U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36-021 PDF 2008

H.R. 2016, NATIONAL LANDSCAPE 

CONSERVATION SYSTEM ACT

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Serial No. 110-29

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel 

Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Don Young, Alaska, ex officio 

(III)

CONTENTS 

Page

Hearing held on Thursday, June 7, 2007 .............................................................. 1

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 5

Capps, Hon. Lois, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Statement submitted for the record ......................................... 20

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 1

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bono, Hon. Mary, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Daly, Elena, Director, National Landscape Conservation System, Bureau 

of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior ............................ 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

Gray, Randy, Former Mayor, Great Falls, Montana ..................................... 35

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37

Meadows, William H., President, The Wilderness Society ........................... 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

Moe, Richard, President, The National Trust for Historic Preservation ..... 26

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28

Moran, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia ...................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

Williams, Cindy Deacon, M.S., Senior Scientist and Director of Aquatic 

Science and Education Programs, National Center for Conservation 

Science & Policy ............................................................................................ 29

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31

Williams, Orie, Chief Executive Officer, Doyon Limited ............................... 38

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40

Additional materials supplied: 

Butcher, Trevis M., Missouri River Land Users, Winifred, Montana, 

Statement submitted for the record ............................................................ 2

Coalition of 47 organizations, including American Hiking Society, 

American Rivers, American Society of Landscape Architects, et al., 

Letter submitted for the record ................................................................... 24

Otley, Fred I., Diamond, Oregon, Letter to Senator Wyden, Senator 

Smith, and Congressman Walden submitted for the record ..................... 19

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2016, THE 

NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION 

SYSTEM ACT. 

Thursday, June 7, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:01 p.m., in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rau ́l Grijalva 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Grijalva, Bishop, Lamborn, and Young. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me call the Subcommittee on 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands to this hearing on 

H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conversation System Act. I 

would like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing on the legislation I introduced, and also thank you for keeping up with us today. 

We originally scheduled, I think, two other times, and because of 

the markup that we had at the full committee, this hearing is now 

at this time. I appreciate and thank everybody. 

One of the witnesses, Mr. Trevis Butcher, had to catch a plane 

and will not be here with us, but his testimony will be obviously 

made part of the entire record. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses that are here for joining 

us today, for their time and effort to be here. Their insights will 

be very helpful as the Subcommittee considers this legislation. 

The National Landscape Conservation System exists on 26 million acres across the western United States and it exists in the 

Bureau of Land Management regulations. The NLCS does not 

exist, however, in statute. H.R. 2016 will remedy that by providing 

a simple, permanent congressional authorization for this conservation system within BLM. H.R. 2016 is straightforward legislation, 

only three pages long. The bill does not alter the management of 

any existing unit, nor change the overall management of the 

system. 

The monuments, the NCAs, the wild and scenic rivers and other 

NLCS units will continue to be managed according to their enabling authority and other applicable laws. What this legislation 

2

does do is provide the system with a congressional stamp of 

approval, giving the NLCS the direction and backing to flourish in 

the years to come. 

We are well aware that the history of some of the units within 

the NLCS includes periods of controversy. Although many of the 

fears expressed at the time some of these units were designated 

never materialized, to reassure anyone who remains concerned, let 

me be clear. Nothing in this legislation increases Federal land ownership or regulation or impacts private land in any way. While we 

might support redesignations in the future, the bill does not include any new additions to the system. 

H.R. 2016 is less about acreage or management and more about 

the BLM and its mission. In the not too distant past, the first step 

in any effort to conserve BLM land was to transfer the land to the 

National Park Service. The purpose of H.R. 2016 is to provide 

congressional recognition of BLM’s effort to fulfill the conservation 

aspect of its multiple-use mandate by retaining and conserving 

these areas. 

The units of NLCS are indeed special places. We welcome BLM’s 

effort to conserve them for present and future generations and are 

eager to support the agency in that effort through H.R. 2016. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. With that, I will turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Bishop, for any opening comments he may have. Mr. Bishop. 

[The statement submitted for the record by Trevis Butcher 

follows:]

Statement submitted for the record by Trevis M. Butcher, Missouri River 

Land Users (Speaking for more than 10,000 neighbors directly affected by 

this proposed legislation)—Winifred, Montana 

Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 2016. 

I am going to restrict my testimony to address the impacts of this proposal regarding one of the specific Monuments included under the broad and monumental 

changes which this proposed legislation will impose through statute on rural Montana which I represent. 

I own a cattle ranch which neighbors the southern boundary of the Missouri River 

Monument. This ranch has been in our family since the region was settled in 1914. 

I am the fourth generation to operate it and the fifth generation is currently at 

home haying while I have journeyed more than 2,000 miles to present this committee with some insight into the issues which have continually been ignored by advocates of this massive government take-over of my neighborhood. 

The Missouri River National Monument designation was a last minute and poorly 

conceived Executive Order by former President Clinton in the final days of his Presidency. This designation under the Antiquities Act did not meet the basic criteria 

for designation under this Act. Secretary Babbitt and his supporters in conjunction 

with the BLM lied to the Montana citizens claiming it would meet the criteria. It 

was a general proclamation, without any defined boundaries, based on the premise 

of protecting a historic section of the Missouri River traversed by the Lewis and 

Clark Expedition. This section of the Missouri River had in fact been under Federal 

protection for forty years through the Wild and Scenic Act. It has been managed 

by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a multiple use designation without 

problems emphasizing traditional agriculture usage, hunting, motorized boating, 

fishing, hiking, and other recreational uses. It is contingent to the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge which is the best example causing Montana citizens 

to oppose a proposed Monument. This proposed area has no need for ‘‘preservation’’ 

since it is maintained in much the same manor for the past 100 years. 

This was where the problems have begun which members of this Committee and 

Congress needs to consider during deliberation in this body. The Missouri River 

Monument boundaries were not planned with public input and were simply arbitrarily defined ‘‘after the fact’’ by the BLM to encompass 477,000 acres which includes 81,000 acres of private property as well as over 40,000 acres of School Trust 

Land managed by the State of Montana to fund the educational needs of our stuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:01 Mar 04, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\36021.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
3

dents. We could live with Monument boundaries 1/4 to 1/2 mile from the center of 

the River which respected private property rights and would protect the aesthetic 

view of the rim of the river corridor from any visual obstructions. It is simply not 

acceptable to control property ten to forty miles or more from the River Corridor 

‘‘being protected’’ by the intent of this proposed legislation. 

There are 120 families with privately owned land with in this proposed National 

Monument which is direct violation of the Antiquities Act restricting inclusion of 

private property in a monument designation. These family ranches face serious economic impacts to their operations as a result of the BLM’s proposed draconian restrictions on traditional ranching practices. Of even more concern is the financial 

impact to all areas of Montana government. Approximately, 46% of the State of 

Montana is already government land so only 54% of this 4th largest State provides 

the tax base to support local and state government services. The six counties directly impacted by this Monument and proposed restrictions already have large 

amounts of federal government land and the PILT payments periodically authorized 

by Congress does not adequately replace property taxes for our schools and local 

government services. 

This designated Monument is also located in the middle of a large proven natural 

gas field with existing producing wells and a pipe-line on private property scattered 

throughout the Monument designation. I must call the Committee’s attention to the 

serious economic liability to the State School Trust Fund as well as to the private 

property owners within the Monument who will be unable to benefit from natural 

gas development thirty and forty miles from the ‘‘Scenic River Corridor.’’ In contrast 

private property south of the designated Monument (including my own) is scheduled 

for expansion of the gas development during the fall of 2007 which is in response 

to critical National energy requirements. The large gas field within the Monument 

boundaries is being ignored costing Montana schools over $200,000 per day and 

twice that amount to the 120 private property owners within the Monument boundaries plus others who hold ‘‘split estate’’ mineral rights. I cannot emphasize enough 

that this legislation will grossly affect our basic property rights which is fundamental to our traditional American political and economic system. 

The Legislation before this Committee would codify bad policy leaving no room 

for common sense management decisions addressing local needs. This legislation 

gives the BLM statutory authority to implement policies and regulations which establishes power through their management of scattered government owned land, 

over huge areas of private property. Beyond the effects on the residents within the 

Monument, the rest of the citizens of this region will also be severely impacted. 

Under proposed BLM rules for Monument Management, the BLM is proposing closure of over half the existing access roads to private property and traditional recreational opportunities within the Monument boundaries. This is continuation of 

Federal policies resulting in Montana residents having lost 2/3 of access and trails 

during the last decade resulting from ‘‘east coast’’ mandated policies orchestrated 

within the Beltway and bowels of New York City by special interest groups lacking 

any concept of life in Montana. 

For over 100 years this has been a continuous ranching economy with large fields 

of grain which has been farmed since the area was first homesteaded in 1910-1914 

in addition to the thousands of cattle which graze throughout the area. The river 

bottoms, until the past 20 years when the BLM traded some of the land to other 

areas, was highly productive irrigated alfalfa hay land. Now there is still a few 

thousand acres of hay-land remaining with the rest managed by the BLM which has 

consequently reverted to desolate, weed infested habitat resulting in the traditional 

Elk and deer populations migrating from the Monument area on to adjoining private 

property in search of healthy ecosystems leaving the grossly mismanaged government property. 

I want to emphasize, that contrary to the radical environmentalists who claim ‘‘to 

be saving wild lands for the future,’’ every inch of the ‘‘primitive area’’ has had cattle grazing, ranchers riding horses, hunters and recreationists traversing the entire 

area for the last 100 years. Members of Congress, this is a thriving area which is 

home to 120 ranches which the proponents are proposing to force to leave the area 

with their livestock and community economic base! This translates into the loss of 

9,200 mother cows translating into a 25 million dollar regional impact. 

I want to call the committee members’ attention to the unsettled case of former 

Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth in the U.S. Court of Claims which has declared 

that there is significant economic value to those grazing federal managed land. If 

applied to the Monument, this could have a ‘‘fee title’’ value of $4,000 to $6,000 per 

animal grazing unit. This places the total grazing values at approximately $60 Million and far higher value on water rights held by the Monument’s in-holders. This 

4

has yet to be addressed by the management plans proposed by the BLM and could 

add a significant liability to the federal government. 

The people promoting the Missouri River Monument are either out-of-state financed activists who are new to the area or idealists who live in other parts of Montana. I would like to call members of this Committee’s attention to the fact that the 

Montana legislature overwhelmingly passed a bi-partisan resolution in both 2001 

and 2003 legislative sessions strongly opposing the Monument designation. Members of Congress these are the elected representatives who recognize how detrimental federal policies are on the people of Montana. 

In addition the 13 BLM hearings regarding the proposed Monument restrictions 

and operating rules in 2006 was unanimously opposed by the County Commissioners and overwhelmingly opposed by the residents of the six affected Montana 

counties. In contrast the proponents had full-time paid staff trying to orchestrate 

support, but the majority of the testimony (even at the hearings held 200-300 miles 

from the Monument) was in opposition. Strong opposition to the Monument came 

from a true cross-section of sportsmen, boaters, airplane pilots (from across the West 

testifying to retain the ten ‘‘primitive air-strips’’ which have existed for over 50 

years within the proposed Monument boundaries), motorists who have enjoyed scenic trips on the dusty dirt roads for decades, groups with disabilities, and of course 

the ranchers and businessmen who face economic ruin as the BLM begins implementation of draconian regulations which deny the traditional usage and access 

which has been enjoyed and promised by the BLM to thousands of people since the 

turn of the last Century. 

I also want to point out that the Native American tribal leaders of the Fort 

Belknap Reservation which borders the Monument on the northeast boundary also 

testified in strong opposition to the BLM proposal repeating the general opposition 

expressed by other residents of the area. They stated in strong terms ‘‘You are taking our access, our rights, our land, and our children’s future.’’

The people of Montana have been told for decades by the BLM, Forest Service and 

Federal Fish and Wildlife agencies that traditional usage at current levels would be 

respected. However, these Federal agencies have continually and systematically restricted access to a navigatable river which witnessed millions of tons of freight and 

thousands of passengers transported during the 1860’s through the 1890’s on this 

strip of River to Fort Benton which had over one mile of docks and wharfs to accommodate the economic activity. I must remind the congressmen that this is still a legally navigatable river which could open up increased litigation if the BLM management rules are implemented. 

For the past 100 years the river has seen thousands of recreational craft replacing 

the side-wheelers and other 19th century merchant fleet with the continued activity 

of a thriving usage joining the thousands of cows plus maintaining habitat full of 

elk, deer, antelope and other wildlife being watched by the cowboys on their horses 

drinking out of the Missouri—all the while maintaining the areas pristine natural 

beauty. I want to emphasize that the scenic vistas and lush meadows that are used 

for photo backdrops are almost exclusively on private land—not Government land. 

Montana boasts that 80% of its citizens are gun owners of which a large percentage hunts. The private property contained within the Monument is the basis for 

wild game management which has for five generations been Montana’s premiere 

hunting location. The several thousand Montana’s who opposed the Monument designation recognized that during the time federal government became involved in 

land management the number of game animals sharply decreased and restrictions 

and regulations escalated. 

We are frustrated by the continual lies perpetuated through brochures, power 

point presentations, and media clips at taxpayer expense. Now the BLM and its expansive bureaucracy wants to ‘‘rescue this scenic area’’ form the very people who 

have lovingly maintained it for a half dozen generations and sustainably used its 

resources. For years the BLM personnel and decision makers were native Montana 

raised people who understood and appreciated the natural balance of managing this 

region to accommodate multiple usage principles. Now out-of-state environmentalists are shaping policies which are threatening the property rights of the 120 ranchers representing a half dozen generations who have lived and worked in the area 

declared in 2001 as a National Monument. 

How can I convey the scenes of high school gyms and community centers with 

packed bleacher seats and floors packed with folding chairs all filled to capacity 

with young and old—toddlers carrying signs ‘‘don’t take my daddy’s farm’’ or teenagers carrying signs ‘‘hug a cowboy—not a tree!’’ Old and young waiting for hours 

to voice opposition or simply supporting the speakers expressing their upset over 

federal government policies which will end their children and grandchildren’s hopes 

5

to continue their way of life and the investments in money and ‘‘sweat’’ from their 

ancestors who have continuously ridden their horses over this land. 

We saw the streets of historic Fort Benton (the birthplace of Montana) filled with 

large semi-tractor trucks pulling big cattle trailers for as far as you could see protesting the government take-over with billboards proclaiming ‘‘NO MONUMENT.’’ 

The BL M faced the parking lot in the city of Havre (fifty miles from the proposed 

Monument) filled with horses and riders who had traveled up to 100 miles from 

throughout the proposed monument area all protesting this misguided federal land 

grab. In Lewistown (the BLM headquarters for the Monument management) we saw 

the county court house surrounded with ATV and snowmobile owners protesting federal closure of the recreation roads in the Monument designation. We saw sportsmen crowding into every hearing throughout Montana and signing petitions opposing this Monument as ‘‘bad policy.’’

UNFORTUNATELY, THE REST OF AMERICA DID NOT SEE THE OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION WHICH WAS EXHIBITED CONTINUALLY 

THROUGHOUT THE 13 PUBLIC HEARINGS MUCH TO THE DISTRESS OF 

THE BLM BUREAUCRACY WHO EXPECTED THE LOCAL NATIVES TO BOW 

TO THE AUTHORITY OF WASHINGTON BUREAUCRATS. 

Because of private property rights including the land policy setting the scene for 

forced sales, illegal taking of traditional established access—representatives in the 

State political process are discussing the potential needs to increase funding for our 

attorney general’s office to prepare for legal challenges to remedy the legal issues 

which agriculture, sportsmen, recreation, and other groups are identifying as resulting from the Monument proposal. 

I appreciate the opportunity to bring the concerns of the people of Montana to 

Congress. My only wish is that the members of this body could have attended the 

hearings in Montana and witnessed the passion, frustration, and tears of the residents of the proposed Monument area. It is difficult to properly convey the feelings 

of oppression from the ‘‘heel of the Washington D.C. bureaucracy’’ as Montana residents witness their property rights, livelihoods, and family dreams crushed under 

policies developed by out-of-state environmental activists. The power granted the 

BLM under this legislation combined with a presidential decision based on misguided political philosophy upsets the entire economic structure and the lives of 

hundreds of existing residents. 

I want to emphasize that there is no shortage of government owned land in Montana with nearly 50% of the State comprised of government owned non-taxpaying 

property all of which is slowly being restricted from public use under Forest Service 

and Federal Fish and Wildlife management practices which now appears to be the 

direction the Bureau of Land Management will move under this proposed legislation. 

The BLM has from the beginning said ‘‘...you have nothing to worry about; we 

will make sure your concerns and needs will be protected.’’ I do not see the hundreds of hours of testimony, the truck loads of individual written testimony (in contrast to ‘‘canned’’ environmental comments sent in by out-of-state activists and city 

folks who lack understanding of the area and impacts from their miss-guided proposals.) We are frustrated by the army of BLM staff members who promote their 

agenda at taxpayers’ expense while I have had to travel thousands of miles to be 

here today at my personal expense to express the concerns of my neighbors, county 

commissioners, state legislators (including my father), and the thousands of ordinary Montana residents who spent time attending hearings protesting misguided 

federal policy. We often feel helpless when we are restricted to only two witnesses’s 

to express our concerns in contrast the proponents being allowed three to four times 

as many special interest proponents. 

In conclusion this legislation codifies on-going ‘‘one size fits all’’ radical environmental policy being implemented throughout the western United States destroying 

private property rights which is the foundation of our American economic and political system. I only ask you to consider the tens of thousands of ordinary tax-paying 

Americans who plead with you as elected representatives not to destroy their economic and cultural foundations in this insidious acquisition of private property by 

the government at the behest of the world-wide environmental movement. 

[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have serious concerns 

with H.R. 2016. Coming from a state where much of our land is 

6

already under Federal lock and key, you should be able to understand why I am less than enthusiastic to see another layer of 

bureaucracy placed over us. 

On the surface, proponents of the bill claim this does nothing 

more than codify a program created by the Clinton Administration 

which preserves and protects the lands that have a remarkable 

ability to, as Ms. Daly will put it, define who we are as a Nation. 

Some of the lands are remarkable but some of the other lands were 

created at the whim of special interest groups by a sympathetic 

President. 

We are now told we need to create a system for these lands. Believe it or not, we have a system to protect nationally significant 

lands. It is called the National Park Service. This appears to be a 

thinly veiled attempt to insert restrictive National Park Service 

management methods on other lands, which indeed should be used 

in a multi-use way. 

The Chairman’s bill uses language to the delight of trial 

attorneys and their responsibility to balance conservation and 

recreation. This bill introduces the concept of values into the BLM. 

My question is what is the value to the BLM. In the National Park 

Service, the value is now interpreted, after court cases, that is, to 

include such subjective things as soundscapes, viewscapes and occasionally, smell sheds. Should we anticipate further legislation to 

protect these values in the Bureau of Lands? 

Initially, I thought this bill was, at worst, the camel’s nose under 

the tent. However, under closer examination, this bill not only invites the camel into the tent, he is also in the sleeping bag. 

Let’s look directly at the legislation—Section 3, Establishment. 

In order to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant 

landscapes that have outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific 

values for the benefit of current and future generations, there is established in the Bureau of Land Management a National Landscape Conversation System. 

This may as well be the National Park Service Organic Act. It 

is the same language. It unfortunately goes on. The bill further directs the Secretary to manage these lands in a manner that protects the values for which the components of the system were designated. Again, we are presented with the vague concept of values. 

This legislation is the biggest invitation to lawsuits since the slip 

and fall scheme was invented, and I can see the day when a judge 

decides that in light of this language, all units of this system will 

be managed in a uniform and consistent way. It is unconscionable 

to force our multiple public lands down the same path that force 

personal watercraft out of the national recreation areas and put 

snowmobiles on the endangered species list. 

This bill also has created another Federal designation. The 

Chairman’s bill will include any area designated by Congress to be 

administered for conservation purposes within this new system. 

After this has become law, we should expect an onslaught of bills 

for new national units in the new national land conservation 

system. 

Finally, a witness could have testified to this committee had it 

gone when it was supposed to today about the impacts these designations will have on peoples’ lives. There are witnesses who will 

7

give us testimony in written form that have been included in these 

designations against their wishes. Making this system permanent 

will have a direct impact on them. This legislation also puts rights 

of Alaskan Natives, of critical importance to me and also the Ranking Member, Mr. Young. 

We should deliberate this proposal carefully because the special 

interests have already put multiple use in jeopardy with this bill. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Let me begin with our 

first panel and welcome our colleagues and extend our appreciation 

for taking the time. Let me begin with The Honorable Mary Bono, 

a colleague from California. Very active in the Landscape Conservation Caucus and a cosponsor of H.R. 2016. And let me turn 

that over to you, Ms. Bono, for any comments that you may have. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. BONO. I thank the Chair very much. I just want to start by 

assuring Mr. Bishop that I, in my many years of life, have done 

an awful lot of camping in Utah, and never once did I ever wake 

up with a camel in my sleeping bag. But I want to thank you both 

very, very much for allowing me to testify today. 

I also think part of my frustration with Congress and the way 

Congress works is that never do we take CODELs around our 

country to visit our own lands ourselves to know our interior as 

much as we ought to, and if we spend as much time touring our 

own lands as we did foreign countries, it would be a very, very good 

thing for the people of the United States. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act. As 

you know, Mr. Chairman, we started the work that led to this 

legislation with the NLCS Caucus that was formed to examine 

ways to provide recognition to some of our country’s most impressive open spaces. I came to this point today after recognizing how 

effectively the model for balancing conservation and recreational 

pursuits has been achieved on Federal lands in my congressional 

district. 

In October of 2000, the Santa Rose-San Jacinto Mountains 

National Monument Act became law, providing an example of one 

of the first national monuments to be designated legislatively. The 

issues surrounding the culminating legislation were many, with 

varying concerns over access, recreation and preserving unique 

plant and wildlife species that live in the area. 

In the end, we were able to effectively engage our local stakeholders to gain the support of private landowners, Native American 

tribes and the conservation community. The success of the monument and its value to the Coachella Valley in California is significant. This is the reason why I am supporting H.R. 2016, as the 

ability for the BLM to oversee these lands for conversation while 

also working to achieve the continued need for access and recreation is commendable. 

At this time, within the monument in my district, work is being 

done to protect the peninsular desert bighorn sheep and a total of 

73 percent of the existing critical habitats of endangered species is 

8

within the NLCS. It is my hope visitors to this monument will continue to experience this unique area for years to come. 

Further, I do think it is important that we move forward with 

this legislation while knowing that different areas throughout the 

country have enacted various management plans for the lands 

within the system components. Protecting the original intent of 

these underlying prescriptions that may have been established in 

legislation or through an administrative act is both sensible and 

important. 

The NLCS needs the proper oversight of Congress, which is why 

I think today’s hearing is very valuable. The system ranges from 

monuments, to trails across the country, including areas that I 

visited throughout my entire life. It is clear that the BLM faces 

challenges. With this legislation, we can now potentially better 

quantify what value these lands bring to so many parts of our 

lives. 

In moving forward with this legislation, I have heard input from 

other members, and it is my hope that proper consideration can be 

given to ensuring we can protect these unique areas while maintaining the intent of existing law, and I think we should underscore that point. 

Today’s hearing will hopefully display the varied ways in which 

these lands can be utilized for enriching the lives of tourists from 

other countries, domestic visitors or the residents who are fortunate enough to have these lands in their backyard. 

With that, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop, I 

am hopeful of the bipartisan support of this committee on this effort, and I appreciate the support of the administration. I thank 

you again for the opportunity to testify, given the time changes 

that we have all had to endure today. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bono follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Mary Bono, a Representative

in Congress from the State of California 

Chairman Grijalva, Members of the Subcommittee and Full Committee, I would 

like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 2016, the National 

Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) Act. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we started the work that led to this legislation with the National Landscape Conservation 

System Caucus that was formed to examine ways to provide recognition some of our 

country’s most impressive open spaces. 

I came to this point today after recognizing how effectively the model for balancing conservation and recreational pursuits has been achieved on federal lands 

in my Congressional district. In October of 2000, the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto 

Mountains National Monument Act became law, providing an example of one of the 

first national monuments to be designated legislatively. 

The issues surrounding the culminating legislation were many, with varying concerns over access, recreation, and preserving the unique plant and wildlife species 

that live in the area. In the end, we were able to effectively engage our local stakeholders to gain the support of private landowners, Native American tribes, and the 

conservation community. 

The success of the Monument and its value to the Coachella Valley in California 

is significant. This is the reason why I am supporting H.R. 2016, as the ability for 

the Bureau of Land Management to oversee these lands for conservation while also 

working to achieve the continued need for access and recreation is commendable. 

At this time, within the Monument in my district, work is being done to protect 

the Peninsular Desert Bighorn Sheep and a total of 73% of the existing critical habitat for this endangered species is within the NLCS. 

9

It is my hope that visitors to the Monument will continue to experience this 

unique area for years to come. Further, I do think it is important that we move forward with this legislation while knowing that different areas throughout the country have enacted various management plans for the lands within the System components. Protecting the original intent of these underlying prescriptions that may have 

been established in legislation or through an Administrative act is both sensible and 

important. 

The NLCS needs the proper oversight of Congress, which is why I think that today’s hearing is so valuable. The System ranges from monuments to trails, including 

areas that I’ve visited throughout my life across the country. It is clear that the 

BLM faces challenges that we can now potentially better quantify what value these 

lands bring to so many parts of our lives. 

In moving forward with this legislation, I have heard input from other Members, 

and it is my hope that proper consideration can be given to ensuring we can protect 

these unique areas while maintaining the intent of existing law. 

Today’s hearing will hopefully display the varied ways in which these lands can 

be utilized for enriching the lives of tourists from other countries or the casual 

weekend for outdoor enthusiast who is fortunate enough to have these lands in their 

backyard. 

With that, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop, I am hopeful of the 

bipartisan support of the Committee on this effort as well as the support of the Administration. I thank you again for the opportunity to testify given the time changes 

that have taken place with the other priorities of this Committee. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me now turn to our colleague Congressman 

Moran, also a cosponsor of H.R. 2016 and a member of the caucus, 

one of the co-chairs, for your comments and your testimony, Congressman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, particularly my fellow co-chairs, Congresswoman Bono and 

you, Chairman Grijalva. Today’s hearing in support of H.R. 2016, 

the National Landscape Conversation System Act, this is a simple 

piece of legislation that will codify the Bureau of Land Management’s conservation system so that it will be recognized and 

managed as a national system. 

These lands were rightly given special status as national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness, wild and scenic 

rivers and national scenic and historic trails by Congress and by 

Presidential proclamation. While the majority of these lands are in 

the western United States, we need look no further than just 

across the Potomac River in northern Virginia where a segment of 

the Potomac Heritage Trail crosses my congressional district. Like 

the widely popular Potomac Heritage Trail, the preservation of all 

of these lands is undeniably important for recreation and open 

space. Of equal or perhaps even greater importance, however, is 

their role in conserving landmark natural, cultural and scientific 

resources. 

Today, however, Congress has not recognized their management 

in a unified system. These places are unique and diverse and continue to provide our Nation with new appreciation of their historic, 

cultural and scientific importance. In Utah, although they haven’t 

found any camels, they did find a very rare dinosaur skin that was 

discovered with bone fossils. 

We can explore our own history and the settlement of this continent through the Lewis and Clark Trail, the California, Pony ExVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:01 Mar 04, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\36021.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
10

press, the Oregon Trail, and the Mormon Pioneer and Old Spanish 

National Historic Trails. New insect discoveries are emerging from 

Grand Canyon, including a new genus and four new species of 

crickets and two new species of millipedes. 

Those are important because of the ecology that they are part of. 

The Headwaters Forest Reserve is home to threatened murrelets 

and the endangered northern spotted owls. The Vermillion Cliffs 

National Monument in Arizona is the release site and habitat for 

the endangered California condor, which was brought back from 

the brink of extinction. 

Seven years ago this month, these lands were administratively 

organized as a system by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The 

Bureau of Land Management has proven that they can manage 

these lands for conversation and it is time for Congress to give this 

conversation system their stamp of approval. There is demonstrated bipartisan support for the conservation system and this 

legislation through the National Landscape Conversation System 

Congressional Caucus. This measure also enjoys the support of the 

Bush administration. 

So I thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement. I 

appreciate your leadership on this issue and I encourage the committee to move swiftly to consider this legislation. Thanks very 

much, Mr. Chairman. I very much thank my colleague Ms. Bono 

for testifying as well, and for your leadership. Mr. Bishop doesn’t 

seem quite as enthusiastic, so I will thank him for this particular 

piece of legislation. 

Mr. BISHOP. It has been a long day. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moran follows:]

Statement of The Honorable James P. Moran, a Representative

in Congress from the State of Virginia 

Chairman Grijalva, Members of the Committee and honored guests, I am pleased 

to join you and one of my fellow Co-Chairs of the National Landscape Conservation 

System Congressional Caucus, Mary Bono, at today’s hearing in support of 

H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act. This simple piece of 

legislation will codify the Bureau of Land Management’s conservation system, so 

that it will be recognized and managed as a national system. 

These lands were rightly given special status as National Monuments, National 

Conservation Areas, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Scenic and 

Historic Trails by Congress and by Presidential Proclamation. While the majority 

of these lands are in the Western United States, we need look no further than just 

across the Potomac River in Northern Virginia where a segment of the Potomac 

Heritage Trail crosses my congressional district. 

Like the widely popular Potomac Heritage Trail, the preservation of these lands 

is undeniably important for recreation and open space. Of equal or perhaps even 

greater importance, however, is their role in conserving landmark natural, cultural 

and scientific resources. To date, however, Congress has not recognized their management as a whole in a unified system. 

These places are unique and diverse and continue to provide our nation with new 

discoveries of historic, cultural and scientific importance. In Utah, a very rare dinosaur skin was discovered with hadrosaur bone fossils. We can explore our own history and settlement of this continent through the Lewis and Clark Trail, the California, Pony Express, the Oregon Trail, and the Mormon Pioneer and Old Spanish 

National Historic Trails. New insect discoveries are emerging from Grand Canyon 

Parashant National Monument in Arizona, including a new genus and four new species of crickets and two new species of millipedes. The Headwaters Forest Reserve 

is home to threatened Marbled Murrelets and the endangered Northern Spotted 

Owls. The Vermillion Cliffs National Monument in Arizona is the release site and 

11

habitat for the endangered California Condor, which was brought back from the 

brink of extinction. 

Seven years ago this month, these lands were administratively organized as a system by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Bureau of Land Management has 

proven they can manage these lands for conservation, and it is time for Congress 

to give this conservation system their stamp of approval. There is demonstrated bipartisan support for the conservation system and this legislation through the 

National Landscape Conservation System Congressional Caucus. This measure also 

enjoys the support of the Bush Administration. I thank you the opportunity to submit this statement and I urge your swift consideration of this legislation. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I have no questions for our colleagues. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. No questions. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me thank you. I extend the invitation that you 

are free to join us at the dais, but as you rush out the door, I can 

appreciate that as well. Thank you very much. Thank you for your 

testimony. 

Let me call the next panelist up. Ms. Elena Daly, Director of 

National Landscape Conservation System, Bureau of Land Management. Thank you very much, Director. I am particularly grateful given the circumstances that occurred to you. I would venture 

to say that this hearing, although it might be some tough questions, cannot compare to being hit by a car. And so I would like 

to extend to you our appreciation for you taking the time and being 

here and look forward to your testimony. You may begin. 

STATEMENT OF ELENA DALY, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL 

LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM, BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT 

Ms. DALY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman 

and members of the committee, I am Elena Daly, Director of the 

National Landscape Conservation System. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify on H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation 

System Act. 

The NLCS is a significant part of BLM’s conservation efforts and 

is integral to BLM’s overall multiple use mission. The BLM is 

proud to oversee the system which includes areas nationally recognized for their outstanding values. These lands are not simply 

places to visit, they help us define who we are as a Nation, and 

they tell our national story as it unfolded in the unforgettable landscapes of the West. 

The Department supports H.R. 2016, a bill that would legislatively establish the NLCS to protect, conserve and restore nationally significant landscapes. The bill would provide for the inclusion 

in the NLCS of congressional and Presidentially designated special 

places administered by BLM. H.R. 2016 would provide legislative 

support for the NLCS and its conservation mission within BLM. 

In June of 2000, the Department of the Interior administratively 

established the NLCS to bring into a single organized system many 

of BLM’s outstanding ecological, cultural and scientific landscapes. 

The BLM is charged with managing the public lands for a wide variety of uses. This multiple use mission directs the balanced management of public land for uses that may include, but certainly are 

not limited to recreation, livestock, grazing, energy development 

and timber harvest. 

12

The NLCS is a integral part of that mission and includes national monuments, national conservation areas, national scenic and 

historic trails, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness and wilderness 

study areas. Over the last 6 years since its inception, the NLCS 

has established successful collaborative relationships with local 

communities, States, tribes, and private citizens. These partnerships are also critical as we pursue our mission. 

In an increasingly crowded and fast-changing West, NLCS units 

provide some of the best examples of open space. For the most part, 

NLCS units are not highly developed. Rather, they provide visitors 

a different sort of outdoor experience, an opportunity to explore, 

discover and relax. 

H.R. 2016 proposes to establish in statute the current administrative structure of the BLM National Landscape Conservation 

System. We understand that the bill is intended to maintain the 

current management of the NLCS individual units, and as each 

unit is unique, we strongly support this. 

By formalizing the NLCS, H.R. 2016 would give congressional 

support and direction, strengthening the special system of lands 

within the context of BLM’s multiple use mission. This will assure 

that these landscapes of the American spirit would be conserved, 

protected and restored for the benefit of current and future generations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2016. 

I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Daly follows:]

Statement of Elena Daly, Director, National Landscape Conservation 

System, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act. The National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) is a 

significant part of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) conservation efforts 

and is integral to the BLM’s overall multiple-use mission. The BLM is proud to 

oversee this system which includes areas nationally recognized for their outstanding 

values. These lands are not simply places to visit; they help define who we are as 

a Nation and tell the story of our nation as it unfolded in the unforgettable natural 

landscapes of the West. 

The Department supports H.R. 2016, a bill that would legislatively establish the 

NLCS in order to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes. 

The bill would provide for the inclusion in the NLCS of Congressionally and Presidentially designated special places administered by the BLM. H.R. 2016 would provide legislative support to the NLCS and its conservation mission within the BLM. 

Background 

In June 2000, the Department of the Interior administratively established the 

NLCS within the BLM bringing into a single organized system many of the BLM’s 

outstanding ecological, cultural and scientific landscapes. The BLM is charged with 

managing the public lands for a wide range of uses. This multiple-use mission directs the balanced management of public lands for many uses, including conservation, recreation, livestock grazing, energy development, and timber production. The 

NLCS is an integral part of that mission and includes National Monuments, 

National Conservation Areas (NCAs), National Scenic and Historic Trails, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, Wilderness, and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). The BLM, under 

the authority of section 603 of FLPMA, manages WSAs so as not to impair their 

wilderness character. The establishment of the NLCS would not change the status 

of the WSAs or the authority of Congress, at some future time, to designate them 

as units of the National Wilderness Preservation System or to release them for nonwilderness multiple use. 

The NLCS currently includes 27 million acres of archaeological and historic treasures such as Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in Colorado and the Oregon National Historic Trail, wildlife havens such as Snake River Birds of Prey 

13

NCA in Idaho and Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness in Arizona, and hiking challenges 

such as King Range National Conservation Area along the lost coast of northern 

California and significant sections of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

as it winds its way through New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana. 

Over the last six years, since its inception, the NLCS has established successful, 

collaborative relationships with local communities, States, tribes, friends groups, 

and private citizens. These partnerships are critical to the on-the-ground success of 

NLCS units. 

In an increasingly crowded and fast-changing West, NLCS units provide some of 

the best examples of open space. For the most part, NLCS units are not highly developed. Rather, they provide visitors a different kind of outdoor experience—an opportunity to explore, discover and relax. These are places to get lost and find oneself. 

Many NLCS units were designated specifically for their scientific values. Recent 

discoveries at some NLCS units include cave-dwelling millipedes previously unknown to science and numerous new species of dinosaurs. In 2006, at Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the discovery of one of the largest known 

oviraptor in the world (a giant 7-foot tall, 14-foot long flesh-eating, feathered dinosaur) was revealed. The diverse opportunities for scientific inquiry allow NLCS 

units to be used as outdoor laboratories by a wide range of universities, colleges, 

and high schools including Brigham Young University, Montana State University, 

Colorado State University, Northern Arizona University, Universidad de Sonora 

(Mexico), Stanford University, Boise State University, University of New South 

Wales (Australia), Oregon State University, University of Utah, and the University 

of Witwatersrand (South Africa). Their efforts also directly benefit local communities. For example, studies of lava flows at Craters of the Moon National Monument in collaboration with Idaho State University contribute to hands-on science 

curriculum for local elementary students. 

Much of the support for NLCS units comes from local communities that work with 

the BLM to engage in cooperative conservation that enhance local economies, cultures, and resources. At New Mexico’s Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, an inter-governmental cooperative agreement between the BLM and the 

Pueblo de Cochiti has successfully provided for enhanced visitor services while improving the health of the land at this spectacular geologic wonder. In southern Arizona, Las Cienegas NCA is collaborating with local ranchers, water districts, the 

State and county to develop innovative solutions to managing this precious watershed in a desert environment—all in the context of a historic ranching community. 

Many NLCS units are adjacent to growing urban centers and provide respite from 

the city as well as recreational opportunities. Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument adjoins the burgeoning Palm Springs area of California; 

McGinnis Canyons NCA lies near Grand Junction, Colorado; and Red Rock Canyon 

NCA is located just outside of Las Vegas, Nevada. Red Rock Canyon NCA has some 

of the highest visitation of any BLM-administered site and serves as an adventurous 

alternative for locals and visitors from Las Vegas’ other attractions. The many communities in California’s Coachella Valley welcome the undeveloped open spaces of 

the Congressionally designated Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National 

Monument. Partnerships with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the 

Friends of the Desert Mountains, and the cities of Palm Desert, Palm Springs, La 

Quinta, Cathedral City, Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage and Indio have enhanced 

BLM’s ability to improve recreational opportunities while also providing for improved habitat for the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep. Colorado’s growing 

recreation industry promotes McInnis Canyon as a place for outdoor activity including wilderness hiking, rafting and mountain biking. 

From the remote, wild Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection 

Area in the eastern part of the State, to coastal Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural 

Area’s lighthouse and tidal pools, the diversity of NLCS units can be viewed across 

the breadth of Oregon. The Oregon National Historic Trail and the interpretive center in Baker City provide a window into our pioneer past and the 300,000 emigrants 

who used this pathway to the Pacific. Three ecosystems collide in Cascade-Siskiyou 

National Monument in southwestern Oregon forming a unique assemblage of rare 

plants and animals. Oregon’s 802 miles of wild and scenic rivers provide unparalleled opportunities for fishing, hunting and boating which contribute to economic diversity in local communities. 

H.R. 2016

H.R. 2016 proposes to establish in statute the current administrative structure of 

the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System. We understand that the bill 

is intended to maintain the current management of the NLCS’ individual units. 

14

However, since we testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, it has come to our attention 

that the language in section 3(c)(2) could inadvertently create ambiguity or confusion. As each unit is unique, we strongly support the recognition of their individual 

management frameworks and we would like the opportunity to work with the Chairman to clarify the legislation in regards to section 3(c)(2). 

By formalizing the NLCS, H.R. 2016 would give Congressional support and direction, strengthening this special system of lands within the context of the BLM’s 

multiple-use mission. This will assure that these landscapes of the American spirit 

would be conserved, protected, and restored for the benefit of current and future 

generations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2016. I will be happy 

to answer any questions. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Director. Let me ask you 

some clarifying questions because the legislation provokes a lot of 

other questions, and maybe through your answers, you can begin 

to clarify some of those. 

Beginning with what you said, the mission of multiple use as a 

core of BLM’s mission, how does the NLCS fit into the definition 

of multiple use on BLM land? Is there a contradiction there? 

Ms. DALY. Most not a contradiction, Mr. Chair. Ninety-nine percent of our units are available for grazing, for instance. The valid 

existing rights, whether private property, or, for instance, in Canyon of the Ancients National Monument, oil and gas leases are 

honored. We continue to provide recreational opportunities of a 

wide variety for people, everything from motorized recreation on 

designated roads, to primitive camping, for instance. 

We do, through our science program wildlife projects, we look forward to working with cultural resource management. We have at 

least—Canyon of the Ancients, one of the most intensely dense 

sites for cultural resources in the Nation. And so you see a variety 

of BLM programs that figure into the management of NLCS as 

well. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me follow up on the point that you just made 

about—that the NLCS was established pursuant to valid existing 

rights. You mentioned grazing, energy development permitted on 

Federal land. Is there anything in H.R. 2016 that alters that valid 

existent rights provision? 

Ms. DALY. There is nothing in the bill that would do that, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. You mentioned the cultural resources 

and how important it is. I do want to acknowledge that point. I 

think repeatedly it has been made a core part of the system, and 

I think that is very important. Can you maybe explain to the committee the issue of the significance to Native Americans of the 

NLCS and why there is so much support for the system and for formalizing the system as you said among Native American tribes. 

Ms. DALY. Yes. First of all, a lot of our units contain the sites 

that are culturally or religiously significant to many tribes. We 

have ongoing working relationships, as Congressman Bono mentioned, with Agua Caliente. The Pueblo De Cochiti actually manages Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks in New Mexico. It is a site that is 

significant to the Pueblo and they manage it to honor those places. 

We work very closely with a number of tribes on our trails. So 

many of the historic trails if not all originated as Indian footpaths 

across the Nation. And so it is important to involve tribes such as 

15

the Shoshone, the Nez Perce, the northern plains tribes in how we 

tell that story and how we manage those areas. 

The Yurok tribe of Northern California has an agreement with 

us to come to manage the northern part of the California Coastal 

Monument because those areas are also significant to them. Those 

are just a few of the tribal relationships that we have established. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And repeatedly I have heard from native nations 

the issue of access and how that has been a very important part. 

Whether it is a sacred site, tradition, that access has been not just 

granted but facilitated. 

Ms. DALY. Absolutely. We work very closely with any of the interests but we also guard that information very closely because it 

is so important to the tribes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Clarify, one last point; clarify the status of private 

lands within the boundary or unit of NLCS. Are those private 

lands actually part of the unit or do they remain private? 

Ms. DALY. They remain private. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. At this point I don’t have any more questions. Mr. 

Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, I apologize you actually had to come here when 

you already suffered. I apologize for that. So let me give you just 

a softball question at first before the grilling begins. 

What is the one advantage, since supposedly nothing changes in 

the management scheme, you will continue to be Director of this 

program, whether it is done by administrative rule or whether it 

is done by congressional codification, what then is the one advantage for congressional codification? 

Ms. DALY. One advantage, sir, is it gives a sense of permanence 

and security to the system that we don’t currently have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is the system in danger now from administrative 

reasons? 

Ms. DALY. Not at the moment, no, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Could you just briefly tell me like the history of the 

BLM, why it was established in the first place? 

Ms. DALY. The BLM or NLCS, sir? 

Mr. BISHOP. The BLM. 

Ms. DALY. It was established as a combination of the Grazing 

Service and the General Land Office in 1946. It was originally established to provide for multiple use management of and disposal 

of public lands primarily in the West. 

Mr. BISHOP. What was the last part? 

Ms. DALY. Managed for multiple use and disposal of public lands 

in the West. Do you want the rest of the history or is that enough? 

Mr. BISHOP. You got the basic part there; in fact, all the phrases 

are essential. I wouldn’t expect you to have actually done this, but 

I doubt that you have actually read the enabling acts of most western states when they came in the union as to what historic purpose 

of their lands was to be. 

Ms. DALY. No, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. I wouldn’t have imagined that to be the case. In 

fact, I would be highly surprised if it were the case. You have more 

important things to do than that. When you say then that the 

lands are not simply places to visit but they help define where we 

are as a Nation, does that fit in with the historic role of the BLM? 

16

Ms. DALY. It does. The point I gave you in the history was 1946. 

In 1976 with the passage of FLPMA, the BLM’s mission was broadened. 

Mr. BISHOP. Certainly was, wasn’t it. Too bad you didn’t ask the 

western States about that when it happened. The concept of conservation, recreation, livestock grazing, energy development and 

timber production as you said in your testimony are the important 

elements of BLM. 

Ms. DALY. They are some of those elements, yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Can I ask, and you may not know this because it 

a drafting issue, in the bill before when it says the purpose of the 

establishment of this office, none of those elements, livestock grazing, energy development, timber, those were left out of the verbiage 

that is used when we try to codify this. Do you have any idea why 

that was the case? 

Ms. DALY. I did not participate in the drafting. 

Mr. BISHOP. Would you be opposed to adding that language in 

there to specify the broad view of multiple purpose the BLM is supposed to have? 

Ms. DALY. I would prefer to defer to the committee on that, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. If we gave you the magic ability of being one of us. 

Ms. DALY. I would still defer to the committee. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me try another one, which means with the national wilderness areas, which of course—national wilderness study 

areas, which are obviously not national wilderness but simply 

areas to be studied until such time as Congress makes a designation. 

If this Act were to be passed, do you think it would be either 

harder or easier to make an adjudication as to the status of wilderness study areas? 

Ms. DALY. I don’t believe that the Act would affect that adjudication one way or the other. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you think it would make a difference to your 

ability to administer those as presently your responsibility if wilderness study areas were left off of the list of those things encompassed within this new conservation system, since that is supposedly a temporary status until Congress makes an adjudication. 

Ms. DALY. Again, sir, I would have to defer to the committee. As 

far as the management, the bill does not change the management 

of the system at all. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I have a lot more and I will defer—

let me do one that can be very quick. You state in here that the 

NLCS has established a successful collaborative relationship with 

local communities. Do you expect that to disappear without this 

bill? 

Ms. DALY. No, sir. I fully expect it to continue to increase. 

Mr. BISHOP. Whether this bill is here or not? 

Ms. DALY. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. I only have 20 seconds here. I defer to other members, but I do have questions. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I have a background question. At least two of these areas that you administer 

now are the McInnis Canyon area in Colorado and the Canyons of 

17

the Ancients National Monument in Colorado. Now I was formally 

under the impression that a national monument was part of the 

national park system, was one of the 390 some units of the national park system, but this national monument is not. What is the 

difference? 

Ms. DALY. We have 15 national monuments, sir, and they were 

established and given to the Bureau of Land Management in their 

authorizing documents. As Mrs. Bono stated, Santa Rosa, San-San 

Jacinto is the only congressionally established one of the national 

monuments, all the rest were accomplished through Presidential 

proclamation and——

Mr. LAMBORN. So if it is a BLM managed area, then it is not 

NPS, is what you are saying? 

Ms. DALY. Correct. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So Congress could take a wilderness area and elevate it to national monument status and put it in either category 

or under either management, BLM or NPS. 

Ms. DALY. That would certainly be a congressional decision. 

Mr. LAMBORN. That is my background question. Now, as to this 

particular proposed legislation, in your testimony, you stated that 

passage of the bill ‘‘will assure that these landscapes of the American spirit would be conserved, protected and restored for the benefit of current and future generations.’’ my question is isn’t this 

being done right now under your mandate? 

Ms. DALY. What happens under the NLCS that differentiates it 

from general BLM management is that certainly the Bureau has 

a conservation mission, but because of the unique aspects of each 

of these places such as McGinnis Canyon or Canyons of the Ancients we can move more toward the conservation side and make 

some decisions that we might not otherwise be as free to make on 

general BLM lands. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Could you be more specific about that? Give me 

some examples where you have gone more in the conservation direction as opposed to what you would have otherwise done. 

Ms. DALY. Well, for instance, I would use Canyon of the Ancients 

as an example with the intense density of cultural resources. While 

we honor the valid existing rights on existing oil and gas leases, 

there will be no new leases for oil and gas in Canyons of the Ancients. If that were on general BLM land, we couldn’t necessarily 

make that statement. It might be open to oil and gas development, 

thereby jeopardizing some of those cultural resources. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So oil and gas leases is one possible thing that 

would be lost under this legislation—well, under NLCS designation 

as opposed to regular BLM designation. 

Ms. DALY. If the proclamation says that, yes. If it is withdrawn 

from mineral entry. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. You also said in your testimony that passage 

of this bill would give congressional direction regarding management of these lands. And my question overlaps with what I just 

asked a minute ago. Don’t you already have special designations 

that give you direction on how to manage BLM land, or are you 

seeking more or different kind of direction? 

Ms. DALY. Actually, what we are seeking, sir, is closer to a permanent system. The bill does not ask for any further direction, 

18

does not ask for any increase in the system, it simply says that the 

system will exist, and since it is administratively determined right 

now, while there may be no immediate threat, I cannot tell you 

that in 20 or 30 years there may not be. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Apart from freezing any oil and not allowing any 

further oil and gas leases, what other practical differences would 

this make if you take a parcel under NLCS authority? 

Ms. DALY. It doesn’t necessarily stop oil and gas, that was just 

the Canyon of the Ancients example. It would depend on what the 

proclamation or legislation said that created the unit. But essentially that is what the bill does, it just moves us from administratively designated to congressionally sanctioned. It is a formalization. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Would there be other possible restrictions on use 

other than not allowing oil and gas leases that you can think of? 

Ms. DALY. That would have to be determined by whomever created the unit to be put in. For instance, if Congress determined 

there should be a unit added to the system, Congress would tell us 

what the restrictions would be. If it was done by the President 

under the authority of the Antiquities Act, the Presidential proclamation would limit it. We do not determine those restrictions. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for your answers. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have some 

additional questions, Director, but we are going to recess this meeting. It has been that kind of day, we have three votes, and should 

be back within half an hour to 35 minutes. Thank you for your indulgence and we will continue with the questions when we get 

back. Hearing is recessed. 

[recess.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me reconvene the hearing and turn to Mr. 

Bishop for any additional questions he might have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Ms. Daly, I had the chance of talking to Congressman Walden this morning about the Steens Act provision that is 

in this particular bill. Of course, it is a difficult situation. I understand that both the Senate and the House version of this particular 

bill cause some potential concerns for them for the Steens Act because primarily the implementation of the Steens Act was caused 

by the National Landscape Conversation System and the management handbook and the policies which accompanied it, so that all 

on-ground collaborative work among the landowners and conservation groups and local government working with BLM to implement 

the Steens Act, and as Congressman Walden and members of the 

Oregon delegation intended, was initially thwarted by NLCS handbook. 

The question I have, though, is I understand this morning the 

Department of the Interior noted its strong support to modify the 

language of this particular bill to ensure that that historic bipartisan consensus-based Steens Act would clearly be the overall guiding statute in the current and future management plans of this 

area that is known as the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management Protection Area. Am I correct in that assumption? 

Ms. DALY. You are correct, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. I assume that the Department would have no problems if there were to be clarifying language. 

19

Ms. DALY. Absolutely none. 

Mr. BISHOP. Ms. Daly, I do have some compassion for the situation you were in. I don’t want to hold you here longer. I have a 

whole lot of questions and the questions are very pointed. I am 

more than happy to put them in written form and send them to 

you and you can at your leisure respond to them in that way. 

Ms. DALY. Thank you, sir. We would be glad to respond to those 

questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. I will yield back. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. I would note that 

H.R. 2016 does not authorize the BLM as a whole, it is just NLCS 

that we are talking about in this discussion. 

Director, thank you so much. Appreciate it very much. Thank 

you for adjusting your whole day. Appreciate it very much. 

To the rest of the panelists that are coming up, the same thanks 

for adjusting your whole day. If we could call the next panel up, 

please. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent for the 

record to include a letter that is to Senator Wyden and Senator 

Smith and Congressman Walden. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without objection. Also at the same time let me 

enter in the record for one of our colleagues, Ms. Lois Capps, a 

communication to the committee. Without objection.

[The letter from Mr. Otley submitted for the record follows:]

Date: June 6, 2007

To: Senator, Wyden, Senator Smith and Congressman Walden

From: Fred Otley 40926 S Diamond Ln Diamond, OR 97722 (541) 493-2702

Subject: S. 1139/H.R. 2016, National Landscape Conservation System Act

You provided the leadership for the writing and enactment of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000. The Steens Act is very 

unique from all other public land, resource management and environmental legislation in providing language that balances and promotes protection, multiple-use, private land, grazing, recreation and cooperative management. S. 1139/H.R. 2016 will 

substantially destroy the fundamentals of the Steens Act due to the following reasons: 

1. First, the primary problems we have had with the implementation of the 

Steens Act was caused by the National Landscape Conservation System and 

the Management Handbooks and Policies that go with it. All of your work to 

get the BLM to implement the Steens Act as you wrote it and as you intended 

the Act to be implemented was initially thwarted by the NLCS Handbook, 

management directives and philosophy. We did not know this until last year. 

2. Our position with BLM was to ‘‘use all sections and language of the Steens Act 

as the fundamental directives, purposes, objectives and management framework for interim and operating plans, environmental assessments, the Resource Management Plan, EISs, etc.’’ and the Steens Act will be a model the 

all other special designation should emulate. The BLM began using the Steens 

Act as the primary directive instead of NLCS guidance and all of the past implementation problems rapidly have disappeared. The Steens Act is now working well and as you intended. 

3. If The Steens CMPA becomes a part of the NLCS I believe the progress you, 

BLM and all of us has made will began to unravel. I believe the only measurement we have to validate this is how the NLCS system and planning and philosophy has negatively impacted early implementation of the Steens Act and 

the early workings of the Steens Mountain Advisory Council. 

4. The Steens Act could continue to evolve a new and innovative way to manage, 

protect and cooperate on a landscape scale if it is kept out of the NLCS system. 

I would suggest that amending fundamental purpose of 1139/2016 to require 

all special designations ‘‘to maintain and enhance the cultural, economic, ecological, and social health’’; and ‘‘to provide for and expand the cooperative manVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:01 Mar 04, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\36021.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
20

agement activities etc.’’; and ‘‘to promote viable and sustainable grazing, and 

recreation operations on private and public lands’’; and ‘‘to conserve, protect 

and manage for healthy watersheds and the long-term ecological integrity’’; 

along with mandating ‘‘The Plan shall provide coordinationwith State,, county, 

and private local landowners and the Burns Paiute Tribe’’; and the emphasis 

of ‘‘Cooperative Management throughout the Steens Act. 

5. The Congressional intent and existing management guidance and policy will 

shift on WSAs under the NLCS. Right now grazing levels, management systems and historical access is protected and provided in WSAs but ongoing lawsuits and agency policy interpretations will most likely alter the emphasis of 

historical use and management to preservation and elevated emphasis of impacts to wilderness values which are extremely subjective. 

6. Many BLM personnel at the field level believe the mission and management 

directive of special designations will shift away from multiple use and private 

commercial uses of public lands but few will step forward because the tenure 

of NLCS is not adequate to objectively measure management and public use 

impacts. The majority of historical public uses will continually be regulated 

and restricted and confined to smaller areas along primary roads causing congestion and an impact to the public land use by the average family. The track 

record of most NLCS units and designations indicates this has already happed 

in a big way according to people living within and next to NLCS units. 

I encourage you to not go forward with the NLCS system. No matter how well 

intentioned the reality of what some want from the NLCS system will hurt cooperative and innovative management and the fundamentals of the Steens Act and many 

other areas.

Sincerely,

Fred I. Otley 

[The statement submitted for the record by Ms. Capps follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Lois Capps, a Representative

in Congress from the State of California 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As a proud cosponsor of H.R. 2016,1 want to thank you for holding a hearing on 

this legislation to codify the National Landscape Conservation System. 

The NLCS consists of all areas the BLM administers for conservation purposes, 

including national monuments, outstanding natural areas, wilderness areas, wild 

and scenic rivers and other remarkable landscapes on our public lands. 

The idea behind grouping all of these areas into one system is to increase public 

awareness of the importance of these lands. It’s also to highlight how BLM is conserving their cultural, historical, scientific, and ecological values. 

Within my own congressional district, the NLCS encompasses several nationally 

significant areas, including the California Coastal Monument and the Carrizo Plain 

National Monument. 

I have also worked to designate the Piedras Blancas Historic Light Station—located in my congressional district—as an outstanding natural area within the 

NLCS. The House recently approved my legislation, and I hope it will be signed into 

law very soon. 

As you know, the Interior Department established the NLCS administratively in 

2000. As a result, it does not have the permanence that it would have if enacted 

legislatively. 

By codifying the NLCS, we’ll help increase the attention to these important, congressionally protected areas. And we’ll help ensure that the system remains a high 

priority within the BLM. 

Mr. Chairman, it’s important to note that this bill does not create any new management authority and does not change how any of the units in the system are managed. Grazing rights, water rights, and public access are unchanged. 

This bill is needed step toward improving the management of the lands that comprise the NLCS. 

I want to thank the Chairman for his leadership on this issue, and I hope we will 

have an opportunity to move this bipartisan bill through the Committee and House 

as quickly as possible. 

I yield back. 

21

Mr. GRIJALVA.Mr. Young, would you like to make an opening 

statement? 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you having the hearing, 

especially having the witness from Alaska. There are some issues 

about this legislation that I can support but we are deeply concerned in Alaska and the effect upon agreements that were reached 

primarily with native lands and the Alaskan National Lands Act. 

Agreements and deals were cut and made and I am somewhat—

would like you to consider and work with me on trying to make 

sure that we don’t have to have two bites at the apple that would 

directly affect the State of Alaska and directly affect especially the 

Native Land Claims Act itself, and that is my biggest concern right 

now. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Young, rest assured that it is not the intent 

of the legislation to undermine the two Acts that you mentioned 

and more than willing and happy to work with you and your office 

to clarify and substantiate those two points. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentlemen. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me begin. Thank you very much. It is a distinguished panel indeed and very happy that you are with us today. 

Let me begin with the first panelist, Mr. Bill Meadows, President 

of The Wilderness Society. Sir, five minutes of oral testimony and 

then whatever, the full text of your testimony will be made part of 

the record. Mr. Meadows. 

STATEMENT OF BILL MEADOWS, PRESIDENT,

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee 

members. It is a privilege to be here testifying before the House 

Natural Resource Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and 

Public Lands on H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation 

System Act. I am Bill Meadows, President of The Wilderness Society. I would like to also ask the committee’s indulgence and enter 

into the record a letter from a coalition of 47 organizations in support of this legislation. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without objection. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Since 1935 The Wilderness Society has worked to 

ensure that future generations will enjoy as we do today the clean 

air, water, wildlife, beauty and opportunities for recreation and renewal that pristine forests, rivers, deserts and mountains provide. 

We represent a quarter of a million Americans throughout the 

country who are investing their legacy of wild places. We welcome 

the opportunity to comment on the historic importance of the 

National Landscape Conservation System Act. 

The National Landscape Conservation System is a public lands 

system like no other. It is composed of BLM managed land and waters designated for conservation by Congress or the President, including national conservation areas, wild and scenic rivers, as well 

as national monuments, wilderness areas and other special places. 

These landscapes with innumerable natural and cultural resource values ensure invaluable educational and recreational opportunities for current and future generations. The conservation 

system provides unique opportunities for solitude and adventure, 

where visitors can create their own experiences. 

22

While constituting only 10 percent of the BLM lands and waters, 

the system accommodates a third of the BLM recreation use. The 

system facilitates diverse recreational and educational experiences 

such as famed rafting in California’s north fork of the American 

River, exploring how ancient cultures lived on the landscapes in 

Arizona’s Agua Fria National Monument, hiking on the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, mountain biking in Colorado’s 

McInnis Canyons, and backpacking and wildlife viewing 

pportunities in the system’s many, many wilderness areas. 

Protected areas such as the national conservation areas and 

wilderness areas offer many economic benefits to neighboring communities. Because conservation system visitor centers are designed 

to be located in gateway communities, the landscapes within the 

system remain protected and surrounding communities receive the 

economic benefits of increased visitation to these wonderful places. 

The system also provides outstanding opportunities for research 

and outdoor education. BLM staff have shared with us their excitement about the many research projects that the conservation system lands offer. 

The system is also well known for cultural resources including 

those in the Canyon of the Ancients National Monument, which 

contains the largest concentration of known archeological sites in 

the Nation. The BLM’s conservation system also encompasses important wildlife habitat, allowing for wildlife to thrive in healthy 

ecosystems. Conservation system lands and waters provide habitat 

for many threatened and endangered species as well. For example, 

while constituting only 10 percent of the BLM lands, the conservation system protects 30 percent of suitable desert tortoise habit on 

BLM land, 73 percent of peninsula bighorn sheep critical habitat 

on BLM lands, and 54 percent of the California condor range on 

BLM lands. 

We believe it critical for Congress to acknowledge the importance 

of these lands and waters. This legislation will ensure that the natural and cultural resources for which these magnificent places were 

designated will be preserved in perpetuity for the American people 

to discover and appreciate. A diversity of Americans have shown 

support for these places and numerous organizations have spoken 

out to demonstrate their support. 

The Wilderness Society has enjoyed being a leader in the conservation system alliance, a coalition of more than 50 conservation 

historic preservation, faith-based recreation and business groups. 

These groups represent millions of Americans Nationwide and together have been working nationally and within local communities 

to foster stewardship of the conservation system. 

Seven years ago this month, the Interior Department administratively designated this unique system of public lands. I was excited 

that the BLM was tasked with ensuring that the crown jewels 

under their management, their most outstanding lands and waters 

would be managed as a system for conversation purposes. We are 

delighted today that Congress has the foresight to ensure permanent protection for these landscapes through straightforward legislation that will simply give the system the permanent authorization it deserves. 

23

I again want to thank the committee for discussing this important legislation and look forward to working with Congress to marshal the bill through passage. Please let me know if you need any 

additional information for the committee. Thank you again for your 

foresight, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meadows follows:]

Statement of The Honorable William H. Meadows,

President, The Wilderness Society 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands on H.R. 2016, the National 

Landscape Conservation System Act. I am Bill Meadows, President of The Wilderness Society. Since 1935, The Wilderness Society has worked to ensure that future 

generations will enjoy, as we do today, the clean air and water, wildlife, beauty and 

opportunities for recreation and renewal that pristine forests, rivers, deserts and 

mountains provide. We represent a quarter of a million Americans throughout the 

country who are investing in their legacy of wild places. We welcome the opportunity to comment on the historic importance of the National Landscape Conservation System Act. 

The National Landscape Conservation System is a public lands system like no 

other. It is composed of BLM-managed lands and waters designated for conservation 

by Congress or the President, including National Conservation Areas and Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, as well as National Monuments, wilderness areas and other special 

places. These landscapes with innumerable natural and cultural resource values ensure invaluable educational and recreational opportunities for current and future 

generations. The Conservation System provides unique opportunities for solitude 

and adventure where visitors can create their own experiences. While constituting 

only 10% of BLM lands and waters, the System accommodates a third of BLM’s 

recreation use. The System facilitates diverse recreational and educational experiences, such as famed rafting in California’s North Fork of the American River, exploring how ancient cultures lived on the landscape in Arizona’s Agua Fria National 

Monument, hiking on the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, mountain biking 

in Colorado’s McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area, and backpacking and 

wildlife viewing opportunities in the System’s many wilderness areas. 

Protected areas such as National Conservation Areas and wilderness areas offer 

many economic benefits to neighboring communities. Because Conservation System 

visitor centers are designed to be located in gateway communities, the landscapes 

within the System remain protected and surrounding communities receive the economic benefits of increased visitation to these wonderful places. The System also 

provides outstanding opportunities for research and outdoor education. BLM staff 

have shared with us their excitement about the many research projects that Conservation System lands offer. The System is also well known for its cultural resources, including those in Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, which contains the largest concentration of known archaeological sites in the nation. 

The BLM’s Conservation System also encompasses important wildlife habitat, allowing for wildlife to thrive in healthy ecosystems. Conservation System lands and 

waters provide habitat for many threatened and endangered species as well. For example, while constituting only 10% of BLM lands, the Conservation System protects 

30% of suitable desert tortoise habitat on BLM land, 73% of Peninsular Bighorn 

Sheep Critical Habitat on BLM lands, and 54% of the California Condor range on 

BLM lands. 

We think it critical for Congress to acknowledge the importance of these lands 

and waters. This legislation will ensure that the natural and cultural resources for 

which these magnificent places were designated will be preserved in perpetuity for 

the American people to discover and appreciate. 

A diversity of Americans has shown support for these places, and numerous organizations have spoken out to demonstrate this support. The Wilderness Society has 

enjoyed being a leader in the Conservation System Alliance, a coalition of more than 

fifty conservation, historic preservation, faith-based, recreation and business groups. 

These groups represent millions of Americans nationwide and together, have been 

working nationally and within local communities to foster stewardship of the Conservation System. 

Seven years ago this month, the Interior Department administratively designated 

this unique system of public lands. I was excited that the BLM was tasked with 

ensuring that the crown jewels under their management, their most outstanding 

lands and waters, would be managed as a system for conservation purposes. We are 

24

delighted today that the Congress has the foresight to ensure permanent protection 

for these landscapes through straightforward legislation that will simply give the 

System the permanent authorization it deserves. 

I again want to thank the committee for discussing this important legislation and 

look forward to working with Congress to marshal the bill towards passage. Please 

be sure to let me know if you need additional information that could be of assistance. Thank you again for your foresight in discussing this legislation, and for the 

opportunity to testify before the committee. 


36021.001.eps
25


36021.002.eps
26

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. Let me turn to Mr. Richard Moe, 

President, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Welcome, and 

your testimony, sir.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD MOE, PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

Mr. MOE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for holding this 

hearing and for inviting the National Trust to testify here today in 

support of your bill, H.R. 2016, a bill that would recognize the 

National Landscape Conservation System, lands that really comprise the crown jewels of the BLM inventory. The National Trust 

is very pleased and grateful that you, Mr. Chairman, together with 

Representatives Bono, Renzi, and Moran, are leading the effort to 

codify this system. 

The National Landscape Conservation System, as my colleague, 

Mr. Meadows, has said, is a network of last places, the very last 


36021.003.eps
27

places where you can experience the history and the wild beauty 

of the American West. It brings together the crown jewels, literally, 

of BLM’s 264 million acres. With more than 866 individual units, 

it comprises 10 percent of the total land administered by BLM. And 

I think it is fair to say that in terms of the natural and cultural 

resources contained, these are the most significant lands in BLM. 

H.R. 2016 is very simple legislation that would codify the system 

which has been administratively supported by recent Presidents 

but has not yet received a congressional stamp of approval, which 

is what this bill would do. And I am very pleased to know the Bush 

administration is supporting this legislation. 

The system currently exists as an administrative function, which 

could be changed under any future administration. And codification 

would provide it with the additional recognition that it deserves. 

Americans, I believe, want these conservation lands preserved, but 

only Congress can give them the official stamp of approval that 

they need and deserve. Codification will recognize a single unifying 

system to which these extraordinary lands will belong, raising the 

profile of these outstanding areas instead of each unit standing 

alone. 

Like many Americans, I thought for a long time that historic 

preservation was just about saving grand historic and architectural 

landmarks. There is no question that is a large part of what preservation is about. But the more time I have spent in the West, and 

I have spent a good deal of time in the West, the more I have realized that preservation is about more than that. It is also about the 

very first imprints that man made on the land, the rock art, the 

cliff dwellings, the pueblos, the kivas, and the other remnants of 

the earliest civilizations that flourished there. These cultural resources represent the opening chapters in the story of what has become America. They represent the heritage of the first Americans, 

and thus are part of our heritage as well. 

Mr. Chairman, so I urge your support for this important legislation. Official statutory status would raise the recognition of these 

unique cultural and natural resources. That does not mean that 

the BLM must abandon its traditional multiple-use mandate. On 

the contrary, clearly, people should continue to have wide access to 

them and be able to enjoy them. In fact, codification of the conservation system would not impact private in-holdings or lands 

managed by other agencies, would not alter existing oil and gas or 

grazing leases or other grandfathered uses, would not limit public 

access or activities such as fishing and hunting, or in any way affect units that are co-managed with other Federal agencies, as only 

BLM lands would be included in the system. And it would not affect the underlying enabling legislation for individual units. 

The National Landscape Conservation System includes landscapes that allow us to see the West through the eyes of the original inhabitants or as it appeared to the first European explorers 

and settlers. They also include the tangible remains of thousands 

of years of human interaction with the land, ranging from the ruins 

of prehistoric Native American pueblos to the wagon ruts left by 

western-bound pioneers and the remnants of mine shafts and farmhouses left by those who sought to make a living out of the rock 

and soil of the Western frontier. 

28

Whether natural or cultural, these resources open windows to 

the past, offering a glimpse, often the only glimpse available to us, 

of the people who were here before us, the land they found here, 

and the lives they lived on. 

H.R. 2016 will permanently establish perhaps the last great 

American system of protected lands. By enacting codifying legislation, Congress will ensure that the systems will be permanent and 

an enduring legacy of the West’s natural and cultural heritage for 

future generations. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moe follows:]

Statement of Richard Moe, President,

The National Trust for Historic Preservation 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Richard Moe and 

I am the President of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I am speaking 

to you today in support of H.R. 2016, a bill that would recognize the National Landscape Conservation System, lands that comprise the crown jewels of the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) inventory. The National Trust is very pleased and grateful to the Chairman and Representatives Bono, Moran and Renzi for leading the effort to codify the Conservation System and I urge the Members of the Sub-Committee to support this measure.

Background on the National Trust

For more than 50 years, the National Trust for Historic Preservation has been 

helping to protect the nation’s historic resources. Chartered by Congress in 1949, 

the National Trust is a private, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to protecting the irreplaceable. Recipient of the National Humanities Medal, the Trust 

leads a vigorous preservation movement that is saving the best of our past for the 

future by preserving America’s diverse historic places and revitalizing communities. 

Its Washington, DC headquarters staff, six regional offices and 29 historic sites 

work with the Trust’s quarter-million members and thousands of local community 

groups in all 50 states. Its mission has expanded since its founding in 1949 just as 

the need for historic preservation has grown. When historic places are destroyed or 

allowed to deteriorate we lose a part of our past forever.

H.R. 2016 and the Conservation System

H.R. 2016 provides an important Congressional stamp of approval by affording 

the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System permanent statutory recognition. Like many Americans, I thought for a long time that historic preservation was 

just about saving grand historic and architectural landmarks. There is no question 

that this is part of what preservation is all about. But the more time I have spent 

in the West, the more I have realized that preservation is much more than that. 

It is also about the very first imprints that man made on the land—the rock art, 

cliff dwellings, pueblos, kivas and other remnants of the earliest civilizations that 

flourished there. These cultural resources, mostly found in the West, represent the 

opening chapters in the story of America. They represent the heritage of the first 

Americans and thus are part of our heritage as well. Not all of these tremendous 

places are in the Conservation System’s inventory, but those that are represent the 

top tier of this country’s acreage under the Bureau of Land Management. 

The National Landscape Conservation System is a network of the last places 

where you can experience the history and wild beauty of the American West. The 

26-million-acre System was established by the Secretary of the Interior in 2000 to 

recognize and protect the best of the lands and waters managed by the Bureau of 

Land Management. The Conservation System brings together the crown jewels of 

BLM’s 264 million acres—specifically, all the agency’s National Monuments, 

National Conservation Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Scenic and Historic 

Trails, Wilderness, and Wilderness Study Areas. With more than 866 individual 

units, it comprises 10 percent of the land managed by the BLM. 

Formal codification would provide the System with the heightened recognition it 

deserves. Without authorization, there currently is no guarantee that the System 

will be around five years from now.

29

Icons of the American Experience

This month we celebrate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, the 

first permanent settlement in English-speaking America. But, for thousands of 

years before the first Europeans arrived, there were people on this continent who 

represented highly developed civilizations and who were proficient in art, architecture, agriculture and astronomy. These were the first Americans, and their story is 

also part of our common heritage. The National Landscape Conservation System 

contains a number of important areas rich in artifacts from these civilizations. Let 

me share with you two examples. 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument lies in the far southwestern corner 

of Colorado. The mesas and canyons of this place encompass an incredibly rich collection of archaeological sites. More than 6,000 have been recorded, and thousands 

more are believed to exist—up to 300 sites per square mile in some areas, the highest known density in the United States. The full sweep of the region’s history can 

be traced in this landscape—from the early ranchers whose descendants still live 

here, all the way back to the ancient hunters who crossed the area 10,000 years 

ago. I wish every American could experience Canyons of the Ancients. There is no 

other place like it. 

The Agua Fria National Monument is located 40 miles north of Phoenix. While 

it’s not nearly as large as Canyons of the Ancients, Agua Fria is abundantly rich 

in archaeological resources, including more than 130 pueblo sites, stone forts, terraced agricultural fields and a stunning array of rock art. Scientists have linked 

many of these sites to the Perry Mesa Tradition, a previously unknown culture that 

flourished here from 500 to 700 years ago. More recent history is reflected in the 

remnants of Basque sheepherders’ camps, mining structures and military sites—all 

scattered across a landscape that makes the monument a scenic, as well as cultural, 

treasure. 

I urge your support of the legislation before the Subcommittee today. Congress 

should codify the Conservation System. Official statutory basis would raise recognition of the unique archeological and cultural resources of the Conservation System. 

This does not mean that BLM must abandon its traditional multiple-use mandate. 

Clearly, people should have wide access to BLM lands and be able to enjoy them. 

In fact, Codification of the Conservation System would not impact private in-holdings or lands managed by other agencies; alter existing oil and gas or grazing leases 

or other grandfathered uses; limit public access or activities such as fishing and 

hunting; or in any way affect units that are co-managed with other federal agencies, 

as only BLM lands would be included in the System. It would not affect the underlying enabling legislation for individual units.

Conclusion

The National Landscape Conservation System includes landscapes that allow us 

to see the West through the eyes of its original inhabitants, or as it appeared to 

the first European explorers and settlers. It also includes the tangible remains of 

thousands of years of human interaction with the land, ranging from the ruins of 

prehistoric Native American pueblos to the wagon ruts left by westward-bound pioneers and the remnants of mineshafts and farmhouses left by those who sought to 

make a living out of the rock and soil of the Western frontier. Whether natural or 

cultural, these resources open windows to the past, offering a glimpse—often the 

only glimpse available to us—of the people who were here before us, the land they 

found here and the lives they lived on it. 

H.R. 2016 will Congressionally recognize perhaps the last great American system 

of protected lands. By enacting codifying legislation, Congress will ensure the System’s permanence and an enduring legacy of the West’s natural and cultural heritage for future generations.

Mr. GRIJALVA. And let me turn to Ms. Cindy Deacon Williams, 

Director of Aquatic Science and Education Programs, National Center for Conservation Science and Policy. Welcome. And your testimony, please.

STATEMENT OF CINDY DEACON WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF 

AQUATIC SCIENCE AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS, NATIONAL 

CENTER FOR CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND POLICY 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. I am delighted to be here today to talk 

30

to you about this important piece of legislation. I will make four 

points in today’s testimony. 

First, as you heard from almost everyone else who has been up 

here so far today, the lands encompassed within the conservation 

system have great value. I would like to make the point that they 

also have not just great value in general, but that they have great 

scientific value, and that that value is intrinsic. They include many 

important cultural, archeological, social, paleontological, geological, 

and biological resources. 

Extensive evidence of 13,000 years of human history can be 

found on BLM-administered lands. And scientific study of these resources is providing important insights into how people, ranging 

from the prehistoric native nations to the 19th and 20th century 

pioneers, lived on and with the land. Study of fossils found on 

BLM-administered lands is providing insight into the evolution of 

plant and animal communities and the responses of ecosystems to 

global changes. Those insights are likely to be of use as we face 

those global changes that are looming in our future. 

As a biologist I, of course, am most impressed by the numerous 

unique plant and animal species that are found on BLM-administered lands, including both at-risk species and ecosystems and 

those that are not at any risk at all. 

I will lean a little bit on my own back yard, on the CascadeSiskiyou National Monument. We have recently documented 114 

different species of butterfly on the Cascade-Siskiyou. And that is 

a concentration unheard of anywhere else in North America. We 

have also identified four freshwater mollusks, and found the highest concentration of macroinvertebrates in the whole Cascade area. 

What is a macroinvertebrate? Those are those water bugs that, if 

you are an angler, you are particularly interested in because of 

their role in the food chain for the fish that you like to catch. This 

amazingly high diversity of macroinvertebrates found 62 different 

species in a single ripple. I have been a biologist and a fisheries 

biologist for 30 years and have never, ever come across anything 

like that elsewhere. 

The second point that I would like to make is that the design 

concept of the conservation system increases the scientific value 

that is inherent in those lands. It now seems just common sense 

that important archeological sites can’t be understood if they are 

limited to a half-acre enclosure in a parking lot, much less likely 

that they would survive the attention of vandals. 

No one would expect a critical population of plants to survive if 

it is surrounded by thousands of acres that are infested with an exotic invasive weed. Seven years ago, with the administrative establishment of the National Landscape Conservation System, that 

truth that has now been grounded solidly in conservation biology 

was recognized. And the system was set up administratively with 

the idea that it should protect and allow an expansion of human 

knowledge through the study of entire ecosystems and archeological communities. This was a fundamental shift that is very, 

very important from a scientific perspective. 

The third point that I would like to make is that the conservation system does provide significant opportunities to increase the 

sum of human scientific knowledge. It provides us opportunities 

31

both to investigate fundamental questions that are core to our way 

of dealing with the world in front of us over the long term, and also 

to conduct applied research that is immediately relevant to management on Federal lands. On the Cascade-Siskiyou we are engaged in an extensive collaborative research opportunity right now 

that involves a total of 25 different research studies, some of them 

that our organization is leading, and some that are being led by the 

BLM, but all of which are cooperative in nature. 

The fourth point is that congressional recognition of the conservation system will improve the scientific returns to society from 

these lands. Permanency will trigger a maturation of the national 

perspective that over time will make it possible for the conservation system to be recognized within the agency as an important 

and cherished responsibility. 

A systemwide viewpoint also is likely to trigger researchers to 

tackle broader issues like climate change and invasive species, and 

encourage managers to share and apply the scientific results on an 

agencywide basis. Permanency also is, frankly, likely to increase 

the attention that is paid to these resources by researchers. There 

is no question that the National Landscape Conservation System 

contains resources of scientific interest, and securing permanent 

protection will return those values to society at a much increased 

rate. 

A wise man once noted that if what is unique about being human 

is our ability to know, then every time we destroy an opportunity 

to know, we destroy an opportunity to be human. Permanent protection of the landscape system is an important step not only for 

conservation of the resources but for protecting our opportunity to 

be human. Thank you. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]

Statement of Cindy Deacon Williams, M.S., Senior Scientist and Director of 

Aquatic Science, and Conservation Education Programs, National Center 

for Conservation Science & Policy 

Chairman Grijalva and committee members, thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2016, a bill that would acknowledge the national significance 

of scientifically important lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) by recognizing the National Landscape Conservation System to conserve, 

protect, and restore them. 

My name is Cindy Deacon Williams. I am Director of Aquatic Science and Conservation Education Programs for the National Center for Conservation Science & 

Policy, a science-based conservation organization in Ashland, OR. I have been a research scientist and policy analyst for nearly 30 years, including a four-year period 

in the mid-1990s during which I worked for the USDA Forest Service on federal 

lands management programs and policies. My organization currently is completing 

seven scientific studies on the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, a unit of the 

Conservation System located in southwest Oregon. 

I will make four main points in today’s testimony: 

1. The lands encompassed within Conservation System have great intrinsic scientific value, 

2. The design of the Conservation System increases its scientific value, 

3. The Conservation System provides significant opportunities to increase our scientific knowledge, 

4. Congressional recognition of the System, with a coherent National purpose, 

will increase the scientific returns to society from these lands.

32

The 26-million-acre National Landscape Conservation System Encompasses 

Many Resources with Outstanding Scientific Value

Despite a past reputation as the ‘‘lands no one wanted,’’ the lands administered 

by the Bureau of Land Management include many important cultural, archeological, 

social, paleontological, geological and biological resources. When it was administratively created in 2000, the National Landscape Conservation System collected some 

of the most notable of these lands (Vanasselt and Layke 2006). For example: 

• Cultural: Extensive evidence of 13,000 years of human history can be found on 

BLM-administered lands. Scientific examination and study of these resources is 

providing insight into how people, ranging from prehistoric Native Americans 

to 19th and 20th century pioneers, lived on and with the land. Archaeologists 

estimate there are likely to be 4.5 million cultural sites on all BLM-administered lands. 

• Paleontological: Fossils found on BLM-administered lands provide important insight into the evolution of plant and animal communities, the systematic relationship between species, and the response of ecosystems to global changes in 

their environment. The understandings gained from study of these paleontological resources can help us predict impacts and responses likely to occur in our 

future and that of our grandchildren in the face of current global changes. 

• Biological: Numerous unique plant and animal species are found on BLM-administered lands, including 228 plant and animal species listed as threatened 

or endangered and more than 1,500 additional ‘‘sensitive’’ species that are at 

some risk due to a reduction in the number of individuals or a naturally limited 

distribution. In addition, BLM administers 144,000 miles of streamside riparian 

areas and 13 million acres of wetlands—providing water resources that hold an 

especially critical place in the ecological web of life, supporting hundreds of 

other species not at risk of extinction, such as pronghorn antelope, mule deer, 

bighorn sheep, elk, and numerous birds.

The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument—an illustration of the biological 

richness to be found within the Conservation System.

As a biologist, I must admit that my particular interest lies with exploring and 

understanding the wealth of biological resources to be found on Conservation System lands. In my own backyard, the nearly 53,000 acre Cascade-Siskiyou National 

Monument has many nationally unique fish and wildlife communities, amply illustrating the biological richness to be found on Conservation System lands. 

This Monument is considered a unique ‘‘biological crossroads,’’ linking the botanically rich Siskiyous with the Cascades. It is home to rare fish and aquatic species, 

some of which only recently have been discovered by scientists. The Monument’s 

rich botanical diversity is associated with an extraordinary richness of butterflies 

unique in western North America, 114 species recently were recorded by scientists. 

The Monument also supports notable aquatic diversity, with nine freshwater mollusks whose entire distribution is limited primarily to the Monument’s springs and 

streams (Frest and Johannes 1999) and, on Dutch Oven Creek where 62 different 

taxa were collected from a single site, a higher diversity of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates (insects, snails, etc.) than previously had been recorded from 

anywhere in the Klamath Mountains Ecoregion.

The ‘‘Design Concept’’ of the National Landscape Conservation System 

Increases Its Scientific Value

When the National Landscape Conservation System was administratively created 

in June of 2000, it was established with the idea that the Conservation System 

should protect—and allow an expansion of human knowledge through the study of—

entire ecosystems and archeological communities. This was a fundamental departure from the past practice of protecting and studying small tracts that encompass 

the core portion of the object of interest while excluding critical, albeit more peripheral, components. 

This founding concept reflects experience with the frustrations of past attempts 

to protect important cultural and scientific resources for posterity. In retrospect, it 

appears to be ‘‘just common sense’’ that an important archeological site cannot be 

understood if it stands as a 1/2-acre exclosure in a parking lot, and reasonable to 

assume such a site would be unlikely to survive the propensity of vandals to cause 

havoc. Similarly, no one today would be likely to expect a critical population of native plants to survive and continue to support its dependent butterfly populations 

if it is surrounded by a thousand acres overrun by an invasive exotic weed. 

This important sum of the parts strategy also demonstrates understandings regarding the importance of an ecosystem approach that were gained from developments within the field of conservation biology. We now know that subpopulations 

of a species are unlikely to survive through time if they are artificially isolated from 

33

other portions of the species. Maintaining connections between subpopulations is 

vital as it provides an important, almost strategic insurance policy for species that 

might otherwise become extirpated as a result of flood, fire, hurricane, drought or 

other natural or human-caused disturbance (Hanski and Gilpin 1997, Williams and 

Williams 2004)—when isolated, the threats facing a population are more likely to 

‘‘overwhelm in detail.’’

My childhood and early professional years were colored by a perfect illustration 

of how expensive it can be to think too narrowly. In 1952, President Harry Truman 

designated Devils Hole, located in southwestern Nevada, as a disjunct part of Death 

Valley National Monument. The proclamation included a water-filled cavern—sporting unique geological characteristics and a species of fish found nowhere else in the 

world—and a mere 40 acres that were carefully ‘‘confined to the smallest area’’ 

around Devils Hole where the President could draw a line. In the 1960s, the BLM 

disposed of most federal land in the area. Subsequent battles to conserve the biological and geological objects of scientific interest in Devils Hole from the ecological impact of successive agricultural and residential development were inevitable—the 

original designation focused on the core feature of the ecosystem and not the ecosystem itself. Ultimately, Congress authorized purchase of 13,320 acres from private 

willing sellers and the incorporation of additional acres still administered by the 

BLM to encompass the ecologically and hydrologically connected Ash Meadows area 

into a coherent ecosystem management unit to be managed in conjunction with the 

originally designated 40 acres immediately around Devils Hole; a step not recognized as necessary to preserve and learn from the ecosystem’s geological and biological resources. When all was said and done, the expansion to incorporate Devils 

Hole’s critical peripheral components made the exercise unnecessarily costly, both 

socially and financially, and nearly led to the extinction of the fish (Deacon and Williams 1991). 

Fortunately, the original administrative concept for the National Landscape Conservation System explicitly recognized these potential administrative and ecological 

hurdles. Wisely, the proposed legislation is drafted so as to permanently honor that 

science-based design concept in its establishment of the Conservation System.

The Lands Within the National Landscape Conservation System Provide 

Significant Opportunities to Increase our Scientific Knowledge

The wide range of cultural, archeological, social, paleontological, geological and biological resources within the Conservation System, aptly acknowledged as representing some of the nation’s crown jewels, provide many research opportunities, 

including: • Options to examine fundamental questions and generate answers to underlying 

questions of interest and value to society’s understanding of the world, and • Opportunities to conduct applied research designed to answer questions relevant to improving management of other federal lands. 

Research currently occurring on Conservation System lands touches upon geology 

and paleontology; hydrology and climate; restoration and rangeland health; archaeology; conservation education; sustainable architecture; public involvement and 

partnerships; pinyon-juniper woodlands ecosystem dynamics and vegetative management; native plants; exotic cheatgrass propagation; and groundwater, water 

quality, and aquatic ecosystems. Some of the fundamental research is unraveling 

ancient stories set in the world of dinosaurs; other research is exploring the results 

of movement of ancient waters through red rock sandstone and is finding analogs 

to hematite concretions on Mars. Some of the applied research is examining socioeconomic trends and transitions, other research looks at the role of climate and land 

use on ecosystem dynamics, the impact of past management practices, and trends 

in recreational impacts in the backcountry and dispersed areas. In all, the amount 

of information shared, knowledge gained, and understanding secured due to scientific investigations on Conservation System lands—including both that rooted in 

the scientific world and that anchored in differences of social perspective—is impressive and has contributed to improvements in management of federal lands and 

helped foster scientific and community partnerships. And, those benefits continue to 

accrue as the sharing of information, knowledge, and understanding grows. 

In southwestern Oregon, we hope to secure the benefits that accrue from shared 

scientific knowledge and understanding—that is, improved resource management informed by a shared, credible information base—as a result of extensive focused research now occurring on the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. 

Several years ago, as part of an effort to foster collaborative research, the BLM 

has been conducting 18 field studies and monitoring projects on the CascadeSiskiyou. In addition, from 2003-06 the World Wildlife Fund’s Klamath-Siskiyou Regional Field Office coordinated a multi-taxa collaborative investigation of the Monument’s objects of biological interest. That work since has been transferred to the 

34

National Center for Conservation Science & Policy for completion. Our studies are 

focused on: 

• Bird monitoring, with stations along 25 point count routes in mixed conifer and 

oak woodlands; 

• Small-mammals, with 16 study sites in mixed conifer and oak woodlands; 

• Aquatic snails, with distributional analysis examining 57 springs and seeps; 

• Stream and riparian habitat, water temperature, and aquatic invertebrates, 

with multiple sites at six creeks (including Dutch Oven, East Fork Camp, 

Jenny, Keene, Mill, and South Fork Keene); 

• Greene’s Mariposa lily, with examination of more than 80 population clusters 

in oak woodlands; 

• Butterfly richness and composition, with 27 transects in mixed conifer and oak 

woodlands; and 

• Natural ecosystem dynamics. 

Once the results of these 25 research projects complete scientific peer-review, they 

will comprise the most comprehensive scientific understanding of an ecosystem ever 

enjoyed by a BLM manager, the scientific community, and the public.

Providing Permanent Protection to the Conservation System Will Increase 

the Value of These Resources to Society

H.R. 2016 will provide critical and long overdue congressional recognition for the 

National Landscape Conservation System. Importantly, this legislation will establish a coherent, much-needed system-wide identity. Permanency undoubtedly will 

trigger the maturation of a national perspective for the Conservation System that 

is ‘‘bigger’’ than the BLM districts that are separately charged with management 

of individual units. 

An ‘‘enlarged’’ system-wide perspective will have subtle impacts on BLM field 

managers and their staff that, over time, will make it possible for the Conservation 

System to be recognized within the agency as an important and cherished responsibility. From a scientific perspective, a system-wide viewpoint likely will induce researchers to examine broad issues (e.g., climate change, invasive species) and encourage managers to share and apply the results of these scientific findings on an 

agency-wide basis—as well as allow researchers and managers to continue to benefit 

from the pursuit of answers to unit-specific research questions. 

Finally, the permanent establishment of the Conservation System is likely to increase the attention paid to the lands by research institutions, researchers, policymakers and the general public—all of which are likely to create a circumstance in 

which society as a whole will receive a greater benefit.

Conclusion

The National Landscape Conservation System contains resources of national scientific importance. Securing permanent recognition of the Conservation System is 

critical to ensuring these initial steps will continue to accrue benefits to the BLM 

and the nation. With permanent recognition we will have an opportunity to enjoy 

and learn the most we can from these natural and cultural treasures. 

A wise man once noted that if what is unique about being human is our ability 

to know, then every time we destroy an opportunity to know, we destroy an opportunity to be human. Permanent protection of the National Landscape Conservation 

System is an important step, not only in conservation of the valuable cultural and 

scientific resources found on Conservation System lands, but also in protecting the 

opportunity for our species to be human.

Literature Cited

Deacon, J.E. and C.D. Williams. 1991. Ash Meadows and the Legacy of the Devils 

Hole Pupfish. Pp. 69-92, In: W.L. Minckley and J.E. Deacon, eds. Battle Against 

Extinction: native fish management in the American West. University of Arizona Press. Tucson, AZ. 

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1999. Field guide to survey and manage freshwater 

mollusk species. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, 

OR 117 pp. 

Hanski, I.A. and M.E. Gilpin. 1997. Metapopulation Biology: ecology, genetics, and 

evolution. Academic Press. 

Vanasselt, W. and C. Layke. 2006. Protecting the Best of the West. Issues in Science 

and Technology. Spring 2006: 43-52. 

Williams, J.E. and C.D. Williams. 2004. Oversimplified habitats and oversimplified 

solutions in our search for sustainable freshwater fisheries. American Fisheries 

Society Symposium 43: 67-89.

35

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me now turn to Mr. Randy Gray, former 

mayor of Great Falls, Montana. Welcome, sir, Mr. Mayor, and your 

testimony.

STATEMENT OF RANDY GRAY, FORMER MAYOR,

GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 

Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thanks 

for the occasion to testify before this subcommittee on H.R. 2016, 

the National Landscape Conservation System Act. 

I am Randy Gray. I am a resident and former three-term mayor 

of the great city of Great Falls, Montana. I was also a city commissioner of that town, and I have served as a trustee for the CM Russell Museum in that same town. And I have helped form, and, for 

many years, served on the board of the Great Falls Development 

Authority, which is an economic—regional economic development 

entity in our area that has generated a substantial amount of economic opportunity throughout the north central Montana area. 

Great Falls is a wonderful town that is fortunate to have a number of these special places protected by the National Landscape 

Conservation System close by. They are in our back yard. We are 

proud to be a gateway community for the BLM’s conservation system, and appreciate the opportunity to comment on the significance 

of this proposed act. 

The National Landscape Conservation System is comprised of 

lands and waters under the BLM’s management that have been 

congressionally and Presidentially designated, including national 

monuments, national scenic and historic trails, wilderness areas, 

and other important areas. These landscapes have many essential 

values, including opportunities for scientific research and education, recreation, and, yes, local economic benefit. These are places 

where people in my town and other Western communities can enjoy 

occasions as simple as family picnics and historical exploration, 

and as exciting as multi-day float trips and backpacking adventures. 

Residents of our town and, importantly, visitors from all over the 

State of Montana, from all over the country, and in fact from all 

over the world, can go out to these places to enjoy themselves, discover themselves, get lost in the protected areas that allow for visitors to experience and study the American West as it was viewed 

by America’s first residents and explorers. 

I would like to take this opportunity to offer my personal perspective on what makes the BLM’s conservation system an invaluable benefit to my city and other gateway communities across the 

West. We are lucky enough to have three conservation system units 

in our vicinity: the Wild and Scenic Missouri River, the Lewis and 

Clark National Historic Trail, and the Upper Missouri Breaks 

National Monument. The river and trail pass through my community, and the monument is located within a short drive of my community. The Nation recently celebrated the bicentennial of Lewis 

and Clark’s famed expedition across America, and Great Falls was 

a proud host of one of the 10 national signature events for the 

Lewis and Clark bicentennial celebration. That celebration brought 

vast numbers of tourists through our town and visitors. Today visitors to the Missouri River can experience the same rugged river 

36

and stunning vistas noted by Lewis and Clark on their epic journey. 

I am myself both a hunter and a canoeist, and I personally enjoy 

these areas that I just spoke of. They are our national and historic 

treasures. And many other people in my community also enjoy 

those amenities. These special places have made Great Falls an attractive community for people to establish homes and businesses. 

The proximity of conservation system lands and waters makes our 

town an attractive location for businesses and residents looking to 

enjoy our quality of life. These protected areas have been important 

to diversifying the economy of north central Montana, and have 

helped make our State an attractive place to live. 

In my time as mayor, it became apparent to me that these communities that are close to these sort of natural and historic treasures have enjoyed economic prosperity. And as mayor, many residents of our town discussed with me the benefits of these places 

to our own local economy. While we continue to benefit from important traditional resource-dependent industries, our economy has 

been diversified by tourism focused around conservation system 

lands and waters. 

Very importantly, and perhaps more importantly, well-paying 

service sector jobs are brought by businesses attracted to the labor 

pool that is comprised of those who choose to settle near these natural amenities. These jobs ensure that our community can enjoy 

suitable—or, pardon me, sustainable economic prosperity, and that 

our children will benefit from a diverse local economy where employers and employees are equally attracted to our natural and historic resources. 

In an extensive academic study completed in 2004, the Sonoran 

Institute determined that personal income, adjusted for inflation, 

grows faster in counties with a higher percentage of public land 

ownership, such as BLM or Forest Service lands, as compared to 

counties with a much smaller percentage of their land base in public ownership. Furthermore, Western counties with public lands 

protected from development show a greater increase in personal income. The study determined that counties where more than 60 percent of the Federal public lands are in some sort of a protected status, i.e. national park, national monument, have grown 66 percent 

faster from 1970 to 2000 than counties where the same percentage 

of public lands had no permanent protected status. 

The National Landscape Conservation System Act is straightforward legislation that will simply ensure that these lands and 

waters have the permanent recognition they deserve. Congress has 

the opportunity to ensure that future generations of Montanans 

and other Americans can enjoy the unique experiences of the conservation system and the economic opportunities they create. 

As the legacy of President Teddy Roosevelt has demonstrated, 

permanent recognition for protected public lands has proven time 

and time again to be of great public benefit, and a forward-looking 

decision that future generations will thank us for. 

I want to thank the committee again for considering this important legislation, and hope that Congress can shepherd the bill forward toward passage. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this bill. 

37

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gray follows:]

Statement of Randy Gray 

Thank you for the occasion to testify before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands on H.R. 2016, the National 

Landscape Conservation System Act. I am Randy Gray, resident and former mayor 

of Great Falls, Montana. I was also a city commissioner, trustee to the CM Russell 

Museum, and helped form and for many years served on the board of the Great 

Falls Development Authority, a regional economic development entity that has generated economic opportunity throughout the Great Falls trade region. 

Great Falls is a wonderful town that is fortunate to have a number of special 

places protected by the National Landscape Conservation System close by. We are 

proud to be a gateway community for the BLM’s Conservation System and appreciate the opportunity to comment on the significance of the National Landscape 

Conservation System Act. 

The National Landscape Conservation System is comprised of lands and waters 

under the BLM’s management that have been congressionally and presidentially 

designated, including National Monuments, National Scenic and Historic Trails, wilderness areas and other important places. These landscapes have many essential 

values including opportunities for scientific research, education, recreation, and local 

economic benefits. These are places where people in Great Falls and other western 

communities can enjoy occasions as simple as family picnics and historical exploration and as exciting as multi-day float trips and backpacking adventures. Residents of our town and, importantly, visitors from around Montana, the country and 

the world go to enjoy themselves, discover themselves, and get lost in protected 

areas that allow for visitors to experience and study the American West as it was 

viewed by America’s first residents and explorers. 

I would like to take this opportunity to offer my personal perspective on what 

makes the BLM’s Conservation System an invaluable benefit to my city and other 

gateway communities. We are lucky enough to have three Conservation System 

units in our vicinity: the Wild and Scenic Missouri River, the Lewis and Clark 

National Historic Trail, and the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. 

The river and trail pass through our community and the Monument is located within a short drive. These outstanding resources allow not only for recreation, but for 

exploration of our nation’s history. The nation recently celebrated the bicentennial 

of Lewis and Clark’s famed expedition through the area, and Great Falls was proud 

host of one of the ten national Lewis and Clark signature events, which brought a 

number of visitors through town. Today, visitors to the Missouri River can experience the same rugged river and stunning vistas noted by Lewis and Clark on their 

epic journey. It truly is both wild and scenic. I am both a hunter and canoeist and 

enjoy these natural and historical treasures myself, along with so many in our community. 

These special places have made Great Falls an attractive community for people 

to establish homes and businesses and to enjoy their benefits and experience the 

big sky country as it was meant to be. The proximity of Conservation System lands 

and waters makes our town an attractive location for businesses and residents looking to enjoy our quality of life. These protected areas have been important to diversifying the economy of north central Montana and have helped make our state an 

attractive place to live. In my time as mayor, it became apparent to me that communities such as mine closest to these natural and historical treasures have enjoyed 

economic prosperity. And as mayor, many residents discussed with me the benefits 

of these places to the local economy. While we continue to benefit from important 

traditional resource-dependent industries, our economy has been diversified by tourism focused around Conservation System lands and waters. Very importantly, wellpaying service sector jobs are brought by businesses attracted to the labor pool that 

chooses to settle near these amenities. These jobs ensure that our community can 

enjoy sustainable economic prosperity and that our children will benefit from a diverse local economy where employers and employees are equally attracted to our 

natural and historical resources. 

In an extensive academic study complete in 2004, the Sonoran Institute determined that personal income, adjusted for inflation, grows faster in counties with a 

higher percentage of public land ownership, such as BLM or Forest Service lands, 

as compared to counties with a much smaller percentage of their land base in public 

ownership. Furthermore, western counties with public lands protected from development show a greater increase in personal income. The study determined that ‘‘counties where more than 60 percent of the federal public lands are in protected status 

38

(...National Parks...National Monuments, etc.) have grown 66 percent faster from 

1970 to 2000 than counties where the same percentage of public land had no permanent protective status.’’

The National Landscape Conservation System Act is straightforward legislation 

that will simply ensure that these lands and waters will have the permanent recognition they deserve. Congress has the opportunity to ensure that future generations of Montanans and other Americans can enjoy the unique experiences of the 

Conservation System, and the economic opportunities they offer. As the legacy of 

President Teddy Roosevelt has demonstrated, permanent recognition of protected 

public lands has proven time and time again to be of great public benefit, and a 

forward-looking decision that future generations will thank us for. 

I want to thank the committee again for considering this important legislation 

and hope that Congress can shepherd the bill towards passage. Thank you again 

for the opportunity to testify before the committee on this important bill.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me turn now to Mr. Orie Williams, chief executive officer of Doyon Limited. Sir, your testimony, and thank you 

for being here.

STATEMENT OF ORIE WILLIAMS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

DOYON LIMITED 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on 

H.R. 2016, a bill to establish the National Landscape Conservation 

System. I would especially like to thank my Congressman, Congressman Young, who is the Ranking Republican Member of the 

full committee, for his invitation to me to testify. 

My name is Orie Williams. I am the CEO of Doyon Limited, an 

Alaska Native Regional Corporation, based in Fairbanks, Alaska. 

Doyon is one of 13 Alaska National Regional Corporations formed 

by Congress under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. 

Doyon has more than 14,000 Alaska Native tribal shareholders, 

and the rights to 12.5 million acres of land in the interior of Alaska. Our mission is to provide economic and social opportunity for 

our people, to strengthen our native way of life, and to protect and 

enhance our land and resources. 

We have worked with Congress and the Federal Government to 

meet the economic development promises made in the enactment 

of ANCSA in 1971 to settle the claims of Alaska Natives over use 

of Alaska lands. Doyon and several of the other corporations have 

lands that border on major areas of land covered by this legislation. 

Under the current law, Alaskans would have a right to access 

through these areas, including under Title XI of the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act. These rights of access 

meet the promise of ANCSA to provide for economic use of ANCSA 

lands. These were hard-won rights, secured by our Congressman, 

the Ranking Republican on this committee, Congressman Young. 

In fact, there are several major portions of law, including the ‘‘No 

More’’ clause in ANILCA, that provides specific rights that would 

be affected by this legislation. Under the ‘‘No More’’ clause, the 

ability of the President to withdraw vast amounts of Federal lands 

using monument designation was prevented by act of Congress. 

That protection should not be lost to a locking-in of special management for wilderness study areas which have never been approved by Congress. 

We have a long and positive relationship with Federal land management agencies. Perhaps because we are interested in continuing 

39

that positive relationship, we are concerned about the burden 

placed on the BLM by this legislation. We have no objection to the 

current National Landscape Conservation System, but it is important to note that that is built upon a recognition that existing law 

and regulation applicable to each individual unit shall remain in 

place. 

There is no overriding systemwide standard. The existing NLCS 

expressly recognizes that the NLCS does not create any new legal 

protections. This guarantee of specific land management law and 

regulation is missing from the legislation before this committee. We 

understand that the congressional sponsors want to add a statutory 

underpinning to the system, but the current administrative system 

created by the BLM in 2000 is largely untested. We have not seen 

any justification to change the management laws and regulations 

over these 800 units that are currently in the system and provide 

new and overriding conservation requirements. 

The administration has testified that it supports the legislation 

because the legislation recognizes that individual management 

standards remain applicable to individual units. We don’t see that 

language in this bill. It is important to understand the sweep of 

this legislation. If enacted without change, it would cover over 800 

separate areas of land, totaling approximately 50 million acres of 

land, some of which has never been designated by Congress for special management. For a new system of management to apply to 

these lands, the public and interested parties in and around these 

BLM areas should receive far greater notice that management 

could be changed in one bill in Congress. 

Millions of people around this country, especially in Western 

States, will be affected by this legislation. As land managers 

charged with protecting our heritage, our lands, and providing economic opportunity, we understand the burden of balancing multiple 

uses of important lands. In our view, land management requirements must be clear, and, in almost every event for Federal lands, 

should be specified by Congress when considering the best balance 

of uses for that particular land use. It is hard to see that the rules 

set by section 3 of this legislation for all the new systems considers 

what is best for each land area to be covered by the bill. 

Our fundamental concern with H.R. 2016 is that it appears to 

set a new land management requirement for the 800 areas subject 

to the bill. Subsection 3(c) is simply not clear as to which laws and 

regulations apply to Federal lands that would be within the system. Unlike the current administrative program, which expressly 

states that each unit is to be managed under the laws and regulations applicable to that unit, subsection 3(c) provides no standard 

for each individual unit or land area, and instead puts in place a 

general systemwide standard. Further, it is not clear if the law and 

regulation applicable to any component, such as a wilderness area, 

should be applicable to any other unit in the system, such as a 

monument. These are drastically different types of units, subject to 

much different management. 

Congress should not be vague in specifying what is the management standard. In our view, the current management standard, 

one that is applied on a unit-by-unit basis, based on enacted laws 

establishing the unit, is the proper standard. If Congress now inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:01 Mar 04, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\36021.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
40

tends to provide a new and sweeping standard applicable to all 

these lands, it must be clear about that intent. 

Finally, it is very important to clearly specify if and how existing 

Federal land management laws are being changed. The provisions 

of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the 

major Alaska Lands Acts, ANILCA and ANCSA, were extremely 

hard fought and in many cases bargained for here in Congress, for 

all stakeholders. The Alaska Native community gave up many 

rights and access to traditional lands to reach agreements on these 

lands acts. We are now living with and respecting these laws. Congress should, too. If they are to be changed, particularly for a large 

amount of Federal lands, we believe that it is the duty of Congress 

to fully inform the affected communities and consult with tribes 

and ANCs. Since that is impossible on short notice, we ask that 

Congress respect the hard-fought Alaska lands battles of the past, 

and remove Alaska lands from this bill or, at a minimum, provide 

in the bill language that the bill does not modify, amend, or supersede the existing land right uses, requirements, and responsibilities 

of FLPMA, ANCSA, or ANILCA. 

My time is up. I thank you for the opportunity. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]

Statement of Orie Williams, CEO, Doyon Limited 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify on H.R. 2016, a bill to establish the National Landscape Conservation 

System (NLCS). I would especially like to thank my Congressman, Don Young, who 

is also the Ranking Republican Member of the Full Committee for his invitation to 

me to testify today. My name is Orie Williams, I am the CEO of Doyon Limited, 

an Alaska Native Corporation. I appear here today on behalf of Doyon’s more than 

14,000 members and Tribal shareholders. 

Doyon is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations (ANCs), formed 

under congressional direction of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Doyon 

has more than 14,000 Alaska Native shareholders, and we are proud of our record 

on behalf of those shareholders. Our mission is to provide economic and social opportunity for our people, to strengthen our Native way of life and to protect and 

enhance our land and resources. We have worked with Congress and the federal 

government to meet the economic development promises made in the enactment of 

ANCSA in 1971 to settle the claims of Alaska Natives over use of Alaska lands. 

Doyon and several of the other Corporations have lands that border on major 

areas of land covered by this legislation——the Steese National Conservation area, 

the Central Arctic Management Area (which is a wilderness study area), and several 

Wild and Scenic Rivers. Under current law, Alaskans would have a right of access 

through these areas, including under Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act. These rights of access meet the promise of ANSCA to provide for 

economic use of ANCSA lands. These were hard-won rights, secured by our Congressman, the Ranking Republican of this Committee, Congressman Young. In fact, 

there are several major portions of law, including the ‘‘No More’’ clause in ANILCA, 

that provide specific rights that would be affected by this legislation. Under the ‘‘No 

More’’ clause, the ability of the President to withdraw vast amounts of federal lands 

using Monument designation was prevented by Act of Congress. That protection 

should not be lost to a ‘‘locking in’’ of special management for wilderness study 

areas, which have never been approved by Congress. 

We have a long and positive relationship with federal land management agencies, 

including the Bureau of Land Management. However, perhaps because we are interested in continuing that positive relationship, we are concerned about the burden 

placed on the BLM by this legislation. We have no objection to the current National 

Landscape Conservation System, but it is important to note that that is built upon 

a recognition that existing law and regulation applicable to each individual unit 

shall remain in place. There is no overriding ‘‘system-wide’’ standard. The existing 

NLCS expressly recognizes that ‘‘the NLCS does not create any new legal 

41

protections.’’ This guarantee of specific land management law and regulation is 

missing from the legislation before this committee. 

We understand that the Congressional sponsors want to add a statutory underpinning to this system. But the current administrative system is new since it was 

created by the BLM in 2000. It is largely untested. We have not seen any justification to change the management laws and regulations over these 800 units that are 

currently in the administrative system, and provide new and overriding conservation requirements. The Administration has testified that it supports this legislation 

because the legislation recognizes that individual management standards remain 

applicable to individual units. We don’t see that language in the bill. 

It is important to understand the sweep of this legislation. If enacted, without 

change, it would cover over 800 separate areas of land, totaling approximately 50 

million acres of land, some of which (wilderness study areas and most National 

Monuments) have never been designated by Congress for special management. It 

applies to 161 wilderness areas, totaling more than 6 million acres of land; 600 wilderness study areas, totaling almost 18 million acres; 38 Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

covering over 2,000 miles; Ten Historic Trails; 17 National Conservation Areas, totaling 15.4 million acres; 15 national Monuments, totaling 4.8 million acres, Two 

National Scenic Trails and a number of areas called ‘‘outstanding natural areas’’, 

which are currently not listed in the NLCS. For a new system of management to 

apply to these lands, the public and interested parties in and around these BLM 

areas should receive far greater notice that management could be changed in one 

bill in Congress. Millions of people around this country, especially in western states, 

will be affected by this legislation. 

As land managers charged with protecting our heritage, our lands, and providing 

economic opportunity, we understand the burden of balancing multiple uses of important lands. In our view, land management requirements must be clear, and, in 

almost every event for federal lands, should be specified by Congress when considering the best balance of uses for that particular land area. It is hard to see that 

the rules set by section 3 of this legislation for all of the new system considers what 

is best for each land area to be covered by the bill. 

Our fundamental concern with H.R. 2016 is that it appears to set a new land 

management requirement for the 800+ areas subject to the bill. Subsection 3c is 

simply not clear as to which laws and regulations apply to the federal lands that 

would be within the new system. Subsection 3c requires the Secretary to ‘‘manage 

the system in accordance with any applicable law or regulation relating to any component of the system’’ and in a manner that protects the values for which the components of the system were designated. This standard would inevitably leave the 

land managers with great uncertainty, and lead only to prolonged litigation. Unlike 

the current administrative program which expressly states that each unit is to be 

managed under the laws and regulations applicable to that unit, subsection 3c provides no standard for each individual unit or land area, and instead puts in place 

a general, system-wide standard. Further, it is not clear if the law and regulation 

applicable to any component, such as a wilderness area, should be applicable to any 

other unit in the system, such as a Monument. These are drastically different types 

of units, subject to much different management. Congress should not be vague in 

specifying what is the management standard. In our view, the current management 

standard, one that is applied on a unit-by-unit basis, based on enacted laws establishing the unit, is the proper standard. If Congress now intends to provide a new 

and sweeping standard applicable to all of these lands, it must be clear about that 

intent. 

Finally, it is very important to clearly specify if and how existing federal land 

management laws are being changed. The provisions of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the major Alaska Lands Acts, ANILCA and 

ANCSA, were extremely hard fought, and in many cases, bargained for, here in 

Congress and with stakeholders. The Alaska Native community gave up many 

rights and access to traditional lands to reach agreement on these Lands Acts. We 

are now living with and respecting these laws, Congress should too. If they are to 

be changed, particularly for a large amount of federal lands, we believe that it is 

the duty of Congress to fully inform the affected communities. Since that is impossible on short notice, we ask that Congress respect the hard-fought Alaska lands 

battles of the past, and remove Alaska lands from this bill or, at minimum, provide 

in bill language that the bill does not modify, amend, or supersede the existing land 

use rights, requirements and responsibilities of FLPMA, ANCSA or ANILCA. 

We understand the intent of the sponsors is to provide for a cohesive system for 

the BLM, but not undermine or modify FLPMA, ANILCA or other federal laws. If 

that is the case, that intent needs to be more clearly stated in bill language, and 

to become part of the federal law. Without a statutory clarification concerning the 

42

impact of this legislation on FLPMA, and rights under other major federal laws 

such as the access rights under Title XI of ANILCA, there will be many years of 

litigation and uncertainty for the communities and people who live, work and rely 

on these areas every day. We ask, respectfully, that the management standard to 

be used for lands within the bill recognize and defer to existing laws applicable to 

those units. We believe that is the congressional intent, as we understand it. A simple clarifying amendment could accomplish that result. 

If, on the other hand, the Committee and sponsors seek to change FLPMA and 

other federal land management laws on a system-wide basis, we ask again, respectfully, that you do so only after full notice to communities around the country which 

would be impacted by such a change. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today. I would 

be pleased to answer any questions the Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. GRIJALVA. And for the questioning, let me turn to our Ranking Member, Mr. Young, for any questions you might have. Sir? 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for the courtesy. 

Mr. Williams, thank you for your testimony. You brought out the 

points that I mentioned to the Chairman. As this legislation moves 

forward, it is crucially important to recognize the 365 million acres 

in the State of Alaska; 147 million acres in 1980 was put aside in 

parks and refuges for the distinct use, as I heard some of the previous witnesses, for the wilderness experience. There is 104 million 

acres that belong to the State of Alaska. If you add that all up, 

there is 295 million acres that are now in some form of restriction, 

including State parks. 

But Mr. Williams brings up a valid point. A lot of these decisions, especially the Alaska Natives—I was interested in listening 

to them talking about the forefathers, and the pueblos, etc.—we are 

dealing with live American Natives that fought the battle for 44 

million acres of land. And they extinguished much of their rights 

because it was the will of this Congress, and we made a deal. And 

I am hoping that we will listen very carefully to Mr. Williams. 

But Mr. Williams, would the legislation, as it is proposed, make 

it more difficult to access lands selected by Doyon under the Settlement Act? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Congressman. In the areas that are 

covered by the bill, there would be a vague new management 

standard. The new system standard doesn’t say anything about existing law, and it is not clear enough to guide BLM in permitting. 

It would be litigated. It doesn’t say anything about ANCSA or the 

ANILCA Lands Act. 

To use just one example, we chose lands using our rights under 

ANCSA that bordered the Forty Mile River area. This was before 

Forty Mile even became a Wild and Scenic River. Now, if this legislation passes, the rights we had guaranteed under ANCSA and 

under ANILCA, Title XI of the Lands Act, are not clearly protected. 

Please don’t leave unclear our rights to access lands promised 

under ANCSA. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I have a map I would like to add as part 

of the record that shows——

Mr. GRIJALVA. Without objection, it will be submitted to the 

Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Williams, is Doyon the only Alaska Native corporation or Alaska Native Lands Settlement Act that is affected by 

this legislation? 

43

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you for the question, Congressman. No, 

Mr. Chairman and Congressman Young; because of the short notice 

of this hearing and the steamroller of this bill, we were only able 

to get ahold of the 12 ANCSA regional corporation CEOs groups 

within the last 24 hours. But within that 24-hour period, 7 of the 

12 regional corporation CEOs have responded that they believe in 

my testimony, they support it. I am sure all the ANCSA CEOs do. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, again thank you, and let me restate 

what my biggest concern is. And I don’t want to beg the issue. I 

was here for the Alaska National Lands Act and not the Native 

Land Claims Act itself. That passed in 1971. But they did reach 

an agreement as aboriginals. And this bill as written, he believes, 

as do the rest of my corporations up there, my tribes if you want 

to say, are deeply concerned it would infringe upon their rights. 

Now maybe that is not the intent of the bill, but there are those 

in the audience and those with other interest groups that will litigate. They will sue. And the economic rights of these people as we 

granted them, and the right of their culture will be denied. And 

that is really the forked-tongue approach that concerns me. 

So as we go through this process, if we can’t improve this legislation, then at least give Alaska a chance to step aside because—as 

I mentioned—of those numbers we have, and really answer that 

question to my aboriginal people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Young. 

Let me reiterate the opening comments I made, after your initial 

comment, that the staff and our office looks forward to working 

with you to ensure that the potential conflict that you see, and is 

not intended in the legislation, is dealt with. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, before I leave, and I do have to leave, 

they are having a birthday party for me. You are invited to go 

when this hearing is over if you would like to come by. I am just 

reaching maturity age. So I have to go. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me just thank the witnesses who are here. I appreciate your coming, especially at this really late date. This should 

have been done like 6 hours ago, and I apologize for that. I don’t 

know if anyone from the Department of the Interior is still here. 

I would just want to express my deep disappointment in the Department for sending up somebody to testify on the part of this 

bill—even though she was willing to do it—who was clearly in 

pain, who has suffered an injury. 

There are significant questions that need to be answered. And for 

the Department not to be able to have someone here who can actually testify without having to go through those personal problems 

is callous on the part of the Department of the Interior. I don’t 

know why they did it, but I am offended that they would actually 

put her in that position, as well as this committee in that same position. 

The other day I had somebody come into my office talking about 

No Child Left Behind, one of my other favorite elements of Congress. And she told me how good it was, because No Child Left Behind is finally forcing her to deal with minorities in this particular 

school district. That is why they want more money. 

44

And as I was hearing this, I was thinking to myself, you know, 

what you are telling me is basically for 30 years you have done a 

lousy job or you have ignored your job, and now we have finally 

forced you to do what you are supposed to do, and you want to be 

rewarded for it. If you were doing your job, there would be no reason for the bill. Now if we need to force you to do your job, you 

shouldn’t have the job in the first place. 

This reminds me of the same kind—we have been told over and 

over again that this bill will not change any of the management 

practices. I agree that that is perhaps the intent of this bill, and 

I agree that is a laudatory intent at the same time. And it also has 

to come down to the fact that if you don’t change any of the practices, there is no need for the bill. If you are going to codify something, there has to be some systemic problem that is prohibiting 

you from doing what you want to do, rather than simply having a 

different name tag or larger room or some other personal reason 

for it. 

I do want to lay down the marker that I have no personal problem with creating this as a codified program. I do have problems 

with the language that has been initially drafted. I do agree with 

the gentleman from Alaska. The language in here is vague. And 

even though the intent is not to change any of the management 

practices, some of the language in here is boilerplate language from 

other elements within the Department of the Interior, who, with 

that same language, has been sued both in 1970 and 1978, and was 

forced to change their management styles and practices. Not because of the intent of Congress or the intent of the program, but 

because of the intent of lawsuits. That is why I do say this is a lawsuit waiting to happen. 

And what our intentions are, which I think are laudable, I am 

sure the Chairman is honest with his intention, and it is a laudable 

intention of not changing the management practices—will indeed 

be subject to changes later on unless we clarify the language that 

is in this bill and make it specific that what we intend to do is indeed what we do. And right now this bill does not have that language in there. 

So all your comments, I appreciate them. I don’t have any problems with your comments. I think they are just fine. We have some 

wonderful programs that are being administered by the BLM. They 

are diverse. Why you want to put all the diverse things into one 

common practice is strange, but we are doing it, and they are doing 

it in a fairly effective process. 

But at the same time, if we do actually codify this language for 

this program, then we are opening ourselves up for changes that 

will be above and beyond what anyone in this room claims to do 

or intends to do or even imagines to be possible. So I don’t really 

have problems with the scope of this bill or the direction of this 

bill. I do have problems with the verbiage. And if the majority 

party will work with the minority, I think we will have a bill that 

is satisfactory to everyone involved. But it does depend on what the 

actual language is in this particular bill. 

I thank you for coming here. I thank you for listening to me rant. 

It wasn’t my intention of doing that, but someone had to hear it, 

and you unfortunately are the last ones in the room. I yield back. 

45

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. And I am appreciative of 

the closing comment about working on the legislation, and look forward to it. And let me instruct the court reporter, if he will, at the 

end of Mr. Bishop’s comments put a question mark? That way it 

is consistent with the question. 

Mr. BISHOP. I will do this legitimately. How are you? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Let me, just to make your visit worthwhile, and also for my edification, ask a couple of questions. Mr. Moe, I have a co-major in history, and I am proof of the adage that history, if you don’t listen 

to history it tends to repeat itself. And I ended up in politics. 

But be that as it may, one of the things, and I think NLCS, because you spoke about it, for a long time I think much of the history, the focus of the history of this Nation of ours has been on the 

European settlement. And as you mentioned, the NLCS has an opportunity to address that situation and change. Jamestown is 400 

years old. And some of these units, we are talking about human 

activity 4,000, 5,000, 6,000—and could you just expand on that? 

Mr. MOE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to expand 

on that. As a student of history, I commend your insight for seeing 

that relevance. I believe the American experience began in the 

West. I spent a lot of time in the Four Corners area of the West, 

which is probably the richest archeological part of this country. 

There are more archeologists in the Four Corners area of the 

United States than anyplace in the world outside of Egypt. That’s 

how rich it is. And the riches that they are looking for are the signs 

of the earliest Americans. You know, some of these great places of 

the earliest Americans have been preserved by the National Park 

Service. And places like Mesa Verde, Chaco Canyon, Hovenweep, 

other great national parks. But that’s not the full extent of it. 

There is so much more in Canyons of the Ancients in southwestern 

Colorado, in Agua Fria in your own State, and in other great 

places. And some of these are increasingly at risk for a variety of 

reasons. And it is important to preserve these places and to recognize their significance, as this legislation would do, in order that 

future Americans can understand that important part of our history. So that’s very much an important part of what this bill would 

do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. And, Mr. Meadows, the often repeated 

question, concern, and rationale for not needing this legislation is 

that if NLCS is already protected under existing law, what is 

gained from establishing the NLCS in statute? 

Mr. MEADOWS. I think it is important that Congress recognize 

the power and influence it has. And I think the recognition—the 

two most important words here, I think, are ‘‘recognition’’ and ‘‘permanence.’’ recognition that Congress would give the system is not 

lost on local communities, it is not lost on the BLM, it is not lost 

on those of us who work to try to protect the conservation values 

that are represented throughout these conservation units. 

The permanence is really critical, too. While we are not threatened today with any kind of retrenchment on conservation landscape—the National Landscape Conservation System—there is 

some chance that in the future, a future administration might not 

46

view this system in the same way. And we believe it important 

that we put down a recognition that we mark the importance of 

this system today. And we thank you and the committee for being 

willing to do that. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Williams, if you don’t mind, I am going to submit—I have 

a series of questions, but time is pressing for a lot of reasons. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I would be happy to respond to any of your 

questions. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. They deal with remote sites and why they are 

important in scientific research and various other questions. So if 

you don’t mind, I will be submitting those questions to you, and 

your responses will be part of the record. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I would be happy to respond. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Mayor, back home there are monuments in 

the area, southern Arizona, near Tucson where I am from, and 

enjoy a great deal of local support. In fact, you know, there are always efforts to expand, to add to. But beyond that, do you also hear 

many times—and one of the witnesses that had to leave talked 

about—in his written testimony talks about the fact that there is 

no real local support for these units, these designations, and this 

effort to try to codify the system. 

Big time mayor, that’s the community you come from, can you 

talk about that local support and what it means, and then the 

issue of tourism? I mean, they can’t stay overnight. I mean, there 

are no hotels or eating places in these areas, so they are going to 

go somewhere. 

Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, thanks for the question. In response, 

if you look at the entire State of Montana, there was overwhelming 

support among the residents of Montana for the creation of the national monument. There is overwhelming support in the State of 

Montana for the Lewis and Clark Trail and for the—all aspects of 

this National Landscape Conservation System that are in our backyard. 

There are those who felt that they weren’t adequately heard, but 

I had the opportunity to attend many of the public hearings that 

occurred in Montana; in fact, had the opportunity to introduce Secretary Babbitt when he was in my town, in Great Falls, Montana. 

And I personally witnessed Secretary Babbitt stand for 3 hours on 

the stage of the university of my town and personally answer every 

question that came in. He never shut the clock off. He let anybody 

ask any question they wanted. So there was ample opportunity for 

input. And the vast majority of Montanans, certainly the vast majority of people in my town, are supportive of these concepts. 

So I can’t say it any other way than that, Mr. Chairman, is that 

I believe that from a political point of view these landscapes have 

a tremendous amount of support from people in Great Falls, people 

in Montana, and people all over the United States. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Williams, your testimony is noted. The issues that you 

raised, we hope as this legislation moves forward that we will 

reach some level of satisfaction for yourself and the concerns that 

you raised. And I appreciate your testimony. 

And I know Mr. Bishop has another question or comment. 

47

Mr. BISHOP. I would. 

Mr. Gray, I appreciate the comment you just made. Are you 

aware or did you have any kind of workings with the Missouri 

Breaks National Monument? 

Mr. GRAY. Yes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. So can you just explain, as far as the unanimous 

kind of bipartisan support, why, when that was passed in 2001—

the Montana legislature in the Senate by a vote of 38 to 12, and 

in the House by a vote of 65 to 34—there was a bipartisan vote, 

passed resolutions urging opposition to the Missouri Breaks or the 

Missouri River National Monument that is now being administered 

by the BLM, or the fact that there are no county commissioners involved in that entire area who are still supportive of that national 

monument? That doesn’t quite sound indicative to me of loyal happiness with what is going on there in Montana. Obviously there are 

some sectors, but I wouldn’t call it unanimous in any degree, would 

you? 

Mr. GRAY. No. I am sorry, Mr. Congressman, I don’t believe I 

used the word ‘‘unanimous.’’ I believe I said ‘‘overwhelming.’’

Mr. BISHOP. 38 to 12 ain’t even overwhelming. You lost by that 

amount. 

Mr. GRAY. Well, sir, the Governor that then supported that action is no longer the Governor of Montana. And that was, in my 

political opinion, one of the reasons that she no longer is the Governor of Montana. Montanans overwhelmingly supported these activities. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is that why there are no county commissioners in 

that area that still support it? 

Mr. GRAY. Well, it is an area that some of the county commissioners in fact, I think, are changing their opinions on how things 

might be out there. This landscape is now viewed as a very important part of diversifying the economy of north central Montana. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. We will let the data stand for itself. And I appreciate your tenacity, if not necessarily agreement with your veracity. But thank you, sir. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. I want to thank the panel, 

and close with a little discussion about what the intent of this legislation is. And I am trying to—and thank you very much for your 

testimony, all the panels. 

The intent about these special places, these units, and that is 

that in the future—and I think Mr. Meadows mentioned that in the 

future, one of the permanencies that we would like to establish is 

that no President or administration with the stroke of a pen can 

destroy what has been set aside. And that is the intention. That 

is where we would like—that has been the primary motivation of 

this legislation, and will continue to be that. 

With that, let me adjourn the meeting, and thank you very much 

for being here and for your indulgence all day long. I appreciate it. 

[Whereupon, at 6:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ