[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1584, H.R. 1647, H.R. 3047,
H.R. 3173, H.R. 6852, AND H.R. 7332
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, March 7, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-102
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABL IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-079 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Pete Stauber, MN CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
---------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, March 7, 2024.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin......................................... 2
Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado................................................ 3
Panel I:
Espaillat, Hon. Adriano, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York...................................... 6
Crane Hon. Elijah, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 7
LaLota, Hon. Nick, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York.......................................... 7
Maloy, Hon. Celeste, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 8
Amodei, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 9
Statement of Witnesses:
.............................................................
Panel II:
Smith, Greg, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC........................ 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Reynolds, Mike, Deputy Director, National Park Service,
Washington, DC............................................. 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Questions submitted for the record....................... 20
Panel III:
Seymore, Hon. Daryl, District IV Supervisor, Navajo County
Board of Supervisors, Holbrook, Arizona.................... 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Shields, Hon. Bryce, District Attorney, Pershing County,
Lovelock, Nevada........................................... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Strong, Scott, Director, Utah Division of State Parks, Salt
Lake City, Utah............................................ 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Hunter, Bobby ``Zorro'', Chairman, Retired Harlem
Globetrotters, Ambassador, World Conference of Mayors,
Tamarac, Florida........................................... 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Harris, Annie, Director and CEO, Essex Heritage, Salem,
Massachusetts.............................................. 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Harrison, Louise, Long Island Natural Areas Manager, Save the
Sound, Southold, New York.................................. 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Bureau of Land Management, Statement for the Record on H.R.
3173 and H.R. 7332......................................... 70
Submissions for the Record by Representative Tiffany
National Parks Conservation Association, Statement on
H.R. 1647.............................................. 78
Submissions for the Record by Representative Espaillat
Multiple letters in support of H.R. 6852................. 5
Submissions for the Record by Representative LaLota
Preserve Plum Island Coalition, Letter to the Committee
on H.R. 1584........................................... 30
Submissions for the Record by Representative Amodei
Multiple letters in support of H.R. 3173................. 79
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1584, TO ESTABLISH PLUM ISLAND, NEW
YORK, AS A NATIONAL MONUMENT, ``PLUM ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT
ACT''; H.R. 1647, TO REDESIGNATE THE SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL
HISTORIC SITE AS THE ``SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL
PARK'', AND FOR THE PURPOSES, ``SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL
HISTORICAL PARK REDESIGNATION AND BOUNDARY STUDY ACT''; H.R.
3047, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO CONVEY CERTAIN
LANDS WITHIN THE APACHE-SITGREAVES NATIONAL FOREST, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, ``APACHE COUNTY AND NAVAJO COUNTY CONVEYANCE
ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 3173, TO PROVIDE FOR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP
OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS IN NORTHERN NEVADA, TO AUTHORIZE THE
DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS IN NORTHERN NEVADA FOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TO PROMOTE CONSERVATION IN NORTHERN
NEVADA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``NORTHERN NEVADA ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 6852, TO
DESIGNATE HOLCOMBE RUCKER PARK, IN HARLEM, NEW YORK, AS A
NATIONAL COMMEMORATIVE SITE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``HOLCOMBE
RUCKER PARK LANDMARK ACT''; AND H.R. 7332, TO REQUIRE THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO
CONVEY CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND TO THE STATE OF UTAH FOR INCLUSION
IN CERTAIN STATE PARKS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``UTAH STATE
PARKS ADJUSTMENT ACT''
----------
Thursday, March 7, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Tiffany, Stauber, Curtis, Bentz,
Westerman; and Neguse.
Also present: Representatives Amodei, Crane, LaLota, Maloy;
and Espaillat.
Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to
order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to consider six bills:
H.R. 1584, the Plum Island National Monument Act; H.R. 1647,
Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and
Boundary Study Act; H.R. 3047, Apache County and Navajo County
Conveyance Act of 2023; H.R. 3173, Northern Nevada Economic
Development and Conservation Act of 2023; H.R. 6852, Holcombe
Rucker Park Landmark Act; and H.R. 7332, Utah State Parks
Adjustment Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the
gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Amodei; the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton; the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Espaillat; the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Crane; the gentleman
from New York, Mr. LaLota; and the gentlewoman from Utah, Ms.
Maloy.
Without objection, so ordered.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
Without objection, So ordered.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Tiffany. Today's hearing includes several pieces of
legislation that may seem different, but all have one very
important thing in common: they are the product of people in
local communities, not Washington, DC, coming together to enact
meaningful change.
During my time as the Chairman of this Subcommittee, I have
emphasized the importance of coordination between Federal land
managers and the local and state officials who know this land
best. I firmly believe that it is the people who live closest
to public lands who are the best suited to inform the decisions
governing their use. While some of the bills on today's agenda
are not perfect, and I have serious questions I would like
answered, I am still grateful to all the local people on the
ground who have come together to negotiate and make
compromises.
Unfortunately, these compromises are only needed in the
first place because these communities are surrounded by vast
amounts of Federal land. Alpine and Pinedale, for example, are
two small communities in Arizona that have struggled to find
available space to expand their respective cemeteries. Without
adequate expansion, the cemeteries will soon run out of burial
plots, and local families will be forced to travel long
distances to bury their loved ones. H.R. 3047, which is led by
Representative Crane, would convey two small parcels of
adjacent Forest Service land to accommodate these expansions. I
applaud Representative Crane for his leadership on this common-
sense proposal that will address a very real need for two
communities in his district.
Utah is another western state with a significant amount of
Federal land. In fact, 64 percent of Utah's territory is
managed by the Federal Government. In an effort to improve the
management of public lands in that state, H.R. 7332, offered by
Representative Maloy, authorizes thoughtful conveyances of
isolated inholdings and adjacent Federal lands that would be
more efficiently managed by the state. This bill will improve
the already-renowned State Park System in Utah, while
alleviating some clear land management inefficiencies on the
Federal side. In total, this legislation will transfer roughly
782 acres of Federal land to the state of Utah. This is a good
bill, and I commend Representative Maloy for her leadership on
this effort.
Nevada leads all states in terms of Federal footprint, with
over 80 percent of its land mass under Federal control. The
dearth of private and locally-controlled lands creates
considerable challenges for rural communities and their efforts
to generate economic activity and provide important public
services. H.R. 3173, which is being led by Congressman Amodei,
reflects a sincere effort to balance competing needs and
desires for economic development, public purposes, and
conservation goals. This bill allows for the conveyance of up
to 180,000 acres of Federal lands for a variety of public
purposes and economic opportunities. This will allow for some
much-needed economic growth and new job creation in northern
Nevada.
As I noted before, I do have some concerns with this
proposal, and I look forward to learning more information about
this legislation during today's hearing.
Finally, we are considering a bill from Representative
LaLota to conserve Plum Island in New York. Plum Island is best
known as the location of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.
This center was a joint endeavor operated by the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Homeland Security, and was
used to conduct research on contagious animal diseases for
several decades. There is strong local support for conserving
the unique and at times mysterious history of Plum Island, and
I commend Representative LaLota for his fierce advocacy on
behalf of his constituents.
I want to thank all the Members on both sides of our dais
for their work on the legislation before us today.
I also want to express my appreciation to all the witnesses
for being here to provide your invaluable testimony.
I would especially like to acknowledge Deputy Director Mike
Reynolds, who is going to be retiring later this month after
more than 39 years of service. Deputy Director Reynolds is one
of the National Park Service's longest serving leaders. I
understand that this will likely be Mr. Reynolds' last time
testifying on behalf of the National Park Service.
And I want to take a moment to thank you. Thank you for
your dedicated service to the National Park Service.
Congratulations on your retirement. Come visit us in Wisconsin
when you get time.
With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Neguse for
his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Neguse. I thank the Chairman. I trust that he won't ask
too many probing questions of Mr. Reynolds, given this is his
last hearing.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Neguse. I am sure he is looking forward to it. But in
any event, thank you to our witnesses. Thank you to the
Chairman. Thank you to the Members. It is always good to be
back in the Federal Lands Subcommittee, as evidenced by the
list of bills that we are reviewing today.
This Subcommittee truly is a workhorse of the Congress.
That was the case in the last Congress, when I served as
Chairman of this Subcommittee, and I am grateful that that has
continued to be the case under Chairman Tiffany, and I am
grateful to him for putting together a list of bills here that
I think encompass the greatness of our country, the breadth and
the mosaic of our country.
Putting our policy disagreements aside, I am always amazed
by the variety of places throughout our country that we
consider in this Committee. Today alone, as we have heard from
the Chairman, we will review proposals impacting lands in New
York, Nevada, Massachusetts, and Utah, a broad representation
of this great country, and, of course, joined by witnesses
representing many of these incredible places.
Before I get into specifics of the bills, I think it is
important to take a moment to sort of zoom out. This is a big
week in Congress, of course. Later today, President Biden is
scheduled to deliver his State of the Union to a joint session
of Congress. In that speech, I suspect that we will hear how
Democrats, working again in good faith, have delivered historic
investments in infrastructure for America, making generational
strides towards addressing the climate crisis and, in the
context of the work that we do on this Subcommittee, leading
the charge to enact significant support for our public lands,
including investments that prioritize addressing wildfires and
drought across the Rocky Mountain West, of course, near and
dear to my heart as a Representative of the great state of
Colorado, and continuing to support public land restoration
projects throughout the country. I hope that this Subcommittee
can continue to build on the investments that we made in the
last Congress as we look forward towards our summer and fall
agenda.
I would just say that we have a number of bills today that
I am certainly very excited about. I know that we have a number
of bills from my Republican colleagues.
I welcome, of course, our newest member to the Natural
Resources Committee, Representative Maloy, who I haven't had a
chance to meet yet, but congratulations on your election.
And I am looking forward to hearing more about her bill, as
well as the two other Republican bills we are considering: H.R.
1584, which would designate a new national monument; and H.R.
3173, which includes both new wilderness and mineral
withdrawals.
And while I recognize that the designations in Mr. Amodei's
bills come in the context of a long list of other items, and I
am grateful for his bringing these bills forward together, I
hope it can be a sign of perhaps more to come in future
hearings from our Republican colleagues in terms of place-based
conservation. There are a variety of Democratic members as well
as Republican members who proposed on that front, and hopefully
we can consider them in future hearings, including a bill that
I have introduced, the CORE Act, which I hope we can consider.
Each of the Democratic bills that we are considering today
reflect the support and hard work of the constituents in these
respective areas who want to see their public lands protected
for future generations. So, I am just, again, grateful for the
work done by our colleagues.
Two bills in particular that I want to highlight, first and
foremost, my good friend and colleague, the distinguished
gentleman from Harlem, Representative Espaillat, who has led
the effort to designate Holcombe Rucker Park in New York, and I
know we are very excited to hear about that, particularly those
of us who are basketball aficionados. I am grateful to
Representative Espaillat for his efforts to preserve a critical
part of the American experience; and, of course, Representative
Moulton, as well, whose bill to redesignate the Salem Maritime
National Historic Site in Massachusetts is an important step
forward.
Again, I am grateful to my colleagues, grateful to the
Chairman, and looking forward to hearing from the witnesses.
I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member for his
opening statement. Now, I would like to recognize
Representative Espaillat for 5 minutes on his bill, H.R. 6852.
The floor is yours, sir.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I
would like to motion to submit roughly 25 letters from
community leaders in support of the Holcombe Rucker Park
Landmark Act into the record.
Mr. Tiffany. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
The following documents were submitted for the record by Rep.
Espaillat. It includes letters of support for H.R. 6852--the Holcombe
Rucker Park Landmark Act from the following:
1. The Rucker Family
2. The Marius Family
3. Lloyd A. Williams, President, The Greater Harlem Chamber of
Commerce
4. The Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, NYPL
5. Madison Square Boys and Girls Club
6. The Boys and Girls Club of Harlem
7. The Harlem Cultural Archives
8. WE ACT for Environmental Justice
9. Harlem Congregations for Community Improvement
10. Polo Grounds Towers Tenants Association
11. The Honorable Congressman Charlie B. Rangel
12. The Honorable Councilman Abreau of New York
13. The Honorable Senator Cordell Cleare of New York
14. Manhattan Community Board 10
15. Jackie Rowe, CEO and Founder, Harlem Mothers and Fathers Stop
Another Violent End (S.A.V.E.)
16. H. Carl McCall, Chairman Emeritus, State University of New York
17. Harlem Globetrotter Bobby Hunter
18. Harlem Globetrotter Bob McCullough
19. Film Producer Bob McCullough Jr.
20. C. Virginia Fields is the President and CEO of the National Black
Leadership Commission on Health
21. Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine
22. Keisha Sutton-James, Manhattan Deputy Borough President
23. The Honorable Assemblyman Al Taylor of New York City
24. The Honorable Judge Tingling, Chair, West Harlem Development
Corporation
These documents are part of the hearing record and are being retained
in the Committee's official files:
The documents are available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20240307/116866/HHRG-118-II10-
20240307-SD003.pdf
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
all the esteemed members of the Natural Resources Subcommittee
on Federal Lands. And thank you to the Rucker family, the
Marius family, and the McCullough family. The Rucker family is
represented by Phil Rucker; and we have Stacey Marius, also
from the Marius family; and Bob McCullough, Jr., also.
Also, I want to thank Community Board 10 and its
chairperson for advocating for this particular initiative, and
other Harlem leaders who are here in person or watching
virtually in support of H.R. 6852, the Holcombe Rucker Park
landmark.
Today, I stand before you to advocate for a cause that is
not only rooted in history, but also deeply ingrained in the
cultural fabric of our nation: the Federal recognition of
Holcombe Rucker Park. In the 1950s, Holcombe Rucker, a World
War II veteran and scholar, had a vision to provide a safe
haven to the youth of Harlem to steer them away from the
streets and towards higher education. Rucker initiated the
Rucker Pro League and a basketball tournament that promoted
athleticism and emphasized academic excellence.
Weekend afternoons in the 1960s and 1970s saw the
convergence of great basketball legends at Rucker Park, from
Dr. J, Julius Erving, to Nate ``Tiny'' Archibald, Wilt the
Stilt Chamberlain, and Connie Hawkins. And we have with us
today, Mr. Chairman, a legend in his own right, Bobby ``Zorro''
Hunter, a Harlem Globetrotter who I am sure will throw a no-
look pass to Mr. Neguse. I am not sure if he will be able to
catch it, but I hope that he will.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Espaillat. The court at Rucker Park witnessed
unparalleled talent and fierce competition. The Rucker motto
is, ``Each one teach one.'' It underscores the commitment to
mentorship and academic achievement leading to 700 scholarships
for aspiring athletes.
In 1967, Rucker legend Robert ``Bob'' McCullough, whose
documentary film producer son, Bob McCullough, Jr., is here
with us today, founded ``Each One Teach One,'' a not-for-profit
dedicated to empowering youth, carrying forward the Rucker
legacy.
Throughout the years, Rucker Park evolved, embracing the
intersection of sports and culture. Greg Marius, founder of the
Entertainer's Basketball Classic, bridged the worlds of
basketball and hip hop, transforming Rucker into a cultural
phenomenon.
Eventually, multiple NBA stars, such as Kobe Bryant, Kevin
Durant, LeBron James, Jamal Crawford, Lamar Odom, Kareem Abdul-
Jabbar, and my favorite, Earl the Pearl Monroe, participated in
the park's basketball tournament before becoming famous in the
NBA.
In June 2017, New York City honored Marius by renaming the
park's court after him, recognizing his pivotal role in
preserving and shaping the park's legacy.
Rucker Park isn't just a basketball court; it is a symbol
of resilience, empowerment, and unity. It has inspired
generations of athletes and served as a catalyst for social
change. Today, I urge you to support H.R. 6852. By granting
Federal recognition to Rucker Park, we can ensure its
preservation for future generations. We can honor its rich
history, celebrate its cultural significance, and continue its
legacy of mentorship and community empowerment.
Together, let us ensure that Rucker Park remains a shining
example of the power of sports to uplift and unite all of us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat. And Earl the Pearl
did not have to travel far to go play in Madison Square Garden,
did he?
Mr. Espaillat. Not far at all.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tiffany. I would now like to recognize Representative
Crane for 5 minutes on H.R. 3047.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELIJAH CRANE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting
me to participate in today's hearing and to speak in support of
my bill. This piece of legislation is one of the first bills I
introduced in Congress, and is a testament to Arizona's pioneer
heritage.
For more than a decade, the communities of Pinedale and
Alpine have struggled to find appropriate cemetery space to
meet the needs of family members wishing to enter and pay
respects to their loved ones. Specifically, my bill would
enable Navajo and Apache Counties to expand the land adjacent
to Alpine Community Cemetery, preventing the need for deceased
members of the community to be laid to rest in a distant
cemetery.
As I said, the community of Pinedale has a long and rich
pioneer history, and the residents are proud of that heritage.
This bill will allow families to lay their loved ones to rest
in the place that their family member loved so much.
I am happy that I can be a part of this hearing today and
hear from Daryl Seymore from Navajo County, who was
instrumental in raising awareness and support of this project.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Crane. I will now recognize
Representative LaLota for 5 minutes on H.R. 1584.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK LaLOTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, and all the members of the Federal Lands Subcommittee
for hosting this important hearing. I represent much of Suffolk
County in the east end of Long Island, and I am here today to
speak in favor of my legislation, H.R. 1584, the Plum Island
National Monument Act.
For those who might not know, the 840-acre Plum Island is
located in Suffolk County, in the town of Southold, about 3
miles northeast of Orient Point and about 12 miles northwest of
Montauk Point. And Plum Island has a significant history with
our Federal Government. In 1954, the Plum Island Animal Disease
Center was established on Plum Island and managed by the United
States Department of Agriculture. For decades, the hard-working
and dedicated folks at the Animal Disease Center conducted
important research on foreign animal diseases and worked to
prevent the introduction and spread of those diseases here in
the United States.
In 2005, after five decades of work, the Plum Island Animal
Disease Center was ordered closed and ordered to relocate to
Manhattan, Kansas. At the time, the Department of Homeland
Security was required by law to sell Plum Island to the highest
bidder. But thankfully, several years ago, Congress was
successful in stopping the sale, allowing for future efforts to
preserve Plum Island.
I am extremely proud of the work that the folks at the
Center have done. However, the Center's time on the island is
quickly coming to a close. I recently had the privilege of
visiting Plum Island with my colleague from the other side of
the aisle, Representative Courtney from Connecticut, and while
I was there, I witnessed firsthand the critical need of
protecting and preserving Plum Island.
Though much has been done to ensure the island's
environmental and ecological makeup, we must all work together
to preserve Plum Island once and for all. My legislation, H.R.
1584, the Plum Island National Monument Act, would do just that
by designating Plum Island as a national monument.
Over the past 15 months, I have spoken to hundreds of
constituents and advocacy groups on the important work ahead to
preserve Plum Island, and I will continue my work here in
Congress to do just that. Today, we will hear from several
witnesses, including Long Island's own Louise Harrison, who can
speak on how important Plum Island is and its preservation is
to Long Islanders and surrounding areas.
Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and the members of the
Committee for inviting me here today to discuss my important
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative LaLota. I will now
recognize Representative Maloy for 5 minutes on H.R. 7332.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CELESTE MALOY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
H.R. 7332, the Utah State Parks Adjustment Act, is a land
conveyance bill that would transfer approximately 782 acres of
Federal land to the state of Utah for inclusion in the Utah
State Park System. The parcels included in this conveyance
consist of Federal lands that are either adjacent to or
comprise inholdings within current state park boundaries. The
bill would convey six small parcels of BLM land, collectively
amounting to about 280 acres, to Antelope Island State Park.
These six plots are inholding owned by BLM that are located
within Antelope Island's existing boundaries.
The legislation would also convey a single parcel of
approximately 272 acres of Forest Service land to Fremont
Indian State Park. This parcel is directly adjacent to Fremont
Indian's current boundaries in Sevier County.
Finally, the bill would convey several parcels of BLM land
collectively totaling roughly 230 acres within and adjacent to
Wasatch Mountain State Park.
Utah State Parks are well managed and cared for, and I am
proud to sponsor this bill alongside my colleague, Senator Mike
Lee, which would remove the ineffective bureaucratic management
over these small parcels of land, and give them local control
that makes more sense, where they could be better managed.
Conveying these properties from the Federal estate to the state
parks would pave the way for needed improvements in land and
natural resources management.
The Bureau of Land Management testified before the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee that this bill would
improve manageability and dispose of isolated Federal parcels
that are difficult to manage. BLM testified in support of the
legislation. The U.S. Forest Service has expressed a desire to
work on some specific concerns. I look forward to working with
them to address those concerns.
This is a good bill. It helps protect resources and improve
management.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
refuse the ascension to Speaker.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tiffany. But I will politely turn that down.
Mr. Neguse. You never know.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tiffany. But no, thank you very much for your
testimony. Now, I would like to recognize Representative Amodei
for 5 minutes in regards to the bill that he has forwarded.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK E. AMODEI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member.
I was pleased to hear, by the way, for your record, Mark
Amodei, Nevada's 2nd Congressional District, which is Nevada's
original congressional district. No offense to the people in
Las Vegas.
I appreciate hearing the references from both of you about
decisions made closest to the ground are best, and placed-based
decisions regarding Federal land use. As you have noted, my
state is the largest state, percentage-wise, in terms of
Federal ownership, not lamenting that fact, that is just the
fact. Every single city, town, unincorporated town in Nevada,
including Las Vegas, needs to come through these halls, this
Subcommittee and this Committee, in order to grow in some sort
of rational fashion.
This bill represents the compilation of a lot of tune-up
for bills that have come through previously, but also some new
stuff regarding two counties, regarding Pershing County and
also Douglas County.
It should be noted, though, when you talk about place-based
decisions, we don't write lands bills in my office for my
district. We let the locals who have planning and zoning
authority over that, those county commissions, those city
councils, they tell us what they want. It is our job to get
that drafted and bring it before this Subcommittee and this
Committee for your consideration.
As a matter of fact, one of the pieces of this is the
Pershing County lands bill which has already been before this
Subcommittee and this Committee, and processed in the 115th
Congress by consent in this Committee and by voice vote on the
Floor. I won't tell you who on the Committee at the time voted
for it, but it is easy to figure out who it is. Not saying
therefore you should vote for it now, I am just saying this is
not some new-fangled thing.
I know there is some concern about some of the amounts of
wilderness and stuff that is being removed from oil and gas
exploration, specifically the Ruby Mountains in Elko County
after some applications for leasing for oil and gas exploration
went through the NEPA process and were denied by the Forest
Service without appeal or objection.
Once again, place-based decisions, Elko County Commission,
all that other sort of stuff were like, ``We are OK if that
area, 300-and-some-odd-thousand acres, is not available for oil
and gas leasing.''
Mind what I said. It is not being designated as wilderness.
There are still multiple use opportunities in there. But it is
not available for oil and gas leasing.
When you look at the rest of these proposals, in aggregate,
it is about a four-to-one ratio, 4 acres of wilderness or other
type of special status versus an acre of economic development.
And by the way, the economic development, when you look at the
bills that comprise this, a lot of this is municipal, flood
control, those sorts of things, not sex and violence, not
slice-and-dice Veg-O-Matic for developers, but taking care of
business in counties where some of the Federal estate is needed
in order to do responsible things at the local level or the
state level.
So, I would be happy to respond for any questions. I do
want to say that it is a privilege to be here at the same
hearing when we are talking about Tiny Archibald and Earl the
Pearl Monroe, and folks like that.
And I want to let the Ranking Member know that I did catch
a pass from a Globetrotter in the hall outside this building.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Amodei. So, I wasn't a diva, I needed to go to the gym
to do that.
One final thing, which I am sure will be phenomenally
influential is I appreciate the reference to the Rocky Mountain
West, but those of us from other areas of the West between that
other thing called the Sierra Nevadas, if you think about it,
or you slip, it is the Intermountain West, Mr. Ranking Member,
just if you can toss me a bone, not in this meeting, but some
other time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the gentleman from Nevada. And
now we are going to move on to our second panel. I want to
thank the Representatives that attended here to introduce their
bills.
I want to remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules,
you must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes. But your
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, you know the lights and all the
rest, right?
First, I would like to introduce Mr. Greg Smith, Associate
Deputy Chief of the National Forest System.
Associate Deputy Chief Smith, you are recognized for 5
minutes. Welcome back to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF GREG SMITH, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Smith. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany,
Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for this opportunity to share a USDA Forest Service
perspective on three public lands bills under consideration
today. My name is Greg Smith. I have worked in the Forest
Service for over 30 years. I currently serve as the Associate
Deputy Chief of the National Forest System.
Our national forests and grasslands are critical to the
well-being of our nation. The Forest Service plays an important
role in providing for multiple uses and benefits from these
lands to the public. The Forest Service manages over 193
million acres of national forest and grasslands across the
country for public purposes, including wildland fire,
recreation, grazing, timber, watershed conservation, wildlife
habitat, and many more.
These three bills under consideration today with the U.S.
Forest Service interests, I will briefly give our perspective
on these bills.
H.R. 3047, the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance
Act of 2023, would require the Secretary of Agriculture to
convey one parcel to Navajo County, Arizona, and two parcels to
Apache County, Arizona. The Department supports this
legislation, as it provides a straightforward and common-sense
solution to cemetery management. However, the Department has
concerns regarding the time frame for the conveyances, and we
would like to work with the Committee and the bill's sponsor on
the aspects of the bill.
H.R. 7332, the Utah State Park Adjustments Act, would
convey several parcels of land under Federal jurisdiction to
various Utah state parks. The bill would require the Secretary
of Agriculture to require and convey approximately 272 acres of
Fishlake National Forest national forest lands in Sevier
County, Utah to the state of Utah.
The parcels include a public campground, an important
public entry point to a non-motorized historical trail. The
parcel also contains a grazing allotment and water rights
currently held by the Forest Service.
The Department has concerns with the Fremont Indian State
Park conveyance as described in H.R. 7332. These concerns
relate to issues such as the time frames, future access to
Forest Service roads and trail easements, maintaining current
public uses, as well as some of the maps. The Department would
like to work with the bill's sponsors and the Committee to
address these concerns to ensure continued public use and
enjoyment of these lands.
H.R. 3173, the Northern Nevada Economic Development and
Conservation Act of 2023, contains multiple provisions that
impact management of National Forest System lands on behalf of
the American public. The bill would dispose of or convey
National Forest System lands to various entities within the
state of Nevada, Douglas County, Washoe Tribe, and direct the
Department to issue special use permits or enter into
cooperative management agreements.
It would also require the Department to convey two parcels
to the Incline Village General Improvement District in Nevada.
The bill would also withdraw Ruby Mountains from all forms
of operations under the mineral leasing laws, subject to
validating existing rights, and would convey a portion of the
Carson City for roadway.
Additionally, the bill would create an interagency complex
on the Forest Service parcel located in Reno, Nevada.
The Department maintains a strong partnership with local,
state, and Federal agencies, recognize Federal tribes and non-
government organizations to manage national forests in the
state of Nevada.
The national forest also includes the crown jewels which we
consider, such as the Lake Tahoe Management Area and the Ruby
Mountains.
The Department does not support Title I, Title II, and
Title V, as written, but we would like to work with Congress,
the Committee, and the bill's sponsor to clarify language to
develop the maps to ensure accuracy and support of
implementation.
The Department supports Title IV, and are not opposed to
Title VII, but we have some concerns about funding and
construction time frames.
We look forward to working with you, and I appreciate the
opportunity to join and testify here today. Chairman Tiffany,
Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee, this
concludes my remarks, and I look forward to any questioning
that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Smith, Associate Deputy Chief, National
Forest System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
on H.R. 3047, H.R. 7332, and H.R. 3173
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Forest Service, to discuss H.R. 3047, the ``Apache County and
Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2023,'' H.R. 7332, the ``Utah State
Parks Adjustment Act'' and H.R. 3173, the ``Northern Nevada Economic
Development and Conservation Act of 2023.''
H.R. 3047, ``Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2023''
H.R. 3047 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a
parcel of land depicted on a map as ``Pinedale Cemetery Expansion'' on
the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests to Navajo County, Arizona, and
to convey two parcels of land generally depicted as ``Existing Alpine
Cemetery'' and ``proposed Townsite Tract'' both located on the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona to Apache County, Arizona.
The Department supports this legislation as it provides a
straightforward and commonsense solution to cemetery management;
however, the Department has concerns regarding the timeline for the
conveyance in the legislation, and we would like to work with the
Committee and the sponsor to address that aspect of this proposal.
H.R. 7332, ``Utah State Parks Adjustment Act''
H.R. 7332, the ``Utah State Parks Adjustment Act'' would convey
several parcels of federal land under different federal jurisdictions
to various Utah State parks. The act would require the Secretary of
Agriculture to convey approximately 272 acres of NFS lands in Sevier
County, Utah.
The parcel described by the Fremont Indian State Park Conveyance is
managed by the Forest Service and includes a public campground,
remnants of a historic guard station with an associated interpretive
site, and an important entry point to a non-motorized historic trail,
all of which are open to the public. The parcel also contains part of a
grazing allotment under permit by the Fishlake National Forest and
water rights held by the Forest Service that provide water to the
campground, Forest Service pack stock, and potentially to livestock on
the permitted allotment.
The Department has concerns with the Fremont Indian State Park
Conveyance as described in H.R. 7332. These concerns relate to certain
details for the proposed conveyance, including prescribed time frames
and diligence, future access by the Forest Service for road and trail
easements, addressing current public uses, and procedures for resolving
conflicts between the maps, acreage estimates and legal descriptions.
The Department would like to work with the bill sponsors and the
Committee to address specific concerns related to the conveyance to
ensure continued public use and enjoyment of these lands.
H.R. 3173, ``Northern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act
of 2023''
H.R. 3173, the ``Northern Nevada Economic Development and
Conservation Act of 2023'' contains multiple provisions that impact
management of National Forest System lands on behalf of the American
public.
Title I would convey or dispose of National Forest System lands
managed by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the Lake Tahoe
Basin Management Unit. This title also provides authority to transfer
administrative jurisdiction over Santini-Burton Act parcels in the Lake
Tahoe Basin to the county or state and directs the agency to enter into
special use permits or cooperative management agreements with Douglas
County for identified parcels on both units.
Title II would convey lands managed by the Lake Tahoe Basin
Management Unit to the Incline Village General Improvement District.
Title IV would withdraw the Ruby Mountains from all forms of operation
under the mineral leasing laws. Title VII would require the Department
and the Bureau of Land Management to develop a federal interagency
complex on a Forest Service parcel in Reno.
The Department maintains strong partnerships with local, state, and
federal agencies; federally recognized Tribes; and nongovernmental
organizations to manage national forests in the State of Nevada,
including crown jewels of the National Forest System such as Lake Tahoe
and the Ruby Mountains. The Department recognizes that our management
must support conservation and economic opportunity, tribal rights and
interests, and we strive to meet those goals through shared
stewardship. The Department has successfully used our existing
authorities to provide for recreation and public purposes under special
use permits or agreements and to convey or dispose of lands as
appropriate.
The Department does not support H.R. 3173 as written, specifically
Titles I, II, and V, and we would like to work with the Committee and
the bill sponsor to address the Department's concerns, which I will
broadly outline in my testimony. In addition, many of the maps
associated with the bill appear to contain mapping errors. We would
appreciate the opportunity to develop legislative maps to ensure
accuracy and support implementation.
Title I--Douglas County
Title I would convey National Forest System lands to various
entities including the State of Nevada, Douglas County, and the Washoe
Tribe; designate National Forest System lands for disposal; and direct
the Department to issue special use permits or enter into cooperative
management agreements, as well as other provisions.
Title I would convey or dispose of numerous parcels that are more
appropriately retained in National Forest System management, including
acquired lands and Forest Service administrative sites. The Department
would like to work with the Committee to identify parcels appropriate
for conveyance or disposal, develop legislative maps, and revise the
language regarding conveyances and disposal processes and the terms
surrounding these, such as reversionary clauses and timelines.
Regarding provisions directing the Department to issue special use
permits or enter into cooperating agreements, the Department has
existing authority to do both and would still be required to conduct
National Environmental Policy Act analyses, comply with the Endangered
Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106, and
meet other standard requirements. The goals of Title I, Section 112,
relating to the Tahoe Rim Trail have been accomplished through an
agreement with partners.
Title I, Section 121, would require the Department to hold certain
lands in trust for the Washoe Tribe while retaining the Department's
ability to carry out fuel reductions and landscape restoration
activities. We recognize that Federal lands and waters managed by the
Department are the traditional homelands of American Indians and Alaska
Natives and we support Tribal self-determination. We would like to note
that the Department of the Interior, not USDA, typically acquires land
into trust because it has the authority to manage trust lands. We would
like to work with the sponsors on clarifying that language. We would
also like to work with the sponsor to develop legislative maps for this
section to ensure accuracy and support implementation.
Title I, Sec. 141, provides new authority to transfer Forest
Service land that is located within the boundaries of the area acquired
under Public Law 96-586 (commonly known as the Santini-Burton Act
parcels). These environmentally sensitive lands acquired by the
Department are required to be managed in alignment with the Santini-
Burton Act to maintain undeveloped open space; preserve the land's
natural characteristics; and protect water quality, stream environment
zones, and important wildlife habitat. The Department believes these
lands should be retained under National Forest System management.
Title II--Incline Village Fire Protection
Title II would require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey two
parcels of approximately 14.10 acres to the Incline Village General
Improvement District in Nevada. These environmentally sensitive lands
were acquired by the Department to maintain undeveloped open space;
preserve the land's natural characteristics; and protect water quality,
stream environment zones, and important wildlife habitat. The
Department believes these lands should be retained and managed as part
of the National Forest System.
Title IV--Ruby Mountains Protection Act
Title IV withdraws 309,272 acres of NFS land in the Ruby Mountains
on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada from all forms of
operation under the mineral leasing laws. The Administration supports
the proposed withdrawal, which aligns with the President's vision to
boost conservation strategies and policies to preserve public, private,
and Tribal areas of interest. The proposed withdrawal would be subject
to valid existing rights. Existing leases and associated activities can
continue as long as those leases were established at or prior to the
time of the withdrawal.
The remainder of the Ruby Mountains managed by the Forest Service
is designated as Wilderness. The Ruby Mountains offer extensive
cultural, scenic, and ecological values that help to support a $165
million recreation industry in Elko County. The area includes wildlife
habitat for species including greater sage grouse, and the federally
listed Lahontan cutthroat trout. The area also supports the state's
largest mule deer herd and an important migration corridor. Mapping of
the area has determined that there is little to no potential for oil or
gas resources because of unfavorable geologic conditions.
The Department conducted a detailed analysis for oil and gas
leasing availability on a portion of lands within the Ruby Mountains.
In March 2019, the agency released a draft Decision Notice and final
Environmental Assessment concluding that no leasing should occur due to
the low potential for oil and gas resources in the area and extensive
citizen and community involvement with strong support for no leasing at
this time. The decision notice was signed by the Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest Supervisor on May 7, 2019.
Title V--Carson City Public Lands Correction
Sec. 503, ``Carson City Street Connector Conveyance'' would convey
a portion of the land occupied by the Department Carson Ranger District
Office to Carson City for a roadway. This conveyance would
significantly impair the operations of the district office. The
Department does not support this provision.
Title VII--Federal Complex
Title VII requires the Department and the Bureau of Land Management
to establish a federal interagency complex. In addition to the Forest
Supervisor's Office for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the
BLM Nevada State Office, the complex would house the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Western Nevada Agency,
and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Department and BLM would have the
option to relocate their Carson City offices to the complex as well.
Funding for the complex would be available through the proceeds of
disposal under Titles I, V and VI of the legislation (up to ten percent
of the amount in these special accounts), with the agencies authorized
to use any other accounts to fund the balance. The Department has
concerns regarding the implementation of Title VII, including costs due
to lack of existing infrastructure and the need to align with
Department procedures and legal requirements for facility relocation.
That concludes my testimony. Again, I thank Chairman Tiffany,
Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department on this legislation.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for your testimony. I
would now like to recognize Mr. Mike Reynolds, Deputy Director
for External and Congressional Relations at the National Park
Service.
Deputy Director Reynolds, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MIKE REYNOLDS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Reynolds. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
present the Department of the Interior's views on three of the
bills on today's agenda. I would like to submit our full
statement for the record and summarize the Department's views.
I would also like to submit statements for the record for
two other bills: H.R. 3173, the Northern Nevada Economic
Development and Conservation Act of 2023; and H.R. 7732, the
Utah State Parks Adjustment Act. These statements were prepared
by the Bureau of Land Management, and we would request that any
questions about these bills be referred to them.
H.R. 1584 would establish Plum Island, New York as a
national monument for the purpose of ecological conservation,
historic preservation, and the discovery and celebration of our
shared cultural heritage. The bill requires the Secretary of
the Interior to establish administrative jurisdiction over
portions of Plum Island as necessary to carry out the Act
through a Memoranda of Understanding with each Federal
department or agency with current administrative jurisdiction.
The Department appreciates the bill's intent to increase
public access to and protect Plum Island's natural and cultural
heritage, and we support that long-term goal. However, given
the multiple hazards to human health and safety that may exist,
we have serious concerns about the bill's requirement that the
Department assume administrative jurisdiction over the island.
With numerous tools at our disposal to support locally-led
conservation and restoration efforts, the Department is
committed to collaborating with the Subcommittee, the bill's
sponsor, and the many Plum Island stakeholders as we explore
ways to protect the island's valuable assets and address its
many challenging environmental issues.
H.R. 1647 would redesignate the Salem Maritime National
Historic Site as a national historical park. The bill would
also authorize a boundary study to evaluate any sites and
resources located within the City of Salem, Massachusetts that
are associated with Salem's maritime history, coastal defenses,
or military history.
The Department supports H.R. 1647. The Department believes
that redesignation of Salem Maritime National Historic Site as
a national historic park is appropriate. As is reflected in its
long history, Salem Maritime National Historic Site has
expanded in the scope of its resources and its interpretation.
The deeper and broader experience it now offers to visitors
supports the basis for National Historical Park designation.
The Department also believes that the boundary study
provided by H.R. 1647 would be beneficial. The study would be
useful in identifying important maritime and coastal defense-
related resources in the vicinity of Salem that are deserving
of protection.
H.R. 6852 would designate Holcombe Rucker Park in New York
City, New York as a national commemorative site. The bill
specifies that the site would not be a unit of the National
Park System. The Department supports bringing greater
recognition to the achievements and the legacy of Holcombe
Rucker, but has concerns about the use of the designation
``national commemorative site.''
The Department would encourage the proponents of providing
greater recognition for Holcombe Rucker Park to explore
alternative ways to honor and interpret the site's history and
the contributions of Holcombe Rucker to outdoor recreation and
urban America. The Department would be very pleased to work
with the sponsor and his constituents to explore these options.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am happy to
answer any questions that you and the Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael T. Reynolds, Deputy Director for
Congressional and External Relations,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
on H.R. 1584, H.R. 1647, and H.R. 6852
H.R. 1584, a bill to establish Plum Island, New York, as a National
Monument
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 1584, a bill to
establish Plum Island, New York, as a National Monument.
The Department appreciates the bill's intent to increase public
access to and to protect Plum Island's natural and cultural heritage,
and we support that goal. However, given the multiple hazards to human
health and safety that may exist, we have serious concerns about the
bill's requirement that the Department assume administrative
jurisdiction over the island.
H.R. 1584 would establish Plum Island, NY, as a national monument
for the purpose of ``ecological conservation, historical preservation,
and the discovery and celebration of our shared cultural heritage.''
The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to
establish administrative jurisdiction over portions of Plum Island
through memoranda of understanding with the head of each Federal
department or agency with current administrative jurisdiction. It
further requires the Secretary to develop a general management plan for
the national monument and submit the plan to Congress no later than
three years after funds are first made available for that purpose.
Plum Island is an 840-acre island located 1.5 miles northeast of
Orient Point in Suffolk County, New York, within Long Island Sound. The
island has been in federal government ownership since 1899, when it was
purchased for the purposes of a coastal artillery post, later known as
Fort Terry. In 1954, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
established the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) to conduct
research on animal pathogens to protect farmers, ranchers, and the
national food supply. Because of the nature of the research and hazards
presented, access to the island and the research facility was
restricted.
In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assumed
jurisdiction over the island and its facilities. The USDA continued its
long-running science mission at PIADC jointly with DHS, which was
charged with the safe and secure operation of the facility.
In 2008, Congress approved legislation requiring that Plum Island
be sold to help fund the new DHS National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility
in Manhattan, Kansas. However, in response to sustained advocacy from
community and environmental organizations to preserve Plum Island for
public purposes, Congress approved legislation in 2020 preventing the
sale of the island to a private party.
The Department recognizes Plum Island's tremendous biodiversity and
wildlife habitats, as well as its rich cultural and historic assets.
Notably, Plum Island provides a critical stopover habitat for migrating
birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is home to one
of New York's largest seal haul-out sites. Researchers have identified
over 200 species of birds, over 200 species of moths, 9 mammals, and 5
reptiles inhabiting Plum Island. Several federal or state-listed
threatened or endangered species can be found on the island, including
the piping plover (federally threatened) and the monarch butterfly
(federal candidate species).
A number of historic buildings exist from the island's years as a
military fort, including a fire station and Fort Terry, a National
Register Historic Site, which was in use from 1897 until after World
War II. The Plum Island Lighthouse, also a National Register Historic
Site, was built in 1869 to help ships navigate near the entrance to
Long Island Sound. In addition, several buildings of the PIADC research
facility have been determined to be eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Plum Island's long history of serving as a site for military
operations and animal pathogen research has led to a series of ongoing
environmental challenges. The DHS 2023 environmental assessment (EA)
for the closure of the PIADC cites four categories of environmental
concern that require remediation or preventative steps:
1. The PIADC biocontainment facilities must be decontaminated. The
EA recommends that a decontamination process, complete
validation testing, and soil testing be conducted at the
three biocontainment facilities. Decontamination will
include methods such as scrubbing, liquid cleaning, thermal
disinfection via autoclaves, chemical disinfection, and
fumigation. As a result of the use of cleaning chemicals
such as formaldehyde and the thermal disinfection of nearly
all equipment within the facility, once usable
infrastructure at PIADC will be rendered unsafe for human
occupation until this costly decontamination work can be
completed.
2. A number of waste management areas must be remediated. The EA
notes that DHS has worked closely with state and local
health departments over the past three decades to
investigate and successfully remediate numerous sites of
concern, including removing buried waste, capping
contaminated areas, and conducting soil and groundwater
monitoring. However, 10 additional sites of concern require
further action.
3. The EA recommends testing and remediation of subsurface oil
contamination in and around the PIADC facilities.
4. Actions must be taken to prevent future environmental issues
involving long-term storage of assets, including emergency
generators, boilers, chillers, and, potentially, the
island's Major Oil Storage Facility.
In addition to the issues outlined above, the Department foresees
budgetary challenges--and potentially further environmental concerns--
involved with rehabilitating or demolishing aging buildings, managing a
costly marine transportation system, and upgrading island
infrastructure to accommodate use in a manner that is safe and
accessible for employees and the public. The island contains dozens of
buildings and structures, water and power distribution systems,
wastewater and sewage treatment plants, an emergency power plant, and
electrical substations, and additional infrastructure. Significant
funding would be required to adequately remediate, maintain, or remove
this infrastructure, particularly if the Department were to open the
island to public access. These costs would far exceed the Department's
available resources. Another concern, as noted in a letter submitted
during the EA from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is the
need for shoreline mitigation, which is particularly important given
the vulnerability of Plum Island to sea level rise.
We share the bill sponsor's commitment to the preservation of Plum
Island's unique wildlife habitat and its abundant historic resources.
Through the America the Beautiful initiative, the Biden-Harris
Administration has made a national commitment to support local efforts
to conserve and restore America's natural areas for the many benefits
they provide, including supporting biodiversity, providing safe spaces
for outdoor recreation, and helping stem the climate crisis. The
Department has numerous tools at its disposal to support locally-led
conservation and restoration efforts, and we are committed to
collaborating with the Subcommittee, the bill sponsor, and the many
Plum Island stakeholders, as we explore ways to protect the island's
valuable assets and address its many challenging environmental issues.
Chairman Tiffany, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have.
H.R. 1647, to redesignate the Salem National Historic Site as the
``Salem Maritime National Historical Park'', and for other
purposes
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the
U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 1647, to
redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site as the ``Salem
Maritime National Historical Park'', and for other purposes.
The Department supports H.R. 1647.
H.R. 1647 would redesignate Salem Maritime National Historic Site
as ``Salem Maritime National Historical Park''. The bill would also
direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a boundary study to
evaluate any sites and resources located within the city of Salem,
Massachusetts that are associated with Salem's maritime history,
coastal defenses, or military history, including National Guard and
militia activity. This would include the Salem Armory Visitor Center
and the Salem Armory Park. The bill provides for the boundary study to
be completed within three years of funding being made available for the
study.
Designated by Secretarial Order in 1938, Salem Maritime National
Historic Site was the first designated national historic site. The park
preserves and interprets America's and New England's maritime history
and the important role that Salem played in the development of
international maritime trade from the late 17th century through the
19th century. While the park was originally limited to interpreting the
theme of maritime trade through the early 19th century, subsequent
legislation broadened the park's focus to include the domestic life of
colonial Salem, and immigration and industrial history of the city in
the 19th and 20th centuries.
Currently, the park is an 8.93-acre historic district containing
ten historic buildings, nine archeological sites, four historic wharfs,
and a historic light station, dating between 1675 and 1944. The
Friendship of Salem, a replica late-18th century tall ship owned and
operated by the National Park Service, reflects Salem's economic heyday
from the 1790s through the 1830s. The diverse historic resources and
replica tall ship provide living classrooms within which visitors can
consider the ways that tall ships and the rise of global maritime trade
networks in New England contributed to the American Revolution and
helped shape modern socioeconomic and political development in the
United States.
The park is also responsible for managing and operating the Salem
Regional Visitor Center in downtown Salem at the Salem Armory in which
the National Park Service has an ownership interest. The Salem Regional
Visitor Center serves as the primary Salem Maritime National Historic
Site visitor center, provides community spaces to explore the park
unit's interpretive themes in modern contexts, and supports the Essex
National Heritage Area. The park is a key site and gateway to the
national heritage area.
The Department believes that the redesignation of Salem Maritime
National Historic Site as a national historical park, as provided by
H.R. 1647, is appropriate. Generally, National Park System units
designated as ``national historical parks'' have a greater diversity of
historical resources and interpretive themes than those designated as
``historic sites'' and may be spread out over non-contiguous lands. As
is reflected in its long history, Salem Maritime National Historic Site
has expanded in the scope of its resources and its interpretation. The
deeper and broader experience it now offers to visitors supports the
basis for redesignation of this park as a national historical park.
The Department also believes that the boundary study provided by
H.R. 1647 could be very beneficial. The study would be useful in
identifying important maritime and coastal defense-related resources in
the vicinity of Salem that should be preserved and protected to enhance
our understanding of the significant contributions of this area to our
nation's history.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer questions that you or other members of the Committee might have.
H.R. 6852, to designate Holcombe Rucker Park, in Harlem, New York, as a
National Commemorative Site, and for other purposes
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 6852, to designate Holcombe Rucker
Park, in Harlem, New York, as a National Commemorative Site, and for
other purposes.
The Department supports bringing greater recognition to the
achievements and legacy of Holcombe Rucker, but we have concerns about
the use of the ``national commemorative site.'' We would be happy to
discuss alternative ways to commemorate Holcombe Rucker, the person,
and the Holcombe Rucker Park, the site.
H.R. 6852 would designate Holcombe Rucker Park in New York City,
New York as a National Commemorative Site. The bill specifies that the
site would not be a unit of the National Park System. There are no
provisions in the bill that would provide any relationship to the
National Park Service for the site, such as authority to provide
financial or technical assistance.
Holcombe Rucker Park is a playground owned and operated by New York
City Parks in the Harlem neighborhood of the New York City borough of
Manhattan. In 1974, the park was renamed in honor of Holcombe Rucker,
the Playground Director for a number of sites across Harlem from 1948
to 1964. The park's outdoor basketball court has become well known as a
venue for a creative and competitive form of basketball referred to as
streetball and has been the subject of three films about the sport:
Above the Rim, On Hallowed Ground, and The Real: Rucker Pro Legends and
Fathers of the Sport.
Holcombe Rucker Park was among the sites inventoried in the
National Park Service's 2023 African American Outdoor Recreation
National Historic Landmark Theme Study. The study highlighted Holcombe
Rucker as an educator and a playground director who believed that
education and supervised recreation could help troubled Black youth in
urban neighborhoods. In the 1940s, Rucker started a small outdoor
basketball tournament for Black youth. Despite limited support from the
city park management, Rucker's summer tournaments grew in popularity
and, by 1965, the tournaments were relocated to the more suitable
facility that would eventually bear his name--Holcombe Rucker Park.
Holcombe Rucker Park would eventually become a magnet for the
city's most talented young basketball players, and it played host to
pickup games and tournaments where future professional basketball stars
such as Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Nate Archibald, Wilt Chamberlain, Julius
Erving and other streetball legends honed their craft. Rucker's
philosophy of education and supervised recreation, put into practice
through his successful outdoor basketball tournaments, contributed in
the 1960s to the city's efforts to construct other recreational
facilities in several predominantly Black neighborhoods.
Designating Holcombe Rucker Park as a National Commemorative Site
could create confusion among the general public about the significance
of the title and the site's relationship to the National Park Service.
The term ``National Commemorative Site'' has no definition by law or
custom. The National Park Service is aware of two examples where
Congress has used this designation: for the Quindaro Townsite National
Commemorative Site in Kansas, and the Charleston High School National
Commemorative Site in Arkansas. In both instances, designation has
included a role for the National Park Service, either as a provider of
financial and technical assistance, or as a provider of a commemorative
monument and interpretive exhibit. Designating Holcombe Rucker Park as
a National Commemorative Site, without any provisions tying it to the
National Park Service, would bring further uncertainty regarding the
significance of this designation.
Rather than moving forward with H.R. 6852, the Department would
encourage the proponents of providing greater recognition for Holcombe
Rucker Park to explore alternative ways to honor and interpret the
site's history and the contributions of Holcombe Rucker to outdoor
recreation in urban America. The Department would be pleased to work
with the sponsor and their constituents to explore other options.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer questions that you or other members of the Committee might have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Michael Reynolds, Deputy
Director, Congressional and External Relations, National Park Service
Mr. Reynolds did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. During your testimony, you mentioned that the
Department is focusing on ways to ``quicken'' the appraisal process in
land exchanges.
1a) Can you expand on the negative impacts delays in the appraisal
process have on the Department and individual bureaus such as BLM and
NPS?
1b) How long does the average appraisal process take for an
administrative land exchange, both Department-wide and by individual
bureau?
1c) How long does the average appraisal process take for a
Congressionally mandated land exchange, both Department-wide and by
individual bureau?
1d) How long does the average appraisal process take for an
administrative land conveyance, both Department-wide and by individual
bureau?
1e) How long does the average appraisal process take for a
Congressionally mandated land conveyance, both Department-wide and by
individual bureau?
1f) Has the Department identified any mechanisms that can be
implemented that would reduce the appraisal backlog?
1g) Has the National Park Service identified any mechanisms that
can be implemented that would reduce the appraisal backlog?
1h) Has the Bureau of Land Management identified any mechanisms
that can be implemented that would reduce the appraisal backlog?
1i) What is the current backlog of appraisals that need to take
place, both Department-wide and by individual bureau?
1j) Which state(s) have the highest numbers of pending DOI
appraisals and what are the specific reasons in these state(s) for such
a backlog?
Question 2. What is the average amount of time it takes to complete
an administrative land exchange, both Department-wide and by individual
bureau?
Question 3. What is the average amount of time it takes to complete
a Congressionally mandated land exchange, both Department-wide and by
individual bureau?
Question 4. What is the average amount of time it takes to complete
an administrative land conveyance, both Department-wide and by
individual bureau?
Question 5. What is the average amount of time it takes to complete
a Congressionally mandated land conveyance, both Department-wide and by
individual bureau?
Question 6. What is the average amount of time it takes to complete
the environmental review process for typical land exchanges, both
Department-wide and by individual bureau?
Question 7. What is the average amount of time it takes to complete
the environmental review process for typical land conveyance, both
Department-wide and by individual bureau?
Question 8. How many DOI lands available for disposal have been
conveyed out of federal ownership in the last 5 years?
Question 9. How many DOI lands available for disposal have been
conveyed out of federal ownership since 2021?
Question 10. DOI recently announced it will spend $195 million
dollars on ``climate restoration and resilience projects'' in national
parks over the next 10 years. As part of the announcement, NPS provided
a project list on its website that describes each project title, cost,
and the park(s) where the project will take place. However, there are
seven projects listed totaling $10,423,826 that provide the project
title and cost but list the park(s) as ``TBD''.
10a) What factors did the agency consider when deciding how to
allocate this funding?
10b) Why is the Department unable to provide the names of the 10
parks in which over $10 million dollars of taxpayer funding are being
spent?
10c) For each of these seven projects that are listed as ``TBD'',
please provide a breakdown of which parks will receive this funding.
10d) How can the NPS know the cost and subject of a project if it
does not know the location in which it will be implemented?
10e) Will the project list be updated when the agency determines
where these seven projects will take place?
10f) Please describe how the NPS calculates estimated costs for
climate resilience programs and provide examples.
Question 11. Please provide an update on the implementation of the
Japanese American World War II History Network Act (section 645 of
Division DD of Public Law 117-328).
11a) Has the Department reviewed studies and reports to complement
Japanese American World War II history and Japanese American
experiences during World War II, including studies related to
relocation centers and confinement sites?
11b) Has the Department produced and disseminated any appropriate
educational materials, such as handbooks, maps, interpretive guides, or
electronic information relating to Japanese American World War II
history and Japanese American experiences during the war, including
relocation centers and confinement sites, since this law's enactment?
11c) Has the Department entered into any cooperative agreements or
memoranda of understanding to provide technical assistance under this
law? If yes, please provide a list of each one.
11d) Has the Department adopted an official, uniform symbol or
device for the Network?
11e) Have regulations been issued regarding the use of this symbol
or device?
11f) Does the Network have a website?
11g) When does the Department anticipate this law will be fully
implemented?
Question 12. What is the current backlog of special resource
studies at NPS?
Question 13. When does NPS anticipate the backlog of special
resource studies will be completed?
Question 14. How much does the average special resource study cost?
Question 15. How long does it take to complete the average special
resource study?
Question 16. Would DOI support conducting a special resource study
on designating Plum Island in New York as a national monument?
Question 17. How long would a special resource study on designating
Plum Island as a national monument take?
Question 18. Has NPS ever managed a former Department of Homeland
Security facility, as in the case of Plum Island? Are there any special
considerations regarding DOI managing former DHS facilities?
Question 19. In NPS's testimony on H.R. 1584, the agency references
a letter sent during the EA process to the EPA. Please provide a copy
of this letter.
Question 20. Can NPS please elaborate on the estimated cost the
agency would incur if the agency would take over administrative
jurisdiction and management of Plum Island?
Question 21. How many national historic sites have been
redesignated as national historical parks? Please provide a list of
each example.
Question 22. If NPS does not support a commemorative site
designation for Rucker Park, what designation would the agency support?
Question 23. Would NPS support placing an interpretive exhibit at
Rucker Park?
Question 24. In March 2021, NPS began construction on a ``Wall of
Remembrance'' containing the names of soldiers who gave their lives in
the Korean War in addition to completing an overall rehabilitation of
the Korean War Veterans Memorial. The project was completed on July 27,
2022, at a cost of $22 million in donated funds from the people of the
United States of America and the Republic of Korea. Just months after
the new site opened, it was revealed that several hundred of the
American service members' names were misspelled or missing. It is
estimated that the Wall of Remembrance contains 1,015 spelling errors
and incorrectly includes the names of 245 service members who died in
circumstances totally unrelated to the war.
Can you please provide an update on NPS's work with DOD to correct
errors on the Wall? Please include a timeline and estimated cost for
correcting any errors as part of this response.
______
Mr. Tiffany. OK, thank you very much, Director Reynolds,
and I am going to recognize Members for 5 minutes for
questioning. I am going to start out with the questioning.
Mr. Smith, Representative Amodei's bill withdraws about
300,000 acres managed by the Forest Service in the Ruby
Mountains from oil and gas development. Are you aware of any
oil and gas development on that parcel currently?
Mr. Smith. Currently, there are no oil and gas activities,
and the geology suggests that it is low-impact, in terms of any
kind of oil and gas activities to be gained from that. But
currently there are no activities on that parcel.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Smith, if they say it is low-impact, does
that mean that there is little chance that there would be any
oil and gas development?
Mr. Smith. Yes, that is the information that we get from
the geologist.
Mr. Tiffany. So, why would the withdrawal be necessary if
it is low-impact?
First of all, it is not happening now, and there is a low
probability that this would happen. Why is it necessary to have
to do that? Why couldn't we have the proposal that is being
suggested by Representative Amodei without this being included?
Mr. Smith. A lot of concern was generated by the locals in
Nevada that they wanted to see it continually protected, so
that is how that came about. And that is why we considered
withdrawing it.
Mr. Tiffany. OK. Have you heard from Nevadans that have
said, no, this really isn't necessary?
Mr. Smith. I have not. I can certainly look into that.
Mr. Tiffany. In regards to the 150,000 acres of Federal
lands being designated as wilderness, is it really necessary
for this project to add more wilderness?
So, for our edification, wilderness is one of the most
restrictive designations. Is that correct? And could you talk
about that a little bit, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Yes, there are restrictions, particularly when
it comes to non-motorized activities, but there are lots of
exceptions, and for good reasons, that we allow particularly
oil and gas leasing. If they are valid and existing rights,
those rights can still be utilized. You can still have oil and
gas activity within those.
Also, there are exceptions for safety, fire concerns. So,
there are exceptions for good reasons that we allow activities
in the wilderness.
Mr. Tiffany. And more broadly speaking, have those
exceptions been readily utilized as we have seen more fire in
the western states?
Mr. Smith. Yes, we have certainly considered a lot of those
activities in our wildlife crisis strategy.
Mr. Tiffany. The Department has been proactive?
Mr. Smith. Yes, they have been very proactive in our 10-
year strategy.
Mr. Tiffany. Director Reynolds, in regards to the Plum
Island proposal as a national monument, given the unique
attributes of Plum Island and the discontinued operations of
the Animal Disease Center, does the Department believe it would
be feasible to manage Plum Island as a national monument?
Mr. Reynolds. I think we have a number of questions, as I
mentioned in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, about making the
island safe for visitor use. And there are just a lot of
concerns that the Department would still like to work with
everybody involved in this complex place to move forward on.
But we do support the idea that this island is a very special
place.
Mr. Tiffany. My understanding is there has not been a study
done with the Department's support, a special resource study to
determine the appropriate designation.
Mr. Reynolds. We can come back and confirm that. I believe
we would be welcoming any kind of thing to help clarify these
issues.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you. That is going to conclude my
questions, and I am going to yield back. I will turn to the
Ranking Member for his opportunity for 5 minutes to ask
questions of our witnesses.
Mr. Neguse.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again to
both of our witnesses for your testimony and for your service
at your respective agencies.
One kind of top-line observation I guess I would make, and
then I have some technical questions regarding Mr. LaLota's
bill and Mr. Espaillat's bill. The top-line observation, this
is more, I suppose, directed towards my good friend and
colleague, and the Chairman of our Committee, is that I think
this is a great opportunity for us to debate some bills that
deserve an open hearing and deserve some candid, back-and-forth
conversation with respect to bills that propose a variety of
withdrawals, mineral withdrawals, oil and gas development
withdrawals, as well as some conveyances of various different
parcels in our respective regions and states.
And I would hope that this Subcommittee could consider more
bills of this nature. Irrespective of whether or not they
ultimately make it across the finish line to a markup and to
the Floor, we have a long list of bills from our side of the
aisle, Democratic colleagues, who would like to have their
bills considered in this same vein. This, I believe, is the
first Subcommittee hearing that we have had considering bills
of this nature.
So, I would just encourage both the Chairman of the
Subcommittee and the Chairman of the Full Committee that I
don't know that we should be afraid of the debate, and we
should be able to have an open process and be able to consider
similar bills, for example, similar to Mr. Amodei's bill, which
obviously, there are folks on different sides of the equation
in terms of how they feel about it, but we have an opportunity
to actually get into the weeds on it, and Mr. Amodei has the
opportunity to make his case. So, I would just encourage the
Chairman of the Subcommittee and Chairman of the Full Committee
to respectfully consider that request for the duration of 118th
Congress.
With respect to the bills that we are considering today,
Mr. Reynolds, in terms of the bill to protect Rucker Park, or
rather, to recognize it as a commemorative place, I guess I
respectfully disagree with the NPS's observations that you all
have provided in your written testimony and that you have
mentioned.
And the second page of your written testimony says, and I
will quote this, ``We share the bill's sponsor's commitment to
the preservation''--oh, excuse me, that is Plum Island.
With respect to this particular bill designating Holcombe
Rucker Park, you make the observation, with respect to two
other bills that are of a similar nature to this bill that we
are considering, that in both of those instances designations
included a role for the NPS, either as a provider of financial
and technical assistance or as a provider of a commemorative
monument and interpretive exhibit.
So, I guess what I am suggesting to you is, it seems like a
simple amendment to Mr. Espaillat's bill that provides for the
NPS to play a technical assistance role or provides for the NPS
to provide an interpretive exhibit would solve your concerns.
And I understand the NPS's historical opposition, just as a
general matter, to commemorative designations. But at the end
of the day, to the extent that Congress works its will and
decides on a bipartisan basis that this is worth doing, I would
presume that a technical amendment of that sort would address
and allay your concerns.
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for all
that.
I think, bottom line, in plain English, we think this story
deserves recognition. It is a fabulous history. And I think our
technical concerns are more about the national commemorative
site designation, and I think there are lots of different
choices, to your point, that we can help work with either the
sponsor or the Committee to make this work out.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you. Well, I appreciate that, Mr.
Reynolds, and I would certainly welcome that. And I know Mr.
Espaillat, I am sure will, as well. Let's find a way to get a
technical amendment on there so we can get this bill across the
finish line.
Secondly, and finally, I am running out of time, but with
respect to Mr. LaLota's bill regarding Plum Island, I suppose
it is less a question than a statement. I would suggest that
while I understand the NPS has a variety of concerns, and
clearly, the island has a complicated history, again, just with
respect to the remediation and other costs that are outlined in
your testimony, to the extent that the Congress is working its
will and decides that this is an island that merits this type
of protection, and I have historically been very supportive of
these types of designations, I would just encourage you to work
with the bill's sponsor so that we can find a way to get this
bill to a markup, because I have never been to Plum Island, but
from what I have gleaned from reading about it and hearing
about it, it sounds like a place that we ought to be
protecting.
With that, I can see the balance of my time has expired.
Mr. Reynolds. Thank you, and I will take that back, sir.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. The Ranking Member yields. Now, I would like
to turn to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Bentz, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr., not speaker, Chair.
And I think, Mr. Smith, I am going to ask you questions
about the Nevada bill, because it is of great interest to me in
Oregon, where we have been working on a somewhat similar piece
of legislation for several years. And I have always been
interested in whatever the rationale might be when it comes to
these pieces of Federal land that are going to be given to
these small cities or even larger cities, as compared to the
total amount of Federal land, in this case, Nevada. Of course,
the total amount of federally controlled land in Nevada is 56
million acres, and we are talking about a fraction of that
number here.
But you indicate, and I wasn't paying close enough
attention, that the Department has concerns about Titles I, II,
and V, which I am staring at. So, I am just curious. What are
those concerns that would rise to a level that would say we
have to be worried about what amounts to something less than
30,000 acres, when the Federal Government has 56 million acres?
Mr. Smith. I think the concerns that we have cited in our
written testimony as well as the oral testimony is that we are
concerned with things like time frames, for example, there are
titles in there for 180 days. It is very difficult to get that
done within 100 days, in 6 months when you are talking about
public involvement, when you are talking about NEPA, when you
are talking about evaluation. So, it is just technical things
that we have concerns about.
Mr. Bentz. It is not an objection to the merits, then, this
is just a procedural concern that you have.
Mr. Smith. Correct.
Mr. Bentz. Is that true as to all three of those Sections
1, 2, and 3, it is just procedural?
Mr. Smith. Yes. We would like to work with the Committee to
get those changes.
Mr. Bentz. You also mentioned in a previous exchange
regarding the nature of wilderness restrictions--the Chair
asked what those restrictions on wilderness are. This is of
great interest to me, because if you look at different
wildernesses that have been established there is different
protected access, for example.
Do you anticipate any challenges when it comes to access to
this wilderness that has been created in this particular bill?
Mr. Smith. That is something we want to work with the
Committee on to make sure that there is access in there, and
also to protect the values of wilderness. So, those are just
some technical things that have been raised by the locals that
we need to work out. I don't have specifics on that, but we
certainly stand ready to work with the Chairman and the bill's
sponsor to do whatever we need to do.
Mr. Bentz. I think the concern to me, looking back into
Oregon, where we have the similar situation, the amount of land
we are dealing with there are around 1 million acres that is a
combination of wilderness study area and then land with
wilderness characteristics. But all this area, it is a huge
area, so to lock it up and not allow folks to use existing
roads to access for, let's say, fire suppression purposes or
cultural purposes, is not a good idea.
So, I am just really asking you, do you, as a Department,
take a position on access and trying to restrict it?
Or if a road fails by washing out or something, do you
allow motorized vehicles to go in and repair it?
This is of great concern in Oregon. I am sure it is a
concern in Nevada also. What is your Department's position on
access when it comes to, first of all, motorized for the
purposes I just mentioned, cultural, for example, and then
repairing those roads, the existing ones, of course?
Mr. Smith. Typically, before we designate that we have a
wilderness study. There is a lot of public comment involvement,
and we take all that into consideration, so I don't know
specifics on that.
But at the end of the day, all wilderness is designated by
Congress. So, that has been a thorough vetting before we
declare anything wilderness. And we certainly, like I said,
when you are talking about fire, when you are talking about
safety, when you talk about oil and gas activities, a lot of
that is allowed in wilderness where they are validating
existing rights.
Mr. Bentz. Right. So, there was a little point of
clarification I would like on that, access for mining or gas or
whatnot. If you declare the wilderness, isn't the only thing
that is preserved those claims that already exist?
Mr. Smith. That is correct.
Mr. Bentz. So, any new activity is barred.
Mr. Smith. That is correct, once it has been designated
wilderness.
Mr. Bentz. Right. So, in your answer to the Chairman
earlier, the qualification should have been, I think you
actually made it, if those claims exist, if those filings have
occurred, then those are protected, but anything new is barred.
Mr. Smith. Yes, with the exceptions of, if you have an
emergency situation for safety or wildfire, there are
exceptions, but it depends on the situation.
Mr. Bentz. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to
recognize Mr. Espaillat for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Chairman. Regarding H.R. 6852, I
would like to propose that the Harlem Rucker Park educational
aspect is one that fits perfectly through a cooperative
agreement with the public and private entities for educational
purposes. And I am sure that you will hear in the testimonies
of our folks here today the wonderful job that they have done
with regards to scholarships and other educational
opportunities. So, I am sure that there is room for a
cooperative agreement through an amendment as we move forward.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a favorable vote of yes.
I yield.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, sir. The gentleman yields, and next we
will turn to the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Westerman,
for questions.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and thank you
to everyone who presented their bills and the witnesses today.
Mr. Bentz raised an issue that I would just like to get some
input from both Mr. Smith and Mr. Reynolds.
I had one of these land transfer bills several years ago
that we had a hearing on and marked it up. It passed the House,
passed the Senate, got signed into law. It was a massive land
transfer. It was 3 acres that a church sat on in my district
that had a cemetery that had gravestones in it that pre-dated
the Forest Service. And they were trading 6 acres of private
land for the 3 acres, and it took almost 2 years to do it.
Mr. Smith, you were talking about the time crunch. I could
see where it might get a little more complicated with a big
land transfer like Mr. Amodei's bill, but why does it take so
long, and what could we do to increase the timing?
And I took the Chief of the Forest Service there, and took
the Deputy Under Secretary of the Interior there. With both of
them pushing, it was like within a week of the 2-year deadline
that Congress set to make this land transfer happen. Why does
it take so long?
And I never got a cost from it, but I know the Department's
Forest Service and Interior probably spent three or four times
more money than the value of the land going through the
transfer process. So, is there something we could do to help
you all make those land transfers happen much more quickly and
much more efficiently?
Mr. Smith. I think we are aware of that we have
administrative responsibilities already and authorities to do
that.
Typically, when you are dealing with that, you are dealing
with the proponent and the agency, and a lot of times it is
title issues. A lot of times it is environmental assessments
that we have to do. There are a lot of administrative laws that
are not waived when we get the legislative land exchanges, or
cemeteries, or whatever. So, we have to work through the
administrative process that we have.
And yes, a lot of times, unfortunately, it could take that
long. But typically, it is something that the proponents don't
have, something that we don't have. So, there is a bunch of
back and forth until we get it there. But we just follow the
process.
Mr. Westerman. Do you have any recommendations on how to
make the process better? Because that process was not good.
Mr. Smith. I would certainly like to work with the
Committee to figure that out. Off the top of my head, I can't
suggest any specific changes right now.
Mr. Westerman. Mr. Reynolds? Because it was Forest Service
and BLM that were involved in it.
Mr. Reynolds. We also have a lot of land exchanging and
transfer processes. And as Mr. Smith indicates, we would be
happy to sit down to try to keep improving these processes.
A lot of times it is also appraisal length of time that we
are very focused on at the Department of the Interior right
around how to quicken those things, I guess I could say. So, we
share your concern.
Mr. Westerman. All right, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would now like to
recognize Mr. Amodei from Nevada for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith, you said you are opposed to Sections 1, 2, and
5. One is the Douglas County Economic Conservation Act. It says
Douglas County gets 7,700 acres for flood control and
management, 188 acres for flood protection. Do you know if
either one of those conveyances come from Forest Service land
or BLM? Are you aware of, because it is not all Forest Service.
Mr. Smith. Right.
Mr. Amodei. And it is not all BLM.
Do either one of those two ring a bell for impact on Forest
Service, if you know?
Mr. Smith. I don't know that.
Mr. Amodei. OK.
Mr. Smith. I would have to check that.
Mr. Amodei. Fair enough.
Now, it also says there are 1,084 acres to Douglas County
to be used for open space. Do you know if that is BLM inventory
or Forest Service inventory?
Mr. Smith. I would have to look. I don't have the
information.
Mr. Amodei. OK. And then, finally, there is a designation
of land that goes to the Washoe Tribe, which is the Indigenous
people in the Tahoe Basin, which I assume is from yours. Are
you opposed, as the Forest Service, to a conveyance of land to
the Washoe Tribe in Douglas County, based on ancestral claims?
Is the Forest Service opposed to that land being transferred to
the Washoe Tribe?
Mr. Smith. No, I think what I have said earlier in my
testimony is that there are just a lot of technical things that
we have concerns with, we don't support the bill as is written.
Mr. Amodei. OK, great. I appreciate that.
No. 2, you are opposed to because it is 14 acres of old
Santini-Burton purchases in the Tahoe Basin that the Forest
Service holds in the middle of Incline Village. Are we opposed
just philosophically? Because it is supposed to be transferred
to the General Improvement District, which is kind of like the
municipal organization there, for use as, according to the
bill, for public uses, not private development, not building
more hard surfaces in the Tahoe Basin. Is the Forest Service
opposed to that general proposition?
Mr. Smith. We are opposed in the sense that we think they
are sensitive lands on the Santini-Burton, and we think we are
better capable of managing those.
Mr. Amodei. Completely surrounded, not stream environment
zone, just as a general thing, if we got it and it is in Tahoe
in this instance, you have nothing more specific to offer?
Mr. Smith. Nothing more. But certainly, again, we would
like to work with you.
Mr. Amodei. OK, and I would, too, thank you.
The last one is the section which conveys half an acre in
the Carson Ranger District Office that is presently between the
district office and a Shell station, so they can put a street
through there. And there was a vague reference to, well, it is
going to disrupt our operations of the Carson Ranger District.
Anything more specific than that?
Mr. Smith. Nothing more specific than that.
Mr. Amodei. OK. Thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Crane, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crane. I have no questions at this time. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Amodei, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, sir. I just have one other thing,
which is a question I will ask myself that came up in some of
the earlier conversation, and that is about the piece in the
Ruby Mountains in Elko. And the question I am going to ask
myself so you can get it on the record is, why did you put this
in your bill?
It is Forest Service land, and it is, well, there is
nothing there and I will tell you the reason why it is in the
bill. Because, as it sits now, anybody can apply under the
applicable regs for oil and gas exploration.
And there was a question asked, Mr. Chair, that indicated,
hey, a lot of locals are griping about this. Let me tell you
what the locals did. And by the way, for political
scorekeepers, it is one of the ruby-reddest counties in Nevada.
I think I can say that since I represent the area. They went
nuts, saying, ``Please get rid of NEPA and make the Forest
Service tell them no.'' And some of us crazy people had to say,
``Let the Forest Service go through NEPA and see where they
decide. You know, maybe NEPA is fine.'' And guess what, Mr.
Chairman? The Forest Service went through NEPA and said no.
But then you say, well, OK, so what is the harm, what is
the foul? I will tell you what the harm, what the foul is. It
takes a lot for that ranger district to process those things,
go through the whole NEPA process, blah, blah, blah. They ended
up denying them and there is low probability of success. So, to
come back and say, which the locals support, or it wouldn't be
in there, to come back and say you can't do oil and gas
exploration stuff in the Ruby Mountains, all other multiple
uses are fine, nobody is transferring any property, or anything
else like that. But I can tell you that the Ruby Mountains
occupy a spot in the hearts and minds of Nevadans, and
especially those in northeastern Nevada, where they quite
simply don't want to have to be under the threat of anybody who
has a stamp or an e-mail address or whatever to go, here we go,
we are applying for these just because they are available.
There is a speculation game that goes on where it is like,
if they are a buck an acre or whatever, what the heck? If we
get them, if something happens, fine. Not a good policy for
that particular area. That is why that 400,000-acre piece or
300,000-acre piece is in the bill for your record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The Chair recognizes Mr. LaLota for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Chairman.
For a little more than a decade back at home, I have been
involved in Suffolk County government and politics. I have been
to scores of community meetings. I have been in Congress for
about a year. And it has been my experience that unified,
bipartisan, and community support on big ideas and big projects
is really hard to come by. But that is not the case when it
comes to preserving Plum Island.
In fact, my district is totally united in its support for
preserving Plum Island. It is among the most frequent topics
that my East End constituents raise with me, and I have yet to
meet a single person who is opposed to designating Plum Island
as a national monument.
Here, looking at Congress, I appreciate the signaling that
the Ranking Member from the other side of the aisle gave
towards his support. It feels good here, too, that a lot of
folks are rowing in the same direction to help preserve Plum
Island.
Back at home, in fact, many community groups are indeed
united in their support. In fact, I have with me a letter of
support for the Plum Island National Monument Act signed by the
Steering Committee of the Plum Island Coalition, which is a
group of over 125 member organizations. And those organizations
include local, state, and national organizations.
And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit this
letter of support from the Preserve Plum Island Coalition to
the record. It is dated March 5, 2024.
Mr. Tiffany. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
Preserve Plum Island Coalition
New Haven, CT
March 5, 2024
Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. John Curtis, Vice Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Federal Lands Subcommittee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: H.R. 1584, Plum Island National Monument Act
Dear Chairman Tiffany, Vice Chairman Curtis, and Ranking Member
Neguse:
The Preserve Plum Island Coalition (PPIC) is comprised of more than
120 national, regional, and local organizations, whose collective
membership totals several million members, united by the goal of
permanently preserving Plum Island, New York. Members support the PPIC
mission, which is to secure the permanent protection of the significant
natural, historical, and cultural resources of Plum Island. Plum Island
is a federally owned gem, boasting 24 ecological communities and high
biodiversity, including 229 species of birds. It offers opportunities
to educate the public about American history, the cultural heritage,
and nature. It lies at the confluence of two National Esruaries--Long
Island Sound and the Peconic Estuary.
The PPIC advocates for comprehensive conservation and management
solutions that safeguard this national treasure in the public trust as
a national monument, wildlife refuge, preserve, or other equivalent
protection, with carefully managed and equitable public access, in
perpetuity.
As members of the Steering Committee of the PPIC, we write to
express to you our strong support for the passage of H.R. 1584, the
``Plum Island National Monument Act'' sponsored by Representative
Nicholas LaLota (1st Congressional District-NY), designating Plum
Island a national monument for the purpose of ecological conservation,
historical preservation, and the discovery and celebration of our
shared cultural heritage. Specifically, this important legislation will
ensure the permanent protection of the highly significant ecological,
historical, and cultural resources found on Plum Island, through its
dedication as a national monument under the management of the
Department of Interior.
To this end, we are most appreciative of your consideration of H.R.
1584, through the hearing of the Federal Lands Subcommittee designed to
receive input on this legislative initiative. We thank Representative
LaLota for his introduction of the bill and thank the bill's co-
sponsors: Representatives Courtney, Garbarino, Himes, D'Esposito, and
Lawler. We strongly support its adoption, designating Plum Island a
national monument for the purpose of ecological conservation,
historical preservation, and the discovery and celebration of our
shared cultural heritage.
Achieving Plum Island's permanent protection is a goal supported by
elected officials at all levels of government. In addition to federal
support, many Long Island members of the New York State Senate and
Assembly, the entire 18-member Suffolk County Legislature, and the
Supervisor and other members of the Southold Town Board (within whose
town Plum Island is situated), have strongly supported the permanent
protection of this nationally significant, federally owned asset.
Widespread support for preserving Plum Island can be seen in a
compilation of letters from elected officials, organizations, and
citizens, along with editorials, articles, and media productions, in a
volume we posted to www.preserveplumisland.org/campaign-support last
fall.
We hope to work with your Subcommittee and Representative LaLota's
office in achieving this outcome. Please consider the PPIC to be a
resource to you and your staff if you have any questions concerning the
resources of Plum Island, past and current efforts to protect it, and
discussions various PPIC members have had with governmental agencies
and stakeholders regarding the same.
Sincerely,
John Turner,
Spokesperson
Members of the PPIC Steering Committee:
John Turner, Robert LaFrance,
Spokesperson Audubon Connecticut
Louise Harrison, Nicole Layman,
Save the Sound The Wilderness Society
Leah Lopez Schmalz, Mark Levine,
Save the Sound Orient Association
Denise Stranko, Marian Lindberg,
Save the Sound The Nature Conservancy in New
York
Drianne Benner, Vanessa Lockel,
Orient Association Cornell Cooperative Extension of
Suffolk County
Gordon Bliss, Erin McGrath,
Coast Defense Study Group Audubon New York
Sandi Brewster-Walker, Anne Murray,
Montaukett Indian Nation North Fork Environmental Council
Yvette DeBow-Salsedo, Francis O'Shea,
Peconic Land Trust Trust for Public Land
Robert DeLuca, Casey Petrashek,
Group for the East End New York League of Conservation
Voters
Adrienne Esposito, David Reisfield,
Citizens Campaign for the
Environment Friends of Plum Island
Jane Fasullo, Richard Remmer,
Sierra Club Long Island
Group Friends of Plum Island and Parks
& Trails NY
Gregory Jacob, Rebecca Rubin,
The Nature Conservancy in
New York Nature First Consulting, LLC
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5079.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5079.003
Mr. LaLota. Thank you.
Mr. Reynolds, how are you, sir? You are the Deputy Director
of the National Park Service. Thanks so much for being here
with us today. Can you briefly explain the process through
which the National Park Service goes before the Park Service
designates an area like Plum Island one of national importance?
And does that include a specific study?
Mr. Reynolds. Thank you very much, Congressman, for that.
And there are a lot of different ways, so I won't bore you with
all the details.
But Congress, of course, can designate national park units
at any time, as we are discussing today. And then, if and when
we have proposals such as Plum Island, usually there is a
special resource study. There are things also called recon
studies, which are faster. And we try to figure out, basically,
the values and the feasibility and the suitability of the site.
So, that is a very short answer to your good question.
And usually these things come down to, are there
nationally-significant resources? Are they suitable? Are they
feasible to be able to be managed? Could someone else manage
it? Questions like that.
Mr. LaLota. Great. And can you go into a little bit of
detail on the information you would need to prepare and publish
a special resource study?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes. First, I just want to reiterate that we
really support your efforts and all the efforts of the
stakeholders, of which there are many, for the conservation
values of Plum Island. We are there. There are just a ton of
questions, and as you know better than anybody, a complex
place. And that is why we want to just keep up the various
conversations. We have been having a lot with the other Federal
agencies on the island, as well as state and your local
constituents. We just want to keep those going to figure these
things out.
Mr. LaLota. Yes.
Mr. Reynolds. But to answer your question, we would need
to, I think there is a lot of study of the island, to be honest
with you. They have done an awful lot for the environmental
cleanup, and we would just need to make sure we have enough
information to understand what those natural and cultural
resources really are.
Mr. LaLota. What can I tell my constituents, sir? I
appreciate there needs to be a certain amount of bureaucracy
that has to go into it. I totally understand, though there is
overwhelming support, like I said, bipartisan, from the
community, nearly unanimous, if not unanimous. I understand,
still, with the Federal Government, we have to go through some
sort of bureaucratic process. What can I tell my constituents
as a timeline that it would take for you to do an appropriate
study to help expedite this?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes, I wouldn't know how to answer that right
now. But I would say that the quicker the timelines will
increase, the more we stay together and keep talking with the
existing agencies that are managing the island.
Mr. LaLota. And with respect to those talks, would you
accept any sort of studies or reports or what not done by
agencies other than your own to help expedite the process?
Mr. Reynolds. Yes. I look forward to sharing some of those
with you because I think it would help expedite the process. We
have been at this for a while. Credit to my predecessor and his
predecessor, many community groups who have been for this
effort. We are eager to get this across the finish line, and
consider us partners in anything that we need to do to get that
done. So, we are very supportive, sir.
Mr. LaLota. Awesome.
I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. I want to begin
by thanking you for convening this hearing today, as well as my
colleagues and bill sponsors who have put forth important
pieces of legislation that seek to improve our public lands and
best serve their respective constituents.
As I have shared with this Committee countless times, I am
a firm believer in advancing policies that promote access to
our public lands. Our public lands exist to serve the American
people. When we approach public lands policy, the first
question we need to ask is, how does this policy promote public
access and public use?
Part of that includes ensuring that the right land managers
are responsible for the right acreage. Sometimes it is best for
certain acreage to be held and managed by our Federal land
managers. Sometimes it is best to be held and managed by state,
county, or local land managers, and sometimes it is best to be
privately held to support our local economies. That brings us
to H.R. 7332, the Utah State Parks Adjustment Act, put forth by
Representative Maloy. In the case of this bill, it is in the
best interest of Utahns for this acreage to be managed by the
state of Utah and be part of their state park system.
Deputy Chief Smith, in your written testimony you outline
some of the concerns the Forest Service has with this
legislation. From my view, these concerns are really just
technical and mainly process-driven. Is that a fair assessment?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Stauber. If these concerns are addressed by the bill's
sponsor, would the Forest Service commit to supporting passage
of the legislation?
Mr. Smith. I think, depending on what the changes are, we
are certainly committed to working with the Committee. And if
all things work out, I think, yes, the answer would be yes. But
certainly, we need to look at the changes that are going to be
suggested.
Mr. Stauber. Of course. Thank you. I really hope you are
able to address these concerns with Representative Maloy and
commit to supporting the legislation, and it brings management
of this acreage closer to the local level, and thus will lead
to better productive use and enjoyment by all of the public.
Mr. Chair, I am going to yield the rest of my time to
Representative Amodei.
Mr. Tiffany. So ordered.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you to my colleague from Minnesota. And I
just want to, subject to other questions from the Committee, it
seems like in some of the questioning, anyhow, there is a
failure to distinguish between, and I appreciate Mr. Smith
being here, what affects the Bureau of Land Management in this
bill, what affects the Forest Service in this bill, what is
being designated as wilderness, and what is being removed from
oil and gas exploration. They are not, as everybody on this
Committee well knows, the same things.
So, while they all should be absolutely analyzed
critically, they need to be analyzed in the context of are we
creating wilderness in the Rubies or not? Are we doing stuff
that affects Forest Service land for most of the Douglas County
portion of the bill? No, other than the conveyance to the
Washoe Tribe. So, I would just remind the Committee, for its
analysis, that there are various lanes in this. It is a
comprehensive bill that we are trying to be efficient with.
And by the way, the final thing is it didn't get in this
bill unless it was consensus by the locals. So, when we talk
about imposing our judgments on what is in here, which we are
expected to do, I think the context of that is this is what the
locals asked for. Not that they get carte blanche in that, but
let's try to keep that in those lanes if we can.
I yield back the time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
to my colleague.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, I will reclaim my time and then
yield to Representative Bentz for my remainder.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields to Mr. Bentz.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you for the yield.
Mr. Smith, I am challenged by, again, the Department's
position. I had asked earlier if there was something other than
procedural objections to what is being suggested here for the
state of Nevada. It sounded in one of your answers to a later
question that indeed there was some basis for not wanting this
to happen. Can you share that again?
If it is not procedural, but something on the merits, pick
any one of these transfers and tell me why it should not
happen.
Mr. Smith. Most of those transfers we have concerns of
whether we have access to the land that we currently have so
that you still have a public access in there.
Other concerns would be access to public trails, concerns
in terms of time frames. I have talked about sometimes the time
frame is a little shorter. I think there is 180 days in there a
couple of times, and we just don't think that is enough. In
order to go through the public policy analysis, go through
environmental, you go through appraisals, whatever, just the
laws on the books that we have to do, we think that is a very
short time frame for us to do it, and we would certainly need a
longer time. So, those are the basic concerns in there.
Mr. Bentz. Right. Yes, thank you. My time has expired, and
thank you.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. Now, I would like to
recognize Representative Maloy for 5 minutes.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith, I had a whole list of questions here, and some
of my colleagues have really covered it, but I just want to put
a fine point on some of this.
You stated in your testimony that the Forest Service has
concerns with the Fremont Indian State Park conveyance as
described in the Utah State Parks Adjustment Act, including the
prescribed time frames, which you just addressed, diligence,
and future access by the Forest Service for road and trail
easements, and procedures for resolving conflicts between the
maps.
I just want to point out that the bill specifically
addresses future access and existing rights, and making minor
boundary adjustments to the maps. So, if the timeline is your
only concern, or if we just need to reiterate the things that
are specified in the bill, will you have your staff work with
my staff and Senator Lee's team to address these so that we can
have all these concerns hammered out and move this bill
forward?
Mr. Smith. We certainly look forward to working with you
and the Committee on that. We would be happy to do so.
Ms. Maloy. OK, thank you. In an overall sense, I just want
to reiterate, where does the U.S. Forest Service get its
authority to manage land in the United States?
Mr. Smith. Where the Forest Service gets----
Ms. Maloy. How was the Forest Service created?
Mr. Smith. By the Organic Act.
Ms. Maloy. By Congress.
Mr. Smith. Congress, right.
Ms. Maloy. And there is just a general feeling in here that
Congress is overstepping somehow by telling the Forest Service
what to do. And I just want to put a fine point on that before
this hearing ends, that this is Congress working with the
Forest Service on land management. This isn't an invasion of
anybody's authority or ability to manage.
Mr. Smith. Yes, I certainly don't think that is the feeling
of the Department, nor certainly not the Forest Service.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you for clarifying that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the rest of my time.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields, and that will conclude
our questioning. If there are no further questions, we will now
move on to our third panel. Thank you, gentlemen, for your
testimony.
While the Clerk resets our witness table, I will remind the
witnesses that under Committee Rules, they must limit their
oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire statement will
appear in the hearing record.
I would also like to remind our witnesses of the timing
lights, which will turn red at the end of your 5-minute
statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone.
As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to
testify before Member questioning.
I will now recognize Representative Crane to introduce our
next witness, the Honorable Daryl Seymore, I hope I pronounce
your name correctly, District IV Supervisor at the Navajo
County Board of Supervisors.
Representative Crane, you may do your introduction.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to take a minute
to welcome Mr. Daryl Seymore to the Committee today.
Mr. Seymore has served on the Navajo County Board of
Supervisors since 2019, representing the communities of
Pinedale, Show Low, and others. Supervisor Seymore previously
served on the Show Low City Council for 16 years, including as
Mayor for 8 years. He currently serves on the boards of several
local and state organizations, including Northern Arizona
Council of Governments, Regional Council, the Chairman of the
Arizona Public Safety Retirement System, the Chairman of the
Corrections Officer Retirement Plan, and the National
Association of Counties Transportation Steering Committee.
Mr. Seymore, it is clear from your resume that you enjoy
serving your community and, in all the work you do, make life
better for citizens of Navajo County. Thank you for traveling
so far, and being able to talk to us today about the real-life
impact of this cemetery expansion for the residents of Pinedale
community. We really appreciate it, and admire your
determination to get this legislation passed.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Seymore, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARYL SEYMORE, DISTRICT IV SUPERVISOR,
NAVAJO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, HOLBROOK, ARIZONA
Mr. Seymore. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. I am Daryl
Seymore, Navajo County, for District IV. I am here to share
information about the impacts of H.R. 3047, Apache County and
Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2023, on unincorporated
communities of Alpine and Pinedale, Arizona.
Navajo and Apache counties are in the northeastern part of
Arizona, and are very rural, with each county having a
population of less than 150,000 residents. These counties are
steeped in tradition, and can trace their origins to two very
distinct communities: Native Americans and early pioneers. Both
groups still have thriving communities within Navajo and Apache
Counties. As part of that history, many current residents can
trace their family history back for generations, and take great
pride in being able to live, work, and raise families, and
eventually find their resting place in the same community.
Unfortunately, the cemeteries in Alpine and Pinedale have
reached their current capacity. Families are now seeking burial
locations in other communities for their loved ones who have
passed. This causes undue stress and hardships on the residents
of Alpine and Pinedale. Therefore, I am respectfully asking for
your help in expediting a solution to this pressing issue.
The existing Alpine Cemetery is 2.56 acres, which is leased
from the U.S. Forest Service and abuts the Apache National
Forest. It is estimated that the cemetery would need to expand
an additional 8.06 acres to accommodate current and future
community burial needs, bringing the total cemetery size to
10.62 acres.
Apache County's Public Works Department has spent several
years working with the Alpine District Rangers to identify
possible options for the cemetery's expansion. After many
attempts to acquire the expansion through the Town Site Act, it
ultimately proved to be expensive, time-consuming, and
burdensome. Alpine residents do not have any more time to find
a solution, and the only funding available goes entirely
towards maintaining the cemetery grounds.
Similarly, the existing Pinedale Cemetery in Navajo County
is approximately 2\1/2\ acres, which is leased from the U.S.
Forest Service and borders the Sitgreaves National Forest. It
is estimated that the cemetery would need to expand an
additional 2\1/2\ acres to accommodate current and future
community burial needs, bringing the total cemetery size to 5
acres.
Like Apache County, Navajo County's Public Works Department
has spent just over 2 years working with Joshua Miller,
District Ranger for the Lakeside Ranger District, to identify
possible options for the cemetery's expansion. After extensive
conversation and hours of research, Mr. Miller learned that the
only clear path forward for the U.S. Forest Service would be to
sell the full 5 acres to Navajo County. Unfortunately, this
option is not feasible due to time and cost constraints.
As we learned from the sale of the Woodland Lake Park in
Pinetop-Lakeside, Arizona, the process to purchase land from
the U.S. Forest Service can take years, which is time the
Pinedale residents simply don't have. As a matter of fact, I
spoke with the local cemetery board, and learned they are
considering closing off road space to use for burial space.
In addition, we heard from the Forest Service the total
acreage for this request is so small this project would not be
expedited through the sale process.
This request comes as a partnership between Navajo County,
Apache County, the communities of Pinedale, the community of
Alpine, the Apache-Sitgreaves Forest. Given the urgency of this
issue, all these partners are committed to working to find a
solution. We are asking Congress' help to pass legislation
authorizing a congressional land delineation of 5 acres within
the Sitgreaves Forest for the existing and expanded Pinedale
Cemetery, and 10.62 acres within the Apache Forest for the
existing expanded Alpine Cemetery. Without your help, families
in these communities will be forced to make the heartbreaking
decision to bury their family somewhere other than their
hometown.
Thank you for your time today, and I am available for
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Seymore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daryl Seymore, Navajo County Supervisor
District IV
on H.R. 3047
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and members of the sub-committee, for
the opportunity to address you today. I'd also like to thank
Representative Eli Crane for sponsoring this bill. My name is Daryl
Seymore and I'm the Navajo County Supervisor for District 4 and I'm
here to share information about the impacts of House Resolution 3047
Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2023 on the
unincorporated communities of Alpine and Pinedale Arizona.
Navajo and Apache Counties are in the northeastern part of Arizona
and are very rural with each county having a population of less than
150,000 residents. These counties are steeped in tradition and can
trace their origins to two very distinct communities: Native Americans
and the early Pioneers. Both groups still have thriving communities
within Navajo and Apache counties. As part of that history, many
current residents can trace their family history back for generations
and take great pride in being able to live, work, raise families, and
eventually find their resting place in the same community.
Unfortunately, the cemeteries in Alpine and Pinedale have reached their
current capacity. Families are now seeking burial locations in other
communities for their loved ones who have passed. This causes undue
stress and hardships on the residents of Alpine and Pinedale.
Therefore, I am respectfully asking your help to find an expedient
solution to this pressing issue.
The existing Alpine cemetery is 2.56 acres, which is leased from
the U.S. Forest Service and abuts the Apache National Forest. It is
estimated that the cemetery would need to expand an additional 8.06
acres to accommodate current and future community burial needs bringing
the total cemetery size to 10.62 acres.
Apache County's Public Works Department has spent several years
working with the Alpine District Rangers to identify possible options
for the cemetery's expansion. After many attempts to acquire the
expansion through the Townsite Act, it ultimately proved to be
expensive, time consuming and burdensome. Alpine residents do not have
any more time to find a solution and the only funding available goes
entirely toward maintaining the cemetery grounds.
Similarly, the existing Pinedale cemetery in Navajo County is
approximately two and a half acres, which is leased from the U.S.
Forest Service and borders the Sitgreaves National Forest. It is
estimated that the cemetery would need to expand an additional two and
a half acres to accommodate current and future community burial needs
bringing the total cemetery size to 5 acres.
Like Apache County, Navajo County's Public Works Department has
spent just over two years working with Joshua Miller, District Ranger
for the Lakeside Ranger District to identify possible options for the
cemetery's expansion. After extensive conversations and hours of
research, Mr. Miller learned that the only clear path forward for the
U.S. Forest Service would be to sell the full 5 acres to Navajo County.
Unfortunately, this option is not feasible due to time and cost
constraints.
As we learned from the sale of the Woodland Lake Park in Pinetop-
Lakeside, Arizona, the process to purchase land from the U.S. Forest
Service can take years, which is time the Pinedale residents simply
don't have! As a matter of fact, I spoke with the local cemetery board
and learned they are considering closing off road space and using that
for burial space. In addition, we heard from the Forest Services the
total acreage for this request is so small, this project would not be
expedited through the sale process.
This request comes as a partnership between Navajo County, Apache
County, the community of Pinedale, the community of Alpine, and the
Apache-Sitgreaves Forests. Given the urgency of this issue, all these
partners are committed to working together to find solutions. We are
asking Congress' help to pass legislation authorizing a Congressional
land delineation of 5 acres within the Sitgreaves Forest for the
existing and expanded Pinedale cemetery and 10.62 acres within the
Apache Forest for the existing and expanded Alpine cemetery. Without
your help, families in these communities will be forced to make the
heartbreaking decision to bury their family members somewhere other
than their hometown.
Thank you for your time today and I'm available for questions.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you very much, Supervisor. I now
recognize Representative Amodei to introduce our next witness,
the Honorable Bryce Shields.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesies.
Bryce Shields is the District Attorney for Pershing County,
Nevada, and has been in that position for 8 or 9 years. Getting
back to local-based decisions on things like this, he is the
representative for Pershing County that has come to our
neighborhood today to testify in support of this section, which
is the Pershing County Public Lands and Economic Development
Act.
You have his information in the booklet that we provided to
you under the Pershing County tab. It includes a resolution
from the Pershing County Commission, as well as Mr. Bryce's
statement, and it is an interesting thing to notice that you
are going to hear in that statement that, while it creates
136,000 acres of potential wilderness, that it also releases
nearly 50,000 acres of wilderness study areas, which is a big
deal in Nevada.
I would be remiss if I did not indicate that Mr. Shields'
wife is here with him, who is, in fact, a native of Nevada and
a member of the school board, and is here to encourage him. So,
I don't want to get in trouble with his wife. You guys can do
whatever you want with the District Attorney.
Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Shields, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRYCE SHIELDS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
PERSHING COUNTY, LOVELOCK, NEVADA
Mr. Shields. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Pershing
County. My name is Bryce Shields. I am the District Attorney of
Pershing County.
For the last 20 years, the county, together with a broad
spectrum of stakeholders, has sought resolution of the county's
long-standing public lands issues and associated economic woes,
a veritable Gordian's knot. We believe that Title VI of H.R.
3173 cuts this Gordian's knot, accomplishing three equally
important objectives: (1) providing a rational, planned
resolution to problems associated with checkerboard ownership
patterns; (2) promoting favorable conditions for economic
development and efficient resource management; and (3)
protecting both the county's rural heritage and lands that
truly are wild.
Nevada's checkerboard ownership pattern, which is strewn
across a 40-mile-wide swath on both sides of Interstate 80 in
Pershing County, strains effective management of public lands
and restricts public access within the checkerboard. This lack
of access stands as a barrier to the county's ability to
attract and guide development into sustainable patterns which,
in turn, restricts the county's tax base.
Compounding the problem, the Federal Government owns 75.6
percent of the land within Pershing County, leaving only 24.4
percent available for ad valorem taxation. Thus, of the small
percentage of land subject to ad valorem taxation in Pershing
County, an even smaller percent is suitable for development
sufficient to yield tax proceeds of significant value.
Title VI provides a solution to land management and
development challenges by directing the sale or exchange of
public lands within the checkerboard at fair market value. The
proceeds of these transactions will be distributed among the
BLM, county, and state. The revenue of these sales will enable
the BLM to purchase lands within the county and improve public
access, protect important landscapes, and conserve habitat.
Additionally, the sale or exchange of checkerboard lands
will likely encourage development in Pershing County
communities along the Interstate 80 corridor by creating for
the first time the prospect of contiguous parcels of private
property within the checkerboard in areas suitable for
development. Several businesses, including core mining, new
Nevada lands, renewable energy developers, and a data center
have already expressed interest in acquiring and consolidating
blocks of private ownership within the checkerboard. Such
development is crucial to expanding the county's tax base and
bringing jobs to our economically stressed region.
Title VI also designates approximately 136,000 acres of BLM
as a wilderness within Pershing County in the following areas:
Cain Mountain, Bluewing, Fencemaker, Grandfathers', Mount
Limbo, and North Sahwave. In exchange, the bill releases
roughly 48,000 acres of wilderness study areas throughout the
county.
As stewards of Pershing County's unique landscape, we
support and recommend the designation of these areas as
wilderness. Each of the seven areas under consideration
represents some of the most beautiful lands in Pershing County,
offering excellent wildlife habitat, spectacular scenery, and
solitude. Many of these areas sustain the legacy of rural
Nevada as the Bluewing, Fencemaker, Grandfather, and Mount
Limbo support watershed vital to important ranches that have
thrived in Pershing County for over 100 years. These lands are
worthy of preservation for future generations.
We invite the Subcommittee to consider that each proposed
area was hand-picked through a collaborative process consisting
of diverse stakeholders including the Board of County
Commissioners, corporate citizens, conservationists,
landowners, miners, ranchers, recreationists, sportsmen, and
more. These designations enjoy the unanimous support of both
the Board of County Commissioners and those who live, work, and
recreate in Pershing County.
In closing, we thank Congressman Amodei for his support of
this important legislation, and we urge Congress to pass the
bill this year.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shields follows:]
Prepared Statement of R. Bryce Shields, Pershing County District
Attorney
on H.R. 3173
Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse, on behalf of Pershing
County, Nevada, please accept for the official record the testimony of
R. Bryce Shields, Pershing County District Attorney, in support of H.R.
3173, the Northern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act of
2023. We express our sincere appreciation to Congressman Mark Amodei
for his unflagging efforts, support, and dedication to this important
legislation. While Pershing County endorses H.R. 3173 in its entirety,
we submit this testimony specifically in support of Title VI of the
bill, the Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation
provisions.
For the last twenty (20) years, the Pershing County Board of
Commissioners (the ``BOC''), together with a broad spectrum of
stakeholders, has sought the resolution of Pershing County's long-
standing public lands issues and concomitant economic woes, a veritable
Gordian knot. H.R. 3173 represents a culmination of those united
efforts, standing as a testament to the power of grassroots
organization and collaborative bipartisan decision making. We believe
that Title VI cuts this Gordian knot, accomplishing three equally
important objectives: 1) Providing a rational, planned resolution to
problems associated with checkerboard ownership patterns; 2) Promoting
favorable conditions for economic development and efficient resource
management; and 3) Protecting Pershing County lands that are truly
wild, along with the County's rural heritage.
Rationalizing the Checkboard, Promoting Economic Development, and
Efficient Resource Management
Nevada's checkboard ownership pattern, which is strewn across a 40-
mile-wide swath of land on each side of Interstate 80 in Pershing
County, strains proper BLM management of public lands and restricts
public access to checkboard lands due to the mixture of privately owned
parcels. The lack of access to lands within the checkerboard operates
as an economic barrier to the County's ability to attract and guide
development into sustainable patterns, which in turn restricts the
County's tax base. Compounding the problem, the Federal Government owns
75.6% of the land within Pershing County leaving only 24.4% available
for ad valorem taxation. Thus, of the small percentage of land subject
to ad valorem taxation in Pershing County, an even smaller percentage
is suitable for development sufficient to yield tax proceeds of
significant value.
Title VI or H.R. 3173 provides a solution to land management and
development challenges by directing the sale or exchange of public
lands within the checkerboard at fair market value. The proceeds of
these transactions will be distributed as follows:
1. 85% to Nevada's BLM to be used for ``willing seller'' land
purchases in Pershing County for conservation, wildlife
habitat, recreation, and preservation of other cultural and
ecological resources;
2. 10% to the Pershing County budget;
3. 5% to the state of Nevada general education fund per current law.
The proceeds of sales should afford the BLM the opportunity to
block up federal land holdings in sensitive areas more appropriate for
conservation, recreation, and species habitat and control. In turn, the
consolidation of federal property under BLM management, along with
increased funding from the proceeds of sales, will likely enable the
BLM to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance on public lands in
accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Additionally, the sale or exchange of checkboard lands will likely
encourage development in communities along the Interstate 80 corridor
within Pershing County by creating, for the first time, the prospect of
contiguous parcels of private property within the checkboard in areas
suitable for development, i.e., areas in proximity to the power grid,
rail transport, and Interstate 80. Several businesses including Coeur
Mining, New Nevada Lands, renewable energy developers, and a data
center project have expressed interest in acquiring and consolidating
blocks of private ownership within the checkboard. Such development is
crucial to expanding the County's tax base and bringing jobs to our
economically stressed region.
Protecting Pershing County's Wildlands and Rural Heritage
Title VI designates approximately 136,072 acres of BLM wilderness
within the following areas of Pershing County: Cain Mountain (formerly
Augusta Mountain), Bluewing, Fencemaker, Grandfather's (China Mountain
and the Tobin Range), Mount Limbo, and North Sahwave. In exchange, the
bill releases roughly 48,600 acres of Wilderness Study Areas throughout
the County.
As stewards of Pershing County's unique landscape, we support and
recommend the designation of these areas as wilderness. Each of the
seven areas under consideration represents some of the most beautiful
lands in Pershing County, offering excellent wildlife habitat,
spectacular scenery, and solitude. Many of these areas sustain the
legacy of rural Northern Nevada, as the Bluewing, Fencemaker,
Grandfather, and Mount Limbo support watersheds vital to important
ranches that have thrived in Pershing County for over 100 years. These
lands are worthy of preservation for future generations.
We invite the Subcommittee to consider that each proposed area was
handpicked through a collaborative process consisting of diverse
stakeholders including the BOC, corporate citizens, conservationists,
exploration geologists, landowners, miners, ranchers, recreationists,
sportsmen, and more. These designations enjoy the unanimous support of
both the BOC and others who live, work, and recreate in Pershing
County. We urge Congress to respect the wishes of those who know the
land and designate the proposed areas as wilderness.
As validation of our recommendation, it is worth noting that
Congress designated the portions of Cain Mountain that fall within
Churchill and Lander Counties as wilderness under the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2023. On that basis, it is not unreasonable to
conclude that the portion of Cain Mountain lying within Pershing County
should likewise be designated as wilderness under Title VI of H.R.
3173. Moreover, because the remaining six areas under consideration in
Pershing County share the same characteristics as Cain Mountain, they
too should be designated as wilderness.
In closing, Pershing County appreciates the opportunity to provide
testimony in support of H.R. 3173 and the Pershing provisions. We view
this legislation as vital to the economic prosperity of Pershing County
and the preservation of our lands for future generations. We urge the
Subcommittee to pass this important bill this year.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, District Attorney. I would now like
to recognize Representative Maloy to introduce our next
witness, Mr. Scott Strong.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Scott Strong has been with the Utah Division of State Parks
for almost 15 years. He loves the outdoors, and is passionate
about creating positive outdoor experiences for visitors. He is
dedicated to promoting an environment that is sustainable and
enjoyable. But the most exciting part about this introduction
is he has been the Director of State Parks for 2 weeks. So, he
is one of the few people in this room who is newer at their job
than I am.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Strong.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Strong, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT STRONG, DIRECTOR, UTAH DIVISION OF STATE
PARKS, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Mr. Strong. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman and
members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me to testify in
favor of the Utah State Parks Adjustment Act. My name is Scott
Strong, and, as has been said, I am the Division of State Parks
Director.
In Utah, we are certainly well known for our Mighty Five
national parks. We are also very proud of our 46 stunning state
parks, where Utahns and our out-of-state guests are welcome to
come and play, hike, fish, boat, mountain bike, camp, enjoy the
outdoors, learn about our ancestry, and experience our pioneer
heritage.
On behalf of the Utah Division of State Parks, I am
thrilled to support the Utah State Parks Adjustment Act. I want
to thank Congresswoman Maloy, who is insightful and wise in her
stewardship of public lands, including state parks public
lands.
I would like to discuss how this legislation will enable
land conveyances that will improve three of our state parks and
expand outdoor recreation and access in Utah.
The first, Fremont Indian State Park. The Castle Rock
campground is currently on land owned by the U.S. Forest
Service for over two decades. Utah State Parks has operated
this campground under a permit from the U.S. Forest Service.
Our ambition is to modernize and improve the campground, which
includes improving existing roads, trails, and essential
utilities for the benefit and access of our users and visitors.
A legislative directive enabling this land conveyance will
empower Utah State Parks to enhance the campground and
streamline on-site management.
Antelope Island State Park. Our inholdings at Antelope
Island State Parks were originally sanctioned under the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Recreation and Public Purposes
Act. Unfortunately, this lease was terminated by the Bureau of
Land Management. Gaining ownership through legislative means
would improve operational efficiencies and recreational
amenities. We plan to integrate these parcels into the park's
recreational offerings, while enhancing our trail network,
which will expand public access at the park.
Wasatch Mountain State Park. Like Antelope Island State
Park, Wasatch Mountain State Park encompasses BLM inholdings of
obscure mining claims. The conveyance of this land to Utah
State Parks will mitigate administrative costs, streamline
management, and improve recreational infrastructure.
The inclusion of these parcels will expand the parks'
outdoor recreational state and improve notable enhancements to
the trail network, benefiting thousands of park visitors each
year.
In conclusion, the conveyance of these lands to Utah State
Parks will unlock the potential for considerable improvements
in public recreation, active land management, and
administration efficiencies. Legislative support for these
actions show a commitment to the well-being of our state's
natural resources and to the communities that enjoy and rely on
them.
I urge the Committee to consider the positive impacts of
these proposals. Please support our efforts to actively manage
our natural resources for this generation and for future
generations to come.
Also, while I am here, I would like to invite each of the
Members to come and explore Utah State Parks. They are unique
places that you won't experience anywhere else. And I also want
to encourage you to interact with our passionate staff who
create experiences and memories that last a lifetime.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strong follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Strong, Director, Utah Department of
Natural Resources, Division of State Parks
on H.R. 7332
Chairman Tiffany, I am privileged to endorse Representative Maloy's
legislative proposal concerning Utah State Parks, which seeks to enable
land transfers destined to improve and expand recreation in Utah.
Fremont Indian State Park:
The main campground, Castle Rock Campground, alongside its
utilities, is currently on land owned by the Department of Agriculture,
United States Forest Service (USFS). For over two decades, we have
operated this campground under a permit from the USFS, which must be
renewed every five years. Our ambition to modernize this campground
with necessary improvements such as paved roads, trails, and essential
utilities is hindered by federal restrictions that mandate a more
primitive setup due to our status as permittees.
Discussions have occurred between the Utah State Parks (USP) and
the local Forest Service Office regarding a potential land exchange.
However, the absence of adjacent land owned by USP for such a trade
complicates matters. A legislative directive facilitating this land
transfer would empower USP to enhance the campground significantly,
providing improved recreational facilities and streamlined onsite
management.
Antelope Island State Park:
Our tenure of the in-holdings at Antelope Island State Park was
originally sanctioned under the Department of Interior's Recreation and
Public Purposes Act. Unfortunately, this lease was terminated by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), with no recourse for appeal. Gaining
ownership through legislative means would reduce bureaucratic overhead,
improve operational efficiency, and enhance recreational amenities. We
aim to integrate these parcels into the park's recreational offerings,
enhancing the trail network and public access.
Wasatch Mountain State Park:
Similar to Antelope Island State Park, Wasatch Mountain State Park
encompasses BLM in-holdings of unpatented mining claims within the
Snake Creek Mining District, surrounded mostly by land owned by USP.
The cancellation of our lease by BLM has prompted a need for ownership
transfer to mitigate administrative costs, streamline management, and
improve recreational infrastructure. The inclusion of these parcels
would not only expand the park's recreational estate but also provide
significant enhancements to the trail network, benefiting numerous
outdoor enthusiasts.
In conclusion, the transfer of these lands to Utah State Parks
would unlock the potential for considerable improvements in public
recreation, active land management efforts, and administrative
efficiency. Legislative support for these actions would signify a
commitment to the well-being of our state's natural resources and the
communities that enjoy and rely on them. I urge the committee to
consider the positive impacts of these proposals and support our
efforts to secure a brighter, more accessible, and sustainable future
for our state parks.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Director Strong, and I would
reciprocate. Be sure to come to Wisconsin. You would see truly
unique landscapes there also.
Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Espaillat for an
introduction of our next witness.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is with
great pleasure that I present to you one of the 50 greatest
players of the Rucker Pro League. He played with the great
Meadowlark Lemon. We all remember the dribbling of Curly Neal
and the dunks of Wilt Chamberlain. He is the Chairman of the
retired Harlem Globetrotters and a pioneer of the ``Each One
Teach One'' program.
The Harlem Globetrotters have delighted the world, not just
the nation, but the world, through sports and friendship.
Please, Mr. Chairman, help me welcome the great Bobby
``Zorro'' Hunter, a Harlem Globetrotter who is accompanied by
his traditional historic red, white, and blue Harlem
Globetrotter basketball.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Hunter, I wish I could give you more than
5 minutes. Well, I will give you a pass.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hunter. That is what we do.
STATEMENT OF BOBBY ``ZORRO'' HUNTER, CHAIRMAN, RETIRED HARLEM
GLOBETROTTERS, AMBASSADOR, WORLD CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, TAMARAC,
FLORIDA
Mr. Hunter. I thank you all because the Rucker Park
International Monument will help the community. It helped me.
Rucker Park is very important in my life. It saved me and
Holcombe Rucker. He told me to say thank you and please go to
the library. And he spoke in a voice that you can always
remember. It wasn't offensive. So, every week I go to various
basketball clinics and speaking engagements and try to speak in
the same manner that he did so I could affect kids in the same
way. And then I can see some like me, so I know exactly what to
do.
I recently saw Dr. J, who is the first one who did the
``Each One Teach One'' basketball clinic. I learned a lot from
Dr. J during that clinic. Kids were piling in from the streets,
and Dr. J sat down and went over not only his life, but their
life in a certain manner. And I was really surprised. I saw Dr.
J in Vegas at the Legends, and I told him, I said, ``Dr. J, you
remember you scored 56 points against me?''
And he said, ``No.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hunter. I said, ``Well, that is not what bothers me.
You came late, so you scored in a half-time, you scored 56
points.''
Bob McCullough and Freddie Crawford, they developed the
``Each One Teach One'' and that whole Rucker Park scene of
bringing in NBA players. Bob McCullough and Freddie Crawford
did a magnificent job. NBA players such as Willis Reed; the
Reverend Cazzie Russell; Dr. Jim, Reverend Bostic, a tough
player, now he is a very kind reverend; Dave Collins, who would
come down and feed the kids, trying to steal my fans before the
game. I could go on and on with different athletes, such as Joe
Hammond, the great Tiny Archibald, and Earl Manigault.
What the young people have done in the community in
imitating Rucker has truly been great. I have the ``Each One
Teach One'' Drug Free America program. Bob McCullough, Jr. had
the Each One tourism Rucker, where people would come and visit
from all over the world. I practiced my Italian 2 years ago.
The community saved a lot of people from harm in the manner
of being a calm place where you enjoyed yourself, whether it
was a concert, a basketball game, or if you were just there to
see someone that you hadn't seen for a while.
Bob McCullough helped me do a mixed gender basketball
tournament there, where men and women played together. So, it
was going to be the international love and peace mixed gender
basketball teams. Men and women will be playing together in the
community. I think this was a great thing in which he did. We
are hoping to have this be a part of the Rucker.
There are some other great players from the Rucker that I
have not mentioned, but I do want to mention one. We almost had
a president. Bill almost became president. That was really
something. Bill Bradley would have been the president of the
United States coming from the Rucker. That would have been
something we could have been very proud of.
The last Rucker player I am most proud of, that would be
me. No, I. You can say from Rucker Park to Stanford University.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bobby ``Zorro'' Hunter, Chairman, Retired Harlem
Globetrotters, Former Harlem Globetrotter,
and International Goodwill Ambassador, World Mayors Conference
on H.R. 6852
Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, Chairman Tiffany,
and Ranking Member Neguse: Rucker Park holds immense significance for
the community of Harlem and plays a pivotal role in tourism. Recently,
a Harlem tour featuring Rucker Park, alongside other historical sites
such as the Renaissance, underscored its importance.
Today, I will speak passionately about Holcombe Rucker, my teacher
and mentor, and his profound impact on me and countless other young men
in our community.
Additionally, I will highlight the invaluable contributions of the
Rucker Park All-Stars and discuss the transformative ``Each One Teach
One Program'' that originated from this historic basketball court and
has since resonated across the United States. Noteworthy figures such
as Dr. Reverend Jim Bostic, Reverend Cassie Russell, Bob McCullough,
and Freddie Crawford, alongside revered players like Senator Bill
Bradley, exemplify the enduring legacy of Rucker Park.
Lastly, I will share the remarkable journey of my personal hero,
myself, Bobby Hunter, who transitioned from Rucker Park to Stanford
University, symbolizing the boundless potential nurtured within our
community.
Rucker Park is an integral part of Harlem, New York City, fostering
pride and drawing visitors from around the globe. Its significance lies
not only in its historical importance but also in the profound impact
it has had on individuals like me, who have been fortunate enough to
benefit from its legacy.
Holcombe Rucker's commitment to uplifting and guiding youth, which
facilitated over 700 scholarships through his program, is a testament
to the enduring impact of his vision. The Rucker Park All-Stars,
serving as beacons of inspiration, have cultivated a culture of
excellence and mentorship, as evidenced by the far-reaching influence
of the ``Each One Teach One Program.''
Dr. Reverend Jim Bostic, Reverend Cassie Russell, Bob McCullough,
and Freddie Crawford are among the esteemed individuals who have
championed community empowerment through initiatives stemming from
Rucker Park. Their efforts, alongside the achievements of players such
as Tiny Archibald and Dr. J, epitomize the transformative potential of
sports and mentorship.
Moreover, the legacy of Rucker Park transcends sports, as
exemplified by Senator Bill Bradley, whose journey from the court to
the political arena underscores the power of community and opportunity.
In conclusion, the designation of Holcombe Rucker Park as a
National Commemorative Site is both warranted and overdue.
I wholeheartedly endorse H.R. 6852--the Holcombe Rucker Park
Landmark Act and extend my gratitude to Congressman Adriano Espaillat
for his leadership in introducing this legislation. I also commend the
Committee on Natural Resources for their consideration of this historic
measure. As we move forward, I urge swift action to pass this
legislation and honor the rich legacy of Rucker Park. Rest assured,
countless supporters stand behind this non-controversial bill, eager to
see it become law.
In summary, Rucker Park's enduring legacy serves as a beacon of
inspiration, impacting not only Harlem but communities far and wide.
Its influence transcends generations, embodying the spirit of
resilience, excellence, and community empowerment.
Thank you for your time.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much, Mr. Hunter. And now I am
going to recognize Ms. Annie Harris, Director and CEO of Essex
Heritage.
Ms. Harris, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANNIE HARRIS, DIRECTOR AND CEO, ESSEX HERITAGE,
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
Ms. Harris. That is a tough act to follow, but good
morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Annie Harris, and I am Director of
Essex Heritage, which is the management entity for the Essex
National Heritage Area, which is the region in eastern
Massachusetts just north of Boston. Our mission is to preserve
and promote the Heritage Area's historic, cultural, and natural
resources, and we accomplish our mission by working in
collaborative partnerships with non-profits, government
agencies, educational institutions, and citizen groups.
And one of our most important historic resources and
collaborative partners is with the Salem Maritime National
Historic Site. I am here to speak in favor of the bill to
change its name and to do a boundary study.
Salem Maritime has 10 historic structures, 4 historic
wharves, including Derby Wharf, where the replica tall ship
Friendship is berthed. It also has a lighthouse and a museum
collection with more than 4,500 objects, and the park owns and
manages the Salem Regional Visitor Center in downtown Salem,
where national park rangers welcome more than 300,000 visitors
annually.
Salem Maritime was established in 1938 as the first
national historic site. It was created to preserve New England
and America's maritime history and the development of
international maritime trade starting in the late 17th century.
But during the past eight decades, the original purpose has
been expanded through additional legislation and boundary
changes, and also new scholarship and interpretation, and now
the focus has expanded to also include domestic life in
colonial New England, northern slavery, 18th, 19th, and 21st
century immigration, and traditional maritime shipbuilding.
For these reasons, it is important to change the name of
Salem Maritime to more accurately reflect the park's multiple
nationally important themes and numerous historic, significant
structures. The site's title, ``Historic Site,'' does not fully
convey the rich, multi-faceted experience that this park
provides to the American public. Renaming the park Salem
Maritime National Historical Park will more accurately
communicate to the public the larger themes and resources
available at the park.
I also want to speak in favor of the boundary study, which
directs the Park Service to look at nearby resources associated
with military history. Close to the Salem Maritime Site exists
three very important American Revolutionary War forts. There is
also the 1637 site of the first muster, which marks the
beginnings of the National Guard. And within Salem Harbor,
there are former shipyards, marine structures, and shipwrecks,
signifying the area's extensive maritime heritage from the
earliest times. The National Park Service study will help
organize and elevate this information. And even if Congress
ultimately decides not to extend Salem Maritime's boundaries to
include any of these sites, the study will still be very
beneficial in expanding the public's knowledge of this
nationally significant history.
And lastly, the redesignation will have positive economic
benefits. The renaming will generate renewed interest from the
media and visitors. The public is more likely to see the park
as a significant destination worth visiting. The new name will
provide more marketing opportunities to highlight the park's
expansive scope, and it will bring more public attention to the
fact that the history of Salem extends beyond the Salem witch
trials of 1692. It will help spread these benefits of tourism
beyond the months of September and October. The strengthening
of visitation outside these months in the fall will increase
the job opportunities in the city, provide more employment for
local residents, and expand the tax revenue.
Additionally, there will be new opportunities for Salem
Maritime to increase revenue from new tours and special events.
So, with that, I hope you will favorably look upon this
bill, and thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Harris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Annie C. Harris, Director and CEO, Essex National
Heritage Commission, Inc.
on H.R. 1647
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for this opportunity to give testimony for H.R. 1647--the Salem
Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act.
My name is Annie Harris, and I am the Director and CEO of the Essex
National Heritage Commission, Inc., commonly known as Essex Heritage,
which is the management entity for the Essex National Heritage Area.
The national heritage area was designed by Congress in 1996. It
encompasses 500 square miles of eastern Massachusetts, north of Boston,
stretching along the Atlantic coast to the New Hampshire border. The
heritage area has a population of more than 800,000 people and hosts
nearly 2 million visitors annually. The cultural and historic themes of
the area are colonial era settlement, maritime industry & trade, the
industrial revolution, and immigration. The natural resources in the
area include significant marshlands and tidal estuaries, a rocky coast
region, freshwater rivers, inland woodlands, historic farms, and town
commons. Within the boundaries of the national heritage area, lie the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Parker River National Wildlife Refuge, two
national parks--Salem Maritime National Historic Site and Saugus Iron
Works National Historic Site, 28 National Historic Landmarks, and 481
National Register of Historic Places districts and sites. The Essex
Heritage's mission is to preserve and promote these historic, cultural,
and natural resources. We accomplish our mission by working
collaboratively in partnerships with non-profits, governmental agencies
(federal and state), municipalities, educational institutions, and
citizen groups across the national heritage area.
The Salem Maritime National Historic Site is one of the foremost
historic resources within the Essex National Heritage Area. It was
established in 1938 as the first National Historic Site in the United
States \1\ and it was created to preserve and present America's and New
England's maritime history and the important role that Salem played in
the development of international maritime trade from the late 17th
century through the 19th century. In the past 86 years, the original
purpose has been expanded through additional legislation and boundary
changes,\2\ accompanied by new scholarship and interpretation. The
park's focus has grown to include the domestic life of colonial Salem,
northern slavery, 19th and 20th century immigration and industrial
history, and the evolution of historic preservation and cultural
landscape practices.\3\ Recent scholarship has identified that the
nationally important themes of Coastal Defense (1640-WWII), and US
Military History including the Birthplace of the National Guard could
also be more fully told by this park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ www.NPS.gov/sama/index.htm
\2\ PL 88-199, PL 95-625, PL 101-632
\3\ Foundation Document, Salem Maritime National Historic Site;
National Park Service, US Department of the Interior; 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Salem Maritime National Historic Site contains 10 historic
structures, numerous archeological resources, four historic wharves, a
lighthouse, a museum collection with more than 4,500 objects, and a
significant cultural landscape including the tall ship Friendship of
Salem, a replica of an 18th century merchant vessel. The park owns and
manages the Salem Regional Visitor Center located beyond the park's
boundary in downtown Salem. At this visitor center, NPS rangers welcome
more than 300,000+ annual visitors to the park and to the heritage
area. The park also collaborates outside its boundaries with numerous
heritage resources and has formed partnerships with other organizations
to extend its interpretive and educational outreach. These
collaborations include working with the Essex National Heritage Area,
the Peabody Essex Museum, the Salem Athenaeum, The House of the Seven
Gables, the region's National Historic Landmarks and National Register
Districts along with other historical societies, museums, and historic
preservationists.
For these reasons, it is important to change the name of the Salem
Maritime to more accurately reflect the park's multiple, nationally
important themes and numerous historically significant structures. The
title historic site does not fully convey the rich, multifaceted
experience that this park provides to the American public. The National
Park Service explains in its literature that ``national historic sites
. . . contain a single historical feature, but national historical
parks . . . discuss multiple stories from different times.'' \4\ Also,
park units that have non-contiguous resources are usually given the
broader title of historical park. Redesignating the site as the Salem
Maritime National Historical Park will more accurately communicate to
the public the larger themes, stories, and resources available at this
park, and the new name will similarly assist in communicating that the
downtown visitor center is part of the park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.doi.gov/blog/americas-public-lands-explained
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to speak also in favor of the boundary study whose
purpose is to study and evaluate sites and resources associated
military and maritime history in the greater Salem area. Within a mile
of Salem Maritime still stand three very important Revolutionary War
sites--Fort Lee, Fort Pickering, and Fort Sewall. There is also the
site of the 1637 first muster which marked the beginnings of the
National Guard. Within Salem Harbor lie former shipyards, maritime
structures, aids to navigation, natural hazards, and shipwrecks,
abundant reminders of the area's extensive maritime heritage from
Indigenous settlements through World War I--with especially rich
historical artifacts from the 18th and 19th centuries. As technology
and research have become more sophisticated, these objects and sites
are easier to identify and interpret. The NPS study will enhance the
growing body of knowledge and support this scholarly research. Even if
the National Park Service and Congress ultimately decide not to extend
Salem Maritime's boundaries to include any additional sites, the study
will be beneficial in expanding our collective knowledge of this
nationally significant history.
Lastly, we believe that the redesignation will have several
positive economic benefits for the park and the City of Salem. Renaming
the site will generate renewed interest from tourists and the media and
serve to elevate its status in the public eye. Visitors will be more
likely to view the park as a significant destination worth visiting,
thereby increasing foot traffic and tourism revenue. The new name will
provide more marketing opportunities to highlight the park's expanded
scope and draw attention to its diverse historical attractions. It will
also help to signify that the history of Salem extends far beyond the
Salem Witch Trials of 1692. It will serve to attract a broader audience
to visit Salem, and it is likely to spread the benefits of tourism
beyond the months of September and October. This, in turn, will
strengthen the city's job opportunities in the hospitality, retail, and
tourism sectors, providing more employment for local residents and
generating tax revenue for the community. Additionally, there will be
new opportunities for revenue generation at the park site from tours
and special events.
In summary, I hope that this committee will look favorably on the
proposed legislation. Thank you for this opportunity to present my
testimony.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much, Ms. Harris. Now, I want
to recognize Representative LaLota to introduce our next
witness.
Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Chairman. Traveling to our great
Nation's Capital all the way from New York, Long Island,
Suffolk County, but most specifically, the great town of
Southold, is my constituent, Ms. Louise Harrison of Save the
Sound.
Ms. Harrison, thanks so much for being with us today.
Ms. Harrison is a conservation biologist who has served on
Long Island in various Federal, New York State, and Suffolk
County agencies as well as in leadership and consulting
positions for non-profit environmental organizations. Ms.
Harrison has served as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
liaison to the Long Island Sound Study, where she concentrated
on stewardship of Long Island Sound's ecosystems, habitat
restoration projects, and invasive species control.
Ms. Harrison also has extensive field experience working
with coastal communities and natural ecosystems from the
boroughs of New York City all the way out to Montauk and Orient
Points, and has received numerous awards for open space
preservation efforts. In fact, in 2009, Ms. Harrison was
awarded the Star Award from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
for her leadership in Long Island Sound stewardship.
Ms. Harrison currently serves as the Long Island Natural
Areas Manager for Save the Sound, a local non-profit whose
mission it is to protect and improve the land, air, and water
of the whole Long Island Sound region.
Thank you again, and we appreciate you being with us today.
Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Harrison, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LOUISE HARRISON, LONG ISLAND NATURAL AREAS
MANAGER, SAVE THE SOUND, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
Ms. Harrison. Chairperson Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse,
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
speak about H.R. 1584, the Plum Island National Monument Act.
Thank you, Representative LaLota, for introducing this
legislation and for your leadership on this issue, and to
Representatives Courtney, Garbarino, D'Esposito, Himes, and
Lawler for co-sponsoring this important bipartisan legislation.
My name is Louise Harrison, Long Island Natural Areas
Manager at Save the Sound. It is an honor to be here today to
address this legislation. I am speaking on behalf of Save the
Sound and the Preserve Plum Island Coalition.
Save the Sound leads environmental action in the Long
Island Sound region. We fight climate change, save endangered
lands, protect the sound and its rivers, and work with nature
to restore ecosystems. We know that Long Island Sound is among
the most important and valuable estuaries in the nation,
generating over $9 billion annually. And at the eastern end of
Long Island Sound is Plum Island, New York.
The 125-plus national, regional, and local organizations of
the Preserve Plum Island Coalition are united by our goal of
achieving permanent protection for the remarkable ecological,
historical, and cultural resources of Plum Island. Save the
Sound coordinates the coalition's activities. The coalition
enthusiastically supports H.R. 1584 to designate Plum Island as
a national monument for the purpose of ecological conservation,
historical preservation, and the discovery and celebration of
our shared cultural heritage. We found widespread support from
across the United States for preserving this national treasure
in the public trust.
The benefits of preserving Plum Island and its ecological
riches at the very entrance to Long Island Sound are many. A
national monument could return sustainable access to the
people. It could tell the story of a unique American landscape,
a key component of one of the very last wild coastal ecosystems
where the waters of two national estuaries meet and mix.
Since the 1660s, most people's access to Plum Island has
been severely restricted or even prohibited. We want to reverse
this inequity. The Montaukett Indian Nation has told us that
Plum Island is an important part of their cultural heritage and
historical territory. Access restored will offer the chance
once again to practice cultural traditions and visit sacred
sites.
Although Plum Island already is recognized for being part
of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service significant coastal
habitat, and is designated as a unit of the John H. Chafee
Coastal Barrier Resources System, and is the site of the Plum
Island Light Station and the Fort Terry Historic District, both
on the National Register of Historic Places, and adjoins the
Plum Gut significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat under
the Coastal Zone Management Act, it has no permanent
protection. Its fate is unknown.
The organizations in the Preserve Plum Island Coalition,
whose members count in the millions, believe it should remain
in the public trust for the purposes stated in the bill. A
designation would allow for management planning to begin now.
Multiple themes and attributes may be combined for protection,
further research, public access, and education. We see the
national monument as the model offering the greatest
flexibility.
Plum Island is the biological linchpin of a beautiful chain
of islands between three states: New York, Connecticut, and
Rhode Island. Its iconic lighthouse and wild shores are in the
view of thousands of boaters, fishers, and inter-state ferry
passengers who wonder about it and wait for the chance to get
closer to this part of American history and the American story.
Let us celebrate and protect this national treasure with the
passage of H.R. 1584.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our support
today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Harrison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Louise Harrison, Long Island Natural Areas
Manager, Save the Sound
on H.R. 1584
Chairperson Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for your invitation to speak before you today
about H.R. 1548, the Plum Island National Monument Act. Thank you to
Representative LaLota for introducing this legislation and for his
leadership on this issue, and to Representatives Courtney, Garbarino,
D'Esposito, Himes, and Lawler for co-sponsoring this important
bipartisan legislation.
My name is Louise Harrison, Long Island Natural Areas Manager at
Save the Sound. It is an honor to be here today and address this
legislation. I do so on behalf of Save the Sound and the Preserve Plum
Island Coalition.
Save the Sound leads environmental action in the Long Island Sound
region. We fight climate change, save endangered lands, protect the
Sound and its rivers, and work with nature to restore ecosystems. Save
the Sound is a founding member of the Preserve Plum Island Coalition;
we coordinate the coalition's activities.
The Preserve Plum Island Coalition (PPIC) is made up of over 120
national, regional, and local organizations. The mission of the PPIC is
to
secure the permanent protection of the significant natural,
historical, and cultural resources of Plum Island. The PPIC
advocates for comprehensive conservation and management
solutions that safeguard this national treasure in the public
trust as a national monument, wildlife refuge, preserve, or
other equivalent protection, with carefully managed and
equitable public access, in perpetuity. Through the course of
this incredible multi-year campaign, the mission of the PPIC
has been refined to clarify and prioritize the most promising
opportunities for the permanent preservation of this
magnificent natural and cultural asset.
We enthusiastically support H.R. 1584 and its resulting designation
of federally owned Plum Island as a national monument for the purpose
of ecological conservation, historical preservation, and the discovery
and celebration of our shared cultural heritage.
Widespread Support
We invite you to visit the PPIC's website, https://
www.preserveplumisland.org, where you will find a great deal of
information about Plum Island, our campaign, and the widespread support
from across the United States for preserving this national treasure. We
especially encourage examination of the volume we compiled last
September, Plum Island Campaign Support, which contains over a decade
of expressed support from elected officials, organizations,
individuals, and media outlets for protecting Plum Island. This
document may be found on our website's campaign support page.
Introduction
Preserving Plum Island as a national monument would return
sustainable, managed access to this federal asset to the people and
help tell the story of a unique American landscape in Eastern Long
Island Sound. About 110 miles from New York City, the island is a key
component of one of the very last large, wild, coastal ecosystems in
the nationally celebrated Long Island Sound and Peconic Estuary--both
designated National Estuaries. Plum Island is where, for thousands of
years, people interacted with and were served by nature, and where, for
the past few hundred years, most people's access has been severely
restricted or even prohibited.
The Montaukett Indian Nation was dispossessed of Plum Island in the
1600s. Private ownership and subsequent federal uses of the island as a
military installation and, later, security surrounding the island's
famous animal disease research laboratory have made Plum Island off
limits for most people. Now that the Department of Homeland Security is
nearing the end of its mission on the island, it is time to declare
that Plum Island truly belongs to the people of the United States whose
history it so well charts. To return to the people the stewardship and
enjoyment of the island's significant ecological and cultural riches,
the PPIC seeks permanent protection of the island and long-term,
public-philanthropic stewardship and potential public-private
partnerships.
Over 600 acres of this 822-acre island have been given defacto
protection from development in the past 70 years because they buffer
the successor to Fort Terry, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center
(PIADC), which is overseen by the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). DHS is preparing for the PIADC's world-famous food-security
research on animal diseases to be transferred to the new National Bio
and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas. DHS endeavors to
decommission the Plum Island facility and to meet the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation's cleanup requirements.
The location and geology of the island, its agrarian use before the
federal purchase (in 1897 and 1901), and Army and DHS measures limiting
development and access, have resulted in tremendous biological
diversity. The island is home to 111 at-risk plant and animal species.
Two hundred and twenty-nine (229) species of birds have been sighted
there, which is nearly a quarter of all bird species in North America,
north of Mexico. The island hosts 24 different ecological communities.
Together and in their island context, these habitats are integral to
the basis for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's designating
Plum Island as part of a Significant Coastal Habitat. A 97-acre
freshwater wetland affords habitat and drinking water for island and
wetland wildlife. The island is surrounded by pristine underwater
communities teeming with marine life, which have remained that way due
to lack of extensive development on the island
Endangered Roseate Terns forage in the waters around Plum Island
and take shelter on its rocky shores. The island also is home to one of
the largest seal haul-out areas in Southern New England and the largest
one in New York State.
Plum Island has become the biological linchpin of a beautiful New
York archipelago that adjoins Connecticut and Rhode Island and is in
view of thousands of boaters, fishers, and ferry passengers.
Preservation through a National Monument Designation
The PPIC supports a national monument designation as a vehicle for
preservation because it can permit flexibility in coordinating and
comprehensively managing Plum Island's wide array of resources--
ecological, historical, cultural--and, through a carefully crafted
management plan, lead to custom-tailoring a sustainable, equitable
visitation program. Under a national monument designation, multiple
themes and attributes may be combined for protection, further research,
and public access and education.
Designation will begin the process of righting long-standing wrongs
that have prevented members of the Montaukett Indian Nation, an
historic tribe seeking federal reaffirmation, from visiting the island.
The Montauketts have told us they consider Plum Island to be an
important part of their cultural heritage and territory. Restoring
access to Plum Island will give them the chance, after more than three-
and-a-half centuries, to practice cultural traditions and visit sacred
sites. A Plum Island National Monument will also help educate the
public about the significance of the island's Trust species, rare
plants and animals, exemplary ecological communities, and its
fascinating role in American history.
Near-term Action and Management Planning
The PPIC believes it is imperative to designate Plum Island as a
national monument now to prevent degradation of some of what makes Plum
Island so special. The Department of Homeland Security has already
engaged in extensive outdoor restoration, and it can complete
decommissioning of the indoor facilities notwithstanding a national
monument designation. We support designation as a national monument as
soon as possible, with management planning commencing immediately. This
can be accomplished with support of the PPIC and Friends of Plum
Island, a 501(c)(3) organization, and involve members of the Montaukett
Indian Nation and the general public.
Although more can always be learned about the island's fascinating
resources, there is a great deal of information already available on
Plum Island's biodiversity and history. Resource management planning,
undertaken as soon as possible and employing the vast amount of
information already available, will help ensure protection of sensitive
ecological communities and species. This can allow near-term control of
adverse impacts, such as incursions of invasive species, already
gaining a foothold and posing threats to nesting birds, rare plants,
and wetland resources. Rooftop maintenance of former Army barracks
would help prevent further deterioration while historic resource
inventories proceed under the Section 106 report currently in
preparation by DHS.
A management plan should guide future public access and education,
ensuring that visitation is not only equitable but that it also
proceeds at environmentally sustainable levels and frequency, once the
laboratory facility is fully decommissioned.
Envisioning Plum Island
Save the Sound and The Nature Conservancy in 2018 and 2019
conducted Envision Plum Island to articulate a vision for the island's
future. In this process, hundreds of stakeholders met in small and
large groups, aided by consulting firm Marstel-Day, LLC, to create a
plan that is now reflected in the core elements of H.R. 1584's
designation of Plum Island as a national monument. The report we
produced, available on the PPIC website, here, was presented in 2020 to
the members of Congress who had requested it; within six months,
Congress repealed its previous requirement to sell Plum Island at a
public sale (laws enacted in 2008 and 2012). We were greatly relieved
that Plum Island was off the ``auction block,'' but the desire to find
a permanent preservation solution was stronger than ever, bolstered by
the growing enthusiasm generated by Envision Plum Island and shown in
PPIC's growth in membership.
Updated Vision
The PPIC since has revised the Plum Island vision somewhat, based
on changing circumstances, such as the repeal of the sale language, the
subsequent reinstatement of the normal federal property disposition
process, and the existence of a major donor. The donor has expressed
interest in funding stewardship, programs, and other long-term
preservation activities at Plum Island. In addition, we consider
historical preservation to be achievable through interpretation of the
island's rich history for the public, instead of requiring structures
to be rehabilitated or opened for visitation--though conversion of a
small Army building into an educational outpost is something to
consider in the future for the researchers who have expressed strong
interest in accessing the island for research and teaching reasons.
Rather than a full transfer of Plum Island to New York State, as we
had previously envisioned, the PPIC now fully supports a federal
approach that partners with the Montaukett Indian Nation, the State of
New York, local entities, and the community. We call for a full telling
and reckoning of America's history--from times of ecological abundance
to those of significant cultural disservice, and on further to the last
70 years of globally significant scientific inquiry and innovation at
the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. We are not surprised and are
delighted to know that the PIADC is being considered for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. There is also a highly
significant civil rights court martial that occurred on the island in
1914 that is worthy of further study and recognition.
We also envision a visitor center and small museum at the
government-owned Plum Island ferry parcel at Orient Point--across Plum
Gut from Plum Island--in an existing building, which would attract many
daily visitors disembarking the highly successful Cross Sound Ferry,
situated immediately next door, within walking distance. The benefits
of preserving Plum Island and its ecological riches, at the very
entrance to Long Island Sound--which plays a huge role in supporting
the regional economy--are nearly inestimable.
Our vision can be fully realized through the designation of Plum
Island as a national monument.
Economic Value
The countless activities dependent on Long Island Sound generate
about $9.4 billion annually (adjusted for inflation in 2015 dollars) in
the regional economy, according to the Long Island Sound Study. With
the uses it serves and the recreational opportunities it provides, Long
Island Sound is among the most important and valuable estuaries in the
nation. Of course, water quality, living resources, and habitats keep
this economic engine running.
Plum Island may be seen as the biological and ecological linchpin
of an archipelago that reaches across the outer, eastern Long Island
Sound from the North Fork of Long Island, all the way to Napatree Point
in Rhode Island. Careful stewardship of this landscape is required to
protect the special ``cocktail'' of clean, oxygenated ocean water mixed
with productive estuarine waters that makes Long Island Sound the
economic powerhouse it is today. A national monument designation of the
island will enhance this value economically by providing educational,
research, and cultural opportunities that adhere to a resource-focused
management plan for long-term stewardship and sustainability.
Studies of Plum Island
The Preserve Plum Island Coalition has compiled information we
present here today, as well as much more, using numerous professional
studies and publications. We would be pleased to provide a full
bibliography on request. We especially rely on and encourage
examination of:
Professional biodiversity field studies of Plum Island
undertaken by the New York Natural Heritage Program,
available at https://www.nynhp.org/projects/plum-island-
inventory/.
Extensive research on Plum Island history, presented in A
World Unto Itself--The Remarkable History of Plum Island,
New York, by Ruth Ann Bramson, Geoffrey K. Fleming, and Amy
Kasuga Folk, 2014, (388 pp.). Available through the
Southold Historical Society.
An inquiry into the Montaukett Indian Nation's
dispossession of Plum Island by celebrated scholar on Long
Island Native Americans, John A. Strong, in an article
entitled, ``The Plum Island deed game: A case study in
dispossession of Indian land on Long Island,'' published in
the Journal of the Suffolk County Historical Society,
Volume XXXI, December 2017 (pp. 3-25).
The following people have contributed information that supplements
this testimony:
Marian Lindberg, Conservation Projects Manager, The Nature
Conservancy in New York
Matthew Schlesinger, Chief Zoologist, New York Natural
Heritage Program
John Turner, Spokesperson for the Preserve Plum Island
Coalition and Senior Conservation Policy Advocate, Seatuck
Environmental Association
Special Designations
Because of its location, natural features, and ecological
communities, Plum Island has received, or lies within areas that have
received, the following government recognition and designations:
Within (at confluence of) two estuaries designated by
Congress as Estuaries of National Significance--Long Island
Sound (Long Island Sound Study) and the Peconic Estuary
(Peconic Estuary Partnership)
Designated a unit (NY-24) of the John H. Chafee Coastal
Barrier Resources System (CBRS)
Within four miles of the Connecticut National Estuarine
Research Reserve (NERR), a formal partnership between NOAA
and the state of Connecticut, designated in 2022 and
encompassing 52,160 upland and offshore acres
Part of an NEP Long Island Sound Study Stewardship Area
(``Plum and Gull Islands'')
Part of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Significant
Coastal Habitat (Site 7)
Adjoins New York State's Plum Gut Significant Coastal Fish
and Wildlife Habitat
Within New York State's Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle
Protection Area
Within the Suffolk County, New York, Peconic Bay Environs
Critical Environmental Area
350 acres zoned as Town of Southold's Plum Island
Conservation District (PlC)
Site of the Plum Island Light Station, listed on the
National Register of Historic Places
Site of Fort Terry Historic District, listed on the
National Register of Historic Places
Biological and Ecological Significance of Plum Island
Despite a long history of human use, Plum Island and the marine
waters immediately surrounding it contain a diverse assemblage of
natural communities. The island's natural, terrestrial ecological
communities--totaling more than two dozen, according to an assessment
by the New York Natural Heritage program--have remained nearly
untouched since the 1950s, when the U.S. Army ended its use of the
island. These natural ecological communities range from forested areas,
including successional maritime forests, maritime shrub- and heathland
communities, and a wetland forest dominated by red maple and black
tupelo to an extensive 97-acre freshwater wetland, where blueberry bog
thickets, emergent marsh, and shrub swamps provide habitat for wetland-
dependent plant and animal species.
Plum Island boasts marine rocky subtidal and intertidal, beach,
bluff, and dune communities which ring the island; five of these have
been identified as significant by the New York Natural Heritage
Program. A maritime dune community exists in the southwestern corner of
Plum Island and this area and a wide sandy beach along the island's
southern boundary provide nesting habitat to Piping Plover (Charadrius
melodus), the East Coast population of which is listed as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act. American Oystercatcher
(Haematopus palliatus) also breeds on its sandy beaches. Several of
these natural communities are rare in New York State or regionally, and
a few, such as maritime dunes and heathlands, represent especially
high-quality examples.
The island's assemblage of natural communities supports many plant
and animal species. Two-hundred-twenty (220) bird species were seen on
Plum Island from 2006 to 2016, which is more than one fifth of the
1,023 species comprising total avifauna of the North American continent
north of Mexico, with 61 species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN),
17 of which are high priority SGCN as classified by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation. The latest count of birds
seen at Plum Island is 229. The bird surveys have been performed by and
on behalf of Audubon New York, which has designated Orient Point and
Plum Island as an Important Bird Area.
Several dozen bird species breed here, while many others pass
through during migration or overwinter on the island. The high
frequency of sightings of large numbers of passerines during spring and
fall migration underscores the island's significant value in providing
migratory stop-over habitat. Birds of prey occur on Plum Island.
Although the number of nests fluctuates, as many as ten Osprey (Pandion
haliaetus) nests have existed on Plum Island. Northern Harrier (Circus
cyaneus) occur here too, as do several accipiter and falcon species
during migration. Several Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) colonies exist
in the high bluffs situated along the southern shoreline of the island;
the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology website All About Birds reports
that in general Bank Swallow numbers have crashed by an estimated 89%
since 1970.
A notable component regarding the island's avifauna is its value to
several species of rare terns, including Common Tern (Sterna hirundo),
a state-listed threatened species, and Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii),
a state- and federally listed endangered bird. These species breed on
nearby Great Gull Island, which boasts the largest breeding colony of
Roseate Terns in the western hemisphere, containing as many as 1,300
breeding pairs, and the largest breeding colony of Common Terns in the
world, with approximately 9,500 pairs. Plum Island serves as
developmental habitat for these species, where they often rest, and the
waters surrounding the island are rich in the bait fish on which these
species forage. With sea level rise likely to adversely impact Great
Gull Island, Plum Island may take on much greater significance in the
future in providing breeding habitat for Roseate and Common Terns.
One of the larger seal haul-out sites in southern New England, and
the largest in New York, occurs along the southern side of the eastern
tip of the island. During the winter months, several hundred harbor
seals (Phoca vitulina) and several dozen grey seals (Halichoerus
grypus) can be seen resting on large offshore boulders or swimming in
the waters in between.
Immediately surrounding Plum Island are high quality marine
communities in New York State waters containing a high diversity of
species. These communities include an eelgrass meadow north of the
island's harbor, an eelgrass restoration area along the southeastern
shore, and a New York State--significant intertidal rocky shoreline,
among others. Two scientific dive surveys to investigate marine biota
have taken place in the waters around Plum Island over the past decade;
scientists documented 126 species of marine flora and fauna, including
macroalgae, sponges, corals, bryozoans, jellyfish, comb jellies, crabs,
tubeworms, gastropods, bivalves, and barnacles. The large, submerged
boulders are a common colonization site for many of these species.
Regarding the terrestrial flora of Plum Island, a 2013 professional
paper by Ph.D. botanist Eric E. Lamont, published in the Journal of the
Torrey Botanical Society notes: ``Plum Island, New York, has one of the
highest concentrations of rare plants in the state and supports a high
diversity of native plant species. The island's varied topography and
diverse ecological communities have contributed to the diverse flora;
for much of the past 100 years, approximately 90% of the island has
remained undeveloped. The vascular flora consists of 414 species within
270 genera and 92 families. Twenty-three species are listed as
endangered, threatened, or rare in New York. Of these 23 species, 17
are extant, having been observed in the field during this study, and
six are considered extirpated . . .'' Spring ladies' tresses
(Spiranthes vernalis), a graceful and beautiful orchid species, serves
as an excellent example of the many rare plants occurring here--a very
rare species in the state--and as many as several hundred plants have
been found in the former military parade grounds region of Plum Island.
The ecological relationships between the federally owned Plum
Island, the biologically diverse and clean waters of eastern Long
Island Sound and the Peconic Estuary, and nearby islands in the same
archipelago are significant and interdependent.
History of Plum Island
It is our understanding that the Department of Homeland Security is
preparing an NHPA Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) and Historic
Properties Management Plan as part of its required work in the
decommissioning of the PIADC. We look forward to reading it and hope it
can be a useful component of a comprehensive Plum Island resource
management plan.
Much of what we offer below is based on the Bramson et al. book, A
World Unto Itself--The Remarkable History of Plum Island, New York;
Robert Hefner's 1998 Historic Resources Survey: Plum Island, New York;
and research conducted by Marian Lindberg in preparation for her 2020
book, Scandal on Plum Island--A Commander becomes the Accused. We will
gladly provide additional references on request.
1600s
After its dispossession from the Montauketts in the mid-1600s, as
stated in A World Unto Itself, ``Plum Island's story is really
America's story, in miniature.''
In 1675, prevailing over other colonists who sought ownership of
Plum Island, Samuel Wyllys [Willis] received a patent and manorial
rights to the island from Edmund Andros, the fourth colonial governor
of New York. Wyllys, a Connecticut magistrate, and son-in-law of
Connecticut's first governor, had helped Andros gain the allegiance of
the three eastern Long Island towns (including Plum Island's town of
Southold) after the towns' leaders resisted New York's authority,
citing Connecticut's help defending them against the Dutch.
Wyllys did not live on Plum Island, but used its land to graze
livestock, possibly for shipment to Antigua, where he co-owned a sugar
plantation and at least some of the workers were enslaved. The possible
role of Plum Island in supporting the sugarcane economy is of interest
to the Plain Sight Project.
1700s
Plum Island was divided into separate farm holdings controlled by a
few families after Wyllys sold the island to John Dudley, the son of a
Massachusetts Bay Colony governor and future governor himself of the
Province of Massachusetts Bay and New Hampshire.
In August 1775, the British stole livestock from Plum Island,
inciting a naval skirmish. Long Island fell to the British one year
later, by which time residents of Plum Island had fled to the mainland.
``During the revolution, the British fleet used Plum Island primarily
as a source of clean water for its warships. Other resources, such as
lumber, grain, corn and livestock, were also seized.''
1800s
Residents returned to Plum Island after the Revolutionary War, but
in the War of 1812, ``Plum Island became a staging location for British
and, early on, American naval forces,'' including a blockade by the
Royal Navy, according to A World Unto Itself. Although the war ended in
December 1814, British ships remained around Plum Island until March
1815.
With the construction of a light station in 1829, a lighthouse
keeper joined the farming families on Plum Island. Nonetheless,
shipwrecks occurred because of the unpredictable currents of Plum Gut.
The lighthouse was replaced in 1869; this structure remains and is
listed as the Plum Island Light Station in the National Register of
Historic Places.
During the mid- to late-1800s, city dwellers seeking to escape
urban heat and boaters began visiting Plum Island in summertime.
Farmers allowed clubs to set up camps, and the lighthouse keeper
provided meals. The fishing around Plum Island became known as so
exceptional that even Grover Cleveland fished its waters.
Beginning in 1883, a man acting secretly on behalf of unidentified
investors bought the farms of Plum Island, leading to ownership of the
island (except the lighthouse) in 1889 by Abram Hewitt, a wealthy
industrialist and recent New York City mayor. It was rumored that
Hewitt intended to build a resort, but the United States had a
different plan: national security. In 1897, as tensions heated up with
Spain over its occupation of Cuba, Congress authorized a defense post
on Plum Island because of its strategic location at the mouth of Long
Island Sound. Hewitt sold Plum Island for the construction of the
Army's Fort Terry in two installments, 193 acres in 1897, and 647 acres
in 1901.
1900s to Present
Most of the buildings at Fort Terry (1898-1948) were constructed
between 1898 and 1912.
The central administrative structures remain in their original
locations, adjacent to the former parade grounds, including ``Endicott
and Taft Period post buildings which are significant for representing
national types,'' according to Robert Hefner in his 1998 Historic
Resources Survey: Plum Island, New York. Former gun batteries also
remain along the coastline, including one, Battery Steele, said to be
unique in the nation.
Fort Terry was an important site for multi-fort military drills,
including joint Army-Navy war games, and served as a training and
transport location for Army recruits in World Wars I and II.
Fort Terry's extant buildings, including large former barracks and
the fort's hospital, guard house, and post exchange, were added to the
National Register of Historic Places in 2021, along with the parade
grounds and 11 former gun batteries and other tactical structures on
the coast, forming a ``Fort Terry Historic District.'' As the
Department of Homeland Security stated in its 80-page application:
``Fort Terry was established in 1898 based on recommendations
for improvements to United States coastal defenses contained in
an 1885 report from the Endicott Board. Fort Terry was later
modified based on a report from the Taft Board in 1906. [A]s a
whole the district retains a significant number of character-
defining elements and is able to illustrate the fort's
significant themes from the period of significance.''
An incendiary court-martial that garnered national attention and
Cabinet-level involvement took place at Fort Terry in 1914 when the
commanding officer, Major Benjamin M. Koehler, was accused of groping
male subordinates. He claimed the charges were concocted by disgruntled
to oust him. This early case of alleged sexual harassment marked the
beginning of federal policies against military service by gays and
lesbians.
New York's historic preservation office strongly supported the
historic district designation.
After the post's closure in 1948, the Army Chemical Corps and Plum
Island Animal Disease Laboratory reused its buildings. The lab modified
Building 257, the former Mine & Cable Storage Building, for its use,
and added an external ramp for use by animal research subjects.
Numerous unconfirmed stories about bioweapons research ensued.
Later in the 20th century, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center
(PIADC) built new facilities on the western part of the island. For
over 70 years, employees who commuted to the lab from New York and
Connecticut made major breakthroughs in vaccine research to prevent
animal diseases, especially foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). The PIADC has
played a significant role in the economy of Eastern Long Island's North
Fork because of employment opportunities in biotechnology, veterinary
science, and jobs for electricians, carpenters, plumbers, and other
trades, including security. DARPA exercises in power grid cybersecurity
have taken place on the island, providing learning opportunities in
issues of national security importance.
Prominent animal disease researchers at the PIADC included:
Dr. Maurice S. Shahan (DVM), co-director of the joint
committee to assist in controlling a FMD outbreak in Mexico
(1947-1952), named the first director of the laboratory
(1952-1963);
Dr. Jerry J. Callis (DVM), who studied FMD in Holland and
served as Assistant Director (1956-1962) and Director of
Plum Island's laboratory (1963-1983);
Dr. Howard L. Bachrach (PhD), who studied FMD in Denmark
and became Chief Scientist and Director of Biomedical
Research at Plum Island (1953-1981), made advancements in
the growth of the virus for research purposes, and
developed a live virus vaccine; and
Dr. Marvin J. Grubman (PhD), whose research and isolation
of the proteins in the FMD virus resulted in the
development of the first recombinant (non-live virus)
vaccine for one serotype of the disease.
In 2022, citing the lab's significance in science for its
association with a government-supported scientific research program,
New York State recommended the listing of the Plum Island Animal
Disease Center on the National Register of Historic Places.
Conclusion
Plum Island should be returned to use and careful stewardship by
the people under a comprehensive management plan. We envision managed,
sustainable, and equitable access for the island's original stewards,
the Montaukett Indian Nation, and all members of the public. We see the
designation of Plum Island as a national monument as the model offering
the greatest flexibility in offering interpretation, national
celebration, and co-management--involving public-philanthropic and
potential public-private partnerships--of Plum Island's many natural,
historical, and cultural assets. We urge you to pass H.R. 1584. Thank
you for this opportunity to present our views today.
*****
ATTACHMENTS
Location of Plum Island, New York
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Plum Island shown with surrounding islands and points in mainland
New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Islands are within New York
State unless otherwise noted. Inset: Area of detail within the
Northeast United States.
(Reproduced from: Schlesinger, M.D., A.L. Feldmann, and S.M. Young.
2012. Biodiversity and ecological potential of Plum Island, New York.
New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, New York.)
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Harrison's full statement along with all attachments is
available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20240307/116866/HHRG-
118-II10-Wstate-HarrisonL-20240307.pdf
------
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Harrison, for your testimony.
Now, we are going to move to Members' questions.
First, I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Crane.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple
questions for Mr. Seymore.
Without the expansion of Pinedale Cemetery, is it safe to
say families would have to bury their loved ones far away from
their home, sir?
Mr. Seymore. Yes, that is correct. When you say far away,
there are other cemeteries locally, but there is nothing like
being able to be buried in a family plot next to your loved
ones.
Mr. Crane. Thank you.
For those of you that don't know, Pinedale is home to a
substantial LDS community who celebrate the contributions of
Mormon pioneers in their pursuit of religious freedom and a new
homeland in the American West. The arrival of Latter Day Saints
and the creation of settlements in Snowflake, Winslow, Taylor,
Tuba City, and other places help lay the foundation for the
48th state.
Mr. Seymore, can you please explain to the Committee how
much passing this legislation would mean for them?
Mr. Seymore. This is a community that is just heartfelt.
And in 1976, to honor our 200th year anniversary, they built a
wooden bridge over their little Pinedale entry into their
community. That is the only wooden bridge still standing in the
state of Arizona. So, this is rich in history, rich in pioneer
history, rich in the history of our Native Americans. So, this
is something that these guys, they breathe, they live the air,
they farm the air. They are home people. That is what the red,
white, and blue stands for. This means everything to them. It
really does.
Mr. Crane. Thank you. The last thing I want to say is the
pursuit of religious freedom has helped lead to the expansion
of overall success of America. It is only right for Congress to
honor these contributions with the expansion of this cemetery.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now turn to Mr. LaLota
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Chairman. Ms. Harrison, again, it is
great that you are with us today.
In the previous panel, I think we well established that
there is a decent amount of bipartisan support for our
initiative to preserve Plum Island, and there certainly is
overwhelming community support back on Long Island to preserve
Plum Island. So, let's talk about the timing, and how that may
work.
In your testimony, you said that it is critical to
designate Plum Island as a national monument now. Can you tell
us a little bit about what could happen to Plum Island if we
don't act with a sense of urgency, such as making it a national
monument?
Ms. Harrison. Thank you for your question, Mr. LaLota. Yes,
I would be happy to answer the question.
Conservation takes a long time. I am sure everyone on this
Committee understands that. And we have been hoping to bring a
permanent conservation solution to Plum Island since about
2011. So, 13 years in, we still don't have knowledge of the
fate of Plum Island. But in the meantime, there are
communities, ecological communities on Plum Island, that are
beginning to deteriorate with invasive species, vines of
various species overtaking some of the critical habitats that
we know are there.
The New York Natural Heritage Program, which is made up of
the top field scientists in New York State, did a 2015
ecological inventory across four seasons of Plum Island, and
wrote a report in 2016 that is publicly available. And they
identified 24 different ecological communities, several of
which they considered to be significant, and almost all of
which would be threatened if we can't begin management planning
for Plum Island now.
We understand that the Department of Homeland Security is
in the midst of decommissioning its activities at Plum Island,
and they are doing quite a lot of work across the island. But
their mission, their decommissioning, is not the same as
bringing new conservation and care and stewardship to the
resources of Plum Island, and it needs to be done soon.
Mr. LaLota. Ms. Harrison, I want to focus specifically on
the timing piece. The previous panelists suggested that there
may be environmental issues which need to be remediated. If
Congress waited longer, and there are those environmental
issues which need to be remediated, wouldn't those
environmental issues be exacerbated and made worse the longer
that we wait?
Ms. Harrison. Yes, and I am sorry I didn't answer your
question more directly, but you are absolutely correct about
that. And that is because when we have things like invasive,
exotic species that overtake ecosystems, the native plants
can't support native wildlife, and the ecosystem deteriorates.
We also need to control deer that come to the island,
because they do heavily browse these areas. And we have to make
sure that the species that breed on Plum Island are cared for,
as well. So, there is a whole complex series of reasons why it
needs to be done soon.
And also, comprehensive management planning takes time. It
is not something that can be done right away. And access to
Plum Island has been prohibited for studies except with very
special permission, so we do need to get this underway, even if
the Department of Homeland Security doesn't leave Plum Island
for a while yet.
Mr. LaLota. I have one more minute, so I want to ask you
one more question relative to the studies that you just
mentioned.
The previous panelist mentioned that there needs to be a
certain amount of bureaucracy, and we have some patience for
some minimal amount of bureaucracy with respect to studies. In
your testimony, you mentioned several different studies and
publications that are already publicly available, including the
Professional Biodiversity Field Studies of Plum Island
conducted by the New York Natural Heritage Program; a book
entitled, ``A World Unto Itself,'' and the Journal of the
Suffolk County Historical Society.
Ms. Harrison. Yes.
Mr. LaLota. My question: Given your expertise, your
background, all of your understanding of this, do you believe
that those materials, which are already prepared by
professionals with specific knowledge about Plum Island, could
be helpful to help expedite this initiative?
Ms. Harrison. Absolutely. They certainly can. And there are
more, and we would be happy to provide a complete bibliography
of what is available.
And we know that a special resource study or any other
similar study could get underway right now.
Mr. LaLota. Great. Thank you so much. And 5 seconds.
Anything that we forgot?
Ms. Harrison. Not in 1 second. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. LaLota. Thank you so much.
I yield.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to
recognize the gentlelady from Utah for her questions at this
time.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Strong, are you confident that the Utah Division of
State Parks can adequately manage these parcels for recreation,
and preserve the natural resources?
Mr. Strong. To answer that question succinctly, I would say
yes.
And maybe the additional answer to that question is we are
on site every day. We have full-time, dedicated staff to those
areas to improve and maintain, monitor, and allow access.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you.
I am going to expand the scope of the hearing and just ask
Mr. Shields one question.
Mr. Shields, for the record and for the benefit of the
Committee, can you just say which university in the United
States has the best undergrad experience?
Mr. Shields. Southern Utah University, hands down.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Maloy. I concur. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Usually in the Federal Lands Subcommittee we
do not allow such shameless plugging for states, but clearly,
they have taken liberties here today.
OK, we have covered everyone here. I just want to ask a
couple questions.
Mr. Hunter, we had the red, white, and blue that were
referenced earlier. Basketball is all about the red, white, and
blue, isn't it?
Mr. Hunter. I was going to throw it to you, but I wasn't
sure you could catch it. He did.
Mr. Tiffany. Oh, yes, I can catch it. I can catch it, sir.
For those of us not very familiar with New York City, tell
me where this location is.
Mr. Hunter. It is at 155th Street and Eighth Avenue, the
old polo grounds.
Mr. Tiffany. Sir, would you turn on your mic?
Mr. Hunter. Oh. This is not on? Usually, in any stadium,
you can automatically hear me.
But it is at 155th Street and Eighth Avenue, and it is
below Coogan's Bluff. You are familiar with that? It is in a
very prime spot. If you cross the bridge, you go straight to
Yankee Stadium. And it is a very large project around the
Rucker Park. And generally we have various meetings there. In
fact, I was running a homeless food program there in which we
feed the homeless, and we develop empowerment through
recreation. And we had a homeless Olympics.
So, the park has a very vast amount of things that it can
do. And most of all, we have been looking at, Philip Rucker and
I, Philip Rucker is the son of Rucker, we are going to do a
biddy basketball clinic, where we also teach and play
basketball at the same time. It is something that Rucker did
very softly.
Mr. Tiffany. Well, as a high school basketball player, I
wish they could have taught height, because I could have used a
couple more inches. It would have very much helped.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hunter. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. In the recesses of my memory, I remember
reading a story about Connie Hawkins. And is it correct that
Connie Hawkins once dunked over Wilt Chamberlain? And might it
have been at this facility?
Mr. Hunter. I don't like talking about Connie Hawkins
because he dunked over me a couple of times.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hunter. But actually, I don't know if I should correct
you. It was Connie Hawkins that did it in the All Star game.
But the highest jump was by a Globetrotter named Jackie
Jackson.
Mr. Tiffany. That was the highest jump.
Mr. Hunter. That was the highest jump. And then Jackie----
Mr. Tiffany. How do you measure highest jumps?
Mr. Hunter. Well, you measure it like this. Wilt
Chamberlain put a half a dollar on top of the backboard, and
Jackie Jackson took it off.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tiffany. And it is those stories that make this so
deserving.
Mr. Hunter. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, for sure. Well, I do not have any other
questions if none of the members of the panel do.
I want to thank all of you so much for taking the time to
come and join us here in Washington, DC in what is a great day
when we have something that only happens annually, the State of
the Union speech. And it is good to have you here on a day like
this. I want to thank all of you for your valuable testimony.
Members of the subcommittee--yes, sir, do you have one?
Mr. Hunter. I would like to work with the national parks.
We have before the retired Globetrotters, and we are not
sympathetic, but we are very encouraged to help them in the
various projects because we are all over. And right now we are
working with Ms. Lynn Rapp in South Dakota in a park program
that she is doing there for kids.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, that sounds good.
Mr. Hunter. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. You may want to communicate, in addition to
your Representative, Mr. Espaillat, be sure to talk to his
office about that, also.
Mr. Hunter. OK.
Mr. Tiffany. He might be able to get you pointed in the
right direction for other people that could be helpful.
Mr. Hunter. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Members of the Subcommittee may have some
additional questions for all of you witnesses today, and we
will ask that you respond to those in writing. Under Committee
Rule 3, members of the Subcommittee must submit questions to
the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, March 12, 2024.
The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for
these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Statement for the Record
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
on H.R. 3173 and H.R. 7332
H.R. 3173, Northern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the
Record on H.R. 3173, the Northern Nevada Economic Development and
Conservation Act, which provides direction for the future management of
Federal lands primarily in several northern Nevada counties. H.R. 3173
provides for the conveyance of at least 9,500 acres of Federal lands
for a variety of public purposes and directs the sale at fair market
value or, in some cases, exchange of up to approximately 356,100 acres
of Federal lands. It also designates approximately 148,000 acres of
public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as eight
new wilderness areas; releases approximately 49,700 acres of existing
BLM wilderness study areas (WSA); withdraws approximately 349,200 acres
of Federal lands from mineral development and leasing; and takes nearly
2,700 acres of Federal lands into trust for the benefit of the Washoe
Tribe of Nevada and California.
Finally, the bill includes numerous miscellaneous provisions that
establish a Federal complex for the offices of certain land management
agencies, direct the issuance of corrective patents, provide for an
existing right-of-way for the GreenLink Transmission Line on parcels
previously taken into trust for the benefit of the Walker River Paiute
Tribe, and amend a previously enacted land law affecting White Pine
County.
The Department of the Interior (Department) supports the goals of
the bill as they align with important Administration priorities.
President Biden highlighted the importance of conservation in his
America the Beautiful Initiative, and the bill's wilderness
designations and withdrawal provisions support that effort. We also
support the bill's provisions that align with priorities of the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to build healthy communities and
economies. The Department continues to work to facilitate and improve
access to public lands for Tribes and underserved communities. We are
also working to improve public health, safety, and climate resiliency,
while conserving public lands for future generations. We would like to
work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee to address certain concerns
with the bill as currently drafted, including creating new legislative
maps for the bill's proposed designations, conveyances, and other land
tenure actions.
The Department defers to the Department of Agriculture on
provisions pertaining to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
Background
The BLM manages approximately 245 million surface acres, located
primarily in 12 western states, and approximately 700 million acres of
subsurface mineral estate. These minerals are overlain by properties
managed by other Federal agencies such as the Department of Defense and
USFS, as well state and private lands.
In 1976, with passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA), Congress directed the BLM to retain management of most public
lands, which reduced the acreage that had in previous years been
available for disposal. Under FLPMA, the BLM's mission is to sustain
the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use
and enjoyment of present and future generations. FLPMA also provides
the BLM with a clear multiple-use and sustained yield mandate that the
agency implements through its land use planning and management
processes.
Public Land Sales, Exchanges, & Conveyances
Section 203 of FLPMA authorizes the sale of public lands when they
are identified through a public land use planning process as meeting
certain criteria that make them suitable for sale. Land sales conducted
under FLPMA occur at the discretion of the Secretary and are made at
fair market value in accordance with Federal law. Under current BLM
policy, sales are generally conducted under competitive bidding
procedures to ensure fair return. In such cases, sales are widely
advertised through public notices, media announcements, and on
appropriate BLM websites.
Similarly, the BLM uses land exchanges to ensure effective land
management. Among other purposes, land exchanges allow the BLM to
acquire environmentally sensitive lands while transferring public lands
into non-Federal ownership for local needs and the consolidation of
scattered tracts. The BLM conducts land exchanges pursuant to section
206 of FLPMA, which authorizes the agency to undertake such exchanges,
or when given specific direction by Congress.
The BLM regularly leases and conveys lands to state, local, and
Tribal governments and nonprofit entities for a variety of public
purposes. These leases and conveyances are typically accomplished under
the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act or
through direction supplied by specific Acts of Congress. Such direction
allows the BLM to help states, Tribes, local communities, and nonprofit
organizations obtain lands at nominal cost for important public
purposes. As a matter of policy, the BLM generally supports legislative
conveyances at nominal cost if the lands are appropriate for disposal,
will be used for public purposes consistent with the R&PP Act, and if
the conveyances include reversionary clauses to enforce this
requirement.
H.R. 3173
Title I--Douglas County
Land Conveyances & Sales
Title I of H.R. 3173 directs the conveyance, upon request, of
approximately 7,777 acres of Federal lands managed by the BLM and the
USFS to Douglas County, Nevada, to be used for flood control or any
purpose consistent with the R&PP Act. Under the bill, the BLM and USFS
would convey this land subject to valid existing rights. Although this
title requires that the conveyance be made for no consideration, it
requires Douglas County to pay for any costs related to the conveyance
(e.g., cultural and cadastral surveys). Title I also authorizes Douglas
County to submit a request to purchase the reversionary interest in all
or part of the land conveyed for the appraised fair market value of
this interest and directs the Secretary to cover the costs of
conveyance of the reversionary interest. If any of the unspecified
acres is withdrawn by a Public Land Order, the Secretary is required to
revoke the order to the extent necessary to permit disposal of the
land.
In addition, Title I authorizes one or more sales of up to 10,031
acres of Federal lands, including the mineral estate, through a
competitive bidding process at fair market value, subject to valid
existing rights. Of these acres, 31 appear to be managed by the USFS,
but the exact acreage and the referenced map do not explicitly identify
the specific acres intended for sale. The remainder are unspecified
acres of BLM-managed public lands that have been or will be identified
as potentially suitable for disposal in the Carson City Consolidated
Resource Management Plan, or in any subsequent amendments to that plan.
The unspecified acres would be selected jointly by the BLM and the
county to be offered to qualified bidders within one year of enactment.
The bill also directs that not later than 30 days before any of the
unspecified acres are offered for sale, the state or county may elect
to obtain them for public purposes in accordance with the R&PP Act. In
that event, the BLM would retain the elected lands for conveyance to
the state or county.
Under Title I of H.R. 3173, proceeds from the proposed land sales
would be disbursed to the state, county, and a special account in the
U.S. Treasury to be used for a variety of purposes, including to
reimburse costs incurred in the preparation of land sales and the trust
transfers outlined in Section 121 of the title, and to acquire
environmentally sensitive land, among others.
As a matter of policy, the BLM supports working with local
governments to resolve land tenure issues that advance the public good.
The BLM supports the goals of the public purpose conveyances
contemplated in Title I, to the extent that they pertain to BLM-managed
public lands, as they are generally consistent with the R&PP Act. The
BLM is concerned, however, that the total acreage proposed for
conveyance is larger than what is normally authorized for public
purposes under the R&PP Act, which is limited to 6,400 acres to a state
or political subdivisions of a state. Some of the lands to be conveyed
also present recreation and resource management concerns. For example,
certain parcels offer extensive off-highway vehicle and non-motorized
recreational opportunities, including portions of the popular Tahoe to
Pyramid Trail. In addition, existing grazing allotments would be
affected, causing a reduction in the amount of grazing available to
permittees. Finally, the BLM is aware that these conveyances are within
an area with many cultural and paleontological resources. The BLM would
like to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee on boundary
modifications to avoid these acreage, recreation, and resource
concerns. We also recommend that the county assume the appraisal and
other administrative costs associated with acquiring the reversionary
interest, consistent with the county assuming the cost of survey and
other administrative costs as part of the initial conveyance.
While the BLM does not object to the proposed land sales, we would
like to work with the Sponsor and Subcommittee on minor and technical
modifications to this title, including amendments regarding how the
funds for the special account are managed and the proposed uses of the
account. Finally, the BLM notes that the deadlines provided by the bill
will be challenging to meet given current resources, and we would
welcome the opportunity to work with the Sponsor to establish more
manageable time frames. Specifically, 180 days is insufficient time to
comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act, and other applicable laws.
Land to be Held in Trust
Section 121 of Title I would direct the Secretary to take
approximately 2,669 acres of Federal lands into trust for the benefit
of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, subject to valid existing
rights, in addition to any ``Section 5 lands'' as specified in the bill
administered by the BLM or the USFS after enactment. In addition, this
section permits the Secretary concerned, in consultation and
coordination with the Tribe, to carry out any fuel reduction and
landscape restoration activities on the land taken into trust that
would benefit the Tribe, the BLM, or the USFS.
The BLM is committed to honoring our nation-to-nation relationship
with Tribal Nations, strengthening Tribal sovereignty and self-
governance, and upholding the trust and treaty responsibilities that
are paramount to fulfilling our mission, and the BLM supports these
provisions. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Sponsor
and the Subcommittee on an amendment to the bill or to provide an
updated legislative map to clarify the meaning of the term ``Section 5
lands,'' in addition to clarifying the Secretary of the Interior's role
in taking lands into trust for the benefit of the Tribe.
Designation of the Burbank Canyons Wilderness
Section 131 of Title I designates approximately 12,330 acres of
BLM-managed public lands as the Burbank Canyons Wilderness and releases
approximately 1,065 acres of the existing Burbank Canyons WSA from
further study. The Burbank Canyons area is comprised of rugged canyons
set in the Pine Nut Mountains. Riparian areas provide important habitat
for wildlife, and steep, rugged ridges contribute to the area's scenic
beauty and the recreational experiences available to hikers, horseback
riders, and hunters. The BLM supports the designation of the Burbank
Canyons Wilderness and the release of the remaining portion of the WSA,
but we would like to work with the Sponsor and Subcommittee to refine
some of the language in this section. For example, the BLM recommends
the use of language that has been used frequently as standard in other
similar legislation for both the designation of the wilderness and the
release of the WSA. The BLM would also like to work with the Sponsor to
minimize the impact of wildlife management on wilderness character and
update the referenced maps and ensure all areas to be designated or
released are clearly delineated.
Title II--Incline Village Fire Protection
The BLM defers to the USFS on the conveyances proposed by Title II
of the bill.
Title III--Northern Nevada Flood Protection and Management
Title III of H.R. 3173 would authorize the Department to convey
parcels of Federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) to the Truckee River Flood Management Authority
(TRFMA) for flood attenuation and riparian restoration along the
Truckee River in Nevada. Under this title, the conveyances would be for
no consideration, but TRFMA would be required to cover all conveyance
costs.
While the BLM generally supports public purpose conveyances that
are consistent with the R&PP Act, some of the parcels to be conveyed
under this title include the Tahoe to Pyramid Trail, which is popular
with the public. We would like to work with the Sponsor and the
Subcommittee on boundary changes or other modifications to this title
to avoid potential impacts to the trail. We would also like the
opportunity to develop an official legislative map for the conveyance.
The BOR does not object to the conveyances, but would like to work
with the Sponsor to ensure reservation of an appropriate right-of-way
for one of the parcels, and to make minor technical edits to the parcel
descriptions and map references.
Title IV--Ruby Mountains Protection Act
H.R. 3173 provides for the withdrawal of approximately 309,272
acres of land managed by USFS in the Ruby Mountains Subdistrict of the
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and approximately 39,926 acres of land
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of the
Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge from the operation of the mineral
leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights and with an exception
for noncommercial refuge management activities by the USFWS.
The refuge is a magnet for a wide diversity of wildlife and is
strategically located along bird migration corridors serving both the
Pacific and Central Flyways, which makes it one of the most important
waterfowl nesting areas in the Great Basin and Intermountain West. The
refuge is also key habitat for mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and sage
grouse, while the fishery is popular with local anglers. The Department
supports the provision and would welcome the opportunity to continue
working with the sponsor and the Committee. The Department defers to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding provisions affecting the
management of lands administered by the USFS.
Title V--Carson City Public Lands Correction
Title V of the bill would direct the conveyance, upon request, of
approximately 258 acres of Federal lands to Carson City, Nevada, at no
cost to the city. While the legislative map and title are unclear, we
believe that most of the identified acreage is managed by the BLM. This
title explicitly authorizes the city to sell, lease, or convey all or
part of the lands upon their receipt, and further directs that if the
city sells the land, the city must sell the land at fair market value,
with proceeds to be deposited in a special account created under the
title. Under Title V, the special account could be used to reimburse
the cost of any surveys and appraisals for lands that are conveyed to
Carson City, and to conduct wildlife habitat and restoration projects
in the city. Additionally, the account could be used for the
development and implementation of comprehensive hazardous fuels
reduction and wildfire prevention projects and the acquisition of
environmentally sensitive lands in the city, among other activities.
The special account would be managed pursuant to an intergovernmental
agreement between Carson City and the BLM.
In addition, this title provides for conveyance of unspecified
acres of Federal lands to Carson City for expansion of a roadway and
directs the BLM to dispose of approximately 28 acres of BLM-managed
public lands, while allowing the city to retain certain easements for
utilities. Further, Title V would direct the conveyance of
approximately 17 acres from Carson City to the BLM, which the BLM is to
dispose of in accordance with FLPMA.
Under FLPMA, the BLM generally requires fair market value for land
leaving Federal ownership if not conveyed for a public purpose. While
the BLM acknowledges the Sponsor's consideration for the disposition of
proceeds generated by this title, the BLM notes that the actions
directed by the title regarding realization of value if the County in
turn sells the land may not be sufficient to ensure a fair return to
the taxpayer for the lands conveyed or disposed out of Federal
ownership. The BLM would also like to work with the Sponsor to update
the referenced maps or create new maps, if necessary, that accurately
depict the boundaries of the areas to be conveyed per the title.
Lastly, the BLM notes that the timelines provided for the actions
required by this title would be difficult to achieve, and we would like
to work with the Sponsor to consider a more feasible deadline.
Title VI--Pershing County Economic Development
Checkerboard Land Resolution
Subtitle A of Title VI directs the sale, at fair market value or
through an equal value exchange, of up to approximately 334,000 acres
of BLM-managed public lands in Pershing County, Nevada, that have been
identified as potentially suitable for disposal as part of the BLM's
land use planning process. This subtitle further requires that all
lands authorized for sale or exchange be appraised using mass appraisal
methodology within one year of enactment and every five years
thereafter. Subtitle A also requires that the Secretary offer to
exchange all eligible land within one year.
In addition, this subtitle directs the sale for fair market value
of select public lands in the county that are currently encumbered by a
mining claim, millsite, or tunnel site to a qualified entity. The bill
defines qualified entities as the owner or authorized leaseholder of
the mining claims, mill sites, or tunnel sites currently existing on
any portion of the lands to be sold. The qualified entity would assume
all costs of the sales, including survey, appraisal, and administrative
costs. Proceeds from the sales would be disbursed to the state, county,
and a special account in the U.S. Treasury for several specific
purposes, including reimbursing costs associated with preparing sales,
habitat conservation and restoration, and securing public access to
Federal lands, among others. Lastly, Subtitle A provides for the
conveyance of ten acres of Federal land to county for use as a
cemetery.
While the BLM generally supports the consolidation of public land
to provide for more orderly land management while ensuring the
conservation of natural and cultural resources, we also support a
process that ensures a fair return to the taxpayer when public lands
are conveyed, exchanged, or sold out of Federal ownership. The BLM
recognizes the Sponsor's efforts to address the checkerboard pattern of
landownership in this area, but we are concerned that the scope of the
sales and transfers contemplated by this subtitle may be overly broad.
The BLM would also like to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee
to develop a legislative map depicting the lands proposed for sale or
exchange under this subtitle.
Further, the BLM recommends that the Sponsor consider expanding the
allowable uses for the proceeds deposited in the special account to
include processing and managing conservation designations in the
county; development of parks, trails, and natural areas in the county,
pursuant to a cooperative agreement; capital improvements on Federal
lands within the county; and reimbursement of any costs incurred by the
BLM for oversight of expenditures from the account.
Finally, the personnel the BLM would need to process these land
transfers are the same personnel currently employed in a wide variety
of other vital land management issues, including processing renewable
energy and transmission rights-of-way applications and land use
authorizations for community needs. Therefore, the time frames outlined
in this subtitle will necessarily have consequences for a wide variety
of other users of the public lands. The BLM would like to work with the
Sponsor and the Subcommittee on more manageable time frames to
implement the contemplated transfers.
Wilderness Areas
Subtitle B of Title VI provides for the designation of seven
wilderness areas totaling approximately 136,600 acres of BLM-managed
public lands. This subtitle would also release approximately 48,600
acres of public land from WSA status, allowing these areas to be
managed according to the existing BLM land use plans. The seven new
wilderness areas include the Cain Mountain Wilderness, which consists
of approximately 12,339 acres; the Bluewing Wilderness, which consists
of approximately 24,900 acres; the Selenite Peak Wilderness, which
consists of approximately 22,822 acres; the Mount Limbo Wilderness,
which consists of approximately 11,855 acres; the North Sahwave
Wilderness, which consists of approximately 13,875 acres; the
Grandfathers Wilderness, which consists of approximately 35,339 acres;
and the Fencemaker Wilderness, which consists of 14,942 acres.
The new wilderness areas that would be designated by this subtitle,
if enacted, would help protect fragile desert ecosystems while
providing important habitat for Greater sage-grouse, pronghorn
antelope, mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, and many other species of
wildlife and plants. The proposed Mount Limbo Wilderness, for example,
features a spectacular landscape of granite outcrops, basaltic flows,
and alluvial fans that is perfect for backcountry exploration. The BLM
supports each of these designations, as they would conserve habitat and
provide excellent opportunities for hiking, hunting, rock climbing,
camping, and horsepacking for those who wish to experience the solitude
of rugged canyons and dramatic vistas of the Nevada desert. The BLM
would like to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee on minor and
technical amendments to this subtitle, such as the inclusion of
wilderness designation language that has become standard for this type
of legislation and updating the referenced maps to ensure all areas
proposed for designation or release are clearly delineated.
Additionally, Section 622 of this subtitle allows for the
construction of a temporary telecommunications device for law
enforcement or agency administrative use in the Selenite Peak
Wilderness. Any telecommunications device authorized under the section
may not be placed for more than seven years. This section further
requires that temporary telecommunications devices and their placement
must comply with the Wilderness Act, all applicable laws, and to the
maximum practicable extent, be located in a manner that minimizes
impacts on the recreational and other wilderness values of the area.
The BLM notes that as written, the provisions authorizing placement
of temporary telecommunications devices in the Selenite Peak Wilderness
contradict current law, regulation, and policy. Specifically, section
4(c) of the Wilderness Act prohibits such installations. The BLM would
welcome the opportunity to work with the Sponsor to explore options
that would help achieve the goals of the bill while complying with the
Wilderness Act and related regulations. Potential solutions could
include excluding the temporary telecommunications site from the
wilderness boundary or providing for the site to be added to the
Wilderness once the temporary use has ended. In addition, the BLM
recommends reassessing the seven-year period provided to ensure it
meets current needs.
Title VII--Federal Complex
Title VII of H.R. 3173 would require the Department to establish a
Federal complex building in Reno, Nevada, that would house certain
offices in Nevada for the BLM, BOR, USFS, USFWS, and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
The Department supports the goal of increasing efficiencies as well
as providing for ease of collaboration between Federal agencies.
However, we are concerned that the practicalities and requirements of
building a new multi-agency Federal complex, as envisioned in the bill,
may not be an efficient use of resources given the scale of the
proposal. For example, the operation of Hoover Dam requires BOR staff
on-site. The Department looks forward to working with the Sponsor to
explore alternative proposals and ideas for increasing the
effectiveness of Federal land management agencies in the region.
Title VIII--White Pine County
Title VIII would amend section 312 of the White Pine County
Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (Public Law 109-432) to
expand the categories for disposition of proceeds authorized by that
law to include additional public services, as determined by the county.
In addition, Title VIII would insert a deadline for the conveyance of
BLM-managed public lands to White Pine County that were authorized by
section 352 of Public Law 109-432 for the expansion of the Ely Airport,
the expansion of the White Pine County Industrial Park, and for sale
through a competitive bidding process for nonresidential development
related to these two expansions. Per the provisions of this title, if
the conveyances are not completed within 120 days of enactment of H.R.
3173, the BLM would be required to convey all right, title, and
interest in those parcels to the county. It appears that this
requirement would eliminate the reversionary requirement associated
with these conveyances. Additionally, this title would amend section
352 of Public Law 109-432 to remove the competitive bidding process
associated with the sales of conveyed land for nonresidential
development and instead direct the county to use a process consistent
with section 244 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Lastly, this title
would authorize the BLM to issue corrective patents of up to five acres
in the county where surveying errors exist.
The BLM notes that all lands described in section 352 of Public Law
109-432 have already been conveyed, and we would welcome the
opportunity to work with the Sponsor on technical amendments to the
title to ensure it reflects current land status. In addition, we are
concerned that the reference to section 244 of the Nevada Revised
Statutes would require the Federal government to interpret whether the
county has complied with state law. The BLM also notes that the
disposal method described in the Nevada Revised Statutes may not result
in the highest price and greatest benefit to taxpayers. For these
reasons, the BLM recommends that the Sponsor retain the competitive
bidding process in the underlying law.
Finally, regarding the corrective patents referenced in this title,
the BLM notes that the specified land is no longer under BLM
jurisdiction. It is unclear whether corrective patents could be issued
in this situation, and the 60-day timeline provided by the title is
insufficient to allow for the necessary research to determine if the
BLM can issue a corrective patent. The BLM welcomes the opportunity to
work with the Sponsor to explore this issue further.
Title IX--Fernley Economic Development Act
The Fernley Economic Development Act, contained in Title IX, would
convey approximately 12,085 acres of BLM-managed public lands to the
city of Fernley, Nevada, for fair market value. This title directs
gross proceeds from the sale, lease, or conveyance of this land to be
deposited into the special account created by the Southern Nevada
Public Lands Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA).
The BLM understands the Sponsor's goal is to make public land
available for acquisition to facilitate the growth of local communities
that are surrounded by Federal lands. The BLM would welcome the
opportunity to work with the Sponsor to address concerns with the large
scale of the conveyances directed by the title. In addition, the BLM
notes that approximately half of the acres to be conveyed under this
title are currently identified as potentially suitable for disposal
under the existing land use plan.
Title X--Conveyances to the City of Sparks
Under Title X of the bill, the BLM would direct the conveyance of
40 acres of BLM-managed public lands to the City of Sparks, Nevada, for
the purpose of establishing a public cemetery. This title would also
convey approximately 714 acres of BLM-managed public lands for the
creation of two public parks for the city. Title X requires the City of
Sparks to pay all costs associated with the conveyances, and the public
lands conveyed for the development of the public parks would also
include a reversionary interest.
The BLM generally does not object to the conveyances under this
title. As discussed above, the BLM typically supports conveyances for
specific public purposes that are consistent with the R&PP Act and
include a reversionary interest. The BLM recommends the provision
regarding the public lands conveyed for parks be amended to increase
consistency with the R&PP Act. In addition, the BLM would appreciate
the opportunity to develop an updated legislative map for these
conveyances.
Title XI--General Conveyance Provisions
Title XI of H.R. 3173 would require the conveyance, upon request,
of any public land within the State of Nevada that is leased, patented,
authorized as a right-of-way, otherwise approved for use pursuant to
the R&PP Act, FLPMA, NEPA, or any other applicable Federal law and has
a permanent public facility already constructed--or where such a
facility may be constructed at some point in the future--to an eligible
entity by a quitclaim deed. Eligible entities would include the State
of Nevada, political subdivisions of the State, units of local
government, or a regional governmental entity in any county in Nevada.
Lands conveyed under this title would continue to have a reversionary
interest held by the Department. As a matter of policy, the BLM
generally supports public purpose conveyances that are consistent with
the R&PP Act. However, the BLM has substantial concerns with the
language in this title authorizing the required conveyances because it
is overly broad and could have significant unintended consequences as
currently drafted. The BLM would like to work with the Sponsor to
better understand the intent of this title.
Title XI would also allow for the movement of sand and gravel
resources by the non-Federal surface owners of land acquired by them
from the United States under certain authorities if the movement is
conducted to recontour or balance the surface estate or is disposed of
at off-site landfills. In addition, Title XI would make a technical
correction to the reference to the map associated with a conveyance of
Federal Land in Storey County, Nevada, that was included as part of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law
113-291). The BLM would welcome the opportunity to explore how to
achieve the Sponsor's goal of allowing the movement of sand and gravel
to recontour or balance the surface estate belonging to non-Federal
entities. The BLM does not support allowing sand and gravel resources
to be transported for off-site use unless the BLM receives fair market
value for the resource.
Title XII--GreenLink West Project
Lastly, Title XII of H.R. 3173 would allow the BLM to maintain the
existing right-of-way for the GreenLink Transmission Line on the Walker
Lake Parcel in Mineral County, Nevada, which was taken into trust for
the benefit of the Walker River Paiute Tribe as part of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Public Law 117-263).
This title provides that the consent of the Tribe for the use of the
parcel for the transmission project will be deemed to be obtained by
the Department subject to review under NEPA, and further directs the
Department to approve a right-of-way agreement between the Tribe and
the project applicant as soon as practicable after the parcel is taken
into trust and before commencement of project construction. This
agreement must address applicable provisions under part 169 of title
25, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations). The BLM
supports these provisions, as they reflect the current and ongoing
efforts to work with the Walker River Paiute Tribe to address the
right-of-way.
Conclusion
The BLM appreciates the interest of the sponsor and the
Subcommittee in these important public land management issues in
northern Nevada, and we look forward to working further with you on
them. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide a Statement for
the Record on H.R. 3173.
H.R. 7332, Utah State Parks Adjustment Act
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the
Record on H.R. 7332, the Utah State Parks Adjustment Act. H.R. 7332
directs the Department of the Interior (Department) to convey several
small, isolated parcels of public lands (approximately 510 acres)
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within and around
Antelope Island State Park and Wasatch Mountain State Park to the State
of Utah at no cost. The legislation would consolidate landownership
within the two state parks, which would improve manageability, and
dispose of isolated Federal parcels that are difficult to manage. The
BLM supports the bill.
The bill also proposes the conveyance of federally owned parcels
administered by the United States Forest Service (USFS) to the State of
Utah for inclusion in Fremont Indian State Park. The Department defers
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding provisions affecting
the management of lands administered by the USFS.
H.R. 7332
The isolated Federal parcels within Antelope Island State Park
total approximately 280 acres surrounded by the Great Salt Lake, and
are inherently difficult to manage by the BLM due to location, small
size, and lack of access. The isolated Federal parcels near Wasatch
Mountain State Park are similarly difficult for the BLM to manage due
to location, small size, isolation from other public land, and lack of
access. The Federal parcels within and around the Wasatch Mountain
State Park were first identified as potentially suitable for disposal
to the state, and inclusion into the Wasatch Mountain State Park, in
the BLM's Park City Management Framework Plan issued in 1975. Most of
these isolated parcels are only accessible through Wasatch Mountain
State Park. The Wasatch Mountain State Park conveyance would add
approximately 230 acres to the state park.
The BLM welcomes the opportunity to work with the Sponsor to
continue to define inholdings administered by the BLM for conveyance as
proposed by the bill. The BLM is currently developing a supplemental
survey plat to evaluate the complex mineral survey history of the area,
develop accurate legislative maps, and ultimately execute the proposed
transfer. Further, the BLM would like to work with the Sponsor to
explore the potential transfer of additional nearby BLM-managed
isolated parcels previously identified for disposal in BLM land use
planning documents.
The BLM regularly transfers public lands to local governments and
nonprofits for a variety of public purposes. These transfers are
typically accomplished under the provisions of the Recreation and
Public Purposes (R&PP) Act or through direction from specific Acts of
Congress. As a matter of policy, the BLM generally supports these
legislative conveyances at no or low cost if the lands are appropriate
for disposal and will be used for public purposes consistent with the
R&PP Act.
The BLM understands that the proposed management of the lands for
conveyance to the State of Utah for inclusion in the state parks would
be for public purposes. The BLM would appreciate the opportunity to
work with the Sponsor on legislative language ensuring that the
management of the lands conveyed is consistent with the standards of
the R&PP Act and addresses the costs of the conveyance. Additionally,
the BLM would like to work with the Sponsor on a few minor technical
modifications to the bill, and notes that the lands proposed for
conveyance would require a patent or quitclaim deed per regulation and
policy.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the
record.
______
Submission for the Record by Rep. Tiffany
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Washington, DC
March 7, 2024
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: NPCA support for H.R. 1647
Dear Representative:
Since 1919, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been
the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing
our National Park System. On behalf of our 1.6 million members and
supporters nationwide, we write to share our position on H.R. 1645--
Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary
Study Act.
H.R. 1647--Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation
and Boundary Study Act: NPCA supports this legislation to redesignate
Salem Maritime National Historic Site (NHS) to Salem Maritime National
Historical Park and to initiate a boundary study to identify
opportunities to preserve and interpret our shared defense and maritime
heritage. This redesignation aligns with the increasing number of
historic and cultural resources that are protected and interpreted at
Salem Maritime NHS. Since the original designation in 1938, Salem
Maritime NHS has acquired new properties that broadened national
narratives and educate visitors about the contributions of Salem, MA to
global maritime trade, northern slavery and immigration. Redesignating
Salem Maritime would serve as a more accurate account of the breadth of
resources and cultural landscapes that are protected and interpreted by
NPS in Salem, MA. This legislation also instructs the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a boundary study to evaluate the inclusion of
nearby sites and resources associated with Salem's maritime history,
coastal defenses and military history, including National Guard and
militia activity that date back to the American Revolution and the War
of 1812. Leading up to the 250th anniversary of the American
Revolution, this boundary study would uncover new opportunities to
preserve Salem's defense and maritime history for future generations.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Tucker Johnson,
Interim Legislative Director, Government Affairs
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Amodei
Letters of support for H.R. 3173, from the following:
1. Douglas County Board of County Commissioners
2. Board of Commissioners, Minden, Nevada
3. Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California
4. Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Missoula, MT
5. City of Fernley
6. Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Sparks, Nevada
7. Carson City, Nevada--Office of the Mayor
8. Pershing County Board of Commissioners
9. Tahoe Reno Industrial Center
These documents are part of the hearing record and are being
retained in the Committee's official files:
The documents are available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20240307/116866/HHRG-
118-II10-20240307-SD005.pdf
[all]