**Statement of**

**Elena Daly, Director**

**National Landscape Conservation System**

**Bureau of Land Management**

**House Committee on Natural Resources**

**H.R. 2632, Sabinoso Wilderness Act,**

**H.R. 3682, California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act,**

**H.R. 2334, Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and**

**Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act**

**November 13, 2007**

Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 2632, the Sabinoso
Wilderness Act, H.R. 3682, the California Desert and Mountain Heritage
Act, and H.R. 2334, Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian
Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act. The Department strongly supports
Congressional efforts to resolve wilderness designations throughout the
West, and we welcome this opportunity to further those efforts. Only
Congress can determine whether to designate Wilderness Study Areas
(WSAs) as wilderness or release them for other multiple uses. We support
the resolution of WSA issues and stand ready to work with Members of
Congress toward this goal.

**[H.R. 2632, Sabinoso Wilderness Act]{.underline}**

The Department of the Interior supports H.R. 2632, a bill designating
19,880 acres of BLM-managed land in northwestern New Mexico as the
Sabinoso Wilderness area. The Sabinoso area provides a rugged and
dramatic landscape. Deep sinuous canyons are interspersed with
flat-topped mesas in an area that has changed little over the last
several hundred years. While there is both archaeological and historical
evidence of sporadic human visitation, the rough nature of the terrain
has discouraged all but the hardiest. Today, the canyons and mesas are
home to mule deer, elk, mountain lion, and wild turkey. Golden eagles
and turkey vultures soar off the thermals rising from sandstone canyon
walls.

The BLM is currently working with the state on a land exchange which
would result in the acquisition of state land inholdings within the
proposed wilderness. This process should be completed within a year. We
also are in discussions with private landowners in the area about
acquiring either conservation easements or fee title of some of the
private inholdings. The BLM only explores such options from willing
landowners.

Congressman Udall has worked with the local community to reach consensus
on the proposed designation. The New Mexico House of Representatives and
San Miguel County, New Mexico have passed resolutions in support of
wilderness designation of Sabinoso. We would like the opportunity to
work with Congressman Udall and the subcommittee to resolve a few
technical errors on the map referenced in the legislation, which we
prepared at Congressman Udall's request.

**[H.R. 3682, California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act]{.underline}**

H.R. 3682 designates wilderness throughout Riverside County, California
on lands managed by the BLM, National Park Service (NPS) and Forest
Service. It also expands the BLM and Forest Service-managed Santa Rosa
and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument (designated by Public Law
106-351) as well as designates a number of Wild and Scenic rivers under
the management of the Forest Service. The Department of the Interior
supports H.R. 3682 as it applies to BLM and NPS designations but would
like the opportunity to work with the subcommittee on a number of
clarifications, including acreage and mapping adjustments. We defer to
the Department of Agriculture on those designations on National Forest
System lands.

H.R. 3682, as introduced, includes acreage numbers that do not match
area descriptions or the maps provided to the sponsors by the
Department. We are working with the sponsor and the subcommittee to make
appropriate corrections. Our discussions of the bill in this testimony
will reflect the updated acreage numbers.

Title I designates four new wilderness areas: Beauty Mountain and Pinto
Mountains Wilderness to be managed by the BLM as well as Cahuilla
Mountain and South Fork San Jacinto Wilderness to be managed by the
Forest Service.

The proposed new Beauty Mountain Wilderness would cover over 15,000
acres of BLM-managed lands. It is one of the last undeveloped areas in
the region; numerous outside groups recognize both its significance as
open space and the important resource values of Beauty Mountain. We
should note that the boundary for Beauty Mountain is arbitrarily set at
the Riverside County line. The second new BLM wilderness area, Pinto
Mountains wilderness, lies just to the north of the National Park
Service's Joshua Tree National Park and wilderness. Much has changed in
these areas during the last 15 years. In 1994, the California Desert
Protection Act changed the management landscape in the entire California
desert. That same year, much of the area was designated as critical
habitat for the threatened desert tortoise. This area is important
habitat for the desert bighorn sheep. Many inholdings have been acquired
by the State, private groups, or BLM that made this area more manageable
and enhanced their wilderness characteristics. Far fewer mining claims
exist in the area than were there15 years ago. These areas are currently
primarily non-motorized.

In addition, Title I expands six existing wilderness areas that were
designated under Public Law 103-433 the California Desert Protection Act
and earlier wilderness bills: Agua Tibia, Orocopia Mountains,
Palen/McCoy, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness managed by the BLM;
Joshua Tree National Park Wilderness managed by NPS; and additions to
the Santa Rosa Wilderness within Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains
National Monument managed by both the BLM and the Forest Service. The
expansions, which will improve manageability, protect important resource
values and improve dispersed recreational opportunities, range from a
mere 500-acre addition to the existing Agua Tibia Wilderness to a large
23,000-acre addition to the Palen/McCoy Wilderness. Other additions
include 5,000 acres to the Orocopia Mountains Wilderness and 13,000
acres to the Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness. These expanded wilderness
designations are possible now because of acquisitions of land by the BLM
and changes in on-the-ground conditions that have occurred since the
original wilderness designations.

Within the boundary of Joshua Tree National Park, section 102(f) of H.R.
3682 designates 36,800 acres of land in non-contiguous parcels as
wilderness. All of these lands are wilderness quality. Of these acres,
about 8,400 acres were designated only as potential wilderness as part
of the original wilderness designation for Joshua Tree National Park in
1976 (Public Law 94-567), because they were privately owned or used for
non-wilderness purposes. The lands now are owned by the National Park
Service and are appropriate for wilderness designation. Another 28,400
acres, owned by the National Park Service, are located in a roadless
area west of the Cottonwood Entrance. A draft study conducted by the
National Park Service supports wilderness designation for these lands.

Section 103 of H.R. 3682 designates as potential wilderness
approximately 43,100 acres of land along the park's southwestern
boundary. This area is physically inaccessible and has no available
water source. As such, the park already is managing this area as
wilderness. About one-third of the acreage is in private ownership, and
the National Park Service has been working to acquire these lands with
donated funds, on a willing-seller basis. While we recognize the
Congress' authority to designate this area as potential wilderness, we
would like to work with the sponsor and the subcommittee to further
clarify some ambiguities in this section.

Finally, Title III of H.R. 3682 expands the boundary of the Santa Rosa
and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument by approximately 8,360
acres, designating 2,990 of those acres as wilderness inside the
monument. Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument was
originally designated by Public Law 106-351. Since then, the
communities, agencies, and other interested members of the public in the
Coachella Valley have strongly embraced the Monument and take great
pride in their many achievements towards making the Monument a success
story. The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument
Advisory Committee fully participated in the development of a management
plan that is now in the implementation phase. We support this proposed
expansion, which would enhance manageability of the monument and expand
protection of important habitat for the endangered Peninsular bighorn
sheep.

H.R. 3682 is a result of a multi-year process undertaken by
Congresswoman Bono and other members of the California Congressional
delegation. This public process included engaging elected officials,
interest groups, local communities, and the affected land managing
agencies. We appreciate these efforts as we believe that local input and
consensus-building are essential ingredients to successful wilderness
bills. As this bill moves forward, we look forward to the opportunity to
work with the Committee on the corrections and amendments discussed in
this testimony and to ensure that the maps most accurately reflect the
intended boundaries.

**[H.R. 2334, Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness and Indian Peaks
Wilderness Expansion Act]{.underline}**

The Department of the Interior cannot support H.R. 2334 unless amended
to address our concerns regarding the provisions related to the Grand
River Ditch as described in this testimony. The Department presented the
same position in testimony on S. 1380, an identical bill, at a hearing
held before the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks on July 12, 2007.
The Department also testified in support of a similar bill, S. 1510, at
a hearing held before the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks on April
6, 2006. That bill did not contain the Grand River Ditch provisions. We
defer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture on lands affecting the U.S.
Forest Service.

H.R. 2334 would designate approximately 249,339 acres of Rocky Mountain
National Park's backcountry in the National Wilderness Preservation
System. This represents approximately 95% of the park's total acreage,
lands that currently are managed as wilderness. In addition, H.R. 2334
would exclude lands occupied by the Grand River Ditch from wilderness,
change the liability standard for future damage to park resources
resulting from operation and maintenance of the ditch, enable the Water
Supply and Storage Company to convert its Grand River Ditch water rights
to other uses, make adjustments to the Indian Peaks Wilderness and
Arapaho National Recreation Area, both administered by the U.S. Forest
Service, and give the National Park Service (NPS) the authority to lease
the Lieffer tract.

In 1964, Congress designated Rocky Mountain National Park as a
wilderness study area. In 1974, President Nixon recommended to Congress
239,835 acres for immediate designation and 5,169 acres for potential
designation as wilderness in the park. The increased acreage amount
included in H.R. 2334 is based on modifications brought about by land
acquisition and boundary adjustments since 1974.

Present road, water, and utility corridors, and all developed areas, are
excluded from recommended wilderness. Wilderness designation would not
alter any current visitor activities or access within the park, and
would allow visitors to utilize the park in the same ways and locations
that they presently enjoy.

Federal reserved water rights for park purposes are not an issue related
to wilderness designation as water rights for the park have been
adjudicated through the State of Colorado water courts. Consequently, no
water rights claims for wilderness purposes are needed or desired by the
NPS.

After holding public meetings on the proposed designation in June 2005,
the gateway communities of Estes Park and Grand Lake, and the counties
of Grand and Larimer, endorsed wilderness designation for Rocky Mountain
National Park, subject to specific boundary modifications on the west
boundary of the park. These modifications, which have been incorporated
in H.R. 2334, would provide an area of non-wilderness around the Town of
Grand Lake in order to ensure that the park could continue to actively
manage hazardous fuels and other uses that might affect the Town. The
proposed modifications would also reserve a corridor along the east
shore of Shadow Mountain and Granby reservoirs for the possible
construction of a non-motorized hike/bike trail, which would be subject
to normal NPS planning processes including analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act.

In addition to excluding lands occupied by the Grand River Ditch from
wilderness, H.R. 2334 would allow for a change in the liability standard
for future damage to park resources resulting from operation and
maintenance of the ditch, as long as the ditch is operated and
maintained in accordance with an operations and maintenance agreement
between the NPS and the ditch's owners. This provision would alter the
protections to park resources under the Park System Resource Protection
Act (16 U.S.C 19jj) which holds any person who causes injury to park
resources liable to the United States for response costs and damages,
except in certain circumstances such as an act of God or actions by a
third party.

In 1907, and again in 2000, the owners of the ditch, the Water Supply
and Storage Company, agreed to a stipulation, in return for a valuable
right-of-way across public land and a stipulated water rights agreement,
that requires them to pay the United States for any and all damage
sustained by use of the right-of-way regardless of the cause and
circumstances.

Altering these protections to a more lenient negligence standard for the
Grand River Ditch, as proposed by H.R. 2334, could have serious
implications for future damage causing events resulting from the
operation of the Grand Ditch within park boundaries. Changing that
standard to a general liability standard would require the NPS to expend
scarce financial resources to prove negligence. In cases where
negligence could not be proven, the United States would pay for response
and repair costs associated with damage caused by operation of the
ditch. This could set a dangerous precedent for all national parks and
other public lands with implications far beyond the boundaries of Rocky
Mountain National Park. Also, to retroactively change the 1907
stipulation would negate a century-old agreement that the ditch's owners
have twice agreed to in exchange for valuable consideration it has
received, the right-of-way itself and the 2000 stipulated water rights
agreement.

As proposed in H.R. 2334, an operations and maintenance plan for the
ditch is clearly needed. However, it must be comprehensive in scope and
enforceable and should not be tied to a change in the liability standard
for the ditch. We believe that an effective plan must contain provisions
that reduce the risk of catastrophic failure of the ditch (as occurred
in 2003) that could injure park visitors and staff and harm critical
park resources. The plan should also establish clear expectations
regarding maintenance and operational issues that impact park
operations. Such a plan, if fully implemented by the operators of the
ditch, should reduce the likelihood of future breaches or damage causing
events, which we believe is in the interest of all parties and should
negate the perceived need for a change in liability protection for the
park.

H.R. 2334 also proposes to grant an exemption to the Water Supply and
Storage Company from the requirement in its original right-of-way grant
that the primary purpose of the ditch is for irrigation or drainage.
This proposed change would enable the Company to convert its Grand River
Ditch water rights to other uses, such as municipal use, without risking
forfeiture of the ditch right-of-way, which could represent a
significant increase in the value of the water rights for the
shareholders of the Water Supply and Storage Company.

The provisions of H.R. 2334 related to the Grand Ditch go beyond
ensuring that ditch operations are not affected by the designation of
wilderness and grant the owners of the ditch significant privileges and
exemptions from existing law and prior agreements with the United States
and a potential windfall by allowing a change in use of the water. We
would be happy to work with the Committee on amendments to the bill to
address our concerns related to the operations of the Grand Ditch.

Finally, H.R. 2334 would give the NPS the authority to lease the Lieffer
tract. This 12 acre tract is located outside the boundary of Rocky
Mountain National Park, was donated to the park, and lends itself to
leasing to educational institutions or other similar entities.

**[Conclusion]{.underline}**

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We support the efforts of
Congress to resolve the wilderness issues. I will be happy to answer any
questions.