[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2334, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS AND INDIAN PEAKS
WILDERNESS EXPANSION; H.R. 2632, SABINOSO WILDERNESS ACT OF 2007; H.R.
3287, TUMACACORI HIGHLANDS WILDERNESS ACT OF 2007; H.R. 3513, COPPER
SALMON WILDERNESS ACT; AND H.R. 3682, CALIFORNIA DESERT AND MOUNTAIN
HERITAGE ACT.
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-54
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-970 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Louie Gohmert, Texas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Tom Cole, Oklahoma
George Miller, California Rob Bishop, Utah
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Dean Heller, Nevada
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Sali, Idaho
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Lois Capps, California Vacancy
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Carolina
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Louie Gohmert, Texas
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Dean Heller, Nevada
Lois Capps, California Bill Sali, Idaho
Jay Inslee, Washington Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Mark Udall, Colorado Vacancy
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, November 13, 2007....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 4
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Udall, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado................................................ 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 2632.......................... 30
Udall, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Mexico.............................................. 12
Statement of Witnesses:
Allard, Hon. Wayne, a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 2334.......................... 9
Becker, Jerry, Executive Director, Elk River Land Trust...... 78
Prepared statement on H.R. 3513.......................... 79
Bono, Hon. Mary, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 10
Cullen, Carol, Executive Director, Tubac Chamber of Commerce,
Tubac, Arizona............................................. 41
Prepared statement on H.R. 3287.......................... 42
Daly, Elena, Director, National Landscape Conservation
System, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 21
Prepared statement on H.R. 2334, H.R. 2632 and H.R. 3682. 23
Dart, Bill, Off-Road Business Association, Bakersfield,
California................................................. 57
Prepared statement on H.R. 3682.......................... 58
Groves, Jacob, Oregon Field Forester, American Forest
Resource Council........................................... 81
Prepared statement on H.R. 3513.......................... 83
Harmon, Dennis J., General Manager, Water Supply and Storage
Company.................................................... 66
Prepared statement on H.R. 2334.......................... 68
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............. 15
Prepared statement on H.R. 2334, H.R. 3287, H.R. 3513 and
H.R. 3682.............................................. 17
Hund, Geary, Idyllwild, California........................... 54
Prepared statement on H.R. 3682.......................... 56
Pinkham, Hon. William, Mayor Pro Tem, Town of Estes Park,
Colorado................................................... 72
Prepared statement on H.R. 2334.......................... 74
Salazar, Hon. Ken, a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado. 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 2334.......................... 6
Sandoval, Arturo, President, Center of Southwest Culture..... 75
Prepared statement on H.R. 2632.......................... 76
Skroch, Matt, Executive Director, Sky Island Alliance........ 44
Prepared statement on H.R. 3287.......................... 46
South, Mark M., Rio Rico, Arizona............................ 50
Prepared statement on H.R. 3287.......................... 51
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2334, TO DESIGNATE AS WILDERNESS CERTAIN
LAND WITHIN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK AND TO ADJUST THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE INDIAN PEAKS WILDERNESS AND THE ARAPAHO NATIONAL
RECREATION AREA OF THE ARAPAHO NATIONAL FOREST IN THE STATE OF
COLORADO. (ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS AND INDIAN PEAKS
WILDERNESS EXPANSION ACT); H.R. 2632, TO ESTABLISH THE SABINOSO
WILDERNESS AREA IN SAN MIGUEL COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. (SABINOSO WILDERNESS
ACT OF 2007); H.R. 3287, TO EXPAND THE PAJARITA WILDERNESS AND
DESIGNATE THE TUMACACORI HIGHLAND WILDERNESS IN CORONADO NATIONAL
FOREST, ARIZONA. (TUMACACORI HIGHLANDS WILDERNESS ACT OF 2007); H.R.
3513, TO AMEND THE OREGON WILDERNESS ACT OF 1984 TO DESIGNATE THE
COPPER SALMON WILDERNESS AND TO AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT TO
DESIGNATE SEGMENTS OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE ELK RIVER IN THE
STATE OF OREGON AS WILD OR SCENIC RIVERS. (COPPER SALMON WILDERNESS
ACT); AND H.R. 3682, TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS IN RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS WILDERNESS, TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN RIVER SEGMENTS
IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AS A WILD, SCENIC, OR RECREATIONAL RIVER, TO ADJUST
THE BOUNDARY OF THE SANTA ROSA AND SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS NATIONAL
MONUMENT. (CALIFORNIA DESERT AND MOUNTAIN HERITAGE ACT).
----------
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul Grijalva
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Holt, Mark Udall,
Bishop, and Capps.
Also Present: Representative Tom Udall.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me call the Subcommittee to
order.
Today we will be receiving testimony on five wilderness
bills. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being
here today, and I look forward to receiving the testimony.
While input from agencies which manage our Federal lands is
critical and important, the Wilderness Act is clear: Congress
retains sole authority to designate wilderness. In practice,
this means that a successful wilderness bill will be a
consensus proposal taking into account input from all relevant
stakeholders. Each of the measures before us today, I believe,
is such a proposal.
Let me start off by talking about the legislation I have
introduced, H.R. 3287, the Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act.
It is fitting that we are here discussing this measure
while sitting in the Morris K. Udall Hearing Room. H.R. 3287
would expand the existing Pajarita Wilderness, which Congress
designated in 1984 under the leadership of one of America's
greatest conservation leaders and the former Chairman of this
Committee, Mo Udall.
H.R. 3287 would also designate about 70,000 acres of
Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness. This proposal will make a
major contribution to the conservation of the natural wonders
of my home state, Arizona. That benefit would be for all our
citizens, those that are alive today and the generations that
will come. These desert peaks and canyons are key parts of the
world-renowned Sky Island bioregion, a biological hot spot
where the southern margin of habitats for many species from the
Rocky Mountains west overlaps the northern extent of habitats
for many tropical species better known in Mexico. This area is
home to subtropical species that are found nowhere else in the
United States and offers secluded habitat vital to jaguars,
which are now repopulating this portion of their former range.
Boundaries proposed in H.R. 3287 have been adjusted to
ensure road access to the wilderness for recreation. The
legislation has received support from local sportsmen who seek
a true wilderness hunting experience, including support from
back country hunters and handlers.
This legislation also receives support from local elected
officials, the faith community, conservation groups, the hiking
community, scientists and local businesses.
Today we are joined by a local business supporter, Carol
Cullen, of the Tubac Chamber of Commerce. Land designated as
wilderness in H.R. 3287 are in close proximity to the U.S.-
Mexico border. The Arizona borderlands comprise some of the
most biologically rich and fascinating ecosystems in existence.
Because of the proximity to the border, H.R. 3287 recognizes a
need to continue drug interdiction and border enforcement
operations in the proposed wilderness area.
As a final point regarding my legislation, let me thank my
fellow Arizonans, Carol Cullen and Matt Skroch, for joining us
here today.
Today, we will also be hearing several other wilderness
measures:
H.R. 2632, sponsored by our former committee colleague,
Representative Tom Udall, which would designate approximately
20,000 acres of BLM land in New Mexico. This area has been
managed as a wilderness study area for decades.
H.R. 3513, introduced by our Subcommittee colleague,
Representative Peter DeFazio, would designate approximately
13,700 acres of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest as
wilderness and designates segments of the Elk River as wild and
scenic.
H.R. 3682 was introduced by one of the co-chairs of the
National Landscape Conservation System Caucus, Representative
Mary Bono. The bill would designate 191,000 acres of wilderness
and 31 miles of wild and scenic rivers in Riverside County,
California. The bill would also add nearly 8,400 acres to the
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. Ms.
Bono and other members of the California delegation have spent
years on this consensus-driven effort and work diligently to
ensure that the boundaries of the wilderness area address
concerns about fire and public access.
And last, but certainly not least, is Representative Mark
Udall's H.R. 2334, which would designate 249,339 acres of
wilderness, including 94 percent of Rocky Mountain National
Park. This bill would also add 1,000 acres to the existing
Indian Peaks Wilderness area, which lies along the southern
border of the park in Arapaho National Forest. I know the
National Park Service has some concerns about some unusual
liability language in the bill, and I will be interested to
hear what the witnesses have to say about it.
With that, let me turn to our Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop,
for any opening comments he may have.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
The Subcommittee will come to order. Today we will be receiving
testimony on five wilderness bills. I would like to thank all of our
witnesses for being here today and I look forward to receiving their
testimony.
While input from the agencies which manage our federal lands is
important, the Wilderness Act is clear--Congress retains sole authority
to designate wilderness. In practice, this means that a successful
wilderness bill will be a consensus proposal, taking into account input
from all relevant stakeholders. Each of the measures before us today is
such a proposal.
Let me start off by talking about the bill I have introduced, H.R.
3287, the Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act. It is fitting that we
are discussing this measure while sitting in the Morris K. Udall
hearing room. H.R. 3287 would expand the existing Pajarita Wilderness,
which Congress designated in 1984 under the leadership of one of
America's greatest conservation leaders and a former Chairman of this
Committee, Mo Udall.
H.R. 3287 would also designate about 70,000 acres as the Tumacacori
Highlands Wilderness. This proposal will make a major contribution to
the conservation of the natural wonders of Arizona, to the benefit of
all of our citizens--those alive today and generations to come.
These desert peaks and canyons are key parts of the world-renowned
Sky Island bioregion, a biological ``hotspot'' where the southern
margin of habitats for many species from the Rocky Mountain West
overlaps the northern extent of habitats for many tropical species
better known in Mexico. The area is home to subtropical species that
are found nowhere else in the United States, and offers secluded
habitat vital to jaguars, which are now repopulating this portion of
their former range.
The boundaries proposed in H.R. 3287 have been adjusted to ensure
road access to the wilderness for recreation. The legislation has
received support from local sportsmen who seek true wilderness
hunting--including support from the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.
This legislation has also received support from local elected
officials, the faith community, conservation groups, the hiking
community, scientists, and local businesses. Today we are joined by a
local business supporter, Carol Cullen of the Tubac Chamber of
Commerce.
The lands designated as wilderness in H.R. 3287 are in close
proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border. The Arizona borderlands comprise
some of the most biologically rich and fascinating ecosystems in
existence. Because of the proximity to the border, H.R. 3287 recognizes
the need to continue drug interdiction and border enforcement
operations in the proposed wilderness areas.
As a final point regarding my legislation, let me thank my fellow
Arizonans, Carol Cullen and Matt Skroch for joining us today.
Today we will also be hearing several other wilderness measures.
H.R. 2632, sponsored by our former committee colleague Representative
Tom Udall, would designate approximately 20,000 acres of BLM land in
New Mexico. The area has been managed as a wilderness study area for
decades.
H.R. 3513, introduced by our Subcommittee colleague Representative
Peter DeFazio, would designate approximately 13,700 acres of the Rogue
River-Siskiyou (SISK-YOU) National Forest as wilderness and designate
segments of the Elk River as wild and scenic.
H.R. 3682 was introduced by one of my co-chairs on the National
Landscape Conservation System Caucus, Representative Mary Bono. The
bill would designate 191,000 acres of wilderness and 31 miles of wild
and scenic rivers in Riverside County, California. The bill also would
add nearly 8,400 acres to the Santa Rosa-San Jacinto Mountains National
Monument. Mrs. Bono and other members of the California delegation have
spent years on this consensus-driven effort, and worked diligently to
ensure that the boundaries of the wilderness areas address concerns
about fire and public access.
And last, but certainly not least, is Representative Mark Udall's
H.R. 2334, which would designate 249,339 acres of wilderness, including
94 percent of Rocky Mountain National Park. The bill would also add
1,000 acres to the existing Indian Peaks Wilderness Area, which lies
along the southern border of the park in the Arapaho National Forest. I
know the National Park Service has some concerns about some unusual
liability language in the bill, and I will be interested to hear what
the witnesses have to say about that.
I'd now like to turn to Ranking Member Bishop for any opening
statement he may have.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. This will be extremely brief because
we have a lot of people who want to talk and a long hearing
ahead of us today. I will, though, say that the five bills that
have come before us today in this packet all have some elements
of controversy, obviously some bills much more than others, and
they have generated a lot of discussion in groups who would
like to testify before Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I will at some point this week send you a
personal request that we hold additional hearings on these five
bills, some of them more than others simply because of the
volume of interest that they have been generated from.
And with that, I will conclude my opening remarks.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. And let me begin with
our congressional colleagues for their testimony. Let me begin
with Senator Ken Salazar for any opening comments.
Welcome, sir, and you are on.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman
Grijalva. It is an honor and a privilege to be here before your
committee over on the House side. I want to thank you for
holding a hearing today to consider H.R. 2334, the Rocky
Mountain National Wilderness Area Act.
Senator Salazar. I want also to take a moment and just say
how much I thank my colleagues. I appreciate Senator Wayne
Allard and his leadership on this issue, as well as
Representative Udall and the long work that he has spent
putting this important legislation together.
I want to thank the mayor of Estes Park, William Pinkham,
who is here, and Dennis Harmon from the Water Supply and
Storage Company in Fort Collins. They have traveled long
distances because of the importance of this issue to testify
here in front of your committee.
The bill before you is the product of a long, long journey.
It is a product of broad bipartisan work among the Colorado
delegation to protect one of our most prized landscapes, the
Rocky Mountain National Park.
The bill is almost identical to a bill that Congressman
Udall and I introduced last year, which then received a ringing
endorsement from the Park Service. Earlier this year we held a
similar hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee on which I serve; and Senator Allard and I testified
there on behalf of this legislation. I am very proud of the
support that this legislation has both within Colorado and with
the local--and around the Nation. The bill is a win-win for
economic development and conservation. It accommodates the
needs of a broad range of interests.
I will leave the details of the bill for my full testimony.
And for the record I would just offer the following. I would
like to share with you the words of one of the founders of
Rocky Mountain National Park, Enos Mills, one of our Nation's
most committed naturalists. His love for the Rockies began in
1884, when at the age of 14 he scaled Longs Peak. Then he said,
and I quote, ``In years to come, when I am asleep beneath the
pines, thousands of families will find rest and hope in this
park,'' end of quote.
He was right. Thanks to the excellent work of his
leadership and thousands of other people who have been
involved, including the employees of the park over the past 90
years, the 3.2 million visitors that come to Rocky Mountain
National Park each year experience the same wildlands and
spectacular vistas that our ancestors enjoyed.
Mr. Chairman, our job of protecting the wild character of
Rocky Mountain National Park is not complete until we get this
legislation through. Only then will the wild character of the
park be truly protected.
I once again, Mr. Chairman, want to thank you and the
distinguished members of this committee. And I want to point
out the great work that Senator Allard and Congressman Mark
Udall have done on this legislation, which truly encapsulates a
crown jewel not only of Colorado, but a crown jewel of the
Nation. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Salazar,
a U.S. Senator from the State of Colorado
Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop, for holding
this hearing today to consider H.R. 2334, the Rocky Mountain National
Park Wilderness Area Act. I appreciate the opportunity to testify and
thank my colleagues, Representative Udall, Representative Musgrave, and
Senator Allard for their support for this bill.
I also want to William Pinkham, mayor of Estes Park, and Dennis
Harmon, from the Water Supply and Storage Company in Fort Collins,
Colorado, for being here. They have traveled long distances to testify.
Congress established Rocky Mountain National Park on January 26,
1915 on the vision of a man named Enos Mills, one of our nation's most
committed naturalists, whose love for the wild Rockies began in 1884
when, at age 14, he scaled Long's Peak.
``In years to come when I am asleep beneath the pines,'' Mills once
said, ``thousands of families will find rest and hope in this park.''
He was right. Thanks to the excellent work of the Park Service and its
employees over the past 90 years, the 3.2 million visitors that come to
Rocky Mountain each year experience the same wild lands and spectacular
vistas that our ancestors enjoyed.
Our job of protecting the wild character of Rocky Mountain National
Park is not complete, however. In 1974 President Nixon recommended that
Congress designate 239,835 acres within the Park as wilderness, but
Congress has failed to act to designate on his recommendation.
Today, though, thanks to the tireless efforts of the local
communities and the dedicated protectors of the Park, we come before
the committee with a broadly supported bill that is deserving of
passage.
H.R. 2334, and the Senate version that Sen. Allard and I
introduced, S.1380, add 249,339 acres--nearly 95% of Rocky Mountain
National Park--to the Wilderness Preservation System.
H.R. 2334 is almost identical to a bill Representative Udall and I
introduced last year, and which received a ringing endorsement from the
Park Service. H.R. 2334 does not affect private land owners, existing
development, or water rights. The boundaries for the wilderness area
exclude water projects, roads, and existing development. The bill
allows for a bicycle trail along the western edge of the Park, provided
that construction of the trail is consistent with the Park's mission.
It also makes a small increase in the size of the nearby Indian Peaks
Wilderness Area.
The only modification to this bill from last year is a provision
that will clarify how the Grand River Ditch is to be operated and
maintained in the Park. The Grand River Ditch has been in existence
since 1891, almost 25 years before the creation of Rocky Mountain
National Park. The ditch diverts Colorado River basin water over the
Continental Divide and the Never Summer Range to farmers along the
Front Range.
The language we have added would make the liability standard under
which the ditch operates consistent with the standard that applies to
other water users under Colorado law. This revised standard only
applies, however, if the ditch is operated in accordance with an
updated operations and maintenance plan approved by the Park Service.
It is a sensible provision.
As one who feels that it is critical that local communities
participate in and support these efforts, I am proud that this bill has
the endorsement of local communities and organizations including
Larimer County, Grand Lake, Grand County, the Town of Estes Park,
Winter Park, the Town of Grand Lake, and the League of Women Voters. I
am proud that our bill is a win-win for economic development and
conservation, and accommodates the needs of a broad range of interests.
Again, thank you for allowing me to testify today. We held a
similar hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
of which I am a member, earlier this year. I am hopeful that we will be
able to pass this bill promptly, so that we can get it to the
President's desk for his signature.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Grijalva. And we turn to your colleague, Senator
Allard, for his comments regarding the legislation.
And thank you for taking the time to be here, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I want to
thank also Ranking Member Bishop for the opportunity to be here
before you today and to testify as the committee considers the
Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness area.
It is a pleasure for me to come before this committee. It
brings back many fond memories when I served on the Natural
Resources Committee here when I served in the U.S. House. The
history of a Colorado Congressman serving on this committee
dates way, way back.
Rocky Mountain National Park, that we are going to discuss
today, was one of the favorites of, at that time when it was
created, President Teddy Roosevelt. And the resources from this
park end up affecting States all the way down to the Gulf of
Mexico and States all the way over to the Pacific Ocean. They
are the top of the heap. They are on the Continental Divide.
And there are a number--as you might imagine, a number of very
pristine areas in the park that we all want to protect. There
is also some infrastructure within the park that is vital to
the survival of those communities that live on those, and
States that live on those river drainage areas that go all the
way down to the Gulf of Mexico, as well as to the Pacific
Ocean.
This legislation is a result of more than a year of
negotiation between Members of the Colorado delegation. It is a
carefully crafted bill involving thousands of hours of work
with citizens, local elected officials and the environmental
community.
One of the most famous Members of Congress we had serving
Colorado was Wayne Aspinall, who worked very closely with then-
Congressman Udall from Arizona. And I find myself surrounded by
Udalls here today. I have a Udall on my left and a Udall on my
right. I don't have any way to turn but you, Mr. Chairman, so
we are here to turn to you for some support on this
legislation.
As a fifth generation Coloradan and somebody who grew up in
the shadow of Rocky Mountain National Park, it is an honor to
have worked on this bill with both Congressman Udall, as well
as Congresswoman Musgrave, and particularly with my colleague
from the Senate, Senator Salazar. We both have a very strong
appreciation for the natural resources of Colorado. We don't
want to lose what has made Colorado a destination for tourists
and what Coloradans are proud of, and that is our vistas.
Colorado and its congressional delegation have long played
an important role in development of wilderness in our Nation.
It dates back again to the original Wilderness Act. Congressman
Wayne Aspinall, who represented Colorado's Fourth Congressional
District and chaired the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, played a pivotal role in creating the Nation's
wilderness system with the 1964 Wilderness Act.
From the inception of the Wilderness Act through the
continued development of wilderness in Colorado, one thing has
remained the same: a commitment to working together to find
compromise in solutions that work for everyone. The principles
of compromise have held true from the Colorado National Forest
Wilderness Act of 1980 to the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Act in
2000.
It is now true with the Rocky Mountain National Park
Wilderness Act of 2007. This is reflected by the broad support
this bill enjoys. Everyone from water users to the
environmental community support this bill.
There is one exception to this nearly universal support. I
understand that the administration has expressed concern about
the water protection language we included protecting the Grand
River Ditch. I understand these concerns are based on the idea
that it is an atypical section for a wilderness designation.
During my extensive tenure in both Houses of Congress, I
have been a part of numerous wilderness designations, and the
one and only common factor with these wilderness designations
is that none of them were typical. When I worked to designate
the Spanish Peaks Wilderness, we had to cherry-stem the Bull's-
Eye Mine Road. A cherry-stemmed road in a wilderness area is
not typical, but in this case it was necessary for its
creation.
In regard to a wilderness designation for Rocky Mountain
National Park, I can say unequivocally that without the
protections for the Grand River Ditch there can be no
designation. In a time when agriculture wells are being
threatened just east of the park in Weld and Morgan Counties,
the protection of water is more important than ever. The 40,000
acre-feet, or over 13 billion gallons, of water that flow
through the Grand River Ditch are important to both rural
Colorado and urban areas outside of Denver that depend on the
water to meet municipal needs.
The protection of this water infrastructure is a key
component of this compromised legislation. If we do not
recognize and protect the water provided by the Grand Ditch.
This bill cannot move forward. Protecting this water is vital
to preserving the area's agricultural heritage and its future,
as well as green acres and preserved habitat outside of Rocky
Mountain National Park.
I am extremely pleased that this bill, as written, will
protect wilderness and respect water rights and private
property rights. The Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness
Act will ensure that Americans now and in the future have the
ability to enjoy the park.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for
your consideration of the Rocky Mountain National Park
Wilderness Act.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne Allard, a U.S. Senator
from the State of Colorado
Thank you Chairman Grijalva and Rankin Member Bishop, for allowing
me the opportunity to appear before you today, and for the committee's
consideration of the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act.
I am pleased to come before the Committee today to discuss
legislation that will designate Rocky Mountain National Park as
Wilderness.
This legislation is the result of more than a year of negotiations
between members of the Colorado Delegation. It is a carefully crafted
bill involving thousands of hours of work with citizens, local elected
officials and the environmental community.
This legislation will provide further protection for an area that
was formed millions of years ago when massive glaciers carved an
impressive landscape. The Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act
will ensure that it remains unchanged in years to come.
As a fifth generation Coloradan, and someone who grew up in the
shadow of Rocky Mountain National Park, it is an honor to have worked
on this bill with Congressman Udall and Congresswoman Musgrave.
Colorado and its Congressional representatives have long played an
important role in the development of Wilderness in our Nation.
This dates back to the original Wilderness Act. Congressman Wayne
Aspinall, who represented Colorado's 4th Congressional district and
chaired the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, played a pivotal
role in creating the nation's wilderness system with the 1964
Wilderness Act.
From the inception of the original Wilderness Act through the
continued development of Wilderness in Colorado one thing has remained
the same: a commitment to working together to find compromise and
solutions that work for everyone.
The principle of compromise has held true from the Colorado
National Forest Wilderness Act of 1980 to the Spanish Peaks Wilderness
Act in 2000, and it is now true with the Rocky Mountain National Park
Wilderness Act of 2007.
This is reflected by the broad support this bill enjoys. Everyone
from water users to the environmental community support this bill.
There is one exception to this nearly universal support. I
understand that the administration has expressed concern about the
water protection language we included protecting the Grand River Ditch.
I understand these concerns are based on the idea that this is an
atypical section for a Wilderness designation.
During my extensive tenure in both houses of Congress I have been a
part of numerous Wilderness designations. The one and only common
factor with these Wilderness designations is that none of them were
typical.
When I worked to designate the Spanish Peaks Wilderness we had to
cherry stem the Bulls Eye Mine Road. A cherry stemmed road in a
wilderness area is not typical but in this case it was necessary to its
creation.
In regard to a Wilderness designation for Rock Mountain National
Park I can say unequivocally that without the protections for the Grand
River Ditch there can be no designation.
In a time when agricultural wells are being threatened just east of
the Park in Weld and Morgan Counties, the protection of water is more
important than ever.
The 40,000 acre feet or over 13 billion gallons of water that flow
through the Grand River Ditch are important to both rural Colorado and
urban areas outside of Denver that depend on this water to meet
municipal needs.
The protection of this water infrastructure is a key component of
this compromise legislation. If we do not recognize and protect the
water provided by the Grand Ditch this bill cannot move forward.
Protecting this water is vital to preserving this area's
agricultural heritage and its future as well as green acres and
preserved habitat outside of Rocky Mountain National Park.
I am extremely pleased that this bill as written will protect
wilderness and respect water rights.
The Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act will ensure that
Americans, now and in the future, have the ability to enjoy the Park.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, for your
consideration of the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Act.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Let me now invite our colleague from the
committee, Mr. Mark Udall, for any comments he might have on
the legislation.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Mark Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have
such a distinguished panel here in front of us today that I
would like to hear, as we have from the two Senators from our
state, also from Congressman Udall from New Mexico, as well as
from my favorite member of the panel, Congresswoman Bono, from
California. She has an important initiative that she wants to
bring to the committee's attention as well.
But if I could, Mr. Chairman, add that this work has gone
on for many, many years. As the committee has heard, it is
broadly supported across the State, and we are eager to cross
the ``T'' when it comes to the Grand River Ditch situation that
Senator Allard outlined and move forward as soon as we possibly
can to make this a reality.
And the process will keep faith with Enos Mills, the great
Enos Mills who set an example for all of us.
Thank you to the Senators for being here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me now ask Representative Mary Bono for
H.R. 3682. Thank you and your comments.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, if I might ask permission.
Senator Salazar and I have some meetings over on the Senate
side. May we be excused, please?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. Thank you.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Bono. Good afternoon, Chairman Grijalva, Ranking
Member Bishop, and members of the Subcommittee. I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3682, the
California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act.
Mrs. Bono. I introduced similar legislation in the 109th
Congress, and it is my hope that today's hearing will convey
the hard work we have undertaken in refining and improving this
bill. In simple terms, known very well by the Subcommittee,
H.R. 3682 designates new and expands existing wilderness, along
with four wild and scenic rivers.
Additionally, the bill includes a small expansion of the
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. This
unique monument, which was created by legislation I introduced
in 2000. Stands 7 years later as a framework by which I have
approached this new effort.
One highly visited area of my district exists today in
protected status due to the involvement of a gentleman who I
was very proud to call a friend and fellow long-term resident
of the Coachella Valley. President Gerald R. Ford, who lived
his latter years a short drive away from what is now Joshua
Tree National Park, recognized the value of these lands by
signing into law a bill creating nearly 430,000 acres of
wilderness within the park.
Looking beyond the park, there are other proposed
wilderness lands in the eastern half of my district. These
areas are an impressive example of our continually changing
landscape as the San Andreas Fault quite literally cuts through
the region, creating unique peaks and views of the nearby
Salton Sea. When examining these areas, I took a close look at
ensuring that by creating wilderness, we would not be taking
away from another valuable resource offered by some of these
lands; and that is renewable energy. Embodied within H.R. 3682
are lands with some very refined boundaries; these are
necessary so that we do not tie the hands of those companies
actively seeking the expanded use of renewable energy sources
ranging from solar to wind and even geothermal.
The western half of my congressional district brings with
it a different landscape, one that is dominated by the unique
rock formations of Beauty Mountain and transitioning to groves
of oak and fir trees in the South Fork San Jacinto River Canyon
area. These forests are part of an ecosystem that is also
covered in chaparral making the region highly prone to
devastating fires. As we saw just a few weeks ago when one
combines a chaparral that is dry and dense with the Santa Ana
winds, the fires spread with incredible pace, evidenced in the
half million acres recently lost throughout Southern
California.
With Riverside County's existing drought designation, it is
clear to me that we are fortunate to have avoided another event
on the scale of the Esperanza fire in my district last year,
one that took the lives of five brave U.S. Forest Service
firefighters. Because of the difficult circumstances facing the
Forest Service supervisors in this area, I built into my
legislation what I see as a unique but necessary approach. It
will hopefully empower the local decision-makers, protect vital
funding for fuels management and allow for the tools needed to
keep the area safe. The input provided by my local Fire Safe
Council was crucial as home owners in communities like
Idyllwild, Pine Cove and others know firsthand the importance
of sound fuels management.
The past year that I have spent working to engage our local
communities on issues of trail use, mountain biking, renewable
energy needs and very real fire concerns has created a
continually evolving piece of legislation. I have significantly
altered maps to exclude thousands of acres near private lands,
pulled back from areas that could be used as fuel breaks by the
Forest Service and changed areas to ensure vehicle, mountain
bike and private property owner access.
This Subcommittee understands well just what sort of detail
efforts can go into talking to residents about these wilderness
proposals. My efforts in this vein will continue and have
already resulted in support of the nearby county supervisors,
State legislators and municipal governments. These locals have
spent years of their own time putting together the Coachella
Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and its Federal
effort is consistent with this important proposal.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record some of
these letters of support, if possible.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
[NOTE: Letters submitted for the record have been retained
in the Committee's official files.]
Mrs. Bono. Thank you.
Again, I learned in 2000, with a monument designation, that
the only way to enact these Federal changes is through the
continual collaboration with constituents, and I have used the
past year to undertake that challenge. The result is a bill of
which I think the country's third fastest growing county can be
very proud. We are working to embrace ways in which our
population can grow across the desert floor and countryside in
a thoughtful, environmentally sound manner.
With this said, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member
Bishop, I know my time is running short, but I think President
Ford said it well in his own words when he stated, and I quote,
``I believe that the wilderness system serves a basic need of
all Americans, even those who may never visit a wilderness
area, the preservation of a vital element of our heritage,''
end quote.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Bishop,
for providing me this time to testify on this legislation. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me turn to the gentleman from the Land of
Enchantment, our colleague, Mr. Tom Udall.
Sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you very much, Chairman Grijalva and
Ranking Member Bishop. And I want to thank you also for having
on the subsequent panel a good friend of mine, Arturo Sandoval,
a conservation activist and somebody that will really tell you
about the on-the-ground support. I look forward to remaining
here and hearing his testimony.
It is an honor to come before you today to testify on my
bill, H.R. 2632, the Sabinoso Wilderness Act of 2007.
Mr. Tom Udall. New Mexico is filled with extraordinary
landscapes. As a representative of this beautiful State, it is
my obligation to work to conserve the scenic and historic areas
for future generations. One of New Mexico's special places is
the region in and around the Sabinoso Wilderness Study Area.
Last year, I had the opportunity to explore this unique area on
horseback while traveling through deep canyons covered with
indigenous trees, such a pinyon, juniper, cottonwood, willow
and ponderosa pine it was evident that Sabinoso is an
exceptional setting that deserves to be protected and
accessible to all. That is why I introduced the legislation to
designate this wilderness, the lands in and near the Sabinoso
Wilderness Study Area. The proposed wilderness comprises
approximately 20,000 acres and is situated in San Miguel
County, 40 miles east of Las Vegas, New Mexico, and 25 miles
northwest of Conchas Dam State Park.
Roaming the canyons last year, I was struck by the
ecological, scenic and recreational values of the area.
Sabinoso overlays a thick section of colorful sedimentary rocks
typical of desert rock formations throughout the West. The
area's scenic and densely vegetated landscape is also home to a
rich diversity of wildlife such as Red-Tailed Hawks, Western
Scrub-Jays, Broad-Tailed Hummingbirds, mule deer, bobcats and
gray foxes. All of these natural resources will provide
outstanding opportunities to hike, hunt, horseback ride, take
photographs and simply experience the unspoiled lands of our
ancestors.
For many decades, this beautiful piece of land has been
inaccessible to the general public. In concert with our efforts
to designate the area, the New Mexico Department of Game and
Fish Open Gate Access Program has been working to secure public
access to the Sabinoso area.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a
letter from the Department of Fish and Game, dated November 8,
2007, stating that they will--quote, ``will have an agreement
in place by the end of the 2007 calendar year opening up access
to the area for this coming spring.''
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
[NOTE: Letters submitted for the record have been retained
in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Tom Udall. Opening Sabinoso and protecting it as a
wilderness will also create important new economic development
opportunities for the surrounding communities.
Finally, New Mexico State House Memorial 53, which calls on
the New Mexico congressional delegation to support the
establishment of the Sabinoso Wilderness Area, was introduced
by State Representative Thomas Garcia during the 2007 session
and passed unanimously by a vote of 66 to 0.
I would also like to submit this resolution, Mr. Chairman,
for the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
[NOTE: The resolution submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Tom Udall. Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop,
I urge you to favorably recommend this bill to the full
committee, designating the Sabinoso Wilderness Area will enable
people from generations to come to experience the unspoiled
natural and unique beauty of the Southwest. Thank you both.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. And let me thank our colleagues very much for
their testimony and for what I believe to be very important and
necessary initiatives, legislative initiatives.
Thank you. I have no questions for our colleagues.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Maybe one, just for both of you, I created a
wilderness area in Utah on some area that may be questionable
as far as its designated qualities for that wilderness. But one
of the things that we did before we did that was to talk to
every individual private property holder in that particular
area.
For both of you there are some significant private property
holdings. I would simply like to ask you both, have you
contacted all of the private property inholders and have they
been included? First of all, have you contacted them all, and
are they in support of this--forget the other last one. Just,
have you contacted them?
Mrs. Bono. I appreciate the question very much.
I think it would be overstating to say every single
landowner that we have talked to. But in the course of the one
year we have reached out to any interested party, as many
people as we possibly could; and we have certainly done a lot
of press on this issue to make sure that people who are
concerned would come forward and address their issues with us.
And I think we have done a great job of that.
I think, further, the national monument we created in 2000
is a great example of including local voices in this
legislation. So I can say with great confidence that we have
reached out to anybody who has been interested at all. But if
it is 100 percent, of course, I don't think any of us could
ever claim that.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Ranking Member Bishop.
And I know, let me say at the outset, that you have been a
great champion for property rights and private property. And I
think I learned a lot from you in the course of serving with
you on this committee, and I think that is a very important
question you ask.
First of all, I would say we are in the process of doing
this in terms of my office and my staff. But I believe that
every property owner that is involved in this has many times
over had contact from the Federal Government. As you know,
these wilderness study areas were designated over 20 years ago.
And in designating wilderness study, word went out very widely.
The BLM was in the process of working with local landholders
and went through a very extensive public process. They heard
from them, they acted in accordance with what they heard.
And what we have before us today, the Sabinoso Wilderness
Study Area, has been vetted through a public process; it has
been a very vigorous public process. And I think that it is
important to note that there has been, as far as the public
arena, very little objection to what is going on.
As you recognize from my testimony, the State Game and
Fish, which is planning to get access to this particular area
by the end of this year, has been working with a specific
private owner in order to gain access; and that private owner
was so enthusiastic about the idea of giving the private access
that they are now on the eve of signing an actual agreement.
So I think you make an important point. We always need to
involve the private property folks that are in and around a
wilderness study area like this. And I commit myself to
continue to do that in the vein that you ask that question.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate both of your efforts in that
regard.
I know what I was trying to do was much less ambitious in
the area than you are proposing, so it was easier to contact
them. I do realize also that a lot of the property owners were
not necessarily living in the area, so even though this was the
big issue in the State of Utah, some of them had no concept
about it. We even found out that one property owner was dead
and had not left anyone in his will to be executors of his
claim on that particular land.
A simple question, just for the number, do each of you know
how many people we are talking about who have private property
holdings in your area?
Mr. Tom Udall. We are talking, for the Sabinoso Wilderness,
about 10 ranchers, I believe, that have private property in or
near the area.
Mr. Bishop. Wow. You are less than I had. OK.
Mr. Tom Udall. And as I said earlier, Ranking Member
Bishop, I believe that they were included in the extensive
public process that went into creating these wilderness study
areas throughout the West and in New Mexico.
Mrs. Bono. And also I am informed by my able staffer, Chris
Foster, a couple hundred people, including many of those who
are actually Koreans, people who live in Korea, who have
investment property within Joshua Tree.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Udall, any questions? A comment?
Mr. Mark Udall. Mr. Chairman I don't have any questions at
this time.
Mr. Grijalva. Again, thank you, and I appreciate your
testimony. And you are invited to be up at the dais with us as
we continue this discussion. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me at this point invite the other panel
up please. Thank you. Let me welcome our witnesses again, and
begin with Deputy Chief Holtrop, National Forest System, U.S.
Forest Service.
Sir.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
I appreciate the opportunity to provide our views on the bills
before you today. The Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness
and Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act would remove acreage
from the Arapaho National Recreation Area in the Arapaho
Roosevelt National Forest and designate the land as an addition
to the existing Indian Peaks Wilderness. The Department of
Agriculture supports the addition to the Indian Peaks
Wilderness.
The Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act of 2007 would
designate new wilderness areas on the Coronado National Forest
in Arizona by expanding the Pajarita Wilderness, approximately
5,500 acres, and designating some additional 70,000 acres as a
Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness.
The administration supports the designation of wilderness
for areas that are consistent with the characteristic of
wilderness. An initial assessment indicates that much of the
area proposed in this bill has outstanding potential for
wilderness designation. However, the administration is
concerned about conflicting demands in portions of the proposed
wilderness associated with access, resource management and
border security that would compromise the wilderness
characteristics of these portions. We would like to work with
the bills' sponsors and the Subcommittee to seek agreement on
these concerns.
About 5 miles of the current Pajarita Wilderness and some 5
miles of the proposed Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness are
contiguous with the Mexican border. This area is currently
experiencing unprecedented pressure from various illegal
activities. The Forest Service and Border Patrol coordinate
with all other Federal, State, tribal and local land management
and law enforcement agencies.
The Departments of Homeland Security, Interior and
Agriculture have entered into a memorandum of understanding for
cooperative national security and counterterrorism efforts
along the United States borders. We will continue to use the
management tools that have the least impact on natural
resources to fulfill our agency responsibilities.
We are concerned that further restrictions on the use of
these tools as a result of wilderness designation could hinder
our law enforcement and resource management effectiveness, and
thus, the administration believes that portions of the proposed
Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness are not suitable for wilderness
designation at this time. We recommend that areas where
motorized use is necessary for range permittees and for
hunting, undeveloped recreation and forest administration be
omitted from wilderness designation.
The travel management planning process currently being
conducted by the Coronado National Forest is being coordinated
with public involvement for the revision of the Coronado
National Forest Land Management Plan. The administration would
prefer to engage the public through these planning processes.
Mr. Holtrop. The Copper Salmon Wilderness Act would
designate approximately 13,700 acres of the Rogue River-
Siskiyou National Forest as wilderness and designate segments
of the north and south forks of the Elk River as additions to
the existing Elk Wild and Scenic River.
The Department supports this bill, but requests some
important adjustments to the wilderness boundary. These
adjustments would provide for better separation of motorized
use from the wilderness, allow for road maintenance activities
within road clearing limits such as ditch cleaning and culvert
and bridge maintenance, as well as to accommodate treatments of
plantations that would improve forest health and habitat
diversity while increasing firefighter safety.
The California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act would
create two new wildernesses on the San Bernardino Forest, add
additional acreage on the existing designated wilderness on the
Cleveland and San Bernardino National Forests and designate
stretches of four rivers on the San Bernardino National Forest
as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It
would also expand the boundaries of the Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto National Mountains Monument.
The Department of Agriculture supports H.R. 3682, if
amended. We note there are differences between the proposed
wilderness designations in the bill and the wilderness
recommendations made in the 2006 forest plan revisions for
southern California national forests. During that public
involvement process, most of the wilderness areas proposed in
this bill did not meet criteria for wilderness suitability
because of current or potential uses that would conflict with
wilderness designation such as reduction of hazardous fuels.
We do not oppose the addition of four rivers to the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, based on general
support by the communities of interest, inconsistency of the
designation with the management of the national forest system
lands within the river corridors.
We fully support that portion of the expansion of the Santa
Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument under national
forest management. I would like to take this opportunity to
thank Congresswoman Bono and her staff for their work with the
Forest Service and area citizens in crafting this bill and for
making some changes to the proposal based on local input. In
the short time that our staff had to prepare for this hearing,
it was difficult to communicate directly with the southern
California national forests, who have been responding to the
recent wildfires regarding specific concerns. We look forward
to continuing to work with the bill's sponsor and the
Subcommittee to address issues raised at today's hearing.
This concludes my statement, and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief for the National Forest System,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department's view
on the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks
Wilderness Expansion Act, the Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act of
2007, the Copper Salmon Wilderness Act, and the California Desert and
Mountain Heritage Act. I will address each of these individually.
H.R. 2334, Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks
Wilderness Expansion Act
Section 6 of H.R. 2332 would remove acreage from the Arapaho
National Recreation Area in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest and
designate the land as an addition to the existing Indian Peaks
Wilderness Area. The Department of Agriculture supports the addition to
the Indian Peaks Wilderness.
We defer to the Department of the Interior regarding those portions
of the bill affecting lands administered by the National Park Service.
H.R. 3287, Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act of 2007
This bill would designate new wilderness areas on the Coronado
National Forest in Arizona by expanding the Pajarita Wilderness
approximately 5,500 acres (for a total of about 13,300 acres) and
designating some additional 70,000 acres as the Tumacacori Highlands
Wilderness.
The Administration supports the designation of wilderness for areas
that are consistent with the characteristics of wilderness described in
the Wilderness Act of 1964--areas dominated by the forces of nature,
with primeval character and natural conditions that contrast with
developed lands and offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or
primitive and unconfined recreation. An initial assessment indicates
that much of the area proposed in this bill has outstanding potential
for wilderness designation. However, the Administration is concerned
about conflicting demands in portions of the proposed wilderness
associated with access, resource management, and border security that
would compromise the wilderness characteristics of these portions. In
addition, the Administration would prefer to engage the public through
a public planning process to help determine which areas of the Coronado
National Forest merit recommendation for wilderness designation. We
would like to work with the bill's sponsors and the Subcommittee to
seek agreement on these concerns.
The lands that would be designated wilderness by H.R. 3287 are
located approximately 25 miles south of Tucson, Arizona and extend to
the U.S. border with Mexico. The Tumacacori Mountains dominate the
landscape, rising to about 5,800 feet above sea level and are covered
with forested vegetation. These ``sky islands'' have steep slopes that
are cut by intermittent drainages lined with lush riparian vegetation,
which drain to a desert floor covered with Sonoran desert vegetation.
The area provides habitat for five endangered species and four
threatened species, including habitat for jaguars, which have been
spotted several times in the vicinity.
There are at least eight active range allotments and associated
range improvements within the proposed areas that require occasional
maintenance, including earthen tanks, water wells, water catchments,
gates, and fences. The area provides trophy deer hunting and other
undeveloped recreational opportunities. There are few roads, and the
Forest Service lacks legal rights-of-way on several roads that could
otherwise provide public access to the area.
Fifty-four miles of the Coronado National Forest are contiguous
with the Mexican border, including approximately 5 miles of the current
Pajarita Wilderness, and some 5 miles of the proposed Tumacacori
Highlands Wilderness. This area is currently experiencing unprecedented
pressure from various illegal activities.
Initiatives by the U.S. Border Patrol (Border Patrol) in Arizona to
control areas of the border on either side of the Coronado National
Forest has funneled growing amounts of illegal vehicle and foot traffic
through the valleys and mountains of the Forest. The Border Patrol's
Tucson Sector, which encompasses most of the Coronado National Forest,
has the highest incidence of cross-border violators in the nation. In
Fiscal Year 2007, the Border Patrol apprehended 35,706 undocumented
aliens and engaged with 581 illegal vehicle entries in the Coronado
National Forest. In addition, 196,794 pounds of marijuana were seized
while being transported through the Forest.
The damaging effects of thousands of undocumented aliens crossing
this area of the border are significant and include:
Damage to natural and cultural resources resulting from
many miles of illegal roads and trails, fouling of water sources, and
deposits of large amounts of trash, human waste, and abandoned
vehicles. Tons of litter and human waste are left behind, which are
difficult to remove in designated wilderness where removal by horses or
mules is required.
Federal facilities and property of livestock permittees,
miners and other authorized users of the forest are heavily impacted by
cross-border violators, who sometimes cut fences, damage roads, break
down or leave gates open, damage water supplies and forage, steal or
damage equipment, and disrupt livestock grazing and irrigation
schedules.
Numerous wildfires resulting from arson and abandoned
warming, cooking, and signal fires have destroyed valuable natural and
cultural resources, and put firefighters and forest visitors at risk.
Exploitation of undocumented aliens by smugglers brings
with it an increase in other criminal activities and violence. Criminal
activity is a threat to members of the public trying to use their
public lands, and to employees who manage these lands and provide
services to the public.
The Forest Service and Border Patrol coordinate with all other
federal, state, tribal and local land management and law enforcement
agencies through the Borderland Management Task Force (BMTF). The
Border Patrol has also established a special public lands liaison
position to work closely with public land management and law
enforcement personnel. In the spring of 2006, the Departments of
Homeland Security, Interior, and Agriculture signed a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) for cooperative national security and
counterterrorism efforts along the United States' borders.
The MOU provides guidance to coordinate border enforcement
operations, including minimizing or preventing impacts to natural and
cultural resources. Along the U.S.-Mexico border, a sixty-foot wide
strip designated in 1907 referred to as the ``Roosevelt Reservation''
is reserved primarily for border enforcement purposes. Where the Forest
Service has primary jurisdiction, the MOU outlines procedures for
working in designated wilderness or wilderness study areas. For
example, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents may patrol on foot or
horseback, and operate motor vehicles on roads or areas that are
already authorized for those uses by the public or administratively.
Motorized use in wilderness areas is permitted in emergency situations
to pursue suspects or in an emergency situation that involves human
life, health, or safety. Written agreement is required for additional
access to areas not previously designated for off-road use, further
requiring that the lowest impact mode of travel and operational set-up
be used to accomplish the mission. The MOU also outlines procedures for
approving and installing detection infrastructure within wilderness
areas, using the ``minimum tool'' analysis to determine transit modes.
We will continue to use, and to encourage the Border Patrol to use,
the management tools that have the least impact on natural resources to
fulfill our agency responsibilities. Currently, both agencies use
motorized vehicles and aircraft, as well as improvements such as
communications towers in the area proposed for wilderness by H.R. 3287.
We are concerned that further restrictions on use of these tools as a
result of wilderness designation could hinder our law enforcement
effectiveness.
In addition to the MOU, the Forest Service and Border Patrol
recently developed a strategic plan to implement border security
operations on the Coronado National Forest. The strategic plan
addresses the flow of illegal aliens and narcotic smugglers and
emphasizes a first line of defense at the border 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week to stop violators before they enter the Coronado National
Forest. However, the area's rugged terrain, and, to some extent,
wilderness management requirements increases the complexity of border
security operations. For example, the strategic plan calls for
reestablishment of the historic ``Screwworm'' pack trail on the
Coronado National Forest along the border within existing and proposed
wilderness to open it up for motorized patrol on all terrain vehicles.
Due to the intensive illegal activity and the need for enforcement
action and resource management along the border, the Administration
believes that portions of the proposed Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness
are not suitable for wilderness designation at this time.
The Department of Agriculture is concerned with the extensive use
of ``cherry stems'' to exclude designated roads or travelways from this
wilderness designation. Our understanding is that these routes are
intended to provide motorized access for permittees and for public
access. However, in our view, it is important to maintain the integrity
of wilderness by designating only those areas which are, as stated in
the Wilderness Act and in Forest Service policy, ``dominated by the
forces of nature''. Allowing for continued motorized use miles into a
designated wilderness, even along undesignated corridors, can lead to
motorized incursions from the roadways, noise, and other intrusions. We
recommend that areas where motorized use is necessary for range
permittees and for hunting, undeveloped recreation, and forest
administration be omitted from wilderness designation.
Another important issue of concern involves road access. Although
maps indicate a number of roads lead from Interstate 19 on the east and
Arivaca Road on the west to the proposed wilderness areas, the Forest
Service lacks legal rights-of-way for public use of many of these
roads. In addition, the designation of the Tumacacori Highlands
Wilderness at the northwest border of National Forest System lands
would preclude any legal motorized access to this section of the
Forest. Over the next few years the Coronado National Forest will
engage the public and coordinate with state, county, and tribal
governments to identify and designate roads, trails and areas that are
open to motor vehicle use through the Travel Management Planning
process. This analysis, with public involvement, will also identify
roads that should be decommissioned, including, potentially, several
Forest Roads in the proposed wilderness areas that are no longer in
use. It will also address the need for new routes along the northwest
border of the proposed Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness to link existing
roads and provide legal access within the Forest boundary.
The Travel Management Planning process is being coordinated with
public involvement for the revision of the Coronado National Forest
Land Management Plan, scheduled for completion in 2009. Public
workshops have been held in local communities, including one held last
week in Rio Rico, Arizona, to engage the public in describing their
future resource goals for the Coronado National Forest. Part of the
process is to complete a Wilderness Needs Assessment, which analyzes
all Forest lands to determine which areas meet the criteria for
wilderness recommendation. The Administration would prefer to engage
the public through this planning process to help determine which areas
of the Coronado National Forest merit recommendation for wilderness
designation.
In summary, the Administration believes that much of the area
proposed for wilderness designation by H.R. 3287 merits consideration
for wilderness recommendation using criteria established by the
Wilderness Act. However, we have concerns that other areas, primarily
at the edges of the proposed wilderness are either not consistent with
wilderness criteria, or present difficult management situations that
may change at a future time. In addition, we prefer to engage in the
public planning process as a means of recommending wilderness for
designation. We would like to work with the bill's sponsors and the
Subcommittee to discuss areas of agreement and concern.
H.R. 3513, Copper Salmon Wilderness Act
H.R. 3513 would designate approximately 13,700 acres of the Rogue
River-Siskiyou National Forest as wilderness and designate segments of
the North and South Forks of the Elk River as additions to the existing
Elk Wild and Scenic River.
The Department supports this bill, but requests some important
adjustments to the wilderness boundary. These adjustments would provide
for better separation of motorized use from the wilderness, allow for
road maintenance activities within road clearing limits (such as ditch
cleaning and culvert and bridge maintenance), as well as to accommodate
treatments of plantations that would improve forest health and habitat
diversity while increasing firefighter safety.
The wilderness proposal comprises 13,700 acres of rugged forested
land surrounding Copper Mountain, Barklow Mountain, and Salmon Mountain
adjacent to the Grassy Knob Wilderness. It contains vast stands of
Douglas fir and relatively rare native Port Orford cedar trees. About
ten percent of the proposed wilderness area is designated in the
Siskiyou National Forest Plan as a ``Supplemental Resource Area'',
considered highly productive habitat for wildlife and fish, critical
for the maintenance of watershed condition, and with special recreation
values. Lands within the proposed wilderness are primarily allocated as
Late Successional Reserves (LSR) under the Northwest Forest Plan. LSRs
are designed to serve as habitat for old growth-related species. This
LSR allocation includes 2,267 acres of previously managed overstocked
Douglas fir plantations.
Using perimeter forest roads as the boundary designation as in H.R.
3513 would likely lead to unintended incursions of motorized vehicles
and mechanized equipment into the wilderness. In addition most of the
plantations adjacent to forest roads that comprise a portion of the
wilderness boundary (about 1,000 acres) were included in the Coastal
Healthy Forest Environmental Analysis signed in 2007. Treatment of
these stands would improve habitat conditions for fish and wildlife,
reduce effects from insects and disease, and provide defensible space
for firefighters in the event of a wildfire, consistent with their
allocation as Late Successional Reserve (LSRs). Wilderness designation
would preclude this treatment.
The proposed wilderness includes about nine miles of designated
roads. All but two of those road miles are currently closed to
vehicular traffic; however, these roads are highly engineered up steep
slopes, with significant cuts and fills, culverts, and other
constructed features. If the area is designated as wilderness, the
forest would consider converting some of these roads into hiking and
equestrian trails to improve access, but most would require
decommissioning to protect water quality and fisheries resource values.
This would require significant investment to remove culverts and
contour the land to reduce erosion.
The Department would like to work with the bill's sponsor and the
committee to offset the wilderness boundary inward along perimeter
roads to implement planned treatments within a reasonable distance of
the road, provide for routine road maintenance, and to decrease the
likelihood of incompatible motorized use in wilderness. We also request
that the bill include the date of the map referencing the intended
wilderness configuration.
The bill would designate segments of the North and South Forks of
the Elk River as additions to the existing Elk Wild and Scenic River.
The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest completed an extensive wild
and scenic river inventory and, while both tributaries are free-
flowing, neither was judged to have an outstandingly remarkable value.
Nevertheless, in recognition of the value of managing the Elk River as
a system that contributes to one of the most important and valuable
runs of anadromous fish in coastal Oregon, the Department does not
oppose the proposed additions in this bill. We would like to work with
the bill's sponsor on several minor corrections to the description of
the Elk Wild and Scenic River.
H.R. 3682, California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act
The Department of Agriculture supports H.R. 3682, if amended.
H.R. 3682 would create two new wildernesses on the San Bernardino
National Forest, and add additional acreage to existing designated
wilderness on the Cleveland and San Bernardino National Forests. It
would also designate stretches of four rivers on the San Bernardino
National Forest as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System. This bill would also expand the boundaries of the Santa Rosa
and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.
There are discrepancies between the proposed wilderness
designations in bill, and the revisions to the forest plans for
Southern California forests (Forest Plan), the Record of Decision for
which was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2006.
Discrepancies also exist between the proposed designations under the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Forest Plan.
During the revision process, most of these proposed wilderness
designations were determined not to meet criteria for wilderness
suitability. The areas were found unsuitable because of current or
potential uses that would conflict with wilderness designation such as
reduction of hazardous fuels (mechanical treatments and prescribed
burning), elements of fire management (including Burned Area Emergency
Response--BAER treatments), current recreational uses (e.g., mountain
bikes), grazing improvement maintenance, existing protections (Research
Natural Area), external influences and the availability of nearby
wilderness.
For example, the portion of the Agua Tibia Wilderness addition in
the Cleveland National Forest that would be designated by the bill is
not the same as the area of National Forest recommended for wilderness
designation in the Forest Plan. We support the addition of the parcel
that was recommended in the Forest Plan. We defer to the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) for its part of this proposal.
The Cahuilla Mountain Proposed Wilderness in the San Bernardino
National Forest also was found not to meet Forest Service wilderness
criteria during the Forest Plan revision process. We continue to
support the Forest Plan's final recommendation, developed with public
involvement. Therefore, we do not support this proposed addition.
Section 104(f)(2) of the bill contains provisions related to access
and use of the Cahuilla Mountain Wilderness by members of an Indian
tribe for traditional cultural and religious purposes, including
temporarily closing areas to the general public for use by members of
an Indian tribe. The Department supports and encourages providing
access to tribes consistent with PL 95-341 (also known as the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act) but we do not support the provision in
the bill. To that end, the Forest Service has directives that allow for
voluntary temporary closures to protect privacy for tribes in the
conduct of traditional cultural activities. We would like to work with
the bill's sponsor, the Subcommittee, and the Department of Justice to
address these concerns.
The proposed South Fork San Jacinto Wilderness on the San
Bernardino National Forest was found not to meet the wilderness
criteria during the revision process. The South Fork San Jacinto area
is a combination of two inventoried roadless areas with the same issues
as the Cahuilla proposal. We do not support this area to be designated
as wilderness.
Additionally, during the revision process thirteen acres of Cactus
Springs were recommended as an addition to the Santa Rosa Wilderness.
We support this 13-acre addition, and defer to the Bureau of Land
Management for its portion of the addition.
Although a suitability study has not been conducted for the four
rivers that would be designated by the bill, we do not oppose their
addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System based on general
support by the communities of interest and consistency of the
designation with the management of the National Forest System lands
within the river corridors. We wish, however, to work with the
Committee to clarify river management and address differences between
mileage and classifications in this bill and those in the Forest Plan.
We fully support that portion of the expansion of the Santa Rosa
and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument under National Forest
management.
Working with the Subcommittee, we are confident that we can remedy
the inconsistencies this bill has with our California Forest Plan
Revisions.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Let me introduce Director Daly, Director of
National Landscape Conservation System, BLM.
STATEMENT OF ELEANA DALY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
CONSERVATION SYSTEM, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY RICK POTTS, CHIEF OF
CONSERVATION AND OUTDOOR RECREATION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Ms. Daly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on a number
of wilderness bills before the Subcommittee. I am accompanied
by Rick Potts, Chief of Conservation and Outdoor Recreation for
the National Park Service. Rick will join me at the table to
answer any questions on issues related specifically to the
National Park Service.
The Department of the Interior strongly supports
congressional efforts to resolve wilderness designations
throughout the West, and we welcome this opportunity to further
those efforts. Only Congress can determine whether to designate
wilderness study areas as wilderness or release them for other
multiple uses. We support the resolution of WSA issues and
stand ready to work with Members of Congress toward this goal.
The Department of the Interior supports H.R. 2632, a bill
designating 19,880 acres of BLM-managed land in northwestern
New Mexico as the Sabinoso Wilderness area. The Sabinoso area
provides a rugged and dramatic landscape. The proposal has the
support of both the New Mexico house of representatives and San
Miguel County, New Mexico. We would like the opportunity to
work with Congressman Udall and the Subcommittee to resolve a
few technical errors on the map referenced in the legislation,
which we prepared at Congressman Udall's request.
Ms. Daly. H.R. 3682, the California Desert and Mountain
Heritage Act, designates wilderness throughout Riverside
County, California, on lands managed by the BLM, the National
Park Service and the Forest Service. It also expands the Santa
Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.
The Department of the Interior supports H.R. 3682 as it
applies to BLM and NPS designations, but would like the
opportunity to work with the Subcommittee on a number of
clarifications. We defer to the Department of Agriculture on
those designations for Forest Service managed lands. Title I
designates four new wilderness areas, Beauty Mountain and Pinto
Mountains Wilderness to be managed by the BLM, and expands six
existing wilderness areas.
The expansions will improve manageability, protect
important resource values and improve dispersed recreational
opportunities. These expanded wilderness designations are
possible now because of the acquisitions of land by the BLM and
changes in on-the-ground conditions.
Within the boundary of Joshua Tree National Park Section
105(f) of H.R. 3682 designates as wilderness 36,800 acres of
land which are owned by the National Park Service and are
appropriate for wilderness designation.
Section 103 designates as potential wilderness
approximately 43,100 acres of land along the park's
southwestern boundary where about one-third of the acreage is
still in private ownership. While we recognize the Congress'
authority to designate this area as potential wilderness, we
would like to work with the sponsor and the Subcommittee to
further clarify some ambiguities in this section.
Finally, Title III of H.R. 3682 expands the boundaries of
the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument by
approximately 8,360 acres designating 2,990 of those acres as
wilderness inside the monument.
H.R. 3682 is the result of a multi-year process undertaken
by Congresswoman Bono and other members of the California
congressional delegation. This public process included engaging
elected officials, interest groups, local communities and the
affected land managing agencies. We appreciate these efforts,
as we believe that local input and consensus building are
essential ingredients to successful wilderness bills.
Ms. Daly. The Department of the Interior cannot support
H.R. 2334 Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian
Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act unless amended to address
National Park Service concerns regarding the provisions related
to the Grand River Ditch, as fully described in the written
testimony.
H.R. 2334 would designate 249,339 acres, approximately 95
percent of the Rocky Mountain National Park's acreage, as
wilderness. Almost all of these lands were originally
recommended for wilderness designation by President Nixon and
are currently managed as wilderness. In addition, H.R. 2334
would exclude lands occupied by the Grand River Ditch from
wilderness, change the liability standard for future damage to
park resources resulting from operation and maintenance of the
ditch and enable the Water Supply and Storage Company to
convert its Grand River Ditch water rights to other uses.
The Department cannot support H.R. 2334 unless it is
amended to address these concerns.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy
to answer any questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Daly follows:]
Statement of Elena Daly, Director, National Landscape Conservation
System, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 2632, the Sabinoso
Wilderness Act, H.R. 3682, the California Desert and Mountain Heritage
Act, and H.R. 2334, Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian
Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act. The Department strongly supports
Congressional efforts to resolve wilderness designations throughout the
West, and we welcome this opportunity to further those efforts. Only
Congress can determine whether to designate Wilderness Study Areas
(WSAs) as wilderness or release them for other multiple uses. We
support the resolution of WSA issues and stand ready to work with
Members of Congress toward this goal.
H.R. 2632, Sabinoso Wilderness Act
The Department of the Interior supports H.R. 2632, a bill
designating 19,880 acres of BLM-managed land in northwestern New Mexico
as the Sabinoso Wilderness area. The Sabinoso area provides a rugged
and dramatic landscape. Deep sinuous canyons are interspersed with
flat-topped mesas in an area that has changed little over the last
several hundred years. While there is both archaeological and
historical evidence of sporadic human visitation, the rough nature of
the terrain has discouraged all but the hardiest. Today, the canyons
and mesas are home to mule deer, elk, mountain lion, and wild turkey.
Golden eagles and turkey vultures soar off the thermals rising from
sandstone canyon walls.
The BLM is currently working with the state on a land exchange
which would result in the acquisition of state land inholdings within
the proposed wilderness. This process should be completed within a
year. We also are in discussions with private landowners in the area
about acquiring either conservation easements or fee title of some of
the private inholdings. The BLM only explores such options from willing
landowners.
Congressman Udall has worked with the local community to reach
consensus on the proposed designation. The New Mexico House of
Representatives and San Miguel County, New Mexico have passed
resolutions in support of wilderness designation of Sabinoso. We would
like the opportunity to work with Congressman Udall and the
subcommittee to resolve a few technical errors on the map referenced in
the legislation, which we prepared at Congressman Udall's request.
H.R. 3682, California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act
H.R. 3682 designates wilderness throughout Riverside County,
California on lands managed by the BLM, National Park Service (NPS) and
Forest Service. It also expands the BLM and Forest Service-managed
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument (designated by
Public Law 106-351) as well as designates a number of Wild and Scenic
rivers under the management of the Forest Service. The Department of
the Interior supports H.R. 3682 as it applies to BLM and NPS
designations but would like the opportunity to work with the
subcommittee on a number of clarifications, including acreage and
mapping adjustments. We defer to the Department of Agriculture on those
designations on National Forest System lands.
H.R. 3682, as introduced, includes acreage numbers that do not
match area descriptions or the maps provided to the sponsors by the
Department. We are working with the sponsor and the subcommittee to
make appropriate corrections. Our discussions of the bill in this
testimony will reflect the updated acreage numbers.
Title I designates four new wilderness areas: Beauty Mountain and
Pinto Mountains Wilderness to be managed by the BLM as well as Cahuilla
Mountain and South Fork San Jacinto Wilderness to be managed by the
Forest Service.
The proposed new Beauty Mountain Wilderness would cover over 15,000
acres of BLM-managed lands. It is one of the last undeveloped areas in
the region; numerous outside groups recognize both its significance as
open space and the important resource values of Beauty Mountain. We
should note that the boundary for Beauty Mountain is arbitrarily set at
the Riverside County line. The second new BLM wilderness area, Pinto
Mountains wilderness, lies just to the north of the National Park
Service's Joshua Tree National Park and wilderness. Much has changed in
these areas during the last 15 years. In 1994, the California Desert
Protection Act changed the management landscape in the entire
California desert. That same year, much of the area was designated as
critical habitat for the threatened desert tortoise. This area is
important habitat for the desert bighorn sheep. Many inholdings have
been acquired by the State, private groups, or BLM that made this area
more manageable and enhanced their wilderness characteristics. Far
fewer mining claims exist in the area than were there15 years ago.
These areas are currently primarily non-motorized.
In addition, Title I expands six existing wilderness areas that
were designated under Public Law 103-433 the California Desert
Protection Act and earlier wilderness bills: Agua Tibia, Orocopia
Mountains, Palen/McCoy, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness managed by
the BLM; Joshua Tree National Park Wilderness managed by NPS; and
additions to the Santa Rosa Wilderness within Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains National Monument managed by both the BLM and the
Forest Service. The expansions, which will improve manageability,
protect important resource values and improve dispersed recreational
opportunities, range from a mere 500-acre addition to the existing Agua
Tibia Wilderness to a large 23,000-acre addition to the Palen/McCoy
Wilderness. Other additions include 5,000 acres to the Orocopia
Mountains Wilderness and 13,000 acres to the Chuckwalla Mountains
Wilderness. These expanded wilderness designations are possible now
because of acquisitions of land by the BLM and changes in on-the-ground
conditions that have occurred since the original wilderness
designations.
Within the boundary of Joshua Tree National Park, section 102(f) of
H.R. 3682 designates 36,800 acres of land in non-contiguous parcels as
wilderness. All of these lands are wilderness quality. Of these acres,
about 8,400 acres were designated only as potential wilderness as part
of the original wilderness designation for Joshua Tree National Park in
1976 (Public Law 94-567), because they were privately owned or used for
non-wilderness purposes. The lands now are owned by the National Park
Service and are appropriate for wilderness designation. Another 28,400
acres, owned by the National Park Service, are located in a roadless
area west of the Cottonwood Entrance. A draft study conducted by the
National Park Service supports wilderness designation for these lands.
Section 103 of H.R. 3682 designates as potential wilderness
approximately 43,100 acres of land along the park's southwestern
boundary. This area is physically inaccessible and has no available
water source. As such, the park already is managing this area as
wilderness. About one-third of the acreage is in private ownership, and
the National Park Service has been working to acquire these lands with
donated funds, on a willing-seller basis. While we recognize the
Congress' authority to designate this area as potential wilderness, we
would like to work with the sponsor and the subcommittee to further
clarify some ambiguities in this section.
Finally, Title III of H.R. 3682 expands the boundary of the Santa
Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument by approximately 8,360
acres, designating 2,990 of those acres as wilderness inside the
monument. Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument was
originally designated by Public Law 106-351. Since then, the
communities, agencies, and other interested members of the public in
the Coachella Valley have strongly embraced the Monument and take great
pride in their many achievements towards making the Monument a success
story. The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument
Advisory Committee fully participated in the development of a
management plan that is now in the implementation phase. We support
this proposed expansion, which would enhance manageability of the
monument and expand protection of important habitat for the endangered
Peninsular bighorn sheep.
H.R. 3682 is a result of a multi-year process undertaken by
Congresswoman Bono and other members of the California Congressional
delegation. This public process included engaging elected officials,
interest groups, local communities, and the affected land managing
agencies. We appreciate these efforts as we believe that local input
and consensus-building are essential ingredients to successful
wilderness bills. As this bill moves forward, we look forward to the
opportunity to work with the Committee on the corrections and
amendments discussed in this testimony and to ensure that the maps most
accurately reflect the intended boundaries.
H.R. 2334, Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks
Wilderness Expansion Act
The Department of the Interior cannot support H.R. 2334 unless
amended to address our concerns regarding the provisions related to the
Grand River Ditch as described in this testimony. The Department
presented the same position in testimony on S. 1380, an identical bill,
at a hearing held before the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks on
July 12, 2007. The Department also testified in support of a similar
bill, S. 1510, at a hearing held before the Senate Subcommittee on
National Parks on April 6, 2006. That bill did not contain the Grand
River Ditch provisions. We defer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
on lands affecting the U.S. Forest Service.
H.R. 2334 would designate approximately 249,339 acres of Rocky
Mountain National Park's backcountry in the National Wilderness
Preservation System. This represents approximately 95% of the park's
total acreage, lands that currently are managed as wilderness. In
addition, H.R. 2334 would exclude lands occupied by the Grand River
Ditch from wilderness, change the liability standard for future damage
to park resources resulting from operation and maintenance of the
ditch, enable the Water Supply and Storage Company to convert its Grand
River Ditch water rights to other uses, make adjustments to the Indian
Peaks Wilderness and Arapaho National Recreation Area, both
administered by the U.S. Forest Service, and give the National Park
Service (NPS) the authority to lease the Lieffer tract.
In 1964, Congress designated Rocky Mountain National Park as a
wilderness study area. In 1974, President Nixon recommended to Congress
239,835 acres for immediate designation and 5,169 acres for potential
designation as wilderness in the park. The increased acreage amount
included in H.R. 2334 is based on modifications brought about by land
acquisition and boundary adjustments since 1974.
Present road, water, and utility corridors, and all developed
areas, are excluded from recommended wilderness. Wilderness designation
would not alter any current visitor activities or access within the
park, and would allow visitors to utilize the park in the same ways and
locations that they presently enjoy.
Federal reserved water rights for park purposes are not an issue
related to wilderness designation as water rights for the park have
been adjudicated through the State of Colorado water courts.
Consequently, no water rights claims for wilderness purposes are needed
or desired by the NPS.
After holding public meetings on the proposed designation in June
2005, the gateway communities of Estes Park and Grand Lake, and the
counties of Grand and Larimer, endorsed wilderness designation for
Rocky Mountain National Park, subject to specific boundary
modifications on the west boundary of the park. These modifications,
which have been incorporated in H.R. 2334, would provide an area of
non-wilderness around the Town of Grand Lake in order to ensure that
the park could continue to actively manage hazardous fuels and other
uses that might affect the Town. The proposed modifications would also
reserve a corridor along the east shore of Shadow Mountain and Granby
reservoirs for the possible construction of a non-motorized hike/bike
trail, which would be subject to normal NPS planning processes
including analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.
In addition to excluding lands occupied by the Grand River Ditch
from wilderness, H.R. 2334 would allow for a change in the liability
standard for future damage to park resources resulting from operation
and maintenance of the ditch, as long as the ditch is operated and
maintained in accordance with an operations and maintenance agreement
between the NPS and the ditch's owners. This provision would alter the
protections to park resources under the Park System Resource Protection
Act (16 U.S.C. 19jj) which holds any person who causes injury to park
resources liable to the United States for response costs and damages,
except in certain circumstances such as an act of God or actions by a
third party.
In 1907, and again in 2000, the owners of the ditch, the Water
Supply and Storage Company, agreed to a stipulation, in return for a
valuable right-of-way across public land and a stipulated water rights
agreement, that requires them to pay the United States for any and all
damage sustained by use of the right-of-way regardless of the cause and
circumstances.
Altering these protections to a more lenient negligence standard
for the Grand River Ditch, as proposed by H.R. 2334, could have serious
implications for future damage causing events resulting from the
operation of the Grand Ditch within park boundaries. Changing that
standard to a general liability standard would require the NPS to
expend scarce financial resources to prove negligence. In cases where
negligence could not be proven, the United States would pay for
response and repair costs associated with damage caused by operation of
the ditch. This could set a dangerous precedent for all national parks
and other public lands with implications far beyond the boundaries of
Rocky Mountain National Park. Also, to retroactively change the 1907
stipulation would negate a century-old agreement that the ditch's
owners have twice agreed to in exchange for valuable consideration it
has received, the right-of-way itself and the 2000 stipulated water
rights agreement.
As proposed in H.R. 2334, an operations and maintenance plan for
the ditch is clearly needed. However, it must be comprehensive in scope
and enforceable and should not be tied to a change in the liability
standard for the ditch. We believe that an effective plan must contain
provisions that reduce the risk of catastrophic failure of the ditch
(as occurred in 2003) that could injure park visitors and staff and
harm critical park resources. The plan should also establish clear
expectations regarding maintenance and operational issues that impact
park operations. Such a plan, if fully implemented by the operators of
the ditch, should reduce the likelihood of future breaches or damage
causing events, which we believe is in the interest of all parties and
should negate the perceived need for a change in liability protection
for the park.
H.R. 2334 also proposes to grant an exemption to the Water Supply
and Storage Company from the requirement in its original right-of-way
grant that the primary purpose of the ditch is for irrigation or
drainage. This proposed change would enable the Company to convert its
Grand River Ditch water rights to other uses, such as municipal use,
without risking forfeiture of the ditch right-of-way, which could
represent a significant increase in the value of the water rights for
the shareholders of the Water Supply and Storage Company.
The provisions of H.R. 2334 related to the Grand Ditch go beyond
ensuring that ditch operations are not affected by the designation of
wilderness and grant the owners of the ditch significant privileges and
exemptions from existing law and prior agreements with the United
States and a potential windfall by allowing a change in use of the
water. We would be happy to work with the Committee on amendments to
the bill to address our concerns related to the operations of the Grand
Ditch.
Finally, H.R. 2334 would give the NPS the authority to lease the
Lieffer tract. This 12 acre tract is located outside the boundary of
Rocky Mountain National Park, was donated to the park, and lends itself
to leasing to educational institutions or other similar entities.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We support the efforts of
Congress to resolve the wilderness issues. I will be happy to answer
any questions.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Let me begin with Mr. Holtrop for some of the
comments in your testimony. I think, as you are aware, there
are eight wilderness areas designated along the Canadian
border, adjacent to three at that same proximity along the
Mexican border, with five close, also, but not in direct
proximity to the border.
And I ask you that because, does H.R. 3287 allow the
agencies to utilize the 2006 interagency memorandum of
understanding for border enforcement activities?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes, it does, specifically.
Mr. Grijalva. And then the other part of the question is,
does the Wilderness Act allow the Federal Government to take
measures, such measures as required in emergencies involved in
health and safety that could include motorized equipment,
aircraft for law enforcement activity, as you understand it?
Mr. Holtrop. Are you asking, does the Wilderness Act
specifically allow for that?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Mr. Holtrop. The Wilderness Act does allow for the use of
those types of activities in an emergency situation. The intent
of both the memorandum of understanding that the act, and that
you referred to, has to do with--we take specific coordination
actions with the Border Patrol to assure that whatever actions
they take have the appropriate resource protection. And there
are some additional resource protection activities that we
carry out in those areas that are designated wilderness.
Mr. Grijalva. That, and I believe the ultimate waiver that
the Secretary of Homeland Security has--we can debate whether
that waiver should be as expansive as it is, but it is law now,
the ultimate waiver that they have over any public land,
including wilderness, to waive all other kinds of requirements
that might be in place, including the memorandum of
understanding. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Holtrop. That is my understanding, as well, which--of
course, we very much appreciate our relationship with Border
Patrol, so that we generally operate under the memorandum of
understanding.
But what you are asking is exactly the reason that we have
some concern with designating this as wilderness.
A wilderness test is a very special designation, and it
ought to be special and it ought to be a different area if
there is so much activity going on that diminishes that
character. That is what the concern is about.
Mr. Grijalva. I bring it up because since the designation,
I believe, in 1984 in the Pajarita Wilderness Area and then the
memorandum that went in place at Pajarita and any future
wilderness area designations along, I assume, both borders--am
I correct that it is both borders?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva.--that is an applicable tool that is available
right now, if I am not mistaken, both to Border Patrol, to
ensure that all enforcement activities are carried out?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes. Again, they have the authority to use
whatever means are necessary to carry out their
responsibilities. They have agreed with us to do so--with us
and the Department of the Interior to do so under the terms of
the memorandum of understanding.
Mr. Grijalva. And that involves any cooperative national
security, counterterrorism on Federal lands and U.S. borders?
It is extensive?
Mr. Holtrop. That is correct.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Ms. Daly, just a couple of quick questions, if I may.
One of the issues that came up on H.R. 3632, would you
comment on the claim that wilderness designations do not allow
any mechanized vehicles in the area, going as far as including
wheelchairs.
Ms. Daly. No, sir. In fact, I have some very specific
policy quotes on that for you. There are instances where
mechanized vehicles may be used in wilderness areas, and
wheelchairs are an excellent example. At 43 CFR 630 217, it
states, quote, ``If you have a disability that requires the use
of a wheelchair, you may use a wheelchair in a wilderness,''
unquote.
Additionally, the Americans with Disabilities Act, section
5007(c) states, quote, ``Nothing in the Wilderness Act is to be
construed as prohibiting the use of a wheelchair in a
wilderness area by an individual whose disability requires the
use of a wheelchair,'' and that includes mechanized
wheelchairs.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And what about the claim that
wilderness designations negatively impact the West's ability to
fight and prevent forest fires. Is that an accurate statement
or a claim?
Mr. Holtrop. No, sir. Actually, for BLM, we interpret the
Wilderness Act to allow for mechanized and motorized use in
fighting wildfire and for fuels management in some cases. Those
decisions are made by our State director, so they can be made
immediately at the local level; and we are particularly
interested in using those tools where property or life are in
danger.
An example is a fire that--well, it was August of 2006, a
little over a year ago, in the San Gorgonio Wilderness where
two fires merged into one rather large conflagration. And BLM
authorized the California Department of Forestry and Fire to
use bulldozers to create a 7-mile firebreak within the
wilderness.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
And I went a little over my time. Maybe if we have a second
round, I have a couple other questions.
With that, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I am sure we are going to go through a couple
of rounds. Let me start with Ms. Daly, then, on a couple of
bills for which you made a comment. Can I start with Tom
Udall's bill first?
You are talking there about, you are currently working with
the State on a land exchange that would deal with State land
inholdings as well as with private landholders for inholdings.
How much area is included in both of those?
Ms. Daly. I can give you the exact. State land is--I
believe it is--2,990 is the State land; and the private
inholdings, about 9,000.
Mr. Bishop. Acres?
Ms. Daly. Acres.
Mr. Bishop. Congressman Udall had a good rough estimate of
how many private property owners have inholdings. Do you have a
specific number?
Ms. Daly. We believe it is nine, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Nine? OK.
You say in here that there are clarifications, including
the acreage and mapping adjustments, and the acreage numbers do
not match the area descriptions. Is that merely a technical
issue or a technical problem, or is that substantive?
Ms. Daly. The acreage differential results from an
acquisition by BLM about 10 years ago, as well as the inclusion
of a special management area to the north and west of the
Sabinoso. It is very similar terrain, very typical of the area.
And so the inclusion in that raises the acreage number.
Mr. Bishop. I'm sorry, I was actually on a different bill.
But it is a good answer to that question.
Ms. Daly. I am so glad you are pleased, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Let me stick with Tom's, and this is the last
one on his particular bill.
On your Web site, you call this particular wilderness study
area 15,000 acres, but you are supporting a bill that
designates 20,000 acres in wilderness.
Can you explain the acreage difference between those two
numbers?
Ms. Daly. That is the Sabinoso?
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Ms. Daly. It was the acquisition from a private landholder
about 10 years ago.
Mr. Bishop. Of 5,000 acres.
Ms. Daly. I am not sure what the acreage was.
Mr. Bishop. Well, that is the difference.
Ms. Daly. OK. That and the inclusion of a special
management area. It is the two factors that result in that
difference.
Mr. Bishop. Let me leave his bill alone and let me go, if I
could, now to perhaps the one in Mrs. Bono's bill.
That was the one specifically where you say in your
testimony that there is a difference between the number of
acreage--the acreage numbers do not match area descriptions. Is
that technical or not?
Ms. Daly. That is a technical issue.
Mr. Bishop. You also said that in Section 103 you wanted to
work with this committee to clarify some ambiguities. What are
those ambiguities?
Mr. Potts. Sir, I will answer that. This is Rick Potts from
the National Park Service.
That would be the Joshua Tree National Park. The
ambiguities that we refer to, we would like a little more
guidance as to the intent of that language. For instance, there
is a clause that says when we acquire a sufficient acreage from
willing sellers or donors to manage the area, to make
management of the area practicable as wilderness, I think we
would like to dial that down just a little bit more because if
it gets designated as potential wilderness, then, as you know,
the final step of converting potential to fully designated
doesn't involve any additional public input. It is merely a
publish of notification in the Federal Register.
We want to make sure our public is comfortable, so we would
like perhaps a threshold or a trigger, some guidance language,
in that passage.
Mr. Bishop. Are there other ambiguities you want to
address?
Mr. Potts. That would be the main one at this time.
Mr. Bishop. That is the only one?
Mr. Potts. That is the main one at this time I can think
of, sir.
Mr. Bishop. So there are others?
Mr. Potts. I will double-check that and will get back to
you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. With the way some of these bills
rush through here to the Floor, I hope you do it before they
actually move the bill forward, but that would be a good one.
Let me get off that one with you, for example, and let us
go to the other Congressman Udall's bill at the same time. Am I
reading your testimony correctly that you support this, except
for the provisions of the Grand River Ditch that the two
Senators spoke about?
Ms. Daly. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. So it is solely prohibited on granting
liability protection to this historic ditch?
Ms. Daly. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. There is one issue with this park that you did
not address, and that is the elk overpopulation problem. Would
the status of this issue and the wilderness designation either
help or hinder your efforts to return that herd into a healthy
number?
Mr. Potts. Your question again is in reference to the Rocky
Mountain National Park?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, the Rocky Mountain now.
Mr. Potts. The Elk and Vegetation Management Plan that is
being drafted is currently in the Department of the Interior
for review. We expect that review will be completed and that
plan will come back out so the designation of wilderness will
not affect the implementation of that plan.
Mr. Bishop. Are you planning on having vehicles permitted
to help cull the herd?
Mr. Potts. That hasn't been determined.
Mr. Bishop. Is it part of the discussion?
Mr. Potts. The access that currently exists on the main
roads in Rocky Mountain National Park would continue to exist.
Mr. Bishop. Can you give me any of the details of part of
the Elk Management Plan?
Mr. Potts. Not at this time.
Mr. Bishop. It is being discussed, though? That will be
part of the written request that we make for the details of
that plan, the Elk Management Plan?
Mr. Potts. I would be more than happy to supply that to you
if you don't already have it.
Mr. Bishop. I have run out of time. Let me go on to some of
the others.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Mark Udall.
Mr. Mark Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I neglected
earlier when you yielded me some time to ask unanimous consent
that my initial statement could be included in the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mark Udall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Mark Udall, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado, on H.R. 2334
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing on
my bill to designate most of Rocky Mountain National Park as
wilderness.
The Subcommittee is also taking testimony on four other bills, and
we will be hearing from quite a few witnesses. So, I don't want to
delay proceedings with a long statement about our bill.
I am very pleased that we will be hearing from both of Colorado's
Senators, who are cosponsors of the identical Senate bill introduced by
Senator Salazar.
The House bill is cosponsored by Representative Musgrave, and will
designate as wilderness about 94 percent of the park, including Longs
Peaks and other mountain areas, while allowing continued use of the
existing roads and buildings in the developed areas and without
affecting any privately owned land.
We have included a provision--requested by Grand County, the Town
of Grand Lake, and others--to maintain the ability of the National Park
Service to decide whether to authorize construction of a mountain bike
route along the west edge of the park. Another provision would give the
Service authority to lease an 11-acre tract outside the park
boundaries, which they would like to be able to do.
And we would add 1,000 National Forest acres to the existing Indian
Peaks Wilderness by redesignating lands now managed as part of the
Arapaho National Recreation Area, which is also managed by the Forest
Service.
The bill includes explicit language to make clear that it will not
create any new federal water rights, because the park already has
extensive federal reserved water rights and because its location
astride the continental divide means there's no possibility of any
diversion of water upstream of the park.
Finally, the bill has provisions related to the Grand River Ditch,
which was dug before the park was established and which is partly
located within the park. They have been included in order to give the
ditch's owners a strong incentive to reach an agreement with the
National Park Service about how the ditch will be operated and
maintained in the future. We will hear about this from Dennis Harmon,
the general manager of the Water Supply and Storage Company, as well as
from the Administration.
In short, Mr. Chairman, the bill will protect some of our nation's
finest wild lands. It will protect existing rights. It will not limit
any existing opportunity for new water development. It is bipartisan
and reflects long consultation with all the interested parties in
Colorado. I commend it to the Subcommittee, and look forward to hearing
from our witnesses.
______
Mr. Mark Udall. Thank you.
Ms. Daly, if I could turn to you, and if Mr. Potts needs to
chime in as well, that is more than appropriate. I, of course,
want to focus on the situation of the ditch because that is the
last important element in making a historic step to provide for
wilderness status for this significant amount of acreage in the
park.
In your statement, you say an operations and maintenance
plan for the ditch is clearly needed. Is the Park Service
currently trying to reach such an agreement with the Water
Supply and Storage Company, and if so what is the status of
those talks.
Mr. Potts. Yes, sir, allow me to answer, please.
Yes, the National Park Service's staff, superintendent's
staff for Rocky Mountain National Park have been in regular
dialogue with the company. A draft operations and maintenance
plan for the ditch has been done.
It was sent to the park for their review. The park reviewed
it and sent it back with comments on October 19th, I believe
about 4 weeks ago, and is waiting the reply from the ditch
company.
We also submitted some best management practices and some
examples of similar operations and management plans that were
furnished to us by the Bureau of Reclamation.
Mr. Mark Udall. What do you perceive as the sticking points
at this stage?
Mr. Potts. I won't speak for the ditch company. From our
concerns, it is the appearance of establishing what is likely a
national precedent that would weaken the current standard in
place for protection of park resources that was established
under the Park System Resource Protection Act.
Mr. Mark Udall. If I could follow that line of questioning
and comment, the statement presented today says that an
agreement, if it was fully implemented, should reduce the
likelihood of future breaches or damage-causing events and that
this should negate the perceived need for a change in liability
protection for the park.
The way I read your statement, the Park Service's
statement, today you are saying that if there is an agreement,
that ditch's owners and operators will no longer need to worry
about the risk of absolute liability.
But isn't that what the bill says, that if the owners and
operators reach an agreement and it is fully implemented that
their current worries will be reduced?
Mr. Potts. We believe the worries can be reduced on all
sides, and remembering, I am sure as we all do, that we are
dealing with world class resource here. And it is in everyone's
best interest to do our very best to make sure that that
resource is preserved for all time, as you, I am sure, as much
as anyone, or more, is aware of.
Our main concern is that the level of liability expressed
in the bill--as we interpret it, anyway--would drop it down
below the current threshold that is in place nationwide in
every other unit of the National Park system that was
established in the Park System Resource Protection Act.
Mr. Mark Udall. I would note for the record that the bill
does just apply to Rocky Mountain National Park, which is, I
think, an important note, given the precedent-creating concerns
that you have expressed.
Let me speak a little bit more, if I could, Mr. Potts, to
the liability provisions. Again, the statement in the testimony
shared with us today states, ``Liability provision of the bill
would require the NPS to expend scarce financial resources to
prove negligence.''
If so, couldn't this be addressed in the agreement perhaps
by requiring a bond or through some other financial agreement?
Has the Service suggested anything along these lines?
Mr. Potts. I believe that is perhaps one of the options
that is being discussed between the park's superintendent and
the owners of the ditch.
Mr. Mark Udall. Let me move to incentives here.
One purpose of the part of the bill we are discussing is to
provide an incentive for the ditch's owners to reach an
agreement with the park system and to abide by that agreement.
But your statement indicated, the way I read it, that the
administration wants to remove that incentive; and wouldn't--if
you do that, wouldn't it make it harder to reach an agreement
with the ditch company leadership?
Mr. Potts. We believe that everyone has been negotiating in
a good-faith effort to reach an equitable agreement. We do have
an agreement in place with the ditch company. It has been in
place for over 100 years. They have agreed twice and reaffirmed
to a level of absolute liability. We have--in an effort to
present a fair and equitable assignment of liability to this
company, the same as we do to any other entity across the
Nation, we are willing to discuss lowering their current level
of liability from an absolute level down to the level found
that is defined in 19jj of the Park System Resources Protection
Act. We believe that still provides strong incentive.
Mr. Mark Udall. If you would be willing, Mr. Chairman, if
you will indulge me for a few more minutes. Because I think
this is very important, the legislation that we are
considering.
Distinguish between those two approaches when it comes to
these liability provisions.
Mr. Potts. Yes, sir. I would be happy to.
The Park System Resources Protection Act is a civil act,
not criminal. We don't have to demonstrate negligence on the
part of the company if it is--if they cause damage to the
resources of the national park system, they are liable for that
damage, and it is not a--it is no accusation of negligence.
Mr. Mark Udall. How is that different from the current
level?
Mr. Potts. The current level of agreement is an absolute
liability regardless of the cause, including act of God. The
ditch company is liable. This would, in fact, lower that,
because the Park System Resource Protection Act gives it
several defenses if the action is caused by a third party or an
act of God.
Mr. Mark Udall. So it is just an act-of-God defense that
you are talking about in the one liability provision?
Mr. Potts. And third party.
Mr. Mark Udall. Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging my
line of questioning here.
I just want to underline that, of course, the Chairman has
made it clear he wants to see an agreement. It was very clear
that the Colorado delegation is united. And this is a historic
opportunity, and I want to weigh in once again to urge both the
Park Service and the ditch company to continue to move as
expeditiously as possible to find the sweet spot here. Because
we know it is there; and certainly the citizens of Colorado are
very, very inspired about the possibility of setting aside this
crown jewel of our public land system in Colorado as wilderness
so that we preserve its perpetuity.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Tom Udall.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both
for your testimony today.
Mrs. Daly, I want to thank you for your hard work on this,
on the Sabinoso Wilderness study area, and also an overall
thanks to the BLM for their work in terms of identifying
wilderness study.
You, obviously, over the years have gone through a lengthy
process, and have worked very hard to find these special areas
and get them designated, and it is really long overdue that
Congress now begins to weigh in and start actually getting to
the step of taking wilderness study and creating wilderness. So
thank you for that.
On the issue that my good friend, Mr. Bishop, has raised of
whether landowners are included and did they know about this, I
would just like to further add and supplement my testimony by
saying, to the best of my knowledge, in visiting with my staff,
all of the landowners have been contacted by the BLM and the
New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, and all of them are supportive
of this legislation.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back any time;
and I would thank both of you for, once again, hearing this
bill again today.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Just a couple of quick questions.
Mr. Holtrop, regarding H.R. 3682, I think you expressed
concerns about the maintenance of existing grazing improvements
that conflicts with the wilderness designation. Is it true then
that the Wilderness Act didn't--previous reports from this
committee and Ms. Bono's bill all protect existing grazing
operations and existing improvements on that land?
Mr. Holtrop. The existing grazing permits are allowed to
continue in designated wilderness.
Mr. Grijalva. And improvements that ranchers, the permittee
hold of improvements that they might have made for whether it
is livestock or other--those are----
Mr. Holtrop. Generally, those are allowed to continue as
well. The difference, once it has been designated wilderness,
is mechanized access to or mechanized means for maintenance is
only allowed if a minimum dual analysis says that that is the
correct way to go.
Mr. Grijalva. And in H.R. 3513, Mr. Holtrop, reiterate for
us, of the roads contained in this proposed wilderness area,
how many of them are currently closed to vehicular travel or
use?
Mr. Holtrop. This is the Copper Salmon Wilderness in
Oregon. As I recall, in that wilderness there are currently
nine miles of road existing in the Copper Salmon proposed
wilderness in which two remain open, two miles remain open.
Mr. Grijalva. And I was--Ms. Daly or Mr. Potts, I am going
to ask you about a law that relates to the previous
conversation we were having, a law that passed in the 101st
Congress that gave the National Park Service additional
authority to take legal action against those who damage park
resources.
Would you please describe the liability standard in the
National Park Resource Protection Act, which I understand you
referred to as 19jj, and talk about how that differs from the
liability standard being discussed in H.R. 2334?
Mr. Potts. The liability standard that was established on
the Park Protection Act--Park Resource Protection Act called
19jj was that any damage, any harm caused to resources of the
National Park Service are--the causer of the damage would be
held--can be held liable regardless of the cause. There are
several exceptions, and the ones we were just talking about
were an act of God and the third party causing the damage.
The way that differs from the current--the absolute
standard that the ditch company currently has with Rocky
Mountain National Park that has been in place since 1907, that
is an absolute standard.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Holtrop, I didn't get a chance to talk to
you in the last round. Let me try to come here again.
In two of these bills, both the one in California as well
as the one in Arizona, there is a great deal of discussion as
far as fire potential that is there. Do you have any figures as
to allegedly how many fires have been caused by humans in the
Arizona portion by illegal activity in that particular area?
Mr. Holtrop. In the year just concluded in Fiscal Year 2007
on the Nogales ranger district, which is one of the two ranger
districts in that area, there were 20 human-caused fires in
that area; and, of those 20, 9 of them were determined to be
caused by undocumented illegal immigrants.
Mr. Bishop. Does the Forest Service use mechanized or
motorized units to respond to those?
Mr. Holtrop. If the fire occurs in wilderness, because not
of all of those fires were in wilderness. But so, obviously, if
it is not in wilderness, then mechanized equipment is--if it is
accessible to mechanized equipment, we would. In wilderness, we
would do so only if in an emergency it was determined that that
was necessary.
We--as much as possible, we want to allow natural causes,
natural events to occur in wilderness.
Now a human-caused fire is not considered to be a natural
cause. So we are going to do what we can to put it out. But, at
the same time, if we can do so using nonmechanized means and be
effective, we would choose to do that in wilderness.
Mr. Bishop. But in the California bill that we have before
us, it authorizes the use of mechanical and mechanized
equipment for activities that are preventive. Does that run
askew of the concepts that we have had with wilderness in the
past?
Mr. Holtrop. In general, it does, in my opinion.
There is a distinction to be made between an emergency
situation in which we are treating a fire that is already
occurring and preventative measures, which is what your
question was referring. There are some exceptions in which,
again, in an emergency activity, natural activity such as an
insect and disease outbreak or something like that that
increases the fire danger in an area in which there is
particular concern, could perhaps create a situation where we
would need to take some action in wilderness in a preventative
way.
But, in general, our overriding influence in wilderness is
allowing natural processes to occur and if--and, again, so the
fact that this bill would give us the authority to carry out
treatments in advance of fire occurring, that is a unique
circumstance that we have not dealt with in the past in the
Forest Service.
Mr. Bishop. How many acres of wilderness has the Forest
Service--and BLM does this, too--has the Service or BLM
mechanically treated to thin hazardous fuels like in the past
year, maybe the past 5 years?
Mr. Holtrop. I am not aware of any in the Forest Service.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Daly, in the BLM?
Ms. Daly. I have to get that information for you, sir. I am
not aware of any at the current moment.
Mr. Bishop. Let me stick in the area, Mr. Holtrop, in the
California bill in the first place, your testimony is you
support wilderness where wilderness ought to be and this area
perhaps exceeds some of that as well. How many total acres of
proposed wilderness in the California builders and Forest
Service believe should not be designated as wilderness?
Mr. Holtrop. I don't have the exact acreage figures
memorized, but it is the additions to the Agua Tibia Wilderness
we do support and a portion of the Santa Rosa Wilderness we do
support. The others are inconsistent with our forest plan
direction which is largely generated because of concerns with
fire protection around communities.
Mr. Bishop. What types of current recreational uses take
place in proposed wilderness areas?
Mr. Holtrop. In general, or are you referring to one or the
other bills at this point?
Mr. Bishop. I am sticking with California right now.
Mr. Holtrop. Generally those, of course, would be dispersed
forms of recreation such as hiking, hunting, and some climbing,
mountain climbing.
Mr. Bishop. What about mountain biking?
Mr. Holtrop. If it is designated wilderness, mountain
biking is not allowed.
Mr. Bishop. Are some of those--are mountain biking
activities being done in some of this land right now that it
would be prohibited?
Mr. Holtrop. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. The bill also talks about transmission lines
and talks about basically grandfathering existing lines. What
does this bill do to new lines or to upgrades, which I
understand they are presently doing, upgrading of current
lines? How would this bill impact that transmission authority?
Mr. Holtrop. And--I am sorry--are you still asking about
the California bill or----
Mr. Bishop. California, yes. Grandfathers in transmission
lines. Those are existing lines. What does it do about new
lines or if you want to upgrade current existing lines?
Mr. Holtrop. I am not aware of the relationship between
this legislation and new lines or upgrading those lines. I
would have to research that for you and get back to you later.
Mr. Bishop. OK. It recommends new wild and scenic rivers,
but the suitability study has not yet been done. How long do
those suitability studies normally take?
Mr. Holtrop. Suitability studies depend on various factors,
but they can generally be done in a few years' period of time.
We have taken a position that we are not opposed to this,
despite the fact that the suitability studies have not been
done. We know they are eligible, which means they are free
flowing and have outstanding remarkable values. And given the
general support of the community and the bipartisan nature of
the support on Capitol Hill, we are not opposed to this
designation.
Mr. Bishop. I am out of time. So let me yield to the
others. I do have more questions. I told you we have a lot of
bills here in front of us.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Mark Udall.
Mr. Mark Udall. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions
at this time.
Mr. Grijalva. If I may, Mr. Holtrop, just a quick follow-up
on fire causes.
Mr. Holtrop. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. The Nogales ranger sectors is not just the
proposed designation wilderness?
Mr. Holtrop. That is correct.
Mr. Grijalva. The figure you gave me is for the whole
sector.
Mr. Holtrop. It is for the entire ranger district. That is
correct.
Mr. Grijalva. And in the proposed wilderness area, the
highlands, of that figure of 22, how many in there?
Mr. Holtrop. I don't believe there were any.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
And I think there was a 2005 environmental impact statement
on the management plans for four southern California national
forests. The agency stated, the notion that wilderness
designation makes fire suppression more difficult and
restrictive is not based on fact.
Director Daly, your reaction to that statement, that it
does?
Ms. Daly. That was the Forest Service study, sir?
Mr. Grijalva. Environmental impact study.
Ms. Daly. I think you want--I would feel inadequate to
comment on the Forest Service study.
Mr. Holtrop. So your question is how do I react to?
Mr. Grijalva. How do you react to that designation of a
wilderness area would make fire suppression more difficult and
restrictive, the conclusion is that that claim is not based on
fact. Your reaction to that?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, I believe that, again, wilderness
designation--we take wilderness designation seriously; and, as
much as possible, we are going to allow natural forces to play
out in wilderness. We would take a look at--in an emergency
situation, we are allowed to make exceptions to that. There are
processes that we and I believe the Department of the Interior
and agencies are also very good at being able to accomplish
those processes in a very short period of time, as Ms. Daly's
answer to the one question referred to being able to get
approval to use a bulldozer in wilderness to fight fire. That
is--those types of situations occur on national forest system
lands when necessary as well, and there are some process steps
that need to be gone through.
But, again, we would choose to only do that as a matter of
last resort.
Mr. Grijalva. I am just trying to reconcile that. You know,
this committee has gone on record twice as expressly approving
the use of mechanized equipment, the building of fire roads,
fire towers, firebreaks, or any fire pre-suppression facilities
where necessary and other techniques for fire control. And, you
know, according to House Report 95540, anything necessary--and
I quote--for the protection of public health and safety is
clearly permissible.
I am reconciling that that latitude exists. If I am wrong
in that assumption, I need to be corrected.
Mr. Holtrop.
Mr. Holtrop. I am not in any way, shape, or form wanting to
correct you on that. I am only meaning--in fact, you are
correct that that latitude exists.
What I am trying to point out is that we also are going to
weigh the wilderness values that are at stake as well and when
we make those decisions.
Mr. Grijalva. And in your professional capacity in the
stewards, you should. But what I am reconciling is that the
latitude exists and if an agency chooses to use it, given the
circumstance that there was no other restrictive clause in the
wilderness designation that would prevent you from doing that.
That is the only point I am reconciling.
Mr. Bishop, any additional questions?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, I do. I apologize. We have a lot of bills
here. We haven't even touched Oregon yet.
Let me go back to Arizona. You have presently in the area
that is designated for wilderness have five endangered species,
four threatened species, that you are managing in that area.
Does your management plan change under wilderness designation?
Mr. Holtrop. Generally, no, not for the management of
threatened and endangered species unless, again, there is some
aspect of that management that requires mechanized equipment
use. I am not aware of that for any of those species.
Mr. Bishop. Same thing also happens when you have at least
eight active rate allotments in assessment range improvements
within a proposed area that requires occasional maintenance,
including tanks, water wells, water catch gates, fences.
When I created the wilderness in Utah, one of our efforts
was to try to exclude those areas so that they could be
maintained. What happens if this becomes designated to those
wilderness elements?
Mr. Holtrop. If those elements are within the designated
wilderness, the access to them then has to be by a
nonmechanized means.
Mr. Bishop. In some cases, that may work. In many cases, it
wouldn't.
We talked very briefly about the memo understanding you
have with border enforcement. What happens--is there any way of
changing that memo understanding once this has been changed
into wilderness areas? Is there any way of making a new or
amended one? What happens to that memo of understanding?
Mr. Holtrop. The memo of understanding would continue to
exist, because it already refers to existing wilderness that
the Pajarita Wilderness--the existing portion of the Pajarita
Wilderness is adjacent to the Mexico border, so it has
already--the MOU already deals with management activities for
the border patrol within wilderness. The MOU would then also
apply to any new wilderness that would be designated.
Mr. Bishop. What about if you wanted to amend that MOU?
Mr. Holtrop. It is a three-party MOU between the
Departments of the Interior, Agriculture and Department of
Homeland Security.
Mr. Bishop. So would a new wilderness designation make it
change in that MOU or make it more difficult at any time?
Mr. Holtrop. It would not require a change in the MOU. It
may--what--and I can't speak for the Department of Homeland
Security or the Border Patrol on this, but my understanding is
there are some concerns over the additional difficulties of
carrying out their operations within designated wilderness. But
our concern--the Forest Service concern is our ability to carry
out our resource management activities.
Mr. Bishop. So it wouldn't have an impact on you. It may on
some other sites.
Mr. Holtrop. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. You had some objections to the cherry stems in
this one. Would you just kind of tell me what you meant by
that?
Mr. Holtrop. The----
Mr. Bishop. Extensive use of cherry stems to exclude
designated roads, travel ways was the language in your
testimony.
Mr. Holtrop. There are several roads that are inside the
area of the Tumacacori Highlands proposed wilderness, and the
way the legislation is written is those roads are excluded by
drawing what we call cherry stems of nonwilderness around those
roads that allow those to continue.
Our concern with the cherry stem roads is that--are a
couple. One is, in some cases, those roads do not have public
access and only have access for the permittees who have
improvements at the end range--permittees at the end of some of
those roads.
In some cases, those roads would provide means for people
to leave the road and use mechanized equipment in the
designated wilderness, and it would be difficult for us to
manage that; and it has the additional detrimental effect of
reducing the solitude that is one of the characteristics that
we like to--we designate and manage wilderness for.
So our suggestion is to find ways to adjust the boundary of
the wilderness so that the roads are excluded in a more
substantial way than just through the cherry stemming.
Mr. Bishop. Let me run up to Oregon with you.
You said you had support of the bill with important
adjustments. Approximately how many acres would you recommend
be removed from this Copper Salmon Wilderness bill?
Mr. Holtrop. I don't have an acreage figure. What our
suggestion is for the Copper Salmon Wilderness is some of the
boundaries are defined as roads that currently are adjacent to
the boundary. We are suggesting that an offset from that road
inside into what would be otherwise designated as wilderness be
nonwilderness for various reasons. And depending on the width
of that offset, the acreage figure would change. Whether it is
a couple hundred feet, whether it is several hundred feet, it
would change the acreage figure.
The reason we would ask for that--I think one very
important reason is the ability for us to maintain the roads.
This is steep mountain country with lots of hydrologic
situations that we may have to replace ditches, we may have to
replace culverts and have to move the roads inside in a manner
that would be the most conducive to doing so in protecting the
water resources. And if it is designated wilderness immediately
adjacent to the road, we are not able to move the road inside
of the wilderness, of course. So by having some offset is what
we are looking for.
Mr. Bishop. If you have 11 miles of road, I am assuming
interior roads as well here, 92 culverts in these areas, are
they going to have to be removed in a wilderness designation?
Mr. Holtrop. If it were designated wilderness, we would
have to take a look at those on a case-by-case basis. Some of
those roads----
Mr. Bishop. Could you remove the culvert with a mechanized
means?
Mr. Holtrop. What we would choose to do is do a minimum
tool analysis. If a culvert needed to be moved, and some of
them would certainly need to be removed, we would do a minimum
tool analysis; and if that minimum tool analysis told us we
needed to use a mechanized means to accomplish that, that is
what we would choose to do.
Mr. Bishop. You have 20 percent of this land that is being
proposed up in Oregon that has already been harvested which
doesn't necessarily meet the 1964 definition of the law. You
also have communication towers all over the place. It doesn't
meet the definition of the law. Most of this is what is called
late successional reserves. For what purpose do you have--do
you propose having land that is a late successional reserve?
Mr. Holtrop. The purpose of the late successional reserves
in the Northwest Forest Plan is to provide habitat for species
that are dependent upon late successional forest types, such as
the spotted owl.
Mr. Bishop. If you have densely planted acreage where you
have very thin, tall trees, does that adapt itself easily to
habitat for these species, or do you need to have bigger trees
with more areas so they can actually have leaves to live in or
branches and crap to live in?
Mr. Holtrop. Generally, in those areas, thinning of those
types of stands would allow those stands to grow up into a
larger late successional reserve type of situation that would
meet the objectives more quickly than others.
However, large--late successional reserves, there is large
acreages associated with those; and treating all of the acres
is not going to be something that would happen. But that very
question that you are asking is another one of the reasons of
some offset from the road would be beneficial to us.
Mr. Bishop. One last one.
We talked about the interior roads within Oregon that would
have to be removed. In the Arizona proposal, there are also
interior roads within the wilderness that are being presently
used by border patrols. Would they have to be removed as well?
Mr. Holtrop. I think there are probably three sets of
circumstances that might occur in that. One is, if it has been
excluded from the wilderness through the cherry stemming, they
would not need to be removed. If they are roads that exist in
the wilderness, we would close them for public use and we would
make a decision through the MOU process with the border patrol
as to whether they were needed for their purposes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, and I will quit my questioning of
this panel, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for going over time, but
I have got--when you give me five bills of these kinds of
magnitude, it is hard to try to get them all in, in a short
period of time.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Holtrop, before I thank you and Director Daly and Mr.
Potts for being here today and providing information, in the
Tumacacori, the point of those cherry stems is to provide
access for ranchers and border patrol. And those roads for
ranchers and border patrol are nonsystem roads, and they
shouldn't be open to the public, but they should be accessible
and used consistent with the MOU and consistent with the
permittees that have the gracing permits on that land.
But, with that, let me thank you and appreciate your----
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman, if I could correct a
misstatement that I made earlier--and I apologize for this. I
have been informed that there were two human-caused fires in
the proposed Tumacacori Highlands in 2007, rather than the zero
that I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Grijalva. And a lot better than the 22.
Let me call up the next panel. Thank you very much.
Let me welcome our next panel and in particular welcome Ms.
Carol Cullen from the district, District 7 of southern Arizona;
Mr. Max Skroch, also from the district; and Mr. Mark South from
Rio Rico, also from the district.
Welcome. I know it is a long way to come, but we appreciate
it.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me begin with Ms. Cullen, Executive
Director, Tubac, Arizona, Chamber of Commerce. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF CAROL CULLEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
TUBAC, ARIZONA, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Ms. Cullen. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good
afternoon; and thank you for the opportunity to be heard today
on this important matter before you.
My name is Carol Cullen, and I am a resident of Tubac,
Arizona. My family has been in Arizona for five generations. In
fact, at the turn of the last century, my grandfather, Jack
McVey, homesteaded Las Jarillas Ranch in southern Arizona, just
south of Arivaca and just west of the Tumacacori Highlands.
Today, I have the privilege of speaking to you as the
Executive Director of the Tubac Chamber of Commerce. I am happy
to be here today to tell you a little bit about the wonderful
town of Tubac and to ask you to support H.R. 3287, the
Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act of 2007.
Tubac is a small town in southern Arizona. Its location is
about an hour's drive south of Tucson. We are the closest
community to the Tumacacori Highlands.
Looking back historically, Tubac began in 1752. Over the
next two centuries, Tubac waxed and waned, a victim of frontier
hardships, mining's boom and bust economies and other factors.
Today, Tubac is a thriving village. Over 100 businesses
line our streets, almost every one locally owned and operated.
Tubac has become a center of art and history. Tubac has
developed into a thriving, successful 21st century western town
because we are blessed with a beautiful and healthy natural
landscape.
Many of us are fortunate to see the Tumacacori Highlands
from our kitchen window or front porch every single day. When
we can get away from the obligations of running our businesses,
we enjoy a walk or a hike in the Tumacacori Highlands or
showing off the area to visiting friends and family on a drive
down the historic rustic Ruby Road.
Having an enduring resource of beautiful landscapes nearby
is very valuable to us. In fact, it puts the ``quality'' in our
quality of life. And it is good for business.
Most everyone understand that tourists spend money in the
local communities they visit, but there is more to this story.
Economic studies have highlighted the connection between
protected wild land and the economic prosperity of rural
communities in the West. A 2005 study demonstrated that wild
public lands, such as the Tumacacori Highlands, draw people who
want to live and work in rural areas. This, in turn, leads to
vibrant economies, higher-paying jobs and better quality of
life for everyone. In Tubac, we know firsthand the truth of
these studies.
The Tubac Chamber of Commerce is engaged in all activities
relating to the perpetuation, preservation and promotion of
Tubac. That is our mission. In 2005, the Tubac Chamber of
Commerce unanimously adopted a resolution of support for
Federal legislation to protect the Tumacacori Highlands as
wilderness. Mr. Chairman, I have that resolution of support
from the Tubac Chamber of Commerce; and, with your permission,
I would like to have it entered into the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection. Thank you.
[NOTE: The resolution submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Ms. Cullen. When the Chamber was considering the wilderness
proposal, we saw that a large majority of our member businesses
had already expressed their support as individual business
owners. As the elected leaders in the business community, that
spoke to us.
We recognized the connection between desirable and
sustainable economic development and a high-quality natural
environment. We see environmental conservation as an economic
and business concern for Tubac. Protected healthy landscapes,
wilderness areas are a competitive advantage for rural towns
like Tubac; and protect we must.
Southern Arizona is growing rapidly. We are having growing
pains. Where we still have intact and healthy landscapes like
the Tumacacori Highlands, we must take action to give them the
additional protections that wilderness designation provides.
On behalf of the Tubac Chamber of Commerce and as an
Arizonian, I ask that you help us with this effort. I ask that
you pass H.R. 3287 and designate the Tumacacori Highlands as
wilderness. It is good for the land. It is good for business.
It is good for Arizona.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cullen follows:]
Statement of Carol Cullen, Executive Director,
Tubac Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: good afternoon, and thank
you for the opportunity to be heard today on this important matter
before you.
My name is Carol Cullen, and I am a resident of Tubac, Arizona. My
family has been in Arizona for 5 generations. In fact, at the turn of
the last century, my grandfather, Jack McVey, homesteaded Las Jarillas
Ranch in Southern Arizona--just south of Arivaca and just west of the
Tumacacori Highlands.
Today, I have the privilege of speaking to you as the Executive
Director of the Tubac Chamber of Commerce. I am happy to be here today
to tell you a little about the wonderful town of Tubac, and to ask you
to support HR3287, the Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Bill of 2007.
Tubac is a small town in southern Arizona, about an hour south of
Tucson, in Santa Cruz County, named for the Santa Cruz River. Tubac
began as a Spanish presidio, or fort, in the wilderness, in 1752, when
its population was 41 souls. By 1848, Tubac had grown to 250 people as
a frontier and mining town. By 1859, shortly after becoming part of the
United States of America with the Gadsden Purchase of 1853, Tubac was
home to 800 people--one-sixth the population of Arizona. When soldiers
were withdrawn from the Fort to fight in the Civil War, raids by
Apaches dramatically decreased the population of Tubac and Santa Cruz
County. In 1871, the publication ``Arizona Miner'' reported the
population of Tubac to be 1. In 1908, there are reports that Tubac was
deserted--victim of frontier hardships, the bust cycle of mining's
boom-and-bust economy, and the movement of people to the city of
Tucson.
I'm telling you this history because today Tubac is a thriving
village of over 1500 souls. Over 100 businesses line our meandering
streets--almost every one locally-owned and operated. An Artists'
School opened in 1948, and since that time Tubac has become a center of
art and history. In fact, part of the original town site has been
placed in the National Register of Historic Places. The first Tubac
Festival of the Arts was held in 1959--it continues to be a large
annual celebration today. The Tubac Presidio State Historic Park was
established in the same year, 1959, and the Museum in 1964. Our Tubac
Center for the Arts opened in 1972. Today we host new residents and
visitors from around Arizona and other states for festivals, getaways,
and cultural, historical and artistic events year-round.
Tubac has developed into a thriving, successful 21st century
western town. This is due in large part because we are blessed with a
beautiful and healthy natural landscape. We have jewels of the Coronado
National Forest on both sides: the Mount Wrightson Wilderness to the
east, and the proposed Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness to the west.
Indeed, many residents of Tubac are fortunate to see both of these
magnificent wilderness mountain ranges from their kitchen window or
front porch every single day.
It's why many of us came to Tubac in the first place and remain
there today. We enjoy; we appreciate; we need the rural character of
Tubac and Santa Cruz County in our daily lives. When we can get away
from the obligations of running our businesses, many of us enjoy a walk
or a hike in the Tumacacori Highlands, or showing off the area to
visiting friends and family on a drive down the historic and rustic
Ruby Road.
Having the enduring resource of beautiful landscapes nearby is very
valuable to us. It provides places for family outings. It affords
opportunities for spiritual reflection and renewal. It puts ``quality''
in quality-of-life.
And it's good for business. Protected healthy landscapes--
Wilderness areas--are a competitive advantage for small towns like
Tubac, and our neighbors in Rio Rico, Arivaca, Green Valley, Nogales,
Sahuarita, and Tucson. The West is changing--today's model of economic
prosperity is based on attracting and retaining educated,
entrepreneurial people who create value and wealth through
nondestructive enterprises. Examples of this include software
engineering, financial services, artist galleries and workshops,
cultural and historic tourism, providing hospitality for tourists
coming to enjoy wild Arizona--to hike, to camp, to hunt, to take
photographs, to look for birds.
``To look for birds.'' It may sound silly to some, but it is one of
the fastest-growing hobbies in America. In fact, wildlife watching
provides a significant and sustainable source of revenue for local
communities. The Arizona Game and Fish Department reports that in 2001
the total economic effect from watchable wildlife activities in Arizona
was $1.5 billion.[1] A University of Arizona study found that in Santa
Cruz County alone, visitors to natural areas spent between $10 million
and $16 million in one year just on associated travel and
accommodations in the area.
Most everyone understands that tourists spend money in the local
communities they visit, whether it is in a restaurant, a hotel or bed-
and-breakfast, a sporting goods store, or an art gallery. But there is
more to the story.
Recent economic research studies have highlighted the connection
between protected open space and wildlands and the economic prosperity
of rural communities in the West.
Economic research has uncovered a ``new paradigm for economic
development in the West: protection of the wild and scenic character of
the landscape and the quality of life in local communities serves as a
magnet to attract and retain local people and their businesses.''[2]
Indeed, through the 1990s, research shows that areas in the West
with high levels of natural amenities correlate with rising income
levels.[2] There have been more than a dozen studies quantifying the
economic value of wilderness recreation and the other economic benefits
that wilderness provides society.[3]
Many of these studies reach similar conclusions: that economic
development models that ignore the role of environmental amenities,
ties to the land, sense of place, commitment to a landscape and culture
may well misdirect public policy in ineffective ways. [4]. That ``an
informed rural economic development strategy should have as one
important element the protection of the natural environment.''[2] That
``keeping a high-quality wild environment is a development
strategy.''[3]
The Tucson-based Sonoran Institute published a 2005 study
demonstrating that protected, wild public lands--environmental
amenities--such as the Tumacacori Highlands draw people who want to
live and work in rural areas, which leads to vibrant economies, higher
paying jobs, and better quality of life for everyone.
What economists call ``environmental amenities'', in Tubac we call
``the land,'' or ``the mountains,'' or ``the Tumacacori Highlands,'' or
``wilderness.''
In Tubac, we know first-hand the truth of these studies. We're the
people these studies are talking about. We've moved to or remained in
Tubac because of the surrounding environment and rural character of the
area. And we brought with us or created through entrepreneurial effort
the means to thrive and contribute to our community.
The Tubac Chamber of Commerce is a non-profit business league
engaged in all activities relating to the perpetuation, preservation,
and promotion of Tubac, and its businesses; with particular attention
given to the economic, civic, commercial, artistic, cultural, and
historical interests of the area. It is our responsibility to advocate
for public policies that will benefit the Village of Tubac, Santa Cruz
County, and Southern Arizona.
The Tubac Chamber of Commerce endorses the wilderness proposal
because protecting our open space and wild places like the Tumacacori
Highlands contributes directly to a high quality-of-life and is a key
component in drawing local business patrons and tourists' dollars to
the area. Many of the residents of Tubac are also business owners and
Chamber members. We live in Tubac because it's naturally beautiful and
our businesses are dependent on the tourism drawn by this beauty; we
want to preserve that beauty and the natural rural character of the
area.
In 2005, the Tubac Chamber of Commerce unanimously adopted a
Resolution of Support for Federal Legislation to Protect the Tumacacori
Highlands as Wilderness. When the Chamber was considering the
wilderness proposal, we saw that a large majority of our Member
businesses had already expressed their support as individual business
owners. As the elected leaders in the business community, that spoke to
us.
The Tubac Chamber of Commerce and its member businesses understand
the values that protected open space and a healthy natural environment
provide to residents, visitors, and businesses alike. We recognize the
connection between desirable and sustainable economic development and a
high-quality natural environment. We see environmental conservation--
protecting the special rural character of the valley and surrounding
areas--as an economic and business concern for Tubac.
And protect it we must. I would like to make this clear. Arizona is
growing rapidly; Southern Arizona and the Santa Cruz River Valley are
growing rapidly. In fact, we have the dubious honor of being neck-and-
neck with Phoenix and Las Vegas as the fastest-growing, fastest-
urbanizing part of the country. We're experiencing growing pains. The
rapidly increasing urbanization pressures threaten the natural wild
character and environment that makes the area special. Even on federal
land, the actions of irresponsible or uninformed recreational users
threaten the integrity of the land. Where we still have intact and
healthy landscapes like the Tumacacori Highlands, we must take action
to give them the additional protections that Wilderness designation
provides.
On behalf of the Tubac Chamber of Commerce, and as an Arizonan
myself, I ask that you help us with this effort. I ask that you pass
H.R. 3287 and designate the Tumacacori Highlands as Wilderness. It's
good for the land; it's good for business; it's good for Arizona.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
References:
1. ``Economic Impact Analysis of Nonconsumptive Wildlife-Related
Recreation in Arizona.'' Conducted for the Arizona Game and Fish
Department by Southwick Associates, May 2003.
2. Rasker, R. and Hansen, A. 2000. Natural Amenities and
Population Growth in the Greater Yellowstone Region. Human Ecology
Review, Vol. 7, No. 2.
3. Loomis, John B. Economic Values of Wilderness Recreation and
Passive Use: What We Think We Know at the Beginning of the 21st
Century. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. 2000.
4. Rudzitis, Gundars. 2000. The Impact of Wilderness and Other
Wildlands on Local Economies and regional Development Trends. USDA
Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. 2000.
______
Mr. Grijalva. I will introduce Mr. Matt Skroch, Executive
Director, Sky Island Alliance.
Mr. Skroch, your testimony, please.
STATEMENT OF MATT SKROCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SKY ISLAND ALLIANCE
Mr. Skroch. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good
afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
today regarding H.R. 3287, the Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness
Act of 2007.
My name is Matt Skroch. I am the Executive Director of the
Sky Island Alliance. We are a regionally based organization in
southeastern Arizona that works with volunteers, government
agencies, land counselors and the general public in our mission
to protect and restore the magnificent natural heritage of the
region in which we live.
The Tumacacori Highlands incorporate three mountain
complexes northwest in Nogales, Arizona. Home to the only
resident jaguars known in the United States, they are comprised
of deep and well-watered canyons, soaring lichen-drenched
cliffs and rolling hills of subtropical oak savannahs. The
mountains are largely influenced by subtropical regions to the
south, hence hosting many additional species of wildlife found
nowhere else in the Nation.
The Tumacacori Highlands host the largest unprotected
roadless area in Arizona's national forest lands. Together with
the expansion of the small existing Pajarita Wilderness south
of Ruby Road, this designation will ensure that it hits the
fast-paced population growth in our region. The Tumacacori
Highlands will remain in their wild state for generations to
come.
The wilderness idea was born 5 years ago by concerned local
residents alarmed at the conversion of lands to development and
the ever-growing presence of off-road vehicles.
Congressman Grijalva listened to these concerns and
responded affirmatively to the concept that we made it clear
that it was a process that needed to be followed. That process
involved public outreach in stakeholder collaboration. Lots of
it, I might add.
Over the last 4 years, we have presented the proposal to
hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals. With
transparency and fair-mindedness, the proposal changed and
changed again, based on feedback.
It has been a pragmatic approach to land management that
recognizes that, in a time of great change, some things should
remain the same. Chairman Grijalva and members of the
committee, that is exactly what this initiative strives to do
for a small segment of lands on the forest.
Access was a major issue. You will find that, after
designation, the Tumacacori Highlands will be one of the most
accessible wilderness areas in Arizona, hosting more than 100
miles of motorized access points from all directions. This
access-friendly priority is balanced with the protection of the
roadless acreage and the core wild lands of the area, providing
measured opportunities for motorized and nonmotorized uses
alike.
The continuance of cattle raising is also an important
issue. We have worked collaboratively with the largest
permittee in the area and found agreement in how we believe
grazing and maintenance of facilities should be managed under
the congressional grazing guidelines.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to add that agreement
into the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
Mr. Skroch. Thank you.
[NOTE: The agreement submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Skroch. The border is the third key issue.
From the outset, proponents of this issue made it clear
that wilderness should not interfere with law enforcement along
the border. For those of us who live near the international
line, border and immigration enforcement are facts of life,
just as is our vigilance in working to solve the complex issues
they raise.
In wilderness areas, agencies have clarity on how to
achieve operational success. We respect the policies the
Department of Homeland Security has put into place
collaboratively with land management agencies along the border.
The 2006 agreement between the Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of
Agriculture, provides a detailed framework for border
operations within wilderness areas.
In closing, I am proud to say that H.R. 3287 enjoys a wide
base of support in southern Arizona. Governor Napolitano, along
with local and statewide editorial board support, from the
Arizona Republic, the Tucson Citizen, the Nogales
International, the Green Valley News support the Tumacacori
Highlands Wilderness, though more impressive is the bill's
grassroots' support from businesses to back-country hunters,
scientists to homeowners' associations. This bill tells a story
that reveals just how popular wilderness is in southern
Arizona. It also speaks volumes as to why the Tumacacori
Highlands deserve to be Arizona's next wilderness area.
On behalf of the Sky Island Alliance and all of the
supporters behind this initiative, I ask for your support of
H.R. 3287. Thank you for the opportunity to present this
testimony.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Skroch follows:]
Statement of Matt Skroch, Executive Director,
Sky Island Alliance, on H.R. 3287
Chairman Grijalva, Members of the Committee and staff, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Matt Skroch. I am the
Executive Director of the Sky Island Alliance, a regionally-based non-
profit organization dedicated to the conservation and restoration of
the unique natural heritage of the Sky Island region of southwest North
America. We are a membership-based organization, representing more than
1,200 residents of southeastern Arizona, southwest New Mexico, or
throughout the country.
On behalf of Sky Island Alliance, I would like to thank Congressman
Grijalva and his staff for the hard work that has gone into this
legislation. Their process has been fair, and they have worked hard to
listen to the concerns and recommendations from all interested parties.
H.R. 3287 is a wilderness bill built upon nine years of local
citizen efforts. It addresses the management of certain lands of the
Coronado National Forest in Santa Cruz County, Arizona. This
legislation represents a significant and worthy addition to the
National Wilderness Preservation System and we ask for your support in
passing this important measure.
Allow me to begin with a history of the initiative that is before
you today. Five years ago, a small group of landowners and concerned
citizens met in the living room of Bill and Ellie Kurtz, good folks who
have lived in the northern shadow of the Tumacacori Mountains for over
thirty years. Bill, who worked as an exploration geologist, came to
southern Arizona in 1952 and Ellie followed four years later. Most of
the other folks at the meeting had also spent a considerable number of
years living in and around the Tumacacori Highlands, collecting stories
and memories from a time previous to Arizona's explosive growth. I had
the pleasure of attending that meeting. Mostly, I listened to their
stories. I heard about the mountain lion that harassed their horses,
the big floods of 1983, and the various ranches that, over time, have
been sold for development.
My role at that meeting was to present the previous four years of
work that Sky Island Alliance and other collaborating organizations had
accomplished in the Tumacacori Highlands. Through extensive field
assessments, volunteer weekends, aerial flyovers, historical research,
and biological studies, we had prepared a draft analysis of the
Tumacacori Ecological Management Area, a 300,000+ acre unit of the
Coronado National Forest northwest of Nogales, Arizona. Included within
this unit of federal land were several roadless areas, one of which
stood as the largest unprotected roadless area on National Forest lands
in Arizona. The question arose among the residents--how can we ensure
that these lands remain untrammeled in perpetuity, free from the
development we see around us and kept in a state of naturalness
becoming more rare with each passing year? The idea of designating a
portion of the Tumacacori Highlands as Wilderness was born.
Wilderness here was not a new idea. In 1978, the Coronado National
Forest identified Tumacacori unit 03-114 as ``a very large and very
wild mountain range...known intimately by very few people and held to
be the best hunting grounds in this part of the state.'' During the
RARE II process that ensued, the Forest Service received 430 letters
regarding the potential for Wilderness designation there. 399 of those
letters--all personal correspondence excluding form letters--supported
Wilderness. The sufficient acreage, outstanding views, rare biological
characteristics, and overwhelming public support warranted the Forest
Service recommendation in support of Wilderness, and throughout most of
the review they did. Unfortunately at the last step in the RARE II
analysis, the area was classified as ``Further Planning'' by the
Regional Forester, who simply stated ``Little interest. Volume of
public comment was low. Interest was evenly divided but local response
favored non-wilderness.'' Explanation for the disconnect was never
given, nor was there documentation for why the Tumacacori unit was
listed as a Non-Wilderness recommendation in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement. The Tumacacori Highlands were left behind, but not
forgotten.
Characteristics of the Tumacacori Highlands
Twenty years later in 1998, five years previous to the
aforementioned meeting, Sky Island Alliance began a science-based
review of the Coronado National Forest. Over the next five years, more
than 1200 volunteers would donate their time photographing roads,
helping scientists conduct biological surveys, and identifying
important wildlife linkages between the isolated ``Sky Island''
mountain ranges that speckled the southeastern Arizona landscape.
Home to more threatened and endangered species than any other
Forest in the nation, the Coronado bridges the temperate Rocky
Mountains to the tropical Sierra Madre, pulling from both
biogeographies to create a continental meeting point unparalleled in
biodiversity. The review we conducted along with former studies
confirmed that among all of the splendid places in our nation, more
mammal, reptile, bird, ant, and bee species occur in southeastern
Arizona. We also discovered that of the eighteen mountain ranges in
southeastern Arizona, the Tumacacori Highlands stood out as an
unusually rich region.
Formed by the convergence of three mountains, the Tumacacori
Highlands encompass, from north to south, the Pajarito, Atascosa, and
Tumacacori ranges. Characterized by deep and well-watered canyons,
soaring lichen-drenched cliffs, and rolling hills of sub-tropical oak
savannahs to the west, the Highlands represent an ecological niche
extremely rare in the current National Wilderness Preservation System.
Perhaps its rarest and most heralded quality is that only here
scientists have confirmed resident jaguars living in the United States.
With dozens of photographs of the cats spanning six years, the jaguar
continues to roam the Highlands today. Needing large, unfragmented land
left in its natural state, the jaguar is testament to the current
conditions that make the Tumacacori Highlands an appropriate home for
this magnificent cat. Other species of wildlife reinforce the quality
of the land. The most intact breeding population of Chiricahua leopard
frog, rare populations of Mexican vine snakes, and consistent sightings
of gray hawks, five-stripped sparrows, elegant trogons, and Mexican
opossum are just a few additional animals that reach their northern
limit in the Tumacacori Highlands.
The Tumacacori Highlands are more than good wildlife habitat. The
mountains are cherished by the people of southern Arizona as well.
Since 1933 when the fire lookout was constructed atop Atascosa Lookout,
generations of families have enjoyed the moderate trek to one of
southern Arizona's top rated scenic vistas. Walking about the wooden
planks that surround the now-restored cabin, visitors enjoy 360 degree
views of valleys and mountains in every direction. Looking down onto
Bear Valley and the jagged tooth of Baboquivari Peak to the west, the
expanse is of unbroken wildlands as far as the eye can see. For the
more adventurous, the perennial waters in Peck Canyon or the towering
cliffs in Pine and Beehive Canyons provide a level of solitude rarely
found on the Coronado National Forest. Hunting is popular here. As one
of the best white-tailed deer units in the state, sportsmen and women
flock to the area in the fall hoping to find a place for their tag.
Photographers, horse enthusiasts, botanists, and bird-watchers come to
the Highlands for its wild country, beautiful views, and unlimited
opportunities for exploration. The impetus for the initiative before
you is designed precisely to ensure that these values remain long into
the future.
Growth
I suspect that most of the members of this committee have had
occasion to visit Arizona. Still shaped by its majestic public lands,
Arizona is defined more by its explosive population growth today. It is
the fastest growing state in the nation, and any visitor who travels to
Phoenix or Tucson will readily understand the phenomena taking place.
Since the millennium, our population has increased by more than 20%.
This rate is more than 300% of the national average. Regardless of the
increased tax base, our cities, towns, and counties struggle to keep
infrastructure and services on par with the breakneck growth.
Our parks, forests, and other public lands have struggled as well.
Visitor numbers have sky rocketed as land managers scramble to protect
resources and balance recreation demands. Since 1998, the number of
off-road vehicles in Arizona has increased 347% to more than a quarter
million machines. At the same time, public demands for high quality
recreational opportunities have increased as well. While thousands of
miles of authorized or unauthorized routes and trails have appeared on
public lands in the last decade, Wilderness acreage has not increased
since the 1990 Arizona Desert Wilderness Act. On Forest Service lands,
Arizona hasn't added a Wilderness Area since 1984 when our state's
population was less than half of what it is today.
Arizona's growth is not confined to urban centers. Rural Santa Cruz
County's population growth follows the same trajectory. Today, there
are plans to add more than 15,000 homes in the northern portion of the
county. This growth provides new jobs, and more often than not our new
residents refer to the beautiful desert and mountains as important
aspects of their quality of life. The Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness
Act is a part of ensuring that our quality of life and access to
premier wilderness lands keeps in step with the new demands placed upon
our landscapes.
In 1964, the United States Congress had the foresight to plan for
the unintended consequences of growth. At that time, bi-partisan
legislation creating the Wilderness Act proclaimed that
``In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied
by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not
occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its
possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and
protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to
be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people
of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring
resource of wilderness.''
After 43 years, these words are very relevant to how the Tumacacori
Highlands Wilderness fit into a larger effort to appropriately manage
and respond to our population growth.
Process and Stakeholder Input
In that living room meeting five years ago, the small group of
folks left for home with an understanding that Wilderness was an
appropriate option for a portion of the Tumacacori Highlands. We
affirmed that in moving forward with the idea, we must make every
effort to lay forth an open, fair, and transparent public process. We
vowed to seek the widest spectrum of input possible, and to be open to
change as the initiative took shape. Hence, a five-year grassroots
outreach effort ensued.
The need for public dialogue and stakeholder outreach was strongly
reinforced when proponents presented the initiative to Congressman
Grijalva in 2003. In his January 2004 remarks below Tumacacori Peak,
the Congressman made it clear that a long path lay ahead, and that he
expected a thorough vetting of the issues often associated with
Wilderness. I speak with confidence in saying that over the last four
years the Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act has been worked and
reworked to ensure an appropriate balance of land protection and land
use.
Beyond the land itself, what defines the Tumacacori Highlands
Wilderness Act is its overwhelming grassroots support. After hundreds
of presentations and stakeholder meetings, we reflect upon the fact
that support for this bill is larger than anyone initially expected. As
local volunteers walked the streets of Tubac, the nearest town nestled
in the Santa Cruz Valley east of the Highlands, they spoke with
hundreds of business owners and residents about Wilderness and the
Tumacacori Highlands. Recently former real estate executive and thirty-
year resident of Tubac, Birdie Stabel, remarked that as she visited
local shops she ``was amazed at how much support there really was'' for
Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness. As evidenced by the presence of Tubac
Chamber of Commerce director Carol Cullen here today, the Tumacacori
Highlands Wilderness bill reflects a new relationship between business
and wilderness. Her organization, along with hundreds of individual
businesses throughout the Santa Cruz River Valley who support this
bill, speak to the new dynamics emerging in the West. That is, healthy
landscapes and protected areas equal healthy communities and
sustainable economies.
From a hunter's perspective, the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
organization, along with other supporters, will tell you that
Wilderness in the Tumacacori Highlands means good game habitat.
Especially with the increase in off-road vehicles, sportsmen and women
are increasingly demanding prime hunting grounds on their public lands.
In this context, access was also raised as an important issue. We often
heard from the public and various agencies that the wilderness
boundaries must be accessible by vehicle. We agree. After designation,
the Tumacacori Highlands will be one of the most accessible Wilderness
Areas in Arizona, currently enjoying more than 100 miles of Forest
roads providing direct access, including a number of cherrystems that
allow visitors to drive further into the interior of the wildland
complex. We also support current efforts by the Arizona Game and Fish
Department and Forest Service to acquire public easements outside the
Forest boundary.
As for wildlife management, proponents have met with the Arizona
Game and Fish Department numerous times to discuss their access and
management needs. Based on feedback from agency staff, we applaud the
Congressman for making changes to the bill that include cherrystemmed
access to Frog Tank, larger buffer areas around Arivaca and Pena Blanca
Lake, and legislative language that refers to agency agreements such as
the 2006 Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' Policies and
Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and
Bureau of Land Management Wilderness.
Ranching is a historic use in the Tumacacori Highlands.
Unfortunately, at least three of the six current ranches that manage
grazing allotments with the proposed area have recently been sold for
housing developments or are currently on the market. Regardless, we
appreciate the attention that Congressman Grijalva has given to this
traditionally difficult interface. H.R. 3287 makes it clear that
grazing shall continue in accordance with law, including the
maintenance of existing facilities, by citing the long-standing
Congressional Grazing Guidelines. We also thank the Congressman for
supporting the agreement that proponents have reached with certain
cattle operations in the area.
The Tumacacori Highlands are near the international border with
Mexico, and currently the Border Patrol maintains one of their few
remaining horse patrol units in the area because of its rough
topography and inaccessibility by vehicle. From the beginning,
proponents of the Wilderness bill made it clear that we had no
intention of impeding Border Patrol's ability to do their job. We also
recognized that the Wilderness legislation should acknowledge this fact
and provide clarity on the issue. Section 4(i) of the bill addresses
border operations. More importantly, it refers to policies that have
been worked out to ensure compatibility between the land management and
border enforcement agencies. Specifically, I'd like to acknowledge the
2006 Inter-Agency Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Cooperative
National Security and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal Lands along
the United States' Borders. This document was ratified by the
Secretaries of Homeland Security, Agriculture, and Interior, providing
a solid basis for how the agencies coordinate and operate with
Wilderness Areas along the border. It is an important document that has
much bearing on the future of the Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness.
The aforementioned issues have been vetted and vetted again by
Congressman Grijalva and the many stakeholders who have participated in
the process to bring this bill to your subcommittee. To re-emphasize
the tack that proponents took from the beginning, we set out five years
ago to strike a balance between protecting this magnificent land in the
face of rapid urbanization, and the many uses and interests that come
to bear on our public lands. We feel that balance has been reached. It
has been reached through a lengthy, fair, and open process that focused
on compromise, not ideologies. As Arizona has learned from our late
Congressman Morris Udall, who leaves a legacy of wilderness across our
great state, we must not alienate but rather unite. He taught us that
because of Wilderness's importance and longevity, it must be created
respectfully and with great care. Thanks to Congressman Grijalva and
the thousands of volunteers and supporters who stand behind this bill,
I'd like to think that Mo' Udall would be proud of his legacy coming to
bear on the Tumacacori Highlands..
That legacy has been confirmed through numerous editorials and
opinions throughout Arizona, including the support of the Arizona
Republic, Tucson Citizen, Nogales International, and Green Valley News.
It has been confirmed by Arizona Governor Napolitano and former
Governor Bruce Babbitt. And it has been confirmed by the hundreds of
various organizations throughout Arizona that have pledged their
support. From businesses to backcountry hunters, from scientists to
homeowners' associations, this bill tells a story that reveals just how
popular Wilderness is in southern Arizona. It also speaks volumes as to
why the Tumacacori Highlands deserve to be written into the next
chapter of Arizona's Wilderness legacy.
Chairman Grijalva, members of the subcommittee and staff, I ask for
your support of the Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness Act. Thank you for
the opportunity to present this testimony.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Turning now to Mr. Mark South of Rio Rico,
Arizona.
Sir.
STATEMENT OF MARK M. SOUTH, RIO RICO, ARIZONA
Mr. South. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee
members. My name is Mark South, and I am a retired U.S. Forest
Service officer of 28 years; and 25 of those years I spent on
the Nogales ranger district, the area in which H.R. 3287 is
being proposed.
And for the record, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce
Zach Taylor as part of my testimony or key witness for law
enforcement if those questions do come up. Zach Taylor is a
retired border----
Mr. Grijalva. With the agency people that presented first,
bringing on an additional witness that wasn't a specific part
of the invitation is permissible. In this case, we issued a
specific invitation to you. The gentleman is free to submit any
of his material. Without objection, it will be accepted in the
record.
Mr. South. That has been submitted to your office.
Proceeding along then, I am here to explain why creating
this wilderness along the U.S. Mexico border will not result in
a pristine and untrammeled wilderness that was envisioned in
the Wilderness Act of 1964. I will be discussing two main
issues: destruction of wilderness values and homeland security.
First, let us talk about the thousands of border crossers,
illegal border crossers who are entering this particular area.
I have seen firsthand the tons of garbage that the border
crossers are leaving, not to mention the change of clothes they
leave behind, their backpacks, plastic bags, water bottles,
food items, human waste, abandoned campfires, and let us not
forget all of the Red Bull cans.
Now behind one of the people here, this photo was just
taken a week and a half ago of the particular area of H.R. 3287
with the litter that was left behind by many of the border
crossers coming across. I am asking, is this the kind of
wilderness--proposed wilderness we want to see be promoted?
It has been averaged that each entrant leaves an average of
over eight pounds of material left behind. My whole career with
the Nogales ranger district, this is unprecedented with this
amount of stuff. Even on a busy Easter weekend we never saw
this much litter.
Although the mountains of garbage have spoiled the
environment, what about the hundreds of illegal entrant trails
rutted down to over two feet entering the United States?
Soil erosion in the so-called untrammeled area has washed
away precious topsoil. Just last week, I saw a GPS map that
visually shows how many illegal trails that actually are coming
across the border. I was told there was over 200 known trails
that cross-border violators use to access the U.S.--to access
from Sasabe almost clear to Nogales.
Just think about it. 200. That is four times more trails
than the Nogales district administers over across the whole
district.
Now the map we show here, which is part of the record, is
just an older map showing some of the drug trails coming right
up through the proposed H.R. 3287.
I was just there a week and a half ago at Atascosa Lookout,
performing maintenance on the rehabilitation on the Lookout. I
noted the many trails coming across the border, only to see
that there was some illegal activity coming on the trails below
us. These were not designated trails.
I have personally been approached by many crossers in need
of water, food, and medical help. I am used to this activity,
but what about the unsuspecting bird watcher from back east
that has no idea what to do when confronted by illegal
entrants? Is this the kind of wilderness values we want our
public to remember?
Even more important is our concern regarding homeland
security. We feel that an ulterior purpose of H.R. 3287 and
other legislation is to handcuff the law enforcement agencies
from performing their duty, which is to prevent the thousands
of cross-border violators and contraband from entering the
U.S..
Oh, yeah, we are given the right of way with the cherry
stem of the roads, but we know that the Wilderness Act of 1964
will eliminate those 4-by-4 roads that are not inventoried that
the users, such as law enforcement, would be able to have. Not
every law enforcement officer is going out there under an
emergency. They are for patrol.
The security of our borders is so threatened that wildfire
suppression crews are now required to have armed guards with
them at all times. This policy stems out of this spring when
there were some fires along the border along Tubac where the
firefighters went into and there was a major shoot-out that
took place.
Should national security of the U.S. be sacrificed in order
to create a wilderness area that does not readily conform to
definition of the wilderness? With this area being pushed
north, we are going to have the border from Mexico pushed in
another 20 to 30 miles. Don't you want our law enforcement
agencies, which are our first defense against terrorism, to
keep our Nation safe?
Thank you for allowing me to speak before you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you for your comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. South follows:]
Statement of Mark M. South, member of a committee representing the
Southern Arizona Cattleman's Association and the National Association
of Retired Border Patrol Officers, on H.R. 3287
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: good afternoon, and thank
you for the opportunity of being able to speak to you concerning this
important matter.
My name is Mark South, a retired U.S. Forest Service Official of 28
years and my assistant, Zach Taylor a retired U.S. Border Patrol
Official of 26 years, both live in Rio Rico, AZ, which is adjacent to
the proposed wilderness area. Many of us who live within the area are
opposed to H.R. 3287. We feel that this initiative is not in the best
interest of the area. The reasons that we are opposed are as follows:
Homeland Security:
If H.R. 3287 is passed, motorized vehicles and equipment will not
be allowed in the wilderness designation, thereby leaving our border
vulnerable to smugglers, terrorists, and contraband. Enacting this
legislation will only hinder Homeland Security in their job of
protecting the United States/Mexico Border. Section (i) of the H.R.
3287 states ``...border enforcement operations are common management
actions throughout the area encompassing the covered wilderness areas.
This Act recognizes the need to continue such management actions so
long as such management actions are conducted in accordance with the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and existing inter-agency
agreements...''. What H.R. 3278 says, as per the Wilderness Act of
1964, that law enforcement agencies will not be able to use motor
vehicles, motorized equipment, or landing of aircraft or any other form
of mechanical transport to complete their duties such as curtailing the
flow of undocumented individuals, reducing the threat of terrorists
from coming into the U.S., and stemming the flow of illegal drugs.
Another proposed bill, H.R. 2593, The Borderlands Conservation &
Security Act of 2007, will also strengthen the exclusion of motorized
vehicles along the border. Under Section 5, Border Barrier Construction
part (3) paragraph D implies the exclusion of motorized vehicles by
recommending the use of remote equipment to track illegal entry into
the U.S. This will help, but there still is a need to have motor
vehicles within the designated area to deter criminal activity and to
apprehend the violators from progressing any further north. Lack of law
enforcement signals the cross-border violators that they can now extend
the Mexico/U.S. Border another 30 miles north of the existing boundary.
Not only does the Wilderness Act and future legislation prohibit
the use of motorized vehicles/equipment in a wilderness area, but non-
inventoried 4x4 roads used by law enforcement and the public will be
eliminated. Existing numbered roads will be cherry stemmed, but what
about all the other 4x4 roads that are not on existing Forest Road
inventories? They will be blocked off and rehabilitated. This will even
further limit the access of law enforcement, but give the green light
to illegal activities coming across the border. This legislation will
create safe havens and safe environments for criminals that smuggle
humans and narcotics into the United States.
In the last 4 years, several major access points used by law
enforcement have been blocked by private land owners, thus denying
access to law enforcement. Extreme violent criminal activity has
increased in the proposed boundaries of the wilderness commensurate to
the lack of access for law enforcement. Just this year, numerous
murders and drug rip offs have taken place in communities adjacent to
the proposal. We have seen armed criminals intercept entrants smuggling
loads and shoot into drug hauling vehicles, killing people in the
smuggling load. There was also a shoot out between drug smugglers while
several fire agencies were trying to suppress a wildfire. On a daily
basis, the news recounts details on shootings, deaths, drug seizures,
break-ins, property damage and the influx of undocumented individuals.
Criminal activity originating along the proposed wilderness areas
extend north into the neighborhoods of Tubac, Amado, Arivaca, Green
Valley, Tucson, Phoenix and points beyond creating serious situations.
All of these criminal activities originate along the Mexican
Border. We should not hinder law enforcement agencies in carrying out
their duties of protecting the U.S. citizens. We need to give them all
the tools they need in order to stop the flow of drugs and undocumented
individuals. If we can't do that, then do away with agencies
responsible for Border Security and save millions of dollars on this
effort. Allowing cross-border violators has become more economically
based than protecting the environment.
Existing Protection
The Tumacacocori's, Pajarito's and the Atascosa's are already
protected by the U.S. Forest Service and are backed by a host of
environmental laws. A few of these laws include; Multiple-Use Sustained
``Yield Act of 1960, The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Antiquities
Act of 1906, Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, the
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960, the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Chapter 70--Wilderness Evaluation of
the FS Handbook, and the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Before any project can be initiated on public land, the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 must be followed. An Environmental
Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment document must be
written and approved before any project can be started. Both
environmental documents contain alternatives to the proposed action and
any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided. They utilize
all the environmental disciplines along with public input to come up
with a project that all can agree upon. If no solution can be found
between all parties, then the project can be appealed.
Another environmental safeguard is the Endangered Species Act of
1973. Before a project can start, a Biological Opinion must be written.
This involves surveying the area for any possible threatened and
endangered species with a document being submitted to the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service for approval/disapproval. This adds another level of
protection to the environment.
Grazing
The cattle ranchers in this area are good stewards of the land.
They have a great relationship with the Forest Service and strive to
improve the land they lease. Enacting this legislation will disrupt
this relationship between the environment, Forest Service and the
rancher.
Ranchers with experience in Wilderness Areas are bitter about the
enactments. Managing ranch operations will become much harder if not
impossible if burdened by a whole new layer of regulations that include
prohibiting the use of motorized equipment or transport. Special use
permits require a lengthy environmental assessment and approval by both
the District and Regional offices. So-called ``primitive two-track
roads,'' the jeep trails they use to reach isolated improvements, will
be closed. Where once ranchers had access to clean out a dirt tank with
mechanized equipment or use a chain saw to cut brush from a fence line,
they now are being told to get a special use permit. Often this takes
months with no guarantee that they will receive the permit to use
mechanized equipment. The question is, why should modern day ranchers
try to manage a business under wilderness standards when the rest of
the world is using 21st Century techniques? The pressure of a diverse
interpretation of regulations can be a slow death ``of a thousand head
cuts of cattle.''
Plants and Wildlife along the Border
A wilderness designation is not needed to protect plants and
animals in this H.R. 3287 proposal. The plants and animals in the
proposed area are not only found in the U.S., but can also be found in
Mexico. There are unique species that many say are only indigenous to
the Pajaritos on the U.S. side, but in reality they are also found on
the Mexican side. Section 72.31-Factors item 4 of the FS Handbook
states that when evaluating a wilderness area to provide a refuge for
those species that have demonstrated an inability to survive in less
than primitive surroundings, then protection should be provided. A
wilderness is not needed to protect species that can be found in both
countries. The same species of plants and wildlife can be found on both
sides of the border.
Presidential Special Provisions
Having a wilderness designation does not always guarantee that the
land will remain pristine. There are several exemptions that are listed
within the Wilderness Act of 1964 that would allow development within
the area by Presidential declaration. Under Special Provisions of the
Act, Section 3, mineral exploration and leasing can still occur. In
Section 4, ``...the President may authorize power projects,
transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest,
including construction and maintenance essential to development and use
thereof; upon his determination this will better serve the interests of
the United States and the people...''. For example, originally, H.R.
3287 came out of resistance by the local community of Tubac to stop the
installation of a needed overhead powerline to Nogales, AZ. If the
wilderness is approved, the President could still approve an electrical
transmission line to Nogales, AZ.
Cherry Stemming Roads
Cherry stemming of the existing 20-30 roads will not always give
the protection to wilderness as some proponents suggest. Nogales Ranger
District Officials set the boundaries for both the Mt. Wrightson and
Pajarita Wilderness Areas in the early 80's and were told to set the
wilderness boundaries just a mere 66 feet off center line of existing
roads. This became a management night mare for Forest Service Officials
in trying to enforce no off-road vehicles in favorite camping spots
just off the road. Closing off the hundreds of campsites along Ruby
Road and other access points will be quite an undertaking. Where will
the money and enforcement come for this action? The Forest Service
didn't receive any extra money in the 80's for the wilderness fencing
or enforcement. How can one have a true wilderness experience if all
they see are clouds of dust coming from vehicles on dirt roads just a
few feet from the wilderness?
A wilderness criterion says that wilderness areas should not
contain roads. This criterion can be found in the Forest Service
Handbook, Chapter 71.1--Inventory Criteria of Wilderness Evaluation
states that under evaluation criteria. ``...Areas do not contain Forest
roads (36 CFR 212.1) or other permanently authorized roads, except as
permitted in areas east of the 100th meridian...''. However, the Ruby
and Summit Motor Roads dissect all three portions of H.R. 3287 proposed
wilderness area. To the south of Ruby Road and west of Motor Summit
Motor Way, there is the existing Pajarita Wilderness. Then to the south
of Ruby Road and east of Summit Motor Way there will be the Pajarito
Wilderness. The creators of the bill(s) are just changing the last
vowel of Pajarito to get away with having additional acres. Then the
Tumacacori Highlands will just be north of Ruby Road, clearly adjacent
to the two to the south. We are sure that the boundaries of all three
wilderness areas will be just a mere 66 foot off center of the existing
well traveled roads.
Existing Electronic Site and Helispot
Access must still be allowed for the helispot at Atascosa Lookout
which is used by the Forest Service and the many Homeland Security
agencies to access their solar powered electronic radio equipment at
the lookout. This is a historic use for the site.
Pristine Attributes Trashed
The area along the border is becoming a trash heap from the refuse
left behind by the cross-border violators. The Wilderness Act states
that the areas is to be untrammeled by humans. The Coronado National
Forest struggles now with maintaining the wilderness areas along the
border in a pristine condition from the influx of cross-border
violators coming from Mexico. What kind of beauty is there in looking
at discarded clothing, plastic bags, cans, plastic water jugs, Red Bull
cans, human waste, abandoned campfires, and deep rutted human made
trails created by groups of people that have entered the U.S.
illegally? How much worse will it look if H.R. 3287 is passed?
Solitude Spoiled by Cross-Border Violators
Solitude in the area is often spoiled by smugglers and by large
group of illegal's coming across the border. I have been in the area
thinking I was alone only to find out that a smuggler is watching every
move I make. Or how about the many Homeland Security Sensors along the
border that can be tripped by anyone only to have a Black-hawk
helicopter swoop down on them to verify their intentions. Is this the
wilderness experience we want visitors to come away with? We would hope
not. The Coronado National Forest has placed signs at major access
points into the proposed wilderness area(s) advising visitors of
dangerous illegal border activities. At one time many of us would have
had no reservations about camping with our families in the proposed
wilderness area, but now, none of us would take our families for a
camping trip. Now when recreational people visit the area, they are
often faced with providing food and water to the border crossers who
usually are lost, sick and tired. Knowing that the border is regularly
patrolled can bring visitors some peace of mind as they visit our
national forests on the border.
On behalf of the Arizona Cattleman's Association and the National
Association of Retired Border Patrol Officers, I would like to thank
you for allowing us to express our concerns about H.R. 3287. We ask
that you vote no against this proposal that will limit law
enforcement's ability to protect our Nation's Border.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Geary Hund for your comments, sir.
STATEMENT OF GEARY HUND, IDYLLWILD, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Hund. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Geary Hund; and I am a long-term
resident of Idyllwild, California, of Riverside County. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of the
California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act.
I believe Riverside county is one of the most spectacular
regions in California. From the rocky crags of Mount San
Jacinto to the sands of the eastern deserts, its scenic beauty
is remarkable. It is this beauty that attracts over one million
visitors annually to places like Joshua Tree National Park, and
it is one of the primary reasons it is among California's
fastest-growing counties.
During my 30-year career, I have worked as a law
enforcement ranger, ecologist, fire manager, and
conservationist. In these capacities, I have visited most of
the areas included in this legislation.
The California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act proposes to
create four new wilderness areas and to increase the size of
six others. The bill would also designate four wild and scenic
rivers and would add important new land to the San Jacinto and
Santa Rosa Mountains National Monument, itself a legacy of
Congresswoman Bono's work.
The areas proposed for protection in the bill are among the
best remaining wild lands in southern California, including the
steep and rugged mountain ranges of the eastern deserts, with
their deeply dissected canyons, vast bajadas, elusive herds of
bighorn sheep, desert tortoise and lush palm oases; the
dramatic Monument additions ranging in elevation from below sea
level to over 8,000 feet, which preserve remnants of an ancient
lakeshore, a vital wildlife corridor and the pine-covered
slopes of Santa Rosa Peak; the cascading waters and lemon
lilies of Fuller Mill Creek; the mountaintop island of pines
and oaks on Cahuilla Mountain, and the deeply wooded canyons of
the South Fork San Jacinto.
Protecting these and the other areas in the bill will
contribute to the quality of life of millions of people,
whether they visit them often or only notice them in passing.
For increasingly it is understood that preserving nature has
practicable benefits. Forests clean our air and store and
filter our water. Open space near communities often equates to
a strong local economy by increasing property values and
attracting more residents, businesses and visitors.
The lands and rivers in the bill also help preserve
California's rich biological diversity, for many rare and
wondrous creatures grace these remarkable places. By setting
aside and connecting their habitat, we will help to ensure
their future.
But perhaps the greatest value of these wild places is the
contribution they make to the preservation of the human spirit.
For these are places of respite from the fast pace of modern
life. They are places for discovery of our children, and they
are places for personnel renewal. Lands such as these are
increasingly rare in our world, and we must make every effort
to preserve them.
While crafting any important piece of legislation, a
conscientious policymaker must ensure that the final product
reflects the concerns and desires of his or her constituents.
With H.R. 3682, Congresswoman Mary Bono has done an outstanding
job of seeking local input and addressing local concerns.
For example, she has consulted extensively with local
elected officials, fire safe councils, Federal agencies, and
other interests and made 20 boundary adjustments to allow for
effective fire and fuels management.
She has met with recreationists of all kind, including
mountain bikers, hikers, off-road vehicle enthusiasts,
equestrians and excluded from proposed wilderness areas that
are managed for vehicle use and popular mountain bike trails.
She has worked with Federal agencies and utility companies
to exclude areas that could potentially be used to meet
California's future energy needs.
She has carefully listened to the concerns of private
landowners and ensured that the right to access and use of
their property would not be impaired, and she met with local
tribal representatives addressing their cultural and other
concerns.
Congresswoman Bono has a well-deserved reputation for
collaboration and reasonableness that is clearly illustrated by
the way she went about crafting this bill. It should therefore
come as no surprise that H.R. 3682 is supported by a wide
variety of interests, including local chambers of commerce,
tribes, municipalities, recreation and conservation groups and
two Riverside County supervisors whose cities are affected by
the bill.
I firmly believe that as a result of Congresswoman Bono's
responsiveness to the concerns raised by local interests and
the importance of the areas included in the bill, H.R. 3682
will benefit not only Riverside County but our Nation as a
whole.
I urge the committee to support this important legislation
and, once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hund follows:]
Statement of Geary Hund of Riverside County, California, on H.R. 3682
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Geary Hund and I am a resident of Idyllwild, California in
Riverside County. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of
the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act.
I believe Riverside County is one of the most spectacular regions
in California. From the rocky crags of Mount San Jacinto to the sands
of its eastern deserts, its scenic beauty is remarkable. It is this
beauty that attracts tens of thousands of visitors annually to places
like Joshua Tree National Park and it is one of the primary reasons it
is among California's fastest growing counties. During my 30 year
career I've worked as a law enforcement ranger, ecologist, fire
manager, and conservationist. In these capacities I've visited most of
the areas included in this legislation.
The California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act proposes to create
four new wilderness areas and to increase the size of six existing
ones. The bill would also designate four wild and scenic rivers and it
would add important new lands to the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa
Mountains National Monument, itself a legacy of Congresswoman Bono's
work. The areas proposed for protection in the bill are among the best
remaining wild lands in southern California including:
The steep and rugged mountain ranges of the eastern
deserts, with their deeply dissected canyons, vast bajadas, elusive
herds of bighorn sheep, desert tortoise, and lush palm oases;
The dramatic Monument additions ranging in elevation from
below sea level to over 8,000 feet, which preserve remnants of an
ancient lakeshore, a vital wildlife corridor and the pine covered
slopes of Santa Rosa Peak;
The cascading waters and lemon lilies of Fuller Mill
Creek;
The mountain top island of pines and oaks on Cahuilla
Mountain, and the deeply wooded Canyons of the South Fork San Jacinto.
Protecting these and the other areas in the bill will contribute to
the quality of life of millions of people, whether they visit them
often or only notice them in passing, for increasingly, it's understood
that preserving nature has practical benefits--forests clean our air
and. store and filter our water. And open space near communities often
equates to a strong local economy by increasing property values and
attracting more residents, businesses, and visitors. The lands and
rivers in the bill also help preserve California's rich biological
diversity, for many rare and wondrous creatures grace these remarkable
places. By setting aside and connecting their habitat we will help to
ensure their future. But perhaps the greatest value of these wild
places is the contribution they make to the preservation of the human
spirit. For these are places of respite from the fast pace of modern
life, they are places of discovery for our children and they are places
for personal renewal. Lands such as these are increasingly rare in our
world and we must make every effort to preserve them.
While crafting any important piece of legislation a conscientious
policymaker must ensure that the final product reflects the concerns
and desires of his or her constituents. With H.R. 3682, Congresswoman
Mary Bono has done an outstanding job of seeking local input and
addressing concerns. For example, she:
Consulted extensively with local elected officials, fire
safe councils, federal agencies and other interests and made 20
boundary adjustments to allow for effective fire and fuels management;
Met with recreationists of all kinds, including mountain
bikers, hikers, off-road vehicle enthusiasts and equestrians and
excluded from proposed wilderness areas that are managed for vehicle
use and popular mountain bike trails;
Worked with federal agencies and utility companies to
exclude areas that could potentially be used to meet California's
future energy needs;
Carefully listened to the concerns of private landowners
and ensured that their right to access and use of their property would
not be impaired; and
Met with tribal representatives, addressing their
cultural and other concerns.
Congresswoman Bono has a well-deserved reputation for collaboration
and reasonableness that is clearly illustrated by the way she went
about crafting this bill. It should therefore come as no surprise that
H.R. 3682 has faced minimal opposition from within Riverside County,
and that it is supported by a wide variety of interests including local
chambers of commerce, tribes, municipalities, recreation and
conservation groups and two Riverside County supervisors whose
districts are affected by the bill.
I firmly believe that as a result of Congresswoman Bono's
responsiveness to the concerns raised by local interests and the
importance of the areas included in the bill, H.R. 3682 will benefit
not only Riverside County, but our nation as a whole. I urge the
committee to support this important legislation and once again, thank
you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Bill Dart, Off-Road Business Association.
Sir, your comments.
STATEMENT OF BILL DART, OFF-ROAD BUSINESS ASSOCIATION,
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Dart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today.
My name is Bill Dart. I am the Director of Land Use for the
Off-Road Business Association, or ORBA. We are a national
nonprofit trade association representing all aspects of the
motorized recreation industry, from the manufacturers of
vehicles to the after-market manufacturers and distributors to
local retail dealers.
Off-road recreation is a very, very popular activity today
both for recreation but it is also a major economic engine in
our economy today. As an indicator of how significant the
economic impacts are, a study by the University of California
found that OHV recreation in California generates over $10
billion a year in economic activity and has created over 80,000
direct employment jobs in California alone. Not only does this
create a lot of jobs and economic activity for the manufacturer
and sale of the vehicles, it creates a lot of tourism, and it
generates tremendous amounts of tourism dollars to the people
visiting rural communities where most of the opportunities are
at.
ORBA supports the intent of the original act of 1964, and
there are many areas that are proposed for wilderness today
that we can agree with. However, we also believe that the use
of this designation should be reserved only for areas that
should truly qualify under the original definition of the 1964
Act.
Today, we have many, many proposals with roads, graded
roads, culverts, buildings, transmission sites, a variety of
things that do not fit the original definition of the
Wilderness Act untrammeled by man as a visitor. Today, we think
these are going too far.
One of the things that we would like to talk about just in
general is that we think it is time for this body to seriously
consider a new designation short of wilderness, one that would
preserve the landscapes as they look today. We can agree with
many wilderness advocates. We want to preserve the landscapes
and not alter it. But, at the same time, we want to preserve
the access to more of the public and to not handcuff the
agencies' management activities as much as they are today.
Today, less than 3 percent of the people who actually visit
national forest lands for recreation go to wilderness areas.
This is a Forest Service research study. Another similar study
by the Forest Service found that over 25 percent of the people
who visit national forests enjoy off-highway vehicle recreation
while they are there. Those are huge numbers, and it is--you
know, we agree with many of the sentiments of the wilderness
folks that we love these landscapes, we love the rejuvenation,
the refreshing of our spirits and getting away from the hustle
and bustle of everyday life. But we just have a different way
of getting there and enjoying these lands.
Additionally, we want to see the agencies be able to do
things like these forest health projects. It has been brought
up many times today that these bills allow these activities to
occur, but you also heard that they have never been done. It is
almost impossible to get a process through to do these type of
projects even on less controversial areas. Wilderness areas
would be far more controversial if a proposal were made to do a
forest health project, and we suspect it is unlikely to be
approved.
Regarding H.R. 3862, we have concerns about it is not
clear. Looking at the maps, there are many, many roads and
trails there that are open today for use for hunting, for
rockhounding and just for sightseeing and general recreation.
If those routes were left open, we could support this bill. But
it is not clear that they are. In fact, we are pretty certain
that most of them would be closed.
This is the problem, is that, you know, it is--excuse me--
in the Riverside County area, there is already a minimum of
opportunities for motorized recreation. This would constrain it
even further and minimizes the opportunities for the public to
enjoy their public lands.
With adjustments to some of these boundaries, we think we
could support this bill, but as it is today, we cannot. And we
are in opposition.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dart follows:]
Statement of Bill Dart, Off-Road Business Association
Mr. Chairman and honorable committee members, my name is Bill Dart
and I am the Director of Land Use for the Off-Road Business Association
(ORBA). The Off-Road Business Association is a national non-profit
trade association representing all aspects of the motorized off-road
recreation industry. Our member businesses include the full OHV
industry spectrum of vehicle manufacturers, aftermarket suppliers and
distributors, and local retailers, many located in Riverside County.
ORBA protects the interests of its member companies by promoting and
protecting off-road recreation opportunities throughout the country.
Motorized recreation is a major economic engine, both the manufacture
and sales, but more significantly, the expenditures made by motorized
recreationists as they travel to enjoy motorized recreation
opportunities around the country. As an indicator of how significant
the economic impacts are, a study by the University of California found
that OHV recreation in California generates over $10 billion dollars in
economic activity and has created over 80,000 direct employment jobs in
California alone.
I am a native of California and have been recreating on public
lands for my whole life. I have lived in rural communities where
recreation tourism is the most significant industry. I have been
involved with motorized recreation of all kinds first as an enthusiast,
then as an organizer and activist, culminating with over 19 years as a
professional advocate for motorized recreation. I understand the issues
surrounding the wilderness debate, and we have much in common with
wilderness advocates, as we also want to see the landscapes in question
preserved as they are today.
ORBA supports the intent of the original Wilderness Act of 1964.
However, we also believe that the use of this designation should be
reserved only for areas that truly qualify. Overall, a wilderness
designation is the most extreme limits and restrictions on access and
use that the federal government can place on public lands. By
definition, wilderness designations do not allow mechanized vehicles in
the area, including bicycles and wheelchairs. These restrictions
effectively discriminate against certain constituencies by effectively
denying them meaningful access to these public lands. As a result,
these areas are no longer accessible to a large portion of American
society, namely the very young, the elderly, and the handicapped who
are not able to hike long distances. We believe that these areas
deserve protection from future development but should not be off limits
to such a large segment of the population.
We are concerned with a number of the areas included in this bill
and do not feel that all of them are appropriate for this type of
designation. Our concern is that many forms of recreation currently
occur on them. Rockhounders, hunters and off-road enthusiasts use these
areas and have been doing so for many generations. These are all valid
uses of public lands and are not currently detrimental to the
surrounding habitat. Rockhounding is a very popular past time engaged
in by the surrounding retired population and several of the areas
proposed as wilderness in this bill will prohibit that activity,
needlessly in our view. Gem and rock hounding currently occurs in the
proposed Orocopia Mountains addition, the Chuckwalla Mountains
addition, and the Palen-McCoy Mountains addition. Some of these
proposed wilderness areas are also currently used by sportsmen, such as
bird hunting in the Palen-McCoy Mountains edition. Therefore, in order
to access these areas people must use SUVs or 4 wheel drive vehicles.
Since a wilderness designation would not allow motorized vehicles in
these areas, if this legislation was enacted, these rockhounders and
sportsmen would be locked out of these areas unless they were able to
hike long distances to get there.
ORBA has reviewed the online maps available to the public and have
found them to be difficult to examine for the areas we are concerned
about. As a result, we are unable to determine if currently used OHV
areas will be included. For example, the maps make it unclear as to
whether the Historic Bradshaw Trail would be included in the Orocopia
addition. The Bradshaw Trail was the first road through Riverside
County and was blazed by William Bradshaw in 1862, as an overland stage
route beginning at San Bernardino and ending at La Paz, AZ (now
Ehrenberg, AZ). The trail was used extensively between 1862 and 1877 to
haul miners and other passengers to the gold fields at La Paz. The
trail is a 65 mile county graded road that traverses mostly public land
between the Chuckwalla Mountains and the Chocolate Mountain Aerial
Gunnery Range. The trail offers spectacular views of the Chuckwalla
Bench, Orocopia Mountains, Chuckwalla Mountains and the Palo Verde
Valley.
There are very few OHV recreation opportunities within the
Riverside County area. ``Taking the High Road'', a study released in
2002 by the OHMVR Division, states that ``since 1980 the amount of land
available to recreate on for off-highway vehicles (OHV) has shrunk 48
percent in our deserts alone, while OHV registrations have increased
108 percent since 1980.'' Currently California has over 1 million
registered OHVs and, as of April 2, 2007 there are 96,034 registered
green sticker vehicles in Riverside County alone. This form of family
recreation has seen immense growth in recent years. By implementing
public lands policies that further decrease the amount of land to
recreate on we are doing a great disservice to these families. Some
people believe that the only way to minimize the impacts of OHV use on
the environment is to eliminate it. The opposite is actually true.
Clearly OHV users and their vehicles are not just going to go away.
Without legal areas for these families to recreate on user created
trails will be the result. These user created areas often, but not
always, result in habitat damage.
Instead of creating additional wilderness areas that will restrict
citizens' access to the land, ORBA would like to request that Congress
consider other alternatives that will assure that: 1) All citizens are
able to use the public lands without discrimination; 2) mechanized
vehicles can be used to fight forest fires; and 3) management of the
public lands can occur in order to maintain trails, forest health and
other facilities.
Finally, I would like to add that we are concerned about the
California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act because Representative Bono
has not attempted to seek the input from the OHV community with regard
to how it will affect public lands access for our recreation interests.
We are in the process of trying to work with Congresswoman Bono and her
staff on H.R. 3682, but we would like to be a part of the on-going
discussions with their community stakeholders and to be more involved
with the legislative process for this bill.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing ORBA to testify today and we
urge you to carefully consider the concerns we have with H.R. 3682. We
look forward to additional conversations with the House Natural
Resources Committee and Congresswoman Bono to make this bill work for
the people, environmental preservations and future users of these
public lands.
This concludes my prepared statement and I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, sir. Let me begin with
some questions for Ms. Cullen. How many local businesses does
the Tubac Chamber represent.
Ms. Cullen. Mr. Chairman, we represent about 130
businesses.
Mr. Grijalva. And let me follow up on that because there is
some misconception, I believe, that a wilderness designation
begins to harm the local economies. You state in your testimony
that wilderness areas are a competitive advantage for small
businesses. Could you elaborate in what effect it has had
already in Tubac and what potentially the new designation would
have on the community?
Ms. Cullen. Yes. We in Tubac and in southern Arizona are
very dependent on tourism. In fact, tourism is a $2 billion
industry in southern Arizona. In our little piece of it in
Tubac we do our best to promote the area to draw the tourists
down south I-19 into your hometown area and then over to
Sonoida, Begonia, Elgin. We do so by promoting the art, the
history, and the natural resources. We walk a fine line in
Tubac between promoting commercially the area, drawing people
in. They see this little piece of paradise and they want to
move here. It is an attraction both to bring people in for the
art, for the history, as well as to live here. So it is a big
piece of it. The wilderness in particular would be another
advantage that we have to advertise for hiking, birding,
walking, strolling.
We have the wilderness area on the east side with Mount
Wrightson. That is an important draw. We are a unique area in
southern Arizona and this wilderness area will make it even
more precious.
Mr. Grijalva. And let me, Ms. Cullen, because you are there
on the border as many of us are, and we have heard testimony
about a wilderness designation, how that would threaten
homeland security and border security. And we live with this
every day. And our response to the claim that this designation
would do irreparable harm to the security of the border, if you
could just make a quick comment regarding that.
Ms. Cullen. Mr. Chairman, members of the Tubac Chamber, our
family members are Border Patrol agents, our neighbors are
Border Patrol agents. We are very concerned with making our
area a very safe area. Immigration, illegal immigration,
illegal drug trafficking is a serious problem for all of us. I
can appreciate my neighbor Mr. South's testimony and his
pictures. That could be anywhere in our area. We all experience
the problems and the negative impacts associated with it. We
are all very concerned about immigration and our safety. I
don't think that anybody else in the United States is more
concerned about it than those of us in southern Arizona. We
would not be asking for this wilderness designation if we
thought that would make our area, our homeland less safe.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Skroch, let me ask you, there
was an agreement reached with the ranchers during this whole
collaborative process that you went through, to the point where
some of the significant early opposition is now supporting the
designation. Could you walk us through there in a minute or
less that I have here about that particular agreement?
Mr. Skroch. I can try. I will do my best, sir. We did
contact every landowner relevant to some questions that we
heard earlier today. Every landowner that contains a permit or
an allotment with Tumacacori Highlands. Some of them wanted to
discuss the proposal further. Some of them wanted to seek
agreement. Some of them did not. Those that did, those
discussions continued. And really over the course of several
years from the beginning, 3 or 4 years ago, a relationship of
trust was formed and eventually a relationship of agreement was
formed. And we are proud to say that the largest permittee in
the Tumacacori Highlands, who holds multiple allotments there,
has signed a letter of support. And we have come to agreement
on how we think the congressional grazing guidelines should be
applied to wilderness areas. We think the law is pretty clear.
We think his operation should not be impacted by this
designation. And we are happy to move forward in this process
with his support and in our support of his operation as well,
sir.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Skroch, let me just follow up on that
because that was my first question I had for you. Were certain
concessions made to the ranchers in exchange for working
through this issue for their support?
Mr. Skroch. It was a collaborative relationship. Really, it
literally occurred at the kitchen table. As I referenced
earlier, sir, we made numerous contacts to all of the
permittees within the Tumacacori Highlands. And forgive me for
my redundancy, but some of them there was a range of interest
in actually sitting down and looking at maps. With the largest
permittee in the area who had multiple allotments, that
discussion did take place over numerous meetings. And it really
was sitting down at the table talking about what facilities he
had on the landscape that were important, how the wilderness
designation would interface with his operations and what we
could do together to make sure that his operation was affected
in the slightest.
Mr. Bishop. So let me try this question again. Did you make
certain changes or concessions to meet their needs?
Mr. Skroch. Over the course of 4 or 5 years that this
proposal has been actively kind of out in the community on the
table, many changes have been made to the map. It might have
been in relation with Arizona Game and Fish Department or in
relation to the ranching community or bearing out of
discussions with perhaps the Forest Service or many, many other
stakeholders, the proposal has changed pretty significantly
through different iterations over the years, sir.
Mr. Bishop. I am not trying to be rude or forceful here.
What I am hearing you say is the answer was yes, there were
certain concessions that were made.
Mr. Skroch. Yes, sir. The agreement----
Mr. Bishop. OK. Now, with the concessions made in the bill
that is before us, were all the concessions delivered in this
particular bill or were there some that were still outstanding?
Mr. Skroch. Well, I would say that it was really an
iterative process, sir. I mean, looking at the map and talking
about different values and what people wanted to see at the end
of the day, I mean I think it was a really good example of
people coming together and meeting in the middle and making
some compromises. There is nothing specifically in my mind that
I can think of off the top of my head, sir, that I would say,
oh, rancher A really wanted this and he didn't get it. That is
not coming to my mind right now.
Mr. Bishop. So the answer is no, there were no concessions
that were made that are not delivered in this piece of
legislation?
Mr. Skroch. I can't answer that question, sir. I just don't
have the level of specificity in my mind to answer that level
of detail, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Did other ranchers ask for similar
consideration or were there similar concessions offered to
other ranchers in the area?
Mr. Skroch. Like I said, sir, the process was iterative in
nature. Over the course of 4 or 5 years we contacted each of
the permittees and asked if we may sit down. And with some of
those ranching interests we were able to sit down and we were
able to look at the maps and to have a discussion about their
operations, and changes were made based on a variety of
different input.
Mr. Bishop. I'm sorry, this is not supposed to be the
inquisition that is right here. But in the wilderness area that
I created in the State of Utah I knew exactly how many people
were there and we did make concessions to each of the private
landowners for specific reasons. We excluded some things. And I
can tell you which landowners we actually made good on those
concessions and which landowners we didn't.
Now, am I making the assumption there are some ranchers
over there that were given some agreements of concessions? And
as I have heard here, you are saying that these were now
covered in this particular bill and there weren't anyone that
asked for concessions and were told no?
Mr. Skroch. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. I certainly hope so. Now, I have other
questions here. Do you want to give these other two members a
chance first and then I will come back?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Mr. Holt, any
questions?
Mr. Holt. I just want to say, having looked through the
testimony here, I must say, Mr. Chairman, you put together a
good hearing. No questions. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Mrs. Capps, any questions?
Mrs. Capps. I do. I do also want to thank you for holding
this hearing. And I'm sorry, I am going to be directing my
questions to Mr. Hund. And I had intended--I wanted to be here
during the testimony of my colleague, Mary Bono, but I was on
the Floor managing a suspension bill at that time. But I am a
big supporter of the California Desert and Mountain Heritage
Act. There is a lot of concern that wilderness designations
make fighting fires difficult. But we know that in fact that is
not true, even though there are a lot of myths that surround
wilderness areas. The act does make clear that Federal agencies
can act to prevent and control fire in wilderness areas. It is
also the case, as we have discovered surveying the aftermath of
the fires we have had in California this year, that southern
California fires were started by people on or near roads, as
are 80 percent of all fires in the West, and this is according
to the Forest Service.
The Los Padres National Forest is in our backyard, my
district. I represent part of it. The Forest Service quickly
approved the use of bulldozers in wilderness areas to prevent
the spread of fires in the last two summers. In 2006, during
the Day Fire, which burned 165,000 acres, the Forest Service
used bulldozers in the Siskiyou Wilderness to help build a 163-
mile firebreak around the fire.
And this past summer the Zaca Fire burned 240,000 acres. It
took 3 months. The Forest Service used bulldozers and other
equipment to create a 2-mile firebreak inside the San Rafael
Wilderness. So on both instances the Forest Service did have
the tools that it needed to get the job done.
Mr. Hund, I want to ask you three questions and within 5
minutes you will not be able to go very deep into any of them,
I'm sorry. But I understand you live in one of the more fire
prone areas that we are considering, so you can give us
firsthand testimony, maybe one or two examples of how Mrs. Bono
has worked to ensure that her bill accommodates access for fire
prevention or firefighting.
Mr. Hund. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Capps.
Representative Bono was very cognizant of the fact that
particularly the western part of the district is very fire
prone. And even though the Wilderness Act does provide
managers, land managers with all the tools that they need to
fight fire, and there are many examples of them using those
tools, she still met with agency personnel and with other fire
professionals and drew the boundaries of the proposed
wilderness areas in such a way that they would accommodate
effectively fire management. She made 20 boundary changes in
order to ensure effective fire and fuels management. And I will
just give you a couple of examples.
There is a dirt road on a ridge known as Rouse Ridge in the
proposed South Fork San Jacinto Wilderness, and there is a fuel
break on that ridge. And so she created a 200-foot buffer on
both sides of the road to allow for the continued maintenance
of that fuel break. And she also adjusted the boundaries of the
Cahuilla Wilderness where there was, quote, from the Forest
Service, good tractor ground so that they would be able to
modify fuels in that area to protect the community of Anza. And
last Highway 74, which is one of the primary routes into my
community, Idyllwild, California, at the Forest Service request
she included a 300-foot setback from Highway 74 so that the
Forest Service could modify fuels to create an emergency
evacuation route, and in fact that fuel modification has
occurred.
Mrs. Capps. Those are excellent examples of stakeholders
being involved, actually in the formation of the legislation,
it sounds to me is what you are saying.
Mr. Hund. Yes.
Mrs. Capps. If you could tell us just very briefly about
off road vehicle use. Are there any examples of how this bill
accommodates that?
Mr. Hund. Yes. In the case of Beauty Mountain, for example,
three routes were cherry stemmed for that and fuels management.
And then also in the vicinity of the Chuckwalla Mountains and
the Orocopia Mountains there were designated routes in washes
the Congresswoman explicitly left out of the bill so that those
designated routes were off road vehicle use and other vehicles
would remain open.
Mrs. Capps. Excellent. I have a couple more seconds I
think. This question is probably too long to answer quickly,
but I think it is important to get it out and maybe a quick
response. Do the important wilderness values in this area and
the language in the bill on fire and recreation stand at odds
with your views? I mean we are talking about putting a lot of
things together in a bill. Are we treating this area that you
call home, and it is dear to you obviously, you are here to
testify about it, are we treating this area with proper caution
through this legislation?
Mr. Hund. When you say proper caution, could you just
elaborate a little bit?
Mrs. Capps. Is it a balanced piece of legislation?
Mr. Hund. I think it is extremely balanced. What it is
doing is preserving great back country recreation opportunities
while at the same time allowing for management and other forms
of recreation.
Mrs. Capps. So it might even be considered a model?
Mr. Hund. I think very much so.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Let me run through a couple of these and see if
I can get them as quick as possible. Mr. Dart, for example,
what kind of recreational activities currently take place on
what would be on this proposed wilderness area in 3682?
Mr. Dart. Well, there is a lot of use by sport utility
vehicles on some of the back roads, ATVs, motorcycles, dune
buggies.
Mr. Bishop. I guess I asked you a stupid question. Let me
try and change this. Which one of those would be impacted by
changing the designation into wilderness?
Mr. Dart. All of them.
Mr. Bishop. Does the organization with which you have
worked oppose wilderness designation routinely?
Mr. Dart. I am sorry.
Mr. Bishop. Do you oppose all wilderness designation?
Mr. Dart. No, not at all. There are many areas we can agree
with wilderness advocates that are appropriate.
Mr. Bishop. How much input did you have into, or the
recreational community have into this proposed legislation?
Mr. Dart. Very, very little.
Mr. Bishop. Would you be willing to work with
Representative Bono's office?
Mr. Dart. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. I think that would be a wise thing to do.
Let me ask a couple questions of Mr. South if I could.
1984, I understand was the last designation or study
designation for wilderness in this area. Were you involved in
the studies that resulted in our current wilderness areas?
Mr. South. Yes, I was.
Mr. Bishop. How much of that proposed area, how much of the
proposed area in the proposal for this bill, the Arizona bill,
met that wilderness criteria then?
Mr. South. Are you asking me the 1984, that met the
criteria.
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Mr. South. It did in 1984, but we already had an area
reserved for protection--the Goody Natural Resource Area--which
I was part of enlarging before the 1984 wilderness bill
actually went into effect.
Mr. Bishop. So in the 20 years since that time what has
changed in this particular area?
Mr. South. The amount of illegal traffic coming across the
border has increased tremendously in my 28 years on the border.
What I mean illegal traffic, I mean the border crossers, the
cross border violators, the contraband, the number of illegal
trails within the existing Pajarita Wilderness and the Sycamore
Canyon. It has increased just tremendously.
Mr. Bishop. So that is the human activity of which you are
speaking?
Mr. South. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. There is motorized use in wilderness areas
permitted in emergency situations to pursue suspects. Can you
tell me what the criteria for that pursuit would be, and would
that include regular patrolling?
Mr. South. It will not allow regular patrolling. Think of
it as your patrol officer responding to your neighborhood just
periodically. Is he always coming in in an emergency? No. When
I think of emergency, I am thinking of life and death type
things that get in there and get you. Not for the common
ordinary patrols that the law enforcement officers need to do
to protect our neighborhoods and/or the border. There is a
difference here.
Mr. Bishop. Would the use of the emergency motorized
vehicles now require a sighting of something before it can take
place?
Mr. South. I'm sorry, would you repeat the question again.
Mr. Bishop. If you can now use emergency motorized vehicles
to go after a suspect, does it require a sighting currently
before you can actually do that?
Mr. South. Yes. You need to see that person first before
you got to go after him. It would eliminate just the normal
patrols.
Mr. Bishop. Of any kind of preventive patrols.
Mr. South. Yes, any kind of preventive patrols would be
eliminated.
Mr. Bishop. I got like about a minute and a half. And I am
looking at that one picture there with all the clothes that are
around there. Why is that debris left there?
Mr. South. This was a band of illegal people coming across.
What has happened is that the group of smugglers, the coyotes
they call them, brought these people across with the intent of
robbing them. What you see here is the clothes. Where the
clothes are is where those individual people from across lines
and were seeking a better life in America were robbed at
gunpoint. The smugglers then stripped them of all their
clothing or their backpacks and stuff and threw everything on
the ground to make them vulnerable, then to bring them across
into safe houses on the U.S. side. And so this bare ground that
you see between the packs and clothes are where the people were
standing. So when you walk up and down the wash there, each
bare spot is where there was nobody standing. But where all the
garbage is is where they stripped everybody to take away their
valuables. What happens now, those guys are in cahoots, bring
those people across at their mercy, because they stripped all
away their IDs, money, phones, anything else. And they get to a
safe house further north. And then they are required to
supplement the border, you know, the bad guys, with more money
as like a ransom.
That is what is happening here. That is why you are seeing
in all that garbage. It is not because we are just going to
throw it here. That was a robbery.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate you answering my
question. And you did that with one second to spare, so thank
you, sir. I will yield back.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me thank the panel. And I will
be--I have other questions for Mr. Hund and Mr. Skroch that I
will submit to you in writing, and hopefully get those answers
back as soon as possible so they can be part of the record,
those responses. And just to thank you for your testimony.
In particular, H.R. 3287 recognizes the need for drug
interdiction and border enforcement in proposed wilderness
areas. Anybody who questions this has clearly not read the
legislation. Be that as it may, thank you very much and we will
invite the next panel. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me welcome our last panel and begin with
Mr. Dennis Harmon, General Manager, Water Supply Storage,
regarding H.R. 2334. Sir, your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS HARMON, GENERAL MANAGER,
WATER SUPPLY STORAGE COMPANY
Mr. Harmon. Good afternoon, Chairman Grijalva and members
of the Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to provide
testimony to the Subcommittee concerning House bill 2334, the
Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks
Wilderness Expansion Act. Water Supply & Storage Company is a
116-year old nonprofit mutual ditch company. It collects and
distributes about 60,000 acre-feet of water annually to roughly
40,000 acres of farmland in northern Colorado.
Company facilities include the Grand River Ditch, most of
which lies within Rocky Mountain National Park. Grand River
Ditch provides about one-third of the total water that we
collect and distribute each year to our shareholders. It was
not always so. In 1890, when ditch construction began and the
first water was appropriated for the ditch Coloradans who were
settling in the State developed water and other natural
resources and put them to beneficial use. Farmers arriving in
northern Colorado at that time looking to establish homesteads
quickly learned that the naturally occurring rainfall there was
providing only about half that was needed for crop production.
In accordance with Federal and State law at the time, they
searched for available water not already claimed and filed for
a ditch water right and right-of-way for the Grand River Ditch.
The water right was adjudicated later on August 3, 1906. In
1907, after the water right was adjudicated, Federal
regulations were issued requiring Water Supply and Storage
Company to sign a stipulation or else. The stipulation required
the company, because the Grand River Ditch was located on
public lands, to accept the strict liability standard or
forfeit its legally established right-of-way and abandon its
investment in the ditch, reducing acreage being farmed and so
on.
And I will tell you here that in the early days we can tell
by looking at the old records an assessment for a shareholder
in those days consisted of the shareholder agreeing to send one
of his hired men and a team of horses up to work on the ditch.
If the company had decided to abandon the ditch instead of
signing the stipulation, one might assume they could have
secured other water elsewhere. Not necessarily so. Because
Colorado's water law is based on a concept of prior
appropriation where first in time, first in right applies, the
company would have been forced to search for later junior, less
reliable water supplies to replace those collected by the
ditch, if it was even available.
By the end of the 19th century most of the valuable water
rights had been claimed and put to beneficial use by others.
Equivalent water simply was not available in 1907 when the
stipulation was signed.
Eight years later, in 1915, Rocky Mountain National Park
was established. The park boundary at that time did not include
any of the land around the Grand River Ditch on the west side
of the Continental Divide where most of it lies. In fact, not
until 1930, 40 years after the first appropriation of water in
the ditch when the park boundary was expanded was the majority
of the ditch annexed into the park. With the 1907 stipulation,
the 1930 park expansion, the enactment of the Park System
Resource Protection Act in 1990 and the proposed wilderness
legislation, our shareholders, understandably so I think, had
become increasingly alarmed at the pattern of increasing
Federal legislation and control over the ditch.
When we learned of this proposed legislation we approached
the Colorado delegation and asked for their help to insert some
language in the draft bill to mitigate what we believe are some
fundamental inequities. I will go through a couple specifics
here.
Section 4(d)(1) of the bill excludes of Grand River Ditch
from the wilderness designation. What is included in the bill
is functionally the same as the exclusions provided by the
Rocky Mountain National Park for its own roads on the map,
which is described in sections 3 and 4. Section 4(e)(4)(A)
would modify the company's liability from strict liability to
simple negligence. The new negligence standard was modeled on
the liability standard under Colorado law for all ditches that
we labor under now with our other facilities. Water Supply &
Storage Company would be responsible for damages caused to the
park resources and facilities if we were at fault, as it should
be if the language is passed as it is written today, if the
legislation is passed as it is written today.
In summary, we believe that Section 4(e)(4)(A) of H.R. 2334
as drafted, A, preserves a historical agricultural heritage by
bringing balance to an unfair situation which has a potential
of harming northern Colorado agriculture; B, it recognizes the
park effectively annexed the ditch in the 1930 expansion. The
ditch was not built in a national park. And C, recognizes a
very unique situation, preexisting water facilities, and
requires an operating and maintenance agreement.
We don't know of another similar water ditch or other
facility in any national park which predates the park and the
National Park Service itself. Therefore, we don't think that
H.R. 2334 creates a precedent that would adversely affect
application of the PSRPA nationwide. Section 4(e)(4)(D)
protects the possible future of the use of the Grand River
Ditch and the water transported there and for the benefit of
our municipal shareholders. Although all the water presently
captured in the Grand River Ditch is used for agricultural
purposes today, undoubtedly that will change over time. We
would like to avoid future disputes.
We request the opportunity to supply additional testimony
in writing to the Subcommittee at a later date, particularly in
response to questions which you may pose. I would like to
especially thank Representative Udall and Representative
Musgrave, Senators Salazar and Allard for their support in
working through some very difficult issues to arrive at a
compromise which not only adds the wilderness designation to
the park but protects the ditch, the Grand River Ditch, an
important part of Colorado's agricultural heritage.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harmon follows:]
Statement of Dennis Harmon, General Manager,
Water Supply and Storage Company
Good afternoon Chairman Grijalva and members of the Subcommittee.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the Subcommittee
concerning H.R. 2334, which would designate as wilderness portions of
Rocky Mountain National Park (``RMNP'') administered by the National
Park Service (``NPS'').
Background of WSSC and the Grand River Ditch
The Water Supply and Storage Company (``WSSC'') owns and operates
the Grand River Ditch, which is a water supply ditch located in the
Never Summer Range in RMNP. The Grand River Ditch provides irrigation
water to approximately 40,000 acres of land located in Larimer and Weld
Counties in northern Colorado. WSSC owns, operates and maintains eleven
reservoirs and seven ditch systems, including the Grand River Ditch.
WSSC's system of ditches, canals and laterals is more than 100 miles in
total length and provides approximately 60,000 acre-feet of water
annually to 173 shareholders.
The Grand River Ditch is an integral component of the Water Supply
and Storage Company system. The Ditch is located in the headwaters of
the Colorado River on the West Slope of Colorado (i.e., west of the
Continental Divide). The north segment or branch of the Grand River
Ditch (sometimes referred to as the North Ditch) is approximately 17
miles long and traverses a variety of creeks. Water from these creeks
can either be diverted into the Ditch or can be released so that it
continues to flow down these creeks to the Colorado River. A measuring
weir and recorder for the Grand River Ditch is located near La Poudre
Pass. A shorter branch of the Grand River Ditch (sometimes known as the
Specimen Ditch or the South Ditch) also captures various waters and
transports them to La Poudre Pass.
At La Poudre Pass, water diverted by the Grand River Ditch crosses
to the East Slope of Colorado (i.e., east of the Continental Divide)
and flows to Long Draw Reservoir, which is located in Roosevelt
National Forest. From Long Draw Reservoir, water is delivered down the
Cache La Poudre River to WSSC's system of canals, ditches and laterals
for agricultural purposes. Although a number of WSSC's shares are owned
by municipalities, and water ultimately will be used by them for
municipal purposes, water diverted by the Grand River Ditch is used
exclusively to irrigate crops and water livestock at this time. The
primary water right for the Grand River Ditch is decreed to divert
waters from the Colorado River basin with an adjudication date of
August 3, 1906 and an appropriation date of September 1, 1890 in the
amount of 524.6 cfs (cubic feet per second of time).
WSSC was incorporated as a Colorado mutual ditch company in 1891.
Under Colorado law, the shareholders of a mutual ditch company own pro
rata interests in the company's water rights and other facilities;
therefore, a mutual ditch company is essentially a water distribution
organization owned and operated by its shareholders and is not a
profit-generating enterprise.
WSSC holds a right-of-way for the Grand River Ditch under the
Irrigation or General Right of Way Act of March 3, 1891 (``1891 Act'')
codified at 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 946-49. Construction on the Grand River
Ditch began in 1890. The federal lands around the Grand River Ditch
were included in the Medicine Bow Forest Reserve around the turn of the
century, at which time they were administered by the fledgling United
States Forest Service. The Forest Service and WSSC entered into a
stipulation concerning the operation and maintenance of the Grand River
Ditch on March 21, 1907, which was required by a 1906 federal
``amendatory regulation'' applicable to rights-of-way.
RMNP was created in 1915, but did not include most of the land
surrounding the Grand River Ditch at that time. In fact, the portions
of Medicine Bow Forest Reserve that included the Never Summer Range and
the land through which the Grand River Ditch flows were not included in
RMNP until 1930. Thus, WSSC and the Grand River Ditch had existed for
some 35 years prior to becoming part of RMNP.
The Wilderness Proposal in H.R. 2334
H.R. 2334 proposes to designate significant portions of RMNP,
including the area in which the Grand River Ditch is located, for
inclusion as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System
pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964. The bill was introduced by
Representatives Udall and Musgrave. A corresponding bill in the Senate
(S. 1380) also enjoys bipartisan sponsorship having been introduced by
Senators Salazar and Allard.
Two provisions of H.R. 2334 directly affect WSSC:
Section 4(d)(1) specifically excludes from the boundaries
of the wilderness designation: ``[t]he Grand River Ditch (including the
main canal of the Grand River Ditch and a branch of the main canal
known as ``Specimen Ditch''), the right-of-way for the Grand River
Ditch, land 200 feet on each side of the marginal limits of the Ditch
and any associated appurtenances, structures, buildings, camps, and
work sites in existence as of June 1, 1998.
Sections 4(e)(4)(A)-(D) state:
A. Liability--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, or
any stipulation or applicable agreement, during any period in
which the Water Supply and Storage Company (or any successor in
interest to the Water Supply and Storage Company with respect
to the Grand River Ditch) operates and maintains the portion of
the Grand River Ditch within the Park in compliance with an
operations and maintenance agreement between the Water Supply
and Storage Company and the National Park Service entered into
on XXXXXXXXXXXX, no individual or entity who owns, controls, or
operates the Grand River Ditch shall be liable for any response
costs or for any damages to, loss of, or injury to the
resources of the Park resulting from any cause or event
(including, but not limited to, water escaping from any part of
the Grand River ditch by overflow or as a result of a breach,
failure, or partial failure of any portion of the Grand River
Ditch, including the portion of the ditch located outside the
Park), unless the damages to, loss of, or injury to the
resources are proximately caused by the negligence or an
intentional act of the individual or entity.
B. Limitation--Nothing in this section limits or otherwise
affects any liability of any individual or entity for damages
to, loss of, or injury to any resource of the Park resulting
from any cause or event that occurred before the date of
enactment of this Act.
C. Existing Activities--Nothing in this Act, including the
designation of the Wilderness under this section, shall
restrict or otherwise affect any activity (including an
activity carried out in response to an emergency or
catastrophic event) on, under, or affecting the Wilderness or
land excluded under subsection (d)(1) relating to the
monitoring, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or use
of the Grand River Ditch that was authorized or approved by the
Secretary as of the date of enactment of this Act.
D. No Effect--Notwithstanding any other provision of any
previous or existing law, any stipulation, or any agreement, or
interpretation thereof, use of water transported by the Grand
River Ditch for a main purpose or main purposes other than
irrigation shall not terminate or adversely affect the right-
of-way of the Grand River Ditch, and such right-of-way shall
not be deemed relinquished, forfeited, or lost, solely because
such water is used for a main purpose or main purposes other
than irrigation.
Explanation of the Provisions Affecting WSSC
WSSC has worked closely with Representatives Udall and Musgrave and
Senators Salazar and Allard to draft language for the legislation that
accomplishes the wilderness objectives of the bill and protects the
interests of WSSC and its shareholders. WSSC is pleased to have this
opportunity to explain the rationale of these particular sections to
the Subcommittee.
Excluding the Grand River Ditch and an area on either side of the
Ditch allows WSSC to properly operate and maintain the Ditch including
conduct of activities, such as operation of motorized mechanical
equipment, otherwise not permitted in wilderness areas. Exclusion of
200 feet on either side of the Ditch is the same margin as the land
excluded to either side of RMNP roads.
H.R. 2334 should also not cause any change in land use, land
management, or water rights. The GRD diverts water high in the Colorado
mountains and transports it some 50 miles downstream to its location of
use. At present, all of the water is used for agricultural irrigation;
however, a portion of WSSC's stock is owned by Colorado municipalities
and GRD water will be used for this purpose in the future. No matter
what the end use is, the existence of the GRD in RMNP imposes the same
burden on the Park. In other words, there is no change in land use,
land management or water rights whether the end use of water is
agricultural irrigation or municipal use. Conversion of agricultural
water to municipal purposes is commonplace in Colorado, and the GRD is
no exception. In a mutual ditch company such as WSSC, ownership of
stock represents a pro rata share of ownership in the water rights of
the company. Therefore, when a shareholder sells his or her stock, the
shareholder benefits, but WSSC derives no revenue from the transaction.
Similarly, WSSC does not anticipate that our day-to-day
relationship to the NPS staff at RMNP will change significantly as a
result of the wilderness designation in S. 1380. WSSC and the RMNP have
worked together on issues related to the Park and to the GRD for
upwards of 70 years, and we have no reason to believe that the
relationship will be substantially altered in the future.
The liability provisions of Section 4(e)(4)(A)-(D) require
additional background information. In 1990, Congress enacted the Park
System Resource Protection Act (``PSRPA''), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 19jj. That
Act imposes liability for damage caused to any park system resource:
(a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any person who
destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any park system
resource is liable to the United States for response costs and
damages resulting from such destruction, loss, or injury.
(b) Liability in rem. Any instrumentality, including but not
limited to a vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or other equipment that
destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any park system
resource or any marine or aquatic park resource shall be liable
in rem to the United States for response costs and damages
resulting from such destruction, loss, or injury to the same
extent as a person is liable under subsection (a).
Thus, the PSRPA purports to create a new standard of strict liability
applicable to the Grand River Ditch notwithstanding that the GRD
existed before creation of the Medicine Bow Forest Reserve, before RMNP
was established and for about 40 years before RMNP included the GRD.
This is not a situation where WSSC applied to either the Forest Service
(at the time the property was Forest Reserve) or the NPS (after RMNP
was established) to locate a ditch on federal property pursuant to
terms and conditions required to protect the federal interest. Over the
years, the GRD has become subject to increasing legal regulation, most
recently by the enactment of the Park System Resource Protection Act
(``PSRPA'').
The 1907 Stipulation between the WSSC and the Forest Service (to
which the NPS has succeeded) states that the Company shall ``pay the
United States for any and all damages sustained by reason or use and
occupation of said forest reserve by the Company, its successors and
assigns, regardless of the cause and circumstances under which such
damages shall occur.'' WSSC was required to execute this Stipulation by
a federal regulation enacted in 1906, years after construction of the
Grand River Ditch had commenced. Even after the Stipulation had been
executed, it was essentially ineffective. Neither the Forest Service
nor the NPS had ever sought to enforce the liability provision of the
1907 Stipulation set forth above until the NPS commenced an action
under the PSRPA in response to a breach of the Ditch in May 2003, which
is discussed below.
Imposition of a strict liability standard clearly may have the
unintended consequence of severely and adversely affecting agricultural
interests in northern Colorado. It is difficult to imagine that either
the PSRPA or 1907 Stipulation intended to put farming interests in
economic jeopardy, or potentially out of business, by making them
liable for millions of dollars in damages for a harm that was not
caused by their actions. WSSC certainly does not take lightly the
potential for damage to RMNP resources; however, a fair balancing of
the affected interests compels the conclusion that neither the PSRPA
nor the 1907 Stipulation should impose liability without fault. WSSC
agrees that our national parks are certainly worthy of protection;
however, we cannot believe that Congress intends punitive consequences
to the agricultural community in the event that another breach of the
GRD occurs where WSSC is without fault.
Section 4(e)(4)(A) of H.R. 2334 rectifies the fundamental
unfairness of a strict liability standard of relief, particularly when
it is imposed on WSSC literally 100 years after construction of the
Grand River Ditch commenced. Strict liability is an inappropriate
standard of liability because it potentially makes WSSC liable for
damages caused by events beyond its control such as naturally occurring
landslides into the Ditch that, in turn, cause a breach event.
1 WSSC, like other owners of private property potentially
affecting federal property interests, should be subject to a negligence
standard of liability or, in other words, liability for damages caused
by the negligent conduct of WSSC. Negligence is the standard of
liability imposed on ditch owners in under Colorado law, which is the
reason it was proposed in H.R. 2334.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We are unaware of any case applying the PSRPA's ``Act of God''
defense; however, cases decided under other similar statutes have held
that the subject natural phenomenon must be ``exceptional, inevitable,
and irresistible'' and must be the ``sole'' cause of the harm. See
generally Apex Oil Co. v. United States, 208 F.Supp.2d 642, 650-59
(E.D. La. 2002). The courts have so eviscerated the statutory ``Act of
God'' defense that WSSC believes that its liability should be
determined based upon its negligent or intentional conduct and the
common law defenses applicable thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4(e)(4)(A) includes an additional safeguard by requiring
that the negligence standard of liability will apply only in the event
that WSSC is in compliance with an Operating and Maintenance Plan
(``O&MP'') to be entered into between it and the NPS. The parties have
already exchanged drafts of the O&MP and are attempting to resolve
their differences. While some significant differences of opinion are
evident in the documents exchanged to date (mostly related to the scope
of the O&MP and the extent to which it should incorporate other legal
regulations and standards by reference), WSSC continues to proceed on
the basis that both parties will apply their best efforts to the
negotiations and that a mutually acceptable document can be completed.
WSSC, however, wishes to be clear that it does not support the
wilderness legislation and does not believe the bill should become law
in the absence of Section 4(e)(4)(A) and the negligence standard of
liability permitted by it. Successful completion of the O&MP
negotiations, therefore, is imperative and should be completed at the
earliest possible date.
WSSC believes that Section 4(e)(4)(B) was requested by the NPS to
explicitly preserve its legal action against WSSC related to a breach
of the Grand River Ditch in May 2003. Litigation related to this breach
is pending presently in the U.S. District Court in Colorado. WSSC
understands that this case is unaffected by H.R. 2334.
Section 4(e)(4)(C) is similar in the sense of preserving and
protecting ``existing activities'' related to the Grand River Ditch. In
particular, this section recognizes and incorporates as an ``existing
activity'' the fact that a significant number of the WSSC's shares are
owned currently by Colorado municipalities and that water diverted by
the Grand River Ditch will be used by them for municipal purposes. The
inevitability of municipal use of a portion of the Grand River Ditch is
clearly an ``existing activity'' within the scope of Section
4(e)(4)(C). This section is very important to the municipal
shareholders in WSSC and is also fundamental to WSSC's support for the
wilderness legislation.
Finally, Section 4(e)(4)(D) is intended to ensure, notwithstanding
any case law arguably to the contrary, that the use of water
transported in the Grand River Ditch will not be adversely affected,
and that the right-of-way for the Ditch shall not be relinquished,
forfeited or lost, because water diverted to the Ditch will be used for
municipal purposes as opposed to agricultural irrigation. As noted
above, the fact that shares of WSSC are owned by various municipalities
is well known, and Congress should explicitly ensure that use of the
Grand River Ditch water and right-of-way will be preserved at the time
they are used for municipal purposes.
Section 4(e)(4)(D) begins ``[n]otwithstanding any other provision
of any previous or existing law'' because the 1891 Act under which
WSSC's right-of-way was granted was repealed by the Federal Land Policy
Management Act (``FLPMA''), 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1701 to 1785, but the
1891 Act remained in effect with respect to rights acquired prior to
October 21, 1976, the effective date of FLPMA. See 43 U.S.C.A. Sections
1701, 1769.'' Overland Ditch and Reservoir Co. v. United States Forest
Service, No. Civ. A. 96 N 797, 1996 WL 33484927 (D. CO., Dec. 16, 1996)
at *9, footnote 2. The reference to ``previous law'' expressly picks-up
this legislative history and expressly preserves the integrity of
WSSC's right-of-way.
Conclusion
The provisions of the H.R. 2334 discussed above directly and
significantly affect WSSC and the Grand River Ditch and are critical to
WSSC's support of the legislation. Each of these provisions has been
discussed in detail and at length with the offices of Representatives
Udall and Musgrave and Senators Salazar and Allard, all of whom
contributed to the language of these sections prior to introduction of
S. 1380 and H.R. 2334.
Throughout its more than 100 years of existence, WSSC has worked
diligently to be a good neighbor and property owner in RMNP. We believe
that our working relationship with RMNP and the NPS has been good and
productive over the years, and we anticipate that relationship will
continue in the years to come.
WSSC thanks the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present our
views on H.R. 2334, and we would be pleased to respond to any
questions.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And you took a minute of Mr. Mark
Udall's time, but we will adjust as we go along. The Honorable
William Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem, Town of Estes Park, Colorado.
Mr. Mayor, your testimony, please.
STATEMENT OF BILL PINKHAM, MAYOR PRO TEM,
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
Mr. Pinkham. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Town
of Estes Park on H.R. 2334, a bill to designate as wilderness
certain lands within Rocky Mountain National Park and adjust
the boundaries of the Indian Peaks Wilderness and Arapaho
National Recreational Area of the Arapaho National Forest in
the State of Colorado.
Forty-three years have passed since Congress designated
Rocky Mountain National Park as a wilderness study area, and 33
years have passed since President Nixon recommended wilderness
designation. On May 14, 2007, local citizens and officials
applauded the announcement with Representatives Musgrave and
Udall and Senators Allard and Salazar at the Marine Park
Campground Amphitheater in Rocky Mountain National Park of the
introduction of bipartisan legislation to permanently protect
the back country of the park as wilderness. And it was a banner
day because the wind wasn't blowing and it also didn't rain or
snow on us. H.R. 2334 was then introduced into the House of
Representatives by Congressman Mark Udall with Congresswoman
Marilyn Musgrave as co-sponsor.
The Town of Estes Park, one of the two gateway communities
to Rocky Mountain National Park, fully supports H.R. 2334,
designating approximately 250,000 acres of Rocky Mountain
National Park's back country in the National Wilderness
Preservation System. The town will not take a position on the
Grand River Ditch liability issue. However, it appears this is
a major obstacle in granting wilderness designation to the
park, and we hope prompt resolution can be reached.
In addition to Estes Park, the gateway community of Grand
Lake and three Colorado counties which encompass the park,
Larimer, Grand and Boulder, have endorsed the wilderness
designation for Rocky Mountain National Park. It is also
supported by a variety of conservation and civic groups,
including the League of Women Voters, Colorado Environmental
Coalition, Colorado Mountain Club, the Wilderness Society,
Headwaters Trails Alliance, and the International Mountain
Biking Association.
Wilderness designation will help sustain the ecological
health of the park, guarantee the economic vitality of the
local communities, and ensure that the park remains as it is
today for future generations of visitors to enjoy and explore.
The Board of Trustees, the Town of Estes Park, has thoroughly
reviewed the present proposed wilderness boundaries and
received public input with regard to the designation of
wilderness and all agreed to fully support it as evidenced in
the Estes Park Resolution Number 17-05, which I believe you
have a copy of with my testimony. We hope that the wilderness
designation legislation will be adopted and will permanently
protect and solidify the wild character of the park lands in
perpetuity. Designation will have no impact on park management
and function and would in no way alter current activities or
access in the park. Park managers will continue to encourage
hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, fishing, climbing,
skiing, snowshoeing and sightseeing with ample access to one of
the Nation's most beautiful landscapes.
Trail Ridge Road, the highest continuous paved road in the
continental United States, and Fall River Road, the first road
to cross the Rocky Mountains in northern Colorado, will
continue to be maintained for motorized travel. This will allow
visitors of all ages and abilities to experience the history
and majesty of the magnificent park lands and the wilderness
represented.
Wilderness designation will reaffirm the park's original
mission to preserve vistas and wildlife, protecting the
unscarred landscape from a crisscrossing of roads and from
policies that could degrade the character of the park's forest
and its quiet places. In this age of opportunistic development
it is important to protect this national treasure. By-products
of preservation also will promote clean air, water and open
spaces for the benefit of the public health in Colorado.
We urge you to resolve any remaining issues and to act on
the wilderness designation for Rocky Mountain National Park.
Now is the time to make a difference and to forever preserve
our treasure for all generations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy
to provide any further support or documentation that would
assist in the passage of H.R. 2334.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pinkham follows:]
Statement of Bill Pinkham, Mayor Pro Tem,
Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on H.R. 2334
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Town of Estes Park on H.R.
2334, a bill to designate as wilderness certain lands within Rocky
Mountain National Park and adjust the boundaries of the Indian Peaks
Wilderness and Arapaho National Recreation Area of the Arapaho National
Forest in the State of Colorado.
Forty-three years have passed since Congress designated Rocky
Mountain National Park as a wilderness study area, and 33 years have
passed since President Nixon recommended wilderness designation. On May
14, 2007, local citizens and officials applauded the announcement by
Representatives Musgrave and Udall and Senators Allard and Salazar at
the Moraine Park Campground Amphitheater in Rocky Mountain National
Park of the introduction of bipartisan legislation to permanently
protect the backcountry of the Park as wilderness. H.R. 2334 was then
introduced into the House of Representatives by Congressman Mark Udall
with Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave as cosponsor.
The Town of Estes Park, one of the two gateway communities to Rocky
Mountain National Park fully supports H.R. 2334 designating
approximately 250,000 acres of Rocky Mountain National Park's
backcountry in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Town
will not take a position on the Grand River Ditch liability issue;
however, it appears this is a major obstacle in granting wilderness
designation to Rocky Mountain National Park, and we hope prompt
resolution can be reached.
In addition to Estes Park, the gateway community of Grand Lake and
the three Colorado counties that encompass the park (Larimer, Grand and
Boulder) have endorsed the wilderness designation for Rocky Mountain
National Park. It is also supported by a variety of conservation and
civic groups, including the League of Women Voters, Colorado
Environmental Coalition, Colorado Mountain Club, The Wilderness
Society, Headwaters Trails Alliance, and the International Mountain
Bicycling Association.
Wilderness designation will help sustain the ecological health of
the park, guarantee the economic vitality of local communities, and
ensure that the park remains as it is today for future generations of
visitors to enjoy and explore.
The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has thoroughly
reviewed the present proposed wilderness boundaries and received public
input with regard to the designation of wilderness and all agreed to
fully support it as evidenced in the attached Estes Park Resolution #
17-05, ``Support of Wilderness Designation for Rocky Mountain National
Park''. We hope that the wilderness designation legislation will be
adopted and will permanently protect and solidify the wild character of
the park lands in perpetuity. Designation will have no impact on park
management and function and would in no way alter current activities or
access in the park. Park managers will continue to encourage hiking,
backpacking, horseback riding, fishing, climbing, skiing, snowshoeing
and sight-seeing with ample access to one of the nation's most
beautiful landscapes.
Trail Ridge Road, the highest continuous paved road in the
continental United States, and Fall River Road, the first road to cross
the Rocky Mountains in northern Colorado, will continue to be
maintained for motorized travel. This will allow visitors of all ages
and abilities to experience the history and majesty of the magnificent
park lands.
Wilderness designation will reaffirm the park's original mission to
preserve vistas and wildlife, protecting the unscarred landscape from a
crisscrossing of roads and from policies that could degrade the
character of the park's forest and its quiet places. In this age of
opportunistic development, it is important to protect this national
treasure. Byproducts of preservation also promote clean air, water and
open spaces to the benefit of the public health in Colorado.
We urge you to resolve any remaining issues and to act on the
Wilderness Designation for Rocky Mountain National Park. Now is the
time to make a difference and forever preserve our treasure for all
generations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
provide any further support or documentation that would assist the
passage of H.R. 2334.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Turning now to Mr. Arturo Sandoval, President, Center of
Southwest Culture.
STATEMENT OF ARTURO SANDOVAL, PRESIDENT,
CENTER OF SOUTHWEST CULTURE
Mr. Sandoval. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity to tell you why I support the
proposed Sabinoso Wilderness Area in San Miguel County in New
Mexico. My name is Arturo Sandoval and I am a native of New
Mexico. I am President of the Center of Southwest Culture, an
organization that promotes the people's and cultures of the
Southwest through economic, cultural and educational
initiatives. I have been engaged in supporting the well-being
of New Mexico's Indo-Hispano people for more than 40 years.
In New Mexico we have had people living on the land for at
least the past 10,000 years. Native Americans have lived
continuously in what is now New Mexico for all of that time and
Hispanos have shared the land with them for the past 400 years.
We boast the longest continuously occupied village in the U.S.
Taos Pueblo in northern New Mexico has been continuously
occupied for the past 1,000 years.
What this deep imprint of people upon the land in New
Mexico means is that we have developed an intimate and abiding
relationship to place. Place has helped shaped our world view.
It has helped us define who we are. It literally grounds us in
core values of respect and love for all living things and for
conservation of wild and open spaces.
As a result, Hispanos in New Mexico know that the health of
our cultural landscape is forever tied to the health of our
physical landscape. Healthy cultures in New Mexico depend on
healthy landscapes.
I am especially honored to be with you today because the
Sabinoso area is part of my ancestral homelands. My great-
grandparents, Pablo and Pablita Madrid, were born and raised
near the proposed Sabinoso Wilderness in a small ranching
community called Trementina. Today Trementina is mostly
abandoned with just a few scattered homes and a part-time post
office marking what was once a vibrant rural village.
On an even more personal note, I own a small parcel of
forest land near Sabinoso in my homelands of Mora County. There
I am privileged to spend time riding horses, watching as deer,
elk, wild turkey, bear and a host of birds share the landscape
with me. In that regard I am typical of many northern New
Mexico Hispanos who have grown up on the land and who love it
as much as I do.
That is why so many Hispano residents of San Miguel County
are strongly in support of the proposed Sabinoso Wilderness. We
know the area well. Our grandparents and parents took us there
to hunt, to run cattle during summer months, to camp and share
stories around the campfire. We know that protecting San Miguel
as a wilderness area means we are also protecting our
traditional culture.
Just as important, we are currently engaged in a process to
rethink our traditional land-based economy. We are rolling out
new economic initiatives that seek to keep our people on the
land while understanding the need to keep the land intact.
These new sustainable economic initiatives seek to
encourage ecotourism as a viable economic option for northern
New Mexico's rural Hispano communities. Wilderness areas we are
rapidly learning are one way to ensure that we can develop
sustainable ecotourism activities and help reenergize and
rebuild our traditional land-based communities.
That is why the Las Vegas/San Miguel County Economic
Development Corporation, along with the San Miguel County
Commission and the town councils of Springer and Wagon Mound,
New Mexico, have all passed resolutions in support of Sabinoso.
Through the Center of Southwest Culture, we are actively
working to create ecotourism opportunities in northern New
Mexico. Part of our efforts to achieve economic health in small
rural communities includes talking to local ranchers whose
lands abut the proposed Sabinoso Wilderness.
They strongly support creation of Sabinoso as a wilderness
because they see the economic opportunities that wilderness
will create, outfitting and guiding hunters and bird watchers
and all of those millions of Americans who gain personal
satisfaction from being someplace that has been untouched and
unspoiled by humans.
These local ranchers and villagers are excited because
these Federal lands support traditional practices like hunting
and grazing. We are happy to report that New Mexico's Game and
Fish Department is currently talking to several local ranchers
about purchasing public access to this pristine area, and the
ranchers I am happy to report are happy to collaborate in this
process.
On behalf of our ancestors, on behalf of rural villages and
villagers in San Miguel County, we respectfully ask that you
pass the Sabinoso Wilderness bill and that you help us revive
and sustain our culture and our life ways.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sandoval follows:]
Statement of Arturo Sandoval, President,
Center of Southwest Culture, on H.R. 2632
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to tell you why I support the proposed Sabinoso Wilderness
Area in San Miguel County, New Mexico.
My name is Arturo Sandoval, and I am a native of New Mexico. I am
president of the Center of Southwest Culture, an organization that
promotes the peoples and cultures of the Southwest through economic,
cultural and educational initiatives. I have been engaged in supporting
the well-being of New Mexico's Indo-Hispano people for more than 40
years.
In New Mexico, we have had people living on the land for at least
the past 10,000 years. Native Americans have lived continuously in what
is now New Mexico for all that time, and Hispanos have shared the land
with them for the past 400 years. We boast the longest continuously
occupied village in the US: Taos Pueblo in northern New Mexico has been
continuously occupied for the past 1,000 years.
What this deep imprint of people upon the land in New Mexico means
is that we have developed an intimate and abiding relationship to
place. Place has helped shape our worldview. It has helped us define
who we are. It literally grounds us in core values of respect and love
for all living things and for conservation of wild and open spaces.
As a result, Hispanos in New Mexico know that the health of our
cultural landscape is forever tied to the health of our physical
landscape. Healthy cultures in New Mexico depend on healthy landscapes.
I am especially honored to be here today with you because the
Sabinoso area is part of my ancestral homelands. My great-grandparents,
Pablo and Pablita Madrid, were born and raised near the proposed
Sabinoso Wilderness, in a small ranching community called Trementina.
Today, Trementina is mostly abandoned, with just a few scattered homes
and a part time post office marking what was once a vibrant rural
village.
On an even more personal note, I own a small parcel of forest land
near Sabinoso in my homelands of Mora County. There, I am privileged to
spend time riding horses, watching as deer, elk, wild turkey, bear and
a host of birds share the landscape with me.
In that regard, I am typical of many northern New Mexico Hispanos,
who have grown up on the land and who love it as much as I do.
That is why so many of us Hispano residents of San Miguel County
are strongly in support of the proposed Sabinoso Wilderness. We know
the area well. Our grandparents and parents took us there to hunt, to
run cattle during summer months, to camp and share stories around the
campfire.
We know that protecting Sabinoso as a wilderness area means we are
also protecting our traditional culture.
Just as important, we are currently engaged in a process to re-
think our traditional land-based economy. We are rolling out new
economic initiatives that seek to keep our people on the land, while
understanding the need to keep the land intact.
These new sustainable economic initiatives seek to encourage eco-
tourism as a viable economic option for northern New Mexico's rural
Hispano communities. Wilderness areas, we are rapidly learning, are one
way to ensure that we can develop sustainable eco-tourism activities
and help re-energize and rebuild our traditional land-based
communities.
That is why the Las Vegas/San Miguel County Economic Development
Corporation, along with the San Miguel County Commission and the town
councils of Springer and Wagon Mound, NM, all have passed resolutions
in support of Sabinoso.
Through the Center of Southwest Culture, I am actively working to
create eco-tourism opportunities in northern New Mexico. Part of my
efforts to achieve economic health in small rural communities includes
talking to local ranchers whose lands abut the proposed Sabinoso
Wilderness.
They strongly support creation of Sabinoso as a wilderness because
they see the economic opportunities that wilderness will create:
outfitting and guiding hunters, birdwatchers and all of those millions
of Americans who gain personal satisfaction from being someplace that
has been untouched and unspoiled by humans.
These local ranchers and villagers are excited because these
federal lands support traditional practices like hunting and grazing. I
am happy to report that New Mexico's Game and Fish Department is
currently talking to several local ranchers about purchasing public
access to this pristine area and the ranchers are happy to collaborate
in this process.
On behalf of our ancestors, on behalf of rural villagers in San
Miguel County, I respectfully ask that you pass the Sabinoso Wilderness
bill and that you help us revive and sustain our culture and our life
ways.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Sandoval. Before I go to the
next witness, Mr. Sandoval, the woman I am related to marriage
with, she is from Penasco. And she told me to be sure to nod
approvingly as you spoke and not to ask any difficult
questions, and I am glad to do that sir.
Mr. Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Jerry Becker, Executive Director, Elk
River Land Trust. Sir.
STATEMENT OF JERRY BECKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ELK RIVER LAND TRUST
Mr. Becker. I am Jerry Becker. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify supporting the Copper Salmon Wilderness
Act. I am a consulting forester and watershed restorationist, a
founding board member of Friends of Elk River, and the
Executive Director of Elk River Land Trust.
I have lived, worked and fished in Elk River's watershed
since 1974. In those 33 years I have covered every part of the
watershed. I represent Friends of Elk River, Trout Unlimited,
Campaign for America's Wilderness, a Coalition of Sportsmen,
the North Curry Chamber of Commerce, the City of Port Orford,
Port Orford Watershed Council, and a who's who list of
national, state and local public officials and environmental
organizations who all ask me to protect Elk River and 50 miles
of crystal and headwater streams by designating the Copper
Salmon Wilderness Area.
The rural community is united in support of wilderness
designation for the Copper Salmon Area. This is why I traveled
across the country to explain to you in plain words that the
ecology and the economy of our remote fishing community are
deeply interconnected. Our community depends on the health of
Elk River watershed and the world class fishery provided by the
North Fork of Elk River. We also know that just as our economic
well-being is bound to our wild rivers and to our forested
watersheds, our well-being is also dependent on the clean air
and clean water that these forests provide.
During the 1980s and 1990s Stocking Survey Contracts sent
me to check the survival of newly planted conifers in U.S.
Forest Service clear-cuts. It is easy to remember the units in
the upper Elk River area. The slope of the land averages more
than 80 percent, with many hill slopes exceeding 100 percent.
And this is an area that gets 170 inches of rainfall and
hurricane force winds. All the clear-cuts had landslides in the
bottom of the units. Invisible from the roads above, these
slides delivered sediment to the tributaries below the units.
Logging road failures dump literally tons of rock into the
river. Gravel and cobblestones worked loose by road building
tumble down the watershed for decades, filling deep holes and
destroying the low gradient productive flats that scientists
consider barometers of watershed health.
Locals understand that we must protect our natural
infrastructure to maintain Elk River's world class salmon
fishery. The Copper Salmon Wilderness proposal has achieved
widespread support in Curry County because Elk River's abundant
chinook run equals jobs that drive North Curry's economy. There
is no matrix in the Copper Salmon. However, as was the case
with the adjacent Grassy Knob Wilderness, old timber
plantations remain inside the wilderness. Including these
regrown plantations and using main roads as the Copper Salmon
Wilderness Area boundary circumvents high priced land surveying
and mapping expenses. It is the no-cost sensible way to go that
best safeguards the North Fork's ecosystem and watershed
values.
I want to reemphasize that I am a forester and that I agree
with the need to thin vast areas of second growth plantations.
I also feel certain places should be left untouched for
watershed protection, and here are two of the many reasons
Copper Salmon Wilderness is among those places.
I can still look down through 20 feet of clean, clear water
and see every stone on the river bed below. And the thrill of a
40-pound chinook salmon pulling and jumping while I try to hang
onto my fishing rod is a connection with nature that I hope to
share with my grandchildren.
H.R. 3513 proclaims that big fish and exceptional water
quality can be part of all Americans' futures. All the area
within the proposed Copper Salmon Wilderness meet the criteria
of the Wilderness Act.
Please protect Elk River by authorizing the no disturbance,
no cost Copper Salmon Wilderness Act as expeditiously as
possible. Church groups, business leaders, fishermen, artists
and thousands of visitors who travel great distances to smell
the sea air and glimpse the area's unparalleled beauty join me
in urging you to release us from the old boom and bust cycle of
resource extraction and to make our vision of economic
stability a reality by establishing the Copper Salmon
Wilderness Area.
There is nothing to restore. We simply need to permanently
protect Elk River's headwaters.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this hearing
today. I look forward to answering your questions. And also
have a map here that I would like to submit. It depicts the
slopes in the area. The green area is pretty general slopes.
The yellow area is steeper where caution should be applied. And
the orange and red areas are extremely steep and there should
be no disturbance, no human disturbance in those areas. And I
ask that this be submitted for the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection. Thank you.
[NOTE: The map submitted for the record has been retained
in the Committee's official files.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Becker follows:]
Statement of Jerry P. Becker, Port Orford, Oregon
Thank you for the opportunity to testify supporting H.R. 3513, the
Copper Salmon Wilderness Act. I am a consulting forester, a watershed
restorationist, a founding board member of Friends of Elk River, and
the Executive Director of Elk River Land Trust. I have lived, worked,
and fished in Elk River's watershed since 1974. In those 33 years I
have covered every part of the watershed.
To speak before you today, I've traveled from Port Orford, a small
fishing village located along a remote stretch of Pacific Highway 101
that's known as America's Wild Rivers Coast--and our weather is every
bit as wild as our rivers are.
I represent Friends of Elk River, Trout Unlimited, Campaign for
America's Wilderness, a coalition of sportsmen, the North Curry Chamber
of Commerce, the City of Port Orford, the Port Orford Watershed
Council, and a Who's Who list of national, State, and local public
officials and environmental organizations, who all ask you to protect
Elk River--and 50 miles of crystalline headwater streams--by
designating the 13,700 acre Copper Salmon Wilderness Area.
The Copper Salmon Wilderness proposal started locally, from the
ground up. Our rural community is united in support of wilderness
designation for the Copper Salmon area. This is why I traveled across
the country--from shore to shore--to explain to you in plain words,
that the ecology and the economy of our remote fishing community are
deeply interconnected. Our community depends on the health of Elk River
watershed and the world-class fishery provided by the North Fork of Elk
River. We also know that just as our economic well-being is bound to
our wild rivers and to our forested watersheds, our well-being is also
dependant on the clean air and clear water that these forests provide.
After graduating from the University of Rochester in New York
State, I came to Oregon and spent much of the following 10 years timber
cruising old-growth in the Elk River watershed. Then to support my
family, I performed technical forestry contracts for the U.S. Forest
Service throughout the entire Pacific Northwest. So I know what I'm
talking about when I say that the Wild & Scenic Elk with it's
``outstandingly remarkable'' water quality, is a real gem in Oregon's
crown. I know that for Elk River to maintain this preeminent position,
however, we need to protect her headwaters.
During the 1980's and 1990's, stocking survey contracts sent me to
check the survival of newly planted conifers in USFS clearcuts. It's
easy to remember units in the upper Elk River area. The slope of the
land averages more than 80%, with many hillslopes exceeding 100%. All
the clearcuts had landslides in the bottom of the units. Invisible from
the roads above, these slides delivered sediment to the tributaries
below the units. I mapped and noted the slides in the ``comments''
sections of my data cards. And I'd wince during heavy rainstorms,
knowing that slides were sending pulses of sediment downstream that
would settle on spawning beds, slowly smothering precious salmon eggs
during their incubation periods. Forty years later, logging road
failures continue to dump literally tons of rocks into the river.
Gravel and cobblestones worked loose by road building, tumble down the
watershed for decades, filling deep holes and destroying the low-
gradient productive flats that scientists consider barometers of
watershed health.
During these contracts, the reason that Elk River was the last
south coast watershed to be logged became obvious. Not only was it the
most dangerous and the most expensive watershed to work in--more often
than not--serious ecological damage resulted from building roads and
logging in this extremely steep, rough, unstable country.
Locals understand that we must protect our natural infrastructure
to maintain Elk River's world-class salmon fishery. The Copper Salmon
Wilderness proposal has achieved widespread support in Curry County
because Elk River's abundant chinook run equals the jobs that drive
North Curry's economy.
The Sunday before last, my wife and I spent an afternoon at Cape
Blanco watching Port Orford's commercial fishing fleet working right
off the mouth of Elk River. Their ``North Beach'' or ``bubble'' fishery
is a special late-season opportunity to catch returning Elk River
salmon. Each Elk River Chinook brought on board means more than $100 to
the boat's captain.
The Copper Salmon Wilderness Act can be a ``No Cost'' action by the
Federal Government. Because of it's high ecological value, the Elk was
designated a Tier I Key Watershed 13 years ago. Remember, many of these
slopes are 100% and greater. Any attempts to manage plantations which
should never have been logged in the first place, or to decommission
already-impassable roads, will create disturbance. And we've learned
that even the slightest disturbance in Elk River's fragile headwaters
degrades the watershed.
There is no matrix in Copper Salmon. However, as was the case with
the adjacent Grassy Knob Wilderness Area, old timber plantations--the
legacy of imprudent management that took place decades ago--remain
inside the Copper Salmon Wilderness. Including these re-grown
plantations and using main roads as the Copper Salmon Wilderness Area
boundary, circumvents high-priced land surveying and mapping expenses.
It's the no-cost, sensible way to go that best safeguards the North
Fork's ecosystem and watershed values.
Indiscriminate incursions notwithstanding, Elk River watershed
remains one of the most intact low-elevation temperate rain forests in
the world. Although the entire area has been off-limits to logging for
the past 13 years, there will inevitably be continued attempts to go
back after the North Fork's timber, each furtive attempt further
damaging and eventually irreparably destroying our world-class salmon
fishery. The only way to really protect this unique, extremely
important area for perpetuity is by awarding it Congressional
protection as Wilderness.
I want to re-emphasize that I'm a forester and that I agree with
the need to thin vast areas of second-growth plantations. I also feel
certain places should be left untouched for watershed protection
reasons. Here are two of many reasons the Copper Salmon Wilderness is
among those places:
1. I can still look through twenty feet of clean, clear water and
see every stone on the riverbed below; and
2. The thrill of a forty-pound Chinook salmon pulling and jumping
while I try to hang on to my fishing rod, is a connection with nature
that I hope to share with my grandchildren.
H.R. 3513 proclaims that big fish and exceptional water quality can
be part of all American's futures. All of the areas within the proposed
Copper Salmon Wilderness meet the criteria of the Wilderness Act.
Please protect Elk River (and 50 miles of crystalline headwater
streams) by authorizing the ``no disturbance/no cost--Copper Salmon
Wilderness Act as expeditiously as possible.
From retirees to schoolchildren, all facets of our coastal
community support wilderness designation for the Copper Salmon area.
Church groups, business leaders, fishermen, artists, and thousands of
visitors who travel great distances to smell the sea air and glimpse
the area's unparalleled beauty, join me in urging you to release us
from the old boom and bust cycle of resource extraction, and to make
our vision of economic stability a reality by establishing the Copper
Salmon Wilderness Area.
There is nothing to restore, we simply need to permanently protect
Elk River's headwaters. Thank you for your wisdom on this far-reaching
matter and thank you for the opportunity to speak before this hearing
today. I look forward to answering your questions.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Jacob Groves, again on H.R. 3513,
American Forest Resource Council. Sir.
STATEMENT OF JACOB GROVES,
AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE COUNCIL
Mr. Groves. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss my perspective, experiences and concerns
with H.R. 3513, the Copper Salmon Wilderness Act.
My name is Jacob Groves. I have lived, worked, fished in
the Copper Salmon area all my life and most recently have
walked or driven nearly every acre of the wilderness proposal.
I am a life-long resident of the area, a third generation
forester having grown up in Myrtle Point, Oregon and attended
Oregon State University, where I earned my Bachelor's of
Science in Natural Resources with an option in Forestry Ecology
and my Master's of Forestry in Forest Biology. Currently I am
the Western Oregon Field Forester for the American Forest
Resource Council, AFRC. Today I am here representing AFRC, the
Associated Oregon Loggers, and the Douglas Timber Operators.
To highlight my testimony each of you should have a copy of
AFRC's analysis of the Copper Salmon area complete with maps,
photos taken on the ground, and aerial photos.
AFRC has several concerns with this bill, but the most
alarming to me is that approximately 1,000 acres of this
proposal was included in the Coastal Healthy Forests
Environmental Assessment that the Rogue-Siskiyou National
Forest recently completed. These acres are scheduled to be
mechanically thinned to improve forest health. This May 2007
management decision satisfied the Forest Service requirements
under the National Forest Management Act, National
Environmental Policy Act, Administrative Procedures Act and
many other laws. Furthermore, there were no appeals on this
project, nor was a suit filed challenging the agency decision.
The NEPA work has already been paid for by the Forest
Service and is ready to move forward with the needed treatments
within these stands. In addition to this acreage, we believe
there are an additional 1,600 acres of second growth stands
within the wilderness proposal in need of the same type of
treatments. This project is consistent with the 1994 Clinton
Northwest Forest Plan and legislative concepts currently being
considered by Congressman DeFazio.
Supporters of the bill point to the world class fishery as
one of the main reasons to protect it. While I personally
appreciate the fact that they also value this area, their
efforts here seem to be misguided. Many times forest
management, whether it be thinning, road restoration, soil
stabilization, in-stream habitat improvements or other
activities are needed to ensure high quality fish and wildlife
habitat. A wilderness designation, however, would prohibit this
type of restoration and severely limit the options of land
managers.
This area is naturally prone to landslides. But what this
highlights is the need to thin some of these managed stands.
When these natural landslides do occur, would we prefer, for
example, 300 small diameter trees choking a stream or 60 large
older trees delivering large woody debris to a stream? I can
easily say that most, if not all, fish biologists would prefer
large woody debris to provide adequate stream structure.
Clearly the intent of this area, as established by the
Northwest Forest Plan, is to create late successional or what
most would consider old growth habitat, helping enhance habitat
for both fish and wildlife. Without some active management in
these areas, especially forest health, thinning and road
maintenance, it will be difficult to meet these goals or to
ever achieve late successional or old growth type forests.
Instead of wilderness, the appropriate approach would allow
for responsible management now and into the future to ensure
the area remains a world class fishery. To be clear, I am not
advocating for traditional timber management in this area even
though it has been done in the past. But the fact of the matter
is timber harvests have been conducted on one-fifth of the
entire proposed wilderness and it remains an excellent fishery.
Timber management and fishery health are certainly not
mutually exclusive. When I reviewed the aerial photos of the
Copper Salmon, every single photo had a road in it. Let me make
this clear. There are 0 aerial photos without a road. This adds
up to 11.8 miles of system roads, 92 culverts, an unknown
amount of roads no longer identified as system roads. Most of
these were constructed because of old mining claims and
approximately 2,600 acres of previously harvested stands, which
is 19 percent of the total acreage that need continued
management.
This area was also analyzed for its suitability for
wilderness designation during the forest required land
management process in 1989. The NFMA/NEPA-approved document
concluded that the area was not suitable or worthy of
wilderness designation. The area analyzed was 9,354 acres and
excluded the previously managed and system road acres which are
included in H.R. 3513. At the very least, the areas containing
roads, previously harvested stands and plantations should be
removed from the wilderness proposal.
Finally, the Forest Service has indicated that if this bill
becomes law the agency would likely restore roads and remove
culverts to protect water quality. It has been estimated that
due to the numerous culverts and the permanent natures of the
roads it would cost the agency roughly $300,000 to conduct
these activities under current land designations. After further
review, however, AFRC believes the work could realistically
cost $400,000 to $500,000 with costs to operate heavy equipment
such as an excavator continuing to rise with the price of
diesel fuel. In all honesty the Forest Service would likely
lack the money and resources needed to return the area to that
resembling wilderness.
If the agency were required to conduct these activities
under minimum tools and non-motorized policies that accompany
wilderness designations, the costs would soar to close to $1
million. The Forest Service is already having a tough time
meeting even the most basic needs. Knowing this, it is
unrealistic to place the financial burden on the already cash
strapped agency.
AFRC has expressed a desire to work with Congressman
DeFazio to find a common sense wilderness proposal that fits
the needs of this area while ensuring that responsible
management continue to contribute to the health of both the
forest and the fishery.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I am
happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groves follows:]
Statement of Jacob Groves, Representing the American Forest Resource
Council; Associated Oregon Loggers; and Douglas Timber Operators
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, Ladies
and Gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss my perspective,
experiences, and concerns with H.R. 3513, the Copper Salmon Wilderness
Act. My name is Jacob Groves. I have lived, worked and fished in the
Copper Salmon area all my life and most recently have walked or driven
nearly every acre of the wilderness proposal. I am a lifelong resident
of the area, third generation forester having grown-up in Myrtle Point,
Oregon, and attended Oregon State University where I earned my
Bachelors of Science in Natural Resources (Forest Ecology) and my
Masters of Forestry in Forest Biology. Currently, I'm the Western
Oregon Field Forester for the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC).
Today I am here representing AFRC, the Associated Oregon Loggers and
the Douglas Timber Operators.
Specifically, I'm intimately aware of the Copper Salmon because I
grew up in the area and have fished for steelhead and salmon in the Elk
River numerous times. Make no mistake; it is an excellent fishery that
I have personally enjoyed and deeply value. I also agree that there are
certain areas within the wilderness proposal that contain old stands of
Port Orford cedar that should remain intact. That does not, however,
mean this entire area should be designated as wilderness. To highlight
my testimony, each of you should have a copy of AFRC's analysis of the
Copper Salmon area complete with maps, photos taken on the ground and
aerial photos.
AFRC has several concerns with this bill, but the most alarming to
me is that approximately 1,000 acres of this proposal was included in
the Coastal Healthy Forests Environmental Assessment that the Rogue-
Siskiyou National Forest recently completed. This May 2007 management
decision satisfied the Forest Service's requirements under the National
Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act,
Administrative Procedures Act and many other laws. Furthermore, there
were no appeals on this project nor was a suit filed challenging the
agency decision. The NEPA work has already been paid for and the Forest
Service is ready to move forward with needed treatments within these
stands. In addition to this acreage, we believe there are an additional
1,600 acres of second-growth stands within the wilderness proposal in
need of the same type of treatments.
It's important to note that most of the area included in the
wilderness proposal is classified as ``Late Successional Reserves'' or
``LSRs'' under the 1994 Clinton Northwest Forest Plan. These areas were
set aside to create future late-successional forests (generally what
most folks would think of as ``old growth'' forests) for late-
succession species, such as the Northern Spotted Owl. Forest thinning
projects, like those contemplated for portions of this area, were
specifically envisioned under the Plan to speed the development of
these characteristics. Prior to the adoption of the Plan, the 2,600
acres I'm referring to was successfully regenerated as Douglas fir
plantations with timber management envisioned in the future. Today, as
some of the pictures show, there are roughly 300 trees per acre--with
this kind of stocking, it is unlikely these stands will ever become
viable late-successional habitat and they certainly aren't providing
great habitat in their current state. Moreover, roads already exist to
access these areas. It is important to remember that LSRs cannot be
managed after stands reach the 80-year old age class and that clear-
cutting, or other intensive types of active management are strictly
prohibited in these areas.
It must also be noted that this area was analyzed for its
suitability for wilderness designation during the Forest's required
land management process in 1989. The NFMA/NEPA approved document
concluded that the area was not suitable or worthy of wilderness
designation. The area analyzed was 9,354 acres and excluded the
previously managed and roaded acres which are included in H.R. 3513.
Supporters of this bill point to the world class fishery as one of
the main reasons to protect it. While I appreciate the fact that they
also value the area, their efforts here seem to be misguided. Many
times forest management--whether it be thinning, road restoration, soil
stabilization, in-stream habitat improvements, or other activity--is
needed to ensure high-quality fish and wildlife habitat. A wilderness
designation, however, would prohibit this type of restoration and
severely limit the options of land managers. This area is naturally
prone to land slides--but what this highlights is the need to thin some
of these managed stands. When these natural land slides do occur, would
we prefer, for example, 300 small diameter trees choking a stream or 60
large, older trees delivering large woody debris to a stream? I can
easily say that most, if not all fish biologists would prefer large
woody debris to provide adequate stream structure. Clearly the intent
of this area, as already established by the Northwest Forest Plan is to
create late-successional habitat, helping to enhance habitat for both
fish and wildlife. Without some active management in these areas, it
will be difficult to meet these important goals.
Instead of wilderness, the appropriate approach would allow for
responsible management now and in the future to ensure the area remains
a world-class fishery. To be clear, I am not advocating for traditional
timber management in this area even though it's been done in the past,
but the fact of the matter is timber harvests have been conducted on
one-fifth of the entire proposed wilderness and it remains an excellent
fishery. Timber management and fishery health are certainly not
mutually exclusive.
To me, the 1964 Wilderness Act is very clear. Wilderness is an area
``untrammeled by man'', it is ``undeveloped''retaining its primeval
character--without permanent improvements.'' When I reviewed the aerial
photos of the Copper Salmon, every single photo had a road in it. Let
me make this clear, there are zero aerial photos without roads. This
adds up to 11.8 miles of system roads, 92 culverts, an unknown amount
of roads no longer identified as system roads--most of these were
constructed because of old mining claims, and approximately 2,600 acres
of previously harvested stands (which is 19% of the total acreage) that
need continued management. To the contrary, these areas have been
substantially influenced by humans. At the very least, the areas
containing roads, previously harvested stands and plantations should be
removed from the wilderness proposal.
Finally, the Forest Service has indicated that if this bill became
law, the Agency would likely ``restore'' roads and remove culverts to
protect water quality. It has been estimated that, due to numerous
culverts and the permanent nature of the roads, it would cost the
Agency roughly $300,000 to conduct these activities under current land
designations. After further review, however, AFRC believes the work
could realistically cost $400,000 to $500,000 with costs to operate
heavy equipment, such as an excavator, continuing to rise with the
price of diesel fuel. In all honesty, the Forest Service would likely
lack the money and resources needed to completely decommission roads
and return the area to that resembling ``wilderness.'' If the agency
were required to conduct these activities under the ``minimal tools''
and non-motorized policies that accompany wilderness designations, the
costs could soar to close to one million dollars. The Forest Service is
already having a tough time meeting even the most basic needs; its
budget has been static or declining for several years and fire
suppression costs consume nearly half of the budget now and will
consume more than half the budget in the near future. Knowing this, it
is unrealistic to place this financial burden on the already cash-
strapped Agency. It is also irresponsible to designate this area as
wilderness--precluding much-needed road or forest restoration in the
future--with the knowledge that this could harm the fishery in the
future.
AFRC has expressed a desire to work with Congressman DeFazio to
find a common-sense wilderness proposal that fits the needs of the area
while ensuring that responsible management can continue to contribute
to the health of both the forest and the fishery. The member companies
of AFRC generate thousands of quality jobs across the region and often
are among the largest private employers in rural communities. Within
Congressman DeFazio's district alone, AFRC is proud to represent nearly
20 forest products companies which operate approximately 25
manufacturing facilities that employ thousands of Oregonians. These
companies are both locally and privately owned and are part of the
solution for our nation's forest health, energy independence, and
domestic economic challenges.
With the Federal government managing over 60 percent of the
forestland in southwest Oregon, these facilities are highly dependent
on an adequate supply of timber from Federal lands to survive. The lack
of supply from these forests continues to contribute to economic
dislocation in the area. Just last week, the Swanson Group, a major
forest products employer in the western Oregon, announced layoffs that
will result in the loss of approximately 150 family-wage jobs. It is
clear that we must get back to responsibly managing our Federal
forests, such as the areas I have outlined above that are in need of
future management.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'd be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. At this time I have no
questions. I intend to submit to some of our witnesses some
questions so I can get a response in writing, but that will
happen later.
With that, let me turn to Mr. Bishop for any questions he
might have.
Mr. Bishop. I would like to ask the UC at the very
beginning. This is not meant in any way as criticism. I think
it is the archaic rules that we have on what limits testimony
coming in at our hearing process. But I would like to submit
for the record a letter signed by 74 individuals in opposition
to H.R. 3682, as well as a petition with 700 signatures and
communications we got in opposition to H.R. 3287 to be included
in the record under unanimous consent.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
[NOTE: The petition submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Harmon, if I could
ask you just one quick question. The Department of the Interior
has been making out that basically this bill is a sweetheart
deal for your company, that you have had a long history inside
Rocky Mountain working with the Park Service. They claim this
legislation breaks agreements that were made in 1907 and 2000
that require your company to make payments for damages.
Why were those terms acceptable then, why not now? Why do
you need this bill now?
Mr. Harmon. Well, not impacted by this legislation, in 2003
we had a problem up there and the Park Service filed a $12
million claim against us, which got our attention after over a
hundred years of operating without those kinds of issues.
Mr. Bishop. OK. This is open-ended. Do you want to add
anything more than that?
Mr. Harmon. No.
Mr. Bishop. You got it then. Let me go to Mr. Groves, our
forester there. Others have testified that areas in this area,
especially the Doug fir plantations, don't need to be thinned.
What is your take on that? And does the thinning stance
negatively impact you as a fishery or the landslides?
Mr. Groves.
Mr. Groves. Thank you, Congressman.
These stands were planted at a density that ranges close to
300 to 400 trees per acre. And with the intent, the assumption
they were going to be forests for timberland production. The
Northwest Forest Plan changed that assumption. They are now to
be late successional reserves to provide habitat for spotted
owls and other late successional types of species.
Mr. Bishop. Let me interrupt you right now. If you want
land for late successional reserves, what should be the average
amount of trees you have per acre to make that acceptable?
Mr. Groves. To have the kind of diameter growth and the
kind of tree structure that you are looking for, you would want
the trees per acre to be down between 50 to 80 trees per acre,
not the 300 to 400 trees that these are currently stocked at,
Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. If you thinned these new growth areas, the
replanted areas, does that have a negative impact on the
fishing opportunities, landslide opportunities, or landslides
that may occur?
Mr. Groves. Sir, we have come a long ways with the
technology and equipment these days. The stands that have
already been through the NEPA process could easily be accessed
by the boundary roads of the proposal with the skyline system
that would have little to no negative effects on both the
fishery and on the potential for increasing natural landslides.
Mr. Bishop. I understand of the 2,600 acres that are here,
some of them have already gone through the NEPA process, and I
understand they have no appeals, no litigation. About how much
of this land has already gone through that process already?
Mr. Groves. Sir, I believe 1,000 acres of the 2,600 managed
stands are through the NEPA process decision, notice signed and
ready to be offered up.
Mr. Bishop. So it should go forward within this proposal.
With the county payments being such an important issue
right now for all of us, can you give me an idea of how much
revenue would likely--this thinning process would likely raise
for the county.
Mr. Groves. Sir, State, private landowners and tribal lands
thin these type of stands, and do so at a profit.
With the Forest Service having these thousand acres through
NEPA, I see no reason why they could not thin these stands and
make a profit and have, you know, millions of dollars in
returned receipts, of which 25 percent would probably--it would
be required to go to the counties under the current structure.
Mr. Bishop. So in this particular area of wilderness
designation, we have areas that need to be thinned for the
habitat that it is supposedly providing for. It improves the
stream quality, spawning opportunities, the pooling process
that needs to be there, and it would also help those counties
that are in dire need of that kind of money at the same time.
Now, that is what I am understanding your testimony is.
Mr. Groves. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Have you seen any other areas where you have 11
miles of roads, the 92 culverts, maybe 20 percent of it is
managed planting area, that would be classified as wilderness?
Mr. Groves. Not in the State of Oregon. I have not, no,
sir.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I am done.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Mark Udall.
Mr. Mark Udall. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I know, Mr.
Chairman, since you didn't use your time, you will yield some
additional time to us.
Mr. Grijalva. You have 4 minutes.
Mr. Mark Udall. Let me start by thanking the two
Coloradians here.
If I could, I would like to turn to Mr. Harmon and ask you
some questions very similar to the ones I asked the
representatives of the Park Service earlier.
I want to start: Does your company want to reach an
agreement with the National Park Service regarding operation
and maintenance of the Grand Ditch?
Mr. Harmon. We do.
Mr. Mark Udall. Are you currently in negotiations to see if
you can reach an agreement, and if so, when did they begin.
Mr. Harmon. They began last calendar year, 2006. We have
been working on discussing it since then.
Mr. Mark Udall. Have you made a specific proposal, and if
so, has the Service responded to it.
Mr. Harmon. There have been a couple of drafts that have
gone back and forth. So there has been a dialogue and a couple
of meetings.
Mr. Mark Udall. Where in your best estimation do things
stand, and would you say you are making progress? I am not
trying to put words in your mouth.
Mr. Harmon. We met with the superintendent and a couple of
his staff people in July of--because we were having some
frustration of the process. We had asked for some input on
examples of what they wanted to see. And we got a 100-page,
both sides, single-spaced document from the BLM on a
reclamation project somewhere as an example.
So we went to him and said, ``You know, there are two
people in our office, this is not going to work,'' and got an
outline from the superintendent of about nine items that were
important. So I wrote a new draft based on that and got some
complimentary feedback from them that we thought we were making
progress, but that they had to have it reviewed by legal
counsel and other technical people, and got a draft back about
4 weeks ago that was pretty disappointing.
You know, I characterize it, not being a lawyer, as trying
to write an operating agreement that obviates the benefit of
this legislation to us.
So we have a draft response that will probably go out in a
few days back to them. If you had asked me a month ago, I would
say we are making good progress. I am not so sure right now.
Mr. Mark Udall. The administration says they think there
should be an agreement that is comprehensive in scope and
enforceable. Could you agree to that.
Mr. Harmon. Yes.
Mr. Mark Udall. They also say the agreement must contain
provisions that reduce the risk of another catastrophic failure
of the ditch.
Could you agree to something like that?
Mr. Harmon. Yes. They have made some suggestions about
engineer--independent engineering inspections and those sorts
of things. And we have some of our own ideas on things,
improvements and facilities that could be helpful, and we are
supportive of all of those ideas.
Mr. Mark Udall. They say there should be, quote, clear
expectations, unquote, regarding maintenance and operational
use that impact Park operations. Do you agree that would be a
good idea.
Mr. Harmon. Yes.
Mr. Mark Udall. What are the outstanding issues, and do you
think there is a way to resolve them?
Mr. Harmon. There is some language in there that says you
must do whatever necessary to make sure there is never another
breech of the ditch, and otherwise the liability of standard
reverts. And that sort of approach doesn't work for us.
Mr. Mark Udall. My follow-on question will provide the
committee with some additional insight.
Why do you want to be relieved of the absolute liability
standard that now applies to your operations inside of the
Park?
Mr. Harmon. We think there is a basic inequity.
When we originally went on the property to produce the
water, you know, it was a window of opportunity based on
Colorado law that was never going to come around again, and in
good faith and in full support of the Federal and State
government, you know, this ditch was developed. The Park came
later.
We just don't think it makes sense, from an equity
standpoint, that an act of God, which is no fault of ours,
could cause this kind of multimillion-dollar liability to the
company; and we think this is an opportunity to try to fix
that.
Mr. Mark Udall. Is the prospect of that relief in the legal
sense, Mr. Harmon, an incentive for your company to reach an
agreement with the National Park Service.
Mr. Harmon. Yes, it is.
Mr. Mark Udall. Would you have that same incentive
otherwise?
Mr. Harmon. No.
Mr. Mark Udall. I assume you heard the testimony of the
witnesses from the administration regarding the differences
between the liability standard under the 1907 stipulation and
the 1990 legislation. They say the 1990 legislation is less
stringent; would you agree.
Mr. Harmon. No. I don't think there is much difference, and
that is the opinion of our legal counsel. And the reason is
because in the 1990 legislation, there are three exceptions to
the--as defenses, and one of those is an act-of-God defense.
But if you look at the case law, I am told that the act-of-God
is so narrowly defined that it has never, from a practical
standpoint, been a defense for anybody in any case.
And it also has a provision in the act-of-God defense that
says that there has to be a determination that it was solely an
act of God; that if there is any comparative negligence, 1
percent of the water company, then the defense gets tossed out,
too.
So from a practical standpoint, it is not a compromise. It
is about the same situation.
Mr. Mark Udall. It sounds to me, Mr. Harmon, even though
you are not a lawyer, you have gained a great working knowledge
of the law.
Mr. Harmon. I have spent a lot of time in my life in the
last couple of years working on this.
Mr. Mark Udall. Particularly when it comes to Colorado
water law and the interface it has with the Federal statutes.
If I might be indulged for another 30 seconds, I wanted to
thank Mayor Pinkham for being here and want to acknowledge the
great town--it is a town, I know the town fathers want to keep
it a town--of Estes Park.
I thought if you wanted to speak briefly to the process and
the evolution of the town's thinking about the important
economic benefits that you believe will be generated by the
designation of the large bulk of the Park as wilderness.
Mr. Pinkham. One of the big questions for the town is
whether wilderness designation might hurt the town and its
economy. And I have chaired a sustainability committee for the
last couple of years, called the 2017 Team, looking out over
the next 10 years to try to get a sense of the issues that we
face, and wilderness designation was one of the questions that
came up.
It is a cross-functional team of lodging, restaurants,
retail, as well as public citizens. And the consensus was that
the wilderness designation could, in fact, actually help in
terms of increasing the uniqueness and the visibility of Rocky
Mountain National Park. We don't have the same type of image
that, say, Yellowstone or Glacier or some of the other parks
have. And so this could actually help us.
Our local economy, our general fund is about 10 million
bucks. And about 7-1/2 million of that comes from the tourist
economy, which is very seasonal in our area.
So the designation, we think, is very important. We have a
very good, close working relationship with the Park and, in
fact, started shuttle bus services this last year which helped
to reduce the Park's need for additional parking space and has
reduced traffic through town. So it has been a successful
collaboration. We look forward to many continued years.
Mr. Mark Udall. Thanks again for joining us here today.
And I think I could extend on your behalf and my behalf an
invitation to Congressman Bishop to visit Estes Park next
October to see the abundant elk in the town of Estes Park. He
will not be busy next October, because I believe his reelection
is a given. But we would like you to visit our wonderful State
of Colorado and see the challenge we do have with the elk in
person and on the ground.
Mr. Bishop. I hope you are right on every count.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
And as the panel can tell and the people here at the
meeting, I run a tough meeting. I was going to take a minute
away from Mr. Mark Udall, and he ended up taking an additional
3-1/2 extra.
So with that, let me turn to our colleague, Mr. Tom Udall,
a relation of Mr. Mark Udall, for 2 minutes of questions.
Mr. Mark Udall. I knew that was coming.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you to all of the panels. You have
been excellent today. I think you have really enlightened us on
the pieces of legislation you have testified on.
Mr. Sandoval, and thank you specifically for your very
eloquent and passionate statement about the Sabinoso Wilderness
and you, in particular, having your roots in northern New
Mexico and seeing the need for doing this, I think it is
particularly good that you are here today to testify.
One of the things that I would like you to just talk a
little bit about because, you know, we see these resource
fights in the West and we have had them for many years, and it
seems that you and the people working with you have found a
third way around those. And as you have talked, you have talked
about everybody working together and ranchers and hunters and
recreationists all coming together.
What is it that you are doing on the ground? I know you are
doing more in Sabinoso that is helping that to happen. Could
you talk a little bit, because I think that all of us from
Western districts would like to see more of that happen where
we get people building consensus and common ground.
Mr. Sandoval. Thank you, Congressman, and members of the
committee.
There is a number of initiatives we are working on. One,
for example, is that in the spring for the first time we are
going to do an ecotourism project with several acequias. And
the acequias are the thousand-year-old governance systems that
came over to the Americas with the Spaniards, and the Spaniards
learned it from the Moors who had developed it in the arid
regions of Northern Africa. So we have these governmental and
governance systems for water in place in New Mexico for the
past 400 years.
In the spring, we do what--a tradition that has been
happening for thousands of years, and in New Mexico for 400
years, which is where all of the members who belong to this
ditch system have to gather and jointly clean out and repair
the main ditch. We call it the Acequia Madre, the mother ditch
that delivers water to everybody's individual fields; and that
is a requirement of everyone who belongs to an acequia.
So what we are developing is a regional ecotourism plan
where we are bringing in members of conservation groups, in
this case the International Wilderness Alliance members, who
are paying for the privilege of bringing a shovel and work
gloves and helping us repair these acequias in the spring.
And what they are doing is, besides doing the work and
working side by side with these traditional systems, is that
they actually are paying, so that there is a profit going in to
the maintenance fund for these acequias.
So it was a difficult sell to acequia members. They said,
``Let me get this straight. You mean you are going to get
people to come and work with us and they are going to spend a
weekend working with us and they are going to pay us for the
privilege?'' and I said, ``That is the deal.''
So we are doing a lot of that. We hope to make that a
regional process.
The other thing we are doing, Mr. Congressman Udall, is
that I am trying to convince, and we are working slowly and
working one-by-one with a number of ranchers to make them see
cattle not necessarily as money on the hooves, but sort of
props for tourists from the Eastern Rim and from the east and
west coast. So what I am trying to do is convince them to have
fewer cattle and not depend so much on the cattle market in
Chicago, and depend more on bringing in Japanese and east coast
and west coast citizens to get on a horse and chase a few cows
around the corral.
The downside to that is I am having to teach these ranchers
how to sing around the campfire, and they are not that good at
it. But I am hopeful that their singing classes will take
effect.
But that is a gospel that is beginning to spread quite
widely in Northern New Mexico, Congressman. And also just
outfitting. We are getting a lot of younger Indo-Hispanos now
who are actually doing outfitting and being able to stay in
place, stay in their community, raise their kids there and
preserve these lands, these agricultural lands, we hope far
into the future.
So there are a lot of things, exciting things going on in
your district, Congressman.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you very much. I am aware of much of
the work you are doing there, and with my great singing voice,
maybe I could join those cowboys for a singing session.
Thank you very much, and thanks to the panel.
And I yield back to the Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, and let me thank our
last panel and all of the people that took the time and effort
to come here today to discuss these pieces of legislation.
For the record, on what was just accepted to the record for
Tumacacori, one of the petitions, Mr. Bishop, is from late
2004, 2005, and I think there has been some progress made in
reconciling some of the opposition.
And the other one, the question there is from the
organization that is boycotting the Minneapolis airport because
of a certain incident with a certain Senator. So our piece of
legislation has got dragged into that whole sordid affair.
So with that, let me thank everybody, and we will stand in
recess.
[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]