[Senate Hearing 107-846]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-846
MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC LANDS
AND NATIONAL FORESTS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 2016 S. 2612
S. 2565 S. 2652
S. 2587 S. Con. Res. 107
__________
JULY 30, 2002
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
-------
83-959 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GORDON SMITH, Oregon
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brian P. Malnak, Republican Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota CONRAD BURNS, Montana
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
EVAN BAYH, Indiana GORDON SMITH, Oregon
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
Jeff Bingaman and Frank H. Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Kira Finkler, Democratic Counsel
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Abbey, Robert, Acting Assistant Director for Renewable Resources,
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.......... 16
Bentley, Clint, Founder, Nevada Land Users Coalition, Las Vegas,
NV............................................................. 41
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington............... 3
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 5
Ensign, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Nevada...................... 14
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California............. 6
Hunter, Kem, Mayor, Town of Index, WA............................ 39
Kimbell, Abigail, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture...................... 24
Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska............... 2
Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington................. 7
Pearce, Drue, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Interior for
Alaska Affairs................................................. 31
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada....................... 10
Wallin, John, Director, Nevada Wilderness Project................ 46
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 57
MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC LANDS AND
NATIONAL FORESTS BILLS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 30, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The subcommittee will come to order. Let me
note that we do have a vote at 2:45, but we are going to see if
we can begin and at least get through the opening statements,
and then we will go for the vote and return quickly.
The purpose of today's hearing in the Senate Subcommittee
on Forests and Public Lands is to receive testimony on a number
of public lands and national forests bills. Our goal is to
focus on constructive and creative responses to issues arising
on our public lands concerning environmental, economic and
human concerns.
During this Congress, the subcommittee has heard testimony
on a number of contentious issues, including old growth
Northwest forest plans, and fire issues, but also on a number
of noncontroversial public land management issues such as
invasive weed control and individual land exchanges.
Today, the subcommittee examines the issue of wilderness in
addition to addressing proposed solutions to several public
land management issues that have come across the country. To
that end we will be examining S. 2016 to authorize an exchange
of lands in Alaska; S. 2565, the Wild Sky Wilderness Area,
which proposes wilderness in Washington State; S. 2587 to
establish a Joint Federal and State Navigable Waters
Commission; S. 2612 to examine wilderness areas in Nevada; S.
2652, the Florida National Forest Grant Management Act; and S.
Con. Res. 107 expressing the sense of Congress that Federal
land agencies should be fully supportive of the Western
Governors Association collaborative 10-year strategy for
reducing fire risks.
We are very pleased to have members, in particular from
Nevada and from Washington, who have done very good work with
respect to their wilderness bills, and we commend them for
working hard to bring all the stakeholders together. We welcome
all of them, and I first want to recognize our colleagues for
their opening statements, and let us begin with Senator
Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden. Let
me generalize a little bit again, and I have done this every
occasion as we look at the fires that are burning in the West,
whether it be Colorado or California or now Oregon, and the
realization that these fires don't necessarily know the origin
of land, other than it's rather curious that for the most part
these fires are occurring on U.S. Government land, and they are
devastating, and if you look at forest management practice and
recognize that those that control private lands, they are not
exempt from lightning or activities associated with campfires
or accidents, but they have a much better record of being able
to combat them because they have access into the areas.
As long as we maintain this ingenuous, disingenuous I
should say, policy of kidding ourselves that somehow we can
manage these public lands without having access into the areas,
we are going to continue to have devastating fires and as a
consequence, those fires are going to leave us with the
frustration of having to make decisions that are temporary as
opposed to decisions that are permanent. The permanent
decisions suggest access is appropriate in these areas and the
sooner we get on with it, the better.
I want to thank you for the hearing today on two of the
bills from Alaska. The Concurrent Resolution 107 calls for the
Forest Service and Department of the Interior land management
agencies to implement the Western Governors Association so-
called collaborative 10-year strategy for reducing wildland
fire risks to communities and the environment.
We've got over 200 million acres of Federal land that have
fuel problems posing a serious risk for wildfire. These have
been mapped in a fire risk condition Class II and Class III.
Mechanical fuel removal is critical to protecting these lands
from fire risks. And let there be no mistake about fuel
removal, it means removing the timber that's in question. We
have about a million acres of bug kill timber that represents a
tinder box awaiting a serious catastrophe that will occur on
the Kenai Peninsula. We've got more than 600,000 acres of dead
trees standing on Federal land.
The rationale is that the Federal authorities can't come to
any kind of a uniform decision-making process as to what to do,
so in the void they hold a town hall meeting, a public hearing,
and they don't make a decision based on forest health or best
forest management practice. This is a situation I think that
hopefully will come to an end under the current administration.
Passing Senate Concurrent Resolution 107 and implementing
the Western Governors collaborative 10-year strategy are timely
actions, they should be pursued.
The situation in the Village of Newtok, in western Alaska,
this little village is only 300 people, it's threatened by
erosion, the Ninglick River is eating away the banks. The bill
would provide for a simple land exchange as the first step with
providing these villagers with an alternative to saving their
homes.
We have worked with the Department of the Interior to
arrive at a solution to the problem. A substitute bill has been
crafted that addresses the concerns expressed by the Department
about the original S. 2016. I would ask the committee to help
get us through this issue during the present session of
Congress.
S. 2587 establishes a Joint Federal State Commission to
expedite the resolution of a longstanding problem in Alaska.
The commission would facilitate determinations of the navigable
status of lakes, rivers and streams. That's taken place in all
the other States, but it hasn't been completed in my State of
Alaska.
Under the equal footing doctrine, Submerged Lands Act,
every State gains title to submerged lands that underline
navigable rivers within its boundaries upon entering the Union.
Since Alaska became a State in 1959, we have had only 13 of
more than 22,000 rivers determined to be navigable, and the
status of well over one million lakes has been left in
question.
Currently, there is no mechanism by which the State and
Federal Governments can reach prearranged agreement on waters
that need classification, leaving litigation against the United
States the only recourse available. Well, that's just full
employment for the lawyers. S. 2587 will obviate the need for
litigation on the status of these waterways where agreement can
be reached by the joint commission.
The State has done its part to make the commission a
reality. It passed legislation that authorized the State's side
of the commission. Congress should act expeditiously to
establish the needed Federal authority.
Again, I express my appreciation, and I know your
frustration, Senator Wyden, with the poor forest management
practices. I would hope under your leadership that we can
address some realistic solutions as opposed to just taking the
heat off for the balance of the summer as we go into the fall
and then sitting here next year doing the same thing when we
have these fires.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. The Senator makes a number of very good
points and it's my hope just as we were able to come together
against great odds on the county payments legislation in the
last Congress that we will be able to come together on this
issue of addressing fire questions and related issues with
respect to forest management so we can get our forests
prospering again. I am very hopeful that in the next few days
we will see some exciting developments with Senators coming
together around these issues, and I appreciate the Senator's
comments.
Let's hear now from the Senator from Washington, who has
done very good work on Washington wilderness issues.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and I would first like to recognize my colleague
Senator Patty Murray, who is here today, and the mayor of
Index, Mayor Kem Hunter. They are both here today to testify on
behalf of the Wild Sky Wilderness Act. I want to thank Senator
Murray for her outstanding leadership on this legislation. I
applaud her and her staff for crafting this legislation, which
has such broad public support in our State.
This bill is the result of 2 years of hard work by her and
her staff, with input from the Forest Service and various
community stakeholders. The bill reflects a consensus approach
to putting the natural heritage and treasures which have come
to define Washington's culture and history into place. I am
proud to be a cosponsor of the Wild Sky Wilderness Act, and Mr.
Chairman, this is the first Washington State wilderness bill to
be considered by this committee in 18 years.
Washington State has had a long and rich history of
designating wilderness areas, starting with Senator Henry
``Scoop'' Jackson, who understood the importance of preserving
these unique natural resources that our State possesses. And he
believed it was our responsibility as members of this body to
protect our national forests for future generations.
This legislation, which I'm sure Senator Murray will go
into with much more detail, would make wilderness area some
106,000 acres within the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National
Forest. And it would provide high quality open space for more
than 2.4 million people living in nearby communities. I believe
that we must act now, not only for our generation but for
future generations that will benefit from the good stewardship
that this legislation represents.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to mention that I am also a
cosponsor of Senate Resolution 107, sponsored by Senators Craig
and Feinstein, which is also the subject of today's hearing.
This resolution highlights the need for Federal land management
agencies to fully support and implement the Western Governors'
10-year strategy for reducing wildfire risks. My colleague just
mentioned that issue and our need to work together using a
commonsense approach to get something done.
I also want to make sure that we don't use this as an
opportunity for creating division among us on various issues in
the management of public lands or public forests. I would like
to submit for the record an editorial that was in The New York
Times today that basically talked about how we do need to work
together to implement a strategy and implement it now.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The editorial has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Wyden. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Cantwell. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today, and I look forward to seeing action on both of
these pieces of legislation.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague, and will congratulate
Senator Murray a little bit more down the road, and I know it
seems like eons ago when she came to me on this legislation.
She's spent all this time bringing the stakeholders together,
and we congratulate her on her work.
Let me recognize my colleague from Idaho, and in doing so,
express my thanks to him. He has been working, and his staff,
pretty much around the clock with me and my staff on these
issues, and I'm very appreciative. And it has also been with an
eye towards finding common ground, which is never easy to do in
this area, and I want to thank him.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for those
kind remarks. We are working. We hope we can come up with
something to adapt with the public and the stakeholder
interests across the country as we go out for the August recess
that deals with a variety of issues on our forests and public
lands.
Mr. Chairman, I went home this weekend like many do, except
that to get into north Idaho, I land in Spokane, Washington,
one of the cities--and both Senators from Washington State. I
landed in a city shrouded in smoke. Fires were not burning in
or around the Spokane area, they were burning above the Dalles
on the Washington side, and they were wild in Oregon. Homes
being evacuated, people's lives being threatened, property,
wildlife habitat.
Congress fiddles while our public lands burn, and some of
our radical environmentalists are playing the symphony chorus,
and how tragic it is at this moment. This weekend we burned the
four-millionth acre of public lands, not just lands, watershed,
wildlife habitat, and that land probably will not replenish
itself in our lifetime because these fires are so hot and so
threatening, and stand-altering in stand-changing ways.
And the summer is early. In a normal year we would just be
entering the fire season, not in the midst of a wildfire, and
yet today we are. The national headlines this morning,
thousands of homes in Oregon being evacuated or at risk to a
fire down there that's now over 90,000 acres in size.
So Senator Feinstein and I, her vision, the Western
Governors, we have teamed up on Senate Concurrent Resolution
107. It's kind of like sticking your finger in a bucket of
water and stirring it just a little bit, you hope it will come
out wet enough that you can flick the finger and maybe put out
a spark. But that's about all we will get done.
200 million acres of public lands at high risk, Class III
lands. That means the Forest Service and the scientists and the
experts have gone out and studied them, and said those lands
are subject to wildfire, major fire that will destroy
everything in its path.
Now, 200 million acres is no small tract of land. It's the
size of Oklahoma and Texas combined. So in your minds while
you're sitting out there, think of that section of the country,
blacken it out, destroy it for the next 30 years to wildfire,
and you have what is in reality what this Government and this
country is allowing to happen at this moment on the forested
public lands of the United States.
The Western Governors are right and we hope that our
strategy will work a little bit. But even if we were to go into
warp speed to correct the problem, we would still lose upwards
of maybe 50, 60, 70 million acres over the next 10 years,
folks, just simply put, it's going to burn. Not naturally, not
in a way that fire once ambled through our forests a century
ago, but in wild torrents that will destroy everything in its
path. That's what we're facing today, so we are working at
doing something about it, and the chairman and I are working to
do something more.
Many have criticized Tom Daschle for what he did in the
Black Hills. I criticized his process, but I don't criticize
the results. He had to do something. He reached out to try to
save that property, at the criticism of some, including me,
because he did not do it in the bright light of day, he did it
in the shroud of smoky darkness, but he got it done. And I
would hope that maybe we can use that as a precedent, oh yes,
environmental interests, a precedent that something is wrong
out there in America's forests that we have to deal with, and I
hope me do.
Let me also say that what the Senators from Washington have
done in the Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2002, while I have not
looked at all of the details of it, is the way it ought to get
done, an inclusive collaborative process that has brought all
of the stakeholders together to try to resolve this issue. I
said to our new President early on, while we ought to put down
the roadless regs, while we ought to just not allow any
President or any administration to bypass the process and lock
us out of 64 million acres of public land, this President and
all of us ought to get at the business of the rare-to process,
look at the wilderness areas that have been designated, work
with all of our stakeholders and try to resolve them. And
that's good public policy when that's done in a collaborative
fashion.
I know that Senator Ensign is here from Nevada. Senator
Reid and he have worked on some similar efforts in his State to
bring some balance and I encourage them to continue. A lot of
work left to be done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. Senator Feinstein,
congratulations to you for bringing the work of the Western
Governors before the subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
I'm delighted to have my colleagues Senator Murray and Senator
Ensign. I'm not sure you want to sit here and listen to us
speak, but it's great that they're here on this particular
bill.
I'm very happy to join with Senator Craig. Two of the last
3 years have been the worst years in history for forest fire,
and this one looks like it's going to be the worst year for all
time. And so if you really reach back and look for a reason, I
think the reason one comes up with, and I say this after now
about 2 or 3 years working on Quincy, and Senator Craig, you
have been a great help on that, is really failed forest policy.
That fire suppression, this one size fits all effort simply to
suppress fire when it encroaches on property or life is a
mistake in policy.
Let me use for an example, a fire that's burning in
California in the giant sequoias. The giant sequoia by nature
is a fire resistant tree, but if the underbrush builds up, if
small nonindigenous trees build up and they burn, it creates a
fire ladder which burns so hot that it reaches the canopies of
the giant sequoias, and even those trees burn. And that's what
we find has been happening, that there is so much dead and
dying, so much underbrush that's not cleared under the policies
of fire suppression in our forests, that when a fire hits, it
burns hotter than it used to historically, and therefore, does
much, much more damage.
I also believe very strongly that the kind of one size fits
all approach of the past has not been right. Geography is
different, weather is different, tree species are different,
they burn in different ways. And therefore, the one size fit
all doesn't work. And we have had an interesting experience
because for the last 3 or 4 years, we in California in the
north have been trying to change that fire suppression policy
by a group that came together, they met in the public library
so that timber people and environmentalists could not scream at
each other in the public library, and worked for 5 years to
evolve a plan which was a pilot, to build in defensible fuel
zones, to do some mechanical, very precise thinning to clear
out underbrush, to use it as biomass, and to see if you
couldn't prevent forest fires and at the same time have prudent
sustainable harvesting that made sense.
I thought it was worth a try, and the interesting thing is,
it passed the House by all but one vote. It came here, it began
to move, it had problems, it finally moved. It's been the law
now for well over a year and very little progress has been
made, and part of the problem is in the field, the Forestry
Service doesn't want to do what the legislation calls for, and
consequently our forests burn.
There are 23 million acres in the highest risk of
catastrophic fire in the United States of America. 7 million of
those are in my State, the entire Sierra Nevada range, the
Plumas, the Lassen, the Tahoe forests. I am very worried
because I think we could have a major wipe out, and I also
believe that the way we need to go is to take a look at the
areas in the highest fire risk of catastrophic fire and provide
a methodology to expedite what needs to be done, to create
defensible fuel zones, to clear out underbrush, to remove dead
and dying, to prevent these fires. When they do happen
naturally and they will, to burn so hot, so mean, so fast that
they wipe out old growth, they wipe out endangered species
habitat, and most importantly, they kill people.
We just lost three firefighters close to your State,
Senator Wyden, Senator--well, you're not Oregon but Northwest,
and I feel very, very strongly, and I think this is a first
step, moving this resolution. I am happy to follow the lead of
Senator Craig, moving this resolution, but the proof is going
to be in the pudding and we've got to take that highest fire
risk fire, we have to move more rapidly to move in and clean
out and clear out those forests before they go.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague. We've got a vote on
the floor. I think what we will do is break now for 10 minutes,
we'll go and vote and then we will come back.
Senator Reid. We still have a lot of time to vote, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Murray. We can make our statements brief.
Senator Wyden. Do you want to try to make your statements
in a couple of minutes?
Senator Reid. We will make them short.
Senator Wyden. This is a first. Senator Murray,
congratulations.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate your accommodating all of us here. I want to thank
you and Senator Craig for giving us the opportunity today to
show this committee why we in Washington State, as Senator
Cantwell said, are so excited about the Wild Sky Wilderness
proposal.
This is a new wilderness area that will protect a unique
landscape and the wildlife that depend on it, and it's going to
offer great recreational opportunities for thousands of
families in the growing Puget Sound region for generations to
come. And importantly, it's going to strengthen the economies
of the surrounding area. But best of all, Mr. Chairman, as was
stated by Senator Craig, it was developed with the cooperation
and input of local residents and organizations throughout our
State.
I want to specially welcome to our hearing Mayor Kem
Hunter, who is the mayor of Index, and his wife Edna. They are
here, have traveled all the way out here, and he will give you
a much better local perception. But he has taken time out of a
very busy personal life and professional life to share why he
is so excited about the Wild Sky Wilderness proposal, and I am
delighted he is here today.
As I said, this has really been a cooperative effort, and I
want to thank Senator Cantwell, who has just been great with
her support and commitment, and Senator Bingaman and his staff,
Kira Finkler and David Brooks. And I want to thank my colleague
in the House, Congressman Rick Larson, who has spent a great
deal of time with me on this issue.
The proposal before you today is really the result of more
than 2 years of discussion and negotiation with the local
community, Longview Fiber, Washington State Snowmobile
Association, Wild Washington Campaign, and the Chelan County
POD. Throughout the process the staff of Mount Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forest has just been great in responding to our
questions as well. This proposal really reflects the values of
Washington State and respects the economic and recreational
interests of the people of Snohomish County.
It's going to provide a very unique landscape and make it
accessible to families throughout the Puget Sound region, where
our population is growing very rapidly and hasn't added any new
Forest Service since 1984, as Senator Cantwell mentioned.
Mr. Chairman, I know time is short. I'm going to give you
my statement for the record, but just let me say, there's such
unique times in our history where we can do something that
really will be there for generations to come. This is a
proposal that has many wonderful aspects that I will submit for
the record, but I want to say, a lot of people worked very,
very hard, and we appreciate your helping us move this forward
through the process. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murray follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Patty Murray, U.S. Senator
From Washington
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you and Senator Craig for giving us the opportunity
to show this committee why we in Washington State are so excited about
the Wild Sky Wilderness proposal. This new wilderness area will protect
a unique landscape and the wildlife that depend on it. It will offer
recreational opportunities for thousands of families in the growing
Puget Sound region. And it will strengthen the economies of the
surrounding communities.
Best of all, Mr. Chairman, it was developed with the cooperation
and input of local residents and organizations throughout our state. I
want to especially welcome to our hearing, Mayor Kem Hunter of the Town
of Index. He's taken time out of his busy personal and professional
life to share his support for the Wild Sky Wilderness proposal. He
really personifies the values we're trying to preserve in Washington
state, and we're grateful that he's with us today.
As I mentioned, this has been a cooperative effort throughout. I
want to recognize just a few of the people who have helped us reach
this point. I want to thank Senator Cantwell for her strong support and
commitment. I want to thank Senator Bingaman and his staff, Kira
Finkler and David Brooks for their help in developing this bill.
Finally, I want to thank my colleague and my partner in this bill,
Congressman Rick Larsen. He's spent a great deal of time on this
proposal. He's reached out to the local communities to understand their
priorities and include them in our bill.
The proposal before you today is the result of more than two years
of discussion and negotiation with the local community, Longview Fibre,
the Washington State Snowmobile Association, the Wild Washington
Campaign, and the Chelan County Public Utility District. Throughout the
process, the staff of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest have
responded to our questions quickly and with professional insight.
The Wild Sky Wilderness Proposal reflects the values of Washington
State, and respects the economic and recreational interests of the
people of Snohomish County.
Mr. Chairman, the Wild Sky Wilderness will protect a unique
landscape and make it accessible to families in the Puget Sound. While
our population is growing rapidly, Washington State hasn't added any
new Forest Service wilderness areas since 1984. I want to briefly
mention four benefits of this proposal.
First, this wilderness area will protect wildlife and promote clean
water by preserving the landscapes that host many native plants and
animals. Native Americans and early 19th century settlers encountered
wolves, mountain goats, black and grizzly bears, deer, and healthy runs
of salmon, steelhead, and trout. Unfortunately, their numbers are
shrinking, and we can protect them for future generations by protecting
their habitat. The wilderness will also help us protect threatened
species of salmon, steelhead, and trout.
As we ask private landowners to recover wild fish runs, I believe
the federal government must do everything possible on its own land to
achieve those goals.
Second, this wilderness designation will enhance and protect
recreational opportunities for our growing region. It protects the area
for today's users and seeks to open up new areas for climbers, hikers,
hunters, and anglers. It directs the Forest Service to work with the
public to develop new trails in and around the wilderness to expand
public access to these remarkable landscapes.
Third, the Wild Sky Wilderness will better reflect the diverse
landscapes of our region. Low-land elevations, like areas under 3,000
feet, are not a large part of our existing wilderness areas. Only 6.6
percent of all Washington State wilderness areas are under 3,000 feet.
As a result, our current wilderness areas don't reflect the entire
array of ecological system. Our proposal is made up of about 30% low-
land areas, including low-land forests and salmon-bearing streams. That
will bring new ecological systems into our State's wilderness lands and
better reflect the broad palette of nature's landscapes.
Finally, this wilderness will contribute to the local economy.
People looking for easy and quick access to nature will see the Wild
Sky listed in maps and hiking books as a special destination. Every
climber, hiker, hunter, and angler setting out to the Wild Sky
Wilderness will be stopping at hotels, campgrounds, restaurants and
stores in the gateway communities in the greater Skykomish area.
Rafters and horseback riders will be using guides and outfitters in
the local communities. The recreational economy appears to have grown
even in difficult times, and I hope this bill will help improve the
economies of these gateway communities.
Mr. Chairman, those are just a few of the benefits this proposal
will bring. I've included more information on my Senate web site. And
in a few minutes, we'll get to hear more about it from Mayor Hunter.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Subcommittee's time and
consideration of this legislation. I believe the Wild Sky Wilderness
Act is significant for the state and local communities and hope it will
be moved by the Committee this fall.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. I thank you. We're going to try to move your
bill just as quickly as we can. Senator Reid, you came to me a
long time ago with your wilderness initiative. Congratulations
for all the good work you and Senator Ensign have done, and go
ahead with your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill.
Senator Ensign and I have worked on this from they day he
stepped into the Senate until we got a bill. It's bipartisan.
We have worked so hard, our staffs have worked diligently, we
have had many hearings in the State of Nevada where our staffs
met with people all over, as this deals with southern Nevada.
This is a fine bill, it's big, but people should
understand, the Las Vegas area does not have urban sprawl. It's
one of the most compact cities in America because 87 percent of
the land is owned by the Federal Government. This is a modest
proposal to get some of that public land into private
ownership. All the municipalities have signed off on this. The
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has signed off on it.
This is good legislation, and I appreciate very much you
holding this hearing.
This also takes into consideration the new airport that
we're building about 35 miles from Las Vegas. It develops a
small corridor of land out to the airport so that there can be
utilities and stuff put in to go to that big new airport that
will relieve congestion in the Las Vegas area.
I ask for consent of this committee that my whole statement
be made part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator From Nevada
Mr. Chairman. I would first like to thank you for taking time out
of your busy schedule to hold this hearing on S. 2612, the Clark County
Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002. The
Clark County Conservation PLAN bill is extremely important to southern
Nevada and to Senator Ensign and me. I think this broad-based
compromise legislation is also important for America.
The Clark County Conservation PLAN bill balances the needs for
infrastructure development, recreational opportunities, and
conservation of our precious natural resources in southern Nevada.
As you may remember, Mr. Chairman, 87 percent of the land in Nevada
is managed by the Federal Government. This includes land managed by the
U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land
Management, the Department of Energy, the National Park Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S.
Air Force.
The Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Defense and Energy
bear tremendous responsibilities for the management, development, and
conservation of natural resources in Nevada. Unlike most of America,
where land-use decisions are made by communities, in Nevada, many land
use decisions require concurrence of Federal officials and, in some
cases, the passage of Federal laws. This is a circumstance that very
few Senators understand from experience, but I know that my colleagues
on this Committee recognize the tremendous challenge inherent in this
system.
The challenge of Federal land management is not unique to Nevada:
in fact, it characterizes much of the West. As I have mentioned,
however, this situation is compounded in Clark County, where the
fastest-growing population in America lies in the heart of one of the
most extreme and fragile regions in North America--the Mojave Desert.
This legislation has many provisions, but it accurately reflects the
many challenges faced by southern Nevada.
Some people believe that guiding growth in Southern Nevada and
protecting our desert for future generations are mutually exclusive.
Some believe that protecting our air and water quality and setting
aside some open space as wilderness are overly costly and unnecessarily
restrict recreation and development. Some believe that the Federal
government's management of public land is too strict; others believe it
is too lenient. Some believe that every acre of Clark County should be
privatized. Some believe that not a single acre more should be
auctioned from the public domain. Every Nevadan has a different view on
the particulars, but every Nevadan feels passionately about these
issues.
I have described the context within which we developed this bill to
illustrate why compromise is not just necessary but warranted. Senator
Ensign and I have received criticism for what this bill does not do--it
does not designate all of the 2 million acres in Clark County as the
Nevada Wilderness Coalition advocates--nor does it release all the
wilderness study areas in Nevada as others advocate. We do not
apologize for this compromise, rather we present it to the Committee
for what it is--a fair-minded, forward-looking framework for the future
development and protection of public land in Clark County.
The Clark County Conservation PLAN reflects three complementary
goals:
(1) Enhancing our quality of life;
(2) Protecting our environment for our children and
grandchildren; and
(3) Making public land available for high-quality development
consistent with these principles.
I would like to highlight a few ways in which the Clark County
Conservation PLAN bill will improve the quality of life and enhance
economic opportunities for Nevadans while enriching and protecting the
awe-inspiring natural resources that bless southern Nevada for the
benefit of future generations of Nevadans and all Americans. I would
like to submit my full written testimony for the Committee's Record.
TITLE I--RED ROCK CANYON NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA EXCHANGE
When Congress passed the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management
Act in 1998, we made the decision that it was in the public interest to
transition away from Federal-private land exchanges and competitively
auction those parcels of land deemed by the BLM as suitable for
disposal. This decision has proven quite effective and fair and likely
represents the future of land privatization in Nevada and the West. At
the time the law was enacted, however, Congress did contemplate that a
limited number of ongoing land exchanges should be completed because of
their benefit to the public. One of these exchanges is familiarly known
as the Red Rock Canyon-Howard Hughes exchange. This exchange would be
completed by Title I of the Clark County Conservation PLAN bill.
In the Red Rock Exchange, the Bureau of Land Management will
acquire roughly 1,070 acres of land owned by the Howard Hughes
Corporation. This land forms promontories above the gently-sloping
bajada (buh-HA-da) in the foothills of the La Madre Mountains on the
eastern border of the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. This
land affords spectacular views of the Las Vegas Valley. Development of
this land would degrade the Red Rock NCA and diminish the beautiful
view from Las Vegas to the west--a view many Las Vegans treasure.
Our bill provides that the lands I have described will become part
of the Red Rock NCA once acquired by the Federal government. In
exchange for the Red Rock lands, the Howard Hughes Corporation will
receive acreage of equal value, as determined by a government-certified
appraiser, within the Las Vegas Valley. Finally, the Howard Hughes
Corporation will convey some of their acquired acreage to Clark County
for use as a county park and for inclusion in a regional trail system.
As I mentioned earlier, this proposal has been around for a number of
years and enjoys unusually broad support ranging from the County to the
environmental community. The time when this exchange should have
reached completion through the administrative process has long since
passed and a legislative resolution is now in order.
TITLE II--WILDERNESS DESIGNATION
Nevada has nearly 100 Wilderness Study Areas on Federal land across
the state. These areas, which are primarily administered by the Bureau
of Land Management, are managed to protect wilderness character of the
lands under current law. These areas remain as de facto wilderness
until Congress passes a bill changing wilderness study status by either
designating the land as wilderness or releasing the land from
Wilderness Study Area consideration.
Although there is broad support for addressing Nevada's Wilderness
Study Areas through Federal legislation, there is no consensus
regarding how to do so. Those who advocate for wilderness designation
and those who oppose further additions to the wilderness system hold
strong and, in many cases, irreconcilable views on this issue.
Those of us who wrote this bill likewise hold different views
regarding wilderness. In developing the wilderness component of this
bill, Senator Ensign, Congressman Gibbons, and I made compromises that
cause heartburn for all interested parties. We believe, however, that
this is a critical step toward addressing the outstanding wilderness
study issues in the state of Nevada. Our bill designates wilderness and
releases wilderness study areas. It creates 20 wilderness areas: 6
managed by the BLM; 4 jointly managed by the Park Service and BLM; 7
managed by the Park Service; and 3 jointly managed by the BLM and the
Forest Service.
In addition to these wilderness areas, our bill releases from
Wilderness Study Area status acreage associated with each of the BLM
and Forest Service areas we address. In fact, we release three BLM
study areas in their entirety. Two of these areas will eventually
accommodate growth at the north end of the Las Vegas Valley and help
provide jobs for decades into the future.
We have provided for wilderness management protocols that address
the particular circumstances of southern Nevada. For example, we
explicitly require the Secretary of the Interior to allow for the
construction, maintenance, and replacement of water catchments known as
guzzlers when and where that action will enhance wilderness wildlife
resources. In addition, we believe that the use of motor vehicles
should be allowed to achieve these purposes when and where it is the
minimum tool necessary to accomplish the task, and it does not require
the creation of new roads.
Some wilderness purists argue that these man-made guzzler tanks
disturb the naturally functioning ecosystems of the Mohave Desert. I
respect this view, but I believe that these projects help restore more
natural function to ecosystems that have been forever fragmented by
development, including roads. These projects, which are privately
funded by dedicated sportsmen like Clint Bentley, who will testify
later today on behalf of the Nevada Land Users Coalition, have a
legitimate place in southern Nevada wilderness, and this bill is clear
on that point.
In our effort to create a fair wilderness designation, we have
benefitted from the advice and suggestions of many Nevadans
representing a range of views. These advocates include the Nevada Land
Users Coalition, The Sierra Club, The Virgin Valley Sportsmen's
Association, The Nevada Wilderness Project, The Fraternity of Desert
Bighorns, the Nevada Mining Association, Red Rock Audubon, and Partners
in Conservation, to name just a few. We appreciate their help and
believe that this compromise honors our commitment to listen carefully
to all parties. We are also grateful for the help we have received from
the Federal land managers in Clark County and look forward to working
with them to improve this bill to help make their jobs easier and the
public experience on public land better. We have also received comments
from the staff of this Committee and look forward to working with the
members of the Committee to further refine the wilderness provisions of
this bill.
TITLE III--INTERAGENCY FEDERAL JURISDICTION TRANSFERS
Early in this bill's development, we decided not to address
wilderness issues within the Desert National Wildlife Range, which lies
just north of Las Vegas. This decision disappointed many in the
environmental community who view the wilderness resources in the Range
as some of the best in the Mohave Desert. Wilderness in the Range is,
however, beyond the scope of this bill.
The Clark County Conservation PLAN does transfer the management
responsibility of three Wilderness Study Areas, totaling more than
49,000 acres, from the Bureau of Land Management to the Fish and
Wildlife Service. These areas lie between State Highway 93 and the
Range, so this transfer helps rationalize the Federal land ownership
pattern in northern Clark County.
In addition, this bill transfers a small parcel of land from the
Bureau of Land Management to the National Park Service for use as an
administrative site on the road between Searchlight and Cottonwood
Cove. This transfer will save taxpayer dollars by allowing the Park
Service to consolidate two planned administrative sites into one and
manage the Lake Mead National Recreation Area more effectively.
TITLE IV--SOUTHERN NV PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS
When Congress passed the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management
Act of 1998, it established a new paradigm for the sale of public lands
in Clark County, Nevada. One of the core principles of this new way of
doing business was that the proceeds from the sale of Federal lands
should be reinvested in Federal, state, and local environmental
protection and recreational enhancements in the state in which the
lands are sold.
The Clark County Conservation PLAN Act modifies the Southern Nevada
Public Lands Management Act and expands the so-called Las Vegas Valley
disposal boundary. This expansion will make an additional 25,000 acres
of BLM land available for auction and development for many years. The
proceeds from the sale of this Federal land will continue to accrue to
the Southern Nevada Public Lands Special Account and be invested in the
purchase of environmentally sensitive land, the development of Federal
land infrastructure, the implementation of the Clark County Multi-
Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and local government open space,
recreation and conservation projects. Our bill further provides that at
least one-quarter of the Special Account be dedicated to the last of
these purposes.
TITLE V--IVANPAH CORRIDOR
One of the most important infrastructure issues facing southern
Nevada is siting a new international airport. The County's preferred
and likely site is in a dry lake bed between Jean and Primm, Nevada,
south of the Las Vegas Valley in the Interstate 15 transportation
corridor near the California border. Congress made Federal land at that
site available for use as an airport, pending environmental reviews.
The Clark County Conservation PLAN bill complements that law in two
important ways. First, our bill conveys Federal land adjacent to the
proposed airport to the Clark County Airport Authority so that it can
promote compatible development within the area affected by the noise of
the airport. Any proceeds derived from the sale of these Airport
Authority lands would be distributed in the same way as proceeds
generated from lands sold within the Las Vegas Valley Disposal
Boundary.
Second, our bill directs the Bureau of Land Management to reserve a
right-of-way for non-exclusive utility and transportation corridors
between the Las Vegas Valley and the proposed airport. This corridor is
important, because in order for the new airport to remain economical,
it will require significant utility development to come from the north.
Our bill does not dictate exactly where, when, how, or by whom this
infrastructure will be developed; it simply reserves land explicitly to
serve this purpose.
TITLE VI--SLOAN CANYON NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA
One of the most precious areas in southern Nevada is a relatively
non-descript canyon near Henderson. It is an area graced with hundreds
of wonderful and curious petroglyphs. Under ordinary circumstances, I
would not reveal the location of this site because public knowledge of
prehistoric rock art sites commonly leads to their destruction. In this
case, however, this canyon is in desperate need of protection because
it is within a short walk of the Las Vegas valley. Similar resources
elsewhere in the desert Southwest have been destroyed by urban growth
and lack of intensive management.
The Clark County Conservation PLAN bill designates the Sloan
petroglyphs site and the area that comprises most of its watershed as
the North McCullough Mountains Wilderness. This wilderness, combined
with about 32,000 acres of open space, comprises the proposed Sloan
Canyon National Conservation Area. The NCA and wilderness will provide
critical protection for the Sloan petroglyphs, preserve open space near
Henderson's rapidly growing neighborhoods, and together represent a
legacy of cultural and natural resource conservation our grandchildren
will value dearly.
TITLE VII--PUBLIC INTEREST LAND CONVEYANCES
The sheer number of public-lands bill requests Senator Ensign and I
receive is staggering. If we chose to introduce stand-alone legislation
to address each legitimate issue that constituents bring to our
attention, we would create an awkward patchwork of new Federal laws. In
the Clark County Conservation PLAN, we have attempted to provide a
comprehensive vision and framework for conservation and development in
southern Nevada by balancing competing interests.
The bill's final title includes a select few of many important
public interest land conveyances. For example, we include two land
grants to further the higher-education mission of Nevada's university
system. One provides land to the UNLV research foundation for the
development of a technology park. The other provides land for the
planned Henderson State College.
We convey a small active shooting range to the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department for training purposes. We grant a modest
parcel of land to the City of Las Vegas for the development of
affordable housing. We provide for the conveyance of the Sunrise
Landfill from the Bureau of Land Management to Clark County pending
completion of the environmental clean-up at the site. We convey park
and open space land to the City of Henderson and provide for a
cooperatively managed zone comprised of Federal land around Henderson
Executive airport. These are relatively small but important actions
that help our communities, law enforcement, and educational system
better serve southern Nevada.
Mr. Chairman, the bill we are discussing here today promises a
better tomorrow for our public lands in southern Nevada, for the more
than 1.5 million people who call Clark County home, and for the
millions of Americans who visit southern Nevada every year. This
balanced compromise provides land for development, land grants for
public purposes, wilderness for conservation in perpetuity, and a new
National Conservation Area to celebrate and protect the wonderful
natural and cultural resources of the North McCullough Mountains
including the Sloan petroglyph site.
Senator Ensign and I have been working on this bill since he came
to the Senate a year and a half ago. We are proud of the progress we
have made and believe that this public lands bill should serve as a
model for bipartisan cooperation and constructive compromise. We look
forward to working with you and Chairman Bingaman to perfect this
legislation so that we can enact the Clark County Conservation PLAN
bill into law this year.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your willingness to hold this
hearing and your hard work on public lands issues facing our country.
Senator Wyden. Without objection. We thank you, and we're
going to try to move your bill as quickly as we can. Senator
Ensign, I know this has been bipartisan and we're glad you're
here.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
holding this hearing and considering our bill. Senator Reid and
myself have worked very hard, but as you know, our staffs have
just done a terrific job on this. And Senator Reid talked
about, it really was a model for how to put legislation
together, because we have environmental groups working together
with multi-use people, with the Federal Government, State
governments, local governments, utilities, everybody working
together at the table.
There are people that aren't real happy with the bill but
aren't real dissatisfied with the bill, and I think neither
side was real, real happy or real, real dissatisfied, and
that's usually what happens when you come together with
legislation.
Just to mention a couple of things about the bill. We've
got a new conservation area in there to protect some very
valuable petroglyphs. We have taken some out of wilderness
settings and put other lands permanently into wilderness, to
try to resolve some of the wilderness issues in southern
Nevada. We've also put in there, I had an interest--as a matter
of fact, when I was living up in your State, I was very
impressed in Oregon, that's where my family is from, and I was
very impressed when I was going to college up there, the Keep
Oregon Green campaign.
Well, we put in the desert--a lot of people come to the
desert and they just think it's a wasteland, and they throw
things out the door and out of their cars, and they dump things
in the desert, they dump beds, it's amazing, it looks like a
dumping ground. And we've got money put aside in this for an
anti-littering campaign to try to make people aware that the
desert is very fragile, and not to litter out there, to try to
have people take pride in where they're living and to get
tourists to think about it too, because a lot of the litter
that happens in the desert is from tourists as well. So that's
a smaller part of the bill, but I think an important part of
the bill.
And lastly, when we look at recreational opportunities, we
took the wilderness areas and we still allowed access almost as
the fingers, you know, going into the wilderness areas so
people would be able to get to those and then hike to where
they needed to be to enjoy those wilderness areas.
So we think we have come up with a very, very good balance,
working together and working with all the stakeholders, and you
will hear from some of those stakeholders today. But we
appreciate your holding this hearing and for allowing us to
testify before the vote. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Ensign follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Ensign, U.S. Senator From Nevada
Chairman Wyden and Senator Craig, good afternoon. Thank you for
holding a hearing on the Clark County Conservation of Public Lands and
Natural Resources Act of 2002, or the Clark County PLAN. I understand
the Committee has a number of bills pending before it and I am grateful
for your assistance in promptly scheduling this hearing. I will keep my
comments brief.
We have three of our constituents testifying with us here today:
John Wallin of the Nevada Wilderness Coalition, Clint Bentley of the
Nevada Land Users Coalition, and Bob Abbey, Nevada's very able BLM
Director. Thank you very much for traveling to Washington and for your
very hard work on this effort.
The Clark County PLAN that Senator Reid and I introduced resolves a
number of local land use dilemmas we face in southern Nevada. As you
know well, Mr. Chairman and Senator Craig, representing a state with
large tracts of federal land means we have to get congressional
approval for many matters that in other states east of the Mississippi
are left to local officials. Given the phenomenal growth in Clark
County over the past decade, it is difficult to respond to the growth
pressures and needs of our citizens because we do have a cumbersome
federal land process to navigate.
Senator Reid and I believe it is in Clark County's best interest to
formulate a comprehensive lands bill. We receive dozens of land
disposal requests every year from around the state of Nevada and it is
impossible--not to mention bad public policy--to address them
piecemeal. I am proud of the fact that a Republican and a Democrat have
worked together closely to write a pro-environment bill that is good
for the people of Clark County. We could not have done so if it were
not for the friendship and trust we have developed over the past year
and a half.
Our bill does a number of positive things for southern Nevada.
While time constraints do not permit me to touch on every part of the
Clark County PLAN, I do want to bring a few important features to your
attention:
Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area Creation/Red Rock
National Conservation Area Expansion. Our bill creates southern
Nevada's second national conservation area in a way that
protects the priceless Sloan Petroglyps. Establishment of the
Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area provides permanent open
space and recreational opportunities for the residents of
nearby Henderson. We also add breathtaking acreage to the
existing Red Rock National Conservation Area.
Wilderness Resolution. Our bill formally designates 444,000
acres of quality wilderness in Clark County, while releasing
231,000 acres for multiple use or development. While the issues
of wilderness and wilderness release are controversial, the
fact that we are taking action on the majority of Wilderness
Study Areas in Clark County is a major accomplishment.
Quality Growth and Expansion. Our bill releases federal land
for auction within the Las Vegas Valley for future residential
and commercial growth. The proceeds benefit the environment,
our infrastructure, and public education. The cities of Las
Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson will benefit by having
the ability to grow wisely and promote quality of life and
economic expansion.
Litter Cleanup and Beautification. I am grateful to Senator
Reid for including a provision I have strongly advocated that
provides the funding to implement a comprehensive litter
cleanup and public education campaign in southern Nevada.
Unfortunately, too many people equate the desert with a garbage
dump. Changing public attitudes and cleaning up garbage-choked
public lands will make Clark County an even better place to
live.
Power Corridors Critical to the Intermountain West. The
legislation opens up a critical north-south power corridor so
that transmission lines can transport power in the
Intermountain West, a region that has been particularly hard-
hit by power shortages.
I would like to take a moment to comment on the process by which
Senator Reid and I crafted the Clark County PLAN. I am very proud to
have tackled some tough issues in a bipartisan way and I believe our
working together is a model for other Western states to follow. We
encouraged diametrically opposed groups to come up with solutions. The
Clark County PLAN is built on the same model as the Southern Nevada
Public Lands Management Act, legislation that I was very proud to have
written with former Senator Richard Bryan in 1997.
We asked our staffs to meet with all interested parties in Clark
County to make sure their views and concerns were considered. The
Nevada Wilderness Coalition and the Nevada Land Users Coalition have
provided Senator Reid and me with very thoughtful and constructive
comments about our legislation. Many of those comments are incorporated
in the bill. We have sat down with local jurisdictions, the state of
Nevada, elected officials, business groups, and environmentalists. The
Clark County PLAN reflects the work of a very diverse and balanced
cross section of Nevadans.
With this said, I acknowledge that some of our friends in the
environmental community would like to see changes made to the Clark
County PLAN due to concern that the wilderness designations are
inadequate. I want to commend them for standing up for their strongly
held beliefs. It is fair to fight for what you think is right.
This bill is a compromise. It moves us forward. It does not have
everything in it that the Nevada Land Users Coalition, the multiple use
advocates, wished to have. Senator Reid and I have endeavored to make
this an inclusive process and I believe we have achieved a result that
the vast majority of Nevadans support. I urge this Committee and my
colleagues to pass this bill expeditiously.
Working with Senator Reid, Congressman Jim Gibbons, and numerous
Nevadans on the Clark County PLAN has been a very rewarding and
productive experience. I thank them for their willingness to come
together to form this compromise.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Craig.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, if I could say, if there are
any questions staff has, Senator Ensign and I will be very
happy to meet with them anytime, this is very important for us,
to see if we can move it this year.
Senator Wyden. We thank you both. You have gone about it in
a very thoughtful way, you're welcome to stay after we come
back, but I'm going to try and get this bill out of
subcommittee as fast as we can.
We will be back in 10 minutes.
[Recess.]
Senator Wyden. The subcommittee will come back to order. We
appreciate the patience of our guests, and this panel will have
Bob Abbey, Assistant Director for Renewable Resources, the
Acting Assistant Director; Gail Kimbell, Deputy Chief of the
National Forest System; and Drue Pearce, Senior Advisor to the
Secretary for Alaska Affairs, Department of the Interior.
These three will come forward. Okay. I'm going to make your
prepared statements a part of the hearing record in their
entirety. And whenever I say that, it always does little good,
because people just go forward and read it all. If I could
somehow entice you into just hitting the main concerns you have
in 5 minutes or so, it would be great, and I really do pledge
that every word you have will be made a part of the record.
Bob Abbey, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT ABBEY, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
RENEWABLE RESOURCES, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Abbey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will take your
word for it, and I will eliminate much of what I was going to
offer. We certainly appreciate the opportunity to testify
regarding S. 2612, the Clark County Conservation and Public
Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002. Sponsored by Senators
Ensign and Reid of Nevada, S. 2612 is an attempt to deal in a
comprehensive fashion with a wide array of public land issues
facing Clark County, Nevada.
The Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land
Management, the National Park Service strongly supports their
efforts to resolve these issues. This bipartisan collaborative
approach for addressing land use issues should be a model
throughout the West.
We have a number of specific concerns to certain provisions
to the legislation, however. The Department would like to work
with the sponsors and the committee on improvements to this
bill.
As you've heard from the two Senators from Nevada, Clark
County is home to Las Vegas, the fastest growing metropolitan
area in the country. Of the 4.2 million acres within Clark
County, BLM managed public lands constitutes 66 percent of
those lands. The National Park Service manages over a half
million acres in Clark County as part of the Lake Mead National
Recreation Area. The high concentration of public lands
combined with their proximity to such a fast growing area
provides unique challenges and opportunities for the Bureau of
Land Management, the National Park Service, the county, the
city of Las Vegas, and the many other cities in the region.
Issues of growth and conservation are difficult in the
expanding West, as many of you know. In 1998, the Southern
Nevada Public Lands Management Act, Public Law 105-263,
addressed many of the issues in the Las Vegas Valley by
providing a system for disposing of appropriate BLM managed
lands within that area to both benefit the greater Las Vegas
area and protecting the interests of the American public. S.
2612 is the logical next step to Public Law 105-263.
S. 2612 presents a comprehensive approach to addressing a
number of public land issues in Clark County. Among the many
issues covered in this lengthy bill are land exchanges, land
conveyances, wilderness designations and release, national
conservation area establishment, and revisions to the Southern
Nevada Public Lands Management Act of 1998.
For example, title II moves the wilderness debate forward
in Clark County, Nevada by designating lands as wilderness and
releasing other lands from wilderness study area. Senators Reid
and Ensign have worked diligently with their local
constituencies to seek consensus on these designations and
release. We hope that this approach can be a model and provide
an impetus for other States and regions to take similar
actions.
After all, it is up to Congress to resolve the long
simmering wilderness study area question. Nevada Senators have
proven that this can be done in a collaborative bipartisan
fashion that deserves our support.
In the wilderness title and throughout the bill, we would
like the opportunity to work with the sponsors and this
committee to resolve numerous issues. Some of these are minor
and technical in nature; others are a little more far reaching.
For example, in title I of the bill, we believe it is
critical to insure that the land values to be exchanged are in
fact of equal value. On the many land conveyances in title VII,
we ask the sponsor and the committee to consider various
concerns that we have raised. In title II, we want to insure
that the management language is well understood and consistent.
A key provision of this legislation is the expansion of the
disposal boundary established by the Southern Nevada Public
Lands Management Act by approximately 23,600 acres of Federal
land. The additions are primarily on the north side of Las
Vegas. And while capital improvements and acquisitions of the
environmentally sensitive lands are allowed, use of the funds
that are generated within this disposal area, the law is silent
on restoration and rehabilitation. Along with preserving and
protecting important and environmentally sensitive lands, there
are significant opportunities for careful restoration and
conservation work. This may be an appropriate use of some of
these funds and we would like to discuss those options.
The establishment of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation
Area in title VI is significant. As the Red Rock Canyon
National Conservation Area has proven such a popular site on
the west side of Clark County, we believe that Sloan Canyon
will provide equal opportunities to disperse recreation on the
east side.
So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for the
opportunity to testify on S. 2612. This is by far a significant
bill, but it is also a detailed and a complex one. We look
forward to the opportunity to work with Senators Reid and
Ensign and this committee to adequately address the concerns
that we raise so that this important proposal can be finalized
and go forward. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Abbey, Acting Assistant Director for
Renewable Resources, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the
Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding S. 2612, the
Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of
2002. Sponsored by Senators Ensign and Reid of Nevada, S. 2612 is an
attempt to deal in a comprehensive fashion with a wide array of public
land issues facing Clark County, Nevada. The Department of the
Interior, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park
Service (NPS) strongly support their efforts to resolve these issues.
This bipartisan collaborative approach to addressing land use issues
should be a model throughout the West. We have a number of specific
concerns with certain provisions of the legislation which are outlined
in the testimony. The Department would like to work with the sponsors
and the Committee on improvements to the bill, so that once these
changes are made we would be in a position to support the bill.
BACKGROUND
Clark County is home to Las Vegas the fastest growing metropolitan
area in the country. Of the 4.2 million acres within Clark County, BLM-
managed public lands constitute 66 percent of those lands. The high
concentration of public lands combined with their proximity to such a
fast growing metropolis provide unique challenges and opportunities for
the BLM, the NPS, the county, the city of Las Vegas and the many other
cities in the region.
Issues of growth and conservation are difficult in the expanding
West. In 1998, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA),
Public Law 105-263, addressed many of the issues in the Las Vegas
Valley by providing a system for disposing of BLM-managed lands within
that area to both benefit the greater Las Vegas area while protecting
the interests of the American public. S. 2612 is the logical next step
to P.L. 105-263.
S. 2612
S. 2612 presents a comprehensive approach to addressing a number of
public land issues in Clark County. Among the many issues covered in
the bill are: land exchanges, land conveyances, wilderness designation
and release, National Conservation Area (NCA) establishment, and
revisions to the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998
(SNPLMA). I'd like to address these many issues title by title of the
bill.
However, let me make a few general comments. We should note that
this bill, if it were to become law, represents a substantial workload
for BLM Nevada, especially the Las Vegas field office. The time frames
established by the legislation will likely mean that other high
priority projects will not be addressed and some of the deadlines may
simply be impossible to meet. In addition, the costs of completing many
of the land conveyances in the bill (for example, NEPA compliance,
survey and title work and other types of clearances) should be borne by
the benefitting local entity, not by the BLM. While we generally
support reversionary clauses in land transfers, we believe they should
be at the discretion of the Secretary to ensure that the Federal
government is not burdened with potential future liability costs
related to the uses of some of the lands conveyed. Also, there are
numerous small technical issues as well as a number of PAYGO costs not
addressed in this testimony which we would like to discuss with the
Committee and the bill sponsors.
TITLE I
Title I addresses the same exchange and transfers of land as H.R.
4141, the ``Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Protection and
Enhancement Act of 2002.'' The BLM testified before the House Resources
Committee on that bill on June 6 of this year, expressing support for
the land tenure adjustments outlined in the legislation, but raising a
number of issues needing resolution before the legislation moved
forward.
While some of our concerns have been addressed, many remain
outstanding. Title I proposes to legislate both a land exchange between
the BLM and the Hughes Corporation as well as a transfer of additional
public lands to Clark County for a park. The lands proposed to be
acquired by the BLM in the land exchange with the Hughes Corporation
border the eastern edge of the NCA and total approximately 1,068 acres
in seven separate parcels. The BLM strongly supports the acquisition of
these parcels and believes they will enhance the NCA. The addition of
these parcels will improve boundary management and allow for better
protection of rock art and other resources within the NCA.
The public lands identified for exchange to the Hughes Corporation
total approximately 998 acres and were identified for disposal under
SNPLMA. It is our understanding that these lands would be used for the
expansion of a master-planned housing community. Under SNPLMA, proceeds
from the disposal of BLM-managed lands are divided between the State of
Nevada general education fund (5%), the Southern Nevada Water Authority
(10%), and a special account in the Treasury for acquisition of
environmentally-sensitive lands in Nevada and other purposes (85%).
Section 4 of SNPLMA mandates that in the case of a land exchange, the
non-Federal party remains liable for the 5% and 10% payments. The
legislation is silent on this point, and therefore we make the
assumption that these provisions of SNPLMA would apply to the Hughes
Corporation land exchange.
The bill would also require the BLM to transfer approximately 1,344
acres of additional public lands to Clark County for purposes of a
park. These lands are adjacent and intermingled with the lands to be
exchanged to the Hughes Corporation. While we do not oppose the
transfer of these lands to the County we believe they should be
transferred at fair market value or through a Recreation and Public
Purposes (R&PP) lease/conveyance.
The legislation is silent on responsibility for any potential
hazardous materials that may preexist on these parcels. We believe that
this must be addressed in the legislation. In addition, the public
lands identified for disposal are currently encumbered by rights-of-way
for roads, water pipelines, gas pipelines, and power lines as well as
mining claims. We would like to ensure that these current uses are
appropriately addressed by the legislation. Likewise if there are any
encumbrances on the private lands to be acquired, this would need to be
addressed.
Finally, and very importantly, the issue of land values is critical
to our support of this Title. The Hughes Corporation contracted with a
private appraiser to complete an appraisal of these lands. The BLM in
Nevada received that appraisal in late June and is currently reviewing
it. Following our review, we would like the opportunity to modify the
acreage of the lands involved in the exchange to ensure that the
exchange is of equal value. While the legislation appears to address
this issue in section 104(c) and section 105(c), we believe that the
language is confusing. The valuation issue must be addressed adequately
before markup in order to ensure that all interests are protected.
TITLE II
Title II moves the wilderness debate in Clark County, Nevada,
forward both by designating lands as wilderness and releasing other
lands from wilderness study area (WSA) status. Senators Ensign and Reid
have worked diligently with their local constituencies to seek
consensus on these designations and releases. We hope that this
approach can be a model and provide an impetus for other states and
regions to take similar actions. It is up to Congress to resolve the
long simmering WSA question. The Senators from Nevada have proven that
this can be done in a collaborative bipartisan fashion that deserves
our support.
The bill would release approximately 233,192 acres of BLM-managed
lands from WSA status and interim protection of their wilderness values
under section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA). In addition, 223,858 acres of BLM-managed lands, 183,809 acres
of National Park Service-managed lands, and 36,252 acres of Forest
Service-managed lands would be designated wilderness. The 1979
Preliminary Wilderness Proposal for Lake Mead National Recreation Area
recommended wilderness designation for 273,327 acres in Nevada. S. 2612
recommends approximately 182,000 acres in Nevada approximately 91,000
acres less than the recommended proposal.
All told the bill would designate 20 new wilderness areas and
expand one preexisting area. This is an important legacy for the people
of Las Vegas, Nevada, and the entire country. At the same time, this
legislation also provides important opportunities for urban growth.
The legislation releases over 230,000 acres from FLPMA's WSA
interim management protection. Of that, over 180,000 acres will be
returned to the full range of non-wilderness multiple uses.
We would like the opportunity to work with the sponsors and the
Committee on improvements to the wilderness management language before
the bill is marked up. First and foremost, we strongly urge the
Committee to clarify expressly that this legislation shall not
constitute or be construed to constitute either an express or implied
reservation of any water rights with respect to the designated areas.
In addition there is unnecessary language (for example the air quality
language in section 203(d) which is superfluous), confusing language
(for example, the hunting, fishing, and trapping language in section
208(b) and the grazing language with respect to the NPS), or
nontraditional language (for example the motorized vehicles and access
language). The Department would like the Act to recognize the
differences in land management policies that arise from FLPMA and the
NPS Organic Act, and nothing in the Act should supersede management
authorities and policies arising from each agency's organic
legislation. Likewise, the addition of language withdrawing these
wilderness areas from the public land, mining, and mineral leasing laws
will prevent any future misinterpretation. While we do not oppose what
we believe are the goals of these provisions, there are preferred ways
of addressing them that are widely understood and accepted.
In addition, there are a number of mapping issues we would like to
address before markup. The BLM in Nevada and the NPS at Lake Mead
National Recreation Area are in the process of carefully reviewing each
proposed wilderness boundary to ensure that these boundaries are as
manageable as possible. We would like the opportunity to propose minor
changes, when making such changes would increase manageability of the
wilderness and ensure that we are not inadvertently affecting important
current uses.
The Department may require further clarification to ensure that
this legislation is consistent with the provisions of Public Law 106-
181, which directs the FAA in cooperation with the NPS to develop air
tour management plans for units with commercial air tours for the
purpose of mitigating or preventing significant adverse impacts of
commercial air tour operations upon the natural or cultural resources,
and visitor experiences.
Section 207(d) addresses rights-of-way within the Sunrise Mountain
Instant Study Area (ISA) and the Meadow Valley Range WSA. Sections 703
and 706 also effect lands within the Sunrise Mountain ISA. It is our
conclusion that the best way to address these issues is to release the
entire Sunrise Mountain ISA from WSA status and from wilderness interim
management protection. With the number of exceptions we have noted, the
remaining ISA becomes unwieldy and difficult to manage for wilderness
values. In addition, we recommend that the portion of the Meadow Valley
Range WSA originally recommended not suitable by the BLM in 1992 be
likewise released from wilderness protection. The provisions of section
207(d) would no longer be necessary with such releases.
Finally, Section 208(d) addresses wildlife water development
projects. General management policies of the NPS do not permit the
construction of wildlife water development projects and artificial
manipulation of habitat except to restore natural features that have
been disrupted due to human development or activities. Lake Mead NRA
has coordinated with the Nevada Division of Wildlife for the
maintenance of wildlife drinkers where there has been a finding that
original sources of water have been lost to development or irreversible
disruption of natural processes. We recommend this section be rewritten
to authorize construction of wildlife drinkers where such construction
is not in conflict with other applicable state and federal law or
policy.
TITLE III
Title III provides for the transfer of BLM-managed lands to the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. Substantial
acreage in the case of the former and a small site in the case of the
latter.
Three BLM-managed WSAs would be released from interim protection
under section 603(c) of FLPMA and then transferred to the Fish and
Wildlife Service for inclusion in the Desert National Wildlife Range.
Because this area is a long narrow piece abutting the east side of the
Wildlife Range we believe that this is a sensible proposal. In
addition, 10 acres of public land east of Searchlight, Nevada, would be
transferred from BLM management to the National Park Service for
purposes of an administrative site for Lake Mead National Recreation
Area.
We support these transfers, but would like the opportunity to work
on language which would provide for a direct legislative transfer
rather than a more cumbersome time-consuming administrative withdrawal
process.
TITLE IV
Title IV modifies the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of
1998 (SNPLMA), Public Law 105-263. The bill would substitute a new map
for the map used in the original bill which outlines the ``disposal
area'' within the Las Vegas Valley. Under the new map, the area subject
to the disposal provisions of SNPLMA are expanded by approximately
23,600 acres of federal land. The additions are primarily on the north
side of Las Vegas (three WSAs are released from protection under
section 603(c) of FLPMA in Title II of the bill and the majority of
those acres are placed inside the disposal boundary) as well as
scattered areas to the west and east of Las Vegas. We do not oppose
these additions to the disposal boundary.
In addition to providing for the disposal of certain public lands
in the Las Vegas area, the SNPLMA also provided for the disposition of
receipts from those disposals. 85 percent of the receipts are deposited
in a special account. The special account funds are then spent to
acquire environmentally sensitive lands in Nevada, pay for capital
improvements in certain Clark County federal sites (such as the
National Park Service's Lake Mead National Recreation Area and BLM's
Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA)), develop parks,
trails and natural areas in Clark County in cooperation with local
governmental units, and for other specified purposes.
Title IV of this bill would require that a minimum of 25 percent of
the special account fund be used for cooperative agreements for parks,
trails, and natural areas. While we share the cooperative sentiment
behind this proposal, we believe the amendment is limiting. To place
arbitrary floors on certain uses of the special account, ties the
agency's hands and may result in less than optimal use of the funds in
the special account. For example, in the most recent, and third round,
of recommendations for expenditures of the SNPLMA special account, over
33 percent of the expenditures would be for these cooperative
agreements. Cumulatively expenditures for cooperative agreements have
been over 26 percent of the total. The process of local working groups
establishing priorities is working and the establishment of a cap is an
unnecessary and limiting restriction. Section 401(2)(A) should be
deleted.
Finally, we would like the opportunity to have discussions with the
bill's sponsors regarding a slight modification to the expenditure
provisions of section 4(e)(3) of the SNPLMA. While capital improvements
and acquisitions of environmentally sensitive lands are allowed under
the Act, it is silent on restoration and rehabilitation. Along with
preserving and protecting important environmentally sensitive lands,
there are significant opportunities for careful restoration and
conservation work. This may be an appropriate use of these funds and we
would like to discuss those options.
TITLE V
It appears that the intent of this Title is primarily twofold:
first, to protect a potential utility corridor to serve the proposed
Ivanpah Airport; and, second, to transfer approximately 15,500 acres of
public land to the Clark County Airport Authority.
We believe that this Title, especially the transfer of lands, is
premature. In late 2000, the Congress passed the ``Ivanpah Valley
Airport Public Lands Transfer Act,'' (P.L. 106-362). That Act provides
for the sale of approximately 5,900 acres to Clark County at fair
market value. Those lands are for the purpose of airport development.
The sale of public lands under that Act is to take place once the FAA
certifies an airspace assessment which has been completed by the
County. Following the sale by the BLM to the County, the County is then
required to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The
completion of that EIS is expected to take several years. A final
decision on whether or not to build an airport will not be made until
that EIS is complete. We oppose the transfer of additional lands, as
directed in section 501(b), until this underlying issue is addressed.
We would also note that some of the lands in the southwest portion
of the area identified for inclusion in the Ivanpah Airport Noise
Compatibility Area are important Desert Tortoise habitat and are within
the Desert Tortoise translocation area under the Clark County Habitat
Conservation Plan (CCHCP). If acreage is conveyed out of Federal
ownership within the CCHCP it could jeopardize Clark County's section
10 permit with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service under the Endangered
Species Act. Finally, these lands are currently managed for a variety
of multiple uses including utility corridors and OHV recreational use
which we urge be considered before any transfer of lands.
We have additional concerns with section 501(a). We note that it
establishes a 173,000-acre Interstate 15 corridor south of Las Vegas
and terminates an existing mineral withdrawal for that corridor. Other
purposes of this corridor are unclear. This subsection also establishes
a transportation and utility corridor surrounding the proposed Ivanpah
Airport, which again appears premature.
Section 501(b) may affect the provisions of Public Law 106-362,
which directed that funds received from the sale of public lands are to
be used for the acquisition of private inholdings in the Mojave
National Preserve and for the protection and management of the
petroglyph resources in Clark County, Nevada. Park Service would like
the opportunity to work with the Sponsor and the Committee to clarify
this issue.
Finally, section 501(c) segregates and withdraws from the
operations of the mining laws certain Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern (ACECs) identified in the BLM's 1998 Las Vegas Resource
Management Plan (RMP). We support this provision which is consistent
with the RMP as well as the CCHCP.
TITLE VI
Title VI establishes the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area
(NCA). The Sloan Canyon area south and east of Las Vegas is a
strikingly beautiful area with important cultural and archaeological
sites. It rightly deserves the recognition and the meaningful
protections that are inherent in a National Conservation Area
designation.
The centerpiece of the nearly 48,000-acre NCA is the Sloan Canyon
site. The Canyon includes over 3/4 of a mile of more than 300 rock art
panels with nearly 1,000 designs. The age of these petroglyphs and
pictographs range from pre-Columbian to historic times, clearly
illustrating the rich human history of the area. This canyon continues
to hold spiritual meaning to the native peoples of the area where it
remains a sacred site for the intertribal community.
Each of the NCAs designated by Congress and managed by the BLM is
unique. However, for the most part they have certain critical elements,
these include: public land, mining, and mineral leasing law withdrawal,
OHV use limitations, and language which charges the Secretary to only
allow those uses which further the purposes for which the NCA is
established. Furthermore, NCA proposals do not diminish the protections
that currently apply to the lands. The Sloan Canyon NCA proposal
largely honors this spirit. However, the uses language in section
605(c) is open to interpretation. We would recommend that this be
amended to include either the traditional ``only such uses'' language
or at a minimum to delete the word ``any'' in this subsection.
In addition, we recommend that the hunting language in section
605(f) be revised. As currently written it implies that the Secretary
of the Interior is responsible for the permitting of hunting on public
lands. In Nevada, as in most other States, state officials exercise
primary responsibility for the regulation of hunting, fishing, and
trapping on federal public lands. We would be happy to work with the
Committee and the sponsors so as to modify this language in an
appropriate fashion.
Section 605(h) requires the BLM to issue a right-of-way to the city
of Henderson for a road connecting the main portion of Henderson to the
community of Anthem. A portion of this right-of-way would cut through
the Sloan Canyon NCA. BLM currently has an application for this right-
of-way on file. However, we should note that the Nevada Division of
Wildlife has raised concerns about the possible effect of this road on
the bighorn sheep population. We would recommend that before a decision
is made on this right-of-way full environmental impacts need to be
determined through the NEPA process. This would take longer than the 90
days specified in 605(h). In addition, we would seek the flexibility to
revise the right-of-way as necessary to address any serious issues
discovered in the NEPA process.
Section 606 provides for the sale of a 500-acre parcel to the west
of the NCA to the highest bidder. 87 percent of the funds generated
from this sale are earmarked for uses related to the Sloan Canyon NCA.
We would hope the sponsors would consider a wider use of these funds
for other conservation and science costs related to the implementation
of this bill. In addition, we believe this sale should comply with
section 203 of FLPMA to ensure that proper procedures are followed and
the public interest is protected.
We would also like to work with the Committee on other minor
modifications including map references and proposed minor boundary
modifications.
TITLE VII
Title VII of the legislation provides for a number of land
conveyances to various entities. While in general we do not oppose
these transfers, there are a number of complicating factors that need
to be addressed. I will discuss each conveyance individually.
The lands involved in section 702 were transferred from the BLM to
Clark County Department of Aviation in the SNPLMA. Under SNPLMA,
conveyance of these lands resulted in 85 percent of their value being
transferred to the SNPLMA special account. This section would transfer
approximately 115 acres of these lands to the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas (UNLV) at no cost for a technology research center. While we do
not oppose the transfer to UNLV we do believe that the same restriction
on future sale, lease, or other conveyance which applied to the Clark
County Department of Aviation should now apply to UNLV.
Section 703 of the bill proposes to convey approximately 176 acres,
described as ``Tract F,'' to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department. The southern half of this parcel is currently leased under
the R&PP Act to the city of Las Vegas for a Police Department shooting
range. The north half of the parcel is vacant public land within the
Sunrise Mountain ISA. Because these lands are within the ISA the BLM
cannot convey them to the city without Congressional action. As we
noted in this testimony under Title II we recommend that the entire
Sunrise Mountain ISA be released by Congress from interim wilderness
management.
Section 704 provides for the conveyance of approximately 511 acres,
described as ``Tract H,'' to the city of Henderson for the Nevada State
College at Henderson. Nevada State College is admitting its first class
of students this fall into its four-year baccalaureate program and has
been authorized by the Nevada Board of Regents as part of the
University and Community College System of Nevada. 230 of these acres
are within the SNPLMA disposal boundary and the State of Nevada has
applied for an R&PP lease for these acres. A number of unresolved
issues exist on the other 281 acres which lie outside the disposal
boundary. Among the complicating factors related to this proposed
conveyance are flood control structures, communications sites (with
concomitant hazardous materials problems), significant cultural sites
and neighborhood concerns about the College. These issues need to be
addressed before such a transfer is approved.
Section 705 provides for the conveyance of two parcels, the 20-acre
``Tract C'' and the 10-acre ``Tract D,'' to the city of Las Vegas for
the purposes of affordable housing. These lands are within the SNPLMA
disposal boundary. ``Tract C'' is currently under an R&PP lease to the
city of Las Vegas for a public park and ``Tract D'' is vacant BLM-
managed land.
Section 7(b) of the SNPLMA made provisions for the transfer of
lands at less than fair market value and in consultation with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for affordable
housing purposes under certain circumstances. We would prefer utilizing
that authority in the cases of Tracts C and D. However, at a minimum we
believe that section 705 needs to be both coordinated with and
consistent with the 7(b) language of SNPLMA.
Section 706 proposes to transfer 688 acres, identified as ``Tract
G,'' to the city of Henderson, if requested by the city, for the
purpose of economic development. These lands are within the SNPLMA
disposal boundary. While resale, lease, or other conveyance of these
lands by Henderson would result in a deposit to the SNPLMA special
account consistent with that Act, we are concerned about unlimited
administrative costs which Henderson can charge against the funds. A
reasonable limit on such costs should be established by the
legislation.
Section 707 transfers 917 acres of land identified at ``Tract E''
to Clark County. These lands comprise the Sunrise Mountain Landfill and
portions of it are within the Sunrise Mountain ISA. Clark County is
currently working on landfill closure in conjunction with the EPA. In
our earlier discussion of Title II we recommended that the entire
Sunrise Mountain ISA, including these lands, be released from WSA
status and from interim wilderness protection. While we support the
transfer of the landfill to Clark County, many of the specific
provisions of section 707 appear to put the Federal government at a
distinct disadvantage. We believe the transfer should take place
immediately, or within a very short time frame. Delaying this transfer
places the Federal government at risk of liability for an area for
which it has no responsibility. In addition, the Department should be
released from any liability arising from the land before or after the
transfer. Finally, the map for the landfill fails to include a small
section of the current landfill. The map should be modified to include
all of the landfill.
Section 708 proposes to establish an ``Open Space Land Grant'' for
the city of Henderson. This is a new and innovative concept. Under this
section the BLM would transfer approximately 2,442 acres of land,
identified as ``Tract B,'' which abuts the proposed Sloan Canyon NCA on
the northwest, to Henderson for ``open space.'' This area would be used
for conservation, recreation, and flood control facilities. We support
the provision, but would like the opportunity to address some minor map
modifications which may be necessary in order to avoid apparent
duplicate uses of some of the lands or creating an unmanageable
isolated parcel of public land. In addition, we would support language
providing for cooperation in the planning efforts for the NCA
established by Title VI and this ``open space'' area.
It appears that the intent of section 709 is to remove a right-of-
way from lands patented to Aerojet-General Corporation by the Federal
government in 1988. When these lands were conveyed to Aerojet-General
as part of a land exchange, the existence of the right-of-way reduced
the appraised value of the lands. Relocation of the right-of-way would
result in enhanced value of the lands which have since been sold by
Aerojet-General to a private party. We believe that the Federal
government should be compensated at fair market value for the removal
of this right-of-way.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2612. This is a
significant bill; but it is also a detailed and complex bill. We look
forward to the opportunity to work with Senators Reid and Ensign and
the Committee to adequately address the concerns we have raised so that
this important proposal can be finalized.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. Ms. Kimbell.
STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Kimbell. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, I am here to
provide the administration's comments on four bills and a
concurrent resolution. Would you like our testimony on all four
bills and the resolution at this time?
Senator Wyden. Sure.
Ms. Kimbell. The Department supports S. 2652 and the
Concurrent Resolution 107, and does not object to S. 2565, S.
2587, or S. 2612. The Department would like to work with the
committee to recommend improvements to the last three bills.
The Wild Sky Wilderness Act of 2002, the Department does
not oppose S. 2565 designating the Wild Sky Wilderness on the
Mount Baker-Snoqualmie in the State of Washington as a
component of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
However, the Department would like to work with the committee
to improve S. 2565.
The Department has significant concerns with approximately
20,000 of the 106,000 acres proposed for wilderness
designation. These acres would not be considered suitable for
wilderness designation under the provisions of the 1964
Wilderness Act or under existing Forest Service regulations and
planning direction. It may be that some other back country
designation would be more suitable for these acres. To that
end, the Department would like to work with the committee to
make a few adjustments.
The lands that would help meet the goals of the Wilderness
Act consist of all of the Eagle Rock Roadless Area and portions
of Glacier Peak A, B, K and L. These acres retain their
undeveloped character and are largely without permanent
improvement or human habitation. Limiting the wilderness
designation to these lands would address many of the
Department's concerns.
The areas we propose for exclusion from wilderness
designation and an alternative back country designation include
forests showing visible evidence of logging, railroad logging
and mining activities. The areas also include 35 miles of
existing road, some of which are all-weather, driveable and
graveled. Several of the roads receive high levels of visitor
use associated with recreation opportunity.
Another concern lies with roads outside and adjacent to the
proposed wilderness boundary that have narrow corridors subject
to landslide. This situation poses significant public safety
and resource management issues, as the close proximity of the
proposed boundary could result in constraints related to
necessary repairs and road construction work.
We propose the exclusion of the area encompassing patented
mining claims and private timberlands. We would also suggest
excluding the Evergreen Mountain Lookout, a widely used
recreation rental cabin, from the proposed wilderness, in order
to continue offering this developed recreation opportunity to
visitors.
A boundary adjustment would also accommodate a likely
future expansion of the existing Bonneville Power
Administration's right-of-way.
Further, Lake Isabel has substantial floatplane use. We
would like to work with the committee to clarify intent
regarding that use.
Finally, S. 2565 represents the kind of careful forest
level evaluation of roadless areas that is necessary to resolve
the roadless issue with appropriate and specific congressional
designation for additions to the National Wilderness System.
The Department is supportive of the administrative provisions
in the bill, particularly provisions for a repeater site in
order to provide improved communications for safety and health
purposes. The Department is also supportive of the provisions
for land exchange in the Glacier Peak wilderness and provisions
for management of the existing Snotel site in that wilderness.
On S. 2587, Joint Federal and State Navigable Waters
Commission for Alaska Act, the purposes of the bill are
threefold. The issue of navigability is central to the
ownership of submerged lands; generally title to lands
underlying a navigable body of water pass to the State upon its
admission to the Union unless those lands were retained as part
of a Federal reservation.
The enactment of S. 2587 could have value in expediting
determinations of navigability on fresh water rivers, lakes and
streams in Alaska. However, the courts have generally rejected
formula approaches to navigability determinations, opting
instead to inquire into the facts of each case. The Department
is concerned that the proposed commission during its short 2-
year duration might not be capable of effectively conducting
the necessary historical research to determine the factual
underpinnings of navigability for thousands of waterways in the
remote areas of Alaska.
We are also concerned about the effect of the
recommendations submitted by the commission and whether the
courts would accept those recommendations.
We have an additional concern regarding the composition of
the commission. There is no requirement for any member to have
expertise in any aspect of law or land management that would
facilitate determinations. We believe the committee should
consider adding expertise as criteria for some of the
commission members.
In addition, OMB advises that the bill has pay as you go
implications because of the commission compensation provision.
An estimate has not yet been developed. The Department is not
opposed to the purpose of the bill but would welcome the
opportunity to work with the committee to address these issues
so that determinations of navigability could be expedited for
Alaskan waterways.
On S. 2612, Clark County Conservation of Public Land and
Natural Resources Act, it is made up of several titles, only a
few of which concern the Forest Service directly, title II and
title IV.
Although the Department does not oppose title II and is
supportive of the proposed additions to the National Wilderness
Preservation System, we have significant concerns with some of
the administrative and management provisions as they are
currently drafted. We look forward to working with the
committee to resolve those concerns.
Specifically, they have to do with the provision for low
level flights and for the boundaries that are indicated. As a
general matter, the Forest Service is concerned with our
ability to administer wilderness boundaries that follow
unsurveyed property lines or township lines. Resulting
wilderness may be more effectively managed if where possible,
recognizable landscape features and elevation contour lines
define the boundaries.
Additionally, we have a number of substantive and technical
concerns concerning sections 208, 209 and 210, and would like
to work with the committee to modify these sections.
Title IV of the bill contains amendments to the Southern
Nevada Public Land Management Act. We recommend maintaining
flexibility in the proportions allocated to land acquisitions,
capital improvements, and parks, trails and natural areas to
allow these three----
Senator Wyden. Miss Kimbell, I think you're over 5 minutes
at this point. Could you possibly summarize your remaining
points?
Ms. Kimbell. Certainly. The Florida National Forest Land
Management Act of 2002, the Department supports S. 2652. There
is one parcel that is not National Forest System land. We would
like to work with the committee on that.
And we would also like to work with the committee on the
language that specifies the concurrence of the Secretary of the
Air Force.
On the Senate Concurrent Resolution 107, this plan is a
consensus document. Certainly the Secretary of Agriculture has
signed in May of this year the implementation plan for the 10-
year strategy, and the newly formed Wildland Leadership Council
is important to the leadership accountability and coordination
in carrying out the goals.
We certainly appreciate the continued bipartisan support
from Congress and we are committed to meeting the goals of this
Federal-State partnership. This concludes my statement. We are
looking forward to working with the committee on making these
bills stronger.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kimbell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Abigail Kimbell, Associate Deputy Chief,
National Forest System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Abigail Kimbell, Associate
Deputy Chief for National Forest System, Forest Service. I am here
today to provide the Administration's comments on four bills and a
concurrent resolution:
S. 2565--to enhance ecosystem protection and the range of outdoor
opportunities protected by statute in the Skykomish River Valley of the
State of Washington by designating certain Federal lands as wilderness,
and for other purposes.
S. 2587--to establish the Joint Federal and State Navigable Waters
Commission for Alaska.
S. 2612--to establish wilderness areas, promote conservation,
improve public land, and provide for high quality development in Clark
County, Nevada, and for other purposes.
S. 2652--to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or
exchange certain land in the State of Florida, and for other purposes.
S. Con. Res. 107--expressing the sense of Congress that Federal
land management agencies should fully support the Western Governors
Association ``Collaborative 10-year Strategy for Reducing Wildland Fire
Risks to Communities and the Environment'', as signed August 2001, to
reduce the overabundance of forest fuels that place national resources
at high risk of catastrophic wildfire, and prepare a National
Prescribed Fire Strategy that minimizes risks of escape.
The Department supports S. 2652 and S. Con. Res. 107 and does not
object to S. 2565, S. 2587 or S. 2612. The Department would like to
work with the Committee to recommend improvements to S. 2565, S. 2587
and S. 2612.
S. 2565--THE WILD SKY WILDERNESS ACT OF 2002
The Department does not oppose S. 2565 designating the Wild Sky
Wilderness on the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in the State
of Washington as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System. However, the Department would like to work with the Committee
to improve S. 2565.
This legislation would create approximately 106,000 acres of
additional wilderness on the Skykomish Ranger District of the Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. It directs the Secretary to assure
adequate access to private in-holdings within the Wild Sky Wilderness
and establish a hiking trail plan. The bill authorizes the use of
helicopter access to construct and maintain a Forest Service
communication repeater site to provide improved communication for
safety and health purposes.
S. 2565 also requires the Secretary to exchange specified lands
with the Chelan County Public Utility District if the District offers
to the Secretary approximately 371.8 acres within the Snoqualmie
National Forest, in exchange for a permanent easement, including
helicopter access, consistent with such levels of use as of the date of
this Act's enactment, to maintain an existing Snotel site on 1.82 acres
on the Wenatchee National Forest.
If Chelan County notifies the Secretary that they no longer need to
maintain the Snotel site, the easement will be extinguished and all
rights conveyed by this exchange would revert to the United States.
The Department has significant concerns with approximately 36,000
acres of the 106,000 acres proposed for wilderness designation. These
acres would not be considered suitable for wilderness designation under
the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act or under existing Forest
Service regulations and planning direction. It may be that some other
backcountry designation would be more suitable for these acres.
Within the proposed wilderness in S. 2565, there are lands that
could meet the 1964 Wilderness Act goals for preservation and
protection of lands in their natural condition. To that end, the
Department would like to work with the Committee to make a few
adjustments. The lands that would help meet the goals of the Wilderness
Act, approximately 70-75,000 acres, consist of all of the Eagle Rock
Roadless Area and portions of Glacier Peak A, B, K, and L. These areas
retain their undeveloped character and are largely without permanent
improvements or human habitation. Limiting the wilderness designation
to these lands would address many of the Department's concerns.
The areas we propose for exclusion from wilderness designation and
an alternative backcountry designation include low elevation forests
that have been utilized for timber harvest and mining over the last 80
years, still showing visible evidence of railroad logging and mining
activities. The areas also include approximately 35 miles of existing
roads, some of which are all weather, drivable, and graveled. Several
of the roads receive high levels of visitor use associated with
recreation opportunities. The Rapid River Road is such a travel way and
we recommend its exclusion from wilderness designation. The types of
recreation experiences enjoyed by users along the Rapid River Road
corridor include driving for pleasure, nature photography, fishing,
picnicking and dispersed camping at a number of pull-off sites along
the road. In the winter snowmobiles utilize this road as a part of the
snowmobile trail system, traveling to its end point.
Another concern lies with roads outside and adjacent to the
proposed wilderness boundary that have narrow corridors subject to
landslide. This situation poses significant public safety and resource
management issues, as the close proximity of the proposed boundary
could result in constraints related to necessary repairs and road
reconstruction work. We would like to work with the Committee on more
appropriate boundaries.
We propose the exclusion of the area encompassing approximately
2,426 acres of private fee patented mining claims and private
timberlands. We also would suggest excluding the Evergreen Mountain
Lookout, a widely used recreation rental cabin, from the proposed
wilderness in order to continue offering this developed recreation
opportunity to visitors.
A boundary adjustment would also accommodate a likely future
expansion of the existing Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA) right
of way. S. 2565 includes a 200-foot wilderness boundary setback from
the edge of the BPA power line right-of-way. While the proposed
wilderness boundary follows the power line right-of-way for only 1.5
miles, the boundary is too close to allow for additional power lines
which would be required in the likely event that increased power
capacity is needed for the greater Seattle area. This concern could be
eliminated if the wilderness boundary was offset a minimum of 500 feet
uphill from the existing right-of-way. Further, Lake Isabel has
substantial floatplane use and we would like to work with the committee
to clarify intent regarding this use.
The Department is supportive of the administrative provisions in
the bill, particularly provisions for a repeater site in order to
provide improved communications for safety and health purposes. The
Department is also supportive of the provisions for land exchange in
the Glacier Peak Wilderness and provisions for management of the
existing Snotel site in that wilderness.
S. 2587--JOINT FEDERAL AND STATE NAVIGABLE WATERS COMMISSION FOR ALASKA
ACT
The purposes of the bill are threefold: (1) to expedite the process
of quieting title to the submerged lands in the State of Alaska; (2) to
facilitate determinations of which bodies of water in Alaska are
navigable and which are not navigable; and (3) to recommend to both the
Federal and State governments ways to improve the process for water use
and navigability decision making.
The bill would establish a joint Commission composed of senior
executives representing the highest levels of both Federal and State
governments. Representatives of the President of the United States and
the Governor of the State of Alaska would serve as co-chairpersons of
the commission.
The Commission would make recommendations to the Secretary of the
Interior and the State of Alaska regarding navigability determinations.
The Commission would also focus on developing procedures to include
private landowners, Native Corporations and the general public in the
process. The Commission would have two years to complete its task and
would then be terminated.
The issue of navigability is central to the ownership of submerged
lands. Generally, title to lands underlying a navigable body of water
passed to the state upon its admission to the Union, unless those lands
were retained as part of a Federal reservation. Navigability is based
on a factual determination as to whether the waterway was used, in the
customary modes of trade and travel on water, as a highway for commerce
as of the date of the States' admission to the Union.
The enactment of S. 2587 could have value in expediting
determinations of navigability on fresh water rivers, lakes and streams
in Alaska by establishing the Commission to help provide factual
information to be considered in these determinations. However, the
courts have generally rejected formula approaches to navigability
determinations, opting instead to inquire into the facts of each case.
The Department is concerned that the proposed Commission, during its
short, two-year duration might not be capable of effectively conducting
the necessary historical research to determine the factual
underpinnings of navigability for thousands of waterways in remote
areas of Alaska.
We are also concerned about the effect of the recommendations
submitted by the Commission, and whether the courts would accept those
recommendations. It is not clear that the Commission, however
constituted, can achieve the bill's purposes of expediting the title
adjudication processes and facilitating navigability determinations.
We have an additional concern regarding the composition of the
Commission. As the bill is currently written, the Commission is
composed of members who each represent an interested party. There is no
requirement for any member to have expertise in any aspect of law or
land management that would facilitate determinations. We believe the
Committee should consider adding expertise as criteria for some of the
Commission members.
In addition, OMB advises that the bill has pay-as-you-go
implications because of the Commission compensation provision. An
estimate has not yet been developed.
The Department is not opposed to the purpose of the bill, but would
welcome the opportunity to work with the committee to address these
issues so that determinations of navigability could be expedited for
Alaskan waterways.
S. 2612--CLARK COUNTY CONSERVATION OF PUBLIC LAND AND
NATURAL RESOURCES ACT OF 2002
S. 2642 is made up of several titles, only a few of which concern
the Forest Service directly. Therefore, I will limit my comments to
Title II and Title IV. These titles designate specified Federal lands
in Nevada as wilderness and components of the National Wilderness
Preservation System. S. 2612 also releases and retains certain Nevada
lands as wilderness study areas.
Title II proposes a number of areas in Clark County as additions to
the National Wilderness Preservation System, and several related
administrative and management requirements and limitations. Although
the Department does not oppose Title II and is supportive of the
proposed additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System, we
have significant concerns with some of the administrative and
management provisions as they are currently drafted. We look forward to
working with the Committee to resolve these concerns.
The Nevada Wilderness Protection Act of 1989 provided for low-level
over-flights in designated wilderness for military purposes only. The
language of the section 205 in the current bill allows for low-level
flights by anyone. We would like to work with the Committee to resolve
this difference.
As a general matter applicable to three of the proposed additions
to the National Wilderness Preservation System, the Forest Service is
concerned with our ability to administer wilderness boundaries that
follow private property lines and un-surveyed cadastral (i.e.,
township) lines. The resulting wilderness would be more effectively
managed if, where possible, recognizable landscape features and
elevation contour lines defined the boundaries.
In most cases, private property boundaries and cadastral lines were
defined in the last century and have not been surveyed. For example,
the western boundary of the proposed La Madre Wilderness appears to
follow the section lines.
Revising that boundary to follow topographic features would make it
easier to both establish and administer on the ground. The Forest
Service also recommends assuring that this portion of the boundary is
sufficiently offset from FSR 576 and the private inholding to guard
against any potential conflict with those features. Also, where
boundaries use offsets from man-made structures, such as roads or power
lines, these offsets should be adequate to allow for road and fuel
break maintenance, as well as dispersed parking where appropriate. We
would like to discuss our specific boundary concerns with the Committee
and staff before the bill moves forward.
Additionally, we have a number of substantive and technical
concerns regarding sections 208210 and would like to work with the
Committee to modify these sections.
Title IV of the bill contains amendments to the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA), specifying that a maximum of 25
percent of the amounts be used for capital improvements and a minimum
of 25 percent be used for parks, trails, and natural areas. These
legislated restrictions are problematic. We recommend maintaining
flexibility in the proportions allocated to land acquisitions, capital
improvements, and parks, trails, and natural areas to allow those three
program areas to adjust to the variations in needs and priorities that
naturally occur from year to year. The process currently described in
the SNPLMA Implementation Agreement permits important flexibility. The
Implementation Agreement process allows public participation throughout
the nomination process to help set the priorities for distribution of
funds. The latest round of project submittals exemplified how the
current flexibility was used to distribute funds to the mutual
advantage of all participating agencies and, ultimately, to the public.
Therefore, we recommend that the Implementation Agreement process be
used to develop the annual recommendations for SNPLMA project funding.
S. 2652--FLORIDA NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2002
S. 2652 would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to solicit
offers for the sale or exchange of 18 parcels of land within the
National Forests in Florida.
S. 2652 authorizes the Secretary to use a real estate broker and
pay the real estate broker a commission in an amount that is comparable
to the amounts of commission generally paid for real estate
transactions in the area.
The bill allows the Secretary to accept a cash equalization payment
in excess of 25 percent of the value of the Federal land exchanged for
non-Federal land of a lesser value.
S. 2652 also prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from selling or
exchanging the parcel of land described in paragraphs (1) through (7)
of subsection (b) without the concurrence of the Secretary of the Air
Force. The Department has concerns with this provision and believes it
could significantly delay disposing of the specified parcels. We would
like to work with the Committee to revise the concurrence language.
Further, we would recommend that parcel 17 (tract C-2212) be
removed from the bill. The 5 acres does not belong to the Forest
Service.
The Department supports S. 2652. The parcels contained in the bill
are also identified for exchange or sale in the National Forests in
Florida's Land Management Plan. This legislation will expedite the sale
of these parcels, which are separated and isolated lands that no longer
contain national forest characteristics and are no longer manageable as
National Forest land. Several of these parcels are encumbered with
urban structures, such as baseball fields and the Okaloosa County
fairgrounds.
S. 2652 will allow us to acquire the remainder of a 2,560-acre
inholding within Florida's Apalachicola National Forest. We recently
completed a land exchange for 1,180 acres of this property.
S. CON. RES. 107--SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE ``COLLABORATIVE 10-YEAR
STRATEGY FOR REDUCING WILDLAND FIRE RISKS TO COMMUNITIES AND THE
ENVIRONMENT"
Senate Concurrent Resolution 107 expresses the sense of Congress
that Federal land management agencies should fully support the 10-Year
Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Wildfire Risks to Communities and
the Environment. This strategy was developed by the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior in collaboration with the Western
Governors Association. The Secretaries and the Governors endorsed this
document in August 2001.
Subsequently, in May of this year, the Secretaries and Governors
signed the implementation plan for the 10-Year strategy. This plan is a
consensus document agreed to by the Secretaries, the Western and
Southern Governors Associations, the National Association of Counties,
the National Association of State Foresters, industry, environmental
groups, and other parties. The goals of the implementation plan are to
improve fire suppression, reduce hazardous fuels, restore fire adapted
ecosystems, and promote community assistance through performance based
collaboration. The implementation plan establishes the need for active
forest management, including thinning that produces commercial or pre-
commercial products, biomass removal and utilization of prescribed fire
and other tools to reduce wildland fire risks to communities and the
environment.
The newly-formed Wildland Leadership Council is important to the
leadership, accountability, and coordination in carrying out these
goals. The Council has developed action plans for each task described
in the 10-Year Implementation Plan. We appreciate the continued
bipartisan support from Congress, and we are committed to meeting the
goals of this federal-state partnership.
CONCLUSION
This concludes my statement. We look forward to working with the
Committee on making the suggested modifications as noted above, and I
would be happy to answer your questions.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
Ms. Pearce.
STATEMENT OF DRUE PEARCE, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR FOR ALASKA AFFAIRS
Ms. Pearce. Thank you, sir. I have two bills that I will be
commenting on on behalf of the Department of the Interior.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear here before you to
present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2587,
which would establish a Joint Federal and State Navigable
Waters Commission. We believe the purposes of the bill are
laudable and we support legislation to create a commission. We
believe a bill would provide a desirable focus on a seemingly
endless process of determining title to unreserved beds of
navigable waters in the State of Alaska.
We share the view of the State of Alaska that there will be
many cases where the navigability of particular waterways is
not likely to be in dispute. The commission process is an
excellent way to identify such waterways, without protracted
and costly litigation. While some disagreement between the two
governments is inevitable, the ability to identify those
waterways not in dispute properly leaves both governments in a
position to more efficiently utilize their resources to address
those waterways for which the resolution is more difficult.
Under the equal footing document and the Submerged Lands
Act of 1953, title to and ownership of the lands beneath
navigable waters vested in the State at the time of statehood.
Section 6(m) of the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 applied the
Submerged Lands Act to Alaska. Thus, title to unreserved beds
of navigable waters passed to the State on January 3, 1959.
Thousands of rivers and streams, and millions of lakes are
located on Federal lands in Alaska. The question of who owns
the unreserved beds is still unresolved all these years later.
The State of Alaska has long sought to establish its right,
title and interest in the beds of navigable waters. Ordinarily,
this would be accomplished through real property quiet title
actions in Federal court. In August 1992, the State notified
the Secretary of the Interior that it intended to initiate
quiet title proceedings on nearly 200 rivers, streams and
lakes. Nearly a year later, in November 1993 the State took its
first step in this efforts, filing a suit in Federal court in
Anchorage to quiet title to the beds of the Nation, Kandik and
Black Rivers.
In January 2000, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in
this case which frustrates the State's efforts. The United
States has adopted a very narrow view of the term ``interest''
due to the Ninth Circuit's opinion that the Federal court had
no jurisdiction to hear quite title actions against it, unless
the Federal Government actively and expressly asserts an
interest in the land. Because the Federal Government rarely
expresses such interest, the State rarely has a viable cause of
action to quiet title to submerged lands.
The State of Alaska legislature passed a bill which was
signed by the governor in June of this year, to create a
navigable waters commission. This Federal bill actually would
go along with that. It enumerates three purposes. It also
establishes the duties of the commission, which we believe are
reasonable. While advisory only, the commission can be helpful.
We note that the term of 2 years may be insufficient to
effect the purposes of the commission. The committee may want
to consider a longer term of the commission. The membership
includes seven members each representing the Federal and the
State governments. We believe the committee should consider
providing membership for additional interested Federal
agencies, including relevant land management agencies such as
U.S. Forest Service, and possibly the Department of Justice.
We believe a more systematic process is long overdue to
identify navigable and non-navigable waters of Alaska, by far
the Nation's largest and most complex State with respect to
these issues. The commission can contribute significantly to
the Federal and Alaska State governments working together in a
more focused and productive way to resolve these important
matters.
I am also here before you today to present the views of the
Department on S. 2016, which would direct the land exchange
between the Department of the Interior and the Newtok Native
Corporation. The purpose of this exchange is to provide a new
site for the Native Village of Newtok, Alaska, on lands within
the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge on Nelson Island.
The present village site is experiencing severe erosion
along the banks of the Ninglick River. The average annual
erosion rate is 90 feet per year and it is expected the land
under the homes, the schools and the businesses in Newtok,
including the airport, their only access, will erode within 8
years.
We support and have supported from the onset the desire of
the residents of Newtok to relocate their village from its
present site across the river to an upland area on the Yukon
Delta National Wildlife Refuge that is adjacent to other Newtok
Village owned lands on Nelson Island.
We do have some concerns, however, as the bill as it was
introduced. Fish and Wildlife Service negotiations with Newtok
seek to balance the necessity of the villagers to relocate to a
new village site that is suitable and will accommodate the
immediate and future needs of the village, while also providing
protection for wildlife and their habitat on the refuge.
We are optimistic that together we can reach an agreement
through careful planning and continuing negotiations that
satisfies both parties. Since the passage of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act, better known as ANCSA, in 1971, the
Village of Newtok has nearly tripled in population, all the way
to about 321. Continued growth of the village population must
be considered in the planning for necessary infrastructure.
There should also be a sufficient exchange of land of high
value to wildlife to balance or at least minimize the loss of
refuge lands associated with developing the undisturbed
habitats in and around Nelson Island.
We believe that surveys of the proposed Nelson Island lands
should be conducted to determine the appropriate size and site
for the village. We believe it's important to note that a
description of the lands in the legislation at this time might
result in the need for future adjustments.
Current law authorizes the Secretary to conduct land
exchanges in Alaska using either section 22(f) of ANCSA, as
amended, which provides authority to conduct land exchanges on
the basis of equal value, or section 1302(h) of the ANILCA, the
Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act, which
provided for other than equal value exchanges if the parties
agree to an exchange and if the Secretary of Interior
determines it is in the public interest.
If this exchange is done on an equal value basis, we would
urge the committee to allow the service to follow its standard
appraisal process. As drafted the legislation is unclear as to
whether selected lands being offered by Newtok will be deducted
from ANCSA entitlements or----
Senator Wyden. Miss Pearce, excuse me, I think you are well
over 5 minutes too, if you could summarize your key points.
Ms. Pearce. Legislation is unclear as to whether the
selected lands being offered by Newtok will be deducted from
ANCSA entitlements. If Newtok offers selected lands, they
should be charged against their entitlement.
While we have concerns with some of the details, we support
legislation that directs the service and Newtok to negotiate an
exchange that insures adequate land is conveyed for the village
infrastructure.
Thank you very much and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Pearce follow:]
Prepared Statement of Drue Pearce, Senior Advisor to the
Secretary of the Interior for Alaska Affairs
S. 2587
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to
present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2587, a bill
to establish a Joint Federal and State Navigable Waters Commission.
We believe the purposes of the bill are laudable and we support
legislation to create a commission. We believe a bill would provide a
desirable focus on the seemingly endless process of determining title
to unreserved beds of navigable waters in the State of Alaska. While we
support the purposes of the bill and the focus it will provide on this
important issue, we must recognize there are limits on what a
commission may be expected to accomplish. Also, we would like to work
with the Committee to refine language as to duties of the Commission
and purposes of the reports to enhance the usefulness of the work of
the Commission. In addition, we understand that the Department of
Justice is still reviewing this bill and may have additional concerns.
We share the view of the State of Alaska that there will be many
cases where the navigability of particular waterways is not likely to
be in dispute. The commission process is an excellent way to identify
such waterways without protracted and costly litigation. While some
disagreement between the two governments is inevitable, the ability to
identify those waterways not in dispute properly leaves both
governments in a position to more efficiently utilize their resources
to address those waterways for which the resolution is more difficult.
BACKGROUND
Under the Equal Footing Doctrine and the Submerged Lands Act of
1953, ``title to and ownership of the lands beneath navigable waters''
vested in the states at the time of statehood. Section 6(m) of the
Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 applied the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 to
Alaska. Thus, title to unreserved beds of navigable waters passed to
the state on January 3, 1959.
Thousands of rivers and streams and millions of lakes are located
on Federal lands in Alaska. This question of who owns the unreserved
beds, and the natural resources in the beds, of these rivers, streams,
and lakes has not been answered. The Interior Department's policy has
been to make administrative navigability determinations to permit an
agency to perform its administrative functions under the public land
laws. The BLM, for example, makes administrative navigability
determinations in support of the lands transfer program authorized by
the Alaska Statehood Act, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and
the Native Allotment Act. However, the Department's Solicitor noted in
1976, ``the determinations by BLM will not decide legal disputes with
respect to title, determine or adjudicate title. . . .''
The State of Alaska has long sought to establish its right, title,
and interest in the beds of navigable waters. Ordinarily, this is
accomplished through real property quiet title actions in federal
court. In August 1992 the State notified the Secretary of the Interior,
among others, that it intended to initiate quiet title proceedings on
nearly two hundred rivers, streams, and lakes. Nearly a year later, in
November 1993, the State took its first step in this effort, filing a
suit in Federal Court in Anchorage to quiet title to the beds of the
Nation, Kandik, and Black Rivers (all located in the Upper Yukon area).
In January 2000, the Ninth Circuit Court issued an opinion in this
case which frustrates the State's efforts. In a white paper entitled
``Conflicts Concerning Title to Submerged Lands in Alaska'' (March 4,
2002), State officials presented the predicament to the Alaska
Legislature. The paper states that the United States has adopted a very
narrow view of the term ``interest'' due to the Ninth Circuit's opinion
that the federal court has no jurisdiction to hear quiet title actions
against it unless the federal government actively and expressly asserts
an interest in the lands. Because the Federal government rarely
expresses such interest, the State rarely has a viable cause of action
to quiet title to submerged lands.
In response, the State of Alaska legislature passed a bill, SB 219,
signed into law by the Governor on June 20, 2002 to create a navigable
waters commission. The effective date is September 18, 2002. According
to testimony before the legislative committees, the navigable waters
commission provision was patterned after Section 17 of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act which created the Joint Federal-State Land
Use Planning Commission for Alaska. The bill is very similar, though
not identical, to the current Senate bill, and anticipates a possible
Federal partner in the Commission through Federal legislation.
PURPOSES AND DUTIES
The bill enumerates three purposes, to:
(1) expedite the process of quieting legitimate title to the
submerged lands in the State of Alaska;
(2) facilitate determinations for purposes of the Submerged
Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.), which bodies of water in
Alaska are navigable waters; and
(3) recommend to the State of Alaska and the Federal
Government ways to improve the process of making water use and
navigability decisions and to fairly and expeditiously quiet
title to the State's submerged lands.
To further these purposes, the bill establishes duties of the
Commission to:
(1) make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior and
the State of Alaska regarding determinations of bodies of water
in the State that are navigable waters for purposes of the
Submerged Lands Act;
(2) establish a process for employing established standards
to facilitate making such recommendations and determinations;
(3) develop procedures for involving private landowners,
including Alaska Native corporations and the general public, in
that process;
(4) undertake a process to identify navigable waters in
Alaska pursuant to established standards and criteria; and
(5) make recommendations to improve coordination and
consultation between the government of the State of Alaska and
the Federal Government regarding navigability determinations
and decisions concerning title to submerged lands.
The Commission's duties are reasonable. While advisory only, they
can be helpful, but we believe they may be further detailed to assist
and focus their efforts.
The efforts of the Commission could help the BLM in resolving
numerous jurisdictional questions which they have confronted over the
past fifty years, involving the issuance of mining claims, rights-of-
way permits, land use permits, and oil and gas lease sales which
involved submerged lands. For over a decade the BLM and the State have
disputed, for example, which entity has jurisdiction over certain
sections of the Fortymile River. Mining-related activities usually
precipitate these disputes. The proposed Commission's work could also
help resolve questions of ownership over islands that form in a river
or lake after the date of statehood.
However, we should point out that ``established standards and
criteria'' referred to in item 4 may be somewhat elusive. The Federal
courts set the legal standards for title navigability determinations.
As the courts have repeatedly said, each water body must be considered
on its own merits. Also, the Commission's recommendations are not
definitive, but must be acted upon by the Federal and State
governments, and where there is disagreement between the Federal and
State governments, the Commission would need to recognize that only the
courts will resolve the legal differences.
We note that the term of 2 years may be insufficient to effect the
purposes of the Commission. The Committee may want to consider a longer
term or including in a report from the Commission a provision for
addressing the need for renewal.
The membership in the Commission includes 7 members each
representing the Federal and State governments. We believe the
Committee should consider providing memberships for additional
interested Federal agencies, including relevant land management
agencies, and possibly the Department of Justice for their expertise in
the area.
We note that there are ironies in navigability determinations, in
that while they may result in State ownership, they also trigger legal
responsibilities for other Federal agencies, such as the Corps of
Engineers, EPA, and the Coast Guard.
We support legislation to create a Commission. We would like to
work with the Committee to refine provisions for duties, membership,
and reporting, to best effectuate the purposes of the Commission.
However, we believe a more systematic process is long overdue to
identify navigable and non-navigable waters of Alaska, by far the
nation's largest and most complex state with respect to these issues.
The Commission can contribute significantly to the Federal and Alaska
State governments working together in a more focused and productive way
to resolve these important issues.
In addition, OMB advises that S. 2587 has pay-as-you-go
implications because of the commission compensation provisions. An
estimate has not yet been developed.
I thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to testify on
this issue of such importance to the people and State of Alaska. I
would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
S. 2016
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on S. 2016, which would direct a land
exchange between the Department of the Interior and Newtok Native
Corporation. The purpose of this exchange is to provide a new site for
the Native Village of Newtok, Alaska, on lands within the Yukon Delta
National Wildlife Refuge on Nelson Island. The present village site is
experiencing severe erosion along the banks of the Ninglick River. The
average annual erosion rate is 90 feet per year, and it is expected
that the land under the homes, schools, and businesses of Newtok will
erode within eight years.
We continue to support, and have supported from the onset, the
desire of the residents of Newtok to relocate their village from its
present site across the Ninglick River to an upland area on the Yukon
Delta National Wildlife Refuge that is adjacent to other Newtok Village
owned lands on Nelson Island.
We have concerns, however, with the bill as currently written. Fish
and Wildlife Service negotiations with Newtok seek to balance the
necessity of the villagers to relocate to a new village site that is
suitable and will accommodate the immediate and future needs of the
Village, while also providing protection for wildlife and their habitat
on the Refuge. We are optimistic that together we can reach an
agreement through careful planning and continued negotiations that
satisfies both parties.
In November 1996, Newtok Native Corporation passed a resolution
authorizing the Corporation to negotiate a land exchange with the
Service. At that time, the Corporation identified approximately 19,000
acres of Refuge land on Nelson Island that they deemed suitable and
necessary for a new village site. Immediately thereafter, negotiations
began, and by December 1997, the Regional Director for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service submitted an intent to exchange agreement for a
21,427 acre exchange to Newtok Native Corporation.
Newtok Native Corporation responded to the proposed agreement by
reducing both the Refuge land they sought on Nelson Island to 14,750
acres and their corporate land offered elsewhere to 11,105 acres.
Negotiations were temporarily stalled over the amount of land to
include in the exchange. When S. 2016 was introduced on March 14, 2002,
Newtok's request for Refuge lands for a new village site on Nelson
Island was reduced to 5,580 acres. We recommend that potential
revisions to S. 2016 should include an amount of land that is of
sufficient size to provide for the current and future growth of the
Village and for its necessary infrastructure. Since the passage of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971, the Village of
Newtok has nearly tripled in population to about 321. Continued growth
of the Village population must be considered in the planning for
necessary infrastructure. There should also be a sufficient exchange of
lands of high value to wildlife to balance or at least minimize, the
loss of Refuge lands associated with developing undisturbed habitats in
and around Nelson Island.
We believe that surveys of the proposed Nelson Island lands should
be conducted to determine the site and size for the Village. Without
such surveys it is impossible to know with certainty whether the
proposed exchange provides adequate resources for the Village and
whether the future needs of the community can be met. We believe it is
important to note that a description of the lands in the legislation at
this time might result in the need for future adjustments.
In addition, it is unclear how the proposed new village site might
impact wildlife. In the current proposal, the proposed site is closer
to Baird Inlet Island than the present village. The island supports a
large colony of nesting Pacific brant. One of just five major Pacific
brant colonies on the Refuge, Baird Inlet Island is a critical
production area for these geese. During an average year, up to 4,500
pairs of brant use Baird Inlet Island to nest and brood their young.
Nests on this island comprise up to 25% of the colonial nests on the
Refuge in any given year. Air traffic to and from a new airport, if
routed directly over Baird Inlet Island, could cause disturbances to
birds at critical stages in their life cycle as well as be potentially
hazardous to aircraft and the safety of the flying public. Increased
boating activity adjacent to the island would be an additional source
of disturbance to the birds as villagers travel to and from their
traditional subsistence use area northwest of the new village site and
when supplies are brought into the new village. In addition to Pacific
brant, other species likely to be impacted by the proximity of the
Village and airport to the island are emperor goose, cackling Canada
goose, Pacific white-fronted goose, the threatened spectacled eider,
and muskox. The Service intends to address these issues with the
Village during the NEPA review for the airport siting and construction.
Current law authorizes the Secretary to conduct land exchanges in
Alaska using either Section 22(t) of ANCSA, as amended, which provides
authority to conduct land exchanges on the basis of equal value; or
Section 1302(h) of the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA), which provides for other than equal value exchanges if the
parties agree to an exchange and the Secretary determines it is in the
public interest.
If the exchange is done on an equal value basis, we would urge the
Committee to allow the Service to follow its standard appraisal
process. The methodology provided in the bill for conducting the
proposed exchange of lands does not follow the standard procedures used
by the Service in appraising lands for either acquisition or exchange.
We believe the proposed methodology could impede our ability to
accomplish the exchange by setting timeframes and procedures that might
be problematic for both parties.
An additional concern is that, as drafted, the legislation is
unclear as to whether selected lands being offered by Newtok will be
deducted from ANCSA entitlement upon relinquishment of Newtok's
selections. Native Corporations have no legal rights to selected lands
until conveyance. If Newtok offers selected lands, they should be
charged against their ANCSA entitlement or Newtok would be offering
Federal lands in exchange for Federal lands on Nelson Island.
Newtok has expressed concern over statutory and regulatory
restrictions imposed by Section 22(g) of ANCSA on Corporation land
within the boundaries of the Clarence Rhode Unit of the Yukon Delta
National Wildlife Refuge. Only 589 acres of the Refuge lands identified
for exchange at the new village site would be subject to Section 22(g)
restriction. We agree that this legislation should direct that lands
received by Newtok in this exchange be free from restrictions imposed
by Section 22(g) of ANCSA.
The proposed legislation as drafted, in Section 2(b), would exempt
the conveyance of lands to the Newtok from all laws, rules, and
regulations. This would prohibit the Service from administering other
federal laws and regulations that do not apply strictly to refuge
lands. Also, the United States has treaty obligations with many nations
that require that certain resources are protected such as the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and the Marine Mammals Protection Act. Other laws such
as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act,
the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, etc., should apply on lands
conveyed to Newtok, as they do throughout the United States.
This same language in Section 2(b) jeopardizes the protection of
valid existing rights. All Alaska Native and other legislation provides
protection for valid existing rights. For example, an existing Native
allotment application or certificate on refuge lands is a valid
existing right and must be protected as such and that area would be
excluded from conveyance to Newtok.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
While we have concerns with some of the details of the bill, we
support legislation that directs the Service and Newtok to negotiate an
exchange that insures adequate land is conveyed for village
infrastructure. Once adequate lands are identified by the parties, the
exchange can be completed through established land exchange procedures.
With the terms of the legislation modified as suggested, the lands
conveyed to Newtok would also be free of 22(g) restrictions. The
exchange would protect refuge resources and include sufficient land to
provide adequate resources and facilities for the Village.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on S. 2016 and the
Department looks forward to working with Newtok representatives and the
Committee to achieve the goal of relocation and reestablishment of the
Village to more suitable terrain while protecting the fish and wildlife
resources and their habitat within the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Senator Wyden. Great. Thank you all, and thank you for your
cooperation.
Mr. Abbey, on S. 2612, let's go first to the question of
water rights. Previous laws designating wilderness areas in
Nevada have either expressly reserved the water right, or in
the case of the Black Rock Desert Wilderness enacted last
Congress, were essentially silent on the issue. Why is it
appropriate to ignore the wishes of the Nevada delegation on
this and create yet another standard?
Mr. Abbey. Well, Senator Wyden, it is the position of the
Department that we believe that this legislation should not
construe or be construed to constitute either an expressed or
implied reservation of any water rights. And again we would,
you know, we would be the advocate for that position being
accepted by the members of this committee.
Senator Wyden. Well, I hope you will work with the two
Nevada Senators on it. Beyond the fact that the Congress and
this committee has traditionally deferred to the delegation
with respect to these kinds of issues, it seems to me the idea
of creating yet another standard is troublesome, so I hope you
will work with us and we can get that resolved.
Now with respect to wilderness issues, here we are talking
about release language, and the release language in S. 2612
differs from that used in previous BLM wilderness bills. You
recommend incorporating management language that is ``widely
understood and accepted.'' Do you all have any concerns with
the standard wilderness study area release language?
Mr. Abbey. We would not.
Senator Wyden. On title IV, the bill designates 23,000
acres of additional lands for disposal under the terms of the
1998 Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. According to
BLM data, the price of the lands average between $25,000 and
$116,000, depending on the number of acres sold. So at those
land prices, the bill appears to create several hundred million
dollars in new direct spending. Has the Agency prepared any
estimate of the probable costs of this bill for the lands
identified for disposal under the Southern Nevada law and the
value of the other lands that are designated for no-cost
conveyances?
Mr. Abbey. We could provide that information to the members
of this committee.
[The information follows:]
We do not have precise or accurate values for each of the land
transfers or disposals provided for in this bill. It would be a costly
and time-consuming matter to complete appraisals to determine the
values. However, let me briefly outline what I can.
First, under Title IV of the bill, approximately 23,600 acres would
be added to the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA)
disposal area. The value of these lands will be dependent on a number
of factors including, when they are sold, in what size parcels they are
sold and what level of infrastructure is adjacent to the parcels.
That being said, we can take some guidance from past experience.
Sales of small parcels tend to result in higher per acre values than
larger parcels, but location is the most critical element in value. Ten
land sale auctions have been conducted since November of 1999 under
SNPLMA. 187 individual parcels of BLM-managed public lands have been
sold, totaling 2,782 acres. The average price per acre for these sales
is approximately $56,000. The most recent sales in July and August of
this year resulted in approximate price per acre of $153,000 and
$77,000 respectively.
Second, there are eight conveyances within the bill without cost to
the benefitting entity. These total 19,788 acres. They range in size
from 30 acres for low income housing to 15,500 acres for Clark County
Airport Authority. In addition their location varies from urban to
suburban to rural.
Senator Wyden. Okay, good. We would like that promptly so
we can move it.
Just one question for you, Miss Kimbell. On S. 2652, there
is a question with respect to the hiring of real estate brokers
in order to sell the property in return for commission. It's my
understanding that you already have reality specialists on your
staff who could perform the work. Is there any reason for
having to contract this out?
Ms. Kimbell. The bill would authorize us to hire a broker
and we have estimated that the use of a broker's service who is
real familiar with the real estate values in the area, we could
in the long term save money.
Senator Wyden. So you're going to save money by contracting
out?
Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
Senator Wyden. So what do the people on the Forest Service
staff do?
Ms. Kimbell. They are quite fully occupied already with all
the realty work that we do as a normal course of business, so
this would be an additional piece of business, and quite a
large piece of work.
Senator Wyden. We don't have any other questions. Anything
you all would like to add? We will excuse you at this time.
Our next panel, the Honorable Kem Hunter, mayor of Index,
Washington; Clint Bentley, Nevada Land Users Coalition; and
John Wallin, director of the Nevada Wilderness Project.
We welcome all of you and again, we're going to make those
prepared remarks a part of the hearing record completely, and
if you could just possibly summarize your key concerns, that
would just be great.
Welcome, Mr. Hunter.
STATEMENT OF KEM HUNTER, MAYOR, TOWN OF INDEX, WA
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Chairman Wyden. I appreciate your
entering my formal testimony into the text, and therefore I
will speak from the heart rather than from the text.
Senator Wyden. Great.
Mr. Hunter. First of all, I would like to thank you and the
other members of the subcommittee for inviting me to testify
today and I would also like to thank Senator Murray, Senator
Cantwell, and Congressman Larson for cosponsoring this
important legislation on the Wild Sky wilderness bill.
Let me introduce myself. I am the mayor of the town of
Index. We are a very small town, which is on the outskirts of
the proposed wilderness area, we're just a few miles away from
the closest boundaries. I have lived there for a long time,
I've seen a lot of things happening to the town, and I firmly
believe that this is one of the best things that could happen
to our community.
Some of the reasons for that is first of all, it's just an
incredibly beautiful area. The area in the proposed wilderness
has incredible spires, granite spires, mountains. It has flanks
that are unbroken by miles and miles of forest. It has babbling
streams, it has meadows, it has all the varied parts of an
ecosystem that you could imagine that one would hope to have in
a diverse wilderness area.
Not only that, the wild and scenic Skykomish River runs
right through town, and it's for this beauty that most of us
moved up there. And most of us recognize that currently there
is very little formal legislative protection for most of this
land and most of us would really like to see this land stay
wild rather than see more roads built or forest cut down, and
we believe that a wilderness area designation is the most
durable protection for that land.
Another reason that we feel that the Skykomish wilderness
area would be very good for us is for the economy. We have a
problem in Index; there are very few local jobs. Most of us
have to drive a long ways through congested corridors, and it
would be really nice to have more decent job opportunities
where we live. We believe that with this wilderness area and
the hiking trails that are provided, that are hard wired into
the legislation, which I believe is a very important feature,
that more jobs will be created by the outdoor recreational
community.
Years ago we had a pretty good job source in forestry jobs,
timber cutting, but the glory days of logging are long gone.
The logging now is basically dictated by automated forestry
practices that don't hire that many people, and they provide
only temporary local employment.
Also, the very beauty of the area that is caused by all
these rugged and rocky features also makes most of the valley
very economically marginal for the timber extraction. So I
believe that what our town really needs now is jobs that stay
with us, and we believe that the jobs that stay with us are
those that are tied to this growing outdoor recreational
market. With the guarantees in the legislation of a wilderness
trail network, the old saying goes, you build the and people
will come, we believe that more people will come and visit our
area, and enjoy the beauty that we have enjoyed for years.
We have small businesses in town that would really benefit
from these visitors. We have bed and breakfasts, we have a
couple of restaurants, we have a general store, we could have
more businesses to employ more people.
Remember that Index is within a 2-hour drive of about two
million people, and Index would be the perfect starting point
for the growing body of folks who would like to enjoy the
outdoor recreational opportunities such as hiking, fishing,
camping, rafting, and so on and so forth, that this wilderness
area would protect.
Then I would like to really point out in finishing my
comments, and I'd like to finish on a more personal note. I'd
like to tell you about years ago. I served my country in
Vietnam. I spent 18 months in the steamy jungles and the murky
rivers over there, and if you can imagine this, the weather
there was quite often more hot and more humid than an August
day in Washington, D.C., it was really dreadful. And one of the
things that really got me through that 18 months is sometimes I
would daydream about being in an Alpine forest with babbling
brooks, with sparkling water and clean crisp air around me, and
I just fantasized about being there, and the weather and
conditions around me would go away for a while. I actually
found such a place when I moved to Index in 1976, it was
exactly what I was dreaming about back in Vietnam.
And then I spent a long time just really enjoying and
discovering the mysteries of the forests and the mountains
around me, it was just a great experience. And during my 25-
year career as a firefighter in the Seattle Fire Department,
after work I would go home to this beautiful place up in the
mountains. It was so quite and so serene. A fire department
career quite often today is very stressful, very difficult,
very traumatic, and it was really a great opportunity for me to
come back to a place like this where I could just enjoy the
quiet and serenity of the natural beauty of where I lived, and
unload all that baggage from a very stressful urban job.
Someday, I'm going to be too old to enjoy this wilderness
area. A lot of it is very rugged, the slopes are very steep,
but I know that for me, it has been just a wonderful place for
me to go and ease my mind and enjoy nature, and to just
experience the beauty and quiet and solitude. There's plenty of
other people that would have more opportunities to do this, if
this wilderness area is created.
I have children who grew up loving the beauty of this area,
and some day I hope that my grandchildren will also come back
to this area and enjoy it in the say ways that I have. And I
think that is the best legacy that we could leave for future
generations in this area. I would like to see the roadless
national forest near my home left just as it is, I would like
to see it intact, I would like to see it pristine, and yet I
would like to see it still accessible so that these unborn
generations for many years to come can enjoy it just as I have
done.
And that is really the true reason why I ask you to support
the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kem Hunter, Mayor, Town of Index, WA
Chairman Wyden, Senator Craig, and other members of this
subcommittee, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity
to testify today on behalf of the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness bill.
I'd also like to thank Senator Murray, Senator Cantwell, and
Congressman Larsen for co-sponsoring this important legislation.
I am the Mayor of the Town of Index, a small community located in
the North Cascades mountain range in Washington State. If this proposed
legislation passes, residents of our town will live within hiking
distance of a wilderness area. I have lived in Index almost half my
life, and I believe the proposed Wild Sky Wilderness would be the best
thing that ever happened in this valley.
We are indeed fortunate to live in a spectacular natural setting.
From any street in town you can see magnificent peaks flanked by
hillsides of unbroken forest as far as the eye can see. The wild and
scenic Skykomish River runs right through town. In fact, the main
reason many of us moved here was to be close to the awesome beauty of
this pristine valley in the mountains. But even though most of the land
around us is national forest, little of it has any formal legislative
protection. Most of us would like the land to stay wild rather than see
more roads built or forests cut down.
One problem with living in Index is that there are few jobs in the
local economy. Many of us have to drive long distances into congested
urban corridors to find decent work. Most of those would prefer local
employment if it were available. Decades ago, timber cutting provided
good jobs. But today's automated forestry practices would provide only
scant and temporary local employment. Further, the rugged, rocky
features that make this valley so beautiful also leave it economically
marginal for timber extraction.
What our town really needs is jobs that stay with us, and jobs that
stay with us are those that are tied to the growing outdoor
recreational market. Index is within a two hour drive of almost two
million people; our town is a perfect starting point for visitors who
would come to enjoy this wilderness area. These visitors will boost our
economy when they shop in our general store, stay in our B&B's, eat in
our restaurants and hire our local river guides. This recreation based
economy is clean, environmentally friendly, and enhances the quality of
life for residents and visitors alike. Further, the lower reaches of
this proposed wilderness are accessible all four seasons, so visitors
would provide a year round boost to our local economy. If the roadless
forest land around us is protected with wilderness area designation,
this new economy could help sustain our community forever.
I am especially pleased that, partly at my insistence, a promised
network of wilderness trails in this new wilderness area is hardwired
into the legislation. This provides me with a written guarantee that
the national forest around us, while protected from environmental
degradation, will also be managed in a way that invites people to enter
and enjoy the wilderness and all of its serene beauty. I am also
pleased that certain areas were intentionally excluded from the
proposed wilderness area so that the snowmobile community could
continue to enjoy their favorite destinations without clashing with
those who seek more solitude.
I would like to finish my comments on a more personal note. Years
ago, when I was serving my country in the steamy jungles and murky
rivers in Vietnam, I often dreamed of someday being in a quiet place
back home surrounded by alpine forest, sparkling water and clean, crisp
air. I found such a place when I moved to Index in 1976. I spent
several decades exploring the back country around me and discovering
its hidden secrets. The forests, rivers and mountains around me were a
perfect refuge from the stress and rigors of my 25 year career as a
firefighter in the Seattle Fire Department. Someday, I will be too old
to scale the steep slopes rising from the valley in which I live. But I
have children who grew up loving the beauty of this area, and
grandchildren who will someday, I hope, do the same. The best legacy I
can think of would be to leave the roadless national forest near my
home just as it is: intact, pristine, yet still accessible, by
protecting it so that it can be enjoyed by many generations yet unborn.
That is why I ask you to support passage of the proposed Wild Sky
Wilderness bill.
Senator Wyden. Very good, thank you.
Mr. Bentley.
STATEMENT OF CLINT BENTLEY, FOUNDER, NEVADA LAND USERS
COALITION, LAS VEGAS, NV
Mr. Bentley. Chairman Wyden, committee members and staff,
thank you for the opportunity to voice our position regarding
S. 2612, the Clark County Public Lands Bill. My name is Clint
Bentley and I represent the Nevada Land Users Coalition. The
Nevada Land Users Coalition is formed up at present by the
following types of groups: We have 11 State and national
conservation groups, 6 sportsman groups, 5 off-highway groups,
4 wildlife advisory groups, 2 town advisory boards, and 2 gem
collection groups.
This diverse group representing over 15,000 Nevadans are
united behind the proposal and positions that we advocate. With
the submittal of S. 2612, we had several meetings to digest the
impact of the proposed wilderness areas, the NCA and WSA
release areas, and the proposed language for these items. The
consensus of the coalition was that Senator John Ensign and
Senator Harry Reid had crafted a compromise bill that was a
very responsible bill.
They addressed the areas that met wilderness criteria and
environmental concerns. Included was language that will permit
proactive wildlife management, allow for the existing water
guzzlers to remain, maintenance to be performed, and the
development of new guzzlers if required. This bill also gives
the managing land use agency the ability to manage wildfires.
All of these items are very essential for the proper
responsible management of the Mojave Desert and the Great
Basin, due to their unique landscape and climatic conditions.
We agree with the release of the 183,000 plus acres of WSAs
that do not meet wilderness criteria. These lands clearly
demonstrate their multiple use criteria. This will facilitate
the additional needed multiple use areas and in some cases
additional development areas. The Sloan Canyon National
Conservation Area will be a great recreational resource if the
management plan follows the intent with which it was submitted.
Attached with the testimony is a copy of our proposal which
differs from the proposed bill. However, we recognize that a
compromise had to be made between our proposal and our
environmental friends' proposal. Because of this, we recommend
that you pass this proposed legislation as is. We felt that
only areas that had previously been submitted as meeting
wilderness criteria be made wilderness, and that all remaining
areas should be released. That obviously is not what's in this
bill.
In numerous discussions with other Western State wildlife
agencies, it became apparent that the need for specific
wildlife management language was needed, and we applaud the
language provided in this bill.
Again, thank you for your time. If you have any questions
regarding the coalition or our position, I would be pleased to
answer them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bentley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Clint Bentley, Founder,
Nevada Land Users Coalition, Las Vegas, NV
Chairman Wyden, Committee Members and Staff: Thank you for the
opportunity to voice our position regarding S. 2612, the Clark County
Public Lands Bill. My name is Clint Bentley, I represent the Nevada
Land Users Coalition.
The Nevada Land Users Coalition is formed up at present by the
following types of groups.
11--State and National Conservation Groups
6--Sportsman Group
5--Off Highway Groups
4--Wildlife Advisory Boards
2--Town Advisory Boards
2--Gem Collection Groups
This diverse group, representing over 15,000 Nevadans, are united
behind the proposal and positions that we advocate.
With the submittal of S. 2612, we had several meetings to digest
the impact of the proposed wilderness areas, NCA and WSA release areas
and the proposed language or these items.
The Consensus of the Coalition was that Senator John Ensign and
Senator Harry Reid had crafted a compromise that was a very responsible
bill.
They addressed the areas that met wilderness concerns. Included was
language that will permit Pro-Active Management, allow for the existing
water guzzlers to remain, maintenance to be performed and the
development of new guzzlers if required. This bill also gives the
managing land use agency the ability to manage wildfires.
All of the these items are very essential for the proper
responsible management of the Mojave Desert and the Great Basin, due to
their unique landscape and climatic conditions.
We agree with the release of the 183,000 plus acres of WSA's that
do not meet wilderness criteria, these lands clearly demonstrate their
multiple use criteria.
This will facilitate the additional needed multiple use areas and
in some cases additional development areas.
The Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area will be a great
recreational resource if the Management Plan follows the intent with
which it is submitted.
Again, thank you for your time and if you have any questions
regarding the Coalition or our position, I would be pleased to answer
them.
A Petition to Hon. Harry Reid and Hon. John Ensign
of the Great State of Nevada
Submitted by:
The Nevada Land Users Coalition Consisting of:
Best In The Desert
Bunkerville Town Advisory Board
Clark County Gem Collectors
Clark County Wildlife Advisory Board
Coalition for Nevada Wildlife
Ducks Unlimited Reno
Dunes and Trails ATV Club
Foundation for North American Wild Sheep
Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn
Gold Searchers of Southern Nevada
Lincoln County Wildlife Advisory Board
Mule Deer Foundation
National Wild Turkey Federation
Nevada Bighorns Unlimited
Nevada Bow Hunters Association
Nevada Outdoorsmen
Nevada Trappers Association
Nevada United Four Wheelers Association
Ormsby Sportsmen Group
Overton Conservation Society
Partners In Conservation
Pershing County Wildlife Advisory Board
Quail Unlimited
Safari Club International
Southern Nevada Off Road Enthusiasts
Southern Nevada Regional Trails Partnership
Trout Unlimited--Southern Nevada Chapter
Vegas Valley Four Wheelers
Washoe County Wildlife Advisory Board
Wildlife & Habitat Improvement of Nevada
Whereas:
The public lands of Nevada are valuable far continued economic
development, training for our national defense, human recreation and
wildlife habitat.
The continued disposal of federal lands and development of private
lands continue to crowd, fragment and intrude upon the habitat of these
desert wildlife species.
Habitat improvements, such as water developments, have proven
crucial in the reestablishment of desert bighorn sheep, upland game
birds and numerous other wildlife, by mitigating some of the
disturbances and habitat alterations of man.
The Nevada Division of Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, United
States Fish and Wildlife Services and the United States Forest Service
have made substantial commitments to a wide variety of wildlife species
by cooperating and constructing water developments and are obligated to
maintain these projects.
The habitat crucial for the survival of these species within
Southern Nevada is almost entirely managed by multiple agencies of the
United States Government (Bureau of Land Management, United States
Forest Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Energy, Department of
Defense).
Wilderness as it is observed and managed by federal land management
agencies is a limited recreational pursuit, with relevance to species,
ecological concerns and scientific principles being largely incidental
and accidental.
Land, managed under wilderness criteria, e.g., areas of severe use
restrictions, will constrain wildlife management and habitat, along
with the recreational needs of the people of Nevada.
The Nevada Land Use Coalition proposes the following:
1. No portion of the Desert National Wildlife Range, will be
designated as wilderness and will be released from wilderness
consideration for the following reasons:
A. Regardless of assurances, wilderness designation on
wildlife refuges and its attendant regulations, interfere with
necessary management activities for desert bighorn sheep and
other species of wildlife.
B. Current management strategy for desert bighorn sheep
preserves characteristics of the area that would allow for
wilderness recreation experiences without the burden of
wilderness designation.
C. The refuge is currently withdrawn from mineral,
exploration and extraction, thus not requiring any such
protection.
D. Over half of the refuge is unavailable to public access
wilderness recreation due to military training activities.
2. That Congress of the United States of America establish as
wilderness the following areas:
Muddy Mountains............................ NV-050-229 36,850 acres
La Madre Mountains......................... NV-050-412 42,005 acres
Pine Creek................................. NV-050-414 22,966 acres
South McCullough Mountains................. NV-050-435 19,558 acres
Lime Canyon................................ NV-050-231 13,895 acres
Mount Sterling............................. NV-050-402 50,682 acres
These recommendations were submitted by the Bureau of Land
Management to the Secretary of the Interior on October 18, 1991,
including the boundaries and the acreage recommended for wilderness as
set forth in the final wilderness environmental impact statements.
3. That Congress of the United States of America establish as
wilderness the following areas:
Grapevine............................................... 7,834 acres
Newberry Mountains...................................... 34,351 acres
Nellis Wash............................................. 16,072 acres
Ireteba................................................. 38,948 acres
Eldorado Mountains...................................... 45,289 acres
Black Canyon............................................ 16,444 acres
Temple Mesa............................................. 83,295 acres
Black Mountains......................................... 62,415 acres
Indian Hills............................................ 33,974 acres
Lime Ridge.............................................. 58,375 acres
These recommendations were submitted by the National Park Service
to the Secretary of the Interior in 1986, including the boundaries and
the acreage recommended for wilderness as set forth in the Lake Mead
National Recreation Area General Management Plan. The exception being,
the wilderness area boundary for these areas, where they are bordered
by Lake Mead, will be 1/4 mile inland from the existing high water
line. This boundary will allow continued use of motorized water craft
for wildlife and recreation management and public uses along this
artificially created shoreline.
4. That these areas be managed for wilderness values. It is the
express intent of Congress, that modern proactive wildlife management
continue with the following allowances for wildlife management.
A. Wildlife management activity will continue in the form of:
1. Maintain full use of motorized vehicles, including
helicopters, to survey, capture, transplant and
monitoring wildlife populations, emergency repairs of
water guzzlers and the implementation of new guzzlers.
2. Existing wildlife water developments will remain
and be maintained, monitored and/or reconstructed in
designated wilderness to enhance wildlife populations
and be maintained, monitored and/or reconstructured by
motorized vehicle, including helicopters, gas, and
electrical tools.
3. Hunting and trapping will be utilized as a
management tool.
4. Maintain full use of motorized equipment,
including helicopters, to manage and remove feral
stock, and/or wild horses and burros.
5. Water developments and other wildlife management
structures may be constructed within designated
wilderness when:
A. The action will enhance wilderness values
by promoting healthy viable wildlife
populations, as identified in existing Habitat
Management Plans (HMP) dated:
Muddy Mountain EA 1989
Highland Range Wildlife HMP 1969
Gold Butte HMP 1983
B. Care is taken to construct and maintain projects so as to
visually integrate wildlife projects into the environment;
C. Cherry stemmed roads, trails or ways will continue to be
allowed to provide public motorized access. There will be a
150-foot wide buffer zone along each side of the cherry stemmed
roads, trails or ways to provide adequate pull outs and camping
sites for the public;
D. Fish and Wildlife species introduced by Nevada Division of
Wildlife, will be managed in wilderness areas in accordance
with Nevada Division of Wildlife's management policies;
E. Habitat rehabilitation and restoration work will be
conducted as needs are identified (example: reseeding following
fires and riparian enclosure fences).
5. Those lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Forest Service, National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service which are not designated for wilderness or as special wildlife
habitat management shall be released from any wilderness consideration
and will be subject to multiple uses as identified in the agencies land
use plans.
6. Those lands which are the Desert National Wildlife Range, under
management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under the Department
of the Interior, shall be managed primarily for desert bighorn sheep
for which this unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System was
established and is managed under CFR Title 50, Chapter I, Subchapter C,
Part 25, Subpart A, 25.11. No lands of the aforementioned refuge will
be designated as wilderness.
7. Those lands which are under the management of the Bureau of Land
Management, under the Department of the Interior, shall be managed
primarily for wildlife objectives as set by Nevada Division of Wildlife
and compatible multiple use activities, as allowed for under CFR Title
43, Chapter II, Part 2420, Subpart 2410.2, b.2; c.1, c.4 and c.5. All
wilderness areas shall allow for the existence or habitat improvements
and access for the maintenance of said improvements. Management plans
will be developed for each area by the Bureau of Land Management, the
Nevada Division of Wildlife and interested parties.
8. Those lands within the State of Nevada which constitute the Lake
Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) under the management of the
National Park Service, under the Department of the Interior, shall
continue to be managed for the unique wildlife and habitats with
special consideration for desert bighorn sheep and compatible multiple
use activities, as allowed for under CFR Title 36, Chapter I, Part 2.
That management of those lands designated as wilderness within the
LMNRA, shall not interfere with historic uses of wildlife or prohibit
necessary management of desert bighorn sheep or their habitats.
9. Mechanized equipment and motorized aircraft will be allowed to
combat fires, insects and/or diseases and to initiate prescribed burns.
Senator Wyden. Well said.
Mr. Wallin.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WALLIN, DIRECTOR,
NEVADA WILDERNESS PROJECT
Mr. Wallin. Chairman Wyden, members of the committee and
their staffs, thanks very much for the opportunity to testify.
My name is John Wallin. I am the director of the Nevada
Wilderness Project, and I am here representing the Nevada
Wilderness Coalition, which is made up of the Wilderness
Society, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, Red Rock Audubon
Society, Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association, the Nevada
Wilderness Project, and friends of the Nevada wilderness. We
have about 7,000 members in Nevada and we represent nearly one
million citizens across the country.
On behalf of the coalition, I do want to thank Senators
Reid and Ensign and their excellent staffs for the hard work
that has gone into this legislation. The process has been fair
and they have worked hard to listen to the concerns of all
parties involved.
Our coalition believes that S. 2612 is a good first step to
wilderness protection in southern Nevada. That said, there is
need for significant improvement in the bill. We won't go into
too much detail because of time limitations, but highlighting a
couple issues we have or major areas of concern.
The release language is overly broad and may undermine
Clark County's multi-species habitat conservation plan.
Important wilderness areas in the Gold Butte region, the
Spring Mountains, and the Highland Range, are left unprotected
by the legislation.
Wilderness management language may alter agency execution
of the Act in a manner that undercuts the foundation of the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
Also, critical wildlife areas transferred to the
administration of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are
currently opened up to speculative gravel mining, and that
undermines the purposes of America's second largest wildlife
refuge, the Desert National Wildlife Range.
Also, the management language for the Sloan Canyon National
Conservation Area lacks key protective provisions, and we would
like to work with the committee to see they are put into
legislation.
While we are very grateful for the cooperation and
straightforward goodwill of all this parties to this
compromise, we must stress that this bill is a bottom line
compromise and it is not a wilderness bill. It protects far
less land than we believe deserves protection. Instead, it
releases many deserving wilderness candidate areas from
continued protection as BLM wilderness study areas, opens up
much more land in Clark County to development, with serious
environmental consequences, and as introduced, it contains
troubling release and management issues that again, should be
corrected.
Our proposal, the citizens' wilderness proposal that the
Nevada Wilderness Coalition has put forth, is the result of
over 700 days of field work and over 6,000 photographs using
GPS and topographic maps to do our inventory, and we came up
with a regional approach to conservation of lands in southern
Nevada, recognizing that county growth in Clark County affects
all of the region of the Mojave Desert. And so, we had a 4.1
million acre citizens' wilderness proposal.
We also understand that this is a compromise bill and that
while everything we are asking for is not in this legislation,
we do want to point out that our proposal has received
tremendous support in southern Nevada. A recent poll done by
Mason Dixon, which frequently does polling for the Las Vegas
Review Journal, conducted a poll on wilderness in Nevada, and
over 79 percent of Clark County residents supported our
proposal and only 17 percent were opposed, and that would have
included approximately 1.9 million acres in Clark County alone.
More than 100 businesses have endorsed the citizens'
wilderness proposal and in addition, over 80 scientists just
recently came out in support of the proposal. I can't stress to
the committee enough that our coalition firmly believes that
all the areas in our proposal should be designated as
wilderness by Congress.
Our coalition is very supportive of a number of the areas,
including the additions to Mount Charleston Wilderness, the
North McCullough Mountain Wilderness which is just south of the
city and acts as a tremendous open space opportunity for the
residents of the area. And also the Wee Thump Joshua Tree
Wilderness is home to some of the largest and most spectacular
Joshua trees in the United States.
As I mentioned before, some of the areas that didn't
receive the kind of protection they needed, the Gold Butte
area, the Highland Range and the west side of the Spring
Mountains, all of which I believe there are not significant
conflicts with other parties to this compromise. It's a matter
of perhaps having too much wilderness in the bill.
Furthermore, several problematic cherry stems included in
the bill need to be eliminated. One major example of a cherry
stem slices deep into the South McCullough Wilderness. I have a
letter hear from the only public lands rancher left in Clark
County, his name is Cal Baird, in which he asks that the
McClanahan Spring cherry stem in the bill is eliminated
entirely, and I quote Mr. Baird. ``If this cherry stem is not
eliminated, motorized vehicles, dirt bikes, ATVs, et cetera,
will continue to harass my cattle, which has resulted in many
injuries or deaths to my livestock.'' And I respectfully
request that this letter be made part of the official hearing
record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Wallin. So we also urge the committee to strengthen the
wildlife management language found in section 208. Our changes
are patterned after the 1984 Wyoming Wilderness Act and include
language that makes it very clear that management actions that
are taken must be determined to be the minimum necessary to
accomplish the tasks.
As you know, S. 2612 contains many non-wilderness titles.
Several member organizations of the coalition have concerns
regarding a number of these provisions. I have detailed written
testimony from the Sierra Club with regards to the issues I
have just noted and I respectfully request that their written
testimony be made a part of the official record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection.
Mr. Wallin. In conclusion, we do have some concerns about
the mineral withdrawal for areas of critical environmental
concern, and we strongly support the protection of statutory
mineral withdrawal language that is found in the bill as it's
currently conceived.
Thanks very much for the opportunity to present testimony
today. Our coalition looks forward to working with members of
the committee and the staff, and the offices of Senators Reid
and Ensign on this legislation, and I'm happy to answer any
questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wallin follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Wallin, Director, Nevada Wilderness Project
Chairman Wyden, members of the committee and staff, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today. My name is John Wallin. I am the
Director of the Nevada Wilderness Project, a Nevada-based grassroots
conservation advocacy organization. I am here today representing the
Nevada Wilderness Coalition (NWC).
The Nevada Wilderness Coalition is made up of the Nevada Wilderness
Project, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, The Wilderness Society, Toiyabe
Chapter of the Sierra Club, Redrock Audubon Society, and Nevada Outdoor
Recreation Association. Collectively our organizations directly
represent more than 6,700 Nevadans and nearly one million citizens
across the country.
On behalf of the coalition, I would like to thank Senators Reid and
Ensign and their excellent 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.
S. 2612 REPRESENTS A GOOD FIRST STEP FOR WILDERNESS IN SOUTHERN NEVADA
BUT NEEDS MANY CHANGES
The Nevada Wilderness Coalition believes that S. 2612 is a good
first step for Wilderness designation and protection in Southern
Nevada. We are very pleased to see some of the most valuable wild
places in Clark County receiving the protection they so desperately
need. That being said, the legislation is in need of significant
improvement. Before getting into our detailed comments on S. 2612, I
would like to highlight some of our Coalition's major areas of concern.
The ``release'' language in S. 2612 is overly broad, may
undermine the Clark County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation
Plan, and must be corrected.
Important wilderness areas, particularly those in the Gold
Butte region, the West Side of the Spring Mountains, and the
Highland Range are left unprotected by the legislation and must
be addressed.
The Wilderness management language may alter agency
execution of the Wilderness Act in a mariner that undercuts the
foundation of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Critical wildlife areas, transferred to the administration
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are opened up to
speculative gravel mining undermining the purposes of the
Desert National Wildlife Range.
The management language for the Sloan Canyon National
Conservation Area (NCA) lacks key protective provisions.
S. 2612 contains a number of non-wilderness titles that
concern several of our member organizations.
While we are most grateful to Senators Reid and Ensign for their
leadership, for the extensive and dedicated work of their excellent
staff, and for the cooperation and straightforward good will of all the
parties to this compromise. We must stress that this bill is a bottom-
line compromise, not a wilderness bill. It protects far less land than
we believe deserves protection. Instead, it releases many deserving
wilderness candidate areas from continued protection as BLM Wilderness
study areas. It opens up much more land in Clark County to development
with serious environmental consequences. And, as introduced, it
contains troubling ``release'' and management provisions that must be
corrected. Some member groups of our coalition also have concerns about
several nonwilderness aspects of S. 2612.
BACKGROUND ON SOUTHERN NEVADA'S WILD PLACES
In order to give the Committee a better understanding of Nevada's
wild landscape and the Wilderness potential that it contains, I would
like to begin by providing some background information on Nevada's
Mojave Desert region.
The Nevada Wilderness Coalition is fortunate to work on behalf of
one of the wildest, most ecologically diverse and beautiful landscapes
in this country, Nevada's Mojave Desert region.
Nevada's Mojave Desert lies between the Sonoran Desert to the south
and the higher and cooler Great Basin to the north. This region is home
to a wonderful array of plants and animals. At lower elevations Joshua
tree, creosote bush, yucca and cacti abound while pinyon pines and
juniper trees at higher elevations give way to the world's oldest
living thing, the Bristlecone Pine, near some of Southern Nevada's
higher summits.
The Mojave Desert region of Nevada supports a unique biological
community unlike any other on Earth. The lands in the Mojave Desert
range in elevation from 500 feet to almost 12,000 feet and temperatures
range from below zero at higher elevations to over 120 degrees F in
some valleys. This range of climates provides incredibly diverse
habitats, allowing more than 1500 plant and animal species to thrive in
the region.
From the snowy summits and pine forests of the Spring Mountains, to
the deep shadows of Arrow Canyon, the unique sandstone sculptures of
the Muddy Mountains, and the expansive views from the Grapevine
Mountains, Nevada's Mojave Desert region invites people to escape,
explore and discover. History buffs can ponder the meaning of enigmatic
rock carvings. Hunters can search rugged cliffs for desert bighorn.
Geologists can probe the history of Earth's evolution in rock
formations. Hikers can explore timeless canyons in remote solitude.
Despite the arid climate, wildlife thrives throughout the Mojave
Desert. Desert bighorn, kit fox. golden eagles, owls, cougar and mule
deer call the rolling arroyos and rocky mountainsides home. Numerous
rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, animals, birds,
reptiles, insects and fish can be found in the Mojave Desert. They
include the desert tortoise, peregrine falcon, southwestern willow
flycatcher and the yellow-billed cuckoo.
Hidden in the mountains and valleys of Nevada's Mojave Desert
region are clues to the people, climate, and landscape of the past.
Fossils of long extinct animals and plants, and evidence of a
dramatically different climate can be found throughout the region.
On rock walls throughout southern Nevada, traces of ancient peoples
exist in the form of petroglyphs, and pictographs. Ancient campsites,
milling stones, agave roasting pits and stone walls, as well as
scattered tools and pottery can be found in this vast landscape. Each
time these artifacts are vandalized or stolen, we lose another clue to
the lives of this area's first peoples.
In addition, Nevada's Mojave Desert Region contains many places
that are sacred to Native Americans and deserve protection for that
reason alone.
THREATS TO WILDERNESS IN SOUTHERN NEVADA
The wild land of Southern Nevada is one of the most imperiled
landscapes in the United States. There are many threats to the open
space and wilderness character of the public lands in southern Nevada.
A major threat to the wild nature of southern Nevada is the
explosive population growth in the region. According to the Nevada
State Demographers Office, Clark County's population is expected to
exceed two million people by 2010. Approximately 6,000 people move to
the Las Vegas Valley each month, making the Las Vegas area the fastest
growing region in the nation. The next ten years will see an increase
in the Clark County population of over 500,000 new residents. Of this
number, approximately 200,000 people will be moving to the
unincorporated parts of the county where increasing urbanization will
strain the existing local infrastructure and present ever-increasing
threats to our remaining open space and wild public lands.
Another very large and growing threat to the natural environment of
southern Nevada is the irresponsible use of dirt bikes and other off-
road vehicles. While some dirt bike and off-road vehicle users make an
effort to stay on existing trails, there are thousands and thousands of
instances where users have destroyed, damaged and fragmented habitat
with irresponsible use. Attempts at public education have helped
somewhat, however the ultimate solution lies in legislated Wilderness
with visible and enforceable boundaries, thereby protecting wild areas
from this increasing threat.
Given the incredible diversity and beauty of the wild places found
in southern Nevada, the important role they play in providing habitat
for wildlife, open space and recreational opportunities for our
communities, and the clean air and water they provide, the Nevada
Wilderness Coalition has long advocated for their protection as
Congressionally designated Wilderness areas.
CITIZENS WILDERNESS PROPOSAL FOR NEVADA'S MOJAVE DESERT REGION
For many years, volunteers and staff from the Nevada Wilderness
Coalition have been exploring, inventorying, and advocating protection
for special wild places in Southern Nevada. Together we have developed
a comprehensive Citizens Wilderness Proposal for Nevada's Mojave Desert
Region.
The Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association began a comprehensive
inventory of the wild resources found on lands managed by the Bureau of
Land Management in Nevada decades ago. Information from their detailed
review of the wild places in southern Nevada was incorporated into the
Nevada Wilderness Coalition's updated inventory. In its preliminary
investigations, the Nevada Wilderness Coalition identified the Mojave
Desert ecoregion of southern Nevada as an area that, because of its
exponential population growth and decades old Wilderness reviews by
federal land management agencies, needed a reassessment and detailed
on-the-ground inventory. Using data provided by all federal land
managers, state offices and local government, a field inventory was
initiated that began a systematic look at the remaining wildlands in
southern Nevada's Mojave Desert. This process involved paid, as well as
volunteer field crews who spent months traveling the wildest reaches of
southern Nevada. The work entailed traveling to predetermined
locations, and photographing any man-made impacts on the land and
marking those locations on a topographic map using a GPS (Global
Positioning System) unit to pinpoint the location. The NWC inventory
procedure is complimentary to the inventory protocol that the Bureau of
Land Management used during the late 70s and early 80s, although our
process is more exacting and has the benefit of 21st century technology
to guide it, such as advanced mapping software and GPS. The inventory
protocol that the NWC used is consistent with methods used in Utah and
Colorado where similar citizens' initiatives have been undertaken.
This protocol yielded over 6,000 photos taken in over 700 days in
the field. This information was then entered into a database that
allowed it to be compared with current data from the major federal land
managers, as well as state and local agencies. Utilizing ArcView
mapping software, citizens' boundaries were delineated based on the
fieldwork and on the additional information collected.
Staff and volunteer efforts were directed towards collecting and
analyzing every conceivable piece of information that may have some
relevance to our proposal. Through these efforts, a cross-section of
information was obtained from dozens of land management agencies,
conservation organizations, and educational institutions. This
information was then analyzed and interpreted by the Nevada Wilderness
Coalition with an eye towards minimizing potential conflicts with other
uses of the proposed Wilderness areas and identifying agency
information that the NWC felt was contradictory or erroneous.
The process led to the detailed ``Citizens' Wilderness Proposal for
Nevada's Mojave Desert Region of 2001.''
The Citizens' Wilderness Proposal for Nevada's Mojave Desert Region
includes Wilderness recommendations for just over four million acres of
public land within the Mojave Desert region of Southern Nevada. This
includes public lands within Clark County and portions of Lincoln, Nye,
and Esmeralda Counties. These lands are managed by the Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. In many cases the NWC proposal for Wilderness
corresponds to inventory work and Wilderness proposals developed by the
various agencies. In other cases, we found previously overlooked areas
which qualified for Wilderness designation.
SUPPORT FOR CITIZENS' WILDERNESS PROPOSAL
The Citizens Wilderness Proposal has received widespread support in
Nevada. Last year, Mason-Dixon, an independent pollster that frequently
conducts polls for the Las Vegas Review Journal conducted a poll on
wilderness in Nevada. The poll showed overwhelming support in Nevada
for the Citizen's Wilderness Proposal for Southern Nevada's Mojave
Desert Region. Seventy-four percent of voters polled statewide favored
the Wilderness proposal, which calls on Congress to designate 4.1
million acres of Wilderness in Southern Nevada. Only 21 % opposed the
proposal. Support for the Wilderness Proposal was even higher in Clark
County, where most of the proposed Wilderness is located, with 79%
supporting and only 17% opposed. The poll also found that Nevada voters
believe that dirt bikes and other off-road vehicles are damaging the
public lands in Southern Nevada. In addition, the poll showed 73% of
Clark County respondents favored Wilderness designation as an important
tool to protect open space and help ease the impact of urban sprawl.
More than 100 businesses have endorsed the Citizens' Wilderness
Proposal. In addition, over 80 scientists recently announced their
endorsement for the Citizens' Wilderness Proposal for Southern Nevada.
Steve Ellsworth, Chair of the Science and Technology Department at
Sierra Nevada College in Incline Village said in a letter supporting
the proposal, ``Wilderness designation is clearly the best way to
safeguard air and water quality, protect open space, and maintain
intact ecosystems. At a time when Nevada faces mounting environmental
threats, this proposal is an excellent way for Nevadans to send a loud
and clear message that protection of special environments in the Mojave
Desert is important.''
The Scientists' letter to Senators Reid and Ensign urged Congress
to protect all of the remaining wildlands in Nevada's Mojave Desert,
and stated that the Wilderness proposal offers broad-based protection
for air and water quality as well as for habitat for plants and
animals. It went on to say that Wilderness allows for natural
ecological processes to occur, which keeps native landscapes healthy
and diverse. Many of these scientists have spent decades researching in
the Mojave Desert and have witnessed the deterioration of these
landscapes due to inappropriate development, misuse, and mismanagement.
Brett Riddle, Professor of Biological Sciences at UNLV recently
said, ``by seeking to minimize the footprint resulting from human
impacts, the Citizens Wilderness Proposal offers one of our most
powerful tools for maintaining the integrity of ecological processes
required to sustain biological diversity.''
The Citizens' Wilderness Proposal for Nevada's Mojave Desert Region
was presented to Nevada's congressional delegation, this Committee, and
all of the relevant land management agencies in Nevada last year. The
Nevada Wilderness Coalition continues to firmly believe that all of the
areas in our proposal should be designated as Wilderness by Congress.
WILDERNESS DESIGNATED UNDER S. 2612
S. 2612 incorporates some aspects of the Citizens' proposal, but on
the whole, S. 2612 is a much more minimalist approach to wilderness
protection in southern Nevada.
There are several aspects of S. 2612 that the Nevada Wilderness
Coalition welcomes.
Given the haphazard approach to land use planning and development
that has taken place in southern Nevada for decades, the Nevada
Wilderness Coalition is extremely pleased to see the landscape-based,
comprehensive approach to land use planning that S. 2612 embraces.
S. 2612 does not simply address the urgent need for wilderness
protections on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management in
Southern Nevada, but also begins to address the need for additional
Wilderness to be managed by the National Park Service and U.S. Forest
Service. The Nevada Wilderness Coalition advocates looking beyond
agency boundaries to envision Wilderness designations that make
ecological sense. We are encouraged that Senators Reid and Ensign have
begun this approach.
The Nevada Wilderness Coalition is very supportive of the inclusion
of all of the Wilderness areas in S. 2612. Many of the most threatened,
scenic, and ecologically diverse wild places in southern Nevada will
gain needed protection under S. 2612. These places include:
The popular Mt. Charleston Wilderness, which will be
expanded to include some lower elevation areas that are
important for wildlife.
Portions of the Muddy Mountains, one of the most awe-
inspiring areas in southern Nevada.
The North McCullough Mountains, just outside the city limits
of Henderson will ensure the protection of open space on the
southern horizon of Las Vegas Valley.
The South McCullough Mountains provide excellent wildlife
habitat and recreational opportunities.
The Arrow Canyon Range Wilderness will protect a spectacular
wild mountain range for future generations.
Areas within the Red Rock National Conservation Area will
benefit from the Wilderness protection that they clearly merit.
Many beautiful and ecologically diverse areas within Lake
Mead National Recreation area and adjacent land managed by the
Bureau of Land Management will be protected as Wilderness under
S. 2612.
The Wee Thump Joshua Tree Wilderness area is home to some of
the largest and most spectacular Joshua trees in the United
States. The Joshua tree forest in this area rivals, or in our
mind surpasses the forest in the Joshua Tree National Park in
California.
Several areas that are sacred to American Indians, including
Spirit Mountain and Table Mountain and Arrow Canyon will be
protected.
There are two Wilderness areas designated under S. 2612 that have a
name that is already taken by an existing Wilderness Area, Pine Creek
and Black Canyon. In our suggested legislative wording changes, which
is attached to this testimony, we have recommended different names for
these Wilderness areas.
New Wilderness areas will be very beneficial to Nevada at a time
when the Lt. Governor and the State Tourism Board are engaged in a
campaign to show the rest of the nation the ``other side of Nevada.''
Wilderness areas could enhance our efforts to diversify our tourism
base and recreational opportunities near Las Vegas.
The new Wilderness Areas created under S. 2612 will protect an
incredible range of wildlife habitat. Many culturally and historically
significant petroglyphs and rock art panels will receive lasting
protection under S. 2612. In addition, S. 2612 will ensure that future
generations will be able to experience at least some portion of the
wild landscape in Southern Nevada as it exists today.
S. 2612 represents a good first step for Wilderness protection for
Nevada's Mojave Desert Region. While the Nevada Wilderness Coalition is
very supportive of these new Wilderness areas, and thankful to Nevada's
Senators for advocating for their protection under S. 2612, significant
problems remain in S. 2612 that we hope will be addressed by this
Committee.
NEVADA WILDERNESS COALITION'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE
WILDERNESS COMPONENT OF S. 2612
First, and foremost, we are troubled by the very large amount of
land that is ``released'' from Wilderness Study Area status under S.
2612. The lands contained in these Wilderness Study Areas have been
managed to protect their wilderness values for more than twenty years.
Releasing these lands is a step backwards for conservation in Southern
Nevada. Many of the areas released from WSA status have no compelling
rationale for their release. This is especially true in the Gold Butte
region. Several of the released portions of WSAs are lower elevation
areas that provide critical habitat for the Desert Tortoise and other
imperiled species. We urge that the WSA status of these areas be
continued.
There are many deserving areas that do not receive protection under
S. 2612. The three areas left out or significantly underprotected under
S. 2612 that are most troubling to the Nevada Wilderness Coalition
include the west side of the Spring Mountains, the Highland Range and
the Gold Butte Region.
The west side of Spring Mountains contains significant wilderness
quality lands. These lands range from the lower elevation Mojave Desert
upwards to an alpine environment. It is rare to find this spectrum of
ecosystems in an intact, unfragmented state. The west side of the
Spring Mountains is facing increased off-road vehicle use and habitat
fragmentation. The rapid growth of the city of Pahrump is also placing
pressure on this region. While S. 2612 designates some Wilderness in
this area, it does not do justice to a region that deserves
significantly more Wilderness protection. Furthermore, Mt. Stirling, an
area recommended for Wilderness by the BLM, is not designated as
Wilderness by S. 2612.
The Highland Range is a biologically unique wilderness quality
mountain range within Clark County. This area was recommended for
Wilderness protection in the Citizens' proposal, yet receives no
protection under S. 2612.
The Nevada Wilderness Coalition is most troubled by the lack of
Wilderness protection and significant release of WSAs in the Gold Butte
region. The entire Gold Butte region deserves protection as a National
Conservation Area or National Monument. The NWC advocated for
significant Wilderness designation in this region to protect the
important wildlife habitat and cultural and historic resources in the
region. S. 2612, for lack of a better term, shortchanges the Gold Butte
area. There is no compelling rational for the release of the Garrett
Buttes Wilderness Study Area and portions of the Lime Canyon WSA. The
lack of Wilderness designation for the Million Hills WSA and National
Park Service recommended Wilderness under S. 2612 is, in our opinion,
seriously shortsighted.
Additionally, the Nevada Wilderness Coalition feels strongly that
wilderness quality lands within the Desert National Wildlife Range
should be designated under this legislation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has had Wilderness recommendations for this refuge pending
before Congress for thirty years. There is no compelling reason not to
act upon those recommendations under this legislation.
Furthennore, several problematic ``cherry stems'' included in S.
2612 need to be eliminated. One major example is the ``cherry stem''
that slices deep into the South McCullough Mountains Wilderness. This
``cherry stem'' would not only disrupt an existing ranching operation,
but would also be extremely difficult to enforce. This ``cherry stem''
should be closed at the end of the graded county road at McClanahan
Spring.
There are numerous site-specific boundary changes that the Nevada
Wilderness Coalition would like to see made to the Wilderness areas
designated in S. 2612. We believe that Wilderness boundaries should be
based on on-the-ground features and avoid section and contour lines.
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES NEEDED TO WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT LANGUAGE
The Nevada Wilderness Coalition has significant concerns regarding
the Wilderness management portion of S. 2612.
Changes should be made to the ``release'' language in Section 207
of S. 2612. As written, this could be interpreted to be ``hard release
language'' which would prohibit areas released from WSA status from
ever again being considered for Wilderness designation. Many Wilderness
bills have dealt with release of WSA lands, and Congress has developed
``boilerplate'' language that is acceptable to the Nevada Wilderness
Coalition. Congress has never enacted hard release language. The Nevada
Wilderness Coalition would not be able to support legislation with the
current Wilderness release language included.
As you know, Clark County and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
have reached an agreement a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) for listed species in Clark County. The release language of S.
2612 requires that released areas ``shall be managed in accordance with
the Clark County MSHCP.'' This plan was the result of years of research
and negotiations. The Clark County MSHCP relied on Wilderness Study
Areas to make up the bulk of the areas considered IMAs (areas intensely
managed for protection of at-risk species.) This form of management
must continue unchanged to ensure the integrity of the MSHCP. While the
bill states that these areas are to be managed ``in accordance with''
the MSHCP and any amendments thereto, we believe that this language is
not specific enough to provide the level of protection required by the
MSHCP.
We urge this Committee to strengthen the wildlife management
language found in Section 208. We have attached our detailed suggested
changes to this, our written statement. Basically, our changes are
patterned after the 1984 Wyoming Wilderness Act, and include language
that makes it very clear that management actions taken must be
``determined to be the minimum necessary to accomplish the task.'' The
language of the 1984 Wyoming Wilderness Act Committee Report embodies
the congressional directives we believe that this Southern Nevada Bill
must follow:
``The Committee views this language cage as allowing the
occasional, temporary use by Federal and State officials of
motor vehicles, helicopters, aircraft and the like, in
furtherance of the purposes of specific wilderness areas. The
Committee believes that this language means that any such use
should be occasional and temporary; that no roads should be
built to accommodate vehicles; and that such use must be
determined to be the minimum necessary to accomplish the
task.''
We recognize that it may be necessary to add ``the designees of
State officials'' in S. 2612 because volunteers play an important role
in wildlife management.
The Nevada Wilderness Coalition advocates changing S. 2612 to
ensure that Park Service Wilderness in the Lake Mead National
Recreation Area is placed into a separate title of the bill. The
current wording implies that Park Service Wilderness will be subject to
management language that is meant to apply to BLM Wilderness.
S. 2612 includes language regarding valid existing rights, which we
support. However, the language goes on to say, ``including rights to
access the area.'' We believe that this language is unnecessary and
confusing. Section 5 of the Wilderness Act clearly recognizes valid
existing rights. In this regard, Sec. 203(c) is entirely unnecessary in
view of the clear language of Sec. 5 of the Wilderness Act and nearly
four decades of satisfactory experience with that process.
Section 203(d) of S. 2612 which requires that any Wilderness area
designated under this title retain a Class II air quality designation
is unnecessary and would set a bad precedent for Wilderness areas. We
feel it should be stricken from the bill.
The overflights language, Section 205 goes beyond standard language
for Wilderness overflights. We are hopeful that the committee will
correct this problem by striking the words ``testing and evaluation''.
We feel that Section 206 (dealing with Native American rights)
should be changed to say, ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
diminish the rights of any Indian tribe. Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to diminish tribal rights regarding access to Federal lands
for tribal activities, including spiritual, cultural, and traditional
food gathering activities.'' (This language is based on the Steens
Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, which was
approved and signed into law during the 106th Congress.)
Section 210 of S. 2612, which deals with climatological data
collection, appears to be a reoccurrence of language that was included
in the Nevada Wilderness Act of 1989. We see no compelling need for
this language in this legislation and believe that it should be removed
from S. 2612.
OTHER COMPONENTS OF S. 2612--MINERAL WITHDRAWAL FOR AREAS OF CRITICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACECS)
We strongly support the protection of Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACECs) by the inclusion of statutory mineral
withdrawal language that is found in S. 2612. These withdrawals have
been fully vested in the BLM's land management plan development process
and are recommended in the final plan. Inclusion of legislative
language supporting this direction will ensure the withdrawals are done
immediately and at less cost to taxpayers.
amendments to the southern nevada public land management act (snplma)
Title IV of S. 2612 makes amendments to the Southern Nevada Public
Land Management Act (SNPLMA). Section 401 amends SNPLMA to make money
from the SNPLMA account available to regional government entities. We
believe that this provision is unnecessary and has not been fully
vested with the many interests who worked hard to develop the original
SNPLMA.
The Nevada Wilderness Coalition would support language in this
section of S. 2612 that would allow for money from the SNPLMA account
to be used for implementation and enforcement of the Clark County
Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
SLOAN CANYON NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA
The Nevada Wilderness Coalition is pleased to see the inclusion of
the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area in S. 2612. The NCA
includes Sloan Canyon, home to a treasure trove of important
petroglyphs just outside of the city limits. While our coalition feels
that the Wilderness designation inside the NCA is too small, we are
happy to see that the NCA includes Wilderness designation within the
boundaries.
In order to truly achieve the objectives for which the NCA is being
created several language changes and additions need to be made to the
legislation.
Most importantly the NCA should have language stating that, ``The
Secretary shall only allow such uses of the conservation area as the
Secretary finds will further the purposes for which the conservation
area is established.''
S. 2612 should also have much clearer language with regards to off-
road vehicle use in the Sloan Canyon NCA. The Nevada Wilderness
Coalition recommends language mirroring the Grand Canyon Parashant
National Monument language, which states, ``all off road motorized and
mechanized vehicle use is prohibited.''
TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION
Under S. 2612, three BLM WSAs are transferred to management by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These WSAs are released from WSA status
and made available for mineral extraction. NWC supports the transfer of
these WSAs to the Fish and Wildlife Service and their inclusion in the
Desert National Wildlife Range. However, we feel strongly that these
lands should be designated as Wilderness and be subject to the same
management as the rest of the Desert National Wildlife Range.
While there has been some interest in aggregate development in the
area, we feel there are significant aggregate resources in other
portions of Clark County. Additionally, the area of disturbance for an
aggregate mine may range from 5 acres (small borrow pit) to 200 plus
acres for a large, ongoing operation on private land (example: Nevada
Readymix) to 250 acres for a large community pit on BLM land. (Example:
Lone Mountain pit currently has 8 permitted operators and disturbs 250
acres). Setting aside more than 50,000 acres for aggregate mining seems
incredibly excessive.
WATER RIGHTS
The Nevada Wilderness Coalition is pleased to see that S. 2612 does
not include a denial of federal water rights for Wilderness. The House
version of this bill contains a denial of water rights. The House bill
does not, as its sponsor claims, simply provide for state versus
federal adjudication. All adjudication is state-based as has been made
explicit by the Wilderness Act of 1964 section 4(d)(7). Rather, the
House companion to this bill seeks to deny water rights to areas that
may or may not have such rights. No such radical provision has ever
passed the Congress and been signed into law. We want to make it clear
that we will seek to defeat any bill that attempts such a blatant
denial of environmental protection.
MEADOW VALLEY MOUNTAINS RIGHT OF WAY
We are strongly opposed to Section 709, which would grant a right-
of-way through the Meadow Mountains Wilderness Study Area. First, this
area lies outside of Clark County, which this bill has been limited to.
Secondly, this WSA merits wilderness designation. And finally, the
wording in the legislation would set a negative precedent for
activities within WSAs.
SUNRISE MOUNTAIN POWERLINE RIGHT OF WAY
The Nevada Wilderness Coalition believes that the provision of S.
2612 permitting an additional power line through the Sunrise Mountain
Instant Study Area needs to comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) so that a judicious decision is made on when, where,
and to what extent another corridor needs to be pushed through this
area.
ADDITIONAL CONCERN REGARDING NON-WILDERNESS COMPONENTS OF S. 2612
As you know, S. 2612 contains many non-Wilderness titles. Several
member organizations of the Nevada Wilderness Coalition have concerns
regarding a number of these provisions.
Specifically, the non-Wilderness concerns expressed by some of
NWC's member organizations include:
First, as mentioned earlier, changes in land designation and
land use has a significant impact on the MSHCP. Such is the
case with the release of WSAs, the expansion of the city's
disposal boundary and the establishment of the 2,640-foot wide
utility corridor along I-15. which threatens Desert Tortoise
Translocation Center--an IMA of unique and pivotal importance
to the MSHCP and the recovery of the threatened desert
tortoise. The MSHCP requires that there be no net unmitigated
loss of IMAs or LIMAs (less intensively managed areas). Some of
the NWC's member organizations contend that there must be an
analysis of the extent of the loss, and that a mitigation plan
must be developed and implemented before these land management
changes are put into effect.
Second, all of these land management changes are major
federal changes and as such should have complete review in an
environmental impact study under NEPA before they are put into
effect.
Third, in an attempt to alleviate some of the sprawl
inducing provisions included in S. 2612 and encourage
alternative commuting methods, some of the NWC's member groups
advocate reserving the 2,640-foot wide utility corridor along
I-15 in the Ivanpah Valley for utilities and transit instead of
utilities and transportation. There is also a great opportunity
for infill development in Las Vegas, and this should be
encouraged in the strongest manner possible.
I have detailed written testimony from the Sierra Club with regards
to the issues that I just noted. I respectfully request that their
written testimony be made an official part of the Committee record.
CONCLUSION
On the whole, the Nevada Wilderness Coalition believes that
Senators Reid and Ensign have engaged in a fair process with admirable
goals of protecting some of the wild landscape of southern Nevada. We
believe that the Wilderness areas designated in S. 2612 represent a
good first step for Wilderness designation in Nevada's Mojave Desert
region. However, the Nevada Wilderness Coalition believes that the
Committee should make significant changes to the Wilderness management
language, improve boundaries, close several cherry stems, and safeguard
several areas that remain unprotected.
Even with passage of an unproved S. 2612, there are many more wild
places in Nevada that truly deserve lasting protection as Wilderness.
Nevada lags behind other western states in terms of the protection of
its wild places. We look forward to working with the Nevada
congressional delegation and this Committee to ensure that Nevada's
magnificent wild lands are adequately represented in the National
Wilderness Preservation System in the years to come. Additionally,
while we have supported working on a county basis for this legislation
because of the unprecedented threats to the wild areas in Clark County,
we would prefer that future legislation designating Wilderness in
Nevada take a larger view and not be limited to a county by county
approach. These lands belong to all Americans, not just those who live
closest to them.
Again, thank you for the opportunity present testimony today. The
Nevada Wilderness Coalition looks forward to working with members of
the committee and their staff, and the offices of Senators Reid and
Ensign on this important legislation. I am happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Wyden. Thank you all. Just a quick question, Mr.
Hunter. How would you respond to the Forest Service proposal
that some 20,000 acres of the bill should be protected through
some other means than wilderness designation?
Mr. Hunter. Chairman Wyden, I'm very glad you asked that
question because one of the important things with the current
proposed wilderness area is that it includes many lowland areas
which support services proposed for exclusion. The importance
of the lowland area inclusion in the wilderness area to us is
that as currently proposed, it would provide accessible
wilderness area all four seasons, and this would help to
provide a boost for our economy.
As well, it also includes a lot of ecological areas that
might be excluded if these 20,000 acres were excluded from the
wilderness area.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Bentley and Mr. Wallin, do you think
additional negotiations would be useful or would that just be
going over plowed ground? It seems that you've made a good case
that we ought to just get on with it, and I just want to get
for the record your opinion on that.
Mr. Bentley. Well, I believe that due to the contentious
nature and the diverse nature of the groups, that at this point
in time, I think both sides have been able to quell their
radical portions and get them to accept the way that this has
come into being at this point, and that further negotiations
have a chance of providing and provoking a more contentious
attitude and that therefore, the way it is presented is
probably in the best form.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Wallin, would you disagree with that?
Mr. Wallin. I would slightly, and I think what I would say
is that we have made tremendous strides working with Mr.
Bentley and the groups that he represents, and I think we have
a real formula for moving forward with cooperation.
That said, it doesn't change some of the things that we
believe undermine the integrity of the Wilderness Act and the
National Wilderness Preservation System in terms of the
wildlife management language, potential water rights problems
that we may see introduced in the House version of the bill,
and so I think that there are a couple of things that in a very
short period of time could go from a difficult bill to support
to something that is going to be quite outstanding for us to
support.
Senator Wyden. All right. Anything you would like to add
further, or we will excuse you. Thank you all. We look forward
to moving these bills quickly, and the subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Larry Charles, Chairman of the Board and President,
Newtok Native Corporation, Newtok, AK
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Larry Charles, the
Chairman of the Board and President of Newtok Native Corporation,
headquartered in Newtok, Alaska, where I live. We thank Senator
Murkowski for introducing S. 2016 that directs Newtok and the Fish and
Wildlife Service to exchange land. We thank the Senators on this
committee for hearing our bill.
BACKGROUND
Newtok is located in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta of western Alaska.
The people of this region are Yupik and have lived along the Bering Sea
coast for 2000 years. Living in the lands and waters of this great
delta means that we live on land that shifts over time as the water
currents change and deposit new soil. The present village has been
occupied since 1949 after the villagers moved from another site that
flooded.
There are fewer than 300 residents of Newtok. The village is
unincorporated and has no taxing authority. While some villagers are
employed at the school, the clinic, by the Native corporation and as
commercial fishermen, most villagers pursue a subsistence living. Fifty
percent of the villagers live below the poverty level. Most villagers
are shareholders in the Newtok Native Corporation. The Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act of 1971 authorized our corporation. Through that
law, we have selected and have been conveyed lands in the vicinity of
our village to provide good hunting areas for the villagers.
Surrounding our village and all of our lands, the federal government
owns the land and manages it as the Yukon Delta National Wildlife
Refuge.
This exchange legislation is necessary because our village is in
danger of washing away within the next decade. Each year since the
early 1950's, the shifting course of the nearby Ninglick River moves
closer to the village. The erosion has been particularly rapid in the
last decade. The changing course of the river also affects nearby delta
wetlands and creeks causing subsidence in the village at this time. To
save our village and our way of life, we must move Newtok to higher
ground nearby.
We have employed engineers and soil scientists who tell us that the
most appropriate site for a new village is across the river on Nelson
Island. There the land is higher, there are some limited gravel
deposits for a road and an airstrip, and the river channel will allow
boats and barges to tie up. However, much of that land is currently
owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
S. 2016 by Senator Murkowski was introduced to make an equal value
land exchange with the Fish and Wildlife Service. Under the bill,
Newtok would receive a small amount of land where we can rebuild a
village. In exchange, the Fish and Wildlife Service would receive lands
of high wildlife and waterfowl value from Newtok in an area called
Aknerkochik. We support this legislation because after many years of
trying to work with the agency, we believe that only Congress can help
us complete an exchange before our village is lost.
A FAILED EFFORT AT ADMINISTRATIVE EXCHANGE
In 1997, Newtok Native Corporation approached the Fish and Wildlife
Service to request an administrative land exchange in order to obtain a
new village site on Nelson Island, an area of approximately 5,000
acres. The agency responded enthusiastically, proposing a swap of
21,400 acres of federal land surrounding the village site for up to
34,200 acres of the corporation's land, including all of our best
waterfowl hunting areas. The agency proposed to bear all costs of
appraisals and agency paperwork.
When Newtok objected to the scale of the proposed exchange and the
loss of subsistence hunting lands, the Service wrote that ``to justify
expenditure of public funds, the Service must receive high quality
habitat.'' The small exchange proposed by Newtok ``greatly reduces the
Service's interest.''
Despite four years of meetings and many counterproposals, including
proposals by Newtok to share costs, the agency has so far not accepted
a more modest exchange. They insist that Newtok give up our best
subsistence lands in order to obtain the new site.
Newtok villagers make decisions slowly after extensive
participation by everyone in the village. The villagers are willing to
part with some of their hunting lands, but not all of the most
important areas. They see no reason to receive more land from the
government than they need. The Fish and Wildlife Service told us that
Aknerkochik was their highest priority. It is 11,105 acres, much larger
than the 5,580 acres of land we need for the new village. But they
wanted many more of our lands as well. And they want us to take many
acres of land with little wildlife and poor hunting. Since the agency
will not agree with a more limited approach, Newtok Native Corporation
and the Newtok Traditional Council have come to Congress to seek
fairness and results before the village is lost.
Therefore, Newtok requested Senator Murkowski and Congress to
direct this small equal value exchange that will permit Newtok to
obtain a small village site, retain most of our hunting areas, and go
forward on the village relocation. We would give the Fish and Wildlife
Service the area it said is most important but keep our other lands.
S. 2016 bill will allow us to go forward.
CONCLUSION
We understand that in recent months, Senator Murkowski and his
staff have continued to speak with the Fish and Wildlife Service in an
effort to gain their support for the legislation. We will support
reasonable changes in the bill if it will help us make a fair exchange
in a timely manner and at reasonable cost.
Thank you for letting us testify in favor of S. 2016 even though we
could not travel to Washington to speak to you in person. We hope you
will be able to help us by passing a fair bill for a fair exchange, one
that allows us to move our village to safer ground and to continue to
live as we have for many years to come.
______
Sierra Club Testimony for the Subcommittee on Forest and Public Lands
Hearing on Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural
Resources Act of 2002
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on S. 2612,
the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act
of 2002.
We would first like to thank Senator Reid and Senator Ensign for
introducing this legislation to permanently protect several important
wilderness areas in southern Nevada. We strongly support the wilderness
designations and we agree with the Nevada Wilderness Coalition's
testimony suggesting management language changes and increases in
wilderness protections.
We also applaud the Senators for creating the Sloan Canyon National
Conservation Area. It recognizes the extremely important but fragile
cultural resources in that location and the need to preserve them and
the surrounding natural areas, for our national heritage and for future
generations.
Finally, we strongly support the protection of Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACECs) by including statutory mineral withdrawal
language. These withdrawals have been fully vetted in the land
management planning process and are recommended in the final plan.
Including legislative language that supports this planning process will
ensure that the withdrawals are done more quickly and at almost no cost
to taxpayers.
There are two major issues of concern in addition to those already
presented by the Nevada Wilderness Coalition in its testimony for S.
2612. The two issues are: habitat and species protection required by
federal environmental law and urban sprawl and its attendant problems.
The first issue involves the need to fully evaluate and mitigate
for the environmental consequences to any land use changes affected by
trades, sales, conveyances, or creation of rights of way or corridors
under the legislation. The federal laws governing these issues include
but may not be limited to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Regarding the ESA, our concerns include both the cumulative and the
specific effects this legislation may have on Clark County's Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan, the MSHCP. This plan has been
developed after many years of work to ensure compliance with the ESA
while allowing Clark County to continue to grow at an astounding rate.
Any land use changes may jeopardize the validity of the MSHCP.
Specifically, the plan requires ``no net unmitigated loss'' of two
categories of managed land. Various elements of S. 2162 change the
management of portions of habitat assumed to be protected under the
MSHCP, and so the loss of protection of that land requires mitigation.
However, S. 2162 prescribes no specific mitigation. Further, no overall
analysis has been undertaken, to our knowledge, to review what types of
habitat, how much, and which species are affected by the various
elements of the bill. Indeed, this analysis probably requires a full
environmental impact study.
The following are the major concerns we have been able to identify
which may invalidate the MSHCP:
1. All released Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) have been
identified as ``IMAs'' or Intensively Managed Areas [to protect
species] by the BLM as part of the MSHCP. This form of
management must continue unchanged to ensure the integrity of
the MSHCP. While the bill states that these areas are to be
managed ``in accordance with'' the MSHCP and any amendments
thereto, we are not certain that this language is specific
enough to address this concern. The bill's language needs to
make sure that the former WSAs continue to be managed as
Intensively Managed Areas under the Clark County MSHCP.
2. The Ivanpah Corridor is a 1/2-mile-wide right-of-way
corridor between a proposed airport site and Las Vegas. The
Ivanpah Corridor along with the Ivanpah Airport Environs
Overlay District land transfer currently is an IMA under the
MSHCP. It provides habitat protection for the desert tortoise
and the white-margined beardtongue, both federally protected or
sensitive species. The west side of the Ivanpah Corridor
directly impacts the desert tortoise translocation center, the
place where tortoises are released after they are removed from
areas under development. Land use changes that affect either of
these species significantly impacts the MSHCP and thus requires
mitigation.
3. There are additional land use changes whose impacts on the
MSHCP have not been assessed, nor has any mitigation plan been
developed. The MSHCP requires no net unmitigated loss to either
intensively managed areas (IMAs) or less intensively managed
areas (LIMAS), which are two of the four land use areas managed
by the MSHCP. There needs to be a complete analysis of
cumulative losses to IMAs and LIMAS under the MSHCP. Land use
changes that need to be assessed include, but are not
necessarily limited to, the change in the disposal boundary to
the north and west of North Las Vegas and Las Vegas, two new
utility rights-of-way, and other land sales and conveyances.
While there may be no impact on the MSHCP from one specific
change in land use, no change should go forward without full
analysis and mitigation of the cumulative impacts of all
elements of the legislation.
A positive element of the legislation that may not need to be
mitigated as habitat loss is the conveyance to the city of Henderson
for conservation and other purposes (Section 708, Open Space Land
Grants, Tract B). A review of the resource values and the proposed
management of the land is needed to determine if and how this parcel
could serve to protect habitat and species under the MSHCP.
To summarize our concerns on the MSHCP:
Land use changes contained in this legislation may have a
major impact on the assumptions and plans underlying the
approval of Clark County's MSHCP by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
To address this concern, the legislation should require (1)
a complete analysis of the impact of changes in land
designations, management and ownership, to the species and
habitat needs addressed by the MSHCP and, (2) to the extent
that these changes cause a net loss of habitat or protections,
a mitigation plan approved by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
needs to be developed and implemented PRIOR to any changes in
land ownership, use or management that would affect current
habitat protections.
The changes to land designations such as land trades, sales and
conveyances, and the creation of new corridors and rights of way are
major federal actions in themselves. They are major federal actions
that we already know hold the potential to jeopardize the Clark County
MSHCP and thereby violate the Endangered Species Act. Taken together,
these actions need to be assessed through an environmental impact
statement (EIS). We would like to ensure that any proposed changes to
these lands' designation, management or ownership resulting from the
legislation has a full NEPA review prior to that proposed action taking
place.
The second major issue is urban sprawl--that is, the likelihood of
the bill exacerbating urban sprawl and the negative environmental
impacts associated with it.
1. Most troublesome is the creation of a 1/2-mile-wide
corridor along I-15 for ``the placement of utilities and
transportation'' between Las Vegas and the proposed new airport
at Ivanpah 30 miles away. Although this legislation does not
specifically allow land transfers within or adjacent to most of
the corridor, the pressure to urbanize the entire length of
this area will be huge and indeed proposals are already being
developed to do so. This will require new infrastructure; it
will create additional air pollution in a region already
seriously out of compliance for particulate matter (PM 10) and
carbon monoxide. There are water questions that haven't even
been begun to be asked. Inappropriate, leapfrog development
would put years of air quality planning in jeopardy and should
be avoided. Some of the sprawl pressure can be relieved by
modifying the language to state ``the placement of utilities
and transit,'' and clarifying in report language that new
transit would not allow new highway lanes but only some form of
light rail or similar public transportation. Creating a simple,
convenient, quick way for residents of the city of Las Vegas to
commute to and from work at the new airport would greatly
decrease the pressure to urbanize the Ivanpah Valley.
2. Other elements of the bill also contribute to urban
sprawl. One is the change in the disposal boundary allowing
additional development on the northwest fringe of the metro
area of Las Vegas; another is the potential development of
Nellis A, B and C, which we would prefer to see left as open
space or in passive park status. Clark County's air quality
planning has been based on the current disposal boundary; an
expansion of that boundary could force the county further out
of compliance with clean air laws. In general, the bill leads
to an overall net loss in public land and open space in the
county, which is important not only for habitat, but for clean
air and people's quality of life. We would like, before this
bill is passed, to have available a fuller evaluation of the
acreage affected by each section and a better picture of the
total impacts of these land use changes and transfers.
3. We believe that the Henderson Economic Development area
would be an excellent place to use the County's mixed-use
zoning code and create village-style development that has
residential, retail and commercial areas closely linked with
pedestrian, bike and transit access. This type of development
could be a model for other development in Clark County to
minimize negative impacts of growth. While we realize this is
not something that can be federally legislated, the Senators'
leadership in encouraging this type of development would be
influential.
4. The legislation in its current form lacks clarity
regarding location of rights of way, acreage of affected
changes, and other key facts. We hope the Senators will address
these issues prior to the bill's moving forward so that
citizens and federal land managers will be able to analyze its
potential impacts more completely.
5. On the plus side of the urban sprawl concern, we support
the intention to create affordable housing within the metro
area and would encourage other infill areas to be considered in
the future for this purpose as a way to assist our community
without contributing to urban sprawl.
To summarize, we are pleased that some of the most valuable and
wild places in Clark County will receive the protection they need,
particularly in the form of Wilderness and National Conservation Area
designations. We believe this is a good first step for wilderness in
southern Nevada and we applaud the delegation for these efforts.
However, we are concerned with the impact of changes in land
management, ownership or use on the County's Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, and we believe a full evaluation and mitigation
program should be in place prior to making any of the changes allowed
in the legislation. We further would like to ensure complete compliance
with all federal laws, particularly NEPA, prior to these major federal
actions going forward.
We are also concerned about the potential for elements of this
legislation to exacerbate urban sprawl and further degrade air quality,
traffic, water and related problems. We look forward to working with
the delegation and committee to look to address these concerns.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide input on this
important legislation.
______
Bow & Arrow Ranch, LLC.,
Jean, NV, July 28, 2002.
Dear Senator Wyden: Please make this letter a part of the official
hearing record regarding Senate Bill 2612, a bill which would protect
many important wild places in Southern Nevada as wilderness.
As a good steward of the land and student of holistic resource
management, I strongly support the proposed boundaries for the Southern
McCullough Wilderness Area, with one important change. I know these
boundaries like the back of my hand because my cow camp is located at
McClanahan Springs, right next to the wilderness boundary.
The important change I am asking for is this: totally eliminate the
proposed ``cherry stem'' access route that starts at the end of the
existing county road at McClanahan Springs and then cuts deep into the
heart of the wilderness.
If this ``cherry stem'' is not eliminated, motorized vehicles, dirt
bikes, ATV's, etc. will continue to harass my cattle--which has
resulted in many injuries and deaths to my livestock.
Furthermore, If the ``cherry stem'' is not closed off right at the
new wilderness boundary, the BLM law enforcement will never be able to
keep these vehicles restricted to the access route. Once they get on
the ``cherry stem'' they will be able to cross through wilderness to
another cherry stem and elude BLM law enforcement.
I am the only public lands rancher left in Clark County. I urge you
move quickly to remove this proposed ``cherry stem'' and stop the
motorized access at the end of the existing county road, along the
western edge of the wilderness boundary.
Thank you,
Cal Baird,
Jean Lake Allotment Grazing Permittee.