[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1479, H.R. 1504, H.R. 8931,
H.R. 8946, H.R. 9159, H.R. 9492,
H.R. 9516, AND S. 612
=======================================================================
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
__________
Wednesday, September 18, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-147
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE 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
56-828 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
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 Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on Wednesday, September 18, 2024.................... 1
Statement of Members:
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 2
Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado................................................ 4
Panel I:
Valadao, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Horsford, Hon. Steven, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 16
Chavez-Deremer, Hon. Lori, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Oregon........................................ 17
Ciscomani, Hon. Juan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 18
Stefanik, Hon. Elise, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, prepared statement for the record....... 67
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel II:
Emanuel, Jacqueline, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Caldwell, Mike, Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, Washington,
DC......................................................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Regan, Julie W., Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency, Stateline, Nevada.................................. 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Supplemental testimony submitted for the record.......... 23
Marra, Sandra, President and CEO, Appalachian Trail
Conservancy, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia.................. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Supplemental testimony submitted for the record.......... 31
Jimmie, Justine, Deputy Attorney General, San Carlos Apache
Tribe, San Carlos, Arizona................................. 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Preston, Monica, President, Willcox Chamber of Commerce and
Agriculture, Willcox, Arizona.............................. 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Supplemental testimony submitted for the record.......... 40
Goynes-Brown, Pamela, Mayor, City of North Las Vegas, North
Las Vegas, Nevada.......................................... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Kubinyi, Gabriella, Member, Gold Star Spouses of America,
Inc., Washington, DC....................................... 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 50
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Bureau of Land Management, Statement for the Record on H.R.
1504....................................................... 68
Bureau of Land Management, Statement for the Record on H.R.
8946....................................................... 70
Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman
American Hiking Society, Statement for the Record on H.R.
9159................................................... 71
Submissions for the Record by Representative Leger Fernandez
Mescalero Apache Tribe, Statement for the Record on H.R.
1479................................................... 54
Submissions for the Record by Representative Kiley
Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program, Letter to
the Committee on S. 612................................ 59
County of Placer Board of Supervisors, Letter to the
Committee on S. 612.................................... 60
Submissions for the Record by Representative Lawler
New York-New Jersey Trail Conference, Letter on H.R. 9159 72
Submissions for the Record by Representative Matsui
Dimension Properties, Statement for the Record on H.R.
8946................................................... 5
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To: Subcommittee on Federal Lands Republican Members
From: Subcommittee on Federal Lands; Aniela Butler, Brandon Miller,
and Colen [email protected],
[email protected], and [email protected];
x6-7736
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024
Subject: Legislative Hearing on 8 Bills
________________________________________________________________________
The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold a legislative hearing
on 8 bills:
H.R. 1479 (Rep. Ciscomani), ``Chiricahua National Park
Act'';
H.R. 1504 (Rep. Horsford), ``Apex Area Technical
Corrections Act'';
H.R. 8931 (Rep. Stefanik), To redesignate Saratoga
National Historical Park as Saratoga National Battlefield
Park;
H.R. 8946 (Rep. Matsui), ``Reversionary Interest
Conveyance Act'';
H.R. 9159 (Rep. Lawler), ``Appalachian Trail Centennial
Act'';
H.R. 9492 (Rep. Valadao), To amend Public Law 99-338 with
respect to Kaweah Project permits;
H.R. 9516 (Rep. Chavez-DeRemer), ``Military Families
National Parks Access Enhancement Act''; and
S. 612 (Sen. Cortez Masto), ``Lake Tahoe Restoration
Reauthorization Act''.
The hearing will take place on Wednesday, September 18, 2024, at
10:15 a.m. in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Will Rodriguez
(Will.Rodriguez@mail .house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 17,
if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
The Republican bills on today's hearing include locally
supported efforts to support our nation's Gold Star
Families, establish a new national park, emphasize the
historic importance of a Revolutionary War battlefield,
strengthen public-private partnerships for trail
maintenance, extend the operation of a critical
hydroelectric project, and continue the supply of needed
resources to the Lake Tahoe Basin.
Representative Chavez-DeRemer's legislation extends
eligibility of free Gold Star Family passes to our national
parks and public lands to next of kin who lost loved ones
serving on active-duty, an important sign of support for
our nation's military families.
Representative Ciscomani's legislation elevates Chiricahua
National Monument to National Park status, in recognition
of this unique Arizona landscape rich in natural, cultural,
and historic resources.
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act is a
bicameral and bipartisan effort led in the House by
Representatives Duarte, Kiley, and Amodei. This important
legislation will extend the period in which previously
authorized funding can be spent on restoration and
resilience activities around Lake Tahoe, including critical
work preventing catastrophic wildfires and improving forest
health.
Representative Lawler's Appalachian Trail Centennial Act
seeks to strengthen and leverage public-private
partnerships that are vital to the care of our nation's
scenic and historic trails.
Representative Valadao's bill authorizes the renewal of a
special use permit in the Sequoia National Park for the
continued operation of a hydroelectric project, ensuring
continued reliable and affordable power.
Representative Stefanik's bill redesignates the Saratoga
National Historic Park as a National Battlefield Park to
distinguish the site for its critical significance in the
American fight for independence ahead of our country's
250th anniversary.
II. WITNESSES
Panel I (Members of Congress):
To Be Announced
Panel II (Administration Officials and Outside Experts):
Ms. Jacqueline Emanuel, Associate Deputy Chief, National
Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. [H.R.
9159, H.R. 9516, S. 612]
Mr. Mike Caldwell, Associate Director, Park Planning,
Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, Washington,
D.C. [H.R. 1479, H.R. 1504, H.R. 8391, H.R. 8946, H.R.
9159, H.R. 9492, H.R. 9516, S. 612]
Ms. Monica Preston, President, Wilcox Chamber of Commerce
and Agriculture, Willcox, Arizona [H.R. 1479]
Ms. Julie W. Regan, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency, Stateline, Nevada [S. 612]
Ms. Sandi Marra, President and CEO, Appalachian Trail
Conservancy, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia [H.R. 9159]
Ms. Gabriella Kubinyi, Member, Gold Star Spouses of
America, Inc., Washington, D.C. [H.R. 9516]
Ms. Pamela Goynes-Brown, Mayor, City of North Las Vegas,
North Las Vegas, Nevada [H.R. 1504] [Minority Witness]
Ms. Justine Jimmie, Deputy Attorney General, San Carlos
Apache Tribe, San Carlos, Arizona [H.R. 1479] [Minority
Witness]
III. BACKGROUND
H.R. 1479 (Rep. Ciscomani), ``Chiricahua National Park Act''
In 1924, President Calvin Coolidge established Chiricahua National
Monument, located in the Chiricahua Mountains in southeastern
Arizona.\1\ The area, which the Apache called ``The Land of Standing-Up
Rocks,'' is known for its ancient volcanic hoodoos, pinnacles, and
other rock formations.\2\ The National Park Service (NPS) administers
this 12,000-acre monument, of which over 85 percent is designated as
wilderness.\3\ Chiricahua National Monument contains evidence of
diverse human history spanning thousands of years, including that of
prehistoric indigenous peoples, Chiricahua Apache, Buffalo Soldiers,
and European American pioneers and ranchers.\4\ The national monument
contains the Faraway Ranch, which was home to Swedish immigrants in the
19th century.\5\ Chiricahua is also a popular hiking and camping
destination, offering several scenic hiking trails that showcase unique
rock formations and forested areas with a variety of desert foliage
including prickly pear, yuccas, agave, and hedgehog cactus.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Park Service, ``Chiricahua National Monument,
Management'', https://www.nps.gov/chir/learn/management/index.htm.
\2\ National Park Service, ``Chiricahua National Monument, Nature
and Science'', https://www.nps.gov/chir/learn/nature/index.htm.
\3\ National Park Service, ``Foundation Document Overview
Chiricahua National Monument'', http://npshistory.com/publications/
foundation-documents/chir-fd-overview.pdf.
\4\ Id.
\5\ National Park Service, ``Chiricahua National Monument, Faraway
Ranch'', https://www.nps.gov/chir/learn/historyculture/faraway-
ranch.htm.
\6\ Backpacker.com, ``This Arizona Monument Could Be Our Next
National Park,'' Mary Beth Skylis, March 13, 2023, https://
www.backpacker.com/news-and-events/news/chiricahua-national-monument-
national-park/.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Hoodoos in the Chiricahua National Monument. Source: Lawrence
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Richardson Jr., 2017.
H.R. 1479 would redesignate Chiricahua National Monument as
Chiricahua National Park, making it the country's 64th national park
and the fourth national park located in Arizona. Local supporters of
this legislation believe that elevating Chiricahua to full national
park status would allow Chiricahua to take its place among the other
``crown jewels'' of the National Park System, increase visitation and
benefit nearby gateway communities.\7\ Companion legislation, S. 736,
has been introduced by Senator Kelly (D-AZ) in the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Cronkite News, ``Congress considers making Chiricahua National
Monument Arizona's fourth national park'', Sarah Min Heller, May 24,
2023, https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2023/05/24/chiricahua-national-
monument-arizonas-fourth-national-park/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1504 (Rep. Horsford), ``Apex Area Technical Corrections Act''
Clark County, Nevada, is widely known as one of the premier
entertainment capitals of the world. This region experienced
significant population growth in recent years, and estimates project
that the county will reach a population of 3.43 million by 2080.\8\
This sharp rise in population presents both opportunities and
challenges as local officials attempt to attract businesses to the
region to support the growing workforce. Unfortunately, one factor
inhibiting the region's economic prosperity is the significant presence
of federal land. Over 86 percent of land in Clark County is owned by
the federal government, deterring developers from investing in the
region and adding bureaucratic red tape to important projects.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Center for Business and Economic Research, 2023 CBER Population
Forecasts, https://webfiles.clarkcountynv.gov//
2023%20CBER%20Population%20Forecasts.pdf.
\9\ University of Nevada Las Vegas, Counties and the Bureau of Land
Management, https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/bmw_lincy_env/article/1002/&
path_info=Solano_Patricio_Beavers_Saladino_Brown_Environment_No.3_Land_U
se_in_Nevada _Counties_and_the_BLM.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To incentivize economic growth and attract new businesses, Congress
created the Apex Industrial Park (Apex) in 1989 by authorizing the sale
of roughly 21,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land to
Clark County to establish an industrial park. Once completed, the Apex
will have 7,000 acres of developable land and is expected to employ
over 6,500 workers.\10\ A convergence point for freight from California
and other parts of the western United States, the Apex is a prime
location for many Fortune 500 Companies. While the original law
directed BLM to issue utility and transportation rights-of-way for the
Apex, businesses that want to start construction or expand at the Apex
must endure a complicated permitting process. The delayed installation
of utilities like sewer and gas, as well as access roads or broadband
lines across BLM-controlled corridors, has stalled the growth of
existing businesses in the Apex area. Additionally, the prolonged
permitting process acts as a deterrent for new businesses, hindering
economic development in North Las Vegas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ KTNV, North Las Vegas Industrial Center Expected to Generate
Thousands of Job Opportunities, https://www.ktnv.com/news/apex-
industrial-center-set-to-generate-thousands-of-job-opportunities-for-
valley-residents#::text=The%20focus%20is%20on%20an,6%2C500%20
employees%20when%20built%20out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1504 amends the Apex Project, Nevada Land Transfer and
Authorization Act of 1989 to streamline the permitting process for the
site. Specifically, the legislation allows the Secretary of the
Interior to grant utility and transportation rights-of-way to the Apex
Industrial Park Owners Association (Association) and City of North Las
Vegas, along with Clark County, for electric, power, water, natural
gas, telephone, railroad, or highway facilities.\11\ The legislation
also strengthens the requirement to grant such rights-of-way by
amending the law so the Secretary shall issue the rights-of-way rather
than may issue the rights-of-way. These changes are necessary, as the
Association and North Las Vegas, rather than Clark County, now own most
of the site. Finally, the legislation eases requirements regarding the
sale of mineral materials from the Apex due to grading or land
balancing. In total, these changes will simply the process for
installing the utility and transportation infrastructure necessary to
facilitate economic growth and attract new business investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Public Law 101-67; 103 Stat. 168.
H.R. 8931 (Rep. Stefanik), To redesignate Saratoga National Historic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Park as Saratoga National Battlefield Park.
On September 19, 1777, an army of Continental troops under the
command of General Horatio Gates stood its ground against the British
Empire in present-day Saratoga County, New York.\12\ Thus began the
Battles of Saratoga, in which American colonists would rout a British
invasion force marching southward from Canada, capture an unprecedented
six thousand English soldiers and Hessian mercenaries, and create a
turning point in the Revolutionary War.\13\ Today, a 3,400-acre expanse
of rolling hills and forested ravines bordering the northern Hudson
River conserves the location of the pivotal Battles of Saratoga as the
Saratoga National Historic Park (Saratoga NHP), a unit of the NPS.\14\
The area provides visitors with trails and tour routes to experience
the battlefield, which is carefully managed to resemble its appearance
right after the events of the battle, and includes landmarks,
fortifications, and important buildings. The Saratoga NHP also hosts
artifacts exhibits, historical reenactments, and guided tours to keep
the memory of the battle alive and tell the stories of those who lived
through it.\15\ While the Saratoga NHP was initially named ``Saratoga
Battlefield Park'' as a New York State Historical Site, the
``Battlefield'' nomenclature was dropped in 1938 when the area became
part of the National Park System.\16\ With the upcoming 250th
anniversaries of both the United States and the Battles of Saratoga,
residents of Saratoga County and the State of New York have pushed to
rename the Saratoga NHP to clarify its place in the heroic struggle for
American Independence.\17\ Congresswoman Elise Stefanik's (R-NY-21)
legislation would redesignate the site as the Saratoga National
Battlefield Park to identify its importance as a historical battlefield
to visitors and more effectively emphasize the sacrifices of soldiers
who fought on the land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Saratoga. American Battlefield Trust. (n.d.). https://
www.battlefields.org/learn/revolutionary-war/battles/saratoga.
\13\ Id.
\14\ U.S. Department of the Interior. (n.d.). Saratoga--National
Historic Park New York. National Parks Service. https://www.nps.gov/
sara/index.htm#.
\15\ Id.
\16\ NEWS10 ABC, Saratoga Co. looks to change historical park name,
Deuso, C, June 19, 2024, https://www.news10.com/news/saratoga-county/
saratoga-co-looks-to-change-historical-park-name/
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 8946 (Rep. Matsui), ``Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act''
During the 19th century, Congress granted many railroad rights of
way across public lands through the Pacific Railroad Acts.\18\ The
Supreme Court interpreted these Acts to grant land ownership to
railroad companies; however, if a railroad was not built or was no
longer used for railroad purposes, the land would revert back to the
United States.\19\ Courts also ruled that railroad companies lack the
authority to convey portions of these rights-of-way to third parties,
even if the remainder of the land is still used for railroad purposes.
Despite this consistent interpretation, several railroad companies
conveyed portions of lands within their rights-of-way. Unbeknownst to
the new landowners, the reversionary interest in these conveyed
properties encumbers what the landowners can do with their land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``Title Issues Raised by Railroad Right-of-Way in Sacramento,
California'', https://republicans-naturalresources.house.gov/
UploadedFiles/Summary_Package_for_Matsui_1-c1.PDF.
\19\ Id.
In Sacramento, private owners of an 8.43-acre property within the
Sacramento Center for Innovation Specific Plan have recently uncovered
a similar reversionary interest on their land, originally conveyed to
them by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company.\20\ According to
BLM:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
Southern Pacific's predecessor received a railroad right-of-way
grant from Congress over the land in question as part of the
Pacific Railroad Act of 1862, which gave the railroad a limited
fee with a reversionary interest held by the United States.
Consequently, the United States continues to have a
reversionary interest that is realized only when Southern
Pacific formally abandons the right-of-way (or a portion)
consistent with applicable law. Even if Southern Pacific were
to abandon the right-of-way, which it has not, title would
revert to the United States and not Southern Pacific or the
adjacent property owners.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Bureau of Land Management, Letter to Representative Matsui,
August 1, 2022, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/blm--
correspondence_to_rep._matsui_re_land_conveyance.pdf.
BLM further explained that, although it does not believe it has the
authority to remove the reversionary interest, ``it has no programmatic
need for the land in question'' and encouraged Congress to pursue a
legislative solution.\22\ H.R. 8946, led by Representative Doris Matsui
(D-CA-7), would resolve the reversionary conflict on this parcel of
land in Sacramento. This bill would require the BLM to convey the
relevant reversionary interests to the applicable landowners for fair
market value. This would resolve uncertainty for the current landowners
and allow the area to develop further without complications from the
federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 9159 (Rep. Lawler), ``Appalachian Trail Centennial Act''
Regarded as one of the most iconic trails in the United States, the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Trail) is the longest hiking-only
footpath in the world.\23\ The Trail spans roughly 2,190 miles, with
the southern terminus located in Springer Mountain, Georgia, and the
northern terminus in Katahdin, Maine.\24\ Built by private citizens and
completed in 1937, the Trail was designated the first National Scenic
Trail in 1968.\25\ Today, it attracts more than 3 million visitors from
across the globe and is managed through a combination of federal
agencies, partners, and thousands of volunteers.\26\ The Appalachian
Trail is supported by the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC), a
30,000-member organization that oversees its protection and
management.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Appalachian Trail Conservancy, About Us, The Appalachian
Trail, https://appalachiantrail.org/our-work/about-us/.
\24\ Id.
\25\ Pacific Crest Trail Association, America's National Trails
System, https://www.pcta.org/our-work/national-trails-system/
#::text=America's%20National%20Trails%20System%20is,nation's
%20first%20National%20Scenic%20Trails.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Appalachian Trail Conservancy, About Us, The Appalachian
Trail, https://appalachiantrail.org/our-work/about-us/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 9159, the Appalachian Trail Centennial Act (ATCA), aims to
build on the success of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail by
expanding partnerships, adding direction for agencies to coordinate and
advance land conservation, and providing tools to monitor visitor and
usage patterns on National Scenic and Historic Trails. H.R. 9159
establishes Designated Operational Partners (DOPs) for National Scenic
and Historic Trails, organizations with ``experience in the management,
maintenance, and preservation of the trail.'' \28\ The legislation
would allow DOPs to enter into cooperative agreements with the
Secretary of the Interior to steward and maintain specific trails. It
also strengthens consultation requirements for trail planning and
requires economic impact assessments for trails to analyze the benefits
of trails for gateway communities regularly. These changes will allow
the federal government to improve collaboration with local partners and
improve trail maintenance by leveraging non-federal partnerships.
Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) have introduced
companion legislation in the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ H.R. 9159.
H.R. 9492 (Rep. Valadao), To amend Public Law 99-338 with respect to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaweah Project permits.
Southern California Edison, a subsidiary of Edison International,
is one of the largest electric utilities in the United States, serving
roughly 15 million people over a 50,000-square-mile area in Central,
Coastal, and Southern California.\29\ Since 1899, Southern California
Edison has operated the Kaweah Hydroelectric Project (Project) on the
Kaweah and East Fore Kaweah Rivers, located near the community of Three
Rivers in Tulare County.\30\ The Kaweah Project has a generating
capacity of 8.85 megawatts and is split into three developments.\31\ In
1943, Congress expanded the boundaries of Sequoia National Park and, in
so doing, acquired lands that contained part of the Project.\32\ As a
result, Kaweah #3 has diversion dams and 4.4 miles of flow line in the
national park.\33\ From 1943 to 1986, Congress authorized the Secretary
of the Interior to extend California Edison's special use permit to use
these lands for the continued operation of the project.\34\ Congress
subsequently reauthorized the extension of this permit for 10 years and
provided the option to renew for ten additional years. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2005 allowed for two additional renewals,
expiring in 2026.\35\ H.R. 9492, led by Representative David Valadao
(R-CA-22), would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue four
additional renewals, extending the project for 40 years. Without a
renewal, Southern California Edison would be forced to remove their
infrastructure from the area, a significant cost for the company's
ratepayers. Extending the special use permit will allow California
Edison to continue supplying reliable and affordable energy to this
region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Edison International, ``Our Companies'', https://
www.edison.com/.
\30\ Southern California Edison Company, ``Kaweah FERC Project No.
298.'' January 2019, https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline-
files/CUL1_BuiltEnvironmentTSR.pdf.
\31\ Id.
\32\ Id.
\33\ Id.
\34\ Id.
\35\ Public Law 108-447.
H.R. 9516 (Rep. Chavez-DeRemer), ``Military Families National Parks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access Enhancement Act''
Across the country, military families play a critical role in
protecting our freedoms. They support loved ones who risk their lives
defending the values that make our country a beacon of hope around the
world. While many military members return home, others make the
ultimate sacrifice by laying down their lives for our country. Families
that lose loved ones in the military are commonly referred to as ``Gold
Star Families.'' and often wear a Gold Star Lapel Button. These
families must confront their worst nightmare and attempt to find
closure amidst traumatic circumstances. For many such families,
recreating outdoors can offer relief in times of profound tragedy.
Outdoor activities can provide valuable opportunities for Gold Star
Families to reconnect with nature, reflect on their loved ones, and
find moments of peace.
In 2021, Congress permanently codified free, lifetime passes to our
national parks and public lands for Gold Star Families in the Alexander
Lofgren Veterans in Parks (VIP) Act.\36\ The VIP Act was intended to
recognize and honor the sacrifices of Gold Star Families and ensure
their access to healing outdoor recreation destinations. Pass
eligibility for Gold Star Families under the VIP Act is determined by
section 3.2 of Department of Defense Instruction 1348.36, which sets
the criteria for issuing Gold Star Lapel Buttons.\37\ This instruction
covers eligible next of kin of service members who lost their lives in
a qualifying situation, such as a war, an international terrorist
attack, or a military operation outside of the U.S.\38\ Unfortunately,
this instruction excludes families of active-duty military members who
lost their lives in other circumstances, such as hazardous combat
training accidents inside the U.S. Such families are authorized to wear
the Gold Star Next of Kin Lapel Button. H.R. 9516 would expand access
to free, lifetime America the Beautiful Passes to Gold Star Next of Kin
family members. This legislation is a meaningful way to support
families who lost loved ones selflessly serving our nation. Expanding
eligibility to such families will also ensure their permanent access to
the nation's iconic national parks and public lands that their loved
ones died protecting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Alexander Lofgren Veterans in Parks (VIP) Act; P.L. 117-81.
\37\ DOD Instruction 1348.36, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/
Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/134836p.pdf?ver=mN9Jeg1LSLW
wc52VRIjhdQ%3D%3D.
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 612 (Cortez Masto), ``Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act''
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: U.S. Forest Service, 2021.
Lake Tahoe has long been a driver of recreation and economic growth
for Nevada and California, attracting over 6.4 million visitors
annually.\39\ For the past several decades, the Lake Tahoe Basin has
faced a confluence of threats, including insects, disease, drought,
invasive species, and catastrophic wildfires. To address these
challenges, the federal government, Nevada and California, local
governments, and private interests have collectively invested nearly $2
billion since 1997 to increase the Tahoe Basin's health and
resiliency.\40\ In 2000, Congress passed the Lake Tahoe Restoration
Act, which authorized $300 million to restore the lake and surrounding
basin. Congress reauthorized the bill in 2016 in the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act and increased the
authorization level to $415 million. The WIIN Act also created a
10,000-acre categorical exclusion (CE) for the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) to expedite forest management projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin
Management Unit. The expedited forest treatments made possible by this
CE have been literal lifesavers. In 2021, the Caldor Fire was
approaching South Lake Tahoe when it reached areas treated under that
special CE.\41\ The mega-fire, which had been moving rapidly as a crown
fire, began to slow, and the 150-foot flame lengths dropped to a more
manageable 15 feet when the fire entered the treatment area.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ National Forest Foundation, Lake Tahoe West Restoration
Partnership, https://www.nationalforests.org/regional-programs/
california-program/laketahoewest.
\40\ Public Law 114-322, https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/
publ322/PLAW-114publ322.pdf.
\41\ Wildfire Today, ``Examining how fuel treatments affected
suppression of the Caldor Fire in California'', Bill Gabbert, October
8, 2021, https://wildfiretoday.com/2021/10/08/examining-how-fuel-
treatments-affected-suppression-of-the-caldor-fire-in-california/.
\42\ Wildfire Today, ``Firefighters work to secure the Caldor Fire
near South Lake Tahoe'', Bill Gabbert, September 2, 2021, https://
wildfiretoday.com/tag/caldor-fire/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act extends the period
of time the $415 million authorized in 2016 can be spent for ten
additional years, until 2034. The bill also extends the authorization
for cooperative authorities to enter into contracts and cooperative
agreements with states and local governments to provide fuel reduction,
erosion control, reforestation, Stream Environment Zone restoration,
and other activities. Reauthorizing these authorities will prevent an
interruption in conservation and restoration planning. The Senate
passed S. 612 by unanimous consent on July 11, 2024. Representatives
Mark Amodei (R-NV-2) and Kevin Kiley (R-CA-3) are leading companion
legislation in the House.
IV. MAJOR PROVISIONS & SECTION-BY-SECTION
H.R. 1479 (Rep. Ciscomani), ``Chiricahua National Park Act''
Section 2. Designation of Chiricahua National Park, Arizona.
Designates the 12,305-acre Chiricahua National Monument as
Chiricahua National Park and specifies that the boundaries
shall remain the same.
Clarifies that funding made available to the monument
shall also be available to the national park.
Specifies that the national park shall be administered in
accordance with the presidential proclamations establishing
and expanding the monument, as well as laws generally
applicable to NPS units.
H.R. 1504 (Rep. Horsford), ``Apex Area Technical Corrections Act''
Section 2. Apex Project, Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act of
1989.
Amends the Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act of
1989 to allow the Department of the Interior to grant
utility and transportation rights of way to the City of
North Las Vegas and the Apex Industrial Owners Association
for the connection of existing power, water, natural gas,
telephone, railroad, and highway facilities to the Kerr-
McGee site and other lands conveyed in the bill.
Grants the City of North Las Vegas and the Apex Industrial
Owners Association rights-of-way on public lands as
necessary to support the development as a heavy-use
industrial zone.
Specifies mineral materials taken from the site due to
grading or land balancing shall be exempt from quantity and
term limitations imposed on noncompetitive sales. Specifies
such transfers shall still comply with other federal
environmental laws.
H.R. 8931 (Rep. Stefanik), To redesignate Saratoga National Historic
Park as Saratoga National Battlefield Park.
Section 1. Saratoga National Battlefield Park.
Redesignates Saratoga National Historical Park as Saratoga
National Battlefield Park.
Specifies all references in laws or maps to Saratoga
National Historical Park shall be deemed a reference to
Saratoga National Battlefield Park.
H.R. 8946 (Rep. Matsui), ``Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act''
Section. 2. Conveyance of United States Interest in Certain Land.
Requires the conveyance of the applicable reversionary
interest for approximately 8.43 acres of land under the
administrative jurisdiction of the BLM in Sacramento,
California, to current landowners of the covered parcel.
Stipulates that the conveyance shall be subject to valid
existing rights and must be for fair market value.
Stipulates certain conditions of the conveyance, including
determining payment of fair market value and costs. In
particular, it specifies that the recipient shall pay all
costs for relevant surveys, appraisals, and other
administrative costs for the conveyance.
Directs the proceeds from the fair market value
transaction to be deposited in the Federal Disposal Account
of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.
Section 3. Statutory Construction.
Emphasizes that nothing in this bill shall diminish the
right-of-way associated with the covered parcel within 50
feet of the tracks established and maintained by the
Southern Pacific Transportation Company.
Specifies that nothing in the bill validates or confirms
any right or title to an interest in covered lands not
confirmed by conveyance made by the Southern Pacific
Transportation Company.
H.R. 9159 (Rep. Lawler), ``Appalachian Trail Centennial Act''
Section 4. Establishing Designated Operational Partners for National
Historic Trails and National Scenic Trails.
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to designate the
Appalachian Trail Conservancy as the Designated Operational
Partner (DOP) for the Appalachian National Scenic Trail
within one year of enactment of the bill.
Authorizes the Secretary to designate eligible entities to
serve as DOPs for any other covered trails.
Allows the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements
with a DOP for a covered trail for up to 20 years and
provide financial assistance and other authorized
activities as part of the cooperative agreement.
Allows DOPs to construct, maintain, or develop facilities
to help maintain and steward certain trails.
Authorizes the Secretary to dispose of surplus property to
the DOP of a covered trail.
Requires the Secretary to proactively consult with DOPs on
trail administration and maintenance.
Includes protections for private property rights.
Requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
to consider volunteer needs of DOPs.
Requires DOPs to periodically develop and submit proposed
priority lists for land and resource protection for a
covered trail.
Allows the Secretaries to enter into other agreements to
advance partnerships with DOPs.
Exempts DOPs from the Federal Advisory Committees Act
(FACA).
Allows DOPs to be involved in developing comprehensive
plans for applicable trails.
Section 5. Improving Covered Trail Planning and Development.
Requires the appropriate Secretary to identify one or more
methods to assess visitation levels on covered trails every
two years and to report estimated visitation levels on
covered trails every five years.
Requires consultation with federal, state, and private
partners.
Requires the Secretary to identify one or more methods to
assess the economic impact of covered trails on gateway
communities.
Requires a report to Congress on challenges associated
with planning for trails.
Exempts committees established under this section from
FACA.
Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2025 through
2030.
H.R. 9492 (Rep. Valadao), To amend Public Law 99-338 with respect to
Kaweah Project permits.
Section 1. Amendment to Kaweah Project Provision.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit the
continued use of lands within Sequoia National Park for a
hydroelectric project for four additional ten-year
renewals.
Strikes ``Southern California Edison Company,'' allowing
the project to continue even in the event of a sale or name
change of the company.
H.R. 9516 (Rep. Chavez-DeRemer), ``Military Families National Parks
Access Enhancement Act''
Section 2. Lifetime Passes.
Amends the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to
allow family members who meet the requirements of Section
1475 of Title 10 U.S.C. to qualify for a free, lifetime
America the Beautiful pass.
S. 612 (Cortez Masto), ``Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act''
Section 2. Reauthorization of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act.
Reauthorizes cooperative authorities under the Lake Tahoe
Restoration Act until September 30, 2034.
Extends the ability to spend $415 million on Lake Tahoe
restoration activities from September 30, 2024, to
September 30, 2034.
V. COST
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the Senate version
of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act during the 117th
Congress would not affect direct spending or revenues.\43\ CBO has not
issued formal cost estimates for the other bills on the agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Congressional Budget Office, ``S. 1583, Lake Tahoe Restoration
Reauthorization Act'', November 21, 2022, https://www.cbo.gov/
publication/58810.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. ADMINISTRATION POSITION
In testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee during the 117th Congress on S. 1583, the Senate companion of
the Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act, the USFS expressed
support for the legislation.\44\ NPS testified in support of S. 1320,
the Senate companion of the Chiricahua National Park Act in the 117th
Congress.\45\ In testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee during the 118th Congress, the BLM testified in
support of S. 1760, the Senate companion of the Apex Technical
Corrections Act, with proposed amendments.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Statement of Christopher B. French before the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources, Regarding S. 1583, October 19, 2021, https://
www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/20211019-
usdafs-senr-plfm-testimony-chris-french.pdf.
\45\ Statement of Michael A. Caldwell before the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Subcommittee on, Regarding S. 1320, June 23, 2021,
https://www.doi.gov/ocl/s-1320.
\46\ Statement of Thomas Heinlein before the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources, Regarding S. 1760, July 12, 2023, https://
www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2023-07/07.12.23%20SENR
%20Hearing%20BLM%20Testimony.pdf.
The administration's position on the remaining bills on the agenda
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
is unknown.
VII. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW (RAMSEYER)
H.R. 1504
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/h.r._1504_-
_ramseyer.pdf
H.R. 9492
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/h.r._9492_-
_ramseyer.pdf
H.R. 9516
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-
law_hr____military_families_national_parks_enhancement_act.pdf
S. 612
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-
law_118s612es.pdf
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1479, TO ESTABLISH THE
CHIRICAHUA NATIONAL PARK IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA
AS A UNIT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, ``CHIRICAHUA NATIONAL PARK ACT'';
H.R. 1504, TO AMEND THE APEX PROJECT, NEVADA LAND
TRANSFER AND AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1989 TO INCLUDE
THE CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS AND THE APEX INDUS-
TRIAL PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND FOR OTHER PUR-
POSES, ``APEX AREA TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT''; H.R.
8931, TO REDESIGNATE SARATOGA NATIONAL HISTORICAL
PARK AS SARATOGA NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK; H.R.
8946, TO CONVEY THE REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF THE
UNITED STATES IN CERTAIN LAND IN SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, ``REVERSIONARY INTEREST CONVEYANCE
ACT''; H.R. 9159, TO ENHANCE THE PRESERVATION, MAINTE-
NANCE, AND MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS
AND NATIONAL SCENIC TRAILS, AND FOR OTHER PUR-
POSES, ``APPALACHIAN TRAIL CENTENNIAL ACT''; H.R. 9492,
TO AMEND PUBLIC LAW 99-338 WITH RESPECT TO KAWEAH
PROJECT PERMITS; H.R. 9516, TO AMEND THE FEDERAL
LANDS RECREATION ENHANCEMENT ACT TO PROVIDE FOR
LIFETIME NATIONAL PARKS AND FEDERAL RECREATIONAL
LANDS PASSES FOR FAMILY MEMBERS OF MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES WHO LOST THEIR LIVES WHILE SERV-
ING THEIR COUNTRY, ``MILITARY FAMILIES NATIONAL
PARKS ACCESS ENHANCEMENT ACT''; AND S. 612, TO
REAUTHORIZE THE LAKE TAHOE RESTORATION ACT, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``LAKE TAHOE RESTORATION
REAUTHORIZATION ACT''
----------
Wednesday, September 18, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Tiffany, Bentz, Moylan, Westerman;
Neguse, Kamlager-Dove, and Leger Fernandez.
Also present: Representatives Chavez-DeRemer, Ciscomani,
Kiley, Valadao; Horsford, and Stansbury.
Mr. Westerman [presiding]. 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 eight bills:
H.R. 1479, sponsored by Representative Ciscomani, the
Chiricahua National Park Act; H.R. 1504, sponsored by
Representative Horsford, the Apex Area Technical Corrections
Act; H.R. 8931, sponsored by Representative Stefanik, to
redesignate Saratoga National Historic Park as Saratoga
National Battlefield Park; H.R. 8946, sponsored by
Representative Matsui, the Reversionary Interest Conveyance
Act; H.R. 9159, sponsored by Representative Lawler, the
Appalachian Trail Centennial Act; H.R. 9492, sponsored by
Representative Valadao, to amend Public Law 99-338 with respect
to Kaweah Project permits; H.R. 9516, sponsored by
Representative Chavez-DeRemer, the Military Families National
Parks Access Enhancement Act; and S. 612 sponsored by Senator
Cortez Masto, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the
gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Stansbury; the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Matsui; the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Amodei;
the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Stefanik; the gentleman from
California, Mr. Valadao; the gentleman from Nevada, Mr.
Horsford; the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Chavez-DeRemer; the
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Ciscomani; the gentleman from
California, Mr. Kiley; and the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Lawler.
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 now will recognize myself for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ARKANSAS
Mr. Westerman. Today's agenda is full of important pieces
of legislation that improve conservation and forest management,
expand access to our public lands, and offer innovative public-
private partnership models. The eight lands bills on today's
agenda are among the many that the Federal Lands Subcommittee
has processed throughout this Congress, and will continue to
advance through the remainder of the year. Some of the lands
bills we have processed this year may be parochial in nature,
but they address some of the most important issues facing our
constituents back home.
The bills we have advanced and will continue to advance all
represent the principles we have strived to uphold this
Congress: promoting conservation, supporting increased access,
incentivizing innovation, and encouraging new technologies to
flourish. As we approach the end of this Congress, I am
committed to working in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to
get as many of these bills across the finish line as possible.
We want to send legislation to the President's desk that serves
our constituents and makes this country and our land management
policies better.
Turning to the specific items of today's agenda, I want to
recognize several of the bills' sponsors before us for their
leadership. They include the Chair of the House Republican
Conference, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, as well as
Representatives Ciscomani, Lawler, Valadao, and Chavez-DeRemer.
In particular, I would like to highlight Representative
Chavez-DeRemer's legislation, which is a continuation of
efforts this Committee championed last year to permanently
codify free lifetime passes to our national parks and public
lands for veterans and Gold Star families. Her legislation,
which would ensure that all Gold Star families and next of kin
are eligible for these passes, will benefit many military
families in my district and across the nation.
I would also like to recognize the sponsors of the House
companion legislation to the Lake Tahoe Restoration
Reauthorization Act we are considering today, including
Representatives Amodei, Duarte, and Kiley. I have had the
pleasure of visiting Lake Tahoe in the past and have seen
firsthand the phenomenal work taking place there.
I want to yield a few minutes to the Congressman who
represents this area, Representative Kiley, to discuss the
importance of this reauthorization a little further.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Chairman Westerman, for your
leadership of the House Natural Resources Committee and for
considering today the Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization
Act.
As the Congressman who represents the entire California
side of Lake Tahoe, this bill is of the highest importance to
my constituents, as well as to the states of California and
Nevada. But more than that, Lake Tahoe is a national treasure.
Preserving its beauty and accessibility is an important
national interest and an important national responsibility,
with 80 percent of its watershed under Federal ownership.
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act has been crucial in enabling
the small communities in the basin to protect the lake for all
Americans and for generations to come. This bipartisan
legislation has become a national model for collaboration in
the name of conservation. The Restoration Act needs to be
reauthorized to allow this to continue and assure continued
funding for conservation efforts in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
Specific programs include forest health and fuels
reduction, combating invasive species, water infrastructure,
and water quality improvement. As one example, the forest
health treatments enabled by the Act serve as a model of
effective forest management, and they proved crucial in
stopping the devastating Caldor Fire of 2021 from becoming an
even more catastrophic event, saving the city of South Lake
Tahoe. But much more work remains to restore the areas burned
by the Caldor Fire and to reach the goal of 9,000 acres
treated.
Beyond forest health, the restoration efforts enabled by
the Act are working. In 2023, Lake Tahoe achieved its highest
clarity since the 1980s, but more work is needed to reduce
stormwater pollution and to reach the lake clarity goal of 100
feet.
Reauthorizing the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act will be a key
accomplishment of this Congress. It is of tremendous importance
to the residents of the basin, and will be a benefit to all
Americans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this bill up for
consideration, and I yield back.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Representative Kiley, for your
leadership on this important bill. I appreciate you bringing
this to the Committee's attention and for your fierce advocacy
on behalf of the Lake Tahoe Basin, which is an absolutely
beautiful place.
With that, I would like to thank the witnesses for being
with us today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Next, I recognize Representative Valadao for 5 minutes on
H.R. 9492.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID VALADAO, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman Westerman, members of the
Subcommittee, and witnesses for taking the time to hold this
important hearing today.
My bill, H.R. 9492, extends the special use permit to allow
for the continued operations of the Kaweah No. 3 hydroelectric
project within the Sequoia National Park. For the past century
the Kaweah No. 3 hydroelectric project has generated clean,
renewable energy for California's electrical grid. The project
not only provides power to the larger electrical grid, but also
supplies power to nearby foothill communities and even some
national park facilities.
By continuing operations, we are ensuring the sustained
production of 4.6 megawatts of electricity, which is the
equivalent of powering 3,700 homes annually. If the project
were abandoned, rural communities in Tulare County would face
environmental restoration costs and the potential of being cut
off from the grid during disasters or emergencies. Renewing
these permits is a positive thing for our communities, the
environment, and the stability of our energy supply.
I would like to submit a letter of support from Southern
California Edison to the Committee for the record.
Mr. Westerman. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Valadao. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back, and I want to
recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Neguse, for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Neguse. I want to first thank the Chairman of our Full
Committee. It is great to be back in our first Federal Lands
Subcommittee hearing since returning from the August district
work period, and I hope each of the Members here had some great
visits in their districts, as I did back in Colorado's 2nd
District.
I am very pleased to see a bipartisan mix of public lands-
related bills on our agenda today. I do want to emphasize,
though, that as we head into the final stretch of the 118th
Congress, there are a significant number of conservation and
land-based priorities still waiting for action from this
Committee, and I certainly hope that we can take those bills up
in the weeks and the months ahead. Some of them have been
awaiting action since the beginning of this Congress. It
includes Democratic bills as well as Republican bills from
members of this Committee, and I just would encourage the
Subcommittee Chair, of course, we will certainly relay this
message to him from the Full Committee Chair, to take those
bills up in the next several weeks.
To that end, I do want to mention a few things with respect
to the bills that we are considering today before turning it
back over to you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to first offer my thanks to the Chairman in
particular for including Representative Horsford's bill, H.R.
1504, the Apex Area Technical Corrections Act, on today's
agenda. This bill represents Congressman Horsford's dedication
to his community to ensure that they can utilize the land
granted to them to the utmost potential. And I am just very
grateful to Congressman Horsford for bringing this issue to our
attention, and look forward to hearing more about this bill and
why it is so critical for us to get it done.
I also want to thank all of the witnesses for being here
today.
Of course, Ms. Jimmie, as the Deputy Attorney General for
the San Carlos Apache Tribe, I am very grateful to you and the
work with your community's efforts to ensure traditional access
and ongoing consultation with tribal communities as part of the
redesignation of the national monument that we will be
discussing today. And I am certainly happy to see that
proposal, but I just want to make it clear that we believe it
is vital that we work with tribal communities, even if we are
just discussing a name change, that that consultation and
collaboration is crucial.
Finally, I know Representative Matsui cannot be here this
morning to speak on her bill, but I do want to ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record testimony from Mr. Scott M.
Lee, the Managing Partner of Dimension Properties, LLC, in
support of H.R. 8946, the Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act.
Mr. Westerman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Statement for the Record
Scott M. Lee Managing Partner
Dimension Properties, LLC
Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse,
My name is Scott M. Lee, I serve as the Managing Partner of
Dimension Properties, LLC (Dimension Properties). Our headquarters is
in Rancho Cordova, California. Thank you for holding this hearing and
for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
I submit this testimony today in support of H.R. 8946, Reversionary
Interest Conveyance Act, introduced by Congresswoman Doris Matsui.
Congresswoman Matsui, thank you for your support and introduction of
this legislation.
H.R. 8946 grants the Department of Interior--Bureau of Land
Management the authority to convey a railroad right-of-way which
crosses over approximately 8.43 acres of land owned by Dimension
Properties, LLC. This right-of-way was initially granted in 1862 under
the Pacific Railroad Act to Central Pacific Railroad Company. This
conveyance will allow Dimension Properties, the City of Sacramento, and
Sacramento State University to continue moving forward in our
partnership to develop The Sacramento Center for Innovation, a research
park that will allow Sacramento to retain and grow the level of talent
the region needs to attract investment and business.
Under longstanding United States Supreme Court precedent, when a
railroad has never built on a right-of-way granted by statutes like the
Pacific Railroad Act of 1862, the right-of-way reverts to the United
States. See, e.g., North Pacific Ry. Co. v. Townsend, 190 U.S. 267
(1903). The United States then holds these rights-of-way in perpetuity
or until granted the authority by the United States Congress to
disclaim interest of the United States and convey the designated right-
of-way to the landowner whose property is impacted by the right-of-way.
The United States Congress has previously recognized this need for
authority to be granted to the Department of the Interior--Bureau of
Land Management, and this legislation similarly provides that authority
to the Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land Management. See,
e.g., Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance Validation Act, Pvt.L. 103-2,
108 Stat. 5057 (1994) as amended by Railroad Right-of-Way Conveyance
Validation Act of 2004, Pvt.L. 108-2, 118 Stat. 4025 (2004); Railroad
Right-of Way Conveyance Validation Act of 1985, Pub.L. 99543, 100 Stat.
3040 (1986).
Following the passage of this legislation, Dimension Properties
looks forward to working with the Department of Interior--Bureau of
Land Management to acquire the right-of-way permitted in this
legislation. Enactment of this legislation and finalizing of this
conveyance will allow Dimension Properties, in partnership with the
City of Sacramento and Sacramento State University to continue to
invest in The Sacramento Center for Innovation to advance the
development of technology talent and capability for the City, the
State, and the Nation.
Thank you for holding this hearing and advancing this important
legislation.
______
Mr. Neguse. Thank you.
And before yielding my time, I also just want to thank
Chairman Tiffany and his staff for accommodating a last-minute
request to add North Las Vegas Mayor Pamela Goynes-Brown to the
witness panel. And I appreciate this, the tight turnaround.
And a special shout out to Will Rodriguez from the Majority
staff, who worked late to get out the invitation and to
circulate her testimony. I am very grateful for that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Westerman. The gentleman yields back. It is now time to
move on to our second panel of witnesses, and it looks like we
have a very full panel this morning.
Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you
must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes, but your entire
statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on
your microphone. We do use timing lights. When you begin, the
lights will turn green. At the end of 5 minutes, the lights
will turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your
statement.
First, I would like to introduce Ms. Jacqueline Emanuel,
Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest System at the
U.S. Forest Service. Associate Deputy Chief Emanuel, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE EMANUEL, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY
CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Emanuel. Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Neguse, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
testify today on three bills that affect the USDA Forest
Service. I am Jacqueline Emanuel, Associate Deputy Chief of the
National Forest System for the Forest Service. My oversight
within NFS includes recreation, heritage and volunteer
resources, engineering, business administration, and ecosystem
management.
Regarding the bills discussed today, H.R. 9159, the
Appalachian Trail Centennial Act, would affect the management
of all national scenic and historic trails, including the
Appalachian Trail, a hugely popular and highly-used trail known
commonly as the AT. Approximately 8,000 miles of scenic and
historic trails are on National Forest System lands, and the
Forest Service is the administering agency for six of them,
including the Continental Divide Trail and the Pacific Crest
Trail. So, this bill would affect those trails, as well.
Our national trails play a critical role in connecting
communities, diversifying visitation, creating economic
opportunity, providing habitat corridors, growing future
conservation stewards, and healing veterans.
In stewarding roughly 1,000 miles of the AT that traverse
NFS lands, we work in close coordination with the Appalachian
Trail Conservancy and numerous other organizations, including
the National Park Service, which is the administering agency of
the trail. In 2023 alone, AT volunteer organizations
contributed over 77,000 hours, valued at over $2.5 million, of
work on the trail. H.R. 9159 seeks to recognize the upcoming
centennial of the AT, as well as the historic and ongoing role
of volunteer organizations in the planning, construction,
development, and stewardship of the AT. I would like to take
this opportunity to thank the ATC for their invaluable
partnership with us and congratulate them on the upcoming
centennial anniversary of their organization.
Because our testimony raises questions and concerns with
H.R. 9159 and its relation to the National Trails System Act,
USDA can't support the bill as currently written, and we would
welcome opportunities to work with the Subcommittee and the
bill's sponsors to address these concerns.
USDA supports S. 612, the Lake Tahoe Restoration
Reauthorization Act. S. 612 would extend USDA authority to
enter into contracts and cooperative agreements under the Lake
Tahoe Restoration Act and reauthorize appropriations through
September 30, 2034. The LTRA has proven to be a valuable
authority, increasing our ability to complete forest,
watershed, erosion control, and invasive plant projects on both
NFS and private lands.
In addition, LTRA has greatly accelerated the pace and
scale of forest restoration activities accomplished by USDA in
the Lake Tahoe Basin.
H.R. 9516, the Military Families National Parks Access
Enhancement Act, would provide free lifetime national parks and
Federal recreational lands passes for certain next-of-kin
members of armed forces. The recipients of the benefit are not
eligible for the existing Gold Star or Veterans Pass. USDA
thanks this Subcommittee for their work to honor our military
and their families who sacrificed so much in serving their
country, and we look forward to working with the sponsor and
Subcommittee on this bill.
In closing, we appreciate the Subcommittee's attention to
these issues, particularly the interest in reauthorizing the
Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. We look forward to working with
you. Thank you, and I welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Emanuel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jacqueline Emanuel, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
on H.R. 9159, H.R. 9516, and S. 612
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 Agriculture (USDA) on H.R. 9159, the ``Appalachian
Trail Centennial Act'', H.R. 9516, the ``Military Families National
Parks Access Enhancement Act,'' and S. 612, the ``Lake Tahoe
Restoration Reauthorization Act.''
H.R. 9159, Appalachian Trail Centennial Act
USDA cannot support H.R. 9159, the Appalachian Trail Centennial Act
(ATCA), as currently written and would like to work with the
Subcommittee and bill sponsor to address the items identified in this
testimony. We defer to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
regarding provisions affecting the management of lands administered by
the DOI agencies and the National Park Service's role as administering
agency of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Appalachian Trail).
The objective of H.R. 9159 is to enhance the preservation,
maintenance, and management of the Appalachian Trail as well as all
other national historic trails and national scenic trails. Section 2 of
the ATCA clarifies that the administration and management of national
scenic and historic trails are built on partnerships, collaboration,
and community engagement as envisioned by the National Trails System
Act (NTSA) (16 U.S.C. 1241). USDA has a long and proud history of
successfully partnering with a wide range of non-governmental
organizations and coordinating with State, Federal, and Tribal
governments in stewarding these iconic trails. The Department is
grateful for the ongoing coordination with the National Park Service in
management of the Appalachian Trail and appreciates the National Park
Service's role as the administering agency for the Appalachian Trail.
USDA also is deeply appreciative of its outstanding partnership with
the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) and the many volunteer
organizations that work with the Forest Service to steward significant
portions of the Appalachian Trail on National Forest System (NFS)
lands.
America's National Trails System is one of the nation's best
examples of partnership and shared stewardship on our federal public
lands. USDA is concerned that the definitions and concepts in Section 3
of the bill could cause confusion about the respective roles and
responsibilities of the national trail administering and managing
agencies and their cooperators or may alter the structure and
administration of the National Trails System as envisioned and set
forth in the NTSA. We would appreciate an opportunity to better
understand the sponsor's intent in Section 3 of the ATCA and to discuss
possible alternative approaches to achieve it. For example, if Congress
wishes to revise the National Trails System as a whole, USDA recommends
effectuating those revisions as amendments to the NTSA to avoid the
potential for confusion or actual or perceived conflicting legal
requirements.
Section 4 of ATCA would make the Appalachian Trail Conservancy
``the Designated Operational Partner'' for the Appalachian National
Scenic Trail and provides for other national scenic and national
historic trails to have a Designated Operational Partner. USDA greatly
values ATC as a longstanding and stable partner in stewardship of the
Appalachian Trail. However, statutorily codifying one primary partner
with unique rights over others could have unanticipated effects on
national trail management across a mosaic of jurisdictions and
unintended consequences of creating conflicts with existing partnership
agreements, potentially precluding other partners from playing a role
in national trail stewardship. Multidimensional partnerships are a
basic tenet in administration and management of national trails. More
broadly, USDA is concerned that the concept of a single ``Designated
Operational Partner'' in this bill runs contrary to the purpose of the
NTSA, which is, in part, ``to encourage and assist volunteer citizen
involvement in the planning, development, maintenance, and management,
where appropriate, of trails'' (16 U.S.C. 1241(c)). We would like to
work with the sponsor and subcommittee to better understand the role
envisioned and intended for Designated Operational Partners,
particularly in relation to development and approval or disapproval of
comprehensive plans for national trails. Furthermore, we have concerns
regarding resolution of disputes if a Designated Operational Partner
disapproves a proposed comprehensive trail plan or amendments and
revisions to comprehensive trail plans.
Section 5 of the bill would require a visitation assessment, an
economic impact assessment, and long-term planning for all national
scenic and national historic trails. USDA has technical concerns with
Section 5 that the Department would like to address with the bill
sponsor and the Subcommittee.
While we share the goal of supporting and enhancing public-private
partnerships for national scenic and historic trails, for the reasons
discussed above, we cannot support H.R. 9159 as currently drafted.
H.R. 9516, Military Families National Parks Access Enhancement Act
H.R. 9516, ``Military Families National Parks Access Enhancement
Act,'' would modify the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to
provide a free, lifetime America the Beautiful--the National Parks and
Federal Recreational Lands Pass for next-of-kin to a member of the
Armed Forces who are eligible for a death gratuity under 10 U.S.C.
1475. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (Pub.
L. No. 117-81) made Gold Star Families and veterans eligible for a
lifetime America the Beautiful--the National Parks and Federal
Recreational Lands Pass. This bill would expand that benefit to next-
of-kin of members of the Armed Forces who lost their lives while
serving their county. The recipients of the benefit that would be
provided by the bill are not eligible for the existing Gold Star or
Veteran's Pass.
USDA recognizes the importance of honoring our military and their
families who sacrifice so much in serving their country. The Department
also notes that there are financial and programmatic impacts of this
bill as it is currently written because it would not be revenue-neutral
compared to existing authority. We would like to work with the sponsor
and subcommittee to minimize these revenue impacts. We defer to DOI as
to any potential impacts of the bill on DOI agencies. USDA looks
forward to working with the sponsor and subcommittee on this bill.
S. 612, Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization Act
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (P.L. No.106-506) authorized
$415,000,000 in appropriations for a period of seven fiscal years,
beginning the first fiscal year after the date of enactment of the
Water Resource Development Act of 2016. Of that amount, $150,000,000
was authorized to carry out fire risk reduction and forest management
priority projects, with at least $100,000,000 to be used for programs
identified as part of the Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel
Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy 10-Year Plan. Further,
$113,000,000 was authorized to support stormwater management, erosion
control, and total watershed restoration priority projects.
A significant amount of the appropriated funds authorized under the
Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (LTRA) have been delivered through our
cooperators as they increase our ability to complete forest, watershed,
erosion control, and invasive plant projects on both NFS and private
lands. In addition, the agency has greatly accelerated the pace and
scale of forest restoration activities using the categorical exclusion
provided through Section 3603 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements
for the Nations Act (WIIN Act, P.L. 114-322), which amended the LTRA.
With the ability to conduct mechanical thinning on up to 3,000 acres of
NFS lands around Lake Tahoe without preparing an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement, the Forest Service has
reduced the timeframe and cost of planning efforts, resulting in faster
implementation of projects. By coordinating with our cooperators, we
have minimized conflicts in project planning and implementation.
S. 612 reauthorizes appropriations for the LTRA through September
30, 2034. USDA supports S. 612 as these federal funds will continue to
allow work with states, local governments, and other public and private
entities to provide for fuel reduction, erosion control, reforestation,
and other management activities on federal and non-federal lands under
the programs outlined in the LTRA.
______
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Associate Deputy Chief Emanuel. I
would now like to introduce Mr. Mike Caldwell, Associate
Director for Park Planning, Facilities, and Lands at the
National Park Service.
Associate Director Caldwell, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF MIKE CALDWELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
PARK PLANNING, FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Caldwell. Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Neguse,
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to present the Department of the Interior's views on five of
the bills on today's agenda. I would like to submit our full
statements 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. 1504, the Apex Area Technical Corrections
Act; and H.R. 8946, the Reversionary Interest Conveyance 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. 1479 would redesignate Chiricahua National Monument as
Chiricahua National Park. The Department supports H.R. 1479
with amendments.
Redesignating the monument as a national park is consistent
with the nomenclature patterns of the National Park System. The
unit has a wealth of varied natural and cultural resources that
span a large land mass, making it appropriate for the
designation of national park. The Department would like to work
with the sponsor and the Committee on amendments that would
ensure the protection of traditional, cultural, and religious
sites in the park, and continued access to those sites by
members of culturally-affiliated Indian tribes for religious
and cultural purposes. We also recommend a change in the title
of the bill.
H.R. 8931 would redesignate Saratoga National Historical
Park as Saratoga National Battlefield Park. Since this park
meets the National Park Service's general criteria for
designation as either type of unit, the Department defers to
Congress on the most appropriate title. We want to note,
however, that if this legislation is passed, changing all the
signs, displays, printed materials, and waysides would require
time and resources, and would not be completed before our
nation's upcoming 250th anniversary celebrations.
H.R. 9159 seeks to enhance the preservation, maintenance,
and management of National Historic Trails and National Scenic
Trails. The Department opposes H.R. 9159. We have concerns that
this bill fundamentally alters the intent and implementation of
the National Trails System Act.
The Trails Act describes cooperation and encouragement
regarding management and operation outside of federally
administered areas, and does not contemplate the concepts of
cooperative management, a cooperative management system, or
identify a singular designated operational partner as these
terms are defined in H.R. 9159. These concepts significantly
reshaped the structure and administration of the National
Trails System as envisioned in the Act, and suggest trail-wide
management or operational roles that may extend the Federal
administration and coordination authorities assigned to the
Department through the Act.
We share the goal of supporting and enhancing public-
private partnerships, and would be happy to discuss these
issues further with the bill's sponsor and the Subcommittee.
We also, like the Forest Service, congratulate the ATC and
the trail on their upcoming centennial.
H.R. 9516 would provide for lifetime national parks and
Federal recreational lands passes for family members of members
of the armed forces who lost their lives while serving their
country. The Department is supportive of efforts to honor
service members and their families, particularly those who lost
their lives while serving our country. We note there are
revenue and administration impacts associated with
administering free passes for a new category of individuals. We
would be happy to work with the Committee on this legislation
and provide any potential proposed amendments upon request.
H.R. 9492 would amend Public Law 99-338 with respect to the
Kaweah Project permits. The Department supports this bill. H.R.
9492 would increase the number of permit renewals the Secretary
of the Interior is authorized to issue for the Kaweah
hydroelectric project from three to seven. It would also remove
the reference to a specific utility company.
While hydroelectric operations are generally not an
appropriate use of national park lands, this system has been in
operation in Sequoia National Park for over a century, and it
is understood that removal of the infrastructure would pose
substantial technical challenges and have significant short-
term environmental impacts.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am happy to
answer any questions that you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Caldwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael A. Caldwell, Associate Director of Park
Planning, Facilities and Lands, National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior
on H.R. 1479, H.R. 8931, H.R. 9159, H.R. 9492, and H.R. 9516
H.R. 1479, To establish the Chiricahua National Park in the State of
Arizona as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department
of the Interior's views on H.R. 1479, a bill to establish the
Chiricahua National Park in the state of Arizona as a unit of the
National Park System.
The Department supports H.R. 1479 with amendments.
H.R. 1479 would redesignate Chiricahua National Monument in Arizona
as Chiricahua National Park.
Chiricahua National Monument was established on April 18, 1924, by
President Calvin Coolidge by presidential proclamation. The monument is
located in Cochise County, approximately 37 miles southeast of Willcox,
Arizona. It is located at the intersection of the Chihuahuan and
Sonoran deserts, the southern Rocky Mountains, and the northern Sierra
Madre.
Chiricahua National Monument is known as a ``Wonderland of Rocks''
because of its distinctive pinnacle formations. These formations are
the result of powerful volcanic events combined with geologic erosive
forces over time, creating the rhyolitic rock formations in the
monument. The Madrean Sky Island ecosystem of the monument protects a
great diversity of flora and fauna and serves as a critical habitat for
threatened, endangered, and endemic species.
Chiricahua National Monument also preserves evidence of diverse
human history spanning thousands of years, including prehistoric
indigenous peoples, Chiricahua Apaches, Buffalo Soldiers, European-
American pioneers and ranchers, and the 1930's Civilian Conservation
Corps. The monument's Faraway Ranch Historic District includes
structures, resources, and landscapes associated with the former
pioneer homestead and working cattle ranch. Stories and evidence of
struggle, perseverance, stewardship, and connection to the land unite
the experiences of each of these groups, which left a lasting legacy on
the land and our country.
Re-designating the monument as Chiricahua National Park is
consistent with the nomenclature patterns of the National Park System.
Units designated as national parks generally contain a variety of
resources and encompass a large land or water area to help provide
adequate protection of the resources. With its wealth of both natural
and cultural resources over a large land mass of approximately 12,025
acres, it is appropriate to designate this unit as a national park.
The Department would like to work with the sponsor and the
Committee on amendments that would ensure the protection of traditional
cultural and religious sites in Chiricahua National Park, and ensure
continued access to those sites by members of culturally-affiliated
Indian tribes for religious and cultural purposes. Additionally,
because Chiricahua National Monument is already a unit of the National
Park System, we recommend a change in the title of the bill.
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. 8931, To redesignate Saratoga National Historical Park as Saratoga
National Battlefield Park
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department
of the Interior's views on H.R. 8931, to redesignate Saratoga National
Historical Park as Saratoga National Battlefield Park.
The Department defers to Congress on H.R. 8931.
According to a July 3, 2024 statement released by the bill's
sponsor, the purpose of the legislation is to ``more accurately reflect
the historical significance of the site and emphasize the crucial
military engagements that took place there'' and acknowledge the
significance of ``one of the most decisive American battles of the
American Revolution.'' Several local entities, such as the County of
Saratoga and the Saratoga County 250th Commission, express support for
the bill as a timely effort in light of the upcoming 250th Anniversary
of the American Revolution and the Battles of Saratoga.
The National Park Service shares the goal of highlighting the
importance of those events. The Park recently completed a $6.6 million
Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) project in preparation for the 250th
Anniversary commemorations by replacing all 72 of the waysides, and
pathways. The Park is working closely with the County and Commission
planning multiple events up to and throughout 2027, which is the 250th
Anniversaries of the Battles of Saratoga (September 19, 1777 and
October 7, 1777) and British Army Surrender (October 17, 1777).
In 1938, Congress designated the park as a unit of the National
Park System as Saratoga National Historical Park. This park preserves,
protects, and interprets the sites associated with the battles, siege,
and surrender of the British forces at Saratoga. In addition to the
battlefield unit, the park includes four other non-contiguous sites,
including General Philip Schuyler (House) Estate, the Saratoga
Monument, Saratoga (Sword) Surrender Site, and Victory Woods. With
approximately 25 miles of trails and a 10-mile loop tour road, the park
is also a popular destination for hiking, biking, horseback riding, and
birding, among other passive recreational activities.
The Department notes that visitation to Saratoga National
Historical Park has increased 15% since 2008, with recreational
visitors representing the largest growing contingent visiting the park.
It is unclear how this redesignation will impact visitation. In a
report published last November 2023, the Congressional Research Service
found that ``[e]vidence is mixed as to the effectiveness of such
redesignations as a way of increasing tourism at a unit and in
surrounding communities.'' Nevertheless, the Park will continue to work
to attract a broad audience to connect to the park through a variety of
narratives, recreational opportunities, interpretive stories, and
educational experiences that appeal to a wide audience and continue to
demonstrate relevance. As Saratoga National Historical Park meets the
standards, under our general criteria for designation, as either a
National Historical Park or a National Battlefield Park, we defer to
Congress on H.R. 8931.
If this redesignation legislation is passed, changing all the
signs, displays, printed materials, and waysides, including the 72 new
waysides just installed as part of the GAOA project, would be phased as
these resources are replaced over time. All of these changes are
extensive, require additional resources, and could not be completed
before the 250th anniversaries to be celebrated in 2027. The National
Park Service will continue to work to increase public awareness and
understanding of the role Saratoga played in the founding of this
country.
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. 9159, To enhance the preservation, maintenance, and management of
national historic trails and national scenic trails, and for other
purposes
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department
of the Interior's views on H.R. 9159, a bill to enhance the
preservation, maintenance, and management of National Historic Trails
and National Scenic Trails, and for other purposes.
The Department opposes H.R. 9159. We defer to the U.S. Department
of Agriculture on those provisions of the bill affecting its role in
managing the Appalachian Trail National Scenic Trail and National
Forest System lands.
H.R. 9159 seeks to strengthen the role and authority of national
trail partners through provisions that codify the concepts of
``cooperative management'' and ``cooperative management system.'' It
establishes the Appalachian Trail Conservancy as the first Designated
Operational Partner for the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and it
lays out an opportunity and criteria for additional national trails
partners to become Designated Operational Partners for other national
scenic and national historic trails.
Of particular note is Subsection 4(d), Protection of Property
Rights, which authorizes a Designated Operational Partner to request
that the Secretary concerned and the U.S. Attorney consider violations
of property rights and make a determination on appropriate action
within a prescribed time frame. Also of note is Subsection 4(f), Land
and Resource Preservation Proposed Priority lists, which requires a
Designated Operational Partner to periodically develop and submit to
the Secretary concerned and the heads of any other appropriate Federal
land management agencies a proposed priority list for land and resource
protection for the applicable covered trail. The Secretary concerned
must then prioritize the use of funds for land identified for Federal
protection in the list, except when the Secretary has determined
otherwise for a specific priority and, in that case, the Secretary must
provide a written justification to the Designated Operational Partner.
Other provisions in H.R. 9159 include requirements and authorities
related to cooperative agreements, volunteer services, comprehensive
plans, visitation assessments, economic impact assessments, trail
planning, appropriations, and a Federal Advisory Committee Act
exemption.
America's national scenic and historic trails form a remarkable
network of well over 50,000 miles that protects and links together many
of America's most significant natural, cultural, and recreational
resources. Both types of trails are planned and administered under the
authorities of the National Trails System Act (NTSA, 16 U.S.C. 1241-
1251) and serve as the backbone of the National Trails System. These
trails are unique in that they typically:
include federal national trail administration
responsibilities for coordination trail-wide;
span hundreds, if not thousands, of miles and many
jurisdictions;
depend upon complex coordination among federal, Tribal,
state, private, and non-governmental entities for local
management, operations, and other cooperative trail
activities, as appropriate, for large portions of national
scenic and national historic trails
However, little is standard about these trails. From the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail to the Ala Kahakai National Historic
Trail, each national trail has its own unique identity, legislation,
administration and management challenges. Additionally, the non-profit
partners have vastly different structures, capacity, expertise and
resources.
The Department has concerns that H.R. 9159 fundamentally alters the
intent and implementation of the NTSA. We note that the authorities and
opportunities within the NTSA already meet several of the collaborative
objectives identified in H.R. 9159, including: direction for a public
comprehensive plan process, authorities for cooperative agreements,
guidance on carrying capacity considerations for implementation, and
acquisition or protection planning information for each national scenic
or national historic trail.
The Department notes that the NTSA describes cooperation and
encouragement regarding management and operation outside of federally
administered areas, and does not contemplate the concepts of
cooperative management, a cooperative management system, or identify a
singular Designated Operational Partner, as these terms are defined in
H.R. 9159. These concepts significantly reshape the structure and
administration of the National Trails System as envisioned in the NTSA
and suggest trail-wide management or operational roles that may exceed
the federal administration and coordination authorities assigned to the
Department through the NTSA. Further, changes that significantly alter
the NTSA should be considered as amendments to the act to avoid the
potential for confusion or perceptions of conflicting legal
requirements.
In addition, the Department notes that the NTSA does not envision a
single partner elevated above other potential partners. In contrast,
the H.R. 9159 appears to delegate unique powers through the Designated
Operational Partner concept at the exclusion of other potential
cooperative management partners, limiting the Secretary's ability to
exercise federal discretion in the public interest. This exclusivity
could be in conflict with existing agreements or other opportunities to
enter into agreements to achieve local trail objectives. In addition,
it is unclear if there may be unintended consequences for federal land
managing agencies, Tribes, state and local governments, private
landowners, or others with land management jurisdiction for trail
management and operations if a Secretary identifies a single, trail-
wide operational partnering organization. It is also crucial to
understand the role envisioned and intended for ``Designated
Operational Partners,'' particularly in relation to public engagement
under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), land use
planning, Comprehensive Plan development, approval/disapproval, and
dispute resolution.
Subsection 4(b) of the bill allows for cooperative agreements with
a Designated Operational Partner for a term of not more than 20 years.
The Department notes that currently financial assistance agreements are
awarded for no more than 5 years. This extended timeframe discounts the
benefits of judicious review and evaluation that ensures effective and
relevant partnerships. It also exceeds budgetary planning horizons of
the Executive Branch. Additionally, any issues could be costly and
burdensome if a 20-year partner is not performing adequately. It is
also important to understand that relationships, needs and staffing
change overtime.
The bill's Protection of Property Rights provision raises a number
of legal issues that the Department is continuing to review. We
recommend that the bill sponsor also seek the views of the Department
of Justice regarding the U.S. Attorney's role as outlined in the
provision.
Because the bill's provision on Land and Resource Preservation
Proposed Priority Lists delegates acquisition prioritization, an
inherently governmental function, to a non-federal entity, we cannot
support this provision. We strongly recommend deleting this provision
in its entirety from the bill.
We would be happy to discuss our concerns further with the bill
sponsor and the Subcommittee. While we share the goal of supporting and
enhancing public-private partnerships, for the reasons discussed above,
we oppose H.R. 9159.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions that you or other members of the Committee might
have.
H.R. 9492, To amend Public Law 99-338 with respect to Kaweah Project
permits
Chair Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department
of the Interior's views on H.R. 9492, a bill to amend Public Law 99-338
with respect to Kaweah Project Permits.
The Department supports H.R. 9492.
H.R. 9492 would increase the number of permit renewals the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to issue for the Kaweah
hydroelectric project from three to seven. It would also remove the
reference to a specific utility company.
Between 1900 and 1910 a regional power company was permitted to
construct several small dams and a system of flumes within Sequoia
National Park to power hydroelectric power plants outside of the park.
Pursuant to legislation requiring Congressional authorization for
operating such power infrastructure within park boundaries, in 1986
Congress authorized the Department to issue up to two ten-year permits
for Southern California Edison to operate the Kaweah Project. In 2004
the law was amended to allow for three additional permit renewals. The
existing permit authority expires in 2026.
While hydroelectric operations are generally not an appropriate use
of national park lands, this system has been in operation for over a
century, and it is understood that removal of the infrastructure would
pose substantial technical challenges and have significant short-term
environmental impacts. H.R. 9492 continues the practice of allowing the
Secretary to issue permits for no more than 10 years at a time--a
practice which allows for relatively frequent review of resource
impacts and modifications of the permit, if necessary, to assure
protection of park resources. The Department also recognizes that the
flexibility to permit an appropriate alternative energy producer for an
increased number of renewals enables a more viable business model for
its commercial operation.
Chair Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, this concludes my statement.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
H.R. 9516, To amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to
provide for lifetime National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands
Passes for family members of members of the Armed Forces who lost
their lives while serving their country
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department
of the Interior's views on H.R. 9516, the Military Families National
Parks Access Enhancement Act. H.R. 9516 would amend the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) to provide for lifetime National
Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Passes for family members of
members of the Armed Forces who lost their lives while serving their
country.
The Department recognizes the importance of honoring those who
serve our country in the Armed Forces. However, at present, the
Department does not have a formal Administration position on this
legislation as it was not introduced with sufficient time for an in-
depth analysis of the bill text and the number of additional
individuals who would potentially qualify for a free lifetime pass who
are currently ineligible. We would be happy to provide the Committee
with our views, including any potential proposed amendments, upon
request. We defer to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on how
this legislation would affect USDA programs.
As a part of FLREA, Congress established the multi-agency America
the Beautiful--The National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass
Program (Interagency Pass Program) to cover entrance fees for the
National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and standard
amenity recreation fees for the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest
Service, and Bureau of Reclamation. The Interagency Pass Program began
in 2007 and included an annual pass for $20 and a lifetime pass for $80
for those aged 62 years or older (Lifetime Senior Pass), and a free
lifetime pass for persons with permanent disabilities (Access Pass).
Public Law 113-121, enacted in 2014, authorized the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to also participate in the Interagency Pass Program. In 2021,
Congress passed the Alexander Lofgran Veterans in Parks Act as a part
of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2022 (P.L. 11781)
which authorized free lifetime access to federal lands for veterans and
Gold Star Families. In 2023, an estimated 1.2 million passes were sold
or distributed by these six agencies. Revenue from the sale of the
passes--which totaled approximately $94 million in 2023--is a critical
source of supplemental funding for these agencies that significantly
enhances their efforts to address maintenance issues, better manage
federal lands, and respond to changes in visitation levels and service
requirements.
We are supportive of efforts to honor service members and their
families, particularly those who lost their lives while serving our
country. However, we are also mindful of the impact that free Federal
recreation passes will have on recreation fee revenues and the costs of
administering passes for each new category of eligible individuals. We
encourage Congress to carefully consider the need for adequate
resources so that all Americans can enjoy their public lands.
We also want to note that FLREA is not a permanent program. Since
the 10-year initial authorization for the program expired in 2013,
Congress has extended the authority for the program in one- or two-year
increments in appropriations bills. If the authority for FLREA were to
expire, so too would the authority for no-cost recreation passes.
Chairman Tiffany, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may
have.
______
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Associate Director Caldwell.
We are now going to go back to our first panel of
witnesses, and I recognize Representative Horsford for 5
minutes on H.R. 1504.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVEN HORSFORD, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Horsford. Thank you to the Chairman and to Ranking
Member Neguse for the courtesy and for the opportunity to
testify today on H.R. 1504, the Apex Area Technical Corrections
Act.
In 1989, Congress enacted the Apex Project Nevada Land
Transfer and Authorization Act, which authorized the direct
sale of 21,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land to Clark
County for the establishment of the Apex Industrial Area, which
is a major economic development area in Nevada's 4th District.
This law permits only the Bureau of Land Management to issue
utility and transportation rights-of-way, resulting in a long
permitting process for businesses that need to construct sewer,
gas, power, and broadband infrastructure.
In addition, it limits the authority of permitting only to
parties to use the lands that are granted for right-of-way
usage to Clark County. Originally, Clark County had the
authorization in order to make the permitting process shorter.
In recent years, the City of North Las Vegas and the Apex
Industrial Owners Association primarily manage the site, not
Clark County. I want to recognize Mayor Pamela Goynes-Brown
from the City of North Las Vegas, who is here to testify to
that effect.
Due to this stipulation, whenever a business wants to start
construction or expand at Apex they must go through a lengthy
permitting process, which defeats the purpose of the original
law. Since the Bureau of Land Management and Clark County still
have primary control over the sewer, gas, power, access, roads,
and broadband lines across the site, amending the original
legislation to include the City of North Las Vegas and the Apex
Area Industrial Owners Association as permittees would allow
the original congressional intent of an expedited permitting
process to be fulfilled.
Updating the law would help relieve technicalities that
have created permitting and development inefficiencies.
Modernizing this law will greatly benefit this area of the
county through jobs and economic growth that can only come to
the area as a result of flexibility with the authorized
permittees being expanded. For this situation to be rectified,
congressional action is required.
This legislation is a simple fix to a complex problem that
plagues Apex and causes major slowdowns at the Southern Nevada
Bureau of Land Management office. That is why I introduced H.R.
1504. It is the House companion to Senator Catherine Cortez
Masto's legislation, which the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources passed unanimously last year. Not only does
it add the City of North Las Vegas and the Apex Area Industrial
Owners Association as authorized permittees, it corrects
another ongoing issue related to the movement and sale of
surface minerals by allowing the sales to be non-competitive.
Lastly, it ensures any additional land transfers within the
Apex site area to be in compliance with both the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976.
I am proud to say that this legislation has secured wide
support from the City of North Las Vegas. Again, I want to
commend Mayor Pamela Goynes-Brown for her leadership and the
Apex Industrial Area Owners Association, which includes all the
major businesses that we are recruiting to the site. Letters
from these groups have been submitted to the Committee, and I
would ask for consent that they be made part of the record.
Mr. Tiffany [presiding]. Without objection.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward
to working with the Committee. Again, thank you for your
courtesy and for including this important piece of legislation
on your work session.
And I want to once again thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Neguse, and all the Committee members for allowing me to
testify.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Horsford. I now
recognize Representative Chavez-DeRemer for 5 minutes on H.R.
9516.
The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking
Member Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak on my legislation, the Military
Families National Parks Access Enhancement Act.
My bill would expand free lifetime access to national parks
for Gold Star, next-of-kin family members of fallen members of
armed forces who were not killed in action. The Gold Star
family is one that has experienced a loss of an immediate
family member who died as the result of active duty military
service. The family that is left behind are parents, siblings,
spouses, and children, and these family members often wear a
Gold Star lapel button.
In the 2022 NDAA, Congress permanently codified lifetime
passes to our national parks for active duty service members,
veterans, and eligible next-of-kin service members who lost
their lives in a qualifying situation, such as war, an
international terrorist attack, or a military operation outside
of the United States. However, some Gold Star families who wear
the lapel button are confused when they are turned away from
free access to our national parks.
Last March, I was visited by a constituent of mine from
Bend, Oregon, Peter Ostrovsky, who is a Gold Star parent. In
2020, his 20-year-old son, Jack-Ryan, tragically was lost
during a United States Marine Corps pre-deployment combat
training exercise near San Diego. He was among eight platoon
members that perished that day. Jack-Ryan has been described as
a patriot who loved serving his country and who was interested
in military service from a young age. Throughout his years of
growing up, Jack-Ryan, his fraternal twin brother, Samuel, and
his parents often frequented the national parks of the Pacific
Northwest.
Because Jack-Ryan was killed under a non-qualifying
circumstance, despite training for active military combat, his
surviving family is not eligible for the free lifetime access
to the national parks.
Anyone who has visited a national park will quickly
understand each of their fascinating natural wonders, majestic
landscapes, and captivating beauty. Many have described
preserving the national parks as the best idea Americans have
ever had, an opportunity to appreciate the stewardship of
nature, and a deeper sense of pride of what our nation has to
offer to its citizens in this world. We have been recognizing
our parks since 1864, with the protection of Yosemite, and we
continue to recognize our parks on this very day, with the
consideration of my colleague, Congressman Ciscomani's
Chiricahua National Park Act.
But I believe none of this would be possible without our
servicemen and women. Not only do these brave men and women put
their lives on the line to defend our freedoms, values, and
liberty, they defend the land of the United States, as well.
Many service members, veterans, and their families are avid
outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen. That is why, should these
servicemen and women pay the ultimate sacrifice for defending
our nation's land, regardless of where their sacrifice is
realized, their surviving family should continue to freely
access our national parks to hike, to camp, and to reflect on
their loved ones, to continue making lasting memories, and to
find moments of peace.
I would also like to recognize our witness on the panel,
Gabriella Kubinyi, who was kind enough to join us today and
speak in support of this legislation. As a member of the Gold
Star Spouses of America, she would also qualify under my
legislation because, as she will explain later in this hearing,
her husband tragically died of a heart condition while the ship
he was stationed on was 2 months away from a 6-month
deployment.
The Military Families Parks Access Enhancement Act would
expand free lifetime access to our iconic national parks to
Gold Star next-of-kin family members like Gabby and Peter. I
call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their
support in granting these free lifetime passes, a small but
meaningful way to honor the sacrifice of the fallen and help
aid in the healing of their families.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Chavez-DeRemer. I
now recognize Representative Ciscomani for 5 minutes on H.R.
1479.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JUAN CISCOMANI, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Ciscomani. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and thank you,
Ranking Member Neguse and Subcommittee members, for allowing me
to testify today. It was such a pleasure having the
Subcommittee in my district back in February of this year, and
I am happy to be joining you all today again. So, thank you,
sir.
Today, I am testifying in support of my bill, H.R. 1479,
the Chiricahua National Park Act. This bipartisan, bicameral
piece of legislation would rename Chiricahua National Monument
to Chiricahua National Park, making it the fourth national park
in Arizona.
The Chiricahua National Monument, located in Cochise
County, Arizona, was first established by presidential
proclamation in 1924. For 100 years, visitors from around the
world have been drawn to the wonderland of rocks, over 12,000
acres of towering geologic structure formed through volcanic
eruption. The landmark includes 25 campsites and over 17 miles
of hiking trails. Having seen it firsthand myself, I can tell
you the sights are breathtaking, and I will be glad to extend
an invitation to all of you to come visit and see it for
yourselves.
Aside from being a favorite spot for hikers, avid birders,
and campers, Chiricahua National Monument is a key driver of
economic activity in Willcox, Arizona. Monica Preston, the
President of the Willcox Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture
will speak more to this in the later panel, but the renaming of
this monument will only multiply the economic growth in the
area.
As I know you all know well, spurring economic activity and
growth is crucial for our rural communities, and it is our
responsibility to ensure we enact policies and designations
that positively impact the individuals who call these
communities home.
Further, the Chiricahuas are more than deserving of the
honor of being deemed a national park, and this renaming is a
simple way of giving the landmark the respect it deserves
without a cost to the taxpayers or expanding any Federal
jurisdiction over the land.
On this centennial year, it is now more important than ever
to get this legislation passed to promote conservation of the
Chiricahuas, boost tourism, and create more economic
opportunities in southern Arizona.
I want to also note that you will all later today hear
testimony from Ms. Jimmie of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. I
want to thank them for their feedback on this bill, that we had
a great conversation yesterday, a lot of common ground that we
were able to find to make sure that this goes through in the
right way while respecting everyone. And I am committed to
working with and ensuring that tribal interests are protected,
as well.
Additionally, I want to recognize Mayor Laws of Willcox,
thank you so much, sir, and Monica Preston, as I mentioned
earlier, of the Willcox Chamber for coming all the way from
southern Arizona here to DC to support this legislation. Their
dedication to their community is unmatched. And I encourage all
of you to pay close attention to Ms. Preston's testimony later
today.
The natural resources present throughout my home state are
rich, as shown here in the support of our local communities.
And there is no doubt in my mind that the Chiricahuas deserve
this designation, given the extensive natural and historical
resources there.
Thank you again for the opportunity, and I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for the testimony, Representative
Ciscomani.
Now we will go back to our panel, and I recognize Ms. Julie
Regan, Executive Director at the Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency.
Ms. Regan, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JULIE W. REGAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, STATELINE, NEVADA
Ms. Regan. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Tiffany, Ranking
Member Neguse, members of the Subcommittee, and staff. I am
Julie Regan, the Executive Director of the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency.
Our agency was formed by an interstate compact between
California and Nevada and ratified by Congress nearly 55 years
ago. Our mission is to protect Lake Tahoe, a designated
Outstanding National Resource Water, while supporting our
communities and economy.
Lake Tahoe is the ancestral and current home of the Washoe
Tribe of Nevada and California, and is truly breathtaking to
behold, as Chair Westerman noted earlier. It is the second
deepest lake in the United States, and one of the clearest
large lakes in the world. As Congressman Kiley introduced,
nearly 80 percent of the Tahoe Basin is owned by the Federal
Government and managed by the USDA Forest Service. Our small,
year-round population of 55,000 people swells to metropolitan
levels on peak days, and millions visit annually to enjoy our
public lands. Tahoe also has a sizable community of second
homeowners, who hail from more than two-thirds of the nation's
congressional districts and visitors from nearly every state.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee today
about the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, S. 612, on behalf of our
broad partnership called Team Tahoe.
This crucial legislation is the cornerstone of Federal
investment in restoring Lake Tahoe's world-renowned
environment.
I also want to recognize Tahoe's Congressional
Representatives and co-sponsors of the House companion bill:
Congressman Mark Amodei of Nevada and Congressman Kevin Kiley
of California. Their leadership in the House has been key to
our bipartisan and bicameral progress to date.
Let me offer some important context that is germane to this
hearing. In the 1990s, after witnessing a rapid decline in lake
clarity and the surrounding environment, Lake Tahoe leaders
came together to launch the Environmental Improvement Program,
or EIP, as we call it. This collaborative approach to solving
Lake Tahoe's most pressing challenges has become a national
model. Congress has delivered the Federal share of the EIP
through passage of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Acts of 2000 and
2016. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act is an example of
bipartisan collaboration in practice that not only protects an
irreplaceable natural resource, but also generates jobs for
local communities.
Today's hearing concerns the extension of the Act, which
originally authorized up to $415 million over 7 years. However,
that legislation is expiring at the end of this month, and with
only 29 percent of the original authorization having been
appropriated thus far, we are simply asking for more time on
the congressional clock.
With $122 million appropriated since 2016, we have
accomplished a great deal. Partners have treated 21,000 acres
of forest to reduce wildfire risk, restored 342 acres of
wetlands to protect biodiversity and the lake's clarity, and
inspected 51,000 boats for aquatic invasive species. These
Federal funds have leveraged $500 million in state, local,
tribal, and private matching funds. Additionally, the program
supports an average of 1,700 jobs a year, and every million
dollars in spending generates $1.6 million in economic output.
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act calls out the urgent need
for forest management projects. The U.S. Forest Service and
other fire service agencies have accelerated work over the last
several years. These projects, as Congressman Kiley noted, have
helped protect our community during the 2021 Caldor Fire, which
burned 10,000 acres and forced the evacuation of 30,000
residents in the Tahoe region. Previously treated areas of the
forest reduced fire intensity, allowing firefighters to
directly attack the blaze, resulting in zero homes lost,
including my own, which was directly in the path of one of the
most powerful wildfires in California's history. Federal
support through the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act allowed the
Tahoe Basin to demonstrate that active forest management and
home hardening can save lives and protect natural resources and
personal property.
Finally, we know it is important to be good stewards of
public funding. We have continued to invest in public
transparency through a project tracker at LakeTahoeInfo.org.
More than 10,000 people visit this website annually.
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act is essential to ensuring
Lake Tahoe remains a national treasure. Without it, crucial
support is in jeopardy for conservation projects aimed at
protecting Tahoe's crystal clear waters, managing invasive
species, and preventing wildfires. Without this work, Lake
Tahoe's environment, communities, and economy will suffer.
Congressman Kiley said it best at our annual Lake Tahoe summit
this August: ``We can get past the political divides by
implementing projects of common importance at the local level.
Tahoe is the perfect example, spanning two states, multiple
overlapping jurisdictions, and red and blue counties. Yet, we
can all agree on the goal of protecting something that is
larger than us.''
Thank you for your consideration today, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Regan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Julie W. Regan, Executive Director, Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency
on S. 612
Good morning, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members
of the subcommittee, I am Julie Regan, Executive Director of the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency. Our agency was formed by an interstate
compact between California and Nevada and ratified by Congress nearly
55 years ago. Our mission is to protect Lake Tahoe, a designated
Outstanding National Resource Water, while supporting our communities
and economy.
Lake Tahoe is the ancestral and current home of the Washoe Tribe of
Nevada and California and is truly breathtaking to behold. High in the
Sierra Nevada, its nearly 200 square-mile surface straddles the borders
of California and Nevada at more than 6,200 feet in elevation. It is
the second deepest lake in the United States and one of the clearest
large lakes in the world.
Nearly 80 percent of the Tahoe Basin is owned by the federal
government and managed by the USDA Forest Service. Our small, year-
round population of 55,000 swells to metropolitan levels on peak days
and millions visit the region annually to enjoy the region's public
lands. Tahoe also has a sizable community of second homeowners who hail
from more than two-thirds of the nation's congressional districts.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee today about
the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act Reauthorization. This crucial
legislation is the cornerstone of federal investment in restoring Lake
Tahoe's world-renowned environment. I also want to recognize Tahoe's
congressional representatives and co-sponsors of the House companion
bill who have joined the sub-committee meeting today, Congressman Mark
Amodei of Nevada and Congressman Kevin Kiley of California. Their
leadership in the House has been key to our bipartisan and bicameral
progress to date.
Let me offer some important context that's germane to this hearing
item. In the 1990s, after witnessing a rapid decline in lake clarity
and the surrounding environment, Lake Tahoe leaders came together to
launch the Environmental Improvement Program, or EIP as we call it.
This collaborative approach to solving Lake Tahoe's most pressing
challenges has become a national model for conservation. Congress has
delivered the federal share of the EIP through passage of the Lake
Tahoe Restoration Acts of 2000 and 2016.
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act is an example of bipartisan
collaboration in practice that not only protects an irreplaceable
natural resource but also generates jobs for local communities.
Today's hearing concerns the extension of the Act, which originally
authorized up to $415 million over 7 years. However, that legislation
is expiring at the end of this month, and with only 29 percent of the
original authorization having been appropriated thus far, we are simply
asking for more time on the Congressional clock.
With the $122 million appropriated since 2016, we have accomplished
a great deal. EIP partners have treated 21,000 acres of forest to
reduce wildfire risk, restored 342 acres of wetlands to protect
biodiversity and the lake's clarity, and inspected 51,000 boats for
aquatic invasive species. These federal funds have leveraged $500
million in state, local, tribal, and private matching funds.
Additionally, the program supports an average of 1,700 jobs a year and
every $1 million in spending generates $1.6 million in economic output.
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act goes beyond funding authorizations.
Key policy provisions have called out the urgent need for forest
management projects. The US Forest Service and other fire service
agencies have accelerated work over the last several years. These
projects helped protect our community during the 2021 Caldor Fire which
burned more than 10,000 acres and forced the evacuation of 30,000
residents within the Tahoe Region. Previously treated areas of the
forest reduced fire intensity allowing firefighters to directly attack
the blaze resulting in zero homes lost, including my own which was
directly in the path of one of the most powerful wildfires in
California history. Federal support through the Lake Tahoe Restoration
Act allowed the Tahoe Basin to demonstrate that active forest
management can save lives and protect natural resources and personal
property.
Finally, we know it is important to be good stewards of public
funding. We have continued to invest in public transparency through a
project tracker at LakeTahoeInfo.org. Using this online dashboard, the
public can track Restoration Act investments from all sectors,
individual projects, and performance-based results. More than 10,000
people visit this website annually.
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act is essential to ensuring Lake Tahoe
remains a national treasure. Without it, crucial support is in jeopardy
for conservation projects aimed at protecting Tahoe's crystal clear
waters, managing invasive species, and preventing wildfires. Without
this work, Lake Tahoe's environment, communities, and economy will
suffer.
Congressman Kiley said it best at our annual Lake Tahoe Summit this
August. ``We can get past the political divides by implementing
projects of common importance at a local level. Tahoe is the perfect
example. Spanning two states, multiple overlapping jurisdictions, and
red and blue counties. Yet we can all agree on the goal of protecting
something that is larger than us. That transcends political
differences.''
Thank you for your consideration today and I'd be happy to answer
any questions.
*****
The following documents were submitted as supplements to Ms.
Regan's testimony.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full pdf of this document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20240918/117635/HHRG-
118-II10-Wstate-ReganJ-20240918-SD001.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full pdf of this document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20240918/117635/HHRG-
118-II10-Wstate-ReganJ-20240918-SD002.pdf
------
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Regan. I would now like to
recognize Ms. Sandy Marra, the President and CEO of the
Appalachian Trail Conservancy.
Ms. Marra, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SANDRA MARRA, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
APPALACHIAN TRAIL CONSERVANCY, HARPERS FERRY,
WEST VIRGINIA
Ms. Marra. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on H.R. 9159, the Appalachian Trail Centennial Act.
My name is Sandra Marra. I am the President and CEO of the
Appalachian Trail Conservancy, which is the sole NGO working
trail-wide to facilitate the operation of the Appalachian
National Scenic Trail, or ANST. I have nearly 40 years of
experience with the Appalachian Trail as a maintainer, a
volunteer leader, and now CEO.
Next year, the ATC turns 100 years old, and the National
Trail System turns 57. For our centennial, we have been working
with NGO partners and congressional champions such as
Congressmen Lawler and Beyer on how to secure and strengthen
the cooperative nature of the national scenic and historic
trails. The AT Centennial Act provides valuable definitions of
existing law, recognizing the role of organizations like the
ATC, and provides direction to the executive branch to study
and report to Congress on how best to further develop national
and scenic historic trails.
America's National Trail System is comprised of dynamic
public land units which are distinct from conventional National
Park and Forest Service units. This is because the trails
depend more on the utilization of volunteers and NGOs to
perform substantive work and provide direction that, for most
of our Federal lands, are responsibilities reserved to the
Federal Government. The National Trail System Act has protected
the ability of individuals and NGOs to serve in these roles. I
say ``protected,'' because the work that the ATC and our NGO
partners do on the ANST predates the Trails Act.
The Appalachian Trail started as a volunteer and citizen-
led effort and was not the vision of the Federal Government.
The ATC was founded in 1925 to coordinate this work. While the
Trails Act was an innovation for the Federal Government, it was
simply the formalization of the system that began in 1921.
With the bipartisan Appalachian Trail Centennial Act,
Congressmen Lawler and Beyer are both building on and
recognizing the exceptional work that the national trails
community has undertaken over the last several decades, as well
as considering recent innovations currently at work in
promoting trail stewardship today.
While this is our centennial, and the legislation bears our
trail's name, the Appalachian Trail is but one of 32
congressionally-designated national scenic and historic trails
the bill could benefit. Every trail and partnership system is
different, but most function under the model of skilled
volunteers and NGOs serving in substantive roles to make these
long trails available to the public. However, like the Trails
Act, the legislation recognizes that final responsibility and
authority for our nation's trails must reside with the trail
administrator.
While the Appalachian Trail has permeated our cultural
consciousness, the day-to-day realities that enable its
existence are not well understood. The trail is a network of
complicated agreements, relationships, and responsibilities,
which we call the Cooperative Management System, and includes
14 states, 30 trail clubs, and two Federal agencies. Much of
the distribution of the responsibilities for the AT was
determined by convention and practice, rather than by statute
or agreement. That is why this legislation is so important. The
law should reflect what works now and how to make things work
better in the future.
Through it all, what is undeniable is that the Federal
Government simply cannot maintain our nation's scenic and
historic trails alone. For example, the Appalachian Trail is
over 2,100 miles long, and it is more than 400,000 acres across
14 states. For that entire distance, the AT park office has 10
full-time employees. The ATC has an average of 85 employees a
year. Compare that to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
which covers a little over 500,000 acres, and they have 200
full-time and another 150-plus seasonal employees. I mean,
think about it. The AT must depend on its skilled volunteers
for its upkeep.
Last year alone, the clubs provided more than 5,000
volunteers, and many clubs also have staff members engaged in
supporting the trail. The AT Centennial Act recognizes the
vital contributions of the volunteer community. The bill also
maintains important guardrails for the Federal Government,
while clarifying for the executive branch that partnership and
substantive roles for volunteers and volunteer organizations
are essential aspects of the national scenic and historic
trails. Volunteerism has helped shape the character of our
American communities and the advancement of conservation in
America. The ATC believes that the partnerships that have built
and continue to maintain the Appalachian Trail and our sister
trails are key components of a sustainable future for public
lands.
We look forward to continued discussions on how to secure
and support our national scenic and historic trails, and I
welcome your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Marra follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sandra Marra, President and CEO of the
Appalachian Trail Conservancy
on H.R. 9159
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 9159,
the Appalachian Trail Centennial Act (ATCA). My name is Sandra Marra,
and I am the President and CEO of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy
(ATC), the sole NGO working trail-wide to facilitate the operation of
the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST or Trail). I come to you
with nearly 40 years of experience with the Appalachian Trail
Conservancy, as a maintainer, volunteer leader, and now CEO of the ATC.
We are proud of this legislation, and grateful to the bipartisan
leadership of Congressmen Lawler and Beyer for developing it with
Senators Kaine and Tillis. By enacting H.R. 9159, Congress will clarify
the partnership nature of National Scenic and Historic Trails (NSHTs),
establish a legal class of volunteer organizations that reflects the
work the National Trails System Act (NTSA) has protected for
organizations like the ATC, and direct the executive branch to better
understand NSHTs to unlock their conservation and recreation potential.
The ATC is the sole 501(c)(3) organization working across the
entirety of the ANST, a unit of the National Park System (System). The
ATC was founded in 1925 to facilitate the development of the
Appalachian Trail, what is now the ANST, and spearheaded the NTSA (and
its amendments) to establish the first NGO partnership park in the
federal government.\1\ There are now 30 additional NSHTs.\2\ The ANST
is governed by the Cooperative Management System (CMS),\3\ which
partners federal and state agencies, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and individual volunteers to collaboratively develop and
steward the conserved areas adjacent to this nearly 2,200-mile footpath
surrounded by over 400,000 acres of land.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Park System: Units Managed Through Partnerships, CRS
Report R42125, p. 7. April 5, 2016. A review of the partnership parks
surveyed by this report reflects the ANST is the first NGO partnership
park in the System.
\2\ The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, administered by the
USDA Forest Service, was established alongside the ANST in the original
1968 Act. This brings the total number of NSHTs to 32.
\3\ This is a generally accepted term describing the network of
partnerships that enable NSHTs to operate, although the term
``Cooperative Management System'' is not used on every NSHT.
\4\ The ATC continues to work with the NPS and USFS in particular
to determine the gross acreage of the ANST and the exact acreage under
the responsibility of the given land managers/owners. The NPS FY25
Budget Justification at O-22 posits that the gross acreage is
243,542.49 and the NPS-managed acreage is 183,166.13, but this number
does not include the acreage included in management areas in the
National Forest System, nor does it include acres managed by states or
non-federal entities for the ANST (or clarify acreages managed by other
NPS units).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many people believe that the ANST is merely a ``simple footpath.''
It is not. It is a large landscape conservation effort designed to
connect the people and places of the Appalachian Mountain range and to
protect the natural, scenic, cultural, and historic values of that
physiographic region to provide for the ``maximum recreational
potential.'' \5\ The footpath, or treadway, of the ANST is the way in
which any single individual can access these values, something some
estimated 4 million people do every year.\6\ It is this quirk of the
NTSA from which much confusion about NSHTs arises: that is, the Act
does not protect treadways; rather, it establishes continuingly
developing federal public lands \7\ organized around treadways. The
second quirk of the NTSA is that volunteers and volunteer organizations
are empowered to do--and do, in fact do--much of the work that, on
other federal lands, is done by federal employees, based on the
operation of the Appalachian Trail prior to its gaining National Scenic
Trail status.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 16 U.S.C. 1242(a)
\6\ This number is the ATC's best estimate, given a 2007 visitation
estimate performed by the USFS and tracking with modern visitation
trends. The NPS and the ATC are currently collaborating on a visitation
estimate relying on anonymized ``big data.''
\7\ Although we generally refer to NSHTs as public ``lands,'' they
are in fact lands and waters, and rivers, lakes, and shores are
features of many NSHTs. The Captain John Smith National Historic Trail
(NHT), for example, is entirely water-based.
\8\ 16 U.S.C. 1246(h) lays out allowable roles for non-federal
entities in federally administered areas of a NSHT, empowering them to
``operate, develop, and maintain any portion of such a trail either
within or outside a federally administered area,'' although the NTSA
does not define these terms, as the ATCA would. 16 U.S.C. 1250 includes
additional allowable roles for ``volunteers'' and ``volunteer
organizations,'' which the NTSA do not define, but the ATCA would.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At its core, the ATCA seeks to promote the successes and the
strengths of cooperative management partnerships by stating the nature
of the highest achieving to-date NTS partnership: that of the ANST.\9\
This legislation will address inconsistencies in the treatment of NSHTs
and the partnerships that enable them without requiring the adoption of
one model of cooperative management over another, as well as provide
direction to the agencies to include NSHTs in their evaluations of
conservation impact, such as through visitor economic impact
analyses.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ It also includes the first statutory reference to the ``A.T.
Clubs,'' independent non-governmental organizations that partner with
the NPS, USFS, and ATC to operate the ANST.
\10\ Currently, the federal land management agencies do not measure
the visitor economic impact of those visiting the NSHTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions and Roles
The National Trails System Act of 1968, as amended, has protected
the ability of individuals and NGOs to serve in essential roles. We say
``protected'' because the work that we and our NGO partners perform on
our respective trails largely predates the inclusion of those trails in
the NTSA (or its enactment, in the case of the ATC and the Pacific
Crest Trail Association). In fact, more or less down the line of the 32
NSHTs in existence today, there is one (or two) primary NGO partner(s)
who envisioned the designation of the trail they operate (sometimes
more than a single trail) and advocated to have Congress include that
trail in the NTS.\11\ These Congressionally protected roles are
exceedingly uncommon in the federal land management agencies and can
cause consternation for those who are unfamiliar with the practices of
NSHTs, whether they be new hires to federal unit offices or an
individual responsible for processing grants and agreements.\12\
Because NSHTs are so few, as are the staff members who rotate through
them, and operate so differently than conventional federal public land
units, continual and recurring education is required despite the 57
years of ANST Cooperative management under the NTSA. The ATCA's
adoption of clear definitions will decrease confusion and increase the
volunteer- and partnership-centric operation of NSHTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Some NSHTs have more than one organization operating at the
same level of engagement, but serving different regions or
responsibilities of a given NSHT. The New England National Scenic Trail
and the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail are two examples.
\12\ While orienting new staff members to a given NSHT ``unit''
office can be complicated enough, it is the orientation of those
federal employees who are not specifically staffed to a ``unit'' where
one can see the steepest learning curve. NSHT unit offices are
generally more static than those of the park units they intersect,
those of Great Smoky Mountains and Shenandoah National Parks, for
instance, or those working in the regional offices. Unlike NSHT unit
staffers, staffers in other parts of the federal land management
agencies may have little to no interaction with cooperative management
outside of a discrete task relating, but may still require a full crash
course in the legal and practical differences of the NSHTs from
conventional federal land units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NTSA implies, but does not declare, that three general aspects
of ``land management''--as we understand them--are disaggregated on
NSHTs. On the ANST, overall ``trail administration'' belongs to the NPS
(consulting with the USFS),\13\ ``land management'' can reside with the
NPS, USFS, state, or private entity (as ``land owner''), and
``operation,'' \14\ generally lives in ATC and the A.T. Clubs.\15\
Therefore, much of the day-to-day work in the ANST and NSHTs are
performed by volunteers and NGO staff. This is because the Trail was
designed by volunteers and NGO partners, with the footpath predating
the park unit's establishment by 40 years. The NPS park office was
created to integrate the pre-existing network of partnerships into the
federal public land management apparatus, not exclusively to ``manage''
the ANST in the conventional NPS sense.\16\ Our management model,
enabled by the NTSA, is premised on ``non-delegability,'' meaning that
any inherently governmental activity \17\ must be performed by the
government and everything else can be (and on the ANST is) generally
done by NGO partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 16 USC 1244(a)(1).
\14\ What we refer to as ``operation'' in this letter has often
been described as ``local NGO management,'' a term which has caused
some confusion because of the association of ``land management'' with
final decision-making under many federal land use laws. Under the NTSA,
the NPS is statutorily identified as the ``trail administrator,'' or
final decision maker for the ANST on most topics, but is expressly not
the land manager for large stretches of the Trail; the USDA Forest
Service is statutorily the consulting administrator, as well as the
land manager for approximately 47% of the Trail. Delineating between
administration of the cooperative enterprise, management of the lands,
and operation of the treadway and conserved corridor is just one
example of how NSHTs are complex.
\15\ This disaggregation is complex, and not explicitly stated
itself in the NTSA. It can be inferred however, by the reference to
``administration'' as being only to federal entities and ``management''
and ``operation'' as allowable for non-federal entities. The ATCA would
cement these distinctions for the benefit of all.
\16\ Generally speaking, ``federal land management'' refers to the
exclusive and final decision-making authority of the agency assigned
the responsibility by Congress for a given area. Because the ANST and
PCNST were in part located on areas that had already been conserved by
Congress, a distinction between ``administration'' and management'' was
necessary because, for example, Shenandoah National Park was already
being managed by the NPS and the ANST was never intended to overwhelm
the pre-existing management prerogatives of that park, or usurp
management authority from the Chief of the Forest Service for White
Mountain National Forest, as an example. Trail administration and
trail/land management have been different from the inception of the
NTS.
\17\ Essentially, law enforcement, compliance, title of lands, and
oversight of overall management and operation. These are the core
responsibilities of ``trail administration.'' Solicitor's Opinion on
Delegation to ATC, March 17, 1983, p.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This disaggregation is, in some sense, radical, but it is the only
way that the ANST or any other long trail could ever be successful. By
separating out these roles, the NTSA protected the volunteer and
volunteer organization roles on NSHTs but it also protected the legal
structure of lands Congress had already conserved in 1968. The APPA
Superintendent administers the ANST, but does not manage all the land
that constitutes the ANST--this would give an NPS official final
decision-making authority over portions of the Cherokee National
Forest, Sky Meadows State Park, and the Cherry Valley National Wildlife
Refuge, for example--and the NPS has never truly operated the ANST, as
from the moment of designation, the ATC and the Clubs continued to
perform most of the day-to-day work on the Trail, a model replicated to
varying degrees across the other NSHTs.
Recognizing the Roles of Organizations like the ATC
The statutory versatility of the NTSA, while still a novel
innovation to many is an unequivocal necessity and the formalization of
the system that began on the A.T. 47 years prior to President Johnson's
signing of that Act,\18\ and even before the first formal agreement
with the NPS and USFS during President Franklin Roosevelt's
administration.\19\ The flexibility of the Act, as well as its
safeguarding of prior congressionally-established conserved lands were
enhanced with the amendments signed into law by President Carter \20\
and President Reagan.\21\ The ATCA does not limit this versatility;
rather, it reflects practically how it is implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The development of the ANST began with the publishing of An
Appalachian Trail: A Project in Regional Planning, Journal of American
Institute of Architects, October 1921. It is accessible at: https://
appalachiantrail.org/our-work/an-appalachian-trail-a-project-in-
regional-planning/.
\19\ The Appalachian Trailway Agreement, October 15, 1938.
\20\ Via P.L. 95-248, To Amend the National Trails System Act, and
for other purposes, March 21, 1978 and P.L. 95-625, National Parks and
Recreational Lands Act of 1978, November, 10, 1978.
\21\ P.L. 98-11, To amend the National Trails System Act by
designating additional national scenic and historic trails, and for
other purposes, March 28, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the NTSA was written (and amended) to continue to allow
the ATC to do what it began in 1925 and to empower other organizations
to do the same, the NTSA does not make explicit that the role we and
similar organizations play is to be expected. The novel experiment,
however, has proved tremendously successful, and the lingering
statutory ambiguity tends to help neither the trail administrator nor
the NGO partner. By collecting the NTSA-permissible authorities and
laying out clear requirements and guardrails for behavior, the ATCA
confirms that the disaggregated model of management authorities is
successful and appropriate for NSHTs. It is, in fact, the only way that
these long, multi-jurisdictional areas are able to be effectively
governed.
The NPS park office \22\ for the 2,194-mile long and over 400,000-
acre ANST is, at full compliment, 10 people. The ATC is, in the peak
season, somewhere around 85. The A.T. Clubs provided upwards of 5,000
volunteers in 2023, and many have additional staff members engaged in
supporting the ANST. Our collective non-governmental effort is worth
almost $7 million.\23\ That's just one of the 32 National Scenic and
Historic Trails. What is undeniable on the ANST, and for many of our
well-performing National Scenic and Historic Trails, is that the
federal government simply cannot do it alone. H.R. 9159 recognizes that
fact and maintains important guardrails for the federal government
while clarifying for the executive branch that partnership and
substantive roles for volunteers and volunteer organizations are
essential aspects of the National Scenic and Historic Trails. Congress
understood this in drafting and amending the NTSA, including its
references to the ATC in the 1968 Act.\24\ We recognize that some
agency partners have concerns about diminished authorities, or about
placing NGOs in final decision-making positions. H.R. 9159 neither
diminishes agency authority nor places any NGO in a final decision-
making position.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In the language of the NPS, the ANST park office is ``APPA,''
which is responsible for supervising the ATC and A.T. Clubs and
coordinating with federal, state, and tribal governments to support the
ANST.
\23\ ANST volunteers accounted for approximately 200,000 hours in
2023, with an estimated value of $33.49 per hour of labor, according to
the Independent Sector's calculator: https://independentsector.org/
resource/value-of-volunteer-time/, last visited September 16, 2024.
\24\ Today, the ATC remains mentioned in 16 U.S.C. 1244(d) and (e).
\25\ The ATC views this as the heart of the agreement between it
and the federal government that became the NTSA. The federal government
has final authority and the volunteers and volunteer organizations may
continue largely as they have since 1921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As drafted, with the exception of the recognition of the ATC as the
first ``Designated Operational Partner'' (DOP)--the ATC remains the
only NGO referenced in the NTSA--no other NSHT would be required to
have a DOP. Trails that have one or more organizations supporting the
breadth of work that the ATCA does for the ANST could have more than
one DOP. Even with a DOP, the trail administrator would be able to
enter into cooperative agreements with other organizations to do work
on NSHTs. Establishing DOPs reflects the reality of trail operation
today, maintains the opportunity to broaden partnerships with for a
NSHT, and provides legal clarity on how organizations like the ATC are
a distinct class of NGO partners for a discrete slice of the federal
public lands world.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Organizations like the ATC are often slotted into
inappropriate categories (such as being misunderstood as cooperating
associations or ``friends'' groups); clarifying our collection of roles
and connections to the public land units we work on is something we
believe will benefit partnership networks, rather than detract from the
community of partnership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlocking the Promise of NSHTs
The ANST is the most invested-in NSHT since the establishment of
the NTS. This is due to a variety of factors, but none of them
predetermine that the ANST should be the only NSHT developed to the
degree that it has been. In designating a NSHT, Congress recognizes
potential and provides some tools to unlock that potential. A lock
without a key, however, remains forever closed. By directing the
agencies to report on the state of the trails and determine how to
build out the trails Congress has established, the ATCA will focus
agency and partner attention on these dynamic public land units,
bringing new populations of citizen stewards into the fold, promoting
vulnerable histories, protecting at-risk ecosystems, and unlocking the
maximum recreational potential at a time of overwhelming interest in
outdoor recreation.
Despite what we would describe as the unqualified success of the
partnership-dependent, volunteer-centered, multi-jurisidictional A.T.
Project, the federal trail administrators have never quite supported
these public land units the way that they support more conventional
units of the System, National Forest System, or National Conservation
Lands System.\27\ For example, the staffing levels of NSHTs are
entirely incommensurate with their acreage, estimated visitation, or
the complexity of their partnerships.\28\ Although the NPS and USFS
measure visitation and economic impact for most of their units, they do
not do so for the NSHTs.\29\ Because official status is so important to
the agencies--and rightfully so, because they are charged to follow
Congress' directions--the full suite of funding streams, planning
tools, and management authorities that exist for other System units
have been denied the NSHTs.\30\ The ATCA's requirement to gather this
information will better support NSHTs, their Congressionally identified
values, and the public.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ That is to say, the federal agency approach to budgeting both
assumes substantial non-governmental support and does not consider the
state of development for any given NSHT. The recent NPS granting of
``unit status'' to three NPS-administered NSHTs was a response to
improper resourcing and support for those (now-)units.
\28\ The ATC and partners in the NTS community have doggedly
advocated for attention to this issue, with increasingly positive
responses from Congress as well as Presidential administrations.
\29\ See footnote 6, supra
\30\ The NPS provides an excellent example. See, generally,
Decision Memorandum for the Director to Request the Director to
Administratively Designate Three National Scenic Trails as Units of the
National Park System and Initiate a Policy Process for Granting Unit
Status for Other National Scenic or Historic Trails, November 16, 2023.
\31\ There are many challenges in the development of the federal
budget. The ATC does not argue that all of this information would
necessarily result in higher allocations for NSHTs; rather, comparing
apples to apples would facilitate the adjusting of budgets to more
appropriate levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At its core, the ATCA reflects the reality of day-to-day operations
of the ANST, the most invested-in, developed, and successful National
Scenic Trail, as it exists today and declares what is necessary to
support and enhance the NTS. The ATC is also grateful to Congressmen
Lawler and Beyer for H.R. 9159's recognition of the indispensable role
of the A.T. Clubs, the first-ever statutory acknowledgement of their
importance to the ANST. The ATC began coordinating this effort upon its
founding in 1925, looking to the A.T. Clubs to develop the
relationships necessary throughout the ANST's 14 states to build the
Trail itself. The historical and ongoing work of the A.T. Clubs cannot
be understated, as there would simply be no ANST without this corps of
dispersed, expert volunteers and non-governmental organizations.
We are eager to advance the discussion on the importance of the NTS
and the partnerships that enable it as well as to do the hard work
itself, as we have been doing for nearly 100 years. The ATCA is the
product of years of discussion within both the Cooperative Management
System (CMS) of the ANST and with our partners throughout the NTS. The
ATC is not proprietary of the NTS, nor do we believe we have all the
answers. We are committed to continue working to strengthen and secure
the partnership nature of the NSHTs with our partners. We also
understand that the three trail administering agencies--the National
Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the U.S. Bureau
of Land Management (BLM)--approach trail administration in differing
ways. We appreciate the extensive and substantive feedback the USFS has
provided, which Congressmen Lawler and Beyer incorporated into H.R.
9159. We encourage Congress to enact the Appalachian Trail Centennial
Act and look forward to continued dialog on to conserve and support the
National Scenic and Historic Trails, which we believe should remain
available accessible for future generations of Americans to enjoy and
experience.
______
*****
The following documents were submitted as supplements to Ms.
Marra's testimony.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The full pdf of this document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20240918/117635/HHRG-
118-II10-Wstate-MarraS-20240918-SD003.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Marra. I now recognize Ms.
Justine Jimmie, the Deputy Attorney General of the San Carlos
Apache Tribe.
Ms. Jimmie, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JUSTINE JIMMIE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GEN-
ERAL, SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE, SAN CARLOS, ARIZONA
Ms. Jimmie. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member Neguse,
and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Justine Jimmie. I
serve as Deputy Attorney General of the San Carlos Apache
Tribe. I am Apache and Navajo, and a proud member of the San
Carlos Apache Tribe, in particular because of the high number
of service members and veterans that we have, including my own
grandfather, who served in the Korean conflict. Thank you for
this opportunity.
We respectfully request the inclusion in the bill of our
proposed language contained in my written testimony to better
protect our continuing cultural connections to this land. Our
sister tribe, the Mescalero Apache Tribe in New Mexico,
requests this same amendment.
The Chiricahua National Monument is where well-known
Chiricahuas, including Chiefs Mangas Coloradas, Victorio,
Cochise, Naiche, and medicine men like Geronimo lived, raised
families, prayed, hunted, gathered, and conducted ceremonies.
They fought fiercely to protect their land, their loved ones,
and their way of life. Many Chiricahuas were killed on this
land or forcibly removed outright at gunpoint.
In 1872, the United States established a Chiricahua
reservation through the leadership and negotiation of Chief
Cochise. This reservation spanned what is now largely Cochise
County in Arizona, and this county is named after Chief Cochise
himself.
[Slide.]
Ms. Jimmie. Now on the screen is a map showing the
boundaries of the Chiricahua Reservation. Within this former
reservation is land that is now the national monument.
[Slide.]
Ms. Jimmie. And the next picture, it is from the monument
website. It is a picture of Chief Naiche and his wife,
Haozinne. Chief Naiche was Cochise's son, and notably, Cochise
passed away on the reservation. And while there are no known
pictures of Cochise himself, it is said that Chief Naiche
looked like his father.
In 1876, a mere 4 years after its establishment, President
Grant took away the Chiricahua Reservation and gave this land
to miners and settlers.
[Slide.]
Ms. Jimmie. The next picture is of Chiricahuas imprisoned
at Fort Bowie, which was established to fight Cochise. The U.S.
cavalry removed Naiche, Geronimo, and other Chiricahuas from
the reservation and imprisoned them at Fort Bowie and on the
San Carlos Apache Reservation, which was originally established
as a concentration camp.
Naiche, Geronimo, and other Chiricahuas were later
imprisoned thousands of miles from home. In 1913, Naiche and
other Chiricahuas were permitted to move to the Mescalero
Reservation, where many of their descendants reside today.
Chiricahua still have a deep connection to this land that has
never been extinguished.
We understand the bill's purpose is to increase tourism and
economic development. However, this bill should not come at the
expense of our traditions, culture, and history. The language
we seek is reasonable and recognizes that this land has always
been our homeland, long before the United States was formed and
long before our land was taken.
A national park designation would ramp up foot and vehicle
traffic, as well as infrastructure development on this land,
which would jeopardize burial sites, ceremonial areas, sight
lines, and animal and plant life. Further, the Park Service
would increase the number of personnel managing and patrolling
the park, leading to difficulties for tribal members seeking
access to the land.
National parks have become increasingly packed with
tourists. In contrast, we go to our cultural areas in what are
now parks to seek sanctuary, pray, and perform ceremonies. Our
ancestors lived like this before these lands became tourist
destinations, and we ask that our access be protected for
future generations.
Congress has passed legislation like this in the past, so
this language isn't breaking new ground. This language does not
take anything away from the bill's purpose. It would simply
guarantee us continued access and protection of our cultural
resources. While the destruction of cultural resources is
generically prohibited under existing law, personnel at each
park have broad latitude and discretion, creating a burden on
us to push for action to protect discrete areas. This amendment
would require the park to actually work with us by providing
specific statutory direction.
In addition, each park, again, has latitude and discretion
regarding access to sacred sites. Current laws force tribes to
plead for permission to go to an area that once belonged to us.
This amendment would require the park to provide tribal access.
If current laws were already effective, then there would be
less difficulties for tribes across the country working to
protect our cultural resources and access in national parks.
But sadly, this is not the case. Our suggested language is
necessary to ensure protection of our deep ties to this land.
I thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our
testimony, both written and here from me. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jimmie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Justine R. Jimmie, Deputy Attorney General, San
Carlos Apache Tribe
on H.R. 1479
Good morning, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Justine Jimmie, and I serve as Deputy
Attorney General of the San Carlos Apache Tribe (Tribe) located in
southeastern Arizona. I am a member of the Tribe, which is over 17,300
members strong. Like many Apaches on the San Carlos Apache Reservation
(Reservation), my family history includes Chiricahua ancestors.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify about the Tribe's
concerns with H.R. 1479, which would designate Chiricahua National
Monument as a National Park. We respectfully request that the
Subcommittee work with us to include the amendment set forth below to
protect our continuing and unbroken connections to this land, which is
part of our ancestral homelands. The Mescalero Apache Tribe, comprised
of Chiricahua, Lipan, and Mescalero Apaches and located in what is now
southern New Mexico, submitted testimony on this bill to request this
same amendment. To honor its Treaty obligations to us, the Subcommittee
must work to improve the protection of our cultural resources and
ensure access to this land for traditional activities.
To better understand our views, it is helpful to know more about
our history. The aboriginal territory of the Apache Nation included the
western part of Texas, the current states of Arizona and New Mexico,
and part of the country of Mexico. The Apache Treaty of Santa Fe in
1852 was executed by Mangus Colorado and others on behalf of the
Apaches. Pursuant to the Treaty, lands within the aboriginal
territories of the Apache Nation were to be set aside for a permanent
Tribal homeland and the U.S. promised to provide for the ``humane''
needs of the Apache people. In exchange, the Apache Nation agreed to
the end of hostilities between the two nations.
As underscored by the name ``Chiricahua'' for this National
Monument and the extensive information about the history of the
Chiricahua Apaches in the area now known as Chiricahua National
Monument compiled by the National Park Service, the federal government
acknowledges the long relationship of the Chiricahua Apaches to this
area. Chiricahua National Monument is located in Cochise County, which
is named after renowned Chiricahua Apache Chief Cochise. In 1872, the
U.S. military designated a reservation for the Chiricahuas under the
leadership of Chief Cochise. This 1872 reservation contained the area
that is now Chiricahua National Monument and spanned what is largely
now Cochise County. However, President Grant terminated the reservation
in 1876 to open the land to gold, silver, and copper mining--the same
history of mistreatment of tribes by the United States told over and
over again.
The U.S. Calvary forcibly removed Chiricahuas from this area to
what is now the San Carlos Apache Reservation (Reservation), originally
established by the U.S. Calvary as a concentration camp. Famous
Chiricahuas who were imprisoned on the Reservation included Geronimo,
Cochise, Nachie, Chatto, and others. Our people were treated as
prisoners of war, and U.S. military forces were stationed on the
Reservation until 1900, almost 30 years after the conclusion of the
Western Apache wars. Even though we were removed at gunpoint by the
United States from our ancestral homelands, including what is now
Chiricahua National Monument, we still have deep historical and
spiritual connections to this land that have never been extinguished.
We understand that a primary purpose of this bill is to boost
tourism and create an economic boon for the rural towns and communities
surrounding Chiricahua National Monument. While the Tribe is supportive
of economic development, this legislation should not come at the
expense of tribes and our culture and traditions. The land that is now
Chiricahua National Monument has been our homeland since time
immemorial--long before the formation of the United States and before
the U.S. Calvary took our land to give to settlers, pioneers, and
miners. A National Park designation would significantly increase foot
and vehicular traffic and result in related infrastructure development
on this land, jeopardizing tribal cultural resources, including burial
sites and ceremonial areas, viewsheds, sight-lines, landscapes, and
animal/plant life. Moreover, the National Park Service would
exponentially increase the number of personnel that would manage and
patrol the land, which will, in turn, result in difficulties for Tribal
members seeking to access this land for cultural and traditional
purposes.
National Parks have become so packed with tourists that many
National Parks resemble amusement parks during the height of tourist
season. In contrast, we go to our cultural areas, including these areas
located in what are now National Parks, to seek sanctuary, pray, and
perform ceremonies. Adequate statutory protections are needed so that
we can continue to practice our traditional ways of life without
interruption, distraction, or barriers.
To protect our historical and ongoing connections to this land that
would be designated as a National Park under this bill, we respectfully
request inclusion of the following straight-forward language in the
bill:
SEC. 3. TRADITIONAL CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS SITES.
(a) INDIAN TRIBE.--Indian tribe means an Indian or Alaska
Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that
the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an
Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe
List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.
(b) In general--The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation
with Indian tribes, shall ensure the protection of traditional
cultural and religious sites in the National Park.
(c) Access--The Secretary of the Interior, in accordance with
Public Law 95-341 (42 U.S.C. 1996),----
(i) shall provide access to the sites described in paragraph
(b) by members of Indian tribes for traditional cultural and
customary uses; and
(ii) may, on request of an Indian tribe, temporarily close to
general public use 1 or more specific areas of the National
Park to protect traditional cultural and customary uses in the
area by members of the Indian tribe.
This language is essentially streamlined language from the Valles
Caldera National Preserve, New Mexico, Section 3043, P.L. 113-291; 16
U.S.C. 698v-11. Further, legislation establishing national parks,
monuments, and historical sites under the National Park Service
routinely includes language delineating specific management or other
requirements for the National Park to follow when operating a park or
managing the land.
While the destruction of tribal cultural sites and resources is
generally prohibited under existing law, personnel at each National
Park have broad latitude and discretion in determining the extent,
scope, and magnitude of management, administration, and enforcement of
existing protections, creating a burden on tribes to push a specific
National Park to act to protect discrete cultural sites and resources.
This amendment would require a Chiricahua National Park to acknowledge
its responsibilities and work actively with stakeholder tribes to
protect tribal cultural sites and resources under its jurisdiction.
Given the influx of people to this area of significant cultural
significance to our Tribe and other tribes if this bill is enacted into
law, it is essential that the protections we request are spelled out in
the law in order for Tribal members to maintain our traditional ways of
life and honor our ancestors.
In addition, under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and
reinforced under Executive Order 13007, it is the policy of the federal
government to maintain access to sacred sites. However, again each Park
Service unit has wide-ranging latitude and discretion. In practice,
tribes often face difficulties in accessing and protecting our cultural
sites and resources in National Parks. Basically, current law forces
tribes to plead for permission for access to an area that was
ancestrally our home. This amendment would require a Chiricahua
National Park to ensure tribal access to cultural sites and resources
as well as provide a mechanism to ensure the protection of cultural
sites and resources for tribal customary uses in a Chiricahua National
Park. Given the expected crowds flocking to this area, it is necessary
to make sure that certain areas of a Chiricahua National Park are
protected at certain periods of time to ensure access for our tribal
members for traditional activities.
Since the U.S. first began carving out National Parks from tribal
ancestral lands, tribes across the country have continually experienced
ongoing challenges to ensure that we can continue to practice our
cultures and traditional ways of life on these lands without disruption
and to ensure that our cultural resources are not damaged or destroyed.
For example, tribes have faced and still face to this day a myriad of
obstacles from National Park Service personnel relating to access,
ceremonial practices, gathering, collection, cultural resources
protection at Grand Canyon NP, Yellowstone NP, Olympic NP, Everglades
NP, Smoky Mountains NP, Badlands NP, Glacier NP, and the list goes on
and on. If current laws were actually effective, then there would be
less difficulties experienced by tribes across the country working to
protect tribal cultural resources and access in National Parks.
However, most, if not all, of these National Parks were established
at a time when tribes did not have the voice they should have had, and
often times these National Parks were created over tribal objections.
Times have changed since then and legislation establishing a National
Park should recognize, preserve, and protect tribal relationships to
these lands and help ensure consistent on-the-ground application of the
law from National Park Service personnel. Further, we urge that this
Subcommittee hold a hearing on the difficulties experienced by tribes
described above and work to develop legislation to strengthen legal
protections for tribal cultural resources and access in what are now
National Parks.
As we say in our Apache language, Ahi'yi' e (thank you) for your
efforts and consideration. We look forward to working with you to make
the changes to this bill necessary to protect our cultural resources
and traditional ways of life.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much, Ms. Jimmie. I now
recognize Ms. Monica Preston, President of the Willcox Chamber
of Commerce and Agriculture in Willcox, Arizona.
Ms. Preston, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MONICA PRESTON, PRESIDENT, WILLCOX
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE, WILLCOX,
ARIZONA
Ms. Preston. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member,
and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 1479, the
Chiricahua National Park Act, introduced by Representative Juan
Ciscomani.
My name is Monica Preston. I have the honor of serving as
the President of Willcox Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture. I
am deeply invested in the success of our region, and I am
honored to be here before you today to speak to the importance
of redesignating the Chiricahua National Monument as Chiricahua
National Park.
This designation is not only vital to the economic future
of our region and the state of Arizona, but it also promises to
enrich the quality of life for our local communities. I am
proud to be here in person with the city's mayor, Mike Laws,
Willcox City Manager Caleb Blaschke. Together, we have traveled
across the country to show our full support for this critical
piece of legislation, and we appreciate the Committee's
attention to this issue.
The Chiricahua National Monument was first established
about 100 years ago by President Calvin Coolidge. This year we
celebrate the monument's centennial. The Wonderland of the
Rocks, as it is known, encompasses 12,000 acres of breathtaking
landscapes featuring towering rock spires known as the hoodoos.
The monument also serves as a vital ecosystem, home to diverse
species of flora and fauna, including migratory birds that draw
nature enthusiasts from around the globe.
Let's be honest, the redesignation of this site does not
require additional Federal funding to attach to it, and it is
well known that the national park designation would likely
accelerate the tax base for the park and the city. We look
forward to the positive changes that will be made in the area
in the future.
Interstate 10, one of the major transcontinental highways,
runs directly through the City of Willcox, bringing an
estimated 34,000 vehicles through our city every day. This
traffic flow includes both commercial freight and tourism-
related travel, making Willcox an essential stopover for many
visitors exploring Arizona's attractions.
Additionally, the Amtrak train passes through Willcox, and
we are working diligently to secure a permanent stop in the
city, which would further boost local tourism and economic
activity.
Willcox is also the first city that visitors encounter when
entering Arizona from New Mexico, further solidifying our role
as a gateway to the state's natural and cultural attractions.
Tourism is Arizona's No. 1 industry, playing a vital role
in supporting the state's economy and enriching local
communities. Regionally, Cochise County is a significant
contributor to this industry, attracting hundreds of thousands
of visitors each year to iconic designations like Tombstone,
Kartchner Caverns, local museums, and other Arizona state
parks.
Willcox is a proud agricultural community with deep roots
in farming and ranching. The area is known for a variety of
agricultural operations, including cattle ranching, growing
essential crops like alfalfa and hay, and producing nuts,
particularly pecans and pistachios. Generations of hard-working
families in Willcox have built their lives around the working
of the land, contributing not only to the local economy but
also to Arizona's agricultural output. The strong agricultural
foundation remains central to the community's identity and way
of life, fostering a spirit of resilience and dedication to the
land that continues to drive Willcox growth and development.
Our small community is home to unique attractions,
including Apple Annie's Orchard, the Rex Allen Museum, Willcox
Wine Country, and world-renowned birding. In fact, 80 percent
of Arizona's grapes are grown in the Willcox area. I can speak
to this from personal experience. My husband and I own Birds
and Barrels Vineyards, with two tasting rooms, one in downtown
Willcox. Over the past 9 years, my winery has seen increasing
revenues. The tourism we receive directly supports me, my
family, and our local community.
I firmly believe that the national park designation will
continue to strengthen local businesses like mine and provide
new opportunities for growth. The City of Willcox was recently
awarded an $11 million grant to create a riparian area for
bird-watching enthusiasts, further strengthening that position.
We are not alone in this effort. All of the major cities
and towns in this area support this change.
In conclusion, on behalf of the Willcox Chamber of Commerce
and Agriculture and the many business owners, public servants,
and community members who support this legislation, I urge you
to pass H.R. 1479 and redesignate Chiricahua National Monument
as Chiricahua National Park. This change will strengthen our
rural economy, enrich our communities, and help preserve the
natural wonders of the Chiricahuas for generations to come.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We hope you will
support this important legislation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Preston follows:]
Prepared Statement of Monica Preston, President of the Willcox Chamber
of Commerce and Agriculture
on H.R. 1479
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of
H.R. 1479, the ``Chiricahua National Park Act,'' introduced by
Representative Juan Ciscomani.
My name is Monica Preston, and I have the honor of serving as the
President of the Willcox Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture. I am
deeply invested in the success of our region, and I am honored to stand
before you today to speak to the importance of redesignating the
Chiricahua National Monument as Chiricahua National Park. This
designation is not only vital to the economic future of our region and
the state of Arizona, but it also promises to enrich the quality of
life for our local communities.
I am proud to be here in person with our City's Mayor, Mayor Laws,
and Willcox City Manager Caleb Blaschke. Together, we have traveled
across the country to show our full support for this critical piece of
legislation, and we appreciate the Committee's attention to this issue.
The Chiricahua National Monument was first established by President
Calvin Coolidge nearly 100 years ago, and this year, we celebrated the
Monument's centennial. The ``Wonderland of Rocks,'' as it's known,
encompasses 12,000 acres of breathtaking landscapes featuring towering
rock spires and balanced formations unique to the Chiricahua Mountains.
The Monument also serves as a vital ecosystem, home to diverse species
of flora and fauna, including migratory birds that draw nature
enthusiasts from across the globe.
A National Park designation would raise the profile of Cochise
County, both nationally and internationally, and bring much-needed
tourism revenue to our rural economy. According to a report by
Headwater Economics, National Monuments that have been redesignated as
National Parks experienced an average 21 percent increase in visitation
in the five years following designation. Additionally, total recreation
visits to National Parks grew by 49 percent between 2000 and 2016,
while National Monuments saw a decrease. For Willcox, which serves as
the gateway to Chiricahua National Monument, this increase in tourism
could mean a significant boost to our local economy, helping businesses
flourish and creating jobs.
Willcox is also positioned at a critical juncture for
transportation through southern Arizona. Interstate 10, one of the
major transcontinental highways, runs directly through the City of
Willcox, bringing an estimated 20,000 vehicles through our city every
day. This traffic flow includes both commercial freight and tourism-
related travel, making Willcox an essential stopover for many visitors
exploring Arizona's attractions. Additionally, the Amtrak train passes
through Willcox, and we are working diligently to secure a permanent
stop in the city, which would further boost local tourism and economic
activity. Willcox is also the first city that visitors encounter when
entering Arizona from New Mexico, further solidifying our role as a
gateway to the state's natural and cultural attractions.
Tourism is Arizona's number one industry, playing a vital role in
supporting the state's economy and enriching local communities.
Regionally, Cochise County is a significant contributor to this
industry, attracting hundreds of thousands of visitors each year to
iconic destinations like Tombstone, Kartchner Caverns, local museums,
and Arizona State Parks. By redesignating Chiricahua National Monument
as Chiricahua National Park, we will elevate the profile of the entire
region, adding another must-see destination to the list of attractions
that already draw visitors from across the country and around the
world. This increase in tourism would bring further economic benefits,
helping local businesses and improving the quality of life for
residents in Willcox and throughout Cochise County. Willcox is a proud
agricultural community with deep roots in farming and ranching. The
area is known for a variety of agricultural operations, including
livestock and cattle ranching, growing essential crops like alfalfa and
hay, and producing nuts, particularly pecans. Generations of
hardworking families in Willcox have built their lives around working
the land, contributing not only to the local economy but also to
Arizona's agricultural output. This strong agricultural foundation
remains central to the community's identity and way of life, fostering
a spirit of resilience and dedication to the land that continues to
drive Willcox's growth and development.
Willcox has rallied around tourism as a cornerstone of our local
economy, especially since the 2008 recession. Our small community is
home to unique attractions, including Apple Annie's Orchard, the Rex
Allen Museum, Tirrito Farm, and world-renowned birding and wine-tasting
experiences. In fact, 75% of Arizona's grapes are grown in Willcox.
Despite these strengths, many tourists overlook the Chiricahua National
Monument, partly due to its current designation as a ``Monument,''
which is often mistakenly associated with smaller sites or statues as
shared with us by many visitors. A ``National Park'' designation would
help change that perception, drawing more visitors to explore this
extraordinary area. I can speak to this from personal experience. I own
a winery and tasting room in downtown Willcox. Over the past 10 years,
my winery has seen an increase in revenues by 500%, largely thanks to
the growing tourism industry in the region. The tourism we receive
directly supports me, my family, and our local economy. I firmly
believe that the National Park designation will continue to strengthen
local businesses like mine and provide new opportunities for growth.
The City of Willcox was recently awarded an $11 million grant to create
a riparian area for birdwatching enthusiasts, further strengthening our
position as a tourist destination. A National Park designation for
Chiricahua would complement these efforts and bring even more visitors
to our area.
Increased tourism benefits the entire community. Over the last five
years, Willcox has seen a 67% increase in transient occupancy tax, or
``bed tax,'' revenue, thanks to visitors coming to enjoy the region's
attractions. Greg Hancock, the owner of the Sunset Inn, a family-owned
and operated ``mom and pop'' hotel in Willcox, has seen firsthand the
positive effects of tourism on his business. He notes, ``People come
from all over for birding, wine tasting, and to visit our local
attractions. I always encourage them to explore the Chiricahuas. When
they return, they are amazed by the stunning rock formations and
natural beauty. They are often surprised at how much they would have
missed had they not taken the time to visit. I believe that
redesignating Chiricahua as a National Park will shine a brighter
spotlight on this hidden treasure in our community, bringing in even
more visitors who will support not just my business, but the entire
local economy. It's a win for the community and a win for small
businesses like mine.''
More visitors also mean more revenue for our community. Mayor Laws
has repeatedly spoke on the critical connection between local
businesses and the city's economy: ``In our community, business and
city government go hand in hand. The revenues generated by our local
businesses allow the city to provide essential public services such as
public safety, road maintenance, and quality-of-life amenities like
parks, libraries, and recreational facilities. This support not only
benefits current residents but also makes our community more attractive
to new businesses and talented employees, creating a sustainable cycle
of growth and prosperity. Without these revenues, we simply wouldn't be
able to maintain the ball fields, pools, libraries, and services for
our youth and seniors that are so important to our community's well-
being. A stronger tourism sector, boosted by the redesignation of
Chiricahua as a National Park, would only enhance our ability to serve
and support the people of Willcox.''
We are not alone in this effort. We have received letters of
support from Cochise County, the Southeastern Arizona Governments
Association, Visit Tucson, and neighboring cities such as Bisbee,
Douglas, Sierra Vista, Benson, and Huachuca City, all of whom
understand the broader regional benefits that this name change will
bring to their businesses and communities. Their letters are included
as attachments.
Finally, I want to emphasize that this redesignation would not
require additional federal funding, nor would it result in any need for
taxpayer subsidies or increased taxes. The Chiricahua National Monument
is already managed by the National Park Service, and the proposed
change is merely a name designation. With an increase in visitation,
however, we expect local businesses and the Park itself to see an
increase in revenue, which would help support the services and
attractions that make our community thrive. Specifically, the Park will
benefit from increased revenue through its campground and RV hookups,
as well as from sales at the visitor store.
In conclusion, on behalf of the Willcox Chamber of Commerce and
Agriculture and the many business owners, public servants, and
community members who support this legislation, I urge you to pass H.R.
1479 and redesignate Chiricahua National Monument as Chiricahua
National Park. This change will strengthen our rural economy, enrich
our communities, and help preserve the natural wonders of the
Chiricahuas for generations to come.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We hope you will support
this important legislation.
Attachments:
--Pictures of Willcox
--Letters of Support: City of Willcox, Cochise County Government,
Visit Tucson, Arizona Office of Tourism, City of Benson, Southeastern
Arizona Government Association, Yaqui Hideout, Northern Cochise
Community Hospital, D&D Sales Inc.
*****
The following documents were submitted as supplements to Ms.
Preston's testimony.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
City of Willcox Arizona
September 11, 2024
Hon. Juan Ciscomani
1429 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Congressman Ciscomani:
I am writing to thank you for introducing a bill to designate
Chiricahua National Monument as a National Park.
As the Gateway to Chiricahua National Monument, seeing the name
change to Chiricahua National Park is imperative to the growth of
businesses in Willcox. Since the recession in 2008, Willcox has
struggled to keep pace with other communities and attract new
development. However, the community has rallied around tourism as the
primary focus for our economy. Willcox is home to Apple Annie's,
birding, wine tasting, Rex Allen Days, bicycling events and the
Chiricahua Mountains. Businesses including hotels and restaurants rely
on tourists visiting these spots to generate revenue.
During conversations with tourists at our visitor center, their
first impression of a National Monument is often a statue or a site
much smaller than a park. However, once we educate and share
information about Chiricahua National Monument, they are amazed at the
uniqueness, biodiversity and beauty of the area and make immediate
plans to visit.
Attendance at Chiricahua National Monument has increased since the
recession by 10%. We believe attendance will further increase if the
name were to change to a National Park designation and would bring
added revenue to small businesses in Willcox and Cochise County.
Respectively,
Michael Laws,
Mayor, City of Willcox
______
Cochise County Board of Supervisors
September 12, 2024
Hon. Mark Kelly
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Ste. B40B
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Mark Kelly:
I am writing in support of legislation to designate Chiricahua
National Monument as a National Park. I strongly believe such a
designation would help to strengthen the local and regional economies
through area tourism.
A National Park designation would significantly raise the profile
of Cochise County, both nationally and internationally, drawing
visitors to the region. In a report, ``Economic Impacts of National
Monuments Redesignated National Parks,'' the independent, non-profit
research organization Headwater Economics found that eight National
Monuments designated as National Parks experienced an average 21
percent increase in visitors in the five years after designation.
Additionally, total recreation visits in National Parks grew by 49
percent between 2000 and 2016, compared to a decrease of three percent
in National Monuments.
Because of its unique geographical features and outstanding natural
beauty, Chiricahua National Monument is a one of-a-kind destination for
Arizona tourism. Tourism is Arizona's number one industry and it plays
a significant role in helping sustain the economies of communities
throughout rural Cochise County. The Cochise County Tourism Council
continuously works to attract new and repeat visitors to the region,
and we believe this designation will make and important contribution to
our ongoing goal.
I would like to thank you for introducing a bill to designate
Chiricahua National Monument as a National Park and I enthusiastically
enlist my support in moving this highly beneficial process forward.
Sincerely,
Ann English,
Chairman District 2
______
SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization
September 11, 2024
Hon. Juan Ciscomani
1429 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Letter of Support to re-designate the Chiricahua National Monument
as the Chiricahua National Park
Dear Congressman Ciscomani:
As you may know, the SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization
(SEAGO) is the regional planning agency for the four-county region of
Cochise, Graham, Greenlee and Santa Cruz counties. SEAGO has been
designated an Economic Development District (EDD) by the U.S. Economic
Development Administration since 1991. As an EDD, SEAGO often supports
policy initiatives that have the potential to enhance the economic
prosperity of the region, and it's our understanding your office has
introduced Chiricahua National Park Act to re-designate the Chiricahua
National Monument (CNM) as the Chiricahua National Park.
In November 2016, the SEAGO Executive Board adopted Resolution No.
2016-06, which supported legislative efforts at that time to change the
designation of the CNM to National Park status. The Executive Board
supported H.R. 6190 because national parks attract visitors from all
over the world, and recreational activities and tourism play a
significant role sustaining and increasing the local and regional
economy. Moreover, re-designating the CNM to Natural Park status was
not expected not have any material budgetary or staffing impacts to the
National Park Service.
Assuming the legislation you introduce does not propose substantive
budgetary, staffing, or land use changes to the existing CNM, I'm
confident the SEAGO Executive Board would continue to enthusiastically
support efforts to re-designate CNM as the Chiricahua National Park.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please don't
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Keith Dennis,
Executive Director
______
Benson Arizona
September 11, 2024
Hon. Juan Ciscomani
1429 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Ciscomani:
We are issuing this Letter of Support for the advancement of
proposed legislation to change the designation of the Chiricahua
National Monument to a National Park. The redesignation would give this
geologic masterpiece the recognition it deserves and attract tourists
to Cochise County, where recreational tourism plays a large role in
helping to sustain the economies of our local communities.
Established as a National Monument by President Coolidge in 1924,
this ``Wonderland of Rocks'' spans nearly 12,000 acres and features
formations exclusive to the Chiricahua mountain range comprised of
towering columns, spires, balanced and standing rocks. Chiricahua
National Monument meets the necessary criteria to be elevated to a
National Park designation, boasting breathtaking natural beauty, more
than 1,200 species of flora and a diverse range of fauna as the area
encompasses four different ecological biomes.
The modification in designation can be accomplished without
imposition on taxpayers as the Chiricahua National Monument it is
already managed by the National Park Service and would not require
land-use changes, additional staffing, or a budget increase. It would,
however, ensure the ``Land of Standing Up Rocks'' is able to be enjoyed
by future generations of visitors from around the country and the
world, gaining and national and international attention to the region.
We therefore support approval of the Chiricahua National Park Act.
Respectfully Signed,
Joe A. Konrad,
Benson Mayor
______
Visit Tucson
May 3, 2024
Hon. Mark Kelly
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Ste. B40B
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Kelly:
I am writing to express Visit Tucson's support for the Chiricahua
National Park Act to designate Chiricahua National Monument as a
National Park.
As you well know, the Chiricahua National Monument is a stunning
landscape in the heart of southern Arizona. The ``Land of Standing Up
Rocks'' is extraordinarily unique and attracts visitors from all over
the world. Visitors can hike and explore this geological wonder,
experience wildlife, and learn about the significant history of our
region.
A National Park designation would undoubtedly raise the profile of
Cochise County and southern Arizona, attracting more visitors to
strengthen our local and regional economy.
Chiricahua National Monument is a unique and awe-inspiring national
gem and should be a National Park. Thank you for introducing this
important legislation to boost our local economy and honor a well-
deserving natural and historical treasure.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Bechtol,
Vice President of Strategic Initiatives
______
Yaqui Hideout
Pearce, AZ
September 9, 2024
Re: Upgrading Chiricahua National Monument to a National Park
To Whom It May Concern:
Regarding the possibility to change the Chiricahua National
Monument to a National Park, we fully support that move. We are a local
ranch homestead with Lavender Farm and Bed and Breakfast and would
greatly appreciate and support having a National Park in our area. I
think it would bring a needed boost to the local economy, increase our
business and expand local tourism. The Chiricahua Monument is a
spectacular treasure and does not seem to us to get the visibility and
appreciation it should have.
I certainly hope someday soon it joins the ranks of our other
National Parks!
Sincerely,
Bob Gleason-Moore,
Owner
______
Northern Cochise Community Hospital
September 10, 2024
Respected Decision Makers:
I am writing to you with enthusiastic support to encourage
Chiricahua National Monument to be named a National Park. This
incredibly scenic area is home to many hiking trails and truly
unbelievable rock formations. In my humble opinion, it is a collection
of geologic marvels nestled among the Chiricahua Mountain range and
well deserves recognition as a National Park.
I represent our local community hospital, and it is with unanimous
board support I write this letter. Not only would this enhanced status
give due recognition to the treasure we hold dear, but it would also
provide additional tourism to our area. The economic benefits to the
community would be well received. Clinically, we stand ready and able
to care for those who may require our services.
We respectfully request consideration for this modification to name
the Chiricahua National Monument as a National Park.
Sincerely,
Mo Sheldon,
CEO
______
D & D Sales Inc
Dunagan Trucking
September 9, 2024
To Whom It May Concern:
The change of Chiricahua Monument to a National Park would be a
tremendous asset to our town of Willcox and also to Cochise County.
The impact on my own business might be minimal but it would be a
huge asset to our community, and county. My business depends on the
agriculture success of our farmers and ranchers. From corn, cotton,
cattle, alfalfa, pistachio, pecans, to commercial gardens.
Willcox is the closest town to the Monument and would most
assuredly benefit from the re-branding of our beautiful mountains.
I encourage you to approve this proposed action.
Thank you,
Carol Dunagan
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Preston. I now recognize Ms.
Goynes-Brown, Mayor of the City of North Las Vegas.
Mayor, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAMELA GOYNES-BROWN, MAYOR, CITY OF
NORTH LAS VEGAS, NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
Ms. Goynes-Brown. Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member
Neguse, thank you for the opportunity to share my support for
this critical legislation. My name is Pamela Goynes-Brown, and
I am honored to serve as the Mayor of the City of North Las
Vegas. On behalf of myself and my more than 280,000 residents,
I want to urge support for H.R. 1504, the Apex Area Technical
Corrections Act.
I want to thank my Congressman, Steven Horsford, for
authoring this critical legislation and the Committee for
taking it under consideration.
Just in the past number of years, Apex has seen an increase
in development activity from global brands significant to not
just the revitalization of the City of North Las Vegas, but to
the region as a whole. This bill is an important component to
the continuation of the momentum in Apex.
Looking at a map, nearly 90 percent of Clark County is
federally managed land. Few communities, if any, of a similar
population to our region exist in this context. Understanding
that many of these lands contribute to our national security,
like Nellis Air Force Base, or conservation of our natural
resources, like Lake Mead, the growth occurring in my city and
in Clark County, it does create scarcity in terms of
developable lands.
Know that the Apex industrial site is the best opportunity
for large area economic development in the region.
Expediting consideration and passage of this bill will
allow for expansion of the economy and the creation of my long-
term career opportunities in a historically underserved part of
the community.
We are grateful for the past congressional action
authorizing the creation of this industrial site decades ago,
but this legislation is necessary to unlock the true potential
by updating and planning and zoning authorities while
maintaining environmental priorities and protections. Passage
has added benefit of reducing the permitting work required by
our local BLM office, which faces one of the most complex and
challenging missions in the country.
Again, I want to thank Congressman Horsford for his
leadership on this bipartisan bill and to this Committee for
allowing me to testify. I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Goynes-Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pamela Goynes-Brown, Mayor of the City of
North Las Vegas
on H.R. 1504
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse, thank you for the
opportunity to share my support for this critical legislation.
My name is Pamela Goynes-Brown and I'm honored to serve as the
mayor of the City of North Las Vegas.
On behalf of myself and my more than 280,000 residents, I want to
urge support for H.R. 1504, the Apex Area Technical Corrections Act.
I want to thank my Congressman, Steven Horsford, for authoring this
critical legislation and the Committee for taking it under
consideration.
Just in the past number of years, Apex has seen an increase in
development activity from Global Brands significant to not just the
vitalization of the City of North Las Vegas, but to the region as a
whole. This bill is an important component to the continuation of the
momentum in Apex.
Looking at a map, nearly 90% of Clark County is federally managed
land. Few communities, if any of similar population to our region,
exist in this context.
Understanding that many of these lands contribute to our national
security, like Nellis Air Force Base, or conservation of our natural
resources like Lake Mead, the growth occurring in my city, and in Clark
County, it does create scarcity in terms of developable lands.
Know that the Apex Industrial Site is the best opportunity for
large acre economic development in the region.
Expediting consideration and passage of this bill will allow for
expansion of the economy and the creation of myriad long-term career
opportunities in a historically underserved part of the community.
We are grateful for past Congressional action authorizing the
creation of this industrial site decades ago, but this legislation is
necessary to unlock the true potential by updating the planning and
zoning authorities while maintaining environmental protections.
Passage has the added benefit of reducing the permitting work
required by our local BLM office, which faces one of the most complex
and challenging missions in the country.
Again, I want to thank Congressman Horsford for his leadership on
this bipartisan bill and to this committee for allowing me to testify.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mayor, for your testimony. I would
now like to recognize Ms. Gabby Kubinyi, a member of the Gold
Star Spouses of America.
Ms. Kubinyi, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GABRIELLA KUBINYI, MEMBER, GOLD STAR
SPOUSES OF AMERICA, INC., WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Kubinyi. Good morning, Chair Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Gabby
Kubinyi, and I am the surviving spouse of United States Navy
Petty Officer Second Class Jeffrey Ferren, who died while
serving on active duty in Virginia.
I am here today to express my strong support for H.R. 9516,
the Military Families National Parks Access Enhancement Act.
This bill represents a meaningful step towards honoring the
sacrifices made by our military families, particularly those
who have lost loved ones while serving on active duty.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2022 authorized
the expansion of the National Parks Military Pass program to
offer free lifetime access for veterans and Gold Star family
members. This change reflected the nation's commitment to
honoring the service of military personnel and their families,
specifically those who wear the Gold Star lapel pin which is
presented to families of service members who have died in a
qualifying situation, such as in war, an international
terrorist attack, or a military operation outside of the United
States while serving with the U.S. Armed Forces.
The 2022 NDAA expansion was well received, but it excluded
surviving families who are eligible for the Next of Kin Pin,
which also has a gold star, and is presented to the families of
service members who die while serving on active duty, but
outside of the aforementioned qualifying situations.
H.R. 9516 seeks to broaden eligibility to include families
like mine. My husband died at the age of 31. He was healthy, as
far as anyone knew. But gearing up for his third deployment in
5 years, the stress and the caffeine that kept him going became
a deadly combination, especially with an undiagnosed heart
condition.
This change acknowledges a crucial fact often overlooked in
discussions about military casualties, that the majority of
military deaths occur outside of hostile action. In the year my
husband died, 2012, out of the 1,308 total military deaths,
only 239 resulted from hostile action. The remaining deaths
were due to accidents, illness, suicide, and other non-combat-
related incidents. This stark reality underscores the
importance of recognizing and honoring all military families
who have experienced loss, acknowledging that service-related
deaths are not limited to combat, and it provides much-needed
support to a much larger number of bereaved military families.
I would also like to note that H.R. 9516 would bring this
benefit in line with the eligibility for the military branches'
surviving family programs like the Navy Gold Star Program,
which is the Navy's official program for providing long-term
support for surviving families of sailors who pass while on
active duty.
While I applaud Representative Chavez-DeRemer on her bill,
there are still a group of survivors who are not eligible.
There is an opportunity here to expand its scope to more
comprehensively honor all who have given their lives in service
to our country. These families are those whose loved ones
passed away after their time on active duty from a disease or
injury they incurred during their service.
Many veterans have enjoyed their time on Earth in our
country's national parks, creating memories that their families
will be able to cherish once they are gone, veterans like Katie
Benson from Portland, Oregon. Tragically, Katie lost her battle
with cancer, which has been linked to her deployment to Kuwait,
where her barracks were next to an open-air asbestos disposal
site. While Katie was sick, the couple traveled across the
nation, finding fleeting refuge in the majesty of our national
parks while bravely dealing with her treatments. Her husband,
Sri, said, ``Those moments became our sanctuary, allowing us to
escape, however briefly, from the weight of our reality.
Visiting these parks now that she is no longer here allows me
to connect with her memory in a way that photographs alone
cannot capture.''
In closing, this is a commendable bill that honors our
heroes and their families. By expanding eligibility to include
all active duty deaths, we can ensure that we recognize and
support those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our
nation, regardless of where that sacrifice is realized.
Congress can ensure that grieving military families can find
solace and healing in the beauty of our nation's cherished
public lands, free from financial constraints. It is a gesture
that reflects our nation's gratitude and underscores our
commitment to those who have given so much.
I urge the Committee to consider this expansion and to move
forward with this important legislation. Our military families
deserve nothing less than our full support and recognition.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I am happy to
answer any questions the members of the Committee may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kubinyi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gabriella Kubinyi, Member of Gold Star
Spouses of America, Inc.
on H.R. 9516
Good morning, Chair Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today. My name is Gabriella Kubinyi, and I am the surviving spouse of
United States Navy Petty Officer Second Class Jeffrey Ferren, who died
while serving on active duty in Virginia.
I am here today to express my strong support for HR 9516, the
Military Families National Parks Access Enhancement Act. This bill
represents a meaningful step toward honoring the sacrifices made by our
military families, particularly those who have lost loved ones in
service to our nation.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2022 (NDAA 2022)
authorized the expansion of the Interagency Military Lifetime Pass, or
Military Pass program, to offer lifetime access for veterans and Gold
Star Family members, a significant upgrade from the previous annual
passes. This change reflected the nation's commitment to honoring the
service of military personnel and their families, specifically those
who wear the Gold Star Lapel Pin. The Department of Defense presents
this pin to families of service members who have died in a ``qualifying
situation,'' such as in war, an international terrorist attack, or a
military operation outside of the United States while serving with the
US Armed Forces.
This initiative not only provides free access to roughly four
hundred million acres of public land which are some of America's most
beautiful and diverse landscapes but also encourages service members,
veterans, and their families to make lasting memories enjoying the
country's natural heritage. For survivors, there is an added aspect,
the national parks as a place for remembrance, healing, and grief work.
The Military Pass waives entrance fees for locations run by the
National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
standard amenity recreation fees for the Bureau of Land Management,
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers sites for current military service members and their
dependents, veterans and Gold Star Families.
Although the 2022 NDAA expansion was well-received, it
unfortunately excluded surviving families who are eligible for the
Department of Defense's Next-of-Kin Pin, which also has a gold star,
that is presented to the families of service members who die while
serving on active duty.
H.R. 9516 seeks to broaden eligibility to include my family. My
husband died at the age of 31 years old. He was as healthy as far as
anyone knew. When he died, the ship he was stationed on, the USS Oscar
Austin, was about two months away from a 6-month deployment. As an
engineman, his job was imperative to the operation of the ship. This
meant he was working 6 or 7 days a week, for 16 to 18 hours a day. He
was also drinking a lot of coffee and Red Bull to be able to keep
going. Work, stress, and caffeine became a deadly combination,
especially for a sailor with an undiagnosed heart condition.
The expansion of the Military Pass program to include all families
who have lost a service member is a significant and crucial step. This
change acknowledges a crucial fact often overlooked in discussions
about military casualties: the majority of military deaths occur
outside of hostile action. For instance, in the year my husband died,
2012, out of 1,308 total military deaths, only 239 resulted from
hostile action. The remaining 1,069 deaths were due to various causes
including accidents, illness, suicide, and other non-combat related
incidents. This stark reality underscores the importance of recognizing
and honoring all military families who have experienced loss,
regardless of the circumstances.
Recent data further emphasizes this point. In 2022, there were 844
military deaths, and notably, none of these deaths were attributed to
hostile action or terrorist attacks. This information highlights the
diverse risks and challenges faced by military personnel, extending far
beyond combat situations.
The expansion of the Military Pass program is crucial because it
recognizes the sacrifice of all military families who have lost a loved
one, irrespective of the cause of death. It acknowledges that service-
related deaths are not limited to combat and provides support to a much
larger number of bereaved military families. By broadening the
eligibility criteria, this initiative ensures that all families who
have experienced the loss of a service member are honored and
supported, offering a small but meaningful gesture of support to those
left behind.
This approach better reflects the complex nature of military
service and provides a more comprehensive recognition of the sacrifices
made by service members and their families. It sends a powerful message
that every life lost in service to the country is equally valued and
remembered, regardless of how that loss occurred. The expanded program
will touch many more families who have made the ultimate sacrifice,
providing them with access to America's natural heritage as a means of
healing and remembrance.
The bill's expansion to more surviving family members is
commendable. I believe that this gesture recognizes the service and
sacrifice of not only the service member, but the family as well. It
would also provide a tangible benefit that can be extremely meaningful
for a family's healing and remembrance. This will also ensure that
these families will not face a financial barrier accessing part of what
their loved one served to protect.
I would also like to note that H.R. 9516 would bring this benefit
in line with the same eligibility to be a part of the military branches
surviving family programs. In my case, I have been involved with the
Navy Gold Star Family Program since its inception. The program shared
an email on the original expansion, and it has led to confusion within
the survivor community on who is eligible. Even the Navy Gold Star
Program shared the information under the assumption that all families
in its program were eligible.
While I applaud Representative Chavez-DeRemer on her bill to expand
eligibility for the free annual military passes to surviving families
of active-duty deaths, there is a group of survivors who are still not
eligible. There is an opportunity to expand its scope to more
comprehensively honor all those who have given their lives in service
to our country.
These families are those whose loved ones passed away after their
time on active duty, from a disease or injury they incurred during
their service. Veterans who die from a VA service-connected disability.
The 2022 NDAA also extended a free lifetime pass to veterans. This
lifetime veteran pass provides more than just individual access. It
allows veterans to share the experience with their loved ones, as the
pass covers not only the veteran but also the occupants of a single,
private non-commercial vehicle. In locations where fees are charged per
person, the pass admits the veteran and up to three additional adults.
An important implication of this expansion is its potential impact
on families of veterans who pass away due to service-connected
disabilities. In such cases, the surviving family members may have
already been granted free admission to these lands and parks through
their loved one's veteran status. This provision ensures that these
families can continue to enjoy America's natural treasures without
financial burden, serving as both a gesture of gratitude for the
veteran's service and a means of support for their bereaved families.
Many veterans have enjoyed their time on earth in our country's
national parks, creating memories that their families will be able to
cherish once they are gone. One such veteran was Katie Benson.
Tragically, Katie lost her battle with cancer that has been linked to
her deployment to Kuwait, where her barracks were adjacent to an open
air asbestos disposal site.
Throughout her life, Katie found solace in the natural beauty of
her home, Portland, Oregon. While Katie was sick, she and her husband
would spend hours stargazing together, enjoying their time together. As
Katie got sicker, the couple traveled across the nation, finding
fleeting refuge in the majesty of our national parks while bravely
dealing with her treatments.
Her husband Sri, said, ``Those moments became our sanctuary,
allowing us to escape, however briefly, from the weight of our reality.
Visiting these parks now that she is no longer here, allows me to
connect with her memory in a way that photographs alone cannot capture.
Katie sacrificed her life for the freedoms we cherish and reveled in
the beauty of this land. Expanding eligibility to next-of-kin of anyone
who dies due to their service, whether on active duty or subsequently
would be a profound tribute to their sacrifice and a gesture of healing
that far surpasses any conventional acknowledgment of their service.''
H.R. 9516 is a commendable bill that honors our heroes and their
families. By expanding its scope to include all active-duty deaths, we
can ensure that we comprehensively recognize and support those who have
made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, regardless of where that
sacrifice is realized.
This amendment not only provides enduring recognition for Gold Star
Families but also ensures they can find solace and healing in the
beauty of our nation's cherished public lands--free from financial
constraints. It is a gesture that reflects our nation's gratitude and
underscores our commitment to those who have given so much. I urge the
committee to consider this expansion and to move forward with this
important legislation. Our military families deserve nothing less than
our full support and recognition.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I am happy to answer any
questions the members of the committee may have.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Kubinyi. We are going to go to
Member questions now. We will start with the gentleman from
Oregon, Mr. Bentz.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank all of you for being here, and for making the effort
to appear before us today. It is greatly appreciated. I will
start with Justine Jimmie.
And these questions that I have are relevant to work that I
am doing back in my state of Oregon. So, there is more going on
when I am asking them than just what we are talking about
today. But I am looking at page 2 of your testimony, and it
sets forth some language that you would like in the bill. My
first question is, does that language intend to apply only to
the park discussed in the bill, or all of national parks?
Ms. Jimmie. Thank you, Member, for that question. You
actually bring up a good point.
As this is contemplated, it is directed to the bill before
you, H.R. 1479, but I think what it does is it lays out a
platform to extend this across the nation, because not only is
this area one that is rich in culture regarding Native peoples,
but there are so many places across the country that also have
that history, and it all deserves to be protected. And the
Native peoples in those areas also deserve to have access to
those lands.
So, while this is contemplated specifically for this bill,
I certainly welcome an expansion of this so that it can be
realized for other areas across this country.
Mr. Bentz. I am now going to ask you probably the most
difficult question, and it came up in one of my town hall
meetings 2 weeks ago back in Oregon, where someone stood up and
said, ``Hey, I was precluded from going out into a space I have
hunted in for years, and I was told by the''--I think it was
the Forest Service, it might have been the BLM--``You can't,''
because it had been closed off for tribal activities. And you
can imagine how angry this person was.
I was unaware of the details, so I simply said, ``Well, we
will look into it.''
My question is this. And I am a lawyer, and I have spent
lots of time working with what we call split estates. A split
estate is most simply understood as a house someone may own
located on land they don't own. So, the person who owns the
house would like to sell it, but they don't own the land under
it. That is called a split estate. And what I hear people
describing, and what I see in your language here is exactly
that.
The tribes suggest that they have been there for many, many
years, and that is the truth, and say, ``We should enjoy more
power, more control over our use of the land,'' and yet the
people who are here now say, ``No, that is where we used to
hunt.''
So, my question to you really is what is that foundational
argument that the tribes have that would give them a right to
the land? Because, of course, your language calls out the
request, if you will, that that right, whatever it is, be
recognized. Give me your best argument about that right.
And by the way, I have been in this space a long time. I
don't need a long lecture. I just want your brief response,
because I have a very pointed question to ask Ms. Emanuel that
builds on whatever your answer might be. So, make it very
short.
Ms. Jimmie. Certainly it is not my intention to lecture you
at all, but I will share my personal experiences.
With regard to your question about having these lands
closed off for general public use in certain instances, I
believe that those can be worked out within the national park
area for certain uses and for certain periods of time. We are
not intending that the certain lands be closed off forever and
for anyone else to use. But there are certain ceremonies that
will take place in these lands that have taken place in these
lands from time immemorial.
Mr. Bentz. So, we are going to stop there because I have to
have a minute left for the other witness. I would love to have
you follow up in writing. I really would, just your
justifications for that authority over that land.
Ms. Emanuel, I am looking at page 2 of your testimony, and
I am looking at the second paragraph, where you are saying that
the Appalachian Trail Conservancy should not have the power it
apparently asked for in legislation. And the language you use
is, ``However, statutorily codifying one primary partner with
unique rights over others could have unanticipated effects on
national trail management across a mosaic of jurisdictional and
unintended consequences.'' It sounds like that flies in the
face of what we just heard from the previous witness.
In other words, they, the tribes, based upon the
information and arguments that we are going to hear, want
additional rights. And we are going to be out of time, but take
your best shot at this, of why you don't think one group should
have primary rights over another when it comes to at least the
trail system.
Ms. Emanuel. We work with such a huge mosaic of partners
across all landscapes for all kinds of different mission
results. And in the case of the AT language, that sets a
precedent for us with other national scenic trails. Our
relationship with tribes is a really different set of
scenarios. So, I am having trouble drawing a parallel between
those two.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I would love to have more time. I
don't.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize
Representative Leger Fernandez for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And I
think it might be very useful for us to begin in following up
to some of that thought. I am going to want to ask some
questions because there is a different relationship that I
think exists with regards to tribes because of our trust
responsibility, and where these aboriginal lands originally
were.
Ms. Jimmie, thank you for joining us today.
And thank you, President Thora Padilla, who has submitted
some written testimony, which I would like to ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record.
Mr. Tiffany. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Statement for the Record
Thora Padilla, President
Mescalero Apache Tribe
on H.R. 1479
On behalf of the Mescalero Apache Tribe (``Tribe''), we write to
express our concerns about H.R. 1479, the Chiricahua National Park Act.
This bill would designate Chiricahua National Monument, which is named
after Chiricahua Apaches who are members of the Tribe, as Chiricahua
National Park.
H.R. 1479 does not adequately protect our cultural resources in
this area and does not ensure that Tribal members can continue to
access the area for traditional purposes and gather medicinal plants
and herbs as we have for centuries without interference. Also, this
bill should protect the landscape, view sheds, and sight-lines in the
area. The Chiricahua National Monument area is a Cultural Landscape of
the Tribe.
Long before the first European settlers came to this land, our
Apache ancestors roamed the southwestern region, from Texas to central
Arizona and from as far south as Mexico to the peaks of Colorado. After
many decades of wars to protect our homelands and our people from
encroaching Europeans seeking our land and resources through brutal
means, including massacres, the Apaches entered into a treaty with the
United States on July 1, 1852. This treaty, known as the Treaty with
the Apaches, promised the Tribe a permanent homeland in our aboriginal
territory. The Mescalero Apache Reservation (Reservation), located in
the White and Sacramento Mountains of rural south-central New Mexico,
was created by a succession of Executive Orders in the 1870's and
1880's. Even though the federal government forcibly removed our people
from our ancestral lands, the Mescalero Apache people have maintained
strong cultural ties to these lands, including Chiricahua National
Monument.
Three sub-tribes, Mescalero, Lipan, and Chiricahua, make up the
Mescalero Apache Tribe. Chiricahua National Monument is named after
Chiricahua Apaches, who have deep connections to this area along with
other Apaches; and, descendants of Chiricahua Apaches are Tribal
members. Famed spiritual leader and medicine man Geronimo and other
Chiricahua Apaches were held as prisoners of war by the United States
military from 1886 until 1913 when the surviving Chiricahua Apaches
were finally released and allowed to come to the Reservation. These
Chiricahua Apaches became members of the Mescalero Apache Tribe. The
descendants of renowned Chiricahua Chiefs Mangas Coloradas, Victorio,
and Cochise are Tribal members and reside on the Reservation.
To protect our traditional ways of life and our ongoing connections
to this land that would be designated as a National Park under this
bill, we respectfully request your assistance in ensuring that the bill
is amended to include the following provision:
SEC. 3. TRADITIONAL CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS SITES.
(a). INDIAN TRIBE.--Indian tribe means an Indian or Alaska
Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that
the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an
Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe
List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.
(b) In general-The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation
with Indian tribes, shall ensure the protection of traditional
cultural and religious sites in the National Park.
(c) Access-The Secretary of the Interior, in accordance with
Public Law 95-341 (42 U.S.C. 1996),----
(i) shall provide access to the sites described in paragraph
(b) by members of Indian tribes for traditional cultural and
customary uses; and
(ii) may, on request of an Indian tribe, temporarily close to
general public use 1 or more specific areas of the National
Park to protect traditional cultural and customary uses in the
area by members of the Indian tribe.
This language is essentially the language from the Valles Caldera
National Preserve, New Mexico, Section 3043, P.L. 113-291; 16 U.S.C.
698v-11.
Since the U.S. first began carving out National Parks from tribal
ancestral lands, tribes across the country have continually experienced
ongoing challenges to ensure that we can continue to practice our
cultures and traditional ways of life on these lands without disruption
and to ensure that our cultural resources are not damaged or destroyed.
For example, tribes have faced and still face a myriad of obstacles
from National Park Service personnel relating to access, ceremonial
practices, gathering, collection, cultural resources protection at
Grand Canyon NP, Yellowstone NP, Olympic NP, Everglades NP, Smoky
Mountains NP, Badlands NP, Glacier NP, and the list goes on and on.
Most, if not all, of these National Parks were established at a time
when tribes did not have the voice they should have had, and often
times these National Parks were created over tribal objections. Times
have changed since then and legislation establishing a National Park
should recognize, preserve, and protect tribal relationships to these
lands and help ensure consistent on-the-ground application of the law
from National Park Service personnel.
We thank the Subcommittee for its consideration of our views and
look forward to working with the Subcommittee to make the necessary
changes to H.R. 1479 requested above.
______
Ms. Leger Fernandez. So, Ms. Jimmie, you had described a
potential amendment to H.R. 1479 to protect traditional
cultural, religious sites in the Chiricahua National Park to
make sure the Park Service provides access to these sites. Can
you describe some of the uses and why it is key that we
actually allow this to continue on the land?
Ms. Jimmie. Yes. Some of the reasons an Apache would go
back to that area would be to collect food, food sources,
plants that would be used for medicine, and to participate in
ceremonies. But generally, it would be to be there, to be in a
location where our ancestors lived and thrived at one time.
Even though we have entered into the modern world, there is
still a strong connection to that land. And just as you would
understand a religious ceremony conducted in, say, a church,
Native ceremonies deserve the same type of respect and to be
able to occur in the lands of which they were started years and
years ago.
Going back to the issue of closing off areas, in my own
experience my daughter was having a ceremony, and while it
wasn't in this area, it was in another area, it was in a forest
area, we had to reach out to the forest and ask for permission
to have her ceremony there. Now, we had to wait until we got a
response before we could actually start the planning. The land
that we were wanting to have her ceremony at was our aboriginal
land. It was a land to which we had a strong connection to, and
yet we weren't able to move forward with that ceremony until we
got permission.
Under this amendment, there would be a baseline that that
access should be allowed. So, it would not hamper our ability
to move forward with our traditions and our ceremonies. Thank
you.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. So, you used the concept of a church.
It is sort of like saying the church has been built, the church
was built before it became part of the Federal land, and you
just want to be able to go back to your church. Right? And it
is not built in a sense, but their cultural significance and
historic significance pre-dates the taking of the land into
American ownership. Is that one way of thinking about it, using
your analogy of a church?
Ms. Jimmie. Yes, and that is the closest analogy that I can
think of. But absolutely, this is something that is connected
even in my own family.
But to go back there is just a feeling of connection and
understanding that there were a long line of people that went
before me and fought hard not only for themselves, but later on
for this country in military service, as well. So, to be able
to recognize that and to feel that can often only happen in
those locations.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. And would the language that has
been proposed--and I think that there is some good conversation
that is happening around this language--would it deny access to
the park for others who want to visit the park?
I mean, it is not permanent, right? It would be for
specific times and ceremonies. It is not permanently closing it
off. Is that correct?
Ms. Jimmie. That is correct. We don't envision a permanent
closure or prohibition of other people to use the land.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes.
Ms. Jimmie. But for the times that we have ceremony and
needs, sometimes those need to be done without the traffic that
a national park necessarily would gather and garner. So, it is
not that we want to cut off other people's enjoyment of the
land, it is that we want to recognize and be able to enjoy that
land ourselves, as well.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. And I have run out of time, but I
would note that in New Mexico we have a couple of sites--they
are not parks yet and, in fact, one of the reasons why the
tribes are concerned about them becoming parks is where this
happens, and it is sort of like notice is given, people know it
is happening, is infrequent enough that there is really good
understanding among the public about this, and it works fairly
smoothly, I would say, just in our experience in New Mexico.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Sorry for taking the
extra 30 seconds.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative. Now I recognize
Representative Moylan for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for our
panel today. I appreciate all your testimonies. They were very
helpful.
Let's see here, Mr. Caldwell, of the 21,000 acres of land
authorized for sale in 1989, how much of that land has been
sold to Clark County?
Mr. Caldwell. Is that a question for the National Park
Service, sir?
Mr. Moylan. Oh, sorry, sir. I thought, pardon me. I am
sorry.
Mr. Caldwell. It may be more appropriate for the BLM, and
we would be happy to get that answer for you.
Mr. Moylan. All right, thank you. Hold on.
Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude there for now, and if I
can yield back my time I would come back to this later, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady from New Mexico, would you like
to be recognized?
Ms. Stansbury. I would like to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tiffany. You have 5 minutes, ma'am.
Mr. Tiffany. All right. Good morning, everyone. I am
Melanie Stansbury, and I am deeply honored and humbled every
day to represent New Mexico's 1st Congressional District, which
also includes some of the historic homeland of the Mescalero
Apache Tribe, and I want to welcome Attorney General Jimmie.
Thank you so much for being here from the sister Tribe of
Mescalero. I know there are many relatives that are shared
amongst the two tribes as they are known today.
So, as I know that we have witnesses that have traveled
from all over the country to talk about different lands, I am
going to focus on Mescalero and their connection to the
Chiricahua bill. But I do want to say welcome and thank you to
all of our witnesses for traveling and being here today.
As has been discussed, and Ms. Jimmie, you have shared some
of this in your testimony already, I want to talk just a little
bit more about Mescalero Apache's connection to the lands that
are the subject of H.R. 1479, which is the Chiricahua Park Act.
As some of you may know this history, there is a long and,
in many cases, painful history between the U.S. Government and
the leadership of various tribes of the Apache, or Nde, people,
and Mescalero is comprised today because of that history of
three sub-tribes, which includes Mescalero, the Lipan, and the
Chiricahua, some of whom are well known to non-Mescalero
people, including Geronimo, who was the religious leader who
was held as a prisoner of war for many, many years before being
allowed to return home.
But long before that, the Nde people have lived and been
stewards of lands that range from Arizona, Texas, New Mexico,
Mexico, all the way to Colorado, and have been subjected to
various efforts to forcibly remove people from the lands, to
contain them, to ship them off to other places, and, of course,
a number of treaties and executive orders to create what are
known as the modern reservations today. But these are lands
that have historical, religious, cultural significance to the
people, and it is carried in the actual name of this Act
itself.
And I understand that H.R. 1479 is a bipartisan bill, and I
do understand that both San Carlos and Mescalero have had
productive conversations with the sponsors of the bill about
the amendment that is being proposed here today.
But I do want to take a few moments to say that, as the
Congresswoman from New Mexico's 3rd Congressional District just
said, these lands are so important to the cultural history, the
religious significance, and we have many, many examples in
other public lands that have been taken from historic
homelands, where exceptions and protections have been put in
the law, in the rules, in the regulations of our parks so that
the Tribal Nations who have connections to them can connect
with them and continue to use them for those traditional
purposes.
And the example that was given, the Valles Caldera, is
actually the language that would be the basis for the amendment
that I know San Carlos and Mescalero have put forward. And all
that language says is it acknowledges that history. It requires
that the National Park Service and Department of the Interior
do their due diligence and their consultation with the tribes,
and that they allow access and use of those historic cultural
sites.
So, Attorney General, I know you have spoken to this
already this morning, but can you with the last minute-and-a-
half that we have here, talk to us a little bit about that
generational connection that the Chiricahua people, the Nde
people have to these specific lands, and how that has carried
forward over the generations?
Ms. Jimmie. Thank you. In my testimony, I talked about the
history, and how Chiricahuas lived in this area, that they
raised their families, they participated in their ceremonies.
That is part of the history that--a lot of that goes down
through the generations in our oral histories and our stories
and what we are taught as we are youngsters. And that
connection also is a real connection, so that when we go to the
land, when we are there, we have this experience that connects
us back all those years.
I also wanted to say that currently Federal law generally
recognizes tribal ties on Federal lands, and that there have
been treaties and executive orders to recognize that and
protect that. So, this amendment is requested to be placed in
the bill so that it recognizes that and it also protects that
continuing connection that Nde have to the land.
And this language is really specific to the Chiricahua
National Park, because that area is so rich in our culture and
in our experiences. And for me, it is important that I continue
it with my own children and with their children, as well, so
through the consultation process we can move forward.
We understand that this is an important legislation, but we
want to make sure that it moves forward in an orderly fashion,
giving recognition to the history and also to the lives that
were lost in that area. You cannot discount that at all. So,
there definitely is a connection, and I would like that
connection to continue on.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you so much, Attorney General, and I
think it can't be said more eloquently than that.
And I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to working with
Representative Ciscomani and the sponsors to amend the bill.
So, thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Stansbury. I now
recognize Representative Kiley for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to enter
into the record two letters of support for the Lake Tahoe
Restoration Reauthorization Act. One is from a Tahoe
stakeholder group, and the next is from the Placer County Board
of Supervisors.
Mr. Tiffany. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program
September 18, 2024
Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
As the leaders of the Tahoe Partnership, a collection of public and
private partners dedicated to protecting Lake Tahoe, we write today to
share our strong support for the Lake Tahoe Restoration Reauthorization
Act (LTRA) (H.R. 1274, S. 612).
This bipartisan legislation would extend the expiration of the
current Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2016 to September 30, 2034. This
will provide another decade for Congress to appropriate the remaining
funds from the original authorization of $415 million to be utilized
through the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) for conservation
and maintenance purposes of Lake Tahoe and its surrounding areas.
The USDA Forest Service owns nearly 80 percent of the land in the
Lake Tahoe watershed, and the LTRA provides the federal share for
environmental restoration projects in partnership with more than 80
partners including California, Nevada, local governments, the Washoe
Tribe of Nevada and California, non-profit organizations, and the
private sector.
The EIP has become one of the nation's most successful landscape
restoration initiatives, serving as a model for other regional
conservation partnerships. Extending the authorization will ensure
critical EIP projects and programs to restore water clarity, mitigate
wildfires, fight invasive species, and improve forest health can
continue unhindered. The funding goes hand in hand with private, state,
and local funding to keep Lake Tahoe vibrant and thriving.
Congress passed the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2016 as part of
the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (P.L. 114-322;
WIIN Act), building upon the successes of the previous authorization in
2000. The WIIN Act included language to amend the LTRA of 2000 and
authorize up to $415 million in federal appropriations over seven
years, through September 30, 2024. Since 2016, $121.8 million has been
appropriated for Lake Tahoe restoration projects, about 29 percent of
the total authorization.
To date, the $121.8 million in LTRA funding has catalyzed more than
$500 million in tribal, state, local, and private matching funds. This
successful collaboration has resulted in more than 21,000 acres of
forest health treatment, 300 plus acres of essential wetlands restored,
more than 500,000 lbs. of fine sediment and pollution prevented
annually from flowing into the lake, and 51,000 boats inspected for
invasive species among other critical projects implemented by more than
80 partners. Additionally, the EIP supports 1,700 jobs annually and
generates $1.6 million in economic output for every $1 million in
spending.
The timing of this hearing is critical as we approach the
expiration of the current authorization. For a quarter century, the
LTRA has enjoyed bipartisan, bicameral sponsorship and the support of
local jurisdictions. With nearly 80 percent of the Lake Tahoe watershed
under federal ownership, congressional backing is essential to
restoring and protecting the lake for our small mountain communities
and the tens of millions of visitors from around the world we welcome
each year.
The Tahoe Partnership appreciates your leadership and support for
Lake Tahoe. We all benefit from the successful collaboration between
all sectors of government along with the Washoe Tribe, environmental
non-profits, and the private sector. With your continued support, we
can ensure that Lake Tahoe remains a national treasure for future
generations.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
County of Placer
Board of Supervisors
September 10, 2024
Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: H.R. 1274--Extension of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act--SUPPORT
Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of the Placer County Board of Supervisors, I would like
to express our full support for H.R. 1274 which would reauthorize the
Lake Tahoe Restoration Act (LTRA) through September 2034. We are
pleased to see that this legislation has bipartisan, bicameral support
as Lake Tahoe is one of the crown jewels of Placer County and the
United States.
As you are aware, the LTRA provides a comprehensive approach to
protecting and sustaining the environment and economy of the Tahoe
region by restoring forests and protecting against invasive species.
Nevada and California have committed to spending hundreds of millions
in the coming years to improve and protect the Lake Tahoe basin. The
Lake Tahoe Restoration Act is a keyway the federal government, which
owns the majority of the land in the Tahoe basin, can partner in these
efforts. Placer County has invested significant resources to ensure the
local tourist-based economy continues to thrive including supporting
projects that expand transit services, construct new trails and provide
additional visitor-serving facilities to boost the tourism economy in
North Lake Tahoe. These projects also meet environmental stewardship
and economic development goals.
Placer County is hard at work on environmental restoration projects
that enables smart development that allows for investment into the
community for years to come. We are also enhancing critical
preparedness needs and hazard mitigation in the wildland urban
interface against the threat of catastrophic wildfire. Placer County
along with the other four counties within the Lake Tahoe Basin have
committed to spending hundreds of millions in the coming years to
improve and protect the basin. To date, Placer County has invested $41
million on projects. That funding has been used to leverage more than
$286 million in local, state, and federal matching funds.
Placer County appreciates Congress for partnering with us, as well
as other local and private partners to strengthen the local economy and
protect our national treasure. Should you have any questions regarding
our position, please contact Joel Joyce, Legislative and Governmental
Affairs Coordinator.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Jones,
Chair (District 4)
______
Mr. Kiley. Thank you.
Ms. Regan, one of the great things about representing Tahoe
is being able to witness and be part of the tremendous spirit
of collaboration that exists in the basin that crosses party
lines, crosses state lines, crosses jurisdictional lines, with
everyone rowing in the same direction to protect something that
is larger than any of us, and it has really served to maximize
the value of the Restoration Act. And you have been central to
that through your leadership at TRPA.
I know you touched on it a little bit in your testimony,
but could you tell us a bit more about how active forest
management is working at Lake Tahoe?
Ms. Regan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Congressman Kiley, for the
question.
Absolutely. We practice what we call in Lake Tahoe ``epic
collaboration.'' It is really like collaboration on steroids,
because we have more than 10 Federal agencies that work in the
basin, the Forest Service managing 80 percent of the land. We
have two states. We have six local jurisdictions, the private
sector, the Washoe Tribe, and our many non-profit and community
member partners.
So, we have established what we really look to as a
national model of landscape-scale conservation across
boundaries and working with the community in public-private
partnerships. And we have been doing this now, really in
earnest, for 30 years since we established the Environmental
Improvement Program. And forest health is one of the top
priorities of that program.
And we have had two very significant wildfires over the
last 17 years. The Angora wildfire of 2007 destroyed more than
200 homes in South Lake Tahoe, and that was a wake-up call to
our community that this partnership must be strengthened and
really advance the pace and scale of forest health treatments
in the basin. And then the Caldor Fire was a test of that
collaboration and partnership in 2021, when about 10,000 acres
were burned inside the basin, and not one home or life was
lost.
So, we have invested substantial resources through the Lake
Tahoe Restoration Act and through all other funds to treat
72,000 acres since that Angora wildfire of 2007, and that has
made a difference. And that has also spurred investment from
private homeowners to do their part, because it really is not
enough for active forest management of public lands. Our local
homeowners must do their part, as well.
We have had 75,000 defensible space inspections over the
last 15 years, and our local businesses are partaking in making
sure their properties are hardened and safe from wildfire, as
well, because when that fire rolled into the Tahoe Basin, many
thought it would never get over a wall of granite. But we are
living in the era of mega-fires. We have a wildfire crisis in
the country, but particularly in the Western United States. And
what we have seen in action is that the partnerships and the
collaboration in place, with the backing and, really, the
backbone support of the Federal Government, has made a huge
difference in protecting our communities, but also protecting
this irreplaceable natural resource.
So, thank you for the question.
Mr. Kiley. Certainly irreplaceable. And I thank you for the
work you are doing.
Another threat that is faced not just by Tahoe but
throughout the West is the environmental and economic threat of
invasive species. Could you tell us a bit about what Team Tahoe
has been doing to combat the spread of invasive species?
Ms. Regan. Yes. Thank you, Congressman Kiley, for the
question.
Invasive species are a threat to infrastructure across the
country. Since 2007, when quagga mussels arrived at Lake Mead
in Nevada, we have deployed one of the most robust programs in
the United States around aquatic invasive species. We have a
prevention program where we inspect every boat that enters Lake
Tahoe, so we have inspected more than 100,000 boats since we
launched that program back in 2008. And when we find an
invasive species, which we do, we have to decontaminate those
boats before they can launch.
We also have a control program, where we manage invasives
that are already in the lake, so invasive species like milfoil
and other plants. And we are deploying one of the most robust
programs, public-private partnerships, where we actually are
getting Federal support, but also private-sector dollars from
philanthropy and other funding partners to do those projects
where we are having success in, for example, keeping Emerald
Bay weed-free, which is one of the most iconic places in the
United States.
So, the Restoration Act, again, has been really providing
backbone support for these programs. And it takes the
cooperation of everyone. We like to say we are all in this boat
together in this effort to fight invasive species, because it
is an ecological issue as well as an economic issue.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you for your testimony and your
leadership, Ms. Regan.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative. And now I will
recognize Representative Moylan.
You have a little less than 5 minutes, but go ahead.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
All right, just a quick question once again, Mr. Caldwell,
regarding H.R. 9492, the Kaweah hydrogen electric project. It
is critically important in meeting California's energy needs,
and the Secretary of the Interior has continually renewed
Edison's permits for use.
So, sir, can you please expand upon the potential
ramifications and the cost, say, for instance, if this permit
were to expire?
Mr. Caldwell. Thank you for the question. I think certainly
the exact cost we could provide to the Committee, but we
recognize the importance of these permits to the surrounding
community, and thus we have certainly supported this
legislation.
But in terms of the specific cost it would take to replace
these assets, we can provide that information to you or work
with, certainly, the park to provide that.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you sir. We are looking forward to that,
and also keeping these permittings going. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields, and now I am going to
take 5 minutes for questioning. First I want to start with
Mayor Goynes-Brown.
We continue to see these proposals that come in from Nevada
in regards to needing additional land for development. Is it
time for us to release more of these lands, or set a mechanism
up where perhaps communities like North Las Vegas show a need,
and we are able to transfer that more expeditiously and more
readily?
Because, I mean, Nevada continues to grow, right? And you
are oftentimes boxed in by, what is it, 87 percent ownership by
the Federal Government? Have you thought about that? Give me
your thoughts as far as how we could handle this so that we are
not coming in repeatedly looking at adding additional land for
development in Nevada.
Ms. Goynes-Brown. Thank you, Chair, for your question. And
the short answer, obviously, is yes, as we are experiencing a
population growth not just only in North Las Vegas, but across
southern Nevada and northern Nevada.
Land is becoming more and more scarce, so we would
absolutely benefit from the release of lands in various areas
of our jurisdictions so that we can expand both our economic
blueprint and extend growth and be able to attract businesses
into the region. And it would just be a win-win all around for
us, and especially for the growth. And just with the history of
North Las Vegas over the last decade, we would absolutely
benefit from more land.
Mr. Tiffany. Do you have any specific suggestions?
Ms. Goynes-Brown. Thank you for that question. It would be
just to be able to have processes in place where we can kind of
expedite the permitting, the planning processes, and that would
also help out potential developers, companies looking to
relocate or to set up shop in North Las Vegas and across Clark
County and southern Nevada.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you for that answer.
Ms. Preston, this Committee was down in Arizona a number of
months ago, and we saw the incredible amount of trash that is
coming as a result of the crush of people that are coming
across the border in Arizona illegally. Have you seen some of
that trash accumulation that has happened as a result of that?
Ms. Preston. We have seen that, yes. I don't have a
solution for how to fix all of that.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, well, I won't ask you for that solution.
We know what the solution is. But you have seen it. And I take
it other people in the county that you represent, Willcox, that
they have seen this also, right?
Ms. Preston. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, because what was the data? It was almost
200 tons of trash that had been picked up by the Federal
agencies as a result of the crush of illegal immigration that
is going on across the South.
How important was that 10,000-acre categorical exclusion
for helping the Lake Tahoe Basin control what has been really
great concerns for perhaps another massive wildfire?
Ms. Regan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have seen some major
benefits from that categorical exclusion. We really appreciated
the opportunity for the Forest Service to streamline some of
their procedures.
Lake Tahoe is very unique in that we have environmental
requirements from our organization as an interstate compact. We
do have environmental safeguards in place, but by working
together in that collaborative partnership over 30 years, we
have developed many procedures to ensure that the environment
is protected while at the same time streamlining procedures.
So, the Forest Service has taken advantage of that to
accelerate that pace and scale of work.
Mr. Tiffany. I was not able to go on the tour to Lake Tahoe
earlier this year. Has that categorical exclusion been
exercised? I mean, has it been actively used?
Ms. Regan. Yes, thank you for the question. Yes, it has. On
a number of projects along the South Shore, the South Shore
Hazardous Fuels Project used that categorical exclusion. Many
thousands of acres have been treated under that provision.
Also, utility resilience corridors. It is a fairly new concept
in the West. Those projects are being executed on the ground.
And we did take Chairman Westerman on the tour to see how NV
Energy and Liberty Utilities are thinning around power line
infrastructure under some of those provisions in the bill. So,
those are just a couple of examples of where that is being used
on the ground with great benefit.
Mr. Tiffany. So, in other words, the categorical exclusion
has been successful. And might that be a good model for other
parts around the country that are having the same challenges
you folks had?
Ms. Regan. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I know that is a
great policy debate among the Committee.
I can only really speak to Lake Tahoe because we have other
infrastructure in place that has made us benefit from that
categorical exclusion. And the formation of what we call the
Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team after that Angora wildfire is one of
those pieces that we bring together the Forest Service, all the
other fire service agencies. There are about 20 different
entities. Our organization participates. So, having that group
together that is working across boundaries to have the funding
and to have the community on board all come together in a
mosaic of governance that made it possible for that to benefit
Lake Tahoe.
And that, of course, will be different in every community
in the country.
Mr. Tiffany. Kudos to you for being experienced in giving
diplomatic answers.
Ms. Regan. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. We really appreciate that very much, and I
just want to close with Ms. Kubinyi.
Talk a little bit more about the national parks and the
impact it has on people in the example that you gave, and what
a powerful force that is for people to be able to get to a
better place when they have had something happen that has been
tragic in their life.
Ms. Kubinyi. Nature, just being outside, feeling the sun,
seeing the trees, the plants, the animals has a healing quality
for human beings that nothing else can touch.
When my husband died and I went home, my mom said, ``The
only thing I want you to do is go outside and sit outside for 5
minutes a day.'' When we have lost everything--because these
loved ones are everything. If it is your spouse, that is your
whole world that has gone sometimes like this, but sometimes it
is a protracted journey to one's passing. And for people to be
able to go into our national parks free from financial
constraints can be life-changing.
One of my friends, her husband, is buried at Arlington
National Cemetery. She went to Arlington to sit by his grave,
and then she wanted to go to Great Falls National Park. She
did, but she had had some problems financially with her
benefits, and she didn't have the $20 to get in, and they
turned her away after leaving Arlington, and she had to go home
and not enjoy the majesty that her husband served and fought
and died to protect. So, ensuring that everyone who has lost
someone has the opportunity to go and enjoy the literal land
that our loved ones served to protect, there is nothing that
can compare to that.
It is something that this country has in spades, 400
million acres from coast to coast. It is amazing. I have driven
across the country twice and stopped at multiple parks along
the way.
I don't have words to fully share what families who are
grieving a loved one get just from sitting outside. And then,
if you are somebody who has actually gone to those parks with
your loved one, to be able to share in those memories and be in
that same place where that loved one was, sometimes you can
feel them there, and there is nothing greater and more healing
than that.
Mr. Tiffany. That concludes our questioning today, and I
want to thank all of you witnesses for coming here today, some
of you who have traveled from far distances. We hope you enjoy
Washington, DC and all that it has to offer in terms of the
history of our country while you were here. But thank you for
joining us today.
Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
questions for you, and we just 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
Monday, September 23, 2024. The hearing record will be held
open for 10 business days for those responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Statement for the Record
Elise M. Stefanik, Congresswoman
21st District, New York
H.R. 8931
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and members of the Federal Lands
Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony on my bipartisan
legislation, the Strengthening America 's Turning Point Act for this
legislative hearing today.
My bipartisan bill, H.R. 8931, would rename the Saratoga National
Historical Park to the Saratoga National Battlefield Park. I am always
proud to share with my colleagues in Congress and the American people
that Upstate New York and the North Country are known as the cradle of
the American Revolution, home to numerous battlefields and historic
sites that were critical in shaping our nation's founding and history.
As we approach the 250th anniversary of American independence, it
is an opportune time to ensure the rich military history in our region
is honored and preserved for future generations. As Co-Chair of the
Congressional Battlefield Caucus, one of my top priorities in Congress
is to ensure the many battlefields and historic sites in Upstate New
York, the North Country, and across the nation are preserved to protect
these living classrooms for our communities and children to discover
our nation's origin story on the very ground where history took place.
I am honored to have worked alongside local officials and
stakeholders in our community to lead this bipartisan legislation. My
Strengthening America's Turning Point Act would rename the Saratoga
National Historical Park to the Saratoga National Battlefield Park,
which will more accurately reflect the historical significance of the
site and emphasize the crucial military engagements that took place
there. The historic site was originally named the Saratoga Battlefield
Park, but when it became a national park in 1938, the word
'battlefield' was left out of its name. This small but significant fix
to return it to its original name, a change that is unanimously
supported by the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors, will help honor
the Battles of Saratoga that took place at the site and clearly
identify the site as America's Turning Point in our war for
independence.
Changing the name to Saratoga National Battlefield Park will also
increase public understanding--of the deep significance the site holds
in our military history and honor where so many gave their last full
measure of devotion. This will increase the national recognition of the
site's importance in our country's history. The Battles of Saratoga
were the most significant turning point of the American: Revolution.
The American defeat of British forces at Saratoga marked a changing of
the tide in the Revolutionary War, securing foreign support from France
and bolstering domestic support for the American patriots and their
righteous cause.
According to a recent National Park Service report, the park
received about 102,000 visitors last year, generating approximately $9
million dollars for the local economy and supporting 85 jobs in the
area. Renaming our site the Saratoga National Battlefield Park will
help clearly inform tourists in our region about the importance of the
site, potentially fostering increased economic growth via heritage
tourism in our communities.
With the 250th anniversary of our country's founding just around
the comer, I'm honored to lead this legislation that acknowledges the
significance of the turning point in the Revolutionary War and one of
the most decisive American battles of the American Revolution. I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting the Strengthening America's
Turning Point Act to distinguish this site that was crucial to the
founding of our nation as a historic battlefield.
I thank Chairman Westerman and Chairman Tiffany for holding this
important legislative hearing and I look forward to working with the
Committee to continue to promote and preserve the rich history of
Upstate.New York and the North Country.
Thank you.
______
Statement for the Record
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
H.R. 1504, Apex Area Technical Corrections Act
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the
Record on H.R. 1504, the Apex Area Technical Corrections Act. This
legislation would require the Secretary of the Interior to issue
utility and transportation related rights-of-way (ROW) grants for the
Apex Industrial Site in southern Nevada. The bill would also allow for
the unlimited noncompetitive sale of sand and gravel resources from
lands on which the United States has retained mineral rights within the
Apex Industrial Site.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supports the goal of
facilitating public infrastructure expansion for the City of North Las
Vegas. We would like to work with the Sponsor to ensure that the
Department retains its discretion with respect to issuance of future
utility or transportation ROWs and that the sale or use of any Federal
minerals follows existing law and regulations.
Background
In 1989, Congress enacted the Nevada Land Transfer and
Authorization Act (Public Law 101-67); among other purposes, this law
identified the 21,000-acre Apex Industrial Site located outside the
City of North Las Vegas. The 1989 law authorized the sale of BLM-
managed lands within the site to Clark County upon their request with a
reservation made for ROW corridors. The 1989 law also directed the
conveyance of a 3,700-acre parcel of BLM-managed lands within the Apex
site to Clark County known as the Kerr-McGee site. As part of this
conveyance, the Secretary of the Interior was directed to grant ROWs to
Clark County for the connection of existing electric power, water,
natural gas, telephone, railroad, and highway facilities to the Kerr-
McGee Site. From 1989 to 1999, a total of approximately 16,000-acres of
BLM-managed lands within the Apex Industrial Site were conveyed to
Clark County. The remaining 5,000-acres of BLM-managed lands within the
site are reserved for ROW corridors.
H.R. 1504, Apex Area Technical Corrections Act
H.R. 1504 would amend Public Law 101-67 to require the Secretary of
the Interior to issue utility and transportation related ROW grants for
the Apex Industrial Site. The bill would also allow for the unlimited
noncompetitive sale of sand and gravel resources from lands on which
the United States has retained mineral rights within the Apex
Industrial Site.
Rights-of-Way
Under the FLPMA, the BLM issues ROWs for a variety of uses that are
in the public interest, such as supporting energy transmission from
renewable and conventional sources, expanding broadband networks,
encouraging economic development, and promoting public health and
safety. A ROW grant authorizes rights and privileges for a specific use
of the land for a specified period that is appropriate for the life of
the project. FLPMA further requires the BLM to charge rental fees that
reflect the value of the uses authorized by the ROW. H.R. 1504 would
amend the Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act of 1989 to include
the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association and the City of North Las
Vegas--in addition to Clark County--as parties to whom the Secretary is
required to issue utility or transportation ROWs to access the Apex
Industrial Site. The bill would amend the law by removing the
discretion from the Secretary in the issuance of these ROW grants. The
BLM supports the Sponsor's goal of facilitating the expansion of public
infrastructure for the City of North Las Vegas, which is in the public
interest, but would like to work with the Sponsor to ensure that the
Department retains discretion on the issuance of any future utility or
transportation ROWs.
Federal Minerals
The Materials Act of 1947 removed ``common varieties'' of certain
widespread minerals of common occurrence, such as sand and gravel, from
disposal under the Mining Law, and instead made them subject to sale or
permit. The BLM's policy is to make these materials available to the
public and local governmental agencies whenever possible and wherever
environmentally acceptable. The BLM sells mineral materials to the
public at fair market value and shares a portion of the revenues from
their sale with the state from which the minerals are produced. States,
counties, or other government entities are allowed to access and obtain
mineral materials for public projects at no cost under Free Use
Permits. H.R. 1504 would allow for the unlimited noncompetitive sale of
any mineral materials generated from activities within the Apex
Industrial Site. The BLM would like to work with the Sponsor to ensure
the sale or use of any Federal minerals follow existing law and
regulations.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this statement for
the record on H.R. 1504.
______
Statement for the Record
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
H.R. 8946, Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the
Record on H.R. 8946, the Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act, which
provides for the conveyance of the Federal reversionary interest in
approximately eight acres of land located in Sacramento, California, at
fair market value. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supports the
conveyance of the reversionary interest in these parcels and supports
H.R. 8946.
Background
In the mid-19th century, Congress sought to encourage the
development of the West by providing incentives for transcontinental
railroads. Among those incentives was the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862,
authorizing a transcontinental railroad to be built by the Union
Pacific and the Central Pacific railroad companies. As part of that
authorization, the Central Pacific railroad was granted a right-of-way
(ROW) across the public lands at issue.
This ROW grant gave the railroad a limited fee with a reversionary
interest held by the United States should the land cease to be used for
railroad purposes. The status of these ROWs has been an ongoing issue
before Congress and the courts since the late 19th century. Over time,
uncertainty over whether the limited fee included a reversionary
interest gave way to the lands being used for commercial and
residential purposes. Currently, the BLM does not have a programmatic
need for the land but has no authority to dispose of or disclaim the
United States' reversionary interest.
H.R. 8946, Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act
H.R. 8946 provides for the conveyance of the reversionary interest
held by the United States in approximately eight acres of land under
the administrative jurisdiction of the BLM upon payment of fair market
value. Under H.R. 8946, the value of the reversionary interest would be
determined through an appraisal by the Department of the Interior's
Appraisal and Valuation Services Office. Upon receiving a request from
a buyer, the Secretary of the Interior would convey the reversionary
interest to the buyer after payment of the appraised value. The bill
specifies that all costs associated with the conveyance, including the
appraisal, would be the responsibility of the buyer.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), which
is the authority under which BLM generally disposes of public land or
interests, requires receipt of fair market value for public lands or
interests transferred out of public ownership. This serves to ensure
that taxpayers are fairly compensated for the conveyance of such lands
and interests. The BLM generally supports legislative conveyances if
the lands are appropriate for disposal and the legislation includes a
provision requiring the payment of fair market value. The BLM supports
conveyance of the reversionary interest in the parcels for fair market
value, as it would facilitate economic development in the local
community and the parcels are difficult for the BLM to manage given the
residential and commercial uses currently occurring and the distance
and isolation from other BLM-managed lands.
Additionally, the bill directs the proceeds of the conveyance to be
deposited in the Federal Land Disposal Account (Account) established by
section 206(a) of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
(FLTFA). Under FLTFA, revenues from the sale or exchange of BLM-managed
public lands that have been identified for disposal in approved land
use plans are deposited into the Account for use in purchasing other
lands (or interests therein, such as easements) with high conservation
or recreation value. The BLM supports this use of the proceeds of the
conveyance given that FLTFA is anchored in public participation and
sound land use planning, while providing for land acquisitions to
augment and strengthen our Nation's treasured landscapes.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the
Record.
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Westerman
Statement for the Record
Tyler Ray
Senior Director for Programs and Advocacy
American Hiking Society
in Support of H.R. 9159, Appalachian Trail Centennial Act
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
Committee:
On behalf of American Hiking Society and the 59 million strong
hiking community who enjoy the trails and green spaces across public
lands and contribute to the outdoor recreation economy, we write in
support of the committee's consideration of and further enhancements to
the Appalachian Trail Centennial Act (ATCA), H.R. 9159, which will
support hikers, the National Trails System, and public lands.
With the Appalachian Trail celebrating its 100th Anniversary in
2025, now is the time to advance the development of National Scenic and
Historic Trails (NSHTs) by clarifying existing policy, recognizing
``Designated Operational Partners,'' and providing experience-based
guidance on how to further advance the National Trails System. ATCA
will be a valuable tool for strengthening cooperative management,
further securing the roles of volunteers and volunteer organizations
who have leveraged minimal federal funding to contribute over $835M to
support the National Trails System over the last three decades.
ATCA will provide invaluable information on visitation and economic
data for the National Trails System and identify ways to further
develop the system to demonstrate its value as part of the outdoor
recreation economy. The best way Congress can honor the 100-year legacy
of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail is by strengthening what has
made the trail successful for the past century and seek to replicate
this support for all National Scenic and Historic Trails.
Crucial to the hiking community, a well-managed Appalachian
National Scenic Trail supported by an array of federal, state, local
and nonprofit partners and using the best available data will ensure a
continued world-class recreation experience for the approximately three
million visitors each year. It can also enhance the experience of
hikers who may have more options to enjoy the Trail in compatible ways,
such as alternative camping sites and improved access.
We thank the subcommittee for holding this important hearing and
urge consideration by the full committee and on the house floor. We
encourage the committee to work with all nonprofit trail partners of
the National Trails System to further strengthen this important piece
of legislation.
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Lawler
New York-New Jersey Trail Conference
Mahway, NJ
September 16, 2024
Hon. Michael Lawler
1013 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Via electronic mail
Dear Congressman Lawler:
On behalf of New York-New Jersey Trail Conference, I am writing to
express strong support for H.R. 9159, the Appalachian Trail Centennial
Act, which seeks to enhance the preservation, maintenance, and
management of national historic trails and national scenic trails. This
legislation will enable better coordination between federal, state and
nonprofit entities in the cooperative management of the Appalachian
National Scenic Trail (A.T.), and bolster land protection efforts.
Further, the proposed legislation provides for a series of important
studies to collect data on visitation and the economic benefits
associated with National Trails, supporting the case for these valuable
resources to be maintained and conserved into the future.
The New York-New Jersey Trail Conference is one of thirty local
Trail Clubs that maintain and protect the Appalachian Trail, overseeing
approximately 164 miles of the Trail through the states of New York and
New Jersey, respectively. Officially established in 1922, the Trail
Conference shares a long and storied history with the Appalachian
Trail. The first section of the A.T. was opened in New York between
Bear Mountain and Harriman State Parks in 1923. Today the Trail
Conference is a regional authority on outdoor recreation and trail
access in the New York metropolitan area and administers a base of over
2,200 volunteers operating on trails in public parks throughout
northern New Jersey and New York states.
Concerning the Appalachian Trail Centennial Act, of particular
importance to the Trail Conference is the opportunity to strengthen
partnerships to conserve the landscape surrounding the A.T. Pressure
from development is a persistent threat and given the scale of the
Trail, preserving the wilderness experience intended by its founders is
increasingly challenging. Enabling a replicable structure and direction
for agencies to coordinate with local organizations in support of
conservation opportunities is critical for the long-term protection of
the A.T.
Additionally, the Trail Conference appreciates the recognition of
the success of the Cooperative Management System pioneered on the
Appalachian Trail, and of the local Trail Clubs, without which managing
this 2,190 mile trail would not be possible. This model continues to
enable and empower local groups to coordinate improvements to the Trail
and react to issues proactively and efficiently, with the necessary
oversight by the Appalachian Trail Conservancy.
We appreciate the considerable effort you and your staff have
undertaken in developing this legislation and reiterate our support for
H.R. 9159.
Sincerely,
Joshua Howard,
Executive Director
[all]