    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        H.R. 624, H.R. 3640, H.R. 4109,

                       H.R. 4334, H.R. 4484, H.R. 5319,

                            H.R. 5958 AND H.R. 5987

    =======================================================================

                              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

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                            Thursday, June 28, 2012

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-118

                                   __________

           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
    74-876                    WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 Democratic 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                      Betty Sutton, OH
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Niki Tsongas, MA
    Paul A. Gosar, AZ                    Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 John Garamendi, CA
    Kristi L. Noem, SD                   Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
    Steve Southerland II, FL             Paul Tonko, NY
    Bill Flores, TX                      Vacancy
    Andy Harris, MD
    Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
    Jon Runyan, NJ
    Bill Johnson, OH
    Mark Amodei, NV

                           Todd Young, Chief of Staff
                          Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
                   Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
                    David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
                                     ------

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS

                            ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
                RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic 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                     Betty Sutton, OH
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Niki Tsongas, MA
    David Rivera, FL                     John Garamendi, CA
    Scott R. Tipton, CO                  Vacancy
    Raul R. Labrador, ID                 Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
    Kristi L. Noem, SD
    Mark Amodei, NV
    Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio

                                     ------
                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Thursday, June 28, 2012..........................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Washington........................................     2
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5987..........................     4
        Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New Mexico, Statement submitted for the record....   111
        Kildee, Hon. Dale, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan, Prepared statement of...................   112
        Lujan, Hon. Ben Ray, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New Mexico........................................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     6
        McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California, Oral statement on H.R. 3640...........    51

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Campbell, Elizabeth Ainsley, Executive Director, Nashua River
          Watershed Association......................................   101
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5319..........................   102
        Cann, Kevin, Supervisor, Mariposa County, California.........    76
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3640..........................    78
        Carney, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Delaware, Oral statement on H.R. 624..............    44
        Carper, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware,
          Oral statement on H.R. 624.................................    45
        Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah, Oral statement on H.R. 4484.................    50
        Curtis, Hon. John, Mayor, City of Provo, Utah................    93
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4484..........................    95
        Denham, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California, Oral statement on H.R. 3640...........    43
        Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California, Oral statement on H.R. 4109...........    39
        Garrett, Billy G., Commissioner, District 1, Dona Ana County,
          New Mexico.................................................    64
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4109 and H.R. 4484............    66
        Johnson, Ronika, Resident, Mariposa, California..............    78
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3640..........................    80
        Knox, Victor, Associate Director for Park Planning,
          Facilities and Lands, National Park Service, U.S.
          Department of the Interior.................................     7
            Prepared statement on H.R. 624...........................    98
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3640..........................    75
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5319..........................    99
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5958..........................   100
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5987..........................     8
        Kolb, Ingrid, Director, Office of Management, U.S. Department
          of Energy..................................................    10
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5987..........................    10
        McClenahan, Heather, Executive Director, Los Alamos
          Historical Society.........................................    17
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5987..........................    19

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Statement of Witnesses--Continued
        Pearce, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New Mexico........................................    47
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4334..........................    48
        Pena, James M., Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
          System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.....    88
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4109..........................    89
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4484..........................    93
        Petersen, Gary R., Vice President, Tri-City Development
          Council (TRIDEC)...........................................    11
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5987..........................    12
        Rountree, Carl, Assistant Director, Bureau of Land
          Management, U.S. Department of the Interior................    53
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4334..........................    54
        Rush, Matt, Executive Vice President, New Mexico Farm and
          Livestock Bureau...........................................    62
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4334..........................    63
        Schickedanz, Jerry G., Chairman, People for Preserving Our
          Western Heritage...........................................    56
            Prepared statement on H.R. 4334..........................    58
        Slavin, Timothy A., Director and State Historic Preservation
          Officer, State of Delaware Division of Historical and
          Cultural Affairs...........................................   107
            Prepared statement on H.R. 624...........................   108
        Smith, Ray, Resident, Oak Ridge, Tennessee...................    28
            Prepared statement on H.R. 5987..........................    29
        Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Massachusetts, Oral statement on H.R. 5319........    40
        Turner, Hon. Robert, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of New York, Oral statement on H.R. 5958.............    42

    Additional materials supplied:
        Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce, Letter submitted for
          the record on H.R. 4334....................................    68
        List of documents retained in the Committee's official files.   113

                                      (IV)

    LLEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 624, TO ESTABLISH THE FIRST STATE
    NATIONAL PARK IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
    ``FIRST STATE NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK ACT''; H.R. 3640, TO
    AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ACQUIRE NOT MORE
    THAN 18 ACRES OF LAND AND INTERESTS IN LAND IN MARIPOSA,
    CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 4109, TO DESIGNATE
    ADDITIONAL NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND IN THE LOS PADRES
    NATIONAL FOREST IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS WILDERNESS, TO
    MAKE CERTAIN WILD AND SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATIONS IN THAT
    NATIONAL FOREST, TO DESIGNATE THE CONDOR RIDGE SCENIC AREA, TO
    ADDRESS OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLE USE IN THAT NATIONAL FOREST, TO
    FACILITATE A LAND EXCHANGE WITH THE UNITED WATER CONSERVATION
    DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``LOS PADRES
    CONSERVATION AND RECREATION ACT OF 2012''; H.R. 4334, TO
    ESTABLISH A MONUMENT IN DONA ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, AND FOR
    OTHER PURPOSES. ``ORGAN MOUNTAINS NATIONAL MONUMENT
    ESTABLISHMENT ACT''; H.R. 4484, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVEYANCE
    OF A SMALL PARCEL OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND IN THE UINTA-
    WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST IN UTAH TO BRIGHAM YOUNG
    UNIVERSITY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``Y MOUNTAIN ACCESS
    ENHANCEMENT ACT''; H.R. 5319, TO AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC
    RIVERS ACT TO DESIGNATE SEGMENTS OF THE MAINSTEM OF THE NASHUA
    RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
    FOR STUDY FOR POTENTIAL ADDITION TO THE NATIONAL WILD AND
    SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``NASHUA RIVER
    WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY ACT''; H.R. 5958, TO NAME THE
    JAMAICA BAY WILDLIFE REFUGE VISITOR CONTACT STATION OF THE
    JAMAICA BAY WILDLIFE REFUGE UNIT OF GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION
    AREA IN HONOR OF JAMES L. BUCKLEY; AND H.R. 5987, TO ESTABLISH
    THE MANHATTAN PROJECT NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK IN OAK RIDGE,
    TENNESSEE, LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO, AND HANFORD, WASHINGTON, AND
    FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
                                  ----------

                           Thursday, June 28, 2012 D

                         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 notice, at 9:10 a.m., in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Noem, Hastings
    (ex-officio); Holt, Tsongas, and Garamendi.
        Also present: Representatives Denham, Fleischmann, and
    Lujan.
        Mr. Hastings. The hearing will come to order. And the Chair
    notes the presence of a quorum.
        First, I ask unanimous consent that two of our colleagues
    that are not members of this Subcommittee be allowed to sit at
    the dais: Mr. Denham from California, and Mr. Fleischmann from
    Tennessee.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Hastings. And without objection, both Members will be
    able to sit at the hearing.
        The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public
    Lands is meeting today to hear testimony on several bills that
    fall within our jurisdiction. Although today's hearing will
    cover several bills that are non-controversial, we will also
    take up some bills that have some controversy. Because many of
    the witnesses have asked to testify today, I remind everyone
    that their time limit is limited to five minutes.
        Under the rules, the opening statements are limited to the
    Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent
    to include any Member's opening statement at the hearing, if
    submitted to the clerk by the close of business today.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Hastings. And without objection, so ordered. We have a
    very busy day today, and I want to thank all the panels--this
    panel and ensuing panels--for complying with our request to
    move up the time period. We originally scheduled to start at
    10:00. But because there are a few activities going on that I
    think most of the Nation is focused on, we appreciate your
    moving this up today, so some schedules could be accommodate
    later on.
        The first bill that we will take up today is H.R. 5987,
    ``To Establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park
    in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, California, and in my home
    State--or New Mexico, Los Alamos, New Mexico. I knew better
    than that, I apologize. There may be a Los Alamos in
    California, but we are not talking about that one. We are
    talking about the one in New Mexico. And, of course, in my home
    State, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
        I will recognize myself for fiveminutes.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

        Mr. Hastings. Today's hearing on this proposed legislation
    has taken many years and the efforts of a great many dedicated
    individuals in several communities across the country that were
    integral to the successful development of the Manhattan
    Project. It is appropriate that we have a witness representing
    each of the three communities that would become sites of this
    historical park, so that they can provide this Committee and
    the Congress with their unique perspective on how best to
    preserve and share the story of the Manhattan Project, and the
    tremendous contributions and achievements of thousands of
    Americans who made it a success.
        As I mentioned, I represent the Tri-Cities in the State of
    Washington where Hanford is located. I can literally see
    Hanford site from my backyard. So much of my statement will
    focus on Hanford, the B Reactor, and their role in the
    Manhattan Project.
        To provide a little background to the Committee, Hanford's
    nuclear history began in the early 1940s, and played a pivotal
    role in our Nation's defense for more than 40 years. As part of
    the Manhattan Project, the secret World War II effort to
    develop and construct the first atomic bomb and the work done
    at Hanford was an integral part in ending the Second World War.
    Later, nuclear weapons production at Hanford helped provide the
    nuclear deterrents to win the Cold War that led to the demise
    of the Soviet Union.
        The B Reactor, specifically, was a key part of Hanford's
    nuclear production success. Only months after Enrico Fermi
    first demonstrated that a controlled nuclear reaction was
    possible, ground was broken on the B Reactor, which, amazingly,
    only 13 months later, became the world's first full-scale
    plutonium production reactor. As part of the Manhattan Project,
    the B Reactor produced the plutonium for the first-ever nuclear
    explosion, and later produced the plutonium for the bomb that
    helped end World War II.
        The community has worked hard over the years to protect B
    Reactor, and to prevent its demolition. In fact, at the end of
    the Cold War, when B Reactor faced the possibility of closure,
    the B Reactor Museum Association was formed to preserve the
    history of that reactor. Local groups, such as the Tri-City
    Industrial Development Council, or TRIDEC, the Tri-Cities
    Visitor and Convention Bureau, Hanford communities, and others,
    lent their support and persuaded leaders across Washington
    State to support the B Reactor preservation.
        Today, Hanford is a Department of Energy clean-up site.
    Under legally binding clean-up plans, Hanford's historic B
    Reactor would be destroyed at a cost to taxpayers of tens of
    millions of dollars. In the case of B Reactor, protecting and
    preserving history is expected to save money, while at the same
    time increasing public access.
        B Reactor tours currently offered by the Department of
    Energy routinely fill up within minutes. And when I say that,
    when they announce that a tour is available, generally within
    minutes that is filled up for that year. Credit is due to the
    local DOE leadership, who has worked each year to increase
    access. Thousands now visit on an annual basis from every
    state, and from countries around the world.
        Today many will correctly point out that each of the three
    locations included in this legislation have distinct facilities
    and unique logistical considerations. Some historic Manhattan
    Project facilities like B Reactor are very accessible today.
    Others could be made readily accessible, while others it will
    take time, and possibly a few more years, before regular access
    is possible.
        However, the goal of this bill is to preserve these pieces
    of history from destruction, and to facilitate and enhance
    public access. Clearly, the nature and location of these
    facilities, especially those located on secured Department of
    Energy sites, presents a challenge. And this legislation aims
    to address this by ensuring maximum flexibility as steps are
    taken now and in the future to allow more public access.
        As we consider this legislation today it is important to
    note that similar legislation has been introduced in the
    Senate. Over the past several months, efforts have been
    undertaken to bridge the differences in initial drafts by
    myself and Chairman Senator Bingaman of New Mexico. Very real
    progress was made, and a consensus reached on the approach of
    the bills. While some differences remain between the House and
    Senate bills, there is genuine bipartisan desire in both the
    House and the Senate to advance this proposal into law. And we
    will do everything we can to make it happen this year.
        I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Bingaman,
    with Senators Murray and Cantwell from my State, and my fellow
    sponsors of this legislation: Mr. Fleischmann from Tennessee,
    and Mr. Lujan from New Mexico.
        Now, I would really like to extend a special welcome to
    those who have traveled today, and specifically from Hanford,
    Oak Ridge, and Los Alamos, New Mexico--get that right--to
    appear here. And we will have a formal introduction later on.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]

              Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,
                  Committee on Natural Resources, on H.R. 5987

        Today's hearing on this proposed legislation has taken many years
    and the efforts of a great many dedicated individuals in several
    communities across the country that were integral to the successful
    development of the Manhattan Project. It is appropriate that we have a
    witnesses representing each of the three communities that would become
    sites of this Historical Park, so that they may provide this Committee
    and the Congress with their unique perspective on how best to preserve
    and share the story of the Manhattan Project and the tremendous
    contributions and achievements of thousands of Americans who made it a
    success.
        In 2003, I introduced legislation directing the National Park
    Service to study preservation options for Manhattan Project sites. This
    legislation was signed into law the following year--enabling the Park
    Service to begin their work. The National Park Service ultimately
    recommended a Park Unit comprised of facilities at Hanford, Washington,
    Los Alamos, New Mexico and Oak Ridge, Tennessee to best tell the story
    of the Manhattan Project, and preserve and protect these national
    resources and pieces of our nation's history.
        Work on preservation efforts, though, started well before 2003. We
    are at this point today largely because of the continued hard work and
    dedication of key leaders in each of these local communities.
        I represent the Tricities where Hanford is located. I can literally
    see the Hanford site from my backyard, so much of my statement focuses
    on B Reactor and the other Hanford facilities in this legislation.
        The historical significance of Hanford's B Reactor's has long been
    recognized by those in the surrounding Tri-Cities community. With local
    support, B Reactor was declared a Civil Engineering Landmark in 1968
    and it was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1992.
    In 2008, it was designated as a National Historic Landmark.
        The community has worked hard over the years to protect B Reactor,
    and to prevent its demolition. In fact, at the end of the Cold War,
    when B Reactor faced the possibility of closure, the B Reactor Museum
    Association was formed to preserve the history of the reactor. Local
    groups such as the Tri-City Industrial Development Council, the Tri-
    Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau, Hanford Communities, and others
    lent their support and persuaded leaders across Washington state to
    support B Reactor preservation.
        To provide a little background to the Committee, Hanford's nuclear
    history began in the 1940's and played a pivotal role in our nation's
    defense for more than 40 years. As part of the Manhattan Project, the
    secret World War II effort to develop and construct the first atomic
    bomb, the work done at Hanford was an integral part of ending the War.
    Later, nuclear weapons production at Hanford helped provide the nuclear
    deterrence to win the Cold War and end to the Soviet Union.
        The B Reactor, specifically, was a key part of Hanford's nuclear
    production success. Only months after Enrico Fermi first demonstrated
    that a controlled nuclear reaction was possible, ground was broken on
    the B Reactor--which, amazingly, only 13 months later, became the
    world's first full-scale plutonium production reactor. As part of the
    Manhattan Project, the B Reactor produced the plutonium for the first-
    ever nuclear explosion and later produced the plutonium for the bomb
    that helped end World War II.
        Today, Hanford is a Department of Energy cleanup site. Under
    legally binding cleanup plans, Hanford's historic B Reactor would be
    destroyed at a cost to taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars. In the
    case of B Reactor, protecting and preserving history is expected to
    save money, while at the same time increasing public access.
        I've had the opportunity to tour B Reactor numerous times and it
    truly is like stepping back into the 1940's. For those who didn't live
    through World War II, B Reactor tells the story of the time and of the
    workforce that contributed to our nation's defense for so many years,
    serving as an irreplaceable teaching tool for future generations.
        The B Reactor tours currently offered by the Department of Energy
    routinely fill up within minutes. Credit is due to the local DOE
    leadership who've worked each year to increase access each and every
    year. Thousands now visit on an annual basis, from every state and from
    countries far away.
        I'm especially pleased that in April the Department of Energy, for
    the first time, allowed schoolchildren under the age of 18 the
    opportunity to tour B Reactor. It's encouraging that over 500 children
    have toured the facility since then, demonstrating a real interest in a
    hands-on history experience. Again, credit for this achievement is due
    to the Richland Operations Office for making this happen and I commend
    their ongoing work on this initiative.
        Today, many will correctly point out that each of the three
    locations included in this legislation have distinct facilities and
    unique logistical considerations. Some historic Manhattan Project
    facilities like B Reactor are very accessible today, others could be
    made readily accessible, while others will take time and care, and
    possibly a few more years, before regular public access is possible.
    However, the goal of this bill is to preserve these pieces of history
    from destruction and to facilitate and enhance public access. Clearly,
    the nature and location of these facilities, especially those located
    on secured Department of Energy sites, presents a challenge and this
    legislation aims to address this by ensuring maximum flexibility as
    steps are taken now and in the future to allow more public access.
        As we consider this legislation today, it's important to note that
    similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate. Over the past
    several months, efforts have been undertaken to bridge differences in
    initial draft bills by myself and Chairman Bingaman. Very real progress
    was made and consensus reached on the approach of the bills. While some
    differences remain between the House and Senate bills, there is genuine
    bipartisan desire in both the House and Senate to advance this proposal
    into law--and to do everything we can to make that happen this year.
        I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman Bingaman,
    Senators Murray and Cantwell from Washington state and my fellow House
    sponsors of this legislation, Congressman Fleischmann representing Oak
    Ridge, and Congressman Lujan representing Los Alamos to establish the
    Park. We will all continue working together with local community
    advocates and leaders to accomplish our goal of ensuring these
    remarkable pieces of our history are preserved to tell the story of the
    Manhattan Project.
        Finally, I would like to extend a special welcome to those who have
    traveled here today from Hanford, Oak Ridge and Los Alamos to either
    appear as witnesses or join us in the audience. Thank you for coming
    and thank you for all your hard work and dedication.
                                     ______

        Mr. Hastings. With that, I yield back my time and recognize
    the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

        Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank you
    for your leadership on this effort, and taking so much time
    with you and the Majority staff to work with Chairman Senator
    Bingaman on making sure that we were able to proceed in a very
    productive manner, Mr. Chairman. So, again, thank you very much
    for your leadership.
        Good morning, and thank you to all the witnesses for being
    here today, especially Heather McClenahan from Los Alamos
    Historical Society, for being here to testify on H.R. 5987,
    ``To Establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park
    in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, Hanford in
    Washington.'' Los Alamos National Laboratory, which is in my
    district, has played a large role in the Nation's history, as
    well as contributed to the country's national security.
        In its beginnings, Los Alamos Laboratory, known as Project
    Y, was conceived during the early part of World War II. The
    United States wanted to build an atomic explosive to counter
    the threat posed by the German nuclear development program.
    Today Los Alamos is one of the country's premier laboratories
    and has contributed greatly to modern physics, and has a great
    potential to be able to produce more engineers, great feats in
    our future in energy, science, and technology.
        We also have an opportunity more than 50 years after the
    creation of the laboratory to ensure that we tell the story of
    the Nuclear Age for both the good and the bad, and allow it to
    reflect on its own history, how it has changed the world and
    how we can move forward into the future, ensuring peace and
    prosperity for humanity.
        And, Mr. Chairman, there is a great opportunity, as well,
    as we look at the history of our national labs with the
    important contributions of the science, the physics, the great
    minds that were part of this project. But not to forget all of
    those that provided support in making sure that the building of
    these amazing complexes, families that have histories and ties
    to the land where these national labs were built and erected,
    and where the research took place.
        There is a young lady from my district, Mr. Chairman, a
    young lady that is completing her Ph.D. in her field that
    attended the same high school as I, that is doing a research
    project with many of these families, as well, some of which are
    her own family. And it is incredible to see the passion and the
    drive and the oral history that has been collected. And, so, we
    have a great interest in making sure that we preserve that, as
    well. Because, as we know, it is a story that is truly
    American. And I look forward to sharing this story with many
    when we open these areas under the National Park Service
    arrowhead.
        I am especially excited that we have our witnesses again
    here today, and we are going to be hearing on a wide range of
    bills, many dealing with designations for parks, rivers, and
    wilderness. We have a land conveyance for a well-known
    university icon in the West, the Mighty Y Mountain in Provo,
    Utah, and we are considering a study to include a once-polluted
    river to be part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers. Another bill
    would create a new national park in Delaware. By moving this
    bill forward we will be including a national park site in every
    State. And I believe their colonial history is an important
    part of other history and stories that we will hear today.
        So, I look forward to a successful hearing today, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you again for your leadership. And I yield back
    the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lujan follows:]

          Statement of The Honorable Ben Ray Lujan, a Representative
                    in Congress from the State of New Mexico

        Mr. Chairman, colleagues, and witnesses, thank you for being here
    today for our subcommittee hearing.
        I am thrilled to be here when we address the bipartisan bill on the
    Manhattan Project National Historical Park.
        Since I am one of the co-sponsors, along with the committee chair
    and our fellow member from Tennessee, I believe this bill crosses party
    lines and districts.
        It is a story that is truly American and I look forward to sharing
    this story with many when we open these areas under the National Park
    Service Arrowhead.
        I am especially excited that we have so many witnesses from my home
    state today. I offer a special welcome to Ms. McClenahan from my
    district.
        Today we are hearing a wide range of bills, many dealing with
    designations for parks, rivers, and wilderness.
        We have a land conveyance for a well-known university icon in the
    west, the mighty Y Mountain in Provo, Utah.
        We are considering a study to include a once-polluted river to be
    part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers.
        Another bill would create a new national park in Delaware. By
    moving this bill forward, we will be including a national park site in
    every state. I believe their colonial history is as important as other
    stories we hear today.
        I look forward to a successful hearing today and I yield back the
    remainder of my time.
                                     ______

        Mr. Hastings. I thank the gentleman for his statement. And
    our first panel is a panel on--Mr. Fleischmann wanted to make
    the introduction. Is that correct, Mr. Fleischmann, you want to
    make the introduction of the witness from Oak Ridge, in lieu of
    an opening statement? Is that correct?
        Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hastings. Good. Thank you very much. So our first panel
    today we have, in addition to the three members of the
    respective communities, we have Victor Knox, who is Associate
    Director for Park Planning, Facilities and Lands at the
    National Park Service. We have Ingrid Kolb, Director of Office
    of Management of U.S. Department of Energy, Heather McClenahan,
    Executive Director of the Los Alamos Historical Society, Gary
    Petersen, from the Tri-City Development Council, or TRIDEC,
    from my home State, and Mr. Ray Smith, whom I had an
    opportunity to meet when I was down in Oak Ridge.
        So, Mr. Knox, we will begin with you. And let me explain
    how those lights work. As I mentioned earlier, there is a
    number of bills, ensuing bills, later on. And again, I want to
    thank all of you for coming in earlier. But your full statement
    will appear in the record. But we have--as I mentioned, if you
    can confine your statements to five minutes, and the way those
    lights work, when the green light goes on you are doing
    exceedingly well. But when the yellow light goes on, that means
    you have one minute left. And when the red light comes on,
    that--you know, I would ask you to close up your thoughts, if
    you would.
        So, thank you very much. That is the way that works. And,
    Mr. Knox, we will start with you, and you are recognized for
    fiveminutes.

    STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR PARK PLANNING,
    FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                              THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Knox. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
    present the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 5987. I
    would like to submit our full statement for the record, and
    summarize our--the Department's--position. The Administration
    supports H.R. 5987 with amendments. This bill would establish
    the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge,
    Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington.
        The development of the atomic bomb through the Manhattan
    Project was one of the most transformative events in our
    Nation's history. It ushered in the Atomic Age, changed the
    role of the United States in the world community, and set the
    stage for the Cold War.
        The park would be established by the Secretary of the
    Interior within one year, after entering into an agreement with
    the Secretary of Energy.
        We appreciate the language specifically providing for
    amendments to the agreement and a broad range of authorities
    for the Secretary of the Interior, as these provisions would
    give the National Park Service flexibility to shape the park
    over time, and maximize the promotion of education and
    interpretation related to the park's purpose. We look forward
    to implementing this legislation in cooperation with the
    Department of Energy.
        While we support H.R. 5987, there are some areas we would
    like to recommend amendments. Among our concerns is the bill
    language regarding the written consent of landowners, land
    acquisition limitations, and activities outside of the park. We
    are continuing to review the bill for any technical issues, and
    we would be happy to work with the Committee to develop the
    appropriate language, and we will provide our recommendations
    in the near future.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
    pleased to answer any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Knox follows:]

    Statement of Victor Knox, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities
     and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on
         H.R. 5987, A Bill to Establish the Manhattan Project National
     Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and
                  Hanford, Washington, and for Other Purposes.

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
    the Department of the Interior on H.R. 5987, a bill to establish the
    Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los
    Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington, and for other purposes.
        The Administration supports H.R. 5987 with amendments. The
    development of the atomic bomb through the Manhattan Project was one of
    the most transformative events in our nation's history: it ushered in
    the atomic age, changed the role of the United States in the world
    community, and set the stage for the Cold War. This legislation would
    enable the National Park Service to work in partnership with the
    Department of Energy to ensure the preservation of key resources
    associated with the Manhattan Project and to increase public awareness
    and understanding of this consequential effort.
        H.R. 5987 would require the establishment of the Manhattan Project
    National Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System within
    one year of enactment, during which time the Secretary of the Interior
    and the Secretary of Energy would enter into an agreement on the
    respective roles of the two departments. The unit would consist of
    facilities and areas located in Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, or Hanford, as
    identified in the bill and determined by the Secretary of the Interior
    in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, except for the B Reactor
    National Historic Landmark in Hanford, which would be required to be
    included in the park. The National Historical Park would be established
    by the Secretary of the Interior by publication of a Federal Register
    notice within 30 days after the agreement is made between the two
    secretaries.
        The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire
    the named resources in Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, or Hanford. The bill
    would provide authority for the Secretary to enter into agreements with
    other Federal agencies to provide public access to, and management,
    interpretation, and historic preservation of, historically significant
    resources associated with the Manhattan Project; to provide technical
    assistance for Manhattan Project resources not included within the
    park; and to enter into cooperative agreements and accept donations
    related to park purposes. It would also allow the Secretary to accept
    donations or enter into agreements to provide visitor services and
    administrative facilities within reasonable proximity to the park. The
    Secretary of Energy would be authorized to accept donations to help
    preserve and provide access to Manhattan Project resources.
        H.R. 5987 is based on the recommendations developed through the
    special resource study for the Manhattan Project Sites that was
    authorized by Congress in 2004 and transmitted to Congress in July
    2011. The study, which was conducted by the National Park Service in
    consultation with the Department of Energy, determined that resources
    at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and Hanford, met the National Park Service's
    criteria of national significance, suitability, feasibility, and the
    need for Federal management for designation as a unit of the National
    Park System. H.R. 5987 assigns the respective roles and
    responsibilities of the National Park Service and the Department of
    Energy as envisioned in the study: the National Park Service would use
    its expertise in the areas of interpretation and education to increase
    public awareness and understanding of the story, while the Department
    of Energy would maintain full responsibility for operations,
    maintenance, and preservation of historic Manhattan Project properties
    already under its jurisdiction, along with full responsibility for any
    environmental and safety hazards related to the properties.
        Because the Department of Energy would maintain and operate the
    primary facilities associated with the Manhattan Project National
    Historical Park, the study estimated that the National Park Service's
    annual operation and maintenance costs for the three sites together
    would range from $2.45 million to $4 million. It also estimated that
    completing the General Management Plan for the park would cost an
    estimated $750,000. Costs of acquiring lands or interests in land, or
    developing facilities, would be estimated during the development of the
    General Management Plan. The Department of Energy has not yet assessed
    fully the operational difficulties in terms of security and public
    health and safety, applicable statutory and regulatory requirements,
    and the potential new cost of national park designation at the
    sensitive national security and cleanup sites.
        The Department anticipates that the initial agreement between the
    two Departments likely would be fairly limited in scope, given the
    bill's one-year timeframe for executing an agreement that would enable
    the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Manhattan Project
    National Historical Park. We appreciate the language specifically
    providing for amendments to the agreement and a broad range of
    authorities for the Secretary of the Interior, as these provisions
    would give the National Park Service the flexibility to shape the park
    over time and to maximize the promotion of education and interpretation
    related to the park's purpose.
        The flexibility is particularly important because managing a park
    with such complex resources, in partnership with another Federal
    agency, at three sites across the country, will likely bring
    unanticipated challenges. Fortunately, we have already begun a
    partnership with the Department of Energy regarding the Manhattan
    Project resources through our coordinated work on the study. If this
    legislation is enacted, we look forward to building a stronger
    partnership that will enable us to meet the challenges ahead.
        While we support H.R. 5987, there are some areas where we would
    like to recommend amendments. Among our concerns are the bill language
    regarding the written consent of owners; land acquisition limitations;
    and activities outside of the park. We are continuing to review the
    bill for any technical issues. We would be happy to work with the
    committee to develop the appropriate language and will provide our
    recommendations in the near future.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to
    answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Hastings. I thank you very much. And because you did
    that in such a short time period, we do give out stars later
    on, and you will----
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Hastings. I would now like to recognize Ingrid Kolb,
    the Director of Office of Management for the U.S. Department of
    Energy. You are recognized for fiveminutes.

    STATEMENT OF INGRID KOLB, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT, U.S.
                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Ms. Kolb. Well, thank you very much. I am hoping to earn a
    star, as well. I was considering just saying, ``Ditto,'' but I
    will say a little bit more than that.
        First of all, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, it is
    a pleasure to appear before you to discuss the proposal on the
    table, the Manhattan Project National Historic Park, as
    represented in H.R. 5987. Just to cut to the chase, I will say
    that the Department of Energy supports the establishment of
    this park at the three sites: at Los Alamos, New Mexico and in
    Hanford, Washington, as well as Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The
    Department of Energy and the National Park Service have worked
    to come to this conclusion in partnership, and we look forward
    to working with the Park Service if this legislation is passed.
    And we will meet the timelines that are established in the
    legislation to make sure that the park is established in a
    timely manner.
        I will say that the Department has not yet had the
    opportunity to fully assess some of the operational challenges,
    in terms of security and public health and safety and
    applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, as well as
    the potential costs that may be associated with the
    establishment of the park. However, we do feel that the
    proposed legislation does provide us with the flexibility to
    meet those challenges. And again, we would work with the
    National Park Service and with the Subcommittee to make sure
    that those challenges can be addressed successfully.
        So, thank you for your leadership and the leadership of the
    Subcommittee in proposing this legislation. And that concludes
    my remarks. And hopefully I will get my star.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kolb follows:]

           Statement of Ingrid Kolb, Director, Office of Management,
                    U.S. Department of Energy, on H.R. 5987

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Ingrid
    Kolb. I serve as the Director, Office of Management at the U.S.
    Department of Energy. As part of our programmatic responsibilities, the
    Office of Management coordinates cultural resources and historic
    preservation activities across the Department and is the lead office
    coordinating DOE participation in the proposed Manhattan Project
    National Historical Park. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the
    proposed park and H.R. 5987, a bill to establish the Manhattan Project
    National Historical Park.
        The Manhattan Project National Park Study Act, Public Law 108-340,
    directed the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the
    Secretary of Energy, to conduct a special resource study to determine
    the feasibility of designating one or more Manhattan Project sites as a
    unit of the National Park Service. A park, the legislation noted, would
    have to be compatible with ``maintaining the security, productivity,
    and management goals of the Department of Energy,'' as well as public
    health and safety. In preparing the study, the Department's Office of
    Management was an active partner with the National Park Service, and
    its staff participated fully, providing information, input, and
    comments.
        Following public meetings at the sites, extensive assessments of
    potential park boundaries and integrity of historical resources, the
    Department and the National Park Service agreed that a park was
    feasible, met the suitability requirement for creating a new park, and
    should be established. In October 2010, National Park Service Director
    concurred on the study, which contained the recommendation for a three-
    site park in Oak Ridge Tennessee, Hanford, Washington, and Los Alamos,
    New Mexico, in partnership with the Department of Energy. The
    Department of Energy would continue to manage and maintain its
    properties and control access to them. The National Park Service would
    provide interpretation, consult with the Department on preservation
    issues, and establish a visitor center and station rangers in each of
    the three communities. In March 2011, the Deputy Secretary of Energy
    concurred on the findings of the study and provided assurances to the
    National Park Service that the Department would retain full access
    control to its properties in accordance with its missions and security
    requirements. ``The Department of Energy is proud of its Manhattan
    Project heritage and recognizes that this partnership with the National
    Park Service would bring one of the most significant events in 20th
    century America to a wider public audience.''
        The establishment of a National Historical Park will represent a
    new era for the Department of Energy, particularly in certain areas of
    our sites that have been largely off-limits to the public to date due
    to national security concerns and potential impacts to our ongoing
    missions. The Department has not yet assessed fully the operational
    difficulties in terms of security and public health and safety,
    applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and the potential new
    cost of national park designation at our sensitive national security
    and cleanup sites. The proposed legislation, H.R. 5987, would give the
    Department of Energy and Department of the Interior the flexibility to
    establish the timeline, boundaries, and a suitable management plan for
    a National Historical Park that would allow us to ensure the
    continuance of public safety, national security, and the ongoing
    missions at our sites. We welcome the leadership of Chairman Hastings
    and the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee in
    telling this important story, and we look forward to working with you
    as this legislation advances.
        Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify before the
    Subcommittee. This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
    answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Hastings. You indeed did. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Kolb. You are welcome.
        Mr. Hastings. I very much appreciate that very much.
        We will now go to the witnesses of the respective
    communities, and we will start with Gary Petersen from my home
    State of Washington.
        And I will note, by way of introduction, he is the Vice
    President of TRIDEC, which is an industrial--or an economic
    development organization. But by way of history, he was
    stationed at then-Camp Hanford on Rattlesnake Mountain,
    overlooking the site. And the Rattlesnake Mountain is another
    issue that this Committee has dealt with, from a standpoint of
    access. So Gary knows that area very well, and he knows the
    views you can see from the top of Rattlesnake Mountain.
        So, with that, Gary, Mr. Petersen, recognize you for five
    minutes for your statement.

              STATEMENT OF GARY PETERSEN, VICE PRESIDENT,
                 TRI-CITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (TRIDEC)

        Mr. Petersen. I am hopeful that I get the extra two minutes
    from each of the previous speakers, because----
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Hastings. Hope is, you know, is always good, but it
    does not work that way.
        Mr. Petersen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is a
    pleasure to be here, speaking on behalf of this bill. And I
    want to thank both Congressman Lujan and also Congressman
    Fleischmann for cosponsoring the bill.
        I am here today to speak on behalf of the Tri-City
    Development Council, also the Tri-City Visitor and Convention
    Bureau, the Hanford Communities, and B Reactor Museum
    Association. But I want to do something a little bit different,
    and I want to say I am also here to speak on behalf of the
    roughly 1,500 people who were moved off of that site in 1942.
    And I am also here to speak on behalf of the 50,000 people who
    showed up on that site to build the buildings on the site.
        So, as I speak, we know the names of Enrico Fermi. We know
    the name of Robert Oppenheimer and Hans Bethe. But I also want
    to speak about the people who built this thing, including my
    father-in-law, Herman Francis Toner. When I say this, it
    becomes emotional, because these people came from all over the
    United States and the world to build the project. And in order
    to build that project, they had to start by building
    dormitories, mess halls, the sewage treatment plant. There had
    to be people who were stewards, who were bus drivers, who were
    engineers, who were physicists. And it is an amazing feat, when
    you consider the dates.
        August 13, 1942 was the formation of the Manhattan Project,
    August 13, 1942. August 14, 1945, the war was over. What
    happened in between that period and what happened to the
    families is an astounding piece of work.
        I brought with me today two--and I am very pleased that the
    Chairman is here--I brought a letter from the Brugaman family.
    I have not opened this envelope, but I am turning it over to
    Congressman Doc Hastings. It is in support of this bill, but
    the only remaining structure on the site that was private is
    the Brugaman Ranch. It is a hand-placed stone building. Doc has
    been out there to see this hand-placed stone building. The
    craftsmanship is so well done that when you look at the
    chimney, the chimney has a face built in to the chimney on all
    four sides. It is the only remaining structure from the private
    enterprise. So, Doc, I have a letter for you on that.
        As we talk through this, though, remember that they had to
    build this with no aid of computers. They had slide rules, they
    had hand-drafted blueprints. And my understanding is that the B
    Reactor, which was built, start to finish, in 11 months, was
    done before the last blueprints came off of the drawing board.
        So, as you do this bill, I want you to remember the
    individuals who did this work, and remember that some of them
    are now--their third generation is still working on the site.
    And, so, the same is true of my compatriots in these two
    communities. It is a--we want this bill to pass, we support
    this bill. We have tremendous support on the part of the
    communities. We have been working on this effort for more than
    two-and-a-half years. B Reactor is something that needs to be
    saved, but so are the other historical properties on site.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I conclude my remarks. My
    written testimony is in. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Petersen follows:]

      Statement of Gary R. Petersen, Vice President, Tri-City Development
       Council (TRIDEC), on H.R. 5987, on behalf of Tri-City Development
      Council (TRIDEC), Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau, Hanford
                   Communities, B Reactor Museum Association

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
        I thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 5987, a bill to
    establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge,
    Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford Washington. I also would
    like to thank the full-Committee Chairman, Representative Doc Hastings,
    the sponsor of the legislation, along with Representatives Ben Ray
    Lujan and Chuck Fleischmann for co-sponsoring this bill.
        I am Gary Petersen, Vice President of the Tri-City Development.
    TRIDEC is the lead economic development organization serving a two-
    county region in southeastern Washington State. The Tri-Cities has a
    population of 258,400 and includes the communities of Kennewick, Pasco,
    Richland and West Richland and the counties of Benton and Franklin.
        I am here today to speak in favor of H.R. 5987 on behalf of the
    Tri-Cities Community in Washington State, and in support of community
    organizations in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Los Alamos, New Mexico. All
    three of our communities have passed resolutions supporting the
    Manhattan Project National Historical Park, and we have been united in
    our support of this bill.
    Support for H.R. 5987
        It is easy for those of us who live in the communities of Oak
    Ridge, Los Alamos and the Tri-Cities to say that the Manhattan Project
    changed the world.
        On August 13, 1942 the Manhattan Project was established. Three
    years and one day later, August 14, 1945, the War was done!
        In between those dates, more than 100,000 men and women were
    brought to these three sites from all over the world. The majority of
    these young men and women had no idea what they were building.
        At Hanford, more than 2,000 residents--mostly farmers--were given
    just days to weeks to move off their land. This included moving,
    getting rid of thousands of animals, all the farm equipment and most
    importantly closing schools and moving families--lock-stock-and barrel!
        Once the land was acquired by the government, the workers had to be
    found--engineers, physicists, chemists, carpenters, electricians, iron
    workers, cement masons and a multitude of office workers, cooks,
    guards, and truck drivers. These same individuals first had to build
    their own town with dormitories, mess halls, water, sewer, roads and
    railroads. This had to be done BEFORE they could start construction on
    reactors, nuclear fuel manufacturing and chemical separation
    facilities. At Hanford, the construction camp quickly became the third
    largest town in the State of Washington, with 50,000 construction
    workers.
        Hanford construction stretched the imagination. Housing for 50,000
    men and women; 386 miles of highway (including Washington State's first
    four-lane highway); 780,000 yards of concrete, and 158 miles of
    railroad track.
        All of this was done without the aid of computers! These were the
    days of slide-rules and handcrafted blueprints!
        Equipment, electronics and piping could not be bought off-the
    shelf. For the most part everything had to be fabricated on the Hanford
    site.
        B Reactor itself, the world's first full-scale nuclear reactor, was
    built in just 11 months start-to finish. The design was based on the
    success of Enrico Fermi's ``Chicago Pile 1;'' and a pilot plant, the X-
    10 graphite reactor located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. B Reactor was
    designed to produce 250 million watts, a million times more powerful
    than Chicago Pile 1, which produced the first ever sustained nuclear
    fission chain reaction under the bleachers at the University of
    Chicago's Staff Field in December of 1942.
        Most of the workers brought in to these three sites were among the
    most talented in their respective fields, whether it was physics or
    pipefitting. While we recognize the names of Enrico Fermi, J. Robert
    Oppenheimer and Hans Bethe, we also need to give recognition to
    individual workers, many of whom stayed on the job and in these
    communities after 1945.
        These are engineering feats and accomplishments that must be told
    to future generations! And, it needs to be told before all of the
    ``old-timers'' are gone.
        As these three sites in Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and Hanford are being
    cleaned up, and many buildings are demolished and removed, the history
    of scientific and engineering achievement at the birth of the Atomic
    Age must be preserved.
        The National Park Service, as it does with all of its sites,
    interprets the sites, and attempts to address ALL viewpoints to give a
    full and fair picture. We support such actions. This will not be a park
    that gives just a nuclear weapons viewpoint. We believe it is more
    about the thousands of men and women who built buildings, equipment and
    processes that became a turning point in the history of the United
    States and the world. The science of the Manhattan Project has
    transformed contemporary society with significant contributions in
    fields such as nuclear medicine, industrial isotopes, and
    nanotechnology. This historic park will tell all sides of the story of
    what occurred at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and the Hanford/Tri-Cities area,
    as was identified in the National Park Service Special Resource Study
    released last year.
        Our three communities have collectively worked toward this
    legislation for more than three years. In this process, we not only
    partnered with each other, but we also worked closely with the
    Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Atomic
    Heritage Foundation, the National Parks Conservation Association, State
    Historical Preservation Officers, the National Trust for Historic
    Preservation and the Energy Communities Alliance.
        There is no question of the importance of creating this new
    national park, nor of the public interest to view these former
    ``secret'' sites and preserve them for future generations.
        At Hanford, DOE hosted 8,000 visitors to B Reactor last year. These
    visitors came from all 50 states, and from 48 foreign countries. These
    numbers were the result of only ONE announcement by DOE that 8,000
    seats to B Reactor would be open to the public last summer. The tours
    filled in less than 5 hours. This year DOE has increased the number of
    seats to 10,000. Unlike the National Park Service, DOE (except for the
    single announcement) does not advertise its tours.
        These visitor numbers also clearly demonstrate that designating
    these three sites as the Manhattan Project National Historical Park
    will create jobs and provide an economic development benefit for all
    three communities. Such designation will come at a time when all three
    communities are seeing downturns in federal employment as these sites
    are being cleaned up. Cleaning up these sites, and opening them to
    public viewing is of major importance to three communities that have
    been supporting national security missions since 1943.
        The Manhattan Project National Historical Park at Oak Ridge, Los
    Alamos and Hanford is critical to the preservation of perhaps the most
    historic event of the 20th Century.
        Our community encourages you to move forward with this legislation
    this year. We have unanimity of our communities that the Park should be
    established in the near term in order to honor our Manhattan Project
    and Cold War veterans.
        We urge Congress to pass this National Park legislation. Thank you
    again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to responding
    to your questions.
    Attachments:
            Community Support Letter, May 8, 2012

            [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74876.008

            [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74876.009

            [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74876.010

            [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74876.011

        Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Gary, I appreciate your
    testimony. And I know I share the passion with you, because I
    have been with you out at the site.
        Next we will hear from Heather McClenahan, the Executive
    Director of the Los Alamos Historical Society. You are
    recognized for fiveminutes.

                   STATEMENT OF HEATHER McCLENAHAN,
           EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOS ALAMOS HISTORICAL SOCIETY

        Ms. McClenahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Lujan,
    and members of the Committee, for allowing me to testify today.
    I am Executive Director of the Los Alamos Historical Society,
    and among our many activities we operate the Los Alamos
    Historical Museum, and own in a life trust the World War II
    home of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the
    Manhattan Project. Speaking about the history of Los Alamos is
    a passion of mine.
        I am here in support of H.R. 5987, a bill to establish the
    Manhattan Project National Historical Park. First, let me say
    how pleased we are that the National Park Service and Congress
    have recognized the magnitude of the history of the Manhattan
    Project. Historians have called it the most significant event
    of the 20th century.
        I have three points to make today: one, why this history
    should be commemorated in a national park; two, why it will
    have a positive impact on Northern New Mexico; and three, why
    partnerships are critical to making this park a reality.
        In 2007, recognizing the impact of a possible national park
    to our community, the Los Alamos County Council appointed an ad
    hoc committee to determine what a park might look like in Los
    Alamos. I served on that Committee, and the details of our
    recommendations are in my written testimony. In summary, we
    envisioned a downtown National Park center where guests would
    learn about the Manhattan Project and then be sent to existing
    venues at the laboratory and throughout the community to learn
    more, a recommendation that the Park Service adopted in its
    final report to Congress.
        Tied together under the auspices of a national park, the
    Manhattan Project industrial sites at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge,
    and Hanford, along with the places where the soldiers and
    scientists lived and formed communities will create a full
    picture of the history.
        Some critics have said that a national park dedicated to
    the Manhattan Project will glorify the atom bomb or create a
    theme park for weapons of mass destruction. I disagree. I have
    never visited a national park that was anything like a
    Disneyland. In fact, the National Park Service, of all
    government agencies, is the most trusted for telling complete
    stories: the good, the bad, the painful, and the poignant.
    Parks and monuments that commemorate battles or massacres do
    not celebrate ugly moments in American history. They teach us
    about them, and they help us, as a Nation, to reflect and
    learn.
        So, in the rich tradition of the National Park system, the
    Manhattan Project National Historical Park will need to include
    stories about the devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the
    environmental damage, and the fear of atomic annihilation that
    are its legacies, along with the stories of great technical and
    scientific achievement, and the decisive ending of World War
    II. The Nation needs to understand the Manhattan Project from
    all sides, and the Park Service can do that.
        My second point is that the Manhattan Project National
    Historical Park will provide economic benefits to Northern New
    Mexico. With, by the Park Service's own estimates, thousands of
    additional annual visitors, Los Alamos will need workers not
    only in tourism and service industries, but construction and
    other related businesses. As our ad hoc committee suggested,
    the story of the Manhattan Project isn't just about world-class
    scientists. As Congressman Lujan pointed out, the story
    includes people from the rural communities and pueblos
    surrounding Los Alamos, mostly Native Americans and Hispanics
    who provided the backbone of the labor force that built the
    laboratories and facilities, cleaned the houses, and drove the
    trucks.
        The Manhattan Project forever changed Northern New Mexico.
    And, in fact, the Manhattan Project National Historical Park
    will once again transform these communities, creating an
    economic driver based on heritage tourism that provides jobs,
    educational opportunities, and improved futures to
    traditionally under-served communities.
        Third, and finally, we appreciate with enthusiasm the
    statement in section three of this bill that one purpose of the
    park is to assist the Department of Energy and other interested
    parties in efforts to preserve and protect the historically
    significant resources that remain from the Manhattan Project.
    It is something we have been working on for 50 years.
    Partnerships and cooperative agreements between agencies, non-
    profit groups such as ours, and even private property owners,
    will make this park happen, bringing together widespread
    resources for the benefit of our Nation, much like the
    Manhattan Project did years ago.
        In sum, the Los Alamos Historical Society and our community
    partners fully support the establishment of the Manhattan
    Project National Historical Park in order to preserve and teach
    this history. We believe that it will have economic benefits
    for Northern New Mexico, and we are heartened to see the
    Department of Energy willing to work with the Department of the
    Interior and other partners to make this world-changing history
    accessible.
        At its heart, the story of the Manhattan Project is an
    amazing episode of our great Nation's history. It brought
    together the brightest scientists, many of them immigrants who
    came to this country seeking freedom. They faced pressure to
    end the world's most horrible war by creating something that
    had only been theory. It is a story about young people with a
    can-do spirit who brought about great technological and
    scientific achievement. It is a story of unleashing a
    mysterious force of nature, and fostering fear and uncertainty
    about the future of humankind. It is a story about creativity
    and about destruction. It is a scientific story, a soldier
    story, a spy story, and a human story.
        The story of the Manhattan Project is one that, from the
    perspectives of all who participated and all who were affected,
    must be told.
        Again, thank you for allowing me to testify, and I will be
    pleased to entertain questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McClenahan follows:]

        Statement of Heather McClenahan, Executive Director, Los Alamos
       Historical Society, on H.R. 5987, The Manhattan Project National
                                Historical Park

    Summary:
        Historians have called the Manhattan Project the most significant
    undertaking of the 20th century. Employing hundreds of thousands at its
    peak, located in widely scattered, secret communities, the project
    brought an end to World War II and ushered in the atomic age. As an
    organization that has preserved Manhattan Project history for nearly
    fifty years, the Los Almos Historical Society is pleased to support
    this legislation.
        Key points in our testimony include:
              The significance of this history and why it should
            justify a national historical park
              The broad support and cooperation this park has
            generated
              The positive economic impact the park will have on
            northern New Mexico
              The importance of partnerships in making this park a
            reality
        At its heart, the story of the Manhattan Project is an amazing
    episode of our great nation's history. It brought together the
    brightest scientists, many of them immigrants who came to this country
    seeking freedom. They faced pressure to end the world's most horrible
    war by creating something that had only existed in theory. It is a
    story about young people with a can-do spirit who brought about a great
    technological achievement. It is the story of unleashing a mysterious
    force of nature and of fostering fear and uncertainty about the future
    of humankind. It is a story about creativity and about destruction. It
    is a scientific story, a soldier's story, a spy story, and a human
    story. The story of the Manhattan Project is one that, from the
    perspectives of all who participated and all who were affected, must be
    told.
        The Los Alamos Historical Society appreciates the Committee on
    Natural Resources' Chairman Doc Hastings leadership in considering H.R.
    5987, the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. We are also
    grateful for the leadership of Congressman Lujan and Congressman
    Fleischmann.
        I am Heather McClenahan, executive director of the Los Alamos
    Historical Society a non-profit organization whose mission is to
    preserve, promote, and communicate the remarkable history and inspiring
    stories of Los Alamos and its people for our community, for the global
    audience, and for future generations. Among our many activities, we
    operate the Los Alamos Historical Museum and own, in a life trust, the
    World War II home of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of
    the Manhattan Project. As the owner of this home in the Los Alamos
    Historic Distirct, we are property owners within the potential boundary
    of the park. Additionally, helping to establish the Manhattan Project
    National Historical Park is one of seven planks in our strategic plan.
        My testimony is in support of S. 3300, a bill to establish the
    Manhattan Project National Historical Park. As long-time keepers of the
    history of Los Alamos, we fully support this bill's efforts to
    ``enhance the protection and preservation of such resources and provide
    for comprehensive interpretation and public understanding of this
    nationally significant story in 20th century American history.''
        I will make four key points. One, why this history should be
    commemorated in a national park; two, the broad community support this
    park enjoys; three, why this will have positive impact on northern New
    Mexico; and four, why partnerships will be critical to making this park
    become a reality. In 2007, recognizing the impact of a possible
    national park on our community, the Los Alamos County Council appointed
    an ad hoc committee to determine what such a park might look like in
    Los Alamos. I served on that committee, and the details of our
    recommendations are included in pages seven through nine of this
    document. In summary, we envisioned a downtown national park visitor
    center where guests would learn about the Manhattan Project and then be
    sent to existing venues to learn more, a recommendation the National
    Park Service adopted in its final report to Congress.
        Tied together under the auspices of a national park, the Manhattan
    Project industrial sites in Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Hanford, along
    with the places where soldiers and scientists lived and formed
    communities, will create a full picture of the history.
        Some critics have said that a national park dedicated to the
    Manhattan Project will glorify the atomic bomb or create a theme park
    for weapons of mass destruction. I disagree. I have never visited a
    national park that was anything like a Disneyland. In fact, the
    National Park Service, of all government agencies, is the most trusted
    for telling complete stories from all sides--the good and bad, the
    painful and the poignant. Parks and monuments that commemorate battles
    or massacres do not celebrate ugly moments in American history. They
    teach about them; they help us, as a nation, to reflect and learn.
        So, in the rich tradition of our national park system, the
    Manhattan Project National Historical Park will need to include stories
    about the devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, environmental damage,
    and the fear of atomic annihilation that are its legacies, along with
    the stories of great technical and scientific achievement and the
    decisive ending of World War II. The nation needs to understand the
    Manhattan Project from all sides.
        The communities called out in this legislation--Los Alamos, Oak
    Ridge, and Hanford--fully support this park. In 2008, our ad hoc
    committee held public meetings in Los Alamos as well as meetings with
    potential partners, from tour guides to the nearby pueblos. After some
    initial--and false--concern that the park service might take over the
    iconic Fuller Lodge in downtown Los Alamos as a park headquarters was
    resolved, the community came out fully in support of the park. The
    County Council passed a resolution to that effect in February 2010 (see
    pages ten and eleven of this document), and, most recently, a group of
    community leaders sent a letter to Senators Bingaman and Udall as well
    as Congressman Lujan in support of this legislation (pages twelve and
    thirteen of this document). We have had several meetings with our
    counterparts in Hanford and Oak Ridge to discuss park possibilties. In
    short, we are excited about this park and are happy to assist the
    Department of Interior, the Department of Energy, Los Alamos National
    Laboratory, and others to make it happen. We believe it will be a
    benefit not only to Los Alamos but to nearby communities, as well.
        That leads to my third point, that the Manhattan Project National
    Historical Park will provide economic benefits to northern New Mexico.
    With, by the Park Services own estimate, hundreds of thousands of
    additional annual visitors, the region will need workers not only in
    tourism and service industries but in construction and other related
    industries.
        As our ad hoc committee suggested, the story of the Manhattan
    Project isn't just about world-class scientists. The story includes
    people from the rural communities and pueblos surrounding Los Alamos,
    mostly Native Americans and Hispanics, who provided the backbone of a
    labor force that built and maintained the laboratories and facilities,
    cleaned the houses, and drove the trucks. The Manhattan Project forever
    changed rustic northern New Mexico. In fact, the Manhattan Project
    National Historical Park will, once again, transform these communities,
    creating an economic driver based on heritage tourism that provides
    jobs, educational opportunities, and improved futures to traditionally
    under-served communities.
        Finally, we appreciate with enthusiasm the statement in Section 3
    of this bill that one purpose of the park is ``to assist the Department
    of Energy, Historical Park communities, historical societies, and other
    interested organizations and individuals in efforts to preserve and
    protect the historically significant resources associated with the
    Manhattan Project.'' Protecting these resources is something the Los
    Alamos Historical Society has been working on for nearly fifty years.
    Partnerships and cooperative agreements between agencies, non-profit
    groups such as ours, and even private property owners will make this
    park happen, bringing together widespread resources for the benefit of
    our nation as the Manhattan Project did years ago.
        Again, I urge you to view the recommendations from the ad hoc
    committee, specifically the section about partnerships. Manhattan
    Project resources, from museums to the laboratory and from tour guides
    to the famous ``gatekeeper'' office at 109 E. Palace Avenue in Santa
    Fe, are dispersed and disorganized when it comes to the theme of
    Manhattan Project history. The national park will bring these resources
    together, along with those of Hanford and Oak Ridge, for visitors to
    understand a bigger picture.
        We are also especially pleased to see in the final section of the
    bill that both the Department of Interior and the Department of Energy
    will be able to accept monetary or service donations for the park. This
    is particularly important to restoration work at Los Alamos National
    Laboratory and will assist the lab in preserving a significant historic
    site. One individual has been waiting in the wings for years to donate
    to the site's restoration but has had no mechnism for giving the money.
    The park will allow this preservation project to take place.
        In sum, along with many community partners who have worked on this
    project, the Los Alamos Historical Society fully supports the
    establishment of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in
    order to preserve and teach this important history. The park has
    tremendous support in our community. We believe it will have economic
    benefit to northern New Mexico. We are heartened to see the Department
    of Energy willing to work with the Department of Interior and other
    partners to make this world-changing history accessible. The Los Alamos
    Historical Museum is located in the building where Gen. Leslie Groves
    stayed when he came to Project Y, and it serves as the focal point of
    the community's Historic District. We look forward to sharing our
    stories with the many visitors a national historical park will bring in
    addition to sharing our resources with the National Park Service to
    assist in creation of the park. Working with local, state, and national
    partners to help create the Manhattan Project National Historical Park
    is a long-term goal in the Los Alamos Historical Society's strategic
    plan. We look forward to working with you to achieve that goal.
                                     ______

           Recommendations to the Los Alamos County Council from the

      Manhattan Project National Historical Park (MPNHP) Ad Hoc Committee

                                   04/02/2008

    I. Purpose
        In 2004, Congress approved and the President signed legislation
    directing the NPS to conduct a special resource study to determine the
    national significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating one
    or more historic sites of the Manhattan Project for potential inclusion
    in the National Park System. This park could include non-contiguous
    sites in Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Hanford, and Dayton. The NPS held
    meetings in each of the communities during the spring and summer of
    2006 to gather public input.
        In August 2007, Los Alamos County Council approved the
    establishment of an ad hoc committee to help determine what the
    proposed non-contiguous Manhattan Project National Historical Park
    might look like in Los Alamos. This committee is comprised of
    representatives involved in historic preservation and tourism from
    throughout the community, including Los Alamos National Laboratory
    (LANL). After approval by Council, the committee will present its plan
    to NPS representatives when they come to Los Alamos for a second round
    of community meetings in 2008.
    II. Committee Conduct
        The committee began meeting bi-weekly in August 2007 and discussed
    several ideas, such as what ``attractions'' might be included in a
    national park and who locally might participate. These ideas were
    expanded upon and refined over time. A great deal of Manhattan Project
    history has already been preserved in our community in places such as
    the Los Alamos Historical Museum, the Bradbury Science Museum, and the
    Oppenheimer House. The committee members do not believe that the NPS
    needs to ``reinvent the wheel.''
        In October, the committee took a special ``behind the fence'' tour
    of sites at LANL which may be included in the park, either as part of
    periodic tours or which may be open to more public access in the
    future.
        On Nov. 6 and 9, the committee held meetings by invitation and word
    of mouth for potential partners in the park. Approximately fifteen
    people attended the first meeting and ten attended the second. At both
    meetings, ad hoc committee members shared their vision for the park
    site (see III. below) Most of these potential partners were intrigued
    with the idea of a Manhattan Project National Historical Park within
    the community and looked forward to getting more information from the
    NPS.
        On November 13, the committee held an advertised public meeting in
    Fuller Lodge to discuss this vision for the park. Another fifteen
    people attended and added to the committee's ideas.
        Based on input from these meetings, the committee has refined its
    vision and proposes the following:
    III. Park Vision
        A. Centralized Park Headquarters: At a central Visitor Center,
    which would include information and interpretation, a Park Ranger would
    greet visitors, tell them about the National Park and then direct them
    to other sites in the area where they would be able to see tangible
    historical sites and objects from the Manhattan Project (Ashley Pond,
    Lamy Train Station) as well as interpretation and information that is
    already taking place in the community (LA Historical Museum, Bradbury
    Science Museum).
        B. Tours
            a.  Guided and Self-Guided: These would include ranger-guided
            walking tours through the downtown historic district and other
            sites; driving and walking audio tours; as well as guided tours
            that would show visitors accessible areas of LANL, historic
            downtown, the old Main Gate location, and other sites.
            b.  LANL: With approval and coordination of LANL and the
            Department of Energy officials, periodic ``Behind the Fence
            Tours'' to V-Site, Gun Site, and other restored Manhattan
            Project-era buildings, similar to the tours held at Trinity
            Site.
        C. Partners
        Potential partners in this project are those who own, maintain or
    have some other association (such as tourist services or items) with
    tangible historical objects or buildings from the Manhattan Project--
    something that will enhance visitors' experiences and increase their
    understanding of this time in history. The lists below are not all-
    inclusive.
        D. Potential Themes of Interpretation
            1.  People/Social History
                    a.  Scientists and their families
                    b.  Military
                             i.  In Los Alamos (SEDs, MPs, etc.)
                             ii.  In the Pacific, including POWs
                    c.  Local Pueblo and Hispanic populations whose lives
                    were affected and who were an essential part of the
                    project (stet)
                    d.  Local historical figures such as Edith Warner,
                    Dorothy McKibbin, Evelyn Frey
                    e.  Stories of people affected by the bombings, both
                    American and Japanese
                    f.  Responses to the bomb
            2.  Science
                    a.  Bradbury Science Museum
            3.  Impacts
                    a.  Science
                    b.  Northern New Mexico
                    c.  Military
                    d.  International Relations
                    e.  Cold War
                    f.  Environmental/Health
                    g.  Government
                             i.  Civilian control of nuclear resources
                            (AEC, DOE)
                             ii.  The growth of government-run, multi-
                            disciplinary science labs
            4.  Growth of the town of Los Alamos
            5.  What happened to people after the war?
        E. Potential Visitor Sites
            1.  Local
                    a.  The Los Alamos Historical Museum
                    b.  The Bradbury Science Museum
                    c.  Oppenheimer House
                    d.  Ashley Pond
                    e.  Ice House Memorial
                    f.  Fuller Lodge
                    g.  Historic Walking Tour of Bathtub Row
                    h.  Periodic ``Behind the Fence'' Tours to V-Site, Gun
                    Site, and other restored Manhattan-era buildings at
                    LANL
                    i.  Unitarian Church (former dorm)
                    j.  Little Theater (former Rec Hall)
                    k.  Christian Science Church (former dorm)
                    l.  Hill Diner (WWII-era building)
                    m.  Main Hill Road/Main Gate area
                    n.  Last Sundt apartment building in Los Alamos
                    (Dentist office on Trinity)
                    o.  Crossroads Bible Church (WW II-era Theater)
            2.  Nearby
                    a.  Bandelier National Monument
                    b.  Pajarito Mountain Ski Area
                    c.  Valles Caldera
                    d.  Otowi Bridge
                    e.  Sundt apartments in Espanola on Railroad Avenue
            3.  Santa Fe
                    a.  109 E. Palace Ave.
                    b.  La Fonda
                    c.  Lamy Train Station
                    d.  Delgado Street Bridge and other spy-related sites
            4.  Albuquerque
                    a.  Oxnard Air Field (Kirtland AFB)
                    b.  National Atomic Museum
            5.  Future considerations
                    a.  Sculptures, outdoor art, and other monuments to the
                    Manhattan Project era that are currently under
                    consideration Insert graphics 2-5
                                     ______

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74876.002

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74876.003

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74876.004

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74876.005

        Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much for your testimony, and
    again, for your passion.
        I would now like to recognize the gentleman from
    Tennessee--a former member, by the way, of this Committee--for
    purposes of introduction. Mr. Fleischmann?
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome,
    everybody. I want to thank you all for participating in this
    great hearing. My name is Chuck Fleischmann. I proudly
    represent the great people of the third district of Tennessee,
    which encompasses all of Oak Ridge. We have OR&L there, Y-12,
    and a very vibrant clean-up mission, as well.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to especially thank you for the
    privilege of being back with your committee. I also want to
    thank you, sir, for visiting Oak Ridge recently, and sharing
    the wonderful history and present that we have at Oak Ridge.
        I also want to thank Chairman Hastings and Congressman
    Lujan for cosponsoring this legislation. This is wonderful
    legislation. It is a privilege to be a cosponsor with you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Today it is my distinct pleasure to introduce Ray Smith,
    one of Oak Ridge, Tennessee's most beloved citizens, for his
    tireless efforts on behalf of so many groups and organizations.
    Ray writes a weekly newspaper column that highlights the rich
    history and significance of Oak Ridge, and has helped put
    together TV and video documentaries.
        With almost 42 years of service at the Y-12 nuclear
    security complex, he now serves as the Y-12 historian. Ray has
    worked tirelessly to help the Manhattan Project National Park
    become a reality. And I look forward to working with him and
    hearing from him today.
        Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Hastings. Mr. Smith, you are recognized for
    fiveminutes.

                   STATEMENT OF RAY SMITH, RESIDENT,
                          OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE

        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    Committee. I am really pleased to be here and give this
    testimony. I also want to thank you and Congressman Fleischmann
    and Congressman Lujan for sponsoring this bill.
        I am the historian at the Y-12 National Security Complex. I
    work for B&W Y-12, and it is a--on contract to the Department
    of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration. However, my
    testimony today will not be an official statement of my
    company, nor does it represent the official statement from the
    Department of Energy. Ms. Kolb is doing that for us.
        I am going to talk from the perspective of the historian.
    And it is my job to make history come alive. Obviously, I enjoy
    it. And I want to do that while, as you have mentioned, the
    text of my statement will be included. And it has details in it
    about what is happening in Oak Ridge today, what the conditions
    are pertaining to the involvement of some of the facilities in
    the park, and those details are there. But I want to take my
    time today to give you some insights into some of the things we
    are doing there, and some of the things that are so important
    about reflecting on the history of the Manhattan Project.
        So, first slide, please. And I will be showing you some
    pictures. I bring you, first, greetings from beautiful East
    Tennessee. What you see there is the Bear Creek Valley, with Y-
    12 nestled down in the base of that valley with Pine Ridge on
    one side, Chestnut Ridge on the other, a very beautiful
    setting.
        Next slide, please. I want you to know that without this
    man, Ed Westcott, we in Oak Ridge would not have nearly the
    information, nearly the capability to show our history as we do
    because of Ed. He was hired as the 27th person in the Manhattan
    Project. He was the only one with a camera. And he freely took
    pictures of both the city and of the sites during that time. So
    we owe a lot to Ed.
        Next slide, please. The alpha calutron magnets are in
    building 9731. It is the first building completed on the site.
    These are the only alpha calutron magnets in the world. They
    are there with the express ability to show the people--when you
    walk into that room and see those large magnets you understand.
    They also help to produce nuclear medicine. The first isotopes
    that were separated to become nuclear isotopes were in that
    calutron. They also had 67 tons of silver that was there for a
    number of years. It operated until 1974. So very historical.
        Next slide. But what I want to tell you is just two or
    three stories, very quickly, the first one about a fourth-grade
    class that I was speaking to, and I talked for 45 minutes.
    Lunch time came, the young lady said, ``Mr. Smith''--and one of
    the students said, ``Mr. Smith, if we go get our lunch and come
    back, will you keep talking?'' And I said, ``It is up to your
    teacher.'' And of course, she said, ``Sure.'' Well, they did.
    They went and got their lunch, they came back. And I talked for
    another 45 minutes. They were interested in and wanting to know
    about that.
        Second, we have completed a documentary called, ``A Nuclear
    Family.'' It has been very well received. It is 4 30-minute
    episodes. It was shown on National Public Television. And
    people are clamoring to get those DVDs. I have run out, I have
    had to order more. But it is--if well done, that history
    conveys to the next generation.
        And the oral histories, the people are in their nineties.
    We need to get them now. And the Y-12 History Center is ready
    at this time to receive visitors, and does so on a routine
    basis. So we already have some of the things that we need.
        Last slide, please. This one is Ed Westcott. If you look
    closely, Ed is in that second picture, the remake of the shift
    change. The first picture is one that he made. We remade it as
    the ending to the nuclear family. We have them walking away
    from the highly enriched uranium materials facility, where in
    the other one they were walking out of the plant. And when we
    asked Ed if he would come back--now, Ed is 90 years old, we
    celebrated his birthday just a few months ago, but we put him
    in the picture. He is standing there, and everyone else is
    walking by him. And Ed was delighted to be a part of that.
        Thank you very much for letting me testify to this bill.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

     Statement of Ray Smith, Y-12 Historian, An employee of B&W Y-12 LLC,
      the managing and operating contractor for the Department of Energy
       National Nuclear Security Administration's Y-12 National Security
                 Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on H.R. 5987

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is my pleasure to
    have been invited by to testify on H.R. 5987, a bill to establish the
    Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los
    Alamos, New Mexico and Hanford, Washington. I also want to thank
    Congressmen Doc Hastings, Chuck Fleischmann and Ben Lujan, sponsors of
    this bill.
        I am Ray Smith, the B&W Y-12 Historian at the Y-12 National
    Security Complex in Oak Ridge, TN.
        My career at Y-12 spans 41 years, much of that time spent managing
    the maintenance and support of production operations at the nation's
    Uranium Center of Excellence, the Y-12 National Security Complex. Over
    time, I have had maintenance responsibility for every building on the
    site.
        For the past six years, I have been the B&W Y-12 Historian and have
    focused my energies on helping to capture the heritage of Y-12 and
    present it in ways that Y-12 employees as well as the public can
    appreciate. The Y-12 History Center, multiple video documentaries,
    video oral histories and weekly newspaper articles have been among the
    varied mediums and methods I have used.
        My relationship with the concept leading ultimately to this bill
    began prior to the special resource study on several Manhattan Project
    sites for possible inclusion in the National Park System. National park
    status for Oak Ridge has long been a dream of historians in the East
    Tennessee area. We understand the value the National Park Service
    brings to an area's history--they understand how to properly interpret
    the people stories and the significant cultural influences.
        In the midst of Appalachia in East Tennessee, in 1942, General
    Leslie R. Groves and his Manhattan Project transformed Bear Creek
    Valley, Bethel Valley, Black Oak Ridge and East Fork Valley into a
    60,000 acre military industrial experiment like none other ever
    conceived in the history of the world. First ever experiments soon were
    just run of the mill industrial activities and separating Uranium 235,
    something the rest of the scientific world knew was possible, but did
    not have the resources to accomplish, was being routinely done on a
    huge scale, using young women right out of high school!
        Those ``Calutron Girls'' represents but one of the amazing
    historical stories that exist in the Manhattan Project history. The
    ``Calutron'' itself, simply a name taken from ``California University
    Cyclotron'' as it was invented by Ernest Lawrence of the Radiation
    Laboratory at Berkley CA, can be explained simply and once understood
    puts the whole process of uranium separation within the grasp of even
    young children, as I have seen in classrooms with fourth grade
    students.
        The Manhattan Project National Historical Park is about the feats
    of scientific and engineering accomplishments developed at a unique
    time in the history of our country. Our back was against the wall, the
    world was at risk by a war that had grown into a worldwide
    conflagration. The Manhattan Project National Historical Park will tell
    all sides of the story of what occurred at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and
    Hanford as well as Japan.
        At Y-12 there are two buildings that contain Manhattan Project
    electromagnetic separation equipment and artifacts. If a number of
    issues surrounding them can be successfully addressed such as cost,
    feasibility and security related issues, eventually both these
    buildings may potentially be considered as candidates to be included in
    the Manhattan Project National Historical Park.
        First, Building 9731, the first building completed on the site and
    used as the Radiation Laboratory's Pilot Plant with two large Alpha
    (first stage) electromagnetic separators and two Beta (second stage)
    electromagnetic separators. The building holds two sets of huge magnets
    that have been designated as Manhattan Project Signature artifacts and
    has become a symbol of Y-12's heritage.
        Second, Building 9204-3, also known as ``Beta 3,'' designated by
    the Department of Energy as a Manhattan Project Signature Facility, is
    one of nine large buildings constructed during the Manhattan Project to
    house the Alpha and Beta Calutrons.
        The magnets of four Calutrons in Building 9731 remain, have been
    recently repainted, and the entire building is being restored to its
    original condition. A tour route has been created through the building
    that features both sets of magnets as well as three nuclear weapons
    trainers and a display glove box allowing docents to bring the history
    of Y-12's missions alive for the tour participants.
        The two Alpha magnets in Building 9731 are the only ones that exist
    and stand well over 20 feet tall. Standing next the huge magnets can
    give the visitor an overwhelming feeling of the power contained in the
    world's largest magnets at the time that once contained 67 tons of
    silver in the windings because of a shortage of copper during the war.
        Both of these buildings are located inside the Y-12 National
    Security Complex and at present are only accessible with special
    security arrangements. Both have been visited by the public, with
    special arrangements, and without exception, the visitors have been
    amazed at the authentic ``1945 atmosphere'' of being near the actual
    equipment inside the actual buildings of one of the sites where the
    world's most significant technological advancement took place.
        Visiting Building 9731, having already been prepared as a tour site
    that is routinely accessed by Y-12 business related tours, special
    school groups, area leadership groups, elected officials and official
    visitors, is like stepping back in time to 1945. It is also open to the
    public through tours provided by Y-12 as part of Oak Ridge's Secret
    City Festival on Saturday of the third weekend in June of each year.
        This past year, the third year of the building being included in
    the Y-12 public tour on Saturday of the festival, there were 739
    visitors from 22 states. Reaction by the visitors remained highly
    complimentary for the opportunity to visit an authentic World War II
    relic facility and one with a Cold War and medical isotope association
    as well.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74876.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74876.007

        .epsBuilding 9204-3 (Beta 3) is less accessible at present than is
    Building 9731, as it is located in a more secure portion of the site.
    It contains more authentic equipment and larger historic displays
    including a Calutron simulator as well as examples of actual working
    control rooms, standby electromagnetic separators, cleaning stations
    and all necessary support that was used to maintain the World War II
    equipment in operation until 1998 separating stable isotopes and
    remaining in standby today. This building is currently not available
    for public access and may not be available for a number of years
    because of the complexity of the issues to be resolved, the potential
    high cost of preparing the facility for park status and other
    uncertainties. In fact the security access issue may be resolved before
    other potentially more costly issues can be successfully addressed.
        Additionally, Y-12 has the Y-12 History Center in the New Hope
    Center. This modern history museum and exhibit display area is being
    remodeled. The facility is being converted from an open space where
    historic artifacts have been on display for the five years the New Hope
    Center, Y-12's official Visitor Center and public access area, has been
    in existence, to a new museum and multipurpose media room.
        The major renovation is complete. A request for proposals is being
    created for the museum exhibits to be designed and installed. A theme
    that coincides with the recently completed documentary film series, A
    Nuclear Family, is being used to feature the highlights of Y-12's
    history in interactive video based exhibits.
        The new museum contains the John M. Googin Y-12 History Research
    Library, the Ed Westcott Video Theater and a large artifact exhibit
    area. A large timeline mural is being installed in the main entrance
    lobby and will include the media room and history center in the same
    theme.
        Artifact displays and video stations are also included in the side
    lobby and atrium making the New Hope Center a central display area for
    Y-12 history. This public access area including the Y-12 History Center
    can immediately be included in the Manhattan Project National
    Historical Park attributes.
        Y-12 is important to the Manhattan Project National Historical Park
    because it is one of a set of Manhattan Project elements located in
    close proximity in East Tennessee. In addition to Y-12 there are two
    other major Department of Energy facilities in Oak Ridge, TN.
        The X-10 site, or the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the K-25/
    East Tennessee Technology Park site exist today. A fourth site (S-50)
    existed during the Manhattan Project only. The city of Oak Ridge is
    also an integral part of the history of the Manhattan Project in East
    Tennessee and all together these sites and the city form the basis of
    the reason to locate a portion of the Manhattan Project National
    Historical Park here in East Tennessee.
        My primary focus for this testimony is Y-12. However, Y-12's
    presence in Oak Ridge, along with two other Manhattan Project era
    facilities that are nearby, enhances its historical value.
        The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, known during the Manhattan
    Project as ``X-10,'' is home to The Graphite Reactor, a National
    Historic Landmark (designated in 1966) that served to prove the
    principle of producing plutonium in an industrial size uranium reactor.
    This reactor also functioned until 1963 to produce many of the nation's
    medical isotopes and other useful scientific studies and products.
        The Graphite Reactor has been designated by the Department of
    Energy as a Manhattan Project Signature Facility and is a primary
    candidate to be considered to be included in the Manhattan Project
    National Historical Park. However, access is limited now and may remain
    so for some time into the future.
        The East Tennessee Technology Park, known during the Manhattan
    Project as the ``K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant,'' served the nation for
    40 years. The plant producing highly enriched uranium that even today
    remains in the nation's inventory as well as lower enriched uranium for
    nuclear power reactors and research reactors around the world.
        The highly enriched uranium needed to win the Cold War was produced
    by the same K-25 process building that has been designated by the
    Department of Energy as a Manhattan Project Signature Facility. This
    historic building, largest building in the world under one roof in 1945
    at 44 acres, is being demolished and a small section of the building
    will be replicated on site for inclusion in the Manhattan Project
    National Historical Park.
        A fourth facility, no longer existing (only a pile of bricks that
    have been saved from the smoke stacks remain) was the S-50 Thermal
    Diffusion Plant. It was located at the K-25 site near what was the
    world's largest steam powered electrical generating plant in 1945. S-50
    is credited with shortening World War II by approximately three weeks
    as it provided slightly enriched uranium feed material to Y-12's
    electromagnetic separators or Calutrons.
        In addition to the three government sites, the city of Oak Ridge
    has assets that will contribute to the Manhattan Project National
    Historical Park. The Guest House/Alexander Inn is among the most
    historic structures in the Manhattan Project. It is in a sad state of
    disrepair now, but has been included in the latest draft of a
    memorandum of agreement for historic preservation of the K-25 site at
    East Tennessee Technology Park as an alternative historic preservation
    initiative complimentary to the other historic preservation actions.
        Other portions of the historic city of Oak Ridge may well serve as
    integral parts or guided tour portions of the Manhattan Project
    National Historical Park, such as the Chapel on the Hill (first
    church), alphabet houses, Midtown Community Center, Jackson Square Town
    Site, the Children's Museum of Oak Ridge, the Oak Ridge Public
    Library's Oak Ridge Room and Center for Oak Ridge Oral History and the
    especially appropriate American Museum of Science and Energy.
        The museum has been the mainstay of Oak Ridge Manhattan Project and
    other related history exhibits since March 19, 1949, when the secret
    city of Oak Ridge was opened to the public for the first time as the
    gates to the main roads were removed. That same day, the American
    Museum of Atomic Energy, as it was known until 1978, opened its doors
    for the first time and welcomed visitors.
        When the museum moved to its present location it also changed its
    name to the American Museum of Science and Energy and expanded its
    mission for exhibits and focus to a broader energy related theme.
    However, it kept its role as a primary source of Oak Ridge history.
        Today, the museum is the hub of tourist activity in Oak Ridge,
    being the first stop for most visitors and a must stop for all
    visitors. The museum's Oak Ridge Room is THE place where visitors first
    understand the unique history of the people who were notified first
    through a phone call from their Senator Kenneth McKellar to the Oliver
    Springs High School principal telling him to tell the students to go
    home and tell their parents about the coming changes in their
    neighborhoods. Lester Fox, still living today, swears that is the way
    the 3,000 people living in New Hope, Robertsville, Elza, Scarboro and
    other small communities in this area first learned that 60,000 acres
    would be used for the Manhattan Project that would become Oak Ridge.
        The Manhattan Project National Historical Park, Oak Ridge location,
    will need a central location for operations. At present the American
    Museum of Science and Energy has been designated by the Oak Ridge
    Convention and Visitors Bureau's June 2007 heritage tourism master
    plan, Creating the Living Story of ``The Secret City,'' as the
    recommended hub of a ``hub and spoke'' strategy for the city and
    government sites heritage tourism.
        A more recent recommendation by the city has a combination of a new
    facility that would tie the Oak Ridge Public Library and the American
    Museum of Science and Energy into a single comprehensive Manhattan
    Project National Historical Park Interpretive Center. This concept is
    being studied and funding sought to realize the full potential of the
    Manhattan Project National Historical Park's presence in Oak Ridge.
        Additional features in Oak Ridge already functioning with history
    related aspects that would complement the Manhattan Project National
    Historical Park are the Secret City Commemorative Walk--a self guided
    walking tour of plaques describing the seven years that Oak Ridge
    remained a ``Secret City,'' the Children's Museum of Oak Ridge with its
    Ed Westcott Room of photographs that display the history of early Oak
    Ridge and the International Friendship Bell.
        The Secret City Commemorative Walk is centrally located near the
    Oak Ridge Public Library and the American Museum of Science and Energy
    as is the International Friendship Bell and are all in easy walking
    distance. The Children's Museum of Oak Ridge is located near the center
    of the city atop Black Oak Ridge at the corner of Highland Avenue and
    West Outer Drive.
        Additionally, the city of Oak Ridge was designated as a Preserve
    America Community by the National Park Service in 2006. This
    designation is proudly displayed on signs at key locations within the
    city. Recently the city and the Oak Ridge Heritage and Preservation
    Association completed a project that commemorates the ``Birth of the
    City: The History of Oak Ridge, Tennessee'' by installing four large
    historical plaques near the entrance of the city's municipal building
    that explain the process used to establish the City of Oak Ridge
    government.
        All these attributes are cited to illustrate that Y-12 exists
    within a much larger context. Oak Ridge has prepared the way for the
    Manhattan Project National Historical Park and is ready to move to the
    next level of heritage tourism. The Department of Energy has the
    responsibility to interpret the history of the sites where they have
    served the nation's various needs over the years, but the National Park
    Service has the expertise to do this task well. Therefore the
    partnership being formed in the Manhattan Project National Historical
    Park will demonstrate the value of such partnerships. Additionally, the
    Park Service is venturing into the Science, Technology, Engineering and
    Mathematics (STEM) education by directive of a recent study indicating
    the mission of the 21st Century National Park Service should move in
    the direction becoming more of a contributor to practical learning and
    education. The Manhattan Project National Historical Park may well
    become the cutting edge of this new direction of the park service. We
    already have a great start at Y-12 and welcome the challenge to be the
    pacesetter for change toward STEM educational support in practical and
    tangible methods that involve the actual locations where the world's
    most significant scientific accomplishment took place, and where much
    is still taking place today.
        The history of Y-12 can be fully utilized by bringing students to
    the site of the most historic technological achievements in the history
    of the world to understand STEM education! With the inclusion of the
    other DOE sites and the cities of Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and Hanford,
    this is far beyond the realm of a standard national park and the
    Manhattan Project National Historical Park may become the national park
    of the future.
        The recently completed congressionally authorized National Park
    Service study recommended that the best way to preserve and interpret
    the Manhattan Project and resulting technological advances is for
    Congress to establish a national historical park at the three sites
    where much of the critical scientific activity associated with the
    project and later advances occurred: Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and Hanford.
        As Congressman Doc Hastings declared, ``There is a sincere and
    shared desire by Chairman Bingaman, Senators Murray and Cantwell, and
    our colleagues to establish the Park, and we'll continue working
    together with local advocates to accomplish our goal of ensuring these
    remarkable pieces of our history are preserved to tell the story of the
    Manhattan Project.''
        This comment represents substantial interest in what may well be
    the single most significant scientific and industrial event in the
    entire history of the world. The locations where it occurred are being
    recognized for their contributions through this legislation to create a
    Manhattan Project National Historical Park.
        Oak Ridge Mayor Tom Beehan, Chairman of the Energy Communities
    Alliance has included in his statement to the Senate hearing on S-3300,
    ``Among the biggest advocates of the National Historical Park are the
    people who worked at the three sites during World War II. It is
    important to remember that no one in our country knew what the workers
    were building at the sites--they were truly ``Secret Cities.'' Most of
    the young men and women working in these communities did not even know
    what the project was. These were among the nation's best and brightest
    citizens from all walks of life.''
        Beehan continued, ``National Historical Parks are developed to
    ensure that we protect our country's assets and open them to the public
    to learn about our nation's history. We should work to open this park
    while some of the Manhattan Project Veterans are still alive and able
    to see the recognition of their work recognized by our nation. These
    people played a valuable role in ending World War II and defending not
    only the United States but also democracies throughout the world. These
    true heroes, who dedicated their wartime service to the Manhattan
    Project, appreciate the legislation developed by your committee.''
        The National Park Service interprets all historical sites and
    attempts to address all view-points to give a full and fair picture and
    we in Oak Ridge support such actions by the National Park Service. We
    look forward to the FULL STORY of the Manhattan Project and its
    subsequent technological advances that have impacted our daily lives
    being interpreted in the most effective manner possible.
        Y-12 is an important part of the proposed Manhattan Project
    National Historical Park, and the legislation could serve as a 21st
    Century model for the National Park Service, one that is based on
    federal, state and community partnerships. We in Oak Ridge look forward
    to working together with all the parties involved in the Manhattan
    Project National Historical Park.
        Sincere appreciation is again extended to Congressman Chuck
    Fleischmann for his kind invitation to testify before this subcommittee
    and also for his sponsorship of the Manhattan Project National
    Historical Park Bill, H.R. 5987.
                                     ______

        Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much. I certainly appreciate
    your testimony, all of you. We will now start the question
    period, and I will recognize myself for fiveminutes.
        And I want to ask this to Mr. Petersen, Ms. McClenahan, and
    Mr. Smith, specifically. And you all touched on it a little bit
    in your testimony. But is it fair to say that there is
    enthusiasm within your communities on the establishment--what
    this legislation will establish? And we will start with Mr.
    Petersen.
        Mr. Petersen. The answer, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely. I
    mean the entire community, we have signatures from all four
    mayors, two county commissioners, the port commissioners, on
    and on, saying this must happen. I mean we are looking forward
    to allowing the community to come out.
        There is a member of your staff, Tim, who was born and
    raised in the Tri-Cities. Tim said that he had never been out
    on the Hanford site until he became a member of your staff.
        Mr. Hastings. Great.
        Mr. Petersen. So there are many people in the community who
    have not had the opportunity. There is many people throughout
    the United States. We now have visitors from 50 States and 48
    foreign countries who have come out to tour B Reactor.
        Mr. Hastings. Good. Ms. McClenahan.
        Ms. McClenahan. In my written testimony I have included a
    letter that was sent to Senator Udall and Senator Bingaman. And
    I believe Congressman Lujan also received one from our
    community about the full support. We have a new creative
    district, an arts and cultural district in Los Alamos, which is
    a state designation. And the entire group, which is all the
    cultural and arts providers and organizations, are fully in
    support and the county council. So, yes, very much in support
    of the park.
        Mr. Hastings. And Mr. Smith?
        Mr. Smith. Yes. As a matter of fact, we have support from
    all the organizations in the city and on the site. We too have
    a large number of visitors coming. We have a public tour that
    we run each day through the summer. And you have to sign up at
    9:00 in the morning and the tour leaves at 12:00. And it is a
    three-hour tour. And we fill that bus almost every day. So
    there is much interest in what we have there, the Y-12 History
    Center open to the public, and we are now on tour routes for
    people who bring tour buses by there and come in to see that
    history center.
        So, yes, sir. Full support.
        Mr. Hastings. Good. Well, I just wanted to get that on the
    record. You all alluded to it in your statements.
        Mr. Knox and Ms. Kolb, I want to ask you a question. As you
    know, my preference was to immediately establish a national
    park. Senate has a little bit different version. There is--it
    has a one-year time period for that to be established. Can you
    give me the assurance that we can meet that time frame of one
    year? And we will start with you, Mr. Knox.
        Mr. Knox. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We feel confident we can
    complete the agreement with the Department of Energy within one
    year, and that is what is required to establish the park.
        Mr. Hastings. Good. And Ms. Kolb?
        Ms. Kolb. Yes. You have our commitment that, if the time
    frame is one year, we will meet that time frame, working in
    partnership with the Park Service.
        Mr. Hastings. Listen. I have to tell you I very much
    appreciate that. Because if all we are trying to do is work out
    an agreement within one year, let's keep in mind we built the
    reactor in less than a year.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Hastings. It seems to me we should be able to--this
    should not be a problem at all, it seems to me.
        Ms. Kolb. That is a very good point. We will keep that in
    mind.
        Mr. Hastings. Well, again, I simply wanted to get that as
    part of the record. And I do very much appreciate the
    enthusiasm.
        I might say that Secretary Salazar came out and visited the
    B Reactor. I think it was last fall, I forget the time frame.
    But when you sit in the operator's chair--and I can just
    imagine sitting there--and then pressing the button--``OK,
    we're going hot''--that had to be an incredible feeling at that
    time, because you didn't know if it was really going to work.
    And yet you are right in that site that it happened.
        But one of the interesting parts of that tour, somebody
    made the observations--and I will paraphrase--well, let's show
    the Secretary the computer. So we walked around the room, and
    somebody picked up a slide rule. That was the computer that
    built this reactor. I mean that is how significant this
    technology is.
        And, Ms. McClenahan, you are exactly right. What we are
    celebrating with this is the technology that allowed us to
    accomplish another event.
        So, thank you all. I will yield back my time and recognize
    the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan.
        Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, as well. And
    Heather, as--I appreciate it very much in your testimony and
    that of Mr. Petersen, the importance of the conversations of
    those that worked on this site that maybe weren't directly
    involved with the science and the research. Those are
    compelling stories that need to be told, from the little place
    that we call home in small communities like Nambe, which is
    where I live, and Pojoaque and Espanola, the surrounding
    pueblos where much of the workforce was recruited and where a
    lot of the land was acquired.
        How do you think that we can include those stories in the
    larger story that needs to be told? And, you know, I mentioned
    a young lady in my introduction by the name of Mariah Gomez,
    who is doing an amazing research project, who I have had the
    honor of speaking with on several occasions, collecting oral
    histories and doing a lot of the research. So I know that you
    also have some amazing people that you have worked with, with
    the historical society, but that are also up at the museum that
    have a lot of this institutional and historical knowledge. Can
    you talk a little bit about that?
        Ms. McClenahan. Yes, sir. We actually have been working
    with the Bradbury Science Museum, which is run by the
    laboratory and our own organization. We have collected a number
    of oral histories from folks in the Valley, video and just tape
    recorded, and have really been trying to capture those stories.
    You know, the lady who worked for Oppenheimer as his maid, and
    the people who were building the buildings. And, so, a lot of
    those stories we are working to capture. A lot of the families
    are realizing that they are losing those stories. And, so, they
    are getting them themselves, they are having people write down
    their stories, or record them for them.
        And so, once we have those stories, I think it will be very
    important in the park and in our museums to make sure that
    people can see those, and understand that it is not just the
    story of the great scientists. Certainly it is. I mean there
    were great men who did a lot of great work--and women. But
    there is also this underlying story that they couldn't have
    done it had they not had these support people. And, so, I think
    that those stories certainly will be part of the story.
        Mr. Lujan. Appreciate that.
        Mr. Petersen. May I add just a short bit? At B Reactor we
    actually have docents who are people who worked at the site,
    and who are telling the story. Now, unfortunately, as Ray says,
    most of them are in their late eighties or early nineties, and
    they are dying off. And, so, we are capturing those stories, as
    well.
        But currently, they are still telling the story directly to
    the 8,000 to 10,000 people who come out to the site.
        Mr. Lujan. That is great. That is great. Mr. Smith? And I
    have two other questions, so----
        Mr. Smith. This will be very brief. Thank you. We have a
    gentleman named Martin Skinner who stands by that alpha
    calutron and talks about how he worked it when we bring people
    through. We brought nearly 1,000 people through a couple of
    Saturdays ago. So we also included those oral histories. That
    is the basis for those documentary films. We have 25 of them
    online that you can go and listen to.
        One very quick story. A lady called me----
        Mr. Lujan. Well, Mr. Smith, we may have to get to that
    quick story.
        Mr. Smith. Oh, that is fine.
        Mr. Lujan. Two important questions that I have. And,
    Heather, can you tell us the importance of why the legislation
    should consider the use of Federal funds to acquire properties?
        Ms. McClenahan. That is one of the differences between, I
    guess, the Senate bill and the House bill. And in Los Alamos,
    our community is a little bit different in that the original
    laboratory is mostly gone. But the sites that are left are far
    away from the downtown, because they were doing explosives work
    and they didn't want to do that close to where they lived.
        The historic downtown, where Oppenheimer and Bethe and
    those gentlemen lived is mostly in private hands. These are
    private homes. And it is close to a lot of other activities
    that go on: our cultural center, Fuller Lodge, those kinds of
    places. But because they are in private homes, there is a
    concern in our community that it--you know, if the Park Service
    wants to have that centralized visitor center that they
    recommended, that they may need to have the ability to acquire
    those homes with, you know, monetary purchase.
        Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I know that we
    are going through some tough economic times. But hopefully, as
    we move into the future, one, we can get this legislation
    adopted and passed, and then those are conversations that we
    can still consider into the future. And I very much appreciate
    us getting an opportunity to have this hearing, but to move
    important legislation like this, to be able to capture these
    stories.
        Mr. Hastings. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Lujan. I would yield, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hastings. The mere fact that we have three distinct
    site and three distinct States, obviously, nothing--you know,
    we learn that one size doesn't fit all many times, and this is
    just one of those examples. And we certainly are willing to
    work to get through that. That is what the intent is of, I
    think, everybody involved. And I thank the gentleman for
    yielding.
        Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Hastings. Mr. McClintock is recognized, if he wishes.
        Mr. McClintock. Ms. McClenahan, you just mentioned that the
    Federal Government needed the ability to acquire private
    property. Are you talking about seizing it through eminent
    domain?
        Ms. McClenahan. No, sir. I don't think the Park Service has
    seized anything since the 1970s, and I think they have
    absolutely no intention to do that. And I think----
        Mr. McClintock. Would this legislation give them the
    authority to do that?
        Ms. McClenahan. I don't believe it does. In fact, I think
    there is a clause that, in fact, that it cannot be through
    that. So----
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
        Mr. Hastings. The gentleman yield back? Yes. Ms. Tsongas?
    No questions? Mr. Holt?
        Dr. Holt. If I may----
        Mr. Hastings. Go ahead.
        Dr. Holt [continuing]. Just very briefly to say, as someone
    who was educated and grew up as a physicist, I think it is
    really very important that we preserve in a national way all of
    the efforts that went into this with historic interpretation
    that will serve as an education in not only how research is
    done, but why research is done. And, in this particular case,
    how the research was used. And I think there are important
    lessons to be drawn from it that are very appropriate to this
    work.
        Mr. Hastings. Gentleman yield?
        Dr. Holt. And I would--pleased to yield to the Chair.
        Mr. Hastings. And that is precisely the idea. When you look
    at this, you know, we tend to forget that we were involved in a
    war and we had no idea what Nazi Germany had, but we knew that
    we had to do something.
        And as Ms. McClenahan pointed out in her testimony, this is
    really a story of the ingenuity of America to respond to a very
    great threat at that time. And that is what the whole intent of
    this legislation is, is to put it in a historical context,
    what, in fact, did happen. And, so, I appreciate the gentleman
    yielding.
        Dr. Holt. I thank the gentleman. And it is worth pointing
    out in this context that the phrase--the words ``Manhattan
    Project'' have become part of the American language. And it--
    and in many cases, people use it without an understanding of
    what the Manhattan Project really was, what it consisted of,
    its scale, and its importance, and the just enormous advances
    in science and engineering that took place there.
        So, obviously, the details of something like this are
    tricky with multiple States and private ownership and public
    participation. I am not quite sure how we work it all out. But
    the idea is something that I can strongly endorse. Thank you.
        Mr. Hastings. The gentleman yield back?
        Dr. Holt. I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Hastings. Well, I want to thank the panel very much for
    your participation. Many times there are questions that come up
    later on. And if there are those questions and they are sent to
    you, if you could respond in a timely manner I would very much
    appreciate.
        With that, I will dismiss the first panel. I would like to
    call the second panel to--and it is a Members panel--to speak
    on their respective piece of legislation. We have Senator Tom
    Carper from Delaware and Congressman John Carney from Delaware,
    Mr. Chaffetz from Utah, Mr. Denham from California, Mr.
    Gallegly from California, Mr. Pearce from New Mexico, and Ms.
    Tsongas from Massachusetts, and Mr. Turner from New York.
        I recognize that all Members--we all have schedules, and I
    recognize that. And so--and some of them have imminent
    schedules, and I have been advised of that. So I am going to
    start. And I recognize that if you finish your testimony and
    you leave, you are not being rude, you are simply trying to
    accommodate the responsibilities that you have.
        So, with that, we will start with Mr. Gallegly of
    California. Recognized for fiveminutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
    really appreciate the opportunity to be here. And I understand
    your schedule this morning and I will be leaving quickly, and
    it will not be out of anything personal to this Committee that
    I had the honor to serve on for 24 years.
        Thank you for holding this hearing today on H.R. 4109, the
    Los Padres Conservation and Recreation Act. This legislation is
    the product of over two years of negotiations with various
    stakeholders and users of the Los Padres National Forest. As a
    result of this work, I am proud to stand here today and support
    the legislation coming from wilderness organizations, off-road
    vehicle organizations, local business and ag groups. This type
    of broad-based coalition is rarely achieved on this type of
    legislation.
        The groups endorsing H.R. 4109 include the Wilderness
    Society, California Wilderness Coalition, Pew Campaign for
    America's Wilderness, Americans for Responsible Recreation
    Access, American Motorcycle Association, Motorcycle Industry
    Coalition, Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture, and
    Business, United Water Conservation District, Western States
    Petroleum Association, and the list goes on.
        This legislation will designate approximately 63,000 acres
    as wilderness, none of which will change anyone's access to the
    forest. There is no off-road activity in any of this acreage,
    with much of it largely being managed as wilderness already. It
    will designate approximately 89 miles of waterways of wild,
    scenic, or recreational rivers. This includes specific
    provisions to protect off-road trails that use rivers during
    the dry season, and protections for the California Department
    of Transportation to adequately maintain a vital California
    highway that travels through the middle of the forest.
        The bill will create 18,000-acre Condor Ridge Scenic Area,
    locking all current usage of the area and preventing any future
    development, allowing for the preservation of pristine viewshed
    of the California Coast and Pacific Ocean. In addition, this
    legislation will indefinitely preserve approximately 65,000
    acres for off-road vehicle use through the creation of 2
    congressionally designated areas. Both of these areas are
    already in use by the off-road community. I simply--it will
    simply be preserving these areas from possible closures in the
    future.
        This legislation will also allow for a long-awaited
    exchange to occur between the Forest Service and United Water
    Conservation District. This will allow United Water to reduce
    its operating costs at Lake Piru Reservoir, and pass these
    savings on to my constituents in the form of cheaper water.
        Finally, the legislation will also change the manner in
    which fires will be managed in the forest. Firefighters will be
    able to continue all suppressive activities within the entire
    forest, along with pre-suppression. And the act will allow for
    mechanized equipment, such as chain saws and bull dozers in the
    wilderness areas to help prevent and fight any fires from
    spreading throughout the forest and on to populated areas.
        This legislation will enhance the Los Padres National
    Forest for all users of all kinds of future [sic], and I urge
    the Committee to mark up this legislation and move it to the
    Floor as soon as possible.
        Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close by adding one
    other comment, and raise another issue that is facing all of us
    right now. And, of course, that is the fires in our national
    forests. As you know, the wildfires are raging through national
    forest adjoining areas throughout parts of Colorado and your
    home in--well, in the home of the--of who I thought was going
    to be chairing the hearing this morning, Mr. Bishop's home
    State of Utah.
        Firefighting systems are available to assist putting out
    these horrific fires, and have already killed one person,
    destroyed untold thousands of homes. As you know, one of the
    fires has caused the evacuation of the Air Force Academy. And I
    wanted to highlight this issue and request your support in
    urging the Forest Service to immediately call up all available
    units.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time. Thank you for your consideration this morning.
        Mr. Hastings. Good. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        I recognize the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Tsongas.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. NIKI TSONGAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Chairman Hastings. I want to thank
    you for holding this hearing today, and for providing me the
    opportunity today to share my remarks on H.R. 5319, the Nashua
    River Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2012, which I
    introduced in April of 2012. And I also want to thank Elizabeth
    Ainsley Campbell, the Executive Director of the Nashua River
    Watershed Association, who will be testifying today in support
    a little later today, and to also thank Congressman Olver for
    cosponsoring this legislation, since one of the towns along the
    river is in his district.
        The history and development of the towns and cities in the
    fifth district of Massachusetts has been defined by the many
    rivers that course through these unique communities. From the
    mighty Merrimack River that supported the birth of the
    Industrial Revolution in Lowell, to the Concord River, where a
    famous shot was heard around the world, our rivers continue to
    play an important role in connecting our communities.
        But time and development have not always been kind to these
    rivers. Beginning in the 1700s, and continuing to just a few
    decades ago, paper, shoe, and textile factories were
    constructed along the Nashua River and many other rivers in the
    area. The powerful currents of the rivers powered the factories
    and made their success possible. But at the same time, the
    factories were releasing industrial waste right back into the
    river, polluting the very source of their success.
        But in the mid-1960s, the Nashua River was one of the most
    polluted rivers in the Nation. In fact, the river would change
    color almost daily because of the inks and dyes released into
    the river by the paper factories.
        But in 1965 one fifth-district resident, Marion Stoddart,
    realized that something had to be done. Ms. Stoddart formed the
    Nashua River Clean-Up Committee to work toward cleaning up the
    river and protecting the land along its banks. Thanks to her
    work, and the continued work of the Nashua River Watershed
    Association, the Nashua River has come a long way. Pollution
    from the mills has been cleaned up. New sewage treatment plants
    now keep sewage out of the river. And more than 8,000 acres of
    land and 85 miles of greenway along the river banks have been
    permanently conserved. I can't praise enough Marion and all the
    dedicated residents, volunteers, and association staff who have
    spent countless hours working to make sure the Nashua River can
    once again be an asset to its communities.
        But there is much work to be done. And that is why I,
    working with the Nashua River Watershed Association, introduced
    a bill we are considering at this moment, a bill that would
    initiate a three-year study to determine whether roughly 28
    miles of the Nashua River and its tributaries can be designated
    as wild and scenic rivers. This study will allow the national
    park, the Watershed Association, and local governments and
    stakeholders to work together to form a plan to protect the
    river and make sure that it remains a great place for canoeing,
    fishing, and enjoying the great outdoors.
        Every two through which the river passes, in addition to
    several local environmental organizations, support the adoption
    of this legislation. And with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I
    would like to submit their letters for the record.
        Mr. Hastings. Without objection, it will be part of the
    record.
        [NOTE: The letters submitted for the record by Ms. Tsongas
    have been retained in the Committee's official files.]
        Ms. Tsongas. So, I urge a proper consideration of this
    legislation today. And I look forward to addressing any
    questions we may have. But I thank you again, Mr. Hastings, for
    bringing this legislation forward. Thank you.
        Mr. Hastings. Gentlelady yields back. Thank you for your
    statement.
        I know Mr. Turner has--everybody has a schedule, I
    understand. Not trying to pick sides, but I know Mr. Turner has
    a time frame. So I will recognize Mr. Turner for fiveminutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Chairman Hastings. And thank the
    members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify today
    regarding H.R. 5958, which would rename the Jamaica Bay
    Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center of the Gateway National
    Recreation Area in honor of former New York Senator James L.
    Buckley.
        Senator Buckley not only represented New York in the
    Senate, he also served our country at the highest levels in all
    three branches of government, as well as the United States Navy
    during World War II. The bill recognizes Senator Buckley's
    service to our country, and his efforts to create the Gateway
    National Recreational Area in New York and New Jersey, the
    first urban park space created by the Federal Government.
        Along with his fellow New York Senator, Jacob Javits,
    Senator Buckley had the vision to create a national wildlife
    refuge in an urban area, accessible to the millions of people
    in New York City, as well as the millions of other residents in
    the metropolitan area.
        In 1970, during his first days in the Senate, Senator
    Buckley, along with Senator Javits, introduced legislation to
    create Gateway, a more than 26,000-acre area spanning 3
    boroughs, and stretching all the way to Sandy Hook, New Jersey.
    Senator Buckley was not satisfied with simply being a cosponsor
    of the bill, he was passionate and spoke on the Senate Floor on
    its behalf.
        This year, as it celebrates its 40th anniversary, Gateway
    welcomes more than 8 million visitors annually, from historic
    aircraft at Hangar B in Floyd Bennett Field, to America's
    oldest lighthouse that was established in 1767 in Sandy Hook,
    New Jersey.
        Gateway offers a piece of history for visitors, and for
    ornithologists, a glimpse at over 325 species of birds as they
    stop over on part of the Atlantic flyway, which stretches from
    the north of Canada to the Caribbean. Senator Buckley, an
    ornithologist himself, not only helped provide a rest area for
    the birds, but a perch for his fellow bird watchers. And I am
    happily in that company.
        Senator Buckley's environmental interests were not limited
    to New York. He cosponsored the 1972 Clean Water Act, a seminal
    law governing water pollution and contamination. He also
    cosponsored the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act,
    which protected the majesty of one of our Nation's greatest
    natural habitats.
        Senator Buckley was also eloquent by pointing out how
    progress and the environment can evolve together. He stressed
    that we should concentrate on developing environmental programs
    at achievable rates and costs by saying we must learn how
    modern technology can co-exist with the natural world.
        I understand the National Park Service believes there
    should be a strong association between the park and the person
    being commemorated, and at least five years should have elapsed
    since the death of that person. This bill satisfies the first
    belief. I think Mr. Buckley has demonstrated his involvement
    and commitment in this. And I am sure that you may agree that
    Mr. Buckley should not be penalized for his longevity. He is in
    his 89th year.
        So, I hope you will join me in renaming the Jamaica Bay
    Wildlife Refuge Center after someone who served to protect his
    State, his country, and the environment. This is a fitting
    tribute to a man who spent most of his life sharing his
    intellect and his talent to serve others. Thank you.
        Mr. Hastings. I thank you very much for your testimony.
        And next we will recognize the gentleman from California,
    Mr. Denham, for his statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF DENHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing up this
    bipartisan bill. As you will remember, not only do I represent
    the great area of Yosemite, but my predecessor, George
    Radanovich, had an interest in this, as well. This is a bill
    that I am proud to sponsor.
        Very closely aligned with the bill that is under--or that
    Congressman Radanovich had introduced previously, but basically
    it takes Yosemite National Park, allows them to purchase 18
    acres, which will take out the administrative accounting some
    of the jobs outside of the park, where you have people that are
    commuting over an hour drive every day each way. We need to
    have the park available to those that are working there and
    need to be in there on a daily basis, and move those that
    aren't in the day-to-day business outside of the park, which
    will actually give us an opportunity not only in safety and
    less cars on the road and in the park, but actually create jobs
    within Mariposa County.
        This land--this bill is supported by all of--many local
    interests, including Supervisor Cann, who is here to testify
    today. Some of the supporters are also the Yosemite
    Conservancy, local elected officials, Mariposa and Madera
    Counties, park enthusiasts, National Park Service, the Mariposa
    Tourism Board, and the local Chamber of Commerce.
        The bill simply allows Yosemite National Park to acquire
    this parcel of land already held by the Yosemite Conservancy, a
    private citizen that is holding the property for the very
    purpose. The VFW and PG&E all are willing participants in this
    acquisition. And this bill specifically prevents any
    governmental taking of land for this purpose.
        In my discussions with the Park Service, this land
    acquisition will be paid for through the proceeds received by
    the park. The legislation will allow the park to provide better
    access to more than four million visitors, annually. Through
    this bill, Yosemite will be better equipped to manage the
    traffic and the continuing rise in the guest attendance at the
    park, providing more access, resulting in the park not having
    to turn people away at the gates, as they often do now.
        Thank you again for allowing me to bring this bill up today
    and have it heard today in the Committee.
        Mr. Hastings. I thank the gentleman for his statement. Now
    we have the Delaware Duo. We have two-thirds of the
    congressional representation here.
        And I am going to recognize Mr. Carney to make a
    determination who goes first, whether it is him or Senator
    Carper.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN CARNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Carper asked
    me to go first, so I will take the honors. I appreciate----
        Mr. Hastings. Well, we will ask him if he confirms that
    when you give him a chance to there.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Carney. That is right. As a former Member of the House,
    a long-serving Member of the House, he has deferred to the
    lower chamber in this instance.
        I am delighted that you are holding the hearing this
    morning. I thank you for the opportunity to share a few
    thoughts with you. As the at-large and only congressman for the
    State of Delaware, it is my pleasure to speak to you on H.R.
    624, the First State National Historical Park Act.
        Though Delaware was the first State to sign the
    Constitution and join the Union, she is the only State that
    does not have a national park. For the better part of the past
    decade, though, officials at every level of government in our
    State have worked with community members and activists to craft
    a proposal and a theme for a national park that is both
    appropriate for and unique to our State.
        In fact, one of the George W. Bush Administration's final
    acts in January of 2009 was to issue a National Park Service
    Special Resource Study, which concluded that a national park
    should be established in Delaware. The Park Service has
    recommended a ``partnership park'' celebrating Delaware's early
    Dutch, Swedish, and English settlements, and the events leading
    up to the State's role in the founding of our Nation.
        In acknowledgment of all the hard work that has gone into
    this process, I was honored to pick up where my predecessor,
    Congressman Mike Castle, left off. In February of last year, I
    reintroduced the House companion to my friend Senator Carper's
    legislation, S. 323. This iteration addresses questions and
    concerns raised during a legislative hearing in the Senate
    Energy and Natural Resources Committee last Congress. H.R. 624
    gives clear authority to the Park Service to negotiate site
    administration rights with site owners. It also designates
    historically significant sites in all three of Delaware's
    counties.
        The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Parks Subcommittee
    held a hearing on S. 323 in May of 2011. The full Committee
    marked it up favorably in November. And with your support I
    look forward to helping the House companion legislation move
    forward. Working together with Senator Carper, with Senator
    Chris Coons, I will continue to strive to bring this project to
    fruition.
        Thank you again for holding this hearing today. I greatly
    appreciate your help in establishing a park in the State of
    Delaware.
        Mr. Hastings. I appreciate the gentleman's testimony, and
    am very pleased to welcome Senator Carper back to this, the
    other side of the Rotunda. The gentleman is recognized.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM CARPER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM
                         THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. It is great
    to see you. And I want to say again on behalf of Congressman
    Carney and myself, thanks for meeting with us to give us an
    opportunity to hear about the proposed national park, which, as
    John says, has been endorsed by not one administration, the
    current Administration, but also by the previous
    Administration. And we appreciate the great cooperation we had
    from Dirk Kempthorne, when he was Secretary of the Interior,
    and from Ken Salazar and his folks today.
        But I want to note, as John has, that our bill has been
    reported in the Senate out of the Senate Energy and Natural
    Resources Committee, and we hope that this Committee will
    quickly do the same.
        If adopted, this legislation would establish the first
    national park, as Congressman Carney has said, in the State of
    Delaware. We are the only State in the Union without a national
    park. We are the first State to ratify the Constitution. Mr.
    Chairman, for one whole week, Delaware was the entire United
    States of America, and we still are the only State without a
    national park.
        Sometimes people ask me what is the big deal about it, why
    do you want a national park so bad, and I would just say that
    the Chair of this Subcommittee is--Chairman Bishop, he is not
    here today. But his State, Utah, received in 2010 something
    like $617 million worth of economic development activity
    benefits from their national parks, $617 million. The Ranking
    Member of this Subcommittee is Congressman Grijalva. And
    Arizona received over $700 million in economic activities. I
    think the State of Washington, I believe, was a little over
    $200 million, about $264 million in 2010. So these are
    important considerations, as well, for us.
        But from Aulavik National Park to the Boston National
    Historic Park, national parks across 49 States tell an
    important story of our Nation's history and culture. Every
    year, millions of Americans and visitors from other countries
    plan their vacations around their nations' national park
    system. I was surprised to learn last year that the top tourist
    destination for people around the world, when they come to
    America, is to visit our National parks. Just think about that.
    Number one. And, as a result, these parks provide valuable
    economic tourism dollars, which I have described already.
        The first State, though, to ratify the Constitution, the
    first State of the Union, the State in which the Swedes, the
    first Finns came ashore, the first Dutch colonial settlement
    was established, where William Penn came ashore to establish
    the colony of Penn, which included, at the time, Delaware, all
    those things are part of our State's history. And yet we have
    no national park. We may be small, but our national park was
    crucial to the birth of our great Nation. And unfortunately,
    our State's unique story is not being told.
        The First State National Historical Park of 2011 would
    create a park celebrating early American Dutch, Swedish, and
    English settlements located throughout Delaware, and Delaware's
    role in leading--the events leading up to the ratification of
    our Constitution. This theme, built on an effort ongoing in my
    state for just about a decade--when it first came to the
    Senate, I knew Delaware had a rich history, a history that had
    yet to be told in any of our national parks. However, I was
    unsure what a national park in Delaware would look like.
        That is why, in 2002, I tasked a commission composed of
    Delaware State citizen leaders, activists, community leaders,
    State officials, to work together on a draft proposal for a
    park that could be embraced by the people of Delaware. And that
    proposal was finalized in 2004. I want to thank everybody that
    was a part of that effort, and particularly the commission and
    its late leader, Dr. Jim Soles, who was a mentor to both
    Congressman Carney and myself.
        But in part--thanks, in part, to the work of the commission
    in 2006, Congress authorized a National Park Service Resources
    Study to examine the need for a national park in Delaware. The
    National Park Service used the commission's proposal as the
    starting point for their own study. In January of 2009, the
    National Park Service finalized its study and agreed that, at
    long last, Delaware should have a national park, one of the
    last acts taken by the Bush Administration, as President George
    W. Bush left office.
        We took a majority of the suggestions by the Park Service,
    put them together in the legislation that is before you today.
    And not only will the Delaware national park tell an important
    story, but it will tell the story at a very low cost to
    taxpayers. We are told National Park Service has estimated that
    this park, if approved, will be one of the least expensive
    national parks in our national park system.
        We have also ensured that the Federal footprint of this
    park will be small, and given owners of the seven listed sites
    numerous options to be part of the park. Our legislation allows
    an owner of a site to reject an offer from the Park Service if
    they cannot come to an agreement with the Park Service that
    meets their needs.
        In closing, let me just add that Delaware may be small, but
    our little State was crucial to the birth of this great Nation.
    We believe we deserve the right to tell our story, which is
    really America's story. I hope in the near future visitors far
    and wide will come to Delaware to hear our story, to learn our
    story through our national park. And I hope that the many
    visitors will end up returning to their own homes with lasting
    memories of how our small State helped launch the most enduring
    experiment in democracy the world has ever known, the United
    States of America.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.
        Mr. Bishop [presiding]. Thank you, Senator. We are happy to
    have you on the true side of the Capitol here.
        We will next turn to Representative Pearce of New Mexico
    for your bill.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVE PEARCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

        Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Holt. Like Mr. Gallegly, I used to be a member of the Committee
    until my grade point average fell too low to maintain that
    membership. But I am trying to get it back up.
        Members of the Subcommittee and Chairman and Ranking
    Member, thank you for holding this hearing, and for inviting me
    to testify in support of H.R. 4334, the Organ Mountains
    National Monument Establishment Act.
        The Organ Mountains are a true natural treasure in Southern
    New Mexico, and one of our State's most pristine, recognizable
    sites. Everyone believes that they must be preserved, and that
    is the intention of this bill. One of the most important
    aspects of this legislation is the strong local support for its
    end goal. It is imperative that any land management declaration
    have the backing of the local community. Ranchers,
    conservationists, public officials, and business owners have
    strong agreement with the aims of this bill.
        The Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce is supportive,
    and I would ask unanimous consent to insert into the record
    their letter of support.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Pearce. OK. Two witnesses you will hear from today, Dr.
    Jerry Schickedanz and Matt Rush, live and work in the community
    and have played a key role in garnering support for H.R. 4334.
    It is a local solution. Unfortunately, we see the ramifications
    of monument declarations by Presidential edict, and the effect
    that they have not only on the economic base of a community,
    such as the ongoing dispute over cattle grazing in the Grand
    Staircase-Escalante Monument in Utah, but a declaration with
    little public input causes a strain and cynicism between
    individuals and the Federal Government to fester.
        The U.S. Constitution grants the power to determine land
    management plans to the legislative branch under Article IV.
    This constitutional authority lends more credibility to the
    legislative process as a mechanism for making monument and
    other determinations. It serves as a check on the Federal
    Government and keeps it from abusing local authorities. The
    legislative process is a highly democratic method of making
    decisions with long-term policy implications.
        It is in this spirit that I sponsored H.R. 4334. It
    protects the Organ Mountains permanently from disposal. The
    monument will forever be a part of the national landscape
    conservation system. Mineral exploration will be banned
    permanently. It allows for motorized vehicles to stay on
    existing roads and trails designated for their use, allowing
    the elderly, families with small children, and the disabled to
    access this pristine area. It also allows for the use of
    mechanized equipment for standard ranching operations, and to
    make repairs to earthen dams for the sake of our watersheds.
        The agriculture community shows strong support for this
    legislation, as well. The bill protects current grazing
    permitees and ensures that future grazing permits will be
    issued. This injects regulatory stability into an industry that
    is often times left behind in the Washington game of special
    interest posturing. Our local ranchers deserve a regulatory
    framework that takes their interests into account, along with
    the need to protect our lands.
        Existing water rights are also protected and Federal water
    rights are not expanded. Private land holders who have property
    surrounding the monument will have access to their land
    holdings. The State Government will continue to have
    jurisdiction over fish and gaming permitting, so that our
    sportsmen can continue to enjoy the outdoors. In short, the
    bill creates a framework for responsible recreation and
    expanded access all at once. It protects our resources, while
    guaranteeing that our sportsmen and other outdoor recreational
    activists can enjoy this natural way to the greatest extent
    possible.
        There are currently 12 national monuments in the State of
    New Mexico. In 11 there are no weapons or hunting allowed. This
    is--the hunting right must be protected in any management plan.
        I would ask unanimous consent to insert the rest of my
    statement into the record, and I have about a one-minute video
    that would show you that a competing plan in the Senate does
    not comply with the underlying language. Senator Bingaman has
    introduced a wilderness bill, and I would like to show that
    video at this time.
        Mr. Bishop. Your statements are entered. Let's start the
    video.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Pearce. Basically, what is happening, the bill--the
    bottom area shows you the actual map, and the airplane is
    flying along roads that exist in the area. The map above is the
    one that was presented to the Senate Committees, and actually
    deletes all of the roads that are in there. So technically, we
    feel like--that the wilderness bill that Senator Bingaman has
    proposed does not comply with the wilderness itself. It takes
    an area of 200,000 acres and puts it into wilderness. Our bill
    is less restrictive, allowing grazers to operate.
        And so, again, just the area that we are flying here is
    different areas in the national park that--or in the area
    suggested as wilderness in Senator Bingaman's bill. And it just
    technically doesn't qualify for wilderness designation.
        The--with that, I will yield back the balance of my time
    and thank the Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pearce follows:]

           Statement of The Honorable Steve Pearce, a Representative
             in Congress from the State of New Mexico, on H.R. 4334

        Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing and for inviting me to
    testify in support of H.R. 4334, the Organ Mountains National Monument
    Establishment Act. The Organ Mountains are a true natural treasure in
    Southern New Mexico, and one of our state's most pristine, recognizable
    sites. Everyone believes they must be preserved. And that is the
    intention of this bill.
        One of the most important aspects of this legislation is the strong
    local support for its end goal. It is imperative that any land
    management declaration have the backing of the local community.
    Ranchers, conservationists, public officials and business owners have
    strong agreement with the aims of this bill. The Greater Las Cruces
    Chamber of Commerce is supportive. Two witnesses you will hear from
    today, Dr. Jerry Schickedanz and Matt Rush, live and work in the
    community, and have played a key role in garnering support for H.R.
    4334. It is a local solution.
        Unfortunately, we see the ramifications of monument declarations by
    presidential edict and the effect they have not only on the economic
    base of a community, such as the ongoing dispute over cattle grazing in
    the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument in Utah, but a declaration with
    little public input causes the strain and cynicism between individuals
    the federal government to fester.
        Plus, the US Constitution grants the power to determine land
    management plans to the legislative branch under Article IV. This
    constitutional authority lends more credibility to the legislative
    process as a mechanism for making monument and other determinations. It
    serves as a check on the federal government, and keeps it from abusing
    local authorities. The legislative process is a highly democratic
    method of making decisions with long-term policy implications.
        It is in this spirit that I sponsored H.R. 4334. It protects the
    Organ Mountains permanently from disposal. The Monument will forever be
    a part of the National Landscape Conservation System. Mineral
    exploration will be banned permanently. It also allows for motorized
    vehicles to stay on existing roads and trails designated for their use,
    allowing the elderly, families with small children and the disabled to
    access this pristine area. It also allows for the use of mechanized
    equipment for standard ranching operations and to make repairs to
    earthen dams for the sake of our watersheds.
        The agricultural community shows strong support for this
    legislation as well. The bill protects current grazing permittees, and
    ensures that future grazing permits will be issued. This injects
    regulatory stability into an industry that is oftentimes left behind in
    the Washington game of special interest posturing. Our local ranchers
    deserve a regulatory framework that takes their interests into account
    along with the need to protect our lands.
        Existing water rights are also protected, and federal water rights
    are not expanded. Private landowners who have property surrounded by
    the monument will have access to their landholdings. The state
    government will continue to have jurisdiction over fish and game
    permitting, so that our sportsmen can continue to enjoy the outdoors.
        In short, the bill creates a framework for responsible recreation
    and expanded access all at once. It protects our resources, while
    guaranteeing that our sportsmen and other outdoor recreational
    activists can enjoy this natural area to the greatest extent possible.
    There are currently 12 national monuments in the state of New Mexico.
    In 11, there are no weapons or hunting allowed. This is a right that
    must be protected in any management plan.
        Another aspect that the federal government must take into account
    is the need to ensure law enforcement personnel can access federal
    lands in pursuit of criminals and for other emergency response needs.
    The close proximity to the Mexican border makes it even more important
    that we work to keep this area from becoming a drug or human smuggling
    corridor. We see in the Organ Pipe National Monument on the Arizona-
    Mexico border that Park Rangers have to carry weapons, and that tours
    are often limited to the daytime with armed Parks Service personnel
    guides. Many parts of the Monument are kept off limits from American
    tourists because of the danger of running into members of a drug cartel
    or human smugglers. The environmental degradation of these areas caused
    by gangs leaving trash and human waste behind is disturbing and sad for
    those of us who want to enjoy our natural heritage. Seeing what has
    happened Arizona, and wanting to keep it from happening in New Mexico,
    the Dona Ana County Sheriff, Todd Garrison, has endorsed H.R. 4334.
        Several potential amendments to the bill have been suggested by
    citizens in the county to enhance the hunting and security aspects of
    it. I welcome those suggestions, and am happy to accommodate.
    Similarly, it has been suggested that a name change to the Organ
    Mountains-Cox Family Memorial National Monument be considered. The Cox
    family is a local ranching pioneer family in Dona Ana County, and has
    been in the area for more than a century. I would gladly consider such
    a change, along with strengthening recreation language to ensure the
    greatest amount of responsible access.
        Once again, I would like to thank the Chairman, Ranking Member and
    the rest of the Committee members for the invitation today, and your
    willingness to consider the Organ Mountains National Monument
    Establishment Act. I look forward to your questions.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman Pearce, I appreciate
    doing that. You all--first of all, if you would like to stay
    for questions, you may. If you want to join us on the dais, I
    have only had one other person in the history of this Committee
    that has actually taken me up on that offer. I would be pleased
    to have a second. You have a chance of doing it.
        Mr. Pearce. I am thinking about my future, sir. I guess I
    will.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chaffetz, sorry to have you waiting this
    long for it. You have an issue with Yucca Mountain, I
    understand?
        Mr. Chaffetz. No, not today. That is later.
        Mr. Bishop. That is later? OK.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Yes.
        Mr. Bishop. Would you introduce the Y Mountain bill for us,
    please?

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON CHAFFETZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Chairman. I am here to testify on
    behalf of H.R. 4484, which is the Y Mountain Access and
    Enhancement Act. This was introduced in a bipartisan way, and
    myself, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Flake, and Mr. McKeon introduced
    this bill, which has good, broad community support. I am
    joined--I know later will be testifying the Mayor of Provo. Mr.
    Curtis will be testifying on behalf of this bill.
        In short, if you go into Utah Valley, and you were to go to
    Provo, Provo is the home to Brigham Young University, one of
    the largest private schools in the State. And on the east side
    of the city is the beginning of what becomes the Y Mountain
    access trail. Decades and decades ago they painted a big Y up
    on the side of the mountain. It has just really become a
    fixture in our community. Our people like to hike a trail that
    takes us up to the Y. Some from the University of Utah like to
    climb that trail and paint it red. We try to keep it white down
    in Utah County. But nevertheless, people like to hike the
    trail. They use it year-round.
        Decades and decades ago, more than 50 years ago, Brigham
    Young University actually used to own about an 80-acre parcel
    that encompassed the Y that is there on the mountain. Now, with
    this bill, that would allow Brigham Young University to
    purchase that 80 acres back from the Federal Government.
        So, if you were to go to the trail head and start to follow
    up the trail, the first half of that trip, roughly, you would
    be on property that is owned by Brigham Young University. What
    they simply want to do is be able to purchase that second half
    of the trail, so that there is some continuity. The idea here
    is that there would be better maintenance, better access. It
    would be better maintained. We think there are some safety
    issues, and what not.
        The bill requires that Brigham Young University must
    continue to allow access as there is today. But you can
    understand why the access issues are such that one-half of the
    trail owned by one and the other half owned by somebody else,
    there isn't the continuity or the safety issues that are
    involved there.
        It is a fixture in our community, it is a pride of our
    community. I think everybody wants to see the continued access.
    But we do believe that this bill would allow people a better
    experience. There will be better maintenance, better control of
    this to make sure that the community of all sorts can enjoy
    this. The bill legislates or mandates that the BYU pay the fair
    market value for the land, that Brigham Young University cover
    administrative and appraisal costs. And we just think that this
    is a well-crafted bill. It is--we are talking about 80 acres.
        We did introduce it in a bipartisan way, and we would
    encourage the community to look at this. I would be happy to
    answer any questions now or in the future about this. But we do
    encourage the passage of H.R. 4484, and appreciate the
    consideration.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman Chaffetz. I appreciate
    you being here. And once again, the same invitation applies to
    you, if you would like to join us here on the dais as we go
    through your bill with the other testimony, we would be happy
    to have you here.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Bishop. All right, you don't have to. But we would be
    happy to have you here, if you would like to.
        I am going to turn to the Committee and see if there are
    any questions or statements for whoever is not here at this
    stage of the game.
        Mr. McClintock, do you have questions?
        Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chairman, would this be an appropriate
    time to make a statement on one of the measures before us?
        Mr. Bishop. I will accept that, go ahead.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we have before us
    today H.R. 3640, that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
    to acquire 18 acres in Mariposa, California, as the site of a
    new Yosemite visitors center and administrative office complex.
    I had the opportunity to meet with a group of county officials
    and business leaders earlier this year in Mariposa who were
    pursuing this project as a gateway to Yosemite.
        As Mariposa County Supervisor Kevin Cann will explain to
    the Subcommittee today, the advantages include moving more than
    100 Yosemite employees out of the park, and providing a one-
    stop center for park visitors to ``get a full park ranger
    orientation, entrance passes, maps, and plan their trip before
    they enter the park.''
        The ultimate goal is to remove as many vestiges of human
    activity from the park as possible, stopping Yosemite-bound
    travelers in Mariposa, and then bussing them in for day trips.
        I am not taking a position on the bill as yet, but I do
    want to address a number of concerns.
        First among them is whether this plan has been fully vetted
    locally in Mariposa. A few weeks after I met with Supervisor
    Cann I was invited to a community meeting in Mariposa attended
    by several hundred Mariposa residents who raised the issue
    during a question and answer session, and expressed strong
    opposition to the project. Among their concerns were why 18
    acres was necessary for an office complex, what negative impact
    such a complex would have on the quiet ambience of the town,
    and how the Federal Government could afford to take on new
    projects during an unprecedented fiscal crisis. I appreciate
    the Chairman granting my request to invite one of the
    organizers of this meeting to testify today.
        Of all the unresolved issues surrounding this, it is
    crystal clear that a consensus has not yet emerged locally.
    Second, and more importantly, is the impact of this proposal on
    park visitors and on surrounding gateway communities. Mariposa
    is 30 miles from Yosemite. Moving employees and visitor
    services from the park means that they will not be available to
    visitors at the park.
        And Mariposa County is not the only gateway to Yosemite. It
    certainly serves visitors coming to the west entrance on
    Highway 140. But neighboring Tuolumne County serves as a
    gateway from the north on Highway 120, and Madera County is the
    gateway to the south entrance from the populous Southern
    California area on Highway 41. These counties have not taken a
    position on this legislation, but have expressed some concern.
        As Madera County Board of Supervisors Chairman Ronn
    Dominici wrote to Congressman Denham on April 10th of this
    year, ``As in Mariposa County, Madera County directly benefits
    from tourists traveling to Yosemite National Park. Eastern
    Madera County is comprised of many southern gateway
    communities, such as Oakhurst, who depend almost solely on
    tourism. The number of tourists that visit the park through the
    south gate entrance, more than 1.1 million of the 3.6 million
    total visitors in 2011, surpasses any other gate. Thus, we
    believe that our county should also be considered for any
    project that utilizes park fees for visitor services.''
        I would ask unanimous consent to place that letter in the
    record.
        Mr. Bishop. So ordered.
        [NOTE: The letter entered into the record by Mr. McClintock
    has been retained in the Committee's official files.]
        Mr. McClintock. Tuolumne County's government affairs
    representative voiced a similar concern. By removing visitor
    services 30 miles to the west, travelers from both the northern
    and the southern parts of California would be diverted many
    miles out of their way to obtain services that they could
    otherwise access in the park, itself. Moreover, every visitor
    trip that Mariposa may gain by this project is a visitor trip
    lost to neighboring communities like Sonora and Oakhurst, whose
    economies are just as depending on Yosemite-generated tourism.
        So, I would hope that these issues can be addressed in a
    consensus bill that takes into account the wishes of park
    users, local community concerns within Mariposa County, as well
    as concerns of Mariposa's neighbors that could be devastated,
    economically, if Congress begins picking winners and losers
    among Yosemite's gateway communities.
        I thank you for the opportunity to address the issue, and
    yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Congressman. Mr. Holt, do you have
    any opening comments or questions?
        Dr. Holt. Yes, if I may.
        Mr. Bishop. Please, go ahead.
        Dr. Holt. Just a very brief comment. I noted the testimony
    of the Senator and Representative from Delaware that for a
    period of time they were the United State--and I say, for the
    court reporter, singular--of America. And I think it is
    appropriate that we find a way for the State to have a national
    park. And I think a lot of good planning has gone into this
    one.
        I know the Chairman often talks about how much Federal land
    there is in his State. It may be that the Federal Government
    would want to take some land in Utah and cede it to Delaware,
    increase the size of the State, give them a national park. But
    one way or another--that was, again, for the court reporter,
    delivered with a wink--the--I think it is appropriate that we
    try to find a way for a good national park presence in
    Delaware. And I yield back my time. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. All right. We appreciate that. We will now turn
    to the next panel who is here, and talk about H.R. 4334, the
    Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Area.
        If I could have Carl Rountree, who is the Director of the
    National Landscape Conservation System in BLM come up here, as
    well as Jerry Schickedanz, who is the Chairman of the People
    for Preserving our Western Heritage, Matt Rush, the Executive
    Vice President of the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, and
    Bill Garrett, a Commissioner in District 1 in Dona Ana County.
    I hope I pronounced the county right. Mr. Schickedanz, I hope I
    pronounced your name correctly. At least that is what you would
    say in German, anyway. If we had those gentleman come up here,
    I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Schickedanz. It took my brother to the second grade to
    learn how to spell it.
        Mr. Bishop. Gentlemen, we are speaking just for this
    particular bill, the Organ Mountains National Monument
    Establishment Act. We will start with Mr. Rountree and then
    just go down the panel.
        I would remind you all once again that you have--your
    written statements are already submitted and included in the
    record. We will be hearing oral testimony. You have the timer
    in front of you there. You have five minutes. I would
    appreciate you keeping to that five-minute limit. The green
    light means everything is going well. The yellow light means
    you have a minute left. I would ask you to please conclude when
    the red light goes on or before, if you want us to be nice to
    you when we do the questions.
        And, Mr. Pearce, happy to have you here. If you actually
    want to come closer to us, we did bathe this morning. You can
    sit down there at the end, if you would like to. OK, fine.
        Anyway, Mr. Rountree, if you would start, please.

       STATEMENT OF CARL ROUNTREE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
    CONSERVATION SYSTEM, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT
                            OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Rountree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on H.R.
    4334, the Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act.
    I will briefly summarize my written statement.
        The Department of the Interior strongly supports the
    protection and the conservation of the Organ Mountains in
    Southern New Mexico. This area is a national treasure,
    deserving the protections that come with designation as a
    national monument. Last year, the Department testified in
    support of S. 1024, the Organ Mountains Dona Ana County
    Conservation and Protection Act, before the Senate Energy and
    Natural Resources Committee. The Department recommends a number
    of changes to H.R. 4334, so that we can likewise support this
    bill in the future.
        The Organ Mountains lie to the east of Los Cruces, New
    Mexico, dominating the landscape as they rise some 9,000 feet
    in elevation. Running generally north-south for 20 miles, the
    steep, needle-like spires resemble the pipes of an organ, and
    are an iconic fixture of life in Southern New Mexico. They are
    a popular recreation area with multiple hiking trails, a
    campground, opportunities for hunting, mountain biking, and
    other dispersed recreation. The mountain harbors more than 800
    plant species, some of which occur nowhere else, and hosts
    hundreds of species of animals. They also contain the traces of
    ancient people and evidence of the area's more recent past.
        H.R. 4334 would designate 58,500 acres of BLM-managed
    public land in the Organ Mountains National Monument--as the
    Organ Mountains National Monument. Generally, the purpose of
    this section of a national monument or a national conservation
    area designation establishes the conservation goals for the
    unit. In this bill, the purpose statement of H.R. 4334 includes
    resources that are undefined and unnecessary for the
    conservation of the area. And we recommend that they be removed
    from the purposes section.
        While the BLM supports the continuation of grazing within
    the proposed national monument, grazing and traditional uses
    should not be listed as monument purposes.
        The boundaries established for the Organ Mountains National
    Monument under H.R. 4334 reflect the boundaries that the BLM
    administratively established for the Organ Mountains Area of
    Critical Environmental Concern, ACEC, in 1993. In the nearly 20
    years since that ACEC was established, numerous changes on the
    ground and in the local community have resulted in the BLM's
    support for a larger national monument boundary with a
    different configuration. We would be happy to work with the
    sponsor and the Committee to modify the boundaries.
        Finally, section 9 of H.R. 4334 calls for the release of 3
    wilderness study areas from WSA status. The BLM opposes this
    wholesale release, and instead recommends the designation of
    approximately 19,000-acre wilderness area within the proposed
    national monument, and the release of about 400 acres from WSA
    status.
        The Organ Mountains are not only a treasure for the State
    of New Mexico, but one of national significance to be protected
    and cherished by and for all of the people of the United
    States. The Department looks forward to working with the
    sponsor and the Committee to find solutions to the issues we
    have raised, so that the Organ Mountains get the full
    protection they so richly deserve.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rountree follows:]

        Statement of Carl Rountree, Assistant Director, Bureau of Land
       Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 4334, Organ
                 Mountains National Monument Establishment Act

        Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
    H.R. 4334, the Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act. The
    Department of the Interior strongly supports the protection and
    conservation of the Organ Mountains in southern New Mexico. This area
    is a national treasure deserving of the protections that come with
    designation as a National Monument. Last year, the Department testified
    in support of S. 1024, the Organ Mountains--Dona Ana County
    Conservation and Protection Act, before the Senate Energy and Natural
    Resources Committee. S. 1024 provides for the designation of the Organ
    Mountains as a National Conservation Area (NCA) as well as a number of
    other conservation designations in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. The
    Department recommends a number of changes to H.R. 4334, so that we can
    likewise support this bill in the future.
    Background
        The Organ Mountains lie to the east of Las Cruces, New Mexico,
    dominating the landscape as they rise to over 9,000 feet in elevation.
    Running generally north-south for 20 miles, the steep, needle-like
    spires resemble the pipes of an organ and are an iconic fixture of life
    in southern New Mexico. This Chihuahuan Desert landscape of rocky
    peaks, narrow canyons, and open woodlands contain a multitude of
    biological zones, from mixed desert shrubs and grasslands in the
    lowlands, ascending to Alligator juniper, gray oak, mountain mahogany
    and sotol, and finally to ponderosa pines at the highest elevations.
    Consequently, the area is home to a high diversity of plant and animal
    life, and excellent wildlife viewing opportunities are present in the
    area. Visitors frequently see golden eagles, red-tailed hawks,
    peregrine falcons, Gamble's quail, desert mule deer, coyote,
    cottontail, and collared lizards. Mountain lions and other predators
    are also present, but less frequently observed.
        There are six endemic wildflower species, including the Organ
    Mountains evening primrose. Seasonal springs and streams occur in the
    canyon bottoms, with a few perennial springs that support riparian
    habitats.
        The Organ Mountains are a popular recreation area, with multiple
    hiking trails, a campground, and opportunities for hunting, mountain
    biking, and other dispersed recreation. There are several developed
    recreation areas within the Organ Mountains, including the Dripping
    Springs Natural Area (formerly known as the Cox Ranch) noted for its
    ``weeping walls;'' the Aguirre Spring Campground, nestled at the base
    of the spectacular needle-like spires of the Organ Mountains; the
    Soledad Canyon Day Use Area; and many miles of hiking, horseback
    riding, and mountain biking trails.
    H.R. 4334
        H.R. 4334 would designate 58,500 acres of BLM-managed public land
    as the Organ Mountains National Monument. Each of the National
    Monuments and NCAs designated by Congress and managed by the Bureau of
    Land Management is unique. However, these designations have certain
    critical elements in common, including withdrawal from the public land,
    mining, and mineral leasing laws; off-highway vehicle use limitations;
    and language that charges the Secretary of the Interior with allowing
    only those uses that further the conservation purposes for which the
    unit is established. Furthermore, these Congressional designations
    should not diminish the protections that currently apply to the lands.
        Most of these standard provisions are included in H.R. 4334;
    however there are provisions that require amendment before the
    Department could support the legislation. Generally, the ``purposes''
    section of a National Monument or NCA designation establishes the
    conservation goals for the unit. In this bill, the purpose statement
    for H.R. 4334 includes two ``resources'' that are undefined and
    unnecessary for the conservation of the area. Specifically, in section
    5, both ``livestock'' and ``traditional'' are listed as resources to be
    conserved, protected, and enhanced, along with the more standard
    ``cultural, archaeological, natural, ecological, geological,
    historical, wildlife, watershed, educational, recreational and scenic
    resources.'' The inclusion of grazing and traditional ``resources'' in
    the purpose statement could prevent the BLM from adequately managing
    the area.
        Grazing exists on most of the BLM's National Monuments and NCAs, as
    with most public lands, and is typically consistent with their
    management. However, grazing is not a stated purpose of any national
    monuments. Section 6(c) of H.R. 4334 mandates that grazing continue in
    accordance with the same law and executive orders that apply to grazing
    on other land under the BLM's administrative jurisdiction, and we do
    not object to this provision. However, National Monuments and NCAs are
    intended for the protection, conservation, and restoration of
    nationally-significant resources, objects, and values of historic or
    scientific interest. Establishing livestock as a resource to be
    conserved and protected within this National Monument may, at a
    minimum, lead to confusion. A more extreme interpretation could create
    conflicting and inconsistent management standards for the grazing of
    livestock within the national monument compared to standards for
    grazing management on other lands managed by the BLM. This would be
    problematic from both a grazing management perspective, as well as a
    monument management perspective, and we oppose the addition of
    livestock as a monument purpose under the bill. Likewise, the term
    ``traditional. . .resources'' is an ambiguous term which the bill
    leaves undefined. The BLM has concerns about the scope of activities
    that this might include. In summary, while the BLM supports the
    continuation of grazing within the proposed national monument, grazing
    and traditional uses should not be listed as monument purposes.
        The boundaries established for the Organ Mountains National
    Monument under H.R. 4334 reflect the boundaries that the BLM
    administratively established for the Organ Mountains Area of Critical
    Environmental Concern (ACEC) in 1993. In the nearly 20 years since that
    ACEC was established, numerous changes on-the-ground and in the local
    community have resulted in the BLM's support for a larger national
    monument boundary with a different configuration.
        For example, the BLM has made a number of significant land
    acquisitions in the area over the past 20 years, including 400 acres on
    the east side which make up the popular Soledad Canyon Day Use Area.
    These acquired lands, along with surrounding public lands, should be
    incorporated into the bill's proposed monument to protect important
    resources.
        Also, the Army's Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range borders
    much of the east side of the existing ACEC. Working with the local BLM,
    the Army has indicated a strong interest in transferring the Filmore
    Canyon area to the BLM for conservation and protection as part of a
    larger designation. Additionally, the Army has advocated for additional
    conservation lands on the south and east in order to prevent
    development adjacent to these army bases. In addition, the Army
    recommends military overflight language (similar to that included in S.
    1024) as well as language on the compatibility of current and future
    military training and testing activities on DoD lands adjacent to the
    proposed national monument.
        On the south side of the existing ACEC, the BLM advocates both
    expanding the national monument in certain areas to protect important
    natural and historic resources, and also contracting the boundary in
    the vicinity of Anthony Gap to provide for an expanded utility and
    transmission corridor outside of a designated national monument. We
    would welcome the opportunity to discuss these proposed boundary
    modifications in more detail with the sponsor and the Committee.
        Finally, section 9 of H.R. 4334 calls for the release from
    wilderness study area (WSA) status of three WSAs totaling over 17,000
    acres. The BLM opposes this wholesale release and instead recommends
    the designation of an approximately 19,000-acre wilderness area within
    the proposed national monument, and the release of about 800 acres from
    WSA status. The land currently comprising the Organ Mountains, Organ
    Needles and Pena Blanca WSAs contains exceptionally high wilderness
    values. These three WSAs form the heart of the most rugged, isolated,
    and secluded sections of the Organ Mountains. Granite spires and red
    rhyolite cliffs are split by ribbons of green trees providing
    exceptional scenery for the visitor. This is what Congress envisioned
    when it passed the 1964 Wilderness Act describing areas with
    ``outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined
    type of recreation.''
    Conclusion
        The Organ Mountains are not only a treasure for the state of New
    Mexico, but one of national significance to be protected and cherished
    by and for all the people of the United States. The Department looks
    forward to working with the sponsor and the Committee to find solutions
    to the issues we have raised, as well as additional more technical
    issues, so that the Organ Mountains get the full protection they so
    richly deserve.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Schickedanz, please.

               STATEMENT OF JERRY SCHICKEDANZ, CHAIRMAN,
               PEOPLE FOR PRESERVING OUR WESTERN HERITAGE

        Mr. Schickedanz. My name is Jerry Schickedanz. I am
    Chairman of People for Preserving our Western Heritage, a
    coalition of 791 businesses in Southern New Mexico. Our mission
    is to preserve, promote, and protect the farming, ranching, and
    rural heritage of our western lands. We support H.R. 4334,
    Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act.
        H.R. 4334 is a common-sense approach to permanently
    protecting the Organ Mountains. The picture-perfect backdrop of
    the City of Los Cruces, New Mexico has been an item of local
    discussion for many years. There have been various proposals
    for wilderness and national conservation areas that include the
    Organ Mountains and other outlying areas that have not gained
    full support, but have divided the community.
        The land area addressed by H.R. 4334 has been under BLM
    administrative protection since the early 1990s as an area of
    critical environmental concern. That includes three wilderness
    study areas. From the earliest attempts to permanently protect
    the Organ Mountains, proposals have grown from 58,000 acres
    within the Organs to over 600,000 acres throughout Dona Ana
    County, which would designate over one-fourth of the county as
    a national monument by Presidential proclamation.
        H.R. 4334 has brought the vision of permanently protecting
    the Organ Mountains back into the realm of reality and common
    sense. This proposed legislation would permanently protect the
    Organ Mountains, a single proposal with universal support
    throughout Dona Ana County. This legislation would properly
    conserve, protect, and enhance the many resources within these
    mountains that exist today because of the stewardship provided
    by the W.W. Cox Ranch family for over 124 years. Their love and
    care of the land is evident, and we have an obligation to
    preserve and protect the fruits of their labor.
        We must understand that the Cox stewardship occurred under
    the umbrella of a working cattle ranch, and H.R. 4334 is the
    only pending measure that properly acknowledges that fact. The
    bill would protect livestock grazing within the Organ Mountain
    National Monument, and allow ranching to continue for the
    benefit and enjoyment of generations to come.
        Lands west of the 100th meridian were settled through the
    development of natural water and water for windmills, pumps,
    and earthen dams. This bill recognizes and protects those water
    rights which are important to manage the land for livestock,
    wildlife, and recreation. No new roads would be built, unless
    they are determined by the Secretary to be necessary for the
    resource protection or public safety. Use of motorized vehicles
    will only be approved for the use on designated roads, as
    determined by the management plan. This will allow
    authorization for motorized vehicle use in standard ranching
    practice and construction and maintenance operation or
    management of flood control, or water conservation systems.
        Flood water management is of high importance in the desert
    southwest, with the lands being prone to flash floods during
    the monsoon season. Because we have a limited ability to
    predict the future needs, the bill provides for utility rights
    of way upgrades, renewal, and authorization if they meet the
    standards of NEPA and other terms and conditions specified by
    the Secretary.
        The bill also addresses the protection of other resources
    the community finds important, such as cultural, archeological,
    historical, and scenic values. I would hope that the merits of
    this bill will gain bipartisan support, and permanently protect
    our magnificent Organ Mountains.
        I have collected over 870 signatures in the last couple of
    weeks in support of this bill and opposing the movement to
    establish a national monument by proclamation. Therefore, we
    support the passage of H.R. 4334 to settle once and for all the
    permanent protection of the Organ Mountains.
        We would further recommend that the title be changed to
    ``Organ Mountains Cox Family National Monument,'' as a lasting
    tribute to this stalwart pioneering family, and to the legacy
    of livestock ranching in the Southwest United States.
        I also have brought with me to be entered into the
    hearing's record a letter from the New Mexico Federal Lands
    Council in support of this bill. Also, a letter and attached
    resolutions from the Chair of the Dona Ana County Commission
    and actions that are relative to this bill. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schickedanz follows:]

    Statement of Jerry G. Schickedanz, Chairman, People for Preserving our
       Western Heritage, on H.R. 4334, Organ Mountains National Monument
                               Establishment Act

        I am Jerry G. Schickedanz, Chairman of People for Preserving Our
    Western Heritage (PFPOWH), a coalition of 791 businesses and
    organizations in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. The organization was
    formed in November of 2006, after a series of meetings among federal
    lands stakeholders organized by the County of Dona Ana and the City of
    Las Cruces to establish consensus on proposed wilderness designation
    for ten local areas.
        The mission of PFPOWH is ``To preserve, promote and protect the
    farming, ranching and rural heritage of our western lands.''
        We support permanent preservation and protection of the Organ
    Mountains and other special areas in our county.
        We further support H.R. 4334, ``Organ Mountains National Monument
    Establishment Act.''
    COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS
        During the stakeholder meetings held in 2006 and 2007, participants
    agreed on a list of nine community concerns and expectations for
    management of our public lands. Primary attention was focused on the
    Organ Mountains.
    1.  Retention of open space
        Almost everyone is committed to the preservation of open space.
    2.  Provision for planned economic and population growth.
        The population of Dona Ana County is going to grow. That growth
    will require some federal and state lands to be included within the
    scope of land use planning.
    3.  Unrestricted application of Homeland Security and law enforcement
            activities.
        No prudent leader should tie the hands of law enforcement on or
    near the Mexican border.
    4.  2Prevention of unlawful use of off-road vehicles.
        Every group and every stakeholder representative supported the
    prevention of unlawful off-road vehicular traffic.
    5.  Continued access for all segments of the public.
        Most participants were opposed to the closing of existing roads on
    public lands.
    6.  Perpetuation of traditional ranching operations.
        There is a growing understanding that in-tact ranch operations are
    the best mechanism to maintain the viability of open space in the West.
    7.  Access for flood control and water capture projects.
        Dona Ana County is part of a desert ecosystem. Most of our annual
    rainfall occurs during the months of July, August and September. Sudden
    flood, causing downpours are common. Our local Elephant Butte
    Irrigation District has initiated innovative measures to control those
    flood waters, protecting the populated areas from damaging floods by
    directing the runoff into the irrigation distribution and drain canal
    system where it recharges the Rio Grande aquifer and supplements
    irrigation water under the Rio Grande Compact. These initiatives are at
    risk under overly restrictive federal lands legislation.
    8.  Enhancement of wildlife and rangeland health.
        Scientific study has confirmed the improvements to plant and
    wildlife communities can result from prudently managed livestock
    grazing programs. Virtually all of the permanent water sources
    available to wildlife in Dona Ana County, other than the Rio Grande,
    are the result of livestock water facilities developed and paid for by
    livestock operators.
    9.  Fidelity of Wilderness.
        Most of the proposed Dona Ana County Wilderness areas do not meet
    the fidelity standards of wilderness as described in the 1964
    Wilderness Act.
    Concerns Generated by other proposals
        While there may have been consensus on community expectations,
    there has not been consensus on how to protect these lands in Dona Ana
    County. There have been proposals ranging from designating the 58,000
    acre foot print of the Organ Mountains as a National Conservation Area,
    240,000 acres of wilderness plus 100,000 acres of national conservation
    area, to a 600,000 acre proposal of a national monument that would side
    step the legislative process through a proclamation to be signed by the
    President under the 1906 Antiquities Act.
        It is incredulous to think that there is an active proposal to
    restrict use on 600,000 acres without the benefit of public hearings or
    debate. That proposal will impact 59% of the livestock grazing permits
    and 70% of the range cattle in the county. It would surround 24,000
    acres of state trust lands and a large number of private land holdings.
    There has not been an opportunity for citizens who would be impacted to
    have any input into the proclamation or any type of explanation of the
    economic impacts that a land designation of this magnitude would have
    on the community of either positive or negative impacts. The New Mexico
    experience of National Monuments have important impacts that should be
    addressed (Appendix A). H.R. 4334, the Organ Mountains National
    Monument Establishment, would bring the proposals for protecting the
    Organ Mountains back into perspective and reasonableness.
    How HR4334 Addresses Concerns
        H.R. 4334, in its simplicity, deals with many of the issues
    surrounding previous proposals and narrows the scope of the protection
    to only the Organ Mountains (58,512 acres), instead of a potential
    600,000 acres.
    Livestock and Grazing
        The purposes section identifies and names livestock and watershed
    as resources worthy of protection, conservation and enhancement. These
    are commonly ignored in other national monument designations. Grazing
    of livestock has been a recognized resource and use of public lands
    since the beginning of the recorded history of New Mexico with the
    first livestock brought to this area in 1598 by Don Juan de Onate.
    Livestock have been part of the landscape, economy and tradition since
    that time and are still important in Dona Ana County.
        H.R. 4334 would assure the continuation of ranching under the
    umbrella of this national monument, something not common to national
    monument designation. Livestock is recognized as a resource on equal
    footing with other named resources and grazing is specifically noted in
    Sec 6 (c) for continuation under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land
    Management.
        It is worthy to note that one family has continuously owned and
    operated ranches in the Organ
        Mountains since W.W. Cox arrived in 1888 and acquired the San
    Augustine Ranch, named for the San Augustine Peak located within the
    original ranch boundaries. Over time, and with the help of sons and
    daughters, Mr. Cox was able to expand his holdings into the Tularosa
    Basin. During World War II and at a time when family members were
    serving the country in foreign combat zones, one who would be lost in
    battle, the family ceded most of their holdings to the federal
    government for the establishment of White Sands Missile Range and the
    expansion of Fort Bliss. W.W. Cox was a prominent Dona Ana Count
    citizen, serving at one time as County Treasurer. Members of succeeding
    generations have played prominent roles in community and livestock
    organizations. We believe it would be most fitting to recognize the
    contributions of this pioneer family by naming this national monument
    in their honor.
    Water Rights
        Water has been a precious commodity in the settlement of the arid
    west. Water has been used for beneficial purposes in New Mexico prior
    to the settlement by the Spaniards. Coronado's expeditionary record
    refers to the cultivation of crops such as cotton and corn by the
    Pueblo Indians of the middle Rio Grande Valley and the watering of
    livestock from acequias as early as 1582.
        The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 and the Gadsden Purchase in
    1853 specified protection of landowners and occupiers, under the laws
    of Spain and Mexico. Appropriation of water for beneficial use was
    further clarified in the New Mexico State Constitution in 1911.
        Section 3 of this bill protects the existing water rights of
    individuals and the United States government upon enactment of this
    act.
    Flood Control
        Massive flood events have occurred along the Rio Grande since the
    beginning of time. Through the years, man has worked to control the
    flood events and capture the valuable water for beneficial use for
    crops, livestock, and personal use. Early day treatments were to build
    massive dams to capture the flood water and then dispense it out for
    crop use over a longer period of time following the flood event. This
    method was to block the arroyos and canyons at the mouth. However; this
    did nothing to prevent the destructive force of flood water and did not
    address the cause of flooding up stream. Current strategy is to work
    further up the stream beds and watershed area with smaller flood
    control and water spreading structures. This requires the ability to
    have access up stream to construct flood water dams, maintain and
    repair existing structures and implies the need for vehicle access to
    accomplish the work.
        Section 6 (b) (2) addresses the use of motorized vehicles in the
    construction, maintenance, operation or management of flood control or
    water conservation systems.
    Motorized Vehicle Use
        Motorized vehicle use in production agriculture, recreation and
    travel has become a necessary part of modern society. The ability to
    compete in production agriculture requires the use of mechanized
    equipment and not animal drawn implements. Recreation on our federal
    lands has developed through the use of mechanized vehicles both to
    recreate and to travel back and forth to a camp or home. Off-road use
    by these vehicles is contrary to regulation and law.
        We are opposed to unauthorized off-road travel. The bill gives
    authorization for motorized vehicle use for construction and
    maintenance of range improvements or performing standard ranching
    operations.
    Roads
        The bill protects the national monument area from any new roads
    except for public safety or natural resource protection. This will
    protect the current character of the land that local citizens are
    concerned about.
    Rights of Way
        If it were to become necessary to consider a new utility rights-of-
    way in the monument, the bill would not preclude that. The monument
    would be protected under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
    which contain restrictive and stringent rules that must be complied
    with in the event that a right of way needed to be addressed.
        We do not have a crystal ball that can predict the future needs in
    the way of new energy development, and this bill has the foresight to
    recognize that and allow a solution.
    Land Withdrawal
        Land use is a very current topic in areas of growth and development
    such as Las Cruces and surrounding Dona Ana County. Protection of the
    Organ Mountains from commercial development and housing has been a
    topic of contention from the beginning of the stakeholder meetings.
        This bill protects land within the 58,512 acre boundary from
    disposal, trade, development, sale, mineral exploration, leasing or
    mining including geo-thermal. This will alleviate the concern of many
    in Dona Ana County relative to the possible detrimental use and
    destruction of the view shed of the Organ Mountains.
    Release of Wilderness Study Areas
        Major portions of the Organ Mountains have, since the early 1990's,
    been under the designation of Wilderness Study Area. The designation
    protected the area from any use that would impair the wilderness
    character of the land until action by Congress. The bill will release
    the land areas in question from being under the jurisdiction of the
    wilderness study area regulations. These lands will continue to be
    protected from development and or disposal by inclusion in the proposed
    national monument.
    Legislative Process for National Monument Designation
        The deliberate and seemingly slow process for something to be
    enacted into law can be very frustrating in the short term. However,
    the deliberate process allowing for public input and debate to be put
    into writing and voted on by both houses of Congress and signed by the
    President has stood the test of time. There are seldom mistakes in the
    result of this process because it is transparent and has many
    opportunities for improvement of the initial concept. We are in total
    agreement with this tried and true outcome described in the
    constitution developed by our forefathers. Bills that are passed
    through this type of scrutiny will generally stand the test of time.
        Therefore; we support the passage of HR4334 to settle once and for
    all the permanent protection of the Organ Mountains.
        We do, however, have three recommended changed to the bill:
              Law enforcement should be guaranteed unfettered
            access to the monument
              Hunting should also be guaranteed in the monument,
            and
              The title should be changed to ``Organ Mountains-Cox
            Family National Monument'' as a lasting tribute to this
            stalwart pioneering family and to the legacy of livestock
            ranching in the Southwest United States.
                                     ______

                                  Attachment A

           Current Conditions on the 12 New Mexico National Monuments

                 Organ Mountains Desert Peaks National Monument

                                     FACTS

        There are 12 National Monuments in New Mexico; New Mexico is second
    to Arizona with 18.
        10 of the National monuments are managed by National Park Service.
        2 of the National monuments are managed by Bureau of Land
    Management.
        HUNTING--No hunting in 11 New Mexico National Monuments, the
    Trackways Management Plan is being developed. NPS policy is to protect
    wildlife within their boundaries.
        GRAZING--No grazing in 11 New Mexico National Monuments, the
    Trackways Management Plan is being developed. NPS policy is to phase
    out commercial grazing whenever possible.
        Grazing was prohibited in 1930, Bandelier; 1940's, White Sands;
    1997, El Malpais
        PETS--In general, NPS policy for pets (except for guide dogs and
    hearing ear dogs) are prohibited from: entering national monument
    buildings (including visitor centers); ranger led activities; using
    trails, and all backcountry areas. In those instances where they are
    allowed on trails, they must be kept on a leash at all times. Pet
    regulations are strictly enforced--fines $50-250.00.
        RV CAMPING OVERNIGHT--No overnight RV camping at 10 of the 12
    National Monuments in New Mexico. El Morro has 9 sites for RVs and
    Bandelier has 94 sites, but no hookups for water and lights.
        BACKPACK CAMPING OVERNIGHT--No overnight backpack camping at 9 of
    the 12 National Monuments in New Mexico. White Sands has 10 established
    sites for tents and must have advance reservations. Bandelier has
    overnight backpack camping with a permit. El Malpais has tent camping
        FEES--Fees are charged at 9 of the 12 National Monuments, El
    Malpais, Prehistoric Trackways and Salinas Pueblo Missions do not
    charge a fee.
        FUEL WOOD GATHERING--Generally fuel wood gathering is prohibited.
        MOTERIZED VEHICLE USE--No motorized vehicle use on trails. Baby
    strollers are prohibited on trails at Capulin Volcano and bicycles are
    prohibited during regular hours on the road up Capulin. Trackways
    management plan is being written. NPS policy is to not allow motorized
    vehicles on trails because they violate the soundscape resource with
    unnatural sounds.
        HORSEBACK RIDING--Bandelier limits riding on trails and limits the
    number daily to 2 groups of 6 horses.
        LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BORDER SECURITY
        Currently Law Enforcement and Border Patrol have access in the NMWA
    proposed Organ Mt.-Desert Peaks National Monument. However if done
    under a blanket proclamation the law officers could be blocked under
    National Monument rules that in Arizona have limited law enforcement
    routine patrols.
        National Park Service policy 2006 states''that within the national
    park system boundaries, the Service will fulfill its law enforcement
    responsibilities using NPS employees''.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Make sure our clerk has a
    copy of those letters, and we will add them into the record.
        Mr. Rush, I believe.

     STATEMENT OF MATT RUSH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NEW MEXICO
                       FARM AND LIVESTOCK BUREAU

        Mr. Rush. Good morning, Chairman and members of the
    Committee. What an incredible day. Who would have ever thought
    that a farm boy from a New Mexico town of 125 people would be
    testifying before Congress? But I am honored to be here. Even
    more exciting is to be testifying on something that I am so
    passionate about. That is our support of H.R. 4334, the
    establishment of the Organ Mountains as a national monument.
        My name is Matt Rush, and I am Executive Vice President of
    New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau. And I represent the
    majority of the farmers and ranchers in Dona Ana County and in
    New Mexico. And I speak for them when I thank Congressman
    Pearce for this bill.
        This proposal has been a long-range goal of New Mexicans,
    dating back to 2005 when then-Senator Pete Domenici proposed
    protection of the Organ Mountains. That is, until he found out
    his proposal was too large and negatively impacted the citizens
    of Dona Ana County.
        In 2006, the Wilderness Alliance proposed land for
    preservation, but this time increased the ante from 217,000
    acres to 325,000 acres. Again, community stakeholders refused
    it because of the size and crippling effect on our way of life.
        In 2009, Senate Bill 1689 was introduced, aiming to reserve
    260,000 acres. Because of the same reasons as before, this bill
    died in committee. Then again, in 2011, the bill was introduced
    as SB 1024, where it remains in committee today.
        But then, earlier this year, the New Mexico Wilderness
    Alliance began pushing a proposal to designate an astounding
    600,000 acres as national monument in Dona Ana County. All this
    being done behind the scenes and out of the public eye, but
    pushed for approval under the authority of the Antiquities Act.
        Although you have been told that there is broad-based
    support for this large national monument designation, as you
    can see from the past history, the reality is that the majority
    of citizens of our area are not in favor of such a large
    designation that would take away literally 25 percent of our
    county.
        The stark reality is that Dona Ana County, New Mexico, and
    the surrounding area is already a wash in Federal lands,
    especially if you combine Fort Bliss to the McGregor Range to
    White Sands Missile Range to the White Sands National Monument
    to Holloman Air Force Base to the San Andreas National Wildlife
    Refuge to the Experiment Station to the existing WSAs. That
    total will give you 4.7 million acres in protected Federal
    lands. Add this to another 1.5 million acres that are tied up
    in conditional access, and you will find a total of 6.2 million
    acres. Almost 75 percent of the entire county is already under
    Federal control. Less than 15 percent is privately owned. We
    don't need to exacerbate the problem by designating vast tracks
    of land as national monument.
        And, furthermore, the other fear that we have is that the
    people's voice will be lost and their needs swept aside with a
    simple stroke of the executive pen through that Antiquities
    Act.
        Now, rumor has it that the political climate right now
    might be a bit, shall we say, divisive or partisan. If that is
    true, then I would like to be the first to announce that I bear
    good news. Because the proposal before you today has one thing
    that everyone agrees on, from Democrats to Republicans to
    wilderness groups to farmers and ranchers. They all agree on
    the one thing that is at the heart of every proposal and every
    piece of legislation introduced, and that is protecting the
    Organ Mountains.
        The reality is no one is getting everything that they want.
    But isn't that the art of compromise? Are we supposed to meet
    in the middle, agree to disagree with what we don't agree but
    then agree on what we agree on and shake hands and walk away
    friends?
        That is why we support this bill, and urge you, the public
    servants, to do the same. This bill protects the culture and
    the historical use of the land. It is clearly defying the
    rights of ranchers to graze their cattle, like the Cox Family,
    who have been caretakers of these sacred lands for over 100
    years, while protecting the hills from future development. In
    fact, as a testament to the rock solid foundation these
    mountains provide our county and the way of life they support,
    we urge you to rename the bill The Organ Mountain Cox Family
    Monument.
        H.R. 4334 does not get rid of water rights, nor expand the
    Federal water rights. Congressman Pearce definitely allows the
    use of equipment used for standard caretaking such as repairing
    windmills and mending fences, yet requires a plan for that
    caretaking.
        At the same time, this bill goes to the very heart of what
    everyone has wanted. It elevates the iconic feature of our
    State, the Organ Mountains, to the status they deserve, while
    protecting our culture, our tradition, and our mountain.
        Thank you very much for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

      Statement of Matt Rush, Executive Vice-President, New Mexico Farm &
     Livestock Bureau which aimed to reserve 260,000 acres, on H.R. 4334,
            ``Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act''

        Chairman Bishop and members of the committee, thank you for this
    opportunity to voice our support of HR4334, the establishment of the
    Organ Mountains as a National Monument. My name is Matt Rush and I am
    the Executive Vice-President of the New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau.
    I represent all of the farmers and ranchers in Dona Ana County and
    speak for them when I thank Congressman Pearce for his efforts to
    protect the Organ Mountains.
        Preservation of the Organ Mountains has been a long range goal of
    New Mexicans. In 2005, Senator Pete Domenici supported protection of
    the Organs--until he found out the proposal negatively impacted the
    citizens of Dona Ana County.
        In 2006, the Wilderness Alliance again proposed land for
    preservation but this time increased the ante from 217,500 acres to
    325,000 acres. However, it was refused by community stakeholders. In
    2009 Senator Bingaman introduced Senate Bill 1689 which aimed to
    reserve 260,000 acres. This bill died in committee. In 2011 the bill
    was introduced as Senate Bill 1024, this bill is still in committee.
        Earlier this year the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance announced a
    proposal to designate 600,000 acres as a National Monument under the
    authority of the antiquities act. Although you have been told that
    there is broad-based support for national monument designation, the
    reality is that the majority of citizens do not want to designate a
    full 25% of our county as national monument.
        Dona Ana County is awash in federal land as it is. Combined with
    the surrounding area, there is already 4.7 million acres in protected
    federal lands. Add to this another 1.5 million acres tied up in
    conditional access status. This totals 6.2 million acres when you add:
            Fort Bliss,
            To McGregor Range,
            To White Sands Missile Range,
            To White Sands National Monument,
            To Holloman Air Force Base,
            To the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge,
            To the Jornada Experimental Range,
            To existing Wilderness Study Areas.
        Almost 75% of the entire county is under federal control. Less than
    15% of Dona Ana County is privately owned. While that is a common
    situation across the West, as evidenced in this slide, we don't need to
    exacerbate the problem by designating even more land as National
    Monument.
        Wilderness designation changes the customs and culture of a region.
    An integral custom in our state is ranching. Grazing cattle has been a
    livelihood in our state since the King of Spain awarded land grants in
    1598. Ranching is what sustains our rural communities and it is no
    different in our county. If alternative proposals are approved it would
    all but eliminate ranching in our county and a vital cowboy culture
    would be lost. The other fear that we have is that the people's voice
    will be lost with a simple stroke of the executive pen through the
    antiquities act. The people's voice needs to be heard.
        That's why the majority of our citizens support Congressman
    Pearce's bill. They understand the economic impact of ranching and how
    ranchers make other services such as doctors, grocery stores and truck
    dealers sustainable. And ranching can continue under HR4334.
    Congressman Pearce has clearly defined the rights of ranchers to graze
    their cattle and the possibility of new permits being issued in the
    future. This bill does not get rid of water rights nor does it expand
    federal water rights. He also definitively allows for the use of
    mechanized equipment and motorized vehicles for standard ranching
    operations such as dredging stock tanks, repairing wind mills and
    checking fences.
        This bill makes sense for the residents of Dona Ana County. It
    protects the Organ Mountains which are an iconic feature of our county,
    while protecting ranching which is an economic generator in our area.
    Thank you for your time.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
        Mr. Garrett?

               STATEMENT OF BILLY GARRETT, COMMISSIONER,
                     DISTRICT ONE, DONA ANA COUNTY

        Mr. Garrett. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 4334. My name
    is Billy Garrett. I am a County Commissioner from Dona Ana
    County, New Mexico.
        Dona Ana County contains areas of exceptional beauty and
    significance. Most of our residents value this heritage and
    want to see it protected on a permanent basis. The breadth of
    that support is indicated in part by the legislation introduced
    by Congressman Pearce. However, H.R. 4334 does not adequately
    address the express needs and interests of Dona Ana County.
        For more than 30 years, county residents have worked to
    protect public lands that are important to our heritage. Over
    the past six years, Senators Bingaman and Udall have been
    particularly instrumental in this process. Countless community
    meetings, public hearings, and conversations with a diverse
    range of stakeholders have closely examined which lands should
    be protected, and how best to address areas of concern,
    including border security, vehicular access, storm water
    management, and ranching.
        In 2009 and 2011, Senators Bingaman and Udall introduced
    legislation that would have designated significant parts of our
    landscape as Federal wilderness and national conservation
    areas. Twice, by unanimous vote, the Board of Commissioners of
    Dona Ana County passed resolution in support of these bills.
        Parallel to this legislative process, a number of local
    historians, business owners, elected officials, archaeologists,
    and sportsmen have developed a new proposal that would protect
    not only important natural areas, but also places that are
    noteworthy for their prehistoric and historic associations.
    This community-based proposal seeks to protect our heritage by
    using the 1906 Antiquities Act to establish an Organ Mountains
    Desert Peaks National Monument by Presidential proclamation.
        On May 22, 2012, the Board of Commissioners of Dona Ana
    County unanimously approved a resolution in support of that
    proposal. We agree with Congressman Pearce that the Bureau of
    Land Management is best suited to oversee a new national
    monument in Dona Ana County. As a multi-use agency, BLM is well
    equipped to develop management strategies that would conserve
    resources, maintain ranching interests, and support public
    uses, including outdoor recreation, hunting, and tourism.
        Throughout the history of conservation efforts in Dona Ana
    County, protection of the iconic Organ Mountains has always
    been a primary concern. While H.R. 4334 offers limited
    protection of the Organs, this legislation does not address
    other noteworthy locations, such as the Potrillos, Aden Lava
    Flow, Kilburn, and the Dona Ana Robledo and Sierra de las Uvas
    Mountains. These areas are importantly geologically, and as
    examples of desert landscape. They also contain thousands of
    petroglyphs and other archeological sites, as well as historic
    places as diverse as a Butterfield Stage Coach trail, a World
    War II bombing range, and a training venue for the Apollo
    astronauts.
        The window for protection of this heritage is closing fast.
    Dona Ana County is the second-fastest county in New Mexico, and
    could reach a population of 300,000 residents within the next
    25 years. Our regional plan calls for strong economic growth,
    supported by planning and growth management strategies that--
    and I quote--``recognize the value of our mountains, desert
    environment, rivers, agriculture, and private property rights,
    and the need to live within the limitations of this unique land
    and its natural resources.''
        To provide the facilities, infrastructure, and services
    that are going to be required, we need to know where
    development might best be encouraged. A comprehensive national
    monument could help in this effort by setting aside some of our
    Federal lands for conservation-related uses on a permanent
    basis. Dona Ana County does not have a land shortage. An
    establishment of a larger monument would not adversely affect
    economic development. In fact, a more comprehensive monument
    would protect the visual qualities that are important in our
    real estate market, and expand business opportunities
    associated with tourism, hunting, and outdoor recreation.
        In conclusion, while H.R. 4334 is a step in the right
    direction, it falls far short of local interests, in terms of
    the areas covered and protection of resource values. With that,
    Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for
    your time, and would be happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Garrett follows:]

       Statement of Billy G. Garrett, Commissioner, District 1, Dona Ana
     County, New Mexico, on H.R. 4334, ``Organ Mountains National Monument
                              Establishment Act''

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to comment on H.R. 4334.
        Dona Ana County, New Mexico, contains a number of areas of
    exceptional beauty and significance associated with the Chihuahuan
    Desert, Southwestern pre-history, life on the American frontier, and
    emergence of the United States as an international power.
        I think it is fair to say that most of our residents value this
    heritage and want to see it protected on a permanent basis.
        The breadth of this support is indicated, in part, by the
    legislation introduced by Congressman Pearce. Unfortunately, H.R. 4334
    does not adequately meet the needs of Dona Ana County. Compared with
    other proposals that have had extensive public input, this bill fails
    to protect almost 90% of the lands that our community believes should
    be protected, and seeks to remove the interim wilderness protection for
    19,667 acres of land within the Organ Mountains.
        For more than thirty years, residents of Dona Ana County have
    worked to protect public lands that are important to our heritage. Over
    the past six years strong support has emerged for a number of
    conservation proposals. Senators Bingaman and Udall have been
    particularly instrumental in this process--especially with respect to
    natural resources. Countless hours of community meetings, public
    hearings, and conversations with a diverse range of stakeholders have
    closely examined which lands should be protected, and how best to
    address issues of concern such as border security, vehicular access,
    storm water management, and ranching.
        These issues were substantially resolved through the diligence of
    our senators and in 2009 they introduced legislation that would have
    designated significant aspects of our landscape as federal wilderness
    and national conservation areas. Unfortunately that bill, along with
    many other pieces of bi-partisan conservation legislation, was not
    brought up for a final vote. In 2011, Senators Bingaman and Udall
    reintroduced their legislation and it is in the Senate today waiting
    for action as S. 1024.
        Twice, by unanimous vote, the Board of Commissioners of Dona Ana
    County passed resolutions in support of these bills.
        Parallel to this legislative process, a number local historians,
    archeologists, business owners, elected officials, and sportsmen
    developed a new proposal that offers an opportunity to protect not only
    important natural areas, but also places that are noteworthy for their
    pre-historic and historic associations. This community-based proposal
    would use Presidential authorities granted in the 1906 Antiquities Act
    to establish an ``Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument'' and
    would entrust oversight of this new monument to the Bureau of Land
    Management.
        On May 22, 2012, the Board of Commissioners of Dona Ana County
    unanimously approved a resolution in support of this proposal, which is
    significantly larger and more complex than the area covered by H.R.
    4334. My comments today are based on that resolution.
        A number of individuals who support a larger national monument are
    with me today. They include: Oscar Vasquez Butler, former Chair of the
    Dona Ana County Commission; Fernando Clemente, a local businessman;
    Roberta Salazar-Henry, retired Deputy Director of the New Mexico Game
    and Fish Department, Ben Gabriel, an outdoor guide; and John Cornell of
    the New Mexico Wildlife Federation.
        We agree with Congressman Pearce that the Bureau of Land Management
    would be the best federal agency to oversee a new national monument in
    Dona Ana County. As a multi-use agency, BLM has a long tradition of
    community involvement and is well equipped to develop management
    approaches that would conserve resources, maintain traditional ranching
    interests, and support public uses including outdoor recreation,
    hunting, and tourism.
        Let me underscore that point. Any national monument in Dona Ana
    County should be managed in a way that facilitates research, conserves
    resources, respects existing ranching interests, and provides for a
    wide range of uses such as outdoor recreation, hunting, and tourism.
        Throughout the history of conservation efforts in southern New
    Mexico, protection of the Organ Mountains has always been a primary
    concern. The Organs provide a backdrop for the entire Mesilla Valley
    and contain important natural resources that are currently protected
    through designation as National Wilderness Study Areas.
        While H.R. 4334 offers some protection for the Organs, the area
    covered in this bill is 30% smaller than the area outlined in the
    proposed Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument and would
    reduce protection over the most pristine wild areas.
        Unfortunately, H.R. 4334 also fails to address other special places
    in our county that deserve preservation. They include: the Potrillo
    Volcanic Field and West Potrillo Mountains, Aden Lava Flow, Kilborne
    Hole National Historic Landmark, Broad Canyon, and the Dona Ana,
    Robledo, and Sierra de las Uvas Mountains.
        These areas are important geologically and as exceptional examples
    of Chihuahuan Desert landscape. They also contain thousands of
    petroglyphs and other archeological sites, as well as historical sites
    as diverse as the route used by the Butterfield Stage, a WW-II bombing
    range, and a training venue for the Apollo astronauts.
        All of these areas offer exceptional opportunities for students to
    learn about our desert environment, families to connect with their
    cultural traditions, and just about anyone to have a great outdoors
    experience. All of these places would be protected under the proposed
    Organ-Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. None are included in
    H.R. 4334.
        The window of time available for protection of this heritage is
    small and closing fast. Dona Ana County is the second fastest growing
    county in New Mexico and currently is home to more than 200,000 people.
    Between 2000 and 2010 our population increased by almost 20% and most
    sources project an additional increase to more than 300,000 residents
    within the next 25 years.
        Our regional plan, ``One Valley, One Vision 2040'', calls for
    strong economic growth supported by planning and growth management
    strategies. With respect to our heritage, the plan states, ``As we map
    out our future we recognize the value of our mountains, desert
    environment, rivers, agriculture, and private-property rights and (the
    need to) live within the limitations of this unique land and (its)
    natural resources.''
        In order to provide for all the roads, schools, utilities, and
    public services--including fire and police protection--that are going
    to be required, elected officials need to know where development might
    best be encouraged. A new comprehensive national monument could help
    this process by clearly identifying some of the federal lands that
    should be left undeveloped on a permanent basis. H.R. 4334 misses the
    opportunity to provide this guidance simply because it is limited to
    the Organ Mountains.
        The area that would be protected by H.R. 4334 is simply too small
    when considered in the context of our county as a whole. By contrast,
    the monument proposal that has been endorsed by our Board of
    Commissioners would encompass an area of approximately 600,000 acres or
    935 square miles. Roughly 83% of this area is currently under BLM
    management. Of the remainder, most are state-owned lands that could be
    exchanged for other federally owned property.
        Let me put the size of the proposed larger monument in perspective.
    Dona Ana County encompasses 3,804 square miles. That's almost the size
    of Delaware and Rhode Island combined. About 12% of Dona Ana County is
    privately owned, another 12% is state land, and the rest is federal.
    Setting aside 587,220 acres of public land for heritage conservation
    values would affect less than one-third of all federal lands in Dona
    Ana County and leave about 600,000 acres of current BLM lands open for
    other uses.
        Dona Ana County does not have a land shortage and establishment of
    a larger, more comprehensive monument would in no way adversely affect
    economic development. On the contrary, a larger monument would protect
    the visual qualities that are important to our real estate market, and
    expand business opportunities for tourism, hunting, and outdoor
    recreation. Personally, I would hope that a larger monument might also
    offer existing ranching families new opportunities for economic
    diversification, while respecting their core business activity.
        In conclusion, while H.R. 4334 is a step in the right direction, it
    falls far short of local interests and expectations in terms of
    geographic coverage and protection of wilderness areas such as those
    afforded in S 1024.
        With that Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I thank you
    for your time and would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I will now turn to the Committee for
    questions. Mr. McClintock, do you have any questions for this
    panel? You don't. Mr. Pearce, would you like to ask questions
    of this panel?
        Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would. And I would
    also like to submit--Mr. Garrett had suggested in his testimony
    about the unanimous vote on the resolution. And subsequent to
    that, two of the commissioners began to receive more
    communications and then express concern. So I would like to ask
    unanimous consent to submit this letter from--signed by Karen
    Perez and Dolores Saldana-Caviness, both commissioners on the
    Dona Ana County Board of Commissioners, which--they now are
    questioning that vote that was unanimous.
        Mr. Bishop. Without objection, it is going to be in.
        [The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Pearce
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 74876.001

                                   ------

        Mr. Pearce. Mr. Rountree, you mentioned that grazing exists
    on most of BLM's land, but it is not a stated purpose of any
    national monument. You express concern with the fact that we
    authorize grazing in this bill. Yet your BLM website says that
    ``grazing is allowed and managed because it creates multiple
    environmental benefits that result from healthy watersheds.''
    So why is it that you are expressing concern over this grazing
    in this bill?
        Mr. Rountree. We are not expressing concern over grazing in
    the monument itself, Congressman. We fully support grazing
    within the monument and the continuation of grazing. We fully
    support section 6 of the proposed legislation. The only
    objection we have is the inclusion of grazing in the purposes
    portion of the bill.
        Mr. Pearce. I guess that that is a little bit too fine a
    distinction for me. It sounds like you are objecting to
    grazing. I mean when you object to grazing and then you say you
    don't, I don't care what section of the bill it is in. It
    sounds like you object to the grazing, and I just wonder why.
        Mr. Rountree. No, sir----
        Mr. Pearce. Because the NEPA process has--doesn't the NEPA
    process state that custom and culture is a very important
    thing? And if you understand the custom and culture of the
    West, it is about cows and grazing, and it is about ranching.
    It is about making your living off the land. And this, the Cox
    Family who used to own this land, can't even get in and run a
    chainsaw. They can't do anything in their ranch to continue the
    ranching operations. And that is the reason that we declare
    that, because we would like to protect it. We don't want to see
    the development, but we want to protect this ranching family
    who the land used to belong to, and yet you are objecting to
    it.
        Mr. Rountree. No, sir. I am not objecting in the least.
    Again, we strongly support the continuation of grazing in the
    monument.
        If you look at any of the legislation creating any national
    monument or national conservation area--there are something
    like 18 bills that were passed for those designations--none of
    them include uses like grazing or traditional uses within the
    purpose section of the legislation.
        Mr. Pearce. Maybe you should reconsider the other bills,
    instead of this one.
        The--also, you take objection to section nine, I think it
    is, in your testimony. Isn't BLM supposed to have already
    concluded a study about wilderness study areas? When was that
    study supposed to be finished?
        Mr. Rountree. Those studies were finished decades ago. The
    recommendation on at least one of those WSAs was forwarded to
    Congress, I believe, in 1980. Two of the other wilderness study
    areas----
        Mr. Pearce. Now, did they all get unanimous approval?
        Mr. Rountree. No, sir. They are still waiting for
    Congress's action.
        Mr. Pearce. No. I mean, did the BLM think that they
    qualified for wilderness?
        Mr. Rountree. They thought that the one that was
    recommended to Congress as suitable had extraordinary----
        Mr. Pearce. Which one was that?
        Mr. Rountree. That would have been the Organ Mountains.
        Mr. Pearce. The Organ Mountains. And yet your testimony
    seems to--I mean you saw the videos up here. There are ranches,
    there are roads, there are signs of human habitation that is
    simply not allowed in wilderness areas. And yet you can't
    declare those to be non-wilderness compliant?
        I just think that that is something that I think people are
    tired of. Either yes, it qualifies, or no, it doesn't. And we
    tried to show--we have an hour-long video showing the entire
    redrawing of the lines in there. So it just seems curious that
    the agency can't find the evidence that maybe these don't
    qualify for the definition under wilderness, which is one of
    the problems we have with the Senator's bill. It takes 200,000
    acres, rather than the 58,000-acre footprint that we have.
        So, what would it take for you all to say that something is
    not compliant with the wilderness--underlying wilderness
    legislation?
        Mr. Rountree. Well, let me respond to one portion of your
    question. The wilderness study areas that we are talking about
    are within the Organ Mountains and the footprint of the area of
    critical environmental concern. I am not prepared to talk about
    any of the wilderness study areas outside of the area under
    study of your legislation, but would certainly be willing to
    take a look at it.
        Mr. Pearce. I think we should sit down and talk. And I
    yield back, Mr. Chairman. We will sit down and talk more about
    that, because I think it is a very important distinction that
    we are making here.
        Mr. Rountree. Certainly.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. We may have another round of questioning
    later on. Let me ask a couple, if I could. Mr. Rountree, if I
    could start with you, is the BLM or the Administration
    considering moving forward with any national monument
    designation, especially a massive national monument
    designation, as put forth by the New Mexico Wilderness
    Alliance, that would designate more than 600,000 acres, or 25
    percent of this county, as a national monument?
        Mr. Rountree. No, I am not aware of any, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. Earlier this week--talking about grazing--Juan
    Palma, who was the BLM director for Utah said that he wrote a
    letter to Senator Hatch saying the monument staff would retain
    authority but would hire a third party to conduct a study. Can
    you provide us with a list of those third parties that do range
    health or grazing studies for grazing plans either in New
    Mexico--in New Mexico, but also especially in Utah?
        Mr. Rountree. No, sir, I cannot.
        Mr. Bishop. Do you know who those third parties would be?
        Mr. Rountree. We will be happy to provide the Chair and the
    Committee that information at a later date, if we could,
    please, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. I would appreciate it. The last request I had
    is now three years in waiting. I hope you can do it in a little
    bit timelier fashion than three years.
        Mr. Rountree. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Let me go on to another
    couple.
        In your testimony, Mr. Rountree, you did say that you
    discussed New Mexico's shared border with Mexico, and that this
    proximity makes it even more important that we work to keep the
    area from becoming a drug or human smuggling corridor, as has
    happened in other parts of the country. I recently published an
    op ed on this same subject and would be interested to know if
    New Mexico is already experiencing vandalism of lands by
    traffickers like that that takes place especially in Organ Pipe
    National Monument on the Arizona-Mexico border.
        Mr. Rountree. I don't have that information with me, sir,
    but we would be happy to work with New Mexico's State office in
    providing you that information.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. I would appreciate that, as well.
        Mr. Garrett, have you been in conversation at all with the
    county commissioners in Garfield as to their experience with
    the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument?
        Mr. Garrett. No, sir. I have not.
        Mr. Bishop. I would once again suggest you do that to see
    what the common experience has been in a Presidentially created
    national monument. That impacts things like ranching and
    livelihoods there, as well.
        In the 1906 Antiquities Act that you mentioned there are 3
    specific criteria that must be used before a president can
    nominate those. Can you tell me what those three criterias are
    for this area? Let me go through them very quickly. What is the
    specific archeological or historical significant area that
    needs to be protected?
        Mr. Garrett. We have a study that was recently completed
    that identifies those sites. There is extensive evidence of
    prehistoric use of the area. And beyond that, I would have to
    go and get more specific information for you to respond to
    that.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. The second criteria is it has to be in
    eminent peril. What is the peril that is imminent?
        Mr. Garrett. As I mentioned, we are a very fast-growing
    area. And I believe that it is fair to say that as soon as this
    recession is lifted, that we are going to be faced with a great
    deal of pressure on development throughout the county. We
    already have----
        Mr. Bishop. Are you telling me these areas are not within
    wilderness study areas or protected areas right now?
        Mr. Garrett. Those are unresolved. Those are still study
    areas.
        Mr. Bishop. They are study areas. So what is the eminent
    peril.
        Mr. Garrett. The----
        Mr. Bishop. Study areas is managed as if it actually was,
    in fact, that way. So what is the imminent peril?
        Mr. Garrett. There are areas that are not included in those
    study areas that are part of the proposed monument.
        Mr. Bishop. Do you have a list? Are they not in part of the
    WSAs, as well?
        Mr. Garrett. They are beyond that.
        Mr. Bishop. They are not in the WSA?
        Mr. Garrett. They are--yes, sir. They are beyond that.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. Do you have a list of what those are?
        Mr. Garrett. I can get that for you.
        Mr. Bishop. I need that. The third of the criteria is it
    has to be in the smallest area possible. When it was discussed
    in Congress they were talking about 100 to 200 acres as the
    area. What is the smallest area possible that you are talking
    about doing as far as a designation, if you did the Antiquities
    Act?
        Mr. Garrett. The area that is encompassed within the
    boundary as proposed is 587,220 acres.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. That is a nice proposal. What is the
    smallest area possible? Are you telling me that is the smallest
    area possible?
        Mr. Garrett. I believe so.
        Mr. Bishop. And what is the biggest area possible?
        Mr. Garrett. I believe that that is the right size.
        Mr. Bishop. No, that is not what the law says. You have to
    have some ranges in there.
        Mr. Garrett. Mr. Chair, the--what I would say is that this
    is a proposal from citizens. It would be up to the
    Administration to work through how they want to vet this, in
    terms of putting it into proclamation. But that is our best
    proposal, in terms of submitting it to the Administration for
    that action.
        Mr. Bishop. Sir, I would like you to give us, for the
    record, some specifics as to what these archeological areas
    are, where they are that are out of a protected zone right now,
    what is indeed the eminent danger, and what is the smallest
    area. The last time a president tried to go along using the
    1906 Act and create something without specificity, we did
    create a national monument that was bigger than the State of
    Delaware. I don't really want to do that again unless there is
    something that is specific. And we need that specificity. So
    does the President or the Interior Department, if they are
    actually going to go forward. And I appreciate, Mr. Rountree,
    you saying you are not moving forward in that particular
    direction.
        Mr. Pearce, do you have any other questions?
        Mr. Pearce. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rountree, the--you
    heard my testimony that in 11 of the 12 monuments in New Mexico
    they don't allow hunting. What is the BLM's stance? Do--would
    you support hunting in this particular area?
        Mr. Rountree. Absolutely. And on every unit of the National
    Landscape Conservation System hunting is allowed.
        Mr. Pearce. OK. Mr. Garrett, do you support hunting in the
    area described in this bill?
        Mr. Garrett. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Pearce. OK. But you realize that it is not--it is
    obviously not allowed in every area? And the tendency is going
    to be not to allow it. And, so, that is one of the great
    concerns I have.
        Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you can realize what is going
    on here, but this Committee has been--is now in the middle of a
    dispute that is going on in New Mexico inside the county.
    Everybody agrees on the Organ Mountains. But the Senator
    Bingaman, and before him Senator Domenici, had suggested a very
    large wilderness area, and that is the proposed legislation
    they have, that is 200,000 acres.
        And, so, then--and the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance
    suggested a bill of 600,000 acres to be--that is 938 square
    miles, by the way, that they would recommend be used to put
    into a Presidential designation for a monument. And, so, then
    we put our bill in that said let's take the smallest footprint
    possible, let's protect the Organs. That is what everybody
    agrees on, and let's not choose these other areas. People began
    to be alarmed that we weren't going to be able to have--in a
    quarter of a county we are not going to have grazing and those
    activities by which we get much of our rural economy built on.
        And so, it is--that is kind of why we are getting these
    different suggestions here. Again, I don't think that many of
    the areas that are described in the wilderness bill actually--
    Senator Bingaman--actually comply with the underlying
    requirements of wilderness in the enabling act. So we tried to
    find a pathway forward. Obviously, we don't agree with taking
    25 percent of the county, 938 square miles and sticking it into
    Presidential monument area where I don't believe, long term, we
    would be able to graze or hunt or do many of the things.
        As the Chairman has adequately pointed out in the past,
    education suffers when we--the greater the restrictions on
    public land, the more education suffers. And, so, this chart--
    we have taken off of his webpage, but it is very well done and
    shows us one of the underlying principles that we have to fight
    against. It harms our education system, the more restrictive
    that the Federal lands get.
        Mr. Garrett, that Trackways National Monument, isn't that a
    local guy that discovered that? Is that MacDonald? Is that his
    name?
        Mr. Garrett. I don't think that is his name, but it is a
    local----
        Mr. Pearce. Yes, it is a local guy. He wrote a book about
    it.
        Mr. Garrett. MacDonald?
        Mr. Pearce. Yes, he wrote--about 30 years ago. I think he
    has written a book about discovering the Trackways. And that is
    one of the areas with prehistoric sites.
        Now, you had talked about wanting to stop the plundering.
    And yet, in his book he has got him carrying out samples of
    those prehistoric whatever they are, fossils, and he backpacks
    them out. He ties them to his back. And he has got pictures of
    him doing that. Has the County Commission taken a position on
    him having taken those things out?
        In other words, you have a strong position about
    plundering. Is it OK for him to have done that? Have you all
    taken a position, I guess, on that?
        Mr. Garrett. No, sir----
        Mr. Pearce. Is it possible----
        Mr. Garrett [continuing]. Not in my term.
        Mr. Pearce. If I provide you the book and the copies of his
    description of what he did, would you all take that up as a
    consideration for the county?
        Mr. Garrett. I think what we would have to do is look at
    the legal aspects of it, since----
        Mr. Pearce. I will take a look, because I think plundering
    is plundering. And, so, I would like to submit that to you.
        Mr. Garrett. Congressman, one of the reasons that I think
    that we are concerned with protection of the areas on the west
    side of the county have to do with exactly that kind of thing.
    If you don't have designation, if you don't have some way in
    particular of communicating to the public at large that this is
    a special place where conservation of the resources is
    important, it is very hard for people, I think in some cases,
    know what they can and cannot do.
        It is an issue. And it is one of the primary reasons,
    actually, that we are very much concerned with the larger area.
        Mr. Pearce. You bet. OK, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and
    thanks again.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. McClintock, I skipped you on this round.
    Did--OK.
        Let me ask the last two questions then for Mr. Schickedanz
    and Mr. Rush, who haven't had a chance to answer.
        As I hear the testimony so far, I understand that the
    proposal that Mr. Pearce has has unanimous consent, or at least
    consensus of everyone, as far as going through. The other
    proposals are contentious. Is that correct? Have I misstated
    that?
        Mr. Schickedanz. As far--excuse me. You are correct. There
    is, I would guess, unanimous consent in the community for
    protection of the Organ Mountains. And there is not full
    consent for a larger area.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. Mr. Rush?
        Mr. Rush. I would say the exact same thing. I mean if you
    look at the track history of what is going on dating back to
    2009, you can see that there has been an attempt to do this.
    But every time the bill grew and grew and grew. But at the
    heart of every proposal, every piece of legislation was
    protecting the Organ Mountains, which, from the agricultural
    standpoint, that is one of the reasons that we are so in
    support of 4334, because it does exactly what has been at the
    heart of every bill that has been proposed or introduced since
    this process started.
        Mr. Bishop. Then I am assuming you would be very supportive
    of making it crystal clear that grazing has to be protected in
    this area.
        Mr. Rush. And, you know, and that goes to--yes, to answer
    specifically, and in the political--you know, since the clock
    is still ticking we got to keep talking, right?
        The answer is it goes to the culture of the county. I mean
    we talk about preserving these areas. But what about preserving
    the culture of an area? I mean grazing has been a piece of the
    West since the King of Spain gave lands away. And, so, when do
    we stand up and say, ``Hey, you know what? We need to protect
    this part of our culture, because it has been here forever. It
    was here before the petroglyphs were here.''
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that. I have no other
    questions. Is there any other for these witnesses?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Bishop. OK. If not, we appreciate you for being here
    and testifying to this particular bill. Thank you very much for
    traveling all the way back here to find an area just as hot as
    New Mexico but with a heck of a lot more humidity to make life
    miserable.
        Mr. Rush. If you could ban that humidity thing we would
    like it a whole lot better.
        Mr. Bishop. Yes. We had two percent in Utah over the
    weekend. I know the difference. Great to have you here.
        I would like next to deal with Mr. Denham's bill. We would
    ask Victor Knox, who is the Associate Director for Parks--Park
    Planning and Facilities with the Park Service, Kevin Cann, who
    is the Supervisor of Mariposa County, and Ronika Johnson--I am
    doing this without glasses--who is a resident of Mariposa
    County--I hope I pronounced that county name properly--if I
    could have you three come up to the dais, and we will go
    through that bill next.
        Appreciate you all. If you could take the conversations out
    of the room, and we can get going on the next bill. We are
    going to do this bill by bill. I am trying to do it as quickly
    as possible. So Mr. Knox, Mr. Cann, Ms. Johnson, I hope.
        Same rules apply on this particular one as with the last
    panel. I appreciate you being here. Your written testimony is
    in the record. This will be an oral testimony. The last panel
    was very good in keeping everything under five minutes. I hope
    you replicate that action.
        Mr. Knox, you are first up. And I would ask you only to
    deal with the Denham bill, if possible.
        Mr. Knox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
    present the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 3640. I
    am going to submit our full statement for the record and
    summarize our position here very briefly.
        The Department supports H.R. 3640. The bill would authorize
    the acquisition of 18 acres of land in Mariposa, California.
    Acquired lands would be administered as part of Yosemite
    National Park, and would be used for development of a visitor
    contact station and administrative offices. There are no
    adequate facilities currently available in Mariposa to meet the
    park's current and future needs. And expansion of our
    facilities at El Portal Administrative Site is infeasible.
        Permanent visitor transportation and administrative
    facilities in Mariposa would provide critical support for
    Yosemite National Park and address other long-term goals and
    needs.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my statement, and I
    would be pleased to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Knox follows:]

    Statement of Victor Knox, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities
     and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on
     H.R. 3640, To Authorize the Secretary of the Interior to Acquire Not
         More Than 18 Acres of Land and Interests in Land in Mariposa,
                      California, and for Other Purposes.

        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. 3640, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire
    not more than 18 acres of land and interests in land in Mariposa,
    California, and for other purposes.
        The Department supports H.R. 3640.
        H.R. 3640 would authorize acquisition of land in Mariposa,
    California. It would also authorize the Secretary to partner with
    Mariposa County for land use planning related to acquired land and
    interests. The use of eminent domain would be prohibited. Acquired
    lands would be administered as part of Yosemite National Park.
        Consistent with Yosemite National Park's planning documents,
    including the park's General Management Plan, the National Park Service
    has been interested in providing visitor and administrative facilities
    in gateway communities that border Yosemite National Park, and reduce
    the need to provide government-owned housing and offices inside the
    park, for more than 30 years. Acquiring land as described in this bill
    would greatly help the bureau meet these objectives. Providing visitor
    and administrative facilities at this location in Mariposa would
    enhance the visitor's experience by providing orientation and pre-visit
    services at a satellite visitor contact station. It will also promote
    stewardship of resources through educational and interpretive services
    prior to park entry. Visitor services in this location would encourage
    regional economic development and transportation partnerships, which
    are important benefits for the National Park Service. Permanent
    visitor, transportation, and support facilities in Mariposa would also
    provide critical support for Yosemite National Park and address other
    long-term needs and goals.
        Options to expand the park's El Portal Administrative Site are
    infeasible, and the site cannot accommodate future growth. Therefore,
    Yosemite National Park rents office space in Mariposa, California, to
    accommodate certain key administrative functions. Park facilities
    located in gateway communities have been identified in a number of
    planning documents, including the park's General Management Plan, as an
    effective way to reduce the need for office space and to realize
    operational savings in Yosemite Valley. Relocating these positions and
    functions to a gateway community also helps to reduce traffic
    congestion and improve the quality of life for employees, some of whom
    had previously commuted over two hours a day for positions that can be
    performed remotely. Now, staff in over forty positions and functions
    work from Mariposa, and this transition has allowed the park to
    eliminate rented office trailers, while helping it to recruit and
    retain employees. Ideally, the park would like to provide work-space
    for 100-150 employees in Mariposa and this cannot be done with existing
    facilities.
        Administrative offices located in Mariposa support a continuity of
    services during emergencies such as rockfalls, major snow storms, and
    wildland fires. These types of events have previously disrupted core
    park functions because employees could not safely travel to their
    offices inside Yosemite. Finally, establishing facilities in Mariposa
    reduces the demand on administrative space in Yosemite Valley and at
    the El Portal Administrative Site, where building and accommodating
    employees comes at a high operational cost to the National Park
    Service. The park has explored leasing additional space; however, no
    adequate facilities are currently available in Mariposa to meet the
    park's current and future needs.
        The Yosemite Conservancy, a fundraising group for Yosemite National
    Park, has purchased 11 acres for potential acquisition by the National
    Park Service. This land could be donated or purchased, with the passage
    of this bill, to support visitor information facilities, an
    administrative worksite, museum storage, and other possible purposes,
    that would benefit visitors, staff, and the partnership of Yosemite
    National Park, Mariposa County, and the State of California. In our
    view, this legislation would help to strengthen the relationship
    between the National Park Service and the gateway community of
    Mariposa, and could help to spur regional economic Development.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to
    answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may
    have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Cann?

                 STATEMENT OF KEVIN CANN, SUPERVISOR,
                      MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Cann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Kevin Cann, I
    am a Mariposa County, California Supervisor. Many times we are
    known as commissioners. Just recently elected to my second
    four-year term. I obviously speak today in support of 3640, the
    Yosemite lands bill. I have previously submitted background and
    support statements for the record, but particularly from the
    Board of Supervisors, the tourism bureau, the Chamber of
    Commerce, and the Economic Development Corporation. But for
    today I just want to highlight a few additional important
    facts.
        The intent of--well, Mariposa County and Yosemite National
    Park have a long, mutually beneficial relationship. Over 70
    percent of Yosemite's visitors don't overnight in the park.
    Most stay in one of the gateway communities located proximate
    to each of the park's four main entrances. The Mariposa
    entrance, called the all-weather highway, is kept open at all
    costs during inclement weather, which regularly closes the
    other three entrances.
        While the population of the town of Mariposa is only 2,000
    in a very rural county of 18,500, over a million visitors a
    year enter the park driving right through town. A 2000 Sierra
    Business Council study estimated that as many as 88 percent of
    the paychecks generated in Mariposa County come first, second,
    or third-hand from the tourists visiting Yosemite.
        Expanded services in Mariposa will take tremendous pressure
    off the National Park Service to build more and more
    infrastructure for better access in Yosemite, as well as
    additional employee residences, work spaces, and work space in
    the crowded Yosemite Valley.
        The intent of Congressman Denham's bill is simply to
    authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire up to 18
    acres in Mariposa to create a more efficient, accessible, and
    safer Yosemite National Park. The legislation will undoubtedly
    improve park traffic and visitor access, and allow visitors to
    purchase entrance passes, receive orientation benefits before
    they enter the park. Additionally, administrative offices in
    Mariposa will greatly enhance recruitment retention, housing,
    and performance for over 100 employees who currently drive over
    an hour each way today--and this is a change from 20 years
    ago--to sit at a computer all day. There are over 700 permanent
    NPS employees in Yosemite, and about 1,200 peak employment in
    the middle of summer. Importantly, non-essential administrative
    facilities in the park would be available for the much more
    important use.
        Since 1980, National Park Service plans have called for
    moving facilities out of the spectacular Yosemite Valley--and
    again, these are not visitor-serving facilities, just
    administrative facilities--and into the gateways to get them
    out of Yosemite Valley. Mariposa County, the Yosemite
    Conservancy, and Yosemite National Park have been planning and
    working toward establishing joint administrative and visitor
    service facilities outside the park for a decade. In 2004,
    importantly, President Bush signed legislation, H.R. 620,
    specifically authorizing park facilities to be located outside
    of Yosemite National Park and in the gateways for this exact
    purpose, visitor and administrative services. This bill, H.R.
    3640, simply authorizes the required land acquisition to allow
    this to happen.
        With advances in technology, visitors who normally arrive
    in the gateway town the afternoon before their visit--and
    again, over 70 percent of the visitors are not overnighting in
    the park, but are overnighting in a gateway--they will be able
    to get their full park orientation, entrance passes, maps, and
    plan their trip before they enter the park. This process should
    practically eliminate entrance station back-ups, which now
    reach two hours on busy weekends and severely limit access to
    this crown jewel national park. Actually, those back-ups last
    year were measured at over an hour on 67 of the 100 busiest
    days.
        Please note no services that are currently provided in the
    park would be eliminated. And Congressman McClintock's comments
    really note the challenges that we have in trying to fully
    communicate the exact intent and what the bill authorizes and
    what it doesn't.
        In conclusion, many partners, both public and private,
    stand ready to provide facilities, the cost of which
    traditionally fall 100 percent on the National Park Service.
    H.R. 3640 specifically promotes public-private partnerships
    which will have a dramatic, measurable, and positive impact on
    park visitors and employees, as well as the economy of Mariposa
    County.
        Thank you much for your consideration on this.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cann follows:]

        Statement of Kevin Cann, Supervisor, Mariposa County, California

        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Committee:
        My name is Kevin Cann. I am a Mariposa County, CA Supervisor
    recently elected to my second four-year term. I speak today in support
    of H.R. 3640 the Yosemite Lands Bill. I have submitted significant
    background and support statements for the record but wanted to
    highlight a few additional important facts.
        The intent of Congressman Denham's bill is to simply authorize the
    Secretary of Interior to acquire up to 18 acres in Mariposa,
    California, to create a more efficient, accessible, and safer Yosemite
    National Park. The legislation will undoubtedly improve park traffic
    and visitor access and safety, and allow visitors to purchase entrance
    passes and receive orientation benefits before they enter the park.
    Additionally, administrative offices in Mariposa will greatly enhance
    recruitment, retention, housing and performance for over 100 employees.
    Importantly, non essential administrative facilities in the park would
    be available for more appropriate use or removal.
        Mariposa County and Yosemite National Park have a long, mutually
    beneficial relationship. Over 70% of Yosemite's visitors do not
    overnight in the park. Most stay in one of the gateway communities
    located proximate to each of the park's four main entrances. The
    Mariposa entrance, called the ``All Weather Highway'' is kept open at
    all costs during inclement weather which regularly closes the other
    three entrances. While the population of the town of Mariposa is only
    2000, in a very rural county of 18,500, over one million visitors a
    year enter the park directly through town. A 2000 Sierra Business
    Council study estimates that as many as 88% of the paychecks generated
    in Mariposa County come 1st, 2nd or 3rd hand from the tourists visiting
    Yosemite. Expanded services in Mariposa will take tremendous pressure
    off the National Park Service to build more and more infrastructure to
    better access Yosemite as well as additional employee residences and
    workspace in crowded Yosemite Valley.
        Since 1980, National Park Service plans have called for moving
    facilities out of the spectacular Yosemite Valley and into the gateways
    to better serve the public. Mariposa County, the Yosemite Conservancy
    and Yosemite National Park have been planning and working toward
    establishing joint administrative and visitor service facilities
    outside the park for a decade. In 2004, President George Bush signed
    legislation (H.R. 620) specifically authorizing park facilities to be
    located outside of Yosemite National Park ``for visitor and
    administrative services.'' H.R. 3640 authorizes the required land
    acquisition.
        With advances in technology, visitors who normally arrive in the
    gateway town the afternoon before their Yosemite visit, will be able to
    get a full Park Ranger orientation, entrance passes, maps and plan
    their trip BEFORE they enter the park. This process should practically
    eliminate entrance station backups which now reach two hours on busy
    weekends and severely limit access to this Crown Jewell National Park.
        In conclusion, many partners both public and private, stand ready
    to provide facilities, the costs of which traditionally fall 100% on
    the National Park Service. H.R. 3640 specifically promotes public/
    private partnerships which will have dramatic, measurable positive
    impacts on park visitors and employees, as well as the economy of
    Mariposa County.
        Thank you for your time and consideration of the Yosemite Lands
    Act.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Johnson?

                STATEMENT OF RONIKA JOHNSON, RESIDENT,
                          MARIPOSA, CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ronika
    Johnson. I am a Mariposa resident. And it is an honor to be
    here and represent the residents of Mariposa. The town of
    Mariposa is located approximately 30 miles from the western
    gate of Yosemite National Park. Our community, as most outlying
    communities are, dependent on our tourism. When the park
    suffers we suffer. Last year, during the debt ceiling crisis
    and under the threat of budget cuts, twice we faced park
    closure. This was a threatening time for us, as so many of our
    businesses who employ our residents would be affected. Our
    tourist season is dormant between the months of September and
    May, so a summer shut-down was especially frightening. We could
    very well face this possibility again in the future, as
    California is also in a financial crisis in facing more budget
    cuts.
        We are told that this may be the last year our county fair
    will take place, as the State can no longer afford to
    contribute. Mariposa is dramatically affected by the activity
    of the park and the tourists it attracts. Our largest business
    base is motels and restaurants to cater to the tourists who
    come through. I have worked in this industry for over 20 years
    in Mariposa, and I have managed restaurants and a hotel located
    in Mariposa and El Portal, which borders the park, so I am very
    familiar with the needs of our community and our park.
        While many of us recognize the need to accommodate our
    tourism industry, we are in opposition of the Federal
    Government purchasing more land in our county. They currently
    own 50 percent, and are now asking for 18 acres located right
    in the heart of our historic town. If you look at the
    projection map, you will see that the proposed Federal
    building, which includes a visitor center and parking lot, and
    possibly a discovery center, is three parcels which sit on
    approximately seven acres. Yet the bill asks for 18. Across the
    street is the remaining 11 acres, where they plan a walkway
    leading to private property whose owner is a developer
    proposing to build a convention center and a large hotel, a
    hotel which will likely provide a restaurant which both will
    dramatically affect and threaten our small businesses as a
    competition.
        This purchase of 11 acres is not necessary to accommodate
    the visitor center goal of providing service outside the park
    to make it easier for tourists to pay their entrance fees. I
    also question the need to relocate 100 employees to a building
    located 30 miles away from the park. I have to question why do
    we have 100 employees working 30 miles from the area they are
    supposed to be serving. And are they necessary? I would also
    like to add that this relocation will not create any more jobs
    for Mariposa.
        The proposed visitor center is located at the cross
    intersection of Highway 140 and 49. Both are two-lane roads
    which currently cannot manage the traffic impact that this
    proposal will affect. We have no street lights in Mariposa, and
    this particular intersection is only a four-way stop sign in
    town. This proposal will dramatically congest the intersection
    and roads going through our town. Next will be a proposed
    traffic light that the county has long fought against having.
        The residents of Mariposa oppose this bill, mostly due to
    the fact that they have not been given any details of the plan
    or an opportunity to voice their opinions. There has been no
    public forum or hearing. Most residents have not heard of the
    plan and question, again, the impact. Most of all, we have to
    question the spending at this time. Neither the Federal
    Government, the county, nor the State are managing our money
    wisely. While we recognize need, we must also recognize the
    means.
        This bill does not offer any resources or limits as to how
    much money will be spent, or how it will be used. There are
    other issues that will dramatically affect our county, such as
    the road impact and the loss of a tax-base revenue from the
    land. There are other alternatives to development. However,
    those have not been addressed, as we have had no hearing or
    public input. The residents of Mariposa County deserve a voice.
    And I am here today to lend that voice to you and ask that this
    bill be stopped.
        Our hope is that this bill will not proceed further through
    the process until it is thoroughly researched. This includes
    public hearings, detailed proposed drawings, including roadways
    and transportation issues, the impact on local hotels and
    restaurants. We are not opposed to thoughtful growth and
    additional amenities to Mariposa County, but feel it has to be
    done in a fashion that indicates the best possible solution for
    those of us who call Mariposa our home.
        We thank you for your consideration, and ask that you
    oppose H.R. 3640. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

        Statement of Ronika Johnson, Mariposa, California, on H.R. 3640

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address
    HR3640 before you and your committee. My name is Ronika Johnson, I am a
    resident of Mariposa, California and I am here to represent not only my
    view, but those of many residents who live in Mariposa County.
        To understand the sentiment of many of our town's residents, it's
    important to know a little bit about our history. Mariposa has a rich
    history and we are very proud of it. Once populated by Native Americans
    Mariposa came into existence almost overnight via the deluge of
    immigrants seeking their fortunes during the Gold Rush. The Gold Rush
    at one time created a population greater then what resides in Mariposa
    today. The result was the greatest migration for the search of riches
    that has ever occurred in the history of the world. Within the short
    five years after the discovery, more than 300,000 men, and at first it
    was mostly men, crowded into the wilderness of the Sierra Nevada,
    searching for the pot at the end of the rainbow.
        On February 18, 1850 Mariposa became the largest county of the
    original 27 California counties, and is known as the ``Mother of All
    Counties.'' Later the county was split up and now occupies 1,455 square
    miles of California's rich Mother Lode country. Mariposa is the Spanish
    name for butterfly, and aptly named by Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga of the
    Mexican Army in 1806 for the swarms of butterflies he saw along
    Mariposa Creek. John C. Fremont, an early explorer, is responsible for
    founding the town whose many streets are named after his family
    members. In 1854 the famous courthouse was built on land donated by
    Fremont. Today, it is the oldest operating courthouse in California.
        In 1907 construction was started on the Yosemite Valley Railroad.
    The railroad employed as many as 1,500 men during the early years. The
    railroad ran from 1907 until 1945 hauling logs, limestone and other
    mineral. In later years as Yosemite grew in popularity the railroad
    shuttled tourists to the new wonder. The railroad parallels the north
    bank of the Merced. A significant change occurred to the railroad in
    the early twenties by the construction of a large dam on the Merced
    River at Exchequer east of Merced Falls. That project required the
    relocation of 17 miles of track and the construction of 5 large bridges
    and 4 concrete-lined tunnels.
        Passenger business on the railroad peaked in the mid-twenties,
    dropping thereafter due to the increase in private automobile use,
    accelerated by the completion of the new All-Year Highway (now State
    Route 140) in 1926. The loss of the logging/lumber freight business in
    1942 and then the limestone/cement business in 1944 eventually resulted
    in a request to abandon the railroad. The last scheduled run came on
    August 24, 1945; scrapping operations commenced shortly thereafter.
        Mariposa is known as the Gateway to Yosemite. Our businesses thrive
    on the tourism industry and the local economy feels it, especially now.
    We have many locally owned restaurants & hotels mostly in our downtown
    area. Our small town is very historic and preserved to stay as such. To
    preserve our historic look, ordinances have been put in place, such as
    limiting the height of business signs to not obstruct views, and
    encourage natural or historic appeal. Business volume is very seasonal,
    traffic & tourism is heaviest May thru September. The off season is
    very detrimental to all businesses and layoffs are unavoidable for most
    small business owners, which is the general makeup of our businesses,
    those owned by the private sector.
        My main concern regarding HR3640 is that there has been no public
    hearing or input on the matter. Residents feel there is a lack of
    transparency and that it is being `slipped' in with special interests.
    While it benefit's the Park Service and their employees, it poses
    several implications and impacts to the community itself that have not
    been addressed. Most residents don't even know about it.
        Currently the Federal Government owns 50% of Mariposa County. The
    proposed development is requesting 18 acres of land in the heart of
    Mariposa. Even this amount of acreage seems too much for the proposal
    of a Federal building, parking lot & possibly a museum. How much more
    does the Federal government need to take from Mariposa County before we
    are just an extension of Yosemite? Yosemite is approximately 30 miles
    from Mariposa. While we all realize the need to accommodate tourism,
    there are other alternatives and ways to meet these needs. However they
    have not been addressed. This is viewed as a Federal overreach and
    local government wants to promote a public/private partnership without
    a detailed plan offered to the public. What about the private business
    sector? Why not move this project into El Portal, where the land is
    already owned by Park service? Why spend at a time such as this? Our
    residents should have a say in how their community is developed,
    especially with tax payer funds. Mariposa's Tax base revenue will be
    lost, traffic will be impacted and local businesses will be negatively
    effected with the expansion of a 4 Star Hotel and Conference Center.
    While broad vision, smart growth and planning is encouraged, the
    residents of Mariposa have not had the opportunity to engage these
    ideas nor have they been revealed in a public forum.
        The bill itself, HR3640 is vague and open ended, which leaves doubt
    and confusion as to the intent and direction of the bill. The
    prohibition of eminent domain remarked in the bill indicates that if it
    does not meet the requirement, then we question the intent and
    necessity. Mariposa residents oppose HR3640 and encourage the committee
    to deeply consider the impacts of this bill to the residents & town of
    Mariposa.
        Our hope is that this bill will NOT proceed further through the
    process until it is more thoroughly researched. This includes public
    hearings, detailed ``proposed'' drawings including roadways and other
    transportation issues, the impact (if any) on local hotels and
    restaurants.
        We are not opposed to thoughtful growth and additional amenities to
    Mariposa County, but I feel it has to be done in a fashion that
    indicates the best possible solution for those of us who call Mariposa
    our home.
        Thank you for your consideration to our historic town and the
    residents who care so deeply for it.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. All right. Questions for
    this panel. Mr. McClintock, we will start with you.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Supervisor Cann,
    you mentioned the challenges in communicating your intent. And
    I think the challenges--because we seem to be hearing two very
    different stories. One is that this is just to move
    administrative employees out of the park into a separate
    office. They sit in the front of the computer all day and they
    don't have any interaction with park visitors.
        Yet, on the other hand, it raises the question. Why is it,
    then, that we are seeking 18 acres of land for this
    administrative office? It also begs the question that was
    raised in a public meeting that I attended recently. When there
    are so many vacant office spaces in Mariposa that are going
    unleased, why is it we would have the Federal Government
    building yet another office facility?
        The other question that it raises is if this is just to
    move administrative officials that have no interaction with
    guests, then how does that comport with your statement that
    this is going to get a--that this will enable park visitors to
    get a full park ranger orientation, entrance passes, maps, and
    plan their trip before they enter the park? Your words. Seems
    to me that is very much involved with visitor interaction, and
    that that would best be in the park itself, where people can
    access it, regardless of which gateway they are coming from.
        So, I am just--that may be the source of your problem in
    communicating intent is we are getting all sorts of very
    different communications, as far as the intent of this. And
    then I look back at the legislative history of this issue and
    find that, years ago, Congress was being asked to invest in a--
    was it an IMAX theater on the same parcel?
        Mr. Cann. Can I answer?
        Mr. McClintock. Yes, please. I----
        Mr. Cann. I have no idea about an IMAX. And certainly that
    the--I can't imagine the National Park Service building an
    IMAX.
        But let me go to your other questions. This bill has
    always, and the concept has always been for visitor services
    and for administrative purposes. The bill signed in 2004
    specified both of those issues. There actually are no--there
    was one building in Mariposa that was able to be rented by the
    Park Service. And they, in fact, did that and have
    administrative offices. They moved payroll, budgeting--again,
    facilities and services that don't have any visitor
    interactions. And that is the only ones that would ever be
    moved into--out into the gateway community.
        It is actually very common around crown jewel-type national
    parks, to try to do those things that don't need to be done in
    the park in a gateway community. It is so much easier to
    provide those services, everything from----
        Mr. McClintock. Right, which raises the next issue. And
    that is, if we are moving visitor services out of the park and
    30 miles west to Mariposa, what are the visitors supposed to do
    who are coming through Oakhurst or Sonora, for example? Are
    they--did--these are obviously visitor-related services that
    are being moved out of the park, and therefore will not be
    accessible to visitors entering the park through any other
    gateway, except Mariposa, which is the concern that has been
    raised by both Tuolumne County and Madera County.
        Mr. Cann. Actually, I believe that this model will
    absolutely become a model not necessarily needing Federal
    development, it just--the facilities don't exist in Mariposa--
    but will quickly be copied in other gateway communities.
        Last year, as I said, 67 of the 100 busiest days had over
    an hour back-up. Many of those days had two-hour back-ups.
    People are turning around. You know, they are being excluded
    from our national park.
        Mr. McClintock. I agree that is a problem. But maybe that
    is an argument in favor of enlarging the entrance and services
    there in the park, and not moving them 30 miles outside of the
    park, outside of the range of visitors coming through Madera
    County, from Southern California, or coming through Tuolumne
    County, from Northern California.
        Mr. Cann. So the concept here is that since 70--more than
    70 percent are not overnighting in the park, they can get all
    of their orientation that they normally get in line to get with
    that park ranger at the entrance station, and they want to
    question--you know, they have just driven from Kansas, or----
        Mr. McClintock. Right, but I think you are missing the
    point----
        Mr. Cann. I am sorry.
        Mr. McClintock [continuing]. That both Madera and Tuolumne
    are raising, and that is, well, what about the folks that had
    been going though their communities?
        Mr. Cann. And the exact same type process is available. The
    Park Service----
        Mr. McClintock. But this is not a comprehensive plan that
    involves all the gateway communities. This is a plan that picks
    one winner out of many losers. And that is the concern that is
    being raised.
        Mr. Bishop. Let me--I am going to have to interrupt here.
    Mr. McClintock, if you would take the Chair for a second, we
    will go to Mr. Garamendi for questions, and then we will go to
    another round after that.
        Mr. Cann. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Garamendi, you have questions of this
    panel?
        Mr. Garamendi. First of all, the issue of the impact of
    visitors on the park, including the impact of administrative
    personnel and other services in the Valley has been muchly
    discussed for more than 40 years. And efforts have been
    underway for all that time to try to find a way to move as many
    services as possible out of the Valley, not to eliminate the
    visitor services, but rather to augment them outside the
    Valley.
        The plan, as I understand it, and as has been discussed for
    these many years, is to move the administrative services out of
    the Valley. There is no need for them to be in the Valley.
    There are certain things that will have to remain, certain
    policing services, some medical services, but not the normal
    administrative services.
        Second, there is no plan to eliminate in the Valley visitor
    services. They will remain. The point of this entire exercise
    is to take out of the Valley as much as possible, so that the
    Valley can remain as unencumbered by the thousands or tens of
    thousands of visitors that are there during the normal course
    of a day.
        Now, I understand the local community's concerns about
    whether this is the right place, the right--and the rest. But
    something has to be done. There is no way that the Valley can
    continue in its present form.
        Just a couple of questions, Mr. Cann, and I appreciate your
    testimony. And I think you may have answered this, but the
    engagement of the public outside the Valley--and I want to make
    it clear--let me ask this of the Park Service. Do you intend to
    have visitor services continue in the Valley?
        Mr. Knox. Yes.
        Mr. Garamendi. So there will be visitor services under this
    plan at the major gateway--that is Mariposa--as well as in the
    Valley. Is that correct?
        Mr. Knox. Yes, Congressman. And the primary purpose, as you
    just stated, is to provide administrative support facilities in
    Mariposa with an ancillary purpose of providing visitor contact
    at that same facility.
        Mr. Garamendi. Second, is it not the case that visitor
    services outside other parks is common?
        Mr. Knox. Correct. And visitor services outside--yes. We
    provide visitor services outside parks all over the country in
    different situations.
        Mr. Garamendi. So this is nothing new. Is that correct?
        Mr. Knox. That is correct. And we also have administrative
    offices outside of many parks. Grand Canyon is a good example.
        Mr. Garamendi. I think you get on a train some 40 miles or
    30 miles outside. And before you get on the train there is a
    visitor service. Is that correct?
        Mr. Knox. That is correct.
        Mr. Garamendi. OK. So this is not new. It is an effort to
    try to reduce the pressure on the site. That is, the park
    itself. And that is commendable.
        So, back to Mr. Cann. And thank you for being here and
    testifying. There is some concern that this would subtract from
    the community's economic strength. Could you address that?
        Mr. Cann. Oh, happily. As I stated, the Chamber of
    Commerce, the Tourism Bureau, the Economic Development
    Corporation have all submitted letters in support, in addition
    to the Board of Supervisors, that they think just the opposite,
    that this would dramatically improve our ability to serve those
    visitors. Again, 88 percent of the paychecks in Mariposa
    County--I think we both stipulate to this situation--come
    first, second, or third-hand from the tourists on their way to
    Yosemite.
        With regard to the local community knowledge and input,
    there have been two newspaper stories about this. We have a
    weekly newspaper that is read by just about everyone. We had so
    many folks come to meet with Congressman Denham to--when this
    was the highlighted presentation--and, in fact, the only
    presentation--that we had to rent the fairgrounds building.
    This was in June of 2011, before the Congressman introduced the
    bill.
        So, I would offer that we have really tried to beat the
    bushes in letting people know about this. And, as with all of
    us, we are constantly challenged of finding the ones that we
    haven't. I was very happy to meet with Ms. Johnson on Monday to
    go over this exact whole process, and it was very beneficial.
        Mr. Garamendi. OK. Thank you. Just to wrap up my time,
    first of all, this is not new. This has been discussed, I know,
    for at least the last 20 years, because I was involved in the
    discussions 20 years ago on this. And this is a plan that has
    been out there for at least two decades, including the visitor
    center. Certainly the administrative offices have been out
    there.
        And finally, the other communities will be able--people
    accessing the park from other communities will be able to
    access the visitor services in the park itself on the Valley
    floor.
        With that, I yield. Thank you.
        Mr. McClintock [presiding]. Thank you. Ms. Johnson, if this
    is about just moving administrative services, as Congressman
    Garamendi has just suggested, why is it that we need 18 acres
    to do so?
        Ms. Johnson. Well, that is our concern. I don't believe we
    need 18 acres. The parcels that are in question for the
    development of the visitor center is approximately seven acres.
    The remaining 11 are across the street, about half a block
    away, that lead to private property where they plan to develop
    the convention center and the hotel. I am not arguing that
    there is a need for this, we just are opposed to the
    development, the ownership of more Federal land in our
    community. They already own 50 percent.
        And the fact that these extra 11 acres aren't necessary is
    a concern. We are already losing a tax base off the seven
    parcels. And there is also the fact that our intersections and
    our roads are going to be majorly impacted. And the community,
    you know, it may be beneficial, but who is it really
    benefitting? The traffic that is backed up in Yosemite is now
    going to be backed up in town. We don't even have traffic
    lights there. This is located at a four-way stop sign.
        There is issues that have not been addressed, and that is
    the major concern with the residents of Mariposa. This may have
    been a plan for 20 years, but we have only heard about it
    twice, through a newspaper ad. There has been no public forum,
    there has been no discussion allowing the public to have an
    input or opinions. I believe there is other alternatives to
    development. And more Federal ownership of our land is not
    always the solution.
        Mr. McClintock. So, basically, this will simply move the
    congestion from the west entrance to the center of town.
        Ms. Johnson. Correct.
        Mr. McClintock. What do the residents that you talk to
    think about that?
        Ms. Johnson. They are not happy about it, because they
    haven't had a voice in it. It has not been addressed. There has
    been no proposals. We don't know how this is going to happen.
    There is really not a lot of area for development on the
    roadways. And, as I mentioned, you know, there is no traffic
    lights, there is--it is a four-way stop sign. And the fact that
    more land is being asked for raises a question on the intent of
    this bill and what is really in the future.
        Mr. McClintock. Now, if this is just about moving
    administrative offices, as Congressman Garamendi has suggested,
    is there unleased office space in Mariposa?
        Ms. Johnson. Several. The county just left open, I believe,
    six different buildings. The leases remain open until 2015, is
    my understanding. The county just built a Federal--or, excuse
    me, our State human resources office on a stimulus grant just a
    couple of years ago without any public input, as well, and they
    left abandoned six or seven buildings. And it is just recently
    the National Park Service moved into one of those buildings,
    and they are paying over 12,500 a month for a leased building
    that is subleased through our county.
        Mr. McClintock. Why would administrative offices housing
    100 desk-bound employees require a adjoining conference and
    convention center?
        Ms. Johnson. They would not. That would just be beneficial,
    I believe, to the developer. I believe it would also harm our
    other businesses, which are made up mostly of restaurants,
    hotels that provide services for the tourists, and are very
    dependent on that.
        We are not arguing that, you know--yes, the park there is
    congested as well, and there are needs. But to what extreme do
    we--you know, how much land does the Federal Government need in
    our county?
        Mr. McClintock. So it appears, despite the stated intent,
    that there is an intent to draw a great deal of additional
    visitor traffic through Mariposa that would come at the expense
    of existing communities like Sonora and Oakhurst, which, as we
    heard from the letter that I quoted from the Chairman of the
    Board of Supervisors in Madera, is almost entirely dependent
    upon that traffic.
        And again, I understand it is going to increase traffic--
    visitors to Mariposa. But that will be--come at the expense of
    traffic that would otherwise have been going through those
    other communities. And----
        Ms. Johnson. Mariposa welcomes the tourist. And we need the
    business. We are hurting that way. I won't argue that at all. I
    am just saying that there are other alternatives that have not
    been addressed, because the people haven't had a voice to do
    that.
        I would also raise the question as why, you know, another
    developer can't come in and build this visitor center, keep the
    land in Mariposa County and not in the hands of the Federal
    Government.
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
        Ms. Johnson. They could easily lease----
        Mr. McClintock. My time is expired. I just want to say I
    think that I like the overall objective, but I think it has to
    be done comprehensively. And the issues that are dividing the
    local community need to be resolved before it is brought to
    Congress.
        Congressman Garamendi?
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. McClintock. Oh, I am sorry. Congressman Tsongas--OK,
    Congressman Garamendi.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of things.
    First of all, the bill does not mandate 18 acres be purchased.
    It says up to. The actual language is ``not more than 18
    acres.''
        Now, the other thing is this simply authorizes it. There is
    this little process which still is the law, although this
    Committee seems to want it kind of modified or eliminated. It
    is called NEPA. Nothing is going to get built until that
    process is completed. There has to be an environmental study.
        So, the issues of traffic, the issues of parking, the
    issues of traffic lights all have to be dealt with in that
    process. That is just the way it is going to be. So many of the
    concerns that have been expressed here will be thoroughly
    vetted in the NEPA process. That is what it is for. Not just
    the environmental issues, which will be dealt with, but also
    the community issues. And one of the great debates that rages
    in this Committee is the issue of do we keep NEPA in place.
        Now, the concerns that have been expressed here by the
    community, or at least the representative of the community,
    have to be addressed in that NEPA process. Whether it is 18
    acres or 17.37 acres or 7.3 acres, that is what the NEPA
    process is all about. It will have to be laid out.
        This bill simply says that the National Park Service has
    the authority to purchase up to 18 acres. Things are going to
    get worked out here. Without a bill like this, the problems in
    the Valley will continue. And they are very, very serious
    problems of congestion within the Valley, both for Sonora, for
    Oakhurst, and for Mariposa.
        So, we are putting in place a step toward a process that
    will lay out and thoroughly vet the concerns that have been
    raised here about the community and traffic lights and so on
    and so forth. So, I think we are on the right track here. And I
    must tell you this has been debated ad nauseam. We have to
    move. The Valley is suffering as a result of the continuing
    debate back and forth about what to do. What to do, what to do?
    And nothing gets done, and the Valley suffers. The visitor
    experience in the Valley is degraded by the impact of
    administrative offices, by the impact of visitors trying to get
    into the visitor center within the Valley, since there is none
    outside. So we are moving forward here.
        And so, with that, if any of you would like to comment,
    let's start with the Supervisor, and go from there.
        Mr. Cann. Thank you very much, Congressman. There is no
    real evidence that suggests that this will have any impact on
    the number of visitors that go through this corridor. It
    won't--shouldn't take a single visitor from any of the other
    corridors. You know, each corridor gets almost the same amount
    of visitors over the course of a full year. What this will do
    is it should dramatically reduce the entrance station back-ups.
    And once those folks hit Yosemite, they can go right where they
    want to go. They don't have to go get any more orientation,
    unless they choose to. There will be--all the facilities and
    services that exist in Yosemite Valley will exist. Again, the
    Park Service is--already has been funding putting seasonal
    interpreters in each of the gateway communities, because this
    concept is so needed.
        I will respond that in 1958 Congress bought 1,200 acres in
    the community of El Portal, mentioned earlier, that was
    designated for this type of a development to move things out of
    Yosemite Valley. Unfortunately, as laws got overlayed on that--
    and particularly of late, the Wild and Scenic River Act--that
    became non-available for these facilities.
        Now, there is a wastewater treatment plant and a
    maintenance operation there, and there is no more space to
    build. But the need--I mean in 1958 the park probably had 20
    percent of the employees that it has now. The need is
    exponentially greater.
        I would just last say that twice this issue came before the
    Board of Supervisors in published--pre-published public
    meetings to have this open discussion. There has been virtually
    no objection voiced in the community in these public meetings
    with the Chambers of Commerce, the people that we might think
    would be most impacted by this. So I do agree, as I said
    earlier, there--communication is never sufficient. And as we
    talked earlier, the--I made myself available to go anywhere
    anyone wants to talk about what the bill is and what it isn't.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop [presiding]. Thank you. I appreciate that. Is
    there any other questions for this panel?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Bishop. If not, I thank you----
        Mr. Cann. Thank you.
        Mr. Bishop [continuing]. For being here. Next, Mr. Knox, we
    have a couple of other bills I think you are testifying----
        Mr. Knox. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Bishop [continuing]. Will be testifying. So why don't
    you stay there? Mr. Cann, Ms. Johnson, thank you for taking the
    time and effort to come all the way back here and testify to
    us. I appreciate that.
        Let me ask Mr. Jim Pena, who is the Associate Deputy Chief
    of the National Forest Service if he will join us at the panel.
    Also, Mayor John Curtis, the Mayor of Provo, if he will come
    up, and we will deal with H.R. 4484 next.
        Let me have--actually, so we have room, Mr. Slavin and Ms.
    Campbell, let's wait. And as soon as these two are done with
    their testimony we will bring you up and then you can have full
    shot at the panel here. So just Mr. Pena and Mayor Curtis here.
        Mr. Pena, can I have you actually address two bills in this
    particular one? I don't think there is anyone else to talk
    about 4109, Representative Gallegly's bill. If you will talk
    about that, as well as 4484, which is Y Mountain, if you will
    do those two, and then we will turn to Mayor Curtis on those
    two and see if there are questions for those. Thank you.
        Mr. Pena. OK. Would you like me to do them in any order,
    or----
        Mr. Bishop. Why don't you do--why don't you get 4109 out of
    the way first, and then turn to Y Mountain?
        Mr. Pena. OK.

    STATEMENT OF JIM PENA, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
       SYSTEM, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                              AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Pena. Good morning, Chairman Bishop and--it would have
    been members of the Committee. My name is Jim Pena. I am
    Associate Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, U.S.
    Forest Service. Thank you for inviting me here today to testify
    regarding H.R. 4109, the Los Padres Conservation and Recreation
    Act of 2012.
        We do not oppose the legislation designating these
    additional wilderness areas on the Los Padres National Forest.
    Each area is unique and would be a valuable addition to the
    National Wilderness Preservation System. However, we are
    concerned with changing the delegation of authority for
    deciding when wilderness can be entered with mechanized
    equipment during fire suppression activities.
        I know from firsthand experience that the current system
    works to quickly respond to a request, and provides a fair and
    balanced way of weighing the potential firefighting benefits
    with the potential impacts to wilderness. The Forest Service
    uses a minimum resource decision guide, or minimum tool
    analysis, to guide the appropriate response for addressing
    emergency situations. This process can and has authorized use
    of motorized equipment in wilderness on a case-by-case basis.
        We do not oppose the proposed additions to the National
    Wild and Scenic River Act--or Wild and Scenic River System in
    this bill, either. But there are some new segments which are
    inconsistent with the classification findings in the
    eligibility and suitability studies. In addition, we would like
    to work with the Subcommittee to make the designation of Upper
    Sespe Creek more consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers
    Act. We find that it is important to maintain the integrity of
    the act, and that there are other options such as boundary
    adjustment available to meet the California Department of
    Transportation's concerns on being able to maintain Highway 33.
        The Department does not support a legislative land exchange
    with United Water Conservation District of California, because
    Congress has provided the authority to conduct the land
    exchange administratively. We note that a public interest
    determination and an appropriate environmental review would
    provide for a fair exchange for both the United Water
    Conservation District and the American public.
        In addition, we would like to work with the Committee to
    develop a more detailed land exchange map that clearly
    identifies the parcels and their locations to be included in
    the legislation.
        One concern we have with legislated exchange is water
    rights. In the proposed exchange, the United States would
    convey water rights with the Federal property to be exchanged.
    Properties which would be--which would come to the Federal
    estate would do so without water rights. This does not appear
    to be an equitable exchange for the public.
        Last, I would like to discuss off-highway vehicle, or OHV,
    use. OHV use is a popular activity on the national forests, in
    particular on the Los Padres. And the Department supports the
    provision of diverse OHV opportunities for recreational users.
    However, designating new OHV areas and trails and opening
    existing trails to new uses without first conducting
    environmental analysis to determine potential resource effects,
    including threatened and endangered species, is a serious
    concern.
        If this legislation moves forward, the Department requests
    the Subcommittee require new designations to the--be subject to
    the Environmental Policy Act NEPA analysis, as well as funding
    availability to conduct the analysis. The mitigation measures
    identified in the NEPA process would provide appropriate
    enforcement plans and closures to ensure protection of the
    resources, including threatened and endangered species.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And my full
    remarks have been submitted for the Committee.
        I would be happy to take any questions you have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pena follows:]

      Statement of James M. Pena, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
      System, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, on
     H.R. 4109, the ``Los Padres Conservation and Recreation Act of 2012''

        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
    Committee, my name is Jim Pena. I serve as the Associate Deputy Chief
    for the National Forest System. Thank you for inviting me here today to
    testify regarding H.R. 4109 the ``Los Padres Conservation and
    Recreation Act of 2012''. H.R. 4109 is a large and complex bill that
    involves designation and specific management direction related to
    nearly 63,600 acres of new wilderness, designation of approximately
    88.6 miles of new wild and scenic rivers, creation of about 18,500
    acres of a new special management area, designation of two new OHV
    areas comprising close to 65,800 acres, and execution of a land
    exchange with the United Water Conversation District of California.
        The Department does not oppose H.R. 4109, but would like to work
    with the bill sponsor and the Committee to address several concerns.
    TITLE I--ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM
        Consistent with the Wilderness Act and National Forest Management
    Act, the Department supports wilderness designation for areas that are
    dominated by the forces of nature, and that offer outstanding
    opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. The
    majority of the land parcels proposed for Wilderness designation were
    recommended through the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Los
    Padres National Forest. These lands encompass expansive grasslands,
    chaparral covered slopes, rolling badlands, high elevation mountains,
    and deep, winding river canyons. Endangered Condors make their home
    here and unique plants like the Santa Ynez false-lupine exist here and
    nowhere else on earth. However, there are several key issues the
    Department would like to work on with the Subcommittee and Bill
    sponsor.
        The Department shares the concerns about wildfire suppression and
    pre-suppression with the community, the Subcommittee and the bill
    sponsor. However, the Department cannot support the prescriptive
    wildland fire language included in section 102(e)(2) that changes the
    Forest Service delegation of authority. Under the current policy for
    suppressing and managing wilderness fires the Forest Supervisor is the
    responsible federal official who makes a verbal request to the Regional
    Forester for approval to use motorized equipment for suppressing the
    wildfire. This time-tested policy outlines the delegation of authority
    for use of motorized and mechanized equipment and allows the Agency to
    implement a wide range of activities in both administrative and
    emergency situations. Consistent with the National Incident Command
    System, the incident commander operates under a delegation of authority
    from the hosting agency for the purpose of managing the incident. The
    incident commander exercises the delegated authority of the agency
    during the incident. The Department would recommend that the current
    system of requests and approvals be continued for the Wilderness
    designated under this bill.
        Under existing authorities the Forest Service has successfully
    implemented a wide range of emergency and administrative activities in
    support of fire suppression and pre-suppression. The Forest Service has
    the capability under existing approval procedures to respond in a
    timely manner when authorizing motorized equipment and mechanical
    transport in wilderness areas.
        In addition, in section 102(e)(3), the bill refers to ``post-
    wildfire hazards on the land''. This term is unclear and the Department
    would like to work with the Subcommittee and the bill sponsor to
    clarify its meaning. The Forest Service uses a Minimum Resource
    Decision Guide (MRDG), or ``minimum tool analysis'' to guide the
    appropriate response for addressing emergency conditions within
    wilderness. Based on a case-by-case analysis, the ``minimum tool'' can
    authorize the use of motorized equipment with in wilderness consistent
    with section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
        In section 102(f), the bill refers to ``expedited emergency
    lifeline repair projects.'' If the road is outside of the wilderness
    boundary and the boundary is sufficiently set back to allow for
    anticipated maintenance-associated features such as culverts and
    retaining walls, then this language is unnecessary. The Department
    suggests that section 102 (j) should be changed to read that that the
    allowed right of way shall run with the land, rather than the lawful
    owner of such property shall be allowed right of way to their property.
    The Department would like to work with the Subcommittee and bill
    sponsor to further clarify our concerns.
    TITLE II--ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM
        The Department generally supports the designation of additional
    rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. However, several
    of the new segment classifications are inconsistent with the
    classification findings in the eligibility and suitability studies for
    the proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers. There is also a discrepancy in the
    total mileage listed for Piru Creek and the sum of the mileages of the
    individual segments. The Department would like the opportunity to work
    with the Subcommittee and bill sponsor to change the segment
    classifications to be consistent with the eligibility and suitability
    findings and to clear up the Piru Creek mileage discrepancies.
        The Department would like to work with the Committee and the bill
    sponsor to identify an approach that is more consistent with the Wild
    and Scenic Rivers Act for the designation of Upper Sespe Creek.
    Subparagraph (B) of that designation exempts the effects of
    maintenance, repair or improvements of California Highway 33 by the
    California Department of Transportation. As written, subparagraph (B)
    could reduce the Agency's ability to ensure that activities in the wild
    and scenic river corridor are consistent with protecting river values,
    free flow and water quality present at the date of designation. The
    Department requests the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee on
    the concerns regarding Highway 33, while remaining consistent with the
    Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
    TITLE III--CONDOR RIDGE SCENIC AREA
        H.R. 4109 provides additional protections for 18,520 acres along
    the crest of the bucolic Gaviota Coast. The Land and Resource
    Management Plan for the Los Padres National Forest recommended Condor
    Ridge for Wilderness designation; however, the Department supports the
    creation of the Condor Ridge Scenic Area. In addition, the Department
    requests the Committee provide more time than three years to develop
    the comprehensive management plan.
    TITLE IV--OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLE USE
        Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use is a popular activity on the National
    Forests, and the Department supports the provision of diverse OHV
    opportunities for recreational users. However, designating new OHV
    areas and trails and opening existing trails to new uses without first
    conducting environmental analysis to determine potential resource
    effects, including threatened and endangered species, is a serious
    concern.
        If this legislation moves forward, the Department requests that the
    Subcommittee expressly clarify the new designations are subject to
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The mitigation measures
    identified in the NEPA process would provide the appropriate
    enforcement plans and closures to ensure the protection of the
    resources, including threatened and endangered species in the area.
    TITLE V--LAND EXCHANGE
        The land exchange outlined in this bill directs an exchange with
    the United Water Conservation District (UWCD) of California. The United
    States would acquire 350 acres (more or less) near Lake Piru on the
    southeastern edge of the Los Padres National Forest near the Ventura/
    Los Angeles county line, in exchange for the conveyance of 440 acres
    (more or less) of federal lands, including the Blue Point Campground
    along Piru Creek, a one-mile stretch of Piru Creek, several parcels of
    land along the lake's shoreline, and all of the remaining federally-
    owned portions of the access road around the lake's perimeter.
        The Department does not oppose a land exchange with the UWCD, but
    cannot support this land exchange as written. The Department prefers to
    allow the Forest Service to conduct this exchange administratively in
    order to ensure an equal value exchange, a public interest
    determination, and appropriate environmental review occurs. The
    Department would like the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee and
    bill sponsor to ensure that this exchange is in the public's best
    interest.
        Section 502(a) requires the Secretary to enter into an exchange
    with the UWCD, while allowing ``de minimis'' changes to the parcels
    based upon public input from the NEPA process. In addition, section
    502(d)(1) states that the lands to be exchanged are depicted on the
    overview map. However, the detail present on the overview map is not
    sufficient to inform either the Subcommittee or the Secretary of the
    parcels involved in the land exchange. The Department would suggest
    that a separate and discrete land exchange map, clearly identifying the
    parcels and their locations be included with the legislation as it
    moves through Committee.
        Section 502(g) excludes water rights, which presumably means the
    UWCD will continue to be able to use National Forest System lands for
    its water uses. By UWCD retaining water rights, the United States will
    not be in a position to determine the management activities on NFS
    lands, including managing resources and activities that require water.
    The Department respectfully requests that the Subcommittee amend this
    provision to ensure that the United States acquire all rights, title
    and interest in the lands, including water rights.
        In addition, the Department does not know if there are title issues
    related to the UWCD lands included in the exchange. The fact that it
    remains included in the legislation as a specific cost that the UWCD
    will not be responsible for concerns the Department that there may be
    title issues. Further, curing defects to title are the responsibility
    of the current landowner to resolve prior to conveyance to the United
    States. Since the Department of Justice Title Standards 2001 apply
    (502(d)(5)) which limit the ability of the United States to acquire
    land with defective title, it remains unclear why the United States
    would expend funds to clear potential title defects on property it does
    not yet own.
        In previous iterations of the land exchange, the UWCD was to pay
    for the construction of a parking lot allowing for public access to the
    Potholes Trail on National Forest System lands. The current bill
    requires the UWCD to construct this parking lot, but section 502(d)(4)
    exempts the UWCD from paying for the costs of construction. The
    Department would like to work with the Committee, the bill sponsor and
    the UWCD to address this provision in a mutually satisfactory manner
    that addresses the need for public access and parking for the Potholes
    Trail. The bill also requires the proceeds from the equalization
    payment shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury.
    Utilizing Public Law 90-171, commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'' (16.
    U.S.C. 484a), would allow for the deposit of proceeds received for a
    conveyance into the fund established under the Sisk Act for the
    acquisition of land or interests in land within the State of
    California.
    Map Concerns
        The Department has concerns regarding the overview map that is
    referenced in the bill. The Forest Service provided mapping services to
    the bill Sponsor, creating six detailed legislative maps of the
    proposed new wilderness areas/expansions, as well as the two proposed
    new OHV areas. Citing the more general overview map only, instead of
    the specific legislative maps, would likely open the door to future
    boundary disputes. Technically correct maps are vitally important to
    our on-the-ground management and implementation of Congress's
    direction. The Department would like to work with the Subcommittee and
    bill sponsor to ensure the detailed legislative maps dated February 27,
    2012, are included in the bill text.
    Summary
        In summary, the Department supports the intent of H.R. 4109 that
    would add additional outstanding landscapes to the National Wilderness
    Preservation System, additional miles of protected rivers to the
    National Wild and Scenic River System, and provide additional OHV
    opportunities. However, my testimony outlined several critical concerns
    to the Committee with H.R. 4109 in its current form. The Department
    would like to work with the Committee and the bill sponsor to address
    our concerns. Furthermore, we understand that the Department of Justice
    may have concerns with the bill that it would like to with the
    Committee.
        This concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any questions
    you might have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And did you get 4484 in that, as
    well?
        Mr. Pena. 4484, I can do that right now.
        Mr. Bishop. Go.
        Mr. Pena. I am still Jim Pena. And I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify regarding H.R. 4484, the Y Mountain
    Access Enhancement Act.
        Over 100 years ago, the rivalry between the junior and
    senior class of Brigham Young University High School led to the
    creation of Y on Y Mountain. Since that time, the tradition of
    whitewashing the Y has been an important tradition at Brigham
    Young University. The trail to the Y is a popular hike in Utah
    Valley. BYU, the Forest Service, Provo City, and Utah County
    have worked together to manage this important site over the
    years.
        Mr. Chairman, I checked with sources and opinion-shapers in
    Utah and have found the one demographic that opposes this sale,
    possibly graduates of the University of Utah. So, with your
    indulgence, I suggest as a condition of the sale the Y on Y
    Mountain be illuminated crimson red during the University of
    Utah's homecoming week. That might be something that could be
    considered.
        On a more serious note, though, the Department does not
    object to the conveyance of the two parcels to BYU. We would
    like to enhance the legislation by ensuring that the public has
    legal access to the trail and the trail head on the BYU campus.
    The Department request the Committee consider an amendment to
    allow the Secretary to obtain an easement from BYU for the
    trail head parking and for the trail on the portion that
    traverses BYU property. This access is beyond the Y, other
    trails on the national forest. This would allow roles to be
    clarified in the areas such as maintenance, liability, and
    safety.
        This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to take
    any questions on this bill, as well.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pena follows:]

      Statement of James M. Pena, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
      System, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, on
              H.R. 4484 the ``Y'' Mountain Access Enhancement Act

        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
    Committee, my name is Jim Pena. I serve as the Associate Deputy Chief
    for the National Forest System. Thank you for inviting me here today to
    testify regarding H.R 4484, the ``Y'' Mountain Access Enhancement Act.
        H.R. 4484, the ``Y'' Mountain Access Enhancement Act, would direct
    the Secretary to convey to Brigham Young University (BYU) all right,
    title, and interest of the United States to two parcels comprising
    approximately 80.99 acres of National Forest System land in the Uinta-
    Wasatch-Cache National Forest in the State of Utah, as shown on the
    accompanying map. The southern parcel is a split estate, so the United
    States would only convey what it owns (the surface estate). The United
    States does not own the underlying mineral estate.
        The Department does not object to the conveyance of the two
    parcels, but would like to work with the Subcommittee and the sponsor
    to address public access at the trailhead. The parcels are adjacent to
    land currently owned by the University. The trailhead and beginning
    portion of the ``Y Mountain Trail'' are located on land already owned
    by the University. Historically, the public has been permitted access
    to the trailhead and trail. Section 2(c) of the bill seeks to provide
    the same reasonable public access for the trail that historically has
    been allowed. To accomplish this objective, the Department recommends
    that section 2(c) be revised to provide for the reservation by the
    Secretary of an easement for public access for the portion of Forest
    Service Trail #2062 that would be conveyed to the University. Currently
    no legal public access to the trail exists at the trailhead and across
    BYU owned property. To ensure legal public access, the Department
    suggests the Committee consider an amendment to allow the Secretary to
    obtain an easement from BYU for the trailhead parking lot and the
    portion of trail that traverses across BYU property.
        As a technical matter, the legal description in Section 2(a) should
    be amended to correctly describe Lot 4. The legal description for this
    conveyance should be: SE\1/4\SE \1/4\ of Section 32, T. 6 S., R. 3 E.,
    and Lot 4 of Section 5, T. 7 S., R. 3 E., Salt Lake Base & Meridian.
        The bill provides for the conveyance of this land for consideration
    in the amount equal to the fair market value of the land. The bill also
    requires the proceeds from the sale shall be deposited in the general
    fund of the Treasury to reduce the Federal debt. Utilizing Public Law
    90-171, commonly known as the ``Sisk Act'' (16. U.S.C. 484a), would
    allow for the deposit of proceeds received for a conveyance into the
    fund established under the Sisk Act for the acquisition of land or
    interests in land within the State of Utah.
        This concludes our testimony and I would be happy to answer any
    questions that you may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And as the University of Utah
    graduate here in the room, we will take your comments
    seriously.
        Mayor Curtis to the Y Mountain bill, please.

             STATEMENT OF JOHN CURTIS, MAYOR, CITY OF PROVO

        Mayor Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Greetings from the
    Great State of Utah and our two percent humidity. And it is a
    pleasure to be with you today and I appreciate your time on
    this important issue. I must tell you in all my wildest
    imaginations I never thought I would be in Washington, D.C.
    defending the BYU-Utah rivalry, and with the suggestion that we
    turn that Y into a U. I am not sure I could return home unless
    I adamantly opposed that suggestion.
        But that being said, I appreciate the opportunity to be
    here today. Let me also thank the U.S. Forest Service. If you
    will notice at the television screen up there to my left, you
    will see that we share a border with U.S. Forest Service
    through a high percentage of our city. And it has been a
    terrific relationship. We often find ourselves working with
    them in forest fires and rescues and land issues. And I believe
    it has been a terrific relationship.
        Well, Provo City has long been associated with a high
    quality of life. I like to brag that the Gallup Organization
    consistently recognizes the Provo Metro Area in the top two or
    three cities in the country for well-being. And at the heart of
    this is, in many cases, the priorities set by this community.
    And those priorities, in many ways, disseminate from Brigham
    Young University. Yesterday there was a fun announcement that I
    would like to share with you by Forbes Magazine, who ranked
    Provo City, the Provo Metro Area, the number one area in the
    entire United States for business and careers. And if I could
    just quote off their website, they say, ``Topping our 14th
    annual list of the best places for business and careers is
    Provo, Utah. The $16 billion economy is thriving largely on the
    back of Brigham Young University.'' And I found that very
    interesting, particularly given that--the relevant discussion
    today.
        BYU is a large part of our community. The Y on the mountain
    is very symbolic to the residents of the county. They find
    themselves feeling at home when they see that Y. It is symbolic
    of many things that we stand for. It has also become a large
    recreational use for our residents.
        Mr. Pena referred to the rivalry that started in 1906. The
    Y has been on that mountain since 1906. And many residents are
    surprised to find out that Brigham Young University doesn't own
    the entire property. And, in fact, they did at one point. And
    if you, here again, look up on the screen, you will see the BYU
    campus in the forefront. The green part of the mountain is
    currently owned by BYU, and managed by BYU. The two blue
    squares above are the 80 acres in question, and once were owned
    by BYU, and through a series of events became--the ownership
    fell under the U.S. Forest Service. So, we are actually talking
    about something that would return to Brigham Young University
    something that they once owned.
        In addition, Brigham Young University has maintained a
    trail head and a trail that travels up through their property
    and across the U.S. Forest Service. And they have maintained
    that trail, and it is an incredibly popular destination for
    many people. And you can see, if you are an aggressive hiker,
    you can hike right up the mountain over the top of that to some
    other beautiful hikes throughout the area.
        And perhaps the largest reason for doing this is to
    actually ensure the long-term viability of that trial, and the
    access to that wilderness area for our residents. I believe
    that this is important, and I support this for several reasons.
    I mentioned the recreational access, the long-term sustained
    record of good stewardship by Brigham Young University, not
    only on this, but in many assets throughout the city.
        And I think it is a terrific opportunity to--and it is
    actually quite symbolic, I think, to the residents of Utah
    County who find themselves quite conservative, that we are
    actually asking Congress to do something that relieves a burden
    from the U.S. Government and puts it on the private sector.
    And, in addition, puts funds to the--to reducing the deficit.
    And I think that is something that would also greatly please
    the residents.
        So, thank you for your time, and I look forward to
    exploring this with the U.S. Forest Service and their team, as
    well.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Curtis follows:]

           Statement of The Honorable John Curtis, Provo City Mayor,
                on Y Mountain Access Enhancement Act (H.R. 4484)

        Provo City has long been directly associated with its high quality
    of life and is consistently recognized as one of the most favorable
    places in the country to raise a family. This is largely due to the
    priorities we set as a community. At the very heart of those priorities
    is Brigham Young University--a world-renowned institution whose
    reputation is that of a responsible, creditable steward of resources.
        Recently, it has come to my attention that an option is available
    to transfer ownership of what Provo residents have referred to for
    years as ``Y Mountain'' from the Forest Service into the hands of
    Brigham Young University.
        The background to this story is both appropriate and necessary as
    you go through your decision-making process.
        Our Y is a signal on our eastern mountain to many people. In an
    interesting way it represents home. It identifies us and tells people
    that they have arrived to the site of something very unique and
    special.
        In 1906 Brigham Young University was a mere three year old
    institution still searching for its identity. On a spring day, a feud
    between the classes of 1906 and 1907 would surprisingly lead to the
    creation of an enduring symbol of unity and identity.
        The members of the class of 1907 decided that they wanted to do
    something to stake their claim. They marched up the mountain due east
    of campus and carved the numbers 07 in the side of the mountain as a
    symbol of their class superiority. This irritated the senior class
    members who decided to take down the 7 and replace it with the 6 of
    their class. Physical altercations pursued which had to be broken up by
    then-President Brimhall.
        President Brimhall proclaimed that, instead of fighting, they would
    work together to construct one symbol both classes of students could
    rally around. He declared that they would replace the numbers on the
    mountain with the letters BYU which would stand for all students.
        On an April morning in 1906, students from both classes set out to
    construct the first letter--a 380 foot tall monumental Y. They formed a
    line and transported bags of a lime and sand mixture from the bottom of
    the hill to the top where students would dump the contents into the
    outline previously defined by drafting students. This process took
    significantly longer than anticipated. It took so long that many
    students questioned the benefit of completing their objective. While
    leaving the project one third complete--Y Mountain was born.
        This once BYU-owned 80 acre parcel, including most of the trail, is
    now under ownership of the United States Forest Service although
    Brigham Young University has managed the Forest Service's portion of
    the trail for the past 50 years.
        The University has purchased the western most property and turned
    it into a well-maintained trailhead that marries perfectly with the
    upgrades, including signs and seating, it completed on the trail
    itself. From the perspective of the everyday observer, BYU owns and
    operates each interest of the mountain.
        Allowing Brigham Young to purchase this property would help
    preserve the trail for the short and long terms. It would provide a
    private owner with an impeccable record of sound stewardship of
    environmental resources to manage and maintain the trail. A BYU-owned
    trail offers a consistent and predictable ownership whose mission won't
    change and whose vision for Y Mountain and access to the trail will not
    be disrupted.
        I, along with the residents of Provo City, support the Y Mountain
    Access Management Act and appreciate the language in the legislation
    which mandates BYU pay a fair market value for the property, covers
    administrative and appraisal costs, and uses the dollars to decrease
    our federal budget deficit.
        I look forward to working with Brigham Young University, the Forest
    Service, and their team members in continuing to make Provo City the
    best kept secret in the west.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Mayor
    Curtis, thank you for being here, for taking the time.
    Obviously, I think we all look forward to seeing BYU control
    the entire route up to Y Mountain. And I suppose, you know,
    when they find a conference, maybe there will be a rivalry
    again some time. But that is beside the point.
        And I also appreciate the Forest Service support of this
    particular project. I hope that we can move this one quickly.
    This is just a logical thing to do. And obviously, as someone
    who has been in that area a lot, I appreciate the approach in
    which we are going with that particular issue. Hopefully we can
    get that one done in this Congress. So thank you for being
    here, thank you on that.
        Mr. Pena, I do have one question that deals with 4109, in a
    way. You stated in your written testimony the Forest Service
    has the capability under existing approval to respond in a
    timely manner to wildlife in wilderness areas with motorized
    equipment and mechanical transport. The problem we have is--or
    the question I had is that in the Los Angeles Times back in the
    beginning of June--I think June 3rd was the date--there was an
    article about the fire in New Mexico, the Whitewater-Baldy Fire
    there, in which an individual simply said that 70 percent of
    the fire is in wilderness area, and it is very tough to hike
    crews in. So we will see a point when containment slows down.
        If you already have the authority to respond in a timely
    manner, why was this gentleman indicating that wilderness
    designation slows the suppression efforts?
        Mr. Pena. I don't know why he would say that. It is not my
    experience. I have worked for the agency for over 34 years.
    Most of that time I have had either direct fire line experience
    or line officer experience overseeing large fire complexes. I
    have been--probably half of that fire experience has been in
    wilderness areas.
        When we look at what is needed to complete the suppression
    activity, to do it safely and do it effectively, we approve the
    minimum tool that is necessary. Generally, I have seen approval
    of helicopter use, water drops, chain saws, pumps, at a routine
    level, at the forest supervisor level. So there is very minimal
    time taken to do that. When you put a dozer on the ground in
    the wilderness, it requires that the regional forester approve
    that. In my experience as a deputy regional forester in
    California during the fire seasons of 2008, 2009, and 2010, I
    responded to many requests for dozer activity, and we approved
    those in an operational time that allowed them to be
    successfully executed with the fire overhead team.
        Mr. Bishop. You don't know if perhaps in New Mexico there
    was a delay in that approval or not?
        Mr. Pena. I have not heard of any delay.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. I do have--I appreciate that. I appreciate
    your explanation of that. I think I read the book ``The Big
    Burn'' that talked about the huge fire up in Montana a long
    time ago that precipitated part of the expansion of the Forest
    Service. And it was--indeed, one of the problems that they
    faced in that fire was their inability of having road access in
    that area to get in there to actually fight the fire, or to
    have an escape route once they found their efforts were--and
    the more roads we have along BLM land as well as Forest lands
    will create access to fight those fires, as well as natural
    fire breaks in the process of being there.
        So, the more we have that, it would seem it would only be
    logical it would improve our efforts to try and combat what has
    become a devastating fire season in the West this time around.
    So I thank you.
        I appreciate you being here for both bills. Mayor, thank
    you once again for being here, and for taking the time to
    testify on this bill. We will see if we can move forward.
        Mr. Knox, if you would, stay there. And now we can invite
    Timothy Slavin--Slavin, I don't know which way it is
    pronounced--who is the Delaware division historical--the
    Director of the Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural
    Affairs, and also Elizabeth Campbell, who is the Executive
    Director of the Nashua River Watershed Association to testify
    on two bills.
        Mr. Bishop. Mr. Knox, if we can go back to you, if you
    would deal with both H.R. 624 and I think H.R. 5319, I think
    those are the last two we have yet to talk about in this
    Committee. H.R. 624 is, I think, the Delaware park bill. And
    H.R. 5319 is the Wild and Scenic River in Massachusetts, right?
        Mr. Knox. Correct.
        Mr. Bishop. If--oh, I am sorry. And there is also H.R.
    5958, by Mr. Turner, to rename that park. If you would handle
    all three of those in your summation, I--in your next
    presentation, I would be appreciative. The Turner bill, the
    Tsongas bill, and the Delaware bill.
        Mr. Knox. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the opportunity to
    present the Department of the Interior testimony on those three
    bills. I would like to submit our full statement for the
    record, and summarize our position quickly on each of these
    bills.
        The Department does not support H.R. 5958. This bill would
    rename the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Visitor Contact Station
    at Gateway National Recreation Area in honor of former Senator
    James L. Buckley. The National Park Service believes there
    should be a strong association between the park and the person
    being commemorated, and we don't support commemoration until
    five years after that person's passing.
        This basic principle is reflected in our National Park
    Service management policies. And we do not believe there is
    sufficient association between former Senator Buckley and the
    Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge to merit renaming the visitor
    center for him. And Senator Buckley is also currently living.
        The Department supports the enactment of H.R. 5319. This
    bill would authorize a wild and scenic river study of a segment
    of the Nashua River in Massachusetts, along with its
    tributaries. The river segment and tributary areas proposed for
    study exhibit the types of qualities and resource values that
    would make it a worthy and important candidate for a potential
    addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
        The Department strongly supports the establishment of a
    unit of the National Park System in Delaware, as proposed by
    H.R. 624. In 2008, the National Park Service completed a
    special resource study of the coastal area of Delaware, and
    identified a number of resources of national significance that
    were determined suitable and feasible to administer as a unit
    of the National Park System. These resources, which are
    associated with the early Dutch, Swedish, and English
    settlement, and others associated with Delaware's role as the
    Nation's first State, would be eligible for inclusion in the
    park unit that would be established by the Secretary upon
    acquiring a sufficient amount of these resources to constitute
    a manageable park unit.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be
    pleased to answer any questions you might have.

    Statement of Victor Knox, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities
     and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on
    H.R. 624, a Bill to Establish the First State National Historical Park
               in the State of Delaware, and for Other Purposes.

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
    Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 624, a bill to establish the
    First State National Historical Park in the State of Delaware.
        The Department strongly supports the establishment of a unit of the
    national park system in Delaware as proposed by H.R. 624. The
    Department testified in support of a similar bill, S. 323, on May 11,
    2011.
        In 2008, pursuant to Public Law 109-338, the National Park Service
    completed a Special Resource Study of the coastal area of Delaware and
    identified a number of resources of national significance that were
    determined suitable and feasible to administer as a unit of the
    national park system. These included historic resources that were
    instrumental in early Swedish, Dutch, and English settlement in the
    United States, and others associated with Delaware's role as the
    nation's first state. Although the bill provides the Secretary of the
    Interior the discretion to determine which sites in the State would be
    included within the boundary of the historical park, we anticipate that
    only resources that met the Special Resource Study criteria for
    establishment as a national park unit would be considered for
    inclusion.
        In 1638, Peter Minuet led Swedish colonists to present day
    Wilmington, Delaware, and established New Sweden at a point known as
    ``the rocks'' on the Christina River. The settlers constructed Fort
    Christina at this location and this site is now a National Historic
    Landmark. In 1698, Swedish settlers established Holy Trinity (``Old
    Swedes'') Church near the fort, the oldest church building standing as
    originally built in the United States and also a National Historic
    Landmark.
        In 1651, Peter Stuyvesant led Dutch settlers from New Amsterdam and
    constructed Fort Casimir at a place he named ``New Amstel,'' in present
    day New Castle, Delaware. Conflicts between the Swedish and Dutch
    colonists resulted in changing occupations of the fort with the Dutch
    regaining control in 1655. In 1665, the English arrived at New Amstel
    and seized control of the settlement, renaming it ``New Castle.''
    William Penn landed in New Castle in 1682 and took possession of the
    city. In 1704, Penn established Delaware's Assembly and New Castle
    remained the colonial capital of Delaware until 1776. The New Castle
    Historic District, which contains multiple resources from the time of
    earliest settlement through the Federal era, including the Old New
    Castle Courthouse, is a National Historic Landmark.
        Delaware's representatives to the Continental Congress and the
    Constitutional Convention played important parts in the adoption of the
    Declaration of Independence and crafting of the United States
    Constitution. On June 15, 1776, the Delaware Assembly, meeting in New
    Castle, voted to sever its ties with the English Crown, three weeks
    prior to the signing of the Declaration in Philadelphia on July 4th.
    National Historic Landmarks associated with these early revolutionary
    leaders include the homes of John Dickinson (the ``Penman of the
    Revolution''), Gunning Bedford, Jr., and George Read. The Dover Green
    witnessed Delaware's vote to become the first state to ratify the
    nation's new Constitution.
        H.R. 624 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish
    the First State National Historical Park consisting of any resources
    listed in Section 3(b) of the bill that the Secretary acquires. The
    staff of the new park would be authorized to interpret related
    resources outside of the boundary, within the state of Delaware. The
    Special Resource Study estimated annual operating costs for the park at
    $450,000 to $550,000 and costs associated with a general management
    plan at $600,000. All funding would be subject to NPS priorities and
    the availability of appropriations. A study of additional resources
    related to the purpose of the park is also authorized to assess their
    potential eligibility for National Historic Landmark designation and
    options for maintaining the historic integrity of such resources.
        H.R. 624 also proposes to allow including within the park boundary
    the Ryves Holt House--a part of the historic district in Lewes,
    Delaware. This district and the Ryves Holt House are listed on the
    National Register of Historic Places at the local level of significance
    and the National Register nomination for the district indicates that
    today its significance is based primarily on its fine examples of
    Victorian architecture. Although the bill provides the Secretary with
    the discretion to decide which properties may be included within the
    boundary of the park, the Department questions allowing the Ryves Holt
    House to be eligible for addition to the park boundary, since it is not
    a National Historic Landmark, does not meet the required national
    significance criterion for unit designation, and is inconsistent with
    the park's purpose as outlined in Section 3(a) of H.R. 624.
        However, we note that Section 4(c) of H.R. 624 permits
    interpretation of resources related to the purposes of the park but
    located outside of its boundary. Any extant resources in Lewes, either
    within or outside of the historic district, which relate to early
    Dutch, Swedish, and English settlement or to Delaware's role as the
    first state, would thus be eligible for interpretation without
    including this district in the park boundary. Such resources would also
    be candidates for further analysis as to their National Historic
    Landmark potential under the bill's study provisions in Section 5.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
    respond to any questions that you or other members of the committee may
    have.
                                     ______

    Statement of Victor Knox, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities
     and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on
       H.R. 5319, To Amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to Designate a
      Segment of the Nashua River and Tributaries in the Commonwealth of
    Massachusetts for Study for Potential Addition to the National Wild and
                 Scenic Rivers System, and for Other Purposes.

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R.
    5319, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a
    segment of the Nashua River and its tributaries in the Commonwealth of
    Massachusetts for study for potential addition to the National Wild and
    Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.
        The Department supports enactment of H.R. 5319. The river segments
    and tributary areas proposed for study exhibit the types of qualities
    and resource values that would make it a worthy and important candidate
    for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
    However, we feel that priority should be given to the 36 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 Rivers System that
    have not yet been transmitted to Congress.
        H.R. 5319 directs the Secretary of the Interior to study a 19-mile
    segment of the mainstem of the Nashua River, except a 4.8-mile segment
    that is currently the subject of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    licensing proceeding for an existing hydroelectric facility (Pepperell
    Hydro Company, P-12721). It is the Department's understanding that this
    excepted segment would appropriately allow the FERC to complete the
    ongoing licensing proceeding without the delay that a Wild and Scenic
    River Study would otherwise impose. As specified in the bill, the study
    would include unnamed tributaries of the Nashua River along the segment
    designated for study, in addition to the two named tributaries, the
    Squannacook and Nissitissit Rivers. The bill requires the study to be
    completed and transmitted to Congress within three years after funding
    is made available for it.
        The Nashua River, once severely polluted, played an important role
    in the nation's river conservation history by inspiring support for
    both the state and federal Clean Water Acts. The transformation of the
    Nashua from a neglected and polluted waterway to one which now boasts
    the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, regionally significant paddling and
    fishing opportunities, a remarkable protected greenway system, and
    other important natural and cultural values, is a remarkable success
    story. The Squannacook and Nissitissit Rivers are two of eastern
    Massachusetts' most significant remaining cold-water trout fisheries.
        If enacted, the National Park Service intends to undertake the
    study in close cooperation with the affected communities, the relevant
    agencies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the US Fish and Wildlife
    Service, and interest groups such as the Nashua River Watershed
    Association through a partnership-based study approach. The
    partnership-based approach is recognized in Section 10(e) of the Wild
    and Scenic Rivers Act as a means of encouraging state and local
    governmental participation in the administration of a component of the
    National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The partnership-based approach
    also allows for development of a proposed river management plan as part
    of the study, which helps landowners and local jurisdictions understand
    their potential future roles in river management should Congress decide
    to designate part or all of the rivers being studied.
        Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires the development of
    a comprehensive river management plan within three years of the date of
    designation, it has become the practice of the National Park Service to
    prepare this plan as part of a study of potential wild and scenic
    rivers when much of the river runs through private lands. This allows
    the National Park Service to consult widely with local landowners,
    federal and state land management agencies, local governments, river
    authorities, and other groups that have interests related to the river
    prior to determining if the river is suitable for designation. Early
    preparation of the plan also assures input from these entities as well
    as users of the river on the management strategies that would be needed
    to protect the river's resources.
        This concludes my prepared remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
    to answer any questions you or other committee members may have
    regarding this bill.
                                     ______

    Statement of Victor Knox, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities
     and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on
       H.R. 5958, A Bill to Name the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Visitor
      Contact Station of the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Unit of Gateway
             National Recreation Area in Honor of James L. Buckley.

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you to present the views of the Department
    of the Interior on H.R. 5958, a bill To name the Jamaica Bay Wildlife
    Refuge Visitor Contact Station of the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge unit
    of Gateway National Recreation Area in honor of James L. Buckley.
        The National Park Service believes there should be a strong
    association between the park and the person being commemorated, and
    that at least five years should have elapsed since the death of the
    person. This basic principle has been in place at least since 1988, as
    reflected in our National Park Service Management Policies. Therefore,
    the Department cannot support H.R. 5958.
        In 1938 New York City Parks Commissioner Robert Moses proposed
    protecting Jamaica Bay's waters and wildlife, and developing water-
    based recreation. In 1948, the Bay was transferred to the management of
    NYC Department of Parks. With the creation of Gateway National
    Recreation Area in 1972, the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge became the
    only wildlife refuge in the National Park System. The Jamaica Bay
    Wildlife Refuge Contact Station is eligible for LEED certification, the
    first in the National Park Service's Northeast Region. The Visitor
    Contact Station was completed in 2007 and incorporated portions of an
    older contact station into the new building.
        James Lane Buckley, a former United States Senator from New York
    was born in New York City, March 9, 1923. He went to school in
    Millbrook, New York, and graduated from Yale University in 1943; he
    received his law degree from Yale in 1949. He enlisted in the United
    States Navy in 1942 and was discharged with the rank of lieutenant in
    1946. He was elected to the United States Senate in 1970 and served
    from January 3, 1971, to January 3, 1977. Buckley introduced landmark
    legislation enacted by Congress to protect student records, the Family
    Education Rights and Privacy Act and the Protection of Pupil Rights
    Act, which requires parental consent prior to administration of student
    surveys on any of eight sensitive topics.
        Senator Buckley served as the under secretary for Security,
    Science, and Technology, United States Department of State from 1981-
    1982. Other high points of his career include president, Radio Free
    Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc. 1982-1985; and federal judge, United States
    Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 1985-1996. These varied
    roles render him perhaps the only living American to have held high
    office in all three branches of the federal government. Senator Buckley
    is currently a resident of Sharon, Connecticut.
        National Park Service Management Policies 2006 state that the
    National Park Service will discourage and curtail commemorative works,
    especially commemorative naming, except when Congress specifically
    authorizes them or there is a compelling justification for the
    recognition, and the commemorative work is the best way to express the
    association between the park and the person, group, event, or other
    subject being commemorated. While Senator Buckley was a co-sponsor of
    the bill to create the Gateway National Recreation Area, and spoke in
    support of the resources of the refuge, we do not believe there is
    sufficient association between him and the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge
    Visitor Center to merit renaming the Visitor Center at this time.
        Mr. Chairman this concludes my statement and I will be happy to
    answer any questions that members of the committee may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Ms. Campbell, if you would
    like to speak about the Wild and Scenic River, and then we will
    ask Mr.--is it Slavin or Slavin?
        Mr. Slavin. Slavin.
        Mr. Bishop. Slavin, Mr. Slavin. If you would, talk about
    the Delaware park proposal.
        Ms. Campbell, please.

      STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH CAMPBELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NASHUA
                      RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Campbell. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony
    in favor of H.R. 5319, which would amend the Wild and Scenic
    Rivers Act to designate segments of the Nashua, Squannacook,
    and Nissitissit Rivers in Massachusetts for study for potential
    addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The
    legislation would initiate a three-year study to establish
    whether these rivers meet the criteria for being designated as
    partnership wild and scenic rivers.
        I am Elizabeth Ainsley Campbell, I am Executive Director of
    the Nashua River Watershed Association. We were founded in
    1969. We are an environmental non-profit that covers 530 square
    miles and serves 32 communities.
        In the 1960s the Nashua River was one of the Nation's 10
    most polluted rivers, with raw sewage and industrial discharge
    going directly into the waterway. We have a slide to put up.
    And I think you have already heard from Congresswoman Tsongas
    that it was Marion Stoddart who led local citizens to come
    together to advocate for a revitalized river corridor, and to
    also encourage the passage of the State and Federal Clean Water
    Acts. Recognizing that a long-term effort to fully restore the
    Nashua River was needed, and also to establish protected
    greenways along its banks, they formed the Nashua River
    Watershed Association.
        Today, a sparkling blue river runs through the watershed.
    The inspiring story of restoration and citizen engagement has
    been told in a documentary film titled, ``Marion Stoddart, Work
    of 1000,'' in a National Geographic Magazine special edition on
    water, where these photographs you see on the TV screen first
    appeared, and in the children's book, ``A River Ran Wild.''
        These vastly improved waters give rise to very special fish
    and wildlife habitat that has been recognized both on the State
    and Federal levels. On the State level, the Nissitissit and
    Squannacook Rivers are designated outstanding resource waters,
    and are cold-water fish resources that support native trout.
    Additionally, the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and endangered
    species program has delineated the rivers as part of living
    waters and Biomap 2 core habitat areas.
        Further, the Nashua River runs through three connecting
    state-designated areas of critical and environmental concern,
    ACECs. The Nashua River, with an extensive permanently
    protected greenway buffer is a natural wildlife corridor, and
    it is critical to preserving thriving rare species populations
    in Central Massachusetts. There are over two dozen State-listed
    rare species in these ACECs.
        The Federal level has also recognized the significance of
    the Nashua River. The 1,600-acre Oxbow National Wildlife
    Refuge, nearly 8 miles of the Nashua River corridor. The
    wetlands of the Nashua River and the tributaries have been
    identified as priority wetlands by both the North American
    Water Foul Management Plan and the Emergency Wetlands Resources
    Act. That is due to their importance in supporting water foul
    of the Atlantic flyway.
        So, overall, the stunning recovery of the Nashua River has
    sparked tremendous recreational use of the Nashua River and its
    tributaries and conservation lands that abut the rivers.
    Recreation often involves, as you can imagine, birding and
    hiking along the rivers. There is a very popular 11-mile Nashua
    River trail that runs through 4 towns in the study area. And a
    four-mile trail is planned for along the Squannacook River.
        We have a slide showing that there are many canoe and boat
    access sites along the rivers. These rivers provide some of the
    best fly fishing within reach of Metro Boston anglers. There
    are several popular bass fishing tournaments, as well. Families
    are out on the river, as well as the fishermen. They are
    enabled in part by organizations such as the National Paddlers,
    which is a successful local family owned business.
        The river has also enabled important education programs.
    And every year thousands of students interact with the Nashua
    and Squannacook Rivers through our on-water classroom program.
    You see that up there in the bottom slide, students just
    thrilled to see a river otter or an American Bald Eagle.
        As a final point I want to mention that in addition to the
    other things, Freedom's Way National Heritage Area, which is
    affiliated with the National Park Service, includes each of
    these communities.
        We are looking forward to partnering with the National Park
    Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, relevant
    Massachusetts agencies, affected communities, a myriad of
    stakeholders, and a coordinated effort to undertake a study and
    development of a comprehensive river management plan. All these
    factors--outstanding fisheries, wildlife, spectacular
    recreational value, rich history--make these rivers a strong
    candidate. I have submitted some detailed testimony.
        I want to thank Congresswoman Tsongas for her leadership,
    and the opportunity today. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Campbell follows:]

      Statement of Elizabeth Ainsley Campbell, Executive Director, Nashua
     River Watershed Association (NRWA), on H.R. 5319: ``Nashua River Wild
                          and Scenic River Study Act''

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of the Nashua
    River Watershed Association, I thank you for the opportunity to offer
    testimony on H.R. 5319, which would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers
    Act to designate segments of the Nashua, Squannacook, and Nissitissit
    Rivers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for study for potential
    addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This
    legislation would initiate a three year study to establish whether
    these river reaches meet the criteria for being designated as
    Partnership Wild & Scenic Rivers. We appreciate this opportunity to
    speak in favor of H.R. 5319 and to affirm the outstanding resource
    values of these special rivers. This legislation, which has strong
    local and state support, will help advance the protection of the entire
    river system as the Squannacook and Nissitissit are two of the main
    stem Nashua River's most important and cleanest tributaries.
        The Nashua River Watershed Association is an environmental non-
    profit that serves as an educator, advocate, and steward for the 32
    watershed communities covering over 530 square miles in north central
    Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire. Our professional staff works
    from our River Resource Center headquarters in Groton, Massachusetts.
    Founded in 1969, our mission is to work for a healthy ecosystem with
    clean water and open spaces for human and wildlife communities, where
    people work together to sustain mutual economic and environmental well-
    being in the Nashua River watershed. Our main goals include restoring
    and protecting water quality and quantity for people, fish, and
    wildlife. For over forty years we have worked with our many partners
    from the grassroots level to local, state and federal agencies on river
    conservation projects. In providing testimony today I'm going to touch
    on 1) the remarkable history of the restoration of the Nashua River; 2)
    the current status of water quality; 3) the special fish and wildlife
    habitat of the river reaches and river corridor; 4) the recreational
    and educational opportunities; 5) the rich tapestry of culturally
    significant sites along the rivers; and 6) partnerships as an essential
    approach to a comprehensive River Management Plan.
    1) History--a Legacy of Cultural and Historical Importance
        In the 1960s the Nashua River was one of the nation's ten most
    polluted rivers, with raw sewage and industrial discharge going
    directly into the waterway, and was classified as ``U''--unfit to carry
    more raw sewage. The Nashua River's recovery seemed an impossible task
    as the river was all but dead and one could smell the stench of the
    river from more than a mile away. The heavy concentration of paper
    mills and the use of dyes resulted in pollution that notoriously turned
    the river various colors downstream from the factories. Despite the
    deplorable state of the river, local citizens came together to see what
    could be done. They dared to envision the unthinkable: sparkling blue
    water with a ribbon of green along its banks. They formed the Nashua
    River Cleanup Committee in 1965 and advocated for a revitalized river
    corridor safe for people and wildlife alike. Led by Marion Stoddart,
    they galvanized the attention of towns, government agencies,
    businesses, and other residents. Together they worked to encourage the
    passage of the state and federal Clean Water Acts. As you know, these
    Acts made it illegal to pollute rivers and provided funding to build
    waste water treatment facilities to improve water quality. Recognizing
    that to clean up the rivers and protect the land along their banks
    would be a long-term effort, the Nashua River Clean-up Committee formed
    the Nashua River Watershed Association in 1969. Today, a sparkling blue
    Nashua River runs from central Massachusetts to southern New Hampshire,
    hosting some of the Commonwealth's best fishing tournaments. Flora and
    fauna thrive in it, canoeists revel in it, and swimmers splash in it.
        This inspiring story of restoration has been retold in ``A River
    Ran Wild: An Environmental History'' by Lynne Cherry, a children's non-
    fiction book published in 1992 that is still frequently used in school
    curriculums throughout the country. In 1993 National Geographic
    Magazine spotlighted the Nashua's recovery in an article ``The Promise
    of Restoration: New Ideas, New Understanding, New Hope '' in its
    Special Edition: ``The Power, Promise, and Turmoil of North America's
    Fresh Water'' in which were published the dramatic `before' and `after'
    images of the Nashua River. The story of the Nashua River continues to
    be inspirational and informative. In 2010 National Geographic published
    a collection of essays, ``Written in Water: Messages of Hope for
    Earth's Most Precious Resource,'' which included an essay by Marion
    Stoddart on ``Cleaning Up the Nashua.''
        Most recently, the story of Marion Stoddart and the Nashua River
    was made into an independent, critically acclaimed, documentary film by
    ExtraMile Design--``Marion Stoddart: The Work of 1000.'' The film
    speaks to a model for effective leadership and coalition building to
    achieve one's vision and achieve positive change.
        It is especially gratifying and exciting that sections of the
    Nashua River, with its dramatic history of restoration, whose story is
    heard so widely & whose watershed approach has become a model, has
    become such a strong candidate for inclusion in Wild and Scenic Rivers
    System along with its tributaries the Squannacook and Nissitissit
    Rivers.
    2) Current Water Quality--the Basis for Healthy Aquatic Life
        The Nashua River Watershed Association's water monitoring program,
    currently in its 20th consecutive year, has data showing that the
    Squannacook and Nissitissit rivers have excellent to good water quality
    meeting state bacteria standards for swimming and boating almost all of
    the time. The Nashua River segment proposed for Wild and Scenic
    designation meets boating standards most of the time and swimming
    standards many times.
        Therese Beaudoin, MassDEP Watershed Coordinator, states ``The
    Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has studied water
    quality in the Nashua Watershed since the late 1960s. The Squannacook
    River has provided an ideal location for establishing least impacted
    conditions for both water quality and flow, and has served as a
    reference river for decades. A long term monitoring station was
    established here in 1998, with sampling conducted every two months;
    available data show that water quality and aesthetics in the
    Squannacook River have been consistently among the cleanest in Central
    Massachusetts.''
        In contrast, although vastly improved since the 1960s, the Nashua
    River currently is on the 303(d) ``impaired waters'' list and has had
    Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDLs) developed for bacteria and
    phosphorus. The phosphorus TMDL noted that the primary cause of the
    impairment from phosphorous was attributed to discharges from the
    wastewater treatment plants. Treatment plants along the Nashua River
    are correspondingly improving their infrastructure to improve water
    quality. Bacteria impairment is being addressed upstream of the
    designated reaches in the City of Fitchburg, whose City Council just
    voted to expend over $70 million to separate sewers and upgrade its
    treatment plant. In addition, the Nashua River Watershed Association's
    education and outreach efforts to citizens regarding what they can do
    to keep water clean will also result in long term water quality
    improvements. We believe that if H.R. 5319 were to be enacted, the
    resultant study and possible designation would play an important role
    in continuing to move toward healthier waters in the Nashua.
    3) Fish & Wildlife Habitat--Special Characteristics to Protect
        The 1975 Squannacook-Nissitissit Sanctuary Act (MGL 132A:17)
    prohibited new discharges of pollutants to the waterways and recognized
    the high value of these aquatic riverine ecosystems. The Nissitissit
    and Squannacook Rivers are state-designated Outstanding Resource Waters
    and are cold water fish resources. They are well-managed streams that
    support native trout, including brown, brook and rainbow trout
    reproduction. Brook trout spawn in the tributaries and travel to the
    Nashua River for part of each year. These rivers in their entirety
    within Massachusetts were designated ``Living Water Core Areas'' by the
    MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). The NHESP
    has also delineated the entire length of the Nashua, Nissitissit. and
    Squannacook Rivers within Massachusetts as ``BioMap2 Core Habitat''.
    The Living Waters area (with a focus on freshwater aquatic) and the
    BioMap2 area (with a focus on terrestrial) are roughly equivalent
    designations intended to guide strategic biodiversity conservation in
    the state over the next decade by focusing land protection and
    stewardship on the areas that are most critical for ensuring the long-
    term persistence of rare and other native species and their habitats,
    exemplary natural communities, and a diversity of ecosystems. The areas
    are also designed to include the habitats and species of conservation
    concern identified in the State's Wildlife Action Plan.
        As we understand it, a goal the US Fish and Wildlife Service is
    pursuing for the Nashua River is to reintroduce Alewife and American
    shad to the Nashua River in the next ten years. The US Fish and
    Wildlife Service has stocked Alewife and American shad in an impounded
    pond on the Nashua River in New Hampshire. American eel exist in the
    Nashua and Squannacook Rivers, and upstream eel passage has been
    installed at Ice House Dam on the Nashua River.
        The Pepperell Dam creates an impoundment on the Nashua River from
    the dam to approximately four miles upstream of the dam. This river
    reach has been excluded from this proposed Wild and Scenic Study Act.
    Pepperell Hydro Company LLC is the owner of the Pepperell Dam and hydro
    facilities, which provides 8 Gwh per year of electrical power. PHC
    purchased the facility in 2004 and has been operating as a
    grandfathered facility since that time, as the dam and hydro facilities
    were constructed prior to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
    existence. As we understand it, PHC is in the process of applying for a
    FERC license; exclusion of this river reach would allow FERC licensing
    to proceed. Up and downstream fish passage will likely be required by
    US Fish and Wildlife Service as a prerequisite to the FERC license.
        The Nashua River runs within three Areas of Critical Environmental
    Concern (ACEC's) in Massachusetts. This is quite remarkable as there
    are only 30 state-designated ACECs in total in the state. The three
    that include the Nashua River are: the Central Nashua River Valley
    ACEC, the Squannassit ACEC; and the Petapawag ACEC. ACEC designation is
    a special recognition because of the quality, uniqueness, and
    significance of its natural and cultural resources; it is also a real
    achievement stemming from years of research, outreach and community
    meetings with an emphasis on extensive public input and discussion and
    largely driven by volunteers.
        The Nashua River forms the `heart and backbone' of these connecting
    ACEC's and is adjacent to an extensive network of publicly and
    privately owned open space. The MA Natural Heritage and Endangered
    Species Program describes the Nashua River as a natural wildlife
    corridor and focal point for wildlife concentrations in central
    Massachusetts. An excerpt from the Executive Summary pertaining to the
    Central Nashua River Valley ACEC designation says, ``The river valley
    provides significant linkages between important wildlife areas. The
    relatively undeveloped nature of this area is critical to preserving
    thriving rare species populations.''
        There are at least 19 state-listed rare species in the Central
    Nashua River Valley ACEC, 16 in the Petapawag and 23 in the Squannassit
    ACEC. A few years ago the Stewardship Committee of the Petapawag and
    Squannassit ACECs encouraged the Nashua River Watershed Association to
    undertaker a multi-year biological control program to reduce non-native
    invasive purple loosestrife. The project benefits several high priority
    species of wetland-dependent wildlife including, but not limited to,
    the American Black Duck, Mallard, Wood Duck, American Woodcock, Eastern
    Kingbird, and Blandings Turtle.
        The Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, which consists of some 1,600
    acres of southern New England flood-plain forest and wetland
    communities, abuts nearly 8 miles of the Nashua River corridor. The
    wetlands of the Nashua River and tributaries have been identified as
    priority wetlands by both the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
    and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, due to their critical
    importance in supporting waterfowl of the Atlantic Flyway, and are also
    listed in the Environmental Protection Agency's Priority Wetlands of
    New England. A Visitor Contact Station is currently being completed on
    the refuge along the banks of the Nashua River in Devens.
        The Nashua River Watershed Association has worked in partnership
    with others for over four decades to establish a permanently protected
    greenway (naturally vegetated buffer area) along the Nashua River and
    its tributaries. While much more remains to be done to complete the
    vision, a very significant amount of the corridor has been protected.
    The width of the undisturbed river corridor is in some cases a few
    hundred feet, and in other cases a few miles wide. The result is a
    mostly intact wild river of great beauty, supporting a range of
    wildlife, contributing to better water quality, outstanding habitat and
    remarkable recreational opportunities.
    4) Recreation & Education--A Robust Result of River Recovery
        ``Recovery'' has sparked recreational use of the Nashua River and
    its tributaries at places like the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge;
    Bolton Flats; the Squannacook River and the Nissitissit River State
    Wildlife Management Areas; the J. Harry Rich State Forest; the Townsend
    State Forest; and the Groton & Shirley Town Forests, to name but some
    of the conserved lands abutting the rivers and protecting the
    shorelines of the river segments included in H.R. 5319. Recreation
    often involves birding and hiking along the rivers. The very popular 11
    mile Nashua River Rail Trail runs alongside the river through four
    Massachusetts towns in the study area, and a 4 mile soft-surface rail
    trail is shortly anticipated to be created along the Squannacook River.
        For decades these rivers have provided focal points for the local
    Squanatissit Chapter of Trout Unlimited projects such as: constructing
    a universal access facility on the Squannacook River, adopting the
    Nissitissit River under Massachusetts Adopt-A-Stream program, as well
    as assisting the MassWildlife staff when they conduct electro-shocking
    and fish sampling on these rivers. These rivers provide some of the
    best fly-fishing within reach of metro-Boston anglers. There are many
    formal canoe and boat access sites along the rivers, and there are
    several annual popular bass fishing tournaments hosted on the Nashua
    River by such groups as Yankee Bassmasters and Freedom Bass. In
    addition to recreation focused on fishing, others use the river for a
    variety of sports. For example, the Jack London Trail Race group holds
    and annual canoe race on the Nashua River.
        Families are out on the rivers enabled in part by Nashoba Paddlers
    LLC, a successful local family-owned business based in West Groton,
    offering canoe rentals, tours, and a Summer River Camp. Free boating is
    provided at two annual events: the River Festivals in Groton and
    Lancaster, Massachusetts. Such events are typical of the collaborative
    efforts already in place; for example the Groton Greenway Committee
    which sponsors the Groton River Festival is ``charged with protecting
    river and stream frontage in Groton, particularly along the Nashua and
    Squannacook Rivers and educating townspeople of the environmental and
    financial importance of protecting riverfront lands.'' We note the
    inclusion of ``financial'' importance, for when the river's rank odor
    could be smelled at a distance and its fumes pealed off paint, riparian
    real estate was worthless. Times have changed for the better on the
    rivers, and we believe that a ``Wild & Scenic'' designation would
    significantly increase the value of adjacent lands boosting local tax
    roles.
        The rivers also enable important environmental education programs.
    Every year thousands of students from throughout the region interact
    with the Nashua and Squannacook River segments through the NRWA's
    environmental education programs, notably during our on-water River
    Classroom programs, on-shore ecological inventories, and our Summer
    Eco-Adventures programs. Students are thrilled to see a river otter or
    catch a glimpse of an American Bald Eagle soaring over the Nashua
    River.
    5) Another View of Culture & History--A Rich Tapestry
        The Freedom's Way National Heritage Area includes each of the
    communities affected by H.R. 5319, and goes beyond them. The Freedom's
    Way National Heritage Area describes itself as including ``communities
    in Massachusetts and New Hampshire that share unique historical,
    natural, and cultural resources. The region is home to a series of
    historic events that influenced democratic forms of governance and
    intellectual traditions that underpin concepts of American freedom,
    democracy, conservation, and social justice. These 45 cities and towns
    share common themes that have contributed toward this special landscape
    of American History.'' Freedom's Way National Heritage Area is a member
    of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas and is one of 49 Heritage
    Areas affiliated with the National Park Service.
        By way of example, three significant cultural & historical sites in
    the study are are: 1) Fruitlands Museum, which abuts the Oxbow National
    Wildlife Refuge, is a Massachusetts and National Historic Landmark on
    the former site of a Transcendentalist utopian community; 2) a Shaker
    Village existed along the Nashua River in Shirley Massachusetts from
    the late 1700s to the early 1900s; and 3) two historic districts abut
    the Squannacook River in Townsend. Landmarks and historical sites
    abound along the rivers throughout the study area.
    6) Partnerships--An Essential Approach to a River Management Plan
        Since its founding in 1969, the Nashua River Watershed has always
    worked in partnership with local, state, and federal entities to
    achieve progress. For example, the Nissitissit and Squannacook Rivers
    sub-basins were the service area for a 2004-2009 ``Protecting Today's
    Water for Tomorrow'' partnership project funded by a U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency Targeted Watershed Initiative grant. The project
    helped protect valuable drinking water resources and surface water
    quality and promoted proactive land stewardship. The NRWA worked
    closely with a broad coalition of stakeholders, including property
    owners, to instill conservation approaches into management plans for
    privately held lands that helped protect water resources. The NRWA was
    the lead partner on this multi-year project, and actively involved over
    three dozen local, state, and federal entities in providing matching
    services toward the goals of the project.
        Although the Nashua, Squannacook and Nissitissit Rivers greatly
    contribute to the overall rural character of the towns through which
    they flow, at the same time, given their relative proximity to the
    metropolitan areas of Nashua, New Hampshire and Boston & Worcester,
    Massachusetts, these spectacular natural resources are also under the
    pressure of development associated with rapid growth and urban/suburban
    sprawl. Our area is characterized by the recent Mass Audubon report
    ``Losing Ground II'' as being on the ``sprawl frontier''. The NRWA
    encourages ``smart growth'' techniques to enable communities to meet
    their development goals and simultaneously protect their most important
    natural resources.
        The NRWA took a lead role in bringing the possibility of a Study
    pertaining to potential Wild & Scenic designation to the attention of
    the affected communities. Letters of support from these communities
    have been included with Congresswoman Tsongas's testimony. We would
    welcome with great enthusiasm the opportunity to partner with the
    National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the relevant
    Massachusetts agencies, the affected communities, and a myriad of
    involved stakeholders in a coordinated effort to undertake a Study and
    development of a comprehensive river management plan as part of
    determining if the river is suitable for designation.
        In conclusion, all these factors--outstanding fisheries, rare
    wildlife, recreational value, a rich history--make the Nashua,
    Squannacook and Nissitissit Rivers in Massachusetts a strong candidate
    for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. I appreciate the
    opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Nashua River Watershed
    Association to the Subcommittee today. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Slavin?

      STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY SLAVIN, DIRECTOR, DELAWARE DIVISION OF
                    HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS

        Mr. Slavin. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and members of the
    Subcommittee, for allowing me to submit this brief testimony on
    behalf of H.R. 624, which would establish the First State
    National Historical Park in the State of Delaware. My name is
    Tim Slavin, and I currently serve as the Director of the
    Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs for the State of
    Delaware. In this capacity I oversee the management and
    stewardship of 41 historic properties, comprising 119
    structures and more than 650 acres of cultural landscapes. In
    addition, I also serve as the State historic preservation
    officer, and oversee Cultural Resources' review of all Federal
    projects undertaken in the State.
        I strongly support passage of H.R. 624. This bill is the
    result of untold number of hours of public consultations,
    meetings with State and private agencies, and conversations
    with our local residents. This has been a deliberate, arduous,
    and productive task, and the outcome could not have been more
    beneficial or useful.
        The concept of a multi-site historical-based national park
    is something which is valid for Delaware, and should be
    implemented by the National Park Service with the passage of
    this bill. The theme that has been selected of early settlement
    through birth of a Nation in Delaware is considered by many
    historians to be pivotal in conveying and understanding of
    Delaware's unique role in American history.
        The National Park Service cited in its special resource
    study stating that Delaware provides an important lens on the
    subject of how early colonial leaders struggled with the notion
    of breaking free from England, and that Delaware exemplifies
    the character of an entirely new Nation as a result of that
    quest for freedom and independence.
        The multi-site design for the park, likewise, reflects that
    history. Delaware's waves of settlement included the Swedish,
    Dutch, and English, all in different venues across a beautiful
    and sweeping coastal area. Under the proposed design, the hub
    of the park would be situated in New Castle, which includes one
    of the richest historic districts on the East Coast, as well as
    a community of preservation-minded residents and property
    owners who, in my opinion, are unparalleled in Delaware. The
    spokes of the park would then reach out and allow for the
    important stories that contribute to an understanding of the
    early settlement and birth of a Nation to be told in places
    such as Dover and Lewes, as well.
        Public acceptance of this proposed project and the amount
    of public input and enthusiasm for this bill should not go
    unnoticed. There has been a wellspring of sentiment and support
    from across Delaware, with citizens participating in hearings
    and discussions, and offering many of the ideas that we see
    outlined in the bill. The City of New Castle has not only
    accepted its new role as the site for the park's hub, but has
    embraced that new role. As someone who manages historic
    properties and museums in New Castle, I can tell you that the
    specter of a national park in New Castle has brought with it a
    whole new level of public support for history and historic
    preservation in New Castle. If the park is implemented as
    designed--and I do hope that it is--you will find a very
    conscientious and welcoming community in New Castle.
        Finally, there is a need for this park that deserves to be
    met. Delaware's history is our Nation's history. And we need to
    tell that story in ways that all Americans can access it. The
    fact that we currently do not have a national park in Delaware
    would, in my opinion, not be reason enough to simply create
    one. The fact that we have historical resources which the
    citizens of our Nation need to see and experience in order to
    understand and appreciate our Nation's great history is
    something which we can no longer ignore. The need for this park
    is based on a need to tell our American history thoroughly and
    completely, and to include Delaware in that enterprise.
        I am a big fan of the National Park Service. My agency
    works hand-in-glove with the Park Service on an almost-daily
    basis through our work in carrying out the provisions of the
    National Historic Preservation Act. And through our joint
    efforts, we have raised the quality of life for all
    Delawarians. We consider the National Park Service to be an
    exemplary steward of our Nation's heritage, and we are
    unblinking in saying that we are--they are partners that we are
    proud to do business with.
        But my admiration for the National Park Service is, at its
    roots, personal. My 17-year-old daughter was raised in Boulder,
    Colorado. And on my many monthly visits out to her over the
    course of 13 years we claimed Rocky Mountain National Park as
    our own place. It is a place that we visited regularly,
    returning to some of the same footprints we left on previous
    trips. These visits have not only resulted in the two of us
    visiting other national parks, but more importantly, have shown
    my daughter the value of conscientious stewardship, and the
    role that each person can play in preserving our Nation's
    heritage. We need to show the children of Delaware the
    importance of these values. And the passage of H.R. 624 gives
    us that opportunity.
        In closing, I strongly support this bill and encourage its
    passage and implementation, and stand ready to assist the
    National Park Service in any manner possible. Thank you very
    much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Slavin follows:]

    Statement of Timothy A. Slain, Director and State Historic Preservation
    Officer, State of Delaware, Division of Historical & Cultural Affairs,
           on H.R. 624, ``First State National Historical Park Act''

        Chairman Bishop and members of the Subcommittee on National Parks,
    Forests, and Public Lands, thank you for allowing me to submit this
    brief testimony on H.R. 624, which would establish the First State
    National Historical Park in the State of Delaware.
        My name is Timothy A. Slavin, and I currently serve as the Director
    of the Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs for the State of
    Delaware. In this capacity, I oversee the management and stewardship of
    a state-wide campus of forty-one historic properties, comprising 119
    structures and more than 650 acres of cultural landscapes. In addition,
    I also serve as the State Historic Preservation Officer and oversee the
    cultural resources review of all federal projects undertaken in our
    state, as well as other preservation related activities.
        I strongly support the passage of H.R. 624. This bill is the result
    of untold number of hours of public consultations, meetings with state
    and private agencies, and conversations with local residents. This has
    been a deliberate, arduous, and productive task, and the outcome could
    not have been more beneficial or useful.
        The concept of a multi-site historical-based national park is
    something which is valid for Delaware and should be implemented by the
    National Park Service (with passage of this bill). The theme of ``early
    settlement'' through ``birth of a nation'' in Delaware is considered by
    many historians to be pivotal in conveying an understanding of
    Delaware's unique role in American history. The National Park Service
    cited this in its special resource study, stating that Delaware
    ``provides an important lens on the subject of how early colonial
    leaders struggled with the notion of breaking free from England'' and
    that ``Delaware exemplifies the character of an entirely new nation as
    the result of that quest for freedom and independence.'' (National Park
    Service, Delaware National Coastal Special Resource Study and
    Environmental Assessment, November 2008.)
        The multi-site design for the park, likewise, reflects that
    history. Delaware's waves of settlement included the Swedish, Dutch and
    English, all in different venues across a beautiful and sweeping
    coastal area. Under the proposed design, the ``hub'' of the park would
    be situated in New Castle, which includes one of the richest historical
    districts on the east coast, as well as a community of preservation-
    minded residents and property owners who are unparalleled in Delaware.
    The ``spokes'' of the park would allow for the important stories that
    contribute to an understanding of the early settlement and birth of a
    nation theme to be told in Dover and Lewes, as well.
        The public acceptance of this proposed project and the amount of
    public input and enthusiasm for this bill should not go unnoticed.
    There has been a well-spring of sentiment and support from across
    Delaware, with citizens participating in hearings and discussions, and
    offering many of the ideas that we see outlined in the bill. The City
    of New Castle has not only accepted its new role as the site for the
    park's hub, but has embraced that new role. As someone who manages
    historical properties and museums in New Castle, I can tell you that
    the specter of a national park in New Castle has brought with it a
    whole new level of public support for history and historic preservation
    in New Castle. If the park is implemented as designed--and I hope that
    it is--you will find a conscientious and welcoming community in New
    Castle.
        Finally, there is a need for this park that deserves to be met.
    Delaware's history is our nation's history, and we need to tell that
    story in ways that all Americans can access it. The fact that we
    currently do not have a national park in Delaware would, in my opinion,
    not be reason enough to simply create one. The fact that we have
    historical resources which the citizens of our nation need to see and
    experience in order to understand and appreciate our nation's great
    history is something which we can no longer ignore. The need for this
    park is based on a need to tell our American history thoroughly and
    completely, and to include Delaware in that enterprise.
        I am a big fan of the National Park Service. My agency works hand-
    in-glove with the NPS on an almost-daily basis through our work in
    carrying out the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act,
    and through their joint efforts, we have raised the quality-of-life for
    all Delawareans. We consider the NPS to be an exemplary steward of our
    nation's heritage, and we are unblinking in saying that they are
    partners that we are proud to do business with.
        But my admiration for the National Park Service is, at its roots,
    personal. My 16-year-old daughter was raised in Boulder, Colorado, and
    on my many monthly visits to her over the course of thirteen years, we
    claimed Rocky Mountain National Park in Estes Park as our own place.
    It's a place that we visited regularly, returning to some of the same
    footprints we left on previous trips. These visits have not only
    resulted in the two of us visiting other national parks, but, more
    importantly, have shown her the value of conscientious stewardship and
    the role that each person can play in preserving our nation's heritage.
        We need to show the children of Delaware the importance of these
    values, and the passage of H.R. 624 gives us that opportunity.
        In closing, I strongly support this bill and encourage its passage
    and implementation and stand ready to assist the National Park Service
    in any manner possible.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, I appreciate that. Do we have
    questions? Ms. Tsongas, do you have questions for either of--
    any of these witnesses?
        Ms. Tsongas. A brief one for Executive Director Campbell.
    Thank you so much for coming to Washington to testify on behalf
    of a piece of legislation that I know you have worked so hard
    to make possible, as have the many volunteers who are deeply
    affected by the Nashua River, and who saw an opportunity to
    improve it, and have worked tirelessly to do so. So this is
    just the next step.
        It was quite a photo in which the river--showed how the
    river--the color of the water would change with the dyes that
    were let into it as a result of all the manufacturing that was
    taking place on its banks. So much progress has been made. And
    we hope that this study will protect that progress and
    encourage further progress.
        But I do have one question. And that is that, you know, we
    do often hear that one of the concerns that people sometimes
    have when we go about giving something an environmental
    designation is that opportunities for recreation will be
    limited. And you have spoken--be made more limited. And you
    have spoken about the tremendous recreational activities that
    have been taking place as this river has been cleaned up.
        But do you see a potential designation as a Wild and Scenic
    River impacting those activities in any way? Constraining
    future activities? I would love to get your thoughts.
        Ms. Campbell. I certainly do not see the designation as
    constraining the activities. I am unaware of any way in which
    that might be the possible outcome of the study and potential
    designation.
        But on the other hand--and I am glad you asked this--I see
    a tremendous increase in recreational opportunities. I think as
    people have an opportunity to come together we are going to be
    putting some communities together who don't always work
    together with Ducks Unlimited, the Squannassit Chapter of Trout
    Unlimited, many different sporting and recreation interests
    coming together. We are going to see increased exposure to the
    possibilities of the river, not only the use of the
    opportunities that are there already, but I would think some
    increased opportunities.
        And the whole process, which is quite exhaustive to get to
    the process--the town is voting on their interest in the
    potential designation. Wonderful publicity. And were it to be
    designated, tremendous publicity thereafter. I think people who
    are living right by the river don't know it is there, those few
    people. And many others will come out and have more recreation.
        Ms. Tsongas. Well, I commend the way in which many
    stakeholders have worked together. And I know that the study
    process will involve all stakeholders looking to the future.
    And I do think that as we focus on the environmental impacts
    and recreational impacts, you can never lose sight of the
    economic impacts of the river that runs throughout the many
    communities that abut it, the opportunities it presents to
    engage the river in the life of the community in a way that you
    would turn your back on when the river was as dirty as it once
    was.
        So, thank you for being here today.
        Ms. Campbell. And thank you.
        Mr. Bishop. That is it? OK. OK, I want to thank the
    witnesses for coming here today. You didn't travel quite as far
    as those from California, New Mexico, and Utah did, but you can
    go back on a train system that is subsidized, so it is OK.
        We appreciate you being here for your testimony. For the
    witnesses, obviously, all the witnesses--those who are still
    here, and those who have been--we want you to potentially be
    available to respond in writing to any questions that may be
    submitted by Members to the Subcommittee.
        I further ask that written testimony submitted by Herbert
    Stump or Stoop be entered into the record.
        [No response.]
        Mr. Bishop. And, without objection, so ordered. And if
    there is no further business, with our gratitude to the
    witnesses who have been here on these last three bills, as well
    as the other bills that have been before us, I thank you very
    much and we will stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

     Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Martin Heinrich,
           a Representative in Congress from the State of New Mexico

        The Organ Mountains are one of the most iconic vistas in my home
    state of New Mexico, and I thank the committee for taking the time to
    consider the best way to provide them and other important natural and
    cultural resources in Dona Ana County permanent protection.
        I stand in strong support of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
    National Monument proposal offered by citizens of Dona Ana County. This
    is an exciting proposal that reflects years of community discussions
    and has already received the endorsement of the Town of Mesilla and the
    Dona Ana County Commission as well as support from a diverse group of
    stakeholders ranging from sportsmen to veterans. This proposal reflects
    the best of southern New Mexico's unique Chihuahuan Desert ecosystems
    as well as nationally significant American and Pre-American history.
    The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument would protect
    hunting, ranching and other valid and existing uses, while ensuring
    that future generations can enjoy this iconic American landscape as we
    do today. As the committee continues to consider the best way to
    protect the natural, cultural, and historical resources of Dona Ana
    County, I hope that this proposal will receive serious consideration.
        While I greatly appreciate Representative Pearce's support for a
    national monument in Dona Ana County, I have several significant
    concerns regarding H.R. 4334. Currently there are eight wilderness
    study areas in Dona Ana County totaling more than 220,000 acres. There
    is broad community consensus to not only protect these areas but also
    to protect adjacent regions known for their diverse landscapes and
    important history. Unfortunately, H.R. 4334 falls short of a solution
    to protect these lands. It would reduce the amount of land to be
    protected in the Organ Mountains by over 30 percent as compared to
    other proposals that have been endorsed by numerous local elected
    bodies, including the Dona Ana County Commission. Furthermore, and most
    problematic, H.R. 4334 would take a big step backward by eliminating
    the three Wilderness Study Areas within the Organ Mountains, thereby
    removing protections that have been in place for decades.
    Permitted Uses
        Some have incorrectly argued that the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
    National Monument would negatively impact ranching and shut out
    important users like sportsmen. Both of these claims are false.
    Ranching continues to exist in all but one National Monument managed by
    the Bureau of Land Management created since 1982 in 13 western
    continental U.S. states over 10,000 acres in size. Consistent with this
    trend and as has been repeatedly stated by supporters of the Monument
    proposal, the Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks National Monument would
    protect ranchers' existing use of the designated area.
        In addition, hunting and motorized vehicle access continues today
    in all of the aforementioned National Monuments managed by the Bureau
    of Land Management. The Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks National Monument
    proposal would protect this access. In fact, numerous sportsman groups
    and individuals have endorsed the proposal specifically because of
    these protections as well as the protection of key regional habitat.
    The mountain ranges in the proposed monument include some of the most
    important wild game habitat in New Mexico. Mule deer, mountain lion,
    dove, quail, and many other species call the Sierra de las Uvas home.
    The Potrillo Mountains are especially significant with their ecological
    links to northern Mexico, and the Organ Mountains provide critical
    water resources to local wildlife. As proposed, the Organ Mountains-
    Desert Peaks National Monument would make access by sportsmen a central
    part of the area's management and protection in perpetuity. That would
    ensure that when my sons are my age, they will be able to enjoy hunting
    for mule deer in the Las Uvas, or quail in the Robledos.
        Currently, the Bureau of Land Management manages the federal lands
    proposed for protection within the Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks National
    Monument, and it is the clear intent of local communities, supporters,
    and citizens to have the BLM continue to manage these public lands
    should they become a national monument. Claims that the Monument would
    no longer be managed by the BLM are false, and comparisons to the
    management of national monuments under the jurisdiction of the National
    Park Service can be very misleading.
    Size of the Monument
        The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument proposal's goal
    is to permanently protect the region's culturally rich public lands
    that have helped shape New Mexico's diverse heritage and help tell
    America's story. In order to protect this rich history and heritage and
    in accordance with the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Organ Mountains-
    Desert Peaks National Monument proposal reflects the smallest size
    practicable. The boundaries have been carefully drafted to protect the
    region's nationally significant historical and cultural objects,
    including:
              Over 20 Miles of the historic Butterfield Stagecoach
            Trail, currently in consideration by Congress to be designated
            as a National Historic Trail
              Over 5000 petroglyph and other rare archeological
            sites
              World War II Aerial Targets
              Apollo Mission Astronaut Training Sites
              Geronimo's Cave
              Billy the Kid's Outlaw Rock
              The Gadsden Purchase International Boundary
        Additionally, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument
    would protect truly iconic and diverse Chihuahuan Desert public lands
    that have little protection and representation within America's
    wilderness and national monument preservation systems. These public
    lands are nationally and internationally known and have helped shaped
    New Mexicans' way of life for countless generations. These areas
    include:
              Organ Mountains
              Potrillo Volcanic Field
              Kilbourne Hole (National Historic Landmark)
              Robledo Mountains (also home to the Prehistoric
            Trackways National Monument)
              Broad Canyon
        I look forward to working with the citizens of Dona Ana County,
    Congress and the president to permanently protect the nationally
    significant lands, heritage, and history within the proposed Organ
    Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument.
                                     ______

           Statement of The Honorable Dale Kildee, a Representative
                     in Congress from the State of Michigan

        Mr. Chairman, colleagues, and witnesses, thank you for being here
    today for our subcommittee hearing.
        Today we see a wide range of bills, many dealing with designations
    for parks, rivers, and wilderness.
        We have a couple land exchanges, one for a well-known university
    icon in the west.
        Most of these bills are easy for me to support, but one or two make
    me question the reasoning for the bill.
        I want to welcome our witnesses today. I appreciate you coming here
    to present on these issues which speak to you.
        I look forward to a successful hearing today and I yield back the
    remainder of my time.
                                     ______

        [The documents listed below have been retained in the
    Committee's official files.]

              Atomic Heritage Foundation, Press release for the
            Record, H.R. 5987
              Atomic Heritage Foundation, Statement for the Record,
            H.R. 5987
              Atomic Heritage Foundation, Letter for the Record,
            H.R. 5987
              Cooper, Tom and Carol, Letter for the Record, H.R.
            4334
              County of Madera Board of Supervisors Comments for
            the Record on H.R. 3640
              Delk, Byron, Mesilla Valley Sportsmen's Alliance,
            Letter for the Record in support of H.R. 4334
              Dice, Jenn, International Mountain Bicycling
            Association, Statement for the Record, H.R. 4109
              Dona Ana County Sheriff's Department, Letter for the
            Record in support of H.R. 4334
              Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District,
            Statement for the Record, H.R. 4334
              Donham, B.J., Letter for the Record, H.R. 4334
              Dowless, Linda, Letter for the Record, H.R. 4334
              Energy Communities Alliance, Statement for the
            Record, H.R. 5987
              Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce, Letter for
            the Record in support of H.R. 4334
              Hartan, Cheryl, Letter for the Record in support of
            H.R. 4334
              Huff, Fred, Letter for the Record in support of H.R.
            4334
              Jeska, Robert, Letter for the Record in support of
            H.R. 4334
              Los Padres Forest Watch, Comments for the Record on
            H.R. 4109
              Massachusetts Audubon, Statement for the Record, H.R.
            5319
              Massachusetts, Towns of Dunstable, Groton, Harvard,
            Lancaster, Pepperell, Shirley, Townsend, and Ayer, Letters for
            the Record, H.R. 5319
              Mattiace, William, Letter for the Record, H.R. 4334
              Mesilla Valley Sportsmen's Alliance, Letter for the
            Record, H.R. 4334
              National Parks Conservation Association, Statement
            for the Record, H.R. 5987
              National Trust for Historic Preservation, Letter in
            support of H.R. 5987
              Richards, Ralph, Letter for the Record, H.R. 4334
              Richardson, Carol, Letter for the Record, H.R. 4334
              Rio Grande Soaring Association, Letter for the
            Record, H.R. 4334
              Sanchez, John, State of New Mexico, Letter for the
            Record in support of H.R. 4334
              Stupp, Herbert, Statement for the Record, H.R. 5958
              Westmont College, Letter for the Record concerning
            H.R. 4109
              Wilderness Society, Letter for the Record on H.R.
            4109 and H.R. 4334