Coalition Letter on the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act

 November 7, 2007 

The Honorable Nick Rahall                                                                The Honorable Don Young

Chairman                                                                                                         Ranking Member

House Committee on Natural Resources                         House Committee on Natural Resources

1324 Longworth House Office Building                          1329 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515                                                                           Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young:  

We are concerned about wilderness legislation recently introduced by Representative Mary Bono: H.R. 3682, the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act.  As you know, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands is planning to hold a hearing on this legislation on November 13, 2007. 

H.R 3682 would designate certain federal lands in Riverside County, California as wilderness and it would designate certain river segments in Riverside County as a wild, scenic, or recreational river. We believe that this bill, if passed, would unduly restrict public access and recreation in this area.  We also believe that the numerous wilderness additions and proposed designations contained within the legislation need to be fully evaluated and vetted with the local public and interested citizens. 

Overall, a wilderness designation is the most restrictive form of designation the federal government can employ.  By definition, wilderness designations do not allow mechanized vehicles in the area, including bicycles and wheelchairs.  As a result, these restrictions effectively deny access to whole categories of citizens who have a right to use public lands and discriminates against certain constituencies by locking them out of these areas. 

Often, wilderness proposals create burdensome regulations and too many restrictions on the land that go far beyond what is necessary and unduly restrict access to the public.  In addition, wilderness legislation affecting public lands usually does not make an allowance for input from local communities and those who use and depend on these resources for commerce and recreation.  We hope that you will consider these points for all wilderness designations legislation that comes before the Committee. 

While Representative Bono added language to H.R. 3682 to permit tree removal and other fire prevention work to lessen the danger to communities that are located close to the proposed wilderness areas, the U.S. Forest Service has inadequate funding to properly manage wilderness areas with prescribed burning and mechanical thinning of vegetation. Regardless of the fire prevention language in this bill, we are concerned that the red tape and environmental review processes are so prohibitively difficult that it is likely that this fire prevention work will not actually be done. As a result, we are very concerned that this bill could negatively impact the ability to fight and prevent forest fires in that Southern California area. 

We urge you to be prudent in your actions by carefully considering all wilderness designation bills introduced this session. In particular, we urge you to consider our concerns with H.R. 3682.  

Sincerely, 

XXX

CC: U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein

U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer

California Congressional Delegation

U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva

U.S. Representative Rob Bishop

U.S. Representative Chris Cannon 

The threats to Western business from Washington, D.C. continue to multiply.  I hope this month's Capitol

 Intelligence report from our DC office helps keep you up-to-date on some key issues you may want to follow.

EXTREME EXPANSION OF CLEAN WATER ACT CONTINUES TO GAIN                                                               
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        
   One of the largest threats to the West introduced so far in this Congress is the innocuously titled "Clean Water  Restoration Act of 2007,"  H.R. 2421.  Introduced by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James   Oberstar (D-MI), this proposal would expand federal control over every possible type of water body, puddle, moist land area, man-made waterway, storage facility, conveyance system, holding facility, or re-regulating reservoir.  By changing the definition of "waters of the United States," this bill would expand federal regulation to everything from swimming pools and hot tubs to stock watering ponds on private property.  Additionally, any use of land that impacts on any of these waters will come under regulation and subject the landowner to fines and environmental    activist lawsuits.                                                                     
   This bill will be a boon to environmental lawyers.  It would be an unmitigated disaster for virtually every economic activity in the American West. Unfortunately, it now has 171 cosponsors in the U.S. House.  Companion legislation in the Senate (S. 1870) is now cosponsored by nearly one-fifth of the Senate.                                                                       

   Another hearing on the Oberstar's Clean Water Act Amendments (H.R. 1356) is scheduled for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Oct. 18, which is also the 35th anniversary of the Act.                                                                                                                          
   The Roundtable and our grassroots allied groups are going to be working hard against this bill.  We highly recommend   that you keep this one on your radar screen
                                                                                                                        
   ACTIVITY ON CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION               
                                                                                                                        
   Congress is set to take up climate change legislation that will have broad ramifications for the energy industry and  America's economy. While a handful of competing climate bills have been circulating on Capitol Hill the past couple of years, Congressional leadership has decided that now is the time for action   Among the most prominent pieces of climate change legislation in the Senate is a proposal, not yet formally introduced, by Senators Joe Lieberman (CT) and John Warner (VA) that would cap greenhouse-gas emissions in 2012 at the 2005 levels and reduce this amount by 70 percent by 2050. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is expected to mark up the Lieberman cap-and-trade bill next month in the Global Warming Subcommittee that Lieberman chairs. Lieberman has said he expects a Senate floor debate on cap-and-trade either late this year or early next. Another Senate bill that seems to have picked up steam is a measure sponsored by Senators Jeff Bingaman (NM) and
   Arlen Specter (PA) that would reduce emissions to 2006 levels by 2020 and 1990 levels a decade later

   Senior Senate staffers are attempting to pursue a course of action where three titles for the Senate climate package will move through three different committees. Under this scenario, the emissions-reduction mandate would come out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, while a section on technology and emission verification standards   would emerge from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources panel. The setup for credit allocations and revenue   distribution, particularly through an auction, would come out of the Senate Finance Committee.                       
                                                                                                                        
   NEW CLIMATE CHANGE PROPOSALS                                                                                         
                                                                                                                        
 This week Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (MI) instigated the House's first big step into the debate by offering a proposal that would impose a tax on Americans' use of fossil fuels. Dingell's proposal includes a 50-cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes; and a $50-per-ton tax on carbon released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas. The tax would be phased in over five years, and then adjusted for inflation.                                                                              
                                                                                                                        
   Dingell and Rep. Rick Boucher (VA), the chairman of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, have also just released a white paper outlining their thoughts on an "aggressive" target to cap greenhouse gas emissions by about 60 percent to 80 percent below current levels by 2050. However, Boucher has indicated the pending energy conference is likely to delay efforts to bring a cap-and-trade bill to the House floor.                                               
                                                                                                                        
   NEW FISCAL YEAR STARTS AND APPROPRIATIONS SHOWDOWN LOOMS                             
                                                                                                                        
 The 2008 appropriations outlook is a little foggy at this point. While the House has passed all 12 annual spending bills, the Senate has only signed off on four, and none of those have gone to conference. In other words, Congress   has yet to send the President a single fiscal 2008 appropriations bill.
   After accounting for the week-long Columbus Day recess, the Senate will have six legislative weeks to pass and conference appropriations bills before the Thanksgiving recess. With four spending bills currently awaiting a  conference markup, and given the Democrats' stated intention to move the 12 appropriations bills individually, a lot of work still needs to be one.
   Complicating matters, President Bush has threatened to veto a number of appropriations bills that exceed the spending levels in the administration's FY08 budget request. The first veto could come as early as this month if the White House and Congressional Democrats hold their ground on their respective spending priorities. It takes 290 votes to override a presidential veto in the House and 67 in the Senate.   The veto threats of individual bills may become irrelevant if House and Senate Democratic leaders ultimately decide  to move pending appropriations bills via smaller combinations of bills or through an omnibus package. These so-called “omnibus bills" combine several appropriations bills into one large piece of legislation and have been widely   criticized in Congress and by outsiders because they are so large  and complex it is virtually impossible to   scrutinize what goes into them before they are passed.                                                               
 Due to the expected budget impasse, the federal government is operating in a continuing resolution (temporary   spending measure) to avoid a government shutdown until Congress and the President can agree on new spending bills.  Both sides are working behind the scenes to develop a PR strategy for the coming budget/veto showdown. Having a vote on individual bills packed with popular programs will help Democrats make their case as opposed to a giant omnibus where the spending priorities can be harder to define.                                                              
 Democrats are trying to figure out which combination of individual bills, an omnibus or various "minibuses," maximize their leverage against the President. Democrats do not appear eager to see a bloody fight that shuts down the   government. There is a widespread sentiment that they don't want to take this to a government shutdown and make it the focus of the fall. Republicans, on the other hand, have repeatedly said they are eager for the coming battle because they see it as an opportunity to regain the brand as the party of fiscal conservatism and tag Democrats as   tax-and spenders.

                                                                
   SPECIFIC FUNDING LEVELS IN HOUSE-PASSED BILLS                                                                        
                                                                                                                        
   The House approved the FY 2008 Department of the Interior and Environment appropriations bill (H.R. 2643) on June 27. The Senate still has not voted on its Interior Appropriations bill. H.R. 2643 would provide federal land managers   with significantly more money than the Bush administration requested. The House passed the $27.6 billion spending bill by a vote of 272-155, despite a threat from the White House to veto the bill because it exceeds the president's budgetary request by 2.1 billion.                                                                                    
 The bill boosts spending on the Department of the Interior $454 million over the administration's request to $10.1 billion. Nearly $2.6 billion is set aside for the U.S. Forest Service which represents more than $350million more than requested by the President. The bill also provides $8.1 billion for the EPA - a $900 million boost above President Bush's request of $7.2 billion. Also in the bill:  The BLM would receive about $26 million above last year's total.                                               
The Fish & Wildlife Service and its endangered species accounts would receive $79 million more than last year.
The MMS would be roughly even with fiscal 2007 levels.                                                         
 The Office of Surface Mining would get $1.8 million above the administration's request.                        
 The U.S. Geological Survey would get $58 million above the administration's request.  Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) would get $253 million, up from the $190 million requested by the White House. 
 The bill includes language that would forbid the expenditure of any money from the appropriations bill for the construction of roads for timber sales in the Tongass National Forest.                                         
 The bill also maintains longstanding moratoria on energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf carried since the mid-1980s.  The bill also contains a Udall oil shale amendment to prohibit BLM from issuing final regulations for commercial oil shale leases on public lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming in fiscal 2008.
   In sum: It appears that we will not know the status of the final appropriations numbers until the latter part of November or early part of December at the earliest. But unlike in years past, there is a larger threat of a Presidential veto of an omnibus spending bill which is casting a fair amount of uncertainty over the whole process.  
                                                                                                                        
 UPDATE ON WILDERNESS LEGISLATION                                                                                     
                                                                                                                        
  Democratic control of both bodies of Congress means wilderness will be a much more active topic in the 110th Congress. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), the Chairmen of the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committees, are both supporters of wilderness designations.  There are numerous wilderness designation bills introduced each session of Congress. Some of the more significant examples in the 110th Congress include the following bills.                                                          
 H.R. 1975, introduced by Rep. Maloney of New York. This legislation would designate roughly 15,000,000 acres of public land in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming as wilderness. The legislation was not supported by any members of Congress from Idaho, Wyoming or Montana and only six members from Washington and Oregon  support the bill
   H.R. 1919/S. 1170, the "America's Red Rock Wilderness Act" would lock up millions of acres of land and would likely destroy the economy of rural Utah. In the 110th Congress these measures have acquired 147 House and 18 Senate cosponsors. The vast majority of cosponsors were from Eastern, non-public land states.                  
 The Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act, H.R. 39, is sponsored by Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Jim Ramstad  (R-MN). No members of the Alaska delegation support this bill. The legislation would designate the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness thereby permanently eliminating access to the areas estimated 10 billion barrels of oil. This bill currently has 141 cosponsors in the House. Bills to allow limited energy development in this area have passed the House 10 times in previous Congressional sessions, but these measures have all been turned back by the Senate.                                                        
  Rep. Diane DeGette announced last month that she will introduce the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2007, which would put 1.65 million acres of public land in Colorado, including the Roan Plateau, under the most stringent ”hands-off" land policies our country can impose.                                                              
 S. 493/H.R. 860, introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA) and Rep. Hilda Solis (CA-32), would lock up 2.4 million acres of public lands in California.                                                                           
                                                                                                                        
  PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILT) UNDERFUNDED ... AGAIN                                                                
                                                                                                                        
    PILT funding has faced an uphill battle in recent years. It is routinely short-changed through the Congressional   appropriations process.                                                                                              
 This year is a perfect example. To fully fund PILT for FY 2008 would require roughly $350 million. President Bush's   2008 budget request for PILT was just $190 million - representing a $42 million cut over last year's enacted amount.  To date, efforts to get PILT appropriations included in Congressional funding packages – including the Fiscal 2007 emergency appropriations legislation, the 2008 Interior Appropriations bill and a pending tax package – have all failed

IDAHO RECREATION COUNCIL 

Press Release

For Immediate Release

Contact:  Sandra Mitchell, (208) 424-3870 

NEW DATA SHOWS VIRTUALLY NO SUPPORT FOR CIEDRA IN CUSTER AND LEMHI COUNTIES

Boise, Idaho (August 9, 2007)  New research in Custer and Lemhi Counties shows that 83% of the citizens of those two counties oppose the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA), also known as the Boulder White Clouds wilderness bill, according to Chris Cook, a member of the Idaho Recreation Council’s (IRC) Steering Committee. 

            “We had the sense that there was strong local concern about this wilderness proposal, but we were shocked with the overwhelming opposition and especially the intensity of the opposition,” said Cook.  “The people who are most affected by this bill, the citizens of Custer and Lemhi counties, have spoken very clearly on this issue and they don’t want more wilderness in their backyard.” 

            The poll was conducted by the highly respected Tarrance Group based in Alexandria, Virginia.  The firm has a long history of accurately gauging public opinion and campaign outcomes in Idaho.  The data is the results of surveys with 400 registered “likely” voters in Custer and Lemhi Counties on July 31-August 1, 2007. 

            “Congressman Simpson has stated that he has support at the local level for this legislation, yet one of the most substantial pieces of research ever done in the region by  one of the best pollsters in the country shows that the local community opposes the bill or any other wilderness designation in their counties,” Cook added. 

            In answering the polling question “Do you favor or oppose this CIEDRA proposal?” 83% opposed CIEDRA and 70% strongly opposed the measure, a sign of the intensity of displeasure with the proposed legislation.  Only 10% supported and 7% were unsure or did not respond. 

            Cook said he was hopeful that the local County Commissioners and Congressman Simpson would reconsider the legislation and find other ways to help the local economy. 

            “The research shows that people want to recreate in a wide variety of ways in the Boulder White Clouds.  We believe that these recreation opportunities should continue and will enhance the economic base of these counties,” Cook said. 

            For more information about the poll or additional questions about CIEDRA and recreation, contact Sandra Mitchell at (208) 424-3870. 

CIEDRA, When Does Perseverance Become Obsession?

I feel compelled to respond to the August 16 Journal editorial titled “Two wilderness bills Require Perseverance”.  While Senator Crapo’s Owyhee initiative has similar problems, I will address only Simpson’s Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA). 

“Someday, when Mike Simpson’s grandkids are growing old” they will be able to enjoy the beautiful Boulder White Clouds, not because their ancestor succeeded in his misdirected effort to make it wilderness, but because they are still protected as part of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and well managed under the existing laws by the Forest Service.  They will be able to enjoy them because their well-meaning ancestor failed in his efforts to designate three unnecessary wildernesses and they are still able to access them by means within their physical ability or desires. 

Simpson has had a difficult path as author of this bill because it is a bad bill, giving away our public lands and making hollow promises of our tax dollars for grants and projects that may never be appropriated in exchange for three wildernesses that will likely make the economic stress on the involved counties and communities worse than it is now.  The coalition Simpson trying to hold together is fragile because it is not supported by the people most affected by it, the recreationists who use the Boulders and the citizens of the counties where they are located.  A recent poll shows that fully 83% of the people in Custer and Lemhi Counties oppose CIEDRA; 70% of these folks placed their opposition in the “strongly oppose” column.  To make the bill’s support even more dicey, according to Scott Phillips, a retired Forest Service employee, “the bill has strong opposition from 47 conservation groups nationally, 15 of which are from Idaho.”  Add to this opposition from the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Idaho State Snowmobile Association and Idaho Recreation Council and you don’t have much of a coalition. 

Yes the mountains and lakes are beautiful; the scenery of the Boulder White Cloud area is breathtaking.  This is the case now, after thirty years of good management and after use by a variety of recreationists, and will remain that case in the future without CIEDRA.  It has been seen and enjoyed by thousands of people traveling on foot, horseback, mountain bikes, snowmobiles and more.  Why should these people not be able to share those experiences with their grandchildren?  After all these years of managed use the land has lost neither its beauty nor wild character.  Why in the world would we want to place it off limits to most of these people? 

Wilderness is not about recreation and is not about beauty.  Its purpose is to preserve wild and pristine areas from the impacts of humans and development.  Low levels of primitive types of recreation are allowed, but only if they do not adversely affect the wilderness character.  Fire, the primary force by which nature affects the land and its community of life, must be allowed to play its natural role if we are to truly have wilderness.  The standards for wilderness qualification are high, and nearly 1/3^rd of the 319,000 acres proposed for wilderness designation in CIEDRA were found by the managing agency to be unsuitable.  That doesn’t mean that they aren’t awe inspiring, but it does mean that they indeed are substandard for wilderness.  By designating them as wilderness we are lowering the bar for all wildernesses, including the real jewels of the system, such as the Frank Church River of No Return and Selway-Bitterroot. 

Congressman Simpson has indeed persevered in his push to pass CIEDRA, but it is time that he take a good look at this measure and recognize that his perseverance has become obsession.  He needs to look for other, more constructive ways to help economically stressed counties with large proportions of federal land throughout the west.  Thank you Congressman, but the Boulder White Clouds are doing quite nicely as they are.

FISHER SUGGESTS SIMPSON SHOULD IGNORE CUSTER AND LEMHI CITIZENS ON CIEDRA

Jim Fisher suggests that the wishes of the citizens of Custer and Lemhi Counties don’t really count when it comes to the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA);  a.k.a. the 319,000 acre Boulder White Clouds wilderness bill.  He suggests that Congressman Simpson should ignore the research that found 83% of the people in those two counties oppose CIEDRA. 

 Our polling was some of the most comprehensive ever done on wilderness and CIEDRA.  A sample of 400 was taken in a two county area on July 31 and August 1.  The combined population of Custer and Lemhi counties is about 12,000 people.  Most statewide studies, including the one touted by the Idaho Conservation League, sample 400-500 individuals to determine the attitudes of 1.4 million.

We shared our data with the Congressional Delegation, the Governor’s office, the media, and others.  Even media outlets who reviewed the material grudgingly admitted the data was solid.  

The reason we focused our efforts on Custer and Lemhi is because Congressman Simpson has boasted that CIEDRA has local support.  Looking at the results of the poll that simply isn’t true.  The vast majority of citizens who live, work and play in the area that has the most to gain financially from the giveaways in CIEDRA, don’t like the bill. 

There are many things that one can say about CIEDRA but the one thing that can’t be said any longer is that CIEDRA is supported by the fine, hardworking people in Custer County. 

The fact that you are supporting a wilderness bill is no surprise, however,  Jim, as I recall you were one of the loudest critics when it was proposed that public land be sold.  CIEDRA gives away public land.   Where is the outrage?

Further more, you have been around the legislative process long enough to know that there is no guarantee that the promises of cash and land in the bill will ever happen.  All you have to do is look at the recently created Steens Wilderness in Oregon to get the picture.  When it was created, there was a promise of $25,000,000 in cash to buy out inn holders and for implementation.  That was promised in 2000.  There has still not been a dime appropriated.  But the Steens wilderness of 174,000 is firmly in place. 

Suggesting that the Idaho Recreation Council is some tiny little insignificant part of the Idaho population is just wishful thinking on your part Jim.  The truth is there are over 250,000 licensed motorized recreation vehicles and thousands of mountain bikes in Idaho that are used by tens of thousand of our members across the state.  Every region in Idaho has a substantial, organized motorized or mechanized recreation group that is part of our Council.  And our member’s recreation activities represent millions of dollars in economic activity throughout the state each year. 

It is appropriate that all Idahoans debate every piece of legislation that impacts them whether they do it as an individual or as a part of a group.  It is the hope of the membership of the Idaho Recreation Council that elected officials  pay attention to the tidal wave of opposition staring them in the face.  You might also be interested to know that according to Scotty Phillips in a recent editorial that appeared in the Challis Messenger, “CIEDRA has strong opposition from 476 conservation groups nationally, 15 of which are from Idaho.”  

The research shows that the people of Custer and Lemhi counties are fed up with the federal government, wilderness, and CIEDRA.  If the numbers had show 50% or 60% there might be an issue of divided support.  But 83% said they opposed CIEDRA, 70% of them strongly opposed it. 

The only way this bill becomes law is if Congressman Simpson completely ignores the wishes of the people most affected by this wilderness designation-the citizens of Custer and Lemhi counties.

SAWS Editorial:   The Sound of Silence

August 23, 2007
If you've ever experienced the silence following an avalanche, you know how heart shattering that can be.  How about the silence that follows when your buddy takes out a tree or has left the path you expected to see him on? Silence of snowmobile engines as they travel into the distance can be calming or invigorating because you know the riders are heading off for a good time.  Silence of machines being shut down when it's time for a break to take in the beauty surrounding you and be thankful for just how lucky you are to be able to experience where you are at.  Sometimes silence can be very peaceful, sometimes frightening and other times just downright dangerous.

You've all heard "silent but deadly" in one context or another and "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".  It's time to get real squeaky!  Silence will be deadly to recreation as we know it if you as a motorized recreationist don't start speaking up for yourself.  There is a mass of storm clouds hovering above snowmobilers and other motorized recreationists and unfortunately it's not the storm cloud that brings in the deep white snow that snowmobilers anxiously await.   Time is growing short to take a pro-active stance to contact your state representatives and senators on actions pending in Congress, forest service staff regarding travel and forest revision plans, BLM managers and other land agents.  Speak up now or you may not have the chance to do so again.

You are not alone when you ask "what good does this do”?  The good comes from becoming part of the solution rather than the apathetic part of the problem, have your individual voice heard.  We can all bet the anti-access movement has their voices heard day in and day out.  Just check out a wilderness search on-line.  You will find dozens of anti access groups that are continually pummeling the powers that be to eliminate access to the public, especially snowmobiling and other motorized access.  If you are a student, use your academic resources to promote access.  The anti's use this tool all of the time to compile data showing how detrimental snowmobilers and motorized recreationists are to the environment.  You are right when you say or think, writing federal, state and local government officials, the Forest Service about revision of forest and travel plans, the BLM, and other natural resource entities about the many land access issues seems never ending – that is because it is never ending! It would be nice if with one quick, fell swoop we could just say or write our view once and have it done.  It doesn't work that way.

WE will be our own worst enemy if we choose to be silent.  Realistically, you can't be heard on every single issue but you can be heard on what you will take the time to make your view known on. You have the power to make a difference with your opinion but the only way that happens is when you make it known to the representatives and senators, government officials and land management directors making the decisions that will affect the future of access.  Hashing out issues amongst ourselves helps to spread the word and hopefully bring on those who may have never looked at this as a serious matter of concern before.  It shouldn't stop there.  Once you've hashed over the issues amongst your friends, family and associates write it down and send it to someone who can use that information to make a difference.  Get your snowmobile friends to take a serious look at the SAWS website, their local pro-access groups, and the state and national groups that are available to them for information  and help.  Most of us have experienced firsthand the end of access to an area we were once allowed to recreate in.  That's usually when the blocked access issue becomes real to us because that "enviro movement just hit the back yard". There are more barriers ahead, especially if we remain silent and thought of as fools.

Recreational activities we presently enjoy including snowmobiling will be subject to various congressional actions that if passed promise significant impact on many activities.  There will be a ripple effect felt far-reaching to the non-motorized activities many of us enjoy as well. Whether you are just a recreational snowmobiler or make your living from the sport, take the time to look at just a few of the key issues facing all of us by going to the SAWS organization website http://www.snowmobile-alliance.org or you can also check the http://www.arra-access.com  website which is one of the few pro-access resources for Federal Legislative Updates or Regional Access issues.  You'll see what is at stake.  Pass the information on to get more people involved.  It's important that you contact your state representatives and senators to let them know what your view point is.


Janine Stewart
Montana SAWS Representative
Snowmobile Alliance of Western States

Dear Federal Parks & Rec Subscriber:
 
August 3, 2007: Below  is the most recent issue of the newsletter FederalParks & Recreation (Volume 25 Number 15) We thank you for reading Federal Parks & Recreation.

The Editors

FEDERAL PARKS & RECREATION

VOLUME 25 NUMBER 15

AUGUST 3, 2007

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Parks & Recreation is published by Resources Publishing Co., P.O. BOX 41320, Arlington, VA 22204.  EIN 52-1363538.  Phone (703) 553-0552.  FAX (703) 553-0558.  E-mail james.b.coffin@verizon.net.  Website: http://www.plnfpr.com.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this issue. . .

HOUSE APPROVES EIGHTMILE RIVER.  Dems overcome GOP complaints about condemnation threat in wild river bill, barely.

Page 1

DEMs: FED FEES FOR CENTENNIAL.  House bill competes with Bush plan to establish partnership.  DoI would charge users.

Page 2

FS MOVING ON REC SITE REVIEW.  Action plan would require public involvement at every step.

Page 3

HILL PREPS NEW HIGHWAY GIVEBACKS.  House would make proportionate for all.  Senate wouldn't.

Page 4

LAVERTY NOMINATION GAINS A BIT.  Two Senate committees approve, but Wyden 'hold' blocks.

Page 5

HILL MOVES TO OVERCOME RAPANOS.  Bill would require wetlands permit for all waters.

PAGE 6

CONGRESS FINISHING OFF WRDA.  Final bill includes Everglades projects, other rec tasks.

Page 8

SENATE PANEL MOVES ON NHAs.  Approves national standards bill as well as specific bills.

Page 9

FARM BILL NOW IN SENATE HANDS.  House includes most provisions requested by sportsmen.

Page 10

COURT BARS RS 2477 STRATEGY.  Says private interests can't claim ROW through Death Valley.

Page 12

NOTES.

Page 13

CONFERENCE CALENDAR.

Page 14

HOUSE OKAYS WILD RIVER BILL, DESPITE CONDEMNATION DISPUTE

     House Democrats this week put down a Republican rebellion over private property rights and approved legislation (HR 986) to designate an Eightmile Wild and Scenic River in Connecticut.  The vote was 253-to-172.

     On July 11 Republicans successfully prevented passage of the bill under a floor procedure requiring a two-thirds majority.  The measure received only 239 yes votes and 173 no votes.  But on July 31 the Democratic leadership brought HR 986 to the floor under a procedure requiring only a majority vote for passage, and succeeded.

     Opposition Republicans argued that HR 986 could lead to condemnation of private land because language in the underlying Wild and Scenic Rivers Act allowing condemnation would supersede language in HR 986 forbidding condemnation.

     So Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Calif.) offered an amendment to cut off condemnation money that was defeated 200-to-225.

     "We asked that it simply read that no Federal funds be used to condemn land to carry out the purpose of that act," said Bishop.  "Every Democrat, from the sponsor to the committee, said that was indeed their goal."

     In countering HR 986 the Republicans linked the threat of condemnation implicit in HR 986 to the threat to private property posed by a landmark Kelo Supreme Court decision.

     In Kelo v. New Haven the Supreme Court on July 23, 2005, upheld the right of the city of New London, Conn., to condemn private land to make way for a private developer to build on.  The decision has become a major cause for conservatives, and many liberals too.

     Said Rep. Stevan Pearce (R-N.M.), "The Supreme Court recently in the Kelo decision said that governments can, in fact, take private property and redistribute it to another private firm.  That is what is at stake both left and right.  Both agreed in this circumstance."

     But supporters of the bill, led by House subcommittee on National Parks Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-N.M.), said the measure provides no condemnation authority, explicit or implicit.   "Twice in the legislation it is reaffirmed that condemnation is not part of the process, that there must be willing consent on the part of property owners," he said.  "There is no real problem in that.  The Bush administration understands it, the Republican Governor of Connecticut understands this, the affected local communities understand this."

     HR 986 is supported by the entire Connecticut Congressional delegation, the Republican governor of Connecticut and local government officials.  Connecticut Sens. Chris Dodd (D) and Joseph Lieberman (I) have introduced a counterpart bill (S 553.)  The Senate Energy Committee approved it June 26 without opposition.  S 553 is now pending on the Senate floor.

     As the House Eightmile bill appeared on the floor, it would attempt to limit condemnation authority from unwilling sellers.  It says, "The authority of the Secretary to acquire lands for the purposes of this Act shall be limited to acquisition by donation or acquisition with the consent of the owner thereof, and shall be subject to the additional criteria set forth in the Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan."

     But House Natural Resources Committee Republicans say the bill could become entwined with local actions by towns along the river and open the way for those communities to condemn land.  "Since H.R. 986 is silent on what the Secretary of the Interior's authority will be when these same regulations are locally amended, it may trigger the National Park Service's ability to condemn land within the river corridor," said the committee Republicans in a minority report on HR 986.

     The bill would designate 25.3 miles of the Eightmile River and its tributaries as a scenic river.  The Park Service supports the designation

based upon a study conducted under a 2001 study law.

DEMs WOULD HELP PAY FOR CENTENNIAL WITH FEDERAL FEES

     Democratic leaders in the House Natural Resources Committee introduced legislation (HR 3094) recently that would use fees on commercial users of federal lands to raise $1 billion for the Park Service's Centennial in 2016.

     The bill would compete directly with a Bush administration proposal to raise $2 billion from a Centennial Challenge program that would match private contributions with guaranteed federal money.  For every $1 contributed by private interests, the Challenge program would guarantee another $1 in automatic appropriations each year.

     The Democratic bill, however, would take $100 million per year in fees out of the hide of commercial uses of the public lands.  HR 3094, introduced by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Joe Rahall (D-W.Va.) and House subcommittee on National Parks Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-N.M.), does not specify what commercial operations should be assessed fees.

     Both the administration proposal and the House Democratic proposal would provide money to upgrade the National Park System as it approaches its 100th Anniversary.

     Said Rahall on introducing HR 3094 July 19, "This bill will provide the funding increase our parks deserve, and will equip the National Park Service with a host of new tools to inspire young people, encourage diversity and professional development, respond to climate change, and lead conservation efforts by example."

     Unlike the administration the House Democrats would not tie the new federal fees to partnership donations.  However, the Democrats would not discourage donations.

     Grijalva and Rahall would allocate 30 percent of revenue to capital improvement, 30 percent to education in the parks, 10 percent to diversity in the parks, 10 percent to professional development of employees, 10 percent to environmental leadership and 10 percent to natural resource protection.

     HR 3094 would leave it up to the Interior Department to decide who should pay.  It says the secretary of Interior "shall promulgate regulations to establish new fees or fee increases for commercial activities, including leases, on Federal lands administered by the Secretary.  Such fee or fee increases shall apply to any commercial activity, including leases, in effect" when regulations are written.

     Claire Moseley, executive director of Public Lands Advocacy, an oil and gas industry alliance, said Congress should use Park Service fees to pay for national park improvements, not fees on her industry.  "I think that parks ought to pay for parks," she said.  "The people who use the forests and BLM lands, even for recreation, should not have to pay for the centennial.  Even when I drive through Yellowstone, even though I'm not visiting, I have to pay $20."

     The $100 million levy in the national parks centennial bill surfaces at the same time as a separate proposal from House Natural Resources Committee Democrats to provide $4 billion for western counties. 

     The Secure Rural Schools bill (HR 3058) is designed to help counties that used to receive income from timber sales.  It would raise the $4 billion from commercial users in the Interior Department and the Forest Service.  Like the Centennial bill the county bill does not specify what users would pay what fees. 

     The administration's Centennial Challenge proposal would raise up to $200 million per year (and $2 billion over 20 years) with half the money coming from private contributions and half coming from matching automatic appropriations.  The administration bill has been introduced as S 1253 and HR 2959.  Both the Senate Energy Committee and House Natural Resources Committee held hearings on the bills August 2.

     Although details on possible Park Service Centennial Initiative projects won't be known until the Interior Department identifies them August 25, the Interior Department offered strong hints May 31.

     In a Vision for the Future report submitted to President Bush, Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne and NPS Director Mary Bomar laid out five overarching goals for the next 10 years - improve stewardship, provide recreational experience, provide environmental leadership, teach Americans about the parks, and inculcate professional excellence among NPS employees.

FS MOVING ON REC SITE REVIEW WITH ACTION PLAN, WEBSITE 

     The Forest Service has taken several steps in recent days to clarify the public's role in the agency's ongoing review of recreation facilities. 

     Critics have charged the service was not consulting with the public in the review before making decisions to close hundreds of campgrounds.

     In response the Forest Service July 25 posted a new action plan that directs field offices that are preparing Recreation Site Facility Master Planning (RS-FMP) to consult with the public every step of the way.

     Forest Service officials said field offices will make no internal decisions on the future of campgrounds before the public is clued in.  "That may have happened in the past but since October of last year we have provided strong direction to recreation officials to make sure the public is involved early before they got too far down the pike," said Francisco Valenzuela, developed recreation program leader for the Forest Service.

     When it was noted that the action plan infers the public will not be fully consulted on takeoff by saying "the public is involved through survey results and demographic information," Valenzuela said, "There is no first cut at that point." 

     The action plan also does away with the cumbersome Recreation Site Facility Master Planning nomenclature by renaming it Recreational Facility Analysis.

     In a separate action July 25 Forest Service Chief Abigail Kimbell reaffirmed to field leaders the agency's intention to consult the public throughout the Recreational Facility Analysis.  Kimbell also extended the deadline for forests to complete plans under the process to Dec. 31, 2008.

     Critics contend that the RS-FMP process is just a cover for the closure of campgrounds and other recreation facility sites that don't make money.  The service counters that the RS-FMP is a process, in Kimbell's words, to "collectively determine the needs for forest recreation facilities to meet future demands - all with a goal to improve the recreation experience."

      The Forest Service said the Washington office recreation staff would complete a management strategy to conform to the action plan on August 25.  Finally, on July 30 the service informed us it has added new information on the RS-FMP process to its website at http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/rfa/index.shtml. 

CONGRESS MOUNTING FOURTH SET OF HIGHWAY GIVEBACKS

     The House and Senate are preparing to impose a fourth round of highway program rescissions on states in a fiscal year 2008 Transportation appropriations bill.

     However, the House in approving its bill (HR 3074) July 24 voted 217-to-201 to provide some protection to the transportation enhancements program by requiring that givebacks be apportioned equally among all programs.  In some earlier rescissions, transportation enhancements bore a disproportionate share of the load.

     The Senate Appropriations Committee did the opposite from the House July 12 in approving its version of a Transportation money bill (S 1789.)  It specified that states be given freedom to take rescissions from whatever programs they choose.

     Said a Senate committee report prepared under the lead of Transportation appropriations subcommittee chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.), "The Committee directs the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) to administer the rescission by allowing each State the maximum flexibility in making adjustments among the apportioned highway programs."

     A lot of money is at stake.  The House bill would require states to rescind $3 billion in previous surface transportation allocations.  The Senate would require rescissions of $2.89 billion.

     House Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) made the case for requiring rescissions to be administered proportionately among programs.  "Now, we should not allow States to just target certain programs," he said on the House floor.  "We have created a structure within the Federal-Aid Highway Program of categories of funding.  We all voted for it.  It's now law, and if they're going to cut, their cuts ought to be proportional across the board."

     An Oberstar aide to FPR August 1, "The states have gone after things like enhancements first to prevent using highway construction money.  They are holding back from spending transportation enhancements to build up a rainy day fund to use when rescissions comes along.  That protects road programs.  Mr. Oberstar is saying you can't warp the intent of Congress."

     But Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), ranking minority member on the House Transportation Committee, opposed the proportionality amendment because he said states need flexibility to cut spending where most needed.  "Unfortunately, this cookie-cutter approach does not work for every State," he said.  "Some States have very little balances in certain highway programs from which they will be required to apply this mandated rescission.  This will have, unfortunately, a really severe impact on a State's highway work plan, many of them, as I said, in progress.  Projects in every one of our districts will be impacted."

     If the fiscal 2008 Transportation appropriations bill does impose a new round of rescissions on the states, it will be the fourth in the last three fiscal years.  In a fiscal 2006 rescission, states turned back from transportation enhancements $601,763,022 out of a total rescission of $3.845 billion.  In a first round of fiscal 2007 rescissions states turned back $199,180,527 from transportation enhancements out of a total rescission of $3.472 billion.

     At the moment FHWA is evaluating a second round of fiscal 2007 rescissions of $870 million.  California must return the most money, $79.2 million, followed by Texas, $72.3 million.

     The transportation enhancements program receives more than $600 millions per year from the multi-year 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU.)

     The SAFETEA-LU program does have other money problems.  Both the House and the Senate committee have included $630 million in their appropriations bills to accommodate increased spending.  However, the Bush administration says a provision of the law called Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) forbids the $630 million increase.

     Thus, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) July 23 threatened to veto the House bill in part because it doesn't include the RABA reduction.  "The Administration strongly objects to increasing funds for the Federal Aid Highway program based on adjustments determined through a (RABA) mechanism," OMB wrote House members.

     Transportation enhancements has had one important advocate on its side in the rescissions wars - Oberstar.  His transportation committee last month approved legislation that would require states to treat transportation enhancements proportionately in rescissions. 

     The legislation, part of a global warming energy bill (HR 2701), calls for rescissions "in the ratio that the amount of funds apportioned for each program under such chapter for such fiscal year, bears to the amount of funds apportioned for all such programs under such chapter for each fiscal year."

     The provision contains a second paragraph singling out transportation enhancements as a program to be treated fairly.  However, the legislation is prospective only and would not apply to the most recent FHWA rescission request.

     The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials wrote the transportation committee July 23 in opposition to the proposal, "A provision in the bill that would require the States to distribute the rescission proportionately among all program categories would further interfere with States' ability to manage their highway programs, set priorities and craft long-term financial strategies."

LAVERTY NOMINATION GAINS COMMITTEE APPROVALS; HOLD IS ON

     Two Senate committees have now approved former Colorado State parks official Lyle Laverty as policy boss for the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS.)

     But Laverty's nomination is blocked by a "hold" placed against it by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) that could prevent a Senate confirmation vote for the foreseeable future.

     While Wyden does have problems with Laverty, particularly with allegations of past unethical behavior, his main gripe is with former deputy assistant secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife McDonald. 

     Wyden is demanding that the department prove that political employees didn't interfere in the regulation of endangered species in the past and won't do so again, as he alleged McDonald did.

     Said an aide to Wyden, "He's been waiting for specific assurances from the Interior Department that McDonald was wrong, that the department is going to do something about it and that the department is going to make sure it does not happen again."  She said that Wyden has been in contact with Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne on the matter.

     The Bush administration March 23 announced the nomination of Laverty as assistant secretary of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.  In that position Laverty, director of Colorado State Parks since 2001, would set policy for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service.

     The Senate Energy Committee approved Laverty's nomination May 23, with only Wyden in opposition.  The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which oversees the Endangered Species Act, approved Laverty's nomination July 31.

     Under strong pressure from Congressional Democrats, the Interior Department said July 20 it will conduct new reviews of decisions affecting eight species that are candidates for protection under the Endangered Species Act.  McDonald oversaw all the actions. 

     Wyden's hold on Laverty's nomination prevents Senate floor consideration unless supporters can line up 60 votes.  Such holds almost inevitably prevent the Senate from taking up second tier nominations until the complaints of the senator placing the hold are resolved. 

     Wyden has been conducting a one-man investigation of Laverty and Interior Department ethics.  First, he charged there was widespread corruption in the Interior Department.  He cited the involvement in department deliberations of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who has been convicted of three felonies; the conviction of former Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles for interfering with an investigation; and the charges of the department Inspector General that McDonald interfered questionably in endangered species decisions.

     Second, Wyden said that Laverty's history as director of Colorado State Parks called into question his commitment to ethical behavior.  He questioned an instance when Greater Outdoors Colorado withheld an $8.5 million contribution to Colorado State Parks because of concerns about audits of past payments to contractors.  He also questioned past hiring practices in Colorado State Parks. 

CONGRESS CONSIDERS BILL TO OVERCOME RAPANOS DECISION

     House and Senate Democrats are moving quickly on legislation that would protect from dredging projects wetlands that are crucial to sport hunters.

     The House Transportation Committee last month held a hearing on a bill (HR 2421) that would make clear the Corps of Engineers must require a permit for dredging activities in all waters of the United States.  The legislation would effectively overrule Supreme Court decisions that held the Corps may only require permits for navigable waters.

     Ducks Unlimited (DU) told the committee the legislation is essential to protect up to 80 million acres of wetlands that are crucial duck habitat.  "Passage of legislation is the only apparent remedy for restoring wetland protections that are at least as strong as those that existed prior to 2001," said Scott Yaich, director of conservation operations for DU and allied hunting/conservation groups.

     The chief sponsor of HR 2421, House Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.), has not publicly announced a plan for moving his legislation this year.  Said an aide to Oberstar, "Currently there are no more hearings or mark-ups scheduled for this bill.  The water subcommittee staff has been busy wrapping up (a conference report on a Water Resources Development Act.)"  More than 150 Democrats and Republicans sponsored HR 2421.    

     In the Senate 20 Democratic senators July 25 introduced a counterpart bill (S 1870), including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is the lead sponsor.

     The legislation is aimed at a June 19, 2006, Supreme Court decision, Rapanos v. U.S. Nos. 04-1034 and 04-1384.  The decision effectively directed the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to determine when the Corps and EPA should require permits for activities on navigable waters.  While the decision was foggy at best about what constitutes navigable waters, it left no doubt that only water bodies related to navigable waters should be regulated.

     The Bush administration attempted to interpret the Supreme Court decision June 5 in regulations issued by the Corps of Engineers and EPA.  EPA and the Corps tried to find a compromise between requiring Section 404 permits for all water bodies, as hunters and fishermen would have it, and limiting Section 404 permits just to major navigable waters, as developers and contractors would have it.

     The guidance would apply the requirement for Section 404 wetlands permits to "non-navigable tributaries that are relatively permanent and wetlands that are physically connected to these tributaries."

     At the House committee hearing July 19 Yaich of DU made the case for protecting wetlands.  He said that prairie potholes - many of less than an acre and not near navigable waters - produce as much as 70 percent of the nation's ducks in a wet year.  "However, of the approximately 20 million potholes that once existed in the northern U.S., only about seven million remain," he said.

     This is not just an environmental problem, said Yaich, duck hunting is also a significant economic engine.  "Approximately 1.8 million waterfowl hunters expended almost $1 billion in 2001 for hunting-related goods and services, resulting in a total economic output of $2.3 billion, 21,415 jobs, and over $300 million in state and federal tax revenue," he said.

     Leading agricultural associations, among others, oppose the Oberstar bill, fearing it will force the Corps of Engineers to require permits for drainage ditches crucial for everyday farming operations.  Thus, Norman M. Semanko, executive director of the Idaho Water Users Association, Inc., testified that Congress should leave the navigable waters requirement in the Clean Water Act. 

     "Irrigation districts, canal companies and other water providers do routine maintenance work in their conveyance facilities every year," said Semanko, plus they make more extensive improvements.  In some instances the Corps has required permits for that work.

     Even though the Clean Water Act exempts most such farm-related work, he said, the Oberstar bill would run roughshod over the exemptions.  "The problem, however, is that the (bill's) proposed definition of 'waters of the United States' is so expansive that it threatens to render such exemptions meaningless," said Semanko.  Besides, he said, state and local government have authority to regulate such farming activities.

     Here's the proposed new Congressional definition, identical in HR 2421 and S 1870: "(24) WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES- The term `waters of the United States' means all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution."

     The facts of the Rapanos case are straightforward.  Between 1988 and 1997 developer John Rapanos performed extensive land clearing work on three tracts totaling 705 acres he owned in Michigan without a Section 404 permit.  In February 1994 the federal government brought suit against Rapanos charging he violated the Clean Water Act by failing to obtain a permit.  Rapanos argues that the development is 20 miles from navigable waters.

     The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and the Sixth Circuit on July 26, 2004, agreed with the federal government.  Rapanos then appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court took the case.

     However, the Supreme Court didn't say what is legal, i.e. what constitutes navigable waters.  It left the task of making that call up to the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on remand.

     With the other justices tied four-to-four, Justice Anthony Kennedy made the crucial decision.  He said the Corps' existing policy of requiring permits for all water bodies feeding navigable waters is not legal.  But Kennedy did not say how far the Corps could roam from navigable waters in regulating projects.

CONGRESS ABOUT TO SEND WRDA TO WHITE HOUSE; VETO THREAT

     The House August 1 approved by a veto-proof margin of 381-to-40

a House-Senate conference committee version of a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA.)  The Senate was expected to give its approval after press time, also by a veto-proof margin, sending the bill to the White House.

     The bill (HR 1495) would authorize almost $900 million of federal money for the first two major construction projects under a Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP.)

     The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) told both the House and Senate before HR 1495 went to conference the Bush administration opposed the legislation because of its $15 billion price tag.

     Among a litany of complaints OMB said, "The bill increases the Federal cost-share for many projects, authorizes projects outside of the three main missions of the Army Corps of Engineers civil works program, and fails to ensure that projects yield high economic and environmental returns."

     OMB does support the Everglades projects.  "The Administration is committed to restoring the Everglades in partnership with the State of Florida and supports the bill's authorization to construct the Indian River Lagoon and Picayune Strand projects, as part of the South Florida aquatic ecosystem restoration," said a May 11 OMB Statement of Administration Policy. 

     Other park and rec areas besides Everglades National Park would get help from the bill (HR 1495.)  The measure would authorize a demonstration project to test the benefits of enhanced recreation facilities in Corps of Engineers lake projects in Oklahoma.

     And the bill would make a small down payment on a massive project to convert the Los Angeles River from a cement ditch to enhanced parkland in Los Angeles.  The bill would provide $25 million for a study and for pilot projects. 

     In addition the bill would authorize dozens, if not hundreds, of water projects around the country with recreation implications.  All told the bill would pre-authorize $15 billion in projects.  However, Congress would have to appropriate money in a separate step to actually pay for work on the projects.

     The conferees did NOT include in HR 1495 authority for the Corps of Engineers to charge entrance fees to recreation areas. 

     EVERGLADES: HR 1495 would authorize a $1.365 billion Indian River Lagoon project, with half of the money - $682.5 million - coming from the feds and half from the State of Florida.  It would also authorize a $375 million Picayune Strand project with half the money - $187.5 million - provided by the feds and half by Florida. 

     Once the payments are authorized by WRDA, Congressional appropriators must still put up the money for the Picayune Strand and the Indian River.

     The Indian River Lagoon and Picayune Strand projects are part of the CERP enacted in a WRDA bill in 2000.  The two projects are the first of a dozen that Congress must authorize separately if the $8 billion CERP is to be implemented.

     CORPS ENTRANCE FEES: HR 1495 would NOT authorize the Corps to collect entrance fees.  The Corps presently collects use fees at its 4,300 recreation areas in 43 states, but is not allowed to collect entrance fees.  The White House says Congress must appropriate $267 million per year in recreation management money for the Corps.

     According to Congressional staff, Congressional PAYGO rules require legislation to offset expenditures with income, and the sponsors were unable to come up with offsets.

     The administration proposal would have allowed the agency to retain all revenues above $37 million - about $10 million in fiscal year 2007 - for use at the facilities that collected the money. 

     OKLAHOMA LAKES: The Oklahoma Lakes provision from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) would attempt to enlist private enterprise in expanding recreational opportunities on Corps of Engineers facilities.  It would build on an existing program that was designed to expand recreation opportunities in Skiatook Lake in northeast Oklahoma.

     Inhofe's proposal would extend the Skiatook Lake initiative to all Corps of Engineers lakes in Oklahoma.  The provision is open-ended.  It does not specify a spending authorization.  Nor does it specify what activities public-private partnerships can undertake.

          The provision simply says that one year after enactment the Corps will undertake a demonstration lakes program that will "pursue strategies that will enhance, to the maximum extent practicable, recreation experiences at the lakes included in the program."

     LOS ANGELES RIVER PARK: HR 1495 would provide a $25 million down payment on a huge project to convert the 32-mile Los Angeles River from a giant concrete ditch to a giant park and rec area.  Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said the money would be used not only for a joint Corps of Engineers-Los Angeles city study, but also for "initial demonstration projects."

     The city of Los Angeles approved in May a sweeping plan to reclaim the river.  City officials expect the $2 billion Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan will be financed by a combination of federal funds, state bonds, local government contributions and private money.

SENATE COMMITTEE HAS IT BOTH WAYS IN NHA DESIGNATIONS

     The Senate Energy Committee July 25 had its cake and ate it too in a long-standing dispute over whether Congress should approve federal standards for national heritage areas before approving individual areas.

     It did both.  The committee approved a bill (S 278) that would establish national standards and a national policy.  And it approved five bills to designate individual national heritage areas (NHAs), two bills to authorize studies of NHAs and one bill to increase a spending cap for nine existing NHAs.

     The Bush administration has long demanded that Congress establish national standards before approving individual NHAs.  Thus, when the Senate Energy Committee held a hearing July 12 on the designation of an Abraham Lincoln NHA in Illinois, Katherine H. Stevenson, acting assistant director for business services for NPS, said:

     "While the proposed Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area contains significant natural, historical, and cultural resources, we would again request that the committee defer action until national heritage area program legislation is enacted."

     That the Senate committee approved the national bill, introduced by the late Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.), does not guarantee much.  The committee has approved the bill repeatedly in the past, only to have it die in the House.  Meanwhile, the House and Senate have continued to process individual NHA bills, arguing that they have adopted informally the standards recommended by S 278.

     Although NHAs are not units of the National Park System, they do come with a federal cost, usually capped at appropriations of $1 million per year and $10 million total over 10 years.  For fiscal year 2008 the House has approved $20 million in NHA grants in a fiscal year 2008 Interior appropriations bill (HR 2643.)  The Senate Appropriations Committee has approved $15 million.  The Bush administration recommended an appropriation of $10 million.

     On July 25 the Senate committee approved these five NHAs: the Abraham Lincoln NHA in Illinois, S 955; Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA in Mid-Atlantic states, S 289; Niagara Falls NHA in New York, S 800; Sangre de Cristo NHA in Colorado, S 443; and a South Park NHA in Colorado, S 444.

     A House counterpart Journey Through Hallowed Ground bill (HR 519) generated significant Republican opposition when it was approved March 7 by the House Natural Resources Committee.  The Republicans would have required notice to all private property owners within the populous 175-mile area of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia.

     The Journey Through Hallowed Ground NHA bill says the NHA would include "eight homes of former United States Presidents, the largest concentration of Civil War battlefields in the country, the greatest concentration of rural historic districts in the country, 15 National Historic Landmarks, two World Heritage Sites, 15 Main Street Communities, 11 units of the National Park System, 52 Historic Districts, and a significant concentration of Rural Historic Districts, . . ."

     The Senate committee also approved NHA study bills for a Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage Corridor in Alabama and Georgia, S 637; and a Columbia-Pacific NHA in Washington and Oregon, HR 407.  The House approved HR 407 May 7.

     Finally, the Senate committee approved a bill (S 817) from Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) that would increase spending authority for nine existing NHAs from $10 million to $20 million.  Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio) and 17 cosponsors introduced a counterpart bill (HR 1483) in March. 

     The Voinovich and Regula bills would affect a National Coal Heritage Area in West Virginia, the Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area, the Augusta Canal National Heritage Area in Georgia, the Steel Industry American Heritage Area in Pennsylvania, the Essex National Heritage Area in Massachusetts, the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor, America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership in Iowa, the Ohio & Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor in Ohio, and the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area in New York.

FARM BILL GOES TO SENATE TAILED BY OMB VETO THREAT

     The House approved a huge, multi-year farm bill (HR 2419) last week that includes most of the conservation programs advocated by hunters and fishermen.

     However, sportsmen said spending levels could have been higher and they hope to make up ground in the Senate.  "As a group we are pretty satisfied with the House bill," said Geoff Mullins, policy initiatives manager for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP.)  "But it didn't match up to some of our recommendations.  We hope the Senate will increase the funding levels."

     Financing is a complex business.  Some programs receive their spending authorization from past laws.  Some come under umbrella line items.  And others receive discrete appropriations authorizations of their own.  All the money comes from a dedicated fund called the Commodity Credit Corporation.

     The chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Sen. Tom Harkins (D-Iowa), shares the sportsmen's concerns about spending levels.  "Most notably, the House bill did serious damage to conservation and, in doing so, ignored its tremendous value and potential and its strong support from agricultural producers and conservationists," said Harkins July 27 after the House approved HR 2419 by a vote of 231-to-191.  House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) is the chief sponsor of the House bill.

     Harkins added, "These programs are needed now more than ever because of increased crop production.  I am hopeful the Senate can do a better job to fund investments in conservation that will allow us to grow crops that represent the next generation of energy production, like cellulose."

     The House farm bill would extend basic conservation programs for five years.  It includes a new Open Fields program that would authorize $20 million per year to private landowners to open their property to hunters and fishermen.

     The basic programs include a conservation reserve program, a wildlife habitat improvement program, a wetlands reserve program, a grasslands reserve program, and an environmental quality incentives program.

     The Bush administration has recommended significant funding in a new farm bill for conservation programs, including the merger of a number of programs under the environmental quality incentives program for spending purposes.

     However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) July 25 threatened to veto the House bill, primarily because House Democrats would finance it by increasing taxes on companies that use foreign tax havens, and not by direct spending offsets.  OMB also criticized the bill for "failing to consolidate the (conservation) programs."

     Here's what the House recommended for some high profile conservation programs:

     CONSERVATION RESERVES PROGRAM: The House would extend the existing CRP program through 2012 with minor alterations.  In 2006 the program paid farmers $1.8 billion to protect cropland.  Conservationists would increase a cap on land in the program to 45 million acres.  There are now 36.7 million acres set aside.

     WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVES PROGRAM: The House would allocate $85 million per year through 2012 to help landowners protect wildlife habitat.  The conservationists recommend $100 million in fiscal 2008 for WHIP, increasing to $300 million over the next five fiscal years. 

     WETLANDS RESERVES PROGRAM: The House would increase total acreage in the reserve program to 3,775,000 acres with an annual new enrollment of 250,000 acres per year.  Conservationists would authorize an enrollment of up to 300,000 acres per year.

     GRASSLAND RESERVES PROGRAM: The House would authorize an additional enrollment of up to 5 million acres, if money were available, but no new acres if money were not available.  Conservationists would authorize the addition of up to 2 million acres per year.

     ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM: The House would provide $2 billion each year for this voluntary conservation program.  The money is allocated to farmers and ranchers to help them improve management practices on farmland.

COURT BARS LANDOWNERS' RS 2477 ROW CLAIM THROUGH PARK

     A federal judge ruled July 24 that private interests may not use an ancient RS 2477 law to gain access to a route through a national park.

     The court said private interests must seek redress under something called the Quiet Title Act of 1972, and not from an 1866 RS 2477 law.  Further, to win a Quiet Title challenge the court said private parties must have an interest in the land, not just a desire to traverse it.

     "These off-road vehicle groups and others can't pursue RS 2477 claims on their own," said Ted Zukoski, an attorney for the Earthjustice environmental law firm.  "This is a significant legal point and this is the first test in California.  A lot of ORV people want to use the law to gain access."

     The court did not address the rights of state and local governments.  They presumably may continue to submit RS 2477 right-of-way (ROW) assertions through Bureau of Land Management (BLM) "recordable disclaimer" regulations.  However, only federal courts may make a final determination on the validity of RS 2477 ROWs.

     RS 2477 ROWs are roughly defined as roads or paths that communities worked on and used for transportation prior to 1976.  Towns, counties and states across the West are poised to claim thousands of such ROWs across public lands.

     But private landowners have also asserted the right to use routes across federal lands that they asserted constituted RS 2477 ROWs.  In the instant case private property owners near Panamint City, Calif., claimed title to the six-mile long Surprise Canyon Road that crosses Death Valley National Park.

     But U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence J. O'Neil in Eastern California ruled that private landowners may not use the RS 2477 Act of 1866 to gain access to the Surprise Canyon Road that NPS had closed in 2001.  O'Neil said that when the United States also claims an interest in such a route, a private claim "can only be brought pursuant to the Quiet Title Act's narrow waiver of sovereign immunity."

     He said Congress passed the Quiet Title Act in 1972 to give citizens a means of laying claim to land that is also claimed by the United States.  However, said O'Neil, under the law the citizens must assert a claim to own the land.  In this case, he said, they have not.

     "Plaintiffs do not assert that they have an interest in the title to Surprise Canyon Road," held O'Neil.  "Rather, they argue that as members of the public, they have a right to use the route.  Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that under federal or California state law, they have a right, interest, or title to assert a claim against Federal Defendants under the Quiet Title Act properly."

     Western Republicans have been vying with environmentalists and Democrats for control over RS 2477 ROWs for decades.  Western Republicans argue on behalf of state and local governments that any way or route that communities used before 1976 constitutes an RS 2477 ROW and the Interior Department should bend over backwards to grant such assertions.

     But environmentalists and their Democratic allies counter that state and local governments must prove they have conducted substantial construction work on such ways before they can use them for transportation.

     The Bush administration has sided with western Republicans.  BLM issued the recordable disclaimer rules on Feb. 5, 2003, that are designed to resolve disputed claims to land by (1) allowing a party other than the owner of record to claim land (i.e., it entitles counties and states to file claims) and (2) eliminating a 12-year statute of limitations for filing claims by states. 

     Subsequently, former Secretary of Interior Gale Norton issued a sweeping order on March 21, 2006, that favors local governments in RS 2477 assertions.