U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

95–279 2017

S. HRG. 114–380 

PENDING PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING 

LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND 

MINING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

S. 160/H.R. 373 S. 814 

S. 365 S. 815 

S. 472 S. 1240 

S. 583 

MAY 21, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING

JOHN BARRASSO, Chairman 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO 

JAMES E. RISCH 

MIKE LEE 

STEVE DAINES 

BILL CASSIDY 

CORY GARDNER 

JOHN HOEVEN 

JEFF FLAKE 

LAMAR ALEXANDER 

RON WYDEN 

DEBBIE STABENOW 

AL FRANKEN 

JOE MANCHIN III 

MARTIN HEINRICH 

MAZIE K. HIRONO 

ELIZABETH WARREN 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

LUCY MURFITT, Senior Counsel and Natural Resources Policy Director 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic General Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Barrasso, Hon. John, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Wyoming ...................................................................................................................... 1 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from 

Oregon ................................................................................................................... 2 

Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator from Idaho ................................................... 107 

Heinrich, Hon. Martin, U.S. Senator from New Mexico ....................................... 108 

Heller, Hon. Dean, U.S. Senator from Nevada ..................................................... 108 

Lee, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Utah .............................................................. 178 

WITNESSES 

Weldon, Leslie, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture .................................................................................. 111 

Murphy, Timothy, Acting Assistant Director, National Conservation Lands 

& Community Partnerships, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................................................................. 121 

Johnson, Rick, Executive Director, Idaho Conservation League ......................... 137 

Stevenson, Brett, Board of Directors, Wood River Bicycle Coalition ................... 156 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Barrasso, Hon. John: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Board of County Commissioners, Douglas County, Nevada: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 201 

Catlin, Dr. James: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 232 

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 4 

Garfield County (Utah): 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 248 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 250 

Hedden, Willard: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 253 

Heinrich, Hon. Martin: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 108 

Heller, Hon. Dean: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 108 

Idaho Recreation Council: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 260 

Johnson, Rick: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 137 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 139 

Kane County (Utah) Board of Commissioners: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 262 

King Klein, Carole: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 264 

Lee, Hon. Mike: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 178 

McKee, Norman: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 265 

Page

IV 

Murphy, Timothy: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 121 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 123 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 199 

PeopleForBikes: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 267 

(The) Pew Charitable Trusts: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 269 

Public Lands Council, et al: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 180 

Risch, Hon. James E.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 107 

(The) Sawtooth Society: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 272 

Sorenson, Craig and Ramoma: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 275 

Stevenson, Brett: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 156 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 158 

Trudeau, Mimi: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 278 

U.S. Department of the Interior: 

Statement for the Record regarding S. 160/H.R. 373 .................................... 280 

Utah Cattlemen’s Association: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 182 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 185 

Watts, Kevin: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 282 

Weldon, Leslie: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 111 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 113 

Wolverton, Bill: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 285 

Wyden, Hon. Ron: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 2 

The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can be found on the 

committee’s website at: http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-businessmeetings?ID=9FE456B6-AB07-405C-81EE-D58980D7BE02. 

(1) 

PENDING PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND 

MINING LEGISLATION 

THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

This is our first legislative hearing in the Public Lands, Forests 

and Mining Subcommittee this Congress. The purpose of today’s 

hearing is to receive testimony on seven bills pending before the 

Subcommittee. 

Four of these bills were considered by the Subcommittee in the 

last Congress. The four bills are S. 160/H.R. 370, Senator Heller 

and Representative Hecht’s bill to expedite Good Samaritan Search 

and Rescue Operations. This one is important to help bring closure 

to families of missing persons as quickly as possible. S. 814 and S. 

815, Senator Wyden’s Tribal Land Conveyance bills in Oregon; and, 

S. 1240, Senator Heinrich’s bill to designate two new wilderness 

areas in the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in Northern 

New Mexico. 

We will update the records of the four bills and allow members, 

especially those who are new to the Subcommittee, an opportunity 

to ask any questions that they might have. 

The remaining three bills are new to the Subcommittee. S. 365, 

was introduced by Senator Hatch and co-sponsored by Senator Lee. 

This bill will restore grazing levels in the Grand Staircase 

Escalante National Monument and provide needed certainty to the 

family ranching operations and communities located there. This is 

one of President Clinton’s Antiquity Act monuments which is still 

causing reverberations in Utah today. 

S. 472, another bill from Senator Heller, will authorize several 

land conveyances to facilitate sensible development in Douglas 

County in Nevada. The Federal Government controls over 50 percent of the land base in this one county, so it is not surprising that 

the county has come to Congress for help. 

Finally, S. 583, Senator Risch’s Sawtooth National Recreation 

Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness additions bills. Senator Risch will 

have an opportunity to speak to them shortly. 

2 

First let me turn to the Ranking Member, Senator Wyden, for his 

remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just 

want to say at the outset since this is our first forestry hearing 

that I am very much looking forward to working with you on these 

issues. 

Mr. Chairman, I also see our friend and colleague from Idaho, 

Senator Risch here, and we all work together on these issues often. 

I can remember when I was Chairman of this Subcommittee. It 

is an important Subcommittee particularly for those of us from the 

West trying to find fresh, creative approaches to deal with the challenges, it is especially important to our constituents. 

Let me make a quick apology to our guests from Idaho. We know 

that it is a challenge getting back here. I apologize, I am busy with 

the Trade bill on the floor, so I am going to have to chase off here 

in a moment but look forward to working with you all. 

Of course, Ms. Weldon and Mr. Murphy, two professionals that 

we have worked with often and we are glad to have you here. 

Again, my apologies with respect to not being able to stay. 

Chairman Barrasso was kind enough to let me make some brief 

remarks with respect to two important bills from my constituents, 

Oregon tribal bills, S. 814 and 815. 

The Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians and the Cow 

Creek band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians have waited a long, long 

time for these bills. I am glad that they are being heard once again 

in the Committee. 

This is the second Congress that I have introduced these bills individually and as part of my O and C lands legislation, and I hope 

it will finally be the end of the discussion and we will act on them. 

It is long past time for Congress to do the right thing and designate these lands as tribal lands, righting a wrong that happened 

long ago but still impacts tribal members in my state and across 

the country. Termination era policies are a shameful part of American history with long standing impact on the nation’s first peoples. 

The Cow Creek and Coos Tribes were restored to Federal recognition in the 1980’s but have yet to regain any land. These tribes 

deserve the right to exercise their tribal sovereignty, to grow an 

economy, support and protect tribal members, embrace and celebrate their cultural and religious priorities and raise new generations of tribal members who understand the importance of their 

heritage. In order to do that they have got to have a land base to 

call home. 

The two bills will convey more than 17,000 acres and more than 

14,000 acres of land that is now managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management to the Secretary of the Interior to hold in trust for the 

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians and the Confederated 

Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, respectfully. 

Both the Cow Creek and the Coos Tribes testified before the Subcommittee in a hearing on November 20, 2013, and they are going 

to submit written testimony today to, once again, stress the imporVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:40 Feb 13, 2017 Jkt 095279 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95279\95279.TXT 95279
3 

tance of these bills to their tribal sovereignty and the future of 

their tribal members. 

[The information referred to follows.] 

4 


Insert offset folio 211 here 95279.211

WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

CHAIRMAN MARK INGERSOLL FOR THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE Coos, 

LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLA W INDIANS 

SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCO!VIMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING 

S. 814 (114TH CONGRESS) 

I am Chairman of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw 

Indians. I speak for our Members and for our Tribal CounciL On behalf of the Tribe, I thank 

you for the opportunity to submit these materials for inclusion in the hearing record on S. 814. 

S. 814 is a straightforward bill that will yield jobs-- and justice. We are grateful for the 

support of Senators Wyden and Merkley. We respectfully ask that the Subcommittee join 

Senators Wyden and Merkley in suppmiing S. 814. 

The bill transfers from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) responsibility for managing approximately 14,408 acres of land in tln·ee 

watersheds draining to the Pacific Ocean in Oregon. These watersheds are the homes of the 

Ancestors of the three tribes that make up our Confederated Tribes. All of the land lies within 

the ancestral territory of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians. If the bill becomes law, 

the United States will continue to hold title to the land, and, tln·ough the BIA, will hold the land 

in trust for the Tribe as part of our Reservation. 

In March, 2013, Senators Wyden and Merkley publicly released a discussion draft of 

what eventually became S. 1414 in the !13th Congress and now takes the form ofS. 814. 

Inm1ediately after release of the discussion draft, the Tribe intensified its broad-based 

consultations about the proposal. These efforts included consultations with the local 

co'mmunities of which the Tribe is a part; with groups representing individuals sharing with the 

Tribe economic, recreational, and environmental protection interests; with neighboring federallyrecognized Indian tribes; with neighboring private prope1iy owners; with the State of Oregon and 

its political subdivisions; and with both the BIA and the BLM. Details of some of these 

consultations are set out in the exhibits to this statement. 

The substance of S. 814 has enjoyed the bipartisan support of elected officials from the 

region in Oregon in which the lands are located or who have an official role in govemment-togovemment relations between the Tribe and the State of Oregon. For example, Govemor Kate 

Brown suppmied the proposal as Secretary of State. 

Senator Wyden himself confened with representatives of the Association of 0 & C 

Counties in a successful effort to identify adjustments to the discussion draft that protect those 

counties from any perceived reduction in timber revenue harvest payments. These adjustments 

appeared as Section 7 ofS. 1414 and are carried forward into Section 6 ofS. 814. We have no 

objection to these provisions. 

The substance of S. 814 enjoyed bipatiisan support in the House of Representatives 

during the !13th Congress. The essence of S. 814 was embedded in tln·ee measures approved by 

the House of Representatives: The substance ofS. 814 was Title III, SubtitleD, Part 2, ofH.R. 

1526 (!13th); Section 396 ofH.R. 4 (ll3th); and Title III ofH.R. 5701 (!13th). All three of 

those measures passed the House in the !13th Congress. 

We are happy to report that bipartisan suppmi for the substance ofS. 814 continues in the 

current Congress. Rep. DeFazio is the principal sponsor ofH.R. 1438. That bill is functionally 

Page 1 of 4 

May 21, 2015, Written Statement of Chairman Ingersoll-- S. 814 (1l4th Congress) 
5 


Insert offset folio 212 here 95279.212

identical to S. 814. On April16, 2015, Representative Walden became a cosponsor on H.R. 

1438. 

In the 113th Congress, this Committee also examined and acted favorably on the 

substance ofS. 814. Senator Wyden introduced and Senator Merkley co-sponsored S. 1414. 

The Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining held its hearing on S. 1414 on 

November 20,2013. The substance of the bill heard by the Subcommittee later became Title II, 

Subtitle A of S. 1784. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources repmied favorably on 

S. 1784 and recommended that the bill, with the amendments including the substance of S. 814, 

be passed. 

We appreciate the strong efforts many Members made on our behalf in the 113th 

Congress. None of the bills in which our ambitions were included reached the finish line. We 

take some comfmi in the fact that the substance of S. 814 in no way contributed to the demise of 

any of the legislative vehicles in which it was embedded. We hope that the labors of the 

Members who stood for the Tribe in the 113th Congress will be rewarded, and the Tribe's 

dreams realized, in the 114th Congress. 

Broad, bi-patiisan support for the substance ofS. 814 has been maintained over time and 

tln·ough many legislative twists and turns for a simple reason: S. 814 is good policy. 

Under S. 814, the National Indian Forest Resource Management Act (NIFRMA) will 

require the BIA, working with our Tribe, to create and adopt a management plan for the newlydesignated trust forest lands. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of the federal 

laws whose applicability is ensured by Section 5 of S. 814, requires an Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement prior to major action by a federal agency. The 

BIA' s adoption of the NIFRNfA management plan will be a major federal action. As a result, 

S. 814 will require the BIA, working with the Tribes, to complete an Environmental Assessment 

or Environmental Impact Statement prior to the approval of the NIFRMA management plan. 

The NIFRMA/NEPA planning process will require the BIA, working with the Tribe, to 

assess, and as necessary, avoid or mitigate potential impacts to the environment as identified by 

govenunent agencies and the general public. The Endangered Species Act will require the BIA, 

working with the Tribes, to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service to further the conservation oftln·eatened and endangered species. The 

National Historic Preservation Act will require the BIA, working with the Tribe, to assess any 

undertaking which could adversely affect any historic properly and to take steps to avoid or 

mitigate any adverse effects to that propetiy. 

While these and other federal laws will require the BIA and the Tribes to be good 

stewards of the land, we will be good stewards of the land not simply because the Jaw requires it, 

but because that is who we are. 

Most of the land has been logged in the past by clear-cut logging or regeneration 

harvesting. Most of the land is now forested with second-growth plantation stands, with some 

small, scattered renmant stands of older forest. We excluded many tracts from the proposal to 

avoid older stands, late-successional reserves, and critical habitat for threatened or endangered 

species. Although it would have been impossible to completely avoid such areas, we tried to 

minimize the inclusion of older stands, late-successional reserves, and critical habitat. The 

supplemental materials subniitted in conjunction with this statement include detailed breakdowns 

of the characteristics of each tract. 

In making every decision, we consider how our Ancestors would view our work and how 

our decisions will affect the seventh generation of our descendants. We expect the outcome of 

Page2 of4 

May 21, 2015, Written Statement of Chairman Ingersoll-- S. 814 (114tll Congress) 
6 


Insert offset folio 213 here 95279.213

the NIFRMA/NEP A planning process to be a plan reflecting our culture and our sevengeneration perspective on land and resource management. Our management philosophy, which 

is deeply embedded in our traditions, our culture, and our Tribal law, will shape a plan that 

neither bars all commercial use nor manages the forest as an industrial tree farm. NIFRMA 

prohibits the timber harvest from exceeding the sustained yield of the forest while also allowing 

"the retention of Indian forest land in its natural state when an Indian tribe detennines that the 

recreational, cultural, aesthetic, or traditional values of the Indian forest land represents the 

highest and best use of the land." We expect to construct a forest management plan for 

holistically managing these lands, integrating a combination of intensive but sustained-yield 

forestry and conservative restoration forestry, yet avoiding the extremes of either approach. The 

combination of the Tribe's management philosophy with the continued applicability offederal 

laws as required by S. 814 will pcnnit modestly increased commercial use of the forestlands at 

the same time we begin to restore them to a condition our Ancestors would recognize and the 

seventh-generation of our descendants will appreciate. 

Jobs -- for the broader community as well as for Tribal members -- will be one yield from 

the shift in management of public lands fi·om one agency within the Depattment of the Interior to 

another agency within the same Department. Timber from the trust forestlands will be harvested 

by local loggers and moved to mills by local log truek drivers. The stand will then be replanted 

by local tree-planters. Roads will be maintained by local equipment operators. Fish and wildlife 

habitat will be actively improved by local restoration specialists. Some of the local jobs 

sustained by S. 814 will be filled by local tribal members and some by non-tribal local workers. 

In every case, their wages will sustain families and circulate in the local economy. 

The Tribe does not own, and has no intention of building, a lumber mill. S. 814 prohibits 

the export of raw logs. The logs will stay stateside, helping to sustain domestic mills and the 

employees dependent on a sustainable flow oflogs to those mills. 

Justice is the second predictable result ofS. 814. We were the original trustees of these 

lands. The United States failed to ratify a treaty (which we signed in good faith) that would have 

provided due process for the forced dispossession of 1.6 million acres of our ancestral territory. 

As of today, only 153 acres are held in trust by the United States for the Tribe. We remain the 

only western Oregon tribe that did not, as a result of the tribes' respective restoration Acts, 

regain control of a significant acreage of our ancestral lands nor receive a financial payment. 

My people watched as the new managers of our lands lurched from unsustainable harvest 

levels to litigation-driven gridlock. Like our non-Tribal neighbors, members of our Tribe send 

our children to public schools, use public lihraries, and rely on the local public infrastructure 

sustained, in part, by federal timber management policy. Our members have the same 

investment in our local communities -- including the duty to pay property taxes on the homes 

that we own-- as our non-Tribal neighbors. 

The Tribe's connection to these lands has an added and unique dimension. For 

generation upon generation during our stewardship of these lands, we avoided the extremes of 

the past 150 years. The land sustained us spiritually as well as materially. We used the forest, 

and the forest was not harmed. 

S. 814 restores our Tribe to a central role in managing less than one percent of our 

ancestral lands. S. 814 is a step in the direction of justice as well as in the direction of jobs. 

We sincerely thank you again for the opportunity to have submitted this statement for 

your records in support of S. 814. Despite its simplicity, S. 814 has the potential to yield both 

jobs and justice. 

Page3 of4 

May 21, 2015, Written Statement of Chairman Ingersoll-- S. 814 (114th Congress) 
7 


Insert offset folio 214 here 95279.214

INDEX TO SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN MATERIALS 

Submitted with Chairman Ingersoll's Written Statement 

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND S!USLAW INDIANS 

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING: 

MAY 21, 2015, HEARING ON S. 814 (ll4TH CONGRESS) 

A Tract-by-tract analysis of public lands affected by S. 814 (114th Congress) and H.R. 1438 

(114'h Congress) (Separately Bound). 

B Frequently asked questions about S. 814 and H.R. 1438 (1141h Congress), and their 

antecedents. 

C Summary of consultation since public release of the Wyden/Merkley discussion draft in 

March, 2013. 

Ex. C-2 Community Forums 

Ex. C-3 Government-to-Government consultations with neighboring tribes 

Ex. C-14 Government-to-Government consultations with State of Oregon 

Ex. C-16 Association of O&C Counties 

Ex. C-17 BIA and BLM 

D Representative statements about substantively equivalent antecedents to S. 814 I 

H.R.1438. 

Ex. D-2 

Ex. D-7 

Ex. D-8 

Ex. D-14 

Ex. D-15 

Ex. D-16 

Governor Kitzhaber 

Then-Secretary of State (now Governor) Brown 

State Legislators 

The World (Coos Bay Region) Editorial 

Timber Industry 

National Congress of American Indians 

E Tribe's Petition to the President of the United States. 

F Text of H.R. 1438 (114'h Congress, First Session). 

S0060672.v3 

Page4of4 

May 21, 2015, Written Statement of Chairman Ingersoll-- S. 814 (1l4th Congress) 
8 


Insert offset folio 215 here 95279.215

A. 

Tract-By-Tract Analysis of 

Public Lands Affected By 

S. 814 (114th Congress) and 

H.R. 1438 (114th Congress). 

Originally Prepared In Reference To S. 1414 

(113th Congress) 

(Tract-by-Tract Analysis Separately Bound and Separately 

Submitted: Only the Title Page is Reproduced Under this 

Divider) 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit A-.l__ To Statement of Chairman fngersoll 
9 


Insert offset folio 216 here 95279.216

S. 814 (114t11 Congress) 

Oregon Coastal Land Act 

Tract-by-Tract Analysis 

Reprinted For The May 21, 2015, Hearing Before The Subcommittee On Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Originally Submitted On November 20, 2013, To The Subcommittee In Support of S.1414 (1131

" Congress) 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and M!nlng 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Slus!aw Indians 

Exhfb!t }l_ ~ i_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
10 


Insert offset folio 217 here 95279.217

B. 

Frequently Asked Questions 

About S. 814 I H.R. 1438 

(114th Congress) and Their 

Antecedents 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tr!bes of Coos1 lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit .13._ • _L To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
11 


Insert offset folio 218 here 95279.218

Frequently Asked Questions 

S. 814 (1141

h Congress) I H.R.1438 (1141h Congress) 

Does S. 814 or H.R. 1438 transfer the federal government's title to anyone else? 

No. Both bills simply place Federal lands into trust for the Confederated Tribes of the 

Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians ("Tribe"). Neither bill alienates the federal 

government's title. 

Does S. 814 or H.R. 1438 diminish county timber revenue? 

No. Lands known as "public domain" lands -- already managed by the BLM but not 

currently treated as 0 & C lands -- will be added to the class of lands subject to the 

Oregon & California Railroad Act of 1916. The addition of public domain land offsets the 

actual or hypothetical effect on county revenue resulting from conveyance of specified 

lands out of the 0 & C class and into trust for the Tribe. 

What impact, if any, would either bill have a on federal revenues? 

Neither bill would have a significant negative impact on federal revenues. 

S. 814 (114th) and H.R. 1438 (114th) are substantially the same as Part 2, Subtitle 0, of 

Title Ill of H.R. 1526 (113th). In total, Title Ill of H.R. 1526 would have required BLM to 

transfer management authority over 1.3 million acres of federal lands to non-federal 

parties. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that under current law "BLM would 

collect receipts totaling $9 million a year over the 2015-2017 period .... "H. Rept. 

113-213, page 64 (113th Congress). The CBO estimate provides a starting point for 

considering the federal revenue impact of s. 814 and H.R. 1438. 

Approximately 14,408 acres are affected by S. 814 and H.R. 1438. That is 

approximately 1.1 percent of the total number of BLM acres transferred by H.R. 1526 to 

the state of Oregon and Coos County. If one assumes that every BLM acre has the 

identical revenue-generating capacity, then the impact on federal revenues of the acres 

affected by H.R. 1438 (114th) would be approximately $100,000 annually. For two 

reasons, that estimate-- insignificant even at $100,000 per year-- is much more likely to 

be a ceiling than a floor. 

First, approximately 16 percent of the total acres transferred into trust by S. 814 and 

H.R. 1438 are timberlands withdrawn from potential commercial timber harvest or 

designated "late successional reserve" (older trees). See, Table entitled "Breakdown by 

Percentage" in the Tract-by-Tract document separately submitted to the Subcommittee. 

Placing these lands into trust could not have any federal revenue impact because they 

cannot produce any revenue under the status quo. 

Second, the remaining annual revenue impact of $84,000 still does not take account of 

the positive budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, capital stock, 

and other macroeconomic variables that would result from the legislation. Though 

emphasizing management for spiritual and cultural purposes, the Tribe expects the final 

Indian Forest Management plan to include at least some element of commercial forestry. 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mtnlng 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit ..B._- _1_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
12 


Insert offset folio 219 here 95279.219

The dynamic beneficial effect on local economies from commercial forestry in Indian 

Forests is specifically expressly addressed by the BIA in the following passage from the 

agency's manual for administering NIFRMA: 

The significance of the Indian forestry program cannot be judged by the 

cumulative total of net revenues received from the sale of forest products and the 

wages taken home by program employees. The overall effect of the program on 

the community must be included. * * * The important point is that for every one 

direct job created by the management of the forest resources, many more 

service related jobs are also created. The woods worker and his family must 

have a place to bank, to buy groceries, to shop for furniture, etc., and a portion of 

the employees of these businesses are needed because of the demand this 

worker creates. BIA, Indian Forest Management Handbook, 53 lAM 2.8.C.26, at 

page 39. 

The Tribe, lacking any current forest land, will build the necessary forest management 

infrastructure through contracts and direct hiring. The bills prohibit export of timber 

harvested from the lands. The Tribe neither owns nor plans to build and operate a mill. 

Commercial forest products produced from the Tribe's new forest will be harvested and 

milled by men and women (including tribal members) and local businesses who pay 

federal income tax. Forest resources from tribal lands will also contribute to the stability 

of supply required by forest product companies threatened by uncertain supply. 

Does either bill create an exception to federal laws otherwise applicable to commercial forestry 

activity on federal lands? 

No. Section 5 of S. 814 and Section 5 of H.R. 1438 specify that all "applicable federal 

laws" will continue to apply to such harvest. Both bills specifically prohibit export of 

unprocessed logs to the same extent prohibited by federal law and regulations 

applicable to other federal lands. 

Does either bill permit commercial forestry activity under circumstances in which it would be 

prohibited by the Endangered Species Act? The National Environmental Protection Act? The 

Clean Water Act? 

No, no, and no. 

Which federal laws are "applicable" pursuant to Section 5 of S. 814 and Section 5 ofH.R. 1438? 

The Tribe interprets Section 5 of S. 814 and Section 5 of H.R. 1438 (lands "shall be 

managed in accordance with all applicable federal laws.") to include at least the 

following: National Indian Forest Resource Management Act, Endangered Species Act, 

National Environmental Protection Act, Clean Water Act, Archeological Resources 

Protection Act, and National Historic Preservation Act. 

If S. 814 or H.R. 1438 became law, how would the Tribal Government manage hunting, fishing, 

and recreational issues on the land? 

These issues will be managed in consultation with Tribal Members, other users, and the 

State of Oregon. The Tribe already has initiated discussions about these issues with the 

State of Oregon. 

Subcommittee on Pub!tc lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos~ lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit ~ • ~ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
13 


Insert offset folio 220 here 95279.220

In 1855, President Pierce issued an executive order reserving a region of the Oregon coast as a 

reservation. Does either bill include any part of the area set aside by President Pierce? 

No. 

Does either bill permit the Tribe to use any of the land for gaming activity carried out under the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act? 

No. Section 5 of each bill states that the land "shall not be eligible, or used, for any 

gaming activity carried out under Public Laws 100-497 (25 U.S.C. 2707 et seq.)." 

For more information, please contact: 

Pete Shepherd 

Pete.shepherd@harrang.com 

POS244Sl.v5 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (ll4th Congress}- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua1 and S!uslaw Indians 

Exhibit .fi_-..:±_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
14 


Insert offset folio 221 here 95279.221

c. 

Summary of Consultation 

And Hearings Since Public 

Release of the 

Wyden/Merkley Discussion 

Draft in March, 2013 

Subcommittee on Public landsJ Forests and Mfntng 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sfuslaw Indians 

Exhibit S::.... · _L To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
15 


Insert offset folio 222 here 95279.222

V'v.n.<no ~ 

0

41 . · . · '~''e CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF 

~o~· 3fi1' ~ COOS, LOWER UMPQUA AND SIUSLAW INDIA.t~S r(t_ TRIBAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES 

\. ~ j 1245 Fulton Ave. • Coos Bay, OR 97420 • (541)888-9577 • l-888·280-0726 

~ :f General Office Fax: (541) 888-2853 • Administration Fax: (541) 888-0302 

·~"EltlJW?I!-v" 

FOR 1M MEDIATE RELEASE: April 5, 2013 

Tribe To Host Community Briefings About Land Restoration Proposal 

The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians will host three 

Community Briefings about draft federal .legislation restoring tribal control over 14,804 acres of' 

BLM land in Lane, Coos,.and Douglas counties. The public is invited. Briefings will be held: 

Sunday, April14, 2013, al4:00 p.m. 

Coos Bay Public Library, 525 Anderson Ave., Coos Bay. Adjourn: 6:00p.m. 

Monday, April 15, 2013, at 7:00p.m. 

Reedsport Public Library, 395 Winchester Avenue, Reedsport. Adjourn: 9:00 p.m. 

Tuesday, Apri116, 2013, at 7:00p.m. 

Mapleton Grange Hall, 10880 E. Mapleton Rd, Mapleton. Adjourn: 9:00p.m. 

Each briefing will have the same agenda. Information about the Tribe's history and culture 

will be on display for the first 30 minutes. Formal proceedings will begin with an invocation from 

Tribal Chief Warren Brainard. Tribal representatives will describe the history of the Tribe, detail 

the proposal, and answer questions from the audience. 

Public comments will be invited. Former Florence Mayor Phil Brubaker will.moderate 

throughoullhe meeting. 

For more information about the Tribe and the discussion draft, visit the Tribe's website at 

www.ctclusi.org and click on Ancestr~;~l Lands Restoration Proposal. Viewers may leave a 

comment on the website. 

Contact: 

· Bob Garcia 541-999-1320 

Pete Shepherd 503-871-3787 

AprilS, 2013 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mlnlng 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw fndlans 

Exhibit ..f..·~ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
16 


Insert offset folio 223 here 95279.223

lJJII HARRANG LONG 

l':ii':llr.;'l GARY RUDNICK P.c. 

~w . A1TORNEYSATLAW 

July 19, 2013 

VIA EMAIL: WSHAMMEL@COWCREEK.COM 

Wayne A. Shammel 

Tribal Attorney 

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians 

2371 NE Stephens Street, Suite 100 

Roseburg OR 97470 

PETER D. SHEPHERD 

Admltt?d In Oregon 

333 High Street NE, Suite 200 

Salem, OR 97301-3614 

pete.shepherd@hauang.com 

503.371.3330 

503.371.5336 (FAX} 

VIA EMAIL: BRETTKENNilY@COOUllLETRIBE.ORG 

Brett Kenney 

Tribal Attorney 

Coquille Indian Tribe 

3050 Tremont 

North Bend OR 97459 

Re: Umpqua Eden- A Tract Included in the Discussion Draft of the Coos, lower Umpqua, 

and Siuslaw Indians' Ancestral Lands Proposal 

Dear Wayne and Brett 

Over the months since public release of the discussion draft, the Confederated Tribes of Coos, 

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians have continued our discussions with anyone having a 

question or concern, including federally-recognized Indian tribes in Oregon. 

During that process, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon noted their interest in 

ensuring access to a specific parcel within the discussion draft. The tract is approximately 36 

acres on the lower Umpqua River. It is called "Umpqua Eden." 

My client has always intended to allow continued reasonable access of federally-recognized 

tribes, and of enrolled members of other tribes, to all of the tracts in the discussion draft. We've 

imagined that Indian access for cultural, spiritual and other non-commercial purposes would be 

worked out through the informal mechanisms that we perceive generally have worked well 

between federaf!y·recognized tribes. 

The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians suggested that an inter-tribal access agreement would 

be one way of addressing that tribe's heightened concerns as to the Umpqua Eden tract. My 

client agrees with this approach as to Umpqua Eden, though, of course, our Tribal Council 

cannot give its final approval until the text of the proposed agreement is settled. 

On instructions from my client, I have tendered to the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians a 

draft of such an access agreement. A copy is enclosed. 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua1 and Siusiaw Indians 

Exhibit _5_- 3__ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
17 


Insert offset folio 224 here 95279.224

July 19, 2013 

Page2 

The draft is framed as' a three·way agreement between my client, the Confederated Tribes of 

Siletz Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community. As drafted, it 

allows for the later addition of other federally-recognized tribes. The draft expressly disclaims 

any effect on existing formal or informal understandings between tribes as to any land other 

than Umpqua Eden. The agreement could not, of course, replace or affect any requirement of 

law. For example, discoveries of human remains on the Umpqua Eden tract would still trigger all 

of the requirements of federal law applicable to such events, including notice to potentially 

interested tribes. 

Chairman Garda asked me to inform you and your respective clients of developments 

concerning the issue and its potential resolution through an intertribal access agreement. If you 

have comments, questions, or concerns about the Umpqua Eden tract or about the draft access 

agreement, please don't hesitate to call me: In addition, if your client's policy makers prefer to 

communicate directly with Chairman Garcia on the question of access to Umpqua Eden, each of 

you have my authorization to contact him directly notwithstanding the fact that I represent the 

Coos, Lower Umpqua! and Siuslaw Indians as to this issue. 

Sincerely, 

,E~;ft PDS~I 

Enclosure 

50056755,1 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit 2.__- .!:/_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
18 


Insert offset folio 225 here 95279.225

DRAFT 1.0- ReASONABLE Access AGRS§MENT 

INDIAN ACCESS/ COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW 

LAND CONVEVANCS LSG!SLATION 

1. Background, Members of the 113th Congress have publicly circulated a draft .of 

legislation that would, if Introduced as a bill and passed Into law, transfer responsibility for 

managing certain tracts of federal land from the Department ofthe Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, to be managed by the 

latter as tmst reservation lands for the benefit of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower 

Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians. 

a. Umpqua Eden. One of the tracts that would be transferred pursuant to the draft 

Is known to the Parties as "Umpqua Eden." Appendix A to this Agreement Is a map 

showing Umpqua Eden. Appendix A is incorporated by this reference Into the terms of 

this Agreement. Umpqua Eden Is located In the tidewater portion of the Umpqua River. 

b. Shared Heritage. Some of the enrolled members of each of the Parties trace their 

famtry lineage to the Indians who lived In the region in which Umpqua Eden Is located. 

c. Additional Tracts. This Agreement applies only to Umpqua Eden. Upon the 

written consent of all the then-existing parties, addltlonal tracts of land may be added as 

Appendices to this Agreement. 

2. ~ The Parties to this Agreement are the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower 

Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians of Oregon, and the 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde community of Oregon. l 

a, This Agreement Is not Intended to, and does no~ confer any legally-enforceable 

benefits or rights on any person or entity not expresslyldentlf!ed as a party •. 

b. This Agreement is not Intended to, and does no~ Impose any legally-enforceable 

duty on any person or eJ1tlty not expressly Identified as a party. 

c. The Parties hava from tlma-to-tlme cooperated to provide access to sites of 

ceremonial, sacred, or cultural significance. This Agreement is not Intended to, and does 

not repeat modify, or supplant any informal cooperative .agreement, whether written or 

· ora~ securing such access. This Agreement is not Intended to, and does not, prevent the 

Parties from Informally resolving any Issue as to any tract of land other than Umpqua 

Eden or any subsequetltly·added tracts, · 

I Nrun" '"'" «>PI•d 1\om n Oltl Notl" eutltl<d lllillnnll'lhal F.ti!Uin ll'Hhbl /lit Cc!UIBII<tll 48 S/olts ;.110gnl:td om/ Bllglb/tlo llf«IIY S.wlttt l<l'CIII 1/H U/tlltd$/ales Bwttm <1/htdlnnA,b'n~~ Fotlml Rogiottr, Vol, 17, No. IS$ 0'dday,Ali$UIIIO, 2012~ 

Conveyed by CTCWS!'slegal counsel pursttant to ORE 408 and FRE 408. If /'i) li1 

l!!J 1./U ~ lr!ls ~;;:, •. • PAGEt .. DRAFT1.0- Reasonable Access Agreamentf.lu!u A ?1\1 ~ IP II 

Subcommittee on Pubflc lands, forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw tndlans 

Exhibit Cr -£ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
19 


Insert offset folio 226 here 95279.226

d. Upon the written consent of all tho then-existing parties, additional federallyrecognized tribes may become parties to this agreement. 

3. Purpose and Clarification. 

a. ~ The purpose of this Act Is to guarantee that each of the Parties and 

every enrolled member of each of the Parties have reasonable access to Umpqua Eden, 

and to any other tract added by subsequent agreement of the Parties, for all lawful 

ceremonial, sacred, cultural, or other non-commercial purposes, notwithstanding the 

enactment of law substantially the same as the draft legislation described In paragraph 

one of this Agreement. 

b. Clarification. Nothing In this Agreement Is intended to be, or shall be, evidence 

In support or derogation of a claim of priority vls-~-vls another party, regardless of the 

forum In which the claim Is made. Nothing In this Agreement Is Intended to, or does,· 

establish or sever anyone's existing or claimed cultural, legal, or religious connection to 

Umpqua Eden or to any subsequently added tract. Decisions made or positions taken in 

the course of dispute resolution proceedings under authority of this Agreement are not 

intended to, nor may they be dted or claimed to establish or sever anyone's existing or 

alleged cultural, legal, or religious connection to Umpqua Eden or to any subsequently 

added tracl 

4. ~ All of the Parties, and every enrolled member of each of the Parties, shall have 

reasonable access to Umpqua Eden, and to any other tract added by subsequent agreement of 

the Parties, for all lawful ceremonial, sacred, cultural, or other non-commercial purposes, 

notwithstanding the enactment of law substantially the same as the draft legislation described In 

paragraph one of this Agreement. 

a. Guarantees of the Confederated Tribes 6f the eoos, lower Umpqua. and Sluslaw 

In.dlans. The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians: 

guarantee to every party: 

Upon request of the party or enrolled member of a party seeking access, 

unrestricted access by any parly1 and by the enro.lled members of ~ny party, to 

Umpqua Eden for any lawful ceremonial, sacred, cuHural, or other non: 

commercial purpose, subject only to the terms of this Agreement The 

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, tower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians shall not 

unreasonably delay action on such a request for access, nor shall It unreasonably · deny such a request. 

II. Not to engage at Umpqua Eden in any commercial logging activity or In 

any commercial haivest of any natural resource from that tract. 

""""""'cr"""''~''""""'"''~'•'M<c""'""""@ /Jj 4J (} !/: 

PAGE 2- DRAFT 1.0-Reasonable Access Agreament 1 July 4, 2013 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sfustaw Indians 

Exhibit £ . .§... To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
20 


Insert offset folio 227 here 95279.227

b. Obligation To Assist ln Ensuring Orderly Accomodatlon of Ac,ess. Each of the 

Parties pledge their mutual best effort and good faith cooperation to facilitate the 

purposes oi this agreement and the fulfillment of Its guarantee. The pledge Includes, but 

ls not limited to, confirming fur another party that an individual seeking access Is an 

enrolled member of a party and providing Information to another party about the 

activity Intended to be conducted on the tract by the Individual or tribe seeking access. 

c. Qptlonal ProtOcols To Facilitate Acalss. Upon unanimous consent, the PartieS 

may agree upon supplemental written protocols or procedures to facilitate efficient 

administration of this Agreement and efflclent execution of Its terms. The protocols or 

procedures may lndude, without limitation, procedures for the Confederated Tribes of 

the SUet~ Indians of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of 

Oregon, or their respective enrolled members to make use of Umpqua Eden or any 

subsequet\tly added tracts. lf the Parties fail to agree on such supplemental written 

protocols or procedures, the obligations Imposed by this Agreement nevertheless are 

enforceable according to their term~ 

5. ~ These sections govern how the Parties will resolve disputes arising from thfs 

Agreement or from an allegation of breach, unenforceablllty, or Inapplicability of the 

Agreement. 

a. JniQnnal. Direct ConsuUation, A party aggrieved or allegedly aggrieved by 

another's decision or behavior with respect to enforcement or faUure to comply with any 

part of this agreement shall Inform each of the other Parties of the grievance. The 

Parties shall promptly confer In good faith, If the dispute Is resolved through direct 

consultation, the resolution shall be sucdnctly and fairly summarl~ed In writing by the 

grievant. The summaw, together with any comments by any of the other Parties, shall be 

distributed to the Parties. 

b. l.llgalAl:lllm to cotnpel adherence to the terms of th~ Agreement An aggrieved 

party may seek judicial relief In the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon If the 

Parties have tried and failed to resolve the dispute by informal, direct consultation. 

<:, Limited Wa!yer of sowre!gn Immunity. Each of the Parties, In accord with the 

requirements of their respective Constitutions and laws, shall execute a Valid limited 

waiver of sovereign Immunity permitting the enforcement of this Agreement by the 

federal courts under the drcumstance described above. 

This agreement Is a nullity, conveying no rights and Imposing no burdens, 

unless each and ever; party has approved of the form and content of the limited 

waiver of sovereign Immunity offered by each of the other Parties. This 

agreement Is also a nullity, conveying no rights and Imposing no burdens as to 

any subsequently-added party, unless each and evew party has approved of the 

Conv$yed by CTCLUSl's legal counsel pursuant to ORG 408 and fRE 408./!J /jj 17/ 

PAGE3-DRAFT1.0-ReasonableAccessAgreement/)uly4,'"'~ M/ /? $> • 

Subcommittee on Public lands, forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit C - "'< To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
21 


Insert offset folio 228 here 95279.228

form and content of the limited waiver of sovereign Immunity offered by the 

subsequently-added party. 

li. Approvals shall be executed by the duly-authorized agent of each of the 

Parties In the table below: 

- Name of Party Urnlted Waiver Signature of Signature of 

Offering Limited Offered as Exhibit _ Authorlxed Agent of Authorl~ed Agent of 

Waiver to this Agreement first approving Party second approving 

Partv 

Confederated Tribes 

of the Coos, Lower Exhibit a 

Umpqua, and Siuslaw 

Indians 

Confederated Tribes ExhlbltC 

of the Siletz Indians of 

Oregon 

Confederated Tribes Exhibit D 

of the Grand Ronde 

Community of 

oregon. 

Iii. The limited waiver of sovereign Immunity required as a condition of the 

enforceability of this Agreement may forbid damages, monetary relief, or liability 

for attorney tees and costs. 

6. Relationship to Existing Law. Nothing in this Agreement Is Intended to, or does, override 

or contradict any party's obligation or right under existing federal laws governing discovery, 

disposition, or removal of human remains, archeological excavations, or removal of cultural 

objeCts. In the event of a conflict between a federal law or regulation and ihls Agreainent, the 

law or regulation shall control. 

7. Effective Pate. Dura! jon. Renewal. Amendment. 

a, Effective Date. This Agreement is effective on the date on which all of the 

following conditions have been fulfilled: · 

There has been enacted Into law legislation transferring responsibility for 

managing Umpqua Eden from the Department of the lnterlor, Bureau of land 

Management, to the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, to be 

Conveyed byCTClUSI's legal counsel pursuant to ORE 408 and FRE 408, 

PAGE 4 -DRAFT 1.0-Reasonable Access Agreement 1 July 4, 2013 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coosr lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit C -L To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
22 


Insert offset folio 229 here 95279.229

managed by the latter as trust rese!Vation lands for the benefit of the 

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, lower Umpqua, and Slusiaw Indians; .and 

ii. The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw 

Indians, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians of Oregon, and the 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community ot Oregon have all 

approved the Agreement In the manner required by their respective laws and 

Constitutions; and · 

ill. The authorized agents for all of the Parties have approved all of the 

limited waivers of sovereign immunity offered by each of the other Parties. 

b. ~ This Agreement shall be effective and ln force for 10 years from Its 

effective date, whereupon It shall expire, 

c. Renwal or Modification. The Parties may at any time, by unanimous written 

consent of the then-existing Parties, extend or renew the Agreement or modify any of Its 

terms. 

8. Signatures. Aflirma[Qn of Authority to Execute this Agreement. 

Conveyed by crCLVSl's legal counsel pursuant to ORE 408 and FRE 408, /!J /jJ /j! . 

PAGE S ~ DRAFT 1.0 -Reasonable Access Agreement /)uly 4, 2013 · l1J /J? 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit L- '1 To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
23 


Insert offset folio 230 here 95279.230

Appendix A: 

Appendix B: 

AppendlxC: 

Appendixo: 

TABLE Of APPENDICES 

[N.B. For purposes of this draft, the Appendices have been omitted) 

Map describing Umpqua Eden 

limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity~ Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower 

Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity - Confederated Tribes of the Sl!ett 

Indians of Oregon 

Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity- Confederated Tribes of the Grand 

Ronde Community of Oregon 

Conveyed by CICLUSl's legal counsel pursuant to 01\E 408 and ~R~ 40it 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress}- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of coos, Lower umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit C -J..t:: To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
24 


Insert offset folio 231 here 95279.231

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians P.O. Box 549 Siletz, Orogon 97390 

(541) ~44-2532 • 1-800-922-1399 • fAX: (541) 444-2307 

Chainnan Ron Bl'ainard 

C-onfederated Tribes ofCoos, 

Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indinns 

Tribal Government Offices 

1245 Fnlton Avanue 

Coos Bay, OR 97420 

Dear Ron: 

November 1, 2001 

f.am wrltiug in respome to your letter of August 7, 20(ll, regarding the July 23, 

2001 mooting betwooa !be Tribal Councils of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of 

Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians. 

It was because your letter does not reflect the understanding we reached at that 

meeting and we were ti:ylng to r<'spond in a positive way !bst serves our mutual interests 

that it has taken this long to respond. 

Let me restate the commitments the Siletz Tribe was prepared to malt~ at the July 

23ro meeting regarding the Coos Tribe's efforts to obtain lrallsfer to the Mapleton Ranger 

· Station and to amend tho Coos Restoration Act to provide for a larger reservation than !he 

reservation created by the Act 

The Mapleton Ranger Station is located within the boundaries of the original 

Siletz or Coast Reservation established in 1855. As the successor in interest to the tribes 

located. by !be federal government on that reservation, and .as the recognized tribe with 

authority O'\ler the Siletz or Coast Reservation and with a legal iuterest in the Siletz or 

Coast Reservation area, tile Siletz tribe must be consulted with and give its consent to tho 

Coos '/?ribe'~ effurts to obtain !be Mapleton Rnnger Station. 

· .. The Silet<: TriPe recognizes that !he Ranger Station is located within the 

abotigitialama 6fthe Siuslaw Indians somo of whom ate members of the Confederated 

Tribes of Siletz Indian of Oregon, and others who are members of!he Confederated 

Tribes ofCo'os, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw IndianR. 

Subcommittee on Public lands, forests and Mining 

Hrg ens. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sfus!aw Indians 

Exhibit £ ~ lL To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
25 


Insert offset folio 232 here 95279.232

The Siletz Tribe has no plans currently, for use of the Ranger Station and is agreeable 

with the Coos Tribe obtaining the property for governmental use. 

The Siletz Tribe's consent would of conrse, be contingent on the agreement that 

the Coos Tribe would not interfere wlth Siletz tribal members' gathering activities within 

the Ranger Station lands, · . · · 

The Siletz Tribe is also supportive of the Coos Tribe's efforts to add lands to the 

. existing Coos Reservation to the extent the Coos Tribe seeks lands which are located 

. outside of the original Siletz or Coast Reservation. 

The Siletz Tribe retains a sovereign iitterest in all lands located within the 

boundaries oftb.e original Siletz or Coast Reservation, and has a priority in adding lmy 

lands within this geographic area to the Siletz Reservation. The Siletz Tribe does not 

support the efforts of the Coos Tribe to obtainreservation lands that are ·looated within 

the original or Coast Reservtion. 'J:hls is the position the Siletz Tribe adopted in passing a 

resolution in 2000 supporting the Coos Tribe's efforts to expand their reservation, which 

we forwarded to you under cover le!ler. It remains the Siletz Tribe's pasition. 

The Mapleton Ranger District is located within the bou.ndaries of the original 

Siletz Reservation as well as within U1e aboriginal homeland of the Siuslawpeople. Case 

law affimm federal responsibility for recognized title· that land confirmed to a tribe or 

confederation oftribes by treaty and/or execntive order. In the 1855 Coast Treaty, tile 

Siuslaw Indians agreed to confederate with other eoasta[ tribes and other tribes and bands 

thereafter located on the Coast or Siletz Reservation. · 

A substantial part of the aboriginal territory of the Sluslaw fndiruis was included 

within the Siletz Reservation, and the Sluslaw Indians were a signatory to the Coast 

treaty. Those tribes and bands confederated on the Siletz Reservation under that treaty 

and other tribes subsequently located on the Siletz Reservation were dealt with as one 

tribal entity by the United States government. There is extensive documentation showing 

that the AJsea sub-agency and Slletz Agency were administrated jointly just as there is 

documentation which shows some separate dealings with the Agency and sub-Agency. 

There is little indication that the Umpqua sub-Agency or _AJsea sub-Agency had much to 

do with the Siuslaw fndians at all. The Coos and Lower Umpqua Indians were removed 

from their homelands to the Siletz or Coast Reservation. 

Nothing in the 1875 legislation diminishing the Siletz Reservation required the 

consent ofthe Coos, Lower Umpqua or Siuslaw tribes. The legislation provided 

expressly forthe consent of"the Indians" located on the present reservation to bo 

obtained. No mention of tribes is made anywhere in this legislation. Individuals from 

the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw bands or tribes moved to the remaining Siletz 

Reservation after passage ofthe 1875legislation; this movement occurred over time and 

some of the Indians did not move onto the remaining reservation tmtil forced from their 

prior homes. Some individuals from the Coos and·Lower Umpqua tribes or bands moved 

over time back to the Coos Bay.area. The "tribes," however, which had previously been 

Subcommfttee on Public-lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Cog_s. tower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

. Exhibit ~ -1.£ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
26 


Insert offset folio 233 here 95279.233

confederated on the Siletz Reservation, did not fonna!ly move anywhere else, and there is 

no docrunentation of a formal tribal movement from the southern part of tho Siletz 

Reservation to any other location. 

The 'situation of these tribes and bands is similar to that :fOund by the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals in United S/4tes v. Oregon, 29 F.3d 481 (91h Cir. 1994), addressing the 

legal status of the bands and tribes of Indians that signed the Yakarna Treaty of1855. 

Jtu1t as In that case, the Coast Treaty and the establislnnent of tho Coast or Siletz 

Reservation by Executive Order in !855 established a tribal entity that represented the · 

tribes ru1d bands confederated on the Reservation and with which the United States would 

thereafter deal.. · 

Individuals from the original Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw bands and tribes 

received allotments ou the Siletz Reservation or received other types of allotments while 

maintaining their membership in the Confederated Siletz Tribes. References to Court of 

Claims judgments is lrrelevllllt because those oases involved aboriginal tltl\', and no 

compensation Wl!l! paid for diminishment of the original Siletz Reservation. Individual 

Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians who were members of the Confederated Siletz 

Tribes did receive compensation froit1 disposal of the remaining Siletz Reservation. 

It is an historical fact that the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians were 

located on the Siletz Reservation and that members of those lribes and bands became 

integrated with the Confederated Siletz 'J'ribes, 

The Siletz Tribe has conducted years of research on the Siletz Tribe's history and 

its findings have been reviewed and validated by eminently qualified experts in the field. 

We are confident of the conclusions we have reached on the issue of the modem day 

Siletz Tribe's legal interest in. the original Si.letz or Coast Reservation are prepared to 

advocate and defend that interest in an a ro riate forum. 

summary, e 1 e e y suppo s e e orts of the Coos Tribe to obtain· 

additional reservation lands that are located outside the boundaries of the orignal Siletz or 

Coast Reservation. However, the Siletz Tribe is willing and prepared to negotiate 

conditions and terms for the transfer of the Mapleton Ranger Station which lies within the 

bo\llldaries of the Siletz or Coast reservation, for the use of tile Coos Tribe. The Siletz 

Tribe's position is based on its legal, sovereign and equitable claim to lands within the 

ori ' al Siletz or Coast Reservation. 

I hope this letteris suflioienl for your purposes; it docs accurately state the 

position of the Siletz Tribe, 

Sincerely, 

~L Delores 

. 

Pigs loy ~ 

Tribal Chainnan 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 {114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit i:_- § To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
27 


Insert offset folio 234 here 95279.234

HARRANG LONG 

GARY RUDNICK P.c. 

ATTORN£YS AT LAW 

March 20, 2013 

VIA EMAIL ONLY! LIANl-REEVES@STATE.OR.US. 

Liani Reeves 

Office of the Governor 

160 State Capitol 

900 Court Street NE 

Salem OR 97301 

Re: Discussion Draft of Oregon Coastal Land Conveyance Act 

Dear Uani, 

PETER D. SHEPHERD 

Admitted in Oregan 

333 High Street NE, Suite 200 

Salem, OR 97301-3614 

pete.shepherd@harrang.corn 

503.371.3330 

503.371.5336 (FAX) 

A discussion draft of a bill directing the transfer into trust as reservation land of certain forested 

tracts in Lane, Douglas, and Coos Counties recently has been released. The website of the 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, http:Uctclusj.org. contains linl<s 

to the discussion draft, maps and materials prepared by the Tribe about the draft. 

lf the land became part of the reservation of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 

Siuslaw Indians, fish and wildlife would pay no heed. They would move as seamlessly as before 

from the Tribe's jurisdiction to the State's jurisdiction, and back. Waters would run from adjoining 

tracts into the federal lands designated as reservation lands, and from the Tribe's reservation into 

the lower parts of the watersheds, in the same courses a·nd channels as if Congress had never 

acted. Biology and hydrology would compel a collaborative approach even if the government-togovernment mandate of state law did not 

We respectfully r.equest the opportunity promptly-- that is, during the current period of public 

review of the discussion draft -- to begin discussions with appropriate state officials lor the 

purpose of identifYing the best science-based framework for management of the fish, wildlif!l, ~nd 

water resources related to the reservation la.nds. Fisl)ing, hunting, and other recreational uses of 

the lands would be the primary initial focus of the discussions. 

The principles we think could emerge from this collaboration are independent of the source of the 

legal authority by which they might be implement;ld, For example, we imagine the creation of 

principles that tr.e Tribe itself might enact pursuant to Its plenary authority to regulate hunting, 

fishing, and recreation on its reseNation lands. - · 

Subcommfttee on Pubffc lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress}- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of C~~7 tower Umpqua, and Sfuslaw Indians 

Exhibit C · J.:t To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
28 


Insert offset folio 235 here 95279.235

March 20, 2013 

Page 2 

In the discussions we envision, the Tribe's representatives will scrupulously adhere to the limitations 

placed on them by Articles rrl and VI, Section 3 (a) (2)2 of the Tribal Constitution. Much as the 

Governor and executive ,branch agencies .lack the power to commit the State legislature to the 

passage of proposed laws, so do the Tribe's representatives lack the power to commit the Tribe to 

any constriction on hunting, fishing, or gathering rights possessed or claimed by the Tribe. 

We do not imagine that the collaborative approach would end upon introduction and passage of a 

bill derived from the discussion draft. Use of the lands would be governed, after the proposal 

becomes law, by the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (NlfRMA). NIFRMA 

requires the federal government to create and adopt a detailed forest management plan. That plan 

must, in turn, include an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) satisfying the requirements of the 

National Environmental Protection Act Many aspects of the regulation of the land's natural 

resources will be dependent on, .and incorporated into, the EIS imd the NIFRMA plan. And, as 

noted above, the effect on the Tribe of potential regulatory structures might be dependent upon 

approve by the process specified in the Tribal Constitution. It nevertheless is possible, even at this 

early stage, and in full compliance with the Tribal Constitution, to begin identifying issues and 

considering general principles of scientific management of the lands. 

Governor Kitzhaber's commitment to the government-to-government process is deeply 

appreciated by the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians. We hope 

this invitation will be warmly received by the State of Oregon. 

'TJ;, o M 

for ''"' the '· Confederated """""' Yf Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua 

and Siuslaw Indians 

PDSjl 

cc: Chairman Bob Garda 

Thomas Tuchrnann 

Roy Elicker 

Richard M. Whitman SOOS4164.1 

1 Article IT states that ~No tribal dec1sion affecting [the exercise- of hunting1 fishing, or gathering rights of members) shall 

be made except by a full vote of the tribal membership." 

2 Article Vl. Section 3(a) (2) states that "dlmlnlshmen~ negotiation, or settlement of any hunting, fishing, or gathering 

rights possessed or claimed by the Confederated Tribes. including the settlemeht of any land claims invoMng the tribe's 

aboriginal lands" cannot occur except on "approval of three .. fourths (? 

thirty-five (3$).percent of the membership of' ali tribal members parti Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 {114th Congress}- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians 

Exhibit _f_ w ! $"'To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
29 


Insert offset folio 236 here 95279.236

ASSOCIATION OF 0 & C COUNTIES 

COW. 0000 ®MIIYGOO. PliES 00\N'"W COONlY IX)Vl\T"/'~0\,~U 

lo.MMOOl.!I:;I.ASAVVIUE 

J\OSESLI.'IG.~IO~m 

Ul!tH04NI 

COIJ;\<. TOtlYilmli. ~e·l'i'I~SCOl.UI.al.COI.«TYCOiffilliOIJl!i 

Wl&TRA.'llSTflilrr 

ar. H..~S'1UI~U!:li0Rl!1051 

{SOl};\OI.mt PRESS RElEASE 

March 20, zou 

IUXXfJJI:NAV.EXfe.OIIIIbWt1WV.lOlsot.rrn...Sil!ll':J. i!RC:o:l>a!IUS..¢!Wl~tuiS 

l~llnN(;.1,1 

F,I.X(S())Ut.mi 

~.....t-~~IO«'tt>:n 

XI!Vr!iO.DAYIS,tmAl.COONSB. 

W!tf!.lllell!JW'OOAI:W«MJ,1), 'OHE$,W.-!iOI..WDlA. 

POnf\.IINO,Q~91tt7e$1 

fro1}51N«l5 

OIMU$-~lWtS..rounsa 

!101K.\\'.ftr11Avartfll.,$f.llli:OO 

I>Onn.;..-.:Q.OfU!OO..'lr.= CiOOf~?@l 

FOtlOW UPTO INFORMATION RECEIVED YESTERDAY FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF O&C COUNTIES 

Contact: Commissioner Doug Robertson 

President, Association of O&C Counties 

(541)440·4201 

After recognizing the .concerl\5 brought forth by the Association of O&C Counties regarding 

the reduction of the O&C Ia no base, ·senator Wyden, as evidenced by his statemen~ has committed 

to a no net loss policy to protect the O&C land base. 

Using the language from the September 30, 1996 Coquille Forest Act, transferring O&C 

lands to the Coquille lndlan Tribe, can serve as an eff-ective model that addreSses the Interests of all 

parties. 

STATEMENT FROM SENATOR RON WYDEN: 1

'The triballanQ eonv~yan-c~ proposals for the. Coos and Cow Creek tr.lbe.s are discussion 

drafts1 so thts is ex~ctly th~ right time for Commissioner Robertson and others to offer suggestions 

to improve the actual legislation, One of things that addresses CommisSioner Robertson1

s concerns 

Is that-there will be no net loss of O&C lands. The no net Joss Issue is not addressed In the discussion 

draft, but ive have made it clear that It will be Included In the final draft, ln other .words, the total 

acres of O&C lands will remain the same under any·triba! lartd conveyance legislation." 

"I would like to personally thank Senator Ron Wyden for recognizing tlie sensitive nature of 

and need to preserve the Integrity of the O&C land base by committing to a no net loss provision In 

any future land transfer to the Cow Creek Band o( Umpqua Indians and the Confederated Tribes of 

the Coos, lower Umpqua and Slusiaw Indians. In addition, I would like to thank the tribes and their 

consultants for helping to shape a posklve plan which will allow all parties to move-forward. 

The Association of O&C Counties look forward to working with Senator Wyden on 

a permanent solution to the management Issues surrounding the O&C lands that lndudes the legal; 

historical, and congressional mandates associated wlth this uniqUe category of federal lands.~~: · 

-, 

'/ 

1.-lkl..-/ ,.. 

Coo1mi 19~.er Obug · obertson 

President, A!iSodatlon of O&C Counties 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit .f_-..!..9. To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
30 


Insert offset folio 237 here 95279.237

April19, 2013 

VIA FAX: 202·208·6334 

Kevin Washburn 

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF 

COOS, LOWER UMPQUA AND SlUSLA W INDIANS 

TRIBAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES 

1245 Fulton Ave. • Coos Bay, OR 97420 • (541)888-9577 • 1-888-280-0726 

General Office Fax: (541) 888-2853 • Administration Fax: (541) 888-0302 

VIA FAX: 202-208-5242 

Neil Kornze 

United States Department of the Interior 

Assistant Secretary lor Indian Affairs 

MS-4141-MIB 

Principle Deputy Director 

BLM Washington Office 

1849 C Street NW, Rm. 5665 

Washington DC 20240 

Phone: 202-208-3801 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Re: Request for Meeting Week of April 29, 2013 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians 

Dear Assistant Secretary Washburn and Principle Deputy Director Kornze: 

I am Chairman of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians. One of 

our attorneys, Pete Shepherd, and I will be in Washington D.C. during the week of April 29, 2013. 

I respectfully request xhe privilege of a meeting with the appropriate personnel from each of the 

parts of the Department of Interior for which you have responsibility. Next week, Pete will follow 

up on this request with your offices. 

We wish to discuss two issues. Our primary purpose is to provide you with information about 

our proposal to restore to the Tribe control over a small part of the Tribe's ancestral territory. 

We write both of you because the restoration would be accomplished by shifting into trust 

status lands currently within the responsibility of the Bureau of Land Management. 

Secondarily, we wish briefly to inform you of the efforts we have made to resolve our ongoing 

dispute with a neighboring tribe, the Confederated Tribe of Siletz Indians, about legislation 

pending in the Senate and the House. 

In 1855, my ancestors executed a treaty with the United States. The treaty was never ratified. 

The people of the Coos and Lower Umpqua nevertheless were forcibly removed from their 

ancestral homeland to lands reserved ·by Executive Order, The Siuslaw remained in place, as 

their ancestral territory was within the area set aside by Executive Order and known as the 

"Coast Reservation.' By successive Congressional action, the reserved region was whittled away 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos. tower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit .c._- I?- To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
31 


Insert offset folio 238 here 95279.238

Page 2 

April19, 2013 

and, eventually, entirely eradicated. Over the years, my people returned to their homes, only to 

find them occupied by new owners. In the eyes of the United States, we were squatters on our 

own homeland. 

Together with other Oregon tribes, Congress "terminated" my Tribe In 1955. In a series of Acts 

in the i970s and 1980s, Congress reversed the termination Acts. The 1984 Act applicable to my 

Tribe was bittersweet: Unlike all the other restored tribes In Western Oregon, Congress denied 

us any form of compensation for the taking of our ancestral lands. This injustice remains 

unrequited. 

Lately, United States Senators Merkley and Wyden have circulated a discussion draft of 

legislation that would ameliorate the injustice worked upon my Tribe by history. If the draft 

becomes law, three forested tracts in Western Oregon currently managed by the BLM would be 

managed as reservation trust lands by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. More information about the 

proposal is available on our website: www.ctclusi.org. The text of the discussion draft is 

available through the website. 

Meanwhile, Representatives DeFazio, Schrader, and Walden have circulated a discussion draft of 

legislation that could affect our ancestral lands in a different way. Parts of our ancestral territory 

have become known in modern times as the 0 & C reverted lands. 

On Aprilll, 2013, the House Committee on Natural Resources, subcommittee on Public Lands, 

conducted a hearing about management of federal forest lands, including 0 & C lands. A fair or 

comprehensive revision to the management of 0 & C lands cannot be accomplished without 

taking account of my Tribe's interest in recovering control over a part of our ancestral lands. 

During that hearing, I was gratified to hear Rep. DeFazio ask witnesses representing Oregon 

Governor John Kitzhaber and an association of Oregon counties benefiting from the 0 & c. lands to state their view of the possibility of folding the content of Senator Merkley and Senator 

Wyden's discussion draft into Rep. DeFazio's possible legislation reforming the management of 

0 &Ciands. 

Given that the Senate and House discussion drafts described above have not yet been 

introduced as bills, we understand that the Department of the Interior could not state a position. 

We do wish, however, to establish contact with the official or officials within your respect areas 

of responsibility who may, when the drafts mature into bills, be involved in helping to formulate 

the Department's position. We understand that the members of Oregon's Congressional 

Deiegation are engaged in active consultation about the House and Senate discussion drafts, 

and that our proposal for restoration of a part of our ancestral lands is a part of that 

consultation. 

Secondarily, l wish briefly to address the unrelated conflict between my Tribe and the Siletz. In 

the 113th. Congress, this dispute centers on S. 402 and H.R. 931. Answers provided by the· 

Bureau of Indian Affairs to questions posed by the Honorable Don Young during the 112th 

Subcommittee on Public lands~ Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (ll4th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit ..£.. · !1?._ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
32 


Insert offset folio 239 here 95279.239

Page 3 

April 19, 2013 

Congress have, unfortunately, been misused by the Siletz in an attempt to persuade Congress to 

functionally codify aspects of the historical injustic"e done my Tribe. We have a very different 

perspective on the dispute than the Siletz have expressed. We nevertheless have gone to great 

lengths to try to resolve the dispute. We look forward to discussing this with you. 

Sincerely, 

K~~~ Robert Garcia 

Tribal Council Chairman 

RG/jl 

Subcommittee on Public: lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coo){ lower Umpqua, and Siusfaw Indians 

Exhibit C -l:J To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
33 


Insert offset folio 240 here 95279.240

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF 

COOS, LOWER UMPQUA AND SIUSLA W INDIANS 

TRIBAL GOVERNMENT O~ICES 

1245 Fulton Ave. • Coos Bay, OR 97420 • (541)888-9577 • 1-888-280-0726 

General Office Fax: (54!) 888-2853• Administration Fax: (541) 888-0302 

May6, 2013 

VIA FAX! (202) 208-5320 

AND EMAIL: kevin.washJ;mrn@bia.gov 

Kevin Washburn 

United States Department of the Interior 

Assistant Secretaty for Indian Affairs 

MS-4141-MIB 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington D.C. 20240 

*** SCHEDUUNG REQUEST ••• 

COPY VIA EMAIL TO: 

Uberty Metcalf (liberty metcalf@bia goy) 

Btyan Rice {bryan dce@bja.gov) 

Sequoyah Simermeyer 

(sequoyah.sjmermeyer@bia gQY) 

VIA FAX: (202) 208-5242 

AND EMAIL: nkorilze@blm.ggl( 

Neil Kornze 

Principle Deputy Director 

BLM Washington Office 

1849 C Street NW, Room 5665 

Washington D.C. 20240 

*** SCHEDUUNG REQUEST ••• 

COPY VIA EMAIL To: 

Noreen Battle {nbattle@blm gov) 

Jerty Cordova {jeny cordoya@blm.gov) 

Lynda Boody Clboocly@blm.govl 

Re: Request for Meeting on June 11, 12, or 13, 2013 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians 

Dear Assistant Secreta!)' Washburn and Principle Deputy Director Kornze: 

I am Chairman of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, ·Lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians. A 

delegation from our Tribal Council and one of our attorneys, Pete Shepherd, will accompany me 

to Washington D.C. during the week of June 10, 2013, I respectfully request the privilege of a 

meeting with each of you. Our delegation would be pleased to meet with you jointly or 

separately. · 

I appreciate the time Mr. Kornze made available to us on May 2, 2013. I understand that 

Mr. Washburn's schedule did not permit him to meet with us, but I nevertheless appreciate 

Mr. Washburn and Mr. Simermeyer's facilitation of our meeting with appropriate staff. We 

found the meetings informative. We hope you and your respective staff also found them useful, 

Subcommittee on Pubik lands, Forests and Mining 

f!rg on s. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit L_- 2g_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
34 


Insert offset folio 241 here 95279.241

Page 2 

May6, 2013 

During our visit on May 2, 2013, Mr. Shepherd and I discussed a discussion draft promulgated 

by United States Senators Merkley and Wyden. The draft would ameliorate the injustice by 

which my tribe remains the only federally-recognized tribe in Western Oregon never to have 

received money or significant lands in exchange for the taking of ()Uf ancestral lands. [f the draft 

becomes law, three forested tracts in Western Oregon currently managed by the BLM would be 

managed as reservation trust lands by the Buieau of Indian Affairs. I refer you to my letter of 

Aprii'19, 2013, and to the tribe's website, www ctclusj org, for more information. As we indicated 

during our discussions, we hope that the weeks between now and the time of our next visit to 

Washington, D.C. will see significant forward progress on our ancestral lands proposal. 

Mr. Shepherd's legal assistant is Jane Leonhardt. She is coordinating our schedule during the 

upcoming visit. Please contact her directly to make these arrangements. She may be reached at 

503-371-3330 or by e-mail atjane.leonhardt@harrang.com. 

Sincerely1 • 

Robert Garcia 

Tribal Council Chairman 

RG/jl 

Subcommittee on Public Lands/ Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 {114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos1 lower Umpqua/ and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit £. :k.!_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
35 


Insert offset folio 242 here 95279.242

Survey Workload Background 

Section 2 of S. 814 (!14th Congress) and the conesponding section ofH.R. 1438 (!14th) require the 

Secretary of the Interior to complete a survey of boundary lines of the lands to be taken into trust for the 

benefit of the Tribe. The bills allow a full year for fulfilhnent of this requirement. 

The Tribe interprets both bills to permit the Secretary to invoke the flexible joint BLM/BIA standards for 

sufficiency of boundary detcnninations. The Standards establish a flexible system that pe1mits the 

Secretary to minimize survey expense while at the same time marshaling sufficient boundary evidence --

including preexisting evidence in the form of already-completed surveys. 

The Tribe commissioned a preliminary study of the extent to which surveys already provide evidence of 

boundaries of the lands to be transferred-into trust. Many oftbe boundaries already have been 

documented iu surveys. 

STANDARDS FOR INDIAN TRUST LANDS BOUNDARY EVIDENCE HANDBOOK 

Office of Trust Services 

In collaboration with the.Bureau of Land Management and the Office of the Special Ttustee for American 

Indians (An Insert for the Indian A !fairs Manual at: 52IAM2-H) 

Division of Real Estate Services MS-4644 MIB 

Bureau ofindian Affairs 

05/08/2012 

The Standards are available on-line at: http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xraca/documentsltext/idc018418.pdf(Last Viewed October 27, 2013). 

Tribe's Contact: Pete Shepherd 503-871-3787 

S0060200<v6 

s 00602005 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress}- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, tower Umpqua, and Sluslaw lndlans 

Exhibit {;_ ~ 2'2- To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
36 


Insert offset folio 243 here 95279.243

Brief History and Current Status of Umpqua Eden 

Umpqua Eden ("Takimiya") is a small isolated ELM-managed tract on the south shore of the 

Umpqua River approximately half-way between the town ofReedspmt and the river's mouth. 

Archaeological evidence from the site establishes that it has been inhabited by the Lower Umpqua 

Tribe for at least 3,000 years. Ethnographic evidence also establishes the cultural and historical 

impmtance ofthe site to the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians. The Tribe's website 

describes the site and its significance to the Tribe in more detail. ]1JtQ;f/ctclusi.org. Archeological 

and ethnographic detail about the site is summarized in Chapter 4 of C. Melvin Aikens' Archeology 

of Oregon (1993), available on-line at the BLM's website. 

www.blm.gov/or/resources/heritage/files/AAO-chapter4.pdf. (Last viewed 11/12/2013). 

In 1993, the Archaeological Conservancy, with the support of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, 

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, obtained an option to purchase Umpqua Eden from its private 

landowners. Preservation and protection of the Tribe's spiritual, cultural, and historical connections 

to the tract featured prominently in the Conservancy's enthusiasm for the transaction. See, The 

Archeological Conservancy Newsletter (Fall, 1993). 

W\YW .archaeologicalconservancy .org/T A C%20Newsletters/Newsletters 1993 .pdf (Last viewed 

ll/12/20 13 ). 

The United States acquired its title fi"om the Archeological Conservancy on August 31, 1994. 

Warranty Deed 94-19416, Recorded in Douglas County Deeds and Records at Book 1315, page 353-

354. The deed states that "[Archeological Conservancy] covenants and warrants to the United 

States and its assigns that*** [the property] is free and clear ofliens,.claims or encumbrances, 

except as shown above * * *." Italicized emphasis in original; bold-face emphasis added. The only 

claims or encumbrances identified run in favor of public and governmental interests in the part of the 

tract below the ordinary high water mark, certain interests in favor of the Port of Umpqua, certain 

previously-recorded mineral rights, and easements held by a private timber company. A copy of the 

deed accompanies this analysis. 

The United States, rather than its administrative subdivisions, holds title to Umpqua Eden. S. 814 

and H.R. 1438 direct transfer of management responsibility. Neither bill alienates title. 

Umpqua Eden is an historic property listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Although all 

of Umpqua Eden as described iu both bills is significant to the Tribe, the National Register listing 

includes only six acres. The nomination was placed at the same time the site's fanner prior private 

owners were consnmmating their transaction with the Archeological Conservancy. The Oregon State 

Advisory Col1Uilittee on Historic Preservation did not review the nomination until after the site had 

been acquired by the United States. The Archeological Conservancy, the Tribe, and the BLM, among 

others, supported the nomination. The State Advisory Committee and State Historic Preservation 

Office concurred in the nomination. See Comments of the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, 

Umpqua/Eden Site (Takimiya) 35 DO 83. The United States has listed the site in its list of historic 

sites since January 11, 1996. 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress}- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Slus!aw Indians 

Exhibit .f._~~ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
37 


Insert offset folio 244 here 95279.244

The Tribal Historic Preservation OfJ,ice is part of the National Park Service. Before undertaking any 

change in the use or management of Umpqua Eden which could affect the six-acre historic property, 

the United States, acting through the Bureau of Indian Affairs as Trustee for and in consultation with 

the Tribes, would be obliged to consult with the Tribal Historic Preservation Office and any other 

affected federal agencies or patties involved in the proposed undertaking as described in Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act. See, http://www.achp.gov/106summary.html (Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation's summary of the Section 106 process)(Last viewed 11/12/13). 

The Tribe presumes that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation would pmticipate in such 

consultations as needed. While the management of Umpqua Eden will ultimately be determined 

through a resource management planning process subject to the requirements of the currently 

proposed legislation, NEPA, and other applicable Federal laws, the Tribe envisions tbe retentjon of 

Umpqua Eden in its natural state given the Tribe's determination that recreational, cultural, aesthetic, 

and traditional values of Umpqua Eden arc the tract's highest and best use. 

For more information, please contact: 

Pete Shepherd 

Of Counsel for the Tribe 

Pctc.ShgJ]lerd@!Hl1TJ!!lK£CL!ll 

S006020l.v5 

s 0060201.4 

Subcommlttee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit £ ~ 14 To statement of Chairman fngerso!l 
38 


Insert offset folio 245 here 95279.245

o.L.I!. 

UNJ;'l1:J)STATES , 

· niD'AlUM&NfOJ'TimJrl':l'gi!IOR 

DURtAtl Oft..\$ MAit\GEMFJC' 

WA'lUW'i'JY-DDD 

' 011..49649 

' h00!1315 f)({353 

0\ ~or~ttu:;:~~\MUlblti«l.t<'t10,00000,ru=:[Jtt~r~att~~Thf \\'\Al'cll~nl • ~OW!tG:,~tr= 

\;\:=~~ I ~or~oltlded e.CQ~Wyof~&~Ju.Sweof~la~ll :F~~; 

~ =~~=::=~=2l~=w~~==~~ "'-

~=~=.:=~~~t;fu.i::~~=:!.t9S. 

~111Aul,.S,ln:li.MNttbmS4;ofi61J:»>ijfiot~fMdehlm'N~.llla~:n,~:n~· l'W!t=ll\Vtli.WI:II~~~l>llll.&f~C~,(Ir.l,p. 

txm'11NG~tl!:t~t:OIW~lo~1'4plf~by~r«Qnn"Mll!ly9)J90, 

ltt.~:J.lJ,'I'~t.ll<l61,tttdlu:uol!1,lmillaoaklS2:,l'~$$'-OS,~~~O:t6a~,Ottp... 

, ~l!l(DtxesmNQbth.tt•'boW.a!9'.i'(l'thm:w~~~Wt.Mt~tn ~!~ ~l!ll!«.k996,1>~~lS,~ND.&7•!~ll,t=nlt~;\uC~.~&imMdtooh lllibotAtLd~ta!.~1l.li1$.10ll!Jcd.•~.atol!lllt:Cil*$/r.'ittbpro~191'1b=5111&~11domd 

Ctw.~~CIItl.;:~lll\dD:I~. 

ALSO Ui'SS .ANI) BXCEPUNG m !hi~~~-~ rl~ JU ~kJJoo*,1l6, htt 1, 

'ElcomW.._Na..Jl09ll.~<d'~II:'Cm!ity,Onlg<)C. .. 

l.'lNp~of~tolli'l!khlhe;t\mb-&talpdrm:JWiil'$~l2.1.U~~;t~:Slllmllf}$, 

Satlf,~lt~hl; 

t.~g!Uof!b:puN!e.l!!li~~lll.dtaui$~6£'jhl;~\ll::':ll:n'bf.d~lrft!£ ~61i~~'mll:fulk~~Rite:t.~~~Jipl!....tdd!ml)'ki:U.l:mo.d 

l>y!bc.Sulc.,r~.P'~:s,WJ"'*t~ 

i,~o!sfFotYB'j~~~~llaolotltllllll'li.PfC\hbr;:~llllit.'llfliihohtof U111p~a.;~l!lV~JOI.hp.2tS,i!!!4~~'qyV¢d~to;~tkl~ 5U;I!:II¢fA=kJ.p~i:n~·l0\,l'Gp3-1t,DttditttorlltD(~~t~' 

1.~d~.!ii~~l!Jb!r.~~pwv~~~m'fint~l!JM;rl0m;ol; 'f'aW,~a~jQV~llE,_~lW.lltm2.~~~C!atm!)',~ 

No. 1622 

.m~11twR\Ili'Q~tol. 

)!etrli\J.QI!oi<!pllhY 

Rot~~bu:t'Ot 1 ot. n~n 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrgon 5, 814 (1l4th Congress)_ MayZl 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw l~dlans Exhibit ..k. * l.I To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
39 


Insert offset folio 246 here 95279.246

I 

i· 

·I 

I 

i 

!· 

i 

1-

·.i 

I I ·-! 

'wod3i5 tm354 <1. A~O~I~I!I.'E~A~-vMI:l!'~lwk,do)!i.dMW5,1!<;Dnol ~MBccl:\Gg3,Pa;p:)79,1\@ldrn!Nll,~~'l774,-Dtllltl~e-t1t~ 

TOW..VEMfC;tOfiOLDtJZMl.beUNtTIDSii.TESOFAM'ElUCA1.lldiuUl~~ 

~w<.~M4l'l'~«'lklll\.llr&Slz!\l:ll\'oCAmt:tf:liMI!.t!.d!Flhlr,~Jir'ulh:011Tfa6m,M 

l~ltw.Mly~!dled!JNi~lt'!of!bc~\~~llad~WfaUJi~p¢W~~Il'lo ~tbk~tMUmwJ&rcnlp~q~cdrkttt:cwldettllrlimt.~«eoo.rn~u:.w;l.u 

~~,dlbai.GOOottoill.&bi"h<IW~tDthn«Di~~~~lldlho~~~Mt; 

~~tllo::llwM.u~lll::d.C=t~11¥.U~ 

'! 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21 20lS 

Confederated Tribes ~f Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw !~dians Exhibit .k_ « 1&. To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
40 


Insert offset folio 247 here 95279.247

D. 

Representative Statements 

About Substantively 

Equivalent Antecedents to 

S. 814 I H.R. 1438. 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos~ lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Jndians 

Exhibit JL- _l_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
41 


Insert offset folio 248 here 95279.248

jot IN A Krrzt 11\ilcR MD 

GoveRNOR 

Statement of Governor John Kltzhaber 

State of Oregon 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Public lands and Environmental Regulation 

Committee on Natural Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Aprtl :1.1, zo13 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Governor John Kitzhaber and I am pleased to 

provide my perspective on issues related to the Oregon and California (O&C) lands in Oregon. 

I would like to thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee for taking the time to 

address this Important and unique Issue In my state. I would also like to recognize Congressman Peter 

DeFazio, Congressman Greg Walden and Congressman Kurt Schrader for their strong leadership on this 

very difficult issue. Oregonians, Indeed all Americans, have strong and diverse views regarding how 

public forests should be managed. It takes real courage to step up and propose the changes that are 

reflected in the O&C Trust, ConseTYatlon and Jobs Act Thank you for your leadership and please know It 

is appreciated back home. 

Mr. Chairman, I hold very strong conservation values. I believe that our public lands can and should be 

managed to provide a diversity of forest types, Including ecosystems ranging from early to late 

successional stages and preserving old growth. Our forests should provide clean water for domestic 

uses and for aquatic ecosystems to flourish. Our forests should be managed so that Americans have 

places to recreate and come to appreciate the tremendous natural values of our forests, grasslands and 

waterWays. Yet, I also believe a portion ofthese pu bile lands can simultaneously provide some 

sustainable level oftimber to support local and regional economies. 

Some say these are mutually Incompatible goals, but given our large, resource rich public lands system, 

I respectfully disagree. We are currently at a place regarding Oregon's O&C lands where the pendulum 

has swung from harvest levels in the 1g8os that largely did not sustain a wide array of conservation 

attributes to current practice that only forecasts a 15 to 25 year window of thinning sales. Timber 

volume levels from thinning alone do not provide adequate quantity and quality of logs to local mills, 

nor do they produce adequate funds for basic public services in the 18 O&C Counties, 

So where do we go from here? The status quo is not working and while increasing federal timber 

harvest will not solve all of rural Ol:egon's economic challenges, it can serve as a foundation. Congress 

should ~ct to find a solution for O&C lands that helps Oregon counties Improve financial stability, 

ensures adequate supplies oftimber to support mills and joqs, and continues to meet aquatic and land· 

conservation goals. · 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sfuslaw Indians 

Exhibit Jl· ...;[ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
42 


Insert offset folio 249 here 95279.249

PAGES OMITTED IN THE INTEREST OF BREVITY 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114\h Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit 12._- _2_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
43 


Insert offset folio 250 here 95279.250

Suitable habitat is assessed at the stand level and combines an array of measurements including 

canopy closure, tree diameter, and structural diversity. A rough approximation for suitable habitat Is 

any native forests older than 120 years although stands between 8o-12o years serve as habitat where 

distribution of older forest is limited. ' 

Our analysis showed that suitable habitat for NSO Increased as after 50 years of Implementation for all 

runs. However, projection of suitable habitat for MAMU declined when applying the Trust in Run C but 

increased under Runs D & F. 

In the midst ofi:he Panel's work, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) released their final Critical 

Habitat rule for the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO). Critical habitat is a network of large landscape areas 

designed specifically to fulfill an endangered specie's range of needs, Including nesting, roosting and 

foraging habitat. 

In general, Implementation of Run Cas modeled would have significant impact on Critical Habitat as identified by USFWS. For Run C, approximately 27% of the ldentifled Crltical Habitat acres on the O&C 

lands were scheduled for a regeneration harvest over the first so years of management. With 

additional thinning, 55% of Critical Habitat on O&C Lands would experience a harvest in the first 

soyears. By design, no regeneration harvests were scheduled in Critical Habitat for Runs A, D & F. 

Thinning was prescribed however and was scheduled in 35% of stands Identified by the USFWS. Due to 

time constraints, the Panel was not able to conduct population modeling as used by USFWS but 

ultimately It would be important to do so to understand the risk oflncreasod harvest to future species 

viability. 

Cancl11sions and Recommendations• 

Given the shorttlmeframe allowed and recognizing the inherent role of Congress in the ultimate 

resolution, developl1)ent of a detailed proposal proved difficult for the O&C Panel. However, l believe 

significant process was made in three Important areas: 

• Rrst, a foundation of understanding and trust was created between Panel participants. 

Second, it is clear that federal legislation is needed to achieve any significant progress. 

• Third, O&C lands Report contains an array of ideas that could be Integrated in different ways 

to create a durable solution for all parties. 

Based on the Panel's consideration and these conclusions, I believe a legislative solution can and should 

be passed Into law that includes the following equally important elements. 

Stable Timber Supply- Stable and predictable timber sale levels above current harvest levels 

can and should be achlev!'!d with minimal impact old growth and aquatic ecosystems. 

Adequate County Funding-Timber harvest and/or revenues generated from land disposition 

can significantly improve the stability of O&C counties. Oregon and state and local 

governments sliould share in the responsibility to fill any gap that may remain between timber 

revenues and the funding required to keep counties fiscally viable. 

Protect Unique and Special Places-There are approximately u8,ooo acres deserving of 

wilderness protection and an additlonal3o,ooo acres worthy of protection as part of a 

8 See letter submitted to the Oregon Congressional Delegation on febi1Jary 6, 2013. 

http://www.orrgon.gov/gov/GNRO/docs/OCDelegationLetter.pdf 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw indians 

Exhibit 1> • J::: To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
44 


Insert offset folio 251 here 95279.251

conservation network. Additional acres should be considered for protection as priority 

watersheds for fish habitat as salmon strongholds and Wild and Scenic River designation 

Durable and Adaptive. Conservation Standards-To achieve timber harvest goals on Federal 

Ia rid, ecological forestry·based regeneration harvest should be used In stands ~20 years old or 

younger, and certain riparian buffers should be modified in recognition of evolving science that 

concludes such modifications can be made. Once these modifications have been made, the late 

successional old growth strategy and aquatic conservation strategy components of the 

Northwest Forest Plan should be institlltionaflzed In a manner that dedicates those areas to the 

conservation of endangered species and other conservation values as the dominant use. And 

adaptive management process should be developed to incorporate future scientific findings 

where and when appropriate. · 

Achieve Certainty. The O&C Act should be amended to Include some combination of a 

dominant use mandate on certain acres for timber production and on other acres for 

conservation. In addition, a reallocation of some non·strateglc acres should be made to a trust 

and/or sold to a·community nonprofit or private buyer. Together such actions would create 

certainty for an array of different for!'st uses and outputs. 

• Tribal Considerations· A number oftribes exist with ceded lands and ancestral history tied to ] 

the O&C land area. I believe an O&C solution should consider land management impacts on. 

these tribes' ancestral lands, participation In management authority and/or land restoration 

requests. 

In closing Mr. Chairman, I would strongly encourage the Committee to pass legislation that includes the 

elements outlined above and then work with your colleagues in the Senate to craft a balanced long· 

term solution. I feel confident that if we think In creative new ways that we can provide for most of 

what everybody wants from our O&C forests, Conversely, failure to act is bad for our rural communities 

and In the long run bad for our conservation efforts as well. 

Thank you again forthls opportunity to testifY and l would be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 {114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Slusiaw Indians 

Exhibit ;Q_ · .5. To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
45 


Insert offset folio 252 here 95279.252

House Committee on Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public lands and Environmental Regulation 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. ~ H.R. 1294, H.R. 818, H.R. ~ and H.R. 1442 

April 11, 2013 

Transcript Of a Portion of The Testimony of 

· Douglas County Commissioner ·Doug Robertson, for the Association of 0 & C Counties 

And 

Tom Tuchmann, Forestry and Conservation Finance Advisor 

Office of Governor John Kitzhaber 

Congressman DeFazio: The discussion draft [concerning 0 & C lands] did not include .the 

recent legislation that has been introduced by Senators Wyden and Merkley regarding 

settlement with two tribes that has never been brought to fruition. Do either of you have a 

comment on the inclusion of those in a final version of this bill? 

Commissioner Robertson: Congressman DeFazio. Senator Wyden · and Merkley have 

introduced a discussion draft as you know proposing something in the neighborhood of 32,000 

acres divided between the two unlanded tribes left in the State of Oregon. Our concern initially 

was that if that land was going to come from the 0 & C land base that there be something in 

the way of equal acres, value, or volume to replace it. In other words, a no net loss to the 0 & C 

land base. Through discussions subsequent to the release of the discussion draft Senator 

Wyden has agreed to that and we're confident that there will be no negative impact on the 0 & 

C land base. 

Congressman DeFazio: Thank you. And the Governor would favor inclusion? 

Mr. Tuchmann: And the Governor would favor that as well. 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 {114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit ]L · ~ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
46 


Insert offset folio 253 here 95279.253

KATE BROWN SECRETARY OF STATE 

. BR!Al< SHIPLEY 

DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE 

April 18, 2013 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

2134 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington DC, 20515 

Dear Congressman DeFazio: 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

136STATECAPITOL 

SALEM, OREGON 9131(1..(1122 

PMue 503-986·IS23 & Fax50l-9S5·1616 

oreg()ll.sos.@stll.te.or.us 

I am writing to urge your support for the restoration of tribal land for the Confederated Tribes of the 

Coos, Lower Umpqua; and Siuslaw Indians. 

During my many years serving on the Oregon Legislative Commission on Indian Services, I worked 

with tribes on issues ranging from establishing a formal government-to-government relationsWp with 

the state to ensuring tribes have access to vital health care under the Oregon Health Plan. 

One issue that continuously· presents a challenge for the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower 

Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians is that it is the oniy federally-recognized tribe without a land base of its 

own. When Congress restored the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw 

Indians, it did not return a land base or provide monetary compensation. The time has come for this 

injustice to be addressed. 

Although preserving spiritual and cultural values are the Tribe's primary concerns, the lands should be 

economically self-sufficient lf the lands were transferred to the Tribe, the Tribe would manage them 

under a forest management plan adopted by the Bureau of Indian Affilirs pursuant to the National 

Indian Forest Resources Management Acl ·The Tribe will generate much-needed economic activity 

where counties have been Wt the hardest by the harvest reductions on 0 & C lands and where double· 

digit unemployment persists. 

Restoring land would establish justice for the Tribe and create opportunity for tribal members and nontribal members alike. I hope that you will continue to work,with all of Oregon's tribes and support 

federal legislation in the !13th Congress with these benefits in mind. 

Sincerely, 

Kate 

~ Brown 

Oregon Secretary of State 

Subcommittee on Publ!c lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress}- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit .Q_- _']_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
47 


Insert offset folio 254 here 95279.254

TED F.ERRIOLI 

District 3() 

Senate Republican Leader 

OREGON STATE SENATE 

SALEM, OR. 

97301 

The Honorable Greg W~l<lcn 

2182 Rayburn House Office Building 

United States House ofRepresentatives 

Washington, DC 2.0515 

Dear Representntive Walden, 

April4, zol3 

As the Senate member of the Legislative Commission on h1dian Services, 1 have learned 

that land is of great cultural, spiritual, and ec6nomic importance to Oregon's nine federallyrecognized tribes. The Confederated Tribes ofthe Coos, Lowe'r Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians 

.did not receive monetary compensation or a sigoi:ficant land base when Congress restored the 

Tribe's governmentnbtatus in 1984, 

· The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians have 

discussed With me a draft of legislation that would address the needs and bel1efits of restoration 

of tribal lands. A copy of the discussion draft and the associated map are enclosed. 

Although spiritual and cultural values are the Tribe's primary motivations, the landS" must 

also be made economically self-sufficient. lflands were transferred as proposed. in the 

discussioi1 draft, the Tribe would manage them under a forest managen1ent plan adopted by the 

Bureau of Indian Affaiis, pursuant to the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act. 

Once that plan is in place, the Tribe's harvest will generate ne\v economic activity in parts of 

Oregon suffering chronic double-digit unemployment and hardest hit by the 0 & C iands crisis. 

This proposal would establish justice for the Tribe and create opportunity for tribal 

members and non-tribal me!llbers alike. I hOpe that you will support federal legislation in'the 

l J 3.th. Congress realizing these benefits, whether that action comes as part of a comprehensive 

refonn of federal law or a$ a stand-alone bill similar to. the discussion draft.· 

Sincerely, 

Subcommittee on Public Lands~ forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit Jl.-..1... To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
48 


Insert offset folio 255 here 95279.255

Enclosures: 2 

cc: The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici 

43 9 Cannon House Office Building . 

United States House ofRepresentatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Earl Blumenaner 

!Ill Longworth House Office Building 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

2134 Rayburn Office Building 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Kurt Schrader 

1 08 Cannon House Office Building 

United States House ofRepresentatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Ron Wyden 

221 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable JeffMerkley 

313 Hart Senate Office Building 

United State Senate 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

Legislative Commission on Jndian Services 

900 Court St. NE, Room 167 

Salem, OR 9730! 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 {114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit .P._-!1_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
49 


Insert offset folio 256 here 95279.256

ARNIE ROB LAN 

STATE SENATOR DlSTRlC1'5 

OREGON STATE SENATE 

900 COURT ST. NF., S-417 

SALEM, OR 97301 

RE: Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians-- Ancestral Lands 

Dear Rep. DeFazio: 

f know t]1at you a.'e 1vorking very J1ard tu create a workable, long-tenn, and stable framework that unlocks the 

underutilizecr potential of 0 & C lands_) increases.local government control over those lamls, increases. budgetary 

predictability for local governments) and stili protects the environment cherished by aU Oregon fans. l hope that 

Congress enacts into law an approp·date balance among the many com.peting considerations. 

As Co~Chair of the Stat~ Legislative CommiSsion dh Jndian Services.., r observed first~hand the cultural> spirihml) 

and economic importance of l3nd to bregon~s. nine federally-recognized .tribes.. The Confederated Tribes of the 

Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians did not recdve monetary compensation or a significant land base 

when Congress restored the Tribe's··govetnmental status in 1984. This Is an .iqjustice'thatshould be ameliorated~ 

The Confederated Tribes of the Coos) Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians haVe discussed with me a discussion 

draft of legiSlation that would address the injustice done the Tribe, Copies of the 9iscussion draft ~nd associated 

map are enclosed. Although spiritual and cultural values are the Tribe's primary motivations, the lands· must bemade economically self~sufficient. If lands were transferred as contemplated in the discussion draft, the Tribe 

would manage tbem under a forest management plan adopted by the Bureau of lndian Affairs pursuant to lhe 

National Indian Forest Resources Management Act. Once that plan is in place, the Tribe's harvest will generate 

new economic activity in parts Of Oregon Suffering chron!c doubl-e-:diglt 'l.memployment and hardest hit by the 0 & C lands crisis. · 

The Tribe has taken pains to avoid' to the gfeatest extent possible provisions that ·would create any wel!:.fourlded 

opposition to the proposaL ~Or example,. the Tribe did not seek, and the discussion draft does not provide, any 

exemption from federal laws for the ptotectfon of the environment. SiXty-nine percent of the trees on the L.ower 

Smith Tract (Douglas County) and eighty-eight percent of the trees on the Tioga Tract (Coos County) ar~ ress 

than 75 years old. Ninety-eighrpercent oftl1e trees on the Lake Tract (Laue County) are less than 75 >'ears old. 

Critical ha!>itat for the Northeni Spotted Owl arid Marbled Murrelet could not be. entirely avoided in air of the 

tracts, But even as· to tracts ?001JI.il_liri& §UC!l habitat} the BJA w1IJ De required to create and a~op~- an 

Environmental Impact Statement as part ·of its forest management ·pJan before any change fn the tre~tment of 

critical habitat can occur, 

Justice for tile Tribe, OpportUnity for tribal members and ;;on-tribal members' alike, Continued applicability of 

federn[ lat..vs for the protection pfthe enyironm.ent. I hope that you will S~!pport federal legislation iu ihls congress 

realizing these be11efit~) whether that action comes as part of a com:Prehq:nsive refonn of federal Ja~w or as a stand~ 

alone bill simil_ar to the discl.iSsiOu dtaft. 

Senator Amie Roblan~ District 5 Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 {114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians 

Exhibit ]L · J1J_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 

omc~:: Phum:: {S<i3) ~8~1705 ~ Bmllil: SCil:,;lnli-eroblan(£~blte-.or.us 

Pi~iriel Ollice: T'.O. Box. \4)0, -coo~ 811)', OR 

G.)@' 
50 


Insert offset folio 257 here 95279.257

FLOYD PROZANSKI 

STATE SENATOR 

·msTRICT4 

503-986*1704 -Capitol 

541-342-2447- District 

Email: SM.floydprozanski@state.or.us 

Congressman Peter DeFazio 

2134 Rayburn Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

OREGON STATE SENATE 

900 COURT ST NE 

SALEM, OREGON 97301 

AprillO, 2013 

Re: Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians -- Ancestral Lands 

Dear Congressman DeFazio, 

I know that you are working hard to create a workable, long-term, and stable ·framework that 

unlocks the underutilized potential of O&C lands, increases local government control over those lands, 

increases budgetary predictability for local governments, and still protects the environment cherished by 

all Oregonians. I hope that Congress enacts into law an appropriate balance among the many competing 

considerations. 

Land is culturally, spiritually, and economically important to Oregon's nine federallyrecognized tribes. The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians (Tribes) 

did not receive monetary compensation or a significant land base when Congress restored their 

governmental status in 1984. The Tribes have discussed with me a discussion draft oflegislation that 

would restore some of the Tribe's ancestral territory to its control. 

Although spiritual and cultural values are the Tribes' primary motivations, the lands must be 

made economically self-sufficient. Iflands were transferred as contemplated in the discussion draft, the 

Tribes would manage them under a forest management plan adopted .by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

pursuant to the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (NIFRMA). Once that plan is in 

place, the Tribe's harvest will generate new economic activity in parts of Oregon suffering chronic 

double-digit unemployment and hardest hit by the O&C lands crisis. 

The Tribe has taken pains to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, provisions that would create 

any well-founded opposition to the proposal. For example, the Tribe did not seek, and the discussion 

draft does not provide, any exemption from federal laws for the protection of the enviromnent. The BIA 

will be required to create and adopt an Environmental Impact Statement as part of its forest management 

plan before any change in the treatment of critical habitat can occur. 

I hope that you will support federal legislation in this Congress realizing these benefits, whether 

that action comes as part of a comprehensive reform of federal law or as a stand-alone bill similar to the 

discussion draft. 

Very truly, 

~~ Floyd Prozanski Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mlnfng 

Hrg on s. 814 {114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, tower Umpqua, and Slus!aw !nd!ans 

Exhlb!t .12- _Jj To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
51 


Insert offset folio 258 here 95279.258

CADDY HANEN MCKEOWN 

STATE REPRESENTATJVE 

HOUSE DISTRICT 9 

April&, 2013 

Representative Peter DeFazio 

U.S. Holwe ofRepresentativei 

2134 Rayburn Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative DeFazio: 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

900 COURT ST NE 

SALEM, OR 97301 

l know tl1at you are working very hard to create a workable, long-term, and stable framework 

that unlocks the tmderutHized potential of 0 & C lands, increases local government control over 

those lands, increases budgetary p!'edictabiUty for local governments, and still protects the 

environment cherished by all Oregonians. I hope that Congress enacts into law an appropriate 

balance among tbe many competing considerations. 

Land is culturally, spilitually, and economically important to Oregon's nine federally-recognized 

tribes. The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians did not 

receive monetary compensation or a significant land base when Congress restored the Tribe's 

governmental status in 1984. TI1is is an injustice that should be ameliorated. 

The Confederated Tribes of1he Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians have discussed with 

me a discussion draft oflegislation that would address the injustice done the Tribe. Copies of the 

discussion draft and associated map are enclosed" 

Although spiritual and cultural values arc the Tribe's primary motivations, the lands must be 

made economiCally self-sufficient. If lands were transferred as contemplated in the discussion 

draft, the Tribe would manage them ini.der a forest management plan adopted by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs pursuant to. the Natlonal Indian· Forest Resources Management Act. Once that 

plan is In place, the Tribe's .harvest will generate new economic activity in parts of Oregon 

suffering chronic double-digit unemployment and hardest hit by tne·o & C lands crisis. 

TilC Tribe has taken pains to avoid to the greatest extent possible provisions that would create 

any well-founded opposition !0. Hie proposal. For example, the Tribe did not seek, and the 

discussion draft does not provide, any exemption from federal laws for the protection of the 

environment. Sixty-nine percent of the trees on tlie Lower Smith Tract (Douglas County) and 

eighty-eight percent of the trees on tlie Tioga Tract (Coos County) are less than 75 years old. 

Ninety-eight percent ofthe trees <m the Lake Tract (Lane County) are less than 75 years old. 

Critical habitat for the N01thern Spotted Owl and Marbled Murrelet could not be entirely avoided 

in all of the tracts. But even as to tracts containing such habitat, tile BIA will be required to 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 {114th Congress}- May 21, 2015 

ConfEderated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Slus!aw Indians 

Exhibit .l2_ ~ M To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 

503-986-1409- rep.cac!dymc~cown@siM<wr.us- wtvw.leg.stt~te..or.us/nwk«J~\'1\. 503-986-14_09 

®@ 
52 


Insert offset folio 259 here 95279.259

create and adopt an Environmental Impact Statement as part of its forest management plan 

before any change in the treatment of critical habitat can occur. 

Justice for the Tribe. Opportunity for tribal members and non-tribal members alike. Continued 

applicability of federal laws for the protection of the environment. I hope that you will support 

federal legislation in tlus Congress realizing these benefits, whether that action comes as patt of a 

comprehensive reform of federal law or as a stand-alone bill similar to the discussion draft. 

Sincerely, 

Representative Caddy MeKeo·wn 

01·egon House District 9 

Cc: Senator Ron Wyden 

Senator Jeff Merkley 

Representative Suzanne Bonamicl 

Representative Greg Walden 

Representative Earl Blumenauer 

Representative Kurt Schrader 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sfuslaw Indians 

Exhibit 1)_ -.iii To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
53 


Insert offset folio 260 here 95279.260

41~13 Justice and opportunity 

Justice imd opportunity 

MARCH25,201311:00AM 

In the 1850s, South Coast Indian tribes were in no position to bargain. European diseases had. 

ravaged their populations. Their ancestral homelands stood in the path of white settlers' 

relentless march. 

Three tribes,- the Coos, Siuslaw and Lower Umpqua- signed a treaty surrendering 1.6 

million acres in return for various promises. The result was a shameful history of betrsyal, exile, 

Imprisonment and neglect that all but extinguished the tribes. · 

Given that record, a proposal to return a tiny fraction of the tribes' traditional holdings deserves 

a favorable reception frcm Congress. 

U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., have lofted a "discussion draft" of a bill 

restoring 14,804 acres to the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw 

Indians. A third ofthat land lies in the Coos Watershed. 

In a conversation with The World's editorial board, tribal Chairman Bob Garcia de:>crlbed a 

'1ribal paradigm" of land management, balancing the polarized viewpoints (cut, don't cut) that 

paralyze timber policy in Oregon. He explained the tribe's philosophy as long-term, pragmatic 

and holistic, with twin goals of economic benefit and forest health. 

To make the plan politically feasible, the tribe chose sites it hopes will cause minimal 

controversy. Garcia said the trees there are mostly 30 to 70 years old, In areas uninhabited by 

marbled murrelets, the latest focus of endangered-species litigation. 

The proposal offers benefits not only for the tribe, but also for the broader community. Garcia 

foresees intensified land management, which means creating a modest number oflocal jobs. 

Harvest eventually may Increase, and Garcia hopes the land could become a model for 

managing other federal lands. 

Of course, the very attributes that make the proposal appealing also invite opposition. Some. 

·people, reg reliably, abhor any idea that might enrich a tribe. Some environmentalists distrust 

any plan that might weaken the logging gridlock. 

But Wyden and Merkley's proposal combines justice with opportunity. tt deserves serious and 

sympathetic discussion. 

Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 {114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, tower Umpqua. and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit J2 · l!f:: To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 

lha\lorldllnkcomln<l'/.SIO!Oinioofedilorlal~ustice-and-opportunit;lartlcle_a<I$521QS.95&-11e2·936:1-0019bb2963f4.html?prtnl"lrue&crd"prlni i/1 
54 


Insert offset folio 261 here 95279.261

March 19, 20!3 

Chainnan Bob Garcia 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians 

1245 fulton Ave. 

Coos Bay, OR 97420 

Dear Chairman Garcia: 

The Douglas Timber Operators ("DTO") Board ofDirectors has reviewed the Discussion Draft of the 

Confederated Tribes land conveyance bill. Our Board has long been supportive of the Tribe's efforts to 

secure a tribal land base of trust lands. As you know our industry and counties have also been searching 

for a solution to the larger O&C timber issues that continue to plague our community. While we hope 

that the tri0a11ands legislation will ultim3te!y occur in that larger context, we also recognize that the Tribe 

.has no control over how the legislative process will unfuld. As such, our Board unanimously voted to 

support the discussion draft, although we do have a few concerns about provisions of this discussion draft 

and offer the following comments. 

Specifically, we question the need fur a full survey of these lands as part of the conveyance. We question 

whether this is even feasible given the number of parcels involved and the short time frame specified in 

the bill. Our biggest fear is that the cost of this survey would come from, and! or at the expel)se of the 

BLM timber sale program and/or staffing. We would suggest that this surveyTequiremcnt is superlluous 

and unneeded. These lands can be conveyed without a fuH survey. If this provision can't be removed 

from the bill, then we want to be assured that these costly surveys will not come at the expense of the 

timber sate program. 

ln closing, we appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on your bill. Furt.hennore, we hope the 

Confederated Tribes will continue to caH for responsible active forest management on the other federal 

lands in Douglas, Coos and Lane Counties which are a criticat part of our community health. 

Sincerely, 

Dougla;;Fi9;tbefbp'6ra!ors 

~~--·-

~/~//-~ 

· C.-Robert E. Ragon 

Executive Director 

Douglas Timber Operators, !nc. • 3000 Stewart Parkway • Suite 208 • Roseh~rg, Oregon 97471 

@Recycled Paper- Phone (541) 672-0757 • Fax (54D..6n,2!!~.~ 

SU-bcOmm-Ittee on PUblic ·Lanas:·ForeSts and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 {!14th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit A-~ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
55 


Insert offset folio 262 here 95279.262

EXECUTIVI! COMMlfiEE 

PRESIDENT 

Jafferso.nKfal 

~wN~ 

flRSTVICE•PRESfOENT 

JuanaMajelDixon 

Paum<!Bando!M~bOOtls 

RECORO!NG SECRI:';TARY 

Edward Thomas 

Oe/'lfr.lJCC<JncllofJ11ngit&Hfi!diJ 

lrKfronTribesdNaskl 

TREASURER 

W.R<>nAllen 

~S'KJa!lsnJTriOO 

REG:JONAL VICEw 

PRESitlletnS 

/v<;><A 

am Martin CM(I;IJC<wndlcfrtir1911&Haltfa 

lndiartTnOesdA!aska 

EASTERN OKlAHOMA 

S.JO!!Cril111ndan 

ctwrolweNafl:m 

'REA'TPLAlNS 

<obortSho.phllrd 

~Wehp(!/01'1 

MlO\VEST 

Mattl!owWauw 

f"oorogon.BanrlofPtllai'\1.1~ 

NORTHEAST 

LanuGumb~ 

~lnlfui;NfWM 

NOlffHW£ST 

hwnSharp 

OU!naultll!dlai!Nalk!n 

?ACJFlC 

Poi'IArno!d 

Scv&Vil/kly13<uxJofPolm/ni:£Nl!; 

ROCXY MOUNT AfN ' 

ScottRuseal! 

OVKT~ 

SoUTHEAST 

lanyTownsand 

Lur.t>ooTribe 

SoUTHERN PLAINS 

Gae>:rgll Thurman 

&::MdR>xNI!fioo 

SOUlliWEST 

Jo9GamJa 

WESTERN -"""""" 

N~dNorris,Jr 

T~Obdh<!mNa/km 

BI:ECUTIVED!RECTOR 

Jaequ<tUn&Johot~-onPala 

-

NCAI HEADQUARTERS 

1518 P Street, N.W. 'f;l'ashlngl:on, DC 20005 

)2.466.7767 

.02.466.7797 fax www.neal.org 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

The National Congress of AmeriCan Indians 

Resolution #SAC-12-056 

TITLE: Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians Land 

Restoration Legislation 

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians 

of the United States, invoking the divine blessing ofthe Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign 

rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with 

the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the 

laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public toward a better 

understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise 

promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and 

submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAJ) was 

established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw 

indians were restored to Federal Recognition pursuant to the Tribes' Restoration Act 

of October 17th, 1984 (Public Law 98-481); and 

WHEREAS, tl1e Tribe's ancestral homeland comprises 1.6 million acres in the 

Siuslaw, Lower Umpqua, and Coos River watersheds, in addition to seaways and 

waterways; and 

WHEREAS, in 1855 a treaty was negotiated by the Federal Government and 

signed by the Tribes oQ!igating the United States to provide services and benefits to 

the Tribes in exchange for relinquishment of the Tribes' ancestral lands; and 

WHEREAS, the Federal Government never ratified the treaty it had 

negotiated and never fulfilled the promises it made to the Tribes; and 

WHEREAS, the Federal Government never paid any compensation to the 

Tribes for the loss of the land and resources, and imprisoned many Tribal members on 

the Coast Reservation for many. years; and 

WHEREAS, although diminished by starvation, disease, and hardslrips 

endured during their forced removal to the Coast Reservation, Tribal members 

removed to the Coast Reservation eventually rejoined Tribal members who had 

remained in their ancestral territories; and 

WHEREAS, continuously from the establishment of the Oregon Territory in 

1849 to the present, the United States has asserted its jurisdiction over the Tribes and 

throughout the Tribes' ancestral lands; and 

Subcommittee on Public lands, forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress}- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and S!uslaw Indians 

Exhibit Q..- Jf.e:. To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
56 


Insert offset folio 263 here 95279.263

NCAI 2012 Annual Resolution SAC-12-056 

WHEREAS, the establishment and maintenance . of Tribal ancestral homelands is 

considered by NCAI to be one essential foundation upon which the preservation of Tribal cullure 

and sovereignty is established. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that NCAI does hereby support the 

introduction and passage of Federal legislation restoring certain identified lands that interfere 

with no other Tribe's land claims and.that are within the ancestral territories of the Confederated 

Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shaU be the policy ofNCAI until it 

is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2012 Annual Session of the 

National Congress of American Indians, held at the Sacramento Convention Center from October 

21-26, 2012 in Sacramento, California, with a quorum present.. . . M · ~- ~S~: -~/ ,.!~, ~~~ 

Page2 of2 Subcommittee on Public tands~ Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit JL. J'1 To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
57 


Insert offset folio 264 here 95279.264

E. 

Tribe's Petition to the 

President of the United States 

Subcommittee on Public tands, Forests and Mfn!ng 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes o( Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sius!aw tndlans 

Exhibit E._-_!__ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
58 


Insert offset folio 265 here 95279.265

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Slus!aw Indians 

Exhibit .§".. • ~ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
59 


Insert offset folio 266 here 95279.266

Petition ofThe People of the Corifederated Tribes of Coos, 

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians 

To The President of The United States of America 

We, the People, formerly enjoyed in our ancestral territmy for time 

immemorial the blessings oflife, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that are our selfevident and inalienable rights. As befits every benevolent Sovereign Government, 

our ancestors established justice, insured domestic tranquility, provided for the 

common defense, promoted the general welfare, and labored to secure the 

blessings of liberty for seven upon seventy generations and more of their 

descendants. 

History too evident to require detailed proof bears witness to the fact that until 

the present generation, the United States and its citizen-settlers assaulted our 

inalienable rights and widened, rather than narrowed, the gulf between the words 

of the Declaration of Independence and the realities of our experience. 

-- Treaties we negotiated in good faith with agents of the United States have 

languished without consideration by Congress, and later were unilaterally 

abandoned by the United States. 

-·The courts of the United States have from time-to-time denied the history 

we, the People, have experienced, and they have refused the testimony of our 

elders. 

-- Our lands-- the lands upon which our ancestors, and their ancestors for 

unnumbered generations, had fished, hunted, gathered, raised their families, and 

died -- were taken from us without due process of law and without just 

compensation. 

--Our children were removed from their homes by agents of the United States, 

compelled to board in distant schools, punished for speaking the tongue of their 

ancestors, and denied their cultural heritage. 

--Our existence as a People was, between 1954 and 1984, denied by laws of 

the United States. 

We, the People, have tasted far too often the bitter reality that self-evident 

truths are not self-executing. We, too, are heirs to the promissory note etched for 

subcommittee on Public tands1 Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw lnd!ans 

Exhibit J1'i:,- __2_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
60 


Insert offset folio 267 here 95279.267

all time for all people in Thomas Jefferson's hand. We, too, iabor daily to secure 

on Earth the blessings rendered all people by their Creator.· We, too, like so many 

of our fellow citizens of the United States and of other Indian Nations, respectfully 

and repeatedly have petitioned the United States for redress of our grievances. Too 

often, our Petitions have been ignored or rejected. 

Even as we struggled to make real our birthright, the People joined with fellow 

Americans to safeguard the promise of freedom extended so long ago by the 

founders of the United States. ·Our tears, our blood, flowed in common streams 

with the tears and blood of all Americans as we fought, together, to protect and 

defend the United States against foreign aggressors. Today, our Tribe's sons and 

daughters serve proudly in the armed forces of the United States side-by-side with 

the descendants of people whom the United States helped settle on the lands of our 

ancestors. 

Through disappointment, privation and injustice, we have moved forward 

together. 

-- Together, we have secured the passage of laws acknowledging our 

existence. 

-- Together, we are taking strides towards economic self-determination. 

-- Together, we are lifting up friends and neighbors as burdened as we by 

poverty, limited access to healthcare, and educational opportunity. 

And still a searing injustice stains our progress and threatens our confidence in 

the ultimate triumph of justice. Despite our repeated Petitions, the United States 

continues to deprive us of nearly all of our ancestral lands. We have been, and 

continue to be, kept apart by the United States from the heritage our ancestors 

justly intended that we and generations to come should enjoy. 

Therefore, as respectful petitioners and representatives of an independent 

Sovereign, not supplicants, we have petitioned Congress to enact law restoring to 

our control a small fraction of the lands taken from our ancestors. When this small 

measure of restorative justice is achieved, the People of the United States, and the 

·People of our tribe, will have been lifted up in nearly equal measure. With renewed 

confidence in the proposition that the United States is the world's last, best hope for 

justice, we, the People, will again walk in our ancestors' footsteps, will again be 

nurtured and sustained by the bounty of our lands, and will again protect and 

Subcommittee on Public lands1 Forests and Mining 

Hrgon S. 814 (!14th Congress)- May21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit 15_ ~ _:{ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
61 


Insert offset folio 268 here 95279.268

preserve the restored lands for seven upon seventy generations of our sons and 

daughters. 

Now, hopeful that justice will prevail, we, the People, respectfully petition for 

your support oflaw reestablishing our control over parts of our ancestral lands. 

And, when justice has prevailed, as it must eventually prevail, we respectfully 

invite you to be the honored guest of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower 

Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians in a ceremony honoring our ancestors and 

commemorating the righteous victory of all of us, together, Indian and non-Indian 

alike, over the injustice of our mutual history. 

Therefore, we, the People of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, 

and Siuslaw Indians, through our duly-elected representatives, hereby submit this 

Petition. 

Dated this_ day of May, 2013. 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians 

Exhibit £- _2_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
62 


Insert offset folio 269 here 95279.269

F. 

H.R. 1438 (114th Congress, 

First Session). 

Subcommittee on Public tands~ forests and Min!ng 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, tower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit £ · _L To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
63 


Insert offset folio 270 here 95279.270

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSTON H. R. 1438 

To require that certain Federal lands be held in trust by the United States 

for the benefit of the Confederated 'l'ribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, 

and Siuslaw Indians, and fm· other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

J\LillCII 18, 2015 

J\fr. DEFAZIO introduced the follm>~ng bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

'l'o require that certain Federal lands be held in trust by 

the United States fm· the benefit of the Confederated 

Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, 

and for other purposes. 

Be ·it enacted by the 8enctte and Ilouse of Re]Jresenta2 ti·ves of the United 8tcttes of A·merica ·i·n Cong1·ess assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the "Oreg·on Coastal Lands 

5 Act". 

6 SEC, 2. DEFINYfiONS, 

7 In this Act: 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and S!uslaw indians 

Exhibit £-,;!._ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
64 


Insert offset folio 271 here 95279.271

2 

(1) CONFEDERATED 'l'RillES.-The term "Con2 federated Tribes" means the Confederated Tribes of 

3 Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Sinslaw Indians. 

4 (2) OREGON COASTAL LAND.-'i'he term "Or5 egon Coastal land" means the approximately 14,408 

6 acres of land, as generally depicted on the map enti7 tlcd "Oregon Coastal Land Conveyance" and dated 

8 :March 27, 2013. 

9 (3) SECRETARY.-The term "Secretary" means 

10 the Secretary of the Interior. 

11 SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE. 

12 (a) IN GEJ\"ERAJJ.-Subject to valid existing rights, 

13 including rights-of-way, all right, title, and interest of the 

14 United States in and to the Oregon Coastal land, includ15 ing any improvements located on the land, appurtenances 

16 to the land, and minerals on or in the land, including· oil 

17 and gas, shall be18 (1) held in trust by the United States for the 

19 benefit of the Confederated Tribes; and 

20 (2) part of the reservation of the Confederated 

21 'l'ribes. 

22 (b) S1JRVEY.-Not later than 1 year after the date 

23 of enactment of this Act, the Secretaty shall complete a 

24 survey of the bom1(1ary lines to establish the boundaries 

25 of the land taken into trust under subsection (a). 

•liR 143SlH Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw indians 

Exhibit L-.1_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
65 


Insert offset folio 272 here 95279.272

3 

SEC. 4. MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION. 

2 (a) IN GENgRAI..-As soon as practicable after the 

3 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file a 

4 map and legal description of the Oregon Coastal 1am1 

5 >vith6 (1) the Committee on Energy and Natural Re7 sources of the Senate; and 

8 (2) the Committee on Natmal Resources of the 

9 House of Rept·esentatives. 

10 (b) FORCE AND EFFECT.-The map and legal dell scription filed under subsection (a) shall have the same 

12 force and effect as if included in this Act, except that the 

13 Secretary may correct any clerical or typographical errors 

14 in the map or legal description. 

15 (c) PUBLIC AVAILA.BILITY.-The map and legal dc16 scription filed under subsection (a) shall be on file and 

17 available for public inspection in the Office of the Scc18 rotary. 

19 SEC. 5, ADMINISTRATION. 

20 (a) I:sr GENERAL-Unless expressly provided in this 

21 Act, nothing in this Act affects any right or claim of the 

22 Confederated Tribes existing on the date of enactment of 

23 this Act to any land or interest inland. 

24 (b) PROHIBI'l'IONS.-

25 (l) EXPORTS OF UNPROCESSED LOGS.-l<'ecl26 oral law (including regc1lations) relating to the ex-

•HR 1438 IH Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 {114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, tower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians 

Exhibit £_- _1. To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
66 


Insert offset folio 273 here 95279.273

4 

1 port of unprocessed logs hmYested from Federal 

2 land shall apply to any unprocessed logs that are 

3 harvested from the Oregon Coastal land taken into 

4 trust under section 3. 

5 (2) NON-PER.l\IISSIDLE USE OF Iu\.:1\TD.-.Any real 

6 pro1Jerty taken into trust under section 3 shall not 

7 be eligible, or used, for any gaming activity carried 

8 out under Public l;mv 100-497 (25 U.S.C. 2701 et 

9 seq.). 

10 (c) JJAWS APPLICABI1E TO COi\Ii\fERCIAJJ FORESTRY 

11 ACTIVITY.-Any commercial forestry activity that is car12 ried out on the Oreg·on Coastal land taken into trust under 

13 section 3 shall be managed in accordance with all applica14 blc Fcclcrallmvs. 

15 (d) AGR.EEMENTS.-The Confederated Tribes shall 

16 consult with the Secretary and other parties as necessary 

17 to develop agreements to provide for access to the Oregon 

18 Coastal land taken into trust under section 3 that provide 

19 for20 (1) honoring· existing reciprocal right-of-way 

21 ag!'eements; 

22 (2) administrative access by the Bureau of 

23 Land Management; HJ1(1 

24 (3) management of the Oregon Coastal lands 

25 that are acquired or developed under the Land and 

•HR 1438 IH Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on s. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siusiaw Indians 

Exhibit £_. _5_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
67 


Insert offset folio 274 here 95279.274

5 

1 \Vater Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 

2 4601-4 et seq.), cons~stent with section 8(f)(3) of 

3 that Act (162 U.S.C. 460l-8(f)(3)). 

4 (e) h~ND UsE Pu •. 'INING R.EQUIREl\IENTS.-Exeept 

5 as provided in subsection (c), once the Oregon Coastal 

6 land is taken into trust under section 3, the land shall 

7 not be subject to the land use planni11g requirements of 

8 the Federal I,and Policy and Management Act of 1976 

9 ( 43 U.S. C. 1701 et seq.) or the Act of August 28, 1937 

10 (43 U.S.C. l181a et seq.). 

11 SEC. 6. LAND RECLASSIFICATION. 

12 (a) IDENTIFICATION OF OREGON ~A_c\TD CALIFOR1\'L\ 

13 RAILROAD G.RA_c'\''1' LA1\TD.-Not later than 180 days after 

14 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agri15 culture and the Secretary shall identify any Oregon and 

16 California Railroad gTant land that is held in trust by the 

17 United States for the benefit of the Confederated Tribes 

18 under section 3. 

19 (b) IDENTIFICATION OF PuBUC DOl\L\_1N Lru\TD.-

20 Not later than 18 months after the date of e11actment of 

21 tlris Act, the Seeretary shall identify public domain land 

22 in the State of Oregon that23 (1) is approximately equal in aereage and con24 clition as the Oregon and California Railroad gmnt 

25 land identified under subsection (a); and 

•HR 1438 IH Subcommittee on Public lands, Forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, lower Umpqua, and Sluslaw Indians 

Exhibit ..f...- _fe. To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
68 


Insert offset folio 275 here 95279.275

6 

1 (2) is located in the vicinity of the Oregon and 

2 California R.ailroad gTant land. 

3 (c) i\L;.rs.-Not later than 2 years afte1· the date of 

4 enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Con5 g-ress and publish in the Federal Hegister one or more 

6 maps depicting the land identified in subsections (a) and 

7 (b). 

8 (d) RECLA.SSIFICATION.-

9 (1) IN GENEIL<\.L.-After providing an oppor10 tunity for public comment, the Secretary shall re11 classit:y the land identified in subsection (b) as Or12 egon and California Railroad gTant land. 

13 (2) APPLICABILI'l'Y.-The Act of August 28, 

14 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181a et seq.), shall apply to land 

15 reclassified as Oregon and California Railroad grant 

16 land under parag-raph (1). 

0 

•HR 1438 IH Subcommittee on Public Lands, forests and Mining 

Hrg on S. 814 (114th Congress)- May 21, 2015 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siusiaw Indians 

Exhibit £._. :J_ To Statement of Chairman Ingersoll 
69 


Insert offset folio 149 here 95279.149

S. 814 (ll4th Congress) 

Oregon Coastal Land Act 

Tract-by-Tract Analysis 

Reprinted For The May 21, 2015, Hearing Before The Subcommittee On Public Lands, Forests and Mining 

Originally Submitted On November 20, 2013, To The Subcommittee In Support of S.1414 (1131

h Congress) 
70 


Insert offset folio 150 here 95279.150

Tract-By-Tract Analysis 

Oregon Coastal Land Act 

Tab I. 

ALL TRACT SUMMARY 

Insert offset folio 151 here 95279.151

Breakdown by Acres ll/2012013 

Tracts Land Use Allocations (LUA) Tunbe~ As:e Cat.,ones (Years) Federal Status N

I Acres 

I 2012 P

Late Administratively 0-74 175-124 1250r Not Coosllay Ot'e,gonand Pub lie Norther

Tract Successional Matrix Withdra'Wll older Forest Wagon California Domain Acquired O

Reserve (LSl!J Road Critica

' Hftunat'a (Lower Smith) 4,<l7d 1,526 3448 0 3.638 ! 25 1,303 s 0 4.974 0 0 6

Tekeat (Tioga) 4.f'6<l 721 s.s42 0 4,001 0 546 16 0 4,563 0 0 6

Pkiitii (Lake) 4.()77 0 4.977 0 4.911 33 Z7 6 0 4.937 40 0 4

Takimiya (Umpqua Eden) 146 0 146 0 0 0 146 0 0 0 0 146 

Macy 37 0 0 37 0 0 37 0 0 0 37 0 

Xitlxaldich (Coos Head) S4 0 0 54 0 54 0 0 0 0 54 0 

Talbot 36 0 36 I 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 -'---- 36 0 

Total 14,787 2)247 l2A49 91 12,586 112 2,059 30 0 14474 167 146 6

Breakdown by Percentage 

Tracts Land Use Allocations (LUA) Timber Age Cat.,ories (Years) Federal Status N

% Late I Coosllay 2012 P

Traet of Successional 1 Matrix Administratively 0-74 75-124 1250r Not Wagon. Oregon and Public Acquired Norther

Withdrawn older Forest California Domain O

Total Reserve (LSR) Road Ccitiea

H(mnat'a (Lower Smith) 33-6% 30-7"/o 69.3% o.o% 73-1% o.s% 26.2% 0.2% o.o% 100.0% o.o% o.o% 12

Tekeat CTioga) 30.9% 15-8% 84.2% 0.0% 87.7"/o o.o% 12.0% 0,4% o.o% 100.0% o.o% 0.0% 13

Pkiitii (Lake) 33.7"/o o.o% 100.0% o.o% 98.7"/o 0.7% 0.5% 0.1% o.o% I 99-2% 0.8% o.o% 10

Takimiya (Umpqua Eden) 1.0% o.o% 100.0% o.o% o.o% o.o% 100.0% o.o% o.o% I o.o% o.o% 100.0% o

Macy 0.3% o.o% o.o% 100.0% o.o% o.o% 100.0% o.o% o.o% o.o% 100.0% o.o% o

Xitlxaldich (Coos Head) 0-4% o.o% o.o% 100.0% o.o% 100.0% o.o% o.o% o.o% o.o% 100.0% o.o% o

Talbot 0.2% o.o% ' 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% o.o% o.o% o.o% 0.0% o.o% 100.0% 0.0% o

-.' Total 100.0% --- 15.2% "' .. '84.2% 0.6% --· as.l% o.s% 13.9% o.2% o.o% "' .. 97-9% .. 1.1% "' l.O% 

42
72 


Insert offset folio 152 here 95279.152

Tract-By-Tract Analysis 

Oregon Coastal Land Act 

Tab II. 

LAKE TRACT 
73 


Insert offset folio 153 here 95279.153

Pkiitii (Lake Tract) 

The large forested tracts are by and large homogenous in that they are dominated by second-growth Douglas-fir 

plantation stands, These tracts were chosen for their relative lack of controversial characteristics including stand 

composition. Douglas-fir plantations are not typically associated with traditional cultural values. Second-growth 

Douglas-fir plantation stands are characteristic of large portions of the Tribe's ancestral lands today. Second-growth 

Douglas-fir plantation stands contribute relatively little to the ecological diversity of the forest landscape. 

The Lake I Pkiitli Tract is In the headwaters of Lake Creek, 

which ultimately feeds into Triangle Lake. Andrew S. 

Charles described seeing the evidence of tribal hunting in 

the hills around Triangle Lake. Charles testified before the 

US Court of Claims and later was interviewed by the 

ethnologist and linguist John P. Harrington. As Charles 

testified and later told to Harrington:: 

"Well, at Chickahominy liiil [south of Triangle Lake] 

you con see the holes that are left where the pitfalls 

were made for the big game, and you can see the old 

fire remains there and )'OU can see the bones there 

under the ground where you scrape the ground away; 

that is what we found at Chickahominy liill, and then 

toward the Triangle Lake we find the same thing - the 

holes in the ground, the remains of the pitfalls, and 

another one at Cummins Camp you can see a lot of 

remains of pitfalls and the fire places where the fires 

were, the ashes and burned rocks. 1

' 

Charles also mentioned the Triangle lake area as a place 

where the Siuslaw would welcome their Kalapuya 

neighbors from the east to trade, socialize, and gamble. 

The Lake Tract also Includes the former allotment of Abbie 

Mashell, a member of the Barrett Family. The Barrett 

family is the largest family within the Siuslaw Tribe. The 

lake Tract holds symbolic value for its inclusion of an 

allotment which was lost due to the naivety or misfortune 

of an earlier generation of Tribal Members who were 

struggling to learn to live in the new world. 

The Lake Tract does not include any land set aside by 

President Pierce in 1855. It also excludes the Hult Log 

Storage Reservoir, a recreational area frequented by local 

residents. 
74 


Insert offset folio 154 here 95279.154

Pkiitii (lake Tract) 
75 


Insert offset folio 155 here 95279.155

Ill Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

·"""""""- lands proposed to be manaqed by the BIA 

as trustee for the Confederated Tribes of 

Coos. lower Umpqua and Siusfaw lndlans 

Sluslaw National forest 

llll!il State 

0 Township and Range 

Qcounty 

Sectlon 

llllil City 

,. 

21 

28 

lo 13 

15 

" -'14 

23 

27 2a 26 

,. 27 
76 


Insert offset folio 156 here 95279.156

Adjacent land Ownership 

• Bureau of Land Management 

II Industrial Timber Company 

L:J lands proposed to be manaqed by the BIA 

as trustee for the Confederated Tribes of 

Coos, bower Umpqua and Sluslaw Indians 

-Highway 

-Main Road 

__ _. Township and Ranqe 

i::Jcounty 

Section 

<> 0lS M ~>s 

~~~.~ .. 
77 


Insert offset folio 157 here 95279.157

Tract-By-Tract Analysis 

Oregon Coastal Land Act 

Tab III. 

TIOGA TRACT 
78 


Insert offset folio 158 here 95279.158

Tekeat (Tioga Tract) 

The large forested tracts are by and large homogenous in that they are dominated by second-growth Douglas-fir 

plantation stands. These tracts were chosen for their relative lack of controversial characteristics including stand 

composition. Douglas-fir plantations are not typically associated with traditional cultural values. Second-growth 

Douglas-fir plantation stands are characteristic of large portions of the Tribe's ancestral lands today. Second-growth 

Douglas-fir plantation stands contribute relatively little to the ecological diversity of the forest landscape. 

'It WQS a large co.untry ... 

we never receiVed any p(Jy, 

a team pr wagon.! do not· 

I(,vveortiyl(qd;v artyth•ing, but tlle Great Chief owes me a 

we sold. 

In his testimony before the US Court of Claims, James 

Buchanan described the southeast boundary of the Coos 

Indian country as the summit mountain called Tekeat 

Mountain. The Tioga/Tekeat Tract includes land in the 

Coos Watershed by the summit of the ridge dividing the 

Coos, Coquille, and Umpqua drainages, but the tract 

boundary does not cross the watershed divide. 

At the end of his testimony in the afternoon of November 

11, 1931, James Buchanan was asked if he had 11anytbing 

further that he desires to say that is material and pertinent 

to the issues in this case." Speaking through his translator, 

Mr. Buchanan answered: 

~<Prior to taking possession of our country we were 

happy and there was no trouble between us and the 

white residents and I feel sorry to think that we are in 

most destitute circumstances; that the white people 

hove come and reaped the golden harvest of our 

country while a number of us are now today living from 

hand to mouth. At the time when the country was 

taken away from us we believed within our heart's 

own hearts that the promises of the whites were fully 

as good as the promises of the Indians. Through the 

promises we moved away ond gave up everything. I 

think under the terms of the treaty that it would [be] a 

wise thing if the Government of the United States 

would reconsider the situation of these destitute 

Indians. We have waited in vain for the period of 

seventy~six long years and we would like to have a 

settlement of some kind from our Government." 
79 


Insert offset folio 159 here 95279.159

Tekeat (Tioga Tract) 

Tekeat (Tioga Tract) Statistics 

Timber Stands under 75 years ,,, ,~---I---8~J'k __ Timber Stands 75 - 124r,ears /(< 

Timber Stands over 124 ye"'a"rs'---------------,-~----------+--,;l2c.io/.7-, ---f 

*Critical Habitat Northem Spotted Owl (NSO) and Marbled Mun-elct (MM) 

Legal Description: Sec. 9,10,14,15,22,SW f SE. ,N1

' SE1

'\SW I ,N Sec. 23, N r sf' N""'Sec. 24, 

SW114NWv4 ,NmNW114 Sec.26, 

NE114NWu\ NEu4 Sec. 27, T. 27 S., R. 9 W., WM 

*NSO - 20 J 2 proposed rule. Where NSO and MM cnt1cal habttat overlap, acreages arc combmed. 
80 


Insert offset folio 160 here 95279.160

II Bureau of land Manaqement {SUA) 

;.:::~~Lands proposed to be manaqed by the BIA 

as trustee for the Confederated Tribes of 

Coos, lower Umpqua and S!uslaw Indians 

f~~;?j .sluslaw National Forest 

llllliiState 

0Townshlp and Range 

Ocounty 

_ SectTon 

IIIII City 
81 


Insert offset folio 161 here 95279.161

R 9 W n a w 

Tekeat (Tioga Tract) 

Adfacent Land Ownership -Main Road 

• Bureau of land Manaqem~nt Cl Township and Ranqe 

lili!llndustrlal Timber Company 0 county 

;'':.'_)Lands proposed to be managed by the BIA Section 

as trustee for the Confederated Tribes of 

Coos. Lower Umpqua and Sfuslaw Indians 
82 


Insert offset folio 162 here 95279.162

Tract-By-Tract Analysis 

Oregon Coastal Land Act 

Tab IV. 

LOWER SMITH TRACT 
83 


Insert offset folio 163 here 95279.163

Huunat'a (Lower Smith Tract) 

The large forested tracts are by and large homogenous in that they are dominated by second-growth Douglas-fir 

plantation stands. These tracts were chosen for their relative lack of controversial characteristics including stand 

composition. Douglas-fir plantations are not typically associated with traditional cultural values. Second-growth 

Douglas-fir plantation stands are characteristic of large portions of the Tribe's ancestral lands today. Second-growth 

Douglas-fir plantation stands contribute relatively little to the ecological diversity of the forest landscape. 

The falls at Smith River were an especially important gathering place for fishing, especially for lamprey (eels) and 

salmon. 

lower Umpqua tribal member Spencer Scott was 

interviewed by ethnographer and linguist John P. 

Harrington in 1942. Scott said his mother Louisa (who in 

1909 was one of Leo Frachtenberg's Siuslaw/Lower 

Umpqua language informants) told him the place name for 

Smith River Falls but he could not recall it. We do have this 

story, though ... 

"Story takes place in Smith River's Falls (Umpqua). 

Butter Ball-old-lady raised grandchild. {Butter Ball is 

another nome for the Bufflehead duck.} They were 

poor. Parents were dead. They went to Tide Water to 

get fish to dry for winter. They boy grows up to be a 

man. He went out getting fish, she cut it and dried it. 

The grandmother showed him to make spears to fish. 

One night while sleeping he dreamed that he saw a 

pretty bird on a rock way up the falls. When he woke 

up he saw grandma crying. He asked her for reason. 

She said "1 heard you talking". Boy never said anything 

but fixed his spear and went up to Falls. He travelled 

all day and when dark come he could not get bock at 

night. He slept under a tree not eating anything a 

whole day and night. 

f-Ie dreamed same dream. He woke up and made 

another start. He was told a dream that if he get up to 

Falls he will discover wealth. lie finally came within 

sight of Falls. He sow all kind of salmon. Close to Fall 

he saw a rock sticking out from water and on it a bird. 

He wanted to catch it. He threw stones at it and could 

not hit it. Bird dove into water and he saw it was down 

into water. He decided to dive after it. When he dove 

down he got to a house.,. 
84 


Insert offset folio 164 here 95279.164

Huunat'a 

(lower Smith Tract) 

H(nmat'a (Lower Smith Tract) Statistics 

Current Manager Acres -- -o;o:'&''~c"-R'"'"ai;;clro=-=-act"'R'"'"ev:::-es::ct,-,d,-,Lac:-nd:;-------------~--~-~-~---------

Coos Bay Military Wagon RO'i<i Revested Land 

Land 

Acquired 

BLM 

~-~1i!oZ,C 

0% 

0% 

0% 

County Douglas 

riniber Stands under 75 years 73% 

rimber Stands 75-124 years !% 

Timber Stands over \24years 26% 

*Critical Habitat- No11hern Spotted Owl {NSO) and Marbled Murreiet (MM:) 12% 

Le_gal Description; S1 Sec 1, Sec. 12, Sec. 13, W NE ,NW Sec. 24, T. 20 S., R. 10 W., WM 

E1f.fSW114, SE!!4 Sec. 7, n,S 112 Sec. 8, Sec. 17, Sec. 18, Sec.l9, NE114NE114,WmNE11\NW114SWtr4

, NW114 

Sec. 20, SE114SE11\W1n Sec.2l, T. 20 S., R. 9 W., WM 

*NSO- 2012 proposed nde. Where NSO and MM critical habitat overlap, acreages are combined. 
85 


Insert offset folio 165 here 95279.165

J11 Bureau of land Management (BLM) 

-~ Lands proposed to be managed by the B!A 

as trustee for the Confederated Tribes ol 

Coos, Lower Umpqua and Sluslaw Indians 

!i}J Sius!aw National Forest 

fiii!IState 

c::Jrownship and Range 

c::Jcounty 

::~section 

11!111 City 
86 


Insert offset folio 166 here 95279.166

19 

20 

21 

s 

Adjacent Land ownership 

Ill Bureau of Land Manaqement 

!iii Industrial Tlmb&r Company 

B Sluslaw National forest 

-Main Road 

Lands proposed to ~ manaqe<t by the ntA 

as trustee for the Confederated Tribes of 

Coos, Lower Umpqua and S!uslaw Indians 

Qrownshlp and Range 

S~tt!on 
87 


Insert offset folio 167 here 95279.167

Tract--By ... Tract Analysis 

Oregon Coastal Land Act 

Coos HEAD TRACT 
88 


Insert offset folio 168 here 95279.168

Xitlxaldicb (Coos Head Tract) 

The Xitlxaldich Tract contains a mix of trees typically between 74 and 125 years old which struggle to thrive in the shallow 

soil immediately adjacent to the wind and salt spray of the coast. Some pockets of the tract contain trees or small stands 

of cultural. aesthetic, or scenic value. Such trees and small stands would likely be Incorporated into the planned 

redevelopment of this former Army and Naval facility. 

In his 1932 interview with the anthropologist Melville Jacobs, James Buchanan reported the name Xitlxaldich (meaning 

the place of dim light becoming daylight) for the tunnel by Coos Head known today as Tunnel Point and which gives its 

name to the geological Tunnel Point Formation. The Xitlxaldich Tract surrounds on three sides the former 41-acre Coos 

Head Naval facility that the Tribes regained in 2005. 

Coos 

Oi.JiOiii 

ofthetreat)i 

"''"miide With· Geni•rai'Pa!rriliti: ... :. 11' was nor a.srriiJII·· 

It-was a-Jorge country ... 

never received any pay. 

a · or wagon: I do not 

an,•bmlv anvthfn,,_. but the Great Chief owes me awe sOld. · 

The Xitlxaldich Tract provides a view of nearly the entire 

coastline of the ancestral territories of the Coos, lower 

Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes: such a vista is very significant 

to the Tribes. The Xitlxaldich Tract will complement the 

Tribe's existing Coos Head Tract which the Xitlxaldich Tract 

surrounds on three sides. The combined Coos Head -

Xitlxaldlch Tract will serve as the Confederated Tribes' seat 

of government, provide some housing, and Is planned to be 

the home of a cultural and natural history interpretive center 

to educate the tribal membership and the general public 

about the unique natural and cultural history of the area. In 

so doing, the interpretive center will promote economic selfsufficiency for the Tribal economy and provide economic 

stimulus and long~term economic support to the broader 

community. 

Archaeological sites are found all around the Xitlxaldich Tract 

-such as at Yoakam Point and Balidich (Gregory Point) along 

the coast to the south, and such as Kiltlich on the lower Bay 

and Milukwitch on South Slough - but to date no 

archaeological sites have been found at Coos Head, 

presumably due to the history of extensive site disturbance 

and development by the US Army and Navy and the Oregon 

Air National Guard. 
89 


Insert offset folio 169 here 95279.169

Xitlxaldich 

(Coos Head Tract) 

Xlilxaldich (Coos Head Tract) Statistics 

Current Manager BLM 

Acres 54 

!& :.and 0% 

Coos Bay : ' Road Revested Land -o% Public Domain Land lOO% 

Acquired 0% 

County Coos 

Timber Stands under 75 years 0% 

rimber Stands 75-124 years 100% 

rimbcr Stands over 124 years 0% 

*Critical Habitat Northern Spotted Owl (NSO and Marbled Murrelet M:M) 0% 

Legal Description: Tax Lot: 26S 14W03TLOO l 0100, 26S 14W03TL001 0300, 26S 14W02TLO 190000, 

26S 14 W02TLO 190200 

*NSO- 2012 proposed rule. Where NSO and MM critical habitat overlap. acreages are combined. 

.__ 

--
90 


Insert offset folio 170 here 95279.170

T 

26 

10 11 

16 15 14 

II BurGau of Land Management (BlM} c:JTownship and Range 

G~ Lands proposed to be mana qed by the BIA 1:] County 

as trustee for the Confederated TriOOS of ~ South S!ouqh National Reserve 

Coos, Lower Umpqua and Sluslaw Indians section 

IIIII City 
91 


Insert offset folio 171 here 95279.171

Adjacent land Ownership 

• Bureau of Land Manaqement 

.iii Industrial Timber Company 

Ill Small Private Ownership 

• University of Oregon 

II!IIIITribal 

lands proposed to be- managed by the BIA 

as trustee for the confederated Trlbes of 

Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians 

-Cape Araqo Hlqhway 

C] Townshlp and Ranqe 

Section 

T 

26 

s 

T 

26 

s 

T 

27 

s 
92 


Insert offset folio 172 here 95279.172

Tract-By-Tract Analysis 

Oregon Coastal Land Act 

Tab VI. 

UMPQUA EDEN· TRACT 
93 


Insert offset folio 173 here 95279.173

Takimiya (Umpqua Eden Tract) 

Takimiya is a village site. As such, Takimiya contains the elements typical of the many other traditional villages in 

the Tribe's ancestral lands: level ground, proximity to a drinking-water source, proximity to food (here shellfish 

beds,) proximity to a navigable waterway, and a generally pleasant place for generations to live, die, and be buried. 

Takimiya became the site of a post office and small Euro-American settlement before it reverted to forest. Open 

space remains in and around the site of archaeological excavations which were undertaken in the later 20th 

century. Othe1wlse, Takimiya is now dominated by alder, but there are two iconic old spruce which surely saw daily 

life at the village of Takimiya and which draw tribal members to them today. 

Takimiya was, is, and will always remain a traditional 

viltage site of upmost cultural significance to the Tribe. 

Forest management of Takimiya will consist of the type of 

low intensity - low impact forest management practiced 

by the Ancestors who lived a Takimiya. Open space will be 

maintained, and traditional and sustainable cultural levels 

of harvest of trees and shrubs will. be done to support 

cultural activities while maintaining the unique cultural 

and environmental qualities of the site. 

Takimiya (Umpqua Eden) was the first prehistoric site on 

private land (at that time) along the Oregon Coast to be 

nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. 

Several coastal sites have been occupied earlier, but 

Takimiya remains an important site based on the quality 

and quantity of retrieved artifacts and of potential 

ethnographic information. 

Takimiya is remarkable because it spans thousands of 

years of history. Fish and seal bones retrieved in the 

excavation have been carbon dated at 3,000 BP. The 

presence of wealth blades and pipes point to trading 

activity. Obsidian debitage was found in high 

concentration compared to other coastal sites. 

Archaeological deposits also include a whale bone platter, 

gaming sticks and pipes, and horse bones (possibly from 

the Jedldiah Smith incident.) Clay pipe and stone 

sculptures found here are unique on the coast and hold 

religious significance. Archeologists believe that the 

people of Takimiya retained traditional habits longer than 

peoples in other parts of Oregon: this may be because of 

its remote location. The unbroken historical timeline, 

confirmation of seasonal round activities1 and locality of 

ancient myth texts make this place an especially important 

piece of the Tribe's identity. 
94 


Insert offset folio 174 here 95279.174

Tal<imiya (Umpqua Eden) Statistics 

County 

Matrix and Adjacent Ri mrian Reserve 

Late Successional Reserve and Ad' a cent Riparian Reserve 

Administratively Withdrawn 

~~r St~nds under .Z~~~:ecars~----"­ Timber Stands 75- 124 years 

Timber Stands over 124 years 

*Critical Habitat··~ Northern Spotted Owl CNSO and Marbled Murrelet (M1vf 

Le•al Description: Tax Lot: 21123200300,21123200500, 22120500200 

Takimiya 

(Umpqua Eden) 

*NSO - 2012 proposed rule. Where NSO and MM en heal hab1tat overlap, acreages are combined. 
95 


Insert offset folio 175 here 95279.175

B Bureau of Land Management {BLM) 

Lands proposed to be manaqed by the BIA 

as trustee for th& Confederated Tribes of 

Coos, lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians 

Sluslaw National Forest 

lliii!Stat• 

CJTownshlp and Ranq• 

CJcounty 

Section 

lllli! City 
96 


Insert offset folio 176 here 95279.176

T 

2J 

s 

1' 

22 

' 

Adjacent Land ownership 

II Bureau of Land Management 

R Industrial Timber Company 

I'll Small Private Ownership 

~ State of Oregon , 

R Sluslaw National Forest 

Lands proposed to be managed by tt1e BIA 

as trustee for the Confederated Tribes of 

Coos, lower Umpqua and Sluslaw Indians 

-Highway 

t~l Townshlp and Range 

Section 

" e->5 o.~ ~-7S 

~""'' 
97 


Insert offset folio 177 here 95279.177

Tract-By-Tract Analysis 

Oregon Coastal Land Act 

Tab VII. 

TALBOT TRACT 
98 


Insert offset folio 178 here 95279.178

Talbot Tract 

The Talbot Tract Is forested predominantly by second-growth Douglas-fir stands which also include a significant Sitka 

spruce component due to the traces proximity to the coast. 

The Talbot Tract is a very small isolated stand of second-growth Douglas-fir stands including a significant Sitka spruce 

component. In the development of the Tribal Forest Management Plan, the Tribe will consider the cultural and 

ecological values of the stand and the management of the surrounding forest. 

we gQVe JtWGS a'-l0ii;e cOUntiy ... 

:-When we·.sold our /,and we never receiv'ed any pay. 

)ou do_ ~Ot see lne:With·a·team or Vtogon. I do not 

:owe dnyDody"arwthlng~ b!Jt th~ Great Chief owes me a 

'Qreat·d~QI for the Countrywe·sold. 

,Coos Jeff, Headman 

The Talbot Tract adjoins the former allotment of Frank 

Talbot which itself is contiguous with the farmer 

allotments of Jane Talbot, Martha Talbot, Laura W. 

Talbot, William B. Talbot, and Florence Talbot. Several of 

these Talbots died young, but the remaining Talbots are 

the ancestors of the largest family in the Miluk Coos 

Tribe. The Talbot Tract holds symbolic value as being 

adjacent to ao allotment which was lost due to the 

naivety or misfortune of an earlier generation of Tribal 

Members who were struggling to learn to live In the new 

world. 
99 


Insert offset folio 179 here 95279.179

Talbot Tract 

Talbot Tract Statistics 

-t~t Manager BLM 

36 

t & · : Railroad Revested cand 0% ---- Coos Bay Military Wagon Road Revested Land ~~ - Public Domain l,and 

Acquired 100% ___ 

County Coos 

Matrix and Adjacent Riparian Reserve . 10~~ Late Successional Reserve an~_A~~~.lli_partan Reserve 

Administratively Withdrawn 0% 

Timber Stands under 75 years 100% 

Timber Stands 75 !24 years 0% 

Timber Stands over 124 years 0% 

*Critical Habitat- Northern Spotted Owl NSO) and Marbled Murrelet (MM 0% 

Legal Description: NW NE1 Sec_ 28, T. 26 S., R. !4 W., WM 

.. *NSO- 2012 proposed rule. Where NSO and MM cnttealiJabJtat overlap, acreages are combmed. 
100 


Insert offset folio 180 here 95279.180

r 

26 

3 

r 

~l 

s 

10 11 

16 16 14 

21 22 " 

' 21 

Xltlxaldlch (Coos Head Tract) and Talbot Tract lll/20/20131 

Ill Bureau of land Management {BlM} Orownshlp and Ranqe " @)_,. ...... '><.: 

(?.~.;~·.lands proposed to be managed by the BlA CJcounty ,.-@)-~ ':·~~-~ 

as trustee for the C<lnfederated Tribes of ~South Sfough National Reserve • '-.,,.,,> .... z 

Coos, lower Umpqua and Sluslaw Indians Sect!on ~-:,.. 

E'~ Sluslaw National Forest II City 

l!lli!liState 
101 


Insert offset folio 181 here 95279.181

Adjacent Land Ownership 

Ill Bureau of Land Management 

Iii! Industrial Tlmber Company 

~ Small Private Ownership 

fll University of Oreqon 

IIIII Tribal 

Lands proposoo to be managed by the BJA 

as trustee for tM Confederated Tribes of 

Coos. Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians 

- Cape Araqo Hiqhway 

D Township and Ranqe 

section 
102 


Insert offset folio 182 here 95279.182

Tract-By-Tract Analysis 

Oregon Coastal Land Act 

Tab VIII. 

MACYTRACT 
103 


Insert offset folio 183 here 95279.183

MacyTract 

The Macy Tract is composed of mature forest near the confluence of the Umpqua and Smith Rivers on the old Macy 

Allotment. The Macy Allotment Tract overlooks the lowlands of the old Macy Allotment, the Umpqua River, and the 

Dean Creek Elk Vlewing Area across the river. The scenic qualities of this tract are culturally significant to the Tribe. 

The Macy Tract is a very small isolated natural mature stand surrounded by privately managed forests. In the 

development of the Tribal forest Management Plan, the Tribe will consider the cultural and ecological values of the 

stand and the management of the surrounding forest. 

The Macy Tract is a portion of the former allotment of 

Lizzie Macy. The Macy Tract adjoins a portion of the 

former allotment of Annie Macy and is near the former 

allotments of James Macy and Gus Macy. Macy 

descendants comprise the largest family within the Lower 

Umpqua Tribe. The Macy Tract holds symbolic value as an 

allotment which was lost due to the naivety or misfortune 

of an earlier generation of Tribal Members who were 

struggling to learn to live in the new world. 
104 


Insert offset folio 184 here 95279.184

Macy Tract 

Macy Tract Statistics 

1-Ct:;:--:::lff:_:C,;:nt:.:M:oa:::n:oag,:;e:__r -------------------~----, ~-~~~!_ __ 

-~c-RailroadRevested cand 0%--

Coos Bay Military Wagon Road Revestcd Land 0% 

Public Domain loaud 100% ---

-Acqtlired o% 

County Douglas 

MalTix and Miacent Riparian Reserve 0% 

I-'LatC7'-e': S~ucc~essio'F;-nall~ Resc'i-'rvc,,._..,.nd,_.l AQ=jac=entt,_, R,iPe.e•=rian'= Resc=rve~------------- --------1- ___ ~ _ Administratively Withdrawn ;r(, 

Timber Stands under 75 years 0% 

~Tr;e·m'i'b"er-oSC'ta.,.nd'Cs._,7~5----olC'241 y'-"ee,arccs __ ~---·---~~-~-~----------~- 0% Timber Stands over 124 years l 00% 

*Critical Habitat- Northern Spotted OwJ (NSO) and Marbled Murrelet (MM) 0% 

LegalDescri tion: SW14NR14 Sec. 31, T. 21 S., R. 11 \V., WM 

*NSO ~ 2012 proposed rule, Where NSO and MM cnttcal habitat overlap, acreages are combmed. 
105 


Insert offset folio 185 here 95279.185

[

-"-"""""""""""""""""" -~ 

Taklmlya and Macy (Umpqua Eden and Macy Tract) 

Ill Bureau of land Management {BlM} Ill State 

---~~/lands proposed to 00 manaq&d by tM BIA [:JTownship and Ranqe 

as trustee for the Confederated Tribes of C) county 

Coos, Lower Umpqua and Sius!aw lndlans section 

Slus!aw National Forest Ill City 
106 


Insert offset folio 186 here 95279.186

' 22 

s 
107 

Senator WYDEN. So I look forward to working again with my colleagues, Chairman Barrasso and Senator Risch. I also see Senator 

Heinrich here. We have worked together often and well on these 

issues. I look forward to that cooperation to finally close the book 

on this and give the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians and 

the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians the land base 

they richly deserve. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you and my apologies for the hectic 

nature of the next few hours. I look forward to working with you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for your efforts 

on this issue as well as so many that you are so heavily involved 

with in the Senate. 

Thank you. 

Senator Risch, I would like to turn to you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

IDAHO 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much. 

Senator Wyden, before you go, thank you for your work on, fire 

on Western acres. It has been a pleasure working with you on timber issues, and I look forward to continuing. 

Senator WYDEN. Big thanks. 

Senator RISCH. To the Chairman, thank you so much for holding 

this hearing. 

Senate bill 583 is a companion bill to House bill 1138. They are 

exactly and precisely the same, even in the punctuation in the bill. 

We have people here who are experts on this matter who are 

going to testify here today. 

What these two bills do is add additional wilderness acres in 

Idaho. This has a long history, and I cannot go any further without 

saying that Congressman Simpson is the hero on this. He has 

worked at this tirelessly. He has had to back up and retool and 

start over again, at least once that I am familiar with, and he has 

done really a magnificent job of bringing people together. 

This bill is truly the work of the collaboration process to which 

a lot of people in this room subscribe and with which they are very 

familiar. 

We have here from Idaho, Mr. Rick Johnson, who is head of the 

flagship, if I might say so, conservation organization in Idaho. I 

had the privilege and honor of working with Mr. Johnson when I 

was Governor as he helped me craft a roadless rule for the State 

of Idaho, not just me, but it was lots and lots of people that did 

that. 

I am always happy to brag that we have the only, not withstanding Colorado, with all due respect, it is not exactly the same, 

but we have virtually the only roadless rule in the United States 

that has been approved and been approved all the way through the 

Ninth Circuit Court. Our litigation is over in that regard. We have 

really put the cap on 40 some years of litigation and arguing, and 

brought some common sense and, most of all, some stability to the 

issue. 

Mr. Johnson, who has been deeply, deeply, involved in this particular bill, is here to help us today. 

108 

I can say that Representative Simpson has really brought a consensus to this and has virtually everybody on board with all due 

respect to Ms. Stevenson, who represents the Mountain Bikers and 

who is in disagreement with the bill. However, I understand that 

her objections are the same objections that are in every wilderness 

bill. Although she will correct me I am sure if I am wrong on that, 

but that is that you cannot use the bicycles in the wilderness areas 

which is really not something we wanted to tackle in this bill and 

really should not be tackling in this bill. 

To my two friends from the Federal Government, I understand 

they are going to state their concerns, as they always do. The fact 

that there are 907 acres in this bill that are actually conveyed out 

of the hands of the U.S. Government. Now to put this in perspective, they are conveyed to public agencies to be used only for a public purpose since the Forest Service owns and controls 20 plus million acres in the State of Idaho, and the BLM owns and controls 

almost 12 million acres in the State of Idaho. And this bill only 

conveys 907 acres. I will apologize already that you will not see me 

tear up over the fact that this does convey 907 acres out of the 

hands of the Federal Government. 

So, with that, this is a great compromise. It is well done. It is 

something that is really in the best interest of the people of the 

State of Idaho. 

With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Risch. 

Senator Heinrich, I invite you to make any comments you would 

like. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NEW MEXICO 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso. I really want 

to thank you for including my bill, the Sueldos del Norte Conservation Act, on today’s agenda. 

This is a bill that would establish two wilderness areas within 

the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. These two areas 

were part of the original legislative proposal for this area that Senator Bingaman introduced in the Senate that I was a co-sponsor of 

in the House, and it really helps further the community vision for 

this landscape. 

I also want to put in a plug for Senator Risch’s bill. My mother’s 

side of the family is from Idaho, places like Twin Falls and Buhl. 

I have been watching this community effort for many, many years. 

I got a chance to work with Congressman Simpson in the House 

a little bit on these issues, and I think this is a very balanced approach. I appreciate all the work that has gone into it. 

Senator RISCH. I appreciate that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

Now, I would like to ask and invite Senator Heller for any comments he would like to make on his legislation. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NEVADA 

Senator HELLER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

109 

I was just wondering, if there is any place Senator Heinrich is 

not from. [Laughter.] 

Senator HELLER. Since he—— 

Senator HEINRICH. Well they did move down to—— 

Senator HELLER. To Fallon, Nevada. 

Senator HEINRICH. To Fallon from Idaho. So. [Laughter.] 

Senator HELLER. That is wonderful. 

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, thank you and Senator Wyden for including my bills to address a couple of very difficult public lands 

issues that Nevada is facing. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, prompt action on these types of 

bills is extremely important and the well being of us Western 

States. So thank you very much, again, for holding this hearing. 

As you know, the Federal Government administers roughly 85 

percent of the land in Nevada, the highest percentage of any state 

in the nation. This presents our local and state governments with 

many unique challenges. Those communities often work closely 

with the congressional delegation to develop bills to improve public 

land management. 

Last Congress I was proud to work with Chairman Murkowski 

on the Public Lands package. It was ultimately enacted into law 

as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The eight Nevada bills included in that package were the culmination of nearly 

a decade worth of work on public lands bills, and I appreciate the 

Chairman’s leadership on these issues. 

I hope my two bills here before us today will be the next in these 

public lands successes. 

Douglas County Conservation Act, the first one, is a grassrootsdriven proposal that balances the needs to spur economic development while preserving our state’s western character. 

In 2009, Douglas County embarked on a long process to develop 

legislation that adjusts Federal land ownership and management 

throughout the economy. Over the course of six years they performed outreach activities, held a series of community open houses, 

obtained the input of stakeholder groups and several hundred thousand community members. Ultimately the Board of Commissioners 

unanimously approved the framework of a bill and requested that 

Congress move forward. 

As a result, Representative Amodei, Senator Reid and I introduced the bill in February with the support of our entire congressional delegation. The final product jump-starts economic development throughout Douglas County while ensuring the rural character of Carson Valley remains intact. 

Specifically, it conveys lands to local governments and the 

Washoe Tribe for important public works projects. Additionally it 

would promote conservation of riparian and the state sage grouse 

habitat along the Carson River and improve recreation opportunities. 

I want to particularly underscore the conveyance of flood control 

management areas and important water resource infrastructure 

parcels to Douglas County which are critical to the long term economic competitiveness of the region. Four flash flood events that 

occurred in July and August 2014, ravaged the region causing more 

than a $1 million worth of damage throughout the area. The county 

110 

has started construction on two projects to reduce the flood risks 

and conducted additional studies to identify additional flood risks. 

Whereas out East, local governments can acquire land on their 

own to build public works projects; unfortunately out West, as you 

know as well as I do, we have to get congressional approval. 

These conveyances are critical to the county’s long-term flood 

control and transportation planning efforts. This bill was developed 

from the bottom-up, not the top-down, the way public lands bills 

should be written. As a result, it has garnered nearly unanimous 

local support ranging from the Washoe Tribe to local towns and 

general improvement districts. 

My second bill, the Good Samaritans Search and Recovery Act, 

would solve a long-standing public safety issue on public lands. 

Congressman Joe Hecht and I first introduced this legislation in 

2013 in response to the tragic stories of Mr. Keith Goldberg and 

Air Force Staff Sergeant Antonio Tucker. Both of these individuals 

were missing for over a year before volunteer, Good Samaritan rescue teams received Government authorization to begin searching. 

Keith Goldberg, a Las Vegas taxi cab driver disappeared on January 31st, 2012. He was believed to be a victim of murder, but the 

police were unable to find his remains in the Las Vegas desert. 

When new evidence pointed toward the Lake Mead Recreation 

Area, the Goldberg family reached out to a private search and rescue team to look for Keith. All that prevented the rescue team from 

discovering the body was the bureaucratic red tape of the Park 

Service which refused to allow them to search the area without a 

permit and a $1 million insurance policy. After the family spent six 

months finding an insurer and raising the money to buy the policy, 

Keith’s body was found within two hours. 

Staff Sergeant Antonio Tucker’s family suffered a similar frustrating ordeal. Staff Sergeant Tucker was stationed at Creech Air 

Force Base when he went missing on June 23rd, 2012. He was believed drowned. 

Like the situation with Keith Goldberg, a search team offered to 

look for Staff Sergeant Tucker but was blocked by the Department 

of the Interior. When the team finally received authorization to 

search nearly a year later, they found the body in two days. 

No family should have to go through what the Goldberg and 

Tucker families have had to endure. This bipartisan, common sense 

legislation that expedites access to public lands for search and recovery organizations has been thoroughly vetted in this Congress. 

It has had multiple hearings between the House and Senate, attracting no significant opposition, and last year it passed the House 

by a vote of 413 to zero. I am confident it can garner similar overwhelming support in the Senate, so let’s get this done. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, for allowing 

me to testify today. I look forward to working together to move 

these bipartisan proposals through the U.S. Congress. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Heller. 

It is now time to hear from our witnesses. Ms. Leslie Weldon is 

the Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service; Mr. Tim Murphy is 

the Acting Assistant Director for the Bureau of Land Management; 

Mr. Rick Johnson is the Executive Director for the Idaho ConservaVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:40 Feb 13, 2017 Jkt 095279 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95279\95279.TXT 95279
111 

tion League; and, Ms. Brett Stevenson is the Board of Director 

member for the Wood River Bicycle Coalition. 

At the end of the witness testimony, we will begin questions. 

Your full written testimony will be made part of the official hearing, so please keep your statements to five minutes so that we may 

have time for questions. 

We look forward to hearing your testimony beginning with Ms. 

Weldon. Would you please proceed? 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 

FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE 

Ms. WELDON. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and members of 

the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present views of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture regarding S. 160, the Good Samaritan 

Search and Recovery Act; S. 472, the Douglas County Conservation 

Act; and S. 583, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry 

Peak Wilderness Additions Act. 

I’d like to begin with S. 160 which the Department supports with 

just minor technical corrections and amendments. 

One provision of S. 160 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture 

to develop and implement a process to expedite access to National 

Forest System lands for eligible organizations and individuals to 

conduct Good Samaritan search and recovery missions for missing 

individuals presumed to be deceased at the time the search is initiated. 

This and the desired intent of the act, which is to allow expedited 

access to Federal lands for search and recovery missions, are substantially consistent with current Forest Service policies and guidelines governing these types of activities and access. However, the 

provisions requiring development and implementation of a process 

to expedite access may be a bit redundant with some of the work 

in the process that we already have in place on the National Forest 

System. 

The Forest Service right now participates as a strong partner in 

coordination and leadership with local law enforcement agencies 

who are our lead in leading search and rescue and subsequent recovery missions. We value local law enforcement agencies and the 

talent and commitment they bring in leading these coordinated efforts. We also acknowledge the critical importance to family and 

friends of timely recovery. 

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the congressional consideration of S. 160, the Forest Service is committed to working with all 

organizations and dedicated men and women who volunteer their 

time and expertise to assist in the search and recovery of those 

that are missing. 

The Douglas County Conservation Act of 2015. With that, I’d like 

to bring up just a couple of points covered in my written testimony. 

In general regarding land conveyances, the Department’s interest 

is to see that the public is appropriately compensated for lands 

that are taken out of public ownership. In Section 102 regarding 

the concessionaires at Round Hill Pines Management Area and 

Zephur Shoals Management Area, we’d like to continue and encourage the efforts that are happening on the ground now to look 

112 

for solutions to ensure that we are providing the best public services we can through the concessionaires in place for these very popular recreation sites. We believe that locally-developed solutions 

would carry more ownership for all parties involved. 

In Section 2 or Title 2, Section 201 regarding the transfer of the 

identified NFS lands to the Department of Interior to be held in 

trust for the benefit of the Washoe Tribe, I’d like to add that in addition to supporting this bill, the Forest Service continues to work 

with the tribes and maintains communications on numerous current issues of concern to both parties as part of our governmentto-government relationships. 

Regarding S. 583, to Senator Risch and Congressman Simpson, 

we really express our appreciation for your emphasis and focus for 

supporting this bill. As it was said earlier, it’s been a long time in 

the making and we’re glad to see this kind of progress. We’d like 

to echo the support from all the local levels involved in bringing 

this solution forward. 

The Department supports the bill as it applies to lands managed 

by the Forest Service, and we defer to the Department of Interior 

for matters concerning land administration by the BLM. 

The Department supports designation of Hemmingway, BoulderWhite Clouds and Jim A. McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness. Most of 

the National Forest System makers that would be designated are 

already part of their respective forest plans for the area, and that 

National Forest System acres that would be designated by the bill, 

not recommended, are part of previously identified roadless areas. 

So we would just like to emphasize our support for this bill. And 

appreciate the efforts to continue it moving forward. 

And I’m available to take any questions that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Weldon follows:] 

113 


Insert offset folio 001 here 95279.001

Statement of 

Leslie Weldon 

Deputy Chief 

National Forest System 

Forest Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Before the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

United States Senate 

Concerning 

S. 160, "to direct the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture to expedite 

access to certain Federal land ... for Good Samaritan search-and-recovery missions" 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the 

views of the U.S. Department of At:,>riculture (USDA) regarding S. [60, the Good Samaritan 

Search and Recovery Act. 

S. 160 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and implement a process to expedite 

access to National Forest System lands for eligible organizations and individuals to conduct 

Good Samaritan search-and-recovery missions for missing individuals presumed to be deceased 

at the time the search is initiated. S. 160 would provide that an eligible organization or individual 

may not be required to have liability insurance if the organization or individual agrees to release 

the United States from all liability. The bill also would require that the process include 

provisions clarifying that an eligible organization or individual would not be considered to be a 

Federal volunteer when carrying out a Good Samaritan search-and-recovery mission, and that the 

Federal Torts Claims Act and the Federal Employee Compensation Act would not apply to a 

Good Samaritan search-and-recovery mission. 

Additionally, it would require the Secretary to provide notification of the approval or denial of a 

request to carry out a mission not more than 48 hours after the request is made. If a request is 

denied, the agency would be required to provide a reason and describe actions needed to meet 

the requirements for approval. The bill would also require the Secretary to develop partnerships 

with search and recovery organizations to help coordinate, expedite, and accelerate mission 

efforts. A report is also required to Congress no later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

on plans to develop partnerships, as well as efforts to expedite and accelerate Good Samaritan 

search-and-recovery mission efforts for missing individuals on Federal land. 

The Department supports S. 160 with technical corrections and amendments. The provisions 

specified inS. 160 and the desired intent of the Act, to allow expedited access to Federal lands 

for search and recovery missions, are substantially consistent with current Forest Service policies 

and guidelines governing these types of activities and access. The provisions requiring the 

development and implementation of a process to expedite access would be unnecessary and 

redundant in most search and recovery cases on National Forest System lands. 
114 


Insert offset folio 2 here 95279.002

The Forest Service currently has very few access restrictions to Federal lands under its 

jurisdiction for the type of activities described in the Act. Notable exceptions would include 

some restrictions to areas designated as Wilderness, and special area closures for events such as 

fire or avalanche. 

The provisions requiring the development and implementation of a process to expedite access 

would be unnecessary in most search and recovery cases on National Forest System lands. In 

most areas, the County Sheriff has the primary responsibility for search, recovery, and rescue 

operations on National Forest System lands and can act without a permit issued by the Forest 

Service. The Forest Service currently has cooperative agreements with County Sheriffs, which 

could address procedures for them to conduct search and rescue missions on National Forest 

System lands. 

Mr. Chairman, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the congressional consideration of S. 160, 

the Forest Service is committed to working with all organizations and the dedicated men and 

women who volunteer their time and expertise to assist in the search and recovery of those 

missing. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 
115 


Insert offset folio 3 here 95279.003

Statement of 

Leslie Weldon 

Deputy Chief 

National Forest System 

Forest Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Before the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

United States Senate 

Concerning 

S. 472, to promote conservation, improve public land, and provide for sensible 

development in Douglas County, Nevada, and for other purposes. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the 

views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding S 472, the Douglas County 

Conservation Act of 2015. 

The bill would, among other things, provide for conveyances to the State of Nevada and Douglas 

County Nevada; provide authority for competitive sales of certain Federal lands; address 

concessionaire permits; transfer lands from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Secretary of the 

Interior to be held in trust; and resolve the Burbank Canyons Wilderness Study Area. 

The Department supports the goals and many of the objectives and provisions of the Bill, but, as 

it pertains to USDA/Forest Service-managed lands, we do not support S.472 as currently drafted. 

Title I Section 101-This section directs conveyance of several parcels for no consideration. It is 

consistently our position that the public needs to be compensated for its resources. This section 

also specifies that the Department utilize a reversionary provision in the conveyance of various 

parcels. While we appreciate language that makes reversion at the discretion of the Secretary, 

Forest Service resources can be more efficiently utilized if we do not have the permanent 

obligation of monitoring for compliance. Also, some parcels are oddly configured or would 

create isolated inholdings, surrounded by National Forest land. We would like the opportunity to 

work with the sponsors and the committee to develop configurations of parcels that increase the 

management efficiencies for all parties, and additionally, there are a number of resource and trail 

access issues that affect various parcels. We would like the opportunity to work with the 

sponsors and the committee to address these as well. Please note that the Department does 

support conveyance of two parcels to the State for use as a park, if language is added which 

specifically reserves rights-of-way for the Tahoe Rim Trail, a trailhead and parking area. 

Title I Section 102- This section directs the Department to make publicly available a 

prospectus for Round Hill Pines Resort and Zephyr Shoals recreation areas. The Forest Service is 

already using its authority to issue and manage Special Use Permits to concessionaires for 

facilities in these two recreation areas. The Round Hill Pines Management Area is already under 
116 


Insert offset folio 4 here 95279.004

Special Use Permit, and the Forest Service is in discussions with the existing concessionaire in 

Zephyr Cove to expand their permit boundary and include the other developed recreation areas 

including Zephyr Shoals. Specifically; 

Round Hill Pines Management Area is already under a 20-year Granger-Thye permit, with a l 0-

year extension opportunity. The permit was issued in 2013 to a concessionaire for the operation 

of the Round Hill Pines Resort, a family-oriented lakeside resort and marina on the East Shore of 

Lake Tahoe. 

Zephyr Shoals Management Area as described in the legislative map dated January 27, 2015, 

includes the 448-acre area encompassing Zephyr Shoals (the Dreyfus Estate), an existing trail 

system, and an upland area across from Zephyr Shoals. It also includes the Zephyr Cove Resort, 

Zephyr Cove Corrals, and Zephyr Cove Campground, which are all currently under Special Use 

Permit to concessionaire Aramark. 

The Forest Service is currently in discussions with Aramark regarding incorporating the Zephyr 

Shoals area into its existing permit boundary, and Aramark has offered some initial concepts for 

the site. The Department believes that incorporating this area into the permit boundary of an 

adjacent, successful concessionaire is preferable to issuing a prospectus to operate Zephyr Shoals 

as a separate site. A prior prospectus issued by the Forest Service for Zephyr Shoals generated no 

viable bids, due to issues with site access and the need to address the structures currently on site. 

Section 102 also states that should the Forest Service not meet the legislation's 30-month 

timeline, then jurisdiction of the land would be transferred, without consideration, for a period of 

99 years to Douglas County. The Department believes this would not be in the best interest of the 

public. 

Title I Section 103- This section authorizes the conveyance, without consideration, of Federal 

Land subject to valid and existing rights and notwithstanding the land use planning requirements 

of section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 not later than 180 days 

after the date on which the Secretary receives a request from the County. The Department 

supports the objectives of Douglas County government in providing for flood control, open space 

and outdoor recreation, but to the extent that this provision pertains to the Forest Service, the 

Department does not believe that an outright conveyance is necessary to meet those objectives. If 

Douglas County has specific flood control, recreation or other public management needs, then 

the Forest Service has the authority to issue Special Use Permits to the County for occupancy 

and use of those lands. 

Title I Section 104- Authorizes the sale ofFederallands described in subsection (b) to qualified 

bidders, notwithstanding sections 202 and 203 of the Federal land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976, and subject to valid existing rights. The Department supports the objective of providing 

authority to dispose of isolated, unmanageable parcels, including those which have lost their 

national forest character. We would like to work collaboratively with the local governments to 

determine appropriate parcels. 

Title II Section 201- This section authorizes the transfer of Federal Land to the Tribe. The 

Department supports transfer of the identified National Forest System lands to the Department of 
117 


Insert offset folio 5 here 95279.005

the Interior, to be held in trust for the benefit of the Washoe Tribe. The Forest Service has 

concerns over two of the identified parcels, which may be needed for future administrative 

purposes. We would like the opportunity to work with the sponsors and the committee to 

address concerns with those parcels. 

Title II Section 202 This section authorizes the department to develop and implement a 

cooperative management agreement for the identified Federal Parcel. The parcel referenced in 

this section is isolated from other National Forest System lands. The Department believes a 

transfer to the Department of the Interior, to be held in trust for the benefit of the Washoe Tribe 

and a conveyance to Douglas County at market value would be more appropriate than the 

proposed cooperative management agreement. 

Title III This Title resolves the Burbank Canyons Wilderness Study area by designating it as 

Wilderness. The term 'Wilderness' should be defined as the Burbank Canyons Wilderness 

designated by subsection 301 (a) so that it is clear that the scope is local to Burbank Canyon 

Wilderness. Additionally, we have concerns with Section 302(i)(5)(B) which limits the ability 

of the President to develop new water facilities in any present or future designated wilderness in 

Douglas County. The President's discretion under the Wilderness Act to review and approve any 

potential water resource facilities that is deemed in the national interest should not be limited. 

This Title would remove that Presidential discretion for any National Forest System lands in 

Douglas County that Congress may designate as Wilderness in the future. Otherwise, we defer to 

the Department of the Interior on the Bill's provisions dealing with the Burbank Canyons 

Wilderness Study Area. 

Title IV This Title authorizes the Department to transfer Forest Service land or interest in 

Forest Service land described in subsection (b) as needed, on request by the State or County to 

the State or County, without consideration. The Department does not support Title IV as 

currently written because we believe the public needs to be appropriately compensated for their 

land. We welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsors and the Committee on language 

that gives the Secretary discretionary authority to convey parcels which are unsuitable for Forest 

Service administration or which have a necessary public purpose, but for which the public would 

receive market consideration. 

This concludes my remarks. Thanks for the opportunity to testify. 
118 


Insert offset folio 6 here 95279.006

Statement of 

Leslie Weldon 

Deputy Chief 

National Forest System 

Forest Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Before the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

United States Senate 

Concerning 

S. 583, to establish certain wilderness areas in central Idaho and to authorize various land 

conveyances involving National Forest System land and Bureau of Land Management land 

in central Idaho, and for other purposes. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the 

views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding S. 583, the "Sawtooth National 

Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act". To Senator Risch and other 

members of the Idaho delegation, we wish to thank you for your work on this bill. The 

Department supports the bill as it applies to lands managed by the Forest Service. We have 

included recommendations for your consideration, and we have also included concerns with the 

Bill that we would like to work with the Committee and sponsor to address. We defer to the 

Department of the Interior for matters concerning land administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

Title I Wilderness Designations 

Section 101 would add additional areas in central Idaho to the National Wilderness Preservation 

System 68,000 acres in the Sawtooth and Challis National Forests to be known as the 

"Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness"; 90,777 acres in the Sawtooth and Challis National Forests 

to be known as the "White Clouds Wilderness"; and approximately 120,148 acres in the SalmonChallis National Forest and Challis District of the Bureau of Land Management to be known as 

the "Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness." 

The Department supports designation of the Hemingway-Boulders, White Clouds and Jim 

McClure-Jerry Peak Wildernesses as depicted on the maps referenced in the Bill. Most of the 

National Forest System acres that would be designated as wilderness by the bill were 

recommended for wilderness desi~:,mation in their respective forest plan. The National Forest 

System acres that would be designated as wilderness by the bill that were not recommended for 

wilderness in their plan are either inventoried roadless areas or their current management 

direction is compatible with wilderness designation. 

We recommend that language be added to the bill that would authorize the agency to maintain 

historical structures that may exist in the designated wilderness areas. The agency has lan~:,'Uage 

that we would be happy to share with you. 
119 


Insert offset folio 7 here 95279.007

Section I 02( e )(1) addresses livestock grazing on the lands designated as wilderness. The 

Department supports the language requiring the continuation of existing livestock grazing within 

designated wilderness in accordance with the 1964 Wilderness Act and House Report 96-617, 

also known as the "Congressional Grazing Guidelines." We also support the proposal by the 

Idaho delegation in section I 02(e)(2) to allow voluntary and permanent reductions in grazing in 

the designated areas. We would like to work with the sponsor and Committee on technical 

issues with the language of section 1 02( e )(2) regarding the donation of grazing permits. The 

Department also has minor technical corrections regarding references to provisions of the 

Wilderness Act in Section I 02 of the Bill that we would be happy to share with the Committee. 

The Department has concerns with section 1 03(b ). The President's discretion under the 

Wilderness Act to review and approve any potential water resource facilities that is deemed in 

the national interest should not be limited. 

Title II- Land Conveyances for Public Purposes 

Section 202 requires either conveyance or issuance of a special use authorization of a one acre 

parcel to Blaine County, Idaho for a school bus turnaround. Recently, Blaine County 

commissioners informed the Forest Service that they are no longer interested in developing a 

turnaround at this location. We recommend removing this section. 

Section 203( d) requires the conveyance, without consideration, of the Forest Service road that 

passes through the parcel of National Forest System land, to the City of Stanley, Idaho, under 

section 206. The Department has concerns with conveying the road because the Forest Service 

currently manages the parcel that the road accesses. in addition, the Department believes the 

public should be appropriately compensated for its resources. 

Section 206 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to convey an approximately four-acre parcel to 

the City of Stanley, Idaho for workforce housing. The City of Stanley is iconic on the central 

idaho landscape. It is also a Designated Community under the Private Land Regulation and 

intrinsic to the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. The Department recognizes that the need for 

local workforce housing is a challenging concern for the City. We share that concern as the lack 

of housing can result in unauthorized use ofNational Forest System lands. However, the 

Department has concerns with section 206 as currently drafted and would like to work with the 

Committee to resolve these concerns. 

The bill directs conveyance of the parcel for no consideration. Our consistently-held position is 

that the public must be compensated for its resources. Additionally, the bill requires removal of 

Forest Service improvements that are currently being used at the public's expense. The identified 

parcel is physically separated from the City of Stanley and surrounded by Federal land. We 

would welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsors and the City to identify a parcel that is 

potentially better suited for private development, including a Federal parcel within the developed 

area of Stanley and adjacent to existing infrastructure. 

This concludes my remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 
120 


Insert offset folio 8 here 95279.008

Statement of 

Leslie Weldon 

Deputy Chief 

National Forest System 

Forest Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Before the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

United States Senate 

Concerning 

S.814, to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal land in the State of Oregon to the 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians 

S.815, to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal land in the State of Oregon to the 

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians 

S.814 would provide for the conveyance of certain Federal land in the State of Oregon to the 

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians and S.815 would provide for 

the conveyance of certain Federal land in the State of Oregon to the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua 

Tribe of Indians. We defer to the Department of the Interior for its position on these bills. There 

are no NFS lands included within the boundaries of the "Canyon Mountain Land Conveyance 

map dated 6-27-2013 or the Oregon Coastal Land Conveyance Map dated 6-27-2013. 

This concludes my remarks. Thanks for the opportunity to testify. 
121 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Ms. Weldon. 

Mr. Murphy? 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY MURPHY, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONSERVATION LANDS & COMMUNITY 

PARTNERSHIPS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. MURPHY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking 

Member and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the seven bills being considered by the Committee today. 

I’m Tim Murphy, BLM State Director for Idaho and currently 

acting as the BLM’s Assistant Director for National Conservation 

Lands and Community Partnerships. The BLM looks forward to 

working with the Committee to address the important issues raised 

by these bills. 

I’m accompanied by Simeon Clevenger, Acting Deputy Director 

for Emergency Services at the National Park Service. He’s available to respond to questions related to the Park Service or to H.R. 

373 and S. 160, the Good Samaritan Search and Recovery Act. 

The Department supports S. 160 and H.R. 373 with amendments. These bills would require the Secretary of Interior and Agriculture to develop and implement a process to expedite access to 

Federal lands for Good Samaritan search and rescue missions. 

We’d like to work with the Committee to amend these bills as outlined in the National Park Service statement for the record to allow 

expedited access for search and recovery missions without complicating existing procedures or causing unintended impacts to relationships between Federal agencies and search organizations. 

S. 365 directs the BLM to develop a management program to improve rangeland conditions and restore livestock raising to the level 

of use that existed prior to the designation of the Grand Staircase 

Escalante National Monument. The BLM supports the bill’s goal of 

improving the rangeland health and supporting grazing within the 

Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, and we support 

the use of existing regulations to address grazing permit renewals, 

but the BLM does not support grazing use targets that are drawn 

or set in an arbitrary number. We look forward to working with the 

sponsor on this issue. 

S. 472, the Douglas County Conservation Act, authorizes Federal 

land conveyances and sales in Douglas County, Nevada. It directs 

the Secretary of Interior to take into trust approximately 1,000 

acres of Federal land for the benefit of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada 

and California and designates about 12,000 acres of Burbank Canyon’s wilderness. The BLM generally supports the goals of the bill 

as it pertains to BLM and we’d like the opportunity to work with 

the sponsors and Subcommittee to address the various issues including paleontological resources issues, fund management, language ensuring uniform appraisal standards and practice and other 

technical issues. 

S. 583, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak 

Wilderness Additions Act, would designate three wilderness areas 

in Central Idaho including two that would be partially managed by 

the BLM. These lands contain outstanding wildlife habitat and 

122 

beautiful mountain terrain. The legislation also includes several 

conveyances to local government. The BLM supports this legislation and commends Senator Risch, Congressman Simpson, and the 

Idaho Delegation for their hard work over many years of this proposal. We look forward to continuing to work with the delegation 

on the proposal. 

S. 814, the Oregon Coastal Land Conveyance Act and S. 815, the 

Cow Creek Umpqua Land Conveyance Act would together provide 

roughly 32,000 acres of BLM managed lands in Western Oregon to 

be held in trust on the behalf of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, 

Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians and the Cow Creek Band of 

the Umpqua Tribe of Indians. The BLM welcomes the opportunity 

to work with Congress on the transfer of lands into trust status 

and supports the goals of S. 814 and S. 815. We’d like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee to address various issues with the bill. 

S. 1240, the Cerros del Norte Conservation Act would designate 

two new wilderness areas, about 21,000 acres within the Rio 

Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico. These new 

wilderness areas would protect the Ute Mountain, a centerpiece 

within the monument that’s home to elk and other wildlife and the 

Rio San Antonio which contains a rugged gorge that offers opportunities for solitude. The BLM appreciates the sponsor’s work on this 

legislation and supports the bill. 

In conclusion, thank you again for the opportunity to be here 

today to discuss these seven bills. I’d be glad to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:] 

123 


Insert offset folio 21 here 95279.021

Statement of 

Timothy M. Murphy 

Acting Assistant Director 

National Conservation Lands & Community Partnerships 

Bureau of Land Management 

Department of the Interior 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, & Mining 

S. 365, To improve rangeland conditions and restore grazing levels within the Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah 

May 21,2015 

Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on S. 365, which pertains to the Bureau of 

Land Management's (BLM) administration of grazing within the Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument (GSENM) in Utah. The Presidential proclamation designating GSENM in 

1996 included language specifically providing for the continuation of grazing on the monument 

under the normal standards and procedures used to manage grazing on other BLM lands. The 

BLM supports the bill's goal of improving rangeland health and suppotiing grazing within 

GSENM, yet the Administration opposes the bill as currently drafted because it appears to set an 

arbitrary grazing-level target rather than establishing appropriate grazing levels according to 

resource conditions and through public processes. The BLM is committed to continuing to work 

with Congress and the public as we plan for grazing on GSENM. 

Background 

GSENM spans nearly 1.9 million acres of America's public lands. From its spectacular Grand 

Staircase of cliffs and terraces, across the rugged Kaiparowits Plateau, to the Escalante River 

Canyons, the Monument's size, resources, and remote character provide extraordinary 

opportunities for geologists, paleontologists, archeologists, historians, and biologists in scientific 

research, education, and exploration. GSENM was established in 1996 by Presidential 

Proclamation 6920 under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to protect a spectacular array of historic, 

biological, geological, paleontological, and archeological objects. The proclamation did not 

affect existing grazing permits and specified that grazing uses continue to be governed by the 

normal standards and procedures used to manage grazing on other BLM lands. No reductions in 

permitted livestock grazing use have been made as a result of the Monument's designation. 

Management of resources at GSENM is governed by the 1999 Monument Management Plan. 

However, the MMP deferred most decisions related to the management oflivestock grazing, and 

livestock grazing on GSENM is generally managed according to four Management Framework 

Plans (MFPs), which were signed in 1981, making them among the BLM's oldest land use plans. 

The MFPs were amended to address grazing on a few allotments in 1999, but most allotments in 

GSENM are still managed under direction that is now nearly 35 years old. The BLM is currently 

preparing a Livestock Grazing Monument Management Plan Amendment and associated 

Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) to ensure the long-term sustainability of GSENM 

rangelands while accounting for the many changes that have occurred since 1981. The BLM is 
124 


Insert offset folio 22 here 95279.022

working in formal cooperation with Kane and Garfield counties and the state of Utah and has 

allowed for maximum public input in developing the plan. 

There are 79 active livestock grazing allotments, with 91 permittees currently authorized to graze 

cattle and horses on GSENM. Overall permitted use within GSENM is at roughly the same level 

now as it has been since the early 1990s. No reductions have occurred as a result of the 

designation of GSENM, though small reductions within limited areas have taken place under 

normal BLM procedures to protect riparian resources and to address other issues. Similar 

changes are routinely made across the west to address these sorts of resource concerns. Since 

1999, the BLM has used its authority under an annual appropriations rider to renew all expiring 

livestock grazing permits/leases on the monument. 

In contrast to permitted use, actual grazing use levels in GSENM have varied considerably from 

year to year. BLM range conservationists nationwide work closely with grazing permittees to 

identify and address resource issues. Livestock operators throughout the BLM often operate 

voluntarily at an actual level of use that is below their permitted level due to fluctuations in 

market prices, their operational needs, drought conditions, or vegetation condition. As a result of 

such voluntary adjustments, actual use levels have averaged just over half of permitted use levels 

for more than two decades. 

S.365 

S. 365 is intended to improve rangeland conditions and restore grazing levels within GSENM. 

Under the bill, the BLM would be required to implement a management program to improve 

rangeland conditions for wildlife and livestock and to restore livestock grazing to the level of 

usage in those areas that existed as of September 17, 1996. In issuing livestock grazing permits, 

the Secretary would be required to incorporate standards and guidelines consistent with the 1997 

"Utah Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands 

in Utah" and applicable livestock grazing regulations, as is now the case. 

The BLM supports improving rangeland conditions by using the "Utah Standards for Rangeland 

Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands in Utah" and all applicable 

BLM regulations related to grazing when issuing or renewing grazing permits on GSENM. 

Under the BLM's current planning process, we anticipate updating the grazing direction in 

GSENM according to the Utah Standards and Guidelines, and we believe the MMP amendment 

will provide a framework for future restoration work that will address the bill's goal of 

improving rangeland conditions. However, the BLM does not support managing rangelands 

according to arbitrary targets of use, which may be inappropriate depending on resource 

condition, but rather supports management of rangelands by adjusting targets of use according to 

resource conditions and through transparent public processes under the principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 365. The Department of the Interior is committed to 

ensuring that grazing within the GSENM is managed in a manner that will achieve land health 

standards through proper grazing management. I would be glad to answer any questions you 

may have. 

2 
125 


Insert offset folio 9 here 95279.009

Statement of 

Timothy M. Murphy 

Acting Assistant Director, National Conservation Lands & Community Partnerships 

Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, & Mining 

S. 472, the Douglas County Conservation Act 

May 21,2015 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on S. 472, the Douglas County Conservation 

Act. The bill authorizes Federal land conveyances and sales in Douglas County, Nevada, and 

designates approximately 12,330 acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) as the Burbank Canyon Wilderness. The BLM largely supports the conveyance and 

conservation goals of S. 472, as it pertains to BLM-managed lands, and would welcome the 

opportunity to work with the sponsors and the Subcommittee on modifications to the bill. 

Background 

Douglas County, located in northwestern Nevada, is home to nearly 47,000 people and holds 

spectacular value for recreation because of its close proximity to Lake Tahoe, Topaz Lake, the 

Sierra Nevada Mountains, and the Pine Nut Mountains. It also boasts significant historic, 

cultural, and paleontological treasures. 

The BLM regularly leases and conveys lands to local governments and nonprofit entities for a 

variety of public purposes. These leases and conveyances are typically accomplished under the 

provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP Act) or through direction supplied 

by specific Acts of Congress. Such direction allows the BLM to help states, local communities, 

and nonprofit organizations obtain lands at nominal cost for important public purposes. The 

BLM generally supports appropriate legislative conveyances at nominal cost if the lands are to 

be used for purposes consistent with the R&PP Act, and if the conveyances have reversionary 

clauses to enforce this requirement. 

Land Conveyances & Sales (Title I) 

Lake Tahoe State Park & Concessionaires (.Sections 101 & 102) 

The BLM defers to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) on the provisions in the bill regarding Lake 

Tahoe State Park and concessionaires at Round Hill Pines and Zephyr Shoals, which affect lands 

administered by the USFS. 

Conveyances to Douglas County (.Section 103) 

S. 4 72 directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to convey 

approximately 7,990 acres of Federal land to the county for flood control and public purposes 

consistent with the R&PP Act. The Secretaries would convey this land subject to valid existing 

rights. While the county would receive the land itself at no cost, the county would pay any 

administrative costs associated with the conveyance (e.g., cultural and cadastral surveys). The 

county would also have the option to acquire the Federal reversionary interest in these lands, and 

the proceeds from the conveyance of such interest would be disbursed and deposited as described 

in the testimony on section 104. 
126 


Insert offset folio 10 here 95279.010

The BLM generally supports these conveyances, to the extent they pertain to ELM-managed 

land, and would like to work with the sponsors and the Subcommittee on minor and technical 

modifications to this provision. Specifically, we recommend that the county assume the 

appraisal and other administrative costs associated with acquiring the reversionary interest, 

consistent with the county assuming the cost of survey and other administrative costs as part of 

the initial conveyance. Further, we recommend that the sponsors and the Subcommittee extend 

the time required to convey the reversionary interest to at least 90 days to allow for sufficient 

time to process the conveyances. The BLM also notes that there is at least one active mining 

claim within the parcels identified for conveyance to Douglas County; however, conveyances 

under the bill would be subject to valid existing rights. 

Some of the parcels identified for conveyance present resource and recreation concerns. For 

example, the areas proposed for conveyance contain an abandoned mine site and a pending 

geothennallease nomination, as well as an equestrian staging area and an Off-Highway Vehicle 

(OHV) staging and riding area that receive moderate to high use throughout the year. The 

conveyance may also affect motorized access and an authorized project for the construction of a 

non-motorized trail. Finally, some of these conveyances may reduce the acres ofBLM-managed 

lands within the Buckeye Grazing Allotment, which may require the BLM to reduce the Animal 

Unit Months (AUMs) permitted for the allotment. In order to address these issues, we would 

like to work with the sponsors and the Subcommittee on boundary modifications or developing 

additional language for the bill. 

Additionally, portions of some of the parcels identified for conveyance are within the 

Ruhenstroth Paleontological Area, which contains paleontological resources protected under 

Federal law and has been proposed as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in the 

Carson City District Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP). The BLM does not support 

conveyance of this paleontological site. 

Federal Land Sales (Section 104) 

The bill also authorizes the sale of up to 10,616 acres ofFederalland through a competitive 

bidding process. Of these lands, approximately 616 acres have already been identified on the 

legislative map, of which approximately one-half is managed by the USFS, and the other half is 

managed by the BLM. The remainder is comprised of no more than l 0,000 unspecified acres of 

BLM land that has been or will be identified as potentially suitable for disposal in the Carson 

City Consolidated RMP, or in any subsequent RMP amendments for the planning area. The 

additional lands for sale would be selected jointly by the Secretary of the Interior and the county 

to be offered to qualified bidders within one year of enactment. The bill also directs that before 

any of the unidentified lands are offered for sale, the state or county may elect to obtain them for 

public purposes in accordance with the R&PP Act. In that event, the Secretary of the Interior 

would retain the elected lands for conveyance to the state or county. 

Under the bill, five percent of the proceeds from the sales of land and Federal reversionary 

interests would be disbursed to the state for general education programs. Ten percent would be 

disbursed to the county to implement the county Open Space and Agricultural Implementation 

Plan. The remaining 85 percent would be deposited into a special U.S. Treasury account, which 
127 


Insert offset folio 11 here 95279.011

would be available to the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to: (1) reimburse costs of the 

BLM and USFS incurred in preparation of land sales (e.g. the costs of surveys and appraisals and 

the costs of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act); (2) reimburse costs incurred by the BLM and USFS in preparing for and 

carrying out the transfers of! and to be held in trust by the United States for the Washoe Tribe of 

Nevada and California; and (3) to acquire environmentally sensitive land in the County, 

consistent with the Douglas County Open Space and Agricultural Lands Preservation 

Implementation plan or any subsequent amendment. 

Finally, the bill amends the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) to 

permit Douglas County to use proceeds from SNPLMA land sales to acquire land for parks, 

trails, or natural areas and for conservation initiatives within the Carson River watershed, within 

the Walker River watershed, or for the conservation of sage-grouse habitat. 

The BLM does not object to this land sale authority or amendment to SNPLMA, but would like 

the opportunity to work with the sponsors and Subcommittee on amendments, including minor 

and technical modifications, fund management for the special account, and language to ensure 

appraisals are conducted according to uniform appraisal standards and practices. In addition, the 

BLM notes that a portion of the parcels are adjacent to Hot Springs Mountain, which is culturally 

important to the Washoe Tribe ofNevada and California. 

Tribal Cultural Resources (Title II) 

S. 472 (Section 201) also directs the Secretary of the Interior to take into trust approximately 

1,016 acres ofFederalland for the benefit of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, subject 

to valid existing rights. The Secretary would be required to complete a survey to establish the 

boundaries of this land within 180 days of enactment. The Secretary would also be authorized to 

carry out fuel reduction and other landscape restoration, in consultation and coordination with 

the Tribe. The BLM supports this provision. 

The BLM defers to the USFS on the Cooperative Management Area provision (Section 202), 

which affects lands administered by the USFS. 

Designation of Burbank Canyons Wilderness (Title Ill) 

Finally, the bill designates approximately 12,330 acres of BLM-managed land as the Burbank 

Canyons Wilderness and releases approximately 1,065 acres of the Burbank Canyons Wilderness 

Study Area (WSA) from further study. The Burbank Canyons area is comprised of rugged 

canyons set in the Pine Nut Mountains. Riparian areas provide important habitat for wildlife, 

and steep, rugged ridges contribute to the area's scenic beauty and the recreational experiences 

available to hikers, horseback riders, and hunters. The BLM supports the designation of the 

Burbank Canyons Wilderness and the release of the remaining portion of the WSA, but would 

like to work with the sponsors and Subcommittee to refine some of the language in the bill. The 

Department recommends the use of standard language for both the designation of the wilderness 

and the release of the Wilderness Study Area. The BLM also recommends clarifying language 

related to technical issues, facilities outside the wilderness boundary, and the protection of 

existing uses compatible with or outside the wilderness designation. 
128 


Insert offset folio 12 here 95279.012

Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction Over Forest Service Land (Title IV) 

The BLM defers to the USFS on the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over USFS land to the 

state or county. 

Conclusion 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on S. 472, the Douglas County Conservation Act. 

We appreciate the sponsors' work on this legislation, and we look forward to working with the 

sponsors and the Subcommittee to meet the needs of Douglas County. 
129 


Insert offset folio 13 here 95279.013

Statement of 

Timothy M. Murphy 

Acting Assistant Director, National Conservation Lands & Community Partnerships 

Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee ou Public Lands, Forests, & Mining 

S. 583, Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act 

May 21,2015 

Thank you for the invitation to testify on S. 583, Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry 

Peak Wilderness Additions Act. The Department of the Interior supports S. 583 as it applies to 

lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and would like the opportunity to 

work with the sponsor and the Committee on technical modifications to the legislation and minor 

boundary modifications to improve manageability. We defer to the Department of Agriculture 

regarding provisions of S. 583 which apply to National Forest System Lands. 

Background 

The Boulder-White Clouds area of central Idaho captivates the imagination with crystal lakes, 

high mountain backcountry, and abundant wildlife. Hunters, hikers, ranchers and other 

stakeholders have come together to support preservation of these unique and treasured lands 

managed by the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the BLM. 

The lands managed by the BLM in this region represent diverse ecosystems ranging from lower 

elevation sagebrush and grasses to lodgepole and limber pine at the higher elevations. There are 

large forested areas in the upper reaches of Bear, Mosquito, Sage, and Lake Creek drainages. 

The highest point is Jerry Peak at over 10,000 feet where there are spectacular vistas of the 

surrounding mountain ranges. Herd Lake, at over 7,000 feet, is a small blue gem within the steep 

rocky terrain. From the small Herd Lake campsite visitors can hike the trail along the creek to 

Herd Lake. The shores of the lake have scattered pines and there are wonderful opportunities to 

fish for rainbow trout. 

This varied and magnificent terrain provides habitat for wildlife, including deer, elk, black bear, 

mountain lion, bighorn sheep, and antelope. Coyotes and golden eagles are also common. The 

area is attractive to hunters and a significant portion of the yearly visitation occurs during 

hunting season. 

S.583 

S. 583 is the result of many years of collaborative efforts by the Idaho Congressional delegation. 

Their dedication to resolving public land use issues in central Idaho is commendable. Title l of 

the bill designates three new wilderness areas Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness 

(approximately 117,000 acres), White Clouds Wilderness (approximately 91,000 acres), and 

Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness (approximately 68,000 acres) and contains provisions related 

to their administration. Approximately 24,000 acres of the proposed Jerry Peak Wilderness are 

managed by the BLM, along with approximately 450 acres of the proposed White Clouds 

Wilderness. The FS manages the other federal lands within the proposed wilderness areas. The 

Department of the Interior supports the proposed wilderness designations on lands managed by 
130 


Insert offset folio 14 here 95279.014

the BLM and would welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee on 

minor boundary modifications to the Jerry Peak Wilderness to improve manageability. We 

would also like to recommend minor modifications to management language to be consistent 

with usual wilderness management lan~:,>uage. Section 108 releases nearly 80,000 acres ofBLMmanaged lands in four wilderness study areas (WSAs) from WSA restrictions. 

Livestock grazing on the public lands designated as wilderness, and in the surrounding area, is 

addressed in section I 02(e) of the bill. The BLM supports this standard language on the 

management oflivestock grazing on public lands within designated wilderness. Section 102(e) 

also establishes the "Boulder White Clouds Grazing Area" on nearly 770,000 acres of public 

lands administered by the FS and BLM- surrounding and including the three areas designated as 

wilderness. Under the provisions of this section, ranchers with Federal grazing permits or leases 

within this area may choose to voluntarily donate their permits or leases to the Secretary of 

Agriculture or Interior. The Secretaries are required to accept these donations, and to 

permanently terminate all grazing on the land covered by the permit or lease. Partial donation 

and congruent partial tern1ination of grazing is also provided for under this subsection. Grazing 

can be a compatible use within wilderness, and there is a long history oflegislation 

accommodating grazing within wilderness designations. However, we also recognize and support 

the proposal by the Idaho delegation to allow voluntary and permanent reductions in grazing in 

these unique and environmentally sensitive areas. 

Title II of S. 583 provides for the conveyance, at no cost, of 12 small tracts of public lands to 

local governments for public purposes. The BLM generally supports the conveyances of nine 

individual parcels ofBLM-administered lands to local governments, but notes that some of the 

parcels to be conveyed contain habitat for the Greater Sage-Grouse. We would like the 

opportunity to work with the sponsor on modifications to some of the conveyances to minimize 

impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. We defer to the FS regarding three conveyances of 

National Forest System lands. As provided in the bill, each of the conveyances oflands managed 

by the BLM would be for uses consistent with public purposes allowed under the R&PP Act, 

which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease or convey public lands at nominal cost for 

recreational and public purposes, including parks and other facilities benefiting the public. In 

general, the BLM supports appropriate legislative conveyances if the lands are to be used for 

purposes consistent with the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, if the conveyance 

includes a reversionary clause to enforce this requirement, and if the benefitting local 

government is responsible for the administrative costs of the conveyance. 

Among the proposed conveyances ofBLM-administered public lands are 10 acres for a fire hall, 

80 acres for a waste transfer site to Custer County, and 23 acres to the city of Clayton for a 

cemetery. The BLM has reviewed each of these conveyances in the bill. We believe they are in 

the public interest, and support their no-cost conveyance for uses that would be allowed under 

the R&PP Act if the bill is amended to provide that the receiving parties cover the costs of the 

conveyances, including any needed surveys and the preparation of conveyance documents. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support ofS. 583. We applaud the work of the Idaho 

delegation, of the sponsor of this bill, Senator Risch, and the vision and commitment of 
131 


Insert offset folio 15 here 95279.015

Congressman Mike Simpson, who has championed the effort to protect these unique landscapes 

in Idaho for over a decade in partnership with his colleagues in the Senate. 

We look forward to working with Members of the Idaho delegation and the Committee to make 

further, minor modifications to the bill to permanently protect these important landscapes as a 

part of the National Wilderness Preservation System and to affect the land transfers directed in 

the bill to provide specific public benefits to local communities. 
132 


Insert offset folio 16 here 95279.016

Statement of 

Timothy M. Murphy 

Acting Assistant Director, National Conservation Lands & Community Partnerships 

Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, & Mining 

S.814 Oregon Coastal Land Act 

S.815 Cow Creek Umpqua Land Conveyance Act 

May 21,2015 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 814, the Oregon Coastal Lands Conveyance Act 

and S. 815, the Cow Creek Umpqua Land Conveyance Act. S. 814 would provide that 

approximately 14,804 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-managed lands in western 

Oregon be held in trust on behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 

Siuslaw Indians. S. 815 would provide that approximately 17,519 acres of ELM-managed lands 

in western Oregon be held in trust on behalf of the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of 

Indians. The bills would also require the Department of the Interior to reclassify an equal 

number of acres of public domain lands as Oregon and California (O&C) lands to compensate 

for the loss of O&C lands transferred by the bills. 

The Department of the Interior welcomes opportunities to work with Congress on the transfer of 

lands into trust status and supports the goals of S. 814 and S. 815. The BLM would like the 

opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee to address various issues related to the 

bill, including current uses of the lands, consistency with other laws, and the difficulty of 

identifying public domain lands to be reclassified as O&C lands. 

Background 

Both the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians and the Cow 

Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of Indians have expressed their desire to acquire culturally 

significant tracts of land in the region as well as forest lands to be managed for the financial 

benefit of tribal members. The BLM strongly believes that open communication between the 

BLM and tribes is essential in maintaining effective government-to-government relationships, 

and the BLM has a positive working relationship with the tribes in the area. 

In western Oregon, the BLM currently manages roughly 2.2 million acres of Revested Oregon 

and California Railroad and Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands under the O&C 

Lands Act 1937. Underthe Act, 18 O&C counties receive yearly payments equal to 50 percent 

of receipts from timber harvests on public lands in these counties. Since 2000, the BLM has 

made payments to the 18 O&C counties based on the authorities provided for the in the Secure 

Rural Schools Act, which has been reauthorized through FY 2016. The ELM's FY 2016 Budget 

request also includes a proposal for a five-year reauthorization of the Act. 

S.814 

S. 814 would provide that seven tracts comprising approximately 14,804 acres of ELM-managed 

lands be held in trust for the benefit of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 

Siuslaw Indians (the Tribes). The bill directs all right, title, and interest of the United States to 
133 


Insert offset folio 17 here 95279.017

the identified lands, subject to valid existing rights, to be held in trust for the benefit of the 

Tribes. 

These parcels are located in western Oregon's Coos, Douglas, Benton, and Lane Counties, and 

include tracts such as the Coos Head, Talbot Allotment, and Umpqua Eden parcels, which are of 

particular cultural significance to the Tribes, as well as areas such as the Lower Smith River and 

Tioga tracts, managed for timber production. 

While the transfer would be subject to valid existing rights, the BLM would like to continue to 

work with the sponsor on access concerns on certain parcels. S. 814 includes language to 

address the BLM's concerns about an earlier version of the legislation by honoring existing 

reciprocal right-of-way agreements and providing for administrative access by the BLM. 

However, we note that under the bill, the public would lose access to certain recreational trails 

and to the Hult Reservoir Recreation Area. 

S. 814 also includes lands identified for transfer that were acquired with funding from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965, which requires that these lands remain 

available in perpetuity for the use and enjoyment of the public. The BLM would like to work 

with the sponsor to ensure consistency with the LWCF Act 

The BLM notes that the lands identified for transfer in S. 814 contain critical habitat for the 

northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet We note that if these lands are held in trust, the 

BLM will not be able to complete its land management objectives for these lands related to the 

recovery of these species. 

S.815 

S. 815 would provide for approximately 17,519 acres of BLM-managed land in Douglas County, 

Oregon, to be held in trust for the benefit of the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe ofindians 

(the Tribe). The bill directs all rights, title, and interest of the United States to the identified 

lands, subject to valid existing rights, to be held in trust for the benefit of the Tribe. The lands 

identified for transfer would be used to restore and expand the historic and economic base for the 

Tribe in southwestern Oregon. The parcels are scattered and interspersed with private lands, and 

include many areas popular with hunters, anglers, and campers. 

While the transfer would be subject to valid existing rights, the BLM has access concerns related 

to some parcels. The BLM recommends the bill be amended to include similar language to S. 

814 in Section 5( d) honoring existing reciprocal right-of-way agreements and administrative 

access by the BLM. 

The BLM suggests that corresponding language from S. 814 Section 5(e) be inserted into S. 815 

to ensure that land taken into trust under S. 815 would not be subject to the land use planning 

requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

The lands proposed for transfer inS. 815 also include populations of the Federally threatened 

Kincaid's lupine and critical habitat for the northern spotted owL We note that if these lands are 

held in trust, the BLM will not be able to complete its land management objectives for these 
134 


Insert offset folio 18 here 95279.018

lands related to the recovery of these species. The identified parcels also include numerous sites 

of cultural and historical importance. The BLM would like to work with the sponsor to clarify 

language related to the protection of wildlife and cultural resources. 

O&C Forestry 

Because many of the lands to be taken into trust by both S. 814 and S. 815 have been identified 

for potential future timber sales, the BLM believes that the transfer of these lands would reduce 

the quantities of timber that could be offered in future timber sales, resulting in a potential 

reduction of timber revenues to the United States and to the O&C counties. 

Under the bills, the BLM would be required to identify and reclassify public domain lands as 

O&C lands to avoid a net loss to the acreage of O&C lands. The BLM is concerned that there 

are insufficient public domain lands of comparable condition, in the vicinity of the O&C lands to 

meet this objective. The BLM would like to continue to work with the sponsor and the 

Committee on this issue. 

The Draft Western Oregon Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft 

EIS) was released on April24, 2015. The Draft EIS does not analyze the impacts of this transfer 

in any of the alternatives. The BLM is concerned that if these bills became law, there may not be 

sufficient time to address these transfers and their impact to resources and uses in the Final EIS. 

The Final EIS Record of Decision is scheduled to be signed in spring 2016. 

The BLM also recognizes that timeframes to complete cadastral surveys required by both bills 

are longer than in previous versions, giving the BLM up to 1 year to complete the surveys of the 

boundaries of the transfer However, the BLM is still concerned with being able to meet this 

requirement and would like to continue to work with the sponsor on a timeline that would add 

flexibility to the survey requirements. 

Conclusion 

The Department of the Interior welcomes opportunities to work with Congress on the 

conveyance oflands into trust status and supports the goals ofS. 814 and S. 815. We look 

forward to working with the sponsor and the Committee to address the various issues we have 

outlined in this testimony, as well as other minor technical issues. 
135 


Insert offset folio 19 here 95279.019

Statement of 

Timothy M. Murphy 

Acting Assistant Director, National Conservation Lands & Community Partnerships 

Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, & Mining 

S. 1240, Cerros del Norte Conservation Act 

May 21,2015 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 1240, the Cerros del Norte Conservation Act. On 

March 25, 2013, President Obama designated the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument on 

242,555 acres ofland administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in northern New 

Mexico. This legislation includes the designation of two wilderness areas within the new Rio 

Grande del Norte National Monument the proposed 13,420-acre Cerro del Yuta Wilderness 

and 8,000-acre Rio San Antonio Wilderness. The Department supports the designation of these 

two new wilderness areas. 

Background 

The Rio Grande del Norte National Monument lies north of Taos on the border with Colorado 

and straddles New Mexico's Taos and Rio Arriba Counties. Rising in stark contrast from the 

monument's broad expanse, the Cerro de Ia Olla, Cerro San Antonio, and Cerro del Yuta 

volcanic cones provide visible reminders of the area's volatile past. Between these mountains, the 

dramatic gorge of the Rio Grande Wild & Scenic River is carved into the landscape, revealing 

the dark basalt beneath the surface of the Taos plateau. 

The proposed Cerro del Yuta Wilderness has at its centerpiece a symmetrical volcanic dome 

soaring to over 10,000 feet in altitude. Covered by ponderosa, Douglas fir, aspen, and spruce on 

the north side, and pinyon and juniper on the south side, the mountain provides important habitat 

for wildlife, including the herds of elk that draw hunters to the area. The volcanic dome provides 

an outstanding opportunity for peak climbing, and the forested slopes create a strong sense of 

solitude. 

The proposed Rio San Antonio Wilderness consists of a flat plain bisected by the Rio San 

Antonio. This grassland plain is dotted with occasional juniper, while the river sits 200 feet 

below the surface of the plateau at the bottom of a rugged gorge, the depths of which provide a 

microclimate for riparian vegetation, Douglas fir, and spruce. Visitors can find outstanding 

opportunities for solitude as they explore the gorge, which abruptly drops out of sight from the 

rest of the area. Protecting these characteristics will help to ensure that recreationists will 

continue to visit the area, bringing economic benefits to the local community. 

s. 1240 

S.l240 designates two wilderness areas on BLM-managed lands within the new National 

Monument- the proposed 13,420-acre Cerro del Yuta Wilderness and 8,000-acre Rio 

San Antonio Wilderness. Both of these areas meet the definition of wilderness in the Wilderness 

Act of 1964: they are largely untouched by humans, have outstanding opportunities for solitude 

or primitive and unconfined recreation, are over 5,000 acres in size, and contain important 
136 


Insert offset folio 20 here 95279.020

geological, biological, and scientific features. We support the designation of these areas as 

wilderness, and would appreciate the opportunity to work with the sponsor on potential boundary 

modifications for manageability. 

Conclusion 

President Obama's designation of the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument was a tribute to 

both the area's extraordinary value and the steadfast support of the surrounding community for 

protecting this magnificent place. The Department supports S.l240 in its designation of some of 

the new Rio Grande del Norte National Monument's wildest lands as wilderness. 
137 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. Johnson? 

STATEMENT OF RICK JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am Rick Johnson. I’m the Executive Director of 

the Idaho Conservation League. I’m here to speak to S. 583. 

Our organization has supported wilderness protection for the 

Boulder-White Clouds since our founding 40 years ago. The Boulder and White Cloud Mountains are a crown jewel of Idaho and deserve permanent protection, and we have been here before to talk 

about this. 

In June 2010 when I appeared at this table, Senator Risch along 

with the entire Idaho delegation had just introduced a version of 

this bill. During the hearing Senator Risch expressed reservations. 

He told us that the bill needed more compromise. There has now 

been more compromise, and there is now much more support. 

Once again, respectful of compromise, respectful of the legislative 

process, I am here to speak in support of this bill. 

The Idaho Conservation League has worked with Representative 

Mike Simpson for well over a decade on this legislation. We worked 

with Senators Jim Risch and Mike Crapo for a long time on this 

too. While we all get points for persistence, this is not about us. 

This is about the future of the Boulder and White Cloud Mountains. This is a very special place. These mountain ranges contain 

the headwaters of four major rivers and are home to some of the 

highest elevation salmon habitat on Earth. 

This is a landscape of summer and winter range for big game 

and critical habitat for endangered and allusive species like wolverine. It is also an unparalleled resource for many different recreational pursuits. The wild heart of the Boulder-White Clouds deserves the highest protection possible, and wilderness designation 

provides that. 

It would also create the first designated wilderness in the Wood 

River Valley, a community that supports strong land protection 

and has long been supportive of this effort. 

It is time to get the job done. One way or another prospects for 

protecting the Boulder-White Clouds have never been better. Many 

believe a bill written by the Idaho Delegation is the best path. I 

asked the delegation who else is on board? Their response is much 

different than it was five years ago. The support today is remarkable. 

The Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association is supportive. Local 

ranchers are supportive. The Idaho Cattle Association and the 

Idaho Farm Bureau, never wilderness advocates, have indicated 

they will not stand in the way. Idaho water users are supporters 

of the water protections. The Sawtooth Society is supportive as is 

the Custer County Commission. The Idaho Recreation Council represents motorized trail bikes and snowmobile users and they are 

not opposed. And many conservationists support this bill including 

the Idaho Conservation League, who I represent, the Wilderness 

Society and the Pew Charitable Trust. We have also heard from individual mountain bikers who support, if not formal organizations. 

138 

The biking groups would like access to all groups, and I sympathize 

and recognize that compromise is hard. 

Compromise has been hard for our interests as well. If the bill 

passes there will, regretfully, be 57,000 fewer acres as wilderness 

than in the previous version of this bill. There are significant parts 

of the Boulder-White Clouds that are not included here that we always assumed would be ultimately protected. No one suggests this 

bill is perfect. It is not how I would have written it, but Senator 

Jim Risch and Representative Mike Simpson have long demonstrated that in order to govern, we cannot let the perfect be the 

enemy of the good. 

There has never been such broad consensus around legislation 

for the Boulder-White Clouds. As we all know, there are other options for protection being discussed. This hearing is an important 

step, and I applaud Senator Risch and the Committee for holding 

this hearing. I know it took a lot of work and I appreciate that. 

There are many more steps ahead, however. The road is long, and 

the time is very short. One way or another, it’s time to permanently protect this landscape and this bill would do that. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward 

to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

139 


Insert offset folio 23 here 95279.023

Testimony of Rick Johnson, Executive Director, Idaho Conservation League 

Before the US Senate Subcommittee on Forests, Public Lands, and Mining 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resom·ces 

Regarding S. 583 

The Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act 

May 21, 2015- Washington, DC 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,!thank you for the opportunity to appear today. 

My name is Rick Johnson and I am the executive director of the Idaho Conservation League. I 

ask that these comments be included in the hearing record. 

The Idaho Conservation League was founded in 1973; we are Idaho's oldest and largest state 

based conservation organization. Our mission is to protect Idaho's clean air and water, 

wilderness, and the outdoor values that provide Idaho its extraordinary quality of life. 

The Idaho Conservation League has been a strong supporter of wilderness legislation for the 

Boulder-White Clouds since our founding. We have worked with members of the Idaho 

congressional delegation, particularly, Rep. Mike Simpson, to advance wilderness designation for 

more than a decade. I personally have worked to protect this area for 30 years. 

We have been here before. In June 20 I 0, when I appeared at this table, Sen. Risch--along with the 

entire Idaho delegation--had introduced an earlier version of this bill. During the hearing Senator 

Risch expressed reservations. He told us the bill needed more compromise. 

There has now been more compromise. The breadth of engagement in this bill is unprecedented in 

Idaho history. 

Once again, respectful of compromise, respectful of the legislative process, I am here to speak in 

support of this bill. The Idaho Conservation League has worked with Rep. Mike Simpson for well 

over a decade on this legislation. We've worked with Sen. Risch and Sen. Crapo for a long time, 

too. 

We all get points for persistence. 
140 


Insert offset folio 24 here 95279.024

Idaho Conservation League testimony 

US Senate Committee 011 Energy and Natural Resources 

But it's not about us. 

This is about the Boulder-White Clouds. These mountain ranges, containing the headwaters of four 

rivers with some of the highest elevation salmon habitat on Earth, are a very special place. This is a 

landscape of summer and winter range for big game. It is an unparalleled recreation resource for 

many different pursuits, all protected in this compromise bilL The wild heart of the Boulder-White 

Clouds deserves the highest protection in the land, and wilderness designation provides that 

It's time to get the job done. 

There has never been more energy directed to the Boulder-White Clouds as there is today. One way 

or another, prospects have never been better. Passing this bill would get the job done. A bill written 

by an Idaho House and Senate member is the best path forward for a number of reasons. 

The depth of support is remarkable: I asked the delegation for a sense of the groups on board. The 

following are either supportive, or not opposed to the current version going forward. This is far 

from the opposition we saw in this room 5 years ago. 

• Ranchers on the East Fork of the Salmon are supportive and the Idaho Cattle Association 

and the Idaho Farm Bureau will not stand in the way. Idaho Water Users are supportive of 

the water protections. 

• The Sawtooth Society is supportive as is the Custer County Commission. 

• The Idaho Recreation Council representing motorized trail bikes and snowmobiles are not 

opposed and the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association is supportive. 

And many conservationists support this bill including the Idaho Conservation League, The 

Wilderness Society and the Pew Charitable Trusts. 

And with respect to my friend and colleague beside me, this bill is also supported by a many 

mountain bikers, if not by the formal organizations. The biking groups would like full bike access. 

sympathize and personally know compromise is hard. It's been hard for our interests, too. If the bill 

passes, we will, regretfully, have 57,000 fewer acres protected as wilderness then in the previous 

version of this bilL There are significant parts of the Boulder-White Clouds not in this bill we 

always assumed would be. We recognize compromise is hard. 

I will say bikes have more access to trails in this bill then in any other Boulder-White Clouds 

legislation to date. 

The failure to compromise is why we've failed before. It is extraordinary commitment to 

compromise that brings us to this committee again. 

This bill is not perfect Sen. Risch and Rep. Simpson have long demonstrated that, in order to 

govern, you cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 

There has never been so great a consensus around legislation for the Boulder-White Clouds. There 

are many reasons for this, but working together, we may finally have the wind at our back. 

2 
141 


Insert offset folio 25 here 95279.025

Idaho Conservation League testimony 

US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

This hearing is an important step and I applaud Sen. Risch and the committee for holding this 

hearing. But there are many more steps ahead. The road is long and the time is very short. 

One way or another, it's time to permanently protect this landscape. Passage of this bill would do 

that 

The Place 

Central Idaho's Boulder-White Clouds are the largest roadless landscape in the lower 48 states 

eligible for wilderness protection. The area contains significant ecological and wilderness values 

and is home to a rich variety of wildlife, include threatened and endangered species. Salmon travel 

nearly 1,100 miles from the ocean, over dams, to return home to the highest elevation spawning 

habitat in United States. Rare plants are also located here that grow nowhere else on earth. The 

Boulder-White Clouds are a treasured landscape for many recreationists because of their remote 

wild character and immense opportunities for solitude. The area has a rich history from the earliest 

native American inhabitants dating back thousands of years to the more modern day relics of 

Idaho's mining boom in the late 19111 and early 201

h centuries. 

All the resources described here are within or in the immediate vicinity of lands that would be 

designated wilderness by this bill. 

Roadless and Wilderness Study Areas 

The Boulder-White Clouds are one of the most nationally significant roadless landscapes in the 

United States from both an ecological and sociological perspective. At nearly 590,000 acres, the 

combined complex of Forest Service roadless areas and Bureau of Land Management wilderness 

study areas constitute the largest unprotected landscape in the United States outside Alaska. 

The complex consists of two U.S. Forest Service Inventoried Roadless areas (IRAs) and four 

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), described in greater detail below. 

The wild nature of this remote landscape offers unparalleled opportunities for wilderness recreation, 

scenic visitas and opportunities for solitude. 

The Boulder-White Clouds Roadless Area (462,822 acres) is the largest U.S. Forest Service IRA in 

the state of Idaho and one of the largest in the lower 48 states. It is administered by the Sawtooth 

and Salmon-Challis National forests and is one of only two congressionally designated wilderness 

study areas in Idaho. The legislation does not protect this area in its entirety and, regrettably, also 

does not protect all of the area recommended as wilderness by the US Forest Service. 

The Railroad Ridge IRA (50,818 acres) includes a unique, high-elevation ridgeline that was shaped 

by alpine glaciers, as well as steep river breaks above the main Salmon River. The relatively flat 

and broad ridgeline harbors a unique assemblage of rare and endemic plants. The Sawtooth 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan proposes the establishment of botanical 

special interest area or research natural area to protect these features. This area, regrettably, is not 

included in the legislation. 

Three Bureau of Land Management wilderness study areas (WSAs) are contiguous to the east side 

of the Boulder-White Clouds IRA; the Boulder Creek WSA (1,930 acres); Jerry Peak West WSA 

(13,530 acres) and Jerry Peak WSA (14, 150 acres). A fourth WSA-the Corral-Horse Basin WSA 
142 


Insert offset folio 26 here 95279.026

Idaho Conservation League testimony 

US Senate Committee 011 Energy and Natural Resources 

(46,500)-is located northeast of the Jerry Peak WSA. Much of the acreage covered by the Bureau 

of Land Management wilderness study areas will be released to multiple use under this legislation. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The headwaters offour major river systems originate in the Boulder-White Clouds, including the 

Big Wood River, North Fork Big Lost River, East Fork Salmon River, and legendary Salmon River. 

They are clean, free-flowing waters that provide habitat for anadromous and resident fish as well as 

opportunities for angling, boating, scenic viewpoints, and municipal drinking water. Many of these 

rivers and their tributaries are considered eligible for protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act. 

A comprehensive study just released by the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 

indicates that within the century, the high alpine waterways found in the Boulder-White Clouds will 

be one of just a few suitable habitats remaining in the west for threatened bull trout and other coldwater dependent species. 

Fish and Wildlife 

The Boulder-White Clouds is some of the most important alpine fish and wildlife habitat in Idaho. 

Because of the unique topography, it provides an exceptional assemblage of connected summer and 

winter ranges for rare and threatened animal species such as wolverine, lynx, fisher, pine martin, 

bighorn sheep and mountain lion. Wolverine and lynx in particular are adapted to deep snowpack, 

characteristic of the high mountains in the Boulder-White Clouds. The Canada lynx is listed as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Wolverine is a candidate for listing. 

The Boulder-White Clouds are also home to the highest altitude Chinook salmon and Steelhead 

habitat in the United States. While downstream dams have severely depleted wild stocks of salmon 

and Steelhead, the critical habitats found in the Boulder-White Clouds are crucial in aiding in the 

recovery of these species. 

Because of the diversity of wildlife, including the numerable presence of deer and elk, and the 

backcountry wild character, the Boulder-White Clouds are a treasured destination for hunters, 

fisherman, and wildlife watchers. 

Railroad Ridge 

In the north-central part of the Boulder-White Clouds is a high alpine ridgeline known as Railroad 

Ridge. Unlike the jagged peaks and ridgelines that typify much of the Boulder-White Clouds, 

Railroad Ridge is a broad, relatively flat ridge. Shaped by glacial forces during the ice ages, 

Railroad Ridge hosts an array of endemic alpine plant species. 

One plant species-White Cloud mil kvetch-is found nowhere else on earth than Railroad Ridge. 

The only known population of northern sagewort in Idaho also occurs here. Slender moonwort, 

another rare plant found on the ridge, is a candidate species for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Small stands ofwhitebark pine exist in sheltered areas just below the main ridgeline. Many of the 

trees are at least 1,100 years old and thought to be the oldest known whitebark pine on the planet. 

Right now, these stands are free of blister rust, which has infected many whitebark pine forests 

throughout the west. 

.j 
143 


Insert offset folio 27 here 95279.027

Idaho Conservation League te.\timony 

US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Geothermal Features 

Hot springs are located along many streams and rivers in the Boulder-White Clouds. Natural 

springs and tubs are found at Slate Creek, Bowery, and West Pass creek. These natural springs have 

a history dating back to the area's earliest inhabitants. Today, both human visitors as well as a rich 

variety of wildlife visit these springs. 

Early Inhabitation 

Historic hunting and fishing sites including blinds and shelters from early Native American 

inhabitants are found across the Boulder-White Clouds landscape. Many of these sites remain 

undisturbed even today and have significant historical and cultural value. With the area lacking 

formal protection, these sites remain at risk from disturbance and damage into the future. 

Historic Mining Settlements 

Beginning in the 1860's, early settlers from the mining booms in the west began to develop both 

mines and homesites within in the Boulder-White Clouds. Today, many of these mining relics still 

remain intact across the area and boast interesting and unique stories that accompany the abandoned 

structures. 

The Conservation History 

Before the late 1960s few people knew anything about the Boulder-White Clouds of Central Idaho. 

That change began in 1968. The American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) proposed 

an open-pit molybdenum mine at the base of Castle Peak- an aptly named monolith that rises well 

above the surrounding peaks in the center of the White Cloud Mountains. The mining industry had 

never faced any considerable opposition in Idaho, a fact that led to Idaho's nickname, "The Gem 

State." 

The controversy around the proposed mine substantially altered Idaho's history and the fate of the 

Boulder-White Clouds. When the state endorsed the proposed mine, the Director of the Idaho 

Department of Parks board, Ernest Day, resigned his post. Day's aerial photos of Castle Peak are 

now an iconic image known to many Idahoans. Even today, they still serve to illustrate to the public 

where what would have been lost if the proposed open pit mine would have been located. 

Coincidentally a young Cecil D. Andrus was running for governor. Andrus took the position that 

this very special part of Central Idaho was too important to sacrifice to an open pit mine. In 1970, 

Andrus won the election largely because of the stance he took to protect the Boulder-White Clouds. 

Two years later, Senator Frank Church successfully moved legislation through Congress to 

designate the Sawtooth National Recreation Area by an act known as Public Law 92-400. This act 

was a step in the right direction for the Boulder-White Clouds, withdrawing Castle Peak from 

mining and designating the neighboring Sawtooth Mountains as Wilderness. But in the end, the 

legislation punted on the issue of designating the Boulder-White Cloud Mountains, leaving the 

decision to a future Congress by directing the Forest Service to study the area for Wilderness 

designation or National Park status. Below is the excepts from Public Law 92-400 referencing the 

Boulder-White Clouds: 
144 


Insert offset folio 28 here 95279.028

Idaho Conservation League testimony 

US Senate Committee 011 Energy and Natural Resources 

Section 5 of Public Law 92-400: ''The Secretary shall, as soon as practicable after the 

enactment of this Act, review the undeveloped and unimproved portion or potions of the 

recreation area as to suitability or non-suitabilityfor preservation as a part of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System.. " 

Sec 14 (a) of Public Law 92-400: "The Secretary oft he Interior, in consultation with 

appropriate Federal, State, and Local agencies, shall make a comprehensive analysis of the 

natural, economic, and cultural values of the recreation area and the adjacent Pioneer 

Mountains for the purpose (?f evaluating the potentiality of establishing therein a national 

park or other unit of the national park system. He shall submit a report ~f the results~~ the 

analysis along with his recommendation to Congress~}' December 31, 197./. " 

Sec 14 (2) of Public Law 92-400: "The establishment ~fa national park in the mountain 

peaks and upland areas together with such portions of the national recreation area as may 

be necessmy and appropriate for the proper administration and public use of the and access 

to such park land1·, leaving the valleys and low-lying lands available.fbr multiple-use 

pwposes ... 

Legislative Wilderness efforts 

Over the course of the last four decades, many attempts at Wilderness legislation for the BoulderWhite Clouds have occurred. 

In 1984, Sen. James McClure (R-ID) introduced wilderness legislation that would have protected a 

portion of the Boulder-White Clouds. Throughout the 1980s and into the early 1990s, various 

attempts to move legislation failed. Key participants at various times included Sen. McClure, Gov. 

Cecil D. Andrus (D), Rep. Richard Stallings (D-ID), and Rep. Mike Crapo (R-ID). 

In 2004, Congressman Mike Simpson introduced his first Boulder-White Clouds wilderness bill, 

the Centralldaho Economic Development and Recreation Act. Simpson's legislation was based on 

addressing key interests of those who had played a rolling in stopping past initiatives to protect the 

Boulder-White Clouds: ranchers, counties, motorized users, and wilderness advocates. With each 

group, he proposed making sure they got something more than they could get any other way, on 

their own. Simpson and his staff tirelessly met with agency officials, proponents and opponents to 

craft a middle ground for wilderness protection for the Boulder-White Clouds. 

Conservation groups such as the Idaho Conservation League, The Wilderness Society, and 

Campaign for America's Wilderness, worked with Congressman Simpson to improve his 

wilderness bill, adding wilderness acreage and removing or modifying some objectionable 

provisions. Motorcycle and snowmobile groups continued to oppose any additional wilderness in 

Idaho. 

In 2006, tbe bill passed the U.S. House. At the close of Congress, the Central Idaho Economic 

Development and Recreation Act was included in the very-end-of-session tax extenders bill. In the 

last hours of the lame duck session, the Speaker substituted another measure. This was the closest 

that the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act ever came to passage. 

6 
145 


Insert offset folio 29 here 95279.029

Idaho Conservation League testimony 

US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

In 2010, the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act, after being unable to move 

in the House, was renegotiated with Senate Democratic committee staff and reintroduced by the 

entire Idaho congressional delegation: Rep. Mike Simpson, Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID), Sen. Mike 

Crapo (R-ID) and Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID). At a Senate Committee hearing, after supporting 

Simpson's bill as governor and then as a bill sponsor, Sen. Risch withdrew his support and stopped 

committee action on the bill. His action, presumably, was the result of pressure from the motorized 

use community. Idaho Governor Butch Otter raised objections with the legislation before the 

hearing, providing yet another unexpected setback. 

In 2011, on the first day of the !12th Congress, Simpson reintroduced CIEDRA but no heming was 

ever scheduled. 

In March of2015, Rep. Mike Simpson along with Sen. Jim Risch introduced a scaled-back version 

of previous legislative efforts, re-naming the new bill the Sawtooth National Recreation Area Plus 

or SNRA+. This is the legislation before us today. 

A cutback of approximately 60,000 acres of wilderness was included in this version to ensure that 

no motorized routes would be closed. This key aspect of the reworked legislation helped bring Sen. 

Risch back on board. To date, the House has not scheduled a hearing. 

This long history has been the subject of considerable media (local, regional and national print and 

television) and academic attention (masters theses and doctoral dissertations). The long and 

involved evolution of collaborative conservation spurred on by the Boulder-White Clouds has, thus 

far, failed to protect this area, but it has reshaped conservation in Idaho. Another collaborative 

endeavor, the Owyhee Initiative, led to passage of the first wilderness bill for Idaho in 29 years, in 

the Omnibus bill signed by President Barack Obama in 2009. 

Idaho Conservation League's Engagement and Support of The Sawtooth National Recreation 

Area and Jen·y Peak Wilderness Additions Act 

No other conservation organization in the state of Idaho has worked as closely or as long to get the 

Boulder-White Clouds protected as the Idaho Conservation League. For decades-since our 

founding 42 years ago-the Idaho Conservation League has supported wilderness protection for 

this area. We have worked closely with Rep. Mike Simpson for 12 years to advance his 

compromise bills in Congress. Over many years, his efforts have been blocked by the left and later 

by the right, and, remarkably, he keeps leaning into it, looking for the rarest of paths in Congress: 

the center. 

This will mark the third time I've testified in front of Congress for this bill; once in 2005, once in 

2010, and now I am here before Congress again. We've come close in the past, but close is not 

enough to protect this nationally unique and incredibly special area. While the Idaho Conservation 

League stands in support of this bill we have earned a measure of skepticism that Congress can 

really get this job done. We hope to be proven wrong. 

This bill is not perfect; the Idaho Conservation League would have written it very differently. 

We've seen the wilderness area get smaller each time compromises were made and this is 

7 
146 


Insert offset folio 30 here 95279.030

Idaho Conservation League testimony 

US Senate Committee 011 Energy and Natural Resources 

disappointing. We are concerned that the lands surrounding one of primary rivers leading up into 

the Boulder-White Clouds, the East Fork of the Salmon River, have been cut from this proposal. 

We are disheartened that much of the land that the Bureau of Land Management has for many years 

managed as wilderness study areas will be released. 

We have time and time again, weighed in on the failure of many U.S. Forest Service managers to 

not manage agency recommended wilderness as such. Despite both recommendations from 

agencies and Congress, many of these managers have chosen to continue to let motorized use grow 

and become entrenched in the agency's recommended wilderness, which ultimately resulted in the 

reduction of thousands of acres of land being removed in this bill from wilderness designation. 

The Idaho Conservation League is a supporter and strong believer that the Boulder-White Clouds 

can wait no longer for the protections they deserve. Too much time has passed already. We are 

looking at all means to secure protection. We believe the most effective way to manage this critical 

area is as a whole, across the landscape, rather than in pieces. 

But we do not fault the delegation for the compromises made. Instead we applaud the dedicated 

effort to protect this world-class place and we commend the leadership demonstrated to get this 

done. 

This bill before Congress today is the culmination offourteen years of work by Rep. Mike Simpson 

to reach a common-sense collaborative solution. Rep. Simpson has spent years working to build 

bridges, going out and meeting with communities, with landowners, and interest groups. He has 

worked long and hard to incorporate the needs and interests of the people who live, work, and play 

in the affected landscape. The components of this bill are based on good faith negotiations 

concluded with handshakes, all values and actions we see too little of today. 

Most importantly, the bill before Congress today gives much of the Boulder-White Clouds area the 

wilderness protection it deserves and that is a great thing. If this legislation is enacted, which we 

believe it should be, it would bring closure to the 40+ year Boulder-White Clouds conservation 

effort in Idaho and honor not only the land itself but also the prominent Idaho leaders from both 

political parties that have dedicated themselves to the protection of this incredible area. Over the 

past 40 years, champions of the Boulder-White Clouds have included former Governor ofidaho 

and Former Secretary of the Department oflnterior Cecil D. Andrus (D), Former Idaho U.S. 

Senator and past Chairman of this committee, James McClure (R), Former U.S Senator and 

conservation advocate Frank Church (D), and long-time wilderness advocate and local grass-roots 

leader Bethine Church (D). 

Specifics on S. 583; The Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness 

Additions Act 

Wilderness Designation 

The Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act (S.583) would 

designate 275,665 acres as wilderness. This designation would protect critical alpine areas, 

including nearly 150 peaks over 10,000 feet in elevation. It would also provide protections for 

much of the areas' spawning beds for salmon, habitat for wildlife, and backcountry recreational 

experiences for generations of Americans to come. 
147 


Insert offset folio 31 here 95279.031

Idaho Conservation League testimony 

US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A total of 153,883 acres of recommended wilderness and wilderness study areas (WSA) would be 

released to multiple use management Under previous legislation (Centralldaho Economic 

Development and Recreation Act or ClEDRA), a total of332,928 acres would have been 

designated as wilderness with approximately 131,500 acres of recommended wilderness and 

wilderness study areas (WSA) being released to multiple use. 

The Idaho Conservation League believes that many of these eligible yet not included areas 

exemplify extraordinary wilderness character and the exclusion of these areas is disheartening for 

us to see. Many of these areas that were not proposed for wilderness were the result of 

extraordinary measures taken to provide access for motorized recreation in recommended 

wilderness. 

Grazing 

Tt is a common misconception that the Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibits grazing operations in the 

wilderness. As this Committee is fully aware, established grazing operations are permitted within 

designated wilderness areas. The Sawiooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness 

Additions Act (S.583) is consistent with the Wilderness Act by allowing existing grazing operations 

to continue within the wilderness boundary. Rep. Mike Simpson has worked very hard to ensure 

impacted landowners and grazing permitees are aware that grazing would continue under 

wilderness designation. 

S.583 also provides a mechanism for willing ranchers to retire their grazing leases and permits and 

receive fair compensation for the termination of their grazing rights. When a rancher chooses to 

voluntarily retire their grazing rights, fair compensation will be paid by private funding sources 

already lined up. This important provision has no negative fiscal impact on the federal budget and 

ensures that the quality of rangelands, wildlife habitat, and streamside areas in the Boulder-White 

Clouds only improve over time. The Idaho Conservation League supports this mechanism and feels 

that this will be a critical element to preserving the long-term ecological integrity of the area while 

also protecting the heritage and life-style that ranching represents to the west. 

Outfitting and Guiding 

S. 583 allows for outfitting and guiding operations within the proposed wilderness areas when such 

ventures lead to and support the realization of the values of wilderness protection. 

State Jurisdiction over Fish and Wildlife 

S. 583 does not affect the State ofldaho's jurisdiction over the management offish and game 

species within the wilderness areas. The Idaho Department ofFish and Game will continue to 

regulate hunting and fishing activities within and outside the wilderness areas designated by S. 583. 

When the Idaho Department ofFish and Game believes that it is necessary to take active steps to 

manage or monitor populations of fish and game species within the wilderness areas designated by 

S. 583, the Department will have authority to do so as it always has. 

The preservation of275,665 acres as wilderness will also benefit hunters and anglers by protecting 

important habitat for deer, elk, pronghorn, mountain goat, bear, salmon, steel head, trout and 

numerous other species. This designation will provide a lasting benefit for many fish and game 
148 


Insert offset folio 32 here 95279.032

Idaho Conservation League testimony 

US Senate Committee 011 Energy and Natural Resources 

species by enhancing and protecting their habitat. The result is a legacy for generations of 

sportsmen to come. 

Motorized Recreation 

This group is an important constituency and was consulted by Rep. Mike Simpson in the crafting of 

this bilL While concessions given to the motorized community in previous bills resulted in a 

minimal closure to motorized trails, this constituent group remained opposed to Simpson's efiorts. 

To further address the motorized community, approximately 57,263 acres have been subtracted 

from the legislation. The result is no closures of motorized routes under this legislation. 

Additionally, the 153,883 acres of recommended wilderness and wilderness study areas (WSA) will 

be released to multiple uses and this poses the potential to open up more land to motorized use in 

the future. 

Snowmobiles 

Snowmobile use is a growing recreational activity in this area. Substantial concessions have been 

made over the years to facilitate continued winter snowmobile use in the Boulder-White Clouds. 

The following recommended wilderness areas have been excluded from wilderness designation to 

ensure continued access for snowmobiles. These areas include: 

• Forth of July Basin 

• Washington Basin 

• Champion Lakes 

• North Fork of the Big Lost River 

Some wilderness acreage has been added back to the North Fork Big Wood drainage. The Idaho 

Conservation League supports this addition. While recommended for wilderness, previous versions 

of the bill excluded the drainage because of a local agreement reached between snowmobilers and 

backcountry skiers in 2001 that resolved recreational conflicts in the backcountry areas surrounding 

Sun Valley. It is our understanding that local snowmobile were consulted about this North Fork Big 

Wood Drainage and a new agreement was made that this area would be swapped out for a different 

area that had historically been included in the Wilderness bill, the North Fork of the Big Lost River 

region. 

Motorized off-road vehicles 

The wilderness boundaries created in S.583 exclude all motorized trails in the Boulder-White 

Clouds. Previous versions of this legislation had unprecedented provisions that created "cherry 

stems" within the wilderness corridor, where dirt bikers would have been able to ride with 

wilderness surrounding them on both sides of the traiL The areas were these cherry stems existed 

have been cut out of the wilderness proposaL The roads and trails within the Boulder-White Clouds 

that are excluded from the wilderness areas in order to maintain access include: 

• Frog Lake Loop Trail 047 & 686 

• Germania Trail Ill 

• Grand Prize Trail 112 

• Washington Basin Road 197 

• Washington Lake Trail 109 to Washint,>ton Lake 

10 
149 


Insert offset folio 33 here 95279.033

Idaho Conservation League testimony 

US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

• Forth of July Road 209 to the Phyllis Lake turnoff 

• Phyllis Lake Road 

• Pole Creek Road 197 

• Fisher Creek Road 132 

• Williams Creek Trails 104 & 332 

• North Fork of the Big Lost River Road 146 

• Casino Lakes Trails 103, 232,616, & 646 

• Rough Creek Trails 617 & 647 

• Railroad Ridge Area Roads 667, 669, & 670 

• French Creek Trail 675 

• Big Lake Creek Trail 678 

• Germania Creek- Bowery Cutoff Trail 114 

• Livingston Mill Road 667 

• East Fork Road 12o to Bowery Guard Station 

• West Pass Creek Road 063 to section I 0 

• Big Fall Creek Road 168 

• Little Fall Creek Road 502 

• Park Creek Road 140 

• Herd Creek Road to Herd Lake 

• Road Creek Road 

This list of concessions for motorized recreation paints a pretty clear picture. Every motorized 

recreation opportunity that exists today (including where the use is occurring in recommended 

wilderness) will remain intact under the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak 

Wilderness Additions Act. 

If this bill does not pass Congress, the fate of 589,750 acres ofroadless land, recommended 

wilderness and wilderness study areas will remain undecided. Determinations on whether or not to 

allow motmized use in these areas will continue to be left to the discretion of the land managers 

charged with preserving the wilderness character. We strongly encourage Congress to not to wait 

any longer. The Boulder-White Clouds need protection now. 

Mechanized vehicles 

Wilderness designation under the Wilderness Act of 1964 is the gold standard for conservation in 

the United States. The Idaho Conservation League is among other things a wilderness advocacy 

group and we stand by the Wilderness Act. We strongly believe that the Boulder-White Clouds is 

one such place that is absolutely deserving of the gold standard protection. As this committee is 

fully aware, the Wilderness Act of 1964 precludes both motorized and mechanized travel. 

S. 583 boundaries for wilderness designation include compromises to accommodate mechanized 

use in the Boulder-White Clouds on important and prized trails. This bill does, however, close some 

infrequently used trails in the Boulder-White Clouds to bikes. One of these trails, Castle Divide, 

runs through the heart of the proposed White Cloud Wilderness. The Idaho Conservation league 

does not support the loss of wilderness acreage nor "cherry stemming" through the heart of this 

wilderness area in order to make future accommodations under wilderness designation. 

11 
150 


Insert offset folio 34 here 95279.034

Idaho Conservation League testimony 

US Senate Committee 011 Energy and Natural Resources 

The Idaho Conservation League has worked closely with the mechanized recreation community on 

protection efforts for the Boulder-White Clouds. Together our groups believe that the preservation 

of the wilderness character and ecological values along with human-powered recreation is important to 

the long-term protection and management of this spectacular landscape. 

Economic Development 

The Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act authorizes small 

conveyances of federal lands to Custer and Blaine Counties and affected towns for public purposes, 

including such uses as public parks, a rod and gun club, cemetery, waste water transfer station, fire 

station, workforce housing, and a school bus turn around. 

This bill also facilitates economic assistance to ranchers in the East Fork region of the BoulderWhite Clouds who have seen grazing allotments reduced in recent years. Under the legislation, the 

Forest Service and BLM are authorized to accept and permanently retire grazing permits voluntarily 

donated by ranchers. Arrangements have been made through a private foundation to provide fair 

compensation, up to $3 million. 

Previous versions of this bill known as the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation 

Act (CIEDRA) appropriated a total of$6 million to Custer County for a community center and 

health clinic. The majority of this money has already been received. 

Conclusion 

After this discussion about the importance of this place, the long conservation and legislative 

history, the most important thing is to go back to the place. Centralldaho's Boulder-White Clouds 

have for generations provided jaw-dropping scenery, remote back country recreational 

opportunities, and memories to many that last a lifetime. To the east, the high tundra slopes of Jerry 

Peak are refuge to herds of big game animals. To the west, rare and elusive species such as 

wolverine and lynx hide in the high alpine sanctuary. In between these two I 0,000 foot regions dips 

the low elevation river bottom, the East Fork of the Salmon River, creating a critical connection of 

habitat where animals can migrate between their winter and summer territory. 

Throughout this large and diverse area, visitors can find quiet moments surrounded in scenic 

grandeur that will last with them forever. It is time to provide lasting protection for this Idaho gem. 

I have personally been traveled in the Boulder-White Clouds and surrounding landscape for 

decades. l was part of the very first group to traverse the White Clouds on skis. l have caught fish in 

the lakes and streams; mended blistered feet formed from walking miles on remote trails; climbed 

I 0,000-foot peaks; and swam in the cool alpine lakes. Around campfires and around congressional 

hearing tables in Washington I've been talking about finally getting this area protected for a very 

long time. My work has merely been carrying the same torch of those who have worked to protect 

Castle Peak and the Boulder-White Clouds for so long and for so many years. Until that torch is 

carried across the finish line, our work is not done. 

These are national lands, public lands, held in trust by the federal government. While many of us 

who live in Idaho think of these lands as our own, the fact is they belong to all Americans for now 

12 
151 


Insert offset folio 35 here 95279.035

Idaho Conservation League testimony 

US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

and for generations to come. While we are far from the ramparts of Castle Peak today, where we 

are is totally appropriate, for it Congress that can provide this incredible landscape the protection it 

deserves. 

This bill is the product of more than a decade of collaborative discussions and negotiations. It is the 

product of bridge building. It is far past the time to cross that bridge and get this done. The Idaho 

Conservation League stands in support of this legislation and whole-heartedly encourages Congress 

to move it forward so it can be signed into law. 

I'd like to offer my thanks to Sen. Jim Risch and Rep. Mike Simpson for stepping up and carrying 

the torch for the Boulder-White Clouds. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

Attachments: 

-Rep. Mike Simpson's Statement on Mountain Bikes 

-Endorser list from an earlier version of Simpson's bill 

13 
152 


Insert offset folio 36 here 95279.036

Idaho Con,\·ervation League testimony 

US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

March 9, 2015 

Representative Mike Simpson Statement on Mountain Bikes ±as Related to SNRJ 

I have recently introduced legislation that will create three new wilderness areas in the 

majestic Boulder-White Clouds and Jerry Peak areas. Under this proposal we will have 

wilderness from the doorstep of Ketchum (Hemingway-Boulders Wilderness), northward 

towards Stanley (White Clouds Wilderness), and across to the East Fork of the Salmon and 

beyond (Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness). These wilderness areas alone would 

encompass over 430 square miles of some of Idaho's most majestic peaks, valleys, lakes and 

streams. They embrace Idaho treasures that would remain in perpetual solitude for future 

generations to hike, climb, explore, fish and hunt in a manner that will not be disturbed by 

manmade activities. 

My bill will also ensure that traditional recreational users such as snowmobilers, hunters, 

motorbikers, backpackers, day hikers, mountain bikers, heliskiers, outfitters, campers and 

others will be able to continue the recreational activities they have come to love and enjoy in 

the backcountry areas of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA). These diverse and 

historic recreational users are an important part of the SNRA and contribute significantly to 

the local economies of Stanley, Ketchum, and Challis. 

Recently, I have heard concerns from some mountain hiking advocates that my legislation will 

impact tourism and business in Idaho. It goes without saying that mountain biking is an 

important activity in the Boulder-White Clouds area. Mountain bikers significantly use and 

enjoy this area, and at the same time are strong supporters of local businesses. 

The views and opinions of mountain bikers have been very important to me since I began 

work on CIEDRA over a decade ago. At that time, mountain bike advocates made it clear to 

me that the Fisher-Williams Loop was a prized trail and mountain biking experience; and I 

agreed it should not be wilderness or closed to mountain bikes. 

While I am not a mountain biker, I have been told by members of the mountain bike 

community that my bill will continue to provide a wide variety of back country experiences 

for mountain bikers, from beginner to advanced-expert, on some of the most rugged and 

scenic high elevation trails in the United States. 

For those advanced-expert mountain bikers, we leave open the epic Bowery Loop to the East 

Fork (Germania Creek Trail and Grand Prize/West Fork of East Fork Trails). This allows for 

loop access from Smiley Creek to the East Fork of the Salmon River and back- described as 

"abusive" in a mountain biking guidebook. This grueling 30 mile loop lies between the 

proposed White Clouds and Hemingway Boulders Wildernesses. 

Additionally, the difficult Garland Lakes/Martin Creek Trail to Warm Springs Meadow, and 

Rough Creek and Lookout Mountain trails will remain open. Riders will see incredible 

scenery as they head up the Big and Little Casino Creek Trails, as well as the Boundary Creek, 

Gladiator Creek and Galena Gulch Trails. 

14 
153 


Insert offset folio 37 here 95279.037

Idaho Conservation League te.\timony 

US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Mountain bikers who want to access the solitude of high mountain lakes can ride the Frog 

Lake Loop to remote Frog Lake and the Fourth of July Trail to Fourth of July Lake and 

Washington Lake. For a one of a kind ride, Railroad Ridge will remain open to mountain bikes. 

There is no place on earth like Railroad Ridge for views, scenery, fauna, geology and 

tranquility. 

For those who are concerned about losing access to backcountry trails, backcountry is a term 

that refers to land that is isolated, undeveloped, remote and difficult to access. All of the trails 

I have mentioned are certainly backcountry trails. 

When completed, the Galena Lodge mountain bike trail network will provide 54 miles of nonmotorized trails that will offer opportunities for families and those of all skill levels. 

Sun Valley residents and recreational tourists will continue to have an abundance of 

mountain biking opportunities in and around the local area in the Pioneers and Smoky 

Mountains including Adams Gulch, Fox Creek, Chocolate Gulch, Oregon Gulch, Warm Springs 

Ridge, and Bear-Parker Gulch. 

These are just a few of the many trails left open to mountain biking in the Boulder-White 

Clouds and Ketchum area. I firmly believe that some mountain bike advocates are 

undervaluing these incredible mountain biking experiences and opportunities. 

I agree with mountain biking advocates when they tell me that having Ants Basin and Castle 

Divide trails in wilderness will be a loss of two very unique and incredible back country 

rides. I also agree with wilderness advocates when they tell me that this is the very reason 

why mountain bikes should not be allowed. The crux of the issue is that these trails are in the 

core of the proposed wilderness and have some, if not the most, scenic, undisturbed, and 

outstanding wilderness characteristics one can find. 

While I am not certain that mountain bikes should be banned in all wilderness areas, the fact 

is they are. I cannot change that. Unfortunately, my bill seems to have become a proxy for a 

larger debate between mountain bike advocates and wilderness advocates on whether 

mountain bikes (or mountain bike corridors) should be allowed in wilderness areas. That 

needs to be resolved at a national level and not through area-specific legislation. 

For those who are intent on leaving biking corridors open through the White Clouds and 

Hemingway-Boulders wildernesses, they do so knowing that the result will be the loss of 430 

square miles of wilderness, and the ultimate protection that wilderness provides. They know 

that we would lose a plan that all recreational users can and should be able to live with. They 

know that acrimonious divisions over the management, implementation, and uses in the 

national monument will continue for some time. 

Allowing corridors in the three proposed wilderness areas is non-negotiable, and the three 

wilderness areas in my bill will each remain undivided and without corridors. I am certain 

that anything less will result in a monument. 

In regards to mountain bikers and their impact on the local and state economy, mountain 

biking advocates have told me that while they agree the Boulder-White Clouds deserve 

15 
154 


Insert offset folio 38 here 95279.038

Idaho Conservation League testimony 

US Senate Committee 011 Energy and Natural Resources 

protection, if"critical adjustments" to my legislation are not made, then my bill "will gravely 

impact the tourism and business economy ofruralldaho and the state as a whole." 

I think this idea goes too far. I do not believe that if Ants Basin and Castle Divide trails are 

closed that no one will come to Ketchum or Stanley to mountain bike on the Fisher-Williams 

Loop, Frog Lake Loop, the epic Bowery Loop or all of the other remaining trails and loops that 

remain open. I firmly believe that there will continue to be significant riding opportunities to 

support a recreation economy based on mountain biking tourism. 

I also believe that a national monument designation has the potential to disrupt all forms of 

recreation in the Boulder White Clouds or create a priority ranking where one form of 

recreation could be placed above or below others. My bill will ensure that mountain bikers 

and all traditional recreational users, both motorized and non-motorized, will be able to 

continue the recreational activities they have come to love and enjoy in the backcountry areas 

of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA). 

Thank you for taking the time to read my views on the mountain biking issue. I would be 

interested in your thoughts or comments if you would like to provide them to me. Please 

email me with the subject line "Mountain Bikes" to: Simpson.SNRA@mail.house.gov 

Sincerely, 

Mike Simpson 

16 
155 


Insert offset folio 39 here 95279.039

Idaho Conservation League testimony 

US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

The following organizations and individuals support all and/or part of the Centra/Idaho Economic 

Development and Recreation Act (HR. 163). 

Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers 

Blaine County 

Boulder-White Clouds Council 

City of Bellevue 

City of Sun Valley 

City Council of the City of Hailey 

City Council of the City of Ketchum 

City Council of the City of Stanley 

Campaign for America's Wilderness 

Chaco 

Cooperative Wilderness Handicapped Outdoor Group 

Custer County 

Idaho AFL-CIO 

Idaho Conservation League 

lzaak Walton League of America 

Living Independent Network Corporation 

National Public Lands Grazing Campaign 

National Wildlife Federation 

Outdoor Industry Association 

Pulp and Paper Workers Resources Council 

The Wilderness Society 

Sun Valley Adaptive Sports 

Sawtooth Society 

Sun Valley/Ketchum Chamber & Visitors Bureau 

Trout Unlimited 

United Steel Workers Local 712 and 608 

Winter Wildlands Alliance 

Cecil Andrus (D-1 D), former Governor of Idaho and Former Secretary of the Department of Interior. 

Bethine Church, former president of the Sawtooth Society and wife of the late Senator Frank 

Church (D-ID). 

More than 7,000 Idahoans have written in support of Congressman Simpson's efforts. 

More than 150 Idaho businesses support Congressman Simpson's efforts to protect the BoulderWhite Clouds area as wilderness. 

17 
156 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

Ms. Stevenson? 

STATEMENT OF BRETT STEVENSON, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 

WOOD RIVER BICYCLE COALITION 

Ms. STEVENSON. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and distinguished members of the Committee for the opportunity to weigh in 

on S. 583. It is an honor and privilege to provide local perspective 

on issues that are critical to our quality of life and local economy. 

My name is Brett Stevenson, and I am a native of Idaho. My parents left their careers in San Francisco before I was born in search 

of something new, fresh and wholesome. They discovered the Wood 

River Valley. 

They bought land and started farming. We have become 

MillerCoors’ Showcase Barley Farm, a distinction earned by, 

among other things, making irrigation adjustments to save over 

150,000,000 gallons of water annually and consistently growing excellent barley. 

After school I returned home to be a land-use planner for Blaine 

County. Five years later I went to work with Rick Johnson at the 

Idaho Conservation League. In 2012, I left ICL to help on the family ranch where it’s all hands on deck to try to improve water management in our depleted basin. 

Connections to the land and the community are what make the 

Wood River Valley more than just where we live. It’s where we 

thrive. 

Today I’m speaking on behalf of the Wood River Bicycle Coalition, a chapter of the International Mountain Bicycling Association 

(IMBA). We applaud Senator Risch and Congressman Simpson for 

their work on this issue, so it is with some disappointment that we 

find ourselves in opposition to this proposed legislation. 

The Bike Coalition and IMBA support enhanced protection of the 

Boulder-White Clouds and Jerry Peak areas; however, in this case 

we do not believe that wilderness is the most appropriate solution. 

The Boulder-White Clouds play a critical role between the Sun Valley Resort and the Sawtooth Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Areas. It completes the full spectrum of the areas draw attracting recreationalists of all kinds which is critical to our tourism-based economy. 

Biking contributed $33,000,000 to our local economy in a single 

season. Closing these marquee trails to biking closes a crucial marketing element to the local economy. Our local businesses support 

protection coupled with continued bicycle access. 

Many Americans live in urban settings with limited outdoor recreational experiences, yet we’re all aware of the transformative and 

beneficial effects of adventures in the natural, rugged environments. These experiences provide rejuvenation, inspiration and 

perspective. In short, they make us better people. 

The trend away from active recreation is concerning; however, 

one bright spot is bikes. The Outdoor Industry Association reports 

bicycling is the top outdoor activity for youth. 

The growth in the National Interscholastic Cycling Association, 

including the brand new Idaho league, demonstrates this trend in 

youth involvement. Backcountry rides like Ants Basin and Castle 

157 

Divide develop determination, confidence, and ultimately an appreciation for the natural world and our place in it. These aspirational 

experiences are invaluable and irreplaceable and should be encouraged not taken away. 

Select mountain biking trails in the Boulder-White Clouds and 

Jerry Peak area are vastly unique from front country or urban 

biking experiences. Riding here is the only big backcountry opportunity for mountain bikers in the entire region. It is truly like 

nothing else. 

We appreciate the permitive use only experiences in the nearby 

Sawtooth and Frank Church Wilderness Areas. Trail impact from 

horses, pack trains and backpackers are similar to, and can even 

be greater than, those of bicyclists. So while this bill has accommodated motorized vehicles, Heli-skiing and snowmobiles, no consideration has been given to the continued use of marquee trails that 

our community cares so deeply about. 

A wilderness designation eliminates the only backcountry bike 

experience in the area and it also tells bikers and local businesses 

the Idaho Delegation does not consider bicycle experience and their 

contribution to the local economy worth protecting. 

This bill does not feel like an Idaho solution. It is not reflective 

of what our community wants. For the most part, we want this special place to stay just how it is today. 

In order to achieve that, some level of added protection or designation may be necessary but it should be a designation that preserves the ecological value and the recreational value, particularly 

when the two are not mutually exclusive. 

The Wilderness Act is a good tool for the protection of landscape, 

habitat and natural splendor; however, it is one tool in the legislative tool box. In this case we must ask ourselves what is the objective of a new designation, and is this bill achieving those goals or 

is it simply a feather in someone’s hat? 

Solutions can be crafted using existing policy. Using a one-sizefits-all approach at the cost of valued, low-impact, recreational opportunities is a disservice to our community and future generations. 

The Wood River Bike Coalition and IMBA welcome the opportunity to join with other stakeholders and the Idaho Delegation to 

protect these treasured landscapes and the recreational experiences 

they provide. We ask the Committee to send this bill back to the 

delegation for further discussion and collaboration. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stevenson follows:] 

158 


Insert offset folio 41 here 95279.041

Testimony of Brett Stevenson, 

Wood River Bicycle Coalition, 

a Chapter of the International Mountain Bicycling Association 

Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

Legislative Hearing on the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak 

Wilderness Additions Act S.583. 

Thank you Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and distinguished members 

of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this important bill effecting 

the management of our public lands. It is an honor and a privilege to provide a local 

perspective on issues that are so critical to our quality of life and the outdoor recreation 

economy, nationally and locally. 

My name is Brett Stevenson and I am a native of Idaho. My parents left their careers in San 

Francisco before I was born in search of something new, wholesome, and fresh. They 

discovered the Wood River Valley and something resonated. The rural authenticity, infinite 

amount of mountain adventure and wealth of recreational opportunities, and rugged, 

beautiful landscape of Idaho was where they wanted to spend their life lives and raise their 

children. 

They bought land and started farming. For over forty years now my family has been 

growing barley for Coors Brewing Company and in that time, we've gotten pretty good. We 

have become MillerCoors' Showcase Barley Farm. A distinction earned by making 

irrigation adjustments to save over 150 million gallons of water annually, improving 

riparian habitat, fostering pollinators and consistently growing excellent barley. 

My parents chose our home deliberately, one of many choices they made that helped define 

the type of person I would become. In choosing my career I focused on environmental 

studies so that I could contribute to and continue the lifestyle we grew up with. After 

completing my studies I returned home to be a land use planner for Blaine County. After 

five years working for the County, I went to work with Rick johnson at Idaho Conservation 

League. ICL is Idaho's voice for conservation and is effective at protecting Idaho's clean air, 

water, and quality of life. After much consideration, I left ICL to help on the family ranch 

where it's all hands on deck to try to improve water management in our depleted basin. 

The connections to the land, the community, and landscape are what make the Wood River 

Valley more than the place we live; it is where we thrive. 

The Wood River Bicycle Coalition, a Chapter of the International Mountain Bicycling 

Association, works to promote sustainable trails, responsible biking, and improve riding 

opportunities for all ages and abilities. Through partnerships and advocacy on local, 

regional, and national levels, the Wood River Bike Coalition works to enhance bikePage 1 of5 
159 


Insert offset folio 42 here 95279.042

friendliness. We contributed 700 volunteer hours to restore wildfire damaged trails last 

spring; helped pass a levy to generate $3 million to restore our community bike path; and 

were awarded the distinction of "Bike Friendly Community" by League of American 

Bicyclist. 

The International Mountain Bicycling Association (!MBA) leads the national and worldwide 

mountain bicycling communities through a network of 80,000 individual supporters, 180 

chapters and 340 affiliate clubs, and 600 dealer members. !MBA teaches sustainable trail 

building techniques and has become a leader in trail design, construction, and 

maintenance. The organization also encourages responsible riding, volunteer trail work, 

and cooperation among trail user groups and land managers. Each year, !MBA members 

and affiliated clubs conduct more than 750,000 hours of volunteer trail stewardship on 

America's public lands and are some of the best assistants to federal, state, and local land 

managers. 

We applaud Senator Risch and Congressman Simpson for their continued work on this 

issue, so it is with some disappointment that we find ourselves in opposition to this 

proposed legislation. The Wood River Bike Coalition and the International Mountain 

Bicycling Association support the enhanced protection and recognition of both the 

Boulder-White Clouds and jerry Peak area. In fact, we support enhanced protection for 

even more of this amazing landscape than what this bill would create. However, we do not 

believe Wilderness, as used in this bill, is the most appropriate solution. These landscapes 

do possess incredible Wilderness characteristics, but they are also home to some of the 

most exceptional mountain bicycling experiences found anywhere in the world, which is an 

exceedingly rare combination. We would support any protective measure that embraces 

the existing recreational experiences, including mountain bicycling, and the character of 

the Boulder-White Clouds and jerry Peak area. 

The Wood River Valley Has a Broad Spectrum of Recreational Experiences 

From the luxury resort accommodations of Sun Valley to the nearby primitive Sawtooth 

Wilderness and Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness the Wood River Valley has an 

outdoor experience for everyone. The Boulder-White Clouds and jerry Peak areas play a 

very critical role between these two ends of the spectrum. These areas are open to diverse 

yet sustainable backcountry biking trails and other recreational uses. Opportunities for the 

full range of recreation builds an area's draw and attracts recreationalists of all kinds and 

abilities, which is critical to a tourism based economy like we have in the Wood River 

Valley. 

A Healthy Recreation Economy Requires A Full Spectrum of Experiences 

For reference the national outdoor recreation economy generates $646 billion in consumer 

spending. 81% or $525 billion of that comes from trips and travel related expenditures.1 

Outdoor recreation in Idaho produces $6.3 billion in consumer spending. directly supports 

1 Outdoor Industry Association- Outdoor Recreation Economy Report 2012 

Page 2 of5 
160 


Insert offset folio 43 here 95279.043

77 thousand jobs, and generates $461 million in state and local tax revenue. 2 Getting even 

more local, biking contributed $33 million to the Wood River Valley's economy in a single 

season.3 User surveys indicate that there were over 700,000 user days on the trails.4 For 

reference the Sun Valley Ski Resort's annual skier days are generally about half that 

amount. The trails that are subject to closure in this bill are not the only, nor the most 

frequently used trails in the valley, but they are the marquee trails that inspire visitors, 

stoke the fires of the adventurous, and draw them in. Without these superlative 

backcountry experiences beckoning to mountain bikers, a crucial element in the local 

economy will be missing. 

Businesses know the value that bicyclists accessing these trails brings to their bottom line. 

Attached as Exhibit A is a letter circulated and signed by 124 business, 60 of which are local 

to the Wood River Valley, supporting a solution that protects both the character and quality 

of the landscape and the recreational experiences, including mountain bicycling. 

To those ends !MBA. The Wood River Bicycle Coalition, The Idaho Conservation League, 

and The Wilderness Society created a historical agreement, attached as Exhibit B, to pursue 

designation of these areas as a National Monument while retaining access to all the trails 

open today. Rather than stopping at mutually supporting the proclamation or designation 

we have gone further and crafted management principles that we feel should be embraced 

in order to preserve the character and the access experiences found in the Boulder-White 

Clouds and Jerry Peak area. Some of those principles include prohibiting off trail travel, 

future trail expansion, and managing the heart of the area in a manner consistent with 

preservation of the wild character. Moreover, the agreement advocated a monitoring 

system be established to ensure that use levels do not cause negative effects beyond an 

acceptable threshold. It is this type of modern pragmatism that we support that is sorely 

lacking from this proposed legislation. This unprecedented depth of collaboration reflects a 

true community driven solution that protects and enhances the value and character of 

these special lands. This bill does not reflect that collaborative spirit of our community. 

Bicycles are Key to Engaging Youth 

The space between Wilderness and Multiple Use Management, that includes bicycle access, 

is more important today than it ever has been. Not just for current bicyclists but for the 

future of American well being. Americans often live and work in highly developed urban 

settings and have little to no wild lands experiences. Yet we are familiar with the 

transformative effect of ventures into a natural, rugged environment. These experiences 

form vital connections to earth, the particular place, and the people we experience them 

with. Having these experiences makes American's better people, we need more of them and 

more people to engage in them. The trends away from these experiences, and all active 

recreation, are something we should all be concerned about. However, one of the bright 

spots is bicycles. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, bicycling is the number 

2Jd. 

3 Economic Report from Sun Valley Economic Development, 2012 4 Trail Count Study from Blaine County Recreation Department, 2012 

Page 3 of5 
161 


Insert offset folio 44 here 95279.044

one outdoor activity for youth from ages 6 to 17, for young adults 18 to 24 it is third.5 The 

meteoric growth of the National Interscholastic Cycling Association, including the newly 

formed Idaho League, which is set to have its inaugural race season this fall, demonstrates 

the appetite for young people to engage in active recreation that they can take with them 

for a lifetime. Backcountry mountain biking opportunities like Ants Basin, Castle Divide, 

Bowery, and West Pass shape these young people and develop connections to the land and 

the people they go with. The experiences found on these trails develop character traits like 

determination, confidence, appreciation for the natural world, and perspective of our place 

in it. These experiences are invaluable and irreplaceable. 

Not All Trails Are Equal 

The mountain biking experiences in The Boulder-White Clouds and Jerry Peak area are 

vastly different than other mountain biking experiences found in the frontcountry or 

developed sites in the Valley. The backcountry setting offers mountain bikers an 

opportunity to experience solitude, self reliance, and untamed landscapes. Hikers and 

equestrian recreationalists can find primitive use only experiences in the Sawtooth 

Wilderness immediately to the West or just to the north in the vast Frank Church River of 

No Return Wilderness.6 The Boulder-White Clouds is the only opportunity for mountain 

bikers to have a big, backcountry experience in the entire region. 

The proposed Wilderness designation in S.583 would change very little about the real 

management of these areas other than taking away current access for bicycle enthusiasts. 

There is little if any threat of destructive use because of the high alpine environment, steep 

slopes, and existing legislative limitations put in place when the area was included in the 

Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Existing mountain biking has not caused any form of 

environmental degradation.-Without adverse effects there are no justifiable reasons to 

designate it as Wilderness, and exclude bicycles, for the sake of having more Wilderness 

experiences. As pointed out earlier, the Sawtooth Wilderness and Frank Church River of No 

Return Wildernesses provide ample opportunity for a superlative Wilderness experience in 

the area. To designate this area as Wilderness eliminates the only backcountry bike 

experience in the area and tells mountain bicyclists and local businesses that the Idaho 

delegation does not consider bicycle experiences to be worth protecting. This sentiment is 

further amplified by the fact that multiple accommodations were made for Idahoans who 

enjoy recreating on motorized vehicles and over-snow vehicles but those who choose a 

bicycle will not be accommodated. 

Conclusion 

The Wilderness Act is a good tool for the protection of threatened landscapes, habitat, and 

natural splendor. However, it is a single tool in the legislative toolbox. There are many 

solutions that can be crafted using existing policy. The commands of these non-Wilderness 

5 2014 Outdoor Industry Foundation Participation Report 

(http:/ jwww.outdoorfoundation.orgjpdfjResearchParticipation2014.pdf) 

6 A map showing the proximity of these areas is attached as Exhibit C 

Page 4 of5 
162 


Insert offset folio 45 here 95279.045

legislative designations vary from detailed management prescriptions to slightly more 

directed versions of multiple use. While the majority of these designations include 

recreation as a purpose in their enabling legislation, relatively few are specifically targeted 

at protecting and enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities. Managing these places to 

preserve and enhance the recreation experience provides substantial benefits for local 

residents and makes crucial contributions to local economies. They are an invaluable 

component of the outdoor recreation landscape, yet they remain substantially 

underrepresented with regard to protection and management for the unique benefits they 

provide. 

!MBA and the Wood River Bicycle Coalition would welcome the opportunity to join with 

other stakeholders and the Idaho delegation to protect these treasured landscapes, the 

wildlife habitat, and the recreation experiences they provide. We ask this committee to 

sendS. 583 back to the delegation for further discussion and collaborative efforts. 

Page 5 of5 
163 


Insert offset folio 46 here 95279.046

The Honorable James Risch 

483 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator James Risch, 

The Wood River Bicycle Coalition and the undersigned members of Idaho's tourism, bicycle, and general 

organization and business community, write to you today, respectfully requesting critical amendments 

to the Boulder-White Clouds legislative proposal in central Idaho also known as SNRA+ (formerly 

CIERDA). Amendments should be made prior to introduction of the bill in order to maintain bicycle 

access to existing and appropriate trails in this important landscape. The attached map with explanation 

should help guide changes needed to reach an agreeable solution. 

Diverse recreational access to public lands like the Boulder-White Cloud mountains has supported and 

encouraged economic development in the form of businesses, tourism and quality-of-life recruits to 

rural Idaho. Providing a broad range of recreation experiences is one major attraction that drives people 

to enjoy these lands after work, on the weekends, and plan and dream about visiting for years to come. 

In the 21st century, many professionals can live in a rural economy of their choosing. Businesses and 

entrepreneurs are increasingly choosing places like Blaine and Custer County that have invested in a 

wide range of recreation assets on nearby public lands. Investments in quality of life attributes, like 

access to public lands for a variety of recreational activities such as mountain biking, are becoming more 

and more important to creating a viable and inviting environment for economic development and 

individuals seeking an advanced quality of life. If congress closes these marquee bike trails with this 

legislation, our communities will pose a distinct disadvantage in the eyes of the business owners and 

entrepreneurs who will provide tomorrow's jobs. 

Many of Idaho's rural counties, including Custer and Blaine, rely on diverse tourism as key economic 

resources for the community. Custer County is already home to some of the most spectacular and 

significant Wilderness areas, the Frank Church River of No Return and the Sawtooth, both of which 

provide ample world-class hiking and equestrian opportunities where cycling is prohibited. The BoulderWhite Clouds is a picturesque landscape that currently hosts the regions most valued and iconic 

mountain bike and multi-use trails. They are a national draw for tourists and locals alike. A healthy 

recreation economy relies on a range of available experiences, including Wilderness, motorized play 

areas and trails, and backcountry mountain biking. 

Idaho needs land access and conservation solutions that make us a competitive year round destination. 

Mountain biking is a robust economic driver that is contributing to the sustainability and profitability of 

our communities. As destination mountain bicycling continues to grow, we will be competing against 

other western destinations that are consciously working to provide a broad mix of quality recreation 

experiences. Without the iconic backcountry rides such as Castle Divide and Ants Basin we will lose a 

competitive edge. 
164 


Insert offset folio 47 here 95279.047

We believe it is in the best interest for the state of Idaho to promote use of our incredible mountain 

biking opportunities and not close them. We ask that you work with our community and mountain 

bicycling enthusiasts to rectify these troubling aspects of the draft bill as soon as possible. 

We think it would be a mistake to severely limit cycling opportunities through this legislation and our 

request to you is your continued support of public land access. A solution can be achieved that 

represents local desires, creates appropriate Wilderness and allows for continued bike access through 

thoughtful adjustments. 

Please help us achieve a local solution we can all support. 

Most sincerely, 

Brett Stevenson, Executive Director 

Wood River Bicycle Coalition 

P.O. Box 3001 Hailey, ID 83333 

208.720.8336 

wrbc.brett@gmail.com 

Mike Van Abel, Executive Director 

International Mountain Bicycling Association 

PO Box 20280 Boulder, CO 80308 

303.545.9011 

mike.vanabe!@irnba.com 

cc: Senator Mike Crapo, Representative Mike Simpson, Representative Raul labrador 
165 


Insert offset folio 48 here 95279.048

Idaho Businesses 

Smith Optics 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Sturtevants 

Ketchum, Idaho 

John Reuter Greenworks, LLC 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Alpinfoto 

Ketchum, Idaho 

The Elephant's Perch 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Gather Yoga 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Cox Communications 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Big Life Magazine 

Ketchum, Idaho 

First Lite 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Dauenhauer Manuf. Co. 

Ketchum, Idaho 

King Electrical 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Adventure Dolomiti 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Door 2 Door Ski & Snowboard Rental Delivery 

Ketchum, Idaho 

New West Insurance 

Ketchum, Idaho 

oMo 

Provisualization, Inc. 

Ketchum, Idaho 

4 Points, LLC 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Club Ride 

Ketchum, Idaho 

YMCA-Wood River 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Vertical Electric 

Ketchum, Idaho 

PK's Ski and Sport 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Thomas & Johnston, Chtd. 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Sawtooth Brewery 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Lizzy's Fresh Coffee 

Ketchum, Idaho 

The Haven 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Sun Valley Mustard 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Simplefill 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Vamps 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Galena Lodge 

Ketchum, Idaho 
166 


Insert offset folio 49 here 95279.049

American Capital Advisory 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Rusch Relations 

Ketchum, Idaho 

PlayHard GiveBack 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Kith and Kin LLC 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Velocio Hailey 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Big Belly Deli 

Hailey, Idaho 

Dirt Bird Productions 

Hailey, Idaho 

CK's Real Food 

Hailey, Idaho 

Sun Summit South 

Hailey, Idaho 

Square Dot Creative Group 

Hailey, Idaho 

Cumulus Carpentry 

Hailey, Idaho 

Marketron 

Hailey, Idaho 

Upcycle Brand 

Hailey, Idaho 

Alliance Bicycles, LLC 

Hailey, Idaho 

The HUB 

Salmon, Idaho 

·-· 

Redbarn Product Development, Inc. 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Kearns, McGinnis & Vandenberg Builders 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Precision Plumbing 

Ketchum, Idaho 

Windy City Arts 

Hailey, Idaho 

3rd LLC 

Hailey, Idaho 

ArborCare 

Hailey, Idaho 

Rocky Mountain Hardware 

Hailey, Idaho 

Sun Valley Trekking 

Hailey, Idaho 

Dev Khalsa Photography 

Hailey, Idaho 

Yellow Belly Ice Cream, LLC 

Hailey, Idaho 

Belle Ranch, LLC 

Hailey, Idaho 

Stanley Baking Company & Cafe 

Stanley, Idaho 

Sawtooth Hotel 

Stanley, Idaho 

Gravity Sports 

Stanley, Idaho 

Salmon Idaho Mountain Bike Association 

Salmon, Idaho 
167 


Insert offset folio 50 here 95279.050

National Businesses 

Saara Snow 

Adventure Cycling Association 

Mitch DeShields 

Blaine County Recreation Dist. ID League NICA 

Hill Abell 

Austin Ridge Riders 

Tyson Stellrecht 

Backcountry Pursuit, LLC Boise, ID 

Jacob Dudek 

Backcountry.com 

Natalie Cook 

BikeToursDirect/BikeTours.com 

Tony Ellsworth 

BST Nano Carbon/Ellsworth Bicycles 

Brian Donley 

Capital Off-Road Pathfinders (CORP) 

Chip Deffe 

Crank and Carve, Inc./Sun Summit South 

Dan Brown 

Cuyuna Lakes Mountain Bike Crew 

Jim Hasenauer 

Emeritus Professor, CSU Northridge 

Laura Mundy 

Dirt Dolls of Idaho 

Shane Hensley 

DT Swiss 

Lori Smith 

Eastside Cycles 

·-· 

Scott Rapp 

Adventure Maps, Inc. 

Jay Cooper 

Air Wisconsin Airlines 

Gene Hamilton 

BetterRide 

Russ Hoefer 

BikeTourFinder.net 

Derek Nelson 

Boise Foothills 20/20 

John Giantonio 

Casper Area CVB 

Greg Martin 

City of Ketchum 

Steve Messer 

Cancer 

John McConnochie 

Cycle Alaska 

Robin Seastrom 

Cycle Therapy 

Nate Kuder 

Dakine 

Jeremiah Higley 

Magic Valley Cyclocross 

Matt Andrews 

Minnesota Off-Road Cyclists 

Brian Riepe 

Mountain Flyer Magazine 
168 


Insert offset folio 51 here 95279.051

Rick Reed 

Five Ten 

Matt Weber 

Fox Head, Inc. 

Brian Vaughan 

GU Energy Labs 

Jessica Gradhandt 

Idaho High School Cycling League 

Kahle Becker 

Kahle Becker, Attorney at Law 

Usa Cramton 

Pivot Cycles 

Mark Lalonde 

Planet Bike 

Gary Sjoquist 

Quality Bicycle Products 

Robert Collins 

Remax 

Don Palermini 

Santa Cruz Bicycles 

Scott Hulgren 

San Diego Mountain Biking Association 

Kris Robinson 

Promoshop, Inc/ Ecopromos.com 

Troy Clark 

Snake River Mountain Bike Club 

Tristan Greaves 

Southern ID Mountain Biking Association 

·-· 

Gordon Greaves 

lonlife 

Bryan Mason 

Kali Protectives 

Roger Hernandez 

Kenda Tire 

Chris Sugai 

Niner Bikes 

Brian Olson 

Peaks to Plains Therapy 

Dave Edwards 

Primal 

Steven King 

Vista Verde Ranch 

Nate Bird 

Honey Stinger 

Kelly Ryan 

San Juan Hut Systems 

Karoline Droege 

Suncook Valley Sno-Riders 

Dustin Bennett 

Trek Bicycle Corporation 

Chris Conroy 

Yeti Cycles 

Tim Carls 

Vernon Graphix 

Elayna Caldwell 

Sram, LLC 
169 


Insert offset folio 52 here 95279.052

Mark Slate 

Wilderness Trail Bikes (WTB) 

Austin Mcinerny 

National Interscholastic Cycling Association (NICA) 

Hans Rey 

Wheels 4 Life/No Way Productions 

Olin Glenne 

Sturtevants & Sun Valley Mountain Guides 

Maurice Tierney 

Dirt Rag Magazine 

·-· 

Kent King 

Magura USA 

Paul Wyandt 

Zoic Clothing 

Laurel Hunter 

Western Spirit Cycling 

Robert Miller 

Two Knobby Tires 

Azul Couzens 

Bell Helmets 
170 


Insert offset folio 53 here 95279.053

2/28/14 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

between 

The Wilderness Society, Idaho Conservation league, 

International Mountain Bicycling Association, and the Wood River Bicycle Coalition 

regarding proposed Boulder-White Clouds National Monument 

In support of the mutual benefits of protecting the Boulder-White Clouds (BWC) 

landscape, the undersigned organizations (The Wilderness Society, Idaho Conservation 

League, International Mountain Bicycling Association, and the Wood River Bicycle 

Coalition) have reached consensus and agree to advocate for designation of the BWC 

area (as depicted on the attached BWC NM reference map) as a national monument 

(NM) for the long term preservation and enhancement of the wilderness character, 

world-class human-powered recreation, and historical, cultural and scientific values that 

define this remarkable landscape. 

TWS, ICL, I MBA and WRBC (hereafter referred to as "We") members share a connection 

and love of this place, therefore this memorandum of understanding (MOU) captures 

and defines how and where We will move forward together and the public position(s) 

We will take regarding the following: the future of mountain biking within a BoulderWhite Clouds National Monument and protection of the BWC landscape- one of the 

largest intact road less areas in the lower United States- in perpetuity. 

Together, We support a national monument and components of the subsequently 

related management plan as defined below. 

Support a Presidential Proclamation 

We will urge and advocate that the President, utilizing his authority under the 

Antiquities Act, protect the BWC as a national monument so the values and objects 

existing on this landscape are permanently conserved, protected and enhanced, and 

that the public may continue to enjoy the area in largely the same way and in the same 

condition that it is today. 

We will advocate for a BWC NM proclamation that: 

Preserves the outstanding wilderness character and opportunities for 

backcountry solitude away from areas where modernity dominates the 

landscape and therefore is scientifically, biologically, and socially valuable and 

worth monitoring, maintaining, and protecting; 

Preserves and maintains unique world-class human-powered recreation 

opportunities in the BWC; 

Acknowledges that hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, skiing and other 

forms of human-powered recreation are appropriate and important, and that a 
171 


Insert offset folio 54 here 95279.054

quiet backcountry experience for all human-powered recreation groups needs to 

monitored, maintained, and protected; 

We will jointly and individually advocate for the BWC NM designation and the 

components within this MOU by: 

Promoting the principles stated within this MOU; 

Holding a local information session for local elected officials, commissioners, and 

other community leaders; 

Meeting with key decision makers in the US Department of Agriculture, the US 

Department of the Interior, and the Council on Environmental Quality. 

In order to ensure the values stated above are protected in a BWC NM, We believe that 

the long-term protection of wilderness character and mountain biking and other 

appropriate human-powered recreation in the landscape can and should be balanced 

through active and adaptive management techniques. 

Management Plan Recommendations 

To protect values listed above and objects of interest on the BWC landscape, and as an 

agreeable mechanism to maintain outstanding wilderness character while maintaining 

acceptable bicycle access, We support and advocate the following joint management 

plan recommendations regarding management of mountain biking for the proposed 

BWC NM until such time a Record of Decision is signed and final: 

Recommendations for Western Portion of Proposed BWC NM 

With regard to lands within the proposed BWC NM lying west of the East Fork Salmon 

River, South Fork East Fork Salmon River and Silver Creek, We recommend that: 

• The United States Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

manage the lands that are not part of designated motorized road/trail corridors 

under two management categories: Wilderness Character Zones and HumanPowered Backcountry Recreation Zones. 

Wilderness Character Zones should be managed to prevent degradation of their 

wilderness character, and specifically to prevent degradation of the following 

qualities: Natural (the area's ecological system are substantially free from the 

effects of modern civilization); Untrammeled (the area is essentially unhindered 

and free from modern human control or manipulation); Undeveloped (the area 

retains its primeval character and influence, and is essentially without 

permanent improvement or modern human occupation); and Solitude or 

Primitive and Unconfined Recreation (the area provides outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation). We 

recommend that all motorized use and mechanized transportation be prohibited 

within the Wilderness Character Zones, except when required to address 

emergency situations. 
172 


Insert offset folio 55 here 95279.055

• Human-Powered Backcountry Recreation Zones should be managed as trail 

corridors to ensure a high-quality human-powered recreation experience. In the 

management plan, using either language-based exceptions or Non-Motorized 

Backcountry corridors, mountain bicycling is identified as an existing and 

appropriate use and should be allowed to continue on the trails listed. These 

shared use corridors ensure a high-quality human-powered recreation 

experience. Human-powered recreation is defined as outdoor recreation 

activities in which no motorized source of power is used as part of the activities 

or as part of the means of transport. 

• All areas proposed for wilderness designation under the most recent draft of 

Representative Mike Simpson's Central Idaho Economic Development and 

Recreation Act should be managed as Wilderness Character Zones with the 

exception of trail corridors managed as Human-Powered Backcountry Recreation 

Zones that are identified below, and roads/trails managed as open to motorized 

travel as determined in the management plan. 

• The following areas be managed as Human-Powered Backcountry Recreation 

Zones: 

Trail #675- French Creek (from terminus of Road 670 to terminus of 

Road 668) 

Trail #678- Big Lake Creek (from Road 670 to Jimmy Smith trailhead) 

Trail #664- Bluett Creek (from monument boundary to trail terminus) 

Trail #112- East Fork Salmon River Trail (from monument boundary near 

Grand Prize Gulch trailhead to East Fork trailhead) 

Trail #111- Germani a Creek Trail (from Pole Creek Road to Germania 

Creek trailhead) 

Trail #114- Bowery/Germania Connector Trail (from East Fork trailhead 

to Germania Creek Trail) 

Trail #215- Galena Gulch Trail (from East Fork Salmon River Trail to Pole 

Creek Road) 

Trail #108- Gladiator Creek Trail (from monument boundary to East Fork 

Salmon Trail) 

Trail #109- Washington Lake Trail (from monument boundary to 

Germania Creek Trail) 

Trail #110- Chamberlain Creek Trail (Castle Divide Trail east to Germania 

Creek Trail) 

Trail #047- Castle Divide Trail (from Washington Lake Trail to Big Boulder 

Creek trailhead) 

Trail #682- Little Boulder Creek Trail (from Big Boulder Creek Trail to 

Little Boulder Creek trailhead) 

Trail #671- Warm Springs Creek Trail (from Ants Basin Trail to 

monument boundary) 

Trail #219- Ants Basin Trail (from Washington Lake Trail to Warm Springs 

Creek Trail) 
173 


Insert offset folio 56 here 95279.056

Trail #104- Williams Creek Trail (from monument boundary to Warm 

Springs Creek Trail) 

Trail #203- Washington Creek Trail (from Washington Lake Trail to Castle 

Divide Trail) 

Trail #332- Fisher Creek Trail (from Fisher Creek Road to Williams Creek 

Trail) 

Trail #647- Rough Creek Trail (from monument boundary to Casino Lakes 

Trail/Garland Creek Trail junction) 

Trail #646- Big Casino Trail (from monument boundary to Warm Springs 

Creek Trail) 

Trail #616- Casino Lakes Trail (from monument boundary to Rough Creek 

Trail/Garland Creek Trail junction) 

Trail #672- Garland Creek Trail (from Rough Creek Trail/Casino Lakes 

Trail junction to Warm Springs Creek Trail) 

Trail #603- Martin Creek Trail (from Big Casino Trail to trail terminus 

near headwaters of Martin Creek) 

Recommendations for Eastern Portion of Proposed BWC NM 

With regard to lands within the proposed BWC NM lying east of the East Fork Salmon 

River, South Fork East Fork Salmon River and Silver Creek, We will seek to achieve 

harmony in the management plan between areas managed for wilderness character and 

areas managed for human-powered recreation. 

General Recommendations for Proposed BWC NM 

We recommend that motorized trail maintenance tools are permitted on all trails that 

are open to mechanized travel. 

We recommend that any and all necessary trail realignments or reroutes, determined 

through agency management decisions that are based upon an identified need, whether 

social and/or environmental, be made possible and contained within the closest 

proximity of the original trail as possible. 

In order to preserve opportunities for solitude and a backcountry experience, We 

recommend that the USFS and BLM develop monitoring and adaptive management 

plans to maintain the environmental and experiential integrity of a BWC NM. 

Media and Public Communications 

All external communications (media, membership outreach, alerts, etc.) will be 

consistent with this memorandum of understanding as presented below. Concerns or 

disputes with consistency will be addressed immediately through open communications 

between signatories. 

For the purpose of strengthening trust and maintaining the integrity of this MOU, all 

parties to this MOU will be encouraged to the level practical, to respond in a timely and 
174 


Insert offset folio 57 here 95279.057

public manner to public discourse (written or otherwise) that comes from within each of 

our respective communities that is contradictory and/or detrimental to this agreement. 

Responses should espouse the productive value and/or specific components of this 

MOU in a favorable manner. 

For purposes of clarity, no party to this memorandum of understanding shall make a 

public statement on behalf of any of the other parties without prior written consent and 

no party to this memorandum of understanding shall make a lobbying contact on behalf 

of any other party. 

Sincerely, 

Craig Gehrke 

Regional Director 

The Wilderness Society, Idaho Office 

Rick Johnson 

Executive Director 

Idaho Conservation League 

Brett Stevenson 

Executive Director 

Wood River Bicycle Coalition 

For 

Date 2/28/14 

Date 2/28/14 

Date 3/2/14 
175 


Insert offset folio 58 here 95279.058

Anna Laxague Date 3/1/14 

Pacific Northwest Region Director 

International Mountain Biking Association 
176 


Insert offset folio 59 here 95279.059

Boulder- White Clouds Backcountry Trails Landscape 

This map shows the overall back country landscape of the Boulder--White Clouds area. All the trails seen 

in the 11 Proposed Wilderness" are currently open to bicycles and a variety of other users. All trails in the 

217,088 acre Sawtooth Wilderness Area are exclusive to equestrian and hikers. Together they create a 

broad ran?e of recreation experiences that are a~ invaluable component of the Idaho economy. 
177 


Insert offset folio 60 here 95279.060

Boulder- White Clouds Backcountry Trails Landscape 

This map shows a more detailed view of the trails in the proposed Wilderness that are currently open to 

bicycles that would be closed if designated Wilderness without an accommodating solution. All of these 

trails offer important access to backcountry riding experience for locals and out of town visitors. These 

are the marque trails that draw mountain bikers to the Boulder-White Clouds. 

Any action, legislative or administrative, and make provisions for these rare 

backcountry experiences that make irreplaceable contributions to the local economy and quality of life. 
178 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Ms. Stevenson. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

Before we get to the questions, I would like to invite Senator Lee 

to make comments about his piece of legislation. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso. 

Thanks to all of you for being here today and for the insight you 

have given us. 

The farm and agriculture industry is an essential pillar of my 

state’s economy. According to Utah State University researchers, 

the Utah food and agriculture industry makes up more than 14 

percent of the state’s GDP and provides some 80,000 jobs. This tremendous output results in an economic impact totaling $17.5 billion every year. 

Much of Utah’s farm industry consists of or relies in one way or 

another on livestock grazing. With more than 25 of the state’s 29 

counties reporting livestock as the dominant agricultural sector, 

livestock represents the single largest sector of farm income in 

Utah. 

Unfortunately, due to restrictions on Federal lands, it is increasingly difficult for Utah’s ranchers to continue their way of life. 

Utah has 45,000,000 acres classified as rangeland. Of that, 

33,000,000 acres are owned and controlled by Federal land management agencies. Only 8,000,000 acres of Utah’s rangelands are 

privately-owned. 

This reality means that Utah’s ranchers often find themselves at 

the mercy of Federal employees, Federal policies and administrative decisions influenced by outside interests groups who have 

worked to eliminate all grazing on Federally-administered lands for 

the past 30 years or more. Being dependent on the whims of Washington has not worked out well for Utah’s ranchers. Since the late 

1940’s, BLM and the Forest Service have cut or suspended nearly 

75 percent of Utah’s total livestock grazing animal unit months, or 

AUMs, across the Utah landscape, from 5.4 million AUMs in 1949 

to just over 2 million in 2012. 

Using the Antiquities Act on September 18th, 1996, President 

Clinton issued a proclamation creating the Grand Staircase 

Escalante National Monument with 1.9 million acres of Federal 

land. At the time this designation occurred, the Grand Staircase 

Escalante National Monument was the largest Presidentially-created monument outside of Alaska. While using the Antiquities Act 

to further limit activity on another 2 million acres of Utah land 

was wholly inappropriate, at least President Clinton, at the time, 

looked to enshrine existing grazing rights. 

To this end, to his credit, President Clinton’s Presidential Proclamation and monument management plan stated as follows, ‘‘Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to affect existing permits 

or leases for or levels of livestock grazing on Federal lands within 

the monument. Existing grazing uses shall continue to be governed 

by applicable laws and regulations other than this proclamation.’’ 

And yet, since President Clinton issued this proclamation, nearly 

28 percent of the 106,202 livestock grazing AUMs have been suspended. Furthermore, BLM is currently in the process of amending 

179 

its management plan for the monument and is considering several 

options that would either decrease or eliminate grazing all together. Additionally, the Grand Staircase Escalante National 

Monument designation under the Antiquities Act means that 

BLM’s priorities are not focused on improving rangeland conditions 

for wildlife. 

In concert with Senator Hatch, I have introduced S. 365 which 

directs BLM to implement a program to improve rangeland conditions for wildlife and livestock carrying capacity in those areas and 

to restore livestock grazing to the level of usage in those areas that 

existed before the monument was designated as a monument. This 

legislation represents an opportunity for a rare win/win and will 

result in improved rangeland and sustainable growth for Utah’s 

ranchers. 

If this measure is signed into law, BLM will focus on preserving 

the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument’s rangeland by, 

perhaps, using controlled burns to destroy weeds or by removing 

Pinion and Juniper trees. Restoring forage through the improvement of rangeland conditions will allow the Grand Staircase 

Escalante to sustain grazing levels prior to its designation as a 

monument. Healthier rangeland will preserve the grazing rights 

Kane and Garfield County’s ranchers have used for generations. 

Improper management of Grand Staircase Escalante not only damages the monument but it also harms the people that depend on 

its forage. 

Because S. 365 is a common sense solution, it is no surprise that 

it has received broad support from Utah’s agriculture and farming 

industry, the Public Lands Council, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Utah Cattlemen’s Association, Utah Wool Growers Association and the Utah Farm Bureau Federation. They have all endorsed S. 365, and I’d like to submit their endorsement letters for 

the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

180 


Insert offset folio 64 here 95279.064

The Honorable John Barrasso 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Ron Wyden 

221 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

May 18,2015 

RE: S. 365, a bill to improve rangeland conditions and restore grazing levels within the 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Wyden, 

The Public Lands Council (PLC), the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), the Utah 

Cattlemen's Association (UCA) and the Utah Wool Growers Association (UWGA) strongly 

support the (S. 365), a bill to improve rangeland conditions and restore grazing levels within the 

Grand Staircase-Escalame National Monument, Utah. PLC is the only national organization 

dedicated solely to representing the roughly 22,000 ranchers who operate on federal lands. 

NCBA is the beef industry's largest and oldest national marketing and trade association, 

representing American cattlemen and women who provide much of the nation's supply offood 

and own or manage a large portion of America's private property. 

S. 365 introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) would require the Secretary of the Interior to 

implement a management program to improve rangeland conditions for wildlife and livestock 

carrying capacity, and to restore livestock grazing to the level of usage that existed as of 

September 17, 1996 within the boundaries of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. 

Ranchers are the original conservationists and the ultimate stewards of public and private lands, 

dedicating immeasurable amounts of time and resources to range improvement projects. 

Maintaining open space and keeping ranchers on public lands ensures that our western 

landscapes are vibrant, healthy, and productive. 

Since designation of the Grand Staircase Monument in 1996, livestock grazing and other 

multiple uses have been drastically reduced, leading to extensive economic harm to communities 

in and around the monument. lt is unacceptable to continue to reduce and remove livestock from 

the Grand Staircase and other monuments when it is ranching and grazing that largely created the 

conditions which led to the designation in the first place. S. 365 reverses these reductions and 

begins to restore the economic damage to those communities in and around the monument in 

Utah. 

PLC, NCBA, UCA and UWGA appreciate the opportunity to provide our input on behalf of our 

members- the nation's food and fiber producers. We encourage members of Congress to support 

this positive piece oflegislation. 
181 


Insert offset folio 65 here 95279.065

Sincerely, 

Public Lands Council 

National Cattlemen's Beef Association 

Utah Cattlemen's Association 

Utah Wool Growers Association 

Cc: Members of the Subcommittee on Public Land5, Forests, and Mining 
182 


Insert offset folio 61 here 95279.061

Utah Cattlemen's Association 

May 18,2015 

Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

311 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 205!0 

"Serving Ranchers Since 1890" 

Statement of Support by the UTAH CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION for 

S.365 

A Bill "To improve rangeland conditions and restore grazing levels within the 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah." 

The Utah Cattlemen's Association (UCA) is pleased to provide the following comments on 

S.365, a Bill submitted by Senator Hatch and Senator Lee of Utah, dated February 4, 2015 and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S.365 implements improving 

rangeland conditions and restoring grazing levels within the Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument, Utah. 

Since the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) in Garfield 

and Kane counties of southern Utah in 1996, nearly 28% of the l 06,202 livestock grazing 

AUM's have been suspended. This loss offederalland grazing has required cattle ranchers to 

reduce the number of cattle owned, or they have had to relocate those cattle to other areas of 

federal or private land grazing. As the local communities within the monument area are 

agriculturally based and have some dependence on the ranchers' access to these federal lands, 

these smaller rural communities can be impacted by the suspension of the AUM's within the 

GSENM. In our comments to the BLM in January of2014 pertaining to the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument Livestock Grazing Monument Management Plan Amendment 

we stated that, to justify any decisions under NEPA, a socio-economic analysis would have to 

include in modeling the amount of AUM's prior to designation of the Glen Canyon National 

Recreation Area in 1972 at a starting point to realistically compare the economic impacts by the 

many federal actions over the years. 

The UCA supports 8.365 in the intent of restoring grazing levels as were available prior to this 

timeframe and the monument's designation. The suspended AUM's can be restored and 

rangeland conditions will be improved through flexibility in management to allow use of these 

added AUM's as a tool combined with appropriate rangeland grazing management teclmiques. 

150 SOUTH 600 EAST -10-B SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84102 

801-355-5748 E-MAIL: UTAHBEEF@AOL.COM 

1 
183 


Insert offset folio 62 here 95279.062

!. Grazing management is based on the control of livestock. 

a. Grazing managers (permitees) need access to areas where livestock can be herded 

and moved as conditions require. 

b. Fencing, whether permanent or temporary (portable electric), influences livestock 

behavior and could be a tool used to better use forage areas or allow plant growth 

after grazing. 

c. Grazing areas can be managed by strategically placing salt and mineral 

supplementation in areas to better distribute livestock and wildlife use. 

2. Grazing impacts are managed by controlling the timing, duration, and intensity of grazing 

in order to provide adequate rest for plant regrowth and recovery. 

a. Flexibility in the dates permits are allowed to begin and end will best utilize the 

available forage resources. 

b. Annual precipitation should determine available forage production within a 

grazing allotment and should dictate livestock use of the permitted area. 

3. Location of water sources controls the impact of grazing. 

a. Stock ponds need to be properly located, constructed and maintained. 

b. Construction of ponds and distribution of water resources throughout a grazing 

area alleviates the problem of controlling both livestock and wildlife use in 

riparian zones. 

c. Wildlife also benefit from the water development. 

(These allowances need to be solidified in any rules or regulations pertaining to the 

implementation of this Bill.) 

Range Improvement Projects 

The effects of improving forage from increased livestock grazing management takes time and 

depend on many factors. Mechanical, fire and chemical treatments are more dramatic on the 

landscape, but when used correctly, can serve the purpose of improving rangeland forage. The 

removal of pinyon and juniper can add forage lost to the encroachment of these desert plants. 

Controlled hums can take out old stands of nuisance vegetation and noxious weeds. Chemical 

treatments, either ground or aerially applied, can reduce excessive shrubs and unwanted 

invasive species, allowing grasses to once again flourish. 

Uncontrolled fire on federal lands can be very catastrophic. Many fires cover areas 

inaccessible to ground firefighting methods and destroy forage available for livestock and 

wildlife. Proper livestock grazing can reduce the fuel load that contributes to the fire 

destruction. 

As rangeland management practices are implemented through sound science-based principles, 

livestock and wildlife benefit from these actions. Forage can be increased as water and other 

resources are managed with the objective of increasing productivity. 

Cooperative Monitoring 

To evaluate the impacts of a treatment or grazing plan, monitoring will be required to assess 

rangeland health trends and to determine future grazing practices. Any plan to improve forage 

should be detailed in objectives and tasks for successful outcomes. A cooperative monitoring 

2 
184 


Insert offset folio 63 here 95279.063

program using the MOU that BLM and USFS has with the Public Lands Council (PLC) with 

input by the local Grazing Advisory Board with the affected permittees and local grazing 

associations, specialists from BLM, university extension, agencies that the Utah Department of 

Agriculture and Food (UDAF) has placed on the Grazing Improvement Program (GIP) 

Technical Advisory Committee would ensure creditable expertise. In this way not only would a 

local knowledge be available, but the State of Utah with committee members representing the 

lead management of the BLM, USFS, extension, and the UDAF would be able to better justify 

and authorize plans. This would also make available state funds for range improvements under 

the control of the grazing permit holder 

Summary 

Flexibility for the grazing permit holder managing the livestock offers the best opportunity for 

a successful range improvement program. Grazing can be controlled by timing, duration of 

forage use, distribution of water improvements, and vegetative treatments. By appropriate 

monitoring, and record keeping these trends can be proven. The allowance of a cooperative 

monitoring process involving the local Grazing Advisory Board and the GlP Technical 

Committee sited in the ACT will help to bring state funds for projects to further achieve 

rangeland health. With this, the objective of improving rangeland conditions and the 

restoration of historic grazing levels within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monwnent 

can be achieved helping to stabilize livestock business in southern Utah. 

Objectives of improved grazing would integrate management for multiple uses such as 

increased forage production that would benefit wildlife and livestock as well as outdoor 

recreation. These efforts would also provide both historical and economic stability to local 

communities that are supported by grazing within the GSENM. 

We thank you for this opportunity to comment and look forward to further involvement in this 

process. 

UTAH CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Don Anderson, President 

~;;~~--

3 
185 


Insert offset folio 66 here 95279.066

May 15, 2015 

Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski 

United States Senate 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

United States Senate 

311 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

9865 South State Street 

Sandy, UT 84070 

Tel: 801-233-3040 

RE: S. 365 To Improve Rangeland Conditions and Restore Grazing Levels within the 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah. 

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell: 

The Utah Farm Bureau Federation representing more than 28,000 member families located in 

each of Utah's 29 counties appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on S. 365 and its 

efforts to improve rangeland conditions and restore livestock grazing levels within the Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM). 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation is the largest general farm and ranch organization in the state of 

Utah representing more than 28,000 member families. We represent a significant number of 

livestock producers who use public lands for grazing sheep and cattle, including within the 

Monument. Livestock ranching is an important part of the history, culture and economic fabric of 

the state of Utah and is a major contributor to the state's economy. 

Farmers and ranchers are the foundation of Utah's food and agriculture industry which is a 

major contributor to the Utah's economic health and well-being generating billions of dollars in 

economic activity and providing jobs to tens of thousands of Utah citizens. Utah farm gate sales 

in 2014 exceeded $1.8 billion. According to Utah State University researchers, food and 

agriculture's far reaching economic impact is the catalyst for $17.5 billion in economic activity. 
186 


Insert offset folio 67 here 95279.067

s 365 

Page2 

Food and agriculture makes up more than 14 percent of the state GOP and provides 80,000 

jobs. That impact is of critical importance to rural counties like Kane and Garfield Counties -

home of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. 

During the November 2014 Utah Farm Bureau Federation annual state convention, our 

delegates reaffirmed Farm Bureau's long standing commitment to multiple-use management of 

the public lands and the Taylor Grazing Act that mandates grazing rights on federally managed 

lands be safeguarded. Utah Farm Bureau Federation delegates also reaffirmed historic support 

of "multiple use management of natural resources on public lands by local, state and federal 

land management agencies." 

At the American Farm Bureau 2015 annual convention, delegates from across the nation 

adopted policy recognizing the "public benefits provided by science-based grazing management 

including thriving, sustainable rangelands; quality watersheds; productive wildlife habitat; viable 

rural economies; reduction of wildfire hazards; and tax base support for critical public services" 

coming from the multiple use of the federally managed public lands. The American Farm 

Bureau is our nation's largest farm and ranch organization with more than 6 million members. 

The Utah Farm Bureau Federation supports S.365 designed to improve rangeland conditions 

and restore grazing levels within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah. This 

legislation provides needed direction to federal land management agencies in protecting the 

history, culture and economic foundation of Kane and Garfield Counties including multigenerational family ranching operations. In addition, the bill provides a framework for enhancing 

habitat and forage for multiple uses including, recreation, wildlife and livestock and addressing 

catastrophic wildfires through proactive grazing practices. 

The 1996 Presidential Proclamation establishing the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument clearly foresaw a future that included livestock grazing stating: "Nothing in this 

proclamation shall be deemed to affect existing permits or leases for, or levels of, livestock 

grazing on federal lands within the monument; existing grazing uses shall continue to be 

governed by applicable laws and regulations other than this proclamation." 

As Utah Farm Bureau has considered and interpreted the Presidential Proclamation and 

Monument Management Plan, they endorse and even embrace the ongoing and historic tenants 

of the Taylor Grazing Act and continuation of livestock grazing rights within the Monument as 

part of the past, present and future of Kane and Garfield Counties. 

S. 365 sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee of Utah underscores both the historic 

intent of the Taylor Grazing Act and the acknowledgement of President Bill Clinton in his 

proclamation - protecting family owned and operated livestock ranches as part of the history, 

culture and economic fabric of Southern Utah. There are more than 11,000 livestock grazing 

AUMs (Animal Unit Months) allocated on grazing allotments located within the GSENM that are 

critical to the success and economic well-being of local ranching operations. 

Rural counties and communities across Southern Utah have historically suffered from lackluster 

economic growth. Multiple-use of the public lands is critical to the economic health of rural Utah, 

especially Kane and Garfield Counties. A mix of private and public lands for generations has 
187 


Insert offset folio 68 here 95279.068

S. 365 

Page 3 

created economically viable and sustainable ranching operations. These businesses create new 

wealth through the harvest of annually renewable forage that is the foundation of our rural 

economies. In addition, livestock grazing on the public lands provides a benefit to all Americans, 

not just those physically and financially able to visit the public lands states, including the Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Ranching and livestock production continues to 

provide the economic underpinnings for rural Utah! 

According to the 2015 "Economic Report to the Governor", Utah has 45 million acres classified 

as rangeland. Of that, 33 million acres are owned and controlled by federal land management 

agencies. Only 8 million acres of rangelands are privately owned. For economically viable and 

sustainable family ranching operations to exist in Utah, access to federal rangelands is critical. 

Since the late 1940s, BLM and Forest Service have cut or suspended nearly 75 percent of 

Utah's total livestock grazing AUMs across the Utah landscape- from 5.4 million AUMs in 1949 

to just over 2 million in 2012. 

It appears cutting livestock AUMs has been the strategy and the measure of the agencies for 

dealing with rangeland health, where in reality it has failed. Lack of proactive, science based 

grazing to manipulate plant communities has led to mega-infestations of noxious weeds and 

mono-cultures of encroaching pinyon-juniper and pine forests while becoming tinderboxes for 

catastrophic wild fires! 

S 365 provides a framework that requires the land management agencies to recognize livestock 

grazing as an important part of the GSENM ecosystem and a mechanism to improve the 

resources that will benefit all users. At the same time development and utilization of the natural 

resources including harvesting the renewable forage through livestock grazing provides 

abundant, affordable red meat to Utahns and Americans while at the same time building 

sustainable rural communities. 

Utah's agriculture heritage is founded in livestock production. Our pioneer ranching families 

grazing sheep and cattle was based on community and the lands that were held in common. 

S. 365 puts good management of our natural resources back on sound footing recognizing 

historic Congressional and Presidential promises and understanding the importance of the 

history, culture and economy of rural communities as provided by law. 

We all understand and appreciate the uniqueness of Kane and Garfield Counties and the 

beauty of GSENM. But it is equally important to understand and appreciate the unique 

character of the ranching families of Kane and Garfield Counties who have for generations 

cared for the land and harvested the renewable forage producing beef for American dinner 

tables. These ranching families are the first environmentalists who love the land and respected 

the unique character their area long before there was a Monument. 

According to the 2014 Utah Agriculture Statistics Garfield County has about 8,800 beef cattle 

and Kane County 3,700- a total of 12,500 head. It is estimated about half of them will spend 

some time grazing on the Monument. Harvesting the renewable forage provides many more 

benefits than just beef production. Dead and dying grasses and forage are utilized allowing 

plants to thrive- which allows new plant growth which is preferred by wildlife. In addition, 

livestock grazing and harvesting tinder dry grasses dramatically reduces the chances of 

catastrophic wildfires. 
188 


Insert offset folio 69 here 95279.069

S. 365 

Page4 

Investments by ranchers, sportsmen and the state of Utah in partnerships like the Grazing 

Improvement Program (GIP) are available and are aimed at improving rangelands (private, state 

and federal) statewide, including GSENM. These efforts not only improve forage for livestock, 

they help control of noxious weeds and monocultures of invasive trees that dominate the 

landscape using up water limited supplies which ultimately is beneficial to wildlife habitat, 

recreational opportunities and reduction of wildfires. 

Many do not realize that Utah's Kane and Garfield Counties with only 10 and 5 percent of their 

lands privately owned struggle to fund local government and in providing opportunities for 

private businesses to establish and thrive. Family livestock ranching has historically been the 

foundation of rural economic opportunity and tax base. Under the Taylor Grazing Act, grazing 

rights and access to public lands for livestock grazing was established based on local private 

land ownership and water rights - providing a foundation sustainable economic activity. 

Judicious access to and use of the public lands is critical to the long-term survival of Southern 

Utah ranching operations. These businesses that harvest the annually renewing forage provide 

jobs, health care, roads, public schools and services like emergency services, search and 

rescue and hospitals also important to visiting tourists. 

The economic realities of decisions to suspend or terminate livestock grazing AUMs on federal 

lands are dramatic. Let us consider what the impact of displacing or terminating even a single 

average sized family cattle ranching operation would be! 

Utah is a cow-calf cattle production state with cattle and calves contributing more than one-third 

of the state's agricultural commodity sales. According to the Salina Livestock Auction, feeder 

cattle arriving from Kane and Garfield Counties for auction generally averaged between 450 -

550 pounds and were valued at about $2.75 per pound or $1,375 per head. An average cowcalf ranching operation with 500 mother cows and a 95-percent calf survival rate adds more 

than $650,000 in direct cattle sales to the local economy. Based on the economic ripple effect 

as those dollars are spent in the local economy, that single family ranching business is the 

catalyst for more than $1 million in the Kane and Garfield County economy! 

A look back at last year's beef market prices ($2. 75-$3.00 I pound), and around 11,500 feeder 

cattle sold out of Kane and Garfield County ranches brought in more than $16 million dollars 

and generated in excess of $25-$30 million based on a conservative economic multiplier. With 

about one-half of the calf crop coming from grazing allotments within GSENM, of that total, 

about$ 8 million in direct feeder cattle sales and between $12- $15 million in economic activity 

is tied directly back to cattle grazing on the GSENM. That's worth saying again! Based on cattle 

sales coming from grazing allotments within GSENM, there is between $12 and $15 million of 

economic activity generated in Kane and Garfield Counties! 

This is economic activity that is self-sustaining and renews every year with a new calf crop and 

annually renewing forage. In turn, ranching dollars turn over in the Kane and Garfield County 

economies creating jobs, paying taxes, supporting public schools and hospitals and creating 

opportunities for local businesses for generations. 
189 


Insert offset folio 70 here 95279.070

S. 365 

PageS 

This annual economic contribution coming from hard working ranching families to the local, 

state and national economy and producing meat protein to feed Utahns and Americans is 

significant. 

Utah Farm Bureau applauds Utah Senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee for their vision in 

recognizing and bringing balance to the ecological and economic needs of the ranching families, 

Kane and Garfield Counties and the Monument. S. 365 provides greater clarity for federal land 

management agencies regarding the law and the intent of Congress in managing for multiple 

uses including recreation, wildlife as well as livestock grazing. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments. 

Sincerely, 

~~lt.4J~ 

Randy N. Parker 

Chief Executive Officer 

CC: United States Senator Orrin Hatch 

United States Senator Mike Lee 

Utah Governor Gary Herbert 

U.S. Representative Rob Bishop 

U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz 

U.S. Representative Chris Stewart 

U.S. Representative Mia Love 

Utah State Senator Ralph Okerlund 

Utah State Representative Mike Noel 
190 

Senator LEE. Again, I would like to thank the Committee for 

holding a hearing on S. 365 and focusing on a broad array of issues 

affecting public lands. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Lee. 

Now we will begin with questions starting with Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Stevenson, I am going to start with you, and I want to be 

fair on this. You have heard all the people that support this bill. 

We tried to find a balance and bring in people who opposed this 

legislation, and we were not able to find anyone except you. Do you 

have anybody else that you want to speak up for here in opposition 

to this? 

Ms. STEVENSON. Yes. I feel like the past several years of collaboration actually are not reflected in this bill. There have been a lot 

of meetings, formal public meetings, and a lot of informal meetings. 

And out of those meetings I think you’re well aware of the memorandum of understanding between the Wilderness Society, Idaho 

Conservation League, IMBA and the Bike Coalition that supports 

a different avenue, a more flexible approach, to achieving the conservation objectives that you guys have set out to achieve. 

Also, the city of Ketchum has a resolution that is supportive of 

an alternative of national monument that supports recreation. The 

city of Ketchum is very aware of the value that recreation has in 

local economy and to our local community. 

Blaine County has a similar resolution. 

Additionally, I think we’ve submitted to you a business letter of 

support asking for a national monument and protecting continued 

mountain biking access. That letter generated around 60 businesses signing on to that within a week’s time. In a town of 5,000 

people I think that’s pretty significant. 

Additionally there is a petition that’s circulating online asking 

for support for the national monument. And again, as an alternative to wilderness, a more flexible one that would support continued bike access. That has gone nationally with around, I think, 

100,000 signatures and 14,000 of those are from Idaho. 

So I don’t think it’s just me. [Laughter.] 

Ms. STEVENSON. Thank you. 

Senator RISCH. Well the issue would be that there have been people who have taken both positions as far as a monument or a bill 

is concerned, and the testimony here from Mr. Johnson lists 25 or 

26 of the most diverse groups that there are that support this bill. 

The Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, Blaine 

County, Boulder-White Clouds’ Council, City of Bellevue, City of 

Sun Valley City Council, City of Haley, City Council of the City of 

Ketchum, City Council of the City of Stanley, Camping for America’s Wilderness, Custer County, Idaho AFL–CIO, the National 

Public Lands Grazing Campaign, a really, really diverse group of 

organizations. 

In addition to that, we have received letters of support on the bill 

from the Idaho Cattle Association, the Idaho Farm Bureau, and the 

East Fork Ranchers. So I appreciate your focus on the bicycle situation. As Mr. Johnson pointed out, compromise is hard. 

191 

And as I understand it, also in Mr. Johnson’s testimony, he lists 

25 or 26 trails and roads that are going to remain open that would 

not have, under the previous proposals that were here. And those 

include Frog Lake Loop, Trail Loop 047 and 686, Germania Trail 

111, Grand Prize Trail 112, Washington Basin Road 197, and it 

goes on and on. 

Ms. STEVENSON. Yes. 

Senator RISCH. So there was compromise in this bill. Would you 

go so far as to agree to that? 

Ms. STEVENSON. Well, I would not disagree, I guess. Our point 

is that this bill does close around a dozen trails. We’re asking for 

four, and those have not been considered. And I think the long list 

of supporters that you were echoing, I don’t know if any of them 

would object to accommodations made to a couple additional trails. 

And I feel like the support for continued access on those trails is 

vast. 

And I don’t mean to be suggesting that a national monument is 

the only way to do it. I think there are modifications to this bill 

that could accommodate these goals. You could have a non-wilderness corridors or you could do it through a language based exceptions within the bill. There are also other options like the Wild and 

Scenic River Act using that model to apply it to a land designation. 

So I feel like there are other tools that could accommodate, to a 

farther degree, that could accommodate mountain biking interests. 

Senator RISCH. Ms. Stevenson, you have made your case here, 

and you have all the way through. I promise public hearings mean 

something. 

Ms. STEVENSON. Thank you. 

Senator RISCH. What you have just put out I will shop again. 

Ms. STEVENSON. Thank you. 

Senator RISCH. But I have to tell you I am not going to let that 

stand in the way of passing the bill with all the support that we 

have for it. I know you are sincere about this, and I know you are 

proceeding in good faith. 

I think there has been a lot of accommodation in here but not 

as much as you wanted. I understand that. But in the give and 

take process, you never get 100 percent of what you want. 

So with that, I see my time is up and then some. I guess we will 

do a second round in a minute, I hope. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Risch. 

Senator Heinrich? 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you. 

I actually want to ask a quick question, Mr. Murphy, on S. 365. 

Shouldn’t rangeland condition dictate what your grazing levels are? 

Mr. MURPHY. Senator, I can qualify an answer to that is yes. 

Rangeland management is a data-based undertaking. The Grand 

Staircase Escalante is working under rangeland guidance under a 

land-use plan that’s some 35 years old. 

Senator HEINRICH. So let’s make sure I understand this. Is the 

reductions in grazing levels that we have seen in Grand Staircase, 

have they been driven by the monument designation or were they 

driven by resource issues regarding drought, riparian areas, those 

kinds of things? 

192 

Mr. MURPHY. Since the monument designation, I’m not aware of 

any reductions. Average use since 1996 has been approximately 55 

percent of permitted use. 

Now that actual use is from the rangeland operators. Ranchers 

look at market conditions, vegetative conditions, drought. So those 

are permittees making those adjustments year to year. 

Senator HEINRICH. If we were to mandate levels, would we be potentially locking in levels above what could be sustained in drought 

years? 

Mr. MURPHY. In renewing grazing permits has a data-driven 

process now there’s the grazing riders that we have used. 

Senator HEINRICH. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. We’re seeking to amend the monument plan and 

we’re doing that now. That will provide a basis or a framework for 

activity plan work such as using the National Environmental Policy Act, a data-driven process, to renew grazing permits. 

Senator HEINRICH. Okay. 

Shifting gears to another national monument, the Rio Grande del 

Norte, which I believe has almost the exact same grazing language. 

One group that I hear from again and again in support of both 

the monument designation and the current bill as well has been 

local business owners that have seen, at least anecdotally, increases in visitation to the area. Is the BLM seeing more visitors 

to the area in the first couple of years since the monument designation? 

Mr. MURPHY. In preparing for this hearing the information that 

I gathered is that there’s been a 40 percent increase in visitation 

to the Taos area based on the monument designation, a 30 percent 

increase in lodging taxes. Folks coming in are procuring guide services, buying outdoor equipment, clothing and so forth and generally 

bolstering the economics of the Taos area based on their visitation 

to the monument. 

Senator HEINRICH. One last point I will make, just because it has 

been a little bit of a confusing factor in the past, is the Rio Grande 

del Norte National Monument. By virtue of the fact that it was a 

National Conservation Lands designation within the Bureau of 

Land Management, hunting is one of the allowed uses as well as 

fishing. In fact, a buddy of mine last year took a monster elk out 

of the monument. I was jealous. It was bigger than the elk I got 

last fall. 

But I just wanted to put that on the table because it has been 

one of the questions we have received time and again is would 

hunting continue in both the wilderness portions of the monument 

and the monument broadly? 

Mr. MURPHY. Hunting would continue and I know that area 

somewhat, in fact family lives in that area. I haven’t hunted it like 

you have, but I’ve seen the elk and I know it’s a big draw for people locally as well as tourism that will continue. 

Senator HEINRICH. Great. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

Ms. Stevenson, I tend to agree with the statement when you say 

in your testimony that the wilderness is a single tool in the legislaVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:40 Feb 13, 2017 Jkt 095279 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95279\95279.TXT 95279
193 

tive toolbox and that there is a lot of space between wilderness and 

multiple use management. 

I do not see establishing a national monument by Presidential 

proclamation as the solution. Much of the area that is the subject 

of this bill is already in a national recreation area. Adding additional management layers on top of that does not seem like a good 

idea to me. Continuing wilderness study areas or recommended 

wilderness areas is not a solution either, they de facto become wilderness areas. 

So it seems that maybe the real problem you have here is that 

mountain biking is a prohibited activity under the Wilderness Act. 

So I just wonder would amending the Wilderness Act to allow for 

mechanized travel solve the problem? 

Ms. STEVENSON. I suppose that would solve the problem, but I’m 

not here today to advocate for that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Okay. 

The next question is for Mr. Johnson. 

You spent over a decade working on designating wilderness in 

the Boulder-White Clouds region. You have also teamed up more 

recently with Ms. Stevenson and other stakeholders to ask the 

President to exercise his Antiquity Act’s authority to proclaim a national monument for the whole area, about 600,000 plus acres. 

So at the end of the day, what does your organization want? Wilderness or a national monument? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, at the end of the day what we want to see 

happen is whatever we can get done. To be honest, after this many 

years, I first came to Washington, DC 30 years ago. 

Senator BARRASSO. But before any of us. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. Right. 

To speak to these issues and the fact is we’ve not been able to 

bring the consensus together to get a bill passed in all that time. 

For a number of reasons, legislation is the right path to go. For a 

number of reasons, wilderness is the right path to go. It is a higher 

standard of protection, and it’s one that we have advocated as an 

organization and as a conservation community for, literally, generations. 

The monument is a good tool, but it is one that has political cost. 

There’s no question. An Idaho solution is an Idaho solution, one 

supported by the majority party of our state and the delegation certainly is going to have the certain political resonance that something from the Administration probably is not. I would also add 

that there’s a certainty of management that hits the ground on day 

one with wilderness designation. It is a clear. You said it is a single 

tool. It is a very effective tool to protect land. The management of 

a monument is a little more complicated. But in the end also 

there’s the legislative history. There’s been the discussions about 

protection of this landscape as wilderness for generations at this 

point. And we’re really encouraged that we might have the opportunity to finally get the job done. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Is it fair to say then that you would be satisfied if Congress designates these areas as wilderness and would oppose the monument 

idea and get others to do the same? 

194 

Mr. JOHNSON. If the bill passes, absolutely. I think we have done 

the job if the bill passes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. However, if the bill doesn’t pass—you got it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Murphy, with regard to Senator Lee and 

Senator Hatch’s bill, I want to understand this correctly. As I read 

your testimony, the BLM is telling the Subcommittee it intentionally punted the decision-making livestock grazing in the monument in 1999 when the agency adopted its resource management 

plan. Now here we are 16 years later, and it wants to put a framework in place through transparent public processes. You have been 

managing grazing using the 35-year old framework plans all the 

time. 

It just seems in your testimony you say you do not support managing graze lands according to arbitrary targets of use. Then you 

say, overall permitted use is at roughly the same level as it has 

been since the early 90’s and that you have renewed all expiring 

livestock grazing permits, leases on the monument. 

If this is all true, I am just not sure why you call the grazing 

levels in the bill arbitrary since it is what you are claiming the 

BLM has already done. 

Can you provide some assurances that BLM will not reduce grazing levels on the monument through the Livestock Grazing Management Plan amendment that you are currently preparing? 

Mr. MURPHY. Senator, thank you for the question. 

When the monument plan was initiated, grazing direction, grazing planning was part of that. The issues became significant and 

the grazing component of that plan was tabled. So at that time 

when the plan was completed, there was not land-use level direction for grazing. 

Some years later an amendment was initiated to readdress the 

grazing. After a few years, it was found that the public scoping period was wholly inadequate and that was then set aside, that 

amendment process. It took some years to garner support for renewing the land-use planning effort to bring grazing direction in 

line with other resource decisions, and in 2012 and 2013 public 

scoping has begun. And we’re in that process now of addressing 

grazing management, providing direction for grazing, integrated 

with other resources. 

Senator BARRASSO. You talk about providing direction, and I 

think people want to see some certainty. If you oppose setting grazing levels like S. 365 would do, what will the BLM do to provide 

some certainty to the ranching industry and community that are 

affected by this, that grazing will actually continue at current levels? 

Mr. MURPHY. With the completion of the amendment that’s underway, it’ll provide the framework for the basis for activity plan 

levels, that will provide the framework for NEPA for grazing permit renewals and those renewals will be based on a data-driven 

process, vegetation, soil, water, air. 

When I spoke about the arbitrary number, that has to do with 

going back to a period of time, 1996 or any date, and trying to 

match that date, the data-driven process will arrive at a level of 

195 

grazing management that can be supported and integrated with 

other resources. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Ms. Weldon, in your testimony on S. 472, Senator Heller’s Douglas County bill, you expressed concerns with language that you say 

limits the ability of the President to develop new water facilities 

that are deemed in the national interest in any present or future 

designated wilderness, and you reiterate this concern in your testimony on Senator Risch’s bill. Can you elaborate on the basis of 

your concern with this language, and do you have any examples of 

the President using that authority or what might necessitate the 

use of that authority? 

Ms. WELDON. Thanks for your question. 

I don’t have any examples because I don’t think this provision 

has been put into use with any wilderness that have been designated based on our research. 

What we’re simply doing is affirming the language that is in the 

current Wilderness Act of 1964 that states that the President may 

authorize and maintain if it’s viewed that those new facilities are 

in the interest of the public. So it’s affirming what’s in the Wilderness Act. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

We will go to a second round of questions. Senator Risch? 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will try to be brief here. 

Rick, one of the biggest criticisms that we have, as the delegation, have heard in Idaho regarding monument verses statute is 

the uncertainty that the monument brings and the struggle that it 

is going to take to get it up and running whereas the bill provides 

very clear certainty, at least in most circumstances. What are your 

thoughts on that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, there’s little doubt that the bill would provide certainty from day one. That’s crystal clear. 

I would like to just caution, however, that I think that a monument process such as not unlike the one that has been underway 

driven by our organization and in a very broad coalition. We’re 

reaching out and talking to everybody. We’ve done visits with the 

ranchers and recreation interests. We’re talking to everybody we 

can possibly meet with. To be honest, parenthetically, it made me 

appreciate your job a lot more. You know, we’re the ones actually 

in the center of the focus. 

When a monument is designated, it is based upon a set of objects 

and it is based upon a map that is, presumably, built around the 

justification. We cannot speak for the White House or the Administration by any means, but we believe that they would take the good 

work that has been done by the coalition on the ground to build 

something that reflects Idaho values and we would hope that and 

expect that that would happen. We cannot guarantee that would 

happen, but we would hope and expect. 

Senator RISCH. Sure. 

Your continued preference is for the legislation at this point, is 

that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Correct. 

196 

Senator RISCH. Second, you were chosen to testify in favor of 

this, and as a result of that, are representing lots and lots of different and varied groups and some groups you are not used to representing, I might add. 

Since you have that responsibility—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. And they’re probably uncomfortable with it too, 

but. [Laughter.] 

Senator RISCH. You said that, I did not. In any event, the numbers are really impressive, the number of groups and the wide diversity. But having said that, do you have anything else you want 

to add? Your time was limited at the beginning, in adding to your 

testimony as far as what your thoughts, or these other groups’ 

thoughts, are on the bill? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think that I would just say that this is an 

extraordinary place. And while we are far, thousands of miles from 

home, it is important to recognize that spring is coming in the 

Boulder-White Clouds, the mountain goats are out there, the herds 

of migrating elk, the Pronghorn, the salmon and steelhead in the 

rivers and streams. It’s an extraordinary place. 

And one of the things that I think is clear is people care about 

it deeply for many different respects. It’s a large landscape, has a 

lot of diverse opportunities to use it. This bill takes into consideration as much as it possibly can, the diversity of uses and the diversity of habitats in a future that really protects this grand part 

of Idaho. 

I would just close by saying it really deserves it. It is not about 

us. It’s not about, you know, as Mr. Simpson has said, it’s not even 

about ten years from now. It’s about a hundred years from now. 

Will the resources that are found there today be there for future 

generations? And I think this bill is an extraordinary effort to 

bring people together. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

I think that regardless of where people are on this issue there 

is not anyone who would disagree with the word that you just uttered in that regard. This is one of the most remarkable places in 

the world. You can travel all over the world, but you would always 

remember your trip to the Boulder-White Clouds. It is truly 

unique. 

Tim, finish up your work here and get back to Idaho. We have 

a little sage grouse problem you may have heard of and we need 

your help on that. 

For those of you who are interested in looking to the future, here 

in the audience today we have people representing the Scotchman’s 

Peak area of North Idaho, another, probably the next candidate in 

Idaho. It may be in my fourth or fifth term in this job, I do not 

know. I hope you do not have to wait that long, but there is no 

doubt that there will be a movement. I want to complement them 

right now. They have seen and picked up on the collaborative 

method by which these public lands issues have been resolved in 

Idaho. They have been moving forward in that regard. They have 

been making substantial progress, and indeed have an impressive 

list of people who are supporting their work in that regard. So this 

Committee will, in all likelihood, in the future be seeing them. Is 

that okay with you, Rick? 

197 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m all in. [Laughter.] 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your time. Thank you for 

holding the hearing. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Risch. 

Senator Heinrich, second round of questions? No? 

Hearing no other questions, members may also submit followup 

written questions for the record. The record will be open for the 

next two weeks. 

Senator BARRASSO. I want to thank all of you for being here 

today, for your time and your testimony. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(198) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

199 


Insert offset folio 193 here 95279.193

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

May 21, 2015 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Tim Murphy 

Questions from Senator Mike Lee 

Question 1: In order to improve rangeland conditions and restore grazing levels 

within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, grazing permit holders 

need flexibility to manage the timing, duration, and intensity of their livestock 

grazing within the permitted area. How can BLM enable this flexibility through the 

grazing permitting process? 

The BLM works closely with grazing permittees to achieve flexibility in timing, duration, 

and intensity within the terms and conditions of a grazing permit. During the permit 

renewal process, the BLM and the permittee develop tenns and conditions that may 

adjust season of use, numbers, and rotation systems in order to best adapt to changing 

range conditions and promote land health. Allotment Management Plans or their 

equivalent may also be developed under the grazing regulations and made part of the 

permit through the terms and conditions to provide for additional flexibility. The BLM 

has found that cooperative working relationships and an open line of communication are 

key to providing the sort of flexibility that is needed for both the grazing operation and 

the health of the land. The Monument Management Plan (MMP) amendment planning 

process is actively engaging permit holders and other members of the public with an 

interest in grazing on the GSENM. 

Question 2: Livestock range improvements can only be accomplished through a 

coordinated effort between the managing agency and the grazing permit holder. 

What actions does BLM plan to take on the GSENM to increase forage production 

that benefits both livestock and wildlife? 

Range improvements can take many forms, including: treating vegetation to improve 

forage conditions using tools like prescribed fire, chemical applications, and 

mechanically-aided clearing and seeding; developing water sources for livestock and 

wildlife and providing alternatives to natural water sources; managing livestock forage 

use by installing fencing and corrals and maintaining trails and roads; and improving 

management practices such as pasture rotation. GSENM has been restoring desirable 

vegetation and improving land health for nearly 20 years. Over that time, the BLM has 

treated approximately 28,000 acres for rangeland health, fire rehabilitation, or erosion 

control. These projects have benefitted livestock and wildlife species. 

The Monument Management Plan (MMP) is currently being amended. Livestock grazing 

and direction regarding the treatment of vegetation to meet Utah's Rangeland Health 

Standards and benefit both livestock and wildlife including habitat for sage grouse and 

other wildlife species are being addressed in that planning process with input from 

grazing permitttees as well as other members of the public with an interest in grazing on 

the GSENM. 
200 


Insert offset folio 194 here 95279.194

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

May 21,2015 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Tim Murphy 

Question 3: Access to forage improvement projects is critical for the long-term 

stability of grazing lands. Trails for timely livestock movement and access roads to 

water sources must be maintained and available for use. How can open access to 

these features be maintained while also considering access for other uses such as 

recreation? 

The BLM works with permittees to ensure reasonable access to grazing improvements, 

including the use of particular roads and trails, and the times of the year when such use is 

most appropriate. In the course of managing grazing operations, permittees coordinate 

closely with BLM range management specialists and other staff to identify and obtain 

access to maintain, restore or reconstruct the improvements for which they are 

responsible. For example, at GSENM, some range improvements may be accessed over 

routes open to motorized and mechanized use by the general public while others must be 

accessed over GSENM "administrative roads," which are closed to motorized and 

mechanized use by the general public but open to permittees under certain circumstances. 

Questions from Senator Jeff Flake 

Question 1: Please describe the consultation process between BLM, OMB, and state 

governments that takes place prior to a Presidential designation of a National 

Monument 

This Administration has demonstrated a commitment to working with Governors, 

Congress, county commissioners, tribal governments, and the public in making Federal 

land use decisions. The Administration recognizes and respects the importance of public 

and congressional input in considering protections for natural, historic, and cultural 

treasures. The Administration constantly strives to take into account the interests of a 

wide range of stakeholders both to protect America's public lands and provide for 

economic development in a manner that is consistent with applicable laws and sound 

public policy. 

Question 2: Please provide a list of any National Monuments that are presently 

under consideration for designation by the President under the Antiquities Act. 

I am not aware of any list of proposed National Monuments under consideration by the 

President. 

2 
201 


Insert offset folio 276 here 95279.276

Written Statement of 

Commissioner Doug N. Johnson, Chairman 

Board of County Commissioners, Douglas County, Nevada 

Before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on 

Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

Jn Support of 

S. 472-The Douglas County Conservation Act of 2015 

May 21,2015 

On behalf of Douglas County, Nevada, I am grateful for the opportunity to submit a 

written statement for the record in support ofS. 472-The Douglas County Conservation Act of 

2015. Specifically, I would like to thank Senator Dean Heller, Senate Minority Leader Harry 

Reid, and Congressman Mark Amodei for their leadership on this bilL We appreciate the cosponsorship of the southern Nevada Congressional delegation members who recognize the 

importance of this legislation to northern Nevada. Finally, I wish to thank Chairman John 

Barrasso (R-Wyo) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore) of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining for inviting my written testimony at this 

hearing. 

The Douglas County Conservation Act of 2015 is the culmination of nearly two decades 

of Douglas County's planning process and it upholds the goals and policies set for in both the 

Douglas County Master Plan and the Open Space and Agricultural Lands Preservation 

Implementation Plan. The Douglas County Board of County Commissioners unanimously 

approved the concepts and framework of the Douglas County Conservation Act of2015. 

Specifically, S. 472 promotes the conservation of the floodplain along the Carson River, 

conveys public lands to local government for flood protection and public works projects, 

improves recreation and economic development opportunities around Lake Tahoe, permanently 

resolves access issues surrounding the Burbank Canyons Wilderness Study Area, protects 

important Sage Grouse habitat and conveys cultural lands to the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and 

California. Given the comprehensive nature of this legislation, I am attaching a parcel-by-parcel 

description of the map at the end of my statement, which identifies the specific disposition and 

use of each parcel. 

Public Process for S. 472 

The Douglas County Conservation Act of 2015 allows Douglas County to plan its future. 

It is the product of a six-year effort between Douglas County, the Bureau of Land Management, 

the U.S. Forest Service and state agencies, local towns and general improvement districts, the 

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California and more than 100 local stakeholder groups. Since May 

2009, hundreds of meetings have been held with these stakeholders to craft a bill, which reflects 
202 


Insert offset folio 277 here 95279.277

the character and the values of our entire community. During the public process, Douglas County 

held numerous community Open Houses to inform the public and receive comment. 

Maintaining the County's Rural Landscape 

Douglas County's Master Plan envisions maintaining the rural character of its community 

through the use of conservation easements to protect its rural heritage, historic ranching 

operations, flood plain functions, and wildlife habitat. To date, nearly 19,000 acres of resourcerich ranch land has been conserved through a combination of programs and funding sources. 

Like other counties in Nevada, federal lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) surround Douglas County. S. 472 enables the County to 

work with Federal agencies to ensure the best use of that land to encourage economic 

development, preserve our cultural heritage, improve access for public recreation and provide 

flood protection for our residents. 

S. 472 conveys 7,990 acres to the County for public purposes. The land will be used for 

flood control detention basins, water resource infrastructure, public parks, public buildings, and 

all other uses authorized in the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (RPP A). Through the bill, 

the BLM is directed to convey 6,047 acres to the County for public purposes, of which 5,232 

acres would be used for flood control. In addition, 1,943 acres ofUSFS land will be used for 

other public purposes including the creation of trails and public parks. S. 472 outlines a process 

whereby the County can acquire the Federal reversionary interest in all or any portion of these 

acres, if necessary. 

S. 472 designates 616 acres ("Lands For Disposal" on the map) ofUSFS and BLM lands 

that are to be disposed of in the first land sale, which is directed to occur within one year. Most 

of this USFS acreage has already been identified for disposal as part of the Nevada National 

Forest Land Disposal Act of2005. Additionally, S. 472 directs the BLM to dispose of 

approximately 10,000 acres. The BLM and USFS are directed to work with the County on the 

disposal process so that local planning needs are considered during that time. The proceeds from 

the sales will be allocated as follows: 5% will go to the State of Nevada; 10% will go to the 

County to implement the Open Space and Agricultural Lands Preservation Implementation Plan; 

85% will be deposited into a special account in the Treasury known as the "Douglas County 

Special Account." The funds in the treasury account will be used to purchase conservation 

easements in Douglas County from willing sellers in accordance with the Douglas County Open 

Space and Agricultural Lands Preservation Implementation plan. These land conveyances will 

help us to preserve the rural character and cultural heritage of our community. 

Enhancing Recreational Opportunities at Lake Tahoe 

Lake Tahoe provides numerous recreational opportunities for Douglas County residents 

and it is a major tourist destination in the State of Nevada. S. 472 would provide for the sound 

management and future use of two recreational areas on USFS land at the lake. The County has 

been concerned about the lack of attention by the U.S. Forest Service to these two areas. Round 

Hill Pines Resort and Zephyr Shoals sit right on the shore of beautiful Lake Tahoe. Round Hill 

Pines Resort has fallen into a state of disrepair hosting dilapidated cabins. Due to a lack of 

resources, the Dreyfus Estate buildings at Zephyr Shoals have also fallen into extreme disrepair. 

2 
203 


Insert offset folio 278 here 95279.278

Further, the U.S. Forest Service has not installed adequate restroom or trash collection facilities 

to accommodate the thousands who visit these beautiful beaches, which degrades water quality 

in the Lake. 

S. 472 directs the Secretary of Agriculture, within two years of enactment, to solicit 

through competitive bidding, long-term concessions for the rehabilitation and management of the 

Round Hill Pines Resort (125 acres) and Zephyr Shoals (448 acres). By entering into longer-term 

concessions of these lakeside properties, the concessionaire will have the ability to restore these 

facilities for public use and enjoyment. If the USFS does not comply with the timeline set forth 

inS. 472, then administrative jurisdiction for these parcels at Lake Tahoe will transfer to the 

County to administer under a 99-year lease. The County would provide for the long-term 

management of these properties through its own concession leasing process. We have been 

pleased to see the USFS begin such a process at Round Hill Pines even before passage of the bill. 

S. 472 provides a way that these two beautiful properties can be revived and used by our 

residents and visitors at Lake Tahoe. 

Lastly, S. 472 would convey 67 acres of Forest Service Land to the State of Nevada for 

the Lake Tahoe-Nevada State Park. This would resolve two inholdings and the state would use 

the land for the creation a public park and for the conservation of wildlife and natural resources. 

All of these provisions inS. 472 enhance recreational opportunities at Lake Tahoe for our 

community to enjoy. We would like to work with the USFS to ensure that the management of 

these areas continues to improve. 

Preserving Cultural Lands of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

Since Douglas County began this public lands process, the County has consulted with the 

Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California concerning their public lands concerns. In those 

meetings, the Tribe identified 1,016 acres ofBLM land in the Pine Nut Mountain range that 

contains cultural resources, which are important for the preservation of the Washoe Tribe's 

heritage. These lands are conveyed to the Washoe Tribe through this legislation. 

S. 472 also creates the Dance Hill Cooperative Management Area whereby the County, 

the Washoe Tribe, and the USFS will enter into an agreement to improve the management of 

approximately 1,811 acres. This Management Area will give tribal members re~:,>ular access 

across these lands for cultural and religious purposes while also preserving the recreational uses 

on the many roads and trails in the area. 

Burbank Canyons Wilderness and Recreation 

Like most residents in Douglas County, I have spent most of my life enjoying the 

outdoors. Being an avid OHV enthusiast, it is critical to find an appropriate balance between 

OHV recreation and conservation. S. 472 strikes this balance. The retention of OHV access to 

the Burbank Canyons Wilderness Study Area is a personal priority of mine. S. 472 designates 

12,330 acres ofBLM-owned land as the Burbank Canyons Wildemess. However, the legislation 

will permanently leave open all existing roads so that recreational access can continue. This 

wilderness designation helps preserve prime habitat for the Nevada/California Bi-State Sage 

3 
204 


Insert offset folio 279 here 95279.279

Grouse populations. Even though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has withdrawn its proposed 

listing of the Nevada and California Bi-State Sage Grouse, S. 472 helps retain this decision by 

continuing protection of this habitat. Finally, S. 472 releases 1,065 acres from the wilderness 

study area, and these acres are not included in the proposed wilderness designation. 

Conclusion 

S. 472 provides a comprehensive and balanced approach to managing federal lands in 

Douglas County. The County has worked hard to engage our community stakeholders and the 

federal agencies throughout this process to ensure that our major goals are accomplished in this 

legislation. We are very pleased that S. 472 provides workable solutions on these challenging 

land-use issues. Thank you. 

4 
205 


Insert offset folio 280 here 95279.280

Description of Land Parcels in S. 472 

5 
206 


Insert offset folio 281 here 95279.281

Burbank 

Canyons 

Wilderness 

Washoe 

Tribe 

Conveyanc 

es 

the Douglas 

County 

portion of 

the Burbank 

Canyons 

Wilderness 

Study Area 

as 

Wilderness. 

Archaeologi 

cal Parcel, 

near North 

Sunridge 

Drive, 

designated 

for transfer 

to the 

Washoe 

Tribe in the 

BLMFinal 

North 

Douglas 

County 

Specific Plan 

Amendment, 

June 2001. 

6 
207 


Insert offset folio 282 here 95279.282

3 Washoe USFS T. 11 N, 458 Sec. 201 Pine Nut 

Tribe R. 21 E. Parcel, SW 

Conveyanc ofSimee 

es Dimeh 

Summit, 

identified in 

the Return of 

Aboriginal 

Lands to the 

Washoe 

Tribe 

Document as 

containing 

known 

prehistoric 

resources 

and being 

important for 

the 

preservation 

of Washoe 

cultural 

heritage. 

4 Washoe BLM T.llN., 2.4 Sec. 201 Pine Nut 

Tribe R. 21 E. Parcel, NE 

Conveyanc ofSimee 

es Dimeh 

Summit, 

identified in 

the Return of 

Aboriginal 

Lands to the 

Washoe 

Tribe 

Document as 

being 

important for 

the 

preservation 

of Washoe 

cultural 

heritage and 

for access to 

cultural 

resources. 

7 
208 


Insert offset folio 283 here 95279.283

5 Washoe USFS T. 11 N, 68 Sec. 201 Pine Nut 

Tribe R. 21 E. Parcel, near 

Conveyanc Doud 

es Springs, 

identified in 

the Return of 

Aboriginal 

Lands to the 

Washoe 

Tribe 

Document as 

being 

important for 

the 

preservation 

of Washoe 

cultural 

heritage and 

for access to 

cultural 

resources. 

(,> Wasltee Y&llS ~ M+ ~ Parcel #6 has 

+fi.9e ~ been 

CoRveyaoc removed 

e5 from the Bill 

because it 

has already 

been 

transferred 

to the 

Washoe 

Tribe. 

7 Washoe USPS T. JON, 47 Sec. 201 Pine Nut 

Tribe R. 21 E. Parcel, near 

Conveyanc Leviathan 

es Mine Road, 

identified in 

the Return of 

Aboriginal 

Lands to the 

Washoe 

Tribe 

Document as 

being 

important for 

the 

8 
209 


Insert offset folio 284 here 95279.284

preservation 

of Washoe 

cultural 

heritage and 

for access to 

cultural 

resources. 

8 Washoe USFS T. JON, 40 Sec. 201 Pine Nut 

Tribe R.21E. Parcel, near 

Conveyanc Tree Farm, 

es identified in 

the Return of 

Aboriginal 

Lands to the 

Washoe 

Tribe 

Document as 

being 

important for 

the 

preservation 

of Washoe 

cultural 

heritage and 

for access to 

cultural 

resources. 

9 Washoe USFS T.JON, 69 Sec. 201 Pine Nut 

Tribe R. 22 E. Parcel, near 

Conveyanc Victory 

es Circle, 

identified in 

the Return of 

Aboriginal 

Lands to the 

Washoe 

Tribe 

Document as 

being 

important for 

the 

preservation 

of Washoe 

9 
210 


Insert offset folio 285 here 95279.285

cultural 

heritage and 

for access to 

cultural 

resources. 

10 Washoe BLM T. JON, 40 Sec. 201 Pine Nut 

Tribe R. 22 E. Parcel, near 

Conveyanc Rest Stop, 

es identified in 

the Return of 

Aboriginal 

Lands to the 

Washoe 

Tribe 

Document as 

being 

important for 

the 

preservation 

of Washoe 

cultural 

heritage and 

for access to 

cultural 

resources. 

11 Washoe BLM T. 10 N, 80 Sec. 201 Pine Nut 

Tribe R. 22 E. Parcel, near 

Conveyanc Holbrook, 

es identified in 

the Return of 

Aboriginal 

Lands to the 

Washoe 

Tribe 

Document as 

being 

important for 

the 

preservation 

of Washoe 

cultural 

10 
211 


Insert offset folio 286 here 95279.286

heritage and 

for access to 

cultural 

resources. 

12 Washoe USFS T. 10 N, 132 Sec. 201 Pine Nut 

Tribe R.21E. Parcel, on 

Conveyanc California!N 

es evada 

border, 

identified in 

the Return of 

Aboriginal 

Lands to the 

Washoe 

Tribe 

Document as 

being 

important for 

the 

preservation 

of Washoe 

cultural 

heritage and 

for access to 

cultural 

resources. 

13 Washoe USFS T.10N., 50 Sec. 201 Pine Nut 

Tribe R.21E. Parcel, on 

Conveyanc California!N 

es evada 

border, 

identified in 

the Return of 

Aboriginal 

Lands to the 

Washoe 

Tribe 

Document as 

being 

important for 

11 
212 


Insert offset folio 287 here 95279.287

the 

preservation 

of Washoe 

cultural 

heritage and 

for access to 

cultural 

resources. 

Total 1,016.40 Acreage 

~;::~it,······>''.;· ;)';_.' .. i!.i ~N'' k .'\ ::\:~·. .····.,: .. ~· ..• 

14 Cooperativ USFS T. 12N, 1,811 Sec. 202 Dance Hill 

e R. 20 E.; Cooperative 

Manageme T. 11 N, Management 

nt Area R. 20E. Parcel, the 

USFS, 

Washoe 

Tribe, and 

Douglas 

County shall 

enter into a 

cooperative 

management 

agreement to 

improve 

management 

, protect the 

cultural and 

recreational 

resources, 

and reduce 

the 

management 

burden of the 

USFS. 

Total 1,811 Acreage 

:.·~·~i :~~.·~,:\[; ~~;····~~'?N~~~'">:·. >:..:~ ......... . ... •·:t:•sr.,i~~.,. 

12 
213 


Insert offset folio 288 here 95279.288

15 Lake USFS T. 14 N., 44 Sec. 101 State Park 

Tahoe- R. 19E. Parcel No. I, 

Nevada an inholding 

State Park within the 

Lake Tahoe 

Nevada State 

Park, 

designated 

for transfer 

to the State 

of Nevada 

for trail and 

trailhead 

purposes, 

and to be 

managed as 

a public park 

and for the 

conservation 

of wildlife 

and natural 

resources. 

16 Lake USFS T. 14 N., 23 Sec. 101 State Park 

Tahoe- R. 19 E. Parcel No. 2, 

Nevada an inholding 

State Park within the 

Lake Tahoe 

Nevada State 

Park, 

designated 

for transfer 

to the State 

of Nevada to 

be managed 

as a public 

park and for 

the 

conservation 

of wildlife 

and natural 

resources. 

Total 67 

13 
214 


Insert offset folio 289 here 95279.289

17 Lands for USFS T. 14N, 28 Sec. 104 Big Box 

Disposal R. 20 E. Commercial 

Parcel, 

adjacent to 

Target, Best 

Buy, Jacks 

Valley Road, 

and 

Highway 

395, 

previously 

identified for 

disposal in 

the Nevada 

National 

Forest Land 

Disposal Act 

of2005, 

H.R. 816. 

18 Lands for BLM T. 14N., 10 Sec. 104 Commercial 

Disposal R. 20 E. Parcel, near 

LylaLane, 

identified in 

theBLM 

Final North 

Douglas 

County 

Specific Plan 

Amendment, 

June 2001, 

to be 

reserved for 

R&PP. 

Otherwise, 

would have 

been 

disposed 

with other 

BLMlands 

at that time. 

Was never 

used for 

R&PP. 

14 
215 


Insert offset folio 290 here 95279.290

19 Lands for USFS T. 14 N, 24 Sec. 104 Indian Hills 

Disposal R. 20 E. General 

Improvemen 

t District 

Parcel 

Plymouth 

Lane, 

previously 

identified for 

disposal in 

the Nevada 

National 

Forest Land 

Disposal Act 

of2005, 

H.R. 816. 

20 Lands for BLM T. 12N, 277 Sec. 104 BLMBodie 

Disposal R. 21 E. Flat Parcel, 

the Bureau 

of 

Reclamation 

has a mineral 

withdrawal 

on this 

parcel; 

however, 

since the 

termination 

of the 

Watashemu 

Project, the 

BORhas no 

Congression 

al 

authorization 

to act in 

Douglas 

County. The 

BOR 

supports the 

transfer of 

this parcel. 

15 
216 


Insert offset folio 291 here 95279.291

21 Lands for USFS T.12N, 270 Sec. 104 USFS Bodie 

Disposal R. 21 E. Flat Parcel, 

the Bureau 

of 

Reclamation 

has a mineral 

withdrawal 

on this 

parcel; 

however, 

since the 

termination 

of the 

Watashemu 

Project, the 

BORhas no 

Congression 

al 

authorization 

to act in 

Douglas 

County. The 

BOR 

supports the 

transfer of 

this parceL 

22 Lands for USFS T. JON, 5 Sec. 104 Topaz Parcel 

Disposal R. 22 E. No.1. 

Surrounded 

by private 

residential 

subdivision, 

and 

previously 

identified for 

disposal in 

the Nevada 

National 

Forest Land 

Disposal Act 

of2005, 

HR 816. 

16 
217 


Insert offset folio 292 here 95279.292

23 Lands for USFS T. JON., 2.5 Sec. 104 

Disposal R.22E. 

Total 616.5 Acrea2e 

24 Douglas BLM T. 14 N., 1,714 Sec. 103 

County R. 20 E.; 

Conveyanc T. 13 N., 

es R. 20 E. 

Topaz Parcel 

No.2. 

Surrounded 

by private 

residential 

subdivision, 

and 

previously 

identified for 

disposal in 

the Nevada 

National 

Forest Land 

Disposal Act 

of2005, 

HR. 816. 

Flood 

Control 

Parcel, near 

Stephanie 

Way, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe rei ease 

of 

floodwaters. 

TheBLM 

has 

designated 

portions of 

this parcel 

for disposaL 

17 
218 


Insert offset folio 293 here 95279.293

25 Douglas BLM T. 13N., 159 Sec. 103 Flood 

County R. 20 E. Control 

Conveyanc Parcel, near 

es Sunrise Pass, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe release 

of 

floodwaters. 

TheBLM 

has 

designated 

this parcel 

for disposal. 

26 Douglas BLM T. 13N., 1,285 Sec. 103 Flood 

County R. 20 E.; Control 

Conveyanc T. 13 N., Parcel, near 

es R. 21 E. Nebe Lane, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe release 

of 

floodwaters. 

The BLM 

has 

designated 

portions of 

this parcel 

for disposal. 

18 
219 


Insert offset folio 294 here 95279.294

27 Douglas BLM T. 13 N, 438 Sec. 103 Flood 

County R. 20 E. Control 

Conveyanc Parcel near 

es Amber Way, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe release 

of flood 

waters. The 

BLMhas 

designated 

portions of 

this parcel 

for disposaL 

28 Douglas BLM T. 13 N, 284 Sec. 103 Flood 

County R. 21 E. Control 

Conveyanc Parcel, near 

es Carlson 

Court, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe rei ease 

of 

floodwaters. 

TheBLM 

has 

designated 

this parcel 

for disposaL 

19 
220 


Insert offset folio 295 here 95279.295

29 Douglas BLM T. 13 N, 55 Sec. 103 Flood 

County R. 21 E. Control 

Conveyanc Parcel, south 

es of Juniper 

Road, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe rei ease 

of 

floodwaters. 

TheBLM 

has 

designated 

this parcel 

for disposal. 

30 Douglas BLM T. 13N, 173 Sec. 103 Flood 

County R. 21 E. Control 

Conveyanc Parcel, east 

es of Sheena 

Terrace, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe release 

of 

floodwaters. 

20 
221 


Insert offset folio 296 here 95279.296

31 Douglas BLM T. 13 N, 78 Sec. 103 Flood 

County R. 21 E. Control 

Conveyanc Parcel, south 

es of Calle del 

Sol, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe release 

of 

floodwaters. 

TheBLM 

has 

designated 

this parcel 

for disposal. 

32 Douglas BLM T.l2N., 307 Sec. 103 Flood 

County R. 21 E. Control 

Conveyanc Parcel, south 

es of Ron Lane, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe release 

of 

floodwaters. 

TheBLM 

has 

designated 

this parcel 

for disposal. 

21 
222 


Insert offset folio 297 here 95279.297

33 Douglas BLM T.12N, 40 Sec. 103 Flood 

County R. 21 E. Control 

Conveyanc Parcel, south 

es of Mountain 

Clover Road, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe rei ease 

of 

floodwaters. 

TheBLM 

has 

designated 

this parcel 

for disposal. 

34 Douglas BLM T. 12N., 42 Sec. 103 Flood 

County R. 21 E. Control 

Conveyanc Parcel, east 

es of Blue Bird 

Road, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe release 

of 

floodwaters. 

The BLM 

has 

designated 

this parcel 

for disposal. 

22 
223 


Insert offset folio 298 here 95279.298

35 Douglas BLM T. 12N, 657 Sec. 103 Flood 

County R. 21 E. Control 

Conveyanc Parcel, east 

es of the 

Douglas 

County 

Transfer 

Station, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe release 

of 

floodwaters. 

36 Douglas USFS T. 12N, 40 Sec. 103 Mottsville 

County R. 19E. Flood 

Conveyanc Control 

es Parcel, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe release 

of flood 

waters. 

37 Douglas USFS T. 12 N, 75 Sec. 103 Jobs Peak 

County R. 19E. Ranch Flood 

Conveyanc Control 

es Parcel, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

23 
224 


Insert offset folio 299 here 95279.299

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe rei ease 

of flood 

waters. 

38 Douglas USFS T. 12 N, 94 Sec. 103 South 

County R. 19 E. Foothill 

Conveyanc Road Flood 

es Control 

Parcel, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe rei ease 

of flood 

waters. 

39 Douglas BLM T. 12N, 757 Sec. 103 Fairgrounds 

County R. 20 E.; Parcel, to be 

Conveyanc T. 12N, transferred 

es R. 21 E. to Douglas 

County for 

public 

purposes 

including a 

future school 

site, bus 

barn, 

recreation, 

and other 

public 

purposes. 

24 
225 


Insert offset folio 300 here 95279.300

40 Douglas BLM T.14N, 54 Sec. 103 Johnson 

County R. 20 E. Lane Park 

Conveyanc Parcel, 

es currently an 

R&PP lease 

parcel, 

designated 

for transfer 

to Douglas 

County to 

continue to 

be managed 

as a public 

park. 

41 Douglas BLM T.l4N, 2 Sec. 103 Sheriff's 

County R. 20E. Substation 

Conveyanc Parcel, 

es currently an 

R&PP lease 

parcel, 

designated 

for transfer 

to Douglas 

County to 

continue to 

be used as a 

Sheriff's 

Substation. 

42 Douglas BLM T. 14 N, 2 Sec. 103 East Fork 

County R. 20E. Fire District 

Conveyanc Parcel, 

es current! y an 

R&PP lease, 

designated 

for transfer 

to Douglas 

County to 

continue to 

be used as a 

Fire Station. 

43 Douglas USFS T. 12N., 4 Sec. 103 Rocky Bend 

County R. 20 E. Parcel, to be 

Conveyanc transferred 

es to Douglas 

County to be 

managed as 

25 
226 


Insert offset folio 301 here 95279.301

a public river 

park. 

44 Douglas USFS T. 13 N, 14 Sec. 103 North Tahoe 

County R. 19 E. Rim Trail 

Conveyanc Parcel, to be 

es transferred 

to Douglas 

County for 

trail, 

trailhead, 

and parking 

purposes. 

45 Douglas USFS T.l3N, 24 Sec. 103 South Tahoe 

County R. 18 E. Rim Trail 

Conveyanc Parcel, to be 

es transferred 

to Douglas 

County for 

trail, 

trailhead, 

and parking 

purposes. 

46 Douglas USFS T. 13 N., 40 Sec. 103 Carson 

County R. 19E. Street Parcel, 

Conveyanc near Carson 

es Street, 

identified by 

Douglas 

County's 

engineer and 

fluvial 

geomorpholo 

gist, to be 

used for the 

capture, 

storage, and 

safe release 

of 

floodwaters. 

Also to be 

used for 

other 

purposes, 

including 

26 
227 


Insert offset folio 302 here 95279.302

trail, 

trailhead, 

parking, 

maintenance 

facility, and 

water tank 

site. 

47 Douglas USFS T.l3N, 23 Sec. 103 Walley's Pit 

County R. 19 E. Parcel, old 

Conveyanc gravel pit to 

es be 

transferred 

to Douglas 

County for 

trail, 

trailhead, 

parking, 

maintenance, 

transportatio 

n, and other 

public 

purposes. 

48 Douglas USFS T. 13 N, 4 Sec. 103 Walley's 

County R. 19E. North Parcel, 

Conveyanc to be 

es transferred 

to Douglas 

County for 

trail, 

recreation, 

and 

conservation 

purposes. 

49 Douglas USFS T. 13N, 5 Sec. 103 Walley's 

County R. 19E. South Parcel, 

Conveyanc to be 

es transferred 

to Douglas 

County for 

trail, 

27 
228 


Insert offset folio 303 here 95279.303

recreation, 

and 

conservation 

purposes. 

50 Douglas USFS T. l3N., 242 Sec. l03 Pine Basin 

County R. 19E. Parcel, to be 

Conveyanc transferred 

es to Douglas 

County for 

trails, 

!railheads, 

parking, day 

use area, 

restroom 

facilities, 

and a 

tunnel/under 

pass to allow 

pedestrians, 

equestrians, 

and cyclists 

to safely 

cross 

Kingsbury 

Grade. 

53 Douglas USFS T.9N.,R. 1,334 Sec. 103 Gray Hills 

County 22 E.; T. Parcel, 

Conveyanc ION., R. designated 

es 22E. for transfer 

to Douglas 

County to be 

managed as 

part of the 

contiguous 

Topaz Lake 

Park for 

recreation, 

conservation 

, and public 

purposes. 

28 
229 


Insert offset folio 304 here 95279.304

54 Douglas USFS T. 14 N, 31 Sec. 103 Jack's Valley 

County R. 19E. Water Tank 

Conveyanc Parcel, 

es designated 

for transfer 

to Douglas 

County to be 

used to as a 

water tank 

site. 

55 Douglas USFS T.13N, 2 Sec. 103 Lake Tahoe 

County R.18E. Regional 

Conveyanc Water 

es Treatment 

Facility 

Parcel, 

designated 

for transfer 

to Douglas 

County to be 

used to 

consolidate 

the Lake 

Tahoe GIDs 

into one 

water 

treatment 

facility. 

56 Douglas USFS T. 13N, 4 Sec. 103 KGIDWater 

County R. 19E. Tank Parcel, 

Conveyanc designated 

es for transfer 

to Douglas 

County to be 

used as a 

water tank 

site. 

57 Douglas USFS T.l4N, 1 Sec. 103 Hidden 

County R. 18 E. Wood Water 

Conveyanc Tank Parcel, 

es designated 

for transfer 

to Douglas 

County to be 

used as a 

water tank 

29 
230 


Insert offset folio 305 here 95279.305

site. 

58 Douglas USFS T. 14 N, 5 Sec. 103 Cave Rock 

County R. 18E. Water Tank 

Conveyanc Parcel, 

es designated 

for transfer 

to Douglas 

County to be 

used as a 

water tank 

site. 

59 Douglas USFS T.10N., 1.6 Sec. 103 Topaz Water 

County R. 22 E. Tank Parcel, 

Conveyanc designated 

es for transfer 

to Douglas 

County to be 

used as a 

water tank 

site. 

Total 7990.6 Acrea~e 

~;i~f····· '~:~ .·~~·'i;,~.: .. ~ .~.·. (i,?''{~;~j ...•.• • ~~·l :>q }~~; '\ . \ .. ., .,(·;~~·~~\~ ~},;• . .. •' ;,:.;,;. ·•> 

51 Round Hill USFS T. 13 N, 125 Sec. RoundHill 

Pines R.18E. 102(a)(1) Pines 

Resort Management 

Area, 

provide 

improved 

management 

of recreation 

and for other 

purposes to 

increase 

public access 

to and use of 

the property, 

to 

rehabilitate 

the historic 

30 
231 


Insert offset folio 306 here 95279.306

structures, 

etc. 

52 Zephyr USFS T. 13 N., 448 Sec. Dreyfus 

Shoals R. 18E. 102(a)(2) Estate 

Management 

Area, 

provide 

improved 

management 

of recreation 

and for other 

purposes to 

increase 

public access 

to and use of 

the property, 

to 

rehabilitate 

the historic 

structures, 

etc. 

Total 573 Acrea2e 

3l 
232 


Insert offset folio 195 here 95279.195

James Catlin, PhD 

1120 South Windsor Street 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 

801 363-3861 25 May 2015 

Thank you for adding these comments to the record on the hearing concerning Senate Bill 365 

held on the 2 1'1 of May at 2pm by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on 

Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. 

For the past decade as a scientist working with agencies, the public, land owners, and ranchers; 

have studied the effects of livestock grazing in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument (GSENM). Recently retired, 1 was employed during that time by the Wild Utah 

Project, a nonprofit conservation organization that promotes science in managing lands. During 

my research, I have spent thousands of hours collecting data, training tomorrow's scientists, 

helping in service projects, participating in collaborative meetings, analyzing data, and 

publishing results concerning my work in the GSENM. 

Wild Utah Project has the expertise to use spatial data to conduct analysis using geographic 

information systems (GIS). In fact, my PhD concerned BLM's use of GIS in land use planning. 

In the testimony that follows, many of the concepts that I raise are the results of extensive 

computer analysis using GIS. 

The proclamation for the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument calls for the 

continuance of livestock grazing under the same laws and res>ulations that apply grazing 

management on all BLM lands. 

In Utah, the BLM is required to manage all its rangelands in a manner that ensures those lands 

meet four measurable standards. These standards call for BLM management that ensures that: 

1) Soils are stable and the desired plant community is at or moving towards its potential in 

terms of its diversity of species and productivity. This calls for little bare ground and no 

excessive erosion. 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 1 of 16 
233 


Insert offset folio 196 here 95279.196

2) Riparian areas are in properly functioning condition. The standard looks for stream banks 

that can resist damage from high-flow events. Habitat for the expected aquatic and 

terrestrial species must be adequate for these species viability. 

3) The appropriate amount, type, and distribution of vegetation support the expected native 

species. 

4) Water quality meets state standards and there is an adequate number and diversity of 

macro invertebrates in the riparian area. Macro invertebrates, for example, include 

insects, crayfish, and snails. 

To implement these standards, BLM has developed assessment methods to apply in the field 

for specific sites. I have been privileged to be allowed to attend BLM training on the use of 

these methods for assessing rangeland health standards in upland sites and in riparian areas. 

The BLM has developed and adapted standards and assessment methods to address changing 

conditions and management needs over time .. In 1997, BLM in Utah noted the history that 

demanded issuing Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands 1

: 

"In America's West, rangelands are the dominant landscape. Sometimes overlooked and 

under-appreciated, rangelands contribute significantly to the quality of life of residents 

and visitors alike. BLM's 200 million+ acres of rangeland have long been valued for 

livestock grazing and mining, but rangeland now are also prized for their recreation 

opportunities, wildlife habitats, watershed, cultural values, and scenery. 

With time, competing interest have changed and intensified. Over the past 125 years, 

significant public values have been placed at risk. Irreplaceable topsoil has been lost, 

habitats are diminished, and clean water supplies are coming into question. A new focus 

is emerging from this continuing uncertainty, one that looks at the sustainability of 

ecosystems rather than production of commodities. The land itself is in jeopardy, and the 

variety of products and values that this land has produced may not be sustained for future 

generations of Americans unless ecosystems are healthy and productive. It is time for a 

change, and BLM is changing to meet the challenge. BLM is now giving management 

priority to maintaining functioning ecosystems. This simply means that the needs of the 

land and its living and nonliving components (soil, air, water, flora, and fauna) are to be 

considered first. Only when ecosystems are functioning property can the consumptive, 

economic political and spiritual needs of man be attained in a sustainable ends." 

1 BLM.1997. Rangeland health, standards and guidelines for healthy rangelands. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of land Management, Utah State Office. 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 2 of 16 
234 


Insert offset folio 197 here 95279.197

For the past two decades, BLM and those that care about the land have struggled to move in 

this new direction. As these comments detail, today these Monument lands are too often 

degraded and grazing as has been practiced remains the major negative influencing force. 

There is hope for the health of the land if we collaborate to use the best information on the 

ground that we can restore the productivity and health of the lands. 

This legislation, S. 365, would set this process back. The measurable standards and objective 

monitoring would be replaced with subjective political generalities defined by this 

legislation. Ironically by increasing grazing and promoting short term habitat treatments, the 

productivity of the land will continue to decline hurting not only wildlife and watershed 

health but also threatening the viability of the Monument's livestock grazing. 

In the years that I have participated in scientific study and management discussions on the 

Monument, I have often heard that conditions have improved in general in the Monument. 

Local officials and some ranchers state that range conditions have improved over earlier 

times. Often these are beliefs based on a long history of working on the land. 

Today, we need to move from a belief-based decision process for grazing management to a 

fact-based grazing management decision process. Personal health issues offer a fitting 

analogy. I may think that I am healthy and I may feel fine. However when I visit my 

doctor, she notes that I have high blood pressure. She then informs me that, if not addressed, 

I could face catastrophic health risks. The measurable facts can run counter to our beliefs. 

For the habitat in the GSENM, bare ground is the equivalent measure for the land that blood 

pressure is for my health. For most of the habitat types, some bare ground is natural and 

expected. But in most areas in the Monument, field data collected by BLM and Natural 

Resources Conservation Service report that the Monument has more bare ground than 

expected. 

BLM's Technical Reference 1734-6, "Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health" offers a 

layman's description of the importance of stabilizing the soil from erosion. Wind and water 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 3 of 16 
235 


Insert offset folio 198 here 95279.198

can quickly remove the top layer of soil which is critical to the flora and fauna of the site. 

Biological crusts, persistent litter, and growing plants provide stability to the soil and 

resistance to wind and water forces. Technical Reference 1734-6 concludes, "The amount 

and distribution of bare ground is of the most important contributors to the site stability 

relative to the site potential: there for, it is a direct indication of site susceptibility to 

accelerate wind or water erosion."2 

Biological crusts are complex living communities often just a fraction of an inch thick yet 

central to the stability of the system, supportive for native plants, and a source of soil 

nutrients. Belnap3 states, "Biological soil crusts (BSCs) are the dominant living cover in 

many drylands of the world." This same conclusion applies to the GSENM. Surveys in the 

Monument find that biological crusts and other ground cover are too often missing. 

In developing a soil survey for the GSENM, NRCS and BLM surveyed roughly a thousand 

sites covering almost every habitat type. The amount of bare ground was one of the key 

measures collected by this survey. Wild Utah Project used the agency paper field forms to 

create a digital spatial data set This was then added to other geographic data to produce the 

map in Figure I. The circles reflect surveyed sites. For those habitat types (called soil map 

units in the soil survey), the map identifies those habitats where bare ground exceeds 50%. 

Lands that are naturally barren such as sand dune, badlands, and slickrock were excluded 

from this analysis. This figure shows that most of the allotments in the GSENM have bare 

ground that is excessive, above 50%. Excessive bare ground provides an indicator that the 

sites have insufficient cover to protect the soil surface. Such conditions fail to meet Standard 

1 of the rangeland health standards. 

2 Pellant, M.; P. Shaver; DA Pyke; and J. Herrick. 20-0-5 Interpreting indicators of Rangeland Helat5h, Version 4. 

Technical reference 1734-6. Bureau of land Management. Pg 29 3 Belnap, J. 2006. The potential roles of biological soil crusts in dryland hydrologic cycles. Hyrdological Processes 

20:3159-3178 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 4 of 16 
236 


Insert offset folio 199 here 95279.199

BLM has completed field assessments to determine which streams and springs meet their 

rangeland health standards. Using BLM's Technical References TR 1734-154 and TR 1734-

165, BLM surveyed almost all surface streams and most springs in the Monument. The 

survey method asks BLM to determine if the stream or spring is functioning properly (and 

meeting rangeland health standards), functions at risk (and likely not meeting standards) or is 

not functioning (and normally not meeting standards). 

4 Prichard, D.; J. Anderson; C. Correll; R. Krapf; S. Leonard. B. Mitchell. J. Fogg; K Bebhardt; and J. Staats. 1998. A 

User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. Technical 

Reference 1734-15, Bureau of Land Management. 5 Prichard, D.; F Berg W. Hagenbuck, M. Manning; S. Leonard. R. Leinard. C. Noble; and J. Staats. 2003. A User 

Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. Technical Reference 

1734-16, Bureau efland Management. 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 5 of 16 
237 


Insert offset folio 200 here 95279.200

Using BLM' s assessments for !otic and lentic areas (streams and springs) in the Monument, I 

used GIS to create a map that describes the location and results. Figure 2 presents these data 

showing the streams and springs that are in properly functioning condition in blue and those 

that are degraded and functioning at risk in red. Except for the Escalante River and the 

mountain streams that feed this river, most streams and springs are functioning at risk and not 

meeting standards. The increases in grazing use proposed by S 365 is highly likely to 

perpetuate the degradation of streams and springs that now don't meet the required standards. 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 6 of 16 
238 


Insert offset folio 201 here 95279.201

As part of the soil survey, the Natural Resources Conservation Service also measure the 

amount of forage that each soil map unit produced. The results can be used to assess the 

amount of grass and forbs that are used by domestic livestock and wild grazers. The Natural 

Resources Conservation Service concluded that the forage production in the GSENM was 

significantly reduced, "The herbaceous ground cover and grazeable forage may be as little 

as one-fourth of what it should be, resulting in accelerated erosion. "

6 

Forage production has been in general decline for decades in GSENM. Satellite images 

taken from 1986 to 2011 were used with the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index 

(NDVI) to assess the change in annual plant production7 While increases and decreases in 

productivity were seen across the Monument, this analysis found an overall decrease of 

forage productivity in 80 of the grazing allotments. Figure 3 (Figure 1 in Hoglander et al.'s 

2014 study) shows the relative changes in herbaceous plant productivity over time. Note that 

some allotments have seen improvement but most have not. 

6 Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2005. Soil Survey of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Area, 

Parts of Kane and Garfield Counties, Utah. Page 72 7 Hoglander, Cerissa; Matt Williamson; and Cassandra Rivas. 2014. Initial Analysis of Change in Vegetation 

Productivity for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, 1986-2011 Grand Canyon Trust 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 7 of 16 
239 


Insert offset folio 202 here 95279.202

As part of their decision process, BLM has provided information on the amount of grazing 

use seen in the GSENM over time. The figures provided average the amount of grazing over 

a number of years. The average annual grazing use from 1996 to 2000 is 54,847 animal unit 

months (AUMs) for the GSENM. This amounts to 71% of the permitted number. The full 

permitted number for this Monument is 76,864 AUMs. The average annual grazing use from 

20 ll-2013 is 37,028 or 37% of the pennitted number. Overtime, grazing use in the 

Monument and other allotments in Southern Utah has been significantly less than that 

permitted and, in recent years, this use has declined even further. 

The number of cattle that can graze is normally a function of how much forage grows each 

year. The number of permitted livestock should be based on carrying capacity analysis. This 

capacity analysis assesses which lands are capable and suitable for livestock grazing in an 

allotment and then, based on the amount of herbaceous plant production palatable to cattle, 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 8 of 16 
240 


Insert offset folio 203 here 95279.203

calculates the number of AUMs that an allotment will support. Decades ago, BLM 

completed canying capacity calculations for 48 of the allotments administered by the 

Monument Of those assessed, 22 allotments today have permitted numbers in excess of 

BLM's last carrying capacity analysis. Using current field data on forage production and 

following BLM methods, we found that 67 allotments have permitted numbers in excess of 

their canying capacity. Most of the allotment permits in the Monument call for grazing that 

exceeds current forage production capability. It should be expected that cattle grazing in the 

Monument will be less than the permitted numbers. 

The designation of this Monument did not play a role in the decline of grazing use on BLM 

lands. In fact the permitted numbers have largely remained constant since the Monument's 

designation. Based on the evidence just presented, loss of forage production on BLM lands 

is the dominate reason for this decline. 

The most likely reason for the sharp decline in grazing use in recent decades is 

management's improper response to drought Figure 4 presents an example that explains the 

complex nature of drought and habitat This graph shows a history of annual precipitation 

and the annual grazing use in AUMs for the Dry Valley Allotment in the GSENM from 1990 

to 2013. The vertical axis on the left describes AUMS and the axis on the right precipitation 

in terms of total annual precipitation in inches. During 1996, when this Monument was 

designation, a drought had just ended. Grazing had continued at the usual level of use for a 

number of years during the drought During a drought, forage production is often a fraction 

of that grown in a normal year. Drought affects virtually every biological process in plants 

(Hanselka and White, 1986)8 Howlel with the University of Arizona notes, "Grazing 

systems should be planned to give grazed areas periodic deferment or rest, and to set aside 

ungrazed areas to be used during drought emergencies. No grazing system will be 

biologically or economically sustainable if stocking rates exceed forage." Howley noted that 

8 Hanselka, c. W. and L D. White. 1986. Rangeland in dry years: drought effects on range, cattle, and management 

in Livestock and wildlife management during drought. R. D. Brown (ed.). Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, 

Texas A&l University, Kingsville. 9 Howley, Larry. 1999. Rangeland Management Before, During, and After Drought. Cooperative Extension, 

University of Arizona College of Agriculture, 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 9 of 16 
241 


Insert offset folio 204 here 95279.204

degraded range conditions exacerbate the impacts to the plant community during drought and 

slows recovery after the drought ends. Howley warned: 

"After drought, the color green can have a profound psychological effect, tempting you to 

deviate from your best-laid drought recovery plans. However, you should resist the 

temptation to restock to pre-drought levels no matter how "green" the range appears. 

Animals graze forage, not acres, and stocking rates considered to be moderate during a 

"normal" precipitation year may be heavy during and following dry years. Overgrazing 

after drought will damage surviving plants and ultimately require a much longer period of 

rest and recovery than with conservative, incremental restocking strategies." 

As Figure 4 shows, there are several dry periods where precipitation was well below the 

average amount for the Dry Valley Allotment. Similar conditions were found in most 

allotments in the GSENM during that period. During the first drought (1996), grazing 

continued at the normal level well into the drought. This caused excessive grazing to occur 

which impedes recovery and reduced the future forage production ability for this allotment. 

In the 2000-2004 drought, grazing continued at normal use levels in the first year of the 

drought then dropped to roughly half use. Grazing use increased almost immediately once 

precipitation amounts indicated an end of the drought. This provided an inadequate time for 

recovery. In the dry years of2007-09, grazing continued at a high rate again indicating 

excessive utilization. In 2010 grazing use was reduced significantly for one season then 

returned to higher levels. Representative of most allotments in the Monument, this 

demonstration shows that grazing practices do not response adequately to drought. The longterm results of this are a continued decline in the forage production which is what analysis 

presented earlier shows. 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 10 of 16 
242 


Insert offset folio 205 here 95279.205

-w-AUMS ~~precip Average Annual Precipitation 100 +···················~-~-~··~···········~····················~~·-······~·····································~······················································~··············-~-····-··~·-~·-··~·-··-···1 

2 

Range treatments which use bulldozers and tractors to remove forests and shrub lands occupy 

roughly 4% of the GSENM. Initially, each treatment received rest from grazing for one or 

two years following the disturbance and seeding. For a few years, increased forage 

production is often seen after a treatment But when returned to typical grazing use, these 

benefits normally disappear in a few years. In most cases, shrubs return and dominate these 

sites. Data we collected at a treatment in the Upper Hackbery Allotment showed that forage 

production was roughly 15% of its potential years after the treatment occurred. Today, these 

treated areas provide an insignificant amount in the total forage supply to the Monument 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 11 of 16 
243 


Insert offset folio 206 here 95279.206

While some treatments have been success stories, most have failed. Because of a number of 

factors, treating new areas will not significantly change the forage available for livestock and 

it will come at an enormous expense. Few areas within the Monument are suitable for such 

treatments and in the face offuture droughts most ace are likely to fail as we have learned 

from past similar treatments in this Monument. The 2000-2004 drought in the Monument 

caused death to most of a species of grass favored by the rancher that is an exotic (non 

native). Crested wheatgrass, Agropyron cristatum, is often seeded following shrub and tree 

removal and not suited for droughts typical for GSENM. Native grasses suffered from this 

drought but are able to eventually recover. This example demonstrates one of the serious 

problems with treatments. Treatments that use of non-native species can lead to increased 

risk for habitat health over time. 

The herbaceous plant community typically found in upland habitat in the GSENM evolved in 

the absence oflarge hooved grazers 10 As a result, grass species of the monument are often 

more sensitive to grazing that those grasses species native to the Midwest where bison were 

historically common. The historic decline in native grasses and forbs on arid BLM lands is 

likely to be caused by grazing practices not suited for desert lands. The needed grazing 

practices have yet to be adopted for these conditions. The continuing deterioration of 

Monument habitats indicates that grazing now practiced is also not suited for these arid 

ecosystems. This was one of the tasks for the upcoming BLM grazing plan amendment. 

There are remedies that, if applied, can restore the health and productivity of the Monument 

and if applied to other BLM lands can aid in their recovery too. One of the tools that have 

been developed to evaluate habitat responses to grazing practices has been approved for use 

by BLM and the Forest Service. Called the Grazing Response Tndex11 , this method uses 

three indicators to evaluate if grazing practices are positive or beneficial to the health of 

plants, neutral or harmful. The Grazing Response Index is the sum of three factors relative to 

10 Mack, Richard and John Thompson. 1982. Evolution in steppe with few large, hooved mammals. The American 

Naturalist. 119:6 pp757-773 11 Reed, Floyd; Roath, Roy; and Bradford, David. 1999 The Grazing Response Index: a simple and effective method 

to evaluate grazing impacts. Rangelands. 21:4 pp 3-6. 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 12 of 16 
244 


Insert offset folio 207 here 95279.207

plant health: frequency of grazing, intensity of grazing, and opportunity for the plant to 

recover. At this time, this is the only tool of this type approved for use by the Bureau of 

Land Management and Forest Service 12 

The Grazing Response Index was developed noting the shortcomings of traditional rangeland 

monitoring that focused on forage utilization or stubble height Such monitoring ignored 

important factors to rangeland condition such as how long animals graze, when they graze 

and growing conditions 13 

The frequency factor is the number of times that plants are grazed during the grazing period. 

Grazing over a longer period of time allows ungulates to select the more preferred plants to 

the plant's detriment. If grazing lasts in an area for seven days or less, than the frequency 

factor would score"+ 1 ". If grazing occurs from 7-14 days, then the factor is a zero and if 

greater than fourteen days, the frequency score would be a"-!". 

The intensity factor considers the amount of forage removed during the period grazed. This 

intensity factor is+ 1 for utilization less than 40% of the forage. Utilization from 40 to 55% 

receives a "0" and grazing utilization over 56% is "-1". 

The opportunity factor describes the amount of time plants have to grow before grazed or the 

time they can regrow or recover after grazing. Of the three factors used in GRI, opportunity 

is the most important for the long-term health of plants. Based on the Ecological Site 

Descriptions that the National Resources Conservation Service the growing season for most 

herbaceous plants in the upland area is March through June. The plant growth curve 

predicts that 5% of the plant growth will occur in March, 15% in April, 45% in May and 35% 

in June. No significant growth (or recovery) is expected for upland areas in July through 

February in the next year. Riparian areas with perennial water may see growth in the 

summer and fall months. For the purposes of the Grazing Response Index, allotments that 

12 Wyman, S; Bailey D. W.; Floyd, R.;, Borman, M; Swanson, S.; Cote, S.;, Van Riper, L.; Eisner, J.; Westfall, T.; 

Elmore, W.; Westfall, T.; Wiley, R.; Leinard, B.; Winward, A.; and S. Leonard. 2006. Riparian area management, 

grazing management processes and strategies for riparianOwetland areas. Technical Reference 1737-20. Bureau of 

Land Management, Denver Colorado. 13 Utah State University Behavioral Education for Human, Animal, Vegetation & Ecosystem Management 2D10 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 13 of 16 
245 


Insert offset folio 208 here 95279.208

graze in April through June have upland areas that are unable to recover within that same 

year from grazing use. 

The three factors are added together for a final score. Today, most of the allotments in the 

Monument see grazing use with a net negative grazing response index score. For this reason, 

this management is not improving habitat. Part of the challenge in the upcoming planning 

process that BLM has underway is to design grazing practices that lead to net positive 

grazing response index scores. The only practical way to significantly increase forage 

production includes actions to restore the health of the land on a large scale. This cannot 

occur by increasing grazing use in the near future. Recovery takes time. 

Senate Bill 365 would bring grazing back to some areas where grazing was removed in order 

to address conflicts. This legislation would reopen 8 allotments or pastures to grazing that 

were closed after 1996. All closed allotments (16 in total) in Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument represent 3.4% of the Monument today. 94.6% of the Monument 

acreage is in active cattle allotments as of2015. 

Allotment Pasture 

Escalante River 

McGath Point 

Little Bowns Bench River Pasture 

Steep Creek 

Deer Creek River Pasture 

Deer Creek Cottonwood Pasture 

Saltwater Creek 

Steep Creek 

Figure 5 Allotments where grazmg was retired with the help 

of willing ranchers since the Monument was established 

In BLM' s 2008 draft grazing EIS for the GSENM, BLM' s decision to discontinue grazing in 

these allotments was described: 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 14 of 16 
246 


Insert offset folio 209 here 95279.209

"The primary reason for closure was to eliminate resource use conflicts between 

recreational users and livestock. The Escalante and its tributary canyons receive very 

high use from both day and overnight hikers. The canyon bottom areas are primary travel 

routes and use areas. The closures also benefited riparian and upland vegetation, water 

quality and wildlife dependent on available forage. In the years since these closures, 

recreational use has continued to increase substantially and riparian vegetation has 

noticeably increased. The Little Bowns Bench Allotment, Phipps Pasture (Phipps 

Allotment) and Wolverine Pasture (Deer Creek Allotment) were designated as grass 

banks in a 1999 plan amendment. The grass banks forage could be used in times of loss 

of forage elsewhere due to drought, fire, or disease." 

Retirement of grazing helped reduce conflicts between two important economic activities in 

this Monument, the ranching industry and the outdoor industry. In the counties that include 

the GSENM, the number of jobs grew by 38%, personal income by 40 percent and per capita 

income by 30% between 1996 and 2008 while service jobs !,>rew from 3,627 to 5, 749. 

State wide, the outdoor recreation industry adds over $5 billion dollars to Utah's economy 

each year. 14 Within the GSENM region, travel and tourism account for "3 7% total private 

wage and salary employment" and just under 1,200 jobs while farm jobs account for 8.1% of 

Garfield County jobs and 2.9% of Kane County employment. 15 The actual percent economic 

contribution provided by the Monument's livestock grazing is a subset of farm jobs and, 

thus, an even a smaller number than those just noted. 

Livestock use in the Monuments represents a cultural heritage that is valuable today. In 

view of the need to protect the health and productivity of the land and resolve conflicts 

within the community, some compromises are needed. We need to design future Monument 

livestock grazing to continue this heritage yet protect other values. This legislation would 

renew these conflicts and undo this carefully crafted local solution. 

Senate Bill 365 calls BLM to "improve rangeland conditions" and increase grazing use. 

Such management direction perpetuates the practices of the past that we so desperately need 

14 Outdoor Industry Foundation. 2006. The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy: A $730 Billion Annual 

Contribution to the U.S. Economy. https:f /outdoorindustry.org/images/researchfiles/RecEconomypublicpdf?26 15 Headwaters Economics. 2013. A Profile of Agriculture: Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Counties; 

Coconino County AZ, Garfield County UT, Kane County UT. Bozeman MT. 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 15 of 16 
247 


Insert offset folio 210 here 95279.210

to fix. The GSENM has seen some improvements in habitat conditions but most areas have 

seen continued and increasing degradation. 

These comments describe conditions seen today and, with a collaborative process based on 

rangeland health standards, provide constructive range management options for the future. 

Comments of James Catlin, Senate Bill 365 Page 16 of 16 
248 


Insert offset folio 307 here 95279.307

55 South Main Street • PO Box '77 • Panguitch, Utah 84759 ~ -·····-·--···· ---------~--

~----COUNTY~--~ 

---EST IHH2 ---

Phone: (435) 676-8826 • Fax: (435) 676-8239 

May 20,2015 

Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

311 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Honorable Senators: 

This correspondence is written regarding Senate Bill 365, A Bill to Improve Rangeland Conditions and 

Restored Grazing Levels Within the Grand Staircase- Escalante Notional Monument, Utah. 

Garfield County is one of the two counties that hosts the Grand Staircase Escalante National 

Monument (GSENM). We are impacted by the conditions of the range and the resulting effects on 

wildlife and other uses. Conditions of the range have declined since the establishment of the 

Monument in September 1996. Encroachment of undesirable vegetation has increased, and the 

condition and amount of forage components used by wildlife and livestock have declined. 

There are a variety of reasons that have led to the decline in rangeland health; and, although rangeland 

health is precipitation dependent, much can be done by the BLM to optimize natural processes. For 

example: 1) Seedings and previous land treatments have been neglected and have not been maintained. 

The resulting propagation of undesirable vegetation had taken over, leaving the ground less productive; 

2) GSENM has done little to counteract a growing problem with encroaching conifers. The conifers 

reduce vegetative productivity 100 fold (from 3000 lbs/acre to 30 lbs/acre) and eliminate historical sage 

grouse habitat. In Garfield County, loss of sagebrush habitat to conifer encroachment is the single 

largest threat to sage grouse. So correcting GSENM's neglect is of paramount importance; 3) BLM's 

management offire and mechanical treatments have been counter-productive. Coupled with overly 

restrictive policies regarding use of mechanical treatments and the never ending battle to get through 

cumbersome NEPA analysis, BLM's few efforts to do anything have been completely stalled. All of these 

issues, and others, result in reduced rangeland health, increased erosion, loss of limited water resources 

and propagation of undesirable and invasive species. 

Simply put, a) BLM needs to do a much, much better job in managing the land, b) the degradation of 

rangeland conditions needs to be arrested immediately, and c) rangeland conditions need to be 

improved for increased carrying capacity and conservation of Monument lands. Without some direction 

from Congress, few changes in GSENM's efforts to conserve and enhance rangeland health are likely to 

occur. 

County Commi.uioncrs 

Leland F. Pollock 

H. Dell LeFevre 

David B. Tebbs 

Camille A.l'vioore,Auditor/Ciak 

A. Lcs Barker, Recorder/Surveyor 

Joseph Thompson, Assenor 

Gina Peterson, Treasurer 

Russell B. Bulkley, justice Court judge 

Barry L. Huntington, Attorney 

James D. Perkins, SherifF 
249 


Insert offset folio 308 here 95279.308

The provisions of this legislation are in complete alignment with the presidential proclamation creating 

GSENM and are needed to serve the American public. Furthermore, the legislation emphasizes the 

restoration of rangeland health that is badly needed. Garfield County wholeheartedly supports the 

legislation proposed by Sen. Hatch, and we respectfully request your favorable consideration. 

We would be happy to provide additional details and information at your request. Please contact Brian 

Bremner at (435) 676-1119 if you have any questions. We thank you in advance for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Leland F. Pollock 

Commission Chair 

l( 

H. Dell LeFevre 

Commissioner 

p~rl David B. Tebbs 

Commission 
250 


Insert offset folio 309 here 95279.309

Statement for the Congressional Record 

Office of Senator Orrin G. Hatch 

May 21,2015 

Mr. President, I have always been proud of Utah's rich heritage, from the pioneers that 

came across the plains to the brave families that settled the territories throughout Utah and the 

Mountain West. Many of them traveled with little more than the shirts on their backs. Still, they 

brought the skills and trades necessary to be self-sufficient. They provided for their families and 

took pride in their land. 

As the pioneers knew then, and as we know now, Utah is blessed with incredible natural 

resources, beautiful landscapes, and breathtaking vistas. Utahns have always understood the 

importance of maintaining a responsible balance between the development of our abundant 

resources and the need to protect the unique features of our state. But the Executive Branch 

threatens to disrupt that delicate balance. Countless rural communities in Utah are currently 

facing difficult challenges to their way of life as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

increases restrictions on traditional economic activities, such as ranching and grazing operations 

on federal land. 

Under President Teddy Roosevelt's leadership, Congress easily passed the Antiquities 

Act of 1906-a short four-paragraph law, which gave the President unilateral authority to 

designate unique areas as National Monuments. Such designations were intended to protect 

special areas in our country that have significant natural, historical, or cultural features. Congress 

crafted these designations to be limited in scope and "confined to the smallest area compatible 

with proper care and management of the objects to be protected." The Antiquities Act was 

essential to protect our nation's historical treasures against growing dangers, such as looters and 

vandals. Congress drafted this law after archaeologists began complaining that American natural 

treasures were turning up in overseas museums and in private collections. 

After President Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act into law, he subsequently set aside 

nearly 20 natural and cultural landmarks. These national monument designations were limited in 

scope and designed to protect specific locations rather than massive acreages. For example, the 

total area of our nation's first national monument, Devil's Tower in Wyoming, spans only about 

two square miles. Unfortunately, over time, the use of the Antiquities Act has evolved from 

protecting historic landmarks to restricting development across vast swaths of! and without any 

local input. 

For example, on September 18, 1996, President Bill Clinton issued a proclamation that 

desi!:,mated nearly 1.9 million acres in southern Utah as a National Monument. Utah's entire 

federal delegation, the Utah State Legislature, and Governor Mike Leavitt all opposed this 

proclamation. President Clinton's declaration was made without so much as a 'by your leave' to 

the people of Utah. There were no consultations; no hearings; no town hall meetings; no TV or 

radio discussions; no input from federal land managers; no maps; no boundaries; there was 

nothing. In fact, the federal delegation had to learn about the proclamation from the Washington 

Post. 
251 


Insert offset folio 310 here 95279.310

There are significant impacts on the ground when a monument is designated, not only on 

federal land, but also on state and private land. Had President Clinton consulted with the state 

and the delegation, he would have learned that the designation would landlock and render useless 

200,000 acres of Utah School Trust Lands-lands held in trust for the school children of Utah. 

This designation deprived Utah schools of a significant revenue source. Fortunately, Utah's 

federal delegation was eventually able to pass legislation in Congress allowing these school trust 

lands to be swapped out of the monument boundary. This legislation helped the schools, but it 

did nothing for the locals who lost their jobs because of the President's declaration. 

The only one silver lining in this debacle was language written into the President's 

proclamation that protected livestock grazing on the monument. While the President was fine 

with blocking significant mineral development and other economic activity in the 1.9 million 

acre area, he at least understood that blocking traditional grazing in the area was untenable. 

Sadly, since the 1996 monument designation, according to the Utah Cattlemen's Association, 

nearly 28% of the federal livestock grazing AUMs have been suspended. 

According to the 2015 Economic Report to the Governor prepared by the Utah Economic 

Council, "Of Utah's 45 million acres of rangeland, 33 million acres are owned and managed by 

the federal government, while only 8 million acres are privately owned." With that in mind, 

most ranching operations in Utah must combine private grazing, feed importation, and access to 

the renewable grasses and forage through federal grazing leases in order to be economically 

viable. Unfortunately, since the late 1940s, the Utah Farm Bureau found that the BLM and the 

Forest Service have drastically cut or suspended Utah's total livestock grazing AUMs from 5.4 

million AUMs in 1949 to just over 2 million in 2012. 

With grazing on federal land already in peril, grazing on the monument is at even greater 

risk Currently, the BLM is considering an amendment to the management plan that would 

eliminate grazing on the monument altogether. If the BLM eliminates grazing on the monument, 

there would be significant, negative economic impacts to the area. Consider the economic 

benefits grazing already brings to these rural counties in Utah. The Utah Farm Bureau reports 

that: 

"Around 11,500 feeder cattle sold out of Kane and Garfield County ranches 

brought in more than $16 million dollars and generated in excess of $25-$30 

million based on a conservative economic multiplier. With about one-half of the 

calf crop coming from grazing allotments within the monument, of that total, 

about $8 million in direct feeder cattle sales and between $12 - $15 million in 

economic activity is tied directly back to cattle grazing on the monument." 

Those ranching dollars create jobs in Utah's counties. The money also contributes to 

local tax revenue and supports public services. Eliminating grazing on the monument would 

have disastrous implications for the local economy. 

While I view the designation of the monument as a significant risk to continued grazing 

in the area, there is another risk as well. The rangeland on the monument is being mismanaged. 

Even if the BLM decided to change course overnight and restore grazing to the historic levels 
252 


Insert offset folio 311 here 95279.311

that existed before the designation of the monument, the land in its current state would not be 

able to sustain it. Over the last twenty years, we have witnessed a worrisome decline in 

rangeland health. With this decline, livestock carrying capacity has also decreased. 

To protect rangeland health, I joined Senator Mike Lee and Congressman Chris Stewart 

to introduce The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Grazing Protection Act. This 

bill would direct the BLM to create and implement a management program within the areas of 

the monument to improve rangeland conditions for wildlife and livestock carrying capacity. It 

would also restore livestock grazing to the historic levels that existed before the designation. 

There are many things BLM can and should be doing to restore rangeland health. Improving the 

range would not only benefit ranchers and affected communities; it would also bring significant 

ecological and environmental benefits to the entire area. This legislation will direct the BLM in 

that efTort. 
253 


Insert offset folio 312 here 95279.312

Statement of Willard Hedden 

Executive Director 

Grand Canyon Trust 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

S. 365- A bill to improve rangeland conditions and restore grazing levels within the Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah 

May 21,2015 

Introduction 

I write to urge the committee to rejectS. 365: "A bill to improve rangeland conditions and 

restore grazing levels within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah." Despite 

the bill's brevity and innocuous title, it represents unprecedented interference in the ability of 

federal land managers to adjust levels of use to suit conditions on the ground. The troubling 

provision is in Section 1.(a)(2), which states that "the Secretary of the Interior shall implement a 

management program ... to restore livestock grazing to the level of usage in those areas that 

existed as of September 17, 1996." That date, of course, is the day President Clinton designated 

the monument. 

I will show that Section 1.(a)(2), despite its heavy-handed legislative meddling in professional 

land management, is a solution in search of a problem, as 96.4% of the Monument continues in 

active grazing with permitted numbers unchanged from the time before 1996. Further, the 

provision renders meaningless an extensive BLM management planning process that has been 

underway since 2013, and is on schedule to produce a Monument-wide Grazing DE IS by this 

fall. 

In the field, compliance with this provision would eliminate the vanishingly rare un-grazed areas 

that managers and ranchers can use as references against which to evaluate the effects of 

grazing across all the rest of the landscape. Compliance would also once again plague the 

unique and critical Escalante River canyon with cattle, where they would concentrate and 

damage the water quality, destroy the recovering riparian area with its native plants and 

archaeological riches, and resurrect conflicts with recreationists in the premier hiking and 

camping destination in the Monument. 

Lastly, the 1999 closure of the river canyon to grazing through amendment of the Escalante 

Management Framework Plan was accomplished through a proper and comprehensive NEPA 

process and the conclusion was supported by the Utah Governor's Office and Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources. This followed a private, willing seller transaction in which several ranchers 

approached a conservation group requesting a buy-out so that they might restructure their 

operations in locations more favorable than the remote, inaccessible Escalante River Canyon. If 

this plan amendment is undone through legislative caprice, it will greatly chill free market 

solutions to environmental problems across the West. In that regard, this bill, already pointless, 

harmful to professional land management, and ecologically damaging, also manages to be anti-
254 


Insert offset folio 313 here 95279.313

rancher, as the grazing buy-out market is often the only market for the permits of desperate 

ranchers hurt by drought, fire, illness, inter-generational transfer issues and the many other 

problems that make grazing in arid parts of the country so risky. 

S. 365 does not solve any problem. 

One would think that an extraordinary legislative intervention like 5. 365 would be justified by a 

federal land management agency run amok, barring ranchers from the land; but the facts do 

not support any such assertion. The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument administers 

77 active grazing allotments covering 1.82 million acres of the Monument and an additional 

450,000 acres of lands extending into Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (Figure 1). In the 

Monument lands affected by 5. 365, ten allotments are officially closed to grazing by livestock. 

These cover 64,000 acres, or just 3.6% of the Monument. Across all the open allotments, 

permitted Animal Unit Months (AUMs) remain unchanged from pre-Monument levels: that is, 

they remain at the greatly inflated historical numbers found across the western public lands. 

Ul}tJrazed arid Grazed Lands Within GSENM 

and ~urrounding Allotments Administered py GSENM 

1.82 million acres allocated to grazing within 9 ~NM 

~coo acres not allocated to grazing withip$SENM 

2.27 million acres allocated to grazing with eritite planning area 

~19-J){} acres not allocated to grll!zing within. entire planning area r • ' • 

96.4 Percent of lands allocatad to gra~!i(Wi:thin GSENM 

~ ~rCW~~ of lands aUoa~io grazlng~hin entire planning area 

Figure 1. 

2 
255 


Insert offset folio 314 here 95279.314

Actual levels of use are set each year after consultation about the availability of forage between 

BLM range staff and the ranchers. Comparing actual use as a percentage of permitted use 

against NOAA's Palmer Drought Severity Index for the Monument yields a clear and responsive 

correlation between grazing levels and rainfall. In the GSENM, 13 of the 19 years since 1966 

have been classified as drought. During the relatively wet years from 1996-2000, actual use was 

71.3% of permitted use. In the moderate to extreme drought of 2011-2013, actual use fell to 

48.2% of permitted use. These numbers are typical of grazing management on public lands. 

Thus, grazing is continuing as usual across the vast majority of the landscape. Surely there is a 

reason for S.365's attempt to reopen that last 3.6% of the land to cows? Perhaps the un-grazed 

lands are suffering ecologically in comparison with the grazed areas? Field studies prove that is 

not so. Both BLM staff and others have documented extensive degradation of Monument lands 

due to the combined impacts of livestock grazing and drought. The streams are suffering from 

denuded, trampled banks and active head-cuts, with fouled waters and dying aquatic life. 

Heavily grazed pastures are ravaged by overland erosive flows during rains. Native forbs and 

grasses, evolved without cattle, are being depleted or eliminated by overgrazing, and the 

biological soil crusts that hold the soil together and fix nitrogen at the base of the food web are 

being destroyed. In a futile attempt to make desert grazing feasible, BLM has seeded thousands 

of acres in exotic crested wheatgrass monocultures, replacing native and endemic species and 

mechanically destroying biological soil crusts and cultural artifacts in the process. 

The extent of the overgrazing can be better conveyed by photographs. Here on the left is a 

typical upland allotment in the Monument showing dramatic erosion and the vegetation that 

might have held the soil in place cropped to stubble. This photo was taken in mid-April this 

year. The cattle have two additional hot, dry months to graze on this pasture. What will they 

eat? Not surprisingly, studies show that the vegetative productivity of nearly all the uplands is 

in steep decline. On the right is a rare un-grazed upland showing native bunch-grasses, 

sagebrush, and intact biological soil crusts. 

To those who are not plant ecologists, the conditions of the Monument's water sources are 

perhaps even more striking than the uplands. Here on the left is a typical spring, trampled and 

3 
256 


Insert offset folio 315 here 95279.315

fouled; while on the right is a spring within a small exclosure, where a fence protects the area 

from cows. Viewing the stark difference, one begins to understand why grazing proponents 

might not want any un-grazed areas standing in mute, eloquent condemnation of livestock 

management. 

Most telling of all are the streams. These are the critical jewels that sustain wildlife and plant 

diversity in the desert. They are also most relevant to the present case, because the principal 

un-grazed area in the Monument is the Escalante River Canyon and its various tributary side 

canyons. These are the areas that would be reopened by S. 365. On the left below is a 

representative creek in the Monument, showing the denuded, trampled banks, erosion, and 

fouled water remaining at the end of each grazing season. On the right is the lower part of Calf 

Creek just above its confluence with the Escalante River. It is closed to grazing, full of fish and 

beaver, and the site of a successful reintroduction of otters. Not surprisingly, BLM has a major 

campground along this stretch of Calf Creek, visited by people from all over the country and 

across the world. 

4 
257 


Insert offset folio 316 here 95279.316

Much of the Monument is suffering from these ecological problems, and the depressing images 

of overgrazing could be multiplied ad-nauseam. But we are not talking about regulating 

overgrazing here-we are talking about legislatively re-opening the tiny fragments of the 

landscape that are not cow-burnt. We are not, as we should be, talking about how to take the 

96.4% of degraded lands and move them toward the health and productivity of the lands on the 

right in the photo pairs; we are talking about turning the right-hand images into facsimiles of 

the ones on the left. Surely the American public deserves better treatment of its lands from the 

U.S. Senate! 

At a minimum, one cannot say that grazing is being over-regulated in the GSENM. The small 

patches of un-grazed lands represent critical reference areas for distinguishing between climate 

and grazing impacts; for comparing with the ecological conditions of grazed lands and thus 

informing management; and for providing functional ecological systems that benefit 

communities and wildlife while providing resilience to extreme drought. 

Economic Considerations 

If the un-grazed areas provide important benefits to land health and management, perhaps 

S.365 would reopen them because they are critical to local economic health? Again, this is not 

so. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (USBEA.gov), at the time of the 

establishment of the Monument, the combined economies of Kane and Garfield counties (the 

affected counties) showed personal income of $179 million. In that year, farm income showed a 

loss of ($1.73) million. By 2013, local personal income had grown to $421 million, a rise of 

237%, while farm income had continued at a loss until the wet year of 2005, when it rose to 

$5.1 million, only to fall again to a loss of ($2.1) million during 2013 as drought resumed and 

deepened. Overall, farm income was negative in 12 of the 18 years for which data are available. 

Ranching here, whatever the diverse motivations of the individuals, is not a mainstay of the 

economy. It is not sarcasm, but simple realism, to note that reopening the Escalante Canyon 

would have the net economic effect of letting a few additional hobby ranchers lose their shirts. 

In sum, one struggles in vain to grasp the purpose of Senator Hatch's bill. 

S. 365 preempts an intensive management planning process. 

In the years following establishment of the GSENM, BLM publicly developed plans for the 

Monument, culminating in a Monument Management Plan in 2000 that covered most activities 

and resources except grazing. This controversial subject was temporarily set aside for treatment 

in its own EIS, a process that took longer than expected-the document is only now nearing 

completion. Across 96.4% of the Monument, grazing continues under the terms of highly 

outdated permits from the 1980s, but BLM has been industriously working to remedy this 

situation in recent years. 

To launch the Grazing EIS, BLM issued a 60 day seeping notice in early November 2013 and held 

three open houses to communicate about the process. Seeping was completed in January 2014 

after more than 400 comments were received. 

5 
258 


Insert offset folio 317 here 95279.317

From the seeping process, BLM fashioned 5 alternatives to bring forward to the Draft EIS, 

opening an extra public comment process not required by NEPA to ask whether the alternatives 

truly captured a full range of options. Three public workshops were held before this second 

comment period was completed in January 2015. 

Throughout all these activities, BLM has sought to elicit the most informed comments and 

suggestions by holding public workshops on subjects such as the economics of Monument 

grazing, field monitoring of grazing, and the functions of biological soil crusts, an object of 

protection named in the Monument Proclamation. A future workshop on vegetation 

treatments is planned for the same reasons. 

Managers have also worked to deepen understanding of these issues as part of this process. 

Monument staff have been partnering with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to 

assess the current state of vegetation production across the Monument, and BLM plans, within 

a few weeks, to release an economics assessment to the public based on interviews with 

permittees, the counties, and outside economists. 

The GSENM is on schedule to release a Monument-wide Draft Grazing EIS in late fall of 2015, 

with a Final EIS expected in 2016. Senator Hatch's S. 365 would void all of this work and public 

involvement with a stroke of extremely unwise legislative pre-emption. 

The closure of the Escalante River to grazing is entirely appropriate. 

The closing of the Escalante River began with a rancher's near death experience. Dell LeFevre, 

who is one of the last full-time ranchers in the Monument and is also a Garfield County 

Commissioner, held grazing permits for three allotments in the remote sections of the canyon. 

One day while riding alone in the deep backcountry checking on cattle that had been dying 

from eating noxious halogeton plants, a stream bank collapsed under LeFevre's horse, breaking 

the animal's leg and hopelessly trapping the rider beneath the stricken horse. The hot sun 

desiccated him over long hours until LeFevre, gripped by inspiration, strained to the utmost and 

managed to get a can of soda out of his saddlebag. Instead of drinking it, he poured the 

carbonated drink into the horse's nostrils and wriggled free when the animal rose up in a final 

choking spasm. He vowed that day, walking out of the canyon, that he was getting rid of his 

permits-the place was too remote, too full of poisonous plants, too treacherous, and too 

much in the cross-hairs of complaining campers. He wanted out. 

LeFevre talked with several neighbors who also grazed the river. Two branches of one family 

wanted no part of grazing in a national monument and had already located a private land ranch 

in Oregon, if only they could find a buyer for their permits. Another had reached retirement 

age, but his only child was going blind from retinal degeneration, so their permits needed to be 

sold as well. These are the all-too-human stories that make private market transactions to 

retire grazing a compassionate response to real world situations. 

In this case, LeFevre approached me about a buyout because we had become friendly when I 

was a Councilman in Utah's Grand County. We began a complex negotiation aimed at bringing a 

6 
259 


Insert offset folio 318 here 95279.318

proposal to BLM for consideration. Our goal was that one extended family could move to their 

new ranch in Oregon, another might retired with some funds in the bank for medical expenses, 

and LeFevre could continue ranching on a reconfigured operation built around more accessible 

allotments out of the canyon. For my part as buyer, I aimed for the Escalante River, jewel of 

the new Monument, to be closed along with several important side canyons. 

BLM, after some changes, took our eventual proposal through a public process (EA UT-049-98-

043) that ended in amendment of the Escalante Management Framework Plan in March of 

1999. The ranchers were well compensated to relinquish their permits to BLM, and the agency 

reallocated the forage to wildlife and watershed restoration, finding that "This would eliminate 

conflicts between recreation and grazing in this area. Reallocation of these AUMs would protect 

and enhance riparian, wildlife, fisheries, and watershed values of the Escalante River and some 

tributaries." The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources commended the action in a detailed letter 

and Governor Michael Leavitt wrote to approve of it. Over the years, BLM's terse assessment of 

the benefits has proven true, especially in comparison with areas that were not retired. But 

perhaps it is worth quoting from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources letter to remind 

ourselves what is really at stake: 

"There are important wildlife values in the area that would be enhanced by the proposed changes in livestock 

grazing. Riparian vegetation and understory cover along the Escalante River and several tributaries would be 

protected and improved. Riparian habitats are highly valued for wildlife, even more so in arid regions such as the 

GSENM. The greatest diversity and abundance of species are found in riparian zones. Healthy and abundant 

streamside and floodplain vegetation benefits fisheries and water quality by providing cover and food resources, 

regulating water temperature, filtering and trapping sediments and nutrients, and increasing water storage for 

release over longer periods. The endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher, an obligate riparian species, occurs 

along this section of the Escalante River, along with many other bird and mammal species. Two Utah sensitive fish 

species, the flannel mouth sucker and bluehead sucker, as well as other native fishes are found in the Escalante 

River. Moreover, upland grasses, forbs, and vegetative cover would increase and provide additional forage and 

cover for mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, rabbits, and other small mammals, which are in turn prey species for 

predators such as mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes, foxes, and raptors. In addition to benefitting wildlife, 

increasing vegetative cover can improve watershed quality, reduce soil erosion, allow better infiltration of 

precipitation into the soil, and enhance recreational and aesthetic values. 11 

Since the beginning of this entire process, nobody involved with the Escalante River closure has 

ever raised a complaint, yet now Senator Hatch seeks to undo the result legislatively. If this 

unobjectionable transaction in the flagship national monument is undone by mean-spirited 

legislative fiat after 16 years of benefits, then market-based private solutions to environmental 

conflicts will rightly be chilled everywhere. Senator's Hatch's S.36S is a harmful instrument that 

deserves to be rejected by the Sub-Committee. 

Willard Hedden lives in Moab, Utah and is Executive Director of the Grand Canyon Trust. He 

served as a Councilmember in Utah's Grand County from 1994-98, and is President of North 

Rim Ranch, LLC, which runs a public lands cattle operation on 830,000 acres of BLM and USFS 

lands on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. 

7 
260 


Insert offset folio 319 here 95279.319

Comments from the 

Idaho Recreation Council 

On S. S83 

To 

US Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests and Mining 

May 21,2015 

Thank you to Chairman Barrasoo and Ranking Member Wyden for holding a hearing on S. 583, the 

Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Addition Act (SNRA+), in a timely manner 

and for providing an opportunity to submit testimony. 

The following comments are from the Idaho Recreation Council (IRC). IRC is a 501 (c) (4) not for profit 

group that is composed of Idahoans from all parts of the state. We have a wide spectrum of recreation 

interests and a desire to preserve recreation opportunities for this and future generations. Our 

members include snowmobilers, off-road motorcyclists, 4X4ers, ATVers, UTVers, motorized and nonmotorized boaters, Equestrians, backcountry pilots, RVers, rock hounds, and recreational miners. IRC 

has been actively involved in every past reiteration of a wilderness bill for the Boulder White Cloud 

Mountains. 

As you know the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act has been 

through this committee before in the form of the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation 

Act (CIEDRA) in 2011. IRC opposed that bill. However, given the choice between a National Monument 

for this area or the past versions of CIEDRA, the IRC supports this legislation. Is it perfect? No. We of 

course could suggest a number of changes that in our opinion would improve the bill but we understand 

and appreciate that this is the final document-a take it or leave it bill. 

The real threat of a National Monument of unknown dimensions with unknown restrictions or the 

certainty of knowing what the boundaries will be and what the restrictions will be, convinced our 

membership to supportS. 583. We are grateful that Representative Simpson, after more than six years 

and multiple versions of CIEDRA has eliminated all of the key motorized recreation areas and trails from 

the Wilderness Areas proposed in this bill. This bill actually does meet the needs of those who prefer 

motorized recreation. In the past, many of the earlier versions were not as inclusive in their outreach to 

the non-wilderness recreation users. 
261 


Insert offset folio 320 here 95279.320

The members of IRC would be remiss if we failed to explain why the motorized recreation community is 

so important to the many small communities that surround the current Sawtooth National Recreation 

Area and the areas that are being proposed for Wilderness inS. 583. Unlike Sun Valley, many of the 

smaller communities to the north and east of the proposed Wildernesses are not magnet communities 

like Ketchum and Hailey. Thus, for most of the year they rely upon motorized recreationists to infuse 

revenues through motels, restaurants, grocery stores and "mom and pop" sports stores that cater to 

snowmobilers in the winter and off-road motorized recreationists, fishermen, and hikers in the summer, 

and hunters in the fall. Without the visits from these user groups, the economic vitality of these 

communities would be seriously diminished. Access to these federal lands in the areas is key to drawing 

these users to towns. These rural communities cannot afford to take one more economic loss. It isn't 

easy making a living in a small rural mountain community that is surrounded by public land but it is 

possible, if there is access to the land for a variety of users including motorized. Recreation to them 

isn't simply an 'activity done for enjoyment when one is not working'. Recreation to them is their last 

hope for preserving what is left of their economy. 

In conclusion, again - thank you for this opportunity to comment and we request that this written 

statement be included in the formal record hearing. 

Sandra F Mitchell 

Executive Director 

501 E. Saybrook Court 

Boise, ID 83706 

smitchel@alscott.com 
262 


Insert offset folio 321 here 95279.321

May 21,2015 

Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

311 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Kane County, Utah Comments- (Hatch), to conditions 

restore within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument, Utah. 

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski aml Cantwell: 

We support S365 as lJtah's Senator Orin Hatch to improve 

rangeland conditions for wildlife and livestock carrying capacity and to restore livestock 

grazing to the level of usage in those areas that existed as of September 17, 1996 within 

the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument. 

Kane County encompasses 

Staircase National 

total land area. 

4,000 square miles of area. The si1.c of the Grand 

encompasses almost 2,400 square miles of our 

families that reside in Kane County operate the Grand Staircase 

Escalante Monument's allotments. A number of these allotment holders 

are 3'd liYcstoek with 

The Grand Escalante National Monument is held in an 

it faces regarding 

Proclamation of 1996 

to find way the maze or pressures 

of President Clinton's Monument 

clear to us that that the pnxlarrlat:ton stated 

that "Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to affect existing permits or leases for, 

or levels of, liYcstock grazing on Federal lands within the monument; existing grazing 

uses shall continue to be governed by applicable laws and regulations other than this 

proclamation." 

Senator Hatch's proposed legislation should more than adequately aid in addressing any 

questions about grazing levels, improving rangeland conditions and restoration of 

impm1ant monument landscapes. Also, in our collective opinions this legislation will 

provide the means to help the BLM's to fulfill its mission of "sustaining the health, 

diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and 

future generations". 
263 


Insert offset folio 322 here 95279.322

Thank you for the oppm1unity to provide our comments for the record regarding S.365. 

Sincerely, 

James L. Matson 

Kane County Board of Commissioners 
264 


Insert offset folio 323 here 95279.323

Testimony from Carole King regarding the Sawtooth National Recreation and Jerry Peak 

Wilderness Act, HR 1138 (Simpson) and S 583 (Risch). 

Originally submitted May 22, 2015. Resubmitted June 11, 2015. 

*Reference to the Boulder White Cloud Wilderness bill should be understood to refer to 

the Sawtooth National Recreation and Jerry Peak Wilderness Act, HR 1138 (Simpson) 

and S 583 (Risch). 

In order to fight climate change and save native species such as bull trout and lynx from 

extinction, it is necessary to protect the Northern Rockies ecosystem, of which the 

Boulder and White Cloud mountains are but a relatively small part. The Boulder White 

Cloud Wilderness Bill* does not protect the ecosystem. The Northern Rockies 

Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA) HR. 996 does. 

I've been asking Congress for nearly a quarter of a century to pass the Northern Rockies 

Ecosystem Protection Act because NREPA was then and still is the only bill before 

Congress that ensures that the forested carbon sink and native species in that ecosystem 

survive over the long run. 

I would also like to submit the following article showing why protection of the Northern 

Rockies ecosystem is necessary. Grizzly bears are an umbrella species. The scientists 

who helped write NREPA more than twenty-five years ago based the scope of the 

protection on the grizzlies' range. It is still true today that if grizzly bears are not 

thriving, that is an indicator that the ecosystem is not thriving. Now more than ever, 

grizzly bears, other large carnivores, and numerous other species in the bioregion need 

the biological corridors NREPA will provide so they can migrate to cooler parts of the 

bioregion when areas of their habitat become too warm. I refer you to the part of the 

article about the bears' hibernation period having ended prematurely this year. 

Native species do not recognize state lines or boundaries defined by legislation beyond 

which their habitat is left unprotected. They need our help. That's why I'm asking most 

urgently that committee members and then members of Congress from all parties pass the 

Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, H.R. 996. 

Thank you for placing my testimony into the record. 

Carole King Klein 

Stanley, Idaho 
265 


Insert offset folio 324 here 95279.324

May30, 2015 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

All Members of the Committee, 

Senate Bill365, is not the best management solution for livestock grazing's future on the Grand 

Staircase/Escalante National Monument (GSENM). Trained professionals have worked on the GSENM 

and adjacent Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA), and have invested many years in 

studying the best scenario for sustained grazing on these unique areas of Southern Utah. Making this 

important decision in a political atmosphere could certainly cause future problems to grazers, native 

wildlife, and the other important users of these lands. 

My background includes mostly growing up on a farm/ranching operation in Northern Utah, followed 

by a college education at USU in Logan, UT. In 1968, I started my career as a Utah State Wildlife 

Conservation Officer and Field Biologist, living in Kanab and then Panguitch. The entire GSENM, and 

adjacent portions of the GCNRA, were within my area of responsibility. Over the last 47 years, I have 

travelled, hiked, and viewed from airplanes, helicopters and boats, many times over, nearly every 

square foot of the GSENM and GCNRA west of Bullfrog Bay. Following retirement, I worked seasonally 

for five years working for the state on a national program to gather comprehensive baseline data on 

the status and quality of hundreds of streams in Utah. We surveyed every stream on the Monument 

and Recreation Area, with over a dozen riparian sites on the Escalante River Watershed. Since 2002, I 

have served on the GSENM Advisory Committee, representing wildlife issues and concerns. 

The GSENM and GCNRA are part of the arid landscape of Southern Utah. Most members of your 

committee have never lived or worked in such an arid area. I would guess that several of you have 

never visited, or at best, observed very little of the GSENM and GCNRA. 

Some of you would probably wonder how a cow even survives in such a dry environment! 

Nevertheless, most of the area is managed under regulated grazing allotments. Under current 

management plans, a number of the allotments are holding their own, with some even showing some 

vegetative improvement. However, in a number of areas, improvements are possible and necessary 

for future grazing to continue. Cattle numbers are never the final answer, it boils down to responsible, 

sensible management, and how well the animals grow and prosper on the available vegetation. I have 

worked for decades with most of the cattle ranchers on the Monument and adjacent Recreation Area. 

One particular Kane County rancher was often criticized by his family and friends for not stocking his 

allotments to full cattle numbers each year. His answer to them was that he was not selling numbers 

of cows, but pounds of beef. Subsequently, he profited much more than most other ranchers in the 

area, and has since expanded his operation and purchased ranches in several other states. 

Historically, most of the Western streams, including the Escalante River watershed, developed siltladen floodplains that had built up over time. The thick riparian vegetation largely evolved in this arid 

environment by the presence of beaver and their engineering ability. Much of the early exploration of 

the West was largely done by the quest for the much sought after beaver pelts. As a result, beaver 
266 


Insert offset folio 325 here 95279.325

were nearly extirpated from most Western watersheds, including those of Southern Utah. In this arid 

area, it became catastrophic, when large numbers of cattle and sheep were introduced into these 

verdant floodplain vegetation areas. Without beaver, and with unregulated grazing, erosion became 

rampant, especially beginning in the late 1880's into the 1890's. Today, most streams in Southern Utah 

function much like a ditch, eroded 5 to 30 feet below the historical floodplain. The lush riparian 

vegetation has been replaced with dryland species, such as sagebrush and rabbit-brush, or less. As a 

result, the riparian areas just cannot support grazing as many ranchers supposed that their pioneer 

ancestors enjoyed. With appropriate livestock and wildlife management, some of the streams are 

improving over time, and are gaining back some semblance of their historical natural riverine 

conditions and riparian vegetation. The Escalante River is one of the better examples of the 

accomplished improvement. This also is especially important for several sensitive fish species in the 

river, including the Roundtail chub and the large Flannel mouth sucker. The last thing needed in the 

area to deal with is an added endangered species because of poor land management. 

Please do not destroy decades of work that has been done by going back to the old ways of doing 

things. If livestock grazing is to have a healthy future in this ever-drying environment, sensible 

adaptive management must be the norm. Please let the trained, knowledgeable, on-the-ground 

scientists and ranchers work out the best decisions for grazing. This is not a decision to be made in the 

halls of congress. Please let the current Grazing EIS process work out the details for a healthy 

environment for future sustainable livestock grazing. Senate Bill 365 is not the answer at this time! 

Norman McKee 

PO Box 142, Panguitch, UT 84759 

paws@scinternet.net 

435-676-2289 (home) 435-590-4799 (cell) 

A typical grazing area on the GSENM 
267 


Insert offset folio 326 here 95279.326

Submitted Testimony for the Record of Jenn Dice, Vice President, Business Network 

PeopleForBikes 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining Legislative Hearing on S. 583, the Sawtooth National 

Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act 

May 21,2015 

Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, thank you for the opportunity to submit 

testimony for the record regarding S. 583, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Park 

Wilderness Additions Act. 

PeopleForBikes Business Network represents bicycle retailers, suppliers and manufactures across the 

country. Bicycling contributes significantly to the national, state and local economies. Annually, $81 

billion is spent on bicycling, generating $10 billion in state and local tax revenue, and approximately 

775,000 jobs are supported by the bicycling industry. In Idaho, there are 143 bicycle stores, employing 

approximately 775 people, with $72.4 million in bicycle related sales. 

Across the country, 104 million Americans rode a bicycle last year. Communities across the country 

continue to see growth in people bicycling both for recreation and commuting. Also, communities across 

the country have identified investing in bicycle-related infrastructure as a critical part of their economic 

development strategy because both businesses and individuals are seeking to live in communities where 

there is access to bicycle-related infrastructure as well as recreational access to public lands like the 

Boulder-White Cloud mountains. 

We are certainly supportive of protections for the Boulder-White Clouds. However, these lands offer great 

bicycling opportunities and are one of the last wild places in the Wood River Valley where bicycling is still 

allowed. Estimates indicate there are more than 7o,ooo users on these trails annually. These 7o,ooo users 

contribute to the local economy. 

It is through the lens of both the growth in bicycling we are seeing in communities across the country as 

well as the economic benefits bicycle related infrastructure brings to states and communities that we are 

opposed to this legislation in its current form. Recreational access for mountain bicycling is critical to 

supporting businesses across the state of Idaho, including the 143 bicycle retailers and their employees. 

This legislation would eliminate the only backcountry bicycle experience in the area, sending the message 

of local bicycle retailers that it is not worth protecting the bicycle experience and the economic 

development opportunities it provides to surrounding communities. 
268 


Insert offset folio 327 here 95279.327

PeopleForBikes Business Network and the bicycle retailers across the state that we represent would like 

to see the legislation amended to both protect the character of the Boulder-White Clouds and Jerry Peak, 

while also providing great recreational experiences for mountain bicyclists within this beautiful landscape. 

We believe an appropriate balance can be found to protect the lands while also enabling mountain 

bicyclists to enjoy the lands. 

We look forward to working with the Committee to find a way to preserve these places and enhance the 

recreational experiences of mountain bicyclists. Finding this balance will ensure the surrounding 

community can benefit from the economic development potential these lands provide. 
269 


Insert offset folio 328 here 95279.328

THE 

Statement of The Pew Charitable Trusts 

Regarding S. 583 and S.1240 

Submitted to the 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

For the Record of the 

Hearing held on May 21, 2015 

The U.S. Public Lands program at The Pew Charitable Trusts seeks to preserve ecologically and culturally 

diverse U.S. public lands through congressionally-designated wilderness, the establishment of national 

monuments, and administrative protections. We appreciate the opportunity to submit these views for 

the record. 

S.583, Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act 

The Pew Charitable Trusts supports S.583, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak 

Wilderness Additions Act (SNRA+), with qualifications. 

Resources 

The Boulder-White Cloud Mountain range and surrounding area in Central Idaho boasts some of the 

most rugged wild lands in our nation, encompassing a roadless core of 400,000 acres that provides 

critical habitat to numerous fish, plant, and wildlife species. The roadless nature of the land increases its 

ecological value, as habitat is not yet fragmented and biological diversity is abundant. The area also 

contains more than 150 mountains above 10,000 feet and contains the headwaters of the main Salmon 

River and the East Fork Salmon River, home to the highest elevation salmon and steel head habitat in the 

contiguous United States. 

The Boulder-White Clouds have a rich cultural history as well, as the gold rush and other mining booms 

brought miners to Idaho in droves in the 1800s, and relics of mines, mining structures, and settlements 

can be found in parts of the landscape. Native Americans have used the Boulder-White Clouds for 

thousands of years as a hunting ground. Spear points have been found in the region, as well as signs of 

ancient occupation such as rock shelters and fire hearths. 

The region also boasts tremendous recreational opportunities for Idahoans and out-of-state visitors, 

providing an economic infusion to local communities. Hunting and fishing is world-famous here, as the 

lack of roads create large contiguous tracts of land that support big game such as elk, moose, mountain 

goat, bighorn sheep, black bear, and cougar. Despite these time-tested benefits of the wild lands in 

Central Idaho-lands already owned by the federal government-the Boulder-White Clouds are not 

permanently protected from development and other types of short-term exploitation. 
270 


Insert offset folio 329 here 95279.329

Background 

Pew's U.S. Public Lands Program has been working to protect the Boulder-White Clouds region in 

Central Idaho for over a decade. Our local partners in Idaho have worked for more than three decades 

to preserve the area. Since 2004, the legislation has seen nine iterations, multiple hearings in the House 

and Senate, House passage, and been a hair's breadth from enactment in 2006. It has been dormant in 

Congress since 2010 due to inability to reach consensus over boundaries and motorized recreation 

provisions in the bill. 

Pew appreciates the commitments of Representative Mike Simpson and Senator Risch to revisit this 

matter and to reach a compromise among diverse stakeholders that would resolve public land 

management issues in this region for generations to come. The time is ripe to protect the BoulderWhite Clouds this year. 

Current Legislation 

The current legislation proposed by Sen. Risch and Rep. Simpson addresses the needs of various 

constituencies that have engaged in the legislative process since 2004: counties and communities, 

ranchers, motorized recreationists, and conservationists. 

S.583 would facilitate a number of public conveyances for several communities and Blaine and Custer 

Counties. It would authorize the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to 

permanently retire grazing permits that would be donated voluntarily by eligible ranchers. The 

legislation would provide certainty to motorized vehicle recreationists by legislatively guaranteeing that 

key trails would remain open, and it would designate 275,665 acres of wilderness in Central Idaho. The 

proposed wilderness acreage inS. 583 and the identical House bill is approximately 5 7,000 acres less 

than previous bill versions, a modification made in order to address the concerns of the motorized 

vehicle community. This significant decrease in land protection has been a difficult compromise for Pew 

and our partners, such as the Idaho Conservation League and The Wilderness Society. 

Wilderness, defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964 as "an area where the earth and its community of life 

are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain," continues to be the 

"gold standard" for federal land designation. Pew favors wilderness designation as the first priority for 

the Boulder-White Clouds region, and therefore supports S. 583. However, if it appears that Congress is 

unable to enact this legislation quickly we will continue to strongly advocate for a monument 

designation as the only remaining option for protecting this ecologically and culturally rich region. 

5.1240, The Cerros del Norte Conservation Act 

The Pew Charitable Trusts fully endorses S. 1240, applauds Senators Heinrich and Udall for championing 

the proposal, and looks forward to its early approval by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee. 

The Cerros del Norte Conservation Act will designate two new wilderness areas, the Cerro del Yuta and 

Rio San Antonio, within the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. The proposed wilderness areas 

will comprise approximately 21,420 acres within the 242,500-acre National Monument northwest of 

Taos, New Mexico. 

The 2013 National Monument designation was supported by New Mexico business owners, sportsmen, 

Tribal leaders, veterans and faith-based organizations, as well as local elected officials. Recently, the 
271 


Insert offset folio 330 here 95279.330

Director of the Bureau of Land Management testified before the Senate that the monument designation 

has generated considerable economic stimulus to the northern New Mexico region. We believe the 

addition of these two areas as wilderness within the monument will serve to increase visitation and 

economic sustainability to the area. 

Working closely with a broad and diverse local group of supporters over the past decade, Pew has been 

actively engaged in championing these proposed wildernesses. We were heartened when the President 

protected the Rio Grande del Norte region as a National Monument in 2013, and we are encouraged by 

the continued interest of Senators Udall and Heinrich in providing wilderness protection for Ute 

Mountain (Cerro del Yuta) and San Antonio Mountain (Rio San Antonio) within the monument. 

Wilderness designation for Cerro del Yuta and Rio San Antonio will serve to complete the local 

community's vision for the protection of these historic, culturally significant, scenic, and ecologically 

valuable public lands. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to submit these views for the committee's consideration. For 

additional information, please contact Marcia Argust, Project Director, The Pew Charitable Trusts, at 

202-329-0793 or margust@pewtrusts,QLg. 
272 


Insert offset folio 331 here 95279.331

Subcommittee on Public Lands, F01·ests and Mining 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Hearing on S. 583, 

"Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act" 

May 21,2015 

Testimony by The Sawtooth Society 

The Sawtooth Society wishes to express its wholehearted support for the "Sawtooth 

National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act" and requests that 

this statement become part of the formal hearing record. 

The Sawtooth Society, formed in 1997 by principal sponsors of the legislation that 

created the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (NRA), is based in Stanley, Idaho. The 

Society is the only non-profit group dedicated exclusively to serving as an advocate for 

the Sawtooth National NRA, within which, two of the three proposed Wilderness Areas 

in this legislation are located. Our mission is to preserve, protect and enhance this 

spectacular area and we are comprised of over I ,200 members from across the state and 

around the country. The Society helps preserve open space in the Sawtooth NRA, has 

area's largest volunteer program to maintain and expand recreation facilities and enhance 

wildlife habitat and has funded over 160 recreation enhancement projects throughout the 

Sawtooth NRA through a strong partnership with the U.S. Forest Service. We are bound 

together by our attachment to this special landscape and our desire to protect it 

It is from this thorough knowledge of the area in question that we base our strong support 

for S. 583, sponsored by Senator Risch. For more than a decade the Society has 

supported Congressional efforts to protect these fragile, high-elevation lands as 

Wilderness. It is our belief the Boulder-White Clouds Mountains, which again are within 

the Sawtooth NRA boundaries, are the quintessential example of true Wilderness, have 

been studied for decades as potential Wilderness and now deserve permanent protection. 

Over the last two years, there has been considerable discussion by some to encourage the 

President to use his powers under the Antiquities Act to declare a much larger area than 

the three Wilderness areas proposed by S. 583 as a National Monument The Sawtooth 

Society is adamantly opposed to this step and has been highly vocal in both Idaho and 

Washington, DC to build an understanding of the risks involved with overlaying a 

National Monument, with its inherent ambi!,ruity, on top of the already Congressionally 

designated Sawtooth NRA. 

By any measure, the 1972 Congressional leadership, some of whom are still actively 

involved in the Sawtooth Society today, got it right when they enacted PL. 92-400 with 

specific and unique language to protect the area through the creation of the Sawtooth 

NRA and the Sawtooth Wilderness Area. The result is a tremendous success story. That 

legacy would be threatened by creation of a National Monument and based on statements 

by the Administration we believe there is a significant likelihood of the President moving 
273 


Insert offset folio 332 here 95279.332

forward to overlay a National Monument on this congressionally protected landscape 

unless S. 583, and the companion bill in the House, H.R. 1138, sponsored by 

Congressman Simpson, are enacted into law. That would be a tragic outcome. 

The advantages of Congressional Wilderness designation versus a National Monument 

are many. Wilderness designation provides a permanent level of environmental 

protection that a National Monument designation cannot achieve. Establishment of a 

Congressionally mandated Wilderness follows a well-known process with a predictable 

outcome in contrast to the uncertain process, outcome and timetable a National 

Monument route involves. And, it avoids years of diverted management resources, delays 

of critical decisions, confusion and possible litigation for the Sawtooth NRA lands 

involved in the development of a multi-agency, multi-year management plan required for 

a National Monument. 

S. 583 incorporates over a decade of important input from a wide range of Idaho 

stakeholders via numerous public hearings and meetings. Contrary to what one group of 

users is currently claiming, no single stakeholder group is unafiected or will be fully 

pleased with this legislation. Like most good legislation, it is a reasoned and balanced 

compromise. 

Conservationists will get considerably less Wilderness area than they would like. Hikers 

and horseback riders will have to share some favorite trails with bikers. Mountain bikers 

will lose the use of about 10 percent of their nearly 800 miles of riding trails in the area. 

Snowmobilers will give up access to thousands of acres ofbackcountry lands where, with 

the more sophisticated machines Gust as with mountain bikes) they might otherwise 

ride. And those who prefer the status-quo will have to accept change. But in exchange, 

they all will see the peace, solitude and pristine beauty of over 275,000 acres of 

magnificent land forever protected as Wilderness. 

With each stakeholder giving up a little to gain a lot for all, we believe Senator Risch and 

Congressman Simpson have found the right middle-ground to resolve this issue once and 

for all. This is why a large number of groups, as diverse as the Wilderness Society, the 

Idaho Farm Bureau, the Idaho Cattlemen's Association and Custer County and Blaine 

County commissioners, are supporting S. 583. 

Congressional sponsors have asked the Administration for time to pursue enactment of 

the Wilderness bill before they make any final decision on creation of a National 

Monument. This presents a unique opportunity in 2015 to "get it right" on meaningful 

and appropriate Boulder-White Clouds protection. 

We applaud Senator Risch's leadership to seek passage of this legislation. Our support 

rests on the fact that Congressional action, rather than a Presidentially proclaimed 

National Monument, is the best way to provide additional protection- a fact even those 

promoting a National Monument and the Obama Administration recognize. 

In summary, The Sawtooth Society has been a long-time supporter of Wilderness 

designation of these lands and we are steadfastly committed to this legislation. We also 

believe that time is of the essence. The future management and use of the Sawtooth NRA 

2 
274 


Insert offset folio 333 here 95279.333

rests on the outcome of this legislation and we urge all to support S. 583 and pre-empt a 

problematic and probable Presidential National Monument proclamation. These lands 

deserve to be included in the "gold standard" of true and permanent Wilderness that only 

Congress can provide. Thank you. 

Submitted by Gary O'Malley 

Executive Director, The Sawtooth Society 

Stanley, Idaho 

208.721.2909 

3 
275 


Insert offset folio 334 here 95279.334

Statement of 

Craig and Ramona Sorenson 

265 E.200 S. 

Escalante, UT 84726 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, & Mining 

S. 365, To improve rangeland conditions and restore grazing levels within the 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah 

May21, 2015 

S.365 Comments 

I and other knowledgeable local citizens have made many useful comments as part 

of the GSENM Grazing EIS, with some very specific recommendations on how to 

improve range conditions in the GSENM. Allowing the EIS to be completed, 

including consideration of such public comments, hopefully will result in the best 

possible range management strategy to be implemented; such management 

decisions should be based upon the best scientific analyses available and for the 

health of the land, not clouded by political maneuverings. 

Based upon EIS comments, here are the main points: 

• Science NOT politics should underlie all range management 

decisions. Politicians in Washington DC have little or no understanding of 

the GSENM and should not attempt to limit range management decisions in 

an area having such poor soils and grazing conditions. 

• Preserving the ranching heritage is important, but should focus on helping 

local ranching families, not outside corporations. Unfortunately, many old 

time ranchers are selling their grazing allotments to ranching corporations 

(especially the Sorensen Ranch= Flying V Bar Ranch); no one in their 

families wants to run their ranching operations, when low profit margins 

don't seem to merit the hard work. The corporation's hired hands are low 

paying jobs and most profits are taken elsewhere rather than being 

reinvested in local communities. With no 'ownership', such corporations 

have not been good stewards of the land. Given the difficult economics of 

ranching, most of the other ranchers tend to have other jobs to supplement 

their incomes, thus they are unable to spend adequate time out on their 

allotments managing their livestock. 

• Conflicts between livestock grazing and recreational uses should be 

minimized, not exacerbated. Revenues from tourism have increased 

dramatically since the GSENM was established while livestock revenues have 

declined. Areas where grazing has been retired, such as the Escalante 

Canyons, have become the most popular tourist destinations. 

• The closure of certain grazing allotments to protect riparian habitat and 

reduce conflicts between grazing and recreation was reviewed and approved 
276 


Insert offset folio 335 here 95279.335

by Utah Governor Leavitt and his staff in 1999. As anticipated, the closed 

allotments have shown a dramatic recovery with improved wildlife habitat, 

watershed conditions, and recreation. Grazing allotments along the 

Escalante Canyon corridor were voluntarily sold to the Grand Canyon Trust 

and the money from these sales substantially benefited ranchers such as 

County Commissioner Dell LeFevre . The increased tourism in this area has 

produced more revenue than would have resulted from livestock in this 

area. Resuming grazing along the Escalante corridor would negatively 

impact tourism revenues you can't have both ... 

• S.365 would be require livestock to be moved back into the Escalante 

Canyons at 1996levels and would certainly result in decreased tourism and 

associated revenues. There were literally hundreds and thousands of visitor 

complaints about cows at the trailhead registers on the Escalante River 

allotment prior to the grazing closure in 1999. It would set a very bad 

precedent for Congress circumventing conservation agreements that have 

benefited ranchers and the American public. 

• Extensive areas of barren slickrock sandstone are a big part of many grazing 

allotments yet have very limited grazing potential. These scenic slickrock 

areas happen to be the main destination oftouristvisitingthe 

GSENM. Allowing conservation groups to buy out the slickrock portions of 

grazing allotments could be a real win-win situation for ranchers and 

recreationists. Such land management solutions would not be possible if 

Senate 365 were to become law. 

• A cost-benefit analysis should be done before any range "improvement" 

projects are undertaken; previous range improvement projects are very 

expensive and typically have failed. If compared, investments in trying to 

help the livestock industry would yield less economic benefits to the local 

communities of Garfield and Kane Countries than comparable investments in 

tourism. In fact, tourism seems to be self-sustaining rather than requiring 

such government subsidies. 

• Based upon the 2000 GSENM Management Plan, range restoration should 

use native plants that are more well suited to local environmental conditions, 

rather than introduced grasses whenever possible. However, livestock must 

not move into the restoration areas until the plantings are well enough 

established to allow sustainable grazing. Grazing management decisions 

need to be based upon on-the-ground conditions, and should not be 

constrained by Senate 365. 

• The GSENM proclamation stated "nothing in this proclamation shall be 

deemed to affect existing permits or leases for, or levels of, livestock grazing 

on Federal lands with the monument; existing grazing uses shall continue to 

be governed by applicable laws and regulations other than this 

proclamation." Thus, Senate Act 365 is redundant and unnecessary. 

• Reduction in livestock numbers since 1996 have resulted from drought, not 

from changes in livestock management. Being such a contentious issue, 

livestock grazing was not included in the GSENM's 2000 Management Plan, 
277 


Insert offset folio 336 here 95279.336

so livestock grazing is still being managed with preexisting range 

management plans and general BLM grazing statutes. If droughts continue, 

then increasing livestock numbers will only increase overgrazing and 

ultimately lead to loss of soil and reduced overall productivity. 

• The GSENM's Grazing EIS is presently underway and included a number of 

alternatives, most of which promote the livestock industry over other 

values. Knowledgeable local citizens and other stakeholders have made 

many useful comments, with some very specific recommendations on how to 

improve range conditions in the GSENM. The EIS scoping included special 

sessions dealing with economic impact upon ranchers. After so much time, 

effort and budget has been expended to develop a better range management 

plan, it is important that the EIS process come to fruition. Allowing the EIS to 

be completed, including consideration of such public comments, hopefully 

will result in the best possible range management strategy that will be 

beneficial to both ranchers and to the American public who increasingly 

recreate on the GSENM. 

• Having Senate 365 interrupt and constrain the EIS process would be very 

detrimental and terrible precedent setting. The Grand Staircase Escalante 

National Monument has some of the most outstanding scene1y and beauty in 

the world and people from every state and country in the world travel here 

to see and experience it. Discard Senate 365. Few Senators or Congressmen 

have much knowledge of range management and even less about on-theground conditions that are healthy for the land in the GSENM, so you should 

stand down and let those who are experts in the field just do their jobs. 
278 


Insert offset folio 337 here 95279.337

RE: S. 365, a bill regarding grazing within the Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah 

I am one of the millions of Americans who have chosen to re-locate and/or visit the west 

I live in Moab, where tourism is skyrocketing and the local economy is being 

reinvigorated as people flood in from all around the world to enjoy our spectacular 

western scenery and recreate in it. Moab was an old ranching and mining community 

that was failing and has been saved by tourism. It has become so popular, that this 

weekend, Arches National Park had to periodically shut down, denying tourists access 

due to overcrowding. Clearly, citizens of the US need additional places such as Grand 

Staircase-Escalante for outdoor recreation. 

This dramatic trend away from ranching as the economic and cultural mainstay of 

southern Utah communities makes sense in light of the changing needs of our society and 

the importance of recreation. 

When cows were first grazed in mass on virgin western grasslands, there was ample 

forage to sustain the industry. Long term grazing, has significantly reduced the 

productivity of the land, disturbed the balance between soil, plants, and wildlife and has 

made ranching a marginal proposition at best in southern Utah. 

It is essential to note that the title of this bill is deceptive, as rather than improve 

rangeland conditions, it will actually damage a fragile and remote outdoor resource, and 

consequently negatively impact the growing recreational industry which is now the 

lifeblood of the local communities. 

It is also misleading as it will not restore livestock grazing to the1996 pre-monument 

level of usage as currently, 96.4% of the Monument continues in active grazing with 

permitted numbers unchanged 

In 1999 several ranchers relinquished their grazing permits in the Escalante River Canyon 

through a buy-out by a conservation group so that they could relocate to more profitable 

areas. An amendment to the Escalante Management Framework Plan was done and now 

only this small remote portion (3.6%) is un-grazed. 

S. 365, the new bill before you, is actually anti-rancher, as the grazing buy-out market 

is often the only market for the permits of desperate ranchers hurt by drought, fire, 

illness, inter-generational transfer issues and the many other problems that make grazing 

in arid parts of the country marginal or unprofitable. 

Rather than improving rangeland conditions for livestock and wildlife, re-opening these 

areas to grazing would accelerate the degradation of the land, especially in light of the 

extended drought and climate change. I have personally observed un-grazed reference 

points in comparison with comparable areas devastated by grazing in areas no longer able 

to support the practice. 

Passing S. 365 provides no economic advantage to ranchers and would potentially 

damage the tourism that is rapidly replacing the unprofitable ranching industry in the 
279 


Insert offset folio 338 here 95279.338

area. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (USBEA.gov), agricultural 

income was negative in 12 of the 18 years for which data are available since the 

establishment of the Monument. On the other hand, personal income has been rising 

significantly. Re-opening the Escalante River Canyon would have the net economic 

effect of reducing taxable income to the counties. 

As a citizen of this country who would like to see a vibrant economy as well as a healthy 

environment, l encourage members of Congress to reject this unnecessary and 

detrimental piece of legislation. 

Sincerely, 

Mimi Trudeau 

3686 Spanish Valley Drive E3 

Moab, Utah 84532 

845-325-7595 
280 


Insert offset folio 339 here 95279.339

Statement for the Record 

U.S. Department ofthe Interior 

before the 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natnral Resources 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

Concerning S. 160 and H.R. 373, bills to direct the Secretary of the Interior and Sec1·etary of 

Agriculture to expedite access to certain Federal land under the administrative jm·isdiction 

of each Secretary for good Samaritan search-and-recovery missions, and for other 

purposes. 

May21,201S 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present the views 

of the Department of the Interior on S. 160 and H.R. 373, bills to direct the Secretary of the 

Interior and Secretary of Agriculture to expedite access to certain Federal land lmderthe 

administrative jurisdiction of each Secretary for good Samaritan search-and-recovery missions, 

and tbr other purposes. 

The Department supports S. 160 and H.R. 373 with amendments. 

S. 160 and H.R. 373 would require the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture 

(Secretaries) to develop and implement a process to expedite access to federal lands for eligible 

organizations and individuals who request access to Federal lands to conduct good Samaritan 

search and recovery missions for missing individuals presumed to be deceased at the time the 

search is initiated. The bills would require these procedures to include provisions clarifYing that 

such groups are not considered Federal volunteers, and exempting such groups from the 

Volunteers in the Parks Act of 1969, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the Federal Employee 

Compensation Act. The bills would also prohibit the Secretaries from requiring such 

organizations or individuals to have. liability insurance as a condition of accessing federal lands if 

they acknowledge and consent, in writing, that they understand they are not protected under 

federal law and sign a waiver releasing the federal government from all liability related to the 

access granted. 

The bills would require the Secretaries to notify an eligible organization or individual of the 

approval or denial of a request within 48 hours after the request is made and, in the case of a 

denial, notify the organization or individual of the reason for denial and any actions that they can 

take to meet the requirements for the request to be approved. The bills would also require the 

Secretaries to develop partnerships with search-and-recovery organizations to coordinate and 

expedite good Samaritan search-and-recovery missions on federal lands. Within 180 days after 

enactment, the bills would require the Secretaries to submit a joint report to Congress describing 

plans to develop partnerships and efforts being taken to expedite and accelerate good Samaritan 

search-and-recovery mission efforts on federal lands. 

We believe that we can work with the sponsors and the committee to amendS. 106 and H.R. 373 

so that they would facilitate this process, without creating an undue burden on the land 

management bureaus or the applicants. 
281 


Insert offset folio 340 here 95279.340

We recommend amending the bills to ensure that the document required to be signed as a 

condition of accessing federal lands both waives rights, claims, and causes of action against the 

United States, and releases the United States from liability. This would provide more 

comprehensive protection for the federal government against lawsuits than the legislation does as 

currently written. 

We also recommend amending the bills to provide 2 business days, rather than 48 hours, for the 

approval or denial of a pennit, and to provide that the time period for approval or denial would 

start only after the land management agency has received a complete application. This would 

make the permit approval process more practical, as land management agencies may not have 

staff available to process permits after the close of business or on weekends. 

In addition, we note several technical issues with the bills. For example, the meaning of the term 

"not-for-profit capacity," which is used in the definition of eligible organization and eligible 

individuals, is not clear. And the requirement in§ 2(a)(l)(B) ofS. 160 that eligible 

organizations and eligible individuals have certification in training that meets or exceeds 

standards established by the American Society for Testing and Materials is not needed, in our 

view, because federal agencies use other standards for verifying a pmspective provider's 

qualifications and medical/fitness level. We would like to work with the Committee to address 

these and other technical issues in the bills. 

With the amendments described in this statement, the Department believes that the legislation 

would allow expedited access for good Samaritan search-and-recovery missions without 

complicating existing procedures, or causing unintended impacts to existing relationships 

between federal agencies and search organizations. While we note that H.R. 373 includes some 

of these amendments, we would like to work with the bills' sponsors and this committee to 

amend both bills so that they allow expedited access for good Samaritan search-and-recovery 

missions without complicating existing procedures, or causing unintended impacts to existing 

relationships between federal agencies and search organizations. 

Mr. Chairman, this conCludes this statement. 

2 
282 


Insert offset folio 341 here 95279.341

From: Keith Watts <keith@earth-tours.com> 

Date: Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 10:29 AM 

To: "Hatch, Orrin (Hatch)" 

Cc: David Brooks 

Subject: Opposition to Senate Act- 5.365 

Dear Senator Hatch and Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, 

and Mining, 

I understand that Senate Act 365 is being reviewed by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public 

Lands, Forests, and Mining on 21 May 2015 at 2pm. I would like my concerns presented below to be considered as part 

of the hearing record. 

I live and work in Boulder, Utah, where I run a guide service that takes my clients into the Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument (GSENM), especially the Escalante Canyon. Some of my friends and neighbors run their cattle on 

the GSENM; I support the ranching heritage here. However, I am very disappointed to see your Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument Grazing Protection Act- 5.365 being advanced to the Senate. Your timing could not be 

worse- the GSENM is presently doing an EISon grazing that is long overdue, and includes a variety of reasonable 

alternatives. Three alternatives allow grazing at existing or higher levels, one alternative would allow sustainable grazing 

in 94% of the GSENM, and the least likely alternative would eliminate grazing (such alternatives are required for an EIS, 

but are rarely chosen). Overgrazing is a problem in parts of the GSENM that needs to be corrected, Having you step in as 

a Senator with a proposal to limit appropriate grazing management options is a very bad idea. 

I know that you want to protect the interests of your constituents, but the unbalanced favoritism that this bill gives 

ranchers will significantly hurt other constituents. Utahans who work in the developing tourist industry in Garfield and 

Kane Counties will certainly lose business if cattle are returned to the parts of the Escalante River that have been closed 

to grazing and if intensive range "improvements" occur even more tourist dollars will be lost. Your bill would be 

detrimental to the recreational opportunities for millions of Utah citizens and countless tourists who visit our wonderful 

state. I know first-hand that your act would negatively impact my guide business and overall tourism revenues. 

Tourists come to the Escalante Canyons because its natural beauty rivals Zion and Capitol Reef National Parks, yet they 

don't have to contend with tourist crowds and enjoy the freedoms of having the area managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management. However, overgrazing destroys the essence of the natural beauty that tourists seek. The Escalante River 

used to be plagued by erosion resulting from overgrazing, water polluted with cattle excrement, invasive plants such as 

tumbleweed, and swarms of horseflies. In 1995, I backpacked down Death Hollow and the Escalante River; after 

marveling at the incredible beauty of the Death Hollow Primitive Area, the Escalante River was a disappointment. I 

literally had to run from swarms of horseflies, stepping in cows••t and thrashed by thorny weeds. When I take my guest 

down the Escalante today, its beauty is relatively untarnished- native grasses have returned, few biting insects annoy 

us, and cattle excrement is old and dry. We should not go back to the old ways of doing things that were destructive 

and marginally economic at best. 
283 


Insert offset folio 342 here 95279.342

Revenues from increasing tourism in the GSENM are the best thing to happen to the economies of Garfield and Kane 

Counties in decades. Over many years, the revenues from ranching have declined, with ranchers often failing to show 

profits. These declines are not the result of GSENM's grazing management (they are still operating under plans from the 

last millennium), but are due to loss of forage resulting from drought and inherent difficulties of raising cattle in the 

marginal grazing lands of the GSENM. Since the GSENM was established, the revenues from tourism have shown a 

steady increase. In some popular areas such as the Escalante Canyons, you cannot have cattle overgrazing and still 

attract tourists. Before you advance your bill, you should fully analyze the economic impacts on our blossoming tourist 

industry. 

The main area in question is the Escalante River canyon, where grazing has not occurred since 1999. Rancher and 

Garfield County Commissioner, Dell LeFevre, voluntarily sold his grazing allotments to the Grand Canyon Trust for a 

significant sum of money that substantially benefited his ranching business. Before cattle were removed from this 

recreational corridor, tourists commonly complained about overgrazing and associated damage to the Escalante 

watershed, so the area's reputation as a tourist destination was poor. With the removal of cattle, the Escalante River 

Canyon has recovered dramatically and has become a major destination for increasing numbers of tourists who visit our 

area. Returning grazing to this recreational corridor would be a blow to our developing tourist industry in Garfield 

County. 

If grazing in the Escalante Canyon were to be re-established at previous levels, I would have to abandon several of my 

most popular hiking routes because they would no longer be suitable for my clientele. For example, when cattle were 

reintroduced to Phipps Wash, we had to give up one of our favorite hiking routes. Because the grazing permittee 

constructed an unauthorized fence across Phipps Wash, the long horn steers pushed up against the fence, charging 

another tourist group because they had a dog. Our Earth Tours group had a difficult time getting past one large bull that 

charged us as we tried to pass. luckily, the bull backed off, but it was a very disturbing experience for all involved. Our 

clients were bothered by the experience and by seeing the negative impacts of grazing on the natural beauty of the 

area, so they wrote a letter to BlM to complain. When I guide my guests on hikes in the GSENM, I always teach them 

about fragile cryptobiotic soils, asking that they be very careful where they walk so that these soils aren't crushed 

allowing soil to erode away. It is disheartening to then encounter an damaged areas that has been totally trampled by 

cattle. Preserving a few areas in a state of recovery without continued grazing allows tourists to better enjoy the natural 

beauty of the Escalante Canyons; these areas serve as a control to understand the impacts of cattle grazing in other 

areas. 

Most of the other allotments are still open to grazing and do not have conflicts with recreationists. If the GSENM is able 

to proceed with appropriate management strategies, ranchers will hopefully see range improvements that will help their 

profitability. Ranchers might also have other opportunities for economic benefits. One possible opportunity would be 

for ranchers to choose to retire grazing on parts of their grazing allotments that have extensive areas of barren slickrock 

sandstone with little or no grazing potential. Such slickrock areas happen to be the destination of most 

tourists. Perhaps environmental groups would be willing to pay ranchers to stop grazing on these unsuitable parts of 

their allotments, benefitting both ranchers and the tourism industry. Like LeFevre, these ranchers could get a muchneeded infusion of cash. Allowing such solutions to occur will be difficult given existing grazing policies, but having an 

Act of Congress interfere with range management in the GSENM would make it impossible to develop creative solutions 

to problems and allow American citizens to use these public lands appropriately. 

I understand that S.365 would require the GSENM to double grazing by using intrusive vegetative management 

techniques of mechanically removing native forest and sagebrush communities and planting non-native grasses. Such 

approaches often fail and require repeated plantings, especially during droughts. The soils in the GSENM are poor, 

mostly wind-blown sand with little nutrients and held together by biological soil crusts (see 

http:Uwww.toxnews.com/science/2015/01/19/barren·deserts-can-host-corn~ 

ecosystems/?intcmp=obmod ffo&intcmp=obnetwork ); being easily eroded, disturbing such fragile soils with heavy 

machinery could be disastrous. For example, the vegetative management areas in the Circle Cliffs region that 1 have 

seen have not done well, requiring repeated plantings, but not showing substantial range improvements. These 
284 


Insert offset folio 343 here 95279.343

treatments are expensive! Have you done a cost-benefit analysis? I don't have the numbers, but would imagine that 

the money would have been better spent just buying hay for the ranchers. I think it would be fiscally irresponsible to 

spend huge amounts of our tax dollars to prop up ranching in an area having marginal grazing conditions at best. We 

are talking about substantial government subsidies that purportedly would benefit one special interest group to the 

detriment of most American citizens and an international tourist industry. The biggest cost would be loss of tourism 

revenues; my guests come to see natural beauty of the area and would be driven away if the area Is bulldozed. 

The major cause of reduction in numbers of livestock grazing in the GSENM is due to years of drought that has caused a 

deterioration of forage; the livestock reduction did not result from detrimental management decisions by the GSENM 

range conservation officers. Typically, ranchers voluntarily reduce livestock number to levels that the range can sustain; 

Senate 365 would require maintaining unsustainable numbers of livestock. What if ranchers don't want to invest in 

more cattle that would end up starving due to lack offorage? Failure to reduce grazing during droughts leads to a loss 

of forage, increased erosion, and long-term damage to range productivity. If the drought ends and the range is allowed 

to recover, then the numbers of livestock grazing can Increase proportionately. Given forecasts for continued drought in 

the southwest, the GSENM Grazing EIS needs to deal with the reality of reduced range productivity. No federal 

legislation can change the weather patterns. Having a bunch of ill-informed Washington DC politicians decide how 

grazing in the GSENM should be managed would sideline the GSENM's Grazing EIS (it includes significant input by !ocal 

ranchers and other stakeholders) that seeks to improve the range conditions; such interference would not help the 

ranchers of Garfield and Kane counties trying to make a living in this difficult landscape. Your short-sighted act would 

certainly damage our tourism economy. 

I think that you should allow the GSENM's Grazing EIS to proceed and see how well the new management plan 

works. Hopefully, their scientific analyses of how to best manage grazing will lead to improved range conditions that will 

benefit ranchers. Without your interference, our tourism economy will continue to prosper without federal 

subsidies. You and your colleagues in the Senate do not have the time nor the ability to come up with appropriate 

range management strategies. Please withdraw Act 5. 365 until the GSENM's Grazing EIS has been completed and given 

a chance to make necessary range improvements. 

Please let me know that you have received this e-mail and that it will be included as part of the hearing record. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. Keith Watts 

Boulder, Utah 

www .earth-tours.com 

435-335-7545 
285 


Insert offset folio 344 here 95279.344

From: Bill Wolverton 

Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 7:00PM 

To: David Brooks 

Subject: Senate Bill 365 

To: Senate Energy and Natural Resomces Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining 

Subject: Senate Bill 365 

I recently wrote a letter to Senator Hatch regarding the above subject bill, to which I never received a response. 

Following are the principle elements of my letter. Please add these comments to the record for the hearing on 

the bill. 

I hate having to write these sort of things. I really vvish it wasn't necessary. 

Senator Hatch's attempt to mandate that grazing levels in the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument 

be restored to pre-monument levels is completely unwarranted meddling and micromanaging, bypassing the 

agency that is supposed to manage public lands grazing. I am absolutely outraged. 

Some pertinent facts: 

Utah is the second driest state in the United States, and most of it is desert that is largely unsuitable for cattle in 

the first place. 

Vegetation growth- "forage" production- is directly related to rainfalL No rainfall, no forage. 

The entire southwest, including Utah, has been in a state of drought for much of the last 15 or so years. 

Senator Hatch must not be aware of these things or he would not have introduced this bill. There is no amount 

of mechanical vegetative manipulation that will increase the amount of rainfall. 

I doubt that he or any of you are aware that a citizens effort to determine actual stocking levels of several 

grazing allotments in the GSENM has been made by actually going out and counting all of the cows that could 

be found, and that it has become clear that some allotments are not being fully stocked to the levels authorized 

by their permits, apparently because the permit holders recognize that conditions do not permit any more. 

Despite that, they are still reporting to BLM that they are fi.dly stocking the allotments and paying their grazing 

fees as if the allotments were fully stocked, apparently in a fraudulent effort to maintain the apparent value of 

the allotments to potential buyers of the permits. Of course we can only speculate as to the motivation for this. I 

have participated in these "cow counts" several times. 
286 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 345 here 95279.345

And despite the fact that some allotments are not being fully stocked, other areas continue to be grossly abused 

by overuse. 

Senator Hatch has a great deal of disdain for the monument, "The mother of all land grabs", as he so ignorantly 

and foolishly characterized it right after it was designated, as if [t was somehow taken away from someone, 

despite the fact that ownership did not change one iota. I can only see this uncalled for interference in grazing 

management as some sort of attempt at revenge. 

I don't know just what the intent is, but if! interpret this bill correctly, it could lead to even the Escalante River 

being opened back up to the abuse of cattle grazing, which is absolutely appalling. The Escalante is a world 

class treasure. People come from all over this country and even a few from other countries to visit it for its 

natural and recreatinnal values. That was how I first came here over 36 years ago, while living in California. 

And I couldn't get enough of it so I had to move here almost 29 years ago. People don't come here to see just 

another stinking barnyard littered with cow pies and trampled, beaten, and eaten, with many of the best 

campsites rendered unfit for human use by the cow pies. The Escalante's natural and recreational values far 

exceed any possible value as a cow pasture, and the damage done by nearly a century of such abuse has largely 

faded since 2000 when the cows were evicted. I assure you there will be a huge public outcry if this 

unwarranted meddling in grazing management leads to the river being turned over to cows again. I have spent 

many hours out there over the years cleaning up and burning the cow pies in some of the best campsites in order 

to make tl1emlit for human use. 

You may also not be aware that millions of dollars of mostly private money have been spent in tbe last several 

years in getting rid of invasive Russian Olive trees along the Escalante, along with other aspects of restoration 

of the river and its watershed. To compel grazing to resume on the river would make an absolute mockery of 

these efforts. I started the Russian Olive removal effort personally in 2000 while working as a back country 

ranger for Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. I devoted 12 years to it, and eliminated the Russian Olive 

from fully half of the river- 42 IZ2miles- betore retiring, so naturally I have a very substantial vested interest 

in seeing the river restored. I will not stand to see it ovemm by cows again and will do everything in my power 

to see that it doesn't happen. 

You may also not be aware that the cows were not actually "evicted" from the Escalante River through any 

adverse action by BLM. That was accomplished by a very complex series of negotiations between the Grand 

Canyon Trust and the ranchers involved in order to find them more suitable land elsewhere on which to 

continue their operations. No one had their grazing privileges (NOT "rights") taken away. 

Keep your hands of the GSENM -leave it alone and let BLM do their job. Their biggest failing is in not doing 

nearly enough to limit the grazing abUlle to a level that the resources can sustain. 

William H. Wolverton 

Escalante, UT