[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1825, RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES
ACT; H.R. 586, DENALI NATIONAL PARK IMPROVEMENT ACT; H.R. 995, ORGAN
MOUNTAINS NATIONAL MONUMENT ESTABLISHMENT ACT;
AND H.R. 1411, CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT EXPANSION ACT OF
2013
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, May 9, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-816 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the 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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Niki Tsongas, MA
Jeff Duncan, SC Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Tony Cardenas, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Steven A. Horsford, NV
Steve Southerland, II, FL Jared Huffman, CA
Bill Flores, TX Raul Ruiz, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Mark E. Amodei, NV Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Markwayne Mullin, OK Joe Garcia, FL
Chris Stewart, UT Matt Cartwright, PA
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Vacancy
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Niki Tsongas, MA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Raul R. Labrador, ID Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Mark E. Amodei, NV Steven A. Horsford, NV
Chris Stewart, UT Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Steve Daines, MT Joe Garcia, FL
Kevin Cramer, ND Matt Cartwright, PA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, May 9, 2013............................ 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah, Prepared statement of............................. 2
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Benishek, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, Statement of............................ 5
Frost, Bert, Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship
and Sciences, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 33
Prepared Statement of the National Park Service, on H.R.
586.................................................... 37
Horn, William P., Director of Federal Affairs, U.S.
Sportsmen's Alliance....................................... 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 1825.......................... 13
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Statement of.......................... 6
Pearce, Hon. Stevan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico, Prepared statement on H.R. 995........ 7
Recce, Susan, Director, Division of Conservation, Wildlife
and Natural Resources, National Rifle Association.......... 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 1825.......................... 17
Rountree, Carl, Assistant Director, National Landscape
Conservation System and Community Partnerships, Bureau of
Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior........... 33
Prepared statement on H.R. 995 and H.R. 1411............. 34
Schneider, Scott, President and CEO, Visit Mendocino County,
Inc........................................................ 8
Prepared statement on H.R. 1411.......................... 10
Simpson, Melissa, Director of Governmental Affairs and
Science Based Conservation, Safari Club International...... 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 1825.......................... 20
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska, Statement of.................................... 4
Additional materials submitted for the record:
List of materials retained in the Committee's official files. 45
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1825, TO DIRECT FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND
MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS TO EXERCISE THEIR AUTHORITY UNDER EXISTING LAW TO
FACILITATE USE OF AND ACCESS TO FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS FOR FISHING, SPORT
HUNTING, AND RECREATIONAL SHOOTING, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
``RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES ACT'';
H.R. 586, TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DENALI NATIONAL
PARK AND PRESERVE IN THE STATE OF ALASKA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
``DENALI NATIONAL PARK IMPROVEMENT ACT''; H.R. 995, TO ESTABLISH A
MONUMENT IN DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
``ORGAN MOUNTAINS NATIONAL MONUMENT ESTABLISHMENT ACT''; AND H.R. 1411,
TO INCLUDE THE POINT ARENA-STORNETTA PUBLIC LANDS IN THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT AS A PART OF THE NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
CONSERVATION SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``CALIFORNIA COASTAL
NATIONAL MONUMENT EXPANSION ACT OF 2013''
----------
Thursday, May 9, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Young, Lummis, Grijalva,
and Garcia.
Also Present: Representatives Benishek and Huffman.
Mr. Bishop. The Committee will come to order, and the
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum. We are here to listen
to four good bills. And under the rules, the opening statements
will be given by the Chairman and the Ranking Member. However,
I ask unanimous consent to include any other Members' opening
statement in the record, if submitted to the clerk by the close
of business today.
[No response.]
Mr. Bishop. Hearing no objections, I am going to--because I
want to get this thing over. I am going to waive my opening
statement, we will put it in the record. We will use the
introduction sometime--you have been applauding this one, this
was really good. My only official opening statement is ``Damn
elevators.''
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Public Land and Environmental Regulation
Almost a thousand years ago the Norman Conquest brought the feudal
system from the continent to England and much of the land and wildlife
of England was seized by the conquerors to become the King's Forest.
The forest could no longer be used by the people for wood or game and
even today in most of Europe, hunting and fishing are, in practice,
available only to the aristocracy, not average citizen.
We took a much different path in America. Our public lands are open
for recreational sporting activities by the citizens. In fact, the very
origin of the conservation movement is rooted in this custom.
It is general practice today that we are free to hunt or fish in
National Forests and BLM lands unless there is some special attribute
or condition that precludes it. The Hunting and Fishing Heritage and
Opportunities Act gives this tradition a statutory guaranty.
It is needed because there are forces at work against this unique
attribute of American exceptionalism.
The Forest Service has had to face NEPA challenges mounted against
hunting and although the Forest Service ultimately won in court, they
had to waste substantial manpower and resources to prevail. Since there
are far better uses for our conservation dollars than that, this bill
protects the legal status of hunting and fishing on public land with
clear statutory language.
The bill makes no change in the authority of the National Park
Service to prohibit or to allow hunting on their lands. That issue is
at the discretion of NPS and it would remain so. The bill does not
allow extractive industries or motorized recreation in Wilderness
areas, nor does it allow those activities under the guise that they are
somehow linked to hunting.
The bill gives the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior
authority to restrict hunting and fishing activities in locations where
special protections are needed and justified, but it sets a presumption
that public land is open to the public. This is a needed bill. I
appreciate Dr. Benishek's work in drafting and introducing it and I
hope this hearing will lead to its prompt enactment.
______
Mr. Bishop. All right, now. Mr. Grijalva, I will turn to
you if you have an opening statement.
Mr. Grijalva. I do, and it is very brief.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for
holding the hearing and including the legislation. And my
colleague, Mr. Huffman's legislation, as well. I appreciate it
very much.
I am going to focus not only the opening statement but most
of the questioning on H.R. 1825. Two days ago we had a really,
really good hearing on--I thought on this Subcommittee, where
points of view were different, but I think we all recognized
legitimate issues that Congress and agencies need to address
with respect to outfitting and guiding on public lands.
Today I think--and with this legislation, H.R. 1825--it is
a different story. We have debated how to manage hunting,
fishing, and recreational shooting in this Committee. We
debated it on the Floor last year. And there are legitimate
differences of opinion on this legislation, on land management
priorities and wilderness.
The tone and the rhetoric in the written testimony
presented to the Committee by some of today's witnesses is
inflammatory, to use a word we will hear from shortly,
``specious.'' It is not meant to provide constructive
criticism, that would lead to a plausible political outcome and
policy change. It is meant to, I think, score political points
and disparage any contrary opinion. It is unfortunate this
panel feels it needs to use a legitimate issue, access for
sportsmen, to leverage broader political campaigns against the
Administration and those that would disagree with the point of
view of some of our witnesses.
It is offensive and I think it should be repudiated.
Without the political posturing we could find agreement on this
issue. The Senate certainly did. Unfortunately, the Majority
and this panel decided on a different approach. Instead of
considering a vote on common-sense background checks, the
Majority is determined to push legislation that would turn our
public lands into shooting ranges.
I have seen the ending to this movie, and know where this
bill is going. I suggest we skip the grandstanding, have a
serious debate today about sportsmen's access to public lands
without the unnecessary and very divisive rhetoric that we are
going to hear shortly. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Thank you, Chairman Bishop, for holding this hearing today and
including Congressman Hoffman's legislation.
I'm going to focus most of my opening statement on H.R. 1825.
Two days ago--on the subject of recreation--we had one of the most
productive, non-partisan hearings that the Subcommittee has held in a
long time.
While our points of view differed slightly, I think we all
recognized legitimate issues that both the Congress and the agencies
need to address with respect to outfitting and guiding on our public
lands.
Today, unfortunately, is a different story.
We have debated the issue of hunting, fishing, and recreational
shooting in this Committee. We debated it on the Floor last year.
There are legitimate differences of opinions regarding the impact
of this legislation on land management priorities and wilderness.
Had you spared me your rhetoric, I would have held mine.
Specious; Anti-hunting critics; Bias and Personal agendas; Prejudicial
and discriminatory treatment; Hostile animal rights movement; Antis (as
in anti-hunting); Hostile Forest Service; Bogus arguments; Nonsense;
Paper promises; Anti-hunting regulatory and administrative actions.
I am telling this panel now, that I think you are using a
legitimate issue--access for sportsmen--to leverage broader political
campaigns against this Administration and Democrats.
It is offensive and I think it should be repudiated.
Without the political posturing we could find agreement on this
issue. The Senate certainly did.
But no--the majority and this panel decided on a different
approach.
I guess that is what we can expect from a majority that is blocking
a vote on common sense background checks but pushing legislation that
would turn our public lands into shooting ranges.
I guess that is what we can expect from an organization that had to
be shamed into removing a bleeding Obama target but still thinks it is
fine to have a bleeding ex-girlfriend one.
I've seen the ending to this movie and know where this bill is
going--so let's move ahead with the grandstanding against this
Administration and people who dare to question whether there should be
a gun on every square inch of our soil.
I yield back.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We have three bills--three sponsors
of bills who are here today. So, before we get the votes taken,
I wanted to make sure we have a chance to hear from them. And
then one of our speakers has to catch a plane, so we will try
and put that one out of order, if that is OK with everyone.
Let me turn first to Chairman Young.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
Ranking Member. Thank you for holding this hearing. I have a
bill on the Floor that--or, excuse me, in the Committee--that,
unfortunately or fortunately, the Park Service and I do agree.
I mean don't everybody die right here, but we do agree on this
bill. I say there might be something wrong with it.
But, first, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to issue permits for micro-hydro projects within the
Denali National Park and Preserve. Additionally, it will
facilitate a small land exchange between the National Park
Service and Doyon Tourism, Inc., which owns and operates the
facilities that take advantage of one of those proposed micro-
hydro projects.
Currently, the facilities in Kantishna, which are located
at the end of the 90-mile Park road, operate exclusively off of
diesel fuel. Not being connected to any grid system, the
roadhouse must produce all its energy onsite. This means
trucking thousands of gallons of diesel fuel over a long and
treacherous Park road. Energy created by this micro-hydro
project will cut the roadhouse's diesel usage in half, and
drastically reduce the needs of these trips.
Down the road in the new Eielson Visitor Center, the
National Park Service operates a similar micro-hydro project to
great success. And the roadhouse seeks to take advantage of
similar technology to help rid their reliance on costly diesel
fuel. In the 112th Congress, a similar bill passed the House
and passed out of this Committee by a voice vote.
Next, this bill would authorize a 7-mile natural gas
pipeline right-of-way through a small portion of the Park along
the existing highway right-of-way. This proposed pipeline would
run along a main highway from Fairbanks to Anchorage, and would
alleviate the high cost of energy supplies that concerns a
majority of the Alaskan population. Additionally, if built, the
National Park Service would tap into the line to alleviate
their own high energy cost issues.
In the final days of 112th Congress a similar bill passed
the Senate by unanimous consent, but was not considered the by
House before we adjourned.
Finally, this bill would name the Talkeetna Ranger Station
after Walter Harper. Walter Harper, an Athabascan Indian, was
the first person to reach the summit of Mount McKinley, North
America's highest peak. He accomplished this feat on June 7,
1913, at the young age of 21. Tragically, he died 5 short years
later, on a sinking SS Princess Sophia. The Talkeetna Ranger
Station is home to Denali's mountaineer rangers and the first
stop of any climb at Mount McKinley. Naming this facility after
Walter Harper is a fitting tribute, especially as we celebrate
the 100th birthday of his historic climb.
In conclusion, this legislation is a win-win that benefits
the environment and all parties involved. Again, I thank you,
Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member, for including this bill in
today's hearing, and I look forward to working with members of
the Committee advancing the bill. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman Young. I appreciate
that. Let's turn to Mr. Benishek for his 5 minutes to present
his bill, if you would.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN BENISHEK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Dr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Thanks to the Ranking
Member, too, Mr. Grijalva. Thanks for taking the time to hold
this hearing today.
Like most of you in this room, hunting, fishing, and
recreational shooting are treasured pastimes in my district. I
grew up in northern Michigan. And, like many of my
constituents, spent my summers fishing, my Octobers hunting
grouse in the UP woods. These traditions, spending quality time
outdoors with my kids and grandkids, are the kind of things we
must make sure that are preserved for generations to come.
This bill, H.R. 1825, the Recreational Fishing and Hunting
Heritage and Opportunities Act, works to ensure that these
cherished moments--hunting, fishing, and recreational
shooting--will be enjoyed by generations to come.
Mr. Chairman, this bill seeks to create an open-until-
closed policy for sportsmen's use of Federal lands. As you
know, nearly a quarter of the United States land mass, over 500
million acres, is managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service. These lands
are owned by all Americans. It is important that the right to
fully utilize these lands be ensured for future generations.
Over the years the legislative ambiguity in the Wilderness
Act has opened the door for numerous lawsuits around the
country. Rather than embracing sportsmen and women for the
conservationalists that they are, anti-hunting and
environmental groups have pursued an agenda of eliminating
heritage activities on Federal lands for years. These groups
look for loopholes in the law to deprive our constituents the
right to use their own Federal lands.
Recreational anglers, hunters, and sporting organizations,
many of whom have endorsed this bill, are supportive of the
conservation movement, and continue to provide direct support
to the wildlife managers and enforcement officers at the State,
local, and Federal level. These dedicated sportsmen, from the
shore lines of Lake Superior to the Beaches of Coos Bay,
deserve to know that the lands they cherish will not be closed
off to future generations.
This is a bipartisan issue. In fact, Presidents Clinton and
Bush both issued Executive orders recognizing the value of
these heritage activities. It is time we finally closed these
loopholes, firm up the language, and make sure that future
generations will always be able to enjoy the outdoors hunting,
fishing, shooting, just taking a walk in the woods.
I want to encourage all my colleagues today to join me in
supporting this important piece of common-sense legislation.
And I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate that. Mr.
Huffman, you have the third bill that we will be hearing today.
You are recognized for 5 minutes to introduce it.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva, for holding today's hearing on my bill, H.R. 1411,
the California Coastal National Monument Expansion Act of 2013.
I am very excited that we are joined today by my constituent,
Scott Schneider, the President and CEO of Visit Mendocino
County. When he is not testifying before Congress, Scott works
to bolster the economic impact of travel and tourism in the
area, and he spreads the word about all that Mendocino County
has to offer. As we will hear in his testimony, the California
Coastal National Monument Expansion Act will not only protect
our heritage, our national heritage area, it will contribute to
the growing tourism economy of this region.
The California National Coastal Monument Expansion Act will
add the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands, approximately 130
miles north of San Francisco, to the California Coastal
National Monument. The existing monument is made up of more
than 20,000 small islands, rocks, and reefs along the
California coast. And this bill would add the first land base
connection to the monument.
Now, make no mistake. H.R. 1411 is a jobs bill. By
providing lasting national protection, we are making the
California National Coastal Monument more accessible to
visitors, and we are raising the visibility of 1,200 acres of
spectacular Mendocino County coastline.
The businesses and the civic leaders in the region are
looking forward to becoming a gateway community for the
national monument, drawing in new visitors and economic
activity to the area. Tourism is already the number one source
of jobs on the Mendocino coast. We get close to 2 million
annual visitors in the region, and that supports more than
5,000 jobs, contributes approximately $19 million in State and
local taxes.
And that is why the effort to protect this awe-inspiring
stretch of the Mendocino coast has such broad public support.
It ranges from State and local elected officials to the
Manchester Point Arena Band of Pomo Indians, conservation
groups, business and civic leaders in the community, and local
government. In addition, hundreds of people in this rural area
have expressed their support by way of petition.
This legislation builds on what is already working. The
bill adds 10 miles of connectivity to the California Coastal
Trail, and it preserves a sustainable working landscape by
maintaining the existing ranching, recreation, and research
uses on these lands. In fact, our legislation specifically
identifies livestock grazing as an allowed activity within the
newly designated monument.
And beyond these lands' importance for the local economy
and to visitors from around the world, this area is unmatched
in its environmental value. This bill would help protect
habitat for numerous species of wildlife found only on this
stretch of the California coast. It will also protect the
Garcia River estuary, and 2 miles of the Garcia River itself.
This is a critical habitat for Coho and Chinook salmon, as well
as steelhead.
So, thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing
today, and for inviting Mr. Schneider to testify. As you can
tell, this is legislation that will bring significant economic
benefit and environmental benefit to a part of my district that
has national significance. And it is also broadly supported. I
am honored to represent this spectacular place, and I look
forward to working with you all to move H.R. 1411 forward. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Pearce is not
here in person to present his bill, but his written statement
will be added into the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearce follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Stevan Pearce a Representative in
Congress From the State of New Mexico, on H.R. 995
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing and for inviting me to
testify in support of H.R. 995, the Organ Mountains National Monument
Establishment Act. The Organ Mountains are a true natural treasure in
Southern New Mexico, and one of our State's most pristine, recognizable
sites. Everyone believes they must be preserved. The Organ Mountains
are a symbol of our unique culture, which includes hunting, recreation,
ranching and other outdoor activities. The landscape is emblematic of
our heritage in the Land of Enchantment, and this bill protects our
culture, our land, and our livelihood.
One of the most important aspects of this legislation is the strong
local support for its end goal. It is imperative that any land
management declaration have the backing of the local community.
Ranchers, conservationists, public officials and business owners have
strong agreement with the aims of this bill. The Hispano Chamber of
Commerce of Las Cruces and the Anthony Chamber of Commerce support this
bill. I have submitted for the record letters of support from several
soil and water conservation districts and other local interested
parties. Simply put, it is a local solution.
Unfortunately, we see the ramifications of monument declarations by
presidential edict and the effect they have not only on the economic
base of a community, such as the ongoing dispute over cattle grazing in
the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument in Utah, but a declaration with
little public input causes the strain and cynicism between individuals
and the Federal Government to fester.
Plus, the U.S. Constitution grants the power to determine land
management plans to the legislative branch under Article IV. This
constitutional authority lends more credibility to the legislative
process as a mechanism for making monument and other determinations. It
serves as a check on the Federal Government, and keeps it from abusing
local authorities. The legislative process is a highly democratic
method of making decisions with long-term policy implications.
It is in this spirit that I sponsored H.R. 995. It protects the
Organ Mountains permanently from disposal. The Monument will forever be
a part of the National Landscape Conservation System. Mineral
exploration will be banned permanently. It also allows for motorized
vehicles to stay on existing roads and trails designated for their use,
allowing the elderly, families with small children and the disabled to
access this pristine area. It also allows for the use of mechanized
equipment for standard ranching operations and to make repairs to
earthen dams for the sake of our watersheds.
The agricultural community shows strong support for this
legislation as well. The bill protects current grazing permittees, and
ensures that future grazing permits will be issued. H.R. 995 injects
regulatory stability into an industry that is oftentimes left behind in
the Washington game of special interest posturing. Our local ranchers
deserve a regulatory framework that protects our environment and their
interests at the same time.
Existing water rights are also protected, and Federal water rights
are not expanded. Private landowners who have property surrounded by
the monument will have access to their landholdings. The State
government will continue to have jurisdiction over fish and game
permitting, so that our sportsmen can continue to enjoy the outdoors.
In short, the bill creates a framework for responsible recreation
and expanded access all at once. It protects our resources, while
guaranteeing that our sportsmen and other outdoor recreational
activists can enjoy this natural area to the greatest extent possible.
There are currently 12 national monuments in the State of New Mexico.
In 11, there are no weapons or hunting allowed. This right to maintain
our culture must be protected in any management plan, which is why I
included stronger language permitting hunting and trapping within the
monument compared to the version of this bill in the 112th Congress.
Another aspect that the Federal Government must take into account
is the need to ensure law enforcement personnel can access Federal
lands in pursuit of criminals and for other emergency response needs.
The close proximity to the Mexican border makes it even more important
that we work to keep this area from becoming a drug or human smuggling
corridor. We see in the Organ Pipe National Monument on the Arizona-
Mexico border that Park Rangers have to carry weapons, and that tours
are often limited to the daytime with armed Park Service personnel
guides. Many parts of the Monument are kept off limits from American
tourists because of the danger of running into members of a drug cartel
or human smugglers. The environmental degradation of these areas caused
by gangs leaving trash and human waste behind is disturbing and sad for
those of us who want to enjoy our natural heritage. Seeing what has
happened Arizona, and wanting to keep it from happening in New Mexico,
the Dona Ana County Sheriff, Todd Garrison, has endorsed H.R. 995,
along with the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers,
who are pleased with the more specific language protecting rights of
law enforcement personnel compared to the version in the last Congress.
Once again, I would like to thank the Chairman, Ranking Member and
the rest of the Committee members for the invitation today, and your
willingness to consider the Organ Mountains National Monument
Establishment Act once again.
______
Mr. Bishop. Now, Mr. Schneider, wherever you are, whoever
you are, I understand you have a plane to catch.
Mr. Schneider. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. So, if it is all right with everyone else, let
me have you come right to the microphone, give your testimony.
Because I think the rest of you may be interrupted by votes,
which are coming shortly.
But we appreciate you being here, because that way I don't
have to be listening to him on the Floor. So thank you very
much. You are recognized--if you have not been here before,
same rule. When the clock is in front of you, it will time down
for the 5 minutes. When it turns yellow, you have a minute
left. Please stop when it turns red.
You are recognized. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT SCHNEIDER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, VISIT
MENDOCINO COUNTY, INC.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
Grijalva, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the California Coastal National
Monument Expansion Act of 2013. My name is Scott Schneider. I
am President and CEO of Visit Mendocino County, Incorporated.
Visit Mendocino County is the official Mendocino County tourism
bureau contracted to market Mendocino County businesses,
events, and attractions, with the ultimate goal of increasing
the total economic impact of the travel and tourism industry
throughout the county.
Visit Mendocino strongly supports H.R. 1411, an effort to
protect the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands by expanding the
California Coastal National Monument. We believe that expanding
the monument will boost our local economy, and this belief is
widespread, if not unanimous, in the Mendocino business
community. Earlier this year, over 50 local businesses from our
rural county signed a letter supporting the proposed expansion.
The Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands have been called one
of the most significant parts of the California coastline.
These lands are where the Garcia River cross the rugged cliffs,
rumpled dunes, and rolling meadows of California's coast. This
area is home to wildlife like sea lions, bobcats, and the rare
Point Arena mountain beaver. Visitors come not just for the
views, but to go hiking, fishing, and bird watching.
Adjacent to the lands is the California Coastal National
Monument, which stretches along the entirety of the California
coast to protect the thousands of federally owned rocks and
islands scattered along the coast. This monument is one of the
most viewed and yet least recognized national monuments in the
entire country. Expanding the designation onto land would
provide countless visitors with a new opportunity to better
access and better understand this incredibly scenic and unique
national monument.
The support for protecting the lands is seemingly
universal. In fact, I have not heard of a single person who
opposes this proposal. The business community is supportive.
The local county board of supervisors is supportive. Cities of
Point Arena and Fort Bragg are supportive. The Manchester Band
of Pomo Indians is supportive. Countless community
organizations are supportive. And rancher Larry Stornetta,
whose family used to own the public land and who continues to
graze on the land, is also supportive.
Just a few months ago a group of elementary school and
middle school children formed a group called Students
Protecting the Coast. They produced watercolor paintings of the
Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands that they have turned into a
slide show presentation and used to build even more support for
the monument proposal.
In order to fully understand the importance of this bill to
the local communities throughout Mendocino, one must better
understand the area in which these lands provide. Mendocino is
a large, rural county, approximately the size of Rhode Island
and Delaware, combined. Its population of just over 88,000
people relies greatly on two major industries: agriculture and
tourism, as fishing and timber are no longer providing the jobs
and economic growth they once did in the second half of the
20th century. In fact, tourism is the area's biggest employer.
To be clear, our local economy needs help now. The closest
city to the lands is Point Arena, which has a population of 449
people. And, as of 2009, the estimated median household income
in the city was nearly half the statewide average. The addition
of the lands to the California Coastal National Monument would
provide an economic boost to cities like Point Arena and
businesses and taxpayers across the county.
Tourism throughout Mendocino County already supports, as of
2011, close to 5,000 jobs and generates over $20 million in
State and local taxes. We receive close to 2 million visitors
per year, and about 80 percent of them are from the Bay Area,
San Francisco Bay Area, and Sacramento regions. Expanding the
monument to protect the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands
would establish Point Arena as the pre-eminent gateway city to
the monument. This added visibility and distinction would
attract even more visitors to the area, and would encourage
them to stay longer and spend more money.
Greater visitation would create new jobs and increase the
already vital tax revenues and tax relief that come from
visitor spending. Currently, each household that resides in
Mendocino County receives close to $650 annually of tax relief
from visitor spending. To many of our businesses and
communities, the additional help cannot come soon enough.
Given the incredible natural beauty and cultural
significance of the area, the benefits that the monument would
bring to our community and our economy, and the exhaustive
support from the community, I cannot identify a single reason
why this proposal should not move quickly through Congress.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration, and for
the opportunity to testify on this important legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schneider follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Schneider, President and CEO, Visit
Mendocino County, Inc., on H.R. 1411
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
``California Coastal National Monument Expansion Act of 2013.''
My name is Scott Schneider. I am the President and CEO of Visit
Mendocino County, Inc. Visit Mendocino County is the official Mendocino
County Tourism Bureau, contracted to market Mendocino County
businesses, events and attractions with the ultimate goal of increasing
the total economic impact of the travel and tourism industry throughout
the County.
Visit Mendocino strongly supports H.R. 1411 and efforts to protect
the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands by expanding the California
Coastal National Monument. We believe that expanding the monument will
boost our local economy, and this belief is widespread, if not
unanimous, in the Mendocino business community. Earlier this year, over
50 local businesses from our rural county signed a letter supporting
the proposed expansion.
The Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands have been called one of the
most significant parts of the Mendocino coastline. These lands are
where the Garcia River crosses the rugged cliffs, rumpled dunes and
rolling meadows of California's coast. This area is home to wildlife
like sea lions, bobcats, and the rare Point Arena Mountain Beaver.
Visitors come not just for the views, but to go hiking, fishing, and
bird watching.
Adjacent to the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands is the
California Coastal National Monument, which stretches along the
entirety of the California coast to protect the thousands of federally
owned rocks and islands scattered along the coast. This monument is one
of the most viewed and yet least recognized national monuments in the
entire country. Expanding the designation onto land would provide
countless visitors with a new opportunity to better access and better
understand this incredibly scenic and unique national monument.
The support for protecting the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands
is seemingly universal. In fact, I have not heard of a single person
who opposes the proposal. The business community is supportive, the
local county board of supervisors is supportive, the cities of Point
Arena and Fort Bragg are supportive, the Manchester Band of Pomo
Indians is supportive, countless community organizations are
supportive, and rancher Larry Stornetta, whose family used to own the
public land and who continues to graze on the land, is supportive.
Just a few months ago, a group of elementary school and middle
school children formed a group called Students Protecting the Coast.
They produced watercolor paintings of the Point Arena-Stornetta Public
Lands that they have turned into a slideshow presentation and used to
build even more support for the monument proposal.
In order to fully understand the importance of this bill to the
local communities throughout Mendocino, one must better understand the
area in which these lands preside. Mendocino County is a large rural
county--approximately the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined.
Its population of just over 88,000 people relies greatly on two major
industries--agriculture and tourism as fishing and timber are no longer
providing the jobs and economic growth they once did in the second half
of the 20th century. In fact, tourism is the area's biggest employer.
To be clear, our local economy needs help now. The closest city to
the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands is Point Arena, which has a
population of 449 people and, as of 2009, the estimated median
household income in the city was nearly half the statewide average.
The addition of the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands to the
California Coastal National Monument would provide an economic boost to
cities like Point Arena and businesses and taxpayers across the county.
Tourism on the Mendocino Coast already supports, as of 2011, close to
5,000 jobs and generates over $20 million in State and local taxes. The
Mendocino region receives about 1.75 million visitors per year and
about 80 percent of them are from the Bay Area and the Sacramento
region.
Expanding the California Coastal National Monument to protect the
Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands would establish Point Arena as the
pre-eminent gateway city to the monument. This added visibility and
distinction would attract even more visitors to the area and would
encourage them to stay longer and spend more money. Greater visitation
would create new jobs and increase the already vital tax revenues and
tax relief that come from visitor spending. Currently, each household
receives close to $650 of tax relief annually from visitors. To many of
our businesses and communities, this additional help cannot come soon
enough.
Given the incredible natural beauty and cultural significance of
the area, the benefits that the monument would bring to our community
and our economy, and the exhaustive support from the community, I
cannot identify a single reason why this proposal shouldn't move
quickly through Congress.
Thank you for your time and consideration and for the opportunity
to testify on this important legislation.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much for being with us. Are
there questions for this witness? Mr. Grijalva, do you have
any?
Mr. Grijalva. I have no questions.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Benishek? To this witness? Mr. Huffman? I
am assuming you do.
Mr. Huffman. I do, one.
Mr. Bishop. Please.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Schneider, you have
made the case that the Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands
already are providing economic benefits, and that permanently
protecting these lands will further boost the local economy. I
wonder if you could perhaps name some of the other local
businesses that are joining you in supporting this proposal and
explain a little more about how expanding the California
Coastal National Monument would actually help them and create
jobs and support the local economy.
Mr. Schneider. Of course. So, to answer that question,
businesses from all arrays throughout the community are
supportive. Schools, local government, all the attractions--
restaurants, hotels--obviously, the environmental groups are
all very supportive of this proposal.
One of the things that makes Mendocino County so unique is
the accessibility of the beauty and the lands throughout the
coast. In many areas of at least the California coastline, it
is very beautiful, but you don't have a lot of places to
access. And one of the ways that we drive visitors to our
location is due to that physical access. They can come, they
can bring their families, bring their loved ones, and enjoy
such a beautiful, beautiful place. And having these lands as
part of the national monument would provide that physical
connection to the monument itself.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. With that, we appreciate your time,
we appreciate your willingness to come out here and to give us
this testimony.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate it. Since I have no
idea when this will happen on the Floor, let me invite the
panel up and we will go through as much as is possible before
votes take place, if that is OK.
So, if I could, I would like to invite Carl Rountree, who
is the Director of the National Landscape Conservation System;
William Horn, who is the Director of Federal Affairs at the
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance; Susan Recce, who is the Director of
the Division of Conservation and Wildlife and Natural Resources
at the National Rifle Association; Melissa Simpson, the
Director of Governmental Affairs and Science Based Conservation
with Safari Club International. And I believe that is the end
of this panel.
What we will do is try to do this in some kind of order for
each particular bill. Let me start, if I could, dealing with
Mr. Benishek's bill, and turn, first of all, to Mr. Horn. We
will start with that sportsmen's bill. Mr. Horn, you are one of
those who is recognized as an authority on law affecting
hunting and fishing, and have been Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks with the Department of the Interior. We
will forgive you for that. We are eager to hear your testimony.
The same drill for everybody who is up there. Five minutes,
yellow, go real fast, and stop at red. Thank you. Mr. Horn.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. HORN, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL AFFAIRS, U.S.
SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE
Mr. Horn. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. My name is
William Horn, representing the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance. And
we strongly support enactment of H.R. 1825. My comments also
reflect years of fishing and hunting on public lands, my tenure
at the Interior Department under President Reagan, and over 20
years litigating against anti-hunting activists in Federal and
State courts.
H.R. 1825 establishes that fishing, hunting, and shooting
are important traditional activities on national forests and
public lands administered by BLM. And this express recognition
will help fend off growing attacks from radicals committed to
running anglers and hunters off of our public lands.
Now, existing law lacks the type of recognition provided by
H.R. 1825. For example, only a small part of the 1960 Multiple
Use and Sustained Yield Act, which governs forest management,
references outdoor recreation or wildlife and fish purposes.
And that type of general language has been insufficient to
prevent Federal courts from ordering the Forest Service to
consider banning hunting because the sound of distant gunfire
might upset the tender sensibilities of an anti-hunter.
Similarly, the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act
makes no specific references whatsoever to fishing or hunting.
Now, similar statutory silence produced the 1997 Refuge
Improvement Act, which emanated from this Committee and passed
the House with only one dissenting vote in 1997, before being
signed by President Clinton. Prior to that statute, earlier
refuge bills or Administration acts had not specifically
provided for hunting or fishing because the authors of those
prior bills, hunters all, saw no need, as at that time there
was no animal rights movement, and the notion that hunting
could be barred on the refuge system was simply
incomprehensible.
But growing anti-hunting activism convinced Congress to
codify in law that hunting and fishing were legitimate
activities on refuge lands, and hunting merited designation as
a priority public use. The Sportsmen's Alliance urges Congress
to provide similar statutory protection for hunting and fishing
on Forest and BLM lands by enacting H.R. 1825.
Now, one of the clever legal ploys being used to attack our
hunting heritage has been to treat continuation of fishing and
hunting on BLM and Forest lands as a new decision or action
subject to judicial challenge via the Federal Administrative
Procedure Act. The bill provides a simple solution. It would
have Forest and BLM lands deemed as open to fishing and hunting
so no new APA action needs to precede continuation of those
activities. The agencies remain free to impose those
restrictions they determine are necessary, but an open-until-
closed regime will be far more efficient, save millions in
administrative expenses, and insulate anglers and hunters from
unwarranted lawsuits.
This bill also restores the legal status quo regarding the
1964 Wilderness Act by correcting three misinterpretations of
that Act handed down by the ninth circuit court of appeals. In
each case, the ninth circuit disregarded years of precedent,
reversed a district court ruling, and overruled the judgments
of the Federal agency. The corrections will protect wildlife
conservation and fishing and hunting access.
However, the bill very plainly and expressly does not
permit or facilitate any commodity uses, motorized access, or
road construction in wilderness areas, contrary to
misrepresentations by bill opponents. Those misrepresentations
are red herrings, as anyone can see by looking at the specific
provisos included in Sections 4(e)1 and 4(e)2. And I certainly
hope that the current version of the bill will put this issue
to bed and demonstrate quite plainly that there is no threat to
wilderness integrity or wilderness management arising from the
provisions in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today on behalf of H.R. 1825. The
Sportsmen's Alliance is committed to working with the Committee
and Congress to assure prompt, favorable action on this
important legislation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]
Prepared Statement of William P. Horn, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, on
H.R. 1825
Mr. Chairman: My name is William P. Horn representing the U.S.
Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA). Thank you for the opportunity to appear
today and support enactment of H.R. 2834. USSA was organized in 1977
for the purposes of protecting the American heritage to hunt, fish, and
trap and supporting wildlife conservation and professional wildlife
management. It pursues these objectives at the Federal, State, and
local level on behalf of its over 1.5 million members and affiliates.
We commend the sponsors of the Recreational Fishing and Hunting
Heritage and Opportunities Act and strongly recommend its prompt
enactment by the Congress. The bill clearly establishes that fishing,
hunting, and recreational shooting are important traditional activities
that have a key place on our National Forests, administered by the U.S.
Forest Service, and public lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). Express legislative recognition that these activities
are legitimate and valuable will help fend off the growing attacks from
animal rights radicals and others committed to running anglers and
hunters off our public lands. Clear statutory support will also signal,
and direct, the land management agencies to exercise their discretion
in a manner that facilitates these traditional activities.
Existing law lacks this recognition and clarity. For example, only
part of the 1960 Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, which governs
Forests, references ``outdoor recreation'' and ``wildlife and fish
purposes.'' That general language has been insufficient to protect
hunting and fishing: it has not stopped the Forest Service from
proposing planning regulations that give fishing and hunting (and
conservation) short shrift nor has it prevented Federal courts from
ordering the same agency to consider banning hunting because the sound
of gunfire might upset the tender sensibilities of a bird watcher.
Similarly, the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)
(which is the ``organic act'' for BLM public lands) makes no specific
references to fishing or hunting. We are persuaded that continued
failure to expressly recognize the importance of these activities on
Forest and BLM lands, and provide for continuation of such uses, sets
the stage for an activist judge in San Francisco, New York City, or
D.C. to rule in favor of some animal rights plaintiff and ban angling
or hunting on these public lands.
This situation is similar to the circumstances that produced the
1997 Refuge Improvement Act (which passed the House with only one
dissenting vote and was signed into law by President Clinton). Earlier
refuge administration statutes passed in the 1950's and 1960's had not
specifically provided for hunting or fishing; the authors of those
bills--hunters all--saw no need as there was no animal rights movement
and no clamor then to close hunting on Teddy Roosevelt's wildlife
system. The notion that hunting could be barred on the Refuge system
was simply incomprehensible. By the mid-90's, however, there had been a
string of anti-hunting lawsuits to bar hunting on refuge lands. Even
though President Clinton issued an Executive order recognizing the
value of continued hunting on the Refuge system, Congress saw the need
to codify such recognition in statute stating clearly that hunting and
fishing were legitimate activities on refuge lands, the managing agency
had a duty to facilitate these activities, and fishing and hunting
merited designation as priority public uses in the law. After the bill
was signed by President Clinton, virtually all of the anti-hunting
lawsuits stopped.
President Bush in 2008 issued a similar hunting Executive order
(EO) for public lands. Just as the Clinton EO was insufficient to guard
hunting on refuges, the Bush EO is not enough to protect hunting and
fishing on Forest and BLM lands. Accordingly, we urge this Committee,
and Congress, to provide needed statutory protection for Forest and BLM
lands by enacting H.R. 1825.
USSA has been urging Congress to pass comparable legislation since
1998. Initially we were told there was no need and previous versions of
this bill were dismissed as ``solutions in search of a problem.'' The
intervening years have taught of the sporting community that there is a
problem. Decisions like the 6th Circuit's Meister case exposed how
quickly hunting can be lost. Activists have mounted efforts to preempt
State management and bar bear hunting on public lands. Clever lawsuits
seek to misuse Federal environmental laws to restrict or ban fishing
and hunting on federally administered lands. The hostile animal rights
movement has grown and uses its ever swelling war chest to harass
hunters and anglers. And an increasingly urban nation--wholly
disconnected from America's outdoor heritage--either doesn't care or
joins in the hostility. Continued silence in the law regarding the
legitimacy and contributory roles of fishing and hunting on Forest and
BLM lands will ultimately cause the loss of these activities on over
500 million acres of our public lands.
This silence must be corrected and H.R. 1825 does precisely that.
It plainly recognizes fishing, hunting and shooting as legitimate and
important activities on Forest and BLM lands. It directs the agencies
to exercise their discretion, consistent with the other applicable law,
to facilitate fishing, hunting (and trapping as a hunting activity) and
shooting. This duty extends to the preparation of land planning
documents required by the National Forest Management Act and FLPMA. No
one will be able to argue to an agency or a court, with a straight
face, that fishing and hunting have no place on these public lands
following enactment of this bill.
One of the clever ploys to indirectly attack these activities has
been to treat continuation of fishing and hunting as a ``new'' decision
or action requiring completion of a full blown environmental impact
statement (EIS). Antis then file suit contending the EIS was inadequate
and that the decision to ``open'' an area to fishing or hunting must be
suspended until the EIS is made adequate. H.R. 1825 provides a simple
solution: Forest and BLM lands are considered ``open'' to fishing and
hunting so no new EIS or other document needs to precede continuation
of these traditional activities. The Forest Service and BLM remain free
to impose those restrictions and closures that they determine are
necessary (if supported by facts and evidence) but an ``open until
closed'' regime will be far more efficient, save millions of dollars of
administrative expense, and insulate fishing and hunting from
unwarranted indirect attacks.
USSA strongly applauds other features of the bill that facilitate
wildlife conservation, ensure fishing and hunting opportunities, and
help the agencies direct finite personnel and dollar resources to on-
the-ground conservation rather than more planning documents. In 2003,
antis sued to stop hunting on 60 wildlife refuge units arguing that
even though the Fish and Wildlife Service had done EIS's or
environmental assessments (EA's) authorizing hunting on each unit, FWS
had not (the antis claimed) done a sufficient ``cumulative effects
analysis'' on the overall effects of hunting on the entire Refuge
system. We intervened in the case with Ducks Unlimited, NRA, and SCI
and argued--along with FWS--that deer hunting on the Bond Swamp unit in
GA, woodcock hunting in the Canaan Valley, WV refuge, and duck hunting
on ND units for example had such limited and unconnected effects that a
``cumulative effects'' review made no sense. Moreover, Congress in the
1997 Refuge Improvement Act made it clear that unit-by-unit
Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCP's) dovetailed with EIS or EA
documents, would be sufficient to approve the priority public uses of
fishing and hunting. A D.C. judge disagreed, ordered FWS to prepare the
cumulative effects analysis, and FWS spent years and countless hours of
personnel time and money engaging in this superfluous paper exercise--
using precious dollars that would have been better spent on actual
wildlife conservation and refuge management. H.R. 1825 reiterates the
intent of the 1997 Act that FWS need not prepare unnecessary, costly
cumulative effects analyses to continue to open refuge units to fishing
and hunting and ensures that anti-hunting plaintiffs cannot capitalize
on the D.C. court ruling to collect even more fees for their lawyers.
Section 4(e) of the bill also restores the status quo regarding the
1964 Wilderness Act that existed between 1964 and 2005. For example,
some refuge units are overlaid with Wilderness designations. The 1964
Act--section 4(a) to be precise--specifies that Wilderness purposes
``are hereby declared to be within and supplemental to'' the purposes
of the underlying land unit. In the case of refuges, that plainly means
a unit is Wildlife Refuge first and a Wilderness second. In case of a
conflict, the wildlife conservation purpose and mission of the Refuge
system would be primary and Wilderness purposes secondary. That was the
state of the law until recent 9th Circuit rulings in the Kofa Refuge
case. Kofa was established by President Franklin Roosevelt with the
primary purpose of conserving desert bighorn sheep. Over the years,
FWS, the Arizona Department of Game and Fish and conservationists
learned that water supplies are the primary factor limiting sheep
populations. To enhance the bighorn population and provide greater
genetic diversity to assure long term survival, the parties constructed
during the 1980's small water catchment basins in Kofa to retain
precious rain water and keep it from simply sinking into the sand.
These small unobtrusive basins became important oases for the sheep
(and other wildlife) and the population prospered.
Wilderness activists were upset that some of these small basins
were situated in parts of Kofa designated as Wilderness by Congress in
1990 (after the basins had been built). Last year two 9th Circuit
judges disregarded the Wilderness Act ``supplemental purposes''
language, held that Kofa is Wilderness first and Refuge second, and
ordered FWS that the water basins had to go unless the agency could
demonstrate that the basins were ``necessary'' to fulfill Wilderness
purposes. These legal conclusions are simply wrong, must be corrected
by Congress and section 4(e) does just that.
The 1964 Act also allows a variety of activities in Wilderness
areas when ``necessary'' to assist wilderness purposes. For decades,
agencies like BLM and the Forest Service interpreted this to allow a
variety of outdoor recreational activities including horseback trips.
But activists disagreed and sued arguing that horseback trips were not
``necessary.'' The 9th Circuit agreed and has made the ``necessary''
finding much more difficult for both recreation and conservation
actions (e.g., Kofa, Tustemena Lake case). USSA believes it is only a
matter of time before antis go to court to argue that neither fishing
nor hunting is ``necessary'' in Wilderness areas. We have every reason
to believe that hostile Forest Service or BLM political personnel, or
the 9th Circuit, will buy this bogus argument and impose new
restrictions on anglers and hunters in Wilderness areas. Rather than
wait--and worry--we urge Congress to stop this nonsense and enact
corrective legislation like H.R. 1825.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear on behalf of the
Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. USSA
is committed to working with the Committee to assure prompt favorable
action on this important legislation.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your testimony. Ms. Recce, you
are the Conservation Director at the NRA?
Ms. Recce. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. And we are happy to have you here. And we
recognize you for 5 minutes now.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN RECCE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CONSERVATION,
WILDLIFE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
Ms. Recce. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The NRA
appreciates the invitation to testify today on legislation that
we believe is critical to securing the future of our hunting,
fishing, and recreational shooting heritage on Federal public
lands. The NRA endorses H.R. 1825, as we did in September of
2011, when this Subcommittee held a hearing on the predecessor
bill, H.R. 2834.
Just slightly over a year ago, H.R. 2834 passed the House
of Representatives by a substantial margin, as part of the
Sportsmen's Heritage Act. Opponents of the bill at the time
argued that the legislation opened the door to prohibited
activities in wilderness areas like motorized recreation and
road construction. And just as Mr. Horn just testified,
language has been included in H.R. 1825 to clarify that
prohibited activities under the Wilderness Act won't be allowed
in this legislation.
Opponents also argued that the bill would open a national
park or a unit of the national park system to hunting, where it
was not specifically authorized by Congress. Although this was
not the intent of the bill, language is included in H.R. 1825
to clarify that it does not override congressional
authorization.
Of importance to NRA is that the bill will secure our
future by legislatively recognizing these legitimate and
traditional activities. It does so by directing the Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest Service to provide for hunting,
fishing, and recreational shooting opportunities within certain
specified guidelines.
The cornerstone of the legislation is that the open-unless-
closed policy that operates on BLM and Forest Service lands for
hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting will be statutorily
affirmed. H.R. 1825 encourages proactive management of these
legitimate and traditional public uses by ensuring they are
responsibly addressed in land management plans, and it requires
that the two agencies, Forest Service and BLM, evaluate how
their plans will affect these activities. Such evaluations are
rarely done in the Federal planning process. And all too often
it is impossible to determine how such decisions will affect
our traditional activities.
The bill will remove barriers to providing safe and
responsible public use of Federal lands, and will also prevent
sudden and arbitrary closures of public lands to sportsmen and
women.
The bill supports Executive Order 13443, which directs the
agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting
opportunities and the management of game species and their
habitat.
We believe H.R. 1825 is critical to restoring congressional
intent in laws related to hunting and wildlife conservation
that court rulings have misconstrued. The bill also ensures
that land designations like BLM and Forest Service wilderness
cannot, by designation alone, close such lands to hunting,
fishing, or recreational shooting.
It also removes an unnecessary and costly layer of review
for hunting programs on refuge lands. This was brought about by
anti-hunters who continue to look for any opportunity to throw
road blocks in front of hunting on wildlife refuges. The
unnecessary environmental reviews do nothing but exacerbate the
backlog of operation and maintenance needs of the refuge
system, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars.
The NRA looks forward to early passage of the bill in
Committee and on the House Floor, and we hope that in this year
it will be signed into law.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Recce follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan Recce, Director, Conservation, Wildlife and
Natural Resources, National Rifle Association, on H.R. 1825
Mr. Chairman, the National Rifle Association (NRA) appreciates the
invitation to testify today on legislation that is critical to securing
the future of our hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting heritage
on Federal public lands. The NRA endorses H.R. 1825 as we did in
September 2011 when this Subcommittee held a hearing on the predecessor
bill, H.R. 2834.
Just slightly over a year ago, H.R. 2834 passed the House of
Representatives by a substantial margin as part of the Sportsmen's
Heritage Act. Those voting against the bill listened to opponents who
argued that the legislation would open the door to prohibited
activities like motorized recreation and road construction on lands
designated as wilderness. While nothing in H.R. 2834 amended the
Wilderness Act, Congressman Benishek has added language to H.R. 1825
making that crystal clear.
Equally specious were arguments that H.R. 2834 would open national
parks or other units of the National Park System to public uses not
authorized by Congress. Although H.R. 2834 would not have opened the
Park System to unauthorized uses, Congressman Benishek has nevertheless
included language in H.R. 1825 that states ``Nothing in this Act shall
affect or modify management or use of units of the National Park
System.''
This should assure the anti-hunting critics of the original bill,
that neither H.R. 2834 nor the newly introduced H.R. 1825 is a veiled
attempt to allow currently prohibited or unauthorized uses of Federal
public lands. The new language should clear the way for even greater
support in the House of Representatives and remove the same obstacles
that were placed before it in the Senate in the last Congress.
Of importance to the NRA is what the bill will do to secure the
future for sportsmen and women on our Federal public lands.
H.R. 1825 accomplishes a number of important objectives:
It recognizes the rightful place of hunting, fishing and
recreational shooting on Federal public lands.
It recognizes the importance of these activities to our
system of scientifically managed wildlife.
It directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to provide for hunting, fishing and
recreational shooting opportunities within specified guidelines.
It affirms by statute the existing ``open unless closed
policy'' for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on BLM and USFS
lands.
It ensures that these legitimate and traditional public
uses are responsibly addressed in land management plans.
It supports Executive Order 13443 titled ``Facilitation
of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation'' that directs the
relevant Federal agencies to ``facilitate the expansion and enhancement
of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their
habitat.''
It removes barriers to providing safe and responsible
public use of Federal lands.
It restores Congressional intent in laws related to
hunting and wildlife conservation that court rulings have misconstrued.
H.R. 1825 provides the security we need. It will encourage
proactive management of hunting, fishing and recreational shooting and
it will prevent sudden and arbitrary closures of public lands to
sportsmen and women. BLM and USFS land managers will not be able to
restrict or close land to hunting, fishing, or recreational shooting
unless it is determined that the action is necessary and reasonable,
supported by sound science and advanced through a transparent public
process. This removes bias and personal agendas from the Federal
management of legitimate and traditional public uses.
The NRA has long been involved in issues related to sportsmen's
access to our Federal public lands. Beginning in 1996, the NRA has
chaired a Roundtable of representatives from the BLM, USFS, Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and national hunting, wildlife conservation, and
shooting sports organizations. The Roundtable was created by a
Memorandum of Understanding for the purpose of resolving issues and
enhancing opportunities related to hunting, fishing and recreational
shooting. Fifteen years of experience has clearly defined what is
achievable by working with our Federal agency partners and what can
only be achieved through legislation, specifically through passage of
H.R. 1825.
Land management plans guide decisions on how Federal land is
managed for at least 15 years into the future and are only changed
through plan amendments. Most often these plans are silent about the
impacts of various management scenarios on hunting, fishing and
recreational shooting. It is a public process that is not transparent
to sportsmen and women. Large sections of public land and well-
travelled roads can be closed without regard to the impact on the
displaced hunter, angler or shooter.
H.R. 1825 guarantees sportsmen and women their rightful place on
their Federal public lands now and into the future. It requires that
the effects of management plans on opportunities to engage in hunting,
fishing and recreational shooting be evaluated.
Americans need places to target shoot. In much of the West, the
only places for informal shooting are found on BLM and USFS lands.
Informal shooting sites that were once in remote locations are now
being threatened by encroaching development and conflict with growing
numbers of recreationists. It is critical that recreational shooting be
addressed in land management plans in order to identify and preserve
areas where safe shooting can occur.
However, the BLM and the USFS both claim that they are unable to
designate such areas because it imposes an undue liability against the
United States in spite of the fact that recreational shooting has a
record of being one of the safest activities on Federal public lands.
This has resulted in unwarranted roadblocks to the development of
shooting ranges and to designation of safe shooting areas. H.R. 1825
removes these roadblocks by removing the (perceived) liability issue.
H.R. 1825 retains an important provision of the earlier bill with
respect to reporting requirements. The Federal land managers have to
demonstrate coordination with the affected State fish and wildlife
agency before closing, withdrawing, changing a classification or the
management status of 640 or more contiguous acres. It is important to
have State involvement because Federal land closures and restrictions
transfer the management responsibility to the State to provide for the
needs of the displaced recreating public.
H.R. 1825 removes a land management planning requirement that could
close suitable forest lands to hunting, fishing and recreational
shooting if adjacent State other Federal lands also provide for these
public uses. The effect of such a requirement is to unnecessarily and
unreasonably close public land to the public and at that same time,
burden the States with the Federal agencies' responsibilities for
providing recreational opportunities.
The NRA supports language ensuring that the designation of Federal
land as wilderness, wilderness study areas, primitive and semi-
primitive areas under the management of the BLM and USFS cannot, by
designation alone, close such lands to hunting, fishing and
recreational shooting. H.R. 1825 also makes an important statement that
the primary purpose for which a unit of Federal land was established
guides its management and that wilderness overlay cannot materially
interfere or hinder that guidance.
And lastly, the NRA supports language that reinforces Congressional
intent in the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act requiring
hunting and fishing programs to be compatible with the purposes for
which the specific refuge was established and with the mission and
purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Litigation by anti-
hunting organizations and a subsequent court ruling resulted in an
additional layer of analysis being imposed upon the agency.
This additional layer of review is unnecessary and costly to the
FWS which is already struggling with huge backlogs in operation and
maintenance needs within the Refuge System. The compatibility test
provides sufficient assurance that hunting and fishing programs will
not have adverse environmental impacts. The only desire of the
plaintiffs was to find some other means of grinding to a halt the FWS'
ability to open refuges to hunting and fishing and enhancing existing
programs.
In conclusion, the NRA wholeheartedly supports H.R. 1825 because it
legislatively recognizes the legitimate and traditional activities of
hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on Federal public lands. It
safeguards these activities from prejudicial and discriminatory
treatment. It requires the Federal land manager to be proactive in
managing these activities through the land management planning process.
It makes administrative decisions that close or significantly restrict
these activities to be anchored in a transparent public process and
removes administrative and judicial roadblocks that obstruct sound and
responsible management of recreation and wildlife resources.
The NRA looks forward to early passage of the bill in Committee and
in the House of Representatives and that in this year it will be signed
into law.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1825.
______
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. Thank you. Ms. Simpson, I
think the Safari Club has taken a lead in science based
conservation strategies. We welcome you here. We recognize you
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MELISSA SIMPSON, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
AND SCIENCE BASED CONSERVATION, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL
Ms. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to share the views of
SCI in support of H.R. 1825.
SCI believes that Federal lands should be managed under the
principles of multiple use. The opportunity to hunt and fish on
Federal lands should be a priority in every land and resource
management plan. According to data from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, these activities generated $90 billion in
2011, fueling our rural economies in a time of economic
recession. H.R. 1825 is designed to provide Federal land
managers and the hunting public with the tools necessary to
defend these recreational opportunities from attacks from those
who either do not appreciate or do not understand the positive
role that hunting and fishing play on Federal land.
Rest assured, just as my colleagues have mentioned here
today, H.R. 1825 does not create hunting, fishing, or
recreational shooting opportunities where they are not already
authorized. The bill does not remove Wilderness Act protections
from lands properly designated as wilderness, nor does it
authorize motorized vehicle use, or the development of
permanent roads in wilderness areas. The bill simply protects
congressionally authorized activities from legal challenges
that seek to interfere with statutorily authorized hunting,
fishing, and recreational shooting on Federal land.
The threat to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting
comes not only from the anti-hunting public, but it also comes,
at times, from within the Federal agencies themselves. There is
a growing concern among the sportsmen's community that fewer
and fewer agency personnel have firsthand experience of these
activities. When given discretion in the planning for Federal
public lands, Federal public land managers often fail to
recognize and afford appropriate, adequate hunting, fishing,
and recreational shooting opportunities on the lands they
administer.
In some cases, agency personnel have sought to impose
unnecessary and unfair restrictions to hunters and shooters.
For example, in 2011 the BLM attempted to adopt a policy that
would have placed needless limitations on opportunities for
recreational shooting on BLM land. Fortunately, the hunting and
shooting community was able to quickly band together to prevent
adoption of that policy.
More recently, the Forest Service proposed planning
directives designed to facilitate the agency's 2012 planning
rules. Like the rules themselves, the draft directives leave
hunting and fishing at risk of being crowded out by other types
of recreational activities.
In August of 2000, America's leading wildlife conservation
organizations met to identify how to best work collaboratively
with the Federal land management agencies. These organizations
formed the American Wildlife Conservation Partners, a
consortium of over 40 organizations at the time representing 4
million hunters; 21 of those organizations have submitted a
letter in support of this legislation today to the
Subcommittee.
The impetus for this gathering of hunting organizations was
to deal with the perception that the Federal land management
agencies were not open to conversations with the hunting
community. The hunting community put together a list of
recommendations called, ``Wildlife for the 21st century,'' they
presented those recommendations to President George W. Bush, as
well as to President Barack Obama. In the 13 years since the
AWCP has engaged the Administration, sportsmen and women have
tirelessly worked to resolve the same ongoing issues with the
Federal land management agencies.
Despite the fact that we have an Executive order from
President Bush, we have had a White House conference that
developed 52 recommendations for implementing hunting and
fishing opportunities on Federal lands, we still find ourselves
here today with the same struggle.
And that is why we are asking for your support of this
important legislation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Simpson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Melissa Simpson, Director of Government Affairs,
Safari Club International, on H.R. 1825
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to share my views, the views of
Safari Club International and the hunting community, all of whom
support H.R. 1825, the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and
Opportunities Act.
My name is Melissa Simpson. I serve as the Director of Government
Affairs for Safari Club International (SCI). SCI's missions are
protecting the freedom to hunt, and promoting wildlife conservation
worldwide. SCI works locally, nationally, and globally to protect
hunting opportunities and strengthen the link between hunting,
sustainable use, and wildlife conservation.
SCI believes that Federal lands should be managed under the
principles of multiple-use. Outdoor recreation, including hunting and
fishing, have been and should continue to be a primary use of Federal
lands and are fully compatible with other uses. According to data from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, these activities generated $90
billion in 2011, fueling our rural economies. The opportunity to hunt
and fish on Federal lands should be a priority in every land and
resource management plan. H.R. 1825 is designed to provide Federal land
managers and the hunting public with the tools necessary to defend
these recreational opportunities from attacks from those who either do
not appreciate or do not understand the positive role that hunting and
fishing play on Federal land.
Rest assured that H.R. 1825 does not create hunting, fishing or
recreational shooting opportunities where they are not already
authorized. The bill does not remove Wilderness Act protections from
lands properly designated as Wilderness, nor does it authorize
motorized vehicle use, or the development of permanent roads in
Wilderness Areas. This bill simply protects congressionally authorized
activities from legal challenges that seek to interfere with
statutorily authorized hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on
Federal land.
For example, H.R. 1825 corrects a legislative ambiguity that opened
the door to almost a decade of litigation brought by anti-hunting
groups who tried to stop hunting throughout the National Wildlife
Refuge System. This bill removes a redundant planning requirement for
the provision of hunting opportunities in National Wildlife Refuges. It
not only protects hunting from vicious and costly legal attacks, but
conserves Federal resources at a time when Federal agencies are seeking
ways to eliminate unnecessary spending.
The bill also makes it more difficult for litigants to interfere
with conservation efforts designed to benefit game species. For
example, in a lawsuit concerning the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge,
some groups challenged the use of artificial water developments
designed to benefit a population of Desert Bighorn Sheep that serve as
a seed population for sheep restoration efforts throughout the West.
Most of this bill's provisions focus exclusively on U.S. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. Although these are public
lands where hunting, fishing and recreational shooting are statutorily
authorized, anti-hunting groups and others have relied on statutory
loopholes and ambiguities to whittle away at the existing opportunities
on these Federal lands. For example, right now, a litigant in Federal
district court in Michigan is trying to convince the court that his
recreational interests in cross-country skiing should deprive the
hunting community of access to and use of portions of the Huron and
Manistee National Forests. The provisions in this bill could help
provide the Forest Service with an important defense against this type
of legal challenge.
The threat to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting comes not
only from the anti-hunting public, but also, at times, from within the
agencies themselves. There is a growing concern that fewer and fewer
agency personnel have first-hand experience of these activities. When
given discretion in the planning for Federal public lands, Federal
public land managers often fail to recognize and afford appropriate and
adequate hunting, fishing and recreational shooting opportunities on
the lands that they administer. In some cases, agency personnel have
sought to impose unnecessary and unfair restrictions on hunters and
shooters. For example, in 2011, the Bureau of Land Management attempted
to adopt a policy that would have placed needless limitations on
opportunities for recreational shooting on BLM land. Fortunately, the
hunting and shooting community was able to quickly band together to
prevent the adoption of that policy.
More recently, the Forest Service proposed planning directives
designed to facilitate the agency's 2012 Planning Rules. Like the rules
themselves, the draft directives leave hunting and fishing at risk of
being crowded out by other types of recreational activities. These
rules and directives leave our Nation's forests vulnerable to the whims
of those who do not understand, let alone participate in sustainable
use activities. We cannot let the policies, rules and directives of
those who do not hunt and fish become the downfall of recreational
pursuits that are a fundamental part of our Nation's history and
heritage, not to mention important elements of many State and Federal
wildlife management and conservation efforts.
These examples demonstrate the crucial need for H.R. 1825. If
Congress does not expressly designate hunting and fishing as priority
uses of our Federal lands, it is only a matter of time before we lose
these opportunities that have been central to the North American Model
of Wildlife Conservation.
In August of 2000, America's leading wildlife conservation
organizations met to identify how best to work collaboratively to help
chart the course for the future of wildlife conservation in the United
States. These organizations formed the American Wildlife Conservation
Partners (AWCP), a consortium of over 40 organizations representing
over 4 million hunters at the time. The impetus for this historic
meeting was the urgent recognition that habitats on Federal forests and
rangelands were deteriorating; declines in hunter participation was
putting America's hunting heritage at risk, and along with it, the
tradition of America's game management; public conflict and
polarization over wildlife issues were increasing; and finally, the
stewardship of Federal lands was hampered by conflicting laws and
regulations guiding the management of these lands. AWCP subsequently
presented ``Wildlife for the 21st century'' policy recommendations to
President George W. Bush in both his terms and to President Barack
Obama in 2009.
In the 14 years that AWCP has engaged the Administration, sportsmen
and women have tirelessly worked to resolve the same ongoing issues
with the Federal land management agencies. During the Bush
Administration, I served as a liaison to the sportsmen's community
through high level positions at the Department of the Interior and U.S.
Department of Agriculture, focusing on facilitating relationships
between the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service with
the sportsmen's community to better integrate sportsmen's issues into
agency decision-making, specifically focusing on access to public
lands.
In 2005, I organized a conference between Interior and AWCP to
advance their policy recommendations. Policy sessions with high-level
Administration officials, the Interior Secretary, Interior Counsel and
AWCP executives led to the recognition that the hunting community
needed a more direct conduit to engage the Administration.
Consequently, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
established the Sporting Conservation Council (SCC), a Federal advisory
committee specifically for members of the hunting community to advise
on access, conservation funding, habitat management, and hunter
recruitment and retention. The SCC recommendations resulted in
President Bush's Executive Order #13443: Facilitation of Hunting
Heritage and Wildlife Conservation, which called for a White House
Conference on North American Wildlife Policy and a 10 year Recreational
Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Plan. The 10 year plan was referenced
by the Obama Administration in the charter for the current sportsmen's
Federal advisory committee, the Wildlife Hunting Heritage Conservation
Council.
In 2006, 40 hunting, fishing and wildlife organizations and three
Federal agencies signed the Federal Lands Hunting, Fishing, and
Shooting Sports Roundtable Memorandum of Understanding with the purpose
of ``implementing mutually beneficial projects and activities.'' The
chief of the U.S. Forest Service has repeatedly reminded field staff of
the importance of hunting and sport shooting on national forest lands
through directives. Lastly, the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership
Council was established to benefit recreational fishing. Despite all
these efforts and the supposed commitment of the present Administration
to hunting and fishing opportunities, the reality is that the hunting,
fishing and recreational shooting communities need statutory help to
protect their interests.
While sportsmen and women began with high hopes for the
Administration, it has become increasingly clear that these hopes were
based on paper promises. The continual stream of regulations that
discourage participation in outdoor recreation has come from many
different agencies and appears to be a coordinated affront to our
hunting heritage. The current Administration has made little if any
progress in implementing the 10 year Recreational Hunting and Wildlife
Conservation Plan.
Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the last century, sportsmen saw
the problems that over-utilization can do to wildlife. Hunters and
anglers asked to contribute to conservation through license fees and
excise taxes to ensure that wildlife would be around for future
generations. Over the last century, sportsmen and women have upheld our
end of the bargain and provided billions of dollars to conserve
wildlife, including over 75 percent of all funding for State
conservation agencies. Now we need your help. We need Congress to pass
H.R. 1825 to help protect our outdoor heritage.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak and I would be happy to
answer any questions that the Committee might have.
List of Anti-Hunting Regulatory and Administrative Actions Taken During
the Current Administration
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Vision Document
The National Wildlife Refuge System ``vision'' document entitled
``Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges, The Next Generation'' was
published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in October 2011.
The document is designed to provide direction for National Wildlife
Refuges for the next generation. Despite the fact that Congress,
through the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, made
hunting and fishing a priority for the refuges, the vision document
neglects hunting and recreation while greatly expanding the FWS's
mission to include controversial climate change adaptation.
Forest Service Planning Rules and Directives
The Forest Service's Planning Rules affect every land management
plan on the 193 million acres of the National Forest System. These
rules provide little support for hunting and fishing on Forest lands:
The Rules make negligible mention of hunting and, as such
offer little in the way of expressing protections for hunting. As
published the Planning Rules potentially relinquish to the courts the
discretion to resolve questions over the role that hunting will play on
National Forests in the future.
The Planning Rules offer an ambiguous definition of
``sustainable recreation'' that makes no specific mention of hunting.
In addition, the definition is troublesome because it restricts
``sustainable recreation'' to opportunities, uses and access that are
ecologically, economically and socially sustainable, without providing
a definition of what qualifies as ``socially sustainable.''
The Forest Service has proposed a set of Directives that will
facilitate planning under authority of the Planning Rules. Although
these Directives provide more references to hunting than the Planning
Rules, the Directives do nothing to protect hunting and fishing
activities from direct competition with other forms of forest
recreation.
Forest Service Planning in Inventoried Roadless Areas
Following a Wyoming District Court's removal of an injunction
against implementation of the Roadless Rule, the Forest Service adopted
directives that instill in the Chief authority for general planning for
road construction, reconstruction, timber cutting, sales and removal in
all inventoried roadless areas. Instead of allocating such decision-
making authority to individual forest managers who are naturally more
in tune with the recreational uses of their individual forests as well
as the wildlife and habitat needs and concerns in that particular
forest, the agency has placed that decision-making at the national
level. By removing these powers from local land managers, the
Secretary's office is greatly limiting the ability of local land
managers to thin forests to reduce the chances of catastrophic
wildfires, mitigate insect infestation, and manage forest habitat for
the benefit of wildlife and those who seek to engage in the sustainable
use of that wildlife.
BLM Shooting Range Policy
In 2011, the BLM attempted to adopt a shooting range policy. The
policy failed to acknowledge the traditional and historic use of public
lands for recreational shooting. Even worse the policy endorsed BLM's
existing policy of not operating shooting ranges or issuing new leases
for shooting ranges because of the ``potential liability related to
lead contamination of the environment,'' despite the fact that the EPA
has developed guidance for management of spent lead ammunition at
shooting ranges. SCI and other sporting organizations voiced strong
opposition to the shooting range policy, prompting the BLM to withdraw
the draft. The BLM's attempt to introduce such a policy sends a
negative message to land managers about the role that recreational
shooting should have on BLM land and expresses the agency's general
lack of support for recreational shooting on Federal public lands.
Wild Lands Order
In December 2010 Secretary Salazar issued Secretarial Order 3310,
containing the controversial Wild Lands policy, without any public
input. This policy would have allowed the BLM to circumvent
congressional authority over designating wilderness by allowing the BLM
to use the public resource management planning process to designate
certain lands with wilderness characteristics as ``Wild Lands.''
Sportsmen and the Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(representing the 50 State fish and wildlife agencies) opposed this
order because it would have undermined States' authority by creating
unnecessary barriers to fish and wildlife management and related
recreation on public lands. The Secretary reversed this Order only
after Congress acted to remove funding for this policy.
The FWS's Approach to Importation
Those who seek to import hunting trophies into the United States
have faced greater obstacles in the last few years due to the FWS's
rigid enforcement of procedural requirements imposed by CITES and the
Endangered Species Act. Such enforcement practices led to an increase
in the number of seizures of hunting trophies being imported into the
United States. The FWS has taken the approach that any variation from
CITES documentation requirements, regardless of how minor, qualifies as
a violation of U.S. law. The FWS manual directs personnel to consider
trophy seizure or forfeiture as the agency's first recourse in the face
of such violation. Seizure or forfeiture of expensive wildlife trophies
is an outsized penalty for minor technical errors, where there is no
evidence of intent to violate the law. Although the FWS has made
efforts to work with range nations and with CITES to clarify the
requirements necessary for the documentation required for particularly
troublesome trophy importation, the FWS continues to follow an approach
to trophy importation that discourages rather than encourages U.S.
hunters to engage in sustainable use conservation of foreign species.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. We are
going to ask questions only on the sportsmen bill first. We
will deal with that, and then we will go back to testimony and
questions that deal with the other three pieces of legislation
before us today.
So, Mr. Benishek, can I turn to you and see if you have any
questions of these witnesses on your bill, only?
Dr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, your
testimony brings up a few questions that I would like to get a
little more detail on, and one of those is the--we talked about
the lawsuits and the wasted resources that are a result of
that.
So, could you give me an example of a lawsuit that has
occurred that you think wasted the Government's resources in
fighting this lawsuit, and why this legislation is so important
to illuminate that? And be able to better use our taxpayers'
funds. Does anyone have an example they would like to share?
Mr. Horn. Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Benishek, a classic
example arises in your home State involving the Huron-Manistee
National Forest, a lawsuit better known as the Meister case.
Individuals filed suit against the Forest Service, arguing that
the agency had failed to consider closing large swaths of the
Huron-Manistee National Forest to hunting, because these
individuals contended that the presence of hunters in the fall,
and the fact that they might hear some distant gunshots,
interfered with their quality experience.
A U.S. district court dismissed the case, turned down the
plaintiffs. It was appealed to the sixth circuit. The sixth
circuit upheld the plaintiffs and told the Forest Service that
they had to go back, they had to redo their plan, they had to
expressly consider closing large chunks of the national forest
to hunting, because of these--I will call them the tender
aesthetic sensibilities.
The Forest Service went back, redid the plan. They
concluded that action last winter. Mr. Meister and company were
not satisfied with the revised plan and the revised
consideration they got. They filed a new lawsuit about 2 months
ago, and matter of fact, yesterday the U.S. district court
issued the new briefing schedule, which will ensure that this
case continues at least through this calendar year. I hate to
think of the amount of money that has been squandered on both
the litigation and now the second redo of the Forest plan, all
aimed at essentially running the hunters off during a limited,
what, 6-week hunting season in the fall months.
Dr. Benishek. Thank you very much. I know I grew up in an
old town called Iron River. And we had a hotel, so that during
the deer-hunting season we were just so happy that the hunting
season came because the hotel was full. And that basically got
us through the winter, because sometimes there was not much
else happening.
So, speak again. I think you mentioned a huge number of the
economic activity in our communities that are a result of
hunting and fishing activities. Could you tell me that again?
Ms. Simpson. The figure was $90 billion in 2011. And that
is just counting the amount of money that has been collected
from excise taxes, from Pittman-Robertson and Dingle-Johnson.
But then that doesn't even account for all of the added money
that is collected from, as you point out, the local hotel,
perhaps the gas station, the convenience store, and all of the
additional outdoor equipment that is purchased.
Obviously, those gateway communities between the cities and
the great outdoors are the ones that are benefiting those rural
economies.
Dr. Benishek. Well, as a member of that rural economy, as a
child, the people that would come up to the Upper Peninsula
from the Detroit area and the big city, those guys would just
love their opportunity to get to the woods and it was a real
economic boost to our town. And, even now, as I go back to my
district and the hotels and community centers that these
hunters frequent, those small localities depend so heavily on
those hunters that it is very important to their overall
survival through--sometimes it is a very tough winter.
So, I can testify, as well, that this is huge for the rural
communities in America that are, as you said, the gateways to
the Federal forests that we depend on so much for the
availability of wildlife. With that I will yield back. Thank
you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Grijalva, do you have questions?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rountree, I said
in my opening statement that people who support H.R. 1825 and
people who oppose it might have legitimate differences of
opinion, or we might just have a different interpretation of
the impacts of the language. So let me ask you about some of
that language.
Is it your reading that the legislation, Section 4(e)1,
would permit temporary roads, motorized equipment, and
motorboats, use of motor vehicles, landing of aircraft
structures and installations, and other forms of mechanical
transport in designated wilderness if it was to support and
facilitate recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting
opportunities? Is that----
Mr. Rountree. Mr. Grijalva, since the bill was introduced
less than a week ago, BLM has really not had the opportunity to
complete a careful review and conduct internal discussions on
the bill. We would be happy to get back with you for the
record, if you would so desire.
Mr. Grijalva. I would appreciate that. I think the
Committee would as well, because part of it is how we are
interpreting the content of the legislation.
Moving on to Section 4(e)2 of the legislation, is it your
view that the wording of this section actually changes the
purpose of wilderness lands from being preserved for the
wilderness character, or to be managed for fish and wildlife
purposes?
Mr. Rountree. Again, Mr. Grijalva, we have not had an
opportunity to review the bill in its entirety, and have not
had the internal discussions necessary to really formulate our
response. We would, however, be happy to get back with you for
the record, if you would like.
Mr. Grijalva. And, finally, is there a reason we need to
effectively waive NEPA in this legislation?
Mr. Rountree. I can't think of any. In any legislation,
anything that would waive NEPA really takes the legs out from
under our local decisionmakers in terms of the types of
analyses that we like to do on any type of Federal action, as
well as precludes public involvement in the formulation of
these decisions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Do you want me to finish this
round of questioning or break now?
Mr. Bishop. I think we can get one more in.
Mr. Grijalva. If I could finish, I have a couple more
questions.
Mr. Bishop. Go ahead.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, thank you. Ms. Recce, before we have to
take a break, I want to ask you about your explanation as to
why practically every Democrat on this Committee voted against
the Sportsmen's Heritage Act last year. I ask you that because
in your written testimony today it states that those voting
against the bill listened to opponents who argued that the
legislation would open the door to prohibited activities like
motorized recreation, road construction on lands designated as
wilderness.
You continued, ``Equally specious were arguments that H.R.
2834,'' the act then, ``would open national parks or other
units of the national park system to public uses not authorized
by Congress.'' It appears to me that the point you are making
is the opponents of this legislation were misinformed about its
effects on public lands.
Assuming that is true, I have to say that you, yourself,
are partly responsible for Members believing that the bill
would allow motorized recreation and certain kinds of road
construction on the lands. In your previous appearance before
this hearing, on September 9, 2011, you testified that one of
the reasons we needed this bill was that the current policy
regarding recreation on Federal lands--and I quote from your
testimony--``holds hidden pitfalls.'' It does not encourage
proactive management of recreation. It does not prevent sudden
and arbitrary closures of public lands to recreation. It does
not require that reasonable access to these open lands be
provided.
During the questioning you reconfirmed that the problem is
not with 95 percent of public lands that are open to
recreational shooting and hunting. The problem is that the
lands--and I quote from your testimony--``can be open; it is
getting to them.'' You added that in many of these places there
are not roads.
So the thrust of your testimony 2 years ago of the major
advantage of that legislation was that it allowed access,
including wilderness. Now, as I understand your testimony
today, is that it doesn't, that the focus isn't access. So the
testimony in 2011 was wrong, and the testimony today is
correct? That is one question.
The second question: Will this bill result in more
motorized access into designated wilderness areas?
Mr. Bishop. If you can limit your answers to a minute, go
for it, please.
Ms. Recce. I will be happy to. Thank you very much for the
question. My testimony today is consistent with 2 years ago. It
is about opportunities and access on Federal public lands. But,
as I said earlier, that the bill, H.R. 2834, and this
legislation, there was no intent, and there was, in fact,
efforts in the bill to incorporate language to ensure that
wilderness areas were not open to unauthorized activities. And
the legislation does not amend the Wilderness Act.
So, indeed, on lands open for recreational activities, as
Forest Service/BLM lands, it is about opportunities and access.
Both bills provide certain guidelines for keeping those lands--
--
Mr. Grijalva. Will it not result in more motorized access
into designated wilderness area?
Ms. Recce. No, sir, it will not. I testified the last time
to that effect. That discussion was also on the House Floor
during the debate on the bill.
Mr. Bishop. I am going to have to cut this off. I am sorry.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. I have 9 minutes left before the voting takes
place. There are 400 that haven't shown up. Mrs. Lummis, if you
have some questions, I think we can get one last round of
questions. And then I am going to ask the body if you will, to
just cool your heels for a while. I am sorry. We will come
back, we will finish questions on the sportsmen's bill, and
then we will take testimony and have questions on the other
three bills, if that is OK.
Do you have some you would like to ask right now?
Mrs. Lummis. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. OK, go ahead.
Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. Ms. Recce, are you aware that anti-
hunting and anti-recreation lawsuits are often awarded
attorneys fees at taxpayer expense?
Ms. Recce. Yes, I am. I don't have the details of that,
myself. My colleagues might. But, yes, I am aware of that.
Mrs. Lummis. Mr. Rountree, can you tell us how much the BLM
spends every year to reimburse litigants for suing the Federal
Government, whether as part of a settlement or a successful
litigation?
Mr. Rountree. No, ma'am, I can't. But we will certainly
look into it and get back to you, if we can.
Mrs. Lummis. I would love to hear back from you, and I
would love to hear back from you breaking it down for lawsuits
that are procedural in nature, how much for litigation in
general, and where does the money come from? Does it come from
the BLM's budget? If you are sued or you settle, does it come
out of your operating budget?
Mr. Rountree. It does.
Mrs. Lummis. Hence, the very people that are criticizing
the Federal Government for managing Federal lands inadequately
or us not funding those agencies adequately are the same
people, Mr. Chairman, who are taking money away from these
Federal agencies by suing them, suing them and settling, even
on procedural grounds, and then using the money for their own
purposes, rather than for the Government's management of public
lands.
A follow-up for Ms. Recce. Can you explain how Mr.
Benishek's bill helps to limit taxpayer-funded litigation and
restores some sanity to how we treat hunting and fishing on
public lands?
Ms. Recce. The legislation clarifies the original intent of
laws that we believe the courts have misconstrued in a number
of lawsuits. We have organizations within our community who
have been involved in this litigation on the side of the
Federal Government. And, unfortunately, certain court rulings
have gone, as Mr. Horn stated, have supported the plaintiffs.
And this legislation is critical to restoring the order and
sanity that you speak to.
Mrs. Lummis. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you. In light of the
impending votes, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. To the three
witnesses who have already testified, I have a couple of
questions. If you need to leave, I can understand that. When we
scheduled this, this was not supposed to be an end day of the
week, so I apologize for this situation. This kind of breaks
something we tried last session to end with our scheduling
structure. So I apologize for it happening.
There may be others who come back for this meeting, as
well. Mr. Schneider, if you still can stick around, fine. If
you have to go to catch the plane, I understand that at the
same time. We will do the other three bills, as well, when we
return.
With that, the Committee is going to be in recess until who
knows when. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Bishop. All right. The Committee will come to order
again, because you are all so loud and boisterous. And I notice
we have lost not only some of our Members, but a whole lot of
the audience. And I apologize for making you have to wait that
long.
Do we still have questions pertaining to the sportsmen's
bill. Did you have some more that you wanted to ask on this
one?
Mr. Grijalva. I do.
Mr. Bishop. And do you have another round of questions you
would like to ask?
Dr. Benishek. Oh, no, I am actually good.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I will recognize Mr. Grijalva first, and
then I will ask some questions.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. This question is for Mr. Horn and Ms.
Simpson.
In reading your written statement, Mr. Horn, you used the
term ``anti's,'' and talk about bogus arguments of wilderness
advocates. Ms. Simpson, you talk about litigants, ``paper
promises of the Obama Administration,'' and include a list of
anti-hunting regulatory and administrative actions of the Obama
Administration.
We also have some very thoughtful letters from the National
Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership, and Back Country Hunters and Anglers, explaining
why they prefer the Senate version of the legislation to H.R.
1825. In short, they prefer the Senate bill because it doesn't
contain NEPA waivers or any other controversial wilderness
provision.
So, my question is, what are your respective views on the
Senate version?
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Grijalva----
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Horn [continuing]. I think the Senate version is fine,
but the Senate version does lack the corrections for the
Wilderness Act that would essentially fix the problems that the
ninth circuit created with its, I think, out-of-the-ordinary
decisions in the Tustumena Lake case, the High Sierra Hikers
case, and the Kofa Refuge case, all of which represented
substantial departures from the legal status quo that governed
the Wilderness Act for approximately 35 years.
And each of those decisions, which I am prepared to go
through in some detail, if you would like----
Mr. Grijalva. No, that is good.
Mr. Horn [continuing]. As I said, upset the established
order. In each of those cases the ninth circuit reversed a
district court decision. And in each case the ninth circuit
reversed the professional determinations of an agency--twice
the Fish and Wildlife Service and once the Forest Service. And
that those decisions----
Mr. Grijalva. Specific to the NEPA provisions.
Mr. Horn. Oh, well----
Mr. Grijalva. You feel that is the difference that you are
talking about?
Mr. Horn. Well, no. The Wilderness Act, that is what I was
talking about first. Now, the NEPA one is another one where the
1997 Refuge Act directed that the Fish and Wildlife Service
would prepare a comprehensive conservation plan, CCP, for each
refuge unit. Each CCP would determine what activities were to
be permitted on refuge units. They made the compatibility
findings.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Ms. Simpson? If I may, because it is my
last chance to ask questions.
Ms. Simpson. Sure, thank you very much for the question. I
would direct your attention to the letter that the 21
organizations representing national hunting groups submitted
for the record. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Congressional
Sportsmen's Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation,
representing millions of hunters across the country, all have
supported this legislation. And, frankly, the difference
between this bill and what is in the Senate----
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Ms. Simpson [continuing]. And the reason that the TRCP and
Back Country Hunters and Anglers support the Senate version is
a difference in the interpretation of the Wilderness Act. And,
frankly, we believe that this interpretation here is the
correct one.
Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate that. I want to ask a little
bit, if I may, Ms. Recce, about the issue of safety. In the
legislation dealing with recreational shooting, the bill states
that each head of the Federal agencies should permit lands to
be used for shooting ranges, but also designates specific
recreational shooting activities. I see a lot of discussion as
to the protocol, the factors that must be considered in
determining which pieces of land get shooting ranges.
But I see nothing in the bill about the important issue of
safety. Nothing in the bill gives agencies any guidance
regarding safety protocols Federal agencies should put in place
on these lands. None of us want the Federal Park Service lands
to become free fire zones, or where people feel that they are
risking life and limb their.
Now, I know the NRA has protocols considering for proper
safety protocols. So can you tell us some of the safety
protocols for shooting on Federal lands that could be included
in this bill, and mandated in this bill? And if safety isn't an
issue, why is it necessary to put a limitation on liability in
the legislation?
Ms. Recce. I appreciate the question. What has happened is
on both Forest Service and BLM lands, the agencies, their
solicitors have suggested that to designate areas for
recreational shooting would impose an undue liability on the
Federal Government. Our position is that, in fact, by
designating areas, it will help to manage recreation better, it
will ensure that there are safe and responsible areas for
recreational shooting, and it will remove conflict between
shooting and other recreational activities.
We have argued that, by the fact that recreational shooting
in fact has one of the lowest incidents of death or injury of
any recreational activity on public lands, that there are even
other recreational activities that would have greater
liability. But yet the agencies----
Mr. Grijalva. Protocols that could be added to the bill as
it moves along?
Ms. Recce. Well, I think that both agencies already have in
place safety protocols. I mean they do have protocols for safe
shooting. They are posted on kiosks and at visitors centers. So
they do exist.
And we are also in a Memorandum of Understanding with the
agencies to work with them on recreational shooting and
hunting----
Mr. Grijalva. Would you quickly--and then I am done, thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence--could--if I may, could
you--can you agree or can we agree--probably not--but that some
guns, military-style assault weapons, for instance, have no
place in national parks insofar as they are military-style
weapons and not for the purpose of hunting and sporting? And
the conflict between families that are hiking, recreating,
camping, the questions about which gun should be allowed. Is
it, in your mind, open-ended in the legislation?
Ms. Recce. Well, in the National Park System recreational
shooting isn't open to the public. So the focus would be on
Forest Service and BLM lands, which have, for decades, allowed
recreational shooting. It really comes down to where you can
conduct shooting safely. You want to have a backstop, you want
to ensure that you are not building a trail behind a shooting
range, which Forest Service did in one of the southern national
forests, and then suggested shooting was unsafe because it
affected the hikers. But they put the trail in after the
shooting range.
So, it is those kinds of issues, not the firearm, but as
much as where it is appropriate to have recreational shooting,
as any other activity, including off-highway vehicle use.
Mr. Grijalva. So I am asking about the type of weapon. Is
there any type of weapon that you would see that wouldn't be
allowed?
Ms. Recce. I think that any firearm can be used, so long as
it is legal in that State and legal by the Federal Government
to be used.
Mr. Grijalva. OK, thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I just have a couple of quick
questions. Mr. Horn, some of the other groups have charged that
this bill would have sweeping provisions that would rewrite the
long-established Wilderness Act. Does this bill contain that
language?
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, no, it does not. And, in fact, what
it does is the bill restores the legal status quo that existed
regarding the Wilderness Act for about its first 35 years of
existence.
As I was indicating previously, there have been three ninth
circuit decisions that we think fundamentally changed the
status quo: Tustumena Lake case out of Alaska, the High Sierra
Hikers case out of California, and the Kofa Refuge case out of
Arizona. As I indicated, all three of those, the ninth circuit
reversed district courts that applied established precedent,
and reversed the professional judgments of the agencies to
essentially elevate the necessity test that was included in the
Wilderness Act by making it more difficult for agencies to make
necessity determinations regarding what type of activities
would occur in wilderness areas.
An Alaska case, the ninth circuit said stocking baby
sockeye salmon was inconsistent with the Wilderness Act. It
wasn't necessary. In the High Sierra case they said that the
Forest Service had failed to demonstrate that horseback trips
were not necessary in wilderness areas by elevating the
standard. And in the Kofa case, the ninth circuit basically
said even though Kofa was a refuge established by Franklin
Roosevelt with a primary purpose being conservation of the
Desert Big Horn Sheep, the ninth decided that it was a
wilderness first, and a refuge second, and therefore,
wilderness restrictions trumped the ability of Fish and
Wildlife, in cooperation with Arizona Fish and Game, to engage
in activities to help conserve and restore the Desert Big Horn
Sheep.
We think all three of those cases cry for correction. The
bill has very specifically tailored corrections, along with two
specific provisos that say nothing herein opens or allows
commodity development, roads, or motorized access in wilderness
areas. I don't think the bill can be any clearer in that
regard.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. It is a unique
concept of actually having policy done by a legislative branch,
instead of a judicial branch. I don't know why we would ever
want to think of that.
The bill also reaffirms the supplemental purposes language
that is already in the Wilderness Act. Why is it necessary,
since it is already in the original Wilderness Act?
Mr. Horn. Well, even though it is in the Wilderness Act,
the ninth circuit declined to recognize that language is there,
and has been there since the statute was enacted in 1964.
And in the Kofa case, as I said, it was a wildlife refuge,
its primary purpose was conservation of the Desert Big Horn
Sheep. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with Arizona
Fish and Game, had authorized maintenance of these water
guzzler devices to enhance the sheep population. They had been
out there for years and years. They had been there when
Congress designated Kofa, parts of Kofa, as wilderness. The
ninth circuit decided notwithstanding the congressional
affirmation, notwithstanding the supplemental purposes
language, that Kofa had to be managed as a wilderness first,
meaning no activities and structures, and a wildlife refuge
second.
This language in H.R. 1825 basically says Congress
reaffirms the original 1964 supplemental purposes language that
still, in black-letter law, in the statute today, just that the
court in San Francisco found a way to disregard that language.
Mr. Bishop. So both portions, same thing again. You are
reestablishing the intent of Congress by restating these
provisions in this particular bill. I appreciate that.
Does anything in this bill allow activity that is currently
prohibited, like motorized recreation, or road construction, or
activities in any kind of wilderness area? Is there anything
that opens that up?
Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, absolutely not. As I cited it in my
statement, if you look at the two provisos in 4(e)1 and 4(e)2,
both of them state very plainly and expressly nothing in H.R.
1825 opens wilderness areas to commodity development, road
construction, or motorized access. And it says it twice, and it
says it plainly. I don't know what more you all could say in a
bill.
Mr. Bishop. There is a lot more I could say, but it
wouldn't be appropriate, legal language.
This last question, then. You have a NEPA provision in the
bill, which is sometimes a controversial word around here. So,
what does the NEPA provision in this bill do? Why is it
necessary?
Mr. Horn. Well, there are two NEPA provisions. The first
one is just a--I call it a housekeeping chore. Because the bill
designates BLM and Forest Service lands as open until closed,
that means the agency needs to take no specific Federal action
to continue hunting or fishing, because it has been done
statutorily by Congress.
Under those circumstances, since you don't have to take an
action to open it, there is no action that would trigger the
application of the Natural Environmental Policy Act. However,
because of 40 years of court rulings, the courts have made it
clear that they don't like to see things done to NEPA by
implication.
And so, there is a--I call it a housekeeping provision in
here that says, and makes it clear, that because it is open
until closed, and no specific Federal action is necessary, no
environmental impact statement or EA is necessary to continue
hunting and fishing. That is one provision.
The second corrects another court problem involving the
Fish and Wildlife Service where Congress in 1997 said, ``Fish
and Wildlife, you prepare what is called a CCP, Comprehensive
Conservation Plan, for each unit. And within that CCP, which
also includes a NEPA document, you make your determinations of
where fishing and hunting is allowed on refuges.''
A district court in Washington, D.C. said that the CCP, by
itself, wasn't enough, that the Fish and Wildlife Service, if
they did multiple CCPs at the same time--there are, after all,
535 refuges--they had to do a cumulative effects analysis. And
the Service said, ``Wait a minute. If I hunt deer on the Bond
Swamp Refuge in Georgia, or I shoot woodcock in the Canaan
Valley in West Virginia, or I hunt moose in the Yukon Flats in
Alaska, there are no cumulative effects of these incredibly
disparate activities.''
Judge says, ``Go do a cumulative effects statement
anyway.'' The Fish and Wildlife Service spent 3 years and
hundreds of thousands of dollars of doing what we all thought
was a superfluous exercise that was ultimately upheld by the
judge.
The provision in the bill would basically go back to the
specific provisions of the 1997 Refuge Act and say, ``When you
do the CCP and the attendant NEPA document, Fish and Wildlife,
that satisfies your NEPA obligations.'' End of story.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate your answers to my
questions. I don't have any others.
To the three of you who are testifying to the sportsmen's
bill, I appreciate you coming here and taking the time to do
that. This portion of the hearing will now end, and we will go
on to the other three bills: the Huffman, Young, and Pearce
bill. If you three would like to stay, please feel free to do
so. There may be questions about those other three bills. I
know it is not why you are here. Just I am not throwing you
out; you can stay if you would like to. We always, obviously,
had that long pause, if you need to go back and do some real
work, I can understand that, as well.
Mr. Rountree, I apologize for making you sit through all of
this. I hadn't planned on this kind of break in there. I am
sorry about that. But if you would like to speak for the
Administration on the other three bills, we would be happy to
hear your testimony now, and then have some questions for you.
Mr. Rountree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF CARL ROUNTREE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ACCOMPANIED BY: BERT FROST, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCE
STEWARDSHIP AND SCIENCES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Rountree. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank
you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
bills of interest to the Bureau of Land Management and the
National Park Service. I will briefly summarize the
Administration's testimony on H.R. 995, the Organ Mountains
National Monuments.
The Department of the Interior strongly supports the
protection and conservation of the Organ Mountains. The Organ
Mountains lie to the east of Las Cruces, New Mexico, dominating
the landscape as they rise over 9,000 feet in elevation. They
are a popular recreation area with multiple hiking trails,
campgrounds, opportunities for hunting, mountain biking, and
other dispersed forms of recreation. Running generally north-
south for 20 miles, the steep, needle-like spires resemble the
pipes of an organ, and are an iconic fixture of life in
southern New Mexico.
The BLM would welcome the opportunity to work with the
sponsor and the Committee to address issues including the
purposes statement of the legislation, boundaries, wilderness,
and the Department of Defense's needs. As Representative Pearce
notes, this area is a national treasure deserving of the
protections that come with the designation as a national
monument. The BLM hopes that, with certain modifications, we
can support this bill in the future.
H.R. 1411, the California Coastal National Monument
Expansion. The Department of the Interior supports H.R. 1411,
which would add approximately 1,255 acres of public land along
the coast of Northern California to the existing California
Coastal National Monument managed by the Bureau of Land
Management. This relatively small area contains significant
natural and cultural resources, including several riparian
corridors, wetlands, pine forests, meadows, coastal prairie,
and sand dunes, as well as dramatic blow holes and waterfalls
cascading into the sea.
Extensive cultural resources attest to a history of
occupation of this site, going back at least 9,000 years. Today
the Manchester Band of Pomo Indians partners with the Bureau of
Land Management to conserve and protect the resource values of
these lands. The addition of the Point Arena-Stornetta Public
Lands to the California Coastal National Monument will
establish a mainland base for access and interpretation of the
existing monument, as we continue to work with many local
partners, encouraging public access to and appreciation of the
area's resources.
H.R. 586, Denali National Park Improvement Act. Finally, I
am submitting a statement for the record on behalf of the
National Park Service on H.R. 586, Denali National Park
Improvement Act. I am accompanied today by Bert Frost, the
Associate Director for the Natural Resource Stewardship and
Sciences at the National Park Service, who will be happy to
answer any questions on H.R. 586.
The Department supports Section 2 of H.R. 586 with an
amendment, and does not oppose Sections 3 and 4 of the bill.
Section 2 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
issue permits for micro-hydro projects in a limited area of the
Kantishna Hills. The National Park Service would like the
opportunity to work with the Committee to modify the 100-day
permit response timeframe.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today.
Mr. Frost and I will be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rountree follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carl Rountree, Assistant Director, National
Landscape Conservation System and Community Partnerships, Bureau of
Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 995 and H.R.
1411
h.r. 995--organ mountains national monument establishment act
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
H.R. 995, the Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act. The
Department of the Interior strongly supports the protection and
conservation of the Organ Mountains in southern New Mexico. This area
is a national treasure deserving of the protections that come with
designation as a National Monument. During the 112th Congress, the
Department testified in support of S. 1024, the Organ Mountains--Dona
Ana County Conservation and Protection Act, before the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee. S. 1024 provided for the designation
of the Organ Mountains as a National Conservation Area (NCA) as well as
a number of other conservation designations in Dona Ana County, New
Mexico. The Department recommends a number of changes to H.R. 995, so
that we can likewise support this bill.
Background
The Organ Mountains lie to the east of Las Cruces, New Mexico,
dominating the landscape as they rise to over 9,000 feet in elevation.
Running generally north-south for 20 miles, the steep, needle-like
spires resemble the pipes of an organ and are an iconic fixture of life
in southern New Mexico. This Chihuahuan Desert landscape of rocky
peaks, narrow canyons, and open woodlands contain a multitude of
biological zones, from mixed desert shrubs and grasslands in the
lowlands, ascending to Alligator juniper, gray oak, mountain mahogany
and sotol, and finally to ponderosa pines at the highest elevations.
Consequently, the area is home to a high diversity of plant and animal
life, and excellent wildlife viewing opportunities are present in the
area. Visitors frequently see golden eagles, red-tailed hawks,
peregrine falcons, Gamble's quail, desert mule deer, coyote,
cottontail, and collared lizards. Mountain lions and other predators
are also present, but less frequently observed.
There are six endemic wildflower species, including the Organ
Mountains evening primrose. Seasonal springs and streams occur in the
canyon bottoms, with a few perennial springs that support riparian
habitats.
The Organ Mountains are a popular recreation area, with multiple
hiking trails, a campground, and opportunities for hunting, mountain
biking, and other dispersed recreation. There are several developed
recreation areas within the Organ Mountains, including the Dripping
Springs Natural Area (formerly known as the Cox Ranch) noted for its
``weeping walls;'' the Aguirre Spring Campground, nestled at the base
of the spectacular needle-like spires of the Organ Mountains; the
Soledad Canyon Day Use Area; and many miles of hiking, horseback
riding, and mountain biking trails.
H.R. 995
H.R. 995 would designate 54,800 acres of BLM-managed public land as
the Organ Mountains National Monument. Each of the National Monuments
and NCAs designated by Congress and managed by the Bureau of Land
Management is unique. However, these designations typically have
certain critical elements in common, including withdrawal from the
public land, mining, and mineral leasing laws; off-highway vehicle use
limitations; and language that charges the Secretary of the Interior
with allowing only those uses that further the conservation purposes
for which the unit is established. Furthermore, these Congressional
designations should not diminish the protections that currently apply
to the lands.
Most of these standard provisions are included in H.R. 995; however
there are provisions that require amendment before the Department could
support the legislation. Generally, the ``purposes'' section of a
National Monument or NCA designation establishes the conservation goals
for the unit. In this bill, the purpose statement for H.R. 995 includes
two ``resources'' that are undefined and unnecessary for the
conservation of the area. Specifically, in section 5, both
``livestock'' and ``traditional'' are listed as resources to be
conserved, protected, and enhanced, along with the more standard
``cultural, archaeological, natural, ecological, geological,
historical, wildlife, watershed, educational, recreational and scenic
resources.'' The inclusion of grazing and traditional ``resources'' in
the purpose statement could prevent the BLM from adequately managing
the area.
Grazing exists on most of the BLM's National Monuments and NCAs, as
with most public lands, and is typically consistent with their
management. However, grazing is not a stated purpose of any national
monuments. Section 6(c) of H.R. 995 mandates that grazing continue in
accordance with the same law and executive orders that apply to grazing
on other land under the BLM's administrative jurisdiction, and we do
not object to this provision. However, National Monuments and NCAs are
intended for the protection, conservation, and restoration of
nationally-significant resources, objects, and values of historic or
scientific interest. Establishing livestock as a resource to be
conserved and protected within this National Monument may, at a
minimum, lead to confusion. A more extreme interpretation could create
conflicting and inconsistent management standards for the grazing of
livestock within the national monument compared to standards for
grazing management on other lands managed by the BLM. This would be
problematic from both a grazing management perspective, as well as a
monument management perspective, and we oppose the addition of
livestock as a monument purpose under the bill. Likewise, the term
``traditional . . . resources'' is an ambiguous term which the bill
leaves undefined. The BLM has concerns about the scope of activities
that this might include. In summary, while the BLM supports the
continuation of grazing within the proposed national monument, grazing
and traditional uses should not be listed as monument purposes.
Section 6(b)(2) appears to limit the BLM's discretion to restrict
or prohibit motorized and mechanized use within the new national
monument if such use is for the purpose of construction and maintenance
of range improvements or flood control or water conservation systems.
This language could create unnecessary conflicts with the conservation
uses for which the monument is established. Motorized and mechanized
use is not prohibited within a national monument (as it would be within
designated wilderness) but the BLM would want to direct motorized use
within the national monument to specified routes determined through a
public process.
The boundaries established for the Organ Mountains National
Monument under H.R. 995 largely reflect the boundaries that the BLM
administratively established for the Organ Mountains Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC) in 1993. In the nearly 20 years since that
ACEC was established, numerous changes on-the-ground and in the local
community have resulted in the BLM's support for a larger national
monument boundary with a different configuration.
For example, the BLM has made a number of significant land
acquisitions in the area over the past 20 years, including 400 acres on
the east side which make up the popular Soledad Canyon Day Use Area.
These acquired lands, along with surrounding public lands, should be
incorporated into the bill's proposed monument to protect important
resources.
Also, the Army's Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range border
much of the east side of the existing ACEC. Working with the local BLM,
the Army has indicated a strong interest in transferring the Filmore
Canyon area to the BLM for conservation and protection as part of a
larger designation. Additionally, the Army has advocated for additional
conservation lands on the south and east in order to prevent
development adjacent to these army bases. The Army recommends military
overflight language (similar to that included in S. 1024) as well as
language on the compatibility of current and future military training
and testing activities on DOD lands adjacent to the proposed national
monument. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues in
more detail with the sponsor and the Committee.
Section 9 of H.R. 995 calls for the release from wilderness study
area (WSA) status of three WSAs totaling over 17,000 acres. The BLM
opposes this wholesale release and instead recommends the designation
of an approximately 19,000-acre wilderness area within the proposed
national monument, and the release of about 800 acres from WSA status.
The land currently comprising the Organ Mountains, Organ Needles and
Pena Blanca WSAs contains exceptionally high wilderness values. These
three WSAs form the heart of the most rugged, isolated, and secluded
sections of the Organ Mountains. Granite spires and red rhyolite cliffs
are split by ribbons of green trees providing exceptional scenery for
the visitor. This is what Congress envisioned when it passed the 1964
Wilderness Act describing areas with ``outstanding opportunities for
solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.''
Finally, the bill includes nonstandard language on a number of
issues including hunting and trapping, rights-of-way, and law
enforcement. We would like to work with the Committee and the Sponsor
to include language adopted in previous National Monument or NCA laws
that insures that the state continues to appropriately regulate hunting
and trapping, that the upgrading of existing of rights-of-way are
allowed, and that the needs of law enforcement are met, and other
technical issues in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, regulations, and policy.
Conclusion
The Organ Mountains are not only a treasure for the state of New
Mexico, but one of national significance to be protected and cherished
by and for all the people of the United States. The Department looks
forward to working with the sponsor and the Committee to find solutions
to the issues we have raised, as well as additional more technical
issues, so that the Organ Mountains get the full protection they so
richly deserve.
h.r. 1411--california coastal national monument expansion act
Thank you for the invitation to testify on H.R. 1411, the
California Coastal National Monument Expansion Act. The Department of
the Interior supports H.R. 1411, which would add approximately 1,255
acres of public land along the coast of northern California to the
existing California Coastal National Monument managed by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM).
Background
The coast of northern California is rugged and spectacular. Along
the Mendocino County portion of that coast, the BLM manages 1,255
acres, including over 2 miles of coastline and the estuary of the
Garcia River, adjacent to the historic Point Arena Lighthouse. In 2004,
over 1,100 of these acres, commonly known as the Stornetta Public
Lands, were acquired by the Federal Government, through donation, to be
managed by the BLM. In early 2012 the BLM acquired approximately 123
acres of additional lands from the Cyprus Abbey Corporation through a
combination of donation and acquisition using funds from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The BLM expects to complete the
remaining Cyprus Abbey acquisition later this year with the acquisition
of an additional 409 acres. The President's budget for FY 2014 includes
a request for LWCF funding of an additional $2 million to acquire the
two remaining private inholdings from willing sellers.
This relatively small area contains significant natural resources,
including several riparian corridors, extensive wetlands, pine forests,
meadows, coastal prairie and sand dunes. A broad range of wildlife,
including a number of threatened or endangered species such as the
Point Arena mountain beaver, Behren's silverspot butterfly, the western
snowy plover and the California red-legged frog live in this diverse
habitat. Dramatic blow holes and waterfalls cascading into the sea
complement these natural resources.
Extensive cultural resources attest to a history of occupation of
this site going back at least 9,000 years. Up until the early 19th
century, it was home to the Bokeya Pomo people whose village sat at the
mouth of the Garcia River. Today, the Manchester Band of Pomo Indians
partners with the BLM to conserve and protect the resource values on
these lands.
In addition, there are many recreational opportunities in the area
which provide significant value for the local economy. The Garcia River
is a destination fishing site, and the coastal areas offer marine
wildlife viewing, including gray and blue whales, seals, sea lions, and
river otters. The adjacent Point Arena Lighthouse, operated by the
nonprofit Point Arena Lighthouse Keepers, welcomes over 30,000 visitors
annually. These visitors frequent the tidepools and beaches on the
adjacent public lands.
The BLM currently manages these lands to protect their important
natural, cultural, and historic resources. The BLM works cooperatively
with a number of key partners, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, both the California Departments of Parks and Recreation and
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Manchester Band of Pomo Indians,
Mendocino County, the City of Point Arena, the Point Arena Lighthouse
Keepers, the Wildlife Conservation Board, the California Coastal
Conservancy, the Conservation Lands Foundation, the Trust for Public
Lands, the Stornetta Brothers Coastal Ranch, Coastwalk California, the
National Audubon Society, and the California Native Plant Society among
others.
H.R. 1411
H.R. 1411 would add approximately 1,255 acres of Federal land (the
``Point Arena-Stornetta public lands'') managed by the BLM to the
existing California Coastal National Monument, which was established by
Presidential Proclamation on January 11, 2000. The California Coastal
National Monument includes all unappropriated and unreserved Federal
lands within 12 miles of the California shoreline. Over 20,000 small
islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles (totaling about 1,000
acres of land) constitute this offshore monument along California's
1,100 miles of coastline, providing unique habitats for breeding
seabirds and marine mammals.
The addition of the Point Arena-Stornetta public lands to the
California Coastal National Monument will promote the continued
conservation, protection, and restoration of these significant public
lands. By establishing a mainland base for access and interpretation of
the existing monument, this addition will enhance the public enjoyment
and understanding of the entire California Coastal National Monument.
The BLM will continue to work with its many local partners encouraging
public access to and appreciation of those resources. Local and
national support for this addition is considerable and significant, a
testament to the importance of the area.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 1411.
We look forward to the addition of the Point Arena-Stornetta public
lands to the California Coastal National Monument.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 586
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on H.R. 586, a bill that provides for
certain improvements to the Denali National Park and Preserve in the
State of Alaska, and for other purposes.
The Department supports with an amendment Section 2 of H.R. 586,
which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to
issue permits for micro-hydro projects in a limited area of the
Kantishna Hills in Denali National Park (Park) and authorize a land
exchange between the National Park Service (NPS) and Doyon Tourism,
Inc. (Doyon). The Department has no objection to Section 3 of the bill,
which would authorize the Secretary to issue right-of-way permits for a
natural gas transmission pipeline in non-wilderness areas within the
boundary of the Park. The Department also has no objection to Section 4
of the bill, which would designate the Talkeetna Ranger Station as the
Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station.
Kantishna Hills Micro-Hydro Projects and Land Exchange
Section 2 of the bill would authorize the issuance of permits for
micro-hydro projects, which will reduce the use of fossil fuels in the
park, lessen the chance of fuel spills along the park road and at the
Kantishna lodges, lower the number of non-visitor vehicle trips over
the park road, lessen the noise and emissions from diesel generators in
the Moose Creek valley, and support clean energy projects and
sustainable practices while ensuring that appropriate review and
environmental compliance protects all park resources.
Doyon Tourism, Inc., a subsidiary of Alaska Native Corporation
Doyon, Ltd., has requested permits from the NPS to install a micro-
hydroelectric project on Eureka Creek, near its Kantishna Roadhouse.
The NPS supports the intent of this project; however, neither the
Secretary nor the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has the
statutory authority to issue permits for portions of hydroelectric
projects within national parks or monuments. We believe that the
authorization contained in this legislation is necessary to enable the
NPS to allow this micro-hydroelectric project within the Park.
The Kantishna Roadhouse, at the end of the 92-mile-long Denali park
road, has been in business for 28 years, hosts approximately 10,000
guests per summer, and currently uses an on-site 100 kilowatt (KW)
diesel generator to provide power for the facility. The proposed
hydroelectric installation would reduce use of the diesel generator at
the lodge. Currently, delivery of diesel fuel to the lodge requires a
tanker truck and trailer to be driven the entire length of the Denali
park road. Noted for its undeveloped character, the road is unpaved for
77 miles of its 92-mile length, crosses high mountain passes without
guardrails, and is just 1 to 1\1/2\ lanes wide with pullouts. The road
is famous for wildlife viewing opportunities and in order to protect
wildlife as well as the road's scenic wilderness character, vehicle
traffic is limited. Reducing the amount of diesel fuel hauled over this
road in tanker trucks protects park resources by reducing the risk of
accident or spill, and simultaneously reduces overall vehicle use of
the road.
Eureka Creek is a 4-mile-long stream that drains a 5 square-mile
watershed and discharges about 15 cubic feet per second (cfs) during
the summer. Most of the floodplain has been disturbed by past placer
mining, but no mining claims exist on the creek now and no other
landowners besides Doyon and the NPS own any property near this
floodplain. The project would include an at-grade water intake, with no
impoundment, about 1 mile upstream of where Eureka Creek crosses the
park road.
Camp Denali, another lodge in the Kantishna Hills, is within the
area addressed by this legislation. Camp Denali opened in 1952 and the
owners installed a micro-hydro generator system prior to the 1978
Presidential proclamation that included the Kantishna Hills as a part
of what is now the Park. After 1978, Camp Denali became a private in-
holding surrounded by the Park, and found that parts of its micro-hydro
power system were within the Park, a situation that the NPS lacks the
authority to permit or retain. This legislation would allow the NPS and
the owners of Camp Denali to work out permit conditions for those parts
of the existing hydro project that are now on park land. Besides the
Kantishna Roadhouse and Camp Denali, two other lodges in the Kantishna
Hills may pursue similar projects in the future and thus would benefit
from the authority granted in this legislation.
Section 2 requires the Secretary to complete National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) compliance not later than 180 days after the date on
which an applicant submits an application for the issuance of a permit.
We recommend that the bill be amended to avoid putting an undue burden
on the NPS to respond in the 180-day time frame, particularly if the
initial application is incomplete or inaccurate, as sometimes happens.
We would be happy to work with the committee on this amendment.
In addition to authorizing micro-hydro projects, Section 2 would
authorize a land exchange. Doyon owns 18 acres on the patented Galena
mining claim in the Kantishna Hills and would like to exchange that
acreage for park land in the Kantishna Hills of equal value near its
other properties. The NPS would also like to pursue this exchange to
consolidate land holdings in the area. Existing land exchange authority
under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and
other legislation is sufficient to effect this exchange. Thus, while we
believe that this exchange authority is not needed for legal purposes,
we support its inclusion as an expression of Congressional intent.
Natural Gas Pipeline Right-of-Way Authorization
Section 3 of this legislation would authorize the Secretary to
issue right-of-way permits for a natural gas transmission pipeline in
non-wilderness areas within the boundary of the Park. The potential
owners and operators of such a pipeline have not, at this time,
determined whether such a line carrying natural gas to south-central
Alaska is financially feasible, nor have they determined the best route
for a pipeline. This legislation provides flexibility for the backers
of a proposed pipeline, and provides assurance to the NPS that the NEPA
analysis will be completed before any permit for work in the Park would
be issued by the Secretary.
Section 3 would also provide authority for the Secretary to permit
distribution lines and related equipment within the park for the
purpose of providing a natural gas supply to the Park. We have no
objection to this provision, but we want to advise the Committee that
at this time no decisions have been made about the financial or
engineering feasibility, nor the exact configuration of equipment
needed to facilitate tapping the larger line to allow local use of
natural gas in or near the Park.
Redesignation of the Talkeetna Ranger Station
Section 4 would designate the Park's South District Ranger Station
in Talkeetna as the Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station. Mr. Harper
grew up in Alaska and, as a young man, served as an interpreter and
guide for the far-flung ministry of Hudson Stuck, an Episcopal
archdeacon. He joined Stuck on an arduous trip in 1913 to reach the
summit of North America's highest peak. For nearly 3 months, the group
moved slowly south from Fairbanks and into the high mountains of the
Alaska Range. On June 7, 1913, Walter Harper, 21, became the first man
to set foot on the summit of Denali, the Athabascan name for the peak,
meaning the High One.
Since 1913, thousands of climbers have aimed for the summit. Unlike
Mr. Harper, who traveled south from Fairbanks into the Alaska Range,
the vast majority of climbers today begin their expeditions with an
airplane ride out of Talkeetna on the south side of the Park. The NPS
ranger station there serves as an orientation center for climbers and
other visitors to the Denali region. The community is proud of its
varied history as a railroad town, a jumping off point for miners, and
in the past several decades as the take-off point for climbing
expeditions.
The Department's position on naming the ranger station for Walter
Harper strikes a balance between recognizing Mr. Harper's historic
accomplishment and upholding the NPS policy on commemorative works,
which discourages the naming of park structures for a person unless the
association between the park and the person is of exceptional
importance. Mr. Harper's achievement occurred before the Park was
established and therefore, there was no direct association between the
two.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And I appreciate you coming here and
your patience. Mr. Grijalva, do you have any questions on these
three bills?
Mr. Grijalva. No, just two things: the significance of the
Park Service agreeing with Congressman Young, and conversely,
Congressman Young agreeing with the Park Service. I think that
should be marked down as some special day here.
And the other is one of the witnesses--I think it was Mr.
Horn--I have been accused of many things, Mr. Chairman, but
tender sensibilities was not one of them. But with regard to
the guns in the park. But anyway, thank you, I appreciate it
and yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Maybe we can have a
monument on the mall.
Mr. Grijalva. Tender sensibilities?
Mr. Bishop. Yes, for both of those.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Rountree, I do have a whole series of
questions that I would like to extend to you. The BLM field
manual, 6310, which is amazingly similar to the Wildlands 2.0
manual, it directs land managers to overlook naturalness when
determining an area's wilderness characteristic, or at least
minimize the impact that would prohibit an area because of
naturalness. Why should naturalness be overlooked when
conducting wilderness inventories, or minimized?
Mr. Rountree. Unfortunately, I am not that familiar with
the manuals, Mr. Chairman. We would be happy to respond to that
question and get back to you, for the record.
Mr. Bishop. We will submit it for a written response, as
well.
Mr. Rountree. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Do you think, though, that this kind of a
guidance would diminish or water-down a true wilderness
characteristic?
Mr. Rountree. In terms of the area's naturalness?
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Mr. Rountree. It is certainly something that we would want
to preserve in a designated wilderness area.
Mr. Bishop. So, by minimizing naturalness, is that
changing, or minimizing the wilderness characteristics? Do you
cheat on what wilderness means, if you overlook that?
Mr. Rountree. Yes, again, we would have to get back with
you on the record for that, if we could, please, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Well, I will keep going down there, and we will
have a whole lot of stuff that----
Mr. Rountree. Sure.
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. You can write to me later. If
naturalness is removed from the equation, are there areas of
public land that would not qualify for wilderness?
Mr. Rountree. Again, sir, I am sorry, I would have to
probably get one of our wilderness experts to work with you in
providing you information on that question.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Let's deal specifically with the
area that you are talking about in Mr. Pearce's bill, which, I
would like to add for the record--Mr. Pearce is not here, he is
actually attending a funeral in New Mexico, which I consider to
be a significant reason for doing that.
Let me come back here again, Mr. Rountree, that the BLM
opposed parts of Mr. Pearce's bill because the national
monument boundary did not include surrounding lands that were
not included in the 1993 area of critical environmental concern
inventory. So they contend that these recently acquired lands
and surrounding public lands--two different categories--should
be incorporated in the monument.
So, what has changed with the surrounding public lands, or
the character specifically of those surrounding public lands,
to make them eligible for designation now, but not in 1993?
Mr. Rountree. I can speak to two of those. The other
additions, Mr. Chairman, would probably have to talk with our
Las Cruces office to get you more information.
But one has to do with the acquisition of lands near
Soledad Canyon, which is an area of high recreational use
within the boundaries of the national monument. Another area
has to do with lands that the military is interested in having
the Bureau of Land Management acquire, called Fillmore Canyon.
Those are two areas that we feel certainly have characteristics
of the national monument, the values and objects cited in the
legislation. And those are areas that we feel should be a part
of the national monument.
In addition, the military has approached us about including
other areas along the west side of the Organ Mountains to
include the national monument, and we would want to be working
with them and the Committee to determine whether or not those
should be added to The National monument----
Mr. Bishop. So what you are telling me is this is a matter
of ownership. The characteristics of these lands have not
changed since 1993?
Mr. Rountree. In terms of the monument--or the proposed
monument itself, or those lands outside----
Mr. Bishop. The surrounding areas.
Mr. Rountree. I think they probably remain the same.
Mr. Bishop. Pardon me?
Mr. Rountree. Remain the same.
Mr. Bishop. Is it possible for an ACEC and wilderness areas
to be mutually exclusive? Can you have wilderness in an ACEC?
Do you have to have wilderness in an ACEC?
Mr. Rountree. You do not have to have wilderness in an
ACEC. An ACEC is a designation that the Agency has the
discretion of determining through its land use planning
process. These are usually, as you are aware, very rigorous
processes with a lot of NEPA analysis. Wilderness, of course,
is designated by Congress.
I don't know of any wilderness areas that have ACECs,
although there may be. And we will be happy to determine
whether or not there are wilderness areas with those
characteristics, or at least those designations in them.
Mr. Bishop. But by definition, they are not necessarily
mutually exclusive.
Mr. Rountree. No, sir.
Mr. Bishop. It is just a different designation and use for
the lands----
Mr. Rountree. Correct.
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. That would take place.
Mr. Rountree. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. In your testimony on the Huffman bill, you said
that this would promote the continued conservation protection
and restoration of these significant public lands. Can you
please explain to me how it would promote restoration of these
lands? Well, let's start with that one.
Mr. Rountree. Sure. What it would probably do is just place
a greater emphasis on the area, in terms of its restoration.
One of the things that the bill talks about in terms of
national monuments and national conservation areas,
conservation, protection, and restoration. In many of these
areas there are invasive plant species. That would certainly be
something that we would be interested in trying to rectify in
these areas.
More than anything else, though, I think it just means that
with this special designation by Congress, the Bureau of Land
Management would be more inclined to focus greater attention
into the restoration of the area.
Mr. Bishop. Do you have anything other than invasive
species that would be specifically restored by this particular
piece of legislation?
Mr. Rountree. It could be, if there was any damage that was
done, either through erosion or perhaps some previous use,
those areas would probably want to be restored, as well.
Mr. Bishop. So is wilderness a renewable resource? Can
wilderness be restored?
Mr. Rountree. It is, I think, something that a lot of
people have argued about. Certainly the earth has a way of
rectifying itself, or at least being able to erase some of the
scars and many of the areas that we found did not have
wilderness characteristics. In a sense, I guess you could say
that it is.
Mr. Bishop. How many wilderness inventories does BLM
perform each year?
Mr. Rountree. I don't have the number. The inventories that
we do do--and I will be happy to provide those to you----
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Rountree [continuing]. Are done in response to our
resource management planning. Currently we have somewhere in
the neighborhood of 40 to 70 underway. A part of that resource
management planning process is inventorying resources for
things like wilderness characteristics, much as we would
wildlife or recreation or other uses out on the public lands.
So, those would be primarily the major instances. When we
have large surface-disturbing activities, if there is large
solar plants, for example, wind energy plants, we look to see
whether or not the inventories are current. If they are not,
then we use the best available means to determine whether or
not the areas do have lands with wilderness character, if
inventories have not been conducted.
Mr. Bishop. So you are telling me there are new acres,
additional acres of new wilderness, that are discovered
following each inventory?
Mr. Rountree. Not wilderness, but lands with wilderness
character.
Mr. Bishop. Do you have any kind of recommendation of how
many acres of new wilderness were developed in these new
inventories?
Mr. Rountree. I do not. We----
Mr. Bishop. Is that something else you can get back with
me?
Mr. Rountree. I will be happy to. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Because one of the problems seems--everything
seems to be stacked in favor of wilderness. On the one hand,
the agency guidelines direct managers to overlook the real
definition of wilderness in this naturalness, by overlooking
naturalness. And I appreciate you getting back to me
specifically on those particular issues.
Mr. Rountree. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. You did leave the staff briefing on these
manuals pursuant to the letter we sent to you, but I want that
answer there.
But on the one hand you seem to be able to say that these
definitions can be changed or modified in some way to overlook
naturalness. And on the other hand, you also say that these
wilderness sources are renewable. They can come back, they can
be restored. Either way you win on this concept. I mean by
those definitions, liberally applied, the deck on my apartment
could be considered having wilderness characteristics, and over
a period of time restored to a wilderness pattern. It seems
like there is no win on any of those.
Let me move on to another one, which deals with national
monuments that were recently designated by the President that
were originally private property. In fact, they were private
property until, I believe, just 2 days before the designation
was made, in which, in that period of time, they had been
donated to the Federal Government, it is especially amazing
that they were able to do so in an agency that takes months and
sometimes years to actually get permits approved. But they were
able to move very quickly on that.
So, what I would specifically like to ask dealing with
those two pieces of property, is how does the Department of the
Interior accept donations of private property for inclusion in
national monuments?
Mr. Rountree. Again----
Mr. Bishop. Especially those--let's----
Mr. Rountree. Sure.
Mr. Bishop. Let's not make it too broad for you.
Mr. Rountree. Sure.
Mr. Bishop. Specifically those that were created by the
Antiquities Act.
Mr. Rountree. I am unfamiliar with those acquisitions, Mr.
Chairman. We will be happy to get back with you.
My staff is telling me those were National Park Service
acquisitions.
Mr. Bishop. OK. I would still like to know what--how do you
accept those types of things. We have sent that letter already.
I am still anxiously awaiting for a response to it, and will
probably repeat the questions again until I do get a response
to the letter that was there for the record.
So, I am--is Mr. Frost available to answer that one?
Mr. Frost. I----
Mr. Bishop. Smart thinking.
Mr. Frost. We would have to get back with you. I don't know
the details on that.
Mr. Bishop. Well, then, let me not let you go so easy, and
I will redo the questions that we asked earlier and still are
waiting for the answer.
Is there a vetting process? Is this a public process? Two
questions.
Mr. Frost. I think there are a variety of ways in which we
acquire donations. And again, I am not the lands guy here, so I
don't want to tread in areas and sort of get myself into a
hole.
Mr. Bishop. Well, let's make sure that when I do get back
an official answer, it is specific about those two areas that
were acquired in 2 days and made public property so very
quickly before the designation took place. And I want to know
what the vetting process was, and if the public was involved in
that kind of a process. Do you----
Mr. Frost. And so--just--can I just----
Mr. Bishop. Please.
Mr. Frost. Basic clarification. So you are talking about
the First State National Monument up in Delaware? Is that the
one?
Mr. Bishop. No.
Mr. Frost. So which ones are you----
Mr. Bishop. Cesar Chavez and the Buffalo----
Mr. Frost. Oh, Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers?
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Mr. Frost. OK. Cesar Chavez--OK. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Those two were private property until 2 days
before the designation.
So, you can probably answer this one. Was the Department of
Justice or any other agencies involved in any of these
proceedings, or the negotiations that lead up to the donation
of private property?
Mr. Frost. Again, I don't know, but I would assume so.
Mr. Bishop. So, I guess, once again, for the record, if you
could provide me with a list of the agencies and staff members
who participated in the private property donation proceedings,
that was--for the record already, we have yet to receive that
particular answer.
And if you would also provide an itemized cost estimate for
the President's designation under the Antiquities Act,
including the acquisition of those lands, preparation and
rehabilitation for the structures, as well as their annual
operating costs. And so you can zero in on those two pieces of
property, they are the ones to which I have the greatest amount
of concern.
Are either of you working on or have you been asked by the
Secretary or the President to work on any upcoming national
monument proclamations?
Mr. Rountree. Absolutely not.
Mr. Frost. I am not aware of any for the National Park
Service. I mean there is the one piece of legislation on Valles
Caldera that is floating around somewhere. But that is going
through the legislative process.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate things going through the
legislative process.
Mr. Rountree, in one of the earlier answers to Mr.
Grijalva, he asked you about the NEPA process. And you
basically said, ``We should do NEPA for everything,'' which I
happen to admit and agree with you in that particular case,
which is why it is so frustrating to have had another hearing
on the EPIC Act, in which the Administration's position was the
exact opposite. Whenever we have a land change, there are broad
impacts because of those land change, and it would require,
actually, local input. The Administration has been invited here
to provide administrative input to our legislative process that
deals specifically with Mr. Young and Mr. Huffman and Mr.
Pearce's bills.
But at the same time, the Administration argues that it
should not be held subject to any kind of legislative scrutiny
or public scrutiny or a NEPA scrutiny when it uses the
Antiquities Act to do something. I am sorry. Those two
positions don't' work together. Either NEPA is good for the
President and the legislative process, or it is not good for
the President and then it is not good for the legislative
process, as well. You can't have it both ways. And I find it
very disconcerting to have had the testimony earlier on the
Antiquities Act, that NEPA should never be used by a President,
and never used in that process, because--because.
So, gentlemen, I appreciate you being here for the hearing
and your testimony on these bills. There were several that I
asked specifically about the New Mexico proposal. I would like
those written as quickly as possible.
Mr. Rountree. You bet.
Mr. Bishop. And I will reaffirm that the letter of
questions that we sent earlier, I still want a response to it.
And I intend on every hearing we have to keep asking those
questions until I actually do get a response from Interior on
how you went about this process. I mean if you can take the
property in 2 days, you should be able to write a letter in
that same period of time.
Well, I was going to ask if there are any other questions,
but it is kind of a redundant question, isn't it?
I do ask unanimous consent--I guess if I object to it, that
would really be bad, wouldn't it? I object--to insert a letter
to the Chairman and the Ranking Member on the Benishek bill,
and have that added to the record.
And I guess I have another one. I would like to ask
unanimous consent to have another letter written to myself from
the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, as
well, to be inserted into the record, specifically about H.R.
995.
[The information submitted for the record by the Chairman
has been retained in the Committee's official files:]
Mr. Bishop. With that, once again, I appreciate you being
here, and I want to again apologize for making you wait in that
period of time. I know that used to be traditional. We tried in
the transition back in 2011 to change that process so the
Committee time would never have to do that. And I hope you will
never have to come here again and be subject to that.
So, with that apology, I thank you for your testimony. I
thank you, and I look forward with bated anticipation to your
answers in written form.
There may be other questions that other Members have. We
would ask you to be prepared to also respond to them within 10
days in written form, as well.
With that, without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional Materials Submitted for the Record]
The documents listed below have been retained in the
Committee's official files.
American Motorcyclist Association, Letter for the
record in support of H.R. 995
Anthony Chamber of Commerce, Letter to Chairman
Bishop for the record in support of H.R. 995
Anthony Chamber of Commerce, Letter to Chairman
Hastings for the record in support of H.R. 995
Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, Boone & Crockett Club, et. Al., Letter for
the record in support of H.R. 1825
Deming Soil and Water Conservation District, Letter
for the record in support of H.R. 995
Defenders of Wildlife, Letter for the record is
opposition of H.R. 1825
Dona Ana County Sheriff's Department, Letter for the
record in support of H.R. 995
Los Cruces Chamber of Commerce, Letter for the record
commending Rep. Pearce for his work to protect the Organ
Mountains.
Los Cruces Chamber of Commerce, Letter for the record
in opposition to the proposal to Establish the Organ Mountain-
Desert Peaks National Monument in Dona Ana County, New Mexico
Mesilla Valley Sportsmen's Alliance, Letter for the
record in support of H.R. 995
Western Heritage Alliance, Letter for the record in
Support of H.R. 995
Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces, Letter for
the record in support of H.R. 995
Linebery Policy Center for Natural Resource
Management, Letter for the record in support of H.R. 995
National Association of Former Border Patrol
Officers, Letter for the record in support of H.R. 995
Trout Unlimited, Letter for the record, regarding
Congress's attention to hunting, fishing and shooting sports on
public lands.
Wilmeth, Steve, Letter for the record in support of
H.R. 995