[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 280, H.R. 704, H.R. 1399, H.R. 1594, H.R. 1618, H.R. 1798, H.R.
1862 AND H.R. 2909
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, October 16, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-69
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
89-893 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Tom Udall, New Mexico
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Mark Udall, Colorado
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Carolina Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Chris Cannon, Utah Dennis A. Cardoza, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Mark E. Souder, Indiana ex officio
Rob Bishop, Utah
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex
officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, October 16, 2003....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 2909.......................... 11
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 1399.......................... 4
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Schiff, Hon. Adam, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 704........................... 7
Udall, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado, on H.R. 1399.................................. 8
Statement of Witnesses:
Bear, Leon D. Chairman, Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians,
Salt Lake City, Utah....................................... 55
Prepared statement on H.R. 2909.......................... 57
Groene, Scott, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Washington,
D.C........................................................ 51
Prepared statement on H.R. 2909.......................... 52
Hardiman, Mike, Legislative Director, American Land Rights
Association, Washington, D.C............................... 63
Prepared statement on H.R. 704........................... 64
Hughes, Jim, Deputy Director of Land Management, Bureau of
Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C............................................ 14
Prepared statement on H.R. 2909.......................... 15
Johnson, Randy, Deputy Director of Planning for Public Lands,
State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah........................ 48
Prepared statement on H.R. 2909.......................... 49
Loman, Jeffrey, Acting Director, Trust Services, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C............................................ 15
Prepared statement on H.R. 2909.......................... 15
Pease, Gerald F., Jr., Associate Director for Ranges and
Airspace, U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.................. 18
Prepared statement on H.R. 2909.......................... 19
Portantino, Hon. Anthony, Member, Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy Advisory Committee, La Canada Flintridge,
California................................................. 59
Prepared statement on H.R. 704........................... 61
Tiller, deTeel Patterson, Acting Associate Director, Cultural
Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.................................. 20
Prepared statement on H.R. 280........................... 22
Prepared statement on H.R. 704........................... 25
Prepared statement on H.R. 1399.......................... 26
Prepared statement on H.R. 1594.......................... 28
Prepared statement on H.R. 1618.......................... 30
Prepared statement on H.R. 1798.......................... 32
Prepared statement on H.R. 1862.......................... 35
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 280, TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL AVIATION
HERITAGE AREA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 704, TO DIRECT THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO CONDUCT A
JOINT SPECIAL RESOURCES STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SUITABILITY AND
FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING THE AREA KNOWN AS THE RIM OF THE VALLEY
CORRIDOR AS A UNIT OF THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION
AREA IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1399, TO
REVISE THE BOUNDARY OF THE BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON NATIONAL PARK
AND GUNNISON GORGE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA IN THE STATE OF COLORADO,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1594, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF THE SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF
ESTABLISHING THE ST. CROIX NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA IN ST. CROIX, UNITED
STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1618, TO ESTABLISH
THE ARABIA MOUNTAIN NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1798, TO ESTABLISH THE UPPER HOUSATONIC VALLEY
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT AND THE COMMONWEALTH
OF MASSACHUSETTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1862, TO ESTABLISH THE
OIL REGION NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA; AND H.R. 2909, TO ENSURE THE
CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF THE UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE TO SUPPORT
THE READINESS AND TRAINING NEEDS OF THE ARMED FORCES.
----------
Thursday, October 16, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:07 p.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George P.
Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Radanovich, Duncan, Cannon,
Peterson, Bishop, Tom Udall, Mark Udall and Bordallo.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands will come to order.
Today, we are conducting a hearing on the following bills: H.R.
704, H.R. 1399 and H.R. 2909. Our first bill is H.R. 704,
introduced by Congressman Adam Schiff of California. It
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special
resources study to determine the feasibility and suitability of
establishing an area known as the Rim of the Valley as a unit
of the Santa Monica Mountain National Recreation Area. Our
second bill is H.R. 1399, introduced by our Committee
colleague, Congressman Scott McInnis of Colorado, authorizing
the Secretary of the Interior to revise the boundary of the
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge
National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado.
Our third bill, H.R. 2909, introduced by our Subcommittee
colleague, Congressman Rob Bishop of Utah, would ensure the
continued availability of the Utah Test and Training Range to
support the readiness and training needs of the armed forces.
In addition, the Subcommittee will receive testimony from the
National Park Service on H.R. 280, 1594, 1618, 1862, and 1798,
legislation to either establish a National Heritage Area or
authorizing a study to establish a National Heritage Area. The
Administration was unable to present its testimony before the
Subcommittee on most of these bills on September 16.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
The Subcommittee will come to order.
Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and
Public Lands will conduct a hearing today on the following bills--H.R.
704, H.R. 1399 and H.R. 2909.
Our first bill, H.R. 704, introduced by Congressman Adam Schiff of
California, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of
establishing an area known as ``Rim of the Valley'' as a unit of the
Santa Monica Mountain National Recreation Area.
Our second bill, H.R. 1399, introduced by our Committee colleague,
Congressman Scott McInnis of Colorado, authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to revise the boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison
National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area in the
State of Colorado.
Our third bill, H.R. 2909, introduced by our Subcommittee
Colleague, Congressman Rob Bishop of Utah, would ensure the continued
availability of the Utah Test and Training Range to support the
readiness and training needs of the Armed Forces.
In addition, the Subcommittee will receive testimony from the
National Park Service only on H.R. 280, H.R. 1594, H.R. 1618, H.R.
1862, and H.R. 1798, legislation to either establish a national
heritage area or authorize a study to establish a national heritage
area. The Administration was unable to present its testimony before the
Subcommittee on most of these bills on September 16.
I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Schiff be permitted to sit
on the dais following his statement. Without objection, so ordered.
I understand that our Ranking Member, Ms. Christensen will not be
here today and I ask unanimous consent that her statement be submitted
for the record. Without objection, so ordered.
______
Mr. Radanovich.I would also ask unanimous consent that Mr.
Schiff be permitted to sit on the dais following his statement.
Without objection, so ordered. And I understand that our
Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen, from the Virgin Islands, will
not be here today, and I ask unanimous consent that her
statement be submitted for the record. With no objection, so
ordered.
Mr. Radanovich. Gentlemen, welcome to the Committee. Our
colleague, Chairman of the Forest Subcommittee, Mr. McInnis, is
with us. Scott, welcome to the Committee, and please begin your
testimony on your bill.
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT MCINNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I do thank you for holding the hearing on
this bill, H.R. 1399, the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Boundary
Revision Act of 2003. I introduced similar legislation in the
107th, and I appreciate the important step forward with today's
hearing.
In 1999, I introduced legislation that established this
Park and National Conservation Area, so my love of this place
and belief in its continued protection is obvious. As you know,
Mr. Chairman, I am a strong believer in local consensus and the
preservation of Western values. The Park and the NCA were
established on those ideals, and I am pleased that the bill I
bring before you today continues on that path. H.R. 1399 does
four things: first, it authorizes the Secretary to acquire up
to 2,725 acres through purchase or exchange with three
willing--and I stress willing--landowners. Second, it ensures
that grazing rights are transferred with these exchanges.
Third, it guarantees that water facilities used to irrigate the
farm land in the Incompadre Valley remain available under the
Bureau of Reclamation jurisdiction for the local water users
association to operate. And last, the land incorporates BLM
into the NCA that was in the process of being acquired prior to
the passage of the 1999 legislation.
Legislation was originally scheduled for a hearing last
June, after Senator Campbell successfully sought it in the U.S.
Senate. I pulled the bill, however, because I wanted to ensure
that the water rights involved with those land transactions
would remain protected for the people of the State of Colorado.
After working with the landowners and the conservation fund, I
am now comfortable with the commitment that the landowners have
made and am eager to see this bill move forward.
This bill seeks to protect valuable natural resources by
working cooperatively with three local ranchers who have been
good stewards on their land for years. Unfortunately, these
landowners have hit hard financial times and were considering
selling their parcels. Thankfully, they have put preserving the
integrity of the Park over subdividing the land and building
condominiums. Instead, they approached the Park Service and
came up with innovative alternatives to sell outright, which
required this legislation. Local county commissioners, the
local Chamber of Commerce and the land trusts involved support
these proposals, and the Park will develop additional public-
private partnerships to manage this beautiful area.
In short, the three landowners have entered into either
equal value land swaps or agreed to conservation easements
across that land. The Brandolet family has agreed to an equal
exchange of parcels which will give them easier access while
enhancing the landscape of the Park. The Allison family will
exchange both a fee simple parcel of land and a conservation
easement, providing the family with more acreage to their ranch
while allowing the Park to protect a key area. Last, the
Sandburg family plans to donate a portion of their property to
the Park for a conservation easement to preserve their resource
values they have protected for many decades.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to strongly emphasize that all
of these exchanges came about at the request of the landowners.
These families have lived and ranched in the area for many
years, and this bill benefits them both through the land
transfers and through the fact that it preserves the ranchers'
livelihoods by clarifying that grazing rights are retained
through these transfers.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, water rights in the West are
vital to our livelihood, and even the murmur of losing control
of them is enough to start a stampede. That is why the language
has been included in this bill to guarantee that the Bureau of
Reclamation retains jurisdiction and access to water delivery
facilities. The Incompadre Valley Water Association is doing a
great job ensuring that the valley is irrigated. I want to make
sure that they can continue to keep the farmers in business.
My 1990 bill establishing the Park did not intend to affect
the Bureau's jurisdiction in any way, and neither does this
boundary modification. I am aware that the Administration has
submitted a few technical amendments, which I would be glad to
consider if the bill moves to markup. For instance, the acreage
should be modified to 2,530 acres, as a portion of the property
was transferred since the bill's introduction. And we need to
revise the date on the map that should go to April 2, 2003.
The Black Canyon of the Gunnison Gorge is a national
treasure enjoyed by all. The Park's combination of geological
wonders and diverse wildlife make it one of the most unique
natural areas in the country. I am proud to represent the area
and believe this legislation will greatly benefit those who
live in the area and all of those who visit the Park.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that a written copy of my
statement be submitted to the record and any revisions made
thereof, and again, I thank the Chairman and the Committee for
the privilege of appearing in front of you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement off The Honorable Scott McInnis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Colorado, on H.R. 1399
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on my bill, H.R.
1399, the ``Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison
Gorge National Conservation Area Boundary Revision Act of 2003.'' I
introduced a similar bill in the 107th Congress and I appreciate this
important step forward with today's hearing.
In 1999, I introduced legislation that established this Park and
National Conservation Area, so my love of this place and belief in its
continued protection is obvious. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am a
strong believer in local consensus and the preservation of western
values. The Park and NCA were established on those ideals, and I am
pleased that the bill I bring before you today continues on that path.
H.R. 1399 does four things. First, it authorizes the Secretary to
acquire up to 2,725 acres through purchase or exchange with three
willing landowners. Second, it ensures that grazing rights are
transferred with these exchanges. Third, it guarantees that water
facilities used to irrigate the farmland in Uncompahgre Valley remain
available under the Bureau of Reclamation's jurisdiction for the local
water users association to operate. Lastly, the bill incorporates BLM
land into the NCA that was in the process of being acquired prior to
the passage of the 1999 legislation.
This legislation was originally scheduled for a hearing last June,
after Senator Campbell successfully saw it through the Senate. I
requested the hearing be put off for a period of time while I worked to
ensure the transactions involving the water rights involved would
protect the water rights and the transactions were fair for all
involved. After working with the landowners, the Park Service and The
Conservation Fund, I am now comfortable with the commitment that the
landowners have made and am eager to see this bill move forward.
This bill seeks to protect valuable natural resources by working
cooperatively with three local ranchers who have been good stewards of
their land for years. Unfortunately, these landowners have hit hard
financial times and were considering selling off their parcels.
Thankfully, they have put preserving the integrity of the Park over
subdividing land and building condominiums. Instead, they approached
the Park Service and came up with innovative alternatives to selling
outright, which required this legislation. The local county
commissioners, the local Chamber of Commerce, and the land trusts
involved, support these proposals, and the Park will develop additional
public/private partnerships to manage this beautiful area.
In short, the three landowners have entered into either equal value
land swaps or agreed to conservation easements across their land. The
Bramlett family has agreed to an equal exchange of parcels, which will
give them easier access while enhancing the landscape of the Park. The
Allison family will exchange both a fee simple parcel of land and a
conservation easement, providing the family with more acreage to ranch,
while allowing the Park to protect a vulnerable area. Lastly, the
Sanburg family intends to donate a portion of their property to the
Park for a conservation easement to preserve the resource values that
they have protected for many decades.
Again, I want to strongly emphasize that all of these exchanges
came about at the request of the landowners. These families have lived
and ranched in the area for many years and this bill benefits them both
through the land transfers and the fact that it preserves the ranchers'
livelihoods by clarifying that grazing rights are retained through
these transfers.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, water rights in the West are vital to
our livelihood and even the murmur of losing control of them is enough
to start a stampede. That is why language has been included in this
bill to guarantee that the Bureau of Reclamation retains jurisdiction
and access to water delivery facilities. The Uncompahgre Valley Water
User's Association is doing a great job ensuring that the valley is
irrigated; I want to make sure they can continue to keep the farmers in
business. My 1999 bill establishing the Park did not intend to affect
the Bureau's jurisdiction in any way, and neither does this boundary
modification.
I am aware that the Administration has submitted a few technical
amendments, which I will be glad to consider if the bill moves to
markup. For instance, the acreage should be modified to ``2,530
acres,'' as a portion of the property was transferred since the bill's
introduction and the date on the map needs to be changed to ``April 2,
2003.''
The Black Canyon of the Gunnison Gorge is a national treasure to be
enjoyed by all. The Park's combination of geological wonders and
diverse wildlife make it one of the most unique natural areas in North
America. I am proud to represent the area and believe that this
legislation will greatly benefit those who live in the area and all who
visit the Park.
I ask that a copy of my statement be printed in the record.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Scott. I appreciate your
testimony.
Also here to speak is the Hon. Adam Schiff. Adam, if you
want to begin your testimony, I will be happy to hear
information about your bill.
STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SCHIFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify before you today in support of H.R.
804, the Rim of the Valley Quarter Study Act. Earlier this
year, the Senate unanimously passed S. 347, essentially
identical legislation to H.R. 704, introduced by Senator
Feinstein. I am very delighted also to have the support of the
National Park Service with minor changes that they have
recommended.
H.R. 704 would call for a study by the National Park
Service and the U.S. Forest Service of the feasibility and
suitability of expanding the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area. The Rim of the Valley consists of parts of the
Santa Monica Mountains, the Santa Susana Mountains, San Gabriel
Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, San Raphael Hills and adjacent
connector areas to the Los Padres and San Bernardino National
Forests.
The Rim of the Valley is a beautiful recreation area and
home to very rare environmental treasures, including one of the
most endangered habitat areas in the world, the Mediterranean
Chaparral ecosystem, found only here and in South Africa,
believe it or not.
This beautiful, environmentally sensitive area is located
in one of the most densely populated areas in the United
States. The Greater Southern California metropolitan region has
the nation's second-largest urban concentration. About one in
every 10 Americans lives in this region. At the same time, the
area has one of the lowest ratios of park and recreation lands
per 1,000 population of any area in the country. So this
rapidly growing urban region is very underserved in terms of
parks, open space and recreation. Unless action is taken soon,
the situation will only grow worse, as the region continues to
grow.
Since Congress set aside the Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area in 1978, Federal, state and local
authorities have worked in cooperation to manage what is the
world's largest urban park. Now, nearly a quarter of a century
later and in the face of tremendous projected growth and
development, Congress, by passing this bill, again will have
the opportunity to safeguard and supplement the existing state
and local parks, open space and recreational opportunities in
Southern California.
We have amended the bill in response to comments from the
National Park Service. First, the bill now authorizes a joint
study between the Department of the Interior and the Department
of Agriculture, since the Rim of the Valley incorporates some
lands that are now managed by the Park Service and others by
the Forest Service. Together, these two services can decide the
most appropriate way to protect the land for future
generations.
And second, we eliminated from the bill explicit provisions
for a 17-member advisory commission. This provision was felt by
the Park Service to be unnecessary, as this type of resource
study conducted by the Park Service automatically entails
extensive public outreach to communities and local governments.
With these changes, we were pleased that the National Park
Service testified in support of the identical bill in the
Senate and supports the bill here with minor modifications.
This legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support from
Republican and Democratic members of Congress, whose members
include portions of the Rim of the Valley, including
Representatives Howard Berman, David Dreier, Buck McKeon, Brad
Sherman, Hilda Solis as well as George Miller but also enjoys
the support of largely Republican and Democratic communities,
including La Canada, and we have a Councilmember from the
largely Republican area of La Canada with us today, Anthony
Portantino.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the
bill and ask for your support, and I would be glad to respond
to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schiff follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, on H.R. 704
Good afternoon, Chairman Radanovich and members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today
in support of H.R. 704, the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act.
Earlier this year, the Senate unanimously passed S. 347--essentially
identical legislation to H.R. 704 introduced by Senator Diane
Feinstein.
H.R. 704 would call for a study by the National Park Service and
the U.S. Forest Service of the feasibility and suitability of expanding
the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. The Rim of the
Valley consists of parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, the Santa
Susanna Mountains, the San Gabriel Mountains, the Verdugo Mountains,
the San Rafael Hills, and adjacent connector areas to the Los Padres
and San Bernardino National Forests. The Rim of the Valley is home to
very rare environmental treasures, including one of the most endangered
habitat areas in the world, the Mediterranean Chaparral ecosystem,
found only here and in South Africa.
This environmentally sensitive area is located in one of the most
densely populated areas in the United States. The greater Southern
California metropolitan region has the nation's second-largest urban
concentration; about one in every ten Americans lives in this region.
At the same time, this area has one of the lowest ratios of park-and-
recreation-lands per thousand-population of any area in the country. So
this rapidly growing urban region is very underserved in terms of open
space needs. Unless action is taken soon, this situation will only
worsen as the region continues to be subjected to intense growth.
Since Congress set aside the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Areas in 1978, federal, state and local authorities have
worked in remarkable cooperation to manage what is the world's largest
urban park. Now, nearly a quarter-century later and in the face of
tremendous projected population growth and development pressures,
Congress, by passing this bill, again will have the opportunity to help
safeguard and supplement the existing state and local parks, open space
and recreational opportunities in Southern California.
We have amended this bill in response to comments from the National
Park Service. First, the bill now authorizes a joint study between the
Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture, since the Rim
of the Valley incorporates some lands that are now managed by the Park
Service and others managed by the Forest Service. Together, the
National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service can decide on the
most appropriate way to protect these lands for future generations. A
second, we eliminated from the bill explicit provisions for a 17-member
advisory commission. This provision was felt to be unnecessary, as this
type of special resource study, conducted by the National Park Service,
automatically entails extensive public outreach to communities and
local governments.
With these changes we were pleased that the National Park Service
testified in support of the identical bill in the Senate.
This legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support by Republican and
Democratic Members of Congress whose district includes portions of the
Rim of the Valley Corridor, including Representatives Howard Berman,
David Dreier, Howard ``Buck'' McKeon, George Miller, Brad Sherman and
Hilda Solis. I thank you for your attention, and ask for your support
for the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Schiff, for your
testimony. I appreciate that.
Are there any other opening statements by any other members
on the dais? John? Mr. Udall? OK.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Mark Udall. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to
express my support for my colleague, Mr. McInnis' important
legislation. He has been, along with Senator Campbell, a father
of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, and I know
he has worked very hard to bring this bill back for a second
time. I look forward to supporting it and working with him, and
hopefully, we can convince the Senate to move with dispatch so
that the adjustments to the boundary can be made, and that park
can continue to thrive and be the great resource like Yosemite
is in your district, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. There is no resource like Yosemite, Mark.
Mr. Mark Udall. I do not know if we want to go there or
not.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Udall. I appreciate that.
To speak on another bill, we have our colleague Mr. Bishop,
from Utah. I am trying to see the bill number here. It is 2909.
Mr. Schiff, is it possible--I think there may be a couple of
other questions or something--well, let me take an opportunity
just to ask a couple of questions.
Are you aware of recreational opportunities that already
exist on private property that is within the prescribed areas
of the monument right now? I have been talking to some people
that do provide recreation already, and I am wondering if you
are aware of that, and does that have an impact on the
expansion of this area?
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure of the particulars.
I would not be a bit surprised if there were private lands
where there are recreational opportunities as well as the
public lands. The Rim of the Valley incorporates, I think, into
the study areas that are part privately held, part publicly
held, probably in which there are recreation areas available on
either.
The advantage, should the Department of Agriculture and the
Park Service determine that some of those areas should be
included within the Recreation Area would be the opportunity to
bring additional management resources to the area; the
additional opportunity to work in public-private partnerships,
should there be people who wish to sell property for the
Recreation Area. As you know, there is no power of eminent
domain, so none of those issues are implicated. But in answer
to your question, I would assume that there are some
recreational opportunities as you describe already there. This
would study the possibility of augmenting those by
incorporating the Rim of the Valley.
Mr. Radanovich. Can you give me an idea of the percentage
of private property that would be within the proposed area
boundaries here?
Mr. Schiff. The Rim of the Valley incorporates--really, I
guess it is probably easiest to conceptualize three areas. It
would include the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, which
is already in existence. It would include a chunk of the
Angeles Forest; obviously, also public lands, and then, it
would include areas of the Rim of the Valley that are in
neither of those two categories.
If you look at the area outside of the current Recreation
Area that would be studied by this bill, I believe the
percentage is 58 percent public lands and 42 percent private
lands, so that is the current composition of what would be
studied. And obviously, the two departments working together
could recommend that some, all or none of those areas are
appropriately included in the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation
Area, and to implement whatever recommendation they make, we
would need to bring subsequent legislation before your
Committee.
Mr. Radanovich. I appreciate, Mr. Schiff, your testimony.
Any other questions of Mr. Schiff? We will let him go, so
he does not have to wait.
Adam, thanks.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, member.
Mr. Radanovich. All right; sorry, Mr. Bishop. Thank you for
your patience, and you are here, of course, to describe your
bill, and welcome. Have at it.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate doing
that. I am pleased to be able to present a bill that I think
has bipartisan support, at least from the entire Utah
delegation. It is similar to a bill that this body heard in
July of 2001, but it is a significantly scaled-down version of
that particular bill, because we have gone out to get input
from the local government, environmental interests and the
Native Americans who have an interest in this, and to those
particular groups, I want to assure that as this bill goes
toward markup, we will continue to work with those particular
entities to make any kind of accommodations that are possible.
I would like if I could, though--give me the chart--to
simply speak first about the Utah Test and Training Range, so
the record understands what we are talking about. This Utah
Test and Training Range, which we will show you in a moment is
the nation's only complete land range training facility. It has
both mountain, water, sand, desert facilities to provide live-
fire target areas under real-time conditions. As former General
Eberhardt of Air Force Combat Command said, we could not test
or train our aircraft to operate standoff joint precision
weapons without complete access to the Utah Test and Training
Range.
In addition to the Test and Training Range, the bigger area
that is around that area is the MOA, or the air space that is
essential, to implement the Test and Training Range concept
that happens to be there. That is the area that planes need,
and as planes get faster, and we start shooting missiles from a
longer range, it is going to be necessary in the future to
expand that area of air space that is essential to maintain the
training facilities of the Utah Test and Training Range.
In this particular bill, we are talking about wilderness
areas that, it will be noted, are very limited. The only
wilderness and wilderness study areas that we are talking about
are those that are specifically impacted by the Test and
Training Range. We are establishing no new precedents that
would go forward for any other particular areas, but there is
precedent for making some kind of applications; for example,
the California Desert Protection Act; the Goldwater Training
Range Act, both of them found that you can have complementary
systems of wilderness and training if you properly plan for
them.
The cooperation on our range has had a good history, but it
is also something that is sometimes very risky. The Mountain
Home Range, for example; its efficiency was limited or totally
eliminated by demands on limitations of flying times and
altitude times that we do not want to see happening here. The
Western Environmental Law Center filed a suit in the District
Court in the year 2000 to ban all low-level flights of the Air
Force over public lands. Congress, of course, reacted to that
and stopped it, but it would be wiser to have a proactive
position that could provide both short- and long-term solutions
to these types of issues on this sensitive area.
We are attempting to maintain status quo activity so that
we can retrieve personnel and aircraft that are downed in a
wilderness study area; that we can maintain tracking systems
that are there and preexisting before any wilderness study area
was established. You will hear evidence from the Goshute Nation
who will come here as the leaders. We also have testimony from
some other members who represent a minority view of those. This
bill is in no way trying to provide enmity toward this group.
When I was Speaker of the House in Utah, I was the first
one that tried to bring the seven nations in Utah to the
Legislature to establish dialog and had the Legislature in Utah
travel to those particular reservations. We support other
efforts the tribes are using to try to get economic activity in
their particular area, but the bottom line is there will be
5,000 flights by the Air Force over areas in which they are
presently living. There have been 24 aircraft and missile
accidents so far, four within a mile of a proposed economic
site which would be for nuclear spent fuel rods to be stored
above ground.
The Atomic Energy and Licensing Board has already issued
some concerns as to the safety of those areas. The NRC will
eventually come up with a recommendation, but we will present
testimony that those concerns have a validity to them. The
bottom line is there is one particular economic activity that
is situated in such a place that it would do harm to the
defense capability of this nation on an area that cannot be
replicated anywhere else.
Finally, the last thing I would like to say is the
particular map you are looking at right now is talking about a
proposed wilderness area that has a north, a central and a
southern portion to it. It is a work in progress for those
three parts. It is our intention to work from now until markup,
to work with both the BLM, the Goshute Nation,
environmentalists and local and state government to have a more
finalized map that would protect private property rights,
recreational hunting, Native American cultural rights, preserve
BLM oversight and protect the land and the environment.
But our primary--primary--issue is still to do that which
would protect the viability of the military mission at the Utah
Test and Training Range in a proactive way to preserve its
function for the defense of this country forever. And Mr.
Chairman, with that, I would, at some point--and I do not know
when you would rather like to have that--ask unanimous consent
to have seven other statements be part of the official record;
if you would like for me to wait for some time, or if not, I
would like to move that.
Mr. Radanovich. There being no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
[NOTE: The statements submitted for the record by Mr.
Bishop have been retained in the Committee's official files.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Utah, on H.R. 2909
Mr. Chairman:
I appreciate this opportunity to testify regarding the H.R. 2909,
the Utah Test Range Protection Act, and I thank the Chairman for
allowing this important bill to be given a hearing.
The language contained in H.R. 2909 is the product of years of work
and, I strongly believe, is necessary to address encroachments and
potential encroachments which negatively impact the military's ability
to test and train on the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR). The bill
takes a small step forward in a collaborative manner in working with
all stakeholders in designating a total of approximately 106,000 acres
of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands on and near the Cedar
Mountains as formal wilderness. I am pleased that the Utah
Congressional Delegation has united in a bipartisan manner to introduce
and support this legislation.
At the outset, I recognize that the final boundaries and acreage of
the proposed wilderness areas have not been agreed to by all parties to
this legislation and, as the primary sponsor of the bill, I have agreed
to try to work with them and the Committee, including the minority, to
address those boundary issues prior to this bill moving to a markup. A
map of the proposed Cedar Mountain Wilderness has been provided to all
interested stakeholders as a starting point, including representatives
of the environmental community, and is represented by what you see on
the easel before you. This map represents the largest footprint of
potential wilderness for the Cedar Mountains that is possible. However,
as indicated, this map will be revised prior to markup to try and
incorporate the legitimate concerns that surface, in large part,
because of this hearing.
As members of this Committee know, when it comes to wilderness
designations, there are strong emotions on all sides of the issue.
Unfortunately in times past, and in prior Congresses, the issues
surrounding wilderness designation on BLM lands in the State of Utah
and elsewhere have been very contentious and efforts at breaking a
stalemate in Congress to enact Utah wilderness legislation has too
often bogged down.
This bill takes a small, but important, step forward towards
establishing a framework whereby future wilderness legislation can be
discussed and acted upon in a cooperative and collaborative fashion.
To set the stage for this bill, I need to remind members of the
fact that similar legislation was introduced in the 107th Congress by
my predecessor, Chairman Jim Hansen, in the form of H.R. 2488, which
was the subject of a hearing by the Subcommittee on July 26, 2001. That
legislation, which was passed by the House of Representatives, was far
more comprehensive in scope and far-reaching in its effects, and would
have created formal wilderness areas in every instance where there
exists a Wilderness Study Area (WSAs) today underneath the military's
air space.
The present bill, H.R. 2909 is more modest in scope. It
concentrates on the Cedar Mountain wilderness study areas where there
seems to be a great deal of unanimity among affected parties as to the
boundaries, and leaves the debate as to the other WSAs in Utah's West
Desert to a future time. Those other WSAs would remain unaffected by
this bill. My office has sought opportunities, up-front, to involve
representatives of the environmental community, in addition to local
government leaders, tribal representatives, the military, recreational
users, and private landowners, in the drafting of this language. And
while it is not perfect, or as specific or detailed as I would
personally prefer it to be in some areas, I believe that, as written,
the language is acceptable in addressing the encroachments issues and
also designating important wilderness.
The bill can be divided into two parts. One part addresses the need
for continued military emergency access, over flights and training
activities affecting existing WSAs and wilderness areas in the West
Desert of Utah underneath the ``footprint'' or Military Operating Area
(MOA). The other part of the bill takes advantage of the opportunity to
designate a portion of existing WSAs into BLM wilderness, taking a
small step forward to resolving wilderness concerns in Utah's West
Desert.
Why is this bill necessary? The UTTR is nothing short of an
irreplaceable national defense asset. While the Air Force is here and
can testify from the operational and readiness points of view on the
qualities and uses of the UTTR, I believe it is important for members
of the Committee to realize that the UTTR is truly unique. In the past,
the Air Force has testified that the UTTR is an irreplaceable national
asset and to its value, and I will ask that that testimony be entered
into the record at the appropriate time. It is the largest overland
test and training range in the lower 48 states. In fact, the footprint
of the airspace within the UTTR is larger than many Eastern States
combined. It contains the largest and most flexible unrestricted air
space of any range. Of current interest, the topography of the UTTR is
similar to that in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the varied terrain
provides pilot training opportunities unavailable elsewhere. The UTTR
is also the only range under U.S. control with the size to adequately
test our terrain-following cruise missiles. The UTTR also contains
important munitions testing areas. Live-fire target areas are at the
heart of training our pilots under real-time conditions.
The UTTR is often the testing range of choice when it comes to
proving and developing cutting-edge weapons such as the MOAB, or
largest conventional bomb ever built by the United States, which was
recently used in Afghanistan. Its predecessor, the ``Daisy-Cutter,'' or
BLU-82 conventional munition, was also tested on the UTTR.
With U.S. military weaponry relying on larger and larger distances
and increasing the ability to shoot from larger standoff distances,
ranges such as the UTTR will become even more valuable for ensuring
pilot and munitions readiness and thereby strengthen our national
defense. As our population grows and developmental encroachments take
their tolls on military training areas across the nation, the large and
remote spaces that the UTTR provide will only become increasingly more
valuable.
At the same time, there are a number of wilderness study areas that
underlie the existing MOA. Those areas are represented by the map
before the Committee. Military use of the airspace over these areas
predates the 1964 Wilderness Act and the Federal Lands Management and
Policy Act (FLMPA), and it is true that so far, there have been few
instances of conflict between wilderness, wilderness study areas and
the military's continued over flights and testing activities in Utah's
West Desert. However, there are beginning to be more and more instances
of groups filing litigation based on the wilderness act, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or FLMPA to stop or curtail military
uses of public lands or airspace that lies above public lands.
For example, the Air Force was forced to agree to significant
altitude and time of year restrictions within the Mountain Home Range
Military Operating Area under threat of litigation by environmental
groups. Those restrictions now include no military overflights below
5,000 feet in the airspace over ``Little Jack's Creek Wilderness Study
Area'' within a 12-mile diameter circle during the months of April, May
and June, as well as other specified public lands areas attached to the
Mountain Home range.
Another example includes litigation filed by the ``Western
Environmental Law Center,'' as plaintiffs, on behalf of other
environmental groups, in federal district court against the U.S. Air
Force in the year 2000 alleging that low-level flights and training did
not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and which
attempted to severely restrict the ability of the military to continue
to overfly public lands.
Such altitude and time-of-year restrictions being imposed on the
UTTR would prove disastrous to this national defense testing asset.
This bill does not set a new precedent for wilderness and military
use. It does not create a ``lesser'' category of wilderness. Congress
has acted previously to enact language which protects wilderness values
while also providing for continued military uses. For example, the
California Desert Protection Act [P.L. 103-433] designated significant
portions of BLM lands in Southern California as wilderness while still
preserving the ability of the Army and other services to train at Ft.
Irwin. In the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Act, Congress authorized
military uses of the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness Area and Wildlife Refuge
beneath the Goldwater Training Range in Arizona [P.L. 106-65].
This bill seeks to balance the interests and concerns of the
necessity of military training and readiness, with those of
preservation of public lands.
In addition, one of the most serious encroachments upon the UTTR is
a proposal by the Goshute Tribe on their reservation lands located in
Skull Valley. At the present time, the Goshute Tribe has entered into
negotiations with a private energy consortium (Private Fuels Storage,
or PFS) to transport high-level nuclear waste for ``temporary'' storage
on their Reservation lands. The proposal is at present before the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for licensing. Further proceedings
before the NRC have been delayed due to concerns raised by the NRC's
Safety Board which ruled that there was a significant enough of a risk
of a military aircraft crashing into the above-ground storage as to
warrant further closer review.
If licensed, the PFS nuclear waste proposal would represent a
serious encroachment upon the use and utility of the UTTR range. The
entry point for the Southern portion of the UTTR goes directly over
Skull Valley and the Goshute Reservation. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to conclude that supersonic fighter planes loaded down with
live bombs and above-ground storage of high-level nuclear waste located
downwind less than 60 nautical miles from Utah's populated Wasatch
Front containing nearly 2 million people do not mix. In 2001, over
5,000 military aircraft flew over the Skull Valley site as low as 300
feet. Over half of these planes carried live ordnance, including 2,000
pound laser guided bombs. In the last 20 years, there have been over
two dozen military aircraft or missile crashes on or near the UTTR.
Four of these have involved crashes within a few miles of the Skull
Valley proposed site.
The Air Force has previously testified before the NRC that, if
licensed, the facility would cause the Air Force to seriously curtail
its use of the Southern portion of the UTTR, which would greatly
diminish the capability and usefulness of this unique test asset.
This legislation addresses this encroachment issue by prohibiting
the BLM from issuing a right-of-way permit to construct a necessary
rail spur across BLM lands to the Goshute Reservation. While I
recognize that this prohibition would limit the tribe's ability to
provide rail access to its reservation, I remain optimistic that in
working with tribal leaders prior to markup on this legislation, that
we may identify proposals not involving high-level nuclear waste that
would provide needed economic opportunities for the tribe, which may
lead to a revision of this current prohibition.
In conclusion, I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to testify.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Appreciate it.
Any other questions of the panel?
If not, we will move on to our next panel.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Panel two,
I would like to call up now, please. It consists of Mr. Jim
Hughes, who is the deputy director of the BLM in Washington,
D.C.; Mr. Jeffrey Loman, acting director of trust services,
BIA, Bureau of Indian Affairs; Mr. Gerald Pease, Associate
Director for Ranges and Airspace of the U.S. Air Force in
Washington; and Mr. deTeel Patterson Tiller, acting director of
cultural resources for the National Park Service.
If you would like to come forward, gentlemen. Gentlemen,
welcome to the Subcommittee. As you know, we are going to go by
the 5-minute rule here with the lights, and if you abide by
that, please feel free to sum up on your comments, and of
course, if you leave anything out, I am sure that this panel
will bring it up in the form of questions afterwards.
So we will go ahead and start with you, Mr. Hughes, and
work every 5 minutes all the way across. Everybody will be
given a chance to speak. And then, we will open up the panel
for questions. Welcome, Mr. Hughes; you may begin.
STATEMENT OF JIM HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Department of the
Interior on H.R. 2909, the Utah Test and Training Range
Protection Act. The administration shares the goals of the
sponsor of the legislation to support the continued operation
of the Utah Test and Training Range and protection of public
lands with special values.
However, the Department has concerns with the bill. I will
briefly discuss the provisions directly relevant to the BLM and
then will defer to my colleague from the BIA on issues
regarding the Skull Valley Indian Reservation.
Section 5 of the bill proposes to designate the Cedar
Mountain Wilderness Area. The bill does not provide reference
to a specific map or the acreage of the proposed wilderness.
Based on information provided to BLM's Salt Lake City Field
Office, we understand that the legislation may contemplate an
area substantially larger than the existing WSA.
While some of this area may have wilderness characteristics
appropriate for wilderness designation, many portions lack
wilderness characteristics. Areas to the north of the existing
WSA, in particular, lack wilderness characters. Only Congress
has the authority to designate wilderness or new wilderness
study areas. The lands encompassed in this bill contain acreage
that was either found to be nonsuitable for wilderness during
BLM's wilderness suitability review or was never identified as
having wilderness characteristics in the first place.
For that reason, the Department does not agree with the
broad designation. However, that being said, the Department
recognizes that only Congress has the authority to designate
wilderness, and Congress can choose to place wilderness
restrictions on any Federal land without regard to the
standards that were used in the administrative review process
that the BLM used back in the 1980s.
The Department wants the Committee to know that there is
extensive motorized recreational use within parts of the area
proposed for wilderness in this bill which would be prohibited
by the bill upon enactment.
Sections 2, 3 and 6 directly relate to the Utah Test and
Training Range. We believe these sections need some
modification. We are eager to work with the Committee and the
Air Force in a cooperative fashion to meet military mission
requirements. We are always concerned when exceptions to
wilderness management are brought up in bills, and so, we look
forward to working with people on that.
It is possible that through discussions with the Committee
and the sponsors, we think many of these could be addressed
very easily.
And the Department of the Interior would be happy to work
with the Committee and the sponsors to protect both the
important mission of the UTTR and the conservation values of
BLM-managed lands in its vicinity. We do encourage the Congress
to move forward on the designation of wilderness and release of
WSAs, and as always, we would like to provide the sponsors and
the Committee with information on the status of these lands and
their current uses. We would welcome the opportunity to propose
changes to the bill, to increase manageability of the
wilderness and ensure that we are not inadvertently affecting
important current uses or expectations.
And finally, the final issue that we would like to talk
about is Section 4(b), which prohibits the issuance of
transportation right-of-ways under Section 501(a)(6) of the
Federal Land Policy Management Act, FLPMA, as we know it, in
certain areas of Utah until the year 2015. There are currently
two pending applications for transportation right-of-ways in
the approximately 250,000 acres covered by the prohibition.
Those applications are from Private Fuel Storage, LLC, for a
30-mile railroad line on public land and from Broken Arrow
Corporation for a two-mile access road, 100 feet on public
land.
There are also 12 existing 501(a)(6) rights-of-way in the
proposed prohibition area. The Department of the Interior is
concerned about the implication of this provision on existing
right-of-way applications, future applications as well as
potential amendments and renewals of existing authorized
rights-of-way.
With that, I will defer the remainder of our Department's
testimony to Jeffrey Loman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Hughes.
Mr. Loman, welcome to the Subcommittee, and please begin
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY LOMAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, TRUST SERVICES,
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Loman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. You are welcome.
Mr. Loman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here
today.
H.R. 2909 would frustrate an ongoing administrative process
that began in 1997, when the Department of the Interior issued
a conditional 20-year lease for a spent nuclear fuel storage
facility that would be operated by Private Fuel Storage on the
Skull Valley Indian Reservation, which is home to the Skull
Valley Band of Goshute Indians.
Section 4(b) of the proposed legislation would prohibit the
transportation rights-of-way, including the 30-mile railroad
that Private Fuel Storage has made an application for to
transport spent fuel to the proposed storage facility.
Continuation of the administrative process that has been
ongoing and includes work by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
That process that is underway is important to determine if the
proposed storage facility is viable, and that process would
come to a halt if H.R. 2909 is enacted.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
[The joint statement of Mr. Hughes and Mr. Loman follows:]
Statement of Jim Hughes, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
and Jeffery Loman, Acting Deputy Director, Trust Services, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2909
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 2909, the Utah Test and Training
Range Protection Act. The Administration shares the goals of the
sponsors of the legislation to support the continued operation of the
Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) and to protect public lands with
special values. However, the Department has concerns with H.R. 2909 for
two reasons. First, the bill is not specific as to the lands that will
be designated as wilderness, and, according to studies performed by the
BLM, much of the area may not be suitable for wilderness designation.
Second, the bill would frustrate an ongoing administrative review
process that began in 1997 with the conditional approval of a 20-year
license to receive, transfer, and store spent nuclear fuel on the Skull
Valley Indian Reservation.
Background
The UTTR is located in northwestern Utah and eastern Nevada within
the Great Salt Lake Desert. Operated by the United States Air Force,
the UTTR provides air training and test services, large force training
exercises and large footprint weapons testing. A unique facility, it
has the largest overland block of protected airspace in the continental
United States. The Cedar Mountains Wilderness Study Area (WSA) is
located in Tooele County, Utah, and covers approximately 50,500 acres
of BLM-managed lands. On June 26, 1992, President George H. W. Bush
submitted his Administration's recommendations to Congress on
wilderness suitability for BLM WSAs in Utah, including a recommendation
that the entire Cedar Mountains WSA was not suitable for wilderness
designation. The Skull Valley Reservation is located in Tooele County,
Utah, approximately 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. In 1996, the
Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians (Tribe) entered into a business
lease with Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (PFS), a consortium of major
utility companies, to provide a temporary storage facility for spent
nuclear fuel on the Tribe's reservation.
In May 1997, the Department approved the lease subject to certain
conditions, including a complete National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) review, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) issuance
of a license. Shortly thereafter, PFS filed its license application. In
January 2002, the NRC issued a final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) on the proposed storage project. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), the Bureau of Land Management, and the Surface Transportation
Board serve as cooperating agencies with the NRC on the project.
In April 2002, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB)
began a series of local and statewide hearings that concluded on July
3, 2002. The major outstanding point of contention (environmental
justice) was dismissed on October 1, 2002.
The ASLB issued three Partial Initial Decisions on three issues.
First, on March 10, 2003, the ASLB ruled that the probability of an
aircraft crash into the proposed facility would be high enough that PFS
must analyze the potential consequences of such a crash. On May 22,
2003, the ASLB determined that an earthquake would have no impact on
the proposed facility. The NRC upheld this decision on August 15, 2003.
On May 27, 2003, the ASLB ruled that PFS is financially qualified to
construct, operate, and decommission the proposed facility.
H.R. 2909
Major provisions of this legislation include the designation of the
Cedar Mountains Wilderness Area, protection of military operations in
and around the UTTR, and the prohibition on the granting of certain
transportation rights-of-way in Tooele County, Utah. Section 5 of the
bill proposes to designate the Cedar Mountains Wilderness Area. The
bill does not provide reference to a specific map or the acreage of the
proposed wilderness. Based on information provided to BLM's Salt Lake
City Field Office, we understand that the legislation may contemplate
an area substantially larger than the existing WSA. While some of this
area may have the wilderness characteristics appropriate for wilderness
designation, in the opinion of the local BLM land managers, many
portions lack wilderness characteristics. Areas to the north of the
existing WSA, in particular, lack wilderness qualities.
The Administration has stated that only Congress has the authority
to designate wilderness or new wilderness study areas. The Department
of the Interior was delegated the authority to review and recommend
wilderness in Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA). That authority expired in 1993. During this review, the BLM
identified over 20 million acres of lands with wilderness
characteristics, but ultimately found many of those lands were not
suitable for wilderness designation. As stated before, the BLM
submitted its recommendations regarding suitability to President George
H.W. Bush who, in turn, submitted them to Congress. These lands are now
designated wilderness or have been released from WSA status by the
Congress, or remain in wilderness study area status containing a
combination of ``suitable'' and ``nonsuitable'' acres. The lands
encompassed in this bill contain acreage that was either found to be
nonsuitable for wilderness during that review, or was never identified
as having wilderness characteristics in the first place.
In general, the Department supports the designation of wilderness
areas in Utah, but we would like the Committee to consider the impacts
of designating wilderness areas where there may be ongoing incompatible
uses. During the original WSA inventory process, and now when updating
a land use plan and considering wilderness characteristics, the BLM
generally looks at size, naturalness, opportunities for solitude and
primitive (non-motorized) recreation, and other special features. The
Wilderness Act of 1964 specifically prohibits motorized equipment in
wilderness areas.
The Department wants the Committee to know that there is motorized
recreational use within parts of the areas proposed for wilderness in
this bill. While Section 3 of the bill specifically authorizes certain
military activities to continue notwithstanding any potential
wilderness status, it does not do so for other uses. All other non-
wilderness uses in the designated areas, including existing motorized
recreational uses, would be prohibited by this bill upon enactment.
Sections 2, 3 and 6 directly relate to the UTTR. We believe these
sections need modification. The BLM will work with the Air Force in a
cooperative fashion to meet military mission requirements. However,
proposed exceptions to wilderness and WSA management raise concerns. It
is possible that through discussions with the Committee and the
sponsors of the legislation many of these concerns could be addressed.
In addition, many of the issues raised could be worked out
cooperatively between the BLM and the Air Force through the use of
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).
Planning for the public lands within the area surrounding the UTTR
has been precluded by legislation for many years. We believe the goal
of the legislation is to lift those prohibitions and to move forward on
planning in a collaborative fashion in consultation with the Air Force.
However, we believe that the language in the bill is confusing on this
point and needs clarification. While Section 4(a) appears to provide
direction to proceed with land use planning, Section 6(b) may
contradict that by only lifting certain planning prohibitions on the
proposed Cedar Mountains Wilderness Area but not on the rest of the
BLM-managed lands in the area. Likewise, Section 6(a) is confusing and
could be construed as negating other legislative language within the
bill.
Section 4(b) of the legislation prohibits the issuance of
transportation rights-of-way under Section 501(a)(6) of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) in certain areas of Utah
until at least 2015. There are currently two pending applications for
transportation rights-of-way in the approximately 250,000 acres covered
by the prohibition. Those applications are from Private Fuel Storage
LLC for a 30 mile railroad line on public land and from Broken Arrow
Corporation for a 2 mile access road, 100 feet on public land. There
are also 12 existing 501(a)(6) rights-of-way in the proposed
prohibition area. The Department has concerns about the direct impact
H.R. 2909 will have on the pending applications for rights-of-way, as
well as potential amendments and renewals of existing authorized
rights-of-way.
The chronology of administrative actions illustrates the nature and
scope of the administrative processes that have been completed to date.
Likewise, the administrative processes that are pending would be
dispositive regarding the proposed temporary storage facility. If, for
example, the NRC does not issue a license, the project will not
operate. Continuation of the ongoing administrative processes resulting
from the Tribe's business lease with PFS would provide the cooperating
agencies with an opportunity to determine whether the proposed project
is viable as an administrative matter only. Should Congress choose to
enact H.R. 2909, the administrative process would come to a halt.
However, if H.R. 2909 is not enacted, in the Spring of 2004, the ASLB
is expected to render a decision and make a recommendation to the NRC
regarding the dispositive administrative licensing issue. The NRC will
then issue a Record of Decision and issue or deny the license. If the
NRC grants a license, both the BLM and the Surface Transportation Board
would issue Records of Decision regarding the pending railroad right-
of-way application. The Department has worked closely with the Tribe to
support them in their efforts to achieve some form of viable economic
development on their reservation.
Conclusion
The Department of the Interior would be happy to work with the
Committee and the sponsors of H.R. 2909 to protect both the important
mission of the UTTR and the conservation values of BLM-managed lands in
its vicinity. We encourage Congress to move forward on designation of
wilderness and release of WSAs, and, as always, we would like to
provide the sponsors and the Committee with information on the status
of these lands and their current uses. We would welcome the opportunity
to propose changes to the bill to address our concerns regarding the
suitability of certain areas for wilderness designation, to increase
the manageability of the designated wilderness, and to ensure that we
are not inadvertently affecting important current uses or public
expectations.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Loman.
Next is Mr. Gerald Pease, the associate director for ranges
and airspace, here to speak on H.R. 2909. Mr. Pease, welcome to
the Subcommittee and please begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF GERALD F. PEASE, JR., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
RANGES AND AIRSPACE, U.S. AIR FORCE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Pease. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to thank you also for including us in the Air Force and I will
say DOD in these discussions. As you know, the DOD and the Air
Force have the majority of the lands that we use for our
training and testing are public lands, most of which are BLM
lands, and we are very interested in public lands in general,
so thank you very much.
My responsibilities in the Air Force are to oversee Air
Force ranges, special use air space and other air space
designed for military use. This, as Congressman Bishop said,
the Utah Test and Training Range is a very large range. It has
the largest special use air space, piece of special use of air
space measured from the surface or near the surface within the
continental United States. It is about 100 by 200 miles.
The air space is situated over 2,600 square miles of DOD-
managed land, of which 1,500 square miles or so are managed by
the Air Force, the rest managed by the United States Army. It
is the primary training range for the pilots who fly F-16s out
of the 388th Fighter Wing and the 419th Fighter Wing at Hill
Air Force Base. However, all types of airframes from the
military services fly and test and train at the Utah Test and
Training Range. About 16,000 sorties a year are historically
flown there within the range air space. That includes test
sorties, B-1 sorties, B-52; over 2,500 Navy and Marine Corps
sorties and allied force sorties as well. We also do the
majority of our cruise missile testing, ground weapons
training, NASA support, industry testing as well as other
support to universities and high school research projects.
In general, when we look at wilderness bills as they relate
to our testing and training, we look at four issues: provisions
for overflights, existing instrumentation sites, access control
on the lands adjacent to the ranges themselves for safety and
security issues, and then, the potential to do compatible
ground operations, if you will, for military. As it relates to
H.R. 2909 specifically, the bill lacks language authorizing the
managers of the public lands adjacent to the range to enter
into an MOU to ensure access of those lands are consistent with
safety and security requirements. The second, the designation
of certain lands as wilderness would allow ground operations.
We would like to see the designation of certain lands that
would allow military ground operations for testing and training
that are considered compatible with those areas, and also, we
would like the provision in the designation to allow us to, if
necessary, increase our communication and instrumentation sites
if necessary to sustain future operations.
We do all these things in other areas with the Bureau of
Land Management. We believe that these issues can be worked at
the local level in an MOU format.
I will end by saying that access to our ranges is of vital
importance to the Air Force, DOD, other national agencies and
civilian institutions, also, that use these ranges. Although
our geopolitical environment remains uncertain, one aspect
continues to be critical for the United States: that we must
continue to test and train on military ranges while striving to
minimize the impact of our operations on the surrounding
communities and the environment. Future air power weapons
systems will continue to need sufficient land and air space to
train crews and test our weapons systems, and your kind
consideration of these comments concerning H.R. 2909 are
appreciated, and we welcome the opportunity to continue to work
with our partners in the other Federal land management agencies
and this Committee.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pease follows:]
Statement of Gerald F. Pease, Associate Director for Ranges and
Airspace, Directorate of Operations and Training, Office of the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations Headquarters, U.S. Air
Force
My name is Gerald F. Pease, Jr. I am the Associate Director for
Ranges and Airspace, Directorate of Operations and Training, Office of
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, Headquarters
United States Air Force, Washington, D.C. I am responsible for
developing strategies and management policies to establish, modify and
maintain Air Force ranges, special-use airspace, and other airspace
designed for military use. Prior to my retirement from active duty, I
served as a career Air Force fighter pilot.
Comments on H.R. 2909
In general, during the process to designate Wilderness or other
land use designations, we look at the Air Force and DoD operational
requirements relating to four areas:
1) Overflights, particularly as they relate to special use
airspace and low-level routes;
2) Existing instrumentation sites and the potential requirements
for future ground sites;
3) Access control of adjacent public lands for safety or security
reasons; and
4) Compatibility with ground operations that include assurance of
emergency response capabilities.
We are interested in ensuring that the Bill would preserve our
ability to accomplish our test and training missions on the UTTR. In
particular, we are concerned about access to adjacent public lands.
Specific concerns include:
1) The bill lacks language authorizing managers of public lands
adjacent to our Air Force ranges to enter into an MOU with DoD to
ensure access to those lands is consistent with safety and security
requirements;
2) The designation of certain lands as wilderness that would allow
military ground operations for readiness testing and training
activities that are considered compatible with those areas; and
3) Wilderness designations could also preclude DoD from increasing
communication and instrumentation sites, if necessary, to sustain
future operations.
The legislation does affirm that continued unrestricted access to
special use airspace, military training routes, and to the range lands
themselves, is a national security priority, and should be integrated
effectively with other uses for land and associated air resources.
The Utah Test & Training Range (UTTR)
UTTR has the largest overland special-use airspace measured from
the surface or near surface, within the continental United States (207
by 92 nautical miles). Of the total 12,574 square nautical miles
comprising this area, 6,010 are restricted airspace, and 6,564 are
Military Operating Areas (MOAs). The airspace is situated over 2,624
square miles of DoD-managed land, of which 1,490 square miles are
managed by the Air Force.
UTTR is the primary training range for the pilots who fly the F-16
Fighting Falcon for the 388th Fighter Wing and the 419th Fighter Wing
at Hill Air Force Base. However, all types of airframes from all the
military services test and train at the UTTR. Approximately 15,800
sorties are flown annually within the range airspace. That total
includes approximately 390 test sorties, 650 B-1B sorties, 380 B-52
sorties, 2,500 U.S. Navy/Marine Corps sorties, and 200 allied air
forces sorties. Additionally, we conduct Cruise Missile testing, ground
weapons testing, NASA support, industry testing, as well as support to
universities and high school research projects.
Conclusion
Continued access to our ranges is of vital importance to the Air
Force, DoD, other national agencies and civilian institutions and
industry. The future geopolitical environment remains uncertain, but
one aspect continues to be critical for the success of the United
States--we must continue testing and training on military ranges while
striving to minimize the impact of our operations on the surrounding
communities and the environment. Future airpower weapons systems will
continue to need sufficient land and airspace to train aircrews and
test weapon systems. Your kind consideration of these Air Force
comments concerning H.R. 2909 will be appreciated. We welcome the
opportunity to continue working on these important issues with this
Committee.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Pease. We appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. deTeel Patterson, here to speak on a lot of bills.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. H.R. 280, 704, 1399, 1594, 1618, 1862,
1798, and please go that fast, because you have a lot of ground
to cover.
Mr. Tiller. I will do my best, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Actually, we will bend the 5-minute rule a
little bit, since you have so many bills.
STATEMENT OF DETEEL PATTERSON TILLER, ACTING ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Tiller. Actually, I think I can get it in under that.
Mr. Radanovich. Well, good, good, more power.
Mr. Tiller. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on seven bills before you
today. In the interest of brevity, I will summarize my
testimony that I already submitted to the Subcommittee.
H.R. 704 directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Interior to conduct a joint resources study on the feasibility
of establishing the Rim of the Valley Corridor in Los Angeles
as a unit of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
Area. The Department supports the bill with a few minor
modifications detailed in my submitted testimony. Santa Monica
Mountains has become a national model of collaboration among
local, state and Federal land managers and private property
owners, all working as joint stewards of exceptional natural
scenic, cultural and recreational resources. We look forward to
working with the Department of Agriculture on this important
undertaking.
The Department also supports H.R. 1399, which revises the
boundary of Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and
Gunnison National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado.
We support this, as the revision confers no significant
increases of budget or staffing on the Service. The proposal
completes the original land intentions of the Park's authors,
and the proposed increases are supported by willing sellers as
well as key local elected officials, business organizations and
local and national land trusts. In addition, H.R. 1399
clarifies important grazing and water rights matters.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the balance of the
five bills as a whole in my remaining comments. H.R. 1594
directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the
feasibility of creating the St. Croix National Heritage Area in
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the remaining four bills,
H.R.s 1862, 1798, 1618 and 280 establish respectively the Oil
Region National Heritage Area in Pennsylvania, the Upper
Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area in the State of
Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; the Arabia
Mountain National Heritage Area in Georgia; and last, the
National Aviation Heritage Area in Ohio.
The Department of the Interior supports the idea of
national heritage areas and recognizes the success of the 23
already-designated Federal national heritage areas. We applaud
this important, bottom-up, citizen-based movement to protect
and preserve critical natural and historic places across this
great nation, places that make each of our communities unique.
Heritage areas can serve as critical local economic generators,
all the while being cost-effective ways to preserve these
places for future generations using creative partnerships and
without, importantly, the necessity of costly Federal land
acquisition.
However, the Department recommends that the Committee defer
action on these five bills and on any further individual
heritage area designations or studies until such time as a
general heritage area program bill, establishing a national
program, is passed. We believe that it is time to step back to
evaluate the existing heritage areas and to develop legislative
guidance and standards that can shape any further heritage area
designations before we go any further.
An umbrella national heritage area bill will serve as a
gatekeeper and national benchmark, making clear what qualities
any proposed area must possess; standards under which a new
designation will occur; and performance benchmarks for an area
to measure its continued success, ultimately ensuring that
public dollars are well-expended.
We have almost 20 years of experience now in administering
this exciting concept and 23 existing heritage areas to
evaluate and consult. We have experience, and we have the
models. We have offered six core tests or standards of a
national heritage area program in my submitted testimony, tests
that any prospective heritage area must meet in order to join
the ranks of those already designated. The National Park
Service and the Department of the Interior do not wish to
unnecessarily slow down this important process, and we stand
ready to work with the Subcommittee to develop such an umbrella
program bill.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be
pleased to answer any questions you or other Committee member
may have. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Tiller follow:]
Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director for
Cultural Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 280
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on H.R. 280, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to establish the National Aviation Heritage Area and update
the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 special resource
study.
The Department supports the national heritage area program but
recommends that the Subcommittee defer action on any individual
national heritage area designation or study bill until generic national
heritage area legislation is enacted. The Department supports updating
the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 special resource
study as outlined in Title II.
Ideally, national heritage areas provide a cost-effective way to
preserve nationally important natural, cultural, historic and
recreation resources through the creation of a working partnership
between federal, state and local entities. In addition, national
heritage areas should be locally driven, locally supported, should not
involve federal land acquisition or zoning, and should protect private
property rights. At its best, this program embodies Secretary of the
Interior Gale Norton's ``Four C's''--Communication, Consultation and
Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation.
Some national heritage areas, however, have not met this ideal. For
example, some national heritage areas have been designated without a
clear indication of the ability of the management entity to assume
responsibility for management of the area. The management entity
subsequently has operated the area without a clear financial plan for
achieving self-sufficiency without federal support. Consequently, it is
time to step back, evaluate existing areas, and develop legislative
guidelines that will shape future national heritage area designations.
The Department believes that a generic national heritage area bill
should serve as a gatekeeper--making clear what qualities the area must
possess and parameters under which designation will occur. We have
almost twenty years of experience in administering national heritage
areas and twenty-three existing national heritage areas to evaluate. In
the absence of formal legislation to guide the national heritage area
program, National Park Service (NPS) also has developed specific
critical steps, identified later in this testimony, that should occur
prior to designation and interim criteria that should be used for
national heritage area suitability and feasibility studies. These steps
and criteria have been field-tested, have proven to screen out many
unqualified areas prior to recommending designation, and should serve
as a possible starting point for any discussions on generic national
heritage area legislation.
Based on our experience with the program, the Department would like
to offer several considerations that we believe are key components of a
successful national heritage area program.
1. Studying the Area Prior to Designation. In addition to the
broad parameters that can be achieved by legislation, it is critical to
have a process that evaluates the specific qualities of the area.
Requiring that a suitability and feasibility study or some equivalent
be conducted with a positive finding prior to recommending a
designation should be an essential component of any generic heritage
legislation that moves forward. Many of the issues discussed below
could be evaluated during a national heritage area study.
2. Nationally Important Resources. In reality, most places in
America have a special meaning to a particular group or are the site of
some historic event. To be designated as a national heritage area, the
area must contain nationally important natural, cultural, historic or
recreational resources. Not all resources should be considered
nationally important and, in some cases, designation as a state or
local heritage area may be more appropriate.
3. Local Support and Initiative. Local communities must not only
support the designation in concept, but must be willing and interested
in taking an active role in preservation efforts. They are responsible
for developing and implementing the management plan for the area and
should work towards a goal of achieving self-sufficiency. Given the
important role local communities play in the success of national
heritage areas, we also have concerns about the concept of establishing
national heritage areas in places that contain large tracts of federal
lands. We believe inclusion of large tracts of federal lands has the
potential to create confusion and unneeded conflict between management
regimes. Therefore, before studying any potential area that includes
large tracts of federal lands, we recommend that consultation and
concurrence of the land management agency should occur first.
4. Private Property Rights. Private property owners should be
provided reasonable protections. Such protections include prohibiting
the federal government from acquiring land for the national heritage
area or from imposing zoning or land use controls in national heritage
areas. Private property owners also should be provided with specific
protection from the management entity regulating land use zoning,
hunting or fishing or using federal funds to acquire land. Zoning
decisions should remain in control of local communities. The support of
private property owners should be considered in the context of
determining if sufficient local support exists for designation.
5. Partnerships and the Leveraging of Preservation Resources. Also
integral to the success of national heritage areas is the development
of a working partnership among the National Park Service, state
entities and the local communities. The National Park Service should
provide the communities with technical and financial assistance, but
not acquire any land or impose any zoning requirements. The local
communities should participate by developing and implementing the
management plan that will serve as a guide for interpreting the
national heritage area.
6. Achieving Self-Sufficiency/Limiting Limited Federal Resources.
To date, self-sufficiency has yet to be achieved with any national
heritage area, and the first four national heritage areas established
have sought and received Congressional extensions of their funding.
With federal dollars leveraging an average of 8.7 times that amount in
non-NPS partnership funds, national heritage areas can be a cost-
efficient way to preserve important resources. However, because of our
commitment to support the President's effort to address the deferred
maintenance backlog, we must significantly limit the long-term
commitment of federal funds to national heritage areas by requiring
they become self-sufficient. To achieve this goal, we must study, prior
to designation, whether an area has the resources and public support to
achieve self-sufficiency over the long-term. Today, some of the
national heritage areas have a cap of federal funding at $50,000, while
others receive up to $1 million per year. Reasonable limitations on
financial assistance from the Department should be developed and
extensions to this funding should be avoided.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on translating
these ideals into a generic national heritage area bill.
Title I of H.R. 280 would establish the National Aviation Heritage
Area. Few technological advances have transformed the American economy,
society, culture and national character as the development of powered
flight. The core area is defined by Montgomery, Greene, Warren, Miami,
Clark and Champaign Counties in Ohio, as well as the Neil Armstrong Air
& Space Museum in Wapakoneta, Ohio, and the Wilbur Wright Birthplace
and Museum in Millville, Indiana. It would include the homes of
pioneering aviators from the Wright brothers to the first man who
walked on the moon; buildings associated with the aerospace industry
from the first commercial factory to space-related manufacturing
facilities; Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which spans the history of
military aviation; and sites associated with important events in the
history of flight. The area demonstrates a strong tradition and offers
inspiration through the stories of national heroes like Eddie
Rickenbacker, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong and others.
The bill designates the Aviation Heritage Foundation, Inc., a non-
profit corporation chartered in the State of Ohio, as the management
entity for the heritage area and outlines the duties of the management
entity. It also authorizes the development of a management plan and
authorizes the use of Federal funds to develop and implement that plan.
If the plan is not submitted within three years of enactment of this
title, the heritage area becomes ineligible for Federal funding until a
plan is submitted to the Secretary. Additionally, the Secretary may, at
the request of the management entity, provide technical assistance and
enter into cooperative agreements with other public and private
entities to carry out this purpose. The use of Federal funds may not be
used to acquire real property or interests in real property.
This legislation would allow all Federal partners, including the
NPS, the United States Air Force (USAF), the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), and state and local groups to participate
in the management of the major facilities and resources within the
heritage area.
There is a long history of coordination among the aviation-related
historical sites in the potential national heritage area. Aviation
Trail, Inc. was formed in 1981 to promote the aviation heritage sites
within a multi-county area in southwest Ohio. Coordination and
collaboration between those sites was further enhanced with the
establishment of the Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission by Congress in
1992, which had some authority similar to the management entity of the
proposed national heritage area. The success shown in the coordination
of the sites is a positive indication that the national heritage area
would be successful in accomplishing its objectives.
This legislation is consistent with the recommendations of the
Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission, which was charged under Section
202(b)(4) of Public Law 102-419 ``to propose a management strategy for
a permanent organizational structure to enhance and coordinate such
resources, and aviation-related properties, and institutions.'' This
year, the 100th anniversary of the invention of the first powered
flight, there has been considerable public interest in the Wright
brothers and the history of aviation. Successful events in Ohio and
around the country have demonstrated the strong national support of the
kinds of historical resources affected by this legislation.
Recently, the Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission completed the
Concept Study for the Development of a National Aviation Heritage Area
(2002). This study, which included public hearings in Cleveland,
Columbus and Dayton, Ohio, identified more than 300 sites, resources
and stories from Ohio that have had a significant impact on the
development of aviation in the United States.
The establishment of the National Aviation Heritage Area would help
the citizens of Ohio to understand better their rich and complex
heritage, as well as share it with the many visitors to southwestern
Ohio. It would also help to ensure the American public is informed,
educated and supportive of this important component of our heritage,
which also remains a significant sector of our nation's economy.
There are several steps the Department believes should be taken
prior to Congress designating a national heritage area to help ensure
that the heritage area is successful. They are:
1. Public involvement in the suitability/feasibility study;
2. Completion of a suitability/feasibility study;
3. Demonstration of widespread public support among heritage area
residents for the proposed designation; and
4. Commitment to the proposal from the appropriate players which
may include governments, industry, and private, non-profit
organizations, in addition to the local citizenry.
We believe the studies that have been completed meet the intent of
these criteria. They are based on many years of work conducted by
various governmental and community organizations. These studies and
plans define a broad base of significant and related aviation resources
within southwestern Ohio, as well as the importance of the Federal,
state, local and private sectors partnering for the protection and
preservation of these resources. However, at this time, we would like
to focus our efforts on developing generic national heritage area
legislation as mentioned earlier in this testimony.
Title II of H.R. 280 would authorize the NPS to update the special
resource study that was done several years ago and provide alternatives
for including the Wright Company Factory property in the Dayton
Aviation Heritage National Historical Park. The cost would be
approximately $200,000 or less since these buildings were previously
studied but not recommended when the special resource study was done in
1992. A recent change in the ownership of the Wright Company Factory
property from General Motors to Delphi Corporation has provided an
opportunity to reexamine the original buildings used by the Wright
brothers to manufacture airplanes. The Delphi Corporation has not made
commitments for the future of the plant, which includes the Wright
Company buildings, but has indicated a willingness to participate in an
exploration of alternatives regarding the preservation and
interpretation of these buildings.
This site is integrally connected with the other sites in the
Dayton area. At the time these buildings were used to manufacture
airplanes, the Wrights lived only a few miles away at a site near the
current Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park. The planes
built in the factory were tested at the Huffman Prairie Flying Field,
now within the park unit. Congress recognized the importance of these
buildings in 1992 when it passed the Dayton Aviation Heritage
Preservation Act, and authorized a study to determine the feasibility
and suitability of including them in the Dayton Aviation Heritage
National Historical Park. That study concluded that the buildings are
``outstanding examples of a particular type of resource, and,
potentially, they offer exceptional value in illustrating and
interpreting important cultural themes of our nation's heritage.''
However, we did not recommend inclusion in the park at that time
because they were inaccessible to the public.
The Department supports Title II and recommends that the
Subcommittee amend H.R. 280 to move only this part of the bill forward
at this time. However, should the Committee move the bill as introduced
forward, the Department recommends one amendment to H.R. 280, which is
attached to this testimony. This amendment would authorize operational
assistance to the public and private organizations within the Heritage
Area. This amendment is similar to language found in other Heritage
Area laws and will facilitate the public/private partnerships that
exist between the Dayton Aviation Heritage NHP and the designated
Heritage Area.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Recommended amendment to H.R. 280:
On page 15, line 22 redesignate subsection (b) as subsection (c)
and insert the following new subsection:
``(b) OTHER ASSISTANCE.--The Secretary may provide to the
public and private organizations within the Heritage Area,
including the management entity for the Heritage Area,
operational assistance as appropriate to support the
implementation of the Management Plan, subject to the
availability of appropriations.''
______
Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director for
Cultural Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 704
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department's views on H.R. 704, a bill to direct the Secretaries of
Interior and Agriculture to conduct a joint special resources study to
evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Rim of the
Valley Corridor, in the Los Angeles region, as a unit of Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area. Similar legislation, S. 347, passed
the Senate on April 7, 2003.
The Department supports H.R. 704 with the minor modifications
explained in this testimony. We believe that this study would provide
an opportunity to explore partnerships with a wide range of state,
local, private and other federal entities for the purpose of protecting
and interpreting important natural and cultural resources in the area
the study would encompass.
The National Park Service is in various stages of progress on 40
studies previously authorized by Congress, 31 of which are being funded
through the special resource study budget. We completed five studies in
FY 2003, and we expect to complete about 18 studies in FY 2004. Our
highest priority is to complete these pending studies, though we expect
to start newly authorized studies as soon as funds are made available.
H.R. 704 directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to
conduct a joint special resource study of the Rim of the Valley
Corridor in Southern California. H.R. 704 further requires that the
study evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing the area
as a unit of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. The
Secretaries are directed to use the criteria for study of areas for
inclusion in the National Park System and to consult with appropriate
State, county and local governments. The study is estimated to cost
approximately $500,000.
The National Park Service generally conducts special resource
studies to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of an area to
become a new unit of the National Park System. We understand that the
intent of this bill is not to establish a new park, but rather to study
the Rim of the Valley Corridor as a potential addition for Santa Monica
Mountains National Recreation Area. As such, we suggest that the term
``resource study'' be used in the bill rather than ``special resource
study.'' We also recommend including language that makes it clear that
the study is meant to evaluate a range of alternatives for protecting
resources, as does S. 347 as passed by the Senate.
The study would assess habitat quality, access to urban open space,
low-impact recreation and educational uses, wildlife and habitat
restoration and protection and watershed improvements along the Rim of
the Valley Corridor surrounding the San Fernando and La Crescenta
Valleys. This corridor consists of portions of the Santa Monica
Mountains, Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo
Mountains, San Rafael Hills and the connector to Los Padres, Angeles,
and San Bernardino National Forests, which provide notable recreation
opportunities close to the Los Angeles basin. We commend the U.S.
Forest Service for the excellent job they have done in managing their
lands over the years, and look to their lead for the lands under their
administration.
In addition to natural and recreational opportunities, the area
also includes properties found on the National Register of Historic
Places. Old stagecoach stops and images of the Wild West still exist.
Amtrak's Coast Starlight line travels past many of these rich cultural
and natural motifs. The area supports a diverse system of plants and
animals, including 26 distinct plant communities and more than 400
vertebrate species.
As the largest urban park area in the National Park System, the
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area includes 153,750 acres
within its boundaries and provides recreational opportunities for
approximately 530,000 visitors annually. During the 25 years since the
national recreation area was authorized by Congress, this unit has
become a model of collaboration of many local, state and federal public
land managers, as well as many private property owners--all working
together as stewards of the scenic, natural, cultural and recreational
resources.
Recognizing the limitation of federal resources for acquiring and
managing additional lands, the study would have to examine a number of
alternatives for protecting significant areas of open space in the Rim
of the Valley Corridor, including those that involve minimal cost to
the federal government. With the study area encompassing 491,518 acres,
the study would emphasize public-private partnerships. Given the large
size and the diversity of stakeholders in the area, the study
undertaken by the National Park Service would involve extensive
outreach with members of the public, private landowners, and local
governments. It would likely entail extended comment periods, and
extensive analysis.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director for
Cultural Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 1399
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 1399, a bill to revise the
boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison
Gorge National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado, and for
other purposes.
The Department of the Interior supports H.R. 1399 with minor
amendments to the legislation. The bill authorizes additions to both
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park (``Park''), through three
separate easement or exchange transactions, and Gunnison Gorge National
Conservation Area (``NCA''). The revision of the national park boundary
would not contribute to the National Park Service (``NPS'') maintenance
backlog because the management and operation of the land added to the
boundary would not result in any additional facilities, increased
operating costs, or additional staffing. Costs involved with the land
transactions are expected to be minimal.
One transaction would involve the purchase of a conservation
easement on 26.5 acres, estimated to cost $100,000; however, the owner
has pledged to donate the conservation easement, conditioned upon the
Federal government being able to receive the donation by December 31,
2003. A second transaction would include an equal value exchange. The
third involves the transfer of 480 acres of isolated Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) land to the NPS and then the exchange of this parcel
for a conservation easement on approximately 2,000 acres. The landowner
has stated he is willing to donate any difference in value.
H.R. 1399 amends the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and
Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-
76). The boundary of the park would be revised to include the addition
of not more than 2,530 acres and the National Conservation Area (NCA)
would be expanded by approximately 7,100 acres. These additions are
reflected on a new map, dated April 2, 2003, which supplements the
boundary map referenced in P.L. 106-76.
The bill authorizes the transfer of 480 acres of BLM land to the
jurisdiction of NPS. The Secretary is authorized to acquire lands or
interests in lands in accordance with P.L. 106-76 (by donation,
transfer, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange) and
lands cannot be acquired without the consent of the owner.
H.R. 1399 also amends P.L. 106-76 to clarify grazing privileges
within the park. If land authorized for grazing within the park is
exchanged for private land, then any grazing privileges would transfer
to the private land that is acquired. Also, the bill clarifies the
length of time that grazing may be conducted on park lands by
partnerships.
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park
The boundary of the park will be expanded in three transactions.
The first, locally referred to as Sanburg II, is located just south of
Red Rock Canyon, one of the most scenic hiking opportunities into the
Black Canyon of the Gunnison. The landowner agrees with the NPS that
maintaining the rural character adjacent to the Red Rock Canyon
trailhead is an important part of the wilderness experience. The
landowner has previously sold conservation easements in this area
(authorized by P.L. 106-76 and a minor boundary revision) to The
Conservation Fund, who subsequently sold to NPS. Once acquisition of a
conservation easement on this 26.5 acre parcel is conveyed, the rural
character of the Red Rock Canyon gateway will be insured.
The second, the proposed Bramlett transaction, will authorize the
exchange of a 200-acre parcel of the Bramlett Ranch located on Grizzly
Ridge, which overlooks the North Rim Road and North and South Rim
overlooks. Although the landowner has proposed building cabins on the
ridge top, he is willing to exchange this 200-acre parcel for land of
equal value within the park and adjacent to his ranch headquarters. The
equal value exchange will give the landowner land with easier access,
and will add the ridgeline parcel to the park, thus protecting the
natural landscape in that portion of the park.
The third boundary adjustment, the Allison exchange, is located
along the East Portal Road, on the park's south rim. The landowner will
exchange a combination of fee simple ownership and a conservation
easement on up to 2,000 acres in return for fee simple ownership of up
to 480 acres of the BLM parcel that will be transferred to NPS. The
landowner has indicated that he will protect this parcel with a
conservation easement should he acquire it. He has also indicated that
he will donate any value above and beyond the value represented in the
exchange.
The Department believes these acquisitions are important for
several reasons. Combined with the land authorized by P.L. 106-76, the
present and future land requirements for the park will be met. The
present landowners are all willing sellers and, in addition to them,
this effort enjoys the support of the Montrose County Commissioners,
the Montrose Chamber of Commerce, and local and national land trusts
involved in the project.
H.R. 1399 will also amend P.L. 106-76 regarding grazing within the
park. P.L. 106-76 allowed for the continuation of grazing on the former
BLM lands transferred to the NPS. Permits held by individuals can be
renewed through the lifetime of the individual permittees. However,
P.L. 106-76 requires that partnerships and corporations be treated
alike regarding the termination of grazing permits. Partnerships and
corporations now lose their permits upon the termination of the last
remaining individual permit.
H.R. 1399 will amend P.L. 106-76 to treat partnerships similarly to
individual permit holders, allowing permits to be renewed through the
lifetime of the partners as of October 21, 1999. Since the two
partnerships affected are essentially family run ranching operations,
the Department feels that they should be treated consistently with
individual permit holders.
H.R. 1399 will also allow grazing on land acquired in an exchange
if the land being given up in the exchange currently has authorized
grazing. This appears to be consistent with the intent of Congress when
it authorized grazing in Public Law 106-76.
Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area
H.R. 1399 also provides for the expansion of the Gunnison Gorge NCA
managed by the BLM. A 5,759-acre parcel of land on the north side of
the existing NCA was acquired in January 2000 from a willing seller
through a land exchange. This acquisition was not completed in time to
include the lands within the original NCA boundary. This parcel
includes approximately five miles of the Gunnison River and provides
important resource values and recreational opportunities. In addition,
1,349 acres of preexisting BLM-managed public lands adjacent to the
acquisition would also be added to the NCA. The addition of these BLM
lands will create a more manageable NCA boundary and provide
appropriate protection and management emphasis for this area's
resources.
The legislation also makes some minor boundary adjustments to the
NCA. In the process of completing surveys of the lands designated as
the NCA by P.L. 106-76, the BLM discovered a few inadvertent trespass
situations on the NCA land. In order to resolve these issues with the
local landowners in a fair and equitable manner, slight boundary
modifications need to be made so that exchanges can be effected.
Without the benefit of this legislation, the BLM would be forced to
take extreme punitive measures which are not in the best interest of
the federal government or local landowners who previously were unaware
of the encroachment issues.
Water Delivery Facilities
With the passage of Public Law 106-76 the Uncompahgre Valley Water
Users Association expressed concern that access to water and related
facilities might be limited. H.R. 1399 clarifies that the Bureau of
Reclamation will retain jurisdiction over, and access to, all land,
facilities and roads in the East Portal and Crystal Dam areas for the
maintenance, repair, construction, replacement and operation of any
facilities relating to the delivery of water and power.
We believe that the bill, as introduced, has a couple of confusing
and unneeded sections. The Senate held a hearing on an identical bill,
S. 677, on June 10, 2003, and we recommended amendments during our
testimony at that hearing to clarify the language of the Senate bill.
Our amendments were approved by the Committee and passed by the Senate
on July 17, 2003. Since S. 677 is also pending before the Committee, we
recommend that this bill be considered and approved by the Committee in
lieu of H.R. 1399 to facilitate enactment of this legislation as soon
as possible.
That concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any
questions that you or the members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director for
Cultural Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 1594
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1594, a bill to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the suitability and
feasibility of establishing the St. Croix National Heritage Area in St.
Croix, United States Virgin Islands.
The Department supports the national heritage area program but
recommends that the Subcommittee defer action on any individual
national heritage area designation or study bill until generic national
heritage area legislation is enacted.
Ideally, national heritage areas provide a cost-effective way to
preserve nationally important natural, cultural, historic and
recreation resources through the creation of a working partnership
between federal, state and local entities. In addition, national
heritage areas should be locally driven, locally supported, should not
involve federal land acquisition or zoning, and should protect private
property rights. At its best, this program embodies Secretary of the
Interior Gale Norton's ``Four C's''--Communication, Consultation and
Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation.
Some national heritage areas, however, have not met this ideal. For
example, some national heritage areas have been designated without a
clear indication of the ability of the management entity to assume
responsibility for management of the area. The management entity
subsequently has operated the area without a clear financial plan for
achieving self-sufficiency without federal support. Consequently, it is
time to step back, evaluate existing areas, and develop legislative
guidelines that will shape future national heritage area designations.
The Department believes that a generic national heritage area bill
should serve as a gatekeeper--making clear what qualities the area must
possess and parameters under which designation will occur. We have
almost twenty years of experience in administering national heritage
areas and twenty-three existing national heritage areas to evaluate. In
the absence of formal legislation to guide the national heritage area
program, National Park Service (NPS) also has developed specific
critical steps that should occur prior to designation and interim
criteria that should be used for national heritage area suitability and
feasibility studies. These steps and criteria have been field-tested,
have proven to screen out many unqualified areas prior to recommending
designation, and should serve as a possible starting point for any
discussions on generic national heritage area legislation.
Based on our experience with the program, the Department would like
to offer several considerations that we believe are key components of a
successful national heritage area program.
1. Studying the Area Prior to Designation. In addition to the
broad parameters that can be achieved by legislation, it is critical to
have a process that evaluates the specific qualities of the area.
Requiring that a suitability and feasibility study or some equivalent
be conducted with a positive finding prior to recommending a
designation should be an essential component of any generic heritage
legislation that moves forward. Many of the issues discussed below
could be evaluated during a national heritage area study.
2. Nationally Important Resources. In reality, most places in
America have a special meaning to a particular group or are the site of
some historic event. To be designated as a national heritage area, the
area must contain nationally important natural, cultural, historic or
recreational resources. Not all resources should be considered
nationally important and, in some cases, designation as a state or
local heritage area may be more appropriate.
3. Local Support and Initiative. Local communities must not only
support the designation in concept, but must be willing and interested
in taking an active role in preservation efforts. They are responsible
for developing and implementing the management plan for the area and
should work towards a goal of achieving self-sufficiency. Given the
important role local communities play in the success of national
heritage areas, we also have concerns about the concept of establishing
national heritage areas in places that contain large tracts of federal
lands. We believe inclusion of large tracts of federal lands has the
potential to create confusion and unneeded conflict between management
regimes. Therefore, before studying any potential area that includes
large tracts of federal lands, we recommend that consultation and
concurrence of the land management agency should occur first.
4. Private Property Rights. Private property owners should be
provided reasonable protections. Such protections include prohibiting
the federal government from acquiring land for the national heritage
area or from imposing zoning or land use controls in national heritage
areas. Private property owners also should be provided with specific
protection from the management entity regulating land use zoning,
hunting or fishing or using federal funds to acquire land. Zoning
decisions should remain in control of local communities. The support of
private property owners should be considered in the context of
determining if sufficient local support exists for designation.
5. Partnerships and the Leveraging of Preservation Resources. Also
integral to the success of national heritage areas is the development
of a working partnership among the National Park Service, state
entities and the local communities. The National Park Service should
provide the communities with technical and financial assistance, but
not acquire any land or impose any zoning requirements. The local
communities should participate by developing and implementing the
management plan that will serve as a guide for interpreting the
national heritage area.
6. Achieving Self-Sufficiency/Limiting Limited Federal Resources.
To date, self-sufficiency has yet to be achieved with any national
heritage area, and the first four national heritage areas established
have sought and received Congressional extensions of their funding.
With federal dollars leveraging an average of 8.7 times that amount in
non-NPS partnership funds, national heritage areas can be a cost-
efficient way to preserve important resources. However, because of our
commitment to support the President's effort to address the deferred
maintenance backlog, we must significantly limit the long-term
commitment of federal funds to national heritage areas by requiring
they become self-sufficient. To achieve this goal, we must study, prior
to designation, whether an area has the resources and public support to
achieve self-sufficiency over the long-term. Today, some of the
national heritage areas have a cap of federal funding at $50,000 while
others receive up to $1 million per year. Reasonable limitations on
financial assistance from the Department should be developed and
extensions to this funding should be avoided.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on translating
these ideals into a generic national heritage area bill.
H.R. 1594 would authorize a study of the feasibility and
suitability of designating as a national heritage area the island of
St. Croix, which is located 40 miles south of St. Thomas and is the
largest of the three islands that make up the territory of the United
States Virgin Islands. This bill contains the criteria for making this
determination that includes directing the Secretary to consult with
State historic preservation officers, State historical societies, local
communities, and other appropriate organizations. This criteria and the
standard three-year time frame for conducting the study included in the
bill are provisions included in other national heritage area studies
that Congress has authorized in recent years.
The natural and cultural resources of St. Croix have been
recognized through the establishment of three units of the National
Park System there: Christiansted National Historic Site, Buck Island
Reef National Monument, and Salt River Bay National Historical Park and
Ecological Preserve.
The area that would be studied would encompass the historic towns
of Christiansted, built in 1734, and Frederiksted, built in 1752.
Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, spent his
young adult years in Christiansted and educated himself while working
as a clerk in his mother's small store. Christiansted is known
primarily for its 18th and 19th Century Danish architectural design
buildings; it has some of the finest examples of Danish architectural
design in the West Indies. The town was laid out by Danish surveyors
using a grid system and was the first in the West Indies that
instituted both a building code and zoning. Street widths were
regulated, easements were established, areas were zoned commercial or
residential, and building materials were specified. This urban planning
scheme is still visible today.
Both Christiansted's and Frederiksted's historic architecture
matured over a 100-year span. Neoclassical government buildings and
residences blend with Gothic Revival churches, combination shop-
residences, and wooden shingle cottages. The three residential styles
demonstrate Christiansted's and Frederiksted's colonial social
structure in the late 1700 and mid-1800's.
Archeological evidence shows migratory South American hunters-
gatherers on the island as far back as 2500 B.C. By 1425, Carib Indians
reached St. Croix in their westernmost territorial expansion. On
November 14, 1493, during his second voyage to the new world, Columbus
arrived at an area that today is part of Salt River Bay National
Historical Park and Ecological Preserve to look for fresh water. This
is the only site where Columbus' crew went ashore in the New World that
is under the American Flag. St. Croix is also the site of the first
recorded hostile encounter between Europeans and Native Americans.
During European rule of St. Croix, there were 218 sugar
plantations, typically between 250 to 300 acres, with about 100
windmills and 100 animal mills. Many of these plantations are still in
evidence today with their great houses, slave houses, windmills and
animal mills still in good condition.
Also associated with St. Croix is Buck Island Reef National
Monument, which was established by Presidential proclamation in 1961 to
preserve one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea. The
monument was expanded in 2001 by a subsequent proclamation to help
ensure the viability of the marine resources there. Located one-and-a-
half miles off of St. Croix, the 176-acre island and surrounding coral
reef ecosystem support a large variety of native flora and fauna, and
provide a haven to several endangered and threatened species.
While these resources could be further examined during a national
heritage study, the Department believes, as mentioned above, that
action on legislation authorizing such a study should be deferred until
generic heritage area legislation is enacted.
Should the Committee decide to move the bill, however, we would
recommend one amendment. Section 1(c) requires the Secretary of the
Interior to submit a report to Congress ``on the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the study.'' We have been informed by the
Department of Justice that to the extent that this provision purports
to require the Secretary of the Interior to make legislative
recommendations to Congress, it appears to violate the Recommendations
Clause of the Constitution, which reserves to the President the power
to decide whether it is necessary or expedient for the Executive Branch
to make legislative policy recommendations to the Congress. We would
therefore suggest amending Section 1(c) to instead read: ``...on the
findings and conclusions of the study, as well as any recommendations
the Secretary deems appropriate.''
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director for
Cultural Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 1618
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1618, to establish the Arabia
Mountain National Heritage Area in the State of Georgia.
The Department supports the national heritage area program, but
recommends that the Subcommittee defer action on any individual
national heritage area designation or study bill until generic national
heritage area legislation is enacted.
Ideally, national heritage areas provide a cost-effective way to
preserve nationally important natural, cultural, historic, and
recreation resources through the creation of a working partnership
between federal, state, and local entities. In addition, national
heritage areas should be locally driven, locally supported, should not
involve federal land acquisition or zoning, and protect private
property rights. At its best, this program embodies Secretary of the
Interior Gale Norton's ``Four C's''--Communication, Consultation and
Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation.
Some national heritage areas, however, have not met this ideal. For
example, some national heritage areas have been designated without a
clear indication of the ability of the management entity to assume
responsibility for management of the area. The management entity
subsequently has operated the area without a clear financial plan for
achieving self-sufficiency without federal support. Consequently, it is
time to step back, evaluate existing areas, and develop legislative
guidelines that will shape future national heritage area designations.
The Department believes that a generic national heritage area bill
should serve as a gatekeeper--making clear what qualities the area must
possess and parameters under which designation will occur. We have
almost twenty years of experience in administering national heritage
areas and twenty-three existing national heritage areas to evaluate. In
the absence of formal legislation to guide the national heritage area
program, National Park Service (NPS) also has developed specific
critical steps, identified later in this testimony, that should occur
prior to designation and interim criteria that should be used for
national heritage area suitability and feasibility studies. These steps
and criteria have been field-tested, have proven to screen out many
unqualified areas prior to recommending designation, and should serve
as a possible starting point for any discussions on generic national
heritage area legislation.
Based on our experience with the program, the Department would like
to offer several considerations that we believe are key components of a
successful national heritage area program.
1. Studying the Area Prior to Designation. In addition to the
broad parameters that can be achieved by legislation, it is critical to
have a process that evaluates the specific qualities of the area.
Requiring that a suitability and feasibility study or some equivalent
be conducted with a positive finding prior to recommending a
designation should be an essential component of any generic heritage
legislation that moves forward. Many of the issues discussed below
could be evaluated during a national heritage area study.
2. Nationally Important Resources. In reality, most places in
America have a special meaning to a particular group or are the site of
some historic event. To be designated as a national heritage area, the
area must contain nationally important natural, cultural, historic, or
recreational resources. Not all resources should be considered
nationally important and, in some cases, designation as a state or
local heritage area may be more appropriate.
3. Local Support and Initiative. Local communities must not only
support the designation in concept, but must be willing and interested
in taking an active role in preservation efforts. They are responsible
for developing and implementing the management plan for the area and
should work towards a goal of achieving self-sufficiency. Given the
important role local communities play in the success of national
heritage areas, we also have concerns about the concept of establishing
national heritage areas in places that contain large tracts of federal
lands. We believe inclusion of large tracts of federal lands has the
potential to create confusion and unneeded conflict between management
regimes. Therefore, before studying any potential area that includes
large tracts of federal lands, we recommend that consultation and
concurrence of the land management agency should occur first.
4. Private Property Rights. Private property owners should be
provided reasonable protections. Such protections include prohibiting
the federal government from acquiring land for the national heritage
area or from imposing zoning or land use controls in national heritage
areas. Private property owners also should be provided with specific
protection from the management entity regulating land use zoning,
hunting or fishing, or using federal funds to acquire land. Zoning
decisions should remain in control of local communities. The support of
private property owners should be considered in the context of
determining if sufficient local support exists for designation.
5. Partnerships and the Leveraging of Preservation Resources. Also
integral to the success of national heritage areas is the development
of a working partnership among the National Park Service, state
entities, and the local communities. The National Park Service should
provide the communities with technical and financial assistance, but
not acquire any land or impose any zoning requirements. The local
communities should participate by developing and implementing the
management plan that will serve as a guide for interpreting the
national heritage area.
6. Achieving Self-Sufficiency/Limiting Limited Federal Resources.
To date, self-sufficiency has yet to be achieved with any national
heritage area, and the first four national heritage areas established
have sought and received Congressional extensions of their funding.
With federal dollars leveraging an average of 8.7 times that amount in
non-NPS partnership funds, national heritage areas can be a cost-
efficient way to preserve important resources. However, because of our
commitment to support the President's effort to address the deferred
maintenance backlog, we must significantly limit the long-term
commitment of federal funds to national heritage areas by requiring
they become self-sufficient. To achieve this goal, we must study, prior
to designation, whether an area has the resources and public support to
achieve self-sufficiency over the long-term. Today, some of the
national heritage areas have a cap of federal funding at $50,000 while
others receive up to $1 million per year. Reasonable limitations on
financial assistance from the Department should be developed and
extensions to this funding should be avoided.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on translating
these ideals into a generic national heritage area bill.
H.R. 1618 would establish the Arabia Mountain National Heritage
Area within the boundary defined by the map developed for the
feasibility study for the heritage area. The legislation would name the
Arabia Mountain Heritage Area Alliance as the management entity for the
heritage area and provide for the Secretary of the Interior and the
Alliance to carry out the legislation through a cooperative agreement.
Provisions of the bill regarding the authority and duties of the
management entity, the development of a management plan, and Federal
technical and financial assistance that would be available to the
heritage area are similar to provisions that have been included in
legislation designating other heritage areas in recent years.
The proposed Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area would include
parts of DeKalb, Rockdale, and Henry Counties that lie within the
eastern side of the Atlanta metropolitan area. The heritage area would
encompass the Davidson-Arabia Mountain Nature Preserve, the City of
Lithonia, the Panola Mountain State Conservation Park, portions of the
South River, and several active granite quarries.
The Arabia Mountain area, which is known primarily for its granite
quarries, is rich in natural, cultural, and historic resources. Arabia
Mountain and other nearby prominent granite formations have been linked
to human settlement and activity for thousands of years, starting over
7,000 years ago with the quarrying and trading of soapstone. The area
contains specific types of granite outcropping that are very rare and
do not occur anywhere outside the Piedmont Region. Granite from this
area has been quarried and used around the nation, including in
buildings at the military academies at West Point and Annapolis.
The area retains an open and small-scale character, in contrast to
the more intensively developed areas closer in to the City of Atlanta.
The rapid growth of the metropolitan area in recent years has prompted
a recognition among those involved in this proposal that there may be
only a narrow window of opportunity to retain open lands and protect
important resources before land costs and economics of development make
such efforts much more difficult. The local governmental entities in
the proposed national heritage area and the State of Georgia support
national heritage area designation for this area.
In the view of the National Park Service, there are four critical
steps that need to be completed before Congress establishes a national
heritage area. Those steps are:
1. completion of a suitability/feasibility study;
2. public involvement in the suitability/feasibility study;
3. demonstration of widespread public support among heritage area
residents for the proposed designation; and
4. commitment to the proposal from the appropriate players, which
may include governments, industry, and private, non-profit
organizations, in addition to the local citizenry.
The National Park Service believes that those criteria have been
fulfilled through the work that was done by the Arabia Mountain
Heritage Area Alliance and other entities, including the National Park
Service, in conducting the feasibility study that was issued in
February 2001. However, at this time we would like to focus our efforts
on developing generic national heritage area legislation as mentioned
earlier in this testimony.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director,
Cultural Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 1798
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department's
views on H.R. 1798, a bill to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley
National Heritage Area in the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.
The Department supports the national heritage area program but
recommends that the Subcommittee defer action on any individual
national heritage area designation or study bill until generic national
heritage area legislation is enacted.
Ideally, national heritage areas provide a cost-effective way to
preserve nationally important natural, cultural, historic, and
recreation resources through the creation of a working partnership
between federal, state, and local entities. In addition, national
heritage areas should be locally driven, locally supported, should not
involve federal land acquisition or zoning, and should protect private
property rights. At its best, this program embodies Secretary of the
Interior Gale Norton's ``Four C's''--Communication, Consultation, and
Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation.
Some national heritage areas, however, have not met this ideal. For
example, some national heritage areas have been designated without a
clear indication of the ability of the management entity to assume
responsibility for management of the area. The management entity
subsequently has operated the area without a clear financial plan for
achieving self-sufficiency without federal support. Consequently, it is
time to step back, evaluate existing areas, and develop legislative
guidelines that will shape future national heritage area designations.
The Department believes that a generic national heritage area bill
should serve as a gatekeeper--making clear what qualities the area must
possess and parameters under which designation will occur. We have
almost twenty years of experience in administering national heritage
areas and twenty-three existing national heritage areas to evaluate. In
the absence of formal legislation to guide the national heritage area
program, National Park Service (NPS) also has developed specific
critical steps, identified later in this testimony, that should occur
prior to designation and interim criteria that should be used for
national heritage area suitability and feasibility studies. These steps
and criteria have been field-tested, have proven to screen out many
unqualified areas prior to recommending designation, and should serve
as a possible starting point for any discussions on generic national
heritage area legislation.
Based on our experience with the program, the Department would like
to offer several considerations that we believe are key components of a
successful national heritage area program.
1. Studying the Area Prior to Designation. In addition to the
broad parameters that can be achieved by legislation, it is critical to
have a process that evaluates the specific qualities of the area.
Requiring that a suitability and feasibility study or some equivalent
be conducted with a positive finding prior to recommending a
designation should be an essential component of any generic heritage
legislation that moves forward. Many of the issues discussed below
could be evaluated during a national heritage area study.
2. Nationally Important Resources. In reality, most places in
America have a special meaning to a particular group or are the site of
some historic event. To be designated as a national heritage area, the
area must contain nationally important natural, cultural, historic, or
recreational resources. Not all resources should be considered
nationally important and, in some cases, designation as a state or
local heritage area may be more appropriate.
3. Local Support and Initiative. Local communities must not only
support the designation in concept, but must be willing, and
interested, in taking an active role in preservation efforts. They are
responsible for developing and implementing the management plan for the
area and should work towards a goal of achieving self-sufficiency.
Given the important role local communities play in the success of
national heritage areas, we also have concerns about the concept of
establishing national heritage areas in places that contain large
tracts of federal lands. We believe inclusion of large tracts of
federal lands has the potential to create confusion and unneeded
conflict between management regimes. Therefore, before studying any
potential area that includes large tracts of federal lands, we
recommend that consultation and concurrence of the land management
agency should occur first.
4. Private Property Rights. Private property owners should be
provided reasonable protections. Such protections include prohibiting
the federal government from acquiring land for the national heritage
area or from imposing zoning or land use controls in national heritage
areas. Private property owners also should be provided with specific
protection from the management entity regulating land use zoning,
hunting or fishing or using federal funds to acquire land. Zoning
decisions should remain in control of local communities. The support of
private property owners should be considered in the context of
determining if sufficient local support exists for designation.
5. Partnerships and the Leveraging of Preservation Resources. Also
integral to the success of national heritage areas is the development
of a working partnership among the National Park Service, state
entities and the local communities. The National Park Service should
provide the communities with technical and financial assistance, but
not acquire any land or impose any zoning requirements. The local
communities should participate by developing and implementing the
management plan that will serve as a guide for interpreting the
national heritage area.
6. Achieving Self-Sufficiency/Limiting Limited Federal Resources.
To date, self-sufficiency has yet to be achieved with any national
heritage area, and the first four national heritage areas established
have sought and received Congressional extensions of their funding.
With federal dollars leveraging an average of 8.7 times that amount in
non-NPS partnership funds, national heritage areas can be a cost-
efficient way to preserve important resources. However, because of our
commitment to support the President's effort to address the deferred
maintenance backlog, we must significantly limit the long-term
commitment of federal funds to national heritage areas by requiring
they become self-sufficient. To achieve this goal, we must study, prior
to designation, whether an area has the resources and public support to
achieve self-sufficiency over the long-term. Today, some of the
national heritage areas have a cap of federal funding at $50,000 while
others receive up to $1 million per year. Reasonable limitations on
financial assistance from the Department should be developed and
extensions to this funding should be avoided.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on translating
these ideals into a generic national heritage area bill.
H.R. 1798 would establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National
Heritage Area, encompassing 29 communities in western Massachusetts and
northwestern Connecticut, extending 60 miles through the watershed of
the upper Housatonic River, from Kent, Connecticut, to Lanesboro,
Massachusetts. The bill would also identify the Upper Housatonic Valley
National Heritage Area Inc. as the management entity for the national
heritage area.
The Upper Housatonic Valley, sometimes referred to as ``the
fourteenth colony,'' is a singular geographical and cultural region
that is characterized by significant national contributions in
literature, art, music, and architectural achievements; its iron,
paper, and electrical equipment industries; and scenic beautification
and environmental conservation efforts. The region contains five
National Historic Landmarks including the homes of W.E.B. Dubois, Edith
Wharton and Herman Melville. Over 120 sites and 18 historic districts
on the National Register of Historic Places dot the landscape. It was
home to Nathaniel Hawthorne, painters Norman Rockwell and Jasper Johns,
and sculptor Daniel Chester French, who sculpted the ``Seated Lincoln''
at the Lincoln Memorial. Among the Upper Housatonic Valley's early iron
masters was Ethan Allen, the hero of Fort Ticonderoga and an early
mercantile activist. Important events related to the Revolutionary War,
Shays' Rebellion, and early civil rights activism also took place in
the area. The region's performing arts centers--the Boston Symphony
Orchestra's summer home at Tanglewood, Music Mountain, Norfolk Chamber
Music Festival, Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Berkshire Theatre
Festival, and Shakespeare & Company--are internationally known.
The Upper Housatonic Valley contains a myriad of natural resources
and has been the beneficiary of a long history of innovative
environmental conservation initiatives that have been influential
across the country. These include pioneering state parks and private
nature preserves and the first village improvement society in America,
the Laurel Hill Association, of Stockbridge, Massachusetts. Four
National Natural Landmarks, including unique bogs and an old growth
forest, have been designated here. The Appalachian National Scenic
Trail follows the length of the Upper Housatonic Valley.
The region was the site of pioneering endeavors in the iron, paper,
and electrical generation industries. The iron industry, which was
responsible for manufacturing 75% of the cannons used by the
Continental Army during the American Revolution, was active from 1735
until 1923. The first mill in America to make paper from wood pulp was
located in Stockbridge, Massachusetts.
Tied together by the Housatonic River, the region offers extensive
opportunities for resource preservation, education, and tourism. The
heritage area designation would link together several existing historic
sites, such as protected iron smelting sites, to strengthen the
understanding of the regional historical significance of the valley.
The area also reflects the rich traditions and folkways of the Mohican
Indians, Shakers, Yankee farmers, African Americans, and European
immigrant groups. The educational and preservation value of the valley
to residents was a major point of public support for designation.
There is extensive citizen involvement in heritage activities in
the Upper Housatonic Valley involving a broad array of municipalities,
private organizations, and individuals. The non-profit organization,
Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area Inc., has a broad-based
membership and a strong track record in organizing heritage
initiatives. Comments at public meetings, and those received as the
draft feasibility study concluded, indicate strong public support for
national heritage area designation.
In the opinion of the Department there are four critical steps that
need to be taken and documented prior to the Congress designating a
heritage area. These steps are:
1. demonstration of widespread public support among heritage area
residents for the proposed designation;
2. public involvement in the suitability/feasibility study;
3. commitment to the proposal from appropriate representatives
from government, business, and private non-profit organizations, as
well as local citizens; and
4. completion of a suitability/feasibility study.
The Department's Draft Feasibility Study for the Upper Housatonic
Valley National Heritage Area found that the Upper Housatonic Valley
meets the Department's ten interim criteria for designation of a
national heritage area. The Upper Housatonic Valley is distinctive for
having a landscape that includes a blend of industrial innovations,
environmental conservation initiatives, and cultural achievements of
national significance. However, at this time, we would like to focus
our efforts on developing generic national heritage area legislation as
mentioned earlier in this testimony.
This completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you or any members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director,
Cultural Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 1862
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department's
views on H.R. 1862, a bill to establish the Oil Region National
Heritage Area in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Department supports the national heritage area program, but
recommends that the Subcommittee defer action on any individual
national heritage area designation or study bill until generic national
heritage area legislation is enacted.
Ideally, national heritage areas provide a cost-effective way to
preserve nationally important natural, cultural, historic and
recreation resources through the creation of a working partnership
between federal, state and local entities. In addition, national
heritage areas should be locally driven, locally supported, should not
involve federal land acquisition or zoning, and should protect private
property rights. At its best, this program embodies Secretary of the
Interior Gale Norton's ``Four C's''--Communication, Consultation and
Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation.
Some national heritage areas, however, have not met this ideal. For
example, some national heritage areas have been designated without a
clear indication of the ability of the management entity to assume
responsibility for management of the area. The management entity
subsequently has operated the area without a clear financial plan for
achieving self-sufficiency without federal support. Consequently, it is
time to step back, evaluate existing areas, and develop legislative
guidelines that will shape future national heritage area designations.
The Department believes that a generic national heritage area bill
should serve as a gatekeeper--making clear what qualities the area must
possess and parameters under which designation will occur. We have
almost twenty years of experience in administering national heritage
areas and twenty-three existing national heritage areas to evaluate. In
the absence of formal legislation to guide the national heritage area
program, National Park Service (NPS) also has developed specific
critical steps, identified later in this testimony, that should occur
prior to designation and interim criteria that should be used for
national heritage area suitability and feasibility studies. These steps
and criteria have been field-tested, have proven to screen out many
unqualified areas prior to recommending designation, and should serve
as a possible starting point for any discussions on generic national
heritage area legislation.
Based on our experience with the program, the Department would like
to offer several considerations that we believe are key components of a
successful national heritage area program.
1. Studying the Area Prior to Designation. In addition to the
broad parameters that can be achieved by legislation, it is critical to
have a process that evaluates the specific qualities of the area.
Requiring that a suitability and feasibility study or some equivalent
be conducted with a positive finding prior to recommending a
designation should be an essential component of any generic heritage
legislation that moves forward. Many of the issues discussed below
could be evaluated during a national heritage area study.
2. Nationally Important Resources. In reality, most places in
America have a special meaning to a particular group or are the site of
some historic event. To be designated as a national heritage area, the
area must contain nationally important natural, cultural, historic or
recreational resources. Not all resources should be considered
nationally important and, in some cases, designation as a state or
local heritage area may be more appropriate.
3. Local Support and Initiative. Local communities must not only
support the designation in concept, but must be willing and interested
in taking an active role in preservation efforts. They are responsible
for developing and implementing the management plan for the area and
should work towards a goal of achieving self-sufficiency. Given the
important role local communities play in the success of national
heritage areas, we also have concerns about the concept of establishing
national heritage areas in places that contain large tracts of federal
lands. We believe inclusion of large tracts of federal lands has the
potential to create confusion and unneeded conflict between management
regimes. Therefore, before studying any potential area that includes
large tracts of federal lands, we recommend that consultation and
concurrence of the land management agency should occur first.
4. Private Property Rights. Private property owners should be
provided reasonable protections. Such protections include prohibiting
the federal government from acquiring land for the national heritage
area or from imposing zoning or land use controls in national heritage
areas. Private property owners also should be provided with specific
protection from the management entity regulating land use zoning,
hunting or fishing or using federal funds to acquire land. Zoning
decisions should remain in control of local communities. The support of
private property owners should be considered in the context of
determining if sufficient local support exists for designation.
5. Partnerships and the Leveraging of Preservation Resources. Also
integral to the success of national heritage areas is the development
of a working partnership among the National Park Service, state
entities and the local communities. The National Park Service should
provide the communities with technical and financial assistance, but
not acquire any land or impose any zoning requirements. The local
communities should participate by developing and implementing the
management plan that will serve as a guide for interpreting the
national heritage area.
6. Achieving Self-Sufficiency/Limiting Limited Federal Resources.
To date, self-sufficiency has yet to be achieved with any national
heritage area, and the first four national heritage areas established
have sought and received Congressional extensions of their funding.
With federal dollars leveraging an average of 8.7 times that amount in
non-NPS partnership funds, national heritage areas can be a cost-
efficient way to preserve important resources. However, because of our
commitment to support the President's effort to address the deferred
maintenance backlog, we must significantly limit the long-term
commitment of federal funds to national heritage areas by requiring
they become self-sufficient. To achieve this goal, we must study, prior
to designation, whether an area has the resources and public support to
achieve self-sufficiency over the long-term. Today, some of the
national heritage areas have a cap of federal funding at $50,000, while
others receive up to $1 million per year. Reasonable limitations on
financial assistance from the Department should be developed and
extensions to this funding should be avoided.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on translating
these ideals into a generic national heritage area bill.
H.R.1862 would establish the Oil Region National Heritage Area
comprising all of Venango County and a portion of Crawford County in
western Pennsylvania. It would establish a cooperative management
framework to assist the state in conserving, enhancing and interpreting
the significant resources of the region. The bill would also designate
Oil Heritage Region Inc. as the management entity for the national
heritage area.
The Oil Heritage Region is known, appropriately, as ``The Valley
That Changed the World'' due to the first successful oil well drilled
by Colonel Edwin Drake with the assistance of William Smith, a
Pennsylvania salt well digger, in 1859. This event had an overriding
impact on the industrial revolution and continues to affect the daily
life of the nation and the world.
The region contains the world renowned Drake Well Museum in
Titusville, Oil Creek State Park and portions of the Allegheny Wild and
Scenic River, the latter designated by Congress in 1992, and
administered by the U.S. Forest Service. It also contains six National
Historic Districts, 17 sites listed on the National Register of
Historic Places and an extensive collection of Victorian-styled
architecture in Franklin, Oil City, Emlenton and Titusville. Remnants
of the oil boom era, including McClintock Well #1, the oldest operating
well in the United States, can be found throughout the region. The
stories of early oil magnates and those who worked in the oil fields
provide exceptionally rich interpretive opportunities related to the
region's natural and cultural resources. This important heritage
contributes not only to our own national story, but also to the
advancement of industries and transportation systems throughout the
world.
Oil Heritage Region is currently designated a State Heritage Park
by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its management entity, the Oil
Heritage Region, Inc., is experienced in natural and cultural resources
preservation and heritage-related programming. The management entity
enjoys the support of local governments and organizations in the
proposed national heritage area. Its board of directors is already
representative of many interests in the region. The bill provides that
the Secretary will confirm its expanded representation in approving the
required management plan for the heritage area.
In the opinion of the Department there are four critical steps that
need to be taken and documented prior to the Congress designating a
heritage area. These stages are:
1. demonstration of widespread public support among heritage area
residents for the proposed designation;
2. public involvement in the suitability/feasibility study;
3. commitment to the proposal from the appropriate representatives
from governments, industry, and private, non-profit organizations, in
addition to the local citizenry; and
4. completion of a suitability/feasibility study.
The Department has reviewed the existing heritage and interpretive
plans undertaken by Oil Region Heritage, Inc. beginning in 1994 and, at
the request of Representative John Peterson, conducted a week-long
reconnaissance visit to confirm the region's eligibility for
designation in early August 2000. During the visit, the team met with
the Mayor of Oil City, the Community Development Officers of Oil City
and Franklin, the City Managers of Oil City and Titusville, two County
Commissioners, a Regional Representative of the Governor's Office, a
State Legislator, the District Director of Representative John
Peterson, and other local leaders and officials. Senior officials,
working representatives of government agencies, and non-profit leaders
were also involved in meetings and informal visits.
A feasibility report, entitled ``Field Report on the Oil Region
Heritage Park, Pennsylvania, as a National Heritage Area,'' was issued
subsequent to the reconnaissance visit on September 15, 2000. It
concludes that the Oil Heritage Region had completed the above steps
and met the interim feasibility criteria for designation as a national
heritage area. At the suggestion of the Department, Representative
Peterson also sponsored two public meetings in February 2001. At the
meetings, there was overwhelming support for designation of a national
heritage area. However, at this time, we would like to focus our
efforts on developing generic national heritage area legislation as
mentioned earlier in this testimony.
That completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you or any of the members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Patterson. We
appreciate your testimony.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Udall, Mr. Mark Udall, for 5
minutes for questions.
Mr. Mark Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I might, I would like to direct some questions to Mr.
Hughes and Mr. Pease on H.R. 2909. Could you describe the
working relationship between the BLM and the Air Force in the
Utah West Desert?
Mr. Hughes. If I might start, I know it is my understanding
that we have at least three major MOUs, one dealing with the
management of wild horses and burros. We also have an MOU
regarding what happens if an aircraft goes down on BLM land.
And then, I think we also have a major MOU regarding
firefighting activities on public lands.
Mr. Pease. Sir, and I would say that is relatively standard
in the three states where we have the largest land bases--we, I
am saying the Air Force--in Utah, Nevada and Arizona. We have a
very, very close working relationship with the BLM in those
areas, and we do things like introduction of bighorn sheep up
in areas very close to our--up in the Newfoundland Mountains, I
believe, that were just reintroduced right in and around the
bombing range and other things in other states. So it is a
very, very close working relationship.
Mr. Mark Udall. Excellent. Can either of you identify any
specific problems that the wilderness study areas, the so-
called WSAs, in the Utah West Desert have caused for the Test
and Training Range over the last decade, say? Any specific
problems that the wilderness study areas have caused in the
Test and Training Range?
Mr. Pease. I am unaware of any problems that they have
caused up until now.
Mr. Mark Udall. If we did not--I should put it more
accurately. In the absence of H.R. 2909, which is the situation
we are in right now, do you see anything that would prevent the
BLM and the Air Force from continuing to work cooperatively?
Mr. Hughes or Mr. Pease?
Mr. Hughes. No.
Mr. Pease. No.
Mr. Mark Udall. And you have outlined some of the great
working agreements that you have, the MOUs and so on, that are
in place, and if Mr. Gibbons were here, he would want to talk
about the wild horses and burros for sure, since that is a
significant challenge in his state and along the Utah-Nevada
border.
Moving on in my line of questioning, it sounds to me like
the legislation that is being proposed is not necessarily going
to solve any problems, because you all have not identified any
problems, at least up to this point, in the hearing. Mr.
Hughes?
Mr. Hughes. I think the issue that we are talking about
designating actual wilderness study areas or actually
designating a wilderness area, which I think some of us think
may have a higher threshold. So I think we are trying to
understand, I know in Utah, where they do not have these--how
these issues have been handled, for instance, in the California
desert and other areas.
Mr. Mark Udall. Mr. Pease, would you like to comment on
that?
Mr. Pease. Certainly; we realize that as we--I will tell
you, as our relationship gets, in my estimation, and I have
been doing this business for around 10 years, in uniform and
now in the civilian sector within the civil service, our
relationship is getting stronger and stronger with the Bureau
of Land Management over that period of time. And we are
learning a lot of things about how we operate. I believe that
wilderness study areas, the disadvantage, if you will, of a
wilderness study area is that it does freeze the status quo for
a period of time.
And so, we know that we cannot do some things in a
wilderness study area until they are designated as wilderness.
We have been successful in working with the Bureau of Land
Management groups, states, this Committee, drafters of bills,
of wilderness bills in California and Arizona, et cetera, to be
able to preserve the compatibility of uses between the military
and the land management agencies but also allow for a certain
amount of flexibility to do our mission a little bit better,
whereas, the letter of the law, perhaps, in the Wilderness
Study Act would not allow us to do that, because those pieces
of land are frozen, if you will, in time until they come to
some wilderness bill one way or another.
So that would be the advantage, if you want, of a
wilderness bill itself.
Mr. Mark Udall. So in an interesting way, there is some
uncertainty in the wilderness study area approach that if we
had wilderness would be more easily determined what you can and
cannot do and how you would work with the BLM?
Mr. Pease. It might be able to provide us with some
flexibility for doing some things that would be compatible that
the letter of the law would not allow us as it relates to the
Wilderness Study Act.
Mr. Mark Udall. My last question as my time begins to end,
and directed to Mr. Hughes, is: Are you saying that we might
have to consider the Air Force's needs if and when Congress
considers legislation to designate the WSAs as wilderness?
Mr. Hughes. No, I think what I attempted to say, and if I
did not, I apologize, that we are trying to understand--some of
the lands that are included, that we think are included in
wilderness, in the proposed wilderness area, we really have not
looked closely at, because it was not part of our WSA. Those
areas may be areas that there might be some ongoing activities
in or some plans for some activities, so we are just trying to
understand what the Air Force's needs might be in the future
and how that will play into the designation and what type of
management schemes we can have there that can balance their
need and the need for the military in the 21st Century versus
our need to protect the resources out there.
Mr. Mark Udall. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired,
but I would just ask Mr. Hughes and perhaps Mr. Pease to
consider a question that we could have answered, perhaps,
later, which is it sounds like you might be making a case that
the bill is premature at this point, that there is more work to
do to understand where we might go.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. You are welcome. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Bishop from Utah.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you again. Mr. Hughes, first of all, I
would like to thank you for your testimony and thank you also
for the help and the effort that you have done in all types of
land issues in the State of Utah and with my office. And as the
Congressman from Colorado has pointed out, there is a wonderful
working relationship that we have right now which is the
product of some very positive, proactive personalities that are
down there.
For obvious reasons, one of the reasons I would like to do
this bill--and I will admit it--it is early on--is to make sure
we take a proactive position to ensure this, which is the only
land mass that we have to do these types of activities forever.
So I want you to know first of all, I appreciate your
invitation to continue to work with you as we have with the
local leaders as we look especially at the proposed wilderness
piece to maybe be creative in both the south as well as the
north.
Our starting point was obviously the bill that passed the
House last year as to what would be designated as wilderness,
and I would be more than happy to work with you, and I
appreciate that opportunity to do so in the future as we look
creatively at the southern piece as well as the northern piece
so that you have the maximum ability to manage the property as
well.
Mr. Loman, I would like to ask you one question: as far as
the testimony you gave, does the administrative process that
you mentioned in your testimony as being frustrated by this
legislation take into account any consideration of potential
negative impacts of the PFS proposal on the Utah Test and
Training Range or national security?
Mr. Loman. Your question is does it take into account the
negative effects?
Mr. Bishop. Potential negative effects that that activity
may have, specifically on the UTTR and national security.
Mr. Loman. I would have to say because the NRC completed an
environmental impact statement for this project, the answer
would be yes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Pease, Colonel Pease, I appreciate your speaking. I
guess the first question is simply this Utah Test and Training
Range, for which we are talking about here, are there things
that are done on there, types of training activities, that can
be done nowhere else in the United States?
Mr. Pease. We do the predominant amount of our cruise
missile testing there. It is a large range, and we have other
ranges that can do some of those things, but most of the cruise
missile testing is done right there at the Utah Test and
Training Range.
Mr. Bishop. I understand that you have some other ranges
that are over water that would give you the same kind of space
that is here. Is there any other place that you have the same
kind of land capabilities or air space capabilities that you
have here?
Mr. Pease. Well, we know that we have unique military
values on all of the ranges that we have in the Air Force. We
have some places that have larger pieces of air space in
Alaska, for instance. We have over land and all kinds of
different combinations. As far as the combination of land and
air space, the Utah Test and Training Range is as large as any
one of them.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Colonel, in testimony that was given
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, you stated the Air Force
requires unrestricted access to this corridor in the severe
MOU--that is the one that may be impacted. Approximately 70 to
80 percent of all fighter and bomber training missions use this
southern portion. If military aircraft were restricted from
flying in the vicinity of a storage facility, if that were a
decision, that would delay tactical maneuvering and
subsequently reduce the effective training for each sortie
flown to the southern portion of the Utah Test and Training
Range.
If I may quote from the next page as well: degradation of
our operational test and training capabilities would be
unacceptable. Consequently, any proposed location must not
restrict current UTTR operations. The Air Force's interest is
to ensure continued testing and training activities at this
vital facility. Therefore, the Air Force opposes any
restrictions that might result in the siting of the proposed
PFS facility that would impair our ability to test equipment or
train our military men and women on the land and the air space
associated with the UTTR.
Realizing that the final adjudication of whether a risk is
or is not there has not been finally stated, and that still is
open to some debate, do you still stand by these statements as
to the impact and the importance to the UTTR?
Mr. Pease. Yes, sir, and this is consistent with our
statement about our operations as they relate to other
facilities of this same nature. The citing of the facility, our
interest has not been necessarily on the siting itself but on
the impact to our operations, and our position has been that we
would not accept restrictions to our operations associated with
a siting of a particular piece of infrastructure of this kind.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Colonel. I appreciate that.
Mr. Tiller, I actually have a question for you, so how are
you?
Mr. Tiller. Fine. Yourself?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Good, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my questions for this panel.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. Thanks, Mr. Bishop.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Tom Udall for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I guess my question is directed to Mr. Hughes and Mr.
Loman. Your testimony indicates that the Department of the
Interior has some vague concerns with the prohibition on
rights-of-way contained in H.R. 2909. Can you be more specific
as to what those concerns are?
Mr. Hughes. If I might, we have, as I indicated, two
pending right-of-way applications. We also have 12 existing
applications--or 12 existing rights-of-way that could come up
for renewal during this timeframe that the bill prohibits. They
include, just to give you an example, the Union Pacific
Railroad from Salt Lake City to Sacramento; old U.S. Highway
40; Interstate Highway 80, and those are the types of things
that we want to work with the Committee on to make sure that
they are aware that this sort of blanket prohibition may impact
those rights-of-way at a future date.
Mr. Tom Udall. So what is your position on the bill
prohibiting or denying the rights-of-way?
Mr. Hughes. Generally speaking, I think we generally
dislike anything that prohibits administrative actions, you
know, in a blanket way such as that.
Mr. Tom Udall. So today, you are taking a position against
that prohibition in the bill?
Mr. Hughes. I think we would like to discuss that with the
Committee. That is correct.
Mr. Tom Udall. Well, at first, I thought you seemed to say
that you would disapprove of that. I am trying to figure out
what your position is today with regard to the prohibition in
the bill. And I thought you said that we would generally
disagree with that kind of thing being inserted in the bill.
Mr. Hughes. Yes, yes, we have concerns about that being in
the bill, for, again, some of the reasons I gave.
Mr. Tom Udall. Well, I know you have concerns, but I would
like to know: do you oppose it being in the bill, that kind of
prohibition?
Mr. Hughes. I think that is probably correct.
Mr. Tom Udall. And Mr. Loman can agree with that, too?
Mr. Loman. With respect to the prohibition that is going to
prohibit the application for the proposed 30-mile railroad to
the spent storage facility, we oppose that prohibition to that
specific application for that transportation rights-of-way,
because we believe that that is what will halt the ongoing
process that will allow us to determine whether or not that
proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility is a viable option
for our Indian beneficiaries.
Mr. Tom Udall. So you oppose the prohibition on the rights-
of-way in H.R. 2909?
Mr. Loman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tom Udall. Yes.
No further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Duncan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Tiller, the staff has provided a statement
here that says the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation
Area is approximately 153,000 acres, and the Rim of the Valley
Study Area is over 491,000 acres. If the conclusion of the
study is in the affirmative, the Secretary would recommend
tripling the size of the unit and, at the same time, placing
thousands of private property owners within the boundary of a
National Park unit. Is that statement correct, and do you know
how many private property owners we are talking about? The
staff says thousands. Do you have any specific number?
Mr. Tiller. With respect to that question, sir, no, I do
not, but we can provide that for the record afterwards.
On the larger issue, I think a number of things. One of the
things that I think makes the Santa Monica Mountains such a
successful management area is it is a great complexity of
public and private lands, and it is probably safe to say it is
more in the model of the parks of now and parks of the future
rather than large acquisitions in fee or in interest by the
Federal Government. And I think that is what has made Santa
Monica Mountains so successful to date.
My guess, without preempting the study and the
consideration be done jointly by the two departments; I suspect
that you will see that the final recommendations will be in the
neighborhood of little to no acquisition in fee or interest by
the Federal Government and, like many of the heritage areas in
which I have testified a little bit later in my comments, you
will see joint management by many entities. So I think that the
likelihood that this study will come out recommending large
increases in the size of the park and in Federal ownership
would be very unlikely.
Mr. Duncan. Well, let me ask you this: a witness who will
testify later says that he is submitting letters from 34 Los
Angeles area residents, including property owners and
recreational units in and near the proposed study region; all
of these very strongly oppose H.R. 704, and he ends up and says
in conclusion, H.R. 704 has significant regional opposition
from property owners and public access community leaders. Up to
this point, they have had no idea what the NPS and the
Conservancy have had in store. Supporters should go back to the
drawing board and, this time around, begin an inclusive
discussion process.
If somebody has been alerted because of this hearing about
this going on, when would be the next opportunity for opponents
to show up and express their disapproval about this?
Mr. Tiller. I think probably the best indication, those of
you who are familiar with the sorts of studies that we
undertake in these sorts of situations; we usually build these
things out somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000 to do the
study; we have recommended and anticipate more than doubling
that in the case if this goes forward, and this bill is made
law. Given the complexity of landownership, given the
complexity of people interested in this, and given the density
of the population, public consultation, public meetings,
notices in newspapers, I think the Department of the Interior
and Department of Agriculture will definitely guarantee you
significant and multiple accesses for private property owners
and everyone interested in this issue to participate in this
process.
Mr. Duncan. Let me ask you this: you have got what? 354
units in the National Park system or somewhere around that?
Mr. Tiller. 388.
Mr. Duncan. 388? All right; how many national recreation
areas are there?
Mr. Tiller. I am sorry, Congressman, I do not know off the
top of my head.
Mr. Duncan. How many national heritage areas are there?
Mr. Tiller. There are 23 national heritage areas.
Mr. Duncan. And there are what? Five more being proposed
here today?
Mr. Tiller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duncan. And then, how many national conservation areas
are there?
Mr. Tiller. I am not sure, sir. We will get you that for
the record.
Mr. Duncan. How many wildlife refuges are there?
Mr. Tiller. I am not aware of that either at the moment.
Mr. Duncan. We always hear about the Park Service not
having enough money and having backlogs in maintenance and so
forth. It would seem to me that it would be better for the Park
Service to try to take better care of what they have instead of
continuing to expand, expand, expand and take over more
property under whatever guise. But I do not know.
Mr. Loman, let me ask you this on the Utah situation: are
there no other economic options available to the Goshutes than
the nuclear waste storage? Because that storage apparently,
from what I am told, is adamantly opposed by many, many
residents of Utah.
Mr. Loman. There are very few economic development
opportunities, considering that the land is surrounded by waste
facilities, the tribal land, including radioactive disposal
sites and chemical and biological weapons depots. We are
working with the band to identify other opportunities, and we
have committed to the band that pursuing any such opportunity
would not be a substitute for the proposed nuclear fuel storage
facility.
Mr. Duncan. All right; thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
Ms. Bordallo, you are recognized for 5 minutes. No time?
Great.
Mr. Peterson, you are recognized for 5 minutes--I am sorry;
Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Peterson was here
a moment ago. He had to get a phone call.
Mr. Radanovich. I am hearing and seeing different things
here.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions. I
think I will yield some time to Mr. Bishop. But I would like to
thank the panel for being here today. These are great guys,
especially, as Mr. Bishop said, Mr. Hughes has been very, very
helpful on our public lands issues in my district as well. I
wanted to thank him in particular.
And with that, I would like to yield to Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Radanovich. Certainly.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Loman, I was concerned with the last answer that you
just happened to give. I understand that even if there are
other economic opportunities that are presented to the Goshute
Band that they still would like to pursue this particular one
that deals with PFS and nuclear storage, right? Even if
anything else was out there, they would still be moving forward
or have expressed to you their willingness to move forward
still with the PFS proposal.
Mr. Loman. I cannot speak for what they want to do.
Mr. Bishop. All right; well, I will ask them when they come
up here.
But are you aware of any other proposals that the band is
currently seeking or currently working that would use their
reservation land for other proposals that would not include
this particular one?
Mr. Loman. I am not, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Well, then, we will ask them, too, to find out
more about what they are doing there. Thank you.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Schiff for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, and I will
not take the 5 minutes. I just wanted to extend my thanks to
the Park Service for their support of 704, and we would
obviously invite the feedback that Mr. Duncan alluded to and
look forward to having a full and public discussion of any
issues concerning the bill.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Schiff.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania for 5
minutes.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much.
Pat, I would like to, I guess, have a dialog with you.
Thank you for coming today, and I thank the Chairman for
including this legislation on this hearing. My interest is H.R.
1862. I live five miles from Drake's Well, where the first oil
well was drilled and where the whole oil industry started. I
mean, this is where every major oil company in this country has
its roots. And I vividly remember a number of years ago when we
started this process, the Park Service was reluctant, but they
sent a team out. But they came back excited that if there is
something, if there is a heritage area that ought to be, oil
ought to be one, because it is the valley that changed the
world, and it is the area that changed how--that started the
Industrial Revolution in this country, and there is just rich
history there.
In your testimony, you stated several considerations that
the Park Service believes to be key components--this is in your
written testimony--of a successful national heritage area and,
as well, four critical steps that need to be taken and
documented prior to Congress designating a heritage area, the
first being to study the area prior to designation. In
September of 2000, the National Park Service issued a field
report that stated based on the results of the analysis of the
components of the study, the field reconnaissance and the
information provided by the Oil Heritage Region, Inc., no
additional study should be needed on this one; is that correct?
Mr. Tiller. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Peterson. The second point in your testimony states
that the area must contain nationally important, natural,
cultural, historic or recreational resources. I do not think we
have any disagreement that the Oil Heritage Region meets each
and every one of these criteria, correct?
Mr. Tiller. We do not.
Mr. Peterson. The third consideration is the concept of the
local support and initiative, and in your testimony, you stated
that at two public hearings held in February 2001, there was
overwhelming support for the designation of a national heritage
area.
Mr. Tiller. That is correct.
Mr. Peterson. Fourth, you suggest that private property
owners should be provided reasonable protection. Well, as a
member of the Western Caucus, one of the few from the East, I
wholeheartedly agree that property rights are an extremely
important issue. And, however, the point of this bill is to
preserve the history of the region. It is not my goal to
provide a vehicle to steal Grandma Smith's farm or enforce
Federal zoning laws within the area. I have been a leading
proponent of property rights since I came to Congress and will
continue to be one. I strongly believe that this bill goes
above and beyond in protecting the rights of property owners.
Next, you state the development of a working partnership
among NPS, state entities and the local communities are vital
to the success of the region. During the field study done in
2000, the team met with numerous private, public and nonpublic
officials, all of whom agreed to work together as partners to
develop the area. Finally, you suggest that the designated
areas must have a clear financial plan to obtain self-
sufficiency. The Oil Heritage Area is already currently a self-
sufficient operation in which, to quote the field report again,
the ability to garner the much-needed financial support to
preserve the significant assemblage of natural, historical and
cultural resources would be enhanced with a national
designation, because it has been a state designation since
1994.
In the field report done in September, the Department
stated that with the recommended changes which are reflected in
H.R. 1862, the Oil Heritage Region should be designated as a
national heritage area without further suitability or
feasibility analysis. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Tiller. That is correct.
Mr. Peterson. OK; and a letter sent to the former Chairman
of this Subcommittee and Committee Chairman Hansen on October
11, 2001, the Department stated that the following review of
the study by the National Park Service leadership, the
Department now has no objections to the establishment of the
Oil Heritage Region.
Mr. Tiller. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. Peterson. I guess I just want to give one sales pitch
here. I live near here. This area contains the world-renowned
Drake Well Museum, Pit Hole Museum, Oil Creek State Park,
Allegheny Wild and Scenic River Area; it also contains six
national historic districts, 17 sites listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, and the largest collection of
Victorian homes in the country, and I live in one of those, and
that has been a pleasure. It has not been cheap, but it has
been a pleasure.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Peterson. Remnants of the oil boom era, including
McClintock Well No. 1 in Oil City, which is known as the oldest
operating well in the world, and those kinds of sites can be
found throughout the region. The stories of early oil magnates
and those who worked in the oil fields provide exceptionally
rich interpretive opportunities related to the region's natural
and cultural resources.
This important heritage contributes not only to our own
national story but also to the advancement of industries and
transportation systems throughout the world, and I guess in my
view, the debate around energy today brings back the relevance
of what happened here many, many years ago.
Yet, in your testimony today, you recommend that this
Subcommittee defer action on this bill until generic heritage
area legislation is enacted, even though H.R. 1862 has met or
exceeded each and every one of your proposed criteria for the
bill.
Mr. Tiller. That is correct.
Mr. Peterson. Why should we wait, when everybody thinks it
should have been done a long time ago, we should be collecting
and getting the history of oil so all of Americans can
understand it, our future generations can understand it? I live
in an area that has been pretty hard-hit economically; to
promote tourism, you know, why should we wait?
Mr. Tiller. The potential Oil Heritage Area and others
being considered today, like the Upper Housatonic, are, as you
pointed out, spectacular nationally significant resources with
great local support, and we are certainly sympathetic with the
desire to get moving on that.
As I said in my testimony, we have spent close to 20 years
on this in the absence of any sort of administrative or
regulatory framework. And I know it is the feeling of the
Department, all the while not wanting to slow down this
enthusiasm and the benefits that accrue from these things, that
it is time to draw the line; work quickly with this Committee
and with their counterparts in the Senate and to try to
establish this framework. And we are very sympathetic with all
of the great enthusiasm and energy in your district and the
other ones in the area, but the Administration feels that it is
time to get this program established after this time so that we
can move forward.
And we know that there are many more being considered out
there across the country also, and it is the time.
Mr. Peterson. I think there have been lots of heritage
areas proposed historically that in no way or pale in
significance to the history of oil in this country, the history
of oil in the world.
I guess I want to thank you for your testimony and your
graciousness and this good cooperation from the Department, but
I guess I would like to say to the Chairman that I hope that
that testimony is not heeded and that we can move forward. You
know, the last session, this bill passed unanimously and was
within minutes of being law in the Senate, and then, somehow,
it got fumbled at the closing hours of the Senate, or it would
have been law today.
I find it troubling that we have to wait until--because I
think this bill, the way it has been processed by the
Committee, can be the pattern of how it should be done, and the
legislation can be drafted after the fact as to here is how we
ought to do them. And so, I guess I would want to thank
everybody for your participation. But the Oil Heritage needs to
be done sooner, not later, and I hope we can accomplish that.
Mr. Radanovich. Any other further questions?
I want to thank the panel. The Committee thanks the panel
for your testimony here. It is very valuable. And I appreciate
your appearance here today. Thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. With that, I will call up our third panel,
consisting of Mr. Randy Johnson, Deputy Director of the
Planning for Public Lands of the State of Utah, Salt Lake City,
Utah; Mr. Scott Groene, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance,
Washington, D.C.; Mr. Leon D. Bear, Chairman of Skull Valley
Band of Goshute Indians in Salt Lake City; the Hon. Anthony
Portantino, member of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Advisory Committee; and Mr. Mike Hardiman, Legislative Director
for the American Land Rights Association in Washington, D.C.
If you gentlemen would please take your seats. Gentlemen,
thank you for being here today. What we will do is start with
Mr. Johnson on my left and work through. Everybody has got 5
minutes. The lights are your guide there. Green means go, just
like a traffic light; yellow means speed up; and red means
stop.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. So please abide by the rules, and keep your
testimony within 5 minutes. And then, after that, we will open
it up to questions from members here on the Committee.
Mr. Johnson, welcome to the Committee. We appreciate your
testimony on H.R. 2909. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF RANDY JOHNSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PLANNING FOR
PUBLIC LANDS, STATE OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Subcommittee members. I thank you for this opportunity to
testify before the Committee on Resources regarding H.R. 2909,
the Utah Test and Training Range Protection Act. By way of
introduction, I serve as the state deputy director of planning
and public lands specialist for the Governor's Office and speak
on behalf of the Governor's Office of the State of Utah.
Utah is a state of beautiful and widely diverse landscapes.
Over 70 percent of the State of Utah is public land. This makes
for some very interesting and difficult economic challenges,
due to the lack of private land base. It also makes Utah pretty
much the poster child for public land management conflict
issues.
As we well know, Utah is divided by many interests
concerning the management and enjoyment of our public lands.
There are very passionate people on all sides of these issues,
and collaboration on public land management has been extremely
difficult if not impossible in the past.
Bringing each relevant stakeholder to the table requires a
lot of time and patience, and exacting a solution is even more
difficult. We are here in support of this legislation, because
it is the exception to the rule and represents a collaborative
process that Congressman Bishop has begun and continues to
diligently follow. The State of Utah recognizes this and
supports this legislation as an example of achieving a balance
between competing economic and environmental interests.
Governor Leavitt has long been an advocate of a similar
approach with his principles in the State of Utah and would be
pleased to make progress on wilderness designation in this
state.
This legislation demonstrates that although there are
diverse uses of our public lands, it is possible for these uses
to overlap and coexist. We believe that this legislation
achieves a balance between competing economic and environmental
issues. The Utah Test and Training Range is of national
significance. It is of vital and unparalleled value for all the
branches of the military service that train there, and there
are also areas nearby with significant wilderness qualities.
By protecting both the UTTR and the Cedar Mountains, this
legislation balances the interests of Utah's fifth-largest
employer as well as our national security with responsible land
management practices. Most Utahns favor a balanced approach. In
fact, in a recent poll, when given a choice as to whether we
should protect the environment at the expense of the economy,
the economy at the expense of the environment or whether we
should be able to achieve a balance between the two, 75 percent
of Utahns believed that we should and can achieve a balance.
H.R. 2909 is a sincere effort to do just that.
Another area of our support is toward the collaborative
process involved in this legislation. We believe that this
legislation could be a step forward in resolving conflicts on
public lands and achieving some level of balance between many
competing interests. Resolving conflicts on public land
management issues is not easy in Utah. Solutions must be
tailor-made to fit the actual conditions that exist on the
ground.
While this is arduous and difficult, it is important that
this be the way we make progress on public land management
issues. H.R. 2909 is an attempt to do just that.
Now, being mindful of our basic support for this
legislation, the State of Utah does have some concerns about
this bill in its present form, and I would speak of two. First,
H.R. 2909 does not address the ability of the Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources to maintain existing water sources in the
Cedar Mountains. The State installed 21 guzzlers that provide
water to wildlife in the Cedar Mountains area, and these
guzzlers are crucial to maintaining healthy populations of
wildlife because of the lack of available water resources.
The State has a great interest in maintaining these water
developments and would ask that the Congress include language
preserving our ability to access and maintain them.
Our second area of concern is that H.R. 2909 does not
address the issue of water rights. Water is an extremely
important resource in the desert areas of the State of Utah,
and because of minimal water resources on the Cedar Mountains,
a federally reserved water right would only impair the State's
ability to manage wildlife and truly would serve no useful
purpose. The State would like Congress to include language
clarifying that this legislation does not reserve or claim a
Federal water right in the Cedar Mountain area.
In summary, the State of Utah supports this legislation,
because it attempts to balance competing environmental and
economic interests. We also support this legislation because it
is the result of a collaborative process. Governor Leavitt has
often said that there is very little to be gained on the two
extremes of any issue but much to be gained by drawing people
together toward the larger center and honest efforts to reach
workable solutions.
We support any effort to move forward, reach balance, find
solutions, and feel that this legislation makes an effort to
work in that direction. We look forward to working with
Congress and this Committee to resolve and clarify any concerns
the State may have, and we are confident that we will be able
to do exactly that.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Statement of Randy Johnson, Deputy Director of Planning for Public
Lands, State of Utah, on H.R. 2909
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: I thank you for this
opportunity to testify before the Committee on Resources regarding H.R.
2909, the Utah Test and Training Range Protection Act. By way of
introduction, I serve as the Deputy Director of Planning and public
lands specialist for the Governor's Office. I speak on behalf of the
Governor's Office of the State of Utah.
Utah is a state of industrious, friendly, hardworking people. It is
also a state of beautiful and widely diverse landscapes from the great
salt flats in the northwest, to the red rock canyons and deserts of the
southeast, to the alpine mountains of the northeast, to the rapidly
growing communities of the southwest. Over 70% of Utah is public land.
This makes for some very interesting and difficult economic challenges
due to this lack of private land base. It also makes Utah the poster
child for public land management conflict.
As you well know, Utah is divided by many interests concerning the
management and enjoyment of our public lands. These divisions have
created much strife over the years and have resulted in endless
deadlock. These controversial issues, however, are not the focus of my
testimony today. There are very passionate people on all sides of these
issues, and collaboration on public land management has been extremely
difficult, if not impossible, in the past. Bringing each relevant
stakeholder to the table requires a lot of time and patience, and
exacting a solution is even more difficult.
We are here in support of this legislation because it is the
exception to the rule, and represents a collaborative process that
Congressman Bishop has begun and diligently followed. The State of Utah
recognizes this and supports this legislation as an example of
achieving a balance between competing economic and environmental
interests. UTTR is of national significance. It is of vital and
unparalleled value for all of the branches of military service that
train there. Governor Leavitt has long advocated a similar approach
with his Enlibra principles. In fact, we have identified two main areas
of support. The first is based on this area of balance, the second is
based on the concept of collaboration.
This legislation demonstrates that, although there are diverse uses
of our public lands, it is possible for these uses to overlap and co-
exist. We believe that this legislation achieves a balance between
competing economic and environmental interests. By both protecting the
Utah Test and Training Range and the Cedar Mountains, this legislation
balances the interests of Utah's fifth-largest employer as well as our
national security with responsible land management practices. Most
Utahns favor such a balanced approach. In fact, in a recent poll, when
given the choice as to whether we should protect the environment at the
expense of the economy; protect the economy at the expense of the
environment; or if we can achieve a balance between the two, 75% of
Utahns said that we can and should achieve a balance. H.R. 2909 is a
sincere effort to do just that.
Our second area of support is toward the collaborative process
involved in this legislation. We believe that this legislation could be
a step forward in resolving conflicts on public lands and achieving
some level of balance between the many competing interests. Many have
advocated one-size-fits-all solutions to resolving conflicts, but
things are not that simple and easy in Utah. Solutions must be tailor-
made to fit the actual conditions that exist on the ground. While this
is arduous and difficult, it is important that this be the way that we
make progress on public land management issues. H.R. 2909 attempts to
do just that.
Being mindful of our basic support, the State of Utah does have
some concerns about the bill in its present form. I will speak of two.
First, H.R. 2909 does not address the ability of the Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources to maintain existing water sources within the Cedar
Mountains. The State installed 21 guzzlers that provide water to
wildlife in the Cedar Mountains area. These guzzlers are crucial to
maintaining healthy populations of wildlife in this area because of the
lack of available water resources. The State has a great interest in
maintaining these water developments, and would ask that the Congress
include language preserving our ability to access and maintain them.
Our second area of concern is that H.R. 2909 does not address the
issue of water rights. Water is an extremely important resource in the
desert areas in the State of Utah. Because of the minimal water
resources in the Cedar Mountains, a federally reserved water right
would only impair the State's ability to manage wildlife, and would
serve no real purpose. The State would like Congress to include
language clarifying that this legislation does not reserve or claim a
water right in the Cedar Mountains area.
In summary, the State of Utah supports this legislation because it
attempts to balance competing economic and environmental interests. We
also support this legislation because it a result of a collaborative
process. Governor Leavitt has often said that there is very little to
be gained on the two extremes of any issue, but much to be gained by
drawing people together toward the larger center in honest efforts to
reach workable solutions. We support any effort to move forward, reach
balance, and find solutions, and feel that this legislation makes an
effort to work in that direction.
We look forward to working with Congress and this Committee to
resolve and clarify any concerns the state may have. We are confident
that we will be able to do that. Thank you again for the opportunity to
testify.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Scott Groene, welcome to the Subcommittee, and you may
begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT GROENE, SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Groene. Thank you. My name is Scott Groene. I am a
staff attorney with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. I
speak today also on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense
Council, the Wilderness Society and the Campaign for America's
Wilderness.
In summary, we have serious concerns with H.R. 2909. There
has been inadequate information provided to determine the
effects of this legislation on public lands. We are also
concerned with the adverse effect the existing bill would have
on designated wilderness and wilderness study areas. H.R. 2909
covers hundreds of thousands of acres of Bureau of Land
Management lands that qualify as wilderness in Utah's basin and
range country known as the West Desert and would directly
affect at least nine wilderness study areas.
These WSAs, which cover only a fraction of the West
Desert's qualifying wilderness, have outstanding scenic and
biologic values. Each of these WSAs covers an isolated
ecosystem, a biological island surrounded by desert playas
where many unique species have evolved and survived after
separation from a larger historic range. The legislation would
also directly affect the Cedar Mountains.
Over 20 years ago, the BLM performed a wilderness inventory
of the central unit of this range and identified approximately
50,000 acres that was designated the Cedar Mountains Wilderness
Study Area. The agency subsequently acknowledged that this
inventory was flawed and inadequate and in the late 1990s set
about to conduct a comprehensive and accurate wilderness
inventory for the State of Utah. In a 1999 document, the BLM
reported that it had reconsidered the Central Cedar Mountain
Unit and determined that it previously missed over 15,000 acres
that qualified as wilderness there.
Unfortunately, Secretary Norton has since reversed 20 years
of BLM practice and precluded the agency from inventorying and
protecting these sorts of lands in resource management plans.
As a result, the BLM has not conducted accurate inventories for
the North and South Cedar Mountain Wilderness Units.
The Utah Wilderness Coalition has proposed that
approximately 110,000 acres of the Cedar Mountains be protected
as wilderness as part of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.
This is in the North, the Central and the Southern Units.
Having briefly discussed the landscapes involved, I would
like to raise our concerns with specific language in H.R. 2909.
There is no map depicting the areas to be designated as
wilderness in the Cedar Mountains, and we believe that it is
premature to conduct a hearing when there is no means by which
to measure the benefit or potential harm conveyed by the
legislation. Nor is there proposed report language, although
the legislation contains ambiguous language regarding
construction activities inside the wilderness and wilderness
study areas.
Section 3(d) of the legislation allows the installation of
new and continuation of existing communication sites in
wilderness designated by the Act and existing wilderness study
areas. This provision raises several problems. First, the
construction and presence of such sites, including maintenance
by helicopter, is inconsistent with the Wilderness Act and will
diminish wilderness values. Second, the Act allows new sites to
be constructed inside wilderness study areas. This is
unprecedented language which dictates specific management of
WSAs differently from that set out by Congress in the 1976
Federal Land Policy Management Act.
Third, the language is ambiguous, and we are concerned that
it could allow a creeping increase of sites in the wilderness.
And finally, the Secretary of the Air Force is given
consultation authority over decisions made regarding covered
wilderness that it does not have over general public lands.
In conclusion, we urge you to oppose this legislation
unless these basic questions are addressed, and the West Desert
Wilderness is given adequate protection. I would like to say
that we do appreciate the discussions we have had with Mr.
Bishop's office, and we are willing to work with Mr. Bishop to
address the concerns we have raised. And it is our hope that
such efforts will be fruitful. But we will vigorously oppose
the bill if it fails to address our concerns.
We understand that H.R. 2909 would designate wilderness, at
least in part, to prevent development of a transportation
corridor necessary for a proposed nuclear waste storage site.
We fully share the concern over the public safety issues raised
by the proposed nuclear waste site. However, we urge the Utah
delegation to pursue similar legislation that would effectively
block this waste from coming into our state without the
potential controversy raised by H.R. 2909.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak and for your
attention to our concerns.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groene follows:]
Statement of Scott Groene, Staff Attorney,
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, on H.R. 2909
My name is Scott Groene and I am a staff attorney with the Southern
Utah Wilderness Alliance. I speak today also on behalf of the Campaign
for America's Wilderness, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and
The Wilderness Society.
In summary, we have serious concerns with H.R. 2909. There has been
inadequate information provided to determine the effect of this
legislation on public land. We are also concerned with the adverse
effect the existing bill would have on designated wilderness and
Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs).
H.R. 2909 covers hundreds of thousands of acres of Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) land that qualify as wilderness in Utah's basin and
range country known as the West Desert. The legislation is far
reaching, as it would affect this wilderness, military use of the West
Desert, and a potential rail line for transporting nuclear waste into
Utah.
The Affected Landscape:
The WSAs: The legislation would directly affect at least nine
existing Wilderness Study Areas, including the Deep Creek, Fish
Springs, Swasey Mountain, Howell Peak, Notch Peak, King Top, Wah Wah
Mountain and Conger Mountain WSAs. These WSAs cover only a fraction of
the West Desert that qualifies as wilderness.
The West Desert is roughly located between the Great Salt Lake and
Nevada, and is characterized by rugged mountain ranges alternating with
broad valley floors. About 20 million years ago the opposite motion of
enormous plates of the earth's crust began forming this landscape. Land
east of California's San Andreas Fault, where the plates meet, has
since been stretched, creased and wrenched into shape like so much soft
clay, forming the Sierra Nevada and the hundreds of ranges east to
Utah's Wasatch Mountains. Throughout the Great Basin, massive walls of
rock rise abruptly, lifted at an angle approaching 60 degrees. The
landscape is young geologically, and in the profound silence of the
desert one may easily imagine that these mountains are still growing,
which is precisely the case.
Rising from the desert floor at an elevation of 4,800 feet to peaks
over 12,000 feet high, the Deep Creek Mountains are among Utah's most
spectacular. For all their ruggedness, the Deeps also contain verdant
alpine meadows and forested canyons that are an unexpected delight to
desert travelers. The enormous vertical relief--greater than that of
the Teton Range from Jackson Hole--creates a variety of ecological
conditions that foster biological diversity unmatched in Utah's desert
mountains. Eight perennial streams flow from the rough-hewn canyons,
allowing deer, elk, bighorn sheep, cougar, bobcat, coyote and other
wildlife to flourish. Due to their isolation from other similar
environments, the Deeps also support a dozen plant and animal species
found nowhere else.
The Fish Springs Range rises like an enormous dorsal fin out of the
flat desert. Steep, dry, craggy and remote, bisected by rugged canyons,
the range offers solitude just a short distance from good roads.
At over 9,600 feet, Swasey Mountain is the highest peak in the
House Range and a prominent West Desert landmark. This wilderness
includes limestone caves as well as a nationally significant fossil
collecting site.
The enormous western face of Notch Peak is the desert equivalent of
Yosemite's El Capitan. Notch Peak rises vertically almost 4,450 feet
and is one of the highest cliffs in North America. Striking bands of
gray and white limestone decorate the sheer rock face, and twisting
canyons give it dimension.
The King Top WSA of the Confusion Range contains unique Ordovician
fossils, which have special scientific and educational value. King Top
Mountain, with an elevation between 5,000 and 8,000 feet, supports wild
horses and antelope and is well-used during autumn by deer hunters.
Much of the area is a high plateau, rugged and sere, remote from human
intrusion.
Crystal Mountain at the northern end of the proposed Wah Wah WSA
stands out against the gray limestone, as a pure white remnant of
volcanoes that preceded basin-and-range faulting in this region.
The Conger Ranges is an odd jumble of hills, mountains and rugged
cliffs that culminate in the 8,000-foot summit of Conger Mountain.
Creased ridgelines leading to a forested peak mark the view of Conger
Mountain from the west, while the eastern side is sheer and rocky; more
than a dozen canyons slice into the area.
These WSAs include more than geologic splendor. Two tree lines, an
upper and lower, define three life zones in the higher mountains of the
Basin and Range. Above tree line in the Deep Creek Mountains, for
instance, flowered meadows sprawl among the granitic peaks and glacial
cirques. On the limestone soils of high ridges in the Wah Wah
Mountains, House Range, and Deep Creek Mountains grow bristlecone pine
trees, gnarled and tenacious, among the earth's oldest living things.
In sheltered slopes and valleys are clusters of spruce, subalpine and
Douglas fir, limber pine, and aspen.
At lower elevations, where available moisture diminishes, is a
broad belt of pinyon pine and juniper woodlands, interspersed with
patches of wiry mountain mahogany and sagebrush. Below this woodland
are hills covered with sage, grasses and shadscale. Saltbush and
greasewood dominate the benchlands, though in places spring-watered
marshlands contrast with the arid surroundings. Finally, there is the
enormous solitude of wide salt flats, their white alkali crusts and
brackish water seeming to lead downhill only because of the earth's
curvature.
Each of the mountain ranges in Utah's Basin and Range Province is
an isolated ecosystem, a biological island surrounded by desert playas,
where many unique species have evolved or survive as relics after
separation from a larger historic range. Several of these montane
islands have been the subject of ecological studies.
Six of the WSAs in the West Desert encompass habitat for the
peregrine falcon. Eagles and many other uncommon birds also winter
there. Trout Creek and Birch Creek in the Deep Creek Mountains support
the rare Bonneville cutthroat trout. Both bighorn and antelope are
native to the Basin and Range country.
Several rich and well-documented habitation sites in Utah's West
Desert indicate human occupation by Desert Archaic and Fremont Indian
cultures in the region for at least 10,000 years. The most important
cultural sites are caves and rock shelters. Major cultural sites have
been identified in the Deep Creek, Fish Springs, and near Granite Peak,
but all of the ranges within the Utah Wilderness Coalition's proposal
have been only lightly inventoried, and it is probable that important
finds await discovery. Other known archeological sites remain
unpublicized to protect them from vandalism.
The Cedar Mountain Wilderness: It is uncertain how much of the
Cedar Mountain Wilderness, that is proposed for wilderness designation
by the Utah Wilderness Coalition as outlined in America's Redrock
Wilderness Act (H.R. 1796), would be protected under H.R. 2909, as no
map has been provided. The Coalition's proposal would protect
approximately 110,000 acres of the Cedar Mountains in three units
(North Cedar Mountains: 14,718 acres; Central Cedar Mountains: 66,186
acres; South Cedar Mountains: 28,338 acres).
In the late 1970's, the BLM performed a wilderness inventory of the
central unit of this range and identified roughly 50,000 acres that was
designated as the Cedar Mountain WSA. The agency subsequently
acknowledged that this inventory was flawed and inadequate and set
about to conduct a comprehensive wilderness inventory for the State of
Utah. In a 1999 document, the BLM reported that it had reconsidered the
Central Cedar Mountain Unit and determined that it had previously
missed over 15,000 acres that qualified as wilderness here, bringing
the unit size to approximately 66,000 acres. In other words, on re-
inventory, the BLM largely agreed with the Utah Wilderness Coalition's
central unit boundaries. Secretary Norton has since precluded the
agency from conducting further wilderness inventories and protecting
these lands in Resource Management Plans. Unfortunately, that means
that the BLM has not conducted adequate inventories for the North and
South Cedar Mountain wilderness units.
The Cedar Mountain wilderness units lie on the eastern edge of the
Great Salt Lake Desert and are situated just south of I-80, roughly a
one hour drive west of Salt Lake City. These wilderness units display
classic Basin and Range topography, are oriented in a north-south
direction, with elevations ranging from 4,400 feet to over 7,700 feet
at its mountain summits and ridgelines. Deep canyons, running east and
west from the ridgelines are peppered with pinon pine and juniper
forests. Mixed mountain brush communities dominate the north-facing
slopes, while the south-facing slopes and ridge tops are dominated by
sagebrush and native grasses. Rabbitbrush and greasewood are common in
drainage bottoms and bench lands.
The view from this range is spectacular, including the Silver
Islands, Crater Island, and the Newfoundland Mountains, which are
surrounded by the expansive playa salt flats of the Great Salt Lake
Desert which was once covered by the ancient inland sea of Lake
Bonneville around 15,000 years ago. Distant views of numerous mountain
ranges are seen in every direction and include the Grouse Creek, Pilot
Range, Deep Creek Mountains, Fish Springs Range, Dugway Range, Granite
Peak, Promontory Mountains, Stansbury Mountains, Wasatch Mountains,
Lakeside Mountains and Grassy Mountains.
Wildlife is abundant in the Cedar Mountains. Mule deer, pronghorn
antelope, coyote, bobcats, bats, an occasional mountain lion, ravens
and reptiles all inhabit these units. This mountain range is also home
to such raptors as the golden eagle and the red-tailed hawk.
Several archeological sites have been identified in the northern
portion of the range. However, in other locations comprehensive
inventories are still needed to fully understand this resource. The
Utah Wilderness Coalition's proposed Cedar Mountain wilderness units
provide exceptional solitude opportunities for visitors. In addition to
being remote and seldom visited, vegetation and topography enhances a
person's outstanding sense of isolation and seclusion. Hiking, camping,
backpacking, hunting, horseback riding, scenic photography, nature
study and wildlife sightseeing are a few of the outstanding primitive
recreation opportunities within the Cedar Mountains.
Legislative concerns:
We have several concerns regarding the legislation.
Lack of map: There is no map depicting the areas to be designated
as wilderness. It is premature to conduct a hearing when there is no
means by which to measure the benefit or potential harm conveyed by the
legislation.
Lack of report language. There is no proposed report language,
although the legislation contains ambiguous language regarding
construction activities inside wilderness and other matters.
New communications facilities allowed in wilderness. Sec. 3(d)
allows the installation of new, and continuation of existing,
communication sites in wilderness designated by the Act and existing
wilderness study areas. This provision raises several problems:
a. Conflict with wilderness: The construction and presence of such
sites, including maintenance by helicopter, is inconsistent with the
Wilderness Act and will diminish wilderness values, especially if
located on peaks.
b. Unprecedented WSA management language: The Act provides that new
sites can be constructed inside Wilderness Study Areas. This is
unprecedented language that dictates the specific management of WSAs
differently from that set out by Congress in FLPMA.
c. Uncertain need for exceptions, and breadth of exceptions: the
Act provides that the Secretary of Interior can allow new sites when
these collectively will create a ``similar impact'' that does not
expand the ``size or significantly expand the numbers of such
systems,'' and does not require construction of a road. This language
could allow a creeping increase of sites.
The vagueness of the 3(d) language suggests the exceptions may not
be necessary or could be narrowed by determining in the report language
whether: there are existing systems within the ``covered wilderness,''
the locations of those systems, and whether there is a need to continue
these systems. Further, it should be determined whether there is a need
for any new systems in the region and, if so, the locations of these
systems.
The exceptions could also be narrowed by limiting the frequency in
which maintenance could occur.
d. Military given more authority inside wilderness than out: The
Secretary of the Air Force is given consultation authority over
decisions made regarding covered wilderness. The military does not have
this authority over general public lands, and should not be granted
this authority over designated wilderness.
Conclusion:
We urge you to oppose this legislation unless these basic questions
are addressed and the West Desert wilderness is given adequate
protection.
We are willing to work with Mr. Bishop to address the concerns we
have raised, and it is our hope that such efforts will be fruitful. But
we will vigorously oppose the bill if it fails to adequately address
our concerns.
At the same time, we wish to underscore our ongoing concern with
the potential public safety hazard that would be created by an above-
ground nuclear waste storage site near the urban core of Utah's
population. We understand that one motivation behind the designation of
wilderness in the legislation under consideration today is to prevent
the development of the nuclear waste transportation corridor necessary
for the proposed storage site. While we fully share the concern of this
legislation's chief sponsor with the public safety issues raised by the
creation of the proposed nuclear waste storage site, we urge the Utah
Delegation to pursue simpler legislation that would effectively block
nuclear waste without creating other concerns for the conservation
community. We would also urge a consideration of how to compensate the
Goshute Nation for lost economic opportunities if the nuclear waste
site is blocked.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this legislation and your
consideration of our comments.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Groene. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Leon Bear, welcome to the Subcommittee. You may begin
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LEON D. BEAR, CHAIRMAN, SKULL VALLEY BAND OF
GOSHUTE INDIANS, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Mr. Bear. Good afternoon. My name is Leon Bear. I am the
Chief of the Squaw Valley Band of Goshute Indians and Chairman
of the Squaw Valley Executive Committee.
At this time, my testimony today is a summary of the
written testimony that I have already submitted. I appreciate
your invitation to testify before the Subcommittee on H.R.
2909. Whatever the intent, purposes of this legislation, I must
advise you that several provisions in this bill, as introduced,
would deny access to the Squaw Valley Indian Reservation, which
was created pursuant to an 1863 treaty with the United States.
As explained by this testimony, this bill is but the latest
in a series of efforts by Utah political leaders, led by
Governor Mike Leavitt, to deny Goshute treaty rights. The UTTR
is superimposed across millions of acres of Goshute aboriginal
territory, as described in the 1863 treaty. The treaty
recognizes this area as Goshute homeland. In return for my
ancestors' permission for the cavalry, wagon trains, railroad
or Pony Express to cross over these lands, the treaty did not
relinquish Goshute title or use of this tribal homeland.
At one point in time, the Goshutes had 20,000 members, but
with the encroachment of non-Indians, today, our numbers are
down to 500.
In the recent years, the Utah West Desert has become home
to all forms of toxic waste disposal, both military and
commercial. There is currently no significant commercial
development on the reservation. Most of our people have been
forced to move away to seek employment. In 1996, we entered
into a lease agreement to agree to lease 820 acres of tribal
land with a consortium of utilities known as Private Fuel
Storage to store the spent fuel rods from commercial nuclear
reactors.
The State of Utah has opposed this license application by
intervening in this process, which the State is entitled to do.
And now, we have H.R. 2909. To Congressman Bishop's credit and
unlike his predecessors, he has been willing to meet with the
leadership of the band and to include us in discussions of this
legislation.
Section 4(b) expressly prohibits the Secretary of the
Interior from issuing any rights-of-way across lands
surrounding the reservation until the latter of the following:
the completion of a full revision of the Pony Express Area
Resource Management Plan; 2) January 1, 2015, thus, for a
minimum of 11 years and perhaps indefinitely, there can be no
new industrial or transportation corridors to the reservation.
The only current access to the reservation is the Squaw
Valley Road, and the Governor and Legislature have been trying
to gain control over that road, as to build a moat around the
reservation. But nothing can justify cutting off access to the
Squaw Valley Reservation, which was created pursuant to the
treaty with the United States. The Goshute presence in the
desert is as inconvenient now to the American people as it was
in the 19th Century. If this bill, in its current form,
receives favorable action from this Committee, then, I am
afraid the answer is yes. This Congress will demonstrate that
it has no reluctance to abrogate our treaty rights and treat
our land as an uninhabitable wasteland.
If tribal self-determination means anything, the Goshute
people should be allowed to make their own decisions about
economic development on their reservation land. If access to
the reservation is denied by legislation such as H.R. 2909,
they will never have that opportunity.
I would like to turn the rest of my time over to Tim
Vollman, our tribal attorney.
Mr. Vollman. Thank you.
Congressman Bishop raised an issue with the Air Force
witness about unrestricted access for UTTR. I would like to
point out that the final environmental impact statement on the
spent nuclear fuel storage facility on the Skull Valley
Reservation, dated December 2001, states: the Air Force agrees
that an accident is unlikely and has asked that the FEIS state
that there is no foreseeable reason why the facility owners or
the NRC should ever require or seek any changes in the
operation of the UTTR.
The statement's response to that is that no overflight
restrictions are being contemplated to accommodate the proposed
Private Fuel Storage facility. The issue of the safety of this
facility is now, as pointed out by a number of witnesses, the
subject of proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, and the issue of the consequences of a crash and
the safety of overflights will be the subject of a hearing
before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, previously
scheduled for this December, now postponed but likely to be
early next year.
I submit that, on behalf of the band, that this bill, to
the extent that it tries to address these issues, is premature
for the additional reason that we need to see what the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission will decide regarding these safety issues
and that if it certifies this facility as safe with respect to
the overflights by F-16s out of Hill Air Force Base that the
provisions of this bill will be unnecessary.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bear follows:]
Statement of Leon D. Bear, Chairman,
Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, on H.R. 2909
I am Leon Bear, Chairman of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute
Indians, who reside in the West Desert of Utah. I appreciate the
Chairman's invitation to testify before the Subcommittee on H.R. 2909.
Whatever the intended purpose of this legislation, I must advise you
that several provisions in the bill, as introduced, would deny access
to the Skull Valley Indian Reservation, which was created pursuant to
an 1863 Treaty with the United States. As explained by this testimony,
this bill is but the latest in a series of efforts by Utah political
leaders, led by Governor Mike Leavitt, to deny Goshute treaty rights.
H.R. 2909 purports to be designed to ensure the continued
availability of the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) to support the
readiness and training needs of the Armed Forces. The UTTR, as
described in this bill, includes the Skull Valley Indian Reservation
within its boundaries. But never mind. My family and I live on the
Reservation, and almost daily, for many years, we have heard F-16s roar
across the valley floor, often only a few hundred feet above our
village.
The UTTR is superimposed across millions of acres of Goshute
aboriginal territory, as described in the 1863 Treaty. The Treaty
recognized this area as the Goshute homeland, in return for my
ancestors' permission for the cavalry, wagon trains, railroad and pony
express to cross over these lands. The Treaty did not relinquish
Goshute title or use of this tribal homeland. Our leaders merely
conveyed critical access to facilitate the westward continental
migration of the people colonizing Indian Country. Now, without our
consent, the non-Indian leaders of Utah continue to attempt to deny the
Skull Valley Goshute people access to their own Reservation.
But this is nothing new to the Goshute people.
Notwithstanding the limited language of the 1863 Treaty, settlers,
miners, missionaries and the military immediately encroached on Indian
hunting and gathering grounds, pushing the Goshute people aside. By the
early 20th century, their numbers had dwindled to a few hundred people.
The Treaty authorized the President to set aside Reservations for our
protection, but it was not until 1917 that President Woodrow Wilson
proclaimed a reservation for the Skull Valley Band. Subsequent
executive orders and statutes have identified a total of only 18,000
acres of desert at the foot of the Stansbury Mountains for our
Reservation.
Then came World War II and the Cold War. The military presence in
the West Desert expanded to include, not just Air Force training, but
the manufacture and testing of chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons. To the south of the Reservation lies Dugway Proving Grounds;
to the east: Tooele Chemical Depot; to the west and north: the UTTR.
Looking for weapons of mass destruction? You need look no further
than Goshute territory. In the 1960s chemical weapons testing killed
several thousand sheep which were secretly buried on the Skull Valley
Indian Reservation. After their discovery years later, the Tribe
entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the Department of Defense to
remove the contaminated carcasses.
In recent years the Utah West Desert has become home to all forms
of toxic waste disposal, both military and commercial. Indeed, Tooele
County zoned the area surrounding the Skull Valley Reservation for
toxic waste dumping. Little wonder that the Reservation has not been
viewed as a prime area for economic development. Also, we have been
isolated. The Reservation lies 25 lonely miles down Skull Valley Road
south from Interstate 80. We are a 70-mile drive from the Salt Lake
City Airport, on the west side of the Stansbury Mountains and the
Deseret Peak Wilderness Area. There is currently no significant
commercial development on the Reservation. Most of our people have been
forced to move away to seek employment.
In the 1980s the Department of Energy began offering grants to
Indian tribes and other communities to explore the possibility of
storing nuclear waste. The Skull Valley Band received two such grants
from DOE, and we learned a lot about this subject. We learned the
difference between uranium, plutonium and transuranic waste. We learned
about enrichment of uranium, long before North Korea and Iran brought
this issue to American headlines. We learned about this country's
dependence upon nuclear energy, and learned about the spent nuclear
fuel rods from commercial nuclear reactors, which are stored in pools
of water, on the Hudson River, not far from Manhattan Island; and on
the Chesapeake Bay, not far from this hearing room. We learned about
dry cask storage of these spent rods. We learned about the future
technological potential for extracting valuable energy from this
source.
So, fully informed, in 1996 we entered into a lease of 820 acres of
tribal land with a consortium of utilities (PFS) to store the spent
fuel rods from commercial nuclear reactors. Construction and operation
of the storage facility was dependent upon the issuance of a license by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The licensing proceedings have been
ongoing since 1997, and we are hoping that they will conclude with the
issuance of a license early next year. The State of Utah has opposed
the license by intervening in this proceeding. This the State was
entitled to do.
However, the opposition did not stop there. Governor Leavitt
whipped the Utah electorate into a hysterical anti-nuclear frenzy. In
1999 he announced that he would build a ``moat'' around the Skull
Valley Reservation. He was successful in the State Legislature over
several years, obtaining laws which purported to give him control over
Skull Valley Road, regulatory authority over the Reservation (and all
Indian Reservations in Utah), and prohibiting the transportation and
storage of high-level nuclear waste ``within the boundaries of the
State,'' including Indian Reservations. In 2001, we joined with PFS to
sue the Governor seeking to invalidate these laws as unconstitutional.
We were successful. In July 2002, the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake
City ruled in our favor, declaring these laws unconstitutional,
specifically including the effort to build a moat around the
Reservation. Skull Valley Band v. Leavitt, 215 F.Supp.2d 1232, 1248,
note 10 (D. Utah 2002). The State's appeal is pending.
Meanwhile, the former Chairman of this Committee, Congressman
Hansen, snuck a provision into the Defense Authorization bill last
year, which would have cut off access to the Reservation by requiring
that no land management planning could be conducted by the Secretary of
the Interior without the concurrence of the ``Commander in Chief of the
Armed Forces of the State of Utah,'' namely the Governor. This would
have prevented any rights-of-way across either of the two Goshute
Reservations in western Utah, in effect making the Goshutes the peons
of the State of Utah. Fortunately, this provision was not included in
the legislation which was enacted.
Earlier this year, we discovered, based on a review of state public
records, that Governor Leavitt has been funding attorneys representing
Goshute dissidents since 1997, including financing the creation of so-
called Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia (OGD), which has been litigating with the
Band and the Department of the Interior with numerous administrative
appeals and lawsuits, none of which have been successful. Indeed, we
found that the State has paid at least three sets of these attorneys
$500,000 to keep up this effort in a blatant attempt to destabilize the
tribal government, including the freezing of tribal bank accounts.
Now we have H.R. 2909. To Congressman Bishop's credit, and unlike
his predecessor, he has been willing to meet with the leadership of the
Band, and to include us in discussions of this legislation. But, as
introduced, it contains many of the same odious provisions which
appeared in the Hansen amendment to the Defense Authorization bill in
the last Congress.
Section 4(b) expressly prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from
issuing any rights-of-way across the Federal lands surrounding the
Reservation ``until the later of the following: (1) The completion of a
full revision of the Pony Express Area Resource Management Plan. ...
(2) January 1, 2015.'' Thus, for a minimum of eleven years, and perhaps
indefinitely, there can be no new industrial or transportation
corridors to the Reservation. The only current access to the
Reservation is Skull Valley Road, and the Governor and Legislature have
been trying to gain control over that road so as to build a ``moat''
around the Reservation.
Section 5 of H.R. 2909 would create the Cedar Mountain Wilderness
Area, which, according to a draft map the Congressman sent to us, would
include Federal lands adjacent to Interstate 80 to be crossed by a
proposed rail line to the Skull Valley Reservation. The Department of
the Interior has already determined that those lands are not even
appropriate for designation as a Wilderness Study Area (WSA) under the
Federal Land Management and Policy Act, much less for Congressional
designation as wilderness. The inclusion of these lands in the
wilderness proposal clearly appears to be an effort to prevent the
Skull Valley Band from obtaining this rail line.
This is done under the justification of military readiness. We are
not opposed to the continuation of military flights over Skull Valley,
and share military readiness concerns, and we are willing to work with
Congressman Bishop on the language of his bill, as long as all
provisions which block access to the Reservation are deleted. We
believe we have a good relationship with the Air Force, and just last
week I met with the new Brigadier General at Hill Air Force Base, who
agreed to cooperate with the Band. We understand that the Air Force has
taken no position on the construction of the PFS facility on the
Reservation. We expect the NRC licensing process to certify that the
project is safe. Any suggestion that the agency has already denied a
license on that basis is false. The evidentiary process continues, and
a hearing is scheduled for this December.
But nothing can justify cutting off access to the Skull Valley
Reservation, which was created pursuant to a Treaty with the United
States. Is the Goshute presence in the desert just as inconvenient now
to the American people, as it was in the 19th century? If this bill, in
its current form, receives favorable action from this Committee, then I
am afraid the answer is Yes. This Congress will demonstrate that it has
no reluctance to abrogate our treaty rights, and treat our lands as an
uninhabited wasteland.
If tribal self-determination means anything, the Goshute people
should be allowed to make their own decisions about economic
development on their Reservation lands. If access to the Reservation is
denied, by legislation such as H.R. 2909, they will never have that
opportunity.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, sir. Would you please state your
name and occupation for the record, if you would?
Mr. Vollman. I apologize. My name is Tim Vollman. I am an
attorney out of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and I represent the
Skull Valley Band, and I have provided the Committee with a
disclosure statement in compliance with your rules. You have
that information.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, sir, I appreciate your
testimony and that of Mr. Bear as well.
Mr. Bear. Thank you. May I point out one other thing
relative to the testimony?
Mr. Radanovich. I am afraid you are out of time. So we will
hope to get it up during the question and answer.
Thank you very much.
Next is Mr. Anthony Portantino, who is a member of the
Santa Monica Conservancy Advisory Committee from La Canada and
Flintridge in California.
Mr. Portantino, welcome to the Subcommittee, and you may
begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY PORTANTINO, MEMBER, SANTA MONICA
MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Portantino. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, honorable Members of Congress, my name is
Anthony Portantino, and I am a Councilmember and the former
Mayor of the City of La Canada-Flintridge, a city with a long
history of respecting private property rights.
Today, I am speaking on behalf of the Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy, of which I am an Advisory Committee
member, in support of H.R. 704, the Rim of the Valley Trail
Corridor Study Act. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is
the principal agency of the State of California charged with
the protection of open space and natural resources for almost
three-quarters of a million acres surrounding the Los Angeles
Metropolitan Area.
Since 1983, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has had
the responsibility of acquiring park and open space land,
building trails and providing other public access improvements
within the Rim of the Valley corridor. The importance of the
Rim of the Valley corridor is twofold: the striking natural
scenery and open space that still encircles the Greater Los
Angeles area and the proximity of those natural resources to
the 10 million residents of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.
In 1978, Congress established the Santa Monica Mountains
National Recreation Area, acknowledging that it was a special
area, almost unique in the Park System, in that the National
Recreation Area would be administered cooperatively with the
state, regional and local governments. That model has worked
splendidly. There is now a seamless web of park land extending
from the beaches of Malibu to the heights of Simi Peak, from
the heart of downtown Los Angeles 50 miles west to Mugu Lagoon,
which is one of the last of California's unspoiled coastal
wetlands.
Although the Santa Monica Mountains NRA is far from
complete, the outlines of its success are apparent. The Federal
Government has provided both the material and intellectual
resources that have coalesced and stimulated much wider
movement for the protection of the area and making it
accessible for public recreation opportunities. The original
authorization for the SMMNRA was $155 million, but to date, the
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and California has almost
tripled that, and the California State Parks Department has
spent another $60 million or so and intends to spend more.
There is every indication that including the Rim of the
Valley Corridor within the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area will have the same positive effect upon the
protection of the ecological communities and the well-being of
the human communities in northern Los Angeles and Ventura
Counties. However, this bill does not presuppose an outcome. It
merely directs a study, and a cooperative study at that. The
National Park Service model has worked well for the Santa
Monica Mountains proper and can be readily adapted for most of
the Rim of the Valley Corridor.
In the eastern rim of the valley, there may be
institutional arrangements that recognize the vital role played
by the Angeles National Forest, America's most visited National
Forest, in protecting the San Gabriel Mountains, making them
accessible for recreational purposes. By requiring a joint
study by both the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture, this bill makes it probable that what will
emerge from the study is a method of protecting and enhancing
this special area that will use the best resources of the
National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service.
Let me emphasize why H.R. 704 is so urgent. The satellite
photos show a wreath of green, representing the Rim of the
Valley Corridor. Land use decisions pending within the next few
years can change all of that forever. Decisions will be made in
that timeframe by major landowners whether or not to engage in
park partnerships, and many times, sale for park and
recreational purposes is a preferred choice for local property
owners, or whether to commit the land to residential and
commercial development.
Local government and planning decisions need to be informed
about whether their Federal Government is willing to protect
this area. The introduction of similar measures in both Houses
of Congress stimulated a rush of local interest and support.
There is a lot of good will resting on the swift completion of
this study. The Conservancy stands ready to commit up to
$100,000 to fund this cost. On a personal note, this past
Saturday, my city dedicated a trailhead access point that
connects a residential neighborhood to the Angeles Crest
National Forest. This property, our last and most vital
resource, was dedicated because we did not identify it two
decades ago.
Although we worked collaboratively with property owners,
the final cost to the taxpayers was three times what it should
have been. This Saturday, Congressional representatives from
David Dreier's office, our Congressman, was there, and it
exemplified how important it is to work with a vision toward
the future.
Ninety years ago, U.S. Senator Frank Flint worked with
Teddy Roosevelt to develop our neighborhood. We are looking for
Congress today to help us plan for our future. There is no
community with a greater respect for private property rights
than ours, and we are looking for help and working with
Congressman Adam Schiff and being a stakeholder and working
toward the future.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Portantino follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Anthony J. Portantino, Council Member, City
of La Canada Flintridge, Member, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Advisory Committee, on H.R. 704
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of Congress, my name is Anthony
Portantino, I am a council member and former mayor of the City of La
Canada Flintridge, and a member of the Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy Advisory Committee; I am representing the Conservancy here
today in support of H.R. 704, the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act.
The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is the principal agency of
the State of California charged with protection of open space and the
natural resources of almost three quarters of a million acres
surrounding the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. Since 1983, the
Mountains Conservancy has had the responsibility acquiring park and
open space land, building trails, and providing for other public access
improvements within the Rim of the Valley Corridor.
Successive state legislative amendments have expanded the territory
of the Rim of the Valley Corridor so that it now encompasses a major
portion of the Santa Monica Mountains, the Santa Susana Mountains, Simi
Hills, Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills, and the portion of the San
Gabriel Mountains within the upper Los Angeles River watershed. This
was done in recognition of the essential ecological unity of the
mountains system in southern California and the artificiality of
limiting protection to only a portion of it.
The importance of the Rim of the Valley Corridor is twofold: The
striking natural scenery and open space that still encircles the
greater Los Angeles area, and the proximity of those natural resources
to the ten million residents of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.
In 1978 Congress established the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area, acknowledging that it was a special area, almost
unique in the park system, in that the National Recreation Area would
be administered cooperatively with the state, regional, and local
governments. That model has worked splendidly. There is now a seamless
web of parkland extending from the beaches of Malibu to the height of
Simi Peak, from the heart of downtown Los Angeles fifty miles west to
Mugu Lagoon which is one of the last of California's unspoiled coastal
wetlands. Although the Santa Monica Mountains NRA is far from complete,
the outlines of its success are apparent. The Federal government has
provided both material and intellectual resources that have coalesced
and stimulated a much wider movement for the protection of the area and
making it accessible for public recreation opportunities. The original
authorization for the SMMNRA was $155,000,000, but to date the Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy of the State of California has almost
tripled that, and the California State Parks Department has spent
another $60,000,000 or so, and intends to spend more.
There is every indication that including the Rim of the Valley
Corridor within the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area
will have the same positive effect upon the protection of ecological
communities and the well-being of human communities in northern Los
Angeles and eastern Ventura counties. However, this bill does not
presuppose an outcome, it merely directs a study. And a cooperative one
at that. The National Park Service model has worked well for the Santa
Monica Mountains proper, and can be readily adapted for most of the Rim
of the Valley Corridor. In the eastern Rim of the Valley there may be
institutional arrangements that recognize the vital role played by the
Angeles National Forest--America's most visited National Forest--in
protecting the San Gabriel Mountains and making them accessible for
recreation purposes. By requiring a joint study by both the Secretary
of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, this bill makes it
probable that what will emerge from the study is a method of protecting
and enhancing this special area that will use the best resources of the
National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service.
Although the Administration expressed concern about the number of
park studies being undertaken, it did not oppose the identical bill
that passed the Senate earlier this year.
Let me emphasize why H.R. 704 is so urgent. While the satellite
photos of southern California still show the wreath of green
represented by the Rim of the Valley Corridor, land-use decisions
pending within the next few years can change all of that forever.
Decisions will be made in that time frame by major landowners whether
or not to engage in park partnerships--and many times sale for park and
recreation purposes is a preferred choice for local property owners--or
whether to commit the land to residential and commercial development.
Local government planning and zoning decisions need to be informed by
whether there will be a Federal initiative to protect this area. The
introduction of similar measures in both houses of Congress last year
stimulated a rush of local interest and support. There is a lot of good
will resting on the swift completion of the study.
The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy stands ready to help in any
way we can. Our data bases, planning studies, and personnel will all be
made available. Even more significantly, the Conservancy is prepared to
match the federal government dollar for dollar (up to $100,000) to help
fund the cost of this study.
On a personal note--this past Saturday, my city, La Canada
Flintridge, dedicated a trailhead access point that connects a
residential neighborhood with the Angeles Crest National Forrest and
the Rim of the Valley Trail. This property, our last and most vital
trailhead, was threatened by development because my City did not spend
the time and resources two decades ago to identify it's importance.
Although we worked collaboratively with the property owner, the
final cost to taxpayers was three times what it should have been had we
shown the foresight that Congress is now so laudably contemplating to
enact. We have since rectified our lack of vision by establishing a
Trails Resources and Protection Committee that is planning for the
preservation and acquisition of open space for the next two decades
much like you are considering doing today.
Our success on Saturday, attended by Congressional Representatives
and State Legislators, exemplifies how important it is to work with a
vision toward the future. As the population of Los Angeles County
continues to dramatically increase, it is so much better to plan in
advance of that growth and its demands than to react to it.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I would be happy to
address any questions the Committee may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr.
Portantino.
Next is Mr. Mike Hardiman, who is Legislative Director for
the American Land Rights Association here in Washington.
Mr. Hardiman, you may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MIKE HARDIMAN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN LAND
RIGHTS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Hardiman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The American Land
Rights Association was founded in 1977 by private property
holders in California. It now has membership in all 50 states
concerned with both private property rights and public lands
multiple use and access. I have been a land holder in Imperial
County since 1990. I have submitted letters from 34 Los Angeles
area residents, including property owners and recreational
users in and near the proposed study region. All of these very
strongly oppose H.R. 704.
Mr. Chairman, there is a remarkable difference between the
claims made by supporters of this bill versus the reality of
National Park Service actions in this and other nearby park
units under the same regional management. Recreation: H.R.
704's sponsor, Congressman Adam Schiff, who is here today, said
Los Angeles has, quote, one of the lowest ratios of park and
recreation lands per thousand population of any area in the
country.
However, a Park Service regional takeover under H.R. 704
will most likely reduce recreational access. John Williams from
San Bernardino, a former Park Service employee, writes to the
Committee, quote: I am currently finishing a historic
interpretive sign project on the old ridge route, the original
highway that ran from Bakersfield to Los Angeles. Williams
predicts that, quote, the Park Service's excuse for shutting
down this access route will be that it does not meet Federal
highway standards and is a liability risk. This is what the
Park Service did here in 1991, when he was employed by the Park
Service, when they took over an old Boy Scout camp, shut down a
road open since 1932, thus eliminating public access to that
part of the recreation area.
Ed Waldheim from Glendale, President of the California Off-
Road Vehicle Association, writes that the National Park Service
is anti-access and should not have an expanded role in Southern
California, in particular considering its lack of maintenance
of existing facilities.
Mr. Chairman, the term recreation does not even appear in
the bill as a need for the purpose of H.R. 704. Dealings with
property owners: Pat Tiller of the National Park Service
testified on March 20, 2003, the that Santa Monica National
Recreation Area has become a model of collaboration with many
private property owners. Former Santa Monica Mountains resident
Donald Scott may disagree. The reason I say former is because
Donald Scott is dead. After Scott refused to sell his land to
the Park Service, the NPS trumped up marijuana growing charges
against him, led a raid on his home in October of 1992. Scott
was shot and killed by a Los Angeles County Sheriff who had
joined the Park Service on the raid.
Eight years later, in 2000, the Park Service and the
Sheriff's Department jointly reached a multimillion-dollar
wrongful death settlement with Scott's widow, Frances. No drugs
were ever found; no charges were ever made against the Scotts.
Unfortunately, this disgraceful episode is not unique. On one
of the Channel Islands, just off the coast of Los Angeles, the
Graney family was running a successful recreation business of
just the type that NPS claims it wants to see, including
kayaking, mountain biking, hiking and bow hunting as part of a
bed-and-breakfast operation.
However, the NPS wanted the entire island to themselves and
saw that the Graneys, who lived on the island since 1869, were
not going to leave voluntarily. So they took things into their
own hands. In January of 1997, the Park Service landed two
helicopters with 20 armed agents on the island. As in the Scott
case, once again, trumped up charges were used to justify the
raid, which included misdemeanors such as an expired work
permit and operating a stove without a license.
This time, at least, no one was killed, but the Graneys'
business was ruined, because tourists were, understandably,
petrified to go to the island anymore.
It is only a study. Joe Edmonston of the Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy claimed in Senate testimony earlier this
year that, quote, this bill does not presuppose an outcome. It
merely directs a study. Well, consider this: when the Park
Service began a study of the nearby Gaviota coast in Santa
Barbara County in 1999, they promised openness, but that is not
what happened. Here is a confidential statement written by NPS
Study Director Ray Murray just after the study began, quote: we
can shield sensitive info in several ways away from freedom of
information requests and subpoenas. I will clarify and lay out
our options. Often, we can mark documents and materials as
predecisional.
Letters dating back as far as 1994 demonstrate that the
Park Service was pushing for a park unit for the area many
years before the study began. This study was slated for 3
years, but it is behind schedule and over budget and will take
approximately 5 years to complete. This leaves property owners
with a regulatory cloud over their land and with many plans on
hold for all that time.
In conclusion, H.R. 704 has significant regional opposition
from property owners and public access community leaders. Up to
this point, they have had no idea what the Park Service and the
Conservancy have had in store. Supporters should go back to the
drawing board and, this time around, begin an inclusive
discussion process. There is no need for this bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardiman follows:]
Statement of Michael Hardiman, Legislative Director,
American Land Rights Association, on H.R. 704
The American Land Rights Association was founded in 1977 by private
property inholders in California, and now has membership in all fifty
states concerned with both private property rights and public lands
multiple use and access. I have been an inholder in Imperial County
since 1990.
I have submitted letters from thirty-four Los Angeles area
residents, including property owners and recreational users in and near
the proposed study region. All of these very strongly oppose H.R. 704.
Mr. Chairman, there is a remarkable difference between the claims
made by supporters of this bill, versus the reality of National Park
Service (NPS) actions in this and other nearby park units under the
same regional management.
Recreation:
H.R. 704's sponsor Congressman Adam Schiff has said Los Angeles has
``one of the lowest ratios of park and recreation lands per thousand
population of any area in the country.'' However, a Park Service
regional takeover under H.R. 704 will most likely reduce recreational
access.
John Williams from San Bernardino, a former Park Service employee,
writes to the Committee, ``I am currently finishing a historic
interpretive sign project on the Old Ridge Route, the original highway
that ran from Bakersfield to Los Angeles.'' Williams predicts that
``the Park Service's excuse for shutting down this Route will be that
it doesn't meet federal highway standards and is a liability risk. That
is what the Park Service did here in 1991 when they took over an old
Boy Scout camp--shut down a road open since 1932, thus eliminating
public access to that part of the recreation area.''
Ed Waldheim from Glendale, President of the California Off Road
Vehicle Association, writes that ``The National Park Service is anti-
access and should not have an expanded role in Southern California, in
particular considering its lack of maintenance of existing
facilities.''
The term ``recreation'' does not even appear in the bill as a need
or purpose for H.R. 704.
Dealings with property owners:
Pat Tiller of the Park Service testified in March 2003 that the
Santa Monica National Recreation Area ``has become a model of
collaboration'' with ``many private property owners.''
Former Santa Monica Mountains resident Donald Scott may disagree.
The reason I say ``former'' is because Donald Scott is dead. After
Scott refused to sell his land to the Park Service, the NPS trumped up
marijuana growing charges against him, and led a raid on his home in
October of 1992. Scott was shot and killed by a Los Angeles County
Sheriff, who had joined the Park Service on the raid.
Eight years later, in 2000, the Park Service and the Sheriff's
Department finally reached a multimillion dollar wrongful death
settlement with Scott's widow, Frances. No drugs were ever found.
Unfortunately, this disgraceful episode is not unique. On one of
the Channel Islands just off the coast of Los Angeles, the Gherini
family was running a successful recreation business of just the type
that NPS claims it wants to see, including kayaking, mountain biking,
hiking and bow hunting as part of a bed-and-breakfast operation. The
NPS wanted the entire place to themselves, and saw that the Gherini's,
who had lived on the island since 1869, were not going to leave
voluntarily. So they took things into their own hands.
In January of 1997, the Park Service landed two helicopters with
twenty armed agents on the island. As in the Scott case, once again
trumped up charges were used to justify the raid, which included
misdemeanors such as an expired work permit and operating a stove
without a license.
This time, no one was killed. But the Gherini's business was ruined
because tourists were petrified to go to the island anymore.
It's only a study:
Joe Edmiston of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy claimed in
Senate testimony earlier this year that ``this bill does not presuppose
an outcome, it merely directs a study.''
Well, consider this. When the Park Service began a study of the
nearby Gaviota Coast in Santa Barbara County in 1999, they promised
openness, but that is not what happened. Here is a confidential
statement written by NPS study director Ray Murray just after the study
began:
``We can shield sensitive info in several ways from Freedom of
Information Requests and subpoenas. I'll clarify and layout our
options. Often we can mark documents and materials as `Pre-
Decisional'.''
Letters dating back as far as 1994 demonstrated that the Park
Service was pushing for a park unit for the area, many years before the
study began.
This study was slated for three years, but it is behind schedule
and over budget, and will take approximately five years to complete.
This leaves property owners with a regulatory cloud on their land, and
with many plans on hold for all that time.
In conclusion, H.R. 704 has significant regional opposition from
property owners and public access community leaders. Up to this point,
they have had no idea what the NPS and the Conservancy have had in
store. Supporters should go back to the drawing board and this time
around, begin an inclusive discussion process.
[NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Hardiman's statement have been retained
in the Committee's official files.]
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Hardiman. That
ends the testimony of the people invited to the Committee and
opens up time now for questions from members of the panel.
I am going to recognize Mr. Bishop from Utah to begin the
questions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that again, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Johnson, I appreciate your being here and talking about
the inclusion process. In the view of the states, can you think
of any player that we have not tried to include in the process
in coming up with this particular bill which we should have?
Mr. Johnson. No, I think you have been very thorough, and I
congratulate you on your efforts to include everyone in those
discussions. As you know as a Congressman, the Governor is in a
very difficult situation, because he represents all of the
stakeholders involved in these public lands issues, and so, he
represents those who love wilderness, those who hate it, those
who are wonderful members of the Goshute tribe who want
nuclear, those who do not; those who want access; those who
want no access, and you know how difficult of a balance that
is.
And so, having as many players at the table as you have and
trying to carve this out in an appropriate way is to speak well
of your efforts.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate your statement of support that the
State has for the Utah Test and Training Range. As a former
county commissioner of a county with a great deal of public and
Federal lands within the boundaries of that county, even though
we do have, at the present time, a warm working relationship
between the Bureau of Land Management, the Air Force and other
entities who are out there in that particular area, could you
see an advantage for codifying that relationship to make sure
that in the future, things do not change based on personalities
who may change?
Mr. Johnson. Yes; I think that in the 10 years that I
served in public office as an elected official, I saw many
changes in perspective as agency personnel changed, as elected
officials changed, and sometimes interpretations of rules and
law are manifested in different ways. And it is always good to
have surety in the management of these things. I think that the
thing that stands out in my mind in our support of this is that
Utah, with over 70 percent of its land base being public lands
and being such a large provider of minerals that are essential
not only to the State but to the Nation as well as the military
applications and all of the other kinds of things that occur
and are relied upon on public lands, it would be well for the
State and the citizens of the State to have something that sets
a good precedent that these things can coexist and operate
side-by-side.
And I think that is always a fear for, especially, local
elected officials that, say, have a power plant in their
county, or they have, you know, a coal mine in their county, or
like the UTTR facility up there. It is always a worry that, you
know, different encroaching rules and regulations are going to
create economic difficulties and problems in continuing to
function with those things, and surety is a very good thing.
So, yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Groene, I noticed in your written testimony that you
said the presence of such sites, meaning communication towers
and facilities, are inconsistent with the Wilderness Act. That
is exactly what you mean? You are sticking with that point?
Mr. Groene. Said that it would diminish wilderness
characteristics.
Mr. Bishop. OK; so, as we look at that map, on anything
that is Wilderness Study Area, which is shaded, everything that
is a triangle is a communication site. So each of those
diminish and, once again, is inconsistent with the concept of
wilderness.
Mr. Groene. Well, our understanding has been that there are
two sites right now inside wilderness study areas, and I am not
quite sure on this, but I understand at least one of them, the
understanding was put in that it would be removed if the area
was designated as wilderness.
Mr. Bishop. Actually, every triangle is a site, so you have
a whole lot more than just two that you are dealing with in
this area. I also want to thank you for saying in your written
testimony that you are willing to work with me to address the
concerns that we have raised, and I hope those efforts will be
fruitful. I hope you are standing by that.
Mr. Groene. Certainly.
Mr. Bishop. And I appreciate the effort of the Southern
Utah Wilderness Alliance. They have met with me on three
different occasions already.
Could I just request, since you did request or refer to a
clean bill that would be better, if the Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance could provide us or at least my staff with
a draft bill that you think would be a better way of stopping
nuclear waste coming into Utah?
Mr. Groene. We would be happy to do that.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bear?
Mr. Bear. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. First of all, let me give a caveat here. I
appreciated having the chance of meeting with you, and let me
say that as we have been trying to work with different groups
on this particular bill, I have an apology that we should have
hit you up and your organization sooner than we did, and I
apologize for that. But I appreciate having the chance of
working with you and your attorney and staff, and you have been
very kind.
Mr. Bear. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. And the words that you put in your written
testimony about me, I appreciate that significantly.
Can I ask two questions? The first one is, specifically,
are there any kinds of cultural, native Goshute activities that
you think should be included in any kind of wilderness proposal
for the Cedar Mountains to be protected?
Am I out of time, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Radanovich. Go ahead and finish your question, and
then, we will move on.
Mr. Bishop. Well, let me give these last two ones, and I
will do that. First, that was the first one, and maybe a yes or
no would be easy.
Second one is very simple to this one, and it is the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board talking about the proposed site said
the Board said that there was a credible--that therefore, a
credible event--there was a credible possibility of an accident
taking place on that site and therefore a credible event and
that no license could be issued until PFC proves that its
proposed facility could withstand such an accident. If PFC
should choose to pursue the matter--and that is part of the
issue that is still going before there--in addition, we have
provided testimony that was presented by the State of Utah on
September 18, which has six separate expert assessments of
simulation aircraft accidents happening on this particular
site, in each case on above-ground, high-level nuclear waste
storage casks with catastrophic results, as decided by a system
of scientists who are in Purdue, and that will be expanded in
the future.
If those studies are accurate that the level of safety is
above the mathematical level of acceptability that the Atomic
Safety Licensing Board will accept, is the Goshute Band still
persisting or willing to continue on with their pursuit of this
particular site?
Mr. Bear. OK; let me answer the first question, and the
answer to that is yes, there are significant cultural and
traditional affiliations to the land out there in the Cedar
Mountain Range. Actually, the Goshute Tribe used to roam that
area. We roamed in 7.3 million acres of the West Desert. And
so, that is a significant site, the Cedar Mountain Range.
Second, yes, the tribe, as far as the economics, we will
move forward, and apparently, we would have moved forward with
this issue. We started this issue back in 1989 with the DOE,
with the MRS, learning about storage of spent fuel, and the
tribe has taken--has put in a lot of years on this training.
And, of course, this process here, the license process, has
taken longer than the tribe had expected. It has taken up to 7
years. And that is just to make sure that everything is kosher
with the regulations and the NRC.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Bear. I apologize for throwing
those out very quickly.
And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to go over.
Mr. Radanovich. That was the longest question I have ever
heard, Mr. Bishop.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. The Chair recognizes Mr. Schiff for 5
minutes.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not use the
full 5 minutes.
I want to thank the gentleman from La Canada, Councilmember
Portantino, for coming and testifying today, and I would merely
like to point out that this bill is not a new bill. We
introduced this bill last session. It passed in the full
Senate. It was reintroduced at the beginning of this year. It
again passed in the Senate.
So this is not a new idea, and we have encountered no
regional opposition at all, notwithstanding the letter or two
that has been provided to us today. In fact, the communities
that we have inquired about in the region are all in support.
The city of Burbank has passed a resolution in support. The
city of Glendale has passed a resolution in support. La Canada
has passed a resolution. Pasadena has. South Pasadena has. The
representatives of the area, on a bipartisan basis, support the
measure. And we have encountered, really, no opposition up
until the comments of the gentleman from the American Land
Rights Association.
As the gentleman from the Park Service mentioned, if the
study is approved, there will be an extensive public comment
period, and there will be ample opportunity for anyone that has
any concern to raise that. We really do not presuppose an
outcome, but we would like to have these two agencies put their
heads together and decide what best framework can manage and
preserve the resources in the area, and we plan to be fully
respectful of any private property interests and would very
much look forward to the opportunity to work with the Committee
on this legislation, and I thank the Chairman, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
the witnesses for being here today, including Mr. Vollman, whom
I have not seen for maybe 20 years but who gave me my
introductory law course in Indian law some time ago.
Mr. Groene, I received a phone call from your Executive
Director, Larry Young, who indicated that your testimony would
be slightly antagonistic but that he wanted to express your
group's view that you would like to work on the issue.
I am not interested in where you want to end up,
particularly, on this, but have you actually--let me just say
that in recent years, the communications have been much better
with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and I appreciate
that. But in this case, have you all internally looked at where
you want to end up, evaluated that in the context of what is
possible, because there is very little that is new here today
and are, in fact, interested in actually moving toward a--or do
you think that there is a solution that we can agree on
ultimately?
Mr. Groene. I can tell you that I think that our
involvement has always been with the intent of trying to find a
result that we could live with as legislation.
Mr. Cannon. So we do not have anything new in mind as we go
forward on this one.
Mr. Groene. I am sorry?
Mr. Cannon. You do not have anything new in mind as we go
forward on this one?
Mr. Groene. Anything new in mind?
Mr. Cannon. That might lead us to an actual bill that would
be passed, that you can support.
Mr. Groene. Well, I think that, as you say, the
discussions, I think, have been good, you know, and between our
offices, and we have appreciated that.
On this, our position right now at the hearing has been
that this may be premature, because we were not able to measure
what this legislation would mean for the West Desert Wilderness
absent a map and clarifications on some of the language.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you; I appreciate that.
Mr. Johnson, you quoted the Governor talking about how the
extremes do not ever work out and mentioned the Governor's
principles in Libra or in balance. I do not mean to put you on
the spot particularly, but do you have a way of describing the
extremes other than the position taken by parties that are most
opposite that would, say, take into account the reasonableness
of the positions at the philosophical extremes?
Mr. Johnson. Do I have a way of describing those extremes?
Mr. Cannon. Or I heard the Governor talking about it.
Mr. Johnson. Sitting with a tape recorder running, you are
wanting me to describe the extremes?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Johnson. No, I think the Governor's position and
certainly mine in the years that I have been involved with this
is that we tend to have polarized with really quite extreme
views on both sides of these issues and that the result of that
polarization is that we do not get anything done.
I think on any issue, whether it is public lands or not,
and it is most apparent in public lands issues, that really is
unfortunate. It is very unfortunate. And I believe that we have
slowly started to pull away from those polarized positions, and
we are starting to work more toward some consensus-building and
some collaborative efforts that are starting to erode, you
know, that long polarization. I think that is good; it is
healthy; and it is important that we do that.
But this, in our opinion, we have largely been held hostage
by extremes in the State of Utah for quite some time on public
lands management issues, and I think we need to resolve that. I
think the fact that Mr. Bishop has talked to so many people
about this bill and that he is trying to create a situation
where, you know, these economic issues and mineral issues and,
you know, good, beautiful land issues can be proven to coexist
side-by-side and sometimes overlap, I think that is a very good
thing.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Cannon.
I have got a couple of questions for Mr. Portantino. I just
wanted to ask you, my experience in Washington and on private
property rights issues have been interesting, and I have
learned a lot from some of the folks who live in the Eastern
United States, where there is a very small percentage of
Federal landownership. And we were trying to demonstrate to
them their idea when someone from New York puts in a bill to
take half of Utah and put it in the public land system, and I
always point out the state park, which is the Adirondack State
Park in New York, which is a huge park, and suggest that they
submit a bill putting that into the Federal park system, and
they say, well, we feel that in New York, we can better manage
our resources at the state level.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. And, you know, it does come to mind on
this, because I understand in your testimony that there was
some state participation in the original Rim of the Valley
legislation and would like to get an idea from you of why
that--what is the history of it? Why do you think it should be
national?
It has been my experience, quite frankly, that the farther
away the land manager, the more anti-access that they get and
that you might not be realizing what you are getting by asking
for more involvement in something like this. So I guess my
statement or my question is what was the role of the State in
the formation of the Rim of the Valley and why not seek a state
level for the expansion of something like this?
Mr. Portantino. Well, I think I will take the second part
first. This particular area has interest from local, state and
national organizations. I mean, we are at the foot of the
Angeles Crest National Forest. We are within the sphere of
influence of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. The local
communities all have land within our jurisdiction that abuts
this land. So I think when you have so many different interest
holders touching each other and in some cases overlapping each
other, it just makes sense to have a comprehensive plan to
study how it impacts all of us, and my experience on the local
level is most of our land disputes or, you know, I hate to use
the word litigation or problems come about when we have not
planned, when we have not identified a piece of property, when
we have not informed the stakeholders, the property owners, of
what is going to happen in the future. And that is when people
are blindsided.
So I do look at this as not presupposing an outcome and
focusing on studies. And your question would be answered in
great detail once you had all those stakeholders together to
study the impact of this. And I think it is a rare location
that has so many different interest holders, you know,
basically on top of each other but with no comprehensive plan
to pull them all together.
Mr. Radanovich. You mentioned, too, in your testimony that
the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is far from
complete. Does this represent, the map up there, represent more
your view of what that Recreation Area ought to be, I would
assume?
Mr. Portantino. Yes, it does, if you could put it back up.
You know, again, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has
been--initially was started just along the coast with the Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy. And as the ecological and the
scientific community has supported habitat migration and how
this whole region works together, the sphere of influence of
the Conservancy has expanded eastward and, again, with support
of local communities. And I think that is an important point to
emphasize, is you do have the local communities welcoming this
study with open arms and welcoming the possible expansion of
these influences, and just to have everybody in the room is
just--it is a win-win, we see it. I hope that answered your
question.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hardiman, from your testimony, I get the idea that the
Park Service needs to address existing inholder matters before
consideration is given to expanding the Recreation Area. Am I
correct in this, and can you expand on that a little bit?
Mr. Hardiman. Yes, thank you, Congressman.
The Park Service generally--property owners that are
legitimate, willing sellers are generally ignored by the Park
Service. The Park Service holds their money aside to go after
people who are unwilling sellers.
Another thing I wanted to point out, Congressman Schiff
mentioned several municipalities that have passed resolutions.
By my reading of the map, all of those towns are exempted out
of the study area. They are carved out of the area. So they are
not affected by this Federal zoning overlay.
Mr. Radanovich. Meaning that--well, there are no cities or
towns that are within that Recreation Area, right?
Mr. Hardiman. This massive, proposed expansion includes all
of--essentially all of the nonurban areas. So these towns
passing these resolutions is very nice, because they are not
going to have to deal with the National Park Service climbing
down their throats.
Mr. Schiff. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. Radanovich. I will tell you what: I will give you time
afterwards.
Mr. Schiff. OK; thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. If you would like, Adam.
I would like to ask of the 42 percent that is private
property ownership within the proposed area, do the property
owners that are even within, you know, we know that this is not
a line drawn anywhere yet officially, but do the people who are
included in the proposed boundaries that are private property
owners, do they have a good sense of the fact of whether they
are in it or not yet?
Mr. Hardiman. Well, I will refer to testimony submitted by
Michael Lewis to this Subcommittee on September 27, a hearing
you had out in the valley, which is in opposition to this
legislation. Actually, the way it is now, even, the private
landowners are the ones who provide most of the recreational
access, sometimes in cooperation, for example, a trail head and
a trail goes into the public lands, but for the campgrounds,
equestrian, for the most part, the recreational access is
permitted by private property owners, even as it is now.
So it is a reverse situation of the more public lands you
have, the less public recreation there is.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Hardiman.
Just so I can get a consensus from the Committee--I am
going to recognize you, Adam, for 5 minutes--will there be any
other people asking questions?
OK; you are recognized for 5 minutes, Adam.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple quick points. First of all, I do not think it
is accurate to say that the cities are not included within the
boundaries of the Rim of the Valley. There are some areas, for
example, the Arroyo Seco that goes right down through the heart
of Pasadena and South Pasadena. So these cities do very much
have an interest in the management of the resources and having
an ability to work cooperatively with authorities on the local,
state and Federal levels.
Moreover, you know, I think that the Chairman's point is a
very good one in the sense that many of these issues are very
geographic-dependent, and in some areas, there has been a very
positive relationship between the Park Service and the local
communities and the private landowners; in some areas, it has
not been very good. The track record in the Santa Monica
Mountains Recreation Area, I think, has been very good, as the
gentleman from the Park Service alluded.
There has been very strong cooperation within the existing
area, which is, I think, why, on a bipartisan basis, the
members of our delegation from Southern California are
supportive of the legislation. Had it been otherwise, had there
been a lot of problems in our region, I do not think that would
have been the case. But the track record has been a positive
one for the communities, whether they are very conservative,
like La Canada, or they are more progressive, like Burbank,
which is sort of half and half, are all supportive that have
provided input, and I would assume that, in fact, I would be
surprised if any of the communities took any position other
than support.
Mr. Radanovich. If you would yield, I would have a question
of you, Adam, and that would be are the private property owners
that are included in the proposed boundary, do they live in any
of the incorporated cities that have come out and endorsed this
project?
Mr. Schiff. Well, I mean, there are certainly areas, I
would imagine, and I have not gone parcel-by-parcel, but
certainly areas within--I know, for example, which goes up into
the foothills within La Canada, which is--are there areas of La
Canada that are also within the Rim of the Valley?
Mr. Portantino. Yes; we have about 1,000 acres that go
right into the Angeles Crest National Forest within our sphere
of influence that are not developed currently, just 1,000
acres. And half of it is owned by public entities, and half of
it is owned by private entities.
And I had one other point, if I could, Mr. Schiff: we just
bought a piece of property from a private property owner that
was going to develop and deny access, recreational access, and
by the city in cooperation with the Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy purchasing that access to the Angeles Crest
National Forest, we are actually making it available for
recreational use where it would have been prevented.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
You have the time, Adam.
Mr. Schiff. Well, I thank the gentleman. I really just
wanted to add, in conclusion, to thank the Chairman for
allowing me to participate on the panel as well as earlier, so
thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Radanovich. Certainly.
I want to thank the gentlemen for your testimony here
today. It has been very valuable. I appreciate your making the
trip to Washington, and that concludes, since we have no more
panels, all of the testimony that we are receiving today. I
want to thank you very much, and this hearing is ended.
[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]