[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1038, H.R. 1237, H.R. 2157, H.R. 2490, H.R. 2504, H.R. 2745, H.R.
2947, H.R. 3222, H.R. 3452 AND S. 684
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Friday, December 2, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-87
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-542 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Tom McClintock, CA Betty Sutton, OH
David Rivera, FL Niki Tsongas, MA
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Mark Amodei, NV
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
------
Page
Hearing held on Friday, December 2, 2011......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 3
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Becker, Hon. Ralph, Mayor, Salt Lake City, Utah.............. 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Cravaack, Hon. Chip, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 2947.......................... 8
Goar, Michael, Managing Director, The Canyons Ski Resort,
Park City, Utah............................................ 27
Prepared statement on H.R. 3452.......................... 28
Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona, Oral statement on H.R. 1038.................... 12
Gregory, Rusty, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mammoth
Mountain Ski Area.......................................... 36
Prepared statement on H.R. 2157.......................... 38
Heck, Hon. Joseph, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 2745.......................... 10
Herger, Hon. Wally, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 1237.......................... 6
Jensen, Michael H., Councilman, Salt Lake County Council..... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Larson, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut, Oral statement on H.R. 2504.......... 4
McKeon, Hon. Howard ``Buck,'' a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, Prepared statement on H.R.
2157....................................................... 53
O'Dell, Peggy, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 2490.......................... 20
Prepared statement on H.R. 2504.......................... 21
Prepared statement on H.R. 2745.......................... 23
Prepared statement on H.R. 3222.......................... 24
Ryan, Matt, Supervisor, Coconino County Board of Supervisors,
Coconino County, Arizona................................... 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Segarra, Pedro E., Mayor, City of Hartford, Connecticut...... 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Smith, Gregory, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff, United States
Department of Agriculture.................................. 13
Prepared statement on H.R. 1038.......................... 15
Prepared statement on H.R. 1237.......................... 15
Prepared statement on H.R. 2157.......................... 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 2947.......................... 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 3452.......................... 18
Prepared statement on S. 684............................. 19
Additional materials supplied:
Citizens' Committee to Save Our Canyons, Statement submitted
for the record by Hon. Ralph Becker........................ 54
Wier, Hon. Mark, Mayor, City of Mesquite, Nevada, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 55
LLEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1038, TO AUTHORIZE THE CONVEYANCE
OF TWO SMALL PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST CONTAINING PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS THAT
WERE DEVELOPED BASED UPON THE RELIANCE OF THE LANDOWNERS IN AN
ERRONEOUS SURVEY CONDUCTED IN MAY 1960; H.R. 1237, TO PROVIDE
FOR A LAND EXCHANGE WITH THE TRINITY PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICT
OF TRINITY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, INVOLVING THE TRANSFER OF LAND
TO THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND THE SIX RIVERS NATIONAL
FOREST IN EXCHANGE FOR NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND IN THE
SHASTA-TRINITY NATIONAL FOREST, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R.
2157, TO FACILITATE A LAND EXCHANGE INVOLVING CERTAIN NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN THE INYO NATIONAL FOREST, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES; H.R. 2490, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO
PROVIDE FOR A STUDY OF THE CASCADIA MARINE TRAIL; H.R. 2504, TO
ESTABLISH COLTSVILLE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK IN THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``COLTSVILLE NATIONAL
HISTORICAL PARK ACT''; H.R. 2745, TO AMEND THE MESQUITE LANDS
ACT OF 1986 TO FACILITATE IMPLEMENTATION OF A MULTISPECIES
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE VIRGIN RIVER IN CLARK COUNTY,
NEVADA; H.R. 2947, TO PROVIDE FOR THE RELEASE OF THE
REVERSIONARY INTEREST HELD BY THE UNITED STATES IN CERTAIN LAND
CONVEYED BY THE UNITED STATES IN 1950 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
AN AIRPORT IN COOK COUNTY, MINNESOTA; H.R. 3222, TO DESIGNATE
CERTAIN NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM LAND IN OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK AS
WILDERNESS OR POTENTIAL WILDERNESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES;
H.R. 3452, TO PROVIDE FOR THE SALE OF APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES OF
FEDERAL LAND IN UINTA-WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST IN SALT
LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, TO PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MINIMALLY
INVASIVE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE FOR SKIERS, CALLED
`SKILINK', TO CONNECT TWO SKI RESORTS IN THE WASATCH MOUNTAINS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``WASATCH RANGE RECREATION ACCESS
ENHANCEMENT ACT''; AND S. 684, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE
CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND TO THE TOWN OF ALTA,
UTAH.
----------
Friday, December 2, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:31 a.m. in
Room 1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Amodei, Grijalva, Kildee,
and Garamendi.
Also present: Representatives Gosar and Herger.
Mr. Bishop. All right. We are happy to have you all here.
This hearing will now come to order. The Chair notes the
presence of a quorum. The Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests and Public Lands is meeting today to hear testimony on
eight bills.
Under the rules, opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent
to include any Member's opening statement in the hearing record
if they are submitted by the close of business today. Hearing
no objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that any Members who will be
testifying who would like to participate may be able to join us
here on the dais. So ordered.
I want to thank our colleagues and the witnesses who have
agreed to testify today on this agenda. As I said, we have
eight bills that will be here that we will talk about. They all
address unique land management issues.
And with that, I am going to make any public statements I
have on the two bills with which I am related here when we turn
to the first panel, and I will turn to the Ranking Member for
any opening statement he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to submit
my opening statement for the record so that we can expedite the
meeting. Thank you. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Mr. Chairman, while the scheduling of today's meeting was not
ideal, we do appreciate the inclusion of several measures sponsored by
our Democratic colleagues.
Mr. Inslee's legislation to authorize a study of the Cascadia
Marine Trail is a popular proposal that passed the House last Congress
by voice vote.
Mr. Larson's legislation regarding the fascinating history of the
Colt Arms manufacturing site has raised concerns in the past but there
appear to be changed circumstances that will resolve those concerns. We
look forward to hearing more about these developments.
Mr. Dicks' wilderness bill has already been the subject of a
hearing in this subcommittee as part of our consideration of H.R. 1162.
This wilderness proposal in Olympic National Park has been
introduced as a stand-alone bill at the suggestion of Subcommittee
Chairman Bishop and Chairman Hastings and it is our hope the Committee
can approve this measure quickly.
Lastly, I should note that the legislation sponsored by Chairman
Bishop, H.R. 3452, has raised some concern. We stand ready to work with
you on this bill, Mr. Chairman, in hopes that the concerns raised by
Mayor Becker and others can be addressed.
We appreciate our colleagues and the other witnesses being here and
look forward to their testimony. Thank you.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Great. I appreciate that. All right.
Since most of our first panel is on their way and aren't here
yet, we are going to start eventually Congressman Herger and
Congressman McKeon. The gentleman from Minnesota and it looks
like the gentleman from Nevada will be here. Representative
Gosar, who is a Member of our Committee, has a bill that will
be introduced, and I have two I wish to speak to.
So what we will do is let me say a couple of things very
briefly about the two bills that I have. Then we will turn to
Representative Larson for your testimony. Once again, if you
would like to stay with us, we would be happy to have you here.
No one has ever taken me up on that offer, but whatever works
well. And then we will turn to Representative Gosar.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. I would just like to mention two things. We
have two bills here with which I am related. First is Senator
Lee's bill, 684. This is one of those simple bills that the
City of Alta, which is up in the mountains, wants two acres of
Federal land to build necessary public accommodations that they
have up there.
It is two acres, and, like the usual bureaucratic mess that
we have around here, it has taken four years to get Congress to
agree to give them two acres to build their municipal
buildings. But it has finally cleared the Senate. Eventually I
hope we can actually expedite that and have it clear the House
as well.
I also have another bill that is here, which is H.R. 3452,
that is co-sponsored by other Members of the Utah delegation
and a like bill that is also over in the Senate. This is a bill
that would actually add 30 acres of Federal ground to enhance
the recreation aspects in two of our mountain ski resorts by
putting a SkiLink in the form of a gondola type situation to go
from one resort to the other.
It has the opportunity of enhancing our tourism aspect,
adding more tourists but at the same time hopefully not adding
more vehicle traffic going up the canyons to these two resorts.
This bill is also introduced in the Senate, and this starts our
public comment period on this particular bill.
As I have said before, as this bill moves its way through,
I as well as the other co-sponsors on this and the Senate bill
will be more than happy to look at any ideas we can to improve
this bill and make it more compatible. Already we have made
some adjustments to it on the recommendations of some Members
of Congress. I will continue to look at those in the future,
but I appreciate that. We will be hearing more from it.
Mr. Bishop. If I could take just a personal privilege right
now, unfortunately I am going to have to leave. I have another
meeting at 11:00, so I am going to turn this over, but I have
three constituents who are here to testify. If I can do this
totally out of order, I would just like those three to stand so
I can formally introduce them even though they are going to be
on the second panel and I probably won't be here at that time,
for which I once again apologize. It is my bad.
First of all, Mike Jensen, who is a firefighter by
profession, but he is also a member of the Salt Lake County
Council. I appreciate him being here. Mike Goar, who is the
Managing Director of the Canyons Resort, which is one of the
terminuses of this potential link, and Mayor Ralph Becker, who
is the Mayor of Salt Lake City. I appreciate those three. A
couple of them are actually constituents. Mike, you are not,
but who knows? Someday. Someday. I appreciate you all for
coming here and being here, and I appreciate you participating
in the second panel.
All right. With that, we will also turn to the panel here.
Representative Larson, I promised you could go first because
you came here first. If you would like to testify to your bill,
we would be happy to hear it now.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Larson. Well, I thank the distinguished Chairman and
Ranking Member Grijalva----
[Microphone out for 26 seconds.]
Mr. Larson.--and I am pleased to be joined today by the
Mayor of the City of Hartford, who will be testifying in the
second panel, and also Peggy O'Dell from the National Park
Service, who will be testifying in favor of the bill as well.
We were fortunate to have Secretary Salazar out at the site
this past September. The Mayor of Hartford will be addressing
some of the very economic concerns that Chairman Bishop raised.
What is unique about this and historic has already been
well established in studies, but just briefly what I would like
to say is that this was of course, as many of you know,
Coltsville is where Samuel Colt and Elizabeth Colt
manufactured--one of the leading manufacturers at the time--the
gun that won the West. But in fact it was a gun that was used
during the Civil War, and Colt Manufacturing is still in
existence and still making guns and has done so for the United
States military from the Civil War to Afghanistan.
The unique history that is provided here is not just the
manufacturing, and this was central in this region to
manufacturing, but the whole concept of interchangeable parts
in a revolver and even more so that Samuel Colt dies and a
woman takes charge and runs Colt Manufacturing for the next 40
years. So indeed it was a woman that was in charge of a
company. She could not vote at the time, and it would have been
what we would call one of the top Fortune 5 companies at that
time in the United States.
It was a place where people came to learn about
interchangeable parts and assembly line manufacturing. And
whether it was Henry Ford or Pratt & Whitney, both in
automobiles and aerospace, but it also spawned the bicycle, the
typewriter and the automobile in terms of its manufacturing
significance and its process. Colt Manufacturing was the first
manufacturer to actually have a plant overseas, the first
American plant of its kind to do so, because of its unique
assembly line and interchangeable parts concept and of course
because of the legacy of the Colt revolver and gun itself.
Many of you on this Committee come from states where the
entire State of Connecticut could fit into just one of your
national parks, and what we are calling for is 10,000 square
feet. And what is unique about this, and I want to emphasize
this, is the collective enterprise that is involved in putting
this together. By collective enterprise I mean this: From the
grassroots up, the local community has bought into this because
of not only its historic significance but its significance to
its neighborhood and community.
You will hear from the Mayor of Hartford talking about the
economic value, more than $150 million of economic value and
1,000 jobs created by this visitors center that will highlight
the great treasures of the Colt Museum, many of which are
stored and out of sight in our state library.
The collaboration between the local grassroots people, the
municipal government and the City of Hartford, the State of
Connecticut, who has bought into this, and of course our
National Park Service all are vitally important, as well as the
private sector and the commercial sector, who have joined in
making sure that this becomes an incredible unique experience.
But what I want to leave you with today is what this means
is validation. Having been to a number of our national parks
and knowing the pride and prestige that happens when you walk
by the person garbed with that hat and that uniform, it
validates for people of the City of Hartford and the State of
Connecticut that sends far more to the Federal Government in
terms of revenue than what it is asking in return.
And for this small piece of history, it is not the Grand
Canyon, but it is a grand vision that envelops all the people
in the area. It is history in your backyard that not only by
preserving it enhances that future for everybody else but also
brings a community together. So I ask the Committee to view
this favorably.
I know you are going to hear from the Mayor and the
National Park Service as well, and I thank you for the
opportunity to make the case. Again, we will submit extraneous
testimony in people from the Chamber of Commerce to the State
of Connecticut to various historical groups, again testifying
to the validity of the program and its historic significance
and economic impact for the region.
And with that, I thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative Larson. John, you are
welcome to stay here and answer questions at the end or stay
here and join us, but I also realize you have a schedule and a
life to live, so whatever you wish to do. I feel for you.
Mr. Larson. I thank the Chairman. As much as I would like
to stay with him, like him, I also have another meeting that I
have to go to. I apologize because I indeed otherwise would
have taken you up on the offer.
Mr. Bishop. Well, both Raul and I are taking this personal,
but it is OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. I actually turn to Representative Herger right
now. Wally, if you would like to speak to introduce your piece
of legislation, and then the same thing will apply to you. If
you would like to stay with us on the dais, we have already
done a UC that would allow it.
STATEMENT OF HON. WALLY HERGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Herger. Thank you very much, Chairman Bishop, for
holding this hearing and inviting me to participate.
In the Northern California congressional district I
represent, the Federal Government owns an enormous amount of
the land with it reaching as high as 75 percent in Trinity
County. The Trinity County Public Utilities District, TPUD,
owns property surrounded by land administered by the Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest Service. TPUD seeks to
economically improve one parcel near the Weaverville Airport,
but it currently cannot do so because it is landlocked by the
Forest Service.
I introduced H.R. 1237 to provide for an exchange of
certain TPUD parcels for a portion of the Federal land that is
around the District property near the airport. My legislation
would transfer 47 acres of the District's property near the
Trinity River known as Sky Ranch to the Bureau of Land
Management and 150 acres within Six Rivers National Forest,
known as Van Duzen, to the Forest Service. TPUD would receive a
parcel of equal value from the Shasta-Trinity National Forest
that surrounds their site at the airport.
This land exchange would benefit the Federal Government by
consolidating BLM and Forest Service holdings and increase the
efficiency of managing the land. This would allow TPUD to
develop the property and enhance economic opportunity for the
community. Trinity County faces significant challenges
attracting businesses because the Federal Government owns 75
percent of the available land, over 1.5 million acres, limiting
the availability of land for commercial use.
The county also faces significant economic challenges
because government mismanagement and lawsuits from fringe
groups have shut down responsible stewardship and management of
the county's vast timber resources. This decline in management
has been devastating to the timber industry and had a
multiplier effect throughout the county's economy with severe
impacts on schools, infrastructure and small retail businesses.
I have received letters of support of this legislation from
the Trinity County Board of Supervisors, the Trinity County
Resource District, the Weaverville Community Forest and the
Rotary Club of Hayfork. I would like to submit them into the
record.
[NOTE: The letters submitted for the record by Mr. Herger
have been retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Herger. In closing, I strongly believe that these
resources belong to the people and local needs should drive
their management. Common-sense land exchanges like the one my
legislation would implement would have the twofold benefit of
making Federal land management more efficient while providing
local communities with greater access to their natural
resources.
I look forward to working with the Committee to pass this
common-sense land exchange bill and again thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herger follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Wally Herger,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Thank you Chairman Bishop for holding this hearing and inviting me
to participate. In the Northern California Congressional District I
represent, the federal government owns an enormous amount of the land,
with it reaching as high as 75% in Trinity County. The Trinity County
Public Utilities District, TPUD, owns property surrounded by land
administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
TPUD seeks to economically improve one parcel near the Weaverville
Airport, but it currently cannot do so because it is landlocked by the
Forest Service. I introduced H.R. 1237 to provide for an exchange of
certain TPUD parcels for a portion of the federal land that surround
the district's property near the airport.
My legislation would transfer 47 acres of the district's property
near the Trinity River, known as ``Sky Ranch,'' to the Bureau of Land
Management and 150 acres within Six Rivers National Forest, known as
``Van Duzen,'' to the Forest Service. TPUD would receive a parcel of
equal value from the Shasta-Trinity National Forest that surrounds
their site at the airport.
This land exchange would benefit the federal government by
consolidating BLM and Forest Service holdings and increase the
efficiency of managing the land. This would allow TPUD to develop the
property and enhance economic opportunities for the community.
Trinity County faces significant challenges attracting businesses
because the federal government owns 75% of the available land, over one
and a half million acres, limiting the availability of land for
commercial use. The county also faces significant economic challenges
because government mismanagement and lawsuits from fringe groups has
shut down responsible stewardship and management of the county's vast
timber resources. This decline in management has been devastating to
the timber industry and had a multiplier effect throughout the county's
economy with severe impacts on schools, infrastructure and small retail
businesses. I have received letters of support of this legislation from
the Trinity County Board of Supervisors, the Trinity County Resource
District, the Weaverville Community Forest and the Rotary Club of
Hayfork. I would like to submit them into the record.
In closing, I strongly believe that these resources belong to the
people, and local needs should drive their management. Common-sense
land exchanges like the one my legislation would implement would have
the two-fold benefit of making federal land management more efficient
while providing local communities with greater access to their natural
resources. I look forward to working with the committee to pass this
common-sense land exchange bill.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative. Once again, feel
free to stay with us if you would like to.
Mr. Herger. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. The gentleman from Minnesota, Chip--we always
call you Chip because I am really not sure how to pronounce
your name properly. Is it Cravaack? Cravaack?
Mr. Cravaack. Cravaack, Cravaack. I answer to a lot of
different ones.
Mr. Bishop. Congressman, you are up.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bishop. If you would introduce your bill, we would
appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHIP CRAVAACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva, for holding today's important legislation and hearing
and thank you for kindly inviting me to come testify on my
bill, H.R. 2947. This is an issue of great importance to the
men and women of the 8th District of Minnesota.
Mr. Chairman, in July of 1950, the Department of
Agriculture initiated a land transfer with Cook County in
northeastern Minnesota. The land was given with sole
expectation that it would be used for the sole purpose of
building the Cook County Airport. A clause was placed in the
deed that should the land be used for anything other than an
airport-related development, the deal would become void and the
property would revert back to the Department of Agriculture.
Currently, the Cook County Highway Department is trying to
finish construction of a road that would require usage of a
100-foot easement of land currently in possession by the Cook
County Airport. While both the Cook County Highway Department
and the Cook County Airport are in favor of building on the
100-foot easement, the land in question is part of the original
1950 land procurement made between the Department of
Agriculture and the State of Minnesota.
Cook County officials contacted the Federal Aviation
Administration about the matter. The FAA informed them that an
Act of Congress was needed to resolve the issue. Therefore, I
sit here today attempting to solve this unforeseen dilemma. My
legislation would instruct the Secretary of Agriculture to
execute and file a deed of release, other appropriate
instruments reflecting the release of the reversionary interest
and changing the conditions of the agreement.
H.R. 2947 does not seek an appropriation of Federal funds.
It is only a purpose to remove a clause placed in the deed when
the land was originally granted. Members of the Committee, this
piece of legislation has wide support back home in Minnesota
and in my district and, quite frankly, just makes sense.
The Cook County Board is planning to consider a resolution
of support in its upcoming December 13 meeting. With me today I
have a letter from the Cook County Highway Department offering
its full support of H.R. 2947. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully
request that the letter be inserted in the hearing for record.
[NOTE: The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Cravaack
has been retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Cravaack. Additionally, my staff has reached out to the
United States Forest Service and they have no objections and
support this legislation moving forward. I am hopeful the House
Natural Resources Committee will next report this bill out of
the full Committee, making it ready for the Floor for
consideration.
Again, thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member and
all Members of the Subcommittee, for allowing me to have this
opportunity to testify, and I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cravaack follows:]
Statement of Gregory Smith, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff, United States
Department of Agriculture, on S. 684, To provide for the conveyance of
certain parcels of land to the Town of Alta, Utah
Thank you Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for holding
today's important legislative hearing, and thank you for kindly
inviting me to come testify on my bill, H.R. 2947. This is an issue of
great importance to me and my constituents back in the 8th District of
Minnesota.
Mr. Chairman, in July of 1950 the Department of Agriculture
initiated a land transfer with Cook County in northeastern Minnesota.
The land was given with the expectation that it would be used for the
sole purpose of building the Cook County Airport. A clause was placed
in the deed that should the land be used for anything other than
airport related development, the deal would become void and the
property would revert back to the Department of Agriculture.
Currently, the Cook County Highway Department is trying to finish
construction of a road that would require the usage of a 100 foot
easement of land currently in possession of the Cook County Airport.
While both the Cook County Highway Department and the Cook County
Airport are in favor of building on the 100 foot easement, the land in
question is part of the original 1950 land procurement made between the
Department of Agriculture and the State of Minnesota.
Our local county officials contacted the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) about the matter. The FAA official they spoke to
said an act of Congress was needed to resolve the issue.
Therefore, I sit here today attempting to solve this unforeseen
dilemma. My legislation would instruct the Secretary of Agriculture to
execute and file a deed of release, other appropriate instruments
reflecting the release of the reversionary interest, and changing the
conditions of the agreement. H.R. 2947 does not seek any appropriation
of federal funds; its only purpose is to remove a clause placed in the
deed when the land was granted.
Members of the committee, this piece of legislation has wide
support back home in my District. The Cook County Board is planning to
consider a resolution of support in its upcoming December 13th meeting.
With me today I have a letter from the Cook County Highway
Department offering its full support for the H.R. 2947. I would
respectfully request that the letter be inserted into the Hearing
Record.
Additionally, my staff has reached out to the United States Forest
Service and they have responded by saying that they have no objections
and support this legislation moving forward.
I'm hopeful the House Natural Resources Committee will next report
this bill out of the full committee, making it ready for floor
consideration.
Again, thank you Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and all
members of the subcommittee for allowing me the opportunity to testify
today.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Representative Cravaack. As I said,
you are welcome to stay here if you would like to.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Bishop. We will next turn to Representative Heck. The
same thing, if you would like to introduce the piece of
legislation you have, and once again, if you would like to stay
afterwards to join us on the dais, you are invited to.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member
Grijalva. Thank you for inviting me to testify before the
Subcommittee on H.R. 2745, legislation that amends the Mesquite
Lands Act of 1986.
The original Mesquite Lands Act was passed in 1986 and
provided the City of Mesquite the exclusive right to purchase
at fair market value certain Federal land under the control of
the Bureau of Land Management. As the city is landlocked by
public lands and was the fastest growing city in the country
for much of the 1990s, this legislation was amended in 1996 to
allow the city to purchase additional Federal lands to ensure
Mesquite could continue to grow and prosper in a positive
manner.
In 1999, Congress passed the latest Mesquite Lands Act
amendment with the specific purpose of providing land to
construct a commercial airport and to provide more room for
commercial and industrial development to again meet future
demands for its citizens and a rapidly growing tourism
industry.
In 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a
Mesquite Lands Act biological opinion to the BLM which
promulgated certain terms and conditions associated with the
land sale. A key term contained in the biological opinion is a
mandate that the city participate in the development and
implementation of a habitat conservation and recovery plan and
a hydrologic monitoring and mitigation plan along the Virgin
River.
In response to the Mesquite Lands Act biological opinion,
Congress made a technical amendment to the Act within the Clark
County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of
2002 that set aside a portion of the proceeds from the sale of
each parcel for the development of these plans. However,
language allowing for the implementation of these plans was
inadvertently omitted from this amendment.
Other Nevada land Acts, such as the Southern Nevada Public
Lands Management Act and the Lincoln and White Pine County
Lands Acts, clearly state that funds shall be expended on
development and implementation of multispecies habitat
conservation plans that are associated with new development. I
believe that the same process should be applied to the Mesquite
Lands Act.
The City of Mesquite has instituted an interim fee for each
acre of land disturbed by development estimated to generate up
to $10 million over the life of the recovery plan. Another $9
million has been committed to the program from the Southern
Nevada Water Authority, and the Virgin Valley Water District is
contemplating a mitigation fee for each new service hookup that
will generate up to $19 million.
However, costs for the mitigation and recovery efforts
could reach $63 million, making the implementation language
clarification of utmost importance. It is estimated that this
would provide an additional $4.8 million to this effort, which
is the balance of the special fund currently held by the U.S.
Department of the Interior.
Again, H.R. 2745 is just a legislative clarification
regarding the special funds, allowing for the development and
implementation of the conservation and recovery plans. This is
consistent with other habitat conservation plans in Nevada, and
the same process should be applied to the City of Mesquite.
In addition to this clarification, there is an issue
regarding the timing of the land sales identified in the 1999
amendment to the Lands Act which is also addressed in H.R.
2745. The legislation gives the city the exclusive right to
purchase at fair market value the land identified in the Lands
Act from BLM for a period of 12 years from the date of
enactment.
However, due to the severe economic conditions that
continue to plague southern Nevada and a delay of the
environmental impact statement for the airport site, the city
is not in a position to purchase the final sections of property
at this time and therefore was not able to make this deadline.
The City of Mesquite remains committed to ensure that it
continues to grow in a positive manner and needs an extension
of time to allow economic conditions to improve.
In closing, I would like to again thank Chairman Bishop and
Ranking Member Grijalva as well as the other Members of the
Subcommittee for holding a hearing on H.R. 2745. A letter of
support from the BLM has been provided for the record.
[The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Heck has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]]
Mr. Heck. I look forward to answering any questions the
Subcommittee might have. I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heck follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Joe Heck, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Nevada, on H.R. 2745, Amending the Mesquite Lands Act of
1986
Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for inviting
me to testify before the Subcommittee on H.R. 2745, legislation that I
introduced on August 4th of this year that amends the Mesquite Lands
Act of 1986.
The original Mesquite Lands Act was passed in 1986 and provided the
City of Mesquite the exclusive right to purchase, at fair market value,
certain federal land under the control of the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). As the City is landlocked by public lands and was the fastest
growing city in the country for much of the 1990's, this legislation
was amended in 1996 to allow the City to purchase additional federal
lands to ensure Mesquite could continue to grow and prosper in a
positive manner. In 1999, Congress passed the latest Mesquite Lands Act
amendment with the specific purpose of providing land to construct a
commercial airport and to provide more room for commercial and
industrial development to again meet future demands for its citizens
and a rapidly growing tourism industry.
In 2002, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Mesquite Lands
Act Biological Opinion to the BLM which promulgated certain terms and
conditions associated with the land sale. A key term contained in the
Biological Opinion is a mandate that the City participate in the
development and implementation of a Habitat Conservation and Recovery
Plan (VRHCRP) and a Hydrologic Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (HMMP)
along the Virgin River.
In response to the Mesquite Lands Act Biological Opinion, Congress
made a technical amendment to the Act within The Clark County
Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 that set
aside a portion of the proceeds from the sale of each parcel for the
``development'' of the Recovery Plan and the Hydrologic Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan. It is apparent that, during this process, language
allowing for the ``implementation'' of these plans was inadvertently
omitted from this amendment. Other land acts, such as Southern Nevada
Public Lands Management Act and the Lincoln and White Pine County Lands
Acts, clearly state that funds shall be expended on development and
implementation of multi-species habitat conservation plans that are
associated with new development in their respective areas. I believe
that the same process should be applied to the Mesquite Lands Act.
The Habitat Conservation and Recovery Plan was established to
provide a mechanism for federal and non-federal entities to work
collaboratively to protect and conserve imperiled species in the Lower
Virgin River Basin. The Hydrologic Monitoring and Mitigation Plan
provides for monitoring to assure the Virgin River is not adversely
affected by the extraction of groundwater for new development.
Additionally, an important function of the Conservation and Recovery
Plan will be to provide a forum to coordinate ongoing aquatic and
riparian species conservation and recovery efforts within the basin. In
concert with habitat plan development, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has notably allowed development to continue in Mesquite, with
the understanding that the plan would be implemented upon adoption. The
unique process merges a habitat conservation planning process with a
recovery plan.
The City of Mesquite has instituted an interim fee for each acre of
land disturbed by development, estimated to generate up to $10 million
over the life of the Habitat Conservation and Recovery Plan. Another $9
million has been committed to the program from the Southern Nevada
Water Authority and The Virgin Valley Water District is contemplating a
mitigation fee for each new service hookup that will generate up to
$19,000,000. However, costs for the mitigation and recovery efforts
could reach $63 million, making the ``implementation'' language
clarification of utmost importance. It is estimated that this would
provide an additional $4.8 million to this effort, which is the balance
of the special fund being held by the U.S. Department of Interior.
H.R. 2745 is a legislative clarification regarding the special
funds allowing for the development and implementation of the Habitat
Conservation and Recovery Plan and the Hydrologic Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan. This is consistent with other Habitat Conservation
Plans in Nevada and the same process should be applied to the City of
Mesquite.
In addition to the clarification for the Habitat Conservation and
Recovery Plan, there is an issue regarding the timing of the land sales
identified in the 1999 amendment to the Mesquite Lands Act that is also
addressed in H.R. 2745. The legislation gives the City the exclusive
right to purchase, at fair market value, the land identified in the
Mesquite Lands Act from the Bureau of Land Management for a period of
12 years from the date of enactment of the Land Act. Due to the severe
economic conditions that continue to plague Southern Nevada and a delay
of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Airport site, the City is
not in a position to purchase the final sections of property at this
time and, therefore, was not be able to make this deadline. The City of
Mesquite remains committed to ensure that it continues to grow in a
positive manner, and needs an extension of time to allow economic
conditions to improve.
In closing, I would like to again thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking
Member Grijalva, as well as the other members of the Subcommittee, for
holding a hearing on H.R. 2745. As the tourism industry continues to
grow and prosper, a greater capacity for air carrier service will be
required to meet the needs of the region. In addition, the City of
Mesquite is land locked by public land, much of which has been
identified as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by the Bureau of
Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service. This legislation
will allow the City to continue to control the path of its future
expansion and develop new commercial air service, as well as correct a
previous oversight to allow for both the development and implementation
of the Habitat Conservation and Recovery Plan and the Hydrologic
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, making it consistent with other Habitat
Conservation Plans in Nevada. I look forward to answering any questions
the Subcommittee might have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Joe. I appreciate it.
For those who are going to participate in the second panel,
I will just let you know this is unfortunate. It is not
supposed to happen this way, but on Fridays it sometimes does.
We are now scheduled to have votes sometime around 11:00, so we
are going to finish this first panel here and then probably
take a break for the votes and then come back.
So if I could just ask you to simply mill around and waste
your time while we get done. We will be back here eventually,
sometime hopefully around 11:30-ish, give or take a half hour.
So, with that, Representative Gosar, you have been kind
enough to wait, but you are on the Committee, so you will stay
here anyway. I would ask you to introduce your bill if you
would.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member
Grijalva. Thank you very much for considering this important
bill, H.R. 1038. My bill will provide long-awaited relief to
the residents of Mountainaire Subdivision in Coconino County,
Arizona. An incorrect BLM survey in the 1960s mistakenly
identified between two and a half and three acres of Forest
Service land as private property. As a result, 27 property
owners are facing questions and difficulties over their own
properties and their own homes.
But don't take my word for it. What we did is we asked to
involve the people back home, and if you will turn your
attention to the monitors and if we could get the lights
dimmed, they will tell you their story. Hopefully it is going
to work.
Mr. Bishop. The technology doesn't work because we are in
the Ag room. If we were in our own room, this would work
perfectly, right?
[Video shown.]
Dr. Gosar. Well, unfortunately we ran through this several
times yesterday and it actually worked very, very well. I
apologize. You know, when something goes wrong, it will go
wrong.
But what I want to really say is that what you are seeing
is a piece of property where people are victims of the
situation here. What the BLM did was a survey in the 1960s.
Houses--families were reared--were built, and people all of a
sudden discovered when we have new technology to show that
their properties weren't actually where they actually were.
They were actually on the Forest Service.
This involves two and a half acres, two and a half to three
acres, and what we are looking at is trying to purchase that.
So H.R. 1038 simply authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to
convey the parcels of land under dispute to a legal entity
representing the majority of the landowners affected in this
matter.
The community of Mountainaire stands ready to raise the
$20,000 required to buy the parcels back from the Secretary. In
other words, my legislation presents a solution where all
parties have skin in the game and everybody wins. I am also
pleased to see the Administration testifying today in support
of this legislation. This is common sense. This is getting
people back to solution processes where they actually are
empowered to make their own solutions.
I thank the Committee for considering the legislation
today, and I look forward to my colleagues to support this
strong, common-sense measure to achieve justice for all
parties. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei [presiding]. As you can tell, I have got a lot
of experience on this. I was also the guy in charge of your
tape, so don't worry about that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Amodei. Is there anything else that any of my
colleagues on this particular panel want to do before we go
into recess for the votes?
[No response.]
Mr. Amodei. Is there any objection to voting on the senior
Member of the Republican membership from Nevada's bill right
now since I am the junior one and he is the senior one? OK. Not
much appetite for that, Joe.
So we are going to be in recess until the conclusion of
votes when we will come right back and start with the next
panel. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Dr. Gosar [presiding]. This Committee will come back to
order. If I could convene the second panel? Thank you very
much. Sorry for the delay.
First of all, I would like to introduce Mr. Gregory Smith,
the Acting Deputy Chief of Staff of the U.S. Forest Service,
five minute testimony. If you see the little light, if you get
yellow, that means to speed it up, and red means to wind it
down. So, with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY SMITH, ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S.
FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here to testify on
six bills, and I will try to be brief about them.
H.R. 1038. The Department supports H.R. 1038, a bill
designated to correct an erroneous private survey on the
Coconino National Forest in Arizona. Because of the erroneous
survey, approximately 19 acres, totaling about 2.67 acres of
National Forest System lands, now have structures built on
them.
Although the Forest Service has administrative authority to
sell the land, the bill would provide a more quick and
efficient resolution to the issue with all property owners at
the same time. To ensure that approximate compensation and
appropriate compensation of the land to be conveyed is
recovered on behalf of the American taxpayers, an appraisal
should be done consistent with Federal appraisal standards, and
the homeowners would pay the appraised value.
H.R. 1237. H.R. 1237 directs the Secretary to convey to the
Trinity Public Utilities District of Trinity County,
California, approximately 100 acres of land in the Shasta-
Trinity National Forest near Weaverville Airport in Trinity
County in exchange for approximately 150 acres of private land
known as the Van Duzen parcel within the boundaries of the Six
Rivers National Forest. Additionally, to equalize the exchange,
the utility district would also convey approximately 47 acres
known as Sky Ranch parcel to the Bureau of Land Management.
While we are supportive of the utilities district's desire
to facilitate access to the Weaver Airport, the Department does
not support H.R. 1237 as written because the Van Duzen parcel
does not contain any unique or high quality recreational
resource values. The acquisition would also create a private
inholding within the Six Rivers National Forest containing a
waste transfer station. Because there are other private parcels
interspersed in the general area, the consolidation resulting
from this exchange would not produce a manageable forest
management benefit.
Although the Department does not fully support the bill as
written, we appreciate Congressman Herger's hard work and fully
support his efforts to help the utility district. Therefore, we
would like to work with the Committee, the Congressman and the
utility district to identify parcels located within the
boundaries of the Shasta-Trinity in hopes of assisting the
utility district in meeting its needs.
H.R. 2157. The Department supports H.R. 2157, which allows
the Secretary through land exchange involving the conveyance of
approximately 20 acres of intensely developed National Forest
land located on the Inyo National Forest to accept acquisition
of certain nonFederal lands in California lying outside the
boundaries of the Inyo National Forest if those lands are
determined to be desirable for National Forest purposes. In
addition, the bill would allow the Secretary to accept cash
equalization in excess of 25 percent because of the high value
of the Federal parcels.
H.R. 2947. The Department supports H.R. 2947, which would
direct the Secretary to release the deeds and conditions of
reversionary interest imposed on the use of approximately 25
acres of National Forest System lands within the Superior
National Forest. The land parcel is actually being used by Cook
County as a seaplane base. Cook County Highway 8 also crosses
parcels and provides public access to the airport as well as to
the National Forest land.
In the interest of working with our county partner, we
support the release of the deed restrictions and reversionary
interests in this case to resolve the county's technical
contract issue so that maintenance can be performed on the
portion of the county road that crosses the 25-acre land parcel
to improve public safety.
H.R. 3452. H.R. 3452 would direct the Secretary to sell at
market value approximately 30 acres of National Forest System
lands in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Salt Lake
City County to permit the construction of a ski lift to serve
as a public access transportation interconnection between
Solitude Mountain Resort and Canyon Ski Resort in the Wasatch
Mountains.
We recognize the importance of managing transportation
along the Wasatch Front and we appreciate the efforts of the
bill's proponents to address these issues. However, the
Department does not support H.R. 3452 for several reasons: The
SkiLink would pass through an inventory roadless area. Selling
the parcel would create private inholdings in the National
Forest. Furthermore, the watershed protection and other
considerations, such as visual resources for the area, would be
diminished.
Also, if the land had not been used for 10 years alone, it
would automatically revert back to the U.S. At a minimum, we
would like the discretion for the Secretary in that we would
not have an automatic trigger. In addition, several
transportation studies earlier have been completed and there
are several underway that might shed some light on a more
suitable option to address this capacity concerning the Wasatch
Front.
Senate Bill 684. 684 would direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to convey without consideration certain parcels of
National Forest System land comprising two acres located within
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest to the Town of Alta, Utah,
for public purposes.
While we are supportive of the town's desire to consolidate
its municipal resources, the Department does not support it as
written. However, again we are willing to work with the bill's
sponsors, the Town of Alta and the Committee in hopes of
assisting the town in achieving its desired consolidation of
its multiple resources.
Mr. Chairman, just to conclude my statement, I will be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Smith follow:]
Statement of Gregory Smith, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff, United States
Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 1038, To Authorize the Conveyance of
Two Small Parcels of land within the boundaries of the Coconino
National Forest containing private improvements that were developed
based upon the reliance of the landowners in an erroneous survey
conducted in May 1960
Mr. Chairman Bishop and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department of
Agriculture's view on H.R. 1038, a bill designed to correct an
erroneous, private survey on the Coconino National Forest in Arizona. I
am Gregory Smith, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff of the United States
Forest Service. The Department supports this bill.
In 1960-61, privately contracted surveyors surveyed two sections of
land in what is now known as the Mountainaire Subdivision, which
largely abuts the Coconino National Forest. Both surveys were found to
be inaccurate when the Bureau of Land Management conducted a survey in
2007. The BLM survey correctly re-established the boundary of the
National Forest System lands.
Because of the erroneous private surveys, approximately 19 parcels
totaling 2.67 acres of National Forest System land now have structures
built on them. Although the Forest Service has authority under the
Small Tracts Act (Public Law 97-465) to sell this land to the
homeowners, H.R. 1038 would more quickly and efficiently resolve the
issue with all property owners at the same time.
Section 1(c) of the bill would provide for consideration in a fixed
amount of $20,000. To ensure that appropriate compensation for the land
to be conveyed is recovered on behalf of the American taxpayer, an
appraisal should be done consistent with Federal appraisal standards
and the homeowner would pay the appraised value. The bill should also
provide that the homeowner should bear other administrative costs
associated with the conveyance.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Statement of Gregory Smith, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff, United States
Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 1237, To provide for a land exchange
with the Trinity Public Utilities District of Trinity County,
California, involving the transfer of land to the Bureau of Land
Management and the Six Rivers National Forest in exchange for National
Forest System land in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, and for other
purposes.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today and provide the Department of
Agriculture's views regarding H.R. 1237. The bill would provide for a
land exchange with the Trinity Public Utilities District (TPUD) of
Trinity County, California, involving the transfer of land to the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Six
Rivers National Forest in exchange for National Forest System land in
the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, and for other purposes.
H.R. 1237 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the
TPUD certain parcels of National Forest System (NFS) land comprising
approximately 100 acres in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest near the
Weaverville Airport in Trinity County, in exchange for approximately
150 acres of private land, known as the Van Duzen parcel, within the
boundaries of the Six Rivers National Forest. Additionally, to equalize
the exchange, the TPUD also would convey approximately 47 acres, known
as the Sky Ranch parcel, to the Bureau of Land Management.
While supportive of the TPUD's desire to facilitate access to the
Weaverville Airport, the Department does not support H.R. 1237 because
the land to be conveyed to the Secretary of Agriculture does not
possess any recreation or natural resources values that would
contribute to the management of the NFS. The consolidation resulting
from this Federal acquisition will not produce measurable forest
management benefits as there are other private parcels interspersed in
the general area. In addition, the Van Duzen parcel is directly
adjacent to a private parcel that is currently operated as a waste
transfer station. There is no provision in the legislation to ensure
that any hazardous conditions associated with these lands or other
activities could be identified and remediated if discovered before the
United States would acquire the Van Duzen parcel.
The Department would like to work with TPUD and the committee to
identify parcels located within the boundaries of the Shasta-Trinity
National Forest that would provide for the needs of the TPUD as well as
the needs of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
For example, the Mt Eddy parcels located near the summit of Mt.
Eddy, the highest point in Trinity County, the highest point in the
Klamath Ranges, and the ninth most prominent peak in the State of
California more appropriately meet the needs of the Shasta-Trinity
National Forest. The summit of Mt. Eddy offers one of the most scenic
views in northern California, looking east to Mt. Shasta, west to the
Trinity Alps and north across Shasta Valley to Oregon. Several high
elevation alpine lakes and numerous alpine meadows are included with
this proposed acquisition. The Mt. Eddy parcels have a number of unique
geologic features and opportunities for study and public education. The
possibility of acquisition presents an opportunity to preserve the high
quality visual character of this area, protect critical wildlife and
plant habitat by consolidating ecosystems, protect critical watersheds
and provide outstanding recreation opportunities.
Currently, the Mt. Eddy parcels create ownership fragmentation
within the boundary of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. There is a
highly motivated and willing seller and a partner, the Trust for Public
Land (TPL) that is working with the seller to secure this property
until funding is available. These parcels have been identified in the
Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as a
high priority to acquire, and would provide the opportunity to increase
the efficiency and effectiveness of natural resource management efforts
and enhance recreation experiences by consolidating lands within the
forest boundary.
In addition to the land acquisition, the Department also recommends
a provision in the legislation for the reservation of easements for all
roads and trails across the 100-acre parcel of NFS lands to be conveyed
that the Secretary considers necessary or desirable to provide for
administrative purposes and to ensure public access to adjacent NFS
lands.
The BLM has advised the Forest Service that they would welcome the
approximately 47 acres of Trinity County property as it would promote
public access to the Trinity Wild and Scenic River (WSR) for recreation
purposes, and restoration of riparian habitat along the WSR corridor.
The parcel, known as the Sky Ranch parcel, lies between State Highway
299 and BLM-managed land on the Trinity Wild and Scenic River. This
area has been identified for acquisition in the Redding Resource
Management Plan.
Although the Department does not support H.R. 1237 as written, we
are willing to work with the bill sponsors, the TPUD, the TPL, and the
Committee, in hopes of assisting the TPUD in meeting its needs, as well
as the needs of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest to improve
recreation opportunities and provide further protection of valuable
natural resources.
I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
______
Statement of Gregory Smith, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff, United States
Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 2157, To facilitate a land exchange
involving certain National Forest System lands in the Inyo National
Forest, and for other purposes.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department of
Agriculture's views regarding H.R. 2157, a bill to facilitate a land
exchange involving certain National Forest System lands in the Inyo
National Forest, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2157 would allow the Secretary of Agriculture, in a proposed
land exchange involving the conveyance of certain National Forest
System land located within the boundaries of the Inyo National Forest,
to accept for acquisition certain non-Federal lands in California lying
outside the boundaries of the Inyo National Forest, if the Secretary
determines that the acquisition of the non-Federal lands is desirable
for National Forest System purposes. In addition, H.R. 2157 would allow
the Secretary of Agriculture to accept a cash equalization payment in
excess of 25 percent, which shall be deposited into the account in the
Treasury of the United States, as established by the Sisk Act, to be
made available to the Secretary for acquisition of land for addition to
the National Forest System.
The Department supports H.R. 2157 as it will facilitate the land
exchange process by authorizing a cash equalization payment in excess
of 25 percent, while not exempting the land exchange from all
requirements and regulations of a land-for-land exchange, including
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Mammoth Mountain Lodge Redevelopment LLC, commonly known as Mammoth
Mountain Ski Area (MMSA), wishes to acquire 20 acres of National Forest
System land in the Main Lodge area, currently managed as part of a Ski
Area Term Special Use Permit, so it can redevelop aging lodging
facilities, increase capacity, and develop employee housing and whole
and fractional ownership condominiums. These latter plans are
inconsistent with its Ski Area Term Special Use Permit.
MMSA, with the assistance of Western Lands Group, has acquired or
optioned 11 non-Federal parcels suitable for acquisition in the Inyo,
Stanislaus, Plumas, and Eldorado National Forests for the proposed
exchange. These parcels were selected by the respective National
Forests based on priorities identified in their Forest's Land
Acquisition Plans. At the request of the Inyo National Forest, MMSA
optioned two Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) parcels
that are leased by the Forest Service as administrative sites. The
southern parcel houses the Interagency Visitor Center near Lone Pine,
California. The northern parcel is adjacent to the White Mountain
Ranger Station in Bishop, California, and serves as a storage area for
construction materials, recreation supplies and larger maintenance
trucks. Legislation is needed to acquire the LADWP parcels because they
are located outside the declared boundary of the Inyo National Forest.
In addition, because of the expected high value of the Federal
parcel, estimated to range from $10--$20 million, the value of the
Federal and non-Federal lands are not equal, so legislation is needed
to authorize the Forest Service to accept cash equalization in excess
of the limit of 25 percent of the value of the Federal land as provided
in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The Department
recommends, however, the legislation be modified to clarify that funds
deposited in the Sisk Act account be made available to the Secretary
without further appropriation to acquire land in the State of
California as additions to the National Forest System.
I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
______
Statement of Gregory Smith, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff, United States
Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 2947, a bill to provide for the
release of the reversionary interest held by the United States in
certain land conveyed by the United States in 1950 for the
establishment of an airport in Cook County, Minnesota.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department of
Agriculture's views regarding H.R. 2947, a bill to provide for the
release of the reversionary interest held by the United States in
certain land conveyed by the United States in 1950 for the
establishment of an airport in Cook County, Minnesota.
H.R. 2947 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to release,
without consideration, and through deed, the conditions imposed on the
use of approximately 25.51 acres of land on Devil Track Lake within the
Superior National Forest. The parcel was conveyed to the State of
Minnesota in 1950 on the conditions that it be used for the
establishment of a public airport in Cook County, Minnesota (the
County). The bill would release the reversionary interest held by the
United States pursuant to the original conveyance in 1950, which states
that if the land is no longer used for a public airport, it will revert
back to the United States.
The Department supports H.R. 2947. The land parcel is currently
included in the County's Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and is actively
being used as a seaplane base. Cook County Highway 8 (Devil Track Road)
crosses the parcel and provides public access to the airport as well as
to National Forest System land. The road requires maintenance and
improvement for public safety purposes due to increased traffic in the
area. Because of State law relating to contract maintenance, the County
currently cannot perform significant maintenance on this portion of the
County road without clear title to the land. In the interest of working
with our County partner, we support the release of the deed
restrictions and reversionary interest in this case to resolve the
County's technical contract issue so that maintenance can be performed
on the portion of Devil Track Road that crosses the 25.51 acre land
parcel to improve public safety.
We understand that the County plans to continue use of the land
parcel in its ALP for use as a seaplane base. Therefore, we believe
that if the bill is enacted, future use of the land parcel and
management of the area surrounding the parcel would not change.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Statement of Gregory Smith, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff, United States
Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 3452, Wasatch Range Recreation
Enhancement Act
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department of
Agriculture's views regarding H.R. 3452, the Wasatch Range Recreation
Enhancement Act.
Section 3(a) of H.R. 3452 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture
to sell, at market value, approximately 30 acres of National Forest
System (NFS) land in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Salt
Lake County, Utah. The purpose of the sale is to permit the
construction of a ski-lift, gondola or tramway to serve as a public
access transportation interconnection between Solitude Mountain Resort
and the Canyons Ski Resort in the Wasatch Mountains. Solitude Mountain
Resort is built on NFS land and operates under a 40-year special use
permit. The transportation alternative is called the ``SkiLink.''
The land sale would be subject to compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws. However,
once conveyed, the owner could make any use of the land and would not
be subject to any restrictions on use. Proponents cite a report
asserting that the SkiLink will cut down on ski-season vehicle traffic
between the two resorts by as much as 18,000 vehicles. The Forest
Service has been unable to view the report on the SkiLink proposal and
its conclusions are in dispute among local interested parties.
While we appreciate the desire of the bill's proponents to reduce
traffic between the two resorts, the Department does not support H.R.
3452. The SkiLink would pass through an inventoried roadless area.
Selling the parcel will create a private inholding in the National
Forest between two resorts, one of which is built on public land, which
is inconsistent with efforts to consolidate ownership within forest
boundaries. Furthermore, watershed protection and other considerations,
such as the visual resources for the area would be diminished.
Section 3(c) of the bill would require an appraisal to be completed
no later than six months after enactment of the Act. Six months is not
enough time to complete an appraisal to Federal standards. Even when
expedited, appraisals take 12 to 18 months. Section 3(d) provides for
the return of the sold land to the Forest Service if the land has not
been used for a period of 10 years or longer. Section 3(d) would
provide the Secretary with the option to revert the land back to the
United States if the land is not used for the purpose of the
conveyance. Reversionary interest in conveyed land puts the agency in
the position of policing the use of private land. At a minimum, any
reversion should be at the discretion of the Secretary and not
automatically triggered after 10 years.
Section 3 (e) of the bill would direct the Secretary to complete
all actions that may be required under various laws, including NEPA.
However, since the legislation requires the Secretary to convey the
land by sale, the extent to which NEPA would apply is unclear. NEPA
only applies to those matters over which the agency exercises
discretion. NEPA may apply, for example, if the Forest Service has
discretion to determine the precise area to be conveyed or to establish
terms and conditions for use of the property.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Statement of Gregory Smith, Acting Deputy Chief of Staff, United States
Department of Agriculture, on S. 684, To provide for the conveyance of
certain parcels of land to the Town of Alta, Utah
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today and provide the Department of
Agriculture's views regarding S. 684, to provide for the conveyance of
certain parcels of land to the town of Alta, Utah. S. 684 would direct
the Secretary of Agriculture to convey, without consideration, certain
parcels of National Forest System (NFS) land comprising approximately
two acres located in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest to the
Town of Alta, Utah, for public purposes. While supportive of the Town's
desire to consolidate its municipal resources, the Department does not
support S. 684.
The Forest Service can convey the parcel under current authorities
through the Townsite Act of July 31, 1958 (16 U.S.C. 478a). The
Townsite Act authorizes communities to acquire up to 640 acres of NFS
land in order to serve community objectives, and requires payment to
the United States of the market value of the federal land. Similarly,
the lands could be made available by exchange for equal value
consideration.
It is longstanding policy that the United States receive market
value for the sale, exchange, or use of NFS land. This policy is well
established in law, including the Independent Offices Appropriation Act
(31 U.S.C. 9701), section 102(9) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701), as well as numerous land exchange
authorities. Based on recent land sales in the Alta area, we estimate
the value of the lands proposed to be conveyed under S. 684 to be
approximately $500,000 per acre.
Finally, S. 684 would require the Town of Alta to cover the Federal
land survey costs associated with the proposed conveyance. It also
should provide that the Town should bear other administrative costs
associated with the conveyance.
Although the Department does not support S. 684 as written, we are
willing to work with the bill sponsors, the Town of Alta, and the
Committee, in hopes of assisting the Town in achieving its desired
consolidation of municipal resources.
This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
______
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Smith, that was amazing that you got through
all those in that timeframe.
I would like to introduce our next guest, Ms. Peggy O'Dell,
the Deputy Director from the National Park Service. Ms. O'Dell?
STATEMENT OF PEGGY O'DELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. O'Dell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member
Grijalva. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
Subcommittee today to present the Department of the Interior's
views on four bills on today's agenda. Three of these are
National Park Service bills and one is a Bureau of Land
Management bill.
Accompanying me today is Mr. Bill Falsey, Deputy Chief of
Staff for the Bureau of Land Management. He is available to
answer any questions that you might have on H.R. 2745. I would
like to submit our full statement on these bills for the record
and summarize the Department's position here.
H.R. 2490 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a study of the Cascadia Marine Trail in Puget Sound,
Washington, for potential addition to the National Trails
System. The Department supports the bill with one amendment.
The Cascadia Marine Trail is a nonmotorized water route
approximately 2,500 miles long with small campsites placed on
public lands. The trail begins near San Juan Island National
Historical Park and passes through many coves and waterways
south to Olympia, Washington.
A study would look at the national significance and
eligibility of the trail as well as the feasibility and
suitability of designating it as a unit of the National Trails
System. The study would focus on exploring recreational
opportunities, defining historical aspects and establishing a
working relationship with partners in order to identify land-
based facilities as required by the bill.
H.R. 2504 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
establish Coltsville National Historical Park in Hartford,
Connecticut, after certain conditions are met. This park unit
would preserve and interpret the important contributions to
manufacturing technology by Samuel Colt and the industrial
enterprise he founded in 1855. The Department supports the
enactment of this legislation.
Under H.R. 2504, the park unit could not be established
until the Secretary is satisfied that adequate public access to
the site and its financial viability are assured. The authority
to review the financial resources of public and private
property owners associated with the project is unprecedented in
similar park establishment legislation. We believe that these
conditions will assure the park is established only when the
development is moving forward and the public will have the
ability to learn about the manufacturing process that took
place at the site.
H.R. 2745 would amend the Mesquite Lands Act of 1986 in
order to renew the exclusive right of the City of Mesquite,
Nevada, to purchase certain public lands for development and
allows for proceeds from land sales to be used to implement a
habitat conservation plan for the Virgin River, also in
Mesquite. The Department supports the goals of H.R. 2745,
recognizing that it seeks to provide for the economic
development needs of this community.
H.R. 3222 would designate approximately 4,100 acres of land
currently within the boundary of Olympic National Park as an
addition to the existing Olympic wilderness. It would also
designate approximately 11 acres of parkland as potential
wilderness. Designation of these lands as wilderness and
potential wilderness was included in the introduced version of
H.R. 1162, a bill to provide the Quileute Indian Tribe tsunami
and flood protection and for other purposes. Designation was
intended to offset the removal of other lands from the
wilderness preservation system in an agreement among all
involved parties, including the Quileute tribe.
During markup, the language now introduced as H.R. 3222 was
removed from H.R. 1162. At that time, Members of this
Subcommittee expressed both concern for its removal and a
willingness to consider the wilderness provision as a
standalone bill. The Department supports H.R. 3222.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be
pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statements of Ms. O'Dell follow:]
Statement of Peggy O'Dell, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2490, a Bill to Amend the National
Trails System Act to Provide for a Study of the Cascadia Marine Trail
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today and present the Department of
the Interior view's on H.R. 2490, a bill to amend the National Trails
System Act to provide for a study of the Cascadia Marine Trail.
The Department supports H.R. 2490 with one amendment. However, we
feel that priority should be given to the 37 previously authorized
studies for potential units of the National Park System, potential new
National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails
System and National Wild and Scenic Rivers System that have not yet
been transmitted to Congress.
H.R. 2490 would amend Section 5(c) of the National Trails System
Act by directing the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to conduct a
study of the Cascadia Marine Trail for consideration for inclusion in
the National Trails System. As a part of the study, the Secretary would
be required to coordinate with State and local governments and private
entities in the preparation of the study of the Cascadia Marine Trail
and to look at nearby sites of recreational, scenic, or historic
significance that are not connected by the Cascadia Marine Trail. We
estimate the cost of this study to be approximately $400,000.
The Cascadia Marine Trail is a non-motorized water route within the
Puget Sound in the State of Washington. The trail is approximately
2,500 miles long with 55 small campsites placed on public lands. The
trail begins near San Juan Island National Historical Park and passes
through many coves and waterways south to Olympia, Washington. The
Cascadia Marine Trail has been used for over five thousand years by
Native Americans, early explorers and today's wind and hand-propelled
watercraft enthusiasts. The Puget Sound is the second largest estuary
in the continental United States and is home to populations of seals,
bald eagles, orca whales and nearly 4 million humans living in the
surrounding watershed area.
The Cascadia Marine Trail has a long and significant history in the
state of Washington with its designation as a National Recreation Trail
in 1994; as a National Millennium Trail in 1999; and as an American
Canoe Association Recommended Water Trail in 2005.
A study produced by the National Park Service would not only look
at the national significance and eligibility of the trail, but also its
feasibility and suitability as a unit of the National Trails System. We
envision the Cascadia Marine Trail study to focus on exploring
recreational opportunities, defining historical aspects of the trail,
and establishing methods for a working relationship with partners in
order to identify facilities on adjacent lands that would contribute to
the purposes of the trail.
We recommend one amendment. The bill language states that the NPS
may study connections to nearby sites of recreational, scenic or
historic significance that are not connected by the Trail. We believe
those sites should be evaluated as part of this study. Therefore, we
propose the bill be amended on page 2, line 8, by striking ``may'' and
inserting ``shall.''
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
______
Statement of Peggy O'Dell, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2504, To Establish Coltsville
National Historical Park in the State of Connecticut, and for Other
Purposes.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior regarding H.R. 2504, a bill to establish
Coltsville National Historical Park in Hartford, Connecticut, and for
other purposes.
The Department supports enactment of H.R. 2504.
H.R. 2504 would authorize the establishment of a new unit of the
National Park System at Coltsville in Hartford, Connecticut. The bill
would provide for several conditions to be met before the Secretary of
the Interior (Secretary) may establish the park:
1. Donations of land or interests in land within the boundary
of the park have been accepted;
2. A written agreement donating at least 10,000 square feet of
space in the East Armory;
3. A written agreement ensuring future uses of land within the
historic district are compatible with the park; and
4. Financial resources of the owners of private and public
property within the boundary park are reviewed to ensure
viability.
The legislation also authorizes agreements with other organizations
for access to Colt-related artifacts to be displayed at the park and
cooperative agreements with owners of properties within the historic
district for interpretation, restoration, rehabilitation and technical
assistance for preservation. It provides that any federal financial
assistance would be matched on a one-to-one basis by non-federal funds.
H.R. 2504 also provides for the establishment of a commission to
advise the Secretary on the development and implementation of a general
management plan for the unit. The advisory commission would terminate
ten years after the date of enactment of the legislation unless
extended for another ten years by the Secretary.
The Secretary designated Coltsville Historic District a National
Historic Landmark on July 22, 2008. The manufacturing complex and
associated resources constitute the site of nationally important
contributions to manufacturing technology by Samuel Colt and the
industrial enterprise he founded in 1855--Colt's Patent Firearms
Manufacturing Company. It includes, among other resources, the armories
where firearms and other products were made, the home of Samuel and
Elizabeth Colt, Colt Park, and housing used by factory workers.
Samuel Colt is most renowned for developing a revolver design which
revolutionized personal firearms. The Colt Peacemaker, a six-shot
revolver, became known as ``the gun that won the West.'' Colt was a
major innovator in the ``American System'' of precision manufacturing,
replacing the practice of individually crafting each component of a
product with the use of interchangeable parts. After his death in 1862,
his wife Elizabeth owned and directed the manufacturing complex for 39
years, becoming a major entrepreneur in an age when women rarely
occupied positions of importance in manufacturing.
During both World War I and World War II, the Colt Firearms Company
was one of the nation's leading small arms producers and made vital
contributions to U.S. war efforts. The company applied its
interchangeable-parts techniques to a wide variety of consumer products
and the Colt complex became an ``incubator'' facility for other
inventors and entrepreneurs. Coltsville is also noteworthy as a fully
integrated industrial community that includes manufacturing facilities,
employee housing, community buildings, and landscape features that were
built largely under the personal direction of Samuel and Elizabeth
Colt. Colt, whose labor practices were advanced for their time,
attracted highly skilled laborers to his manufacturing enterprise.
Pursuant to Public Law 108-94, the Coltsville Study Act of 2003,
the National Park Service (NPS) conducted a special resource study of
the resources associated with the Coltsville Historic District. Based
on Coltsville's National Historic Landmark designation in 2008, the
study concluded that Coltsville meets the national significance
criterion. An analysis of comparability to other units of the national
park system and resources protected by others demonstrated that
Coltsville is suitable for designation as a unit of the national park
system. The study was unable, however, to conclude that Coltsville was
feasible to administer at that time due to the lengthy duration of
financial issues surrounding the site. In concert with the lack of
feasibility, the study was also unable to determine the need for NPS
management, or specifically what the NPS would manage.
H.R. 2504 addresses concerns the Department expressed concerning
financial issues and questions involving ownership and financing of the
Coltsville properties. The special resource study did not conclude that
the site absolutely failed to meet feasibility criteria or require NPS
management, but rather that it did not meet the feasibility criterion
with the circumstances present at the time of the study and that it was
impossible to determine, at that time, the need for NPS management of
the site. In both cases, the uncertainty of public access and financial
viability of the developer of the privately owned portion of the site
were at issue.
Since the time of the study, much progress has occurred at
Coltsville that holds significant promise for the future of the site
and preservation of the resources. During a recent visit to the
Coltsville property, the Secretary noted the progress made in the area
since the study was completed, while stating that, ``Coltsville again
promises to be an economic engine, producing jobs and spurring growth
in the Hartford area.'' Significant re-development has already begun.
Several of the buildings have been rehabilitated and are occupied as
educational facilities, residential housing, and businesses.
Negotiations are underway between the developer and the city on an
agreement for the East Armory building, which would serve as the focal
point for park visitors. We have been advised the plan has designated
benchmarks for the project as well as projected funding for the
development.
Under H.R. 2504, the park unit could not be established until the
Secretary is satisfied that adequate public access to the site and its
financial viability are assured. The authority to review the financial
resources of public and private property owners associated with the
project is unprecedented in similar park establishment legislation. We
believe that these conditions will assure the park is established only
when the development is moving forward and the public will have the
ability to learn about the manufacturing process that took place at the
site. A 2008 Visitor Experience Study developed a range of visitor
service alternatives identifying potential operating costs for a very
minimal operation estimated at $720,000 to a more robust operation of
$9.3 million. If a park were established, a comprehensive planning
process would assess the actual needs for visitor services and
staffing, further defining the park's operational budget. In addition,
there could be significant Federal costs in providing financial
assistance to restore or rehabilitate the properties, as authorized in
Section 4(c)(1). All funding would be subject to NPS priorities and the
availability of appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to
answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may
have.
______
Statement submitted for the record by the Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2745, To Amend the Mesquite
Lands Act of 1986
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 2745, which amends the Mesquite
Lands Act of 1986 in order to renew the exclusive right of the City of
Mesquite, Nevada, to purchase certain public lands for development, and
allows for proceeds from land sales to be used to implement a habitat
conservation plan for the Virgin River and any associated groundwater
monitoring plan. The Department of the Interior supports the goals of
the bill, however, we believe we can achieve the purposes of the bill
administratively, such as through sales under the Federal Land Policy
Management Act (FLPMA) or the issuance of an airport lease.
Background
The Mesquite Lands Act of 1986 (PL 99-548) as amended by PL 104-
208, PL 106-113 and PL 107-282,has provided the City of Mesquite, a
community located in eastern Clark County, Nevada, between Las Vegas
and St. George, Utah, the exclusive right to purchase lands to its west
for a replacement airport and related development. To date, the city
has acquired approximately 7,700 acres of public lands from the BLM.
These authorities expired on November 29, 2011.
In addition to identifying lands for sale, the Mesquite Lands Act,
as amended, provides that a portion of the proceeds from the sale of
certain parcels be deposited in an account established under the
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA). It also
provides that these funds would be available to pay for, among other
things, the BLM's costs to convey land to the City of Mesquite and the
development of a multispecies habitat conservation plan for the Virgin
River, also in Clark County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in
cooperation with the BLM, has begun work on the plans for the Virgin
River. These authorities also expired on November 29, 2011.
H.R. 2745
H.R. 2745 renews until November 29, 2020, the City of Mesquite's
exclusive right to purchase parcels of public lands identified in the
PL 106-113 amendment to the Mesquite Lands Act, which are near lands
already acquired by the City. It also allows for the proceeds from
previous land sales to Mesquite to be used to implement a multispecies
habitat conservation plan for the Virgin River in Clark County and any
associated groundwater monitoring plan. It also extends the withdrawal
of the lands from all forms of location, entry and appropriation under
the public land laws, including mining laws, and from operation of
mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing
rights.
The BLM supports the bill and its goal of providing for the
economic development needs of Mesquite, Nevada. Some of the lands that
may be acquired through enactment of the bill have been identified for
a proposed replacement airport and related development. The legislation
will provide additional time for the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) to complete an environmental evaluation under the National
Environmental Policy Act for the replacement airport and to identify
mitigation measures, if necessary. The BLM is working with the FAA and
the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office to develop appropriate
measures to mitigate potential impacts to the Old Spanish National
Historic Trail as a result of the proposed replacement airport. The
additional time provided by this legislation will aid this effort.
Conclusion
That concludes our prepared testimony in support of H.R. 2745. We
would be glad to answer your questions.
______
Statement of Peggy O'Dell, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, on H.R. 3222, a Bill to Designate Certain
National Park System Land in Olympic National Park as Wilderness or
Potential Wilderness, and for Other Purposes.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to present the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 3222, a
bill to designate certain National Park System land in Olympic National
Park as wilderness or potential wilderness, and for other purposes.
The Department supports H.R. 3222. The legislation would designate
approximately 4,100 acres of land currently within the boundary of
Olympic National Park as additions to the existing Olympic Wilderness.
It would also designate approximately 11 acres as potential wilderness.
On October 5, 2011, the Committee on Natural Resources reported
H.R. 1162, a bill to provide the Quileute Indian Tribe tsunami and
flood protection, with an amendment that deleted the wilderness
designation section of the legislation. The wilderness designation
proposed by H.R. 3222 is the same wilderness designation that was
originally found in H.R. 1162. While the Department is very supportive
of the need for providing the Quileute Tribe with land to relocate its
housing, offices, and school outside of the tsunami and flood zones,
the deletion of the wilderness provisions of the carefully balanced
agreement in H.R. 1162 was unfortunate.
On September 15, 2011, the Department expressed its support for
H.R. 1162 at a Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
hearing. We noted that the Olympic National Park lands to be
transferred to the Tribe are 275 acres of elevated ``uplands'', of
which approximately 220 acres are designated as wilderness, and are
located in the park but adjacent to the current reservation's southern
boundary. The lands would be transferred in trust to the United States
for the benefit of the Quileute Tribe and the boundaries of the
reservation and the park would be changed to accommodate the transfer.
This transferred upland tract would allow for relocation of tribal
buildings outside of the tsunami and flood zones. However, this loss of
prime wilderness land was to have been offset by the designation of
other lands as wilderness in an agreement among all involved parties
including the tribe.
H.R. 3222 would designate approximately 4,100 acres along Lake
Crescent as wilderness. The wilderness boundary along the lake would be
set back a sufficient distance to allow management of the historic
World War I Spruce Railroad grade as the Olympic Discovery Trail, and
to allow for operation and maintenance of the existing county road.
Another parcel of approximately 11 acres in Boulder Creek would be
designated as potential wilderness. When conditions in the Boulder
Creek Addition are no longer incompatible with the Wilderness Act, and
notification of such has been published in the Federal Register, the
potential wilderness will become designated wilderness. The Department
agrees that tsunami and flood protection for the Quileute tribe is an
important goal, as is resolution of its long-standing boundary
concerns. Wilderness protection is also an important goal. This bill,
together with H.R. 1162, represents an appropriate way to accomplish
these objectives.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you or the other members of the subcommittee
may have.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very, very much.
I would like to introduce now Mr. Michael Jensen, a
councilman from Salt Lake County Council. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL JENSEN,
COUNCILMAN, SALT LAKE COUNTY COUNCIL
Mr. Jensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member. It
is an honor to be here. You have my written testimony that I
would like to have for the record.
I am here representing myself as a member of the Salt Lake
County Council. As a government entity, it has long been the
responsibility of the county for Big and Little Cottonwood
Canyons relating to their governance, planning and zoning and
permitting. Salt Lake County has long sought to protect and
preserve those canyons and the other canyons in the county.
We all can agree that we need to protect and help preserve
the canyons in the watershed. The differences are a matter of
perspective of how we go about doing the protecting and
preserving. I think we can do it in a reasonable, responsible
and practical manner.
There is a study that was concluded in September of 2010,
Mr. Chair, that I would like to put into the record as well
that was conducted by Salt Lake County, along with others, the
State of Utah, Salt Lake City, the Town of Alta, the Forest
Service, the Utah Department of Transportation, the Utah
Transit Authority and Envision Utah. It was completed and did a
visioning process and published the results in this 64-page
study that was called Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow.
[The study submitted for the record by Mr. Jensen has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Jensen. A few points that I would like to make from
that study and cite. On page 1, it talks about how the Uinta-
Wasatch-Cache National Forest is among the five most visited
forests in the nation. On page 5, it discusses that the
recreation visits to the Wasatch Mountains will likely double
in the next 30 to 40 years.
Page 32 discusses a scenario, which they call Scenario E,
in which aerial trams would connect Big Cottonwood Canyon,
Little Cottonwood Canyon and Park City, and 58 percent of the
respondents that participated in the study were favorable to
those aerial trams. On page 45, Big and Little Cottonwood
Canyons are home to four world-class ski areas. Future
transportation plans should embrace these critical economic
drivers. Transportation approaches that harm these businesses
negatively impact the state's economy and its quality of life.
Page 45. While private vehicle access is convenient, the
impacts on our reliance on single-occupant vehicles is
beginning to take its toll, especially in the canyons. Consider
this. Many canyon roads are near capacity. The canyons offer
limited parking. Runoff of oil and other automotive fluids
degrade the streams. There are frequent collisions between
automobiles and wildlife. Bicycle/car conflicts are growing,
and the air quality along the Wasatch Front is among the worst
in the Nation during the winter months. A balanced
transportation study is needed to help maintain and preserve
the character of the canyons.
All of those were from the study called the Wasatch Canyons
Tomorrow. So from this we can derive that the canyons are
already being used at high levels, they are projected to double
the recreational visits over the next 30 to 40 years, the
existing transportation systems up there are taxed, future
transportation plans need to be balanced and look at
alternative modes, we need to embrace the transportation needs
of the canyon ski resorts, all while trying to protect and
preserve the character of the canyons.
After looking at this study, I think that the SkiLink
proposal which H.R. 3452 would enable can reasonably and
responsibly and practically address the concerns and the needs
that were addressed in the study. The study even offered the
Scenario E, which is connecting the canyons with trams.
From my perspective, there are three things. What this
does, this proposal helps efficiently and effectively maximize
the existing development of the ski areas. We are not putting
in new runs. We are not building a road. We are not building a
trail. What they propose to do is do a transportation
connection between two resorts.
This bill would enable them to do that. It would take
vehicles off the road, and then we have the private sector help
us with our funding problems of transportation long-term. You
guys don't have money. The state doesn't have money. The local
county and cities don't have the money to continuously upgrade
the transportation infrastructure. This would be done by
private means, and so I would urge your support of H.R. 3452,
sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jensen follows:]
Statement of Michael H. Jensen, Salt Lake County Council, on H.R. 3452,
Wasatch Range Recreation Access Enhancement Act
Chairman Bishop, Congressman Grijalva, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of
the Wasatch Range Recreation Access Enhancement Act (H.R. 3452). I am
Michael H. Jensen and have served as a member of the Salt Lake County
Council since first elected in 2000. Representing Salt Lake County
Council District Two, I have served three terms as Chairman of the Salt
Lake County Council. I also serve on the following boards; the Salt
Lake County Redevelopment Agency, the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District, the Salt Lake County Council of Governments and the Wasatch
Front Regional Council. On the Wasatch Front Regional Council as well
as on the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, I serve as the Chair
of the Board of Trustees.
The Wasatch Range Recreation Access Enhancement Act would
facilitate the construction of a two-mile gondola known as ``SkiLink''
connecting the Canyons Ski Resort in Park City, Utah with the Solitude
Mountain Resort in Big Cottonwood Canyon. The linkage of the Wasatch
Front to the Wasatch Back will enable skiers and snowboarders to have
access to 6,000 acres of existing ski terrain making the Utah ski
experience the most unique and diverse in the United States.
According to the 2010 Utah Economic Report to the Governor, Utah's
skiing opportunities have attracted 4 million skier visits annually
since 2005, despite the economic downturn. The Utah Ski industry is an
economic driver that has a positive ripple effect across multiple
industries and regions in Utah. It is anticipated that the SkiLink
project will build on that popularity and add dollars to the economy,
create new jobs and increase tax revenue. According to a recent
economic study, SkiLink will infuse $ 51 million into the Utah economy
in its first year and provide $3,000,000 in increased tax revenue. When
it opens, SkiLink is expected to attract 75,000 people. To date, out-
of-state skiers add around $1.3 billion to the Utah economy supporting
around 20,000 jobs. The addition of SkiLink will only enhance economic
opportunities by adding 500 more jobs in Utah, something badly needed
during recessionary times.
It is imperative that we balance Utah's transportation and
environmental needs with the growth of Utah's tourism industry. H.R.
3452 provides a unique solution and immediate benefit to our
transportation issues. The Wasatch Front population is expected to
double in the next 30 years and skier visits are expected to continue
to grow by at least two percent per year. This will require more than
just increasing capacity on canyon roadways. As a county council
member, I share with my colleagues the responsibility to improve
transportation in our county canyons. Ski Link is not a final solution
but it is a right first step. SkiLink will help to improve the air
quality and transportation challenges we face as Utah continues to
grow.
Some might argue that SkiLink should be put on hold until a
comprehensive, holistic study has been make of the broader
transportation issues facing all of Utah's ski resorts. There have
already been several studies of ski resort interconnections and
transportation alternatives. These Interconnect and Canyon
transportation studies date back over two decades starting with a final
report of a Governor's task force from 1986. There are other solutions,
in addition to SkiLink that also deserve review including a cog rail
line proposed by the Utah Transit Authority to Snowbird and Alta up
Little Cottonwood Canyon. Because of great cost, these solutions are
far into the future.
There have already been multiple studies...over three decades. It's
time to do something.
Some argue that there will be a negative environmental impact to
the surrounding land and watershed environment. The actual design of
SkiLink as a gondola or tram is the least environmentally invasive
option while maintaining the natural landscape. During construction,
Utah's ski resorts deploy the best management practices (BMP) so there
is no impact to the surrounding watershed environment. Water quality
records clearly show that lifts have been successfully developed in
adjacent areas with similar slope, soil and vegetation with no adverse
impact to water quality. To further insure that these protections are
followed, the SkiLink project will be subject to compliance with
appropriate federal, state and local permitting requirements.
This legislation provides numerous economic, transportation and
environmental benefits. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in
support of H.R. 3452 and will be happy to answer any questions.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. And the report will be noted into the
record.
Mr. Jensen. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. I would like now to introduce Mr. Michael Goar,
Managing Director for the Canyons Resort. Mr. Goar?
STATEMENT OF MIKE GOAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
THE CANYONS RESORT
Mr. Goar. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva.
Thank you very much for the opportunity. I would also like to
thank Chairman Bishop and Congressman Chaffetz for introduction
of the Wasatch Range Recreation Access Enhancement Act. I also
want to thank Utah Senators Hatch and Lee for sponsoring
companion legislation in the U.S. Senate.
As noted, I work for Canyons Resort. We employ 2,000
workers in the State of Utah. We are the largest ski and
snowboard resort in Utah and one of the four largest in the
United States. Our proposal to connect the resorts is for the
purpose of economic growth and transportation. The studies that
we have done to date demonstrate that there is significant
economic growth opportunity.
Tourism for the State of Utah is one of our strongest
growth sectors. It is an opportunity for us to develop
increased winter tourism with minimal impact. Many of the
opponents to SkiLink will speak about water quality, watershed.
There are challenges to a number of the reports that we have
submitted by those that oppose SkiLink. What I would like to
say about the water quality and watershed issue is it should be
of utmost importance. It is. It is what we all are focused on.
SkiLink can be built without any degradation to water
quality or the watershed. There are four resorts in the very
watershed that we are talking about that have been developing
lifts and other infrastructure for over 60 years with no
degradation to water quality. In fact, over that period of time
water quality has improved.
The economic opportunity as well is quite significant. The
first year of operation of SkiLink will create 500 permanent
jobs through winter tourism in the businesses and services that
support winter tourism, $50 million in additional revenue to
winter tourism, which already operates at $1.25 billion of
annual revenue to our state, and it is a tremendous
opportunity, one that we certainly should not miss.
On the other environmental issues, one issue that certainly
has come to the forefront from the beginning of this proposal,
and that is the impact to other users, specifically back
country skiers. This lift by its design would not add any users
to the back country. The termination points of the gondola is
at Solitude Mountain Resort and Canyons Resort, with no
intermediate exit points, no impact to the back country skiers,
no additional users into the back country.
And finally on the transportation issue I would like to say
that it seems unusual that a gondola would not be considered
transportation. Roads and the impacts of roads, tunnels,
trains, all meaningful and important modes of transportation in
our community and someday in our canyons perhaps, but this is a
tremendous first step in creating alternative transportation
modes for the users in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyon.
Gondolas are used all over the world for transportation,
and I can think of no better application than this one. It will
take cars off the road. There is no question. The debate may be
how many cars can be taken off the road, but whether it is 100
or 1,000, every car we take off the road is a benefit and is a
win for all of us.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I am
available for any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goar follows:]
Statement of Michael Goar, Managing Director, The Canyons Ski Resort,
Park City, Utah, on H.R. 3452, Wasatch Range Recreation Access
Enhancement Act
Chairman Bishop, Congressman Grijalva, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Mike Goar and I serve as the Managing Director
of Canyons Ski Resort (Canyons). Canyons is the largest single ski and
snowboard resort in Utah and is one of the five largest ski resorts in
the United States. Canyons is owned by Talisker Corp., which employs
2,000 people in its Utah operations. I want to thank Chairman Bishop
and Cong. Chaffetz for introducing the Wasatch Range Recreation Access
Enhancement Act (H.R. 3452). I also want to thank Utah's Senators Hatch
and Lee for sponsoring companion legislation in the United States
Senate.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my support for
the bill and explain its purposes before this Subcommittee.
The Wasatch Range Recreation Access Enhancement Act would allow
Canyons to purchase for fair market value 30.3 acres of federally owned
land that is managed by the Forest Service. That purchase will enable
the construction of a two-mile, 8-passenger gondola or tram known as
``SkiLink.'' This legislation offers an exciting addition to Utah's ski
experience as it connects the Wasatch Front with the Wasatch back ski
resorts. Specifically SkiLink is a direct transportation-only option
for skiers between Canyons and Solitude Mountain Resorts. The gondola
would not deposit skiers on the high ridge and would not in any way
interfere with dispersed recreation like backcountry skiing, hiking and
mountain biking.
The two-mile corridor alignment, which the bill authorizes for
sale, has the least impact on the surrounding land and watershed
environment. Currently, the 30.3 acres of Forest Service land
identified in the bill is sandwiched between several much larger
private land parcels that are already owned by Canyons and Solitude.
The 30.3 acres have not been identified by the Forest Service as
proposed wilderness or as needing special federal protection. SkiLink
would be constructed using the best management practices (BMP) so there
is a low impact to the surrounding watershed environment. The use of
helicopters for concrete placement and tower installations creates a
minimally invasive construction technique. Canyons would use the very
latest, proven design and construction mitigation methods. Intelligent
phasing and logistics to minimize use of ground-based equipment will be
utilized and management and operating procedures will tread lightly on
the natural landscape. Finally, the riparian corridor along Big
Cottonwood Creek will be protected through established design,
permitting and best construction practices to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate any anticipated impacts on wetland or stream functions. Over
the past two construction seasons, the Canyons has built three separate
lifts on private lands using these best practices method of
construction. We know how to do it right.
H.R. 3452 will produce numerous regional transportation and
environmental benefits by connecting these two resorts in Summit County
and Big Cottonwood Canyon. On busy ski days, there are 43,200 skiers at
the Wasatch Front ski areas; 53 percent are visitors to the Wasatch
Front and Back. Generally, visitors ski at the resort where they are
staying, but about 20 percent of the time, they ``roam'' to other
resorts. SkiLink would reduce the need for ``roaming'' skiers to travel
on canyon roadways.
SkiLink is not intended to be the comprehensive transportation
solution to the problem of ski resort access, but it does offer
immediate traffic benefits. The idea of connecting all of Utah's major
ski resorts with trains or high-alpine roads has been discussed and
studied for decades. The larger transportation options, are very costly
and have significant environmental and permitting hurdles to overcome.
SkiLink is a unique and simplified approach. On its own, this project
is expected to decrease traffic by as much as 10% on a peak ski day
which translates to 18,000 cars per year. Approximately 1 million fewer
miles will be driven per year between Summit and Salt Lake Counties.
Also, 1 million fewer pounds of greenhouse gases would be realized.
This bill will create the most unique interconnected ski network in
the United States and enhance the economic opportunities for the
tourism and hospitality industries in Utah. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify in support of this bill. I am submitting for the
record letters of support from Ski Utah and three reports that outline
the environmental, economic, and transportation benefits of SkiLink.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and will be
happy to answer any questions.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Goar.
And I apologize, Mayor, but we are going to put you in the
role of closer from this triad. So I would like to introduce
Mayor Ralph Becker from Salt Lake City, Utah. Mayor?
STATEMENT OF RALPH BECKER, MAYOR,
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Mr. Becker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank
you, Ranking Member Grijalva, Members of the Committee. Just by
way of background, I am a planner and a lawyer. I was a
consultant for more than 20 years and continually through that
work as a consultant worked for all levels of government, all
sectors really in the economy, in this very area of the Wasatch
Canyons before I was elected mayor.
The Wasatch Canyons as we call them or Wasatch Mountains
east of Salt Lake City are of crucial, critical importance to
those of us on the Wasatch Front both for watershed where Salt
Lake City's primary responsibility is to provide water supply
to more than half of the million people who live in the Salt
Lake Valley and for a multitude of users summer and winter. It
is also, as has been mentioned, one of the most heavily used
areas of the National Forest System. It has the most unique
element of being immediately proximate to a major urban area.
It is a fragile environment and has amazingly provided for
coexistence of many users now for decades.
Wasatch Canyons is also a place where there has been close
cooperation and public engagement on decisions for decades. The
Forest Service has long time been a partner with Salt Lake
County and with ski areas and environmental groups and the
multiple users. Like Salt Lake City, you have heard from the
Forest Service, and Salt Lake County oppose this legislation.
We are the entities of primary jurisdiction here.
This legislative proposal would sell public land to the
benefit of one user to the exclusion of the public. It would
bypass a public process and meaningful vetted environmental
analysis. It would set precedent that public land long
dedicated and used by the public and for drinking water supply
can be sold. It would override local interests and policies in
the Wasatch Canyons as they exist today, and it would prevent
any opportunity to make decisions carefully, with full public
participation and with a goal of reaching a consensus for all
of the users and for protection of the resources.
It is of enormous concern to those of us who have
responsibility for the Wasatch Canyons for water supply, to
look out for the many users and to protect a very fragile
environment, given the amount of use, that we not bypass the
environmental reviews that need to be done, the public
participation that needs to be done and the ability for all of
us who are responsible locally, whether that is the Forest
Service local offices or those of us in local government, to
participate and really to try to reach consensus on decisions.
I recognize and appreciate, Congressman Bishop, that this
is a hearing and we are at the very first stage of a proposed
piece of legislation, and regardless of the alarm that this
legislation has set off in my community and among many along
the Wasatch Front, Congressman Bishop reminded me how early we
are in this process and that he would include us in a
conversation about the future of this legislation.
I very much look forward to working with all of you on the
Committee and Congressman Bishop as well as Congressman
Matheson, who represents this area where the land would be sold
and opposes it, to find a solution that reflects a consensus
that protects our critical environmental needs and watershed
needs in these canyons, that recognizes the needs of the
various users and balances them and that protects these canyons
and these mountains today and for future generations as has
been passed on to us. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Becker follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ralph Becker, Mayor, Salt Lake City, Utah,
on H.R. 3452, Wasatch Range Recreation Enhancement Act
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the Wasatch
Range Recreation Access Enhancement Act. I provide this written
testimony as Mayor of Salt Lake City, and as a previous member of an
environmental planning firm that conducted NEPA and planning work in
the Wasatch Mountains.
I would like to recognize Congressman Rob Bishop for his dedication
to our state and for his role as Chairman of this Subcommittee. In
addition, I would like to recognize Congressman Raul Grijalva, Ranking
Member of this Subcommittee. Finally, I would also like to express my
appreciation to Congressman Jim Matheson for his work and leadership.
The Wasatch Range Recreation Access Enhancement Act (H.R. 3452)
seeks to convey federal land in Big Cottonwood Canyon, a critical Salt
Lake City municipal watershed, to Talisker Corporation for the express
purpose of ski resort-related development, known as SkiLink.
Last year, I had an opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee
on another important piece of legislation proposed for the Wasatch
Canyons, Congressman Matheson's Wasatch Wilderness and Watershed
Protection Act of 2010, H.R. 5009. In my testimony last year I
described the characteristics of the Wasatch Canyons and the important
history of planning, policy and development there. I noted: ``The Salt
Lake Valley is unique in its natural setting and public lands. We have
a population of 1,000,000 with a backyard, literally, of immediately
accessible peaks that jut 7,000 feet above the Valley floor. We can
walk out our doors and within 10 minutes be in downtown or be in
spectacular mountain terrain. The landscape is unmatched; the pressures
to develop are unmatched.''
Unlike most rural areas where wilderness legislation is considered,
the vast majority of Salt Lake Valley residents support strong
protections in the Wasatch Canyons to preserve the land and protect our
vital watershed. This is most recently reflected in a 2010 visioning
document created with extensive public involvement, Wasatch Canyons
Tomorrow. The Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest is one of the most
heavily visited National Forests in the nation.
Our Wasatch Canyons history and the central place for water supply
and watershed protection is instructive. Since the Salt Lake Valley was
settled by Mormon Pioneers in the mid-1800's, surface water runoff from
the Wasatch Mountains has been the primary source of water for the
valley communities. These mountains rise to more than 11,000 feet above
mean sea level (7,000 feet above the Valley floor), and act as a
catcher's mitt for the storm systems that cross the dry desert to the
west, blanketing them with hundreds of inches of snow each winter. This
mountain snowpack is the primary storage for 60 percent of the drinking
water supply to Salt Lake City and several other Salt Lake Valley
communities.
The importance of these watersheds to arid Salt Lake City and other
Salt Lake Valley communities cannot be underestimated. The runoff is
high quality and requires minimal treatment before it is distributed.
The sustainment of high quality water minimizes public health risks of
water contamination, making our communities more secure. In addition,
high quality water keeps water affordable by minimizing treatment costs
associated with chemical and energy use.
Of particular significance to western water supplies, the water
sources from the Wasatch Mountain watersheds are in close proximity to
the communities that rely on the water. This benefits us by minimizing
energy use in the transmission of water to the public, minimizing the
embedded energy in our water supply. Sustainment of our local water
sources improves our community's resiliency and security, especially as
we consider the challenges associated with climate change impacts on
western water supplies relied upon regionally, such as the Colorado
River, and extended drought periods that have marked our history, and
have a high likelihood of recurring.
As our population continues to grow, our demand for water will
continue to grow. The Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget
projects that Salt Lake County's population of about 1 million people
will increase by an additional 400,000 by 2030, and will almost double
by 2060. The proximity of clean water from the Wasatch watersheds to
the Salt Lake Valley facilitated the county's development and is
critical in accomodating the significant projection of population
growth.
For decades, Salt Lake City Public Utilities has been a steward of
about 200 square miles of watershed and has conducted studies and
adopted protective policies and regulations in order to sustain high
quality water to more than 500,000 people in Salt Lake City and several
Salt Lake County communities that comprise its service area. In
addition, the populations of other Salt Lake Valley communities outside
Salt Lake City's water service area, such as Sandy City and areas
served by the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, depend on the
reliability and proximity of high quality water from the Wasatch
Mountain watersheds.
Salt Lake City's stewardship relies on a partnership with the U.S.
Forest Service that has spanned more than a century. About 80 percent
of the Salt Lake City watershed area is federal land managed by the
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. These lands were reserved into the
National Forest System in 1904. In 1905, Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot
met with Salt Lake City officials to stress the importance of the
partnership between the U.S. Forest Service and Salt Lake City to
protect the City's watershed areas. In addition, Mr. Pinchot also
visited the Big Cottonwood Canyon watershed in 1905, promising federal
aid and restoration for watershed protection. The most current Forest
Plan (2003) for this area specifically prescribes protective watershed
management. For more than 100 years, Salt Lake City and the Uinta-
Wasatch-Cache National Forest have collaborated on numerous programs
and plans, including watershed stewardship and education programs,
construction and maintenance of sanitary facilities, and trail planning
and maintenance.
I am supportive of our State's thriving ski industry. However, I
have significant concerns with the substance and precedence of H.R.
3452 as proposed. I am also concerned with the way in which this
legislative process essentially removes our local citizens' valued and
time-honored engagement in planning and decision-making for the present
and future of the Wasatch Mountains.
For decades, we who cherish the Wasatch Canyons have worked
together through intensive public engagement with all jurisdictions,
private interests (including the ski industry) and the public, to
arrive at proposals that balance those interests and achieve some
consensus. This proposal has failed to engage local interests; I, as
mayor of Salt Lake City, with responsibility for protecting the
watershed interests of our Valley, only learned of this legislative
proposal through a news report. Unlike the Wilderness Bill that this
Committee heard a year ago and was the subject of one year of intensive
involvement and negotiation by all major parties, H.R. 3452 has
circumvented our tradition of engaging our community. And, passage of
this legislation as proposed would bypass the planning and NEPA
processes that has enabled Salt Lake City and other jurisdictions to
protect our watershed and other uses, and still provide for a wide
range of uses.
Because of this, I cannot support this legislation in its current
form, but appreciate your willingness, Mr. Chairman, to listen to our
concerns and work with us to address the desires, needs, and future of
the Wasatch Canyons. I accept that invitation and look forward to that
process.
While H.R. 3452 appears to serve growth interests of two of Utah's
respected ski resorts, Canyons and Solitude, I do not believe it
addresses the interest of the general public. Studies have been
produced on behalf of Talisker and Canyons Ski Resort to promote
alleged benefits of SkiLink. Each of these studies claim public
benefit, such as reduction in traffic and vehicle miles traveled, and
economic benefits such as additional jobs. Close inspection of the
assumptions and facts reported in these studies show the studies'
conclusions are not well supported and the public's interest in
protection of its municipal watersheds, habitat, and diverse recreation
is not considered.
Public Representation Concerns and Conflict with Local Laws, Plans and
Policies
The Wasatch Mountains surrounding the communities of the Salt Lake
Valley sustain our quality of life and serve as a constant reminder of
our stewardship over our remarkable natural resources in Utah. They
provide clean drinking water, clean air, diverse recreational
opportunities, and habitat protection. Salt Lake City's health,
security, and economic prosperity are dependent upon this mountain
range, and it is our obligation, as a community with extraordinary
local interests, to protect these values for current and future
generations.
I am concerned that H.R. 3452 circumvents the expressed interests
of the majority of our local citizens in favor of this development
project. Salt Lake City and our neighboring communities collaborated in
numerous local, State, and federal planning efforts over the last
several decades regarding land use within the Wasatch Mountains. It is
clear that the public land conveyance described in H.R. 3452 does not
adequately recognize the local collaborative planning and decision-
making processes embraced by our community. For example, H.R. 3452 is
in direct conflict with the 1989 Salt Lake County Canyons Master Plan,
the 1999 Salt Lake City Watershed Management Plan, and the recent 2003
Revised Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan.
The 1989 Salt Lake County Canyons Master Plan (County Master Plan),
developed through an exhaustive public process, sets forth numerous
policies with which H.R. 3452 conflicts, including watershed
protection, ski area expansion, land acquisition and conservation,
criteria for determining mountain transportation systems and
aesthetics. Salt Lake City's 1999 Watershed Management Plan supports
many of the policies of the County Master Plan. Its stated goal is to
``emphasize water quality first and multiple use of the watershed
second.''
The 2003 Revised Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan (Forest Plan)
underlying management premise for the Central Wasatch Mountains is the
need to provide long-term, high-quality culinary water to the large
urban population of the Salt Lake Valley. The Forest Plan prohibits
expansion of the existing four ski resorts outside of their permit
boundaries. The Forest Plan also prescribes Standards and Guidelines
for defined geographical regions. The area that is the subject of the
Proposed Act maintains a prescription in which the emphasis is on
maintaining or improving quality of watershed conditions. The Standard
employed in this prescription does not allow ``timber harvest, road
construction, and new recreation facility development.'' Both in
regards to policy and standards, H.R. 3452 is directly in conflict with
the Forest Plan.
The 2010 Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow public engagement visioning
process conducted by Envision Utah further validates the public's
desire to ensure watershed and environmental protection by
strengthening land use regulations, limiting development, and continued
opportunities for a high level of public engagement.
It is also important to note that in 1934 both Congress and Salt
Lake City had a mutual understanding of the importance of protection of
municipal watersheds from degradation. This resulted in the passage of
Public Law No. 259, ``An Act for the Protection of the Public Water
Supply of the City of Salt Lake City, State of Utah.'' This Act
recognized the need to ensure sustainable water supplies emanating from
National Forest lands, and directed control in Salt Lake City's
watershed areas over activities like mining and timber harvesting. As
such, H.R. 3452 likely conflicts with that intention and direction.
Inadequate Project Analyses
The analyses conducted in support of SkiLink, and partially
referenced in H.R. 3452's-Findings Section, are inadequate to support
their conclusions, and do not present a balanced view of public
benefits.
The proposed development's traffic analysis fails to recognize
possible negative impacts to Big Cottonwood Canyon traffic given
projections of tens of thousands of additional skiers visiting Canyons
and Solitude Ski Resorts due to the presence of the SkiLink
interconnect chairlift. The traffic study also based its benefits from
the limited perspective of skiers who travel between Canyons and
Solitude Ski Resorts, a dataset that was derived, in part, by ``local
knowledge'' and anecdotal evidence that would be difficult to replicate
or reference.
The Economic Impact Analysis for the project formed its basis on
the direct and indirect economic impacts of additional skier visits,
ranging from initial to maximum capacity projections of 75,000 to
400,000 additional annual skier visits, and based solely on data
provided by the resort. Even assuming that the Canyon's skier
visitation projection data is correct and unbiased, the study did not
consider whether public costs in additional future land management,
infrastructure, watershed management, or additional water treatment due
to overuse and watershed degradation would have a negative economic
impact, particularly to Salt Lake Valley residents. The analysis is
also unclear as to whether the overall net economic impact derived from
additional skier visits is positive, as there is a good possibility
that the increase in skier days projected by Canyons Ski Resort will
come at the expense of the other ski resorts in the area. The analysis
also does not take into account any negative impact to Utah's
economically significant outdoor recreation industry.
The project's Preliminary Environmental Analysis makes a broad
assumption that because no significant water quality events have been
identified in Salt Lake City watersheds where ski areas exist, the
addition of the SkiLink project would not have water quality or
watershed impacts. This main assumption in the environmental analysis
is too narrow to support the studies' conclusions. It is also in
conflict with development-related water quality events observed by Salt
Lake City, specifically in the Big Cottonwood Canyon watershed,
associated with both ski resort and private property development
activity. The U.S. Forest Service recently conducted a systematic
Watershed Condition Framework Classification effort to classify the
level of watershed function and prioritize restoration activities. The
Big Cottonwood Canyon watershed is classified as ``Functioning at
Risk'' due to the presence of development and roads. The development
facilitated by H.R. 3452 threatens to exacerbate the conditions that
give the Big Cottonwood Canyon watershed an ``at risk'' rating; the
implication of additional development on the Watershed Condition
Classification was not assessed.
The environmental analysis is also primarily focused on
environmental regulatory hurdles affecting the development of SkiLink,
and should not be confused with rigorous analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act. And finally, the environmental analysis
failed to consider likely overuse impacts of the 75,000 to 400,000
additional visitors, as estimated in the Economic Analysis, to the
sensitive environment of the Big Cottonwood Canyon watershed.
Precedence Concerns
H.R. 3452 sets precedence for legislatively bypassing collaborative
and balanced local decision-making in Salt Lake City's critical
municipal watersheds, and for eroding the publicly supported
protections of our Wasatch Mountains. Presently the pressure for more
development in our watersheds is significant and threatens their health
and integrity. For example, SkiLink appears to be the first step in a
broader ski resort expansion plan. Over the last year, Salt Lake City
has become aware of plans by numerous ski resorts to build at least
eight new chairlifts in the Big and Little Cottonwood Canyon
watersheds. In addition to SkiLink, these proposed new chairlifts would
expand commercial skiing to include additional, and presently intact,
public lands outside of the existing U.S. Forest Service ski area
permit boundaries, contrary to the Forest Plan and our local land use
management plans. By our estimates and mapping, these new chairlifts
could cumulatively result in ski area expansions that double the
combined 6,294 acres of commercial ski area in two of our most critical
watersheds.
These new resort expansions would present negative cumulative
impacts to our watersheds, significantly increasing our vulnerability
to serious water supply degradation. Cumulative watershed impacts of
the new ski area developments will result in significant water quality
and water supply degradation, as well as affect surface water runoff
and timing patterns. These new land developments would impact our
watersheds by (1) contributing to more use of the canyons, (2)
pressuring existing infrastructure such as roads, sewer, water, and
parking, and (3) leading to cumulative and incremental increases of the
development footprint in the watersheds, including the increase of
hard, impermeable surfaces.
The precedence set by H.R. 3452 of selling public lands for
commercial development in our community's watersheds is not a good one
given that, from our perspective, others will follow suit with this
strategy rather than engage the local community. In addition, while I
have presented concerns of precedence impacting the Wasatch Mountains,
I am also well aware that other communities across the nation,
especially those who rely on water and other ecosystem services
emanating from public lands, would be affected by the precedence of the
Proposed Act.
A Commitment to Collaboration
I am committed to collaborative processes that engage the public
and stakeholders in transparent management and decision making. With
respect to the Wasatch Mountains, I am eager to take a holistic
approach to plan for the future of these treasured places. The
pressures for more use, recreation, and development of these critical
watersheds seem to be colliding with environmental stressors, our
increased population projections and a resulting increased demand of
clean, reliable and affordable water. All of these pressures are
creating unprecedented conflict. The desire for the land conveyance in
the Wasatch Range Recreation Enhancement Act is both a sympton of the
conflict and a departure for public engagement and careful
consideration of our resources and many users of the Wasatch Canyons.
As we move in a direction to resolve this conflict, I hope we can
engage our citizens, governments, businesses, non-governmental
organizations and leaders, including our Congressional delegation, in
an inclusive and collaborative process to give us better tools to adapt
to this increasingly complex mix of pressures and stressors in the
Wasatch Canyons.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony
regarding the Wasatch Range Recreation Enhancement Act.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Now it is my pleasure to introduce one of my colleagues and
friends from Coconino County, Supervisor Matt Ryan.
STATEMENT OF MATT RYAN,
SUPERVISOR, COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Acting Chair Gosar, Chairman Bishop
and Ranking Member, and a special hello to Ranking Member
Grijalva. It is nice to see you, sir.
Members of the Committee, the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests and Public Lands, I appreciate the opportunity
to provide testimony on H.R. 1038, legislation to address a
boundary correction in the Mountainaire Subdivision in Coconino
National Forest, Arizona. My name is Matt Ryan, and I serve on
the Coconino County Board of Supervisors representing District
3. I am here today representing my district and the Coconino
County Board of Supervisors.
Coconino County would like to thank the Subcommittee for
the consideration of H.R. 1038. On behalf of Coconino County
and the residents of District 3, we would also like to thank
Congressman Paul Gosar for introducing the legislation to
address this important issue. H.R. 1038 will provide a much
needed relief to homeowners of Mountainaire Subdivision.
As background, in November 2007, the United States Bureau
of Land Management completed a land survey in the Mountainaire
Subdivision in Coconino National Forest. During the 2007
survey, the BLM determined that an erroneous privately
contracted survey of Mountainaire Unit 1, which was completed
in 1960 and 1961, misidentified several acres of the United
States Forest Service land as private property.
Since this time the surveyors have passed away, and the
homeowners are faced with a situation of living on land owned
by the Forest Service. On some of the developed parcels, the
revised boundary goes through portions of the landowners'
residences. Furthermore, several of these residents have
maintained these parcels and developed them as their own for
years and in some cases for decades.
It is important to point out that these homeowners
purchased their property legally based on the results of the
original survey. These homeowners acted within the law and
acquired this property through proper channels. The boundary
discrepancy impacts 26 lots and 27 property owners in the
Mountainaire Subdivision. The entire encroachment for all lots
involved is a total area of two and a half to three acres.
Since 2007, a number of property owners in this area have
attempted to sell their property and have difficulty in doing
so due to questions associated with land ownership. As you are
well aware, the Forest Service has limited ability to convey
land to private property owners. Under the Small Tracts Act,
Public Law 97-465, the Forest Service is authorized to sell or
exchange small parcels of Federal land that meet certain
criteria. The Small Tracts Act requires the Forest Service to
work with individual landowners to convey the property at fair
market value. This option, however, would prove costly to the
landowners and the Federal Government and could potentially
take several years to complete.
Following discussions with the Forest Service, Coconino
County and the impacted homeowners, it was determined that
pursuing legislation to correct the boundary discrepancy would
be the most viable option. A legislative option was raised to
provide the Forest Service the authority needed to convey the
property to the landowners without any consideration from the
landowners. Under this option, the cost to the Forest Service
and landowners would be minimal and the amount of time to
correct the discrepancy significantly reduced. Representative
Paul Gosar introduced H.R. 1038 as a result of these
discussions.
It is important to point out that this conveyance will have
a cost to the county and the homeowners. Both groups will pay
an additional survey of each individual parcel, the cost to
create a legal entity to receive the property, as well as the
$20,000 included in the consideration of the legislation. We
believe this is a small price to grant these homeowners the
peace of mind knowing the property they live on is their own.
Thank you for the opportunity to address your Committee.
The County Board of Supervisors would extend our gratitude to
Chairman Bishop, to Congressman Gosar and the Committee for the
continued efforts to address the Mountainaire boundary
discrepancy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ryan follows:]
Statement of Supervisor Matt Ryan,
Coconino County Board of Supervisors, on H.R. 1038
Chairman Bishop and members of the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests and Public Lands, I appreciate the opportunity to provide
testimony on H.R. 1038, legislation to address a boundary correction in
the Mountainaire Subdivision in the Coconino National Forest in
Coconino County, Arizona. My name is Matt Ryan and I serve on the
Coconino County Board of Supervisors representing District Three. I am
here today representing my district and the Coconino County Board of
Supervisors.
Coconino County would like to thank the Subcommittee for
considering H.R. 1038. On behalf of Coconino County and the residents
of District Three, we would also like to thank Congressman Paul Gosar
for introducing legislation to address this important issue. H.R. 1038
will provide much-needed relief to homeowners of the Mountainaire
Subdivision.
As background, in November 2007, the United States Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) completed a land survey in the Mountainaire
Subdivision in the Coconino National Forest. During the 2007 survey,
the BLM determined that an erroneous privately contracted survey of
Mountainaire Unit I, which was completed between 1960 and 1961,
misidentified several acres of United States Forest Service (USFS) land
as private property. Since this time, the surveyors have passed away
and the homeowners are faced with a situation of living on land owned
by the USFS.
On some of the developed parcels, the revised boundary goes through
portions of the landowner's residence. Furthermore, several of these
residents have maintained these parcels and developed them as their own
for years, and in some cases decades.
The boundary discrepancy impacts 26 lots and 27 property owners in
the Mountainaire Subdivision. The entire encroachment for all lots
involves a total land area of 2.5 to 3 acres. Since 2007, a number of
the property owners in this area have attempted to sell their
properties and are having a difficult time doing so, due to questions
associated with the land ownership.
As you are well aware, the USFS has limited ability to convey land
to private landowners. Under the Small Tracts Act, Public Law 97-465,
the USFS is authorized to sell or exchange small parcels of federal
land that meet certain criteria. The Small Tracts Act requires the USFS
to work with the individual landowners to convey the property at fair
market value. This option, however, would prove costly to the
landowners and federal government, and could potentially take several
years to complete.
Following discussions with the USFS, Coconino County and the
impacted homeowners, it was determined that pursuing legislation to
correct the boundary discrepancy would be the most viable option. A
legislative option was raised to provide the USFS the authority needed
to convey the property to the landowners without any consideration from
the landowners. Under this option, the cost to the USFS and landowners
would be minimal and the amount of time to correct the discrepancy
significantly reduced. Representative Paul Gosar introduced H.R. 1038
as a result of these discussions.
It's important to point out that this conveyance will have a cost
to the county and homeowners. Both groups will pay for an additional
survey of each individual parcel, the cost to create a legal entity to
receive the property, as well as the $20,000 included as consideration
in the legislation. We believe this is a small price to pay to grant
these homeowners the peace of mind of knowing the property they live on
is their own.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the House Natural
Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Land. The
Coconino County Board of Supervisors would like to extend our gratitude
to Chairman Bishop, Congressman Gosar and the Committee for their
continued efforts to address the Mountainaire boundary discrepancy.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Supervisor Ryan.
And our next guest is Mr. Rusty Gregory, the Chairman and
CEO of Mammoth Mountain. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF RUSTY GREGORY, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN
Mr. Gregory. Mr. Chairman, Acting Chair, Ranking Member
Grijalva, thank you for the opportunity to speak to the
Subcommittee Members today on H.R. 2157.
My company, Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, has been working on
a trade since 1998, and recently signed an agreement to
initiate this land trade with the Forest Service for 21 acres
at the base of Mammoth Mountain. Mammoth Mountain is one of the
three most frequented ski resorts in the nation, along with
Vail and Breckenridge, and we have been a permit holder for
approximately 60 years with the United States Forest Service.
We are located in a very small town of four-and-a-half
square miles, 7,000 people. We employ 3,000 of those local
citizens, which represent 30 percent of the total employment of
Mono County. The 21-acre land trade in question is directly
across the street from our main ski lodge. It is the gateway to
skiing but also to the national monument, Red's Meadows and
Devils Postpile National Monument, and it is the site of a 50-
year-old hotel.
We inherited this hotel from the original developer that
built the hotel in the 1950s, and we took ownership over in the
1980s because they were totally unprepared to deal with the 50
to 60 feet of snow that occurs on that site typically on its
9,000-foot elevation. The hotel, the Mammoth Mountain Inn, was
incredibly poorly constructed by a developer from the beach
area in southern California, and we have been struggling with
the infrastructure ever since the 1980s when we took over. Most
notably, it has an open air sewer pond out in the pristine
forest out behind the hotel. It is quite a mess.
The hotel is a nonpermitted but grandfathered use under our
ski area special use permit. As old as it is, the Mammoth
Mountain Inn is very important to our small, local community.
It has 400 employees, provides $1 million of transient
occupancy tax, which represents about 60 percent of the local
municipal budget, which is a total of $12 million, so a big
portion of our local tax base.
So the trade, this 21-acre trade makes the replacement of
the Mammoth Mountain Inn possible by virtue of the ownership of
the underlying land which is necessary to finance what will be
a phased $500 million replacement project of this facility. The
trade parcel for the 21 acres includes 10 parcels of land,
1,700 acres of very high resource value land around Mammoth
Mountain and the Owens Valley in California that includes, for
instance, a 100-acre Mono Lake scenic area, land that we
purchased four years ago in anticipation of this trade to avoid
development above the environmentally sensitive Mono Lake area
at the bottom of Tioga Pass, which is the entrance into
Yosemite National Park.
H.R. 2157, however, is not a legislative land trade. It
doesn't alter what is and should be the rigorous approval
process for this ongoing land trade. We are in the process of a
NEPA environmental assessment and a number of other factors
that we need to achieve to culminate the trade.
We do agree with our partners, the Forest Service, that
insufficient high resource land beyond the land that we have
already secured for the trade isn't available today to complete
this trade within the FLPMA cash equalization limits of 25
percent. H.R. 2157 will allow the Forest Service to accept cash
in addition to the funds that come from the trade land to
provide value equal to the 21 acres, the Mammoth Mountain Inn
site that I spoke about before.
So I request that you support H.R. 2157 so we can move
forward with the trade and this significant investment of
approximately half a billion dollars in our very small, local
community. This will add 400 additional jobs to the community
on top of the 400 that come from the Mammoth Mountain Inn
today, and an additional $1 million of transient occupancy tax
will be provided as well.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gregory follows:]
Statement of Rusty Gregory, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer,
Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, on H.R. 2157
Mammoth Main Lodge Redevelopment LLC, a related company to Mammoth
Mountain Ski Area, LLC, (``MMSA''), and the United States, by and
through the United States Forest Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, (``USFS'') have signed an Agreement to Initiate for a
land-for-land exchange (``Land Exchange'') for approximately 21-acres
at the base of Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Mammoth Lakes, Mono,
California.
MMSA owns and operates Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, which operates
under a Ski Area Term Special Use Permit (``SUP'') issued by the USFS.
Mammoth Mountain is located in the spectacular Eastern Sierra Nevada
region of California, and consists of approximately 3200 ski-able
acres. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area began operations in 1953, and has
grown to be one of the most visited ski areas in the United States.
Mammoth Mountain has been the site of many important developments in
ski area operations, and has been a faithful partner of the USFS for
nearly sixty years. This year, Mammoth Mountain provided winter outdoor
recreation opportunity to 1.3 million public land visitors. Depending
on seasonal variability, MMSA generates between ten and thirty percent
of total employment in Mono County, and MMSA's services bring the
recreation visitors who fill the hotels and restaurants and buy the
goods and services of businesses located up and down the Owens Valley.
MMSA takes seriously its role as the economic engine of the region.
The Land Exchange was first initiated in 1998, and has recently
gained significant momentum. The primary reason for pursuing the Land
Exchange is to provide a better experience to the public at this very
highly used portal to public lands. This will primarily be accomplished
by replacing the aging and rapidly dilapidating Mammoth Mountain Inn,
providing higher levels of guest service and better amenities, all
enhancing visitor experience and creating increased capacity for skier
visits at the main base area of Mammoth Mountain. The Inn, constructed
in the late 1950s, is a ``grandfathered'' non-compliant use under the
Ski Area Term Permit Act. Since purchasing the Inn, MMSA has made
extensive efforts to arrest the Inn's decay, and has sought to mitigate
the growing health and safety hazards presented by using a rapidly
decaying, inefficient building. MMSA strongly desires to demolish the
Inn complex, and replace it with modern, efficient development.
However, obtaining the financing required to redevelop the Inn cannot
be readily achieved while the Inn sits on public land.
Carrying out the Land Exchange will make it possible to address the
following inadequacies:
The Mammoth Mountain Inn, a 217-unit/475-bed hotel,
is over 50 years old and requires significant upgrades due to
construction quality, deterioration, and deferred maintenance
(In fact, due to the outdated construction, the most efficient
and cost effective redevelopment of the current buildings is
demolition and building new facilities);
Antiquated design, layout, and circulation of Main
Lodge building; pedestrian circulation through Main Lodge Area
is random and not intuitive;
The Main Lodge building is also nearly 50 years old
and requires significant upgrades due to construction quality,
deterioration, and deferred maintenance;
Inefficient lift line queuing, restricted skier
staging areas, and skier traffic conflicts between lifts;
Inefficient and conflicting traffic and pedestrian
circulation and parking;
Limited beginner, teaching terrain;
Unsightly back-of-house operations which are guest-
facing and create less than optimal first impressions (e.g.,
loading dock and trash removal);
Lack of quality hotel rooms, suites, and transient
rentals;
Underprovided amenities and non-ski activities; and
Lack of employee housing on-site.
Many of these inadequacies could possibly be corrected under the
existing SUP. However, there are a number of disadvantages that make
this option risky and potentially infeasible:
Rehabilitation and redevelopment of existing ski and
recreation base facilities is permitted under the SUP, but the
development of new lodging facilities at MMSA may be prohibited
by the terms of the Ski Area Permit Act of 1986;
No vesting rights and no long-term assurance of
entitlement;
Limitations on construction and permanent financing
due to the lease nature of the SUP and its short term--only 40
years; and
Limitations on for-sale product and owner financing.
Therefore, to facilitate and implement the redevelopment of the
Mammoth Mountain Inn and Main Lodge Area in an economically feasible,
modern, efficient, and environmentally responsible manner, MMSA
believes the best results would be achieved by completing the Land
Exchange with the Forest Service. By obtaining fee title to the land at
the Mammoth Mountain Inn and Main Lodge Area, MMSA will be able to:
Utilize traditional infrastructure financing sources
to redevelop the Mammoth Mountain Inn and Main Lodge Area;
Utilize state of the art technologies to maximize
guest services while minimizing environmental footprint;
Provide the public a better on-hill experience
through more efficient queuing and staging areas, more
efficient skier flow between lifts, and increased teaching
terrain;
Provide the public with a better arrival experience
through a new base lodge that has intuitive circulation and
pedestrian flow from skiers services to the lifts, more
efficient parking and transportation circulation and layout,
and reduced traffic;
Support an increase in the number of skiers;
Vest its rights in fee ownership and increase its
asset base;
Increase transient bed base, which will in turn
increase transient occupancy tax revenues for the Town of
Mammoth Lakes;
Allow for the potential of for-sale products to help
minimize cash flow contributions for non-income producing
amenities and facilities, and provide a higher level of demand
for on-site amenities;
Provide a variety of public amenities such as
restaurants, shops, spa, entertainment, activities, conference
facilities, and gathering areas;
Provide employee housing;
Take advantage of the recently enacted Ski Area
Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act by expanding summer
recreation facilities; and
Increase the year round utilization of facilities and
services.
In exchange for the approximately 21 acres of National Forest land
under permit to MMSA (the ``Federal land''), we have worked closely
with the Forest Service to identify, acquire or option over 1,729 acres
of high resource value lands for the public within the Inyo, Plumas,
Stanislaus, and Eldorado National Forests in California (the ``non-
Federal lands''). Included within these non-Federal lands are the
historic Mono Lake-Cunningham parcel, which MMSA purchased at the
request of the Inyo National Forest and the late Olympic great and
noted environmentalist Andrea Lawrence. MMSA's purchase staved off the
threat of pending development in the heart of the Mono Basin National
Forest Scenic Area.
The package of offered non-Federal lands also includes two parcels
owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, located just
outside the proclaimed boundaries of the Inyo National Forest. These
parcels represent less than one percent (1%) of the land to be traded
to the United States, but serve important public functions, including
housing the Interagency Visitors Center in Lone Pine, a facility
annually used by tens of thousands of people as an interpretive gateway
to the public lands in the Eastern Sierra region. Provided the Land
Exchange is ultimately approved by the Forest Service, H.R. 2157 is
needed to allow the Forest Service to acquire these two parcels because
they are located outside the Forest boundary.
H.R. 2157 also authorizes the Forest Service to accept, into what
is known as a Sisk Act account, the funds necessary to complete an
equal value exchange. The deposited funds will be used by the Forest
Service to acquire additional high resource value lands in the future.
We believe this approach strikes just the right balance, because
despite all of the high resource value land (and the addition of the
small administrative parcels) being traded to the United States, the
Forest Service has concluded there is nevertheless insufficient high
resource value land currently available in California to create an
equal value land exchange. The approach therefore avoids the unintended
and potentially problematic consequences which might result from
removing currently available low resource value lands from private
ownership and placing them into public ownership just to serve the
purpose of balancing the Land Exchange.
Moreover, we believe this provision is appropriate due to the
complexity and size of the Land Exchange. The amount of funds necessary
to complete the equal value exchange will be determined by appraisals
of the Federal and non-Federal exchange parcels. The appraisals will be
prepared in accordance with appropriate Federal appraisal regulations
and processes. While appraisals have not been completed, it is
anticipated that the necessary equalization funds could exceed 25% of
the value of the Federal land to be exchanged. H.R. 2157 will authorize
the Forest Service to accept whatever amount of funds are necessary to
ensure the public receives equal value for the 21 acres at the base of
Mammoth Mountain. Such provisions have been included in numerous other
Congressional actions authorizing previous land exchanges.
What H.R. 2157 does not do is direct the Forest Service to complete
the Land Exchange, nor does it relieve the Forest Service or MMSA from
completing the Land Exchange in full compliance with all other laws and
regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). At
present, the Forest Service is in the process of working on the
environmental review of the Land Exchange, as required under NEPA. The
process includes early and continuous public involvement. We expect the
NEPA process to conclude that there are no detrimental environmental or
socioeconomic impacts, and indeed we believe the NEPA process will
reveal that the Land Exchange provides significant environmental and
socioeconomic benefits. For these reasons, the Land Exchange, including
the elements which require the passage of H.R. 2157, have received
support from the premier environmental groups in the region, including
the Mono Lake Committee, the Friends of the Inyo, and the Eastern
Sierra Land Trust, who have each provided letters of support.
We are hopeful that this legislation will be enacted, and that the
Forest Service will proceed, after completion of the NEPA process, to
execute an Exchange Agreement with MMSA, thereby enabling the
completion of the Land Exchange. Upon completion of the Land Exchange,
MMSA will begin the next step, which is to seek approval of development
plans from the local jurisdiction. Such approval will require
significant additional review, including compliance with local
ordinances, and thorough review under the California Environmental
Quality Act.
We thank you for your time and consideration, and urge you to
recommend the passage of H.R. 2157.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Gregory.
Our next guest is Mr. Pedro Segarra, the Mayor of Hartford,
Connecticut.
STATEMENT OF PEDRO SEGARRA,
MAYOR, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
Mr. Segarra. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Acting Chair,
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Minority Member Grijalva and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests and Public Lands.
On behalf of the City of Hartford, which recently
celebrated its 375th anniversary, I appear before you today in
support of H.R. 2504, the designation of Coltsville Historic
District as a national park. I want to thank Congressman John
Larson and Senators Lieberman and Blumenthal for their tireless
support of this critical and important initiative.
This effort, which also has broad support of the city's
business community, institutions and organizations, is critical
to the revitalization of Connecticut's capital city and will
become a centerpiece in the city's effort to increase its focus
on heritage tourism. It would also stand as a model to the
future of innovation.
The Colt Manufacturing facility and surrounding structures
played a critical, if not essential, role in the national
defense, defining the direction of the United States during a
time of great exploration and innovation. It not only changed
the face of national and international business and commerce
but also enhanced and further promoted the spirit of American
business ingenuity and its role in the local community.
It is symbolic that we are now again presented with a
monumental decision that, if approved, will help shape and
encourage an ongoing renaissance of the City of Hartford and
further promote the historic art and the necessary investment,
which our Governor, Governor Dannel Malloy, has made to restore
funding designated to promote Connecticut's cultural and
tourism destinations.
The City of Hartford, the State of Connecticut and the
collaborative of associated public and private entities is
deeply invested in the Coltsville neighborhood. The city has
already rebuilt two schools and improved housing stock in the
immediate area and has committed almost $3 million in matching
funds to improve surrounding streets in ways that will redefine
space, improve visuals, increase safety and enhance the overall
vibrancy of the area. We are also standing ready to assist the
other elements, such as a greater scope and definition, which
are added to the revitalizations of America's first and
arguably most prominent industrial zones.
A commitment has also been made by local businesses,
property owners and management such as the Colt Gateway
Riverfront Recapture and the Capital Region Education Council
to preserve, maintain and manage their properties in accordance
with the National Park Service and historic preservation guide.
A national park at Coltsville will only require the Park
Service to manage the 10,000 square feet designated in the East
Armory. All other areas will be interpreted externally on an
agreement with the National Park Service and will be
established during the evaluation period outlined in the
legislation.
It is important to briefly recognize the number of jobs
this effort will create and the overall impact to the economy.
Not only will the trades benefit through an intense
construction effort, but long-term growth for the region across
this entire job spectrum, not only the direct benefits to the
leisure and hospitality sector but also those critical indirect
and secondary job markets that will be added and supported as
well.
With an intense focus on commitment in these areas, the
region has already seen over 1,000 new jobs created and the
infusion of $175 million into the regional economy. This
designation, critical to the further restoration of the Colt
Manufacturing plant, has been independently estimated to
generate an additional $150 million to the regional economy and
create 1,000 additional jobs over the next five years. If no
further development occurs, it would only yield $30 million and
229 jobs.
I thank you for your time and consideration and do hope
that you will move this resolution forward not only because
this recognition is long past due but, because many positive
outcomes will no doubt result from Coltsville being designated
a national park. I ask that this testimony be made part of the
record, and I will answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Segarra follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Pedro E. Segarra, Mayor,
City of Hartford, Connecticut, in Support of H.R. 2504
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Minority Member Grijalva, and
Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests
and Public Lands:
On behalf of the City of Hartford, which recently celebrated its
375th Anniversary, I appear before you today in support of H.R. 2504,
the designation of the Coltsville Historic District as a National Park.
I want to thank Congressman John Larson and Senators Lieberman and
Blumenthal for their tireless support of this critical and important
initiative. This effort, which also has the broad support of the City's
business community, institutions, and organizations, is critical to the
revitalization of Connecticut's Capital City, and will become a
centerpiece of the City's effort to increase its focus on heritage
tourism. It will also stand as model for future innovation.
The Colt Manufacturing facility, and surrounding structures, played
a critical--if not essential--role in our national defense, defining
the direction of the United States during a time of great exploration
and innovation. It not only changed the face of national and
international business and commerce, but also enhanced and further
promoted the spirit of American business ingenuity, and its role in
local community. It is symbolic that we are now again presented with a
monumental decision that, if approved, will help to shape and encourage
an ongoing renaissance in the City of Hartford and further promote the
historic and necessary investment that Governor Dannel Malloy has made
to restore funding designed to promote Connecticut's culture and
tourism destinations.
The City of Hartford, State of Connecticut, and the collaborative
of associated public and private entities, is deeply invested in the
Coltsville neighborhood. The City has already rebuilt two schools and
improved housing stock in the immediate area, and has committed almost
$3 million dollars in matching funds to improve surrounding streets in
ways that will redefine space, improve visuals, increase safety and
enhance the overall vibrancy of the area. We also stand ready to assist
with other elements as greater scope and definition are added to the
revitalization of one of America's first, and arguably most preeminent,
industrial zones. A commitment has also been made by local businesses,
property owners, and managers, such as the Colt Gateway, Riverfront
Recapture and the Capitol Region Education Council, to preserve,
maintain and manage their properties in accordance with the National
Park Service and Historic Preservation Guide. A National Park at
Coltsville will only require the Park Service to manage the 10,000
square feet designated in the East Armory. All other areas will be
interpreted externally or an agreement with the National Parks Service
will be established during the evaluation period outlined in the
legislation.
It is important to briefly recognize the number of jobs this effort
will create and the overall impact to the economy. Not only will the
trades benefit through an intense construction effort, but long term
job growth for the region across the entire job spectrum; not only in
direct benefits to the leisure and hospitality sector, but also those
critical indirect and secondary job markets that will be added and
supported as well. With an intense focus and commitment in these areas,
the region has already seen over 1,000 new jobs created and the
infusion of $175M into the regional economy. This designation, critical
to the further restoration of Colt Manufacturing, has been
independently estimated to generate an additional $150M for the
regional economy and create 1,000 additional jobs over the next five
years. If no further development occurs, it will only yield $30M and
229 jobs.
I thank you for your time and consideration and do hope that you
will move this resolution forward, not only because this recognition is
long past due, but because of the many positive outcomes that will no
doubt result from Coltsville being designated as a National Park.
______
Dr. Gosar. So asked. Will be done. Thank you, Mayor.
As is the protocol with the Chair, I will wait until the
very end and abdicate to Mr. Bishop first. Mr. Herger?
Mr. Herger. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith, with respect to H.R. 1237, you stated in your
written testimony that you do not support this legislation
because the land to be acquired by the agency does not possess
any ``recreational or natural resources values that would
contribute to the management of the National Forest System''.
Could you define recreation or natural resource values?
Mr. Smith. Basically, when we acquire a piece of land or
exchange it or something like that, there is a set of criteria
that we use to see whether it is in the public benefit. And
based on the analysis that they have done, the analysis came
back that there wasn't really much of a public benefit to make
that exchange there. Usually you are looking at high-quality
recreation activities, something that you are going to do in a
recreation area. Sometimes you are looking at a resource area
that will improve or protect. And based on the analysis from
the research, nothing came back that was significant.
Mr. Herger. You also say that the consolidation resulting
from this bill will not produce ``measurable forest management
benefits''. Isn't it within the agency's best interest to
consolidate land within forest boundaries when it can?
Mr. Smith. I think that is what they are saying here. Here,
in this case, we would end up with an inholding, and we don't
think this consolidation will create an inholding. That
wouldn't serve the benefit of the Forest Service and it
wouldn't be a public benefit. That is why we are interested in
looking at other parcels that we can still do what needs to be
done in this area, but the consolidation would just create an
inholding.
Mr. Herger. And while I appreciate the Forest Service
suggestion regarding this acquisition of more desirable
parcels, this legislation was introduced to allow the TPUD to
convey these parcels and consolidate Federal holdings in
exchange for one five-thousandths of a percent of the Shasta-
Trinity National Forest to benefit the local community and to
avoid a convoluted and bureaucratic purchase and exchange
process that local managers have been reluctant to work on.
My question, Mr. Smith, is based on those simple terms. Why
can't the agency support this legislation on this principle,
and why does it feel that it should be entitled to get
something out of it beyond an equal value exchange for the
Federal Government?
Mr. Smith. I don't think that is what that is saying. I
think what it is saying is that we looked at all the resource
values, and going back to the consolidation point that you
made, if we could find parcels that we did not create an
inholding, that we could do the consolidation and then serve
those purposes, we would be interested. But we think that
creating this big inholding would not serve those purposes, and
I think that is the point where we come down on.
Mr. Herger. Well, Mr. Smith, I have to tell you that we are
very concerned in the community. As you know, the unemployment
is over 20 percent. The tax base is very limited. The Federal
Government owns approximately 75 percent of this county. It is
a very poor county.
There is a great concern in the community certainly among
the elected officials that the Federal Government has not been
working with them, and I would certainly hope that somehow we
could turn that impression around and that you could work with
us more to help us solve the problems we have there.
Mr. Smith. I think that is certainly my intention. As I
stated in my testimony, we are willing to work with the
Committee, the congressmen and yourself, and I think we will be
able to find some solutions, but we want to take a look at some
other parcels and look at some other options.
Mr. Herger. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. At this time, I would like to
introduce the Ranking Member, Congressman Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Let me begin, Mayor
Segarra. This piece of legislation is something that I have
supported in the past and continue to do so. It is a good
piece, and I hope that the Committee sees fit to move it on and
so I appreciate your being here.
Supervisor Ryan, it is good to see you. I will be
discussing with Congressman Gosar the only issue that I have
that probably needs clarification and more explanation is the
fixed amount of $20,000 versus some other mechanism to arrive
at that amount, but we will pursue that. It is a good fix, but
that remains a question for me that I will be glad to work with
my colleague on.
Other than that, Supervisor, this is a piece of legislation
that I really can't argue with Mr. Gosar about, and since we
enjoy arguing so much with each other you have robbed us of an
opportunity to do that today and for that I am not terribly
pleased, but that is OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Grijalva. Deputy Smith, H.R. 3452. Enactment of this
legislation would create a private inholding, as you mentioned
in your testimony, within the forest. Is this checkerboard
pattern of land ownership the kind of resource management or
management idea that is a good one?
Mr. Smith. No. As you know, in terms of consolidation, what
we like to do is try to get rid of the checkerboard pattern.
Mr. Grijalva. And roadless areas? Elaborate a little bit.
Roadless areas in forests in general protect water quality.
What impact might a major construction project within this area
that we are talking about under H.R. 3452 have on water quality
for Salt Lake City and the surrounding area?
Mr. Smith. That is correct. That is one of the things we
are concerned about is the watershed protection and also just
building the corridor in that there are other resources there,
and there is also private land going across there.
So we think that we would like to look at other options and
work with the Committee, as well as with the county, to see if
we can do something a little different there.
Mr. Grijalva. In legislation like H.R. 3452, does the
Forest Service solicit and respond to public input in making
this resource management decision regarding the construction of
a major project like this one, and does this legislation, as
far as you can tell, afford you that similar public involvement
opportunity?
Mr. Smith. We always will go through the public process and
an environmental analysis in particular in something like this.
We think this legislation would limit us in that opportunity to
do that.
Mr. Grijalva. Mayor Becker, thank you and welcome. Your
testimony indicated that the construction of this project is
not supported by the local community. Could you elaborate? What
is the opposition based on? How serious is that opposition and
just on the issue of how people are reacting to the proposal.
Mr. Becker. This proposal has created an uproar as great
against a proposal as I have seen for a number of years in the
Wasatch Mountains. Part of it is the proposal itself, and part
of it is what it represents, the precedent that it sets. I can
certainly speak on behalf of Salt Lake County, and you received
a statement as well from the Mayor of Salt Lake, of Salt Lake
City. You received a statement as well from the Mayor of Salt
Lake County.
We have watershed responsibilities in these canyons, and
for many decades, really now going well over a century, we have
invested enormous resources to protect those watersheds and to
still allow for a wide variety of uses. We have been able to do
that by very carefully considering proposals.
Mr. Grijalva. Some of the other witnesses have mentioned
studies that the projections or the claims are it will create
jobs, lower traffic congestion. How do you feel about the
reliability of those studies?
Mr. Becker. The analysis that our folks have done today
does not place much credence in them both in terms of the
quality of the studies and in terms of the breadth of the
studies that are needed for a proposal like this.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to
say that the Chairman of this Committee, Doc Hastings, always
admonishes us about the fact that if the congressman of that
particular district where the project is, that they should have
significant input as to what that project is or isn't. He asks
that question consistently, and you pointed out that Mr.
Matheson is opposed to the project and it is in his district.
Let me thank you and yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the Ranking Member. I would like to
acknowledge the Chairman for the Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I appreciate
all of you taking the time to come here.
Mr. Smith, it is good to see you again. I believe I met you
out in California already. I appreciate that testimony at the
same time. I have got a whole bunch of things here. Let me try
and just go through this. First of all, Mr. Smith, if I could,
you said one of the things that the Park Service tries to do is
to make sure that they get market value for land in which they
convey or sell. Do you know how much you paid for the land in
Alta in the first place?
Mr. Smith. No, I don't know that. I can certainly find out,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. There will probably be another bill that will
come through very quickly and as well may be on the Floor that
talks about paying for costs, for administrative costs for land
transfer. I suppose if you had to pay $1 for that land
transfer, I expect the fair market value would be $1 coming
back at you?
Mr. Smith. That is about right. I mean, typically under the
Federal rules, FLPMA, we are required to get fair market value
and so basically based on the Federal appraisal standards that
is how we come up with that value.
Mr. Bishop. Come on. If you paid $1 for it, shouldn't you
get $1 back?
Mr. Smith. Congressman, we don't make the rules.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, but you are becoming a good capitalist at
the same time. Thank you for having a monopoly and then
charging for it.
Let me ask you one other thing too, in particular the
SkiLink bill for example. You said you opposed the bill because
it would create a 30-acre inholding, yet in Mr. Herger's bill
it eliminates a 150-acre inholding in that Six River National
Forest, and you said that eliminating that inholding would have
no measurable benefit for the management of the forest. So
giving up 30 acres or two acres in Alta, I am assuming by the
same logic it would have no measurable impact on the
management?
Mr. Smith. I don't have those figures in front of me. I can
just tell you, Congressman, that I will certainly look into
that.
Mr. Bishop. All right. I am giving you a logic train. You
don't necessarily have to have figures for it. That is OK. We
have dealt with the Forest Service before.
Can I ask some questions of Ms. O'Dell if I could about the
Connecticut project here? Because originally you said the
proposal did not meet the feasibility criteria for the project,
yet I believe you have said there have been new decisions to
public access and financial viability of the developer that has
caused a change in that opinion. So let me go through maybe
three or four very quick ones. Has the Park Service made any
positive finding related to public access to the structures in
Coltsville?
Ms. O'Dell. I believe the town, the community, has made a
lot of progress in bringing some buildings back to life and put
schools in some of the buildings and cleaned up and developed
some and so we are----
Mr. Bishop. OK. But public access. Have you changed the
findings on that?
Ms. O'Dell. We have not changed the special resource study
at all yet, sir.
Mr. Bishop. All right. So, has the Park Service determined
whether or not there is a need for Park Service management of
Coltsville? Do you have an official change on that one?
Ms. O'Dell. Again, the study has not officially been
changed, but our testimony says that the National Park Service
could serve an important role here as the National Park unit.
Mr. Bishop. This is a project that I personally like. I
would like to make it work somehow if we could. But are the
private property owners aware--are the property owners aware--
that in this legislation it provides for the Secretary of the
Interior the right to inspect their finances?
Ms. O'Dell. I am sorry, sir. I don't know if the developer
is aware of that yet. I am imagining he is because there has
been a very good, strong dialogue between the City of Hartford
and the National Park Service.
Mr. Bishop. But you and the Park Service were aware that
that language is in this bill?
Ms. O'Dell. Yes, sir, we are.
Mr. Bishop. So, have the owners of the properties consented
to having them be included in the park boundaries? Let us just
go through a couple. Have the owners of East Armory consented
to be included in the boundaries?
Ms. O'Dell. I am not sure if the owners are, sir. The City
of Hartford----
Mr. Bishop. Just the owners. The Church of the Good
Shepherd?
Ms. O'Dell. I am unaware, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Colt Park?
Ms. O'Dell. I am unaware.
Mr. Bishop. Potsdam Cottages?
Ms. O'Dell. I personally am unaware.
Mr. Bishop. OK. So, if I keep going through these property
owners, I am going to get the same answer, aren't I?
Ms. O'Dell. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Bishop. All right. I am not saying that it is
necessarily a criticism--yes, I am saying it is a criticism,
but not one that is not overcomeable--but it is a concern for
me that we give the Secretary of the Interior the right to
inspect finances within the legislation, and it is a concern
that the property owners need to have an up/down, yes/no. They
need to be conformed with that, and I expect the Park Service
to take the forefront in accomplishing those and giving a
definitive answer at some point in the process as we go through
with this particular bill.
Ms. O'Dell. We will be happy to do that, sir.
Mr. Bishop. I have no clue----
Mr. Segarra. If I may, Mr. Chair?
Mr. Bishop. We need our timer back from our old committee
so I know. I know I have less than a minute, but if you would
like to take that less than a minute? I have some other
questions. Please, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Segarra. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. As mayor I can
tell you that the level of cooperation between the local
stakeholders has been incredible. We recently met with the
Governor to try to get some additional state support for this
park. The current owners of Coltsville are very invested in
making this happen, as are the parks. We have boosted up our
resources for Colt Park in terms of repairs and improvements,
so we are all very committed.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. My time is up this time. But
you have heard my concerns. They need to be fixed in this bill.
Mr. Segarra. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. There is some power given to the Secretary of
the Interior that is unprecedented and ought not to be there,
and I want to make sure those property owners have had a clear
chance of understanding exactly what it is and have a chance to
go yes/no. So I appreciate you working with them to make sure
they actually do it.
Mr. Segarra. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I will yield back for this round.
Dr. Gosar. At this time, I would like to acknowledge Mr.
Kildee for his questioning.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Your Honor, the mayor, Mr. Segarra, I come from Flint,
Michigan, which is the birthplace of General Motors. It is
where David Buick lived for a while and Louis Chevrolet and
Walter Chrysler and Charles Nash. And my dad came there to work
in the new industry of building mobility for people using the
interchangeable parts system, and it revolutionized America.
Henry Ford was doing a little bit down in Detroit too, but
Flint claims more of that. But it is very interesting and very
important that we remember the roots, the very basic roots of
our manufacturing process in this country, which built the
economy of this country.
We have done that in Flint, Michigan, when we were a little
more affluent. Flint is going through some difficult times now,
but we have the Sloan Museum dedicated to the auto industry. We
have the Buick Special Museum where they have a 1904 Buick
fully restored. As a matter of fact, they have a 1904 Buick
engine they found tearing down a wooden wall at the Buick plant
one time. They found a Buick engine that had only been fired up
to see whether it worked or not and put away.
But people come from all over to see how this country's
industrial base was built. Now a Colt is different than a
Buick, but the principle of the interchangeable part, we have
to keep that in mind and let people know that these things just
didn't happen. It took the genius of men and the genius of this
country. So I am not speaking too much who should have control
over this, but I think what you are after does generate jobs.
It has generated jobs in Flint.
Might I ask just one question? You gave some estimates as
to the jobs it might create. How did you arrive at those
estimates? Did you have some firm to look at that----
Mr. Segarra. Yes.
Mr. Kildee.--and look at other such similar programs?
Mr. Segarra. Yes. There has been two independent economic
analyses that have been done of what this National Park
designation would mean in terms of the local economy and the
regional economy. We can submit those to be part of the record
if they are not already in the record.
But I think, Congressman, what is really important here is
that at a time when many are doubting America's ability to be a
center of innovation and manufacturing, if we draw a reference
to Samuel Colt and what he did in Hartford and how that
translated to so many other industries, I think that is
something that could add to the portfolio of cultural resources
that we have in this country that will not only make our city
and our state proud and our region but also give visitors an
ability to witness firsthand how the genius of this man and all
the components that are around the armory, around the arms
factory, are incredible, to how this enterprise zone was
created so early in the mid-1800s by Samuel Colt.
It is amazing. The architecture is beautiful architecture
at both of the churches. The architecture even at Colt is
incredible. It is a place I think that could make not only our
state proud but would make this country proud.
Mr. Kildee. You mentioned Mrs. Colt.
Mr. Segarra. Yes.
Mr. Kildee. It is interesting. We can't leave out the
women.
Mr. Segarra. Absolutely.
Mr. Kildee. Right there in Flint there were women who
worked particularly at what we called then the AC Sparkplug
plant. They played a role in design and they played a role in
investment. So the men and women of this country really built
this industry that made us a great industrial power, so good
that within a matter of less than two months my dad quit making
Buick engines and started building Pratt Whitney engines for
our Air Force, and that is the alacrity of also American
industry. And I really thank you for representing your city so
well, and I encourage you to really help people remember where
we came from.
Mr. Segarra. We are trying to do that, sir. Mrs. Colt is
still helping women to this day. She left quite a bit of an
endowment to service the wives, widows, of Episcopalian
ministers, so her works live on through today.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Your Honor.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Kildee.
The Chair will recognize himself. And the first question,
Mr. Ryan, I know you answered most of these questions, but I
really want to highlight them. What do you think the best
remedy for the homeowners and the county is in this unfortunate
situation in Mountainaire?
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Congressman Gosar. As you know, many
of these people are going through difficult times. We heard it
tonight. We see it throughout the country. This adds an
additional challenge for them. It is a method of transfer at
least cost for these property owners. They are willing to pay
the $20,000. They would support paying less quite frankly. But
we do know also that the Forest Service and the Federal
Government need to have some level of reimbursement. They
understand that, and they are willing to pay.
Dr. Gosar. Now, for the record, these homeowners have all
been paying their taxes, right, for this parcel of land?
Mr. Ryan. They have been, Congressman Gosar. They have been
paying their taxes since the inception or since the first sales
occurred with the subdivision itself.
It is important to note that they have also been treating
it as their private land, and the county and the property
owners had no idea this survey was erroneous. What they had
done they had done legally. They used a correct process based
on what was supposed to be an accurate survey.
Dr. Gosar. I also last want to finish up with highlighting
why the Small Tracts Act doesn't really work in this case and
why it is prohibitive versus this kind of common-sense
protocol.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Congressman Gosar. The Small Tracts
Act takes a long time. The Forest Service has to work with each
property individually, which would be all of these properties
handled individually. It is not necessarily the most cost-
effective mechanism for the Forest Service as well as the
property owners. The costs go up related to that. It would
require an appraised value associated with the properties, and
in essence the property owners, who already paid for these
lands out and out with higher assessed values, would have to
pay again. This alternative is quick and efficient both for the
Forest Service as well as the property owners.
Dr. Gosar. And I think this is so apropos because this was
a community that was driven together for a common solution, and
this is a common solution that they all fittingly are part of.
That is why I want to commend them for doing this.
Tell them I am very sorry that the IT failed us today, but
we will post it. What the magic of this was allowing them to be
part of that solution empowering people to be part of that, and
they willingly did this. It shows you just a beautiful part of
my district that I am spoiled with. So I would hope that we
could move this thing fast and move it forward appropriately
for these people so that they can celebrate owning their own
home and property. So, Mr. Ryan, thank you so very much.
At this point in time, I am going to yield the balance of
my time to the Chairman. Mr Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Don't I get my own time? OK. We will work it
out somehow.
First of all, Mr. Smith, I was just looking at a map, and I
hope I got the right one there that deals with Mr. Herger's
piece of legislation. The 150 acres as I understand it is an L-
shaped piece of property that has the Forest Service bounding
it on all three sides going around the L and back again. Am I
accurate in that picture?
Mr. Smith. I think so. I think I remember seeing that
parcel.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Goar, if I could ask you a question? When using the
construction techniques that you described in your testimony on
the three other lifts, were there any water quality impacts
that took place?
Mr. Goar. Excuse me, Chairman. No, there were not.
Mr. Bishop. Well, OK. Let me go to Mike. Councilman Jensen,
some say this proposal has not received enough public review.
We will continue that review process. But how long has this
project or similar projects been talked about in the Salt Lake
area?
Mr. Jensen. This particular project has been talked about
for about a year and a half, but there are studies that go back
that talk about connecting the canyons clear back to 1989.
There was a study done by MAG, Mountainlands Association of
Governments, which is Utah County, Wasatch County and Summit
County, where they talked about connecting them together back
in 1990. So this has been on the topic of discussion since the
late 1980s, early 1990s, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bishop. Well, then can I also ask you, you said in your
written testimony that this project, which is a start--maybe
not the conclusion to everything you need, but it is a start--
is the least environmentally invasive option. Does that mean
that there have been some horrendous options out there that
have a greater impact than this would have been? What do you
mean by that statement?
Mr. Jensen. When you look at, especially in this new study,
the Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow, it talks about in there, but when
you go up the mountains there is just not a lot of room to
expand the roads, and so if you are going to talk about adding
capacity up the canyons, that would have a lot greater impact
than it would doing the tram, the SkiLink, over from the
Canyons to Solitude because there is nobody who gets on and
off. The terminus points of both are at existing infrastructure
where there already is development.
Mr. Bishop. All right.
Mr. Jensen. The only impact would be a visual impact.
Mr. Bishop. OK. So that is what you mean by least invasive?
Mr. Jensen. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Mr. Goar, can I then ask the other
question here because obviously transportation is one of the
questions involved in this particular situation. In your
experience managing the Canyons, can you simply elaborate how
you came up with the concept that this will improve the overall
flow of traffic and maybe even why you expect the visitors'
experience to be enhanced by this?
Mr. Goar. Certainly. Probably the best example, every day
of the ski season skiers and snowboarders travel between our
resort and Solitude Mountain Resort I-80, Wasatch Boulevard and
the Big Cottonwood Canyon Highway. They go in both directions.
We know that those users, and they are a significant number,
would utilize aerial transportation.
The experience is extraordinary, like nothing else in the
United States. There are no other resorts that are connected in
this fashion. It would be a terrific alternative to getting in
a car and driving the 45 miles between the two resorts. It is
simple transportation. As the Chief mentioned, it is from
existing infrastructure of one resort to the other.
Mr. Bishop. So your assumption is this would be an increase
in tourism, a tourism magnet of some kind?
Mr. Goar. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Bishop. And the assumption, and correct me if I am
wrong here, was something like 18,000 cars that could be
eliminated from going up either one canyon or the other?
Mr. Goar. That is correct. Initially 18,000----
Mr. Bishop. Based on what?
Mr. Goar.--cars that would utilize aerial transportation
versus driving the road, and that equates to a million miles a
year and a million pounds of emissions.
Mr. Bishop. Do you know how you came up with that number?
Mr. Goar. Yes. We did a number of studies, both economic,
environmental and traffic studies. Interplan, a local traffic
consulting firm who has done work for the State of Utah for
years, has done traffic analysis in this very area, in the
Cottonwood Canyons and in Park City, did an analysis, and these
are the findings that Interplan found through that study.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Mayor, if I could ask you? And, by the way,
congratulations on your recent reelection to a second term
there in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Becker. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. It is nice to have you home here again too. I
was given is it the CIRA study, if I pronounced that properly?
Mr. Becker. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. That did a preliminary environmental review of
this area, and it talked in there about how the Big Cottonwood
Canyon since 1936 when Brighton was opened and then Solitude
around the mid-1970s, sometime in that area, have been opened
and they have increased obviously in capacity as well as in
visitation, but it said that in Big Cottonwood Canyon the
forest boundaries indicates the water qualities remained
stable.
And then they also said, and I am quoting from the report,
``The city concerns over the proposed SkiLink would be
primarily focused on water quality impacts, including potential
E. Coli and sediment contributions to the stream channels. The
proposed SkiLink does not appear to have the potential for this
type of impact based on water quality records.'' Do you have
additional records that would contradict this preliminary
report finding?
Mr. Becker. No. We are certainly aware of that study. There
have been studies. We monitor the water quality in that creek
on a daily basis. We do intensive studies on a regular basis of
Big Cottonwood Canyon, as all of our watershed canyons on a
regular basis.
What we see has not been addressed as part of the study,
just one of the things that have not been addressed as part of
that particular study, are not only the direct effects of
putting in one lift and moving skiers from point to point but
the indirect effects and the cumulative effects.
The long-term effects when you look at this proposal in
conjunction with the other proposals would be to double the
area of ski area, ski area development in the Wasatch Canyons,
in these two canyons in particular, and that is of great
concern to us not only in terms of water quality and bringing
in a lot of additional people that need to be studied carefully
but also in terms of the many other users in the canyons.
Mr. Bishop. All right. I can just finish up here real
briefly if you want me to. Does the city intend to do some
studies of their own in the near future that could be added to
this?
Mr. Becker. We would hope to be able to contribute to the
information as it relates to this specific proposal and others,
and we have just begun--this is something that has just emerged
in terms of the specific proposal. We have just begun looking
into what those studies should look like and certainly would
want to look very carefully at the impacts.
Mr. Bishop. Do you dispute the traffic analysis that has
been given?
Mr. Becker. Our folks who have taken an initial look at
this traffic study feel it is badly inadequate.
Mr. Bishop. To all of you, and I am hoping you have all had
a chance to see it, I am assuming that Section 3 of this Act
clearly states that all environmental policies and laws will be
adhered to. Sorry, that is a preposition. We will adhere to
those policies in all of these as we are going through. Nothing
is going to be waived as far as the process. That seems clear?
Mr. Becker. Yes. We understand that.
Mr. Bishop. That is what I think am seeing reading into it.
Mr. Jensen, let me ask you the last question. Can you
elaborate on what kind of agencies have been involved with the
proposals that we are talking about here?
Mr. Jensen. Well, in the Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow study the
three lead agencies were Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City and
the State of Utah, but we included the Transportation
Department, the UTA, the Town of Alta, as well as Envision
Utah, Wasatch Front on our plan for transportation. We deal
with this on a daily basis. As you know, funding is tight and
so anytime you are going to add projects it poses a problem.
MAG, the Association of Governments for Wasatch, Summit and
Utah Counties, has also dealt with this in numerous studies
over the past couple decades. So I think there has been a
discussion about this for the past decades. Now this specific
proposal only for the past year.
Mr. Bishop. I want to thank all of you for being here
before I yield my time to you, Mr. Acting Chair, for the
Administration witnesses for coming here, for my three friends
from Utah for making the four-hour flight out here. I
appreciate you doing that. To the mayor. I think I have
illustrated what concerns I do have in the proposal, and I
would hope we could work those through very much.
Mr. Segarra. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. And to Mr. Ryan and Mr. Gregory, I apologize
for not giving you any questions. How are you?
Mr. Ryan. Doing well, sir.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Good. Thank you for being here. I will
yield back.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I just want to
say once again, Matt, on behalf of me I just want to say thank
you to all the people in Mountainaire for how they orchestrated
themselves, how they conducted business on behalf of
themselves, coalescing, the County Board of Supervisors and how
they came together with another idea. I just want to applaud
that because that is the way things ought to work.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Congressman Gosar. Appreciate that.
Dr. Gosar. If there are no further questions, I want to
thank the witnesses and the Members and the staff for their
participation and preparation.
Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions
for the witnesses, and they can ask you to respond to these in
writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 days to receive
these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 2157
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the
Subcommittee,
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of
my legislation, H.R. 2157, and thank you for giving it a fair hearing.
I also want to thank Rusty Gregory, Chairman and CEO of Mammoth
Mountain, for making the trip to Washington, D.C. to testify on behalf
of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area is located in the
northern half of my district, in the Eastern Sierra. Mammoth provides
between ten and thirty percent of the total employment in Mono County
and is a premier recreation destination for tourists all throughout
California and the U.S. Each winter, Mammoth sees an average of 1.3
million visitors. These visitors pump vital money into the local
economy by populating hotels, restaurants, and stores throughout the
region. Tourism is the life-blood of the Eastern Sierra.
Mammoth has operated on a Special Use Permit from the U.S. Forest
Service since 1953. The base area of the mountain is aging rapidly and
is in need of renovation and redevelopment in order to provide a safer,
more enjoyable experience for visitors to Mammoth Mountain. However,
these renovations are difficult to achieve under the terms of the
Special Use Permit.
Since 1998, Mammoth Mountain has been working with the Forest
Service to complete a land exchange between their main base parcel and
other desired Forest Service acquisitions. These acquisitions include
high resource value lands in the Inyo, El Dorado, Stanislaus, and
Plumas National Forests. The exchange would allow the main base to
undergo significant and needed renovations.
My legislation is meant to supplement and codify this agreement. It
is needed for two reasons:
1) Two parcels that the Forest Service wants are outside Inyo
National Forest boundaries. Both parcels are currently leased
by the Inyo National Forest from the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power.
2) There is more value in the Mammoth Mountain parcel than all
the land parcels exchanged in total, so Mammoth needs
legislation for permission to pay a cash equalization to the
federal government that will be used for future forest
acquisition.
The agreement is widely supported by the local community because
residents, business owners, and local governments understand the great
value of having Mammoth Mountain in their community. Besides jobs and
recreation, Mammoth supports a significant portion of the tax base,
providing needed revenue throughout the region. We have received
numerous letters of support from community members, including those
from: Duane Hazard, Chair of the Mono County Board of Supervisors;
Vikki Bauer, member of the Mono County Board of Supervisors; the Mono
Lake Committee; the Eastern Sierra Land Trust; and the Mammoth Lakes
Town Council.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing. Mammoth
Mountain has been a good steward of the environment, a solid partner in
economic vitality for the region, and an honest party in negotiations
with the Forest Service. This land exchange will be mutually beneficial
for all parties involved and I urge the subcommittee to move forward to
markup the legislation during the 112th Congress. I look forward to
answering any questions you may have about H.R. 2157 and thank you for
your time.
______
Statement submitted for the record by the Citizens' Committee to Save
Our Canyons on H.R. 3452 The Wasatch Range Recreation Access
Enhancement Act
We are writing to you today to voice our strong opposition to the
sale of public lands within the boundaries of the Salt Lake City
Municipal Watershed and managed by the U.S. Forest Service. This
legislation sets a disturbing precedent that goes against the wishes
not only of a public who rely upon these lands for drinking water, but
also for those who chose to move their families and businesses to the
Salt Lake Valley for access to public lands which enhance their quality
of life. Furthermore, this legislation is a blatant attempt to help one
corporation turn a profit at the expense of millions of visitors and is
contrary to the 2003 Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan and other more recently
concluded public processes. It is disheartening to us that the very
representatives who require a county by county process dealing with
public lands issues, turn on this very process, which they established,
and cater to the demands of a foreign corporation.
The ski industry in Utah is an important sector of our economy
generating $1.1 billion in 2010 (approx. 1% of State GDP), but
protecting our natural resources, preserving intact ecosystems,
offering unmarred alpine vistas, and access to what the U.S. Forest
Plan calls ``highly valued'' public lands, are huge factors in the
generation of these dollars. In 2010, Utah brought in $6.53 billion
from tourism, a figure Gov. Gary Herbert attributed earlier this week
to Utah's unmatched natural beauty. Millions of people every year
travel to this area to recreate both at resorts and on the adjacent
Forest Service lands.
The SkiLink proposal and the Wasatch Range Recreation Access
Enhancement Act are going against recommendations which came out of the
Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow process conducted by Envision Utah. A process
which included the input of citizens and regional leaders to outline a
vision for the Wasatch Canyons. That vision does not support the
expansion of ski infrastructure into the untouched areas of the Wasatch
Range. Moreover, one of the goals of the Envision process was the
reduction of developable lands in the canyons in effort to establish a
more cohesive land management pattern. Currently, community leaders,
governmental entities and other interested stakeholders are working
proactively in effort to ensure for the long term protection of
watershed and public land resources in this area. H.R. 3452 sets a
dangerous precedent for taking lands in the public domain and
tranferring them into the private domain, specifically for the purposes
of development.
We do not disagree with the concerns of the ski industry as they
pertain to transportation issues in these canyons. That is why we have
not only been participating in local processes, but have contributed
financially to them to underscore our commitment to finding real
solutions. Our plea is for you to drop this bill and allow the public
processes to play out honestly. There are solutions out there that will
reduce traffic in our watershed, move resort patrons from point to
point, but also protect areas of the Wasatch that bring business to the
valley and give us the quality of life we seek as a community. We
already have a lot of infrastructure in our canyons and in the
valley's, we need to utilize this and come up with a solution that
works for all.
This bill puts a stop to honest public processes and is not the way
transportation planning should be done. This legislation also conflicts
directly with the Wilderness Legislation that stakeholders from the ski
industry, local governments and environmental groups worked on arriving
at a consensus bill, taking over two years.
The future of the Wasatch lies in maintaining a balance, a balance
between development and undeveloped lands, between resorts and
backcountry, but also ensure that our water resources are not degraded
and that the costs of that degradation are not passed onto the public
who relies upon the quality of life these mountains provide to us. This
legislation tips this delicate balance in favor of development and
establishes a precedent to continue doing so for the other six resorts
in the Central Wasatch, and seven other resorts across the state that
have their eyes on expanding onto additional public lands. Getting
people out visiting resorts, enjoying the mountain air is important,
but so to is protecting lands, leaving them intact and pristine for the
benefit of future generations.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement. Sincerely,
Carl Fisher, Executive Director, Save Our Canyons
______
Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Mark Wier, Mayor,
City of Mesquite, Nevada, on H.R. 2745, Amending the Mesquite Lands Act
of 1986
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing today and allowing me
to testify on behalf of H.R. 2745, a bill will make technical
amendments to the Mesquite Lands Act of 1986. J would also like to
thank Congressman Joe Heck for introducing this important piece of
legislation and Congressman Mark Amodei for being a cosponsor.
The City of Mesquite is a progressive city of 20,400 residents
located in Southern Nevada along the Arizona boarder. For the past two
decades, Mesquite has been one of the fastest growing small cities in
the country due to an excellent quality of life, favorable business
environment and an abundance of outdoor recreational opportunities. All
of these factors led to a phenomenal growth rate, which stretched the
city to its boundaries and created a need to expand the City's existing
airport in order to maximize our economic potential. As the City of
Mesquite is landlocked by publicly owned land, Congress enacted two
amendments to the original Mesquite Lands Act of 1986 to allow the City
to continue to grow and prosper in a positive manner. In 1999 Congress
passed the latest Mesquite Lands Act amendment with the specific
purpose of providing land to construct a commercial airport and to
provide more room for commercial and industrial development to meet
future demands for its citizens and a rapidly growing tourism industry.
In 2002, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a Mesquite
Lands Act Biological Opinion (MLA BO) to the BLM, which, among other
things, mandated that the City participate in the development and
implementation of the Virgin River Habitat Conservation and Recovery
Plan (VRHCRP) and a Hydrologic Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (HMMP).
The VRHCRP was established to provide a mechanism for federal and non-
federal entities to work collaboratively to protect and conserve
imperiled species in the Lower Virgin River Basin and to ensure that
the Virgin River is not adversely impacted by the extraction of
groundwater from new development. In concert with habitat plan
development, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has notably allowed
development to continue in Mesquite, with the understanding that the
plan would be implemented upon adoption.
Subsequent to the MLA BO, Congress made a technical amendment to
the Mesquite Lands Act that set aside a portion of the proceeds from
the sale of each parcel for the ``development'' of the VRHCRP and the
HMMP. For some reason, language allowing for the ``implementation'' of
these plans was omitted from this amendment. Other land acts, such as
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (Section 4 (e)(3)(A) iii)
and the Lincoln and White Pine County Lands Acts, clearly state that
funds shall be expended on development and implementation of multi-
species habitat conservation plans that are associated with new
development in their respective areas, it is the City's position that
the same process should be applied to the Mesquite Lands Act.
The City of Mesquite, the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the
Virgin Valley Water District have committed, through various mitigation
and hookup fees, a significant amount of funding over the life of the
VRHCRP. However, costs for the mitigation and recovery efforts could
reach $63 million, which would place a significant financial burden on
the City and our local water district. Allowing these special funds to
be used for ``implementation'' of the VRHCRP would provide an
additional $4.8 million to this effort.
In addition to the clarification for the VRHCRP, there is an issue
regarding the timing of the land sales identified in the 1999 amendment
to the MLA that is also addressed in H.R. 2745. The 1999 amendment
gives the City the exclusive right to purchase, at fair market value,
the land identified in the MLA from the Bureau of Land Management for a
period of 12 years from the date of enactment of the Land Act. Due to
the severe economic conditions that continue to plague Southern Nevada
and a delay of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Airport site,
the City is not in a position to purchase the final sections of
property at this time and, therefore, was not able to make this
deadline. The City of Mesquite remains committed to ensure that it
continues to grow in a positive manner, and needs an extension of time
to allow economic conditions to improve.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to
testify on behalf of H.R. 2745. I sincerely appreciate your interest in
this legislation and ask that it be given favorable consideration as it
is reported out of this subcommittee. I will be happy to address any
questions that you may have.