[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2100, H.R. 3425, H.R. 4438, H.R. 4491, AND H.R. 4524
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, February 25, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-096 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Jeff Flake, Arizona
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Louie Gohmert, Texas
Jim Costa, California Rob Bishop, Utah
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Adrian Smith, Nebraska
George Miller, California Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon John Fleming, Louisiana
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Mike Coffman, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Islands Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Diana DeGette, Colorado Tom McClintock, California
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Vacancy
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Grace F. Napolitano, California Elton Gallegly, California
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Carolina
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Louie Gohmert, Texas
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Islands Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Diana DeGette, Colorado Mike Coffman, Colorado
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Lois Capps, California Tom McClintock, California
Jay Inslee, Washington Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South officio
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
Vacancy
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, February 25, 2010...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Brett, Geneva, Vice President, Los Banos Buffalo Soldiers 9th
and 10th Cavalry Association, Los Banos, California........ 49
Prepared statement on H.R. 4491.......................... 51
Chandoha, Susan, Executive Director, Los Compadres de San
Antonio Missions National Historical Park, San Antonio,
Texas...................................................... 46
Prepared statement on H.R. 4438.......................... 47
Franks, Hon. Trent, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 8
Prepared statement on H.R. 2100.......................... 9
Holmes Norton, Hon. Eleanor, a Representative in Congress
from the District of Columbia.............................. 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 3425.......................... 3
Jackson-Kelly, Loretta, Tribal Preservation Officer, and
Director, Department of Cultural Resources, Hualapai Tribe,
Peach Springs, Arizona..................................... 29
Prepared statement on H.R. 2100.......................... 31
Otero, Linda, Tribal Council Member, and Director, Aha Makav
Cultural Society, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, California,
Arizona, and Nevada, Needles, California................... 33
Prepared statement on H.R. 2100.......................... 34
Rodriguez, Hon. Ciro D., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas......................................... 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 4438.......................... 7
Shuler, Hon. Heath, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina.................................... 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 4524.......................... 11
Small, Brenda, President, Washington, DC Association of
Realtors, Washington, D.C.................................. 43
Prepared statement on H.R. 3425.......................... 44
Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 4491.......................... 13
Whitesell, Stephen E., Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 15
Prepared statement of the Bureau of Land Management on
H.R. 2100.............................................. 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 3425.......................... 18
Prepared statement on H.R. 4438.......................... 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 4491.......................... 20
Prepared statement on H.R. 4524.......................... 21
Wilson, Reid, Executive Director, Conservation Trust for
North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina.................... 52
Prepared statement on H.R. 4524.......................... 54
Woodhouse, Robert, Vice-Chairman, Arizona Game and Fish
Commission, Phoenix, Arizona............................... 36
Prepared statement on H.R. 2100.......................... 37
Additional materials supplied:
National Rifle Association, Letter to The Honorable Trent
Franks submitted for the record............................ 28
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2100, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVEYANCE
OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LAND IN MOHAVE VALLEY, MOHAVE COUNTY,
ARIZONA, ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TO THE
ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT, FOR USE AS A PUBLIC SHOOTING
RANGE; H.R. 3425, TO AUTHORIZE THE FAIR HOUSING COMMEMORATIVE
FOUNDATION TO ESTABLISH A COMMEMORATIVE WORK ON FEDERAL LAND IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO COMMEMORATE THE ENACTMENT OF THE
FAIR HOUSING ACT IN 1968; H.R. 4438, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO LEASE SPACE FROM
A NONPROFIT GROUP OR OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITY FOR A PARK
HEADQUARTERS AT SAN ANTONIO MISSIONS NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK,
TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARY OF THE PARK, TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF
POTENTIAL LAND ACQUISITIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. (SAN
ANTONIO MISSIONS NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK LEASING AND BOUNDARY
EXPANSION ACT OF 2010); H.R. 4491, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF ALTERNATIVES FOR
COMMEMORATING AND INTERPRETING THE ROLE OF THE BUFFALO SOLDIERS
IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE NATIONAL PARKS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES. (BUFFALO SOLDIERS IN THE NATIONAL PARKS STUDY ACT);
AND H.R. 4524, TO AUTHORIZE FUNDING TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE
LANDS CONTIGUOUS WITH THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY TO SERVE THE
PUBLIC, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. (BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY PROTECTION
ACT)
----------
Thursday, February 25, 2010
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul M.
Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Kildee, Inslee, Duncan,
Brown, and Lummis.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. I am going to call the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands to order for this
hearing, and thank you very much. Today, we are going to
receive testimony on five pieces of legislation, and in the
interests of time, I leave it to the sponsors and the witnesses
to describe them in detail, and to provide the information
necessary.
Our agenda includes a bill to expand the San Antonio
Missions National Historical Park; to study the Buffalo
Soldiers Trail for commemoration by the National Park System;
as well as a bill to authorize funding to conserve lands
adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
I am interested today in hearing from both the Hualapai and
the Fort Mojave tribes regarding their concerns on H.R. 2100,
the Mohave County shooting range bill, and I want to thank them
for coming out here on such short notice to provide their
opinion, and their voice, for their respective tribes on the
protection of their traditional lands, and thank you very much
for making that trip.
As always, we very much appreciate the time and efforts put
forth by our witnesses. We thank them very much for joining us
today. Our good friend, the Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop, will
not be with us today, and we will shortly be joined by Mr.
Brown, and when he arrives, if he has any opening statements,
we will certainly extend the privilege to him.
But let me begin now with our colleagues that are here with
us today with their legislation. Thank you. Let me begin with
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, with H.R. 3425. Welcome,
and I look forward to your comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, on H.R. 2100, H.R. 3425, H.R.
4438, H.R. 4491, and H.R. 4524
The Subcommittee will now come to order. Thank you.
Today we will receive testimony on five bills and, in the interest
of time, I leave it to the sponsors and witnesses to describe most of
them in detail. Our agenda includes bills to expand the San Antonio
Missions National Historical Park, to study the Buffalo Soldiers Trail
for commemoration by the National Park System, as well a bill to
authorize funding to conserve lands adjacent to the Blue Ridge Parkway.
I am interested in hearing today from both the Hualapai and Fort
Mojave tribes regarding their concerns on H.R. 2100, the Mohave County
Shooting Range bill. And I want to thank them for coming out here on
short notice to provide a voice for their respective tribes on the
protection of their traditional lands.
As always, we very much appreciate the time and efforts put forth
by our witnesses and thank them very much for joining us today. With
that said, I'd now like to turn to Ranking Member Bishop for any
opening statement he may have.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ON H.R. 3425
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is always
a pleasure to work with you, and I particularly commend your
work on our national parks. This is a little different bill
that you have before you. In fact, it is a very different bill.
I have named it the Fair Housing Commemorative Act, but Mr.
Chairman, it was not proposed by me, even though I am a former
Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and have
worked for equal rights all of my life.
This bill is to commemorate the 1968 Fair Housing Act that
was proposed by the National Association of Realtors, who are
regulated, and whose practices are regulated by the Act. It may
be the first time a sector that is regulated by the civil
rights laws has proposed a commemorative work in honor of that
law.
I have worked long and hard with the real estate sector in
the District of Columbia, because they helped to revive the
city when it had a serious financial crisis because the city
carried State functions that no other city carried.
I got a $5,000 home buyer credit through, which to this day
has helped to restore home ownership in the District of
Columbia and kept residents here. So I have both a relationship
with this industry, but I can tell you for all the good that
they have done in the District, I could not have anticipated
that they would come forward with this proposal.
They built the first LEED-certified building in the
District of Columbia. They took a piece of land that nobody
thought anybody would build on near the Capitol, and made it
into something really quite extraordinary.
I appreciate this early hearing because it means that I
believe this bill is just the kind of bill that can be passed
this year. The Fair Housing Commemorative Foundation is already
raising funds and working with the National Capital Memorial
Advisory Committee to adhere to all of the requirements that
you have to go through if you want to build in the District of
Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, there are three great civil rights acts; the
1964 Civil Rights Act, and that is the one in which its
enforcement that I was involved that created the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission; the 1965 Voting Rights Act,
and the 1968 Fair Housing Act.
It is no accident that the last to be enacted was the Fair
Housing Act. It was enacted only after the assassination of
Martin Luther King, Junior. The country had gone through many,
and indeed, centuries, of unequal opportunity in housing.
And even the Civil War amendments and the 1866 Fair Housing
Act did not afford equal opportunity in housing to people of
color. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is
strongly implicated in fair housing discrimination, and despite
court suits that barred restricted conveyance, Federal agencies
built in the requirements, frankly, of neighborhoods and of the
real estate sector itself, that in effect made it difficult for
people of color to own housing and to live where they could.
The great breakthrough, of course, was the Civil Rights
Movement push to enact the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Today, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, which administers
the equal opportunity arm of housing of the Federal Government,
is retooling for more vigorous enforcement.
HUD has a job to do because the number of actions plummeted
over the last several years. The real estate sector, through
its foundation, in coming forward with this commemorative work
proposal, is not declaring victory for fair housing in the
United States.
On the contrary, we believe that the memorial on land to be
chosen in concert with the National Capital Planning
Commission, will be inspirational, inspiring the American
people, the real estate sector, and yes, the U.S. Government,
and state and local governments, to embrace the ideas and the
values invited in the Fair Housing Act.
I am particularly proud of this bill, and particularly
because it emanates not from the government, not from the
people of color, and not even from me, Mr. Chairman, but from
the real estate sector which itself is proposing a
commemorative monument here in the Nation's Capital to
recognize the importance of the 1968 Fair Housing Act.
And I ask that the Subcommittee quickly pass it on so that
we can go to the Floor and enact this commemorative works bill
on fair housing this very year. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Holmes Norton follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
Congress from the District of Columbia, on H.R. 3425
I very much appreciate your granting this early hearing, allowing
the possibility that my bill this year will authorize the Fair Housing
Commemorative Foundation to establish an unusual and non-controversial
commemorative work honoring The Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA). The
Fair Housing Commemorative Act would commemorate the FHA, the last of
the three great civil rights laws of the 1960's, with an appropriate
commemorative work in the nation's capital. The Fair Housing
Commemorative Foundation is raising funds and is working with the
National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) to adhere to the
requirements and process established by the Commemorative Works Act of
1986. Notably, this bill may mark the first time that a sector of our
economy has decided to honor the statute that regulates some of its
practices. This precedent, forged by the real estate sector, is
especially commendable.
Housing availability and efforts for equal opportunity in the real
estate markets are intertwined with our nation's history, particularly
racial history. The federal government has both been a part of the
problem and an integral part of the solution. Every branch of the
federal government has played a key role in our national progress
towards fair housing. It is particularly fitting that we commemorate
the FHA with a monument in Washington, considering the history of
discrimination that led to this landmark, civil rights speaks to the
progress that has been made and the distance yet to go.
The Nation's Beginning: The Right to Private Property
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes the right
to own private property that the government cannot take without just
compensation. Early immigrants sought a place where they could own and
transfer real estate without arbitrary interference from the
government. That right was not universal, however, because slavery
denied basic rights to African Americans based on race, reduced them to
the subhuman status of property, and denied them the right to own and
use real property.
Post Civil War: Progress and Problems
The Civil War amendments ending slavery were accompanied by laws
that gave all citizens the same rights as white citizens to own and use
real property. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was our nation's first
``fair housing'' law. However, that statute was ignored and severely
limited by court decisions, culminating with the philosophy of
``separate but equal'' in the Supreme Court's Plessey v. Ferguson
decision. In addition, Congress and some states passed laws that
restricted access to private property ownership and use by Latinos and
Asian Americans.
In the early 20th century, social scientists and leaders within
real estate established guides for neighborhood desirability based on
racial composition. Homogeneous communities for white residents were
seen as the best investment for homeowners and others. Some early
zoning laws sought to limit, residents by race, as did some practices
of the real estate sector. Although in 1917 the Supreme Court, in
Buchanan v. Warley, struck down these racial restrictions, they were
incorporated into Federal Housing Administration rules, deeply
implicating the federal government, and formed the basis for many
private agreements to segregate and form racially restrictive
covenants.
Post World War II Challenges Unmet
Following the Second World War, returning GIs, through the GI bill,
were offered a path to homeownership. However, African Americans and
other minority group Americans were excluded from these GI bill
benefits in many communities. The great migration of the middle class
to the suburbs was largely a white phenomenon, creating segregated
white suburbs and large isolated urban minority communities. There was
little response by the government or the courts, although the Supreme
Court formally ended judicial enforcement of racially restrictive
covenants in the 1948 case, Shelley v. Kraemer.
The Civil Rights Movement Breakthrough
The civil rights movement, particularly Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr.'s campaign in Chicago, brought renewed attention to housing
discrimination. The federal government, first through executive order
and then through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, banned discrimination in
federally funded housing. By 1961, seventeen states had passed fair
housing or open housing laws. However, it was not until April 1968,
inspired tragically by the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King,
that Congress passed the FHA.
Also in April 1968, the Supreme Court ruling in Jones v. Mayer held
that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibited discrimination in private
real estate transactions. That law, however, lacked an effective
government enforcement mechanism and covered only racial and religious
discrimination. Gender discrimination in housing was prohibited in
1974. In 1988, in response to growing awareness of the housing issues
faced by the disabled, the adoption of the FHA Amendments established
more effective government enforcement and extended protections to the
disabled.
21st Century Aspirational Challenge
Today, the federal government through its housing anti-
discrimination enforcement agency, the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), is retooling for more vigorous enforcement. In
2007 HUD issued discrimination charges in only 31 cases compared to 125
in 1995. Regrettably, the decline in charges does not mean that housing
discrimination has been reduced. Since 1980 there have been only
moderate declines in African American patterns of residential
segregation, while Latino residential segregation has remained
unchanged over that same period. Socio-economic status does not
necessarily signal progress according to a 2008 study by the National
Commission on Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, which found that
``disparities between neighborhoods for Blacks and Hispanics with
incomes above $60,000 are almost as large as the overall disparities,
and they increased more substantially in the 1990s.''
In seeking to memorialize the FHA, the real estate sector is not
declaring victory. Like many memorials in the Nation's Capital, the
Fair Housing Commemorative Foundation's work will be aspirational,
inspiring the American people, their government, and the real estate
sector to embrace the values embodied by the FHA. The nation should be
particularly proud that this work is not proposed by the public or by
our government, but instead by the nation's real estate sector whose
practices are subject to oversight and enforcement.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, and I think you outlined
the significance for many reasons, but the fact that the
industry itself sees the Fair Housing legislation of 1968 as a
monumental movement in a lot of areas, equality being one of
them and opportunity. So thank you for that.
Before I turn to my good friend, Mr. Rodriguez, if I could
ask the Ranking Member, Mr. Brown, if he has any opening
statements or any comments. Sir?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to welcome
my colleagues here and appreciate you all showing up today, and
appearing before this Committee, and look forward to hearing
from you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. H.R. 4438, sponsored by
Representative Ciro D. Rodriguez of Texas. Sir, thank you very
much. It is an excellent piece of legislation, and it
acknowledges a big part of the history of this Nation, and I
look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Rodriguez. Chairman Grijalva, thank you very much, and
Ranking Member Bishop, and Representative Brown, and members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to speak and
testify this morning on H.R. 4438, the San Antonio Missions
National Historical Park Leasing and Boundary Expansion Act of
2010.
I represent the Twenty-Third Congressional District of
Texas, ranging from San Antonio and El Paso, which is about 650
miles, 800 miles to the border, one of the largest districts in
the Nation.
I am also pleased to have seven of the thirteen National
Parks in Texas. I probably have more national parks than any
Member of Congress, including an urban park that is rich in
culture, and historical significance in the heart of San
Antonio, and the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park.
The San Antonio Missions form the largest concentration of
Catholic missions in North America, and serves as some of the
most well preserved representations of the Spanish colonial
history influence in culture in the Southwest. It is on this
foundation that the City of San Antonio was established, and
today the Missions serve as an important reminder and
connection to our city's rich past.
The Park includes four missions which were built on the San
Antonio River in the 1700s. These were all social and cultural
centers at the time, and of the present also, and were able to
thrive despite facing threats from Native Americans and other
forms of threats during the period.
As the need for the missions diminished, the missions were
transferred to the secular clergy in the early 1800s, and they
remain active parishes to this day. Although the park was
officially created by the National Park Service in 1978, the
community had long been working to preserve the mission
buildings and surrounding area.
Work began in the 1930s to restore the missions and related
structures and, because of this foresight, the Espada Aqueduct
is the only functioning aqueduct from the Spanish colonial
period in the United States. It is a beautiful aqueduct. Parts
of it remain today, and it is designated as a National Hispanic
Landmark in this country.
In fact, the importance of the missions has been
recognized, and it is on the United States' tentative list for
future nomination to the World Heritage List. This legislation,
which is co-sponsored by all three of my colleagues from San
Antonio--Congressman Lamar Smith, Congressman Charlie Gonzales,
and Congressman Henry Cuellar--and I will continue this deep
tradition of preservation for the Park, while also ensuring its
future growth.
The need to prepare for the growth is clear. Just last
year, in 2009, the Park had a record-breaking year for
visitation with over 1.7 million people visiting the Park.
H.R. 4438 would authorize a boundary study that would
identify possible lands for inclusion in the Park within their
counties, which are Bexar and Wilson Counties, and surrounding
counties.
The bill would also authorize the purchase of previously
identified lands. Last, the legislation would allow for the
leasing of a new headquarters and research space from a non-
profit or other governmental entity, creating the space for
education and research of this region. It will be vital to
carrying on the legacy of the Spanish missions.
However, it is not just the work of the National Park
Service, and the active and invaluable friends or groups, but
Los Compadres, a local not-for-profit group, that has made this
goal of preservation and education possible.
The City of San Antonio and Bexar County have also been
working diligently to restore the San Antonio River to its
natural environment. This means that future generations will be
able to walk along the river and see the city through the eyes
of its past inhabitants as they look upon these historic
structures and learn about the people that settled the region.
The San Antonio Missions National Historical Park is unique
for so many reasons, but its location as an urban park and Its
deep connections to the city are undoubtedly its greatest
strengths.
And I would remind you that San Antonio is the seventh
largest city in the Nation, and you see this beautiful park
within it, and as you see here today, the support from the
community--and I will ask them to stand up behind me if they
can, please, everybody.
We have a good amount of support from all sectors of the
community, and I want to thank them for being here today, and I
know that they are willing to provide testimony.
And I want to thank you for allowing me this morning to be
here before you, and just share one little thing. There are a
multitude of things, but I want to also share with you that San
Antonio is also the home of one of the unique dams, the oldest
dam in North America, that still exists, and still operates,
and has never broken.
And so with that, I have a little brochure of some of the
missions that were built along the river. A lot of you are
familiar with the Alamo downtown. These are very similar, but
they are still parishes.
The Alamo was on the right side of the river. The Cathedral
of San Antonio, one of the oldest cathedrals in the Americas,
on this side of the river, and they took care of the people
that went to church on either side.
And as you go down the river toward the east to the Gulf of
Mexico, the missions, the first one that you run into is called
Concepcion on the right side, and then you run into San Jose
that would take care of the people on this other side, and then
you run into San Juan, and Espada.
Each one of those missions has a beautiful history. During
the battle of the Alamo, there was battles that were fought
also in Espada and some of the others where Bowie and others
were successful.
So it is a beautiful history, and so thank you very much
for allowing me this opportunity to testify, and if you have
any comments or questions, I look forward to them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ciro D. Rodriguez, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas, on H.R. 4438
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify on behalf
of H.R. 4438, the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Leasing
and Boundary Expansion Act of 2010. I represent the 23rd District of
Texas which extends from San Antonio west to El Paso.
In my district I am very fortunate to have 7 of the 13 National
Park units in Texas, including an urban park of rich cultural and
historical significance in the heart of San Antonio, the San Antonio
Missions National Historic Park.
The San Antonio Missions form the largest concentration of Catholic
missions in North America and serve as some of the most well-preserved
representations of Spanish Colony history, influence and culture in the
Southwest. It is on this foundation that the City of San Antonio was
established and today the Missions serve as important reminder and
connection to our City's rich past.
The Park includes four missions which were built on the San Antonio
River in the early 1700s. These were important social and cultural
centers of the time and were able to thrive despite facing threats from
local Indian tribes. As the need for the Missions diminished, the
Missions were transferred to the secular clergy in the early 1800s and
they remain active parishes even today.
Although the park was officially created by the National Park
Service in 1978, the community had long been working to preserve the
Mission buildings and surrounding area. Work began in the 1930s to
restore the Missions and related structures. Because of this foresight,
the Espada aqueduct, the only functioning aqueduct from the Spanish
colonial period in the United States, remains today and is designated a
National Historic Landmark. In fact, the importance of the Missions has
been so recognized that it is on the United States' tentative list for
future nomination to the World Heritage List.
This legislation, which is co-sponsored by all three of my
colleagues from San Antonio--Congressmen Gonzalez, Cuellar and Smith--
will continue this deep tradition of preservation for the park while
also ensuring its future growth. The need to prepare for this growth is
clear; just last year in 2009, the park had a record-breaking year for
visitation with over 1.7 million people visiting the park, a 35%
increase over 2008 levels.
H.R. 4438 would authorize a boundary study that would identify
possible lands for inclusion in the park within Bexar and Wilson
Counties. The bill would also authorize the purchase of previously-
identified lands. Lastly, the legislation would allow for the leasing
of a new headquarters and research space from a nonprofit or other
government entity. Creating this space for education and research of
this region will be vital to carrying on the legacy of the Spanish
Missions.
However it is not just the work of the National Park Service and
the active and invaluable Friends Group, Los Compadres, which has made
this goal of preservation and education possible. The City of San
Antonio and Bexar County have also been working diligently to restore
the San Antonio River to its natural environment. This means that
future generations will be able to walk along the river and see the
city through the eyes of its past inhabitants as they look upon these
historic structures and learn about the people that settled in the
region.
The San Antonio Missions National Historic Park is unique for so
many reasons, but its location as an urban park and its deep connection
to the city are undoubtedly its greatest strengths. And as you will see
here today, the support from the community for this park and this
legislation is overwhelming.
Thank you again for inviting me here today to testify on the
legislation for the San Antonio Missions National Historic Park. I am
proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 4438 because I believe this legislation
is vital to preserving the important history of San Antonio and
creating a way for the future growth of the park. Thank you.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me now ask my friend
from the great State of Arizona for his comments regarding H.R.
2100. Mr. Franks, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT FRANKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA, ON H.R. 2100
Mr. Franks. Chairman Grijalva, and Ranking Member Brown, I
wanted to express gratitude for the opportunity to appear here
before your Committee, and to support H.R. 2100.
I am especially grateful to be here in front of a fellow
Arizonan and, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, at the
culmination of my testimony here, I have a responsibility in
another committee, and so I would ask to be excused after my
testimony. No way, huh?
Mr. Grijalva. No, you have to stay here. If we do, then no.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Franks. Boy, I will tell you. I don't know about these
Arizonans.
Mr. Grijalva. That would be your privilege, sir.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Chairman, I introduced this legislation on
behalf of constituents in Mohave Valley, Arizona. The bill
provides for the conveyance of 315 acres of land. It is public
land to the Arizona Game and Fish Department for use as a
public shooting range.
The Mohave County shooting range proposal has been under
consideration and evaluation for more than a decade. Actually,
for 11 years. Arizona's Mohave County has experienced rapid
growth over the last few years, and the traditional locations
for target shooting are now too close to populated areas for
safety.
There is a need to designate a centralized multi-purpose
public shooting location in Mohave County to promote safe
hunting and shooting practices, and to provide the public with
safe shooting areas, to support the hunter education program,
and to encourage hunters to become more proficient with their
equipment.
But, Mr. Chairman, there is also a major need for a central
facility for training purposes in the use of firearms, such as
local law enforcement and security personnel, to achieve and
maintain firearms qualifications.
Now, some of these officers are even forced to travel long
distances in order to practice and improve the marksmanship
skills that are so central as a component of their job
requirements.
The shooting range project would consist of seven different
types of ranges, including a trap and skeet range, sports play
range, police rifle range, and pistol maze and range, a public
range, and an archery range.
And while, Mr. Chairman, I would defer to the Bureau of
Land Management and the Arizona Game and Fish Department to
address specific concerns raised by the Fort Mojave and
Hualapai Native American Tribes, I will say that over the last
11 years of this process that I have diligently tried and
continue to take the tribes' concerns very seriously.
The Mohave shooting range proposal contains a rigorous set
of standards and criteria that would apply to any facility that
could be built, and would address and significantly reduce the
visual and sound issues raised by the tribes.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to
testify before you on this bill, H.R. 2100. I trust and hope
that after hearing further testimony from the relevant parties
regarding the 11-year-long negotiation process for this
proposal that you will recognize and support the need for this
range.
And I would greatly appreciate your support and the
Committee's positive support for this much-needed and long-
overdue legislation, and I thank you again for the opportunity
to be here.
[The prepared statement of Trent Franks follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Arizona, on H.R. 2100
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify in support
of my bill, H.R. 2100.
I introduced this legislation on behalf of constituents of Mohave
Valley, Arizona. My bill provides for the conveyance of 315 acres of
public land to the Arizona Game and Fish Department for use as a public
shooting range. The Mohave County Shooting Range proposal has been
under consideration and evaluation for more than a decade--11 years in
fact.
Arizona's Mohave County has experienced rapid growth over the last
few years and the traditional locations for target shooting are now too
close to populated areas for safety. There is a need to designate a
centralized multipurpose public shooting location in Mohave County to
promote safe hunting and shooting practices, provide the public with
safe shooting areas, support the Hunter Education Program and encourage
hunters to become more proficient with their equipment.
There is also a major need for a central facility for persons
training in the use of firearms such as local law enforcement and
security personnel to achieve and maintain firearm qualifications. Some
of these officers are even forced to travel long distances in order to
practice and improve the marksmanship skills that are a central
component of their job requirements.
The shooting range project would consist of seven different types
of ranges, including a trap and skeet range, sports clay range, a
police rifle range, pistol bays and range, a public range, and a
archery range.
While I will defer to the BLM and the Arizona Game and Fish
Department in addressing specific concerns raised by the Fort Mohave
and Hualapai Native American tribes, I will say that over the last 11
years of this process, I have taken the tribes' concerns very
seriously. The Mohave Shooting range proposal contains a rigorous set
of standards and criteria that would apply to any facility that would
be built, and would address and significantly reduce the visual and
sound issues raised by the Tribes.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to testify
before you on my bill, H.R. 2100. I trust that after hearing further
testimony from the relevant parties regarding the 11 year long
negotiation process for this proposal, you will recognize the need for
this range. I would greatly appreciate the Committee's positive support
for this much-needed and long overdue legislation.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Franks, for your testimony,
and I appreciate the time that you have taken, and I look
forward to continued discussions on the item. Let me now ask
Mr. Shuler on H.R. 4524, Congressman Shuler's legislation that
he is sponsoring, and we look forward to your comments, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. HEATH SHULER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON H.R. 4524
Mr. Shuler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to thank
the Chairman and tell you how much I miss this Committee--
having served on it for the 110th Congress--and to thank
Ranking Member Bishop and Ranking Pro Temp Mr. Brown, from the
great State of Georgia, and members of the Subcommittee for
holding this hearing to discuss, among other issues, H.R. 4524,
the Blue Ridge Parkway Protection Act.
As you all have tremendous experience in developing
legislation pertaining to Federal lands, I am grateful for the
opportunity to hear your feedback on this legislation, and hope
that your suggestions can be incorporated into the bill at a
later date.
The Blue Ridge Parkway spans the western portion of North
Carolina and Virginia, running a total of 469 miles, through
some of the most beautiful terrain in the southeastern United
States.
As the most visited unit of the National Park Service, the
Parkway provides recreational benefits for countless American
families who enjoy the scenic drive, and the abundance of
opportunities for outdoor activities along the way. The Parkway
is also a valuable economic asset to the communities alongside
it. The Parkway visitors inject roughly $2.3 billion each year
into dozens of cities and towns that rely on the thriving
tourism economy.
In 2008, the National Park Service commissioned a detailed
survey of Blue Ridge Parkway visitors to better understand what
element of the Parkway are of the greatest importance to them.
In that survey, 97 percent of all visitors said that the scenic
view and the scenic drives were the most important attributes
of the Parkway.
Clearly, natural beauty that can be attained from the
roadside is what makes this the most popular unit of the entire
Park Service. It is for that reason that my colleagues and I
have introduced H.R. 4524, a bill that will protect the most
important lands alongside, and ensure that these scenic views
are not interrupted by deforestation and development.
H.R. 4524 would authorize the Park Service to acquire and
incorporate into the boundaries of the Blue Ridge Parkway up to
50 thousand acres that are contiguous to current Parkway
property.
These properties must be identified by the superintendent
of the Parkway as top priorities for viewshed protection, and
may only be acquired from willing sellers. Eminent domain
cannot be used to carry out any portion of this bill.
In working with the National Park Service during the
drafting of this legislation, it is clear that there are
concerns about specific portions of this bill, all of which we
believe can be properly addressed with the help and the
expertise of this Subcommittee.
I am grateful that the Park Service has shown such
willingness to work with me and the other sponsors of this
bill, Representatives David Price, Rick Boucher, and Tom
Perriello, to enhance portions of this bill pertaining to the
acquisition authority and how best to utilize the great
resources and abilities of qualified land conservation groups.
It is an honor for me to represent this bill and have Reid
Wilson, Executive Director of the Conservation Trust for North
Carolina, testify on behalf of this legislation. I want to
thank you again for your time and attention to the Blue Ridge
Parkway Protection Act.
I look forward to hearing your suggestions on this bill,
which will preserve the viewsheds of the country's most visited
Park Service unit, and protect many local economies that depend
upon it. I would also like to ask the Chairman for permission
to be excused. Other duties do call, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shuler follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Heath Shuler, a Representative in Congress
from the State of North Carolina, on H.R. 4524
I first want to thank Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and
members of the Subcommittee for convening this hearing to discuss,
among other issues, H.R. 4524, The Blue Ridge Parkway Protection Act.
As you all have tremendous experience in developing legislation
pertaining to our federal lands, I am grateful for the opportunity to
hear your feedback on this legislation and hope that your suggestions
can be incorporated into this bill at a later date.
The Blue Ridge Parkway spans the western portions of North Carolina
and Virginia, running a total of 469 miles through some of the most
beautiful terrain in the southeastern United States. As the most
visited unit of the National Park Service, the Parkway provides
recreational benefits for countless American families who enjoy the
scenic drive and the abundance of opportunities for outdoor activities
along the way.
The Parkway is also a valuable economic asset to the communities
alongside of it, with Parkway visitors injecting roughly $2.3 billion
each year into dozens of cities and towns that rely on a thriving
tourism economy.
In 2008, the National Park Service commissioned a detailed survey
of Blue Ridge Parkway visitors to better understand what elements of
the Parkway are of the greatest importance to them. In that survey, 97%
of all visitors said that the scenic views and scenic drive were the
most important attributes of the Parkway. Clearly, the natural beauty
that can be observed from the roadway is what makes this the most
popular unit of the entire Park Service. It is for this very reason
that my colleagues and I have introduced H.R. 4524, a bill that will
protect the most important lands along the Parkway and ensure that
these scenic views are not disrupted by deforestation and development.
H.R. 4524 would authorize the Park Service to acquire and
incorporate into the boundary of the Blue Ridge Parkway up to 50,000
acres that are contiguous to current Parkway property. These properties
must be identified by the Superintendent of the Parkway as top
priorities for viewshed protection, and may only be acquired from
willing sellers--eminent domain cannot be used to carry out any portion
of this bill.
In working with the National Park Service during the drafting of
this legislation, it is clear that there are concerns about specific
portions of the bill, all of which we believe can be properly addressed
with the help and expertise of this subcommittee. I am grateful that
the Park Service has shown such willingness to work with me and the
other sponsors of this bill--Representatives David Price, Rick Boucher,
and Tom Perriello--to enhance portions of this bill pertaining to
acquisition authority and how best to utilize the great resources and
abilities of qualified land conservation groups. I am also grateful to
have Reid Wilson, executive director of the Trust for North Carolina to
testify on behalf of this legislation.
I thank you again for your time and attention to the Blue Ridge
Parkway Protection Act. I look forward to hearing your suggestions on
this bill, which will preserve the viewsheds of the Country's most
visited Park Service unit and protect the many local economies that
depend on it.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Please, and thank you very much for your
testimony. Let me now ask Congresswoman Speier for her comments
regarding her legislation, H.R. 4491, and before I turn it over
to her, my part of the world has historic linkage to the
Buffalo Soldiers, Fort Huachuca, and other parts of Southern
Arizona in the late 1800s.
And so I want to tell you how historically significant it
is, but I think it is also an important acknowledgement of
something important in our military history that has not been
included or highlighted. So let me congratulate you on your
legislation, and turn it over to you for your comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON H.R. 4491
Ms. Speier. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have
basically given my comments now. Mr. Chairman, and
Representative Brown, and members of the Committee, I thank you
for the opportunity to testify this morning on H.R. 4491, the
Buffalo Soldiers in the National Park Study Act.
Specifically, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to study the role that Buffalo Soldiers played in the
development of our national park system. Once the study is
complete, I trust the Buffalo Soldiers Trail will warrant
designation as a National Historic Trail.
I am glad that Mr. Stephen Whitesell, with the National
Park Service, will be here today to testify and answer any
questions. I also appreciate the Committee inviting Mrs. Geneva
Brett to testify, who represents the Los Banos Buffalo Soldiers
Ninth and Tenth Cavalry Association. Geneva and her colleagues
have put remarkable efforts into this cause, and I commend them
for their patriotic service.
As many of us learned in school, African-Americans could
not enlist in the Army until after the Civil War. By 1869,
Congress formed four all black regiments, the Ninth and Tenth
Cavalry, and the Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth Infantry.
These soldiers came to be known as the Buffalo Soldiers.
What many of us do not know is just how unique this story is to
my home State of California. The Buffalo Soldiers were
garrisoned at the Presidio in San Francisco in the early 1900s.
Many of them had fought in the Philippines and the Spanish-
American War, where they gained legendary status as fearless
fighters alongside Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders. However,
they faced racism and discrimination as they performed their
duties on the western frontier.
They patrolled Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon Parks
before the Park System was established. To get there, they left
the Presidio and headed south along El Camino Real through San
Mateo County in my district.
These soldiers were truly the first guardians of our
national park system, blazing the trails, building the roads,
and protecting the land for visitors. They helped make the
vision for our National Park System a reality.
Native Americans nicknamed the troops Buffalo Soldiers
after their dark skin and curly hair. Since the buffalo was
revered among Native Americans for its brave fighting spirit,
the troops accepted the title as a badge of honor.
And I have lived my entire life within walking distance of
the Buffalo Soldiers Trail, and never knew this chapter in our
history. Upon learning of the Buffalo Soldiers, the chance to
recognize those who gave everything in the face of adversity
was simply too important to pass up.
This bill is one of many steps toward the rightful
recognition of these soldiers. At the same time, it will
enhance our national parks. We should not lose sight of this
story's relevance to our long and ongoing struggle with racism.
Some of you may have seen the recent documentary by Ken
Burns, The National Parks: America's Best Idea. In this film,
Mr. Burns highlights the work of a park ranger, Shelton
Johnson, who is proudly sharing the Buffalo Soldiers' story
with visitors at Yosemite today.
He describes the overt racism the Buffalo Soldiers fought
to overcome as they did their jobs, and he also conveys the
importance of their mission to protect our treasured wild
places.
Quoting Mr. Johnson, he said: ``It is a window into the
ancient earth, the earth that once was, the earth that will
always be. Park is not a strong enough term to describe what is
beyond this gate.''
I now know the Buffalo Soldiers must have felt the same,
and if we commemorate their service, I know that many
Americans' experience in our national parks will be better for
it.
Therefore, as we approach the centennial of the National
Park Service in 2016, I believe that it is fitting that we seek
to raise awareness of the Buffalo Soldiers' great contributions
to the United States.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for co-sponsoring this
measure and for the 52 other Members of our House, and for
allowing me to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Speier follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jackie Speier, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, on H.R. 4491
Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Hastings, Members of the Committee:
thank you for inviting me to this hearing on H.R. 4491, the Buffalo
Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act. It gives me great pleasure to
testify here today about an important bill for our National Parks that
will also help bring an untold American story to light.
Specifically, my bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
study the role the Buffalo Soldiers played in the development of the
National Park System.
My goal in seeking this study is to determine how we can make the
Buffalo Soldiers Trail a National Historic Trail. I am glad Mr. Stephen
Whitesell with the National Park Service will testify and take your
questions in this area.
I am also grateful you have invited Ms. Geneva Brett here today,
who represents the Los Banos Buffalo Soldiers 9th and 10th Cavalry
Association. Geneva and her colleagues have put remarkable effort into
this cause and I commend them for their patriotic service.
As many of us learned in school, African Americans could not enlist
in the Army until after the Civil War. By 1869, Congress formed four
all-black regiments: the 9th and 10th Cavalry and the 24th and 25th
Infantry. These soldiers came to be known as the Buffalo Soldiers. What
many of us do not know is just how unique this story is to my home
state of California.
The Buffalo Soldiers were garrisoned at the Presidio in San
Francisco in the early 1900s. Many of them fought in the Philippines
and the Spanish American War, where they gained legendary status as
fearless fighters alongside Theodore Roosevelt's Rough Riders.
However, they faced racism and discrimination as they performed
their new duty on the Western frontier. They patrolled Yosemite,
Sequoia and Kings Canyon parks before the Park System was established.
To get there, they left the Presidio and headed south along El Camino
Real through San Mateo County, in my district.
These soldiers were truly the first guardians of our National
Parks, blazing the trails, building the roads and protecting the lands
for visitors--they helped make the vision for our National Parks a
reality.
Native Americans nicknamed the troops ``Buffalo Soldiers'' after
their dark skin and curly hair. Since the buffalo was revered among
Native Americans for its brave fighting spirit, the troops accepted the
title as a badge of honor.
I have lived my entire life within walking distance of the Buffalo
Soldiers Trail and never knew this chapter in our history. Upon
learning of the Buffalo Soldiers, the chance to recognize those who
gave everything in the face of adversity was simply too important to
pass up.
The bill I have introduced is only one step toward the rightful
recognition of these soldiers. At the same time it will enhance our
National Parks, we should not lose sight of this story's relevance to
our long and ongoing struggle with racism.
Some of you may have seen the recent documentary by Ken Burns, The
National Parks: America's Best Idea. In his film, Mr. Burns highlights
the work of Park Ranger Shelton Johnson, who is proudly sharing the
Buffalo Soldiers' story with visitors to Yosemite today. He describes
the overt racism the Buffalo Soldiers fought to overcome as they did
their duty, and he also conveys the importance of their mission to
protect our treasured wild places. Quotes Mr. Johnson of Yosemite:
It is a window into the ancient earth, the earth that once was,
the earth that will always be. Park is not a strong enough term
to describe what is beyond this gate.
I now know the Buffalo Soldiers must have felt the same, and if we
commemorate their service, I know many Americans' experience in our
National Parks will be better for it.
Therefore, as we approach the Centennial of the National Park
Service in 2016, and during this Black History Month, it is fitting
that we seek to raise awareness of the Buffalo Soldiers' great
contribution to the United States of America.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today on my legislation. I
hope the Committee will support H.R. 4491, and I look forward to your
questions.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. I don't have any
questions for the witness. Let me now ask Ranking Member Brown
and Congressman Duncan if they have any comments or questions.
Sir.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions for
Ms. Speier, and just appreciate her being her. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much for appearing here today.
Next we have Mr. Stephen Whitesell, Associate Director, Park
Planning, Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service; and
also on one of the pieces of legislation, and maybe more, and
accompanied by Ed Roberson, Assistant Director, Renewable
Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land Management.
Mr. Whitesell, welcome, and I look forward to your comments
regarding the bills that are before us today. Sir.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. WHITESELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK
PLANNING, FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY ED ROBERSON,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND PLANNING, BUREAU OF
LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Whitesell. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before this Subcommittee to present the Department of
the Interior's views on five of the bills on today's agenda;
four related to the National Park Service, and one related to
the Bureau of Land Management.
As you noted, I am joined today by Ed Roberson, who is the
Assistant Director for Renewable Resources and Planning for the
BLM. He is accompanying me and would be happy to answer any
questions regarding H.R. 2100, which is the single BLM bill on
today's agenda.
I would like to also submit our statements on each of these
subjects for the record, and today I will summarize the
Department's position on these bills. H.R. 2100 would provide
for the conveyance at no cost of approximately 315 acres of BLM
managed public lands in Mohave County, Arizona, to the Arizona
Game and Fish Department, to be used as a public shooting
range.
On February 10 of this year, the BLM approved the decision
to authorize the disposal of the same BLM lands to the Arizona
Game and Fish Department through the Recreation and Public
Purposes Act.
The Department supports the goals of the legislation, but
notes that the BLM is nearing completion of the administrative
process to accomplish the transfer, which obviates the need for
a legislative mandated transfer.
H.R. 3425 would authorize the Fair Housing Commemorative
Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in
the District of Columbia to commemorate the enactment of the
Fair Housing Act. The Department appreciates the importance of
this Act, a landmark law in a continuum of notable strides to
further the cause of civil rights for every American.
However, the Department believes that the establishment of
a memorial by an Act of Congress through the Commemorative
Works Act is not the most appropriate way to celebrate this
important law. We believe that there are alternative means to
acknowledge this achievement, and therefore, we do not support
the bill.
H.R. 4438 would provide authority at the San Antonio
Missions National Historical Park for three purposes. One, to
conduct a study of lands in Bexar and Wilson Counties to
identify lands that would be appropriate to include within the
boundaries of the park.
Two, to enter into a lease with a non-profit organization
or a governmental entity for office space outside the
boundaries of the park for headquarters, operational support
building, and a center for research and education.
And, three, for a boundary expansion of approximately 151
acres. The Department supports H.R. 4438 with amendments that
would address some ambiguity in the bill's provisions on
leasing authority.
H.R. 4491 would authorize a study of alternatives for
commemorating and interpreting the role of Buffalo Soldiers in
the early years of the national parks. The Department supports
this legislation.
The study would determine the most effective way to
increase understanding and public awareness of the very
critical role that these African-American cavalrymen played in
protecting Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks from 1891 to
1914, and in laying the foundation for the National Park
Service's stewardship practices throughout the national park
system.
And, finally, H.R. 4524 would authorize funding to protect
and conserve lands contiguous with the Blue Ridge Parkway. The
Department appreciates the strong interest in protecting scenic
vistas along the Blue Ridge Parkway and the desire to have an
initiative for the Parkway's 75th anniversary that the
introduction of H.R. 2524 demonstrates.
The magnificent views and recreational opportunities along
the 469-mile parkway are the major reason why the Parkway has
long been the National Park Service's most heavily visited
unit.
However, the Department does not support the legislation in
its current form. We would welcome the opportunity to work with
the Committee and the bill's sponsor to develop a different
approach toward promoting and incorporating the work of non-
profit conservation organizations in the protection of the
Parkway's scenic resources.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statements. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of the U.S. Department of the
Interior on H.R. 2100 follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by the Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2100
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 2100, which
proposes to transfer 315 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) to the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD)
for use as a public shooting range. The BLM supports the goals of the
legislation, but we note that BLM is nearing completion of the
administrative process to accomplish the transfer that the BLM has been
following for the last ten years with the AGFD, the Fort Mojave Indian
Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, and the public to find appropriate lands for
a public shooting range within the Mohave Valley in Arizona.
On February 10, 2010, the BLM approved the decision to authorize
the disposal of BLM lands to the AGFD (through the Recreation and
Public Purposes Act; R&PP) to be used as a public shooting range. The
decision, which is consistent with the goals of H.R. 2100, provides a
safe, designated shooting environment for the public and includes
stipulations to respect the traditional beliefs of the Fort Mojave and
Hualapai Tribes. The near conclusion of the administrative process
obviates the need for a legislatively mandated transfer. Since a final
decision has been made through the administrative process, the BLM will
continue working with interested parties as we move forward with
implementation of the shooting range.
Background
In 1999, the AGFD first submitted an application to the BLM for
development of a public shooting range on BLM-managed lands in Mohave
County, north of Bullhead City in northwestern Arizona. As a result,
the BLM began working with AGFD and other interested parties to assess
appropriate lands to transfer to the AGFD for the purposes of a
shooting range under the R&PP.
The BLM evaluated AGFD's application through an environmental
assessment (EA) and considered numerous alternative locations
throughout the Mohave Valley. The evaluation process was conducted with
full public and tribal participation. There is an identified need for a
designated public shooting range in this region because of the lack of
a nearby facility, the amount of dispersed recreational shooting
occurring on public and private lands raising public safety concerns,
and the associated natural resource impacts from spent ammunition and
associated waste.
In 2002, the BLM began consultations with the Fort Mojave Indian
Tribe and the Hualapai Tribe. In 2003, the BLM began formal
consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO); and in 2006, the BLM began formal Section 106 consultation with
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). These
consultations, as required by Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and other authorities, ensure Federal Agencies
consider the effects of their actions on historic properties, and
provide the ACHP and SHPO an opportunity to comment on Federal projects
prior to implementation.
In addition to the consultation process, the BLM initiated a year-
long Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process in 2004 to help
identify issues, stakeholder perspectives, and additional alternatives
to meet the criteria for a safe and effective public shooting range in
the Mohave Valley. However, the ADR process failed to reconcile the
differences between the consulting parties regarding a proposed
location.
In 2006, the BLM continued Section 106 consultation with the ACHP.
This effort included site visits by the concerned parties and multiple
efforts to determine possible mitigation and alternative sites.
Regrettably, through all these efforts, the BLM was unable to reach an
agreement with the tribes on any area within the Mohave Valley that
they would find acceptable for a shooting range. The tribes maintained
their position that there is no place suitable to them within the
Mohave Valley, which encompasses approximately 140 square miles between
Bullhead City, Arizona, and Needles, California.
Through the EA process, the BLM identified the Boundary Cone Road
alternative to be the preferred location. Boundary Cone Butte, one of
the highly visible mountains in the Mohave Valley, lies east of the
Boundary Cone Road site, and is of cultural, religious, and traditional
importance to the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Hualapai Tribe. In
an effort to address the primary concerns expressed by the tribes over
visual and sound issues, the BLM and AGFD developed a set of mitigation
measures. Again, there was a failure to agree between the consulting
parties on possible mitigation. In the end, the BLM formally terminated
the Section 106 process with the ACHP in September 2008. In November,
2008, ACHP provided their final comments in a letter from the Chairman
to Secretary Kempthorne.
Although the Section 106 process has concluded, the BLM has
continued ongoing government-to-government consultations with the
tribes. In May of 2009, the BLM met with the Chairman of the Fort
Mojave Indian Tribe, the AGFD, and the Tri-State Shooting Club in a
renewed effort to find a resolution. On February 3, 2010, after
continued efforts to reach a mutually agreeable solution, the BLM
presented the decision to approve the shooting range to the Fort Mojave
Indian Tribe and the AGFD. The final decision includes mitigation
measures to address the concerns of the tribes such as reducing the
amount of actual ground disturbance; reducing noise levels with berm
construction; monitoring noise levels and reporting annually; and
fencing to avoid culturally sensitive areas. The Secretary has the
authority to invalidate the patent if the AGFD fails to comply with
mitigation measures. The final decision to amend the Kingman Resource
Management Plan and dispose of the lands through the R&PP was signed on
February 10, 2010. The 30-day appeal period expires at the end of March
2010, after which BLM will work to resolve any appeals. Baring any
outstanding issues the BLM then plans to issue the patent to transfer
the public land after pre-construction requirements described in the
final decision are completed.
H.R. 2100
H.R. 2100 provides for the conveyance at no cost of approximately
315 acres of BLM-managed public lands in Mohave County to the AGFD to
be used as a public shooting range. These are generally the same lands
that were approved for a public shooting range through the R&PP process
as discussed above. The conveyance would be subject to valid existing
rights and is intended to provide a suitable location for the
establishment of a centralized public shooting facility in the Mohave
Valley and the Tri-State Area (Arizona, Nevada, and California).
As a matter of policy, the BLM supports working with local
governments and tribes to resolve land tenure issues that advance
worthwhile public policy objectives. BLM acknowledges the lands are of
cultural, religious and traditional significance to the tribes which is
why we support mitigation measures as part of H.R. 2100. In general,
the BLM supports the goals of the proposed conveyance, as it is similar
to the transfer BLM has been addressing through its administrative
process for the last ten years. However, since a final decision has
been made through the administrative process, the BLM will continue
working with the interested parties, including tribes, during
implementation of the shooting range to address their concerns. The BLM
strongly believes that open communication between the BLM and tribes is
essential in maintaining effective government-to-government
relationships.
If the Congress chooses to legislate this conveyance, the BLM would
recommend some technical improvements to the bill, including the
incorporation of mitigation measures to address tribal and other
concerns, as well as a clause to allow the lands to revert back to BLM
at the discretion of the Secretary if the lands are not being used
consistent with the purposes allowed in the R&PP act.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Resolution of this
conveyance in a manner that is acceptable to all parties has been an
important goal of the BLM as evidenced by more than 10 years of
negotiations and review. The BLM is confident the recently approved
decision adequately addresses the concerns of the interested parties,
while providing critical recreational opportunities and benefits to the
public.
______
[The prepared statements of Mr. Whitesell on H.R. 3425,
H.R. 4438, H.R. 4491, and H.R. 4524 follow:]
Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 3425
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. 3425, a bill to authorize the Fair Housing
Commemorative Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal
land in the District of Columbia to commemorate the enactment of the
Fair Housing Act.
The Department appreciates the importance of the Fair Housing Act,
a landmark law in a continuum of notable strides legislators and we as
a Nation have undertaken to further the cause of civil rights for every
American. However, the Department believes that the establishment of a
memorial by an Act of Congress through the Commemorative Works Act
(CWA) is not the most appropriate way to celebrate this important law.
There are alternative means to acknowledge this achievement; therefore,
we do not support this bill.
The Commemorative Works Act has facilitated the establishment of
memorials to prominent figures in our Nation's history, such as Dr.
Martin Luther King, to events, such as the Korean War Veterans
Memorial, and to concepts, such as Japanese-American Patriotism in
World War II. H.R. 3425 would be the first proposal to establish a
memorial to a law.
There has certainly been landmark legislation which, like the Fair
Housing Act, has improved the quality of life and opportunities for
Americans in all walks of life such as the Civil Rights Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Aeronautics and
Space Act. The list is honorable and long, but it is our opinion that
the CWA was not intended to provide for the establishment of a national
memorial to each law that could be nominated from this remarkable and
growing list.
The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (Commission) met
on December 4, 2009, to consider this legislation and evaluate its
conformance to the provisions of the CWA. As you are aware, the
Commission was established by the CWA to provide advice to the
Secretary of the Interior and to report to committees of Congress on
proposals to establish commemorative works in the District of Columbia
and its environs. The Commission found that establishing a memorial to
individual laws is without precedent and that the establishment of a
memorial to the passage of the Fair Housing Act would raise concerns
about both the setting of such a precedent and the relative importance
of this particular Act of Congress. For these reasons, the Commission
voted unanimously to oppose this proposal and recommended that further
counsel be sought from organizations with particular expertise on this
subject matter (i.e., Department of Housing & Urban Development)
regarding methods of commemorating this important law.
While not part of the Commission's motion, the members voiced
support for a commemoration of this law within the Capitol Visitor
Center or at a housing development identified as a hallmark of the
success of the Fair Housing Act.
The Department concurs with the findings of the Commission. We
would be pleased to offer whatever assistance we can provide to the
Committee or the sponsor in developing any of the Commission's
suggestions to more fully explain the important role the Fair Housing
Act has played in the history of our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy
to answer any questions that you or any other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
______
Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 4438
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. 4438, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to enter into an agreement to lease space from a nonprofit
group or other government entity for a park headquarters at San Antonio
Missions National Historical Park, to expand the boundary of the Park,
to conduct a study of potential land acquisitions, and for other
purposes.
The Department supports H.R. 4438 with the amendments discussed in
this testimony.
This bill would amend Section 201 of Public Law 95-629 to direct
the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to conduct a study of lands
in Bexar and Wilson Counties to identify lands that would be
appropriate to include within the boundaries of San Antonio Missions
National Historical Park (Park). The Secretary is directed to report on
the findings of the study three years after funds are made available.
The Secretary would also be authorized to enter into a lease agreement
with a non-profit organization, or State or local governmental agency,
for office space outside the boundary of the park for a headquarters
and operational support building and construction, management, or both,
of a center for research and education. Finally, the boundary of the
park would be expanded by approximately 151 acres.
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park preserves a
significant link to Mexico and Spain that has influenced the culture
and history of the United States since before its inception. San
Antonio is now the seventh largest and third fastest growing city in
the United States. The city grew 68 percent between 1980 and 2007 and
now almost entirely surrounds the Park with urban development,
threatening areas that contain significant Spanish colonial resources
historically associated with the Park.
Park headquarters for San Antonio Missions are currently
inadequate; do not meet fire, safety or security standards; and exist
in an expired lease space not adjacent to the Park. The Park's
maintenance operations are dispersed in three separate locations. The
Park's curatorial collection, which contains almost one million Spanish
Colonial period objects, is stored in four different locations,
including two locations that do not meet National Park Service (NPS)
Curatorial Storage Standards.
The City of San Antonio, Texas, has acquired lands adjacent to
Mission San Jose and has proposed a partnership with the Park and one
of its partners for the construction of a new public library and park
headquarters. A leasing arrangement such as the one described in H.R.
4438 would provide the NPS with the option to enter into a lease
agreement with an entity, such as Los Compadres de San Antonio Missions
National Historical Park (Los Compadres), or a State or local
government agency. As a part of the lease agreement, assistance with
construction or management of a center for research and education might
be possible. However, since there is ambiguity in this leasing language
amending subsection (d) of P.L. 95-629, we would like to work with the
committee on revising this subsection.
H.R. 4438 would also expand the boundary of San Antonio Missions
National Historical Park by approximately 151 acres, of which 118 acres
are either currently owned by the NPS, are being donated, or are being
transferred through a land exchange to the Park. All costs associated
with the land exchange will be paid for by the San Antonio River
Authority with the NPS only paying for minimal transaction costs.
Thirty-three acres would either be purchased by the NPS from willing
sellers or donated to the Park. It is estimated that the acquisition of
these 33 acres could cost as much as $3,587,110 and operational costs
associated with adding the 151 acres of land are not expected to exceed
$100,000 per year. Associated land acquisition funding requests would
be subject to the Administration's prioritization process that uses
consistent and merit-based criteria to select projects and the
availability of appropriations.
The Park's General Management Plan and Land Protection Plan
acknowledge that the current boundary is insufficient to fully achieve
the Park's purpose. The Park's most recent feasibility study
recommended a much larger area to best protect the cultural resources
associated with the Park. Numerous areas that contain significant
Spanish colonial resources historically associated with the Park, still
remain outside the boundary. In addition, the Park has acquired lands
that are outside the current boundary and is in the process of
accepting additional lands that will be included within the boundary as
a part of a land exchange with the San Antonio River Authority and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate restoration of the San Antonio
River.
H.R. 4438 would also authorize the Secretary to conduct a study of
lands within Bexar and Wilson counties, in the State of Texas, to
identify lands that would be suitable for inclusion within the
boundaries of the Park. The study should also explore management
alternatives that would best ensure public access, preservation,
protection, and interpretation of the Missions. We estimate that this
study will cost approximately $350,000.
H.R. 4438 enjoys the strong support of officials from Bexar County,
Wilson County, the City of San Antonio, the City of Floresville, the
San Antonio River Authority, the San Antonio Conservation Society, Los
Compadres, and others. This bill would help guarantee the preservation,
protection, restoration, and interpretation of the missions for current
and future generations.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or any other members of the Subcommittee
may have.
______
Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 4491
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. 4491, to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating and
interpreting the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of the
National Parks, and for other purposes.
The Department supports H.R. 4491. However, we feel that priority
should be given to the 48 previously authorized studies for potential
units of the National Park System, potential new National Heritage
Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails System and
National Wild and Scenic River System have not yet been transmitted to
Congress.
H.R. 4491 would authorize a study to determine the most effective
ways to increase understanding and public awareness of the critical
role that the Buffalo Soldiers, segregated units composed of African-
American cavalrymen, played in the early years of the National Parks.
It would evaluate the suitability and feasibility of a National
Historic Trail along the routes between their post at the Presidio of
San Francisco and the parks they protected, notably Yosemite and
Sequoia. The study would also identify properties that could meet the
criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or
designation as National Historic Landmarks. We estimate that this study
will cost approximately $400,000.
African-American 19th and 20th century Buffalo Soldiers were an
important, yet little known, part of the history of some of our first
National Parks. These cavalry troops rode more than 320 miles from
their post at the Presidio to Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks in
order to patrol and protect them. The journey across the state took
sixteen days of serious horseback riding averaging over twenty miles a
day. Once in the parks, they were assigned to patrol the backcountry,
build roads and trails, put a halt to poaching, suppress fires, halt
trespass grazing by large herds of unregulated cattle and sheep, and
otherwise establish roles later assumed by National Park rangers.
The U.S. Army administered Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks from
1891 to 1914, when it was replaced by civilian management. The National
Park Service was not created until 1916, 25 years after these parks
were established. Commanding officers became acting military
superintendents for these national parks with two troops of
approximately 60 cavalry men assigned to each. The troops essentially
comprised a roving economy--infusing money into parks and local
businesses--and thus their presence was generally welcomed. The
presence of these soldiers as official stewards of park lands prior to
the National Park Service establishment brought a sense of law and
order to the mountain wilderness.
There is, however, a little known chapter within the story of the
U.S. Army in the parks. It revolves around the participation of
African-American troops of the 24th Infantry and 9th Cavalry, the
Buffalo Soldiers, who protected both Sequoia and Yosemite National
Parks in 1899, 1903, and 1904. These troops and their contributions
should be recognized and honored, and this bill does just that.
When the new military superintendent for the summer of 1903 arrived
in Sequoia National Park he had already faced many challenges. Born in
Kentucky during the Civil War, Charles Young had already set himself a
course that took him to places where a black man was not often welcome.
He was the first black to graduate from the white high school in
Ripley, Ohio, and through competitive examination he won an appointment
to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1884. He went on to
graduate with his commission, only the third black man to do so.
In 1903, Young was serving as a captain in the cavalry commanding a
segregated black company at the Presidio of San Francisco when he
received orders to take his troops to Sequoia National Park for the
summer. Young and his troopers arrived in Sequoia after a 16-day ride
to find that one of their major assignments would be the extension of
the wagon road. Hoping to break the sluggish pattern of previous
military administrations, Young poured his considerable energies into
the project. During the summer of 1903, Young and his troops built as
much road as the combined results of the three previous summers, as
well as building a trail to the top of Mt. Whitney- the highest point
in the contiguous United States.
The soldiers also protected the giant Sequoias from illegal
logging, wildlife from poaching, and the watershed and wilderness from
unauthorized grazing by livestock. A difficult task under any
circumstances, the intensity was undoubtedly compounded by societal
prejudice common at the turn of the century.
Although Colonel Charles Young only served one season as Acting
Superintendent of a National Park, he and his men have not been
forgotten. The energy and dignity they brought to this national park
assignment left a strong imprint. The roads they built are still in use
today, having served millions of park visitors for more than eighty
years. The legacy they left extends far beyond Sequoia National Park,
as they helped lay the foundation for the National Park System, which
continues to inspire and connect people of all backgrounds to public
lands and natural treasures to this day.
In recent years the National Park Service has made an effort to
chronicle the achievements of these men in San Francisco, Sequoia and
Yosemite National Parks. In the Presidio of San Francisco, Golden Gate
National Recreation Area and the Presidio Trust have developed an
education program using the historic stables that the Buffalo Soldiers
actually used to house their horses. In Yosemite National Park, Ranger
Shelton Johnson portrays one of the U.S. Army's Buffalo Soldiers as
part of his interpretation of Yosemite's history. Sequoia National Park
has a giant Sequoia named for Colonel Young in honor of his lasting
legacy in that park. These isolated, but important efforts to educate
the public on the important role of the Buffalo Soldiers could be
heightened by this consolidated study.
There is a growing concern that youth are becoming increasingly
disconnected with wild places and our national heritage. Additionally,
many people of color are not necessarily aware of national parks and
the role their ancestors may have played in shaping the national park
system. NPS can help foster a stronger sense of awareness and knowledge
about the natural and cultural history preserved in our natural parks
by connecting people, especially these audiences, to the critical roles
of African-American Buffalo Soldiers in the protection and development
of natural treasures like Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks. By
amplifying the story of the Buffalo Soldiers, this bill could help
bridge cultural divides and expand opportunities to appeal to an all-
inclusive audience. As the 2016 centennial of the National Park Service
approaches, it is an especially appropriate time to conduct research
and increase public awareness of the stewardship role the Buffalo
Soldiers played in the early years of the National Parks.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to
answer any questions that you or other members if the subcommittee may
have.
______
Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 4524
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on H.R. 4524, a bill to authorize
funding to protect and conserve lands contiguous with the Blue Ridge
Parkway to serve the public, and for other purposes.
The Department appreciates the strong interest in protecting scenic
vistas along the Blue Ridge Parkway and the desire to have a major
initiative for the parkway's 75th anniversary that the introduction of
H.R. 4524 demonstrates. The magnificent views and recreational
opportunities along the 469-mile parkway are the major reason why the
parkway has long been the National Park Service's most heavily visited
unit. However, the Department does not support this legislation in its
current form. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the
committee and the bill's sponsors to develop a different approach
toward promoting and incorporating the work of nonprofit conservation
organizations in the protection of the parkway's scenic resources.
We are sympathetic to the desire of supporters of the Blue Ridge
Parkway to find a mechanism to quickly channel land acquisition funds
to protect the stunning views and the recreational opportunities that
are so highly valued by visitors to the parkway. The parkway has
identified a number of land acquisition goals in its Land Protection
Plan that, along with the lands adjacent to the parkway threatened by
encroaching development, could easily add up to the 50,000 acres
envisioned to be protected under H.R. 4524.
Other units of the National Park System have also identified
opportunities for land acquisition to protect resources from
encroaching development. The Administration proposes to begin
addressing these needs with a request in the FY 2011 budget of $106
million for National Park Service land acquisition--a significantly
larger amount than has been requested or appropriated for many years.
The FY 2011 request is the first step toward the Administration's goal
of providing a total of $900 million a year--full funding--for federal
land acquisition and other programs funded through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, and it holds the hope that within a few years we
will be able to better address the needs at many more of our units,
including the Blue Ridge Parkway.
As desirable as it would be to acquire more land at the Blue Ridge
Parkway, we find the approach taken by H.R. 4524 problematic, as it
would duplicate existing law in some instances and establish new law
that would not be appropriate in others. It would also conflict with
the Administration's specific land acquisition priorities for FY 2011.
Section 4 of H.R. 4524 would authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to acquire up to 50,000 acres of adjacent land that is
identified in the parkway's Land Protection Plan or that meets the
plan's amendment criteria. However, the authority to acquire lands
contiguous to the parkway already exists; therefore this language is
unnecessary.
Section 5(a) would authorize appropriations of $15 million for each
of Fiscal Years 2011 through 2015 for the land acquisition authorized
by this bill. As with section 4, this subsection is unnecessary because
unlimited authority for appropriations for land acquisition at the
parkway already exists.
Although subsection 5(a) may be viewed as sending a message that
Congress desires that $15 million a year for five years be appropriated
for the parkway, we note that such funding is not included in the
Administration's FY 2011 budget request. Although we cannot predict
what the Administration might request for specific land acquisition
projects for the next four years, it would be unusual, even with higher
overall levels of land acquisition funding, to request this much for
one park. Any request for this park would be subject to the
Administration's prioritization process that uses consistent and merit-
based criteria to select projects.
Section 5(b) would authorize the Secretary to use funds
appropriated for land acquisition at the Blue Ridge Parkway to award
grants for certain purposes. This grant authority would be
unprecedented. One purpose of the grants would be to acquire land and
interests in land, although the bill does not specify what guarantee
the taxpayer would receive that the lands would be permanently
protected. We would like to consider how such authority might be used
to supplement, yet not duplicate, the National Park Service's own land
acquisition capability, which is funded directly by Congress. We are
fortunate to have an office that handles land acquisition for the Blue
Ridge Parkway--the National Park Service's National Trails Office in
Martinsburg, West Virginia--that is so well regarded for its expertise
in acquisition at linear units that other federal agencies have used
its services for that purpose. We are also fortunate to have the
expertise and leveraging capability of several nonprofit land
conservation organizations in protecting lands that are critical to the
integrity of the Blue Ridge Parkway. We need to employ both
capabilities in this cause.
Subsection 5(b) as introduced lacks provisions regarding intended
recipients and requirements for disposition of the land acquired
through grants, so we are unclear about exactly what is intended.
However, this proposed authority may be the seed of an idea for better
utilizing the capabilities of nonprofit land conservation organizations
in the protection of the Blue Ridge Parkway. The organizations have at
their disposal certain resources and tools that federal land
acquisition officials lack. We would like to work with the committee
and the bill's sponsors to explore ways to enhance the use of the
organizations' capabilities in the cause of protecting the parkway.
The second purpose of the grants would be to enter into cooperative
agreements with nonprofit conservation organizations for technical
expense assistance, such as appraisals and hazardous material surveys,
for lands the organizations acquire for conveyance to the parkway. It
is a common practice for conservation organizations to acquire land for
potential addition to National Park Service units with the intent of
holding the properties until the National Park Service is able to
acquire them. However, in these cases, the expenses associated with
acquiring these lands are borne by the organizations; they are not paid
by the National Park Service unless arrangements are made in advance to
coordinate the ordering of these services to avoid duplication of the
expenses. We are concerned that paying for expenses associated with
acquisition in advance of a conveyance would raise expectations about
acquiring property that might not be met. In addition, setting this
precedent for federal funding of non-federal administrative costs would
treat land acquisition at the Blue Ridge Parkway differently than
acquisition at every other unit of the National Park System, which
would not be fair or appropriate.
Finally, Section 5(d) makes clear that the cooperative agreement
arrangements with nonprofit organizations that are contemplated in this
legislation could entail annual payments of as much as $250,000 a year
to defray the organizations' ``administrative expenses,'' which would
not necessarily be limited to costs associated directly with land
acquisition. This could open the door to the reimbursement of costs
that are unrelated to the purposes of the Land and Water Conservation
Act. Since the act prohibits federal employees from being paid for any
expenses not related to federal land acquisition from funds
appropriated for land acquisition, it would run counter to the spirit
of the act to allow non-federal employees to be paid for expenses not
related to federal land acquisition.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Let me skip out of order. Mr.
Brown has a pending meeting shortly, and I would extend to him
the opportunity to ask his questions so he can attend that
meeting. Sir.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for appearing
here today. This Committee is very well aware that the National
Park Service has a backlog of management and it has problems in
maintaining the Park Service properties that it currently owns.
Would adding more park land for these four Park Service
bills, would that actually add more burden on the finances that
you currently have?
Mr. Whitesell. Well, certainly it would add additional
resources to our responsibilities, and thus would add, I
suspect, if in fact all four bills were to be included, a
limited amount of additional costs. I think that is relatively
small in proportion to the total operation costs of the Park
Service.
Mr. Brown. But you already have difficulty maintaining what
you have today; is that right?
Mr. Whitesell. Certainly we can point out, yes, there are
shortfalls in certain areas.
Mr. Brown. OK. So the point being that adding more park
land is going to add more burden upon the Park Service. It is
already overburdened to try to maintain the lands that it
currently owns.
H.R. 4838 would expand the boundary of the San Antonio
Missions Historical Park to include lands that are not owned by
the Park Service currently today as you already testified. Who
owns the lands that are not owned by the United States Park
Service?
Mr. Whitesell. OK. San Antonio already has a very complex
ownership pattern, in terms of the Park resources that are
protected today. They include ownership by the Archdiocese of
San Antonio, the National Park Service. Bexar County owns
property. The property is of the City of San Antonio, and the
San Antonio River Authority, and other entities.
So it is already a very complex mixture of lands. The
proposed study would, of course, look to other resources that
are not currently within those authorized boundaries. There are
some areas, I think, that are already known that potentially
should be looked at.
There are other areas of resources that we just don't know
and, in fact, that is the purpose of this study--to go forward
and identify lands that might be appropriate for addition to
the park.
Mr. Brown. Are the lands proposed to be added to the park,
are they already being kept for their historical significance
if we would not pass this bill?
Mr. Whitesell. There are some that are, yes. There are
probably some lands that are in city ownership, potentially
some lands that are in the ownership of other entities. As
well, there may be lands for which there is inadequate
protection right now, but again that is presupposing what would
be part of the study.
Mr. Brown. Do you have permission of the landowners that
are not in the park for it to be included in the park?
Mr. Whitesell. Certainly we would work with those
landowners and discuss what is being looked at, and to solicit
their opinions about whether addition of their lands, private
lands in that case, would be appropriate.
Mr. Brown. So the answer is no?
Mr. Whitesell. Well, the answer is that right now, no,
because I am not sure that we know exactly which lands those
might be.
Mr. Brown. All right, sir, the answer is no. Was any of the
land to be added to the park obtained by governmental
authorities by use eminent domain authority?
Mr. Whitesell. Of the lands today?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitesell. That are currently in the boundaries?
Mr. Brown. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitesell. I don't know whether eminent domain or
connotation authority was used. I am sorry. I do know. There
was at least one case of connotation authority being used in
the past.
Mr. Brown. Is there anything incorporated in this proposed
study of San Antonio that would consider the effect on private
lands adjacent to these lands that are proposed to be added to
the park? In other words, what the effect on those adjacent
lands may be.
Mr. Whitesell. I mean, I think that would be part of the
study. Certainly a series of public meetings, an opportunity
for the public to comment and to have a dialogue with those
doing the study to discuss those very issues.
Mr. Brown. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I have no
further questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Mr. Whitesell, as the former
superintendent of the San Antonio Missions, could you describe
as best you can specifically the resources in this that still
need protection, and that are in the vicinity of the park that
would be part of the consideration of the study?
Mr. Whitesell. For which we might take a look. There are
lands that include some of the headwaters potentially of the
San Antonio River, the very birthplace of the city. I mean, the
very reason for creating the missions in San Antonio was the
availability of a water supply.
There are some questions about whether that land needs to
be protected or not. San Pedro Park in the downtown section of
San Antonio, the City of San Antonio owns that, and has an
interest potentially in that being considered, as well as lands
immediately adjacent to the current park boundaries and south
of the park for which today there may not be complete
protection.
Those include lands that are the ends of the Acequia
system, which was the historic irrigation system serving the
park lands.
Mr. Grijalva. And under the Buffalo Soldiers, H.R. 4491, in
this study do you see it providing any unique challenges to the
National Park Service, and if there are some challenges, how do
you see addressing those?
Mr. Whitesell. I think that each time that we do a study of
a potential trail system, it presents an interesting challenge
for us in identifying what are the appropriate resources that
might make up a trail if that designation were to be made.
And, of course, as you look at the alignment that
potentially this trail might follow, it goes through some
fairly heavily urbanized areas in San Francisco as you head
south on the peninsula, and before you move inland toward
Sequoia and Kings Canyon.
So the identifying of appropriate historic resources that
might be protected, an identification of an alignment, always
creates a challenge in that sort of environment, but it is
certainly not the first time, nor do I expect the last time,
that we will look at those kinds of activities.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Let me turn to, I guess, H.R.
2100, and Mr. Roberson, I guess, those questions are
appropriate for you. On the 10th of February, BLM announced a
decision to convey 315 acres to the Arizona Game and Fish
Department, to use 20 acres to construct and operate a shooting
range.
If the Arizona Game and Fish Department can use only 20
acres, why the conveyance of 315 acres, the proposed
conveyance?
Mr. Roberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The original
proposal came to us as 315 acres, and we evaluated that entire
site, and the decision actually makes a plan amendment for that
entire site.
The decision that we rendered on the 10th for 20 acres to
be actively used for the shooting range itself was a part of a
mitigation to tailor the needs for a shooting range at that
size, and to build in some mitigation for sound and noise. So
we----
Mr. Grijalva. In that process though, isn't that process of
the conveyance, the proposed conveyance, any thought to the
effects of the removal of these 315 acres from coverage of such
laws as Native Americans Graves and Protection Recreation Act,
and the Archeological Resources Protection Act? Because once
conveyed, those protections disappear?
Mr. Roberson. Well, we do. There are some areas, tracts of
land that are conveyed under the Recreation and Public Purpose
Act have reservations, and can be returned to public domain if
they are not used according to the management plan.
There is an area, a circular area, that has been identified
in the decision that has importance to the native people there,
and it would be flagged during any development and fenced to
preserve and to protect it from any encroachment upon it.
Mr. Grijalva. Well, I think the fundamental question would
be, given the controversy surrounding the potential conveyance,
why are we proceeding with the transfer? And, are you required
by law to transfer land to any entity that requests it?
Mr. Roberson. Number one, as a multi-use agency, Mr.
Chairman, we are obliged to entertain applications, and ensure
that they are consistent with our land use plans. If they are
not, we can still evaluate them to determine if they are an
appropriate use, and to tailor the mitigation to make sure that
use does not affect other resources, such as tribal or cultural
affiliations or properties.
And this decision to make this transfer was part of an 11
year process. We actually received the application in 1999. We
started working on the project in 2002 in earnest, and began
consultation with the tribes, and actually started having
public meetings.
Throughout that meeting process, there was a need
identified in the Mohave Basin area for a shooting range,
something within 20 miles or 30 minutes of Bullhead City, and
so we did feel that was an appropriate use that was being
requested of us, and we gave full participation to a process.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, and the consultation process under
Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the
chair of that advisory committee on historic preservation
formally commented that BLM should not go forward with the
proposed shooting range.
And on the last day of the previous Administration's
working day, the order was signed to move forward with the
conveyance despite the consultation comments from Section 110,
which begs the point that at what point was the decision made
that a shooting range held priority over the delicacy of sacred
lands on this issue. That disturbs me.
And what also disturbs me is when we say we are going to go
through a full NICA process, but what good would that process
be once a decision has already been made to convey? How would
we mitigate after that, and was that the only site looked at?
I understand the need, and I appreciate the safe area away
from populations for the shooting range activities, but I am
not convinced that this is the only site available for this
activity. I make that as a comment, sir, and not as a question,
unless you agree with me.
Having said that, let me now turn to Mr. Duncan, who was
here earlier, for any questions that he might have.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any
questions, but I will make a few comments. Number one, I do
support Mr. Franks' bill to create a shooting range. I think we
need to teach more young people in this country to properly use
firearms, and to encourage hunting.
There is a real deer problem all over the country, and so
certainly I think to have a nice shooting range to help
encourage those types of things is a good thing. These bills
today involve just a very small amount of land, but some of us
on this side have problems, because already about 30 percent of
the land is owned by the Federal Government, and another almost
20 percent is owned by state and local governments, or quasi-
governmental units.
So you have about half the land in some type of public
ownership. Then I read a couple of years ago in USA Today that
they had a front page story, which said that we have over
fourteen hundred conservancies or land trusts now that are
taking over land equal to half the size of the State of New
Jersey each year. That was the example given in USA Today.
And we keep taking several million acres of land every year
off the tax rolls, and we are doing that at the same time that
the schools and the law enforcement agencies, and all these
other government entities are coming to us and telling us that
they need more money.
And it is getting to the point where we are not going to be
able to support the schools and the law enforcement agencies,
and fix the roads, and so forth, if we keep taking more and
more land off the tax rolls.
Then, in addition, you are going to drive up the taxes on
the remaining land, and it is leaving less land for good
development. So it is making it harder for young people to be
able to buy homes because we are making the property so
expensive, and so it is creating a lot of unintended problems.
And I know that it sounds great for all politicians to
create parks, but we have created so many parks that we can't
take care of all of them that we have, and in addition to that,
unless we find some way for our people to go on permanent
vacations, we can't really use them to any real extent most of
them.
So we do have this concern on this side that we are slowly
destroying private property in this country, and we need to
wake up about this and tell our people that private property
has been a very important part of our prosperity and our
freedom in this country, and we are getting to a very dangerous
point in my opinion.
That is the concern we have, because almost every other
week or every month in this Committee we have people coming to
us wanting us to take more property over by the government. So
with those concerns, I will yield back.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Congresswoman Lummis, any
comments or questions?
Ms. Lummis. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would request that a
letter, dated February 24th, 2010, from the NRA and addressed
to The Honorable Trent Franks, be included in the record,
please.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
[The letter from the National Rifle Association submitted
for the record follows:]
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
410 FIRST STREET, S.E., SECOND FLOOR
WASHINGTON, DC 20003-1867
February 24, 2010
The Honorable T1'ent Franks
1237 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 205150302
Dear Congressman Franks:
I write to express the National Rifle Association's support of H.R.
2100, your legislation intended to facilitate the development of a
shooting complex in Mohave County. The proposed land transfer from the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Arizona Game and Fish Department
is an essential first step toward making the complex a reality.
As you know well, Arizona's population has experienced exponential
growth for years. This has resulted in the development of areas in
Mohave County where families have traditionally been able to shoot
recreationally in an informal setting. In addition to development
closing once available land to shooting, federal land management
agencies have closed tens of thousands of acres of land to shooting in
Arizona. Demand for shooting locations has grown while the number of
places to shoot has decreased. Your H.R. 2100 takes a significant step
toward remedying this demand and supply imbalance in Mohave County.
In light of the fact that the federal government has closed
enormous tracts of land to recreational shooting in Arizona, the land
transfer to the state for a formal shooting facility should not be
considered too much to ask. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has an
outstanding track record with regard to operating world-class shooting
ranges. One needs to look no further than Ben Avery Shooting Facility
just north of Phoenix to know this.
Gun owners throughout Arizona appreciate your efforts to secure a
safe and effective place to pursue firearms training.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Cunningham
Director of Federal Affairs
www.nraila.org
______
Ms. Lummis. Thank you, and just a couple of comments as
well. With regard to the Buffalo Soldiers bill, Buffalo
Soldiers were very significant in the history of my State, and
played a role at Fort D.A. Russell, which is now F.E. Warren
Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
And I am so pleased to see efforts to further recognize the
role the Buffalo Soldiers. It is another important part of
Americana that very few people know about, and also with regard
to the Rodriguez bill regarding the San Antonio Missions, I
come from a long line of interesting and bizarre characters.
And among them a gentleman named Charles F. Lummis, who was
instrumental in founding the historical preservation efforts in
California, which was centered at that time around the
missions, to the extent that his work preserving San Juan
Capistrano, and other of the southern missions in California,
allowed him to be knighted by the King of Spain for his
efforts.
He also chronicled the capture of Geronimo as the official
journalist on that expedition, and played other roles in the
significant history of the Southwest. So I am so pleased to see
the missions of the Southwest continue to have prominence in
our discussions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to comment and I yield back.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me thank the
panelists, and I agree with Mr. Duncan that there has to be
facilities available for the proper education of gun safety and
its use. Maybe we disagree on the site, but certainly not in
the intent.
Particularly, we began on February 22 the will of Congress
and the effect of law. The law is that guns are going to be
carried on our public parks, and if that is going to be the
situation, I sure would like those carriers to know what they
are doing. With that, thank you so much. Let me invite panel
three.
[Pause.]
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much for being here, and let
me welcome the panelists. H.R. 2100, all three panelists will
be commenting on that piece of legislation. Let me begin with
Loretta Jackson-Kelly, Director of the Department of Cultural
Resources, Tribal Preservation Officer, Hualapai Tribe, Peach
Springs, Arizona. Welcome, and I look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF LORETTA JACKSON-KELLY, DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF
CULTURAL RESOURCES, TRIBAL PRESERVATION OFFICER, HUALAPAI
TRIBE, PEACH SPRINGS, ARIZONA
Ms. Jackson-Kelly. Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee, I am a Hualapai Tribal Member of the Hualapai Tribe,
and good morning to you all, and thank you for the opportunity
so that I can present testimony about the concerns of the
Hualapai Tribe with respect to Wi'vis'--Kwi--va, known in
English as Boundary Cone Butte, which is located on land
currently under the Bureau of Land Management in Mohave County,
Arizona.
Boundary Cone Butte holds religious and cultural importance
for the Hualapai Tribe, as well as for the Fort Mojave Tribe,
and because of its importance for both tribes, Boundary Cone
has been determined to be eligible for the National Register as
a traditional cultural property, ATCP.
The sanctity of Boundary Cone is crucial to the ability of
tribal religious practitioners to carry on traditional
practices and to pass these traditions along to younger
generations.
The two tribes are closely related to each other culturally
and Boundary Cone is located in an area that each tribe regards
as being within its aboriginal lands. For many years the
sanctity of Boundary Cone has been threatened by a proposal to
construct and operate a shooting range on nearby Federal
landscape.
This Committee has jurisdiction over a bill that has been
introduced in this Congress, H.R. 2100, which would direct the
Secretary of the Interior to convey land in Mohave County to
the Arizona Game and Fish Department for a shooting range.
The Hualapai Tribe is opposed to H.R. 2100. This bill
should be stopped. The tribe recognizes however that to protect
Boundary Cone that it is not enough to prevent the enactment of
H.R. 2100, because on February 10, 2010, the BLM decided to
approve the conveyance of the land that would make the shooting
range a reality.
H.R. 2100 would be irrelevant because the conveyance of
land will already have taken place without a specific mandate
from Congress. BLM decided to convey 350 acres of Federal land
to the Arizona Game and Fish Department for the State for use
as a shooting range.
The proposed site for the shooting range is about two miles
from Boundary Cone. On that same date, the BLM also issued a
finding of no significant impact, a fallacy, based on an
Environmental Assessment for the proposed action.
The EA determined that the operation of a shooting range so
close to Boundary Cone will cause adverse effects on Boundary
Cone, especially from the noise from the shooting range, which
will interfere with traditional religious and cultural
practices by members of both tribes.
The Advisory Council of Historic Preservation recognized
that the noise caused by the shooting range would severely
disrupt the sanctity of Boundary Cone. In a formal letter to
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, dated November 3,
2008, John Nau, III, Chairman of the Advisory Council, said, in
part, there is a basic incompatibility between the land uses of
a shooting range in an area where traditional cultural use
would be disrupted by the audible intrusions of repeated
gunfire.
He called it a basic incompatibility. In addition to the
adverse effects on the integrity of Boundary Cone, and the
characteristics that give the place historic significance, the
audible intrusions of repeated gunfire will impose a burden on
the exercise of religious practices by traditional tribal
members.
This proposed shooting range has been sought for more than
decade by the Tri-State Shooting Recreation Center,
Incorporated, which has been pushing the BLM to approve this
project.
The Hualapai Tribe has voiced its opposition since the
spring of 2004. The failure of BLM to engage in consultation
with the tribes early in the planning process resulted in an
alternative dispute resolution, an 80 hour process conveyed by
the United States Institute of Environmental Conflict
Resolution.
The Hualapai believes the failure of implementing solutions
offered through the ADR process prevented the BLM to make a
decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, with a
genuine search for alternative locations.
In addition, the BLM announced that it was terminating the
National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106, process. The
decision record for the EA states that the BLM has completed
the Section 106 process.
In fact, the Section 106 process did not lead to the result
that the BLM wanted. So, the BLM simply stopped trying to
consult. When a Federal Agency terminates consultation, the
head of the agency must formally request the advisory council
to file comments on the proposed undertaking.
If the Federal agency has not entered into an agreement
pursuant to the advisory council regulations, then any decision
to proceed with the undertaking, despite the failure to resolve
adverse effects, must be made by the head of the agency.
The statute says the head of the agency may not delegate
his or her responsibilities pursuant to such section. In the
case of the proposed shooting range near Boundary Cone, the
documentation from the head of the National BLM was signed on
January 16, 2009, by the person who was the acting director of
BLM.
Regardless of whether that action complies with the letter
of the law, it subverted the spirit of the law. The rationale
for elevating this decision to the head of the national agency
is to provide some degree of accountability. There is no
accountability when an administration makes such a decision on
its last working day in office.
The fact that this proposal has even been given serious
consideration by BLM and project component conveys the message
that they do not understand the importance of the Mohave Valley
landscape for the cultural identity for each of the tribes
involved.
The tribes continue to believe that an acceptable
alternative location could be found if the proponents of the
project really wanted to. In any case, the tribes do not
believe that their freedom of religions and cultural identities
should be sacrificed to make way for this project. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson-Kelly follows:]
Statement of Loretta Jackson-Kelly, Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer, Director, Department of Cultural Resources, Hualapai Tribe of
Arizona, on H.R. 2100
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony about the
concerns of the Hualapai Indian Tribe with respect to Wi `vis'--Kwi--
va, known in English as Boundary Cone Butte, which is located on land
currently under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management in
Mohave County, Arizona. Boundary Cone Butte holds religious and
cultural importance for the Hualapai Tribe as well as for the Fort
Mojave Indian Tribe. Because of its importance for both Tribes,
Boundary Cone Butte has been determined to be eligible for the National
Register as a traditional cultural property.
The sanctity of Boundary Cone Butte is crucial to the ability of
tribal religious practitioners to carry on traditional practices and to
pass these traditions along to younger generations. The two Tribes are
closely related to each other culturally, and Boundary Cone Butte is
located in an area that each Tribe regards as being within its
aboriginal homeland.
For many years, the sanctity of Boundary Cone Butte has been
threatened by a proposal to construct and operate a shooting range on
nearby federal land. This Committee has jurisdiction over a bill that
has been introduced in this Congress, H.R. 2100, which would direct the
Secretary of the Interior to convey land in Mohave County to the
Arizona Game and Fish Department for a shooting range. The Hualapai
Tribe is opposed to H.R. 2100. This bill should be stopped. The Tribe
recognizes, however, that, to protect Boundary Cone Butte, it is not
enough to prevent the enactment of H.R. 2100, because on February 10,
2010, the BLM decided to approve the conveyance of land that would make
the shooting range a reality. H.R. 2100 would be irrelevant because the
conveyance of land will already have taken place without a specific
mandate from Congress.
On February 10, 2010, the BLM decided to convey 315 acres of
federal land to the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) for the
State for use as a shooting range. The proposed site for the shooting
range is about two miles from Boundary Cone Butte. On the same date
that the BLM decision was announced, BLM also issued a finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) based on an environmental assessment (EA)
for the proposed action. As documented in the EA, the operation of a
shooting range so close to Boundary Cone Butte will cause adverse
effects on Boundary Cone Butte, especially the noise from the shooting
range, which will interfere with traditional religious and cultural
practices by members of the two Tribes.
BLM made this decision despite a formal letter from the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation recommending that BLM not approve the
Boundary Cone location. The Advisory Council recognized that the noise
caused by a shooting range would severely disrupt the sanctity of
Boundary Cone. In a letter to Secretary of the Interior Dirk
Kempthorne, dated November 3, 2008, John Nau, III, Chairman of the
Advisory Council, said, in part, ``There is a basic incompatibility
between the land uses of a shooting range and an area where traditional
cultural use would be disrupted by the audible intrusions of repeated
gunfire.'' He called it ``a basic incompatibility.'' In addition to the
adverse effect on the integrity of Boundary Cone Butte and the
characteristics that give this place historic significance, the audible
intrusions of repeated gunfire will impose a burden on the exercise of
religious practices by traditional tribal members.
This proposed shooting range has been sought for more than a decade
by Tri-State Shooting Recreation Center, Inc., which has been pushing
BLM to approve this project. The Hualapai Tribe found out about this
project after the first EA and FONSI were released in December 2003,
and the Tribe has voiced its opposition since the Spring of 2004. The
Fort Mojave Tribe had become engaged in the environmental review
process in the fall of 2003. After the failure of BLM to engage in
consultation with the Tribes early in the planning process, an
alternative dispute resolution process was convened by the U.S.
Institute on Environmental Conflict Resolution. The Tribes believed
that process would yield a genuine, if belated, effort to consider
alternative locations. Unfortunately, those efforts collapsed. The
Hualapai Tribe believes that the failure of the alternative dispute
resolution should have led BLM to a decision to prepare an
environmental impact statement with a genuine search for alternative
locations.
We note that the EA and FONSI for this project were prepared for
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Of
course, this proposed BLM decision is also subject to compliance with
other federal environmental laws, including but not limited to the
consultation process under section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), as implemented through the regulations of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 36 C.F.R. part 800. The EA
attempts to convey the idea that BLM has made a genuine effort to
fulfill its responsibilities under NHPA section 106. In describing
mitigation measures, the EA says that BLM is requiring mitigation ``in
recognition of the [Fort Mojave Indian Tribe] continued use of Boundary
Cone Butte and the surrounding area in traditional cultural
practices.'' EA at page 20. Similarly, the Decision Record states that
BLM has completed the Section 106 process.'' Decision Record at page 9.
In fact, when the Section process did not lead to the result that BLM
wanted, BLM simply stopped trying to consult.
After the failure of the alternative dispute resolution, BLM
announced that it was ``terminating'' the NHPA Section 106 process.
Under the Advisory Council's regulations, the federal agency can
``terminate'' the consultation process upon determining that ``further
consultation will not be productive.'' 36 C.F.R. Sec. 800.7(a). When
the federal agency terminates consultation, the head of the agency must
formally request the Advisory Council to file comments on the proposed
undertaking. As set out in the regulations, after the Advisory Council
comments, the head of the agency must ``take into account the Council's
comments in reaching a final decision on the undertaking.''
Sec. 800.7(c)(4). The requirements set out in this section of the
regulations are based on section 110(l) of the statute, 16 U.S.C.
Sec. 470h-2(l), which provides that, for any proposed federal
undertaking that adversely affects any property on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, if the federal agency has not
entered into an agreement pursuant to the Advisory Council's
regulations, then any decision to proceed with the undertaking despite
the failure to resolve adverse effects must be made by the heads of the
agency. The statute says, ``The head of the agency may not delegate his
or her responsibilities pursuant to such section.''
In the case of the proposed shooting range near Boundary Cone
Butte, the documentation that the head of BLM actually considered the
Advisory Council's comments, was signed on January 16, 2009, by the
person who was the acting Director of BLM. Regardless of whether that
action complies with the letter of the law, it subverted the spirit of
the law. The rationale for elevating this decision to the head of the
agency is to provide some degree of accountability--there is no
accountability when an administration makes such a decision on its last
working day in office.
The fact that this proposal has even been given serious
consideration by BLM and project proponents conveys the message to us,
that they do not understand the importance of the Mojave Valley
landscape for the cultural identity of each of the Tribes. The Tribes
continue to believe that an acceptable alternative location could be
found, if the proponents of the project really wanted to. In the first
place, we believe that the footprint of the proposed shooting range
could be reduced substantially.
In any case, the Tribes do not believe that their freedom of
religion and cultural identity should be sacrificed to make way for
this project.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me now ask Linda
Otero, the Director of the Tribal Council, Fort Mojave Tribe.
Thank you for being here, and I look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LINDA OTERO, DIRECTOR OF AHA MAKAV CULTURAL
SOCIETY, TRIBAL COUNCIL MEMBER, NEEDLES, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Otero. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee. For the record, my name is Linda Otero, and I am
a Fort Mojave Tribal Council Member. I also serve as the
Director of the Aha Makav Cultural Society.
It is both an honor and a privilege to come before this
Subcommittee to offer testimony on behalf of the Fort Mojave
Indian Tribe.
Since time immemorial, we, the Mojave people, have
inhabited the area along the Colorado River on lands that are
now within the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada.
The Mojaves farmed in the receding annual floods, and
hunted, fished, and gathered at all times of the year. We are
the Aha Makav, the people of the river. The rocky peak that
towers over the shooting range this bill would make possible is
known to Euro-Americans as Boundary Cone Butte, but in our
language, it is Avi Vasqui, meaning The Sharp Mountain.
Much of our spiritual esoteric knowledge about Avi Vasqui
is held in high esteem by our elders; to make it public would
at best dilute its power, and at worst be dangerous both for
the elders and for those receiving the information.
We can say, however, that Avi Vasqui is our time piece,
measuring the span of our Tribe's life; when Avi Vasqui is
gone, the Mojave people will be gone as well. It plays many
vital roles in our cultural lives, notably in our spiritual
stories and song cycles.
For instance, Avi Vasqui is an important landmark in the
songs known as aquak, deer songs, tracing the path of the deer
from the western to the eastern parts of our ancient homeland.
Avi Vasqui was also the traditional home of one of our
ancient chiefs, and our ancestors left signs of their ritual
use of the area in the form of rock art and ceremonial circles.
Ceremonial circles were and are regarded by our people as
points of entry into other dimensions of reality.
Construction and operation of a shooting range will have a
variety of direct and indirect visual and auditory effects on
our spiritual relationships with Avi Vasqui, and with the
overall practice of our traditional religions.
For this reason, we have participated in a lengthy program
of consultation with the Bureau of Land Management and others
seeking alternative locations for the desired facility. We
believe that a number of such locations exists, and that the
bars that the BLM perceives to using them are spurious.
In the course of our consultation under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, BLM has acknowledged the
cultural significance of Avi Vasqui, finding it to be eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places as a traditional
cultural property.
BLM has acknowledged that construction and operation of the
shooting range will adversely affect our cultural uses of Avi
Vasqui. The Secretary of the Interior has received comments
from the Advisory Council strongly recommending that BLM
explore alternatives on the project as designed because of the
project's impact on Avi Vasqui and our cultural values.
Despite all this, BLM has astoundingly determined under the
National Environment Policy Act that the project will have no
significant impact on the quality of the human environment. On
the strength of this unsupportable conclusion, BLM has sought
Congress' blessing for the land transfer that is the subject of
H.R. 2100.
The Fort Mojave Indian Tribe is a Federally recognized
tribe, with which the U.S. Government has a well-established
trust relationship. This relationship requires the U.S.
Government to do what it can to protect the Tribe's interests.
Appropriate respect for our spiritual beliefs and practices
is also mandated by the American Indian Religious Freedom Act,
and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Yet, the BLM
proposes that constructing a shooting range at the foot of Avi
Vasqui, and thus interfering with the exercise of our
traditional religion, does not significantly impact the quality
of the human environment. We find this deeply insulting.
And what keeps the BLM from exploring alternative sites for
the shooting range? The primary impediment to considering
alternatives is the insistence by the proponent, the Arizona
Fish and Game Department, that this facility be within 15 miles
and a 10 minute drive from Bullhead City.
We respectfully suggest that Congress should not allow BLM
to substantially burden the religious practices of a Federally
recognized Indian tribe for the convenience of shooters in the
vicinity of Bullhead City.
The Mojave people have a right to practice the religion of
our ancestors. We ask that Congress not take it away. In the
past, the U.S. Government tried to make our grandparents give
up their religion.
Today, we are holding on, but we continue to have to fight
to protect our sacred space. No one would approve continuous
gunfire around a church. How can the U.S. Government approve of
it in our sacred space?
Our feelings of reverence at Avi Vasqui are precious and
connect us to the higher power. Others would not like it if we
tribal folks started shooting off our guns around a church
during the singing of hymns. That is sacrilegious. The same
goes for others directing such acts toward us. Please do not
allow the BLM to commit such sacrilege. Please do not approve
H.R. 2100.
I thank the Subcommittee for allowing the Fort Mojave Tribe
to provide their voice in this matter of great significance and
importance to a people whose way of life and beliefs should
remain undisturbed and whole, with the utmost integrity and
respect for the land whose ancestor's remains marks the grounds
of the Mohave Valley, our aboriginal holy lands.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Otero follows:]
Statement of Linda Otero, Tribal Council Member, Director, Aha Makav
Cultural Society, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, California, Arizona and
Nevada, on H.R. 2100
My name is Linda Otero and I am a Fort Mojave Tribal Council
Member. I am also the Director of the Aha Makav Cultural Society. Since
time immemorial we, the Mojave People, have inhabited the area along
the Colorado River on lands that are now within the States of Arizona,
California and Nevada. The Mojaves farmed in the receding annual floods
and hunted, fished and gathered at other times of the year. We are the
Aha Makav, the people of the river.
The rocky peak that towers over the shooting range this bill would
make possible is known to Euroamericans as Boundary Cone Butte, but in
our language it is Avi Vasqui, meaning ``The Sharp Mountain.'' Much of
our spiritual esoteric knowledge about Avi Vasqui is held in high
esteem by our elders; to make it public would at best dilute its power,
and at worst be dangerous both for the elders and for those receiving
the information. We can say, however, that Avi Vasqui is our time
piece, measuring the span of our Tribe's life; when Avi Vasqui is gone,
the Mojave people will be gone as well. It plays many vital roles in
our cultural lives, notably in our spiritual stories and song cycles.
For instance, Avi Vasqui is an important landmark in the songs known as
aquak, deer songs, tracing the path of the deer from the western to the
eastern parts of our ancient homeland. Avi Vasqui was also the
traditional home of one of our ancient chiefs, and our ancestors left
signs of their ritual use of the area in the form of rock art and
ceremonial circles. Ceremonial circles were and are regarded by our
people as points of entry into other dimensions of reality.
Construction and operation of a shooting range will have a variety
of direct and indirect visual and auditory effects on our spiritual
relationships with Avi Vasqui, and with the overall practice of our
traditional religions. For this reason, we have participated in a
lengthy program of consultation with the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and others seeking alternative locations for the desired
facility. We believe that a number of such locations exist, and that
the bars BLM perceives to using them are spurious.
In the course of our consultation under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, BLM has acknowledged the cultural
significance of Avi Vasqui, finding it to be eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places as a traditional cultural property. BLM has
acknowledged that construction and operation of the shooting range will
adversely affect our cultural uses of Avi Vasqui. The Secretary of the
Interior has received comments from the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (attached) strongly recommending that BLM explore
alternatives to the project as designed, because of the project's
impacts on Avi Vasqui and our cultural values. Despite all this, BLM
has astoundingly ``determined'' under the National Environmental Policy
Act that the project will have no significant impact on the quality of
the human environment. On the strength of this unsupportable
conclusion, BLM has sought Congress' blessing for the land transfer
that is the subject of H.R. 2100.
The Fort Mojave Indian Tribe is a federally recognized tribe, with
which the United States government has a well-established trust
relationship. This relationship requires the United States government
to do what it can to protect the Tribe's interests. Appropriate respect
for our spiritual beliefs practices is also mandated by the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Yet BLM proposes that constructing a shooting range at the foot of Avi
Vasqui, and thus interfering with the exercise of our traditional
religion, does not significantly impact the quality of the human
environment. We find this deeply insulting.
And what keeps BLM from exploring alternative sites for the
shooting range? The primary impediment to considering alternatives is
the insistence by the proponent, the Arizona Fish and Game Department,
that its facility be within fifteen miles and a ten minute drive from
Bullhead City.
We respectfully suggest that Congress should not allow BLM to
substantially burden the religious practices of a federally recognized
Indian tribe for the convenience of shooters in the vicinity of
Bullhead City. The Mojave people have a right to practice the religion
of our ancestors; we ask that Congress not take it away. In the past,
the U.S. government tried to make our grandparents give up their
religion. Today we are holding on, but we continue to have to fight to
protect our sacred space. No one would approve continuous gunfire
around a church; how can the U.S. Government approve of it in our
sacred space? Our feelings of reverence at Avi Vasqui are precious and
connect us to the higher power. Others would not like it if we tribal
folks started shooting off our guns around a church during the singing
of hymns. That's sacrilegious. The same goes for others directing such
acts toward us.
Please do not allow BLM to commit such sacrilege; please do not
approve H.R. 2100.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me now ask Mr. Robert
Woodhouse, Vice-Chairman of the Arizona Game and Fish
Commission, for his comments, and welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT WOODHOUSE, VICE-CHAIRMAN, ARIZONA GAME AND
FISH COMMISSION, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Mr. Woodhouse. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva. Mr. Chairman,
and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Woodhouse, Vice
Chairman of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today regarding
Congressman Trent Franks' H.R. 2100, which would provide the
much needed land for the establishment of a public shooting
facility in Mohave County, Arizona.
The Arizona Game and Fish Commission supports H.R. 2100 in
its committed goal of safe recreational shooting in Arizona.
Recreational shooting and sport hunting have always been a
family oriented activity in Arizona.
As the population of the State continues to grow the number
of citizens engaging in recreational shooting at formal and
informal shooting ranges, or dispersed shooting areas, has
increased significantly.
The population of Arizona has more than doubled, from two-
and-a-half million in 1997, to over six million today. Studies
show that 20 percent of Arizona residents participate in
recreational shooting activities. Outdoor recreation, as with
multiple interests, are competing to use public lands adjacent
to large metropolitan areas, as well as expanding rural
communities.
As a result of this increased use, unresolved conflicts
have arisen between public agencies, landowners, recreational
shooters, and other recreationists. There are population
centers in Arizona that currently do not have reasonable access
to a public shooting range.
As a result the impact of dispersed shooting and associated
issues such as littering, shared use of increasingly scarce
public lands, and resource damage continue to represent
challenges.
The Arizona Game and Fish Commission promotes and supports
the development of safe accessible targets sportshooting
facilities by taking a leadership role in partnering with
ranges, industry, and communities.
Additionally, the Commission provides statewide range
development assistance through a variety of technical,
educational, and financial resources consistent with its goal
to preserve shooting opportunities for present and future
generations.
The Commission currently owns and operates five shooting
ranges in Arizona, and has supported countless others through
the development grants and technical and engineering support.
The Commission is committed to continued support for
shooting range development in Arizona. With a major population
increase in the tri-state area, members of the sports shooting
community have expressed a strong interest in developing a new
multi-purpose shooting facility to replace the one that was
closed in 1998, in large part due to encroachment.
At present, due to the lack of a formal shooting facility,
shooters have been forced to utilize makeshift shooting
locations, which has become a significant source of concern for
public and private landowners, as well as other outdoor
recreationalists. H.R. 2100 would help to mitigate these
issues.
To accommodate the needs of the shooting community, various
shooting disciplines, hunter education, and law enforcement
training needs, the Commission proposed the development of a
formal shooting complex in the tri-state area.
The complex would include various rifle, pistol, and
shotgun ranges, a hunter education range, and law enforcement
training area. Since the closure of the only public shooting
range in the area, the Commission has worked with the Bureau of
Land Management and the local shooting community for the past
12 years to identify a site for a new range.
The Commission is encouraged by the BLM's recently issued
record of decision authorizing the range. However, questions do
remain regarding some of the stipulations included. The main
questions are the range footprint, noise monitoring, and range
expansion.
The Commission looks forward to working with the BLM to
address these concerns. H.R. 2100 would address these issues
and expedite the development process. If this legislation is
passed the Commission has the financial resources available to
begin range development immediately.
The Commission supports the proposed legislation by
Congressman Franks regarding the conveyance of identified BLM
lands to the Commission for the development of the tri-state
shooting range.
If the proposed legislation is passed the Commission would
continue to work with all interested parties to develop the
range in the most professional manner possible, incorporating
environmental management, noise abatement, and cultural
considerations.
Again, on behalf of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to address your
Committee in support of Congressman Franks' H.R. 2100. I am
happy to respond to any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woodhouse follows:]
Statement of Robert R. Woodhouse, Vice-Chairman,
Arizona Game and Fish Commission, on H.R. 2100
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Robbie
Woodhouse, Vice-Chairman of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today regarding
Congressman Trent Frank's H.R. 2100 which would provide the much needed
land for the establishment of a public shooting facility in Mohave
County, Arizona. The Arizona Game and Fish Commission supports H.R.
2100 and its committed goal of safe recreational shooting in Arizona.
Recreational shooting and sport hunting have always been a family-
oriented outdoor activity in Arizona. As the population of the state
continues to grow, the number of citizens engaging in recreational
shooting at formal and informal shooting ranges or dispersed shooting
areas has increased significantly. The population of Arizona has more
than doubled from 2.5 million in 1997 to over six million today.
Studies show that 20% of Arizona residents participate in recreational
shooting activities. Outdoor recreationists with multiple interests are
competing to use public lands adjacent to large metropolitan areas, as
well as expanding rural communities. As a result of this increased use,
unresolved conflicts have arisen between public agencies, landowners,
recreational shooters and other recreationists. There are population
centers in Arizona that currently do not have reasonable access to a
public shooting range. As a result, the impact of dispersed shooting
and associated issues such as littering, shared use of increasingly
scarce public lands and resource damage continue to represent
challenges.
The Arizona Game and Fish Commission (Commission) promotes and
supports the development of safe, accessible target and sport-shooting
facilities by taking a leadership role in partnering with ranges,
industry, and communities. Additionally, the Commission provides
statewide range development assistance through a variety of technical,
educational and financial resources consistent with its goal to
preserve shooting opportunities for present and future generations.
The Commission currently owns and operates five shooting ranges in
Arizona and has supported countless others through development grants,
and technical and engineering support. The Commission is committed to
its continued support for shooting range development in Arizona.
With the major population increase in the tri-state (Arizona,
Nevada and California) area, members of the sport shooting community
have expressed a strong interest in developing a new multi-purpose
shooting facility to replace the one that was closed in 1998 due in
large part to encroachment. At present, due to the lack of a formal
shooting facility, shooters have been forced to utilize makeshift
shooting locations which, has become a significant source of concern
for public and private landowners, as well as, other outdoor
recreationists. H.R. 2100 would help mitigate these issues.
To accommodate the needs of the shooting community including
various shooting disciplines, hunter education and law enforcement
training needs, the Commission proposed the development of a formal
shooting complex in the Tri-State area. The complex would include
various rifle, pistol and shotgun ranges, a hunter education range and
a law enforcement training area.
Since the closure of the only public shooting range in the area,
the Commission has worked with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the local shooting community for the past 12 years to identify a new
site for a range. The Commission is encouraged by the BLM's recently
issued Record of Decision (ROD) authorizing the range, however;
questions remain regarding some of the stipulations included. The main
questions are the range foot print, noise monitoring and future range
expansion. The Commission looks forward to working with the BLM to
address these concerns. H.R. 2100 would address these issues and
expedite the development process. If this legislation is passed, the
Commission has the financial resources available to begin range
development immediately.
The Commission supports the proposed legislation by Congressmen
Franks, regarding the conveyance of the identified BLM lands to the
Commission for the development of the Tri-State Shooting range. If the
proposed legislation is passed the Commission would continue to work
with all interested parties to develop the range in the most
professional manner possible incorporating environmental management,
noise abatement and cultural considerations.
Again, on behalf of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission I would
like to thank you for the opportunity to address your committee in
support of Congressman Franks' H.R. 2100. I am happy to respond to any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, sir. Let me begin if I
may, Mr. Vice Chairman, with a couple of questions. In your
testimony if I am not mistaken, and if I am, please correct me,
your testimony does not mention the concerns of the tribes that
we heard today.
Can you tell me what position the agency that you represent
has with regards to the concerns raised by the Fort Mojave
Tribe and the Hualapai?
Mr. Woodhouse. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would like to respond
to that. I did briefly at the end of my testimony there talk
about that we are conscious and do intend to work
professionally with all parties, including cultural issues,
which obviously are the issues that the tribal members bring
forth this morning.
And I can submit to you also, Mr. Chairman, and Members of
the Committee, our Commission and the Arizona Game and Fish
Department, do work with lots of tribal entities in the State
of Arizona, and we look forward to being a good neighbor and
cooperate with the tribe.
Mr. Grijalva. A follow-up to something else that you
mentioned in your testimony that indicates an objection on the
part of your agency to some of the requirements and
stipulations that were included in the BLM record of decision
to mitigate some of the impacts on native land.
Can you explain to the Committee what mitigation
requirements the agency feels are not necessary or unwarranted?
Mr. Woodhouse. Mr. Chairman, yes, sir, I can respond to
that, and Members of the Committee. We did have some issues as
I had outlined about the footprint, noise monitoring, and
future range expansion. There have been letters back and forth
between our Deputy Director, Gary Hovatter, and the Bureau of
Land Management, and we are working on those issues.
We are satisfied at this time that we are in good shape on
that, and have a working relationship with BLM that also
addresses the sensitiveness of the cultural issues that are
brought up.
It talks about coordinating with the tribes on times that
they would have religious activities there, ceremonies, and
whatever their cultural needs would be. It has been thoroughly
addressed, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. I think these questions are both for Ms.
Jackson-Kelly and Ms. Otero. The BLM states that both of your
tribes have maintained the position that there is no place
within the 140 miles of the Mohave Valley that could be
suitable for a shooting range. First of all, if that is true,
could you explain to the Committee why?
Ms. Otero. Mr. Chairman, 140 miles? I am not aware of that
being stated. My guess is that is an interpretation of how we
express the landscape and the greater vastness of the cultural
area, in terms of the religion and the relationship that we
have with the Avi Vasqui and other points in the valley.
And so in identifying that, we expressed the best that we
can in sharing with them our cultural significance of these
places. So it goes beyond the landscape of the valley. It goes
beyond the mountain ranges.
So if that is an interpretation of how the mileage is
placed as a marker, then I am not familiar with that. I know
that within the 140 miles that exists that there are two
shooting ranges, one just over the Black Mountain Range, which
is the seven mile range.
And we brought that out as a possible alternative for which
that range could be expanded, but we also learned that it was
also located near a Hualapai grave site as well. So when we
first identified the possibility of expanding that range
because the route of S.R. 93 was upgraded and expanded that
gave citizens the opportunity to perhaps travel that route.
But yet 140 acres? I am not aware of that number of miles
being placed. So I think that is an interpretation of how we
describe our land base and the greatest significance of the
area.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. We have been talking about the
record of decision, the BLM. Have they made stipulations on how
to mitigate damage done to the area, to sacred lands? In your
opinion, do the stipulations in this proposal--and this is to
the both of you--do these stipulations address the tribes'
concerns with the shooting range? Why or why not?
Ms. Otero. Mr. Chairman, I will answer that as well. No,
they don't. They don't address it to the extent that we feel
that we are comfortable with that at all. How do you mitigate
spiritual and religious values? That has been our point from
the beginning. How do you do that?
Fencing is not appropriate. You look at it only as a
physical structure there, a physical essence of that. We don't
see it just of that nature. It is beyond that. It is the values
and at the heart of which we relate to in our way of life, in
our religion, and so mitigating that was not appropriate in
what was outlined.
Besides that the tribe did not have full input. We
expressed our concerns about the area, but I think it was taken
that we were in agreement, but that was not the case with these
mitigation measures that were proposed. They were more or less
just placed upon us that we should accept it, but we have not.
These go against what we have been saying.
Mr. Grijalva. You were advised of the stipulations, but
there was no consultation?
Ms. Otero. Not to the full extent that we could negotiate,
right. And as it is, negotiation is not applicable to these
spiritual values.
Ms. Jackson-Kelly. I would also like to add for the
Hualapai Tribe that we were not consulted about these
mitigation measures.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you to all three of you. I appreciate
it, and let me now turn to Ranking Member Brown for any
questions or comments that he may have.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask you
all, the three of you, just basically a yes or no answer, and
if you would, all three answer. Isn't this bill pretty much a
moot point, that this shooting range--that the decision has
already been made, and that it is going to be located in this
area? Ms. Jackson-Kelly.
Ms. Jackson-Kelly. If I could speak. I see this bill as
authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to convey the 350
acres from BLM to the Arizona State Game and Fish Department,
and that would be the final portion of steps to be taken for
Arizona Game and Fish to build the facilities.
Mr. Brown. But hasn't that decision already been made?
Ms. Jackson-Kelly. There has been a record of decision in
an EA that does say that. If the power is within the State
Director of the BLM in the State of Arizona, then that is where
it is.
Mr. Brown. OK. By the way, I want to congratulate. I am a
big game hunter, and I want to congratulate the Hualapai for
the wild game management that you guys do there on your tribal
properties, and I have long time longed and hoped for many
years that I would have enough money to come shoot and go
hunting for wild sheep. Primarily wild sheep, but also elk in
your area.
So I congratulate you for your wonderful wildlife
management there.
Ms. Jackson-Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Brown. Let me go to the Fort Mojave Tribe
representative. In your opinion is this a moot point?
Ms. Otero. I express the same sentiment as the Hualapai
have as well. How it is outlaid, it is giving Congress that
authority as well to have the transfer or the input to have the
transfer.
Mr. Grijalva. But the decision has already been made; is
that correct?
Ms. Otero. Yes.
Mr. Brown. That is what I got from the National Park
Service testimony that came prior to you all. And from the
Arizona Game and Fish Commission?
Mr. Woodhouse. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Brown, I do not
believe that H.R. 2100 is a moot point. H.R. 2100 is what
brings the three of us here obviously with differing viewpoints
on this proposed transfer of this property for this site, sir.
So I do believe that it does allow involvement for these
two ladies from Northwestern Arizona, and for myself to be here
from the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, to express our
desires to this Committee about this proposed bill.
Mr. Brown. Well, I appreciate you all coming, and I
appreciate you all spending your resources and your valuable
time coming. What is the distance from the bluff or the
mountain to the range, or the Butte? Any one of the three of
you. How far is it?
Ms. Otero. Within two miles.
Mr. Brown. How far?
Ms. Otero. Within two miles.
Mr. Brown. Two?
Ms. Otero. Yes.
Mr. Brown. I am sorry. I am a hunter and I can't hear very
well.
Ms. Otero. I am sorry. Yes, within two miles.
Mr. Brown. OK. Would the tribes accept the shooting range
with proper sound buffers and other things? So just the fact
that there is a range there? It does not matter what they would
do, what the Arizona Game and Fish would do, period. You just
don't want the range there, no matter what they do; is that
correct? That is what I am getting from you guys.
Ms. Otero. That is correct. We stated that for alternatives
for looking for a shooting range that the potential is there,
but for the location near Avi Vasqui, it is not.
Mr. Brown. OK.
Mr. Woodhouse. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to that?
Mr. Brown. Yes, I was just fixing to ask you. Yes.
Mr. Woodhouse. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Brown,
Congressman Brown, the sound studies that were done--and I
would concur with the lady that it is approximately two miles,
plus or minus, from the proposed site to Boundary Cone Butte.
The sound studies that have been done through the EA
process and through the record of decision, and all the studies
that have gone on for many, many years, over a decade now, have
been exhaustive to get us back to this site.
But those sound studies showed--and I do not have the
decibel levels with me currently, but were minimal at Boundary
Cone. Were they audible? Yes, but minimally. And I would like
to submit to the Committee, Congressman Brown, that those sound
studies that were done are out there obviously in the desert,
with no kinds of berms in place, no sound defusing types of
things such as berms or backstops.
And I would like to submit to you that if this project goes
forward, all the ranges that the Commission participates in
Arizona are done in conjunction and in guidelines with the
National Rifle Association guidelines on how to build safety
berms, and also those are not just safety berms.
I believe as you know as a hunter and an outdoorsman
obviously, those are safety berms also to defuse and try to
trap up as much of that sound within the shooting range area as
is possible, and they are quite effective.
Mr. Brown. Well, I understand that, and I appreciate your
testimony regarding that. I have been very much involved in
these kinds of issues, and I know that at a two mile distance
the sound impact, and any other factors, the viewscape, et
cetera, can be essentially mitigated totally, and I appreciate
that.
And I want to congratulate the Arizona Game and Fish. I
just sent in my permit applications and I hope that one of
these days I will draw a permit to come. I can't afford to go
to the Hualapai Indian Reservation to pay for a sheep hunt
there. But, anyway, my time is up and I thank you all for
coming, and I appreciate this.
And I understand both tribal concerns, and I understand
your resistance to having this range put there. I really do.
And I understand that it just being there is the thing that you
are mostly against from your own testimony, and I just want to
thank you all for coming, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank
you.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Kildee, any comments?
Mr. Kildee. I just want to thank you for having this
hearing. I think it is very important, and I appreciate the
testimony of the witnesses, and again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir, and let me just thank the
panel. I appreciate it. And the issue of a moot point is a
valid question, but this was a request presented to our staff
on something that needed to be heard, and now that it is heard,
I hope that we have all learned a lot.
And part of it has been the process. I have grave concerns
about the process, and grave concerns about the consultation
process that is required with native peoples, and their
representatives.
And I think something was said earlier. Today, we have some
wonderful pieces of legislation, the missions, and to protect
that legacy in the west, and that includes in my part of the
world, San Javier, Keno, all those, and the mission
preservation is important, and they are still vibrant parishes
that continue to hold services.
And we are talking about the Buffalo Soldiers and
revitalizing, and renewing, and understanding of what that part
of our Nation's history is, and should be respected and
acknowledged.
And today we are talking about in this a shooting range,
and while that is not a contradiction, it is important that the
two witnesses that came from the tribes got heard, because they
talked about something equally as important, and that is an
understanding of respect for the sacredness of land and for
traditions.
And so for that I thank you, and it certainly has been
something that I have learned a great deal about, and I
appreciate it a lot. With that, let me ask the next panel up.
[Pause.]
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me welcome the panelists, and
I appreciate your patience, and let me begin with Ms. Brenda
Small, H.R. 3425, Prudential Carruthers Realtors, Washington,
D.C. Welcome, and we look forward to your comments on Ms.
Norton's legislation. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF BRENDA SMALL, PRUDENTIAL CARRUTHERS REALTORS,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Small. Good morning, and thank you. I am Brenda Small,
President of the Washington, D.C. Association of Realtors. I am
speaking today on behalf of the National Association of
Realtors, NAR, which represents 1.2 million Realtors across the
country.
Engaged in all aspects of the real estate industry, NAR's
members strongly support H.R. 3425, which would authorize the
Fair Housing Commemorative Foundation to establish a
commemorative work celebrating the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
Realtors realize that Washington, D.C., has so much to
offer historically and culturally, and our members are proud
that our Washington, D.C., headquarters is right here in close
proximity to many of these monuments to our Nation's history
and ideals.
You know, I could not testify here today without honestly
acknowledging that like many Americans, many of our Realtor
associations in the past have not always accepted or reflected
the mosaic blend of America's diversity.
So I am especially proud to be here today to testify on the
importance of diversity in home ownership in America, and equal
access to rental housing, as well as to celebrate the great
progress that this nation and the real estate industry has made
in the years since the passage of the Fair Housing Act.
NAR and its affiliated State and local associations today
also reflect and represent a tapestry of different faces,
different places, ideas, intellects, talents, and passions.
And today I can proudly say that the neighborhoods where we
live and work, and the consumers that we serve, are just as
diverse. So to that end, we support the creation of a memorable
piece of art, a monument, to the Fair Housing Act, which has
benefitted all Americans.
We believe that art is inspirational, and art is culturally
rich and culturally enriches. Art is multilingual, yet speaks
with one voice to touch many. Art represents the passions and
emotions embodied in the subject which it celebrates.
It blends and flows. It respects and appreciates, and it
understands and cooperates. A Fair Housing monument in this
city would represent just that. The Fair Housing Act ensures
that regardless of race or color, national origin, religion,
gender, familial status, or disability, we all have equal
access to housing, and the right to pursue the American dream.
Realtors help put new faces in homes throughout this
nation, faces that do represent the mosaic of America, and what
we do for a living is create opportunities for home ownership,
and equity building for millions of Americans.
The Fair Housing Act is a solid foundation that helps us
protect private property rights, provides equal access to
rental housing, and home ownership opportunities, and sure
compliance with the law in both real estate and mortgage
activities.
And furthers our goals for increased, affordable, and
sustainable home ownership within the reach of all Americans.
This foundation of protection and opportunity has also served
to create more vibrant communities, where homeowners are more
civilly involved.
Children excel in the classroom, and our American culture
is enhanced by diversified neighborhoods, and while we have
accomplished much in building these foundations, we still have
work to do, and we still have education to do.
I have experienced race discrimination firsthand during my
time in the real estate profession. Sometimes direct, and often
times subtle, and all the times disturbing. It comes in the
form of a rejection of my services as a real estate
professional, and even on occasions where contract offers were
rejected based on the assumption of race of the client being
represented.
The Fair Housing Act protects my right to practice my
profession in three significant ways. First, it prohibits my
exclusion on the basis of race, color, national origin,
religion, sex, familial status, or disability, in organizations
of real estate professionals.
The National Association of Realtors affirmatively protects
my right to be a Realtor, and prohibits actions that might
exclude me on the basis of these characteristics.
Second, the Fair Housing Act protects me from retaliation
should I exercise my rights or help anyone else exercise their
rights under the Fair Housing Act; and even today, there are
incidents of bigoted neighbors and minority buyers who try to
buy property.
Third, every time a buyer or seller I am working with is a
victim of housing discrimination, everyone loses a bit of
dignity and respect, and it continues to reinforce the need for
the focus on and enforcement of fair housing.
Thus, what better message to send to all Americans than to
establish a permanent monument dedicated to fair housing right
here in the Nation's capital. A fixed reminder, both now and in
the future, that the American dream of home ownership is and
should be available to all Americans.
And while we have made great strides and accomplished much
to promote and foster fair housing, there is more to do to
inspire us and future generations to be vigilant in protecting
one of our most basic rights, the rights to property and
housing.
We want to see the hard run struggles to make fair housing
a reality, and a positive influence that fair housing has had
on our society commemorated by the establishment of a fair
housing monument in this city, and urge you to support H.R.
3425. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of
this worthy endeavor.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Small follows:]
Statement of Brenda Small, President, Washington, DC Association of
REALTORS, on Behalf of The National Association of REALTORS, on H.R.
3425
Good Morning, I am Brenda Small, President of the Washington, DC
Association of REALTORS. I am speaking today on behalf of the National
Association of REALTORS (NAR), which represents 1.2 million REALTORS
across the country. Engaged in all aspects of the real estate industry,
NAR's members strongly support H.R. 3425, which would authorize the
Fair Housing Commemorative Foundation to establish a commemorative work
celebrating the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
Washington, DC has so much to offer, historically and culturally.
Our members are proud that our Washington, DC, headquarters, is right
here in close proximity to many of these monuments to our nation's
history and ideals.
I could not testify here today without honestly acknowledging that
like many Americans, many of our REALTOR associations in the past have
not always accepted or reflected the mosaic blend of America's
diversity.
So I am especially proud to be here today to testify on the
importance of diversity in homeownership in America, and equal access
to rental housing, as well as to celebrate the great progress that this
nation and the real estate industry has made in the years since the
passage of the Fair Housing Act.
NAR and its affiliated state and local associations today also
reflect and represent a tapestry of different faces, different places,
ideas, talents, intellects, interests and passions. Today, I can
proudly say that the neighborhoods where we live and work and the
consumers we serve are just as diverse.
To that end, we support the creation of a memorable piece of art, a
Monument to the Fair Housing Act, which has benefited all Americans.
The Fair Housing Act ensures that regardless of race or color,
national origin, religion, gender, familial status, or disability, we
all have equal access to housing and the right to pursue the American
Dream.
REALTORS help put new faces in homes throughout this nation, faces
that represent the mosaic of America. What we do for a living is create
opportunities for homeownership and equity building for millions of
Americans.
The Fair Housing Act is the solid foundation that helps us protect
private property rights, provide equal access to rental housing and
homeownership opportunities, ensure compliance with the law in real
estate and mortgage activities, and further our goals for increased,
affordable, and sustainable homeownership within the reach of all
Americans.
This foundation of protection and opportunity has also served to
create more vibrant communities where homeowners are more civically
involved, children excel in the classroom, and our American culture is
enhanced by diversified neighborhoods.
While we have accomplished much in building these foundations, we
still have work to do. We still have education to do. I have
experienced race discrimination firsthand during my time in the real
estate profession, sometimes direct, often times subtle, and always
disturbing. It comes in the form of the rejection of my services as a
real estate professional, and even occasions where contract offers were
rejected based on the assumption of race of the client being
represented.
The Fair Housing Act protects my right to practice my profession in
three significant ways:
First, it prohibits my exclusion on the basis of race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability in
organizations of real estate professionals. The National Association of
REALTORS affirmatively protects my right to be a REALTOR and
prohibits actions that might exclude me on the basis of these
characteristics.
Second, the Fair Housing Act protects me from retaliation should I
exercise my rights or help anyone else exercise their rights under the
Fair Housing Act. Even today, there are incidents of bigoted neighbors
threatening REALTORS and minority buyers who try to buy property.
Third, every time a buyer or seller I am working with is a victim
of housing discrimination--whether for race, color, national origin,
religion, sex, familial status, or disability--everyone loses a bit of
dignity and respect, and it continues to reinforce the need for the
focus on and enforcement of fair housing.
Thus, what better message to send to all Americans than to
establish a permanent monument dedicated to Fair Housing right here in
the nation's Capitol: A fixed reminder, both now and in the future,
that the American Dream of Homeownership is, and should be available to
all Americans.
The progress we have made and the work remaining was and will be
accomplished by many Americans, from those who bravely exercised their
fair housing rights in the face of violence, to the community voices
for fair housing, to REALTORS who challenged practices and helped
people find the housing they needed.
While we have made great strides and accomplished much to promote
and foster fair housing, there is more to do to inspire us and future
generations to be vigilant in protecting some of our most basic rights:
the rights to property and housing. We want to see the hard won
struggles to make fair housing a reality and the positive influence
fair housing has had on our society commemorated by the establishment
of a Fair Housing Monument in this city and urge you to support H.R.
3425.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this worthy
endeavor.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me now introduce Ms.
Susan Chandoha, and if I misstated your name, I apologize, who
is the Executive Director of Los Compadres de San Antonio
Missions, San Antonio, Texas. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN CHANDOHA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOS COMPADRES
DE SAN ANTONIO MISSIONS, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
Ms. Chandoha. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member Pro Temp Brown, and Subcommittee Members. It is an honor
and a privilege to be here in this beautiful capital of our
wonderful country to provide testimony on H.R. 4438. With me, I
would like to introduce Sue Ann Garcia, Chairman of the Board
of Los Compadres; her husband, J.A. Garcia, who is a county
judge of Kennedy County in South Texas; Betty Bueche, who is
representing Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolf, and Scott Bentley,
Superintendent of the San Antonio Missions National Historical
Park.
Los Compadres is the friend's group to this national park
in San Antonio. We are comprised of a large group of caring
individuals and businesses. We cherish the historical resources
in San Antonio.
As such our organization since 1983, when we were
chartered, has raised over 54 million dollars on behalf of the
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Congressman Ciro
Rodriguez, a longtime devotee to our historical missions, who
was raised in the shadow of San Jose, and attends religious
services there on Sundays when he is back in the district,
sponsored this bill, along with the wholehearted supported of
our three other Bexar County Congressman, Congressman Henry
Cuellar, Congressman Lamar Smith, and Congressman Charles
Gonzalez.
Few can question the national and international
significance of the San Antonio Missions. They comprise the
single largest concentration of Spanish colonial resources in
the United States, and include the only Eighteenth Century
continuously functioning dam, irrigation system, and aqueduct
on the continent.
These missions represent the finest remaining monuments of
Spain's frontier ingenuity in the country, and they are living
testimony to the pioneering spirit that established the
Southwest and gave rise to our country's agricultural and
ranching industries.
By way of background, some 90 years ago the citizens of San
Antonio began their work to acquire the protection of the
National Park Service. When they finally became a national park
in 1978, the boundary that was drawn by Congress was
multifaceted due to the nature of the separate areas of each
mission. This bill will help address some of these issues.
The boundary adjustment portion of the bill, if passed,
will add 151 acres to the park. In actuality, 118 of this is
already owned by the park, or will soon be donated and
transferred through land swap.
H.R. 4438 also calls for a new study to determine whether
additional Spanish colonial resources in Bexar and Wilson
Counties should be incorporated within the missions boundaries.
Historically, the missions had strong ties with the San
Antonio River as each mission had its own irrigation system
that depended on the river for its water. Unfortunately, this
historic connection was broken with flood control work in the
1960s.
This is something that is extremely important. In 1975,
when the citizens were working to bring the protection of the
Park Service to the missions, a feasibility study was done by
the National Park Service.
Five separate options for a national park were developed.
Unfortunately, all of those options were thrown out, but it is
very important right now to understand that every landowner
within those five proposed boundaries at that time was
supported.
The citizens, even though we didn't get the park that we
wanted, the citizens of San Antonio continued working to
protect the resources, and coming up with ideas on how this
would work.
So they voted a venue tax and raised $271 million to
restore the southern segment of the San Antonio River. This
work will be completed in 2013. We have worked hard for this,
and we feel that a new boundary study to review some of these
early options that would contain, and that would bring in all
of these wonderful resources that were left out.
Most of this land is within public ownership, and the city,
the county, and in Wilson County, and the individual
landowners, are all willing to work on a new study. The third
segment portion of this bill would authorize the Park Service
to enter into a lease agreement with a nonprofit for a new
headquarters building.
Obviously, we want that nonprofit to be Los Compadres. We
have worked with the city for two years on acquiring the City-
acquired 26 acres adjacent to Mission San Jose, the queen of
the missions. They are building a new library.
This 26 acres has potential for an incredible educational
facility. We would like to build the National Park Service
headquarters, lease it to them, and once the building is paid
for, all lease funds that we would receive would be put into an
endowment that, in-turn, would raise funds to give back to the
National Park Service for preservation, restoration,
development, and educational projects. It is a win-win
situation.
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, we feel very
strongly that since the study of 1975 that we have satisfied
our early promise to Congress, who created the park in 1978,
that we would support it.
We are now asking you to assist in meeting our joint
commitment and our needs for the future. We look forward to a
very continued successful relationship with you and the
National Park Service. Thank you for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chandoha follows:]
Statement of Susan Chandoha, Executive Director, Los Compadres de San
Antonio Missions National Historical Park, on H.R. 4438
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the sub-committee.
My name is Susan Chandoha and I am the Executive Director of Los
Compadres, the non-profit Friends' group to the San Antonio Missions
National Historical Park. Joining me today, are Sue Ann Garcia,
Chairman of the Board of Los Compadres, and her husband, J.A., Betty
Bueche, Facilities Division Manager of Bexar County, and Scott Bentley,
Superintendent of our national historical park.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you in support of
H.R. 4438, introduced by Congressman Ciro Rodriguez and co-sponsored by
Congressman Henry Cuellar, Congressman Charles Gonzalez and Congressman
Lamar Smith. This legislation will do three things:
1. Complete an immediate boundary adjustment that brings in
approximately 151 acres of lands owned by the park and lands actively
being acquired by the park
2. Direct the National Park Service to conduct a study of lands
within Bexar and Wilson Counties, Texas to identify lands that would be
suitable for inclusion within this park's boundaries
3. Allow the Secretary of the Interior to lease its headquarters,
maintenance, research and educational space from a non-profit or
government agencies
Few can question the national and international significance of the
San Antonio Missions. They comprise the single largest concentration of
Spanish Colonial resources in the United States and include the only
18th century continuously-functioning dam, irrigation system and
aqueduct on the continent. These missions represent the finest
remaining monuments of Spain's frontier ingenuity in the country. The
missions are living testimony to the pioneering spirit that established
the Southwest and gave rise to our country's agricultural and ranching
industries. As such, they have been placed on the United States
tentative list for nomination as a World Heritage site.
By way of background, some 90 years ago the citizens of San Antonio
began their work to acquire the protection of the National Park Service
for its most valued historic resources. Our national park is based upon
a unique set of cooperative agreements under which it operates in
conjunction with local and state governments, the Catholic Archdiocese
and the private sector. Very few national parks receive such total
support from both the private and public sectors as does our missions'
park.
When our missions became a national park, the boundary that was
drawn by Congress was multifaceted due to the nature of the separate
areas of each mission and related historic sites coupled with the
ownership of properties by public and private entities within the
boundary. Some adjustments were made in 1990. The most important being
the inclusion of the Rancho de las Cabras in Wilson County. This was
the working ranch for Mission Espada and contains the only extant
remains of a Spanish colonial ranch in the entire country.
Today the park consists of 10 diverse, significant cultural sites
contained within 813 acres of historic farmland and archaeologically
sensitive areas. These sites include Missions Concepcion, San Jose, San
Juan and Espada; the Espada Dam, Espada Aqueduct and Espada Acequia or
irrigation ditch, the San Juan Acequia; and the Rancho de las Cabras.
Mission Concepcion and the Espada Aqueduct have ``landmark'' status.
However, many additional Spanish colonial resources in both counties
still remain outside the park boundary without adequate protection.
The boundary adjustment portion of this bill, if passed, will add
151 acres to the park. In actuality, 118 acres of this is owned by the
park or will soon be donated or transferred to the park through a land
exchange. The additional 33 acres proposed for addition could also
possibly be donated, and if not, could cost as much as $3.5 million.
This will pay for invaluable historical resources, more efficient
management and enhanced educational opportunities.
H.R. 4438 also calls for a new study to determine whether
additional Spanish colonial resources in Bexar and Wilson Counties
should be incorporated within the missions' park boundary.
Historically, the missions had strong ties with the San Antonio River
as each mission had its own irrigation system that depended on the
river for its water. Unfortunately, this historic connection was broken
when flood control work on the southern, or mission reach, was done in
the 1960s.
The citizens in Bexar County continued their efforts to bring the
protection of the National Park Service to the missions. In 1975, the
National Park Service completed a Feasibility Study on this. In this
study, several different options for the park boundary were proposed
and they were all based on the San Antonio River. However, none of the
options were used because the National Park Service felt it would be
too costly to restore the river's connections to the missions.
Our citizens did get their dream partially fulfilled when Congress
created a smaller, but somewhat discontinuous park in 1978. The
citizens vowed to continue their local support to protect the missions
and to develop them into America's premier Spanish colonial national
park. In so doing, they overwhelmingly voted in a local tax that raised
$271 million to fund the restoration of the mission reach of the San
Antonio River. The historic connection between the river and the
missions will be re-established when this work is completed in 2013.
Bexar and Wilson Counties have worked tirelessly to provide
enhancements to our park over the years. The dream that started in 1924
and partially fulfilled in 1978 can now become a reality with the
authorization of this study. We urge you to direct the National Park
Service to 1) re-evaluate the addition of lands that meet the criteria
for inclusion based on the 1975 feasibility study; and 2) evaluate the
other known Spanish Colonial resources within these two counties that
meet the criteria for inclusion.
We do not want to lose historic farmlands and ranch lands to urban
development, but it is happening. Precious parts of our cultural
heritage are slipping away. The bells of San Jose, Concepcion, San Juan
and Espada rang long before the Liberty Bell and we cannot afford to
lose any more of this history.
Los Compadres is comprised of individuals and businesses who are
civic leaders who are passionate about our missions' national park. Los
Compadres funded the first capital improvements project at the park in
1987 with the construction of a visitor contact station at Mission
Concepcion. Los Compadres funded the complete landscaping and tour bus
drop-off at the federally-funded Visitor Center at Mission San Jose and
we continue to fund landscaping throughout the park on an annual basis.
Our non-profit funds 15 to 20 projects each year--critical educational
and preservation projects that could not be done without our support.
Los Compadres has worked with the park and the City over the past
two years to develop property near Mission San Jose. The City purchased
lands adjacent to the mission and has started construction on a much-
needed library at the site. The development plan also includes the
construction of a new headquarters facility for the park that would
contain an archival storage facility for the park's 990,000+ artifacts
and a research facility. It would also contain space for educational
programs and community forums.
Los Compadres would like to construct this facility and lease it to
the park and HR4438 would allow the National Park Service to do this.
Once the building was paid for, we would place the lease funds in an
endowment in which 100% of the proceeds would be donated back to the
park for preservation, restoration, development and educational
projects. This is a win-win situation for all.
We would ask that the language in the bill give the National Park
Service the authority to lease specifically from Los Compadres. If not
modified, then the National Park Service would have to advertise the
project with other non-profits who might be interested in building on
the property. Or, at least insert the language that specifies a non-
profit contribute, after debt payment, all rental proceeds from the
lease be donated back to the missions' park.
Additionally, we would also like to see specific funding for
several one-time highly specialized National Park Service needs in the
amount of $5.7 million for specialty equipment, security measures,
archival storage and access control. Los Compadres' portion of the
construction cost of the building would be $6 million and we are ready
to move forward.
Mr. Chairman and members of the sub-committee, in our opinion Bexar
and Wilson Counties have satisfied our early promises to Congress to
support a national park. We are now asking the federal government to
assist in meeting our joint commitment and needs for the future. We
look forward to a continued successful relationship with you and the
National Park Service.
From a business perspective, I see the San Antonio Missions
National Historical Park as a significant economic generator for our
city. Park visitation has increased over 761% since its creation and
now has over 1.6 million annual visitors. And, as an American and
Texan, I am committed to the preservation of our cultural heritage. I
see these missions as more than architectural relics--they are the
windows to our past and the foundation of our future.
Thank you for your consideration this morning.
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mr. Grijalva. Let me now thank you. Let me ask Geneva
Brett, who is the Vice President of the Los Banos Buffalo
Soldiers Association, to begin. Welcome, and I look forward to
your comments.
STATEMENT OF GENEVA BRETT, VICE PRESIDENT, LOS BANOS BUFFALO
SOLDIERS ASSOCIATION, LOS BANOS, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Brett. On behalf of every veteran who has ever served
this great nation, I thank you for the opportunity to testify
in support of H.R. 4491. My name is Geneva Marie Brett. I am a
Realtor broker associate, Vice President of the Los Banos
Buffalo Soldiers Ninth and Tenth Cavalry Association, and
President of the Los Banos Chamber of Commerce.
Few Americans are aware that Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings
Canyon National Parks, were protected by the United States Army
from 1899 to 1913. Buffalo Soldiers, African-American
Cavalrymen, traveled by horseback from the Presidio of San
Francisco to Sequoia and Yosemite in 1899, 1903, and 1904, to
work as park protectors.
These veterans of foreign and domestic wars made
significant contributions in the development of our nation and
the National Park System, yet they remain near invisible in the
pages of American history.
H.R. 4491 will bring to light this hidden history and
commemorate the service of pioneers like the remarkable Colonel
Charles Young, the third black graduate of West Point, and the
first black acting superintendent of a national park, first
black military attache, and one of 10 people to ever have a
memorial service in the Marble Amphitheater in Arlington.
The Los Banos Buffalo Soldiers Ninth and Tenth Cavalry
Association was formed to share this American history. At the
heart of the 18 communities along the trail, we not only
embrace this important history, but we have become its
champion, sharing this remarkable story from sea to shining
sea.
Our organization is currently planning activities that will
educate, engage, and inspire current and future generations. To
show the wide community support for this bill, we brought
letters from our City Council, Chamber of Commerce, veterans,
the NAACP, and the public.
The Los Banos City Council declared 2010 the Year of the
Veteran. The San Joaquin Valley national cemetery declared it
the year of the Buffalo Soldier. We are confident that the
passage of H.R. 4491 will aid local historic preservation,
commerce, tourism, and education in all 18 communities along
the trial.
It is a rare and thrilling opportunity to share this new
old history of local and national significance. Is it irony or
perhaps destiny that the Buffalo Soldiers were among the first
stewards of the little known or understood notion of national
parks, and now the National Park Service is the steward of the
fragile and little known history of the Buffalo Soldiers.
We were not only astonished to learn of the Buffalo
Soldiers' connection to our community, but also that the
greatest resource for Buffalo Soldier history is the National
Park Service.
H.R. 4491 is necessary and vital because there is nothing
official in the NPS to commemorate the contributions of these
veterans. A National Historic Trail makes a statement to future
generations that this history, their contribution, is important
to this nation.
Historical trail status would force academia to pay
attention to this history, meaning universities to grade
schools would begin to study and teach the story. If American
children grow up hearing about the Buffalo Soldiers of the
Sierra Nevada, then all children and their parents will
understand that National Parks belong to all Americans.
In truly honoring the hundredth anniversary of the National
Park Service, Congress is being challenged with exploring
visionary strategies to attract and accommodate new visitors
through innovation and outreach. This historical trail project
is undeniably such a visionary strategy.
It provides 18 opportunities to bring the National Parks
directly to the people in their communities. This trail will
stimulate those segments of our society who least visit the
parks, African-Americans and other minorities.
In her press conference announcing the bill, Congresswoman
Speier said: ``I have lived my entire life within walking
distance of El Camino Real, and never knew this chapter of our
local history. Locally, my hope is that this remarkable story
is incorporated into lesson plans for children learning about
our region. We all learned in history class about the Spanish
missionaries, the 49ers, and the railroad barons. In more
recent years, educators have stressed the history of local
Native American tribes who made their home, later would become
known as the San Francisco Bay. The story of the Buffalo
Soldiers should be added to that history.'' We concur.
On behalf of Los Banos, the Buffalo Soldiers, and the
communities along the route, we wholeheartedly thank
Congresswoman Speier and the 52 co-sponsors for introducing
H.R. 4491.
Neither Congress nor this Subcommittee can change the
missions of yesterday. However, you can ensure that this
history is not just preserved, but presented. We are in this
for the long haul. Working together, we can, and we will, stand
and salute these remarkable and deserving veterans. And if you
listen closely, you can hear the thank you from the Buffalo
Soldiers themselves.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brett follows:]
Statement of Geneva Marie Brett, Realtor/Broker Associate, Vice
President, Los Banos Buffalo Soldiers 9th & 10th Cavalry Association,
and President, Los Banos Chamber of Commerce, on H.R. 4491
My name is Geneva Marie Brett; I'm a Realtor/Broker Associate, Vice
President of the Los Banos Buffalo Soldiers 9th & 10th Cavalry
Association, President of the Los Banos Chamber of Commerce, and the
only child of a Vet who died in Korea. On behalf of every Veteran who
has ever served this great nation, I thank you for the opportunity to
testify in support of H.R. 4491, The Buffalo Soldiers in the National
Parks Study Act.
Few Americans are aware Yosemite, Sequoia & Kings Canyon National
Parks were protected by the U.S. Army from 1891-1913. Buffalo Soldiers
(African-American Cavalry and Infantrymen) traveled by horseback from
the Presidio of San Francisco to Sequoia and Yosemite in 1899, 1903 and
1904 to work as park protectors. Among other things they built the
first usable wagon road into Sequoia's Giant Forest, the first trail to
the top of Mt Whitney, as well as the first museum in the national
parks.
These Veterans of Foreign and Domestic Wars made significant
contributions in the development of our nation and the National Parks
System yet they remain near invisible in the pages of American history.
H.R. 4491 will help bring to light this hidden history and commemorate
the service of pioneers like the remarkable Colonel Charles Young, the
3rd Black Graduate of West Point, 1st Black Superintendent of a
National Park, 1st Black Military Attache and 1 of 10 people to ever
have a memorial service in the marble amphitheater at Arlington.
The Los Banos Buffalo Soldiers 9th & l0th Cavalry Association was
formed to share this delicious slice of American history. At the heart
of the 18 communities along the Trail, we not only embrace this
historical treasure but have become its champion, sharing this
remarkable story from sea to shining sea. Our organization is currently
planning activities that will educate, engage, and inspire current and
future generations. Evidencing the wide community support for this Bill
we've brought letters from our City Council, Chamber, Church members,
Veterans, and the general public. City Council declared 2010 the Year
of the Veteran, our National Cemetery declared it the Year of the
Buffalo Soldier. We are confident the passage of H.R. 4491 will aid
local historic preservation, commerce and tourism in all 18 communities
along the Trail. It is a rare yet thrilling opportunity to share new,
old history of local and national significance.
Our Chamber brought the Buffalo Soldiers to our attention when
researching the cultural diversity of Los Banos for our centennial
celebration in 2007. We were not only astonished to learn of the
Buffalo Soldier connection to our community, but also that the greatest
resource for Buffalo Soldier history is the National Parks Service! Is
it irony, or perhaps destiny, that the Buffalo Soldiers were among the
first stewards of the little known or understood notion of national
parks and now the National Parks Service is the steward of the fragile
and little known history of the Buffalo Soldiers?
H.R. 4491 is necessary because there this is NOTHING official to
commemorate the contributions of these Veterans. A National Historic
Trail makes a statement to future generations that this history, this
contribution is important. Historic trail status would force academia
to pay attention to this history, meaning universities to grade schools
would begin to study the story. If American ch8ildren will understand
at an early age that national parks belong to all Americans.
In truly honoring the 100th Anniversary of the National Park
Service, Congress has been challenged with exploring visionary
strategies to attract and accommodate new visitors through innovation
and outreach. This Historical Trail Project is undeniably such a
visionary strategy; it provides 18 opportunities to bring the National
Parks to the people in their communities as referenced in the NPS
Centennial Initiative for 2016!
In 2006 President George Bush called on all Americans to help in
these efforts and to enhance our parks as we get ready for the National
Park Service's centennial celebration. Los Banos answered that call and
the quiet whispers from a hundred years past to honor the little noted
and mostly forgotten Buffalo Soldiers.
Neither Congress nor this Subcommittee can change the omissions of
yesterday; however you can ensure that this history is not just
preserved, but also presented. It is both your duty and your honor to
do so by passing H.R. 4491. We're in this for the long haul, working
together, We Can--We Will stand and salute these remarkable and
deserving Veterans.
In her Press Conference announcing the Bill Congresswoman Speier
said, ``I lived my entire life within walking distance of EI Camino
Real and never knew this chapter in our local history. Locally, my hope
is that this remarkable story is incorporated into lesson plans for
children learning about our region. We all learned in history class
about the Spanish missionaries, the 49ers and the railroad barons. In
more recent years, educators have stressed the history of local Native
American tribes who made their home along what would later be known as
San Francisco Bay. The story of the Buffalo Soldiers should be added to
that history.'' We concur.
On behalf of our community and the Buffalo Soldiers we
wholeheartedly thank Congresswoman Speier and the 52 cosponsors for
introducing H.R. 4491--The Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study
Act, we thank you here today for voting yes.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Let me ask if I may, Ms. Brett, the guests
that accompanied you today.
Ms. Brett. Yes. Thank you. This is Captain Dave Aflano of
our chapter. Excuse me, not our chapter. We are the only
Buffalo Soldiers Association in the United States to address
the 1903 reconstruction area uniform. So this is Captain David
Aflano; and our First Sergeant, Kevin Craig; and our young
cadet, Kevin Craig, Junior.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Ms. Brett. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me welcome Mr. Reid Wilson,
H.R. 4524, Executive Director, Conservation Trust for North
Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina. Welcome, and thank you for
your patience, and I look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF REID WILSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONSERVATION
TRUST FOR NORTH CAROLINA, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Reid Wilson, and I am the Executive
Director of the Conservation Trust for North Carolina.
CTNC works to increase the amount of protected natural
areas in North Carolina, and we do it in two ways. First, we
promote, and represent, and assist 24 local land trusts so that
they can protect more land in the communities that they serve.
And, second, we are a land trust ourselves, and we focus on
conserving the natural and scenic corridor of the Blue Ridge
Parkway, and I am presenting my testimony today on behalf of
seven other land trusts in Virginia and North Carolina who
protect land along the Parkway.
We strongly support the Blue Ridge Parkway Protection Act,
H.R. 4524, introduced by Representatives Shuler, Price,
Boucher, and Perriello, and there is a Senate version, S. 2951,
introduced by Senators Burr, Hagen, Webb, and Warner.
I want to express our sincere thanks for their leadership
on this issue. These bills would provide much needed funding to
help ensure that the Parkway is as awe inspiring to future
generations as it is to us today.
There are five reasons why it is critically important to
expand funding for land conservation along the Blue Ridge
Parkway. First, the Parkway is the most visited unit by far of
the National Park Service, but its most popular features are
under threat.
The Parkway is a national treasure. It is 469 miles of
spectacular vistas, mature forests, pristine streams, and
hiking trails that attract nearly 20 million visitors per year.
Yet, it is an extremely fragile ribbon threatened by
development.
In most places the Parkway's land corridor is only 800 feet
wide, and most of the property that makes up its views is
privately owned, vulnerable to development.
In recent years unplanned rapid growth as denuded forests,
choked streams with silt, destroyed wildlife habitat, and
ruined scenery. In a survey, over 90 percent of Parkway
visitors said it was the views that brought them there in the
first place.
But the survey also found that if scenic quality declines,
roughly one-quarter of respondents would reduce their number of
visits to the Parkway, and many said that they would not return
at all.
The second reason is that the Parkway is one of the
strongest economic engines in the region, providing $2.3
billion per year to local communities. Furniture and textile
jobs in the mountains are largely gone, and they are not coming
back.
We cannot afford to allow the tourism industry to suffer
the same fate as manufacturing, and so we must conserve the
Parkway, the backbone of tourism in this region.
Third, the Parkway is an incredible natural resource, with
rich and divorce wildlife habitat. The Parkway contains some
600 miles of pure mountain streams. It also contains 43 species
of amphibians, over 1,600 species of plants, and nine Federally
listed threatened or endangered species. Adding more acres to
the Parkway would ensure that wildlife habitat is protected and
not fragmented.
Fourth, this bill is urgently needed due to the effects of
the recession. For one thing, there is less State funding in
Virginia and North Carolina available for conservation
projects.
On the flip side, there is more land available for less
money for conservation due to falling real estate prices and
distressed properties coming on to the market. While
development along the Parkway has slowed during the recession,
its pace was furious before and will no doubt pick up again. So
there is no time to waste.
Fifth, the Parkway is celebrating its seventy-fifth
anniversary in 2010. Passage of the Blue Ridge Parkway
Protection Act and appropriation of funding would be a fitting
way to mark the anniversary of this hugely popular, but
chronically underfunded jewel of the National Park System.
The bill itself is straightforward. It would authorize $75
million over five years to purchase both properties and
conservation easements adjacent to the Parkway. All
transactions would be done with willing landowners. There would
be no eminent domain.
Only properties listed in the Blue Ridge Parkway's land
protection plan would be eligible to receive funding. The bill
would facilitate partnerships between the Park Service and
nonprofit conservation organizations.
Usually these land trusts can move more quickly than the
government to protect a property. So the land trust could buy
the land during the easement, hold it, manage it, until such
time that the Park Service could supply funding.
All feasible purchases would be conveyed as soon as
possible to the National Park Service, and added to the
Parkway's boundaries. All properties with conservation
easements would continue in private ownership, but would be
protected.
We do understand that the National Park Service has some
concerns about the bill as drafted. From my conversations with
the staff of the bills of these sponsors, it is clear that
there is a strong desire to work with the Park Service to
resolve these issues and improve the bill.
CTNC and the other land trusts are likewise eager to work
toward language also with the Subcommittee that is agreeable to
all. We all share a sense of responsibility to pass on to
future generations clean rivers and streams, abundant wildlife
habitat, ample opportunities to enjoy the outdoors, and a sound
economy. In short, a high quality of life.
The Blue Ridge Parkway Protection Act would help achieve
all of those goals for those who come after us. I respectfully
urge you to pass this important legislation and to work with
the Appropriations Committee to secure funding in the next
budget.
Admittedly, our Nation faces extraordinary budget
constraints, but just like 75 years ago when the Parkway was
created, this relatively small investment will save a treasured
landscape at bargain prices, and ensure that jobs are created
and maintained in a region of the country with chronic high
unemployment. Thank you, and I would be happy to take any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]
Statement of D. Reid Wilson, Executive Director,
Conservation Trust for North Carolina, on H.R. 4524
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today. My name is Reid Wilson,
and I am the Executive Director of the Conservation Trust for North
Carolina, based in Raleigh. CTNC works to increase the amount of
protected natural lands in our beautiful state. We do this in two ways.
First, we represent, promote and assist 24 local land trusts, so that
they can protect more land in the communities they serve. Second, we
are a land trust ourselves, and we focus on conserving the natural and
scenic corridor of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
I present my testimony on behalf of several other local land trusts
that do excellent work to protect lands along the Parkway--Blue Ridge
Rural Land Trust, Foothills Conservancy of North Carolina, High Country
Conservancy, Land Trust for the Little Tennessee, and Southern
Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, all in North Carolina, and Western
Virginia Land Trust in Virginia.
The Conservation Trust for North Carolina has protected over 30,000
acres along the Blue Ridge Parkway in 39 locations. Properties we've
conserved include the 17,000-acre watershed that supplies drinking
water for the city of Asheville, and the 8,000-acre watershed for the
town of Waynesville. CTNC over the years has protected and conveyed 18
properties (all but two of them donated) totaling 1,321 acres to the
National Park Service, and these lands have been added to the
boundaries of the Parkway. We appreciate the close working relationship
we have with the excellent staff at the Blue Ridge Parkway.
We strongly support the Blue Ridge Parkway Protection Act, H.R.
4524, introduced by Representatives Shuler, Price, Boucher and
Perriello, and S. 2951, introduced by Senators Burr, Hagan, Webb and
Warner. These bills would provide much-needed funding to help ensure
that the Parkway is as awe-inspiring to future generations as it is to
us today.
Let me tell you why it is critically important to expand funding
for land conservation along the Blue Ridge Parkway.
First, the Blue Ridge Parkway is the most visited unit of
the National Park Service, but its most popular features are under
constant threat.
Second, the Parkway is the economic lifeblood of nearby
mountain communities.
Third, the Parkway is an incredible natural resource with
rich and diverse wildlife habitat.
Fourth, right now is an outstanding time to buy land
along the Parkway.
Fifth, the Parkway will celebrate its 75th anniversary
this year.
Let me take each point in turn.
The Parkway is a national treasure. Its 469 miles of spectacular
vistas, mature forests, pristine streams and hiking trails attract
nearly 20 million visitors per year to North Carolina and Virginia. Yet
the Parkway is an extremely fragile ribbon, and its scenic, cultural,
and natural integrity are threatened by development. In most places,
the Parkway's land corridor is only 800 feet wide, and most of the
property that makes up its views is privately owned, vulnerable to
development at a moment's notice.
In recent years, unplanned rampant growth along the Parkway has
denuded forests, choked streams with silt, destroyed wildlife habitat,
and ruined scenery with new subdivisions, roads, and shopping centers.
In a survey, over 80 percent of Parkway visitors said that the main
reason they visit is to see the vistas. The survey also found that if
scenic quality declines, 22 percent of North Carolina respondents and
26 percent of Virginia respondents would reduce their number of visits
to the Parkway. Many said they would not return at all.
Clearly, people travel to the Parkway to see the views. The best
way to protect those vistas is to conserve the lands that comprise
them.
Second, the Parkway is one of the strongest economic engines in the
region, providing $2.3 billion per year to local communities. Visitors
spend between $149 and $172 per person per day at the Parkway. Clearly,
protecting the Blue Ridge Parkway is critical to future economic growth
in neighboring communities. The growing tourism industry depends on a
healthy Parkway. The furniture and textile industries have been hit
hard in the mountains. Those jobs are gone, and aren't coming back. We
can't afford to allow the tourism industry to suffer the same fate as
manufacturing, so we must conserve the Parkway--the backbone of tourism
in this region.
Let me give you a couple of examples that show how fundamental the
Parkway is to economic growth for dozens of towns up and down its
length. Whenever a section of the Parkway is temporarily closed for
repairs or by snow, the Parkway receives numerous anxious phone calls
from inn and restaurant owners. They want to know how soon the road
will be reopened because their businesses are taking a hit. Imagine if
10 percent or 20 percent fewer visitors came to the Parkway each year.
We know from the Park Service survey that declines of that magnitude
could take place if the views alone were degraded. This would devastate
local businesses--outfitters, restaurants, guides, attractions, inns
and hotels--that depend on tourists.
Or take the Orchard at Altapass. This historic apple orchard and
general store sits adjacent to the Parkway about an hour north of
Asheville. It's a hub of activity in spring, summer and fall. It's a
place where locals come to clog to live music, visit with their friends
from neighboring hollows, purchase from among 75 varieties of delicious
apples, and grab an ice cream cone when it's hot. It's a place where
tourists flock, especially in the fall, to see stunning views of
mountain foliage from the store's patio. On one weekend alone last fall
the orchard had 6,000 visitors. I can guarantee you that those numbers
would have been cut by half or more, had the views been developed.
Fortunately, CTNC helped broker a deal with the landowner, CSX
Railroad, and the state of North Carolina that placed a conservation
easement on nearly 1,500 acres adjacent to the orchard. Not only will
the views be protected forever, but so will jobs at the orchard and in
nearby tourism-dependent towns such as Spruce Pine and Little
Switzerland.
Third, the Parkway contains important natural areas that should be
protected and expanded. The Parkway is home to the headwaters of 15
watersheds and contains some 600 miles of pristine streams. Protecting
water at the source means that downstream communities pay less to
supply clean drinking water to their residents. The Parkway also
contains 43 species of amphibians, over 1600 species of plants, and
nine federally listed threatened or endangered species. Juxtaposed with
those numbers is the number of the Parkway's adjacent landowners--
roughly 4,500. The Parkway has surveyed the 29 counties to determine
what plans they have for development, and based on that, believes that
development will become an even more pressing problem in the years to
come. Adding more acres to the Parkway would ensure that wildlife
habitat is protected and not fragmented.
Fourth, this bill is urgently needed due to the effects of the
recession. For one thing, there is less state funding available for
conservation projects on the Parkway. And, on the flip side, there is
more land available to conserve, for less money, due to falling real
estate prices and distressed properties coming onto the market. For
instance, CTNC was able to purchase a 534-acre conservation property at
a discount at the very end of 2008. And, we're currently negotiating
with a bank to purchase a foreclosed property. We have an outstanding
opportunity to buy Parkway land, but it won't last indefinitely. While
development has slowed during the recession, its pace was furious
before then, and will no doubt pick up again with the economy. There's
no time to waste.
Fifth, the Parkway is celebrating its 75th anniversary in 2010,
culminating in September. Passage of the Blue Ridge Parkway Protection
Act and appropriation of funding would be a fitting way to mark the
anniversary of this hugely popular but chronically underfunded jewel of
the national parks system.
Seventy-five years ago, the United States faced an economic crisis
much like the one we're in today. Rather than lock away its money, the
federal government invested--funding public works programs that not
only put hundreds of thousands of people to work, but created,
protected and promoted some of the nation's best-loved places,
including the Blue Ridge Parkway. The Parkway has been an unqualified
success. Continued federal investment in the Parkway is a must to
assure that it will thrive for generations to come.
Fortunately, North Carolina and Virginia lawmakers have taken the
lead on legislation to help save the Blue Ridge Parkway's majestic
views and natural areas. I want to thank Representatives Shuler, Price,
Boucher and Perriello, and Senators Burr, Hagan, Warner and Webb for
their leadership in introducing the Blue Ridge Parkway Protection Act.
This legislation is desperately needed because a lack of funding has
been a critical barrier to protecting the Parkway's forests, streams
and vistas.
The bill is straightforward. Here are the highlights.
It would authorize $75 million over five years, beginning
in FY 2010-11, to purchase fee simple properties and conservation
easements along the Parkway, towards a goal of protecting an additional
50,000 acres.
All transactions would be done with willing landowners.
Nothing would be taken by eminent domain claims.
The Blue Ridge Parkway's Land Protection Plan, which is
revised regularly, would guide decisions about which properties are the
highest priority to be preserved. Only properties listed in the Land
Protection Plan would be eligible to receive funding.
Any lands or easements purchased would have to be
adjacent to the Parkway.
The bill would enable the Park Service to work in
partnership with non-profit conservation organizations to conserve
priority properties. Usually these land trusts can move more quickly
than the federal government to purchase a property or easement. The
land trusts could buy the land or easement, hold it, protect it and
manage it until the Park Service could supply funding to the land
trust. The bill would ensure that these non-profits are reimbursed by
the government after purchasing the properties or easements on behalf
of the Park Service.
No purchase would be made over appraised value.
All fee simple purchases would be conveyed to the
National Park Service and added to the Parkway's boundaries as soon as
feasible. All properties with conservation easements would continue in
private ownership, and easements would be held, monitored and enforced
by a land trust, the National Park Service or an appropriate state
agency--whichever approach is preferred by the Park Service.
Passage of this bill and subsequent appropriations would constitute
a critical investment in the Blue Ridge Parkway's scenic, natural, and
cultural vitality, and in the future economic well-being and quality of
life of North Carolina and Virginia. Although the funds provided by the
Blue Ridge Parkway Protection Act would not be used for traditional
brick and mortar projects, they would provide a long-term stimulus for
small businesses throughout the Blue Ridge Mountains to maintain jobs
that depend on tourism.
We understand that the National Park Service has some concerns
about the bill as drafted, specifically about the mechanism for
providing the funding for specific properties. From my conversations
with the staff of the bill's lead sponsors, it is clear that there is a
strong desire to work with the Park Service to resolve these issues and
improve the overall bill. CTNC and other land trusts that work along
the Parkway are similarly eager to work toward language that is
acceptable to all.
We all share a sense of responsibility to pass on to future
generations clean rivers and streams, abundant wildlife habitat, ample
opportunities to enjoy the outdoors, and a sound economy--in short, a
high quality of life. The Blue Ridge Parkway Protection Act would help
achieve all of those goals for those who come after us.
I respectfully urge you to pass this important legislation and to
work with the Appropriations Committee to secure funding in the FY
2010-11 budget and beyond. Our nation faces extraordinary budget
constraints, but--as it did 75 years ago--this relatively small
investment will save a treasured landscape at bargain prices and ensure
that jobs are created and maintained in a region of the country with
chronic high unemployment.
Thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me just quickly ask
the panel some questions. Ms. Small, would you like to respond
to the National Park Service's position on H.R. 3425?
Ms. Small. Chairman, I am not aware of any opposition from
the National Park Service, and if they have any concerns, we
certainly would look forward to working with them regarding
such.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Thank you. The San Antonio Missions, and
you mentioned the river and its completion, the restoration
completion coming up in 2013, I think you said?
Ms. Chandoha. 2013, yes.
Mr. Grijalva. How is your vision for what we are talking
about today, the missions, and the completion of that, those
efforts to restore the river, how do you see the connection
between the two?
Ms. Chandoha. The connection is extremely important and it
is also very, very historic. The five San Antonio missions
which were established beginning in 1718, and in 1720, San
Jose, Concepcion, Espada, and San Juan, in 1731, were all
established in San Antonio specifically for the river.
They were each established along the San Antonio River and
had life sustaining ties to it, for each mission would go
upstream, build a diversion dam, and then dig their Acequia or
irrigation system that would provide water for the vast
farmlands outside the mission, and for the inhabitants who
lived inside the mission compound.
So the river and the missions were symbiotic. They were so
connected. In the 1960s, flood control work was done in the
southern portion of the river, which rechanneled the river,
straightened it up, made it into an ugly trapezoidal type
cavern almost, and all the ties, the visual ties, and the
physical ties with the missions were cut off.
Back in 1975 when the National Park Service did its
feasibility study, they said that they didn't think it could be
a national park because of the expense of reassociating,
reconnecting the missions to the river.
However, the citizens of Bexar County continued lobbying
and Congress created the National Park in 1978, but
unfortunately, like I said earlier, its smaller, and it is a
little bit disjointed. It is not a continuous park land, and we
still didn't have that connection to the river.
San Antonio, Bexar County, continued to work to bring this
historical connection back, and passed the venue tax, $271
million, and now that complete section of the river, from
downtown, all the way down to Mission Espada, is being
restored. It is an ecorestoration project.
But an integral part of it is that there will be four
mission portals that will have visual contact and hiking
elements between the river and the mission.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Ms. Chandoha. I would also like----
Mr. Grijalva. I need to ask some other questions.
Ms. Chandoha. Oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Grijalva. Otherwise, my time will run out, and I won't
be able to comment. Well, anyway, in terms of San Antonio and
my visits there, I want to congratulate you and all the people
that have worked on restoration efforts, whether that be the
river, the missions, to preserve that history and blend it with
a modern city is very, very--it is a great model, and I want to
congratulate the work that you have done.
Ms. Chandoha. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. I don't have any other questions for the rest
of the witnesses, other than to turn it over to Mr. Brown, in
case he does.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The witnesses have been
very forthcoming with their testimony, and I have no further
questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much for the hearing, and the
clarity of your testimony was very useful and very helpful, and
I look forward to working with you and the Minority Leader on
these bills. We don't know what the result will be, but we will
work closely together. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me thank the panel,
each one of you bringing important testimony, and good pieces
of legislation, and I will certainly work with my colleagues
who are the sponsors of this to see where we go from here.
And thank you for the patience, and particularly the last
witness, who said I am the last one, and I am going to have to
wait the longest. Thank you very much. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]