[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 241, H.R. 290, H.R. 320,
H.R. 441, H.R. 643, H.R. 686,
H.R. 765, H.R. 850, H.R. 944,
H.R. 1022, AND H.R. 1141
=======================================================================
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 TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-28
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-206 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Tom McClintock, CA Betty Sutton, OH
David Rivera, FL Niki Tsongas, MA
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, May 4, 2011........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 686........................... 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 765........................... 2
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, Prepared statement of.................... 3
Sablan, Hon. Gregorio, a Delegate in Congress from the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Prepared
statement on H.R. 1141..................................... 4
Young, Hon. Don, the Representative in Congress for the State
of Alaska.................................................. 35
Prepared statement on H.R. 441........................... 35
Statement of Witnesses:
Bachmann, Hon. Michele, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 14
Prepared statement on H.R. 850........................... 16
Beaudet, Hon. David A., Mayor, City of Oak Park Heights,
Minnesota.................................................. 37
Prepared statement on H.R. 850........................... 38
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 320........................... 8
Campbell, Hon. John a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Oral statement on H.R. 944............ 9
Ganz, Beth, Vice President of Public Affairs and
Sustainability, Vail Resorts, Colorado..................... 31
Prepared statement on H.R. 765........................... 32
Geissler, Curt, President, Lakeview Hospital, Stillwater,
Minnesota.................................................. 44
Prepared statement on H.R. 850........................... 46
Harycki, Hon. Ken, Mayor, City of Stillwater, Minnesota...... 40
Prepared statement on H.R. 850........................... 42
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 290........................... 6
McCollum, Hon. Betty, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota, Statement submitted for the record on
H.R. 850................................................... 58
Letter from Hon. Will Rossbach, Mayor, City of Maplewood,
Minnesota, submitted for the record.................... 60
Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 643........................... 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 765........................... 11
Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 13
Prepared statement on H.R. 1022.......................... 13
Wagner, Mary, Associate Chief, Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.................................. 29
Prepared statement on H.R. 241, H.R. 643, and H.R. 765... 30
Whitesell, Stephen E., Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 290........................... 20
Prepared statement on H.R. 320........................... 21
Prepared statement on H.R. 441........................... 21
Prepared statement on H.R. 686........................... 22
Prepared statement on H.R. 850........................... 23
Prepared statement on H.R. 944........................... 25
Prepared statement on H.R. 1022.......................... 26
Prepared statement on H.R. 1141.......................... 28
Additional materials supplied:
Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Statement submitted for the record on
H.R. 241................................................... 55
Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin, Statement submitted for the record on H.R.
850........................................................ 56
List of documents retained in the Committee's official files. 57
Rossbach, Hon. Will, Mayor, City of Maplewood, Minnesota,
Letter submitted for the record by Congresswoman Betty
McCollum................................................... 60
Schutt, Aaron, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer, Doyon, Limited, Statement submitted for the record
on H.R. 441................................................ 60
(IV)
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 241, TO AUTHORIZE THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN THE LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST
IN CALIFORNIA; H.R. 290, ``WAR MEMORIAL PROTECTION ACT''; H.R.
320, ``DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS NATIONAL MONUMENT''; H.R.
441, ``KANTISHNA HILLS RENEWABLE ENERGY ACT OF 2011''; H.R.
643, ``SUGAR LOAF FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT LAND EXCHANGE ACT'';
H.R. 686, ``UTAH NATIONAL GUARD READINESS ACT''; H.R. 765,
``SKI AREA RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2011'';
H.R. 850, TO FACILITATE A PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE LOWER ST.
CROIX WILD AND SCENIC RIVER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 944,
TO ELIMINATE AN UNUSED LIGHTHOUSE RESERVATION, PROVIDE
MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY BY INCORPORATING THE ROCKS AND SMALL
ISLANDS ALONG THE COAST OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, INTO THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGED BY THE BUREAU OF
LAND MANAGEMENT, AND MEET THE ORIGINAL CONGRESSIONAL INTENT OF
PRESERVING ORANGE COUNTY'S ROCKS AND SMALL ISLANDS, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1022, ``BUFFALO SOLDIERS IN THE NATIONAL
PARKS STUDY ACT''; AND H.R. 1141, ``ROTA CULTURAL AND NATURAL
RESOURCES STUDY ACT''.
----------
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
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 10:03 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Lamborn, Rivera, Grijalva,
Kildee and Garamendi.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair
notes the presence of a quorum which is outnumbered by the
witnesses, but that is OK.
The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public
Lands is meeting today to hear testimony on several bills that
fall within our jurisdiction. Today's hearing will cover a
large number of bills; many are non-controversial, several have
already passed the House in previous Congresses.
Under the rules, opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and the Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous
consent to include any other Members' opening statements in the
hearing record if submitted to the Clerk by the close of
business today. Hearing no objections, so ordered.
I will actually forego my opening statement in order to go
right to this and recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva,
if he has an opening statement.
[The prepared statements of Chairman Bishop follow:]
Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Utah, on H.R. 686
This bill passed the House by voice vote last Congress. It was
requested by the Adjutant General of the Utah National Guard and is co-
sponsored by Mr. Matheson and Mr. Chaffetz.
The Utah National Guard is one of only a few states that met its
recruiting and retention goals for the past several years. As a result,
it is increasing its force structure end-strength by almost 600
personnel. In part because of this steady progress, the Utah Guard has
run out of fee land.
This land transfer will open access to property along the major
transportation corridor with all the utilities and services necessary
to support expanded military use. This proximity to the main
transportation corridor means fewer and shorter new road networks are
required and the environmental impact of development and use by the
Guard lessened.
The lands transferred under this act are already withdrawn for
military use by the Guard. Placing the land in the State's name for use
by the National Guard consolidates ownership patterns in the
headquarters area and allows the State of Utah to bond for future Guard
facilities.
The Utah National Guard already owns and operates several
buildings, an air traffic control tower, and a tactical airfield on
portions of this property. Transfer of title to these lands expedites
the building and expansion of Camp Williams training facilities and
reduces their cost.
______
Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Utah, on H.R. 765
H.R. 765, the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act
also has extensive bi-partisan support. It will create jobs and
encourage wholesome, family outdoor recreation by giving the U.S.
Forest Service authority to permit year-round activities and expand the
range of snow sports at ski resorts on National Forest System lands.
H.R. 765 updates the Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 to reflect the
range of recreational activities that are taking place today. Change is
needed to recognize that newer sports such as snowboarding are now
enjoyed in addition to alpine and nordic skiing.
Additionally, the bill would authorize the Forest Service to allow
year-round activities beyond the winter months. These changes will
bring increased stability to seasonal economies and provide additional
job opportunities throughout our mountain communities.
Year-round activities make better use of the existing
infrastructure. Many resort communities have four-season visitor
facilities but do not offer a full range of four-season activities.
Utah is a premier winter recreation destination and offers some of
the best skiing in the world. The same mountains and unique geography
that draw visitors from around the globe each winter also offer a vast
array of off-season recreational opportunities.
Although Congress can't create jobs, we can act to lessen the
governmental restraints that stand in the way of job creation. The
American people are not currently receiving the full recreational or
economic benefits our vast system of public lands can provide and this
bill is a step in the right direction.
Under H.R. 765, the Forest Service will continue to have discretion
in decision-making on site-specific proposals for summer or year-round
facilities. The Forest Service will also collect permit fees for
revenues generated from summer and year round activities at ski areas.
Similar legislation passed out of the House in the 111th Congress
and was reported out favorably by the Senate Committee on Energy &
Natural Resources. However it, like many other public lands bills,
failed to clear the Senate by the end of the Congress.
The ski bill has bipartisan, bicameral support. Diana DeGette
introduced it in the last Congress and Senators John Barrasso and Mark
Udall are supporters in the Senate.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. I will forego the statement and thank you for
that, Mr. Chairman, and we can proceed with our colleagues. As
you indicated, 8 of the 11 measures have gone through the
process. There is one piece of legislation, I think H.R. 850,
that will require additional scrutiny. And then we will go
through that process.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bishop. I want to thank our colleagues and the other
witnesses who have agreed to testify today on the 11 bills that
are on the Committee's agenda. And that is, as I said, a lot to
get covered.
I will say for those who are here I realize you have tight
time schedules, you have other commitments. So we will go
through the testimony of the witnesses who are here on their
particular bills. Then I intend to bring up the other witnesses
and go through each bill in order. If you would like to stay to
that time when your bill is discussed by both the
Administration and the other witnesses you are welcome to stay.
You are welcome to come back. We will try to be as
accommodating as possible with that.
So the first panel will be the sponsors of today's bills.
We will give you an opportunity to make a five-minute statement
on behalf of the legislation. I ask--actually, Mr. Calvert, you
are happy where you are?
Mr. Calvert. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. OK. We are not trying to discriminate against
you and put you over on the other side. But you have experience
in this room so I thought it is fitting. It is fitting.
I will ask our colleagues to take their seats. And if
others show up and they cannot fit on there, we will just take
on the horseshoe at the same time.
Let me do two things first of all. H.R. 241 is introduced
by Mr. Gallegly who is not able to be with us today. The bill
authorizes a small land conveyance affecting the Los Padres
National Forest. And the bill passed in the House last year but
was not taken up in the Senate. Mr. Gallegly has submitted a
written statement explaining the legislation. I ask unanimous
consent that that be included in the record.
Hearing no objection.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Grijalva, I think you have one also for
Mr.----
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. The testimony, the opening statement for
Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Bishop. You are not on.
OK, without objection, Mr. Sablan is not here, and we will
ask that his opening statement be included in the record.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Without objection. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, a Delegate
in Congress from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, on
H.R. 1141
Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva,
Thank you for placing my bill H.R. 1141, the Rota Cultural and
Natural Resources Study Act, on the Subcommittee's agenda today and for
allowing me to share my thoughts with the Subcommittee on this bill and
ask for support of H.R. 1141.
H.R. 1141 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to study the
suitability and feasibility of designating certain areas of
prehistoric, historic, and natural significance on the island of Rota
in the Northern Mariana Islands as a unit of the National Park System.
As you know, this is a necessary step before Congress decides to
designate any unit as part of the National Park System.
The bill has garnered bi-partisan support in the House of
Representatives for two consecutive sessions, support from local
leaders representing the island of Rota, and support by the National
Park Service.
In the 111th Congress, the House of Representatives approved the
Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act, H.R. 4686, under a
suspension of the Rules in July last year. There was no objection or
controversy to the bill as it made through the House. Unfortunately,
the other body did not have time on its agenda before the 111th
Congress ended.
The leaders of Rota unanimously support the study. With your
permission, I am requesting to submit in the record the written letters
of support from Honorable Teresita Santos, Rota's representative in the
Northern Mariana Islands House of Representatives, NMI Senate President
Paul Manglona, who also represents the people of Rota, and Mayor of
Rota, Mr. Melchor Mendiola. These leaders understand that Rota is at a
crossroads because major land use changes are possible resulting from
the development by the U.S. military on the neighboring island of Guam.
This development is bound to spill over to Rota, as military families
look for weekend getaways to Rota's beaches and waters. The process of
public input and discussion and the cataloguing of the natural and
cultural resources will help the people of Rota determine which areas
can be and need be protected. Moreover, these protected areas could be
enhanced as eco-tourism destinations--places where cultural resources
are respected and natural resources remain unspoiled.
Finally, it is important to note that the National Park Service
reconnaissance survey completed in 2005 recommended that the cultural
and natural resources are truly of national significance and that the
appropriate next step is a suitability and feasibility study.
Again I would like to thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva for their steadfast leadership and for understanding the
importance of this bill. I ask that my colleagues support the Rota
Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act.
______
Mr. Bishop. All right. Let us go to the other bills. And I
see in the order of them written down here, first Mr. Hunter,
H.R. 290, War Memorial Protection Act is introduced by Mr.
Hunter. If you would like to proceed, you know the details.
There is the five-minute clock. You can see that.
STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,----
Mr. Bishop. Thanks.
Mr. Hunter.--for the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee today on the topic of my legislation, H.R. 290,
the War Memorial Protection Act. Also, I thank Ranking Member
Grijalva and the other members of the Committee. Mr. Kildee,
thank you for your interest in what is an important issue to
the San Diego community and our nation's military families and
veterans across the country from Arlington National Cemetery to
Fort Rosecrans.
In San Diego America's veterans are honored by headstones,
monuments and memorials which serve to remind us all about the
traditions, service and sacrifice that is ingrained in our
history. Some of these markers and memorials display symbols of
personal faith, including emblems that represent Christians,
Buddhists, Mormons, Muslims and Atheists. The military is
comprised of a diverse population of individuals. Something
that is clear to anyone who walks through a national cemetery,
anything like Arlington Cemetery.
Personal faith is an important part of military life. It
guides individuals through some of the toughest and most
dangerous situations they will ever face. My time in the United
States Marine Corps, serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan, help
strengthen my own perspective. Marines, as do soldiers, sailors
and airmen, often rely on their faith during long absences from
home, and when the world is exploding around them. There is not
much else in combat. And it is perhaps the biggest reason why
crosses, for instance, are such common fixtures within the
gates of national cemeteries and predominantly displayed on war
memorials.
But in San Diego, home to the Mount Soledad Veterans'
Memorial, this meaning and intent has been misidentified. The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the 43 foot
cross that sits atop the 2,700 black plaques is
unconstitutional. Each plaque on the memorial, now under the
ownership of the Department of Defense, tells a unique story of
military service and shared sacrifice. Some show religious
symbols of their own. The memorial was originally dedicated as
a Korean War Veterans Memorial in 1952, but has since evolved
into a standing testament to all American war heroes. The
memorial honors uniformed members from all service branches,
including the Coast Guard and Merchant Marines, who served
during World War II. Several years ago, a legal challenge was
initiated against the memorial alleging the presence of the
cross serves as an endorsement of religion. The challenge also
alleged the transference of the property to the Federal
Government under Public Law 109-272, enacted in 2006, was in
violation of the law.
In 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns ruled that
the cross represented only one element a much larger memorial
dedicated to our military. Because of this ruling, the memorial
has remained intact despite ongoing litigation. The memorial
now faces an uncertain future, at the direction of the Ninth
Circuit.
Still I am confident that as legal action proceeds,
including the option of consideration by the Supreme Court, any
final decision will properly acknowledge the memorial's purpose
for honoring generations of military service. Beyond the Mount
Soledad Memorial ruling and possibly future instances of
judicial activism along the same line underscores an existing
threat to the preservation of war memorials.
In cases where religious elements are present, the fact
that these monuments stand as symbols of military service and
sacrifice does not change--as much as a few individuals might
try to misconstrue their meaning. The War Memorial Protection
Act ensures this is not the case by creating a foundation in
Federal law for the inclusion of religious symbols, all
religious symbols, on war memorials. It should not matter if it
is a cross, a Star of David, or a Wiccan symbol--which are
among the 46 authorized emblems of belief through the
Department of Veterans Affairs, War Memorials, including those
with religious symbols deserve to be protected for what they
are, testaments to military service.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here
today. This is an important bill that resonates with veterans
and families across America, and I look forward to working with
you and our colleagues in the interest of ensuring that our
veterans are rightly honored for their defense of our freedom.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Duncan Hunter, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 290
Thank you Chairman Bishop for the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee today on the topic of my legislation, H.R. 290, the War
Memorial Protection Act. Also, thank you Ranking Member Grijalva and
the other members of the committee for your interest in what is an
important issue to the San Diego community and our nation's military
families and veterans.
Across the country, from Arlington National Cemetery to Fort
Rosecrans in San Diego, America's veterans are honored by headstones,
monuments and memorials which serve to remind us all about the
tradition, service and sacrifice that is engrained in our history. Some
of these markers and memorials display symbols of personal faith,
including emblems that represent Christians, Buddhists, Mormons,
Muslims and Atheists.
The military is comprised of a diverse population of individuals--
something that is clear to anyone who walks through a national
cemetery. Personal faith is an important part of military life. It
guides individuals through some of the toughest and most dangerous
situations they will ever face.
My time in the Marine Corps, serving in both in Iraq and
Afghanistan, helped strengthen my own perspective. Marines--as do
soldiers, sailors and airmen--often rely on their faith during long
absences from home and when the world is exploding around them. There's
not much else in war. And it's perhaps the biggest reason why crosses,
for instance, are such common fixtures within the gates of national
cemeteries and predominantly displayed on war memorials.
But, in San Diego, home to the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial,
this meaning and intent has been misidentified. The Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals recently ruled that the 43-foot cross that sits atop 2,700
black plaques is unconstitutional.
Each plaque on the Memorial--now under the ownership of the
Department of Defense--tells a unique story of military service and
shared sacrifice. Some show religious symbols of their own.
The Memorial was originally dedicated as a Korean War Veterans
Memorial in 1952, but has since evolved into a standing testament to
all American war heroes. The Memorial honors uniformed members from all
service branches, including the Coast Guard and Merchant Marines who
served during World War II.
Several years ago, a legal challenge was initiated against the
Memorial, alleging the presence of the cross serves as an endorsement
of religion. The challenge also alleged that the transference of the
property to the federal government under P.L. 109-272, enacted in 2006,
was in violation of the law. In 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Larry
Burns ruled that the cross represented only one element of a much
larger memorial dedicated to our military. Because of this ruling, the
Memorial has remained intact despite ongoing litigation.
The Memorial now faces an uncertain future at the direction of the
Ninth Circuit. Still, I'm confident that as legal action proceeds,
including the option of consideration by the Supreme Court, any final
decision will properly acknowledge the Memorial's purpose of honoring
generations of military service.
Beyond the Mount Soledad Memorial, the Ninth Circuit ruling and
possibly future instances of judicial activism along the same line
underscores an existing threat to the preservation of war memorials. In
cases where religious elements are present, the fact that these
monuments stand as symbols of military service and sacrifice does not
change--as much as a few individuals might try to misconstrue their
meaning.
The War Memorial Protection Act ensures this is not the case, by
creating a foundation in federal law for the inclusion of religious
symbols on war memorials. It shouldn't matter if it's a cross, Star of
David or Wiccan symbol, which are among the 46 authorized emblems of
belief through the Department of Veterans Affairs. War memorials,
including those with religious symbols, deserve to be protected for
what they are: testaments to military service.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. This
is an important bill that resonates with veterans and military families
across America. I look forward to working with you and our colleagues
in the interest of ensuring our veterans are rightly honored for their
defense of freedom.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate it.
Representative Calvert is here with H.R. 320, the
``Distinguished Flying Cross National Monument'' bill. He has
been here before with this bill. It has been passed by our
Congress. It has not been funded nor passed in the Senate yet.
I am still not quite sure why our Committee keeps getting this
particular bill, but we like it. So if you would, you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking
Member Grijalva and distinguished members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As a former
member of the Natural Resources Committee, I am happy to be
back among friends to talk about H.R. 320, a bill to designate
a National Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial. I am seeking
your support for the legislation. I am honored to represent the
Inland Empire Chapter of the Distinguished Flying Cross
Society, which is the primary sponsor of the memorial.
I introduced H.R. 320, which would designate a memorial
which is currently under construction at March Field Air Museum
in Riverside, California, as a Distinguished Flying Cross
National Memorial. It honors all current and former members of
the Armed Forces who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying
Cross. The bill has strong support, with over 25 cosponsors.
The legislation is supported by the Distinguished Flying Cross
Society, the Military Officers Association of America, the Air
Force Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the
Viet Nam Helicopter Pilots Association, and the China-Burma-
India Veterans Association.
I would like to point out that language in the bill
specifically states the designation shall not be construed,
require or permit Federal funds to be expended for any purpose
related to the national memorial. Funds have been and will
continue to be raised through private means for this purpose.
Distinguished Flying Cross recipients have received the
prestigious medal for their heroism and extraordinary
achievement while participating in aerial flight while serving
in the capacity of the United States Armed Forces.
There are many well-known people who played a vital role in
the history of military aviation and received the award. This
group includes Captain Charles L. Lindbergh, former President
George H. W. Bush, Brigadier General Jimmy Doolittle, General
Curtis LeMay, Senator McCain, Jimmy Stewart, Admiral Jim
Stockdale, just to name a few. March Air Force Reserve Base,
which hosts the C-17As of the 452 Air Mobility Wing is adjacent
to the location of the memorial at the March Field Air Museum--
which, by the way, is the third oldest airfield in the United
States. When completed, visitors will be able to witness active
operational air units providing support to the troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan which is an appropriate setting that honors the
many aviators who have distinguished themselves by the deeds
performed in aerial flight. The memorial will be topped by a 2-
foot by 2-foot Distinguished Flying Cross of polished bronze
and models of the Spirit of St. Louis and Loening OA-1A
amphibian aircraft. The OA-1A was chosen because the Pan
American Good Will flights were made in five OA-1A aircraft by
10 pilots between 1926 and 1927. The pilots were the first
recipients of the Distinguished Flying Certificate from
President Calvin Coolidge.
Again thank you. I hope you will support the designation of
the National Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial at March Air
Museum and H.R. 320 and hopefully we will get it through the
Senate, our friends on the other side of the building.
Thank you and have a good day.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, on H.R. 320
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and distinguished Members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As a
former Member of the Natural Resources Committee I'm happy to be back
among friends to talk about H.R. 320, a bill to designate a national
Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial. I am seeking your support for the
legislation.
I am honored to represent the Inland Empire Chapter of the
Distinguished Flying Cross Society which is the primary sponsor of the
memorial. I introduced H.R. 320 which would designate a memorial, which
is currently under construction at March Field Air Museum, in
Riverside, California, as the Distinguished Flying Cross National
Memorial. It honors all current and former members of the armed forces
who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.
The bill has strong bipartisan support with 25 cosponsors. The
legislation is supported by the Distinguished Flying Cross Society,
Military Officers Association of America, the Air Force Association,
Air Force Sergeants Association, the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots
Association, and the China Burma Indian Veterans Association. I'd like
to point out language in the bill that specifically states that the
designation shall not be construed to require or permit federal funds
to be expended for any purpose related to the national memorial. Funds
have been and will continue to be raised through private means for
these purposes.
Distinguished Flying Cross recipients have received the prestigious
medal for their heroism or extraordinary achievement while
participating in aerial flight while serving in any capacity with the
U.S. Armed Forces. There are many well known people that have played a
vital role in the history of military aviation and have received the
award This group includes: Captain Charles L. Lindbergh, former
President George H. W. Bush, Brigadier General Jimmy Doolittle, General
Curtis Lemay, Senator McCain, Jimmy Stewart and Admiral Jim Stockdale
to name just a few.
The March Air Reserve Base, which hosts the C-17As of the 452nd Air
Mobility Wing is adjacent to the location of the memorial at the March
Field Air Museum. When completed, visitors will be able to witness
active operational air units providing support to our troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan, which is an appropriate setting that honors the many
aviators who have distinguished themselves by deeds performed in aerial
flight.
The memorial will be topped by a two foot by two foot Distinguished
Flying Cross of polished bronze and models of the Spirit of Saint Louis
and a Loening OA-1A amphibian aircraft. The OA-1A was chosen because
the Pan-American Goodwill Flights were made in five OA-1A aircraft by
ten pilots between 1926 and 1927. The pilots were the first receipts of
the Distinguished Flying Certificate from President Calvin Coolidge.
Again, I hope you will join me in supporting the designation of the
National Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial at the March Field Air
Museum and H.R. 320. Thank you.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that, Congressman
Calvert.
H.R. 944 is introduced by Mr. Campbell. It removes a 70-
year-old reservation affecting several islands and rocks on the
coast of Orange County, California. Mr. Campbell.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CAMPBELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this is one of
those bills, as you mentioned, that passed this Committee and
this House by voice vote last year, but the Senate ran out of
time and so it was never taken up in the Senate. So we are
reintroducing this year.
What this bill does is, there are about 40-odd rocks, for
lack of a better term. That is a picture of one. They are all
two acres or smaller in size, but they are like big rocks, off
the Orange County coast, which since the early 1930s have been
under the purview of the Coast Guard for possible use as
lighthouses or during World War II for possible use as gun
emplacements against Japanese submarines.
Neither of those uses are currently under any
consideration. The Coast Guard no longer needs them. What this
bill would do is transfer them from the Coast Guard to the
California Coastal National Monument. There are 20,000 other
similar such rocks up and down the California coastline which
are currently a part of the California Coastal National
Monument, but these 40-plus never got transferred. So, what
this bill would do is transfer them to that Monument and
protect them for enjoyment and beauty and wildlife in the
future. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. I appreciate it. Once
again, if you need to go, you can go. If you would like to stay
when the other testimony comes for your bill, you are welcome
to do that as well.
H.R. 643, the ``Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land
Exchange Act.'' Could you get more words in there, Mr. Polis?
Mr. Polis, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JARED POLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva. I am glad to see my colleague from Colorado, Mr.
Lamborn, on the panel as well this morning. I want to begin by
thanking the Committee for considering this bill, H.R. 643. I
will also briefly address H.R. 765.
Let me begin by thanking the Committee for working last
year and for unanimity with both Members and staff. That work
resulted in both Committee and House passage by a voice vote.
And, there is really no controversy involved with H.R. 643.
Since the inception of the Sugar Loaf Fire District in
1967, their physical home has been an existing building on U.S.
Forest Service land which they have a special use permit for.
Now, while that special use permit is very valuable, and it has
allowed it to operate, it is really critical that they have the
autonomy to direct their own future and modernize their
facility. So I would point out that one occurrence since the
last time this bill came before the Committee is there has
actually been devastating fires in the area. So these firemen
and firewomen have been extremely heroic, putting their own
lives at risk and many of the members of the fire department
themselves have lost their homes in a recent fire, several
months ago.
And yet, because this is located on Federal land, they are
not even allowed to upgrade their facilities to include a
bathroom for use by the fire department. So, it is just a basic
need.
Last year Mr. John Winchester, our Battalion Chief for the
Sugar Loaf Fire District, was able to attend the hearing and
offer testimony. Unfortunately, he is not able to attend this
year. He is still at work, recovering from the forest fire and
helping the area restore. And he has served over 20 years with
the department, and without objection, I would like to enter
into the record his testimony from last year?
Mr. Bishop. So ordered.
Mr. Polis. Thank you.
And finally, a Senate companion bill was marked up last
Congress with changes suggested in the hearing by the U.S.
Forest Service and the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District.
Specifically, the Forest Service asks that the 120-day timeline
be expanded to one year to conform with existing law. And the
modifications to the structure wait until the exchange has
taken place. Those changes and requests were included in the
introduced versions of the bill in both Chambers and are the
same as the bill that passed the Committee and the full House.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to briefly address H.R.
765, the ``Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act.''
My district in Colorado, as Mr. Lamborn knows, is
internationally acclaimed for its many resort communities,
including Vail, Keystone, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, and
Winter Park. What this bill will do is allow for increased
summer visitation in a correct way that really balances the
environmental and educational benefits to allow resorts like
Vail and many others to successfully attract tourists and build
the facilities to do so in the summer as well as winter. I
can't emphasize to the Committee enough that time is of the
essence for this bill. Again, this bill passed the entire House
by voice vote last year and that enacting this bill sooner
rather than later directly translates into jobs in the state
that Mr. Lamborn and I call home. Of course, while I would
certainly argue that my Congressional District and Colorado as
a whole is second to none for outdoor recreation, this issue is
not just a Colorado issue. In fact, it is an issue for every
ski area and every ski community be it from California to New
Hampshire. Over 120 resorts and the businesses and communities
they support would benefit from increased summer activities
within current ski areas. This legislation represents a needed
change for our land management and an important opportunity to
create jobs in our district. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify on these bills today, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Polis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jared Polis, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Colorado, on H.R. 643
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members of the
Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment in support of H.R. 643,
The Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange Act of 2011.
Let me begin by thanking the Committee for considering this bill,
as it did with great unanimity last year thanks to the work of many of
the same members and staff here today. That work resulted in both
Committee and House passage by a simple voice vote. The unanimity with
which the Committee and the House have considered this bill in the past
is telling of its foundation in common sense and local community need.
Since the inception of the Sugar Loaf Fire District in 1967, their
physical home has been in an existing building on U.S. Forest Service
land under a special use permit. Later, a second building was
constructed under another special use permit, both in important
locations for accessibility to the few central roads in this
mountainous area.
While these special use permits have been incredibly valuable the
Department must have the autonomy to better self-direct its future and
the ability to modernize its facilities. Specifically, many of you may
recall that this fire station serves a growing population and has
become a community meeting location. Yet, because it is located on
federal land, it can't even upgrade its existing facilities to include
a bathroom for use by the fire department or during community events.
Last year, John Winchester, a battalion chief with the Sugar Loaf
Fire Department, was able to attend the hearing and offer testimony.
Unfortunately, he is unable to attend this year, but I would like to
enter into the record his written testimony from last year. In his over
20 years with the Department, he has served four terms as fire chief
and I hope his expertise on this issue proves valuable in the
committee's consideration.
Lastly, a Senate companion bill was marked up last Congress with
changes suggested in that hearing by the U.S. Forest Service and the
Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District. Specifically, the US Forest
Service asked that the 120-day timeline in the legislation be expanded
to one year in order to conform with existing laws, and that
modifications to the structures wait until after the exchange has taken
place. These changes and requests were included in the introduced
versions of this bill both last year and this year, and are the same as
the bill that passed the committee and full House.
As the bill's sponsor, I hope to work closely with the U.S. Forest
Service, the Committee, and the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District to
address future needs, and ensure that this legislation will benefit the
Fire District, the Forest Service and the communities they both serve.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to this committee
today.
______
Statement of The Honorable Jared Polis, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Colorado, on H.R. 765
Thank you very much for the opportunity to share with you my
support for H.R. 765, the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement
Act.
My district in Colorado is an internationally acclaimed playground
where the world class resorts of Vail, Keystone, Breckenridge, Copper
Mountain, Winter Park and many other community favorites provide a
place for individuals of all abilities and fitness levels to get great
exercise, experience nature and take in the incredible landscapes that
define Colorado's character.
In my district, skiing isn't just an activity, it's a way of life
that supports businesses, provides jobs, sustains communities and has
created a national industry of related fields. Not only do ski areas
and resorts hire employees, but so do nearby hotels, rental shops and
equipment retailers, restaurants, equipment manufacturing companies,
magazines, nearby airports and every aspect of our local economies, all
of which are reliant on the travel and tourism generated by these ski
areas. The ability of ski areas to offer these benefits year round
means the survival of communities and businesses not just in my
district but across the country. It means a more stable economy, better
communities and a better quality of life by balancing the influx of
winter guests with the void of summer visitors.
Increased summer visitation, done correctly, also has environmental
and educational benefits. Our national forests are important reservoirs
for our nation's natural assets, and conservation of these forests must
be a top priority. Ski areas are places where people can safely
experience these lands and get a taste of nature even if limited by
fitness, ability or outdoor know how. Nearly 20% of all national forest
visitors are visitors at ski resorts, confining this usage to specific
places and leaving other areas less impacted. They provide an important
recreational and educational venue in a controlled environment, melding
elements of nature with features of modern convenience. This melding
should not take place everywhere and ski areas play an important role
in confining this practice to specific and small tracks of land
allowing a greater number of individuals to gain an introduction to
nature.
The National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 once allowed this
industry to flourish and has ensured that the needs of a growing
industry, local economies, and our national forest ecosystems are
simultaneously met. Today however, the Forest Service is dealing with
unclear directives from the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act. Things
like snowboards and ski bikes were never envisioned when the law was
originally written. Today we also face new consequences from climate
change and an ever growing popularity in summer recreational activities
that the original law does not adequately address. H.R. 765 is aimed at
giving our vitally important ski areas the flexibility they need to
provide an economic foundation all year round, in the face of a
changing climate and changing ski season, while giving the Forest
Service a proper and legal base on which to responsibly manage these
areas.
I can't express upon the committee enough that time is of the
essence for this bill and that enacting this bill sooner rather than
later will mean that it will put people to work. We want to create
jobs, and this bill will do that.
Finally, while I would certainly argue that Colorado's Second
Congressional District is second to none for outdoor recreation, this
issue isn't a Colorado issue it is an issue for every ski area and
every ski community in the country from California to New Hampshire.
Over 120 resorts, and the businesses and communities they support,
across the country would benefit from increased summer activities
within current ski areas. Areas in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming, like in my
district, are economic foundations of local communities.
This legislation represents a needed change for our federal land
managers and an important change and opportunity for the many
communities, businesses, employees, and public lands lovers' throughout
the country. Once again I thank Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
Grijalva, Congresswoman DeGette and this subcommittee for hearing my
testimony today.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, and your testimony on the
last bill was brilliant. I have to add that. I appreciate that.
Again, if you would like to stay for the other testimony,
you are welcome to. If you have other obligations, you can do
that as well.
Ms. Bachmann, if you would like to join the panel too, we
will eventually, you are two away from here.
H.R. 1022, ``Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study
Act,'' by Ms. Speier, from California. You are recognized for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva, members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to present H.R. 1022 to you. Last year, you will
recall this bill was passed out of this Committee and off the
House Floor by a voice vote, and again, got bogged down in the
Senate like these other bills did.
This bill would evaluate the feasibility of a national
historic trail along the Buffalo Soldier route between the
historic military post at San Francisco Presidio and Yosemite
and Sequoia National Parks. The study would also identify
properties that could be listed in the National Register of
Historic Places or designation as National Historic Landmarks.
The Buffalo Soldiers, as many of you know, were our very
first park rangers. They understood what needed to be done to
protect our public lands earlier and better than most, because
it was their duty to understand it. Because of the color of
their skin, however, they were all too often marginalized
instead of respected for it. The Buffalo Soldiers traveled
through my district on their way to the parks and I am proud to
help shine a light on the history they helped build in our
great State of California and many places across the country.
All Americans should be able to learn about this neglected
chapter in American history. The Buffalo Soldiers' story is
ultimately about the triumph, not just of African American
troops over prejudice and injustice, but about the movement of
our nation toward a more tolerant and courageous society.
In short, this is an all-American story that should be made
a greater part of our park system and I believe it will enhance
the park experience for millions of visitors for many years to
come. I respectfully ask the Subcommittee's support for H.R.
1022 and I thank you for the opportunity to present 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. 1022
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on my
legislation, the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act. Last
year, this Committee extended me the same privilege, and I was pleased
to share the story of the Buffalo Soldiers in my testimony, which
several of you already know so well.
But much of the American public, including millions of our park
visitors, are unaware of this great part of American history. The goal
of my legislation, which is identical to the bill I introduced last
year and which passed the House by voice vote, is once again to help
bring that story to light.
The Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act will allow the
Department of the Interior to study the role the Buffalo Soldiers
played in maintaining our earliest National Parks, before they were
even designated National Parks.
Specifically, the bill would evaluate the feasibility of a National
Historic Trail along the Buffalo Soldier routes between their historic
military post at the San Francisco Presidio, and Yosemite and Sequoia
National Parks. The study would also identify properties that could be
listed in the National Register of Historic Places or designation as
National Historic Landmarks.
The Buffalo Soldiers were among our very first park rangers. They
understood what needed to be done to protect our public lands earlier
and better than most--because it was their duty to understand it.
Because of the color of their skin, however, they were all too often
marginalized instead of respected for it.
It was the heyday of the gold rush that brought the first white
visitors to Yosemite, many of whom were all too eager to poach, log,
and overgraze the land. And it was African American soldiers who stood
sentry at the parks' edge. Guns were not allowed in the parks, and the
Buffalo Soldiers were under no illusions that confiscating arms from
whites seeking to bring them in would be without risk. But in the face
of frontierism and racism, the Buffalo Soldiers not only weathered
confrontation--they overcame it, they became neighbors and friends to
the settlers in the park regions, and they made real inroads toward
racial progress that were extraordinary for their day.
Although they were assigned to watch over government property for
only a relatively short time, the Buffalo Soldiers helped lay the
groundwork for thoselands to be preserved forever. I am proud that the
Buffalo Soldiers traveled through my district on their way to the
parks. I am proud to help shine a light on the history they helped
build in the great state of California and in many places across our
great country.
All Americans, from all walks of life, should be fortunate enough
to learn about this neglected chapter in American history. The Buffalo
Soldiers' story is ultimately about the triumph not just of African
American troops over prejudice and injustice, but about the movement of
our nation toward a more tolerant and courageous society.
In short, this is an all-American story that should be made a
greater part of our Parks system, and I believe it will enhance the
Parks experience for millions of visitors, returning and newcomers, for
many years to come.
I respectfully ask for the Subcommittee's support for H.R. 1022,
and I thank you for the opportunity to deliver my testimony today.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your testimony, as well. If you
have other obligations, if not you are more than welcome to
stay as we go through this bill later on with other testimony.
Mr. Young has introduced H.R. 441, which authorizes a land
exchange needed for the microhydro power facility at Denali
National Park. Mr. Young is not yet with us. When he is, I will
entertain his statement at that particular time.
H.R. 850 was introduced so that a needed replacement bridge
can be constructed across the St. Croix River. Legislation has
bipartisan support and it is needed to settle an issue whether
or not this bridge is in compliance with the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. Ms. Bachmann, you are recognized for five minutes
for your bill.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHELE BACHMANN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Ms. Bachmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Ranking
Member Grijalva and also Chairman Bishop and members of the
Committee. I want to thank you for your consideration of H.R.
850. It is a bill that I am very proud to sponsor. It
facilitates the construction of a four-lane highway bridge over
the Lower St. Croix River in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, that
connects to St. Joseph, Wisconsin.
Today's hearing on the St. Croix River Crossing project is
a much-needed step to preserve human safety, interstate economy
and the beauty of our river crossing in Stillwater. I commend
the House Committee on Natural Resources on the expedient
manner in which they have addressed this long overdue project.
It has been since the early 1970s that a broad coalition of
multiple interests has discussed the construction of a new
bridge that would replace the current lift bridge, built in
1931, now some 80 years old.
The bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis in 2007 that led
to the deaths of 13 people had a sufficiency rating of 50. The
current lift bridge in Stillwater is listed as structurally
deficient. It has a sufficiency rating of 32.8 as inspected on
July 16, 2009. The bridge simply cannot sustain the 16-18,000
daily drivers which are estimated to increase to 48,000 by 2030
on a structure that was designed for far less.
Current crash rates are 50-90 percent higher than the state
average. The pending proposal would provide a safe, reliable
and efficient transportation corridor by reducing congestion,
improving roadway safety and providing an adequate level of
service for forecasted 2030 traffic volumes.
Each time a bridge proposal neared approval, and even when
the National Park Service approved the project in 2005, it was
stopped through litigation brought about by outside special
interests. The recommendations of a multi-member advisory group
that included representatives from Federal and state regulatory
agencies, local and regional units of government, environmental
groups, historic preservation groups and chambers of commerce
were trumped consistently by their objections of visual
pollution by the special interest organization which chose to
not join the stakeholder group when asked to do so.
The visual pollution argument is quite disingenuous on its
claim that a beautiful landscape would be marred by an
environmentally designed new bridge, when the existing bridge
is a short distance away from a sewage treatment plant, a power
plant with a giant smokestack, as seen in the dual image
poster, as well as the state prison facility. The single image
poster shows artist's rendition of the new bridge in its
proposed location. Unfortunately, the project is currently at
an impasse due to the March 2010 ruling from the United States
District Court vacating the National Park Service Section 7A
permit of 2005. Nothing in the March 2010 ruling allows for any
possible bridge to be built in compliance with the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 because nothing in the Act allows the
National Park Service to approve a bridge project unless the
impact to the river values, wild scenic recreational are
eliminated. This is impossible. Therefore, no bridge, not even
the existing bridge, is compliant with Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act. It is impossible to measure the crippling economic impact
that the St. Croix River Crossing project delay has cost our
two states from a commerce and job standpoint.
However, according to MinnDOT, if the project moves forward
an estimated 22,970 jobs will be created per year, and at peak
construction over 6,000 full time workers will be required.
Over a 20-year period, the travel time savings and reduction of
crash costs will significantly improve mobility and economic
output to the tune of over $883 million. Every month the
project is delayed, the cost escalates by over $3.17 million.
What started out as an $80 million project in 1992, now has a
cost estimate of nearly $700 million.
The states of Wisconsin and Minnesota are working together
to fund the project with a large portion of the bonding
authority already set aside, I am pleased that my underlining
bill does not appropriate a single dime.
Therefore, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and
members of the Committee, I respectfully ask the Committee to
take the necessary action to move this vital project forward.
The St. Croix River Crossing project is no longer a matter of
if it is necessary. That has already been determined. This is
now an issue of how much we will pay in dollars and possibly
lives before we act. The bill simply authorizes something that
should have been decades ago, and I thank the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bachmann follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Michele Bachmann, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Minnesota, on H.R. 850
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for your consideration of H.R. 850, a bill that I
am proud to sponsor, facilitating the construction of a four-lane
highway bridge over the Lower St. Croix River at Oak Park Heights,
Minnesota and St. Joseph, Wisconsin.
Today's hearing on the St. Croix River Crossing Project is a much-
needed step to preserve human safety, interstate economy, and the
beauty of the river crossing at Stillwater. I commend the House
Committee on Natural Resources for the expedient manner in which they
have addressed this long-overdue project.
Since the early 1970's a broad coalition of interested parties has
discussed the construction of a new bridge that would replace the
current lift-bridge built in 1931. The bridge is listed as structurally
deficient, and has a sufficient rating of 32.8, as inspected on July
16, 2009. To put this in perspective, the bridge that collapsed in
Minneapolis in 2007, that led to the deaths of 13 people, had a
sufficient rating of 50. While construction on a new bridge has been
stalled by outrageous lawsuits and bureaucracy, the current lift-bridge
continues to rust, twist, and sluff-off concrete into the river. The
bridge simply cannot sustain the 16,000 to 18,000 daily drivers, which
are estimated to increase to 48,000 by 2030, on a structure designed
for far less. The four lanes of Highway 36 converge at this two-lane
bridge with commuters and commercial drivers in gridlock during peak
times or backed up through residential areas that house children.
Emission pollution from idling vehicles hangs over the city, and
current crash rates are 50 to 90 percent higher than the state average.
The pending proposal would provide a safe, reliable, and efficient
transportation corridor by reducing congestion, improving roadway
safety, and providing an adequate level of service for forecasted 2030
traffic volumes. (According to MnDOT, 2030 traffic volumes are
estimated to increase by over 30 percent on Stillwater Boulevard, 70
percent on Osgood Avenue, over 100 percent on I-94, and over 50 percent
on USH 8).
Early on, funding was an issue, but in the 1980's MnDOT, WisDOT,
and the Federal Highway Administration began working with the
communities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights in Minnesota, and St.
Joseph Township in Wisconsin to identify possible solutions for a
replacement crossing. By 1992, Wisconsin and Minnesota officials had
announced a decision to build a four-lane bridge over the St. Croix
River near Stillwater.
Following a multi-year Environmental Impact Study, a proposal to
build a bridge was presented to the National Park Service for
permitting. The project continued to move forward until the Sierra Club
sued the National Park Service for failing to issue a Section 7(a)
evaluation, prompting the National Park Service to issue the evaluation
stating, ``the bridge would have a direct and adverse effect on the
scenic values that could not be mitigated.'' MnDOT intervened and filed
a cross-claim against the National Park Service stating the bridge was
not a ``water resources project'' under Section 7 of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act. The court ruled in favor of the National Park
Service.
In 2001, the US Institute of Environmental Conflict Resolution was
created through the Federal Highway Administration to resolve
environmental conflicts by gathering key interests, establishing a
process for negotiations among the parties, providing recommendations,
and setting an expected date of resolution. This institute helped
facilitate the consensus to move forward with construction. Today, that
consensus is stronger than ever with an even more diverse sector of
members.
However, even after a Section 7(a) mitigation package was approved
by the National Park Service in 2005, the bridge is still not built.
Every time a proposal started moving forward, the process was
interrupted by a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club. The
recommendations of a multi-member advisory group that included
representatives from federal and state regulatory agencies, local and
regional units of government, environmental groups, historic
preservation groups, and chambers of commerce, were trumped by the
``visual pollution'' cries of this organization.
The ``visual pollution'' argument is quite disingenuous in its
claim that a beautiful landscape would be marred by an environmentally-
designed new bridge, when the existing bridge is a short distance away
from a sewage treatment plant and a power plant with a giant smoke
stack, as seen in the dual-image poster. The single-image poster shows
the artist's rendition of the new bridge in its proposed location.
Unfortunately, the project is currently at an impasse due to the March
2010 ruling from the US District Court vacating the National Park
Service Section 7(a) permit of 2005.
Nothing in that March 2010 ruling allows for any bridge to be in
compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 because nothing
in the Act allows the National Park Service to approve a bridge project
unless the impact to the river values (wild, scenic, recreational) are
eliminated. This is impossible. Therefore, no bridge, not even the
existing bridge, is compliant with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
values.
It is impossible to measure the crippling economic impact that the
St. Croix River Crossing Project delay has cost our two states from a
commerce and jobs standpoint. However, according to MnDOT, an estimated
2,970 jobs will be created per year, and at peak construction, 6,237
full-time workers will be required. Over a twenty-year period, the
travel time savings and reduction of crash costs will significantly
improve mobility and economic output to the tune of over $883 million.
Meanwhile, the environmental mitigation package, agreed upon by the
interested parties and approved by the National Park Service in 2005,
will maintain the existing crossing as part of a unique bicycle/
pedestrian tourist attraction, with the lift-bridge as its centerpiece.
Immediate emission rates with the new bridge are projected to be 45 to
56 percent lower than year 2000 emission rates.
The St. Croix River Crossing Project was one of only seven,
nationwide, addressed in a 2002 Presidential Executive Order (13274) to
enhance environmental stewardship. The bridge is a cutting-edge design
streamlined by federal environmental reviews and it demonstrates an
extraordinary partnership between multiple interests to develop a
sensitive solution. Each month that this project is delayed, the cost
escalates by approximately $3.17 million. What started at $80 million
dollars in 1992 now has a cost of almost $700 million. The states of
Wisconsin and Minnesota are working together to fund the project, with
a large portion of the bonding authority already set aside. I am
pleased that my underlying bill does not appropriate a dime.
Therefore, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of
the Committee, I respectfully ask the Committee to take the necessary
action to move this vital project forward. The St. Croix River Crossing
Project is no longer a matter of ``if'' it is necessary. That has been
determined. This is an issue of how much we will pay in dollars, and
possibly lives, before we act. This bill simply authorizes something
that should have been done decades ago.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate your testimony. As I
said with all the others, if you have pressing engagements you
need to go to, we will understand. We will be taking up the
bill with other witnesses in the course of this. You are
welcome to stay, join us up here, whatever is your preference.
Ms. Bachmann. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member and the
Committee.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. The last two items on today's agenda
that we have not yet talked about are mine. The first one is
H.R. 686, the ``Utah National Guard Readiness Act.'' The bill
was passed by a voice vote in Congress last year. It is
sponsored by the entire Utah delegation. Utah is one of the few
states that has actually met and exceeded its goal of
recruitment, so there are another 600 personnel for which
facilities will be needed. This land is along a major
transportation corridor, which would make it easy for the
construction of buildings. The land in question has already
been transferred to the military for use by the Guard. But this
would consolidate the ownership patterns by the Guard. And the
State of Utah cannot bond to build facilities on structures
they do not have, on land they do not own, as well as the time
line restrictions with land if it was still in the hands of the
Department of the Interior would make it impossible to go
forward with this kind of construction needs. As I said, the
Utah National Guard already owns and operates several buildings
in this area. This would expedite the building process.
The second bill, H.R. 765, was probably already discussed
by Mr. Polis better than I will, but it is one of those things
that will create jobs and family activities, wholesome family
activities in recreation outdoors year-round. It updates the
Ski Area Permit of 1986 to reflect the range of potential
activities and will allow year-round activities beyond just the
winter months currently authorized. So this is for a four-
season visitor infrastructure to deal with the situation.
Congress really can't create jobs, but we can lessen the
government restrictions, and restraints stand in the way of job
creation. This is one that would do that. The Forest Service
will continue to have discretion and decision-making on the
site-specific proposal for summer or year-round facilities. The
Forest Service will also collect permit fees for revenues
generated from summer and year-round activities on the ski
areas.
This passed out of the House last session. It was reported
favorably by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. However, the Senate failed to find time to actually
finish the job. The bill is bipartisan. Ms. DeGette of Colorado
has introduced this last year and is on the bill again. Senator
Barrasso of Wyoming and Senator Udall of Colorado are the
supporters of the bill in the Senate.
With that, it concludes the first panel. What I would like
to do now is hear from the next panel. If we could have Stephen
Whitesell, who is the Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands of the National Park Service speaking for
the Department of the Interior come up. And Mary Wagner, who is
the Associate Chief of the Forest Service, testifying on behalf
of the Department of Agriculture. And if I can do an audible
and change it slightly here, is Beth Ganz here with us? Why
don't you come up and join this panel as well and we can go
through these bills. She is Vice President of Public Affairs of
Vail Resorts.
All right, in front of you, the testimony we would like to
hear from you, obviously all of your written testimony will be
included for the record. If you could keep, therefore, your
oral comments to five minutes. We are trying to fix the timing
system there that is on and not working, as you can see. Can
you see your time on your side? All right. In a second we will
try and get that through. When you begin to speak, the green
light ought to go on. When the yellow light goes on, you have a
minute left. When you see the red light, we would like to ask
you to conclude as quickly as possible. Once again, anything
else that needs to be submitted for the record will be there.
Is it on for your view? You can see the small one that has the
time up there. OK. All right, we just can't see how much longer
we have. So, we will stumble through this as best we can.
Mr. Whitesell, we are pleased to have you here. Ms. Wagner,
this is your first meeting with us? We will try to make it
memorable. Mr. Whitesell will go first with his testimony and
then Ms. Wagner. Ms. Ganz, you are here for the ski link bill,
specifically. We will ask you for your testimony and then open
it up for questions as we go through that time.
So, Mr. Whitesell, please.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN E. WHITESELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK
PLANNING, FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Whitesell. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before this Subcommittee to present the Department of
the Interior's views on the six National Park Service bills and
the two Bureau of Land Management bills on today's agenda.
Robert Towne, Deputy Assistant Director for the Bureau of Land
Management is accompanying me and will be happy to answer any
questions regarding H.R. 686 and H.R. 944, the two Bureau of
Land Management bills on today's agenda.
I would like to submit our full statements for the record
on each of these subject bills and will summarize the
Department's positions on these bills.
H.R. 290 seeks to ensure that memorials commemorating the
service of the United States Armed Forces may contain religious
symbols. It would apply to military memorials that are
established or acquired by the Federal Government and to those
to which the American Battle Monuments Commission cooperated in
the establishments of the memorial. The Department defers to
the American Battle Monuments Commission for a position on H.R.
290, since the purpose of the legislation appears to be to
amend the portion of the United States Code that covers
formation and operation of the Commission. And we would defer
to the Department of Justice as to any First Amendment
questions.
H.R. 320 would designate a Distinguished Flying Cross
National Memorial at March Field Air Museum in Riverside,
California. This legislation explicitly states that this
memorial is not a unit of the National Park System. We defer to
the Department of Defense for a position on H.R. 320, since the
purpose of the legislation is to further honor military
personnel who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross
at a site which is not under the jurisdiction of the Department
of the Interior.
H.R. 441 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
issue permits for microhydro projects in a limited area of the
Kantishna Hills in Denali National Park. The legislation would
also authorize a land exchange near the historic mining
community of Kantishna that would be mutually beneficial to the
National Park Service and Doyon Tourism, Inc., a subsidiary of
Alaska Native corporation, Doyon Limited. The Department
supports this legislation with suggested technical corrections.
H.R. 686 would convey certain lands to the State of Utah
for Homeland Security or other national defense purposes. While
the Department does not oppose the bill, the Bureau of Land
Management would like the opportunity to work with the
Committee on modifications to the reversionary clause and the
map referenced by the legislation.
H.R. 850 would allow construction of a four-lane highway
bridge over the Lower St. Croix River from Minnesota to
Wisconsin to relieve heavy traffic on the current two-lane
bridge. The Department does not support enactment of this
legislation because it is inconsistent with the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. We are very concerned about the precedent that
would be established by allowing a bridge project to go forward
on a wild and scenic river when it is found to have had a
direct and adverse effect on the designated river. If the
Committee decides to move H.R. 850 forward, we would like to
work with you to revise the bill's language. The bill must make
clear that construction of the bridge over the Lower St. Croix
River is being authorized as an exception to the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act. Any legislation must also especially require
that the mitigation package be mandatory.
H.R. 944 would add certain rocks and small islands along
the coast of Orange County, California, to the California
Coastal National Monument, managed by the Bureau of Land
Management. The Department supports this legislation.
H.R. 1022 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a study to determine most effective ways to increase
understanding and public awareness of the critical role that
Buffalo Soldiers, segregated units composed of African-American
cavalrymen, played in the early years of the National Parks.
The Department supports this legislation.
H.R. 1141 would authorize a study of the suitability and
feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and limestone
forest sites on Rota, in the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, as a unit of the National Park System.
Congressional authorization to conduct a special resource study
will require a public process to actively engage organizations,
residents and others in discussions of how best to preserve
Rota's significant cultural and natural resources. The
Department supports this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Whitesell 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. 290
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. 290, to amend title 36, United States Code, to
ensure that memorials commemorating the service of the United States
Armed Forces may contain religious symbols, and for other purposes.
H.R. 290 would amend chapter 21 of title 36, United States Code, to
allow religious symbols to be included as part of either a military
memorial that is established or acquired by the United States
Government, or a military memorial not established by the United States
Government, but for which the American Battle Monuments Commission
(Commission) cooperated in the establishment of the memorial. H.R. 290
also defines a military memorial as a memorial or monument
commemorating the service of the United States Armed Forces, including
works of architecture and art.
The National Park Service administers military memorials in the
District of Columbia, which are subject to the Commemorative Works Act,
and in other parts of the country. However, the Department would defer
to the Commission for a position on H.R. 290 to the extent it involves
memorials administered by the Commission or for which the Commission
cooperated in the establishment. H.R. 290 may also affect memorials
administered by the Department of Defense who should have the
opportunity to offer their views. Additionally, the Department defers
to the Department of Justice as to any potential First Amendment
questions raised by H.R. 290.
Mr. Chairman, this 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. 320
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 320, a bill to designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National
Memorial at the March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California.
The Department would defer to the Department of Defense for a
position on H.R. 320 since the purpose of the legislation is to further
honor military personnel who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying
Cross at a site that is not under the jurisdiction of the Department.
The Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded to a member of the United
States armed forces who distinguishes himself or herself in support of
operations by ``heroism or extraordinary achievement while
participating in an aerial flight.'' We applaud the effort of the March
Field Air Museum to create a suitable memorial to the honor, bravery,
and sacrifice of members of our Armed Forces who have earned this
medal.
This legislation explicitly states that this memorial is not a unit
of the National Park System. As this language makes clear, the use of
the title ``national memorial'' creates a reasonable expectation among
the general public that it must have an affiliation with the National
Park Service, which currently administers 27 national memorials across
the country. This is not the first time this issue has arisen, nor is
it likely to be the last, and the Department respectfully encourages
only the most thoughtful and judicious designation of any future
``national'' memorials or other similar sites.
That concludes my testimony Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions from you and members of the committee.
______
Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 441
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on H.R. 441, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for a micro-hydro project in
non-wilderness areas within the boundaries of Denali National Park and
Preserve, and for other purposes.
The Department supports this legislation with amendments and
recognizes improvements made from the similar bill introduced in the
previous session of Congress. H.R. 441 would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to issue permits for micro-hydro projects in a limited
area of the Kantishna Hills in Denali National Park. The legislation
would also authorize a land exchange between the National Park Service
(NPS) and Doyon Tourism, Inc. (Doyon) involving lands near the historic
mining community of Kantishna that would be mutually beneficial to the
NPS and Doyon.
This legislation will reduce the use of fossil fuels in the park,
and thus lessen the chance of fuel spills along the park road and at
the Kantishna lodges. It will lower the number of non-visitor vehicle
trips over the park road, lessen the noise and emissions from diesel
generators in the Moose Creek valley, and support clean energy projects
and sustainable practices while ensuring that appropriate review and
environmental compliance protects all park resources.
Doyon Tourism, Inc., a subsidiary of Alaska Native Corporation
Doyon, Ltd., has requested permits from the NPS to install a micro-
hydroelectric project on Eureka Creek, near their Kantishna Roadhouse.
The NPS supports the intent of this project, however, neither the
Secretary nor the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has the
statutory authority to issue permits for portions of hydroelectric
projects within national parks or monuments. We believe that the
authorization contained in this legislation is necessary to enable the
NPS to allow this micro-hydroelectric project within the park.
The Kantishna Roadhouse, at the end of the 92-mile-long Denali park
road, has been in business for 28 years, hosts approximately 10,000
guests per summer, and currently uses an on-site 100 kilowatt (KW)
diesel generator to provide power for the facility. The proposed
hydroelectric installation would reduce use of the diesel generator at
the lodge. Currently, delivery of diesel fuel to the lodge requires a
tanker truck and trailer to be driven the entire length of the Denali
park road. Noted for its undeveloped character, the road is unpaved for
77 miles of its 92-mile length, crosses high mountain passes without
guardrails, and is just one to 1 1/2 lanes wide with pullouts. The road
is justly famous for wildlife viewing opportunities and in order to
protect wildlife as well as the road's scenic wilderness character,
vehicle traffic is limited. Reducing the amount of diesel fuel hauled
over this road in tanker trucks protects park resources by reducing the
risk of accident or spill, and simultaneously reduces overall vehicle
use of the road.
Eureka Creek is a 4-mile-long stream that drains a 5 square-mile
watershed and discharges about 15 cubic feet per second (cfs) during
the summer. Most of the floodplain has been disturbed by past placer
mining, but no mining claims exist on the creek now and no other
landowners besides Doyon and the NPS own any property near this
floodplain. The project would include an at-grade water intake, with no
impoundment, about one mile upstream of where Eureka Creek crosses the
park road.
Camp Denali, another lodge in the Kantishna Hills, is within the
area addressed by this legislation. Camp Denali opened in 1952 and the
owners installed a micro-hydro generator system prior to the 1978
Presidential proclamation that included Kantishna as a part of what is
now Denali National Park. After 1978, Camp Denali became a private in-
holding surrounded by the park, and found that parts of its micro-hydro
power system were within the park, a situation that the NPS lacks the
authority to permit or retain. This legislation, if amended, would
allow the NPS and the owners of Camp Denali to work out permit
conditions for those parts of the existing hydro project that are now
on park land. Besides the Kantishna Roadhouse and Camp Denali, two
other lodges in Kantishna may pursue similar projects in the future and
thus would benefit from the authority granted in this legislation.
Doyon owns 18 acres on the patented Galena mining claim in the
Kantishna Hills and would like to exchange that acreage for park land
in Kantishna of equal value near its other properties. The NPS would
also like to pursue this exchange to consolidate land holdings in the
area. Existing land exchange authority under the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and other legislation is
sufficient to affect this exchange. Thus, while we believe that this
provision is unnecessary, we support its intent.
Our concerns with the bill are as follows:
1) The bill as introduced requires the Secretary to complete
National Environmental Policy Act compliance within 180 days of
enactment. While the Department supports a speedy response to
the applicant, we suggest the 180-day clock start upon
submission of a complete application to the NPS.
2) The permitting authority provided by this bill would apply
to several micro-hydroelectric projects in the Kantishna area,
yet various elements of the bill as introduced appear to apply
solely to a project by Doyon. Technical corrections to address
this are identified in an attachment to this testimony.
We believe that the permitting authority granted in H.R. 441 would
provide a tool that the Secretary could use to lower fossil fuel use in
Denali National Park, while protecting park resources, and that a land
exchange would be hastened through passage of this legislation. We
would welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor and this
committee to address our concerns and recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
ATTACHMENT
The NPS suggests the following technical corrections to H.R. 441
1) On p. 1, line 2 of the long title, strike ``for a
microhydro project in nonwilderness'' and insert ``for
microhydro projects in nonwilderness''.
2) On p. 1, line 5, strike ``2010'' and insert ``2011''.
3) On p. 3, line 1, strike ``(i) the intake pipeline located
on Eureka Creek, approximately \1/2\ mile upstream from the
Park Road, as depicted on the map;'' and insert ``(i) intake
pipelines;''
4) On p. 3, line 8, strike ``line'' and insert ``lines''.
5) On p. 3, line 14, strike ``PROJECT'' and insert
``PROJECTS''.
______
Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 686
Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 686, the Utah National
Guard Readiness Act. The Department does not oppose the conveyance of
the lands identified in H.R. 686 to the State of Utah for homeland
security or national defense purposes. However, we would like the
opportunity to work with the Committee on modifications to the
reversionary clause and the map referenced by the legislation.
Background
Camp W. G. Williams is located approximately 25 miles south of Salt
Lake City, Utah, in an area of expanding residential development. The
24,000-acre base is a National Guard training site administered by the
Utah Army National Guard and includes training facilities for a variety
of military purposes. Approximately 18,000 acres of the base are
comprised of public land that has been withdrawn for the benefit of the
United States Army as a training facility for the Utah Army National
Guard under the provisions of Executive Order 1922 and Title IX of
Public Law 101-628, the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990.
H.R. 686
H.R. 686 directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the
State of Utah, at no cost, approximately 431 acres of the 18,000-acre
withdrawal. Those 431 acres are to be used by the Utah Army National
Guard. The legislation includes a reversionary clause to return the
land to the ownership of the United States if attempt is made to sell
the land or use the land for non-National Guard or non-national defense
purposes.
Because the public lands proposed for conveyance are currently
withdrawn for the benefit of the United States Army, a portion of the
overall withdrawal to the Army is revoked by this legislation in order
that the lands may be appropriately conveyed. We defer to the
Department of Defense on the partial revocation of the underlying
withdrawal.
The Department generally does not oppose this conveyance at no cost
because the legislation provides that the land conveyed must continue
to be used for important national security and defense purposes.
However, we would note that these lands are already withdrawn for
military uses to the U.S. Army for use by the Utah National Guard. It
is unclear why it is necessary to convey these lands directly to the
State of Utah for use by the National Guard.
We would like to work with the Sponsor and the Committee on
modifications to the reversionary clause. Specifically, the
reversionary clause language is complicated, nonstandard, and would be
difficult for the Department of the Interior to oversee. We would like
to discuss placing responsibility for the reversionary interest with
the Department of Defense in order to ensure that the land is only used
for national security or homeland defense purposes.
Additionally, we would like to provide a new map to be referenced
in the legislation. The BLM in Utah completed work in 2008 that
corrected past survey problems, and we would like to incorporate this
up-to-date, accurate information in a new map. Furthermore, the
Department of Justice advises us of a necessary modification to section
2(b) of the bill, which they want to address with the Sponsor and the
Committee. Finally, we have some minor technical modifications we would
like to address.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on H.R. 686.
______
Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 850
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior (Department) regarding H.R. 850, a bill
to facilitate a proposed project in the Lower St. Croix National Scenic
Riverway, and for other purposes. This bill would allow construction of
a four-lane highway bridge over the Lower St. Croix River from
Minnesota to Wisconsin to relieve heavy traffic on the current two-lane
bridge.
The Department does not support enactment of legislation that deems
the proposed bridge to be consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act (Act). We are very concerned about the precedent that such
legislation would establish given that the Department found the bridge
project would have a direct and adverse effect on the designated river.
The NPS determined that the St. Croix River Project would have a
direct and adverse impact to the river and that certain of those
impacts cannot be mitigated, as documented in its Section 7(a) Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act evaluation of October 15, 2010.
The Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (Riverway) received
protection as a ``study river'' with passage of the Act in 1968.
Congress subsequently designated the upper 27-mile segment of the Lower
St. Croix River as a Wild and Scenic River in 1972 and provided that if
the Governors of the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin submit an
application for the lower 25-miles the Secretary of the Interior upon
his approval shall designate that segment. The Governors did submit an
application and the Secretary designated the lower segment in 1976. The
Act established a method for providing Federal protection for some of
our country's remaining free-flowing rivers, preserving them and their
immediate environments for the use and enjoyment of present and future
generations.
In Section 7(a) of the Act, Congress expressed the clear intent to
protect river values. The Act prohibits Federal agencies from assisting
in the construction of any water resources project that would have a
direct and adverse effect on the values of a designated river. Section
7(a) states:
``. . .no department or agency of the United States shall
assist by loan, grant, license or otherwise in the construction
of any water resources project that would have a direct and
adverse effect on the values for which such river was
established, as determined by the Secretary charged with its
administration...''
Pursuant to that statute, if the Department determines a direct and
adverse impact would occur, the project cannot proceed absent
congressional action.
The Riverway is administered by the states of Minnesota and
Wisconsin for 25 miles and the National Park Service (NPS) for 27
miles. However, the Department of the Interior, through the NPS, has
responsibility for evaluation of proposed Federal projects for the
entire 52 miles of the designated river. The NPS is responsible for
evaluating water resources projects under Section 7(a) of the Act to
determine whether those Federal projects, including bridges, will have
a direct and adverse effect on the Riverway's free-flowing condition,
water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. Each water
resources project is evaluated independently on its own merits.
The Riverway runs fast over sections of exposed bedrock, slow and
deep over great depositional sediments left by the last glaciers, and
throughout its course to the Mississippi River, the river carves
through steep forested bluffs and rich valley bottomlands. Although
solitude in natural settings is increasingly rare so close to a major
metropolitan area, the Riverway offers natural solitude and abundant
recreation.
In 1995, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released a
Record of Decision to construct a new bridge over the Lower St. Croix
National Scenic Riverway and in June 1996 the Sierra Club and Voyageurs
Region National Park Association commenced a lawsuit against the United
States Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway
Administration, the Department and the NPS to enjoin construction of
the project. They alleged that the Department had violated Section 7(a)
of the Act by failing to determine whether the new bridge would have a
direct and adverse effect upon the values for which the Riverway was
established. In September 1996, the FHWA and its lead partner--the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)--applied for a Section
10/404 permit to place fill in the waters of the United States for
bridge construction. Subsequently, the NPS prepared a Section 7(a)
evaluation and determined that the project would have a direct and
adverse effect on the Riverway's scenic and recreational values because
of its visual impacts and that no available mitigation measures could
significantly reduce the negative effects of the proposed bridge.
Therefore, permits could not be issued and the bridge project could not
go forward. MnDOT, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT)
and the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, intervened in the lawsuit as
defendants. They alleged that the 1996 NPS Section 7(a) determination
was arbitrary, capricious, and in excess of statutory authority. The
court upheld the 1996 NPS Section 7(a) determination, establishing case
law that bridges are water resources projects subject to Section 7(a)
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
In 1998, after discussions with legislators and other interested
parties, the FHWA, MnDOT and WisDOT decided to revisit the issue of a
river crossing near Stillwater. MnDOT facilitated a consensus-building
process for a new bridge crossing of the Riverway. This process
resulted in a new bridge alignment and design as well as a mitigation
package.
In 2000, the NPS prepared a Draft Section 7(a) evaluation for
inclusion in FHWA's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This
evaluation determined that the proposed bridge would have a direct and
adverse effect on scenic and recreational values; however, the adverse
effects were adequately offset by the mitigation package developed by
the stakeholders.
In 2001, the FHWA suspended that EIS process short of a final
decision, citing insufficient funds for the implementation of the
mitigation measures.
In 2002, the FHWA and its two state partners again re-initiated a
St. Croix River Crossing EIS process. A ``Stakeholders Group,'' made up
of 28 representatives of diverse interests was formed to provide input
to the transportation agencies in their decision-making process. This
process resulted in a new proposed bridge alignment (similar to the
original 1996 alignment), a bridge design, and a mitigation package.
In 2005, the NPS prepared an updated Section 7(a) evaluation that
determined that the proposed crossing, when taken along with its
mitigation package, would not have a direct and adverse effect on the
scenic and recreational values, provided that the mitigation package
remained intact.
In 2006, the FHWA issued a new record of decision to allow the
bridge to be built. The Sierra Club again sued the Secretaries of
Transportation and the Interior, alleging violations of the National
Environmental Policy Act, Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 (40 U.S.C. 1653(f)), and the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act.
On March 11, 2010, the U.S. District Court of Minnesota found the
2005 NPS Section 7(a) evaluation ``arbitrary and capricious'' and
vacated it.
On April 6, 2010, the FHWA requested that the NPS prepare a new
evaluation in response to the court's decision. The NPS released its
latest Section 7(a) evaluation on October 15, 2010. The evaluation
determined that, due to visual impacts, the St. Croix River Crossing
Project would have a direct and adverse impact to the river and that
those impacts cannot be mitigated.
NPS transmitted the 2010 Section 7(a) evaluation to the FHWA,
stating that ``While the NPS believes the mitigation measures are not
sufficient to eliminate the direct and adverse effects of the Project
on the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway's designated scenic and
recreational values, the NPS strongly supports their implementation if
Congressional action is taken to allow the Project to move forward. The
mitigation measures are essential to meet the requirements of Section
4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 and help the states of Minnesota and
Wisconsin protect and enhance river values under Section 10(a) of the
Act. Although the Act precludes authorization of a project that a river
administering agency has determined will cause direct and adverse
effects on a designated river, the FHWA can initiate a Congressional
process for authorizing this specific project in accordance with a
provision provided under Section 7(a).''
Although we feel that placing a bridge in an area where one never
existed would forever change the look of the river, our Section 7(a)
analysis also referenced the authorization process that is provided for
in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That process includes notification
to the Secretary of the Interior sixty days in advance of requesting
authorization or appropriations from Congress. If this process is
followed, we feel strongly that any authorization or appropriations for
this project should include the mitigation package developed by the
``Stakeholders Group'' to protect and enhance the outstandingly
remarkable values of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway.
If the committee decides to move H.R. 850 forward, the
Administration would like to work with you to revise the bill's
language. As drafted, the bill states that this project is consistent
with the Act. The Department is very concerned that stating that this
project is consistent with the Act would set a precedent for other
projects that have direct and adverse impacts on wild and scenic
rivers. The bill must make clear that construction of the bridge over
the Lower St. Croix River is being authorized as an exception to the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We also believe that any legislation must
also expressly require that the ``Stakeholders Group'' mitigation
package be mandatory.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions from members of the committee.
______
Statement of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 944
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
H.R. 944, which would add certain rocks and small islands along the
coast of Orange County, California, to the California Coastal National
Monument managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM
supports H.R. 944.
Background
The California Coastal National Monument, part of the BLM's
National Landscape Conservation System, was established by a
Presidential Proclamation by President Clinton on January 11, 2000, to
protect:
``all unappropriated or unreserved lands and interest in lands
owned or controlled by the United States in the form of
islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and pinnacles...within 12
nautical miles of the shoreline of the State of California.''
Covering more than 20,000 rocks and small islands spread along
1,100 miles of the California coastline, the Presidential Proclamation
protects the Monument's overwhelming scenic quality and natural beauty.
The Proclamation specifically calls for the protection of the geologic
formations and the habitat that these rocks and small islands provide
for seabirds, marine mammals, and other plant and animal life, both
terrestrial and marine.
Some particularly significant public rocks and islands off the
coast of Orange County in the Laguna Beach area provide important
habitat for a wide variety of upper rocky intertidal species, as well
as various shorebird species. Additionally, four rock locations--Bird
Rock and Two Rocks off the City of Laguna Beach, San Juan Rocks off the
City of Dana Point, and San Marcos Rocks off the southern portion of
the City of San Clemente--provide important roosting habitat for
seabirds (including cormorants and the Federally-listed brown pelican)
and haul-out areas for seals and sea lions.
In the process of working with local communities on planning for
the California Coastal National Monument, the BLM discovered that the
rock features off the coastline of Orange County were under
Congressional withdrawals dating from the 1930s and, therefore, were
not included within the Monument. These withdrawals include more than
40 offshore rocks, small islands, exposed reefs, and pinnacles located
within one mile of the coast of Orange County, California, totaling
approximately two acres above mean high tide. More than 70 years old,
the withdrawals were originally intended to temporarily reserve the
Orange County offshore rocks and small islands for ``park, scenic, or
other public purposes'' (1931 Act), and reserve three specific offshore
rock clusters for the possibility of future lighthouses (1935 Act),
which were never built. These withdrawals were ultimately never
utilized and are no longer needed.
The Laguna Ocean Foundation has led a community-wide effort to
include these significant areas within the California Coastal National
Monument. The Foundation has worked with the City of Laguna Beach and
other local groups, including the Audubon Society and the Surfrider
Foundation, on a variety of city and area-wide coastal protection and
monitoring projects, which resulted in H.R. 944.
H.R. 944
H.R. 944 would eliminate the existing withdrawals on these public
lands off the coast of Orange County and place these features within
the existing California Coastal National Monument. The BLM supports the
revocation of the old withdrawals and the inclusion of these rocks,
islands, and exposed reefs within the Monument.
The BLM has been working with partners along the 1,100 mile
California coast to create a series of California Coastal National
Monument Gateway community initiatives. These Gateway initiatives are a
means to support organized local stewardship of various California
coastal areas through the development of a consortium of the area's
resource managers and advocates. The Laguna Beach community has
expressed strong interest in developing a California Coastal National
Monument Gateway initiative for the Orange County coastal area.
Inclusion of these rocks and islands within the Monument will allow the
BLM to work with the community to provide responsible, long-term
stewardship of these valuable areas.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 944. We
look forward to passage of this legislation which would place these
significant features off the coast of Orange County within the
California Coastal National Monument, thus ensuring their long-term
protection and preservation, and paving the way for an important local
community stewardship initiative.
______
Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 1022
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. 1022, 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. 1022. However, we feel that priority
should be given to the 40 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 that have not yet been
transmitted to Congress.
H.R. 1022 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
created 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's establishment brought a sense of law and
order to the mountain wilderness.
Less well known, however, is 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 and in 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. 1141
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's testimony regarding H.R. 1141, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and
feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest
sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit
of the National Park System.
The Department supports H.R. 1141. Priority should be given,
however, to the 40 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 that have not yet been transmitted to Congress.
H.R. 1141 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to complete
a Special Resource Study of sites on the Island of Rota for potential
inclusion in the National Park System. We estimate that this study will
cost approximately $250,000 to $300,000.
Rota, where the indigenous Chamorro and Carolinian people have
retained their cultural heritage in its natural environment, is the
southernmost island of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI). Spared the population displacement of other colonial islands
and largely bypassed during World War II, Rota preserves striking
examples of the three thousand-year-old Chamorro culture surrounded by
the best remaining expanse of this island chain's native limestone
forest.
The Mochon Latte Village, the Chugai Pictograph Cave, the Taga
Latte Stone Quarry, and the Alaguan Bay Ancient Village prehistoric
sites include architectural features unique to the ancient Chamorro
culture and represent outstanding examples of the territory's cultural
resources. These sites possess a high degree of integrity in location,
materials, workmanship and association.
The limestone forests of Rota are the most intact and most
extensive examples of primary, native limestone forest remaining on any
island in the Mariana Archipelago. The forest provides and sustains
habitat for endangered bird species, a threatened species of fruit bat,
and numerous species of invertebrates that are proposed for listing as
threatened or endangered. Several of these species are endemic to Rota.
The significance of this unique biotic community cannot be overstated.
Rota's residents and legislative delegation have demonstrated an
extraordinary commitment to the protection of the island's environment.
In 2004, Senator Diego M. Songao, Chairman of the Rota Legislative
Delegation of the Fourteenth Commonwealth Legislature, formally
requested planning assistance from the National Park Service (NPS).
In response to this request, the NPS completed a reconnaissance
survey of Rota's natural and cultural resources in September of 2005.
The reconnaissance survey found that the natural and cultural resources
of the island of Rota are significant to island residents, the CNMI,
and the entire nation and merit protection. It also made a preliminary
finding that these resources are likely to be suitable and feasible for
inclusion in the park system.
At present, the people of Rota and their political leaders find
themselves at a crossroads regarding the uses to which their lands are
being put. Major land use changes are continuing to take place in the
form of residential and agricultural lots being subdivided out of the
island's public lands and transferred into private ownership.
At this time, none of Rota's resources are guaranteed protection
for future generations. Congressional authorization to conduct a
Special Resource Study will provide a public process to determine the
suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and
limestone forest sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, as a unit of the National Park System. The NPS would be
pleased to actively engage organizations, residents and others in
discussions of how best to preserve Rota's significant cultural and
natural resources.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer questions that you or other members of the committee might have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Ms. Wagner would you like to go over
the Forest Service issues?
STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF,
U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Wagner. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has submitted written
testimony for the record. I am just going to offer several
comments for each of the bills under consideration in front of
you today.
H.R. 241, to authorize the conveyance of National Forest
System lands in the Los Padres National Forest is intended to
resolve a longstanding encroachment of the White Lotus
Foundation. The bill today differs from the bill introduced
last Congress in that it provides a provision for a land
exchange and requires the Foundation to pay survey, appraisal
and other administrative costs associated with the exchange or
the sale. We appreciate the Committee's efforts to resolve this
longstanding encroachment and to address previously identified
issues we expressed during the last Congress. While we still
have concerns about this bill, we are open to solutions and we
are committed to working with the Committee to resolve this
encroachment.
H.R. 643, the ``Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land
Exchange'' is a proposal to exchange or sell two parcels on the
Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest in Colorado to the Sugar Loaf
Fire Protection District. We support this legislation and thank
members of the Committee for addressing concerns expressed when
we testified last Congress. We see H.R. 643 as a benefit to
efficient management of the Arapaho National Forest and to
promoting emergency services for citizens in the Fire
Protection District.
And last, the Department supports H.R. 765, the ``Ski Area
Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act.'' We appreciate the
Committee's efforts to address concerns expressed previously.
Americans see ski areas and experience ski areas as portals to
the National Forests and a means to greater appreciation of
nature. Over one-fifth of the entire number of visits to
National Forests occur in ski areas. This legislation
encourages greater recreation use at our most developed sites,
enhances the long-term viability of ski areas, and sustains the
adjoining gateway communities.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the
Committee, this concludes my comments and I would be happy to
answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:]
Statement of Mary Wagner, Associate Chief, Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 241, H R. 643, and H.R. 765
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Mary Wagner,
Associate Chief for the U.S. Forest Service. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to provide the views of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) on three of the bills that you are
considering today.
H.R. 241 TO AUTHORIZE THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
LANDS IN THE LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST IN CALIFORNIA
H.R. 241 is intended to address a longstanding encroachment by the
White Lotus Foundation (Foundation) on National Forest System lands
managed by the Los Padres National Forest in Santa Barbara County,
California. The encroachment does not qualify for resolution under
existing authorities, namely, the Small Tracts Act (P. L. 97-465). The
Department appreciates this Committees' efforts to resolve this issue;
however, we do not support H.R. 241 because there would be limited
benefit to the public from this conveyance.
H.R. 241 differs from the bill introduced last Congress (H.R. 129)
in that it includes the provision for a land exchange and the
requirement that the Foundation pay for the reasonable costs of any
surveys, appraisals, and any other administrative costs associated with
the proposed land exchange or sale. This legislation would require the
Secretary to exchange up to five acres of National Forest System land
upon which the Foundation has encroached if the Foundation offers to
convey a parcel of non-Federal land that is acceptable to the Secretary
and if the Secretary determines that the public interest would be
served by making the exchange. If the land exchange is not completed
within 2 years following the date of enactment of the Act, the
Secretary would have the option of selling the encroached-upon National
Forest System land to the Foundation for fair market value.
It is unlikely a land exchange could be completed within two years
of enactment because the Foundation has not been in consultation with
the Forest Service about potential properties to be exchanged and the
normal time frame for these exchanges exceeds a two year time frame.
For lands to become part of the National Forest System, a rigorous and
thorough vetting process that includes title and boundary work as well
as surveys for hazardous materials must be completed prior to the
exchange. Currently there is a two to three year wait in the Pacific
Southwest Region for land exchanges. Therefore, the provision for a
land exchange would likely not be used and instead, after two years,
the land sale option to convey the land to the Foundation would be
utilized.
Last Congress, the Department testified before this Subcommittee on
H.R. 129 which authorized the sale of the same lands to the Foundation.
As previously stated on H.R. 129, our concern is that H.R. 241 would
benefit only the Foundation with no public benefit. This legislation
would serve only a small, select group of citizens--the White Lotus
Foundation. In addition, the conveyance would legitimize the
Foundation's long standing encroachments on lands in the Los Padres
National Forest by allowing the Foundation to acquire the encroached
land through legislation for the Foundation's private use and
enjoyment. There are other adjacent landowners in the area with similar
encroachments on National Forest System lands in the Los Padres
National Forest. These landowners are following this legislation with
interest, as a model for resolving their encroachment cases. Resolving
the White Lotus Foundation encroachments through H.R. 241 would
therefore set a precedent for resolution of other encroachment cases
through case-specific legislation.
H.R. 643 SUGAR LOAF FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT LAND EXCHANGE ACT
H.R. 643 would provide for the exchange or sale of two parcels of
National Forest System lands within the boundaries of the Arapaho
National Forest in Colorado to the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District
(SLFPD). A portion of one parcel is currently being used by SLFPD as a
fire station under special use permit. The other parcel was under a
similar permit that has expired. The Department supports this
legislation and wishes to thank the Members of the Committee for
addressing the concerns expressed when we testified on the bill under
consideration last Congress (H.R. 3923).
The National Forest System lands proposed for conveyance have lost
their national forest character. The lands that would be conveyed to
the United States have suitable national forest character and would
contribute to increased management efficiency. In addition, thanks in
large part to previous work that has been done between the Forest
Service (Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest) and The Sugar Loaf Fire
Protection District, we believe that the Forest Service and SLFPD will
meet Congress' intent to have the parcels exchanged within 1 year.
The Department supports the work of the SLFPD and its efforts to
improve facilities to deliver services more effectively. We view H.R.
643 as both benefitting management of the Arapaho National Forest and
promoting emergency services in the fire protection district.
H.R. 765 SKI AREA RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2011
H.R. 765 would amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of
1986 to authorize the Secretary to permit seasonal or year-round
natural resource-based recreational activities and associated
facilities at ski areas, in addition to those that support Nordic and
alpine skiing and other snow sports that are currently authorized by
the Act. The Department supports H.R. 765 and wishes to thank the
Members of the Committee for addressing the concerns expressed when we
testified last Congress on H.R. 2476. Like its predecessor, H.R. 765
would promote seasonal or year-round recreation opportunities at ski
resorts on National Forest System lands and, by doing so, would expand
the opportunities for ski areas to attract visitors during all four
seasons.
The additional seasonal or year-round recreational activities and
associated facilities authorized by the bill would have to encourage
outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature and, to the extent
practicable, would have to harmonize with the natural environment. The
bill specifies certain recreational activities and facilities that
could, under appropriate circumstances, be authorized and those that
would be excluded from authorization. The bill would make clear that
the primary purpose of the authorized use and occupancy would continue
to be skiing and other snow sports.
There are 122 ski areas operating under permit on National Forest
System lands. These ski areas occupy less than 1 percent of all
National Forest System lands. Nevertheless, about one-fifth of all
recreation in national forests occurs at these ski areas. The ski areas
are some of the most developed sites in the national forests. However,
for many Americans, ski areas are portals to the national forests and a
means to greater appreciation of the natural world.
Focusing more of developed outdoor recreational activities within
ski areas is appropriate and would reduce impacts on less developed
areas in the national forests. If H.R 765 is enacted, we would develop
criteria for the types of seasonal or year-round activities that would
be appropriate at ski areas to provide a basis for case-specific
proposals at the local level in accordance with established law,
regulations, and procedures including the Secretary's duties to involve
the public in his decision-making and planning for the national
forests.
In summary, this legislation would encourage greater recreational
use of the national forests and would concentrate highly developed
recreation in areas that are currently among the most developed sites
in national forests. In addition, the legislation would enhance the
long-term viability of the ski areas on National Forest System lands
and the adjoining rural economies.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my testimony. I'll be happy to answer any
of your questions.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Ms. Ganz, if you could speak to the
one, I think you are here for the one bill, right?
Ms. Ganz. Right.
Mr. Bishop. If you could speak to that, I would appreciate
it.
STATEMENT OF BETH GANZ, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND
SUSTAINABILITY, VAIL RESORTS, COLORADO
Ms. Ganz. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva and members
of the Committee, my name is Beth Ganz and I am the Vice
President of Public Affairs and Sustainability at Vail Resorts.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
National Ski Areas Association and Vail Resorts in strong
support of H.R. 765, the ``Ski Area Recreational Area
Opportunity Enhancement Act.'' I would like to recognize
Chairman Bishop for his leadership on this important
legislation.
NSAA is an association of 326 ski resorts across the
country, 121 of which operate on public lands. Vail Resorts has
six of these mountains in Colorado, California and Nevada, five
of which are in the National Forest. Ski areas occupy less than
one-tenth of one percent of Forest Service lands, yet they
serve as one of the primary gateways to our public lands and
the outdoors. The 60 million people who visit ski resorts
annually represent 20 percent of all recreation visits to the
National Forest. The partnership between the ski area operators
and the U.S. Forest Service yields tremendous recreation
opportunities while also providing economic, conservation and
forest education benefits.
H.R. 765 is intended to update some antiquated provisions
in the Ski Area Permit Act, clarify the Forest Service's
authority, and provide guidance related to the permitting of
appropriate seasonal and year-round recreational activities and
facilities at ski areas.
The bill also represents a unique opportunity to provide
economic stimulus to the rural economies that surround the
resorts. And to do so in an environmentally sustainable way.
Ski resorts companies are frequently one of the largest
employers in the small mountain regions in which they operate,
as well as create other economic opportunities for the local
population base. With the successful passage of this bill, ski
areas and their communities can transform from winter season
destinations into year-round destinations. Year-round
visitation creates year-round employment opportunities and
bolsters local government and state coffers with increased
tourism revenues. Revenues to the Forest Service will also
increase via year-round permit fees that public land resorts
generate.
As I mentioned earlier, there is also conservation value in
allowing and encouraging year-round recreation at ski areas.
Ski areas are developed recreation sites, with the
infrastructure needed to support high levels of visitation.
Such as parking lots, restaurants, rest rooms and other
facilities. By providing high quality and accessible recreation
at ski areas, the potentially undesirable impacts of unmanaged
recreation can be avoided in other parts of the forest.
The intent of this bill is not to change the nature of ski
areas on public lands. We believe there is great potential for
resorts to expand their offerings of seasonal and year-round
recreational activities in a manner that fully appreciates the
landscape of the forest. An activity or facility should
primarily benefit from or utilize the natural features of the
mountain, the way zip lines and alpine slides use the downward
sloping contours of a mountain.
We firmly believe that H.R. 765 will provide additional
year-round activities that will greatly increase the public's
enjoyment of their national forests. Thank you again for the
opportunity to appear before the Committee. NSAA and Vail
Resorts stand ready to work with Chairman Bishop and the
Committee to move this important legislation forward. Thank
you.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Ganz follow:]
Statement of Beth Ganz, Vice President of Public Affairs and
Sustainability, Vail Resorts, on behalf of the National Ski Areas
Association, on H.R. 765
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. On
behalf of Vail Resorts and the National Ski Areas Association I am
pleased to provide the following testimony in support of H.R. 765, the
Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act.
NSAA has 121 member ski areas that operate on National Forest
System lands. These public land resorts are in the states of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming. Vail Resorts
owns and operates six resorts in Colorado, Nevada and California of
which five are located on public lands.
At the outset, we would like to thank Chairman Bishop for his
leadership on this bill.
Background
Public land resorts work in partnership with the US Forest Service
to deliver an outdoor recreation experience unmatched in the world. Our
longstanding partnership--dating back to the 1940s, is a model public-
private partnership that greatly benefits the American public. The
recreation opportunities provided at public land resorts help benefit
rural economies, improve the health and fitness of millions of
Americans, provide kids and families great outdoor experiences and
promote appreciation for the natural environment.
In addition to the recreation benefits that ski areas provide
throughout the year there are economic benefits that must be
considered. Resorts are frequently one of the largest employers in the
rural regions in which they operate, providing important employment and
other economic opportunities for their local population base. The
presence of resorts provides a critical component of the economy in
many areas of the country.
Over the past five years, we have averaged 58.6 million skier/
snowboarder visits annually, and about 60% of those visits occurred on
public land. Yet ski areas occupy less than one-tenth of one percent of
Forest Service lands.
Ski areas are the perfect place to accommodate these large numbers
of forest visitors and not just in the winter. It is important to
remember that ski areas are developed sites. They inspire appreciation
for the natural environment, but they also represent a built
environment that is accessible and convenient for visitors. Ski areas
already have the parking lots, bathrooms, trails and other facilities
to accommodate millions of summer visitors. Use of developed ski areas
during all times of the year allows the Forest Service to provide
recreation opportunities to millions of visitors in a controlled and
mitigated environment thus alleviating the impacts elsewhere on the
forests.
Summer and Year-Round Activities
Summer and year-round activities are not new to ski areas. Resorts
across the country have offered summer activities for decades, with
scenic chairlift rides dating back to the 1960s. These activities
include mountain biking, scenic chairlift rides, hiking, ziplines,
alpine slides, climbing walls, Frisbee golf and others. Until very
recently, the authorization of summer activities at public land resorts
occurred without issue. Many ski area special use permits reference
``year-round'' or ``four season'' resorts. The Forest Service Manual
expressly encourages the year-round use of resort facilities. Even
Congress recognized the four-season nature of resorts back in 1996 by
including the term ``gross year-round revenue'' in our fee system (16
USC 497c). Resorts have acted in reliance of these authorities, and the
federal government has collected fees on summer activities, for
decades.
So why are we here? NSAA strongly supports H.R. 765 to create a
national comprehensive approach to growing seasonal and year-round
recreational opportunities. Such an approach will provide for more
consistent decision making and more accurately reflect what is now
taking place at modern four-season resorts.
Summer and year-round recreation can transform ski areas and their
rural communities from single season destinations into year-round
destinations. Year-round visitation increases year-round employment
opportunities in rural resort communities, creating a more stable
workforce and local economy. It should also be noted that public land
resorts generate permit fees for the Forest Service from all revenues
generated by activities at ski areas. The Congressional Budget Office
confirmed this last point in the 111th Congress stating that the bill
would not negatively impact the federal budget and that it will
minimally increase receipts to the Treasury.
We believe that there is great potential for resorts to expand
their offerings of seasonal and year-round recreational activities.
According to NSAA statistics, the average resort's non-ski season
operations account for just 6.9 percent of overall revenues
illustrating this point. H.R. 765 could prove to be an economic boost
to many rural areas improving local employment, food and beverage
receipts, lodging and providing gateway access to the public's
enjoyment of their public lands.
The Bill
Specifically, H.R. 765 clarifies the Forest Service's authority to
permit appropriate seasonal or year-round recreational activities and
facilities subject to ski area permits issued by the Secretary under
section 3 of the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 USC
497b). The bill is also an opportunity to update the language used to
describe snow-sports to better reflect the wide range of snow sports
(including snowboarding, snow-biking, etc) taking place at modern ski-
areas. NSAA notes and appreciates the discretion and guidance the bill
provides to the Secretary to make site-specific decisions on
appropriate activities and facilities that are natural resource-based,
outdoor developed recreation that harmonize with the natural
environment of the public lands.
In the 110th and 111th Congress, the Administration testified in
support of the bill and stated that further clarifications would assist
the Forest Service in its interpretation and implementation of the
bill. During consideration in the 111th Congress the legislation was
amended with the input of the National Ski Areas Association, U.S.
Forest Service, committee staff and other stakeholders. The bill as you
see it today reflects those amendments as agreed to in the Senate which
are largely similar to the House passed version of the bill.
Thank you for your consideration of H.R. 765. This bi-partisan, no-
cost and non-controversial legislation is important to ski areas across
the country and we encourage its swift passage.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today.
______
Mr. Bishop. I thank you for your testimony. What I would
like to do is do this a little bit differently to try and
expedite the situation. There are three bills that been
testified to by the Forest Service, impact the Forest Service:
H.R. 241, H.R. 643. H.R. 241 is the California Forest, H.R. 643
is the Colorado Fire issue, and H.R. 765, the Ski link bill. I
have no questions on those three bills. I would like to deal
with those first, and then we can go back to the other bills
later.
Are there questions specifically for those three, Forest
Service. Ranking Member?
Mr. Grijalva. I have no questions on those.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Kildee, do you have a question on those
three? On either of those three? The three that have the Forest
Service impact, H.R. 241, H.R. 643 and H.R. 765.
Mr. Kildee. I want to ask about H.R. 850.
Mr. Bishop. All right, let us wait for that one then.
Representative, the gentleman from Florida, did you have any
questions on these three bills? The gentleman from California.
Mr. Garamendi. Just on a related issue, and this question
goes to Ms. Wagner. Representative Lungren and I have been
working on a historic cabin located in the Mokelumne Wilderness
Area. We have not had a satisfactory answer from the Forest
Service on how it will protect and maintain that and we have
withheld legislation pending a satisfactory answer. We may very
well have to introduce legislation to compel a satisfactory
answer. I would like your attention to that matter. Monty Wolf
Cabin, Mokelumne Wilderness Area, California, in Mr. Lungren's
district. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Are there any other questions, then on those
three bills. If not, we appreciate the testimony. Ms. Wagner,
hopefully it was painless. And Ms. Ganz, I appreciate you being
here on those three issues. If you would like to leave now, you
are free to. Mr. Whitesell, I hope you would stay here for a
minute as we go through the Bureau of Land Management bills
that are there.
As I said, Mr. Young has joined us now. He has, which one
is yours, you are H.R. 441? H.R. 441. And I would recognize Mr.
Young for his statement if he has one.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I will submit a
statement for the record. This is a piece of legislation I am
happy to say the Park Service supports. That makes me feel
quite good. We have had our little differences in the past
month, and Mr. Chairman I hope we can address those
differences. This is the way something should work. This is
helping everyone, it is a win-win situation. We have taken, we
will replace diesel fuel with a microhydro situation that will
make and produce clean energy and everybody will be happy. And
I just hope, Mr. Chairman, that this bill moves forward in an
expeditious way. And again I urge you and the Park Service to
understand that we can work together as long as you listen to
the people and not just the Park Service. I am very serious
about that. If you just listen to the Park Service, you are
going to have a dog-fight, because you are not always right--
especially, when you sit here in Washington, D.C. or downtown
Anchorage--listening to those who don't know squat about the
Park Service in Alaska.
But this is a situation where, very frankly, I am quite
pleased that they support it. It is good for the Doyon
Corporation. It is good for the Park Service and we will have
clean air using hydro as we should be able to do so. Mr.
Chairman, with that, I just submit my statement for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Don Young, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Alaska, on H.R. 441
Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for holding
a hearing on this important legislation.
H.R. 441, the Kantishna Hills Renewable Energy Act would authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for a micro-hydro
project within a non-Wilderness area of Denali National Park.
Additionally, it will facilitate a small land exchange between the
National Parks Service and Doyon, Ltd, which owns and operates the
facilities that will take advantage of the proposed micro-hydro
project. Roughly, only six acres of land would be affected. Doyon is
one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations, formed under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
Currently, the facilities at Kantishna, which is located at the end
of the 90-mile park road, operate exclusively off diesel fuel. Not
being connected to any grid system, the Roadhouse must produce all of
its energy onsite. This means trucking thousands of gallons of diesel
fuel over the long and treacherous park road. Energy created by this
microhydro project could cut the Roadhouse's diesel usage in half, and
drastically reduce the need for these trips.
Down the road at the new Eielson Visitors Center, the National
Parks Service operates a similar microhydro project to great success,
and the Kantishna Roadhouse seeks to take advantage of similar
technology to help rid their reliance on costly diesel fuel.
In conclusion, this legislation is a win-win that benefits the
environment and all parties involved. Again, I thank the Chairman and
Ranking Member for including this bill in today's hearing and I look
forward to working with the Members of this Committee in advancing this
bill.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Now let me try and once
again expedite this as we can. There are one, two, three, four,
five, six, seven, eight bills to which you testified. Are there
any questions? Let me go through the H.R. 290, the ``War
Memorial Protection Act'' for this witness? What about the
``Distinguished Flying Cross National Monument,'' any questions
to that one? Any question to deal with Mr. Young's bill on
Renewable Energy Act? Nope? OK, the ``Utah National Guard
Readiness Act.''
I do have one statement to make and a question. You said
there were two things you would like to do. If you do have a
new map, I would be happy deal with that. If you want changes
in the reversionary language, I really don't care. But the
language that is in there was requested of us last year by
staff. So, you get them to like it, I will like it as well.
H.R. 850 I believe is going to have more comments. Oh, I am
sorry. I will come back to H.R. 850. OK. H.R. 945, H.R. 944 was
the rocks in California. Any questions to that measure? And
then H.R. 1022 was the ``Buffalo Soldier in the National Park
Study Act.'' And then the final one is the ``Rota Cultural and
Natural Resources Study Act,'' any questions to that? OK, then
last bill is then H.R. 850 and I am assuming there are going to
be some questions to that. So, what I would ask, Mr. Whitesell,
if you would stay there and let me have the other three
panelists who are going to testify to that come up and join you
there at the table, we will go through their testimony then ask
questions of H.R. 850, if that is OK. Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. It may very well be that the issue that I
have can be resolved with the question to the National Park
Service, and not necessarily to the witnesses, so.
Mr. Bishop. I am sorry.
Mr. Garamendi. My question goes to the National Park
Service, but fine let us go ahead.
Mr. Bishop. On H.R. 850? Yes, OK. Mr. Young, you have
something you want to submit for the record?
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I apologize, I would ask the
consent that the testimony from Doyon Limited will be submitted
for the record at this time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, without objection, so ordered.
I would ask to come to the panel, Mayor David, I am
screwing your name up, I apologize, Beaudet, of City of Oak
Park Heights, and I believe that is in Wisconsin?
Mr. Beaudet. Minnesota.
Mr. Bishop. Minnesota, I am sorry. If you will come
forward. Mayor Ken Harycki, of Stillwater, Minnesota, if you
will come and join us. And Mr. Curt Geissler, President,
Lakeview Memorial Hospital in Stillwater, if you will join us
as well. And, I think the three of you are going to testify to
H.R. 850. What I would like to do is hear your testimony, first
on H.R. 850. Then we will open it up for all four of you to
answer questions of the Committee. So, with that once again, I
think we went through that. Your written statements will appear
in the record. This is the oral part that we add. We ask you to
keep it to five minutes. You can see in front of you the red
light. It means that is when the time is up. The yellow, you
got a minute left, so hustle. And the green says you are on.
OK? So, Mayor Beaudet. Was that close?
Mr. Beaudet. Close.
Mr. Bishop. From Oak Park, you are recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID BEAUDET, MAYOR,
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
Mr. Beaudet. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Grijalva, and members of the Subcommittee. I am David
Beaudet, Mayor of the City of Oak Park Heights and testifying
on behalf of myself.
Mr. Bishop. Can I have you speak a little bit closer to
that mike?
Mr. Beaudet. Yes. The City is just under 5,000 people, is
located along the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, exactly
where the new bridge is proposed. I appreciate the opportunity
to speak, to testify in opposition to House Resolution 850. We
need a new bridge crossing the St. Croix River. But the bridge
that is referenced in H.R. 850 is a project that is inflated
out of scale. It is out of scale for the taxpayers who will pay
for it, out of scale for the property owners who will live with
the impact of the giant structure, and out of scale with the
river itself and the Lower St. Croix River Valley.
Of course, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed in
1968, an historic act, to actually preserve and protect
selected, certain wild and scenic rivers. The Upper St. Croix
was one of the original selected eight rivers to be included in
the Act and the lower 52 miles of the St. Croix River was
proposed to be studied and then finally designated in 1972.
Over the years, property owners have worked together to
protect and improve the St. Croix Riverway, giving up
improvements to their homes, businesses and the grading of land
that would have harmed the river. It was the construction of
the controversial Allen S. King plant, which Representative
Bachmann showed in her photograph, that caused bridge to
actually, caused the Lower St. Croix River to be included in
the Riverway, in the Wild and Scenic Riverway, to protect the
river. Northern States Power Company [NSP], then the utility,
donated over 70 percent of the land that is now owned by the
National Park Service in the Upper Wild and Scenic River area.
NSP further decided not to build the second power plant there
in due deference to its mistake.
Let us not make another mistake of this critical magnitude
on the St. Croix River. We have already made one. The river has
been protected and people have been sacrificing and the
Riverway has improved over the last 35 years.
This project is out of sight in terms of cost and its
scale. $700 million of new borrowed money for the states to
construct this project at a time when we don't have enough
money to support our current infrastructure needs within the
State of Minnesota. The megabridge will crater the entire
transportation corridor to Minneapolis, which will cost an
additional $263 million in 2004 dollars to upgrade the corridor
so that the new driving members coming across the bridge can be
served adequately to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
The size of the bridge is out of scale and our region does
need a lower, smaller scale bridge that will fit within the
Riverway as it is today.
The Wisconsin and Minnesota Department of Transportation
did build, has built four new bridges across the Wild and
Scenic River in existing corridors today without needing any
special legislation.
The last large bridge was the Prescott, Wisconsin bridge.
It was going to be a bridge that was going to be 150 feet above
the Riverway, approximately one mile north of the existing
corridor. The Governors of Minnesota and Wisconsin decided that
was not in the best interest of the Wild and Scenic River and
therefore, that bridge was reduced. And, it is a four lane
bridge that runs through the City of Prescott. That is a
photograph that is an attachment to my testimony showing
approximately, where the new bridge is and you can see where
the proposed about a mile north in that photograph would have
been.
More fundamentally, the Minnesota Department of
Transportation is not the best authority for ascertaining
environmental aspects of the impacts to the Lower St. Croix
River. Indeed, MinnDot has twice proposed bridges that violate
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The 1995 bridge is just within
the same location on the Minnesota side and slight different on
the Wisconsin side.
Furthermore, the National Park Service, in 1990, in a
letter indicated that if a new river crossing was required,
this crossing, and I will just read out from the letter, as a
quote: ``If a need for a new crossing is identified as a result
of the above planning, we would recommend as a matter of
general policy, such a crossing be placed in or near the
existing transportation corridor. In the present place, this
approximates a central corridor alternative as depicted on the
draft document.''
Mr. Chair, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed and
the upper river protected under the original legislation. The
lower part of the river was studied for inclusion and it is
protected by Congress in 1972. Since then property owners have
followed the rules of the Riverway Management Plan required
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The government also must
comply with those same rules, or the equal protection under the
law will have no meaning. I urge the Subcommittee not to change
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to allow new river bridge
crossings where none have existed before. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beaudet follows:]
Statement of David A. Beaudet, Mayor,
City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, in opposition to H.R. 850
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Raul Grijalva and members of the
subcommittee, I am David Beaudet, Mayor of the City of Oak Park Heights
Minnesota. My city, of just under 5,000 people, is located along the
St. Croix National Scenic Riverway exactly where this new bridge is
proposed. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in opposition to
House Resolution 850.
We need a new bridge crossing the St. Croix River. But the bridge
that is referenced in H.R. 850 is a project that is inflated and out of
scale. It is out of scale for the taxpayers who will pay for it; it is
out of scale for the property owners who will live with the impact of
this giant structure; and it is out of scale for the river itself and
the Lower St. Croix Valley.
On October 2, 1968, the historic Wild & Scenic Rivers Act was
signed and for the past 43 years over 200 Wild & Scenic Rivers,
including the St. Croix are protected by this act which states ``It is
hereby declared to be the national policy of the United States that
certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate
environments, possess outstanding remarkable scenic, recreational,
geologic, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural or similar values,
shall be preserved in free-flowing condition and their immediate
environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of
present and future generations.''
The upper portion of the St. Croix River was one of the original
eight rivers included in the Wild & Scenic Act; and the Lower 27 miles
of the St. Croix, where this bridge is proposed, was designated Wild &
Scenic in 1972. Over the years, property owners have worked together to
protect and improve the St. Croix riverway giving up improvements to
homes, building and the grading of land that would harm their River. It
was the construction of the controversial A.S. King power plant that
lead to ``Save the St Croix,'' a citizen's initiative, which tried to
protect the St. Croix River from the King Plant. After permits were
granted, these citizens worked with other groups to get the entire St.
Croix River protected from future damaging developments. After the King
Plant was built, everyone agreed and realized that a mistake had been
made by not including the Lower St. Croix in the original designation.
Let's not make that same mistake today by adding yet another oversized
structure to this beautiful river.
The cost of this project is out of scale and irresponsible,
especially in this fiscal environment. The latest cost estimate for the
bridge project is $574--$690 million. Minnesota's project share is
about $380 million and Wisconsin's project share is between $250--$310
million. The State of Minnesota has one of the nation's largest roadway
systems and the Twin Cities region has one of our nation's largest
regional highway systems. We have many, many unmet needs for repair
now, and the list is growing. Minnesota Department of Transportation
reports that over the next decade it has unmet needs for pavement
repair of $1.7 billion and can only meet 85% of the need for bridge
repair. Building a costly new highway-style St. Croix Bridge would take
money away from pressing repair needs across the state.
And the fiscal issues in the state of Wisconsin have been the
subject of national news.
With the construction of the Mega Bridge the entire transportation
corridor would collapse requiring millions of additional transportation
dollars to be spent on connecting roads. In a May 2001 Minnesota
Department of Transportation Study, the trip home from North St. Paul,
Minnesota to Oak Park Heights Minnesota, would be 45 MPH, this same
trip after a proposed bridge is completed would be at 32MPH for a road
posted speed of 60 to 65 MPH. The cost to upgrade the road to a freeway
is $43.5 (2000 dollars) from the City of North St. Paul to West edge of
the City of Oak Park Heights, add $100 million (2004 dollars) to
construct freeway thru the City Oak Park Heights. From the City of
North St. Paul Minnesota to Minneapolis Minnesota an upgrade of the
freeway system is required with an additional lane of traffic in each
direction with a cost estimate of $120 million (2002 Dollars).
So the cost of the bridge itself is just the beginning.
The size of this bridge is out of scale with the need our region
has now, and in the future, to move people to and from their jobs. And
we have looked at smaller options in the past that would provide an
adequate crossing and at the same time be in line with the Wild &
Scenic River.
The Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Transportation
recommendation for a high level, (150) feet above the St. Croix River
(bluff to bluff bridge) and approximately 1 mile upstream from the
existing bridge, was proposed as the preferred alternative, B-1,
despite the fact that this alternative would cost $20 million more than
a replacement bridge next to the existing river bridge. The Riverway
Managing Partners including the National Park Service, the state of
Minnesota, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and others,
objected to the plan and indicated the proposed bridge would have to
comply with the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. Governors Anthony Earl of
Wisconsin and Rudy Perpich of Minnesota announced that the states had
selected a location for a replacement bridge in the corridor adjacent
to the existing river crossing. The press release noted, ``primary
concerns include preserving the integrity of the St. Croix River Valley
as a natural scenic waterway and the high cost of Corridor C.'' The
April FEIS noted the reasons why the preferred crossing was not chosen
``were perceived as (1) required too many agricultural acres; (2)
causing too many farm severances; (3) being detrimental to the
aesthetic qualities of the federal designated recreational segment of
the Wild and Scenic St. Croix River; or (4) having bridge construction
cost that were too high.'' The crossing has been open for more than 20
years serving the needs of the transportation system and the City of
Prescott Wisconsin.
Now that the National Park Service has been able to reevaluate this
massive bridge project under a new administration, the agency has
determined that alternative B-1 would irreparably harm the Lower St.
Croix's scenic and recreational values.
More fundamentally, Minnesota Department of Transportation is not
the best authority for ascertaining environmental impacts to the Lower
St. Croix. Indeed, MnDOT has twice proposed bridges that would violate
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Because the National Park Service is
the designated steward of the Riverway, we should place far much weight
on their judgments. And the NPS has found that construction of a
massive bridge in the B-1 corridor would violate the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act.
Furthermore, the National Park Service and other Riverway agencies
in a DEIS comment letter dated July 10, 1990 stated, '' If a need for a
new crossing is identified as a result of the above planning, we would
recommend, as a matter of general policy, that such a crossing be
placed in or near an existing transportation corridor. In the present
case, this approximates the Central Corridor Alternative as depicted in
the draft document.''
This Central Corridor Alternative is the most cost effective choice
as indicated in St. Croix Crossing, Benefit-Cost analysis Memorandum,
dated May 5, 2004. The Central Corridor Alternative would be 20% more
cost effective than the route selected. The St. Croix Riverway Agencies
and Minnesota Taxpayers League President Phil Krinkie agree this
proposed project is not in the taxpayer's best interest.
Building a bridge in this corridor would also be consistent with
the Management Plan for the Riverway, which states that (a) new bridges
should be located within or adjacent to existing transportation
corridors, and (b) that any new bridge ``must be of a scale and
character that minimizes impact to the values for which the [Lower St.
Croix] was designated under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(scenic, recreational, geologic).''
This Mega Bridge project would be detrimental to the people of The
City of Oak Park Heights. In a study commissioned by the City in 2004,
the city property tax base would be reduced by 17% and property owners
viewing the St. Croix River would have home values reduced by up to
30%. This is equivalent to the Government taking 30% of the value of
our homes, and this bill paves the way for just that.
The start date of the proposed project in 2013 is 100 years after
Congressional action allowed the building of the Hetch Hetchy Dam in
Yosemite National Park. The bridge project over the St. Croix River, if
approved by Congressional action, will turn out to be the Hetch Hetchy
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, potentially setting the stage to
damage all Wild & Scenic Rivers. Mister Chairman, I invite you and the
members of the committee to visit and view the St. Croix River from the
Scenic Overlook in Oak Park Heights before passing the Resolution 850
and before the committee approves an exemption of bridges from the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act.
When the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed and the upper St.
Croix River protected under the original legislation, the lower part of
the river was to be studied for inclusion. In 1972 Congressional action
added the lower St. Croix River into the Wild & Scenic River System.
Since then property owners have followed the rules in the Riverway
Management Plan required under the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. The
Government must also comply with the plan and the Federal Government or
equal protection under the law will have no meaning. I urge the
Subcommittee not to change the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act to allow new
river bridge crossings where none existed before.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We will now hear from Mayor Ken
Harycki--I hope I put the emphasis in the right place on that--
from Stillwater, Minnesota. You are recognized for five
minutes. Pull the mike right into your face so we can actually
here it.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN HARYCKI, MAYOR,
CITY OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA
Mr. Harycki. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva and members of the Committee. I am Ken Harycki, the
Mayor of Stillwater, Co-Chairman of the Coalition for the St.
Croix River Crossing, a community organization formed to
advocate for the new bridge. I also brought along pieces of our
bridge today, some cement and some steel that came off of it.
My home town, Stillwater, is a beautiful and historic city
on the St. Croix River. It is protected by the National
Register of Historic Places. The counties on both sides of the
river are parts of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area.
In 1931, a lift bridge was built across the river as our
communities grew. Through the 1940s and 1950s, the bridge was
able to handle the traffic. But by the 1960s it was apparent
that the traffic was exceeding the design.
Now, in 2011, our bridge is dangerously outdated. The lift
bridge was designed to handle 11,000 cars per day. But that has
grown to 18,400 vehicles daily. In the summer, traffic can peak
to 25,000 vehicles. The road to the bridge has an accident rate
double that of the state average. Many years and too much
traffic have taken a toll on the existing bridge. Maintenance
and flooding force traffic to divert elsewhere, sending tens of
thousands of cars elsewhere throughout the region.
This bridge is functionally obsolete, factually critical,
meaning that if something fails on the bridge, it would
collapse. The bridge's sufficiency rating 33, is lower than
that of the I-35W bridge before it collapsed in 2007, killing
13 and injuring 144. As you can see from our handout, it has
been difficult to find the right plan that balances three very
important laws--the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the
Transportation Act of 1996 and the National Historic
Preservation Act.
The St. Croix River is an important natural resource and is
recognized and protected as a Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Area
residents want to continue to protect the river from over-
development and to protect historic sites throughout the
region. But we still need a safe and reliable crossing.
The Udall Institute brought together 27 different
stakeholders organizations to find a compromise, many years
ago. The stakeholder group staffed by a team of engineering,
environmental and design professionals worked together to study
a multitude of options, designs and features. These
organizations represented the community, state, Federal
regulatory agencies, environmental organizations, historic
preservation, economic development interests and local
government. The City of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights and
National Park Service were a very important part of this
process. This diverse group looked at every possible idea and
location of a new crossing. We even looked at tunneling under
the river. Your handout includes a map of a dozen routes that
were reviewed. The result was a plan that balances the three
very important laws. All but one of the groups involved in the
process supported the plan and we received a record decision
that validated the work we did.
Our plan and the communities vision are for more than just
a new bridge. We will be using Federal and state highway funds
to make significant park improvements and environmental
remediation as part of the project. We will preserve the
historic bridge, converting it into a key element of a new
bicycle and pedestrian loop trail, giving people new and
exciting ways to access and enjoy the river valley and this
national park. Bluff lands where present day roadway is located
will be restored. The pilings of the old coal barge terminal
will be removed. The new bridge will decrease the amount of
phosphorus pollution entering the river by 20 percent, a number
one goal of the St. Croix River Basin team.
The new crossing will also reduce dangerous levels of
traffic and automotive pollution from our small, historic
downtown.
And finally, the bridge design and location. As you can see
from our posters, the bridge is gorgeous. The stakeholders
wanted a signature bridge that is worth of the St. Croix
valley. Also note the location. We think it is appropriate to
build the new crossing within the industrial part of the
Riverway, next to a power plant, a sewage treatment plant and a
marina. This portion of the river is assuredly not wild and not
historic, like downtown Stillwater. It is the correct location
for the crossing. The National Park Service has determined that
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not allow them to grant a
permit for any new construction in a designated Riverway. This
is important. The National Park Service has not just blocked
this bridge, has rejected any new construction in a Wild and
Scenic Riverway. Only Congress is allowed to review and approve
and review new construction. The longer we wait, the more
expensive the solution will get and the greater risk that
something tragic could happen.
We are especially pleased to say that throughout the
decades, we have received bipartisan support for this project.
Now is no different with the Governors in Minnesota and
Wisconsin and your Congressional colleagues, Representatives
Bachmann and Kline supporting this project. I assure you the
people who live and work in the St. Croix Valley have done
everything possible to create the best plan for the entire
region. We care deeply about the river that unites our
communities. It is now up to you to take action and help us
resolve this very important matter. I thank you for your time,
and again, ask for your help and support.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harycki follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Harycki, Mayor,
Stillwater, Minnesota, on H.R. 850
Chairman Bishop, ranking member Grijalva and members of the
committee.
My name is Ken Harycki. I am the Mayor of Stillwater, Minnesota,
and also co-chairman of the Coalition for the St. Croix River Crossing,
a two-state regional community organization that has been formed to
advocate for the new bridge project.
My hometown is a beautiful and historic city located on the St.
Croix River, which creates the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Our downtown is protected by the National Register of Historic Places,
and the counties on both sides of the river are part of the
Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.
Since even before 1848, when Wisconsin was admitted by Congress
into the Union, communities on both sides of the river have been
connected by a river crossing at Stillwater.
In 1931, 80 years ago, a lift bridge was built across the river as
our communities grew. Through the 1940's and 50's the bridge was able
to handle the demands of people who needed to cross between our
communities, but in the 1960's it became apparent that demand was
exceeding this design.
Now, in 2011 our bridge is dangerously outdated.
The lift bridge was designed to handle a capacity of 11,000 cars
per day, but today it is overburdened by an average of 18,400 vehicles
daily. In the summer, traffic can jump to over 25,000 cars a day.
The road that leads up to the bridge has a traffic accident rate
that is nearly twice the state average for comparable roadways.
Cars idle for hours on both sides waiting to cross the bridge,
creating pollution and making it challenging for residents and visitors
to navigate Stillwater's historic downtown.
Too many years and too much traffic have taken a toll on the
bridge. Flooding and maintenance force the bridge to close on a regular
basis, sending tens of thousands of cars and trucks elsewhere.
This bridge is a functionally-obsolete, fracture-critical
structure, meaning that if something fails on the bridge, it would
collapse. The bridge's sufficiency rating of 33 is lower than that of
the I-35W Bridge before it collapsed in 2007, killing 13 and injuring
144 people.
As you can see from the handout that we've provided to the
committee, it has been difficult to find the right plan that is
consistent with three important federal laws.
Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act;
Section 4 of the Transportation Act of 1996; and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
In particular, the St. Croix River is an important natural resource
that is recognized and protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Area residents want to continue to protect the river from over-
development and protect historic sites throughout the region. But we
still need a safe, reliable crossing.
The project that we are asking the Congress to permit to go forward
was developed through an unprecedented environmental mediation process
that was administered by the Udall Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution.
To make sure every possible idea for a new bridge was considered,
the Udall Institute brought together 27 different stakeholder
organizations. They are listed in your materials, and also on the
poster board behind us. The group met in Stillwater City Hall at least
monthly for three years.
The Stakeholder Group, staffed by a team of engineering,
environmental and design professionals, worked together to study a
multitude of options, designs and features. These organizations
represented the community, state and federal regulatory agencies,
environmental organizations, historic preservation interests, economic
development interests, and local governments from both sides of the
river.
The City of Stillwater and our sister city, the City of Oak Park
Heights were important parts of this exhaustive planning process. And
so was the National Park Service.
This diverse group looked at every possible idea and location for a
new crossing. We even looked at tunneling under the river in order to
protect the scenic views. Your handout includes a map of the dozen or
so routes that were reviewed as part of the Stakeholder process.
The Stakeholders considered ways to protect the river, to make this
national resource more accessible to people, and respect the history of
Stillwater and the region- all while making sure the metro area has a
transportation resource that is capable of meeting current and future
needs.
The result was a plan that balances the three laws. All but one of
the groups involved supported the plan. We received a Record of
Decision by the Federal Highway Administration that validated the work
we did and the final result.
Our plan and the community's vision are for more than just a new
bridge. We'll be using federal and state highway funds to make
significant park improvements and environmental remediation as part of
the project.
The project will preserve the historic bridge by converting it into
the key element of a new bicycle and pedestrian loop trail along and
above the river, giving people a new and exciting way to access and
enjoy the river valley and this national park.
Bluff lands on both sides of the river where the present-day
roadway is located will be restored.
The pilings and the riverfront for the old coal barge terminal in
front of the power plant will be removed.
The new bridge will also decrease the amount of phosphorous
pollution entering the river by 20 percent--the number one goal of the
St. Croix River Basin Team. The new crossing will also reduce the
dangerous levels of traffic and automotive pollution from our small,
historic downtown area.
And finally, the bridge design and location. As you can see from
our posters, the bridge is gorgeous. It's a modified cable stay design
that has been built in only two other locations in North America. The
Stakeholders wanted a ``signature bridge'' that is worthy of the St.
Croix Valley. We believe it will become as iconic as the Lift Bridge.
Also, note the location. We think it's appropriate to build the new
crossing within the industrial part of the riverway, next to a power
plant, a sewage treatment plant and a marina. This portion of the river
is assuredly not wild, and not historic like downtown Stillwater. It is
the correct location for the crossing.
The National Park Service has determined that the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act does not allow them to grant a permit for any new
construction in a designated riverway. This is an important point: the
NPS has not just blocked this bridge; it has rejected any new
construction in a Wild and Scenic Riverway. Only Congress is allowed to
review and approve new construction.
The longer we wait, the more expensive the solution will get and
the greater the risk that something tragic could happen. Living in
Minnesota, after the 35W bridge collapse, we are especially sensitive
about our bridges.
It's worth noting that support for the project is not universal.
Like all large public projects, there will always be opponents. But
make no mistake, the public strongly supports this new bridge. So do a
majority of elected local officials in Stillwater and Oak Park Heights
in Minnesota, and our counterparts in Wisconsin overwhelmingly support
this project. All of our state legislators representing us on both
sides of the river are in support for this project.
And we are especially pleased to say that throughout the decades
this support has been bi-partisan. Now is no different, with the
Governors in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and your Congressional colleagues
Representatives Bachmann and Kind supporting our project.
I assure you that the people who live and work in the St. Croix
River Valley have done everything possible to create the best plan for
the entire region. We care deeply about the river that unites our
communities.
Together, with the help of federal and state officials, we have
created a project that
Meets current and future traffic demands
Respects the river and its scenic beauty
Protects the historic lift bridge and historic sites
throughout the region.
It's now up to you to take action and help us resolve this matter.
I thank you for your time and again ask for your help and support.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Geissler, President of the
Lakeview Memorial Hospital in Stillwater.
STATEMENT OF CURT GEISSLER, PRESIDENT,
LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA
Mr. Geissler. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
Grijalva and members of the Committee. My name is Curt Geissler
and I am the President of Lakeview Hospital in Stillwater and I
am here today on behalf of our hospital and five clinics that
operate in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. I also believe I speak
on behalf of the majority of our patients, our employees and
employers in both Minnesota and Wisconsin who badly need a new
crossing to be built.
I have also served on the Greater Stillwater Area Chamber
of Commerce Board of Directors for seven years, three of them
as the Board Chair. And, finally, like the Mayor I am also a
board member of the bi-state Coalition for the St. Croix River
Crossing.
Lakeview Hospital was founded in 1880 and has always served
the medical needs of people on both sides of the river. We are
the only level-three trauma center serving the region. In
addition to our Minnesota communities, our primary service area
includes 30 miles into western Wisconsin. Roughly one-third of
our patients come from Wisconsin, as do about one-third of our
employees.
In round numbers, each year approximately 20,000 hospital
patients and 70,000 clinic patients are dependent on the river
bridge crossing. Additionally, about 350 of our doctors, nurses
and other health professionals depend on the bridge to get back
and forth to work.
Our ambulances must cross the bridge daily to respond to
and provide care in emergency medical situations. We are the
only advanced life-support ambulance provider serving western
Wisconsin. The current bridge causes significant delays to
provide field and hospital care to patients.
First of all, because the bridge operates every 30 minutes
during peak summer areas, crossing delays are inevitable. Even
though the bridge operator can be contacted to lower the
bridge, the traffic backups that occur when the bridge is up
cannot be quickly mitigated. During daily rush hours and in
summer months, traffic backups can be over a mile long. Because
the 1931 bridge was built without shoulders, our ambulances
cannot cross the bridge any faster than traffic can be cleared.
To emphasize just how narrow the bridge is, we routinely
break off side view mirrors off of our ambulance and other
vehicles attempting to cross the bridge. So essentially, we
either have to wait our turn in line on the bridge or travel 25
miles to reach a location that is visible from Stillwater
across the river.
Some opponents of this project have suggested that a new
bridge is not necessary because the round-trip to the
Interstate 94 bridge in Hudson is only 25 miles. Even ignoring
the deterioration in the safety of the 80-year old lift bridge,
I can tell you that a new crossing is desperately needed. For
people in critical condition, minutes count. If this was your
loved one, you would not want timely medical care to be
dependent upon a lift bridge schedule or the amount of traffic
on a particular day or time. Adding 25 miles to an ambulance
ride is unacceptable.
When we know that the bridge will be closed because of
spring flooding or repair work, or that traffic will be snarled
because of community festivals and events, we pre-position an
ambulance in Wisconsin. That allows us to staff only one
ambulance to serve western Wisconsin and prevents patients from
being transferred to a hospital with a higher level of care.
Only lower-level, critical care access hospitals exist in
western Wisconsin.
As a member of the Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce,
I hear a great deal about the challenges business people have
in getting the Wisconsin employees to work. Bridge traffic and
frequent closures cause inefficiencies and delays that increase
the cost of doing business on both sides of the river and is a
real impediment to job creation. A long term bridge failure,
one we ultimately will face in a matter of time, will have a
negative economic impact, not only on our hospital and clinical
care, but on the entire Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
This is a critical point. This section of the river is in
an urban area. An urban area with a population of 3.2 million
people. Washington County, where Stillwater is located, has a
population of 234,000 people. We are a vibrant and growing area
and our transportation system must reflect that. This bridge is
on the national highway system, the corridor is a major route
to the east for a metro area. As I said with over 3 million
residents.
As well as the economic impacts, this has Homeland Security
implications. When the lift bridge closes, the 18,000 cars per
day currently crossing it shift primarily to the Hudson bridge
for a total of 32,000 more cars each day. The Hudson bridge is
the only major bridge crossing in our region and this level of
traffic is nearly 30 percent higher than what is presently
forecast. There would be massive traffic problems on I-94
leading into and out of the St. Paul/Minneapolis area.
While Lakeview Hospital and the Stillwater Clinic stand
ready to care for the sick and injured, we cannot stand still
and wait for a fractured, critical, functionally obsolete
bridge to deteriorate further. A bridge failure that causes
preventable injury or death would weigh heavily on our
conscience.
In closing, I want to acknowledge that I have spoken a lot
more about traffic than what the Subcommittee might be used to
hearing, but it is important that you understand the
substantial impacts of delaying action any further. We have had
a river crossing in Stillwater since before our statehood. Our
communities have planned and prepared and waited over 50 years
for this bridge. The stakeholder group has created a project
that balances pressing transportation needs, historic
preservation and environmental protection. We only need
Congressional approval for it to move ahead. We urge you not to
delay the replacement of the bridge any longer. Please act this
year to permit the St. Croix Crossing Project to go forward.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Geissler follow:]
Statement of Curt Geissler, President, Lakeview Hospital, on H.R. 850
Chairman Bishop, Ranking member Grijalva and members, my name is
Curt Geissler. I'm the President of Lakeview Hospital in Stillwater.
I'm here today on behalf of our hospital and five clinics that operate
in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. I also believe I speak on behalf of
the majority of our patients, employees and employers in both Minnesota
and Wisconsin who badly need a new crossing to be built.
I have also served on the Greater Stillwater Area Chamber of
Commerce Board of Directors for 7 years, three of them as Board Chair,
so I believe I can represent many employer positions in our economic
region.
And finally, like the Mayor, I am also a board member of the bi-
state Coalition for the St. Croix River Crossing.
Lakeview Hospital was founded in 1880, and has always served the
medical needs of people on both sides of the river. Ironically the
original hospital was built to provide health care for the lumber jacks
working on the St. Croix River, the same river that needs our attention
today. We are the eastern most hospital in the St. Paul/Minneapolis
Metropolitan Area, and the only level 3 trauma center serving the
region. We are proud of the high quality of care and the significant
level of medical service we give to our Minnesota and Wisconsin
communities.
In addition to our Minnesota communities, our primary service area
includes the Wisconsin communities of Somerset, and New Richmond, 30
miles into Western Wisconsin across the St. Croix River. Roughly one-
third of our patients come from Wisconsin, as do about one-third of our
employees.
In raw numbers, each year approximately 20,000 hospital patients
and 70,000 clinic patients are dependent on the river bridge crossing.
Additionally, about 350 of our doctors, nurses and other health
professionals depend on the bridge to get back and forth to work.
Our ambulances must cross the bridge daily to respond to and
provide care in emergency medical situations. We are the only advanced
life support ambulance provider serving the geographical area in
western Wisconsin. The current bridge causes significant delays to
provide field and hospital care to patients.
First, because the lift bridge operates every 30 minutes during
peak summer areas, crossing delays are inevitable. Even though the
bridge operator can be contacted to lower the bridge, the traffic
backups that occur when the bridge is up cannot be quickly mitigated.
In summer months, traffic backups can be over a mile long for
people waiting to cross the bridge in either direction. Because the
1931 bridge was built without shoulders, our ambulances cannot cross
the bridge any faster than traffic can be cleared. We have to either
wait our turn in line on the bridge, or travel the 25 miles through
Hudson to reach a location that is visible from Stillwater across the
river.
Some opponents of this project have suggested that a new bridge
isn't necessary, because the round-trip to the Interstate 94 Bridge
located in Hudson is only about 25 miles. Even ignoring the
deteriorating state and safety of the 80 year old lift bridge, I can
tell you that a new crossing is desperately needed.
For people with critical injuries or in critical conditions,
minutes count. If this was your or my loved one, you would not want
timely medical care to be dependent upon a lift bridge schedule, or the
amount of traffic on a particular time or day. Adding 25 miles onto an
ambulance ride is unacceptable.
When we know that the bridge will be closed because of spring
flooding or repair work, or that traffic will be snarled because of
community festivals and events, we pre-position an ambulance in
Wisconsin. This is less than ideal and causes operational challenges.
Also, it allows only one ambulance to serve Western Wisconsin and also
prevents patients from being transferred to a hospital with higher
level of care. Only lower-level critical access hospitals exist in
western Wisconsin.
As I mentioned, our hospital is a member of the Greater Stillwater
Chamber of Commerce, and so we hear a great deal about the challenges
that businesspeople have in getting their Wisconsin employees to work.
Bridge traffic and frequent closures cause inefficiencies and delays
that increase the cost of doing business on both sides of the river,
and is a real impediment to job creation.
A long-term bridge failure, one we ultimately will face in a matter
of time, will have a negative economic impact not only on our hospital
and clinical care, but on the entire Twin Cities Metropolitan economy.
This is a crucial point: this section of the river is in an urban area,
an urban area with a population of 3.2 million. Washington County,
where Stillwater is located has a population of 234,000. We are vibrant
and growing and our transportation system must reflect that.
This bridge is on the National Highway System, the corridor is a
major route to the east for a metro as I said with over 3 million
residents. As well as the economic impacts, this has homeland security
implications.
But when the Lift Bridge closes, the 18,000 cars per day currently
crossing it will shift primarily to the Hudson Bridge--for a total of
32,000 more cars each day. The Hudson Bridge is the only major bridge
crossing in our region, and this level of traffic is nearly 30 percent
higher than what is presently forecast. There would be massive traffic
problems on I-94 leading in and out of St. Paul/Minneapolis.
While Lakeview Hospital and the Stillwater Clinics stand ready to
care for the sick and injured, we cannot stand still and wait for a
fracture-critical, functionally obsolete bridge to deteriorate further.
A bridge failure that causes preventable injury or death would weigh
heavily on our conscience.
In closing, I want to acknowledge that I've spoken a lot more about
traffic than what this subcommittee might be used to hearing. But it is
important that you understand the substantial impacts of delaying
action any further.
We have had a river crossing in Stillwater since before statehood.
Our communities have planned and prepared and waited over 50 years for
this bridge. The Stakeholder Group has created a project that balances
pressing transportation needs, historic preservation and environmental
protection. We only need Congressional approval for it to move ahead.
We urge you to not delay the replacement of this bridge any longer.
Please act this year to permit the St. Croix Crossing project to go
forward.
______
Mr. Bishop. I thank all the witnesses for your testimony.
We will now turn to questions. We will start with Mr. Grijalva,
unless he wants the other Members to go first on his side.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, if I may. Mayor Beaudet, Mr. Geissler
just argues that public health and safety are endangered by the
current bridge situation. Can you talk about those concerns and
do those concerns about public health and safety exist, to be
quite frank?
Mr. Beaudet. It is, I think that the Hudson Hospital and
the New Richmond Hospital would be jumping for joy that perhaps
maybe they will be able to serve the township of St. George
Township, which is the area that does not have ambulance
service provided by either Hudson or New Richmond. Those two
hospitals serve area much closer to the population involved.
They also have advanced life support ambulances. But in
Wisconsin law there is a little quirk. That is if you are
affiliated with a hospital in Wisconsin, you have to pay a
little property tax to support the ambulance service.
Obviously, Lakeview Hospital provides that free to St. Joseph
Township. And so, that is why no town board, it is up to the
town board whether they are going to have an ambulance, if they
are. And they are never going to jeopardize their residents
health care and safety based on the fact of the existing bridge
when they have two other hospital choices that can provide the
same level of service.
If there is truly an automobile accident, all three
hospitals air lift the person to Regions Hospital in St. Paul.
That is where all the advanced trauma care is.
Mr. Grijalva. What is the current cost estimate for the
project that we are----
Mr. Beaudet. The current cost estimate of the project is
nearly $700 million of borrowed money split by the states of
Minnesota and Wisconsin. And I know that Congresswoman Bachmann
urged you rapid approval of this. There is money to start this
project until the year 2013, at the earliest. And Governor
Dayton has not committed the State of Minnesota's borrowing
authority to actually do the project, even in 2013. So there is
still some question there. He supports the project, probably
looks at it more as a jobs project. And if Congresswoman
Bachmann would like to earmark the money, I am sure he would
say he would take it. But, as I said, 2013 would be the
potential start date. And it is borrowed money.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Whitesell. The legislation includes the,
does it include that so-called stakeholder mitigation
provisions and why are those provisions so important----
Mr. Whitesell. No.
Mr. Grijalva. We were presented with the stakeholder group
and I am certain they made recommendations. What happens to
those provisions?
Mr. Whitesell. As written in H.R. 850, there is no mention
of those mitigation measures. So, unless Congress were to add
those, they would not be part of this bill.
Mr. Grijalva. So, but that has been one of the bigger
points of selling the project, is that you went through this
tremendous stakeholder, with great provisions about mitigation,
etc., etc., etc., and they are not part of the legislation.
Mr. Whitesell. Correct.
Mr. Grijalva. You reference a provision in Wild and Scenic
Rivers in your testimony that allows a Federal agency to
instigate Congressional consideration of a project like this
one. Can explain, can you expand on that process and your
understanding of how that would work?
Mr. Whitesell. Certainly. The law we believe is very clear
on this matter. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is very clear.
And that is that the sponsoring Federal agency, in particular
case the U.S. Department of Transportation along with its local
sponsors in Minnesota and Wisconsin, have the, we provide an
evaluation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as to whether
there are impacts to the Act as a result of the project that is
being proposed. The project proponent, once they have that
evaluation, and if it is negative, has the ability to come back
before Congress and ask for an exception to the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. That has not happened as far as I know.
Mr. Grijalva. So the Department of Transportation could
come to Congress, do this bridge. We will pay for it, and you
don't have to go through the process of setting a precedent
under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act?
Mr. Whitesell. That is correct.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Representative Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. To follow up on a question asked by my
colleague, Mr. Whitesell, are there objective criteria for the
lessening of negative effects on the wild and scenic
characteristics on Wild and Scenic designated rivers, such as
the St. Croix. Are there objective criteria to measure the
negative effects on----
Mr. Whitesell. Congressman, if I might, I just want to make
sure I understand the correctly. Are you asking within the Act
itself or in terms of our evaluation that the Park Service
does?
Mr. Kildee. The general bill on the question of Wild and
Scenic Rivers?
Mr. Whitesell. Right.
Mr. Kildee. I was to sponsor a bill for Michigan. It set
aside 500 miles of designation of Wild and Scenic Rivers and
500 miles of study for that. In that organic bill, are you
required to look at certain criteria to see how much it may
affect the characteristics of that river that earn it the right
to be designated as wild and scenic?
Mr. Whitesell. Right, as part of the designation of the
wild and scenic river, there are outstanding remarkable values
that are noted, of which, in the case of the Lower St. Croix
River, it is the scenic value that is, is as a designated
outstanding remarkable value. And so it is in evaluation of
that scenic character that the National Park Service made its
determination that there was a direct and adverse effect as a
result of the proposed, if the bridge as proposed were to be
constructed. As part of that, as well, there was this whole
consideration of mitigation measures which came about as a
result of the stakeholders group that others refer to. And
those mitigation measures do not mitigate the direct and
adverse impact to the scenic values. In fact, they are of value
because they are, they provide mitigation to Section 4f of the
Federal Transportation Act, which looks to minimize the impacts
on lands and waters that would be impacted by this particular
project.
Mr. Kildee. So they don't reach the level that you would
ordinarily require under the organic act and your authority?
Mr. Whitesell. Right.
Mr. Kildee. In other words, they fall short.
Mr. Whitesell. This bridge falls short of meeting, of being
exempt or to be. I am sorry. It falls short of our being able
to say there is not a direct and adverse impact.
Mr. Kildee. And that was why, when we passed the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act we really wanted to make it important that
you look at those mitigating factors and sometimes, as in this
instance, there was input from stakeholders or people around
there, but they do not quite reach the level that you would
want for mitigation.
Mr. Whitesell. We don't believe there is any way for
mitigation measure to be established that would mitigate the
direct and adverse impact of this particular bridge design.
Every proposal needs to be evaluated on the merits of the
individual design as opposed to the entirety of the crossing.
Mr. Kildee. So this would not then meet the requirements we
really put in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make sure we
did not adversely affect those qualities that give it the right
to be designated as Wild and Scenic.
Mr. Whitesell. That is our belief, yes.
Mr. Kildee. We are short of that then.
Mr. Whitesell. You are short, that is correct.
Mr. Kildee. I appreciate you answering that. May I address
the Mayor. My mayor is in town today, too, so this is Mayor's
day, so I welcome you here. And I have great admiration for
mayors. At least we can say blame the other 434 Members of
Congress when something goes wrong, but the buck stops at your
desk there. Congresswoman Bachmann mentioned that there were
outside special interests. What were they and how far outside
were they, the special interests that----
Mr. Harycki. They were 27 members on the stakeholders group
and of them there was one that did not sign off on the approval
to build a $633 million dollar bridge, which includes $110
million of contingency, and so I believe she was referring to
the Sierra Club that did not, that was the one dissenting
member of the stakeholders group and has also filed numerous
lawsuits delaying it and forcing us to this position today
where we literally need an Act of Congress to go forward. In
fact, our own Governor Dayton won't commit to the project until
he has the Act of Congress and in conversations with him, he
said once we have that Act of Congress, we are there, we are
funded, we are fully funded at the State of Minnesota and
Wisconsin is mostly funded and ready to go.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much and thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. We can have some other rounds if you want to
stay. The gentleman from California?
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually have two
sets of questions. There are existing transportation corridors
in which bridges and other transportation facilities could be
built. Is that correct under the existing law?
Mr. Whitesell. Are you referring specifically to the Lower
St. Croix? I don't know, Congressman. I could find out and get
back to you.
Mr. Garamendi. I thought the testimony as I was trying to
interpret it, that that is the case. If that is the case, then
why are the, is the new bridge not in an existing corridor? I
will take either of the two mayors.
Mr. Beaudet. That has been the difficulty with this entire
process, that a bridge would be in the existing corridor would
cost much less dollars. And for reasons not clear to anyone, at
least from the Park Service river protection viewpoint it has
been a mystery as to why, what was delineated in 1990 was never
really seriously reviewed. And it would have, there would be,
it depends on how you want to rank these. The Transportation
Agency advocates, they want a large inter-regional corridor
design which does not allow it to have a design like would be
in the City of Prescott which is an existing bridge. And there
are several other corridors. The highway, Interstate 94 bridge
is only five miles away from the proposed existing bridge
location that is on the Minnesota side. And there are other
corridors. So Interstate 94, Prescott, which is another, and of
course there are pipelines and power lines that do cross the
river, those have been enlarged over the time when the Wild and
Scenic Rives Act----
Mr. Garamendi. Good. Mayor?
Mr. Harycki. Yes, if I could address that. There was an,
like I said, we had studied pretty close to a dozen possible
routes, including using the existing corridor. And the problem
we have is that the existing bridge is two lanes on each side
of the river, you have four lanes of traffic. And we got to the
point of why build a bottleneck? Why take four lanes, reduce it
down to two and then expand it up to four? It would not
accomplish anything. In fact, the preferred, the Sierra Club's
preferred alternative, I have a picture of it that I could
circulate around, is to build a very much longer bridge, that
would have a very drastic and severe impact on the view from
downtown Stillwater. In fact, when we showed it to Governor
Dayton, he said well, why would anyone want to build this, this
is disingenuous. It is so ugly. And basically they want to
stretch, from downtown Stillwater right now we have very green
backdrop, it is a very scenic area. And they want to take and
build a 40-foot high bridge, roughly about a mile in length
across a diagonal of the river so that if you are in the
Stillwater area, all you would see is bridges. And that is why
we are looking at it and saying the best solution is to put it
up against the power plant, close to the Mayor's house, you
know up against the sewage treatment plant.
Mr. Garamendi. So the real question here is whose backward
is going to have a visual impairment?
Mr. Harycki. Somewhat, and in fact that is why the original
alignment of Highway 36 was chosen, when they put it in, it was
to line up with the bridge.
Mr. Garamendi. My district is a long way from there and I
am not going to get into your local tit for tats, but I was
curious why the existing corridors are not being used. And,
frankly, the answers are insufficient. But, it is not my turf.
What is my turf is the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Park
Service has suggested that if this bill is to move forward that
it be significantly modified so that this is not a project that
is allowed under the Act but rather an exception to the Act.
And second that the mitigation measures that are apparently
connected as a result of the Department of Transportation's
requirements be built, be added to the Act so that we have
assurances that at least those mitigations, which
understandably don't deal with the visual mitigation
requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, that at least
those go forward. So my question, and the author is not here,
but I guess I am going to the Chairman here. If this bill is to
move forward, that it be modified to address those two
concerns. So, Mr. Chairman, if you would consider that in
discussions with the author, it would seem to me that at least
that would be taken care of.
My question to the Department is, am I correct at least
that part of your concerns?
Mr. Whitesell. You are correct, sir.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I leave it in your
hands.
Mr. Bishop. Do you have other questions you had? Or, we
will come back again? Let me ask a few if I could. Starting
with Mayor Beaudet. As I understand it, you are not opposed to
a bridge, you are just opposed to this particular.
Mr. Beaudet. Yes, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. And, so----
Mr. Beaudet. Can I just expand a little bit? Mayor Harycki
suggested that the current highway layout was for the current
proposed bridge. Actually, the current highway layout was a
replacement bridge in the central corridor, which the Park
Service could support in the late '50s and early '60s and the
City of Stillwater decided not to leave, not to have the
traffic on its main street and wanted that bridge not to be
built. So the original highway plan, at the time when that road
was built was to actually have a central corridor bridge.
Mr. Bishop. All right, but any bridge would then take some
kind of a waiver?
Mr. Beaudet. No, that would not be true, Mr. Chair. There
have been four bridges replaced in the Wild and Scenic River
today, from the time that this act was created. Two bridges in
the northern unit between Minnesota and Wisconsin. The Prescott
Bridge was replaced and one of the bridges of Interstate 94
have all been replaced, all within, with approval of the
administration of the National Park Service.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Whitesell, do you agree with that?
Mr. Whitesell. I am not, I don't know the specifics of
those other bridges. What I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that the
Park Service would evaluate any bridge proposal on the merits
of that particular proposal.
Mr. Bishop. All right. I have some other questions for you
later here. I do have a resolution, Mr. Beaudet, from Oak Park
Heights regarding this, that says they have not taken a
position on this particular bill. But it does show that they
have concerns about the financing of this particular bill, so I
am assuming that is what you are saying as well. I am asking
now for consent to put that in the record.
From the Stillwater mayor, if I could ask you, why were a
smaller, maybe less expensive bridge option abandoned in favor
of this current proposal?
Mr. Harycki. It was quite simply we were looking at the
future transportation needs of the region. And we did not want
to build a bottleneck. We wanted to build something that would
serve the needs of the region for many years to come.
Mr. Bishop. OK, Mr. Geissler, it is mentioned that there
are a couple of other hospital options that are in the area.
Why is it important that residents have the access to your
hospital as opposed to those that may be further?
Mr. Geissler. The two hospitals in Wisconsin, which are
also by the way part of our system of health partners, system
of care. Both of those hospitals are critical access hospitals,
so the capabilities of those facilities versus Lakeview
Hospital in Stillwater are quite different. I would differ with
Mayor Beaudet's opinion about advanced life support. I do
believe one of the communities does offer that, offer advanced
life support, which is the furthest from our service area. I
don't believe the other does, but I could be wrong with that.
And relative to transferring critical patients by
helicopter, that works great when the helicopters are flying.
Many times mechanical problems and weather prevents that. And,
for example from our hospital, we don't ever use air
transportation, it is always ground.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Whitesell, the power plant that
is built there, was that built before or after the designation
as a Wild and Scenic River?
Mr. Whitesell. My understanding was that it was before,
sir.
Mr. Bishop. Before the designation. OK. And you took that
into consideration when you created the, as far as the
criteria----
Mr. Whitesell. Keep in mind it was Congress that created
the Wild and Scenic River, not the National Park Service.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, I know. Over the last couple of years, we
have been doing a couple of those strange rivers in urban areas
which have a difficult time meeting criteria. Let me ask you
this. When the Park Service approved the bridge in 2005, it was
based on a mitigation package which was the result of the
negotiations from all those people. Do you now believe that
there is no mitigation effort that will allow you to approve
this bridge?
Mr. Whitesell. This bridge as designed, that is correct.
There is no mitigation measure that we are aware of that
would----
Mr. Bishop. Can mitigation be used to allow exceptions to
other laws, like the Wilderness Act?
Mr. Whitesell. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Bishop. If you would find out and answer that in a
written form, I would be appreciative of it. So tell me why you
chose not to defend that 2005 evaluation. Who made the decision
to completely reverse the course and abandon the work that you
had done with the group?
Mr. Whitesell. If I might, the Park Service has always
maintained that there is a direct and adverse impact to the
bridges that have been proposed. That part has never changed.
What changed from the 2006 decision, or 2005, was in regards to
whether the mitigation measures mitigated those direct and
adverse impacts. Based on what the Court's evaluation in 2010
and in our own subsequent follow up to that we believe there
was an error in the decision that was made in 2005. And we
believe that, as we noted to the Department of Transportation,
that while we believe that should Congress decide to grant an
exception, that the mitigation measures needed to be added to
that, those mitigation measures do not eliminate the direct and
adverse impact to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Mr. Bishop. I have other questions, but Mr. Grijalva, do
you have others?
Mr. Grijalva. Not at this time.
Mr. Bishop. Can I just finish off with you then? Mr.
Whitesell, it would seem then that your request for the
mitigation seems unusual in the fact that it does not ever
solve any of your problems. You would have a problem with this
bridge whether there is mitigation or not.
Mr. Whitesell. That is, we do. The mitigation is actually,
are mitigation measures that would be needed to mitigate, as I
mentioned before, Section 4f of the Federal Transportation Act.
Separate issues.
Mr. Bishop. Like you say, it is a Congressional decision
that would be made. That is why I find it unusual that you
would insist on having the mitigation when it has no impact on
moving the project forward or not. Whether it is mitigation or
not, you are still not going to like the bridge.
Mr. Whitesell. That is correct. But----
Mr. Bishop. So, we will cram it down your throat but you
still want us to pay on the side, as well.
Mr. Whitesell. We want you to make this project as, if it
were to go forward, as visually unintrusive as possible. And so
we are recommending to Congress, as part of our evaluation of
Section 4f, that those mitigation measures be included.
Mr. Bishop. Well, let us pretend that I am not a teacher
and I was a business man, why would I want to support you when
you are not going to help me out in the end?
Mr. Whitesell. I am not sure we are negotiating this
matter, sir. All we are saying is that Congress has said to us
to provide our best evaluation and our evaluation is that there
is a direct and adverse impact.
Mr. Bishop. But we have precedents to waivers all over the
place. I mean, every, in many Wild and Scenic Rivers there are
waivers that have been added to do things. Even having a Wild
and Scenic River in that urban setting does not necessarily
meet the criteria of a Wild and Scenic River. And, as you told
me, the power plant was there before the designation----
Mr. Whitesell. That is my understanding.
Mr. Bishop. And that did not, you did not discriminate on
that as a waiver of all impact before you created the Wild and
Scenic River. It is difficult for me to understand the higher
standard that you are trying to put on it now. And maybe that
is simply because of the lawsuits that you have faced. But it
seems strange. And I am sure that Congress will do what
Congress will always do.
Mr. Harycki, where will the new bridge be in relation to
that power plant, and why does that new bridge help or hurt the
scenic value of the area?
Mr. Harycki. Well, in that area, just south of the power
plant, Anderson Corporation has a very big factory. It is an
industrial area of the river. You have the Anderson Plant, you
go to the coal plant. There is a prison on top of the hill.
There is a sewage treatment plant right at the base of the
bridge. So the diagram shows the placement of the proposed
bridge and it would be in that industrial area of the river
versus the Sierra Club's proposal and we can distribute this
afterwards to put it downtown, where if you are standing in our
parks or anywhere in the historic area of Stillwater, all you
would be seeing is bridge structures.
Mr. Bishop. To create Wild and Scenic Rivers, we have
different standards that have to be there. Recreation
standards, that kind of stuff. Am I assuming that the objection
to this particular bridge is only scenic and it does not impact
recreation or any of the other crap that goes on in Wild and
Scenic Rivers?
Mr. Harycki. That would be correct. And in fact we are in
support of this bridge, just to make that clear. It would add
some access with the proposed mitigation package to put in
bicycle trails and it would be a whole new group of people down
to that section of the river to enjoy it. But like I said,
right now it is a very industrial portion of the river. And so
there is not, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of
probably the stakeholders too, that particular section of the
river is not scenic. It is certainly not wild.
Mr. Bishop. You said that there is a threat to health and
safety of human life in that you are having all sorts of
accidents that occur there because you are going from two to
four then back to two, then back to four again. And this is in
an area which, as far as its scenic beauty, is questionable at
best.
All right. I don't have any other questions, unless Mr.
Grijalva does. I thank the witnesses for your testimony, for
your time with us here. And, with that, I do want to announce
the consent to put this resolution in the record. I think I
already did that. And, Representative Young has some questions
that we would like to put in the record for various
individuals. We would ask for your response in a timely for
that. I appreciate your patience with being here. And, with
that if there is no further business, obviously not.
Without objection, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Elton Gallegly,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 241
Thank you Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for
scheduling this hearing today on my bill, H.R. 241. This bill would
authorize the Forest Service to conduct a land exchange with the White
Lotus Foundation for a small parcel of land located on the perimeter of
the Los Padres National.
The White Lotus Foundation, a non-profit organization, has been on
San Marcos Pass Road, about six miles north of Santa Barbara, for the
past 25 years. The Foundation's property is adjacent to the Los Padres
National Forest.
Upon the purchase of this property, the Foundation began using the
only road that allows White Lotus and the rest of the public access
from San Marcos Pass Road to and from their property. Then, shortly
afterwards the Forest Service notified the Foundation this short access
road loops into Forest Service land and then back onto private
property.
In early 2008, the Forest Service sent a letter to the Foundation
requiring them to remove all encroachments on Forest Service land by
December 31, 2008, or they would begin enforcement action against the
foundation.
However, due to the very steep topography, the Foundation has no
reasonable alternatives to move the portion of the access road that
encroaches on the Forest Service property. The loops lies on flat
ground, which has held equipment storage for fire and flood
emergencies, and provided access to a water pump and other necessary
equipment. There is no other flat ground on which to move these items,
and without this space the Foundation will be forced to cease its
operations.
The actual loop area in question is approximately 2,000 square
feet, or 0.05 acres. I think you can judge by the size of this
encroachment that I am merely trying to solve this issue in a manner
that will satisfy all the involved parties.
My legislation will not cost the taxpayers. The White Lotus
Foundation will pay for the land, the survey, and all administrative
costs. There are no exemptions from NEPA or any other environmental
laws. The land in question is not protected wilderness or any other
specially designated area. And finally, my legislation doesn't even
mandate the Forest Service to do anything. It merely allows the Forest
Service to conduct a land exchange with White Lotus within two years of
the bill becoming law, then if no piece of land is found to exchange,
the Forest will have the authority, if they so choose, to convey the
land to White Lotus.
It is also my understanding that the Committee will offer a minor
technical amendment to this legislation during Committee markup. I am
fully supportive of this amendment.
I look forward to this hearing and your questions. Thank you.
______
Statement of The Honorable Ron Kind, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, on H.R. 850
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in
regards to H.R. 850, a bill that would facilitate the construction of a
bridge in the Lower St. Croix Riverway. A new bridge is a top priority
for my constituents in Western Wisconsin and I have worked for more
than 14 years to help resolve issues surrounding its design,
development, and construction. While I understand the concerns some may
have about this project, and its potential impact on the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act, there exists today a broad consensus that the
current crossing is in need of replacement and that Congress must act
to allow for the construction of a new bridge. I strongly support
legislation that would authorize the St. Croix River Crossing Project
to move forward, in accordance with the Federal Highway
Administration's 2006 Record of Decision, which includes a detailed
mitigation package developed in a unique stakeholder review process.
Today, motor vehicles crossing the St. Croix rely on the Stillwater
Lift Bridge, which was built in 1931. The bridge includes a vertical
lift span that rises to allow boat traffic through the river. This
historic 80-year old structure is closely identified with the Lower St.
Croix Riverway and was placed on the National Registry of Historic
Places in 1989. While an admirable structure and innovative for its
time, today the Lift Bridge is woefully inadequate in handling the
region's transportation needs. The region immediately east of the
current crossing has seen significant population and economic growth in
recent years. We have also seen an increase in tourism as more and more
Americans come to visit the St. Croix Valley and see this remarkable
place, which I am proud to represent. The increase in motor vehicle
traffic crossing the Lift Bridge has resulted in extensive congestion
on both sides of the border. The roadways leading to the bridge are
already at full capacity and simply cannot be expanded or improved
under the status quo. Traffic is stopped on a regular basis to allow
for the Lift Bridge to raise and allow boat traffic to pass through the
river, again adding to the congestion. And just last month, as
floodwaters rose, the Stillwater Lift Bridge was forced to close for 10
days and travelers were forced to detour 15 miles to the next nearest
crossing.
Aside from these concerns, the Lift Bridge suffers from severe
structural, operational, and maintenance issues--not uncommon for an
80-year old structure. The Lift Bridge is ``structurally deficient''
due to its high potential for flooding, which requires closing the
crossing; ``functionally obsolete'' due to its narrow lanes, lack of
shoulders, and low vertical clearance; and ``fracture-critical'' due to
a design that would lead to a collapse of the bridge if just one of its
main trusses were to fail.
I am very familiar with this Project and have worked closely with
all stakeholders to generate consensus around a way forward. After an
initial effort in 1998 was halted in 2001 due to lack of funding, I
worked with the U.S. Institute of Environmental Conflict Resolution and
the facilitation firm RESOLVE to bring together 28 different
stakeholders representing a wide variety of interests associated with
the Project at the federal, state, and local level. In 2002, President
George W. Bush helpfully contributed to this process by issuing
Executive Order 13274, which sought to streamline the environmental
review of seven transportation infrastructure projects, including the
St. Croix River Crossing Project.
I was pleased that all stakeholders faithfully participated in the
process and meaningfully contributed to its improvement. As a result of
their work, a new and different universe of alternatives was
considered, featuring different locations, sizes, and types of bridges.
The stakeholders carefully crafted extensive mitigation measures
designed to restore some developed areas to a more natural state,
preserve the riverway, implement growth management, and preserve
historical resources. The new Project now featured a different
location, with a shorter, more perpendicular river crossing. The
initially proposed steel/concrete girder bridge was abandoned in favor
of an extradosed bridge, which would have fewer piers in the water.
These stakeholders met 19 times over the course of three years to work
through all issues associated with the development of this Project.
Every stakeholder made concessions to accommodate the concerns of
others and I appreciate that 27 of the 28 organizations agreed to allow
the newly redesigned St. Croix River Crossing Project to move forward.
The Sierra Club North Star Chapter dissented and subsequently sued
to halt work on the Project, arguing that the Project was in violation
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In March 2010, the U.S. District
Court of Minnesota ruled that the National Park Service's 2005 Section
7(a) evaluation was ``arbitrary and capricious'' in finding that its
proposed mitigation package could offset a direct and adverse impact
the new structure would have on the Riverway's scenic and recreational
value. The National Park Service then produced an updated Section 7(a)
evaluation in 2010 that reversed key findings of its 2005 evaluation,
now finding that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not allow for any
mitigation measures to offset the direct and adverse impact any new
structure would have on the Riverway's scenic and recreational value.
As a result of this legal impasse, Congressional authorization is now
needed to move the Project forward.
Today, the organizations that are in opposition to this Project
advocate for a ``lower, slower'' bridge that has the potential to be
less costly and have less of a visual impact on the viewshed of the
Riverway. The suggestion underlying this notion is that the Stakeholder
Review Process failed to consider an adequate range of alternatives in
reaching its conclusion. This is simply not true. Stakeholders analyzed
alternate locations and sizes and reached two major conclusions. First,
the alternate locations would have a greater impact on Section 106
properties, Section 4(f) park properties, Section 7(a) bluff areas,
floodplains and wetlands then the preferred project. Second, the
alternatives would fail to meet the transportation needs of the
project. It simply does not make sense to build an expensive structure
that fails to address the immediate and long-term congestion problems
facing the region.
Furthermore, even if stakeholders were to design a ``lower,
slower'' bridge, National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis has
testified that such a bridge would still require Congressional
authorization to overcome its direct and adverse impact on the Lower
St. Croix Riverway.
As a former member of the Natural Resources Committee, I am acutely
aware of the importance of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and have
consistently sought to ensure its integrity throughout this process. It
is my understanding that the National Park Service will provide
testimony identifying ways that this bill can be improved. I strongly
believe that the Committee should work with the Park Service to make
these changes to the bill's language. It is essential that the
Committee narrowly tailor the bill as this has the potential to set a
precedent when needed transportation projects are found to be in
conflict with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Today, residents throughout Western Wisconsin find the status quo
to be simply untenable. Notably, of the seven projects that President
Bush sought to streamline in his 2002 executive order, the St. Croix
River Crossing Project is the only one that today remains incomplete.
Suggestions that the Project needs to go through yet another redesign
are not productive and will only result in further delaying
construction and raising the cost of a much-needed replacement bridge.
I look forward to working with the Committee, the National Park Service
and the Department of Transportation to ensure that the St. Croix River
Crossing Project is allowed to move forward as quickly as possible.
______
The documents listed below were submitted for the record and have
been retained in the Committee's official files.
American Rivers, Letter to Chairman Bishop and Ranking
Member Grijalva dated May 3, 2011, from David Moryc, Senior Director,
River Protection Program
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc.,
``Economic Impact of St. Croix River Crossing''
Letter in opposition to H.R. 850 from group of
organizations for environmental protection (individual organizations
listed below):
Alliance for Metropolitan Stability
Alliance for Sustainability
Audubon Minnesota
Carpenter /St. Croix Valley Nature Center
Clean Up the River Environment (CURE)
Duluth Audubon Society
Environmental Law and Policy Center
Fresh Energy
Friends of the Mississippi River
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Izaak Walton League of America--Midwest Office
Izaak Walton League of America--Minnesota Division
Land Stewardship Project
Mankato Area Environmentalists
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
Minnesota Food Association
Parks and Trails Council of Minnesota
Sierra Club North Star Chapter
Sierra Club John Muir Chapter
St. Croix River Association
St. Croix Scenic Coalition
St. Paul Audubon Society
Transit for Livable Communities
Voyageurs National Park Association
Manglona, Hon. Paul A., Senate President, Northern
Marianas Commonwealth Legisalture, Letter to Delegate Gregorio Sablan
dated March 15, 2011
Mendiola, Hon. Melchor A., Mayor, Municipality of Rota,
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Letter to Delegate
Gregorio Sablan dated March 30, 2011
Minnesota Department of Transportation, TH 36 Corridor
Management Plan, dated May 2001
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
``Section 7(a) Evaluation, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Proposed New St.
Croix River Crossing''
Newspaper article, ``Funding for bridge appears to be
lining up'' by Jeff Holmquist
City of Oak Park Heights, Memorandum to Oak Park Heights
Business Community, regarding ``Communication to City Businesses--STH
36/St. Croix River Crossing Project--Current Position of City of Oak
Park Heights'' dated October 15, 2010
City of Oak Park Heights, Resolution regarding H.R. 850
Photo, Old Bridge Crossing 2011
Photo, Powerplant 2011
Photo, Prescott Bridge 2011
Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, Testimony of John Winchester on H.R. 3923, Sugar
Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange Act of 2009, dated April
27, 2010 submitted for the record
Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, Letter in support of H.R. 765
Santos, Hon. Teresita A., Representative, 17th Northern
Marianas Commonwealth Legislature, Written testimony on H.R. 4686 dated
April 27, 2010, submitted for the record by Hon. Gregorio Sablan
regarding H.R. 1141
Santos, Hon. Teresita, Representative Marianas
Commonwealth Legislature, Letter to Chairman Bishop
SRF Consulting Group, Inc., ``St. Croix River Crossing
Benefit-Cost Analysis Memorandum'' dated May 5, 2004
United States Department of the Interior, Memorandum
regardion ``Section 7 determination for proposed new crossing of the
St. Croix River (Public Notice 96-04143-IP-RJA)''
Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Photo of proposed
St. Croix Bridge
______
Statement of The Honorable Betty McCollum, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Minnesota, in Opposition to St. Croix Bridge
Legislation
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, Members of the
Subcommittee:
Minnesota residents deserve a replacement for the existing,
outdated lift bridge over the St. Croix River connecting Stillwater, MN
to western Wisconsin. I strongly support a fiscally responsible,
appropriately-scaled transportation solution for the St. Croix River
crossing in Stillwater. There is consensus that a new bridge is needed.
However, there is intense debate and controversy over the specific
design and overall cost of the proposed replacement bridge that H.R.
850 would permit. Therefore, this legislation can only be described as
a stalking horse for an excessively expensive mega-bridge to be built
only six miles from the existing eight lane Interstate-94 St. Croix
River crossing.
While this debate is new to most Members of Congress, it is a
debate that I have been involved in throughout my twenty-five year
career in public service. In fact, the St. Croix crossing has been
discussed locally for thirty years. During that period, numerous bridge
replacement proposals have come and gone. Be assured, passage of H.R.
850 will not end debate or controversy over this proposed St. Croix
crossing.
Irrespective of the bridge proposal in question, this Committee
should reject H.R. 850 as an unprecedented assault on one of the most
successful laws to protect America's natural treasures. The Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act preserves the nation's finest rivers for future
generations. The Act protects 11,000 miles of 166 rivers in 38 states
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Inclusion in this system is a
highly selective distinction: protected rivers amount to one-quarter of
one percent of America's rivers. The St. Croix is the only river in
Minnesota protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and gained
this protection only after enormous effort from leaders such as former-
U.S. Senator and Vice-President Walter Mondale.
Since the Act was passed in 1968, only extremely rare modifications
have been granted by Congress. Passage of H.R. 850 would set a new,
dangerously low standard for granting exemptions to the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act that threatens every mile of every protected river in this
national system.
The legislation under review today capriciously ignores the legacy
of stewardship that millions of Americans enjoy today because of the
law. H.R. 850 uses only 41 words to end over 40 years of federal
protection for the St. Croix River. Regretfully, the effect of this
legislation would be far less economical than its language. This
legislation would ``deem'' a $700 million bridge over the St. Croix
River to be consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. But in
October 2010, after careful review, the National Park Service
determined this specific bridge proposal was not consistent with the
Act. H.R. 850 simply disregards the Park Service finding and states
fiction as fact.
If Congress were to take the extraordinary step of granting an
exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the bridge proposed in
H.R. 850 is not deserving of the precedent. This $700 million bridge
proposal is excessively expensive and would likely impose huge unfunded
costs on the communities I represent.
Following the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35 Bridge over the
Mississippi River in Minneapolis, a new state-of-the art bridge was
constructed in record time for $260 million (this figure includes a $27
million contractor bonus for early completion). The bridge H.R. 850
enables to be built would cost taxpayers nearly three times as much the
Interstate 35W Bridge, but serve only a fraction of the traffic.
(Currently, around 18,000 vehicles cross the St. Croix River in
Stillwater each day.) In this time of record deficits at the federal,
state and local level, elected leaders must carefully consider the
value of every investment. The bridge in H.R. 850 fails every common-
sense test of taxpayer value.
Closer inspection of the proposed St. Croix Bridge reveals the true
costs of the project may be much higher. There has been little
attention paid to the traffic congestion that a new interstate-style
bridge in Stillwater would add to the State Highway 36 corridor,
including the cities of Oakdale, Maplewood, Mahtomedi, Roseville and
North St. Paul. If there is enough traffic projected to justify
building a bridge that costs nearly three times as much as the new
Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis then the communities along State
Highway 36 should expect to be overrun with thousands more semi-trucks,
buses, and daily commuters. Expanding State Highway 36 to accommodate
an interstate-style bridge in Stillwater could raise the true cost of
the mega-bridge project close to one billion dollars. Local elected
officials from communities along State Highway 36 are raising concerns
over the unfunded costs that H.R. 850 could impose on their taxpayers.
The full cost of the bridge proposed in H.R. 850 is unknown and the
value of this public investment is deeply in doubt. Thankfully, the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is forcing a closer review of this proposal.
The Act is safeguarding the environmental integrity of the St. Croix
River and also protecting taxpayers from wasteful government spending.
Granting an exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would be
nothing short of fiscally reckless and a violation of the principle of
local control.
It is possible to build a new bridge that meets the requirements of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, solves the longstanding transportation
problem in Stillwater, and guarantees state and federal taxpayers a
responsible return on their investment. I strongly support construction
of a bridge that satisfies these reasonable expectations. My
experience--and plain Minnesota common sense--suggests the fastest path
to a new bridge is the path of consensus and fiscal responsibility. The
Interstate-35W Bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis is
proof that Minnesota can build a new bridge in record time when there's
community consensus around a sensible plan. An affordable St. Croix
bridge could be designed and constructed long before the interstate-
style bridge proposal and offer taxpayers much greater value.
I strongly urge Members of this Committee to support fiscal
responsibility and environmental protection and oppose H.R. 850.
Mr. Chair, I request permission to insert the attached letter
addressed to the Committee from Maplewood, Minnesota Mayor Will
Rossbach into the hearing record.
______
[The letter from The Honorable Will Rossbach, Mayor, City
of Maplewood, Minnesota, submitted for the record by Ms.
McCollum follows:]
May 2, 2011
To Members of the House Committee on Natural Resources,
I am writing to ask your consideration of the difficulties which
will be created for the local government units which lie west of the
cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights along the Highway 36 corridor
if the current proposal for a new freeway type bridge is approved as an
individual improvement and not as a regional project.
I want to be clear that a new bridge is absolutely necessary to
cross the St. Croix River in the Stillwater, Oak Park Heights area. The
existing bridge is in a condition which should have warranted its
closure years ago and only is still in use due to the lack of ability
to find common ground for an alternative. The current bridge rating is
below the rating of the Interstate 35 Bridge when it collapsed into the
Mississippi River.
This being understood if a new bridge is approved without
consideration of the impacts that will be had by all of the communities
which share the Hwy 36 corridor the problems which are currently being
experienced at the river will simply be transferred to the West and
will create unnecessary burdens for those communities.
The Highway 36 corridor is currently operating at or near capacity
and the existing bridge carries 18000 vehicles per day. The 2030
projections for a new bridge indicate that approximately 30,000
additional trips will be generated in the corridor which passes through
the communities which lie to the West of the area. There is not any
plan in place at this time to deal with the additional traffic which
will be generated in the corridor without a new bridge let alone with
the addition of the additional traffic which a new bridge would create.
This situation on a regional basis needs to be considered with the
understanding that there are no approved mass transit corridors
anywhere in the region which could be viewed as a means to help to
reduce the future flow of traffic in the Hwy. 36 corridor.
The current corridor is not currently at, nor is it currently
planned, to have improvements constructed to bring it up to freeway
standards in the 2030 planning period. Instead it is a corridor with
limited lane volume restricted by several bridges and right of way
which uses semaphores as traffic control devices a numerous
intersections along its route.
The cost that is currently being contemplated for the bridge is to
me unbelievable. In the City of Maplewood we have been attempting to
find funding to eliminate one of the existing semaphores which would be
a project that would help to enhance traffic flow that is currently
backed up by the intersection control for miles during rush hour, and
have not to date been able to secure the 5 to 6 million dollars we need
to supplement our funding to proceed with the project. It would be a
poor use of funds to dedicate close to 700 million dollars to a bridge
that would create lack of capacity all along the corridor it is
intended to serve. A more reasoned approach would be to construct a
bridge which would be sized to accommodate the current traffic flow
along with the reduced projections which would be generated by a
properly scaled bridge and at the same time make the improvements
needed to provide a fully functioning corridor.
You have an opportunity before you to resolve a dispute that has
been ongoing for 20 to 30 years and desperately needs to have a
solution, I urge you to find that solution but do so in a way that
creates a fully functional traffic corridor and not waste such a large
amount of funds over building one part of the corridor while creating
numerous new problems along the entire length of the remaining
corridor.
Respectfully submitted,
Will Rossbach
Mayor, City of Maplewood
______
Statement submitted for the record by Aaron Schutt, Senior Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer, Doyon, Limited, on H.R. 441
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide written testimony on HR. 441, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for a micro
hydro project in non-wilderness areas within the boundaries of Denali
National Park and Preserve, to acquire land for Denali National Park
and Preserve from Doyon Tourism, Inc., and for other purposes. I would
especially like to thank my home state Representative. Congressman Don
Young, former Chairman of this Committee and current Chairman of the
Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee, is the sponsor of this
legislation. My name is Aaron Schutt, I am the Senior Vice President
and Chief Operating Officer of Do yon, Limited.
Doyon is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations,
formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA).
Doyon has more than 18,000 Alaska Native shareholders, and we are proud
of our record on behalf of those shareholders. Our mission is to
promote the economic and social well-being of our shareholders and
future shareholders, to strengthen our Native way of life and to
protect and enhance our land and resources.
The issue that brings my interest to you today involves Doyon's
effort to improve our energy efficiency and environmental footprint on
our in-holdings within the Denali National Park. The Kantishna Hills
Renewable Energy Act provides an avenue for Doyon to develop a
renewable energy system to provide electrical power to the Kantishna
Roadhouse. The Kantishna Roadhouse is a full service wilderness lodge
providing overnight accommodations to Denali National Park visitors.
Owned and operated by Doyon Tourism, a wholly-owned Doyon
subsidiary, the Kantishna Roadhouse is located on an in-holding within
Denali National Park. Kantishna Roadhouse serves thousands of Park
visitors each year. As it is located 100 miles inside the Park,. the
Roadhouse is not connected to any utility grid and must produce 100% of
its electrical energy onsite. Currently, our power comes from a diesel
generator. This system requires trucking several thousand gallons of
diesel fuel through the Park each year. We run the generator on a
twenty four hour basis through the entire operating season. Doyon
Tourism strives to provide our services in the Park and on our lands in
the most environmentally respectful way.
Doyon is facing several problems with the construction of this
renewable energy project, thus the need for this legislation. Of
primary concern is the laud ownership. While Doyon currently owns the
proposed location of the microchydro power plant, it does not own some
of the laud needed for the project. This legislation addresses this
problem.
In early 2010, Doyon received a Tribal Renewable Energy Grant from
the Department of Energy. We wanted to use part of that grant to
install a micro-hydro power generation system at the Kautishna
Roadhouse. However, due to time limitations on the use of those funds,
restricted access periods to our facility inside the Park, the limited
construction season in Alaska and the lack of an access point from the
National Park Service we do not believe we will be able to make use of
this grant at this time. Doyon remains committed to this project,
however, if the laud ownership issues can be addressed.
This micro-hydro project is modeled after the system installed at
the Park Service's recently renovated Eielson Visitors Center, also
located deep within Denali National Park and Preserve. This renewable
energy system would potentially provide up to half of our current
electrical energy needs, offsetting an equivalent amount of diesel
usage and its incumbent environmental footprint.
Doyon has worked with the National Park Service for the past year
to develop this legislation. HR. 441 has two parts. First, it allows
the Park Serve to issue a permit to Doyon Tourism to build the proposed
renewable energy project. Second, it calls on the Park Service to
exchange lauds with Doyon so that all of the lands needed for the
construction and operation of the micro-hydro project are owned by
Doyon Tourism. In exchange, Doyon would provide an equivalent amount of
acreage on a value-for-value basis from its other laud holdings in the
vicinity of the Kautishna Roadhouse. Under the current agreement, six
to seven acres would be exchanged between each of the two parties.
In conclusion, I would like to reinforce my comments that this
legislation is good for all the parties involved. HR. 441 will allow
Doyon to move forward with a small renewable energy project. The
project will substantially reduce all aspects of environmental
footprint related to our current power generation system: fewer
truckloads of diesel trucked in over the remote Park roads which in
turn results in cleaner local air quality and less sound pollution in
this remote area. Doyon believes this project mirrors the recent
efforts of the National Park Service to achieve greater use of
renewable energy at its facilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the subcommittee
today. I would be pleased to provide written responses to any questions
the Members of the Subcommittees may have regarding the Kantishna Hill
Renewable Energy Act of 2011.