Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
OCTOBER 19, 1999, TUESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
2987 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
DEBBIE
SEASE
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
SIERRA CLUB
BEFORE THE
HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
ON H.R. 3035, THE UTAH NATIONAL PARKS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
WILDERNESS ACT
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Committee, my name is Debbie Sease, and I am the Sierra Club's
Legislative Director. I'm very appreciative of the invitation to offer testimony
on H.R. 3035. The Sierra Club is a national, grassroots environmental
organization. We are the country's oldest environmental organization, with more
than a half- million members who belong to more than 65 chapters and 450 groups
across the nation. Securing wilderness protection for America's remaining wild
lands has long been one of the Sierra Club's top priorities. Nowhere else in the
lower forty eight is there a better opportunity to preserve so much intact
wilderness than we have today in Utah. The most recently completed Citizen's
Inventory of Utah BLM public lands found more than nine million acres of
wilderness qualifying lands. I am especially pleased to be able to offer
testimony regarding Utah BLM wilderness, since more than twenty years ago I
began my career as an environmental advocate working on the BLM wilderness
review. In 1978, when the Bureau of Land Management began the wilderness review
mandated under section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA), the agency was very surprised by both the quantity and quality of wild
lands under the agency's jurisdiction. So too were conservationists.
Unfortunately, the response of the agency to this unexpected wealth of
wilderness, in too many cases, was to scramble for ways to eliminate qualified
lands from the inventory. In no state was this more of a problem than in Utah,
where the agency initially identified only 1.9 million acres as suitable for
study. Citizen appeals to the inventory eventually brought the total under study
up to the present acreage of 3.2 million acres. Meanwhile conservationists'
independent review had identified 5.7 million acres. In 1998, Utah
conservationists conducted a second, more thorough citizen inventory, and while
some acreage in the original proposal was deleted, because of damaging
activities that had occurred in the intervening years, the intensive citizen
field work identified additional qualifying areas, yielding a final Citizen
Proposal of 9.1 million acres statewide. This proposal is embodied in H.R. 1732,
America's Redrock Wilderness Act, a bill that has garnered broad support and now
has 151 cosponsors. Both the Citizen Proposal and H.R. 1732 identify
approximately 2.6 million acres of wilderness in the region encompassed by H.R.
3035.
While I am not here today to offer the Sierra Club's support for H.R.
3035, I do want to start by acknowledging that there are areas of significant
improvement in this bill over H.R. 1745 from the 104th Congress. This bill
contains improvements in both the acreage designated, and in its wilderness
management provisions. These are important changes.
While we welcome these
improvements, we must still oppose passage of H.R. 3035 -- both because the bill
fails to designate critically important areas as wilderness and forestalls
further agency wilderness consideration of them, and because of several very
troubling management provisions. I will elaborate on these concerns:
AREAS
NOT PROTECTED BY H.R. 3035
H.R. 3035 would designate roughly one million
acres of the 2.6 million acres that would be designated in the same area by HR.
1732. This unfortunately leaves out far too many special places. For example,
the key part of the Mojave Desert in Utah -- the Beaver Dam area -- is not
designated. In the West Desert, there is an opportunity to protect as wilderness
one large intact desert basin, the Tule Valley. But H.R. 3035 instead only
designates adjacent mountain ranges and leaves the biologically important and
fragile valley bottom out of the wilderness. Nor are the rare wetlands of the
Snake Valley, or the even rarer desert trout stream and its riparian habitat in
the Doc's Pass roadless area, protected as wilderness. I would
like to briefly highlight some of the key areas that are designated as
wilderness in HR. 1732, but that are left unprotected in H.R. 3035:
Beaver
Dam-Joshua Tree complex: This is a complex of wild lands that includes Beaver
Dam Mountains North and South, Beaver Dam Wash and Beaver Dam Mountains
Wilderness expansion. Here, three major ecoregions -- the Colorado Plateau, the
Great Basin and the Mojave Desert -- come together, along with overlapping plant
and animal habitats. More than 180 bird species have been identified at the
Lyric Ranch just north of the area. This area provides habitat for the desert
tortoise, which is in danger of extinction in Utah. Protecting this area, and
all other available tortoise habitat within candidate wilderness areas as
wilderness is an important way to ensure maximum success for the desert tortoise
habitat protection plan. This wilderness complex is home to the endangered
peregrine falcon and a variety of birds that live nowhere else in Utah, as well
as several rare reptiles, including the Gila monster, the Mojave and speckled
rattlesnakes, the desert iguana and the desert night lizard.
The San
Francisco Mountains: This scenic range with a 5,000-foot elevation gradient
contains a full range of plant communities, from salt desert shrub to Douglas
fir, with species such as choke cherry and oak found in the intervening
elevations. The San Francisco Mountains provide year-long habitat for elk, deer,
and cougar, as well as critical habitat for pronghorn antelope. These mountains
are home to a mustard plant, Lepidium ostleri, that occurs nowhere else.
Increasing off-road vehicle use threatens the solitude of the San Francisco
Mountains. The BLM has rated the scenic values of the San Francisco Mountains as
high.
The Mountain Home Range complex (including Tweedy Wash, Mountain Home
Range, Jackson Wash and the Toad): This is one of the most remote wild areas in
Utah's West Desert. Situated near the Nevada state border just east and south of
Great Basin National Park, these mountains offer spectacular views into the
distance, and boast impressively scenic granite fins and buttresses. The
Mountain Home Range has some of the highest density of critical and crucial
wildlife habitat and numbers of plants at risk of anywhere in the West Desert.
Doc's Pass complex: In the upper drainage of the proposed Doc's Pass
wilderness, Beaver Dam Wash is a cool stream slicing through granite and lava
rock. This stream is the only native trout fishery in the area. It may also
support the Virgin spinedace, a fish that is a candidate for protection under
the Endangered Species Act. The most diverse habitat is found along the stream
where thick brush, willows and cottonwood trees flourish. The BLM Dixie Resource
Area Management Plan and EIS noted: "Riparian vegetation, in combination with
other vegetation types, results in a diversity of habitat known as the edge
effect. Riparian zones also link habitat types, provide travel lanes for
wildlife, and serve as winter resting areas for waterfowl along the north-south
flyways." The Doc's Pass complex marks a transition zone between the colder
Great Basin ecoregion to the north, and the northern-most extent of the Mojave
Desert to the south. Because of this ecological juxtaposition, many different
kinds of species reach their distributional limits in this zone. This stretch of
Beaver Dam Wash has been proposed for Wild and Scenic River designation.
Washington County, Utah, has identified a dam-site on the West Fork of
Beaver Dam Wash in the Doc's Pass unit. The dam would threaten rare desert
riparian habitat within the unit and would also threaten to deprive the
downstream environment of water. As a result, the endangered Southwestern willow
flycatcher would be put at risk in this area.
Tule Valley complex (including
Tule Valley, Tule Valley South, Coyote Knoll and Chalk Knolls): One important
purpose of wilderness designation is to protect the available diversity of wild
landforms. Tule Valley and its environs exemplify the "basin" in the Basin and
Range region of Utah's West Desert. Its broad, dry earth expanse has an
otherworldly quality that is punctuated with life surrounding several springs,
bordered in rushes, or rules. Crossing the Tule Valley complex is akin to
crossing the Great Basin on a small scale. Tule Valley itself is spectacularly
remote. It is a forbidding landscape, yet one with water, for springs support
the tules which give the area its name, and give life to the antelope, small
mammals and raptors that inhabit the area.
The Newfoundland Mountains: The
Newfoundland Mountains are a superb example of an untouched, spectacular Great
Basin mountain range. From these mountains incredible views are offered in all
directions - the Great Salt Lake to the east, the Pilot Range to the west, the
Bonneville Salt Flats to the southwest. The Newfoundlands rise dramatically to a
knife-edge two thousand feet above the surrounding flatlands. They are as
pristine and wild as any place that can be found on a map. The BLM's wilderness
inventory found that "(e)cologic, geographic and scenic values are obvious...
Scenic vistas from the unit extend over many miles in every direction and are of
high quality."
Upper Snake Valley: Salt Marsh Lake and its associated salt
and freshwater marshes are the heart of the area. As a stop on the Great
Interior West flyway, of which the Great Salt Lake is recognized for its global
importance, the area attracts the same bird species in large numbers. As a lake
and a wetland fed by springs, it is one of the most productive habitats for
these birds in the West Desert. But the valley is threatened by development of
water resources for livestock. Removing water from this area would be utterly
devastating to the aquatic systems of the area.
NATIONAL PARK WILDERNESS
DESIGNATIONS
The bill has been characterized as legislating the National
Park Service (NPS) wilderness recommendations for these areas, which is
something that we would fully support. However, the acreage numbers do not match
those recommendations, and in Dinosaur National Monument there is a significant
discrepancy between the Park Service recommendations and the proposed
designations in H.R. 3035. We would like to see HR. 3035 fully embrace the NPS
recommendations for park wilderness boundaries, at a minimum.
In addition,
the water rights provision of Title 1 (Section 104) is a complete disavowal of
reserved water rights for the wilderness area recommendations within the
National Park units. We find this section very troubling. While there is
language in this section that recognizes, by implication, the existence of
reserved water rights for the underlying National Park designation, we think
that recognition is insufficient to protect the water or water-related values of
the wilderness units. Just as the bill recognizes in the findings section that
these lands need and deserve an additional layer of protection in the form of a
wilderness designation to protect the "ecologically diverse habitat" found in
these areas "for numerous species of wildlife," so too do these lands need the
reserved water rights that should accompany the wilderness designation.
MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS OF CONCERN
Release Language
Section 202 of
Title II begins with a declaration about the adequacy of the study required
under Section 603 of FLPMA, and stating that the areas need no longer be managed
under Section 603 of FLPMA. This is standard, well-established and acceptable
release language for BLM wilderness study areas. However, the second part of the
section is quite troubling as it raises a question of how broad the prohibition
is regarding plan amendments under section 202 of FLPMA. Is this intended to
apply only to this specific plan amendment, or would it prohibit future
consideration of wilderness values of BLM areas in these counties under Section
202 of FLPMA in future plan amendments? If it is the latter, then this section
is a variation on hard release, and would inappropriately constrain and limit
BLM managers in considering a full range of values and management options in
future plan amendments for this region.
National Defense Lands
Sections
106 and 202(f) of H.R. 3035 appear to be based in part on a somewhat similar
provision in the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (CDPA), Public Law
103-433, which guarantees continued use of the newly designated park and
wilderness units for low level flights and for possible new units of special air
space. This provision was a troubling compromise in the California Desert bill.
The version included in H.R. 3035 is even more disturbing because of several key
differences which significantly expand the potential impact on the wilderness
resource. In fact, this section of the bill is so broadly written as to provide
carte blanche for the military within both the BLM and NPS wilderness units,
perhaps even expanding the authority of the military beyond its current status
in these lands.
The findings of H.R. 3035 differ from the findings in the
CDPA in a critical aspect by deleting the important qualifying phrase, "under
appropriate terms and conditions." Thus finding -- without that important
qualification -- that continued, unrestricted access to the special use airspace
and lands is compatible with protection of the wilderness values of the lands.
Moreover, this section provides for use, not just of the air space, but of the
lands themselves by the military. Seemingly the only restriction is that the use
not require construction of permanent roads.
Grazing in Park Wilderness
Section 103(d) of Title I provides for continued grazing in the NPS
wilderness units where established prior to enactment of this legislation. While
this grazing language is standard for national forest and BLM units, it is not
appropriate for NPS units, as grazing in these areas does not operate under the
same laws governing the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
Land Acquisition Requirement
Section 202(d) of Title II includes a
curious, perhaps unintentional, mandate to the Secretary to offer to acquire any
land that is within, and even adjacent to, a wilderness unit in this bill. This
would seem to be an unnecessary and potentially very expensive mandate. The
requirement to offer to purchase land adjacent to the unit is particularly
inexplicable given the assurance in Section 204 that no buffer zones are being
created and that the existence of wilderness will not affect use of adjacent
lands.
Water Rights
While the water rights language of Section 202(h) is
an improvement over the complete denial of reserved water rights for these
wilderness qualifying lands as is found in the National Park wilderness section,
we still find it troubling. Let me explain. The Sierra Club has supported
language in other wilderness bills recognizing "unique circumstances" where the
true absence of water in the areas made an accompanying reservation of water
unnecessary, or where the areas were headwaters and thus there was no need for a
reserved water right, as the area itself captured within its boundaries "all the
water." In any of the above circumstances, we have been very familiar with the
areas and the boundaries and have often helped do some of the extensive research
on the ground and in the State Engineer's office so that the assertions
regarding headwaters or the absence of water or water- related values was well
known to us. We have gone so far as to adjust boundaries to ensure the integrity
of the statements regarding their unique status. That is not the case with HR.
3035. We have not seen maps, nor have we had the benefit of seeing any research
into whether there are existing water right holders upstream of any of the areas
with proposals or plans to develop water that would lead to a problem for the
downstream wilderness.
raking a quick look at the maps shows that, for
example, in the Deep Creek Wilderness Area proposal, there is a significant
stream, Deep Creek, which originates upstream of the area and flows into it for
roughly the full length of the area, north to south. It then flows out of the
area and into Zion National Park, becoming a tributary of the Virgin River. We
cannot say that this area and others in HR. 3035 did not warrant much more
extensive research to determine what water and water-related values of the area
would be injured by the absence of a reserved right.
Desert wilderness is
unique, as you know well, Mr. Chairman, because valuable water resources offer a
full range of possibilities, from free-flowing rivers to intermittent springs
and seeps, all of which provide important habitat for wildlife and riparian
vegetation. Sometimes springs and seeps are the only water for long distances
and thus take on greatly heightened importance to the surrounding natural
values. We are very uncomfortable with the assertion in Section 202(h) that
"there is little or no water or water-related resources" in the areas that would
be affected by a wilderness recommendation without the opportunity to view the
maps and what research either the Committee or the Bureau of Land Management has
completed. We would value the opportunity to work with the Bureau of Land
Management and the Committee to take a close look at these and other areas in
the Citizen's Proposal to determine the existence and need for water rights
protection for the areas.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as I
noted earlier, we are pleased to see improvements in this bill from bills in
previous years. There remain, however, too many serious problems with the bill.
We must respectfully continue to oppose its enactment. We do look forward to
continuing to work with you, and hope one day to be in agreement with you on a
bill to protect Utah's unique wilderness legacy.
Thank you for this
opportunity to testify. And I would be happy to answer any questions that you
have.
END
LOAD-DATE: October 20, 1999
