Congressional hearing reveals sharp divide over Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act

Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney, sponsor of HR 2638, told a joint House hearing that the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act would protect large swaths of federal roadless land across Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming and create biological corridors linking habitat for species such as grizzly bears, wolves and woodland caribou.

"We are only talking about federal lands. It does not take any private land at all," Maloney said, adding that the bill would not change the status of private or state land and would not designate lands currently open to timber and mining.

The hearing made plain a deep split between bill supporters and federal land-management agencies. "The Department of Agriculture recommends that HR 26 38 not be enacted," Mark Reimers, deputy chief for legislation at the U.S. Forest Service, told the committees, arguing the proposal would "bypass existing processes and laws" such as the National Forest Management Act and the agency's forest planning procedures.

Proponents disputed the agencies' assessment. Carol King, a member of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said the bill offers an "ecosystem-based approach" that she and allied scientists consider the only realistic way to sustain the region's native fauna and flora. John J. Craighead, retired ecologist, testified that the bill is "not a fly by night concept" and described it as part of an evolving national conservation strategy that includes the Wilderness Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Academic experts who testified for the bill emphasized economic as well as biological rationales. Lee Metzger, chairman of the Department of Wildlife Biology at the University of Montana, said existing management plans do not provide the contiguous landscape required for large carnivores to persist and estimated a need for tens of thousands of square miles to be managed cohesively. Michael Garrett, a natural-resource economist at the University of Utah, said his research indicates the bill would create jobs through road obliteration and by supporting tourism-based economies.

Agency witnesses warned of legal and practical difficulties. James W. Stewart of the National Park Service and other Interior witnesses suggested that some river studies and park-preserve studies named in the bill be handled by the Forest Service under existing law, and they cautioned that the bill would lessen the role of established state-by-state processes that have produced many prior wilderness designations.

Members of Congress pressed both sides on specific impacts. Lawmakers cited differing figures introduced in testimony — Maloney and allied witnesses repeatedly described "over 16,000,000 acres" designated by the bill, while at one point the acreage figure discussed in questioning was higher — and raised questions about how much of the land would be suitable for timber harvest. Witnesses noted studies and testimony they said showed federal timber receipts and expenditures vary by region, and members asked for additional written analyses to be submitted to the record.

The committees received extensive supporting materials for the record, including letters of endorsement and economic analyses. No formal legislative action was taken at the hearing; members and witnesses agreed to enter studies, maps and supplemental documents into the record and to continue debate in committee. The hearing record shows proponents framing HR 2638 as a national-level ecosystem proposal and the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service urging that ecosystem concepts be pursued through established forest-planning and interagency processes rather than by statutory designation of corridors and large new special areas.

Looking ahead, witnesses and members signaled that disagreements over process, economic impacts and the appropriate balance between preservation and resource uses will be central to further committee work on the bill.