[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 298, H.R. 1167, H.R. 1259, H.R. 1633, H.R. 1846, H.R. 2015, H.R.
2259, H.R. 2657, H.R. 2954, AND H.R. 3188
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, October 3, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-45
__________
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.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-144 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Cardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Steven A. Horsford, NV
Raul R. Labrador, ID Jared Huffman, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Raul Ruiz, CA
Bill Flores, TX Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Jon Runyan, NJ Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Mark E. Amodei, NV Joe Garcia, FL
Markwayne Mullin, OK Matt Cartwright, PA
Chris Stewart, UT Vacancy
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Niki Tsongas, MA
Louie Gohmert, TX Rush Holt, NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Paul C. Broun, GA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Raul R. Labrador, ID Steven A. Horsford, NV
Mark E. Amodei, NV Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Steve Daines, MT Joe Garcia, FL
Kevin Cramer, ND Matt Cartwright, PA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, October 3, 2013........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Amodei, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 26
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Daines, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Montana........................................... 28
Letters and statements submitted by...................... 29
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Horsford, Hon. Steven A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Nevada........................................ 14
Letters, resolutions and statements submitted by......... 14
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 35
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, John, City Councilor, Whitefish, Montana........... 46
Prepared statement on H.R. 2259.......................... 47
Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 10
Heck, Hon. Joseph J., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 25
Larson, Hon. John B., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut....................................... 11
Lee, John, Mayor, city of North Las Vegas, Nevada............ 73
Prepared statement on H.R. 2015.......................... 75
McMillan, Kristin, CEO and President, Las Vegas Metro Chamber
of Commerce................................................ 68
Prepared statement on H.R. 2015.......................... 71
Miller, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of
Florida.................................................... 8
Neikirk, William R., Founder, Mill Springs Battlefield
Association................................................ 37
Prepared statement on H.R. 298........................... 38
Partin, Tom, President, American Forest Resource Council..... 50
Prepared statement on H.R. 3188.......................... 52
Rogers, Hon. Harold, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Kentucky.......................................... 9
Ross, Steve, Councilman, City of Las Vegas, Nevada, Ward 6... 76
Letters and resolution submitted by...................... 77
Prepared statement on H.R. 2015.......................... 83
Segarra, Pedro E., Mayor, city of Hartford, Connecticut...... 42
Prepared statement on H.R. 1259.......................... 43
Titus, Hon. Dina, a Representative in Congress from the State
of
Nevada..................................................... 24
Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York...................................... 13
Vogel, Morris J., President, Lower East Side Tenement Museum. 39
Prepared statement on H.R. 1846.......................... 41
Whitten, Pat, County Manager, Storey County, Nevada.......... 65
Prepared statement on H.R. 1167.......................... 67
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Prepared statements on H.R. 1167, H.R. 1633, H.R. 2015,
H.R. 2259, and H.R. 2657................................... 88
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Prepared
statements on H.R. 1633 and H.R. 2259...................... 86
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 298, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY TO EVALUATE
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MILL SPRINGS BATTLEFIELD LOCATED IN
PULASKI AND WAYNE COUNTIES, KENTUCKY, AND THE FEASIBILITY
OF ITS INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES; H.R. 1167, RESTORING STOREY COUNTY ACT; H.R.
1259, COLTSVILLE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ACT; H.R. 1633,
SMALL LANDS TRACTS CONVEYANCE ACT; H.R. 1846, LOWER EAST
SIDE TENEMENT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE AMENDMENTS ACT; H.R.
2015, LAS VEGAS VALLEY PUBLIC LAND AND TULE SPRINGS FOSSIL
BEDS NATIONAL MONUMENT ACT OF 2013; H.R. 2259, NORTH FORK
WATERSHED PROTECTION ACT OF 2013; H.R. 2657, DISPOSAL OF
EXCESS FEDERAL LANDS ACT OF 2013; H.R. 2954, TO AUTHORIZE
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO CONVEY CERTAIN PROPERTY THAT
WAS FORMERLY PART OF SANTA ROSA ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT
AND THAT WAS CONVEYED TO ESCAMBIA COUNTY SUBJECT TO
RESTRICTIONS ON USE AND RECONVEYANCE; AND H.R. 3188, TO
EXPEDITE THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SALVAGE TIMBER
SALES AS PART OF FOREST SERVICE AND DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES FOR
LANDS WITHIN THE STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST AND YOSEMITE
NATIONAL PARK AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS ADVERSELY
IMPACTED BY THE 2013 RIM FIRE IN CALIFORNIA
----------
Thursday, October 3, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Tipton,
Labrador, Amodei, Daines, LaMalfa, Smith, Grijalva, Holt,
Horsford, Huffman, DeFazio.
Also present: Representatives Heck and Titus.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. All right. This hearing will come to order. The
Chair notes the presence of a quorum.
Under the rules, the opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and Ranking Member; however, I ask unanimous consent
to include any other Member's opening statement in the hearing
record if submitted to the clerk by the close of business
today, and hearing no objections, it is so ordered.
Before we turn to the bills at hand, I want to simply
comment on the events that have been occurring under our
jurisdiction, especially on the Mall. Our new Secretary of
Interior has--I may be wrong on this, but in my estimation, she
has tried to bring an idea or an aura of new professionalism to
her Department.
In vast contrast to what she is attempting to do, I see
nothing but cheap pettiness on the part of the Park Service,
and it is more than just putting up barricades to stop World
War II veterans from attending open-air monuments, putting on
more Park Service personnel to keep people away from those
monuments than they ever have working them when they are open,
but it is a pattern of what the Park Service has been doing
that we have been talking about this entire year.
We have bills before us today where the Park Service has
closed down annual church picnics in Washington because it
makes too much noise for the park next door. We have
experiences in Nevada where families have had to raise a great
deal of money, go to court to try to get the ability of just
going in and finding their relatives who have died on that Park
Service property, and once the Park Service finally allowed
that to take place, after a long period of time and after much
money was raised, within a matter of days in the one instance
and a matter of hours in the other, those bodies were actually
located.
We have an experience of a river that has been
congressionally designated as a recreational wild and scenic
river where the Park Service has banned any kind of paddling
activity in that particular river.
We have had the Park Service--Lincoln Park here in
Washington has been open without ever having a Park Service
person walking around it, but on Monday the playground was
padlocked and chained, just the playground.
What we are seeing in the Park Service is a history of
inactions where they really don't care about people.
I am told the last time there was a government shutdown in
1995, I believe it was, that the Interior bill was one of the
bills that had been funded. They had their money. The Park
Service shut down their parks just for the fun of it in a
series of solidarity or whatever it was.
What this Park Service has done is just unacceptable. When
we hear about a farm in Virginia, Park Service land, but they
don't pay for the personnel, they don't put any money into it,
they have insisted that those people who are being paid by an
outside group, still have to close their park down. And the
last one is I heard that the parking lot at Mount Vernon, which
is not Federal property, has just been barricaded.
Now, if that indeed is true, then somebody should call for
this Park Service Director's resignation because that is just
blatant political spirit and meanness, not an effort to try and
help people out. I am disgusted with what the Park Service is
doing, especially when I contrast it to what I think this new
Secretary of the Interior is trying to do to add a different
level of professionalism in the Department.
So having said that, I welcome our--no, I don't. I will
welcome you here, but you can't talk yet. First I have to turn
to the minority members for opening statements they may have.
I will turn first to the Ranking Member of the full
committee Mr. DeFazio, if he has a statement he wishes to
present.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome our
colleagues, and there are a number of bills that will be heard
here today of which I am particularly supportive.
I do want to address my remarks to one issue, and it will
touch on what the Chairman raised about the shutdown or the
impacts of it, and that is one of the bills that will be heard
today, in particular Mr. McClintock, our colleague, is to deal
with salvage of postcatastrophic fires in California.
I have considerable experience with dealing with salvage.
Early in my career I cowrote, negotiated legislation to
actually do salvage after a catastrophic fire in Oregon, and it
was necessary to legislate at that point in order to get it
done on a timely basis. So I understand the concerns of the
gentleman from California and the other gentleman from
California Mr. Garamendi, who is, I guess, impacted by this, or
quite close to it, has also raised concerns about how we might
expedite salvage.
We met with the Chief of the Forest Service earlier this
week to discuss this, and here is the unfortunate thing. The
Chief wants to go in, do a thorough survey of the damage, plot
the whole mosaic of the burn, overlay all of the existing plans
for those forests to determine what and where and how they
might enter to do salvage, and that has all ground to a halt
because of this shutdown. I don't know the instances that the
Chairman raised regarding the Park Service and all the facts,
but in this case it is not mean-spirited, it is just reality
that these are not--that they will still fight fires, they are
going to still do some emergency restoration work before the
snows or the rains set in. They have already started in Oregon,
where I also had a very large fire that I wish to have the--in
this case it happens to be the BLM, although there is a rather
smaller fire which the Forest Service needs to look at in terms
of potential for salvage.
So, Mr. Chairman, as I said a couple of weeks ago on the
floor, we have some common concerns. I am not certain that we
need to--I don't believe that we are going to go down the path
of suspending all laws and judicial review to do the salvage,
but salvage does have a sense of urgency about it. There are
tools which the Forest Service can use. They have something
called an ESD, which I just learned about this week, that they
can use to expedite after appeals, or after they have done a
plan to preclude appeals. And we might want to look at how we
could further modify tools; if we could apply HFRA to forest
fires, a bill we worked on on a bipartisan basis years ago to
prevent fires, which unfortunately has never been adequately
funded by either a Republican or a Democratic administration,
to prevent intense fires.
So we have got a lot of work before us. I think we have
some opportunity here to work together, and I just wanted to
raise that. But I am hopeful we get this shutdown behind us so
that the Forest Service can do an orderly plan; we get all the
documentation we need that is necessary to look at where and
how we could do salvage, what restoration activities are
necessary; and then get an emergency appropriations of whatever
we need to do to get it done.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative
in Congress From the State of Oregon
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Two weeks ago we were on the floor of the House talking about
forest management and ways to reduce the threat of catastrophic
wildfires.
As I said then, there is common ground between Democrats and
Republicans on this committee about the need for restoration to make
our forests more resilient to fire and--in some cases--the need for
post-fire activities to help put our forests on a sustainable, healthy
path after a large fire.
But those activities cost money. Implementing the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act--which is bipartisan legislation that does reduce
government costs and time spent developing projects--requires
congressional appropriation.
Putting together salvage projects to extract some economic benefit
from post-fire events requires congressional appropriation.
Restoring the landscape, replanting, and executing emergencies
activities to protect communities post-fire requires congressional
appropriation.
Timber sales, hazardous fuels contracts, and stewardship
contracts--all activities my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
strongly support--require congressional appropriation.
But none of these things are happening right now thanks to this
illogical, irresponsible, completely unnecessary Government shutdown. I
hope members of this committee understand that what is happening today
in Washington is having real world, long-term, detrimental consequences
on our land management agencies, our public resources, and on the
communities and businesses that depend on these resources.
I know my colleague from California, Mr. McClintock, is very
concerned about possible delays in salvage operations in the Yosemite
Rim Fire area. He recently introduced a bill, which is before the
committee today, to expedite salvage timber sales by waiving all
environmental laws and judicial review.
I can understand the gentleman's frustrations and anxiety about
getting this work done. In fact, I have 100,000 burned acres in my
district from 2013 fires.
But I will tell you that the most immediate threat to delay in
salvage operations in the Yosemite Rim Fire area is not process and
potential litigation--it's the Government shutdown.
I talked to the Chief of the Forest Service on Tuesday. He has been
forced to furlough all non-emergency personnel--some 18,800 employees
total. The personnel that WOULD be working on planning for salvage and
restoration in Yosemite aren't working.
The only work being done in Yosemite right now is emergency work to
put out the last remnants of the fire, to stabilize soils, and to
ensure public safety. That's it. And when, or if, Forest Service
employees return from this disruptive and expensive shutdown, they are
going to be facing an even greater work backlog than they do now with
declining budgets and reduced staff.
You think these employees are just going to come back and pick up
exactly where they left off? No. Congress is creating a mountain of
paperwork for our Federal agencies because of the shutdown.
I would counsel my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if
you want timely salvage operations in Yosemite or anywhere else in the
country--if that's really your goal--fund the Government.
If you want to move forward with hazardous fuel projects to reduce
the risk of catastrophic fires like the Rim Fire in the future, fund
the Government.
And if you want to put your constituents back to work in the woods
and make sure the timber infrastructure in your district or State is
supplied with material, fund the Government.
I am happy to work with my Republican colleagues on this committee
on legislation that addresses fire and salvage. I don't think we need
to waive all environmental laws and judicial review to accomplish our
mutual goals. We should be able to come together on legislation that
provides our agencies with the tools they need to better prevent and
respond to wildfires and the devastation wildfires can bring to
communities and the environment.
But those tools would be completely useless to our Federal agencies
if they aren't open for business.
______
Mr. McClintock. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFazio. If I have time, I would, if the Chairman
allows.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Well, if you have to, go ahead and do it. He
actually has unlimited time for an opening statement. We were
going to discuss this issue later.
Mr. McClintock. If the Chairman would prefer to discuss it
later, but since the gentleman has referenced my legislation--
--
Mr. Bishop. We are going to talk about your bill in detail.
Mr. McClintock. All right. OK.
Mr. Bishop. Let me also turn to the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee Mr. Grijalva for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit the
statement in its entirety for the record. I want to thank our
colleagues for being here today.
Personally I am astounded that we are having the hearing to
begin with. The Government is shut down, employees are locked
out, and the public is locked out of their public places and
national parks, and everything is not normal. And while there
is legislation before us that I support, legislation that I
would like to probe even further. There are consequences to
this shutdown of this Government, and particularly the public
lands.
The incidents that the Chair pointed out that are going on
are a consequence of the majority shutting down the Government;
consequences that are unfortunate, painful to visitors who have
planned for months to be here, to bring their families, to go
to the Grand Canyon. The month of October is worth $32 million
to the Grand Canyon from visitors and from all the business
related to those visits. So $3.2 million a day disappears from
the revenue of surrounding communities and the park itself, 400
employees locked out, 1,500 concession employees that work for
concessionaires, the river runners closed, outfitters not doing
business. And so there is a series of domino consequences to
this shutdown, and while we can try to nitpick which one we
should and which one we shouldn't, we are looking at a
wholesale shutdown of this Government, and we need to remedy it
in that way.
I appreciate the Republican majority investigating this
Government shutdown, having detailed information. It reminds me
of President George W. Bush investigating how we got into Iraq.
The fact remains that this is a decision that was made and
a decision that can be resolved. The Park Service needs to be
open, the American people need to see their lands that they pay
for and sustain, and I hope as we go forward--and this hearing,
while important to the people sponsoring the legislation and
important to those communities that it represents, nevertheless
this is a hearing in a vacuum and a hearing that, quite
frankly, should occur once the Park Service is open and
functioning and we can have their personnel here to react and
give opinions regarding each one of these bills.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time, I yield back, and I
will submit the full statement for the record.
Mr. Bishop. I thank Mr. Grijalva for his statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation
I'm astounded that we're having this hearing today. The Government
is shut down and we're going to go on with business like everything is
normal? Everything is not normal. Despite the rhetoric from the other
side, this hearing is not normal. Because the Government is shutdown,
we will not be able to hear from the administration on several highly
controversial bills. That's not how government should operate.
While I appreciate that 3 democratic bills were included in today's
hearing, I'm wary about the motivation behind today's meeting.
On Monday, the majority voted to shut down the Government,
shuttering our public lands, including the some of our Nation's most
beloved and visited National Parks. People wait all year to see the
autumn leaves at Acadia National Park in Maine or enjoy cooler
temperatures at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. This year, however, they
are being turned away.
October is a popular month in many of our National Parks, and local
communities rely on seasonal income to get through the rest of the
year. This seasonal income is at risk. In Arizona alone, over 50,000
people visit National Park units every day during the month of October.
Visitation during October drives $3.2 million in economic activity.
That's $3.2 million being sucked out of the State every day this
shutdown continues.
Right now, people are being turned away from the Grand Canyon.
People who planned for months, even years, have to cancel their plans
and pack up their stuff. All roads and trailheads in the park are
closed. Hotels on the rim of the canyon are forced to close. River
launches have stopped. Concessions have stopped. The park has had to
furlough over 400 employees, and that doesn't even include the 1,500
plus concession employees that will be out of work during this
senseless shutdown. The shutdown has a serious ripple effect on gateway
communities. Grand Canyon National Park generates $465 million per year
in economic activity. Every day this shutdown continues the communities
that rely on the park are losing over $1 million.
Shutting down the Government has serious consequences and, like I
mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I cannot believe we are
holding this hearing today. We can't pretend everything is business as
usual. We have to stop playing games with the American people. On
Tuesday, the Majority held a vote to that singled out funding for the
National Park Service, the Smithsonian, and the National Holocaust
Museum. This was cute, but not an effective way to end this shutdown. I
voted against this piecemeal strategy. We can't pick out individual
programs that make good sound bites and fund the Government piece by
piece. People do care about funding the National Park Service. They
also recognize a ruse when they see one. Under the individual CR to
fund the park service, 81 percent of Department of the Interior would
be still be furloughed.
Several of the bills under consideration today are attempts to
expedite the sale or transfer of Federal lands. Ignoring the public
planning process has become a priority for the majority. But even if
they had their way, under this shutdown they've orchestrated, there
would be no one working to facilitate the sale of Federal lands. I just
hope they appreciate that little bit of irony.
Another bill we'll be discussing today requires salvage timber
sales in the recovery plan for the Rim Fire that burned nearly 80,000
acres in Yosemite National Park. Even though the impacted land in the
park is primarily wilderness, the bill waives all environmental review,
the Clean Water Act, and the Wilderness Act. Officials from Yosemite
have publicly indicated that salvage logging is not necessary, but
again, we aren't able to hear from the administration because the
Government is shutdown. Under the shutdown, there all of the staff that
could facilitate salvage logging are furloughed.
I spent this time to raise my concerns about the impacts of the
shutdown and questioning the rationale for holding this hearing, but I
would like to take a minute to thank the witnesses for joining us
today. It's not under the best circumstances. I recognize that, but I
do look forward to your testimony.
With that, I yield back.
______
Mr. Bishop. He is right that the administration is not
here, but will submit their points on each bill for the record,
especially as we move toward a markup.
So I thank all of you, our colleagues, for being here. I
actually appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Arizona
as well, and for those of you who are coming here and asking to
create a Federal facility in your State, I might just remind
you that the State parks are still open and functioning very
well. It's an option.
The bills we will be discussing today include H.R. 298 by
Mr. Rogers of Kentucky to authorize a study of the Mill Springs
Battlefield for possible inclusion in the National Park System;
H.R. 1167 and 1633 by Mr. Amodei to resolve issues and deal
with small tract conveyances; H.R. 1259 by Mr. Larson to
establish Coltsville National Historic Park in Connecticut;
H.R. 1846 by Ms. Velazquez to have the Lower East Side Tenement
National Historic Site Amendment Act; H.R. 2015 by Mr.
Horsford--and by the way, we are happy to have you back here.
You OK?
Mr. Horsford. Great.
Mr. Bishop. You are not going to have any kind of medical
issue with us while you are here? We are happy to have you
back.
Mr. Horsford. Stronger and healthier.
Mr. Bishop. Good. We are happy to have you back here.
H.R. 2015 to provide for certain land conveyances in the
State of Nevada; H.R. 2259 by Mr. Daines, the North Fork
Watershed Protection Act; H.R. 2657 by Mr. Chaffetz--or Chavez,
as I have heard you called all over the place--Disposable
Excess Federal Lands Act; H.R. 2954 by Mr. Miller to authorize
conveyance of certain property in some county in Florida--I
can't pronounce it, I am sorry; H.R. 3188 by Mr. McClintock to
expedite salvage timber sales damaged in the 2013 Rim Fire.
We are going to invite you to give your testimony for 5
minutes. It is in front of you there. We will then also ask you
if you would like to join us at the dais for the rest of the
procedures as we go through your bills.
I also recognize the gentlelady from Nevada Ms. Titus, who
has joined us here. We welcome you to the dais as well. I ask
unanimous--oh, and Mr. Heck as well from Nevada. I ask
unanimous consent that Members who are sponsoring bills as well
as the other Representatives be able to join us on the dais and
participate as well. Hearing no objections, we will proceed
with that.
Now, Mr. Miller, I understand that you are the one that has
the most urgent need to go somewhere else. Even though we are
going to invite you to stay, you are probably just going to
blow me off and not stay anyway, but we will start with you,
and then I will go down the row as well, and you have got 5
minutes. Please, Mr. Miller, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to go down to
the National Mall and remove some barricades.
Thank you to the Chairman and members of the subcommittee
for allowing me to speak on my bill, 2954, to authorize
Escambia County, Mr. Chairman, to convey certain property that
was on Santa Rosa Island that has been leased to individuals
that have been living on the island.
In 1947, the U.S. Government, pursuant to congressional
action taken during the 79th Congress, removed Santa Rosa
National Monument from the jurisdiction of the National Park
Service and deeded the land located on Santa Rosa Island to
Escambia County, Florida. Under the terms of the law, Escambia
County was given the authority to transfer property on Santa
Rosa Island with the caveat that they could not issue title to
the property. Rather, the county could only lease the land or
return it to the Federal Government.
Shortly after Escambia took custody of the island, they
began offering to lease the property to businesses and
homeowners, who would pay a lease fee, but would not be charged
property taxes.
In the years since this land was given to Escambia County,
Santa Rosa Island has grown from an undeveloped barrier island
into a bustling community with thousands of residents,
businesses contributing millions of dollars to the local
community, and tourists from across the United States and
around the world traveling to vacation on the island's pristine
white sand beaches.
Mr. Chairman, this is a fairness issue. These significant
developments on Santa Rosa Island necessitate a change in the
original agreement between the Federal Government and Escambia
County, and that is why the Board of County Commissioners of
both Escambia County and Santa Rosa County passed resolutions
asking me to introduce this bill that would allow the current
Santa Rosa Island leaseholders the option of attaining fee
simple title while protecting public access to the beaches and
conservation areas on the island.
H.R. 2954 is a simple solution that will allow current
leaseholders the option of attaining fee simple title to their
property if they so choose to do. Additionally, the bill would
help ease management of the island by conveying land that
currently falls in the jurisdictional boundaries of Santa Rosa
County but is owned by Escambia County to Santa Rosa County.
It is also vital to the many stakeholders in the current
community that current agreements governing conservation,
preservation, and public access or recreation on Santa Rosa
Island are maintained, and that is why my legislation codifies
these agreements into law in accordance with all resolutions
that have been adopted by the county commission governments.
This meets all the other criteria set forth to me by the Board
of County Commissioners of Escambia and Santa Rosa counties,
and it will help to ensure that individuals and businesses
currently living and working on Santa Rosa Island have the
choice to attain title to their land while also upholding
current conservation easements and public access to the island
beaches.
In closing, I want to add that my bill in no way affects
the right to public beach access, nor does it in any way change
the boundaries of the Gulf Islands National Seashore, nor
negatively impact the mission of the National Park Service at
the national park.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify this
morning at this legislative hearing on H.R. 2954 and speaking
before this subcommittee. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
I appreciate now knowing how to say Escambia County, and
you are welcome to join us if you would like to, and on your
way down to the Mall take wire cutters. I am told the Park
Service wired the barricades together today. Again, you are
welcome to join us if you would like to. If you have other
business, I understand that.
Let me turn to Mr. Rogers. I think you probably have a
couple of other things on the plate today as well. I will give
you 5 minutes to talk about your study for the Mill Springs
Battlefield.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HAROLD ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for this important hearing, and I am grateful for the
opportunity to speak before you. Truly our Nation is blessed.
We have a remarkable array of natural beauty, which people from
all over the world flock to see. Additionally we have a great
number of historical sites which have been dutifully and
faithfully preserved so that new generations can appreciate
what this country has been through and what their forefathers
cared for.
I am proud today to introduce to you my friend Bill
Neikirk--Bill, raise your hand so they can see who you are--
Bill Neikirk, whom you will see in the next panel, I think. It
seems like only yesterday, but more than 20 years ago Bill and
a group of citizens in Wayne and Pulaski Counties in Kentucky
grew concerned that the site of an important Civil War
battlefield in our backyard was in danger of being lost
forever. It was at that time that the U.S. Department of the
Interior classified the site of the Battle of Mill Springs, one
of the most important battles in the western theater of the
war, as one of the most endangered battlefields in Kentucky.
Today, thanks to Bill and the group he founded, the Mill
Springs Battlefield Association, hundreds of acres of
battlefields have been diligently preserved, acquired and
preserved. Through a partnership of public and private funds,
his association has constructed a fantastic 10,000-square-foot
Mill Springs Battlefield Visitors Center and Museum,
established interpretive signage, led driving and walking tours
of the battlefield, but above all they have created a very
vibrant tourist attraction which hosts thousands of visitors
and students each year, preserving the memory of this historic
battle for generations to come, including staging the
reenactment of the battle every January.
Mr. Chairman, the Mill Springs Battlefield Association has
expressed its desire to turn over their tireless preservation
work to the National Park Service and the people of this
country so that the joy of learning and of history will be
enjoyed by many more people through the years. My bill, H.R.
298, would start this process by evaluating the feasibility of
adopting this important site into the Park Service. I am proud
to associate myself with their effort and to have this
battlefield and generous group of citizens in my district.
I thank this subcommittee for favorably considering this
legislation. I hope it will be passed to the full committee,
Mr. Chairman and Members, and thank you for the time allotted
me, and I yield back what is remaining.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Rogers, and, again, if you would
like to stay, you are welcome to it. I have a feeling you
probably have other issues that you need to deal with.
I also once failed to announce that H.R. 712, which is on
the agenda, will not be discussed today, but will be reassigned
to a different hearing time.
Mr. Chaffetz, happy to have you back here again. Your bill,
number 2657, is before us. Five minutes. Go for it.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON CHAFFETZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the Chairman and thank the Ranking
Member for their consideration.
As you know, over the course of years, the Federal
Government has spent billions of dollars acquiring private
property and making it public, and through that time back in
1997, the Clinton administration actually went through an
exercise of assessing the BLM lands, and during that assessment
they categorized them. They looked at mineral rights, they
looked at road access, they looked at all the different uses of
this public land. But there was a certain portion of the land
that really didn't serve any sort of public purpose. It didn't
have road access issues, it didn't have mineral rights; it just
was excess Federal land that served no public purpose.
And as they did this assessment, the Clinton administration
came to determine that just over 1 percent of that land didn't
really have any other purpose, and so what this bill says is
let us take that little bit of excess that doesn't serve a
public purpose and let us put it up at fair market value and
sell it back as private property. If it sells, if people find
value to it, whether it is a conservationist or a private
property owner, they could buy that, and it would go back as
private property.
Now, it ends up that would be about 3.3 million acres of
land through a variety of States, mostly in the West. This is,
again, half of 1 percent, \1/2\ of 1 percent of all the Federal
lands.
So the number 3.3 million acres sounds like a lot, but in
the context of how much Federal land is owned by the Federal
Government, it is a very, very small amount of land. But in the
Western States this becomes vital to the education of our
children, because if you don't have property tax, which is
private property to generate the taxes that you need to educate
your children, like we need in Utah--we have nearly 70 percent
of our land owned by State and Federal Government. We have a
hard time getting the money that we need to educate our
children. So if we have excess Federal land, just over 1
percent of the BLM, my bill suggests that we would sell that
back to private property owners.
H.R. 2657, the disposal of excess Federal lands, would
responsibly dispose of nearly 3.3 million acres of land the
Federal Government reported it does not need, and selling these
lands could generate more than a billion dollars for the
Federal Treasury. In addition, putting these lands to good use
would generate economic activity, jobs, and even more Federal
revenue.
National treasures like national parks we have in Utah and
particularly in Utah's Third Congressional District deserve
Federal protection; however, during the Clinton administration
there was a portion of land under their assessment that they
found suitable for disposal. This bill simply would allow that
process to move forward.
I appreciate the committee's consideration of this bill. I
would hope we would find support. I would be happy to answer
any questions as we move forward, but I appreciate, Chairman,
allowing this bill to move forward and the consideration of
this committee.
I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate you being here. Once
again, we would extend you the opportunity to stay if you would
like to.
Mr. Larson, we are happy to have you here on H.R. 1259, the
Coltsville National Historic Park. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN B. LARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Larson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank you, and Mr. Grijalva, and members of the committee, and
certainly the committee staff, for the ongoing work that we
have been involved in. We are honored to be here. You will be
hearing in the second panel from the Mayor of Hartford. I thank
you again for extending an invitation to him. This will be his
second appearance before the committee as well.
I can't tell you how important this is to the State of
Connecticut. I think for many States it is important for us to
put this in the perspective of a small State. You can fit the
State of Connecticut in most of your national parks, and yet we
have this very significant historic spot that not only produced
the gun that won the West, but also was at the heart of the
industrial revolution, a revolution that ultimately--I know we
are going to get some disagreement from New Jersey about this,
and I have this argument on a regular basis with Mr. Pascrell
as well, but this was a place in Coltsville, as it is called,
where not only did they come up with the concept of the
assembly line and interchangeable parts, but we had a woman who
didn't have the right to vote when her husband Samuel Colt
passed away who actually was part of what would be back then in
probably a Fortune 500 company in the United States. They
became the first manufacturers to not only manufacture here,
but the first American manufacturer to manufacture overseas as
well. She developed the concept of firewalls. She introduced
housing for employees there, as well as forms of insurance that
ultimately led to a burgeoning insurance industry in Hartford,
Connecticut, but also saw the production of the bicycle, the
automobile, and the typewriter that were all part of what
people commonly now refer to as the Gilded Age.
It is a great source of pride for the State of Connecticut,
and I thank Ranking Member DeFazio, who visited recently and
had a tour of the Colts building and was taken on that tour by
Mayor Segarra, who you will be hearing from later as well. But
it also has the full support of the community, from the
Historic Society to the residents in the community, to the
religious community, the Chamber of Commerce because of its
vital importance and synergy with so many other State historic
landmarks.
And I take the Chairman's admonition to heart, but as I
have told him on many occasions, for Connecticut, and we
consider ourselves a donor State to the Federal Government. By
that I mean the amount of money that we send to the Federal
Government based on what we receive back is quite
disproportionate. And so this, of course, is something that I
appeal to the committee's genuine sense of fairness and
understanding how prideful this is and what a great designation
this would be to bring the prestige of a national park to the
State of Connecticut. You know from your States how important
it is to you and what that designation carries with it. We are
talking about a very small parcel here that we are dealing
with, and we are talking about 10,000 square feet where
probably the best collection in the world of that period and
that era of guns will be displayed.
And so it is with a great source of pride that I come here
today representing our community. We have been working on this
for almost a decade now. I am proud of the National Park
Service's support and so many others, both of our United States
Senators, and Senator Wyden who are supporting this as well.
And I especially want to thank the Ranking Member Grijalva and
the Chairman for taking the time with us and our staff and
meeting with our staffs to work out some of the issues that you
have expressed.
We are willing to do anything and everything that it takes
to gain this prestigious recognition, and I know it is a dear
thing, and it comes dearly to these Members, but thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to make this case before you today.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
And, John, once again, if you would like to join us, you
will notice that no one has taken me up on that offer, but the
offer is still there, and I would still remind the gentleman--
--
Mr. Larson. It is not personal, I am sure, yes.
Mr. Bishop. I told you, you had to talk about the baseball
diamonds out there. Too late, too late. You had your chance.
Mr. Larson. I just wanted to say and also the home of
vintage baseball for Connecticut, where we have Colts Ball
Field, which is right there on the facility and site.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Ms. Velazquez, we appreciate you coming in here today. We
recognize you for 5 minutes to talk about the Lower East Side
Tenement National Historic Site.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEW YORK
Ms. Velazquez. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member Grijalva, for holding this important hearing and
taking up consideration of H.R. 1846, the Lower East Side
Tenement National Historic Site Amendments Act.
Since our country's inception, immigration has been a
driving force in shaping our Nation's history. For hundreds of
years people from every corner of the globe have come to the
United States in pursuit of a better life. Their arrival has
made us stronger with their valuable contributions in a wide
range of fields. In my city, New York, immigrants have been an
important part of the cultural fabric. From Little Italy to
Chinatown, every one of the five boroughs has been enriched by
the arrival of immigrants.
Because of immigration's important role in our country and
in our history, there are a number of sites that recognize the
millions who came here from abroad to start a new life and help
build the American dream. I am sure members of this committee
are familiar with Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty.
In my district the Tenement Museum helps visitors remember
the challenges immigrants have faced when they first arrived in
the city and lived in the Lower East Side. Since being founded
in 1988, this local gem has helped recount the story of 7,000
working-class immigrant families who lived in these structures.
They demonstrate the challenges families faced in building a
new life, assimilating to a new culture, and creating a
brighter future.
The stories told through the Tenement Museum range widely.
The museum offers a glimpse into the lives of our first factory
workers. It allows us to see how a Greek Sephardic family lived
in the Lower East Side tenements. Exhibits allow visitors to
experience the shops. Some of our earliest immigrants owned
small businesses that provided goods and services to the area's
burgeoning immigrant population.
The museum has been officially acknowledged as significant
to our Nation's history. Congress designated 97 Orchard Street
as an affiliated site of the National Park System in 1988, and
the Secretary of the Interior declared the museum a historic
landmark in 1994.
As interest in the museum has continued to grow, there is
an increasing need for additional space and greater
accessibility. My bill, H.R. 1846, will help meet this growing
need. By having the National Park System recognize the museum's
expansion at 103 Orchard Street, the bill will enhance the
experience of those visiting the museum. Under H.R. 1846, the
museum will be able to open a new visitors center and transform
certain portions of the museum into additional educational
exhibits and tours. This legislation is needed because it will
make this valuable educational tool available to a wider
audience.
Mr. Chairman, the immigrant story is the American story. We
have always been a Nation of immigrants, and all our
communities are enriched by this infusion of new ideas and
cultures. The Tenement Museum honors the men, women, and
children who came here to carve out a better life and in the
process improved our country. H.R. 1846 will ensure the museum
can reach an even wider audience and continue telling this
uniquely American story. And I thank you for giving me this
opportunity and for the consideration of this legislation.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Once
again, the invitation to join us if you would like to, but I
understand Members have other commitments other places.
We will now turn to the introduction of bills that are
sponsored by Members who are here on the committee and the dais
as well. Mr. Horsford, let us turn to yours first, 2015. You
are recognized for 5 minutes to introduce your legislation.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVEN A. HORSFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Horsford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, to you and
to the Ranking Member Mr. Grijalva, for scheduling this hearing
today.
The consensus on this important and bipartisan bill, H.R.
2015, truly is remarkable. I have dozens of letters,
resolutions, and statements of support from countless elected
officials, community leaders, and citizen groups who are all
asking this Congress to recognize Tule Springs be designated as
a national monument. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask
that they be included in the record with your permission.
Permission to include those in the record.
Mr. Bishop. Yes.
[The letters, resolutions and statements submitted by Mr.
Horsford follow:]
Letter Submitted for the Record by the Board of County Commissioners,
Clark County, Nevada
Clark County Government Center,
Las Vegas, Nevada,
June 17, 2013.
To: Nevada Congressional Delegation:
The Honorable Harry Reid, The Honorable Dean Heller, The Honorable
Mark Amodei, The Honorable Joe Heck, The Honorable Steven Horsford, The
Honorable Dina Titus.
Re: S. 974 and H.R. 2015--Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule
Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013.
Please accept this letter as my support of S. 974 and H.R. 2015--
The Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National
Monument Act of 2013. Community support for Tule Springs legislation
has been broad and inclusive, and it's important to note that the
entire Nevada delegation (three Republicans and three Democrats) co-
sponsored this legislation. I encourage the swift passage of this
legislation so the Tule Springs National Monument may begin to take
place. In the northern outskirts of Clark County/Las Vegas, thousands
of fossils or Ice Age creatures' remains are buried. Founded in 2007,
the Protectors of Tule Springs (POTS) has worked tirelessly to make
certain this area is preserved and protected. I want future generations
to enjoy all that is to be learned and seen in this wonderful area.
I fully support designating this area a National Monument, managed
by the National Park Service. It has the unanimous support of local
elected officials, the United States Air Force, the Las Vegas Paiute
Tribe, tourism industry leaders, educators, scientists, conservation
organizations, and community groups. In addition, thousands of people
have registered their support. It is the right time and the right thing
to do.
Thank you,
Tom Collins,
Clark County Commissioner.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the Board of County Commissioners,
Clark County, Nevada
Clark County Government Center,
Las Vegas, Nevada,
June 4, 2013
The Honorable Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510. The Honorable Dean Heller,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
The Honorable Mark E.
Amodei,
U.S. House of
Representative,
Washington, DC 20515. The Honorable Joseph J. Heck,
U.S. House of Representative,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Steven A.
Horsford,
U.S. House of
Representative,
Washington, DC 20515. The Honorable Dina Titus,
U.S. House of Representative,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: S. 974 and H.R. 2015--Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule
Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013
Dear Congressional Delegation:
I am writing in support of the above referenced act. The Upper Las
Vegas Wash contains thousands of paleontological resources from the
Pleistocene Epoch that are preserved in a unique geological context
that are of national importance. Designation of this site as a National
Monument would protect the unique fossil resources of the area and the
geological context of those resources for present and future
generations while allowing for public education and continued
scientific research opportunities.
In studies of the area conducted during the last decade, the Bureau
of Land Management and National Park Service determined that the area
likely contains the longest continuous section of Pleistocene strata in
the desert southwest, which span multiple important global climate
cooling and warming episodes.
The Upper Las Vegas Wash is significant to the culture and history
of the native and indigenous people of the area, including the Southern
Paiute Tribe.
The entire Nevada delegation along with Clark County and the cities
of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas has shown its support for this
legislation.
This designation would protect the fossil specimens and, hopefully,
lead to a new tourist destination as well.
I request and urge the swift passage of the legislation so that the
development of a management plan that provides for the long-term
protection and management of the Monument can be accomplished soon.
Sincerely,
Chris Giunchigliani,
Commissioner.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the City of North Las Vegas
Office of the Mayor and City Council,
North Las Vegas, Nevada,
June 3, 2013.
Honorable Steven A. Horsford,
2250 Las Vegas Blvd North, Suite 500,
North Las Vegas, NV 89030.
Dear Congressman Horsford:
The city of North Las Vegas City Council wishes to express our
support for H.R. 2015, the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule
Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. We believe this
legislation reflects a well-balanced approach to public land management
policy in the Las Vegas Valley, and we urge you to support this
important measure.
The legislation would achieve important conservation goals by
establishing the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. Located at
the northern edge of the Las Vegas Valley and within the boundaries of
the Cities of North Las Vegas and Las Vegas (the ``Cities'') are the
Tule Springs National Register Historic Site and an area known as the
Upper Las Vegas Wash, a unique natural drainage channel that carries
storm water from the surrounding mountains toward Lake Mead. Found
within these areas are significant paleontological sites containing
numerous fossils demonstrative of the Pleistocene Ice Age that span
geologic history from 7,000 to nearly 200,000 years ago. These areas
also contain endangered and imperiled plants such as the Merriam's and
Las Vegas Bearpoppy and the Las Vegas Buckwheat, as well as important
habitat for threatened species such as the desert tortoise and
burrowing owls.
Recognizing the significance of these areas, the mayors and city
councils of the Cities unanimously passed a resolution, in
collaboration with the Clark County Commission and the Tribal Council
of the Southern Nevada Paiute Tribe, requesting that Congress designate
the area surrounding Tule Springs and the Upper Las Vegas Wash a unit
of the National Park Service. We believe a national monument is the
appropriate designation. Due to the large number and variety of
resources that are available for study and viewing within the area it
is expected that the national monument would attract visitors from all
over the world with a wide range of interests, including educational,
scientific, cultural and recreational. The Cities have worked closely
with a broad range of stakeholders, including the U.S. Air Force,
conservation groups, and NV Energy, to develop a boundary for the
national monument that balances conservation and resource protection
with the future growth needs of the Cities.
The legislation also facilitates important economic development
goals for the city by making surplus Federal land available for future
job creation and development in accordance with local land use plans.
The city expects the release of these lands to create thousands of jobs
over the next decade.
The city appreciates all you do for southern Nevada, and we thank
you for your support of this important public lands legislation for the
benefit of current and future generations of Las Vegas Valley residents
and visitors.
Sincerely,
Shari L. Buck,
Mayor.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by The City of North Las Vegas
Mayor-Elect,
North Las Vegas, Nevada,
June 6, 2013.
The Honorable Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510. The Honorable Dean Heller,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
The Honorable Mark E.
Amodei,
U.S. House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515. The Honorable Joseph J. Heck,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Steven A.
Horsford,
U.S. House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515. The Honorable Dina Titus,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Re: S. 974 and H.R. 2015--Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule
Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013.
Dear Sen. Reid, Sen. Heller, Rep. Heck, Rep. Amodei, Rep Titus, and
Rep. Horsford:
I am writing to strongly urge you to support S. 974 and H.R. 2015--
The Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National
Monument Act of 2013. As Mayor-Elect of North Las Vegas, I believe the
National Monument is not only culturally and historically significant,
but has the potential to provide a positive economic affect on our
city.
The broad and overwhelming community support for the Tule Springs
legislation matches the bi-partisan effort of the entire Nevada
Congressional delegation. While on the campaign trail over the last
several months, a countless number of people expressed their support
and excitement for Tule Springs. Nevadans are excited and eager for the
wonderful addition of the monument to our State.
I hope you will continue your work to quickly pass the Tule Springs
Fossil Beds National Monument Act. Thank you for your consideration of
this important issue.
Respectfully,
John Lee.
Mayor-Elect, North Las Vegas.
______
Clark County
Board of County Commissioners
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION
OF AN AREA KNOWN AS THE UPPER LAS VEGAS WASH
AS AN URBAN NATIONAL PARK UNIT
MANAGED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
WHEREAS, Americans have deep and enduring love for the National Park
System, and places identified as national park units embody America's
highest ideals and values; and
WHEREAS, America's National Park System enjoys consistent and global
goodwill, embraces more than 272 million visitors, generates more than
$10 billion for local economies, and generates community pride; and
WHEREAS, the Upper Las Vegas Wash has been deemed worthy of inclusion
in the National Park System; and
WHEREAS, the Upper Las Vegas Wash has been confirmed by scientists to
have significant paleontological fossils demonstrative of the
Pleistocene Ice Age, and these fossil findings appear to contain the
longest continuous section of Pleistocene strata, spanning important
global climate cooling and warming episode in the desert Southwest; and
WHEREAS, a four-month intensive study of the area in 1962, chronicled
by National Geographic, catalogued thousands of Ice Age mammal fossils
including Columbian Mammoth, Ground Sloth, American Lion, Camelops,
Bison and ancient species of Horse and found this area ``greatly
significant;'' and
WHEREAS, the significance of the Upper Las Vegas Wash area, established
in 1962, was re-confirmed in the past few years with the scientifically
documented removal of thousands of fossils through recent paleontology
studies and inventory contracted by the Bureau of Land Management, and
through a 2009 study commissioned by the National Park Service; and
WHEREAS, findings of Ice Age palynomorphs (plants) and invertebrates
(animals) within the Upper Las Vegas Wash provide study opportunities
uncommon in most fossil localities, and are thus are expected to
attract international scientific interest and onsite research; and
WHEREAS, the Upper Las Vegas Wash is significant to native and
indigenous people and offers interpretive opportunities to show a broad
range of history, from Ice Age through Native American history to
contemporary culture; and
WHEREAS, the vision for the Upper Las Vegas Wash as a new national park
unit is expected to include state-of-the-art visitor facilities and
amenities, working field sites in which the public can observe
scientific research, paleontology curation facilities; and interpretive
displays that engage visitors in area history, flora and fauna; and
WHEREAS, the Upper Las Vegas Wash is expected to attract international
and domestic visitors to bolster tourism revenues; and
WHEREAS, the proximity of the new national park unit is expected to be
used as an educational resource for the area's schoolchildren, and
integrated into plans for the northern campus of the University of
Nevada Las Vegas; and
WHEREAS, the protection and conservation of the natural, cultural and
paleontological resources within an urban national park unit will
enhance southern Nevada's efforts for sustainable economic growth; and
WHEREAS, the American people have entrusted the National Park Service
for nearly a century with the care of our most special places and
treasures, and have recognized that creating national park units
preserves special places in perpetuity, for our children, grandchildren
and their children; and
WHEREAS, it is a privilege to add a new park designation to 392 units
within the National Park Service; and
WHEREAS, the Clark County Board of Commissioners, the Las Vegas City
Council, and the North Las Vegas City Council support establishing an
area of the Upper Las Vegas Wash as a national park unit and recognize
the rare opportunity to create a new urban national park unit, managed
by the National Park Service; and
WHEREAS, we intend for Clark County, the city of Las Vegas, the city of
North Las Vegas, and the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe to work with local,
State, tribal and Federal jurisdictions and agencies to collaboratively
participate in the planning of the new urban national park unit;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Clark County Board of
Commissioners urge the United State Congress, the U.S. Department of
Interior, and the National Park Service to make a land management
designation that is appropriate for the protection of the resources,
done in a timely manner to avoid further degradation of the area, with
appropriate funding to fully develop the scientific, educational and
recreational potential.
______
Letter Submitted for Record by the Department of the Air Force
Headquarters 99th Air Base Wing,
Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada,
November 13, 2009.
Colonel Howard D. Belote,
Commander,
430 Grissom Ave, Suite 101,
Nellis AFB, NV 8919.1
Chairman Rory Reid,
Clark County Board of County Commissioners,
500 Grand Central Pkwy,
Las Vegas, NV 89106.
Dear Chairman Reid,
On behalf of Team Nellis, which comprises Nellis AFB, Creech AFB,
Tonopah Test Range, and the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), I
would like to express our ongoing support for the protection and
conservation of the Upper Las Vegas Wash. We believe the various
efforts to protect this sensitive region, such as your resolution, are
integral to the sustainment of Team Nellis's future by maintaining
current and future air and ground military operations throughout the
region.
Team Nellis is one of our Nation's most valuable military
complexes. We conduct approximately 40,000 test and training flights
each year. Our missions range from operational testing of new weapons
systems and simulated combat during allied Red Flag operations, to
ground combat operations and real-time combat missions flown from
Creech AFB in Indian Springs. The Nellis Complex is truly a national
treasure, and the unmatched testing and training capabilities it
provides are critical to our ability to fight and win our Nation's
wars.
Compatible conservation of the Upper Las Vegas Wash region presents
a great opportunity to protect two different national treasures--the
Wash and the Nellis Complex. As you know, the wash region contains
significant paleontological, botanical, and cultural resources on the
ground, which require long term protective measures. In addition, the
area also provides critical airspace that supports Team Nellis's air
and ground operations. We have crucial low/high-level flight arrival,
departure, and training routes throughout the wash region, and the area
serves as a gateway to our testing and training ranges. By federally
protecting the region with an associated military aviation reservation,
we can ensure the sustainment of both critical habitat and military
airspace, creating a truly win-win compatible future for Nevada.
Team Nellis remains committed to working with community leaders to
develop processes that foster compatible growth solutions to secure
Nevada's future. My point of contact for this matter is Ms. Deb
MacNeill, Director of Public Partnerships.
Howard D. Belote,
Colonel, USAF.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the National Parks Conservation
Association
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150,
Las Vegas, NV 89145,
June 3, 2013.
TO: The Honorable Harry Reid, The Honorable Dean Heller, The Honorable
Mark Amodei, The Honorable Joe Heck, The Honorable Steven Horsford,
and The Honorable Dina Titus.
RE: S. 974 and H.R. 2015--The Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule
Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013.
FROM: The National Parks Conservation Association.
On behalf of more than 350 million visitors to America's national
parks, more than 800,000 members of the National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA), and nearly 5,000 members and parks enthusiasts from
Nevada who are actively engaged with NPCA, we thank all members of
Nevada's Congressional delegation for legislation to create Tule
Springs Fossil Beds National Monument.
Legislation to protect this fossil-dense are in the northwest part
of the Las Vegas Valley is expected to enhance educational
opportunities for area school children, bolster the area's tourism-
based economy, and complement America's national park system. The
area--rich with Pleistocene-era fossils of Columbia mammoth, American
lions and camels, saber-tooth cats, dire wolves, bison and sloth that
span nearly 200,000 years in geologic time--also provides scientists
from multiple disciplines with rare opportunities for research.
The legislation--which has been co-sponsored by all members of
Nevada's Congressional delegation--is endorsed by the cities of Las
Vegas and North Las Vegas, Clark County, business and tourism
organizations, educational institutions, and conservation organization.
Most recently, a resolution supporting the Federal legislation was
passed near unanimously by the Nevada State Legislature.
In addition, the legislation is endorsed by the U.S. Air Force for
preserving an essential military air corridor above the proposed new
national monument.
NPCA is honored to playa part in seeing this significant Ice Age
fossil site added to our national park system. We thank the Nevada
Congressional delegation for recognizing this important opportune
opportunity.
Sincerely,
Lynn Davis,
Sr. Program Manager, Nevada Field Office.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the Office of the Governor
State of Nevada,
Carson City, Nevada,
August 12, 2011.
The Honorable Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C. 20510.
Dear Senator Reid:
I am submitting this letter in support of legislation to create a
new National Park unit in Nevada for the area surrounding Tule Springs
and the Upper Las Vegas Wash. As you know, thousands of Nevada citizens
have expressed their support for a new national monument in this
region. Additionally, the mayors and city councils of North Las Vegas
and Las Vegas. the Clark County Commissioners, and the Tribal Council
of the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe unanimously passed resolutions requesting
Congress to designate Tule Springs as an urban national park.
Legislation to establish the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National
Monument will not only protect the unique paleontological resources
existing in the area, but also create new opportunities for economic
development by attracting tourists and Nevada citizens to the region. I
understand you have been working with Nevada's Congressional Delegation
to create legislation that accomplishes National Park designation and
also considers the concerns and needs of various stakeholders.
Thank you for your continued support of this effort.
Sincere regards,
Brian Sandoval,
Governor
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the Protectors of Tule Springs
North Las Vegas, NV,
June 3, 2013.
To: Nevada's Congressional Delegation; The Honorable Harry Reid, The
Honorable Dean Heller, The Honorable Mark E. Amodei The Honorable
Joe Heck, The Honorable Steven A. Horsford and The Honorable Dina
Titus.
Re: S. 974 and H.R. 2015--Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule
Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013.
The Protectors of Tule Springs, a citizens group founded in 2006,
have joined a diverse coalition of groups in advocating for the
protection of the Tule Springs fossil beds in the northern Las Vegas
Valley. We have a unique opportunity to create an educational
laboratory in an urban area where students and visitors can learn about
the last 250,000 years of ice age history and climate change. This new
National Monument will be an economic boost for Las Vegas economy.
We urge swift passage of these bills so that Tule Springs may
receive the protection and preservation that it deserves.
Respectfully,
Jill K. DeStefano,
President.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the Las Vegas Ice Age Park
Foundation
Helen Mortenson--President. Thalia Dondero--Vice President.
Steve Rowland--Secretary. Bob Anderson--Treasurer.
Paul Aizley--State
Legislature. Harry Mortenson-Liaison
Jill DeStaphano--Liaison,
P.O.T.S. Samantha Rubinson--Liaison, State
Stewardship.
Sandy Croteau--Public
Relations. Lonnie Hammargren--Public
Relations.
ice age park
Dear Members of tbe Nevada Congressional Delegation:
Thank you for co-sponsoring S. 974 or H.R. 2015--The Las Vegas
Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act
of 2013. Our Board of Directors has been actively working for several
years toward the establishment of an Ice Age Park, visitor center, and
research center in the Upper Las Vegas Wash, and the creation of Tule
Springs Fossil Beds National Monument will be a huge step in that
direction. Such a park will provide a significant incentive for nature-
oriented and science-oriented tourists to linger in Las Vegas for an
extra day or two, instead of driving directly to Zion National Park, or
Grand Canyon, or Death Valley. It will also contribute very
significantly to the scientific and educational richness of southern
Nevada.
We strongly support the passage of S. 974 or H.R. 2015.
Respectfully,
Helen Mortenson,
President--Las Vegas Ice Age Park Foundation.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the Red Rock Canyon Interpretive
Association
6755 W. Charleston Blvd. Suite D,
Las Vegas, NY 89146,
June 3, 2013.
To: Nevada's Congressional Delegation:
The Honorable Harry Reid. The Honorable Dean Heller.
The Honorable Mark E.
Amodei. The Honorable Joseph J. Heck.
The Honorable Steven A.
Horsford. The Honorable Dina Titus.
Re: S. 974 and H.R. 2015--Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule
Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013
On behalf of the Red Rock Canyon Interpretive Association and the
Southern Nevada Conservancy, I want to express our support for passage
of S. 974 and H.R. 2015--The Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule
Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. We appreciate the
hard work of the Nevada delegation to draft the legislation and to
jointly introduce the legislation. This collaborative effort among the
delegation is deeply appreciated.
The creation of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument is
not only important to Nevada but to the entire nation and world
community. This is truly an extraordinary resource, one of the most
important paleontological sites in the world. Fossil findings in the
Tule Springs area, chronicled over 250,000 years in geologic time, make
this area unique and of great scientific and educational interest.
There is no unit in the National Park System that spans such a long
period where you can actually see how ecosystems have transitioned from
warm climates to cold climates and back again through several ice ages.
The mission of the Red Rock Canyon Interpretive Association is to
enhance the recreational, educational and interpretive programs of the
Bureau of Land Management, and other governmental agencies, by
providing materials and services to the public which promote an
understanding, and appreciation of, the natural history, cultural
history and sciences of southern Nevada and specifically, Red Rock
Canyon National Conservation Area. As an educational, interpretive and
scientific organization, we are enamored with the opportunity that the
Tule Springs National Monument offers for learning, especially among
our youth. The Monument can be a great asset to the Clark County School
District and to the university system as a place for authentic learning
and science.
Designation as a National Monument also helps broaden the economic
base and public perception of Las Vegas. fn these tough economic times,
it is critical that we look at broadening our economic base. The
Monument would provide another reason to visit Las Vegas and can help
lengthen the stay.
Thanks for your hard work and we hope to see the legislation
enacted during this session of Congress.
Sincerely,
Blaine Benedict,
Executive Director.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record Submitted by Scenic Nevada
P.O. Box 32,
Reno, Nevada, 89504,
November 12, 2009.
To Whom it May Concern:
Scenic Nevada would like you to consider supporting the resolution
for the Upper Las Vegas Wash. Scenic Nevada is a 501(c) non-profit,
non-partisan, conservation organization that works to preserve,
protect, and enhance the scenic beauty of Nevada.
Our principal activity is to educate the general public on the
economic, social, and cultural benefits of scenic preservation by means
of encouraging billboard and sign control, protecting and supporting
scenic byways, promoting sound-wall alternatives, supporting open space
and green-way plans, minimizing the impact of cell towers, preserving
hill sides and drainage ways.
A Nevada LAST CHANCE Scenic Places is our publication which
illustrates Nevada's treasured landscapes and describes both pending
environmental threats as well as their potential solutions. Scenic
Nevada, in 2007, designated the upper Las Vegas Wash (Tule Springs) as
one of Nevada's 13 LAST CHANCE Scenic Places. Scenic Nevada requests
that you support the resolution presented before you to protect the
Upper Las Vegas Wash.
Sincerely,
Doug Smith,
Board of Director's Scenic Nevada;
Member of the Scenic Nevada Board of Directors Statements.
______
State of Nevada
Executive Department
A Proclamation by the Governor
WHEREAS, the month of April each year has been designated as
``Paleontological Awareness Month;'' and
WHEREAS, the study of paleontology seeks to find information
about the history of the Earth through the study of fossils'
environment and evolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessity for state and local officer's, private
and nonprofit groups and foundations, schools, businesses, and other.
public and private entities to work toward the goal of preserving the
paleontology resources of Nevada resides in the importance of
understanding its earth history and its contribution to future
business; and
WHEREAS, the recognition of the important contribution of
prehistoric fossils and other paleontological sites of Nevada also
illuminates the impact of paleontological sciences and their importance
in Nevada history and future; and
WHEREAS, the paleontological sites in Nevada, including Berlin-
Ichthyosaur State Park and Tule Springs, have contributed to bringing
renowned scientists and producing distinguished research on the
Ichthyosaur fossils and Pleistocene animals, making Nevada a notable
area in paleontology science;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BRIAN SANDOVAL, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
NEVADA, do hereby proclaim April 2011, as
paleontological awareness month in nevada
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the University of Nevada Las Vegas,
UNLV
Department of Geoscience,
Las Vegas, Nevada,
November 12, 2009.
Clark County Board of Commissioners,
500 S. Grand Central Parkway,
Las Vegas, NV 89155-1601.
Dear Commissioners:
I fully support the designation of an urban national park unit in
the Upper Las Vegas Wash. I am a paleontologist who has been conducting
research in the Upper Las Vegas Wash for several years. The area has
enormous scientific and educational potential, and it has the potential
to attract a different type of tourist than we presently attract to Las
Vegas.
I urge you to approve the resolution in support of this new urban
national park or monument.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Rowland,
Professor of Geology.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the University of Nevada Las Vegas,
UNLV
Office of the President,
Las Vegas. Nevada,
November 10, 2009.
To whom it may concern:
This letter is to express the support of the University of Nevada,
Las Vegas for the conservation and preservation of the Upper Las Vegas
Wash (Tule Springs) area with the creation of the Fossils Bed National
Monument. The university has long-tern plans to create a North Las
Vegas Campus east of the proposed site and adjacent to the southern
border of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge. Our plans for a campus
focused on sustainability principles are enhanced by the potential
monument, which would offer myriad opportunities for education,
research, recreation, and partnerships.
We initially envisioned higher education programs at the North Las
Vegas Campus focusing on technology, business management, and
elementary education, while our research interests included
transportation and wind/solar energy. With the addition of the
monument, we have the possibility of creating unparalleled science
education and research in the areas of paleontology, conservation
biology, vegetation and wildlife ecology, health, outdoor education,
and recreation management.
UNLV's plans will co-exist with the future plans of the cities,
county, tribe, and Federal agencies. Each entity will see plans
bolstered by a seamless collaborative network of education, research,
and recreation endeavors.
We are hopeful the proposed monument will be given strong
consideration.
Sincerely,
Neal J. Smatresk,
President.
______
Mr. Horsford. Thank you.
I also want to highlight just a few of those letters of
support. In November 2009, three governmental entities, the
Clark County Commission, and the mayors and city council
members of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas unanimously passed
resolutions asking Congress to make Tule Springs a part of the
National Park System. H.R. 2015 and its Senate companion are
cosponsored by all members of Nevada's congressional
delegation, and I am thankful that Congresswoman Titus,
Congressman Heck, my fellow member here on the committee
Congressman Amodei, and I all are here today to show support
for this legislation, and I want to thank my colleagues in the
Congress for their leadership and support of this important
bipartisan bill.
Our city and county officials did important groundwork by
coordinating an active coalition of local supporters to define
the boundaries in a way that will serve both the national
interests and our local population. Additionally, we worked
very closely with the U.S. Air Force on this legislation to
carefully define a critical military air corridor between
Nellis and Creech Air Force Bases by protecting airspace above
the national monument.
Finally, I want to point out that the administration
testified in support of this legislation when our colleagues in
the Senate examined this bill earlier in the year. Due to the
current government shutdown, the Department of the Interior is
not able to be here today to testify, but I would ask the
Chairman to allow the administration to submit their testimony
after this hearing once the government reopens.
This area is indeed unique and definitely has a place as a
new part of the National Park System. The local economic
benefits are clear. Tule Springs will increase tourism by
attracting more travelers to southern Nevada, and by increasing
their stay in our region. The area is expected to attract
scientists from around the world and capture the imagination
and interest of children and adults alike. Establishing the
Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument would make the
region a world-class destination for archaeological tourism
that will revitalize southern Nevada's economy and enhance the
area's quality of life.
The monument is expected to generate jobs to build the
monument's infrastructure, and permanent jobs and businesses to
support the monument's gateway needs. In addition, community
leaders intend to locate geosciences and technology businesses
in the local area. Community leaders have also discussed design
features for bordering development with plans for a nearby
satellite campus for the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I must also point out that the
region is an archaeological treasure. Colombian mammoths,
massive beasts with tusks as long as 10 feet and molars the
size of a human head, once roamed here as did prides of
American lion and herds of bison, dire wolves and saber tooth
cats, the sloth the size of a small sports car.
Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument is significant
for an array of national and historic resources, specifically
fossils from the ice ages. Fossils discovered in this arid
desert terrain harken back to a time when the area was lush
with vegetation, a span of 200,000 years of geologic time which
offers rare scientific opportunities to study the rise and
demise of ice age species.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling
today's hearing and for accepting the request to invite our
Mayor from the city of North Las Vegas, John Lee; Councilman
Steve Ross, who has served as my councilman for my local area,
and who represents the area of where Tule Springs will be
located; as well as Las Vegas Metro Chamber President and CEO
Kristin McMillan as witnesses on this important bipartisan
legislation that grows our economy, creates jobs, and will have
significant positive research and education opportunities for
the region of southern Nevada.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing and to
our witnesses who are here today.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Horsford, and as I said before,
we are happy to have you back here, and hopefully you are
feeling well.
Mr. Horsford. I feel great. Thank you. Good to be back.
Mr. Bishop. I am going to do an audible here. Usually I
would refer to Representative Titus and Representative Heck
when we do the rest of the bill, but that is on the third
panel, and I don't know what your schedules are like, so were
you wanting to make a statement on this particular bill?
Ms. Titus. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Please. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DINA TITUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
courtesy, and Ranking Member Grijalva. I am just here to
briefly voice my support for H.R. 2015, the Las Vegas Valley
Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act.
Although the area in question is largely in North Las Vegas
and unincorporated Clark County, not in District 1, I am
joining the entire Nevada delegation in support of this bill
because its provisions will certainly affect people who live
throughout the valley, and there may be some people who travel
to visit these fossils who will then want to come and stay on
the Las Vegas strip, which is in my district. Just a little
plug, Mr. Chairman.
Although--you will hear from other witnesses, and you have
heard from Mr. Horsford, this legislation is vital to the
preservation of our region's history, which dates back to the
ice age. It includes a number of provisions that will enhance
tourism and will also encourage economic development, job
creation, and increase education and research opportunities. At
the same time, it will protect some of Las Vegas' most precious
open spaces and its paleontological treasures.
The support for this legislation runs the gamut from the
chamber of commerce to the environmental organizations, local
Native American tribes, educational institutions, and elected
officials at all levels. I would urge your support of this
bill, and I will hope you will move it forward without delay,
and I thank you for the opportunity just to express my support.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Heck, I am assuming you are speaking to
this one? There is a couple of other Nevada bills, but whatever
you want to do, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOSEPH J. HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Dr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I thank the Chair
and the Ranking Member for allowing me to testify in support of
H.R. 2015, the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs
Fossil Beds National Monument Act. H.R. 2015, offered by my
friend and colleague from Nevada Mr. Horsford and supported by
the entire Nevada delegation, is a commonsense piece of
legislation that will protect and preserve our natural
treasures, open up land for public use, and help create much-
needed jobs in Nevada.
Specifically, H.R. 2015 will create the Tule Springs Fossil
Beds National Monument to protect those archaeological sites
that contain remarkable fossils that date back to the ice age
and have attracted international attention.
As you all know, travel and tourism is the largest industry
in southern Nevada, and this designation is incredibly
important to our economy as it will help attract additional
visitors to our State and provide opportunities for new
businesses around the monument area.
Additionally H.R. 2015 supports the public use of public
lands by conveying roughly 1,200 acres of land in the Nellis
Dunes area for an off-highway vehicle recreation park to be
managed by Clark County, and designating approximately 10,000
acres of public land surrounding the park as an OHV recreation
area.
Furthermore, the bill includes a number of additional
provisions and supported--recommended and supported by local
stakeholders that will protect access to critical water and
energy resources, support the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department, the Nellis Air Force Base, and the Nevada System of
Higher Education by conveying land for future educational,
research, and administrative needs.
With the Las Vegas Valley bordered on all sides by Federal
land, bills like H.R. 2015 are critical to allowing our
community to expand and grow. This bill was worked, reworked,
and worked yet again by stakeholders at the Federal, State, and
local level of government and is an example of how public land
bills should be created.
For all these reasons I support H.R. 2015 and want to thank
the subcommittee for holding this important hearing on this
bill that is important to all Nevadans. And I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to take this moment to welcome our newest
member to the subcommittee, Representative Huffman from
California. Welcome. And I think his expertise and
participation is going to be very good for this committee.
Thank you for the time.
Mr. Bishop. We welcome you here. It is a learned
experience.
To the members of the Nevada delegation, I appreciate it. I
have to do one other thing about your bill, though. I
understand Tule is spelled T-U-L-E? There is a county in my
State spelled T-O-O-E-L-E, and anyone who doesn't know it calls
that Tule, which it is actually pronounced Tu-wil-a. So I am
sorry, every time you all say Tule, I just want to blurt out,
no, it is Tu-wil-a. So you are going to have to change the name
of whatever it is if you want this bill to go forward.
Mr. Horsford. Phonetically, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. I don't care.
Mr. Horsford. Call it whatever you want. I will accept that
as a motion to do pass.
Mr. Bishop. Well, we will work on that one, too.
Mr. Amodei, since this is turning into Nevada month, you
also have two bills that are before us, H.R. 1167 and as well
as H.R. 1633. We will offer you time to introduce both of those
if you will, and if you need extra time to do it since there
are two bills, please feel free to use that extra time.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK E. AMODEI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member.
I will endeavor to be crisp.
The first bill, which is the Quitclaim Surface Rights of
Federal Land under the Jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land
Management in Virginia City, Nevada, otherwise known as the
Restoring Storey County Act, H.R. 1167, is a pretty simple
story.
As a result of the mining that occurred in the mid-1800s,
there was not a lot of attention paid to township plots,
parcels, things like that. Never really went back and fixed it.
You have a county manager and one of the county commissioners
with some pretty deep roots in the county that will testify
later as a part of a panel.
I will just say this: The objective of the bill which, by
the way, came at the suggestion of the BLM folks in Nevada, was
to say there are a lot of title issues in Virginia City in
those township areas, and we would just as soon be out of it.
The objective of the bill is to remove the Federal Government
from the title reports for those parcels that are in various
incorporated, unincorporated urban areas of Storey County, if
you will.
So if somebody is concerned about this is going to give
something away, there is still plenty of title work to do on
those parcels in terms of the competing owners. And actually I
will say this in front of the Storey County folks: Be careful
what you ask for, we will be quitclaiming under this
legislation to the county to let them basically step into the
position of the Bureau of Land Management for purposes of all
further title-clearance issues, and there are plenty.
What it does, though, is it acknowledges the fact that
these parcels have all been residential or commercial in nature
in a small western town. Not the only instance in Nevada, but
this is the one we are talking about today, allows the Federal
Government to get off of people's preliminary title reports and
lets the landowners and the county with jurisdiction sort out
the rest of it.
The Bureau of Land Management in Nevada has not the
resources nor the interest, according to my meetings with them,
to engage in this. They have other things to be doing in a
State which they own various portions of 86 percent of. I
understand they are not here today. I can tell you that one of
the accommodations made in it, though, is this is surface
rights only; deals nothing in mineral rights. So that is what
we are trying to accomplish with H.R. 1167.
H.R. 1633, conveyance of small parcels, is meant to address
another issue which is, at least in Nevada, and I believe in
other Western States, if you have a State that is 33 percent
owned by the Federal Government or more, which includes most of
the West, including my colleague from California that I see is
here today, and you have inholdings that are a quarter section
or less that are in or near an urban area, which there are no
environmental issues, it sets up a public process 18 months
long where, in exchange for fair market value, those parcels
can be sold into private ownership, or into municipal
ownership, or into tribal ownership to put them in the stream
of commerce.
Now, we have limited the size to say this is not some
subterfuge to buy multi-hundred-, multi-thousand-acre parcels,
but when you are talking along the fringe of urban areas or
things like that that don't lend themselves to national forests
management on a mega scale or BLM on that same scale, if you
have cleared those, and there are no environmental NEPA type of
issues, then if somebody wants to buy them, we ought to set up
a process where at fair market value they can do that.
So that is it in a nutshell, except the one thing that we
have done that we think is kind of interesting is the proceeds
of that, because of our earmark rule, are distributed for from
each sale half to the State where the sale originated and then
half to the other remaining Western States on a per capita
basis for use to do things like comply with the Endangered
Species Act, do things that are resource related in those
States so that we can hopefully in the West keep those funds
working for the resource as a result of these parcels that are
sold.
That is it in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you,
and I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Amodei.
I'll turn to Mr. Daines, if you would like to present H.R.
2259.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVE DAINES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Daines. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva, for hosting this hearing and carrying out our
constitutional legislative duties even though the Government
shut down. As we say in Montana, we just use pictures, words
usually aren't necessary, so we are going to talk about this
bill.
Agreement in our Government seems far gone these days.
However, today, despite the dark clouds over DC, perhaps there
is a silver lining. Today we are having a hearing on H.R. 2259.
It is a bill I have introduced called the North Fork Watershed
Protection Act. It is an initiative that I have joined my
Democrat Montana colleague Max Baucus to support. In fact, as
we saw the entire Nevada delegation, congressional, supporting
it, I can tell you the entire Montana delegation supports it. I
am the only one.
My support for this bill marks the first time in almost 30
years that the Montana delegation, House and Senate, have
supported public lands legislation in a bipartisan, bicameral
fashion, and we are hoping to get this bill across the finish
line.
If DC looked a little more like Montana, I think we would
have better government. At no cost to the American taxpayer,
and in no loss in production of minerals, and in no loss in
timber harvests and grazing rights, the North Fork Watershed
Protection Act protects multiple use in a special part of our
State from future energy development on 362,000 acres in the
Flathead and Kootenai National Forests that border Glacier
National Park.
The current leases are held in suspension due to a 1988
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held the
Department of the Interior did not adequately complete
environmental impact statements prior to issuing the leases.
Current leaseholders are not paying rentals or royalties. Due
to the sensitivity of the area--and you can just see the
pictures behind me that made me explain that--and the low
prospect of developing these leases, nearly 80 percent of the
existing leaseholders have already voluntarily relinquished
their leases. Though no production is taking place, in this
bill we ensure that lawful leaseholders maintain the ability to
produce on their leases should the Interior again seek to go
through the environmental review process.
Let me tell you why this is important for Montana. The
North Fork of the Flathead River extends about 90 miles from
its headwaters in southern British Columbia, and it moves south
into Montana where it forms the western boundary of Glacier
National Park through the watershed to British Columbia. The
North Fork is widely treasured as a remote corner of our State.
We harvest timber, we hunt elk, we catch trout, and we launch
expeditions near the adjacent Glacier National Park.
This bill will sustain our local economy and strengthen
long-term community stability. It is supported by a wide
variety of stakeholders from local businesses, community
leaders, and conservation groups. In fact, Mr. John Anderson, a
Whitefish, Montana, City Councilman, is here today to testify
about this bill's importance to the Whitefish community and to
the business community of the Flathead Valley as a whole.
Lumber mills, like the longest family owned mill in the
Flathead, Stoltze Lumber, find the bill important sustaining
healthy forest management in the area. Though a witness from
Stoltze Lumber wanted to testify today, they were not able to
attend. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter
testimony from Paul McKenzie of Stoltze Lumber into the record,
as well as statements of support from Conoco Phillips, the
Outdoor Alliance, Trout Unlimited, the Wilderness Society, the
Kalispell Chamber of Commerce, and The Nature Conservancy. I
would like unanimous consent to enter into the record.
Unanimous consent to enter into the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statements and letters of support follow:]
Letter Submitted for the Record by ConocoPhillips Company
1776 Eye Street, NW. Suite 700,
Washington, DC 20006.
October 1, 2013.
The Honorable Steve Daines,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Mr. Daines:
I am writing to express ConocoPhillips' support for H.R. 2259, the
North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013, which would conserve an
area of Montana that has important economic and recreational qualities
and is a gateway to Glacier National Park.
ConocoPhillips was pleased to voluntarily give up its interest in
108 Federal oil and natural gas leases, covering 169,000 acres in the
watershed. ConocoPhillips is confident that it could have developed
those leases in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, but
relinquished the acreage after considering the unique characteristics
of the area.
We hope that the Natural Resources Committee and the House will act
expeditiously in its consideration of H.R. 2259.
Sincerely,
Jim Ford,
Vice President,
Federal and State Government Affair.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Company
Lumber Manufacturers,
Columbia Falls, MT 59912,
October 1, 2013.
The Honorable Rob Bishop,
Chairman,
U.S. House of Representative,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation,
Washington, DC 20515.
RE: H.R. 2259--North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013
Dear Chairman Bishop and members of the committee,
Please accept the following testimony on behalf of F.H. Stoltze
Land & Lumber Co. regarding H.R. 2259, the North Fork Watershed
Protection Act of 2013, sponsored by Congressman Daines from Montana.
Clean air, clean water and robust wildlife habitats are valued by
all Americans. The trans-boundary North Fork of the Flathead River
valley has a long history of balancing resource development with
residential and recreational uses while protecting the ecological
functions of a unique landscape. H.R. 2259 is supported by a broad
coalition of local businesses, community leaders and conservation
groups and is fully supported by F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Co. H.R.
2259 is a logical step in ensuring that this balance of historic uses
and ecological values can continue for future generations.
The North Fork valley is home to one of the most robust wildlife
and aquatic habitats in the lower United States. Threatened and
endangered species including grizzly bear, bull trout, Canada lynx
along with ungulates, wolverine, fisher, wolves and mountain lion
thrive in the North Fork. These wildlife populations have thrived in
concert with responsible timber management, grazing and recreational
uses of our Federal landsmanaged by the U.S. Forest Service.
The unique balance of use and conservation in the North Fork of the
Flathead River Valley has been recognized internationally as a
successful model of landscape management. To that end, our neighbors to
the north have committed to preservation of the trans-boundary North
Fork Flathead River Valley by limiting mineral and geothermal
development on the Canadian side of the border. H.R. 2259 will fulfill
the commitment made in an international agreement to similarly limit
development on the U.S. side of the border to ensure the ecological
integrity and function of the entire watershed.
It is important to recognize that H.R. 2259 specifically protects
historic uses such as forest management, livestock management and
recreational uses. Eliminating the potential impacts of development of
mining and geothermal will help ensure the continued viability of these
historic uses. The restrictions in this bill only apply to Federal
lands and will not affect activities or rights of private or state
interests.
The scope of the bill is narrow and focused. The bill does not
include wilderness designation, closure of access or roads, limitation
on historic uses or infringement on existing rights, private or public.
It is my understanding that the potential for mineral and
geothermal development is very low to non-existent in the area and that
consultation with these industries has indicated they have no objection
to the proposed bill. The bill as proposed will NOT affect any existing
leaseholder rights in the area. Additionally, I understand that if the
bill is allowed to be marked up, Rep. Daines is committed to strengthen
protections of rights of existing leaseholders.
F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Co. is the oldest family owned sawmill
and forest management company in Montana. We recently celebrated our
100 year anniversary of operation in Montana. We believe strongly in
the saying ``healthy forests make for healthy communities and healthy
families''. The concept of Stewardship is central to our business and
land management activities. We have proven and continue to demonstrate
that active management of our natural resources is compatible with
conservation goals, both on our own private timberlands and on those
lands owned by other private and State interests. There is no reason we
cannot balance use and conservation on our Federal lands as well.
Balancing the needs for stewardship management and conservation has
been an essential part of our 100 years of success as a company. H.R.
2259 is fully consistent with this balance that has ensured our long
term success and the Montana way of life.
For the last 12 months, I have been a participant in a citizen
driven collaborative effort called the Whitefish Range Partnership to
help develop a forest plan revision proposal for the U.S. Forest
Service managed lands in the North Fork area. This broad collaborative
includes representatives of conservation groups, wilderness advocates,
timber managers, motorized and non-motorized recreation, North Fork
residents, commercial recreation, local government and local business.
This group spent endless hours discussing various topics, including the
language included in H.R. 2259. This larger collaborative group has
come to tentative consensus agreement to support the language in S. 255
and echoed in H.R. 2259 and will likely make final consensus agreement
this next week at our next meeting. This is further indication of the
broad based support for the proposed language.
H.R. 2259 is an essential step in the stewardship of the natural
resources on Federal lands in the North Fork Valley. Balance requires
understanding of benefits and risks. In this situation, the benefits of
protecting the North Fork Valley from potential impacts from new mining
and geothermal development far outweigh the risk associated with lost
opportunity. The collaborative support for H.R. 2259 is indicative of
the wise use and balance needed to meet the needs of our local
communities while ensuring ecological integrity and function for future
generations.
Please fully consider the benefits of H.R. 2259 and I encourage the
committee to allow further deliberation and mark up of this important
bill. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and I look
forward to monitoring the progress of this legislation.
Sincerely,
Paul R. McKenzie C.F.,
Lands and Resource Manager.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by Montana Trout Unlimited
Main Office, PO Box 7186,
Missoula, MT. 59807,
October 1, 2013.
The Honorable Doc Hastings,
Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources,
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
RE: H.R. 2259--North Fork Watershed Protection Act
Dear Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio:
We write on behalf of Trout Unlimited and its 3,600 members in
Montana to sincerely thank you for scheduling a hearing on H.R. 2259,
the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013.
Trout Unlimited strongly supports the North Fork Watershed
Protection Act, and we thank Rep. Daines for his leadership on this
important legislation. The bill would withdraw U.S. Forest Service land
in the North Fork of the Flathead River's watershed from future mineral
leasing activities. The North Fork of the Flathead is one of Montana's
most special places to hunt and fish. The eastern half of the valley is
comprised of Glacier National Park, the watershed provides critical
habitat for bull trout and cutthroat trout, and hunting is a
cornerstone of the region's heritage and culture. World-class mule
deer, elk and moose hunting opportunities, angling for native trout and
the natural wonders of Glacier National Park attract visitors from
across the country. This valley is truly one of the most wildlife-rich
regions in the continental United States, and we believe that we should
keep it as it is so that future generations will be able to experience
this unique and special place.
The North Fork Watershed Protection Act is an important step in
ensuring that traditional land uses such as timber and outdoor
recreation are protected in this valley. Oil, gas and hard rock mineral
extraction in the North Fork would forever change this extraordinary
place and pose a serious threat to water and air quality, trout
populations, and big game habitat. That means big business in Montana,
where hunters and anglers contribute $1 billion annually to the State
economy. Moreover, Glacier National Park borders the withdrawal area
and mineral extraction would negatively impact the economic engine
created by 2 million tourists that spend over $150 million each year to
experience the scenery, clean water and wildlife of Glacier National
Park.
The act also satisfies a Memorandum of Understanding between the
State of Montana and the Canadian Province of British Columbia, under
which British Columbia has already moved to withdraw its portion of the
watershed from mineral development.
A final reason we support H.R. 2259 is because it is a
collaborative, bi-partisan solution. Montana's entire Congressional
delegation is working together to pass legislation that will protect
this watershed from the threat of oil and gas development, and the act
enjoys broad support locally and throughout our State. Moreover,
several oil and gas leaseholders have voluntarily relinquished over
200,000 acres of leases in the watershed. We understand our need for
fossil fuels and hard rock minerals, and we believe that part of
responsible development is recognizing that some places are too special
to be industrialized--Montanans from all walks of life agree that the
North Fork is one of these places.
Today there is a unique and timely opportunity to enact a model of
collaborative conservation that will protect the North Fork of the
Flathead and Glacier National Park and preserve our sporting traditions
for future generations. H.R. 2259 is an essential piece of legislation
to complete this legacy.
Sincerely,
Doug Haacke,
Chairman,
Montana Trout Unlimited.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the Montana Wildlife Federation
P.O. Box 1175,
Helena, Montana 59624,
October 3, 2013.
The Honorable Rob Bishop,
Chairman,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva,
Ranking Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation,
Washington, DC 20515.
RE: The North Fork Watershed Protection Act (H.R. 2259)
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
The Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF) is writing to thank you for
holding a hearing on the North Fork of the Watershed Protection Act
(H.R. 2259) and also to express our support for this important piece of
legislation.
Founded in 1936, MWF is Montana's oldest and largest hunter and
angler-based conservation group. We are comprised of over 5,000
hunters, anglers, landowners and other conservationists who share a
mission to protect and enhance Montana's public wildlife, lands,
waters, and fair chase hunting and fishing heritage. MWF strongly
supports H.R. 2259 and we appreciate Congressman Daines's leadership to
advance this important legislation.
The North Fork of the Flathead valley is a special place and a
cornerstone of Montana's natural heritage. Flanked by Glacier National
Park to the east, the Whitefish Range to the west and cut by the North
Fork of the Flathead River, this valley is a sportsmen's paradise as
well as an economic driver for the region. The region abounds with
wildlife: moose, elk, deer, grizzly bears, black bears, wolverines,
eagles, bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout are just a sampling of
the wildlife inhabit the North Fork. Anglers can cast flies to native
trout, hunters have ample room to roam on Forest Service lands that
comprise the withdrawal area, and 2 million tourists flock to region
every year, contributing over $150 million to the local economy. Put
simply, in a State with many special places, the North Fork is near the
top of the list.
MWF supports responsible energy development in places where oil and
gas drilling and hard rock mining are compatible with the conservation
of fish and wildlife habitat. However, the North Fork of the Flathead
is a place that deserves to be set aside for future generations. For
this reason, protecting the North Fork of the Flathead has been a
fixture of MWF's work for over three decades.
In 1982, the Forest Service leased lands in the North Fork for oil
and gas development, sparking a controversy that we finally have an
opportunity to resolve by passing H.R. 2259. Today there is a broad
consensus among Montanans that protecting the North Fork is the right
thing to do. Our entire bipartisan Congressional delegation supports
legislation to withdraw Forest Service lands from oil, gas and hard
rock mineral leasing and numerous business owners, sportsmen and women,
municipal governments, organizations, local chambers of commerce and
conservationists have all endorsed the North Fork Watershed Protection
Act. Additionally, several oil and gas companies have voluntarily
relinquished over 200,000 acres of leases.
Last, enacting H.R. 2259 will fulfill Montana's agreement with
British Columbia to prevent mining in the trans-boundary North Fork of
the Flathead watershed. In 2010, British Columbia banned development in
their portion of the watershed and it is time for us to hold up our end
of the agreement.
Protecting the North Fork of the Flathead is an example of diverse
interests coming together and uniting around a solution that will
benefit future generations. Passing H.R. 2259 is the final step in a
three decade effort to conserve this extraordinary place and MWF is
hopeful that Congress will help us complete this work.
Sincerely,
Skip Kowalski,
President, Montana Wildlife Federation.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the Outdoor Alliance
October 2, 2013.
RE: North Fork Watershed Protection Act
Dear Congressman Daines,
Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of five national, member-based
organizations that includes Access Fund, American Canoe Association,
American Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling Association, and
Winter Wildlands Alliance. We write in support of your bill, H.R. 2259,
the North Fork Watershed Protection Act. Many of our members and
supporters know the North Fork Flathead watershed first hand, and we
appreciate your efforts to protect this treasured landscape.
The Flathead is one of Montana's few Wild and Scenic Rivers and an
important resource for the human powered outdoor recreation community.
Any development, especially mineral, ought to take other values of the
landscape into consideration. H.R. 2259 achieves this end, effectively
limiting development and providing the watershed with the protection it
deserves. Furthermore, we recognize and support your bill's provision
to preserve recreation access.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the clean water, clean air,
abundant wildlife and spectacular recreation in the North Fork
watershed.
Best regards,
Brady Robinson,
Executive Director,
Access Fund. Michael Van Abel,
Executive Director,
International Mountain Bicycling
Association.
Wade Blackwood,
Executive Director,
American Canoe Association. Mark Menlove,
Executive Director,
Winter Wildlands Alliance.
Mark Singleton,
Executive Director,
American Whitewater. Adam Cramer,
Policy Architect,
Outdoor Alliance.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by The Nature Conservancy
32 S. Ewing Street,
Helena, MT 59601
TO: House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands
and Environmental Regulation.
Dear members of the committee,
The Nature Conservancy wishes to go on record in favor of H.R.
2259: the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013.
At a time when so many issues seem to divide upon partisan lines,
the North Fork Watershed Protection Act is a shining example of
bipartisan cooperation to ensure clean water for many generations to
come. The North Fork of the Flathead River isn't just a sparkling
natural treasure; it is the lifeblood of a huge segment of northwestern
Montana's economy. Flathead Lake, alone, brings millions of dollars a
year to Montana's tourism economy. People from across the United States
and around the world fish the pristine waters, float the rapids, and
are refreshed and renewed simply watching its calming flow. People
count on it for clean drinking water for many miles downstream.
Americans have demonstrated their commitment by supporting
protection of this precious waterway. This act ensures that the
investment the public has already made in the river will endure for
generations.
We applaud the bipartisan supporters of this legislation for
recognizing the importance of preserving the clean water and
opportunities for recreation that the North Fork provides, not simply
today, but as a legacy we are leaving to the generations to come.
We also thank Congressman Daines for sponsoring this legislation,
and we look forward to working with him on other common sense
conservation solutions down the road.
Respectfully,
Richard Jeo,
State Director.
______
Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society
H.R. 2259--North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013
The Wilderness Society (TWS), representing over 600,000 members and
supporters from across the United States, would like to go on the
record as enthusiastically supporting H.R. 2259, the ``North Fork
Watershed Protection Act of 2013'' introduced by Congressman Steve
Daines of Montana. Glacier National Park, as well as many of the
national forest lands addressed in this bill, are of national
significance and H.R. 2259's passage would benefit many Americans from
all walks of life as well as future generations. In addition, passage
of this bill ensures that the United States ``acts by example'' and
fully engages in the coordinated, partnership approach requested by the
province of British Columbia when they agreed in 2011 to take action to
protect the Canadian side of the North Fork Flathead from coal, oil and
gas, and mining development.
Also important is that this bill has almost no active opposition,
as to our knowledge, no organized group, relevant elected official,
Montana newspaper, or affected constituency has spoken out against H.R.
2259 or its Senate companion legislation, S. 233 (introduced by
Senators Baucus and Tester, and which The Wilderness Society also
enthusiastically supports). Instead, over the past several years there
has been an impressive outpouring of diverse and formal support from
local businesses, civic groups, Chambers of Commerce, City Councils,
sportsmen and conservation groups, and others. From the Montana Logging
Association and Citizens for Balanced Use to the North Fork Landowners
Association and Glacier Raft Company, divergent interests have come
together behind this bill.
This bill will help protect the recreation and natural assets that
support the growing local and regional economy in this part of the
State. Consider that in a 4/5/2010 letter to the Montana delegation,
the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce praised this legislation (the Senate
version) as ``being good for business'' further stating, ``The Chamber
wishes to ensure that Glacier Park, the North Fork River Valley, and
Flathead Lake remain as economically productive as they are today. We
think that oil and gas development in the Whitefish Range would be
inconsistent with our interest to see the entire watershed protected
from upstream (Canadian) pollution.''
Though only a single page in length, this bill is nonetheless
significant in two notable ways. First, it provides an important
example of bipartisan cooperation, as it represents the first Montana
focused public lands bill in decades where the entire State's
delegation, regardless of party, has ``been in agreement and working to
do the right thing for Montanans,'' as Congressman Daines put it when
he introduced H.R. 2259. Second, it is worth noting that major players
in the oil and gas industry have already made important business
decisions regarding protection of the North Fork Flathead watershed
based on support for and assumed passage of this legislation. During
2011-2012, Conoco Phillips, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil subsidiary XTO
Energy all voluntary agreed to relinquish their valid leases in the
watershed, covering an area of almost 200,000 acres.
Indeed, over the past 8 years, Congress has passed similar Federal
legislation withdrawing sensitive national forest and/or BLM lands from
new oil and gas leasing, mineral entry, and other forms of energy
development for several other places. This includes 2005 bi-partisan
legislation that withdrew the Valle Vidal area in northern New Mexico,
2006 legislation for Montana's Rocky Mountain Front that was first
introduced by then Senator Burns (R) but then moved by Senator Baucus
(D), and most recently legislation introduced in 2008 (passed in 2009)
by Republican Senator Barrasso of Wyoming (co-sponsored by Senator
Enzi) that withdrew 1.2 million acres of national forest in the Wyoming
Range.
TWS enthusiastically supports H.R. 2259 and sincerely thanks
Congressman Daines for his dedication to protecting his nationally
important watershed next to Glacier National Park and in the heart of
the nationally significant Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. We equally
thank the Congressman and Montana's two Senators for their combined
leadership and effective coordination on this important matter. We urge
swift passage of the North Fork Flathead Watershed Protection Act as it
will serve Montana and the Nation well for decades to come.
______
Mr. Daines. The first stakeholders, including the Montana
Logging Association, the Citizens for Balanced Use, a multiple-
use organization, the North Fork Landowners Association, the
Glacier Raft Company, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited,
ConocoPhillips, XTO Energy, Chevron, and the Wilderness
Society, they are all supporting this bill. In fact, we cannot
list a single group that has organized opposition to this bill.
I can say this: That list of supporters does not often agree on
much, but we agree on this.
In addition to protecting our way of life and supporting
the local community in the Flathead Valley, H.R. 2259 upholds
an international agreement we have already made with Canada. In
February 2010, the province of British Columbia and the State
of Montana signed an MOU to preclude mineral extraction along
the Flathead.
British Columbia completed prohibition of mineral
development along the Flathead River in 2011. H.R. 2259 is
necessary to uphold the United States' end of that bargain.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy my colleagues can learn about the
importance of this legislation today. I urge support of this
legislation. I look forward to working together to get it
passed.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Now, Mr. McClintock, you may be last, but you are certainly
not least in this pantheon of bills that we have. I would like
to recognize you for your bill, 3888, that deals with salvage
timber.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want
to thank you for holding this hearing today and for the speedy
consideration of H.R. 3188.
It is estimated that up to 1 billion board feet of fire-
killed timber can still be salvaged out of the forests that
have been devastated by the Yosemite Rim Fire, but it requires
immediate action. As time passes, the value of this dead timber
declines, until after a year or so it becomes unsalvageable.
The Reading Fire in Lassen occurred more than 1 year ago.
The Forest Service has just gotten around to selling the
salvage rights last month. In the year that the Forest Service
has taken to plow through the endless environmental reviews,
all of the trees under 18 inches in diameter, which is most of
them, have become worthless. After a year's delay for
bureaucratic paperwork, extreme environmental groups will often
file suits to run out the clock, and the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals has become infamous for blocking salvage operations.
We have no time to waste in the aftermath of the Yosemite
Rim Fire, which destroyed more than 400 square miles of forest
in the Stanislaus National Forest and the Yosemite National
Park. It is the largest fire ever recorded in the Sierra Nevada
mountains.
The situation is particularly urgent because of the early
infestation of bark beetles, which have already been observed
attacking the dead trees. As they do so, the commercial value
of those trees drops by half.
Four hundred miles of roads are now in jeopardy. If nearby
trees are not removed before winter, we can expect dead trees
to begin toppling, risking lives and closing access. Although
the Forest Service has expedited a salvage sale on road and
utility rights-of-way as part of the immediate emergency
measures, current law otherwise only allows a categorical
exemption for just 250 acres. That is enough to protect just 10
miles of road.
Now, earlier today we heard the Ranking Member Mr. DeFazio
say that the sequester is delaying the U.S.--or pardon me, the
shutdown is delaying the U.S. Forest Service review of salvage.
What he didn't explain was that process takes a year or more,
and by the time the normal environmental review of salvage
operations has been completed, a year from now, what was once
forestland will have already begun converting to brushland, and
by the following year reforestation will become infinitely more
difficult and expensive, especially if access has been lost due
to the impassability of roads. By that time only the very
biggest of the trees will still be salvageable.
Within 2 years, 5 to 8 feet of brush will have built up,
and the big trees will begin toppling on this tinder. You
couldn't possibly build a more perfect fire than that: dry
tinder at the bottom and large, dry logs at top.
If we want to stop the conversion of this forestland to
brushland, the dead timber has to come out. If we take it out
now, we can actually sell salvage rights, providing revenue to
the Treasury that could then be used for reforestation. If we
go through the normal environmental reviews and litigation, the
timber will be worthless, and instead of someone paying us to
remove the timber, we will have to pay someone else to do so.
The price tag for that will be breathtaking. We will then have
to remove the accumulated brush to give seedlings a chance to
survive, again, another very expensive proposition.
This legislation simply waives the environmental review
process for salvage operations on land where the environment
has already been incinerated, and allows the government to be
paid for the removal of already dead timber rather than having
the government pay somebody else.
There is a radical body of opinion that says, well, just
leave it alone, and the forest will grow back. Well, indeed it
will, but certainly not in our lifetimes. Nature gives brush
first claim to the land, and it will be decades before the
forest is able to fight its way back to reclaim that land.
This measure has bipartisan precedent. It is the same
approach as offered by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle a few
years ago to salvage beetle-killed timber in the Black Hills
National Forest.
Finally, salvaging this timber would also throw an economic
lifeline to communities that have already been devastated by
this fire, as local mills could be brought to full employment
for the first time in many years.
Time is not our friend. We can act now and restore the
forest, or we can dawdle until restoration becomes cost
prohibitive.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
I appreciate the Members who are here and those who are not
here for presenting the bills before us.
We are now going to turn to the second panel, which is some
of the expert testimony. I would invite Bill Neikirk, who will
talk about the Mill Springs Battlefield--from the Mill Springs
Battlefield Association to come up to the microphones; Morris
Vogel, who is the President of the Lower East Side Tenement
Museum. I was going to say, we have two good German names
there, but then we come up with Pedro Segarra, who is the Mayor
of the city of Hartford. And you changed the pattern right
there. Also invite John Anderson, who is a Councilman from
White Fish, Montana; and Tom Partin, who is the President of
the American Forest Resource Council. If they would join us at
the panel to give testimony on individual bills.
What we will do is go bill by bill and, after each
presentation, ask if there are questions pertaining to that
particular piece of legislation.
So we will start with--and I will urge all of you, because
we would like to be done fairly soon here, you have 5 minutes
to make your presentations. We appreciate your time and effort
to come here to do that. I want you to use the time wisely, but
once the 5 minutes are up, we want you to stop at that time,
and then we will open up for questions afterwards.
If you have not been here before, your written testimony is
already part of the record. This should be additional oral
testimony to that. And you will have the time clock in front of
you, which will start timing down. If you see the yellow light
come on, that means you have 1 minute left. Please stop when it
goes red again.
So we will first turn to Mr. Neikirk from the Mill Springs
Battlefield Association. If you would give testimony on House
bill 298. Mr. Neikirk.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. NEIKIRK, FOUNDER, MILL SPRINGS
BATTLEFIELD ASSOCIATION
Mr. Neikirk. Thank you, sir. I appreciate this opportunity
to be here before the committee today. The Mill Springs
Battlefield is a national historic landmark. It is located on
both sides of Lake Cumberland in Pulaski and Wayne Counties,
Kentucky. Mill Springs Battlefield Association is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit corporation which was founded in 1992 by me and 20
other concerned individuals for the purpose of preserving,
protecting, maintaining and interpreting the Mill Springs
Battlefield.
The significance of the Mill Springs Battlefield
nationally, the Mill Springs battle was fought on January 19,
1862. It resulted in a decisive Union victory that ultimately
drove the Confederates from Kentucky and enabled the Federal
advance into Middle Tennessee in February 1862. The defeat of
the Confederates at this battle helped secure Kentucky for the
Union, a vital achievement, and was the first major Union
victory of the war, following the disastrous defeat at First
Manassas on July 21, 1861.
The defeat of Confederate General Felix K. Zollicoffer, who
died during this battle, was the first of many victories for
Union General George H. Thomas, who, at the end of the war, was
the third highest-ranking Union general.
In 1992, the National Park Service identified Mill Springs
Battlefield as one of the 25 most endangered battlefields.
Under the guidance of the American Battlefield Protection
Program, the protected areas of the battlefield have been able
to grow from \1/2\ acre to over 600 acres. To be on this list,
the battle outcome had to have a significant outcome on the war
itself, the land had not changed since the war, and it was in
danger of being developed. The National Park Service American
Battlefield Protection Program again this year in August 2013
put Mill Springs on that most endangered battlefield list as a
category 1.
Today the Mill Springs Battlefield Association is comprised
of a 15-member board of directors whose purpose is to preserve
and interpret the battlefield for future generations of
Americans. The board owns and administers over 600 acres of the
battlefield land, along with a 10,000-square-foot visitor
center built in 2006, which is located adjacent to the Mill
Springs National Cemetery.
Our proposal--in recognition of the National Park Service's
ability and expertise in generating tourism is asking this
committee to support Congressman Hal Rogers' House bill 298,
which directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
special resource study to evaluate the significance of the Mill
Springs Battlefield and the feasibility of its addition into
the National Park Service as part of the Cumberland Gap
National Park. Why Cumberland Gap? The same troops that fought
at Mill Springs fought at the Battle of Cumberland Gap 1 month
before that.
Mill Springs is unique in that we are not asking the Park
Service to take over undeveloped battlefield land. In contrast,
we are offering the National Park Service 600 acres with miles
of well-kept interpretive trails, a marked driving tour, a
visitors center museum.
MSBA has spent over $12 million to preserve and interpret
the battlefield for future generations. The Mill Springs
Battlefield Association will continue as a fringe group in
support of the battlefield. Our dedication to preserve and
protect the battlefield will not change when this becomes a
national park. Thank you all.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neikirk follows:]
Prepared Statement of William R. Neikirk, Founder, Mill Springs
Battlefield Association
H.R. 298
introduction
The Mill Springs Battlefield, a National Historic Landmark, is
located on both sides of Lake Cumberland in Pulaski and Wayne counties,
Kentucky. The Mill Springs Battlefield Association, a 501(c)3 non-
profit corporation was founded in 1992 by Association President William
R. Neikirk and 20 other concerned individuals for the purpose of
preserving, protecting, maintaining and interpreting the Mill Springs
Battlefield.
significance of the mill springs battlefield, nationally
The Battle of Mill Springs, fought on January 19, 1862, resulted in
a decisive Union victory that ultimately drove the Confederates from
Kentucky and enabled the Federal advance into Middle Tennessee in
February 1862.
The defeat of the Confederates at this battle helped secure
Kentucky for the Union, a vital achievement, and was the first major
Union victory of the war following the disastrous defeat at First
Manassas on July 21, 1861. The defeat of Confederate Brigadier General
Felix K. Zollicoffer, who died during the battle, was a first of many
victories for Union General George H. Thomas.
In 1992, the National Park Service identified Mill Springs
Battlefield as one of the 25 most endangered battlefields. Under the
guidance of the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP), the
protected area of the battlefield has been able to grow from \1/2\ acre
to over 600 acres.
The National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program
published a Draft update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission on
the Nation's Civil War Battlefields, August 2013. The report states the
Mill Springs Battlefield of Kentucky condition as ``portions altered,
most essential features remain. Previous CWSAC priority 1, new priority
1.'' (See NPS publication Civil War Battlefields Update, August 2013).
mill springs battlefield today
Today the Mill Springs Battlefield Association is comprised of a
15-member board of directors, whose main purpose is to preserve and
interpret the battlefield for future generations of Americans. The
board owns and administers over 600 acres of battlefield land, along
with a 10,000 square foot visitor's center built in 2006, which is
located adjacent to the Mill Springs National Cemetery.
proposal
The Mill Springs Battlefield Association, in recognition of the
National Park Service's ability and expertise to generate tourism, is
asking this committee to support Congressman Harold Rogers' H.R. 298,
which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special
resource study to evaluate the significance of the Mill Springs
Battlefield located in Pulaski and Wayne Counties, Kentucky, and the
feasibility of its addition to the National Park System as part of the
Cumberland Gap National Park.
MSBA is unique in that we are not asking the Park Service to take
over undeveloped battlefield land. In contrast, we are offering the NPS
600 acres with miles of well-kept interpretive trails, a marked driving
tour, and a visitor's center/museum. MSBA has spent $12 million to
preserve and interpret the battlefield for future generations. The Mill
Springs Battlefield Association will continue as a ``friends group'' in
support of the battlefield. Our dedication to preserving and protecting
the battlefield will not change when this becomes a National Park.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony and
explanation of the bill, which is about authorizing a study of
this area.
Do any of the Members have questions on this particular
piece of legislation? If not, I thank you so much. You are
welcome to stay there as long as you want to, but if you need
to return back or anything, you are free to do that.
We will turn now to Mr. Vogel, talking about the Lower East
Side Tenement Museum. Welcome. Happy to have you here. Same
rules. You have 5 minutes to present the testimony about this
particular act.
STATEMENT OF MORRIS J. VOGEL, PRESIDENT, LOWER EAST SIDE
TENEMENT MUSEUM
Mr. Vogel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for allowing me to speak on behalf of H.R. 1846.
This legislation would expand the boundaries of our current
National Park Service-affiliated site to include a recently
purchased building two doors away.
It is my privilege to serve as President of the Tenement
Museum, which since 1988 has been presenting the stories of
immigrants who brought their dreams to the United States, made
their homes on New York's Lower East Side, built lives,
established families, earned livelihoods, and lived the
struggles common to many newcomers in difficult settings.
In the case of the immigrants' whose lives we present to
200,000 visitors a year, that setting was an 1863 tenement at
97 Orchard Street purpose built to house the poor when that
neighborhood, Mr. Chairman, was Kleine Deutschland, the largest
concentration of German speakers in the history of this
country.
They lived in 325-square-foot apartments, as many as 8 or
10 or 12 to a 3-room home, without indoor toilets, without
heat, water or utilities. Seven thousand people lived in that
building before the city of New York condemned it as unfit for
human occupancy in 1935.
The museum uses that tenement to tell the stories of
immigrants from Ireland and Italy, Poland and Greece, Austria,
Russia, Germany and Lithuania. We use it to help visitors who
come from across the United States and around the world
understand how this Nation evolved, how people of many
different backgrounds became the American people.
Their children and grandchildren have moved out of the
neighborhood for the most part. Their descendants have
continued to play vital roles in shaping our common destiny.
Earlier this week I visited the 9/11 memorial, our neighbor
in downtown New York. There, among the nearly 3,000 names
etched into the footprints of the towers, I found Frank
Reisman, the great-great-grandson of Nathalie Gumpertz, who, as
a single mother born in East Prussia, raised three children at
97 Orchard Street. Even more meaningfully, I found among those
names individuals from more than 90 nations, who, like our
tenement residents, brought their dreams to this land of
promise.
So many of those names identify individuals who joined our
common destiny from the new immigrant waves of recent decades;
from China, the Caribbean, Africa, Central America, South Asia.
The museum can't tell their stories at 97 Orchard Street
because that building closed before those immigrant waves
arrived.
Our recently acquired building at 103 Orchard Street, which
dates from 1888 and escaped condemnation because it met the
city's evolving life and safety standards, will allow us to
broaden the story we tell. We began documenting Puerto Rican
and Chinese families who lived in the building. We will be
using the facts of their lives in the homes in which they
actually lived to provide an account of the largest Puerto
Rican community on the American mainland and the largest
Chinatown in the Western Hemisphere.
We have documented in that building as well a family of
Holocaust survivors allowed into the United States under this
country's very first Refugee Act.
Taken individually, those stories will allow us to respond
to the Park Service's injunction to tell America's untold
stories. Taken together, which is how we will present them,
those stories tell about the people we have become.
I welcome your support to recognize the property that will
let us undertake this historical presentation as an affiliated
site of the National Park Service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for
your time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vogel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Morris J. Vogel, President, Lower East Side
Tenement Museum
H.R. 1846
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of H.R. 1846, the
Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site Amendments Act.
The Lower East Side Tenement Museum was founded in 1988; for 25
years now it has preserved and interpreted the history of immigration
through the personal experiences of the generations of newcomers who
settled in and built lives on Manhattan's Lower East Side, America's
iconic immigrant neighborhood. The Museum forges emotional connections
between visitors and immigrants past and present through tours of its
historic building at 97 Orchard Street, which was declared a National
Historic Landmark in 1994. The historic site became an affiliated site
of the National Park System (NPS) in 1998 in Pub. L. 105-378 and is
part of the National Parks of New York Harbor, which includes the
Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, and Castle Clinton.
The Museum now serves 200,000 visitors per year, including 40,000
school children. Visitors explore recreated apartments and hear the
stories of real families from over 20 nations who lived in the building
from 1863 until 1935, when the city of New York condemned the building
as unfit for human occupancy. The Museum has transformed this everyday
tenement into a National Historic Site, its worn hallways and tired
homes a monument to how imaginative historic preservation can summon
the ghosts of the past to explain America's most cherished ideals. The
Museum helps visitors explore how the tenement's immigrant residents
worked, raised families, kept house, built communities, accommodated to
America's promise, and built this wonderful country.
The Museum purchased 103 Orchard Street, an 1888 tenement building,
in 2007 and renovated its lower floors as a visitor and education
center. Unlike the Museum's first historic structure, 103 Orchard
Street did not close to residents in mid-century, and so provided homes
to more recent immigrant waves. The Museum is now developing an exhibit
to present stories of Jewish Holocaust survivors, post-1965 Chinese
families, and 1950s Puerto Rican migrants. Together, these will extend
the Museum's immersive historic interpretations beyond 1935, where they
now end, into the present.
This project is a direct response to former NPS Director Jon
Jarvis's ``Call to Action'' to tell America's untold stories. The
exhibit would be the first at a National Park Service site to interpret
the history of Holocaust survivors rebuilding lives in America. It
would also be one of the few telling the stories of Puerto Rican
migrants to the mainland and post-1965 Chinese immigrants. The
interpretation differs from ethnic museums in that it presents the
larger narrative of how Americans came to be the people they are today;
in presenting these three distinct cultural narratives side by side for
the first time, the Museum will provide a powerful lens on how
Americans moved beyond the race-based immigration quota laws of the
1920s. The new exhibit will provide the setting for a powerful
narrative reflecting the experiences of contemporary Americans in the
diverse communities that now constitute much of the Nation.
House bill 1846 expands the boundaries of the National Park Service
affiliated site at 97 Orchard Street to include this newer tenement
building. Including 103 Orchard Street is a direct response to the
Department of the Interior's 2006 General Management Plan for the site,
which recognized the need for visitor orientation, administrative
facilities, and additional exhibit space. It determined that any
boundary adjustment include significant features related to the primary
purpose of the site, address operational issues including access, or
protect resources critical to the site's mission. It also required
legislation to adjust the site's boundaries.
These new exhibits are directly related to the Museum's mission and
allow visitors to see how immigration has continued to evolve into the
present. We estimate the expansion would allow it to accommodate 50,000
additional visitors annually, including 12,000 school students.
Furthermore, these exhibits will be fully ADA accessible which the
majority of the original exhibits are not.
This legislation will secure a partnership between the new space
and the National Parks of New York Harbor. NPS would be able to assist
this site with education workshops, tours for New York City school
children, and exhibition construction and preservation, just as it has
done at the original site. This designation would help preserve
America's iconic immigrant neighborhood. It is critical to provide the
Tenement Museum with the resources it needs to continue to educate our
children and tell the important stories of our past immigrant
experience. The immigration story is America's story; New York's Lower
East Side has been a portal to freedom for countless generations of new
Americans.
The Lower East Side Tenement Museum has worked for 25 years to
enhance appreciation for the profound role immigration has played and
continues to play in shaping this country. Today we ask that you
support H.R. 1846 and expand the affiliated site boundaries to include
this second historic building and help ensure the Tenement Museum's
success for years to come.
______
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate your testimony and coming here
today. You actually had me on Kleine Deutschland when you got
to that point there.
Are there any other questions on this particular piece of
legislation? If not, once again, we thank you for the
testimony. Thank you for explaining it. We appreciate your
attendance here with us today.
Mr. Vogel. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Let me turn to the mayor. We welcome you again.
Mr. Segarra. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. As I said, you had German names, German names,
and then you broke the pattern right here. But we thank you. We
turn to you for testimony on H.R. 1259. And same rules. I
appreciate it. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF PEDRO E. SEGARRA, MAYOR, CITY OF HARTFORD,
CONNECTICUT
Mr. Segarra. Thank you, Chairman Bishop. And it is indeed a
pleasure to be here again to speak in support of House bill
1259. Thank you, Ranking Member Mr. Grijalva and other members
of the committee.
It is a pleasure to be here on behalf of the city of
Hartford in support of House bill 1259, the designation of the
Coltsville Historic District as a national park. I want to
thank Congressman John Larson and Senators Blumenthal and
Murphy for their tireless support of this critical and
important initiative.
This effort, which also has the broad support of the city's
business community, institutions and organizations, is critical
to the revitalization of Connecticut's capital city and will
become a centerpiece of the city's effort to increase its focus
on heritage tourism. It would also stand as a model for future
innovation.
The Colt manufacturing facility and surrounding structures
played a critical, if not essential, role in the national
defense, defining the direction of the United States during a
time of great exploration and innovation. It not only changed
the face of national and international business and commerce,
but also enhanced and further promoted the spirit of American
business ingenuity and the role in the local community.
It is symbolic that we are now again presented with a
monumental decision that, if approved, will help to shape and
encourage an ongoing renaissance in the city of Hartford and
further promote the historic and necessary investment that
Governor Dannel Malloy has made to restore funding designed to
promote Connecticut's culture and tourism destinations.
The city of Hartford, the State of Connecticut and
collaborative and associated public and private entities are
deeply invested in the Coltsville neighborhood. The city has
already rebuilt two schools and improved housing stock in the
immediate area, and has committed almost $3 million in matching
funds to improve the surrounding streets in ways that will
redefine space, improve visuals, increase safety, and enhance
the overall vibrancy of the area.
We also stand ready to assist with other developments and
elements in the greater scope and definition as we add this to
America's first and arguably the most preeminent industrial
zone.
A commitment has also been made by Riverfront Recapture and
the Capital Region Education Council to preserve and maintain
and manage their properties in accordance with the National
Park Service and Historic Preservation Guide.
A national park at Coltsville will only require the Park
Service to manage only 10,000 square feet designated in the
East Armory. All other areas will be interpreted externally, or
an agreement with the National Park Service will be established
during the evaluation period. In other words, if anything shuts
down, Congressman Bishop, we can manage this on our own.
It is important to briefly recognize the number of jobs
this effort will create and the overall impact to the economy.
Not only will the trades benefit through an intense
construction effort, but long-term job growth across the region
and in the entire job spectrum. Not only does it benefit the
leisure and hospitality sector, but also those critical
indirect and secondary job markets.
So far, with the investments we have made, 1,000 jobs have
been added, and an additional $175 million has been brought to
the local economy. If we get the designation, we estimate that
an additional 1,000 jobs and an additional $150 million will
come to the local economy.
I couldn't finish also without mentioning to you that it is
the home of vintage baseball. Congressman Larson wanted, and I
also want, to extend an invitation to you and members of the
committee to come see vintage baseball. It is civility at its
best in sportsmanship.
I want to thank you for your consideration as we move
forward with this resolution not only because its recognition
is past due, but because of many of the positive outcomes that
will come from recognizing Coltsville as a national park.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Segarra follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pedro E. Segarra, Mayor, City of Hartford,
Connecticut
H.R. 1259--Coltsville National Historical Park Act
Distinguished members of the committee,
On behalf of the city of Hartford, I appear before you today in
support of H.R. 1259, the designation of the Coltsville Historic
District as a National Park. I want to thank Congressman John Larson
and Senators Lieberman and Blumenthal for their tireless support of
this critical and important initiative. This effort, which also has the
broad support of the city's business community, institutions, and
organizations, is critical to the revitalization of Connecticut's
Capital City, and will become a centerpiece of the city's effort to
increase its focus on heritage tourism. It will also stand as model for
future innovation.
The Colt Manufacturing facility, and surrounding structures, played
a critical--if not essential--role in our national defense, defining
the direction of the United States during a time of great exploration
and innovation. It not only changed the face of national and
international business and commerce, but also enhanced and further
promoted the spirit of American business ingenuity, and its role in
local community. It is symbolic that we are now again presented with a
monumental decision that, if approved, will help to shape and encourage
an on-going renaissance in the city of Hartford and further promote the
historic and necessary investment that Governor Dannel Malloy has made
to restore funding designed to promote Connecticut's culture and
tourism destinations.
The city of Hartford, State of Connecticut, and the collaborative
of associated public and private entities, is deeply invested in the
Coltsville neighborhood. The city has already rebuilt two schools and
improved housing stock in the immediate area, and has committed almost
$3 million in matching funds to improve surrounding streets in ways
that will redefine space, improve visuals, increase safety and enhance
the overall vibrancy of the area. We also stand ready to assist with
other elements as greater scope and definition are added to the
revitalization of one of America's first, and arguably most preeminent,
industrial zones. A commitment has also been made by local businesses,
property owners, and managers, such as the Colt Gateway, Riverfront
Recapture and the Capitol Region Education Council, to preserve,
maintain and manage their properties in accordance with the National
Park Service and Historic Preservation Guide. A National Park at
Coltsville will only require the Park Service to manage the 10,000
square feet designated in the East Armory. All other areas will be
interpreted externally or an agreement with the National Parks Service
will be established during the evaluation period outlined in the
legislation.
It is important to briefly recognize the number of jobs this effort
will create and the overall impact to the economy. Not only will the
trades benefit through an intense construction effort, but long term
job growth for the region across the entire job spectrum; not only in
direct benefits to the leisure and hospitality sector, but also those
critical indirect and secondary job markets that will be added and
supported as well. With an intense focus and commitment in these areas,
the region has already seen over 1,000 new jobs created and the
infusion of $175 million into the regional economy. This designation,
critical to the further restoration of Colt Manufacturing, has been
independently estimated to generate an additional $150 million for the
regional economy and create 1,000 additional jobs over the next 5
years. If no further development occurs, it will only yield $30 million
and 229 jobs.
I thank you for your time and consideration and do hope that you
will move this resolution forward, not only because this recognition is
long past due, but because of the many positive outcomes that will no
doubt result from Coltsville being designated as a National Park.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate you, Mr. Mayor, for
being here again.
Are there any questions for this particular witness?
Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Segarra, I want to commend you and Mr. Larson and the
others for preparing a good piece of legislation. I think this
will work well. I certainly appreciate the benefits that
heritage tourism and recreation bring to a community and to an
entire region. We certainly see that in New Jersey.
And one of the things I like about the Coltsville
presentation is it complements and in no way detracts from the
Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, the site of the
beginning of the industrial revolution in America, and the site
of the invention of the Colt revolver, and the first place
where interchangeable-part manufacturing was undertaken, which
was then developed so highly at Coltsville.
In fact, just for the record, it was March 1836 that Samuel
Colt started the Patent Arms Manufacturing Company in Paterson,
New Jersey, and production of the pocket model Paterson
revolver began in 1837. And in 1848, Colt started the Colt's
Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company in Hartford; in other
words, a dozen years later.
So I think they complement each other well, and I commend
you for putting together a good proposal.
Mr. Segarra. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Any other questions?
Then we have--Mr. LaMalfa. Go ahead. Could I add one thing
before you do that, Mr. LaMalfa? I appreciate it.
And I also want to thank you for talking about the baseball
field, because Paterson didn't include their ballpark in their
park. They screwed it up.
Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. Holt. We tried.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am excited to hear about this as well, as a longtime fan
of Colt products here, the 1911 semiauto pistol, and AR-15, and
going all the way back to the previous history in the
beginning, the founding of America, and of the importance it
was for the defending and taming of the West. It is a great
history here, so I am excited that this is moving forward in
Connecticut.
And you did mention that only 10,000 square feet would be
subject to the National Park Service, and the rest would be
autonomous to the local area?
Mr. Segarra. That is correct. We have made significant
investments in restoring this park. We have built two schools.
So the park is----
Mr. LaMalfa. How close are the schools to the----
Mr. Segarra. The schools are right within the region. It is
over 300 acres, but the park that would be the national park is
only 10,000 square feet. There is an armory portion to this,
but there is also Armsmere, which is the old Colt mansion; and
there is a park, which was basically the park for the workers.
There is also housing, the Potsdam Cottages.
So there are a lot of amenities within this district, but
the National Park request that we are making is for the 10,000-
feet museum portion, which will represent the history of all
these different assets.
Mr. LaMalfa. So the rest of the park would not be subject
to Park Service barricades and things like that? You would be
able to control that yourself, right?
Mr. Segarra. That is correct.
And I also failed to mention that in addition to baseball,
something very important happened right within the proximity of
this land, and that is that the first written constitution, the
Magna Carta, was drafted right there. So not only did we draft
the first written constitution, we also developed there the
means, the manufacturing means, to build us this great country.
So I think asking for 10,000 square feet in return is a small
thing to ask.
Mr. LaMalfa. Great. Great. OK. I would be excited to visit
that someday here, catch a baseball game and see the
Constitution, and especially enjoy the Second Amendment aspects
of that----
Mr. Segarra. Absolutely.
Mr. LaMalfa [continuing]. On the site there. So I think it
is a great bill and will be happy to support it when it is
time.
Mr. Segarra. Thank you, sir.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you
for being here, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Segarra. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. We will now turn to John Anderson, the
Councilman from White Fish, Montana, if you would like to talk
about Mr. Daines' legislation.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ANDERSON, CITY COUNCILOR, WHITEFISH, MONTANA
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
Grijalva, members of the subcommittee, and, of course,
Congressman Daines. Thank you very much for inviting me to
speak on this bill, H.R. 2259, the North Fork Watershed
Protection Act.
My name is John Anderson, and I am a City Councilor from
White Fish, Montana. In White Fish, my wife and I are raising
two young boys, and if all goes well, when I get done
testifying here, I plan to spend the weekend hunting with my
oldest boy. On Monday, he finished his hunter safety courses,
so this will be his first trip, and we plan to hunt these same
lands that are the subject of this bill. In addition to the
deer and elk that we will be chasing, we hope to see moose,
wolverines even, mountain goats, and with any luck we will run
across a grizzly bear from a distance.
One of the important aspects of these lands is, similar to
my family, generations are able to enjoy the recreation there.
It binds communities together, and it binds families together
throughout Montana.
An additional aspect of this bill is the continuation of
existing recreational activities as well as natural resource
management, such as livestock and forest management. And that
is particularly important to me. Prior to going to law school
at the University of Montana, I ran a logging company. I had
little more than a chainsaw and a team of draft horses, and I
made my living in the woods. And this bill allows this part of
Montana to continue to enjoy its logging heritage.
From my perspective this bill benefits the local economy as
well as the local taxpayers. During the great recession, I was
Chairman of the Board of the White Fish Chamber of Commerce,
and I saw firsthand the difficulties of those times within my
community. My friends lost their jobs, their businesses, many
of them got divorced and suffered other tragedies.
The city of White Fish itself experienced some very
difficult budgetary times, but thanks to a mayor, city council
and a talented city manager in Chuck Stearns, as well as his
dedicated city staff, the city of White Fish was able to
balance their budget, and we have not raised property tax rates
in 4 years.
As a local official, my focus, similar to Mayor Segarra's,
I suspect, is the blocking and tackling of local government. We
deal with fixing sewer lines, filling potholes and balancing
the budget, and that, of course, is the most important thing we
do in a local government.
This bill helps us balance that budget. It protects our
watershed, where we get our drinking water from. Our primary
source of water is the mountain streams in Haskill Basin, which
is just north of White Fish. We also draw from White Fish Lake,
which is adjacent to our town and actually part of the city of
White Fish. If these lands are subject to heavy extractive
industries, our costs of treating that water will go up. We
will find ourselves drawing more and more from the lake. And
the cost of treating drinking water from that lake is about
two-and-a-half times that of treating drinking water straight
from those mountain streams.
I hate to think about the decisions that we will have to
make and the costs that we will have to pass on to our
taxpayers should heavy mining and extractive industries take
place there. As a matter of fact, on Monday on our council
agenda is an item to consider the water usage fees. This is a
very real issue, very pertinent and very timely to us in the
local community of White Fish.
That is why this bill makes sense. As Congressman Daines
mentioned, it enjoys broad, diverse support. The industries,
from the energy sector, such as ConocoPhillips and Chevron
support it. The forest products industries supports it, Plum
Creek and Stolze Lumber included. Stolze Lumber, as Congressman
Daines mentioned, is one of Montana's oldest family owned
lumber companies, a stone's throw away from these lands.
Some of the other businesses that support this include the
outfitters and guide services that have used these lands for
decades, as well as the Glacier National Park concessionaire.
I want to thank you for your time, and I would be happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Anderson, City Councilor, Whitefish, Montana
H.R. 2259--North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013.
Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, members of the
subcommittee, thank you very much for considering this important piece
of legislation, H.R. 2259: The North Fork Watershed Protection Act of
2013. My name is John Anderson. I am from Whitefish, Montana, where I
am a city councilor and where my wife and I are raising two young boys.
When I return to Montana after testifying today, I will spend the
weekend hunting with my oldest son on the same lands that are the
subject of this bill. It is his first hunting season, so this will be
his first time hunting rather than merely accompanying me. We hope to
see not only the deer and elk we will be stalking, but also moose,
mountain goats, wolves, wolverines, black bears, grizzly bears, and
bighorn sheep, all of which are found here in one of our Nation's most
robust wildlife habitats. This bill will allow local hunters and
anglers to enjoy these same lands that bind together not only my
family, but also families and communities and throughout the State of
Montana.
This bill also provides for the continuation of recreational,
livestock, and forest management activities currently allowed on these
lands. This is particularly important both to me and to our local
economy. Before attending law school, I owned a logging company and
made my living with little more than a chainsaw and a team of draft
horses. Thanks to this bill, the area's deep logging heritage can
continue.
From my perspective, this bill benefits not only the local economy,
but also the local taxpayers. As Chairman of the Whitefish Chamber of
Commerce during the Great Recession, I witnessed first hand the effects
of unpredictability on the local economy. Many of my friends lost their
houses, their businesses, and their sense of optimism. Some divorced
and many suffered other personal tragedies. The city of Whitefish faced
harsh budgetary prospects. Thanks to the mayor and city council, a
talented city manager in Chuck Stearns, and a dedicated city staff,
Whitefish passed balanced budgets and has not raised property tax rates
for the last 4 years. We have been able to build reserves, stabilize
services for our residents, and clear the path for continued success.
As a local official, my focus is on the ``blocking and tackling''
of government. Our city council agendas are filled with issues such as
repairing sewer lines, filling pot holes, and plowing snow. But perhaps
the most basic job of local government is balancing the budget. H.R.
2259 helps us do that. It protects a significant portion of our
watershed, obtained directly from mountain streams in Haskill Basin
that run through the lands that are preserved by this bill. If these
lands are not safeguarded, and water quality in turn suffers, Whitefish
will be faced with spending more money to treat water obtained from
Whitefish Lake or other sources. Treating water from the lake costs
nearly 2.5 times as much as treating water from the mountain streams.
Fortunately, the land above Whitefish Lake is also protected by this
bill. Should this land be mined or subject to heavy extraction
activity, the local taxpayers may face rate and tax increases they can
scarcely imagine.
That is why this bill makes sense. It enjoys especially broad,
local support. A varied cross section of industries, business groups,
local governments, hunting and fishing organizations, conservation
groups, and the State of Montana have publicized their support.
Additionally, the entire Montana Congressional Delegation unanimously
supports this bill.
Industry supporters include energy companies such as ConocoPhillips
and Chevron and forest product companies such as Plum Creek and Stolze
Land and Lumber, the latter of which is headquartered in nearby
Columbia Falls, Montana, and is one of the Nation's oldest family owned
forest product companies. Our area's largest private employer,
Kalispell Regional Medical Center, also supports this bill, as does our
world-class ski resort, Whitefish Mountain Resort. Additionally, local
chambers of commerce and numerous small businesses support this bill.
The small businesses range from long-standing guide services that make
their living on these lands to the concessionaire in Glacier National
Park, which is adjacent to these lands. The area's largest tribal
government, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, also supports
this bill, as do the cities of Whitefish and Kalispell as well as local
county governments.
In the U.S. Senate, this bill received unanimous support from the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee without any opposition. I
ask that you also unanimously support passage of this bill.
As I mentioned previously, the State of Montana supports this bill.
On February 19, 2010, Montana and the Province of British Columbia
signed a Memorandum of Understanding to preclude mining, oil and gas
development, and coalbed methane extraction throughout the
transboundary Flathead region on State and provincial lands in this
area. Virtually the entire watershed in British Columbia is provincial
property, and the Province of British Columbia has since legislated a
mining ban on those lands. On the United States side of the border,
some 90 percent of the North Fork watershed is federally owned. I now
ask you to provide the same support to my community and my State as our
neighbors to the north have received from their government.
A significant benefit of this bill is that it protects private
property rights. It does not affect current leases on these Federal
lands. Section 3 explicitly provides that the withdrawal of Federal
land is subject to existing rights. Several major energy companies,
including ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Andarko, Pioneer, Allen, and Kirms,
have voluntarily relinquished their existing leases on these lands. To
date, approximately 80 percent of current leased acreage--more than
180,000 acres--has already been returned to the Department of the
Interior, free of charge to the American taxpayer.
In closing, I again urge you to unanimously support passage of this
important bill. Its importance to my local community is evidenced by
its local support. This comes from the people themselves.
That concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you for your attention
and for inviting me to speak. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Are there questions for this particular
witness?
Mr. Daines. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Daines, you are recognized.
Mr. Daines. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Anderson, thanks for being here. Congratulations to
your 12-year-old son passing hunter safety. Good luck.
Mr. Anderson. Thank you.
Mr. Daines. I remember my first hunt in Montana, and it is
something you never forget. So enjoy your time with your son
this weekend.
Given you are a representative of the city of White Fish, I
would like to focus on how important this bill is to your
community. To my knowledge, there are three streams in the
withdrawal area, the first, second and third creeks that are
part of that water supply and the watershed for the city of
White Fish. I understand the city has also already had to shut
off the third creek due to some street runoff pollution. If the
water doesn't flow from these creeks, White Fish, as you
mentioned in your testimony, must get its water from White Fish
Lake, which is more expensive; is that correct?
Mr. Anderson. That is correct.
Mr. Daines. And I think you said it was two-and-a-half
times more expensive to get it from the lake than from the
streams.
You also mentioned that if the water quality in the
tributaries and the city water supply are not protected, the
city is going to have to increase taxes, potentially. How would
a tax increase affect Montana families and how might it impact
the city and county coffers?
Mr. Anderson. Well, speaking as somebody who lives there
and would be directly affected by those taxes, I think it would
without a doubt have a detrimental effect on our local economy.
That money that we would like to go to private businesses would
have to go to the city to pay for things like cleaning the
water. I think that money is probably better spent in our
community otherwise.
Mr. Daines. You also mentioned, Mr. Anderson, how H.R. 2259
is important to maintaining our hunting and our outdoor
recreation heritage in Montana. Do you see H.R. 2259 harming
those historic uses in the area in any way?
Mr. Anderson. No, I do not. As a matter of fact, I think it
helps to support those continued uses.
Mr. Daines. Thanks.
You also mentioned that private property rights are
important to you. Some may wonder about the right to produce on
the existing leases that have not yet been relinquished. Will
H.R. 2259 harm private property rights or the ability for these
energy companies to produce?
Mr. Anderson. My understanding is this bill has no effect
on existing private property rights.
Mr. Daines. It is also my understanding that if this bill
is marked up in committee, we are going to include an amendment
to explicitly prohibit the bill's impact on the ability for
that suspension to be lifted. A similar amendment was adopted
in the markup of Senator Baucus' bill in the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. So we will move that forward. And
I plan on offering and including that amendment.
Mr. Anderson. Good.
Mr. Daines. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Are there--Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
First of all, I want to commend the author of this bill and
those who have worked on it, the councilor and others. I was
beginning to despair that we would ever see legislation from
the State that had the endorsement of industry and those who
want to protect the environment over the long term and both
parties. It is remarkable, but my question is am I correct that
this has some urgency because of the agreement that has been
reached upstream in Canada that gives the opportunity to
actually protect this area?
Mr. Anderson. Yes. That agreement is now over 3 years old,
and most of the lands on the Canadian side of the border in
this watershed are provincially owned. And Canada, or British
Columbia specifically, has enacted legislation to fulfill its
part of the MOU. But on the southern side of the boundary,
roughly 90 percent of these lands are federally owned, and so
that is why I am here today and so thankful that Congressman
Daines and Senator Baucus and Tester have introduced this bill.
Mr. Holt. Well, thank you. I am pleased to see this for a
variety of reasons. And, again, I would like to commend my
colleague Mr. Daines for his part in putting together a bill
with such broad support.
Mr. Daines. Thank you.
Mr. Anderson. And also a very brief one, you will notice.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Are there any other questions? If not, councilman, we
appreciate you being here with us.
We now turn to Mr. Partin of the American Forest Reserve
Council to--I am sorry--American Forest Resource Council----
Mr. Partin. Right.
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. Makes a difference--to discuss
H.R. 3188 with us. Sir, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF TOM PARTIN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE
COUNCIL
Mr. Partin. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Bishop,
Ranking Member Grijalva and members of the subcommittee, and
especially Mr. McClintock, for inviting me here today to speak
on H.R. 3188. My name is Tom Partin. I am President of the
American Forest Resource Council, and we are based in Portland,
Oregon.
I am here today, as I mentioned, to testify on H.R. 3188, a
bill to expedite salvage and rehabilitation activities on lands
inversely impacted by the 2013 Yosemite Rim Fire in California.
The American Forest Resource Council represents the forest
products industry in five Western States. We advocate for
sustainable forest management on our public forests, which will
help provide healthy forests, a vibrant forest products
industry, and healthy rural communities and counties.
Unfortunately, our Federal forests are far from being
managed today in a sustainable manner. They are overcrowded,
riddled with insects and disease, and, as we have just
witnessed on the Yosemite Rim Fire, a tinderbox ready to
explode and destroy a quarter of a million acres in timber.
This committee has on several occasions discussed with the
Forest Service and BLM what actions need to be taken to prevent
those catastrophic wildfires, and I encourage and applaud you
to keep prompting these agencies to better manage their lands
and find a new path forward.
I am not here today to further those discussions, rather I
am here to promote H.R. 3188, as I mentioned, that will
immediately address the disastrous conditions that we are left
with following the Yosemite Rim Fire.
With the fire finally extinguished, we were left with as
much as a billion board feet of charred timber and denuded
watersheds, soon to be choked with ash, burn debris and soil
coming off the hillsides from rains and snow.
Disasters of this magnitude call for actions equal in
scale. Waiting for months or even years to analyze all of the
on-the-ground conditions before developing a plan, like we
usually do when we have such large fires, is just not
acceptable, and the horrific conditions left in the fire's path
calls for immediate action.
H.R. 3188 allows for this immediate action by the Forest
Service, BLM and National Park Service to promptly plan and
implement salvage timber sales of dead, damaged or downed
timber resulting from that wildfire, without doing time-
consuming NEPA or other lengthy planning efforts. Salvage
timber sales prepared under this bill will also not be subject
to administrative review or judicial review by any court that
can take months or years to resolve.
Members of the committee, we need to quickly capture the
value of this dead timber before it deteriorates in the coming
months and put those dollars toward a massive regeneration and
restoration program like none we have tackled in the past. As a
sawmill manager, I know how quickly burnt timber deteriorates
from blue stain, checking and insect borings. For example, a
standing burnt tree today may have a value of $1,000. Twelve
months from now, it may only be worth one-third of that value.
Time is money when it comes to restoring a burnt forest.
The Forest Service, BLM and Park Service have no reserve
funds for planting burnt forests or doing much of their
rehabilitation. Those dollars for replanting only come from the
sale of salvaged trees from that burn. The more value that
these agencies get for the sale of their burnt timber, the more
acres of valuable watersheds can be restored.
Finally, sawmills that can access wood from the Rim Fire
located in Sonora, Chinese Camp, Lincoln and Terra Bella
desperately need the wood now for continued operations and need
the forest replanted for a long-term sustainable forest for the
decades to come.
For every 1 million board feet of timber harvested,
approximately 18 jobs of direct or indirect nature are created.
This would be a boon for many of our rural California counties
with double-digit unemployment, as well as reestablishing
young, green, growing forests.
The salvage of burnt trees on private land in California
has an expedited process to capture the value under the
California Forest Practices Act. In these cases only a
notification of salvage work is needed, not a full-blown timber
harvest plan. H.R. 3188 would bring those expedited features to
the public lands consumed by the Rim Fire by only requiring
that the agencies plan and implement projects put forth by
professional foresters on their staff, and those projects must
at least comply with the standards put forth in the California
Forest Practices Act.
As I said before, extreme events call for extreme actions,
and I strongly urge you to support H.R. 3188 for the rapid
restoration of our forests, our watersheds and rural
communities, where many jobs will be provided. Thank you very
much for accepting my testimony.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for coming here and giving testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Partin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Partin, President, American Forest Resource
Council
H.R. 3188
the impact of catastrophic wildfires on watersheds, such as the rim
fire, stanislaus national forest
The Forest Service is hamstrung nationwide with the aftermath of
catastrophic wildfire. Particularly in the West and specifically in the
Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, the number, size and intensity
of wildfires are increasing. Just in the last 25 years, the high
severity burned acres has increased from 21 percent to 33 percent of
total acres burned. The fire behavior, particularly over the past year,
has reached a new level. The Rim Fire expanded 35,000 acres on Day 4
and then an additional 50,000 acres on Day 5 and was burning in every
direction throwing embers up to a mile. There's never been anything
like it and it's, in large part, because of the ever-increasing tree
density on the national forests coupled with long, dry fire seasons.
Today, in the California Region on the national forests, productive
forest lands have 266 trees/acre on a landscape that can only support
about 40-100 trees/acre. The Forest Service mechanical thinning and
fuels reduction program only removes 7 percent of annual growth. The
Forests are getting denser and denser and denser. It's no surprise that
we are seeing fire behavior like never before.
Following a catastrophic wildfire, the Forest Service has short
term burned area emergency rehabilitation (BAER) authority that is by
definition part of the wildfire ``emergency''. These short term
activities (water barring dozer lines, rehabilitating other
suppression-related activities on the landscape, putting hay bales
across streams to try to reduce the sediment transport so that
drainages don't gully over the winter months and next spring, . . .)
are very limited in scope.
The longer term work of restoring the denuded watersheds is left to
the Forest Service to figure out how to accomplish using normal NEPA
procedures, ESA processes, and paying for it out of their normal
appropriations (there is no special money for longer term watershed
restoration).
The priorities of the Rim Fire are:
(1) Roadside hazard tree removal on about 400 miles of Forest
Service system road inside the burn perimeter. This work is
needed for public and administrative safety and to keep the
road system open to perform the rehab and restoration work.
If the hazard trees are not removed, there will be
literally thousands of trees that fall across the roads
during the coming winter and close the roads.
(2) Because of the complexity of National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)/Endangered Species Act (ESA) processes and
procedures, it generally takes the Forest Service,
California Region about 10-12 months to complete an
Environmental Impact Statement and Decision on what actions
to take to maintain the integrity of the road system and
restore the denuded watersheds.
(3) Twelve months from now, brush will have already sprouted and
the moderate-high severity burned acres on what was
productive forest land will be well on their way to type
converting to brushfields. If no salvage, site preparation
and planting of seedlings occur within 12-20 months on
these lands, they will be brushfields for many, many
decades to come (likely until the next wildfire burns the
same acres again). Over the next 5-8 years, standing dead
trees will rot off and fall over onto brush that could be
5-10' high or higher.
(4) The opportunity to save most of the existing road system is
rapidly diminishing as winter approaches. Forest Service
models predict that stream runoff could be 4\1/2\ times
greater than normal and the runoff will be mud and debris.
None of the existing culverts in the road system were
designed for these types of events. There's a high
probability that many culverts will plug, pond and blowout
sending thousands of cubic yards of dirt down the stream
channels and closing the roads for a long time to come.
Closed roads mean no access to perform rehabilitation or
restoration activities, even if planned and NEPA-cleared.
Much of the existing road system has inside ditches; in just 2
weeks during the fire, dry ravel off the cut banks already filled miles
of these ditches. On the fill slopes following the fire, dry ravel is
eroding the fill slopes and exposing the pavement and crushed aggregate
base on the mainline roads.
These are just indicators of a catastrophe that is likely to happen
during rain events this winter.
The importance of rapid restoration of the denuded watersheds
cannot be overstated. Activities begin with salvaging merchantable dead
trees that will make lumber. The revenue from these trees generally can
support cutting and piling of small trees and brush to help prepare the
productive forest lands for planting of seedlings.
Without rapid deployment of the salvage activity, the brush will
quickly sprout and totally occupy the growing space. Replacing the
brush with tree seedlings that will survive is an expensive process.
Further, rapid salvage is necessary because the value of the
merchantable trees rapidly declines from beetles, wood borers, and
other insects. As the value declines, the opportunity for revenue from
the salvage operation to pay for preparing the site for tree planting
is lost.
Reforestation on acreage the Forest Service deems important to
watershed restoration has to occur within 12-20 months. This will
enhance the opportunity to return the watershed to a ``forest'' rather
than a brush field.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Rim Fire, Stanislaus National Forest, Vegetation Burn Severity
Map
(September 26, 2013)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Stanislaus National Forest Fire History Map
______
Mr. Bishop. Are there questions?
Mr. McClintock, I am assuming?
Mr. McClintock. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Partin, I first want to thank you very much for coming
out on very short notice to provide testimony for this hearing.
As you know, time is of the essence on this.
The first question I would have for you is what do you say
to those that say, well, if we just leave it alone, it is all
going to grow back?
Mr. Partin. Well, we will have growth coming back, but in
the meantime we are going to have a considerable amount of
erosion. The growth we will get back will not be a conifer
stand of trees, it will be brush. It will take decades to get
trees regrowing on these sites, and in the meantime we are
going to have some disastrous conditions. We are going to have
harm to our watersheds. Our municipal watersheds that depend on
water for drinking are going to get impacted. We don't have the
time. We need to take immediate action.
Mr. McClintock. So if we listen to that advice, basically
what we are doing is consigning what was once forestland to
become brushland for the next several decades?
Mr. Partin. Absolutely. There are a tremendous amount of
examples of this on fires that have happened in California over
the decades, where we do not have conifer stands established;
we have brushfields. We are not going to get the value out of
those forests for the long term, and we just have poor
conditions.
Mr. McClintock. So that 400 square miles of incinerated
forest--of course, not all of it is incinerated, but much of it
is. And the fire was severe, rated severe, I believe, at about
60 percent of that area. If we just leave it alone, that forest
is not coming back in our lifetimes.
Mr. Partin. It will not come back in our lifetime. And we
have witnessed this time and time again. Case in point, up in
Oregon the 2002 Biscuit Fire had very little salvage done. It
is mostly a brush field right now. We do not have a forest
coming back. It is going to take time to get trees established
to compete with the brush, to get a forest back.
And, again, as I say, the important thing is we have to get
in there and manage those watersheds, or we are going to have
some extreme events with soils in the creeks going down to the
rivers and impacting our drinking water.
Mr. McClintock. What is the effect of going through the
normal NEPA process? We heard the Ranking Member say, well, we
have got to reopen the Government--which we all agree we need
to reopen the Government, and that is a great issue that is
raging right now--but if we simply resumed the normal process
for salvage sales, what is the prognosis for the Sierra Nevada?
Mr. Partin. The normal NEPA process, I think, as you
pointed out earlier, takes about a year to go through to either
do an EIS, environmental impact statement, or an environmental
analysis. Twelve months is a long time. On top of that, almost
every one of our salvage sales are appealed by environmental
groups, taking at least another 6 months to a year. You are
left with 2 years after a burn, and almost all of the value at
that point is gone. So having an expedited process, at least in
this case, is very important. We have some unique circumstances
out there right now that need some immediate attention.
Mr. McClintock. Now, when we put this dead timber up for
salvage sale, you pay us to take it out; do you not?
Mr. Partin. Absolutely.
Mr. McClintock. And can you give us some example per acre
of a typical salvage sale if it occurred in a timely manner
where the trees actually retain their commercial value?
Mr. Partin. Well, let us just take an example of if someone
bought the timber for $200 per thousand, and there are 10,000
board feet per acre. That would be $2,000 taken off of each
acre in value.
Mr. McClintock. So that would be $2,000 going directly to
the Federal Treasury that could then be spent on reforestation
of that acreage?
Mr. Partin. I think that is the important part. We don't
have the dollars in hand, the Forest Service, BLM or Park
Service, to do that replanting and rehabilitation. They need
cash from someplace else.
Mr. McClintock. We wait a year, we are already pretty much
past the harvest season going into the next winter, so it will
be about a year and a half to 2 years if we follow the normal
process. How much is that timber going to be worth after 2
years for salvage?
Mr. Partin. I have spent my entire career either as a
forester, or logging manager, or sawmill manager and watching
the deterioration of fallen salvage, and it is a huge impact.
You lose at least half of the value during the first year, and
it can be more than that on small trees. Small trees
deteriorate more quickly.
Mr. McClintock. So after a year the most we could expect is
to take $1,000 per acre out in salvage, and after 2 years
pretty much nothing?
Mr. Partin. There would be a little value after 2 years,
but only in the larger trees that don't have the checking or
deterioration simply because of the size and there is so much
mass inside. But we would lose over half of the value.
Mr. McClintock. And after that, if we want to get that dead
timber out of the forest, and it has been ordered to do
reforestation, we would have to pay somebody to come in and
haul it out because it then has no value.
Mr. Partin. It has no value. The long-term impacts, you
have a heavy fuel loading, standing snags all over the place,
brush growing underneath, as you mentioned. These larger trees
will tip over in time, and then you have even worse fire
conditions in decades to come.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And without objection, I would like to enter two letters of
opposition to the legislation, H.R. 3188, one representing
Sierra Club Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife and Earth
Justice; and the other, Outdoor Alliance, representing various
recreation advocacy groups, if there is no objection, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Without objection.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
If I may, Mr. Partin, one question, or for my own
clarification here. In July 1985, Congress established an
emergency salvage timber sale program. According to a GAO
report from 1997, the elimination of the appeals associated
with the salvage riders, as it came to be called, had little
impact on the amount of timber sold and salvaged in the salvage
sales.
Has something fundamentally changed in those since that
study that it is now necessary to eliminate administrative
review for the Rim Fire?
Mr. Partin. I think a lot of things have happened since
1985, particularly----
Mr. Grijalva. 1995.
Mr. Partin. Pardon me?
Mr. Grijalva. 1995.
Mr. Partin. 1995? Particularly when it comes to the length
of analysis needed for a lot of these projects, what the
agencies have to go forward in preparing their NEPA work, their
EISs, their EAs. As I mentioned, it can take up to a year.
We don't have a year out here. These are extreme conditions
in this particular area. I think it calls for extreme action.
It calls for getting in there now, generating some funds that
you can get from the salvage of this wood to put back into the
ground, to help replant some trees, to help reclaim these
watersheds. We don't have time, and this is a unique
circumstance.
Mr. Grijalva. And just last, Mr. Partin, does the Resource
Council or yourself, do you support logging in Yosemite
National Park?
Mr. Partin. I think there are places where a national park
can benefit from taking material out. We have a lot of people
visit these parks. We do not want to have a dangerous
situation. We want to have a green forest. And what we can do
to make their presence in these national parks a good
experience for them, I think we need to do some work there.
Mr. Grijalva. I think, Mr. Partin, there a lot of reasons,
but the iconic nature of the park that we are talking about,
that the opposition to elimination of NEPA, Clean Water Act,
the concern is that it is a precedent, number one, and because
it is an iconic area, that the issue of expeditedness is an
open question, but the point of eliminating, I think that is
where there is a great deal of concern.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Partin, when we contrast, I will call it the response
time on private land versus this process you have to go through
on public land, how quickly are private landowners able to get
on, recover timber that has value so that--again, we have all
heard about how it works well to be able to make money off of
what you are recovering instead of having to come out of either
a private person's profit or, in public land, on a Treasury
that is already empty. What is that response time, contrasting
the two----
Mr. Partin. Well, as I mentioned, under the California
Forest Practices Act, when private landowners have a burn of
any kind of magnitude, all they have to do is provide a
notification to the forestry department they are going to take
these actions. Again, all of the actions have to comply with
the California Forest Practices Act, but there is immediacy and
an urgency to get out there, oftentimes within weeks or a month
or two after the fire has burned. So you are looking at a quick
response time on private lands to capture the value, to get
their lands back in production and get a new stand established.
Mr. LaMalfa. Which means you have a property that is not
subject to the erosion problems, wildlife are going to be
returning, the trees will be growing, you can fly over it
within X amount of years, and it will look like a pretty good
stand of forest once again, yes?
Mr. Partin. Absolutely. You will have trees established.
You will not have the brush fields. And it is important to
recognize getting out and maintaining these forests, you get to
maintain the roads, you get to prevent the massive erosion that
can occur on these unstable slopes, and there is a lot of
environmental pluses for taking the immediate action, capturing
the value, getting trees replanted, make sure we preserve our
infrastructure.
Mr. LaMalfa. So what have you seen in the past where there
have been land swaps where public land has gone into private
ownership? Has the land somehow become different on the way it
regrows trees or the way it affects the environment when a
private person replants it as opposed to--is there some kind of
magic trick here that because it is public property, that
recovering the land, recovering the value, getting it
replanted, or instead having to go through a year and a half, 2
years worth of hassle, why is it different on public land than
private land? Is there something different about the soil or
the air? What is the problem?
Mr. Partin. Again, there is nothing different about the
soil. There is nothing different about the trees. The lands are
side by side. What is different is the time it takes to
analyze, do the NEPA work, do the environmental impact
statements to actually get to a project, and then you have the
possibility----
Mr. LaMalfa. So if the American public understood what is
going on with the ability to recover land quickly on the
private level, and their public assets are languishing for 2
years, and then they don't have the money anymore to do it. I
can think of instances up in Trinity County and Shasta County
in northern California where a fire has gone through and
devastated--actually very close to the town of Weaverville and
not far from Redding, et cetera, putting them in peril, but
then just a few years later, because these areas weren't
managed, recovered, reforested, that they become brush fields;
all the dead timber, all the snags, they become this tinderbox
for another fire just 7 years later.
Do you think if the American public understood all these
different things, that they would think that this NEPA process
is efficient, especially a jewel like the Yosemite area, where
people come from around the world to visit? What do you think
they would think of that?
Mr. Partin. I would think they would think our rules are
broken, and we need to do something to take immediate action.
I would like to just say one thing. In 1973, I worked for
the Forest Service, and I actually fought a fire inside the Rim
Fire, it is called the Granite Fire, next to Cherry Creek
Reservoir. Again, we are having reburns of these areas that
haven't been salvaged. It devastates the landscape. We return
to them time and time again.
Something has to change to, number one, get the value off
these lands in a timely manner, to go back and reestablish
growth, and to make sure we preserve our amenities out there
such----
Mr. LaMalfa. Quickly. I am running out of time. I
appreciate it.
The Ranking Member mentioned a 1995 congressional piece of
legislation that was to expedite salvage, and mentioned that a
survey or a report done on that showed very few acres have
actually been recovered because of this bill to expedite the
process. Do you know much about that bill, or do know why it
isn't working? Because if we are not getting the acres under
the law intentionally done by the Congress to do so, I guess
there is something wrong with the breadth of that law, right?
Mr. Partin. Yes. I don't know exactly that law. If it were
the section 318 salvage rider, there was an immediate volume
put up that had some timber sales moving forward in that year
or 2 years. Since then it is out of date.
As I say, we have a lot of rules and regulations that take
time under NEPA, EIS and EA to get a project moving forward,
and then it could be impacted by litigation in the courts,
taking another year. It is a bad process. And there was the
FERRA bill passed in the House in 2005. Some of you might
remember that, the Forest Emergency Recovery and Restoration
Act. We have been trying to address this issue for many years,
decades. We haven't an answer, we haven't a solution; hence, we
are in this limbo land. This bill would at least get us beyond
that for this project.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Are there any other questions?
Before I do, I recognize Mr. Huffman.
Lest I forget again here, we appreciate all of you being
here. We would remind you that the record is still open. You
may be asked to respond to written questions. If they come to
you, we would ask you do that in a relatively short period of
time.
Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the
witnesses for their testimony.
This is an incredibly broad bill. It covers a broad area of
land, a lot of acreage that includes forestland, National Park
Service land. Ninety-two percent of the area, I am told, that
burned in Yosemite National Park is designated as wilderness.
We have all sorts of various protected categories that apply to
certain parts of this land, and yet this bill would basically
mandate, or at least permit, salvage logging without any normal
administrative procedures or judicial review, safeguards in
every part of it.
And so my question for you, Mr. Partin, is salvage logging
appropriate everywhere?
Mr. Partin. I think the projects that would be developed by
the professionals in the Forest Service, BLM and the National
Park Service would look at where salvage is appropriate. I
think they have the expertise to know if we can't get into
wilderness areas, we can't get into some areas, those wouldn't
be entered. But we have a tremendous amount of general forested
areas that either need some help, need some rehabilitation,
need some work done to make sure we have safety for our folks
entering the forest, and I think those are the experts that
really need to work to develop these projects.
Mr. Huffman. How will we know that they will apply the kind
of rigor that you just indicated if we are waiving all normal
procedures and judicial review?
Mr. Partin. I think you have to look at it as these are
professional folks, much like doctors, much like other
professionals, that have a lot of history, that have a lot of
experience, that are going to go forward and present
professional projects. This is----
Mr. Huffman. Would you agree, sir, that there are instances
where salvage logging is not appropriate; where if it is not
done right, you could actually worsen some of the things that
you have mentioned in your testimony, things like erosion,
water quality; that if it is not done right, there is even some
science to suggest you could create greater fire-safety
impacts? Would you agree with those propositions, that there
are actually some studies from the Forest Service and others
that suggest that improperly done, salvage timber operations
can make things worse?
Mr. Partin. Well, I am not sure it would make it worse for
safety aspects, because what we are left with out there is a
tremendous amount of hazard. As far as could salvage done
incorrectly on soils or on slopes have a negative impact? Yes,
it could. I----
Mr. Huffman. Again, if done incorrectly, if impacts are
created, let us say water quality impacts for the city and
county of San Francisco, who pays for that mitigation if there
is no NEPA process, if there are no safeguards in place to
address the issue of mitigation under this bill? Taxpayers?
Mr. Partin. I think the taxpayers would, much like they are
going to pay for the problems we are having right out there
that were naturally caused by this fire. We have got 250,000
acres of a problem right now, and somebody has to address it.
We don't have the money----
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that.
Mr. Partin. We don't have the money----
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that. There is also a maxim about
making sure that the cure is not worse than the disease, and
proper procedures and safeguards are an important part of
ensuring that.
You have mentioned municipal water supply quality as one of
the factors in support of this very open-ended salvage logging
proposal. There is a very large municipal water supply we are
talking about, the city and county of San Francisco. Has
anybody asked the San Francisco PUC if they think open-ended
salvage logging in their watershed is a good idea? That might
be one of the many empty chairs that we would like to have
filled so we could get some information. The other would be the
Park Service, whether they think some additional logging is
appropriate.
I would note a very compelling part of your testimony, sir,
is about the need for the roadside hazards to be addressed. I
think we could all agree that we don't want trees falling on
roads all over watersheds; however, I have some information
informally that those trees have been removed in Yosemite
National Park already, again, one of many, many pieces of
information that we would have to inform this debate if we had
some of the empty chairs filled by folks from the Park Service,
from the Forest Service and other authorities that are missing
from this debate.
There is a lot that needs to be said about this bill. There
is not a lot of time, unfortunately, but I would suggest that a
bill that waives every environmental law in this entire very
important public area, including wilderness laws, roadless
laws, endangered species, NEPA, is not going to pass, and I
don't think anybody seriously believes that it will. There are
pieces of this that we could be working on in a cooperative
way, and my hope is that eventually we will have a more
practical discussion where maybe we can find common ground.
And I yield back.
Mr. Amodei. [Presiding.] Thank you.
Anything else on this panel.
Mr. Daines. Yes, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Amodei. Mr. Daines.
Mr. Daines. I yield my time to Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Partin, first of all, doesn't the bill direct the U.S.
Forest Service and the National Park Service to develop plans
according to their own best judgment?
Mr. Partin. Absolutely.
Mr. McClintock. So all of the concerns over protection of
watersheds, what kind of temporary egress would be required to
move this dead timber out, all of that would be subject to the
restrictions imposed by the U.S. Forest Service and the
National Park Service, correct?
Mr. Partin. Absolutely.
Mr. McClintock. Is there anything in this bill that
attempts to micromanage them or to override their judgment in
any respect?
Mr. Partin. No. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is the
professionals within each agency that would be doing the work.
They have boundaries they have to work within, and they would
be followed.
Mr. McClintock. And they also have procedures that are well
established that this bill does not affect; is that correct?
Mr. Partin. Absolutely.
Mr. McClintock. This bill simply waives the more-than-year
review process that makes salvage pretty much impractical.
Mr. Partin. Waives the NEPA requirements for the long-term
study and also the judicial review, which can take months or
years as well. We are trying to expedite this, get it to a
process that takes a couple of months rather than a couple
years, capture our value, and get some stands reestablished.
Mr. McClintock. But all of the professional foresters in
their judgment, all of the biologists in their best judgment,
all of the folks that manage these things for the U.S. Forest
Service and the U.S. Park Service would be developing the plans
for the salvage operations; is that correct?
Mr. Partin. Absolutely. You would have teams from all walks
within the Forest Service, wildlife, streams, watershed,
timber, developing these plans with their best knowledge to put
something forward that would work.
Mr. McClintock. Could you speculate on the damage that we
can expect if we simply do nothing for the next year?
Mr. Partin. Well, we mentioned watersheds and water
supplies, and I think we have to look no further than what
happened to the Denver municipal watershed in the Hayman Fire.
We had a reservoir that collected water for that city that was
almost half filled with silt during the early 2000s fire that
hit in that Denver watershed. These are examples, many
examples, of what can and will happen if we don't get out there
and take some aggressive action.
Mr. McClintock. Now, if we do allow this to go to
brushland, and we have the progression of events that can
normally be expected through the policy of benign neglect, we
are going to have 5 to 8 feet of brush in the next couple of
years covered by large timber-killed treefalls; is that
correct?
Mr. Partin. Brush is a very aggressive pioneer species. It
comes in following a fire, does very well. It will outcompete
the conifer trees. Unless the conifers are reestablished
quickly, we will have brush fields. We will have a lot of large
dead trees as a canopy. Eventually they fall down and create a
tremendous fuel loading for future fires.
Mr. McClintock. That is how you build a fire in a
fireplace. You put in lots of dry timber, and then you put the
logs on top, and that is what we can expect.
Now, from this fire I have seen estimates of just
horrendous erosion and runoff as a result of expected rains
just this year; is that correct?
Mr. Partin. That is correct, and I witnessed firsthand the
amount of erosion and runoffs from these fires once you have
large events, whether it is heavy rain or snow. We are coming
into the fall and winter season. We are going to get these
runoffs. If we don't have something to hold this water back----
Mr. McClintock. So we can expect that this year through
benign neglect, and then if there is another fire a few years
from now, with all the brush and stacked dead timber that will
be created by benign neglect, we can expect that again in the
next few years.
Mr. Partin. In the decades to come. As I mentioned, I was
on the Granite Fire in 1973 within this area. I assume the
conditions were not taken care of, they burned heavily, and we
need to stop this process.
Mr. McClintock. Now, when you say that the conifers can't
compete with the brush, that means that about the only way that
we are going to get the region reforested within our lifetimes
is to go in there and do it ourselves, right?
Mr. Partin. Well, absolutely. You have got an area of
250,000 acres that has been burned. We don't have a seed source
naturally out there to redevelop, to reestablish these conifer
trees. If we are going to get a conifer stand established, we
have to go out and plant them, and we have to put the dollars
up to get those young trees going.
Mr. McClintock. Now, can we plant them with the dead timber
that is there now?
Mr. Partin. We can, but, again, we are----
Mr. McClintock. But then we don't have the money to do it.
Mr. Partin [continuing]. Playing with fire, anticipating
other fires to happen in the future, which we have seen,
destroying the young stands that we are planting right now. So
the best alternative, let us get those trees off, those dead
trees now; let us establish a new stand, have a healthy forest
for the future.
Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Amodei. Anything else for this panel?
Mr. Grijalva. A second round, sir.
Mr. Amodei. You have something?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Just a quick follow-up, Mr. Partin. When we were discussing
discretion right now from Mr. McClintock's question about that
the professional land managers would have discretion as to what
happened, and so this bill does nothing to that discretion. The
assumption is that if it was, as Mr. Huffman said, an area in
which salvage would do more harm than good, then that
discretion would lay there in the legislation. It would be that
permissive.
So, but as I read it, and it gets to the portion about--it
says very specifically that with respect to affected Yosemite
National Park and Bureau of Land Management lands, that
professional ``shall promptly plan and implement''--implement--
``salvage timber sales.'' That is a ``shall'' not a ``may.''
Would you think it should be a ``may''?
Mr. Partin. I think it is ``shall,'' but I think it is also
important to look at the professionals developing this that
will--shall put a project out there, and those professionals
will decide where it is appropriate and where not.
Mr. Grijalva. But it is still required to have a prompt
salvage sale?
Mr. Partin. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. It kind of defeats the ``shall/may,'' huh?
Anyway, the other point and the comparison, private
property, expedited process, salvage, you use the California
model, all they would have to do is the notice of intent, and
we go forward.
I think there is a marked difference. These are public
lands, they are a shared asset of the American taxpayer, and
the administrative reviews that are in place are to protect
that asset. I mean, we are not talking about my personal land
that I can do what I want with. We are talking about a shared
asset of millions and millions of shareholders in it, and those
reviews are there for that overall protection of that asset,
and that is the biggest difference, and they are there for that
reason.
I just think that the ``shall/may'' is really--that there
is only one option, and that is to salvage and sell; that there
is no real discretion left to that professional staff that you
indicated are so capable on those public lands.
I yield back.
Mr. Partin. If I may, this is not a unique approach. Tribal
lands that are managed, tribal forestlands expedite their
salvage. Lands owned by the State Department of Natural
Resources in Washington State last year had a huge fire. Within
a few weeks they were back managing, salvaging the lands that
had burned. It is an exercise----
Mr. Amodei. Mr. Partin, I appreciate your response, but
your time comes through the person that is questioning you, and
Mr. Grijalva has yielded back. However, the next person is Mr.
LaMalfa. If you would like him to answer the question, maybe--
--
Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Partin, please continue on your line
there, and I will have another question or two after that.
Mr. Partin. I was just mentioning other landowners, tribal
landowners, State landowners go through an exercise very
similar to what is in this bill to look at moving salvage
forward quickly; to get replanting, rehabilitation done on the
land so they have a forest to manage for the long term. It is
not just unique to what is in this bill.
Mr. LaMalfa. Let me follow up on this note. First, we are
hearing about an asset, whether it is a public asset. I think
any American that would see what is going on would say their
asset is being poorly handled, poorly protected because it is
so subject to a refire just a few years later.
So all you hear from the opposition are ways to obstruct. I
have yet to hear a method that I would be open to for future
legislation to say how do we follow a prescription for speedy
salvage, because I liken this to a patient who has suffered an
accident, has to be hurried to the emergency room, is bleeding
out, and yet you run into somebody that has to sign you up on a
Web site first before you can receive treatment, thereby losing
the patient. In this case here you are losing the opportunity
to salvage something that you would have positive value for
instead of negative value 2 years from now.
I have never heard yet a way for somebody that would like
to work with those who think that expedited salvage would be a
way to go. We just hear NEPA, judicial review, ways to obstruct
and stop.
What do we learn--I would like to hear from you, what do we
learn from each NEPA, each EIS, each one of these lawsuits that
we don't already know from multiple go-rounds of this in the
past? The bill Mr. McClintock is working on, this isn't the
first time this has happened with a fire like this on a public
land, yet for years and years and years, haven't we ever
established a precedent that says, wow, we have had a fire on a
public land. That means we are going to have to go and salvage
some trees. Yes, there might be a stream here; we will probably
want to stay away from the stream 100 feet. There might be some
old growth; maybe we will stay away from that. There might be
an owl nest over here; we will figure out how to work around
that. But there is a whole bunch of acres in between.
It is like we are reinventing the wheel every single time,
with new lawsuits, new obstruction, a new NEPA process. What do
we learn from these processes and these lawsuits that we don't
already know and we can't apply a prescription for?
Mr. Partin. I don't think we learn a lot. As you mentioned,
each of the criteria on each forest are known by the
professionals. They go through a good system to develop the
plan. It should go forward.
But I would like to go back to the FERRA bill that I think
it was 2005 or 2006, and one of the parts of that called for
establishing up front some criteria on how to salvage once the
fire gets established on each forest. And I would highly
recommend the committee look at this, revisit it to get some
kind of game plan for when we have these large fires and
catastrophic events, because, as you mentioned, we go back to
square one every time. It is the same NEPA process, lengthy
EIS, lengthy EA, court battle taking as much as 2 or 3 years,
and we never get past that.
I do think there is a better way of doing it. We have a
tremendous value and asset out there we need to manage, and I
think it really behooves us to look at a better way of doing
business.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. It would seem a template for this like we
have templates for other emergency measures in the country, how
you respond, would make a lot of sense.
So let me again come back to the treatment of private land,
you know, fairly immediately. Now, do they have any of the
problems after the treatment with water quality threats or some
of the other concerns that the opposition always brings up that
might affect? Don't they have to follow a prescription that
would be quite similar?
Mr. Partin. Well, yes. Like I say, these actions and
projects have to follow the California Forest Practices Act.
Mr. LaMalfa. So they are following--already established in
our State a practice act whether it is private, and it always
seems to work out, right? It doesn't affect water quality
because they have a wide zone of----
Mr. Partin. We have buffers. We have measures put in place
to protect the resources. It is a matter of getting the value
out, getting stands reestablished, making sure we have green
forests for the future.
Mr. LaMalfa. So you would be working with the Forest
Service, you would be working with the Department of the
Interior, you would be working with national parks on these--
the people that have expertise that are already supposed to
know their region, know their zone?
Mr. Partin. Exactly.
Mr. LaMalfa. You say, do this here, do that there, you
would probably be fine.
Mr. Partin. Exactly.
Mr. LaMalfa. And so if we could follow that private pattern
here, we would be saving and replanting and reforesting much
sooner than we do now, correct?
Mr. Partin. Absolutely. We would be bypassing the lengthy
NEPA, the court injunctions, and get right to doing the salvage
work and reestablishing a stand of trees out there.
Mr. LaMalfa. I just don't understand the obstructionism.
But thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Partin. Certainly.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you very much for your testimony. This
panel is dismissed.
Mr. Amodei. The next panel is Pat Whitten, County Manager
of Storey County; Kristin McMillan, President of Las Vegas
Chamber of Commerce; John Lee, Mayor of city of North Las
Vegas; and Steve Ross, Councilman from the city of Las Vegas.
We want to thank the Silver State panel for your patience.
We saved the best for last.
Mr. Whitten, we are going to go ahead and start out with
you.
For all the witnesses, good to see you all. I see Mr.
Horsford, my colleague from the old days, is here, as is His
Honor, the Mayor of the city of Las Vegas, and I guess Kristin
is here for South Las Vegas. Isn't that how you refer to Las
Vegas and North Las Vegas is South Las Vegas?
Anyhow, Mr. Whitten, if you would proceed, you have 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAT WHITTEN, COUNTY MANAGER, STOREY COUNTY, NEVADA
Mr. Whitten. Thank you, Mr. Acting Chairman, Ranking Member
Grijalva, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. And
again, once again, specifically thank you, Congressman Amodei,
for inviting me here today. I appreciate the honor and the
opportunity to testify before you on H.R. 1167, the Restoring
Storey County Act as introduced by Congressman Amodei.
I am Pat Whitten. I serve as the County Manager for the
Storey County Commission in Nevada, and joining me to the back
today is Commissioner Marshall McBride, Vice Chairman of the
Storey County Board of Commissioners.
Last April the Board of County Commissioners resolved to
support H.R. 1167 by unanimous vote. Storey County is the
smallest of 17 counties in the State of Nevada, and our history
dates back to 1864, when miners discovered substantial amounts
of underground gold and also the country's first major silver
deposits. During these boom days historians say almost 25,000
people lived in the area.
After the decline of mining in the late 1800s, life became
very quiet on the Comstock. Today we are a popular oldtown
tourist destination with some small-scale mining also taking
place.
Virginia City and Gold Hill are located about 30 miles
between our State capital and Reno. As far back as 1864, people
have bought, sold, and/or built both commercial and residential
buildings. Under normal circumstances this would pose no issues
or concerns; however, errors occurring throughout our history
creates detrimental impact on approximately 75 percent of the
parcels in Virginia City and 100 percent of the parcels in Gold
Hill.
In 1867, the General Land Office survey of the Virginia
City town site was approved, but subsequent required actions
were never completed, and no Federal patent was ever issued.
Without this patent proper ownership of surface rights fall
under question as to who actually owns the land where our homes
and businesses are located. This creates a situation where
residents might be considered to be trespassing on Federal
Government lands and also clouded title issues where
individuals buying or selling real property cannot because of
difficulty in obtaining standard title insurance. I want to
stress that our issues lie only with resolving surface rights
and do not involve any subsurface mineral rights whatsoever.
On the Federal Government side, the Bureau of Land
Management has the task of dealing with the fallout from these
historic events. For almost 20 years we have patiently worked
together seeking solutions. I want to state that at all levels
of their organization, BLM has not only been good to work with,
they have been great to work with, but like any government,
they are bound by the laws of the land. Simply said, BLM cannot
rectify this problem without authorization from Congress.
Citizens wishing to obtain clear surface title rights would
have to petition Congress as separate individuals.
So BLM encouraged us to turn to our congressional
Representatives for long-term solutions, and we were fortunate
that Congressman Amodei was already familiar with our problems.
Congressman Amodei has developed a simplified, streamlined
approach to cure this issue. It, in essence, is give any
interest the U.S. Government has in surface rights regarding
the impacted properties to the local government for proper
reparation and release to the respective lawful owners.
There are approximately 1,285 parcels over 1,705 acres
covered by our request. H.R. 1167 would rectify in one single
act issues that have prevailed for over a century and a half.
This approach is also tremendously cost-efficient. Last year a
BLM spokeswoman for their Nevada field office said, and I
quote, trying to figure out how many properties may be in
trespass and revolving discrepancies on a case-by-case basis
would be a monumental task. She goes on to say, these issues
extend back to the mid-1800s, and finding solutions would be at
a cost of probably millions of dollars and several years, end
quote.
And that is why we are here today, to speak in full support
of H.R. 1167. It is a logical, simple act that will restore
property rights to Storey County citizens as the rightful
owner.
Mr. Chairman, committee members, and especially committee
staff as well, who have been great to work with, we urge you to
support and help us with H.R. 1167.
I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Whitten.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitten follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pat Whitten, County Manager, Storey County,
Nevada
H.R. 1167--Restoring Storey County Act
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and distinguished members of
the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, thank
you for the honor and opportunity to testify before you today in
support of H.R. 1167, the Restoring Storey County Act, introduced by
Congressman Mark Amodei.
I am Pat Whitten. I serve as the appointed County Manager for the
local governing board of Storey County Commissioners in Nevada, and
joining me today is Commissioner Marshall McBride, Vice Chairman of the
Storey County Board of Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners
resolved to support H.R. 1167 by unanimous vote on April 2, 2013.
Storey County is the smallest of 17 counties in the State of
Nevada. Our history is rich and dates back to the days preceding our
admission into the Union as America's 36th State in 1864. In the late
1850s, Virginia City and the surrounding areas began its origin and
boom when miners discovered substantial amounts of underground gold,
and also the Country's first major silver deposits. Monies gained from
the gold and silver mines are said to have financed the Union's efforts
during the Civil War and built San Francisco.
After the decline of mining in the late 1800s, there were a handful
of brief upturns, but overall, life became very quiet on the Comstock.
Fast forward to the dawning of the 1960s when two parallel events
converged to bring us into our modern day history. First, on July 4,
1961, the National Park Service granted our request and established the
Comstock Historic District as one of the Nation's largest historic
districts ever designated. This was truly monumental in preserving and
protecting the Comstock's mining heritage and history. At almost the
same time, NBC aired a television series known as Bonanza. Running for
14 seasons and continuing in syndication today, Virginia City quickly
became re-discovered as the town the Cartwrights rode into before they
trekked back to the Ponderosa Ranch on the shores of Lake Tahoe. From
our town's perspective, it was a dream come true and today, almost 2
million visitors from around the world come to Virginia City to walk
our streets and boardwalks where the Cartwrights once roamed.
Virginia City and Gold Hill are located about 30 mountain miles in
between our State capitol, and Reno. As far back as 1864, people have
bought, sold, leased, rented, improved and/or built buildings for both
commercial and residential purposes within the Virginia City and
adjacent Gold Hill communities. Under normal circumstances, this would
pose no issue or concern. However, errors and omissions throughout our
history creates severe detrimental impact on approximately 75 percent
of the land parcels in Virginia City and almost 100 percent of those in
Gold Hill.
In 1867, the General Land Office Survey of the Virginia City
Townsite was approved. Unfortunately, subsequent requisite actions were
never completed and no Federal patent was ever issued for the townsites
of Virginia and Gold Hill. Without issuance of such patent, proper
ownership of surface rights within the townsites fell and continue to
fall under question as to who actually owns the land upon which many of
our citizens have purchased in good faith, and paid taxes on for
decades. Not only does this create a situation where hundreds of
residents might be considered to be trespassing on Federal Government
land, the end result is what is typically termed as a clouded title
issue where individuals wishing to buy or sell real property cannot
because of insurmountable challenges in obtaining standard title
insurance. This occurs when local and national land title underwriters
move in and out of the market based on their risk comfort levels
regarding true ownership of the property. This frequently occurs and
results in a substantially reduced field of perspective insurers. It is
critical to note that our issues lie only with ascertaining and
resolving surface rights and do not involve any sub-surface mineral
rights.
As predominant trustees of Federal Lands in Nevada, the Bureau of
Land Management has the unenviable task of dealing with the
repercussions from these historic events. Over the last two decades,
they have proactively worked with our local government officials to
develop both short and long term solutions. I want to stress that at
all levels of their organization, BLM has not only been good to work
with . . . they've been GREAT. But, like any Federal, State or local
government; they are bound by their own policies and of course, the law
of the land. Simply stated, BLM cannot rectify this problem without
authorization from Congress. Individuals wishing to fully and clearly
obtain unclouded surface title rights would have to petition Congress
separately under a large scale series of mini ``Land Acts''. Within
their respective levels of authority, they have encouraged us to
continue to find permanent solutions to clarify and rectify property
ownership issues. We therefore turned to our Congressional
Representatives and were fortunate to capture the interests of
Congressman Amodei who was familiar with our problem based on his
background as a Nevada State Senator and lawyer. Congressman Amodei has
developed a simplified, streamlined approach to cure this centuries-old
issue. It is, in essence:
Give any interest the U.S. Government has in surface rights regarding
the impacted properties to the local government for proper
reparation and release to the respective lawful owners.
Storey County has drafted its own simplified process to pass
through any ownership rights via quit claim deed to the estimated 1,285
individual property owners on a low-to-no cost basis. Approximately
1,705 acres are constituted in our request and we have asked for
inclusion of 40 additional acres in the contiguous community of Mark
Twain covering 4 additional residential parcels that have been impacted
due to conflicting surveys. H.R. 1167 would rectify and enable, in one
single act, issues that have prevailed for over a century and a half.
This approach is immeasurably cost efficient. In fact, a BLM
spokeswoman from their Nevada State Field Office was quoted as saying:
Trying to figure out how many properties may be in trespass and
resolving discrepancies on a case-by-case basis would be a
monumental task. These issues extend back to the mid-1800s, and
finding solutions would be at a cost of probably millions of
dollars and several years. (1)
And that is why Commissioner McBride and I have traveled here today
. . . to speak in full support of H.R. 1167 and ask for your support as
well. It is a logical, simple act that will once and for all restore
property rights to the people of Storey County as the rightful owners
and end over a century and a half of confusion and frustration.
Mr. Chairman and Congressmen; we thank you for your time and
interest and urge this committee to support H.R. 1167, the Restoring
Storey County Act. I am happy to answer any questions you might have or
provide additional information.
______
Mr. Amodei. Ms. McMillan, welcome to low altitude, and
please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KRISTIN McMILLAN, CEO AND PRESIDENT, LAS VEGAS
METRO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Ms. McMillan. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify here today in support of H.R. 2015.
Mr. Chairman, I might start out by saying that we are now
the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce, so I am happy to
report that we represent both north and south as part of one
big, happy partnership.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you for including the people to the south
of North Las Vegas in your efforts.
Ms. McMillan. I want to first thank Congressman Horsford
for introducing this legislation, and also Congressman Amodei,
and Congresswoman Titus and Congressman Heck for cosponsoring
this bill. We also want to thank Congressman Amodei for
sponsoring H.R. 1167 and H.R. 1633. These bills are important
to our State's economic development as well.
So it is an honor for me to speak here today on behalf of
over 5,500 employers in southern Nevada that comprise the Las
Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce. This represents close to a
quarter of a million employees in southern Nevada. These are
businesses in diverse industries, of diverse size. Over 85
percent of our businesses are small businesses. And for over
100 years the mission of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce has
been to promote a strong, healthy, and diversified economy, and
over those 100 years, we have grown to be not only the largest
business association in the State of Nevada, but also the third
largest Metro Chamber in the United States.
And I have only been here for about 2\1/2\ years in this
position. I was one of those 5,500 members of the business
community 2 years ago. I have been in Las Vegas for 24 years. I
have been in business all that period of time. I was CEO of a
company there. I was a volunteer Chairman of the Chamber of
Commerce at one point in time. And while in private industry I
did firsthand witness the devastation that we experienced that
was delivered as a result of the recession, and as I was asked
to step up into this role, I can say that I took it on with a
commitment, a proud commitment, to be able to work with other
organizations in the Las Vegas community as well as our local
governments to help rebuild our economy. And I think it is our
job to singularly focus on creating and maintaining good jobs
in our community.
Now, we are making some progress, but Las Vegas still,
unfortunately, has an unemployment rate among the highest in
the country. It is currently at 9.7 percent, and, as recently
reported, we have only been able to recover about a third of
the jobs that we lost during the recession.
So our job--and I am looking to my colleagues as well--is
to look at every viable opportunity to rebuild our economy and
to put people back to work. And this is one of those
opportunities. H.R. 2015 presents a very unique and balanced
opportunity whereby the preservation of our past can be an
economic driver of the future, an opportunity to create jobs
and expand our community.
Congressman Horsford, you highlighted in a very good way
many of the benefits of this legislation. I am not going to
repeat those. I just want to focus and highlight a couple of
the areas.
First of all, preservation of natural history. This has
been referred to as mammoth heaven. This is an opportunity to
protect unique ice age fossils, enabling public education for
generations to come and scientific research. We know that there
have been geologists from the University of Arizona as well as
archaeologists from California that have been studying these
fossil beds for many, many years, and it has taken them a
while, but they have developed a case for preservation and
curation of these important natural resources.
The second thing is it creates economic opportunities for
our core industry in Nevada, and that is tourism. This site is
located, as you know, in close proximity to one of the world's
most popular tourist destinations, that being Las Vegas. Almost
40 million people visited southern Nevada last year. That
generated about a $45 billion economic impact in southern
Nevada, supporting about 400,000 jobs, or about 47 percent of
our workforce locally. So tourism remains and will continue to
be a major driver in our community. We are continually looking
for ways to capitalize on ways to diversify within that core
industry, and particularly when it comes to job creation.
I might add that international tourism has become a
significant focus for southern Nevada, as it has in other areas
of the country. You probably know that inbound travel into the
United States is the number one service export. The U.S. Travel
Association in 2012 reported that nearly half of the
international visitors to Las Vegas sought out nearby areas of
historical or ecological significance to visit, such as Grand
Canyon, Hoover Dam, Death Valley, Zion, Bryce Canyon. So this
is going to add to the mix of those opportunities to diversify
within the tourism sector and really points out that the
popularity of ecotourism is really on the rise.
In that vein, this bill also enables us to plan for our
future, because it provides for land for flood protection in
preparation of the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental
Airport, which, of course, is designed to accommodate an
increase in travel.
In terms of general economic development, my colleagues
will testify more to that area, but the creation of economic or
commercial zones, development zones will enable the local
communities, who will take upon themselves to determine the
best uses of this land, of this Federal land, for jobs and for
economic creation opportunities.
It also provides, very importantly, land to UNLV, the
University of Nevada-Las Vegas, as well as the Community
College of Southern Nevada to expand their influence and their
reach within our community.
I want to take just a moment to reiterate the broad
community support that Congressman Horsford talked about. Many
community organizations have been at the forefront of
championing this designation. Long-time community leaders Helen
Mortenson and Thalia Dondero have tirelessly dedicated their
efforts to educate our community through the Las Vegas Ice Age
Park Foundation. Also thanks to another community group, The
Protection of Tule Springs, that is just another example of a
community organization that has come forward with tireless
support for this initiative.
The designation has the support, as you know, of State
government, of local governments, the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe,
Nellis Air Force Base, and even the local utilities in southern
Nevada support preservation of the utility corridors for
economic development and renewable energy components associated
with the bill.
The bill is widely supported because it makes sense. It
strikes the right balance among preservation, education and
economic development, and presents a very unique and balanced
opportunity where the preservation of our past can be an
economic driver of our future.
So, in conclusion, we would ask for and appreciate your
support in a vote on this legislation. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, members of the subcommittee, for your time, for your
consideration, and for the honor of testifying in front of this
subcommittee.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McMillan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kristin McMillan, CEO and President, Las Vegas
Metro Chamber of Commerce
H.R. 2015--Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds
National Monument Act of 2013
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. It is an
honor for me to speak to you on behalf of the Las Vegas Metro Chamber
of Commerce's 5,500 member businesses representing diverse sectors
within the economy and who employ more than 230,000 employees in
southern Nevada. 85 percent of our members are small businesses.
Founded in the early days of Las Vegas, the Metro Chamber has a
strong legacy of protecting and strengthening the southern Nevada
business community, helping its member businesses grow and thrive, and
providing a voice for those employers and employees in local, State and
Federal Government for over 100 years. Today, the Las Vegas Metro
Chamber of Commerce is one of the largest metropolitan chambers of
commerce in the United States.
The Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce is committed to serving and
supporting the entire Las Vegas metropolitan area. Its mission is to
promote a strong and diversified economy that will attract new
businesses and industries, enable existing businesses to expand, and
create good jobs and opportunities for all who call southern Nevada
home.
As a member-based organization focused on regional policy issues, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2015, the Las
Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument
Act. I want to thank Congressman Horsford for introducing this
legislation and Congressman Amodei, Congresswoman Titus and Congressman
Heck for co-sponsoring this bill. I thank each of Nevada's House
Members for their bi-partisan efforts to introduce this bill and to
build support for this important land bill that will not only benefit
southern Nevada but the entire southwest region.
Land bills such as H.R. 2015 are an important component to the
success of a vibrant and diversified economy to regions such as
southern Nevada. This is true for many metropolitan cities throughout
the western portion of the United States. Our State currently has an
unemployment rate of 9.5 percent, among the highest in the country. We
at the Metro Chamber have a responsibility to our employers and their
employees to support bills such as H.R. 2015 because it would give us
the enabling legislation to bring needed positive change to our region.
This bill represents a unique opportunity where the preservation of our
past can be the economic driver of our future.
For the Metro Chamber, this bill would accomplish several
objectives: preservation of our irreplaceable natural history;
expansion of educational opportunities for our children and scientists;
utilization of land for research, Nellis Air Force Base and outdoor
recreation; and creation of much needed jobs for our community. This
bill is broadly supported by the entire State of Nevada, including the
business community. The Nevada State Legislature passed a resolution in
support of this designation earlier this year.
I want to highlight just a few of the many benefits:
First, this bill will preserve a significant area of natural
history. The Las Vegas Valley has one of the largest collections of
fossils from the Pleistocene Epoch Period, or the ice age, in the
northern edge of our valley. Archaeologists and scientists have been
exploring this area for almost a century because of the vast amounts of
fossil remains in the area. To date, almost 10,000 fossils have been
removed and stored in facilities in San Bernardino, California. Some
experts suggest that these finds only represent 1 percent of the
fossils that could be potentially located in the Las Vegas Upper Wash.
The educational lessons that can be learned from these fossils are
countless and priceless.
The preservation value, educational benefits and economic benefit
that would be gained has the potential to be an economic game changer
for our eco-tourism industry in southern Nevada. For example, this bill
will provide 1,211 acres for a park for off-roaders, which is part of
10,000 acres allocated for recreation. The creation of this park has
the potential to be a major tourism draw for off-road enthusiasts in
the Southwest. This bill also provides additional acreage to the Red
Rock National Conservation Area, which is a natural treasure in
southern Nevada. Both of these provisions support economic development
and preservation in their respective manner.
Second, this designation would create economic opportunities. Las
Vegas is often referred to as the Entertainment Capital of the World
because of its spectacular hotels, fine dining and breathtaking shows.
According to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, almost 40
million people visited southern Nevada last year and tourism generates
a $45 billion economic impact in southern Nevada, which in turn
supports almost 400,000 jobs or about 47 percent of the local
workforce. Tourism remains the driver of our economy and we are
continually looking for ways to capitalize on this core industry,
particularly when it comes to job creation.
Third, this bill will help economic development in our metropolitan
area. While the bill will preserve some Federal land, it also gives
Bureau of Land Management land back to the community for developmental
purposes. The city of Las Vegas would receive 660 acres and the city of
North Las Vegas would receive 645 acres for commercial development
purposes. These additional lands would allow for the cities of Las
Vegas and North Las Vegas to recruit new businesses to come to their
communities and facilitate the expansion of existing businesses. This
will result in new jobs for our region, additional revenue to the local
tax base and the expansion of economic diversification efforts.
Fundamentally, this bill allows us to plan for our future because
it would provide Clark County with 2,320 acres near Primm, Nevada for
flood protection in preparation of the proposed Southern Nevada
Supplemental Airport.
The Metro Chamber is also a strong advocate for higher education in
Nevada and supports the provisions of the bill that would provide
acreage to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), College of
Southern Nevada and Great Basin College in Northern Nevada. This
provision will allow UNLV to create a new regional campus to further
serve the needs of our community. Currently, UNLV's main campus has 335
acres, which services more than 28,000 students and 3,100 faculty and
staff. The additional parcels would allow them to expand educational
opportunities for the students in our state, create new programs and
recruit new faculty to our state's largest public institution of higher
education.
The Metro Chamber is also a partner in supporting the men and women
serving in our military and works closely with the leadership at Nellis
Air Force Base. This legislation recognizes and protects the important
role that Nellis Air Force Base plays in our national security
interests through the provisions regarding the military over flights.
Nellis Air Force Base is an important part of our community and we need
to help preserve their ability to continue their military objectives.
We believe this bill preserves the mission of Nellis Air Force Base,
while balancing the efforts between preservation, economic development
and military needs.
The bill designates a qualified electric utility corridor with a
400-foot right of way for the construction of a high-voltage
transmission facility and a 100-foot right of way for the construction
of a buried water conveyance pipeline. The local utilities in southern
Nevada support the preserving of the utility corridor for economic
development and renewable energy components associated with the bill.
In addition to the support of our employers and their families, the
designation of this area as a national monument has the support of
local government entities such as the city of Las Vegas, city of North
Las Vegas, Clark County and the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe and shows the
broad support that this bill has in our community.
Many community organizations have been at the forefront of
championing this designation. Long-time community leaders Thalia
Dondero and Helen Mortensen have tirelessly dedicated their efforts to
educate our community about this important treasure in southern Nevada
through the Las Vegas Ice Age Park Foundation. This group has actively
advocated for the passage of this legislation because of the historical
preservation value, the curating of the fossils and educational
research opportunities associated with this site.
As we continue to rebuild our economy and tackle the many
challenges ahead, now, more than ever, your support of H.R. 2015
matters a great deal to the people of southern Nevada. If we can secure
the designation of this area for a national monument, we will preserve
fragile parts of our world's natural history, while providing a
catalyst to create jobs, put people to work while sparking the fire for
innovation and interest in the minds of students. Your interest, your
vision and your commitment matter to the residents of southern Nevada.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and for the honor of
testifying in front of the subcommittee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
members of the subcommittee.
______
Mr. Amodei. Your Honor.
STATEMENT OF JOHN LEE, MAYOR, CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS
Mr. Lee. Co-Chair Amodei, Cochair Horsford, friends, for
the record my name is John Lee, and I am the Mayor of the city
of North Las Vegas. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
today in support of H.R. 2015 and the Las Vegas Valley Public
Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of
2013.
The legislation before us today enjoys the bipartisan
support of the entire Nevada congressional delegation. I would
like to thank Representative Steven Horsford, my Congressman
and former colleague in the legislature, for his leadership on
this legislation. I would also like to thank Senator Majority
Leader Harry Reid and Dean Heller for all their hard work in
crafting what I believe is the most significant public lands
legislation in southern Nevada for over a decade.
H.R. 2015 designates over 22,000 acres of Federal land in
the northern part of Las Vegas Valley as a national monument. A
significant portion of this acreage lies within the city of
North Las Vegas. The city has worked closely for the past
several years with Clark County, the city of Las Vegas, Nellis
Air Force Base, local conservation groups and business
communities to develop a consensus boundary for the monument
that balances our desire for resource protection and our future
plans for economic development.
H.R. 2015 not only establishes a unique urban national
monument, the bill creates opportunities for job creation and
economic development. As policymakers I am sure you hear the
buzz words in almost every hearing; however, H.R. 2015 provides
critical economic development opportunities for our city.
The bill includes over 1,300 acres set aside for job-
creation zones to be used by the city of North Las Vegas and
Las Vegas. Additionally, the urban national monument
established by H.R. 2015 will provide a tremendous benefit to
our tourist-dependent region. Our national parks attract over
350 million domestic and international visitors each year. We
believe this new monument will appeal to a percentage of the
40-million-plus visitors southern Nevada hosts each year, in
addition to attracting new visitors to our region. Our
financially struggling communities could benefit from the fact
that national park units typically generate at least $10 for
nearby gateway communities for every dollar invested.
North Las Vegas has struggled financially. One of our ZIP
codes is nationally ranked as one of the top 10 for worst rates
of home foreclosures. As the new Mayor of North Las Vegas, I
believe H.R. 2015 is a gigantic step in the right direction
toward our region's economic recovery. I believe the
establishment of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument
will serve the dual purpose of protecting nationally
significant paleontology resources and promoting economic
development and tourism in North Las Vegas.
North Las Vegas is a diverse minority-majority city largely
comprised of a vibrant Hispanic community, and the monument
will be a place for our schoolchildren to visit and learn
firsthand about our Nation's and Nevada's natural history. The
location of the monument on the border of a large Hispanic
community provides one possible exclusion to the National Park
Service's widely publicized effort to attract more minorities.
The Service's commissioned report found that only 1 in 10 of
its visitors are Hispanic, the Nation's fastest-growing
demographic group. H.R. 2015 establishes an urban national
monument that can act as a gateway for attracting
nontraditional visitors to our national parks.
While the national monument is clearly a focal point of
H.R. 2015, there are several other provisions of the
legislation as important to the future growth and development
to the city of North Las Vegas. Section 4 of the bill conveys
645 acres of BLM land to the city for economic development
purposes. The land is adjacent to the proposed UNLV North
Campus, and a conveyance would allow the city to master-plan
develop this area to provide ancillary services that support
the mission of this new campus.
Section 8 of the bill expands the Southern Nevada Public
Lands Management Act disposal boundary for BLM-managed lands in
North Las Vegas. The city intends to nominate these parcels for
sale for the industrial development at a future BLM auction and
thereby increase our local tax base by converting Federal lands
into private ownership. We anticipate that hundreds of jobs
will be created as a result of this industrial development.
North Las Vegas is home of Nellis Air Force Base, and the
city is proud to be home of many airmen and civilians who work
at the base. The city has gone to great lengths to work with
Nellis to develop joint land-use plans to allow for responsible
development by the city while protecting the base from
encroachment that would threaten its training mission. The city
supports the provisions of the bill addressing military
overflights, the transfer of BLM land to the Air Force to
protect the important mission of Nellis.
H.R. 2015 also creates an economic opportunity by
establishing the Nellis Dunes Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation
Area for outdoor enthusiasts. The city supports Clark County's
effort to establish the Nellis Dunes area on BLM land on the
northeast side of Las Vegas Valley. Our community is in
desperate need of these dedicated areas for this type of
recreational activity. Since the city would be responsible for
providing certain utility services to this area, we are pleased
that the legislation provides for a memorandum of understanding
between the city and Clark County before any economic
development may occur in this recreation area.
Mr. Chairman, like many other communities, the city of
North Las Vegas has had its share of challenges over the past 4
years. As we focus on the future, I believe the establishment
of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument will bring a
tremendous benefit to North Las Vegas. H.R. 2015 is a critical
piece of legislation that will protect an area that is
currently subject to vandalism and unauthorized road vehicle
use. It will provide a new destination for our visitors of
southern Nevada, and will provide North Las Vegas residents
with the sense of pride shared by all communities and are
fortunate enough to have the National Park Service as our
neighbor. I urge you to support this important piece of
legislation, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to
testify.
On a personal note I would like to thank both you gentlemen
for what you are doing for our community and for our State. You
are definitely a tribute to the things that we taught you in
the Nevada Senate, and you are edifying that education, and I
am very proud to call you friends and great Nevadans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. Well, thank you very much, Your Honor.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Lee, Mayor, City of North Las Vegas, Nevada
H.R. 2015--Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds
National Monument Act of 2013
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
committee, my name is John Lee, and I am the Mayor of the city of North
Las Vegas. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of
H.R. 2015, the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil
Beds National Monument Act of 2013.
The legislation before us today enjoys the bipartisan support of
the entire Nevada congressional delegation. I would like to thank Rep.
Steven Horsford, my Congressman and former colleague in the Nevada
Legislature, for his leadership on this legislation. I would also like
to thank Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Dean Heller for
all of their hard work in crafting what I believe to be the most
significant public land legislation for southern Nevada in over a
decade.
H.R. 2015 designates over 22,000 acres of Federal land in the
northern part of the Las Vegas Valley as a national monument. A
significant portion of this acreage lies within the city of North Las
Vegas. The city has worked closely for the past several years with
Clark County, the city of Las Vegas, Nellis Air Force Base, NV Energy,
local conservation groups, and the business community to develop a
consensus boundary for the monument that balances our desire for
resource protection with our future plans for economic development.
H.R. 2015 not only establishes a unique urban national monument,
the bill creates opportunities for job creation and economic
development. As policymakers, I am sure you hear these buzz words in
almost every hearing; however, H.R. 2015 provides critical economic
development opportunities for our city. The bill includes over 1,300
acres set aside for job creation zones to be used by the city of North
Las Vegas and Las Vegas.
Additionally, the urban national monument established by H.R. 2015
will provide a tremendous benefit to the tourist dependent region. Our
national parks attract over 350 million domestic and international
visitors each year. We believe this new monument will appeal to a
percentage of the 40 million-plus visitors southern Nevada hosts each
year, in addition to attracting new visitors to our region. Our
financially struggling community could benefit from the fact that
national park units typically generate at least $10 for nearby gateway
communities for every dollar invested. North Las Vegas has struggled
financially, one of our zip codes is nationally ranked as one of the
top 10 for worst rates of home foreclosures, and as the new Mayor of
North Las Vegas, I believe H.R. 2015 is a gigantic step in the right
direction toward are regions economic recovery.
I believe the establishment of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds
National Monument will serve the dual purpose of protecting nationally
significant paleontological resources and promoting economic
development and tourism in North Las Vegas. North Las Vegas is a
diverse minority-majority city largely comprised of a vibrant Hispanic
community, and the monument will provide a place for our school
children to visit and learn first hand about our Nations and Nevada's
natural history. The location of the monument on the boarder of a large
Hispanic community provides one possible solution to the National Park
Service's widely publicized efforts attract more minorities. The
Service's commissioned reports found only 1 in 10 of its visitors are
Hispanic--the Nation's fastest-growing demographic group. H.R. 2015
establishes a urban national monument that can act as a gateway for
attracting nontraditional visitors into our national parks.
While the national monument is clearly the focal point of H.R.
2015, there are several other provisions of this legislation as
important to the future growth and development of the city of North Las
Vegas. Section 4 of the bill conveys 645 acres of BLM land to the city
for economic development purposes. The land is adjacent to the proposed
UNLV North Campus, and the conveyance would allow the city to master
plan and develop this area to provide ancillary services that support
the mission of the new campus. Section 8 of the bill expands the
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act disposal boundary for BLM-
managed lands in North Las Vegas. The city intends to nominate these
parcels for sale for industrial development at a future BLM auction.
and thereby increase our local tax base by converting Federal land into
private ownership. We anticipate that hundreds of jobs will be created
as a result of this industrial development.
North Las Vegas is the home of Nellis Air Force Base, and the city
is proud to be the home of many airmen and civilians who work on the
base. The city has gone to great lengths to work with Nellis to develop
joint land use plans that allow for responsible development by the city
while protecting the base from encroachment that could threaten its
training mission. The city supports the provisions in the bill
addressing military overflights and the transfer of BLM land to the Air
Force to protect the important mission of Nellis.
H.R. 2015 also creates economic opportunities by establishing the
Nellis Dunes Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area for outdoor
enthusiasts. The city supports Clark County's effort to establish the
Nellis Dunes Area on BLM land on the northeast side of the Las Vegas
Valley. Our community is in desperate need of a dedicated area for this
type of recreational activity. Since the city would be responsible for
providing certain utility services to this area, we are pleased that
the legislation provides for a Memorandum of Understanding between the
city and Clark County before any economic development may occur near
the recreation area.
Mr. Chairman, like many communities, the city of North Las Vegas
has had its share of challenges over the past 4 years. As we focus on
the future, I believe the establishment of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds
National Monument will bring tremendous benefits to North Las Vegas.
H.R. 2015 is a critical piece of legislation that will protect an area
that is currently subject to vandalism and unauthorized off-road
vehicle use. It will provide a new destination for visitors to southern
Nevada, and it will provide North Las Vegas residents with the sense of
pride shared by all communities that are fortunate enough to have the
National Park Service as a neighbor.
I urge your support for this important legislation, and I thank you
for giving me the opportunity to testify today.
______
Mr. Amodei. That is the good news. The bad news is for the
Councilman from the city of North Henderson, between Kristin
and John, they used all of your time, so----
Mr. Ross. I recognize that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Amodei. But on behalf of the city of Las Vegas, please
proceed, Mr. Ross.
STATEMENT OF STEVE ROSS, COUNCILMAN, CITY OF LAS VEGAS, WARD 6
Mr. Ross. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members
of the committee. I am Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Ross,
representing Ward 6 in the great Northwest, and fortunately my
border borders a great deal of North Las Vegas, as you can
tell.
I am here today, of course, as we are here today, of
course, to support and persuade you to support the Las Vegas
Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National
Monument Act of 2013. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
It is actually quite an honor, because you are both Congressmen
from Nevada, and my Congressman is sitting right there,
Congressman Horsford. So, again, I want to echo what the mayor
had said: Thank you for your service to our State.
I also want to recognize the comments from Congressman Heck
and Congresswoman Titus for their continued support of what we
are trying to accomplish.
And, Congressman Horsford, you probably remember when we
were kids going out to Tule Springs Park and what it has turned
into today, so it is just awesome to be here. This is a real
home run for Nevada.
Some key points I want to make, though, and you have heard
them before, but I want you to hear them again. This bill has
huge community support. It will create jobs, and it will
conserve and preserve this very important resource we have in
the desert. You have already heard it, and it is rare for an
elected official to have the privilege to work on legislation
that is being supported by so many organizations, especially in
the southern Nevada community: NV Energy; Nellis Air Force
Base; the Las Vegas Metro Chamber; elementary and high school
educators; area colleges and universities, including University
of Nevada-Las Vegas; the Public Lands Institute; and, of
course, environmental and conservation groups. Representatives
from these organizations, among others, are working closely
with a group of concerned citizens that have developed public
support for this bill. Ms. McMillan mentioned them. They are
The Protectors of Tule Springs.
The Board of Clark County Commissioners, the Las Vegas City
Council, the North Las Vegas City Council, the Nevada State
Legislature, and the Tribal Council of the Las Vegas Paiute
Tribe unanimously passed resolutions urging Congress to pass
legislation creating a national monument, and for the record,
and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit
those letters of support.
Mr. Amodei. That is fine.
[The letters and resolution submitted by Mr. Ross follows:]
Letter Submitted for the Record by the City of Las Vegas, Nevada
495 S. Main Street,
Las Vegas, Nevada, 89101,
September 30, 2013.
The Honorable Rob Bishop,
Chairman,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation,
Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Raul Grijalva,
Ranking Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva,
On behalf of the city of Las Vegas, I write to whole-heartedly
support the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds
National Monument Act of 2013 ( S. 974/H.R. 2015). We worked closely
with the Nevada Congressional Delegation to designate the Tule Springs
area as a National Monument in the 112th Congress, and we look forward
to moving the bill forward in this Congress.
As you may know, this legislation enjoys broad support in southern
Nevada and would result in many mutually beneficial outcomes. The city
of Las Vegas supports swift passage of S. 974/H.R. 2015 as it is
imperative to protect paleontological and sensitive plant resources. We
also believe that the legislation would create opportunities for
economic development and job creation while providing for responsible
urban development of adjacent lands, and allowing for necessary
infrastructure to service existing developed areas.
Again, we strongly support S. 974/H.R. 2015 and look forward to its
successful passage.
Respectfully,
Steven Ross,
City Councilman,
City of Las Vegas, Nevada, Ward 6.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the City of Las Vegas and the City
of North Las Vegas, Nevada
July 9, 2012.
The Honorable Mark E. Amodei,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Congressman Amodei:
We are writing to express our support for H.R. 6072, the Las Vegas
Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act
of 2012. We believe this legislation reflects a well-balanced approach
to public land management policy in the northern part of the valley,
and we urge you to cosponsor this important measure.
The legislation facilitates important economic development goals
for the Cities by making surplus Federal land available for commercial
development in accordance with local land use plans. The Cities expect
the release of these lands to create thousands of jobs over the next
decade.
The legislation would achieve important conservation goals by
establishing the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. Located at
the northern edge of the Las Vegas Valley and within the boundaries of
the Cities of North Las Vegas and Las Vegas (the ``Cities'') are the
Tule Springs National Register Historic Site and an area known as the
Upper Las Vegas Wash, a unique natural drainage channel that carries
storm water from the surrounding mountains toward Lake Mead. Found
within these areas are significant paleontological sites containing
numerous fossils demonstrative of the Pleistocene Ice Age that span
geologic history from 7,000 to nearly 200,000 years ago. These areas
also contain endangered and imperiled plants such as the Merriam's and
Las Vegas Bearpoppy and the Las Vegas Buckwheat, as well as important
habitat for threatened species such as the desert tortoise and
burrowing owls.
Recognizing the significance of these areas, the mayors and city
councils of the Cities unanimously passed a resolution, in
collaboration with the Clark County Commission and the Tribal Council
of the Southern Nevada Paiute Tribe, requesting that Congress designate
the area surrounding Tule Springs and the Upper Las Vegas Wash a unit
of the National Park Service. We believe a national monument is the
appropriate designation.
Due to the large number and variety of resources that are available
for study and viewing within the area it is expected that the national
monument would attract visitors from all over the world with a wide
range of interests, including educational, scientific, cultural and
recreational. The Cities have worked closely over the last 4 years with
the Nevada Congressional Delegation and a broad range of stakeholders,
including the U.S. Air Force, conservation groups, and NV Energy, to
develop a boundary for the national monument that balances conservation
and resource protection with the future growth needs of the Cities.
The Cities appreciate all you do for southern Nevada, and we urge
you to cosponsor this important public lands legislation for the
benefit of current and future generations of Las Vegas Valley residents
and visitors.
Sincerely,
Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor,
City of Las Vegas.
Shari Buck, Mayor,
City of North Las Vegas.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the City of Las Vegas, City of North
Las Vegas and NV Energy
March 28, 2011.
The Honorable Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C. 20510.
Dear Senator Reid:
The cities of North Las Vegas and Las Vegas, in collaboration with
NY Energy, have met to discuss the creation of a unit of the National
Park Service in the area surrounding the Upper Las Vegas Wash. All
parties are in complete agreement on (1) the need for legislation to
make the area surrounding Tule Springs and the Upper Las Vegas Wash a
unit of the National Park Service, and (2) that there is a proposal for
a transmission corridor across the northern part of the valley linking
NY Energy's Northwest Substation and the Harry Allen Generating
Station, and legislation should accommodate a transmission/utilities
corridor that would adhere to all applicable local, State and Federal
regulations.
Legislation making these unique and significant areas a unit of the
National Park Service will result in mutually beneficial outcomes,
including:
Protect paleontological and sensitive plant resources,
Create opportunities for economic development and job
creation by attracting national and international visitors from
a wide range of interests including educational, scientific,
cultural and natural resources,
Provide for responsible and orderly urban development of
adjacent lands,
Allow for necessary infrastructure to service existing
developed areas and future development
We would like to lend our support to moving forward with
legislation designating the area a unit of the National Park Service.
Thank you for your continued support of this important project.
Sincerely,
Shari L. Buck, Mayor,
City of North Las Vegas.
Oscar B. Goodman, Mayor,
City of Las Vegas.
Michael W. Yackira,
President and Chief Executive Officer NY Energy.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the City of Las Vegas, City of North
Las Vegas and Las Vegas Paiute Tribe
December 21, 2011
To the editor:
Earlier this mouth, more than 100 economists, including three Nobel
Laureates, signed a letter to President Barack Obama urging Federal
support to establish new protected areas such as national parks,
wilderness areas and national monuments, particularly in the western
part of the United States. Their reason: these projects have a
substantial impact on economic growth and job creation.
In southern Nevada, we have reaped tremendous economic and quality
of life benefits from federally protected lands. Imagine how much
benefit our residents and visitors get out of such public wonderlands
as Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the Red Rock Conservation Area,
and Mount Charleston and Lee Canyon in the Toiyabe Forest. We have
another national treasure that has the same potential to be a major
local and national attraclion--the proposed Tule Springs National
Monument that encompasses the length or the entire northern section of
the Las Vegas Wash.
Not only is this site tilled with potential recreational benefit,
out this section of the Las Vegas Wash is also internationally
recognized as one of the most significant fossil bed sites in North
America depicting life in the Ice Age, a period covering more than
200,000 years of climate change and biological adaptation. Fossils from
prehistoric camels, woolly mammoths, giant sloths, lions and other
animals have been unearthed at the site, along with fossils
representing an abundance of marine and plant life
Recently, 1,500 members of the Vertebrate Paleontological Society
held their annual meeting in Las Vegas precisely because of its
proximity to this incredible site. As reported in the Review-Journal,
one participant neatly summed up the need for the area's protection:
``It's a world-class fossil site. You can actually see how ecosystems
have transitioned from warm climates to cold climates and back again
through several ice ages.''
As the elected leaders of our respective local and tribal
governmental entities, we are urging our congressional delegation to
come together and act quickly to establish this National Monument and
to provide the resources to turn it into a world class visitor site.
The economic and quality of life benefits are tremendous.
As the economists' letter points out: ``Today, one of the
competitive strengths of the West is the unique combination of wide-
open spaces, scenic vistas and recreational opportunities alongside
vibrant, growing communities that are connected to larger markets via
the Internet, highways and commercial air service. Increasingly,
entrepreneurs are basing their business location decisions on the
quality of life in an area. Businesses are recruiting talented
employees by promoting access to beautiful, nearby public lands. This
is happening in western cities and rural areas alike.''
By protesting and creating recreational opportunities in our
canyons, rivers, deserts and mountains, we also establish a unique and
compelling environment that plays a pivotal role in attracting and
retaining people and businesses. Public lands, such as the proposed
Tule Springs National Monument, support activities like hunting,
fishing and hiking that improve our quality of life, attracting
visitors and supporting economic growth.
We encourage Senator Reid, Senator Heller, Congresswoman Berkley,
Congressman Heck and Congressman Amodei to join together and move for a
swift action. We have a golden opportunity to do something today that
will have immediate impact and that will positively affect generations
to come.
Sincerely,
Carolyn G. Goodman, Mayor,
City of Las Vegas.
Shari L. Buck, Mayor,
City of North Las Vegas.
Tonia Means, Chairperson,
Las Vegas Paiute Tribe.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record by the City of Las Vegas and the City
of North Las Vegas
November 19, 2010
Honorable Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C. 20510-2803
Dear Senator Reid:
As you are aware, the mayors and city councils of the cities of
North Las Vegas and Las Vegas unanimously passed a resolution, in
collaboration with the Clark County Commission, and the Tribal Council
of the Southern Nevada Paiute Tribe, requesting that Congress make the
area surrounding Tule Springs and the Upper Las Vegas Wash a unit of
the National Park Service, with a land management designation that is
appropriate for the protection of the resources and that would be
managed by the National Park Service.
Due to the large number and variety of resources that are available
for study and viewing within the area it is expected that the proposed
National Park Service unit would attract visitors from a wide range of
interests including educational, scientific, cultural and natural
resources, and it is anticipated that visitors will be attracted from a
broad geographical area; from local to international.
The cities have, and continue to work diligently with all
interested parties, including NV Energy, and are confident that
resolution of all outstanding issues in regard to proposed legislation
will be achieved in the near future.
The cities look forward to the legislation that will make these
unique and significant areas a unit of the National Park Service. We
thank you for your support and appeal to you to advance the legislation
that will ultimately establish this national park monument.
Sincerely,
Honorable Shari L. Buck, Mayor,
City of North Las Vegas.
Honorable Oscar B. Goodman, Mayor
City of Las Vegas
______
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 1--Assemblyman Aizley
ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION--Expressing the support of the Nevada
Legislature for the designation of the Upper Las Vegas Wash as
a national monument.
WHEREAS, The Upper Las Vegas Wash contains thousands of
Pleistocene mammal fossils of national importance, including Columbian
mammoth, ground sloth, American lion, camel and horse fossils; and
WHEREAS, Since 1933, the Upper Las Vegas Wash has been valued by
scientists because of the significant paleontological fossils
demonstrative of the Pleistocene epoch, commonly referred to as the ice
age, that are located in the area; and
WHEREAS, In 2004, during the preparation of the Las Vegas Valley
Disposal Boundary Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Bureau of
Land Management identified sensitive biological, cultural and
paleontological resources determined to be worthy of more evaluation
with respect to the protective status of the resources; and
WHEREAS, The harsh desert environment of the Upper Las Vegas Wash
supports unique and imperiled plants, including the Las Vegas
buckwheat, Merriam's bearpoppy, Las Vegas bearpoppy, the halfring
milkvetch, Joshua trees and several species of cacti; and
WHEREAS, The Upper Las Vegas Wash provides important habitat for
the threatened desert tortoise, endemic poppy bees, kit foxes,
burrowing owls and a variety of reptiles; and
WHEREAS, In 2010, a National Park Service reconnaissance survey
of the area determined that the area likely contains the largest
continuous section of Pleistocene strata in the desert southwest; and
WHEREAS, The Upper Las Vegas Wash is significant to the culture
and history of the native and indigenous people of the area, including
the Southern Paiute Tribe; and
WHEREAS, Despite the findings and recommendations of the
aforementioned Environmental Impact Statement and reconnaissance
survey, the Upper Las Vegas Wash remains inadequately protected; and
WHEREAS, Many irreplaceable fossil specimens in the Upper Las
Vegas Wash have been lost to vandalism or theft; and
WHEREAS, Designation of the Upper Las Vegas Wash site as a
national monument would protect the unique resources of the area for
present and future generations while allowing for public education and
continued scientific research opportunities; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
JOINTLY, That the members of the 77th Session of the Nevada Legislature
hereby recognize that the Upper Las Vegas Wash contains unique,
nationally important biological, cultural and paleontological
resources; and be it further
RESOLVED, That to conserve, protect, interpret and enhance for
the benefit of present and future generations these unique and
nationally important resources, the Nevada Legislature expresses its
support for the designation of the Upper Las Vegas Wash site as a
national monument; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly prepare and
transmit a copy of this resolution to the Vice President of the United
States as the presiding officer of the U.S. Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, each member of the Nevada Congressional
Delegation, the Governor and the Director of the State Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, and to the Director of the
Department of Wildlife for distribution to the various conservation
groups that have participated in the effort to designate the Upper Las
Vegas Wash site as a national monument; and be it further
RESOLVED, That this resolution becomes effective upon passage.
______
Mr. Ross. We are all concerned about jobs. One of the
reasons this bill has such committed support is because it
creates opportunities for economic development and job
creation. As government officials, it is important that we
support policies that create jobs for our communities. The
passage of this bill would attract national and international
visitors from a wide range of interests, including educational,
scientific, cultural, and natural resources. Las Vegas is one
of the most recognized brands in the world. Last year we had
nearly 40 million people come to Las Vegas.
I would like to draw your attention to section 5 of the
bill. This provision, known as the Las Vegas Job Creation Zone,
will transfer land from the Bureau of Land Management to the
city of Las Vegas to be made available for private development
through competitive auction. This transfer of land from Federal
control to private ownership will facilitate important economic
goals for the city of Las Vegas by making surplus Federal land
available for commercial development. The surplus land is
ideally situated for development of a business and technology
center that will support both Creech and Nellis Air Force
Bases.
Third, conserve and preserve this very important resource.
The site is one of the most significant fossil beds in North
America depicting life in the ice age. Fossils from prehistoric
camels, mammoths, giant sloths, lions, and other animals and
plants have been unearthed at this site. Thousands of
Pleistocene-era fossils have been found in Tule Springs for
examination and viewing. Fossils and fossilized pollen in the
area nearly span 200,000 years of time, offering important
insight into at least two ice ages and multiple warming and
cooling periods of our planet.
I have visited the site on a number of occasions and
personally seen tusks bigger than me that came from ice age
Columbian mammoths. This site should be set aside so other
others can visit and learn from these resources. Tule Springs
has allowed faculty from UNLV and other academic institutions
to get students practical paleontological and geological
experience. The site provides excellent educational
opportunities within close proximity to our city and to the
city of North Las Vegas for visiting school groups and the
general public. This is a very unique situation for most fossil
locations.
Nevada is home to great institutions like the University of
Nevada-Reno that is a national Tier 1 university, according to
U.S. News and World Report. In southern Nevada the Desert
Research Institute conducts cutting-edge applied research in
air, land, life, and water quality across Nevada, the United
States, and around the world.
This isn't just about us here today. It is about conserving
and preserving a valuable resource for generations to come. The
creation of a national monument would add to our ability to
preserve a place in history. For these reasons, broad community
support, job creation, and conserving important resources, I am
honored to be here today to present this to you and ask for
your support of the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule
Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you very much, Mr. Councilman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ross follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Ross, Councilman, City of Las Vegas,
Nevada, Ward 6
H.R. 2015--Las Vegas Valley Pubic Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds
National Monument Act of 2013
Good Morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the
committee. For the record, my name is Steve Ross, City Councilman for
the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, representing Council Ward 6
I am here to support the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule
Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak today about this important bill for our southern
Nevada community. It's an honor to testify before two committee members
from the State of Nevada, Congressman Mark Amodei and Congressman
Steven Horsford.
There are three key points I will make: (1) This bill has broad
community support; (2) it will create jobs; and (3) conserve important
resources.
First, Broad Community Support. It is rare that an elected public
official has the privilege of working on legislation that is being
actively supported by all sectors of a community. In particular, there
is active support from NV Energy, Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas
Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, elementary and high school educators,
area colleges and universities, including the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas, Public Lands Institute, and environmental and conservation
groups. Representatives from these organizations, among others, are
working closely with a group of concerned citizens and have developed
public support for this bill.
The Board of Clark County Commissioners, the Las Vegas City
Council, the North Las Vegas City Council, the Nevada State
Legislature, and the Tribal Council of the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe
unanimously passed resolutions urging Congress to pass legislation
creating a national monument. With your permission, I would like to
submit their letters of support for the record.
Second, Job Creation. One of the reasons this bill has such
committed support is because it creates opportunities for economic
development and job creation while providing for responsible urban
development of adjacent lands, and allowing for necessary
infrastructure to service existing developed areas. It would attract
national and international visitors from a wide range of interests
including educational, scientific, cultural and natural resources.
I'd like to draw your attention to section 5. This provision, known
as the ``Las Vegas Job Creation Zone'' will transfer land from the
Bureau of Land Management to the city of Las Vegas to be made available
for private development through competitive auction. The proceeds of
the sale will stay with the Federal Government. This transfer of land
from Federal control to private ownership will facilitate important
economic goals for the city of Las Vegas by making surplus Federal land
available for commercial development in accordance with local land use
plans. The city expects the release of lands will create thousands of
jobs over the next decade. This surplus land, supported by urban
infrastructure and amenities, is ideally situated to provide
development opportunities for businesses supporting Creech and Nellis
Air Force Bases.
Third, Conserve Important Resources. The site is one of the most
significant fossil bed sites in North America depicting life in the ice
age. Fossils from prehistoric camels, mammoths, giant sloths, lions and
other animals and plants have been unearthed at this site. Thousands of
Pleistocene-era fossils have been found in Tule Springs, and thousands
remain for scientific excavation, examination and public viewing.
Fossils and fossilized pollen in the area span nearly 200,000 years of
time, offering important insight into at least two ice ages and
multiple warming and cooling periods.
I have visited this site on a number of occasions, and personally
seen tusks bigger than me that came from ice age Columbian mammoths.
This site should be set aside so others can visit and learn from these
resources. Tule Springs has allowed faculty from UNLV and other
academic institutions to get students practical paleontological and
geological experience. The site provides excellent educational
opportunities within close proximity to a large city for local
students, visiting school groups and the general public. This is a
unique situation for most fossil locations.
For these reasons: Broad community support, job creation, and
conserving important resources, I am honored to be here to ask you to
support passage of the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs
Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
______
Mr. Amodei. I also want to indicate for the record the
presence of former Representative Jon Porter, whose presence
here is unknown to either one of the committee members here,
but evidently he was in the neighborhood, thought he would stop
by; and also to recognize Storey County Commissioner Marshall
McBride, the nemesis of my high school basketball career in the
last century. It is good to see you, and I am glad that we are
both still alive.
Any questions for this panel, Mr. Ranking Member?
Mr. Horsford. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is good
to say that. I think we would get a lot done on behalf of
public lands if you and I had these positions.
Mr. Amodei. It is a Kodak moment. Somebody will be in here
quickly to relieve us, I am sure.
Mr. Horsford. I want to thank our representatives from
Nevada, throughout the State of Nevada, for being here on a
number of important public lands bills, and thank you for your
leadership, because each of you have played an integral role
over the months and years to get to this point, so we wouldn't
be here without you. So I want to thank you very much for your
efforts.
And I do want to just ask a couple of questions for the
record, and I would like to first start by asking each of the
panel to share just how extensive the support again is for this
bill, and how did the community come together around this
proposal?
The Chairman and I on this committee hear all the time the
need to do these local-Federal partnerships between the private
sector and the public sector, but getting it done and making it
happen isn't as easy as it sounds. So can you share how the
community was able to come together to bring the type of broad
support that you have on the Tule Springs project?
Mr. Ross. If I may, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, Las
Vegas City Council, Steve Ross, again for the record.
Congressman, it is interesting you ask that question because it
was the community support; it was the group of people, the
Protectors of Tule Springs, if you will, that actually was the
driving force behind this. This didn't have to come from one of
our offices. This came from the public. This came from the area
of the city that I represent, and it is moving to know that we
are here today because of that community support. And I think
once it started gaining momentum, it certainly got all of our
attention in our cities, certainly the Clark County Commission,
and certainly with the Metro Chamber in regards to the
opportunities that are there.
More importantly, keep in mind that third point I made
about preserving those artifacts; most significant, protecting
that area. We have got youth groups that go out there and
volunteer their time to pick up trash, to watch the desert, if
you will, to make sure people aren't out there disturbing these
artifacts.
It is a home run for our State, both economically and at
the same time protecting that treasure that exists underground
out there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lee. Also for your remembrance, the shooting range 14
years ago was brought to fruition by one man walking up in my
driveway and saying, we need a shooting range. And from there
we have built one of the finest shooting ranges in America
there.
Congressman Horsford, in this particular case we had
somebody who wanted to protect what she thought was one of the
most valuable assets that she had ever seen in her life. Her
name was Jill DeStefano. She started a group called The Friends
of Tule Springs. It started with her and a friend, and pretty
soon it just blossomed into the most interesting eclectic group
of people I have ever seen. But they have been able to, as
private citizens, drive the discussion on this, and we owe a
big debt of gratitude to those wonderful females for seeing the
future before we had an idea what was even available.
Ms. McMillan. Well, I think it is important to recognize
this didn't happen overnight. There was a lot of working and
reworking, as Congressman Heck indicated to us earlier. But I
think the unique circumstances here was there were a lot of
groups with diverse interests who recognized the common ground,
who recognized that there was more common ground here than
there were differences, and I think Councilman Ross indicated
what that common ground was. It was the preservation of a
treasure that we have in our own backyard, something that we
could preserve for not only our current children, but for
future generations of our children balanced against what we are
all here to advocate for, and that is jobs and economic
opportunities for southern Nevada.
So I think when these groups came together, even though
they each had their diverse interests, they sat down over a
period of 4 to 5 years, and they worked out those differences
because of those areas of common ground. And I know the Metro
Chamber of Commerce has been involved in those discussions for
probably the last few years. We have been coming to Washington
for the last couple years to advocate for this issue as one of
our Federal priorities, and I think it is a testament to the
positive result that can happen when you start breaking down
those silos and start working together.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I know
Congressman Amodei and I both, having served on this committee,
on a number of occasions have wanted to have the opportunity to
show how partnerships can work and how our experience in Nevada
demonstrates that. Private sector, public sector, local, State,
Federal, and I am just honored and very proud that you all are
able to exhibit that today. And I want to again commend you,
and hopefully the Chairman of the overall committee and all the
members of our Natural Resources Committee can use this as a
model for how we, as the Federal representatives, can partner
to do good things. Despite all of the partisanship and
sometimes the gridlock, there are places where there is common
ground and where we can get things done, and I think today is a
perfect example. Thank you.
Mr. Lee. Mr. Chairman, because there are so few of us here,
and there is so many of us back here that care, might we be
bold enough to ask you two who are working so closely with us
if we could maybe get this to the hearing this year to the full
committee?
Mr. Amodei. Well, you sure can, which is what you are doing
right now, my dear colleague.
Mr. Lee. For a vote. I mean for a vote.
Mr. Amodei. In case you are unaware of the procedures of
the committee, we don't do subcommittee markups, so the next
time you hear about this will be in markup before the whole
committee, which is the stop before the floor.
Mr. Lee. Will that be this year?
Mr. Amodei. And, by the way, if you really want to ask
somebody in position of authority, you should ask somebody a
lot older than either one of the people looking back at you
here right now.
But I can assure you that you have done a nice job. Pat,
you have done a nice job on it. This committee has
historically--in the time that I have been here has the
reputation for moving bills that should be moved, and that does
include Nevada bills in the past, and I expect it to include
these ones. But thank you for that, although, as you recall
from your time, it is usually us that asks you the question,
not the other way around.
Mr. Lee. I was bold, I know.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you very much. Pat, thank you for coming
and bringing Marshall with you. Both good bills. I think you
will see it reflected in markups later on this year, if I may
be so bold as to have a prediction. But, of course, that is
subject to other things going on which are a little bit above
the pay grade of the folks floating around here.
So with that, I want to thank everybody for their testimony
and ask that all witnesses respond in writing to any written
questions submitted by members of the subcommittee.
Steve, I am going to submit one to you asking what it is
that you and Mr. Horsford did in the desert when you were
younger when you guys were hanging out out there.
And if there is no further business, without objection, the
subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional Material Submitted for the Record]
Prepared Statements of the Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
H.R. 1633--Small Lands Tracts Conveyance Act
The Department opposes H.R. 1633.
H.R. 1633 would provide States, units of local government,
federally Recognized Indian tribes, and private land owners the
opportunity to purchase up to 160 acres of National Forest System land
or Federal lands if their property adjoins the Federal land. Eligible
properties would include National Forest System lands or lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management that are located within
the boundaries of an incorporated or unincorporated area with a
population of at least 500 residents, with certain limitations that are
provided in the legislation.
The bill further requires the Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to develop procedures for a purchase request,
evaluation of the request, and an appeals process. Purchasers would pay
market value if the Federal property requested is bounded by only one
landowner. A competitive process would be used to determine purchase
price if there are two or more landowners. None of the proceeds from
the sale would return to the Federal Government. Half of the proceeds
from the sale would be distributed to the State where the Federal
property is located, and the remaining proceeds would be distributed
equally to those States with more than 33 percent of Federal land
ownership. States could only use the proceeds to purchase additional
eligible parcels, or to comply with Federal requirements under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
or National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
As a condition of the sale, the Regional Forester or the Director
of the Bureau of Land Management would require the purchaser to comply
with local land use ordinances and master zoning plans. All properties
would be conveyed by quitclaim deed with all rights held by the United
States included.
Our first concern is that the language defining eligible properties
may be overly broad. The definition of populated areas that include
incorporated and unincorporated areas with a population of 500
residents could be construed to include much of the area where NFS
lands border non-Federal land. Even with exclusions provided for in the
bill, areas such as those with endangered species habitat or areas with
exceptional resources, trust lands held for the benefit of an Indian
tribe or those lands that have an exceptional resource such as
Wilderness or National Recreation Area, a large amount of the land
along the Federal/non-Federal border would be eligible for transfer.
After the property is transferred, the property along the new border
would be eligible for transfer. This could result in a yearly expanding
loss of the National Forest along it borders.
The Department is also concerned with conveyance of National Forest
System Lands without consideration. The proceeds from the sales would
be distributed between the State where the sale occurred and all States
where Federal Land ownership is greater than 33 percent of the total
land area of the State. These funds could be used only to purchase
additional land parcels or for the State to comply with Federal law.
The benefits of the sale proceeds would go only to the States that
receive the money, not the American public as a whole.
H.R. 1633 specifies that market value will be established by an
appraisal submitted by the applicant, subject to agency approval.
Federal agencies are required to comply with the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Acquisitions. Applicant appraisals not meeting
these standards cannot be accepted. This could increase the time to
achieve a compliant appraisal and the cost to the Federal Government
because of requirements for a second appraisal. H.R. 1633 also imposes
timelines for review of applications that would be difficult to meet in
the best of circumstances. It would also require recipients of those
proceeds to comply with certain Federal laws, with no means for
ensuring compliance or enforcement.
The Forest Service already has authority under the National Forest
Townsite Act to sell up to 640 acres of National Forest System Land for
fair market value to any qualifying county, city, or other governmental
subdivision in the 11 contiguous Western States and Alaska. The lands
would have to serve community objectives that outweigh the public
objectives and values of retaining the lands in Federal ownership.
These objectives include space for housing and for service industries,
expansion of existing economic enterprises, new industries utilizing
local resources and skills, public schools, public health facilities,
community parks, and other recreation areas for local citizens.
Other authorities are available to the Forest Service to sell or
exchange NFS lands. Under the Small Tracts Act the Forest Service can
sell lands, in part, to rectify innocent trespass problems. The Forest
Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005 allows for the
sale of unneeded administrative sites. Additionally, land exchanges are
authorized under a number of authorities and are the primary mechanism
for land disposition.
A key component of all of these authorities is a determination that
the exchange or sale of the Federal Land is within the public interest.
H.R. 1633 has no requirement for determining that the conveyance would
be in the public interest. Further, it would require the use of
categorical exclusions which we do not support. The Service uses its
planning process and the NEPA process to provide opportunities to
consider environmental impacts, public engagement, and mitigation
opportunities, as well as to ensure that unknown or unforeseen issues
are not overlooked. Failure to use these planning processes can result
in a failure to provide relevant and useful information to the public
and the decisionmakers.
The Department is also concerned with the effect of removing
parcels out of Federal ownership on an ad hoc basis. This would make
boundary management much more difficult and expensive as the boundaries
could change every year. The fragmentation that would occur along the
borders of NFS land would exacerbate insect and disease management
challenges.
Additionally, USDA is concerned that enactment of H.R. 1633 would
exacerbate the spread of homes and communities into areas prone to
wildfire magnifying or multiplying an already increasing management
challenge. Studies indicate that about one-tenth of the land area
occupied by housing and about one-third of all housing units in the
conterminous United States are located in the Wildland Urban Interface
(WUI). Almost certainly, enactment of H.R. 1633 would open up more
``natural'' areas for development, complicating and making more costly
suppression tactics when a fire occurs. Purchase of these lands could
also lead to an increase in the number of fires, since, in general, the
more houses and people, the more human-caused fire ignitions occur.
H.R. 2259--North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013
H.R. 2259 would, subject to valid existing rights, withdraw
National Forest System (NFS) lands located in the North Fork and Middle
Fork of Flathead River watersheds in the State of Montana which are
primarily managed as part of the Flathead National Forest from
location, entry and patent under the mining laws and from disposition
under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws. H.R. 2259 would also
withdrawal a small amount of land in the Kootenai National Forest.
Currently there are 39 existing leases or claims in the North Fork
comprising 56,117 acres and 18 existing leases or claims in the Middle
Fork comprising 8,595 acres.
While USDA supports H.R. 2259, I would like to clarify that
although the Forest Service has surface management authority concerning
mineral operations, the management of the Federal mineral estate falls
within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. We defer to
the Department of the Interior on issues related to the status of the
existing claims and leases.
The Forest Service administers surface resources on nearly 193
million acres of NFS lands located in 43 States and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico. The Forest Plan for the Flathead National Forest blends
areas of multiple uses in the North Fork and Middle Fork with areas of
specific or limited uses elsewhere on the Forest. Under current law,
NFS lands reserved from the public domain pursuant to the Creative Act
of 1891, including those in H.R. 2259 are open to location, entry and
patent under the United States Mining Laws unless those lands have
subsequently been withdrawn from the application of the mining laws.
This bill would withdraw approximately 362,000 acres from the operation
of the locatable and leasable mineral laws subject to valid existing
rights. This includes approximately 291,000 acres on the Flathead
National Forest and approximately 5,000 acres on the Kootenai National
Forest in the North Fork watershed and 66,000 acres in the Middle Fork
watershed on the Flathead National Forest.
The majority of North Fork and Middle Fork of the Flathead has low
to moderate potential for the occurrence of locatable and leasable
minerals. A portion of the Middle Fork does have an area of high
potential for oil and gas occurrence. Much of the North Fork and Middle
Fork was leased for oil and gas in the early 1980s. Subsequently, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service were sued and BLM
suspended the leases in 1985 to comply with a District Court ruling
(Conner v. Burford, 605 F. Supp. 107 (D.Mont.1985)). Presently, there
are no active locatable or leasable operations, including oil and gas,
in the North Fork or Middle Fork.
We recognize the bill would not affect the existing oil and gas
leases because they would constitute valid existing rights. We also
recognize the bill would not change the court's order in Conner v.
Burford requiring the BLM and Forest Service to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental
Policy Act before authorizing any surface disturbing activities on the
affected leases.
The Flathead National Forest and Flathead County rely on the close
proximity of local sources of aggregate to maintain roads economically
and as a source of building materials. We are pleased this bill would
not preclude the removal and use of mineral materials, such as
aggregate. The ability to continue using those local mineral materials
would allow us to more easily maintain local roads, thus reduce erosion
related impacts to streams and lakes in the North Fork and Middle Fork
drainages.
______
Prepared Statements of the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department
of the Interior
H.R. 1167--Restoring Storey County Act
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to provide
testimony on H.R. 1167, the Restoring Storey County Act. This bill
would direct the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to convey
approximately 890 acres of Federal surface estate in and around
Virginia City, Nevada, to Storey County. The Department supports the
goals of H.R. 1167, but opposes the bill's exemptions from existing
laws, and suggests other modifications described below.
background
Virginia City is a community of about 855 people in Storey County,
Nevada, approximately 25 miles southeast of Reno. Virginia City and
Storey County contain major portions of the historic Comstock Lode, one
of the largest gold and silver discoveries in the world. Virginia City
once boasted 15,000 residents and was one of the richest cities in
North America in the early 1870s. Due to its economic wealth and
importance for the development of the United States, including its
association with notable people such as Mark Twain, as well as the
preservation of many of its historic buildings and structures, Virginia
City was designated a National Historic Landmark on July 4, 1961.
Today, cultural heritage tourism contributes significantly to the local
economy.
Over 140 years ago, when thousands of people rushed to the area in
search of gold and silver, title transactions on the part of Storey
County occurred very quickly, often before proper surveying and
identification of public land versus properly located and surveyed town
site lots had been completed. This unique situation resulted in
residential and commercial structures being constructed in whole, or in
part, on lands that BLM records identify as public lands and county
title documents indicate as privately owned. It also resulted in
similar discrepancies with regard to undeveloped land.
h.r. 1167--restoring storey county act
H.R. 1167 would direct the BLM to convey approximately 890 acres of
Federal surface estate in and around Virginia City to Storey County.
Under the bill, the BLM would be responsible for all costs associated
with the conveyance. Since the Federal Government owns both the surface
estate and mineral estate of most of these lands, the mineral estate
would remain in Federal ownership under H.R. 1167.
Due to the specific set of historical circumstances surrounding the
residential and commercial development of Virginia City and Storey
County, the Department supports the primary goal of H.R. 1167 to
resolve the title inconsistencies described above. While the Department
generally supports the conveyance of these lands to Storey County, we
have several concerns with the bill.
As written, H.R. 1167 would exempt the conveyance from the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA). The Department opposes exemption from these laws, which
provide opportunities for consideration of environmental impacts,
public engagement, identification of mitigation, an informed
decisionmaker, and identification of unknown or unforeseen issues.
Given that much of this land lies within a National Historic Landmark,
there is a high potential for cultural resources in the area that
require careful attention under NEPA and NHPA. Failure to comport with
NEPA, alone, can result in a failure to provide relevant and useful
information to the public and the BLM decisionmaker.
H.R. 1167 also would require the BLM to cover all costs and convey
the identified lands to Storey County within 60 days of enactment. The
Department believes that conveyance costs should be paid by the county,
consistent with past legislation that has supported local community
development. Additionally, we recommend more flexibility in timing to
satisfy the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA) and other applicable laws.
Similarly, H.R. 1167 does not specify the payment of fair market
value for the public lands that would conveyed. It is our understanding
that the sponsor intends for the conveyance under the bill to be made
without the payment of fair market value. The Department recommends
that H.R. 1167 be amended to provide payment for the fair market value
of any lands that would be conveyed.
Furthermore, the Department would like to work with the sponsor and
the subcommittee on some technical modifications to the bill, including
protection of valid existing rights; the addition of a direct reference
to monetary consideration; amendment of the map reference; and minor
boundary changes. H.R. 1167 does not include language that makes the
conveyance under the bill subject to valid existing rights. There are
at least 12 existing land use authorizations on these lands, including
rights-of-way for power lines, Federal highways, pipelines, and
railroads, as well as Recreation and Public Purposes Act leases. There
are also approximately 149 mining claims and two grazing allotments on
these lands. Because the bill does not address grazing, the reduction
in the existing grazing permits and removal of any authorized range
improvements on these lands ordinarily would be carried out in
accordance with FLPMA and the BLM's grazing regulations (43 CFR part
4100). However, the bill's 60-day timeframe for conveyance conflicts
with FLPMA and the operation of the grazing regulations.
The bill also currently references a legislative map entitled
``Restoring Storey County Act,'' and dated July 24, 2012. It is our
understanding that the sponsor intends to change the reference to a map
dated November 20, 2012. The more recent map informs the Department's
position on the legislation. In addition, the Department recommends
some minor changes to align the conveyance boundaries with existing
lots that already have been surveyed. We would be happy to work with
the sponsor and the subcommittee on these changes and other, more
minor, technical corrections.
Last, the Department of Justice recommends that the bill be revised
to make absolutely clear that the County would have to agree to the
proposed conveyance, as requiring the County to accept the land without
consent might raise constitutional concerns. This change might be
accomplished by adding ``, and subject to the agreement of the County''
before ``the Secretary shall convey to the County'' in section 4(a) of
the bill.
conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1167. The
bill is important to the people of Virginia City and Storey County, and
the Department looks forward to working with the sponsor and the
Subcommittee on modifications so we can fully support the bill.
H.R. 1633--Small Lands Tracts Conveyance Act
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
H.R. 1633, the Small Lands Tracts Conveyance Act. The Department of the
Interior opposes H.R. 1633 as it applies to lands under the
administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The
BLM has the authority to dispose of public land as appropriate with
full public involvement; H.R. 1633 circumvents that critical public
process. The Department defers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
for lands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service.
background
The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land
primarily in 12 Western States. Our mission is to sustain the health,
diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and
enjoyment of present and future generations. As the Nation's largest
Federal land manager, the BLM administers the public lands for a wide
range of multiple uses and sustained yield, including energy
production, recreation, livestock grazing, conservation use, forestry,
and open space. The 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)
provides the BLM with a clear multiple-use mandate which the BLM seeks
to implement through its land use planning process. Additionally, FLPMA
includes policy direction that the United States should generally
retain Federal lands in public ownership. This was a departure from
previous land disposal policies of the U.S. Government and FLPMA
repealed many of those former disposal laws.
BLM's Land Disposal Authorities
The FLPMA is the BLM's primary authority for disposals of Federal
lands through exchanges, sales and various conveyances. Section 203 of
the FLPMA allows the BLM to identify lands (though the land use
planning process) as potentially available for disposal by sale if they
meet one or more of the following criteria:
Lands consisting of scattered, isolated tracts that are
difficult or uneconomic to manage;
Lands that were acquired for a specific purpose and are no
longer needed for that purpose; or
Lands that could serve important public objectives, such
as community expansion and economic development, which
outweigh other public objectives and values that could be
served by retaining the land in Federal ownership.
Section 206 of FLPMA provides land exchange authority. To be
eligible for exchange under FLPMA, BLM-managed lands must have been
identified for disposal through the land use planning process. Land
exchanges are a tool the BLM uses to acquire environmentally sensitive
lands while transferring public lands into private ownership for local
needs and the consolidation of scattered tracts.
The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) is an extremely
popular authority used by the BLM to help States, local communities,
and nonprofit organizations obtain public lands at no or reduced cost
for important public purposes. Examples include parks, schools,
hospitals and other health facilities, fire and law enforcement
facilities, courthouses, social services facilities and public works.
Over the last 5 years, the BLM has sold nearly 9,000 acres of public
land through R&PP conveyances and leased an additional 10,000 acres of
public land under the R&PP Act.
Another important law for the facilitation of land disposals over
the last decade is the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
(FLTFA). The administration strongly supports reauthorization of the
FLTFA, which expired on July 25, 2011. Under the FLTFA, the BLM could
sell public lands identified for disposal prior to July 2000 through
the land use planning process, and retain the proceeds from those sales
in a special account in the Treasury. The BLM and the other Federal
land managing agencies were then able to use those funds to cover
processing costs for future land sales and to acquire, from willing
sellers, lands within or adjacent to certain federally designated areas
that contain exceptional resources. The National Park Service (NPS),
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Forest Service (FS),
and the BLM were all able to acquire lands with FLTFA funds. Over the
life of the FLTFA, approximately 27,000 acres of BLM-managed public
lands were sold under this authority and approximately 18,000 acres of
high resource value lands were acquired. These acquisitions consolidate
land ownership, frequently providing access to increased recreational
opportunities for the public and reducing costs to the Federal
Government in areas with fragmented land patterns.
BLM's Land Use Planning Process
Many of the decisions about how best to manage the public lands
entrusted to the BLM's stewardship are made through the land use
planning process. The BLM's field offices document these decisions in
157 individual Resource Management Plans (RMPs) developed with full
public participation at the local level. These RMPs provide the
foundation for every on-the-ground action taken or authorized by the
BLM and include inventories and assessments of a broad range of
resource values and public land uses. Among the many decisions made
through the RMP process is the identification of lands that are
potentially available for disposal. Extensive public involvement is a
critical component of this process.
Each RMP is unique to the local situation and the local community.
The RMP identifies lands as potentially available for disposal by
various means. For example, lands may be identified as available for
sale or they may be identified as available for exchange (e.g. to
further particular resource goals).
The process of identifying lands as potentially available for
disposal typically does not include the clearance of impediments to
disposal such as the presence of threatened and endangered (T&E)
species, cultural or historic resources, mining claims, oil and gas
leases, rights-of-way and grazing permits. Also not included in this
identification process is an appraisal of values or a specific survey
of the lands. Furthermore, because land use plans typically extend over
many years, lands identified as potentially available for disposal at
one point in time may be found later to be unsuitable as a result of
subsequent changes, such as oil and gas leasing, listing of T&E
species, and establishment of extensive rights-of-way or other
encumbrances. For this reason, the BLM normally conducts site-specific
NEPA analysis prior to disposal of a particular tract or tracts of
public land. The Department uses the NEPA process to provide
opportunities to consider environmental impacts, public engagement, and
mitigation opportunities, as well as to ensure that unknown or
unforeseen issues are not overlooked. Failure to use the land planning
process, and the associated NEPA review, can result in a failure to
provide relevant and useful information to the public and the BLM
decisionmakers.
h.r. 1633
H.R. 1633 would provide for the sale of ``eligible Federal lands
parcels'' to adjacent landowners at their request. The bill defines
``eligible Federal lands parcel'' broadly, as BLM-managed public lands
that share a boundary with non-Federal land, are within an area with a
population of more than 500 persons, do not contain ``exceptional
resources,'' do not provide habitat for an endangered or threatened
species, and are ``not subject to existing rights held by a non-Federal
entity.'' Adjacent landowners could petition for up to 160 acres
annually under the legislation. Within 30 days of receiving a request
for sale, the BLM would have to make a determination as to whether or
not the parcel met the eligibility criteria established in H.R. 1633.
If a parcel were determined to be eligible, the purchaser would be
required to pay the BLM the fair market value for the land as well as
the costs of the conveyance. Determination of fair market value under
the bill would not require an appraisal completed under the ``Uniform
Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions.'' The proceeds of
the sales would be deposited into an account in the Federal Treasury
and distributed by a formula to States in which the Federal Government
owns more than 33 percent of the land area in the State.
The Department of the Interior opposes H.R. 1633. The BLM is
committed to a process for the disposal of public land rooted in the
core principle of public participation. H.R. 1633 excludes tribes,
States, and local governments, as well as user groups, and the public
at large from the process of land disposal and undermines key tenants
of FLPMA. Furthermore, H.R. 1633 provides a blanket exemption from the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and circumvents BLM's
land use planning process. Failure to comport with FLPMA and NEPA,
alone, can result in a failure to provide relevant and useful
information to the public and BLM decisionmakers. Furthermore, while it
excludes units of the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) and
other environmentally sensitive lands from eligible sale lands, H.R.
1633 does not limit lands to be sold to those preliminarily identified
for disposal through the public land use planning process, and broadly
redefines lands eligible for transfer to include significant amounts of
land along the Federal/non-Federal border without determination that
the conveyance is in the public interest. A 30-day window to make a
determination on whether or not requested lands meet the eligibility
requirements excludes the public and likely makes a thorough,
thoughtful process nearly impossible.
H.R. 1633 effectively establishes new criteria for lands eligible
for disposal that are inconsistent with established FLPMA criteria.
Many of these new criteria are confusing and unclear. For example,
section 2(a)(3)(C) provides that eligible lands do not include those
``subject to existing rights held by a non-Federal entity.'' Typically,
administrative and legislative sales of lands are subject to ``valid
existing rights.'' This provision protects established rights such as
power lines or roads, but does not prohibit the transfer of such lands.
On the other hand, the bill does not address other existing uses of the
land that are not rights, such as livestock grazing and unproven mining
claims, which would be considered during the land planning process
under FLPMA and NEPA.
When determining the value of public lands, the BLM and the
Department are committed to using the ``Uniform Appraisal Standards for
Federal Land Acquisitions'' and the ``Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice.'' To deviate from these long-established
procedures, which apply across the Federal Government, would expose the
process to uncertainty, inconsistency, and irregularities.
Additionally, the Department opposes the establishment of a new
fund in the Treasury and the proposed distribution of land sale
revenues to certain States, rather than the public as a whole. Under
current law, typically 96 percent of the value of land sales are
returned to the Treasury and typically 4 percent distributed to the
individual states as required by individual statehood acts.
conclusion
The BLM's land use planning process, as directed by FLPMA and NEPA,
ensures that all of the users of the land have an opportunity to
participate in the public land management process. tribes, States,
local governments, user groups, conservation groups, and the public at
large become actively involved in these processes and final decisions
made by the BLM are better and stronger because of that involvement. We
oppose efforts, however well intended, which would undermine that
process.
H.R. 2015--Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds
National Monument Act of 2013
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to present
this statement on H.R. 2015, the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule
Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act. The Department generally
supports H.R. 2015 and would welcome the opportunity to work with the
sponsor and committee on modifications to provisions of the bill.
background
The Las Vegas Valley is home to nearly 2 million people, the famous
Las Vegas Strip, spectacular desert landscapes, and historic, cultural,
and paleontological treasures. Balancing the protection of these
important natural, cultural, and scientific resources with economic
development and growth is a challenge embraced by the Nevada
delegation. Over the last 20 years, a number of laws have been enacted
to help maintain that balance. Among these are: the Red Rock Canyon
National Conservation Area Establishment Act (Pub. L. 101-621); the
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (Pub. L. 105-263); and the
Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act
(Pub. L. 107-282), several of which are the subject of today's hearing.
h.r. 2015
Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument (Section 2)
H.R. 2015 would designate a new unit of the National Park Service
(NPS)--the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. This bill would
transfer administrative jurisdiction of approximately 22,650 acres of
public land from the Bureau of Land Management to the National Park
Service. The bill would establish the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National
Monument Advisory Commission to provide guidance for the management of
the Monument.
The Department supports the establishment of the Tule Springs
Fossil Beds National Monument and the Advisory Council. The NPS does
not currently have a park designated specifically to protect and
interpret Pleistocene fossils and the creation of this site would
comprise the most significant Pleistocene paleontological resources in
the American Southwest. However, since a special resource study has not
been completed, there are many outstanding questions regarding the most
efficient and effective means for managing this area.
The NPS completed a Reconnaissance Report for the Upper Las Vegas
Wash/Tule Springs area in June 2010. Preliminary findings from this
report indicated that the resources in this area appeared to be
nationally significant and suitable for inclusion in the national park
system but further study would be needed to compare the resources of
Tule Springs to other similar areas that represent nationally
significant resources of the late Pleistocene epoch. Preliminary
findings also indicated that the area is potentially feasible but that
the initial determination would greatly benefit from a full study of
alternatives that would more fully examine site issues such as
vandalism, unauthorized removal of fossils, and ORV use that may affect
future options for management and protection of the area. Additionally,
the report recommends an analysis of operational costs, particularly
those associated with an active paleontology management program
involving the preparation and curation of fossils, such as collection
storage equipment, materials and supplies, dedicated curation space,
and staff time to prepare fossils.
Section 2(d)(5)(B)(IV) directs the NPS to include a travel
management plan for the national monument that may include existing
public transit. Although it is unclear what is being proposed by this
language, this proposed monument is on the border of the cities of Las
Vegas and North Las Vegas and transit options for existing residents
will be taken in account during the planning process.
Finally, section 2(e) provides for a renewable energy transmission
corridor to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on the
north side of the new National Monument. The BLM recommends that this
narrow strip of land be withdrawn from the mining and mineral leasing
laws, and that access to these lands be limited to administrative uses
in order to avoid incompatible activities.
Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Additions (Section 3)
First established by an Act of Congress in 1990, the 196,000-acre
Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA) is located 17 miles
west of the Las Vegas Strip. The NCA welcomes over 1 million visitors
annually who are looking to explore the natural wonders beyond the
traditional Las Vegas experience. The Red Rock Canyon NCA offers
opportunities for hiking, rock climbing, horseback riding, biking, and
photography. A 13-mile scenic drive provides an up close look at this
spectacular desert landscape.
The BLM supports the provisions of H.R. 2015 (section 3) which
propose to expand the boundaries of the NCA by approximately 1,540
acres. We would like to work with the Sponsor and the Committee on some
minor boundary modifications to improve manageability of the NCA
addition.
Conveyances to the Cities of North Las Vegas & Las Vegas (Sections 4
and 5)
H.R. 2015 (sections 4 and 5) provides for the conveyance of public
lands to the city of North Las Vegas (645 acres) and the city of Las
Vegas (660 acres) respectively at no cost. The lands proposed for
conveyance are within the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act
(SNPLMA) (Pub. L. 105-263) boundary established by acts of Congress.
Under these provisions of the bill, the two local governments would
then be able to sell, lease, or otherwise convey these lands at fair
market value to third parties. All revenues derived from these
conveyances would be distributed consistent with direction under SNPLMA
as if the conveyances had been undertaken by the BLM under its existing
authorities. Additionally, the bill would allow these governments to
retain some of the lands for uses consistent with those allowed under
the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, such as for schools,
parks and fire stations. All costs related to the initial transfer of
land to the city governments or from them to third parties would be the
responsibility of the cities of North Las Vegas and Las Vegas.
SNPLMA identified these lands for disposal, and specified the use
of the proceeds from the sale of these lands. By transferring the lands
to the cities of North Las Vegas and Las Vegas, the bill will allow
those communities to determine the development of the lands within
their boundaries, while requiring fair market value for subsequent
conveyances. The BLM does not oppose these transfers, but recommends
amending this section to eliminate the leasing option. Such leases are
difficult to oversee and manage; by only allowing reconveyance by the
cities through sale or R&PP conveyance, we can better protect the
integrity of the process.
Expansion of Police Shooting Range (Section 6)
The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources
Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-282) transferred 176 acres of BLM-managed
public land to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for a
shooting range. H.R. 2015 (section 6) would transfer an additional 80
acres of BLM-managed lands to the Las Vegas Police Department.
The BLM supports this conveyance, which will allow the Police
Department to establish long-range shooting and training facilities. We
recommend that the legislation specify that the transfer will be
subject to valid existing rights.
Spring Mountain National Recreation Area Withdrawal (Section 7)
The Department of the Interior defers to the Department of
Agriculture on the Spring Mountain National Recreation Area provisions
of H.R. 2015 (section 7), which affect lands administered by the U.S.
Forest Service.
SNPLMA Boundary Modification (Section 8)
The SNPLMA, as amended, was designed to provide for the responsible
disposal of BLM-managed public land within the Las Vegas Valley. Under
the act, funds generated from the sale of these lands are deposited
into a special account to be expended consistent with the provisions of
the act. Funds from SNPLMA lands sales have been used for a variety of
purposes as stipulated by the act, including: acquisition of high value
environmentally sensitive lands; establishment of parks, trails, and
natural areas; creation of new conservation initiatives; and a number
of other projects. To date, nearly 45,000 acres have been conveyed out
of Federal ownership under the provisions of SNPLMA, and approximately
39,500 acres remain to be considered for disposal under SNPLMA.
H.R. 2015 (section 8) proposes to modify the SNPLMA disposal
boundary by removing approximately 9,950 acres of public land currently
inside the boundary and by adding approximately 6,795 acres of public
land currently outside the boundary, resulting in a net reduction of
lands within the SNPLMA boundary of approximately 3,158 acres. Total
public land acres within the SNPLMA boundary would be 36,890 acres if
H.R. 2015 is enacted. The acres proposed for removal are lands that
H.R. 2015 would transfer (section 2) to the National Park Service for
inclusion in the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. The acres
proposed for addition to the boundary are primarily on the northeast
and northwest sides of the Las Vegas Valley, and the most significant
current uses are for the mining of aggregate materials for
construction. The BLM supports section 8 of S. 974.
Conveyances to Nevada Colleges and Universities (Section 9)
The Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), a subdivision of the
State of Nevada, provides for the education for over 125,000 students
throughout the State at 8 different colleges and universities. The NSHE
is seeking to expand the capacity of three of those schools in southern
Nevada in order to improve higher education opportunities.
H.R. 2015 (section 9) provides for the conveyance of three parcels
of public land for three of these colleges and universities in southern
Nevada at no cost and for uses consistent with those allowed under the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP). All costs associated with
the transfers would be paid by the NSHE. The three conveyances include
approximately 285 acres for the Great Basin College in Pahrump, Nevada,
41 acres for the College of Southern Nevada, and 1,886 acres for the
University of Nevada-Las Vegas (UNLV).
The R&PP Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease or
convey public lands at nominal costs for recreational and public
purposes, including for educational facilities. The BLM generally
supports appropriate legislative conveyances at no cost if the lands
are to be used for purposes consistent with the R&PP Act, and if the
conveyances have a reversionary clause to enforce this requirement.
The BLM supports these conveyances for higher education in H.R.
2015 and would like to work with the Sponsor and the Committee on minor
and technical modifications to these provisions. Specifically, we
recommend the addition of a clause allowing the Secretary to add
reasonable terms and conditions to the transfer. For example, the lands
proposed for transfer for the Great Basin College are adjacent to the
BLM's Pahrump Fire Station. In the conveyance documents we may want to
include building height restrictions in areas closest to the helipad to
ensure safe aerial fire activities. The addition of a ``terms and
conditions'' clause would allow the agency to address this and similar
situations.
Ivanpah Airport Conveyance (Section 10)
The Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act (Pub. L. 106-
362) provided for the sale of approximately 5,750 acres of public land
to Clark County for the construction of a future airport. The
completion of the sale of the land and construction of the airport is
contingent on a number of factors, including approval by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). H.R. 2015 (section 10) provides for the
conveyance, at no cost, of approximately 2,350 acres to the east of the
proposed airport for flood mitigation projects related to the airport.
The land would not be conveyed unless and until the FAA approves the
airport project.
H.R. 2015 also reserves to the Federal Government the mineral
estate (potentially valuable sand and gravel) of the 2,350 acres to be
conveyed for the airport, except that the county may construct flood
control facilities and remove aggregate following flood events under
the bill. The BLM supports these provisions. However, provisions
providing that the county pay all costs associated with this transfer
and a terms and conditions clause (similar to those in section 9 of
H.R. 2015) should be added to this section as well. We would note, that
there are desert tortoise concerns in this area, and the BLM and the
Fish & Wildlife Service would like to continue to work with Clark
County to address them.
Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area Release (Section 11)
The Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area (ISA) lies to the east of
Las Vegas. The 9,700-acre area has been managed by the BLM to protect
these lands for possible future wilderness designation as required by
law. Over the last decades, and most recently in 2009, the Congress has
legislatively released portions of the Sunrise Mountain ISA from those
protections, but the BLM does not have the independent authority to
release the remaining acres.
The BLM supports the provisions of H.R. 2015 (section 11) which
would release the entire Sunrise Mountain ISA from interim protected
status, thereby allowing the consideration of a full range of multiple
uses. The Sunrise Mountain ISA does not possess significant wilderness
characteristics. Furthermore, it is the assessment of the BLM that this
area is appropriate for the expansion of high-voltage transmission
lines, including those for renewable energy transmission, as well as a
possible interstate natural gas and water pipelines.
Nellis Dunes Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Recreation Area (Section 12)
The Nellis Dunes OHV area is a popular recreation area with over
100,000 visits annually. H.R. 2015 (section 12) would promote the
further development of this area as a destination OHV site. OHV use is
a popular and growing activity in Nevada and across the West. The BLM
welcomes opportunities to support this type of recreation in
appropriate locations.
Studies conducted by the UNLV at the request of the BLM have
indicated that there are high levels of naturally occurring arsenic in
the Nellis Dunes area. While the area is presently open to OHV use, the
BLM makes visitors aware of these potential health concerns. Currently,
the UNLV is conducting a health risk assessment of the area in
accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's human health risk
assessment processes and protocols. The BLM expects to receive a
completed study by late 2014, and believes that it is premature to make
permanent decisions about the Nellis Dunes area prior to receiving the
final report. Therefore, the BLM recommends deferring sections 12(a),
(b), and (c) until the final report is available.
However, if Congress elects to move forward with these provisions
of H.R. 2015, the BLM recommends a number of substantive modifications.
The bill (section 12) allocates uses in Nellis Dunes in three parts.
First, it establishes a BLM-managed Nellis Dunes Off-Highway Vehicle
Recreation Area on approximately 10,000 acres of public land. Second,
it transfers approximately 960 acres of public land to Clark County for
a more intensively managed OHV Recreation Park. Third, it establishes
an ``Economic Support Area'' adjacent to the other two areas.
The BLM could support the establishment of the Nellis Dunes OHV
Recreation Area if our safety concerns are appropriately addressed.
Likewise, we could support the transfer of land to Clark County for an
OHV Recreation Park if the transfer and management of those lands is
done consistent with the R&PP Act, and if the transfer addressed issues
outlined in our discussion of section 9 regarding similar no cost
conveyances. Finally, the BLM does not object to the establishment of
an Economic Support Area; however, we strongly urge that these 290
acres be sold to the county at fair market value, rather than setting
up a system of revenue sharing between the county and Federal
Government for private enterprises on these lands. The BLM does not
typically participate in commercial activities such as these and we do
not believe that it would be appropriate in this case.
The BLM would like to work with the sponsor and committee on
perfecting these sections of H.R. 2015, provided the human health risk
assessment determines that establishing an OHV park in this area is
appropriate.
Expansion of Nellis Air Force Base (Sections 12(d) and 13)
H.R. 2015 (sections 12(d) and 13) provides for the expansion of
Nellis Air Force Base though withdrawal, reservation, and transfer of
administrative jurisdiction of approximately 1,120 acres of BLM-managed
public lands. The administration supports the future use of these lands
by the Department of the Air Force for national security purposes.
However, these sections permanently transfer administrative
jurisdiction over these lands to the Air Force, rather than withdrawing
them from the public land and mining laws and reserving them for the
military's use for a specific time period, as is more typical and
consistent with adjacent military lands. The Administration could
support these provisions if they were amended to withdraw and reserve
the lands for military use, including terms and conditions of past
legislative withdrawals, and if they were subject to valid existing
rights. The BLM would also like to work with the Sponsor, the
Committee, and the Department of Defense to ensure appropriate access
for several mining companies that have long-term contracts for the use
of some lands in this area in a manner consistent with the requirements
of Nellis Air Force Base.
Military Overflights (Section 14)
Section 14 of the bill would address military overflights over new
units established by the bill. Providing for such military overflights
requires a careful balancing of conservation and national defense
requirements and is highly factually specific. The Department of the
Interior believes it needs to conduct additional discussions with the
Department of Defense with regard to the specific circumstances of
flights over the lands covered by this bill before determining whether
legislative guidance is needed and, if so, what form that guidance
should take.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's views on
H.R. 2015. We look forward to working with the sponsor and the
committee to resolve the outstanding issues.
H.R. 2259--North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement on H.R. 2259,
the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013. The Department of the
Interior supports H.R. 2259, which would withdraw Federal lands within
the North Fork watershed of Montana's Flathead River from all forms of
location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and from disposition
under all laws related to mineral or geothermal leasing. Enactment of
H.R. 2259 would mark an important milestone in the work occurring
across multiple jurisdictions to help preserve the remarkable resources
in the Crown of the Continent ecosystem.
background
The Flathead River Basin, a key portion of an area known as the
Crown of the Continent ecosystem, spans the boundaries of the United
States and Canada. It includes part of the United States' Glacier
National Park and borders Canada's Waterton Lakes National Park. These
two parks comprise the world's first International Peace Park as well
as a World Heritage Site. The U.S. Forest Service's Flathead National
Forest is also located within the Flathead River watershed. The Bureau
of Land Management manages the Federal mineral estate underlying the
Flathead National Forest.
Running along the west side of the Continental Divide, the North
Fork of the Flathead River enters the United States at the Canadian
border and forms the western border of Glacier National Park until its
confluence with the Middle Fork of the Flathead River near the southern
end of Glacier National Park. The North Fork watershed, a sub-basin of
the Flathead River watershed, includes areas currently managed by the
National Park Service, the State of Montana, the U.S. Forest Service,
and some private landowners.
The Flathead River Basin is recognized for its natural resource
values, including wildlife corridors for large and medium-sized
carnivores, aquatic habitat, and plant species diversity. The area is
rich in cultural heritage resources, with archeological evidence of
human habitation starting 10,000 years ago. Several Indian tribes,
including the Blackfeet, the Salish, and the Kootenai, have a well-
established presence in the area. The area also has celebrated
recreational opportunities, including hunting, fishing, and backcountry
hiking and camping.
There has been interest in protecting the Crown of the Continent
resources for some time. On February 18, 2010, the State of Montana and
the Province of British Columbia executed a Memorandum of Understanding
which addresses a myriad of issues related to the Flathead River Basin
on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border. The intention of part I.A. of
that memorandum is to ``[r]emove mining, oil and gas, and coal
development as permissible land uses in the Flathead River Basin.''
The Flathead River Basin contains federally owned subsurface
mineral estate under National Forest System lands that the Federal
Government has leased for oil and gas development. At the time
legislation was initially proposed in 2010, there were 115 oil and gas
leases in the North Fork watershed that the BLM issued between 1982 and
1985. The leases, which cover over 238,000 acres, are inactive and
under suspension as part of the 1985 court case Conner v. Burford. At
the request of Montana Senators Max Baucus and John Tester,
leaseholders have voluntarily relinquished 76 leases consisting of
almost 182,000 acres. The BLM has not offered any other leases in the
Flathead National Forest since the Conner v. Burford litigation
suspended the existing leases in 1985.
The U.S. Forest Service is responsible for the surface management
of National Forest System land; however, as noted earlier, the
Secretary of the Interior and the BLM are responsible for administering
the Federal subsurface mineral estate under the Mining Law of 1872, the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, and various mineral leasing acts. With
respect to locatable minerals and oil and gas resources, the Forest
Service has authority to regulate the effects of mineral operations
upon National Forest System resources. The BLM only issues mineral
leases for locatable minerals and oil and gas resources upon
concurrence of the surface management agency and always works
cooperatively with the agency to ensure that management goals and
objectives for mineral exploration and development activities are
achieved, that operations are conducted to minimize effects on natural
resources, and that the land affected by operations is reclaimed.
h.r. 2259
H.R. 2259 withdraws all Federal lands or interest in lands,
comprised of approximately 430,000 acres of the Flathead National
Forest, within the North and Middle Fork watersheds of the Flathead
River from all forms of location, entry, and patent under the mining
laws and from disposition under all laws related to mineral or
geothermal leasing. We note that National Park acreage within the
watershed is already unavailable for mineral entry. H.R. 2259 does not
affect valid, existing rights, including the 39 leases in the North
Fork watershed that are suspended under the Conner v. Burford
litigation. H.R. 2259 also does not restrict existing recreational
uses, livestock management activities, or forest management activities.
The Department fully supports H.R. 2259 as it furthers the goal of
preserving the important resources of this region.
The Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, which extends from
Canada into the United States, is one of the great protected ecosystems
on the North American continent. A 2010 World Heritage Center/
International Union for the Conservation of Nature Report noted that
the International Peace Park is ``one of the largest, most pristine,
intact, and best protected expanses of natural terrain in North
America. It provides the wide range of non-fragmented habitats and key
ecological connections that are vital for the survival and security of
wildlife and plants in the Waterton-Glacier property and the Flathead
watershed.'' Retaining this expanse of natural landscape in the Crown
of the Continent ecosystem is of vital importance for providing
ecosystem connectivity, which is essential for the growth and survival
of plants and animals in the region. H.R. 2259 will help accomplish
this goal.
The Department of the Interior is also committed to maintaining the
ecological integrity of Glacier National Park, one of the most
noteworthy natural and cultural treasures of our Nation. Preserving the
region's and the park's water resources is also critical. The rich
aquatic ecosystems provide breeding and feeding habitats for a variety
of important species, and the Department recognizes the importance of
maintaining critical habitat corridors when planning for resources
uses. H.R. 2259 will help protect and preserve the important resources
of the greater Crown of the Continent ecosystem, including those within
Glacier National Park.
conclusion
The Department supports H.R. 2259 and commends the many parties
involved in protecting the North Fork of the Flathead River and the
important resources shared by the United States and Canada. We hope
that this legislation and the efforts of the Federal and State/
provincial governments add to the important legacy of conservation in
the Glacier/Waterton Lakes area and Flathead River basin.
H.R. 2657--Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2013
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
H.R. 2657, the Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act. The Administration
strongly opposes H.R. 2657 and instead encourages the Congress to
reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) which
has a proven track record of providing for the thoughtful, efficient,
and economical disposal of appropriate public lands.
background
Congress has long recognized the national interest in preserving
and conserving the public lands for present and future generations of
Americans. In 1976, Congress declared it the policy of the United
States that ``. . . the public lands be retained in Federal ownership,
unless as a result of land use planning . . . it is determined that
disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest''
(Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA); Public Law 94-
579). Section 203 of FLPMA allows the BLM to identify lands as
potentially available for sale through the land use planning process,
provided they meet one or more of the following criteria:
Lands consisting of scattered, isolated tracts that are
difficult or uneconomic to manage;
Lands that were acquired for a specific purpose and are no
longer needed for that purpose; and
Lands that could serve important public objectives, such
as community expansion and economic development, which
outweigh other public objectives and values that could be
served by retaining the land in Federal ownership.
The BLM oversees the public lands through 157 Resource Management
Plans (RMPs). Since 2000, the BLM has completed 75 RMP revisions and
major plan amendments. Additionally, the BLM is currently working on
planning efforts for 57 new RMPs. Each land use planning document is
unique and typically identifies lands as potentially available for
disposal through sale, exchange (typically to further particular
resource goals), or for conveyance under the Recreation and Public
Purposes Act (R&PP) for public purposes such as schools, fire stations,
and community parks. Lands identified for potential disposal may be
available for any or all of these purposes. The BLM may only dispose of
lands that are identified for disposal in the appropriate land use plan
unless otherwise directed by Congress.
Lands that are identified for disposal in RMPs do not represent a
Federal ``multiple listing service'' and there may be substantial
impediments to disposal. The process of identifying these lands as
potentially available for disposal in an RMP typically does not include
site-specific identification of impediments to disposal, such as the
presence of threatened or endangered species, cultural or historic
resources, mining claims, mineral leases, rights-of-way, and grazing
permits. Also not included in this identification process is an
appraisal to establish market value or a specific survey of the lands.
Furthermore, because land use plans typically extend over many years,
lands identified as potentially available for disposal at one point in
time may be found later to be unsuitable because of new circumstances
such as oil and gas leasing, the listing of threatened and endangered
species, the establishment of rights-of-way, or other encumbrances.
Disposal of BLM-Managed Lands
A number of authorities and mechanisms currently exist that provide
for the disposal of BLM-managed public lands. The BLM has the authority
under FLPMA (section 203) to sell lands identified for disposal. The
proceeds from sales are deposited into the General Fund of the
Treasury. Typically these sales have been for low value lands, for
example isolated parcels surrounded by private land.
FLPMA (section 206) also provides the agency with administrative
land exchange authority. To be eligible for exchange, BLM-managed lands
must be identified for disposal through the land use planning process.
Exchanges allow the BLM to acquire environmentally sensitive lands
while transferring public lands into private ownership for local needs
and to consolidate scattered tracts.
Congress also has provided specific direction to the BLM through
legislated land exchanges. For example, the Utah Recreational Land
Exchange Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-53) mandated the exchange of
specific public lands in Grand and Uintah Counties in Utah for State
lands in those same counties. Another example is the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act (Public Law 105-263, as amended), whereby
Congress provided for competitive auction of public lands in the Las
Vegas Valley with the proceeds from those sales used to acquire
environmentally sensitive lands and other purposes.
The R&PP Act is an extremely important authority utilized by the
BLM to help States, local communities, and nonprofit organizations
obtain at no or low cost lands for important public purposes. Examples
include parks, schools, hospitals and other health facilities, fire and
law enforcement facilities, courthouses, social services facilities,
and public works projects. Over the last 5 years, the BLM has sold
nearly 9,000 acres of public land through the R&PP process and leased
an additional 10,000 acres of public land under the act.
Finally, enactment of the FLTFA in 2000 (Public Law 106-248), which
expired on July 25, 2011, allowed the BLM to sell public lands
identified for disposal through the land use planning process prior to
July 2000, and retain the proceeds from those sales in a special
account in the Treasury. The BLM could then use those funds to acquire,
from willing sellers, inholdings within and adjacent to certain
federally designated areas that contain exceptional resources,
including areas managed by the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Forest Service (FS), and the
BLM. Approximately 27,000 acres were sold under this authority and over
18,000 acres of high resource value lands were acquired.
1997 Lands Report to Congress
In 1996, the Congress (Public Law 104-127, section 390) directed
the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress on lands that may
be suitable for disposal or exchange to benefit the Everglades
Restoration effort in Florida. The Department of the Interior's May 27,
1997 report to Congress included a list of BLM-managed lands that had
been identified for disposal through the BLM's land use planning
process, while excluding lands that had been withdrawn, segregated, or
identified for other specific purposes detailed in the report. The
report was a general county-by-county summary and did not provide
individual parcel information, though it did include a list of
potential impediments to disposal, including lack of legal access; the
presence of mineral leases and mining claims; threatened and endangered
species habitat; historical and cultural values; hazardous material
contamination; and title conflicts. No appraisals or surveys were
conducted of the lands included in the 1997 report. Lands were not
identified in California or Alaska because public lands in those States
that were identified for disposal were committed to needs identified
under other acts of Congress.
h.r. 2657
H.R. 2657 directs the Secretary of the Interior to sell at
competitive sale, for no less than fair market value, all lands
included in the Department of the Interior's 1997 Report to Congress.
The bill excludes from consideration lands that are no longer
identified for disposal, under an R&PP application, identified for
state selection, identified for tribal allotments, or identified for
local government use. Under the bill, proceeds from the sale of these
lands are to be deposited in the U.S. Treasury. While a timeframe for
sales is not established, a report to Congress is required 4 years
after enactment that includes a list of unsold lands and the a reason
lands have not been sold. The bill provides no exceptions to the
requirement to dispose of identified Federal land for resource or value
reasons.
Before any parcels could be sold at auction, the BLM may need to
undertake reviews of every parcel (including cultural resource and
threatened and endangered species inventories), and a survey and
appraisal of every parcel. These actions would be both time-consuming
and costly, requiring the BLM to redirect limited resources from other
more critical priorities. With limited resources and competing
priorities such as oil and gas leasing, and renewable energy rights-of-
way, a mandate to sell large blocks of land would severely affect the
BLM's ability to respond to the Nation's energy needs and the needs of
local communities. In many cases, the end result would be costs in
excess of any value realized, and further deflated land values in
struggling western communities.
Furthermore, the bill could negatively affect public land ranchers.
Many of the lands identified for disposal are within existing grazing
allotments. In the past, grazing permittees have frequently declined to
acquire these lands when they are offered for sale, for financial or
other reasons. Moving these lands into other private hands could have a
deleterious effect on ranching communities.
Many of the lands that BLM has identified for potential disposal
through the land use planning process are isolated, rural parcels with
minimal market value. Others are in or adjacent to communities that
have seen a dramatic erosion of land values. Flooding those markets
with additional land could further undermine the economic health of
those communities. Still others may have important historic or cultural
sites that deserve to be protected for future generations. Important
energy resources may yet be tapped on other lands which could provide a
revenue stream to the Treasury and State governments.
The administration strongly opposes H.R. 2657. H.R. 2657 would be
costly, harmful to local economies and communities, and undermine
important resource values. It also would be unlikely to generate
significant revenues to the U.S. Treasury.
The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act addressed many of
these impediments to disposal by providing a careful, thoughtful
process for land disposal together with a mechanism for funding that
disposal. Furthermore, the proceeds of the sale of BLM-managed lands
under the FLTFA are used to acquire inholdings from willing sellers in
the most environmentally sensitive areas. Thus, the long-term interest
of the American public and future generations is protected. The
administration continues to urge the Congress to reauthorize the FLTFA
and allow the BLM to continue with a rational process of land disposal
that is anchored in public participation and sound land use planning,
while providing for land acquisition to strengthen this Nation's
conservation heritage.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We would like to work
with Congress so that the thoughtful, efficient and economical disposal
of public lands appropriate for disposal can go forward.
[all]