wildlife, including mule deer, pronghorn
antelope, bison, and several sensitive bird and fish species. The
southeastern portion of this area, in particular, also contains
thousands of vulnerable cultural and archaeological sites, including
well-preserved cliff dwellings and rock art. Home to premier recreation
hubs like Moab, the public lands in eastern Utah provide popular
destinations for outdoor enthusiasts, including off-highway vehicle
users, hikers, mountain bikers, rock climbers, and hunters. Many of
these public lands also provide opportunities for grazing, energy
development, and other commercial activities.
division a--conservation and special management designations
Wilderness
Title I of Division A would designate 41 new wilderness areas on
over 2.4 million acres of Federal land in Summit, Uintah, Carbon,
Emery, Grand, Duchesne, and San Juan Counties in eastern Utah. The
designations are on lands managed primarily by the BLM (over 1.56
million acres), but also include lands managed by the NPS (over 469,000
acres) and the USFS (over 119,000 acres). The BLM-managed lands that
would be designated as wilderness by H.R. 5780 include areas of
stunning beauty, secluded places offering opportunities for solitude,
and important wildlife habitat. For example, the proposed Cedar Mesa
Wilderness contains an extensive canyon system that features
spectacular sandstone cliffs and pinnacles and an abundance of cliff
dwellings and other archeological resources. This area's striking
scenery provides an exceptional opportunity for primitive recreation,
including hiking, photography, and horse packing. Similarly, the
proposed Crack Canyon Wilderness includes colorful badlands of eroded
soils, cliffs, and rock monuments, including fins which form a sawtooth
sandstone ridge, and knobs, caves, and arches. Scenic, geologic, and
archaeological features and wildlife habitat in this area are
remarkable, and the narrow, twisting canyons offer outstanding
opportunities for primitive recreation.
We recognize the hard work of the sponsors and other members of the
Utah delegation in seeking consensus on BLM and NPS wilderness
designations and Wilderness Study Area (WSA) releases. We believe that
the areas identified in the bill could be managed as wilderness.
However, the Department is very concerned that the bill, as currently
written, contains language that would prevent the effective management
of these areas for their wilderness values. For example, Title I of
Division A would permit motorized access within all of the proposed
wilderness areas for the maintenance of future water infrastructure, a
provision that is ambiguous and could be interpreted to permit broad
manipulation of the hydrology of the landscape. The Department strongly
opposes this troubling exception to the Wilderness Act of 1964. It is
without precedent for BLM- and NPS-managed wildernesses, would
undermine each agency's ability to protect, enhance, and maintain
wilderness values and opportunities for the public, and is at odds with
one of the core values associated with wilderness--to prohibit the use
of motorized equipment. The Department notes that the Congressional
Grazing Guidelines, outlined in Appendix A of the report accompanying
H.R. 2570 of the 101st Congress and H.R. 5487 of the 96th Congress,
already provide for a specific, generous management approach that has
worked well for grazing within BLM-administered wilderness areas.
Additionally, the bill omits essential, standard language requiring
that any wildlife water development structures and facilities within
the proposed wilderness areas enhance wilderness values and minimize
their visual impacts. Moreover, Title I of Division A includes
provisions requiring the BLM to maintain trail and fence lines within
proposed wilderness and potentially eliminating the Secretary's
discretion to permanently close a trail or remove a fence line for
resource protection. The Department opposes this language, which would
effectively pass the historic responsibility for maintenance of fences
from the authorized grazing permittee to the BLM.
In place of the problematic language on wildlife water
developments, motorized access to water infrastructure, and trail and
fence maintenance within the proposed wilderness areas, we urge the
sponsors and the subcommittee to instead adopt the standard wilderness
management language that has been used by Congress for decades,
including in the successful Washington County, Utah, conservation bill
included as part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-11, Subtitle O). The Department would also like the
opportunity to work with the sponsors and subcommittee on a number of
additional amendments, including boundary adjustments for manageability
and to eliminate overlapping or incompatible designations, time frames,
and clarifications regarding outfitting and guide activities, mapping
requirements, the jurisdictional coordination of wildfire management,
and the role of the Utah Department of Agriculture in BLM grazing
administration. In addition, we would like to work on language
addressing legacy Primitive Area classifications for the Grand Gulch
and Dark Canyon areas.
Title I of Division A also proposes to release nearly 81,000 acres
of BLM-managed land from WSA status. While the Department appreciates
the use of standard WSA release language in this title, we believe that
the Desolation Canyon and Jack Canyon WSAs contain such extraordinary
scenic resources and recreational opportunities that protection of
those areas is essential. Together with Turtle Canyon, these areas
represent the largest complex of unprotected WSAs in the lower 48
states. The extremely rugged terrain of the Desolation Canyon and Jack
Canyon WSAs contributes to their scenic quality, remoteness, and
habitat for species such as bighorn sheep and raptors, which are
sensitive to development. Moreover, these WSAs have an extensive system
of deep canyons and feature arches, pinnacles, and other erosional
elements not known to occur elsewhere. In addition, the diversity of
wildlife within these areas is unusual compared with the public lands
surrounding them. We would like the opportunity to work with the
sponsors and the subcommittee on language and boundaries that would
ensure the continued protection of outstanding resources in these
areas.
Finally, the Department opposes section 110 of this title, which
could be construed to prohibit the designation of Class I airsheds
under the Clean Air Act for lands proposed as NPS-administered
wilderness in the bill. All NPS-administered wilderness areas are
currently managed as Class I airsheds, which means that the
wildernesses proposed by the bill would be managed to a lesser
standard. The Department is particularly concerned that this language
would eliminate or reduce the existing Class I airsheds associated with
both Canyonlands National Park and Arches National Park.
National Conservation Areas (NCAs)
Title II of Division A designates 11 new NCAs covering more than
1.35 million acres on BLM-managed lands. The spectacular and diverse
landscapes of the BLM's National Conservation Lands currently include
21 NCAs nationwide. All of these designations have certain critical
elements in common, which have consistently been followed in a
bipartisan manner during the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama
administrations. These elements include withdrawal from the public
land, mining, and mineral leasing laws; limiting off-highway vehicles
to roads and trails designated for their use; language that charges the
Secretary of the Interior with allowing only those uses that further
the conservation purposes for which the NCA is established; and
language ensuring that lands within the NCA are managed at a higher
level of conservation than lands outside of such designations.
The management language for all 11 NCAs proposed by this title does
not comport with these standards and repeatedly makes exceptions that
would conflict with the primary objective of conserving the significant
natural and cultural resources within the proposed areas. For example,
the purposes for which the NCAs are to be established are overly broad.
As a result, the BLM would have to manage these areas for purposes that
may prevent effective resource protection. The Department urges the
sponsors to clearly define the specific resources, objects, and values
to be protected for each of the proposed NCAs consistent with the
purposes for which the BLM's National Conservation Lands were
established. The Department opposes language in the bill requiring that
the BLM ``recognize and maintain historic uses'' of the NCAs because
such uses may be incompatible with the protection of resources for
which these areas are to be designated.
Title II of Division A also includes unacceptable grazing language
that would make it more difficult to achieve rangeland health standards
in the proposed NCAs. In fact, this language would create lower
standards for grazing in the proposed NCAs than it would on public
rangelands that are outside of the proposed conservation units. The
Department opposes this grazing language, which not only represents a
significant deviation from all other NCA designation laws, but also
from the management of grazing on all other public lands. As with the
proposed wilderness designations, the Department strongly recommends
that the sponsors and subcommittee adopt the standard NCA management
language that Congress has used for decades, including in the
Washington County, Utah, provisions of Public Law 111-11.
For the sake of efficient management, the Department also
encourages the sponsors to consider designating a single NCA for the
lands surrounding the Dinosaur National Monument, which would include
the bill's proposed Beach Draw, Diamond Mountain, Docs Valley, Stone
Bridge Draw, and Stuntz Draw NCAs and would consist of approximately
44,000 acres of BLM-managed public lands. Manageability and interagency
coordination would be improved by combining these five geographically
clustered NCAs into a single NCA managed under a single management
plan.
The San Rafael Swell, a portion of which is proposed for NCA
designation under the bill, is one of the most spectacular areas
managed by the BLM. The terrain of this area varies from sheer cliffs
and dazzling canyons to more gently carved badlands broken by shallow
washes. The fins and folds of the San Rafael Reef jut through the
southeast side of the area and feature dramatic cliffs, pinnacles, the
knobs of Goblin Valley, twisted canyons, and valleys of stunning
colors. Few canyons can compare to the entrenched, narrow gorges of the
Black Boxes of the San Rafael River, which twists and turns through the
San Rafael Swell. The Department recognizes and applauds the vision of
the sponsors to protect this special area. We believe that this vision
would be best reflected through the designation of a single NCA
encompassing the approximately 750,000 acres proposed as the San Rafael
and Muddy Creek NCAs, the proposed Goblin Valley Cooperative Management
Area, as well as other adjacent lands that contain similar resources,
such as the currently excluded area between the proposed Cedar Mountain
and Muddy Creek Wildernesses. Again, a single management plan for this
area, consistent with the goals and purposes for which NCAs are
designated, would significantly enhance manageability.
Similarly, the Department notes that the proposed Labyrinth Canyon
and San Rafael River NCAs are separated only by the Green River. We
believe that manageability for these areas would be improved by
combining them into a single NCA under a single management plan.
Finally, the Department would like the opportunity to work with the
sponsors on a number of additional amendments to this title, including
boundary modifications for manageability, time frames, language
addressing potentially incompatible overlapping designations, and
clarifications and other edits regarding management plan development,
mapping requirements, WSA release, and travel management planning.
Special Management Areas
Title IV of Division A proposes four new Special Management Area
(SMA) designations on approximately 108,200 acres of BLM-managed public
lands for the Desolation Canyon, Nine Mile Canyon, White River, and
Book Cliffs areas, and two other SMAs on approximately 27,400 acres of
national forest land. Under the bill, each of these BLM-managed SMAs
would be open to oil and gas development at the Secretary's discretion
and subject to surface occupancy restrictions. The management guidance
that comes with these new designations does not seem to differ greatly
from the BLM's existing authorities and management practices. As a
result, we do not see a reason to create this new category of public
land designations. However, we recognize the significant wildlife,
cultural, and other values contained in these areas and would like to
work with the sponsors and subcommittee on provisions that would ensure
meaningful protection for these areas.
Arches National Park Expansion
Title V of Division A adds approximately 19,000 acres to Arches
National Park. The Department supports this expansion because
management of these lands in accordance with the park's General
Management Plan would enhance visitor enjoyment and protect
irreplaceable resources, including paleontological resources. The
eastern portion of the expansion would contribute significantly to the
ability of the NPS to protect principal views from key points within
the park. The small southern addition, while within the exterior park
boundary, is a BLM Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP Act) lease
held by Grand County. The existing arrangement works well; however, NPS
ownership of this area may require changes to current management and
recreational use. The Department would like to work with the sponsors
and the subcommittee on additional amendments to this title, including
boundary adjustments to address these management challenges.
Jurassic National Monument
The BLM currently manages the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry in
Emery County, Utah, to protect and conserve its unique paleontological
resources, which includes the densest concentration of Jurassic
resources in the world. Title VI of Division A designates this area as
an 867-acre National Monument, and the Department applauds the sponsors
for putting forward a vision to permanently protect this special place.
To ensure adequate conservation of the world-class paleontological
resources of this area, the Department would like to work with the
sponsors on amendments to ensure consistency with other National
Monument designation laws, language limiting motorized and mechanized
vehicles to roads and trails designated for their use, time frames,
management plan development, mapping requirements, and clarifications
that the BLM would manage the proposed National Monument.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Title VII of Division A appears to designate approximately 357
miles of rivers on lands managed by the BLM and NPS as wild, scenic, or
recreational rivers for protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act. The Department supports the designation of the proposed river
segments, but we strongly encourage the sponsors and subcommittee to
adopt the standard designation language that has been used by Congress
for decades. In addition, we would like to work on time frames, mapping
requirements, and technical amendments to this title for consistency
with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including language identifying
beginning and ending points for individual river segments, ensuring
standard protective corridors, and enhancing manageability.
division b--land management and economic development
School Trust Land Consolidations
Title I of Division B proposes the exchange of approximately
328,000 acres of Federal land and approximately 5,700 acres of Federal
mineral estate to the state of Utah, and approximately 288,000 acres of
state land and approximately 8,000 acres of state mineral estate to the
United States. This title, however, is unacceptable as currently
drafted as it does not include public interest determinations according
to standard practice under FLPMA, complete environmental and cultural
review, standard appraisal language, or equalization of values--four
provisions that are critical on any land exchange because they provide
for public engagement and opportunities to consider mitigation for
impacts to environmental and cultural resources, and to help ensure
that unknown and unforeseen issues are not overlooked.
While Congress has in the past determined that individual land
exchanges are in the public interest, this generally occurs when the
BLM has already had an opportunity to identify the parcels as
potentially suitable for disposal through the land use planning
process. Based on an initial review of the final legislative maps, it
is not yet clear whether that is the case in this situation. In
addition, some of the lands proposed for exchange out of Federal
management in the bill contain sensitive cultural, paleontological, and
natural resources and recreational uses, and active oil and gas leases.
The BLM does not typically exchange such lands out of Federal ownership
and seeks to ensure continued protection of these important resources.
Moreover, the Department is concerned about the potential effects of
the proposed exchange on valid existing rights and grandfathered uses.
Therefore, the Department opposes the proposed exchange as currently
written and urges the sponsors to adopt standard language regarding
public interest determinations according to standard practice under
FLPMA, complete NEPA and cultural review, appraisals, and equalization
of values. The Department would also like to work with the sponsors on
additional amendments, including potential boundary adjustments for
manageability and to ensure protection of important resources, time
frames, and language ensuring that royalties for potash and oil and gas
are consistent with existing law. The Department also believes that
Federal land should not be used to pay for the administrative costs of
the exchange, and we would like to work with Congress to ensure that
the BLM has the resources needed to implement this title. Additionally,
the Department notes that the Book Cliffs roadless area mineral
withdrawal provision is unclear as currently written, and we are unsure
if it would achieve its intended purpose. We would like to work with
the sponsors to clarify this language to ensure continued protection of
the important wildlife habitat and natural resources of this area.
Finally, the Department notes that section 103(g) of this title may
threaten the Federal reserved water right for Arches National Park,
which was negotiated and finalized by the state of Utah and the NPS a
year ago to protect seeps, springs, and streams in the park. The Arches
Federal reserved water right extends within the Entrada formation
underneath a block of parcels to be exchanged west of Arches. The
Department would like to work with the sponsors and subcommittee on
language ensuring that the exchange does not adversely impact this
important agreement.
Land Transfers, Conveyances, and Disposals
Title II of Division B requires the conveyance, at no cost, of
nearly 10,000 acres of BLM-managed lands to the state of Utah to expand
the Goblin Valley State Park. It also requires that the BLM, at the
state of Utah's request, enter into a cooperative agreement whereby
approximately 153,000 acres of BLM-managed land surrounding the
enlarged park would appear to be managed by the Utah State Parks and
Recreation Division of the Department of Natural Resources.
In the past, the Department has supported minor conveyances for the
expansion or establishment of public parks in various western states.
We would like the opportunity to work with the sponsors and
subcommittee to address a number of concerns with the proposed Goblin
Valley State Park conveyance, including boundaries, the presence of
occupied endangered species habitat, conflicts with wild horse herd
management areas and unpatented mining claims, and investments made in
recent years by the BLM. The Department would also like to work with
the sponsors on time frames and language ensuring consistency with the
R&PP Act and other applicable laws. The Department also believes that
legislation establishing a Cooperative Management Area (CMA) for the
lands surrounding Goblin Valley State Park is unnecessary. The BLM has
a long record of successfully using cooperative agreements for the
management of public lands in Utah, such as the Sand Flats Recreation
Area near Moab, without the need for implementing legislation.
Title III of Division B would exchange approximately 13,300 acres
of Federal land in Carbon County, Utah, to the state of Utah and
approximately 15,000 acres of state land in Grand and San Juan
Counties, Utah, to the United States for the purpose of creating the
Price Canyon State Forest. The Department opposes this title as drafted
because the exchange includes the BLM-managed Price Canyon Recreation
Site, located just north of the cities of Helper and Price, Utah, which
is popular with the public and has substantial recreation use. The BLM
has invested more than $1 million in recent years to improve access and
infrastructure for public use at this site. In addition, the exchange
does not include public interest determinations under FLPMA, complete
environmental and cultural review, standard appraisal language, or
equalization of values. As discussed above, these elements are critical
for successful land exchanges. The Department strongly encourages the
sponsors to adopt standard language regarding public interest
determinations under FLPMA, complete environmental and cultural review,
appraisals, and equalization of values. The Department would also like
to work with the sponsors on additional amendments, including boundary
adjustments for manageability and to ensure protection of important
resources, and time frames.
Title V of Division B deals with long-standing encroachment and
reservoir boundary issues on Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) managed lands
at Scofield Reservoir. While the requirement to secure properties
within the flood surcharge elevation at Scofield is constructive, the
bill's language places long-term responsibility on the BOR to monitor
and enforce these requirements, which could pose a significant
budgetary impact. The Department continues to have concerns about the
safety of the facility with the structures located in the surcharge
space. Separately, section 503(d)(5)(C) places responsibility for
administrative costs to the subject lands with Carbon County; BOR would
implement this provision under the terms of a mutual agreement with the
county. The Department continues to have concerns with the trust fund
as indicated in earlier testimony, and we look forward to working with
the subcommittee to further refine that provision.
Title VI of Division B would transfer 20 parcels of public land--
encompassing approximately 18,000 acres--to various state and local
governmental entities for a variety of purposes. As discussed above,
the Department has previously supported legislated, no-cost public
purpose conveyances if they meet standards under the R&PP Act and are
determined to be appropriate for transfer out of Federal ownership.
While many of these parcels may be appropriate for transfer if
additional conditions are satisfied, others may not be for various
reasons, including the presence of significant natural and cultural
resources, lack of a well-defined public purpose, acreage inappropriate
for the intended use, conflicts with wildernesses proposed by Title I
of Division A, and conflicts with current uses such as recreation or
mineral development. In addition, numerous parcels are encumbered by
withdrawals for public water reserves, water supply, and power site
reserves. The Department appreciates the sponsors' work to address
concerns with other parcels proposed for transfer in earlier public
discussion drafts, including the Sand Flats, Fantasy Canyon, and Dugout
Ranch areas. The Department would like to work with the sponsors on
additional amendments, boundary adjustments for manageability and
protection of sensitive resources, time frames, mapping requirements,
language ensuring consistency with the R&PP Act and NEPA, including the
addition of standard reversionary clause provisions.
Title VII of Division B would require the Secretary to dispose of
approximately 5,400 acres of BLM-managed lands, subject to valid
existing rights, within 2 years of enactment. While sale of some of
these parcels may be appropriate if undertaken consistent with section
203 of FLPMA (including environmental review, public participation, and
appraisals), other parcels should remain in Federal ownership. We
encourage the sponsors to consider an approach for land disposals
similar to those outlined in the White Pine County Conservation,
Recreation, and Development Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-432) and the
Owyhee Public Land Management provisions of Public Law 111-11, and we
would like to work with the sponsors on time frames and language
ensuring consistency with FLPMA and NEPA, should disposal of some of
these parcels be appropriate and consistent with the purposes of FLPMA.
Recreation and Trails
Title VIII of Division B would designate 13 new recreation zones on
approximately 414,500 acres of BLM-managed public lands. The Department
notes that the BLM already manages all or major portions of the
proposed zones as either Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) or
open OHV areas, which were established in the relevant land use plan
through a public process. It is unclear how the designation of the
proposed zones would differ from the existing administrative
designations. Further discussion would be necessary to understand the
purpose and need for the proposed zones.
Additionally, Section 815 of this title would designate the Hole-
in-the-Rock Trail as a National Historic Trail under the National
Trails System Act. This trail would traverse approximately 120 miles of
BLM and NPS-managed lands. While the Department supports the
designation of this trail as a National Historic Trail, we note that
the route depicted on the legislative map accompanying the bill is very
general. We would like to work with the sponsors to prepare an updated
map depicting the exact location of the trail. Moreover, we are
extremely concerned that portions of this trail, which would be
designated to ``promote motorized and non-motorized uses,'' would
bisect the proposed Cedar Mesa Wilderness. The Department strongly
opposes such a provision on motorized and mechanized use within
wilderness as it is counter to the purposes for which wilderness areas
were established, and we would like to work with the sponsors and
subcommittee on additional amendments, including boundary adjustments
for clarity and language ensuring consistency with the National Trails
System Act.
Title VIII of Division B includes language regarding Recapture
Canyon (section 816) and the Big Burrito Non-Motorized Trail (section
817). Section 816 would approve San Juan County's application for a
FLPMA Title V right-of-way in Recapture Canyon and outline the purposes
for this right-of-way. The BLM is currently going through a public
process to evaluate potential trails and routes through this area of
rich archaeological treasures that was home to Ancestral Puebloans. A
draft environmental assessment for these potential trails and routes
was released on September 9, 2016. The Department opposes this section.
Section 817 exempts the proposed 9.3-mile Big Burrito Non-Motorized
Trail from administrative or judicial review, presumably in perpetuity.
The Department notes that the BLM established this trail through a
public process and that it is in use today; the purpose of this
language is unclear and cannot be supported in its current form.
Title IX of Division B would establish the Red Rock Country Off-
Highway Vehicle (OHV) Trail, a 90-mile motorized recreation trail in
Grand County, Utah. The Department has supported similar efforts in the
past and, with some alterations, could support this effort.
Tribal Mineral Transfer
Title X of Division B would transfer minerals beneath a portion of
the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation to the Ute Tribe and would
direct that all split estate lands and minerals that are currently
managed by a Federal agency be held in trust for the tribe. This title
also transfers the Federal minerals beneath a portion of the Navajo
Nation to the Utah Navajo Trust Fund and modifies the royalty payment
due to the state of Utah. The Department notes that the intent of the
provisions in this title is unclear, and we would like to work with the
sponsors and subcommittee to get a better understanding of the purpose
and vision for this title.
Energy Permitting and Development
The Department oversees a robust oil and gas development program on
Federal lands in Utah, and we are proud of the BLM's safe and effective
management of this important energy source. As of the end of fiscal
year 2015, BLM Utah managed nearly 9,000 wells on over 1.1 million
acres that are currently producing oil and gas resources in the state.
In fiscal year 2015 on BLM-managed lands in Utah, the agency approved
three times more drilling permits (847) than were actually drilled
(218). As of the end of fiscal year 2015, 2000 drilling permits are
ready for use without any further action by the BLM. To date in fiscal
year 2016, 243 applications for permit to drill were approved, but only
14 were drilled. In light of this strong performance and the agency's
long history of successful management of mineral resources, the
Department strongly opposes Title XI of Division B, which authorizes
the state of Utah to take over the permitting processes, regulatory
requirements, and development of all energy sources on Federal lands
within Uintah, Carbon, Emery, Grand, Duchesne, and San Juan Counties,
Utah. This title is also contrary to the BLM's multiple use and
sustained yield mission and ignores critical public participation
components of the land use planning process, including NEPA and other
laws.
Highway Rights-of-Way
Title XII of Division B would recognize the existence and validity
of certain claims of ``Class B'' road rights-of-way in Uintah, Carbon,
Emery, Grand, Duchesne, and San Juan Counties, Utah, that were paved as
of January 1, 2016. In addition, the Secretary would be required to
convey to the state of Utah easements across Federal lands for the
current disturbed widths of these purported roads. This title would
also require the Secretary to grant perpetual, no-cost rights-of-way
for certain ``Class D'' roads claimed by Uintah County.
The Department recognizes the enormous scope and importance of this
issue both to the people of Utah and to successful public land
management. However, we have broad concerns with this title because
most, if not all, of the claimed routes are currently subject to active
litigation and many are located in sensitive resource areas, including
priority sage-grouse habitat and specially designated areas. As a
matter of policy, we do not believe that R.S. 2477 rights-of-way
asserted by the state should be automatically recognized as valid and
existing rights-of-way. In establishing the validity of an R.S. 2477
claim through the judicial process, the burden of proof is on the
claimant to demonstrate that they have satisfied the applicable legal
standard. In contrast, this title's recognition of all county
assertions as valid would reverse existing legal precedent and would
establish perpetual rights over public lands without applying
applicable legal tests. Further dialogue and coordination are needed
before the Department could consider a legislative approach to this
complex issue.
Grazing
The Department strongly opposes Title XIII of Division B, which
would require that grazing on all Federal lands in Summit, Duchesne,
Uintah, Grand, Emery, Carbon, and San Juan Counties, Utah, continue at
current permitted levels. Although this title includes an exception for
``extreme range conditions where water and forage are not available,''
this language is unclear and could prevent the BLM from addressing
deteriorating range conditions. Given the broad scope of this language,
the Department may identify additional concerns as we continue our
analysis. The Department also does not support managing rangelands
according to arbitrary targets of use, which may be inappropriate
depending on resource condition. As we have previously testified, the
Department instead supports management of rangelands by adjusting
targets of use according to resource conditions and through transparent
processes, working with the affected permittees and the public under
the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. In addition, this
title includes language directing that public grazing lands, including
areas outside of those otherwise designated by this title, that have
``reduced or eliminated grazing shall be reviewed and managed to
support grazing at an economically viable level.'' The Department
strongly opposes this language because it is inconsistent with the
BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission and ignores critical
public participation components of the land use planning process,
including FLPMA, NEPA, and other laws. Furthermore, this language could
inadvertently undermine the application of the Congressional Grazing
Guidelines to the wildernesses proposed under Title I of Division A.
Title XIII of Division B also includes language on bighorn sheep
management. This language is contrary to BLM policy guidance on
improving coordination and management of bighorn sheep habitat to
minimize conflicts with domestic sheep and goats released in March
2016, which reflects extensive public outreach and input, represents a
thoughtful management approach, and is aligned with USFS policy and
efforts on this issue. The Department opposes this provision because it
would limit the BLM's efforts to sustain and manage bighorn sheep
populations on public lands.
division c--advisory committee
H.R. 5780 would establish a ``Public Lands Initiative Planning and
Implementation Advisory Committee'' (PLI Advisory Council) and would
require the Secretary to consult and coordinate with this committee in
developing management plans for many of the designations proposed in
the bill, including NCAs, SMAs, the Jurassic National Monument, and the
Hole-in-the-Rock Trail. Under this title, in the event this Council's
recommendations on the management plans are not adopted, the Secretary
would be required to provide a written explanation to Congress
outlining the reasons for rejecting the recommendations.
The Department has supported advisory councils for many NCAs and
National Monuments, and we believe that the local input and involvement
that they provide is beneficial in the management of public lands.
Based on an initial review of the bill, however, it is unclear if this
advisory committee would be consistent with both FACA and with other
advisory councils for BLM-managed NCAs and National Monuments. The
Department would like to work with the sponsors and the subcommittee on
language ensuring that the PLI Advisory Council meets these elements,
which we believe would be essential for it to function effectively. The
Department also encourages the sponsors to consider incorporating other
advisory councils established by the bill into the PLI Advisory
Council--perhaps through subcommittees or other mechanisms--which we
believe will be beneficial for the participants and the agencies
involved.
division d--bears ears national conservation area
The Bears Ears area of southeastern Utah is a unique landscape that
combines extraordinary natural features, irreplaceable cultural
resources, and areas of great importance to a number of tribes. It has
been proposed for protection by Members of Congress, Secretaries of the
Interior, state and tribal leaders, and local conservationists for at
least 80 years.
This region contains some of the most significant cultural and
natural resources anywhere in the West, with thousands of vulnerable
cultural and archaeological sites spanning thousands of years--from the
Paleoindian Period 12,000 years ago to Mormon pioneers in the 1800s.
Visitors to this remarkable area are rewarded with spectacular canyon
vistas surrounded by high mesa tops dotted with juniper trees and
pinyon pines. Hikes into the canyons reveal ancient cliff dwellings,
kivas, and rock art left by the Ancestral Puebloans more than a
thousand years ago.
H.R. 5780 establishes two new NCAs encompassing a total of nearly
1.3 million acres of BLM-, NPS-, and USFS-managed lands in this part of
San Juan County--the approximately 858,000-acre Bears Ears NCA and the
approximately 434,000-acre Indian Creek NCA. The Bears Ears NCA
represents the largest of the proposed NCAs in H.R. 5780. The
Department notes that the same unacceptable and nonstandard management
language that applies to the other proposed NCAs would also apply to
the Bears Ears NCA, including the omission of language that permits
only those uses compatible with the conservation purposes for which the
area is to be designated. While the bill does provide for additional
opportunities for tribal and other stakeholder input into the
management planning process, it does not appear to contain the
cooperative management language that the tribes have requested, and we
encourage the sponsors to continue to reach out to the tribes directly
for their input. The Department would like the opportunity to work with
the sponsors on the care and protection of the world-class cultural and
natural resources of the area and on additional amendments regarding
definitions, time frames, management plan development, mapping
requirements, and boundary adjustments for manageability.
conclusion
The Department of the Interior greatly appreciates the sponsors'
ambitious effort to address difficult resource and land management
issues in eastern Utah and supports many of the goals of H.R. 5780.
However, the Department opposes this bill in its current form for the
reasons articulated above. The Department has a number of substantive
as well as additional modifications to recommend, and we look forward
to continuing to work with the sponsor and the subcommittee to address
those issues.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Director Neil Kornze, Bureau of
Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Kornze did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question Submitted by Representative Raul Ruiz
Question 1. During the September 14, 2016 hearing on H.R. 5780,
Congressman Westerman presented a map to Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) Director Neil Kornze entitled ``State and Federal Land Exchange
Map.'' This map was prepared at the request of Congressmen Bishop and
Chaffetz by the BLM and dated July 12, 2016. Congressman Westerman
asked Director Kornze to confirm if the red areas on the map were
``public land managed by the BLM.'' Relying on the information in the
map presented to him Director Kornze replied in the affirmative.
However, the map did not show the exterior boundary of the Ute
Indian Tribe's Uintah and Ouray Reservation. If the map had included
the boundary, the map would have shown that some of these red areas are
within the tribe's reservation. In addition, I understand that the Ute
Indian Tribe has formally requested that the Secretary of the Interior
restore these red areas, as well as other lands, within the reservation
to trust status under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.
With this new information about the location of some of these red
areas and the tribe's restoration request applicable to lands including
some of those red areas, would Director Kornze revise his response to
Congressman Westerman?
Questions Submitted by Representative Alan S. Lowenthal
Question 1. Was the Interior Department consulted (including by the
committee and/or the bill's sponsors) regarding the Scofield land
transfer provided for in Title V of H.R. 5780 (starting on p. 131) and/
or the provision's Senate companion S. 14?
Question 2. Do you have knowledge of which parties requested Title
V?
Question 3. Does the Interior Department have a position on Title
V?
Question 4. Does the Interior Department have a position
specifically on the exclusion provided for by Section 502(3)(B)(ii)?
Question 5. Do you have any knowledge of why the parties to United
States v. Dunn et al. (10th Circuit 2009) were excluded from the land
exchange offered by this legislation?
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you for your testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Leslie Weldon, the Deputy
Chief of the National Forest System for the U.S. Forest Service
in Washington, DC, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LESLIE WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Weldon. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to present the views of
the U.S. Forest Service regarding H.R. 5780.
The Utah Public Lands Initiative bill would create, on
national Forest System lands, 10 new wilderness areas, 2
National Conservation Areas, 5 watershed management areas, 2
special management areas, and the Ashley Karst National
Geologic and Recreation Area.
It would also provide for land exchanges and other
conveyances and provisions of relevance to the Forest Service.
The bill recognizes the diversity of uses and values of
landscapes in Utah, including cultural, spiritual, and historic
values; outdoor experiences and recreation; water; forage;
wilderness; access; healthy ecosystems; and vital economic
contributions to people.
Thank you to Chairman Bishop and Congressman Chaffetz for
your extensive efforts working with citizens and stakeholders
on conservation and benefits of balanced land management.
Although the Administration does not support this bill, we are
encouraged by many of the goals outlined within it and look
forward to working further with you and the committee to
address provisions that cause concern.
The Forest Service has overall responsibility to manage
National Forest System resources in a sustainable manner that
meets the needs of present and future generations. Demands in
supplies of renewable resources are expected to change over
time in response to social values, new technology, and new
information. Our land management planning process, which is
regulated by the 2012 Planning Rule, is the responsive approach
we use to balance those multiple demands in close collaboration
with our communities, and that allow adaptive change over time.
We have already initiated the planning processes on the
Ashley and Manti-La Sal National Forests with engagements in
more than 16 communities, cooperation with local, county, and
tribal governments, and conversations with scores of Utah and
Wyoming citizens regarding the unique contributions of these
national forests.
I believe that the work that is done here really does
acknowledge the value and importance of creating a balance and
finding ways to ensure the certainty of availability of access
in the multitude of values that have been described in the bill
and that echo quite a bit with what the Forest Service intends
in its land management, working closely in collaboration with
communities.
We want to make sure that as we look at results here we can
stay in a mode that is highly engaging, involving, including
the role and responsibility we have regarding the interest of
tribes, and to ensure that we stay in a mode that is highly
adaptable as management requirements and needs change and the
interest of people change through time. We want to make sure
that our land management process under the 2012 Planning Rule
can do this.
With that, I look forward to working with the committee on
how we can address the areas of concern with the bill. Our
written testimony has much more detail, and I look forward to
answering any questions regarding the bill.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weldon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Chairman Bishop and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the U.S. Forest Service regarding
the Utah Public Lands Initiative, H.R. 5780. The Utah Public Lands
Initiative bill would create, on National Forest System lands, 10 new
wilderness areas (approximately 125,000 acres), 2 National Conservation
Areas (approximately 624,000 acres), 5 Watershed Management Areas
(approximately 66,000 acres), 2 Special Management Areas (27,422
acres), and the Ashley Karst National Geologic and Recreation Area
(110,838 acres). It would also provide for land exchanges and other
land conveyances and other provisions of relevance to the Forest
Service. The bill provides a range of designations with objectives from
protecting motorized recreation to designating wilderness. The bill
recognizes that a varying mix of human uses and resource protection
best serves the public and ensures long term conservation of resources.
As a general matter, the Forest Service welcomes legislation that
incentivizes collaboration and expands the options available for
accomplishing critical work on our Nation's forests. Although the
Department has significant concerns about H.R. 5780 and opposes this
bill as written, we are encouraged by many of the goals outlined
within, and we look forward to working further with the sponsor to
address the provisions that cause concern.
The Forest Service has an overall responsibility to manage National
Forest System resources in a sustainable manner that meets the needs of
present and future generations. Demands for and supplies of renewable
resources are expected to change over time in response to social
values, new technology, and new information. Our land management
planning process, regulated by the 2012 Planning Rule, is the
responsive approach we use to balance those multiple demands,
collaborate with our communities, and allow adaptive change over time.
By designating special management areas with very specific
language, the proposed bill establishes direction that is normally the
outcome of this land management planning process, which, as required by
the 2012 Planning Rule, must include robust public engagement. As a
result, land management could become static and unresponsive to changes
in values, environmental conditions, technology and new science. We
have already initiated the planning process on the Ashley and Manti-La
Sal National Forests with engagements in more than 16 communities,
cooperation with local and county governments, and conversations with
scores of Utah and Wyoming citizens regarding the unique contributions
of these National Forests.
As written, the legislation does not allow for management of
National Forest System lands at a local level or through the
collaborative planning process. Instead, the legislation imposes
specific and in some cases inflexible management direction with respect
to livestock/range management, energy development, transportation
system management, some watershed management and management of
different areas of emphasis; in contrast the Forest Service takes its
responsibility to flexibly manage National Forest System lands
seriously and finds this prescriptive approach inflexible and limiting.
Finally, to implement this bill, the agency administrative burden, such
as land management plan amendments and associated NEPA analysis would
be significant and likely delay our ongoing public process on the
Ashley and the Manti La Sal National Forests by several years.
wilderness (title i)
To best serve the public and provide for uniform management of
designated wilderness areas on National Forest System lands, we believe
the bill should be fully consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964,
including special provisions. Also, where proposed special management
areas overlap with wilderness designations, the legislation must
clearly state which special provisions are tied to which designation in
order to provide clarity to the public and the land manager.
Additionally, we recommend boundaries for wilderness areas and
other special designations be mapped to recognizable features on the
ground to assist the public and the land manager in knowing when they
are in or out of the different designations. Further, boundaries could
better conform to existing special designations (such as roadless areas
and research natural areas) and wilderness boundaries could include
additional roadless/unroaded lands with wilderness character. Such
changes would make boundaries more definable and afford protection to
water, cultural and other resources important to local communities. We
also recommend that proposed boundaries be vetted at the field level to
confirm practicality of the management of these special designations in
accordance with the legislative intent.
There are Wilderness and Conservation areas which fall mainly on
Bureau of Land Management lands, but include a small portion of
National Forest Service lands. These Forest Service lands and acreages
should be identified in the bill. Also, clarity is needed regarding
jurisdiction--whether the area is to be jointly managed as a single
unit or whether each agency is to manage their lands as a separate
wilderness unit. If the lands are to be jointly managed, it would be
helpful for the legislation to identify which agency is to be the lead.
Section103(c) on Wildfire Management Operations would allow any
Federal, state, or local agency to conduct wildfire management
operations in wilderness, including the use of aircraft or mechanized
equipment, without Forest Service approval. As the underlying land
manager, the Secretary should determine which agency can or should
conduct operations, and one agency should serve as the primary
coordinator to ensure firefighter and public safety. Additionally, the
Wilderness Act requires the use of motorized equipment and mechanical
transport, including in emergencies, to be allowed only as necessary to
meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area for
the wilderness purposes. We recommend Section 103(c) be revised to
clarify the coordination responsibilities of the Secretary and to
ensure that the operations of all agencies conducting wildfire
management in wilderness areas are consistent with current law,
regulation and policy.
Section 103(e), addressing Outfitting and Guide Activities, should
more closely mirror the Wilderness Act by authorizing commercial
services only to the extent necessary for realizing recreational
purposes and other wilderness purposes of the designated area. As
written, the legislation places recreational purposes above other
public purposes, including scenic, scientific, educational,
conservation, and historical use and is therefore inconsistent with the
Wilderness Act. This Outfitter and Guide Activities language is also
included in the other non-Wilderness management areas. For those areas
where recreation is more of a focus and goal outside of Wilderness, we
recommend striking `to the extent necessary'.
Throughout the bill there is language requiring the Secretary to
provide access. For clarity, we recommend the language be modified to
limit that requirement to `upon request of owner'. For this provision
to be fully consistent with Section 5(a) of the Wilderness Act, we
recommend Section 103(f) say ``adequate access'' to the property, as
was written in the June 2016 draft of this bill.
As drafted, language in the bill referencing Existing Water
Infrastructure does not limit access to existing routes or roads,
creating the potential for new road construction, if justified for
maintenance of existing facilities. We recommend instead using
management language on water infrastructure that is fully consistent
with the Wilderness Act of 1964.
land exchanges
We recommend that language be added to ensure selected Federal
lands are mutually agreed upon by the state of Utah and the United
States. In addition, language should be added to ensure that title
meets Department of Justice Title Standards and is also free of
hazardous substances and petroleum products, and that those
requirements need to be met before the land exchange is executed.
We find that, as written, acquisition of land and interests in land
do not clearly specify whether the state has 2 years from the date of
enactment to request an exchange, which appears to preclude future
opportunities, or if the United States is required to complete the
exchanges within 2 years of date of enactment, regardless of the date
of request by the state. We recommend more practical language, which
would require completion of an exchange within 2 years from the date of
any state request.
national conservation areas (title ii)
Language in Title II should clarify that the special provisions
listed in this section do not apply to the wilderness acres designated
within the National Conservation Areas (NCAs). The section on Livestock
is particularly problematic for the wilderness acres in the NCAs, and
the provision is inconsistent with the livestock section under
Wilderness Areas (Title I). Some language relevant to livestock
management is inconsistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Regarding the function of the proposed Public Lands Initiative
Planning and Implementation Advisory Committee for the special
management areas, national conservation areas, and recreational zones,
the reporting requirements imposed by the bill could impede the
meaningful function of the committee. The Forest Service has always
encouraged input from states, local governments, tribes and the public,
including through the use of advisory committees. The purpose of the
committee could be fulfilled by authorities currently available to the
agency.
watershed management areas (title iii)
National Forest System lands were originally set aside in part to
help sustain the Nation's water supply. The Forest Service manages the
largest single source of water in the United States, with about 20
percent originating from its 193 million acres of land. Agency program
managers and decisionmakers take the agency's stewardship
responsibility for water resources seriously and apply available tools
and authorities to help sustain those resources over the long term. For
example, the Agency uses the Watershed Condition Framework to
characterize the condition of the more than 15,000 watersheds located
on NFS lands and help identify watersheds that need focused work to
improve or maintain condition. The Agency also uses information about
public water supply sources to help prioritize fuels treatments to
improve fire resilience. In addition, the Agency has existing
authorities to provide for the formal designation of municipal
watersheds and the establishment of special management areas through
land management planning. These authorities have been utilized to set
up special management within source watersheds.
The provisions in this section of the bill on Vegetation Management
requires the Secretary to conduct vegetation management projects if
they improve water quality or restore ecosystems, regardless of cost,
public support or effects on other resources. Such direction could have
unforeseen consequences, possibly precluding a transparent public
engagement process or forcing a wide-scale shifting of resources from
other public lands with negative consequences.
special management areas (title iv, viii)
The language under Title IV and VIII does not provide a rationale
for a congressional designation and doesn't specify any management
activity that isn't already available under existing authorities, such
as the land management planning process. The development of a specific
management plan and engagement of an advisory committee with such a
minimal foundation would be challenging and may have unanticipated
consequences.
There is also potential for the Special Management Areas
designation to be in conflict with forest-level over-the-snow travel
management planning. The goals of a Special Management Area could be
more effectively integrated into the applicable land management plan,
in conjunction with travel management planning without having to
require a separate management area and separate management plan.
Permanent withdrawals from mineral entry for areas of 5,000 acres or
more, such as those delineated in sections 404 and 407, cannot be
addressed through administrative planning or decisions and would
require an act of Congress.
The Forest Service recognizes state management of water rights. The
water rights provisions in Sections 404, 407, and 804 differ from those
in other sections in this bill. The Forest Service believes that the
additional language in these three sections is unnecessary and would
like to work with the sponsors and the committee to revise the language
to be consistent with the rest of the bill.
Finally, in several locations, the legislation identifies time
frames for mapping and establishing legal descriptions, development of
management plans, and execution of land exchanges. This represents a
workload to be accomplished within 2 years from the date of enactment.
Two years is too short given the number and complexity of all the
designations occurring through this bill. We recommend no less than 3
years and would prefer 5 years for completing the numerous maps, legal
descriptions and management plans that the legislation would require.
grazing (sections 106(b), 204(d), 303(j)(1), 404(d)(1), 407(h), 804(h),
title xiii)
Throughout the proposed legislation, direction is given to maintain
existing livestock grazing levels. It appears that the goal of the
legislation intends to give permittees assurances that nothing in the
legislation would be used as a justification for managers to direct
reductions in livestock grazing simply because of the land management
designation. The legislation recognizes that range conditions can
improve and that increases in livestock numbers could be considered,
but appears to limit reductions regardless of conditions. Section 1303
states that `areas of public land that have reduced or eliminated
grazing shall be reviewed and managed to support grazing at an
economically viable level'. This may result in grazing practices that
exceed sustainable levels.
Our concerns focus on the challenges of sustaining both range
conditions and livestock uses under these restrictions. In order to
protect the resource, the legislation should direct managers to ensure
livestock levels consistent with rangeland capabilities and conditions
and, when making adjustments, to work closely with permittees and state
and local governments, utilizing data from all sources, including the
Utah State Department of Agriculture.
Specifically Title XIII, Section 1302 removes the viability
requirements for bighorn sheep on National Forests in Summit, Duchesne,
Uintah, Grand, Emery, Carbon, and San Juan Counties, where there are
possible conflicts with domestic sheep grazing. This requirement
conflicts with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and its
implementing viability regulations. These viability regulations (36 CFR
Sec. 219.9(b)(1)) address the Forest Service's obligation to meet
NFMA's requirement ``to provide for diversity of plant and animal
communities'' (16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(B)). We suggest the bill's
language be changed to emphasize that any potential conflicts between
bighorn sheep and domestic sheep will be resolved using the best
available science, best management practices, and incorporating input
from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the Utah Department of
Agriculture and grazing permittees.
deer lodge land exchange and other land conveyances (division b, title
iv, vi)
With regard to the realty-related actions in Title IV and VI, the
Forest Service has long been a supporter of efforts to consolidate
ownerships, be it private, state or Federal. This improves management
efficiency, improves utilization of resources, both natural and
financial, and eliminates many potential conflicts. Numerous examples
exist where large-scale land exchanges have occurred between the Forest
Service and with states.
We strongly support efforts to encourage the consolidation of non-
Federal ownership of public lands outside of congressionally designated
areas. As drafted, however, we strongly oppose this provision as the
bill does not provide the ability for the United States to agree to the
Federal lands proposed for acquisition by the state. Additionally, we
are concerned that the proposed land exchange may create an inholding
within the National Forest, resulting in additional resource and
boundary management burdens.
long-term energy development certainty in utah (title xi)
As drafted, Title XI is of great concern for the Forest Service.
While we recognize the need for timely review of energy development
proposals, the Forest Service does not agree that transferring
permitting authority to the state will significantly improve that
process. In addition, while it requires the state to comply with
Federal statutes and regulations, it does not require compliance with
applicable land management decisions, Forest Plan standards or other
considerations, typically developed with public input, for management
of multiple-use lands.
Sec. 1101 is unclear whether this Title XI is speaking only to
energy development or to energy and minerals. The second sentence in
Sec. 1101 should have the word ``minerals'' removed. The rest of the
Title XI only speaks to ``energy''.
long-term travel management certainty (title xii)
Title XII would provide for immediate resolution of R.S. 2477
claims. However, we have broad concerns with this title because most,
if not all, of the claimed routes are currently subject to active
litigation and many are located in sensitive resource areas, including
priority sage-grouse habitat and specially designated areas. As a
matter of policy, we do not believe that R.S. 2477 rights-of-way
asserted by the state should be automatically recognized as valid and
existing rights-of-way. We share the state's concerns over protracted
litigation. However, we have concerns over provisions which could
significantly expand rights in protected areas (e.g. roadless areas).
bear ears national conservation area (division d, title i)
The Bears Ears National Conservation Area incorporates
approximately 190,000 acres of the Manti--La Sal National Forest and
includes all of Elk Ridge and all lands west of South/North Cottonwood
drainage on the Monticello portion of the District. This broader region
contains one of the highest densities of archeological resources,
spanning a multitude of eras, of anywhere in the United States. It is
therefore concerning that while there is consideration for enhanced
protection and recognition of the cultural values associated with the
heritage resources of the Bears Ears area, the legislation excludes
important cultural resources found on the east side of Cottonwood
Canyon, among other areas. In addition, portions of Hammond Canyon and
Arch Canyon are designated as wilderness, but the boundaries are not
clear.
Finally, regarding Sec. 104(a)(5): the term ``Native American
archaeological sites'' is an unusual, limited, and possibly confusing
subset of the sites protected by the statutes listed (NAGPRA, NHPA,
Utah Antiquities Act). Those statutes also protect historic sites,
including traditional cultural properties, and burial sites, even when
they are not archaeological. It is also odd that ARPA (Archaeological
Resources Protection Act) is not listed if the focus is indeed on
archaeological sites.
The legislation directs the development of a management plan and
establishes the Bears Ears Management Commission, to include two tribal
representatives, a county representative and a state representative to
review and approve the plan. The Department is not supportive of this
provision and believes it is unnecessary as the Forest Service is
required under the 2012 Planning Rule to develop land management plans
in a broadly inclusive manner and will continue to work collaboratively
with tribes, communities of interest, local, county and state entities
and elected officials in achieving mutually beneficial outcomes under
its existing planning authorities.
Additionally, while the Department is supportive of the goal of
increasing tribal involvement in the management of this land the Bears
Ears Tribal Commission at Sec. 107 will not fit within the
intergovernmental exemption from FACA in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (UMRA), PL 104-4 Sec. 204(b). To qualify for the intergovernmental
exemption from FACA, the Commission must consist exclusively of
``Federal officials and elected officers of . . . tribal governments
(or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf)
acting in their official capacities.'' UMRA Sec. 204(b). By contrast,
under the bill as revised, the tribal representatives would be ``tribal
members,'' not elected tribal government officials or designated tribal
government employees.
The Department does not support the National Conservation Area
proposal to lock the current Travel Plan in place, which does not allow
for any new permanent road construction and does not allow for
permanent closure of any designated routes.
We would like to work with the bill sponsors and committee to
clarify the extent of the mineral withdrawals on the National
Conservation Area.
conclusion
The Forest Service welcomes the opportunity to work with the
sponsors and the committee to address the Agency's concerns.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you for your testimony and
your brevity.
Our next witness is Ms. Regina Lopez-Whiteskunk, the co-
chairwoman of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition from
Towaoc, Colorado. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF REGINA LOPEZ-WHITESKUNK, CO-CHAIRWOMAN, BEARS EARS
INTER-TRIBAL COALITION, TOWAOC, COLORADO
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman
McClintock and committee members.
I just want to take a real quick moment to acknowledge
other members of our coalition who are in the room with me
today: Vice President of the Navajo Nation, Nez, and Delegates
Davis Filfred, as well as the Ute Indian Tribe Vice Chairman,
Ed Secakuku, and Member Bruce Ignacio. I thank them for
accompanying me out here today. It shows a great presence of
support.
For a moment here, I am going to defer from my written
statement for a reason that is very tender and close to my
heart. Last week, I attended and laid to rest a very special
individual, a member of the White Mesa community, an elder and
a grandmother. We laid to rest one of the elders who was born
in the area of the Bears Ears region.
I was very grateful to have shared many conversations with
her and listened to her tell the stories of the watermelon
patches that they nurtured, the fruit trees that they tended to
every day, but at most and most importantly, the ability to
have been able to play in those areas growing up, enjoying
their grandmothers, grandfathers, their parents, family, and
community in that area.
It was very important to me because it is those voices that
I carry and bring into Washington, DC, every time I visit,
every time I have the opportunity and honor to speak before
many people to carry and share my people and their voices and
how important this is.
We are very much tied to the land, which makes every bit of
my testimony today weigh very heavy on my heart.
It has been stated on many occasions from local and
national interests and at each level of government that the
Bears Ears landscape deserves protection. This pertinent
question, something that many of us have pondered, is not that
it deserves protection. We all agree that it deserves
protection. The real question is how?
How will we all come together to do this? And I gracefully
thank Chairman Bishop and Congressman Chaffetz for all of the
hard work you guys have invested in trying to pull everybody
together, and trying to compromise and see that everybody has a
seat at the table. Thank you for all of those many hours of
visits and meetings that you have all set forth.
That opportunity for many has been seized, and for some may
have even been passed by. Some of the heartfelt concerns that
my people carry, especially and more so with the two tribes,
the Navajo and the Ute, is what precedents this bill could set.
This has Native American tribes very much on alert when you
look at the precedents that could be on the Floor here.
Do we really want to set Native American conversations with
Congress and agencies back another 100 years? My sincere and
heartfelt request is no. We worked so hard to get our foot in
the door. We are going to continue to work hard to bring those
heartfelt, genuine concerns and conversations to the table.
One of the big areas is collaborative management, something
that we feel steps beyond consultation, or should I say
``meaningful consultation'' ? I challenge each of you to rise
above that word and let's redefine that.
As a Native American woman and elected official of my
people, I sincerely thank you for this honor to express myself
in the manner that I have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk follows:]
Prepared Statement of Regina Lopez-Whiteskunk, Co-Chair of the Bears
Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, Councilwoman of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Thank you and good morning Chairman McClintock and committee
members. Thank you members and staff for the opportunity to speak
today. My name is Regina Lopez-Whiteskunk. I serve as the co-chair of
the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition (BEITC) and as a Councilwoman for
the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.
It has been stated on many occasions, from local and national
interests and at each level of government that the Bears Ears landscape
deserves protection. The pertinent question turns to ``how.'' How
should the Bears Ears cultural landscape be protected for the
generations to come? Several tools are available to meaningfully
protect these public lands. However, the Public Lands Initiative (PLI)
is not the appropriate vehicle for preserving and protecting our
Nation's treasures within southeastern Utah. PLI falls dramatically
short of what the BEITC requested in our October 15, 2015 proposal to
President Obama calling for the designation of 1.9 million acres as a
Bears Ears National Monument (Exhibit A).
Due to a number of shortcomings within the complex PLI bill, the
BEITC does not support PLI. The BEITC originally set out our opposition
to the PLI and discontinuation of discussions with the Utah delegation
in a December 31, 2015 letter (Exhibit B). Since that period, it has
become increasingly clear that the BEITC's decision to withdraw from
PLI discussions is validated. A second letter, a subsequent press
release, and a final letter, each reaffirm the BEITC's refusal to
continue empty discussions with the Utah delegation (Exhibit C, D, and
E). A hard look at the details of the PLI bill confirms the BEITC's
stance and reveals language favoring energy development and off-road
vehicle use in the breathtaking and cultural resource-dense landscape.
At the heart of the BEITC's national monument proposal is a
comprehensive measure calling for true tribal collaborative management
of the living landscape. With thousands of documented sites and
cultural resources that inextricably connect tribes to these lands, the
birth of the BEITC was necessary to immediately protect and preserve
the area from rampant looting. However, participation from the five
member tribes of the BEITC is severely diminished in the draft PLI
bill. Instead, PLI envisions a 10-member advisory committee with only a
single tribal representative that is charged with advocating the
interests of each individual tribe. As in our past discussions with the
Utah delegation on PLI, tribal voices will continue to be drowned out
by a 10-member committee designed for deadlock and inaction.
As drafted, PLI also fails to protect over half a million acres of
the Bears Ears region as proposed by the BEITC. Not only were
considerable efforts made to account for every acre in a proposed
national monument, but considerable reductions of lands, that are also
worthy of protection, were painstakingly not included in maps of the
BEITC's proposed national monument. Our call to protect 1.9 million
acres is already a conservative request. Anything less is tantamount to
destruction of sacred sites that the identities of native people are
affixed to.
PLI also proposes to transfer control over-permitting and
regulation of energy development on Federal lands to the state, thus
effectively placing cultural, air and water resources in greater
jeopardy. While these sacred lands continue to be disturbed by uranium
mining, recent spills of radioactive waste material, potash and other
dirty conventional energy development, current lax regulation is not
protective enough of the lands. The landscape deserves better. Our
proposal, as provided in most national monuments, proposes that the
area be completely withdrawn from mining.
In addition, designation of the Bears Ears landscape as a National
Conservation Area, as proposed in the PLI, offers insufficient
protections from the development of roads. Construction of new roads
should be prohibited within the Bears Ears region, but the PLI proposes
to grant thousands of miles of routes through culturally sensitive
areas and wilderness. Irresponsible off-road vehicle use and enabling
the state to develop roads runs counter to the protection of cultural
resources.
At this time, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the Ute
Indian Tribe whose Uintah and Ouray Reservation would be dramatically
impacted by the bill. Attending today's hearing are the Ute Tribe's
Business Committee Vice Chairman Ed Secakuku and Members Bruce Ignacio
and Tony Small. The Ute Indian Tribe must be heard before the full
committee considers this bill.
Buried in a section called ``Innovative Land Management and
Recreation Development'' the bill proposes to take more than 100,000
acres of the Ute Tribe's lands for the state of Utah. Not since the
late 1800s has Congress attempted to take Indian lands and resources to
benefit others. This modern day Indian land grab should be universally
rejected by Congress.
In addition to taking more than 100,000 acres of the Ute Tribe's
lands, the bill would make management changes to another 200,000 acres
of reservation lands. The tribe learned about these proposals when the
discussion draft was released in January. The tribe was never consulted
on these proposals until after the fact.
This bill has been built on the back of the Ute Indian Tribe and
their reservation homelands. Let me be clear, a vote for this bill is a
vote to steal Indian lands, diminish tribal self-determination, and set
Federal Indian policy back 100 years.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today to
present the views of the BEITC on this important topic. We hope that
our perspective will be of assistance, and I, along with my colleagues,
am happy to answer any questions you may have.
*****
The following documents were submitted as supplements to Ms. Lopez-
Whiteskunk's testimony. These documents are part of the hearing record
and are being retained in the Committee's official files:
--Exhibit A: Proposal to President Barack Obama for the Creation of
Bears Ears National Monument by Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition, October 15, 2015
--Exhibit B: Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, December 31, 2015
Letter to Rep. Bishop and Chaffetz
--Exhibit C: Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, June 27, 2016
Letter to Sen. Hatch and Lee; and Rep. Bishop and Chaffetz
--Exhibit D: Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, Statement on Tribal
Concerns Ignored by Bishop's Public Lands Bill
--Exhibit E: Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, July 23, 2016
Letter to Rep. Bishop and Chaffetz
______
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you for your testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Dave Ure, the Director of the
Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration from
Salt Lake City, Utah for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVE URE, DIRECTOR, UTAH SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL
TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Mr. Ure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Bishop and
Congressman Chaffetz, for the work you have done, and also the
committee members for inviting me here.
My name is Dave Ure. I have been in the saddle now for 10
months, so I know a lot about nothing and I am learning as hard
as I can. I was thrown into the middle of this not knowing a
lot about it until I was here.
Let me give you a little bit of history. I was a dairy
farmer up until 3 years ago, milked cows for 50 years. I forced
my sons and my daughters to milk cows, taught them their times
tables while milking cows. So, school kids are pretty close to
me.
I served in the legislature for 14 years, 2 years
underneath Speaker Bishop, of which he and I had a love-hate
affair and mostly a love affair. Cut that off? OK.
I served as County Councilman for 7 years until I took this
position here at School Trust Lands, so I have seen a lot of
different areas.
I do not envy you in your jobs trying to decipher the
balancing act between environmentalists, the school kids in
Utah, and the tribes, but it can be done and I believe that
this bill is one way of doing it.
The reason we are here is the School Trust lands are
scattered with a checkerboard, with four sections with every
township, of which we are talking about 311,000 acres in this
transaction of the PLI. Any decision that is made about the use
of an area of public lands directly affects the school kids.
There is a huge amount of land in southeastern Utah that is
particularly beautiful, canyon land that everyone can agree
should be preserved. The question is--how do you preserve it?
Do you preserve it with a scalpel as we are doing in PLI, or do
you take an ax or a chainsaw and do it as some have suggested
and call it a national monument?
What we ask is that where Federal lands are placed into
wilderness or conservation management, there be a simultaneous
exchange of State Trust Lands under the new conservation area
for usable Federal lands elsewhere in the state.
SITLA already has a successful record of working with the
Department of the Interior and the BLM to finish large land
exchanges of this nature: in the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument in 1998; the West Desert in 2000; and most
recently, the Colorado River exchange with Moab in 2009.
We believe that land exchange proposals by the PLI Act
builds on this track record. Under the PLI Act, SITLA would
trade trust lands out in the Bears Ears National Conservation
Area, the Gemini Bridges, areas near Moab, and huge acres in
the San Rafael Swell and Desolation Canyons.
The PLI bill also lays the groundwork for a large
conservation transaction for SITLA among a wildland block in
the Southern Book Cliffs of Grand County.
In this legislation, there are 41 new wilderness areas and
11 new National Conservation Areas. These will be designated to
use under the proper design and policy set by the BLM and by
the Forest Service.
We understand that there are some parts of the PLI land
exchange proposal that have created objections from various
parties. This is invariable in a proposal of this size. SITLA
commits to work with all of these parties, particularly the Ute
Indian Tribe, to resolve any of these issues.
We are already partners with the Ute Indian Tribe on
several other issues, including the Hill Creek extension we are
talking about. This will not be a new deal with us.
In the 10 months that I have been in this saddle, I have
learned to respect and admire the Ute Tribe. I do not always
agree with them, but I have learned to respect the culture and
their history, and I look forward to doing it again. It will
not be an easy cup of tea, but we have a good communication.
I have spent many, many hours over the last 10 months
talking with the two gentlemen from the tribe sitting behind me
right now. We can continue to talk. They have schoolchildren in
the school system in Utah as well as everybody else, and the
money we raise furthers their progression. It goes directly to
the classrooms and that is what I am asking you to do, to
persist and push this bill along. We need this bill for our
school kids and for the Ute Tribe school kids in the state of
Utah.
I thank you for your time today, and I apologize for my
emotions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ure follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Ure, Director, Utah School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration
introduction
On behalf of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration, I thank Chairman McClintock and the subcommittee
members for the opportunity to provide this statement in support of
H.R. 5780. I also wish to thank Utah Congressmen Rob Bishop and Jason
Chaffetz for their co-sponsorship of this landmark legislation. H.R.
5780 will resolve long-standing conflicts between conservation and
economic development over a vast portion of eastern Utah; designate
millions of acres for conservation; and support outdoor recreation of
all types as well as local economic development. The associated land
exchange contained in Division B, Title I of H.R. 5780 will secure
Federal ownership of existing state trust lands within various proposed
conservation areas, and concurrently provide replacement Federal lands
to Utah's school trust, helping fund K-12 public schools in Utah.
about sitla
The School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (``SITLA'')
is an independent, non-partisan state agency established to manage
lands granted by Congress to the state of Utah at statehood for the
financial support of K-12 public education and other state
institutions. SITLA manages approximately 3.3 million acres of state
trust lands, and an additional million acres of mineral estate. Revenue
from school trust lands--most of which comes from mineral development--
is deposited in the Utah Permanent School Fund, a perpetual endowment
supporting K-12 public schools. Investment income from this endowment
is distributed annually to each public and charter school in Utah to
support academic priorities chosen at the individual school level.
background
H.R. 5780 is the culmination of multiple years of stakeholder
outreach by Representatives Bishop and Chaffetz, and represents a
compromise solution to protracted disputes over public lands management
in eastern Utah. The two sponsors and their respective staff have
conducted hundreds of meetings with scores of stakeholders, including
local governments, Indian tribes, environmental NGOs, outdoor
recreationalists of all types, and a host of others, to reach a bottom-
up compromise on how to manage public lands in eastern Utah for the
future.
SITLA's testimony on H.R. 5780 will focus on one major aspect of
the Public Lands Initiative--the consolidation of state school trust
lands out of conservation areas and into larger, more useable blocks of
lands. Some background on the reasons for the proposed land exchange
will be helpful to the subcommittee. The majority of land in eastern
Utah is Federal land managed by BLM. A notable exception is the
presence of state school trust lands scattered in checkerboard fashion
throughout the area. As the subcommittee is aware, state school trust
lands are required by law to be managed to produce revenue for public
schools. Revenue from Utah school trust lands--whether from grazing,
surface leasing, mineral development or sale--is placed in the State
School Fund, a permanent income-producing endowment created by Congress
in the Utah Enabling Act for the support of the state's K-12 public
education system.
H.R. 5780 will create 41 new wilderness areas, 11 new National
Conservation Areas, and a variety of other special designations. These
designations by their nature place substantial limits on the use of the
Federal lands within their boundaries, which in turn places limits on
SITLA's ability to develop economic uses such as mineral extraction.
Likewise, state efforts to generate revenues from trust lands through
sale of the lands for recreational development and home sites would
conflict with management of the surrounding Federal lands. Over the
years, disputes over access to and use of state school trust lands
within federally-owned conservation areas have generated significant
public controversy, and often led to expensive and time-consuming
litigation between the state of Utah and the United States.
Land exchanges are an obvious solution to the problem of state land
ownership within Federal conservation areas. Exchanges can allow each
sovereign--the state of Utah and the United States--to manage
consolidated lands as each party's land managers deem most advisable,
without interference from the other. In the last 20 years, the state of
Utah and the United States worked successfully to complete a series of
large legislated land exchanges. In 1998, Congress passed the Utah
Schools and Land Exchange Act, Public Law 105-335, providing for an
exchange of hundreds of thousands of acres of school trust lands out of
various national parks, monuments, forests and Indian reservations into
areas that could produce revenue for Utah's schools. Then, in 2000,
Congress enacted the Utah West Desert Land Exchange Act, Public Law
106-301, which exchanged over 100,000 acres of state trust land out of
proposed Federal wilderness in Utah's scenic West Desert for Federal
lands elsewhere in the region. In 2009, Congress enacted the Utah
Recreational Land Exchange Act, Public Law 111-153, which authorized
the exchange of 70,000 acres of combined BLM and state trust lands out
of the scenic Colorado River corridor near Moab. This exchange closed
in 2014. Other exchange efforts are currently pending, and SITLA
greatly appreciates the efforts of Representatives Bishop and Chaffetz,
and the cooperation and efforts of the Bureau of Land Management, in
the enactment and implementation of past and current exchange
proposals.
The hallmark of each of these exchanges was their ``win-win''
nature: school trust lands with significant environmental values were
placed into Federal ownership, while Federal lands with lesser
environmental values but greater potential for revenue generation were
exchanged to the state, thus fulfilling the purpose of the school land
grants--providing financial support for public education. The land
exchange proposed by the Utah Public Lands Initiative would continue
this tradition.
description of proposed pli land exchange
Under Division B, Title I of H.R. 5780, SITLA would give up
essentially all state trust lands in wilderness areas, national
conservation areas, and other conservation areas created by the PLI
Act. These trust lands to be traded to BLM would include lands within
the proposed Bears Ears National Conservation Area and included
wilderness in San Juan County; state trust lands in the Gemini Bridges
and Labyrinth Canyon areas west of Moab in Grand County; all trust
lands within the San Rafael Swell in Emery County; state trust lands in
Desolation Canyon in Carbon, Emery and Grand Counties; state trust
lands in Nine Mile Canyon in Carbon, Duchesne and Uintah counties; and
other conservation areas elsewhere in eastern Utah.
One additional conservation transaction is worth noting in addition
to the areas described above. SITLA currently manages a large block of
wild land in the Book Cliffs of Grand County--often called the Roadless
Area. This remote 48,000 acre land block includes some of the best big-
game hunting habitat in Utah, as well as profound scenic values. Under
the PLI, SITLA would convey mineral rights in the area to BLM, with
those minerals to be permanently retired from development. SITLA would
then undertake a conservation transaction for the surface estate with a
non-Federal entity such as the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, to
ensure long-term conservation and wildlife use of the area. SITLA's
willingness to commit this property to conservation was based on the
negotiated compromises represented by the PLI with respect to lands to
be acquired by SITLA from BLM for the school trust, and particularly
the ability to acquire BLM lands in southern Uintah County.
The total acreage of school trust lands and severed minerals to be
conveyed by SITLA to BLM, or in several cases to the U.S. Forest
Service, would be approximately 311,250 acres. In exchange, SITLA would
acquire approximately 311,791 acres of BLM lands and minerals in
eastern Utah. These include a large block of lands outside the Bears
Ears NCA in San Juan County; lands near the Lisbon Valley, also in San
Juan County; a large block of land west of the Moab airport that is
within a known potash leasing area; lands along the I-70 corridor in
Emery and Grand counties; a large block of land in southern Uintah
County; and a number of smaller parcels around eastern Utah.
H.R. 5780 provides that the proposed exchange would be subject to
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. The legislation
also contains specific provisions for the sharing of future mineral
revenues between the United States, the state of Utah, and SITLA to
ensure mutual fairness in the valuation of the lands involved. In
particular, the United States would retain its entire current revenue
stream from existing oil and gas development on the BLM lands SITLA
would be acquiring, and its entire projected revenue stream from future
potash development.
With a land exchange of this magnitude, it is inevitable that some
issues of dispute will arise with respect to the lands involved. SITLA
has concerns about the southeast boundary of the Bears Ears NCA where
it overlaps existing SITLA oil and gas leases for which near-term
development is anticipated. SITLA is also aware that the Ute Indian
Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation has expressed opposition to
SITLA's acquisition of lands within the historic Uncompahgre
Reservation. Although Congress has repeatedly authorized land exchanges
of BLM lands in this area, we acknowledge and respect the tribe's
position, and commit to work with the tribe and the Department of the
Interior to see if a mutually acceptable resolution can be found.
Similarly, we commit to work with the Department, local governments,
NGOs, and affected third parties to resolve particular issues that may
arise with respect to either the exchange process or specific lands of
concern.
On the whole, the land exchange contemplated by H.R. 5780 is a
spectacular opportunity to consolidate scattered trust lands into more
useable larger parcels with better potential to support both the school
trust and local economic development, while protecting a huge amount of
land for conservation. Collectively, the BLM lands to be acquired by
SITLA are expected to produce significant revenue to Utah's school
trust over a long time period, meaningfully supporting K-12 public
education in Utah. The conservation benefits of the other side of the
land exchange are profound. It is an opportunity that needs to be
taken.
conclusion
SITLA appreciates the efforts of Chairman McClintock, the
subcommittee, and Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz in holding a hearing
on H.R. 5780. We respectfully ask that it be passed out of committee
favorably at the earliest possible time. Thank you.
______
Mr. McClintock. No apology necessary. Thank you for your
testimony.
Our final witness is Mr. Clif Koontz, the Executive
Director for Ride with Respect from Moab, Utah. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
You guys do an awful lot of advertising in my neck of the
woods.
STATEMENT OF CLIF KOONTZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RIDE WITH
RESPECT, MOAB, UTAH
Mr. Koontz. Thank you Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member
Tsongas, and members of the subcommittee. I am Clif Koontz,
Executive Director of Ride with Respect, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization that conserves shared-use recreation of the public
lands surrounding Moab, Utah. Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the Utah Public Lands Initiative Act, a bill that I
believe lives up to its stated purpose, to provide greater
conservation, recreation, economic development, and local
management of Federal lands.
For the last 14 years now, Ride with Respect has assisted
state and Federal agencies with the management of off-highway
vehicles. Our motto of caution, consideration and conservation
promotes an ethic of respecting oneself, other trail users, and
the land itself.
Our trail work almost always benefits conservation and
rarely involves constructing new trails. More often, we
relocate existing trails away from sensitive resources, such as
unstable soils, riparian areas, and cultural sites.
I have supervised over 12,000 hours of field work and am
proud of Ride with Respect's contribution to the natural
resources and the local communities, as well as visitors who
depend on them.
In 2012, when groups seeking to vastly expand wilderness
designations proposed a 2 million acre Greater Canyonlands
National Monument, I was concerned that such a proclamation
would likely close trail systems for which Ride with Respect
has been the caretaker.
By 2013, the national monument threat had spawned a
collaborative effort in which Representatives Bishop and
Chaffetz solicited input from stakeholders via each county in
eastern Utah. I don't know how many hundreds of hours I have
spent participating, but my personal notes on various meetings
and correspondence specific to the PLI is 100,000 words long.
To illustrate this difficult process, let me describe an
area between Moab and Labyrinth Canyon called Big Flat. As part
of Grand County's Big Flat Working Group, in 2014, I attended a
dozen meetings to develop a package of conservation,
recreation, and development areas. The old County Council
accepted these recommendations, but rather than forwarding them
to the Congressmen, the Council deferred to the incoming
council members.
In 2015, this new council modified the Big Flat Working
Group package to emphasize conservation. In 2016, compared to
what the new County Council had recommended, the PLI bill
proposes more SITLA trade-in areas, but also more NCA and
wilderness acreage, thereby honoring that balance point set by
the new council.
Although I prefer the position of the old council, I
respect the deliberative process and accept the outcome. In
fact, beyond Big Flat, most areas covered by the PLI would be
more restricted than what the counties had recommended.
To develop a viable bill, the Congressmen made careful
concessions to wilderness groups without undermining the
interests of local communities. Unfortunately, wilderness
groups have turned their backs on negotiation in favor of
another quick fix, this time proposing a 1.9 million acre Bears
Ears National Monument.
As with Greater Canyonlands, the Bears Ears covers many
motorcycle and ATV trails where Ride with Respect stewardship
would no longer be welcome, if other national monuments are any
indication.
While the threat of national monuments can be credited for
making many stakeholders compromise, it has clearly had the
opposite effect on wilderness groups. At the risk of being
blunt, the PLI is not a great deal for OHV riders, and a
national monument could be a great fundraising tool for Ride
with Respect.
However, I am not taking time off the trail just to advance
my hobby of motorcycling or my profession of directing a
nonprofit organization. I am here because imposing a national
monument on half of a county would only entrench controversy.
While the PLI could not be a panacea, it would go a long
way toward resolving controversy by providing a more clear
direction and basically putting brackets on the debates that we
have been having for many decades. In my 14 years of service on
public lands, the PLI is the closest proposal that I have seen
to sustaining people and places.
I submitted 20 attachments to convey the PLI's thoroughness
and ask members of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands to focus
on the 6 attachments from this past summer.
Also please feel free to ask questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Koontz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Clif Koontz, Executive Director, Ride with
Respect
Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Tsongas, and members of the
subcommittee, I am Clif Koontz, Executive Director of Ride with Respect
(RwR), a 501c3 non-profit organization that conserves shared-use
recreation of the public lands surrounding Moab, Utah. Thank you for
the opportunity to discuss the Utah Public Lands Initiative (PLI), a
bill that I believe lives up to its stated purpose ``to provide greater
conservation, recreation, economic development, and local management of
Federal lands . . .''
For the past 13 years, Ride with Respect has assisted state and
Federal agencies with the management of off-highway vehicles (OHVs).
Our motto of ``caution, consideration, and conservation'' promotes an
ethic of respecting oneself, other trail users, and the land itself.
Our trail work almost always benefits conservation, and rarely involves
constructing new trails. More often we relocate existing trails away
from sensitive resources, such as unstable soils, riparian areas, and
cultural sites. I have supervised over 12,000 hours of field work, and
am proud of RwR's contribution to the natural resources and the local
community as well as visitors who depend on them.
In 2012, when groups seeking to vastly expand wilderness
designations proposed a 2 million-acre Greater Canyonlands National
Monument, I was concerned that such a proclamation would likely close
trails systems for which RwR has been the caretaker. By 2013, the
monument threat had spawned a collaborative effort in which Rep. Bishop
and Rep. Chaffetz solicited input from stakeholders via each county in
eastern Utah. I don't know how many hundred hours I've spent
participating, but my personal notes on various meetings and
correspondence specific to the PLI is 100,000 words long.
To illustrate this difficult process, let me describe an area
between Moab and Labyrinth Canyon called Big Flat. As part of Grand
County's Big Flat Working Group, in 2014 I attended a dozen meetings to
develop a package of conservation, recreation, and development areas.
The old County Council accepted these recommendations, but rather than
forwarding them to the Congressmen, the Council deferred to incoming
council members. In 2015, the new council modified the Big Flat Working
Group package to emphasize conservation. In 2016, compared to what the
new County Council had recommended, the PLI bill proposes more SITLA
trade-in areas but also more NCA and wilderness acreage, thereby
honoring the balance point set by the new council. Although I prefer
the position of the old County Council, I respect the deliberative
process, and accept the outcome.
In fact, beyond Big Flat, most areas covered by the PLI would be
more restricted than what the counties had recommended. To develop a
viable bill, the Congressmen made careful concessions to wilderness
groups without undermining the interests of local communities.
Unfortunately wilderness groups have turned their backs on negotiation
in favor of another quick fix, this time proposing a 1.9 million-acre
Bears Ears National Monument. As with Greater Canyonlands, Bears Ears
covers many motorcycle and ATV trails where RwR's stewardship would no
longer be welcome, if every other national monument is any indication.
While the threat of monuments can be credited for making many
stakeholders compromise, it has clearly had the opposite effect on
wilderness groups.
At the risk of being blunt, the PLI isn't a great deal for OHV
riders, and a monument could be a great fundraising tool for RwR.
However I'm not taking time off the trail just to advance my hobby of
motorcycling or my profession of directing a non-profit organization.
I'm here because imposing a monument on half of a county would only
entrench controversy. While the PLI couldn't be a panacea, it would go
a long way toward resolving controversy by providing a more clear
direction. In my 14 years of service on public lands, the PLI is the
closest proposal I've seen to sustaining people and places.
I submitted 20 attachments to convey the PLI's thoroughness, and
ask members of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands to focus on the 6
attachments from this past summer. Also please feel free to ask
questions. Thank you.
*****
The following documents were submitted as supplements to Mr. Koontz's
testimony. These documents are part of the hearing record and are being
retained in the Committee's official files:
--The Times-Independent Article: Guest Commentary. Greater
Canyonlands--A monumental mistake that may also spark
collaboration . . .
--Blueribbon Coalition, April 23, 2013 Letter to Chairman Bishop
--Blueribbon Coalition, July 10, 2013 Letter to Chairman Bishop
--Description of OHV Management by Clif Koontz--August 13, 2013
--Ride with Respect, January 16, 2014 Memo to the Grand County
Council
--Ride with Respect, May 7, 2014 Memo to the Grand County Council
--The Times-Independent Article: My View. Local input on federal
lands is a grand opportunity . . .
--Ride with Respect, September 10, 2016--PLI proposal for Grand
County
--Moab Friends-For-Wheelin', September 10, 2016--PLI proposal for
Grand County
--The Times-Independent Article: My View. Stabilizing the public-
lands pendulum . . .
--The Times-Independent Article: Thanks to council for coming back
to balance on public lands . . .
--The Moab Sun News Article, January 21, 2016: Riding with respect
in 2015
--The Moab Sun News Article: Ride with Respect Editorial
--Ride with Respect, BlueRibbon Coalition, Moab Friends for
Wheelin', Red Rock 4-Wheelers, February 23, 2016 Letter to
Rep. Bishop and Chaffetz
--Blueribbon Coalition/Sharetrails.org, Letter to Rep. Chaffetz
--Ride with Respect, July 13, 2016 Letter to Rep. Bishop and
Chaffetz
--Ride with Respect, Past Projects
--The Moab Sun News Article, August 18, 2016: A grounded view of
the PLI
--The Moab Sun News Article, August 25, 2016: A monumental error
--Ride with Respect, Latest Project
______
Mr. McClintock. That concludes our testimony. Thank you.
We will now proceed with Members' questions. We are also
limited to 5 minutes each and the custom of this subcommittee
is to recognize Members in order of Committee Seniority, with
general modifications requested by the Majority and the
Minority, and we will be making a few of those today.
With that, I will begin the first round of questions.
Commissioner Benally, a lot of people claim that the
creation of the Bears Ears National Monument is going to bring
new tourism and economic development in San Juan County. I
understand your county already has one national park, three
national monuments, the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area,
and the unemployment rate is still double that of the state of
Utah.
Do you think another national monument would really create
any economic prosperity for San Juan County?
Ms. Benally. That is true, Chairman. As I said, San Juan
County is the poorest county in the state. Tourism is not the
answer for economic development. You can only fill hotels so
many times, and a national monument would not encourage or
create job creation.
Tourism jobs are just seasonal.
Mr. McClintock. What kind of economic activity would the
PLI provide for your community?
Ms. Benally. The PLI Act brings people together through a
resource management plan with the different communities to come
together for the county, and yes, it will include some tourism,
and yes, there will be some development of other resources on
the eastern side of San Juan County, a piece of an energy zone
there.
Mr. McClintock. Let me underscore that point for a moment.
Mr. Koontz, we are told that the national monument designation
will shut down a lot of economic uses of the land, but don't
worry, look at all of the tourism you will have.
Well, my experience is tourists do not go where they are
not wanted, where they are forbidden to enjoy their outdoor
recreational pursuits. Could you offer some insight into that?
Mr. Koontz. Yes. While there is a segment of tourism that
can utilize wilderness areas, the vast amount of tourism in the
Moab area is not using wilderness areas, and so it is very
important to maintain that diversity of opportunity.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk, what state do you live in?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. I live in Towaoc, Colorado, but that
is the headquarters of the tribe.
Mr. McClintock. In Colorado. This bill affects the state of
Utah.
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. I understand that.
Mr. McClintock. Could you tell me how many of your board of
directors are from Utah, particularly from San Juan County?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. We have one member of the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribal Council. The tribe is headquartered in
Towaoc, Colorado. We do have Federal trust lands as well.
Mr. McClintock. So, the Deseret News reported in April of
this year that you were opposing the creation of the Sleeping
Ute Mountain National Monument near your home in Colorado. If a
national monument is such a good idea, can you explain why you
do not support one in your home state, but you do support one
imposed against the wishes of the local community in another
state?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Excuse me, but I am going to correct
that. The proposed national monument is for an already existing
Federal Reservation. They mentioned if I would support the
Sleeping Ute Mountain becoming a national monument, that's the
Reservation. That seemed like a very difficult question to even
imagine.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. I am going to have to cut you
off because my time is short.
Ms. Benally, where did this Bears Ears National Monument
campaign begin?
Ms. Benally. My understanding is that when the PLI process
started, there was a branch-off once environmentalists got
involved to create Utah Dine Bikeyah, which became Bears Ears
Inter-Tribal Coalition. When funding started to come in, and
there were paid board memberships, that is where it started,
the Bears Ears National Monument.
And also, if you look at the 1.9 million acre designation,
it looks very, very similar to the Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance proposal.
Mr. McClintock. Interesting. I have letters here which I
would like unanimous consent to enter into the record in
support of this from the elected County Commissioners in Carbon
County, Emery County, and San Juan County, all in support of
the PLI.
[The information follows:]
Carbon County Board of County Commissioners,
Price, Utah
July 13, 2016
To whom it may concern:
On behalf of the Carbon County Board of Commissioners, I lend my
support and efforts to the passage of the Public Lands Initiative
(PLI). PLI is a good example of grass roots politics in action. There
have been thousands of hours worked, multiple counties involved,
hundreds of meetings held, diversity of both the political and societal
spectrums and representation from a wide range of user groups. PLI is
also a good example of collaboration as both sides of the issue have
felt like they were giving up some things and gaining others.
The declaration of this monument undermines the local peoples'
ability to have a say and be involved in something that will affect
their lives personally and is contrary and in opposition to a grass
root movement like the PLI.
Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact
our office if you would like to discuss this very important matter
further.
Very truly yours,
Casey Hopes,
Commission Chairman.
______
Emery County Board of Commissioners,
Castle Dale, Utah
Congressman Chaffetz:
Emery County has been involved in a collaborative public land
management process since 2008, involving many stakeholders. When we
were asked to be a part of the Public Lands Initiative, we were pleased
that other counties were going to engage in similar public lands
collaboration, and that we could be part of a process that would
address management issues on a regional basis.
We appreciate the effort that has been made by you and Congressman
Bishop to engage stakeholders in each of the counties, and address all
the many issues regarding public land management. We feel your process
has been fair and inclusive. We are pleased to see draft legislation
made available for further process and discussion. We look forward to
continued discussion of the draft legislation as it makes its way
through Congress.
The Emery County Commission supports the Public Lands Initiative,
and will work to ensure its success.
Respectfully,
Keith Brady,
Chairman, Emery County Commission.
______
San Juan County Commission,
Monticello, Utah
May 3, 2016
Hon. Barack Obama, President of the United States,
The White House,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20500.
Dear Mr. President:
As the elected Board of Commissioners of San Juan County, Utah, we
are concerned that a Presidential designation of a national monument of
significant acreage in San Juan County may be made prior to the end of
your administration. Such a unilateral designation would not be
supported by this Commission nor would it be favorably accepted by a
majority of San Juan County residents.
San Juan County has been actively involved the past few years in
preparing a citizen's proposal for land designations to be included in
the Public Lands Initiative (PLI) sponsored by Congressmen Rob Bishop
and Jason Chaffetz. The impetus for this Initiative is to provide
greater certainty and local management of federally managed lands by
resolving long-standing and highly controversial land management
issues. The Commission supports locally-driven planning and in that
spirit appointed a council of citizens from various parts of the county
representing a variety of interests to develop a proposal. The
resulting proposal was endorsed by this Commission. This proposal
included, among other things, the designation of two National
Conservation Areas and several wilderness areas. This proposal was
submitted to the Congressmen for inclusion in the PLI for eastern Utah.
This PLI is currently being reviewed by Congressional staff preparatory
to introduction into Congress for passage into law.
Governor Herbert has expressly asked that Presidential designation
of a national monument not be considered in Utah while the PLI process
develops. He was assured by your office that such a designation would
not occur while this process works out but if such unilateral
designation is considered, it would not be exercised without first
involving the local citizenry in a public, transparent process
including locally-held hearings. This assurance of an open public
process on a local level was also reaffirmed by Bureau of Land
Management Director Neil Kornze in testimony given in a March 23, 2016,
hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Furthermore, it has been the practice of your administration to
exercise this authority only where it is widely supported by local
residents.
We trust that these assurances will be honored and that the current
open and transparent process of developing a Public Lands Initiative
will continue. It is our hope that such a locally-driven process will
be the basis for resolution of land management issues that have long
festered and polarized all sides of the issues.
Sincerely,
Phil Lyman,
Commission Chairman.
Rebecca M. Benally,
Commission Vice-Chair.
Bruce B. Adams,
Commissioner.
______
Mr. McClintock. They are, by definition, and you are, by
definition, a representative of the people or you would not be
holding that office. It seem to me the bill is opposed by out-
of-state interests who are orchestrating this national monument
campaign. Is that an accurate observation?
Ms. Benally. That is a 100 percent accurate observation of
outside interests.
Mr. McClintock. In my remaining 14 seconds, could you
explain the views of the Indian tribes in the local community
on this project?
Ms. Benally. The three tribes in San Juan County with
letters and visiting elders oppose a national monument for the
simple reason of it will close access.
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Ms. Tsongas,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is clear today, and we are hearing it over and over
again, that much appreciation has been given to the many
hearings that were held and the strong effort that has been
made to bring people together, but it is clear that we still
have real differences that are getting in our way.
One aspect of this bill that has received a lot of
attention, and we are certainly hearing it today with our
questions, is the effort to protect the area known as Bears
Ears.
So, Ms. Whiteskunk, can you tell us why this place is so
special and worthy of protection?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. This location is worthy of protection
for many reasons, but utmost is the Native Americans have ties,
and it is just not the five tribes. Many tribes have come and
gone through this area. We have ties and identity to the earth.
It is who we are, what we do, where we pray, where our
ancestors once roamed.
There is still strong evidence that they were there. When
they are there, we are still there. Our prayers and our
viability on a daily basis is still very, very much in
existence. It is our responsibility to protect what once was
for what is upcoming in the future for our children and our
grandchildren.
We have to protect the water usage. We have to protect the
vegetation, the fragile ecosystem that fringes in the balance
of what is called civilization.
From what I last heard, the greatest thing that ever
happened to us was when the Homestead Act came to be. My last
understanding was there were Native people that did live in
those areas. I did not know it needed to be homesteaded.
So, we have a natural, innate desire to take care of what
is, and that has been in our DNA to protect it.
Ms. Tsongas. One of the goals obviously of this Federal
Lands Subcommittee and the Natural Resources Committee is to
identify places that have deep significance both to the peoples
who live and have lived in those regions, but also for what
they say about who we are as a country.
Given your deep connection to Bears Ears, was the Bears
Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition able to participate in the PLI
negotiations?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. We started that, and let me back up a
little bit. With a group of the Utah Dine Bikeyah, they
initially were the grassroots organization that started that
discussion. It is through their frustrations and efforts that
they then approached many of the tribes to collectively gain
the support of tribal sovereign voices, and through that effort
is how we organized as tribally-elected leaders to bring the
sovereign voices to the forefront so that we could conduct a
government-to-government relationship and conversation.
Ms. Tsongas. Were you all able to travel to Washington to
make the case with any frequency?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Well, what we have in my exhibits,
which you also have before you with my written testimony, is a
demonstration of documented meetings and times of when we did
participate, and we have attempted to try to continue the
conversations with Chairmen Bishop and Chaffetz. Through
several of those meetings we just did not feel like we were
quite taken seriously.
Ms. Tsongas. Can you talk a little bit more about why you
chose to leave the negotiations?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. As I mentioned in the Exhibit A, we
provided a proposal. Part of that proposal is an extensive time
line. Within that time line we felt like it was just time that
we needed to be taken seriously.
On December 31, we all gathered in White Mesa and were
supposed to have a meeting with staff members. That morning, we
received a letter that that was not going to happen. We had put
our agenda out, and we said we need to discuss what our next
steps are, and that is when it was discussed to great lengths
that we would turn away from the PLI effort at that point
because of frustration.
Ms. Tsongas. And were you able to raise your concerns with
our Chairmen and their staff as they were engaging in this
process?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. We did, and we asked for a reaction
to our proposal. A substantive reaction was never received.
Ms. Tsongas. Do you feel that the PLI as proposed provides
adequate protection for the cultural resources of Bears Ears?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. We need collaborative management. We
need more than an advisory position.
Ms. Tsongas. So, you see much work that still needs to be
done?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Yes.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
The Chair next recognizes the Chairman of the Western
Caucus, Mrs. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I can tell you this process that Mr. Bishop and Mr.
Chaffetz have initiated has actually spawned a similar process
in Wyoming, the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative, to try to pull
together groups of interest in the land and its care and
protection, its proper grazing and use. This has been an effort
that has been something that we are trying to replicate.
I am proud of the work that they have done. I am also proud
of the work that Wyoming County Commissioners and people who
live and work on the land in Wyoming are doing to try to set a
course for land that we live on, work on, love, and recreate
on, and to do it in a way that honors people previously living
there and honors the people that want to live there in the
future, including our children and our families.
I also applaud Chairman Bishop and Chairman Chaffetz for
their terrific work on this bill.
Yesterday, I held a hearing over in the Interior
Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Reform specifically
about grazing. We talked about some of the very 21st century
grazing methodologies that are being used around the world to
improve the grass resource, the soil resource, and the way that
water moves across the land.
And these processes, when you apply modern science, are
very different from the way we manage Federal lands now and
more similar to the way that the ancestors of two of the women
at the table that have tribal roots managed the land.
To suggest that there is not a better way than having the
Federal Government in Washington, DC manage land and processes
when the people who are on the land are so able of employing
processes that have worked for time immemorial and can work
again is a little shocking to those of us who care so much
about our states.
I am delighted to have the testimony here today.
With those remarks, I want to ask one question of Director
Kornze first, and it has to do with wild horse sterilization
management. You canceled the research, and horse populations
have tripled. We are engaged in the desertification of certain
lands in the West because of the horse population and, quite
frankly, improper management of grazing resources.
My question is--why? What is it going to take for BLM to
manage the wild horse population?
Mr. Kornze. You raise a very big, very important topic.
Related to research, we are still moving ahead with many
research projects. A few years ago when I came into this seat,
I sat down with our team and we discussed this and asked what
is the state of knowledge? What is the state of science?
The best we have is what we call PZP, which is a 1-year
fertility treatment. We have almost 70,000 horses out on the
range. We do not have the budget to go out and touch every
horse every year.
Mrs. Lummis. Right. But here is my question. You and I have
had this dialogue before.
Mr. Kornze. Absolutely.
Mrs. Lummis. Did you cancel the research because you got
sued?
Mr. Kornze. We were working with Oregon State University
and a number of litigants in trying to find a way to have a
reasonable observation opportunity for the litigants, and we
simply could not come to an agreement for all parties.
It does not mean we are stepping back from this type of
research. It just means that research, at that place, at that
time, we had to take a step back from, but we will continue
moving forward, looking at long-term fertility control and
looking at spay and neuter. We have to go in that direction.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenthal.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to preface my questions with a few remarks.
First, Chairman Bishop and also Chairman Chaffetz, I
applaud you for the years of work on this PLI, but I believe in
its present form it is seriously flawed. It is of particular
interest to me as I have come to know and deeply appreciate
Utah's public land treasures. Earlier this year, I participated
in our committee's field hearing in St. George, Utah, and I was
lucky enough to spend some time after the hearing hiking and
getting a first-hand appreciation of the amazing and unique
landscapes in southern Utah.
I can completely understand why passionate people in my own
district, in Long Beach and in Orange County, keep constantly
asking me to take care of and protect our public lands, and to
keep them public for all Americans to visit and enjoy.
Even though my constituents live hundreds of miles away
from Utah, they spend their precious time and money visiting
and defending our shared public lands, just like visitors from
Utah come to experience and love California's Yosemite or
Joshua Tree National Parks.
However, the road to preserving public lands for future
generations has been a bumpy one filled with opposition, which
incidentally is true for any great idea. Even such iconic
places as the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone National Park were
staunchly opposed leading up to their creation. Yet now, they
enjoy broad support and bring many economic opportunities to
their gateway communities.
In Utah, for example, the proposal by Senator Frank Moss to
create the Canyonlands National Park in 1961 was also met by
stiff opposition that split the Utah delegation and was opposed
by then Governor George Clyde.
Today, however, Canyonlands receives more than 500,000
visitors a year and was recently praised by Utah's Senior
Senator Orrin Hatch, who said, ``We owe a debt of gratitude to
the people, both elected officials and citizens, who possessed
the foresight to recognize the value of Canyonlands and created
the park 50 years ago.''
As a country, we have had a long history of vigorously
debating the future of our public lands, but the arc has been
bent toward the long-term preservation of our public lands to
be used by the many, instead of privatization or development
for the profits of few.
That is why many of the provisions in the PLI concern me,
because they do not strike the right balance between
development and conservation that a majority of Americans like
my constituents have come to demand. In fact, in my reading of
the PLI, it conserves 100,000 acres less than the status quo;
opens up pristine landscapes to roads; and grants unprecedented
authority to the state to develop Federal minerals on the
state's terms.
My three-part question then is for Director Neil Kornze on
that last point. Has there ever been another example of a state
government having primary permitting authority over decisions
on Federal lands like the PLI has proposed?
Do you think it is appropriate for states to be given
permitting authority for energy development on Federal lands?
And, how specifically might state permitting on Federal
lands complicate the work of the BLM, including potentially
interfering with BLM's other land use responsibilities, like
recreation, hunting, and fishing? Director Kornze?
Mr. Kornze. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, for that question.
In terms of a precedent, I am not aware of a precedent
where a state has been given primacy in the authorization of
things like energy development. This would be not only unusual,
but potentially highly problematic. We have a number of active
oil and gas wells, a number of active leases; in addition, we
have a broad array of activities that we have management
responsibility for given to us by this committee and by
Congress.
So, we have very strong concerns with those provisions. We
have laid that out in some detail in the written testimony, and
we hope that we can continue working with the committee and the
sponsors on the core of their concerns.
We think we have a very good energy program running in
Utah. We also think that, by and large, our grazing program has
been highly successful.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
And I will wait if there is a round two for further
questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Our resident forester, Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, would like to compliment Chairman Bishop and the
work that he and the Utah delegation have done on this, plus
all the others that put so much effort into it. I think it is
an example of how the legislative process should work.
I believe there have been years of work, 65 different
proposals and 1,200 meetings. This has been debated long enough
and I, again, would just like to congratulate the Chairman for
his work on that and for the example that he sets for the rest
of us.
There is a map up on the screen. Mr. Kornze, if you could
please look at that map on the screen and the one that is in
front of you that was prepared by the BLM on July 12, 2016.
There is a red portion of land that will be transferred to the
state of Utah under the PLI. According to this map, the land is
public land managed by the BLM.
Can you confirm that this is currently public land that is
managed by the BLM?
Mr. Kornze. It indicates that here on the map which was
just put in front of me. So sure.
Mr. Westerman. So, the area indicated in red on the map is
land that is currently public land that is managed by the BLM?
Mr. Kornze. With the information I have in front of me, it
looks like that is accurate.
Mr. Westerman. OK. The next question is for Ms. Weldon.
This subcommittee is focused on ways to improve forest
health during this Congress. PLI attempts to address forest
health by helping the Forest Service better manage land through
several different land conservation and consolidation
provisions.
Can you explain to the subcommittee how Chairman Bishop's
bill will help the Forest Service better protect Utah's Federal
lands from threats such as insects, disease, and wildfire?
Ms. Weldon. Thank you.
There are many aspects of the bill around conservation that
echo the goals that the Forest Service has in managing these
public lands with assistance from the public around sustainable
forest management, health for watersheds, and ensuring a range
of uses that citizens want to be a part of and that contribute
to economic capability.
There is that great echo. Our concern is that there are
aspects of this, by making this a law, that take away the
adaptability that we find has really helped us to be successful
over the long term with ensuring those types of forest health
and ecological goals.
Mr. Westerman. Could you clarify that? Are you saying
making this law would hurt forest health or help forest health?
Ms. Weldon. We would like to discuss further some of the
provisions that lock in static types of management compared to
what our planning regulations do, which allow for us to
periodically check and adapt based on what's happening with
landscapes and what is happening with public values through
time.
We just want to make sure as we move forward that we keep
that adaptability, flexibility, and the ability for the public
input and the most recent scientific findings to be considered
as we continue to manage.
Mr. Westerman. So you are thinking this bill will make it
harder to manage than what you currently have?
Ms. Weldon. There are concerns about layers of complexity
that are placed on top of our current planning processes that
would make it more challenging.
Mr. Westerman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Polis.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
I have a number of issues with the provisions of the
legislation we are reviewing today. Certainly, I find it
unacceptable that the bill includes language ranging from a
public land giveaway, to a failure to protect the Bears Ears
region, to shedding environmental protections, and the fact
that this legislation steals land from the Ute Indian Tribe.
H.R. 5780 includes a provision to take 100,000 acres of the
tribe's lands within the Uncompahgre Reservation, which was set
aside for the tribe's Uncompahgre Band in 1882 by Executive
Order.
The Uncompahgre Band was originally from Colorado, and I
plan to stand up for tribal sovereignty. The fact that this
bill attempts to steal over 100,000 acres of land, I find is
offensive to the concept of tribal sovereignty, as well as the
integrity of our Nation's agreement with our Indian Nations.
But it is not only the provisions in the bill that I have
some issues with. It is also the way that the order has gone
about it, and the fact that our Chairman seems to be refusing
to allow access on wilderness bills that do have community
agreement behind them, while holding hearings on bills like
this.
I hope that in the future we can be more evenhanded in the
committee. I know the Chairman has said he has had many
stakeholder meetings on the Public Lands Initiative, but
obviously there are differing opinions from Utah among the
people who are represented here, most notably the voices from
people who are here and not here on all sides of this issue.
Chairman Bishop and Chairman McClintock, I did send you a
letter on August 16 requesting a hearing on my Continental
Divide Wilderness and Recreation Act. I have not yet received a
response. I hopefully look forward to your affirmative response
shortly.
I do want to indicate that while I am pleased that I have
had several pieces of legislation move through this committee,
my district's top priority, the Continental Divide Wilderness
and Recreation Act, has not received a hearing yet. As you are
aware, the bill came about from a large coalition of local
groups, officials, and businesses requesting a change in
designation for approximately 60,000 acres of Colorado's most
spectacular peaks and forests in Summit and Eagle Counties, our
main economic driver and our main lifestyle driver.
We have introduced the legislation three times, had an open
stakeholder process, we compromised, and we got everybody on
board. If we do have the opportunity to have a hearing, you
will hear diverse voices from our water authorities, our
cities, our counties, our businesses, sportsmen groups, 100
bipartisan, nonpartisan endorsing organizations, companies,
local governments, et cetera, all supporting this designation
change.
In our conversations, you have indicated a willingness to
potentially hold hearings on this, but I wanted to again
respectfully ask that our subcommittee or committee consider a
hearing on that bill with local buy-in.
Now, moving on to the issue at hand, I did want to address
a question to Director Kornze in follow-up to Mrs. Lummis'
question. Although you mentioned you have taken a step back
from research, a dangerous roundup of horses is still
occurring, and often these roundups occur when foals are very
young, sometimes killing them.
You mentioned PZP. Aren't there other humane methods like
this, instead of costly roundups and dangerous and costly
holdings and even slaughter, to manage our wild horse
population?
Mr. Kornze. The Bureau of Land Management's goal is to have
healthy horses on healthy rangelands. We have a number of
impediments to getting there. Part of it is the tools and the
budget that we have.
Just to give you a sense of scope, there are about 70,000
horses on the range right now. Our own internal analysis is
that there should be something closer to 25,000 or 27,000
horses. That is the recommended amount.
Mr. Polis. I understand. One more thing. I know you have
about 44,000 horses that one of your own advisory committees
recently recommended for slaughter or sale. Can you give me
information to reassure my constituents that the advice of that
committee is non-binding and inform me as to what other options
are being looked into the BLM, other than the completely
unacceptable proposal of slaughter or sale?
Mr. Kornze. I can confirm that for you. The advisory board,
frankly, we were surprised by their recommendation last Friday.
I read about it in the papers like you did.
We have a huge challenge, and it is something that we have
been trying to put together a comprehensive program to slow the
fertility of the horses and to make sure that we are getting
more horses into good homes.
And we have a massive budgetary problem in that we have
roughly 50,000 horses that have already been taken off the
range and are sitting in long-term holding pastures and
corrals. That is a billion, with a B, dollar cost for the
American taxpayer over the life of those horses.
Then we have the additional roughly 70,000 horses that are
out on the range. We need more tools. We could use the help of
this committee. We could use the help of states to get after
research, to get after more programs, to get more horses into
homes, but also to figure out how to properly manage these
animals.
And I will note one more thing, that this is the only
species that the Bureau of Land Management has responsibility
for. It is a true oddity. Normal wildlife is managed by
governors.
Mr. McClintock. I have to call time on you. We did have a
hearing on this very subject here earlier this year.
Mr. Kornze. But just to finish the point--if it is
endangered, it is managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service or
NOAA. This is the one species that the BLM has, and I think
there are a lot of big questions that we need to ask about how
we have ended up here.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Hardy.
Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kornze, many in the West, to put it mildly, take issue
with the excessive use of the Antiquities Act. We often argue,
and our constituents argue, that they would be much better off
if their Congressional leaders had an opportunity to be part of
that vote process on whether to create national monuments or
not.
Based off of the extensive stakeholder involvement and the
transparent process throughout the development of this
legislation, would you agree that this is a better way to go
about solving land management challenges instead of through the
unilateral executive action?
Mr. Kornze. Congressman Hardy, it is good to see you.
Mr. Hardy. You, too.
Mr. Kornze. I will say that I think the state that you
represent, which is my state, has had great success in working
through some of these large landscape legislative efforts, and
I think they are good for communities.
Mr. Hardy. OK. Do you believe that Chairman Bishop's
legislation is an appropriate balance between conservation and
economic development?
Mr. Kornze. I have long testimony and have given our views
on it, but I think that there are a number of provisions that
give us great heartburn, whether it is handing permitting over
to the state on oil and gas or limiting the BLM's discretion to
properly manage grazing. As forage goes up and down, we would
be locked into a flat line of how many cows can be out there
and how many cows should be out there.
And that is the tip of the iceberg. There are other pieces
where, when it comes to the language that is underneath the
title ``National Conservation Areas,'' many important pieces
are missing. Notably, language that says, as there are in other
National Conservation Areas, and there are more than 20 across
the country, this area should be managed for the conservation
purposes that are spelled out in this bill.
That is not part of this, and so there are a number of
gaps. I am so pleased that Chairman Bishop and Chairman
Chaffetz have taken on this task. It is extraordinary to have
seven counties working together and pushing in a similar
direction, and to have all of the groups that come with that.
Mr. Hardy. OK.
Mr. Kornze. But there are some serious concerns we have,
and we would like to see some major revisions to the
legislation.
Mr. Hardy. OK. I guess one of the key points I would like
to emphasize when we examine this legislation is the solution
to improve land management that sometimes we feel have not been
done by BLM. Along with Chairman Bishop, every member on this
committee supports protecting public lands, and preserving our
Nation's natural heritage is very important also.
Yet, despite the commitment to responsible stewardship,
interest groups like to frame these efforts as massive
privatization.
Do you believe that under this reading of this bill that
the local and state governments will manage the lands covered
and it is not just for private interests?
And do you believe this is a massive land sale like some
would like to have us believe?
Mr. Kornze. There is a provision that would compel us to
sell thousands of acres immediately. We have given the feedback
that we think that we would like to work with the sponsors on
which parcels make sense. Some have been identified for sale in
our plans. Others have not, and there also might be better
mechanisms.
We want to make sure that we are not dumping land onto a
market and flooding it. If there is interest, like in southern
Nevada, there is a system where people have to raise their hand
and say, ``We are interested in this,'' and then the county or
the cities come to the BLM and say, ``There is expressed
interest in this. We would like to nominate it for sale.''
That kind of process allows us to make sure that we are
working on something where there is a high probability of a
sale and we are using public resources maximally.
Mr. Hardy. OK. Thank you.
I am short on time. Mr. Ure, can you explain why this is
such a good win-win for the state and the Federal land
managers?
Mr. Ure. Thanks for the question.
In the PLI, this is a way for both the children in the
state of Utah, also the Ute Indian Tribe, and also the Federal
Government to all make money off the natural resources and
still be very, very directly guided and not ruin the
picturesque things we have in our mind that are beautiful.
We have new ways of drilling oil and gas called horizontal,
as you guys are all aware of. We can start one here and go 2
miles in one direction or another.
I think one of the things that both Congress and also the
people of the United States do not realize is that the Federal
Government makes money off royalties of oil and gas. With our
sanctions being scattered out throughout the western states or
throughout the state of Utah, oil companies do not have the
incentive to go out there and pay the mitigation fees or the
mitigation acreage of going 1 mile and having to put 10 miles
into mitigation one way or another.
By us being able to block this up, we are able to have
better control of our property. We are able to give royalties
to our school kids, to the Federal Government, if that is the
ground on which they choose to drill on, and also with
partnerships with the Ute Tribe, we can also give royalties
there. So it is a win-win for everybody on that, Congressman.
Mr. McClintock. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Hardy. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Kornze, I think in response to other Members'
questions, you have dealt with this question about Division B
of the bill that mandates a land exchange between the Federal
Government and the state of Utah. This land exchange that is
directed in the bill, as you indicated, differs from the
standard presently with BLM procedure.
Beyond the concerns that you outlined, is there another
comment regarding that exchange that is mandated?
Mr. Kornze. To paraphrase the official feedback we are
provided when it comes to any land exchange, we are generally
looking for four things: a public interest determination, a
complete NEPA process, standard appraisals being used, and
equal exchange.
Those are the four things that we walk into any exchange
discussion looking for, and some of those pieces seem to be
missing here.
Mr. Grijalva. Director, it is my understanding that the Ute
Indian Tribe is very directly impacted by these land exchanges
that are being mandated. It is their assessment that 100,000
acres of their reservation would transfer to the state of Utah
without review or consultation.
Is it possible that the land exchange authorized by the
bill could transfer Indian land to the state of Utah? Is that
really possible?
Would this happen if we followed BLM land exchange
procedures? Would that be possible to make that kind of
exchange? It is probably more of a BIA question, but the BIA is
not here.
Mr. Kornze. Yes. This is a unique situation that I have not
seen in my public lands experience before, where the Ute Indian
Tribe has stepped forward and asked for the reinstatement of
significant lands into tribal ownership. So, it is incredibly
complex on the legal side of this.
We are still looking through it, so I cannot offer you a
template of how BLM has dealt with this in the past. This is
the first time that I have seen it.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Director Ure, in this bill the group SITLA is seeking to
consolidate 100,000 acres of lands within the Ute Indian
Tribe's Reservation. Could you answer for the committee why
these lands are so valuable to SITLA?
And when SITLA proposed taking these lands from the tribe,
did you know that they were tribal lands?
Mr. Ure. Could you repeat the last question again?
Mr. Grijalva. When SITLA proposed taking these lands from
the tribe, 100,000 acres, at the time did you folks know that
they were tribal lands?
Mr. Ure. Let me, first of all, explain. I am over my head
on this one, but let me try to. The grounds that we are talking
about go into what they call the Uncompahgre. To my knowledge,
and I am sure the gentleman behind me will correct me outside,
the Uncompahgre is not specifically Indian Reservation under
today's terms.
I believe that that is part of a lawsuit going through the
Tenth Circuit Court in Denver and Salt Lake to define more what
the reservation is and the Uncompahgre.
If I am not mistaken, I believe that there is language in
the bill that if the lawsuit should prevail, if this is part of
the Indian Reservation, that there would be an action of doing
something else so that it would not be Reservation ground.
There are some tricky terms that I have learned in the last
10 months. One is ``Indian Country,'' one is ``Reservation,''
and one is ``Uncompahgre.'' They are very hazy back and forth.
As Director Kornze just said, it is very technical legal jargon
we are talking about here that has been in court for many, many
years.
It is not our intent to take directly off the Reservation.
It is out of the Uncompahgre, as I understand it today,
Congressman.
Mr. Grijalva. So, to some extent SITLA is betting on
Uncompahgre. If the litigation goes a certain way, then those
lands would be there to appropriate into whatever value SITLA
feels those 100,000 acres have--possibly to develop gas and
oil, who knows? The point is, at this point do you think given
the litigation that is going on, given the ancestral ties to
that land and the Reservation, do you feel it is even
appropriate for these Ute tribal homelands to be included in
any piece of this legislation?
With the caveat about the court case there, do you still
think that it should be in there?
Mr. Ure. With the language in the bill, which I believe
makes that determination if it should ever be settled, there is
a way for us to work out of that and keep the tribe whole.
This area up there is very rich in oil and gas. Even if we
are given that within the PLI, there will also be revenues
given to the tribe themselves as well as to our school kids.
I personally believe it is a fair issue under the
circumstances of which we are discussing the bill today. Things
could change with the Tenth Circuit Court and change
everything, but I believe there is language in the bill to make
things whole for the tribe and for the trust lands at the same
time.
That is as good as I can answer.
Mr. Grijalva. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Chairman Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I have questions for all of you. Let's see
how far we get through with this.
Commissioner Benally, let me start with you. Can you tell
me in very simple terms, what is the Utah Navaho Trust Fund,
and what does it actually fund?
Ms. Benally. The Utah Navajo Trust Fund is royalties that
come off the oil and gas on the northern section of the Navajo
Nation. The Utah Navajo Trust Fund recently, under Senate Bill
90, was reinstated for the state of Utah to oversee the funds.
It benefits roads, health, education, and the well-being of
Utah Navajos.
Mr. Bishop. If PLI were to pass, what would happen to that
trust fund?
Ms. Benally. That trust fund in PLI would help the Utah
Navajos get a bigger share to help the Utah Navajos that have
been neglected otherwise. That is what it would do.
Mr. Bishop. For the roads, the transportation and the
education, everything that is involved with that?
Ms. Benally. Yes, and also PLI will include, if passed,
that BIA, BLM, the Federal Government, and Navajo Nation finish
the process of getting mineral rights from McCracken Mesa for
the people that live on it. That is inserted in PLI, and that
is a great benefit for Utah Navajos under PLI.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
We mentioned briefly this idea of co-management. In fact, I
think you called it ``collaborative management'' of these
lands. In PLI right now, the management language is all we can
do.
Let me ask the question. Do you like that concept of
collaborative management, Commissioner? Because I have to admit
I do.
Ms. Benally. Any time anyone comes together to work
together on anything is the best method.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Here is the reality of it. The
collaborative management approach that has been suggested for
Bears Ears National Monument cannot legally be done. It
violates the law.
We write the law. I like the idea. PLI could, would, will--
I will write that language because I am still waiting for
Interior to give me some potential language on that.
We will incorporate that in PLI so we can actually do that
collaborative management program. You cannot do it with a
Presidential declaration. We can do it because we are Congress
and we write the laws. That is a guarantee for you.
Mr. Koontz, let me hit you very quickly. How would
certainty of protection, like what we are trying to do with
this bill, benefit groups like Ride with Respect?
Mr. Koontz. We invest quite a bit in the trails, and we do
not know on any given day whether they are going to go away.
But what this bill would do is provide a certainty of access
somewhere while giving the agencies the flexibility to relocate
as issues arise.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Dave, let me come back to you on this 100,000 acres, which
has been so glibly thrown out here so far. It is complex. In
fact, Director Kornze looked at the map and said, ``Yes, that
is BLM land.'' They are controlling it right now.
What you said as to what we can do in language is not, I
think, in the bill right now. It is what I would like to add to
the bill to try and work it out. The issue is this is part of
litigation. Once litigation is done, is there a way we can work
out some compromise language to make sure that the value of the
resources that are here that are given completely over to the
tribe would actually go to the tribe?
Is there some language that you have proposed that could
move us in that direction?
Mr. Ure. Yes, it is. Once they get the lawsuit finished,
yes.
Mr. Bishop. All right. I appreciate that kind of clarity.
Some of these things are very simplistically thrown out there
that really are not accurate.
Mr. Kornze, I do not really have a question. A couple of
quick statements here. You have given us some language. There
are some technical changes in there that I like. I promise you
for a markup those will be incorporated.
You have given me some substantive changes to the bill. I
promise you for markup those will not be incorporated because,
to be very honest, some of them are very confusing and the
potential arbitrary exchange without input is what we are
trying to eliminate in this.
You have used the phrase ``time tested management areas.''
That is the exact problem. Those time tested management areas
are why we are trying finally, instead of just giving a carte
blanche to the executive agencies, to say Congress will take
the time and the responsibility to map up what the agency
should be doing and how they should be managing the land.
I reject what you said about the oil concept. What we are
giving to the state is simply the permitting process, doing the
paperwork after they meet the standards that you all set,
simply because the state can do it in a reasonable amount of
time. You all cannot. You claim you do not have the manpower on
the ground to do it, which is probably true.
DEQ already has greater authority in the Clean Air Act than
what we are giving in this particular bill. I think it is a
misstatement and misapplication. I object to the way you have
characterized our grazing.
I am out of time and I have more things to complain about.
Mr. McClintock. Well, as a matter of fact, we are going to
go to a second round of questions, which begins with me, and I
yield my time to the Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Then let's come back here again.
I also want to state in here when we talk about
transferring of lands, and I am glad you brought it up, it says
specifically in here any lands given to the state shall be used
for a public purpose. That is not a sale. That is public
purpose.
Indeed, if you were giving lands back to the state of Utah,
there would be no financial incentive.
For Wyoming, lots of luck with your process. You saw what I
am going through. We could actually solve the horse problem in
PLI, but you would probably be opposed to it anyway.
All right. Now let me come back to you, Dave. You said when
you became SITLA Director that you wanted to grow the fund by a
billion dollars. Do you think that goal is achievable if you do
not do large transfer ideas like PLI?
Mr. Ure. No, it really is not. The cost of drilling for oil
in the state of Utah is already quite high, and oil companies
are not willing to take the risk of going into one of our
sections and finding oil in a diagonal drill somewhere else.
Plus, they cannot afford the access to our scattered
sections. The mitigation cost that the BLM and the Federal
Government has put on top of these oil companies to mitigate
out one to four, one to ten, or whatever it might be, we need
these blocks put together so that we can make more money for
our kids.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Koontz, did Ride with Respect, as you were
going through this process, sacrifice some of your priorities
as the negotiations have been going along?
Mr. Koontz. Absolutely, and I have gotten flack for
supporting things, because originally what OHV groups and even
counties were looking for was RS 2477 resolution. We have not
gotten that, so there is no trail that I can say for sure is
going to remain open. But I can say that there will be less
time spent in the courtroom in Washington, hopefully, and more
time spent fixing things on the ground on the trail.
Mr. Bishop. One other thing we attempted to do there is if
there has to be a change in a trail, that we have guaranteed
that there will have to be an equal, accurate alternative
opportunity. So the ability of recreating in the state of Utah
will not be taken away by arbitrary and capricious decisions
made by someone else far, far away.
Mr. Koontz. Absolutely, and we have done that with the BLM
and the Forest Service, and it has been a win-win, so to have
that legislative direction to do just that means that I can do
a better job for the people and the land.
Mr. Bishop. I have one other question, I am trying to
maintain my balance here with it, for Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk.
You made a statement of the December meeting in which a
staffer was supposed to attend, and you were told it would not
happen, and that was the trigger that allowed you to no longer
actually deal with us.
Do you know why that staffer was not able to attend that
Christmas time meeting?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. No, I stated that that was the
trigger that launched the discussion.
Mr. Bishop. Do you know why that staffer was unable to
attend the meeting?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. If I recall correctly, a loss of a
family member.
Mr. Bishop. He was attending his father's funeral. Now, in
all due respect, don't you think that is a wiser choice of his
time?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Oh, yes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. That is all I had, which is why I
was very offended by the statement that you made. That hurts
very deeply. I am sorry, that is the wrong type of approach to
take on this type of legislation.
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Well, with all due respect----
Mr. Bishop. No, no. I am sorry. I wanted that to be very
clear. That was the proper approach, and if that was the
trigger, shame on you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, let me yield back to you.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Ms. Benally, on my final minute, one of the problems we
have here, particularly among the western states, is Federal
ownership. Pick a state out of the air, maybe Massachusetts--
the Federal Government owns 1.6 percent, as we have pointed
out. It owns two-thirds of the state of Utah. I cannot begin to
imagine the outcry if the Congress proposed expropriating two-
thirds of the state of Massachusetts for bidding economic
activity and taking all of that land off of the local tax
rolls.
Any suggestions on how we can educate our colleagues about
the difficulties existing in counties where, for example, in
one of my counties, Alpine, 93 percent of the land is owned by
the Federal Government, off the tax rolls and forbidden from
productive activity?
Ms. Benally. Ninety-two percent of the land base in San
Juan County is National Park Service, a national monument,
Forest Service, Navajo Nation, or reservations. Only 8 percent
is privately owned.
So, with this I would like to say that there has been
neglect by the Federal Government through BLM, Forest Service,
Park Service, and national monuments. There are such things in
place like BLM Section 106. All of these places are already
intact for protection and conservation, but because of gross
neglect and no follow-through, San Juan County is the poorest
county in the state of Utah.
So, to educate the people, whether you are on the western
or eastern side, there needs to be much education.
Mr. McClintock. I am afraid I am out of time, but thank you
for your answer.
Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Ms. Whiteskunk, I wanted to give you a chance to
follow up on your answer to Chairman Bishop. I appreciate his
sensitivity to why his staff member could not be there, but I
think you had more to say about the experience altogether.
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Thank you, and I appreciate the
opportunity.
As I mentioned before, that was just one of the whole
incidents of what happened that day. If I recall correctly, we
had received an email that morning that that staff member was
not going to be there. I would have figured that if the funeral
was scheduled that day, we would have received some more leeway
in terms of when that individual was not intending on being
there. We received that email that morning while the rest of us
had gathered, and we were informed that that was not going to
happen.
We had a well thought out agenda for that day and had just
basically thrown that to the side and discussed where we were
at, what we were feeling, and one of the greatest moments was
when we just sincerely all felt like our consideration, our
conversation in this whole process was not being taken
seriously.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Ms. Whiteskunk. So it was clearly
an accumulation of things.
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Yes, as it is outlined in the
exhibit.
Ms. Tsongas. Nevertheless, we all appreciate why his
staffer could not be there.
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Thank you.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you.
On another note, as we are having this discussion, I just
wanted it to be known that we have received numerous letters
outlining a variety of concerns with this bill. We have heard
some of them today. While some of the letters come from
national conservation groups like the Wilderness Society and
the National Parks Conservation Association, groups not always
well received by this committee, we have also received letters
from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Outdoor
Industry Association, which represents businesses that make up
the $646 billion outdoor recreation economy, and not to mention
local groups like the Friends of Cedar Mesa, and even one of
the counties, Grand County, impacted by this legislation.
All of the letters outline different concerns with the
introduced bill, but there is one message threaded through each
one of them, that despite all of the strong and concerted
efforts to bring people together, in the end, this bill does
not represent consensus and it will lead to more, not less
conflict.
To quote one of the letters, ``H.R. 5780 undermines years
of effort to find common ground, and it is a missed opportunity
to advance conservation, recreation, and economic development
in eastern Utah.''
I ask unanimous consent that all of these letters are
entered into the record.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
The Wilderness Society,
Washington, DC
September 13, 2016
Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Hon. Niki Tsongas, Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Federal Lands,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Tsongas:
The Wilderness Society (TWS) writes to express views on H.R. 5780,
the Utah Public Lands Initiative Act (PLI). We respectfully request
that this letter be included in the hearing record.
The Wilderness Society opposes H.R. 5780. While the proposal
recognizes the critical need to protect scenic and sensitive public
lands in Utah--places like the Bears Ears region in San Juan County--it
fails to focus on areas of agreement between conservation groups,
counties and other stakeholders, and would instead impose controversial
provisions that lack public support.
As drafted, H.R. 5780 undermines years of effort to find common
ground and is a missed opportunity to advance conservation, recreation
and economic development in eastern Utah.
The legislation suffers from numerous fatal flaws, including:
Contradicting the Wilderness Act, Federal Land Policy and
Management Act, National Forest Management Act, and
National Environmental Policy Act.
Undermining the management of proposed wilderness areas,
national conservation areas, special management areas, and
recreation zones.
Failing to conform to local agreements between
stakeholders, as well as county proposals, developed during
the PLI process.
Providing unprecedented giveaways to the State of Utah,
including over a thousand miles of public roads, as well as
important land and resources.
Giving the State of Utah unprecedented authority to
approve energy development on Federal lands in eastern
Utah.
Failing to designate 62% of deserving wilderness-quality
BLM lands as wilderness and rolling back existing
protections for over 100,000 acres of wilderness study
areas.
Affording insufficient protections for the proposed Bears
Ears National Monument.
Containing numerous other onerous provisions such
mandatory grazing on all public lands in eastern Utah;
granting San Juan County a right-of-way on Recapture
Canyon, the site of the illegal ORV protest ride that
damaged archeological resources; and mandating energy
development in the Nine Mile Canyon Special Management
Area.
We appreciate the commitment of many stakeholders and community
leaders to find common ground during the development of the Public
Lands Initiative. The Wilderness Society remains committed to
continuing to work for the permanent protection of deserving public
lands in Utah through whatever process can successfully secure those
protections.
Thank you for considering our views on this legislation.
Sincerely,
Paul Spitler,
Director of Wilderness Policy.
______
National Parks Conservation Association,
Washington, DC
September 12, 2016
Dear Members of the House Natural Resources Committee:
Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has
been the leading public voice in protecting and enhancing America's
National Park System. On behalf of our more than one million members
and supporters nationwide, and in advance of the Subcommittee on
Federal Land's upcoming September 14th hearing, I write to urge members
of the subcommittee to oppose Chairman Rob Bishop and Congressman Jason
Chaffetz's Utah Public Lands Initiative (H.R. 5780).
For over three years, the National Parks Conservation Association
(NPCA) has been a stakeholder in the Utah Public Lands Initiative
(PLI). We encouraged an open, transparent process for determining land
designations based on mutual trust and a commitment to finding common
ground, where possible. NPCA's priorities in the process were to
protect and conserve the unique ecological, cultural and recreational
values of our national park units while also considering the larger
shared landscape. This includes potentially expanding protections
around several national park units as well as ensuring that activities
on adjacent lands do not impair the air, water, sounds, night skies,
views and other values that the National Park Service (NPS) is charged
with protecting. Throughout the PLI process, NPCA's goal was to work
toward legislation that would protect eastern Utah's magnificent
landscape, while allowing for a variety of recreational opportunities,
appropriate development, and robust local and state economies.
After closely examining provisions in the legislation, NPCA cannot
support H.R. 5780 because it would result in a step backwards for
conservation in the management of the national park units and the
larger shared landscape. In addition, the bill includes language that
contradicts and undermines key federal laws including the Wilderness
Act, Clean Air Act, and National Environmental Policy Act. While we are
pleased to see our priority of expanding Arches National Park included
in the bill, we oppose many more provisions of the bill that do not
support parks or their adjacent landscapes, and therefore do not
consider H.R. 5780 a balanced approach to resolving Utah's public land
issues.
The bill ignores much of the progress made over the past three
years and the collaborative approach taken in several of the state's
counties. Overall, the bill is a missed opportunity to protect and
preserve some of America's greatest national parks and their
surrounding public lands. Instead, H.R. 5780 would subject much of
eastern Utah's public lands to excessive development and off-road
vehicle use, while weakening environmental protections. Even the title
of the bill is of concern, ``To provide greater conservation,
recreation, economic development, and local management of federal lands
in Utah, and for other purposes.'' These are federal lands and while
local input and participation in management of these landscapes is
important, these are public lands that belong to all Americans.
Below we outline the provisions of the bill which NPCA opposes due
to potential impacts to our national parks, their shared landscapes,
and the enjoyment of all Americans.
Division A: Conservation
Title I: Wilderness
Although we support H.R. 5780 the designation of wilderness in
Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, Dinosaur National Monument and
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in H.R. 5780, the wilderness
boundaries are problematic; they do not include all of the recommended
acreage in Arches, but do include other developed areas within the
parks, which do not qualify as wilderness. In addition, the wilderness
management language in the bill contradicts the Wilderness Act and
undermines the authority of the NPS to fully manage wilderness
resources in the parks. As written, H.R. 5780 would actually offer less
protection for lands inside national parks because nearly all of the
land designated as wilderness in the bill that is inside the parks is
already recommended wilderness and currently managed by the NPS in a
manner consistent with the Wilderness Act. We are extremely concerned
about the provisions in the wilderness administration language in H.R.
5780 which limit the land manager's ability and authority to
appropriately manage the natural and cultural resources. All designated
wilderness should be managed consistent with the Wilderness Act without
stipulations and exemptions attached.
NPCA strongly opposes any effort to reclassify Arches and
Canyonlands national parks from Class I to Class II airshed status as
defined under the Clean Air Act. H.R. 5780 attempts to clarify
exceptions to prohibiting the designation of Class I airsheds in new
wilderness, but is not clear to which areas the clarification applies
(p. 25, line 23-25).
Title II: National Conservation Areas
NPCA is very supportive of protecting landscapes adjacent to
national park units and could be supportive of the National
Conservation Area (NCA) designation if crafted with strong conservation
language. However, the NCA designations included in H.R. 5780 are in
name only and do not provide for clear and meaningful protection of the
shared landscapes, which in many cases are adjacent to NPS managed
areas. The management language for the NCAs contradicts the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and
will limit the ability of land managers to adequately manage the
resources they are intended to protect.
Although the Indian Creek NCA incorporates a portion of NPCA's
long-standing Canyonlands Completion proposal (which would expand the
Canyonlands National Park boundary beyond the natural erosional
boundary of the Wingate Cliffs), the NCA proposed in H.R. 5780 would
not adequately protect the Canyonlands basin and its many natural and
cultural resources. Instead, the NCA would allow for ``historic uses'',
including grazing and off-road vehicle use, which can be incompatible
with adjacent NPS management and threaten park resources. This does not
represent a significant step forward in conservation.
Title III: Arches National Park Expansion
NPCA advocated for and supports expanding the boundaries of Arches
National Park. However, H.R. 5780 also designates Wilderness within the
expansion area with numerous cherry stemmed vehicle routes. These
cherry-stems lessen the conservation value of park landscapes and the
minor additions to the park; these also were not discussed with the
conservation community.
Division B: Innovative Land Management, Recreation and Economic
Development
Title I: School Trust Land Consolidations
NPCA has concerns with the large areas where SITLA would trade into
federal lands west of Arches National Park and on Hatch Point east of
Canyonlands National Park. These areas are all within the Moab Master
Leasing Plan boundary, which is a nearly final, stakeholder driven
process which looked closely at where and how oil, gas and potash
leasing should take place. SITLA land within this area would not be
managed under the provisions of the MLP and presents significant
threats to park resources if developed for oil, gas or potash. In
addition, the bill excludes the trade of a SITLA parcel adjacent to the
eastern boundary of Natural Bridges National Monument. NPCA has
consistently advocated for a trade of this specific parcel through the
PLI process since incompatible use or development of the parcel would
have significant impacts on park resources, including its International
Dark Sky status.
Title VII: Recreation Zones & Title IX Red Rock Country Off Highway
Vehicle Trail
Both of these titles allow for off-road vehicle use and the
development of new off-highway vehicle trails adjacent to national park
units. This could potentially lead to incursions in the park and damage
to park resources. In H.R. 5780 the Klondike Recreation Zone is
adjacent to the western boundary of Arches National Park and is
established ``to promote outdoor recreation (including off-highway
vehicle use, mountain biking, rock climbing, and hiking), provide for
the construction of new non-off-highway vehicle trails, and to prevent
future mineral development'' (P. 162). The Red Rock Country Off-Highway
Vehicle Trail allows for the development of a new trail linking up
several communities in southeastern Utah near Arches and Canyonlands
national parks. However, it is not clear through H.R. 5780 where the
routes would be located in relationship to the parks. If sited too
close to park boundaries, there could be visual impacts and potential
incursions into the parks. Encouraging more off-road vehicle use
adjacent to Arches and Canyonlands National Parks could create
increased dust, noise, and diminished air quality. This, in turn would
impact the dark night skies, visibility, natural sounds, viewsheds, and
overall visitor experience of millions of people to these parks and
their adjacent public lands.
Title XII: Long Term Energy Development Certainty in Utah
This title hands over authority for expedited energy development on
public lands within the six PLI participating counties to the state of
Utah. The language of H.R. 5780 requires the state to follow the
process of federal law, but not the substance. This action could lead
to a significant increase in energy development on the landscapes
surrounding our national parks, without regard for the impacts on air
quality, natural and cultural resources, and the outdoor recreation
economy. Opening up the landscapes, particularly at the scale offered
through H.R. 5780, adjacent to national parks to energy development
with no regard for impacts on the natural and cultural resources or the
experience of millions of people who flock to this part of Utah, would
be a huge setback for conservation, the State of Utah, and all
Americans who treasure our public lands.
In addition, NPCA has been a strong proponent of the Bureau of Land
Management's Master Leasing Plans as an important tool that can more
effectively create certainty on the Utah landscape for all sides--
whether for conservation, recreational use, or energy development. H.R.
5780 effectively eliminates the development and implementation of
Master Leasing Plans by the BLM within the participating PLI counties
and will nullify years of cooperative efforts between land managers and
local stakeholders who have been working to determine where energy
development, recreation and conservation are most appropriate on the
landscape around Arches and Canyonlands National Parks. This action
will also ensure that other national park units in the area do not
receive a similar level of focused planning for potential energy
development on the adjacent landscape.
Title XII: Long-Term Travel Management Certainty
This title grants right of ways, in perpetuity, for all paved Class
B roads claimed by the six PLI participating counties to the State of
Utah. This includes paved entrance roads leading up to and within the
Island in the Sky and Needles Districts of Canyonlands. It also gives
right of ways to Uintah County of all claimed Class D roads in the
county. This can include cowpaths, overgrown two-tracks and routes that
have been closed by the BLM and NPS in Uintah County. It also allows
the State of Utah to continue litigation for other claims not included
in this legislation.
NPCA's position has been consistent--the counties and state do not
have legitimate claims to the roads, paths and trails inside the
national parks. Their management by the National Park Service is
critical to achieve the flow and volume of visitors into the parks
enabling them to meet goals for recreational access and long-term
resource protection. In addition, these controversial, permanent
rights-of-ways flout current laws and policies governing RS2477 claims
and would encourage off-road vehicle use on federal lands where it does
not currently occur.
Title XIII: Long Term Grazing Certainty
This title, requiring that grazing on public land within seven Utah
counties continue at current levels, ``except for cases of extreme
range conditions where water and forage is not available,'' would limit
public land managers' ability to manage grazing and the significant
impacts it can have on natural and cultural resources. This includes
grazing inside Dinosaur National Monument and within the Arches
National Park expansion. This title also undermines the National Forest
Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Land Policy
and Management Act and Endangered Species Act.
In addition, Section 1303 of this title appears to ensure public
land grazing outside the seven Utah counties engaged in the PLI: ``this
title shall ensure public grazing lands, including areas outside the
areas designated in this title, not be reduced below current permitted
levels, except for cases of extreme range conditions where water and
forage is not available'' (P. 197). NPCA strongly opposes any type of
provision allowing for existing grazing levels on a statewide basis.
This provision impacts other park units including Glen Canyon NRA and
Capitol Reef National Park.
Division C: Local Participation
Title I: Local Participation and Planning
Creating an unbalanced, statewide advisory committee to advise the
Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture on the implementation of
the PLI would complicate and bias implementation of this legislation
relating to public lands owned by all Americans.
Division D: Bears Ears National Conservation Area
This title creates an 860,000-acre Bears Ears National Conservation
Area in San Juan County. Similar to the other NCA's designated in H.R.
5780, the management language for the Bears Ears NCA contradicts the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act and National Environmental
Policy Act and undermines the authority of public land managers to
appropriately protect NCA cultural and natural resources. Unlike the
current Inter-tribal Coalition's proposal for a Bears Ears National
Monument, an NCA would not effectively provide for the healing of the
sacred, ancestral landscape, nor for a strong Native American voice in
management of the conservation area. It is also not clear whether
Natural Bridges National Monument would or would not be incorporated
into the Bears Ears NCA. The NCA map for H.R. 5780 indicates that
Natural Bridges National Monument would be included in the Bears Ears
NCA; if so, NPCA advocates that the monument continues to be managed by
the National Park Service.
Conclusion
While we believe the PLI process led to valuable discussions among
diverse stakeholders in some counties, and even the identification of
areas of unexpected common ground, the resulting legislation
represented in H.R. 5780 does not reflect the progress made during over
three years of engagement. Instead, all semblance of compromise is
overshadowed by broad negative policy provisions, some that were not
shared or discussed with stakeholders, and others that NPCA identified
as nonviable compromises from the beginning of the PLI process. While
NPCA remains committed to pursuing all genuine opportunities to achieve
the protection the amazing, dynamic landscapes of Eastern Utah deserve,
we do not believe the PLI represents a conservation gain for these
public lands. We urge you to also oppose H.R. 5780.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Kristen Brengel,
Vice President, Government Affairs.
______
Prepared Statement of Stephanie K. Meeks, President and CEO, National
Trust For Historic Preservation
Chairman McClintock and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to present the National Trust for Historic
Preservation's perspectives on the recently introduced Utah Public
Lands Initiative Act (``PLI'') and the importance of protecting the
Bears Ears cultural landscape. My name is Stephanie K. Meeks, and I am
the President and CEO of the National Trust.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a privately-funded
charitable, educational and nonprofit organization chartered by
Congress in 1949 in order to ``facilitate public participation in
historic preservation'' and to further the purposes of federal historic
preservation laws. The intent of Congress was for the National Trust
``to mobilize and coordinate public interest, participation and
resources in the preservation and interpretation of sites and
buildings.'' With headquarters in Washington, DC, 9 field offices, 27
historic sites, more than 800,000 members and supporters and partner
organizations in 50 states, territories, and the District of Columbia,
the National Trust works to save America's historic places and
advocates for historic preservation as a fundamental value in programs
and policies at all levels of government.
We appreciate the sustained efforts of House Natural Resources
Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, Congressman Jason Chaffetz, and members
of the committee to develop a legislative solution to address the long-
term conservation of nationally significant lands in Utah. This is a
difficult and challenging problem of public policy--ongoing for
generations--that deserves an expedient and successful resolution.
We recognize that the existing legislation includes certain
improvements over the previous discussion draft, but we are
disappointed that H.R. 5780 does not meet our hope for legislation that
would generate the broad-based bipartisan support necessary to be
signed into law by the President.
Accordingly, we join the broad-based request that the President
utilize his authority under the Antiquities Act to protect the
nationally significant cultural and archaeological resources of the
Bears Ears area this year. In addition, the National Trust opposes H.R.
5781, the ``PLI Partner Act,'' which would limit the President's
authority to proclaim national monuments in certain areas of Utah.
national trust participation
Bears Ears is one of the most significant cultural landscapes in
the United States and a landscape that is home to more than 100,000
cultural and archaeological sites, many of which are sacred to tribal
communities across the region. The 1.9 million acres of public lands
south and east of Canyonlands National Park include Ice Age hunting
camps, cliff dwellings, prehistoric villages, and petroglyph and
pictograph panels that tell the diverse stories of 12,000 years of
human habitation.
Since 2007, the National Trust has been working on legislative
proposals with the Utah delegation and other stakeholders to protect
this important place. We have also been actively engaged in cultural
resource protection issues in southeast Utah--working to ensure
compliance with federal laws designed to avoid impacts to historic and
cultural properties and supporting thoughtful planning for and
interpretation of cultural resources.
In 2013, we developed and presented maps and narratives describing
the National Trust's priorities for resource designations in southeast
Utah to local, state, and national partners, including the offices of
Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz. Since we named this area one of our
National Treasures in 2013, we have committed our expertise and
resources to seeking a preservation-friendly solution to land use
conflicts in this area. Earlier this year, reflecting our long-standing
commitment to the legislative process, we submitted extensive comments
on the ``Discussion Draft'' of the PLI.
Like many Americans, I have had the pleasure of visiting and
marveling at the extraordinary cultural resources of the Bears Ears
region. This landscape and its resources certainly rival nearby
nationally protected areas like Canyon of the Ancients National
Monument (established by President Clinton in 2000), Mesa Verde
National Park (established by Congress in 1906), Chimney Rock National
Monument (established by President Obama in 2012) and Chaco Culture
National Historical Park.
It is worth noting that the remarkable resources of Chaco Canyon
were first protected by President Theodore Roosevelt as a national
monument in 1907. Nearby Hovenweep National Monument was established by
President Harding in 1923.
viability of the legislative process
Due to our commitment to securing permanent protection for these
nationally significant cultural resources, the National Trust has been
hopeful that the long-awaited PLI legislation would be crafted in such
a way as to gather the broad bipartisan support necessary to be adopted
by Congress and signed into law by the President this year.
Unfortunately, the legislation as introduced on July 14 is unlikely to
generate such support and in fact has generated significant opposition
by many of our conservation colleagues.
We appreciate the proposed establishment of a Bears Ears National
Conservation Area, however we are concerned that neither the proposed
size (857,000 acres) nor management provisions are sufficient to
protect the nationally significant resources of this area, including
such archaeologically valuable lands within the White Canyon drainages
and the Allen, Chippean, and Dry Wash Canyons.
We appreciate that there have been multiple improvements from the
discussion draft, including, as in section 108, permitting the
acquisition of lands within wilderness areas from willing sellers, the
removal of language designating certain areas for recreational shooting
and removing designation of specific areas for recreational shooting
and certain changes restricting the ability of managers to determine
grazing levels.
However, we are disappointed that many of the concerns outlined in
our February 12 letter on the discussion draft were not addressed,
including but not limited to the following:
We are very concerned with the details of proposed land
trades which direct the Department of the Interior to
accept, without full environmental analysis, trades
proposed by the state of Utah, even when they are
problematic for cultural resources. In particular, the
National Trust for Historic Preservation joined a protest
in 2014 of oil and gas lease sales in the Bluff and
Montezuma Creek areas of San Juan County--leases that were
deferred to protect cultural resources. The maps submitted
with the PLI suggest the Utah State Institutional Trust
Lands Administration (SITLA) will request retention of
ownership of surface and mineral rights within the Bears
Ears NCA near Bluff--contrary to the concept of a National
Conservation Area--along with significant acreage adjoining
the NCA to the east. Both the retained and acquired lands
contain important cultural resources deserving of
protection.
We are particularly concerned with section 1103, which
would create a new program whereby the state of Utah would
be granted energy permitting powers now exercised by the
federal government. Our reading of this precedent setting
proposal is that it would remove the federal protections
currently afforded cultural resources, including the
National Historic Preservation Act, Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and other federal
laws.
We are also concerned that the existing and potential use
of Master Leasing Plans, which have proven to be helpful
collaborative tools to resolve long-standing conflicts over
land use would be precluded by the legislation.
We are concerned that the bill would permit grazing in
certain areas where current restrictions protect
archaeological and cultural resources and that other areas
could be made available to grazing, including in Grand
Gulch, Slickhorn, and other canyons on Cedar Mesa.
Additionally, the National Trust agrees with a number of our
conservation colleagues who have expressed serious concerns with the
sweeping and controversial changes to other long-standing federal laws
protecting the nation's natural and cultural resources.
Given the numerous and significant changes necessary to redraft the
bill and achieve a bi-partisan compromise, as well as the limited
number of legislative days remaining prior to Congress adjourning this
fall, we are skeptical that comprehensive legislation can be achieved
this year.
addressing the urgent need for protection
Continued reports of looting, vandalism, and other damaging
disturbances of archaeological sites lends particular urgency to the
permanent protection of the Bears Ears landscape as soon as possible.
In just one of over 50 recent incidents of looting, a 2009 Bureau of
Land Management and FBI sting operation resulted in indictments of over
24 people for multiple violations of trafficking an estimated 40,000
stolen artifacts, government property, and Native American cultural
items from the Southeast Utah area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Center for American Progress; ``Bears Ears Cultural Area: The
Most Vulnerable U.S. Site for Looting, Vandalism, and Grave Robbing'';
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2016/06/13/139344/
bears-ears-cultural-area-the-most-vulnerable-u-s-site-for-looting-
vandalism-and-grave-robbing/; June 13, 2016 (accessed September 13,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the time sensitive and significant threat to priceless
cultural resources and the absence of a realistic opportunity to enact
bipartisan legislation during this Congress, the National Trust
supports the protection of the Bears Ears landscape by the President as
a National Monument before the end of this year.
We appreciate the substantial time and resources dedicated to the
pursuit of a legislative solution to this critical preservation issue
by local and national stakeholders, including local governments, our
partners in the conservation and preservation community and the staffs
of the House and Senate committees and offices of Congressmen Bishop
and Chaffetz. We look forward to continuing our collaborative work to
advance preservation solutions with members of the committee,
Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz, and other stakeholders.
______
Prepared Statement of Jessica Wahl, Government Affairs Manager, Outdoor
Industry Association, Boulder, Colorado
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for your
attention to the important lands and waters in Eastern Utah and for
holding this hearing on the Utah Public Lands Initiative (PLI).
Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) is the national trade
association for suppliers, manufacturers and retailers in the $646
billion outdoor recreation industry, with more than 1200 members
nationwide. The outdoor industry supports more than 6.1 million
American jobs and makes other significant contributions toward the goal
of healthy communities and healthy economies across the United States.
We would first like to express our gratitude to Chairman Bishop and
Chairman Chaffetz and their staff for the time, energy and resources
that have gone into crafting the Public Lands Initiative. OIA and our
members have been involved in the PLI process for several years and we
are pleased to see recreation interests included in the PLI, and some
improvements from the first discussion draft. However, these
protections as a whole do not go far enough to ensure Utah's treasured
lands and waters will remain healthy and viable for the next generation
of outdoor enthusiasts. Therefore, we cannot support the bill as it is
currently drafted. We sincerely hope that our written testimony, and
this hearing, will help chart a path forward that will provide
protection for the Bears Ears region and recreation assets throughout
Eastern Utah.
Recreation on Utah's public lands and waters is a cornerstone of
the state's economy. Eastern Utah is world-famous for outdoor
recreation, home to several destination national parks, world-class
rock climbing, mountain biking, whitewater paddling, hiking,
canyoneering, OHVing, hunting and skiing. With these incredible
recreation assets, it's no wonder that Utah is critical to the growing
outdoor recreation sector with 122,000 jobs directly related to the
outdoor economy, $12 billion in spending on outdoor products, and as a
home to over 60 OIA member companies. Additionally, Outdoor Retailer
held in Salt Lake City twice a year brought upwards of $50 million to
the local economy and over 50,000 visitors to the area in 2015 alone.
Resolving land and water conflicts in Utah is incredibly important
to outdoor businesses who have chosen to locate there, their customers
who play there, and many others across the country whose inspiration
for exploration has, and we hope will continue to be, linked to Utah
for generations to come.
Like you, we believe that economic development through energy and
mineral extraction, conservation and recreation can co-exist. Further,
as our outdoor recreation economy study reports, protecting recreation
assets is, in fact, economic development. This is particularly evident
in Utah, with opportunities for a strong and sustainable future for
recreation-based economic development and access to outdoor recreation
that is the envy of the country, if not the world. As we focus on how
the outdoor industry inspires healthy people, and creates healthy
economies, we understand that economic diversity and the role that all
of Utah's industries play in that diversification is extremely
important. However, we also realize that energy and mineral development
near iconic recreation destinations, or extraction that is prioritized
and expedited in areas adjacent to recreation, undermines the
protections of these recreation assets we have fought so hard for
throughout the PLI process.
Unfortunately, recreation gets very little representation on the
PLI Advisory Committee, showcasing the lack of this balance.
Additionally, PLI provisions call for transferring all energy leases to
the state, which stands in direct conflict with the Moab Master Leasing
Plan that OIA and our members enthusiastically support. Please
reference the attached appendix A for a list of recreation-based
concerns with H.R. 5780.
There is not consensus for many of the provisions in H.R. 5780.
However, there exists almost unanimous public support for permanent
protection for the Bears Ears region and its iconic recreation
opportunities, archaeological resources, unique landscape and
connection to Native Americans. This was evident at the Bluff town hall
meeting, which many of our members and partner organizations attended.
Currently, a number of legislative and administrative efforts, as well
as proposals from the public, call for permanent protection of this
landscape. OIA prefers that protection for this area be accomplished
through legislation, but we support judicious use of the Antiquities
Act when legislative solutions are not viable for important recreation
landscapes. (See Appendix B for our public lands statement.) We suggest
Congress and the administration first focus on the Bear Ears region,
find a way to strengthen the protections in this area, and then move to
the other disputed lands and waters covered in the PLI.
Another issue we would like to bring attention to is that land
managers are not provided the resources necessary to properly manage
recreation, protect archaeological resources and preserve the integrity
of the landscape. We wholeheartedly support additional funding for law
enforcement, resource protection and recreation management for the
greater Bears Ears area region and hope that this issue will be given
the attention it deserves in this hearing and in the future. We
maintain optimism that the legislative process can find the right
balance for managing our national public lands, honoring Native
Americans, and protecting the places we play that support Utah's
recreation economy.
While H.R. 5780 would provide some protections for this exceptional
landscape, when paired with other provisions in the bill, it does not
ensure recreation assets will be available for future generations. As
such, OIA will continue to work with both Congress and the
administration toward an improved balance between mineral and energy
development and the recreation assets whether through the PLI,
designation of a national monument, or a new legislative option that
provides greater protection and funding for the greater Bears Ears
region.
Thank you for your attention to this issue and we look forward to
working together for the protection of Utah's world-class outdoor
recreation opportunities, local economies and Native American ancestral
treasures.
*****
appendix a: concerns with h.r. 5780
1. The PLI (Division C, Title I) Planning and Implementation
Committee is not sufficiently well-balanced, does not
adequately include the entire spectrum of recreation
interests, and is predisposed to decisions that favor
development and resource extraction over conservation and
protection of cultural and recreation resources. It is
important to note that Utah's recreation economy
contributes $12 billion in consumer spending, employs
122,000 Utahans and brings in $856 million in state and
local tax revenue.
2. The PLI proposes transfer of federal lands to the state of Utah
that could negatively affect the environment, recreation
access, the integrity of National Park viewsheds and air
quality, and quality of life of neighboring communities. In
particular, the PLI proposes a very large consolidation of
School and Institutional Trust Land Administration (SITLA)
lands just northwest of Moab, Utah that has a high
likelihood of facilitating intense industrial development
and cause environmental impacts detrimental to the
recreation community and quality of life for Grand County
residents.
3. The PLI (Division B, Title XI) provides the state of Utah control
over energy leasing decisions and will conflict with the
Moab Master Leasing Plan--a plan that Access Fund, Outdoor
Alliance and Outdoor Industry Association wholeheartedly
support because it brings better balance and certainty to
energy development.
4. The PLI favors some land management strategies that are not
informed by currently accepted land management best
practices. For example, PLI grazing and snowmobile
prescriptions do not follow well-substantiated, sustainable
resource management approaches.
5. The PLI (Division B, Title XII) RS 2477 provisions prematurely
address state rights-of-way before the courts resolve such
claims that are the subject of extensive on-going
litigation.
In addition, we do not support the ``PLI Partner Act'' (H.R. 5781)
that limits the use of the Antiquities Act--a tool that has been used
effectively for over a century to conserve lands when no other
alternatives were available.
*****
appendix b: where we stand--outdoor industry association's position on
public land designations november 2015
Public lands and waters are the backbone of the outdoor industry
and outdoor recreation economy. OIA supports the protection of
recreation assets for the enjoyment of present and future generations.
In specific cases, if a high value recreation asset needs
protection and there is local business support for a land designation,
but no corresponding legislation (immediate or over time) is viable,
OIA will support the executive branch's use of the Antiquities Act to
protect that asset.
Working with member companies and other strategic partners, OIA
will work to develop new legislation, land designations, and policy
tools to better fund, protect and manage public land and water for
recreational use.
In many cases, the goals of better access and management can be
achieved by optimizing existing programs and tools:
Agency Planning Processes (e.g., Master Leasing Plans,
Forest Plans and similar)
Full or increased funding for these programs and tools
OIA believes that The Antiquities Act and The Wilderness Act are
foundational laws to protect recreation on national public lands and
waters and that the scope and power of both must be preserved.
OIA will support new land designations first through legislation
that:
Protects high value recreation assets
Has local support from outdoor recreation businesses
Has support from one or more of the state's Congressional
delegation
OIA believes it is appropriate to pursue a higher level of
protection for public lands and waters, and the recreational
experiences they support, in the following circumstances:
To mitigate a threat from development
Protection is needed to maintain existing conditions
A special or iconic place warrants elevated status
______
Friends of Cedar Mesa,
Bluff, Utah
July 19, 2016
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Opposition to Introduced PLI Legislation
Dear Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz:
After receiving legislative language shared with Friends of Cedar
Mesa on July 8th and maps shared on July 12th, we drafted a letter in
response to the Public Lands Initiative legislative text. In that
letter we expressed our appreciation for the hard work of your staff to
engage in meaningful and constructive conversations with us on ways to
improve January's Discussion Draft. We shared a draft of that letter
with your staff and also provided a quote for the PLI rollout
expressing gratitude for having been involved with the process and our
hopes that our remaining concerns with the bill could be addressed in
the legislative process.
After the official release of the PLI legislation, however, our
hopes of the bill evolving to one we could support have been dashed.
Very problematic provisions were added to the bill after it was shared
with us, and we were never made aware of the ``PLI Partner Act'' before
the public roll out. Combined, these last minute changes lead us to
conclude that a reasonable, win-win compromise is not forthcoming.
As you know, Friends of Cedar Mesa has been engaged in the Public
Lands Initiative process for more than 3 years. We attended every
meeting in San Juan County and have made every effort to work with our
friends, neighbors, and elected officials. Because we are the local,
on-the-ground group, we feel Friends of Cedar Mesa may be the most
invested in finding a legislative solution of all the conservation
groups at the table.
While we continue to believe that a legislative solution to
conservation needs in southeastern Utah would have been the preferable
path, we now have no faith that our legislative delegation is seeking a
true compromise, even by our terms (and we're the right flank of the
conservation community).
Despite all our efforts to work constructively on this legislation,
we oppose the language in the bill as introduced. We cannot abandon our
mission to help protect the natural and cultural resources of public
lands in San Juan County by supporting a bill with provisions likely to
result in resource damage on the ground. Last minute land trades added
to the bill would extend the footprint of cultural resource damage,
decimate Bluff's economy and dramatically change our way of life.
Provisions we oppose in the introduced language of the Public Lands
Initiative bill include:
1. Proposes a massive block of SITLA land on top of Bluff to
facilitate large-scale energy development that would
devastate Bluff's tourism-based economy and our quality of
life. This is an egregious change to the PLI drafts we saw
in January, June and just four days before the release of
the PLI. It's a huge step in reverse. After all the efforts
FCM took to help refine a bill that could be the resolution
to local cultural resource and conservation needs, this
last-second proposal is an insult to the idea of public
process and constructive negotiations with the Utah
Delegation. In the old version, we found it worrisome that
SITLA wanted a few sections around Bluff. Now we see what
SITLA really wants: a larger block of land in FCM's
backyard than they are asking for in Lisbon Valley. If
SITLA gets its way, the new welcome sign to those coming to
Bluff would be a series of oil rigs and fracking
operations.
2. Retains ownership and mineral development rights by SITLA on
lands inside the Bears Ears NCA north of Bluff (Tank Mesa &
Cottonwood Wash), therefore failing to protect
internationally significant archaeology from energy
development. This means drilling and privatization could
occur within the NCA, completely opposed to the entire
point of creating a Conservation Area.
3. Does not trade out SITLA parcel on the southern end of the Comb
Ridge that will be otherwise be sold to the highest bidder
this October. With this move, SITLA shows its intent to
create the only privatized section of the Comb Ridge. This
last second change comes despite FCM and the community of
Bluff expressing strong opposition to the sale at a
community meeting on June 7th at which Director Ure assured
the community if the PLI passed the sale would be moot.
This significant square mile of what should be public land
contains important archaeological and recreational values
and deserves the protection afforded to the rest of the
Comb Ridge in an NCA or Monument.
4. Leaves surface rights to three other key SITLA parcels on Cedar
Mesa to SITLA, creating the potential for serious land
management conflicts or privatization of lands that should
be traded out so they can be permanently made public land.
5. Gives the State of Utah, which already lacks transparency and
public process when handling drilling permits, undue
authority in any type of energy development on all
available public lands in San Juan County. This delegation
of authority would expedite energy development on lands
that would be better served by a Master Leasing Plan
process that requires thoughtful planning for cultural
resources and other land uses. Title XI on energy
development gives no mention of the significant cultural
resources in Utah, opening up a pathway to conflict over
streamlined energy development in archaeologically dense
areas like Montezuma Canyon and Alkali Ridge.
6. Fails to protect important archaeological and recreation areas in
the White Canyon drainages and Southern Abajo areas (Allen
Canyon, Chippean Canyon and Dry Wash Canyon).
7. Fails to protect two important sections of the internationally
significant San Juan River corridor as a ``Recreational
River,'' despite recommendation for such designation by the
official BLM study.
8. Opens up sensitive archaeological areas now closed to grazing
(inside and outside of NCAs) to damage from cattle in
cultural sites. Likewise, internal conflicts in the bill
potentially direct grazing in wilderness to be resumed in
places where it has been eliminated to protect cultural and
recreational resources. FCM cannot support any language
with the potential to open Grand Gulch, Slickhorn, and the
other canyons on Cedar Mesa to cattle grazing.
9. Fails to adequately involve local people in decision making for
the Indian Creek National Conservation Area by creating no
local stakeholder advisory group and giving primary
advisory status to a committee of county commissioners and
state officials who do not know the area at all.
10. Despite the positive step of naming the Hole-in-the-Rock Trail a
National Historic Trail, creates conflict with existing
land use plans by facilitating the overriding of group size
limitations in the trail corridor. In addition, the
location of the HITR Trail on the map is likely incorrect
and the language does not allow for the exact location of
the trail to be confirmed after it is designated.
11. Gives blanket approval to an ATV route in Recapture Canyon on the
route that is already damaging archaeological sites. The
language is not definitive as to whether compliance with
the NHPA and NAGPRA are automatically granted with the
application or whether the Section 106 process must be
followed. Because this route bisects sensitive
archaeological sites, the bill must require compliance with
these laws and rerouting if deemed necessary to protect the
resource.
12. Fails to resolve RS 2477 litigation in Wilderness and NCA areas,
meaning the actual protection for those areas may be far
less than in other Wilderness and NCAs around the country.
13. Cherry stems at least one road in wilderness on Cedar Mesa that
is currently closed for cultural resource protection and
wilderness characteristics. The Hardscrabble road on Cedar
Mesa was closed as part of an open public process that
resulted in the 2008(A) RMP.
14. Releases the Cross Canyon and Squaw Papoose WSAs from management
that would protect wilderness values. These are
archaeological rich areas that will be very difficult to
develop anyway, due to high archaeological densities.
Releasing these is a symbolic move that, in our view,
allows for easy attack of this bill as reducing current
protection of important lands.
Leaving critical, sensitive archaeological areas out of the path to
protection while streamlining activities likely to irreparably harm
cultural resources across vast tracks of land makes the introduced bill
something we strongly oppose. We have worked for years through a
process we hoped would lead to a tenable bill we could improve on
through the markup process. Failing a massive effort at a true
compromise negotiation, it now appears the time to make the large
corrections needed is too short. In light of the failure of the PLI
process to achieve a legitimate compromise that has hopes of bi-
partisan support, Friends of Cedar Mesa has no choice but to fully
support President Obama protecting the Bears Ears region as a National
Monument.
With regret,
Josh Ewing,
Executive Director.
______
Grand County Council Members,
Moab, Utah
August 16, 2016
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz:
Thank you again for providing an opportunity for Grand County to
participate in the Public Lands Initiative.
There are numerous areas where the introduced Bill departs from the
recommendations forwarded to you. In General, Grand County stands by
the recommendations as originally presented. Insofar as these were
developed with the input of a variety of stakeholders, partners, and
citizens, we feel the knowledge and interest of the entities and
individuals on the ground should carry the greatest weight. To this end
we cannot support the legislation as introduced and offer the below
concerns for possible amendment.
There are parts of the introduced Bill which are a major departure
from our submission that we feel require special mention. These are as
follows:
1. The entire NW side of the Colorado River canyon daily boating
section, which is currently protected by the three rivers
withdrawal, is eliminated from the Colorado River NCA.
Grand Co. requests that the NCA boundary reflect the
current boundary of the three rivers withdrawal as was
presented in Grand Co.'s recommendations. Both sides of the
Colorado River canyon deserve protection and are vital to
the local economy.
2. Several cherry stemmed routes in E. Arches, The Book Cliffs, and
Labyrinth wilderness are not currently open in the BLM/
County's travel plan. Grand Co. requests that only routes
which are currently open in the travel plan be cherry
stemmed as per our original recommendations.
3. A previous SITLA parcel that was traded out of Millcreek Canyon
and is now BLM land is not currently incorporated into the
eastern portion of the proposed Millcreek wilderness area.
Likewise, a sizable area of the eastern portion of William
Grandstaff wilderness has been removed. Grand Co. requests
that the boundaries of these wilderness areas reflect our
recommendations.
4. The County Council voted against including Antiquities Act
exemptions. Grand Co. objects to the companion bill.
5. The County Council has officially expressed their support for the
Master Leasing Plan (MLP). Grand Co. requests that areas
that fall within the MLP but fall outside of any PLI
designation be managed by the local field office as per the
provisions of the MLP.
6. ``Title XI-Long-Term Energy Development Certainty In Utah'' is
unacceptable to Grand Co. Grand Co. requests that this
entire section be removed from the legislation. The BLM
should maintain permitting control and primacy for their
lands.
7. Nearly 34,000 acres of SITLA trade-ins are located outside of
Grand Co.'s designated trade-in area. Of notable objection
are parcels located around Mineral, Hell Roaring, and Ten
Mile Canyons. As well as a trade-in adjacent to existing
tar sands leases in northern Grand Co.
8. The upper half of Ten Mile Canyon has been included in the Dee
Pass recreation area. While Grand Co. has approved existing
motorized routes in upper Ten Mile Canyon, this is a
sensitive riparian area and not suitable for further
expansion. We request that the boundaries of the Dee Pass
recreation area reflect our recommendations.
9. ``Section 1302. Bighorn Sheep'' is unacceptable to Grand Co. It
is essential that domestic livestock and Bighorn sheep be
separated. Domestic livestock disease is a leading cause of
decline in Bighorn sheep populations.
We look forward to continuing to work with you on developing a bill
that honors the work of the many stakeholders and ultimately produces a
bill which Grand County can fully support.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth A. Tubbs,
Chair.
______
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you.
With that I would like to ask--does this bill in your view,
Mr. Kornze, strike the balance necessary to be considered as a
consensus?
And if not, where would you most like to see change?
Mr. Kornze. I would say I think there has been great
outreach done here. Twelve hundred meetings is like nothing I
have ever heard of before, and when you travel through eastern
Utah, as I have had the fortune to do a number of times, you
can see the people have truly been engaged.
I do not think we are seeing, or I am not seeing, people
coalesce around the proposal as it is written. There are
numerous provisions that we would like to see edited,
strengthened, or deleted. So, we took the unusual step at the
request of the sponsors to send technical assistance ahead of
this hearing. We usually do not do that until afterwards. So we
have provided some of that and we also have very lengthy
feedback.
If I can take just one second on a different topic, I do
think I could probably speak on behalf of the entire panel here
that as part of that significant outreach, I do want to
compliment the great efforts of the staff of Congressman Bishop
and Congressman Chaffetz. These types of efforts do not come
without significant challenges and significant sacrifices, and
so I just want to note we may not agree, but there has been
extraordinary personal effort and personal commitment put into
this.
Mr. Bishop. With the gentlelady's permission, I appreciate
that statement about our staff. They are not getting a raise. I
don't care what they told you.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you for that.
Ms. Weldon, if you would like to take a moment, 15 seconds.
Ms. Weldon. I would echo what Director Kornze stated there.
I think that this concept and idea of collaboration and
engaging diverse stakeholders to make choices, both based on
what some national interests are, but more specifically local
interests, is a very effective way for land solutions.
So, we just wanted to make sure we are in as close step in
the process that would enable us to do that.
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Mrs. Lummis.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to enter for the record testimony that was
presented yesterday before the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, Subcommittee on the Interior. I do not have it with
me, but I will include it for the record later.
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Written Testimony of Byron Shelton, Savory Institute
Congressional Hearing on ``21st Century Conservation Practices''
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on the Interior
Honorable House members. Thank you for taking the time to hear some
of the ``21st Century Conservation Practices'' of land management
applicable for both federal and private lands and specifically related
to grazing.
My name is Byron Shelton. I am the Senior Program Director for
Savory Institute based in Colorado. The Savory Institute is named for
Allan Savory, a scientist, ecologist, farmer, and rancher from Zimbabwe
and the United States who has worked tirelessly over the last 60 years
to understand and train others on how to manage land and resources
regeneratively. This includes increasing biodiversity of plant and
animal life, increasing water holding capacity of the soil, increasing
soil building capacity, increasing soil carbon sequestration and
nutrient cycling, and increasing capture of solar energy flow.
This effort by Allan has resulted in a management process that has
come to be called Holistic Management. Managing holistically, as
successful management has to do, considers the whole or big picture
including economic, environmental, and social ramifications
simultaneously. Otherwise we end up taking actions that have many
unintended consequences. The actions might be environmentally sound but
not economically sound or visa versa and may not meet the needs of the
people involved.
Savory Institute was formed to promote the large-scale restoration
of the world's grasslands, which include the croplands of the world, as
most crops are grown on soil created by productive grasslands.
Grasslands are extremely important, as they comprise \1/3\ of the
world's land surface, 70% of which are in degraded form. That means
grasslands are losing plant and animal biodiversity, soil structure,
soil carbon, and water holding capacity leading to more severe droughts
and flooding and soil loss.
Savory Institute has approximately 30 regional entrepreneurial for-
profit and non-profit hubs or training centers around the world. These
hubs include demonstration sites and trained Savory Institute
Accredited Professionals to leverage spreading the knowledge of how to
improve our resources through management. They focus on getting results
on the land. Currently over 40 million acres around the world are being
managed holistically. We are actively working to increase the number of
training centers to 100 by 2025. With functioning ecosystem processes
water, food, and security are tremendously increased for people around
the world.
Holistic Planned Grazing is one of our important planning
procedures. This procedure is used to manage livestock for land health
and improvement vs. land degradation. We also use other planning
procedures including Holistic Financial Planning, Holistic Land or
Infrastructure Planning, and Holistic Ecological Monitoring to ensure
land managers are being successful in improving the resources while
remaining viable as a business.
With that background, I will encourage you to review the written
material and resources provided that give further information on Savory
Institute and what we are working to accomplish. In our limited time I
want to get right to the crux of the matter.
To allow for reasonable debate and decisions on actions on grazing
a clear understanding of the role of the grazing animal is needed.
Many times you'll hear a farmer or rancher say, ``I wish it would
rain, we need more water.'' This is true to allow for more plant
growth. Just as important however, is the need for water for decay of
the plant material to replenish the soil. Nutrients have to cycle from
the land and back to the land for a healthy regenerating soil. Decay
occurs by microorganisms and small insects eating and decomposing the
old plant material. These microorganisms and small insects cannot live
without water.
In an environment with regular humidity and rainfall, regardless of
the amount of rainfall, as here in the mid-Atlantic region, plants that
grow will decay back onto and into the ground, as the habitat including
water for the microorganisms and insects exists. These microorganisms
and insects eat the plants and cause them to decay biologically back
into the ground thereby replenishing the soil.
Now comes the point that is not generally recognized or understood.
In an environment with irregular humidity and rainfall regardless of
the amount of rainfall, as on many of our western federal rangelands
and private lands, plants that grow will remain standing for many years
as there is limited water in the air or on the ground to allow for
micro-organisms to live that would eat the plants and cause the plants
to decay biologically back into the ground. These plants actually turn
gray and oxidize or rust into the air, mining the soil by not returning
to it, eventually dying, and creating more bare ground. This causes
poorly functioning water and nutrient cycles, biodiversity loss and
therefore desertification.
This variation in regularity of humidity and seasonal rainfall we
refer to as brittleness on a continuum from non-brittle, having regular
humidity and moisture, to brittle, having irregular humidity and
moisture.
Now what does this have to do with grazing? The areas of the world
that tend to have no or low humidity and seasonal rainfall dry out
throughout the year and from year to year causing the microorganisms
that would cause plants to decay to go dormant or die. Plant decay
stops.
However, these areas had herds of large wildlife with their
predators. A bison, elk, deer, antelope, cow, goat, or sheep can't
digest plants any more than you or I. That's why these ruminants, as
they are called, have a multi-chambered stomach with the first
compartment being full of moisture and microorganisms year round. These
microbes digest the plants the animals eat with the animal assisting by
re-chewing the forage to help break it down. In other words, the
ruminant whether wild or domesticated is a mobile, digestive vat moving
about the land that breaks down plant material and returns it to the
soil as dung or urine to replenish the soil. When this animal is
removed from these brittle environments the natural system is broken.
Another way the natural system is broken is by removing the
predator that kept the herding animals bunched and moving. This
movement allowed grazed forages to recover by being able to re-grow
their roots and leaves between grazings to grow and remain healthy.
Herding or fencing replaces the predator. Additionally, the hooves
aerate or break the soil surface as a gardener does their garden that
has been sealed by rainfall to allow for water to enter versus run off
thereby making the rainfall more effective. These hooves also trample
the old plant material onto and into the ground.
When bison or cattle are on the land the manager is managing two
tools involving living organisms--grazing and animal impact. When
managed improperly these animals can be very destructive to the land.
When managed properly these tools are extremely powerful for improving
the effectiveness of the water cycle and nutrient cycle by capturing
more sunlight, covering bare ground, and therefore increasing
biodiversity and reversing desertification.
The Holistic Planned Grazing planning procedure developed by Allan
Savory and used in Holistic Management allows the land manager to
manage these tools of grazing and animal impact properly for
regeneration of the natural resources both in brittle and non-brittle
environments. Holistic Management addresses this need for timing of
plant, animal, and soil relationships through Holistic Planned Grazing
within the Holistic Context of the people involved.
As I would tell customers at farmers markets asking about my beef
for sale, ``regardless of whether one eats meat or not, wildlife and
their predator or domesticated livestock being managed to mimic
wildlife and their predator is required in these brittle areas for a
healthy ecosystem, biodiversity, and water for us all to drink and
improves the nonbrittle areas.''
Other tools beside those related to living organisms we have
available are technology in many forms, fire, and rest (no disturbance
by grazing, animal impact, fire, or technology). These tools, however,
need to be used knowing where on the brittleness scale the land
involved lies as the probable results on the land of using a tool are
different depending on the degree of brittleness, the regularity of
rainfall and humidity.
Management of livestock that is aware of the points I've discussed
is seeing success. Management where livestock are not being used to
mimic nature is seeing continuing degradation of land, loss of water
and carbon holding capacity in the soil, more bare ground, and reduced
biodiversity.
Savory Institute's work addresses food, water quality and quantity,
soil health, soil carbon sequestration, wildlife and plant
conservation, and climate change. We are seeing land managers increase
their profits while building their biological capital by producing food
and water on regenerating soils. Livestock, wildlife, plants, and human
needs can be met simultaneously. Holistic Management is appealing to
both conservative and liberal values. It's economically viable, can
generate income and, at the same time, restore landscapes for wildlife
species and the enjoyment of people.
Please refer to the written material, our website
www.savory.global, and Allan Savory's TED talk for further information.
I thank you for your time today. I'll try to answer any questions you
may have when we get to that part of the hearing.
Thank you for allowing this panel to present proven conservation
practices that are being used in the 21st century.
______
Testimony of Judith D. Schwartz
Author/Journalist from Vermont
Congressional Hearing on ``21st Century Conservation Practices''
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on the Interior
Thank you to Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member Lawrence, and members
of the Interior Subcommittee for this opportunity.
I am before you today as an author of two books that explore
animal/land dynamics, particularly the potential for holistic livestock
management to regenerate landscapes. Cows Save the Planet and Other
Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth (Chelsea Green
Publishing, 2013) looks at soil as a hub for our environmental,
economic and social challenges--and for solutions. Water In Plain
Sight: Hope for a Thirsty World (St. Martin's Press, 2016) explores how
water intersects with climate, biodiversity, food security and peace
and conflict. And how understanding how water works--how it moves
across the landscape--helps us address such concerns. Understand that I
never expected to be on this ``beat'': Rather, as a journalist driven
to explore solutions I was drawn to the elegant complexity of
flourishing ecosystems and the promise of drawing on nature's models to
restore balance and vitality to our lands, including through holistic
managed grazing.
Basically, whenever there are animals on the land those animals are
having an impact, which can be positive or negative, depending on how
they are managed. The paradigm for ``conservation'' has changed, in
that land is not static but requires biological activity. In nature,
plants are to a large extent managed by herbivores, and those plant-
eating animals are managed by predators. The alteration of the
landscape and the absence of natural predators have left a management
void. With what we now understand about rangeland systems, this void
can be filled in a way that at once bolsters ecological function and
economic opportunity.
In my reporting I've encountered numerous examples of land
transformed by restorative grazing. In Zimbabwe, at the Africa Centre
for Holistic Management, the Dimbangombe River flows a kilometer
farther than it has in living memory and now runs throughout the year.
Despite a continuing drought in Southern Africa, this land remains
productive and supports abundant wildlife, including elephants and
lions. In the Chihuahuan Desert, which spans several states and part of
Mexico, I visited an area where holistic ranchers are working with bird
conservation organizations to create a corridor for endangered
migratory grassland birds. These ranches are ``islands of grass'' for
the birds, whose numbers have steeply declined due to desertification
throughout the region. In Australia, a rancher I interviewed uses
cattle to control excess vegetation and thus minimize the extent of
wildfires. In each instance, management entails inquiring how nature
maintained healthy conditions and finding ways to mimic or ally with
those processes.
Agriculture, including ranching, need not be an ``extractive''
industry; it can be regenerative, too. As well as consistent with
conservation goals. This was noted at COP21, the global climate
conference in Paris last December, with the advent of the 4 per 1000
Initiative, introduced by the French Agricultural Ministry. This
initiative, signed by 30-plus nations and several dozen NGOs, calls
attention to agricultural means of bolstering carbon levels in the
soil. Even at a modest annual rate, increasing soil carbon stocks has
important implications for drawing down atmospheric CO2, bolstering
fertility and biodiversity, and enhancing land's ability to retain
water--which means added resilience amid the threat of drought, floods
and wildfires. Every one percent increase in soil organic matter (which
is mainly carbon) represents an additional 20,000 gallons of water per
acre that can be held on the land. The loss of this capacity is a story
that has been written across much of the U.S., leading to many of the
challenges we face today.
My recommendation is that we do not leave land bare and hope that
it will somehow improve. Rather, we should explore strategies that work
with natural processes, including holistic planned grazing, restoring
the predator-prey relationship, and reviving populations of keystone
species such as beaver. One way to ascertain progress is through
monitoring basic factors such as water infiltration and soil carbon
levels.
______
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you.
And that was sworn testimony, so I can vouch for the
correctness of the views of the people who gave it.
And I am begging you, especially Mr. Polis--I am begging
you to visit your constituents in Boulder who are at the Savory
Institute. I am begging people in this room to listen to a TED
talk by Allan Savory. It will explain to you why I feel so
strongly that we, the American people who deal with public land
management, have quite inadvertently and with good intention
really, really messed up in the way that we are managing public
lands.
I think we are messing up to such a degree that we could be
implementing policies that will further deteriorate the quality
of public lands for generations to come.
Please also read two new books by Judith Schwartz. Her
testimony was also presented yesterday. I believe we have to
totally rethink the way that we are managing public lands,
because with the best of intentions we have sat up policies
that provide public input without the knowledge of the
scientific ramifications of the decisions we are making. We are
hurting our natural resources, our trees, our grass, and our
water. We are dealing with carbon in a way that is completely
inconsistent with the ultimate goals of people who want to
sequester carbon.
It is truly unfortunate that here we come in the 21st
century and realize the system that we implemented in the 1970s
and have carried on for all these years has been such a
detriment to the resource. We need to look at holistic
management practices on public lands in a way that we have
never looked at them before.
One of the reasons why I like this draft bill is that it
will accommodate some of the flexibilities that we have to
implement to regain forest health and regain stands of grass
that are healthy, so we can sequester carbon, so we can
preserve resources, and so we can have a sustainable public
lands resource and private lands resource. We need to rethink
the whole thing.
This proposal that Chairman Bishop has put forward is
heading in the right direction. Based on what I have been
learning while I have been in Congress about public land
management and new principles in public land management, I
think the worst thing we could do is create more national
monuments.
We are inadvertently destroying resources, and it is being
done by people with the best intentions.
I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. All right. Mr. Polis.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Chairman.
I first want to respond to Mrs. Lummis. I will certainly
look at those. You gave me my reading materials.
I would add that one of the major impacts to the detriment
of our ecosystems and our lands in the West has been the loss
of the apex predator, the wolf. When you lose your apex
predator, it throws entire ecosystems out of whack, and that is
why many of us on this committee have worked so hard for the
reintroduction of the wolf across the West.
I am sure there are many other factors that need to be
looked at too, and perhaps your next career might be to re-
examine these. Maybe that will be what you focus your time on
is management of land, and if that is, then I will look forward
to meeting with you in that capacity and we will see if we can
work out a way to reintroduce the wolf and save the wild horses
together.
I do want to address a question to Ms. Regina Lopez-
Whiteskunk about the Bears Ears area. Can you describe in your
view the shortcomings of the PLI with regard to protecting
Bears Ears and also the way that the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
Coalition proposal would, and how it differs from the PLI?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. Thank you.
One of the first areas that I would like to highlight is
our effort to advocate for the land in terms of mineral
withdrawal. That is definitely a huge threat to any area, and
that is something that is within our proposal. It is the
outcome, the current and even the future possible threats to
the land. That is one area.
I speak very passionately to roads. In regards to some of
our trust lands and allotment lands within the area, there have
been roads that people have just established. That is something
that is a huge threat, and we need to do everything we can to
safeguard some of those landscapes from people just roguely
establishing future roads.
And, again, I cannot speak enough to this. For generations,
mere consultation has always fallen short for Native Americans,
and much of this is just because it is a checkmark on a piece
of paper, like somebody is going down a grocery list and says,
``OK. This is fulfilled.''
I firmly believe that we need to really visit this with
true intent, with some true substance, when this is established
and when it is achieved. One of the ways that we see is by
establishing a stronger voice through collaborative management
and making sure that the Native voice is represented in much of
that.
Mr. Polis. My next one is for Director Kornze. It is kind
of a procedural question.
There are several sections of the bill that include land
exchanges, but these are land exchanges without identifying the
actual land. This committee has worked on a number of land
exchanges. I have had one that went through in the form of a
bill. There have been others that have gone through.
So, my question is--how has this sort of changed in
process? Are there any issues the agency has with identifying
land exchanges without identifying the actual lands or studying
the impact to the public?
Are there any concerns the agency has about that and how
that could negatively impact the public or taxpayers?
Mr. Kornze. I think it is a fairly standard point that if
there is going to be a directed exchange, we want to have had
some up front conversation and understand what is going in and
what is going out and make sure that we have a good
equalization following those four points that I laid out
earlier.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
I want to again conclude by hoping that the Chair of the
Subcommittee and the Committee will consider a hearing on the
Continental Divide Wilderness Recreation Bill, H.R. 2554.
I would like to point out that our Full Committee Ranking
Member, Mr. Grijalva, has personally scaled the 12,000 foot
peak inside of this designated protection area, and I would
like to invite our Subcommittee Chair and Full Committee Chair
to come visit our proposed 60,000 acre re-designation,
including recreational areas, backed fully by the recreational
industry, the elected officials of the district, the various
user groups including mining companies, Climax mining, the only
company with active claims in the area, as well as the various
water districts and fire districts.
I am hopeful that we can move forward. I am not asking for
a markup. I am just asking for a hearing, particularly in
celebration of Mr. Grijalva's hike to the peak of a 12,000 foot
mountain in that district.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McClintock. Great. Well, I am sorry the mountain did
not come to Grijalva, but Grijalva did go to the mountain.
Mr. Hardy.
Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kornze, given that there is no statutory mechanism in
place for the BLM to co-manage national monuments with tribes,
how do you plan on actually bringing the tribe to the table
other than just a symbolic role?
Mr. Kornze. One possibility would be this legislation
passing and there being some direction from Congress as to how
that should work. If that takes place, we would like to see
significant conversations between the sponsors, the
administration, and the tribes to come to a common view of
that.
Mr. Hardy. OK. With designation of the Antiquities Act, who
makes the final decisions over the land management issues, BLM
or the tribes?
Mr. Kornze. The President has control over the use of the
Antiquities Act. Is that what you are asking?
Mr. Hardy. No. After the designation, who has control, BLM
or the tribes?
Mr. Kornze. I am not sure I completely follow.
Mr. Hardy. The management issues, like RMPs, who has that
ultimate control? Is that a collaborative effort? Is that BLM
telling the tribes?
Mr. Kornze. Under this bill, I cannot recall the language
exactly, but I think there is a suggestion that the tribes
would have a specific seat at the table for an advisory group
and that there would be some collaborative effort on
management.
Mr. Hardy. OK. Final question. Ms. Benally, in 2015, there
were about 1,400 cases of vandalism on the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument. In the Bears Ears last year, there
were less than half a dozen cases. Do you believe that if this
is designated as a national monument, that it will increase
vandalism due to the increased visitation, or do you believe it
will be protected by the Bureau of Land Management?
Ms. Benally. I believe, yes, it would increase looting and
vandalism because we just had a meeting with BLM in our region
2 weeks ago and they actually qualified those numbers, and it
was just one case in the last 5 years, currently. But in the
Grand Staircase-Escalante, there were a lot.
The national monument does not guarantee that there will be
no vandalism. In fact, it will increase because a national
monument brings thousands and thousands of people. We may think
otherwise, but it takes away that protection because there are
less boots on the ground to give protection.
Mr. Hardy. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Benally, you spoke about tribal opposition to
the Bears Ears National Monument proposal. Do I have the
correct information or is it true that six of the seven Navajo
Nation, Utah Chapter Houses, have passed resolutions in favor
of the national monument in the proposal?
Ms. Benally. It depends how you read it. Some of those
resolutions say ``National Conservation Area or National
Monument.'' So, it depends what side you want to see first.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Then how about the 26 southwestern tribes
and the 250-plus members of the National Congress of American
Indians that have passed resolutions very specifically in
support of the Bears Ears National Monument?
Are these resolutions from sovereign units of government
not important in the decisionmaking?
Ms. Benally. Again, I will qualify my answer by asking how
many people were there to actually pass these resolutions,
because some of these resolutions were only passed by 17 or 18
people versus over 2,000 grassroots Utah Navajos that live in
the county, and that would affect them and they are opposed to
the national monument.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Let me try some other way. Do you have a
sense of how the Navajo Nation as a whole feels about the
diversion of royalties from tribal budgets and coffers to
specifically the Utah Navajo Trust Fund as the PLI proposes in
this legislation?
Does it not seem likely the Nation as a whole will oppose
that?
Ms. Benally. I cannot speak on their behalf, but I can
speak for Utah Navajos. Any funding that can be increased for
roads, education, and the general welfare of the Utah Navajos,
of course, that will be supported by them because it helps them
be self-sufficient.
Mr. Grijalva. But not the Nation as a whole?
Ms. Benally. I wouldn't know, but they do get funds from
the oil and gas royalties from the Fund in Utah.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk, in one of the
comments that one of your fellow panelists made, she said that
Native American support for the Bears Ears National Monument is
a hoax. Your reaction to that comment, if you do not mind?
Ms. Lopez-Whiteskunk. What did we say, a hoax? I take that
rather offensively because there is so much support in there
amongst the NCAI who have passed a resolution. The Utah tribal
leaders have also passed a supporting resolution, as well as
the Tri-Ute Council, which is made up of all three Ute tribes.
So, in regards to that, these are elected groups that hold
the responsibility to represent their constituents, and this is
the support that has been lent to us.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, having visited with Sioux
leadership and the folks at the encampment at Standing Rock, a
word of both caution and to look at this question with an
entirely different set of eyes. The redefinition of
``sovereignty,'' the sense that consultation is not applied
uniformly, equally, or with the same consistency, has many
Native Nations feeling that the indignities of history have
culminated in these times now.
When we are proposing land use decisions, massive
transfers, looking at national monuments, and Native Americans
are the nexus of the Antiquities Act; that we be careful and we
do due diligence to assure that we are not repeating
indignities of the past and ignoring, sidestepping, or waiting
until the last minute to deal with the very urgent and very
real needs that Native American Nations and their leadership
are bringing before this Congress, and in Standing Rock, before
this Nation.
With that, let me yield back, and thank you very much for
the hearing.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Chairman Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. The gentleman passes. I want to thank you,
panel.
Mr. McClintock. The gentleman passes.
That concludes the committee's business today. We will keep
the hearing record open for 10 business days if there are
additional questions submitted to our witnesses.
Again, we extend our thanks to them for taking their time
to be with us today.
If there is no further business to come before the
subcommittee, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Prepared Statement of Access Fund and Outdoor Alliance
On behalf of the Access Fund and Outdoor Alliance, we welcome the
opportunity to submit this testimony for inclusion into the public
record regarding the proposed ``Utah Public Lands Initiative Act,''
also known as the ``PLI'' or H.R. 5780.
The Access Fund is a national advocacy organization whose mission
keeps climbing areas open and conserves the climbing environment. A
501(c)(3) non-profit and accredited land trust representing millions of
climbers nationwide in all forms of climbing--rock climbing, ice
climbing, mountaineering, and bouldering--the Access Fund is the
largest U.S. climbing advocacy organization with over 13,000 members
and 100 local affiliates. The Access Fund provides climbing management
expertise, stewardship, project specific funding, and educational
outreach.
Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of seven member-based organizations
representing the human powered outdoor recreation community. The
coalition includes Access Fund, American Canoe Association, American
Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Winter
Wildlands Alliance, the Mountaineers, and the American Alpine Club and
represents the interests of the millions of Americans who climb,
paddle, mountain bike, and backcountry ski and snowshoe on our Nation's
public lands, waters, and snowscapes.
Eastern Utah includes world-class outdoor recreation opportunities,
unique natural values and countless Native American cultural sites.
While H.R. 5780 would provide protections for some portions of this
exceptional landscape, it does not provide enough to protect recreation
assets and these other important values for future generations. For
climbers, eastern Utah contains some of the most iconic, unique and
high quality opportunities in the world, including areas like Indian
Creek, Castle Valley, Fisher Towers, San Rafael Swell, Valley of the
Gods, Arch Canyons, Lockhart Basin, Comb Ridge, and thousands other
climbing sites. A recent survey of over 1,000 climbers nationwide who
travel regularly to this region found that our members and the national
community value wild experiences, vast landscapes, undeveloped
viewsheds, clean air, solitude, and cultural heritage. We want to
protect southeast Utah for future generations because we know firsthand
how valuable the area is to personal growth. Climbers--along with the
greater outdoor recreation community--also contribute significantly to
the economy of the region as evidenced by growing visitation levels and
the Outdoor Industry Association's report showing that in Utah alone
outdoor recreation generates $12 billion in consumer spending, 122,00
direct jobs, $3.6 billion in wages and salaries, and $856 million in
state and local tax revenue. As such, the Access Fund and Outdoor
Alliance are committed to working with both the Congress and the
Administration toward appropriate, durable protections for eastern
Utah's incredible public lands.
We believe the legislative process can achieve a solution that
honors recommendations from numerous stakeholders who have weighed-in
over the course of this painstaking 3-year process. However, time
remaining in the 114th Congress is very short and the PLI is
problematic for the climbing and greater outdoor recreation community
because, among other things, it does not adequately consider the voice
of the human-powered recreation community and, for many areas that are
highly valuable to our community, favors development and resource
extraction over conservation of the environment and protection of
cultural and recreation resources. Perhaps most importantly, we cannot
support legislation that transfers vast tracts of public land and
energy leasing authority to state control. We also fundamentally oppose
plans that can result in the large-scale disposal or transfer of our
public lands to the states.
Please find below our suggested improvements to H.R. 5780 that
would ensure clean air and water along with public access to natural
landscapes that will allow Utah to benefit from a thriving recreation
economy and high quality of life. As with our previous comments, we
make no representation whether the amount and location of proposed
wilderness and conservation designations are enough for this bill to be
viable in Congress and for the President's signature.
i. positive elements of the public lands initiative
Since the initial ``discussion draft'' of the PLI was released in
January of 2016 there have been significant improvements incorporated
into the now-introduced H.R. 5780. We appreciate that H.R. 5780
reflects some of the outdoor recreation community's comments on the
draft legislation such as an Indian Creek National Conservation Area,
Wild and Scenic Rivers (357 miles of the Green, Dolores, San Juan and
Colorado Rivers) and in particular some boundary adjustments to address
potential management challenges related to rock climbing at Bridger
Jack Mesa, Mexican Mountain, and San Rafael Reef.
However, we believe that the PLI still needs considerable work
since additional provisions were included in the latest version that
would diminish world-class recreation assets and the environment,
thereby threatening the growth of Utah's recreation economy. We
maintain hope that a legislative process could find the right balance
to manage our Federal public lands, honor Native American values,
protect recreation resources and the recreation economy in gateway
communities, and provide landscape-scale conservation measures.
ii. needed improvements to the public land initiative
Eastern Utah is world-famous for its unmatched natural, cultural
and recreational values. While the PLI protects some of the special
places noted herein, negative elements in the bill far outweigh its
positive aspects. The Access Fund and Outdoor Alliance believe that the
following issues, addressed in more depth below, are key parts of the
PLI that require adjustment.
Internal management direction in the PLI conflicts with
the Wilderness Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
National Forest Management Act, and National Environmental
Policy Act.
The PLI fails to conform to local agreements between
stakeholders, as well as county proposals developed during
the PLI process.
Unprecedented giveaways to the state of Utah, including
over a thousand miles of public roads, massive SITLA
``trade-in'' areas, and regulatory authority over Federal
energy leases.
The PLI affords insufficient protections for the Bears
Ears region.
Other problematic provisions addressed in more depth
below.
A. Public Lands Initiative Planning and Implementation Committee
The PLI's Planning and Implementation Committee is not sufficiently
well-balanced, does not adequately represent the entire spectrum of
recreation interests and local concerns, and is predisposed to
decisions that favor development and resource extraction over
conservation and protection of cultural and recreation resources. We
believe the design of this committee will render predictable outcomes
and result in forgone conclusions that support industrial development
to the detriment of recreational users, the regional economy, and
public land conservation.
B. Energy Policy and Master Leasing Plans
The PLI provides the state of Utah control over energy leasing
decisions, including federally-owned leases, and will conflict with the
Moab Master Leasing Plan--a plan that Access Fund and Outdoor Alliance
enthusiastically support because it brings better balance and certainty
to energy development and the protection and enhancement of recreation
opportunities. We believe that the Interior Department should retain
its primacy in the leasing authority over Federal lands owned by all
Americans, and that such management decisions should be informed by
meaningful and vigorous public involvement, such as was the case with
the Moab Master Leasing Plan.
C. SITLA
The PLI proposes transfer of Federal lands to the state of Utah--in
very large blocks--that could negatively affect the environment,
recreation access, the integrity of National Park viewsheds and air
quality, and quality of life of neighboring communities. The PLI
includes a mandatory land exchange that will result in large
consolidated blocks of SITLA land bordering, and within, high value
recreation sites in San Juan, Grand, and Emery Counties. This exchange
is clearly designed to give SITLA large blocks for the purpose of
energy and potash development. Many of these trade-in areas are greatly
valued by Utahns and countless visitors for their recreation and scenic
values. Specifically, we are concerned about the following SITLA
consolidations: (1) northwest of Moab along State Highway 313 in the
Big Flat area from Monitor and Merrimac Buttes all the way to the Green
River, (2) just north of Interstate 70 near the San Rafael Reef and the
San Rafael River, and (3) near Bluff, Utah just north of the San Juan
River.
We are also deeply concerned with the parcels that would be
retained by SITLA and border the Dugout Ranch at Indian Creek. These
Dugout Ranch parcels are among the most important to the viewshed of
the rock climbing community and we urge that they be conveyed to the
Federal Government. All these locations represent high value
recreation, natural and cultural areas that stand to be greatly harmed
by development that will come with these SITLA trade-ins.
Unfortunately, many of the details regarding where and how much of
this Federal land will be transferred to the state and consolidated was
not available to the public prior to this bill's introduction, thus
limiting the ability of stakeholders, like the Access Fund and Outdoor
Alliance, to provide meaningful input regarding this very important
aspect of the PLI. Moreover, this title contradicts the National
Environmental Policy Act and Federal Land Policy and Management Act by
declaring the land exchange to be in the public interest and stating
that the exchange is in compliance with Federal law. School Trust Land
consolidations should be reduced to minimize the impact of potential
industrial development on the outdoor recreation economy, conservation,
and local communities and we need to better understand these
implications.
D. Road Claims
The PLI attempts to resolve long-standing road disputes (RS 2477
claims), but would do so by simply granting to the state of Utah over a
thousand miles of rights-of-way on BLM land. These routes are currently
the subject of extensive litigation, and thus far the state of Utah and
its counties have a very mixed record of prevailing in court. As such,
we believe that the PLI's provisions prematurely address state rights-
of-way before the courts have had a chance to resolve such claims based
on evidence pursuant to RS 2477 that each right-of-way actually existed
before the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976.
The PLI also requires the management existing designated routes in
a manner that ``is consistent with Off-highway vehicle and mechanized
use of the designated routes that is authorized on January 1, 2016.''
This language in essence codifies the existing controversial 2008
Resource Management Plans that are also under litigation, and seemingly
would prevent the BLM from managing these ``routes'' in accordance with
court orders even where the state of Utah loses its claims in court.
For these reasons we believe the PLI should not address RS 2477 issues
and let the courts resolve these thousands of controversial road
claims.
E. Air Quality
The PLI prohibits the designation of Class I airsheds for newly
designated wilderness areas unless Class I status is agreed to by the
state of Utah. If the past is any indication, the state of Utah will
never agree to Class I airsheds for these proposed areas (and the
Federal Government unlikely to conceding Federal supremacy on this
topic), thus the flexibility intended for this provision is
meaningless. Access Fund and Outdoor Alliance support the option of
designating these areas as Class I airsheds to protect and enhance the
local environment and economy.
F. Additional Concerns
Finally, the PLI favors some land management strategies that are
not informed by currently accepted land management best practices. For
example, PLI grazing and snowmobile prescriptions do not follow well-
substantiated, sustainable resource management approaches. Also, the
Seep Ridge Utility Corridor (AKA Book Cliffs Highway/Utility Corridor)
should not be included in the bill. Grand County residents and local
elected officials have rejected this corridor numerous times over the
last 35 years. While this conveyance has been changed from a ``road''
to a ``utility'' corridor, the concerns about industrialization that
will be facilitated by the corridor remain. Finally, Access Fund
fundamentally opposes the PLI ``partner'' bill, H.R. 5781, which would
remove the President's authority under the Antiquities Act.
* * * *
Chairman McClintock and members of the Subcommittee on Federal
Lands, we appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on Utah
Public Lands Initiative Act (H.R. 5780). The Access Fund and Outdoor
Alliance have reviewed the PLI and cannot support this proposal for the
reasons stated herein.
Respectfully Submitted,
Erik Murdock, Policy
Director, Louis Geltman, Policy Counsel,
Access Fund Outdoor Alliance
______
Enefit American Oil,
Salt Lake City, Utah
September 15, 2016
Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman,
House Subcommittee on Federal Lands,
1332 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: Comments on H.R. 5780, the Utah Public Lands Initiative Act
Dear Chairman McClintock:
On behalf of Enefit American Oil (``Enefit''), please accept these
comments for the official record for the hearing held on September 14,
2016 on H.R. 5780, the Utah Public Lands Initiative Act.
Enefit is a subsidiary of Eesti Energia, the largest energy company
in Estonia, and is developing an oil shale project in the Uinta Basin
in eastern Utah. Enefit owns or leases over 27,000 acres of lands that
contain more than 3.5 billion barrels of in-place oil shale resources.
Enefit is the world's foremost developer and producer of energy from
oil shale resources, and Enefit is pursing the development of a mine
and processing facility on its Utah lands that will produce 50,000
barrels--or \1/4\th of Utah's oil consumption--per day for 30 years.
This operation is planned to be a heavy industrial complex that will
involve typical mining and refining activities, and these activities
will likely be seen or heard outside of our land holdings.
We want to commend Congressman Bishop and Congressman Chaffetz for
their support of this project over the years and for their efforts to
craft public lands policies that strike a balance between conservation
and energy production. Enefit has engaged in the Public Lands
Initiative since its inception to ensure that conservation designations
do not create conflicts with the full development of our project or
infringe upon any valid existing rights held with our private lands or
our state and Federal leases. The purpose of these comments are to
commend the Utah Delegation for considering our input and to urge the
Committee to recognize the possible impacts to energy development if
boundaries are changed or language is altered during the legislative
process.
Enefit's private project lands are situated near the Colorado
border and adjacent to the White River, within a few miles of the
proposed White River Special Management Area (SMA). Our Federal oil
shale Research, Development, and Demonstration Lease and associated
Preference Right Lease Area, totaling nearly 5,000 acres, lie directly
adjacent to the proposed SMA. We worked with the Utah Delegation and
the Uintah County Commission to adjust the previously proposed
boundaries to ensure our leased lands are not included in the SMA, in
order to minimize potential future development conflicts with
conservation, resource or special management plans and objectives. We
urge the Committee to not expand the boundaries of the White River SMA
on the south and eastern borders to ensure this conservation
designation does not encroach on our leased lands. We stand prepared to
work with the Delegation and the Committee if changes are considered to
ensure no conflicts are created between our oil shale project and this
important conservation effort.
Additionally, language within H.R. 5780 in Section 204, which
applies to Section 408 (that mandates the designation of the White
River SMA per Section 411(a)) prohibits the creation of a ``protective
perimeter or buffer zone'' around the White River SMA and ensures that
any activity that can be ``seen, heard, felt, or smelled'' within the
White River SMA ``shall not preclude the activity or use outside the
boundary'' of the SMA. We support this critical language, which
protects the Enefit project from future claims that our energy
development activities somehow are impairing the purposes of the SMA if
they can be seen, heard, felt, or smelled. We urge the Committee to
retain this vital language and again we stand ready to work with the
Committee if there are any proposed changes to these provisions, in
order to ensure a fair balance of conservation and responsible energy
production in this region of Utah.
Thank you for including these comments in the record and Enefit is
happy to provide further information at the Committee's request.
Sincerely,
Ryan Clerico,
Acting Chief Executive Officer.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Cedar Mesa, in opposition to H.R.
5780, the ``Utah Public Lands Initiative Act''
As a longtime participant in the Utah Public Lands Initiative (PLI)
process, Friends of Cedar Mesa (FCM) submits the following written
testimony regarding the Legislative Hearing on H.R. 5780, the ``Utah
Public Lands Initiative Act'' that was held September 14, 2016.
As a local, on-the-ground conservation group in San Juan County,
Utah, we have long believed in a legislative solution to land use
conflicts in southeast Utah and have showed our good faith in working
toward a bill by attending every PLI meeting in San Juan County. We
have worked hard to find common ground with our friends and neighbors,
provided many constructive comments to the delegation on the bill, and
been willing to compromise on many key provisions. Like many who spoke
at the hearing in Washington, DC, we are grateful to the staff of
Representatives Chaffetz and Bishop for their tireless hard work to
include viewpoints from a variety of stakeholders, including those of
FCM.
After years of work on the PLI, we had hoped to support the
legislation in Congress. Unfortunately, we were saddened to be
compelled to oppose the PLI when it was formally introduced to the
House on July 14, 2016. Please see our original letter to the Utah
Delegation, attached as Exhibit A, which were also submitted to the
record at the hearing by Representative Tsongas.
Since the introduction of H.R. 5780, we have gained even more
insight into the shortfalls of the Bill. Likewise, we are concerned by
misinformation and political rhetoric that continues to undermine an
objective analysis of the legislation. As such, this testimony aims to
set the record straight on a couple of key issues raised at the
September 14 hearing.
Most importantly, Congress should know the truth about the serious
problem of looting, grave robbing, and vandalism of cultural resources
in southeastern Utah. At the hearing, a completely false statement was
made that there has only been one serious incident of cultural resource
damage in the Bears Ears area in the last 5 years. The truth is there
have been at least 28 incidents on Bureau of Land Management land
within San Juan County since 2011, with at least six so far in 2016. In
May, the BLM confirmed it had a record of 25 incidents. However, we
know of three more that have either happened since then or were
unintentionally left of 25-incident compilation. These are only the
incidents we are aware of on BLM lands and do not include State, Forest
Service or Park Service managed lands in the County. Most of these 28
incidents occurred within the Bears Ears area, as defined by the Inter-
Tribal Coalition National Monument proposal. For a list of specific
incidents that occurred within the Bears Ears area, which we have seen
with our own eyes, please see Exhibit B.
We would happily host any Member of Congress to show them first
hand sites that have been looted or vandalized within recent years.
Besides the false information regarding the number of incidents,
misleading comparisons were made between incidents of serious cultural
resource damage in Bears Ears and law enforcement incidents in Grand
Staircase Escalante Monument. Representative Hardy tried to suggest
that 1200 law enforcement incidents that have occurred in Grand
Staircase since 2011 were the same type of antiquities-related crime as
the 28 incidents mentioned above. This kind of apples-to-oranges
comparison is not constructive to public dialogue. Bubble gum on signs
or graffiti in restrooms is not the same as grave robbing.
Long-term preservation of sensitive cultural resources, which span
a history longer than 14,000 years and represent connections to over 26
Tribes and Pueblos, is the driving force of the movement to protect
Bears Ears. In excess of 100,000 archaeological sites make this area
exactly the kind of place the Antiquities Act was designed to protect.
In our estimation, legislation would be a better method to protect
the area than a Monument designation. However, the introduced bill
undermines cultural resource protection by excluding many critical
archaeological areas from the proposed Bears Ears National Conservation
Area, including Allen Canyon, Chippean Ridge, the Dry Wash drainage,
and many of the tributaries that run into White Canyon. Additionally,
the PLI in its current form creates the potential to open up culturally
sensitive areas to grazing after land managers have taken measures to
close them to cattle for the express purpose of protecting
archaeological sites.
The September 14 hearing also highlighted our outstanding concerns
regarding the proposed Utah State Institutional Trust Lands
Administration (SITLA) land trades proposed in the bill. SITLA Director
Dave Ure confirmed our fears that a large block of land just north of
Bluff is being proposed for consolidation for expedited oil and gas
drilling. After years of working toward a conservation solution that
protects cultural resources in our backyard, no one was more surprised
than us regarding this last-minute addition to the PLI bill. Large-
scale energy development right outside of Bluff and inside of the
proposed Bears Ears National Conservation area would devastate our
local tourism-based economy. We can only hope that Director Ure was
genuine in his expressed commitment to working with local communities
and conservation experts who have concerns about trades. Attached in
Exhibit C is a memorandum sent to the Department of Interior on this
problematic land trade.
The Bluff Bench trade out is not the only worrisome SITLA position
outlined in the bill. There are other problematic parts in Division B
and the related maps, including SITLA's retention of ownership and
mineral development rights or surface rights on Comb Ridge, Tank Mesa,
Cottonwood Wash and Cedar Mesa within the proposed Bears Ears NCA. This
would compromise the conservation intentions of the designation, and
leaving these critical archaeological areas out of the pathway to
protection makes our support for the current bill impossible.
The third alarming issue raised at the hearing is the granting to
the state of Utah primacy in oil and gas permitting in these seven
counties. The state cannot be given undue authority on energy
development on all available public lands. This circumvents the NEPA
public process, puts an agency that already lacks transparency in the
driver's seat, and undermines Master Leasing Plan processes that would
be better win-win solutions balancing energy development, cultural
resource protection, recreation and other land uses. MLPs are an
inclusive tool that can ultimately prevent litigation, whereas giving
the state primacy in permitting will likely lead to land being locked
up in lawsuits. When testifying, BLM Director Neil Kornze warned that
energy permitting by the state could be ``highly problematic'' and
concerning. FCM agrees.
We submit this written testimony with heavy hearts. Had this
hearing occurred a year ago, there might be some chance of our
substantial concerns being addressed in the legislative process.
However, we agree with Representative Tsongas that H.R. 5780 has no
realistic chance of becoming law in 2016. Contrary to statements by
Representative Chaffetz, this bill is not a bi-partisan solution.
Barring a miraculous overhaul of bill, we continue to support a
Presidential declaration of a Bears Ears National Monument. Such action
would protect an area that has been proposed for protection for 113
years and is filled with antiquities worth preserving.
Exhibit A
See July 19, 2016 Letter to Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz on page 73.
Exhibit B
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Exhibit C
MEMORANDUM
To: Secretary Sally Jewell, U.S. Department of the Interior
From: Josh Ewing, Executive Director
Subject: Problematic land trades near Bluff, Utah proposed by SITLA in
connection with conservation proposals in southeastern Utah
Date: September 9, 2016
Background
Friends of Cedar Mesa has previously shared with your office our
concerns about the proposed Public Lands Initiative (PLI) Legislation,
which would impact DOI administered lands in San Juan County, Utah.
This memo focuses on an important but little publicized portion of that
legislation with new information.
The PLI proposes a very large land trade between the State of Utah and
the United States government, exchanging SITLA lands for DOI lands. A
similar land trade would likely be triggered by any use of the
Antiquities Act to designate a National Monument in the Bears Ears
region.
This memo highlights a specific geography of problematic trades
proposed by SITLA, overlapping both the Bears Ears National
Conservation Area that would be created by the passage of the PLI and
the footprint of the National Monument proposed by the Bears Ears
Inter-Tribal Coalition. The trades discussed are visualized on the
attached map.
In general, the principle of consolidating land ownership is an
excellent idea. Conservation areas are best managed when small
dispersed Trust Land holdings are removed, providing continuity of
management. Likewise, the Utah State Institutional Trust Lands
Administration (SITLA) can accomplish its mission of maximizing returns
for beneficiaries far more efficiently when lands under the Trust's
management are consolidated away from sensitive cultural and natural
resources.
Unfortunately, trades proposed in the Bluff area are highly problematic
for the reasons outlined below. We have shared these concerns directly,
in person, with SITLA leadership.
Conservation and scenic values of the area
Many of the lands proposed to be retained or acquired by SITLA in the
Bluff area are highly scenic and contain important cultural resources.
The Bluff Bench is a viewshed prized by the people of Bluff and the
surrounding lands provide the gateway for tourists from around the
world who come to Bluff to visit nearby Monument Valley, Valley of the
Gods, Comb Ridge, and Hovenweep National Monument.
Although little of the area has been documented by rigorous
professional surveys, local archaeologists have identified many unique
archaeological sites, including ancient Ancestral Pueblo roads, shrines
and pueblos. Importantly, this area contains what may be Utah's highest
concentration of Navajo and Ute archaeology, including rare petroglyph
panels.
This area has been involved in significant controversy over possible
oil and gas leases, which were protested by the Hopi Tribe in the early
2000s and most recently by the National Trust for Historic Preservation
and Friends of Cedar Mesa in 2014. The Bureau of Land Management
deferred leasing in this area in 2015 after this most recent protest.
Significantly, this area is covered in the upcoming San Juan Master
Leasing Plan boundaries, which will seek to balance cultural resource
protection and oil and gas development.
Potential for development, privatization and extraction within proposed
conservation areas
As one can see from inspecting the attached map, SITLA is proposing to
retain ownership of surface and mineral rights on significant lands
within the Bears Ears National Conservation Area. This creates the very
real scenario of oil drilling, residential/commercial development, or
privatization of lands that are specifically proposed for conservation
in the PLI. Even more lands are proposed to be acquired by SITLA within
the boundaries of a National Monument proposed by the Bears Ears Inter-
Tribal Coalition.
Combined, the retention by SITLA of lands within the two proposed
conservation areas and their proposed acquisition in the area creates
the scenario of a major block of SITLA land in Bluff's backyard. The
residents of Bluff are very concerned with the possibility of mass
industrialization or even large-scale tourism development in this
region. While perhaps not imminent due to current market conditions,
future industrialization could dramatically impact Bluff's tourism-
based economy and devastate the way of life enjoyed by residents. Such
industrialization could also have significant impacts on cultural
resources in the area. Despite best efforts, subtle archaeology, such
as many of the Ute sites in the area, are easily missed and damaged by
work crews. And the ``setting'' of these sites, which is protected by
the National Historic Preservation Act, would change forever.
Recommendations and conclusion
If a conservation designation is created in the area, be it NCA or
Monument, Friends of Cedar Mesa recommends that federal land managers
and SITLA work with local residents and conservation experts to
identify lands more suitable for SITLA ownership outside of any
designated areas. Proper thought should be given to not creating the
scenario for development just outside of a designated area, which would
certainly engender significant future controversy.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Hilda Madsen on behalf of herself and Colonel
John A. Watts, USA, Ret., Gayle and Gary Hunting, David Gunderson,
Helen Watts, and Ronald and Charlyn Dalebout
H.R. 5780 is an important step to reaffirm the property rights of
families in Scofield, Utah. We appreciate the work of Representatives
Bishop and Chaffetz and the intent of the legislation. However, we ask
the committee to eliminate the exclusion of the properties and persons
described below from the relief otherwise offered by this legislation.
Section 5.2(3)(B)(ii) of H.R. 5780 specifically excludes the
families impacted by U.S. v. Dunn et al. (case described below). It is
unclear why the legislation eliminates the promise of fair and
equitable relief for the very families that were targeted by the
Department of the Interior (DOI) for decades, but fought hard enough
for the government to soften and reconsider taking additional private
property to arrive at the point we are today. A just resolution to this
issue must extend to the families that sacrificed to persistently fight
the aggression of DOI--not just to their neighbors who watched and
waited.
We consistently maintained rightful ownership of this property as
demonstrated by decades of faithful payment of property taxes to Carbon
County over generations of progeny, improvements made to the land, and
the facts described in the following paragraphs. We would be willing to
pay reasonable costs of conveyance to resolve this matter once and for
all.
As you examine our request, please consider the following facts to
demonstrate the violation of property rights by DOI. We have sacrificed
decades of peace and substantial financial loss in the hopeless effort
to match the unlimited legal resources of the Federal Government.
From the 19th century, my grandfather settled the Scofield area and
with his sons operated a large ranch. The title matters that affect
this area are not simple, but our understanding of the back story is.
When the Scofield dam was proposed, in order to cooperate, owners
entered into various deeds to grant to governmental entities certain
lands, and then those lands or use rights thereto in excess of the
needs of the dam would be granted back to citizens. Certain lands to be
permanently inundated would be lost by the resultant lake, but the
representation was that, other than the lake, ultimate use and
ownership rights would be unchanged.
In that respect, in 1927, our family members received deeds back to
tracts of lands in the vicinity of Scofield, Utah. Over the years, some
of these lands were passed down through the generations, including to
me. My (Hilda Madsen) properties at issue are described on Exhibit A to
this letter.
(It bears noting that this tradition of cooperation at Scofield has
continued through the generations. We have consistently maintained a
cooperative relationship with the state of Utah and its management of
state interests within the Scofield Reservoir area, even contributing
lands on the shore of Scofield Reservoir for use by the public. These
lands are now known as Madsen Bay Campground within Scofield State
Park.)
In 1976, we were surprised to receive notification from E.G.
Bywater, Asst. to the Regional Director, U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, that we were
trespassing on such property. We hired an attorney. Jake Garn, then
U.S. Senator for the state of Utah, involved himself in the matter on
behalf of landowners, some his constituents and others not.
Each of the landowners subject to the Dunn litigation described
below received a letter dated May 6, 1977 from E.G. Bywater, Acting
Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional
Office, setting the date of May 17, 1977 for a settlement meeting. The
meeting was held May 17, 1977 at 10:00 a.m. in Conference Room 7102,
Federal Building in Salt Lake City, Utah. (We have a copy of the notice
of meeting.) After some discussion, the attorney representing the
United States' interests, Ron Staten, determined that the government
had only a surface flood easement over this land and stated that he
would be presenting his recommendation to the Department of the
Interior in Washington, DC. The landowners left that meeting, well
pleased with the resolution, and continued using the land and paying
property taxes thereon for decades to come.
In 1988, the same regional office of the Bureau of Reclamation
again wrote saying that it had an interest in the property. We reminded
the government about the events of 1977 and the matter again went away.
In 2000, just months after the death of Della Madsen, the last
witness to the events of 1977 and 1988, a complaint was filed against
us by the government for trespass and quiet title. (U.S.A. v. Dunn et
al., Case No. 2:99 CV 0145 G, District Court of Utah, Central
Division.) Again we retained an attorney and were initially encouraged
by the government's counsel that the case could settle.
In the meantime, Alan Christensen, a representative of the Bureau
of Reclamation, separately told (1) a Carbon County commissioner, Mike
Melavich; (2) a neighboring land owner, John Woolsey, and (3) the mayor
of Scofield, Utah, Mike Erkola, that once he won this property for the
Bureau, he was ``going after'' the lands of everyone around Scofield
Reservoir. There are numerous homes, agricultural and grazing interests
and custom-lot developments surrounding Scofield Reservoir. At my
deposition and in the presence of his U.S. Assistant Attorney, John
Magnum, Christensen denied making any of these corroborated statements.
Despite that we provided copies of the government's written notice
of the 1977 meeting, the government denied that the meeting occurred,
insisting that there are no files or records pertaining to the events
and determinations made in the 1970s and that there are no files for
Ron Staten. They denied any conclusions or assurances made by
government attorneys or representatives at that time. We, however,
relied on those assurances by continuing to use and pay property taxes
on those lands for over the following decades. And ironically, during
the course of the quiet title action, the government produced other,
older documents, including a handwritten note from my father during his
final months of terminal illness in 1949. Yet they insisted they had
nothing from the 1970s or 1980s.
In July 16, 2007, Judge Stewart issued his 26-page Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law in this matter. He describes the deeds (dated
from 1927) he found dispositive of the matter and reiterates, in point
13, his 2006 finding that the language of the deeds is ambiguous as to
whether they grant a use right over these disputed lands because the
same right granted to other properties in said deeds was clearer. He
goes on, however, to resolve the ambiguity in favor of me and my fellow
defendants.
I will not reiterate the 26 pages of Judge Stewart's findings here.
A few highlights, however, include:
1. In 1986, Mr. Leon Mason, chief appraiser of the Upper Colorado
Region of the Bureau of Reclamation, performed an appraisal
of a portion of the property at issue for the expressed
purpose of acquiring the rights of the Madsen family for
use other than flooding as needed by the United States. He
stated: ``This appraisal involves an unusual situation
where the Federal Government has fee title to the land for
flooding purposes only. The theoretical underlying estate
of all uses other than flooding is the most useful.. . .
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 the Schofield [sic] Reservoir. This right to use the
subject parcel for other purposes is owned by the Madsen
family.. . . The [property] was originally acquired . . .
from the Madsen family, reserving to the Madsens the rights
to graze and use for any other use except when inundated.''
[Emphasis added.]
2. In a letter dated July 21, 1989, BOR represented to Mike Jackson,
Superintendent of Scofield, Utah State Parks Department,
that the property was acquired in fee by the United States,
but that ``the deeds reserved the rights of the former
owners to retain grazing and other uses except when
inundated.'' [Emphasis added.] To the letter was attached a
1959 BOR map, indicating the property was held as ``Fee
title in the U.S. subject to grazing and any other use
except when inundated.''
3. Judge Stewart found that from 1927 to date, the property was used
and leased by me and my fellow defendants, and that
improvements were constructed thereon. He found that the
property was fenced continually since the 1950s, and that
``no trespassing'' signs and locked gates were installed
and used.
4. Taxes have continually been paid.
5. At no time since the earlier of pertinent deeds (1927) have any
structures on the property ever been inundated by water.
Judge Stewart determined that, based on the facts presented to
resolve the ambiguity in the deeds, the evidence ``supports that it was
the intent of [grantor] to grant the Madsens a use right on the
[property].'' (This determination renders title akin to a homestead
grant wherein fee is to the owner, subject to the government's right to
use for purposes of mineral extraction; the two estates in the same
property are understood and discernable.)
We are now four generations further in time from those who were
party to the events in 1927. However, with the exception of the brief
events in 1977 and 1988 resolved in favor of the purported landowners
and the 2000 action, no party--not the United States, not the state of
Utah, grantees of easements for railroad, utilities and highways,
municipal authorities, taxing authorities, neighboring landowners or
the very parties in question--ever objected to or even questioned the
ownership of these lands by the Madsen successors.
In 2009, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal applied a narrow 21st
century reading to deeds written by legally unsophisticated ranchers in
1927 and determined that the deeds were not ambiguous and therefore did
not consider the facts that Judge Stewart found so compelling.
Please consider the following observations:
1. This property was part of a large ranch operation of my father,
his father and his uncles from at least the early 20th
century. From the time I was a child, I heard about the
building of the dam, and the flurry of property transfers
made to allow the reservoir and the continuing use of the
property by the Madsens. It makes complete sense to me that
the deeds are not as clearly drafted as they might be if
prepared by a sophisticated modern law firm with plenty of
time and capital. These people were ranchers; they were not
sophisticated lawyers. But at no time did they, their
grantors, or anyone operating the reservoir thereafter,
question their right to continue to use the property as
they saw fit.
2. There is no way my father, grandfather or uncles would have paid
taxes on property they did not think they owned. I have
reviewed year after year of records showing that when taxes
were due, the family had to mortgage the properties to pay
the taxes prior to lambing season. Once lambing season was
successfully over, monies were used to pay off the
mortgages. It was a tight business. They did not have extra
capital to spend on taxes for properties they had no right
to use. Further, it is my understanding that though fee
title might have been in the U.S., the broad use right
would have been superior and entirely taxable as fee
ownership.
3. Were this a matter of private landowner versus private landowner,
this issue would have been settled long ago in favor of the
Madsens by virtue of the doctrine of adverse possession.
All elements were met again and again over the decades, and
taxes were paid. Quiet title would have been resolved
without question in favor of the Madsens. But because the
questioning party is the United States of America, the
equitable doctrine is unavailable to us.
4. The government knew, over and over, for decades, that the Madsens
were using and improving the property. Indeed, they
affirmatively acquiesced to the same. A private landowner
ought to be able to hold the government to assurances and
outward manifestations of assent to ownership. The
government should be estopped from disavowing its own prior
contrary findings that were relied upon by the party
damaged by the later disavowal.
5. I find it very difficult to stomach that this matter ultimately
turned on a scholarly panel's interpretation of deeds when
over eight decades of outward manifestations to the
contrary were unopposed.
After all of this, it would be inequitable in the extreme to
perpetuate the damage inflicted upon us as selective targets of the
Interior and to specifically target us for exclusion from the relief
offered by this legislation. It is our sincere hope that the committee
will see that denying the equal protection of the legislation's
umbrella from the very properties and citizens that have been
championing this cause for decades is unjust and inequitable.
Again, we appreciate your work in this endeavor and looking forward
to working with you to amend this legislation.
EXHIBIT A
HILDA M. MADSEN PROPERTIES
Parcel No. 2A-80-3 in the Official Records of the Carbon County, Utah
Recorder's Office, described as: The West \1/2\ of the Southeast \1/4\
of the Southwest \1/4\ of Section 10, Township 12 South, Range 7 East
of the Salt Lake Meridian.
AND
An undivided 25% interest in Parcel No. 2A-80-4 in the Official Records
of the Carbon County, Utah Recorder's Office, described as:
Beginning at a point 895 feet North and 330 feet East, more or less,
East of the Southwest corner of Section 10, Township 12 South, Range 7
East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, a point which is in the Paul Mancina
South fence line and on the High water line, and running thence
Northwesterly 250 feet, more or less, along the high water line to a
point in the Paul Mancina North fence line; and running thence North
175 feet, more or less to the forty line; thence West 590 feet, more or
less to the North west corner of the forty line, thence South 425 feet,
more or less; thence East 300 feet, more or less to the point of
beginning.
and
Beginning at a point 447.5 feet, more or less, North of the Southwest
corner of Section 10, Township 12 South, Range 7 East, Salt Lake Base
and Meridian, and running thence East 430 feet, more or less, to the
State Road right-of-way; thence Northeasterly along the State Road
right-of-way to the Paul Mancina South fence line; thence West 430
feet, more or less, to the forty line; thence South 447.5 feet, more or
less, to the point of beginning. (Less the State Road right-of-way.)
and
Beginning at a point 447.5 feet North and 430 feet East of the
Southwest corner of Section 10, Township 12 South, Range 7 East, Salt
Lake Base and Meridian; thence East 890 feet to the forty line; thence
North 722.5 feet; thence West 630 feet, more or less; thence
Southwesterly along the State Road right-of-way to the point of
beginning, less the State Road right-of-way and the railroad right-of-
way.
______
Natural Resources Defense Council *** Sierra Club
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
September 14, 2016
Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Hon. Niki Tsongas, Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Federal Lands,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Tsongas:
We write to express our opposition to H.R. 5780, the Utah Public
Lands Initiative on the occasion of the bill's hearing on September 14,
2016.
Our groups were once optimistic that this bill could be crafted
into something that would help bring meaningful protections to Utah's
superlative wilderness lands, and worked diligently toward that goal.
But over the course of the bill's drafting it has instead morphed from
an earnest effort at compromise to an unacceptable, lopsided pro-
development bill that rolls back existing lands protections, unleashes
excessive dirty fuels development in the era of climate change, sets in
motion unprecedented giveaways of public lands, and fails in its
efforts to protect the 1.9 million-acre region known as the Bears Ears.
We address each of these concerns below.
The PLI is a step backward for conservation in Utah.
The PLI fails to adequately protect the nearly 4.4 million acres of
remarkable wilderness-quality lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) in southern and eastern Utah. The PLI removes existing
wilderness management on BLM lands and fails to protect 62% of
inventoried lands that qualify and deserve wilderness protection. In
doing so, the bill rolls back existing protections for over 100,000
acres of wilderness study areas (WSAs) and at least 70,000 acres of
BLM-managed natural areas (i.e., areas managed by the BLM for the
protection of wilderness values).
Rep. Bishop claims that the PLI designates 4.6 million acres of
public land ``for conservation,'' when in fact the PLI substitutes
weakened ``national conservation areas'' (NCAs) and ``special
management areas'' for landscapes deserving of wilderness protection.
These so-called ``conservation designations'' enshrine the unacceptable
Bush-era management plans that designated thousands of miles of off-
road vehicle routes, allow designation and development of new motorized
trails, green-light deforestation projects (such as pinyon-juniper
clear cuts), prioritize and entrench livestock grazing (even where
cultural resources are at risk), prohibit future wilderness protection
in these areas, and limit federal land managers' ability to protect
natural and cultural resources. The PLI also artificially inflates
``conservation'' acreage by over 1.3 million acres. The bill does so
by, in part, including wilderness in already-protected national parks,
double counting acres where wilderness falls within NCAs, and
encompassing currently designated areas such as Natural Bridges
National Monument and the Dark Canyon Wilderness.
The PLI is a climate change nightmare.
At a time when our nation and the world are struggling to seriously
address climate change, the PLI works in the opposite direction. The
PLI seizes authority from public land managers and instead gives the
State of Utah control over the permitting and regulation of all forms
of energy development on millions of acres of federal lands. In doing
so, the PLI will fast-track dirty energy development on public lands
and will likely eviscerate meaningful energy leasing reform such as the
recently completed Moab Master Leasing Plan. The PLI also unleashes a
carbon bomb by transferring large blocks of federal land to the State
of Utah for tar sands, oil shale, potash, coal, oil, and gas
development. These blocks are located in the remote Book Cliffs, in
high value scenic and recreation lands near the Green River west of
Moab, on Hatch Point bordering Canyonlands National Park, near the
world-renowned San Rafael Swell, and in the Uintah Basin.
The PLI is a public lands giveaway.
The PLI grants thousands of miles of disputed R.S. 2477 rights-of-
way to the State of Utah while allowing for continued litigation over
R.S. 2477 routes within areas designated as wilderness, NCAs, and
recreation areas. The PLI furthers the State of Utah's land grab
efforts by transferring thousands of acres of federal land to the
state, without compensation, for development and increased motorized
and non-motorized recreation. The PLI permanently establishes livestock
grazing as a priority and would result in both increased and new
grazing in areas currently closed by federal land agencies due to
natural and cultural resource damage. The PLI bestows inordinate
authority to county and state officials by requiring federal land
managers to submit a report to Congress if they fail to follow the
demands of local politicians. And it undermines the Antiquities Act by
including a companion bill that would remove the president's authority
to protect deserving landscapes in southern and eastern Utah.
The PLI fails to protect the Bears Ears Region.
An historic coalition of Native American Tribes is asking President
Obama to proclaim a 1.9 million-acre Bears Ears National Monument in
southeastern Utah and provide them with co-management authority to
protect their ancestral homelands. Containing over 100,000 cultural
sites, the Bears Ears is the most significant unprotected cultural
landscape in the U.S. The PLI ignores Tribal recommendations by failing
to protect well over half a million acres of the Bears Ears region as
proposed by the Inter-Tribal Coalition; diminishing the Coalition's
voice by creating a 10-member advisory committee with only one tribal
representative for a reduced-size Bears Ears ``national conservation
area;'' promoting motorized recreation (which puts cultural sites at
increased risk); authorizing grazing in currently closed areas like
Grand Gulch, Fish, Owl, and Arch Canyons; and prohibiting the
Department of the Interior from protecting hundreds of thousands of
wilderness-quality lands as wilderness.
For these reasons, we strongly urge to you oppose the Public Lands
Initiative, and we respectfully request that our statement be entered
into the record.
Sincerely,
Sharon Buccino, Director,
Land and Wildlife Program Athan Manuel, Director, Lands
Protection Program
Natural Resources Defense
Council Sierra Club
Scott Groene, Executive
Director,
Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance
______
Prepared Statement of Russell Begaye, Navajo Nation President
On July 14, 2016, Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT) introduced H.R.
5780, the Utah Public Lands Initiative Act (UPLI), which designates
specified Federal lands for certain uses within the San Juan County
area as well as other provisions. The bill was co-sponsored by
Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and was referred to the House Natural
Resources Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs,
and House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands on August 4,
2016.
As it stands now, the Navajo Nation cannot support the bill for
three reasons: (1) the negative impact it would have on Navajo Nation
royalty revenues from oil and gas fields located on the Navajo
reservation; (2) its negative effects on the resources within the Bears
Ears region; and (3) the lack of tribal consultation on key provisions.
In the first instance, H.R. 5780 stands to reduce the Navajo Nation
revenues. The bill would decrease the Navajo Nation's royalty revenues
from its oil and gas leases located in the Aneth extension on the
Navajo reservation from 62.5 percent to 37.5 percent. These revenue
sources provide essential funds for government services, programs and
projects that benefit the members of the Navajo Nation. In addition, we
are unclear as to why a provision on the McCracken extension, located
on the Navajo reservation, has been included in the language. Although
the sponsors may have had public meetings in Utah, the Navajo Nation
has not been consulted on the inclusion of these provisions in the
bill. Therefore, because these provisions directly impact the Navajo
Nation, they should not be included without the consent of the Navajo
Nation and proper consultation with the Nation.
Second, H.R. 5780 would not provide enough protection of the Bears
Ears as it would open the surrounding areas to recreation, public use
and mining. Many Southwestern Native American tribes, including the
Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, Acoma, Zia, Jemez Pueblos, the Ute Mountain,
Southern and Uintah Ouray Utes, the San Juan, Kaibab, and Utah Paiute
tribes and the Jicarilla Apache assert affiliation, ancestry,
occupation and enduring use of the Bears Ears and surrounding areas.
The region is also rich in cultural, scenic, ecological, archaeological
and paleontological resources. It has many archaeological sites from
multiple indigenous cultures that inhabited the region for more than
12,000 years. In fact, the Bears Ears region is the birthplace of the
Navajo headman Manuelito. The region has many historic landmarks,
historical trails, ruins, petroglyphs and paleontological resources.
Members of the Navajo Nation and other tribes use the region and its
plants and wildlife to sustain their traditional livelihood and their
spiritual and cultural practices. As such, protection of the Bear Ears
region is of paramount importance to the Navajo Nation and the
neighboring tribal nations and the UPLI will not offer the same level
of protection for the region as a national monument designation.
The UPLI may also introduce more uranium mines into the regions
surrounding the Bears Ears. The Navajo Nation has a long history of
suffering from the negative consequences of uranium extraction. During
the cold war, uranium was mined from Navajo, which contaminated the
water table with radioactivity and affected tribal communities from
uranium tailings that traveled downwind on the Navajo Nation. Many
Navajo miners and other Navajos living within the mining areas suffered
from the ill effects of radiation. Navajos are still dealing with the
ill effects from uranium mining.
Because of the negative impact on our revenue, the lack of
consultation, and the potential intrusion on the sacred area of Bears
Ears, the Navajo Nation opposes the UPLI. The Federal Government has
trust and treaty obligations to the Navajo Nation to protect its
resources and the UPLI, in its current form, would undermine these
obligations. There may have been many meetings leading to the
development of the UPLI, however the language of the UPLI has only been
recently presented to the public and there have been very few meetings
to discuss its meaning, effects and alternatives. Along with the other
supporting tribes of the Bears Ears Coalition, the Navajo Nation still
supports the designation of Bears Ears as a national monument. The UPLI
legislation has not changed this position. Therefore, we ask that you
not support the UPLI. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of The Pew Charitable Trusts
The U.S. Public Lands program at The Pew Charitable Trusts seeks to
preserve ecologically and culturally diverse U.S. public lands through
congressionally designated wilderness, the establishment of national
monuments, and administrative protections. We appreciate the
opportunity to submit these views for the record.
H.R. 5780--the Utah Public Lands Initiative Act
More than 3 years ago, The Pew Charitable Trusts joined a public
process begun by Representatives Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz aimed at
ending three decades of uncertainty over whether to protect or develop
public lands in eastern Utah. The initiative was an attempt to find
common ground between conservation and development interests. All sides
recognize that this special place needs to be preserved for future
generations.
On July 14, the Utah Public Lands Initiative Act (H.R. 5780) was
introduced. At the time, Pew outlined our concerns about the bill in a
letter to the bill's sponsors. Since we are not aware of any revisions
made to H.R. 5780 in the interim to improve the bill or otherwise
address our concerns, they remain unchanged. We therefore attach a copy
of our July 14 letter here and respectfully request that it be included
in this hearing's public record, noting that the time remaining for
Congress to act to protect these areas is rapidly expiring.
H.R. 5781--the Utah Public Lands Initiative Partner Act
Pew is opposed to any legislation, including H.R. 5781, that would
remove or weaken the President's authority to use the Antiquities Act
to protect important cultural, natural, and recreational resources on
lands owned by the American people for the benefit of future
generations.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit these views for the
subcommittee's consideration.
ATTACHMENT
The Pew Charitable Trusts,
Washington, DC
July 14, 2016
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Hon. Jason Chaffetz,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz:
The Pew Charitable Trusts has supported the fundamental premise of
the Utah Public Lands Initiative (PLI) from its beginning: the pairing
of new wilderness and other conservation designations with broadly
supported land exchanges between the federal government and Utah. The
virtues of such an exchange include permanent protection for some of
Utah's most spectacular places for future generations, a significant
funding stream for Utah's schoolchildren, and diverse new economic
opportunities for rural Utah communities provided by wilderness
designations. The introduction of the Utah Public Lands Initiative Act
(H.R. 5780) is an important step toward realizing such an exchange.
Utah's redrock country is virtually unmatched worldwide in its
sublime combination of scenic vistas, recreational opportunities,
biological values, and archeological treasures. H.R. 5780 would protect
some of its most spectacular places. While we are generally supportive
of the conservation gains envisioned by the bill, we continue to have
concerns with some of the provisions in the bill that must be addressed
in order to achieve a durable legislative outcome for southeastern
Utah's public lands.
Pew is opposed to the Recapture Canyon right-of-way provisions in
Section 817. While we appreciate the elimination of the Seep Ridge Road
corridor from Grand County in Title VI, we remain concerned that future
developments of the road might endanger the Book Cliffs region. We also
feel that the management language in the NCA and Wild and Scenic
sections could be improved so that the areas are adequately protected
in a manner that is consistent with the goals and values of the
National Landscape Conservation and National Wild and Scenic Rivers
Systems and will enjoy management--particularly with regards to
grazing--that is more protective than existing management, not less. We
have concerns with the mechanics of the land exchange process in Title
I of Division B; in particular the NEPA and FLPMA compliance provisions
found in Section 105. By preemptively determining that these
conveyances are in the public interest, the bill undermines regular
order and limits critical checks and balances that ensure that the
American taxpayer receives the best possible return for the conveyance
of public property. Likewise, the RS 2477 provisions in title XII of
Division B are beyond the scope of this bill, and improperly pre-empt
court proceedings currently underway to resolve these claims. In
addition, section 204(m) of Division A is so broadly written as to
potentially limit agencies' authority to make a wilderness
recommendation or other administrative designations in the management
planning process. In fact, language throughout the bill significantly
and unnecessarily constrains the ability of the Secretaries of the
Interior and of Agriculture to manage these lands for the value for
which they've been designated. We also support adjusting the boundaries
of the Bears Ears NCA to include the recreationally and
archaeologically valuable lands within the White Canyon drainages and
the Allen, Chippean, and Dry Wash Canyons. Finally, we have concerns
about the energy language in Title XI of Division B.
Because Pew believes the legislative process can achieve a solution
that honors recommendations from numerous public land users, we are
committed to working with you on the legislation in a manner that would
enable the Senate to act favorably on this legislation and the
President to sign H.R. 5780 into law. However, time remaining in the
114th Congress is very short. Pew's continued support for the PLI
process depends on a clear demonstration that a measure is moving
forward and can be enacted by this Congress before the House recesses
at the end of September.
If such progress cannot be shown, Pew believes that President Obama
should use his authority, granted by Congress under the Antiquities
Act, to protect the Bears Ears area as a national monument. These
places are under imminent threat, there is strong support among Native
American tribes for their preservation, and protecting them would
confer economic benefits to the communities of Bluff, Blanding,
Monticello, and beyond. While we would prefer to see a good bill passed
into law, we know from experience with the Grand Staircase-Escalante
National Monument that a designation under the Antiquities Act can also
successfully replicate the premise underlying this bill: the
conservation of land coupled with subsequent consolidation of SITLA
parcels for lands outside the conservation units to eliminate
checkerboard ownership and provide a revenue stream to Utah's permanent
State School Fund.
We are sincerely grateful for the effort you and your staff have
put into this bill, which is vastly improved from the draft we saw in
January. We look forward to working with you on this legislation.
Sincerely,
Mike Matz, Director,
U.S. Public Lands.
______
Summit County Council,
Coalville, Utah
September 21, 2016
Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Hon. Niki Tsongas, Ranking Member,
House Subcommittee on Federal Lands,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman McClintock and Ranking Member Tsongas:
The Summit County (Utah) Council respectfully writes to provide its
input and experience relating to H.R. 5780, the Utah Public Lands
Initiative Act or PLI. The Summit County Council requests that this
letter be included in the hearing record.
Summit County was actively involved for a year and a half in
creating a proposal for the PLI, utilizing an interest-based process
with local, State and Federal stakeholder groups. That consensus
process included ranchers, grazers, recreation representatives, elected
officials, environmentalists, representatives from Utah State agencies,
Forest Service representatives and citizens at large. We were proud to
present a full-consensus proposal to Congressman Rob Bishop for Summit
County. The focus was on watershed management for conservation and
restoration and multi-use, and included an expansion of the High Uintas
Wilderness, protection of grazing, and improved access for landowners
and recreation.
Summit County does not support H.R. 5780 as currently constituted.
Summit County has worked diligently with Congressman Bishop's staff
over the past nine months to conform the PLI to our proposal.
Unfortunately after repeated assurances from Congressman Bishop's
Office that the PLI will fully reflect our proposal, we find the
current draft varies greatly from our proposal's intent.
Areas of the PLI that are unacceptable include the following:
Contradicts critical elements of the Wilderness Act,
including provisions regarding water development.
Contradicts critical elements of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act, National Forest Management Act, and
National Environmental Policy Act.
Disregards term that were highly negotiated among all
stakeholders concerning proposed management for the
expansion of the High Uintas Wilderness, Little West Fork
Blacks Special Management Area, and Widdop Mountain and
East Fork Smiths Fork Watershed Management Areas, which are
critical watersheds for the Bear River and Colorado River
Basins.
Permits over-snow and off-road vehicle use or other
motorized access to areas currently designated roadless or
deemed sensitive due to critical watershed resources.
Section 1302--Bighorn Sheep does not comport with our
proposal to allow local stakeholders to develop workable
solutions.
Additional areas of the PLI are of significant concern due to
environmental impacts to the State as a whole, although they do not
immediately affect Summit County or its proposal, and include:
Concerns that land exchanges may not be adequately vetted
and/or of equitable resource value.
Circumvents the Bureau of Land Management and National
Forest Service's primacy for energy development permitting
on lands under their control through Title IX Long-term
Energy Development.
Provides for a companion bill to restrict the President's
ability to utilize the Antiquities Act in counties
participating in the PLI.
Does not provide appropriations for additional Federal
and/or State management requirements.
Mandates grazing at current levels regardless of
consistency with current laws and/or condition of landscape
to support current levels.
While the proposal recognizes the critical need to protect scenic
and sensitive public lands in Utah, places like the High Uintas
Wilderness and Bears Ears region in San Juan County, it fails to focus
on areas of collaborative agreement between stakeholders in Summit
County and other counties, and instead imposes unacceptable and
controversial provisions. We remain committed to the consensus
contained in the Summit County proposal and to permanent protection of
deserving public lands in Utah through whatever process can
successfully secure those protections.
Thank you for considering our response to this legislation.
Sincerely,
Roger Armstrong,
Chair.
______
Uintah County Commission,
Vernal, Utah
Hon. Tom McClintock, Chairman,
House Subcommittee on Federal Lands,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman McClintock:
On behalf of Uintah County, Utah, we the Board of Uintah County
Commissioners provide the following comments regarding H.R. 5780, the
Utah Public Lands Initiative Act (``PLI'') which will greatly impact
our County and our citizens. We support the process and concepts
utilized to develop this grassroots public lands process.
Located in the Uinta Basin of Eastern Utah, Uintah County is home
to world class energy and mineral resources as well as some of the most
unique and wild places in the United States. Uintah County is fortunate
to contain the snow packed peaks of the High Uinta Mountains,
prehistoric remnants in Dinosaur National Monument, banks of the Green
River in Desolation Canyon, the first steps down the remote Book
Cliffs, billions of barrels of recoverable oil, trillions of cubic feet
of natural gas, as well as minerals that are vital to our nation.
Balancing the competing interests of stakeholders and citizens across
these landscapes is complex, delicate, and requires a great deal of
hard, face to face work with all interests.
Uintah County commends Congressmen Bishop and Chaffetz and their
staff for the thousands of hours of work and dedication to this effort.
This has been a long and trying process attempting to achieve perhaps
the most difficult balancing act in public policy. Uintah County has
been proud to participate in this process and we have conducted
numerous public meetings ourselves and conducted hundreds of meetings
and conversations with citizens and stakeholders. We support this
process and look forward to working with the Committee and the Utah
Congressional Delegation to resolve remaining issues within our County.
General Comments:
National Forest--It is important to note the historical and current
management of certain lands addressed in the PLI. The national forest
lands have been managed as a federal timber reserve and forest for over
100 years. These are public lands reserved for the public purpose of
timber resources. It is part of the Ashley National Forest, managed by
the United States Forest Service.
This area is enjoyed by many of the residents of Uintah County and
the general public. It includes beautiful alpine lakes, lush meadows,
high peaks over 12,000 feet in elevation. This area also provides one
of the few areas with Uintah County where open snowmobiling can occur
with regularity. This is an important public use which must be
protected. Of great importance is the water which flows from these
mountains provides the drinking and irrigation water for almost 30,000
residents of Uintah County. The trailhead of the Highline Trail begins
at the eastern boundary of this area. This trail traverses much of the
spine of the High Uintas.
Bureau of Land Management--This area of Uintah County has a long
and storied history. In the northern part of the County these public
domain lands have been used for grazing, hunting, rock hounding, and
motorized and nonmotorized recreation. Particularly around Dinosaur
National Monument these public lands constitute a very important
component of the Uintah Sage Grouse Management Area. As such, access
must be preserved to further the habitat projects and wildlife counts.
This area is also very import to our hunting community and select roads
must remain open to provide public access to use and enjoy this public
land.
In the southern part of Uintah County resides a great expanse of
public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. This area has a
very rich history being public domain lands, public lands reserved as a
temporary Indian reservation, then returned to the public domain by an
1894 Act of Congress. Numerous mineral patents were issued in these
lands and some homesteading occurred in the early 1900s.
When Utah became a state in 1896, Congress granted four sections of
land in each township to Utah and created permanent endowments to
support public education. These parcels could only be given to the
State of Utah from unreserved lands. Much of the $2 billion Permanent
School Fund managed by the State of Utah School and Institutional Trust
Lands Administration has been generated by the State parcels in
southern Uintah County.
In 1948 Congress passed Public Law 440 (An Act To define the
exterior boundary of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in the
State of Utah). This Act extended the exterior boundary of the Uintah
and Ouray Reservation from ``lands in the former Uncompahgre Indian
Reservation.'' It also provided for the State of Utah to have the right
to make selections in lieu thereof outside of the [extension] . . .
from the vacant, unappropriated . . . public lands, within the State of
Utah.'' Most of these selections were made in the public domain lands
in southern Uintah County.
The remaining public lands have been continuously managed by the
federal government as public lands. In 1976, Congress passed the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act which subjected these lands to
multiple use mandates of that Act and the planning provisions set forth
therein. Currently all of these public lands are managed by the Bureau
of Land Management under the 2008 Resource Management Plan. It is from
these lands, the federal, state and local governments enjoy mineral
lease funds. These lands contain the areas described in the PLI as
White River SMA, Desolation Canyon Wilderness Area, and the Book Cliff
Sportsman Area.
Division A
Title I--Wilderness
In consideration of the Long Term Energy Development Certainty
provisions in the Act and also bringing final resolution to Class B and
D roads within the county, Uintah County provides the following
comments regarding wilderness designations within our county:
High Uinta: Uintah County supports this designation and the
currently depicted boundaries.
Dinosaur National Monument: During the many months of discussions
and negotiations, Dinosaur National Monument has been the subject of
numerous proposals including wilderness designation, expansion, park
designation, road issues, and management issues. Throughout those
discussions Uintah County has sought to be mindful of those who live,
recreate, and work in this part of the County. As you are well aware,
there is a long history of promises made, promises broken and
management creep from the National Park Service. Some of the families
who continue to ranch in this area were on the land prior to the
monument designation. Because of this history, there remains a high
level of mistrust of the National Park Service by ranchers,
recreationists, and other businesses within our County. At this time,
due to the input from our constituents, we cannot support wilderness
designation within Dinosaur National Monument. We are happy to continue
these discussions with your offices and certainly with our concerned
citizens. We understand the difficulties this may cause as you attempt
to balance the complex nature of the PLI so we certainly want to
continue to work through these issues and hopefully resolve them in a
manner that serves the citizens of our County. If wilderness is
designated within the Monument it must avoid those areas where
development has occurred or will foreseeably occur to accommodate
visitor use and enjoyment.
Desolation Canyon: Uintah County supports the proposed wilderness
designation within a portion of Desolation Canyon inside of our county
boundaries. We spent a great deal of time resolving conflicts in this
area and crafting a wilderness boundary that protects the most critical
portions of the canyon within our county and avoided conflicts with
energy development and existing roads. While we are supportive of the
current boundaries of the Desolation Canyon Wilderness, we urge the
Utah Delegation to insure these boundaries do not expand and that the
road and energy resources surrounding this Wilderness area are
protected.
Management Provisions: Uintah County applauds the inclusion of
strong management language that will preserve grazing, state water
rights, existing uses as well as the air shed language on these
landscapes, and excludes buffer zones.
Title II--National Conservation Areas
In consideration of the Long Term Energy Development Certainty
provisions in the Act and also bringing final resolution to Class B and
D roads within the county, Uintah County agrees to the following
conservation designations:
Beach Draw, Diamond Mountain, Docs Valley, Stone Bridge Draw, and
Stuntz Draw NCAs: Uintah County supports the designation of these areas
as National Conservation Areas and appreciates the specific language
preserving our efforts to manage for greater sage grouse. We are
concerned that several roads within the Diamond Mountain NCA will be
closed by the Bureau of Land Management and these roads should be
specifically protected in the language.
Management Provisions: Uintah County applauds the inclusion of
strong management language that will preserve grazing, state water
rights, existing uses on these landscapes, and excludes buffer zones.
Title III--Watershed Management Areas
Ashley Spring and Dry Fork Watershed Management Areas--Uintah
County supports these provisions as they will help protect our water
resources that supply irrigation and drinking water to the 20,000+
residents of Ashley Valley.
Title IV--Special Management Areas
In consideration of the Long Term Energy Development Certainty
provisions in the Act and also bringing final resolution to Class B and
D roads within the county, Uintah County agrees to the following
special management designations.
High Uintas: Uintah County supports the current boundaries and
management language of this designation. Specifically, the over snow
vehicle language is important to our recreation community.
White River: Uintah County has supported the designation of a
Special Management Area along the White River provided there continues
to be access to the minerals underlying the area and the designation
would not cause conflicts with other uses in the area. We appreciate
the adjustment of the boundaries of this area in order to avoid the
world class oil shale resources in the area that are under current
development. We urge the Committee and the Utah Delegation to not
expand these boundaries, retain the language prohibiting the creation
of a buffer zone around the SMA and preserve access to the minerals
under the White River SMA.
Book Cliffs Sportsmen: Uintah County supports designation of this
area but would like to work with the Committee and the Utah Delegation
to insure that existing roads in this area are cherry stemmed out of
the designation or language is included that specifically preserves
these roads that are vital for recreational access.
Title VII--Wild and Scenic Rivers
In consideration of the Long Term Energy Development Certainty
provisions in the Act and also bringing final resolution to Class B and
D roads within the county, Uintah County supports designation of the
Green River as a Recreational River south of the Pariette Draw Road to
the county line but does not support Wild and Scenic designation within
Uintah County.
Title VII--Ashley Karst National Geologic and Recreation Area
Uintah County supports this designation which will protect the
critical water supplies for the city of Vernal and surrounding
communities. The karst system which feeds Ashley Creek is critical for
the protection of these water resources. We would request the inclusion
of language to prohibit the Forest Service for charging recreation fees
excepting for developed camp grounds. Uintah County also supports and
respectfully requests that the federal minerals be withdrawn from the
BLM managed lands within the County's Ashley Spring Protection Zone.
Division B
Title VI--Land Conveyances
Ashley Spring: Uintah County supports this land conveyance which
will allow the County to protect the supply of drinking water for
Vernal City and will insure that mineral development will not impact
the flows and quality of Ashley Spring.
Seep Ridge Utility Corridor: Uintah County supports this provision
as it is critical to the future economic growth of the Uinta Basin. The
Basin is an isolated area without rail service requiring utility
corridors to move energy and products to markets. There is currently
not a path to move utilities south out of the County to the Interstate
70 corridor which makes this provision of vital importance. We look
forward to working with the Committee and Delegation in the mapping
process to insure it reflects a route that will accomplish the goals of
this conveyance, consider engineering and construction restrictions,
and avoids environmental conflicts where possible.
Title VIII--Recreation Zones
Red Mountain, Jensen Hills, Bourdette Draw, and Devils Hole
Recreation Areas: Uintah County supports the designation of these areas
which will enhance the opportunities for our citizens to recreate on
public lands in Uintah County.
Title X--Long-Term Native American Economic Development Certainty
Uintah County supports legislative actions to assist the Ute Tribe
in its efforts to provide economic development for its Members and the
Tribe's success is important to the Uinta Basin. As the Committee well
appreciates, the long history of tribal issues in the Uinta Basin is
complex, emotional, and very important to the future of all citizens in
the Basin.
Given recent actions and positions taken by the Ute Tribe, Uintah
County requests that this section be deleted from the text and that the
Secretary of Interior, the Utah Congressional Delegation, the Governor
of Utah, the Ute Tribe and Uintah County and other affected counties
and cities craft a more global solution to issues raised by the Ute
Tribe and it neighboring governments. Decades of litigation have left
many issues unresolved and we request the Committee's assistance in
bringing parties together to resolve all Tribal and jurisdictional
issues in the Basin. We do not believe the current PLI legislation is
the appropriate venue for this conveyance at this time.
Title XI--Long Term Energy Development Certainty
In consideration of the wilderness and special designation areas in
this Act, Uintah County requires the following to provide more
certainty to our economy.
Uintah County initiated the concept of an energy zone which would
insure that the management priority for certain lands within the County
be managed for the specific purpose of producing energy and mineral
resources. Just as conservation designations insure that environmental
management is the primary purpose of managing wilderness and national
conservation areas, we believe energy and mineral development on lands
not otherwise designated for conservation purposes should be newly
evaluated for mineral and energy potential. On lands of mineral
character, BLM should manage those lands to responsibly and effectively
develop these resources. We have developed various iterations of
language over approximately two years through discussions with the Utah
Delegation and negotiations within the conservation community. Uintah
County requests that the PLI language reflect these efforts and adopt
language that will require the BLM to manage the mineral and energy
resources within our County. While we appreciate the intentions of the
current language which would provide for State primacy in permitting
actions, we do not believe the concept will achieve the progress in
Uintah County that is necessary to fully develop our enormous oil, gas,
and mineral resources.
Uintah County would like to continue to work with the Committee and
the Delegation to craft language that achieves the goals and needs of
the County.
Title XII--Long Term Travel Management Certainty
In consideration of the wilderness and special designation areas in
this Act, Uintah County requires the following to provide more
certainty to our economy and further the provisions of the Act.
We commend the Utah Congressional Delegation for its willingness to
resolve the long standing issues of ownership of our Class B and D
highways. We support the concept of bringing final resolution to this
longstanding dispute which has eluded resolution for over 40 years.
Uintah County has provided language that would resolve all Class B
roads claimed by Uintah County, all Class D roads where the County's
Travel Management Plan and the Bureau of Land Management Resource
Management Plan agree. Additionally we need the legislation to address
public access to and into specific designated areas. These additional
18 Class D roads are needed to ensure the purpose of each area can be
fully realized.
Title XIII--Long-Term Grazing Certainty
Uintah County supports Title XIII as grazing is vital to our
economy, our citizens, and our culture. While we believe the individual
grazing provisions associated with Wilderness or other conservation
designations is the first priority, this provision will insure that
grazing will continue on lands not otherwise designated for
conservation purposes under the Act.
Division C--Local Participation
Title I--Local Participation and Planning--Uintah County supports
the establishment of Federal Advisory Committees to achieve greater
participation and transparency in the Federal management of the lands
affected by the PLI legislation.
Conclusion:
Uintah County appreciates the opportunity to participate in the PLI
process and to submit these comments for the hearing record. Uintah
County believes in a collaborative process to resolve public lands
issues and that all parties should be heard and considered. We also
believe that elected officials closest to the people, the land, and the
natural resources be given priority consideration in these public
policy debates. We are elected by the people to protect and advocate
for their interests and we will continue to do so as part of the PLI
process and we are invested in this effort in the long term. We are
happy to provide any further information that would be useful to the
Committee.
Sincerely,
Mark D. Raymond,
Chairman.
William C. Stringer
Michael J. McKee
______
Prepared Statement of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray
Reservation
The Ute Indian Tribe appreciates the opportunity to provide this
testimony to the Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on
Federal Lands on H.R. 5780, the Utah Public Lands Initiative.
Unfortunately, H.R. 5780 is an attack on our Uintah and Ouray
Reservation homelands that conflicts with more than 100 years of
Federal Indian law and policy. We respectfully request that the
Subcommittee, Committee and House of Representatives not take further
action on the bill without additional hearings, a full airing of the
numerous issues in the bill and substantial revisions.
introduction
The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation strongly
opposes H.R. 5780, the Utah Public Lands Initiative. The bill is
promoted as a local solution to difficult Federal land management
issues in eastern Utah. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from
the truth. In fact, much of H.R. 5780 was built on the back of the Ute
Indian Tribe and our 4.5 million acre Uintah and Ouray Reservation
without our knowledge or consent. Overall the bill would affect more
than 370,000 acres within our Reservation.
Most important, the bill proposes to take more than 100,000 acres
of our Reservation lands for the state of Utah. This proposal would
take Federal Indian policy back to the late 1800s when Indian land
grabs and the taking of tribal resources for the benefit of others was
common. This modern day Indian land grab cannot be allowed to stand.
Unprecedented in over 100 years, Congress and Administration long ago
rejected these devastating policies in favor of tribal self-
determination and restoring and protecting tribal homelands.
Even worse, the proposal to take our lands was developed behind our
backs. After 4 years and, apparently, more than 1,200 meetings with
stakeholders, the Tribe first learned of this proposal about 8 months
ago when a discussion draft of the bill was released on January 20,
2016. Over these 4 years, the Congressmen never invited the Tribe to a
meeting or came to our Reservation to discuss their proposal to take
our lands. In meetings since the discussion draft was released, nearly
all of the Tribe's proposals and revisions were rejected. H.R. 5780 was
developed without tribal consultation and defies the Federal
Government's trust responsibility to the Tribe.
The development of H.R. 5780 even defies common sense. The bill
involves seven counties in eastern Utah. Our 4.5 million acre
Reservation overlaps these seven counties and makes up 26 percent of
the total land area covered by the bill. Representing more that a
quarter of these eastern Utah lands, the Tribe and our Reservation
should have been a major participant in the development of any bill to
address problems in Federal land management. We were not.
Proposals for moving H.R. 5780 also defy regular order and will not
allow for a full airing of all the proposals in the bill. We understand
that the Congressmen plan for only one subcommittee hearing on this
215-page bill including about 129 individual land management proposals.
Normally each one of these land management proposals, or no more than
three or four at a time, would get their own hearing in the
subcommittee. In addition, the bill includes significant proposals for
Indian lands and resources and should get a separate hearing before the
Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs.
Finally, even the witness table for today's hearing defies logic.
While the Tribe agrees that each of today's witnesses should be given
the opportunity to present their views and supports their
participation, most of the bill's key supporters and those most
affected are not included here. At the bill's only hearing the
Committee and the Subcommittee should also hear from the Ute Indian
Tribe and the seven counties. The Tribe asks that members of the
Committee and Subcommittee demand additional hearings and a full airing
of the proposals included in H.R. 5780.
h.r. 5780 is a modern day indian land grab
H.R. 5780 is a modern day Indian lands grab. Not since the late
1800s has Congress authorized the taking of Indian land for the benefit
of others. In the late 1800s Congress passed a series of acts that
divided up or allotted tribally held lands to individual Indians. The
primary allotment act was the General Allotment Act of 1887. Tribal
lands not assigned to individual Indians were to be sold to non-Indians
as surplus lands. The primary effect of the General Allotment Act was a
reduction in Indian-held land from 138 million acres in 1887 to 48
million in 1934.
Recognizing the disastrous effects of the loss of tribal and Indian
held lands, Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934
(IRA). The IRA ended the allotment of Indian lands and restored trust
status to remaining Indian lands. In addition, ever since the passage
of the IRA, Congress has pursued a policy of tribal self-determination
and affirmation of tribal authority over lands and resources within
Indian reservations.
H.R. 5780 is a return to those failed policies of the late 1800s.
The Congressmen buried the taking of Indian lands in a section entitled
``Innovative Land Management and Recreation Development.'' However,
even reading this section does little good. Readers are directed to
reference a map entitled ``State and Federal Land Exchange Map.''
Finally, this map, which does not show the boundaries of our Uintah and
Ouray Reservation, reveals the taking of more that 100,000 acres of
Reservation lands for the state of Utah. A return to the failed
policies of the 1800s is hardly ``innovative.''
It is also important to note, that these 100,000 acres inside our
Reservation are in an area known as the Uintah Basin. The Uintah Basin
is a prolific oil and gas resource that has been producing for the past
70 years. Once described by Utah Territory officials as a
``wasteland,'' the state now seeks congressional action to diminish our
Reservation and take our most valuable resources.
proposal to restore tribal lands
Instead of taking 100,000 acres of our lands for the benefit of
others, the Ute Indian Tribe asked Congressman Bishop to include a
provision in H.R. 5780 that would direct the Secretary of the Interior
to restore our lands to trust status and management by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA). Currently, these lands are managed by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) as surplus lands within an Indian reservation.
As such, the Secretary should be directed to restore our lands under
existing authority in Section 3 of the IRA which provides:
The Secretary of the Interior, if he shall find it to be in the
public interest, is authorized to restore to tribal ownership
the remaining surplus lands of any Indian reservation
heretofore opened, or authorized to be opened, to sale, or any
other form of disposal by Presidential proclamation, or by any
of the public-land laws of the United States: . . .
25 U.S.C. 463(a). Restoration of these lands to trust status would
increase local control, promote energy development and help to resolve
nearly 100 years of improper Federal land management stemming from the
allotment acts. This is exactly the kind of proposal that should have
been included in a bill promoted as ``a locally-driven effort to bring
resolution and certainty to some of the most challenging land disputes
in Utah.''
The 100,000 acres that H.R. 5780 would give to the state is in the
eastern half of our Reservation that has been mismanaged by the Federal
Government for more than 100 years. The eastern half of our current
Uintah and Ouray Reservation is also known as the Uncompahgre
Reservation. The Uncompahgre Reservation was established by President
Chester A. Arthur in a January 5, 1882 Executive Order. Like other
reservations, the Uncompahgre Reservation was subject to Acts of
Congress attempting to allot reservation lands and provide for non-
Indian homesteading. However, as the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has
conclusively determined, these Acts never diminished nor disestablished
the Uncompahgre Reservation.
Even though the Uncompahgre Reservation was never diminished nor
disestablished, over the last 80 years the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) gradually assumed management of lands within the Reservation.
First, in 1933, relying on authority applicable to Executive Order
reservations, Section 4 of the Act of March 3, 1927 (44 Stat. 1347),
the Secretary of the Interior set aside most of the Uncompahgre
Reservation as a grazing reserve. Then, under a 1935 agreement, the
grazing reserve was to be jointly managed by the BIA and the BLM for
the benefit of Indian and non-Indian stockmen. However, BLM field
officers made decision after decision benefiting non-Indian stockmen
and over-running our Reservation lands.
In 1948, Congress passed the Act of March 11, 1948 (62 Stat. 72) to
settle tensions between Indian and non-Indian grazing interests within
the Uncompahgre Grazing Reserve. This Act extended the boundaries of
the Uintah and Ouray Reservation to include an area known as the Hill
Creek Extension. The Act canceled the grazing reserve created by the
Secretary in 1933, but did not affect the January 5, 1882 Executive
Order setting aside the Uncompahgre Reservation. Nevertheless, BLM
moved quickly under the 1948 Act to gain control of most of the lands
within Uncompahgre Reservation.
BLM's actions were incorrect. As the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
would later hold, the 1948 Act ``in no way changed the character of the
region. In fact, it preserved its Indian character.'' Ute Indian Tribe
v. Utah, 773 F.2d 1087, 1099 (10th Cir. 1985) (en banc), cert. denied,
479 U.S. 994 (1986) (Ute III). In other words, by revoking the 1933
Order withdrawing the Uncompahgre Reservation as a grazing reserve, the
1948 Act returned the lands within the Uncompahgre Reservation to their
status pre-1933. The lands were once again surplus lands within an
Indian Reservation. Such lands are eligible for restoration to trust
status under the IRA. At a minimum, H.R. 5780 should not attempt to
legislatively take the very same lands that the Tribe is currently
seeking to have restored to trust status by the Secretary.
h.r. 5780 attempts to overrule 30 years of 10th circuit and supreme
court case law
H.R. 5780 is an attempt to over-rule 30 years of litigation in the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. For 30 years the
state of Utah has attempted to challenge the boundaries of our
Reservation in a series of cases known as Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah.
After yet another loss in the state's endless litigation, the state now
asks Congress to legislatively take title to Indian lands and take
authority over Reservation roads and resources.
The status of the Uncompahgre Reservation was definitively resolved
when the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari after Ute Indian
Tribe v. Utah, 773 F.2d 1087 (10th Cir. 1985) (en banc), cert. denied,
479 U.S. 994 (1986) (Ute III). In Ute III, the Tenth Circuit analyzed
the history of the Uncompahgre Reservation and held ``that the opening
of the Uncompahgre Reservation was never formally or informally
negotiated between the Federal Government and the Tribe of Indians [and
that t]here was never an understanding on the part of the Tribe that
they would lose their reservation as a result of the 1897 Act.'' The
Court then expressly concluded: ``Therefore, we hold that the
Uncompahgre Reservation has not been disestablished or diminished.''
Ute III at 1093.
In both Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1997)
(Ute V), and Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah, 790 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 2015)
(Ute VI), the Tenth Circuit reiterated and reaffirmed this holding. In
Ute VI, after again reaffirming that the Uncompahgre Reservation was
neither disestablished nor diminished, the Tenth Circuit bluntly
stated: ``we hope this opinion will send the same message: that the
time has come to respect the peace and repose promised by settled
decisions.'' Ute VI, 790 F.3d at 1013. Thus, on three separate
occasions over the past 30 years, the Tenth Circuit held that Congress
did NOT take, remove or eliminate the Tribe's title to the land in
question. In addition, the Supreme Court has denied rehearing of these
cases twice.
H.R. 5780 would conflict with this settled law and attempt to
legislatively over-rule these decisions. Rather than resolve land
management issues, the bill would result in decades more litigation.
The bill would also subject the United States to a claim for taking the
Tribe's lands and resources without just compensation.
Contrary to the conflict H.R. 5780 would create, the only remaining
issue is whether the United States holds the Uncompahgre Reservation in
fee or in trust for the Tribe. The Tribe has been working with the
Department of the Interior regarding this question, and to date the BLM
has not been able to locate any documentation which transferred the
Uncompahgre Reservation from trust to fee title. Until that issue is
resolved, it is inappropriate for Congress to attempt to transfer any
Uncompahgre Reservation lands to the state.
illegal transfer of jurisdiction over roads
In a similar challenge to the Tribe's Reservation and related
tribal jurisdiction, the bill proposes to transfer jurisdiction over
roads within the Reservation. In a section deceptively titled ``Long-
Term Travel Management Certainty,'' the bill proposes to undermine
settled Federal law regarding the Tribe's jurisdiction over roads
within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation. The bill would
actually increase uncertainty for jurisdiction over these roads and
subject the United States to a claim for taking a right-of-way across
tribal lands without just compensation.
As above, authority over these roads was conclusively determined in
the Ute Indian Tribe v. Utah series of cases. With regard to the
Tribe's Reservation overlapping Uintah County, the Tenth Circuit
conclusively determined that that part of the Tribe's Reservation was
neither diminished nor disestablished. Again, the Supreme Court twice
refused to rehear this decision.
As a result, that portion of the Reservation is Indian Country as
defined by 18 U.S.C. 1151. This long-standing criminal statute
recognizes Federal and tribal jurisdiction over Indian Country to the
exclusion of state and local governments.
conflicts with federally reserved indian water rights
In numerous places throughout H.R. 5780, the bill conflicts with
the Ute Indian Tribe's water rights and Federal Indian water rights law
generally. For example, the bill designates approximately 69.5 miles of
the Green River within the boundary of our Reservation as a ``scenic
river'' and approximately 13.34 miles as a ``wild river.'' The Tribe is
the beneficial owner of this portion of the Green River and was never
consulted on this designation. In contrast, the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act provides that ``lands owned by an Indian tribe . . . may not be
acquired without the consent of the appropriate governing body thereof
. . . .'' 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1277(a). We do not consent.
Further, if the Tribe did consent, we would have to be compensated.
The designation of portions of the river as wild and scenic would
constitute a taking of the Tribe's beneficial ownership in the riverbed
and a taking of the a mile buffer zone on both sides of the river. The
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act imposes certain restrictions on water
resource projects and certain requirements with regard to how the
rivers are managed. We oppose the bill because it will likely lead to
challenges and limitations to our existing regulatory control over that
portion of the river.
Overall, we reject any provision in the bill that interferes with
our jurisdiction over our historic, current, and future reserved water
rights, and the authority to administer, regulate, and enforce our
rights under Federal and tribal law. We oppose any attempts in the bill
to place any restrictions on our Federal and tribal rights as a
sovereign to govern and regulate our waters.
In another example, there are provisions related to the bill's
designation of the High Uintas Special Management Area and the Ashley
Karst National Geologic and Recreation Area that require the Secretary
to follow the procedural and substantive requirements of State law to
obtain and hold water rights. As above, these provisions totally ignore
the Tribe's federally recognized reserved water rights, which are held
by the United States in trust for the Tribe.
h.r. 5780 proposes changes in management to reservation lands without
consultation
H.R. 5780 also proposes to make land management changes to more
than 200,000 acres of lands within the Reservation. Among other things,
the bill proposes a ``Utility Corridor,'' ``Special Management Areas,''
``Wildernesses'' and ``Wilderness Study Areas,'' ``Recreation Areas''
within our Reservation. These changes would directly affect our ability
to exercise tribal self-determination and manage our Reservation lands
for the benefit of our members.
conclusion
Despite 4 years and, apparently, 1,200 meetings with stakeholders,
the Congressmen never discussed these proposals with the Ute Indian
Tribe prior to the release of the discussion draft in January 20, 2016.
Over these 4 years, the Congressmen never visited our 4.5 million acre
Reservation in eastern Utah to meet with us, discuss these proposals,
and ask the Tribe what could be included in the bill to improve Federal
management of our lands. Since the release of the discussion draft, the
Tribe has worked hard to provide proposals that would benefit the Tribe
as well as the state of Utah. We have also worked to provide revisions
that would make the bill consistent with modern Federal Indian law. The
vast majority of these proposals and revisions were rejected by the
Congressmen.
The Ute Indian Tribe opposes H.R. 5780 as a modern day Indian lands
grab. Not since the late 1800s has Congress attempted to take Indian
lands for the benefit of others. H.R. 5780 attempts to legislatively
over-rule Federal case law and diminish tribal authority. All of
Congress should oppose attempts to rollback modern and successful
policies that protect Indian lands and promote tribal self-
determination. We appreciate the subcommittee's consideration of this
testimony.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
-- National Monuments and National Conservation Areas: A
Comparison in Light of the Bears Ears Proposal,
September 9, 2016, Wallace Stegner Center, White
Paper No. 2016-02.