<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:33094.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-792
WASHINGTON COUNTY GROWTH AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 2006 AND WHITE PINE
COUNTY CONSERVATION, RECREATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2006
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 3636
TO ESTABLISH WILDERNESS AREAS, PROMOTE CONSERVATION, IMPROVE PUBLIC
LAND, AND PROVIDE FOR HIGH QUALITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN WASHINGTON
COUNTY, UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
S. 3772
TO ESTABLISH WILDERNESS AREAS, PROMOTE CONSERVATION, IMPROVE PUBLIC
LAND, AND PROVIDE FOR HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT IN WHITE PINE COUNTY,
NEVADA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
NOVEMBER 16, 2006
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-094 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Frank J. Macchiarola, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming RON WYDEN, Oregon
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
Scott Miller, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah.................. 2
Calvert, Chad, Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and
Minerals Management, Department of the Interior................ 17
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 1
Eldridge, Brent, Commissioner, White Pine County, NV............. 36
Ensign, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Nevada...................... 8
Gardner, Alan, Member, Washington County, Utah Board of
Commissioners.................................................. 47
Greenberg, Jerry, Vice President of The Wilderness Society....... 40
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator from Utah..................... 5
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 28
Huntsman, Hon. Jon M., Governor, State of Utah................... 6
Metcalf, Peter, President, Black Diamond Equipment, Ltd., Board
Member, Outdoor Industry Association, Salt Lake City, UT....... 53
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada....................... 11
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 65
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 73
WASHINGTON COUNTY GROWTH AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 2006 AND WHITE PINE
COUNTY CONSERVATION, RECREATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2006
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resource,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E.
Craig presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM
IDAHO
Senator Craig. Good afternoon, everyone. The Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and
Forests will be convened.
This afternoon we will consider two large and complex
pieces of legislation: S. 3636, Washington County Growth and
Conservation Act in Utah and S. 3772, White Pine County
Conservation Recreation and Development Act in Nevada.
I want to welcome our colleagues from Utah and Nevada. I
see Senator Bennett and Senator Ensign are here and I
understand that Senator Reid is en route and I believe Senator
Hatch also plans to be here. They are all co-sponsors of the
legislation we are considering today. I also want to extend a
welcome to all of our witnesses that we are scheduled to hear
from today.
I will forego an opening statement on today's legislation
so we can allow ample time for our witnesses. But before I get
started, I would like to remind everyone that both written and
oral statements will be included in the record of this hearing
and we will take additional testimony or supplemental testimony
for up to 10 days after the hearing.
I am certain all of you had other commitments today and we
have three votes scheduled for the floor at some time in the
immediate future, so I will leave it at that because we're not
quite sure but we will break during that time. We'll try to. I
hope others of my colleagues will attend so we can jog and
continue to take the testimony instead of recessing the
committee. But regardless, we will hear from all our scheduled
witnesses who have traveled here today.
With that, let me turn to my two colleagues that are before
us. Senator Bennett, I'll turn to you first and welcome you
before the committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
a prepared statement, which I would appreciate appearing in the
record.
Senator Craig. Without objection.
Senator Bennett. I also have a prepared statement on behalf
of Governor Huntsman in support of the legislation which I
would ask to be included in the record.
Senator Craig. Without objection.
Senator Bennett. Senator Hatch is unable to come and asked
me to insert his as well.
Senator Craig. Certainly, without objection, all three will
be put in the record.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, just very
briefly to summarize where we are on this one. It's been a
subject of great public debate. It's a process that has been
going on for well over 2 years. We've invited all stakeholders
to participate. Some have chosen not to and then have
complained that they have somehow been frozen out. But I want
to put this in perspective first.
I'm grateful to be here with Senator Ensign and Senator
Reid, who has just come in. Because of their pioneering work in
dealing with wilderness issues in Nevada, they were able to
produce a bill which passed the Congress, the previous
Congress, unanimously and set the precedent for how wilderness
debates should be dealt with, in my view. I remember the last
statewide wilderness bill that was passed when I was a member
of this committee. The blood on the floor was ankle deep. It
was as difficult a legislative process as possible and it
became clear that there was never going to be another statewide
wilderness bill, given the contention that arises when you try
to solve everything at once. And I salute Senator Reid and
Senator Ensign for their leadership in deciding we will try to
solve these problems on a county-by-county basis and the work
they did in the last Congress with the two bills that passed
the Congress unanimously gave us hope that we might be able to
do the same thing in Utah. Therefore, we have patterned our
bill along the Nevada precedent. We have followed the procedure
that was followed in Nevada. We have taken the same parameters
that were established in those bills and we have done our very,
very best to stay within that historic precedent.
I believe still, that if there is going to be resolution of
the wilderness issues, it's going to be along the pattern
established by Senator Ensign and Senator Reid, in their
pioneering work in the previous Congress.
This bill has been mischaracterized rather substantially in
the press because as was the case in Nevada, there will be some
public lands that will be put up for sale and the
characterization has been that we have been in the hands of the
developers who produced this bill, myself in the Senate with
Senator Hatch's co-sponsorship and Congressman Matheson in the
House. That makes it a bipartisan issue because Congressman
Matheson is the State's Democratic representative. The people
say, why did you work with Congressman Matheson and I said
because this is in his district and I don't want it to be a
partisan issue. Washington County is a part of his district and
so I have sat down with him and his staff and my staff have
literally walked over every inch of the lands that we're
talking about here.
We did not sit down with developers to say, what land do
you want to buy and therefore, we'll carve it out and make it
available to you as we have been accused of doing. On the
contrary, we sat down with land managers and said, what land
would make sense for you to divest yourself of? Because it is
impossible to manage in the way that someone is asking you to
manage--there are management facts on the ground that get
ignored in Washington and the land managers themselves have
identified the acreage that they felt would make it more
efficient for them to manage these lands as wilderness. If they
didn't have to manage certain parcels and those are the parcels
that we anticipate being used for the sale.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this
hearing. I appreciate your giving us this opportunity and I
commend the formal statements that I have submitted for the
record to you, for your consideration.
[The prepared statements of Senators Bennett and Hatch and
Governor Huntsman follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert F. Bennett, U.S. Senator from Utah
Mr. Chairman and Senator Wyden, thank you for holding a hearing
today on S. 3636, the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of
2006. As the sponsor of this legislation, I am grateful that you
included this important bill on your busy hearing calendar as the 109th
Congress winds down.
S. 3636, and its companion in the House of Representatives, H.R.
5769, have the bipartisan support of Utah's entire congressional
delegation. This legislation contains carefully crafted compromises
that build on the success of the Nevada public land bills authored by
Senators Reid and Ensign and passed unanimously by Congress. The Nevada
bills have been enormously beneficial for their state and serve as a
blueprint to address land and growth issues in Utah. These bills show
that you can strike a successful balance between conservation measures
and economic development initiatives, while protecting both the public
lands and the communities that depend on them.
In Utah, federal agencies manage two of every three acres. For many
communities, public land and its management affect nearly every aspect
of life, from education and employment to social services and
recreation. Many water developments, electrical transmission lines, and
highways are located upon or must cross the public domain to provide
residents with essential services. Without the involvement of the
federal government, these land-locked communities cannot adequately
plan for growth or meet the needs of citizens and visitors for
infrastructure, transportation, housing, and clean water. Therefore,
the federal government must play a significant and active role in
securing the future and continued viability of these areas. And that is
why this legislation is so critical.
Washington County, Utah--home to spectacular Zion National Park--is
the fifth fastest-growing county in the United States. St. George--the
county seat--is the nation's fastest-growing metropolitan area over the
last five years. The effects of this virtually unchecked growth have
caused local and state leaders to come together and take a proactive
approach to plan for the future. With just over 16 percent of the
county in private ownership, however, the future of the communities and
the public lands that surround them are inextricably linked. This
legislation provides a balanced framework for managing the growth,
while also providing for the permanent protection of some of the most
magnificent and sensitive landscapes in the West.
The Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2006 is the
result of more than two years of work by a diverse group of
stakeholders tasked with responsibly addressing Washington County's
growth challenges. As part of this effort, former Utah Governor Olene
Walker and the Washington County Commission initiated the Washington
County Land Use Planning Process and Working Group in June 2004. The
working group was composed of 20 people representing diverse and broad
interests--including the conservation community--and was charged with
developing this legislation and a quality growth plan for the county.
Over several months, the working group held a series of meetings and
tours throughout the county. The participants discussed issues ranging
from local transportation needs to federal land management and
endangered species.
When the meetings concluded, Congressman Jim Matheson and I
received recommendations from the group regarding the management of
public lands within the county. We incorporated those recommendations
into the draft proposal, and released it earlier this year for public
comment. At our request, Washington County also held two well-attended
open houses where interested people could examine maps and inquire
about the proposal.
Based on the public input we received in our offices, including
several meetings with environmental groups, we made significant changes
to the proposal and introduced this legislation in July. Although we
have tried to accommodate many viewpoints, it is impossible to satisfy
everyone in this process. We have seen that if individuals and groups
from all sides are willing to abandon the ``all-or-nothing'' approach
and sit at the table in good faith, progress can be made. The result is
a balanced and more comprehensive bill. This legislation represents
significant progress in the long-standing disputes over public land
management in Utah, and I am proud to sponsor it.
As an outgrowth of this legislation, Washington County has
partnered with other organizations to create Vision Dixie, a quality
growth planning process, to further engage the public on current and
future county growth issues. I commend them for continuing this
discussion and encourage the public to participate in this effort.
I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues this year to
enact responsible, bipartisan legislation to address these long-
standing issues in Utah.
Because of this bill's comprehensive nature, I will provide a
summary of the significant provisions of this legislation.
summary
Title I--Land Disposals
S. 3636 directs the secretary of the interior to sell up to 24,300
acres in a two-tiered process. Federal land managers based in
Washington County have already identified 4,300 acres of land for
disposal, which will be sold after receiving the appropriate federal
clearances. These acres will make up the first tier of land disposal.
The first sale will occur within one year after the passage of the
bill, with at least annual sales thereafter until the final prior to
January 1, 2013. The second tier of land disposal includes up to 20,000
acres which may be sold only after being identified by federal land
managers in cooperation with Washington County through Vision Dixie.
These lands must be selected from within areas identified on the map,
excluding wilderness areas, the tortoise preserve, and other areas of
critical environmental concern. This gives maximum flexibility to the
local quality growth planning group to select the lands to be sold. The
secretary of the interior will be authorized to include, where
appropriate, restrictive covenants on the deeds of transfer to protect
paleontological, archaeological, or other interests of the United
States. These sales will not begin until 2011, allowing the quality
growth process sufficient time to identify appropriate lands.
The proceeds from the land disposal will fund conservation projects
and federal and non-federal initiatives within Washington County.
Projects include, but are not limited to, protection and management of
the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area; processing of wilderness
designations; projects relating to parks, trails, and natural areas;
and trail repair and reconstruction within the Dixie National Forest.
Title II--Wilderness
S. 3636 designates the addition of 219,725 acres of land to the
National Wilderness Preservation System. At the recommendation of the
National Park Service, 123,743 acres within Zion National Park will
receive wilderness designation. Wilderness designations also include
93,340 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and 2,642 acres of
Forest Service land. This will increase the percentage of wilderness
acreage in the county from 3.4 percent to 17.5 percent.
Washington County has stunning natural areas and I support the
wilderness compromise in this measure. The bill protects nearly 93
percent of existing BLM wilderness study areas and includes no hard-
release language. Also the bill designates additional acreage not
identified by the BLM but selected by the stakeholders within the
working group. More importantly, this bill ends the gridlock over BLM
wilderness designations in the state of Utah, and removes uncertainty
from these areas.
Title III--Wild and Scenic River Designation
This legislation designates 165.5 miles of the Virgin River and its
tributaries as Wild and Scenic Rivers, following National Park
Service's recommendation. This is the first Wild and Scenic River
designation anywhere in Utah.
Title IV--Utility Corridors and Rights-of-Way
S. 3636 designates utility corridors in Washington County to meet
the needs of the growing population. Subject to compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), these utility corridors may
be used for transportation, water lines, or other such necessary
transmission and utility distribution. The bill addresses the need for
a transportation corridor around the south and west of St. George,
diverting traffic from the center of the city by incorporating the
Habitat Conservation Advisory Committee's unanimous recommendation for
identifying the Northern Corridor Bypass. This unanimous recommendation
requires the secretary of the interior to study different routes and
then designate the appropriate corridor. This process will allow
science and public input to dictate where the corridor should be
located. The bill also identifies a pipeline corridor to address the
county's future water needs.
Title V--High Desert Off Highway Vehicle Trail
S. 3636 authorizes the secretary of the interior to designate a
system of existing motorized trails for off highway vehicle (OHV) use.
The bill gives the secretary two years from the passage of the bill to
complete a travel plan identifying the appropriate existing routes to
include in the trail system, making sure to allow for public
participation in the final decision. The legislation does not authorize
the creation of any new trails for incorporation in the trail system.
By identifying this trail in an environmentally-sensitive way, we
create an opportunity for managed and responsible OHV use on the
heavily-used west side of the county.
Title VI--Red Cliffs National Conservation Area
S. 3636 creates the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area, giving
permanent protection to the endangered desert tortoise. The current
habitat management plan will expire in 2016.
conclusion
The Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2006 is the
only viable solution to the county's current challenges. It's based on
Nevada precedent, which passed the Congress unanimously and has worked
extremely well to meet their growth needs. We brought stakeholders
together, solicited public comment on the proposal, made revisions
based on these comments, and now we bring it to the Congress for its
consideration. I ask for your support on this bill--it will responsibly
manage growth while putting conservation measures in place that will
protect our natural treasures for future generations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Wyden, for holding this hearing
today. I look forward to working with you and your staff to address any
concerns you might have.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, U.S. Senator from Utah
Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you and the members of the
committee for holding this hearing today.
I am pleased that Washington County Commissioner Alan Gardner will
be giving his testimony this afternoon. Alan is one of Utah's most
seasoned and wise public officials, especially as it relates to
difficult public land issues.
I hope the members of this committee consider carefully his
comments and keep in mind that unlike land managers and biologists,
Alan, as county commissioner, must balance all of the various interests
in Washington County. He has more of a stake in maintaining his
county's beauty and natural resources than anyone else I know. Yet he
also must plan for the water, transportation, and recreation needs for
one of our nation's driest regions and fastest growing populations.
It is my opinion that Alan Gardner and his companion commissioners,
Jim Eardley and Denny Drake, are best positioned to find that difficult
balance among competing interests, because no other decision maker is
forced to consider all of the interests at stake in planning for the
future.
It is the central role these commissioners played in crafting this
proposal which compels me to support enthusiastically the Washington
County Growth and Conservation Act. I congratulate Senator Bennett for
what I consider to be an outstanding job of putting this complicated
proposal into a sound legislative package, and I am a proud cosponsor.
Mr. Chairman, let's consider Washington County for a moment. It is
easily one of the most spectacular settings in the nation. It is host
to Zion National Park, the Dixie National Forest, the Pine Valley
Wilderness, Sand Hollow Reservoir, Snow Canyon State Park, beautiful
sand dunes, plenty of red rock cliffs, an important critical habitat
reserve for the desert tortoise, and many other valuable natural
resources.
For the most part, these resources sit on public lands. Only 16.1
percent of Washington county is private land, which must be shared by
the people of the county for their homes and businesses. Consider that
Washington County's population has doubled every decade since 1970, and
that during this period the share of private land has not changed
significantly. Clearly the county has some tough decisions to make, and
this legislation will go a long way to allowing the county to manage
its growth wisely.
Washington County is the driest county in the second driest state
in the union. This legislation would go a long way to helping to meet
these critical water needs. The county has a superb record of managing
its water resources in a way that not only is very efficient, but also
environmentally friendly, and that would continue with this bill.
The legislation also addresses the county's growing transportation
needs by laying out important new transportation corridors that would
best manage traffic concerns into the future.
Finally, the bill addresses the future recreational and
conservation needs of Washington County. The Washington County Growth
and Conservation Act strikes a careful balance between the need for new
motorized recreational routes and the establishment of new wilderness
areas.
I think what you'll find, Mr. Chairman, is that this bill is about
finding balance in a very complicated scenario. You'll find that
opponents of this legislation tend to focus on one particular interest
and feel free to ignore competing needs in Washington County. They are
not required to compromise, which is why they are not empowered by the
population to make these tough decisions.
Their voices should be heard, though, and I can tell you, Mr.
Chairman, that I have rarely seen a more public and inclusive policy
making process than the one that produced the Washington County Growth
and Conservation Act. Every conceivable interest was represented with a
seat at the table and included in all of the discussions, which, by the
way, were open to the general public. These public meetings were
numerous, in-depth, informative, and non scripted. There are some who
are unhappy with the outcome, but that is often inevitable with
difficult issues. All in all, Mr. Chairman, I believe this legislation
is fair and balanced.
Again, I thank you for holding this hearing and urge the
committee's expedited handling of the Washington County Growth and
Conservation Act.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., Governor, State of
Utah
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to submit
for the record my written testimony in support of S. 3636, the
Washington County Growth and Conservation Act. This legislation is not
only important to the citizens of Washington County, Utah, but it is
important to the entire State of Utah and other Western states. The
precedent this bill sets for grass-roots collaboration and
comprehensive planning is an example to all Western rural counties who
struggle to find a balance between the preservation of special places
on our vast public lands and the protection of the economic base that
allows these communities to thrive.
The Office of the Governor was an original sponsor of the
Washington County Land-Use Planning Project which led to this
legislation, and has been supportive of their process from the
beginning. S. 3636 is the product of a long and intensive effort by a
broad-based group of people. The end result of this collaboration is
important both because of the balance it strikes between preservation
and growth, and also because it takes significant steps to end the
long-standing stalemate over public lands in the State of Utah.
Washington County, Utah is experiencing tremendous growth. In
August of this year, the U.S. Census listed this county as the fastest
growing county in the United States. In the next ten years, it is
estimated that the county will almost double in size--from 140,000
people to nearly 250,000. This presents an extraordinary challenge to
local leaders, who must find a way to manage and direct this growth.
Washington County is an extraordinarily beautiful area made up of
just over 1.5 million acres. About 84% of that land is in some form of
Federal or State ownership. Nearly one-third of the county is currently
under some form of special, restrictive management. This legislation
would increase the amount of lands subject to restriction. It is
estimated that of the 16% of land in the county that is privately held,
less than half of that private land qualifies for acceptable
development. As a result, local leaders are faced with a tremendous
challenge: huge areas of public lands, some absolutely spectacular, and
very little private land available to accommodate the thousands of
people who are coming, and are yet to come, to this area of the State.
It is a formidable task to try to balance the preservation of special
places while at the same time endeavor to assure that growth will be
accommodated in a visionary manner to provide and maintain the high
quality of life which is unique to the area.
Clearly, one of the foremost objectives of this legislation is to
get a handle on growth. Communities in Washington County need the tools
to direct growth proactively. To this end, and as a natural extension
of their land--use planning process, County leaders have initiated what
they refer to as ``Vision Dixie.'' Vision Dixie is a comprehensive
growth planning effort modeled after the Envision Utah process used in
some of the major communities on the Wasatch Front to great success. It
has also been used very successfully in other areas of the country. I
am especially pleased to see this effort going forth in Southern Utah
because I served as Chairman of Envision Utah, and I value the work
they do in helping develop communities to achieve an equilibrium among
growth, economic development, open space, and preservation of special
areas. This is the aim of the Washington County effort, and the purpose
of S. 3636.
To implement this planning project, Washington County has entered
into an inter-local agreement with Envision Utah, the Oquirrh
Institute, the Nature Conservancy, and each community in the County to
create a county-wide growth footprint. This footprint is intended to
give the communities a vision for growth, provide standards to define
how that growth must occur, and provides the ordinances by which those
standards are accomplished. This process for creating the footprint
will be very inclusive, and will involve a great deal of public input.
Quite simply, it provides an opportunity for all the citizens of
Washington County to design their own future.
The Vision Dixie process and this legislation are inseparably
connected. The legislation makes it possible to achieve the aims of the
growth planning effort, and the Vision Dixie Process directs how the
elements of the legislation will be applied. One cannot work to its
fullest effect without the other, and because of the importance of this
overall effort to the future of Washington County, it is extremely
important for S. 3636 to pass.
There are some very important preservation elements in S. 3636. It
establishes more than 219,000 acres of permanent wilderness, including
93,780 acres of BLM wilderness, another 2642 acres of Forest Service
wilderness, and 123,340 acres of wilderness inside Zion National Park.
It creates the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area for the permanent
habitat and protection of the endangered Desert Tortoise, and
establishes 170 miles of the Virgin River as wild and scenic, the first
in Utah. It would also provide for the creation of the High Desert OHV
Trail. This trail has been in the planning and development stages for
several years. It will utilize established roads and trails on the west
side of the County to create a designated route for the OHV community,
thus greatly reducing the amount of resource damage that can occur with
the constantly increasing popularity of Off Highway Vehicles. This
legislation provides for the trail to be identified in an
environmentally sensitive manner, and also allows for funding for
development, monitoring, resource protection, and enforcement.
I am especially pleased with the manner in which the legislation
deals with the transference of some areas of public land to private
use. While this part of S. 3636 is patterned directly after the Clark
and Lincoln County, Nevada legislation, it has, nonetheless, been a
very complicated and controversial element of the bill. This section of
the Washington County legislation has been handled in a most careful
and appropriate way, with the county-wide growth planning effort,
Vision Dixie, identifying and directing every sale of land, as well as
establishing the standards under which any development may occur. I am
confident that the manner in which these land sales are dealt with in
this bill will become the standard for similar legislation in the
future.
In summary, I applaud the efforts of the Washington County
Commission, as well as the members of the Land-Use Planning Group. I
believe their vision and courage will pay substantial dividends in the
years to come. I am also pleased that this has been a bi-partisan
effort, with support from all members of our Utah Congressional
Delegation. This is very important, given the difficult and delicate
nature of the public land debate in our state. It speaks of the level
of success which S. 3636 has achieved in balancing difficult and
sometimes conflicting interests while addressing the needs of the lands
and the people who use them.
S. 3636 is a vital and long-awaited first step in our quest to move
forward in preserving our beautiful public lands. I urge you to give
your approving vote to this legislation.
Senator Craig. Senator Bennett, thank you very much for
those opening comments and also a general explanation of the
procedure you have gone through so we appreciate having that
information for the committee record.
Now let me turn to my colleagues from Nevada. Should I
operate as if we were in the 109th still or the 110th?
[Laughter.]
Senator Reid. 109th.
Senator Craig. All right. With that in mind, you're still
in the minority, Harry.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. And I'll turn to Senator Ensign for his
opening comments and then to our new majority leader, for his
comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing. My comments will be brief. I appreciate
all the work that this committee does and has done in the past,
helping us with our legislation. Senator Reid and I have worked
tirelessly. I really should say that our staffs have worked
tirelessly because they are the ones that do most of the work.
They have and it's both our staffs here in Washington as
well as our staffs in Nevada, sitting down with all of the
stakeholders, everybody from the environmental groups, the
local governments, developers, power companies, water
companies, Federal, State and local governments--everybody
involved, sitting down at the table and it is this special
relationship where the local folks come up with local solutions
that has paid our legislation work in the past and that's
exactly what we've done here.
We actually did town hall meetings out in White Pine County
on this bill, just like we did on the Lincoln County lands
bill. The hallmark of these pieces of legislation is no one
ever gets everything that they want but in the end, it's what
everybody can kind of live with and then they always look back
on the legislation and turn around and say, you know, that
actually turned out to be a lot better than we thought it was
going to be and it's funny, because all sides end up saying the
same thing about it. And the legislation that we have before us
today builds on what we have done in the past.
White Pine County has over 90 percent of its land owned by
the Federal Government. It's where my grandmother was born,
obviously many, many years ago and so it is a real special part
of the State. It's where Great Basin National Park is located
and some wonderful people reside there. What we've done is,
we've sat down and not only identified about 45,000 acres of
land for development, we expanded the Ely Shoshone Tribal
Lands. We expanded some State parks and we expanded some
sensitive wildlife areas. We protect the Great Basin National
Park. We enhance, in the bill, recreation and tourism
opportunities in a pretty economically depressed county.
We also improve Federal lands with fuel reduction and
wildlife habitat restoration.
We also did some amendments to the Southern Nevada Public
Lands Management Act, which are also good for the Federal lands
as well as our State.
The administration has come out against and they've
expressed some opposition to this legislation. I want to
address that very quickly. It really just has to do with
budgets. They think that a lot of the money should go into the
Treasury to help reduce the deficit and that's their
perspective on this. While I appreciate wanting to reduce the
deficit, we all know that if this money went into the Treasury,
it would not go to deficit reduction, it would just go to other
projects around the country.
We have carefully crafted, in looking at other examples in
Western States, for instance, oil and gas revenue in Western
States, 50 percent of the money goes to the Federal Government,
50 percent is the State government. That's fair and it has been
worked out over time. Well, the money that has been raised in
Nevada--we have carefully crafted--we make sure that 50 percent
of that money is spent on Federal lands and 50 percent of it is
spent on either State or county or on some other projects that
we have in our State. Five percent of the money goes to the
General Education Fund and other things but it's a 50/50 ratio
that is very consistent with what we do in other parts of the
Western United States and we've done that purposely to make
sure that it follows that model.
We also have to point out historically that our legislation
followed the Burton-Santini Act back in the early 1980's and so
it is very consistent with residents and we think it just
builds on what we have built in the past. There is a lot of
local cooperation. We're still just tweaking the legislation
just a little bit, a little more local input on it but overall,
we think we have a pretty good piece of legislation.
I want to thank my colleague, Senator Reid and Neil Kornze
of his staff along with my staff, John Lopez and Kevin
Kirkeby--they've done a great job on this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Senator Ensign follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Ensign, U.S. Senator From Nevada
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today. I
appreciate your personal assistance in scheduling a hearing on the
White Pine County Lands Bill at this late date in the session, and for
allowing your staff to travel to White Pine County earlier this year.
Mr. Chairman, White Pine County, Nevada, is located in rural
eastern Nevada. My great grandparents settled in White Pine County 100
years ago, so it is a very special place to my family and me. White
Pine County is one of the most beautiful places in my state. It is home
to Nevada's only national park, Great Basin National Park, with
stunning peaks and glaciers. The citizens of White Pine County are
fiercely independent and resilient. They have a great love for this
rugged and diverse land.
This bill is the product of bipartisan cooperation and it
represents a fair compromise between Senator Reid and me on a number of
issues relating to the protection of White Pine County's natural
resources. White Pine residents have spent over two years meeting with
a number of stakeholders to work through difficult issues. No one and
no group has been left out of this decision making process, and all
parties agree that it has been a fair process.
While not perfect, this measure strikes an appropriate balance
between economic development, privatizing federal lands, and
designating wilderness areas. On whole, the White Pine County
Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006 is a good piece
of legislation and it should be passed.
White Pine County, Nevada, has fewer than 10,000 residents. The
county has seen more prosperous times. The closure of mines has been
hard on the local economy. Additionally, the federal government manages
a high percentage of land in the county which makes it difficult to
foster growth. The bill seeks modest changes to the land ownership
pattern to allow White Pine County to grow and increase its tax base,
and gives residents some modest tools they need to prosper. We have
also provided the same tools to the Ely Shoshone Tribe. We accomplish
these goals through land disposal, natural resource and wildlife
conservation, tourism development, additional protection for the
wondrous Great Basin National Park, recreation opportunities, Nevada
State Parks expansions, wilderness designation, and a study to
determine if off highway vehicles should have a designated route
through the county.
The White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act
of 2006 is modeled on an innovative law that I co-authored as a member
of the House of Representatives with former Senator Richard Bryan. That
measure, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998
(SNPLMA), is widely regarded as a huge success. Two successor laws I
wrote with Senator Reid and Congressman Gibbons, the Clark County
Protection of Lands and Natural Resources Act of 2002 and the Lincoln
County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, followed
SNPLMA.
These county bills for Nevada can and should be replicated in every
county in Nevada. Many other Western states with large public land
holdings may benefit from our Nevada model. The premise is simple: not
all land is suitable for public ownership, and other public lands are
suitable for increased protection. We settle long-standing wilderness
issues by designating permanent wilderness areas and release wilderness
study areas to multiple use. Years of disagreements between developers,
multiple use advocates, governments, environmentalists,
conservationists, and other stakeholders are settled by these land
bills. Bringing together people from diverse interests has actually
proved to be a very healthy exercise in Nevada; it has fostered a
spirit of cooperation that will benefit generations of Nevadans to
come.
The White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act
of 2006 also proposes significant amendments to the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act of 1998. In some instances, we revise
provisions in current law that need improvement. We add new expenditure
categories for projects that will be beneficial to the citizens of
Nevada and our environment.
For example, an improvement we make to current law relates to local
governments in Clark and Lincoln Counties that use parks and trails
funds in the SNPLMA Special Account. The localities are having
difficulty building approved parks and trails projects. Local
governments have to front their own funds and seek reimbursement from
the Bureau of Land Management to build these projects. In some cases,
this means millions of dollars that have to be borrowed or taken from
other programs. To help local governments speed the development of
parks and trails, we propose to pay local governments up front,
eliminating a cumbersome reimbursement process. We can still maintain
the financial integrity of all expenditures.
Additionally, we have significantly streamlined the affordable
housing provisions in current law. Our revisions will make federal land
available at a discount for workforce housing and improve the lives of
hard working families across the state of Nevada.
For new expenditure categories, we have taken great care to propose
using the SNPLMA Special Account for critical needs, and in particular,
for projects and initiatives that have broad support from the
environmental and conservation community. We propose a clean water
project for Lake Mead in southern Nevada and hazardous fuels reduction
programs for two of the most heavily visited and fire prone areas in
Nevada: Lake Tahoe and the Spring Mountains. We seek to conserve
Colorado River water through the buyback of turf from public entities.
Eighty five percent of the Special Account is now used for
environmental and recreational purposes. We do not seek to break from
the purposes for which SNPLMA was established in 1998; doing so would
be controversial and harm the prospects of the passage of this bill.
Please allow me to address the Administration's main criticism of
this bill.
The Administration wants the land sale proceeds to go back to the
Treasury to reduce the deficit. I am a fiscal conservative and my
opposition to excessive government spending is well known. I would be
the first one to help the Administration in this regard if I thought it
would make a difference with our deficit. The reality--and everyone
knows this--is that these dollars will be spent recklessly somewhere
else if we direct them to the Treasury. Knowing that these dollars will
be spent elsewhere, I think it is responsible to keep these land sale
dollars in the county where they are generated so they will actually
benefit federal lands in that county. This Administration and previous
Administrations have not dedicated the financial resources necessary to
protect our federal lands. Congress has not dedicated the resources. If
it was not for the Nevada Congressional Delegation taking the
initiative to write these lands bills--they involve a lot of staff
work, time, and travel--we would not have, for example, $300 million at
Lake Tahoe to do restoration work on federal lands. I ask that you not
penalize Nevadans for finding innovative ways to improve public lands.
Other states who want this Nevada lands money should follow the example
we have set in Nevada and write their own bills.
In summary, the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and
Development Act is the culmination of two years of hard work and
spirited debate. Senator Reid and I, and our staffs, have worked
together closely and have made visits to and held meetings in White
Pine County on numerous occasions. We have received thousands of
comments and useful suggestions from people across Nevada. This bill
touches every corner of our beautiful state, and I am proud to have
been part of this endeavor. I look forward to working with my
colleagues and interested parties to improve this bill as necessary.
Senator Craig. Senator, thank you very much. Now let us
turn to Senator Reid.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Reid. Senator, you've been gracious in the past in
working with Senator Ensign and me on similar bills and making
yourself available for hearings much like this one. This is an
important piece of legislation for eastern Nevada and for the
entire State and White Pine County is our only national park,
the Great Basin National Park, which is really a wonder. It is
representative of everything that is in the Great Basin. It has
the oldest living thing in the world on it, the bristle cone
pine trees. It has a glacier. It is just representative of the
Great Basin and that's why people come from many, many miles.
It's not easy to get to the Great Basin National Park and yet,
the visitation is significant.
The bill is a product, as Senator Ensign mentioned, of a
long and inclusive process of ranchers, miners, hunters,
environmentalists, tribal officials, local electives and
others. Senator, the Clark County and Lincoln County bills--I
think that speaks volumes. One county has two million or more
people in it. The other has 5,000 people in it, Clark County
the two million. Lincoln County about 5,000 people are in it.
But it's part of the State of Nevada and the legislation that
we're asking you to approve today results in wilderness study
areas and creates a mechanism for the BLM to sell land that it
already has identified for disposal. We expand the Ely Shoshone
Indian Reservation and add some protections to the lands around
Great Basin National Park, and make reasonable additions to
three popular State parks. There are also important divisions
in this legislation that are needed to modernize the Southern
Nevada Public Lands Management Act.
Mr. Chairman, on public radio today--and I listen to public
radio every day and really admire what they put out but today
was not one of their best days for a good product. They talked
about Las Vegas's sprawl. Las Vegas has no sprawl. That is why
we're building all of these high-rise buildings. There is no
land to sprawl on. Public radio this morning reported that some
people are talking about this bill. Why should we add to the
sprawl?
As we speak, we have 35 buildings being constructed in Las
Vegas that go straight up. A few years ago, they would have
gone out. There's no place to go out. We have no land.
Approximately 90 percent of the land of the State of Nevada is
owned by the Federal Government. Forty percent of the air space
is controlled by the Federal Government. How much more do they
need?
White Pine County is still here. More than 94 percent of
the White Pint County is owned by the Federal Government. A
little over 5 percent is private land. Is it asking too much in
a county that is 95 percent Federal land, to put up a few acres
for private ownership? I don't think so.
Does that mean that White Pine County is going to have
urban sprawl?
We've worked on these bills. This bill, as partners,
Senator Ensign and I. He was able to bring constituencies to
the table that I couldn't and vice versa. What we ended up with
is legislation forged out of careful and deliberate compromise.
That is what legislation is all about. No one gets everything
they want in this bill but we believe that everyone will
benefit from what we have put forward here today.
This is a special place. Elk herds. As I've mentioned, the
bristle cone pines, North America's southern most glacier,
Lehman Caves. This legislation is important to the people of
White Pine County.
Some have criticized our legislation as a harmful precedent
because it might be followed by other States around the West. I
don't think that's a very good reason to object to the bill. I
am proud of the work that we did in our Clark County lands bill
with Senator Ensign. My only concern is maybe we didn't do
enough but we did as much as we could. There is no other State
in the union like Nevada. The situation in Nevada is unique.
Since we became a State in 1864, the Federal Government has
been our neighbor in every direction and now the direction is
even up. I repeat--40 percent of the air space is controlled by
the Federal Government. Ninety percent of the land,
approximately, is managed by Federal agencies. No other State
faces this situation.
The State with the next highest percentage of Federal land,
I believe, would be Utah or Alaska and they don't break the 70
percent mark. Senator Ensign and I went to Ely not too long ago
to talk to people there in that little community at a very
inconvenient time for them--convenient time for Senator Ensign
and I. We had 150 or 200 people show up in that little, small
community and we got a lot of feedback, most of it very
positive.
One of the key messages we heard that day is that years of
work have gone into this effort and they are ready to see this
legislation completed. I don't know what to say about the
administration opposing this bill, other than saying we are the
legislative branch of government and we have as much right to
move legislation forward as they have to oppose it and I would
hope that they would be more reasonable.
I feel confident that this is good for my constituencies. I
think it is good for the West and I would hope that we can get
this bill moved and reported as quickly as possible. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Well, Senator, thank you. All Senators
assembled, thank you all for being here. The committee is
pleased to accommodate you as we attempt to move this
legislation forward. We have a roll call vote underway on the
floor, the Bingaman amendment.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I failed to ask. May I have my
full statement made a part of the record?
Senator Craig. Without objection, it will be a part of the
record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator From Nevada
Mr. Chairman, thank you for taking the time to consider our
legislation today. As you know, the White Pine County bill is the third
in a line of major public lands bills that Senator Ensign and I have
crafted together. We greatly appreciated your support for the Clark
County bill in 2002 and the Lincoln County bill in 2004. Each of these
pieces of legislation has ensured protection for some of Nevada's most
incredible and untouched wild areas while also making economic
development possible in our urban and rural communities.
The White Pine County bill, like those before it, is the product of
a lengthy and inclusive process. Meetings and ground tours focused on
improving public land management in eastern Nevada have been taking
place for over 5 years. County Commissioners, ranchers,
environmentalists, tribal officials, off-highway vehicle advocates,
federal land managers, city officials, hunters and many others have
contributed to this legislation during that time.
There is no doubt that this bill is ambitious. In addition to
protecting more than 544,000 acres of backcountry as wilderness, it
initiates a 3-year study of possible off highway vehicle routes,
provides for the reasonable expansions of the Ely Shoshone Indian
Reservation, Cave Lake State Park, Charcoal Ovens State Park, and the
Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area. It also creates a process for
gradually increasing the amount of private land in White Pine County,
provides essential funding for landscape-scale habitat restoration
work, and adds important protections to the lands surrounding Great
Basin National Park.
The legislation also contains important improvements to the
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA). Passed into law
in 1998, SNPLMA has brought essential resources to Nevada for the
acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and the enhancement of
key public lands like the Desert National Wildlife Refuge, the Red Rock
National Conservation Area and the Lake Tahoe Basin. Today we are
proposing alterations that will help adjust SNPLMA to the changing
dynamics of the country's fastest growing area.
Some will point out that this type of comprehensive public lands
legislation is unusual--and it is. There's a good reason for that.
Unlike any other state in the union, 87 percent of the land in Nevada
is controlled or managed by the federal government. In White Pine
County the number is closer to 94 percent and encompasses some 5.7
million acres under federal management by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), the Forest Service, the National Park Service and the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
To put these numbers into perspective for people who have never
visited Nevada or the wide open spaces of the West, this one county is
bigger than the entire state of New Jersey. It is also larger than
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware or
Hawaii. And in almost all of those states the percentage of federal
land is in the single digits.
Our citizens and visitors benefit greatly from open access to these
vast public lands, but at the same time our towns are frequently boxed
in by federal land and our counties are severely limited in the tax
revenues available to them because of the large federal holdings. This
situation requires that the Nevada congressional delegation play an
active role in helping our communities meet their changing needs and
provides an important opportunity to protect and improve our most
sensitive public lands. By addressing these issues on a county-by-
county basis we feel that we are better able to strike a fair balance
between conservation, growth and other competing interests.
Like similar legislation that we have worked on in recent years, we
do not expect anyone to endorse every title in this bill. When it comes
to the topics of growth, conservation and stewardship in rural Nevada
there are many strong and often opposing views. We believe that this
legislation offers a solid middle ground and a path forward for the
people of White Pine County.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing this opportunity
today. We believe this legislation is a tough compromise that deserves
your support. Below I will provide some background on each of the
titles in our bill:
Title I--Land Sales
The first title in this bill creates a mechanism to increase the
amount of privately held land in white Pine County. Currently, 94
percent of the land in the county is managed by federal agencies. By
increasing the total amount of private land in White Pine County, we
create opportunities for growth and economic development that will also
allow the county to provide greater support to its residents through an
expanded tax base.
Our bill calls for up to 45,000 acres of land currently managed by
the BLM to be made available for sale in reasonable increments. Each
year a minor portion of the total acreage will be made available for
public auction after a joint selection is made by the county and the
BLM. As part of the land sale authority, the county has the power to
halt the annual disposal of land if it deems that action to be
appropriate or necessary.
There have been some concerns raised that the number of acres
authorized for sale in this legislation is higher than the total number
of acres listed as suitable for disposal in the forthcoming Resource
Management Plan (RMP) for this area. I want to be clear that the 45,000
acre figure in our legislation is not, as some fear, a directive to the
BLM to find additional lands to be sold above and beyond what is
already deemed to be suitable for disposal in the RMP. This higher
number simply creates a framework for land sales under the existing RMP
and any acreage, up to the designated number, that the BLM might
identify for disposal through regular order in future plans.
Similar to the Lincoln County bill, the funds raised from land
sales under this authority are directed towards essential conservation
efforts and for the implementation of various mandates in this bill,
including an off highway vehicle trail study, designation of new
wilderness areas, and the conveyance of lands into trust for tribal
use. A minor portion is also made available to the county for essential
uses.
Title II--Wilderness
I am very proud of the work we've done on the wilderness portion of
this legislation. Working closely with ranchers, hunters, the federal
agencies and the White Pine County Commission, we've been able to
identify over 544,000 acres that are suitable for protection as
wilderness. At the same time, 67,000 acres of BLM wilderness study
areas are set to be released.
Twenty years ago I started work on another wilderness bill that
included lands in White Pine County. Two wilderness areas in White Pine
County came out of that process--Mount Moriah and Currant Mountain. At
that time, the very idea of wilderness was still unfamiliar to many
Nevadans and was seen by some as cause for alarm. I'm proud to say that
today the situation is quite different. A great number of people in
White Pine County have now embraced wilderness and the ways in which
wilderness designation can compliment, and even improve, the land on
which they have hunted, hiked and grazed for generations.
Since the introduction of this bill we have heard from many
hunters, ranchers, miners and other concerned citizens about various
minor boundary adjustments. We take this input seriously and are
working to ensure that everyone's voice is heard. For instance, based
on feedback we've received, boundaries along the west side of the
proposed Schell Creek Range Wilderness Area were placed one-tenth of a
mile uphill of the Ranger Trail and 30 feet from the boundary of
private land that runs north of Cave Lake over to Success Summit. These
are small points when we discuss them here, but they can make a world
of difference on the ground.
Title III--Transfers of Jurisdiction
The third title of this bill makes two transfers of land between
Federal agencies that will improve public land management in White Pine
County. The first is a transfer of approximately 645 acres from the BLM
to the Fish and Wildlife Service, to be managed as part of the Ruby
Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The land became an inholding after the
Fish and Wildlife Service purchased land surrounding the BLM parcel.
The second transfer of roughly 117,000 acres from the Forest
Service to the BLM is land that currently surrounds the Great Basin
National Park in a donut shape. Under the present arrangement, the
National Park Service, the Forest Service and the BLM manage an awkward
patchwork of land. In some areas all three agencies have holdings
within the span of a single mile. This division of management and labor
makes proper stewardship complicated and inefficient. Of the land
proposed to be transferred from the Forest Service to the BLM, roughly
50,000 acres will be withdrawn from mineral and land laws and 70,000
acres will be designated as the Highland Ridge Wilderness Area.
Title IV--Land Conveyances
Title IV provides for the conveyance of land to two existing state
parks and a state wildlife management area. The Charcoal Ovens State
Park will receive approximately 640 acres of BLM land to expand its
current holdings. This land is already managed by the state through a
Recreation and Public Purposes lease. Cave Lake State Park will also
receive a conveyance of Forest Service land to help improve management
of this popular area. More than 100,000 visitors travel to this park
each year. Our conveyance is designed to expand the park boundaries to
encompass areas on Forest Service land that have become popular camping
and overflow areas, but which the state park's full-time rangers do not
have the authority to patrol and manage. Because of serious budget and
staff constraints, the Forest Service has also proved unable to
properly manage this area. We have worked closely with the state to
address their management needs while keeping the conveyance of Forest
Service land to a minimal size. In August I toured this site and the
proposed boundaries and believe them to be sound.
This title also directs the conveyance of roughly 6,200 acres of
BLM land to the State of Nevada for an expansion of the Steptoe Valley
Wildlife Management Area. These additions will maximize management
options for this area while also creating a safety buffer between
hunters and future residential and commercial development.
In addition to these conveyances of land to the State, the bill
also provides for two small but important conveyances that will provide
expanded economic opportunity for White Pine County. These include up
to 200 acres for the expansion of the White Pine County Industrial Park
and up to 1,500 acres for the planned expansion of the White Pine
County Airport. Any funds collected from the lease, sale or conveyance
of either the industrial park or airport lands will be directed for
public uses.
Title V--OHV Trail Study
The fifth title builds on the designation of the Silver State Off
Highway Vehicle Trail in Lincoln County by authorizing a 3-year study
for a possible extension of the trial into and through White Pine
County. If the Secretary of the Interior, working with local citizens
and other stakeholders, is able to identify a route for the trail that
would not significantly impact wildlife, natural or cultural resources,
an extension of the Silver State Trail will be designated at the
conclusion of the study. We believe that this proposal carefully
balances the interests of the off road community, those concerned with
conservation values, and those who currently use the land for grazing
and similar uses.
Title VI--Tribal Conveyance
Perhaps no issue addressed by this legislation has been more
discussed and debated than the conveyance of BLM land to be held in
trust by the United States for the Ely Shoshone Tribe. Currently, the
tribe holds 100 acres in two separate parcels within Ely city limits.
For 3 years meetings have taken place in White Pine County to discuss
possible configurations and areas for a tribal expansion. Local
residents and interested parties have expressed strong feelings on all
sides of this issue, and our proposal is stronger as a result of this
dialogue.
The Ely Shoshone Tribe--one of many Western Shoshone tribal
communities in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and California--has about 500
members, most of whom live in the city of Ely. Like many tribes, the
Ely have a number of modest commercial enterprises and provide a range
of governmental, health and educational services to its members,
including a language preservation program that brings youth, members
and tribal elders together.
This bill transfers roughly 3,500 acres in four separate parcels
into trust for the benefit of the Ely Shoshone Tribe. Over half of this
acreage is contained in one parcel to the west of Ward Mountain. This
larger area is designated exclusively for traditional tribal uses, such
as ceremonial celebrations and gatherings and pine nut picking.
The conveyance also includes two parcels to the south of Ely and
one approximately 10 miles north of McGill on highway 93. These lands
are available to be used by the tribe for residential and commercial
purposes. Importantly, the tribe and the county have both pledged their
intention to work together to overcome any outstanding concerns related
to zoning, infrastructure and other issues related to the development
of these lands.
The placement of these conveyances will allow the tribe to be a
partner in the growth and economic development of White Pine County
while also ensuring that the city of Ely has sufficient room to grow
south along highway 93. We have taken special care to ensure that
existing developments, like the KOA, have room to expand.
This conveyance represents a tough compromise between many
important interests. Some have proposed that the tribe should receive
in excess of 20,000 acres of land in and around Ely. Others have fought
to block the tribe from receiving a single acre. We do not expect that
the conveyance in this bill will please anyone completely, but we do
believe it is a fair compromise that addresses the main concerns of all
the concerned parties.
Title VII--Rangeland Restoration
Title VII of the bill addresses the invasion of non-native species
and the unnatural encroachment of pinon and juniper pine in eastern
Nevada by making funds from the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act special account available for the implementation of the Eastern
Nevada Landscape Restoration Project in White Pine and Lincoln
Counties. In addition to funding this vital program we have authorized
the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to work with the
Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition and the Great Basin Institute in
carrying out landscape-scale restoration efforts necessary to restore
the health of eastern Nevada's rangelands.
In the interest of understanding and fully addressing the ecosystem
changes that are taking place all across the Great Basin, this title
also authorizes a feasibility study for an interagency research
facility and experimental rangeland in eastern Nevada.
Title VIII--Amendments to the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act
Since the passage of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act
(SNPLMA) in 1998, thousands of acres of BLM land have been auctioned in
southern Nevada. These sales have produced significant funding for
conservation efforts, enhancements to our most prized public lands, and
the acquisition of sensitive lands throughout our State.
Now, 8 years after its passage, we are seeking to update this
legislation so that it continues to serve the full interests of the
people of Nevada, our public lands, and the federal agencies that
administer the programs funded by the original legislation. Here I
highlight some of the key changes.
In this bill we provide funding for two separate 10-year hazardous
fuels reduction programs, one for the Spring Mountains and one for the
Lake Tahoe Basin including the adjacent lands in the Carson Range in
Washoe and Douglas Counties and Carson City. The federal government has
made a major investment to restoring Lake Tahoe and the surrounding
basin in recent years. The hazardous fuels reduction program we propose
is necessary to protect that ongoing investment and to protect the
lake. A major fire in the basin would set back water clarity and other
conservation efforts many years, and perhaps decades.
We also provide funding for the implementation of the Clark County
Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, make Washoe County eligible for
the acquisition of a popular open space area, and make funding
available to help improve the water quality in Lake Mead and to provide
a sustainable future for the Las Vegas Wash.
In order to make SNPLMA more manageable for the agencies and
municipalities that administer the special account and its many
programs, we have included authority that allows all federal agencies
that carry out SNPLMA projects to get reimbursed for their direct
costs. We have also provided an important authority for the BLM to use
SNPLMA funds to properly clear and protect vacant parcels in the Las
Vegas Valley from dumping.
One of the key provisions in this title calls for the Department of
Interior to distribute funds for approved SNPLMA projects no later than
60 days after a transfer of funds is requested by the recipient.
Currently, after a SNPLMA project has been awarded by the Secretary of
Interior, the recipient is not able to access the funds except as a
reimbursement. What this means is that a recipient must raise
sufficient funds to cover the cost of the approved project, spend those
funds, and then seek a reimbursement. This system creates unnecessary
delays and results in increased construction costs. It also causes
confusion in the annual federal budgeting process by creating the false
appearance of substantial funds on the federal books when those funds
have, in fact, already been obligated.
Another important change that we make to SNPLMA is a complete
rewrite of the legislation's affordable housing title. While language
was included in the original legislation that allows for land to be
acquired at less than fair market value for the development of
affordable housing, it took the BLM over 4 years to promulgate the
guidelines for implementing this provision. Since that time no eligible
party has successfully used these guidelines to secure land and build
affordable housing anywhere in Nevada.
With an estimated 170,000 housing units needed in southern Nevada
for affordable and workforce housing in the next 10 years, immediate
action is needed. As a result, we have struck the largely unworkable
language from the original legislation. We have replaced it with an
authority allowing all legitimate interested parties to work with the
BLM to pursue land for the development of affordable and workforce
housing. We also take a further step and require that any parcel of
Federal land over 200 acres in size that is auctioned in the Las Vegas
Valley a minimum of 5 percent of the housing units be designated for
affordable and workforce housing.
We feel that there is a unique opportunity within the framework of
SNPLMA to address affordable housing needs in southern Nevada and we
stand ready to work through any outstanding issues with this provision.
Title IX--Great Basin Heritage Route
Title IX calls for the creation of the Great Basin Heritage Route.
I am pleased to report that in the time since the introduction of this
bill, another legislative vehicle containing this language reached the
president's desk and it has been signed into law.
conclusion
In sum, Mr. Chairman, the White Pine County Conservation,
Recreation and Development Act of 2006 is a far-reaching and complex
piece of legislation. By making forward looking improvements to public
land management and the stewardship of our shared natural resources, we
believe we have crafted a bill that will serve the best interests of
the people of White Pine County, eastern Nevada and our entire State.
I thank the Chairman for allowing us to appear before his committee
today. I look. forward to working with the committee to move this
legislation forward.
Senator Craig. I don't know what the immediate future looks
like. It doesn't appear--at least it is not yet announced that
there are stacked votes.
Is it 3 o'clock? Well, I'm going to ask everyone to cool
their heels. We will put the committee in recess and I'll vote
early and often and in this case, it is legal and be back here
to reconvene the committee. Those who have come to testify on
these two pieces of legislation, the committee will stand in
recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Craig. Thank you all very much for your patience.
Let us move on with this hearing and I will call the first
panel.
Chad Calvert, Principle Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land
and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, along with
Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, USDA.
Gentlemen, if you would come forward, please.
Thank you much. Chad, if you would proceed, we would
appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF CHAD CALVERT, PRINCIPLE DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on S. 3636, the Washington County
Growth and Conservation Act and S. 3772, the White Pine County
Conservation, Recreation and Development Act. The
administration supports the goals of both of these bills
because they will help resolve many local land tenure issues.
Our concerns with the bills are particularly limited to revenue
allocation and distribution and to some technical issues that
we believe can be fixed here in this Committee.
These concerns are more fully discussed in my written
statement so I will just touch on some highlights here and I
would be happy to answer questions you have.
The Washington County bill and the White Pine County bill
would help resolve many public land issues. We have stated our
support for the Members of Congress to work with local
government and interested parties to resolve longstanding
issues surrounding the wilderness study areas and other
controversial land use problems.
With regard to the Washington County bill, title I of the
bill would provide for disposal of roughly 25,000 acres of
public lands out of BLM management and into private ownership.
The Department supports the general proposition of making some
public lands available for community growth where it is
necessary and appropriate but we would urge Congress to modify
this bill to allow for public process and identification of
lands identified under section 102(b)(2). We trust in that
process and it actually has been proposed in the White Pine
County bill.
Title II of the bill would designate more than 217,000
acres of wilderness on Park Service and BLM lands in Washington
County. It would release roughly 11,000 acres back to multiple
use management, 92,937 acres of wilderness would be on BLM
lands, 123,500 acres of wilderness on National Park Service
lands and 2,600 acres of land in the Forest Service. As we have
routinely stated, Congress has the sole authority to designate
public domain lands to be managed permanently as wilderness and
this administration supports these efforts in this legislation.
The legislation would also amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act by adding approximately 170 miles of segments of the Virgin
River and its tributaries within and adjacent to Zion National
Park and to the Wild and Scenic Rivers system. The Department
supports the designation of these segments.
Section 401 of the bill addresses a number of issues
related to utility corridors, transportation corridors and
rights-of-way grants for water-related facilities. It is our
understanding that most of these corridors are existing
corridors. Our greatest concern is that one of the areas
identified for a flood control reservoir is in the Fort Pearce
area near the Arizona State line. We have noted the possibility
that historic Fort Pearce could be impacted by that
designation. The BLM suggests there are other potential sites
for flood control along the Fort Pearce wash further upstream.
We would like to work with the Committee to modify this
language to provide for some planning prior to identification
and conveyance of public lands for this purpose.
The Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas designated by
title VI would be the first NCA in the State of Utah. 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 elements are included in this bill and we
support this designation in this legislation.
With regard to White Pine County, title I provides for a
process to dispose of up to 45,000 acres of public lands out of
BLM management and into private ownership. We support the
proposition of disposing of public lands to provide for
community growth where appropriate and to identify these lands
through a public process.
This bill would designate a number of wilderness areas
within White Pine County, including over 284,000 acres of BLM-
managed lands and 260,000 acres managed by the Forest Service.
In addition, nearly 68,000 acres of Wilderness Study Areas
managed by the BLM would be released for multiple use. The
administration supports the efforts of the Nevada delegation to
arrive at boundaries through consensus and compromise.
Title III provides for administrative jurisdiction
transfers from the BLM to the Fish and Wildlife Service and
from the Forest Service to the BLM, both of which we support
because we believe that they will improve manageability. Title
IV provides for the conveyance of Federal lands for State and
county parks, which we support insofar as they affect the BLM-
managed lands.
The Ely Shoshone Tribe currently has a reservation totaling
approximately 100 acres in two separate parcels. This bill
would add four additional pieces of land totaling 3,500 acres
to the reservation.
The largest of the parcels, over 2,000 acres, is reserved
for ceremonial uses. The Department supports increasing the
Tribe's land base but the Government does not generally hold
property improvements in trust and this section should be
modified to reflect that.
With regard to the amendments to changes in the Southern
Nevada Public Lands Management Act--the administration opposes
adding more uses for money in that account. The new purposes in
this bill would provide an additional authorization to use
money for Great Basin restoration, local water conservation and
development projects, local recreation opportunities and
hazardous fuels reduction projects. The administration believes
funding for these projects should go through the normal
budgeting process where they can be better evaluated in terms
of Federal priorities and the President's budget.
Finally, the Department does not support replacing the
existing affordable housing provisions in the new standards.
The BLM has made progress working with local governments and
other Federal agencies under the existing standards and we are
concerned that changing those standards now will complicate
that process.
With regard to the special accounts that would be
established for revenues in both the White Pine County bill and
the Washington County bill, the administration believes that
all American taxpayers should receive some benefit from the
sale of public lands and we would like to work with the
sponsors and the committee to determine an appropriate
percentage of proceeds to return to the Treasury. The
administration is also opposed to provisions that require
interest to be deposited in the special accounts as the
Department of Treasury advises us to require them to borrow
money from other accounts to pay the interest.
I appreciate having the opportunity to present these views
and we stand ready to assist in resolving the issues raised in
my testimony. I applaud the work of the delegations and look
forward to moving both pieces of legislation forward.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Calvert on S. 3636 and S.
3772 follow:]
Prepared Statement of Chad Calvert, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior
S. 3636
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 3636, the Washington
County Growth and Conservation Act of 2006. This bill attempts to
resolve a wide range of public land issues in Washington County, Utah.
We strongly support the efforts of the Utah delegation to resolve the
longstanding issues surrounding Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and a
number of other public land issues. The Department of the Interior
supports the goals of the legislation, but opposes provisions that
require lands to be sold, regardless of whether they have been
identified for disposal. Furthermore, the Administration believes that
all taxpayers should receive some benefit from land sales. We have
concerns with the bill's revenue distribution and will work with the
Committee during the legislative process to determine an appropriate
percentage of proceeds to be returned to the Treasury. The Department
views this legislation as a good approach to resolving some of the
identified public land issues in Washington County, Utah and wants to
continue working with the sponsors and with other interested members of
Congress on some aspects of the bill.
background
Washington County, Utah, located in the southwest corner of the
State bordering Nevada and Arizona, covers nearly 2,500 square miles,
and has been one of the fastest growing counties in the U.S. With a
population of only about 10,000 in the mid-1960s, today Washington
County has over 100,000 residents. At the same time, more than 75
percent of the County is Federal land, managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the National Park
Service (NPS). In addition, the County includes lands held in trust by
the Federal government for the Shivwits Indian Tribe and lands owned by
the State of Utah. How those lands are managed is a critical issue to
the people of Washington County; this bill addresses a wide range of
land management policies.
A number of provisions of this legislation have the potential to
impact the Shivwits Indian Tribe with their reservation in southwestern
Washington County. The Department would urge the sponsors to resolve
any remaining issues with the Tribe regarding traditional access and
other cultural and religious issues.
The bill as introduced references maps without dates. However, we
have been informed by the sponsors of the bill that it is their
intention to reference the three regional maps dated July 18, 2006, and
created by the BLM at the request of Senator Bennett. Therefore, this
testimony is based on those maps.
Title I--Land Disposal
Title I of S. 3636 provides for the disposal of nearly 25,000 acres
of public lands out of BLM management and into private ownership. The
Department supports the general proposition of making some public lands
available for community growth where it is necessary and appropriate,
but cannot support requirements to dispose of a specific amount of
public lands that may not be suitable for disposal.
Under S. 3636 the disposal of land would take place in three
phases. Disposal for the first two phases is by auction and, for phase
three, by auction or through exchange. In the first phase, lands are to
be disposed of within the first year after enactment of the bill
(described in section 102(h)(I)(A)(i) as ``First Directed Sale''
lands), and include 1,125 acres of BLM-managed land specifically
identified on the map in 15 separate, mostly smaller parcels. The
majority of these lands have been preliminarily identified by the BLM
for disposal through the 1999 St. George Resource Management Plan
(SGRMP). The local BLM had previously reviewed these lands for cultural
and historic issues, threatened or endangered (T&E) species conflicts
and other potential values that could preclude a conveyance out of
federal ownership, and believes that sale of these lands can be
accomplished. Surveys and appraisals will be required; therefore an 18-
month window, rather than the one year contemplated in the bill, would
be more realistic.
In the second phase, the lands to be disposed of within the five
years following the first disposal outlined above (described in section
102(b)(1) as ``Directed Sale Lands'') include approximately 3,262 acres
specifically identified in one small and two large parcels. Most of
these lands had been preliminarily identified for disposal through the
SGRMP. However, that identification was only preliminary. The local BLM
has been made aware of conflicts on these lands, which include cultural
resources as well as the presence of T&E species. Section 102(i) of the
legislation anticipates these problems by allowing the Secretary of the
Interior to place restrictive covenants on lands sold in order to
protect the interests of the United States, including cultural or T&E
species. The language gives the Secretary sufficient discretion and we
do not oppose it.
Finally, the third phase includes lands to be disposed of not
before 2010 (described in section 102(b)(2) as ``Lands Eligible for
Consideration Under Section 102 Disposal''). This includes over 372,000
acres from which at least 20,000 acres are to be identified for
disposal and sold or exchanged (no upper limit is established by the
legislation for disposal lands). The selections of the specific parcels
are to be reached jointly by the BLM and the County. The legislation
specifically excludes from consideration any lands that are designated
as wilderness by this Act, the National Conservation Area designated by
this Act, or any areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs).
I would note that without additional legislative direction, the BLM
will look to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) for
guidelines to determine the suitability of lands to be disposed. In
this case, the BLM has not yet identified 20,000 acres as suitable for
disposal in this area and believes it may be difficult to identify that
many acres that are suitable pursuant to FLPMA and in developable
areas. For example, there is a high concentration of listed threatened
or endangered species on BLM-managed land within Washington County and
four of the ten listed species are endangered plants that depend on
public land habitat to avoid extinction. Similarly the density of
unique and special cultural resources in the identified area is
exceptionally high. We recognize that the Department has discretion on
the selection of lands for disposal, but point out this may conflict
with the apparent non-discretionary target stated in Section 102(b)(2).
The Department could not support this third phase unless the bill is
modified to give BLM the flexibility to establish a discretionary
disposal target through a public process.
In addition to these concerns with the disposal language, we also
have concerns with language on the use of sales revenues. Section 103
of S. 3636 addresses the disposition of the proceeds from the sale of
lands directed in section 102. Specifically, it directs that 15 percent
of the proceeds be distributed to State and County entities, while 85
percent would be retained by the Federal government. Among the allowed
uses of the Federal government's share are: reimbursement of costs to
prepare the lands for sale, acquisition of State and private inholdings
within the NCA proposed by Title VI, various conservation projects on
Federal land in Washington County, and other costs related to
implementation of the Act. Section 103(b) authorizes interest to be
earned on amounts deposited into the special account. As stated above,
we'd like to work with the Committee to address our concerns with this
section.
In addition, the Administration does not support section 103(b),
which allows the land sales account to earn interest. The Department of
the Treasury strongly opposes such provisions, which effectively
require the Treasury to borrow more funds to pay this interest.
We would like the opportunity to address a few technical, but
nonetheless significant, issues. For example, section 102(g) would
withdraw over 375,000 acres in Washington County from the public land
laws, the mining laws, mineral leasing laws, and mineral materials
laws. Notably, this would preclude mineral materials sales for items
such as sand and gravel--critical for many infrastructure needs on an
unnecessarily broad swath of land. We would suggest modifying this
language to allow BLM to use its general segregation and withdrawal
authority once lands have been identified for disposal.
Title II--Wilderness Areas
The bill would designate a number of wilderness areas within
Washington County including approximately 123,504 acres of wilderness
to be managed by the National Park Service within Zion National Park,
approximately 92,937 acres of wilderness to be managed by the BLM in 13
individual areas, and 2,643 acres of Forest Service wilderness. In
addition, the bill would release 11,370 acres of BLM-managed lands from
Wilderness Study Area status and would return them to the multiple
public uses authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA).
The BLM-managed lands that would be designated wilderness by S.
3636 include areas of rugged beauty, solitude, and important wildlife
habitat. In the northeastern part of the County, the proposed Deep
Creek and Deep Creek North wilderness areas consist of sheer canyon
walls dropping to dramatic year-round rivers. Hanging gardens with
wildflowers compete with a variety of raptors; including bald eagles
and giant California condors, for the hiker's attention. The steep and
rugged Hurricane Cliffs form the most outstanding feature of the
proposed Blackridge Wilderness. Soaring in elevation by 2,000 feet in
under a mile, the area is a magnet for hikers, hunters and
photographers.
In the southeast, Canaan Mountain's rugged topography includes
peaks and colorful vermilion cliffs which form the southern gateway to
Zion National Park. The scenic vistas available from these peaks
increasingly attract recreationists.
Within the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area (NCA) proposed by
Title VI of the bill, lie the proposed Cottonwood Canyon Wilderness on
the east and Red Mountain Wilderness on the west. The Cottonwood Canyon
Wilderness (and the adjoining Forest Service-managed Cottonwood Forest
Wilderness) forms the spectacular ``front range'' between the city of
St. George to the south and the Pine Valley Mountains to the north.
Within minutes of downtown St. George, this area is prized for its
primitive recreational opportunities. It lies within the Red Cliffs
Desert Reserve, which has been federally designated as habitat to
protect the threatened desert tortoise. It is also home to peregrine
falcons and state-listed species such as the Gila Monster. The aptly
named Red Mountain Wilderness provides a scenic backdrop to the
communities of Ivins and Santa Clara and is a popular destination for
local citizens.
The bill also designates the Cougar Canyon Wilderness located in
the northwest corner of Washington County. Abutting the Nevada state
line, this wilderness area would connect with the Tunnel Spring
Wilderness in Lincoln County, Nevada, designated by Public Law 108-424.
The area is dominated by wooded canyons and low mountain peaks and its
designation would form a more manageable unit across state lines.
We applaud the hard work of the sponsor and other members of the
Utah delegation in reaching consensus on BLM wilderness designation and
WSA release. Congress has the sole authority to designate lands to be
managed permanently as wilderness and we believe these areas are
manageable as such. There are some technical issues related to Title II
that we would like the opportunity to clarify. We would also like the
opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee on possible
minor boundary adjustments to ensure efficient manageability.
S. 3636 would also designate 123,743 acres of Zion National Park as
wilderness. The lands proposed for wilderness designation are similar
to those that were included in a proposal to recommend wilderness for
the park that was originally transmitted to the President on June 5,
1974, by then Secretary of the Interior Rogers CB Morton and in the
2001 General Management Plan (GMP) for the park. The 1974 proposal
recommended designation of 120,620 acres of the park as wilderness.
Differences in the acreage figures between the 1974 transmittal and
S. 3636 are the result of land acquisition in the park that has taken
place since 1974, acquisition of water and grazing rights, and
termination of non-conforming uses. Additional lands within the park
consisting of approximately 9,000 acres, but located in Kane County,
have also been recommended for wilderness designation and were included
in the 1974 transmittal and the 2001 GMP. Although the Department
supports the wilderness designation for the park included in S. 3636,
we suggest that the bill be amended to include this additional,
previously recommended wilderness so that all the lands proposed for
wilderness designation within the park are designated.
The four small units surrounding Zion National Park vary in size
from 32 to 663 acres. These are logical extensions of the proposed
wilderness areas within Zion National Park and are appropriate for
wilderness designation. The legislation transfers administrative
jurisdiction for the largest of these parcels, Watchman Wilderness, to
the National Park Service but leaves the other three isolated pieces of
wilderness with the BLM. Transferring all three of these small
parcels--Beartrap Canyon Wilderness (40 acres), Goose Creek Wilderness
(98 acres), and Taylor Creek Wilderness (32 acres)--to the National
Park Service could make land management more efficient and would reduce
confusion for the public. Transfer of these lands to Zion will improve
their management and enhance the opportunities for visitor enjoyment of
these special areas.
Title III--Wild and Scenic River Designation
The legislation amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by adding
approximately 170 miles of segments of the Virgin River and its
tributaries within and adjacent to Zion National Park to the Wild and
Scenic Rivers system. Seven of the segments are partially or wholly on
BLM-managed lands while the remaining 32 segments are wholly within
Zion National Park. All of the segments of the rivers that are
recommended for designation as wild, scenic, or recreational rivers
were found eligible and suitable for inclusion within the Wild and
Scenic River System through the Zion National Park 2001 GMP and through
the BLM St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan completed in
March 1999. The Department supports the designation of these segments.
Title IV--Utility Corridors and Rights-of-Way
Section 401 of the bill addresses a number of issues related to
utility corridors, transportation corridors and rights-of-way grants
for water-related facilities.
The utility corridors established under section 401(a) total over
900 linear miles at a width of approximately 1/2 mile in most
locations. The corridors are intended to be used for utilities, water
infrastructure, and transportation purposes. While many of the miles of
corridors cross BLM-managed public lands and Forest Service-managed
lands, large segments also cross private land, Indian tribal land, and
land within Zion National Park. The proposal indicates seven segments
that cross the Shivwits Indian Reservation. In addition, some of the
corridors on the map appear to be duplicative. We believe a close and
careful review of these corridors needs to be completed before this
legislation proceeds to markup. We note that the Secretary is allowed
to collect funds from the users of these corridors for cost-recovery,
which we support.
In addition, the Secretary is charged with identifying a
transportation corridor either through or around the Red Cliffs NCA
designated by Title VI of this bill. Location of a transportation
corridor in this type of sensitive area could be problematic or
controversial. The Department would comply with NEPA and would proceed
in full consultation with all affected Federal, state and local
interests on this study. We appreciate the legislative language being
clear on this point.
Finally, Title IV establishes ten areas totaling 8,844 acres as
rights-of-way for water-related projects including reservoirs, canals,
wells, storage and other related facilities. The areas range in size
from 39 acres to two large areas of 1,770 and 5,408 acres. We have a
few general concerns and one specific concern with these rights-of-way
grants.
Under Title V of FLPMA the BLM has the authority to grant rights-
of-way for a wide variety of uses including: roads, powerlines,
pipelines, communications sites and reservoirs. The applicants for
these rights-of-way pay both administrative cost recovery fees as well
as rentals. In the case of linear rights-of-way, rent is determined by
a published schedule. Rent for aereal rights-of-way is based on
appraised value. Municipal utilities are charged rent if their
principal source of revenue is customer charges.
In general, the legislation appears to allow the BLM to charge
administrative cost recovery for these grants; however it does not
allow the BLM to charge rent. We believe it is appropriate that the
legislation either allow for the payment of rent, or provide for the
outright purchase at appraised value of these lands by the water
district. In addition, the grants for use are made in perpetuity. If
the rights-of-way are not provided for outright purchase, we believe it
would be more appropriate to make these easements dependent on their
actual use and approval by any State or Federal agencies and for the
life of the facility--so as not to permanently encumber the public
lands for projects that may never be developed.
Our greatest specific concern is that one of the areas identified
for a reservoir is in the Ft. Pearce area near the Arizona state line.
A reservoir or flood control project on this site could inundate
historic Ft. Pearce which is a National Historic Register site, as well
as parking areas, a well-used designated OHV trail, interpretive
displays and other important cultural sites including rock art panels.
We believe that there are potential sites for flood control along the
Ft. Pearce wash further upstream that would result in far less negative
impacts to the resources. We would like to work with the Committee to
identify a better site.
Title V--High Desert OHV Trail
Title V directs the Secretary to develop a travel plan within two
years of enactment of this legislation to designate an OHV trail in
Washington County. The trail is to be established on existing roads and
trails. This trail has the potential to be a significant draw for
tourism and will allow visitors and residents another way to experience
and enjoy their public lands while hopefully minimizing OHV use outside
of designated trail networks. We support the development of this trail.
The agencies would like to combine the final travel plan and the
management plan into a single document and would request the sponsor
extend the time for' developing the plan to three years.
Title VI--Red Cliffs National Conservation Area
The Red Cliffs National Conservation Area (NCA) would be the first
NCA in the State of Utah. 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 that
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
Red Cliffs NCA proposal honors this spirit and the Department supports
its designation.
The proposed Red Cliffs NCA would overlay the existing Red Cliffs
Desert Reserve which was designed as a part of the Washington County
Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) adopted in 1996. The
HCP protects important Desert Tortoise habitat while also allowing
continued development in St. George and nearby communities. As
directed, the BLM has acquired nearly 8,000 acres of State and private
inholdings within the Reserve from willing sellers.
In addition to providing important habitat for the recovery of the
desert tortoise and other listed species such as the Shivwits milkvetch
and the Woundfin Minnow and Virgin River Chub, the proposed NCA is a
popular area for recreationists. Over 130 miles of trails provide
excellent opportunities for hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrians
while ensuring compatibility with the species' recovery. The boundaries
of the proposed NCA include nearly 44,000 acres of BLM-managed land.
There are significant cultural and historic resources within the
NCA as well as the natural resources described in the legislation. We
recommend that cultural, historic and paleontological resources
protection be added to the purposes for which the NCA is established.
conclusion
We would like the opportunity to work with the sponsors and the
Committee to address the issues we have raised in our testimony along
with some technical amendments. We applaud the hard work of the members
of the Utah Congressional delegation on this legislation and we look
forward to working with you to move the legislation forward.
S. 3772
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 3772, the White Pine
County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006. This bill
attempts to resolve a wide range of public land issues in White Pine
County, Nevada. We strongly support the efforts of Senators Ensign and
Reid to resolve the longstanding issues surrounding Wilderness Study
Areas (WSAs) and a number of other public land issues. The
Administration supports many of the goals of the legislation but
opposes the bill as written. We have concerns with the bill's revenue
distribution and will work with the Committee during the legislative
process to determine an appropriate percentage of proceeds to be
returned to the Treasury. We also oppose Title VIII regarding the
changes in the distribution of revenues under the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA), Public Law 105-263, and have
concerns with the specific language of the proposed expansion of uses
of SNPLMA funds and proposed revisions to SNPLMA's affordable housing
provisions.
background
White Pine County in eastern Nevada covers a sprawling 8,900 square
miles with a population of just under 9,000 persons. The county seat of
Ely and surrounding towns are home to the overwhelming majority of
county residents. White Pine's high desert is truly wide open space.
Ninety one percent of the county is owned by the Federal government,
including 77 percent managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
totaling nearly 4.4 million acres. Additional lands are managed by the
Forest Service and the National Park Service through the Great Basin
National Park.
Title I--Land Disposal
Title I of S. 3772 provides for a process to dispose of up to
45,000 acres of public lands out of BLM management and into private
ownership. We support the general proposition of disposing of public
lands to provide for community growth as appropriate, and we support
identifying these lands through a public process.
The bill calls for the potential disposal of lands that have been
preliminarily identified for disposal by the BLM through its land use
planning process. The Ely Resource Management Plan (RMP) is intended to
be finalized in the spring of next year. The bill provides for the
disposal of lands identified in this upcoming plan as well as
subsequent amendments to the RMP. We support this disposal process as
it allows for full public involvement in determining which lands are
best transferred from public to private ownership. Section 101(h)
provides that sales of the land shall begin one year following
enactment of this Act. We recommend that this be modified to one year
following completion of the Ely RMP. The BLM would undertake to
complete all cultural and resource clearances, as well as appraisals
and surveys, before any lands could be offered. for sale. In addition,
specific decisions on which of lands already identified for disposal
would be sold would be determined jointly by the BLM and the county,
thus allowing the BLM to exclude any lands with newly discovered
conflicts.
We have concerns with the bill language on the use of sale
revenues. Section 102 of S. 3772 addresses the disposition of the
proceeds from the sale of lands directed in section 101. Specifically,
it directs that 15 percent of the proceeds be distributed to State and
county entities, while 85 percent would be retained by the Federal
government. Among the allowed uses of the Federal government's share
are: reimbursement of costs to prepare the lands for sale, the
development and implementation of a multi-species habitat conservation
plan for the county if determined necessary, and other costs related to
implementation of the Act. Section 102(b) authorizes interest to be
earned on amounts deposited into the special account. As stated above,
we would like to work with the Committee to address our concerns with
this section.
In addition, the Administration does not support section 102(b),
which allows any amounts deposited in the special account to earn
interest. The Department of the Treasury strongly opposes such
provisions, which effectively require the Treasury to borrow more funds
to pay this interest.
Title II--Wilderness Areas
The bill would designate a number of wilderness areas within White
Pine County, including over 284,000 acres of BLM-managed lands and
nearly 260,000 acres managed by the Forest Service. In addition, nearly
68,000 acres of WSAs managed by the BLM would be released from WSA
status and interim protection of their wilderness values under section
603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). Release will
return these lands to non-wilderness multiple use. The BLM currently
manages over 152,000 acres of WSA in White Pine County.
The eight proposed wilderness areas to be managed by the BLM
represent a broad range of topography. Mount Grafton at nearly 11,000
feet soars over southern White Pine County and is the home for ancient
bristlecone pines. High elevation basins in the Goshute Canyon area
surrounded by massive peaks are filled with beautiful spring and summer
wildflowers that add color to the dramatic landscape. Large open areas
interspersed with pinyon and juniper provide excellent habitat for
wildlife including mule deer, elk, and upland game birds such as sage
grouse, blue grouse, and quail.
Opportunities abound throughout the proposed wilderness areas for
primitive and unconfined recreation, including hunting, fishing,
hiking, caving, and camping. Backcountry visitors will have the chance
to witness nature close up, whether on towering limestone cliffs, in
beautifully decorated wild caves or within a soothing Aspen grove.
The BLM supports the efforts of the Nevada delegation to arrive at
boundaries through consensus and compromise. Congress has the sole
authority to designate lands to be managed as wilderness and we believe
these areas are manageable as wilderness. We would like the opportunity
to work with the sponsors and the Committee on technical issues,
including possible minor boundary adjustments to ensure the greatest
manageability.
Title III--Transfers of Administrative Jurisdiction
Section 301 of S. 3772 transfers approximately 645 acres of land
from BLM management to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for inclusion
in the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. These lands are an inholding
within the existing National Wildlife Refuge and are currently managed
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under a memorandum of
understanding with the BLM. This transfer would not alter any current
uses of the lands and we fully support this transfer.
Section 302 transfers approximately 117,000 acres from Forest
Service management to BLM management, of which 62,500 acres will be
part of the 70,000-acre Highland Ridge Wilderness area and the
remaining 54,440 acres will become part of a new BLM-managed
``withdrawal area.'' Some of the lands identified for transfer surround
the Great Basin National Park in southeastern White Pine County
(largely those identified as the ``withdrawal area'') while the
Highland Ridge Wilderness lies to the south of Great Basin National
Park. Administrative boundaries in this area are complex, with three
Federal agencies providing management in one mountain range. This
transfer would improve efficiency for the public and for regional
resource management.
The 54,440 acre ``withdrawal area'' envisioned by the bill would
allow motorized and mechanized vehicles on roads and trails designated
for this use and withdraw the lands from public land disposal and
mining laws, as well as the mineral and geothermal leasing laws. All
cooperative agreements currently in place would be continued by the
BLM.
Title IV--Public Conveyances
Section 401 provides for the conveyance of Federal land to the
State of Nevada and White Pine County for three separate public parks
and/or wildlife and natural resource areas. In all three cases, the
state of Nevada would pay all costs associated with the transfers, and
the bill includes a reversionary clause for the lands to revert to the
Federal government if they are used for purposes other than those
described in the legislation.
Specifically, the BLM would transfer over 6,000 acres for the
expansion of the Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area just southeast
of Ely. The lands to be transferred surround the current 6,500-acre
Wildlife Management Area. The Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area
plans an expansion of the Commins Reservoir. This transfer would allow
that expansion which will benefit the regional economy through improved
hunting and fishing opportunities.
Second, the bill proposes to transfer 658 acres from the BLM to the
State of Nevada for the expansion of the Ward Charcoal Ovens State
Park. South of Ely, the Ward Charcoal Ovens State Park is a popular
recreation area with, at its centerpiece, six beehive-shaped historic
charcoal ovens. Constructed in 1873, they began as a method of
converting pinyon and other woods to charcoal for use in smelting
operations and later saw a variety of other uses, including hideouts
for stagecoach bandits. The lands to be transferred from the BLM are
currently under a Recreation & Public Purposes (R&PP) lease to the
State and this provision would simply transfer those lands. Transfer of
these lands will allow for the fuller interpretation of local mining
history and we support their transfer.
The bill also proposes to transfer Forest Service lands for the
expansion of Cave Lake State Park. We defer to the Forest Service
regarding this provision.
Section 402 provides for the conveyance to the county of not more
than 1,500 acres for the expansion of the White Pine County Airport and
not more than 200 acres for the expansion of the White Pine County
Industrial Park. While the legislation does not specify which acres are
to be transferred, the BLM in Nevada has been working cooperatively
with White Pine County to identify both of these parcels and transfer
of these lands. We generally could support this conveyance, but we
believe the legislation should require that the county pay fair market
value for these lands. Also, we would like to work with the sponsors
and the Committee to identify the location of these parcels on a map.
While the legislation transfers the lands without consideration, if the
county sells, leases, or otherwise conveys the land, any proceeds would
be distributed according to the 85/15 formula established in Title I of
this bill. As discussed previously, we have concerns with the bill's
revenue distribution and will work with the Committee during the
legislative process to determine an appropriate percentage of proceeds
to be returned to the Treasury.
Title V--Silver State OHV Trail
Title V directs the Secretary of the Interior to complete a study
of routes for the Silver State Off Highway Vehicle Trail. Following the
study, the Secretary shall designate the trail if it is consistent with
certain principles set out in the legislation, including that it is a
continuation of the Silver State trail previously designated under
Public Law 108-424 and that it will not have significant negative
impacts on the natural and cultural resources. This trail has the
potential to be a significant tourism attraction and will allow
visitors and residents another way to experience and enjoy their public
lands. We support the development of this trail, but we do not support
using land sale funds to pay for these activities but instead prefer to
go through the regular budgetary process.
Title VI--Transfer of Land to be held in Trust for the Ely Shoshone
Tribe
The Ely Shoshone Tribe currently has a reservation totaling
approximately 100 acres in two separate pieces. S. 3772 proposes to add
four additional parcels of land, totaling 3,536 acres to the
reservation. The largest of the four parcels, over two thousand acres,
is reserved for ceremonial uses.
Under the bill, the Federal government would take those lands,
including improvements and appurtenances, into trust for the tribe.
While the Department supports increasing the Tribe's land base, it
opposes the title as written.
The Department takes land, not improvements, in trust for a tribe.
The Department does not have a trust obligation for improvements that
are permanently fixed to real property. Therefore, ``, including any
improvements on, and appurtenances to, the land'' in section 6(a)
should be struck from the bill.
In addition, the Department is concerned that title VI is not clear
regarding which lands would be taken into trust for the Tribe. We
recommend that a legal description of the land to be taken into trust
be included in the legislation, rather than just being referenced on a
map. This will ensure that there is no confusion regarding which lands
are to be taken into trust.
Title VII--Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project
Title VII provides for the implementation and enhancement of the
Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project. The mission of the
Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project is to restore the dynamic
and diverse landscapes of the Great Basin for present and future
generations through collaborative efforts. These healed, diverse
landscapes will be a result of restoration achieved and maintained with
naturally occurring disturbances such as fire, in combination with
other management prescriptions, including traditional uses.
Under the bill, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act
(SNPLMA) account would be the source of funding for the Eastern Nevada
Landscape Restoration Project. We oppose the expansion of the funds'
uses beyond the currently authorized uses in SNPLMA.
Title VIII--Amendments to the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act of 1998
The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) established
a process for the orderly sale of Federal lands in the Las Vegas
Valley. Under SNPLMA, 85 percent of the proceeds from land sales are
deposited in a special Federal account for various uses including: the
acquisition of environmentally-sensitive lands; the creation of parks,
trails, and natural areas; capital improvements; conservation
initiatives; multi-species habitat conservation plans; water studies;
and Lake Tahoe restoration projects. Five percent of the proceeds are
paid to the State of Nevada General Education Fund and 10 percent are
paid to the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
The revenue generated from SNPLMA land sales has greatly exceeded
anticipated levels. To date, SNPLMA land sales have totaled nearly
13,000 acres and have generated $3.032 billion in revenue and interest.
Of this amount, approximately $436 million has been paid to the State
of Nevada General Education Fund and the Southern Nevada Water
Authority, while approximately $2.596 billion has been deposited in the
Federal special account. Of the amount deposited in the special
account, approximately $2.092 billion is available to the Secretary of
the Interior to fund land acquisitions; capital improvements;
conservation initiatives; parks, trails and natural areas; multi-
species habitat conservation plans; and Lake Tahoe Restoration
projects. To date, approximately $2.120 billion, or 95 percent, of the
funds available to the Secretary for these projects have been
authorized for expenditure.
Title VIII of S. 3772 proposes a number of changes to the use of
SNPLMA's special account and use of the deposit in the Federal account
from Federal land sales. Section 803 of Title VIII expands the use of
the special account for specified projects and initiatives that benefit
resources, improve infrastructure, and accommodate growth in Nevada.
These projects include:
<bullet> implementation of the multi-species habitat conservation
plan for Clark County, Nevada;
<bullet> payments to the Southern Nevada Water Authority for
implementation of the ``Cash for Grass'' water conservation
program;
<bullet> payments to the Southern Nevada Water Authority for water
quality improvement projects for the Las Vegas Wash, the Las
Vegas Bay, and Lake Mead;
<bullet> development of parks by the State of Nevada in Clark County;
<bullet> expansion of SNPLMA's parks, trails, and natural areas
provision to include the acquisition of the Ballardini Ranch in
Washoe County, Nevada, for a county park; and
<bullet> development and implementation of a ten-year multi
jurisdictional hazardous fuels reduction and wildfire
prevention plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin and the Spring
Mountains.
Other changes in Title VIII allow the BLM and other Federal
agencies to more efficiently implement SNPLMA. Those changes include
reimbursement for costs associated with clearing, protecting, and
arranging for a sale, lease, conveyance, or disposal under SNPLMA, as
well as expediting the transfer of funds to local entities. Finally,
Section 804 of Title VIII rewrites the affordable housing provisions
contained in SNPLMA that currently provide for the development of
affordable housing in Nevada.
The Administration opposes the proposed changes to SNPLMA. We
oppose the reallocation of revenues that would provide a greater share
of revenues to local entities such as the Southern Nevada Water
Authority. We also have concerns with other provisions affecting the
BLM portion of receipts, such as the low-income housing provisions, and
the expansion of the kinds of activities on which BLM would be
authorized to spend land sale proceeds.
In addition, we oppose payments from the special account to the
Southern Nevada Water Authority for the water conservation and water
quality improvement initiatives that are proposed in sections 803(1)(x)
and (xi) of Title VIII of the bill. As we have noted, SNPLMA already
provides for the payment of 10 percent of revenue generated from land
sales to the Southern Nevada Water Authority for local water projects.
To date, these payments have totaled approximately $282 million, and
additional revenue is guaranteed with future land sales.
Finally, while we support the intent of making housing available to
low-income families and individuals in the burgeoning southern Nevada
area, we cannot support the affordable housing provisions included in
section 804 of Title VIII. As written, we believe the legislation may
actually discourage the development of affordable housing due to some
of the administrative processes that are included.
Over the past few years, the BLM has worked closely with other
Federal agencies and local entities to implement the affordable housing
provision contained in the existing subsection 7(b) in SNPLMA. The BLM
is currently implementing the first affordable housing project in Clark
County, Nevada under SNPLMA, and we understand that the State has plans
for several other projects in both Clark County and Carson City,
Nevada. The BLM has clear procedures in place to implement the SNPLMA
affordable housing provisions and recently issued policies that
increase the discount rates for land sales for such sales. The current
law's requirements that BLM, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), and local and state governments have principal roles
in affordable housing has been a fundamental reason for the progress to
date. Changing these provisions of SNPLMA now may undermine our
progress and complicate our efforts. We would like the opportunity to
work with the sponsors and the Committee to resolve these concerns.
Title IX--Great Basin Heritage Route
Finally, we note that the provisions relating to the Great Basin
Heritage Route were part of S. 203, which was signed by President Bush
on October 12, 2006, and became Public Law No. 109-338. For this
reason, we recommend that Title IX be removed from the bill.
conclusion
We would like the opportunity to work with the sponsors and the
Committee to address the issues we have raised in our testimony along
with a host of smaller, more technical and managerial amendments. We
applaud the hard work of Senators Ensign and Reid in attempting to
resolve a number of difficult public lands issues and we look forward
to further refinement of this legislation.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much.
Now we'll turn to you, Joel. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
provide the Department's views on the bills that are on the
agenda today. I will limit my remarks to those portions of each
bill related to the National Forest System lands and will defer
to the Department of the Interior on provisions relating to the
lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
Regarding S. 3636, in addition to provisions primarily
affecting the BLM, this bill would establish 2,642 acres of
National Forest Service System land as the Cottonwood Forest
Wilderness, prescribe certain management objectives in the
wilderness and provide for other management planning and
conservation projects.
The Department does not oppose the proposed wilderness
designation. The bill includes various provisions regarding
management within wilderness. The Department prefers to follow
the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964 in administering
wilderness.
The Forest Service currently subjects proposed uses in
wilderness to review on a case-by-case basis, allowing for
cooperatively working with partners to balance use in
compliance with the act.
The Department does not oppose the provision that would
require the Secretaries to enter into a cooperative agreement
under which the State or its designee would carry out wildlife
management activities in wilderness areas. The Forest Service
recently signed a cooperative agreement with the Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the BLM that outlines policies
and guidelines for fish and wildlife management in wilderness
areas, including protocols for managing non-conforming uses.
This national agreement provides a mutually agreed upon method
to address management issues and it would be our preference to
develop any State agreement in accordance with it, to maintain
a consistent approach.
Regarding S. 3772, this is a complex land management bill
with multiple provisions related to the Forest Service and BLM
lands in White Pine County, Nevada. The Department recognizes
that the bill sponsors have conducted extensive outreach and
worked with several communities of interest in developing the
various titles in the bill.
Title II would designate 259,908 acres of wilderness on
National Forest Service lands. The Department generally
supports these wilderness designations although we have
concerns that some of the boundaries would make the areas
difficult to manage and could result in conflicts between
motorized and non-motorized users. These areas include those
that have pass-through and cherry-stemmed roads, that have
small islands of land surrounded by wilderness that lack
wilderness characteristics, and that split administration
between the Forest Service and BLM.
We would like to work with the committee and bill sponsors
to modify the proposed wilderness boundaries.
For the most part, the Department does not object to the
standard wilderness provisions in the bill.
However, the Department objects to or does not support
provisions in title II regarding aircraft use and water
development projects in wilderness for wildlife management. The
Department should have the discretion whether to review and
approve any potential aircraft landings or water development
installation cooperatively with partners.
This approach allows for administration of the National
Wilderness Preservation system in accordance with the
Wilderness Act of 1964 and is consistent with the National
Cooperative Agreement with the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies.
The Department also objects to the title II provision
regarding a cooperative agreement between the State of Nevada
and the Bureau of Land Management for wildlife management.
Portions of this agreement are not consistent with Forest
Service wilderness management policy and the Forest Service is
not a party to this agreement.
Title III would transfer administrative jurisdiction over
117,528 acres from the Forest Service to the BLM. This transfer
would consolidate the administration of land surrounding the
Great Basin National Park from two agencies to one, eliminating
a ring of National Forest System land surrounding Great Basin
National park, which is in turn, surrounded by BLM lands. The
current situation makes the lands difficult to manage because
of inconsistent management objectives and is a source of some
confusion to the public.
Although the Department generally does not support the
transfer of National Forest System lands without compensation
or reciprocity, in this case, the transfer makes sense from an
administrative standpoint. Because the transfer will provide
for consistent management under continued Federal stewardship
with continuation of existing uses, the Department does not
object to it.
Title IV would convey an unspecified amount of National
Forest Service land to the State of Nevada for no consideration
to expand Cave Lake State Park. The Department opposes the
transfer of land to the State for no consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss both of these
bills and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the Department's views on the bills which are on
the agenda today. I will limit my remarks to the provisions of each
bill related to National Forest System lands and will defer to the
Department of the Interior on provisions relating to the lands managed
by the Bureau of Land Management.
S. 3636
Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2006
This bill pertains to various aspects of Forest Service (FS) and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Washington County, Utah. It
would authorize conveyance of BLM lands and provide for the
distribution of the proceeds for various public purposes described in
the bill including implementation of provisions of the legislation. The
bill would establish new wilderness areas, including 2,642 acres of
National Forest System land as the Cottonwood Forest Wilderness,
provide for trail maintenance, travel management planning, and
conservation projects, establish the High Desert Off Highway Vehicle
Trail, and prescribe certain management objectives in wilderness areas
designated in this bill.
The Department does not oppose the proposed designation of
approximately 2,642 acres of National Forest System Land as a component
of the National Wilderness Preservation System to be known as
``Cottonwood Forest Wilderness,'' although we have concerns regarding
some of the bill's provisions.
The Department does not oppose this wilderness designation. The
area is scenic, rugged, and has a rich diversity of narrow canyons that
provide the public with excellent opportunities for solitude and
primitive recreational experiences. The area is also special by virtue
of its location adjacent to a desert tortoise reserve. In addition, the
area is contiguous to BLM land that would be designated as the
``Cottonwood Canyon Wilderness.'' However, while the Dixie National
Forest has determined that the area is suitable for wilderness, it
expects to recommend that the area be managed as ``Backcountry Area''
in its proposed revision to the forest plan. The proposed management
scheme differs from wilderness because it would allow a mix of
motorized and non-motorized recreation to take advantage of the unique
recreation opportunities that exist in the area.
The Department also requests an amendment to the bill to correct an
error in Title II Wilderness Areas. The bill defines the term
``Secretary'' as the Secretary of the Interior. Accordingly, under
section 202(a), the Secretary of the Interior would manage the area of
National Forest System lands designated as the ``Cottonwood Forest
Wilderness'' by section 201(a)(5).
The bill includes various provisions regarding management within
wilderness. The Department prefers to follow the provisions of the
Wilderness Act of 1964 in administering wilderness. For example, the
Department objects to section 202(d)(4)(B), which would remove the
President's discretion to authorize water resource development projects
in wilderness, as provided in the Act. The Department also objects to
the provisions in section 206(c), which would permanently authorize the
State's use of aircraft in wilderness for wildlife management purposes,
and 206(d), which would authorize wildlife water development projects.
The Forest Service currently subjects proposed uses in wilderness to
review on a case-by-case basis, allowing for cooperatively working with
partners to balance use in compliance with the Act.
Section 206(f) would direct the Secretaries to enter into a
cooperative agreement under which the State or designee of the State
would carry out wildlife management activities in wilderness areas
designated by this title. The Department does not oppose this
provision. The Forest Service has recently signed a cooperative
agreement with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the
Bureau of Land Management that outlines policies and guidelines for
fish and wildlife management in wilderness areas, including protocols
for managing nonconforming uses (titled ``Policies and Guidelines for
Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land
Management Wilderness'' and dated June 2006). It demonstrates a common
understanding between the States and Federal agencies. The agreement
also allows for similar State-specific agreements if needed. The
Department believes that this national agreement provides a mutually
agreed upon method to address management issues, and it would be our
preference to develop any State agreement in accordance with it to
maintain a consistent approach.
Section 501 would direct the Secretaries to jointly complete a
travel plan that identifies routes for the High Desert Off-Highway
Vehicle Trail, would require the Secretaries to jointly designate the
trail after the completion of the travel plan, and would direct the
development of a management plan, and monitoring of the trail. The
Department does not oppose the trail designation, although it is
concerned about the costs of repairing constructing the trail. Work on
this trail has not been a priority for the Forest. The Department is
also concerned about the requirement to develop a management plan. The
Forest is conducting forest-wide travel management planning to be
completed in 2007. The management plan required by the bill could be
duplicative of the current travel management planning process and could
circumvent that process which would take into account public comment
and balancing interests to provide an integrated plan for the forest as
a whole.
S. 3772
White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006
S. 3772 is a complex land management bill with multiple provisions
related to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in
White Pine County, Nevada. The provisions related to the Forest Service
include establishment and expansions of, and adjustments to designated
wilderness areas, resulting in nearly 260,000 acres of new National
Forest wilderness with associated management prescriptions.
S. 3772 would transfer 117,528 acres of land surrounding Great
Basin National Park from the FS to the BLM. It would transfer an
unknown number of acres from the Forest Service to the State of Nevada
for expansion of Cave Lake State Park. The bill authorizes a study for
potential creation of the Silver State Highway Off-Highway Vehicle
Trail and also establishes the Great Basin National Heritage Route. It
amends the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) to
provide funding to carry out research and landscape restoration
projects related to the Great Basin Restoration Initiative.
The Department recognizes that the bill's sponsors have conducted
extensive outreach and worked with several communities of interest in
developing the various titles in the bill. Our comments follow in order
of the titles.
Title I relates to disposal of BLM lands, and we defer to the
Department of the Interior on this and other provisions related to the
BLM.
Title II would designate 259,908 acres of wilderness on Forest
Service lands: five new wilderness areas totaling 240,713 acres, and
expansion and adjustments to two existing wilderness areas totaling
19,195 acres. The Department generally supports the wilderness
designations, although we have concerns that some of the boundaries
would make the areas difficult to manage and could result in conflicts
between motorized and non-motorized users. These areas include those
that have pass-through and ``cherry-stemmed'' roads, that have small
``islands'' of land surrounded by wilderness, that lack wilderness
characteristics, and that split administration between Forest Service
and BLM.
We would like to work with the committee and bill sponsors to
modify the proposed boundaries to better align with administrative
boundaries, to preserve wilderness characteristics, and to reduce the
potential for conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users.
Sections 205, 206, and 207 include various wilderness management
provisions. For the most part, these are standard provisions the
Department does not object to. However, the Department objects to
section 204(d)(5)(B), which would remove the President's discretion to
approve water resource development in wilderness, as provided in the
Wilderness Act of 1964.
The Department also does not support section 209(c) regarding use
of aircraft and section 209(d) regarding water development projects in
wilderness for wildlife management. The current approach to aircraft
landings in wilderness subjects proposed aircraft landings to review
and approval on a case-by-case basis, which allows the Department to
work cooperatively with partners to balance use in compliance with the
Wilderness Act of 1964. In similar fashion, the Department should have
the discretion whether to review and approve any potential water
development structure or facility prior to installation. This approach
provides for efficient administration of the National Wilderness
Preservation System and is consistent with the recently revised
document ``Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in
National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness'', approved by
the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies in June 2006.
Section 209(f) references a cooperative agreement between the State
of Nevada and the Bureau of Land Management regarding wildlife
management activities in wilderness areas designated in the bill.
Portions of this agreement are not consistent with Forest Service
wilderness management policy, and the Forest Service is not a party to
this agreement. Thus, the Department objects to this provision. The
Forest Service would prefer to continue to work cooperatively with
others under the above-referenced Policies and Guidelines document,
which was amended in June 2006.
Title III would transfer administrative jurisdiction over 117,528
acres from the Forest Service to the BLM. This transfer would
consolidate the administration of land surrounding Great Basin National
Park from two agencies to one, eliminating a ring of National Forest
System land surrounding Great Basin National Park, which is in turn
surrounded by BLM lands. The current situation makes the lands
difficult to manage because of inconsistent management objectives, and
is a source of some confusion to the public. The transfer would allow
for a continuation of current uses under existing permits or
cooperative agreements.
Although the Department generally does not support the transfer of
Forest Service lands without compensation or reciprocity, in this case
the transfer makes sense from an administrative standpoint. Because the
transfer will provide for consistent management under continued Federal
stewardship with continuation of existing uses, the Department does not
object to it.
For similar reasons, the Department would ask the bill sponsors and
the Committee to consider two additional transfers of administrative
jurisdiction from the BLM to the Forest Service to consolidate the
administration of proposed Bald Mountain and Mount Moriah wilderness
additions. The transfer would result in land boundaries that are easier
to survey and manage. We would like to work with the Committee and the
bill's sponsors on amendments to further this idea.
Title IV would convey Forest Service land to the State of Nevada
for no consideration to expand Cave Lake State Park. The amount of
acreage is left blank in the bill text. The benefits of this transfer
are not apparent. The Department opposes the transfer of land to the
State for no consideration.
Title V authorizes both Secretaries to study routes for the Silver
State Off-Highway Vehicle Trail. The majority of this proposed route
would cross Bureau of Land Management lands, and we support working
with that agency on the study. We defer to the Department of the
Interior regarding additional statements concerning the earmarking land
sale funds to pay for the construction of the trail.
Title VI would transfer land from the BLM to be held in trust by
the United States for the benefit of the Ely Shoshone Tribe. The
Department defers to the Department of the Interior on this provision.
Title VII would authorize funding through the SNPLMA to support the
Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project, which would restore
rangeland and other land, including reducing hazardous fuels, in White
Pine and Lincoln Counties. It would also authorize grants to and
cooperative agreements with the Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition and
the Great Basin Institute for the study and restoration of these lands.
We defer to the Department of the Interior regarding this Title.
The Department fully supports efforts to restore landscapes, using
scientific study to determine the most effective approaches to
restoration and utilization of woody biomass. A number of efforts are
currently focused toward this end, including those by the Forest
Service's Fire Science Laboratory in Missoula Montana, the Forest
Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, and the interagency Joint Fire
Science Program.
Title VIII would authorize the expanded use of funds in the special
account established under SNPLMA. The Department defers to the
Department of the Interior regarding the proposed changes to SNPLMA. In
general, the Administration opposes changes to current land sale
authorities that do not ensure a significant portion of those proceeds
are returned to the Treasury to benefit all taxpayers.
Title IX would establish the Great Basin National Heritage Route.
We note that this section is now part of Public Law 109-338, enacted
into law on October 12, 2006. For this reason, we recommend that Title
IX be removed from the bill. We look forward to working with the
National Park Service and the local coordinating entity on implementing
this Heritage Route, particularly where it concerns National Forest
System lands.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss both S. 3636 and S. 3773.
I am happy to answer any questions that you have at this time.
Senator Craig. Well gentlemen, thank you both very much. I
have a couple of questions that we will want answered and then
I may have additionally ones for the record. We will certainly
work with both agencies as this legislation moves forward to
fine-tune it to some of your suggestions.
Chad, I understand you support the phase I land disposal in
the Washington County bill. How many acres are included in this
and what is their principle or their potential value?
Mr. Calvert. Yes, in phase I, which we call it phase I--
it's actually designed in the bill as the sale of 4,000 acres,
roughly 1,175 acres have already been identified for disposal
in the local land use plan.
Those should be relatively simple to transfer via direct
sale. We don't actually have an estimate--I'm sorry, 1,125
acres--we don't have an exact appraisal for the property but
based on local land use values, it would exceed $20 million,
$20 to $40.
Senator Craig. Okay, how do you envision the process to
identify lands for disposal under phase II and phase III of
this bill?
Mr. Calvert. The BLM generally prefers to use the local or
the land use planning process to identify lands for disposal.
We do that in order to know what is on the property, to go out
and do surveys, actual formal surveys of the property prior to
conveying out of Federal estate. We would envision that we
would go through that process and it's actually a process that
is laid out in the White Pine County bill.
Senator Craig. Okay. What is your estimate now as to how
this bill will affect current management of public lands in the
county?
Mr. Calvert. Are you asking about Washington County, that
bill?
Senator Craig. I am.
Mr. Calvert. It shouldn't affect the management of Federal
lands in the county to the extent that their designation is not
changed. Where they have become designated as wilderness,
clearly they will be managed that way and there is some
properties that are currently Wilderness Study Areas that would
become wilderness areas and they are not managed exactly the
same. So there may be instances where land use would be more
restricted in those areas where it is conveyed out of the
Federal estate. We would no longer be managing it. Beyond that,
the bill itself shouldn't affect the management of remaining
Federal lands in the area.
Senator Craig. Joel, I see this bill and I'm talking about
the Cottonwood Forest Wilderness proposal and the Dixie Forest.
This bill would legislate a relatively small 2,642 acres of
wilderness to be called the Cottonwood Forest Wilderness. Is
this area recommended for wilderness in the current Dixie
Forest Land Management Plan?
Mr. Holtrop. The current Dixie Forest Land Management Plan
is a 1986 plan and it did not recommend any areas for
wilderness in this area but because it is a 1986 plan, we're
currently involved in a revision of that and we're pretty close
to being able to come out with that revision and it is likely
that there will be some wilderness recommendations in that plan
in the areas already that have already been determined to be
suitable for wilderness and there is some deliberations in the
planning process.
Senator Craig. Is it possible to keep 2,642 acres in a
wilderness character?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, I think in this case, it's possible to
do so. It would be immediately adjacent to a BLM wilderness and
I think given, as I understand, the lay of the land there, I
think it is possible that there is other wilderness nearby as
well.
Senator Craig. Okay. I've seen our Utah Forest Organization
map recommending virtually all of the Pine Valley District of
the Dixie National Forest to be included in wilderness. The
Utah Forest Organization is a coalition of a number of groups,
including Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Wilderness
Society and the Wild Utah Project and other groups. Could you
tell me how many acres of the Pine Valley District are proposed
for wilderness or in inventoried roadless areas?
Mr. Holtrop. The Pine Valley Ranger District is around
460,000 acres, of which about 50,000 is already designated
wilderness. Of the remaining, there is a little over 200,000
acres that is inventoried roadless area.
Senator Craig. Okay, so better than half is currently being
managed as wilderness?
Mr. Holtrop. Over half is either already designated
wilderness or is an inventoried roadless area.
Senator Craig. If the entire district were to be made into
a wilderness, would there be any need for a district office in
St. George?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, obviously we always look at our
administrative needs based on public and administrative needs
but the fact that it would all be in wilderness, I don't think
would automatically lead to a conclusion that there wouldn't be
a need for an office there. There is a great deal of work.
There is a workload that comes associated with managing
wilderness. We have several other district offices around the
country that are largely or completely wilderness with ranger
district offices. I am familiar with a few of them out there on
the Flathead National Forest in Montana, Moose Creek on the Nez
Perce in Idaho and others around the country. So I don't think
that designation alone would lead to a conclusion that there
would need to be a district office in St. George.
Senator Craig. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time
before the committee today. We will work with both of the
agencies, as I said, to resolve any questions or boundary
concerns there might be and I appreciate you being here today
to testify. Thank you both.
Let me call the second and last panel forward, please.
We have been joined by the Senator from the State of
Washington. Senator Cantwell, do you have any comments prior to
this panel?
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Chairman, I do have a comment. I will
submit a statement for the record in hopes that we can get to
some questions.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cantwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator From Washington
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our witnesses who are here
today to discuss these two complex wilderness bills.
Wilderness is certainly a hot topic in the West with bills pending
in Oregon, Idaho, California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as my home
state, and I look forward to your testimony today.
One of the many honors of being a Senator from Washington state is
working to preserve and build on the legacy of the former chairman of
this committee, Senator Scoop Jackson. Scoop was one of the architects
and champions of the 1964 Wilderness Act, and facilitated passage of
other landmark conservation bills such as the Land and Water
Conservation Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. For the millions
of Americans who enjoy their public lands protected under these laws, I
thank him for his vision of preserving nature's grandeur in at least
some parts of our vast nation.
Besides serving on this important Committee, I have been honored to
carry on this legacy by cosponsoring with Senator Murray the Wild Sky
Wilderness Act. Wild Sky passed the Senate in July, 2005 for the third
straight Congress, only to be held hostage once again in the House.
Designation of this 106,000-acre wilderness area would protect
wildlife, promote clean water, and preserve one of the last remaining
stretches of lowland forest along the west flank of the Cascade
Mountains.
Wild Sky is also within a 90 minute drive for over two million
Washingtonians, providing an accessible hiking experience for my
constituents and also contributing to local communities. My own state
enjoys a $200 million per year outdoor recreational industry.
My constituents today have the same concerns that Scoop Jackson
had--will they and their children one day have to chance to experience
and appreciate what nature looks like in its pristine state?
To see an ecosystem that hasn't changed in thousands or millions of
years? To see nature ``untrammeled'' by humankind?
The federal lands system has opportunities for all user groups,
motorized and non-motorized, but wilderness affords opportunities not
found on other public lands: a recreational experience free from the
hustle and bustle, noise, pollution, and crowds that result from cars,
roads, and other motorized vehicles.
Wild Sky made clear to me the importance of working with local
stakeholders and constituencies to craft bills that benefit multiple
interests without sacrificing the quality of lands designated as
wilderness. This is a delicate process and compromises are sometimes
made to garner political support. But I believe we should not
compromise on the ideals of the Wilderness Act or the environmental
quality of the region at large.
It is because of this belief that I'm concerned by concept of
bundling wilderness protection with the sale or conveyance of public
lands. Wilderness designation should not be used as a veneer to mask
other provisions that undermine land conservation measures, or could
not pass Congress on their own merit. I understand the need for
counties and cities, especially in the rural west, to consolidate their
land holdings and make careful decisions to plan for additional
population and economic growth. But I ask that we consider carefully
whether existing developable private land is really insufficient for
this growth.
The Washington County Growth and Conservation Act would direct the
Bureau of Land Management to make available no less than 24,300 acres
of public land for county development projects. The BLM, through their
normal review process has not identified this land as suitable for
sale. The required formal public review process has never been
conducted. On top of this, the County's own chamber of commerce
estimates that more than 200,000 acres of private land remain available
for development within the county.
To me, that leads to the question, what's the rush? Why not allow
the BLM to proceed with their normal process for identifying and
disposing of public land under the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act? Why are we trying to rush this bill in last few days of the 109th
Congress?
These are questions I look forward to hearing answered in your
testimony and would like to explore further over the course of this
hearing.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much. Then let us turn to the
panel. Our panelists today are made up of Brent Eldridge,
commissioner, White Pine County, Nevada; Jerry Greenberg, vice
president of The Wilderness Society in Madison, Wisconsin; Alan
Gardner, commissioner, Washington County, Utah; and Peter
Metcalf, president, Black Diamond Equipment, Limited, Board
Member, Outdoor Industry Association, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Commissioner Eldridge, we'll start with you. If you would
turn your mic on and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF BRENT ELDRIDGE, COMMISSIONER,
WHITE PINE COUNTY, NV
Mr. Eldridge. Thank you, Senator Craig, members of the
subcommittee, for holding this hearing today on S. 3772, the
White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act
of 2006. On behalf of the White Pine County Commission, I'm
pleased to be here today to provide our testimony on the bill.
We appreciate the time and effort the committee and staff,
Senator Reid and their staff have committed to development of
this bill.
I would first like to state that I am a fourth generation
rancher in White Plain County. My great-grandfather came to the
area in 1892, got involved in agriculture and for the last over
100 years, we've been there in ranching and agriculture. I was
one of the ranchers who first dealt with wilderness in White
Pine County as an agricultural person and I felt that the one
area designated on Mount Moriah in the 1980's was adequate. Not
until I had a chance to ride some other ranges in White Pine
County with some friends in about 1996, did I realize what was
happening to our mountains.
Five friends and I rode the Shell Creek Range, Upper
Canyon, where I had never been before but my friends had gone
many times. We found ORV, degradation--that was beyond what it
should be in our high, fragile mountain and my friend turned to
me at the time we looked over this meadow that had numerous ATV
tracks through it. He said, if we're going to save this
mountain, we have to do something about designation. That's
when I got heavily involved. I was also subsequently elected to
the White Pine County Commission and I, for the last 4 years,
worked very hard at arriving at a recommended bill that would
serve the needs of all of the people of White Pine County,
including wilderness advocates.
White Pine residents have devoted hundreds of hours in our
efforts to develop our proposal for the public lands bill. Our
commission and advisory boards have discussed various aspects
of the potential bill on a monthly basis over the past 2 years.
We've held workshops, spent hours reviewing maps with ranchers,
agency staff, recreationists and others interested and
conducted tours of the proposed projects. We've appreciated the
working relationship we've developed with the representatives
of the Wilderness Coalition and we're proud of our citizens and
their commitment to reach consensus on the many and varied
issues that rest in the bill.
The county commissioners asked me to report to you that we
support the overall concept of a public lands bill. The
community has five critical issues we would like to see
addressed in the final version of the bill and we have numerous
recommendations for minor changes in wording that we are
submitting with our written testimony. The critical areas of
concern remaining include one throughout the discussions in the
proposed bill. The community's primary concern has been the
need for extension of the water resources studies initiated
with the BARCASS Project in the Lincoln County Conservation,
Recreation and Development Act. There is a need for a transient
water flow, ground water flow model for the Colorado flow
system and the Great Salt Lake flow system. We believe it is in
everyone's interests to have the best possible scientific
information available for public review and comment.
Two, the community has asked for limited access to the
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act capital improvement
and conservation funds to establish a central Steptoe Valley
Environmental Enhancement Project. White Pine County has
experienced substantial residential growth in the central
portion of Steptoe Valley, due in large part to the influx of
southern Nevada residents purchasing and building summer and
retirement homes. In addition to the majority of the use of
recreation facilities owned by the State of Nevada, including
the Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area and Cave Lake State
Park comes from southern Nevada residents. We propose the $30
million in Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funding
be set aside for the Central Steptoe Valley Enhancement Project
for three purposes: renovation of the Comins Lake, a prime
fishery that supports over 70,000 angler days of activity per
year, and two, expansion of water and waste water treatment
facilities to serve the growing residential areas in Steptoe
Valley, reduce dependence on septic systems and potential for
contamination of the area and provide adequate water sources
for fire protection along the Ward Mountain foothills.
Three, purchase sub-private land that includes sensitive
habitat, contribute to environmental quality, open space and
recreation. I'm not going to have time to get to all five
points. I would just like to express a thank you for the
opportunity to provide the testimony here and request that you
look at our testimony in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eldridge follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brent Eldridge, Commissioner,
White Pine County, NV
On behalf of the White Pine County Commission, I am pleased to
provide our written testimony on the White Pine County Conservation,
Recreation, and Development Act, S. 3772. We appreciate the time and
effort the Committee, its staff, Senators Reid and Ensign, and their
staff have committed to development of this bill.
White Pine County residents have devoted hundreds of hours in our
efforts to develop our proposal for a Public Lands bill. Our Commission
and advisory boards have discussed various aspects of a potential, bill
on a monthly basis over the past two years. We've held workshops; spent
hours reviewing maps with ranchers, agency staff, and recreationists;
and conducted tours of the proposed projects. We've appreciated the
working relationship we've developed with the representatives of the
Wilderness Coalition and we are proud of our citizens and their
commitment to reach consensus on the many and varied issues addressed
in the bill.
The County Commission has asked me to report to you that we support
the overall concept of a public lands bill; the community has five
critical issues we would like to see addressed in the final version of
the bill.
The critical areas of concern remaining include:
1. Throughout the discussions in the proposed bill, the
community's primary concern has been the need for extension of
the water resources studies initiated with the BARCASS Project
in the Lincoln Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act.
There is a need for transient ground water flow models for the
Colorado Flow System and the Great Salt Lake Flow System to
fully understand the water resources for both eastern Nevada
and western Utah. We do not view the request for additional
funding to continue the water studies as antagonistic to the
Groundwater Development Project proposed by southern Nevada. As
the West deals with the demand for water and the balance
between urban and rural needs as well as environmental concerns
and economic growth, we believe that it is in everyone's
interests to have the best possible scientific information
available, developed through the public sector, and available
for public review and comment. To date, there are no provisions
for additional water studies in the White Pine bill.
2. The community has asked for limited access to the Southern
Nevada Public Land Management Act Capital Improvement and
Conservation funds to establish a Central Steptoe Valley
Environmental Enhancement project, White Pine County is
experiencing substantial residential growth in the central
portion of Steptoe Valley due in large part to the influx of
southern Nevada residents purchasing and building summer and
retirement homes. In addition the majority of the use of
recreation facilities owned by the State of Nevada including
the Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area and Cave Lake State
Park comes from Southern Nevada residents. The residential
growth and recreation activity do not provide enough additional
local tax revenues to address their impacts. We feel it is
critical and appropriate to use SNPLMA funding to protect the
environment and recreational activity in Central Steptoe
Valley. We propose that $30 million in SNPLMA funding be set
aside for the Central Steptoe Valley Environmental Enhancement
Project for three purposes: 1) Renovation the Comins Lake Dam.
The Lake is a prime trout fishery that supports over 70,000
angler days' of activity per year and the Department of
Wildlife reports that the use is 70 percent from Southern
Nevada residents. It is located 6 miles south of Ely and the
dam supports a portion of U.S. Highway 50. It has been surveyed
by Nevada Department of Transportation engineers and is in need
of immediate repair. 2) Expansion of water and waste water
treatment facilities to serve the growing residential areas in
Steptoe Valley, reduce dependence on septic systems and
potential for contamination of the area, and provide adequate
water sources for fire protection along the Ward Mountain
foothills. 3) Purchase of private land that includes sensitive
habitat to contribute to environmental quality, open space, and
recreation.
3. The community has been extremely concerned about the
provisions in Title VIII providing hundreds of millions of
dollars for projects in both urban areas of the state: the Las
Vegas Wash Waste Water Conveyance System, the Southern Nevada
Water Authority Cash for Grass Program, the Tahoe Basin
Restoration Project, the purchase of private land for a park in
Washoe County, and providing Nevada State Parks Division with
access to SNPLMA funds for development of parks located in
Clark County. At the same time, under the current version of
the bill White Pine County would have no access to the SNPLMA
account for projects that will benefit the environment and
recreational attractions which receive the majority of their
use from Southern Nevada residents. Much of the growth
currently being experienced by Clark County has been
facilitated by the access to federal lands for disposal without
the requirement to determine available water resources to
support that growth. Now, Southern Nevada Water Authority is
seeking to export all of the available water from Spring Valley
and much of the available water from Snake Valley to the
potential detriment of White Pine County's environment,
economic activity in the eastern portion of the County, and the
Great Basin National Park. White Pine County residents believe
that it is only right that we should have access to a portion
of the fund.
4. The most controversial aspect of the bill for White Pine
County has been the Tribal Proposal outlined in Title VI. The
proposal would convey hundreds of acres south of Ely to the Ely
Shoshone Tribe. Residents in the area feel betrayed by the
federal agencies that proposed the specific acreage to the
Tribe, because they felt they were assured that the land would
not be recommended for development due to environmental and
jurisdictional concerns. State agencies have expressed strong
concerns that concentrated development on those lands could
result in negative environmental impacts to the Wildlife
Management Area adjacent to it. The Ely City Council feels
strongly that the proposal interferes with the ability for the
City to expand. The City Council and County Commission
recommended alternatives that would allow expansion of Tribal
residential and commercial activity while avoiding the
potential for negative environmental impacts. The staff
recommendation has been to negotiate with the Tribe to develop
an agreement to adhere to County zoning and planning standards.
The Tribal Chairman expressed willingness to approach the
Council about the potential of an agreement, but it has gone no
further. The County Commission asks that the concerns of all
citizens of the County be taken into account and the proposal
supported by the local governments should be reconsidered.
5. In outlining the proposed wilderness areas, the County
asked that the criteria include avoiding any actively used
roads, negative impact to traditional uses of the land, and
avoidance of areas with evidence of mineral potential. The
Wilderness Coalition honored that request and made every effort
to exclude areas with active mining claims. However, the mining
industry has recently expressed strong opposition to the
proposal to include land in wilderness areas that did not have
a full mineral inventory as a Wilderness Study Area. We
continue to receive calls from miners and mining companies
concerned about claims within proposed wilderness areas. The
County Commission would appreciate consideration of language to
allow boundaries of proposed wilderness areas to be adjusted to
accommodate active mine claims and documented mineral resources
that may have been included within the designated wilderness
areas.
The County Commission has additional requests for changes in
wording throughout the bill that we feel will support the goals of
conservation, recreation and development.
Title I--Land Disposals
1. The County supports the disposal of up to 45, 000 acres of land
but would prefer to increase that amount if possible.
2. The Ely District Resource Management Plan has not been approved.
If an approved RMP is required to make ``the land available'' for
disposal and there is a delay in the approval process, it could mean a
delay in being able to access the land. Possible changes in wording:
Page 4, (b) Description of Land, 2) (A) ``In Conformance with approved
Land Use Plans, (B) Ely Resource Management Plan, (C) A subsequent
Amendment to the Management Plan.
3. Allowed uses of the 10 percent to go to the County: add ``Land
Use Planning'' as well as Natural Resource Planning.
4. Uses of the Special Account.
a. Add, any environmental studies and surveying required for
the transfer of 200 acres for Industrial Park and Airport
expansion to the County.
b. Processing Wilderness Designations, the bill covers
fencing, signage, public education, and enforcement. Is it
implied that the funds can be used for writing the wilderness
management plans or for monitoring Compliance or should those
two activities also be spelled out?
c. Costs of conveyance of land to the State of Nevada.
Title IV--Pubic Conveyances
1. The sale of 200 acres of Industrial Park land, at $15,000 per
acre would result in $3 million in land sales. Using the 85/10/5
formula, the County would receive $300,000, the state would get
$150,000 and the Special Fund would get $2.55 million. The additional
acreage requires streets, water, and sewer services to provide usable
industrial sites. The land sales have to precede the funding but the
infrastructure is critical to attract businesses to locate in the park.
The $300,000 will not cover the development costs, and the County will
be dependent on grants to try to make the land usable. As written, the
provision won't help the County provide reasonably priced, full service
industrial property to help attract new industry.
2. The Industrial Park Review Board finds that potential buyers are
more comfortable with buying the property through N.R.S. 244.2815
instead of a public auction. The bill requires a competitive bid. This
may make it more difficult to sell the property. It might be beneficial
to ask if they could consider allowing the County to sell the land
under the processes allowed through the N.R.S.
Title V--Silver State Trail
1. Add the language, NEPA processes in place of studies of the
proposed route.
2. Add ``Traditional Uses'' as one of the categories of potential
negative impacts.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide written comment and
testimony on the proposed bill. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have about the process used to develop the County's
proposals and the concerns remaining in the community.
Senator Craig. Commissioner, thank you very much for that
recognition. Your full statement will be a part of the record.
I will have a couple of questions for you.
Now let me turn to Jerry Greenberg, vice president of The
Wilderness Society.
STATEMENT OF JERRY GREENBERG, VICE PRESIDENT OF
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. Greenberg. Chairman Craig, members of the subcommittee
and staff, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am
here representing Friends of Nevada Wilderness, The Nevada
Wilderness Project, Campaign for America's Wilderness, Red Rock
Audubon Society and The Wilderness Society.
First, I would like to thank Senators Ensign and Reid and
their staffs for the hard work on this legislation. This bill
has been 5 years in the making and during that time, we
attended countless meetings and numerous public hearings with
local officials, ranchers, off-road vehicle users, agency
staff, sportsmen and women and staff from the congressional
delegation. Throughout, participants came together in good
faith to work through some very good, difficult and complicated
issues and in so doing, have bridged the gap between what had
been historically polarized viewpoints. This inclusive process
and hard work has resulted in a bill that would designate 13
new wilderness areas while adding lands to two existing
wilderness areas, totaling some 545,000 acres. By any measure,
this represents significant gains in wilderness protection. Yet
even as we support these wilderness designations, we also
believe important areas should be added, specifically the
central portion of the South Even Range WSA, the Blue Mass
Mountains and the Antelope Range. We will continue to work with
local interests and the designation to add these special places
to the bill.
With respect to land disposal, we believe that decisions on
which lands should be identified for sale should be made with
extensive public involvement. We are pleased that the bill does
that by deferring to the Bureau of Land Management's current
land use planning process.
Through this planning process, the draft Resource
Management Plan or at least in 2005, identified about 23,000
acres for potential disposal in White Pine County. Based on
this, we would recommend that the 45,000 acres in section
101(b) of the bill be reduced to reflect the acreage figure
currently identified by the agency.
With respect to allocation of proceeds from land sales, we
recognize that Nevada has unique laws regarding such
allocation. However, we also believe that proceeds from the
sale of public land should, as a matter of good conservation
policy, be used primarily for conservation purposes.
Before closing, I would like to take a minute to address
the differences between the White Pine County bill and the
other bill we're hearing today, the Washington County bill.
Part of my job with the Wilderness Society is to ensure that
the organization is consistent in its approaches and positions
on wilderness legislation. In urging passage of White Pine with
the changes we have requested today, while advocating for
Washington County not to pass in its current form. I believe we
are doing exactly that, being consistent. The two bills are
very different from each other.
On wilderness, the White Pine bill would designate 545,000
acres of ecologically critical lands, much of which is under
threat from inappropriate ATV use and other development.
Meanwhile, the majority of the wilderness that would be
designated in the Washington County bill is located within Zion
National Park and is therefore largely free from development
threats. At the same time, most of the ecologically sensitive
lands in the county that are right now under threat from
inappropriate off-road vehicle use are left out of the bill.
With respect to land disposal, in both bills, we believe
the acreage identified is excessive. Having said that, there
are significant differences in the way the two bills handle
land disposal. The Washington County bill mandates that the
lands be sold and moreover, that they be sold outside of the
public process inherent in the development of a resource
management plan.
The White Pine bill does not. Instead, it defers to the
BLM's current RMP process for determining which public lands
are appropriate for sale. The Washington County bill would sell
ecologically important lands, including highly sensitive desert
tortoise habitat. The White Pine County legislation would not
sell ecologically sensitive lands.
Finally a word on the process behind each bill. Virtually
everyone involved in the discussions leading up to the White
Pine bill agrees that the process was open, inclusive and fair.
In Washington County, there is widespread disagreement among
those who took part about how fair and open the process has
been. This is one of the main points that I and the president
of the Wilderness Society have made directly in discussions
with Senator Bennett and his staff and I do want to acknowledge
and thank the Senator and his staff for how open they have been
in talking about our disagreements. I believe there is
opportunity to continue these discussions in the next Congress
and find ways to come to agreement.
In closing, we hope the subcommittee will give our comments
and suggested bill improvements very serious consideration.
With the improvements recommended in our testimony, we believe
that the White Pine County legislation represents significant
gains for the National Wilderness Preservation System and
should be enacted without delay. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jerry Greenberg, Vice President of
The Wilderness Society
Chairman Craig, Members of the Committee and staff, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jerry Greenberg. I am the
Vice President for Regional Conservation of The Wilderness Society. I
am here today representing Friends of Nevada Wilderness, The Nevada
Wilderness Project, Campaign for America's Wilderness, Red Rock Audubon
Society, and The Wilderness Society.
Collectively these organizations represent more than 3600 Nevadans
including members in Thite Pine County and nearly 210,000 citizens
across the country.
On behalf of the five organizations, I would like to thank Senators
Reid and Ensign and their staffs 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. I would also like to thank the staff of this Subcommittee for
visiting White Pine County and touring some of the areas that would be
designated as Wilderness under this legislation.
As you know, S. 3772 is a complex public lands bill built upon five
years of local citizen efforts that addresses a variety of issues in
White Pine County, Nevada. Although not perfect, this legislation is a
compromise that addresses a number of competing uses on public lands
and is product of a true bipartisan effort. With the improvements
recommended in our testimony, we believe that this legislation
represents significant gains for the National Wilderness Preservation
System and should be enacted without delay.
While I will briefly address each title of the bill, our expertise
is on the wilderness title of the legislation; therefore I will focus
the majority of my testimony on that title.
title i--land disposal
We recognize that many rural Nevada counties have communities that
are surrounded by public lands. White Pine County is composed of about
95% federally managed land. Out of 5.7 million acres in the county,
only 195,840 acres (3.4%) are privately owned, with much of this being
family ranches.
We are pleased that the bill defers to current law and the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) Land Use Planning process for determination of
which public lands are appropriate for sale in the future. We believe
that the far reaching planning decisions of determining which public
lands might be eligible for disposal should be made with extensive
public involvement as part of the agency's land use planning process
and carefully consider impacts to communities and natural and cultural
resources. Over the last several years, there have been extensive
public meetings regarding the potential sale of public lands in White
Pine County. From the dozens of meetings we have attended, it seems
clear that the majority of White Pine County citizens do not want to
see a massive sell off of their public lands. These lands in public
ownership are very important to people for a number of reasons,
including serving as important watersheds, places for camping, hunting
and fishing, caving, climbing and a broad array of other recreational
opportunities.
In our view, another vital component of this bill is its retention
of current law requiring environmental reviews prior to determination
of whether or not a sale should take place. It is important to assess
in detail what values may be found on these public lands, including
cultural resources, prior to finalizing the determination of which
lands should be sold.
Utilizing the planning process referred to above, the Ely BLM Field
Office draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
released in summer of 2005 identified about 23,000 acres for potential
disposal in White Pine County. As stated, we believe that the agency
planning process appropriately applied should be the basis for
determining the extent of any land disposal.
Thus, we recommend that the 45,000 acres mentioned in Section 101
(b) be reduced to more accurately reflect the amount of land that might
reasonably and appropriately be identified for sale through the BLM
Resource Management Plan or subsequent amendments.
It is also important to note that the lands identified in the RMP
for potential disposal are primarily located in the Steptoe Valley and
contain little to no ecological value. This valley contains the
communities of Ely, McGill, and Cherry Creek, and is the location of
the bulk of the county's infrastructure. This includes the airport,
industrial park, railroad, highway, and transmission corridors.
With respect to allocation of proceeds from land sales, we
acknowledge Nevada's unique laws regarding the disbursement of land
disposal proceeds. However, we believe that proceeds from the sale of
public land should be used for conservation purposes, as Nevada's
current laws intend.
title ii--wilderness areas
We believe the wilderness title represents a significant gain for
conservation and wilderness in this part of the state. In order to
present a better understanding of the wilderness quality lands found in
White Pine County, I thought it would be helpful to first begin by
providing some background information on our wilderness proposal and
our involvement with the White Pine County Commission and others that
have been engaged in wilderness discussions over the last several
years.
White Pine County's Wild Landscape
White Pine County is located in the eastern portion of the state,
adjacent to the Utah border. The county consists of approximately 5.7
million acres of which approximately 95% is federally managed public
land. Ely, the county seat, is located about four hours north of Las
Vegas. The areas proposed for wilderness in White Pine County are at
the heart of the Great Basin, where majestic mountain ranges tower over
wide valleys of sagebrush.
This rugged and scenic landscape supports diverse plant and
wildlife species, including elk, mule deer, cougar, pronghorn, sage
grouse, a major raptor migration route, and a host of other birds,
mammals, and reptiles.
Our Involvement in White Pine County Discussions
Almost 5 years ago, Nevada's congressional delegation asked all
interested elected officials, groups and individuals, including our
organizations, to develop and forward proposals for public land
legislation dealing with White Pine County. At that time, we made a
decision to engage in discussions and work with interested parties to
find solutions to protecting the county's wild lands.
During this process we have submitted the citizens' wilderness
proposal to the county Public Land Use Advisory Committee, the White
Pine County Commission and to the congressional delegation. In
addition, over the last few years we have attended countless meetings
and numerous public hearings with local elected officials, ranchers,
off road vehicle user groups, agency staff, sportsmen and women, and
staff from the congressional delegation to discuss our proposal. We
have also participated in numerous field trips with various interested
parties to proposed wilderness areas to view the land firsthand and to
find solutions to these complicated issues.
Citizens' Wilderness Proposal
For decades, citizens of Nevada have been inventorying wilderness
quality lands in the state. Once the congressional delegation shifted
focus to White Pine County, our organizations compiled existing data
and began to collect new data in order to create the Citizen's
Wilderness Proposal for White Pine County. Utilizing this two prong
approach, we were able to develop a more accurate and up to date
wilderness proposal for 730,000 acres.
The wilderness quality lands in the county are managed by two
federal agencies, the Bureau of Land Management and the National Forest
Service. Since part of our proposal is based on data collected from the
land managing agencies we will first describe our proposal for lands
managed by the BLM.
It is our belief that the Bureau of Land Management's wilderness
inventories of the late 1970's were faulty for numerous reasons, and in
order to develop an adequate wilderness proposal we needed more current
and accurate information. In 1979, during its eight-month Initial
Wilderness Inventory, the Nevada Bureau of Land Management used
``existing information'' and ``inventoried'' roughly 49 million acres
and immediately dropped 32.9 million acres from further consideration.
This was a rushed process by any measure. The public was then given
only 90 days to comment on the decision.
The Bureau of Land Management then spent six months on
``intensive'' on-the-ground surveys of the remaining 16.1 million
acres. Assuming they worked seven days a week, this ``intensive''
inventory required Bureau of Land Management personnel to survey 88,462
acres per day. After this intensive survey, which was cursory at best,
the agency dropped 11.1 million acres from further consideration. Once
again, the public was given only 90 days to comment on the decision.
Given the inadequate results of that rushed process, our coalition
determined it was necessary to inventory public lands in the county
managed by the BLM. The Citizen's Proposal for Wilderness in White Pine
County includes all of the Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study
Areas (WSA) that lie partially or entirely in the county. Our
organizations advocate for the protection of entire WSAs, whether
recommended or not recommended for wilderness by the BLM. Based on
field inventories and extensive research, we assert that each of these
WSAs qualify as Wilderness and merits protection as such.
In addition to the WSAs, we have included some Bureau of Land
Management managed lands that were not given WSA status by the agency
following the Intensive Wilderness Inventory conducted during 1979-
1980. The Coalition has conducted updated field inventories of many
non-WSA public lands within the last several years and has determined
that many do qualify for Wilderness based on the criteria of the
Wilderness Act. Many of these areas recommended for Wilderness
designation in our Citizens' Proposal were originally dismissed by the
BLM from further Wilderness study based on flawed criteria and
rationale, which resulted in the dismissal of significant wild
landscapes throughout Nevada.
The other federal agency that manages a significant amount of
wilderness quality lands in the county is the Forest Service.
Currently, the Forest Service manages the only two designated
wilderness areas in the county, Currant Mountain Wilderness, partially
located in the southwest part of the county, and Mt. Moriah Wilderness
located entirely within the eastern part of the county. Both wilderness
areas were designated in 1989. Similar to our review of BLM WSAs, we
reviewed the boundaries of the congressionally designated wilderness
areas to verify that the existing boundaries made sense from an
ecological and management perspective. There are a number of Forest
Service Inventoried Roadless areas in White Pine County that have
extremely high wilderness values. Based on our field work, we included
a number of them in our Citizens' Wilderness Proposal.
Wilderness values and wildlife habitat do not stop at
administrative boundaries. When we created our proposal, we based our
boundaries on ecological and physical features, rather than county
lines or agency administrative boundaries. Our Citizens' Wilderness
Proposal for White Pine County recommended Wilderness designation for
approximately 730,000 acres of public land managed by the BLM and the
Forest Service.
Using the latest technology and mapping methods, and with thorough
research into biological, wildlife, cultural, and economic aspects of
the landscape, we developed a comprehensive proposal for Wilderness in
White Pine County. The process for creating this proposal consisted of
conducting updated field inventories as well as researching current
data provided by federal land managers, state offices, local citizens,
and local governments. The field inventory process involved sending
paid and volunteer field crews out to Eastern Nevada to photo document
wilderness values as well as man-made impacts on the land and mark
precise locations on a topographic map using a global positioning
system (GPS) unit. To date, the field inventory process has yielded
thousands of photos taken since 2000. The field inventory information
was then compiled with existing data from other sources including
people who lived and worked in the area in an effort to minimize
potential conflicts with other uses and create the best possible
boundary. Our data was then compared to information and rationale from
the land managing agencies to help determine the validity of their
recommendations. Finally, based on updated fieldwork and additional
research, Wilderness proposal area boundaries were delineated and
descriptions and Wilderness rationale were documented.
One of the most heartening wilderness efforts we engaged in was a
jointly agreed-upon wilderness proposal for the High Schells (Schell
Creek Range), signed by longstanding ranchers in White Pine County and
endorsed by our organizations. This cooperative effort began in the
late winter of 2002, as we discussed the possibility of garnering
lasting protections for this wondrous mountain range, while finally
halting the negative impacts to landscape being caused by years of
irresponsible off road vehicle use. During the spring and summer of
2003, this collective group of concerned citizens met on a regular
basis. Together, we traveled every key road and access point, talked
over important ranching facilities that required continued motorized
access along with historical uses of valid roads and routes in the
area. The vast majority of ranchers who.run livestock in the High
Schells had a direct hand in drawing the agreed upon boundaries.
Finally, in November of 2003, the group signed a letter supporting a
new wilderness proposal for the High Schells, and recognized that
existing grazing rights are permitted under the Wilderness Act, subject
to such regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary. The
letter further stated that the area should be managed in accordance
with the Congressional Grazing Guidelines which emphasize that all
reasonable measures must be taken to minimize the impact of grazing
activities on wilderness character and to protect other resource
values. The letter was sent to the Nevada Congressional Delegation and
given to the White Pine County Commissioners. Although there have been
minor adjustments made to the boundary of this proposal in order to
prevent conflicts with snowmobiles and mountain bikes in certain areas
and to increase hunter access in another area, this effort stands as a
great example of cooperative conservation action based on
understanding, respect and trust.
As a result of this effort, we were able to break down existing
barriers to communication and bridge the gap between polarized
viewpoints and work with other ranchers in the area. This work resulted
in a number of jointly agreed upon boundaries that satisfied many of
the interested citizens.
Wilderness Designations in S. 3772
We thank the Nevada congressional delegation for addressing
wilderness in White Pine County. Additionally, we appreciate their
willingness to consider our wilderness recommendations from our
Citizen's Wilderness Proposal.
As you know, the legislation designates 13 new Wilderness areas and
makes two significant additions to existing Wilderness areas, totaling
approximately 545,000 acres (BLM = 285,000 acres; Forest Service =
260,000 acres). This bill would release approximately 65,000 acres from
BLM WSA status.
Although not perfect, S. 3772 would protect a significant amount of
wilderness and make important additions to the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
Some highlights of the areas and resources that would receive
Wilderness protection under S. 3772 include:
<bullet> Schell Creek Range Wilderness, consisting of approximately
122,000 acres, contains prime wildlife habitat, and popular
destination for primitive types of recreation and hunting.
<bullet> Red Mountain, Bald Mountain, White Pine Range, and Shellback
Wilderness Areas, along with additions to the designated
Currant Mountain Wilderness comprise an extensive block of
relatively intact wild landscapes and wildlife habitat.
<bullet> Becky Peak, Government Peak, and Bristlecone, are citizen
proposed areas with high wilderness values that the BLM failed
to include as WSAs during their intensive inventory.
<bullet> Highland Ridge Wilderness, adjacent to Great Basin National
Park, protects a significant amount of wildlife habitat as well
geologic and other natural resources.
<bullet> Mt. Grafton Wilderness, which includes the tallest peak on
BLM land in Nevada and which protects low elevation benchlands
important to wildlife.
<bullet> Goshute Canyon Wilderness--the diverse landscape and
vegetation of this area is also excellent habitat for several
important raptor species including peregrine falcon, bald eagle
and American kestrel, and limestone cliffs and caves.
The legislation makes a technical correction to the Mt. Moriah
Wilderness, designated in 1989. It is our belief that these technical
corrections are long overdue. The original Mt. Moriah Wilderness
boundary erroneously contained portions of well used vehicle routes,
parking area as well as primitive camping and staging areas for hunters
and horseback riders. There are other slight adjustments made to allow
for historical motorized access to range facilities like water troughs
and pipelines. By working with local ranchers and those involved during
the development of the legislation in 1989, we were able to come to a
joint agreement that resulted in support for the technical corrections
along with adding additional acres to be designated as wilderness in
the area.
Recently, mining interests have expressed concerns about small
portions of certain areas being included in the wilderness proposals
for White Pine County. Every effort has been made to exclude known and
active mining areas from these proposals. Some mining groups have
erroneously claimed that the Wilderness Act requires mineral surveys
before areas can be designated wilderness. They specifically reference
Section 4(d)(2) of the Wilderness Act. It is clear to us that Section
4(d)(2) deals only with already-designated national forest Wilderness
areas. Perhaps they are mistakenly referring to Section 3(b) of the
Wilderness Act, which was expressly limited to the study of 34 national
forest ``primitive areas'' that took place in the late 1960s and early
1970s. It is very clear that there is no requirement in the Wilderness
Act that mineral surveys be conducted before Congress can designate
wilderness areas. Over all of these years, regardless of what party was
in control, no such requirement has ever been put into law.
Specific Comments regarding the Wilderness Title of S. 3772
Although we are appreciative of the wilderness designated under S.
3772, we have some specific comments regarding the Wilderness title. We
understand that over the years, conditions on the ground can change and
sometimes these changes require minor boundary adjustments, resulting
in small gains or losses for wilderness, in order to best protect the
wilderness resources. We believe that some of the boundary
modifications can be accommodated. However, we do not support a net
loss of habitat in legislation due to the inappropriate management of
an area.
This happened to the South Egan Range Wilderness Study Area. Much
of the central portion of the WSA was not included for wilderness
designation in this bill because illegal vehicle routes were created
over the last twenty years after the area was designated as a
wilderness study area. The wilderness values within the South Egan
Range WSA were to have been managed so as to protect them until
Congress had the opportunity to determine what should be wilderness.
Unfortunately, a number of illegally created routes have been created
within the WSA and have led some to believe that these are
``historically'' used routes. We believe that some requests put forth
by local residents and the county to use some of these routes can be
agreed to. We however, believe that an expanded boundary, closer to the
original WSA boundary is necessary to prevent further irresponsible off
road vehicle use and to halt the fragmentation of key wildlife habitat
and to protect the wilderness characteristics of the area.
There were a number of other areas worthy of protection that were
not included in the legislation. We have provided detailed information
of these areas in our Citizen's Wilderness Proposal. In addition to the
South Egan WSA, the areas not designated as Wilderness under this
legislation that are most troubling to us include Blue Mass/Kern
Mountains and the Antelope Range. The White Pine County Commission has
repeatedly expressed a need for protecting the incredible scenic values
of the Blue Mass/Kern Mountain area. We believe it is critical that
this bill address protection for the Blue Mass/Kern Mountains area. We
also believe that the wilderness values in the Antelope Range are
worthy of wilderness protection. We request that these areas be added
to the legislation and will continue to work with the delegation to
ensure these places receive the protection they deserve.
The water rights language found in this legislation closely
resembles language used in previous wilderness bills and is commonly
referred to as ``headwaters'' language. Given the fact that many of
these proposed wilderness areas contain more widely distributed water
resources they require slightly different language than what has been
used in previous public lands bills in Nevada. It is important to note
that this language has been successfully enacted and implemented for
the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 (PL 103-77) and subsequent
wilderness laws. We feel this language is appropriate and will protect
the flowing waters and wilderness resources of the areas designated in
this bill.
Our organizations recognize certain ``cherrystems'' to allow for
wilderness boundaries to be brought to lower elevations and to provide
key access points. However, we also recognize that an abundance of
``cherrystems'' can accelerate the spread of invasive plants and
further fragment wildlife habitat. Allowing vehicle access directly to
natural springs greatly increases the harassment to wildlife using
these water sources. We strongly believe that in order to best protect
and lessen harassment and impacts to wildlife, ``cherrystems'' should
be pulled back at least 0.5 to 1 mile from the water sources. Often,
``cherrystems'' are proposed as a result of an individual or group of
people that desire to have motorized access on that particular route.
Our organizations take pride in working with affected users to find
common sense solutions that can work for everyone.
The presence of native wildlife at naturally fluctuating population
levels is an important component of wilderness character. White Pine
County, unlike Lincoln and Clark County, contains many natural springs
and creeks for wildlife thus requiring the installation of fewer
artificial water sources. In the event that new artificial water
sources are determined to be necessary, we believe that the
construction of new ``guzzlers'' should be prioritized outside of
Wilderness areas.
title iii--transfers of jurisdiction
These transfers of jurisdiction in this title make good sense
ecologically and from a management perspective. First, we support the
transfer in this title that would transfer 645 acres of BLM land to the
Fish and Wildlife Service. This acreage is currently a BLM inholding
within the southern portion of the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
in the northwestern corner of White Pine County. Second, we support the
transfer of the Forest Service lands totaling about 117,000 acres to
the BLM. Approximately 70,000 acres would be designated as Highland
Ridge Wilderness. This transfer would allow for more effective
management between the Park Service and the BLM instead of having three
agencies managing a single unit. We believe that it is positive for
wildlife and habitat management that the remaining 47,000 acres would
be withdrawn from the BLM's land disposal and mineral laws, and that
vehicles will be limited to designated routes.
title iv--public conveyances
We are supportive of the conveyances outlined in this title. Most
of the conveyances are open space to open space conveyances and will
result in consolidated management of the areas and natural resources
found within them. Specifically, we believe that the conveyance of 650
acres of BLM managed lands to Nevada State Parks in order to expand
Ward Charcoal Ovens State Park, which is currently being managed by the
State Parks, and the conveyance of 6,281 acres of BLM managed lands to
the Nevada Department of Wildlife to enlarge the Steptoe Valley
Wildlife Management area just south of Ely are sensible solutions. We
are generally supportive of other public conveyances for appropriate
community needs when the lands do not possess any wilderness qualities
or sensitive habitat.
title v--silver state off-highway vehicle trail
Our organizations encourage a fully transparent decision making
process independently initiated by the affected land management agency.
We recognize that this bill provides some protections in the form of a
study, criteria that must be met prior to designation (e.g., no
significant impacts), and limits the extent of a trail system. In these
respects, this bill is an improvement over the Lincoln County
legislation that legislatively designated a site-specific trail system.
We would prefer that the agency's obligations for monitoring and
enforcement were mandatory and fully enforceable. In addition, we are
concerned that this provision does not adequately address the current
issues of inappropriate ORV use in the area. It is our belief that the
BLM should have the opportunity to fully complete a comprehensive
travel planning process for the district before decisions are made on
this trail. Lastly, we support adding language to the bill that ensures
that any proposed trail system will not significantly impact
traditional uses such as livestock grazing. It is our preference that
this legislation provide clear congressional direction that the study
and planning process be conducted in accordance with NEPA requirements.
title vi--transfer of land to be held in trust for the ely shoshone
tribe
We believe that it is important for the native people in White Pine
County to be fairly treated. Increasing the amount of land by 3,500
acres to be held in trust for the Ely Shoshone Tribe seems appropriate.
It is our understanding that the bulk of the land is to be designated
for traditional and ceremonial uses and that no gaming would be allowed
on any of the parcels.
title vii--eastern nevada landscape restoration project
We support the goals of the Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration
Project, which is part of the Great Basin Restoration Initiative. The
ecological health of our Great Basin ecosystem is important given the
increasing loss of our native grass and shrub lands to invasive and
exotic species. It is our understanding that the projects implemented
by this act would be small in scale and would be conducted in
compliance with the Ely Field Office Resource Management Plan and the
National Environmental Protection Act.
title viii--amendments to the southern nevada public land management
act of 1998
This title makes amendments to the Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act (PL 105-263). The original goal of that legislation was
to make funds available to mitigate the results of the sale of public
lands for development in Clark County. As previously stated, we believe
that the proceeds from the sale of public lands should be used for
conservation purposes. This ensures that the American public does not
lose the conservation benefits which they cherish. To the extent that
these amendments would move the use of these proceeds away from
conservation benefits we would not be supportive of those changes.
We are supportive of the amendment to allow Washoe County to apply
for funds to purchase land (up to 250 acres) of the Ballardini Ranch
and develop a regional park and natural area. This is an important
component of the acquisition provision in SNPLMA and in line with its
purpose.
In closing, we hope the subcommittee will give our comments and
suggested bill improvements very serious consideration. With the
improvements recommended in our testimony, we believe that this
legislation represents significant gains for the National Wilderness
Preservation System and should be enacted without delay.
Senator Craig. Jerry, thank you very much.
Now let us turn to Alan Gardner, commissioner, Washington
County, Utah.
STATEMENT OF ALAN GARDNER, MEMBER, WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Gardner. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my
name is Alan Gardner and I am a commissioner from Washington
County, Utah. I am pleased to be here representing the citizens
of Washington County, Utah. We are a county experiencing
tremendous growth. The U.S. Census listed us as the fifth
fastest growing county and the fastest growing metropolitan
planning organization in the county.
Nearly 1,000 new residents arrive each month. The county is
just over 1.5 million acres, of which 84 percent is in some
form of Federal or State ownership. Over 29 percent of the
county is currently in some form of special restrictive
management, including protection for twelve different
threatened or endangered species. This legislation would add to
that number.
I want to publicly thank the entire Utah congressional
delegation for their support leading to the bipartisan efforts
you see today. I particularly want to thank Senator Bennett and
Congressman Matheson for sharing our vision and working to
advance it here in Congress.
We opted to be the first county in Utah to begin a
comprehensive land use planning project, with the goal to
develop legislation similar to what has been accomplished in
Clark County, Nevada, our neighbor to the west. The Nevada
legislation is very attractive to us. Washington and Clark
Counties share many similar problems. As a result, we
established a working group with the objective being land use
legislation and long-term, county-wide growth planning. The
result was a comprehensive and inclusive process. The group
scrutinized the county, gathered all available data and covered
every topic from power and transportation to endangered species
and wilderness. The data gathered and conclusions reached by
the working group were forwarded to Senator Bennett and
Congressman Matheson for development of legislative language.
Participants were also asked to submit written comments to
Senator Bennett with their conclusions and suggestions for
creating legislation based on the data gathered by the working
group.
Over the course of the next 12 months following the Nevada
precedent, the bill we are now discussing was written by
Senator Bennett's staff in coordination with Congressman
Matheson's staff. One of our foremost objectives of this
legislation was to get a handle on growth, to address this and
as a natural extension of our land use planning process, we
initiated what we are calling Vision Dixie. Vision Dixie is a
comprehensive growth-planning effort modeled after the Envision
Utah process used in some of the major communities on the
Wasatch Front and in other areas of the country with great
success. The Vision Dixie process and this legislation are
inseparably connected.
The legislation empowers the growth planning process. One
cannot work to its fullest benefit without the other one
because of the overall importance of this effort on the future
of Washington County. It is important that we pass S. 3636.
The elements of our legislation are very similar to the
Nevada bill, whose precedent we have followed. It established
permanent wilderness including 93,340 acres of BLM wilderness,
another 2,642 acres of Forest Service wilderness and 123,743
acres of wilderness inside Zion National Park as well as
expanding the park. It creates 61,000 acres of Red Cliffs
National Conservation Area for the permanent habitat and
protection of the endangered desert tortoise and establishes
nearly 170 miles of the Virgin River as Wild and Scenic.
There is no hard release language in this bill. There is no
law being made that prevents discussions or blogs continued
advocacy. There are elements of this legislation that we are
not entirely comfortable with as a commission, which I would
like to mention in my testimony.
First, in the designation of more wilderness in the county,
with 29 percent of the county already in some form of special
designation, adding to that number was not easy. This comes not
from an anti-wilderness statement but from the sense that there
must be some practical balance to all things and Washington
County has already paid a heavy toll in the public land
preservation arena.
Second is the failure of this legislation to cherry stem
the Sawmill Road, which crosses what would become the Canaan
Mountain Wilderness Area. The road was established in the early
1900's as an access road to a sawmill based at the cliff edge
of the Canaan mountains where lumber was lowered many hundreds
of feet by a cable operation to the valley floor below. It has
historically been a favorite trail of OHV enthusiasts and
remains a popular area today.
Based on recent court rulings, we believe that the road was
closed illegally and every effort should be made to keep this
historic road open.
I would like to make three final points. First, we have had
a good public process.
Second, this legislation creates good conservation. There
will never be full agreement on what should and what should not
be protected by wilderness designation, species protection,
etcetera. The process in Utah over the past three decades has
been one to obstruct and deny. Good conservation, even if it
falls short of someone's idea of all that could be done, is
still good conservation.
And third, Utah needs this bill. The combative nature of
the Utah Public Lands discussion demands that something be done
to take a good first step. This legislation is the best effort
to come out of the State in three decades. To continue to do
nothing in the face of all of the growth and natural resource
challenges that we face today would be irresponsible. We must
move this bill forward.
And in closing, I would like to again thank Senators
Bennett and Hatch and Congressmen Matheson and Cannon and
Bishop for the help they have been and thank the Committee for
the opportunity to be here today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gardner follows:]
Prepared Statement Alan Gardner, Member, Washington County, Utah Board
of Commissioners
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here
representing the citizens of Washington County, Utah. We are a County
experiencing tremendous growth. In August of this year, the U.S. Census
listed us as the fifth-fastest growing county in the United States, and
the fastest growing metropolitan planning organization in the nation.
Nearly 1000 new residents per month arrive in Washington County,
drawn by the wonderful natural beauty of the land, the warm climate,
and the diverse recreational opportunities. The climate is not only
attractive to the residents and visitors, but also provides a healthy
habitat for a number of plants and animals, including twelve different
threatened or endangered species, some found nowhere else in the world.
Our beloved Zion National Park also draws millions of visitors
annually. As a result, many different groups rightly feel some
ownership in the future of our area. Our legislation is an honest
attempt to balance all of these needs and points of view.
I have been a Washington County Commissioner since 1996 and am a
native of the county. My ancestors helped to establish the first
communities, the first coming in 1855, over 150 years ago. I have a
deep appreciation for them, and for the work they did and the hardships
they endured to create the communities which now make up Washington
County. It is because of this heritage that I have such a strong sense
of responsibility toward assuring that the future of Washington County
protects the quality of life which my Grandparents and many like them
sacrificed to create, and which draws people to our area in such
incredible numbers today.
The extraordinarily beautiful area that makes up Washington County
is just over 1.5 million acres, of which about 84% is in some form of
Federal or State ownership. Nearly one-third of the county, over 29%,
is currently under some form of special, restrictive management. Our
legislation would add to that number. As a result, we are faced with a
tremendous challenge---huge areas of public lands, some very
spectacular, on one hand, and less than 10% of our lands available to
accommodate the thousands of people who are coming, and are yet to
come, on the other hand. It is a formidable task to try to balance the
preservation of our special places, while at the same time assuring
that growth will be accommodated in a visionary manner that provides
and maintains a high quality of life. We are confident that our
legislation is an excellent step toward accomplishing this task.
The residents of Washington County want smart economic growth, a
strong and sustainable local job base, preservation of our special
areas, and protection of the high quality of life that makes this place
special. This legislation establishes policies that will allow us to
develop a vision for the future, and then gives us the tools to
accomplish the various elements of that vision.
I want to publicly thank the entire Utah Congressional delegation
for their support of this approach. I particularly want to thank
Senator Bennett and Congressman Matheson for sharing our vision and
then working to advance it here in the Congress. When we first
approached our Delegation Members, they quickly grasped the potential
of pursuing this objective and turned it into the bi-partisan effort
you see here today.
Following an offer by then Governor Olene Walker to help facilitate
working meetings, Washington County opted to be the first county in
Utah to begin a comprehensive land use planning project. The goal was
to develop legislation similar to what had been accomplished in Clark
County, Nevada, our neighbor to the west. Washington County and Clark
County share many similar problems; extraordinary growth, large areas
of public lands, many interest groups advocating proposals for public
management, diverse populations, heavy demands on resources and
infrastructures, and so forth. The Nevada legislation, which combines
land preservation with economic development, planning for future
growth, and innovative ideas for land management, was very attractive
to Washington County. Consequently, the Washington County
Commissioners, with the assistance of the State of Utah, put together a
working group. The purpose of the working group was to hold regular
comprehensive working meetings with the final objective being land use
legislation and long term county-wide growth planning. The group was
made up of people who represented many diverse interests from around
the county, the state and the region, including individuals with both
local and national perspectives, such as the Dixie Wildlife Federation,
Virgin River Land Trust, Outdoor Retailers Association, Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Blue Ribbon
Coalition, and many others, including federal agencies as advisors.
The members agreed at the beginning to adhere to several rules of
engagement, which included the following: They would remain at the
table until the process was finished; they would disagree agreeably so
that a comfortable atmosphere existed for the free exchange of ideas
and for open dialogue on all the issues; and, each member would keep
the overall good of the project, the bigger picture, as the focal point
and foundation of any proposals that were brought to the table.
From the beginning, the process worked well. The group scrutinized
Washington County, gathered all available data, and covered every
topic---from power and transportation to endangered species. Nothing
was left off the table, and the county worked extensively to reach out
to the community for expertise and proposals that were not sufficiently
represented by the working group.
The result was a very comprehensive and very inclusive process. We
did not debate each issue, or try to hammer out some compromise deal as
has been done so unsuccessfully in the past. Rather, the data gathered
and conclusions reached by the working group were forwarded to Senator
Bennett and Congressman Matheson for development of legislative
language. Participants were also asked to submit written comments to
Senator Bennett with their conclusions and suggestions for creating
legislation based on the data gathered by the working group. Over the
course of the next 18 months, following the Nevada precedent, the bill
we are now discussing was written by Senator Bennett's staff in
coordination with Congressman Matheson's staff, and in direct
correlation with the County, members of the working group, and members
of the public. It was a very carefully developed and well thought out
process. We wanted all the stakeholders to be involved and their issues
to be heard, and they were. We were very sensitive to the fact that if
we were to err, we should err in favor of too much public participation
rather than not enough. After the proposal was far enough along to
formally introduce to the public, Senator Bennett and Congressman
Matheson held a press conference, making maps and draft language
available to all interested parties. We then held open houses in
strategic areas in Washington County where we exchanged information and
set up a process for receiving further comments from the public. As a
result of those meetings and the correlating comments, a number of
changes were made to the legislation before it was introduced.
To summarize, this has been a truly grassroots project. The
participants, for the most part, have been dedicated to its success
from the beginning, and the public has had ample opportunity to
participate in the process.
As I said, one of our foremost objectives with this legislation was
to get a handle on growth. It is vitally important that we equip the
county and the cities and towns in the area with the tools to direct
the phenomenal influx of people into the area. To this end, as a
natural extension of our land--use planning process, we have initiated
what we are calling ``Vision Dixie''. Vision Dixie is a comprehensive
growth planning effort modeled after the Envision Utah process used in
some of the major communities on the Wasatch Front to great success. It
has also been used very successfully in other areas of the country as
well.
As the sponsor of this effort, the County has entered into an
agreement with Envision Utah, the Oquirrh Institute, the Nature
Conservancy, and all the communities in Washington County in order to
create a county-wide growth footprint which gives all the communities a
vision for growth, standards which should define how that growth must
occur, and ordinances by which those standards are accomplished. This
process will involve a great deal of public input, adding to the public
input already provided in our land use planning project. In other
words, it provides a forum for the citizens of Washington County to
design their own future.
The Vision Dixie process and this legislation are inseparably
connected. The legislation empowers, the growth planning process
directs. One cannot work to its fullest benefit without the other, and
because of the importance of this overall effort to the future of
Washington County, it is very important that we pass S. 3636.
The elements of our legislation are similar to the Nevada bills
whose precedent we have followed. It establishes permanent wilderness,
including 93, 340 acres of BLM wilderness, another 2642 acres of Forest
Service wilderness, and 123,743 acres of wilderness inside Zion
National Park. It creates the 61,000 acre Red Cliffs National
Conservation Area for the permanent habitat and protection of the
endangered Desert Tortoise, and establishes nearly 170 miles of the
Virgin River as wild and scenic.
While there are groups that espouse far more wilderness than is
included in this legislation, their tactics have produced no permanent
BLM wilderness in the State of Utah. The passage of S. 3636 would
change that stalemate. Further, there is no hard release language in
this bill. There is no law being made here that prevents future
discussions or blocks continued advocacy. We have done our best to
include those lands on which there was some level of agreement, and
have excluded areas where wilderness would make management difficult
for the endangered desert tortoise or which would not allow for the
improvement of critical winter habitat for mule deer in cooperation
with the state of Utah. This area has been devastated by fire for the
last two years. Neither the tortoise habitat nor the mule deer habitat
were recommended by the Bureau of Land Management for wilderness
designation.
This legislation would also provide for the creation of the High
Desert OHV Trail. This trail has been in the planning and development
stages for several years. It will utilize established roads and trails
on the west side of the County to create a designated route for the OHV
community, thus greatly reducing the amount of resource damage that can
occur with the constantly increasing popularity of Off Highway
Vehicles. Our legislation provides for the trail to be created in an
environmentally sensitive manner, and also allows for funding for
development, monitoring, resource protection, and enforcement. Our
language for this section of the legislation is taken directly from the
``Silver State Trail'' language in Lincoln County, Nevada.
The bill also provides for long-term economic development and
growth planning by establishing corridors for gas, electricity, water,
and transportation. Following the Nevada pattern, it also provides for
the disposal of up to 24,300 acres of BLM land in two tiers. The
proceeds from the sale of these lands would be distributed in the same
manner and based on the same formula as in Nevada, with 5% going to the
State permanent school fund, 2% to the County to cover administrative
costs, 8% to the Washington County Water Conservancy District for
identified long-term water projects in the County, as demands dictate,
and in direct correlation with the Vision Dixie planning effort, and
85% to a special fund for conservation projects identified by the
legislation, including preservation of critical lands, management of
wilderness areas, trail repair and reconstruction, and management of
the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area, among other things. The
Desert Red Cliffs Reserve, which is home to the desert tortoise, is one
of the first and most successful habitat conservation plans in the
country. This legislation will establish the Reserve as a National
Conservation Area, thus giving permanence to a well-functioning
conservation partnership. The 61,000 acre reserve still contains in
excess of $400,000,000 of non-federal lands that yet need to be
acquired by the United States. Funding from land sales allowed by S.
3636 could help address this problem, while also helping to provide
habitat protection for many other species around the county as well.
This section of the legislation, dealing with land sales, is the
area that has generated the most criticism, and conversely, has
received our most intensive effort in response to public input. We have
tried to diligently and responsibly to address public concerns in how
this would be accomplished. The first tier of 4300 acres, to be sold
over a period of at least five years, is already identified by the BLM
in their Resource Management Plan as suitable for disposal. In response
to concerns from the public, we have added two layers of further
protections for these directed sale lands: First, we have given the BLM
an extra year to further scrutinize these lands before they are made
available for sale, and, second, we have included covenant language
that assures that if something of national importance is discovered on
any lands offered for sale, the site would have to be protected.
The second tier of up to 20,000 acres, will only be made available
for sale if it is identified in the Vision Dixie growth planning
process as being very important to the overall county growth footprint,
and then would be sold in sensible increments over a period of 10 to 20
years, or longer. The Washington County Growth and Conservation Act
makes it possible for the Vision Dixie growth planning team to actually
develop a countywide growth vision and then identify lands that should
be developed as part of that countywide growth footprint. Whatever the
end product is, the fact remains that this legislation equips the
Vision Dixie Project Administrators with the ability to select those
lands which best fit the ideals created by the growth planning team and
then make them available for directed development as appropriate.
Without the legislation, the planners would be seriously handicapped in
their efforts to direct growth, create open space, and protect precious
areas while at the same time assuring the high quality of life that
draws people to this area.
There are elements of this legislation which we are not entirely
comfortable with as a Commission, and which I would like to mention in
my testimony. The first area of concern is in the designation of more
wilderness acres in the County. With 29% of the County already in some
form of special designation, adding to that number has been a difficult
pill for the County to swallow. This comes not from any anti-wilderness
sentiment, but from the sense that there must be some practical balance
to all things, and Washington County has already paid a heavy toll in
the public land preservation arena. Consequently, while some are
calling for more wilderness, we believe that it could have been less,
given the circumstances.
The second area of discomfort comes from the failure of this
legislation to cherry-stem the Sawmill Road which crosses what would
become the Canaan Mountain Wilderness Area. The road was established in
the early 1900s as an access road to a sawmill based at the cliff edge
in the Canaan Mountains, where lumber was lowered many hundreds of feet
by a cable operation to the valley floor below for transport. It has
historically been a favorite trail for OHV enthusiasts, and remains a
popular area today. Based on recent court rulings, we believe that the
road was closed illegally, and should have been cherry-stemmed in this
process. While we have remained sensitive to the concerns surrounding
this road, we would like to make the point in this testimony that it
remains an area of concern for the Washington County Commissioners as
well as for other stakeholders who have been involved in this effort.
We believe that every effort should be made to recognize this problem
and keep this historic road open.
I would like to make three final points, if I may.
First, we have had ample process. As you know in working with the
public, someone always finds reason to complain; especially when they
don't get everything they want. This has been a careful, deliberate
process of collaboration during which we have tried in every way
possible to draw interested stakeholders into the design of the end
product. It is an honest effort to move forward in a long-standing
stalemate. Given the outstanding conservation features of this
legislation, it is disappointing that we can't emphasize our areas of
agreement and move forward, rather than, once again, cry foul about the
few areas where we disagree. We seem continually to be forced into a
situation where someone's idea of perfect legislation becomes the enemy
of excellent legislation. S. 3636 is not perfect legislation, but it is
by every standard excellent.
Second, as I have indicated, this legislation creates good
conservation. There will never be full agreement on what should and
what should not be protected by wilderness designation, species
protection, and so forth. The process in Utah over the past three
decades has been to obstruct and deny. Good conservation, even if it
falls short of someone's idea of all that should be done, is still good
conservation. To prevent its implementation because it falls short of
the goals of certain single focus groups seems narrow-minded. We
believe that any step towards good conservation is a good step, and
this legislation is a major step in the right direction.
And third, Utah needs this bill. The combative nature of the Utah
public lands discussion demands that something be done to take a good
first step. This legislation is a very good first step, and represents
the best effort to come out of our state in three decades. To continue
to do nothing in the face of all the growth and natural resource
challenges that we face would be irresponsible. We must move forward,
and S. 3636 will allow us to finally do just that.
Summarily, I would once again like to thank Senators Bennett and
Hatch, and Congressmen Matheson, Cannon, and Bishop for their wonderful
help and support in the development of this legislation. I would also
like to thank the members of the Committee today for this opportunity
to testify in support of S. 3636. I ask for your earnest consideration
of this legislation, and believe that it will establish a strong
precedent in Utah for collaboration and public process in public land
matters in the future.
Thank you.
Senator Craig. Commissioner, thank you very much for that
testimony.
Now last to testify is Peter Metcalf, president, Black
Diamond Equipment, Limited. Welcome before the committee.
STATEMENT OF PETER METCALF, PRESIDENT, BLACK DIAMOND EQUIPMENT,
LTD, BOARD MEMBER, OUTDOOR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, SALT LAKE
CITY, UT
Mr. Metcalf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to testify about the Washington County Growth and Conservation
Act. My name is Peter Metcalf. I'm a Utah resident, the
president and founder of Black Diamond Equipment, a Utah-based
outdoor equipment company with annual sales over approximately
$60 million per year, with over 300 Utah-based employees as
well as global operations.
Black Diamond chose to relocate to Salt Lake in 1991,
primarily because of its immediate proximity to wilderness
quality public lands. With this experience, I've served on the
executive board of the Economic Development Corporation of Utah
as well as on Governor Huntsman's task force on the outdoor
recreation economy and I've been honored with the Ambassador of
the Year Award by the Salt Lake Visitors and Convention Bureau
for my contributions to the State's visitation economy.
I'm also here today in my capacity as director and vice
chair of the Outdoor Industry Association. OIA is a national
trade association whose mission is to ensure the growth and
success of the outdoor industry. The outdoor industry is made
up of over 4,000 businesses with half a million employees,
generating $33 billion in sales every year. They have a twice-
a-year trade show in Salt Lake City, which is by far the
largest State host each year and we are there because of the
immediate access to the high quality public lands.
The Outdoor Industry Association opposes this legislation
because the bill falls far short of truly protecting our public
lands and balancing the needs of the region. We ask that the
bill be withdrawn and reworked to allow for more public review
and improvements.
Washington County, as we know, is home to Zion National
Park, however this is but one piece of the county's spectacular
wild landscape. Many lands outside the park deserve protection
as well, especially now as the landscape is under pressure from
the region's intense population growth. Over half of the
legislation's proposed wilderness is located within Zion
National Park, which are largely protected from threats while
only a fraction of the wild BLM land outside the park, which
are vulnerable to threats, would be protected. Many stunning
and desert expanses near Zion and the Mojave have been
excluded. This legislation would leave out many treasured local
canyons, forests, and mountain landscapes that are presently
protected.
The OIA strongly urges sponsors of this legislation to
protect all the regions preserving wild lands. These areas are,
in part, what makes Washington County unique and a desired
place to live, to work, to recreate.
We are concerned with this legislation because when it
promotes the sale of up to 24,000 acres of public land in a
region already struggling to preserve open space and faced with
sprawl and diminishing opportunities for close-to-home
recreation. The BLM has already disposed of 18,000 acres nearly
in the past 10 years. We urge the Committee not to create the
expectation that Utah's public lands should be sold to ensure
funding deficits, especially if those lands have provided
significant recreation or cultural values.
Third, their numerous rights of way utility corridors and
then authorizes the BLM to create a county-wide off-road
vehicle trail yet it fails to develop any balanced recreation
plan in the region or the means to enforce it.
High quality public lands such as those found in Washington
County are critical to our industry. Active outdoor recreation
is increasingly a strong and vital part of our Nation's
economy, especially in rural areas. The economic impact is
impressive. Outdoor recreation contributes $730,000 billion to
the U.S. economy, several billion in Utah and 6.5 million jobs
nationwide. Clearly, recreation and public lands play a very
special and critical role in our economy.
In addition, we know that active outdoor recreation
improves the health of Americans. Studies cite that 25 percent
higher health care costs for those people who are physically
inactive. While 80 million Americans currently use outdoor
activities as their main form of exercise.
Protecting the public lands that support outdoor recreation
is critical to establishing and sustaining balance, economic
ecosystems across the Nation, especially in the West. We urge
the committee to look at ways that communities can maximize the
benefits from our public lands rather than simply selling them
off for private development.
Many Utahans care deeply about this region, as do I but
feel that this legislation falls far short. A June 21 statewide
poll showed that 89 percent of Utahans think public hearings
should be held in different locations around Utah before this
legislation is voted on. This has not happened. Even in
Washington County, the local sentiment is split. Since OIA and
Black Diamond have taken an active position in attempting to
stop this legislation, we have been amazed at the ground swell
of enthusiastic feedback from customers that is nearly
unanimous in its support of our work.
So in conclusion, we suggest that the sponsors of this
legislation withdraw it. We urge the subcommittee to find a
more sustainable approach to public land management. As Stewart
Brand has written, ``Natural systems are priceless in value and
nearly impossible to replace but they are cheap to maintain.
All you have to do is defend them.'' For one of Utah's largest,
most vibrant and sustainable economic sectors, active outdoor
recreation, Mr. Brand's insights resonate.
``We must defend that which cost us nothing to create but
will cost us all so dearly to lose.'' Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Metcalf follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Metcalf, President, Black Diamond
Equipment, Ltd., Salt Lake City, UT, Board Member, Outdoor Industry
Association
introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee
about the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act, S. 3636. My
name is Peter Metcalf. I am a Utah resident and the president and
founder of Black Diamond Equipment, a Utah-based outdoor equipment
company with annual sales of approximately $60 million per year with
over 300 Salt Lake City based employees, another 30 in Europe and 50
more employees in Asia.
I am also appearing before the committee today in my capacity as a
member of the board of directors and vice-chair of the Outdoor Industry
Association (OIA). OIA is a national trade association whose mission is
to ensure the growth and success of the outdoor industry. The outdoor
industry is made up of over 4000 businesses with 500,000 employees in
all 50 states, generating $33 billion in sales every year. Last year,
159 million Americans participated in outdoor recreation, with the
greatest numbers in the gateway sports of hiking, biking, camping and
paddle sports. OIA's member companies include Yakima, Mountain
Hardwear, The North Face, Cascade Designs, Vibram USA, Johnson
Outdoors, REI, Eastern Mountain Sports, JanSport, Smartwool,
Timberland, Columbia Sportswear, Black Diamond Equipment, GoLite,
Vasque/Redwing and more. Attached is a letter concerning the Washington
County Growth and Conservation Act to the Committee from thirty-one
retailers in the outdoor industry.
I appreciate that the sponsors of the legislation have attempted to
craft legislation to address the needs of communities and public lands
in southwestern Utah. This legislation has sparked a helpful discussion
about the future of Washington County and our public lands. I am
encouraged to know that a local planning effort, known as Vision Dixie,
is underway. The local planning process is dearly needed and I hope
this continues, however, the Washington County Growth and Conservation
Act is premature before completion of the local planning.
The OIA opposes this legislation because we are concerned that the
bill falls short of truly protecting our public lands and balancing the
needs of the region. Our recommendation is that the bill be withdrawn
and reworked to allow for more public review and improvements. It is
our hope that such a process may ultimately lead to a bill that could
be more fully supported by Utah citizens and all citizens who care
about our public lands.
wilderness and the outdoor recreation industry
Many Americans may not know of Washington County by name, but many
Americans do know of this region's spectacular landscape protected
within Zion National Park. Zion National Park is but one piece of the
county's spectacular wild landscape. Many lands outside the park
deserve protection as well. At the same time, the landscape is clearly
under pressure from the region's intense population growth. The OIA has
taken a position in opposition to this legislation because we are
concerned about the specific impacts this bill would have on public
lands and recreation opportunities in Washington County. We also have
concerns about this legislation as a matter of public policy.
First, we are concerned that the legislation fails to protect many
wild public lands in Washington County that truly deserve protection.
The legislation designates roughly 220,000 acres of wilderness across
Washington County. Much of the proposed wilderness (120,000 acres) is
located within Zion National Park. Unfortunately, only a fraction of
the wild Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land outside the park would be
protected under this legislation. Many stunning canyons and desert
expanses near Zion National Park or in the Mojave Desert have been
excluded by this bill. Similarly, the bill would add less than 3,000
acres of Forest Service wilderness despite the fact that the county is
home to over 380,000 acres of Forest Service land. Just 50,000 acres of
Forest Service wilderness is currently protected in the region. The
legislation would actually strip Wilderness Study Area protection from
over 15 square miles of now protected lands. On a whole this
legislation would leave out many treasured local canyons, forests, and
mountain landscapes.
The OIA supports the protection of wilderness and strongly urges
sponsors of this legislation to protect all of the region's deserving
wild lands. These areas are, in part, what makes Washington County
unique and a desired place to live, work and recreate.
selling public land
We are also deeply concerned that this legislation would allow the
sale of significant amounts of public land and direct those sale
proceeds toward funding local and federal government projects. Under
Title I of this legislation, as much as 24,300 acres of public land in
a single county could be sold off for development. As I understand from
the Bureau of Land Management, the agency has already disposed of
roughly 18,000 acres of BLM land in the past ten years. Still this
legislation calls for more disposal of public lands in Washington
County. We are concerned that this legislation promotes the sale of
public land in a region already struggling to preserve open space and
faced with diminishing opportunities for close-to-home outdoor
recreation opportunities.
The legislation earmarks two percent of land sales proceeds to the
County for administrative services, eight percent to the Water
Conservancy District, five percent to the state for education, and the
remaining eighty-five percent to various federal projects in Washington
County. On a national perspective, we are deeply concerned that this
legislation sets a dangerous precedent of selling federal lands owned
by all Americans to fund local and federal government projects. We are
sympathetic to local. governments which face funding shortfalls,
however, we urge the committee not to create the expectation that our
public lands should be sold to meet short-term funding deficits.
conservation gains at risk
The legislation contains numerous provisions that promote
development of public lands without an appropriate balance for
conservation of at-risk wild lands. The bill establishes hundreds of
miles of corridors for utility lines, highways, and pipelines. Public
lands would also be dedicated to water development and dam sites. The
legislation also authorizes the BLM to create a county-wide off-road
vehicle trail, yet the bill fails to consider other types of
recreational use of the landscape or the need to develop a long term
travel management plan on public lands in the county.
The outdoor industry depends upon the long-term protection of our
public lands and has worked to help achieve protection of lands that
outdoor users can enjoy. As the outdoor industry has grown over the
years, this industry has increasingly worked to reinvest in our public
lands and enhance the public's enjoyment of open spaces. We are
concerned that this legislation would turn back the progress protecting
our public lands that many outdoor retailers have sought to achieve
over the years. Further, if this approach is repeated across the
nation, many lands across the American West or beyond could be at risk
of being sold.
local communities and the outdoor industry
The failure to protect wild lands in Washington County could have
direct economic and cultural consequences to the communities in the
region. Active outdoor recreation is increasingly a strong and vital
part of our nation's economy, especially in rural areas.
This year, Outdoor Industry Foundation, with the support of many
other trade groups including the travel industry, completed the
industry's first study quantifying the contribution of active outdoor
recreation to the U.S. economy. We looked at eight activity categories:
bicycling, camping, fishing, hunting, paddling, snow sports (including
downhill skiing, snowboarding, cross-country/nordic, snowshoeing),
hiking and backpacking (including mountaineering/canyoneering), and
wildlife viewing. With the support of Secretary of the Interior Dirk
Kempthorne and Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, we released the findings
this summer and the numbers are impressive.
Active Outdoor Recreation contributes:
<bullet> $730 billion to the U.S. economy
<bullet> Generates $289 billion annually in retail sales and services
across the U.S.
<bullet> Touches over 8 percent of American's personal consumption
expenditures more than 1 in every 12 dollars circulating in the
economy
<bullet> Generates $88 billion in annual state and national tax
revenue
<bullet> Supports nearly 6.5 million jobs across the U.S.
The bottom line is that recreation and public lands play a special
and critical role in our economy.
Active recreation and public lands offer other benefits as well:
The study also shows that outdoor recreation is a primary vehicle of
transferring wealth from our wealthier urban/suburban parts of the
states to rural areas. It's a way of taking the dollars and casting
those dollars to the areas where they are needed most.
In addition, we know that outdoor recreation improves the health of
Americans. Studies cite 25% higher health care costs for those people
who are physically inactive. An OIF research project titled Exploring
the Active Lifestyle examined ``how, when and why active Americans
become active'' and it showed that 8 out of 10 active Americans feel
that they are happier, have better family relationships and less stress
in their lives when they are active. And 80 million Americans currently
use outdoor activities as their main form of exercise.
Protecting the public lands that support outdoor recreation is
critical to establishing and sustaining balanced local economic
ecosystems across the nation, especially in the West. We urge the
committee and sponsors of this bill to look at ways that communities
can maximize the benefits from our public lands, rather than simply
selling them off for private development.
local and state-wide concerns
Finally, I want to take a brief moment to explain how this bill is
being received in Utah. It is nearly impossible to miss the widespread
concern about this legislation throughout Utah. Many Utahns, including
myself, care deeply about this region, but feel that this legislation
falls short. A June 21st statewide poll showed that eighty-nine percent
of Utahns think public hearings should be held in different locations
around Utah before the legislation is voted on in Washington, DC. This
legislation has not gone through the needed public review. Even in
Washington County, the local sentiment is split. Three city councils
have passed resolutions opposing the bill, four have passed resolutions
in support, one city council has opposed a resolution for the bill, and
four have taken no action. Over forty letter-to-the-editors against the
bill have been published in Washington County newspapers. The Salt Lake
Tribune has run three editorials and many LTE's opposing the
legislation.
conclusion
In closing we suggest that the sponsors of this legislation
withdraw this legislation so that there can be more public review and
opportunities for improvements. Many Utahns have concerns with the
legislation and want a better public process. We believe that our
public lands ought to be protected for the enjoyment of current and
future generations. Instead of proposing to sell off our public lands
for private development, at a time that many communities in the west
are taxing themselves to use public money to buy private land to
prevent its development, we urge the subcommittee to find a more
sustainable approach to public land management and addressing the
funding needs of the local and federal government. As Stewart Brand has
written: ``Natural systems are priceless in value and nearly impossible
to replace, but they are cheap to maintain. All you have to do is
defend them.''
______
Statement of American Alpine Institute, Ltd.; Adventure 16; Black
Diamond Equipment Ltd; Broudy/Donohue Photography; Cascade Designs;
Chaco, Inc.; Champaign Surplus Store, Inc.; Cloudveil Mountain Works,
Inc.; Earth Games; Great Outdoor Provision Co.; Hi-Tec Sports USA,
Inc.; HOWADESIGN; Keen Footwear; Kelty; Mercury Advertising; MoonFoto;
OnTarget Public Relations LLC; Outdoor Industry Conservation Alliance;
Pack Rat Outdoor Center; Patagonia; Pineneedle Mountaineering;
Retailers of the Outdoor Industry; SNEWS LLC; Travel Country Outdoors;
The Base Camp; The Elephant's Perch; The Forest Group; Tibetan Trader
Inc.; Ute Mountaineer; Wild River Outfitters; and Wilderness Sports
Dear Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and the members of the
committee, we are writing to express our opposition to S. 3636, the
Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2006.
Our companies operate in the outdoor industry, which generated
retail sales of $33.3 billion in 2005. Our customers depend on
protected public lands as destinations to use the products we make and
sell.
We have a special interest in Utah's public lands due to the
spectacular beauty and recreational opportunities found there. The
State of Utah also serves as the location for our industry's twice
yearly trade shows, which bring roughly $30 million into Utah's economy
each year.
S. 3636 would substantially rewrite federal laws controlling
southwestern Utah's public lands in ways that could harm the public's
ability to climb, hike, camp, watch wildlife, hunt, fish, and sightsee
in these special places.
First, S. 3636 would convey thousands of acres of public lands near
Zion National Park and the Mojave Desert into private hands. In the
process, the bill could divert hundreds of millions of dollars in
federal proceeds from public land conservation to support local
development, a fundamental shift from current policy. By creating this
loophole, S. 3636 provides a dangerous incentive to liquidate our
nation's natural heritage. We urge you to oppose selling public lands
to subsidize local projects and government budgets.
Second, though we generally support new wilderness designations for
the recreational benefits they provide, we are concerned about the
wilderness component of this legislation. S. 3636 fails to preserve the
most vulnerable and unprotected lands in Washington County: especially
the ecologically rich Mojave Desert region. The bill also rolls back
Wilderness Study Area protection now in place for roughly 9,500 acres,
or 14 square miles of BLM land.
Finally, S. 3636 would require that the BLM establish a new system
of off road vehicle routes, despite the BLM's inability to manage
existing use. We are concerned these designated routes would attract
more off road vehicle use to proposed wilderness areas and wildlife
habitat.
We urge you to improve this legislation to safeguard our public
lands, or alternatively to stop its passage. Thank for considering our
concerns about S. 3636.
Senator Craig. Peter, thank you very much. Because of the
time, I will not ask all the questions that we have prepared.
We may submit some of them to you in writing for your response.
Commissioner Gardner, let me turn to you. Being that we've
just finished discussing the Utah bill, I understand there has
been a fair amount of negative press about the bill. In
particular, I was a bit surprised that papers like the New York
Times and the Los Angeles Times wrote very negative articles
and editorials on the bill in the process. Is that a correct
observation?
Mr. Gardner. That is a correct observation. However, as you
read the articles that have been written, you can see the words
that SUA has presented to them, that they mirror identical a
lot of the local things that initially came out, that SUA came
out with against the bill in Washington County. So it is just
an effort by them to bring it to a higher scale.
Senator Craig. So am I to assume that neither of the papers
came to the location and examined the location and made
observations from that?
Mr. Gardner. The LA Times did come and visit the area. The
New York papers, Boston--didn't come to the area. We submitted
comments to them after the articles came out and nothing was
published in the papers.
Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Metcalf's testimony leaves the
impression that there is very little, if no local support for
the bill. How would you respond to that, commissioner?
Mr. Gardner. Well, we just had an election there and the
commissioners on the board that has been very involved in this
was elected with about 75 percent majority vote. So I would
think that there is some support for the bill in the county.
Senator Craig. In this election, was it a significant
issue?
Mr. Gardner. It wasn't a big issue. It was brought up and
discussed by the Democratic candidate and the other candidate
that was opposed. There were three people in that election and
it was discussed in the election.
Senator Craig. Okay, Mr. Metcalf, in listening to your
testimony and Commissioner Gardner's, I would think we were
talking about almost two different pieces of legislation. It is
my understanding that your group had a representative
participate fully in all the various meetings leading up to the
bill and that an individual actually made a statement in
support of the final agreement, is that correct?
Mr. Metcalf. That is not quite correct. We have a wide
membership. If we do have a member who did participate in that,
in the process but not as an official representative of OIA.
Senator Craig. And OIA had no official representative
participating?
Mr. Metcalf. That is correct.
Senator Craig. Okay. Would you find it acceptable if it
were more clearly stated in the bill that the land for disposal
will be identified by including the Vision Dixie planning and
by involving public input through BLM planning processes?
Mr. Metcalf. Certainly the fact that there has not been a
Vision Dixie process in the front end of this is very
problematic. The way to create a quality--a good quality of
life of vision for the future that creates a community with a
medium and long-term economic future is to engage in a
thoughtful planning process like they do and then determine
which lands need to be sold, which lands need to be held onto
and also give consideration to which lands need to have
permanent wilderness designation and that has not occurred yet.
Senator Craig. You state that only a fraction of the public
lands will be protected and my staff and I in looking at this
find that nearly a fourth of the Federal lands in the county
will be designated wilderness and more than half are protected
by other designations. One only needs to look at the map and
I've looked at the map to see how much of the Federal land is
already set aside in some form of protective designation in
southern Utah. I guess my ultimate question is then, how much
is enough?
Mr. Metcalf. Well sir, when you talk about lands being
protected and in Federal hands--that also includes lands that
can be used for lumbering. It's lands that can be used for off-
road----
Senator Craig. I'm not talking about multiple use, I'm
talking about National Park Service systems, wildernesses,
designated non-use or roadless areas, where those kinds of
commercial activities cannot go on. That is what we find by the
maps, is designed in this particular county. Is that not
accurate?
Mr. Metcalf. Well, let me say this. I'm not an expert on
what percentage of the land should be preserved or not. It's
not a numbers game from our perspective. It's a matter of there
are some spectacular lands, canyons, mountains, plateaus,
mesas, desert areas that are beautiful from a recreational
standpoint that are not getting protected and we believe they
deserve protection. When we look at the amount of Federal lands
down there, it's a very small percentage that we're really
talking about.
Senator Craig. Since your organization is a national
organization, am I correct to assume that you have similar
concerns and therefore oppose the Nevada legislation or have
you expressed an opinion on it?
Mr. Metcalf. We have not expressed an opinion on the Nevada
legislation.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much. Commissioner Eldridge,
from your written testimony, it appears there are still a few
issues that the county would like to see addressed if possible.
Besides these few issues, is the county satisfied with what
would come out of the bill and is the county going to benefit
by those actions?
Mr. Eldridge. Yes. The county is satisfied with the
progress thus far, the terms of this bill. It does feel--as I
mentioned, there are a few things that we feel should be added
or amended but overall, the county supports this bill.
Senator Craig. Have you made those areas of interest to you
available to the committee?
Mr. Eldridge. I believe they are in our written testimony,
yes.
Senator Craig. Okay. I thank you for that. Mr. Greenberg,
in your written testimony, you described the BLM wilderness
inventory as faulty and limited to two separate 90-day public
comment periods. You went on to describe a Citizen's Wilderness
Proposal. What kind of public process did the Citizen's
Wilderness Proposal use and how long was the public comment
period on that one, do you recall?
Mr. Greenberg. As a citizen's effort, it really is very
open and very public and it went on for some time. So in a
sense, while there is no formal public input or process like an
agency would have, it was one where very many people could get
involved, did get involved and we were open to as many people
wanting to get involved as possible and so we very much looked
for the public to be involved. In that sense, it was very much
a public process.
Senator Craig. How many acres total were identified in the
Citizen's Proposal?
Mr. Greenberg. It was 730,000 acres, sir.
Senator Craig. Are there other ways to protect these lands?
And with a well-deduced designation?
Mr. Greenberg. As you know, sir, there are a number of
different ways you can protect land. In this case, wilderness
is the right protection for these lands. Things such as off-
road vehicle use, wilderness is one of the best tools, in fact,
to help ensure that those lands are not damaged from
inappropriate use. There are, of course, places where it is
appropriate. Wilderness, it is not.
Senator Craig. Your group appears to have accepted the idea
of land disposal in Nevada while wilderness groups, including
the Wilderness Society, seem to strongly object to this concept
in other states. In fact, statements have been made by other
members of the Wilderness Society that no public land should be
disposed of, such as right next door in Utah. Why is this so?
Why can you accept that in Nevada but you cannot accept it in
other places in the Nation?
Mr. Greenberg. Well, we actually see the land disposal as
being excessive in both bills and we've said so. We do believe
there can be a place for land disposal. It needs to go through
the right processes, it needs to be a public process and it
really should be tied to specific sorts of needs and issues
before the public good and these things we've stated
consistently across all bills. So we're hoping that we can
continue to work on the White Pine legislation and improve
those aspects of the land disposal, that we have been
consistent in our statements about that.
Senator Craig. Okay. Well, gentlemen, to all four of you,
thank you very much for your patience today before the
committee. Oh, I'm sorry. Maria, I'm very sorry. I apologize.
Before I make my concluding statement, let me turn to the
Senator from the State of Washington who has been patient.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit a
longer statement for the record, too and I certainly appreciate
you holding this hearing. As a Senator from Washington sitting
in Scoop Jackson's seat in the U.S. Senate, I feel a particular
focus to this issue, since he was the author of the 1964
Wilderness Act. I certainly want to make sure that we are
continuing in the good stead of making sure that Wilderness
Acts proceed with the right level of oversight and
communication, given the delicate political balance that they
often are. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your long
support for the Wild Sky Wilderness bill, which I will mention,
has passed the Senate several times and back and forth but
we've not been able to pass both bodies at the same time, which
leads me to the question about what's the problem in this
particular proposal as we've gone through many things of
dotting the i's and crossing the t's in Washington State on
something that I think is a lot less controversial.
Here's my question. This process obviously, of selling
Federal land that seems to be married in this bill, a
Wilderness Act but yet circumventing the BLM process of selling
Federal lands, is obviously, as you were alluding to, a little
bit short-cutting the process of stakeholders and others and
their discussion of the impacts of selling that Federal land.
So what precedent are we setting here and what are some of the
problems of doing that, that we should be specifically
concerned with, as this bill moves out of this committee?
To either Mr. Greenberg or Mr. Metcalf and I'm happy to
hear from Mr. Gardner, if he wants to chime in.
Mr. Greenberg. Speaking about White Pine County, the
legislation doesn't tie it to a RMP process. So that's on the
White Pine side. On the Washington County side, we are very
much concerned that it is, in fact, not tied to an RNP public
process where the land could, in fact, be identified in a
proper way, understanding what the resources and values are,
both natural and cultural. So that is a very big issue for us
on the Washington County bill, absolutely.
Senator Cantwell. What about the--in general, whether that
process is there. Historically, obviously, the BLM process is a
long process and so you think having legislation that has a
review process in it spelled out is good enough? Or the White
Pine versus the Washington County or would you prefer that we
do it the old fashioned way of having a wilderness bill and
then having any Federal lands sold through the BLM process.
Mr. Greenberg. Certainly if we were writing the
legislation, we would be writing wilderness legislation and
allowing the BLM to do its job through the land disposal
process that it has.
Senator Cantwell. Why is that preferable?
Mr. Greenberg. There are laws in place to handle disposal
and tens of thousands of acres, in fact, are being disposed of
year by year, by year. It does happen. It allows the public a
chance to be involved but that is where the White Pine
legislation actually is helpful because it still ensures the
public will be involved and it's very critical to us that
that's a core value that the public is, in fact, involved. So
it allows for the resources rather than actual or cultural to
be identified, for there to be discussion about that, to
understand what the management implications are. There is a
whole process, history and tradition by which that can take
place. To the degree that a piece of legislation is going to
address it--the more that it is used to that, adheres to that,
the less problem we have with it.
Senator Cantwell. I guess I'm concerned, as a member of
this committee, where this process leads to in various
wilderness bills moving forward. It becomes a standard norm. Is
this really what we want to become a standard norm? Certainly I
don't think Washington County is the way we want to do it and I
would even suggest that in this particular case, it's setting a
precedent and process and procedure that I think we need to
think of the pluses and minuses of doing it this way versus the
safeguards that we have in the normal process.
Mr. Metcalf, do you have any comment?
Mr. Metcalf. I think speaking on behalf of OIA, we share
your concerns. We also recognize that certain political
realities in the times we live in and we are keen to see
wilderness bills that preserve wild recreational areas,
preserved and if one needs to engage in some kind of land
dispersal, then we are open to that as it's been done in White
Pine County. The concern is really in Washington County, is
number one--that it is departing from existing law and
practices and it's a huge concern. How will it change next time
and second, the lands being disposed of aren't even identified
at this point in time. It's not as if we have some specific
lands that we've all agreed have no cultural, recreational or
other value. Instead, it's sort of more the cookie jar approach
of let's just pick up to 25,000 acres. We need the funding and
we'll sell the south without identifying it and then we'll tie
in it with some paltry amount of lands being preserved. That is
a big concern for us.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Gardner?
Mr. Gardner. Yes, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity
to comment on that as far as the Washington County bill goes.
The 4,300 acres that are identified in the first phase of that
sale have already had their cultural clearances and all of
these--they've already been through the process, they've
already been cleared for sale and they consist mostly of
isolated parcels of BLM ground that have been hard for them to
manage. The additional part that is identified in the bill,
from up to 20,000 acres to be sold, is going to be identified
in our Vision Dixie process, the planning process, public
process we're going through at this time. And it is my
understanding that they still, even then, will have to go
through a BLM plan amendment and through the normal channels to
actually get that ground to sale purposes. It would be merely a
method of identifying ground that the local communities feel
would be of benefit to them and as Mr. Metcalf mentioned in his
statement, in the past 10 years, there has been 18,000 acres of
BLM land sold in Washington County. What he failed to mention
is that there has also been 18,500 acres of ground that BLM has
acquired, of private ground and there is yet in our Habitat
Conservation plan that would be a national conservation area.
In this bill, there is yet about 7,500 acres in there that has
yet to be acquired by BLM that currently at this time, as a
conservative estimate, has a value in excess of $400 million.
So there are two sides to the issue of selling and
acquiring BLM ground.
Senator Cantwell. So you would oppose any attempt to
improve this wilderness bill that is similar to the White Pine
legislation that at least puts the process more on track at the
same time? The process of selling Federal lands?
Mr. Gardner. I think our process is a very similar process
to what White Pine has and what Lincoln and Clark County have
already been in the process of doing.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Chairman, I will submit further
questions for the record but I do remain concerned about this
process from a precedent-setting perspective. I think there was
one other time that we had a precedent set in 1998. So I'll
review those and come back to the committee. But I think from a
perspective of the complexity that wilderness bills are, we are
adding a new level of complexity in the selling of Federal
lands in a unique process. So perhaps we can have more
oversight as a committee on this, from a large perspective in
addition to the individual bills that we will be discussing.
Thank you.
Senator Craig. Senator, I appreciate that dialogue. I think
it is very constructive. One of the things that I think this
committee and those of us who've attempted to designate
wilderness areas have found over the last decade, is a near-
impossibility of doing so, largely because everybody wants to
adhere absolutely to the 1963 Act and we know that what might
have worked in 1963 and in large parcels of those that seem to
be immediate and easily identified, is the case. But as we
become more complicated in identifying those and as landlocked
counties need to grow a little bit because of the pressure that
is on them or economies are struggling because of certain
changes in public policy, I think it is a worthy point of
discussion.
I've taken the public position that I'm opposed to the sale
of public lands and have been rather vocal about it except in
those rare occasions where we can collectively and in a public
way, identify and do so and what seems to be happening--I've
got a couple of bills emerging out of Idaho now that local
environmental groups have agreed to and ranchers and off-road
vehicle people and the whole combination have come to a
compromise on because they are a balance. They are not just
wilderness. They are a little bit of grazing relocation, maybe
some grazing buy-out, maybe some public land that is taken
private because of landlocked communities and those kinds of
things.
And I'm not suggesting this is the path into the future but
I am suggesting that the 1963 Act as we know it has pretty well
stalled out. It is very difficult today to designate wilderness
and wilderness alone. If you're listening to all the publics
involved. And I think it seems to be that case in Idaho. I
think that's probably the problem in Utah and it's also the
concern in Nevada, in part. And of course, the State of
Washington and the State of Idaho are nowhere near as
landlocked federally as is the State of Nevada, especially but
Utah has a similar configuration. So it is a struggle and it is
one that is worthy of the dialogue you're talking about because
I'm not sure we move further ahead if it's no to everything
except absolute designation of wilderness. If that comes, it
comes in very small parcels usually. It can't be connected in
the comprehensive and associated with others and at least it
hasn't been, except in rare occasions, so that is a worthy
dialogue for all of us to have as we try to move some of these
stalled out designations and in my State, the roadless area
review, RARE-2, should have been resolved a decade or two ago.
I tried mightily for a couple of times. It didn't work because
of the absoluteness of those who were the advocates of and now
I have my colleagues trying to strike a balance. We'll see how
far we get but that is important.
Gentlemen, again thank you for your time and your testimony
and there may be questions coming your way as it relates to
these two pieces of legislation.
I know the Senators involved are quite intent on causing
them to move if they can. So we will work with you and with the
agencies involved to make them as good as possible. Thank you
all.
The committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Secretary Kempthorne to Questions From Senator Cantwell
concerns over sale of public lands
Question 1. I understand that the area around Washington County
contains many archaeological sites, cultural places, and habitat for
endangered species and that it will be difficult to identify lands
suitable for sale in a manner that does not compromise these valuable
resources. I understand that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the Forest Service's normally identifies lands suitable for sale during
periodic revision of land use plans under section 202 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). This revision process includes
public involvement, tribal involvement, considers multiple uses, uses
an interdisciplinary scientific approach, protects areas of critical
environmental concern, relies on an inventory of public lands and
resources, considers present and potential uses, considers the scarcity
of values involved, weighs short term and long term benefits, provides
for compliance with pollution laws, and coordinates activities with
other federal agencies. Under section 203 of the FLPMA, land sales are
to be made only after section 202 consideration and only then if the
Secretary determines that lands to be sold meet criteria consisting of
(1) the lands are difficult or uneconomical to manage as public lands,
(2) the land was previously acquired for a purpose no longer required,
or (3) sale of the land serves public objectives. Has the
Administration determined whether or not 25,000 acres of publicly held
land, in addition to the 18,000 recently identified by the BLM, exist
in Washington County that are suitable for sale under the existing
criteria in section 203 of the FLPMA? Have these lands been identified,
and if so how was the public involved in the identification process?
Answer. Of the lands identified in Section 102(b)(1), the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) has identified, conducted National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), and completed related clearances on 1,125 acres. The
remaining 3,175 acres have been identified for disposal in the
applicable land use plan, but NEPA and related clearances is not
complete. Regarding the 20,000 acres referred to in Section 102(b)(2),
the BLM has not identified any of this land for disposal in the
applicable land use plan. The Administration recommended making this
identification subject to the FLPMA process you noted.
Question 2. If this bill were to pass, how will the Administration
be able to ensure public involvement in the process as required under
existing law?
Answer. If S. 3636 were to become law, the BLM would look to the
specific provisions of the legislation, such as those requiring
compliance by qualified bidders with local planning and zoning laws,
including revisions to County plans adopted after passage of the Act,
as well as other relevant laws, and provisions in the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), for direction on how to proceed.
Question 3. If this bill is enacted, how can the Administration
ensure that land sales do not come in conflict with areas designated as
critical for recovery of endangered species?
Answer. Section 102(i) of S. 3636 allows the Secretary of the
Interior to place restrictive covenants on parcels of lands to
``protect the interests of the United States.'' This would allow a
restrictive covenant prohibiting, for example, any surface disturbance
if that were necessary to protect endangered plant species.
Question 4. I understand that the Washington County bill contains
blanks for the map references, but that BLM has prepared unofficial
maps. Who directed you to produce these maps, and what process was used
for their development, given requirements under existing federal law
like the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)?
Answer. The BLM prepared maps as a service for S. 3636 at the
request of the sponsor. The BLM regularly provides this service at the
request of Senators and Members of Congress. These maps reflect the
specific requests of those members but do not reflect the support or
opposition of the Department of the Interior for a particular
legislative proposal. All such maps are dated and clearly marked that
they are prepared at the request of a particular Senator or Member of
Congress.
adminstration opposition to legislatively-directed public land sales
Question 5. I understand from your testimony that the
Administration objects to provisions within S. 3636 requiring the sale
of public lands. I also understand that last year the Bush
Administration tried to revise a law that passed in 1998, the Southern
Nevada Public Lands Management Act, that set the precedent for
redirecting public land sale funds for specifically legislated county
conservation or development projects. I believe these legislatively-
directed federal land sales are a key issue in several of the
wilderness bills pending before Congress. Therefore could you expand on
the Administration's objections to land sale provisions in these bills?
Answer. The Administration believes all taxpayers should benefit
from the sale of federal lands, and that there should be a limit on the
amount of federal funds retained for mandatory spending not subject to
regular oversight through the appropriations process. The
Administration has not objected to the sale of public lands where they
have either first been identified for disposal pursuant to FLPMA, or
would be identified for disposal through a public process provided for
in the legislation. With regard to the land sale provisions in S. 3636,
we have recommended changes to allow for flexibility and a public
process.
Question 6. What criteria does the Administration use when
determining whether they oppose any particular federal land sale
proposal?
Answer. The Department of the Interior generally looks to BLM's
primary authorizing statute, FLPMA, for guidance in evaluating various
land sale proposals. BLM is delegated the authority to sell federal
lands that have been identified for disposal through the public
planning process provided under Section 202 of FLPMA, and BLM generally
considers this public process to be highly valuable. The criteria used
by the Secretary to assess the merits of disposal for certain parcels
of land are provided in Section 203 of FLPMA, and BLM generally takes
into account the same factors when assessing legislative land sale
proposals.
Question 7. If the amount of revenue from federal land sales going
to local entities is restricted to a certain level, does that change
the Administration's support for a particular proposal? I understand
total revenues from the proposed Washington County land sales could
exceed $1 billion.
Answer. The Administration believes all taxpayers should benefit
from the sale of federal lands. The Administration's views on the
appropriate revenue division in the sale of federal lands is reflected
in our 2007 proposed budget. In that request, we proposed to amend the
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), P.L. 106-248, to:
(1) allow BLM to use updated management plans to identify new areas
suitable for disposal, (2) allow a portion of the receipts to be used
by BLM for restoration projects, (3) return 70 percent of the net
proceeds from these sales to the Federal Treasury, and (4) cap DOI
receipt retention at $60 million per year. The Administration's
proposal to amend FLTFA would continue to dedicate a portion of BLM
land sale proceeds for high-priority land acquisition projects
elsewhere.
Question 8. Does the Administration believe that there should be a
connection between the acreage proposed for disposal and the
demonstrated need for specific lands by local communities?
Answer. Yes. The Administration supports the general proposition of
making some public lands available for community growth where it is
necessary and appropriate, but cannot support the requirement to
dispose of a specific amount of public lands that may not be suitable
for disposal.
Question 9. Do you consider the areas to be protected reflective of
Administration wilderness priorities in Nevada and Utah?
Answer. The 1964 Wilderness Act and Section 603 of FLPMA make it
clear that Congress has the sole authority to designate and permanently
manage BLM lands as wilderness. The Administration's responsibility
outside of the public planning process is to respond to and comment on
wilderness legislation. The BLM-managed areas proposed for designation
under S. 3636 and S. 3772 meet the requirements of the Wilderness Act
of 1964, and the Administration supports Congress in designating them
as wilderness. BLM would like to work with the sponsors and the
Committee on possible minor boundary adjustments to ensure efficient
manageability.
Question 10. Are there any wilderness quality federal lands
nationwide currently slated for disposal?
Answer. There is no definition of ``wilderness quality federal
lands.''
The Department of the Interior manages designated wilderness under
the administration of three agencies: the National Park Service, The
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land
Management. Neither the Park Service nor the Fish and Wildlife Service
are actively disposing of lands within their jurisdiction.
The BLM disposes of limited amounts of land under conditions
identified in approved land use plans. These are typically small tracts
of public land located close to population centers. The BLM never
identifies for disposal lands that are designated either as wilderness
or as wilderness study areas.
flexibility in the wilderness act
Question 11. While the 1964 Wilderness Act prohibits commercial
activities, motorized access, or roads and structures, the Act does
provide considerable flexibility for activities that do not conform
with these general restrictions. I understand that several dozen
previously enacted wilderness bills allow otherwise prohibited
activities in some circumstances. Activities such as allowing a local
government to maintain access to a watershed, or limited boating use in
certain lakes. How do these allowable activities, which are based on
the Wilderness Act exceptions, differ from what is being proposed by
the legislation under consideration at today's hearing?
Answer. The nonconforming uses allowed under S. 3636 and S. 3772
are similar to exemptions contained in previously enacted laws.
Historically, certain wilderness laws have contained special provisions
needed to respond to activities specific to an individual wilderness.
Likewise, S. 3636 and S. 3772 provide some exemptions to The Wilderness
Act. Special provisions include: allowing the State to use aircraft to
manage wildlife and feral horses and burros, requiring the Secretary to
authorize wildlife facilities when specific conditions are met, and
allowing installation and maintenance of climatological data collection
devices as if the areas were not designated wilderness.
______
Responses of Jerry Greenberg to Questions From Senator Cantwell
compromise wilderness packages
Question 1. Unfortunately, the politics of wilderness designation
seem to have grown more contentious over the last few years, despite
growing recognition of the social and economic benefits of preserving
our nation's last remaining pristine areas. This could be in part due
to pressures of population growth in the West, the rise in popularity
of off road vehicle use, and difficult economic conditions present in
many rural counties. These challenges became apparent to me over the
course of working with my colleagues in Congress to pass the Wild Sky
Wilderness Act. I learned through that process that by involving local
stakeholders in an open and transparent process it is possible, to
develop a wilderness package that everyone can agree on. However, I
note that we did not have to try and include lots of special provisions
that legislate specific rights for various interest groups, including
revenues linked to federal land sales. Mr. Greenberg, could you please
comment for me on your views of striking the right balance between
compromise and protection in wilderness designation bills? Do these
bills strike that balance?
Answer. The question of how to achieve the right balance in public
lands bills is indeed a difficult one with no obvious answers. This is
especially true in recent years as more and more Americans move near to
and/or recreate on the public lands, resulting in heavier, more
intensive use, and more competing demands on the land than ever before.
Particularly noteworthy is off road vehicle use, which barely existed
on the public lands as little as two decades ago. Today, the number of
vehicles has exploded, and due to their very nature and the fact that
they have largely been unmanaged, they are found in more and more
places, including remote backcountry areas. The explosion in numbers
has led to widespread damage and increasing conflict among many
different public lands users.
Yet, off road vehicle use is but one example of a growing list of
recreational uses that can lead to disagreement and conflict. Add to
this, other growing demands such as a highly accelerated energy
development program and it becomes clear why public land management,
including wilderness protection, has grown more complex, difficult, and
in many cases contentious over time.
As for the White Pine County legislation, S. 3772, it is important
to recognize that it is not a wilderness bill. Rather, it is a bill
that attempts to deal with multiple public lands issues facing White
Pine County. The Nevada congressional delegation has decided that
instead of addressing each and every public lands issue facing each
county in Nevada in a piece-meal fashion they would address them in one
legislative effort on a county-by-county basis. That being said, we
have made a decision to engage in conversations at the local level to
advocate for deserving areas to be protected.
The White Pine bill is a good example of legislation that attempts
to balance various needs. To begin with, the bill would designate
545,000 acres of ecologically critical lands under threat from
inappropriate ATV use and other development, a significant gain for
land protection by any measures. And while there are aspects of the
land disposal provision we want to see changed, the legislation would
ensure that lands identified for disposal go through the Resource
Management Plan process. Finally, virtually everyone involved in the
development of the legislation feels that the process was open,
inclusive, and fair.
On the other hand, the Washington County legislation, in our minds,
is an example of legislation that does not strike a fair and balanced
solution. A majority of the land that would be designated as wilderness
is located within Zion National Park and therefore already mostly free
from development threats. Conversely, tens of thousands of acres of
wilderness lands at risk from ATV use and other threats would be left
unprotected. With respect to land disposal, the legislation mandates
that land be sold outside of the public process inherent in the
development of a Resource Management Plan. Lastly, there is widespread
disagreement among those who participated about how fair and open the
process has been.
In summary, it is our opinion that S. 3772 does strike a fair
balance in addressing these complex public lands issues. However, the
Washington County legislation (S. 3636) does not.
Question 2. How would you characterize the overall quality of
wilderness protection offered by the Washington County bill?
Answer. The Washington County bill does provide additional
protections to lands and waters within Zion National Park by
designating nearly 124,000 acres of wilderness and numerous miles of
Wild and Scenic River designations within the park. While these lands
and waters are deserving of protection, they are already well protected
from development pressures and inappropriate motorized recreation by
the national park designation. In contrast, the public lands managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service within
Washington County, which are at risk from unmanaged off road vehicle
(ORV) use, mining, logging and other development activities, are
largely left unprotected.
The Utah Wilderness Coalition and citizens of Utah have identified
approximately 300,000 acres of BLM public lands that qualify for
wilderness designation within Washington County. Over 200,000 of these
acres are left out of the Washington County bill, including nearly
70,000 acres of the lands previously identified by the BLM as potential
wilderness. In 1999, the BLM finalized a survey of lands proposed for
wilderness designation in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. In
Washington County, the BLM identified a number of qualifying wilderness
areas that would not be protected by the bill, including: Cougar
Canyon, the Narrows, Joshua Tree, Beaver Dam Wash, Red Mountain,
Orderville Canyon, Deep Creek, the Watchman, Goose Creek, Spring Creek
Canyon, Black Ridge, Canaan Mountain, Parunuweap Canyon, Moquith
Mountain, and Upper Kanab Creek.
While the Washington County bill would designate approximately
93,000 acres of BLM land as wilderness, 80,000 acres of this proposal
are already protected as WSAs. That means less than 13,000 acres of
vulnerable unprotected land would be designated.
At the same time, the Washington County bill would also remove
existing protections for certain wilderness lands. The legislation
would release roughly 9,500 acres of currently protected BLM WSAs. For
example, the Canaan Mountain WSA would be shrunk to include only the
canyon tops of the area, removing protections for the vulnerable the
wildlands along the base of Canaan Mountain. By stripping the canyon's
base of its current WSA protection, the bill would actually leave ,this
canyon more vulnerable to impacts than it now is.
Of particular concern, almost none of the landscape in the Mojave
Desert in the western side of the county would be preserved, despite
the great threats from growing ORV use. This half of the county
encompasses a vast area of largely undeveloped public lands important
both as habitat for endangered species and as a source of archeological
and culturally significant resources. This unique and biologically rich
region is the only place in Utah where the endangered desert tortoise
and iconic Joshua tree are found. The desert tortoise is highly
susceptible to ORV use; individual animals are sometimes literally
crushed to death under the wheels of larger ORVs, and the vehicles also
destroy underground burrows that provide. refuge for tortoise and the
young. Yet, only a fraction of this critical tortoise habitat is
currently protected against irresponsible ORV use.
Similarly, Forest Service lands are virtually ignored in this bill.
Less than 3,000 acres of national forest wilderness areas would be
designated, though citizens identified 300,000 acres of Forest Service
land that deserve wilderness protection. We would recommend a much more
thorough review of Forest Service lands if this legislation proposes to
make wilderness designations.
Question 3. Do you believe this protection is sufficient to counter
the likely growth, sprawl, and resource use that will be encouraged by
non-conservation provisions within these bills?
Answer. In stark contrast to the Washington County bill, the
wilderness protection contained in the White Pine County legislation
(S. 3772) is substantial. The 13 new wilderness areas that would be
designated in S. 3772 represent significant gains for conservation and
wilderness in Nevada. We also consider these to be significant and
important additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Although we proposed over 730,000 acres for wilderness in White Pine
County, we feel that the 545,000 acres identified in the bill is a good
first step for wilderness protection in White Pine County. We continue
to advocate for better protection for the South Egan WSA and the Blue
Mass/Kern mountain area.
We feel strongly that the land conservation provisions within the
Washington County legislation are inadequate to protect deserving
public lands and waters, and are concerned that the bill actually would
encourage more unplanned development in one of the fastest growing
counties in the nation. The bill contains numerous provisions that
would promote more sprawl by selling off public lands to private
developers and by authorizing new development infrastructure across the
county.
Of top concern is the bill's provision to dispose of as much as
24,300 acres of BLM land within Washington County, much of which would
likely be sold to private developers. This provision conflicts with
existing laws that govern the purpose for and way in which land
disposal is carried out. Moreover, the St. George Chamber of Commerce
has said that 200,000 acres of private land are already available for
development. The BLM has the authority to sell and exchange public
lands; according to the St. George Field Office, the BLM has already
disposed of some 18,000 acres of BLM public land in the last decade.
The bill also fails to ensure that many sensitive and wild lands that
are proposed for wilderness will not be sold for private development.
S. 3636 would further promote development by authorizing the
creation of new highways, new utility corridors, a new ORV trail
system, and new rights-of-way for water development across the county.
In addition, 9,000--10,000 acres of BLM public lands would be given
away to the county or granted to the County as a right-of-way with no
return to the public trust.
The legislation would authorize these development-oriented
provisions before the Envision Dixie process is allowed to run its
course. This local planning process was only recently initiated in
order to address the county's many growth challenges in a deliberate
and thorough manner that allows for public input and thoughtful
dialogue.
Question 4. While the 1964 Wilderness Act prohibits commercial
activities, motorized access, or roads and structures, the Act does
provide considerable flexibility for activities that do not conform
with these general restrictions. Could you comment on how the bills
before us propose activities that are outside the scope of the
exceptions allowed under the 1964 Wilderness Act?
Answer. The varied benefits derived from wilderness depend in large
part on the preservation of its undisturbed, natural integrity.
Wilderness is a resource providing services important to humans and the
rest of the natural world. While a principal of wilderness is to allow
natural process to freely operation, there may be times when it is
appropriate to reintroduce fire, remove exotic species or take other
steps.
S. 3636 and S. 7372 contain similar wilderness management
provisions. In general neither bill introduces wholly new precedent.
However, while acknowledging that Congress has used its prerogative to
continue to interpret language relating to wilderness management, it is
also critical to ensure that the underlying intent of the Wilderness
Act is not in any manner weakened or diluted. Whether or not specific
provisions have appeared in other legislation is not in and of itself
determinative. In the context of these two bills, this is especially
relevant to the issue of wildlife management.
The presence of native fish and wildlife populations at naturally
fluctuating population levels is an important component of wilderness
character. Maintaining healthy populations of nature wildlife and
restoring populations that have been depleted due to human influence
can be primary reasons for designating an area as wilderness. Habitat
modification in wilderness is inappropriate ``except as necessary to
meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for
purposes of [the Wilderness] Act.'' (Section 4(c)).
In certain limited instances, however, habitat modification in
wilderness may be necessary to maintain wilderness character.
Specifically, certain management activities may be necessary to restore
wildlife populations that have been suppressed by human-caused habitat
degradation. Where they occur, such forms of intervention must be the
``minimum tool'' necessary to accomplish the task and should be
designed to be temporary and directed at stabilizing native species.
With respect to artificial water sources (e.g., ``guzzlers''), we
note that both White Pine County and Washington County contain many
natural springs and creeks. As noted above, the Wilderness Act provides
the flexibility to allow land managers to carefully analyze whether or
not any particular activity--including the installation of guzzlers--is
necessary to further the purposes of the Wilderness Act. Given this, we
believe that adequate direction is provided to managers in the
Wilderness Act itself (coupled with agency guidelines) and any new
legislative language specific to guzzlers is unnecessary and runs the
risk of diluting the intent of the Wilderness Act and confusing land
managers by suggesting that particular activities (for example, the
construction of guzzlers) are necessary.
Similarly, while existing activities related to wildlife survey,
monitoring, capture, and water transport might be consistent with the
Wilderness Act in any given situation, language in these two bills have
the potential for suggesting to land managers that all existing
activities may continue even if conditions change. Clearly, such an
interpretation is inconsistent with the Wilderness Act.
______
Responses of Alan Gardner to Questions From Senator Cantwell
compromise wilderness packages
Question 1. If this bill were to pass, what effect would it have on
S. 882, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, which is sponsored by 17
Senators? Specifically, does S. 3666 dispose of any lands that are
identified as suitable for wilderness protection in that bill?
Answer. The language of S. 3636 specifically excludes any lands
which have already been withdrawn for any purpose, including
wilderness, ACEC, NCA, or National Park. Further, we have made every
effort to avoid any other proposals for special designation in
identifying the pool of lands from which potential sale lands may be
selected.
Consequently, none of the 4300 acres identified in the directed
sale parcels of S. 3636 would have any effect on S. 882, America's Red
Rock Wilderness Act. Further, the lands that may be selected in tier
two would all be selected in the county-wide and very public growth
vision process, ``Vision Dixie,'' and that process will minimize
conflicts with lands that hold special value to any stakeholder.
Question 2. Has the County estimated the amount of revenues that
would be generated from the public land sales proposed under S. 3636?
Are you concerned that these revenues would create a disparity between
Washington and other Utah counties?
Answer. The County has not done an official analysis to determine
the value of the lands in the 4300 acres that have been identified in
the directed land sales. In a discussion with the BLM area manager, we
estimated a rough value of between $75,000,000 and $125,000,000 on that
land. There is no estimate on anything that may be sold in the second
phase. The areas where land may be acquired will be identified by the
``Vision Dixie'' public planning process that we are currently
conducting. Acreage totals have yet to be determined, so it is hard to
make an estimate until the public has an opportunity to weigh in with
recommendations.
The BLM still must acquire around 7500 acres of desert tortoise
habitat inside our existing Habitat Conservation Plan area (Red Cliff
National Conservation Area) in S. 3636. It has a conservative value of
$400,000,000.00.
We are not concerned that the revenues generated will create a
disparity between Washington and other Utah Counties. In fact, the
other counties are watching very closely and are anxious for S. 3636 to
pass. Four other counties have started a joint process for a similar
bill, and others are preparing to request legislation if we are
successful. Further, the funds raised by land sales go into
conservation projects in the County and to address impacts from such
large areas of public lands in the county.
I would also like to comment on Mr. Metcalf's answer to Chairman
Craig's question as to the participation of a representative of the
Outdoor Retailers serving on the working group and being a strong
supporter of S. 3636. Mr. Metcalf implied that the person was not
really a representative. That is not the case. Washington County
contacted Outdoor Retailers and asked for a name to serve on the
working group. They responded by submitting two names: Lin Alder and
Doug Syphus.
Lin moved to the area around 1986 with his family when his father
came to Dixie Junior College and was partially educated in Washington
County. At the time his name was submitted, he was a free-lance
photographer and writer, traveling extensively (often out of the
country). Doug Syphus' family had been in the County for at least three
generations. He has been employed at Outdoor Outlet for over 20 years
and a partial owner since 1991. Outdoor Outlet sells tents, sleeping
bags, rappelling, backpacking and all other types of outdoor equipment.
They employ 7 to 15 people, depending on the season of the year. Doug
is an avid hiker and backpacker. He has been a scoutmaster for the Boy
Scouts of America and at the time he joined the Working Group was in
charge of overseeing scouting activities for eight different groups of
boys from 12 to 18 years of age.
Doug was selected because we felt his qualifications were better
because he had daily contact with large numbers of people using our
local public lands for recreation on a regular basis. After returning
from the Senate hearing, I visited with Doug Syphus. He stated that he
had been contacted by Outdoor Retailers, who asked if he was willing to
have his name submitted to serve on the Working Group, to which he
agreed.
______
Responses of Peter Metcalf to Questions From Senator Cantwell
compromise wilderness packages
Question 1. As a business man who is directly impacted by the loss
of pristine public lands, how would you assess the cost-benefit ratio
of the various provisions in the Washington County bill? In other
words, do you believe the lands designated for wilderness protection
are a good trade for the loss of public recreation opportunities on the
lands proposed for sale and the potential environmental damage
resulting from new utility corridors and dams and other development
oriented activities allowed under the current bill?
Answer. The first question inquired about the cost-benefit analysis
of the provisions of the legislation. From my perspective, there is no
question that S. 3636 represents a net loss for Utah wild lands. Our
wild lands are a finite, irreplaceable asset. Even the best business
plan can not recreate wild lands. Once lost, they are gone and will no
longer be a benefit to the local community or the American public.
As I noted in my oral testimony, I choose to make Utah the home of
Black Diamond Equipment because Utah truly personifies my company's
close ties to the out-of-doors. The products we make are for outdoor
recreation and in many ways Utah is second to none in spectacular
outdoor recreation opportunities. Because our Salt Lake City
headquarters sits within minutes of congressionally designated
wilderness I am constantly reminded of the tremendous benefits that our
community and my business enjoys by having wilderness so close to home.
Southwestern Utah is no different with its redrock landscape and
scenic deserts close to the growing communities in and around St.
George. We must preserve the southwestern Utah landscape so that
communities and visitors can enjoy a wealth of outdoor recreation
opportunities close to home.
I would caution against simply adding up acreage numbers and making
generalizations about the costs or benefits of this bill. The numbers
in this bill do not adequately reveal the fact that so many wild places
that are most at risk would receive no protection under this
legislation. At the same time, some currently protected areas would be
stripped of protection. In this sense, the legislation is a step
backwards for our wild public lands. Similarly, the acreage figures
suggested for disposal fail to account for the fact that thousands of
acres have already been disposed of in the past decade, or the fact
that there are, according to the local chamber of commerce, roughly two
hundred thousand private acres currently available for development and
growth.
The lands sales provision would promote the sale and development of
as much as 24,300 acres of public land. I am deeply concerned about
selling off Utah's redrock country and dedicating the majority of
proceeds for local development projects. The American public and the
local communities would lose an irreplaceable natural asset if Congress
sells off public lands simply because a community is experiencing
growth.
The provisions for water development, rights-of-ways, and utility
corridors would fundamentally change the landscape of southwestern
Utah. Though sponsors of this legislation claim these provisions are
needed to accommodate growth, the pending local planning process, knows
as ``Vision Dixie,'' is the appropriate vehicle to assess the specific
needs of the community. I would urge the committee to allow this local
process to complete its work before making congressional mandates that
would impact the community.
Question 2. How would you characterize the overall quality of
wilderness protection offered by the Washington County bill?
Answer. As I have noted in my first response, the wilderness
provisions of the bill are a step backwards for wilderness protection
in southwestern Utah. The majority of proposed wilderness designations
are within Zion National Park. While I do not want to diminish the
value of designating National Park wilderness, it is important to note
that the park is already well protected from development pressures and
inappropriate motorized recreation. The public lands (managed by the
Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service) outside Zion National
Park are in greatest need of protection. Over two-thirds of BLM wild
lands in the county that deserve protection are left behind. The Forest
Service wilderness provision of the bill designates only 3,000 acres,
though citizens have identified thousands of additional acres of Forest
Service land that deserve wilderness protection.
The bill both fails to protect places most at risk and strips
protections from public lands currently protected from harm. For
example, wild lands like those along the base of Canaan Mountain are
currently protected as Wilderness Study Areas, but under S. 3636,
protection for Canaan Mountain would be shrunk to include only the
canyon tops. The bill would strip the canyon's base of its current
Wilderness Study Area protection and leave this canyon more vulnerable
to impacts than it currently is. In other examples, the bill adds
designated wilderness in an area known as Black Ridge to make up for
the acreage stripped of protection in Canaan Mountain. However, the
bill sponsors drew arbitrary boundary lines that leave critical areas
vulnerable but also make management difficult. The effect is that while
acreage is added to the bill, it fails to protect this canyon.
When I look at this bill, the most fundamental question is whether
our wild public lands would be better or worse off. I am convinced that
this bill would leave southwestern Utah's wild lands worse off and the
American public would loose an irreplaceable asset.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Board of County Commissioners,
Lyon County, NV, September 1, 2005.
Hon. Harry Reid,
U.S. Senator, 600 E. Williams, Suite 302, Carson City, NV.
Re: 2005 Lyon County Lands Bill
Dear Senator Reid: Lyon County has been working with our
congressional delegation for over four years on a Lyon County Lands
Bill, but not until recently were we informed that the bill will not
move forward unless we agree to include wilderness areas (Bald
Mountain--80,979 acres and East Sister of the Sweetwater Mountains--
11,274 acres).
Lyon County approved several years ago LLC 10.13.02 which states
``no additional wilderness areas shall be designated in Lyon County''.
We believe this is still the desire of our county and feel bound to
honor this decision.
Therefore, we wish to advise you that we are not pleased with this
ultimatum for the inclusion of the wilderness areas, and thus have
decided at our September 1, 2005 Lyon County Commission meeting that if
our lands bill is denied because of this omission then so be it. We are
very disappointed that this ultimatum has brought this process to an
end.
Bob Milz,
Chairman.
Phyllis Hunewill,
Vice-Chair.
LeRoy Goodman,
Chet Hillyard,
Don Tibbals,
Commissioners.
______
Northwest Mining Association,
Spokane, WA, November 3, 2006.
Senator Larry Craig,
Chairman, Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Re: S. 3772--White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development
Act of 2006
Dear Chairman Craig: We are writing to express our members' strong
opposition to the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and
Development Act of 2006 (S. 3772), recently introduced by Senators
Ensign and Reid of Nevada. As explained below, we believe this
legislation reflects extremely poor public policy and is not in the
best interests of White Pine County, Nevada, the residents of Nevada,
the Nation and the public in general.
We believe this bill should be rejected in its entirety. It is
nothing more than a back door attempt to add additional wilderness in
White Pine County, Nevada without regard to the policies, principles,
procedures and requirements set forth in the Wilderness Act of 1964
(1964 Wilderness Act), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (FLPMA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the
Multiple-Use and Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA).
Congress has long promoted the multiple-use management of our
public lands. This philosophy has been reaffirmed time and time again
as evidenced by the above-mentioned Acts. It is sound public policy and
has served the needs of our Nation and our citizens well. Congress also
set forth wilderness policy and guidelines in the 1964 Wilderness Act
and policies and guidelines for the management of public lands in the
General Mining Laws, FLPMA, NFMA, MUSYA, NEPA, and ESA.
Enactment of S. 3772 would not only withdraw 545,320 acres of
Public Lands from mineral entry and any hope of future economic
development, but also from management for multiple-use. No motorized
recreation, no access for handicapped citizens who require wheelchairs
or other means of mechanical access, and no motorized access for
hunting, fishing or other outdoor activities. The bill would take
545,320 acres that today can be enjoyed by all and limit the use to a
very small segment of society. The bill would adversely affect the
economic future of White Pine County without any real benefit accruing
to White Pine County.
Section 2 (c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act defines wilderness as:
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his
own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an
area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled
by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An
area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an
area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval
character and influence, without permanent improvements or
human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to
preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears
to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with
the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has
outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand
acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable
its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4)
may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of
scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.
Much of the acreage designated for Wilderness in Title II of S.
3772 does not meet the above-quoted Wilderness Act definition of
Wilderness. In addition, in five (5) of the proposed wilderness areas
totaling about 231,669 acres, are lands administered by the U.S. Forest
Service that have not undergone mineral resource assessment as required
by Sec. 4(d)(2) of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Another area, the Mount
Mariah Additions, has been assessed by the USGS/U.S. Bureau of Mines
and found to have moderate mineral potential. Furthermore, these
proposed withdrawals of public land administered by the Forest Service
have not been reviewed in any formal manner with the public and there
has been no modern opportunity to comment upon the management of these
lands.
Economically viable mineral deposits are rare and hard to find. In
1999, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of
Sciences, in response to a request from Congress, prepared and
published a report entitled Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands. In this
report the NRC stated:
Hardrock mining occurs where minerals are concentrated in
economically viable deposits. Ore deposits form as variants of
such geologic processes as volcanism, weathering, and
sedimentation operating with an extraordinary intensity. Ore
deposits typically are parts of large-scale (several miles
across and perhaps just as deep) ore-forming systems in which
many elements, not just those of economic interest, have been
enriched. Only a very small portion of Earth's continental
crust (less than 0.01%) contains economically viable mineral
deposits. Thus, mines can only be located in those few places
where economically viable deposits were formed and discovered
(emphasis added).
Many hardrock commodities are associated with magmatic and
hydrothermal processes, which in turn, are associated with
modern or ancient mountain belts. The abundant igneous rocks
and associated hydrothermal systems and the mountainous or
sparsely vegetated terrain make the West the location of most
hardrock mines in the Untied States. Id. at 2-3
Nevada has been blessed with many of the geologic systems and
process described above and this is a major reason why Nevada is the
leading hardrock mining state in the country, the third leading gold
producer in the world, the economic engine that drives northern
Nevada's economy and a major contributor to the state's revenue. In
2004, Nevada mining directly employed 11,690 people at an average wage
of $63,388. An additional 51,000 jobs were made possible by vendors of
goods and services to the industry, and Nevada mining provides
approximately 100 million dollars in state tax revenue every year.
It makes no sense to lock up and withdraw the areas set forth in
Title II from mineral entry when these areas have the potential to be
the mines that will drive northern Nevada's economy long into the
future. There must be a new, modem mineral potential evaluation of each
area. Even those areas previously evaluated (whether as part of RARE I,
RARE II, WSA or another evaluation process), must be re-evaluated.
Continually evolving technology and knowledge enables the discovery of
mineral potential and mineral deposits in areas previously thought to
be non productive or uneconomical. Northern Nevada is a classic example
of this truth.
In most of the world, today's mines are located in historic mining
districts originally discovered by the prospectors and miners of more
than 100 years ago. However, this is not the case in the primary gold
producing area of northern Nevada. What has turned out to be the area
of perhaps the second highest gold concentration in the world wasn't
known to exist prior to the development in the 1960's of fire assay
techniques that could identify invisible gold and heap leach technology
that made it possible to economically recover microscopic particles of
gold.
As a result of its favorable geology, Nevada has tremendous
potential for the discovery of additional mineral deposits. Areas where
prospective rocks are beneath a cover of young, valley-filling
sediments and volcanic rocks have only been explored to a limited
extent, and ore deposits continue to be discovered in and near Nevada's
historical mining districts.
Today we are seeing significant investment in exploration in areas
of northern Nevada not previously explored using modern tools and
techniques. This exploration could lead to the discovery of the next
major mine, ensuring the long term economic health of White Pine and
other northern Nevada counties. White Pine County, northern Nevada and
the Nation cannot afford to preclude this possibility by locking up
public land as Wilderness and withdrawing it from mineral entry.
In addition to being the third largest gold producer in the world,
Nevada hosts deposits of many minerals that are critical to our
national and economic security, such as copper, molybdenum, silver,
specialty clays, magnesite, lithium, cement, barite, gypsum and
construction aggregate. Our national and economic security requirements
demand that areas of mineral potential remain open to exploration,
discovery and development.
One of the most egregious aspects of S. 3772 is that mineral
evaluations conducted by the Nevada Bureau of Mines & Geology, the
Nevada Division of Minerals and the U.S. Bureau of Mines/U.S.
Geological Survey pursuant to 1964 Wilderness Act mineral potential
survey requirements have been ignored treated as though they do not
exist.
Forty years ago, the Congress wisely recognized not only the
importance of our Nation's mineral wealth to the national and economic
security of our country, but also that economically viable mineral
deposits were rare and occurred only where they could be found, even if
it was inside of a Wilderness Area. Section 4(d)(2) of the 1964
Wilderness Act requires that wilderness areas be surveyed on a planned,
recurring basis by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Geological
survey to determine mineral values and to make those results available
to the public, the President and Congress. Section 4(d)(3) further
provided a 20 year window (until midnight December 31, 1983), where the
General Mining Laws and mineral leasing laws would still apply in areas
designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System by
the 1964 Wilderness Act. In other words, those areas remained open to
mineral entry until January 1, 1984. It is important that this
Committee and this Congress act as wisely as your predecessors in 1964.
Set forth below are our specific comments on the proposed
wilderness areas and additions. For the reasons set forth in this
letter, these areas are unsuitable for inclusion in the National
Wilderness Preservation System and should remain open to mineral entry
and managed for multiple-use.
<bullet> Currant Mountain Additions (including the White Pine Range
and Red Mountain): The U.S. Forest Service in the 1985 Forest
Plan states: ``The potential for the occurrence of economic
mineralization is high in the southwest and southern parts of
the area. The rest of the area has moderate mineral
potential.'' The proposed additions are situated on the west,
northwest, and southeast sides of the existing wilderness area,
and cover areas of high and moderate mineral potential
(industry and Forest Service assessments only);
<bullet> Schellback Wilderness: This area, located immediately south
and southeast of Illipah has not been studied by the USGS, as
required by the 1964 Wilderness Act;
<bullet> Schell Creek Range Wilderness: This proposed withdrawal
covers a vast area, in fact nearly all of the Schell Creek
mountain range. It has not been assessed by the USGS, as
required by law. Earlier work by the U.S. Bureau of Mines
stated ``The likelihood of the occurrence of mineral deposits
and extensions of known deposits is great throughout the entire
proposed wilderness'' [referring to the earlier Roadless
designation]. The 1985 Forest Plan and DEIS for the (then)
Humboldt National Forest recommended that the area not be
included in the Wilderness system;
It is our understanding that the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
is not including these five (5) areas in its ongoing review and
revision of the Forest Plan, because of this draft bill. It would seem
important that the Forest Service undertake the ``suitability
assessment'' of these areas as part of the overall Forest Plan
revisions.
The BLM-administered lands proposed as wilderness areas by this
bill cover the remainder of the 545,000 acres. The former Public Lands
Committee of the Nevada Mining Association assessed each BLM Wilderness
Study Area in Nevada and developed a comprehensive evaluation of the
mineral potential of each area, and tabulated the reviews of other
groups, including the BLM, and the State of Nevada Governor's
Consistency Review Panel (a special State Clearinghouse procedures and
review committee).
Our specific comments on these areas are set forth below. Again,
for the reasons set forth in this letter, these areas are unsuitable
for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and should
remain open to mineral entry and managed for multiple-use.
<bullet> Mount Grafton: The area is considered to have low to
moderate mineral potential, especially along the western and
southern boundaries (a portion which would be ``released'' if
the bill is enacted). The Governor's Consistency review
recommended that the area be dropped from further wilderness
consideration;
<bullet> South Egan: This area is considered to have moderate to high
mineral potential, especially on the west side of the area (a
very small portion of which would be ``released'' if the bill
is enacted.). The area has potential for gold (discovered near
Lund), uranium, and base metals. The BLM has twice (1987 and
2001) recommended that the area be dropped from further
consideration for wilderness designation, and the Governor's
Consistency Review Panel has also recommended that the area not
be designated as a wilderness area. There also has been some
local public opposition to the area being proposed as
wilderness;
<bullet> Egan Ridgeline: This area is at the northern end of the
South Egan area, and has been evaluated as part of the South
Egan study area;
<bullet> Highland Ridge: This is not currently a BLM WSA or an
Instant Study Area, and has not been evaluated in any manner.
The area adjoins the southern boundary of Great Basin National
Park;
<bullet> Government Peak: Again, this area is not a BLM WSA, and has
not been evaluated in any manner;
<bullet> Bald Mountain: the area is not a BLM WSA. It was evaluated
by the U.S. Forest Service and found to be lacking in
wilderness attributes. It is situated south of Illipah, in the
vicinity of the Schellback, White Pine Range, and Red Mountain
proposed wilderness areas, all of which are adjacent to the
Currant Mountain Wilderness area. No mineral assessments have
been completed in this area;
<bullet> Becky Peak: This area is situated at the north end of the
Schell Creek Range, and is not currently a BLM Wilderness Study
Area. The mineral potential of the area has not been studied,
and the various State of Nevada agencies who participated in
the Governor's Consistency Review Panel did not assess the
area;
<bullet> Goshute Canyon: The Goshute Canyon area covers much of the
Cherry Creek Range of northern White Pine County. Much of the
area is considered to have moderate mineral potential, with the
southern end, which is not included in the proposed wilderness
defined by this bill. It is worth noting that the White Pine
Regional Planning Commission, the City of Ely, and the White
Pine County Commission have all opposed this area as
wilderness, as such designation may adversely affect the
construction of the planned White Pine Power Project;
<bullet> Bristlecone: This area is situated a short distance ( nine
miles) and due west of the town of McGill and is not a current
BLM WSA.
It is apparent that S. 3772's drafters gave little, if any
consideration to the prior recommendations of the U.S. Forest Service,
the U.S. BLM, or the various agencies of the State of Nevada (including
the Governor's Consistency Review Panel). One of the proposed areas,
Goshute Canyon may negatively affect a major energy development
project, the White Pine Power Project, which has been supported by
essentially every local governmental entity. One area (South Egan) has
been strongly opposed by local citizens, yet the opinions of the locals
have been ignored. Several areas that have never been assessed for
wilderness criteria or suitability have been included as new wilderness
proposals. Some of the areas included clearly do not meet the 1964
Wilderness Act definition of Wilderness (S. 3772 redefines
``wilderness'' so that areas which do not meet the traditional
definition of wilderness can be included in the National Wilderness
Preservation System).
To proceed with a markup of this bill is tantamount to encouraging
a form of wilderness extortion, where, in order to appease wilderness
advocates, additional wilderness is created as a quid-quo-pro for
selling public land. Lyon County, Nevada has already advised Senator
Reid that it is unwilling to cave in to the Senator's ultimatum that
additional Wilderness be created in Lyon County in exchange for
privatizing public land in the county (see attached letter).
NWMA strongly objects to a public policy of creating new wilderness
areas and adding areas to the National Wilderness Preservation System
in exchange for selling public lands. Any proposal to sell public lands
not covered by current land use plans developed under FLPMA or the NFMA
should stand or fall on its own merits following an opportunity for
public comment and debate.
Likewise, adding acreage to the National Wilderness Preservation
System should follow the procedures, requirements and policies set
forth in the 1964 Wilderness Act, and should be debated and justified
based on the ability of the lands to meet the 1964 Wilderness Act
definition of wilderness rather than used as a political pawn to gain
the support from wilderness advocates for the selling of unrelated
public lands.
Currently, there are approximately 107 million acres in the
National Wilderness Preservation System. That means 107 million acres
of public land is off limits to mineral and energy development, and
essentially off limits to almost all forms of multiple-use activities
as well as modern, science-based land management. The vast majority of
Americans are not able to use or enjoy wilderness areas because of the
restrictions imposed. Isn't it time to start asking ourselves how much
wilderness do we need? There are approximately 2.9 million acres of
Wilderness in Nevada, an amount that is equal to almost half of the
entire Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. How much is enough?
S. 3772 also ignores the fact that Congress already has provided
the land management agencies with the tools to address the purported
rationale for the bill. FLPMA and the NFMA provide the BLM and USFS
respectively, the authority to solicit public input into land use,
resource management and forest plans; the authority for the sale of
public lands so identified in the planning process; the authority to
exchange public lands for private lands; the granting of rights-of-
ways; and all other authorities needed to manage the lands in the
public interest following environmental evaluations required by NEPA
and other federal laws. Prior to FLPMA, the Recreation and Public
Purposes Act of 1954 authorized BLM to sell public land at reduced
prices to local governments where such a need exists. In other words,
Congress has provided the federal land management agencies with
sufficient statutory authority to manage the public lands according to
priorities set by Congress and the land management agencies already
have the authority they need to sell, dispose or trade public lands
pursuant to the policies set by Congress and the authorities granted by
Congress in the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1954 and FLPMA.
We also want to use this opportunity to express our strong
opposition to the county public land bill process in general. NWMA is
in receipt of a copy of a letter from the Public Lands Foundation (PLF)
expressing opposition to the White Pine County Bill as well as the
Washington County (Utah) Growth and Conservation Act (S. 636), and the
Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act, HR 3603. We
agree with the PLF that these county public land bills seriously
undermine the integrity of our western public lands by making repeated
exceptions and loopholes around many of our nations most fundamental
land management and environmental laws. At worst, these bills suggest
the unraveling of our national public land management policy in favor
of a piecemeal and haphazard view of valued public resources.
S. 3772 is unnecessary and it is inappropriate for Congress to
politicize the management of public lands by the introduction of
complex and unneeded legislation like the White Pine County bill.
If the Committee holds a hearing on S. 3772, or any similar bill,
NWMA would appreciate an opportunity to provide oral and written
testimony in opposition to the bill. We urge your Committee to reject
this ill-conceived bill.
The Northwest Mining Association (NWMA) is a 112 year old non-
profit mining industry trade association based in Spokane, Washington.
NWMA has more than 1,300 members residing in 31 states and 6 Canadian
provinces. Our members are actively involved in exploration and mining
operations on public lands throughout the United States, especially the
western states. More than one-third of our members live in or are
actively working in Nevada. Many of our members have participated in
previous mineral potential surveys of public land. NWMA's broad and
diverse membership includes every facet of the mining industry
including geology, exploration, mining, engineering, environmental
services, equipment manufacturing, technical services and sales of
equipment and supplies. NWMA's membership represents a true cross-
section of the mining community.
Sincerely,
Laura Skaer,
Executive Director.
______
Shivwits Band of Paiutes,
North Ivins, UT, November 15, 2006.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Chairman,
Hon. Jeff Bingaman, Ranking Member,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and the Members of the
Committee: On behalf of the Shivwits Band of the Paiute Tribe of Utah,
thank you for holding a hearing in the Public Lands and Forests
Subcommittee on S. 3636, the Washington County Growth and Conservation
Act. The Shivwits Band is one of five bands of the Paiute Indian Tribe
of Utah, a federally recognized tribe. As some of the first residents
of Washington County, our people share an indelible cultural and
historical connection with the surrounding Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) lands impacted by this legislation.
For the November 16, 2006 hearing in the Public Land and Forests
Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
please consider for the legislative record the attached letter on the
Washington County Growth and Conservation Act, sent on November 13,
2006 from the Shivwits Band to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator
Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Indian
Affairs Committee.
Thank you again for scheduling this hearing, and thank you for
considering our statement on. S. 3636.
Sincerely,
Glenn Rogers,
Shivwits Band Chairman.
[Attachment].
Shivwits Band of Paiutes,
North Ivins, UT, November 13, 2006.
Hon. John McCain, Chairman,
Hon. Byron Dorgan, Ranking Member,
Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Re: Washington County Growth and Conservation Act, H.R. 5769, S. 3636
Dear Senator McCain and Senator Dorgan: My name is Glenn Rogers and
I am the Band Chairman of the Shivwits Band of the Paiute Tribe of
Utah. I am writing on behalf of the Shivwits Band to inform the Indian
Affairs Committee about our views and concerns regarding S. 3636/H.R.
5769, the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act (The Act). This
legislation has been referred to the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee and will be the subject of a hearing on November
16th. We are concerned that in the final days of the 109th Congress,
sponsors of this legislation may try to pass this bill despite serious
conflicts with the interests on the Shivwits people and our land.
Therefore, we are asking for your assistance in addressing or concerns
about the Act, but more immediately, we request your assistance to
ensure that the Act is not hastily passed in the final days of this
Congress.
The Shivwits Band is one of five bands of the Paiute Indian Tribe
of Utah. Our Reservation is located on the western side of Washington
County, Utah, and is approximately 29,000 acres in size. My people were
amongst first to live in Washington County. Our culture, history, and
traditions are intimately connected with the surrounding BLM lands.
The Shivwits Band was not adequately consulted by the local
government, the department of the Interior, or authors of the
legislation. As a result, the Washington County Growth and Conservation
Act contains many provisions that win significantly harm our community.
Specifically, the act could result in: right-of-way being developed on
the Reservation, unmanaged ORV use and trespassing on the Reservation,
privatization of culturally important areas, and potential harm to
populations of plants and animals, such as the desert tortoise, which
are important to the Shivwits. further, because the Act was created
without any consultation with the Shivwits, if passed it will establish
a precedent of excluding affected tribes from consultation about land
use planning legislation.
discussion
A. Consultation
Approximately 3 years ago we attended one meeting to discuss issues
surrounding land use. During the process of drafting the Act, the
Shivwits were never consulted by the sponsors of the Act, the County
Commission, or the Department of the Interior. We have sent comments to
the sponsors of the Act expressing our concerns. However, we did not
receive any meaningful response until after the Act was heard in the
House. This failure to consult with the Shivwits Band violates the
policy and promise of government to government relations. This clearly
is harmful to the Shivwits, but it also has greater national
implications. If the Act is passed, it threatens to set a precedent of
excluding Tribes from taking part in the formation of land use policy.
This committee should not support such a precedent.
Since the Act was heard in the House, we have met once with
Representative Matheson's staff and representatives from the local BLM.
We are scheduled to meet with Representative Matheson's staff again. We
sincerely appreciate Representative Matheson's efforts, and hope that
our conversation will result in changes in the Act. However, as of this
date the Act remains very problematic to the Band. In the Senate, we
are similarly concerned that discussions with Senator Bennett's office
have failed to result in improvements to the legislation. Finally we
are happy to discuss our concerns at any time. However, we are deeply
concerned that at this late date, it will be almost impossible for the
Band to have any real and meaningful impact on the Act. It is our
understanding that the sponsors of the Act hope to pass the Act during
the ``lame duck session''. We would undercut these efforts. I would,
therefore, respectfully request that the Committee support our desire
for additional time by opposing passage of the Act during the lame duck
session.
B. Cultural Resources
The Shivwits have lived in Washington County for generations. Many
of the BLM lands surrounding the current Shivwits Reservation are
culturally significant to the Shivwits, and contain remains important
to our people. The Baud is very concerned that the Act will result in
the sale or transfer of public lands that are of importance to the
Shivwits people to private developers. The Shivwits Band would urge
that these lands be retained as public lands. If land is sold, there
should be an intensive survey and consultation with the Shivwits Band
before sale to ensure lands of cultural significance are protected.
Currently, the draft legislation provides consultation for land sales
only for the County. If land with cultural values is eventually offered
for sale after consultation with the Shivwits, the Shivwits Band
requests the right of first refusal. Further, the Band should have the
opportunity to remove any human remains, funerary objects, or other
items in order to prevent them from being desecrated.
The legislation authorizes the Secretary to include a restrictive
covenant in any deed of transfer of any parcel of land disposed of.
However, the restrictive covenant provision will not adequately protect
cultural resources. The use of restrictive covenants is optional, and
there is no requirement or guarantee that such covenants will be
utilized to protect cultural resources. Further, the Act does not
provide any funding to monitor or enforce these restrictive covenants.
It is our understanding that the BLM itself has expressed concerns
about whether adequate resources are available to monitor these
restrictive covenants. Finally, the restrictive covenants would still
allow for the privatization of cultural resources. As a fundamental
concept we believe it is highly inappropriate for these resources to be
privatized.
C. Proceeds from Land Sales
The Act proposes to dispose of as much as 24,300 acres of BLM land
in Washington County over a number of years. Of this amount, 4,300
acres must be sold and 20,000 acres may be sold or exchanged. Any lands
sold will presumably generate proceeds. The Act provides that the State
of Utah shall receive five percent of the proceeds, the Washington
County government shall receive two percent, and the Washington County
Water Conservancy District shall receive eight percent. The Shivwits
Band receives no benefits despite our status as a sovereign government.
We do not necessarily support the notion of selling lands to fund
government needs, but if such a sale occurs, we the formula in the Act
is simply unfair to the Shivwits People.
D. Utility Corridors
Section 401(a) of the Act would establish a total of 900 linear
miles of utility corridors at a width of approximately \1/2\ mile in
most locations. According to the legislative maps dated July 18, 2006,
it appears that several utility corridor segments are designated across
Shivwits Reservation. We have heard that the BLM has expressed concerns
that seven segments of the proposed utility corridors cross the
Shivwits Reservation. At no point have the sponsors of the Act
consulted with us about utility corridors. We continue to seek
clarification about the impacts of utility corridors on the Shivwits
Reservation. While ultimately the Band may agree to utility corridors
on the reservation, this decision should be made by the Band at the
local level--not via federal legislation.
E. Land Transfers and Right-of-Way
The Shivwits believe that, in its present form, the Act unduly
favors the local Washington County Water Conservancy District by
granting this entity right-of-way for free and perpetuity. The Shivwits
Band is a recognized sovereign government, but we were not afforded
similar benefits. We have concerns that the proposed transfers may
potentially impact the Band's existing water resources, as well as the
Band's legal water rights. Further we question the basic concept of
transferring land, free of cost to the Water Conservancy District. The
Shivwits Band would also like additional information about what project
are planned by the Water Conservaney District, particularly on lands
slated for transfer to the Water Conservancy District directly north of
the Shivwits Reservation.
F. High Desert ORV Trail
The Act also calls for the development of the high Desert ORV
Trail. The location of the ORV route system proposed by the Washington
County Commission is of serious concern to the Band. We have already
expressed some of our concern about this ORV system, and about general
ORV use in and near the Shivwits Reservation, to the BLM. We experience
ongoing problems with off-road vehicle users trespassing on the
Reservation, and we are concerned that the High Desert ORV Trail will
only make this problem worst. We would like to see this issue addressed
in the Act. The Act should specify that the High Desert ORV Trail be
designed to minimize trespassing on the Reservation, and that the Band
should have significant input in the final route designation. Further,
we have already seen that the BLM is unable to manage the current level
of ORV use on public lands in Washington County, especially near the
Shivwits Reservation. The Act should provide the additional funding
necessary to manage and enforce the new system, as well as current and
future ORV use on public lands near the Shivwits Reservation. The High
Desert Trail system will be a new ORV route System spanning the length
of the County, and it will undoubtedly attract additional ORV users to
Washington County, resulting in an increased demand for emergency
services. The Act should clarify who will provide these services, and
how these services will be paid for.
G. Native Plants and Animals
In addition to the issues listed above, we are concerned that the
Act will harm native plants and animals including, but not limited to,
the desert tortoise, Shivwits milk-vetch, bearclaw poppy, and Virgin
River spinedace. The Act should balance the need for development with
the need to protect all native plants and animals. Washington County is
unique, and the plants and animals that inhabit this area are found in
very few other places. The Shivwits Band placed a high priority on
these native plants and animals, and request that this proposed
legislation make every effort to protect them.
conclusion
In conclusion, The Shivwits Band would like to stress our
opposition to this legislation. It would cause lasting damage to
culture, history, and way of life. The Act fails to uphold the promise
of government to government relationship, and it fails to provide a
balance between development and preservation. We urge you to join us in
opposing this legislation.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters,
Sincerely
Glenn Rogers,
Shivwits Bans Chairman.
______
National Wildlife Federation,
Washington, DC, November 16, 2006.
Hon. Larry Craig, Chairman,
Hon. Ron Wyden, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Craig and Senator Wyden: On behalf of the National
Wildlife Federation (NWF) and our more than four million members and
supporters, we write to you to express our views regarding S. 3636, the
``Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2006.''
Instead of providing real solutions to deal with the rapid growth
in Washington County, Utah, S. 3636 further encourages development at
the expense of our public lands. Since 20 square miles of public land
have already been privatized in the last six years and estimates by the
local chamber of commerce place over 200,000 acres of private land as
still available for development, the sale and/or exchange of up to 38
square miles (24,300 acres) of BLM public land and giveaway of the
rights-of-ways to water developers in about 14 square miles of BLM
public land as proposed in S. 3636 is unnecessary and detrimental to
the millions of Americans who hunt, fish, hike, camp and engage in
other forms of recreation on our public lands.
Masquerading under the guise of a ``Conservation Act'', S. 3636
would, in actuality, disregard the many tenets already in place to
conserve public lands in Washington County. Although the bill would
designate new wilderness, most of this area is already protected in
Zion National Park and thus could not compensate for the numerous anti-
conservation measures in S. 3636. In addition to the aforementioned
privatization of BLM public lands, the bill would also remove
Wilderness Study Area protection from 14 square miles of public lands.
Then, in perhaps S. 3636's most egregious disregard to existing
conservation law, a new mandate would be created to direct the revenue
from the public land sales away from conservation funding as currently
required and instead towards local interests and development projects.
Additional provisions in the bill could have devastating effects on
wildlife and wildlife habitat. S. 3636 would require the BLM to
consider building a highway through the Red Cliffs Desert Tortoise
Reserve, which is supposed to be set aside as critical habitat for the
endangered desert tortoise. The bill would also require the BLM to
establish a new off road trail system, even though existing ORV trails
have damaged wildlife habitat and non-motorized recreational
opportunities on public lands in Washington County. Proposals in the
bill would also have far reaching effects, as S. 3636 would use a
portion of the public land sale revenues to contribute to the
construction of a 120 mile water pipeline from Lake Powell of waters
derived from the Colorado River. Not only would the pipeline
construction cause potential damage to public lands, but this water
diversion would reduce already deficient Colorado River flows, thus
affecting river habitat and those who utilize the river for
recreational and other purposes.
Given that the ``Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of
2006'' undermines existing conservation law, encourages development of
our public lands, and fails to designate over 70% of citizen proposed
wilderness in the Zion-Mojave region, the National Wildlife Federation
cannot support this legislation. We urge you to reassess how to best
manage the rapid population growth and sprawl in Washington County
without sacrificing our public lands.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jim Lyon,
Senior Vice President, Conservation.
______
Indian Springs, NV, November 26, 2006.
Hon. Larry Craig,
Chair, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests.
Re: White Pine County Lands Bill, S. 3772
Dear Senator Craig: Five generations of our family have lived in
the southern Nevada area, and more in adjacent areas of Utah. We firmly
believe that the decisions being made regarding the White Pine County
Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006 ( S. 3772) will
determine the fate of the entire State of Nevada as well as that of the
entire region.
Solid science is essential for the decisions on the present and
future transfer of water from one area of Nevada to another. To that
end S. 3772 should ADD authorization of at least $12-13 million study
by the USGS, the Desert Research Institute, and the State of Utah to
develop predictive hydrological models to ascertain the effects of
water development in groundwater basins in White Pine and Lincoln
Counties, and adjacent areas in Utah, and for future integration into
an understanding of the entire region. All data and findings of such
studies must be made immediately available to all parties for review
and critique. This will allow the counties and the State to protect the
groundwater table from excessive draw-downs and protect springs and
seeps, and to make more precise economic decisions to protect the
diversity and sustainability of the arid region..
There should be NO funding of the SNPLMA for a wastewater pipeline
into Lake Mead. This is economically wasteful, and would be used to
artificially subsidize excess growth in southern Nevada, Southern
Nevada must learn to live within its means, and not bankrupt the
system. It is basically an absurdity, to contaminate the reservoir,
then have to expend the energy to pump the sewage laden water back and
treat the sewage. Viable alternatives exist, such as treating the water
and recycling it without sending sewage into Lake Mead and downstream
in--the Colorado River. A treatment plant of this scale is due to come
online in the next year in the Los Angeles area.
White Pine County Lands funds should not be used for SNPLMA turf
removal. The SNWA can easily accomplish the turf removal through
incentives in their rate structures. Proceeds of land sales in White
Pine County should go to White Pine County for its needs. Rural
counties should not be treated as colonies of the urban areas, stripped
of their land and water resources for the short term exploitation by
others. Nevada has little to show for the Comstock Lode exploitation of
the mid 1800's. If diversity and water are lost this time, there would
be little hope for any future recovery.
Sincerely,
Jim & Ann Brauer.
______
Baker, NV, November 19, 2006.
Senator Larry Craig,
Chair, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: I wish to express my opposition to S. 3772, The
White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006,
as it is currently written. I strongly urge that the subcommittee adopt
the following critical changes to the bill.
The bill must include funding to do a study by the USGS, DRI, and
the State of Utah to develop a hydrological model to predict the effect
of water development in groundwater basins in White Pine County,
Lincoln County and adjacent areas in Utah. White Pine County is the
target of a plan by the Southern Nevada Water Authority to export
141,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year from this desert region to
the Las Vegas area 285 miles away. White Pine County has repeatedly
asked for funding for such a study to provide independent,
scientifically credible information. The importance of adequate
scientific knowledge of the amount of water available is crucial before
this project is undertaken.
Please, eliminate SNPLMA funding authorization for the $751 million
wastewater pipeline into Lake Mead. Public land sale revenues should
not be used to subsidize Las Vegas growth. Such funding is not needed
because Clark County wastewater agencies have stated publicly that they
already have sufficient funds to complete the project.
This is the WHITE PINE COUNTY Public Lands Bill, and the use of
those public funds should be applied to the needs of White Pine County.
Respectfully yours,
Tonia Harvey.
______
Carson City, NV, November 20, 2006.
Senator Larry Craig,
Chair, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: I wish to express my opposition to S. 3772, The
White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006,
as it is currently written. I strongly urge that the subcommittee adopt
the following critical changes to the bill.
The bill must include funding to do a study by the USGS, DRI, and
the State of Utah to develop a hydrological model to predict the effect
of water development in groundwater basins in White Pine County,
Lincoln County and adjacent areas in Utah. White Pine County is the
target of a plan by the Southern Nevada Water Authority to export
141,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year from this desert region to
the Las Vegas area 285 miles away. White Pine County has repeatedly
asked for funding for such a study to provide independent,
scientifically credible information.
Please, eliminate SNPLMA funding authorization for the $751 million
wastewater pipeline into Lake Mead because public land sale revenues
should not be used to subsidize Las Vegas growth. Such funding is not
needed because Clark County wastewater agencies have stated publicly
that they already have sufficient funds to complete the project.
Thank you very much,
Jan Gilbert.
______
Reno, NV, November 21, 2006.
Senator Larry Craig,
Chair, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Washington DC.
Re: S. 3772
Dear Senator Craig: I am urging the Subcommittee to amend the White
Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006 by
<bullet> Add AUTHORIZATION OF a $12 million study (funded by the
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act) by the USGS, DRI,
and the State of Utah to develop a hydrological model to
predict the effect of water development in groundwater basins
in White Pine and Lincoln Counties and adjacent areas in Utah.
Reasons: 1) White Pine County has requested SNPLMA funding for
such a study, 2) study would provide independent,
scientifically credible information to allow the county and
state to protect the groundwater table from excessive drawdowns
and protect water-righted springs and seeps.
<bullet> Eliminate SNPLMA funding for the wastewater pipeline into
Lake Mead. Reasons: 1) Revenues from public land sales should
not be used to subsidize Las Vegas growth, 2) the funding
authorization from SNPLMA is unlimited and could be as much as
$751 million, but it's not needed because Clark County
wastewater agencies have said they already have sufficient
funds to complete the project without the subsidy.
<bullet> Adding the Nevada Department of Wildlife to p. 49 Title VIII
line 20 (xiv) development of any park or Wildlife Management
Area administered by the State of Nevada . . .
Thank you for your time.
Tina Nappe.
______
Wendover, UT, November 22, 2006.
Senator Larry Craig,
Chair, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: I am writing you concerning S. 3772, The White
Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006.
The single most threatening thing for White Pine County at the
present moment is the proposed water withdrawal from White Pine County
for Clark County and Las Vegas. Yet this bill, supposedly for the
betterment of White Pine County, has more provision in it for Clark
County than it does for White Pine County.
I ask that 2 areas be specifically addressed in this bill:
1) Provide $12 million in funding to allow the USGS, the DRI,
and the State of Utah to do studies to provide solid,
scientific information about impacts of the proposed water
withdrawal from White Pine County for Las Vegas--before
Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) is allowed to invest
billions of dollars in a project that has the potential of
destroying White Pine County.
2) Eliminate the proposed $751 million funding for a
wastewater pipeline into Lake Mead. Clark County wastewater
agencies have gone on record saying they already have
sufficient funds to complete the project. Further, this money
from public land sales should not be used to support the growth
of Las Vegas. The growth of Las Vegas is only sustainable as
other parts of the state give up their primary resource--
water--to Las Vegas, thereby threatening the existence of
people, vegetation, and wildlife in thousands of acres in rural
Nevada and Utah.
Thank you for you consideration of these issues.
Respectfully yours,
Kathryn Hill.
______
Reno, NV, November 24, 2006.
Hon. Larry Craig,
Chairman, U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
Dear Senator Craig and Subcommittee Members: I am writing to the
subcommittee to oppose S. 3772, the White Pine County Conservation,
Recreation and Development Act of 2006. I ask that the Committee not
pass this legislation without substantial changes, two of which I list
below.
Please add authorization of funding for a $12 million study by the
USGS, Desert Research Institute (an institution of the University of
Nevada), and the State of Utah to develop a hydrological model to
predict the effect of water development in groundwater basins in White
Pine and Lincoln Counties and adjacent areas in Utah. Such a study is
critically needed because White Pine County is the target of a plan by
the Southern Nevada Water Authority to remove 141,000 acre-feet of
groundwater each year and send it to Las Vegas to fuel explosive
growth. This study should be authorized in this legislation because 1)
White Pine County has continuously requested funding for such a study
from the SNPLMA funds during the past three years, 2) study would
provide independent, scientifically credible information to allow the
county and state to protect the groundwater table from excessive
drawdowns and protect water-righted springs and seeps.
Please, eliminate the funding from SNPLMA for the wastewater
pipeline into Lake Mead. The funding should not be allowed by the
subcommittee because 1) Revenues from public land sales, which are an
asset of all Americans should not be used to subsidize Las Vegas
growth, 2) the funding authorization from SNPLMA is unlimited for a
project already projected to cost $751 million, and is not needed
because Clark County wastewater agencies have said they already have
sufficient funds to complete the project without the subsidy, 3) during
numerous meetings on the WPC bill authorizing this funding was never
requested nor discussed.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Respectfully yours,
Dennis Ghiglieri Rose Strickland.
______
Caliente, NV.
Senator Larry Craig,
Chair, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: I wish to express my opposition to S. 3772, The
White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006,
as it is currently written. I strongly urge that the subcommittee adopt
the following critical changes to the bill.
The bill must include funding to do a study by the USGS, DRI, and
the State of Utah to develop a hydrological model to predict the effect
of water development in groundwater basins in White Pine County,
Lincoln County and adjacent areas in Utah. White Pine County is the
target of a plan by the Southern Nevada Water Authority to export
141,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year from this desert region to
the Las Vegas area 285 miles away. White Pine County has repeatedly
asked for funding for such a study to provide independent,
scientifically credible information.
Please, eliminate SNPLMA funding authorization for the $751 million
wastewater pipeline into Lake Mead because public land sale revenues
should not be used to subsidize Las Vegas growth. Such funding is not
needed because Clark County wastewater agencies have stated publicly
that they already have sufficient funds to complete the project.
Respectfully yours,
Brent H. Perkins.
______
Statement of Nomi Sheppard, Baker, NV
I am a resident of Snake Valley in White Pine County, NV. I fear
the Las Vegas pipeline will destroy our community and our environment.
Please take the following steps to ensure careful, scientific, unbiased
thinking to divert a potentially disastrous, devastating situation.
This will set precedence for future water developments in the West.
<bullet> Add AUTHORIZATION OF a $12 million study by the USGS, DRI,
and the State of Utah to develop a hydrological model to
predict the effect of water development in groundwater basins
in White Pine and Lincoln Counties and adjacent areas in Utah.
Reasons: 1) White Pine County has requested SNPLMA funding for
such a study, 2) study would provide independent,
scientifically credible information to allow the county and
state to protect the groundwater table from excessive drawdowns
and protect water-righted springs and seeps.
<bullet> Eliminate SNPLMA funding for the wastewater pipeline into
Lake Mead. Reasons: 1) Revenues from public land sales should
not be used to subsidize Las Vegas growth, 2) the funding
authorization from SNPLMA is unlimited and could be as much as
$751 million, but it's not needed because Clark County
wastewater agencies have said they already have sufficient
funds to complete the project without the subsidy.
Thank you.
______
Statement of Terry Marasco, Silver Jack Inn, Baker, NV
The current BARCASS 1 study will only state a water budget. It is
imperative that the bill authorizes a $12 million study by the USGS,
DRI, and the State of Utah to develop a hydrological model to predict
the effect of water development in groundwater basins in White Pine and
Lincoln Counties and adjacent areas in Utah because 1) White Pine
County has requested SNPLMA funding for such a study, 2) study would
provide independent, scientifically credible information to allow the
county and state to protect the groundwater table from excessive
drawdowns and protect water-righted springs and seeps.
Since the Clark County wastewater agencies have stated that they
have the funds, Eliminate SNPLMA funding for the wastewater pipeline
into Lake Mead. Tax payers should not have to foot this bill.
______
Statement of Jon Shipp
I would like to express my opposition and serious concern over the
provisions of S. 3772, The White Pine County Conservation, Recreation
and Development Act 2006, as presently drafted.
I would strongly request that the following changes to the bill are
made in subcommittee, to protect the integrity of this legislation.
1) The bill must include funding for an independent study by
the State of Utah, USGS and DRI to develop a hydrological model
to predict the effect of water extraction from Groundwater
basins in White Pine and Lincoln Counties in Nevada, and
Millard and Juab Counties in Utah. This funding is essential to
produce scientific information and has been repeatedly
requested. The possible extraction of water from this region
could destroy the areas just created for conservation and
recreation.
2) Authorization for SNPLMA funding with regard to the
wastewater pipeline into Lake Mead should be eliminated. Public
land sale revenues should NOT be used for a project where Clark
County NV have already stated sufficient funds are held and
where the money is effectively subsidizing the growth of a city
(Las Vegas) that has not had the foresight to plan ahead.
The fact that proposed water extraction could seriously impact on
resources in Utah makes it imperative that full scientific
investigation is undertaken before any additional extraction is
undertaken. There are water rights in both states that could be
effected, plus a National Park and Wilderness areas.
There is also the potential for release of dust containing Nuclear
waste, should the water table fall too low and the surface plants die
or be removed.
Your serious consideration of these amendments is requested.
______
Reno, NV.
Senator Larry Craig,
Chair, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests.
Dear Senator Craig: On the whole, the White Pine County Lands bill
is well constructed and in the best interests of Nevadans and the U.S.
However, two changes are imperative if the bill is not to be
counterproductive:
1) Please add authorization of the $12 USGS, DRI, Utah,
Nevada hydrological model for White Pine and Lincoln Counties
in Nevada and in western Utah. At present, water and
environmental resources are severely threatened by proposals to
extract ground water for shipment to Las Vegas. We do not have
a comprehensive model of the affected aquifers; $12 million is
a small price to pay for a genuinely descriptive study of
available water resources.
2) Delete the $751 million dollar funding for wastewater
treatment, which would merely encourage Las Vegas to drain
distant aquifers and process the water for return flow credits,
subsidizing the unplanned urban sprawl of the Las Vegas Valley.
Thank you for your consideration.
Stephen Tchudi.
______
Statement of Deon Reynolds
I wish to express my opposition to S. 3772, The White Pine County
Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006, as it is
currently written. I strongly urge that the subcommittee adopt the
following critical changes to the bill.
The bill must include funding to do a study by the USGS, DRI, and
the State of Utah to develop a hydrological model to predict the effect
of water development in groundwater basins in White Pine County,
Lincoln County and adjacent areas in Utah. White Pine County is the
target of a plan by the Southern Nevada Water Authority to export
141,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year from this desert region to
the Las Vegas area 285 miles away. White Pine County has repeatedly
asked for funding for such a study to provide independent,
scientifically credible information.
Please, eliminate SNPLMA funding authorization for the $751 million
wastewater pipeline into Lake Mead because public land sale revenues
should not be used to subsidize Las Vegas growth. Such funding is not
needed because Clark County wastewater agencies have stated publicly
that they already have sufficient funds to complete the project.
______
Baker, White Pine County, NV.
Senator Larry Craig,
Chair, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests.
Dear Chairman Craig and Members of the Subcommittee: I ask you to
set S. 3772 aside until two changes--(1+) one addition, (1-) one
deletion--are made:
(1+) I ask the Subcommittee to ADD monies to fund a study by
the USGS, DRI and the State of Utah to develop a hydrological
model to predict the effect of water development in groundwater
basins in White Pine and Lincoln counties in Nevada and
adjacent areas in Utah. At the present moment this multi-
billion dollar SNWA project is flying blind. The development of
a competent hydrological model is a minimal requirement.
(1-) And I ask the Subcommittee to DELETE funding
authorization for the wastewater pipeline into Lake Mead. Clark
County wastewater agencies have already publicly stated that
they have the money to do this job. They just want the
Subcommittee to fund it for them.
Thank you, Chairman Craig and Members of the Subcommittee.
Peter Ford.
______
Statement of Ken Hill, President, North Snake Valley Water Association
I am writing in behalf of a western Utah citizens group, North
Snake Valley Water Association. We are concerned about S. 3772, the
White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006.
We feel the bill should contain authorization of water study to be
conducted by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Desert Research Institute
(DRI), and the state of Utah to develop a comprehensive hydrological
model. These entities are currently conducting a study in groundwater
basins in Lincoln and White Pine Counties and adjacent areas in Utah.
But that study is under funded and inadequate. A study needs to be
carried out to predict the effect of water development.
A second study is necessary and was included in some of the early
drafts of the White Pine County bill and has great support in White
Pine County. Such a study would provide vital, independent, peer-
reviewed data to allow the county and Nevada to protect water-righted
springs and seeps and to protect the groundwater table from excessive
draw downs. This information also is vital for Utah in adjacent Snake
Valley. Funding for this study should be authorized in an amount of
$12-$15 million.
S. 3772 also should be restricted to matters that directly concern
White Pine County. We favor, for example, the elimination of SNPLMA
funding for the effluent pipeline into Lake Mead. Revenues from public
land sales should not be used to facilitate and subsidize growth in
southern Nevada. Such growth is fueling the potentially disastrous
reach for groundwater into eastern Nevada and western Utah.
Additionally, Clark County officials have publicly stated their local
resources are sufficient to complete the project which could cost more
than $750 million.
Thanks for your consideration of this matter.
______
Statement of Abigail C. Johnson, Snake Valley Citizens Alliance, Baker,
NV
I am a resident of White Pine County. I am very concerned about
that provisions in the proposed public lands bill for White Pine County
NV do not address the County's needs.
The water study and model are essential to understand the impacts
of groundwater exportation. Funding a wastewater pipeline to Lake Mead
in Clark County is unnecessary, and was never agreed to in the five
years of local meetings leading up to the drafting of this bill
Please support the following changes to S. 3772, the White Pine
County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006.
<bullet> Add AUTHORIZATION OF a $12 million study by the USGS, DRI,
and the State of Utah to develop a hydrological model to
predict the effect of water development in groundwater basins
in White Pine and Lincoln Counties and adjacent areas in Utah.
Reasons: 1) White Pine County has requested SNPLMA funding for
such a study, 2) study would provide independent,
scientifically credible information to allow the county and
state to protect the groundwater table from excessive drawdowns
and protect water-righted springs and seeps.
<bullet> Eliminate SNPLMA funding for the wastewater pipeline into
Lake Mead. Reasons: 1) Revenues from public land sales should
not be used to subsidize Las Vegas growth, 2) the funding
authorization from SNPLMA is unlimited and could be as much as
$751 million, but it's not needed because Clark County
wastewater agencies have said they already have sufficient
funds to complete the project without the subsidy, 3) during
meetings authorizing this funding was never requested nor
discussed.
Thank you.
______
Statement of Kelly Clark, Carson City, NV
I am very concerned about the White Pine County Lands Bill.
This bill needs to add the following elements to be fair to the
citizens of Eastern Nevada:
<bullet> Add AUTHORIZATION OF a $12 million study by the USGS, DRI,
and the State of Utah to develop a hydrological model to
predict the effect of water development in groundwater basins
in White Pine and Lincoln Counties and adjacent areas in Utah.
Reasons: 1) White Pine County has requested SNPLMA funding for
such a study, 2) study would provide independent,
scientifically credible information to allow the county and
state to protect the groundwater table from excessive drawdowns
and protect water-righted springs and seeps.
<bullet> Eliminate SNPLMA funding for the wastewater pipeline into
Lake Mead. Reasons: 1) Revenues from public land sales should
not be used to subsidize Las Vegas growth, 2) the funding
authorization from SNPLMA is unlimited and could be as much as
$751 million, but it's not needed because Clark County
wastewater agencies have said they already have sufficient
funds to complete the project without the subsidy, 3) during
local meetings, authorizing this funding was never requested
nor discussed.
Support additional language to the bill that would provide long-
term, ongoing funding to restore and rehabiliate Nevada lands affected
by wildfire. Nevada's wildlands are being decimated by cheatgrass and
wildfire. Something must be done now to fight cheatgrass with drill
seeding and aerial seeding, to contract with local people in the rural
areas to complete restoration efforts once BLM has stabilized lands,
and to provide both economic support for the rural economy in this
state. Such funding would help to support wildlife habitat, which would
help keep threatened and endangered species from becoming more rare and
threatened--something we cannot afford in Nevada.
Thank you for consideration of this message
______
Statement of Sarah Mersereau-Adler, Rural Economic Development
Advocate, Carson City, NV
You have before you S. 3772, addressing public lands issues in
White Pine, Lincoln, and Clark counties in Nevada. It is critical that
two amendments be made to the bill in order to adequately determine
potential impacts on the environment, water supplies and associated
water rights.
<bullet> Add AUTHORIZATION OF a $12 million study by the USGS, DRI,
and the State of Utah to develop a hydrological model to
predict the effect of water development in groundwater basins
in White Pine and Lincoln Counties and adjacent areas in Utah.
Such a study would provide independent, scientifically credible
information to allow the county and state to protect the
groundwater table from excessive drawdowns and protect water-
righted springs and seeps.
<bullet> Eliminate SNPLMA funding for the wastewater pipeline into
Lake Mead. Reasons: 1) Revenues from public land sales should
not be used to subsidize Las Vegas growth, 2) the funding
authorization from SNPLMA is unlimited and could be as much as
$751 million, but it's not needed because Clark County
wastewater agencies have said they already have sufficient
funds to complete the project without the subsidy, 3) during
local meetings, authorizing this funding was never requested
nor discussed.
Thank you for this attention to this critical issue.
______
Statement of Steve Palmer
Please make the following changes to S. 3772, the White Pine County
Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006.
<bullet> Add AUTHORIZATION OF a $12 million study by the USGS, DRI,
and the State of Utah to develop a hydrological model to
predict the effect of water development in groundwater basins
in White Pine and Lincoln Counties and adjacent areas in Utah.
Reasons: 1) White Pine County has requested SNPLMA funding for
such a study, 2) study would provide independent,
scientifically credible information to allow the county and
state to protect the groundwater table from excessive drawdowns
and protect water-righted springs and seeps.
<bullet> Eliminate SNPLMA funding for the wastewater pipeline into
Lake Mead. Reasons: 1) Revenues from public land sales should
not be used to subsidize Las Vegas growth, 2) the funding
authorization from SNPLMA is unlimited and could be as much as
$751 million, but it's not needed because Clark County
wastewater agencies have said they already have sufficient
funds to complete the project without the subsidy, 3) during
local meetings, authorizing this funding was never requested
nor discussed.
______
Statement of Katie Fite, Biodiversity Director, Western Watersheds
Project, Boise, ID
My name is Katie Fite, and I am Biodiversity Director of Western
Watersheds Project (WWP). I was formerly Executive Director of the
Committee for the High Desert (CHD). I request that this testimony be
placed in the record for the White Pine Bill.
First, I would like to submit an Opinion Piece that I wrote
concerning four recent quid pro quo bills.
regional perils of privatization of public lands and public assets
through 2006 development/wilderness bills
A recent Salt Lake Tribune article and Editorial describes the fray
over the draining of the regional aquifer underlying western Utah and
eastern Nevada to propel breakneck growth in Las Vegas. Yet, no mention
is made that the water pipelines that could turn this part of the Great
Basin into the next Owens Valley were brought about by a complex land,
development and wilderness Bill in Nevada's Lincoln County. By using
the sugarcoating of wilderness, politicians quietly put in place the
mechanism for a water grab that they could not have achieved by any
other means--at least not without a prolonged and bloody battle.
A new privatization/wilderness Bill that would sell off more than
45,000 acres of BLM land in Nevada's White Pine County for industrial
and other development is pending. With the water situation in the
region already at a crisis point--where will the water to support more
explosive development from the same aquifer come from? Industry plans
here include a proposal for a giant new coal-fired power plant near Ely
with others in the wings. Industrial development in the heart of the
Great Basin will consume a tremendous amount of water. It will also
spew mercury and other pollutants into a shared regional Nevada, Utah,
and Idaho airshed--where winter smog inversions in urban areas now
threaten human health.
On the heels of Nevada's land and resource liquidation schemes,
Utah's own Washington County Bill would sell off large blocks of BLM
lands, and facilitate development. And two more privatization
wilderness Bills are moving forward in Idaho. CIEDRA, a central Idaho
Bill, promotes trophy home sprawl by turning public land over to the
County for sale, and strips parts of the protection of the Sawtooth
National Recreation Area. In Owyhee County to the south, the Owyhee
Initiative would impose an indirect form of privatization of public
lands through an elite Board of Directors to oversee all 3.8 million
acres of public lands in the County. (Note: White Pine's parallel here
is enablement of a local group, the Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition,
also closely linked to the livestock industry, to take over some
functions of BLM--and spend taxpayer funds on chaining, burning,
herbiciding and otherwise killing trees and sagebrush on public lands--
in the name of ``restoration''). The OI would also allow ranchers to
privatize a potential 75,000 acres of BLM public land parcels. 200,000
acres of sagebrush and forested BLM WSAs--critical to wildlife
populations shared with Nevada and Oregon--would be released. Plans are
already made for elaborate livestock water projects and burning to
intensify use by privately owned cattle.
Fallout from the Las Vegas pipelines serves as a stark reminder
that the public needs to take a long hard look at ALL consequences of
these complicated development, cronyism and wilderness Bills-now on a
fast-track in Congress. What will the long-term effects be to the
region--to water supplies, airsheds, and wildlife habitats--and even
the quality of any wilderness that is designated?
Shrewd enemies of public lands, developers and politicians are
using an incremental County-by-County approach, coating the most bitter
of Bills with flawed wilderness, to mask their looting of the public
land commons for private gain. It's time for western politicians to
recognize that intact public wild lands, with blocks of real
Wilderness, are critical to our environmental health and regional well-
being. They should begin by shoving this crop of bad Bills into the
shredder!
the white pine bill
The Wilderness component of the White Pine Bill in no way offsets
the many harmful provisions of the Bill, or the new harmful precedents
for public lands that it would set. Provisions of the Bill include both
direct and indirect privatization measures that will have harmful
implications for public lands and resources extending far beyond the
borders of White Pine County.
The lands affected by the Bill include the beautiful public wild
lands of the Great Basin in eastern Nevada. I have visited these lands,
including White Pine and Lincoln County, for over 20 years to hike,
camp and enjoy the beautiful clean air vistas. Sweeping desert valleys
lie between rugged forested mountains. The air is currently some of the
cleanest in the nation--with grand vistas--where one can see for dozens
of miles.
The scenic vistas of the sweeping valleys and ranges are threatened
by fast-track industrial and other development, including for dirty
polluting industry such as coal-fired power plants and associated
infrastructure, that will be facilitated under the Bill's track
privatization of over 45,000 acres of public lands.
The air quality of the entire region is threatened by the fast-
track land privatization enabling energy development that would turn
this beautiful part of the Great Basin into an Energy Colony of Las
Vegas.
The enablement of the ENLC and privatization of functions of BLM
under the White Pine Bill has a parallel in other recent proposed quid
pro quo legislation. In the Owyhee Initiative legislation, a group of
special interests (a ``Board of Directors'' and a science center
overseen by the BOD) would also be enabled by a sprawling quid pro quo
wilderness bill. Both Bills promote cronyism, elevate the desires of
local interests above those of the broader public in management of the
public lands--and would use taxpayer funds to carry out livestock-
industry friendly science and manipulation projects.
Both the ENLC and the OI BOD are unnecessary, and if established or
enabled under legislation, will likely drain hundreds of millions of
dollars from federal taxpayers to carry out the wishes of a hand full
of local interests. They also both would elevate cronyism in management
of public lands--something which the American people just resoundingly
just voted against!
Proposed Energy Developments in White Pine County
Large-scale energy, utility corridor and industrial development
proposals now abound in White Pine County, and they will be propelled
forward by the White Pine Bill.
For example:
http://www.nv.blm.gov/ely/nepa/040 06_038_cherry_creek
geothermal_ DRFONSI_061
306.pdf#search=%22SWIP%20coal%20impacts%20Ely%22. Page 15 of
this EA--Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ``a total of
8700 acres would be developed for coal and wind energy
production'' . . . ``similar success with coal and wind
generation facilities may lead to expanded production''.
There are many coal-fired and other power plant, and energy
infrastructure projects in the wings. These include the SWIP (Southwest
Intertie) powerline, and other large-scale powerline and energy
development projects in the works, such as Northern Lights. See:
http://www.transcanada.com/pdf/company/projects/NorthernLights_
LR.pdf#search=%22 northern%201i ghts%20alberta%20borah%o22
http://vvww.legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2006/
standingcommittees/
henvmin.pdf#search=%22SWIP%20%22northern%20lights%22%20minutes%2
0 environment%22, pages 1-5.
Pollution from, large-scale energy development in White Pine County
not only will locally pollute air that is among some of the cleanest in
the Nation at present--including Great Basin National Park, it will
pollute a regional airshed shared with Utah and Idaho. Positioning a
large energy industry area on the eastern edge of Nevada north of Las
Vegas frees the glittering city from having to deal with the pollution
from energy needed to support its energy excesses.
All this industrial development in rural Nevada will require large
volumes of water use--in a region where the water situation is already
at a crisis point. Why is Las Vegas letting the Nevada politicians that
do its bidding get away with this? Why is it not kicking and screaming
over the water to be used in industry in the White Pine? Perhaps
because the quid pro quo is that Las Vegas gets cheaper energy from
development in White Pine--and its not going to squawk about that.
Plans underway cynically link coal and wind development. See:
http://www.lspower.com/news/?release=20051115, and earlier link. Siting
huge wind mountain-top dynamiting wind farms on top of rugged ridges
and mountains in the Great Basin may have devastating consequences on
the regions's sage grouse, golden eagle and other wildlife--plus spawn
a tangle of powerline, roading and other infrastructure development
cutting across desert valleys (vs. more appropriate siting for wind
facilities such as on depleted flat windy ag. lands in southern Idaho's
Snake River Plain and similar areas).
The White Pine Bill empowers the Eastern Nevada Landscape
Coalition--a private group that has promoted conversion of the pinyon
juniper forests of the Great Basin on BLM and National Forest lands
into wood chips for industrial-level biomass use. Large-scale biomass
production from public lands in the Great Basin--where pinyon and
juniper trees may grow only a few inches in a century--would result in
extensive alteration and destruction of important biological resources
on public wild lands.
Note: Ely BLM has recently prepared a Draft RMP with maps show many
potential wind energy sites. The Ely DRMP maps also show large areas
being made available for disposal. The White Pine Bill allows BLM land
privatization in acreages exceeding even the acreage proposed in the
DRMP. Plus, the Bill's privatization would occur in unknown locations.
The Ely DRMP has been set up to aid imposition of the ENLC large-scale
manipulation and deforestation schemes across Lincoln and White Pine
Counties--and in a way cedes control to this group--and the white Pine
Bill sets this in stone.
Downwinders in Idaho and Utah Will Suffer from Coal Plant and Other
Development-Linked Pollution Propelled by White Pine Bill
Idaho and Utah are downwind from central Nevada--as the downwind
cancer legacy of Nevada nuclear testing in the 1960s so starkly shows.
Idaho's Custer County, Gem County and other areas in Idaho received
large doses of radiation on the winds from central Nevada. In fact,
compensation for Idaho downwinders from the Nevada tests has been
proposed in recent Congressional legislation.
Today both Idaho and Utah are receiving massive doses of mercury
from Nevada as airborne pollution from gold-roasting by largely
foreign-owned giant cyanide heap leach gold mines. Toxic mercury
carried by the wind from the gold roasting rains down on the region's
streams and reservoirs to the north and east--making fish now unsafe to
eat. See December 2005 New York Times article (Attached).*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Attachments have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The devastating environmental and human health effects of mercury
pollution associated with coal-fired power plants is well known. Air
pollution across the region from coal-fired power plants and other
development in White Pine County will be facilitated by fast-track
privatization of BLM land under the White Pine Bill.
Region's Aquifers Will Be Further Drained by Fast-Track Industrial
Development
Like the White Pine Bill, it's immediate predecessor the Lincoln
County Bill, was developed behind closed doors with local interests and
wilderness-seeking conservationists. In 2004, the Lincoln County Bill
quietly legislated the now highly controversial water pipeline
corridors that will facilitate de-watering of the regional aquifer
underlying large portions of Nevada including White Pine County,
western Utah and even other states.
By the time it was realized how ecologically destructive the
Lincoln County water pipelines would be, conservationists promoting
wilderness in closed-door dealmaking were so deeply invested in getting
wilderness that they were not willing (or able?) to pull away from the
Bill.
The 2006 White Pine Bill's parallel to the water pipeline deal is
the devastating effects of fast-track land disposals facilitating
industrial and other development. The full extent and implications of
such development has received virtually no public attention to date.
Not only will industrial and other development stemming from the
fast-track privatization of over 45,000 acres of BLM lands in White
Pine County pollute a regional airshed, it will also place even more
strain on the very same aquifer that will undergo the massive drawdown
and water export to Las Vegas set in motion by the Lincoln County Bill!
Brown Sky Wilderness and Wild Lands--Pollution Will Mar Some of
Nation's Cleanest Air
The disposal of vast tracts of BLM lands to facilitate industrial
and other development will ironically lead to industrial pollution of
the air over the very Wilderness areas that would be designated. The
air of Great Basin National Park will be dirtied by White Pine
development.
Even downwind Class I airsheds (such as that over the existing
Jarbidge wilderness--that was designated as part of the Wilderness
Bill) will be polluted by soot and toxics pumped into the air by fast-
track White Pine industrial development.
Right now, the air quality in central Nevada is better than almost
anywhere else in the Nation. This land privatization and development
legislation, by laying the foundation for actions that will degrade air
quality, visibility, and aesthetics, will destroy a national benchmark
for air quality, and deprive all Americans of the opportunity to enjoy
this clean air and great scenic vistas.
A behind-the-scenes deal appears to have been cut between some
wilderness promoters over power plant development--where there is no
ruckus being made over coal power plants sought by some local interests
in White Pine. This is in sharp and noticeable contrast to the outcry
raised by Wilderness advocates over a proposed Sempra coal plant near
Gehrlach in western Nevada in recent years. To curry favor and gain
support of local interests for wilderness, some conservationists are
looking the other way--and not actively opposing the construction of
giant coal-fired power plants and extensive energy infrastructure and
development in White Pine County.
White Pine Bill Title VII Would Facilitate Large-Scale Deforestation
and Accelerate Desertification Processes By Enabling the ENLC
The nationally significant pinyon juniper forests on public lands
in both White Pine and Lincoln Counties are greatly threatened by the
provisions of the Bill that would fund and enable the Eastern Nevada
Landscape Coalition.
The pieces are being put in place for a massive assault on pinyon
juniper and juniper--to convert them to grass for cattle forage--under
the guise of ``rangeland health'' and ``fire prevention''.
``Findings'' of the White Pine Bill Title VII are that there is an
increasing threat of wildfire, and that to address this all, ``the
secretaries shall carry out the Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration
Project'' . . . ``the secretaries may make grants to the ENLC and the
GBI . . . to assist in reducing hazardous fuels . . .''.
In many ways, the ENLC is analogous to the OI Board of Directors
and its associated ``Science Center''. It is a group of special
interests with strong ties to the public lands livestock industry that
would be empowered by federal legislation--and also provided with
direct funding mechanisms to kill trees and shrubs on public lands
with. As in the OI, these provisions elevate is about local control and
partial privatization of functions of BLM.
The ENLC is headed by a former Director of the Nevada Cattlemen's
Association, and promotes the public land manipulation agenda of local
ranching interests. It would be greatly enabled and provided with large
amounts of taxpayer dollars under the White Pine Bill.
The ENLC promotes large-scale deforestation and vegetation
manipulation designed to kill woody vegetation (pinyon, juniper,
sagebrush) and promote grass (i. e. livestock forage) on BLM and Forest
lands. The ENLC for the past several years has sought to acquire
funding to accomplish deforestation projects on public lands.
Ecological science recognizes the serious threats facing arid
western vegetation communities, including both pinyon juniper and
sagebrush. But the massive landscape-level manipulation schemes and
disturbance projects promoted by the ENLC are very likely to make
matters worse, not better. The ENLC promotes burning, chaining,
herbiciding native vegetation on public lands to make them ``healthy''.
The ENLC-promoted projects are the very same types of projects have
been conducted in years past by BLM and the Forest to promote cattle
forage--kill woody vegetation and plant grass. Such projects have
contributed greatly to habitat loss and fragmentation for native
species, including the demise of species such as sage grouse or pinyon
juniper dependent species in many areas of the West.
The Bill's enabling of the ENLC would also facilitate BLM's highly
controversial Draft 17 States Vegetation Treatment/Weed EIS, which
lists Nevada as the area where the largest number of ``treatments''
would occur (the other three top states are Idaho, Utah, and Oregon).
The Weed EIS covers not only herbiciding (for example, killing pinyon-
juniper with the chemical Tebuthiuron), but also is accompanied by a
Volume on broad range of treatments aimed at killing trees and
sagebrush.
The Ely Draft RMP describes landscape-level restoration treatments.
The White Pine Bill in Title VII describes ``landscape-scale
restoration treatments'', and the RMP has been written to elevate the
programs of the ENLC.
This all is aimed at promoting harmful multi-million dollar costly
projects that disturb public wild lands--without addressing the vast
weedlands, failed crested wheatgrass seedings, chainings, burns and
herbiciding projects and other highly disturbed areas that already
exist on BLM lands, or the CAUSES of the problems that are to be
``treated''--such as relentless grazing pressures and other human-
imposed disturbances. The ENLC would serve as a pass-through group for
taxpayer funds, be in a position to keep portions of funds for
administration of various manipulation projects that will be handed out
to contractors who may be cronies.
See Link of recent chaining in neighboring Elko County at http://
www.westernwatersheds.org/facts_photos/photos/lphotos.html and then
click on ``Spruce'', illustrating the type of project that would be
inflicted across broad landscapes of Lincoln and White Pine Counties
through enactment of this Bill. These are the type of projects ENLC
would be enabled to carry out--using large sums of taxpayer dollars,
particularly federal fire funds.
Ely-Mount Wilson ``Urban Interface'' Project, Promoted by ENLC,
Illustrates Excesses
My first experience with the ENLC arose with the Ely-Mount Wilson
Urban Interface projects several years ago--circa 2002. These projects
would have deforested over 50 square miles of BLM lands in two areas--
the Mount Wilson summer home area near Pioche in Lincoln County, and an
area extending to 14 miles south of Ely in White Pine County. Much of
the land was targeted for tree killing was miles from any habitation.
BLM prepared an EA, promoted by the ENLC, that would have chopped
pinyon and juniper into piles of two inch thick wood chips blanketing
the land. Pinyon juniper was claimed to be rampantly invading, and had
to be treated across 50 square miles.
Nevada land survey records from the 1880 survey showed that the
trees were NOT invading--that the lands were mapped in 1880 by
surveyor's as ``Pine Nut Forest''. FOIA records also revealed that BLM,
passing some funding through ENLC, planned to spend 10 to 12 million
dollars of federal fire funds to kill the ``invading'' trees here.
WWP and CHD sued BLM. As a result, BLM brought in its national
level fire experts, who found that only 13% of the 50 square mile land
area needed to be thinned to protect the various summer home and other
habitation interfaces--not the vast area targeted by local interests.
We thought this sounded much more reasonable--and settled the lawsuit,
saving taxpayers many millions of dollars as a result. Plus, the
forested lands were carefully thinned and many older trees remained--
they were not chained, burned, poisoned, or otherwise killed and
treated as weeds.
FOIA documents obtained as part of this process showed that the UI
Project was planned as a prototype for large-scale biomass removal of
pinyon and juniper on public lands.
Interestingly, portions of the UI Project BLM lands at Mount Wilson
were later legislated for privatization by the Lincoln County Bill. And
now some of the UI Project lands south of Ely may be privatized for
fast track development under the White Pine bill.
White Pine Bill's Enabling of ENLC Would Thwart Full and Open Public
Processes
My concerns about ENLC and the insertion of a this group's interest
into public lands legislation was only heightened on a recent November,
2006 Ely BLM tour of proposed vegetation manipulation/treatment
projects that I attended.
On this tour, input and discourse over divergent views on public
lands management and ``treatment'' were scorned by a representative of
the ENLC, who clearly felt that the ENLC world view of deforestation
through expensive taxpayer-funded manipulation of wild landscapes using
federal fire funds was the ONLY way to manage public lands.
Under the White Pine Bill, massive landscape-level projects aimed
at killing native woody vegetation (pinyon, juniper--even mowing or
herbiciding sagebrush) would be used to build establish a costly and
expensive local interest and livestock industry-serving non-
governmental bureaucracy, through the ENLC directly receiving federal
grants for manipulation/``treatment'' or by its serving as a pass-
through for federal funding and garnering funds for overseeing/
administering contracts.
This recent experience only heightened my concerns about the
disregard of the ENLC for a concept of a broader public than just local
interests in White Pine and Lincoln Counties. Public lands belong to
all the American public--and not just local interests and their cronies
who seek to use public funds to conduct cattle forage/``rangeland
health'' treatments or other projects in the name of ``restoration'',
or ``fire control'' or to build a self-serving bureaucracy.
Enabling and Funding ENLC Is A Step Towards Privatization of Public
Lands
The ENLC--is redundant in the functions it would perform. BLM, USGS
(research) and other federal entities already do whatever it is that
the ENLC would do. Running taxpayer funds and projects through the ENLC
amounts to a form of privatization of the functions of BLM and
privatization of management and oversight of activities on the public
lands. BLM and other federal agencies already exists to administer and
develop any ``rangeland'' or ``restoration'' projects.
Moreover, a series of federal laws--ranging from FOIA to FACA that
allow for public oversight of management of public lands--and that
shine the light of openness and accountability on undertakings on
public lands--these do not exist in the case of the ENLC.
The ENLC seeks to take over BLM duties (and likely for a lot more
cost). And as any bureaucracy does, will seek to perpetuate itself with
a constant and ever-greater flow of funds.
There are serious ecological concerns here. The land manipulation/
``treatments''/deforestation projects promoted by the ENLC and funded
primarily by federal fire funds--carry with them significant risks that
will result in serious ecological problems--such as weeds thriving in
the wake of treatment disturbance and dominating the treated lands. The
arid sagebrush and pinyon juniper landscapes that the ENLC seeks to
radically alter would be further endangered by enabling the ENLC.
It must also be noted that the White Pine's Bill overt land
privatization--and the associated development of energy infrastructure
cutting across the surrounding still-public lands--will only heighten'
the risk of weeds and of fire facilitating expansion of exotic species
like cheatgrass. As lands are privatized, and industry and sprawl
develops, this will result in cries to spend many more millions of
dollars on trying to fireproof neighboring wild landscapes. Plus,
development on privatized lands, new OHV Routes promoted under the
Bill, will likely result in many more human-caused fires--an added
drain to federal taxpayers.
Mature and Old Growth Pinyon Pines and Dependent Wildlife are
Threatened by the White Pine Bill's Enabling of the ENLC
The pinyon and juniper forests of White Pine and Lincoln Counties
provide critical habitat for the pinyon jay and many other species of
native wildlife. Continental assessments of bird species show the
importance of the forested wild lands of Nevada for pinyon juniper
dependent and many other species of wildlife. Recent large-scale die-
offs of pinyon across the southwest (New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado)
have elevated the significance of the pinyon juniper forests of the
Great Basin even more.
Nevada Land History is Being Ignored in Pro-Manipulation Claims that
Target Killing Trees by Claiming they are Invading Sagebrush
``Trees that pre-date Euro-American settlement represent woodland
structure before the impacts of our land uses, and thus need to be
preserved during restoration as is true in other ecosystems.'' William
L. Baker and Douglas J. Shinneman.
The ``range'' livestock industry woody vegetation manipulation
mindset espoused by the ENLC is also illustrated by recent very
expensive projects promoted just across the border in Elko County.
Attached is a recent ACEC proposal prepared by WWP for BLM wild lands
that are contiguous with White Pine County. This ACEC proposal, and the
project that it is a direct counter to, serve to illustrate the
political moves and mindset that pervades the ENLC manipulation schemes
and flavors the manipulation ``research'' that Title VII of the White
Pine Bill enables.
Also Attached is a peer-reviewed paper by William L. Baker D. J.
Shinneman that examines the lack of credible evidence for many of the
invasion and low intensity fire frequency claims being made by ENLC and
ag. college and other ``range'' researchers who are garnering large
grants to conduct treatment after treatment that to kill woody
vegetation on public lands--while at the same time ignoring cleaning up
the weed messes that are the result of the exact same treatments done
on past years.
Rather than conduct research to heal the damaged public lands that
are the result of these very same manipulations that have been
conducted in the past across the Great Basin, they instead promote
broad-scale new disturbance that promotes grass (i. e. cattle forage).
Pinyon juniper is being killed to try to grow more sagebrush in the
hopes that this may delay/avert listing of sage grouse under the ESA
Much of the suitable sage grouse habitat at middle and lower elevations
in the Great Basin has been greatly altered by livestock grazing,
livestock/fire/livestock/fire, and has been converted to, or is at
serious risk of conversion to, cheatgrass and other weeds. Thus,
likelihood of enhancing sage grouse habitat there--especially at the
landscape level and especially as abusive land practices continue
unabated--is minimal.
As a result, in Nevada and around the West sage grouse habitat
``enhancement'' projects focus primarily on interjecting new
disturbance to plant communities at higher elevations--to try to create
more sagebrush habitat. Unfortunately, many of the higher elevation
sites are in reality in the moisture and climate regime that
characterizes pinyon juniper communities, which are well recognized to
grow over a broad range of soil types (Trimble 1989).
Also, since many sagebrush communities have been depleted of
grasses and forbs by chronic and ongoing livestock grazing impacts,
sagebrush communities too are targeted for massive manipulation--
mowing, beating, plowing--to stimulate grass--to promote continued high
stocking of cattle and sheep on public lands.
It is more palatable (politically) to kill ancient or mature trees
critical to many species dependent on them--to promote patchy
successional sagebrush rather than reckon with the ecological problem
of the rehabilitation of weed-invaded lower and middle elevation
sagebrush sites. The White Pine Bill's enabling of the ENLC promotes
just such self-serving land manipulation and wrongly terms its
disturbance ``restoration''.
The extensive manipulation that ENLC promotes imposing on the Great
Basin landscape has been shown to greatly reduce for long periods of
time the very shrub (sagebrush) that it is claimed needs to be
perpetuates.
Political Pressures to Placate Public Lands Livestock Industry Drive
Pinyon-Juniper Deforestation and Sagebrush Manipulation Include
Seeding and Thinning Projects
Elk numbers have greatly increased across much of northern and
central Nevada--leading to more controversy with the public lands
livestock industry. Killing mature and old growth trees (and
manipulating/thinning sagebrush, too) using federal fire funds and
claiming ``fuels reduction benefits'' is a politically expedient way
for land management and game agencies to placate powerful public lands
ranchers. Federal fire funds have provided a new, abundant and near-
bottomless source of tax dollars to funnel into these efforts to
placate public lands ranchers.
Ignored is the fact that big game, especially mule deer and a host
of other wildlife species eat pine nuts, seek shelter and escape cover
at all times of the year in forested vegetation, and that forested
areas often are the ONLY areas where competition for food, cover and
space with domestic livestock is somewhat less. Thus, the lower
elevation forested areas of Nevada's arid ranges may often be havens
for big game and other wildlife. Juniper is consumed in harsh winter
conditions.
Not only do seedings and manipulation projects that promote
abundant fine fuel elevate the risk of mow to moderate fires, the
disturbances that open up native shrub and tree communities, and
accelerate drying and desiccation of sites, may elevate risks of fire
due to increasing site aridity. The role of livestock grazing,
woodcutting and other removal of vegetative cover in accelerating
drying and desertification processes has been described by Sheridan
(1981), Dregne (1986) and others.
Disturbances and Manipulations Pose Serious Risk and Are Fraught with
Uncertainty
A broad body of research demonstrates the controversial nature and
risks of various vegetation manipulation and disturbances that would be
promoted over Lincoln and White Pine Counties (Lanner 1981, Baker and
Shinneman 2003).
White Pine Bill Title VII states that ``forest and rangeland in the
Great Basin are degraded as a direct consequence of land management
practices . . . that disrupt the occurrence frequent low intensity
fires. Not only does the Bill do nothing to address the MANY land
management problems in the Great Basin, a growing body of science
contradicts the Bill's assertion that frequent low intensity fires were
the norm in Great Basin systems--and instead that infrequent higher
intensity fires were the norm in many areas.
Several recent articles by Dr. William L. Baker shed new light on
the claimed conditions on which manipulation proposals are based. See
Attached.
``If restoration of fire . . . is to be based on sound science,
significant methodological hurdles . . . must first be addressed and
resolved . . . localized site-specific studies are always needed before
undertaking restoration . . . we suggest that before undertaking
restoration, managers or scientists date some of the largest trees on a
site. If these trees pre-date European settlement, removing or thinning
them is inappropriate if restoration is the goal. Trees that pre-date
Euro-American settlement represent woodland structure before the
impacts of our lands uses, and thus need to be preserved during
restoration as is true in other ecosystems (e. g. Friederici 2003)''.
Science-based management based on reasonable, sound and
precautionary science that minimizes disturbance, should be the aim of
any ``treatments'' imposed on this fragile landscape. Legislation
should not enshrine a scientific viewpoint that is increasingly shown
to not be true.
In turning over public funding and oversight to groups such as the
ENLC, there is no certainty that sound and precautionary science will
be applied on these public lands that belong to all Americans.
Pinyon Pines, a Great and Little Understood Resource, Are--and Will Be
-Targeted for Manipulation, Deforestation and Potential
Biomassing through Enabling and Funding the ENLC
Pinyon pine in the Great Basin represents a great economic
opportunity for harvesting of pine nuts. The pinyon pine forests of
Nevada are especially important for pine nut production as the trees in
the Southwest have suffered large-scale recent die-offs.
Die-offs of varying extent have also recently occurred in several
Nevada ranges, so the ENLC landscape-level manipulations of healthy
mature and old growth pine nut-producing trees are very significant.
Global climate change processes are causing mortality of many of
the West's conifers, and the proposed waste and destruction of forested
lands through enabling the ENLC must be examined in this context, also.
The old growth and mature pinyon pine of the Great Basin provide a
source of pine nuts for many species of wildlife (mule deer to pinyon
jays) and for human consumption. In fact, the economic value of pine
nuts may exceed the economic value of the livestock produced on these
lands on a per acre basis.
The great majority of the pine nuts consumed in America (80%) are
imported, including from China. See www.pinenut.com/noha.htm Sarashkin
and Gold, 2004 ``American Pinon Pine Nuts: an important Use for Public
Lands?'', This import often results in inferior quality, chemically-
treated nuts, and adds to the trade imbalance currently facing America.
Also, www.pinenut.com/about.htm, including: ``pinyon nuts 28 times more
earth efficient in terms of protein produced per acre''; ``pine nuts at
least 148 times more profitable than beef in terms of public lands
grazing''.
The Bill promotes and enables large-scale vegetation manipulation
by an entity that promotes an agenda that largely views trees as
weeds--and promotes the killing of mature and often ancient trees in
the magnificent forested landscapes of Lincoln and White Pine Counties
by highly invasive, destructive and often outrageously expensive tree-
killing techniques is promoted.
Rather than (herbiciding, chaining, burning, mastication, and other
manipulation) that treat the trees as weeds to be destroyed and wasted
so that livestock forage grass can be grown, they must be viewed (and
managed and protected from undue degradation) as a forest for their
important biological, aesthetic and economic values where careful
collection and harvest of forest products may occur.
Careful and sound science-based and precautionary forestry methods
to protect the health of trees, as well as in designing any fire-
reducing ``treatments'' is necessary to protect this landscape.
White Pine Is Part of A Recent Series of Nevada Wilderness and Other
Land Disposal Bills That Privatize Public Lands, Promote
Development, and Disregard Environmental Laws
The White Pine Bill (see Attached 2004 Testimony in opposition to
Lincoln County) set aside a successful lawsuit against the Bureau of
Land Management in which the Committee for the High Desert was a
plaintiff. A federal court in Nevada had ruled that BLM had failed to
study the environmental consequences of land disposal under the Lincoln
County Land Act (yet another piece of recent BLM land disposal and
development-promoting legislation in eastern Nevada). A federal court
in Nevada had found that BLM's NEPA review failed to analyze the
consequences of extracting water from nearby basins to supply LCLA
development; failed to develop mitigation plans for threatened and
endangered species; and ignored the cumulative impacts of the LCLA
combined with other development for the region. The Lincoln County
wilderness bill specifically overturned that Court Decision.
The White Pine Bill's specific legislative enabling of the ENLC
(promotes local cattle and development interests) will serve to taint
fair and full NEPA review of projects on public lands. It will also
make public oversight and scrutiny of actions conducted on public lands
much more difficult.
Water Provisions of White Pine Bill Fail to Ensure Waters Will Remain
in Any Wilderness Designated Under this Bill
The water provision of the White Pine Bill claims that ``because of
the unique nature of the land designated as wilderness by this title,
it is possible to provide for proper management and protection of the
wilderness . . . in ways different from those used in other laws''. The
Bill then describes how direct water developments inside the wilderness
would not be allowed, but fails to ensure that water will be
perpetuated in Wilderness.
The Bill ignores the fact that massive ground water pumping from an
aquifer that underlies the Wilderness areas (the aquifer draining
resulting from the Lincoln County Bill authorization of pipelines) will
de-water lands inside the Wilderness, too. The same aquifer underlies
the region, and does not stop at the Wilderness boundary.
The bottom line is that the White Pine Bill does not protect the
wilderness areas from the aquifer depletion and drying up of springs
and streams resulting from the Las Vegas pipeline water export. The
Bill wrongly claims to: ``protect the wilderness values of the land
designated as wilderness . . . by means other than a federally reserved
water right''--yet provides no mechanisms to do this.
Public Lands Sacrificed to Bail Out County
White Pine County right now is in receivership, with the state
administering its dealings. Is the sale of public land in this Bill
being done in part to bail out a County that has not been able to
handle its own finances in the past? i.e. puffing the County on Welfare
by selling the public's land? See http://
www.digitalcandidate.comlupload/nreeetf_f_833_06.doc :
``Mr. Rubald said that the economic impacts looked at specifically
are the wind project and the LS power study. He stated that these
numbers needed to be taken into consideration when looking at the fact
that White Pine County is currently under the State Department of
Taxation's assistance because they are in ``severe financial distress.
``This is a statutory term used to describe counties that are going
through severely tough financial times. He said that some of these
concerns can be addressed by promoting economic development activities,
not the least of which is the power plants and the wind generation
facility''.
In this context, how can a County with this track record be trusted
to make responsible decisions regarding fast-track development that
would be propelled by this Bill?
Development and other Provisions of White Pine's Predecessors Are
Already Causing Significant New Problems
The Clark County and Lincoln County Bills have set in motion a
large-scale series of development and water-depleting activities. The
promoters of these quid pro quo wilderness bills--where land disposal,
cronyism and political favors for local interests have been given much
free reign--are now seeing some of the consequences of their actions.
The results of these bills--run away growth and water consumption--
is so out of control in the region that the White Pine bill looks
BACKWARD--and contains provisions to try to stave the hemorrhaging of
public resources and host of problems being caused by the development
and other provisions of its predecessor Development/Wilderness Bills.
For example, Title VIII of the White Pine Bill authorizes paying
for rolling up lawns in Las Vegas sprawl development with the proceeds
of some of the Clark County public land sales--instead of using the
money to purchase or protect other lands as was promised in the Clark
County legislation.
I urge you to oppose this Bill.
______
Statement of Katie Fite, Biodiversity Director, Western Watersheds
Project, Boise, ID
My name is Katie Fite, and I am Biodiversity Director of Western
Watersheds Project (WWP). I request that this additional testimony be
placed in the record for the White Pine Bill.
anti-democratic and privatization provision
I want to stress that the White Pine Bill enshrines a provision
that is blatantly anti-democratic, as well as being a step towards
privatization of public lands. As described in Testimony submitted
separately, the Bill elevates and funds the Eastern Nevada Landscape
Coalition's world view in the ``Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration
Project'' in management of public lands that belong to all three
hundred million Americans. This Bill basically elevates the ENLC, and
the Eastern Nevada Landscape Restoration Project (which is essentially
the ENLC's world view). The Secretaries of the Interior and Ag are
essentially ordered (``shall'' under this Bill) to carry out its
bidding.
It is alarming that federal legislation would elevate as all-
knowing a PRIVATE non-profit entity, and set up legislation so that it
can dictate management--and fire policy, too--on the public's land.
This serves to set up a parallel, separate PRIVATE entity to take
over many of the functions of BLM, the Forest Service and other federal
agencies, as well as dictate agency priorities--all at a likely bloated
cost to the taxpayer.
The Bill mandates that the intensive manipulation and disturbance
schemes of the ENLC, a local ``collaborative group'' SHALL be imposed
on the public wild lands across White Pine and Lincoln County. There is
no guarantee that such a group will follow Best Available Science, will
listen to or incorporate important new information, will weigh or
balance information that might conflict with local viewpoints and range
manipulation desires of local ranchers or ag extension agents to kill
trees and sagebrush and promote grass, or desires of local heavy
equipment operators to be supplied with an endless stream of federal
tax dollars to deforest pinyon-juniper and chip them up for large-scale
biomass endeavors to fund local contractors and energy speculators. I
stress the very slow growing nature of trees in these arid lands, and
the long-term irreparable environmental damage that can quickly be done
by short-sighted management actions. A local cabal will take over
control of the public's lands.
Release of Designated Wilderness in Existing Mount Moriah Wilderness
Area
The Bill also would release a portion of the Mount Moriah
Wilderness. We have heard that this is being done to accommodate
livestock pipelines and please public lands ranchers. There is no
explanation in the Bill for why this would occur--were the pipelines
built after Wilderness designation, or before? If pipelines already
exist--are they in trespass? If so, they should be removed. And if this
release is aimed at freeing up lands for new pipeline construction,
there is no possible justification for this. Unfortunately, livestock
pipelines are present in other wilderness areas--why should the Mount
Moriah lands be treated any differently? Is there any relation between
the release here and potential future mining--do claims exist in the
area to be released?
This serves to illustrate some of the many uncertainties involved
in this Bill developed in closed-door dealmaking with local interests.
wilderness study area release
I strongly oppose the release of any Wilderness Study Areas under
this Bill.
heritage trail provision promoting private profiteering on public lands
with public funds?
It is of concern that the Heritage Trail provision would promote
current ``multiple uses''. Does this mean that it would promote and
provide taxpayer-funded positive publicity for the public lands
livestock industry, or the mining industry -where individuals or
corporations reap private profits from multiple use of public land?
Will Heritage Trail Promote Mormon Religion or World View?
I am also concerned that the Heritage Trail provision may provide
inadequate protection from over-promotion or over-glorification of the
Mormon church world view in trail development and interpretation--
especially if that Church were to become one of the partners in various
Trail developments.
Also Attached to this submission is a December 2005 New York Times
article on mercury pollution, water scarcity, and other regional issues
that I failed to attach to previously submitted testimony.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
______
Statement of Brooks Pace, Dammeron Valley, UT
s. 3636, the washington county growth and conservation act
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my Name is Brooks Pace
and I live in Dammeron Valley, Utah. Thank you for the opportunity to
submit this testimony to the subcommittee with regard to S. 3636, the
Washington County Growth and Conservation Act. Washington County has
been my home and that of my fathers and grandfathers back 3
generations. I grew up riding and hunting in the mountains and deserts
of the region and I know it well and I truly love it. I have spent the
past 30 years working in the housing and real estate industry in
Washington County.
I am here to explain to the Committee the serious concerns that I
and many of the residents of Washington County have with the Washington
County Growth and Conservation Act. The towns of Rockville, Virgin,
Springdale, as well as a local citizens group called Citizens for
Dixie's Future, the Shivwits Band of the Paiute Tribe, the Southwest
Chapter of Back Country Horsemen, educators, community leaders, and
many others have all expressed their opposition to this bill. This bill
presents a very controversial and unwise approach for coping with
growth in Washington County. Washington County is growing rapidly, but
I am concerned that this legislation risks destroying the natural
beauty and livability of this corner of southwestern Utah.
Washington County is home to some truly spectacular public lands,
some of which are covered with towering cliffs, majestic washes and
canyons, ancient artifacts, and lava flows. It is also one of the
fastest growing counties in the nation. The entire County cries out for
meticulous planning to prepare for the inevitable growth which will
occur within our natural limits. Without such planning we'll destroy
the quality of life for the residents and dull the incredible natural
experience for visitors who come by the millions.
Instead of the comprehensive plan for the future that we need, the
Washington County Act would allow the sale of as much as 24,300 acres
of public land. The assumption is that this public land is needed to
meet the demand for private development across the county. Public lands
in Washington County are an invaluable asset to our communities and to
the citizens of the nation. Moreover, there is no need to sell off
these lands when many private lands have yet to be developed. The St.
George Chamber of Commerce recently estimated that there are roughly
20,000 acres of private undeveloped land in Washington County. I am
concerned that the legislation allows the sale of as much as 24,300
acres without first permitting the local planning process to determine
what the community needs and wants.
Undoubtedly our public lands are valuable. It is likely that
selling as much as 24,300 acres could generate millions or perhaps
hundreds of millions of dollars. But our public lands are also
immensely valuable to our communities as open space. I believe that
many residents came to Washington County because of the stunning
natural environment. The Washington County Act does far too little to
protect this landscape. Many areas that should be wilderness are not
protected in this bill. In fact, the bill would roll back wilderness
protection from 15 square miles of BLM land currently protected as
wilderness study areas. The loss of these wild lands would forever
change the character of Washington County.
The bill also makes significant changes to the landscape of
Washington County by giving the Washington County Water Conservancy
District rights of way to approximately 9,000 acres of BLM land, free
of cost. It also appears that hundreds of-linear miles of utility
corridors for water infrastructure, electricity lines, and
transportation would be created under the bill. What is troubling is
that these critical planning decisions are being made before any local
consensus has formed.
I would like to briefly focus on the issue of water. Water is the
biggest limitation to growth in the West. Our majestic but sadly
overused Colorado River needs special consideration. This bill flaunts
that due consideration and provides funds that can be used to design
and engineer another diversion to the system. I hope this Committee
will see the importance of not further over taxing this lifeline of the
West. At some point some committee will have to break precedent and
start the process of updating the Colorado River Compact. The health of
the West depends on it.
We have enough water locally developable to provide for 350,000
residents, roughly two and one half times our current population; call
it 120,000 homes and the requisite commercial, industrial and
recreational demand which includes over ten thousand other homes and
condos and a dozen golf courses. Yes, we would like more water. But do
we deserve it on the backs of other regions who are struggling to
survive in this time of diminished river flows and over appropriation?
Is our allocation provided for in the Colorado River Compact so
inviolable that we would fly in the face of reason and spend up to a
Billion dollars diverting more water from this distant stream?
Finally, in Utah, we take significant pride in our history and our
past. Our history is an intimate part of our identity. This bill will
literally sell our past to the highest bidder. As currently written the
bill provides no protection for cultural, historical, archaeological,
or paleontological resources. Indeed, one of the rights-of-way could
result in the flooding of Ft. Pearce, a national historic site. We can
plan for the future, while preserving the past, but this bill fails to
do so. Many of us in Washington County want these resources protected.
There is a better way to plan for our future, one that is supported
by the community. You've read and heard testimony about the Vision
Dixie process currently underway in the County. It's an attempt to
bring the County citizens to town hall like workshops and meetings
where they can envision what different growth scenarios will look like.
So far the meetings have brought out a variety of opinions and ideas.
This has been an immense process for our community, and has put us on
the path of planning for our future. I applaud the Commission for
supporting it and thank Senator Bennett and Representative Matheson for
their efforts in bringing Vision Dixie to Washington County. The
community is excited about this opportunity, but now we need your help.
We need the time to come up with a true community vision of our future.
Please listen to reason and to the wishes of the citizens of
Washington County before acting on this legislation. It is quite
possible that our elected politicians got ahead of their constituents
on this issue. Over 1600 signatures have been obtained in the last few
weeks asking that this Bill at least be tabled until we have finished
our Vision Dixie process. Then we may have a clearer picture of the
needs of the communities in Washington County and the consensus
approach for solving the region's issues. Let Vision Dixie run its
course and then we can work to develop a bill that truly meets the
needs of Washington County.
______
Statement of Vivian Parker, Biologist for the California Indian
Basketweavers Association
Dear Senators and Staff of the Energy and Natural Resources
committee of the U.S. Senate:
As a biologist working on behalf of resource issues for the
California Indian Basketweavers Association in California during the
last eight years, I have had the opportunity to study and learn a great
deal about the way that our resource agencies have historically managed
the public lands encompassed by the Great Basin and Intermountain
Region, of which the lands in White Pine County at issue in this bill
are included.
Regarding the proposed bill, we have grave concerns regarding
portions of the bill included in Title II--Eastern Nevada Landscape
Restoration Projects. This portion of the bill would codify and
institutionalize a program which is largely unjustified by the current
state of science regarding the ecology of pinyon and juniper woodlands.
The practices proposed by the Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition (ENLC)
are likely to exacerbate current trends of degradation of these public
lands, including non-native weed invasion, loss of habitat for
wildlife, loss of biological diversity, and may contribute to further
climate change.
The projects proposed by the ENLC aim to justify the removal of
vast acreages of native pinyon and juniper in the name of ``range
improvement'' or ``restoration.'' The arguments in support of these
projects are based on an assumption that these trees are ``invading''
rangelands due to fire suppression. We find that there is insufficient
evidence that pinyon and juniper are expanding their range in response
to fire suppression. Rather, we find scientific controversy regarding
this issue. Range researchers cite fire suppression and refer to the
expansion of juniper as ``invasion'' or ``encroachment.'' Botanists,
paleoecologists, and climatologists, on the other hand, refer to pinyon
juniper ``expansion'' as natural and a result of climate shifts coupled
with the impacts of intensive grazing impacts (Lanner 1977; Burwell
1998; Harris et a1.2003).
I would ask the Senators to take note that there is a big
difference between range management, as a science, and ecology or
natural history-based science. Range improvement, by its very
definition, aims to increase the availability of pasture forage for the
benefit of grazing livestock, or to be more specific, in order to allow
a greater number of livestock on a given acre of land. Historically,
millions of acres of sage brush and pinyon juniper woodland have been
cleared in the region. Clearing of these native lands was conducted by
cutting down the trees, through burning, through plowing and dragging
rails across the sagebrush, the use of bulldozers, aerial and ground
based herbicide spraying, and ``chaining''--whereby a heavy anchor
chain is attached to two tractors, and pulled through large acreages in
order to uproot the sage brush and small trees. Aerial seeding of non-
native grasses has been conducted on a large scale for many decades as
well, and continues in some areas. Pinyon and juniper trees were widely
cut to use for lumber, for mining timber, for firewood and charcoal.
These practices have been well documented in history books, text books,
and USDA and USDI literature and is not debatable. It is simply the
history of management of the region.
As a result of these practices, coupled with intensive and
frequently unregulated and unsustainable livestock grazing on fragile
arid lands, much of this region has become severely degraded with
altered water cycles, loss of species or biological diversity, altered
fire regimes due to invasive non-native annual grasses, and
establishment of non-native weedy species that are thorny or prickly in
response to the grazing pressure (Mack 1981). Needless to say, these
effects have greatly impacted the ability of Native Americans to
continue their traditional cultural practices. The loss of pinyon pine
and juniper is a grave concern to native people in the region. The
pinyon pine nut is one of the most nutritious and important food crops
which is native to North America. Today the pinyon pine is under threat
due to widespread die-offs in some locations.
The Eastern Nevada Landscape Initiative, or Project, aims to
increase the removal of pinyon and juniper woodlands on thousands of
acres of public lands, in the name of ``range improvement'' or
restoration. Restoration, in this sense, is a misnomer. In fact, there
is no scientific basis for widespread clearing of pinyon and juniper.
Plant populations naturally expand and contract in response to a
variety of gradients but especially in response to climate shifts
(Davis 1986). Scientific researchers have documented that pinyon and
juniper respond most dramatically to increased precipitation and warmer
climatic regimes. The climate was undergoing just such a change around
1850, during the time that this region was becoming settled with the
first wave immigrants. While these trees were naturally increasing
their range, pioneers were engaged in removing them for a variety of
purposes. Today, the trees are re-establishing themselves in accordance
with the prevailing climatic conditions.
Climate is a significant issue because moisture is the single most
important limiting factor in pinyon juniper establishment (Cronquist et
al. 1986). Research has shown that climate has fluctuated between warm
and cold, wet and dry repeatedly over the last 20,000 years (Kinney
1996). Most importantly, the climate shifted dramatically right around
1850 to a warmer, wetter period:
``In temperature, the shift was from the coldest century-
scale interval of the Holocene, as indicated by the tree-line
and glacier records, to one of the warmest periods of the past
4,000 years, as suggested by the recent upward movement of the
tree line. In moisture availability, the shift was from
moderate effective drought, as evidenced by the records of tree
rings and lake levels, to the relative wetness of the present
century--a century that appears, from the records of lake
levels, to the fourth-wettest of the past 4,000 years (Stine
1990) and that includes the third-wettest fifty-year interval
(1937-1986) of the past millennium.
In fact, juniper had reached its maximal extent during the
Neoglacial period (4000 to 2000 ago), which was followed by a 400 year
drought period during which sagebrush and other desert scrub
communities expanded (Kinney 1996). The disappearance of bison from the
Great Basin region also contributed to an increase in grasses which may
have otherwise checked the trees. Western juniper and pinyon have
expanded and contracted corresponding to periods of high moisture and
drought (ibid). The present expansion is a natural response to higher
moisture levels.
A doctoral dissertation (Burwell 1998) examined the scientific
literature documenting the historical dominance of pinyon and juniper
on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada. While conditions here are not
the same as in White Pine county, they are similar. Both regions are
home to the rare Bristlecone Pine and both have undergone similar
paleoecological histories. He concluded:
``Contrary to popular assumptions, the Native Americans did
not promote wildfire [in this region] and changes in the fire
regime are not likely to have influenced the position of the
lower montane treeline ecotone. Competitive exclusion by
grasses and forbs may have limited tree establishment prior to
1870. Livestock grazing likely removed competition, allowing
trees to invade mesic sites during dry years when grass and
forb production is low. The combination of reduced competition
and increasing summer precipitation since 1870 has allowed
greater pinyon recruitment on xeric sites.''
I am including here, below, a recent ENLC News Release that clearly
demonstrates that the ENLC program is primarily about removal of pinyon
and juniper, and native sagebrush as well. While the language utilizes
the same words used by ecologists and biologists, I must ask you to
read between the lines and recognize that the removal of native species
in this manner is not restoration. While we support judicious use of
thinning and pruning in the Wildland Urban Interface to help reduce the
risk of property damaging wildfires, we object to the use of massive
clearing of native plant species and trees in the guise of ecosystem
restoration. If projects are designed to convert native ecosystems into
pasture grazing lands, then they should be so described, rather than
trying to mask such proposals with a veneer of scientific jargon that
is without real scientific basis.
In this current era of looming ecological crisis due to global
warming, we must act decisively to protect natural resources that are
helping to store carbon. In this case, the expansion of native tree
species in an otherwise treeless and arid region is providing natural
carbon storage that can help ameliorate the effects of warming in the
region. The natural transpiration of trees also helps to humidify and
modify the local climate, ultimately helping to reduce warming and
wildfire risk. In. addition, the pinyon juniper woodland ecosystem is
of tremendous importance for a large number of wildlife species,
including the rare pinyon jay. The pinyon nut is essential food and
cover for untold numbers of birds and small and large mammals,
including bears.
If I can provide you with additional information or references, I
would be happy to do so. This topic really deserves a much greater and
more detailed discussion than I am able to provide in this limited time
frame. Thank you for your consideration.
[Attachment.]
[Below is an excerpt from: http://www.envlc.org/PressReleases.html]
Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition
ENLC NO. 06-001
FOR RELEASE: Friday, November 21, 2005
CONTACT: Betsy Macfarlan (775) 289-7974
Gleason Creek Restoration Begins
The Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition, based in Ely, Nevada, began
this season's restoration project on the Gleason Creek watershed.
Restoration work included thinning 120 acres of Pinyon pine and juniper
trees from the black sagebrush shrublands; removing 200 acres of
sparsely scattered juniper trees in the Wyoming sagebrush flats;
followed by brush beating approximately 400 acres of the Wyoming
sagebrush.
The purpose behind these landscape-scale restoration projects is to
improve soil stability, and increase biological diversity of the
watershed. These measures strengthen the land's resiliency to wildfire
and heavy water run-off, and in turn, help protect our communities from
the negative effects of these events. To accomplish this objective, the
young encroaching juniper and Pinyon trees are removed in the valley
bottoms and thinned on the upper benches to allow native bunch grasses,
forbs, and shrubs to thrive. Dense tree cover prohibits the growth of
herbaceous and shrub vegetation exposing bare ground that is more
vulnerable to erosion. Abundant herbaceous vegetation is critical for
soil maintenance, and wildlife forage.
Brush beating is another restoration treatment that allows
herbaceous vegetation to increase. This involves mechanically removing
the sagebrush with a rotary chopper. A variation in sagebrush size and
distribution across the landscape contributes to the health and
resiliency of shrublands and can be attained by brush beating in a
pattern that mimics the small, low-intensity fires that historically
occurred here.
Literature cited:
Burwell, TA. 1998. Environmental history of the lower montane
pinyon (Pinus monophylla) treeline, Eastern California. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Cronquist, A., A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, and J.L. Reveal. 1986.
Plant geography of the intermountain region, pinyon juniper zone. Pgs.
126-131 in: Intermountain Flora: Vascular Plants of the Intermountain
West, U.S.A. Vol. 1. The New York Botanical Garden, New York.
Davis, M.B. 1986. Climatic instability, time lags, and community
disequilibrium. In Community Ecology, edited by J. Diamond and T.J.
Case. Cambridge, MA: Harper and Row.
Harris, A.T., G. P. Asner, and M.E. Miller. 2003. Changes in
vegetation structure after long-term grazing in pinyon juniper
ecosystems: integrating imaging spectroscopy and field studies.
Ecosystems 6:368-383.
Kinney, W.C. 1996. Conditions of rangelands before 1905. Pgs. 31-45
in: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II,
Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis:
University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
Lanner, R.M. 1977. The eradication of pinyon-juniper woodland: Has
the program a legitimate purpose? Western Wildlands 4:12-17.
Mack, R.N. 1981. Invasion of Bromus tectorum L. into western North
America: An ecological chronicle. Agro-Ecosystems. 7:145-165.
Stine, S. 1996. Climate, 1650-1850. Pgs. 25-30 in: Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and
scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of
California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
______
Statement of Janine Blaeloch, Director, Western Lands Project
The Western Lands Project is a public-interest organization that
monitors federal land exchanges, sales, and conveyances, and generally
works to prevent the privatization of our public lands. On behalf of
our members across the West and beyond, we work to keep public lands
public. We request that this testimony be made part of the record on S.
3772.
We object to many aspects of this bill, including special
exceptions for harmful activities inside newly-designated wilderness
and failure to reserve a federal water right in wilderness. However,
our testimony will focus on the land sales and giveaways in the bill
and the re-allocation of federal land sale money for local use.
land disposal
We oppose this bill, as we have a series of previous land
privatization bills sponsored by the Nevada delegation. Since 1998, the
Senate co-sponsors have managed to turn over to Nevada developers and
local interests more than 150,000 acres of federal land belonging to
all citizens of this country. We urge members of this subcommittee to
bring a halt to these wholesale privatization bills and reaffirm the
value of retaining and protecting public land.
Members of the Nevada delegation try to rationalize their land grab
bills by complaining about the preponderance of federal land in their
state. They speak of federal land ownership as though it were an
unquestionable burden imposed by a cruel government. The fact is, there
is a reason that so much of the state remains in the public domain:
like much of the arid West, the land was not coveted by settlers
because they understood that land wasn't worth much without water. Even
the State of Nevada sold off most of the land it had been allotted at
statehood.
Unfortunately, engineering and greed have made it possible to
ignore the reality of Nevada's aridity, and for more than 20 years, the
country's fastest-growing city has been expanding across the Mojave
Desert. For the last eight years, much of the expansion has been made
possible through legislatively-mandated sales of our federal lands and
local development subsidies.
The White Pine legislation orders the sale of more than 45,000
acres of our national public land, to be sold competitively at auction.
One of the bill's sponsors has stated that he plans to enact more of
this kind of public land legislation ``county-by-county'' throughout
Nevada. Three counties--Lyon, Pershing, and Lander--are in various
stages of compiling wish lists for future public lands bills affecting
their jurisdictions. This incremental, locally-directed takeover of our
commons must be halted.
Members of this committee surely recall that over the last year,
several proposals were floated by the President and members of Congress
to sell off large swaths of public land to meet various budgetary
needs, and that the public overwhelmingly rejected these ideas. Those
schemes made headlines. The White Pine bill probably won't, but it
nonetheless represents the same betrayal of the public interest.
Proceeds from sales of the federal land will be divided as follows:
<bullet> 5 percent to Nevada for general education
<bullet> 10 percent to white Pine County (WPC) for funding its public
safety and social services programs
<bullet> 85 percent in a special account to cover the costs of
offering/selling the land; processing subsequent public land
use authorizations and rights-of-way (for development of public
lands sold under the Bill); inventorying and managing
archeological resources in WPC; studying the route of the
Silver State Off Highway Vehicle Trail; processing the WPC
wilderness designations; and studying and assessing non-
motorized recreation opportunities in the County, among other
things.
Three of the aforementioned earlier Nevada land bills the 1998
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, Clark County bill of 2002,
and Lincoln County bill of 2004--allocated the same percentages of land
sale proceeds to the local, state, and federal governments. But the
SNPLMA and Clark County bills authorized (and emphasized) use of the
federal proceeds to acquire environmentally sensitive lands in Nevada.
This bill does not authorize any such use of the funds, but keeps
expenditures even of the federal proceeds within white Pine County.
Only in Nevada do local interests receive this kind of largesse
from American taxpayers, who lose both land and money and unwittingly
subsidize development in a landscape totally unsuited to it.
nepa/flpma compliance in question
It is not clear whether the sales will be conducted in compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A one-year deadline
specified for the sales may allow adequate time to conduct NEPA, and
there is no overt waiver of NEPA in the bill. However, since the bill
states that Interior ``shall'' offer the land for sale within one year
of the Act's passage, it suggests that there would be no discretion not
to sell the land as a result of NEPA analysis.
The sales would comply with the Federal Land Policy & Management
Act (FLPMA) to the extent that sale lands are to be taken from lands
already identified for disposal in the BLM's Ely Resource Management
Plan (RMP) ``or a subsequent amendment to the management plan.''
But the net result is that FLPMA compliance is nominal, or at least
incomplete. A new RMP is actually in progress and expected to be
finalized in Spring 2007. The draft of the new Ely RMP identifies
approximately 23,000 acres as suitable for disposal, so the amendment
referred to is likely already being contemplated in order to add enough
disposal lands to make available the full 45,000 acres aspired to in
the bill. The fact that an acreage goal for disposal is being dictated
in the legislation undermines the FLPMA planning process. There may be
a rationale for privatizing some or all of the land already identified
by the BLM, but doubling that amount by fiat is not in the public
interest.
It is unlikely that much, if any, of the land to be privatized in
the white Pine bill is intended for residential or small-scale
commercial development. However, there are several large-scale energy,
utility corridor, and industrial development plans already underway in
the county that could be facilitated by the land sales.
As is so often the case with these privatization bills, especially
for Nevada, it is not possible to know what future, connected
developments might flow from the land sales or what plans are lurking.
For example, in a previous Nevada land bill, an obscure and
cryptically-worded provision would have given away approximately 11,000
acres of public land to a private developer with close connections to
one of the co-sponsors. If it weren't for that provision having been
exposed in the media, the public would be out 11,000 acres that were
later appraised at more than $10 million.
What is the anticipated use behind this sudden glut in private
land?
It is also difficult to understand how white Pine County will
sustain growth of the magnitude suggested by privatization of 45,000
acres. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has plans to run pipelines
to the county and ship its water to Las Vegas--a plan facilitated
through the giveaway of 450+ miles of public right-of-way in a 2004
land sale bill for Lincoln County, Nevada, PL 108-424.
more amendments to snplma
As mentioned above, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act
allotted 85 percent of Las Vegas Valley public land sale proceeds to a
special fund for acquisition of environmentally sensitive land in
Nevada and other public-oriented uses this allocation of the funds was
to provide some kind of balance (both environmental and political)
against the accelerated land sales. However, the two Nevada land bills
passed subsequent to the SNPLMA included amendments that have provided
more ``flexibility'' in the use of the land sale proceeds and allotted
more of the money to local and state projects, whittling away at the
larger public purpose that was to be served with the money.
Where SNPLMA amendments in the two previous bills whittled, the
White Pine bill's amendments carve. The latest SNPLMA amendments in
Section 702 of the White Pine unabashedly rob the special fund. They
allow proceeds from federal land sales in Clark County to be used:
<bullet> to develop and implement a hazardous fuels and wildfire
prevention plan (including biomass and biofuels energy
production) for the Lake Tahoe Basin and the Spring Mountains;
<bullet> to fund a Clark County program for removal of lawn/turf by
public institutions to conserve water;
<bullet> to fund a Clark County program for improving wastewater
management systems for the Las Vegas Valley, and
<bullet> to develop and administer state parks in Clark County.
If things continue in this vein--there are 14 more counties in
Nevada potentially awaiting their own public land bills--the purchase
of environmentally sensitive land originally mandated in the SNPLMA
will disappear altogether, with each bill taking new development
subsidies from the funds.
A particularly cynical amendment to SNPLMA in this bill re-defines
the term ``affordable housing'' from housing that serves individuals or
families `whose income does not exceed 80 percent of median income for
the area' to housing that serves individuals or families `with an
income of not more than 120 percent of the median income.'
The amendment requires that 5 percent of total housing units be
developed as affordable housing for land sales of 200+ acres.
Previously SNPLMA authorized, but did not require, the Interior
Secretary to sell public lands for affordable housing at less than
market value to government entities. Thus with the new amendment, local
entities can receive a discount on land while meeting a more lenient
standard for ``affordability.''
free land conveyances
More local subsidies are offered in the form of direct, free
conveyances of public land. BLM is to give 6,900 acres to the State of
Nevada for free, for expansion of a wildlife area and a historical
site. An unspecified amount of additional federal land is to be
conveyed for the expansion of a state park. BLM is also to convey 1,500
acres for free to White Pine County to expand the county airport and
200 acres to expand the County Industrial Park.
These provisions are not necessary. Where public purposes could be
served, existing laws already provide for acquisition of federal land,
and they also provide a more transparent process, with public
involvement and environmental analysis that better protect the larger
public interest.
conclusion
We respectfully urge you to reject this bill and close the door on
any future proposals for wholesale privatization of our public lands.
We must stop facilitating sprawl across the Mojave, rewarding Las
Vegas' state of denial, and funding pet projects with taxpayer dollars.
Thank you for your consideration of this testimony.
______
Statement of the Sierra Club; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance; The
Wilderness Society; Wasatch Mountain Club; Buckeyes for Wild Utah;
Californians for Western Wilderness; Coloradans for Utah Wilderness;
Colorado Plateau River Guides; Colorado Riverkeeper; Conservation
Northwest; Defenders of Wildlife; Earthworks; Environmental Working
Group; Forest Guardians; Glen Canyon Institute; Great Basin Mine Watch;
Great Old Broads for Wilderness; Idaho Conservation League; Illinois
Task Force for Utah Wilderness; Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center;
Living Rivers; Mainers for Utah Wilderness; Mountaineers; Natural
Resources Defense Council; Nevadans for Utah Wilderness; New Yorkers
for Utah Wilderness; Olympic Forest Coalition; Oregon Natural Desert
Association; Public Lands Foundation; Red Rock Forests; Redrock
Activists of Massachusetts; Save Our Canyons; The Lands Council
(Washington State); The Spirit of Utah Wilderness, Inc.; Tongass
Conservation Society; Umpqua Watersheds; Vermonters for Utah
Wilderness; Washington League for Utah Wilderness; Western
Environmental Law Center; Wild Wilderness; Wilderness Watch; Wildlands
CPR
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public
Lands and Forests on S. 3636, the Washington County Growth and
Conservation Act. This statement represents the views of the Utah
Wilderness Coalition, an alliance led by The Wilderness Society, Sierra
Club, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and the Wasatch Mountain Club
as well as the 38 groups noted above. Collectively, we represent over a
million supporters nationwide. We have a common interest in preserving
our nation's public lands and natural legacy, including the Zion-Mojave
proposed wilderness in Southwestern Utah. We welcome the opportunity to
work towards a solution to address the challenges facing the residents
of Washington County, local communities, and public lands in Utah.
overview
We oppose the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act as it
has been introduced because it is bad for Washington County, bad for
Utah wilderness, unfair to the American public, and unsound public
policy. We are not alone in our opposition; thousands of citizens--
locally, statewide and nationally have voiced their concerns, as have
numerous hiking, outdoor recreation, outdoor retail, equestrian,
wildlife, archeological, scientific, and historic preservation
interests.
We recognize that Washington County is on an unsustainable course
of development. Rapid population growth is 'straining the region's
water supplies, transportation infrastructure, housing supply, and
natural landscape. There is widespread agreement that unless Washington
County changes the way it is growing and/or how it responds to growth,
the existing problems will continue to worsen. For this reason we
believe it is important to seek solutions to the problems facing this
region. Rather than seeking cooperative solutions, the bill forces a
predetermined outcome on a community that is currently engaging in a
community growth planning process thereby relegating that public
process unimportant and moot. We strongly disagree that the answer to
these challenges requires the sweeping federal land law changes
proposed in S. 3636; we also believe that this legislation will
exacerbate, not solve, the rampant sprawl and growth that the region is
currently facing.
The legislation before the committee would dispose of, including
giving away, public lands to finance local development. The bill
requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to sell public land and
appropriate proceeds from the sale of public land to local entities and
various projects within the county. It also provides for new roads, new
utility corridors, a new off-road vehicle trail system, and new rights-
of-way for water development, many at no cost to private interests. The
monetary and ecological value of these giveaways is huge. The
conservation side of this bill is meager in comparison to the scope of
developments encouraged by the legislation. It fails to protect over 70
percent of citizen proposed BLM wilderness, risks important historical
and cultural resources, and undermines endangered species protection.
local, state-wide, and national opposition
On all levels--locally, state-wide, and nationally--there is strong
and visible opposition to this legislation. The local citizen planning
organization, scientists, tribes, outdoor retailers, national editorial
boards and thousands of public citizens have all raised serious
concerns with the legislation as drafted.
1. Local Concerns
S. 3636 is highly controversial in Washington County. The Towns of
Rockville, Virgin, and Springdale have each passed a resolution
opposing the bill. Citizens for Dixie's Future, a local citizens'
planning organization, have written to the bill sponsors in opposition
to S. 3636. The Shivwits Band of the Paiutes, located west of the city
of St. George, have submitted testimony and written in opposition to
this bill. The Backcountry Horsemen of Southwest Utah have written in
opposition to S. 3636.
Opposition is also visible through the citizen comments in the
local paper, the St. George Spectrum. Since the release of the draft
legislation on March 22nd, 2006, over 40 letters to-the-editor have
been printed in the St. George Spectrum against the legislation. [See
Attachment 1 for selected quotations.] Concern from the public comes
from all corners of Washington County. The authors of the
aforementioned letters-to-the-editor live throughout communities in
Washington County, including St. George, Hurricane, Springdale, Ivins,
LaVerkin, New Harmony, Brookside, Washington City, Toquerville, and
Santa Clara.
2. Statewide Concerns
Across Utah, citizens have expressed widespread concern with the
Washington County Growth and Conservation Act. The Utah Wilderness
Coalition hosted a hearing in Salt Lake City in which approximately 200
concerned citizens attended, 33 individuals spoke, and 60 individuals
submitted written testimony. The comments amounted to 85 pages of
transcribed oral testimony plus 76 pages of submitted written
testimony. At least 1,775 Utahans contacted their Member of Congress to
oppose the legislation prior to introduction of the legislation in July
2006.
The Salt Lake Tribune authored three editorials opposing the
Washington County Growth and Conservation Act. [See Attachment 2 for
selected quotes of the editorials.] In a July 13th editorial entitled
``A bad plan: Bennett's bill would encourage St. George sprawl,'' The
Salt Lake Tribune said:
What Washington County needs is a plan to control its fast-
paced growth and protect its fragile natural resources.
Unfortunately, Sen. Bob Bennett's Washington County Growth and
Conservation Act doesn't offer one. It's a plan, instead, for
even more urban sprawl and consumption.
Many Utah public interest organizations oppose the Washington
County Growth and Conservation Act. These include: Colorado
Riverkeepers, Glen Canyon Institute, Living Rivers, Redrock Forest,
River Runners for Wilderness, Save Our Canyons, Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance, Utah Environmental Congress, Utah Native Plant,
Wasatch Mountain Club, Western Wildlife Conservancy, and Wild Utah
Project.
3. Widespread National Concern
Concern with the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act is
as strong nationally as it is locally and state-wide. Over 100,000
citizen comments were sent to Senators and Members of Congress in
opposition to the Washington County Growth and Conservation Act before
the act was introduced. Citizens from across the nation have continued
to write, call, and email in opposition to this legislation.
Nearly 80 national and state-based conservation organizations
oppose the bill. [See Attachment 3 for list of organizations.]
Similarly, the Outdoor Industry Association recently issued a statement
on the bill saying:
[The] Outdoor Industry Association opposes the Washington
County Growth and Conservation Act of 2006 [S. 3636]. While OIA
appreciates the efforts of many to craft protection for this
deserving area, we are concerned that the bill falls short of
the true protection needed and in the end does more harm than
good.
In addition, a September 8th letter opposing the Washington County
Growth and Conservation Act was signed by 32 outdoor retailers
including,
American Alpine Institute, Ltd.; Adventure 16; Black Diamond
Equipment Ltd; Broudy/Donohue Photography; Cascade Designs;
Chaco, Inc.; Champaign Surplus Store, Inc.; Cloudveil Mountain
Works, Inc.; Earth Games; Great Outdoor Provision Co.; Hi-Tec
Sports USA, Inc.; HOWADESIGN; Keen Footwear; Kelty; Mercury
Advertising; MoonFoto; OnTarget Public Relations LLC; Outdoor
Industry Conservation Alliance; Pack Rat Outdoor Center;
Patagonia; Pineneedle Mountaineering; Retailers of the Outdoor
Industry; SNEWS LLC; Travel Country Outdoors; The Base Camp;
The Elephant's Perch; The Forest Group; Tibetan Trader Inc.;
Ute Mountaineer; Wild River Outfitters; Wilderness Sports
The outdoor retailers' letter stated, ``[S. 3636] would
substantially rewrite federal laws controlling southwestern Utah's
public lands in ways that could harm the public's ability to climb,
hike, camp, watch wildlife, hunt, fish, and sightsee in these special
places.''
National newspapers, including the New York Times, Boston Globe,
and Los Angeles Times, have editorialized in opposition to the
Washington County Growth and Conservation Act. The New York Times
described the bill as ``a raid on national resources aimed at helping
private developers. It is the worst sort of Congressional earmarking.
And it gives true wilderness bills a reputation they do not deserve.''
federal land disposal
We have many serious concerns with the bill's provision to dispose
of as much as 24,300 acres of BLM land within Washington County. First,
the legislation directly conflicts with existing public lands policy
that provides for the retention of our public lands. Second, Washington
County has an abundant amount of developable private land, according to
the St. George Chamber of Commerce. Third, the BLM already has
authority, which it has successfully exercised, to sell and exchange
public lands. Fourth, according to the St. George field office, BLM has
already disposed of 18,000 acres of BLM public land in the last 10
years. Fifth, there are roughly 85,000 acres of state-owned lands in
the county that could be traded for developable public lands. Sixth,
although a local planning process called ``Vision Dixie'' has just been
initiated for Washington County, the land sales called for in the bill
are not explicitly tied legislatively to this long-term, growth
planning process. Finally, the legislation fails to ensure many
sensitive and wild lands that are proposed for wilderness will not be
sold for private development.
The sale of public lands in S. 3636 fundamentally shifts land
management policy in southwestern Utah away from retention and public
management of our public lands towards privatization and development of
these national assets. Existing land policy, as articulated in the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), states that public
lands ``be retained in Federal ownership'' except where disposal will
serve the national interest. (FLPMA, Sec. 102(a)(1)). This policy is a
cornerstone of our nation's view of federal lands. When the
Administration proposed this spring to sell public lands to fund the
Rural Schools Program, there was widespread and fervent bipartisan
opposition. In March, 54 Members of Congress led by Rep. Chandler and
Rep. Keller wrote to the House Budget Committee opposing the
Administration's land sale proposal and saying, ``Congress should not
develop the habit of selling treasured public lands to the highest
bidder as a means of temporarily plugging gaps in the budget.'' Our
county's public lands provide unparalleled benefits to the American
people and local communities surrounding those lands, and existing law
provides a fair and balanced approach to public land sales.
It is unclear why the BLM should be mandated to dispose of
thousands of acres of public land when there is already plenty of
private developable land. According to the St. George Chamber of
Commerce's website about economic development opportunities in the
county, ``It is estimated that only about 9% of the potentially
developable private land (225,000 acres) in the county has already been
developed.''
It is unclear why S. 3636 mandates disposal of up to 24,300 acres
of public land when the agency has already disposed of significant
amounts of public lands in the past ten years. According to the BLM St.
George Field Office, the BLM has disposed of 18,000 acres of BLM land
since 1996. If all 24,300 acres are disposed through S. 3636, the total
amount of land disposal in Washington County in the past ten years
would exceed 42,000 acres. In other words, in the last decade, roughly
one of every 18 acres of BLM lands in the county will have left federal
ownership.
Given that the BLM already has the authority to dispose of public
lands and has successfully used that authority to dispose of 18,000
acres in the past 10 years, it is unclear why a new mandate should seek
to override this existing authority. BLM's existing land sales approach
ensures maximum public participation, review, and comment. The process
is abundantly transparent. S. 3636 would require the BLM to meet
various deadlines and use certain maps to define areas eligible for
sales. The legislation would also appear to greatly diminish public
involvement by providing in Sec. 102(d) that the Secretary and County
``shall jointly select'' parcels to be offered for sale or exchange.
This is a clear departure from FLPMA sec. 202 which uses the public
planning process to identify lands for disposal.
Though the legislation mandates the disposal of public land, S.
3636 does little to account for the 85,000 acres of state-owned land
that could be traded for developable public lands to help the county
meet its demand for more private land. Sec. 102(e) and 102(h) makes
only a passing reference to exchanges. A much more direct and
substantial effort to address these lands is needed. According to the
State Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), there are
roughly 85,000 acres of state-owned land in Washington County. SITLA's
mandate is to maximize the economic development potential of its lands
to serve the state's school children. Purchasing or exchanging SITLA
land would equally serve both SITLA's mandate and the county's demand
for land.
Further, it is unclear how the land sales in the bill are tied to
the long-term growth planning process recently initiated for Washington
County called ``Vision Dixie.'' As some supporters of S. 3636 have
noted, Vision Dixie and the legislation should go hand-in-hand, but in
fact S. 3636 makes only one reference in Sec. 102(e) to local planning.
This section provides little more than an agreement from potential
bidders for public land that they will abide by city and county zoning
and a general plan for the area. Although we have been given oral
assurances by bill supporters that future lands sales and exchanges
will incorporate the results of the Vision Dixie planning process, the
legislation does not actually reflect these promises. It appears that
the legislation results in an end-run around the planning process as
the local planning process has only just begun yet the bill already
contains maps defining eligible areas for land disposal. The bill also
fails to address the possibility that the multi-year planning process
fail or not reach completion before the second tier of land sales is
slated to begin in 2010. For the land sales to be effectively
integrated into any long-term growth plan for the county, the
legislation should specifically tie those sales to a pre-existing plan,
otherwise recommendations of the planning process could be rendered
moot by land sales in S. 3636. The fact that the Vision Dixie process
is not nearly complete, is yet another reason why S. 3636 is not ready
for congressional action.
Finally, section 102 inadequately protects sensitive public lands,
culturally or historically valuable lands, and areas proposed for
wilderness not designated in the bill. As currently written, sec.
102(b)(2) expressly prohibits from land sales areas ``designated as
wilderness . . . an area of critical environmental concern . . . and
[land] in the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area.'' The bill directs
the BLM to design restrictive covenants as necessary to protect other
resources. This is insufficient because restrictive covenants require
ongoing oversight and monitoring to ensure that protective stipulations
are implemented. A cash-strapped, resource-constrained agency such as
BLM will likely not have the ability or means to oversee dozens of
complicated covenant provisions that may be needed to protect sensitive
lands.
disposition of federal land sale proceeds
S. 3636 would distort the land-sales process by earmarking all but
five percent of land-sales proceeds for specific uses in Washington
County. Normally proceeds from public land sales would be reinvested in
land acquisition pursuant to the Federal Lands Transaction Facilitation
Act (FLTFA). We are concerned that this legislation creates a loophole
that diverts funds normally for conservation towards a host of locally
earmarked projects. Second, we find the specific earmarks dangerously
ambiguous. Third, we fear that this legislation creates the expectation
that public lands can be used to make up for budget shortfalls and pay
for local projects.
Under existing law, funds generated from public lands sales are
reinvested in conservation land acquisition, but the Washington County
legislation largely rejects this current practice by directing funds
from public land sales to local, private development interests.
Currently, the Federal Land Transfer Facilitation Act (FLTFA) directs
proceeds from federal land disposal towards acquiring ``inholdings''
and lands ``adjacent to federally designated areas [which] contain
exceptional resources'' and directs that at least 80% of proceeds must
be expended within the State in which the funds were generated.
The Washington County Growth and Conservation Act departs markedly
from this equation by diverting all but 5% of the funding to entities
or purposes within Washington County. While some of these earmarks may
have conservation value, others clearly do not (e.g., directives to
finance agency administrative costs for selling public land,
construction of off-road vehicle routes, and unspecified ``projects
relating to parks, trails and natural areas''). More concerning,
however, is the bill's precedent of liquidating national assets to fund
local projects, be they meritorious or not.
The funding scheme in section 103 would give 8 percent of all
public land sale proceeds directly to the Washington County Water
Conservancy District. Two percent of the total proceeds would go to the
county government. We understand that Washington County, like virtually
every county and state government, has spending needs that may not be
fully funded. However, we are deeply concerned that this bill creates
expectations and demands among local governments in Utah for selling
off public lands in order to fund local projects and ongoing
administration expenses. Our groups are also concerned that the new
formula for the disposition of land sale proceeds created by S. 3636
serves as a de facto appropriations process for Utah. We urge you to
refrain from creating a mandate that would sell public lands to
subsidize local projects and government budgets.
In addition to selling off public lands, the bill would also impact
public lands by giving the Washington County Water Conservancy District
rights to develop nearly 9,000 acres of BLM public land. Section 401(b)
broadly grants the Water Conservancy rights-of-ways for development of
``any reservoirs, canals, channels . . . pipes . . . pipelines . . .
and other facilities . . .'' related to water infrastructure in the
county. In a departure from current policy, these rights-of-ways would
be granted without rental fees and in perpetuity. It is important that
the legislation be much more specific about the precise uses of
transfer lands, and require that any such lands would revert to public
management when and if the original use expired. Further, federal land
should not be granted for without rental fees or in perpetuity to the
water conservancy district--millions of dollars taxpayer dollars would
be surrendered.
Finally, Section 401(a) would establish roughly 900 miles of half-
mile-wide utility corridors across public, private, and tribal lands.
This is done outside the checks and balances required by sections 202
and 503 of FLPMA. The authors of the legislation have yet to disclose
for what specific purposes such a large swath of utility corridors,
some of which are duplicative or controversial, need be granted over
previously undisturbed public lands outside of the normal planning
process.
wilderness designation
The bill's protections for wildlands are woefully inadequate and
dwarfed by the scale of development envisioned by other titles of the
bill. The bill would designate just 92,937 acres of BLM land as
wilderness in Washington County. As measured against America's Red Rock
Wilderness Act, S. 3636 fails to protect nearly two-thirds of the wild
BLM lands in the county that deserve protection. Almost none of the
landscape in the Mojave Desert in the western side of the County is
protected and the bill leaves behind over 200,000 acres of wilderness
identified by citizen inventories and proposed for protection in
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.
The Zion-Mojave wilderness in the western half of the county is a
unique and rare environment. It is the only place in Utah where the
endangered desert tortoise and iconic Joshua Tree are found. Amid
explosive suburban development, habit fragmentation, population growth,
increasing water scarcity, and damaging off road vehicle (ORV) use, a
meaningful Zion-Mojave wilderness promises refuge for the region's
fragile plant and wildlife and would be a haven for outdoor
enthusiasts, families, naturalists, and hikers.
The Utah Wilderness Coalition has identified approximately 300,000
acres of BLM public lands that qualify for wilderness designation
within Washington County. These proposed wilderness areas include
Colorado Plateau wildlands adjacent to Zion National Park as well as
portions of the Mojave Desert. Nearly 70 percent of the citizen
proposal for Utah wilderness, including lands identified as potential
wilderness by BLM officials, is left unprotected in this legislation.
Furthermore, the legislation would release roughly 9,500 acres of
currently protected BLM Wilderness Study Areas.
Of particular concern, almost none of the landscape in the Mojave
Desert in the western side of the County would be preserved. The Mojave
Desert in western Washington County encompasses a vast area of largely
undeveloped public lands important both as habitat for the endangered
desert tortoise and as a source of archeological and culturally
significant resources. The desert tortoise is highly susceptible to ORV
use; individual animals are sometimes literally crushed to death under
the wheels of larger ORVs, and the vehicles also destroy underground
burrows that provide refuge for tortoise and their young. Yet, only a
fraction of this critical tortoise habitat is protected against
irresponsible ORV use.
The bill ignores nearly 70,000 acres of the lands identified by the
BLM in 1999 as potentially qualifying wilderness. In 1999, the BLM
finalized a survey of lands proposed for wilderness designation in
America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, including areas of Washington
County, and found many tens of thousands of acres of qualifying lands.
In Washington County, the BLM documented qualifying wilderness (not
already designated as WSAs) in Cougar Canyon, the Narrows, Joshua Tree,
Beaver Dam Wash, Red Mountain, Orderville Canyon, Deep Creek, the
Watchman, Goose Creek, Spring Creek Canyon, Black Ridge, Canaan
Mountain, Parunuweap Canyon, Moquith Mountain, and Upper Kanab Creek.
Unfortunately, S. 3636 protects very few of these areas.
Forest Service lands are virtually ignored in this bill. S. 3636
designates just 2,642 acres of Forest Service land which is adjacent to
the Cottonwood Canyon unit. Washington County holds 425,285 acres of
Forest Service lands. Because the bill designates just 0.6 % of that
area as wilderness, we are concerned that many Forest Service areas
have been left out. The Utah Forest Network has proposed wilderness
designation for over 300,000 acres of Forest Service Land within the
Pine Valley Ranger District of the Dixie National Forest in Washington
County, including the Bull Valley-Cave Canyon Roadless Area and the
Racer Canyon/Mogutsu Roadless Area. We would recommend a much more
thorough review of Forest Service lands if this legislation proposes to
make wilderness designation.
More than one-half of the lands proposed for wilderness designation
in this bill are within Zion National Park. Though worthy as designated
wilderness, the lands in Zion National Park already enjoy significant
protection pursuant to the Park's Service preservation mandate.
Now more than ever, as the pressures of growth mount in Washington
County, the special places of the wild Zion-Mojave need and deserve to
be protected.
other impacts on federal land management
S. 3636, section 401(a)(1)(B) requires the BLM to examine the
option of placing a ``transportation'' corridor in the Red Cliff Desert
Reserve, meaning that the bill could result in the authorization of a
freeway through the Reserve even as the bill permanently sets aside the
reserve as a National Conservation Area. Any consideration of
authorizing a freeway within the reserve would run counter to the
fundamental purpose for which the Reserve was established, and
represents a reneging of the original agreement that established the
Reserve. Proposals that could affect habitat or the desert tortoise
should be subject to laws such as NEPA and review by the Red Cliffs
Desert Reserve Advisory Committee and technical committee. Language
should make clear that such proposals cannot be approved if they would
harm the tortoise or its habitat.
Section 501 would require the BLM to establish a new system of ORV
routes--that would likely result in increased motorized recreation,
especially given the county's growing population and proximity to Las
Vegas--despite the BLM's inability to manage existing use levels and
before the completion of a long-overdue, district-wide travel plan. The
BLM is seven years behind in adopting a comprehensive travel management
plan for the St. George Resource Area and must address current
enforcement issues concerning ORV use before actively encouraging more
use. BLM should complete a comprehensive travel plan (including route
designations) for the entire St. George Field Office before
legislatively designating an ORV route system.
conclusion
In conclusion, we stress our opposition to this legislation. The
bill would cause lasting impacts to the landscape and communities in
Washington County before a plan for the future of this area has
determined what is needed for the region. Local, state-wide, and
national opposition highlight the dangers of selling off massive
amounts of public lands to fund local development. We believe our
public lands, the public, and local communities would be worse off
should this legislation pass.
For more information, please contact: Suzanne Jones, The Wilderness
Society (303) 650-5818; Scott Groene, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
(801) 486-3161; or Lawson LeGate, Sierra Club (801) 467-9294.
______
Statement of Diana Buckner, Chairwoman, Ely Shoshone Tribe
Mr. Chairman, the Ely Shoshone Tribe would like to thank you for
the opportunity to present our written comment and testimony on the
White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006.
This Bill designated approximately 3,650 acres of land to be
transferred to the BIA to be held in trust for the Ely Shoshone Tribe.
We originally asked for 22,000 acres, then 15,000 acres and now we are
at 3,650 acres. This is a result of the compromise the Tribe has made
in good faith; we have worked with Senator Reid's and Senator Ensign's
staff, WPC Chairman Eldridge, some of the WPC Commissioners, the BLM
and held numerous public meetings. We tried to negotiate in good faith
with the White Pine County Commission and the City Council, but they
chose to go forward without us. The Bill also identifies lands that
will be conveyed to other governments, the City and County, both with
needs similar to the Tribe. To become self-sustaining, the Tribe has
identified a great need to expand our reservation land base. The
primary reasons for land expansion is housing, economic development and
to exercise spiritual and cultural traditions.
The Tribe has always been stewards of the lands and we are
concerned with the water, air and wildlife. We have an Environmental
Department that coordinates with White Pine County, and follows State
and Federal laws when developing codes and ordinances. We have several
ordinances in place, and have a full time Tribal Emergency Response
Commission, that coordinates with the City of Ely Fire Department,
Forest Service, White Pine County Local Emergency Planning Committee.
The Tribe also has a Spill Prevention/Response Plan for the Silver Sage
Travel Center implemented, using codes from NRC and EPA.
Our Tribal Law Enforcement Department follows the Ely Shoshone
Tribe Law and Order Code, along with the ordinances, and also the NRS
if applicable. We have a MOA in place with White Pine County for
dispatch services, backup services and coroner services. We also have a
MOA in place with the City of Ely for first responder and fire
protection services.
90 of our 110 acres are located on highway 93 south of Ely on both
east and west sides of the highway. When acquired, the established 90
acres was surrounded with minimal surroundings. Within the last 25
years the Tribal boundaries have been surrounded by public education
systems, economic and community development with high scale homes.
Ely Shoshone Tribe has always complied with and adhered to all city
and county ordinances. We understand that there is a concern to our
local community, we have always been good neighbors and will continue
to be. If there were no signs posted, you would not know where
reservation boundaries ended and private property began.
Even though, as a Federally Recognized Tribe with Cooperating
Agency status in government to government relationship, in a good faith
effort, the tribe has taken all public and government concerns into
consideration and has made many compromises regarding real issues. As
we have stated at several meetings, to conform to all existing
ordinances, zoning and planning standards. The Ely Shoshone Tribal
Council has agreed to conform to these standards but no further
communication has been received from the County.
The Shoshone people have been here for a 1000 years, our ancestors
are buned here, and our traditional ways are still practiced by many of
our tribal members. There are historical sites on Ward Mountain and the
entire Ward Mountain area has spiritual and historical significance.
The original proposal for parcel one was located all on the west side
of highway 93 adjacent to Ward Mountain. With the Tribe's compromise,
acreage has been divided by highway 93 with the majority of the acreage
on the east side. Impact to the growth of the City is minimal. City
boundaries are presently north of our current 90 acre parcel.
Proposed parcel two is only 600 plus acres. The acres are adjacent
to an existing community with development continuing north and south of
the proposed acres. The proposed parcel would have minimal impact no
greater than what presently exists. We have received no documentation
from State and/or Federal agencies showing adverse affects on Wildlife.
We have always been good neighbors to our community, but we will
not apologize for the fact that we are Shoshone Indians with the same
needs as White Pine County.
Thank you for the opportunity for Ely Shoshone Tribe to provide a
written comment and testimony on the proposed White Pine County
Conservation, Recreation and Development Act of 2006. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
______
Statement of Brent Eldridge, Chairman, White Pine County, NV,
Board of Commissioners
Dear Chairman Craig and members of the subcommittee, I testified on
S. 3772 during the hearing held on November 16, 2006. I write to offer
a few brief comments which I respectfully request be added to my
earlier written testimony.
During the hearing on S. 3772 Senator Cantwell raised concerns
regarding disposal of federal lands and a precedent for such being
established by the bill. I respectfully offer the following for the
sub-committee's consideration.
White Pine County is recovering from severe economic depression
which had occurred in the 90's due to closing of a large local mine.
The mine has re-opened, again providing good-paying jobs. The county is
also experiencing an influx of retirees and others relocating here to
enjoy our moderate summer climate and scenic beauty. Several new
service industries have opened, and it appears we're on the brink of an
economic boom. Since our county is almost 95% federally owned,
substantial growth can be accommodated only through disposal of federal
lands. There are 5.7 million acres in White Pine County, and we're
asking that up to 45,000 acres, an additional eight-tenths of one
percent, be made available for future community growth.
We first began the administrative process of acquiring federal land
from BLM for expansion of our airport in 1993. That process has not yet
concluded; legislation is the only practical and reasonable manner in
which to expedite accommodation of our impending community land needs.
It might be noted that almost all western lands were at one time
federally-owned. As communities grew and industry and agriculture had
needs for expansion, federal lands were disposed-of incrementally to
meet those needs. I believe it's only fair for Congress to accommodate
small land-locked communities such as ours in the same manner in which
others have been in the past; the precedent was, indeed, established
many years ago.
It's been suggested in the media that wilderness designations are
trade-offs for land disposals. As such relates to White Pine County, I
disagree. I've addressed the community need for land disposal above,
which is, in my view, independent of the wilderness issues. Here I will
address the wilderness component in S. 3772 which enjoys substantial
support from among White Pine County's people.
Until the early 1990's White Pine County's roadless backcountry
changed little through regular traditional uses, and was used and
enjoyed by many who cared for the land. The advent of the four-wheel
ATV brought severe impacts to our high mountains which, if allowed to
continue and expand, will put tire tracks on nearly every pristine inch
traversable by those very-capable machines. Most folks in our community
have reversed their opposing position on wilderness, due to results of
indiscriminate ATV use, and now support protection of most lands now
proposed for wilderness designation in the bill. White Pine County
needs wilderness protections as urgently as it needs land disposals;
designations should, however, attempt to avoid areas holding high
mineral and energy potential.
Title VII of the bill addresses needs related to maintenance and
improvement of lands mostly owned by the federal government. Noxious
weeds and woody invasive species have vastly reduced traditional
productivity of the land, negatively impacting every segment of our
regional economy dependent upon the federal lands--wildlife habitat and
hunting-related resources, vital watersheds providing water for all,
aesthetics and viewsheds serving tourism and casual recreation, and
properly-managed livestock grazing, to name some. For the sustained
health of our watersheds, forests and rangelands, I believe it's
imperative that steps be taken to reverse this downward spiral of
federal-land productivity through adoption and implementation of the
provisions in Title VII.
Thank you for this opportunity to further comment on the bill. Your
consideration will be appreciated.
______
Statement of Gay Boman, Resident, St. George, Washington County, UT
I am writing to you concerning my opposition to Senator Bennett's
Senate Bill 3636, Washington County Growth & Conservation Act of 2006,
both as a resident of the county and as a citizen of the United States.
This bill would authorize the transfer of 24,300 acres or forty square
miles of public (BLM) land to the county for sale to developers.
Growth has already brought problems of traffic, water, loss of
vistas, insufficient school funding, lack of affordable housing and
auto pollution. Projected growth from development of current private
land will at least triple our population and worsen these problems. The
public does not need to subsidize further growth. Transfer of any
public land is unnecessary.
The land designated ``eligible for transfer'' on the bill's maps
contains some of our most scenic and culturally important areas.
Americans from all over the United States plus international travelers
currently visit these places. The bill would deprive them from seeing
the historic Fort Pearce, petroglyphs, archeological sites and historic
trails of Warner Valley, the peace and quiet of the Red Cliffs Desert
Reserve, and the beauty of the Santa Clara Reserve.
The bill would also designate fifteen per cent of sales to the
county and part of the proceeds for administrative costs. Building lots
in Washington County currently sell for up to one million dollars. The
amount of money the county will reap from these sales and the
government will lose will be huge. It is not the government's
responsibility to finance our county's or any community's development,
especially at the expense of losing our public lands.
This bill was put together without adequate public knowledge or
input. Please do not approve Senate bill 3636.
<all>