[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