![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.216666666666667in"
height="1.3069444444444445in"}

**Testimony of Rick Johnson**

**Executive Director of the Idaho Conservation League**

**Before the**

**U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests**

**H.R. 3603: Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act**

**S. 3794: Implementation of Owyhee Initiative**

**September 27, 2006 -- Washington, DC**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity
to appear today to discuss H.R. 3603, the Central Idaho Economic
Development and Recreation Act of 2005 (CIEDRA) and S. 3794, which would
implement the Owyhee Initiative. My name is Rick Johnson and I have been
the executive director of the Idaho Conservation League for over a
decade. For over 30 years we have worked to protect the clean water,
wilderness, and quality of life of Idaho.

These written comments supplement my short oral testimony delivered on
September 27, 2006. Also, while these written comments address both
S.3794 and H.R. 3603 we have additional comments on S. 3794 for this
hearing that are being submitted separately and jointly by The
Wilderness Society and the Idaho Conservation League.

These comments address the context for collaboration, public support for
these packages, and particular points related to each bill.

*Context for collaboration*

No wilderness bill has passed for Idaho in twenty-six years, over a
generation, and not since Frank Church was one of our senators. One
reason for this is that each time a wilderness proposal came from the
Idaho delegation, the conservation movement was unable to
collaboratively engage so we rallied to fight. I know this because I
have had a leadership role in every serious attempt to protect
wilderness in Idaho for over 20 years.

And each time we stopped a bill, afterward we'd come together and put
forth a new proposal: bigger, better, bolder, and more protective of
wilderness. Unfortunately, each new proposal of ours was even more
disconnected from the realities of the politics of the state where we
live. Don't get me wrong: Our organization supports and has long
articulated a bold vision for wilderness in Idaho, but as we look to
that distant horizon, we also look where our feet can go, one step at a
time, in a state with very challenging politics.

Also, as we worked to protect the wildlands we care about, our tactics
were viewed on a local level as increasingly confrontational. In some
cases, this approach increased an already significant divide between
people working to protect a landscape and those who live and work on it.

I appear today to speak for two pieces of legislation I would not have
written myself. We do not support some of the provisions these bills
contain. But I speak for two bills that *[are]{.underline}* connected to
the politics of Idaho, and that while far from perfect, reflect years of
unprecedented work to create a solid middle ground.

I believe both these bills---different as they are---can serve as a
model for others, and by that I do not mean copying the public land
disposal provisions so troubling to so many, me included. I would also
point out that while many see a trend in wilderness bill containing
public land disposal, I see our situation as unique, framed around our
challenging politics and the fact that no bill has passed here in 26
years. It is my hope that future Idaho bills are configured differently.

Also, there are places, such as in Washington County, Utah, where bills
pretend to offer what we have here; that bill has land conveyances, but
not the years of work to create ownership and true collaboration, and
there is no support from wilderness advocacy organizations.

By our work being a model, I refer to successfully bringing diverse
interests together, creating bills from the ground up that accommodate a
variety of interests, building the deep political support these bills
have.

It is said that it takes a craftsman to build a barn, yet any fool can
tear one down. We have a long track record of stopping Idaho bills. It
is now, however, time to recognize the effort to create these two and
pass what is certainly the best opportunity we've had to do so in 26
years.

*Public support for collaborative wilderness*

Before I address elements of the Owyhee and Boulder-White Cloud bills, I
would like to discuss public support. In Idaho wilderness has long been
controversial and public support is a key element to this endeavor. As
Abraham Lincoln said, "With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without
it, nothing can succeed."

In the past decades of work to protect Idaho wilderness, over and over,
Idaho's congressional leaders have repeatedly challenged us to create
wilderness packages with real local support, with local elected leader
support, with business support. We have been challenged to create
bottom-up, locally based proposals rather then strictly advocate
top-down, DC-based policy.

We have done that.

Idaho is a conservative state. Like this Congress, Idaho is more
conservative today than it used to be, but Idaho still cares deeply for
special places like the Boulder-White Clouds and Owyhee Canyonlands. And
while we are working on issues impacting national interest lands,
wilderness has always required support from the home state.

As I hope this panel makes clear, these two bills---crafted from the
bottom up in Idaho by Idahoans---have extraordinary support, and unlike
past wilderness initiatives that, to some, appear as an attempt to
overwhelm Idaho's conservative values, these bills complement them, yet
also retain the values of conservation that are core to our mission as
conservationists.

Both bills contain compromises to be sure, and some of the compromises
we do not support, and both bills have vocal opponents on both political
extremes, but let's consider the support they have earned.

First, there is significant support from the Idaho congressional
delegation. The Boulder-White Clouds bill, written and introduced by
Rep. Mike Simpson, and the Owyhee Canyonlands bill, written and
introduced by Sen. Mike Crapo, are 50% of our congressional delegation.
Further, both bills are strongly supported by Idaho's Governor Jim
Risch. Wilderness bills don't generally arise from Idaho's Republican
leadership. To state the obvious, Idaho is a conservative Republican
state and these elected officials are of the majority party. A broad
number of noted Democrats, have also expressed support for one or both
of these bills including former Governor and Interior Secretary Cecil
Andrus, Bethine Church, and a number of current candidates for office.
The reason for this broad bi-partisan support is a foundation of
collaboration and the good prospects for ultimate passage.

These bills impact lands found in Owyhee, Custer, and Blaine Counties.
The County Commissions of all three counties are in support of the
respective bills. Blaine County is home to Sun Valley, and has long
supported wilderness protection, so support there is not surprising, but
Custer County---and Owyhee, as well---is rural, conservative, and
anti-regulatory in perspective. Support for wilderness from Owyhee and
Custer County is unprecedented. Again, this comes from collaboration,
local engagement, and ownership.

Editorial boards across the state have expressed support for these
bills.

While much has been made of the split within the conservation community
over these bills, support from the conservation community is strong. In
addition to the Idaho Conservation League---the state's largest
conservation advocacy organization---both bills are supported by The
Wilderness Society and the Campaign for America's Wilderness. The Owyhee
bill has support from the Nature Conservancy, conditional support from
the Sierra Club, and Idaho Rivers United. The Boulder-White Clouds bill
has the support ranging from the very large National Wildlife
Federation, to the local Sawtooth Society and Boulder-White Clouds
Council. The Boulder-White Clouds bill also is supported by the Outdoor
Industry Association, which represents outdoor business enterprise
generating billions of dollars.

Why this breadth of conservation support? It is because these bills
protect large and important tracts of wilderness, and they have real
political viability in a place where gaining political viability is very
hard.

Over the last few years the Idaho Conservation League has commissioned
public opinion research on these bills three times, each conducted by
Bob Moore and the respected firm Moore Information. Each poll has
consistently demonstrated the breadth of public support for wilderness
protection in Idaho and particularly for packages developed with a
diversity of Idaho interests.

Our most recent polling on the Owyhee Canyonlands shows 70% public
support. For the Boulder-White Clouds, public support is 68%. This is
very strong statewide public support.

One of the criticisms of both bills is that they contain too many
provisions but that is where much of the political strength of these
bills resides. Developed from the ground up, these bills were
intentionally developed with direct engagement of the interests with the
power to stop them.

These bills have ownership from a broad and powerful constellation of
players. These bills bridge divides between historic opponents to an
unprecedented degree. By intent these bills engage a diversity of
interests in hope of redefining the middle for Idaho's contentious
public land disputes.

Finally, and entirely anecdotally, I talk to Idahoans daily in my work,
and by that I refer not only to members of the Idaho Conservation
League, but members of Idaho communities, neighbors, business owners,
people in the grocery store, on the street, in the airports, who stop me
wanting to talk about these bills. Let me state clearly: People---the
regular people who live, work, and love our state---are hungry for
progress. They are tired of the same old rhetoric. They are tired of
gridlock. They find the shrill statements from both extremes tiresome.
People in Idaho want to see us succeed.

There are very legitimate and important criticisms to be made about both
bills, but it is time to focus on the big picture. It is time to move
forward.

*S. 3794 -- Implementing the Owyhee Initiative*

In July 2001, I first met Fred Grant, representing the Owyhee County
Commission, in a Boise bagel shop to discuss the possibility of a
collaborative discussion regarding lasting protection of the Owyhee
Canyonlands and economic viability of the community he was empowered to
represent. Coming soon after a conservation campaign where we were
trying to create a national monument in Owyhee County, this meeting was
remarkable for its candor and openness. I would like to point out that
throughout this endeavor, Fred Grant has remained a remarkable
individual, and no one deserves more credit than he for keeping this
process together.

What followed that first meeting are literally hundreds of meetings,
thousands of hours, visits on the ground and in offices, around kitchen
tables and the negotiating table, all leading to this day where an
unprecedented array of Idahoans sit before the US Congress in support of
legislation to implement the Owyhee Initiative.

The Owyhee Canyonlands are the largest expanse in the lower 48 without a
paved road. The area is twice the scale of Yellowstone National Park. It
contains some of the best examples of arid sagebrush lands that once
characterized the American West. Grassland plateaus and a "sagebrush
sea" continue to cover the land, through which run deep and remote river
canyons with sheer rock walls. Scientists have called this landscape one
of the most biologically rich and diverse in the nation.

While this is an incredibly remote and fragile landscape, it is adjacent
to Boise and Idaho's Treasure Valley. This is the third-fastest growing
urban area in the nation. This growth threatens both a landscape and
culture that lives on it.

There are several key points I'd like to make about the Owyhee
Initiative:

The proposed Wilderness lands protect a full range of critical wildlife
habitats, with 20 percent canyons and riparian areas, 40 percent juniper
uplands and 40 percent rolling sagebrush plateaus. Among the indicator
species gaining stronghold protection are sage grouse, redband trout,
pronghorn, and bighorn sheep.

The Wilderness boundaries and public access system on 4WD dirt roads was
negotiated in detail with conservation, recreation, outfitter and
ranching representatives. Representatives of the BLM also participated
in numerous mapping field trips. Each of the six Wilderness units have
specific boundary and access features to address future grazing
management potential, public rights-of-way for expanded and assured
access, wildlife security, Wilderness values and Wilderness management.
No one was excluded from the negotiations; some groups would not
negotiate under the goal framework.

The private lands proposed for sale or trade, about 2,600 acres, all
have perennial springs or flowing water with critical riparian and
wildlife habitats. These lands were original homesteads because water
flowed there and were kept in private hands because ranchers wanted a
foothold to assure access to public lands. These lands also all have
near term development potential, as recreation and vacation sites, or
hunting camps, or subdivisions. The prices will only go up. Putting
these lands in public hands, as pivotal public access points to
Wilderness, makes sense today and will benefit the public interest for
generations.

The Wilderness boundaries, the land exchanges or purchases and the
grazing preference retirements were all customized for both ecological
values on the land and economic values for the ranchers.
Conservationists are satisfied the legislation secures Wilderness, water
and wildlife values. Conservationists are also in support of continued
ranch viability, with no one driven out of business, where private lands
retain all rights but are not under pressure for development.

Needless to say, the Owyhee Initiative has been a challenging process
for all involved, and it is a testimony to the dedication of the members
of the Owyhee Working Group that we have come as far as we have. With
legislation introduced, we have completed a remarkable process that
brought diverse stakeholders together, kept them together, and created
the work product captured in the legislation we consider today.

While the work creating the Owyhee Initiative was difficult, we
recognize we have now engaged a no less challenging process: passing a
bill in the US Congress.

The Owyhee Initiative legislation contains elements that have been
controversial within our organization and the rest of the conservation
community, such as the release of Wilderness Study Areas, the Science
Review Panel, and narrowed Wild and Scenic River Corridors. The
legislation also has elements we do not support such as the compensation
package and arrangements. We expect these provisions to draw
considerable scrutiny in Congress.

While some view these provisions as "deal breakers," we recognize that
the Owyhee Initiative must be viewed as a whole, and for the good of the
Owyhee Canyonlands and the future generations who will enjoy this part
of Idaho as we do, we support moving this legislation forward, again
recognizing the reality of the legislative process: as national
interests are considered the bill will likely evolve and this will
require continued work on the part of all involved in the process thus
far.

As we have learned in our work with Rep. Simpson and the Central Idaho
Economic Development and Recreation Act, a bill that has advanced
through the US House, packages created on the ground in Idaho have
considerable political strength drawn from the diversity of stakeholders
involved. That said, our years of discussions are about national lands
and diverse national interests will and should be considered as the bill
moves forward in Congress. We look forward to being an active
participant in Washington yet recognize, as we have seen with CIEDRA,
that the legislative process will require a lot more work and that the
bill is likely to evolve further as national interests are considered.

That said, this bill should advance forward, and we ask all who
represent the national interests this body is rightfully empowered to
represent to remember the fragility of the coalition and the remarkable
diversity of players who have made this possible.

*H.R. 3603 -- Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act*

The Boulder and White Cloud Mountain ranges comprise the largest
contiguous block of unprotected National Forest roadless land outside of
Alaska. The rugged, vast landscape contains more than 150 peaks rising
above 10,000 feet. Hunting and fishing are extremely popular here, as
the absence of roads creates large contiguous tracts of land that
support salmon spawning and big game such as elk, moose, mountain goat,
bighorn sheep, black bear, and cougar.

The variety of roads provide excellent access, tremendous recreation
opportunities and spectacular scenery; the Boulder-White Clouds are
popular with Idahoans as well as thousands of people from out-of-state
who come to enjoy these lands and generate millions of dollars for the
local tourism industry.

While the boundaries of this wilderness proposal are a compromise, this
is by far the most comprehensive proposal for the Boulder-White Clouds
every proposed by an Idaho Member of Congress, Republican or Democrat.
It is not perfect. Special places have been left out, but it is a good
proposal. This wilderness provision of this bill totals over 300,000
acres of the Boulder and White Cloud Mountain Ranges in Central Idaho.
This is the primary reason the Idaho Conservation League has been and
continues to be a stakeholder in this process.

Since its inception over 30 years ago, the Idaho Conservation League has
worked diligently to protect this landscape as wilderness. If this
legislation sold the Boulder-White Clouds area short, I would not be
here today urging you to move this bill forward. From the beginning of
our work with Congressman Simpson, the League decided that a palatable
wilderness bill will ultimately have to protect the high peaks and
valleys of the White Cloud and Boulder Mountains, and protect the open
ridges, peaks and valleys of the east side of the area. We would still
like to see improvements to the wilderness title---an increase in the
300,000 acreage wilderness acreage figure by adding part of the North
Fork of the Big Wood River which constitutes the backdrop for
world-famous Sun Valley. We would also strongly support elimination of
the remaining motorized corridor separating two wilderness units.

I know this country well, and have traveled its valleys and ridges for
over 25 years. I've skied across the entire White Cloud range in winter,
and I have walked it in summer. In our advocacy for this area, we have
consulted with the people who know this country best, and imperfect as
the boundaries are, they are wholly worthy of support. I should also
point out that the part of the bill with the greatest public support is
the wilderness designation, which is supported by 70% of the Idaho
public.

We would like to comment on a few of the more troubling provisions:

Economic development provisions in the bill include the land conveyances
to Custer County. While this measure has evolved since the framework for
this bill was released in 2003, and the acreage of the conveyances has
decreased, these provisions remain one of the bills foremost
liabilities.

We understand Custer County's desire to increase their tax base and
economic opportunities. That said, conveyance of non-surplus public
lands for private purpose is a difficult compromise to ask of the
American public.

And while troubled by the land conveyances generally, we are
particularly concerned about the conveyances around the City of Stanley
in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. We do not support conveyances,
particularly those in the Sawtooth NRA. I would also point out that in
the poll I cited, this provision of the bill is the ONLY provision that
does not have majority support from the Idaho public, and if there is
something most needing change in this bill, this is it.

There are provisions in the bill that place restrictions on the land
included in the bill that will be conveyed. These include stream
setbacks, restrictions on what can be developed, etc. Some have called
these provisions "federal zoning" and are critical of them. It is very
important to recognize that these are conceptually drawn from the
original Sawtooth NRA enabling legislation, and important to the overall
success of this endeavor.

There is a lot in this bill for the motorized recreation constituency.

Concerns have been raised from both the motorized and conservation
community regarding the Boulder-White Clouds Management Area established
under the bill. Like other provisions, this one is a mixed bag.

The special management area created in legislation makes permanent the
summer motorized use on selected trails and snowmobile use in certain
areas. We do not support this or other provisions that limit the
management authority and discretion of the Sawtooth National Recreation
Area.

We also do not support retention of the motorized trails in Germania
Creek, to Frog Lake, or the others that bisect, yet are separate from,
the wilderness designation. We do not support the loss of wilderness
recommended by the Forest Service because of snowmobile use there.

It is important to note, however, that this designation would cap the
number of motorized trails at current levels and provide more resources
for enforcement. The Idaho Conservation League views this as a positive
provision. Illegally used trails would not be legitimized by this bill,
and no new trails will be created in the future. Likewise, the special
management designation would ensure that existing non-motorized trails
would remain non-motorized and that the area will not be further damaged
by unregulated motorized recreational pursuits in years to come. In
short, while we do not like making the status quo permanent, we do
recognize that these trails are open today, and that the Boulder-White
Cloud Special Management Area would provide limitations not currently in
place.

I appeared in my first congressional Idaho wilderness hearing in 1984.
At the time, motorized recreation issues were not particularly
significant. Since then, particularly in the last several years,
motorized off-road vehicle use has exploded, impacting the land,
solitude, and the politics of wilderness. Rampant cross-country
motorized use on public lands has been identified by US Forest Service
Chief Dale Bosworth as one of the greatest issues facing his agency.
There are now over 100,000 registered off-road motorized vehicles in
Idaho with 33,000 new registrations in the last three years alone.

Despite efforts by conservationists to advocate stronger restrictions on
motorized use through two previous forest management planning processes,
regulation of motorized recreation in the Boulder-White Clouds region
has failed. While I respect that certain Sawtooth NRA managers oppose
this portion of the bill, they have done nothing to reduce the impacts
of this rapidly growing sector. Moreover, the land managing agencies
have enabled motorized recreationists to become and more and more
entrenched in Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and proposed wilderness
areas. The motorized community in Idaho has millions of acres of federal
public lands in Idaho already available for motorized recreation.

The water provision in CIEDRA is commonly referred to as "headwaters"
language, which means that proposed wilderness lands are located at the
headwaters of streams and rivers. The waters in the Boulder and White
Cloud Mountains are all headwaters. The language recognizes that lands
designated as wilderness would be properly managed to protect wilderness
values and would not be suitable for the development of new or expansion
of existing water facilities. No water developments have occurred in
wilderness areas where headwaters language has been applied in the past.
The bill would also specifically prohibit future development of any new
water resource facility (including dams, reservoirs, and wells) or water
right application within the designated wilderness. Consequently, the
wilderness areas established under CIEDRA would have an extra degree of
protection that Idaho's existing wilderness areas do not have.

CIEDRA authorizes creation of first-ever wheel-chair accessible trails
in wilderness.

Because the Wilderness Act prohibits the use of motorized and mechanized
vehicles in designated areas (with exceptions for emergencies), there
has been some concern that this bill provision will weaken the intent of
the original Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 reconciled
this issue by stating that wilderness shall not prohibit use by
individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs for everyday mobility.
It also stated that managing agencies are *not required* to make special
accommodations for such users, but there is *no prohibition* on making
accommodations.

The trails would be "primitive access," which means that they would be
compacted and slightly leveled, but not paved, allowing a wheelchair
user to navigate them unassisted. These short trails (approximately 1.5
miles) would also provide recreation opportunities for elderly users.

Before House mark-up, this bill allowed for donation or purchase of
current grazing permits within the wilderness area, and grazing in these
areas would be permanently retired. This provision was extremely
important because many existing grazing allotments are within the upper
East Fork watershed of the Salmon River and are considered critical to
the recovery of fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act..

The Boulder-White Clouds are dry, steep, erosive and not suitable for
grazing. Valley bottoms contain habitat for salmon and other species
listed under the Endangered Species Act. This is a very important
provision to CIEDRA and we strongly advocate reinstating this title.

***Conclusion***

For the past several years the Idaho Conservation League has been
talking to the people of Idaho, from all walks of life, from all
political perspectives, at Rotary Clubs and county fairs, around kitchen
tables, and hearing rooms as well as campfires. Yes, we've been
*talking* about the Boulder-White Clouds and Owyhee Canyonlands, but in
doing so, we've also been *listening* a lot, too. In listening, we've
learned that Idahoans, be they Republican or Democrat, rural or urban,
rich in wealth or just rich in spirit, all love the outdoors, yet are
also frustrated by politics of polarization on the issues that impact
the outdoors, and in Idaho, everyone's lives touch the outdoors.

While I am troubled that conservationists are divided about this
legislation, the Idaho Conservation League believes that if conservation
is to be relevant, beneficial, and important to the lives of our fellow
citizens, we have to do more than fight what is bad, we also have to
achieve something that is lasting and good, and talking about it is
different than doing it.

These are not perfect bills, but let us not allow the perfect to be the
enemy of the good. These have significant support of Idahoans and
reflect the particular challenges of our state. They contain
compromises, but so does every bill that passes Congress, and they
recognize that if we are going to protect wilderness in Idaho for the
first time in a quarter century, we have to engage the other
constituencies who live there, work there, play there, and call it home
and join them at the table.

There are those who speak against what they see as precedents in this
bill; the precedent I am most troubled by is that of failure. And let me
also offer the hope that on this issue, we move forward, because failing
to do so again squanders this opportunity, proves the naysayers right,
and returns us to politics of polarization.

Wild landscapes define Idaho. It makes us different than every other
state. And the Creator is not making any more of it. Idahoans wants to
protect this special place, yet we cannot do that without the support of
the US Congress.

In closing, I would like to express my thanks to Rep. Mike Simpson and
Senator Mike Crapo. You two have forced many of us to look beyond the
concerns of the moment, to step out of default positions of the past,
and have challenged us to look into the future. You have created the
best opportunity in decades to protect special parts of Idaho.

Good work by good people brings the two Idaho bills we consider today.
We are not perfect and we didn't create perfect legislation. But we have
plowed the rocky ground between the extremes, and now we come to you to
finish the job. The Boulder-White Clouds and Owyhee bills need to
advance in the legislative process, and for that, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, we need your help.

Thank you.