**Statement Of**

**Joel Holtrop**

**Deputy Chief, National Forest System**

**U.S. Forest Service**

**United States Department of Agriculture**

**Before the**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests**

**Committee on Energy and Natural Resources**

**U. S. Senate**

**July 16, 2008**

**Concerning**

**S. 3069: The Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage
Act**

**H.R. 3473---Bountiful City Land Consolidation Act**

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the Department of Agriculture's views on the
Forest Service bills before you today: S. 3069: The Eastern Sierra and
Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act and H.R. 3473: the Bountiful City
Land Consolidation Act.

**[S. 3069: The Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage
Act]{.underline}**

S. 3069 is a large and complex bill that would designate more than 470
thousand acres of new wilderness and about 52 miles of wild and scenic
river. It would create a number of special management areas, and would
establish specific management direction for wilderness areas designated
under this Act. These designations would affect both National Forest
System (NFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Our discussion
is focused on proposals involving NFS lands.

The Department supports many of the provisions of this bill, including
much of the wilderness and wild and scenic river designations, as well
as the attention focused on motorized winter recreation. However, we are
unable to support all of the proposed designations because of various
conflicting uses or because the areas do not meet the criteria
established by the Wilderness Act of 1964 and Forest Service policy.
Questions and concerns remain on some of the bill's provisions. One area
of special concern relates to the clarity and technical adequacy of the
maps that accompany this bill and has posed a challenge to our ability
to understand the extent of the bill and assess implications regarding
on-the-ground management of areas within, and adjacent to, proposed
boundaries. We would like to work with the subcommittee and bill
sponsors to address these and other outstanding issues.

Consistent with the Wilderness Act and National Forest Management Act,
the Department supports wilderness designation for areas that are
dominated by the forces of nature, and that offer outstanding
opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. The
Forest Service engages the public in its land management planning
process as a means of collaboratively developing wilderness
recommendations. The Forest Plans for the three National Forests on
which these designations would occur have informed our views on this
legislation.

**Proposed Wilderness Areas**

[Magic Mountain and Pleasant View Ridge]{.underline}

S. 3069 would designate 13,709 acres as the Magic Mountain Wilderness
and 28,424 acres as the Pleasant View Ridge Wilderness in the Angeles
National Forest, for a total of 42,133 acres of new wilderness. Because
these areas were not recommended for wilderness in the Angeles National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan's 2005 Record of Decision, the
Department cannot support their designation unless certain boundary
adjustments and corrections consistent with the Forest Plan are made to
address the issues listed below.

The Forest Plan allocated the majority of these acres (36,871) to
Backcountry Non-motorized use. Backcountry nonmotorized areas are
managed to meet the physical, managerial, and social settings consistent
with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum descriptions for semi-primitive
non-motorized (SPNM) recreation. They provide a wide variety of
dispersed recreation opportunities and settings. Natural processes are
the primary agents for vegetative change, with vegetation management
used only to protect the resource or complement the recreational value.
To minimize potential conflicts, the continued use of the current Forest
Plan designation remains appropriate, but the Department would not
object to the designation by Congress of these lands as wilderness. The
remaining acres are allocated to Backcountry Motorized Use Restricted
(2,349 acres), Developed Area Intermix use (1,158 acres), and Critical
Biological use (774 acres).

These Forest Plan land management designations accommodate several
different uses within these areas that wilderness designation could
potentially impact. There are four mining operations located in the
proposed Magic Mountain Wilderness. In the proposed Pleasant View Ridge
Wilderness, there are several linear special use permits, including
water and electric lines that would require mechanical equipment to
access and maintain, a developed trail camp that serves hikers on the
Pacific Crest Trail, and active fuel reduction projects that provide
defensible space in the wildland urban interface. To minimize these
potential impacts, we suggest the continued used of the current Forest
Plan designation remains appropriate.

If wilderness areas are designated on the Angeles National Forest beyond
those recommended in the Forest Plan, we suggest the areas allocated as
backcountry non-motorized use would be more suitable than the other
areas. We would like to work with the subcommittee and the bill's
sponsors to adjust boundaries to allow most current uses to continue.

[Hoover East and Hoover West Additions on the Humboldt-Toyaibe National
Forest]{.underline}

S. 3069 would designate a total of 76,982 acres of new wilderness on the
Humboldt-Toyaibe National Forest in the following areas: 39,815 acres as
the Hoover East Wilderness and 37,666 acres as the Hoover West
Wilderness. A majority of these acres were recommended for wilderness
designation in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Land Management
Plan. Therefore we support their designation as wilderness, although we
would like to discuss specific boundaries with the subcommittee that are
consistent with Forest Plan recommendations. For example, the Hoover
East Addition includes two large "cherry stem" wilderness exclusions,
which are narrowly drawn corridors to exclude designated roads,
travelways, or other areas from wilderness designation, and other
boundary lines that do not coincide with the Forest Plan wilderness
recommendations. We support the Forest Plan recommendations in their
entirety.

[Emigrant Wilderness Addition]{.underline}

S. 3069 would add approximately 251 acres of the Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest to the adjacent Emigrant Wilderness, which is currently
managed by the Stanislaus National Forest. This area is allocated as
semi-primitive non-motorized recreation in the current Forest Plan. We
oppose designation of this area as wilderness due to additional
difficulties that we would anticipate in managing oversnow vehicle use,
which is already difficult here because of the nature of the terrain and
conflicts with motorized crossing of the Pacific Crest National Scenic
Trail. We would like to discuss the management situation in this area
with the subcommittee and the bill's sponsors.

[White Mountains Wilderness, Granite Mountain Wilderness, and Additions
to the Ansel Adams, Hoover, and John Muir Wildernesses]{.underline}

Most of the lands that would be designated as wilderness by S. 3069,
approximately 313,400 acres, are located within the Inyo National
Forest. This includes16,450 acres of an addition to the existing Hoover
Wilderness (Hoover-Bighorn), 15,247 acres of the Owens River Headwaters
to be added to the Ansel Adams Wilderness, and 79,850 acres to be added
to the John Muir Wilderness. There are also two new wilderness areas
designated by S.3069: White Mountains Wilderness (199,000 acres on NFS
lands) and the Granite Mountain Wilderness (2,900 acres on NFS lands).
The other portions of these proposed wilderness areas are located on
lands administered by the BLM.

Several of these proposed designations were not recommended as
wilderness in the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
(Forest Plan), which was completed in 1988. The Inyo National Forest
Plan recommended that approximately 172,600 acres be designated as
wilderness, but not all of those acres coincide with the bill's
proposals. However, since the Plan's approval in 1988, many of the
issues, concerns, and conditions that informed the Plan decisions have
changed, and merit reanalysis.

In this regard, the Department supports designation of those acres
recommended for wilderness designation in the Plan. The Department
prefers to address other areas in light of changes mentioned above
within the context of a forthcoming revision of the Forest Plan, but
would not oppose wilderness designation by Congress for most of the
other proposed areas, if certain boundary adjustments and technical
corrections are made and if issues that we identify today are addressed.

Within the White Mountains, the Forest Plan recommended 120,008 acres as
wilderness. Subsequent to the Forest Plan decision, Congress designated
approximately 10,000 acres of the White Mountains as the Boundary Peak
Wilderness Area within the State of Nevada. S. 3069 would add an
additional 89,000 acres within the White Mountains beyond the Plan
recommendation. A majority of these additional acres in the White
Mountains were identified in the Forest Plan for semi-primitive
recreation which includes opportunities for motorized use on designated
routes. The Inyo National Forest is currently in the planning process
for designating routes through a travel management planning process
which, depending on the final decision of the planning process, may or
may not concur with the routes designated as "cherry stems" in S. 3069.
We would like to work with the subcommittee and the bill's sponsors to
address concerns.

**Motorized Corridors in Proposed Wilderness**

Overall, we are concerned with the extensive use of "cherry stems." The
areas that would be designated in this bill include over 100 miles of
"cherry stems" on NFS lands. In our view, it is important to maintain
the integrity of wilderness by designating only those areas which are,
as stated in the Wilderness Act of 1964 and in Forest Service policy,
"dominated by the forces of nature". Allowing for continued motorized
use miles into a designated wilderness, even along designated corridors,
can lead to motorized incursions from the roadways, noise, and other
intrusions, complicating wilderness management. Consistent with relevant
Forest Plans, we recommend that areas where motorized use is necessary
for uses such as range management, hunting, undeveloped recreation, and
forest administration be omitted from wilderness designation. Such
adjustments would result in more manageable boundaries for any proposed
wilderness.

Should this legislation move forward with the "cherry stems" as mapped
and that are inconsistent with relevant Forest Plans, we would like to
work with the subcommittee on establishing corridors wide enough to
allow for proper maintenance. Many of these routes are within drainages
that are prone to washouts necessitating rerouting or reconstruction. In
addition, some of the boundaries are very close to paved high speed
roads which incur a high level of use, as they provide access to popular
recreation opportunities such as dispersed camping, hang gliding and
technical rock climbing.

Within the Inyo National Forest, an additional 11 miles of "cherry
stemmed" roads are within inventoried roadless areas and are not
designated as National Forest System roads. We would like to discuss
this situation and inconsistencies with the Forest Plan with the
subcommittee and bill's sponsors.

In addition, on the Inyo National Forest, approximately 32.3 miles of
non-system routes as well as 1.1 miles of system road are not "cherry
stemmed" but are within the boundaries of the proposed wilderness areas.
These routes would require conversion to trails or decommissioning to
protect resource values.

**Wild and Scenic Rivers Designations**

S. 3069 would designate approximately 26.35 miles of streams on NFS
lands as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System; 19.1 miles of Owens
River Headwaters on the Inyo National Forest and 7.25 miles of Piru
Creek on the Angeles and Los Padres National Forests.

The Forest Service has not conducted a wild and scenic river suitability
study for either of these rivers. The Forest Service did make a
determination of eligibility. Of the Owens River Headwaters proposal,
all of Glass Creek, the lower portion of Deadman Creek and the 1.0-mile
segment of the upper Owens River were found eligible for the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Segments A, B and the majority of segment
C of Deadman Creek, however, do not possess outstandingly remarkable
values and were found ineligible. Consistent with these determinations,
the Forest Service supports designation of the eligible river segments.
While the Department prefers to address other areas in a manner
consistent with relevant determinations, we would not oppose designation
of the ineligible segments of Deadman Creek because of their
contribution to protecting the Owens River Headwater's outstandingly
remarkable values while avoiding the creation of new management
conflicts. We also wish to work with the subcommittee and the bill's
sponsors to clarify river classifications in this proposal.

Section 6 of the bill incorrectly references the Secretary of the
Interior as the administrator for the Owens River Headwaters (#172). The
bill should be revised to indicate the Secretary of Agriculture as the
administrator.

The two segments of Piru Creek proposed in this bill are both eligible
with an outstandingly remarkable value of geology. The Forest Service
does not oppose this designation because it would have little effect on
current and future resource management.

**Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest Designation**

S. 3069 would designate approximately 28,991 acres of the Inyo National
Forest as the "Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest" to conserve and protect
Ancient Bristlecone Pines.

This area contains groves of the oldest living trees in the world. We
would like to work with the subcommittee on making minor boundary
adjustments to add additional acreage to this proposal to ensure that
all significant groves of ancient Bristlecone Pine are protected under
this designation. The Department would support this designation if the
bill is amended to remove the requirement in section 9(c) 4 for
development of a new management plan for this area. As recognized in the
bill, the 1988 Forest Plan provides sufficient direction for protection
of this area, and the requirement to conduct additional planning would
require the redirection of funds currently directed at the management of
these outstanding resources.

**Bridgeport Winter Recreation Area**

Section 7 of S. 3069 would create a new designation for approximately
7,680 acres of land on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest called the
Bridgeport Winter Recreation Area. The Department supports this
designation based on an Environmental Assessment signed in 2005, which
includes many of the same management prescriptions included in S. 3069.
Accordingly, our support is contingent on amendment of the bill to
remove section 7(d), which would require the Secretary to develop a
winter use management plan. In addition, we are concerned about section
7(f), which would require the Secretary to establish a snowmobile
crossing point along the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, and would
like to discuss our concerns with the subcommittee and the bill's
sponsors.

**Management of "Area X", Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest**

Section 8 of S. 3069 would designate approximately 3,200 acres referred
to as "Area X" as a snowmobile use area. The Department would not oppose
this designation if the language is amended to clarify that summer
motorized travel will be restricted in "Area X", a management
prescription that currently applies to only a portion of the surrounding
area.

**Other Management Considerations**

[Outfitting and Guiding and Pack Station Considerations]{.underline}

We are concerned about the potential impact that the proposed
designations may have on existing outfitting and guiding and pack
station operations on the Inyo National Forest and wish to advise
Congress of these potential impacts prior to its enactment of
designations. Without specific language to clarify the intended purposes
of the proposed additions to the John Muir, Ansel Adams, and Hoover
Wilderness areas, the proposal could directly affect the amount and
location of existing commercial uses in these additions.

Each of these wilderness areas has specific quotas on recreational use
and, in some cases, court-ordered restrictions that could apply to the
additions in the absence of explicit language to the contrary. For
instance, the Inyo and Sierra National Forests are currently required by
a court order to limit commercial pack stock operations in the John Muir
and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas. Many of the commercial services in
these wilderness areas that were intentionally directed to
non-wilderness areas to reduce impacts on the wilderness areas would now
be included in these proposed wilderness designations. Unless the bill
would allow continuation of authorized outfitting and guiding that are
currently conducted on lands that would be added to these wilderness
areas, the number of service days allocated for outfitting and guiding
on those lands would have to be reduced, per the court order.

Section 4(j) of the bill may have been intended to address the foregoing
concern. However, we believe additional clarification is needed. We
would like to work with the subcommittee and the bill's sponsors to
address these issues.

[Management of Research Natural Areas]{.underline}

There are three Research Natural Areas (RNAs) within the boundaries of
wilderness areas proposed by this bill: Harvey Monroe Hall RNA
(Hoover-Bighorn Additions), McAffe Meadows RNA (White Mountains), and
White Mountains RNA (White Mountains).

RNAs are administratively designated areas within national forests to be
permanently protected and maintained in natural condition for the
purposes of maintaining biological diversity, conducting
non-manipulative research and monitoring, and fostering education. RNAs
help preserve our Nation's natural heritage for future generations. The
protection afforded to RNAs is a critical step in maintaining a range of
biological diversity of native ecosystems and species. Because they are
protected in a natural state, RNAs also provide valuable opportunities
for monitoring of long-term ecological change, and comparison of the
effects of resource management activities against unmanaged controls.

RNAs that are representative of common ecosystems in natural condition
serve as baseline or reference areas for those ecosystems. Each RNA can
have its own public use restrictions in order to protect its unique
condition. These may be more restrictive than what is normally allowed
in designated wilderness, such as prohibiting overnight camping. We will
continue to address RNA management needs through our Forest Land
Management Planning process.

[Administrative Jurisdiction of Wilderness Areas]{.underline}

S. 3069 would designate as wilderness several areas of BLM lands that
are contiguous to much larger areas of NFS lands with existing
wilderness. The proposed John Muir Wilderness additions include five
small BLM parcels totaling approximately 780 acres. The proposed White
Mountains Wilderness includes five small BLM parcels totaling 1,200
acres on the western edge of the proposed wilderness. To ensure
efficiency and consistency in wilderness management, it may make sense
to transfer the administrative jurisdiction of these small parcels from
the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture and
exclude the proposed 22,300 acre area on the eastern edge. We would also
propose transferring administrative jurisdiction over the 2,700 acres of
NFS lands in the proposed Granite Mountain Wilderness to the Secretary
of the Interior to improve management over these small parcels. We would
like to further discuss this idea with the subcommittee.

[Map Concerns]{.underline}

The Department has many concerns regarding the maps that are referenced
in the legislation. In general, the maps are difficult to understand and
are technically inadequate due to gaps in the Geographic Information
System data and improper labeling. Because they are vitally important to
our on-the-ground management and implementation of Congress's direction,
we would like to work with the subcommittee and bill sponsors to ensure
the maps are adequate.

[Summary]{.underline}

In summary, the Department supports the many aspects of S. 3069 that are
consistent with relevant Forest Plans and which would add outstanding
landscapes in the eastern Sierra of California to the Wilderness
Preservation System. As I have testified before, the Forest Service has
always been a champion of wilderness. We care about maintaining the
integrity of wilderness areas as places that are dominated by the forces
of nature, and that offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or
primitive and unconfined recreation. For those reasons, we would like to
work with the subcommittee and the bill's sponsors on our many specific
concerns.

**H.R. 3473---the Bountiful City Land Consolidation Act.**

When the Bountiful City Land Consolidation Act was considered before the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the House
Natural Resource Committee, the Department testified in support of
enactment of H.R. 3473. The Department offered a number of amendments
regarding mostly minor technical issues. The Department continues to
support the concept of a bill as embodied by an amended H.R. 3473 that
would authorize an exchange of urban interface lands which may be more
appropriately managed by Bountiful City for lands in the watershed above
the City, and would authorize the Secretary to retain and expend funds
received by the Secretary for the conveyance in order to acquire
additional land or interests in land to be included in the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest.

However, the bill that passed the House, and that is under consideration
by the subcommittee today, is different from the bill we previously
testified upon in a number of significant ways. As written, the current
bill does not reflect a number of provisions that are needed for the
Department's support. I will address the most important of these with
you today.

The bill that was introduced in the House and the bill under
consideration today, H.R. 3473 would provide for the conveyance of up to
220 acres of an "urban" parcel of National Forest System lands adjacent
to Bountiful City, Utah in exchange for 1,680 acres of environmentally
significant headwater lands, interior to the National Forest, to be
included within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. This exchange of land
could benefit both Bountiful City and the National Forest System by
consolidating land ownership if exchanges by the parties reflect
equitable values.

The bill as introduced in the House would have provided for the
following: 1) an equal value exchange of land between the Forest Service
and Bountiful City and the authority for the Secretary to accept, if
necessary, a cash equalization payment in excess of amounts authorized
under current law; 2) a requirement that the portion of the parcel
containing the shooting range be conveyed first; 3) the authority for
the Secretary two years after the date of enactment, to dispose of any
remaining portion of the National Forest System parcel by competitive
means; and, 4) the authority for the Secretary to collect funds
resulting from the conveyances under the bill, to be used for National
Forest purposes, including acquisition of lands on the Uinta and
Wasatch-Cache National Forests.

Technical amendments suggested by the Forest Service to Committee staff
included: 1) a provision to require the City to assume all liability for
the shooting range located on the parcel to be conveyed and the past,
present, and future condition of the land upon which the shooting range
is sited; and 2) a provision to provide for an easement for the
Bonneville Shoreline Trail and to provide for other outstanding rights.

Both the bill as passed in the House and before you today would provide
for an equal value exchange of land between the Forest Service and the
City of Bountiful, and subsequent conveyance of the remaining federal
land, should certain conditions be met. These provisions would benefit
the National Forest System by providing the agency with the authority to
convey whatever portion of the isolated parcel of National Forest System
land that may remain and to collect the funds for acquisition of lands
to be included in the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National Forests.

However, under this bill, the Secretary would not be authorized to
accept a cash equalization payment in excess of the 25 percent limit
authorized by section 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA). A consultation conducted recently indicates that the value
of the Federal parcel will exceed the value of the Bountiful City lands
and the 25 percent threshold. Thus a cash equalization payment is likely
to be necessary in order to reflect exchanges by the parties that are of
equitable value. It is unlikely that the Forest Service and Bountiful
City would meet their respective land adjustment and consolidation goals
without a provision for a cash equalization payment in excess of the 25
percent limit and thereby protect Federal taxpayer interests, so the
Department is unable to support the removal of this provision from the
bill.

Further, the Department requests that the bill language clarify that the
conveyance of the remaining federal land may be achieved through
competitive sale or direct sale. Without the sale provision, the Forest
Service would have limited authority to convey a remaining parcel of
National Forest System land. This provision would aid in managing the
National Forest as it would eliminate the need for the Forest Service to
manage an isolated and fragmented parcel of land and would more
effectively marshal sale proceeds for the acquisition of lands or
interests in land on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.

The bill would require an amendment to the Forest Plan and a public
process consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 if
the Secretary disposes of land identified for possible conveyance and
not exchanged under section 2(a) of the bill. While the Forest Service
is committed to undertake an environmental analysis, the agency would
prefer to retain the flexibility to perform the analysis at the most
appropriate level.

This bill currently includes a provision to provide for an easement for
the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and to provide for other outstanding
rights. However, it does not include a provision requiring the City to
assume the liability for the shooting range and the past, present, and
future condition of the land upon which the shooting range is located.
This is a critical concern for the Department.

In summary, the concept embodied in this exchange is one the Department
supports. Exchanging a heavily used urban parcel containing a shooting
range to the City for 1,680 acres on the mountainside above the City
plus the ability to purchase additional lands has great merit. Our
concerns are in the details of liability as related to the disposition
of the shooting range, cash equalization, and streamlining the
administrative and analysis process for both parties.

This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to answer
any questions you may have.