[Senate Hearing 117-440]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-440
PENDING LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
NATIONAL PARKS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 31 S. 535 S. 1354
S. 172 S. 753 S. 1526
S. 192 S. 1317 S. 1527
S. 270 S. 1320 S. 1769
S. 491 S. 1321 S. 1771
__________
JUNE 23, 2021
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-432 WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Chairman
BERNARD SANDERS STEVE DAINES
MARTIN HEINRICH MIKE LEE
MAZIE K. HIRONO LISA MURKOWSKI
MARK KELLY JOHN HOEVEN
JAMES LANKFORD
Renae Black, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
David Brooks, General Counsel
Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
John Tanner, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Lands
James Willson, Republican Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
King, Jr., Hon. Angus S., Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S.
Senator from Maine............................................. 1
Daines, Hon. Steve, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S.
Senator from Montana........................................... 2
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon...................... 3
Lee, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Utah......................... 37
WITNESSES
Panel I
Ernst, Hon. Joni, a U.S. Senator from Iowa....................... 38
Golden, Hon. Jared F., a U.S. Representative from Maine.......... 40
Panel II
Caldwell, Michael A., Acting Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department
of the Interior; With Mark Lambrecht, Assistant Director,
National Conservation Lands and Community Partnerships, Bureau
of Land Management............................................. 42
Eberlien, Jennifer, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, U.S. Department of Agriculture......................... 74
Hunter, Jennifer, Coordinator, York River Wild and Scenic Study.. 80
Malmberg, Andrea, Union, Oregon.................................. 84
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Alaska Trails:
Letter for the Record........................................ 260
American Forest Resource Council:
Letter for the Record........................................ 123
American Mineral Research, Inc.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 383
American Whitewater:
Letter for the Record........................................ 132
Andrus, Alicia:
Letter for the Record with attachment........................ 136
Applegate Neighborhood Network:
Letter for the Record........................................ 261
Arizona State Land Department:
Letter for the Record........................................ 265
Arkansas House of Representatives:
State of Arkansas, 93rd General Assembly, House Resolution
1012....................................................... 100
Association of O&C Counties:
Letter for the Record........................................ 263
Austin, Jeremy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 267
Ballard, D.M.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 268
Batty, Thomas:
Letter for the Record........................................ 144
Benson, AZ (City of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 192
Resolution 1-206 in support of designating the Chiricahua
National Monument as a National Park....................... 193
Bien, Rod:
Letter for the Record........................................ 145
Blaine, Kirk:
Letter for the Record........................................ 269
Bombaci, Angela:
Letter for the Record........................................ 270
Boot Campaign:
Letter for the Record........................................ 90
Bowers, Wayne L.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 146
Budge, Hon. Ken, Mayor of Bisbee, AZ:
Letter for the Record........................................ 194
Bush, Dr. Ellie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 271
Byers, Ron:
Letter to the Editor of the Tillamook Headlight Herald, dated
3/1/2021................................................... 147
Caldwell, Michael A.:
Opening Statement............................................ 42
Written Testimony............................................ 45
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 208
Chamber of Medford & Jackson County (OR):
Letter for the Record........................................ 273
Chittim, Veroune:
Letter for the Record........................................ 148
Cochise County (AZ) Board of Supervisors:
Letter for the Record........................................ 195
Cole, Hugh and Marjorie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 149
Collier, Zachary:
Letter for the Record........................................ 150
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR):
Letter for the Record........................................ 151
Conley, Pam:
Letter for the Record........................................ 275
Cooper, Romain:
Letter for the Record........................................ 276
Attached U.S. Forest Service eligibility study entitled
``East Fork Illinois River and Its Tributaries'' from
September 1993............................................. 278
Cox, Hon. Spencer J., Governor of the State of Utah:
Letter for the Record........................................ 316
Crotty, Allison:
Letter for the Record........................................ 317
Daines, Hon. Steve:
Opening Statement............................................ 2
Davis, Tim:
Letter for the Record........................................ 153
Dawson, Jamie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 318
Dixon, John:
Statement for the Record..................................... 407
Dotson, Michael:
Letter for the Record........................................ 320
Eastern Oregon Counties Association:
Letter for the Record dated June 22, 2021.................... 154
Letter for the Record dated August 27, 2021.................. 322
Eberlien, Jennifer:
Opening Statement............................................ 74
Written Testimony............................................ 76
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 247
Eldridge, Audrey:
Letter for the Record........................................ 325
Ernst, Hon. Joni:
Opening Statement............................................ 38
Erwin, Mike:
Letter for the Record........................................ 91
Estenoz, Hon. Shannon A., Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks:
Letter for the Record addressed to Subcommittee Chairman King 428
Letter of transmittal addressed to Chairman Manchin for the
York River Wild and Scenic River Study..................... 429
National Park Service, ``York River Wild and Scenic River
Study Final Report'' from January 2020..................... 430
Fairbrother, Jennifer:
Letter for the Record........................................ 326
Fernandez, Erik et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 157
Fisher House Foundation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 92
Fitz, Gregory:
Letter for the Record........................................ 327
Friends of Family Farmers:
Letter for the Record........................................ 160
Friends of the Kalmiopsis:
Letter for the Record in support of S. 192................... 328
Letter for the Record in support of S. 192, section 9(a)..... 329
Letter for the Record in support of S. 192, section 9(b)..... 332
Fuji, C. and Jim Kreider:
Letter for the Record........................................ 371
Gardiner, John L.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 335
Gerstner, Rose:
Letter for the Record........................................ 336
Gila River Indian Community:
Letter for the Record........................................ 337
Gilbert, Kira:
Letter for the Record........................................ 339
Global War on Terrorism Memorial Foundation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 93
Statememt for the Record..................................... 97
Golden, Hon. Jared F.:
Opening Statement............................................ 40
Goodman-Campbell, Gena:
Letter for the Record........................................ 161
Grant County (OR) Court:
Letter for the Record........................................ 340
Gustafson, Allee:
Letter for the Record........................................ 342
Hannagan, Brian:
Letter for the Record........................................ 343
Harlan, Corie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 345
Harney County (OR) Court:
Letter for the Record........................................ 346
Resolution 2021-18........................................... 348
Helm, Ken:
Letter for the Record........................................ 162
Helmer, John F.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 163
Huachuca City, AZ (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 196
Hunter, Jennifer:
Opening Statement............................................ 80
Written Testimony............................................ 82
Idaho Recreation Council:
Letter for the Record........................................ 102
Illinois Valley Enthusiasts:
Letter for the Record........................................ 349
Isbell, Rory:
Letter for the Record........................................ 352
Jackson County (OR):
Letter for the Record........................................ 353
Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America:
Letter for the Record........................................ 105
Kalmiopsis Audubon Society:
Letter for the Record........................................ 355
Kauffman, J. Boone:
Letter for the Record........................................ 362
Kelly, William Brian:
Letter for the Record........................................ 364
King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Klamath Forest Alliance:
Letter for the Record........................................ 365
Klamath-Lake Forest Health Partnership:
Letter for the Record........................................ 367
Klavins, Emily and Robert:
Letter for the Record........................................ 164
Koh, Sophie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 370
Kulla, Casey:
Letter for the Record........................................ 372
LaBelle, Mary Jane:
Letter for the Record........................................ 165
Lacey, Dave:
Letter for the Record........................................ 422
Lacy, Peter M.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 373
Lake County (OR) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 374
Laws, Michael:
Letter for the Record........................................ 197
Lee, Hon. Mike:
Opening Statement............................................ 37
Lennard, Spencer:
Letter for the Record........................................ 377
Lyford, Gordon and Nancy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 378
Lyons, Gilly:
Letter for the Record........................................ 380
Mackenzie, John:
Letter for the Record........................................ 381
Malmberg, Andrea:
Opening Statement............................................ 84
Written Testimony............................................ 86
Manion, Ryan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 115
Martin, Pete:
Letter for the Record........................................ 382
Mescalero Apache Tribe:
Letter for the Record........................................ 385
Mikenis, John:
Letter for the Record........................................ 387
Molalla River Watch Watershed Council:
Letter for the Record........................................ 33
Moore, Frank and Jeff Dose:
Letter for the Record........................................ 166
Morrison, Anne:
Letter for the Record........................................ 388
National Congress of American Indians:
Resolution #MKE-17-057 entitled ``Opposition to Amendments to
the Antiquities Act''...................................... 550
National Military Family Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 106
Native Fish Society:
Letter for the Record........................................ 389
Neiberger-Miller, Ami et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 107
Nez Perce Tribe:
Letter for the Record........................................ 167
Northwest Guides and Anglers Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 174
Northwest Rafting Company et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 169
Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 172
Nuchols, Emily:
Letter for the Record........................................ 391
O'Connor, Laurie K.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 176
Olken, Sandy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 393
Oregon Natural Desert Association:
Letter for the Record dated 6/21/2021........................ 177
Letter for the Record dated 7/7/2021......................... 394
Oregon Wild:
Letter for the Record........................................ 395
Palmer, Tim:
Letter for the Record........................................ 396
Parry, Darilyn:
Letter for the Record........................................ 398
Paule, Martin R.
Letter for the Record........................................ 399
Perkin, Elizabeth K.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 400
(The) Pew Charitable Trusts:
Letter for the Record........................................ 179
Preston, Frances M.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 401
Riener, Karen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 406
Roether, Evelyn:
Letter for the Record........................................ 410
Rogers, Charles:
Letter for the Record........................................ 411
Rogue River Watershed Council:
Letter for the Record........................................ 32
Salvo, Carl:
Letter for the Record........................................ 412
San Carlos Apache Tribe:
Statement for the Record..................................... 198
Sant, Hana:
Letter for the Record........................................ 344
Seal, Thom:
Letter for the Record dated 6/28/2021........................ 413
Letter for the Record dated 6/29/2021........................ 414
Seng, John:
Letter for the Record........................................ 415
Siskiyou Chapter Native Plant Society of Oregon:
Letter for the Record........................................ 416
Siskiyou Crest Coalition:
Letter for the Record........................................ 418
Smith River Alliance:
Letter for the Record........................................ 420
Soda Mountain Wilderness Council:
Letter for the Record dated 6/23/2021........................ 181
Letter for the Record dated 7/3/2021......................... 182
Letter for the Record dated 7/5/2021......................... 183
SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization:
Letter for the Record........................................ 200
Resolution No. 2016-06....................................... 201
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance:
Letter for the Record........................................ 423
Special Operations Care Fund:
Letter for the Record........................................ 112
(The) Station Foundation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 113
Stowe, Colton:
Letter for the Record........................................ 184
Strahan, Dave:
Letter for the Record........................................ 426
Stuart, Amy M. and Mike Gerdes
Letter for the Record........................................ 185
Student Veterans of America:
Letter for the Record........................................ 114
Thornberg, Lace:
Letter for the Record........................................ 427
Thornton, Tim:
Letter for the Record........................................ 186
Union County (OR) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record dated 6/30/2021........................ 542
Letter for the Record dated 10/6/2021........................ 545
Union Veterans Council, AFL-CIO:
Letter for the Record........................................ 116
Upper Deschutes Watershed Council:
Letter for the Record........................................ 34
Ute Indian Tribe:
Statement for the Record..................................... 546
Visit Tucson:
Letter for the Record........................................ 203
Wallowa County (OR) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record dated 4/13/2021........................ 552
Resolution 2021-022, entitled ``In the Matter of S. 192,
Under Consideration in the 117th United States Congress''.. 556
Letter for the Record dated 10/6/2021........................ 558
Table listing streams in Wallowa County...................... 560
WarrenWood, Alyssa:
Letter for the Record........................................ 563
Warrick, Ted and Mary:
Letter for the Record........................................ 187
Weiss, Caelin:
Letter for the Record........................................ 564
Wells, Hannah Wren:
Letter for the Record........................................ 565
White, Shay:
Letter for the Record........................................ 118
(The) Wilderness Society:
Letter for the Record........................................ 566
(The) Wilderness Society et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 569
Wood, Jake:
Letter for the Record........................................ 119
Worthington, Roger:
Letter for the Record........................................ 188
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
Community action plan entitled ``Recreation Economy for Rural
Communities'' coauthored by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the City of John Day................. 5
Yarnell, Ellen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 571
Yurgel, Danae:
Letter for the Record........................................ 572
Zero Emission Transportation Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 573
Zhang, Joanna:
Letter for the Record........................................ 575
Ziller, Gloria and Bob:
Letter for the Record........................................ 576
----------
The text for each of the bills addressed in this hearing can be
accessed from the Committee's website at: https://
www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/6/national-park-subcommittee-
legislative-hearing
PENDING LEGISLATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Angus S.
King, Jr., Chairman of the Subcommittee presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGUS S. KING, JR.,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator King [presiding]. Good morning, everyone. Welcome
to the second National Parks Subcommittee hearing of the 117th
Congress.
As we have seen over the last 15 months of the COVID
pandemic, our public spaces have become important spaces for
refuge where we can recharge our batteries. Today, we will
consider a number of bills that would designate and protect for
future use important spaces across our country. We have 15
bills on the agenda today that cover a wide range of topics and
geographic areas. Together, they seek to preserve our national
history, change the way we manage public lands, and provide
additional recreational opportunities. I will not speak on each
of them individually, but I want to say that while some are
likely to garner wide bipartisan support, others have raised
concerns on either or both sides of the aisle. It is my belief
that this Subcommittee should have an opportunity to discuss
bills, even those bills that I might oppose.
I would like to turn to a bill--using the Chairman's
prerogative--that I have introduced with Senator Collins--the
York River Wild and Scenic River Act. This bill is also
supported by Maine's House delegation. The bill would designate
a portion of the York River as a ``Wild and Scenic River,''
protecting an important part of our state and many important
historical sites from future development. This bill has been a
long time in the making, and frankly, it is one of the most
grassroots initiatives that I have ever been involved with.
Beginning in 2009, a locally based ``Friends of the York
River'' group, made up of residents, town leaders, and others
interested in river conservation, led the effort to determine
whether designation of a Wild and Scenic River was an
appropriate way to recognize and protect the York River. The
group held public meetings and collected letters of support
from the four adjacent communities. My House colleague,
Representative Chellie Pingree and I introduced the York River
Wild and Scenic Study bill. It was included in the Fiscal Year
2015 National Defense Authorization Act.
The study committee then began their work in partnership
with local stakeholders. The study committee focused on
designation as a ``Partnership Wild and Scenic River,'' given
management models of other local rivers nearby in New Hampshire
and Connecticut. The study committee identified a number of
outstanding remarkable natural recreational and cultural
resource values associated with the study area that they
concluded made it eligible for designation. Anyone who has
visited the York River designation watershed in Southern Maine
notes the incredible landscape that the towns of York, South
Berwick, Kittery, and Eliot have in their backyards. I am
honored to have Jennifer Hunter here to share with the
Subcommittee the uniqueness of the area and why we should
designate it as part of the Wild and Scenic River System.
One procedural note before I recognize Ranking Member
Daines. Following his remarks, I will recognize members of the
Committee who wish to make a statement about their bills on the
agenda, followed by any members not on the Committee seeking to
make a statement. From there, we will go on to the rest of our
witnesses and then on to questions. Also, without objection,
all members may submit letters of support or opposition or
additional materials regarding measures on today's agenda.
Senator Daines.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Chairman King, thank you.
For today's hearing, we are going to examine 15 largely
local and parochial bills. This Subcommittee has long worked
together to examine and pass bills from members both on and off
this Committee that affect parks and lands in their specific
states. As we look at today's agenda, it is important to me to
hear about the local support as well as the opposition to each
bill. I firmly believe that land-use decisions and land
designations should have the strong support of community
members and the local elected officials who live and work
closest to the lands impacted.
This is not always easy, but it is vitally important that
we hear from all of those affected and take in their feedback.
In fact, in Montana, we were able to do that just a few years
ago with the East Rosebud Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. As a kid
growing up, I spent a lot of time in the East Rosebud. It is a
beautiful part of our state coming out of the Absaroka-
Beartooth Wilderness, and this particular act targeted and
received locally supported agreement to preserve a small but
beautiful portion of a river that took over four years to get
signed into law after I first introduced it in the House.
During that time, we made a number of edits. We improved the
bill and we grew local support and finally got it signed into
law.
As we go through today's agenda, I hope to work with the
Chairman to examine the local support as well as the opposition
to each bill, and take in their feedback as they move forward.
I do want to make a quick mention of a few of the bills we have
on today's agenda.
First, Senate bill 1771, to officially designate the museum
at the Blytheville/Eaker Air Force Base as the National Cold
War Center. This museum has long been the de facto Cold War
Center, and I have heard from many community members that they
would like to see the name officially recognized.
Senate bill 172 would authorize the establishment of a
commemorative work in DC to honor the extraordinary acts of
valor, selfless service, and sacrifice displayed by Medal of
Honor recipients. This bill has bipartisan support and it has
been the priority of a number of members over the past year.
I would also like to hear more about Senate bill 535, which
Senator Ernst will be speaking on today. This bill creates a
commemorative work honoring those who have served on active
duty in support of the Global War on Terrorism.
Senate bill 1527, the Parks Road Access Act, would ensure
uniform park acceptance of state road access laws. It is my
knowledge that current regulations require parks to follow
state and local vehicle laws, but that is the case at all
parks. I look forward to hearing more.
Senate bill 1354 would designate a national historic trail
and a study of a proposed 500-mile national scenic trail in
Alaska. Our historic and scenic trails help increase access to
our public lands and drive tourism in local and often remote
communities. I look forward to hearing from local communities
on how this bill will boost their local economies and increase
recreation.
And finally, I am interested in hearing more about Senate
bill 192, which would designate 4,700 miles of new Wild and
Scenic Rivers in Oregon. This Committee has received a lot of
correspondence on the bill, both in support as well in
opposition.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I turn it back to you. I look
forward to a robust discussion and testimony from our
witnesses.
Senator King. Thank you, Senator Daines.
I would like to first call on Committee member, Senator Ron
Wyden of Oregon, to discuss the proposal involving his state.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you and Senator Daines. We are both Westerners and we
know how Westerners love their treasures. I also want to
express my appreciation for your allowing Andrea Malmberg, a
rancher from Union County, Oregon to testify on our River
Democracy Act and, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent
to enter into the record my remarks. I am going to keep it
brief this morning. Is that acceptable, Chair?
Senator King. Without objection.
Senator Wyden. Great. I am going to start by entering into
the record an October 2020 Grant County economic study,
coauthored by the city of John Day, which found that outdoor
recreation in and around the John Day Wild and Scenic River
generates over $11 million per year, and that is in a county
with just over 7,000 people. I also want to submit for the
record letters from three watershed councils--the Rogue, the
Molalla, and the Upper Deschutes--that support the River
Democracy Act and the restoration tools it provides.
[The Grant County economic study and the letters mentioned
by Senator Wyden follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman and my colleague, my home state
is 3,000 miles from Washington, DC, and I think, as Senator
Daines knows, for Westerners it often seems like we are even
further away. So I have, in my time in public service, always
tried to shorten that distance by throwing open the doors of
government. I have done that by holding almost 1,000 in-person
town meetings, scores more discussion sessions on Zoom and in
schools and other community centers, and I call it the ``Oregon
Way.'' The River Democracy Act is another such effort to listen
to the people of my home state in every nook and cranny of
Oregon. Oregonians love to discuss our rivers for their beauty,
for their cool, clear drinking water, for fishing and rafting,
for unmatched salmon and steelhead, and also because of the
huge boost to our recreation economy.
So what I have done with this legislation is, I have asked
Oregonians to give me their ideas and their best suggestions
for additional conservation efforts and additional
opportunities to protect our rivers. Mr. Chairman and Senator
Daines, I do not know of another such effort in the country to
go to the people in every part of my state and say, ``I am not
going to write this bill in Washington, DC. I am going to take
your ideas and suggestions when you give them to me,'' and I
can tell you, they sure did that. The response was
overwhelming. In a few months, my office received over 15,000
nominations for rivers and streams that Oregonians felt are
worthy of Wild and Scenic River designations, which produced a
bill that would protect nearly 4,700 miles of rivers and
streams.
So I say to my colleagues, both of whom I work with
constantly--talked to Senator King last night about healthcare.
Senator Daines and I put in a big privacy bill this week. So we
work together often. I consider this a fresh approach to
legislating because it is not me writing a bill in Washington,
DC and handing it over to my colleagues and then we talk about
it. This bill comes from the people of Oregon--the Oregon Way--
and the bill represents, for example, nominations from school
kids for Tumalo Creek for their science class at the Pacific
Crest Middle School in Bend, for Rough and Ready Creek from
river guides in Southern Oregon, and for the Umatilla River in
the Middle Fork of the John Day by the Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation. So this is what I thought the
future of natural resources policy ought to be about--
empowering people, particularly Westerners, who as Senator
Daines knows, treasure our natural resources and want to use
them for multiple purposes, to have a new opportunity to share
their views.
Now, in addition to protecting rivers and streams, I also
felt it was important to take unique steps to protect my
communities from the ravages of catastrophic wildfires, and I
think my colleagues from the West know how strongly I feel
about it, but I know all Westerners do, and you heard me ask
Vicki Christiansen about the prospect of something
unprecedented. I say to my friends from Montana and Utah, we
might have multiple fires this fire season across the West.
Normally, it is Oregon helping Montana and Montana helping Utah
and we all pitch in. This year we may have, Senator King, we
may have multiple big fires at the same time in the West, which
is why I asked Vicki Christiansen about it. So I thought that
this bill, in addition to protecting rivers and streams, this
legislation takes unique and extraordinary steps to protect our
communities from the ravages of catastrophic wildfires. And I
sure wish this bill had been in effect already because of the
fire season we are looking at.
Now, the way this bill does it is, it requires the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management to develop and
implement the Wildfire Risk Reduction Plan for every river and
corridor, and the bill ensures that thinning and carefully
implemented prescribed fires are going to turn these river
corridors into fire safety corridors. In addition, the
legislation establishes new ways for the Forest Service to work
with local fire response teams so that local crews can respond
immediately when a fire strikes. So those are the two key
provisions, colleagues, in the bill, but we Westerners know
that there are some other important issues that go into writing
a bill like that, and one of them is protecting private
property rights. So to do that, I state on page 16, line 7 of
the bill, that ``nothing in this act or an amendment shall
affect private property rights.'' Right there, page 16 in the
bill, private property respected. Same goes for water rights,
protected on page 17, line 1. So I want my colleagues--because
I think my friend from Montana said, ``well, you have been
getting some letters.'' I just want him to know, particularly,
about two of those issues--protection of private property and
water rights.
The last point I want to mention is that we know that
rivers are a very strong economic engine in Oregon, and
frankly, throughout the West. Outdoor recreation supports well
over 200,000 jobs statewide and generates more than $15 billion
in consumer spending each year. And so, as we add up all of
those benefits--the beauty, the drinking water, fishing and
rafting, this incredible salmon and steelhead that we are
gifted with, and the bonanza of the boost for our economy when
we need it--I think it really goes to the heart of what the
West really ought to be all about. Now colleagues, your states
may not want to do that, and I get that, and that is what we
love about the West, is that we are independent. We like trying
to carve our own path in policy and in governance. But this is,
in my view, what our late, great Governor of Oregon, Tom
McCall--a Republican, I might note--would really think about
when he talks about livability, about livability and proceeding
in a way where you protect four percent of those rivers--four
percent of those rivers as Wild and Scenic so that during our
short time on the earth, we can say we did something to ensure
Oregon's special places would be there for our children and our
grandchildren, and we got all the benefits today that
constitute sound policy. That is why I felt it was so important
to add those unprecedented protections--to make sure that we
have an added measure of safety against the prospect of
wildfire that we know well in the West.
Thank you. I thank both of my colleagues.
Senator Daines. Mr. Chairman.
Senator King. Yes, sir.
Senator Daines. I know we have to keep this moving forward.
Just a brief comment, Senator Wyden. The wildfire risk this
season, I think, is extraordinary. I was on a fire line Friday
outside of Red Lodge, Montana, where we already have a 30,000-
acre fire burning. The incident command center told me that the
moisture content in the forest, this moment now, in the middle
of June, is equivalent to usually what we see at the end of
August, and it was equivalent to what they saw in 1988, which
of course, were the catastrophic Yellowstone fires that burned
800,000 acres. So we are in for a huge challenge, I think, this
season, no doubt in the West, where usually we are sharing
resources between states. I think the entire West is going to
face challenges perhaps like we have not seen in quite some
time with wildfires.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, if I could just very briefly
add on, because Senator Daines and I are very much in agreement
on it. I want my colleague to know that when we get Vicki
Christiansen's memo about the prospect of multiple fires, big
fires, facing all of our communities around the West, I intend
to work very closely with my colleague, as we have so often.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator King. As an Easterner, I intend to work with you on
this issue as well.
[Laughter.]
Senator Daines. Send us some of your rain.
Senator King. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. I won't touch that line.
Senator Lee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
No one can deny that there are some real treasures that are
our public lands. Utahns know this well, and at the outset it
is easy to see why the Antiquities Act would seem like a good
means of protecting those treasures. Unfortunately, what was
once a relatively narrowly targeted tool now poses a looming
danger to our rural communities in Utah. In 1996, President
Bill Clinton used the Antiquities Act to create a 1.7-million-
acre monument in southern Utah. Then, in 2016, in the last few
weeks of his presidency, President Barack Obama created the
1.3-million-acre Bears Ears National Monument. So this is over
three million acres of my home state that were locked up and
heavily restricted within a roughly 20-year timeframe--more
than two Delawares of land put into this designation.
For locals, this protection of these lands has come at a
really high cost in the form of restrictions on travel,
recreation, and economic opportunities. Activists have
suggested that Utah's rural communities embrace the tourist
economy that tends to come, so they say, with monument
designations. Now, while tourism has certainly contributed much
to rural western economies, including that of my own state,
communities cannot survive on tourism alone, especially when
all other industry can be thwarted by those same things.
I introduced the ``Protect Utah's Rural Economy'', or PURE
Act, to protect Utah from future abuses under the Antiquities
Act by prohibiting the President from establishing or expanding
a national monument in Utah unless the proposed monument has
been authorized by an act of Congress and the state
legislature. Congress has twice granted similar protections to
other states. Congress first prohibited future monument
designations in the State of Wyoming in 1950. Then, more than
30 years later, Congress passed another law requiring
Congressional approval for any monument designation in Alaska
larger than 5,000 acres. At a bare minimum, Utahns deserve the
same protections from the Antiquities Act that the people of
Alaska and of Wyoming enjoy.
Additionally in this hearing, we will examine two of my
proposals related to roads in national parks. The National Park
Service regulations currently state, ``Unless specifically
addressed by regulations in this chapter, traffic and the use
of vehicles within a park area are governed by state law.''
Unfortunately, spotty application of the regulation has led to
inconsistent visitor experiences. While the Grand Canyon, Grand
Teton, and Yellowstone National Parks defer to state law, some
park units, including units in Utah, have banned certain motor
vehicles from park roads when they are allowed elsewhere in the
state under state law. To be clear, this would not allow off-
roading in national parks, nothing of the sort. It would simply
ensure that vehicles authorized by a state to operate on roads
within that state could operate on roads within that state's
national parks.
Finally, I would like to take a moment to speak in support
of S. 535, the Global War on Terrorism Memorial Location Act.
This bill would create a Global War on Terror Memorial on the
National Mall at no cost to taxpayers. Thousands of men and
women have volunteered to defend our nation in the wake of the
attacks on September 11th, 2001. Nearly 20 years later, our
service members are still answering the call of duty despite
uncertainty of when these enduring wars will finally come to an
end. While a parcel of federal land will need to be designated
to serve as the area for the memorial, in my view, the use of
federal land for this purpose is appropriate and within the
precedents set of memorializing the sacrifices of our fallen
servicemen and women using the land of our National Mall. The
creation of the Global War on Terrorism memorial will honor the
courage and commitment of our military members and their
families, and will serve as a cautionary reminder of the human
cost of endless wars for future generations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator King. Thank you, Senator Lee.
On that note, we will turn to our next two witnesses. We
are going to hear from two of our colleagues about the Global
War on Terrorism Memorial Location bill. I look forward to
hearing about this. We have Senator Joni Ernst and my friend
and Congressman from Maine, Jared Golden--two brave veterans
who have served our country in uniform and here in the halls of
Congress. Thank you both for your service.
Senator Ernst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JONI ERNST,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Chairman King and Ranking Member
Daines and thank you as well, Senator Lee, for your words of
support and for allowing me to speak at this hearing. I am
honored to be here as an advocate for such an important piece
of legislation.
I ask for your consideration in support of my bipartisan
effort to build a new memorial on the National Mall in
Washington, DC, to honor the troops who have served during the
Global War on Terror. As the first female combat veteran to
serve in the U.S. Senate, and as someone who has had her boots
in the sand in Iraq and Kuwait, I know firsthand the sacrifices
the millions of brave men and women of our armed forces made in
defense of our nation and our freedom. We are approaching two
decades after the attacks on September 11th. This direct
assault on our nation sparked the Global War on Terrorism, a
war that came at great personal cost to our men and women
serving in the armed forces. This war changed
the course of American history and the lives of millions of
service members, military families, first responders, and civil
servants, including my own.
The Global War on Terrorism is the longest running conflict
in United States history. Our country should forever remember
the sacrifices of these Americans who answered the call to wear
our nation's uniform. Given the significance and magnitude of
this sacrifice involved in operations in that conflict, it is
appropriate to locate the National Global War on Terrorism
Memorial alongside existing memorials to the major armed
conflicts of the United States. That is why I sit before you
today to ask that you honor our veterans by supporting my
legislation, the Global War on Terrorism Memorial Location Act,
to authorize the construction of this memorial on the Reserve.
While nothing will ever restore the lives that we have lost,
this memorial would serve as a tribute to the brave men and
women and their loved ones who have sacrificed in defense of
our freedom. It will serve as a place of gathering with fellow
brothers and sisters in arms, one post-9/11 veterans can call
their own.
It will serve as a commitment to the mothers and fathers
who lost their whole world--a child--that this country is
forever grateful and in their debt. It will serve as a place of
healing for thousands of Global War on Terror veterans
currently facing injuries of their own--those that are seen and
those that are unseen. Memorials have the power to heal and
unite, and mean so many different things to different people
through the form of art and permanent remembrance. For more
than 20 years, I had the privilege of serving my state and
country in uniform while working alongside some of our nation's
finest soldiers. Like many others, I have raised my right hand
and taken this oath voluntarily and without reservation, fully
knowing that this is a conflict that is ongoing and a force
that is the smallest this country has ever had in respect to
our other wars. That is why the effort to build a Global War on
Terrorism Memorial is a personal one, not just to me, but to
every service member, veteran, surviving family member, and
civilian who was impacted by this fight.
For the thousands of Americans who perished protecting our
freedom, and the many others who were wounded or fought in the
Global War on Terrorism, this memorial will forever honor their
sacrifice to our great country. By locating the Global War on
Terrorism Memorial alongside those honoring veterans of earlier
conflicts, we are showing the men and women who have served in
our nation's longest ongoing conflict that their sacrifice is
equally valued. It will provide the veterans of this war an
opportunity to visit the tribute to their selfless service and
will provide a permanent place of reflection, of empowerment,
and of healing in the heart of our nation's capital. We in
Congress play a vital role in honoring our veterans and their
heroic actions, and memorials such as this one are an important
step to effectively recognize our veterans.
I again ask the members of this Subcommittee to support my
mission to build a memorial to empower those who have answered
the call to serve in the Global War on Terror, who for so long
protected us while we enjoyed the freedoms that we still have
to this day. We have the opportunity as a nation to unite
around a common cause--the simple act of honoring the
sacrifices of all who have served, through a national Global
War on Terrorism Memorial. Its placement on the Reserve is
undoubtedly deserving. I would like to close by thanking my
partners in this effort, Senator Hassan, who joined me in
introducing this legislation. I also want to thank the
Honorable Jared Golden, colleague of Senator King in Maine, for
joining to speak today, and the members of this Subcommittee,
who are taking the time to consider this legislation. May God
bless our beautiful country. May God bless our troops and their
families.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator King. Senator Ernst, thank you for your moving
statement today, but more especially for the service that you
have rendered to this country. Thank you.
Our next witness is Representative Jared Golden,
Congressman from Maine's second district, friend and colleague
of Senator Collins and myself.
Congressman Golden, welcome to the Subcommittee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JARED F. GOLDEN,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MAINE
Mr. Golden. Thank you, Senator.
I want to first begin by saying that the passion and
emotion that the Senator has put into her testimony, I believe
to be representative of the same passion and emotions of many
millions of veterans, families, and Gold Star Families across
this country, and I want to thank her on behalf of all of them
for bringing forward this legislation to your Committee.
Chairman King, Ranking Member Daines, and distinguished
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss an issue of great importance--a Global War on Terrorism
Memorial on the National Mall in recognition of the 2.7 million
Americans who have taken part in that mission since 9/11, and
more importantly, to honor the more than 7,000 who have given
their lives in service to this country. This memorial will
provide veterans and their families, especially Gold Star
Families, a place in our capital for reflection and healing. In
2017, President Trump signed the bipartisan Global War on
Terrorism War Memorial Act, authorizing the creation of a
Global War on Terrorism Memorial and the foundation to oversee
funding and construction of the project. I am here today on
behalf of the For Country Caucus, a bipartisan House caucus to
express strong support for the final step necessary to
authorize the construction of this memorial on the National
Mall--S. 535, the Global War on Terrorism Memorial Location Act
and its companion in the House, H.R. 1115, introduced by
Representatives Jason Crow and Mike Gallagher.
I am fortunate to serve as the co-chair of the For Country
Caucus, a team of veterans committed to working together in a
non-partisan way to create a more productive government. Each
of our 25 members served honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces,
with the majority serving after the September 11th attacks,
including several of us who have fought in both Iraq and
Afghanistan. Representatives Crow and Gallagher are members of
our Caucus, and we deeply appreciate their leadership on this
legislation as do veterans across the country. The remaining
question before Congress is not whether we should construct a
memorial, but when and where to build it. We believe the answer
is now and on the Reserve within the National Mall. We should
follow the example set 40 years ago when Congress honored our
Vietnam Veterans with a memorial on the Reserve less than two
decades after the beginning of that conflict, when President
Carter signed it into law on July 1, 1980.
The nation has witnessed the power of the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial to bring together veterans of that war, their
families, and fellow Americans to heal together in honor of the
fallen. We have a chance to do the same for our Global War on
Terrorism veterans before this 20th anniversary of 9/11. The
Global War on Terrorism is the only major military conflict in
American history fought by an all-volunteer force. It is also
the longest military conflict in our history, which means the
personal impact of this war is multi-generational. Indeed, it
is not uncommon for families to have had both a parent and a
child serve deployments in this conflict.
As our soldiers return from Afghanistan in the months
ahead, now is the time to send a clear message that this nation
will fully honor those who served in the Global War on
Terrorism and that we will never forget the many sacrifices
that have been made. I understand you will receive testimony
that the Reserve is complete. You and I both know that no
Congress can tie the hands of a future Congress, but more
importantly, how could it be complete when the history of our
nation is not. Others may argue the conflict is not significant
enough to warrant a memorial. I have heard it said. In my
opinion, after 9/11, 20 years of combat, tens of thousands
wounded, and more than 7,000 killed in service, such a
statement rings truly hollow in the ears of those who willingly
carried the burden of our nation's security. Others may offer
concerns about real estate or the cost to build it or maintain
it. I only ask that you consider that if the many veterans that
have sacrificed in this conflict--especially those who
sacrificed their lives or their families--could testify before
you about the value of this memorial or about its significance
for not only themselves, but also for the country, such
concerns would appear trivial at best. For us, this is a truly,
deeply personal matter.
I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you
today and I offer the assistance of our caucus of veterans in
the House to secure the passage of this bill into law. Thank
you for this opportunity to join you today.
Senator King. Congressman Golden, thank you so much. You
are a veteran of Afghanistan, I know, and Senator Ernst, and I
don't think you mentioned--you raised your hand and
volunteered. When people do that, they are literally putting
their lives on the line. They are saying ``I am willing to
sacrifice my life for my country'' and the proposal you are
making today clearly aligns with that supreme sacrifice that
7,000 made in this war.
I want to thank you for joining us here today and for your
powerful testimony. Thank you.
We will now have--I think we need to change the table--and
we will have additional witnesses.
Congressman Golden, the House is sort of over that way.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Golden. I always enjoy getting my fair share of a hard
time from you, Senator King. Thank you so much.
Senator Wyden. We call them ``King-isms.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Golden. Well said. Thank you.
Senator King. Thank you.
I will introduce our following witnesses.
Michael Caldwell is the Acting Associate Director for Park
Planning, Facilities, and Lands at the National Park Service.
Jennifer Eberlien is the Associate Deputy Chief of the
National Forest System at the Forest Service. Ms. Eberlien
previously served as the Deputy Regional Forester for the
Pacific Southwest Region and has more than 20 years of
experience at the Forest Service at the Bureau of Land
Management.
Jennifer Hunter is a Mainer and a Study Coordinator for the
York Wild and Scenic River Study Committee. Jennifer has worked
with the Study Committee for the past five and a half years.
And Andrea Malmberg is a rancher from Union County, Oregon.
She and her husband have run a direct-to-consumer grass-fed
beef and lamb business for more than 20 years, and she also
works as a rangeland consultant.
Mr. Caldwell, your testimony, please.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. CALDWELL, ACTING ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; WITH MARK LAMBRECHT,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONSERVATION LANDS AND COMMUNITY
PARTNERSHIPS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Caldwell. Chairman King, Ranking Member Daines, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
present the Department of the Interior's views on the 15 bills
on today's agenda. I would like to submit our full statements
for the record and summarize the Department's views. I am
joined today remotely by Mark Lambrecht, Assistant Director,
National Conservation Lands and Community Partnerships, Bureau
of Land Management, who will be available to answer any BLM-
related questions about S. 192, the River Democracy Act.
S. 31 would bar the use of the Antiquities Act to extend or
establish new national monuments in Utah unless authorized by
Congress and the state legislature. The Department strongly
opposes this bill, as it would eliminate a critical tool
available to protect objects of historic or scientific
interest.
S. 172 would authorize the National Medal of Honor Museum
Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of
Columbia. The Department supports this bill.
S. 192 would designate certain river segments in the State
of Oregon as components of the National Wild and Scenic River
System, including approximately 800 miles of rivers managed by
the Bureau of Land Management. The Department supports this
bill.
S. 270 would expand the Brown v. Board of Education
National Historic Site. The Department supports broadening
public understanding of the events that led to this landmark
U.S. Supreme Court decision and we recommend amendments to the
bill.
S. 491 would designate segments of the York River in Maine
as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System. The
initial review indicates that the segments may be eligible for
inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System, but
we respectfully recommend that the Committee defer action on S.
491 until the final report is issued, which we anticipate will
occur in the near future.
S. 535 would authorize the Global War on Terrorism Memorial
to be located in the area known as the Reserve, the area that
encompasses the National Mall. We understand the desire to
build this memorial in a specific location. However, the
Department does not support this bill.
S. 753 would reauthorize the Highlands Conservation Act, a
grant program managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service to
protect natural resources in four northeastern states. The
Department supports this bill.
S. 1317 would transfer 97 acres of land administered by the
U.S. Forest Service to Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument.
The Department supports this bill.
S. 1320 would redesignate the Chiricahua National Monument
as Chiricahua National Park. The Department supports this bill.
S. 1321 would authorize the addition of 406 acres of land
to Casa Grande Ruins National Monument and transfer
administration of some lands among departmental bureaus. The
Department supports this bill.
S. 1354 would designate the Chilkoot as a National Historic
Trail and provide for a study of the Alaska Long Trail. The
Department supports the designation for the Chilkoot and
supports, with an amendment, the study of the Alaska Long
Trail.
S. 1526 would authorize the use of off-highway vehicles in
certain areas of Capitol Reef National Park. The Department
strongly opposes this bill, as this legislation would likely
result in damage to sensitive natural resources.
S. 1527 would require that state law apply to the use of
motor vehicles on roads within the National Park system. The
Department strongly opposes this bill, as it would undermine
the National Park Service's ability to protect visitors and
park resources.
S. 1769 would adjust the boundary of Santa Monica Mountain
National Recreation Area to include lands in the Rim of the
Valley Corridor. The Department supports this bill but would
like to revisit the proposed boundary with the bill's sponsor
and the Committee.
S. 1771 would authorize reference to the museum located in
Blytheville, Arkansas as the National Cold War Center. The
Department defers to the Department of Defense for a position
on this bill.
We would be happy to work with the Committee on all the
bills where we have recommended amendments.
Chairman King, this concludes my statement. Assistant
Director Lambrecht and I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Caldwell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Caldwell. We will move on to
the other witnesses, then we will do questioning of each
witness.
Our next witness is Jennifer Eberlien of the National
Forest System at the Forest Service.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JENNIFER EBERLIEN, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF,
NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Eberlien. Good morning, Chairman King, Ranking Member
Daines, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to present the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
views on S. 192, the River Democracy Act of 2021 and S. 1317,
the Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Boundary Adjustment
Act.
Our national forests and grasslands offer some of the most
readily available and valuable outdoor recreation settings in
the country. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans turned to
their public lands for respite and relaxation in greater
numbers than at any other time in recent history. The number of
recreation visits to the National Forest System rose to over
168 million in 2020, an increase of over 12 percent compared to
2019. In addition to accessing a wide array of land-based
recreational activities, others found restorative water-based
experiences through enjoyment of rivers and streams, including
designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act protects more than 13,400 miles of rivers and streams in
the United States for the benefit and enjoyment of present and
future generations. Designation as a Wild and Scenic River is
our nation's strongest form of protection for free-flowing
rivers and streams, many of which serve as important drinking
water sources for communities. They have outstandingly
remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife,
historic, cultural, or other similar values that led Congress
to add these waterways to the National Wild and Scenic River
System.
The River Democracy Act of 2021 under consideration today
would significantly expand the amount of river miles included
in this national system in the State of Oregon. Just as the
pandemic significantly increased visitation to the National
Forests and our Wild and Scenic Rivers, I am quite certain
Sunset Crater in Arizona experienced significant visitation
over the last year too.
S. 1317, the Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Boundary
Adjustment Act, will ensure the National Park Service can
seamlessly administer that recreational opportunity. The
boundary adjustment will help both federal agencies going
forward. I look forward to discussing how we can support these
bills to ensure the public can continue to turn to these valued
federal assets.
The Forest Service supports Wild and Scenic Rivers
designations in alignment with a variety of factors, including
ensuring any new designations are properly integrated into the
National Wild and Scenic River System with enough time to
develop comprehensive river management plans and to establish
detailed boundaries in cooperation with tribes, state and local
governments, and interested public stakeholders. We would
welcome the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee and bill
sponsors to clarify several aspects of S. 192, the River
Democracy of 2021 Act, including the intent associated with the
requirements for developing fire management plans and
culturally significant native species management plans and
explore options for achieving intended outcomes. S. 192 would
designate an estimated 3,000-plus miles that flow through
National Forest System lands. We defer to the Department of the
Interior on portions of the bill pertaining to that Department.
As a former resident of Flagstaff, Arizona, I made numerous
visits to the Sunset Crater, and I can actually see the
location of the proposed boundary adjustment. This boundary
adjustment, as proposed in S. 1317, the Sunset Crater Volcano
National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act, is one the Forest
Service supports and has previously testified in support of.
The adjustment includes approximately 98 acres of identified
National Forest System land immediately adjacent to the
monument. The bill transfers administrative jurisdiction over
the land from the Forest Service to the National Park Service.
Historically, the Forest Service and National Park Service
coordinated through an interagency agreement where any ground-
disturbing activity in the administrative area requires prior
approval by the Forest Service. The proposed boundary
adjustment would eliminate this requirement, thus removing a
significant compliance burden for both agencies. The adjustment
will allow better management of natural resources and
topographic features that pertain to the monument, provide
clear jurisdiction to better serve the public, and provide a
stronger basis for cooperation between the two agencies.
In conclusion, our outdoor recreation provides millions of
Americans rich opportunities to connect with our lands and Wild
and Scenic Rivers. The Forest Service is honored to serve this
vital link and appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony
on these two bills. I am happy to answer any questions you may
have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Eberlien follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator King. Thank you, Ms. Eberlien, for your testimony.
And now, Jennifer Hunter, who was a study coordinator for
the York River Wild and Scenic Study Committee.
Ms. Hunter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JENNIFER HUNTER,
COORDINATOR, YORK RIVER WILD AND SCENIC STUDY
Ms. Hunter. Thank you, Chairman King, Ranking Member
Daines, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Jennifer Hunter
from York, Maine. I have been coordinator for the York River
Wild and Scenic Study for the last five and a half years. York
River is a coastal river in Southern Maine with watershed lands
in Eliot, Kittery, South Berwick, and York. I am speaking on
behalf of the York River Wild and Scenic Study Committee in
support of Senate bill 491, which aims to designate 30.8 miles
of the York River and its major tributaries into the National
Wild and Scenic River System. Our local Wild and Scenic River
study was authorized by Congress in December 2014 and conducted
over a three-year period. With expert input and community
engagement throughout the process, our study committee
evaluated York River's eligibility and suitability for a Wild
and Scenic River designation using the ``Partnership'' model,
typical for rivers that flow through non-federal lands. Of the
226 rivers in the National Wild and Scenic River System, 16 are
Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Our study confirmed that York River is an excellent
candidate for designation. The river miles proposed for
designation are free-flowing with good water quality. There is
no shortage of river-
related, outstandingly remarkable values that serve as the
basis for designation. Our relatively small coastal watershed
has over 100 documented archeological sites, including Native
American sites dating back thousands of years and early
colonial sites, such as the first tidal mill dam in the English
colonies, built in 1634. The 1,700-acre area surrounding York
Harbor and the lower York River is a National Register Historic
District. There are eight individual sites listed in the
National Register of Historic Places. Sewall's bridge, which
was America's first wooden-pile drawbridge and is now a
national engineering landmark, spans the river. There is an
active, working waterfront that is important to our economy and
community's character. The watershed supplies clean drinking
water to residents and to the Portsmouth Naval shipyard. State
and regional assessments characterized the York River system as
exemplary for its ecological significance, water quality,
watershed resilience, and healthy salt-marsh habitats. It is
one of the most biodiverse areas in Maine and is home to more
endangered and threatened species than any other area in the
state.
Clearly, we have a special river ecosystem. However, there
are threats. The York River watershed is a fast-growing area
with concerns of overuse and development impacts potentially
affecting water quality and natural habitats. As a coastal
watershed, it is subject to rising seas, warmer water and air
temperatures, and more intense storms. Proactive stewardship is
needed now more than ever to preserve the river for current and
future generations. A culminating product of our study was
development of the York River Watershed Stewardship Plan that
can help guide long-term river resource preservation. For our
study, we also made sure that designation and inclusion in the
national program is a good fit for the river and our
communities. We concluded that it is. Designation will provide
technical assistance, financial support, and a four-community
coalition to discuss river stewardship issues and take action
based on local priorities and needs.
The Partnership model for designation maintains local
control of land use and river management. A Partnership Wild
and Scenic River designation will bolster community-led river
stewardship efforts and enable sustained actions to preserve
York River. There is widespread local support for Partnership
Wild and Scenic River designation. In late 2018, voters in
Eliot and York and town councils in Kittery and South Berwick
overwhelmingly approved more articles and resolutions to
designate York River and approve the York River Watershed
Stewardship Plan. Over two dozen community groups wrote letters
endorsing river designation. Our Wild and Scenic River study
process, which began 12 years ago, demonstrated a commitment to
river stewardship among our four towns, conservation
organizations, civic groups, landowners, river users, local and
state agencies, and the National Park Service. We look forward
to York River becoming a Partnership river in our National Wild
and Scenic River System so that we can continue our cooperative
efforts.
I thank you for your interest and your support.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hunter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator King. Thank you for your testimony.
We will now hear from Andrea Malmberg from Union County,
Oregon.
Ms. Malmberg, welcome.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly and I
won't--Senator Daines, I won't take the Finance Committee
tradition of long introductions, but we especially appreciate
Ms. Malmberg being up early at home. She ranches cattle in
Union, Oregon and we are thrilled to have her.
OPENING STATEMENT OF ANDREA MALMBERG,
UNION, OREGON
Ms. Malmberg. Thank you, Chairman King, Ranking Member
Daines, and Subcommittee members. Again, my name is Andrea
Malmberg and I am a rancher in Union, Oregon. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you about an important bill before
you, the River Democracy Act of 2021.
I was raised and have lived on the land with livestock my
whole life. First, as a daughter of a cattle buyer in Montana
and South Dakota and, as an adult, a ranch owner and land
steward in Wyoming and now in Oregon. I hold degrees in
agriculture and natural resources from Washington State
University. Seeing the need to bring the tools of human
flourishing to rural communities, I received a master's in
applied positive psychology from the University of Pennsylvania
and have been sharing ways for people in agriculture,
primarily, to enhance their well-being. My husband and I are
long-time members of the Farm Bureau, the Wyoming Stock
Growers, and the Oregon Cattlemen's Association. In 1998, we
were honored to receive the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association Environmental Stewardship Award. We have
demonstrated that ecological health and profitable livestock
production is not a zero-sum game. The land bases we have
influenced have empirical data to prove up. True and enduring
profitability can be realized when we regenerate land and water
resources.
I am specifically speaking to you today as a citizen of
Union County, Oregon. For those of you who aren't familiar with
this beautiful place, we have just under 27,000 residents and
likely have more livestock than people. For context, my county
is twice the size of Rhode Island and larger than Delaware. It
is about half privately owned, divided between forest,
rangeland, and irrigated pasture, and crops. The other half is
primarily national forest. Many of the streams in Union County
still have salmon, steelhead, or bull trout populations, and
while some wildlife is abundant, much of our biodiversity is
declining. This is a clear connection between ecological
degeneration on both private and public lands and the lack of
vitality to our economies in our region.
I think that the River Democracy Act of 2021 gives us a leg
up to build resiliency in the natural resources in which we all
depend. My business relies on water that flows from our
national forest lands for my livestock and livelihood. I
produce forage by utilizing the water from Catherine Creek and
Little Creek, tributaries of the larger Grande Ronde River.
These smaller streams are critical for my ranching business and
essential to the health of the Grande Ronde River Watershed,
its wildlife, fisheries, and economies. Moreover, my hometown
of Union's water quality infrastructure and economy depend on
what happens upstream, whether the waterway is on private or
federal lands. We all rely on the flows from the headwaters. If
we continue neglecting our flood plain's health, fires and
flooding will further erode infrastructure and threaten our
livelihoods. Windblown trees and ice jams are already
threatening the city of Union due to channelization and
outdated infrastructure that disconnects rivers from their
flood plains. Imagine what would happen if a fire overtook our
forestlands leaving little bare ground cover to slow snowpack
melting.
Fire has always been a natural force and a land management
tool used by people for millennia, but we are in a new era. Now
we are faced with massive wildfires having a severe impact on
forests, clean water, and our communities. With the fire
management tools offered in the Act, we are less likely to see
huge amounts of sediment choking creeks, flooding our private
properties, and silting irrigation systems. The more we can
appreciate the value of and our dependence on the health of the
network of streams and rivers in my corner of the state, the
better off we will all be.
That is why when Senators Wyden and Merkley announced a
public process to consider conservation of rivers on public
lands in Oregon, I really was excited. As someone who has been
a professional, locally based consensus-building facilitator on
thorny natural resource issues, it is highly unusual for
politicians to ask you what they think before they do
something. Their willingness to listen to Oregonians continues
even now that the bill has been introduced. This is how
democracy is supposed to work, and I am proud to say that it is
the Oregon Way. I strongly support the balanced approach that
Senators Wyden and Merkley have employed through the
development of the River Democracy Act. Through this bill we
have an opportunity to build resilience downstream by restoring
the waterways upstream, protecting and enhancing the value of
private property and water rights along the way.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Malmberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator King. Thank you very much for your testimony. Now
we will have questions of the witnesses with a five-minute
round from the panel.
Ms. Hunter, first question for you. You heard Senator
Daines at the beginning talk about the importance of local
support for these kinds of designations and you mentioned this
in your testimony, but could you elaborate a bit on the
outreach that was done along the river in terms of both the
communities and private landowners on the York River?
Ms. Hunter. Yes, thank you, I would be happy to. That was a
goal of the York River Study Committee--to engage the community
throughout this process. We held over 60 public meetings
throughout our process. We held a number of watershed events,
including watershed walks along the river so we could discuss
different river resources. We attended any public event we were
able to, including local fairs, festivals, and meetings of the
Rotary and other civic groups. We had several mailings that
went to all the river landowners to inform them of upcoming
meetings and our activities. We had several projects that were
conducted in the field and we invited citizen scientists to
take part in those projects so that they could understand the
resources and provide feedback to us in what was valuable to
them.
Senator King. As I understand it, there were several
referenda in two of the towns that were overwhelmingly
positive. Is that correct?
Ms. Hunter. That is correct. Part of the demonstration of
suitability for a Partnership designation includes town votes
to endorse designation as well as accept our locally developed
stewardship plan. The towns of York and Eliot had warrant
articles on the ballot in November 2018 and the Towns of
Kittery and South Berwick had council votes on a resolution.
And in the towns of York and Eliot, the measures were
overwhelmingly approved by voters, by 63 percent in one town
and 73 percent in another town. In the case of the council
votes, they were all unanimous in support of designation.
Senator King. Thank you.
Mr. Caldwell, you testified that the Department is
withholding its endorsement of this bill pending the final
report. I would point out that what we thought was the final
report was submitted in March 2020, 14 months ago. Eisenhower
retook Europe in 11 months. Define ``near future.'' You
testified we would get the final report in the near future.
Mr. Caldwell. Senator King, thank you very much and I
certainly want to compliment the local interest of the York
River study and the work of partners like Ms. Hunter. It's what
makes a difference all across the country.
The Department is in its final stages of review. We expect
departmental action very quickly--imminently--and we are
certainly monitoring its progress through the review process.
Senator King. Well, this Committee will be considering
these bills in the immediate future in terms of the markup. So
I would hope that the Department--you said ``near future,''
``imminently,'' and ``quickly''--so I hope we are measuring
that in weeks and not months. I urge you to get this material
to us because we want to have the input of the Department when
we act on this bill.
Ms. Caldwell. Yes sir. Thank you, sir.
Senator King. Thank you.
The Global War on Terrorism Memorial--you heard the moving
testimony of the two witnesses earlier, and the issue seems not
to be whether there should be a memorial, but whether it should
be on the Mall. Could you expand upon the policy decision in
terms of future memorials on the Mall and give us some
rationale for that decision?
Mr. Caldwell. Yes, Senator, and certainly the Department of
the Interior supports veterans of all wars and this certainly
isn't about the act of remembrance. It is about that S. 535
would allow the Global War on Terrorism Memorial to be located
in the area identified as the Reserve, under the Commemorative
Works Act of 1986. Congress amended that act in 2003,
establishing the Reserve and declaring it a complete work of
civic art where the siting of new commemorative work is
prohibited.
So since the establishment of the Reserve, no new memorials
have been placed on the National Mall--only improvements to
existing memorials, such as plaques, have been granted.
Senator King. So this was a Congressional decision, and as
Congressman Golden testified, Congress could change that
designation if they chose. Is the the concern that the Mall is
getting crowded? Is that what the issue is?
Mr. Caldwell. I think after--in terms of the Congressional
action in 2003--after receiving several requests for the
placement of memorials on the National Mall at that time,
Congress recognized the need to preserve the L'Enfant Plan, the
McMillan Plan of the National Mall for the capital city and
prevent the Mall area from being overbuilt. So it addressed
this need by creating a new Reserve area, or a ``no-build
zone'' on the National Mall. And in 2003, Congress amended the
Commemorative Works Act to prohibit the establishment of new
memorials in the Reserve.
Senator King. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Caldwell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator King. Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr.
Chairman, my office has received a number of support and
opposition letters on the some 15 bills on today's agenda and I
ask unanimous consent they be included in the record.
Senator King. Without objection.
[The letters referred to follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Daines. Mr. Caldwell, it is my understanding that
Senate bill 1771, recognizing the National Cold War Center,
does not require any new Congressionally authorized funds to
implement. Is that correct?
Mr. Caldwell. Yes, we are deferring to the Department of
Defense on position on the Cold War Center.
Senator Daines. But there are no Congressionally authorized
funds.
Mr. Caldwell. As we understand that, that is correct, sir.
Senator Daines. Okay, great. Thank you.
What is unique about this museum?
Mr. Caldwell. Well, once again, I would defer to the
Department of Defense in terms of the uniqueness of this
particular museum. Certainly, the National Park Service, at a
number of sites, interprets the important history of the Cold
War across the country and we certainly cooperate with
different museums and institutions such as may be proposed
here.
Senator Daines. Mr. Caldwell, another question. We have two
bills on the agenda that would establish a commemorative work
in DC. Our existing commemorative works, like the Lincoln
Memorial, the Washington Monument, and our Vietnam, Korea,
World War II, and World War I memorials help honor and tell the
story of America. Could you briefly describe the process that
Senate bill 172 and Senate bill 535 will have to follow if they
are signed into law?
Mr. Caldwell. Yes, Senator. The Medal of Honor Memorial,
once authorized, the National Park Service guides the memorial
sponsor through site location, design, and construction
process. The Commission on Fine Arts and the National Capital
Planning Commission must review and approve the site and the
design selection. So the National Park Service would be happy
to discuss the specific elements of this process of the site
selection and the design approval with you or members of the
Committee.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Caldwell.
Before I turn to Ms. Eberlien, I want to commend you. I am
getting good feedback from our park superintendents about the
work you are doing to implement the Great American Outdoors
Act, which I know we are very grateful that we had that
bipartisan--one of the greatest conservation achievements in 50
years passed last year. Thank you for your help in moving that
forward.
Mr. Caldwell. Thank you for your support, sir.
Senator Daines. Ms. Eberlien, as we noted, Senate bill 192
would designate about 4,700 miles of new Wild and Scenic Rivers
in Oregon. Could you briefly describe the local support as well
as the opposition you have heard related to the bill?
Ms. Eberlien. Thank you for the question, Senator. As with
any type of proposed designation such as this, there are
interests on all sides of the issue.
Senator Daines. Are all the rivers proposed in the bill
located completely in Oregon or do any border or enter into
another state?
Ms. Eberlien. The majority of the designations are in
Oregon with a small portion of some of the proposed rivers
stretching into northern California and northern Nevada.
Senator Daines. Okay, thank you. And I have not yet seen a
map. Do you know when the Forest Service will provide this
Committee with an accurate map?
Ms. Eberlien. We would be happy to work with the
Subcommittee and the bill's sponsors to provide a map as a
follow-up to this.
Senator Daines. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Back to you.
Senator King. Thank you.
Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to thank my constituent, Ms. Malmberg, for
getting up early at home. She is a rancher who grew up in the
West. She has won awards from the National Cattlemen. Her
county is more than 50 percent in public ownership and,
colleagues, she felt and stated specifically that there was a
fulsome opportunity--a complete opportunity for people to weigh
in and that people continue to have that chance to weigh in
with their views on the River Democracy Act and I just want to
say thanks, Ms. Malmberg, for that to get us started because
throwing open the doors of government, in my view, is a prime
responsibility for a western Senator and I thank you for your
gracious comments.
My question to you, particularly with your ranching
background, is to get your thoughts on the record with respect
to the bill and ensuring that it takes the appropriate steps to
reduce wildfire risk, protect private property, and ensure
access to grazing. Can you just touch on those--wildfire risk,
protecting private property, access to grazing?
Ms. Malmberg. Yes, thank you, Senator.
I think that what is most important is, as we saw last year
in Oregon and throughout the West, you know, catastrophic fires
and really feeling, I believe, that we were not prepared. I am
a livestock advocate and I know that livestock can do wonderful
things for managing the understory of our forests and our
grasslands, and so I really believe that, hand-in-hand, we have
livestock production that's happening on our national forest
through permits, that we could actually use the ranchers and
the permits to really create a comprehensive river management
plan and really assess and look at what we can do to stop the
catastrophic events of fire that we have seen in the West.
Senator Wyden. And the private property protection language
and the grazing protection language, in your view, is adequate
as well?
Ms. Malmberg. Yes, I do believe so. And you know, so my
irrigation water, even though I am obviously on private land,
comes from upstream, and so being able to ensure that the
headwaters of Catherine Creek and Little Creek will continue
to--I have adequate water for irrigating. And so I feel like
being able to protect those headwaters really is protecting my
private water rights.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Ms. Eberlien, thank you for your comments, and I want to
make clear the Agency's position with respect to how we are
dealing with wildfire--and writing the River Democracy Act, we
wanted to make sure that land conservation efforts do not
hinder the ability of public lands managers to respond to
wildfires. In your view, does this give agencies the sufficient
flexibility to mitigate fire risk, respond to wildfires, and
help restore watersheds and infrastructure should a fire
strike?
Ms. Eberlien. Thank you, Senator.
The proposed bill takes into account management needs for
preparing for and responding to wildfire and the fire
restoration needs post-fire.
Senator Wyden. And so it gives you the flexibility that is
key for an agency, is that correct? I understand that you all
feel that the flexibility is there for you all to carry out
your important responsibilities.
Ms. Eberlien. Yes, it does.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
So the final question I have, now that we have established
that the bill gives you the flexibility to deal with fire risk
is--we have been working with cattle and ranching families
across Oregon who want to make sure that grazing is compatible
with Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. Can you walk us
through so we can make sure that the Wild and Scenic River
designations give land managers the flexibility to work with
ranchers to keep livestock in a Wild and Scenic River corridor?
Ms. Eberlien. Yes, thank you, Senator.
The grazing is allowed in Wild and Scenic River corridors.
There is flexibility to work with ranchers and permit holders
to keep their cattle on the landscape as well as meet the
values of the Wild and Scenic River designations.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
My time is expired. I just want to say to colleagues that I
am particularly appreciative of both of our witnesses--Ms.
Malmberg, more than 3,000 miles away, has described how the
River Democracy Act works for her and her community in a very
forthright way, and Ms. Eberlien, I particularly appreciate
your outlining your views that the proposed law gives the
agencies the flexibility to mitigate fire risks and also
protect grazing.
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent
to enter letters from Oregonians into the record. Now,
colleagues--and I will make this very short--the number of
supportive letters for the River Democracy Act far outnumbers
the letters from those opposed, but I would like to note that
all the letters that I am entering into the record are from
Oregonians who deserve to have their views heard and
considered. That is what the Oregon Way is all about, and I
want to make sure that the letters citing concerns as well as
those that are supportive be entered into the record as well
this morning.
Senator King. Without objection.
[Letters regarding S. 192 follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[* The attachment mentioned in the above letter is available for
inspection in the Committee's files.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator King. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Caldwell, I would like to start with you. I want to
talk about national monuments for a minute. President Obama's
proclamation creating the Bears Ears National Monument states
that it was meant to preserve traces of ancient human life,
including baskets, pottery, petroglyphs, weapons, and more. I
have a lot of material I want to cover so on some of them I am
going to ask for a yes or no answer to my question, if you can.
Are these types of objects--namely baskets, petroglyphs,
weapons and so forth--are they protected by the Archeological
Resources Protection Act and the Native American Graves
Repatriation Act?
Mr. Caldwell. Senator, I would have to get back with you
with that specific answer.
Senator Lee. Okay, thank you. The answer there, by the way,
is yes.
Now, President Obama's Bears Ears proclamation also cites
the presence of the Mexican spotted owl, the southwestern
willow flycatcher, and other species as additional reasons for
the designation. Are those species and their habitats protected
by the Endangered Species Act?
Mr. Caldwell. Once again, I would get back to the Committee
on your question.
Senator Lee. Good. And they are.
President Obama's Bears Ears proclamation also cites the
presence of big sagebrush as a reason for the designation. Do
you know in which states big sagebrush naturally occurs?
Mr. Caldwell. Not specifically, I do not, but we can
certainly reply to you and the Committee.
Senator Lee. Big sagebrush can be found in Washington,
Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado,
Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and
Utah.
From your answers and from the basis from which I have
drawn those questions, it seems like the Antiquities Act is
being used as a guise of protection, but in reality, it has
been used for political gain. It is despicable that despite
archeological treasures and species having their own
protections under other laws, the Administrations have used the
Antiquities Act proclamations and designations to feed this
sentiment that fakes the dire, pressing need for expansive
national monuments. It creates this false, binary choice
between do you want this national monument or do you want to
disregard all of these treasures that will otherwise be
devastated? These are interests that are already protected by
other federal laws and I think it is laughable that an
Administration would cite the presence of a species so
ubiquitous and massive as big sagebrush to justify a national
monument--a massive monument like those designated in Utah.
Entire economies can be uprooted. This power has been abused
with respect to my state and others.
Some members of this Committee represent states that have
been exempted from unilateral Presidential designations of
national monuments under the Antiquities Act, and I think it is
time that Congress review the Antiquities Act for that very
reason.
Now, it is not just people in this branch of government
that see the need for this. Recently, Chief Justice John
Roberts stated, specifically in reference to the Antiquities
Act, that ``A statute permitting the President in his sole
discretion to designate as monuments `landmarks,' `structures,'
and `objects,'--along with the smallest area of land compatible
with their management--has been transformed into a power
without any discernible limit to set aside vast and amorphous
expanses of terrain above and below the sea.'' Does Chief
Justice Roberts make a fair point that national monuments have
exceeded their statutory limits? And I am going to ask for a
yes or no answer.
Mr. Caldwell. Sir, I haven't read the Chief Justice's
opinion. So I will have to defer.
Senator Lee. Okay.
I think it is important that anyone in the Administration
who deals with these issues in public lands really ought to
read them, and I think anyone who, after reading them, after
reading those statements, anyone who cannot commit to a yes or
a no response to such a question and the possibility that the
Antiquities Act has been abused, I think that would be very
troubling if they could not commit to that. In my opinion, an
inconclusive answer in response to that would mean that the
Antiquities Act is, in fact, something that has become a
political football--something that has been used in many, many
cases by Presidents of one party to go after states that have
not supported members of that party, that happen to have a lot
of federal public land, turning our states into virtual pinatas
where the President's own base responds with loud applause
every time that president acts, even to the detriment of the
local communities.
I see my time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator King. Senator Kelly.
Senator Kelly. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by
thanking you and Ranking Member Daines for holding today's
hearing on legislation that Senator Sinema and I introduced to
enhance three national monuments in Arizona. Our bills span our
incredible state. One monument, Sunset Crater Volcano National
Monument, is located in Northern Arizona. The other, Casa
Grande Ruins National Monument, is in Central Arizona, and the
third, the Chiricahua National Monument, is in Southern
Arizona. When most Americans think about their national parks,
they envision world famous attractions like Grand Canyon or
Yellowstone, but national monuments are just as important for
admiring geologic wonders and protecting the legacy of
indigenous cultures. National monuments also attract tourists,
which support jobs and economic growth in rural communities.
Our three bills would ensure the continued enjoyment of these
special places for future generations of Arizonans.
Sunset Crater is a volcano that last erupted only about
1,000 years ago and is just outside of Flagstaff. Our
legislation would adjust its boundaries to make it easier to
maintain the entrance road and a visitor center that hosts
200,000 people annually.
The Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Boundary Adjustment
Act would allow the Park Service to preserve land containing
archeological discoveries dating back to the 14th century that
belong to the ancient Hohokam people. The Hohokam were builders
of a vast canal system along the Gila River, which was later
reestablished in the 1860's by pioneers who named the place
Phoenix.
The last bill, the Chiricahua National Park Act, would
rename the Chiricahua National Monument as a national park.
This would be Arizona's fourth national park. I have letters
from several communities in southeastern Arizona supporting
this bill and they are excited, they are very excited for the
visitors that the park would attract. I also have a letter from
the San Carlos Apache Tribe that wants to ensure the
legislation would not open the park to mining or impact
visitation by tribal members.
So Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent that those
letters be added to the record.
Senator King. Without objection.
Senator Kelly. Thank you.
[Letters regarding S. 1320 follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Kelly. Now Mr. Caldwell, thank you for your
testimony today. I only have a few questions for you. Under
your interpretation, would this bill establishing Chiricahua
National Park open the park to mining or change your agency's
obligation to provide tribal members access to this site?
Mr. Caldwell. Well, the NPS requirements to consult with
local communities and tribes in the management of the national
park would not change with the nomenclature designation being
changed.
Senator Kelly. But would it open the park to mining?
Mr. Caldwell. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Senator Kelly. Thank you.
Would the Sunset Crater bill help the Park Service improve
the visitor experience at the monument?
Mr. Caldwell. Yes, it would. I think with the bill there as
we have supported it, it would certainly assist the National
Park Service in providing a more efficient visitor service and
experience.
Senator Kelly. Would you briefly describe in the remaining
time some of the archeological resources that the Casa Grande
Ruins bill would be protecting?
Mr. Caldwell. Yes, Senator.
The sensitive and significant resources this bill would
protect include a prehistoric canal, above-ground prehistoric
standing ruins, a platform mound, a compound wall, and a
prehistoric ball court. There are numerous archeological sites
there that exist on these parcels and this--certainly, the
perseveration of these resources would be our mission there, an
incredible resource there.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Caldwell.
Mr. Caldwell. Thank you, sir.
Senator Kelly. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of
my time.
Senator King. Thank you.
I have visited Casa Grande and the Chiricahuas. I can
attest to their beauty and powerful impact on anyone who visits
there.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My questions, Mr. Caldwell, relate to legislation that is
being offered, both the Global War on Terrorism Memorial
Location Act and the Medal of Honor Commemorative Work Act. And
so I guess, really, my questions to you are--what are some of
the logistical challenges in terms of how it relates to our
Mall if we are able to move forward with those--with that
legislation and then actually establish those memorials? Have
you started any kind of planning process or do you have some
kind of planning process for new memorials?
Mr. Caldwell. Sure, we have an active planning role with
our regional office. We work with--once a memorial is
authorized--we work with those groups and discuss the processes
that need to happen for monuments and memorials to take place
in Washington, DC, and we certainly would welcome an
opportunity to brief Committee staff on those specific steps,
but we do have an active role in working with partners--the
World War I memorial just opened up at Pershing Park--a long
history of the National Park Service working with groups.
Senator Hoeven. Do you actually have a site plan
anticipating additional memorials or not? I mean, do you do it
on a block or do you actually have kind of a development or a
site plan?
Mr. Caldwell. I would, sure, I would defer to our National
Capital Area for that, for a briefing at what is laid out for
the Reserve area as well as Area 1, which is adjacent to the
National Mall.
Senator Hoeven. And then how about concepts? How do you
develop concepts, whether it would be more relative to the
Global War on Terror or relative to our Medal of Honor winners?
Conceptually, how do you go about developing those?
Mr. Caldwell. We work with--as we do across the country
with community groups--non-profit groups that have been created
for the establishment of these memorials and monuments. So we
interact with them, go through the process, go over the
planning requirements, the requirements of the National
Commission, those types of things that need to take place here
for those memorials, and we would be happy to review the
specifics of that with you and other members of the Committee.
Senator Hoeven. Do you have specific recommendations
regarding either one of those, the Global War on Terror or the
Medal of Honor proposals?
Mr. Caldwell. Sure. The Department, in terms of the
monument placement on the Reserve, we do not support the
monument placement on the Reserve for the Global War on Terror.
For the Medal of Honor commemorative work, we would welcome the
opportunity to work with the group, both identifying locations
as well as design and the elements that go into producing that.
Senator Hoeven. I am sorry, in regard to the Global War on
Terror, you say you do not support what aspect of it?
Mr. Caldwell. The location on the Reserve area of the
National Mall.
Senator Hoeven. So you would have alternative locations
identified?
Mr. Caldwell. What we would do is work with the group that
is working on creating the monument if it was passed and go
over different areas, different locations, based on our
experience in the National Capital Area on that. So we would
review potential areas.
Senator Hoeven. And in regard to the Medal of Honor
Memorial?
Mr. Caldwell. We would do the same thing with the
Commemorative works for the Medal of Honor, go over different
options available to the folks that are working to establish
that.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Caldwell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator King. Any further questions?
Mr. Caldwell and our other witnesses, thank you so much for
joining us, and from Oregon, early in the morning, and from
Maine. We appreciate your testimony and the work, and also from
the Forest Service. So thank you all for your testimony here
today.
We will be working on these bills in the very near future
and I appreciate the input.
Some members of the Committee may submit additional
questions in writing and I would ask our witnesses to submit
their answers for the record. Committee members will have until
6:00 p.m. tomorrow to submit additional questions for the
record. We will keep the hearing record open for two weeks to
receive any additional comments.
The Subcommittee hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[* The attachments mentioned in the above letter are available for
inspection in the Committee's files.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[* The attachments mentioned in the above letter are available for
inspection in the Committee's files.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[* The attachment mentioned in the above letter is available for
inspection in the Committee's files.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[* The author of the above letter attached a 423-page packet of letters
and articles in support of S. 192, which is available for inspection in
the Committee's files.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[* The author of the above letter attached a 145-page packet of letters
and articles in support of S. 192, which is available for inspection in
the Committee's files.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[* The author of the above letter attached a 428-page packet of
materials to support opposition to S. 1526 and 1527, which is available
for inspection in the Committee's files.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]