Colorado Wilderness Act of 2019
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment before us.
Apparently, the bill that is before us today didn't include enough wilderness in my district. As we see in this amendment, we are now trying to be able to add more.
The amendment adds an additional 60,000 acres of wilderness in Colorado. One proposed addition that is particularly concerning, because it has local opposition, is the Papoose Canyon. Montezuma and Dolores Counties oppose the wilderness designation of Papoose Canyon.
The wilderness study area falls within the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, which I have worked to preserve. The land already has strict Federal protections so wilderness designation is not necessary.
Mr. Chairman, again, the BLM has studied these lands and found them to be unsuitable for wilderness. Montezuma and Dolores Counties have requested the Papoose Canyon Wilderness Study Area be released because the canyon is surrounded by private land, which has created challenges when it comes to wildfire prevention.
Papoose Canyon Wilderness was not originally in my colleague's bill. Instead of consulting the counties that would be impacted by the addition and considering their objections, we are here debating a last- minute amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I do appreciate the comments. Here is the reality: In the Canyon of the Ancients in the area that I am speaking to, these are already protected lands. The BLM, when we are talking about a wilderness study area, has stated that these do not qualify as wilderness.
When we look at our county commissioners, they are going to be the ones in our remote rural areas who are going to be responsible for dealing with the potential of wildfire, which is something that all Coloradans ought to be well concerned about.
Without their support, with recognition that this land is protected, and with the BLM stating that this does not qualify as a wilderness area, I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Cunningham, for putting forward this amendment.
I do rise in opposition, though I am not opposed, ultimately, to the amendment. I am glad to join my colleague from South Carolina as a cosponsor, ultimately, of this amendment to be able to ensure that military overflights can continue over areas that will be designated wilderness under the Protecting America's Wilderness Act.
As my good friend from South Carolina is aware, my district is home to the High-Altitude Army National Guard Aviation Training Site or HAATS, where our men and women in uniform learn how to fly rotary-wing aircraft safely in high-altitude environments.
Mr. Chair, five wilderness or potential wilderness areas are to be established within the HAATS training area under the Protecting America's Wilderness Act. It is essential that when the time comes for aviation training to take place for the readiness of our Armed Forces that it is not interfering with the current and future wilderness proposals being debated and introduced in Congress.
Although the gentleman's amendment doesn't deal with the issue of landing zones, I do believe it is an important protection and a promising step forward. I would urge all of my colleagues to be able to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter and a resolution from the Mesa County Board of County Commissioners and a letter from the Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners in opposition to the legislation that we have on the floor today. Mesa County, Colorado, Board of County Commissioners, Grand Junction, CO, June 24, 2019. Re Colorado Wilderness Act of 2019, H.R. 2546. Hon. Diana DeGette, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. DeGette: As the Board of County Commissioners (``Board'') for Mesa County, Colorado, we are submitting this letter to voice our opposition to the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2019, H.R. 2546.
Mesa County has a well-established history of supporting sensible, multiple use of public lands and resources. The Board finds the proposed Wilderness designations of more 140,000 acres within Mesa County unacceptable and in direct conflict of the Mesa County Resolution adopted in opposition of the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2015, H.R. 3336 (enclosed). The areas proposed for Wilderness in Mesa County include:
1. South Shale Ridge & Little Book Cliffs Proposed Wilderness--29,045 acres (proposed ``Little Bookcliffs Wilderness'')
2. South Shale Ridge & Little Book Cliffs Proposed Wilderness--27,517 acres (proposed ``South Shale Ridge Wilderness'')
3. Bangs Canyon Proposed Wilderness--20,996 acres (proposed ``Bangs Canyon Wilderness'')
4. Unaweep & Palisade Proposed Wilderness--27,150 acres (proposed ``Palisade Wilderness'')
5. Unaweep & Palisade Proposed Wilderness--20,420 acres (proposed ``Unaweep Wilderness'')
6. Sewemup Mesa Proposed Wilderness--15,208 acres (proposed ``Sewemup Mesa Wilderness'')
As the most restrictive designation in land management, the Board believes Wilderness designations are often punitive in nature for many public land users whose impact is negligible. In addition to ending multiple use of public lands, Wilderness designations:
1. eliminate the opportunity to manage forest level concerns with the flexibility necessary for ever-changing conditions;
2. remove the ability to properly address the tremendous buildup of natural fuels due to unprecedented beetle kill thus compounding the potential and severity of wildfires;
3. abolish future uses that enhance the social and economic futures of area residents and businesses;
4. place undue burden on adjacent property owners, lessees and other non-recreation forest users who face potential loss of income due to restricted travel;
5. discriminate against citizens unable to walk or ride horseback, including those with disabilities and the elderly.
As a County comprised of 72% public lands, the Board believes the management of these public lands should be decided with area resource management plans developed in cooperation with federal, state and local governments as well as the multitude of user groups and area citizens, not by a process where those most affected have no voice. Given the above concerns and those in the attached Resolution, Mesa County cannot support this proposed legislation. Furthermore, we encourage the Colorado Congressional delegation to introduce legislation to release all Wilderness Study Areas from their perpetual existence as de facto Wilderness.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Mesa County Commissioners should you wish to discuss this further. Sincerely, Rose Pugliese,
Chair, Board of County Commissioners. Scott McInnis,
Commissioner. John Justman,
Commissioner. ____ Resolution # ___ A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado Opposing the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2015 (H.R. 3336) and Calling on Congress to Release all Wilderness Study Areas in Colorado
Whereas, the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2015 (H.R. 3336) (the ``Wilderness Act'') has been introduced into Congress as the latest annual attempt to create Wilderness Areas without the participation or endorsement of the communities in which the areas are located; and
Whereas, Mesa County has formally declared its position on previous Wilderness proposals throughout the past years, (see Exhibit A--MCA 2001-17, MCM 2008-049, MCM 2009-175); and
Whereas, the Wilderness Act has been introduced by a Congressional Representative who does not reside in or represent the congressional districts that would be most impacted by this proposed legislation; and
Whereas, motorized and mechanized recreation are prohibited within Wilderness Areas; and
Whereas, motorized and mechanized recreation are areas of important and steady economic growth throughout Colorado and specifically in Mesa County; and
Whereas, the Wilderness Act will close off approximately 715,000 acres across the state to all mechanized use, such as mountain bikes, chainsaws, ATV's, snowmobiles, and motorcycles; and
Whereas, Colorado will face a potential firestorm with the tremendous buildup of natural fuels due to unprecedented beetle kill and the inability to lower fuel loads by mechanized thinning under Wilderness designation; and
Whereas, the Wilderness Act would place undue hardship on anyone who cannot walk or ride horseback to enjoy these areas of Colorado, such as the physically disabled or elderly, and would seem to violate the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act, if not the letter of the law; and
Whereas, Wilderness designation would place undue hardship on livestock growers to maintain fences and water sources within the Wilderness Areas; and
Whereas, once designated a Wilderness Area, an act of Congress is needed to take the area out of Wilderness; and
Whereas, the numerous ``Wilderness Study Areas'' identified within the Wilderness Act have been inventoried as such over the past several decades, are mandated to be managed as de facto Wilderness Areas, and can only be released from this designation by an act of Congress; and
Whereas, Mesa County has acted in good faith through various memoranda of understanding and as a cooperating agency as a partner in land use planning with the Bureau of Land Management, the U. S. Forest Service and other agencies regarding the long-term protection and management of special areas worthy of unique management; and
Whereas, Mesa County intends to continue to coordinate cooperatively with the Bureau of Land Management, the U. S. Forest Service and other agencies on land management issues.
Now, therefore the Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado finds that:
1. The Colorado Wilderness Act of 2015 (HB 3336) is not in the best interest of the citizens of Mesa County and the State of Colorado, and it would cause undue economic hardship on the surrounding communities.
2. Congress should release all Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) in Mesa County from such designation to allow for true multiple use those lands that are unduly restricted from appropriate use as WSAs.
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved that the Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County, Colorado:
1. stands opposed to the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2015 (HB 3336) in its current form; and
2. calls upon the Colorado Congressional delegation to introduce legislation to release all Wilderness Study Areas within Mesa County from such designation.
Passed and Adopted this 21st day of September 2015.
Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County: Rose Pugliese, Chair. ____ Montezuma County, Board of County Commissioners, Cortez, CO, May 28, 2019. Re Colorado Wilderness Act of 2019. Hon. Diana DeGette, Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman: Respectfully, we are writing you as a County Commission to let you know that Montezuma County objects to the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2019. We have been consistently opposed since the Act was first proposed.
We ask you to permanently withdraw those portions of Montezuma County that are included in the bill as per the BLM and our recommendations. These areas include; Weber Mountain, Menefee Mountain, Cross Canyon, Cahone Canyon and Squaw and Papoose Canyons.
Since the early 1990's, Montezuma County has collaborated with federal land managers in effort to develop public land management strategies that provide reasonable and responsible protection for our natural resources and wild lands. This collaboration has built an effective working relationship with federal land managers that allows us better protect natural resources while also ensuring the public have access to their public lands.
We believe we already have a good strategy in place for the protection of the WSAs being proposed for wilderness that maintains or improves their current characteristics for future generations while providing better access for the public to enjoy those lands in a responsible and appropriate manner.
Congresswoman,
We have seven major areas of concern with regard to the proposed Wilderness designations in Southwest Colorado that we feel have not been addressed with us and you need to be aware of:
1. Compatibility; the potential Wilderness Area designation has some compatibility problems with the surrounding private lands, their maintenance, and public access.
2. Best Protection of Resources; The proposed wilderness designations present a threat to landscapes that have been well protected under the current management.
3. The proposed legislation will create management difficulties for both federal land managers and for surrounding private landowners and threatens public health, safety and wellbeing.
4. The proposed legislation undermines the integrity of the BLM Land and Resource Management Planning process.
5. Proposed wilderness designations can trigger intense and protracted disputes over downstream water rights.
6. Economics. Wilderness Areas are not always good for a local economy. Often Wilderness leads to rural gentrification and disrupts local cultures and traditions.
7. The proposed legislation is a breach of the local- federal cooperation that we have all worked so hard to cultivate in Southwest Colorado.
Conclusions and Recommendations.
Montezuma County objects to the proposed Wilderness designation of;
1. Weber Mountain
2. Menefee Mountain
3. Cross Canyon
4. Cahone Canyon
5. Squaw and Papoose Canyon
We request that these five WSAs be dropped from your Bill. And we further request your support in Congressional delisting of those five WSAs.
We also would request your support in working with the BLM to re-designate those WSAs as Special Recreational Management Areas (SRMAs) and provide input in developing a customized protection plan for each SRMA that analyzes and mitigates the specific threats to the resources without throwing away recreational opportunities that may be perfectly suitable, and compatible with protection of resources.
We can't speak for the rest of the Western Slope, but in Montezuma County, we ask that our efforts to work with the federal land management agencies be respected. Any needed land protection measures should be developed through an open collaborative process in conjunction with mandated land and resource management planning and NEPA processes.
We do not feel that Wilderness Designation has been propose through a collaborative and transparent process at all. Please contact us at your earliest convenience. We look forward to working with you to craft specific protections that meet the public expectations, respects our culture and traditions, and truly protect resources. Sincerely yours, The Montezuma County Board of Commissioners, Keenan G. Ertel, Larry Don Suckla, Jim Candelaria.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, the majority of the land in Title I of the underlying bill would be converted into wilderness and it is in my district.
While I am never pleased when another Member of the House tries to tell my constituents what is best for them, I get especially frustrated when they ignore the opinions of elected officials in the communities in which they are seeking to make land management designations.
For instance, I might think that designating wilderness between Denver and Boulder would cut down on the challenges the State is facing with population growth might be something to consider, yet I have refrained from introducing such a proposal.
The underlying bill seeks to convert several wilderness study areas in the Third Congressional District into wilderness. The two that I focused on in this amendment are in Montezuma County.
During the hearing on the underlying bill, Montezuma County Commissioner Keenan Ertel testified in opposition to the proposed wilderness additions in the county. In a letter he sent to me and to the bill's sponsor, the board of county commissioners wrote:
We have been consistently opposed since the act was first proposed. We ask you to permanently withdraw those portions of Montezuma County that are included in the bill as per the BLM and our recommendations.
Since the early 1990's, Montezuma County has collaborated with Federal land managers in an effort to develop public land management strategies that provide reasonable and responsible protection for our natural resources and wild lands. This collaboration has built an effective working relationship with Federal land managers that allows us to better protect natural resources while also ensuring the public have access to their public lands.
We believe we already have a good strategy in place for the protection of the WSAs being proposed for wilderness that maintains or improves their current characteristics for future generations while providing better access for the public to enjoy those lands in a responsible and appropriate manner.
In the letter, the commissioners mention the BLM's recommendation. This is because the BLM studied the lands that my colleague is proposing to be added to wilderness and determined that they are not suitable. In fact, one of the parcels has a D8 bulldozer sitting on the land. This doesn't meet the standard of untrammeled by man.
Aside from the fact that the BLM has determined that these lands are not suitable for wilderness, the current WSA designation has created management challenges for the county when it comes to noxious weeds, wildfire prevention and mitigation, and managing the challenges of the Federal-private checkerboard that we see throughout the West.
It is for all of these reasons, but especially because of the local opposition, that I urged my colleagues to remove the land in Montezuma County from the bill during the legislative process.
Additionally, my colleague's amendment to the underlying bill added additional land to Montezuma and Dolores Counties for wilderness designation. I will note that the counties are also opposed to these lands being added as indicated in their opposition letter.
While this amendment focuses on land in Montezuma County, I also want to say that the Mesa County Board of County Commissioners has written to me and the bill's sponsor about its opposition to the bill and the proposed wilderness additions in its county. There seems to be a common theme here.
I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. But given the lack of local support this bill has in western Colorado, this amendment is not enough to fix the flaws of the bill.
Therefore, I will encourage my colleagues who believe that local input is important in land management decisions to oppose the underlying bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that my colleague, who I also have a lot of respect for, did come down to Montezuma County.
I hope while the gentlewoman was there, she had the opportunity to spend a little money, buy a few presents to take back and help an area that is often left out and forgotten in Colorado.
What the gentlewoman spoke to is important. She mentioned that the city council and the mayor were supportive. That is great. But they aren't responsible for the county lands, which the county commissioners are responsible for. It was within the confines of the city limits. Does that diminish their right to be able to have an opinion? It does not.
What is not being addressed is these are already protected lands. There isn't a person in the State of Colorado or in the country that can go on any of those lands and try to develop them, to put in a road, to put in a tower for transmission. That would have to go through a planning process, a comment process, if anything were to happen.
Those local comments, the impacts that our county commissioners are seeing, those who are responsible for the land should not be ignored, should be listened to, and I would encourage the adoption of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TIPTON.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, military aviation and training is critical to the national security interests of the United States and the readiness of our Armed Forces.
My district is home to one of the installations that conducts military aviation training missions for our men and women in uniform, the High Altitude Army National Guard Aviation Training Site, or HAATS, located in Gypsum, Colorado.
It is both an honor and a privilege to be able to represent the lone U.S. Department of Defense schoolhouse where rotary-wing aviators in our Nation's Armed Forces and our foreign allies learn how to be able to safely fly rotary-wing aircraft in mountainous high-altitude environments. The life-saving training that is required by our servicemen and women at HAATS is vital to our national security and our readiness.
Mr. Chairman, Title I of the Protecting America's Wilderness Act would establish five wilderness or potential wilderness areas within the HAATS training area.
During this Congress, numerous pieces of legislation designating wilderness continue to be introduced without taking into consideration the potential effects that these designations would have on readiness. Proactively, Congress should work to be able to ensure current and future wilderness proposals do not interfere with readiness of our Armed Forces when it comes to aviation training.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study, which would examine the impacts of the expansion of wilderness designations in the western United States and what they would have on the readiness of our Armed Forces with respect to aviation training.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of Ms. DeGette of Colorado, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source