[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                   H.R. 1584, H.R. 1647, H.R. 3047,
                  H.R. 3173, H.R. 6852, AND H.R. 7332

=======================================================================

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        Thursday, March 7, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-102

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABL IN TIFF FORMAT]


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-079 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------               
                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                       TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
                     JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
                     JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Pete Stauber, MN                         CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU                       Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                               ---------                                
                                
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Thursday, March 7, 2024..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin.........................................     2
    Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................     3

    Panel I:

    Espaillat, Hon. Adriano, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of New York......................................     6
    Crane Hon. Elijah, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     7
    LaLota, Hon. Nick, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of New York..........................................     7
    Maloy, Hon. Celeste, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Utah..............................................     8
    Amodei, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Nevada............................................     9

Statement of Witnesses:

    .............................................................
    Panel II:

    Smith, Greg, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, 
      U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC........................    11
        Prepared statement of....................................    12
    Reynolds, Mike, Deputy Director, National Park Service, 
      Washington, DC.............................................    15
        Prepared statement of....................................    16
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    20

    Panel III:

    Seymore, Hon. Daryl, District IV Supervisor, Navajo County 
      Board of Supervisors, Holbrook, Arizona....................    38
        Prepared statement of....................................    39
    Shields, Hon. Bryce, District Attorney, Pershing County, 
      Lovelock, Nevada...........................................    41
        Prepared statement of....................................    42
    Strong, Scott, Director, Utah Division of State Parks, Salt 
      Lake City, Utah............................................    44
        Prepared statement of....................................    45
    Hunter, Bobby ``Zorro'', Chairman, Retired Harlem 
      Globetrotters, Ambassador, World Conference of Mayors, 
      Tamarac, Florida...........................................    46
        Prepared statement of....................................    47

    Harris, Annie, Director and CEO, Essex Heritage, Salem, 
      Massachusetts..............................................    48
        Prepared statement of....................................    49
    Harrison, Louise, Long Island Natural Areas Manager, Save the 
      Sound, Southold, New York..................................    52
        Prepared statement of....................................    53

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Bureau of Land Management, Statement for the Record on H.R. 
      3173 and H.R. 7332.........................................    70

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Tiffany

        National Parks Conservation Association, Statement on 
          H.R. 1647..............................................    78

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Espaillat

        Multiple letters in support of H.R. 6852.................     5

    Submissions for the Record by Representative LaLota

        Preserve Plum Island Coalition, Letter to the Committee 
          on H.R. 1584...........................................    30

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Amodei

        Multiple letters in support of H.R. 3173.................    79

 
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1584, TO ESTABLISH PLUM ISLAND, NEW 
 YORK, AS A NATIONAL MONUMENT, ``PLUM ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT 
 ACT''; H.R. 1647, TO REDESIGNATE THE SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL 
   HISTORIC SITE AS THE ``SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL 
    PARK'', AND FOR THE PURPOSES, ``SALEM MARITIME NATIONAL 
 HISTORICAL PARK REDESIGNATION AND BOUNDARY STUDY ACT''; H.R. 
3047, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO CONVEY CERTAIN 
  LANDS WITHIN THE APACHE-SITGREAVES NATIONAL FOREST, AND FOR 
 OTHER PURPOSES, ``APACHE COUNTY AND NAVAJO COUNTY CONVEYANCE 
ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 3173, TO PROVIDE FOR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP 
 OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS IN NORTHERN NEVADA, TO AUTHORIZE THE 
   DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS IN NORTHERN NEVADA FOR 
   ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TO PROMOTE CONSERVATION IN NORTHERN 
  NEVADA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``NORTHERN NEVADA ECONOMIC 
   DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 6852, TO 
   DESIGNATE HOLCOMBE RUCKER PARK, IN HARLEM, NEW YORK, AS A 
NATIONAL COMMEMORATIVE SITE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``HOLCOMBE 
   RUCKER PARK LANDMARK ACT''; AND H.R. 7332, TO REQUIRE THE 
 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO 
CONVEY CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND TO THE STATE OF UTAH FOR INCLUSION 
 IN CERTAIN STATE PARKS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``UTAH STATE 
                     PARKS ADJUSTMENT ACT''

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, March 7, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Tiffany, Stauber, Curtis, Bentz, 
Westerman; and Neguse.
    Also present: Representatives Amodei, Crane, LaLota, Maloy; 
and Espaillat.

    Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to consider six bills: 
H.R. 1584, the Plum Island National Monument Act; H.R. 1647, 
Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and 
Boundary Study Act; H.R. 3047, Apache County and Navajo County 
Conveyance Act of 2023; H.R. 3173, Northern Nevada Economic 
Development and Conservation Act of 2023; H.R. 6852, Holcombe 
Rucker Park Landmark Act; and H.R. 7332, Utah State Parks 
Adjustment Act.
    I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the 
gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Amodei; the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton; the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Espaillat; the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Crane; the gentleman 
from New York, Mr. LaLota; and the gentlewoman from Utah, Ms. 
Maloy.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, So ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

    Mr. Tiffany. Today's hearing includes several pieces of 
legislation that may seem different, but all have one very 
important thing in common: they are the product of people in 
local communities, not Washington, DC, coming together to enact 
meaningful change.
    During my time as the Chairman of this Subcommittee, I have 
emphasized the importance of coordination between Federal land 
managers and the local and state officials who know this land 
best. I firmly believe that it is the people who live closest 
to public lands who are the best suited to inform the decisions 
governing their use. While some of the bills on today's agenda 
are not perfect, and I have serious questions I would like 
answered, I am still grateful to all the local people on the 
ground who have come together to negotiate and make 
compromises.
    Unfortunately, these compromises are only needed in the 
first place because these communities are surrounded by vast 
amounts of Federal land. Alpine and Pinedale, for example, are 
two small communities in Arizona that have struggled to find 
available space to expand their respective cemeteries. Without 
adequate expansion, the cemeteries will soon run out of burial 
plots, and local families will be forced to travel long 
distances to bury their loved ones. H.R. 3047, which is led by 
Representative Crane, would convey two small parcels of 
adjacent Forest Service land to accommodate these expansions. I 
applaud Representative Crane for his leadership on this common-
sense proposal that will address a very real need for two 
communities in his district.
    Utah is another western state with a significant amount of 
Federal land. In fact, 64 percent of Utah's territory is 
managed by the Federal Government. In an effort to improve the 
management of public lands in that state, H.R. 7332, offered by 
Representative Maloy, authorizes thoughtful conveyances of 
isolated inholdings and adjacent Federal lands that would be 
more efficiently managed by the state. This bill will improve 
the already-renowned State Park System in Utah, while 
alleviating some clear land management inefficiencies on the 
Federal side. In total, this legislation will transfer roughly 
782 acres of Federal land to the state of Utah. This is a good 
bill, and I commend Representative Maloy for her leadership on 
this effort.
    Nevada leads all states in terms of Federal footprint, with 
over 80 percent of its land mass under Federal control. The 
dearth of private and locally-controlled lands creates 
considerable challenges for rural communities and their efforts 
to generate economic activity and provide important public 
services. H.R. 3173, which is being led by Congressman Amodei, 
reflects a sincere effort to balance competing needs and 
desires for economic development, public purposes, and 
conservation goals. This bill allows for the conveyance of up 
to 180,000 acres of Federal lands for a variety of public 
purposes and economic opportunities. This will allow for some 
much-needed economic growth and new job creation in northern 
Nevada.
    As I noted before, I do have some concerns with this 
proposal, and I look forward to learning more information about 
this legislation during today's hearing.
    Finally, we are considering a bill from Representative 
LaLota to conserve Plum Island in New York. Plum Island is best 
known as the location of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. 
This center was a joint endeavor operated by the Department of 
Agriculture and the Department of Homeland Security, and was 
used to conduct research on contagious animal diseases for 
several decades. There is strong local support for conserving 
the unique and at times mysterious history of Plum Island, and 
I commend Representative LaLota for his fierce advocacy on 
behalf of his constituents.
    I want to thank all the Members on both sides of our dais 
for their work on the legislation before us today.
    I also want to express my appreciation to all the witnesses 
for being here to provide your invaluable testimony.
    I would especially like to acknowledge Deputy Director Mike 
Reynolds, who is going to be retiring later this month after 
more than 39 years of service. Deputy Director Reynolds is one 
of the National Park Service's longest serving leaders. I 
understand that this will likely be Mr. Reynolds' last time 
testifying on behalf of the National Park Service.
    And I want to take a moment to thank you. Thank you for 
your dedicated service to the National Park Service. 
Congratulations on your retirement. Come visit us in Wisconsin 
when you get time.
    With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Neguse for 
his opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Mr. Neguse. I thank the Chairman. I trust that he won't ask 
too many probing questions of Mr. Reynolds, given this is his 
last hearing.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Neguse. I am sure he is looking forward to it. But in 
any event, thank you to our witnesses. Thank you to the 
Chairman. Thank you to the Members. It is always good to be 
back in the Federal Lands Subcommittee, as evidenced by the 
list of bills that we are reviewing today.
    This Subcommittee truly is a workhorse of the Congress. 
That was the case in the last Congress, when I served as 
Chairman of this Subcommittee, and I am grateful that that has 
continued to be the case under Chairman Tiffany, and I am 
grateful to him for putting together a list of bills here that 
I think encompass the greatness of our country, the breadth and 
the mosaic of our country.
    Putting our policy disagreements aside, I am always amazed 
by the variety of places throughout our country that we 
consider in this Committee. Today alone, as we have heard from 
the Chairman, we will review proposals impacting lands in New 
York, Nevada, Massachusetts, and Utah, a broad representation 
of this great country, and, of course, joined by witnesses 
representing many of these incredible places.
    Before I get into specifics of the bills, I think it is 
important to take a moment to sort of zoom out. This is a big 
week in Congress, of course. Later today, President Biden is 
scheduled to deliver his State of the Union to a joint session 
of Congress. In that speech, I suspect that we will hear how 
Democrats, working again in good faith, have delivered historic 
investments in infrastructure for America, making generational 
strides towards addressing the climate crisis and, in the 
context of the work that we do on this Subcommittee, leading 
the charge to enact significant support for our public lands, 
including investments that prioritize addressing wildfires and 
drought across the Rocky Mountain West, of course, near and 
dear to my heart as a Representative of the great state of 
Colorado, and continuing to support public land restoration 
projects throughout the country. I hope that this Subcommittee 
can continue to build on the investments that we made in the 
last Congress as we look forward towards our summer and fall 
agenda.
    I would just say that we have a number of bills today that 
I am certainly very excited about. I know that we have a number 
of bills from my Republican colleagues.
    I welcome, of course, our newest member to the Natural 
Resources Committee, Representative Maloy, who I haven't had a 
chance to meet yet, but congratulations on your election.
    And I am looking forward to hearing more about her bill, as 
well as the two other Republican bills we are considering: H.R. 
1584, which would designate a new national monument; and H.R. 
3173, which includes both new wilderness and mineral 
withdrawals.
    And while I recognize that the designations in Mr. Amodei's 
bills come in the context of a long list of other items, and I 
am grateful for his bringing these bills forward together, I 
hope it can be a sign of perhaps more to come in future 
hearings from our Republican colleagues in terms of place-based 
conservation. There are a variety of Democratic members as well 
as Republican members who proposed on that front, and hopefully 
we can consider them in future hearings, including a bill that 
I have introduced, the CORE Act, which I hope we can consider.
    Each of the Democratic bills that we are considering today 
reflect the support and hard work of the constituents in these 
respective areas who want to see their public lands protected 
for future generations. So, I am just, again, grateful for the 
work done by our colleagues.
    Two bills in particular that I want to highlight, first and 
foremost, my good friend and colleague, the distinguished 
gentleman from Harlem, Representative Espaillat, who has led 
the effort to designate Holcombe Rucker Park in New York, and I 
know we are very excited to hear about that, particularly those 
of us who are basketball aficionados. I am grateful to 
Representative Espaillat for his efforts to preserve a critical 
part of the American experience; and, of course, Representative 
Moulton, as well, whose bill to redesignate the Salem Maritime 
National Historic Site in Massachusetts is an important step 
forward.
    Again, I am grateful to my colleagues, grateful to the 
Chairman, and looking forward to hearing from the witnesses.
    I will yield back the balance of my time.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the Ranking Member for his 
opening statement. Now, I would like to recognize 
Representative Espaillat for 5 minutes on his bill, H.R. 6852.
    The floor is yours, sir.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I 
would like to motion to submit roughly 25 letters from 
community leaders in support of the Holcombe Rucker Park 
Landmark Act into the record.
    Mr. Tiffany. So ordered.

    [The information follows:]

The following documents were submitted for the record by Rep. 
Espaillat. It includes letters of support for H.R. 6852--the Holcombe 
Rucker Park Landmark Act from the following:

  1.  The Rucker Family

  2.  The Marius Family

  3.  Lloyd A. Williams, President, The Greater Harlem Chamber of 
            Commerce

  4.  The Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, NYPL

  5.  Madison Square Boys and Girls Club

  6.  The Boys and Girls Club of Harlem

  7.  The Harlem Cultural Archives

  8.  WE ACT for Environmental Justice

  9.  Harlem Congregations for Community Improvement

 10.  Polo Grounds Towers Tenants Association

 11.  The Honorable Congressman Charlie B. Rangel

 12.  The Honorable Councilman Abreau of New York

 13.  The Honorable Senator Cordell Cleare of New York

 14.  Manhattan Community Board 10

 15.  Jackie Rowe, CEO and Founder, Harlem Mothers and Fathers Stop 
            Another Violent End (S.A.V.E.)

 16.  H. Carl McCall, Chairman Emeritus, State University of New York

 17.  Harlem Globetrotter Bobby Hunter

 18.  Harlem Globetrotter Bob McCullough

 19.  Film Producer Bob McCullough Jr.

 20.  C. Virginia Fields is the President and CEO of the National Black 
            Leadership Commission on Health

 21.  Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine

 22.  Keisha Sutton-James, Manhattan Deputy Borough President

 23.  The Honorable Assemblyman Al Taylor of New York City

 24.  The Honorable Judge Tingling, Chair, West Harlem Development 
            Corporation

These documents are part of the hearing record and are being retained 
in the Committee's official files:

The documents are available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20240307/116866/HHRG-118-II10-
20240307-SD003.pdf

                                 ______
                                 

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to 
all the esteemed members of the Natural Resources Subcommittee 
on Federal Lands. And thank you to the Rucker family, the 
Marius family, and the McCullough family. The Rucker family is 
represented by Phil Rucker; and we have Stacey Marius, also 
from the Marius family; and Bob McCullough, Jr., also.
    Also, I want to thank Community Board 10 and its 
chairperson for advocating for this particular initiative, and 
other Harlem leaders who are here in person or watching 
virtually in support of H.R. 6852, the Holcombe Rucker Park 
landmark.
    Today, I stand before you to advocate for a cause that is 
not only rooted in history, but also deeply ingrained in the 
cultural fabric of our nation: the Federal recognition of 
Holcombe Rucker Park. In the 1950s, Holcombe Rucker, a World 
War II veteran and scholar, had a vision to provide a safe 
haven to the youth of Harlem to steer them away from the 
streets and towards higher education. Rucker initiated the 
Rucker Pro League and a basketball tournament that promoted 
athleticism and emphasized academic excellence.
    Weekend afternoons in the 1960s and 1970s saw the 
convergence of great basketball legends at Rucker Park, from 
Dr. J, Julius Erving, to Nate ``Tiny'' Archibald, Wilt the 
Stilt Chamberlain, and Connie Hawkins. And we have with us 
today, Mr. Chairman, a legend in his own right, Bobby ``Zorro'' 
Hunter, a Harlem Globetrotter who I am sure will throw a no-
look pass to Mr. Neguse. I am not sure if he will be able to 
catch it, but I hope that he will.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Espaillat. The court at Rucker Park witnessed 
unparalleled talent and fierce competition. The Rucker motto 
is, ``Each one teach one.'' It underscores the commitment to 
mentorship and academic achievement leading to 700 scholarships 
for aspiring athletes.
    In 1967, Rucker legend Robert ``Bob'' McCullough, whose 
documentary film producer son, Bob McCullough, Jr., is here 
with us today, founded ``Each One Teach One,'' a not-for-profit 
dedicated to empowering youth, carrying forward the Rucker 
legacy.
    Throughout the years, Rucker Park evolved, embracing the 
intersection of sports and culture. Greg Marius, founder of the 
Entertainer's Basketball Classic, bridged the worlds of 
basketball and hip hop, transforming Rucker into a cultural 
phenomenon.
    Eventually, multiple NBA stars, such as Kobe Bryant, Kevin 
Durant, LeBron James, Jamal Crawford, Lamar Odom, Kareem Abdul-
Jabbar, and my favorite, Earl the Pearl Monroe, participated in 
the park's basketball tournament before becoming famous in the 
NBA.
    In June 2017, New York City honored Marius by renaming the 
park's court after him, recognizing his pivotal role in 
preserving and shaping the park's legacy.
    Rucker Park isn't just a basketball court; it is a symbol 
of resilience, empowerment, and unity. It has inspired 
generations of athletes and served as a catalyst for social 
change. Today, I urge you to support H.R. 6852. By granting 
Federal recognition to Rucker Park, we can ensure its 
preservation for future generations. We can honor its rich 
history, celebrate its cultural significance, and continue its 
legacy of mentorship and community empowerment.
    Together, let us ensure that Rucker Park remains a shining 
example of the power of sports to uplift and unite all of us.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat. And Earl the Pearl 
did not have to travel far to go play in Madison Square Garden, 
did he?
    Mr. Espaillat. Not far at all.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tiffany. I would now like to recognize Representative 
Crane for 5 minutes on H.R. 3047.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELIJAH CRANE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting 
me to participate in today's hearing and to speak in support of 
my bill. This piece of legislation is one of the first bills I 
introduced in Congress, and is a testament to Arizona's pioneer 
heritage.
    For more than a decade, the communities of Pinedale and 
Alpine have struggled to find appropriate cemetery space to 
meet the needs of family members wishing to enter and pay 
respects to their loved ones. Specifically, my bill would 
enable Navajo and Apache Counties to expand the land adjacent 
to Alpine Community Cemetery, preventing the need for deceased 
members of the community to be laid to rest in a distant 
cemetery.
    As I said, the community of Pinedale has a long and rich 
pioneer history, and the residents are proud of that heritage. 
This bill will allow families to lay their loved ones to rest 
in the place that their family member loved so much.
    I am happy that I can be a part of this hearing today and 
hear from Daryl Seymore from Navajo County, who was 
instrumental in raising awareness and support of this project.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Crane. I will now recognize 
Representative LaLota for 5 minutes on H.R. 1584.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK LaLOTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Neguse, and all the members of the Federal Lands Subcommittee 
for hosting this important hearing. I represent much of Suffolk 
County in the east end of Long Island, and I am here today to 
speak in favor of my legislation, H.R. 1584, the Plum Island 
National Monument Act.
    For those who might not know, the 840-acre Plum Island is 
located in Suffolk County, in the town of Southold, about 3 
miles northeast of Orient Point and about 12 miles northwest of 
Montauk Point. And Plum Island has a significant history with 
our Federal Government. In 1954, the Plum Island Animal Disease 
Center was established on Plum Island and managed by the United 
States Department of Agriculture. For decades, the hard-working 
and dedicated folks at the Animal Disease Center conducted 
important research on foreign animal diseases and worked to 
prevent the introduction and spread of those diseases here in 
the United States.
    In 2005, after five decades of work, the Plum Island Animal 
Disease Center was ordered closed and ordered to relocate to 
Manhattan, Kansas. At the time, the Department of Homeland 
Security was required by law to sell Plum Island to the highest 
bidder. But thankfully, several years ago, Congress was 
successful in stopping the sale, allowing for future efforts to 
preserve Plum Island.
    I am extremely proud of the work that the folks at the 
Center have done. However, the Center's time on the island is 
quickly coming to a close. I recently had the privilege of 
visiting Plum Island with my colleague from the other side of 
the aisle, Representative Courtney from Connecticut, and while 
I was there, I witnessed firsthand the critical need of 
protecting and preserving Plum Island.
    Though much has been done to ensure the island's 
environmental and ecological makeup, we must all work together 
to preserve Plum Island once and for all. My legislation, H.R. 
1584, the Plum Island National Monument Act, would do just that 
by designating Plum Island as a national monument.
    Over the past 15 months, I have spoken to hundreds of 
constituents and advocacy groups on the important work ahead to 
preserve Plum Island, and I will continue my work here in 
Congress to do just that. Today, we will hear from several 
witnesses, including Long Island's own Louise Harrison, who can 
speak on how important Plum Island is and its preservation is 
to Long Islanders and surrounding areas.
    Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member, and the members of the 
Committee for inviting me here today to discuss my important 
legislation.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative LaLota. I will now 
recognize Representative Maloy for 5 minutes on H.R. 7332.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. CELESTE MALOY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

    Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    H.R. 7332, the Utah State Parks Adjustment Act, is a land 
conveyance bill that would transfer approximately 782 acres of 
Federal land to the state of Utah for inclusion in the Utah 
State Park System. The parcels included in this conveyance 
consist of Federal lands that are either adjacent to or 
comprise inholdings within current state park boundaries. The 
bill would convey six small parcels of BLM land, collectively 
amounting to about 280 acres, to Antelope Island State Park. 
These six plots are inholding owned by BLM that are located 
within Antelope Island's existing boundaries.
    The legislation would also convey a single parcel of 
approximately 272 acres of Forest Service land to Fremont 
Indian State Park. This parcel is directly adjacent to Fremont 
Indian's current boundaries in Sevier County.
    Finally, the bill would convey several parcels of BLM land 
collectively totaling roughly 230 acres within and adjacent to 
Wasatch Mountain State Park.
    Utah State Parks are well managed and cared for, and I am 
proud to sponsor this bill alongside my colleague, Senator Mike 
Lee, which would remove the ineffective bureaucratic management 
over these small parcels of land, and give them local control 
that makes more sense, where they could be better managed. 
Conveying these properties from the Federal estate to the state 
parks would pave the way for needed improvements in land and 
natural resources management.
    The Bureau of Land Management testified before the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee that this bill would 
improve manageability and dispose of isolated Federal parcels 
that are difficult to manage. BLM testified in support of the 
legislation. The U.S. Forest Service has expressed a desire to 
work on some specific concerns. I look forward to working with 
them to address those concerns.
    This is a good bill. It helps protect resources and improve 
management.
    With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much for your testimony. I 
refuse the ascension to Speaker.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tiffany. But I will politely turn that down.
    Mr. Neguse. You never know.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tiffany. But no, thank you very much for your 
testimony. Now, I would like to recognize Representative Amodei 
for 5 minutes in regards to the bill that he has forwarded.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK E. AMODEI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member. 
I was pleased to hear, by the way, for your record, Mark 
Amodei, Nevada's 2nd Congressional District, which is Nevada's 
original congressional district. No offense to the people in 
Las Vegas.
    I appreciate hearing the references from both of you about 
decisions made closest to the ground are best, and placed-based 
decisions regarding Federal land use. As you have noted, my 
state is the largest state, percentage-wise, in terms of 
Federal ownership, not lamenting that fact, that is just the 
fact. Every single city, town, unincorporated town in Nevada, 
including Las Vegas, needs to come through these halls, this 
Subcommittee and this Committee, in order to grow in some sort 
of rational fashion.
    This bill represents the compilation of a lot of tune-up 
for bills that have come through previously, but also some new 
stuff regarding two counties, regarding Pershing County and 
also Douglas County.
    It should be noted, though, when you talk about place-based 
decisions, we don't write lands bills in my office for my 
district. We let the locals who have planning and zoning 
authority over that, those county commissions, those city 
councils, they tell us what they want. It is our job to get 
that drafted and bring it before this Subcommittee and this 
Committee for your consideration.
    As a matter of fact, one of the pieces of this is the 
Pershing County lands bill which has already been before this 
Subcommittee and this Committee, and processed in the 115th 
Congress by consent in this Committee and by voice vote on the 
Floor. I won't tell you who on the Committee at the time voted 
for it, but it is easy to figure out who it is. Not saying 
therefore you should vote for it now, I am just saying this is 
not some new-fangled thing.
    I know there is some concern about some of the amounts of 
wilderness and stuff that is being removed from oil and gas 
exploration, specifically the Ruby Mountains in Elko County 
after some applications for leasing for oil and gas exploration 
went through the NEPA process and were denied by the Forest 
Service without appeal or objection.
    Once again, place-based decisions, Elko County Commission, 
all that other sort of stuff were like, ``We are OK if that 
area, 300-and-some-odd-thousand acres, is not available for oil 
and gas leasing.''
    Mind what I said. It is not being designated as wilderness. 
There are still multiple use opportunities in there. But it is 
not available for oil and gas leasing.
    When you look at the rest of these proposals, in aggregate, 
it is about a four-to-one ratio, 4 acres of wilderness or other 
type of special status versus an acre of economic development. 
And by the way, the economic development, when you look at the 
bills that comprise this, a lot of this is municipal, flood 
control, those sorts of things, not sex and violence, not 
slice-and-dice Veg-O-Matic for developers, but taking care of 
business in counties where some of the Federal estate is needed 
in order to do responsible things at the local level or the 
state level.
    So, I would be happy to respond for any questions. I do 
want to say that it is a privilege to be here at the same 
hearing when we are talking about Tiny Archibald and Earl the 
Pearl Monroe, and folks like that.
    And I want to let the Ranking Member know that I did catch 
a pass from a Globetrotter in the hall outside this building.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Amodei. So, I wasn't a diva, I needed to go to the gym 
to do that.
    One final thing, which I am sure will be phenomenally 
influential is I appreciate the reference to the Rocky Mountain 
West, but those of us from other areas of the West between that 
other thing called the Sierra Nevadas, if you think about it, 
or you slip, it is the Intermountain West, Mr. Ranking Member, 
just if you can toss me a bone, not in this meeting, but some 
other time.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you to the gentleman from Nevada. And 
now we are going to move on to our second panel. I want to 
thank the Representatives that attended here to introduce their 
bills.
    I want to remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
you must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes. But your 
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, you know the lights and all the 
rest, right?
    First, I would like to introduce Mr. Greg Smith, Associate 
Deputy Chief of the National Forest System.
    Associate Deputy Chief Smith, you are recognized for 5 
minutes. Welcome back to the Committee.

   STATEMENT OF GREG SMITH, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 
       FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Smith. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, 
Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank 
you for this opportunity to share a USDA Forest Service 
perspective on three public lands bills under consideration 
today. My name is Greg Smith. I have worked in the Forest 
Service for over 30 years. I currently serve as the Associate 
Deputy Chief of the National Forest System.
    Our national forests and grasslands are critical to the 
well-being of our nation. The Forest Service plays an important 
role in providing for multiple uses and benefits from these 
lands to the public. The Forest Service manages over 193 
million acres of national forest and grasslands across the 
country for public purposes, including wildland fire, 
recreation, grazing, timber, watershed conservation, wildlife 
habitat, and many more.
    These three bills under consideration today with the U.S. 
Forest Service interests, I will briefly give our perspective 
on these bills.
    H.R. 3047, the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance 
Act of 2023, would require the Secretary of Agriculture to 
convey one parcel to Navajo County, Arizona, and two parcels to 
Apache County, Arizona. The Department supports this 
legislation, as it provides a straightforward and common-sense 
solution to cemetery management. However, the Department has 
concerns regarding the time frame for the conveyances, and we 
would like to work with the Committee and the bill's sponsor on 
the aspects of the bill.
    H.R. 7332, the Utah State Park Adjustments Act, would 
convey several parcels of land under Federal jurisdiction to 
various Utah state parks. The bill would require the Secretary 
of Agriculture to require and convey approximately 272 acres of 
Fishlake National Forest national forest lands in Sevier 
County, Utah to the state of Utah.
    The parcels include a public campground, an important 
public entry point to a non-motorized historical trail. The 
parcel also contains a grazing allotment and water rights 
currently held by the Forest Service.
    The Department has concerns with the Fremont Indian State 
Park conveyance as described in H.R. 7332. These concerns 
relate to issues such as the time frames, future access to 
Forest Service roads and trail easements, maintaining current 
public uses, as well as some of the maps. The Department would 
like to work with the bill's sponsors and the Committee to 
address these concerns to ensure continued public use and 
enjoyment of these lands.
    H.R. 3173, the Northern Nevada Economic Development and 
Conservation Act of 2023, contains multiple provisions that 
impact management of National Forest System lands on behalf of 
the American public. The bill would dispose of or convey 
National Forest System lands to various entities within the 
state of Nevada, Douglas County, Washoe Tribe, and direct the 
Department to issue special use permits or enter into 
cooperative management agreements.
    It would also require the Department to convey two parcels 
to the Incline Village General Improvement District in Nevada.
    The bill would also withdraw Ruby Mountains from all forms 
of operations under the mineral leasing laws, subject to 
validating existing rights, and would convey a portion of the 
Carson City for roadway.
    Additionally, the bill would create an interagency complex 
on the Forest Service parcel located in Reno, Nevada.
    The Department maintains a strong partnership with local, 
state, and Federal agencies, recognize Federal tribes and non-
government organizations to manage national forests in the 
state of Nevada.
    The national forest also includes the crown jewels which we 
consider, such as the Lake Tahoe Management Area and the Ruby 
Mountains.
    The Department does not support Title I, Title II, and 
Title V, as written, but we would like to work with Congress, 
the Committee, and the bill's sponsor to clarify language to 
develop the maps to ensure accuracy and support of 
implementation.
    The Department supports Title IV, and are not opposed to 
Title VII, but we have some concerns about funding and 
construction time frames.
    We look forward to working with you, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to join and testify here today. Chairman Tiffany, 
Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee, this 
concludes my remarks, and I look forward to any questioning 
that you might have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Greg Smith, Associate Deputy Chief, National 
     Forest System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
                 on H.R. 3047, H.R. 7332, and H.R. 3173

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) Forest Service, to discuss H.R. 3047, the ``Apache County and 
Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2023,'' H.R. 7332, the ``Utah State 
Parks Adjustment Act'' and H.R. 3173, the ``Northern Nevada Economic 
Development and Conservation Act of 2023.''
H.R. 3047, ``Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2023''

    H.R. 3047 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey a 
parcel of land depicted on a map as ``Pinedale Cemetery Expansion'' on 
the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests to Navajo County, Arizona, and 
to convey two parcels of land generally depicted as ``Existing Alpine 
Cemetery'' and ``proposed Townsite Tract'' both located on the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forests in Arizona to Apache County, Arizona.
    The Department supports this legislation as it provides a 
straightforward and commonsense solution to cemetery management; 
however, the Department has concerns regarding the timeline for the 
conveyance in the legislation, and we would like to work with the 
Committee and the sponsor to address that aspect of this proposal.
H.R. 7332, ``Utah State Parks Adjustment Act''

    H.R. 7332, the ``Utah State Parks Adjustment Act'' would convey 
several parcels of federal land under different federal jurisdictions 
to various Utah State parks. The act would require the Secretary of 
Agriculture to convey approximately 272 acres of NFS lands in Sevier 
County, Utah.
    The parcel described by the Fremont Indian State Park Conveyance is 
managed by the Forest Service and includes a public campground, 
remnants of a historic guard station with an associated interpretive 
site, and an important entry point to a non-motorized historic trail, 
all of which are open to the public. The parcel also contains part of a 
grazing allotment under permit by the Fishlake National Forest and 
water rights held by the Forest Service that provide water to the 
campground, Forest Service pack stock, and potentially to livestock on 
the permitted allotment.
    The Department has concerns with the Fremont Indian State Park 
Conveyance as described in H.R. 7332. These concerns relate to certain 
details for the proposed conveyance, including prescribed time frames 
and diligence, future access by the Forest Service for road and trail 
easements, addressing current public uses, and procedures for resolving 
conflicts between the maps, acreage estimates and legal descriptions. 
The Department would like to work with the bill sponsors and the 
Committee to address specific concerns related to the conveyance to 
ensure continued public use and enjoyment of these lands.
H.R. 3173, ``Northern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act 
        of 2023''

    H.R. 3173, the ``Northern Nevada Economic Development and 
Conservation Act of 2023'' contains multiple provisions that impact 
management of National Forest System lands on behalf of the American 
public.
    Title I would convey or dispose of National Forest System lands 
managed by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the Lake Tahoe 
Basin Management Unit. This title also provides authority to transfer 
administrative jurisdiction over Santini-Burton Act parcels in the Lake 
Tahoe Basin to the county or state and directs the agency to enter into 
special use permits or cooperative management agreements with Douglas 
County for identified parcels on both units.
    Title II would convey lands managed by the Lake Tahoe Basin 
Management Unit to the Incline Village General Improvement District. 
Title IV would withdraw the Ruby Mountains from all forms of operation 
under the mineral leasing laws. Title VII would require the Department 
and the Bureau of Land Management to develop a federal interagency 
complex on a Forest Service parcel in Reno.
    The Department maintains strong partnerships with local, state, and 
federal agencies; federally recognized Tribes; and nongovernmental 
organizations to manage national forests in the State of Nevada, 
including crown jewels of the National Forest System such as Lake Tahoe 
and the Ruby Mountains. The Department recognizes that our management 
must support conservation and economic opportunity, tribal rights and 
interests, and we strive to meet those goals through shared 
stewardship. The Department has successfully used our existing 
authorities to provide for recreation and public purposes under special 
use permits or agreements and to convey or dispose of lands as 
appropriate.
    The Department does not support H.R. 3173 as written, specifically 
Titles I, II, and V, and we would like to work with the Committee and 
the bill sponsor to address the Department's concerns, which I will 
broadly outline in my testimony. In addition, many of the maps 
associated with the bill appear to contain mapping errors. We would 
appreciate the opportunity to develop legislative maps to ensure 
accuracy and support implementation.
Title I--Douglas County

    Title I would convey National Forest System lands to various 
entities including the State of Nevada, Douglas County, and the Washoe 
Tribe; designate National Forest System lands for disposal; and direct 
the Department to issue special use permits or enter into cooperative 
management agreements, as well as other provisions.
    Title I would convey or dispose of numerous parcels that are more 
appropriately retained in National Forest System management, including 
acquired lands and Forest Service administrative sites. The Department 
would like to work with the Committee to identify parcels appropriate 
for conveyance or disposal, develop legislative maps, and revise the 
language regarding conveyances and disposal processes and the terms 
surrounding these, such as reversionary clauses and timelines.
    Regarding provisions directing the Department to issue special use 
permits or enter into cooperating agreements, the Department has 
existing authority to do both and would still be required to conduct 
National Environmental Policy Act analyses, comply with the Endangered 
Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106, and 
meet other standard requirements. The goals of Title I, Section 112, 
relating to the Tahoe Rim Trail have been accomplished through an 
agreement with partners.
    Title I, Section 121, would require the Department to hold certain 
lands in trust for the Washoe Tribe while retaining the Department's 
ability to carry out fuel reductions and landscape restoration 
activities. We recognize that Federal lands and waters managed by the 
Department are the traditional homelands of American Indians and Alaska 
Natives and we support Tribal self-determination. We would like to note 
that the Department of the Interior, not USDA, typically acquires land 
into trust because it has the authority to manage trust lands. We would 
like to work with the sponsors on clarifying that language. We would 
also like to work with the sponsor to develop legislative maps for this 
section to ensure accuracy and support implementation.
    Title I, Sec. 141, provides new authority to transfer Forest 
Service land that is located within the boundaries of the area acquired 
under Public Law 96-586 (commonly known as the Santini-Burton Act 
parcels). These environmentally sensitive lands acquired by the 
Department are required to be managed in alignment with the Santini-
Burton Act to maintain undeveloped open space; preserve the land's 
natural characteristics; and protect water quality, stream environment 
zones, and important wildlife habitat. The Department believes these 
lands should be retained under National Forest System management.
Title II--Incline Village Fire Protection

    Title II would require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey two 
parcels of approximately 14.10 acres to the Incline Village General 
Improvement District in Nevada. These environmentally sensitive lands 
were acquired by the Department to maintain undeveloped open space; 
preserve the land's natural characteristics; and protect water quality, 
stream environment zones, and important wildlife habitat. The 
Department believes these lands should be retained and managed as part 
of the National Forest System.
Title IV--Ruby Mountains Protection Act

    Title IV withdraws 309,272 acres of NFS land in the Ruby Mountains 
on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada from all forms of 
operation under the mineral leasing laws. The Administration supports 
the proposed withdrawal, which aligns with the President's vision to 
boost conservation strategies and policies to preserve public, private, 
and Tribal areas of interest. The proposed withdrawal would be subject 
to valid existing rights. Existing leases and associated activities can 
continue as long as those leases were established at or prior to the 
time of the withdrawal.
    The remainder of the Ruby Mountains managed by the Forest Service 
is designated as Wilderness. The Ruby Mountains offer extensive 
cultural, scenic, and ecological values that help to support a $165 
million recreation industry in Elko County. The area includes wildlife 
habitat for species including greater sage grouse, and the federally 
listed Lahontan cutthroat trout. The area also supports the state's 
largest mule deer herd and an important migration corridor. Mapping of 
the area has determined that there is little to no potential for oil or 
gas resources because of unfavorable geologic conditions.
    The Department conducted a detailed analysis for oil and gas 
leasing availability on a portion of lands within the Ruby Mountains. 
In March 2019, the agency released a draft Decision Notice and final 
Environmental Assessment concluding that no leasing should occur due to 
the low potential for oil and gas resources in the area and extensive 
citizen and community involvement with strong support for no leasing at 
this time. The decision notice was signed by the Humboldt-Toiyabe 
National Forest Supervisor on May 7, 2019.
Title V--Carson City Public Lands Correction

    Sec. 503, ``Carson City Street Connector Conveyance'' would convey 
a portion of the land occupied by the Department Carson Ranger District 
Office to Carson City for a roadway. This conveyance would 
significantly impair the operations of the district office. The 
Department does not support this provision.
Title VII--Federal Complex

    Title VII requires the Department and the Bureau of Land Management 
to establish a federal interagency complex. In addition to the Forest 
Supervisor's Office for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the 
BLM Nevada State Office, the complex would house the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Western Nevada Agency, 
and the Bureau of Reclamation. The Department and BLM would have the 
option to relocate their Carson City offices to the complex as well. 
Funding for the complex would be available through the proceeds of 
disposal under Titles I, V and VI of the legislation (up to ten percent 
of the amount in these special accounts), with the agencies authorized 
to use any other accounts to fund the balance. The Department has 
concerns regarding the implementation of Title VII, including costs due 
to lack of existing infrastructure and the need to align with 
Department procedures and legal requirements for facility relocation.
    That concludes my testimony. Again, I thank Chairman Tiffany, 
Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee for the 
opportunity to present the views of the Department on this legislation. 
I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for your testimony. I 
would now like to recognize Mr. Mike Reynolds, Deputy Director 
for External and Congressional Relations at the National Park 
Service.
    Deputy Director Reynolds, you have 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF MIKE REYNOLDS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK 
                    SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Reynolds. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to 
present the Department of the Interior's views on three of the 
bills on today's agenda. I would like to submit our full 
statement for the record and summarize the Department's views.
    I would also like to submit statements for the record for 
two other bills: H.R. 3173, the Northern Nevada Economic 
Development and Conservation Act of 2023; and H.R. 7732, the 
Utah State Parks Adjustment Act. These statements were prepared 
by the Bureau of Land Management, and we would request that any 
questions about these bills be referred to them.
    H.R. 1584 would establish Plum Island, New York as a 
national monument for the purpose of ecological conservation, 
historic preservation, and the discovery and celebration of our 
shared cultural heritage. The bill requires the Secretary of 
the Interior to establish administrative jurisdiction over 
portions of Plum Island as necessary to carry out the Act 
through a Memoranda of Understanding with each Federal 
department or agency with current administrative jurisdiction.
    The Department appreciates the bill's intent to increase 
public access to and protect Plum Island's natural and cultural 
heritage, and we support that long-term goal. However, given 
the multiple hazards to human health and safety that may exist, 
we have serious concerns about the bill's requirement that the 
Department assume administrative jurisdiction over the island. 
With numerous tools at our disposal to support locally-led 
conservation and restoration efforts, the Department is 
committed to collaborating with the Subcommittee, the bill's 
sponsor, and the many Plum Island stakeholders as we explore 
ways to protect the island's valuable assets and address its 
many challenging environmental issues.
    H.R. 1647 would redesignate the Salem Maritime National 
Historic Site as a national historical park. The bill would 
also authorize a boundary study to evaluate any sites and 
resources located within the City of Salem, Massachusetts that 
are associated with Salem's maritime history, coastal defenses, 
or military history.
    The Department supports H.R. 1647. The Department believes 
that redesignation of Salem Maritime National Historic Site as 
a national historic park is appropriate. As is reflected in its 
long history, Salem Maritime National Historic Site has 
expanded in the scope of its resources and its interpretation. 
The deeper and broader experience it now offers to visitors 
supports the basis for National Historical Park designation.
    The Department also believes that the boundary study 
provided by H.R. 1647 would be beneficial. The study would be 
useful in identifying important maritime and coastal defense-
related resources in the vicinity of Salem that are deserving 
of protection.
    H.R. 6852 would designate Holcombe Rucker Park in New York 
City, New York as a national commemorative site. The bill 
specifies that the site would not be a unit of the National 
Park System. The Department supports bringing greater 
recognition to the achievements and the legacy of Holcombe 
Rucker, but has concerns about the use of the designation 
``national commemorative site.''
    The Department would encourage the proponents of providing 
greater recognition for Holcombe Rucker Park to explore 
alternative ways to honor and interpret the site's history and 
the contributions of Holcombe Rucker to outdoor recreation and 
urban America. The Department would be very pleased to work 
with the sponsor and his constituents to explore these options.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am happy to 
answer any questions that you and the Subcommittee may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Reynolds follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Michael T. Reynolds, Deputy Director for 
                 Congressional and External Relations,
         National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
                 on H.R. 1584, H.R. 1647, and H.R. 6852

H.R. 1584, a bill to establish Plum Island, New York, as a National 
        Monument

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the 
U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 1584, a bill to 
establish Plum Island, New York, as a National Monument.
    The Department appreciates the bill's intent to increase public 
access to and to protect Plum Island's natural and cultural heritage, 
and we support that goal. However, given the multiple hazards to human 
health and safety that may exist, we have serious concerns about the 
bill's requirement that the Department assume administrative 
jurisdiction over the island.
    H.R. 1584 would establish Plum Island, NY, as a national monument 
for the purpose of ``ecological conservation, historical preservation, 
and the discovery and celebration of our shared cultural heritage.'' 
The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 
establish administrative jurisdiction over portions of Plum Island 
through memoranda of understanding with the head of each Federal 
department or agency with current administrative jurisdiction. It 
further requires the Secretary to develop a general management plan for 
the national monument and submit the plan to Congress no later than 
three years after funds are first made available for that purpose.
    Plum Island is an 840-acre island located 1.5 miles northeast of 
Orient Point in Suffolk County, New York, within Long Island Sound. The 
island has been in federal government ownership since 1899, when it was 
purchased for the purposes of a coastal artillery post, later known as 
Fort Terry. In 1954, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
established the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) to conduct 
research on animal pathogens to protect farmers, ranchers, and the 
national food supply. Because of the nature of the research and hazards 
presented, access to the island and the research facility was 
restricted.
    In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assumed 
jurisdiction over the island and its facilities. The USDA continued its 
long-running science mission at PIADC jointly with DHS, which was 
charged with the safe and secure operation of the facility.
    In 2008, Congress approved legislation requiring that Plum Island 
be sold to help fund the new DHS National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility 
in Manhattan, Kansas. However, in response to sustained advocacy from 
community and environmental organizations to preserve Plum Island for 
public purposes, Congress approved legislation in 2020 preventing the 
sale of the island to a private party.
    The Department recognizes Plum Island's tremendous biodiversity and 
wildlife habitats, as well as its rich cultural and historic assets. 
Notably, Plum Island provides a critical stopover habitat for migrating 
birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is home to one 
of New York's largest seal haul-out sites. Researchers have identified 
over 200 species of birds, over 200 species of moths, 9 mammals, and 5 
reptiles inhabiting Plum Island. Several federal or state-listed 
threatened or endangered species can be found on the island, including 
the piping plover (federally threatened) and the monarch butterfly 
(federal candidate species).
    A number of historic buildings exist from the island's years as a 
military fort, including a fire station and Fort Terry, a National 
Register Historic Site, which was in use from 1897 until after World 
War II. The Plum Island Lighthouse, also a National Register Historic 
Site, was built in 1869 to help ships navigate near the entrance to 
Long Island Sound. In addition, several buildings of the PIADC research 
facility have been determined to be eligible for listing on the 
National Register of Historic Places.

    Plum Island's long history of serving as a site for military 
operations and animal pathogen research has led to a series of ongoing 
environmental challenges. The DHS 2023 environmental assessment (EA) 
for the closure of the PIADC cites four categories of environmental 
concern that require remediation or preventative steps:

  1.  The PIADC biocontainment facilities must be decontaminated. The 
            EA recommends that a decontamination process, complete 
            validation testing, and soil testing be conducted at the 
            three biocontainment facilities. Decontamination will 
            include methods such as scrubbing, liquid cleaning, thermal 
            disinfection via autoclaves, chemical disinfection, and 
            fumigation. As a result of the use of cleaning chemicals 
            such as formaldehyde and the thermal disinfection of nearly 
            all equipment within the facility, once usable 
            infrastructure at PIADC will be rendered unsafe for human 
            occupation until this costly decontamination work can be 
            completed.

  2.  A number of waste management areas must be remediated. The EA 
            notes that DHS has worked closely with state and local 
            health departments over the past three decades to 
            investigate and successfully remediate numerous sites of 
            concern, including removing buried waste, capping 
            contaminated areas, and conducting soil and groundwater 
            monitoring. However, 10 additional sites of concern require 
            further action.

  3.  The EA recommends testing and remediation of subsurface oil 
            contamination in and around the PIADC facilities.

  4.  Actions must be taken to prevent future environmental issues 
            involving long-term storage of assets, including emergency 
            generators, boilers, chillers, and, potentially, the 
            island's Major Oil Storage Facility.

    In addition to the issues outlined above, the Department foresees 
budgetary challenges--and potentially further environmental concerns--
involved with rehabilitating or demolishing aging buildings, managing a 
costly marine transportation system, and upgrading island 
infrastructure to accommodate use in a manner that is safe and 
accessible for employees and the public. The island contains dozens of 
buildings and structures, water and power distribution systems, 
wastewater and sewage treatment plants, an emergency power plant, and 
electrical substations, and additional infrastructure. Significant 
funding would be required to adequately remediate, maintain, or remove 
this infrastructure, particularly if the Department were to open the 
island to public access. These costs would far exceed the Department's 
available resources. Another concern, as noted in a letter submitted 
during the EA from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is the 
need for shoreline mitigation, which is particularly important given 
the vulnerability of Plum Island to sea level rise.
    We share the bill sponsor's commitment to the preservation of Plum 
Island's unique wildlife habitat and its abundant historic resources. 
Through the America the Beautiful initiative, the Biden-Harris 
Administration has made a national commitment to support local efforts 
to conserve and restore America's natural areas for the many benefits 
they provide, including supporting biodiversity, providing safe spaces 
for outdoor recreation, and helping stem the climate crisis. The 
Department has numerous tools at its disposal to support locally-led 
conservation and restoration efforts, and we are committed to 
collaborating with the Subcommittee, the bill sponsor, and the many 
Plum Island stakeholders, as we explore ways to protect the island's 
valuable assets and address its many challenging environmental issues.
    Chairman Tiffany, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased 
to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may 
have.

H.R. 1647, to redesignate the Salem National Historic Site as the 
        ``Salem Maritime National Historical Park'', and for other 
        purposes

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the 
U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 1647, to 
redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site as the ``Salem 
Maritime National Historical Park'', and for other purposes.
    The Department supports H.R. 1647.
    H.R. 1647 would redesignate Salem Maritime National Historic Site 
as ``Salem Maritime National Historical Park''. The bill would also 
direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a boundary study to 
evaluate any sites and resources located within the city of Salem, 
Massachusetts that are associated with Salem's maritime history, 
coastal defenses, or military history, including National Guard and 
militia activity. This would include the Salem Armory Visitor Center 
and the Salem Armory Park. The bill provides for the boundary study to 
be completed within three years of funding being made available for the 
study.
    Designated by Secretarial Order in 1938, Salem Maritime National 
Historic Site was the first designated national historic site. The park 
preserves and interprets America's and New England's maritime history 
and the important role that Salem played in the development of 
international maritime trade from the late 17th century through the 
19th century. While the park was originally limited to interpreting the 
theme of maritime trade through the early 19th century, subsequent 
legislation broadened the park's focus to include the domestic life of 
colonial Salem, and immigration and industrial history of the city in 
the 19th and 20th centuries.
    Currently, the park is an 8.93-acre historic district containing 
ten historic buildings, nine archeological sites, four historic wharfs, 
and a historic light station, dating between 1675 and 1944. The 
Friendship of Salem, a replica late-18th century tall ship owned and 
operated by the National Park Service, reflects Salem's economic heyday 
from the 1790s through the 1830s. The diverse historic resources and 
replica tall ship provide living classrooms within which visitors can 
consider the ways that tall ships and the rise of global maritime trade 
networks in New England contributed to the American Revolution and 
helped shape modern socioeconomic and political development in the 
United States.
    The park is also responsible for managing and operating the Salem 
Regional Visitor Center in downtown Salem at the Salem Armory in which 
the National Park Service has an ownership interest. The Salem Regional 
Visitor Center serves as the primary Salem Maritime National Historic 
Site visitor center, provides community spaces to explore the park 
unit's interpretive themes in modern contexts, and supports the Essex 
National Heritage Area. The park is a key site and gateway to the 
national heritage area.
    The Department believes that the redesignation of Salem Maritime 
National Historic Site as a national historical park, as provided by 
H.R. 1647, is appropriate. Generally, National Park System units 
designated as ``national historical parks'' have a greater diversity of 
historical resources and interpretive themes than those designated as 
``historic sites'' and may be spread out over non-contiguous lands. As 
is reflected in its long history, Salem Maritime National Historic Site 
has expanded in the scope of its resources and its interpretation. The 
deeper and broader experience it now offers to visitors supports the 
basis for redesignation of this park as a national historical park.
    The Department also believes that the boundary study provided by 
H.R. 1647 could be very beneficial. The study would be useful in 
identifying important maritime and coastal defense-related resources in 
the vicinity of Salem that should be preserved and protected to enhance 
our understanding of the significant contributions of this area to our 
nation's history.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to 
answer questions that you or other members of the Committee might have.

H.R. 6852, to designate Holcombe Rucker Park, in Harlem, New York, as a 
        National Commemorative Site, and for other purposes

    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the 
Department of the Interior on H.R. 6852, to designate Holcombe Rucker 
Park, in Harlem, New York, as a National Commemorative Site, and for 
other purposes.
    The Department supports bringing greater recognition to the 
achievements and legacy of Holcombe Rucker, but we have concerns about 
the use of the ``national commemorative site.'' We would be happy to 
discuss alternative ways to commemorate Holcombe Rucker, the person, 
and the Holcombe Rucker Park, the site.
    H.R. 6852 would designate Holcombe Rucker Park in New York City, 
New York as a National Commemorative Site. The bill specifies that the 
site would not be a unit of the National Park System. There are no 
provisions in the bill that would provide any relationship to the 
National Park Service for the site, such as authority to provide 
financial or technical assistance.
    Holcombe Rucker Park is a playground owned and operated by New York 
City Parks in the Harlem neighborhood of the New York City borough of 
Manhattan. In 1974, the park was renamed in honor of Holcombe Rucker, 
the Playground Director for a number of sites across Harlem from 1948 
to 1964. The park's outdoor basketball court has become well known as a 
venue for a creative and competitive form of basketball referred to as 
streetball and has been the subject of three films about the sport: 
Above the Rim, On Hallowed Ground, and The Real: Rucker Pro Legends and 
Fathers of the Sport.
    Holcombe Rucker Park was among the sites inventoried in the 
National Park Service's 2023 African American Outdoor Recreation 
National Historic Landmark Theme Study. The study highlighted Holcombe 
Rucker as an educator and a playground director who believed that 
education and supervised recreation could help troubled Black youth in 
urban neighborhoods. In the 1940s, Rucker started a small outdoor 
basketball tournament for Black youth. Despite limited support from the 
city park management, Rucker's summer tournaments grew in popularity 
and, by 1965, the tournaments were relocated to the more suitable 
facility that would eventually bear his name--Holcombe Rucker Park.
    Holcombe Rucker Park would eventually become a magnet for the 
city's most talented young basketball players, and it played host to 
pickup games and tournaments where future professional basketball stars 
such as Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Nate Archibald, Wilt Chamberlain, Julius 
Erving and other streetball legends honed their craft. Rucker's 
philosophy of education and supervised recreation, put into practice 
through his successful outdoor basketball tournaments, contributed in 
the 1960s to the city's efforts to construct other recreational 
facilities in several predominantly Black neighborhoods.
    Designating Holcombe Rucker Park as a National Commemorative Site 
could create confusion among the general public about the significance 
of the title and the site's relationship to the National Park Service. 
The term ``National Commemorative Site'' has no definition by law or 
custom. The National Park Service is aware of two examples where 
Congress has used this designation: for the Quindaro Townsite National 
Commemorative Site in Kansas, and the Charleston High School National 
Commemorative Site in Arkansas. In both instances, designation has 
included a role for the National Park Service, either as a provider of 
financial and technical assistance, or as a provider of a commemorative 
monument and interpretive exhibit. Designating Holcombe Rucker Park as 
a National Commemorative Site, without any provisions tying it to the 
National Park Service, would bring further uncertainty regarding the 
significance of this designation.
    Rather than moving forward with H.R. 6852, the Department would 
encourage the proponents of providing greater recognition for Holcombe 
Rucker Park to explore alternative ways to honor and interpret the 
site's history and the contributions of Holcombe Rucker to outdoor 
recreation in urban America. The Department would be pleased to work 
with the sponsor and their constituents to explore other options.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to 
answer questions that you or other members of the Committee might have.

                                 ______
                                 
  Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Michael Reynolds, Deputy 
 Director, Congressional and External Relations, National Park Service

Mr. Reynolds did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. During your testimony, you mentioned that the 
Department is focusing on ways to ``quicken'' the appraisal process in 
land exchanges.

    1a) Can you expand on the negative impacts delays in the appraisal 
process have on the Department and individual bureaus such as BLM and 
NPS?

    1b) How long does the average appraisal process take for an 
administrative land exchange, both Department-wide and by individual 
bureau?

    1c) How long does the average appraisal process take for a 
Congressionally mandated land exchange, both Department-wide and by 
individual bureau?

    1d) How long does the average appraisal process take for an 
administrative land conveyance, both Department-wide and by individual 
bureau?

    1e) How long does the average appraisal process take for a 
Congressionally mandated land conveyance, both Department-wide and by 
individual bureau?

    1f) Has the Department identified any mechanisms that can be 
implemented that would reduce the appraisal backlog?

    1g) Has the National Park Service identified any mechanisms that 
can be implemented that would reduce the appraisal backlog?

    1h) Has the Bureau of Land Management identified any mechanisms 
that can be implemented that would reduce the appraisal backlog?

    1i) What is the current backlog of appraisals that need to take 
place, both Department-wide and by individual bureau?

    1j) Which state(s) have the highest numbers of pending DOI 
appraisals and what are the specific reasons in these state(s) for such 
a backlog?

    Question 2. What is the average amount of time it takes to complete 
an administrative land exchange, both Department-wide and by individual 
bureau?

    Question 3. What is the average amount of time it takes to complete 
a Congressionally mandated land exchange, both Department-wide and by 
individual bureau?


    Question 4. What is the average amount of time it takes to complete 
an administrative land conveyance, both Department-wide and by 
individual bureau?

    Question 5. What is the average amount of time it takes to complete 
a Congressionally mandated land conveyance, both Department-wide and by 
individual bureau?

    Question 6. What is the average amount of time it takes to complete 
the environmental review process for typical land exchanges, both 
Department-wide and by individual bureau?

    Question 7. What is the average amount of time it takes to complete 
the environmental review process for typical land conveyance, both 
Department-wide and by individual bureau?

    Question 8. How many DOI lands available for disposal have been 
conveyed out of federal ownership in the last 5 years?

    Question 9. How many DOI lands available for disposal have been 
conveyed out of federal ownership since 2021?

    Question 10. DOI recently announced it will spend $195 million 
dollars on ``climate restoration and resilience projects'' in national 
parks over the next 10 years. As part of the announcement, NPS provided 
a project list on its website that describes each project title, cost, 
and the park(s) where the project will take place. However, there are 
seven projects listed totaling $10,423,826 that provide the project 
title and cost but list the park(s) as ``TBD''.

    10a) What factors did the agency consider when deciding how to 
allocate this funding?

    10b) Why is the Department unable to provide the names of the 10 
parks in which over $10 million dollars of taxpayer funding are being 
spent?

    10c) For each of these seven projects that are listed as ``TBD'', 
please provide a breakdown of which parks will receive this funding.

    10d) How can the NPS know the cost and subject of a project if it 
does not know the location in which it will be implemented?

    10e) Will the project list be updated when the agency determines 
where these seven projects will take place?

    10f) Please describe how the NPS calculates estimated costs for 
climate resilience programs and provide examples.

    Question 11. Please provide an update on the implementation of the 
Japanese American World War II History Network Act (section 645 of 
Division DD of Public Law 117-328).

    11a) Has the Department reviewed studies and reports to complement 
Japanese American World War II history and Japanese American 
experiences during World War II, including studies related to 
relocation centers and confinement sites?

    11b) Has the Department produced and disseminated any appropriate 
educational materials, such as handbooks, maps, interpretive guides, or 
electronic information relating to Japanese American World War II 
history and Japanese American experiences during the war, including 
relocation centers and confinement sites, since this law's enactment?

    11c) Has the Department entered into any cooperative agreements or 
memoranda of understanding to provide technical assistance under this 
law? If yes, please provide a list of each one.

    11d) Has the Department adopted an official, uniform symbol or 
device for the Network?

    11e) Have regulations been issued regarding the use of this symbol 
or device?

    11f) Does the Network have a website?

    11g) When does the Department anticipate this law will be fully 
implemented?

    Question 12. What is the current backlog of special resource 
studies at NPS?

    Question 13. When does NPS anticipate the backlog of special 
resource studies will be completed?

    Question 14. How much does the average special resource study cost?

    Question 15. How long does it take to complete the average special 
resource study?

    Question 16. Would DOI support conducting a special resource study 
on designating Plum Island in New York as a national monument?

    Question 17. How long would a special resource study on designating 
Plum Island as a national monument take?

    Question 18. Has NPS ever managed a former Department of Homeland 
Security facility, as in the case of Plum Island? Are there any special 
considerations regarding DOI managing former DHS facilities?

    Question 19. In NPS's testimony on H.R. 1584, the agency references 
a letter sent during the EA process to the EPA. Please provide a copy 
of this letter.

    Question 20. Can NPS please elaborate on the estimated cost the 
agency would incur if the agency would take over administrative 
jurisdiction and management of Plum Island?

    Question 21. How many national historic sites have been 
redesignated as national historical parks? Please provide a list of 
each example.

    Question 22. If NPS does not support a commemorative site 
designation for Rucker Park, what designation would the agency support?

    Question 23. Would NPS support placing an interpretive exhibit at 
Rucker Park?

    Question 24. In March 2021, NPS began construction on a ``Wall of 
Remembrance'' containing the names of soldiers who gave their lives in 
the Korean War in addition to completing an overall rehabilitation of 
the Korean War Veterans Memorial. The project was completed on July 27, 
2022, at a cost of $22 million in donated funds from the people of the 
United States of America and the Republic of Korea. Just months after 
the new site opened, it was revealed that several hundred of the 
American service members' names were misspelled or missing. It is 
estimated that the Wall of Remembrance contains 1,015 spelling errors 
and incorrectly includes the names of 245 service members who died in 
circumstances totally unrelated to the war.

    Can you please provide an update on NPS's work with DOD to correct 
errors on the Wall? Please include a timeline and estimated cost for 
correcting any errors as part of this response.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. OK, thank you very much, Director Reynolds, 
and I am going to recognize Members for 5 minutes for 
questioning. I am going to start out with the questioning.
    Mr. Smith, Representative Amodei's bill withdraws about 
300,000 acres managed by the Forest Service in the Ruby 
Mountains from oil and gas development. Are you aware of any 
oil and gas development on that parcel currently?
    Mr. Smith. Currently, there are no oil and gas activities, 
and the geology suggests that it is low-impact, in terms of any 
kind of oil and gas activities to be gained from that. But 
currently there are no activities on that parcel.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Smith, if they say it is low-impact, does 
that mean that there is little chance that there would be any 
oil and gas development?
    Mr. Smith. Yes, that is the information that we get from 
the geologist.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, why would the withdrawal be necessary if 
it is low-impact?
    First of all, it is not happening now, and there is a low 
probability that this would happen. Why is it necessary to have 
to do that? Why couldn't we have the proposal that is being 
suggested by Representative Amodei without this being included?
    Mr. Smith. A lot of concern was generated by the locals in 
Nevada that they wanted to see it continually protected, so 
that is how that came about. And that is why we considered 
withdrawing it.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. Have you heard from Nevadans that have 
said, no, this really isn't necessary?
    Mr. Smith. I have not. I can certainly look into that.
    Mr. Tiffany. In regards to the 150,000 acres of Federal 
lands being designated as wilderness, is it really necessary 
for this project to add more wilderness?
    So, for our edification, wilderness is one of the most 
restrictive designations. Is that correct? And could you talk 
about that a little bit, Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Yes, there are restrictions, particularly when 
it comes to non-motorized activities, but there are lots of 
exceptions, and for good reasons, that we allow particularly 
oil and gas leasing. If they are valid and existing rights, 
those rights can still be utilized. You can still have oil and 
gas activity within those.
    Also, there are exceptions for safety, fire concerns. So, 
there are exceptions for good reasons that we allow activities 
in the wilderness.
    Mr. Tiffany. And more broadly speaking, have those 
exceptions been readily utilized as we have seen more fire in 
the western states?
    Mr. Smith. Yes, we have certainly considered a lot of those 
activities in our wildlife crisis strategy.
    Mr. Tiffany. The Department has been proactive?
    Mr. Smith. Yes, they have been very proactive in our 10-
year strategy.
    Mr. Tiffany. Director Reynolds, in regards to the Plum 
Island proposal as a national monument, given the unique 
attributes of Plum Island and the discontinued operations of 
the Animal Disease Center, does the Department believe it would 
be feasible to manage Plum Island as a national monument?
    Mr. Reynolds. I think we have a number of questions, as I 
mentioned in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, about making the 
island safe for visitor use. And there are just a lot of 
concerns that the Department would still like to work with 
everybody involved in this complex place to move forward on. 
But we do support the idea that this island is a very special 
place.
    Mr. Tiffany. My understanding is there has not been a study 
done with the Department's support, a special resource study to 
determine the appropriate designation.
    Mr. Reynolds. We can come back and confirm that. I believe 
we would be welcoming any kind of thing to help clarify these 
issues.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you. That is going to conclude my 
questions, and I am going to yield back. I will turn to the 
Ranking Member for his opportunity for 5 minutes to ask 
questions of our witnesses.
    Mr. Neguse.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again to 
both of our witnesses for your testimony and for your service 
at your respective agencies.
    One kind of top-line observation I guess I would make, and 
then I have some technical questions regarding Mr. LaLota's 
bill and Mr. Espaillat's bill. The top-line observation, this 
is more, I suppose, directed towards my good friend and 
colleague, and the Chairman of our Committee, is that I think 
this is a great opportunity for us to debate some bills that 
deserve an open hearing and deserve some candid, back-and-forth 
conversation with respect to bills that propose a variety of 
withdrawals, mineral withdrawals, oil and gas development 
withdrawals, as well as some conveyances of various different 
parcels in our respective regions and states.
    And I would hope that this Subcommittee could consider more 
bills of this nature. Irrespective of whether or not they 
ultimately make it across the finish line to a markup and to 
the Floor, we have a long list of bills from our side of the 
aisle, Democratic colleagues, who would like to have their 
bills considered in this same vein. This, I believe, is the 
first Subcommittee hearing that we have had considering bills 
of this nature.
    So, I would just encourage both the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee and the Chairman of the Full Committee that I 
don't know that we should be afraid of the debate, and we 
should be able to have an open process and be able to consider 
similar bills, for example, similar to Mr. Amodei's bill, which 
obviously, there are folks on different sides of the equation 
in terms of how they feel about it, but we have an opportunity 
to actually get into the weeds on it, and Mr. Amodei has the 
opportunity to make his case. So, I would just encourage the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee and Chairman of the Full Committee 
to respectfully consider that request for the duration of 118th 
Congress.
    With respect to the bills that we are considering today, 
Mr. Reynolds, in terms of the bill to protect Rucker Park, or 
rather, to recognize it as a commemorative place, I guess I 
respectfully disagree with the NPS's observations that you all 
have provided in your written testimony and that you have 
mentioned.
    And the second page of your written testimony says, and I 
will quote this, ``We share the bill's sponsor's commitment to 
the preservation''--oh, excuse me, that is Plum Island.
    With respect to this particular bill designating Holcombe 
Rucker Park, you make the observation, with respect to two 
other bills that are of a similar nature to this bill that we 
are considering, that in both of those instances designations 
included a role for the NPS, either as a provider of financial 
and technical assistance or as a provider of a commemorative 
monument and interpretive exhibit.
    So, I guess what I am suggesting to you is, it seems like a 
simple amendment to Mr. Espaillat's bill that provides for the 
NPS to play a technical assistance role or provides for the NPS 
to provide an interpretive exhibit would solve your concerns.
    And I understand the NPS's historical opposition, just as a 
general matter, to commemorative designations. But at the end 
of the day, to the extent that Congress works its will and 
decides on a bipartisan basis that this is worth doing, I would 
presume that a technical amendment of that sort would address 
and allay your concerns.
    Mr. Reynolds. Yes, Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for all 
that.
    I think, bottom line, in plain English, we think this story 
deserves recognition. It is a fabulous history. And I think our 
technical concerns are more about the national commemorative 
site designation, and I think there are lots of different 
choices, to your point, that we can help work with either the 
sponsor or the Committee to make this work out.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. 
Reynolds, and I would certainly welcome that. And I know Mr. 
Espaillat, I am sure will, as well. Let's find a way to get a 
technical amendment on there so we can get this bill across the 
finish line.
    Secondly, and finally, I am running out of time, but with 
respect to Mr. LaLota's bill regarding Plum Island, I suppose 
it is less a question than a statement. I would suggest that 
while I understand the NPS has a variety of concerns, and 
clearly, the island has a complicated history, again, just with 
respect to the remediation and other costs that are outlined in 
your testimony, to the extent that the Congress is working its 
will and decides that this is an island that merits this type 
of protection, and I have historically been very supportive of 
these types of designations, I would just encourage you to work 
with the bill's sponsor so that we can find a way to get this 
bill to a markup, because I have never been to Plum Island, but 
from what I have gleaned from reading about it and hearing 
about it, it sounds like a place that we ought to be 
protecting.
    With that, I can see the balance of my time has expired.
    Mr. Reynolds. Thank you, and I will take that back, sir.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. The Ranking Member yields. Now, I would like 
to turn to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Bentz, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr., not speaker, Chair.
    And I think, Mr. Smith, I am going to ask you questions 
about the Nevada bill, because it is of great interest to me in 
Oregon, where we have been working on a somewhat similar piece 
of legislation for several years. And I have always been 
interested in whatever the rationale might be when it comes to 
these pieces of Federal land that are going to be given to 
these small cities or even larger cities, as compared to the 
total amount of Federal land, in this case, Nevada. Of course, 
the total amount of federally controlled land in Nevada is 56 
million acres, and we are talking about a fraction of that 
number here.
    But you indicate, and I wasn't paying close enough 
attention, that the Department has concerns about Titles I, II, 
and V, which I am staring at. So, I am just curious. What are 
those concerns that would rise to a level that would say we 
have to be worried about what amounts to something less than 
30,000 acres, when the Federal Government has 56 million acres?
    Mr. Smith. I think the concerns that we have cited in our 
written testimony as well as the oral testimony is that we are 
concerned with things like time frames, for example, there are 
titles in there for 180 days. It is very difficult to get that 
done within 100 days, in 6 months when you are talking about 
public involvement, when you are talking about NEPA, when you 
are talking about evaluation. So, it is just technical things 
that we have concerns about.
    Mr. Bentz. It is not an objection to the merits, then, this 
is just a procedural concern that you have.
    Mr. Smith. Correct.
    Mr. Bentz. Is that true as to all three of those Sections 
1, 2, and 3, it is just procedural?
    Mr. Smith. Yes. We would like to work with the Committee to 
get those changes.
    Mr. Bentz. You also mentioned in a previous exchange 
regarding the nature of wilderness restrictions--the Chair 
asked what those restrictions on wilderness are. This is of 
great interest to me, because if you look at different 
wildernesses that have been established there is different 
protected access, for example.
    Do you anticipate any challenges when it comes to access to 
this wilderness that has been created in this particular bill?
    Mr. Smith. That is something we want to work with the 
Committee on to make sure that there is access in there, and 
also to protect the values of wilderness. So, those are just 
some technical things that have been raised by the locals that 
we need to work out. I don't have specifics on that, but we 
certainly stand ready to work with the Chairman and the bill's 
sponsor to do whatever we need to do.
    Mr. Bentz. I think the concern to me, looking back into 
Oregon, where we have the similar situation, the amount of land 
we are dealing with there are around 1 million acres that is a 
combination of wilderness study area and then land with 
wilderness characteristics. But all this area, it is a huge 
area, so to lock it up and not allow folks to use existing 
roads to access for, let's say, fire suppression purposes or 
cultural purposes, is not a good idea.
    So, I am just really asking you, do you, as a Department, 
take a position on access and trying to restrict it?
    Or if a road fails by washing out or something, do you 
allow motorized vehicles to go in and repair it?
    This is of great concern in Oregon. I am sure it is a 
concern in Nevada also. What is your Department's position on 
access when it comes to, first of all, motorized for the 
purposes I just mentioned, cultural, for example, and then 
repairing those roads, the existing ones, of course?
    Mr. Smith. Typically, before we designate that we have a 
wilderness study. There is a lot of public comment involvement, 
and we take all that into consideration, so I don't know 
specifics on that.
    But at the end of the day, all wilderness is designated by 
Congress. So, that has been a thorough vetting before we 
declare anything wilderness. And we certainly, like I said, 
when you are talking about fire, when you are talking about 
safety, when you talk about oil and gas activities, a lot of 
that is allowed in wilderness where they are validating 
existing rights.
    Mr. Bentz. Right. So, there was a little point of 
clarification I would like on that, access for mining or gas or 
whatnot. If you declare the wilderness, isn't the only thing 
that is preserved those claims that already exist?
    Mr. Smith. That is correct.
    Mr. Bentz. So, any new activity is barred.
    Mr. Smith. That is correct, once it has been designated 
wilderness.
    Mr. Bentz. Right. So, in your answer to the Chairman 
earlier, the qualification should have been, I think you 
actually made it, if those claims exist, if those filings have 
occurred, then those are protected, but anything new is barred.
    Mr. Smith. Yes, with the exceptions of, if you have an 
emergency situation for safety or wildfire, there are 
exceptions, but it depends on the situation.
    Mr. Bentz. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to 
recognize Mr. Espaillat for 5 minutes for questions.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Chairman. Regarding H.R. 6852, I 
would like to propose that the Harlem Rucker Park educational 
aspect is one that fits perfectly through a cooperative 
agreement with the public and private entities for educational 
purposes. And I am sure that you will hear in the testimonies 
of our folks here today the wonderful job that they have done 
with regards to scholarships and other educational 
opportunities. So, I am sure that there is room for a 
cooperative agreement through an amendment as we move forward.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask for a favorable vote of yes.
    I yield.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, sir. The gentleman yields, and next we 
will turn to the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Westerman, 
for questions.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and thank you 
to everyone who presented their bills and the witnesses today. 
Mr. Bentz raised an issue that I would just like to get some 
input from both Mr. Smith and Mr. Reynolds.
    I had one of these land transfer bills several years ago 
that we had a hearing on and marked it up. It passed the House, 
passed the Senate, got signed into law. It was a massive land 
transfer. It was 3 acres that a church sat on in my district 
that had a cemetery that had gravestones in it that pre-dated 
the Forest Service. And they were trading 6 acres of private 
land for the 3 acres, and it took almost 2 years to do it.
    Mr. Smith, you were talking about the time crunch. I could 
see where it might get a little more complicated with a big 
land transfer like Mr. Amodei's bill, but why does it take so 
long, and what could we do to increase the timing?
    And I took the Chief of the Forest Service there, and took 
the Deputy Under Secretary of the Interior there. With both of 
them pushing, it was like within a week of the 2-year deadline 
that Congress set to make this land transfer happen. Why does 
it take so long?
    And I never got a cost from it, but I know the Department's 
Forest Service and Interior probably spent three or four times 
more money than the value of the land going through the 
transfer process. So, is there something we could do to help 
you all make those land transfers happen much more quickly and 
much more efficiently?
    Mr. Smith. I think we are aware of that we have 
administrative responsibilities already and authorities to do 
that.
    Typically, when you are dealing with that, you are dealing 
with the proponent and the agency, and a lot of times it is 
title issues. A lot of times it is environmental assessments 
that we have to do. There are a lot of administrative laws that 
are not waived when we get the legislative land exchanges, or 
cemeteries, or whatever. So, we have to work through the 
administrative process that we have.
    And yes, a lot of times, unfortunately, it could take that 
long. But typically, it is something that the proponents don't 
have, something that we don't have. So, there is a bunch of 
back and forth until we get it there. But we just follow the 
process.
    Mr. Westerman. Do you have any recommendations on how to 
make the process better? Because that process was not good.
    Mr. Smith. I would certainly like to work with the 
Committee to figure that out. Off the top of my head, I can't 
suggest any specific changes right now.
    Mr. Westerman. Mr. Reynolds? Because it was Forest Service 
and BLM that were involved in it.
    Mr. Reynolds. We also have a lot of land exchanging and 
transfer processes. And as Mr. Smith indicates, we would be 
happy to sit down to try to keep improving these processes.
    A lot of times it is also appraisal length of time that we 
are very focused on at the Department of the Interior right 
around how to quicken those things, I guess I could say. So, we 
share your concern.
    Mr. Westerman. All right, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would now like to 
recognize Mr. Amodei from Nevada for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Smith, you said you are opposed to Sections 1, 2, and 
5. One is the Douglas County Economic Conservation Act. It says 
Douglas County gets 7,700 acres for flood control and 
management, 188 acres for flood protection. Do you know if 
either one of those conveyances come from Forest Service land 
or BLM? Are you aware of, because it is not all Forest Service.
    Mr. Smith. Right.
    Mr. Amodei. And it is not all BLM.
    Do either one of those two ring a bell for impact on Forest 
Service, if you know?
    Mr. Smith. I don't know that.
    Mr. Amodei. OK.
    Mr. Smith. I would have to check that.
    Mr. Amodei. Fair enough.
    Now, it also says there are 1,084 acres to Douglas County 
to be used for open space. Do you know if that is BLM inventory 
or Forest Service inventory?
    Mr. Smith. I would have to look. I don't have the 
information.
    Mr. Amodei. OK. And then, finally, there is a designation 
of land that goes to the Washoe Tribe, which is the Indigenous 
people in the Tahoe Basin, which I assume is from yours. Are 
you opposed, as the Forest Service, to a conveyance of land to 
the Washoe Tribe in Douglas County, based on ancestral claims? 
Is the Forest Service opposed to that land being transferred to 
the Washoe Tribe?
    Mr. Smith. No, I think what I have said earlier in my 
testimony is that there are just a lot of technical things that 
we have concerns with, we don't support the bill as is written.
    Mr. Amodei. OK, great. I appreciate that.
    No. 2, you are opposed to because it is 14 acres of old 
Santini-Burton purchases in the Tahoe Basin that the Forest 
Service holds in the middle of Incline Village. Are we opposed 
just philosophically? Because it is supposed to be transferred 
to the General Improvement District, which is kind of like the 
municipal organization there, for use as, according to the 
bill, for public uses, not private development, not building 
more hard surfaces in the Tahoe Basin. Is the Forest Service 
opposed to that general proposition?
    Mr. Smith. We are opposed in the sense that we think they 
are sensitive lands on the Santini-Burton, and we think we are 
better capable of managing those.
    Mr. Amodei. Completely surrounded, not stream environment 
zone, just as a general thing, if we got it and it is in Tahoe 
in this instance, you have nothing more specific to offer?
    Mr. Smith. Nothing more. But certainly, again, we would 
like to work with you.
    Mr. Amodei. OK, and I would, too, thank you.
    The last one is the section which conveys half an acre in 
the Carson Ranger District Office that is presently between the 
district office and a Shell station, so they can put a street 
through there. And there was a vague reference to, well, it is 
going to disrupt our operations of the Carson Ranger District. 
Anything more specific than that?
    Mr. Smith. Nothing more specific than that.
    Mr. Amodei. OK. Thank you, sir.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Crane, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crane. I have no questions at this time. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Amodei, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, sir. I just have one other thing, 
which is a question I will ask myself that came up in some of 
the earlier conversation, and that is about the piece in the 
Ruby Mountains in Elko. And the question I am going to ask 
myself so you can get it on the record is, why did you put this 
in your bill?
    It is Forest Service land, and it is, well, there is 
nothing there and I will tell you the reason why it is in the 
bill. Because, as it sits now, anybody can apply under the 
applicable regs for oil and gas exploration.
    And there was a question asked, Mr. Chair, that indicated, 
hey, a lot of locals are griping about this. Let me tell you 
what the locals did. And by the way, for political 
scorekeepers, it is one of the ruby-reddest counties in Nevada. 
I think I can say that since I represent the area. They went 
nuts, saying, ``Please get rid of NEPA and make the Forest 
Service tell them no.'' And some of us crazy people had to say, 
``Let the Forest Service go through NEPA and see where they 
decide. You know, maybe NEPA is fine.'' And guess what, Mr. 
Chairman? The Forest Service went through NEPA and said no.
    But then you say, well, OK, so what is the harm, what is 
the foul? I will tell you what the harm, what the foul is. It 
takes a lot for that ranger district to process those things, 
go through the whole NEPA process, blah, blah, blah. They ended 
up denying them and there is low probability of success. So, to 
come back and say, which the locals support, or it wouldn't be 
in there, to come back and say you can't do oil and gas 
exploration stuff in the Ruby Mountains, all other multiple 
uses are fine, nobody is transferring any property, or anything 
else like that. But I can tell you that the Ruby Mountains 
occupy a spot in the hearts and minds of Nevadans, and 
especially those in northeastern Nevada, where they quite 
simply don't want to have to be under the threat of anybody who 
has a stamp or an e-mail address or whatever to go, here we go, 
we are applying for these just because they are available.
    There is a speculation game that goes on where it is like, 
if they are a buck an acre or whatever, what the heck? If we 
get them, if something happens, fine. Not a good policy for 
that particular area. That is why that 400,000-acre piece or 
300,000-acre piece is in the bill for your record.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The Chair recognizes Mr. LaLota for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Chairman.
    For a little more than a decade back at home, I have been 
involved in Suffolk County government and politics. I have been 
to scores of community meetings. I have been in Congress for 
about a year. And it has been my experience that unified, 
bipartisan, and community support on big ideas and big projects 
is really hard to come by. But that is not the case when it 
comes to preserving Plum Island.
    In fact, my district is totally united in its support for 
preserving Plum Island. It is among the most frequent topics 
that my East End constituents raise with me, and I have yet to 
meet a single person who is opposed to designating Plum Island 
as a national monument.
    Here, looking at Congress, I appreciate the signaling that 
the Ranking Member from the other side of the aisle gave 
towards his support. It feels good here, too, that a lot of 
folks are rowing in the same direction to help preserve Plum 
Island.
    Back at home, in fact, many community groups are indeed 
united in their support. In fact, I have with me a letter of 
support for the Plum Island National Monument Act signed by the 
Steering Committee of the Plum Island Coalition, which is a 
group of over 125 member organizations. And those organizations 
include local, state, and national organizations.
    And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit this 
letter of support from the Preserve Plum Island Coalition to 
the record. It is dated March 5, 2024.
    Mr. Tiffany. So ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                     Preserve Plum Island Coalition

                             New Haven, CT

                                                  March 5, 2024    

Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. John Curtis, Vice Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Federal Lands Subcommittee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: H.R. 1584, Plum Island National Monument Act

    Dear Chairman Tiffany, Vice Chairman Curtis, and Ranking Member 
Neguse:

    The Preserve Plum Island Coalition (PPIC) is comprised of more than 
120 national, regional, and local organizations, whose collective 
membership totals several million members, united by the goal of 
permanently preserving Plum Island, New York. Members support the PPIC 
mission, which is to secure the permanent protection of the significant 
natural, historical, and cultural resources of Plum Island. Plum Island 
is a federally owned gem, boasting 24 ecological communities and high 
biodiversity, including 229 species of birds. It offers opportunities 
to educate the public about American history, the cultural heritage, 
and nature. It lies at the confluence of two National Esruaries--Long 
Island Sound and the Peconic Estuary.

    The PPIC advocates for comprehensive conservation and management 
solutions that safeguard this national treasure in the public trust as 
a national monument, wildlife refuge, preserve, or other equivalent 
protection, with carefully managed and equitable public access, in 
perpetuity.

    As members of the Steering Committee of the PPIC, we write to 
express to you our strong support for the passage of H.R. 1584, the 
``Plum Island National Monument Act'' sponsored by Representative 
Nicholas LaLota (1st Congressional District-NY), designating Plum 
Island a national monument for the purpose of ecological conservation, 
historical preservation, and the discovery and celebration of our 
shared cultural heritage. Specifically, this important legislation will 
ensure the permanent protection of the highly significant ecological, 
historical, and cultural resources found on Plum Island, through its 
dedication as a national monument under the management of the 
Department of Interior.

    To this end, we are most appreciative of your consideration of H.R. 
1584, through the hearing of the Federal Lands Subcommittee designed to 
receive input on this legislative initiative. We thank Representative 
LaLota for his introduction of the bill and thank the bill's co-
sponsors: Representatives Courtney, Garbarino, Himes, D'Esposito, and 
Lawler. We strongly support its adoption, designating Plum Island a 
national monument for the purpose of ecological conservation, 
historical preservation, and the discovery and celebration of our 
shared cultural heritage.

    Achieving Plum Island's permanent protection is a goal supported by 
elected officials at all levels of government. In addition to federal 
support, many Long Island members of the New York State Senate and 
Assembly, the entire 18-member Suffolk County Legislature, and the 
Supervisor and other members of the Southold Town Board (within whose 
town Plum Island is situated), have strongly supported the permanent 
protection of this nationally significant, federally owned asset. 
Widespread support for preserving Plum Island can be seen in a 
compilation of letters from elected officials, organizations, and 
citizens, along with editorials, articles, and media productions, in a 
volume we posted to www.preserveplumisland.org/campaign-support last 
fall.

    We hope to work with your Subcommittee and Representative LaLota's 
office in achieving this outcome. Please consider the PPIC to be a 
resource to you and your staff if you have any questions concerning the 
resources of Plum Island, past and current efforts to protect it, and 
discussions various PPIC members have had with governmental agencies 
and stakeholders regarding the same.

            Sincerely,

                                               John Turner,
                                                       Spokesperson

Members of the PPIC Steering Committee:

        John Turner,                  Robert LaFrance,
        Spokesperson                  Audubon Connecticut

        Louise Harrison,              Nicole Layman,
        Save the Sound                The Wilderness Society

        Leah Lopez Schmalz,           Mark Levine,
        Save the Sound                Orient Association

        Denise Stranko,               Marian Lindberg,
        Save the Sound                The Nature Conservancy in New 
                                      York

        Drianne Benner,               Vanessa Lockel,
        Orient Association            Cornell Cooperative Extension of 
                                      Suffolk County

        Gordon Bliss,                 Erin McGrath,
        Coast Defense Study Group     Audubon New York

        Sandi Brewster-Walker,        Anne Murray,
        Montaukett Indian Nation      North Fork Environmental Council

        Yvette DeBow-Salsedo,         Francis O'Shea,
        Peconic Land Trust            Trust for Public Land

        Robert DeLuca,                Casey Petrashek,
        Group for the East End        New York League of Conservation 
                                      Voters
        Adrienne Esposito,            David Reisfield,
        Citizens Campaign for the 
        Environment                   Friends of Plum Island

        Jane Fasullo,                 Richard Remmer,
        Sierra Club Long Island 
        Group                         Friends of Plum Island and Parks 
                                      & Trails NY

        Gregory Jacob,                Rebecca Rubin,
        The Nature Conservancy in 
        New York                      Nature First Consulting, LLC

                                      [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5079.002
                                      
                                      [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5079.003
                                      

                                                               

    Mr. LaLota. Thank you.
    Mr. Reynolds, how are you, sir? You are the Deputy Director 
of the National Park Service. Thanks so much for being here 
with us today. Can you briefly explain the process through 
which the National Park Service goes before the Park Service 
designates an area like Plum Island one of national importance? 
And does that include a specific study?
    Mr. Reynolds. Thank you very much, Congressman, for that. 
And there are a lot of different ways, so I won't bore you with 
all the details.
    But Congress, of course, can designate national park units 
at any time, as we are discussing today. And then, if and when 
we have proposals such as Plum Island, usually there is a 
special resource study. There are things also called recon 
studies, which are faster. And we try to figure out, basically, 
the values and the feasibility and the suitability of the site. 
So, that is a very short answer to your good question.
    And usually these things come down to, are there 
nationally-significant resources? Are they suitable? Are they 
feasible to be able to be managed? Could someone else manage 
it? Questions like that.
    Mr. LaLota. Great. And can you go into a little bit of 
detail on the information you would need to prepare and publish 
a special resource study?
    Mr. Reynolds. Yes. First, I just want to reiterate that we 
really support your efforts and all the efforts of the 
stakeholders, of which there are many, for the conservation 
values of Plum Island. We are there. There are just a ton of 
questions, and as you know better than anybody, a complex 
place. And that is why we want to just keep up the various 
conversations. We have been having a lot with the other Federal 
agencies on the island, as well as state and your local 
constituents. We just want to keep those going to figure these 
things out.
    Mr. LaLota. Yes.
    Mr. Reynolds. But to answer your question, we would need 
to, I think there is a lot of study of the island, to be honest 
with you. They have done an awful lot for the environmental 
cleanup, and we would just need to make sure we have enough 
information to understand what those natural and cultural 
resources really are.
    Mr. LaLota. What can I tell my constituents, sir? I 
appreciate there needs to be a certain amount of bureaucracy 
that has to go into it. I totally understand, though there is 
overwhelming support, like I said, bipartisan, from the 
community, nearly unanimous, if not unanimous. I understand, 
still, with the Federal Government, we have to go through some 
sort of bureaucratic process. What can I tell my constituents 
as a timeline that it would take for you to do an appropriate 
study to help expedite this?
    Mr. Reynolds. Yes, I wouldn't know how to answer that right 
now. But I would say that the quicker the timelines will 
increase, the more we stay together and keep talking with the 
existing agencies that are managing the island.
    Mr. LaLota. And with respect to those talks, would you 
accept any sort of studies or reports or what not done by 
agencies other than your own to help expedite the process?
    Mr. Reynolds. Yes. I look forward to sharing some of those 
with you because I think it would help expedite the process. We 
have been at this for a while. Credit to my predecessor and his 
predecessor, many community groups who have been for this 
effort. We are eager to get this across the finish line, and 
consider us partners in anything that we need to do to get that 
done. So, we are very supportive, sir.
    Mr. LaLota. Awesome.
    I yield, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the 
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. I want to begin 
by thanking you for convening this hearing today, as well as my 
colleagues and bill sponsors who have put forth important 
pieces of legislation that seek to improve our public lands and 
best serve their respective constituents.
    As I have shared with this Committee countless times, I am 
a firm believer in advancing policies that promote access to 
our public lands. Our public lands exist to serve the American 
people. When we approach public lands policy, the first 
question we need to ask is, how does this policy promote public 
access and public use?
    Part of that includes ensuring that the right land managers 
are responsible for the right acreage. Sometimes it is best for 
certain acreage to be held and managed by our Federal land 
managers. Sometimes it is best to be held and managed by state, 
county, or local land managers, and sometimes it is best to be 
privately held to support our local economies. That brings us 
to H.R. 7332, the Utah State Parks Adjustment Act, put forth by 
Representative Maloy. In the case of this bill, it is in the 
best interest of Utahns for this acreage to be managed by the 
state of Utah and be part of their state park system.
    Deputy Chief Smith, in your written testimony you outline 
some of the concerns the Forest Service has with this 
legislation. From my view, these concerns are really just 
technical and mainly process-driven. Is that a fair assessment?
    Mr. Smith. Yes.
    Mr. Stauber. If these concerns are addressed by the bill's 
sponsor, would the Forest Service commit to supporting passage 
of the legislation?
    Mr. Smith. I think, depending on what the changes are, we 
are certainly committed to working with the Committee. And if 
all things work out, I think, yes, the answer would be yes. But 
certainly, we need to look at the changes that are going to be 
suggested.
    Mr. Stauber. Of course. Thank you. I really hope you are 
able to address these concerns with Representative Maloy and 
commit to supporting the legislation, and it brings management 
of this acreage closer to the local level, and thus will lead 
to better productive use and enjoyment by all of the public.
    Mr. Chair, I am going to yield the rest of my time to 
Representative Amodei.
    Mr. Tiffany. So ordered.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you to my colleague from Minnesota. And I 
just want to, subject to other questions from the Committee, it 
seems like in some of the questioning, anyhow, there is a 
failure to distinguish between, and I appreciate Mr. Smith 
being here, what affects the Bureau of Land Management in this 
bill, what affects the Forest Service in this bill, what is 
being designated as wilderness, and what is being removed from 
oil and gas exploration. They are not, as everybody on this 
Committee well knows, the same things.
    So, while they all should be absolutely analyzed 
critically, they need to be analyzed in the context of are we 
creating wilderness in the Rubies or not? Are we doing stuff 
that affects Forest Service land for most of the Douglas County 
portion of the bill? No, other than the conveyance to the 
Washoe Tribe. So, I would just remind the Committee, for its 
analysis, that there are various lanes in this. It is a 
comprehensive bill that we are trying to be efficient with.
    And by the way, the final thing is it didn't get in this 
bill unless it was consensus by the locals. So, when we talk 
about imposing our judgments on what is in here, which we are 
expected to do, I think the context of that is this is what the 
locals asked for. Not that they get carte blanche in that, but 
let's try to keep that in those lanes if we can.
    I yield back the time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
to my colleague.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, I will reclaim my time and then 
yield to Representative Bentz for my remainder.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields to Mr. Bentz.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you for the yield.
    Mr. Smith, I am challenged by, again, the Department's 
position. I had asked earlier if there was something other than 
procedural objections to what is being suggested here for the 
state of Nevada. It sounded in one of your answers to a later 
question that indeed there was some basis for not wanting this 
to happen. Can you share that again?
    If it is not procedural, but something on the merits, pick 
any one of these transfers and tell me why it should not 
happen.
    Mr. Smith. Most of those transfers we have concerns of 
whether we have access to the land that we currently have so 
that you still have a public access in there.
    Other concerns would be access to public trails, concerns 
in terms of time frames. I have talked about sometimes the time 
frame is a little shorter. I think there is 180 days in there a 
couple of times, and we just don't think that is enough. In 
order to go through the public policy analysis, go through 
environmental, you go through appraisals, whatever, just the 
laws on the books that we have to do, we think that is a very 
short time frame for us to do it, and we would certainly need a 
longer time. So, those are the basic concerns in there.
    Mr. Bentz. Right. Yes, thank you. My time has expired, and 
thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. Now, I would like to 
recognize Representative Maloy for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Smith, I had a whole list of questions here, and some 
of my colleagues have really covered it, but I just want to put 
a fine point on some of this.
    You stated in your testimony that the Forest Service has 
concerns with the Fremont Indian State Park conveyance as 
described in the Utah State Parks Adjustment Act, including the 
prescribed time frames, which you just addressed, diligence, 
and future access by the Forest Service for road and trail 
easements, and procedures for resolving conflicts between the 
maps.
    I just want to point out that the bill specifically 
addresses future access and existing rights, and making minor 
boundary adjustments to the maps. So, if the timeline is your 
only concern, or if we just need to reiterate the things that 
are specified in the bill, will you have your staff work with 
my staff and Senator Lee's team to address these so that we can 
have all these concerns hammered out and move this bill 
forward?
    Mr. Smith. We certainly look forward to working with you 
and the Committee on that. We would be happy to do so.
    Ms. Maloy. OK, thank you. In an overall sense, I just want 
to reiterate, where does the U.S. Forest Service get its 
authority to manage land in the United States?
    Mr. Smith. Where the Forest Service gets----
    Ms. Maloy. How was the Forest Service created?
    Mr. Smith. By the Organic Act.
    Ms. Maloy. By Congress.
    Mr. Smith. Congress, right.
    Ms. Maloy. And there is just a general feeling in here that 
Congress is overstepping somehow by telling the Forest Service 
what to do. And I just want to put a fine point on that before 
this hearing ends, that this is Congress working with the 
Forest Service on land management. This isn't an invasion of 
anybody's authority or ability to manage.
    Mr. Smith. Yes, I certainly don't think that is the feeling 
of the Department, nor certainly not the Forest Service.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you for clarifying that.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the rest of my time.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields, and that will conclude 
our questioning. If there are no further questions, we will now 
move on to our third panel. Thank you, gentlemen, for your 
testimony.
    While the Clerk resets our witness table, I will remind the 
witnesses that under Committee Rules, they must limit their 
oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire statement will 
appear in the hearing record.
    I would also like to remind our witnesses of the timing 
lights, which will turn red at the end of your 5-minute 
statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone.
    As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to 
testify before Member questioning.
    I will now recognize Representative Crane to introduce our 
next witness, the Honorable Daryl Seymore, I hope I pronounce 
your name correctly, District IV Supervisor at the Navajo 
County Board of Supervisors.
    Representative Crane, you may do your introduction.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to take a minute 
to welcome Mr. Daryl Seymore to the Committee today.
    Mr. Seymore has served on the Navajo County Board of 
Supervisors since 2019, representing the communities of 
Pinedale, Show Low, and others. Supervisor Seymore previously 
served on the Show Low City Council for 16 years, including as 
Mayor for 8 years. He currently serves on the boards of several 
local and state organizations, including Northern Arizona 
Council of Governments, Regional Council, the Chairman of the 
Arizona Public Safety Retirement System, the Chairman of the 
Corrections Officer Retirement Plan, and the National 
Association of Counties Transportation Steering Committee.
    Mr. Seymore, it is clear from your resume that you enjoy 
serving your community and, in all the work you do, make life 
better for citizens of Navajo County. Thank you for traveling 
so far, and being able to talk to us today about the real-life 
impact of this cemetery expansion for the residents of Pinedale 
community. We really appreciate it, and admire your 
determination to get this legislation passed.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Seymore, you have 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARYL SEYMORE, DISTRICT IV SUPERVISOR, 
     NAVAJO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, HOLBROOK, ARIZONA

    Mr. Seymore. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. I am Daryl 
Seymore, Navajo County, for District IV. I am here to share 
information about the impacts of H.R. 3047, Apache County and 
Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2023, on unincorporated 
communities of Alpine and Pinedale, Arizona.
    Navajo and Apache counties are in the northeastern part of 
Arizona, and are very rural, with each county having a 
population of less than 150,000 residents. These counties are 
steeped in tradition, and can trace their origins to two very 
distinct communities: Native Americans and early pioneers. Both 
groups still have thriving communities within Navajo and Apache 
Counties. As part of that history, many current residents can 
trace their family history back for generations, and take great 
pride in being able to live, work, and raise families, and 
eventually find their resting place in the same community.
    Unfortunately, the cemeteries in Alpine and Pinedale have 
reached their current capacity. Families are now seeking burial 
locations in other communities for their loved ones who have 
passed. This causes undue stress and hardships on the residents 
of Alpine and Pinedale. Therefore, I am respectfully asking for 
your help in expediting a solution to this pressing issue.
    The existing Alpine Cemetery is 2.56 acres, which is leased 
from the U.S. Forest Service and abuts the Apache National 
Forest. It is estimated that the cemetery would need to expand 
an additional 8.06 acres to accommodate current and future 
community burial needs, bringing the total cemetery size to 
10.62 acres.
    Apache County's Public Works Department has spent several 
years working with the Alpine District Rangers to identify 
possible options for the cemetery's expansion. After many 
attempts to acquire the expansion through the Town Site Act, it 
ultimately proved to be expensive, time-consuming, and 
burdensome. Alpine residents do not have any more time to find 
a solution, and the only funding available goes entirely 
towards maintaining the cemetery grounds.
    Similarly, the existing Pinedale Cemetery in Navajo County 
is approximately 2\1/2\ acres, which is leased from the U.S. 
Forest Service and borders the Sitgreaves National Forest. It 
is estimated that the cemetery would need to expand an 
additional 2\1/2\ acres to accommodate current and future 
community burial needs, bringing the total cemetery size to 5 
acres.
    Like Apache County, Navajo County's Public Works Department 
has spent just over 2 years working with Joshua Miller, 
District Ranger for the Lakeside Ranger District, to identify 
possible options for the cemetery's expansion. After extensive 
conversation and hours of research, Mr. Miller learned that the 
only clear path forward for the U.S. Forest Service would be to 
sell the full 5 acres to Navajo County. Unfortunately, this 
option is not feasible due to time and cost constraints.
    As we learned from the sale of the Woodland Lake Park in 
Pinetop-Lakeside, Arizona, the process to purchase land from 
the U.S. Forest Service can take years, which is time the 
Pinedale residents simply don't have. As a matter of fact, I 
spoke with the local cemetery board, and learned they are 
considering closing off road space to use for burial space.
    In addition, we heard from the Forest Service the total 
acreage for this request is so small this project would not be 
expedited through the sale process.
    This request comes as a partnership between Navajo County, 
Apache County, the communities of Pinedale, the community of 
Alpine, the Apache-Sitgreaves Forest. Given the urgency of this 
issue, all these partners are committed to working to find a 
solution. We are asking Congress' help to pass legislation 
authorizing a congressional land delineation of 5 acres within 
the Sitgreaves Forest for the existing and expanded Pinedale 
Cemetery, and 10.62 acres within the Apache Forest for the 
existing expanded Alpine Cemetery. Without your help, families 
in these communities will be forced to make the heartbreaking 
decision to bury their family somewhere other than their 
hometown.
    Thank you for your time today, and I am available for 
questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Seymore follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Daryl Seymore, Navajo County Supervisor
                              District IV
                              on H.R. 3047

    Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and members of the sub-committee, for 
the opportunity to address you today. I'd also like to thank 
Representative Eli Crane for sponsoring this bill. My name is Daryl 
Seymore and I'm the Navajo County Supervisor for District 4 and I'm 
here to share information about the impacts of House Resolution 3047 
Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2023 on the 
unincorporated communities of Alpine and Pinedale Arizona.
    Navajo and Apache Counties are in the northeastern part of Arizona 
and are very rural with each county having a population of less than 
150,000 residents. These counties are steeped in tradition and can 
trace their origins to two very distinct communities: Native Americans 
and the early Pioneers. Both groups still have thriving communities 
within Navajo and Apache counties. As part of that history, many 
current residents can trace their family history back for generations 
and take great pride in being able to live, work, raise families, and 
eventually find their resting place in the same community. 
Unfortunately, the cemeteries in Alpine and Pinedale have reached their 
current capacity. Families are now seeking burial locations in other 
communities for their loved ones who have passed. This causes undue 
stress and hardships on the residents of Alpine and Pinedale. 
Therefore, I am respectfully asking your help to find an expedient 
solution to this pressing issue.
    The existing Alpine cemetery is 2.56 acres, which is leased from 
the U.S. Forest Service and abuts the Apache National Forest. It is 
estimated that the cemetery would need to expand an additional 8.06 
acres to accommodate current and future community burial needs bringing 
the total cemetery size to 10.62 acres.
    Apache County's Public Works Department has spent several years 
working with the Alpine District Rangers to identify possible options 
for the cemetery's expansion. After many attempts to acquire the 
expansion through the Townsite Act, it ultimately proved to be 
expensive, time consuming and burdensome. Alpine residents do not have 
any more time to find a solution and the only funding available goes 
entirely toward maintaining the cemetery grounds.
    Similarly, the existing Pinedale cemetery in Navajo County is 
approximately two and a half acres, which is leased from the U.S. 
Forest Service and borders the Sitgreaves National Forest. It is 
estimated that the cemetery would need to expand an additional two and 
a half acres to accommodate current and future community burial needs 
bringing the total cemetery size to 5 acres.
    Like Apache County, Navajo County's Public Works Department has 
spent just over two years working with Joshua Miller, District Ranger 
for the Lakeside Ranger District to identify possible options for the 
cemetery's expansion. After extensive conversations and hours of 
research, Mr. Miller learned that the only clear path forward for the 
U.S. Forest Service would be to sell the full 5 acres to Navajo County. 
Unfortunately, this option is not feasible due to time and cost 
constraints.
    As we learned from the sale of the Woodland Lake Park in Pinetop-
Lakeside, Arizona, the process to purchase land from the U.S. Forest 
Service can take years, which is time the Pinedale residents simply 
don't have! As a matter of fact, I spoke with the local cemetery board 
and learned they are considering closing off road space and using that 
for burial space. In addition, we heard from the Forest Services the 
total acreage for this request is so small, this project would not be 
expedited through the sale process.
    This request comes as a partnership between Navajo County, Apache 
County, the community of Pinedale, the community of Alpine, and the 
Apache-Sitgreaves Forests. Given the urgency of this issue, all these 
partners are committed to working together to find solutions. We are 
asking Congress' help to pass legislation authorizing a Congressional 
land delineation of 5 acres within the Sitgreaves Forest for the 
existing and expanded Pinedale cemetery and 10.62 acres within the 
Apache Forest for the existing and expanded Alpine cemetery. Without 
your help, families in these communities will be forced to make the 
heartbreaking decision to bury their family members somewhere other 
than their hometown.
    Thank you for your time today and I'm available for questions.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you very much, Supervisor. I now 
recognize Representative Amodei to introduce our next witness, 
the Honorable Bryce Shields.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesies.
    Bryce Shields is the District Attorney for Pershing County, 
Nevada, and has been in that position for 8 or 9 years. Getting 
back to local-based decisions on things like this, he is the 
representative for Pershing County that has come to our 
neighborhood today to testify in support of this section, which 
is the Pershing County Public Lands and Economic Development 
Act.
    You have his information in the booklet that we provided to 
you under the Pershing County tab. It includes a resolution 
from the Pershing County Commission, as well as Mr. Bryce's 
statement, and it is an interesting thing to notice that you 
are going to hear in that statement that, while it creates 
136,000 acres of potential wilderness, that it also releases 
nearly 50,000 acres of wilderness study areas, which is a big 
deal in Nevada.
    I would be remiss if I did not indicate that Mr. Shields' 
wife is here with him, who is, in fact, a native of Nevada and 
a member of the school board, and is here to encourage him. So, 
I don't want to get in trouble with his wife. You guys can do 
whatever you want with the District Attorney.
    Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Shields, you have 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRYCE SHIELDS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 
               PERSHING COUNTY, LOVELOCK, NEVADA

    Mr. Shields. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member 
Neguse, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank 
you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Pershing 
County. My name is Bryce Shields. I am the District Attorney of 
Pershing County.
    For the last 20 years, the county, together with a broad 
spectrum of stakeholders, has sought resolution of the county's 
long-standing public lands issues and associated economic woes, 
a veritable Gordian's knot. We believe that Title VI of H.R. 
3173 cuts this Gordian's knot, accomplishing three equally 
important objectives: (1) providing a rational, planned 
resolution to problems associated with checkerboard ownership 
patterns; (2) promoting favorable conditions for economic 
development and efficient resource management; and (3) 
protecting both the county's rural heritage and lands that 
truly are wild.
    Nevada's checkerboard ownership pattern, which is strewn 
across a 40-mile-wide swath on both sides of Interstate 80 in 
Pershing County, strains effective management of public lands 
and restricts public access within the checkerboard. This lack 
of access stands as a barrier to the county's ability to 
attract and guide development into sustainable patterns which, 
in turn, restricts the county's tax base.
    Compounding the problem, the Federal Government owns 75.6 
percent of the land within Pershing County, leaving only 24.4 
percent available for ad valorem taxation. Thus, of the small 
percentage of land subject to ad valorem taxation in Pershing 
County, an even smaller percent is suitable for development 
sufficient to yield tax proceeds of significant value.
    Title VI provides a solution to land management and 
development challenges by directing the sale or exchange of 
public lands within the checkerboard at fair market value. The 
proceeds of these transactions will be distributed among the 
BLM, county, and state. The revenue of these sales will enable 
the BLM to purchase lands within the county and improve public 
access, protect important landscapes, and conserve habitat.
    Additionally, the sale or exchange of checkerboard lands 
will likely encourage development in Pershing County 
communities along the Interstate 80 corridor by creating for 
the first time the prospect of contiguous parcels of private 
property within the checkerboard in areas suitable for 
development. Several businesses, including core mining, new 
Nevada lands, renewable energy developers, and a data center 
have already expressed interest in acquiring and consolidating 
blocks of private ownership within the checkerboard. Such 
development is crucial to expanding the county's tax base and 
bringing jobs to our economically stressed region.
    Title VI also designates approximately 136,000 acres of BLM 
as a wilderness within Pershing County in the following areas: 
Cain Mountain, Bluewing, Fencemaker, Grandfathers', Mount 
Limbo, and North Sahwave. In exchange, the bill releases 
roughly 48,000 acres of wilderness study areas throughout the 
county.
    As stewards of Pershing County's unique landscape, we 
support and recommend the designation of these areas as 
wilderness. Each of the seven areas under consideration 
represents some of the most beautiful lands in Pershing County, 
offering excellent wildlife habitat, spectacular scenery, and 
solitude. Many of these areas sustain the legacy of rural 
Nevada as the Bluewing, Fencemaker, Grandfather, and Mount 
Limbo support watershed vital to important ranches that have 
thrived in Pershing County for over 100 years. These lands are 
worthy of preservation for future generations.
    We invite the Subcommittee to consider that each proposed 
area was hand-picked through a collaborative process consisting 
of diverse stakeholders including the Board of County 
Commissioners, corporate citizens, conservationists, 
landowners, miners, ranchers, recreationists, sportsmen, and 
more. These designations enjoy the unanimous support of both 
the Board of County Commissioners and those who live, work, and 
recreate in Pershing County.
    In closing, we thank Congressman Amodei for his support of 
this important legislation, and we urge Congress to pass the 
bill this year.
    I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shields follows:]
   Prepared Statement of R. Bryce Shields, Pershing County District 
                                Attorney
                              on H.R. 3173

    Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse, on behalf of Pershing 
County, Nevada, please accept for the official record the testimony of 
R. Bryce Shields, Pershing County District Attorney, in support of H.R. 
3173, the Northern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act of 
2023. We express our sincere appreciation to Congressman Mark Amodei 
for his unflagging efforts, support, and dedication to this important 
legislation. While Pershing County endorses H.R. 3173 in its entirety, 
we submit this testimony specifically in support of Title VI of the 
bill, the Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation 
provisions.
    For the last twenty (20) years, the Pershing County Board of 
Commissioners (the ``BOC''), together with a broad spectrum of 
stakeholders, has sought the resolution of Pershing County's long-
standing public lands issues and concomitant economic woes, a veritable 
Gordian knot. H.R. 3173 represents a culmination of those united 
efforts, standing as a testament to the power of grassroots 
organization and collaborative bipartisan decision making. We believe 
that Title VI cuts this Gordian knot, accomplishing three equally 
important objectives: 1) Providing a rational, planned resolution to 
problems associated with checkerboard ownership patterns; 2) Promoting 
favorable conditions for economic development and efficient resource 
management; and 3) Protecting Pershing County lands that are truly 
wild, along with the County's rural heritage.
Rationalizing the Checkboard, Promoting Economic Development, and 
        Efficient Resource Management

    Nevada's checkboard ownership pattern, which is strewn across a 40-
mile-wide swath of land on each side of Interstate 80 in Pershing 
County, strains proper BLM management of public lands and restricts 
public access to checkboard lands due to the mixture of privately owned 
parcels. The lack of access to lands within the checkerboard operates 
as an economic barrier to the County's ability to attract and guide 
development into sustainable patterns, which in turn restricts the 
County's tax base. Compounding the problem, the Federal Government owns 
75.6% of the land within Pershing County leaving only 24.4% available 
for ad valorem taxation. Thus, of the small percentage of land subject 
to ad valorem taxation in Pershing County, an even smaller percentage 
is suitable for development sufficient to yield tax proceeds of 
significant value.
    Title VI or H.R. 3173 provides a solution to land management and 
development challenges by directing the sale or exchange of public 
lands within the checkerboard at fair market value. The proceeds of 
these transactions will be distributed as follows:

  1.  85% to Nevada's BLM to be used for ``willing seller'' land 
            purchases in Pershing County for conservation, wildlife 
            habitat, recreation, and preservation of other cultural and 
            ecological resources;

  2.  10% to the Pershing County budget;

  3.  5% to the state of Nevada general education fund per current law.

    The proceeds of sales should afford the BLM the opportunity to 
block up federal land holdings in sensitive areas more appropriate for 
conservation, recreation, and species habitat and control. In turn, the 
consolidation of federal property under BLM management, along with 
increased funding from the proceeds of sales, will likely enable the 
BLM to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance on public lands in 
accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
    Additionally, the sale or exchange of checkboard lands will likely 
encourage development in communities along the Interstate 80 corridor 
within Pershing County by creating, for the first time, the prospect of 
contiguous parcels of private property within the checkboard in areas 
suitable for development, i.e., areas in proximity to the power grid, 
rail transport, and Interstate 80. Several businesses including Coeur 
Mining, New Nevada Lands, renewable energy developers, and a data 
center project have expressed interest in acquiring and consolidating 
blocks of private ownership within the checkboard. Such development is 
crucial to expanding the County's tax base and bringing jobs to our 
economically stressed region.
Protecting Pershing County's Wildlands and Rural Heritage

    Title VI designates approximately 136,072 acres of BLM wilderness 
within the following areas of Pershing County: Cain Mountain (formerly 
Augusta Mountain), Bluewing, Fencemaker, Grandfather's (China Mountain 
and the Tobin Range), Mount Limbo, and North Sahwave. In exchange, the 
bill releases roughly 48,600 acres of Wilderness Study Areas throughout 
the County.
    As stewards of Pershing County's unique landscape, we support and 
recommend the designation of these areas as wilderness. Each of the 
seven areas under consideration represents some of the most beautiful 
lands in Pershing County, offering excellent wildlife habitat, 
spectacular scenery, and solitude. Many of these areas sustain the 
legacy of rural Northern Nevada, as the Bluewing, Fencemaker, 
Grandfather, and Mount Limbo support watersheds vital to important 
ranches that have thrived in Pershing County for over 100 years. These 
lands are worthy of preservation for future generations.
    We invite the Subcommittee to consider that each proposed area was 
handpicked through a collaborative process consisting of diverse 
stakeholders including the BOC, corporate citizens, conservationists, 
exploration geologists, landowners, miners, ranchers, recreationists, 
sportsmen, and more. These designations enjoy the unanimous support of 
both the BOC and others who live, work, and recreate in Pershing 
County. We urge Congress to respect the wishes of those who know the 
land and designate the proposed areas as wilderness.
    As validation of our recommendation, it is worth noting that 
Congress designated the portions of Cain Mountain that fall within 
Churchill and Lander Counties as wilderness under the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2023. On that basis, it is not unreasonable to 
conclude that the portion of Cain Mountain lying within Pershing County 
should likewise be designated as wilderness under Title VI of H.R. 
3173. Moreover, because the remaining six areas under consideration in 
Pershing County share the same characteristics as Cain Mountain, they 
too should be designated as wilderness.
    In closing, Pershing County appreciates the opportunity to provide 
testimony in support of H.R. 3173 and the Pershing provisions. We view 
this legislation as vital to the economic prosperity of Pershing County 
and the preservation of our lands for future generations. We urge the 
Subcommittee to pass this important bill this year.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, District Attorney. I would now like 
to recognize Representative Maloy to introduce our next 
witness, Mr. Scott Strong.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Scott Strong has been with the Utah Division of State Parks 
for almost 15 years. He loves the outdoors, and is passionate 
about creating positive outdoor experiences for visitors. He is 
dedicated to promoting an environment that is sustainable and 
enjoyable. But the most exciting part about this introduction 
is he has been the Director of State Parks for 2 weeks. So, he 
is one of the few people in this room who is newer at their job 
than I am.
    Thank you for being here, Mr. Strong.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Strong, you have 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF SCOTT STRONG, DIRECTOR, UTAH DIVISION OF STATE 
                  PARKS, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

    Mr. Strong. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman and 
members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me to testify in 
favor of the Utah State Parks Adjustment Act. My name is Scott 
Strong, and, as has been said, I am the Division of State Parks 
Director.
    In Utah, we are certainly well known for our Mighty Five 
national parks. We are also very proud of our 46 stunning state 
parks, where Utahns and our out-of-state guests are welcome to 
come and play, hike, fish, boat, mountain bike, camp, enjoy the 
outdoors, learn about our ancestry, and experience our pioneer 
heritage.
    On behalf of the Utah Division of State Parks, I am 
thrilled to support the Utah State Parks Adjustment Act. I want 
to thank Congresswoman Maloy, who is insightful and wise in her 
stewardship of public lands, including state parks public 
lands.
    I would like to discuss how this legislation will enable 
land conveyances that will improve three of our state parks and 
expand outdoor recreation and access in Utah.
    The first, Fremont Indian State Park. The Castle Rock 
campground is currently on land owned by the U.S. Forest 
Service for over two decades. Utah State Parks has operated 
this campground under a permit from the U.S. Forest Service. 
Our ambition is to modernize and improve the campground, which 
includes improving existing roads, trails, and essential 
utilities for the benefit and access of our users and visitors. 
A legislative directive enabling this land conveyance will 
empower Utah State Parks to enhance the campground and 
streamline on-site management.
    Antelope Island State Park. Our inholdings at Antelope 
Island State Parks were originally sanctioned under the U.S. 
Department of the Interior's Recreation and Public Purposes 
Act. Unfortunately, this lease was terminated by the Bureau of 
Land Management. Gaining ownership through legislative means 
would improve operational efficiencies and recreational 
amenities. We plan to integrate these parcels into the park's 
recreational offerings, while enhancing our trail network, 
which will expand public access at the park.
    Wasatch Mountain State Park. Like Antelope Island State 
Park, Wasatch Mountain State Park encompasses BLM inholdings of 
obscure mining claims. The conveyance of this land to Utah 
State Parks will mitigate administrative costs, streamline 
management, and improve recreational infrastructure.
    The inclusion of these parcels will expand the parks' 
outdoor recreational state and improve notable enhancements to 
the trail network, benefiting thousands of park visitors each 
year.
    In conclusion, the conveyance of these lands to Utah State 
Parks will unlock the potential for considerable improvements 
in public recreation, active land management, and 
administration efficiencies. Legislative support for these 
actions show a commitment to the well-being of our state's 
natural resources and to the communities that enjoy and rely on 
them.
    I urge the Committee to consider the positive impacts of 
these proposals. Please support our efforts to actively manage 
our natural resources for this generation and for future 
generations to come.
    Also, while I am here, I would like to invite each of the 
Members to come and explore Utah State Parks. They are unique 
places that you won't experience anywhere else. And I also want 
to encourage you to interact with our passionate staff who 
create experiences and memories that last a lifetime.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Strong follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Scott Strong, Director, Utah Department of 
               Natural Resources, Division of State Parks
                              on H.R. 7332

    Chairman Tiffany, I am privileged to endorse Representative Maloy's 
legislative proposal concerning Utah State Parks, which seeks to enable 
land transfers destined to improve and expand recreation in Utah.
Fremont Indian State Park:

    The main campground, Castle Rock Campground, alongside its 
utilities, is currently on land owned by the Department of Agriculture, 
United States Forest Service (USFS). For over two decades, we have 
operated this campground under a permit from the USFS, which must be 
renewed every five years. Our ambition to modernize this campground 
with necessary improvements such as paved roads, trails, and essential 
utilities is hindered by federal restrictions that mandate a more 
primitive setup due to our status as permittees.
    Discussions have occurred between the Utah State Parks (USP) and 
the local Forest Service Office regarding a potential land exchange. 
However, the absence of adjacent land owned by USP for such a trade 
complicates matters. A legislative directive facilitating this land 
transfer would empower USP to enhance the campground significantly, 
providing improved recreational facilities and streamlined onsite 
management.
Antelope Island State Park:

    Our tenure of the in-holdings at Antelope Island State Park was 
originally sanctioned under the Department of Interior's Recreation and 
Public Purposes Act. Unfortunately, this lease was terminated by the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), with no recourse for appeal. Gaining 
ownership through legislative means would reduce bureaucratic overhead, 
improve operational efficiency, and enhance recreational amenities. We 
aim to integrate these parcels into the park's recreational offerings, 
enhancing the trail network and public access.
Wasatch Mountain State Park:

    Similar to Antelope Island State Park, Wasatch Mountain State Park 
encompasses BLM in-holdings of unpatented mining claims within the 
Snake Creek Mining District, surrounded mostly by land owned by USP. 
The cancellation of our lease by BLM has prompted a need for ownership 
transfer to mitigate administrative costs, streamline management, and 
improve recreational infrastructure. The inclusion of these parcels 
would not only expand the park's recreational estate but also provide 
significant enhancements to the trail network, benefiting numerous 
outdoor enthusiasts.
    In conclusion, the transfer of these lands to Utah State Parks 
would unlock the potential for considerable improvements in public 
recreation, active land management efforts, and administrative 
efficiency. Legislative support for these actions would signify a 
commitment to the well-being of our state's natural resources and the 
communities that enjoy and rely on them. I urge the committee to 
consider the positive impacts of these proposals and support our 
efforts to secure a brighter, more accessible, and sustainable future 
for our state parks.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Director Strong, and I would 
reciprocate. Be sure to come to Wisconsin. You would see truly 
unique landscapes there also.
    Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Espaillat for an 
introduction of our next witness.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is with 
great pleasure that I present to you one of the 50 greatest 
players of the Rucker Pro League. He played with the great 
Meadowlark Lemon. We all remember the dribbling of Curly Neal 
and the dunks of Wilt Chamberlain. He is the Chairman of the 
retired Harlem Globetrotters and a pioneer of the ``Each One 
Teach One'' program.
    The Harlem Globetrotters have delighted the world, not just 
the nation, but the world, through sports and friendship.
    Please, Mr. Chairman, help me welcome the great Bobby 
``Zorro'' Hunter, a Harlem Globetrotter who is accompanied by 
his traditional historic red, white, and blue Harlem 
Globetrotter basketball.
    Mr. Hunter. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Hunter, I wish I could give you more than 
5 minutes. Well, I will give you a pass.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hunter. That is what we do.

 STATEMENT OF BOBBY ``ZORRO'' HUNTER, CHAIRMAN, RETIRED HARLEM 
GLOBETROTTERS, AMBASSADOR, WORLD CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, TAMARAC, 
                            FLORIDA

    Mr. Hunter. I thank you all because the Rucker Park 
International Monument will help the community. It helped me.
    Rucker Park is very important in my life. It saved me and 
Holcombe Rucker. He told me to say thank you and please go to 
the library. And he spoke in a voice that you can always 
remember. It wasn't offensive. So, every week I go to various 
basketball clinics and speaking engagements and try to speak in 
the same manner that he did so I could affect kids in the same 
way. And then I can see some like me, so I know exactly what to 
do.
    I recently saw Dr. J, who is the first one who did the 
``Each One Teach One'' basketball clinic. I learned a lot from 
Dr. J during that clinic. Kids were piling in from the streets, 
and Dr. J sat down and went over not only his life, but their 
life in a certain manner. And I was really surprised. I saw Dr. 
J in Vegas at the Legends, and I told him, I said, ``Dr. J, you 
remember you scored 56 points against me?''
    And he said, ``No.''
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hunter. I said, ``Well, that is not what bothers me. 
You came late, so you scored in a half-time, you scored 56 
points.''
    Bob McCullough and Freddie Crawford, they developed the 
``Each One Teach One'' and that whole Rucker Park scene of 
bringing in NBA players. Bob McCullough and Freddie Crawford 
did a magnificent job. NBA players such as Willis Reed; the 
Reverend Cazzie Russell; Dr. Jim, Reverend Bostic, a tough 
player, now he is a very kind reverend; Dave Collins, who would 
come down and feed the kids, trying to steal my fans before the 
game. I could go on and on with different athletes, such as Joe 
Hammond, the great Tiny Archibald, and Earl Manigault.
    What the young people have done in the community in 
imitating Rucker has truly been great. I have the ``Each One 
Teach One'' Drug Free America program. Bob McCullough, Jr. had 
the Each One tourism Rucker, where people would come and visit 
from all over the world. I practiced my Italian 2 years ago.
    The community saved a lot of people from harm in the manner 
of being a calm place where you enjoyed yourself, whether it 
was a concert, a basketball game, or if you were just there to 
see someone that you hadn't seen for a while.
    Bob McCullough helped me do a mixed gender basketball 
tournament there, where men and women played together. So, it 
was going to be the international love and peace mixed gender 
basketball teams. Men and women will be playing together in the 
community. I think this was a great thing in which he did. We 
are hoping to have this be a part of the Rucker.
    There are some other great players from the Rucker that I 
have not mentioned, but I do want to mention one. We almost had 
a president. Bill almost became president. That was really 
something. Bill Bradley would have been the president of the 
United States coming from the Rucker. That would have been 
something we could have been very proud of.
    The last Rucker player I am most proud of, that would be 
me. No, I. You can say from Rucker Park to Stanford University. 
Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bobby ``Zorro'' Hunter, Chairman, Retired Harlem 
               Globetrotters, Former Harlem Globetrotter,
     and International Goodwill Ambassador, World Mayors Conference
                              on H.R. 6852

    Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, Chairman Tiffany, 
and Ranking Member Neguse: Rucker Park holds immense significance for 
the community of Harlem and plays a pivotal role in tourism. Recently, 
a Harlem tour featuring Rucker Park, alongside other historical sites 
such as the Renaissance, underscored its importance.

    Today, I will speak passionately about Holcombe Rucker, my teacher 
and mentor, and his profound impact on me and countless other young men 
in our community.

    Additionally, I will highlight the invaluable contributions of the 
Rucker Park All-Stars and discuss the transformative ``Each One Teach 
One Program'' that originated from this historic basketball court and 
has since resonated across the United States. Noteworthy figures such 
as Dr. Reverend Jim Bostic, Reverend Cassie Russell, Bob McCullough, 
and Freddie Crawford, alongside revered players like Senator Bill 
Bradley, exemplify the enduring legacy of Rucker Park.

    Lastly, I will share the remarkable journey of my personal hero, 
myself, Bobby Hunter, who transitioned from Rucker Park to Stanford 
University, symbolizing the boundless potential nurtured within our 
community.

    Rucker Park is an integral part of Harlem, New York City, fostering 
pride and drawing visitors from around the globe. Its significance lies 
not only in its historical importance but also in the profound impact 
it has had on individuals like me, who have been fortunate enough to 
benefit from its legacy.

    Holcombe Rucker's commitment to uplifting and guiding youth, which 
facilitated over 700 scholarships through his program, is a testament 
to the enduring impact of his vision. The Rucker Park All-Stars, 
serving as beacons of inspiration, have cultivated a culture of 
excellence and mentorship, as evidenced by the far-reaching influence 
of the ``Each One Teach One Program.''

    Dr. Reverend Jim Bostic, Reverend Cassie Russell, Bob McCullough, 
and Freddie Crawford are among the esteemed individuals who have 
championed community empowerment through initiatives stemming from 
Rucker Park. Their efforts, alongside the achievements of players such 
as Tiny Archibald and Dr. J, epitomize the transformative potential of 
sports and mentorship.

    Moreover, the legacy of Rucker Park transcends sports, as 
exemplified by Senator Bill Bradley, whose journey from the court to 
the political arena underscores the power of community and opportunity.

    In conclusion, the designation of Holcombe Rucker Park as a 
National Commemorative Site is both warranted and overdue.

    I wholeheartedly endorse H.R. 6852--the Holcombe Rucker Park 
Landmark Act and extend my gratitude to Congressman Adriano Espaillat 
for his leadership in introducing this legislation. I also commend the 
Committee on Natural Resources for their consideration of this historic 
measure. As we move forward, I urge swift action to pass this 
legislation and honor the rich legacy of Rucker Park. Rest assured, 
countless supporters stand behind this non-controversial bill, eager to 
see it become law.

    In summary, Rucker Park's enduring legacy serves as a beacon of 
inspiration, impacting not only Harlem but communities far and wide. 
Its influence transcends generations, embodying the spirit of 
resilience, excellence, and community empowerment.

    Thank you for your time.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much, Mr. Hunter. And now I am 
going to recognize Ms. Annie Harris, Director and CEO of Essex 
Heritage.
    Ms. Harris, 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF ANNIE HARRIS, DIRECTOR AND CEO, ESSEX HERITAGE, 
                      SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS

    Ms. Harris. That is a tough act to follow, but good 
morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the 
Subcommittee. My name is Annie Harris, and I am Director of 
Essex Heritage, which is the management entity for the Essex 
National Heritage Area, which is the region in eastern 
Massachusetts just north of Boston. Our mission is to preserve 
and promote the Heritage Area's historic, cultural, and natural 
resources, and we accomplish our mission by working in 
collaborative partnerships with non-profits, government 
agencies, educational institutions, and citizen groups.
    And one of our most important historic resources and 
collaborative partners is with the Salem Maritime National 
Historic Site. I am here to speak in favor of the bill to 
change its name and to do a boundary study.
    Salem Maritime has 10 historic structures, 4 historic 
wharves, including Derby Wharf, where the replica tall ship 
Friendship is berthed. It also has a lighthouse and a museum 
collection with more than 4,500 objects, and the park owns and 
manages the Salem Regional Visitor Center in downtown Salem, 
where national park rangers welcome more than 300,000 visitors 
annually.
    Salem Maritime was established in 1938 as the first 
national historic site. It was created to preserve New England 
and America's maritime history and the development of 
international maritime trade starting in the late 17th century. 
But during the past eight decades, the original purpose has 
been expanded through additional legislation and boundary 
changes, and also new scholarship and interpretation, and now 
the focus has expanded to also include domestic life in 
colonial New England, northern slavery, 18th, 19th, and 21st 
century immigration, and traditional maritime shipbuilding.
    For these reasons, it is important to change the name of 
Salem Maritime to more accurately reflect the park's multiple 
nationally important themes and numerous historic, significant 
structures. The site's title, ``Historic Site,'' does not fully 
convey the rich, multi-faceted experience that this park 
provides to the American public. Renaming the park Salem 
Maritime National Historical Park will more accurately 
communicate to the public the larger themes and resources 
available at the park.
    I also want to speak in favor of the boundary study, which 
directs the Park Service to look at nearby resources associated 
with military history. Close to the Salem Maritime Site exists 
three very important American Revolutionary War forts. There is 
also the 1637 site of the first muster, which marks the 
beginnings of the National Guard. And within Salem Harbor, 
there are former shipyards, marine structures, and shipwrecks, 
signifying the area's extensive maritime heritage from the 
earliest times. The National Park Service study will help 
organize and elevate this information. And even if Congress 
ultimately decides not to extend Salem Maritime's boundaries to 
include any of these sites, the study will still be very 
beneficial in expanding the public's knowledge of this 
nationally significant history.
    And lastly, the redesignation will have positive economic 
benefits. The renaming will generate renewed interest from the 
media and visitors. The public is more likely to see the park 
as a significant destination worth visiting. The new name will 
provide more marketing opportunities to highlight the park's 
expansive scope, and it will bring more public attention to the 
fact that the history of Salem extends beyond the Salem witch 
trials of 1692. It will help spread these benefits of tourism 
beyond the months of September and October. The strengthening 
of visitation outside these months in the fall will increase 
the job opportunities in the city, provide more employment for 
local residents, and expand the tax revenue.
    Additionally, there will be new opportunities for Salem 
Maritime to increase revenue from new tours and special events.
    So, with that, I hope you will favorably look upon this 
bill, and thank you for the opportunity.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Harris follows:]
Prepared Statement of Annie C. Harris, Director and CEO, Essex National 
                       Heritage Commission, Inc.
                              on H.R. 1647

    Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank 
you for this opportunity to give testimony for H.R. 1647--the Salem 
Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act.
    My name is Annie Harris, and I am the Director and CEO of the Essex 
National Heritage Commission, Inc., commonly known as Essex Heritage, 
which is the management entity for the Essex National Heritage Area. 
The national heritage area was designed by Congress in 1996. It 
encompasses 500 square miles of eastern Massachusetts, north of Boston, 
stretching along the Atlantic coast to the New Hampshire border. The 
heritage area has a population of more than 800,000 people and hosts 
nearly 2 million visitors annually. The cultural and historic themes of 
the area are colonial era settlement, maritime industry & trade, the 
industrial revolution, and immigration. The natural resources in the 
area include significant marshlands and tidal estuaries, a rocky coast 
region, freshwater rivers, inland woodlands, historic farms, and town 
commons. Within the boundaries of the national heritage area, lie the 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Parker River National Wildlife Refuge, two 
national parks--Salem Maritime National Historic Site and Saugus Iron 
Works National Historic Site, 28 National Historic Landmarks, and 481 
National Register of Historic Places districts and sites. The Essex 
Heritage's mission is to preserve and promote these historic, cultural, 
and natural resources. We accomplish our mission by working 
collaboratively in partnerships with non-profits, governmental agencies 
(federal and state), municipalities, educational institutions, and 
citizen groups across the national heritage area.
    The Salem Maritime National Historic Site is one of the foremost 
historic resources within the Essex National Heritage Area. It was 
established in 1938 as the first National Historic Site in the United 
States \1\ and it was created to preserve and present America's and New 
England's maritime history and the important role that Salem played in 
the development of international maritime trade from the late 17th 
century through the 19th century. In the past 86 years, the original 
purpose has been expanded through additional legislation and boundary 
changes,\2\ accompanied by new scholarship and interpretation. The 
park's focus has grown to include the domestic life of colonial Salem, 
northern slavery, 19th and 20th century immigration and industrial 
history, and the evolution of historic preservation and cultural 
landscape practices.\3\ Recent scholarship has identified that the 
nationally important themes of Coastal Defense (1640-WWII), and US 
Military History including the Birthplace of the National Guard could 
also be more fully told by this park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ www.NPS.gov/sama/index.htm
    \2\ PL 88-199, PL 95-625, PL 101-632
    \3\ Foundation Document, Salem Maritime National Historic Site; 
National Park Service, US Department of the Interior; 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Salem Maritime National Historic Site contains 10 historic 
structures, numerous archeological resources, four historic wharves, a 
lighthouse, a museum collection with more than 4,500 objects, and a 
significant cultural landscape including the tall ship Friendship of 
Salem, a replica of an 18th century merchant vessel. The park owns and 
manages the Salem Regional Visitor Center located beyond the park's 
boundary in downtown Salem. At this visitor center, NPS rangers welcome 
more than 300,000+ annual visitors to the park and to the heritage 
area. The park also collaborates outside its boundaries with numerous 
heritage resources and has formed partnerships with other organizations 
to extend its interpretive and educational outreach. These 
collaborations include working with the Essex National Heritage Area, 
the Peabody Essex Museum, the Salem Athenaeum, The House of the Seven 
Gables, the region's National Historic Landmarks and National Register 
Districts along with other historical societies, museums, and historic 
preservationists.
    For these reasons, it is important to change the name of the Salem 
Maritime to more accurately reflect the park's multiple, nationally 
important themes and numerous historically significant structures. The 
title historic site does not fully convey the rich, multifaceted 
experience that this park provides to the American public. The National 
Park Service explains in its literature that ``national historic sites 
. . . contain a single historical feature, but national historical 
parks . . . discuss multiple stories from different times.'' \4\ Also, 
park units that have non-contiguous resources are usually given the 
broader title of historical park. Redesignating the site as the Salem 
Maritime National Historical Park will more accurately communicate to 
the public the larger themes, stories, and resources available at this 
park, and the new name will similarly assist in communicating that the 
downtown visitor center is part of the park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.doi.gov/blog/americas-public-lands-explained
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would like to speak also in favor of the boundary study whose 
purpose is to study and evaluate sites and resources associated 
military and maritime history in the greater Salem area. Within a mile 
of Salem Maritime still stand three very important Revolutionary War 
sites--Fort Lee, Fort Pickering, and Fort Sewall. There is also the 
site of the 1637 first muster which marked the beginnings of the 
National Guard. Within Salem Harbor lie former shipyards, maritime 
structures, aids to navigation, natural hazards, and shipwrecks, 
abundant reminders of the area's extensive maritime heritage from 
Indigenous settlements through World War I--with especially rich 
historical artifacts from the 18th and 19th centuries. As technology 
and research have become more sophisticated, these objects and sites 
are easier to identify and interpret. The NPS study will enhance the 
growing body of knowledge and support this scholarly research. Even if 
the National Park Service and Congress ultimately decide not to extend 
Salem Maritime's boundaries to include any additional sites, the study 
will be beneficial in expanding our collective knowledge of this 
nationally significant history.
    Lastly, we believe that the redesignation will have several 
positive economic benefits for the park and the City of Salem. Renaming 
the site will generate renewed interest from tourists and the media and 
serve to elevate its status in the public eye. Visitors will be more 
likely to view the park as a significant destination worth visiting, 
thereby increasing foot traffic and tourism revenue. The new name will 
provide more marketing opportunities to highlight the park's expanded 
scope and draw attention to its diverse historical attractions. It will 
also help to signify that the history of Salem extends far beyond the 
Salem Witch Trials of 1692. It will serve to attract a broader audience 
to visit Salem, and it is likely to spread the benefits of tourism 
beyond the months of September and October. This, in turn, will 
strengthen the city's job opportunities in the hospitality, retail, and 
tourism sectors, providing more employment for local residents and 
generating tax revenue for the community. Additionally, there will be 
new opportunities for revenue generation at the park site from tours 
and special events.
    In summary, I hope that this committee will look favorably on the 
proposed legislation. Thank you for this opportunity to present my 
testimony.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much, Ms. Harris. Now, I want 
to recognize Representative LaLota to introduce our next 
witness.
    Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Chairman. Traveling to our great 
Nation's Capital all the way from New York, Long Island, 
Suffolk County, but most specifically, the great town of 
Southold, is my constituent, Ms. Louise Harrison of Save the 
Sound.
    Ms. Harrison, thanks so much for being with us today.
    Ms. Harrison is a conservation biologist who has served on 
Long Island in various Federal, New York State, and Suffolk 
County agencies as well as in leadership and consulting 
positions for non-profit environmental organizations. Ms. 
Harrison has served as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
liaison to the Long Island Sound Study, where she concentrated 
on stewardship of Long Island Sound's ecosystems, habitat 
restoration projects, and invasive species control.
    Ms. Harrison also has extensive field experience working 
with coastal communities and natural ecosystems from the 
boroughs of New York City all the way out to Montauk and Orient 
Points, and has received numerous awards for open space 
preservation efforts. In fact, in 2009, Ms. Harrison was 
awarded the Star Award from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
for her leadership in Long Island Sound stewardship.
    Ms. Harrison currently serves as the Long Island Natural 
Areas Manager for Save the Sound, a local non-profit whose 
mission it is to protect and improve the land, air, and water 
of the whole Long Island Sound region.
    Thank you again, and we appreciate you being with us today.
    Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Harrison, you have 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF LOUISE HARRISON, LONG ISLAND NATURAL AREAS 
          MANAGER, SAVE THE SOUND, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK

    Ms. Harrison. Chairperson Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, 
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 
speak about H.R. 1584, the Plum Island National Monument Act.
    Thank you, Representative LaLota, for introducing this 
legislation and for your leadership on this issue, and to 
Representatives Courtney, Garbarino, D'Esposito, Himes, and 
Lawler for co-sponsoring this important bipartisan legislation.
    My name is Louise Harrison, Long Island Natural Areas 
Manager at Save the Sound. It is an honor to be here today to 
address this legislation. I am speaking on behalf of Save the 
Sound and the Preserve Plum Island Coalition.
    Save the Sound leads environmental action in the Long 
Island Sound region. We fight climate change, save endangered 
lands, protect the sound and its rivers, and work with nature 
to restore ecosystems. We know that Long Island Sound is among 
the most important and valuable estuaries in the nation, 
generating over $9 billion annually. And at the eastern end of 
Long Island Sound is Plum Island, New York.
    The 125-plus national, regional, and local organizations of 
the Preserve Plum Island Coalition are united by our goal of 
achieving permanent protection for the remarkable ecological, 
historical, and cultural resources of Plum Island. Save the 
Sound coordinates the coalition's activities. The coalition 
enthusiastically supports H.R. 1584 to designate Plum Island as 
a national monument for the purpose of ecological conservation, 
historical preservation, and the discovery and celebration of 
our shared cultural heritage. We found widespread support from 
across the United States for preserving this national treasure 
in the public trust.
    The benefits of preserving Plum Island and its ecological 
riches at the very entrance to Long Island Sound are many. A 
national monument could return sustainable access to the 
people. It could tell the story of a unique American landscape, 
a key component of one of the very last wild coastal ecosystems 
where the waters of two national estuaries meet and mix.
    Since the 1660s, most people's access to Plum Island has 
been severely restricted or even prohibited. We want to reverse 
this inequity. The Montaukett Indian Nation has told us that 
Plum Island is an important part of their cultural heritage and 
historical territory. Access restored will offer the chance 
once again to practice cultural traditions and visit sacred 
sites.
    Although Plum Island already is recognized for being part 
of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service significant coastal 
habitat, and is designated as a unit of the John H. Chafee 
Coastal Barrier Resources System, and is the site of the Plum 
Island Light Station and the Fort Terry Historic District, both 
on the National Register of Historic Places, and adjoins the 
Plum Gut significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat under 
the Coastal Zone Management Act, it has no permanent 
protection. Its fate is unknown.
    The organizations in the Preserve Plum Island Coalition, 
whose members count in the millions, believe it should remain 
in the public trust for the purposes stated in the bill. A 
designation would allow for management planning to begin now. 
Multiple themes and attributes may be combined for protection, 
further research, public access, and education. We see the 
national monument as the model offering the greatest 
flexibility.
    Plum Island is the biological linchpin of a beautiful chain 
of islands between three states: New York, Connecticut, and 
Rhode Island. Its iconic lighthouse and wild shores are in the 
view of thousands of boaters, fishers, and inter-state ferry 
passengers who wonder about it and wait for the chance to get 
closer to this part of American history and the American story. 
Let us celebrate and protect this national treasure with the 
passage of H.R. 1584.
    Thank you for this opportunity to present our support 
today.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Harrison follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Louise Harrison, Long Island Natural Areas 
                        Manager, Save the Sound
                              on H.R. 1584

    Chairperson Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for your invitation to speak before you today 
about H.R. 1548, the Plum Island National Monument Act. Thank you to 
Representative LaLota for introducing this legislation and for his 
leadership on this issue, and to Representatives Courtney, Garbarino, 
D'Esposito, Himes, and Lawler for co-sponsoring this important 
bipartisan legislation.
    My name is Louise Harrison, Long Island Natural Areas Manager at 
Save the Sound. It is an honor to be here today and address this 
legislation. I do so on behalf of Save the Sound and the Preserve Plum 
Island Coalition.

    Save the Sound leads environmental action in the Long Island Sound 
region. We fight climate change, save endangered lands, protect the 
Sound and its rivers, and work with nature to restore ecosystems. Save 
the Sound is a founding member of the Preserve Plum Island Coalition; 
we coordinate the coalition's activities.

    The Preserve Plum Island Coalition (PPIC) is made up of over 120 
national, regional, and local organizations. The mission of the PPIC is 
to

        secure the permanent protection of the significant natural, 
        historical, and cultural resources of Plum Island. The PPIC 
        advocates for comprehensive conservation and management 
        solutions that safeguard this national treasure in the public 
        trust as a national monument, wildlife refuge, preserve, or 
        other equivalent protection, with carefully managed and 
        equitable public access, in perpetuity. Through the course of 
        this incredible multi-year campaign, the mission of the PPIC 
        has been refined to clarify and prioritize the most promising 
        opportunities for the permanent preservation of this 
        magnificent natural and cultural asset.

    We enthusiastically support H.R. 1584 and its resulting designation 
of federally owned Plum Island as a national monument for the purpose 
of ecological conservation, historical preservation, and the discovery 
and celebration of our shared cultural heritage.
Widespread Support

    We invite you to visit the PPIC's website, https://
www.preserveplumisland.org, where you will find a great deal of 
information about Plum Island, our campaign, and the widespread support 
from across the United States for preserving this national treasure. We 
especially encourage examination of the volume we compiled last 
September, Plum Island Campaign Support, which contains over a decade 
of expressed support from elected officials, organizations, 
individuals, and media outlets for protecting Plum Island. This 
document may be found on our website's campaign support page.
Introduction

    Preserving Plum Island as a national monument would return 
sustainable, managed access to this federal asset to the people and 
help tell the story of a unique American landscape in Eastern Long 
Island Sound. About 110 miles from New York City, the island is a key 
component of one of the very last large, wild, coastal ecosystems in 
the nationally celebrated Long Island Sound and Peconic Estuary--both 
designated National Estuaries. Plum Island is where, for thousands of 
years, people interacted with and were served by nature, and where, for 
the past few hundred years, most people's access has been severely 
restricted or even prohibited.
    The Montaukett Indian Nation was dispossessed of Plum Island in the 
1600s. Private ownership and subsequent federal uses of the island as a 
military installation and, later, security surrounding the island's 
famous animal disease research laboratory have made Plum Island off 
limits for most people. Now that the Department of Homeland Security is 
nearing the end of its mission on the island, it is time to declare 
that Plum Island truly belongs to the people of the United States whose 
history it so well charts. To return to the people the stewardship and 
enjoyment of the island's significant ecological and cultural riches, 
the PPIC seeks permanent protection of the island and long-term, 
public-philanthropic stewardship and potential public-private 
partnerships.
    Over 600 acres of this 822-acre island have been given defacto 
protection from development in the past 70 years because they buffer 
the successor to Fort Terry, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center 
(PIADC), which is overseen by the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS). DHS is preparing for the PIADC's world-famous food-security 
research on animal diseases to be transferred to the new National Bio 
and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas. DHS endeavors to 
decommission the Plum Island facility and to meet the New York State 
Department of Environmental Conservation's cleanup requirements.
    The location and geology of the island, its agrarian use before the 
federal purchase (in 1897 and 1901), and Army and DHS measures limiting 
development and access, have resulted in tremendous biological 
diversity. The island is home to 111 at-risk plant and animal species. 
Two hundred and twenty-nine (229) species of birds have been sighted 
there, which is nearly a quarter of all bird species in North America, 
north of Mexico. The island hosts 24 different ecological communities. 
Together and in their island context, these habitats are integral to 
the basis for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's designating 
Plum Island as part of a Significant Coastal Habitat. A 97-acre 
freshwater wetland affords habitat and drinking water for island and 
wetland wildlife. The island is surrounded by pristine underwater 
communities teeming with marine life, which have remained that way due 
to lack of extensive development on the island
    Endangered Roseate Terns forage in the waters around Plum Island 
and take shelter on its rocky shores. The island also is home to one of 
the largest seal haul-out areas in Southern New England and the largest 
one in New York State.
    Plum Island has become the biological linchpin of a beautiful New 
York archipelago that adjoins Connecticut and Rhode Island and is in 
view of thousands of boaters, fishers, and ferry passengers.
Preservation through a National Monument Designation

    The PPIC supports a national monument designation as a vehicle for 
preservation because it can permit flexibility in coordinating and 
comprehensively managing Plum Island's wide array of resources--
ecological, historical, cultural--and, through a carefully crafted 
management plan, lead to custom-tailoring a sustainable, equitable 
visitation program. Under a national monument designation, multiple 
themes and attributes may be combined for protection, further research, 
and public access and education.
    Designation will begin the process of righting long-standing wrongs 
that have prevented members of the Montaukett Indian Nation, an 
historic tribe seeking federal reaffirmation, from visiting the island. 
The Montauketts have told us they consider Plum Island to be an 
important part of their cultural heritage and territory. Restoring 
access to Plum Island will give them the chance, after more than three-
and-a-half centuries, to practice cultural traditions and visit sacred 
sites. A Plum Island National Monument will also help educate the 
public about the significance of the island's Trust species, rare 
plants and animals, exemplary ecological communities, and its 
fascinating role in American history.
Near-term Action and Management Planning

    The PPIC believes it is imperative to designate Plum Island as a 
national monument now to prevent degradation of some of what makes Plum 
Island so special. The Department of Homeland Security has already 
engaged in extensive outdoor restoration, and it can complete 
decommissioning of the indoor facilities notwithstanding a national 
monument designation. We support designation as a national monument as 
soon as possible, with management planning commencing immediately. This 
can be accomplished with support of the PPIC and Friends of Plum 
Island, a 501(c)(3) organization, and involve members of the Montaukett 
Indian Nation and the general public.
    Although more can always be learned about the island's fascinating 
resources, there is a great deal of information already available on 
Plum Island's biodiversity and history. Resource management planning, 
undertaken as soon as possible and employing the vast amount of 
information already available, will help ensure protection of sensitive 
ecological communities and species. This can allow near-term control of 
adverse impacts, such as incursions of invasive species, already 
gaining a foothold and posing threats to nesting birds, rare plants, 
and wetland resources. Rooftop maintenance of former Army barracks 
would help prevent further deterioration while historic resource 
inventories proceed under the Section 106 report currently in 
preparation by DHS.
    A management plan should guide future public access and education, 
ensuring that visitation is not only equitable but that it also 
proceeds at environmentally sustainable levels and frequency, once the 
laboratory facility is fully decommissioned.
Envisioning Plum Island

    Save the Sound and The Nature Conservancy in 2018 and 2019 
conducted Envision Plum Island to articulate a vision for the island's 
future. In this process, hundreds of stakeholders met in small and 
large groups, aided by consulting firm Marstel-Day, LLC, to create a 
plan that is now reflected in the core elements of H.R. 1584's 
designation of Plum Island as a national monument. The report we 
produced, available on the PPIC website, here, was presented in 2020 to 
the members of Congress who had requested it; within six months, 
Congress repealed its previous requirement to sell Plum Island at a 
public sale (laws enacted in 2008 and 2012). We were greatly relieved 
that Plum Island was off the ``auction block,'' but the desire to find 
a permanent preservation solution was stronger than ever, bolstered by 
the growing enthusiasm generated by Envision Plum Island and shown in 
PPIC's growth in membership.
Updated Vision

    The PPIC since has revised the Plum Island vision somewhat, based 
on changing circumstances, such as the repeal of the sale language, the 
subsequent reinstatement of the normal federal property disposition 
process, and the existence of a major donor. The donor has expressed 
interest in funding stewardship, programs, and other long-term 
preservation activities at Plum Island. In addition, we consider 
historical preservation to be achievable through interpretation of the 
island's rich history for the public, instead of requiring structures 
to be rehabilitated or opened for visitation--though conversion of a 
small Army building into an educational outpost is something to 
consider in the future for the researchers who have expressed strong 
interest in accessing the island for research and teaching reasons.
    Rather than a full transfer of Plum Island to New York State, as we 
had previously envisioned, the PPIC now fully supports a federal 
approach that partners with the Montaukett Indian Nation, the State of 
New York, local entities, and the community. We call for a full telling 
and reckoning of America's history--from times of ecological abundance 
to those of significant cultural disservice, and on further to the last 
70 years of globally significant scientific inquiry and innovation at 
the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. We are not surprised and are 
delighted to know that the PIADC is being considered for listing on the 
National Register of Historic Places. There is also a highly 
significant civil rights court martial that occurred on the island in 
1914 that is worthy of further study and recognition.
    We also envision a visitor center and small museum at the 
government-owned Plum Island ferry parcel at Orient Point--across Plum 
Gut from Plum Island--in an existing building, which would attract many 
daily visitors disembarking the highly successful Cross Sound Ferry, 
situated immediately next door, within walking distance. The benefits 
of preserving Plum Island and its ecological riches, at the very 
entrance to Long Island Sound--which plays a huge role in supporting 
the regional economy--are nearly inestimable.
    Our vision can be fully realized through the designation of Plum 
Island as a national monument.
Economic Value

    The countless activities dependent on Long Island Sound generate 
about $9.4 billion annually (adjusted for inflation in 2015 dollars) in 
the regional economy, according to the Long Island Sound Study. With 
the uses it serves and the recreational opportunities it provides, Long 
Island Sound is among the most important and valuable estuaries in the 
nation. Of course, water quality, living resources, and habitats keep 
this economic engine running.
    Plum Island may be seen as the biological and ecological linchpin 
of an archipelago that reaches across the outer, eastern Long Island 
Sound from the North Fork of Long Island, all the way to Napatree Point 
in Rhode Island. Careful stewardship of this landscape is required to 
protect the special ``cocktail'' of clean, oxygenated ocean water mixed 
with productive estuarine waters that makes Long Island Sound the 
economic powerhouse it is today. A national monument designation of the 
island will enhance this value economically by providing educational, 
research, and cultural opportunities that adhere to a resource-focused 
management plan for long-term stewardship and sustainability.
Studies of Plum Island

    The Preserve Plum Island Coalition has compiled information we 
present here today, as well as much more, using numerous professional 
studies and publications. We would be pleased to provide a full 
bibliography on request. We especially rely on and encourage 
examination of:

     Professional biodiversity field studies of Plum Island 
            undertaken by the New York Natural Heritage Program, 
            available at https://www.nynhp.org/projects/plum-island-
            inventory/.

     Extensive research on Plum Island history, presented in A 
            World Unto Itself--The Remarkable History of Plum Island, 
            New York, by Ruth Ann Bramson, Geoffrey K. Fleming, and Amy 
            Kasuga Folk, 2014, (388 pp.). Available through the 
            Southold Historical Society.

     An inquiry into the Montaukett Indian Nation's 
            dispossession of Plum Island by celebrated scholar on Long 
            Island Native Americans, John A. Strong, in an article 
            entitled, ``The Plum Island deed game: A case study in 
            dispossession of Indian land on Long Island,'' published in 
            the Journal of the Suffolk County Historical Society, 
            Volume XXXI, December 2017 (pp. 3-25).

    The following people have contributed information that supplements 
this testimony:

     Marian Lindberg, Conservation Projects Manager, The Nature 
            Conservancy in New York

     Matthew Schlesinger, Chief Zoologist, New York Natural 
            Heritage Program

     John Turner, Spokesperson for the Preserve Plum Island 
            Coalition and Senior Conservation Policy Advocate, Seatuck 
            Environmental Association

Special Designations

    Because of its location, natural features, and ecological 
communities, Plum Island has received, or lies within areas that have 
received, the following government recognition and designations:

     Within (at confluence of) two estuaries designated by 
            Congress as Estuaries of National Significance--Long Island 
            Sound (Long Island Sound Study) and the Peconic Estuary 
            (Peconic Estuary Partnership)

     Designated a unit (NY-24) of the John H. Chafee Coastal 
            Barrier Resources System (CBRS)

     Within four miles of the Connecticut National Estuarine 
            Research Reserve (NERR), a formal partnership between NOAA 
            and the state of Connecticut, designated in 2022 and 
            encompassing 52,160 upland and offshore acres

     Part of an NEP Long Island Sound Study Stewardship Area 
            (``Plum and Gull Islands'')

     Part of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Significant 
            Coastal Habitat (Site 7)

     Adjoins New York State's Plum Gut Significant Coastal Fish 
            and Wildlife Habitat

     Within New York State's Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle 
            Protection Area

     Within the Suffolk County, New York, Peconic Bay Environs 
            Critical Environmental Area

     350 acres zoned as Town of Southold's Plum Island 
            Conservation District (PlC)

     Site of the Plum Island Light Station, listed on the 
            National Register of Historic Places

     Site of Fort Terry Historic District, listed on the 
            National Register of Historic Places

Biological and Ecological Significance of Plum Island

    Despite a long history of human use, Plum Island and the marine 
waters immediately surrounding it contain a diverse assemblage of 
natural communities. The island's natural, terrestrial ecological 
communities--totaling more than two dozen, according to an assessment 
by the New York Natural Heritage program--have remained nearly 
untouched since the 1950s, when the U.S. Army ended its use of the 
island. These natural ecological communities range from forested areas, 
including successional maritime forests, maritime shrub- and heathland 
communities, and a wetland forest dominated by red maple and black 
tupelo to an extensive 97-acre freshwater wetland, where blueberry bog 
thickets, emergent marsh, and shrub swamps provide habitat for wetland-
dependent plant and animal species.
    Plum Island boasts marine rocky subtidal and intertidal, beach, 
bluff, and dune communities which ring the island; five of these have 
been identified as significant by the New York Natural Heritage 
Program. A maritime dune community exists in the southwestern corner of 
Plum Island and this area and a wide sandy beach along the island's 
southern boundary provide nesting habitat to Piping Plover (Charadrius 
melodus), the East Coast population of which is listed as a threatened 
species under the Endangered Species Act. American Oystercatcher 
(Haematopus palliatus) also breeds on its sandy beaches. Several of 
these natural communities are rare in New York State or regionally, and 
a few, such as maritime dunes and heathlands, represent especially 
high-quality examples.
    The island's assemblage of natural communities supports many plant 
and animal species. Two-hundred-twenty (220) bird species were seen on 
Plum Island from 2006 to 2016, which is more than one fifth of the 
1,023 species comprising total avifauna of the North American continent 
north of Mexico, with 61 species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), 
17 of which are high priority SGCN as classified by the New York State 
Department of Environmental Conservation. The latest count of birds 
seen at Plum Island is 229. The bird surveys have been performed by and 
on behalf of Audubon New York, which has designated Orient Point and 
Plum Island as an Important Bird Area.
    Several dozen bird species breed here, while many others pass 
through during migration or overwinter on the island. The high 
frequency of sightings of large numbers of passerines during spring and 
fall migration underscores the island's significant value in providing 
migratory stop-over habitat. Birds of prey occur on Plum Island. 
Although the number of nests fluctuates, as many as ten Osprey (Pandion 
haliaetus) nests have existed on Plum Island. Northern Harrier (Circus 
cyaneus) occur here too, as do several accipiter and falcon species 
during migration. Several Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) colonies exist 
in the high bluffs situated along the southern shoreline of the island; 
the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology website All About Birds reports 
that in general Bank Swallow numbers have crashed by an estimated 89% 
since 1970.
    A notable component regarding the island's avifauna is its value to 
several species of rare terns, including Common Tern (Sterna hirundo), 
a state-listed threatened species, and Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii), 
a state- and federally listed endangered bird. These species breed on 
nearby Great Gull Island, which boasts the largest breeding colony of 
Roseate Terns in the western hemisphere, containing as many as 1,300 
breeding pairs, and the largest breeding colony of Common Terns in the 
world, with approximately 9,500 pairs. Plum Island serves as 
developmental habitat for these species, where they often rest, and the 
waters surrounding the island are rich in the bait fish on which these 
species forage. With sea level rise likely to adversely impact Great 
Gull Island, Plum Island may take on much greater significance in the 
future in providing breeding habitat for Roseate and Common Terns.
    One of the larger seal haul-out sites in southern New England, and 
the largest in New York, occurs along the southern side of the eastern 
tip of the island. During the winter months, several hundred harbor 
seals (Phoca vitulina) and several dozen grey seals (Halichoerus 
grypus) can be seen resting on large offshore boulders or swimming in 
the waters in between.
    Immediately surrounding Plum Island are high quality marine 
communities in New York State waters containing a high diversity of 
species. These communities include an eelgrass meadow north of the 
island's harbor, an eelgrass restoration area along the southeastern 
shore, and a New York State--significant intertidal rocky shoreline, 
among others. Two scientific dive surveys to investigate marine biota 
have taken place in the waters around Plum Island over the past decade; 
scientists documented 126 species of marine flora and fauna, including 
macroalgae, sponges, corals, bryozoans, jellyfish, comb jellies, crabs, 
tubeworms, gastropods, bivalves, and barnacles. The large, submerged 
boulders are a common colonization site for many of these species.
    Regarding the terrestrial flora of Plum Island, a 2013 professional 
paper by Ph.D. botanist Eric E. Lamont, published in the Journal of the 
Torrey Botanical Society notes: ``Plum Island, New York, has one of the 
highest concentrations of rare plants in the state and supports a high 
diversity of native plant species. The island's varied topography and 
diverse ecological communities have contributed to the diverse flora; 
for much of the past 100 years, approximately 90% of the island has 
remained undeveloped. The vascular flora consists of 414 species within 
270 genera and 92 families. Twenty-three species are listed as 
endangered, threatened, or rare in New York. Of these 23 species, 17 
are extant, having been observed in the field during this study, and 
six are considered extirpated . . .'' Spring ladies' tresses 
(Spiranthes vernalis), a graceful and beautiful orchid species, serves 
as an excellent example of the many rare plants occurring here--a very 
rare species in the state--and as many as several hundred plants have 
been found in the former military parade grounds region of Plum Island.
    The ecological relationships between the federally owned Plum 
Island, the biologically diverse and clean waters of eastern Long 
Island Sound and the Peconic Estuary, and nearby islands in the same 
archipelago are significant and interdependent.
History of Plum Island

    It is our understanding that the Department of Homeland Security is 
preparing an NHPA Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) and Historic 
Properties Management Plan as part of its required work in the 
decommissioning of the PIADC. We look forward to reading it and hope it 
can be a useful component of a comprehensive Plum Island resource 
management plan.
    Much of what we offer below is based on the Bramson et al. book, A 
World Unto Itself--The Remarkable History of Plum Island, New York; 
Robert Hefner's 1998 Historic Resources Survey: Plum Island, New York; 
and research conducted by Marian Lindberg in preparation for her 2020 
book, Scandal on Plum Island--A Commander becomes the Accused. We will 
gladly provide additional references on request.
1600s

    After its dispossession from the Montauketts in the mid-1600s, as 
stated in A World Unto Itself, ``Plum Island's story is really 
America's story, in miniature.''
    In 1675, prevailing over other colonists who sought ownership of 
Plum Island, Samuel Wyllys [Willis] received a patent and manorial 
rights to the island from Edmund Andros, the fourth colonial governor 
of New York. Wyllys, a Connecticut magistrate, and son-in-law of 
Connecticut's first governor, had helped Andros gain the allegiance of 
the three eastern Long Island towns (including Plum Island's town of 
Southold) after the towns' leaders resisted New York's authority, 
citing Connecticut's help defending them against the Dutch.
    Wyllys did not live on Plum Island, but used its land to graze 
livestock, possibly for shipment to Antigua, where he co-owned a sugar 
plantation and at least some of the workers were enslaved. The possible 
role of Plum Island in supporting the sugarcane economy is of interest 
to the Plain Sight Project.
1700s

    Plum Island was divided into separate farm holdings controlled by a 
few families after Wyllys sold the island to John Dudley, the son of a 
Massachusetts Bay Colony governor and future governor himself of the 
Province of Massachusetts Bay and New Hampshire.
    In August 1775, the British stole livestock from Plum Island, 
inciting a naval skirmish. Long Island fell to the British one year 
later, by which time residents of Plum Island had fled to the mainland. 
``During the revolution, the British fleet used Plum Island primarily 
as a source of clean water for its warships. Other resources, such as 
lumber, grain, corn and livestock, were also seized.''
1800s

    Residents returned to Plum Island after the Revolutionary War, but 
in the War of 1812, ``Plum Island became a staging location for British 
and, early on, American naval forces,'' including a blockade by the 
Royal Navy, according to A World Unto Itself. Although the war ended in 
December 1814, British ships remained around Plum Island until March 
1815.
    With the construction of a light station in 1829, a lighthouse 
keeper joined the farming families on Plum Island. Nonetheless, 
shipwrecks occurred because of the unpredictable currents of Plum Gut. 
The lighthouse was replaced in 1869; this structure remains and is 
listed as the Plum Island Light Station in the National Register of 
Historic Places.
    During the mid- to late-1800s, city dwellers seeking to escape 
urban heat and boaters began visiting Plum Island in summertime. 
Farmers allowed clubs to set up camps, and the lighthouse keeper 
provided meals. The fishing around Plum Island became known as so 
exceptional that even Grover Cleveland fished its waters.
    Beginning in 1883, a man acting secretly on behalf of unidentified 
investors bought the farms of Plum Island, leading to ownership of the 
island (except the lighthouse) in 1889 by Abram Hewitt, a wealthy 
industrialist and recent New York City mayor. It was rumored that 
Hewitt intended to build a resort, but the United States had a 
different plan: national security. In 1897, as tensions heated up with 
Spain over its occupation of Cuba, Congress authorized a defense post 
on Plum Island because of its strategic location at the mouth of Long 
Island Sound. Hewitt sold Plum Island for the construction of the 
Army's Fort Terry in two installments, 193 acres in 1897, and 647 acres 
in 1901.
1900s to Present

    Most of the buildings at Fort Terry (1898-1948) were constructed 
between 1898 and 1912.
    The central administrative structures remain in their original 
locations, adjacent to the former parade grounds, including ``Endicott 
and Taft Period post buildings which are significant for representing 
national types,'' according to Robert Hefner in his 1998 Historic 
Resources Survey: Plum Island, New York. Former gun batteries also 
remain along the coastline, including one, Battery Steele, said to be 
unique in the nation.
    Fort Terry was an important site for multi-fort military drills, 
including joint Army-Navy war games, and served as a training and 
transport location for Army recruits in World Wars I and II.

    Fort Terry's extant buildings, including large former barracks and 
the fort's hospital, guard house, and post exchange, were added to the 
National Register of Historic Places in 2021, along with the parade 
grounds and 11 former gun batteries and other tactical structures on 
the coast, forming a ``Fort Terry Historic District.'' As the 
Department of Homeland Security stated in its 80-page application:

        ``Fort Terry was established in 1898 based on recommendations 
        for improvements to United States coastal defenses contained in 
        an 1885 report from the Endicott Board. Fort Terry was later 
        modified based on a report from the Taft Board in 1906. [A]s a 
        whole the district retains a significant number of character-
        defining elements and is able to illustrate the fort's 
        significant themes from the period of significance.''

    An incendiary court-martial that garnered national attention and 
Cabinet-level involvement took place at Fort Terry in 1914 when the 
commanding officer, Major Benjamin M. Koehler, was accused of groping 
male subordinates. He claimed the charges were concocted by disgruntled 
to oust him. This early case of alleged sexual harassment marked the 
beginning of federal policies against military service by gays and 
lesbians.
    New York's historic preservation office strongly supported the 
historic district designation.
    After the post's closure in 1948, the Army Chemical Corps and Plum 
Island Animal Disease Laboratory reused its buildings. The lab modified 
Building 257, the former Mine & Cable Storage Building, for its use, 
and added an external ramp for use by animal research subjects. 
Numerous unconfirmed stories about bioweapons research ensued.
    Later in the 20th century, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center 
(PIADC) built new facilities on the western part of the island. For 
over 70 years, employees who commuted to the lab from New York and 
Connecticut made major breakthroughs in vaccine research to prevent 
animal diseases, especially foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). The PIADC has 
played a significant role in the economy of Eastern Long Island's North 
Fork because of employment opportunities in biotechnology, veterinary 
science, and jobs for electricians, carpenters, plumbers, and other 
trades, including security. DARPA exercises in power grid cybersecurity 
have taken place on the island, providing learning opportunities in 
issues of national security importance.
    Prominent animal disease researchers at the PIADC included:

     Dr. Maurice S. Shahan (DVM), co-director of the joint 
            committee to assist in controlling a FMD outbreak in Mexico 
            (1947-1952), named the first director of the laboratory 
            (1952-1963);

     Dr. Jerry J. Callis (DVM), who studied FMD in Holland and 
            served as Assistant Director (1956-1962) and Director of 
            Plum Island's laboratory (1963-1983);

     Dr. Howard L. Bachrach (PhD), who studied FMD in Denmark 
            and became Chief Scientist and Director of Biomedical 
            Research at Plum Island (1953-1981), made advancements in 
            the growth of the virus for research purposes, and 
            developed a live virus vaccine; and

     Dr. Marvin J. Grubman (PhD), whose research and isolation 
            of the proteins in the FMD virus resulted in the 
            development of the first recombinant (non-live virus) 
            vaccine for one serotype of the disease.

    In 2022, citing the lab's significance in science for its 
association with a government-supported scientific research program, 
New York State recommended the listing of the Plum Island Animal 
Disease Center on the National Register of Historic Places.
Conclusion

    Plum Island should be returned to use and careful stewardship by 
the people under a comprehensive management plan. We envision managed, 
sustainable, and equitable access for the island's original stewards, 
the Montaukett Indian Nation, and all members of the public. We see the 
designation of Plum Island as a national monument as the model offering 
the greatest flexibility in offering interpretation, national 
celebration, and co-management--involving public-philanthropic and 
potential public-private partnerships--of Plum Island's many natural, 
historical, and cultural assets. We urge you to pass H.R. 1584. Thank 
you for this opportunity to present our views today.

                                 *****

                              ATTACHMENTS

                   Location of Plum Island, New York

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Plum Island shown with surrounding islands and points in mainland 
New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Islands are within New York 
State unless otherwise noted. Inset: Area of detail within the 
Northeast United States.

    (Reproduced from: Schlesinger, M.D., A.L. Feldmann, and S.M. Young. 
2012. Biodiversity and ecological potential of Plum Island, New York. 
New York Natural Heritage Program, Albany, New York.)
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Ms. Harrison's full statement along with all attachments is 
available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20240307/116866/HHRG-
118-II10-Wstate-HarrisonL-20240307.pdf

                                ------                                


    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Harrison, for your testimony. 
Now, we are going to move to Members' questions.
    First, I would like to recognize the gentleman from 
Arizona, Mr. Crane.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple 
questions for Mr. Seymore.
    Without the expansion of Pinedale Cemetery, is it safe to 
say families would have to bury their loved ones far away from 
their home, sir?
    Mr. Seymore. Yes, that is correct. When you say far away, 
there are other cemeteries locally, but there is nothing like 
being able to be buried in a family plot next to your loved 
ones.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you.
    For those of you that don't know, Pinedale is home to a 
substantial LDS community who celebrate the contributions of 
Mormon pioneers in their pursuit of religious freedom and a new 
homeland in the American West. The arrival of Latter Day Saints 
and the creation of settlements in Snowflake, Winslow, Taylor, 
Tuba City, and other places help lay the foundation for the 
48th state.
    Mr. Seymore, can you please explain to the Committee how 
much passing this legislation would mean for them?
    Mr. Seymore. This is a community that is just heartfelt. 
And in 1976, to honor our 200th year anniversary, they built a 
wooden bridge over their little Pinedale entry into their 
community. That is the only wooden bridge still standing in the 
state of Arizona. So, this is rich in history, rich in pioneer 
history, rich in the history of our Native Americans. So, this 
is something that these guys, they breathe, they live the air, 
they farm the air. They are home people. That is what the red, 
white, and blue stands for. This means everything to them. It 
really does.
    Mr. Crane. Thank you. The last thing I want to say is the 
pursuit of religious freedom has helped lead to the expansion 
of overall success of America. It is only right for Congress to 
honor these contributions with the expansion of this cemetery.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now turn to Mr. LaLota 
for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. LaLota. Thank you, Chairman. Ms. Harrison, again, it is 
great that you are with us today.
    In the previous panel, I think we well established that 
there is a decent amount of bipartisan support for our 
initiative to preserve Plum Island, and there certainly is 
overwhelming community support back on Long Island to preserve 
Plum Island. So, let's talk about the timing, and how that may 
work.
    In your testimony, you said that it is critical to 
designate Plum Island as a national monument now. Can you tell 
us a little bit about what could happen to Plum Island if we 
don't act with a sense of urgency, such as making it a national 
monument?
    Ms. Harrison. Thank you for your question, Mr. LaLota. Yes, 
I would be happy to answer the question.
    Conservation takes a long time. I am sure everyone on this 
Committee understands that. And we have been hoping to bring a 
permanent conservation solution to Plum Island since about 
2011. So, 13 years in, we still don't have knowledge of the 
fate of Plum Island. But in the meantime, there are 
communities, ecological communities on Plum Island, that are 
beginning to deteriorate with invasive species, vines of 
various species overtaking some of the critical habitats that 
we know are there.
    The New York Natural Heritage Program, which is made up of 
the top field scientists in New York State, did a 2015 
ecological inventory across four seasons of Plum Island, and 
wrote a report in 2016 that is publicly available. And they 
identified 24 different ecological communities, several of 
which they considered to be significant, and almost all of 
which would be threatened if we can't begin management planning 
for Plum Island now.
    We understand that the Department of Homeland Security is 
in the midst of decommissioning its activities at Plum Island, 
and they are doing quite a lot of work across the island. But 
their mission, their decommissioning, is not the same as 
bringing new conservation and care and stewardship to the 
resources of Plum Island, and it needs to be done soon.
    Mr. LaLota. Ms. Harrison, I want to focus specifically on 
the timing piece. The previous panelists suggested that there 
may be environmental issues which need to be remediated. If 
Congress waited longer, and there are those environmental 
issues which need to be remediated, wouldn't those 
environmental issues be exacerbated and made worse the longer 
that we wait?
    Ms. Harrison. Yes, and I am sorry I didn't answer your 
question more directly, but you are absolutely correct about 
that. And that is because when we have things like invasive, 
exotic species that overtake ecosystems, the native plants 
can't support native wildlife, and the ecosystem deteriorates.
    We also need to control deer that come to the island, 
because they do heavily browse these areas. And we have to make 
sure that the species that breed on Plum Island are cared for, 
as well. So, there is a whole complex series of reasons why it 
needs to be done soon.
    And also, comprehensive management planning takes time. It 
is not something that can be done right away. And access to 
Plum Island has been prohibited for studies except with very 
special permission, so we do need to get this underway, even if 
the Department of Homeland Security doesn't leave Plum Island 
for a while yet.
    Mr. LaLota. I have one more minute, so I want to ask you 
one more question relative to the studies that you just 
mentioned.
    The previous panelist mentioned that there needs to be a 
certain amount of bureaucracy, and we have some patience for 
some minimal amount of bureaucracy with respect to studies. In 
your testimony, you mentioned several different studies and 
publications that are already publicly available, including the 
Professional Biodiversity Field Studies of Plum Island 
conducted by the New York Natural Heritage Program; a book 
entitled, ``A World Unto Itself,'' and the Journal of the 
Suffolk County Historical Society.
    Ms. Harrison. Yes.
    Mr. LaLota. My question: Given your expertise, your 
background, all of your understanding of this, do you believe 
that those materials, which are already prepared by 
professionals with specific knowledge about Plum Island, could 
be helpful to help expedite this initiative?
    Ms. Harrison. Absolutely. They certainly can. And there are 
more, and we would be happy to provide a complete bibliography 
of what is available.
    And we know that a special resource study or any other 
similar study could get underway right now.
    Mr. LaLota. Great. Thank you so much. And 5 seconds. 
Anything that we forgot?
    Ms. Harrison. Not in 1 second. Thank you.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. LaLota. Thank you so much.
    I yield.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to 
recognize the gentlelady from Utah for her questions at this 
time.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Strong, are you confident that the Utah Division of 
State Parks can adequately manage these parcels for recreation, 
and preserve the natural resources?
    Mr. Strong. To answer that question succinctly, I would say 
yes.
    And maybe the additional answer to that question is we are 
on site every day. We have full-time, dedicated staff to those 
areas to improve and maintain, monitor, and allow access.
    Ms. Maloy. Thank you.
    I am going to expand the scope of the hearing and just ask 
Mr. Shields one question.
    Mr. Shields, for the record and for the benefit of the 
Committee, can you just say which university in the United 
States has the best undergrad experience?
    Mr. Shields. Southern Utah University, hands down.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Maloy. I concur. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Usually in the Federal Lands Subcommittee we 
do not allow such shameless plugging for states, but clearly, 
they have taken liberties here today.
    OK, we have covered everyone here. I just want to ask a 
couple questions.
    Mr. Hunter, we had the red, white, and blue that were 
referenced earlier. Basketball is all about the red, white, and 
blue, isn't it?
    Mr. Hunter. I was going to throw it to you, but I wasn't 
sure you could catch it. He did.
    Mr. Tiffany. Oh, yes, I can catch it. I can catch it, sir.
    For those of us not very familiar with New York City, tell 
me where this location is.
    Mr. Hunter. It is at 155th Street and Eighth Avenue, the 
old polo grounds.
    Mr. Tiffany. Sir, would you turn on your mic?
    Mr. Hunter. Oh. This is not on? Usually, in any stadium, 
you can automatically hear me.
    But it is at 155th Street and Eighth Avenue, and it is 
below Coogan's Bluff. You are familiar with that? It is in a 
very prime spot. If you cross the bridge, you go straight to 
Yankee Stadium. And it is a very large project around the 
Rucker Park. And generally we have various meetings there. In 
fact, I was running a homeless food program there in which we 
feed the homeless, and we develop empowerment through 
recreation. And we had a homeless Olympics.
    So, the park has a very vast amount of things that it can 
do. And most of all, we have been looking at, Philip Rucker and 
I, Philip Rucker is the son of Rucker, we are going to do a 
biddy basketball clinic, where we also teach and play 
basketball at the same time. It is something that Rucker did 
very softly.
    Mr. Tiffany. Well, as a high school basketball player, I 
wish they could have taught height, because I could have used a 
couple more inches. It would have very much helped.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hunter. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. In the recesses of my memory, I remember 
reading a story about Connie Hawkins. And is it correct that 
Connie Hawkins once dunked over Wilt Chamberlain? And might it 
have been at this facility?
    Mr. Hunter. I don't like talking about Connie Hawkins 
because he dunked over me a couple of times.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hunter. But actually, I don't know if I should correct 
you. It was Connie Hawkins that did it in the All Star game. 
But the highest jump was by a Globetrotter named Jackie 
Jackson.
    Mr. Tiffany. That was the highest jump.
    Mr. Hunter. That was the highest jump. And then Jackie----
    Mr. Tiffany. How do you measure highest jumps?
    Mr. Hunter. Well, you measure it like this. Wilt 
Chamberlain put a half a dollar on top of the backboard, and 
Jackie Jackson took it off.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tiffany. And it is those stories that make this so 
deserving.
    Mr. Hunter. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, for sure. Well, I do not have any other 
questions if none of the members of the panel do.
    I want to thank all of you so much for taking the time to 
come and join us here in Washington, DC in what is a great day 
when we have something that only happens annually, the State of 
the Union speech. And it is good to have you here on a day like 
this. I want to thank all of you for your valuable testimony.
    Members of the subcommittee--yes, sir, do you have one?
    Mr. Hunter. I would like to work with the national parks. 
We have before the retired Globetrotters, and we are not 
sympathetic, but we are very encouraged to help them in the 
various projects because we are all over. And right now we are 
working with Ms. Lynn Rapp in South Dakota in a park program 
that she is doing there for kids.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, that sounds good.
    Mr. Hunter. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. You may want to communicate, in addition to 
your Representative, Mr. Espaillat, be sure to talk to his 
office about that, also.
    Mr. Hunter. OK.
    Mr. Tiffany. He might be able to get you pointed in the 
right direction for other people that could be helpful.
    Mr. Hunter. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Members of the Subcommittee may have some 
additional questions for all of you witnesses today, and we 
will ask that you respond to those in writing. Under Committee 
Rule 3, members of the Subcommittee must submit questions to 
the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, March 12, 2024. 
The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for 
these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                        Statement for the Record
                       Bureau of Land Management
                    U.S. Department of the Interior
                       on H.R. 3173 and H.R. 7332

  H.R. 3173, Northern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the 
Record on H.R. 3173, the Northern Nevada Economic Development and 
Conservation Act, which provides direction for the future management of 
Federal lands primarily in several northern Nevada counties. H.R. 3173 
provides for the conveyance of at least 9,500 acres of Federal lands 
for a variety of public purposes and directs the sale at fair market 
value or, in some cases, exchange of up to approximately 356,100 acres 
of Federal lands. It also designates approximately 148,000 acres of 
public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as eight 
new wilderness areas; releases approximately 49,700 acres of existing 
BLM wilderness study areas (WSA); withdraws approximately 349,200 acres 
of Federal lands from mineral development and leasing; and takes nearly 
2,700 acres of Federal lands into trust for the benefit of the Washoe 
Tribe of Nevada and California.
    Finally, the bill includes numerous miscellaneous provisions that 
establish a Federal complex for the offices of certain land management 
agencies, direct the issuance of corrective patents, provide for an 
existing right-of-way for the GreenLink Transmission Line on parcels 
previously taken into trust for the benefit of the Walker River Paiute 
Tribe, and amend a previously enacted land law affecting White Pine 
County.
    The Department of the Interior (Department) supports the goals of 
the bill as they align with important Administration priorities. 
President Biden highlighted the importance of conservation in his 
America the Beautiful Initiative, and the bill's wilderness 
designations and withdrawal provisions support that effort. We also 
support the bill's provisions that align with priorities of the 
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to build healthy communities and 
economies. The Department continues to work to facilitate and improve 
access to public lands for Tribes and underserved communities. We are 
also working to improve public health, safety, and climate resiliency, 
while conserving public lands for future generations. We would like to 
work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee to address certain concerns 
with the bill as currently drafted, including creating new legislative 
maps for the bill's proposed designations, conveyances, and other land 
tenure actions.
    The Department defers to the Department of Agriculture on 
provisions pertaining to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
Background

    The BLM manages approximately 245 million surface acres, located 
primarily in 12 western states, and approximately 700 million acres of 
subsurface mineral estate. These minerals are overlain by properties 
managed by other Federal agencies such as the Department of Defense and 
USFS, as well state and private lands.
    In 1976, with passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA), Congress directed the BLM to retain management of most public 
lands, which reduced the acreage that had in previous years been 
available for disposal. Under FLPMA, the BLM's mission is to sustain 
the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use 
and enjoyment of present and future generations. FLPMA also provides 
the BLM with a clear multiple-use and sustained yield mandate that the 
agency implements through its land use planning and management 
processes.
Public Land Sales, Exchanges, & Conveyances

    Section 203 of FLPMA authorizes the sale of public lands when they 
are identified through a public land use planning process as meeting 
certain criteria that make them suitable for sale. Land sales conducted 
under FLPMA occur at the discretion of the Secretary and are made at 
fair market value in accordance with Federal law. Under current BLM 
policy, sales are generally conducted under competitive bidding 
procedures to ensure fair return. In such cases, sales are widely 
advertised through public notices, media announcements, and on 
appropriate BLM websites.
    Similarly, the BLM uses land exchanges to ensure effective land 
management. Among other purposes, land exchanges allow the BLM to 
acquire environmentally sensitive lands while transferring public lands 
into non-Federal ownership for local needs and the consolidation of 
scattered tracts. The BLM conducts land exchanges pursuant to section 
206 of FLPMA, which authorizes the agency to undertake such exchanges, 
or when given specific direction by Congress.
    The BLM regularly leases and conveys lands to state, local, and 
Tribal governments and nonprofit entities for a variety of public 
purposes. These leases and conveyances are typically accomplished under 
the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act or 
through direction supplied by specific Acts of Congress. Such direction 
allows the BLM to help states, Tribes, local communities, and nonprofit 
organizations obtain lands at nominal cost for important public 
purposes. As a matter of policy, the BLM generally supports legislative 
conveyances at nominal cost if the lands are appropriate for disposal, 
will be used for public purposes consistent with the R&PP Act, and if 
the conveyances include reversionary clauses to enforce this 
requirement.
H.R. 3173
Title I--Douglas County
Land Conveyances & Sales

    Title I of H.R. 3173 directs the conveyance, upon request, of 
approximately 7,777 acres of Federal lands managed by the BLM and the 
USFS to Douglas County, Nevada, to be used for flood control or any 
purpose consistent with the R&PP Act. Under the bill, the BLM and USFS 
would convey this land subject to valid existing rights. Although this 
title requires that the conveyance be made for no consideration, it 
requires Douglas County to pay for any costs related to the conveyance 
(e.g., cultural and cadastral surveys). Title I also authorizes Douglas 
County to submit a request to purchase the reversionary interest in all 
or part of the land conveyed for the appraised fair market value of 
this interest and directs the Secretary to cover the costs of 
conveyance of the reversionary interest. If any of the unspecified 
acres is withdrawn by a Public Land Order, the Secretary is required to 
revoke the order to the extent necessary to permit disposal of the 
land.
    In addition, Title I authorizes one or more sales of up to 10,031 
acres of Federal lands, including the mineral estate, through a 
competitive bidding process at fair market value, subject to valid 
existing rights. Of these acres, 31 appear to be managed by the USFS, 
but the exact acreage and the referenced map do not explicitly identify 
the specific acres intended for sale. The remainder are unspecified 
acres of BLM-managed public lands that have been or will be identified 
as potentially suitable for disposal in the Carson City Consolidated 
Resource Management Plan, or in any subsequent amendments to that plan. 
The unspecified acres would be selected jointly by the BLM and the 
county to be offered to qualified bidders within one year of enactment. 
The bill also directs that not later than 30 days before any of the 
unspecified acres are offered for sale, the state or county may elect 
to obtain them for public purposes in accordance with the R&PP Act. In 
that event, the BLM would retain the elected lands for conveyance to 
the state or county.
    Under Title I of H.R. 3173, proceeds from the proposed land sales 
would be disbursed to the state, county, and a special account in the 
U.S. Treasury to be used for a variety of purposes, including to 
reimburse costs incurred in the preparation of land sales and the trust 
transfers outlined in Section 121 of the title, and to acquire 
environmentally sensitive land, among others.
    As a matter of policy, the BLM supports working with local 
governments to resolve land tenure issues that advance the public good. 
The BLM supports the goals of the public purpose conveyances 
contemplated in Title I, to the extent that they pertain to BLM-managed 
public lands, as they are generally consistent with the R&PP Act. The 
BLM is concerned, however, that the total acreage proposed for 
conveyance is larger than what is normally authorized for public 
purposes under the R&PP Act, which is limited to 6,400 acres to a state 
or political subdivisions of a state. Some of the lands to be conveyed 
also present recreation and resource management concerns. For example, 
certain parcels offer extensive off-highway vehicle and non-motorized 
recreational opportunities, including portions of the popular Tahoe to 
Pyramid Trail. In addition, existing grazing allotments would be 
affected, causing a reduction in the amount of grazing available to 
permittees. Finally, the BLM is aware that these conveyances are within 
an area with many cultural and paleontological resources. The BLM would 
like to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee on boundary 
modifications to avoid these acreage, recreation, and resource 
concerns. We also recommend that the county assume the appraisal and 
other administrative costs associated with acquiring the reversionary 
interest, consistent with the county assuming the cost of survey and 
other administrative costs as part of the initial conveyance.
    While the BLM does not object to the proposed land sales, we would 
like to work with the Sponsor and Subcommittee on minor and technical 
modifications to this title, including amendments regarding how the 
funds for the special account are managed and the proposed uses of the 
account. Finally, the BLM notes that the deadlines provided by the bill 
will be challenging to meet given current resources, and we would 
welcome the opportunity to work with the Sponsor to establish more 
manageable time frames. Specifically, 180 days is insufficient time to 
comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act, and other applicable laws.
Land to be Held in Trust

    Section 121 of Title I would direct the Secretary to take 
approximately 2,669 acres of Federal lands into trust for the benefit 
of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, subject to valid existing 
rights, in addition to any ``Section 5 lands'' as specified in the bill 
administered by the BLM or the USFS after enactment. In addition, this 
section permits the Secretary concerned, in consultation and 
coordination with the Tribe, to carry out any fuel reduction and 
landscape restoration activities on the land taken into trust that 
would benefit the Tribe, the BLM, or the USFS.
    The BLM is committed to honoring our nation-to-nation relationship 
with Tribal Nations, strengthening Tribal sovereignty and self-
governance, and upholding the trust and treaty responsibilities that 
are paramount to fulfilling our mission, and the BLM supports these 
provisions. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Sponsor 
and the Subcommittee on an amendment to the bill or to provide an 
updated legislative map to clarify the meaning of the term ``Section 5 
lands,'' in addition to clarifying the Secretary of the Interior's role 
in taking lands into trust for the benefit of the Tribe.
Designation of the Burbank Canyons Wilderness

    Section 131 of Title I designates approximately 12,330 acres of 
BLM-managed public lands as the Burbank Canyons Wilderness and releases 
approximately 1,065 acres of the existing Burbank Canyons WSA from 
further study. The Burbank Canyons area is comprised of rugged canyons 
set in the Pine Nut Mountains. Riparian areas provide important habitat 
for wildlife, and steep, rugged ridges contribute to the area's scenic 
beauty and the recreational experiences available to hikers, horseback 
riders, and hunters. The BLM supports the designation of the Burbank 
Canyons Wilderness and the release of the remaining portion of the WSA, 
but we would like to work with the Sponsor and Subcommittee to refine 
some of the language in this section. For example, the BLM recommends 
the use of language that has been used frequently as standard in other 
similar legislation for both the designation of the wilderness and the 
release of the WSA. The BLM would also like to work with the Sponsor to 
minimize the impact of wildlife management on wilderness character and 
update the referenced maps and ensure all areas to be designated or 
released are clearly delineated.
Title II--Incline Village Fire Protection

    The BLM defers to the USFS on the conveyances proposed by Title II 
of the bill.
Title III--Northern Nevada Flood Protection and Management

    Title III of H.R. 3173 would authorize the Department to convey 
parcels of Federal land managed by the BLM and the Bureau of 
Reclamation (BOR) to the Truckee River Flood Management Authority 
(TRFMA) for flood attenuation and riparian restoration along the 
Truckee River in Nevada. Under this title, the conveyances would be for 
no consideration, but TRFMA would be required to cover all conveyance 
costs.
    While the BLM generally supports public purpose conveyances that 
are consistent with the R&PP Act, some of the parcels to be conveyed 
under this title include the Tahoe to Pyramid Trail, which is popular 
with the public. We would like to work with the Sponsor and the 
Subcommittee on boundary changes or other modifications to this title 
to avoid potential impacts to the trail. We would also like the 
opportunity to develop an official legislative map for the conveyance.
    The BOR does not object to the conveyances, but would like to work 
with the Sponsor to ensure reservation of an appropriate right-of-way 
for one of the parcels, and to make minor technical edits to the parcel 
descriptions and map references.
Title IV--Ruby Mountains Protection Act

    H.R. 3173 provides for the withdrawal of approximately 309,272 
acres of land managed by USFS in the Ruby Mountains Subdistrict of the 
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and approximately 39,926 acres of land 
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of the 
Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge from the operation of the mineral 
leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights and with an exception 
for noncommercial refuge management activities by the USFWS.
    The refuge is a magnet for a wide diversity of wildlife and is 
strategically located along bird migration corridors serving both the 
Pacific and Central Flyways, which makes it one of the most important 
waterfowl nesting areas in the Great Basin and Intermountain West. The 
refuge is also key habitat for mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and sage 
grouse, while the fishery is popular with local anglers. The Department 
supports the provision and would welcome the opportunity to continue 
working with the sponsor and the Committee. The Department defers to 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding provisions affecting the 
management of lands administered by the USFS.
Title V--Carson City Public Lands Correction

    Title V of the bill would direct the conveyance, upon request, of 
approximately 258 acres of Federal lands to Carson City, Nevada, at no 
cost to the city. While the legislative map and title are unclear, we 
believe that most of the identified acreage is managed by the BLM. This 
title explicitly authorizes the city to sell, lease, or convey all or 
part of the lands upon their receipt, and further directs that if the 
city sells the land, the city must sell the land at fair market value, 
with proceeds to be deposited in a special account created under the 
title. Under Title V, the special account could be used to reimburse 
the cost of any surveys and appraisals for lands that are conveyed to 
Carson City, and to conduct wildlife habitat and restoration projects 
in the city. Additionally, the account could be used for the 
development and implementation of comprehensive hazardous fuels 
reduction and wildfire prevention projects and the acquisition of 
environmentally sensitive lands in the city, among other activities. 
The special account would be managed pursuant to an intergovernmental 
agreement between Carson City and the BLM.
    In addition, this title provides for conveyance of unspecified 
acres of Federal lands to Carson City for expansion of a roadway and 
directs the BLM to dispose of approximately 28 acres of BLM-managed 
public lands, while allowing the city to retain certain easements for 
utilities. Further, Title V would direct the conveyance of 
approximately 17 acres from Carson City to the BLM, which the BLM is to 
dispose of in accordance with FLPMA.
    Under FLPMA, the BLM generally requires fair market value for land 
leaving Federal ownership if not conveyed for a public purpose. While 
the BLM acknowledges the Sponsor's consideration for the disposition of 
proceeds generated by this title, the BLM notes that the actions 
directed by the title regarding realization of value if the County in 
turn sells the land may not be sufficient to ensure a fair return to 
the taxpayer for the lands conveyed or disposed out of Federal 
ownership. The BLM would also like to work with the Sponsor to update 
the referenced maps or create new maps, if necessary, that accurately 
depict the boundaries of the areas to be conveyed per the title. 
Lastly, the BLM notes that the timelines provided for the actions 
required by this title would be difficult to achieve, and we would like 
to work with the Sponsor to consider a more feasible deadline.
Title VI--Pershing County Economic Development
Checkerboard Land Resolution

    Subtitle A of Title VI directs the sale, at fair market value or 
through an equal value exchange, of up to approximately 334,000 acres 
of BLM-managed public lands in Pershing County, Nevada, that have been 
identified as potentially suitable for disposal as part of the BLM's 
land use planning process. This subtitle further requires that all 
lands authorized for sale or exchange be appraised using mass appraisal 
methodology within one year of enactment and every five years 
thereafter. Subtitle A also requires that the Secretary offer to 
exchange all eligible land within one year.
    In addition, this subtitle directs the sale for fair market value 
of select public lands in the county that are currently encumbered by a 
mining claim, millsite, or tunnel site to a qualified entity. The bill 
defines qualified entities as the owner or authorized leaseholder of 
the mining claims, mill sites, or tunnel sites currently existing on 
any portion of the lands to be sold. The qualified entity would assume 
all costs of the sales, including survey, appraisal, and administrative 
costs. Proceeds from the sales would be disbursed to the state, county, 
and a special account in the U.S. Treasury for several specific 
purposes, including reimbursing costs associated with preparing sales, 
habitat conservation and restoration, and securing public access to 
Federal lands, among others. Lastly, Subtitle A provides for the 
conveyance of ten acres of Federal land to county for use as a 
cemetery.
    While the BLM generally supports the consolidation of public land 
to provide for more orderly land management while ensuring the 
conservation of natural and cultural resources, we also support a 
process that ensures a fair return to the taxpayer when public lands 
are conveyed, exchanged, or sold out of Federal ownership. The BLM 
recognizes the Sponsor's efforts to address the checkerboard pattern of 
landownership in this area, but we are concerned that the scope of the 
sales and transfers contemplated by this subtitle may be overly broad. 
The BLM would also like to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee 
to develop a legislative map depicting the lands proposed for sale or 
exchange under this subtitle.
    Further, the BLM recommends that the Sponsor consider expanding the 
allowable uses for the proceeds deposited in the special account to 
include processing and managing conservation designations in the 
county; development of parks, trails, and natural areas in the county, 
pursuant to a cooperative agreement; capital improvements on Federal 
lands within the county; and reimbursement of any costs incurred by the 
BLM for oversight of expenditures from the account.
    Finally, the personnel the BLM would need to process these land 
transfers are the same personnel currently employed in a wide variety 
of other vital land management issues, including processing renewable 
energy and transmission rights-of-way applications and land use 
authorizations for community needs. Therefore, the time frames outlined 
in this subtitle will necessarily have consequences for a wide variety 
of other users of the public lands. The BLM would like to work with the 
Sponsor and the Subcommittee on more manageable time frames to 
implement the contemplated transfers.
Wilderness Areas

    Subtitle B of Title VI provides for the designation of seven 
wilderness areas totaling approximately 136,600 acres of BLM-managed 
public lands. This subtitle would also release approximately 48,600 
acres of public land from WSA status, allowing these areas to be 
managed according to the existing BLM land use plans. The seven new 
wilderness areas include the Cain Mountain Wilderness, which consists 
of approximately 12,339 acres; the Bluewing Wilderness, which consists 
of approximately 24,900 acres; the Selenite Peak Wilderness, which 
consists of approximately 22,822 acres; the Mount Limbo Wilderness, 
which consists of approximately 11,855 acres; the North Sahwave 
Wilderness, which consists of approximately 13,875 acres; the 
Grandfathers Wilderness, which consists of approximately 35,339 acres; 
and the Fencemaker Wilderness, which consists of 14,942 acres.
    The new wilderness areas that would be designated by this subtitle, 
if enacted, would help protect fragile desert ecosystems while 
providing important habitat for Greater sage-grouse, pronghorn 
antelope, mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, and many other species of 
wildlife and plants. The proposed Mount Limbo Wilderness, for example, 
features a spectacular landscape of granite outcrops, basaltic flows, 
and alluvial fans that is perfect for backcountry exploration. The BLM 
supports each of these designations, as they would conserve habitat and 
provide excellent opportunities for hiking, hunting, rock climbing, 
camping, and horsepacking for those who wish to experience the solitude 
of rugged canyons and dramatic vistas of the Nevada desert. The BLM 
would like to work with the Sponsor and the Subcommittee on minor and 
technical amendments to this subtitle, such as the inclusion of 
wilderness designation language that has become standard for this type 
of legislation and updating the referenced maps to ensure all areas 
proposed for designation or release are clearly delineated.
    Additionally, Section 622 of this subtitle allows for the 
construction of a temporary telecommunications device for law 
enforcement or agency administrative use in the Selenite Peak 
Wilderness. Any telecommunications device authorized under the section 
may not be placed for more than seven years. This section further 
requires that temporary telecommunications devices and their placement 
must comply with the Wilderness Act, all applicable laws, and to the 
maximum practicable extent, be located in a manner that minimizes 
impacts on the recreational and other wilderness values of the area.
    The BLM notes that as written, the provisions authorizing placement 
of temporary telecommunications devices in the Selenite Peak Wilderness 
contradict current law, regulation, and policy. Specifically, section 
4(c) of the Wilderness Act prohibits such installations. The BLM would 
welcome the opportunity to work with the Sponsor to explore options 
that would help achieve the goals of the bill while complying with the 
Wilderness Act and related regulations. Potential solutions could 
include excluding the temporary telecommunications site from the 
wilderness boundary or providing for the site to be added to the 
Wilderness once the temporary use has ended. In addition, the BLM 
recommends reassessing the seven-year period provided to ensure it 
meets current needs.
Title VII--Federal Complex

    Title VII of H.R. 3173 would require the Department to establish a 
Federal complex building in Reno, Nevada, that would house certain 
offices in Nevada for the BLM, BOR, USFS, USFWS, and the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs.
    The Department supports the goal of increasing efficiencies as well 
as providing for ease of collaboration between Federal agencies. 
However, we are concerned that the practicalities and requirements of 
building a new multi-agency Federal complex, as envisioned in the bill, 
may not be an efficient use of resources given the scale of the 
proposal. For example, the operation of Hoover Dam requires BOR staff 
on-site. The Department looks forward to working with the Sponsor to 
explore alternative proposals and ideas for increasing the 
effectiveness of Federal land management agencies in the region.
Title VIII--White Pine County

    Title VIII would amend section 312 of the White Pine County 
Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (Public Law 109-432) to 
expand the categories for disposition of proceeds authorized by that 
law to include additional public services, as determined by the county. 
In addition, Title VIII would insert a deadline for the conveyance of 
BLM-managed public lands to White Pine County that were authorized by 
section 352 of Public Law 109-432 for the expansion of the Ely Airport, 
the expansion of the White Pine County Industrial Park, and for sale 
through a competitive bidding process for nonresidential development 
related to these two expansions. Per the provisions of this title, if 
the conveyances are not completed within 120 days of enactment of H.R. 
3173, the BLM would be required to convey all right, title, and 
interest in those parcels to the county. It appears that this 
requirement would eliminate the reversionary requirement associated 
with these conveyances. Additionally, this title would amend section 
352 of Public Law 109-432 to remove the competitive bidding process 
associated with the sales of conveyed land for nonresidential 
development and instead direct the county to use a process consistent 
with section 244 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Lastly, this title 
would authorize the BLM to issue corrective patents of up to five acres 
in the county where surveying errors exist.
    The BLM notes that all lands described in section 352 of Public Law 
109-432 have already been conveyed, and we would welcome the 
opportunity to work with the Sponsor on technical amendments to the 
title to ensure it reflects current land status. In addition, we are 
concerned that the reference to section 244 of the Nevada Revised 
Statutes would require the Federal government to interpret whether the 
county has complied with state law. The BLM also notes that the 
disposal method described in the Nevada Revised Statutes may not result 
in the highest price and greatest benefit to taxpayers. For these 
reasons, the BLM recommends that the Sponsor retain the competitive 
bidding process in the underlying law.
    Finally, regarding the corrective patents referenced in this title, 
the BLM notes that the specified land is no longer under BLM 
jurisdiction. It is unclear whether corrective patents could be issued 
in this situation, and the 60-day timeline provided by the title is 
insufficient to allow for the necessary research to determine if the 
BLM can issue a corrective patent. The BLM welcomes the opportunity to 
work with the Sponsor to explore this issue further.
Title IX--Fernley Economic Development Act

    The Fernley Economic Development Act, contained in Title IX, would 
convey approximately 12,085 acres of BLM-managed public lands to the 
city of Fernley, Nevada, for fair market value. This title directs 
gross proceeds from the sale, lease, or conveyance of this land to be 
deposited into the special account created by the Southern Nevada 
Public Lands Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA).
    The BLM understands the Sponsor's goal is to make public land 
available for acquisition to facilitate the growth of local communities 
that are surrounded by Federal lands. The BLM would welcome the 
opportunity to work with the Sponsor to address concerns with the large 
scale of the conveyances directed by the title. In addition, the BLM 
notes that approximately half of the acres to be conveyed under this 
title are currently identified as potentially suitable for disposal 
under the existing land use plan.
Title X--Conveyances to the City of Sparks

    Under Title X of the bill, the BLM would direct the conveyance of 
40 acres of BLM-managed public lands to the City of Sparks, Nevada, for 
the purpose of establishing a public cemetery. This title would also 
convey approximately 714 acres of BLM-managed public lands for the 
creation of two public parks for the city. Title X requires the City of 
Sparks to pay all costs associated with the conveyances, and the public 
lands conveyed for the development of the public parks would also 
include a reversionary interest.
    The BLM generally does not object to the conveyances under this 
title. As discussed above, the BLM typically supports conveyances for 
specific public purposes that are consistent with the R&PP Act and 
include a reversionary interest. The BLM recommends the provision 
regarding the public lands conveyed for parks be amended to increase 
consistency with the R&PP Act. In addition, the BLM would appreciate 
the opportunity to develop an updated legislative map for these 
conveyances.
Title XI--General Conveyance Provisions

    Title XI of H.R. 3173 would require the conveyance, upon request, 
of any public land within the State of Nevada that is leased, patented, 
authorized as a right-of-way, otherwise approved for use pursuant to 
the R&PP Act, FLPMA, NEPA, or any other applicable Federal law and has 
a permanent public facility already constructed--or where such a 
facility may be constructed at some point in the future--to an eligible 
entity by a quitclaim deed. Eligible entities would include the State 
of Nevada, political subdivisions of the State, units of local 
government, or a regional governmental entity in any county in Nevada. 
Lands conveyed under this title would continue to have a reversionary 
interest held by the Department. As a matter of policy, the BLM 
generally supports public purpose conveyances that are consistent with 
the R&PP Act. However, the BLM has substantial concerns with the 
language in this title authorizing the required conveyances because it 
is overly broad and could have significant unintended consequences as 
currently drafted. The BLM would like to work with the Sponsor to 
better understand the intent of this title.
    Title XI would also allow for the movement of sand and gravel 
resources by the non-Federal surface owners of land acquired by them 
from the United States under certain authorities if the movement is 
conducted to recontour or balance the surface estate or is disposed of 
at off-site landfills. In addition, Title XI would make a technical 
correction to the reference to the map associated with a conveyance of 
Federal Land in Storey County, Nevada, that was included as part of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 
113-291). The BLM would welcome the opportunity to explore how to 
achieve the Sponsor's goal of allowing the movement of sand and gravel 
to recontour or balance the surface estate belonging to non-Federal 
entities. The BLM does not support allowing sand and gravel resources 
to be transported for off-site use unless the BLM receives fair market 
value for the resource.
Title XII--GreenLink West Project

    Lastly, Title XII of H.R. 3173 would allow the BLM to maintain the 
existing right-of-way for the GreenLink Transmission Line on the Walker 
Lake Parcel in Mineral County, Nevada, which was taken into trust for 
the benefit of the Walker River Paiute Tribe as part of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Public Law 117-263). 
This title provides that the consent of the Tribe for the use of the 
parcel for the transmission project will be deemed to be obtained by 
the Department subject to review under NEPA, and further directs the 
Department to approve a right-of-way agreement between the Tribe and 
the project applicant as soon as practicable after the parcel is taken 
into trust and before commencement of project construction. This 
agreement must address applicable provisions under part 169 of title 
25, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations). The BLM 
supports these provisions, as they reflect the current and ongoing 
efforts to work with the Walker River Paiute Tribe to address the 
right-of-way.
Conclusion

    The BLM appreciates the interest of the sponsor and the 
Subcommittee in these important public land management issues in 
northern Nevada, and we look forward to working further with you on 
them. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide a Statement for 
the Record on H.R. 3173.

               H.R. 7332, Utah State Parks Adjustment Act

Introduction

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Statement for the 
Record on H.R. 7332, the Utah State Parks Adjustment Act. H.R. 7332 
directs the Department of the Interior (Department) to convey several 
small, isolated parcels of public lands (approximately 510 acres) 
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within and around 
Antelope Island State Park and Wasatch Mountain State Park to the State 
of Utah at no cost. The legislation would consolidate landownership 
within the two state parks, which would improve manageability, and 
dispose of isolated Federal parcels that are difficult to manage. The 
BLM supports the bill.
    The bill also proposes the conveyance of federally owned parcels 
administered by the United States Forest Service (USFS) to the State of 
Utah for inclusion in Fremont Indian State Park. The Department defers 
to the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding provisions affecting 
the management of lands administered by the USFS.
H.R. 7332

    The isolated Federal parcels within Antelope Island State Park 
total approximately 280 acres surrounded by the Great Salt Lake, and 
are inherently difficult to manage by the BLM due to location, small 
size, and lack of access. The isolated Federal parcels near Wasatch 
Mountain State Park are similarly difficult for the BLM to manage due 
to location, small size, isolation from other public land, and lack of 
access. The Federal parcels within and around the Wasatch Mountain 
State Park were first identified as potentially suitable for disposal 
to the state, and inclusion into the Wasatch Mountain State Park, in 
the BLM's Park City Management Framework Plan issued in 1975. Most of 
these isolated parcels are only accessible through Wasatch Mountain 
State Park. The Wasatch Mountain State Park conveyance would add 
approximately 230 acres to the state park.
    The BLM welcomes the opportunity to work with the Sponsor to 
continue to define inholdings administered by the BLM for conveyance as 
proposed by the bill. The BLM is currently developing a supplemental 
survey plat to evaluate the complex mineral survey history of the area, 
develop accurate legislative maps, and ultimately execute the proposed 
transfer. Further, the BLM would like to work with the Sponsor to 
explore the potential transfer of additional nearby BLM-managed 
isolated parcels previously identified for disposal in BLM land use 
planning documents.
    The BLM regularly transfers public lands to local governments and 
nonprofits for a variety of public purposes. These transfers are 
typically accomplished under the provisions of the Recreation and 
Public Purposes (R&PP) Act or through direction from specific Acts of 
Congress. As a matter of policy, the BLM generally supports these 
legislative conveyances at no or low cost if the lands are appropriate 
for disposal and will be used for public purposes consistent with the 
R&PP Act.
    The BLM understands that the proposed management of the lands for 
conveyance to the State of Utah for inclusion in the state parks would 
be for public purposes. The BLM would appreciate the opportunity to 
work with the Sponsor on legislative language ensuring that the 
management of the lands conveyed is consistent with the standards of 
the R&PP Act and addresses the costs of the conveyance. Additionally, 
the BLM would like to work with the Sponsor on a few minor technical 
modifications to the bill, and notes that the lands proposed for 
conveyance would require a patent or quitclaim deed per regulation and 
policy.
Conclusion

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the 
record.

                                 ______
                                 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Tiffany

                NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

                             Washington, DC

                                                  March 7, 2024    

House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: NPCA support for H.R. 1647

    Dear Representative:

    Since 1919, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been 
the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing 
our National Park System. On behalf of our 1.6 million members and 
supporters nationwide, we write to share our position on H.R. 1645--
Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary 
Study Act.
    H.R. 1647--Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation 
and Boundary Study Act: NPCA supports this legislation to redesignate 
Salem Maritime National Historic Site (NHS) to Salem Maritime National 
Historical Park and to initiate a boundary study to identify 
opportunities to preserve and interpret our shared defense and maritime 
heritage. This redesignation aligns with the increasing number of 
historic and cultural resources that are protected and interpreted at 
Salem Maritime NHS. Since the original designation in 1938, Salem 
Maritime NHS has acquired new properties that broadened national 
narratives and educate visitors about the contributions of Salem, MA to 
global maritime trade, northern slavery and immigration. Redesignating 
Salem Maritime would serve as a more accurate account of the breadth of 
resources and cultural landscapes that are protected and interpreted by 
NPS in Salem, MA. This legislation also instructs the Secretary of the 
Interior to conduct a boundary study to evaluate the inclusion of 
nearby sites and resources associated with Salem's maritime history, 
coastal defenses and military history, including National Guard and 
militia activity that date back to the American Revolution and the War 
of 1812. Leading up to the 250th anniversary of the American 
Revolution, this boundary study would uncover new opportunities to 
preserve Salem's defense and maritime history for future generations.
    Thank you for considering our views.

            Sincerely,

                                            Tucker Johnson,
                   Interim Legislative Director, Government Affairs

                                 ______
                                 
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Amodei

Letters of support for H.R. 3173, from the following:

  1.  Douglas County Board of County Commissioners

  2.  Board of Commissioners, Minden, Nevada

  3.  Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California

  4.  Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Missoula, MT

  5.  City of Fernley

  6.  Friends of Nevada Wilderness, Sparks, Nevada

  7.  Carson City, Nevada--Office of the Mayor

  8.  Pershing County Board of Commissioners

  9.  Tahoe Reno Industrial Center

These documents are part of the hearing record and are being 
retained in the Committee's official files:

The documents are available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20240307/116866/HHRG-
118-II10-20240307-SD005.pdf

                                 [all]