[Senate Hearing 111-721]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-721
PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS BILLS
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 3261 S. 3283 S. 3291 S. 3524 S. 3565 S. 3612
S. 3616 S. 3744
S. 3778 S. 3820
S. 3822 H.R. 1858
H.R. 4773
__________
SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-567 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
___________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer
Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
MARK UDALL, Colorado, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana BOB CORKER, Tennessee
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK UDALL, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittees
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Alaska...................... 4
Burr, Hon. Richard. U.S. Senator From North Carolina............. 3
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Arizona..................... 24
Sanders, Hon. Bernie, U.S. Senator From Vermont.................. 6
Schutt, Aaron, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer,
Doyon, Limited, Fairbanks, AK.................................. 22
Smith, Gregory C., Director of Lands, Forest Service, Department
of Agriculture................................................. 18
Stevenson, Katherine H., Associate Director, Business Services,
National Park Service, Department of the Interior; Accompanied
by Timothy R. Spisak, Acting Assistant Director, Minerals and
Realty Management, Bureau of Land Management................... 7
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from Colorado..................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 31
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 35
PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks and Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Udall
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Udall. The Subcommittee on National Parks will come
to order.
Welcome, everybody.
This afternoon the Subcommittee on National Parks and the
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests are holding a joint
hearing to consider several pending bills. The purpose of the
hearing is to get testimony for the record on as many bills as
possible before the Senate adjourns this week, maybe even
today.
Because we have over a dozen bills on the agenda, I will
not read through the list of bills, but at this time I will
include the complete list of bills in the hearing record.
The committee has received a statement from Senator
Hutchison relating to 2 bills involving areas in Texas: the
proposed Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area and the San
Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Without objection,
her statement on those bills will be included in the hearing
record, along with several other written statements that the
committee has received. We will, of course, also include any
additional statements submitted for the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator From
Texas
I want to thank Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski of
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for holding today's
joint hearing between the Subcommittee on National Parks and
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests to consider the lands bills
important to so many regions of the country. Two bills in particular,
S. 3261, the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area Act and S. 3524, the
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary Expansion Act of
2010, are of interest to many of my constituents.
The first bill, S. 3261, the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area
Act, would designate the Buffalo Bayou as a National Heritage Area. The
Buffalo Bayou became important in Texas' history when, during the
Battle of San Jacinto, the final battle for Texas Independence was
fought along its banks. It was during this battle that General Sam
Houston led the Texas Army against General Antonio L"pez de Santa
Anna's Mexican forces, to win its independence from Mexico in 1836.
The Buffalo Bayou has become a major economic access point into the
Southwest and beyond. Today, the 52-mile stretch of the Buffalo Bayou
is the nation's number one port in foreign cargo and one of the largest
ports in the world. The Buffalo Bayou's complex of petrochemical plants
employs over 35,000 people. Oil and gas refining along the bayou
remains the foundation of Houston's economy, providing 13 percent of
the nation's refining capacity.
In 2002, Congressman Gene Green and I introduced the Buffalo Bayou
National Heritage Study Act which required the National Park Service
(NPS) to study the area to determine if the Buffalo Bayou was eligible
for designation. The NPS report describes the Buffalo Bayou as an
important artery currently supporting oil refining, petrochemical
production, and commercial trade. The Buffalo Bayou also sustains the
growth of Baytown and the development of Houston's economic powerhouses
of energy and petrochemical industries.
While conducting public hearings on the designation of the Buffalo
Bayou, the common themes voiced by interested parties were that the
historical events and growth of the oil industry along the banks of the
Buffalo Bayou are critical to understanding the rise of the United
States as a modern industrial giant. The Buffalo Bayou has a great
history to preserve and could continue providing economic development
opportunities for the Houston area.
The NPS's report concluded that Buffalo Bayou is eligible and would
benefit from the designation. I fully agree with the NPS's analysis of
the Buffalo Bayou, and that is why I introduced S. 3261, the Buffalo
Bayou National Heritage Area Act, to designate the Buffalo Bayou for
National Heritage Area designation. My legislation is a companion bill
to a bill sponsored by Congressman Gene Green, who has been a champion
for this important region of Texas to receive the designation it
deserves.
The second bill being considered today, also important to Texas, is
S. 3524, the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Boundary
Expansion Act of 2010, which would authorize a boundary study that
would identify possible lands for inclusion in the park within Bexar
and Wilson Counties. Condemnation language was added during House
markup so as to protect the rights of private property owners.
The City of San Antonio is the second-largest city in the State of
Texas and the seventh-largest city in the United States; however, it is
important to consider how the San Antonio Missions played an important
role in San Antonio's history. The San Antonio Missions National
Historical Park commemorates an important chapter in the history of the
United States and represents the largest concentration of historical
Catholic missions in North America. The park also features some of the
most effectively maintained Spanish colonial architecture in the United
States. Its rich history must be preserved for future generations to
enjoy.
During the 1700s, Spain greatly influenced the San Antonio area. As
Spanish explorers travelled through what is modern-day Texas, Catholic
missionaries and soldiers accompanied the group and established the
missions and forts we now benefit from in the San Antonio Missions
National Historical Park. The missions and forts were originally
established to protect Spanish land claims from the French in
Louisiana. The missions and forts were also important to Spain in order
to spread their influence and recruit new citizens for Spain's
expanding empire. The San Antonio Missions National Historical Park
preserves four of the five Spanish frontier missions and offers
visitors an opportunity to learn about the historical importance that
the area played in vocational and educational training during the
1700s.
My colleague and fellow Texan, Congressman Circo Rodriguez,
introduced H.R. 4438, the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park
Boundary Expansion Act of 2010, which passed the House of
Representatives on July 13, 2010. I was pleased to introduce a Senate
companion to Congressman Rodriguez's legislation. Our legislation
enjoys the strong support of officials from Bexar County, Wilson
County, the City of San Antonio, the City of Floresville, the San
Antonio River Authority, the San Antonio Conservation Society, Los
Compadres, and others. This bill would help guarantee the preservation,
protection, restoration, and interpretation of the missions for current
and future generations.
Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski, I believe today's
hearing will give the committee a better understanding of why these
regions are important to our nation's history, and why legislation is
needed to preserve the Buffalo Bayou Heritage Area and the San Antonio
Missions. I thank you for your attention to these two pieces of
legislation.
Thank you.
Senator Udall. I would like to briefly comment on H.R.
1858, which is of particular interest to Senator Bennett and
myself. Representative Markey introduced H.R. 1858 to resolve
what has been a very difficult issue for a number of homeowners
in the Crystal Lakes Subdivision in northern Colorado.
In 2004, the Bureau of Land Management determined that a
developer's 1976 private survey erroneously included
approximately 7 acres of National Forest land within the
boundary of the subdivision. As a result, we have a number of
homeowners who, through no fault of their own, are faced with
the prospect of losing their property or being forced to pay
for it a second time. The homeowners have been living under
this cloud on their title for too long, so I hope our hearing
today will help us get closer to a resolution for them.
With that, I would like to recognize the ranking member,
Senator Burr, from North Carolina for any opening statement he
may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank you for convening this hearing before the National Parks
Subcommittee and the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee,
which is likely to be our final subcommittee hearing of the
year.
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my gratitude
of the chairman for the way he has conducted the business of
the subcommittee. We have had another productive year,
regularly hearing a large number of bills. I know all members
of the subcommittee appreciate your leadership in addressing
their bills in a timely manner. I have enjoyed working with you
this Congress, and I look forward to continuing to work with
you in the future on this subcommittee, as well as the full
committee.
This is a very unique hearing, given that it is a joint
hearing between Public Lands and Forests. We have 12 total
bills on the agenda, 7 of which are the National Parks bills. I
will keep my comments directed toward the National Parks bill
before us and will defer to my colleague, Senator Barrasso,
anything he would like to address on the Public Lands and
Forests bill before us today.
The National Parks bills today are generally
noncontroversial, which I think the chairman has always used as
a threshold.
But I would like to express a general concern that I have
for the establishment of a new national park unit, and I say
this while at a time we are challenged to meet the maintenance
backlog of our current park inventory. I question the wisdom of
creating new park units when we cannot pay for what the Federal
Government already possesses. I am not going tell you that it
is impossible, but I believe at a time of the fiscal austerity
that I think we all know we are either in or headed for, our
first commitment has to be to make sure that we take care of
the treasures that we have been entrusted with up to this
point, and though the merits of this and many things in the
future, short-term, may reach the threshold that has been
achieved in the past, I think that members of this subcommittee
and members of the full Senate should make sure that we have
taken care of the obligation we have got to maintain those
treasures we have been entrusted with.
So, Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for the hearing. I
appreciate the Department witnesses for taking the time to be
here. I look forward to their testimony.
Senator Udall. I thank, Senator Burr, for expressing what
are legitimate concerns. I take those concerns very seriously
and look forward to working, hopefully, with you starting again
in January when the Senate reconvenes. We are a continuing
body, so we do not permanently adjourn I guess, but we will be
back working together starting next year, in what capacity we
will see. I too have enjoyed very much working with you. Thank
you for your leadership and for your staff's support and my
staff's efforts. Next year we will be just as productive, I am
sure. Thank you.
We have been joined by our colleague from Alaska, Senator
Begich. Senator Begich, thank you for taking time to join the
subcommittee--the joint subcommittee hearing I should say.
I know the ranking member mentioned both Chairman Wyden and
Ranking Member Barrasso. They both, obviously, have signed off
on holding this joint hearing. I do not know if they are going
to be able to join us or not. They have got busy schedules.
But, Senator Begich, thank you for joining us. The floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman
Udall and Senator Burr, for allowing me a few minutes.
First, before I give you just some comments regarding S.
3820, I want to just give some update. As you know, in Alaska,
we have very rugged country and 3 Park Service employees went
missing in a plane crash or a plane disappearance over 5 weeks
ago with no sign of recovery at this point. But I was informed
last night that there seems to be a helicopter in King Salmon
area that has found some part of the wreckage which is good
news, but bad news at the same time. But I wanted to at least
share that as we are talking about Park Service issues in
Alaska. As someone from a family that never has been able to
recover my father's lost plane, this is an incredible positive,
but yet sad day for the families. But the good news is there
seems to be a possibility of recovery of the wreckage. So I
will leave it at that.
But I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to speak on
S. 3820, and I appreciate the opportunity to address the
committee today on a very small but important bill to Alaska.
I understand you have a dozen or so bills in front of you,
so I will try to keep my comments brief. But this is on the
Kantishna Hills Renewable Energy Act of 2010. It is a
noncontroversial bill that accomplishes several important
goals. It allows the National Park Service to acquire an
important private inholding inside the preserve or a new park,
part of the Denali National Park and Preserve. It enables
Kantishna Roadhouse, an historic back country lodge owned by
Doyon Ltd. that is not connected to any utility grid to
construct a microhydro project and reduce their diesel usage by
over 50 percent. It provides direction for the National Park
Service to issue the interim special use permit for the project
so that Doyon can realize a Department of Energy tribal energy
grant award while the land trade is moving forward.
The interim special use permit was suggested by the
National Park Service, Alaska region's staff, while discussing
draft legislation. I think it is an example of the cooperative
spirit you will find that surrounds this legislation.
The Park Service has worked well with Doyon, my office, and
that of Senator Murkowski who worked on drafting the
legislation. I want to thank them for their assistance.
At the end of the day, the microhydro project will reduce
the Kantishna Roadhouse diesel consumption. This means better
air quality for the park, fewer truck trips on the single park
road, and better experience for all park visitors, and a better
bottom line for the Kantishna Roadhouse.
I know when people hear the word ``development'' inside a
national park, particularly one of the jewels of the system
like Denali National Park, people pay attention. It is
important to note for the record that this project would take
place in a nonwilderness part of the park. The affected stream,
Eureka Creek, is not a fish-bearing creek. The Kantishna
community began as a gold-mining town and the stream has been
actively mined in the past 20 years. Because of this history
and because of the nature of the project, my office has heard
no opposition to the project or this legislation.
With that, let me say thank you for taking the time to take
up this legislation on such short notice, and please, if you
have any questions, I am happy to answer them. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Udall. The ranking member does not have any
questions.
Senator Begich, would you like to introduce a witness who
is going to join the next panel from Alaska?
Senator Begich. I am not sure who is here because I came in
at the last minute.
Senator Udall. I do not know if Mr. Schutt is here. Is he
here?
Senator Begich. I walked right past him. I apologize.
We are happy when Alaskans travel this long distance, and
Mr. Schutt will be on the next panel and I know will add to the
discussion. So we just appreciate that he is here.
Senator Udall. Thank you for your testimony. I know that
the whole world of microhydro power is really beginning to open
up. In Colorado, we have a series of permit requests under
process. So I am intrigued to learn more about this, and it
sounds to me like the benefits are significant and this is well
worth supporting. So thank you for taking the time for working
with Senator Murkowski.
Senator Begich. Thank you. I will tell you, especially
diesel energy in Alaska, when you are in the interior, it can
range anywhere from $5 to $6 a gallon to as much as $11 a
gallon. So when you can convert to hydro, there is an economic
benefit and then obviously an environmental air quality
benefit. So we like bills that are on land in Alaska that are
noncontroversial, and this is one of them. So thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Udall. Senator Burr and I are both very proud of
our mountains. Alaska has significant mountains as well.
Senator Begich. I will leave at that comment because we
will get into a competition of our size of mountains.
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Begich.
As Senator Begich leaves, we have two panels planned, but I
think we could ask both the administration witnesses and Mr.
Schutt to come forward, and we will have all three of you join
us and provide us with your statements.
Senator Sanders has joined us. As the panelists get
situated, do you have any statement?
Senator Sanders. I have a short statement.
Senator Udall. Please. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. BERNIE SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM VERMONT
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
be brief.
Today I am pleased our hearing is focusing in part on S.
3612, a bill I introduced with Senator Leahy to expand the
Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park. The bill
would provide authority for the national park to acquire the
King Farm property in Woodstock, Vermont, which is currently
held by the Vermont Land Trust. The King Farm property is a
classic 19th century Vermont Hill Farm with many original
buildings intact. It includes 154 acres of farm and forestland
and was left to the Vermont Land Trust by Francisca King Thomas
in 1986 under the provisions of her will. At the time, the Land
Trust was a regional organization but has since grown and now
operates statewide.
This change has made it more difficult for the Land Trust
to manage the property. The Vermont Land Trust has conducted a
thorough outreach effort with local stakeholders to determine
the future of the property. It was through this process that
the idea of making King Farm part of the national park came
about. As Gil Livingston, the president of the Vermont Land
Trust, notes in his written testimony for the record, ``We
believe that this proposal not only furthers the educational
and conservation mission of the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller
National Historical Park and the Vermont Land Trust, but will
honor and fulfill the goals and legacy of Francisca King
Thomas.'' End of quote. The legislation will ensure that King
Farm remains conserved working land, that its historic
buildings are well cared for, and that the property provides a
valuable opportunity for education for visitors and the
community.
I thank the National Park Service for their support of this
legislation as indicated in the testimony today by Kate
Stevenson.
I also appreciate the great work of Vermont Land Trust, the
staff of the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical
Park and the residents of the local communities. It is the
vision of the local communities that surround King Farm and the
national park that this legislation carries out, and I look
forward to working with my colleagues to ensure this
legislation can move forward.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me the
minute.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Sanders, for sharing
those perspectives.
We will now turn to the panel. I think we will start with
Ms. Stevenson, and Ms. Stevenson we know, because she appears
before this committee at various interludes, is the Associate
Director of Business Services, National Park Service,
Department of the Interior. Thank you for being here with us
today. The floor is yours. If you will keep your remarks within
the 5-minute timeframe, I know that would be appropriate. So
thank you.
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS SERVICES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY TIMOTHY R. SPISAK, ACTING ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, MINERALS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to offer the views of the department on the
bills before you.
If I may, I would like to summarize my comments and ask
that the full text be entered into the record.
Senator Udall. Without objection.
Ms. Stevenson. Tim Spisak, the Acting Assistant Director
for Minerals and Realty Management for the Bureau of Land
Management, is accompanying me today and will be happy to
answer any questions you might have on the two BLM-related
bills.
S. 3261 would establish the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage
Area in Harris County, Texas. The Department recognizes the
appropriateness of designating the heritage area but recommends
deferring action until program legislation for heritage areas
can be enacted.
S. 3291 would establish Coltsville National Historic Park
in Hartford, Connecticut. The Department does not support
enactment due to the uncertainty associated with the ownership
and financial sustainability of the Coltsville Development
Project and because of the lack of clarity on what resources
the National Park Service would manage.
S. 3524 would authorize the Secretary to enter into a
cooperative agreement for a park headquarters at San Antonio
Missions National Historic Park. S. 3524 and its companion
bill, H.R. 4438, would also expand the boundary of the park and
authorize a study of the potential land acquisition. The
Department supports S. 3524 which includes the authority to
operate the headquarters facility and authorizes the use of a
cooperative agreement.
S. 3565 would provide for the transfer of 315 acres of BLM-
managed lands north of Bullhead City, Arizona to the Arizona
Game and Fish Department for use as a public shooting range.
The Department supports this legislation and looks forward to
working with the subcommittee on a couple of proposed
improvements.
S. 3612 would expand the boundary of the Marsh-Billings-
Rockefeller National Historic Park in Vermont. It would also
authorize the establishment of the Conservation Study Institute
in collaboration with the University of Vermont. The Department
supports this bill.
S. 3616 would withdraw 2,700 acres of BLM-managed land for
the use of Homeland Security. The Department supports the goals
of the legislation, but cannot support the bill as presently
drafted. If the Congress chooses to legislate this conveyance,
the BLM looks forward to working with the committee on
amendments to the bill which would address valid and existing
rights, extensions, and so on.
S. 3744 would designate Pinnacles National Monument in
California as Pinnacles National Park. The bill would also add
2,905 acres to the already designated wilderness at the
monument and would rename the Pinnacles Wilderness as the Hain
Wilderness. The Department supports S. 3744 with some technical
amendments.
S. 3778 would authorize the Secretary to lease land on
Cockspur Island within Fort Pulaski National Monument to the
Savannah Bar Pilots Association. The Department supports this
legislation but suggests a 5-year term to allow more frequent
review as opposed to the 10-year term in the bill.
S. 3820 would authorize the Secretary to issue permits for
microhydro projects in a limited area of Kantishna Hills in
Denali National Park. It would also authorize a mutually
beneficial land exchange between the National Park Service and
Doyon Tourism, Inc. near Kantishna. The Department supports
enactment if the legislation is amended to make the actions
discretionary after NEPA compliance is completed. In addition,
we suggest providing the Secretary discretionary authority to
use the permitting authority for other potential microhydro
projects in the Kantishna area.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy
to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Stevenson follow:]
Prepared Statement of Katherine H. Stevenson, Associate Director,
Business Services, National Park Service, Department of the Interior,
on S. 3565
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 3565, the Mohave
Valley Land Conveyance Act of 2010, which proposes to transfer 315
acres of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) for use as a public
shooting range. The BLM supports the goals of S. 3565 but cannot
support the legislation as currently drafted.
For the past ten years, the BLM has been working with the AGFD, the
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, and the public to find
appropriate lands for a public shooting range within the Mohave Valley
in Arizona. On February 10, 2010, the BLM made the decision to
authorize the transfer of BLM lands to the AGFD (through the Recreation
and Public Purposes Act of 1926, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.;
R&PP) for use as a public shooting range. The decision, which is
consistent with the goals of S. 3565, provides a safe, designated
shooting environment for the public and includes stipulations designed
to respect the traditional beliefs of the Fort Mojave and Hualapai
Tribes. The BLM will continue working with interested parties as we
move forward with implementation of the shooting range.
background
In 1999, the AGFD first submitted an application to the BLM for
development of a public shooting range on BLM-managed lands in Mohave
County, near Bullhead City in northwestern Arizona. As a result, the
BLM began working with the AGFD and other interested parties to assess
appropriate lands to transfer to the AGFD for the purposes of a
shooting range under the R&PP.
The BLM evaluated the AGFD's application through an environmental
assessment (EA) and considered numerous alternative locations
throughout the Mohave Valley. The evaluation process was conducted with
full public and tribal participation. There is an identified need for a
designated public shooting range in this region because of the lack of
a nearby facility, the amount of dispersed recreational shooting
occurring on public and private lands raising public safety concerns,
and the associated natural resource impacts from spent ammunition and
associated waste.
In 2002, the BLM began consultations with the Fort Mojave Indian
Tribe and the Hualapai Tribe. In 2003, the BLM initiated consultation
with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); and in
2006, the BLM initiated Section 106 consultation with the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). These consultations, as
required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
other authorities, ensure federal agencies consider the effects of
their actions on historic properties, and provide the ACHP and SHPO an
opportunity to comment on Federal projects prior to implementation.
In addition to the Section 106 consultation process, the BLM
initiated a year-long Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process in
2004 to help identify issues, stakeholder perspectives, and additional
alternatives to meet the criteria for a safe and effective public
shooting range in the Mohave Valley. However, the ADR process failed to
reconcile differences between several consulting parties regarding a
proposed location.
In 2006, as part of continued Section 106 consultation with the
ACHP, the BLM initiated site visits by the concerned parties and also
continued efforts to identify alternative sites. Unfortunately, despite
these efforts, the BLM was unable to reach an agreement with the
consulted Tribes on any area within the Mohave Valley that the Tribes
would find acceptable for a shooting range. The Tribes maintained their
position that there is no place suitable within the Mohave Valley,
which encompasses approximately 140 square miles between Bullhead City,
Arizona, and Needles, California.
Through the EA process, the BLM identified the Boundary Cone Road
alternative to be the preferred location. Boundary Cone Butte, a highly
visible mountain on the eastern edge of the Mohave Valley, lies
approximately 3 miles east of the Boundary Cone Road site, and is of
cultural, religious, and traditional importance to both the Fort Mojave
Indian Tribe and the Hualapai Tribe. In an effort to address the
primary concerns expressed by the Tribes over visual and sound issues,
the BLM and AGFD developed a set of potential mitigation measures.
Again, there was a failure to agree between the consulting parties on
possible mitigation. In the end, the BLM formally terminated the
Section 106 process with the ACHP in September 2008. In November 2008,
ACHP provided their final comments in a letter from the Chairman of the
ACHP to then-Secretary of the Interior Kempthorne.
Although the Section 106 process was terminated, the BLM continued
government-to-government consultations with the Tribes. In May of 2009,
the BLM met with the Chairman of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the
AGFD, and the Tri-State Shooting Club in a renewed effort to find a
solution. On February 3, 2010, after continued efforts to reach a
mutually agreeable solution, the BLM presented the decision to approve
the shooting range to the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the AGFD. The
final decision included mitigation measures to address the concerns of
the Tribes such as reducing the amount of actual ground disturbance;
reducing noise levels with berm construction; monitoring noise levels;
reporting annually; and fencing to avoid culturally sensitive areas.
The Secretary has the authority to take action to revest title to the
land covered by the proposed R&PP patent if the AGFD fails to comply
with mitigation measures. The final decision to amend the Kingman
Resource Management Plan and dispose of the lands through the R&PP was
signed on February 10, 2010.
The BLM decision was appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals
(IBLA) on February 23, 2010, by a private landowner near the proposed
shooting range; and on March 15, 2010, a joint appeal by the Fort
Mojave Indian Tribe and Hualapai Tribe was filed. The IBLA dismissed
the appeal of the private landowner but is currently reviewing the
appeal by the Tribes. The IBLA issued a stay of the BLM decision on
April 15, 2010, at the request of the Tribes. A final decision by the
IBLA on the Tribes' appeal is pending.
S. 3565
S. 3565 provides for the conveyance to the AGFD of all right,
title, and interest to the approximately 315 acres of BLM-managed
public lands as identified in the final decision signed by the BLM on
February 10, 2010, to be used as a public shooting range. Furthermore,
the legislation makes a determination that the February 10, 2010,
Record of Decision is ``final and determined to be legally sufficient''
and ``not be subject to judicial review . . .'' The bill also provides
that the lands must be used for purposes consistent with the R&PP Act
and provides for an appropriate reversionary clause.
As a matter of policy, the BLM supports working with local
governments and tribes to resolve land tenure issues that advance
worthwhile public policy objectives. The BLM acknowledges the lands
proposed for development as a shooting range are of cultural,
religious, and traditional significance to the Tribes which is why we
support important mitigation measures. In general, the BLM supports the
goals of the proposed conveyance, as it is similar to the transfer the
BLM has been addressing through its administrative process for the last
ten years. As noted, a decision has been made through the BLM
administrative process and is under administrative review before the
IBLA. Currently, if the IBLA affirms the BLM decision, the Tribes would
still be able to pursue a judicial remedy. However, under the
provisions of S. 3565, judicial review would be prohibited.
The BLM will continue working with the interested parties,
including the Tribes, during implementation of the shooting range to
address their concerns. The BLM strongly believes that open
communication between the BLM and the Tribes is essential in
maintaining effective government-to-government relationships.
If the Congress chooses to legislate this conveyance, the BLM would
recommend some improvements to the bill, including changes to section
4(b), the incorporation of mitigation measures to address Tribal
concerns, protection of valid existing rights, and an appropriate map
reference.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Resolution of this
conveyance in a manner that is acceptable to all parties has been an
important goal of the BLM as evidenced by more than ten years of
negotiations and review. The BLM is confident the recently issued
decision addresses the concerns of the interested parties, while
providing critical recreational opportunities and benefits to the
public.
on s. 3616
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 3616, the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center Protection Act of 2010. S. 3616 would
reserve and withdraw approximately 2,700 acres of public land
administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for use by the
Secretary of Homeland Security for the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC) in Eddy County, New Mexico. The BLM supports S. 3616,
and would like to work with the Chairman on amendments to the bill to
address a number of technical issues.
Background
The FLETC has operated a law enforcement training center northwest
of Artesia, New Mexico for the past two decades. The staff in FLETC-
Artesia is responsible for designing, developing, coordinating, and
administering advanced and specialized training programs for the United
States Border Patrol, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Transportation Security
Administration, and other partner organizations. Basic and advanced
training programs are conducted for the Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Indian Affairs under the auspices of the Indian Police
Academy. Specialized instructor programs such as the Law Enforcement
Driver Instructor Training Program, Firearms Instructor Training
Program, the Law Enforcement Fitness Coordinator Training Program, and
the Law Enforcement Control Tactics Instructor Training Program, are
also conducted at the Artesia facility.
The FLETC use of public land was first authorized by a right-of-way
(ROW) issued by the BLM in 1990. Subsequently the FLETC requested
additional public land for the training center, and the BLM completed a
land exchange in June 2003 with the State of New Mexico to facilitate
this expansion. In 2003, the BLM issued a 20-year administrative
withdrawal of approximately 1,921 acres, subject to valid existing
rights, for FLETC, although the existing mineral leases continued to be
managed by the BLM.
The FLETC has indicated to the BLM a need for an additional 779
acres, seeking a total area of approximately 2,700 acres. The BLM can
also accomplish the withdrawal administratively, if the FLETC elects to
pursue that approach.
S. 3616
S. 3616 proposes to withdraw and reserve approximately 2,700 acres
of BLM-managed lands for FLETC for a period of 20 years, subject to
valid existing rights. The lands would be withdrawn from entry,
appropriation or disposal; location, entry and patent under mining
laws, and operation of mineral leasing, mineral materials, and
geothermal leasing laws. The bill withdraws and reserves the land for
the purposes of protecting, operating, and maintaining FLETC.
The BLM supports the withdrawal of the lands for FLETC's law
enforcement training mission. The BLM frequently works with Congress
and the Department of Defense on similar legislative withdrawals only
for military purposes. We believe that those acts may serve as good
models for this withdrawal. Among the issues that should be addressed
in this proposed legislation are protection of valid existing rights
(including existing rights-of-way and oil and gas leases),
environmental compliance and mitigation, future extensions of the
withdrawal, restoration and rehabilitation of the land upon termination
of the withdrawal, and the FLETC's responsibilities under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to
continuing to work with the Chairman and the Committee on this
important legislation.
on s. 3261
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on S. 3261, a bill to establish the
Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area in Texas, and for other purposes.
The Department recognizes the appropriateness of designating the
Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area, but recommends deferring action
on S. 3261 until program legislation is enacted that establishes
criteria to evaluate potentially qualified national heritage areas and
a process for the designation and administration of these areas. We
recommend that Congress enact national heritage area program
legislation in this Congress.
There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, yet
there is no authority in law that guides the designation and
administration of these areas. Program legislation would provide a
much-needed framework for evaluating proposed national heritage areas,
offering guidelines for successful planning and management, clarifying
the roles and responsibilities of all parties, and standardizing
timeframes and funding for designated areas. Program legislation was
introduced in the 109th and 110th Congresses, and we look forward to
continuing to work with Congress on this very important issue.
S. 3261 would establish the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area
(NHA) in Harris County, Texas, with the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage
Area Corporation designated as the National Heritage Area's Management
Entity. The National Park Service (NPS) completed a suitability and
feasibility study on the proposed Buffalo Bayou NHA in April 2010 that
determined that the NHA met the NPS criteria for establishment.
When brothers Augustus Chapman Allen and John Kirby Allen
established the city of Houston in 1836, they envisioned a great new
city, but could not have imagined Houston's role in fueling the rise of
the United States as a world power in the 20th century. The Houston
town site was located along the Buffalo Bayou, which was the only semi-
navigable waterway running east and west in Texas. The bayou eventually
became a major economic access point into the Southwest and a corridor
to the Gulf of Mexico and beyond.
Houston's oil industry helped draw and meld cultures that helped
define its regional character and the economic growth of the Buffalo
Bayou as a center for oil and petrochemical production shaped the
community's character.
Adjacent to the Buffalo Bayou ship channel is the San Jacinto
Battleground State Historic Site, where Texas gained its independence
as a republic. A National Historic Landmark and State Park, the San
Jacinto Battleground provides the cultural and natural landscape for
the second major theme of the proposed National Heritage Area: Texas
independence. The historic site also includes the USS Texas battleship,
also designated as a National Historic Landmark, which was built in the
``dreadnought'' era and launched in 1912. After serving in World War I,
the ship was updated for service in World War II, and participated in
the amphibious invasions of Normandy, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.
Historian Lynn M. Alperin has stated that ``Buffalo Bayou has been
transformed from a meandering stream into a vast industrial complex.''
That transformation has not been without environmental consequences.
However, as with most cities throughout the United States in the second
half of the 20th century, Houston has worked to balance economic
development with environmental protection. Parts of the story of the
proposed Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area are environmental and
recreational initiatives, supported by its industries, including
wetlands restoration, trails development, prairie restoration,
riverfront park development, and natural preserves. These efforts are
part of the story of the community's efforts to improve the quality of
life for Houston's two million people.
A potential Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area, through its
historical, natural, cultural, and recreational resources, its network
of partner organizations, its diverse population, and consistent with
the area's economy, would represent a distinctively American story
about the nation's growth. The nationally significant themes of Houston
as the Nation's ``Energy Capital'' and Texas independence are
significant chapters of our history. These important American stories
are best told through the framework of a National Heritage Area by the
people of the Buffalo Bayou themselves and the partner organizations
that represent them.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or any other members of the subcommittees
may have.
on s. 3291
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior regarding S. 3291, a bill to establish
the Coltsville National Historical Park in Hartford, Connecticut.
The Department does not support enactment of this legislation due
to the uncertainty associated with the ownership and long-term
financial sustainability of the Coltsville development project as
concluded by the National Park Service (NPS) in a special resource
study of the resources associated with the Coltsville Historic
District. In concert with this lack of feasibility, the study was also
unable to determine the need for NPS management, or specifically which
resources the NPS would manage.
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.
S. 3291 provides that the Secretary shall not establish a unit of
the national park system at Coltsville until donations of land or
interests in land within the boundary of the park have been
accomplished. It also provides for donations of space within the East
Armory, the focal point of the manufacturing complex, for
administration and visitor services. The legislation 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.
Any federal financial assistance would be matched on a one-to-one basis
by non-federal funds.
S. 3291 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.
Pursuant to Public Law 108-94, the Coltsville Study Act of 2003,
the 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 is feasible to administer
at this time due to the lengthy duration of financial issues
surrounding the site. In concert with the lack of feasibility, the
study is also unable to determine the need for NPS management, or
specifically what the NPS would manage.
The Department is concerned that financial issues and questions
involving ownership and financing of the Coltsville properties,
especially funding for the adaptive reuse of significant portions of
the manufacturing complex that will remain in private ownership, could
impede the successful establishment of the proposed park. Until these
private-sector financial issues are resolved, the Department does not
believe that the donation of land or interest in land or the donation
of space for administration and visitor services can be achieved. We
are also concerned about the long-term financial sustainability of the
development project, given both its history before and during the
entire course of the special resource study and the present economic
climate. The Department cannot own or manage the entire manufacturing
complex, part of which has already been rehabilitated for residential
use, due to what we believe would be prohibitive costs and operational
issues associated with potential full federal stewardship should the
development project prove unviable.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions from members of the committee.
on s. 3524 and h.r. 4438
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittees, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 3524 and H.R. 4438, bills concerning a new park
headquarters, a boundary expansion, and a study of potential land
acquisitions at San Antonio Missions National Historical Park.
The Department supports S. 3524. On February 25, 2010, the
Department testified on H.R. 4438 before the House Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. At that hearing we stated
that that we supported the bill, but that we would like to work with
the committee to address ambiguities in the portions of H.R. 4438 that
directed the Secretary to enter into a lease agreement for the
operation of a park headquarters and operational facility. H.R. 4438 as
passed by the House does not include the authority to operate the
headquarters facility, which we believe is a critically important
component of this legislation. S. 3524 addresses our concerns by
authorizing the use of a cooperative agreement, instead of a lease, for
this facility.
S. 3524 and H.R. 4438 would amend Section 201 of Public Law 95-629
to direct the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to conduct a study
of lands in Bexar and Wilson Counties to identify lands that would be
appropriate to include within the boundaries of San Antonio Missions
National Historical Park (Park). The Secretary is directed to report on
the findings of the study three years after funds are made available.
S. 3524 also authorizes the Secretary to enter into a cooperative
agreement with the City of San Antonio, or its designee, for operation
of a facility outside the boundary of the park to provide visitor
facilities and office space for a headquarters and operational support
for the park. Funding for the cooperative agreement would be subject to
appropriations. Finally, under both bills, the boundary of the park
would be expanded by approximately 151 acres.
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park preserves a
significant link to Mexico and Spain that has influenced the culture
and history of the United States since before its inception. San
Antonio is now the seventh largest and third fastest growing city in
the United States. The city grew 68 percent between 1980 and 2007 and
now almost entirely surrounds the Park with urban development,
threatening areas that contain significant Spanish colonial resources
historically associated with the Park.
Park headquarters for San Antonio Missions are currently
inadequate; do not meet fire, safety or security standards; and exist
in an expired lease space not adjacent to the Park. The Park's
maintenance operations are dispersed in three separate locations. The
Park's curatorial collection, which contains almost one million Spanish
Colonial period objects, is stored in four different locations,
including two locations that do not meet National Park Service (NPS)
Curatorial Storage Standards.
The City of San Antonio, Texas (City) has acquired lands adjacent
to Mission San Jos and has proposed a partnership with the Park and one
of its partners for the construction of a park headquarters. A
cooperative agreement, such as the one described in S. 3524, would
provide the NPS with the ability to enter into an agreement with the
City or an entity of the City's choosing such as Los Compadres de San
Antonio Missions National Historical Park (Los Compadres), to assist
with operation of visitor facilities and office space for a park
headquarters.
S. 3524 and H.R. 4438 would also expand the boundary of San Antonio
Missions National Historical Park by approximately 151 acres, of which
118 acres are either currently owned by the NPS, are being donated, or
are being transferred through a land exchange to the Park. All costs
associated with the land exchange will be paid for by the San Antonio
River Authority with the NPS only paying for minimal transaction costs.
Thirty-three acres would either be purchased by the NPS from willing
sellers or donated to the Park. It is estimated that the acquisition of
these 33 acres could cost as much as $3,587,110 and operational costs
associated with adding the 151 acres of land are not expected to exceed
$100,000 per year. Associated land acquisition funding requests would
be subject to the Administration's prioritization process that uses
consistent and merit-based criteria to select projects, and the
availability of appropriations.
The Park's General Management Plan and Land Protection Plan
acknowledge that the current boundary is insufficient to fully achieve
the Park's purpose. The Park's most recent feasibility study
recommended a much larger area to best protect the cultural resources
associated with the Park. Numerous areas that contain significant
Spanish colonial resources historically associated with the Park still
remain outside the boundary. In addition, the Park has acquired lands
that are outside the current boundary and is in the process of
accepting additional lands that will be included within the boundary as
a part of a land exchange with the San Antonio River Authority and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate restoration of the San Antonio
River.
S. 3524 and H.R. 4438 would also authorize the Secretary to conduct
a study of lands within Bexar and Wilson counties, in the State of
Texas, to identify lands that would be suitable for inclusion within
the boundaries of the Park. The study should also explore management
alternatives that would best ensure public access, preservation,
protection, and interpretation of the Missions. We estimate that this
study will cost approximately $350,000.
This legislation enjoys the strong support of officials from Bexar
County, Wilson County, the City of San Antonio, the City of
Floresville, the San Antonio River Authority, the San Antonio
Conservation Society, Los Compadres, and others. It would help
guarantee the preservation, protection, restoration, and interpretation
of the missions for current and future generations.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or any other members of the Subcommittees
may have.
on s. 3612
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior regarding S. 3612, a bill to amend the
Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park Establishment Act,
and to expand the boundary of the park to include the King Farm.
The Department supports enactment of S. 3612 if amended to provide
that the inclusion of the King Farm within the boundary is subject to a
determination of the Secretary that the property meets National Park
Service (NPS) boundary adjustment criteria.
Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park encompasses the
historic Marsh-Billings Rockefeller mansion and grounds, and the Mount
Tom Forest in Woodstock, Vermont. It was a gift to the people of the
United States from Mary and Laurance Rockefeller. Mary Rockefeller's
grandfather, Frederick Billings, developed the property into a model
farm and forest in the late 1880s. Billings' stewardship efforts were
influenced by George Perkins Marsh, a conservationist and author of the
1864 landmark book Man and Nature. Marsh spent his childhood years on
the property.
The park was established by Congress in 1992 to interpret the
history and evolution of conservation stewardship in America and to
recognize and interpret the lives and contributions of George Perkins
Marsh, Frederick Billings, the Billings heirs, and Mary and Laurance
Rockefeller. It is a continuing symbol of three generations of
conservationist thought and practice. It is also a repository for the
histories of three quintessentially American families.
S. 3612 would expand the park's present boundary to include the
adjacent 156-acre King Farm, one of Vermont's finest examples of an
early, self -sustaining Vermont hill farm. The farm is unique as an
intact collection of farm buildings and agricultural lands that
document the evolution of farming from the early 1800s to the present.
The King Farm plays an important role in park operations, providing key
linkages for the park's network of recreational trails and facilities.
The addition of these lands would enable the park to better conserve
and interpret the history and evolution of conservation stewardship in
America.
The King Farm is presently owned by the Vermont Land Trust (VLT).
The VLT can no longer afford to maintain and operate the farm and
issued a national search for a long-term leasee, but without success.
If the King Farm were to be sold to a private owner, it could result in
loss of public access and damage to park resources. The farm currently
serves as a hub for the park's youth service learning programs and
provides the only available dedicated classroom and leave-no-trace camp
site to support these programs. Loss of the farm would sever the only
direct trail connection between local schools and park lands. The King
Farm also provides important habitat for the Jefferson Salamander,
which has been identified as a species of special management concern.
In 2010, the park initiated a public process to evaluate a proposal to
expand the boundary to include King Farm. Local governments and area
citizens have expressed strong support for this addition and
preliminary findings of this boundary study indicate that the property
meets the National Park Service boundary adjustment criteria. .
Based on a comparable property sales analysis, the estimated value
of the King Farm including pre-acquisition costs is $1,205,000.
Improvements to farm assets addressing deferred maintenance needs,
providing for greater public access, and life and safety and energy
efficiency measures would total approximately $1,558,000. Annual park
operations costs are anticipated to increase by $124,000. To help
offset these costs, the Vermont Land Trust intends to manage a small
existing endowment to support projects at the King Farm that would
benefit facility maintenance and education programs. S. 3612 would
authorize the Secretary to receive and expend such funds.
S. 3612 would also provide authority for the operation of the
Conservation Study Institute at the park in collaboration with the
University of Vermont. The Institute was established by the National
Park Service to advance leadership and innovation through collaborative
conservation partnerships for the stewardship of our national system of
parks and special places. The Institute provides technical assistance
to parks, heritage areas, and regional and national programs by
conducting demonstration projects, distilling and sharing lessons
learned, and building networks for information exchange. The Institute
has been funded through the park's base operating budget since the
enactment of FY 2000 appropriations. The park receives $520,000 a year
in its budget specifically for operation of the Institute. Additional
funding through cost-share programs with the University of Vermont
serves to provide educational outreach to youth and the local
communities. This legislation would provide permanent authority for the
Institute to continue to operate at Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National
Historical Park. The bill further provides for the development of a
revised General Management Plan for the park. We are reviewing the
legislation for any technical amendments that might be needed and would
like to work with the committee on any necessary change in language we
identify.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions from members of the committee.
on s. 3744
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
3744, a bill to establish Pinnacles National Park in the State of
California as a unit of the National Park System, and for other
purposes.
The Department supports S. 3744, which would designate and rename
additional wilderness areas within Pinnacles National Park with
technical amendments.
The bill would add 2,905 acres to the designated wilderness at the
monument and rename the Pinnacles Wilderness as ``Hain Wilderness.''
Congress has recognized wilderness characteristics at Pinnacles by
previously designating more than one-half of the monument's 24,000
acres as wilderness. The additional acreage is appropriate for
wilderness designation.
Naming the wilderness as ``Hain Wilderness'' would commemorate the
establishment of Pinnacles National Monument by immigrant homesteaders
from Michigan who first arrived at the Pinnacles in 1886. The Hain
families were farmers and community pioneers who established the first
post office and county road. In 1893, Schuyler Hain conceived the idea
of designating the Pinnacles a public park or even a national park. Mr.
Hain successfully championed the establishment of the Pinnacles Forest
Reserve in 1906 and Pinnacles National Monument in 1908. The National
Park Service considers it a high honor to be permanently commemorated
in a unit of the national park system and seeks to reserve this honor
for cases where there is a compelling justification for such
recognition. We believe that there is a compelling justification in
this case.
If the committee decides to act on S. 3744, we suggest the
following technical amendments:
On page 4, line 16, strike ``are'' and insert ``shall
consist of those areas''.
On page 6, lines 6 and 7, delete the map reference and
substitute a new map reference to a map produced by the
National Park Service (to be provided).
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you may have.
on s. 3778 and h.r. 4773
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 3778 and H.R. 4773, bills to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain lands within
Fort Pulaski National Monument, and for other purposes.
The Department supports both bills, which are substantially
identical, with an amendment described later in this statement. This
legislation would allow the Savannah Bar Pilots Association to lease
the land on Cockspur Island within Fort Pulaski National Monument in
the State of Georgia that the association has used continuously since
1940.
In 1940, the National Park Service authorized by special use permit
exclusive use of National Park Service land and improvements to the
Savannah Bar Pilots Association to operate a vessel piloting business.
The National Park Service has issued a series of permit renewals during
the ensuing 70 years. However, in recent years, the National Park
Service has been advised by the Department's Solicitor's Office that
the association's use of this land should be based on more certain
legal authority than the special use permitting process. The National
Park Service believes that a non-competitive lease, which would be
authorized by S. 3778 and H.R. 4773, would be the best option in this
unique circumstance to enable the Savannah Bar Pilots Association to
continue traditional operations from its Fort Pulaski location. The Bar
Pilots serve a function that is vital to the state's deepwater ports
and inland barge terminals, including directing ship traffic and
assisting in navigation in the Savannah Harbor.
There are no other known locations from which Savannah Bar Pilots
Association can operate more efficiently than its current location.
Deep water accessibility and the relatively short distance to embarking
and disembarking ships in Savannah Harbor render the current Cockspur
Island site the ideal location for continued operations. The Savannah
Bar Pilots have been operating at the current location with virtually
no adverse impact on park resources, on the visitor experience, or on
park operations. Fort Pulaski National Monument derives revenue from
the current special use permit and would continue to do so from a
lease. The Savannah Bar Pilots enjoy local support from both the City
of Savannah and the Georgia Port Authority.
We recommend that the legislation be amended to provide for a lease
term of up to five years, rather than ten years, in order to allow for
more frequent review of the lease's terms and conditions. A shorter
period would help protect the government's interests and assure that
use of the leased land remains consistent with the established purposes
of Fort Pulaski National Monument. We would be happy to work with the
committee to provide appropriate language for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or any members of the subcommittee
may have.
on s. 3820
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 3820, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for micro-hydro projects in
non-wilderness areas within the boundaries of Denali National Park and
Preserve, and for other purposes.
The Department supports the intent of this legislation, but would
like to work with the sponsor and the committee to address several
significant concerns noted below. S. 3820 would authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to issue permits for micro-hydro projects in a limited
area of the Kantishna Hills in Denali National Park. The legislation
would also authorize a land exchange between the National Park Service
(NPS) and Doyon Tourism, Inc. (Doyon) involving lands near the historic
mining community of Kantishna that would be mutually beneficial to the
NPS and Doyon.
This legislation will reduce the use of fossil fuels in the park,
and thus lessen the chance of potentially catastrophic fuel spills
along the park road and at the Kantishna lodges. It will lower the
number of non-visitor vehicle trips over the park road, lessen the
noise and emissions from diesel generators in the Moose Creek valley,
and support clean energy projects and sustainable practices while
ensuring that appropriate review and environmental compliance protects
all park resources.
Doyon Tourism, Inc., a subsidiary of Alaska Native corporation
Doyon, Ltd., has requested permits from the NPS to install a micro-
hydroelectric project on Eureka Creek, near their Kantishna Roadhouse.
The NPS supports the intent of this project, however, neither the
Secretary nor the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has the
statutory authority to issue permits for portions of hydroelectric
projects within national parks or monuments. We believe that the
authorization contained in this legislation is necessary to enable the
NPS to allow this micro-hydroelectric project within the park.
The Kantishna Roadhouse, at the end of the 92-mile-long Denali park
road, has been in business for 28 years, hosts approximately 10,000
guests per summer, and currently uses an on-site 100 kilowatt (KW)
diesel generator to provide power for the facility. The proposed
hydroelectric installation would reduce but not eliminate all use of
the diesel generator at the lodge, because early in the tourism season
the creek may still contain ice and a backup system would be needed.
Currently, delivery of diesel fuel to the lodge requires a tanker
truck and trailer to be driven the entire length of the Denali park
road. Noted for its undeveloped character, the road is unpaved for 77
miles of its 92-mile length, crosses high mountain passes without
guardrails, and is just one to 1+ lanes wide with pullouts. The road is
justly famous for wildlife viewing opportunities and in order to
protect wildlife as well as the road's scenic wilderness character,
vehicle traffic is limited. A seasonal restriction on private vehicle
use was instituted in 1972, and a numerical limit on overall vehicle
use was established in special regulations in 2000. Reducing the amount
of diesel fuel hauled over this road in tanker trucks protects park
resources by reducing the risk of accident or spill, and simultaneously
reduces overall vehicle use of the road.
Eureka Creek is a 4-mile-long stream that drains a 5 square-mile
watershed and discharges about 15 cubic feet per second (cfs) during
the summer. Most of the floodplain has been disturbed by past placer
mining, but no mining claims exist on the creek now and no other
landowners besides Doyon and the NPS own any property near this
floodplain. The project would include an at-grade water intake, with no
impoundment, about one mile upstream of where Eureka Creek crosses the
park road. A water conduit, or penstock, would carry the water downhill
to a small building on Doyon land that would house a micro-hydro
generator, capable of producing approximately 100 KW. An electrical
distribution line would carry the electricity to the lodge, about 600
feet from the hydro generator. A battery bank would store surplus
electricity to accommodate peak power demands and maintenance shut-
downs of the generator. Water diverted from Eureka Creek through the
micro-hydro generator would be piped to Moose Creek less than 100 feet
downstream from the mouth of Eureka Creek.
Camp Denali, another lodge in the Kantishna Hills, is within the
area addressed by this legislation. Camp Denali opened in 1952 and the
owners installed a micro-hydro generator system prior to the 1978
Presidential proclamation that included Kantishna as a part of what is
now Denali National Park. After 1978, Camp Denali became a private
inholding surrounded by the park, and found that parts of its micro-
hydro power system were within the park, a situation which the NPS
lacks the authority to permit or retain. This legislation, if amended,
would allow the NPS and the owners of Camp Denali to work out permit
conditions for those parts of the existing hydro project that are now
on park land. Besides the Kantishna Roadhouse and Camp Denali, there
are two other lodges in Kantishna that may pursue similar projects in
the future and thus would benefit from the authority granted in this
legislation.
Doyon owns 18 acres on the patented Galena mining claim in the
Kantishna Hills and would like to exchange that acreage for park land
in Kantishna of equal value near its other properties. The NPS would
also like to pursue this exchange to consolidate land holdings in the
area. Existing land exchange authority from ANILCA and other
legislation is sufficient to effect this exchange. Thus, while we
believe that this provision is unnecessary, we support its intent.
Our concerns with the bill are as follows:
1) The bill as introduced requires the Secretary to issue
permits for the micro-hydro project within 180 days of
enactment. While the Department supports the intent of this new
authority, permit issuance should be discretionary and based on
an evaluation of the environmental impacts of each project
proposal. At the same time, the Department commits to a timely
review of project proposals given the potential environmental
and economic benefits of these projects.
2) The permitting authority provided by this bill would apply
to several different micro-hydro electric projects in the
Kantishna area, yet various elements of the bill as introduced
apply solely to a project by Doyon. For example, the
definitions found in section 2 of the bill specifically include
the water intake and pipeline for the Doyon project but do not
mention Camp Denali or other potential future permittees, and
Section 3 refers to ``the micro-hydro project'' in the singular
rather than the plural. We suggest that the bill be amended to
clearly provide the Secretary the discretionary authority to
permit any of several projects.
3) Both the proposed micro-hydro project and the proposed
land exchange sections of the legislation should be amended to
explicitly require compliance with NEPA and other environmental
and cultural resource protection laws to evaluate the impacts
of any proposal authorized by this legislation and afford
public comment before the Secretary makes the decision on
whether the project(s) should be permitted.
4) As written, a land exchange is mandated. The land exchange
should be discretionary, based on a careful analysis of all its
proposed elements, which have yet to be determined, and upon
public input.
We believe that the permitting authority granted in S. 3820 would
provide a tool that the Secretary could use to lower fossil fuel use in
Denali National Park, while protecting park resources, and that a land
exchange would be hastened through passage of this legislation. We
would welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor and this
committee to address our concerns and recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you for being concise and to the point
and informative.
Ms. Stevenson. You are very welcome.
Senator Udall. Let me turn to Gregory Smith, Director of
Lands, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Welcome, Mr.
Smith. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY C. SMITH, DIRECTOR OF LANDS, FOREST
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Greg Smith,
Director of Lands and Realty for the U.S. Forest Service, and
we thank you for the opportunity to testify on three bills
before you today.
First, H.R. 1858 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to
convey without consideration all right, title, and interest of
the United States to a parcel of real property in the Roosevelt
National Forest in order to resolve private encroachments on
the National Forest System lands.
In 2003, during a routine survey by the BLM where the
Crystal Lakes Subdivision is located, 20 private encroachments
were identified. These encroachments are due to an erroneous
survey in 1975 by a private land survey. They are small
encroachments, varying in size from 0.02 acres to 1.6 acres.
Only 4 of these encroachments involve houses or significant
structures on NFS land and thus qualify for resolution under
the Small Tracts Act. In qualifying for the Small Tracts Act,
it is authorized to sell encroachments upon NFS lands to
homeowners for market value.
The other 16 encroachments do not involve significant
structures on NFS lands. Therefore, they do not qualify for
resolution under the Small Tracts Act.
The Forest Service has met with qualifying homeowners and
the subdivision developer and encouraged them to work with us
to remedy the situation through a Small Tracts Act or some type
of land exchange.
The Department cannot support the bill in its current form
because it does not appear in the public interest. The Small
Tracts Act requires private landowners to pay market value for
National Forest System lands that have been encroached upon
with significant structures. H.R. 1858 would direct the use of
the Small Tracts Act to convey encroached-upon NFS lands to all
20 Crystal Lakes landowners and exempt all of them from paying
compensation to the United States. It is a longstanding policy
that the taxpayers of the United States receive market value
for the sale, use, or exchange of NFS lands.
Section 1(e) of H.R. 1858 requires the cancellation of
$200,000 of an unobligated balance in the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act in order to lessen the loss of
revenue to the United States taxpayers from the proposed
conveyances without compensation at Crystal Lakes. The
Department does not support the use of national recreation fees
and is a direct conflict provided Congress for these fees.
However, we would be happy to continue to work with the Crystal
Lakes homeowners and the subcommittee and the bill's sponsors
to resolve the issues in a manner that addresses both the
homeowners and protects the interests of the United States
taxpayers.
S. 3822 would modify the boundaries of the Carson National
Forest in New Mexico to include an area of approximately 5,000
acres that is adjacent to the local forests within the Miranda
Canyon near Taos in New Mexico.
The Department supports this bill. This adjustment of the
Carson National Forest boundary would allow the Forest Service
to acquire property known as Miranda Canyon Preserve. The
Miranda Canyon Preserve ranges in elevation from 7,200 feet to
10,800 feet. Its vegetation includes sagebrush, pinon juniper,
mixed conifer forest, and large aspen clones. It provides
breathtaking views of the Rio Grande Gorge and Wheeler Peak
which is the highest point in New Mexico. The property also
contains historic features such as the Camino Real Trail and
unique geologic features such as a small volcano.
The acquisition of the Miranda Canyon property would make
an outstanding addition to the National Forest System.
S. 3283, the Mt. Andrea Lawrence Designation Act of 2010,
directs an unnamed 12,240-foot peak located on the boundary
between Ansel Adams Wilderness and Yosemite National Park as
Mt. Andrea Lawrence. The management of the proposed Mt. Andrea
Lawrence would be shared between the Inyo National Forest and
Yosemite National Park.
Ms. Lawrence was an Olympic gold medalist and provided
committed public service. She was 16 years on the Mono County
Board of Supervisors and founded the Andrea Lawrence Institute
for Mountains and Rivers. She was a strong supporter of
conservation work for the Inyo National Forest and Yosemite
National Park. She worked tirelessly to protect the health and
vitality of the environment in the Sierras. Ms. Lawrence passed
away at the age of 76 on March 31, 2009.
The Department recognizes the contributions of Ms. Lawrence
to the United States and to the Sierras as a conservationist
and concurs with the principles embodied in the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory C. Smith, Director of Lands, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Gregory C.
Smith, Director of Lands for the US Forest Service. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to provide the Department of
Agriculture (USDA)'s view on three of the bills that you are
considering today.
on h.r. 1858
H. R. 1858 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to use the
authority provided by the Small Tracts Act (STA) to convey, without
consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United States to a
parcel of real property in the Roosevelt National Forest in order to
resolve private encroachments on the National Forest System Lands.
In 2003, during the course of a Bureau of Land Management survey of
the area where the Crystal Lakes Subdivision is located, 20 private
encroachments onto National Forest System (NFS) lands were discovered
due to an erroneous private land survey in 1975 for the 9th Filing,
Crystal Lakes Subdivision. The encroachments vary in size from
approximately 0.02 acres to 1.63 acres. Of the 20 encroachments, only
four lots with improvements qualify for resolution under the Small
Tracts Act. The other 16 encroachments do not qualify for resolution
under the Small Tracts Act. To qualify for the Small Tracts Act the
foundation of a building or residence must be encroaching. Moveable
improvements such as fences and sheds do not qualify for relief under
the STA. The Forest Service has encouraged the four landowners, where
appropriate, to work with us to remedy the situation under the Small
Tracts Act authority.
The Department cannot support the bill in its current form. It
would waive the Small Tracts Act requirement for the four adjoining
private landowners to pay market value for the encroached upon National
Forest System (NFS) land proposed for conveyance to them. H. R. 1858
would direct the use of the Small Tracts Act to the remaining 16
encroachments that do not qualify for resolution under the Small Tracts
Act. It is long-standing policy that the taxpayers of the United States
should receive market value for the sale, exchange, or use of their NFS
lands. The STA requires market value consideration for lands. H. R.
1858 would convey the disputed property without the United States
taxpayers receiving market value.
The Crystal Lakes Subdivision is a private in holding within the
Roosevelt National Forest encompassing approximately 240 acres. The
developer who owns and subdivided this land contracted for a private
land survey in 1975. In surveying the land, the private surveyor
erroneously located a section line corner which is the cause of the
current problem. Years later, the Bureau of Land Management identified
the error when doing a dependent resurvey of the area. The result of
this private survey error is that approximately 7.23 acres of National
Forest System land was incorrectly included within the subdivision. The
error affects the titles and boundaries to 20 subdivided parcels.
H. R. 1858 would have the Federal Government resolve the survey
error by conveying the encumbered federal land to the affected lot
owners, in effect ratifying the error of the private surveyor. The bill
would allow lot owners to pay no consideration for the conveyance, and
the United States Government would have to cover the administrative
costs (which may in fact be considerably more that the 7.23 acres is
worth). H. R. 1858 would require the identification and survey of
separate legal descriptions for upwards of 20 separate conveyances.
In addition, Section 1. (e) of H. R. 1858 requires the cancellation
of a portion of unobligated balance in the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act (FLREA), reducing and cancelling this account by
$200,000 to address the lost revenue to the United States taxpayers.
The Department does not support this use of FLREA funds, because this
use is in direct conflict with the direction provided by Congress in
FLREA. FLREA states that recreation fees ``shall be used only for-(A)
repair, maintenance, and facility enhancement related directly to
visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and health and safety; (B)
interpretation, visitor information, visitor service, visitor needs
assessments, and signs; (C) habitat restoration directly related to
wildlife-dependent recreation that is limited to hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, or photography; (D) law enforcement related to
public use and recreation; (E) direct operating or capital costs
associated with the recreation fee program; and (F) a fee management
agreement.''
We would be happy to continue to work with the landowners, the
Subcommittee, and the bill's sponsors to resolve this issue in a manner
that addresses the concern of current home owners and protects the
interests of US taxpayers.
on s. 3822
S. 3822 would modify the boundaries of the Carson National Forest,
New Mexico to include a parcel of real property consisting of
approximately 5,000 acres that is adjacent to the existing boundary
within Miranda Canyon.
The Department supports the adjustment of the Carson National
Forest boundary in the State of New Mexico to include approximately
5,000 acres of private land known as ``Miranda Canyon,'' which would
create an opportunity for the possible acquisition of Miranda Canyon
property as part of the Carson National Forest.
The Miranda Canyon Property is currently owned by Weimer Properties
and is located approximately four miles south of Taos, New Mexico.
Weimer Properties spent several years proposing to develop a
subdivision and to acquire approval from the Taos County Board of
Commissioners. Approval of the subdivision was not granted and the Taos
County Board of Commissioners requested the New Mexico Congressional
delegation consider placing this land under the stewardship of the US
Forest Service.
The Miranda Canyon Property is an expansive piece of property that
ranges in elevation from approximately 7,200 ft. to approximately
10,800 ft. The property has various vegetation zones from low elevation
sagebrush and pinon juniper to high elevation mixed conifer forest
including large aspen clones. The landscape has numerous ridges and
peaks that provide breathtaking views of the Rio Grande Gorge to the
west and of Wheeler Peak (highest peak in New Mexico) to the north. The
property contains historical features such as the Camino Real Trail and
unique geologic features such as a small volcano and Miranda granite--
1.7 billion year old rock outcrops that rival the age of rock found at
the bottom of the Grand Canyon. There are also numerous meadows and
riparian vegetation that provide excellent habitat for wildlife.
The acquisition would provide additional recreational opportunities
for hunting, sightseeing, camping, hiking, interpretation and horseback
riding for the public. The proposed boundary adjustment has wide grass
roots support from the local residents, Taos County Board of
Commissioners, Village of Taos, and local Native American Tribes and
Pueblos. To date, there has been no opposition voiced to adjusting the
boundary of the Carson National Forest. The adjustment of the Forest
boundary would open the door to potential federal acquisition of
Miranda Canyon. We estimate the acquisition costs to be $15 to $16
million, which would be subject to the availability of appropriations.
The landowner of the Miranda Canyon property has agreed to a
conservation sale to the United States. At present, there is a fully
executed 4 year phased purchase agreement in place between the
landowner and a 3rd party non-profit organization. This agreement keeps
the property from being developed or sold on the open market while the
appraisal is finalized and reviewed by all parties. If the acquisition
of the Miranda Canyon property were to occur this would make an
outstanding addition to the National Forest System.
on s. 3283
This legislation directs the designation of an unnamed 12,240 foot
peak, located on the boundary between Ansel Adams Wilderness Area and
Yosemite National Park approximately six tenths miles (0.6) northeast
of Donahue Peak, as ``Mt. Andrea Lawrence.'' The management of the
proposed Mt. Andrea Lawrence is shared between the Inyo National Forest
and Yosemite National Park. We have consulted with the U. S. Department
of the Interior--National Park Service in the preparation of this
statement.
Ms. Lawrence was a successful Olympic athlete and a committed
public servant, having served 16-years on the Mono County Board of
Supervisors and founded the Andrea Lawrence Institute for Mountains and
Rivers. She was a strong supporter of the work of the Inyo National
Forest and Yosemite National Park. She worked tirelessly to protect the
health and vitality of the environment and economies in the Eastern
Sierra and the Sierra Nevada Region as a whole. Ms. Lawrence passed
away at the age of 76 on March 31, 2009.
The Department has no objection to the enactment of S. 3283 and
notes that it would have no adverse impact to the management of the
Inyo National Forest, or the Ansel Adams Wilderness. However, the Board
on Geographic Names was created by Congress in 1947 to establish and
maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal
Government. It is Board policy not to consider names that commemorate
living persons. In addition, a person must be deceased at least 5-years
before a commemorative proposal will be considered. In accordance with
the Board's interpretation of Wilderness Act of 1964, the Board on
Geographic Names discourages naming features in congressionally
designated wilderness areas unless an overriding need can be
demonstrated. Although the Administration does not have any objections
to the enactment of S. 3283, maintaining consistency with the
longstanding policies of the Board on Geographic Names is recommended.
The Department recognizes the contributions of Ms. Lawrence to both
the United States and California, and concurs with the principles
embodied in the legislation. Should the legislation be enacted, the
Forest Service would work to ensure that our visitor information maps
reflect the new designation, and understand that the National Park
Service would do the same when their maps, signs, and other
informational materials are replaced or updated.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Now we will turn to Mr. Aaron Schutt. I hope I am
pronouncing your last name right. You are the Senior Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer of Doyon, Limited. You
are based in Fairbanks, Alaska. Welcome. Thank you for coming
to the Nation's capital. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF AARON SCHUTT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER, DOYON, LIMITED, FAIRBANKS, AK
Mr. Schutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Glad to be here.
Senator Burr, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to testify on S. 3820, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to issue permits for a microhydro project in
nonwilderness areas within the boundaries of Denali National
Park and Preserve, to acquire land for Denali National Park and
Preserve from Doyon Tourism, Inc., and for other purposes.
I would especially like to thank my home State Senators.
Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is the ranking Republican member of
the committee, invited me here to testify today. Senator Mark
Begich, who joined us earlier, authored the legislation.
I am Aaron Schutt, Senior Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer of Doyon, Limited.
Doyon is one of 13 Alaska Native Regional Corporations
established by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.
Doyon has more than 18,000 Alaska Native shareholders, and we
are proud of our record on behalf of those shareholders. Our
mission is to promote the economic and social well-being of our
shareholders and future shareholders, to strengthen our native
way of life, and to protect and enhance our land resources.
The issue that brings me here today involves Doyon's effort
to improve our energy efficiency and environmental footprint on
inholdings within Denali National Park. The Kantishna Hills
Renewable Energy Act provides an avenue for Doyon to develop a
renewable energy system to provide electrical power to the
Kantishna Roadhouse. The roadhouse is a full-service wilderness
lodge providing overnight accommodations to Denali National
Park visitors.
Owned and operated by Doyon Tourism, Inc., a wholly owned
Doyon subsidiary, the Kantishna Roadhouse is located on an
inholding within Denali National Park. Kantishna Roadhouse
serves thousands of park visitors each year. As it is located
100 miles inside the park, the roadhouse is not connected to
any utility grid and produces 100 percent of its electrical
energy onsite. Currently our power comes from a diesel
generator. The system requires trucking several thousand
gallons of diesel fuel through the park each year. We run the
generator on a 24-hour basis throughout the entire operating
season. While Doyon Tourism strives to provide our services in
the park and on our lands in the most environmentally
respectful way, we have been unable to economically install a
renewable energy power supply until now.
In 2010, Doyon received a Tribal Renewable Energy Grant
from the Department of Energy. We are using a part of that
grant to install the microhydro generation system at Kantishna
Roadhouse. The project is modeled after the system installed at
the Park Service's recently renovated Eielson Visitors Center,
also located deep within Denali National Park. The system would
potentially provide up to half of our current electrical needs,
offsetting an equivalent amount of diesel usage and its
incumbent environmental footprint.
We are facing 2 problems with the construction of this
project and thus the need for your help with this legislation.
Of primary concern is the land ownership. While we currently
own the proposed location of the power plant, we do not own
some of the land needed for the project. The other issue is the
deadline for the use of the grant funds which expire 2 years
after the date of award. Importantly, as those of us from
Alaska know, we have very short construction seasons, and we
really only have one available construction season, which is
next season.
We have worked with the National Park Service for the past
year to develop this legislation, and S. 3820 has 2 parts.
First, it allows the Park Service to issue a permit to Doyon to
build the proposed project. Second, it calls on the Park
Service to exchange lands with Doyon so that all of the lands
needed for the construction and operation of the project are
owned by Doyon Tourism. In exchange, Doyon would provide an
equal amount of acreage on a value-for-value basis from our
other landholdings in the Kantishna area. Under the current
agreement, about 6 to 7 acres would change hands between the 2
parties.
In conclusion, I would like to reinforce my comments that
this legislation is good for all of the parties involved. S.
3820 will allow Doyon to move forward with a small renewable
energy project. The project will substantially reduce all
aspects of the environmental footprint related to our current
electrical generation system.
I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to
testify here today, and I am happy to answer any questions that
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schutt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Aaron Schutt, Senior Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer, Doyon, Limited, Fairbanks, AK
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittees, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on S.3820, a bill to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to issue permits for a micro hydro project in non-
wilderness areas within the boundaries of Denali National Park and
Preserve, to acquire land for Denali National Park and Preserve from
Doyon Tourism, Inc., and for other purposes. I would especially like to
thank my home state Senators. Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is the
Ranking Republican Member of the Committee, invited me here to testify
today. Senator Mark Begich authored this legislation. My name is Aaron
Schutt, I am the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of
Doyon, Limited.
Doyon is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations,
formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA).
Doyon has more than 18,000 Alaska Native shareholders, and we are proud
of our record on behalf of those shareholders. Our mission is to
promote the economic and social well-being of our shareholders and
future shareholders, to strengthen our Native way of life and to
protect and enhance our land and resources.
The issue that brings me here today involves Doyon's effort to
improve our energy efficiency and environmental footprint on our in-
holdings within the Denali National Park. The Kantishna Hills Renewable
Energy Act provides an avenue for Doyon to develop a renewable energy
system to provide electrical power to the Kantishna Roadhouse. The
Kantishna Roadhouse is a full service wilderness lodge providing
overnight accommodations to Denali National Park visitors.
Owned and operated by Doyon Tourism, a wholly-owned Doyon
subsidiary, the Kantishna Roadhouse is located on an in-holding within
Denali National Park. Kantishna Roadhouse serves thousands of Park
visitors each year. As it is located 100 miles inside the Park, the
Roadhouse is not connected to any utility grid and must produce 100% of
its electrical energy onsite. Currently, our power comes from a diesel
generator. This system requires trucking several thousand gallons of
diesel fuel through the Park each year. We run the generator on a
twenty four hour basis through the entire operating season. While Doyon
Tourism strives to provide our services in the Park and on our lands in
the most environmentally respectful way, we have been unable to
economically install a renewable energy power supply until now.
In 2010, Doyon received a Tribal Renewable Energy Grant from the
Department of Energy. We are using part of that grant to install a
micro-hydro power generation system at the Kantishna Roadhouse. This
micro-hydro project is modeled after the system installed at the Park
Service's recently renovated Eielson Visitors Center, also located deep
within Denali National Park and Preserve. This renewable energy system
would potentially provide up to half of our current electrical energy
needs, offsetting an equivalent amount of diesel usage and its
incumbent environmental footprint.
Doyon is facing two problems with the construction of this
renewable energy project, thus the need for this legislation. Of
primary concern is the land ownership. While Doyon currently owns the
proposed location of the micro-hydro power plant, it does not own some
of the land needed for the project. The other issue is the deadline for
use of the grant funds which expire two years after the date of award.
This legislation addresses both of these problems.
Doyon has worked with the National Park Service for the past year
to develop this legislation. S.3820 has two parts. First, it allows the
Park Serve to issue a permit to Doyon Tourism to build the proposed
renewable energy project. Second, it calls on the Park Service to
exchange lands with Doyon so that all of the lands needed for the
construction and operation of the micro-hydro project are owned by
Doyon Tourism. In exchange, Doyon would provide an equivalent amount of
acreage on a value-for-value basis from its other land holdings in the
vicinity of the Kantishna Roadhouse. Under the current agreement, six
to seven acres would be exchanged between each of the two parties.
In conclusion, I would like to reinforce my comments that this
legislation is good for all the parties involved. S.3820 will allow
Doyon to move forward with a small renewable energy project. The
project will substantially reduce all aspects of environmental
footprint related to our current power generation system: fewer
truckloads of diesel trucked in over the remote Park roads which in
turn results in cleaner local air quality and less sound pollution in
this remote area. Doyon believes this project mirrors the recent
efforts of the National Park Service to achieve greater use of
renewable energy at its facilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the joint hearing
today. I would be pleased to answer any questions the Members of the
Subcommittees may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Schutt.
I am going to turn to Senator McCain, who has joined us, if
he has a statement, and then we will open up to Ranking Member
Burr the opportunity to ask some questions of the panel.
Senator McCain.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
holding this markup. My brief statement I would like included
in the record.
But I would just like to say that the Mohave Valley Land
Conveyance Act would transfer approximately 315 acres of BLM to
the Arizona Game and Fish Commission for purposes of building a
shooting range near Bullhead City, Arizona.
I must say that we have been in this 12-year planning
effort. These organizations all are supportive of Arizona Game
and Fish: NRA, Sportsmen's Foundation, and 34 other
organizations. After 12 years of jumping through hoops, the gun
owners and law enforcement officers of Mohave County, Arizona
and the tri-state area deserve to break ground.
I understand there are still some concerns. I would
appreciate it if we could report the bill out and we will try
and work out some of these additional concerns that people seem
to have.
But 12 years is a long time, Mr. Chairman, and everybody,
with the exception of the Native American tribes, are in
support and we will try to continue to work with them. But I
would appreciate your moving the bill through the subcommittee.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator McCain.
With that, let me turn to Ranking Member Burr for questions
he might have of the panel.
Senator Burr. I thank the chair. I thank our witnesses
today, and I thank Senator McCain. As you were talking, Mr.
Schutt, he gave Senator Udall and I rights to come down and use
the shooting range. So there is no opposition left on this.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burr. Ms. Stevenson, the National Park Service
reports a maintenance backlog currently of over $9 billion.
Yet, 6 of the bills in front of the subcommittee today seek to
establish new park units or to increase the land of current
units.
Let me ask you. Do you believe the National Park Service
should pay down its maintenance backlog before Congress
instructs the addition of new park units or increased land?
Ms. Stevenson. The answer is yes. We are working very hard
on our maintenance backlog. The recently passed ARRA has
allowed us to spend $700 million in reducing that backlog. We
have been very successful in obligating that money.
Of the bills before you, I believe that only one would
create a new national park, and that is Coltsville and we
oppose that bill. The other areas are modest additions to park
units, and we have provided costs for each of those.
Senator Burr. I appreciate that. Let me just reiterate. You
said that we had made a down payment of $700 million toward the
maintenance backlog in legislation we have done. Correct?
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir.
Senator Burr. You do not dispute the fact that the National
Park Service lists $9 billion worth of current maintenance
backlog.
Ms. Stevenson. I am not sure of the exact number, Senator.
I am sorry.
Senator Burr. Let me just suggest we have made an effort to
pay down less than 10 percent of the current maintenance
backlog and the consideration that we would increase any new
units. I appreciate the fact that the Park Service is not
supportive of doing that right now. My hope would be that we
would also use the same threshold as it relates to expansion of
parks.
Now, specifically with the Coltsville National Park, even
though the administration is not supportive of it, do we
understand what the costs associated with creation of that new
park would be?
Ms. Stevenson. No, we do not, Senator. The reason we do not
is because we are not sure of what the management
responsibilities of the Park Service would be at Coltsville. We
think the Colt factory is an integral part of whatever
interpretation we might do. The large park land there
apparently could be transferred to the Park Service. But that
leaves a lot of other structures that are within the boundaries
of the proposed park without a decision being made on the
management responsibility.
Senator Burr. Is it safe to say that if you do not know the
management responsibilities, it is impossible to then calculate
how many National Park Service employees it would require to
man a facility like this?
Ms. Stevenson. I think that is a fair statement.
Senator Burr. Great.
Let me go to S. 3261, the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller
National Historical Park boundary expansion. Can you give the
National Park Service's estimates for the funds needed to
acquire that additional 154 acres?
Ms. Stevenson. I believe it is $10 million, and it would
cost--sorry. That is the wrong information.
I am sorry. It is way below that. It is $1.2 million, with
improvements of $1.6 million, and operating costs of $124,000 a
year increase. So it is not very much operating cost increase.
Senator Burr. Let me move, if I could, to the Pinnacle
National Monument. Can you please explain why a redesignation
is needed on that property?
Ms. Stevenson. A couple of reasons. We have been seeking to
clarify the various designations of units of the National Park
System for some time now. It is a very confusing system for the
general public. I cannot remember now exactly how many
designations there are, but there are national historic parks,
national monuments, national rivers, so on. It is very
confusing for the public. They do not know are they really
national parks, or are they really not national parks. We treat
them all the same.
To some people, the designation of ``national park'' is the
highest kind of designation you can get in spite of the fact
that, as I said, we treat them all the same, depending on the
legislation, of course. So many people seek to have parks
renamed as national parks because they believe this is a higher
designation. So that is why people ask for it. I am not sure of
the motivation of this particular park, but that is in general.
Senator Burr. Let me ask you how, if at all, would the cost
associated with the monument's redesignation be affected?
Ms. Stevenson. I do not think there is going to be much
cost. Anything that is online, of course, is very small cost.
We would not replace signs until they are worn out, which we do
on a regular basis anyway. Any interpretative materials would
be done only when they are reprinted and so on. So really,
there is not a lot of cost associated with it.
Senator Burr. From a personnel standpoint, from a property
maintenance standpoint, there is no change with the
redesignation from monument to park.
Ms. Stevenson. No, sir. Negligible cost.
Senator Burr. The last one and it is on Mr. Schutt's
microhydro project. I am only curious to know whether there is
any similar microhydro system currently in place in other
locations than the Denali National Park. I will ask both of
you.
Ms. Stevenson. You may go first.
Mr. Schutt. Sure. Thank you, Senator. There are two other
small microhydro projects within Denali National Park. One is
owned by the Park Service at the Eielson Visitors Center. I
believe that system was installed about 2 years ago. Then there
is a system at another back country lodge, also an inholding in
the Kantishna area, called Camp Denali that is very similar to
the system we are attempting to build, and that has been in
place for several decades.
Senator Burr. A question as it relates to the Park
Service's microhydro system. Are we asking for a different
permitting timeline for this one than what the Park Service
exercised on theirs? I understand the constraints you are under
on the grant. I would like to know how much we are bending, if
at all, from the normal permitting period.
Ms. Stevenson. We would not have to grant ourselves a
permit to do the microhydro. Our concern about this is making
sure that we comply with NEPA before we do this. We are
committed to working as fast as we can. But we do not want to
do anything without complying with NEPA.
Senator Burr. I thank the chair.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Burr.
Ms. Stevenson, let me pick up on a couple of the questions
that Senator Burr directed your way, and I will start with
Pinnacle National Park. I do not want you necessarily to repeat
yourself, but I think it is important to have this discussion
which has been ongoing throughout almost the life of the Park
Service.
Does the Park Service have any criteria for whether an area
should be designated as a national park as opposed to the many
other designations used in the National Park System? If so, is
the Pinnacle site consistent with that criteria?
Ms. Stevenson. The Pinnacle site is consistent with the
designation as a national park because of its significance in
geology and in species, the number of species and kinds of
species that are there.
Senator Udall. Is it fair in a simplistic way to say that
generally national parks are expected to have more than one
unique or special feature, say, as opposed to some areas that
are designated as national monuments? I am getting into the
criteria discussion that is important to have.
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, I understand. You know, we are not
really talking about the distinction in the language that
establishes a national park or a national monument. What we are
talking about the appellation that is used by the public. We
would not seek to change the underlying legislation. It would
be only the national park part of the title.
Senator Udall. Back to the proposed Coltsville National
Historical Park, I understand there was a companion bill in the
House. It was modified following your agency's testimony. Do
those modifications address concerns you have raised today?
Ms. Stevenson. They go a long way toward allowing us to
analyze both the financial feasibility, as well as the
suitability, of management of any or all of the park. Yes.
Senator Udall. Next, the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller
National Historic Site.
Ms. Stevenson. Yes, sir.
Senator Udall. Your testimony notes that the King Farm--and
I want to quote your testimony--``would enable the park to
better conserve and interpret the history and evolution of
conservation stewardship in America.'' End of quote. You have
also noted that the Park Service's preliminary findings
indicate that the proposed acquisition is consistent with the
Park Service's criteria.
What additional information does the Park Service need to
decide whether the proposed addition is appropriate, and how
long do you anticipate it would take you to reach that
decision?
Ms. Stevenson. I understand that we are in the final stages
of making a determination, that it is looking very positive,
and that we anticipate a final determination will be made by
the end of this calendar year.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that clarification.
My last question to you is tied to your testimony on S.
3565, which Senator McCain earlier made some comments about. In
your written testimony, it says the BLM supports the goals of
S. 3565, but cannot support the legislation as currently
drafted. I think I heard you say in your testimony you support
the legislation. Would you clarify for the record?
Ms. Stevenson. The Department supports the legislation with
the understanding that there will be a couple of proposed
improvements.
Senator Udall. OK.
Do the BLM representatives here find that explanation
adequate? Would you like to just join us----
Ms. Stevenson. Excuse me. Yes, apparently I have----
Senator Udall. Ms. Stevenson, I do not want to----
Ms. Stevenson. No, no, no. I appreciate that.
Senator Udall [continuing]. Override your testimony.
Ms. Stevenson. Apparently I have made some error here.
Mr. Spisak. Yes.
Senator Udall. Would you identify yourself for the record?
Then please feel free to comment.
Mr. Spisak. Tim Spisak, Acting Assistant Director for
Minerals and Realty Management, Bureau of Land Management.
It just sounded like the two portions were flip-flopped. We
support the goals of S. 3565 and we support S. 3616 outright. I
think you just flip-flopped the testimony on it. No problem.
Ms. Stevenson. My mistake. I am sorry.
Senator Udall. No. This is why we hold hearings. I have
never made any mistakes in my life, Ms. Stevenson.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. I have never flip-flopped either.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Stevenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Let me turn to Mr. Schutt, and then, Mr.
Smith, I will turn to you for my final set of questions.
I think I am going to restate what you had a chance to say
and Ms. Stevenson as well. But you heard that the Park Service
believes the permitting process should be discretionary and
subject to compliance with NEPA and other environmental and
cultural protection laws. Are you comfortable addressing the
issues that the Park Service has recommended?
Mr. Schutt. We certainly have a challenging schedule, Mr.
Chairman, and that is our primary concern in the use of the
grant funds. We are 1 year from needing to have a complete
project, and things obviously take time. So that is our primary
concern. We certainly support compliance with NEPA and
addressing other concerns of all stakeholders in the project.
Assuming we can do all of those things in the timeframe, I hear
a commitment and we have certainly had a commitment from the
local Park Service staff at Denali National Park, but we do
have a very grave concern on the timeframe.
Senator Udall. On the timeframe, and that is really the
intent and the purpose of what you are proposing is to provide
additional flexibility in the timeline so that you can take
advantage of the grant, also do the work that needs to be done.
Mr. Schutt. It is a very short construction season on top
of the compressed timeframe that we have.
Senator Udall. Exactly. I have spent time in Denali
National Park both in the north and south sides and had the
great privilege actually to stand atop Denali at one point in
my climbing career. It is a quite crown jewel really of the
American National Park System, and I have to regrettably
acknowledge that Senator Begich probably has the highest
mountain in the United States.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. Of course, the people who live on those
landscapes and who have lived there for many centuries also
have a lot to teach us and an important role to play in those
landscapes. But this is exciting to hear about what you are
doing.
Mr. Schutt. I look forward to working with you further.
Mr. Smith, let me turn to you and talk about a Colorado-
centric piece of legislation. I thank you for your detailed
testimony on the Crystal Lakes situation. I want to also thank
you for your offer to work with this subcommittee, Congressman
Markey, and the Crystal Lakes landowners to find a solution.
As you know, it is terribly important to those landowners
who, through no fault of their own or frankly the Forest
Service's, find themselves in a really tight spot. I worry that
it may be already too late to help those landowners who are now
in foreclosure and unable to sell their property due to the
land dispute. So it is really important that we find a
solution. I want to take you up on your offer to find a
solution. Let us get this fixed.
Can you describe for me, in that spirit, the Forest
Service's actions to resolve the boundary dispute since the BLM
discovered the erroneous survey in 2003?
Mr. Smith. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been
working with the developer. We have been working with the
subdivision owners, and we have been working with a lot of
individuals trying to resolve the situation. There are
certainly opportunities if we can't resolve it on the Small
Tracts Act, other opportunities. There are opportunities for
land exchange. There are opportunities even for a short sale
with the developer or something.
I think the biggest problem for us that we are trying to
help the landowners--at the same time, the cost, if we have to
deal with each one of those surveys individually--it becomes
almost cost-prohibitive for the Forest Service. It is estimated
each one of those will be about $17,000 to resolve, which if
you add 20 of them, that is about $320,000 just to do the
survey work. So what we are looking for is a way out that we
can help the landowners, at the same time save some money for
the taxpayers.
Senator Udall. That is real money, obviously. I was trying
to think of a way to make those surveys less expensive. No idea
comes to mind immediately, but I do underline my call to
finding a solution. Let us get this fixed. I think this hearing
draws needed attention to the dilemma we face and particularly
the plight of these landowners.
Mr. Smith. Yes. It is our intention to try to resolve it as
quickly as possible.
Senator Udall. I take you at your word. I look forward to
moving ahead and making this situation one that we can look
back on and say, hey, we figured out how to stand on the side
of the taxpayers and protect the interests of the landowners in
the Crystal Lakes Subdivision as well.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you again. I want to thank the panel,
and Mr. Schutt, thanks for coming to the Nation's capital. I
look forward to visiting your wonderful State again in the
future at some point.
With that, let me just make note that some members of the
committee may submit additional questions in writing, and if
so, we may ask you to submit answers for the record. We will
keep the hearing record open for 2 more weeks to receive any
additional comments.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Gregory C. Smith to Questions From Senator Barrasso
on h.r. 1858
Question 1. It is my understanding that the landowners have not
pursued redress from the developer nor the surveyor in the courts, is
that your understanding?
Answer. The FS is not aware of any attempt by the affected Crystal
Lakes private landowners to resolve the encroachment issue with the
subdivision developer or their respective title insurance companies, or
filed a complaint with the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies,
State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers and
Professional Land Surveyors seeking to have the private land surveyor
correct his survey. The surveyor who subdivided Crystal Lakes held a
Professional Land Surveyor license (PE-PLS-5028) issued by the Colorado
Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors for
the State of Colorado. No complaint is on file with the Colorado Board
of Licensure in the matter of the erroneous private land survey
subdividing Crystal Lakes. We do not believe that one of the
responsibilities of the Forest Service is to rectify this trespass and
to date those who have profited from the errors have not been held
accountable.
One of the affected landowners did file a protest of the 2005
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land survey with the Colorado State
Office of the BLM. That protest was denied by the BLM on the grounds
that there was no evidence the BLM 2005 survey was incorrectly made,
while there was substantial evidence the private land surveyor did not
follow correct surveying procedures. The landowners have not
administratively appealed BLM's denial of their survey protest to the
Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA).
The Forest Service is not aware that the affected landowners have
entered into any discussion with either the surveying company, James H.
Stewart and Associates, or the developer, or that they have sought
redress through the Colorado State Court System. In 2006, the Forest
Service and BLM staff met with the Crystal Lakes developer Don
Weixelman and the affected landowners to discuss land exchange options.
The Forest Service continued the dialogue into 2007 with the affected
landowners and the developer through letters and phone calls. However,
the developer and the affected landowners did not agree to the standard
appraisal process, and the developer and the affected Crystal Lakes
landowners could not reach agreement and ultimately they did not submit
a proposal for a land exchange to the Forest Service.
Question 2. The Forest Service has hundreds of faulty surveys. If
we just give the land to the trespassing landowners every time a
trespass is identified and then paid for it using recreation fee
receipts; does the agency have sufficient recreation fee receipts to
cover the potential costs?
Answer. The Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA)
provides that fees collected under the Act are to be used primarily at
the unit where the fees were collected to help in the improvement,
maintenance, and management of specific recreation sites. A small
percentage of the fees are available for expenditure on an agency-wide
basis. In either case, the FLREA specifies that fees may only be
expended for repairs, interpretation, habitat restoration, law
enforcement, operations or capital costs, fee management agreements or
a reservation service, and administration costs. The use of recreation
fee revenue is intended to benefit recreation users who pay the fee.
Diverting recreation fees for other purposes would increase the
antipathy toward recreation fees, a purpose and need Congress has
recognized.
The cost to resolve hundreds of faulty and incorrectly made private
land surveys within or adjoining National Forest System lands is
unknown because it takes a correctly made land survey to find these
kinds of problems. While the Forest Service does not have an inventory
of faulty private land surveys, the number is expected to be
significant. The Forest Service would have to survey and resurvey
nearly 276 thousand miles of NFS boundaries to inventory and quantify
the number of erroneous private land surveys. At the current funding
level the Forest Service annually surveys and maintains approximately
2,500 miles of NFS boundaries.
Question 3. If this legislation were modified to require a
``finding of public interest'' would the agency support the inclusion
of such a provision in H.R. 1858?
Answer. This bill, as currently written, would require without
consideration the conveyance of National Forest System (NFS) land to
resolve a private encroachment caused by an erroneous private land
survey. In doing so, the Forest Service is concerned about the
precedent this might set as an approach for resolving numerous trespass
and encroachment cases throughout the National Forest System. For these
reasons, the Forest Service could not support a finding that the
conveyance of the public's land without any consideration for its
market value would be in the public interest. The Forest Service
currently has the authority to resolve such cases through the Small
Tracts Act of 1983, which provides for a market-based return to the
public for any NFS land being conveyed to resolve a private
encroachment on NFS lands.
Question 4. Would the agency recommend a positive finding of public
interest in this case, if it were required in the legislation?
Answer. The Forest Service could not make a finding of public
interest because the bill as written requires conveyance of National
Forest System lands to private landowners without consideration. The
encroachments occurred because of an erroneous private land survey
subdividing the Crystal Lakes property. It was incumbent upon the
private professional land surveyor and the private developer who
subdivided Crystal Lakes to ensure a correct land survey and survey
plat was prepared recording the dimensions and boundaries for the
subdivided parcels. Therefore, the Forest Service could not make a
determination of public interest for a very narrow and limited
community.
Response of Gregory C. Smith to Question From Senator McCain
on h.r. 1858
In regards to H.R. 1858, I am aware of other incorrect surveys that
have been completed in other national forests, specifically the
Coconino National Forest. Almost twenty property owners in the
Mountainair Subdivision in Coconino County, Arizona, were informed that
they were encroaching on forest service land due to an incorrect survey
performed in the 1960's. This unfortunate situation includes
approximately 2.5 acres of land. The individuals encroaching on federal
land have paid for the property and paid property taxes on the
property. Due to other situations, the Forest Service may consider
including other boundary corrections in one piece of legislation.
Question 1. Would such legislative language, perhaps added to H.R.
1858, save the Forest Service time and money by avoiding individual
acquisitions with these property owners?
Answer. There is existing authority to resolve the Coconino
situation under the Small Tracts Act (16 U.S.C. 521c-521i) and
legislation is not required. The Small Tracts Act requires payment of
consideration to the United States for resolution of encroachments, and
the affected landowners on the Coconino National Forest are willing to
abide by the requirements of that Act by paying appropriate
consideration. The Crystal Lakes situation is different. There the
affected landowners are unwilling to pay any consideration for the
National Forest land that has been encroached upon, and they have
declined to pursue resolution through the Small Tracts Act. We do not
believe that legislation like H.R. 1858 is the appropriate remedy for
resolution of these kinds of encroachments, particularly when the Small
Tracts Act is an available authority.
______
Responses of Katherine H. Stevenson to Questions From Senator McCain
on s. 3565
Question 1. The BLM's 2009 Record of Decision that approved the
shooting range has been appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals.
How long does it typically take for the Board to take action on an
appeal like Mohave?
Answer. The Department cannot predict the time frame for any
decision made by the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA).
Question 2. I understand that the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe (FMIT)
didn't engage in formal consultation with the BLM until 2003- 5 years
after the public planning process began. When they finally decided to
participate in formal consultation, both tribes repeatedly indicated
they would oppose any shooting range in the Lower Colorado River Valley
and would only consider lands which had already been rejected by the
Arizona Game & Fish Commission because of encroachment concerns.
Your testimony indicates the Administration wants to continue
discussions with the FMIT. What could BLM possibly hope to achieve with
additional tribal consultation now?
Answer. Continued consultation with concerned Tribes is stipulated
in the amended Environmental Assessment for the proposed shooting
range. Consultation will provide the Tribes with an opportunity to
comment on the selection and installation of measures designed to
mitigate possible adverse effects to the Boundary Cone Butte historic
property, as stipulated in the Environmental Assessment. In addition,
the BLM wishes to continue consultation with concerned Tribes to
determine if there are specific times, dates, or seasons of tribal use
of Boundary Cone Butte. This determination will provide the Tribes with
an opportunity to negotiate altered hours of operation or temporary
closure of the shooting range facility during important periods of
tribal use of the Boundary Cone Butte historic property for traditional
cultural or ceremonial purposes.
Question 3. The sacred Boundary Cone Butte is nearly 3 miles from
the proposed shooting range on Boundary Cone Road. Even if the Butte
were to be added to the Historical Register (as the Tribe has
requested) does the BLM believe sacred sites also require over 3 miles
of buffer space in order to be protected from public use?
Answer. The BLM determined that Boundary Cone Butte is eligible for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The
Agency also determined that noise and other activity associated with
the operation of the proposed shooting range at the Boundary Cone Road
location may have adverse effects on some of the characteristics that
make Boundary Cone Butte eligible for the NRHP. Adverse effect is
determined on a case-by-case basis, and the BLM cannot generalize about
what ``buffer space'' would be appropriate for a different property in
a different setting that may be affected by a different undertaking.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Robert R. Woodhouse, Vice-Chairman, Arizona Game and Fish
Commission, on S. 3565
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittees, I am
Robbie Woodhouse, Vice-Chairman of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission
(Commission). Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this
written statement for the official hearing record regarding Senators
John McCain and Jon Kyl's S.3565, which would provide the needed land
conveyance for the establishment of a public shooting facility in
Mohave County, Arizona. The Commission supports S.3565 and its ultimate
goal for safe recreational shooting in Arizona, and a responsible
method for attaining that end.
Recreational shooting and sport hunting have always been a family-
oriented outdoor activity in Arizona. As the population of the state
continues to grow, the number of citizens engaging in recreational
shooting at formal and informal shooting ranges or dispersed shooting
areas has increased significantly. The population of Arizona has more
than doubled from 2.5 million in 1997 to over six million today.
Studies show that 20% of Arizona residents participate in recreational
shooting activities. Outdoor recreationists with multiple interests are
competing to use public lands adjacent to large metropolitan areas, as
well as expanding rural communities. As a result of this increased use,
unresolved conflicts have arisen between public agencies, landowners,
recreational shooters and other recreationists. There are population
centers in Arizona that currently do not have reasonable access to a
public shooting range. As a result, the impact of dispersed shooting
and associated issues such as littering, shared use of increasingly
scarce public lands and resource damage continue to represent
challenges.
The Commission promotes and supports the development of safe,
accessible target and sport-shooting facilities by taking a leadership
role in partnering with ranges, industry, and communities.
Additionally, the Commission provides statewide range development
assistance through a variety of technical, educational and financial
resources consistent with its goal to preserve shooting opportunities
for present and future generations.
The Commission currently owns and operates seven shooting ranges in
Arizona and has supported countless others through development grants,
and technical and engineering support. The Commission is committed to
its continued support for shooting range development in Arizona.
With the major population increase in the tri-state area (Arizona,
Nevada and California), members of the sport shooting community have
expressed a strong interest in developing a new multi-purpose shooting
facility to replace the one that was closed in 1998 due in large part
to urban encroachment. At present, due to the lack of a formal shooting
facility, shooters have been forced to utilize makeshift shooting
locations which, has become a significant source of concern for public
and private landowners, as well as, other outdoor recreationists. S.
3565 provides a responsible alternative for the shooting community and
other stakeholders interested in the range development process.
To accommodate the needs of the shooting community including
various shooting disciplines, hunter education and law enforcement
training needs, the Commission proposed the development of a formal
shooting complex in the Tri-State area. The complex would include
various rifle, pistol and shotgun ranges, a hunter education range and
a law enforcement training area.
Since the closure of the only public shooting range in the area,
the Commission has worked with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the local shooting community for the past 12 years to identify a new
site for a range. BLM has recently approved an administrative land
conveyance for range development under the Recreation and Public
Purpose Act (RPP); however this method has created a logjam of
administrative appeals. If this bill were approved by Congress, it
would expedite the land conveyance, thereby allowing the Commission to
commence range development immediately.
S. 3565 is also environmentally and culturally responsible.
Provisions under this measure provide for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHP). The Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment Record of
Decision dated February 8, 2010 has been determined to be legally
sufficient to meet these purposes.
The Commission has participated in the National Historic
Preservation Act--(Section 106) process, when appropriate, since 2002.
The Commission has fully supported BLM's efforts to elicit participant
input and cooperation. These efforts have included numerous meetings
and field trips with BLM, the Fort Mohave Tribe, SHPO and The Advisory
Council on National Historic Preservation. Since the inception of this
process, the Fort Mohave Tribe has continually expressed their
opposition of the proposed project to BLM and the Commission.
In 2004, the Commission participated in a formal Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, which was sponsored by the BLM to
seek resolution to the Tribes' concerns. During this process, the
Commission eliminated its requirement that shooting range development
be in close proximity (within thirty minutes) to Bullhead City. The
Commission requested that the Tribes identify alternatives to the
currently proposed Boundary Cone site. Ultimately, they selected seven
alternative sites for evaluation. After evaluation by the BLM and
Tribes, all were eventually eliminated because of Tribal concerns and
some access issues.
The result of these requisite and good-faith efforts failed to
produce any alternative sites for development, and the Boundary Cone
site remains the only viable option. The Commission believes that all
due process requirements under Section 106 and NEPA have been met.
Also, if S. 3565 is approved by Congress, it is the intent of the
Commission to continue working with all interested parties to develop
the range in the most professional manner possible incorporating
environmental management, noise abatement and cultural considerations.
Again, on behalf of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, I would
like to thank you for the opportunity to submit this written statement
in support of S. 3565. I would also like to thank Senators McCain and
Kyl for sponsoring this legislation and for their continued commitment
to responsible recreational shooting in Arizona.
______
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe,
Needles, CA, October 13, 2010.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chair, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington DC.
RE: S. 3565, the Mohave Valley Land Conveyance Act of 2010
Dear Chairman Wyden: The Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, a federally
recognized tribe that has lived since time immemorial along the Lower
Colorado River, objects strenuously to S.3565 and urgently requests
that it not be approved. S.3565 is an attempt to destroy a deeply
significant part of our ancestral homeland for the convenience of a few
special interests in the local community. It proposes that the Senate
of the United States adopt a position that is oppressive of our race,
offensive to our religion, and dismissive of our history. It also
proposes that the Senate ignore the wisdom of its own ancestors, in
effect declaring the environmental and historic preservation laws
enacted by Congress in the 1960s and thereafter null and void in order
to accommodate the supporters of the unnecessary project it will allow
to go forward.
The Mojave people have lived along both sides of the Colorado River
on lands that are now within the States of Arizona, California and
Nevada. We are the Aha Makav, the people of the river. The lands along
the river are our ancestral home; they are integral to our culture and
central to our religious practices. S.3565, if enacted, will
substantially burden the religious practices of our federally
recognized Indian tribe for the convenience of a small group of
recreational rifle shooters.
S.3565 would direct the Secretary of the Interior, notwithstanding
his trust responsibilities to the Mojave people and his Congressionally
mandated responsibilities under federal environmental and historic
preservation laws, to convey to the Arizona State Game and Fish
Commission a parcel of land now within the State of Arizona, for use as
a recreational shooting range. Towering directly over the land that
would thus be conveyed out of federal ownership is a rocky peak known
to you as Boundary Cone Butte. In our language this peak is Avi Vasqui,
meaning ``The Sharp Mountain,'' and it is a place of deep meaning to us
and our elders.
Much of what we know and believe about Avi Vasqui is held
exclusively by our elders. To share much of this information with the
public would dilute the mountain's spiritual power and be dangerous
both to the elders and to those receiving the information. What we can
say is that Avi Vasqui is our time piece, measuring our Tribe's life
span. When Avi Vasqui is gone, the Mojave people will be gone as well.
While it exists, it plays critical roles in our cultural lives. In our
traditional stories and songs Avi Vasqui is an important landmark, and
the home of one of our ancient chiefs. Our ancestors left signs of
their ritual use of Avi Vasqui in the form of rock art and ceremonial
circles. We are taught that such circles were and still are points of
entry into other dimensions of reality, into the spirit world. Our
feelings of reverence at Avi Vasqui are precious to us, and connect us
to the higher power. To construct and operate a shooting range near the
foot of Avi Vasqui will fundamentally disrupt our spiritual
relationships with this landmark, and hasten the decline of our
traditional religion. In an effort to protect Avi Vasqui and our
relationships with it, we have cooperated with the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) and
others, seeking alternative places for those who desire the shooting
range to carry out their recreational activities. Such places exist.
For example, one location identified during our consultations with BLM
is a state-owned parcel that meets all the criteria for the shooting
range, presents fewer environmental concerns, and is convenient to the
shooting community. Why was this location not analyzed? Because the
AGFD would have to pay the Arizona State Land Office for it, whereas it
believes it can get federal land free by act of a compliant Congress.
In the course of our consultation under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, the cultural significance of Avi Vasqui has
been recognized with the finding that it is eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. The Secretary of the Interior has received
comments from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (attached)
strongly recommending that BLM explore alternatives to the project as
designed, because of the project's impacts on Avi Vasqui and our
cultural values. The Advisory Council found that ``there is a basic
incompatibility between the land uses of a shooting range and an area
where traditional cultural use would be disrupted by the audible
intrusions of repeated gunfire.'' ``The construction of a shooting
range in this location,'' the Council went on, ``would clearly result
in disruptions to traditional cultural use of the area and diminish
elements of the butte's integrity as a historic resource, such as the
visual setting and feeling of the area.''
We participated in BLM's consideration of the project under the
National Environmental Policy Act, too, though we objected--as did the
Advisory Council--to the narrow range of alternatives BLM considered,
and their rejection of alternatives on economic grounds. We were
appalled when BLM determined that the project would not have a
significant effect on the quality of the human environment. We have
appealed BLM's decision, and our appeal is now being considered by the
Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). S.3565 would pre-empt the IBLA's
consideration of our appeal, short-circuiting the normal process
maintained by the Department of the Interior for addressing concerns
about Interior agency decisions--all to accommodate a few local
recreational shooters who want a gun club close to their homes,
provided for free by the federal government.
The Mojave people have lived in our homeland from the beginning of
time, and today we continue to believe in the ways that relate and
connect us to the land, water, mountains and creatures of the earth.
Our religion honors such things; we are instructed to live in harmony
with them and seek balance when harm is upon us. The valley is our home
and we will do everything we can to protect the places that our
ancestors taught us have special meaning. No one has the right to take
the use of such places away from us. Today, we share and teach our
people of these places, that they can grow strong in their spiritual
connection with all things. We mature into these responsibilities and
work toward the day when we may be fortunate enough to arrive at full
understanding of it all as we continue our life here on earth. Avi
Vasqui is one of those places that tie into the greater teachings that
we struggle to understand. The United States government inherited these
special places when it took our lands away; we expect the government to
preserve and protect them, and to respect the value that we place on
them. The government has a long-established trust responsibility to the
tribes, but when we have spoken to the federal agency of our concerns
regarding this project, the result is what is now before you--S.3565.
We do not oppose letting the residents of the area have a shooting
range, but Arizona's Mohave County already has two such ranges, one in
Golden Valley and the other in Lake Havasu City. There is also a
shooting range in Needles, California. Constructing the range that
would desecrate Avi Vasqui is ``justified'' by only two things; it
would relieve some local shooters of the need to travel on the newly
constructed, federally funded roads to Golden Valley and the land can
be obtained for free.
Besides proposing to desecrate our sacred site and ignore the U.S.
government's trust responsibility toward our tribe, S.3565 proposes to
casually substitute the unsubstantiated judgments of its authors for
the deliberations, analyses, and consultations required by two long-
established statutes--the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Both these laws are
designed to cause federal agencies to ``look before they leap''.to
consider the effects of their actions on the human environment in the
case of NEPA and on historic places in the case of NHPA. Both laws, and
the regulations implementing them, require thoughtful analysis,
consultation, and consideration of alternatives. S.3565 peremptorily
and arbitrarily declares both NEPA and NHPA (and all other laws) to be
satisfied and then insulates this unsubstantiated finding of ``fact''
from judicial review. S.3565 essentially tells the Secretary of the
Interior: ``Do NOT look before you leap; do NOT fully consider the
environmental impacts of your decision, do NOT even let your IBLA
review BLM's NEPA decision as it does other decisions appealed by
citizens, because we, the sponsors of this bill, have decided that we
cannot let mere environmental impacts, mere historic places, or mere
tribal spiritual values burden a small group of recreational shooters
in Arizona with the requirement to drive a few miles or pay a few
dollars in order to shoot their rifles.''
We ask you please, in recognition of your responsibility to Native
American people and in the name of common sense and common decency, to
oppose S.3565.
Sincerely yours,
Shane Lewis,
Vice Chairman.
______
Hualapai Tribal Council,
Peach Springs, AZ, September 28, 2010.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chair, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE:S. 3565, the Mohave Valley Land Conveyance Act of 2010; Opposition
of the Hualapai Tribe Due to Impacts on Boundary Cone Butte
Dear Chairman Wyden: On behalf of the Hualapai Indian Tribe, we are
opposed to S. 3565, captioned the ``Mohave Valley Land Conveyance Act
of 2010.'' This bill is listed on the agenda for a hearing to be
conducted by your Subcommittee on September 29, a hearing in which
several other bills are also on the agenda. We ask that this letter be
included in the record of that hearing.
The Hualapai Tribe objects to S. 3565 out of concern for Wi 'vis'--
Kwi--va, known in English as Boundary Cone Butte, which is located on
land currently under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) in Mohave County, Arizona. Boundary Cone Butte holds religious
and cultural importance for the Hualapai Tribe as well as for the Fort
Mojave Indian Tribe. Because of its importance for both Tribes,
Boundary Cone Butte has been determined to be eligible for the National
Register as a traditional cultural property.
The sanctity of Boundary Cone Butte is crucial to the ability of
tribal religious practitioners to carry on traditional practices and to
pass these traditions along to younger generations. The two Tribes are
closely related to each other culturally, and Boundary Cone Butte is
located in an area that each Tribe regards as being within its
aboriginal homeland.
For many years, the sanctity of Boundary Cone Butte has been
threatened by a proposal to construct and operate a shooting range on
nearby federal land. Earlier this year, on February 10, 2010, BLM
issued a decision to convey 315 acres of federal public land to the
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) for use as a shooting range.
The proposed site for the shooting range is about two miles from
Boundary Cone Butte. On the same date that the BLM decision was
announced, BLM also issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
based on an environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed action. As
documented in the EA, the operation of a shooting range so close to
Boundary Cone Butte will cause adverse effects on Boundary Cone Butte,
especially the noise from the shooting range, which will interfere with
traditional religious and cultural practices by members of the two
Tribes.
The Hualapai Tribe and the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe have jointly
appealed this decision by BLM. Our appeal is currently pending in the
Interior Board of Land Appeals.
S. 3565 would endorse the decision that BLM made on February 10,
2010. But it would go further than that. It would take away our rights
to file an administrative appeal of the decision and to seek judicial
review after the appeal has been decided.
We urge the Subcommittee to stop this bill.
We ask that the Subcommittee take into consideration the fact that
BLM made this decision despite a formal letter from the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation recommending that BLM not approve the
Boundary Cone location. The Advisory Council recognized that the noise
caused by a shooting range would severely disrupt the sanctity of
Boundary Cone. In a letter to Secretary of the Interior Dirk
Kempthorne, dated November 3, 2008, John Nau, III, Chairman of the
Advisory Council, said, in part, ``There is a basic incompatibility
between the land uses of a shooting range and an area where traditional
cultural use would be disrupted by the audible intrusions of repeated
gunfire.'' (Emphasis added.) In addition to the adverse effect on the
integrity of Boundary Cone Butte and the characteristics that give this
place historic significance, the audible intrusions of repeated gunfire
will impose a burden on the exercise of religious practices by
traditional tribal members.
This proposed shooting range has been sought for more than a decade
by Tri-State Shooting Recreation Center, Inc., which has been pushing
BLM to approve this project. The Hualapai Tribe found out about this
project after the first EA and FONSI were released in December 2003,
and the Tribe has voiced its opposition since the Spring of 2004. The
Fort Mojave Tribe had become engaged in the environmental review
process in the fall of 2003. After the failure of BLM to engage in
consultation with the Tribes early in the planning process, an
alternative dispute resolution process was convened by the U.S.
Institute on Environmental Conflict Resolution. The Tribes believed
that process would yield a genuine, if belated, effort to consider
alternative locations. Unfortunately, those efforts collapsed. The
Hualapai Tribe believes that the failure of the alternative dispute
resolution should have led BLM to a decision to prepare an
environmental impact statement with a genuine search for alternative
locations.
We note that the EA and FONSI for this project were prepared for
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This BLM
decision is also subject to compliance with other federal environmental
laws, including but not limited to the consultation process under
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as
implemented through the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. 36 C.F.R. part 800. S. 3565 would decree, by act of
Congress, that BLM's efforts to comply with NEPA and NHPA were
adequate. We do not believe that BLM's efforts were adequate. These
issues are currently on appeal before the IBLA.
The EA attempts to convey the idea that BLM has made a genuine
effort to fulfill its responsibilities under NHPA section 106. In fact,
when the Section 106 process did not lead to the result that BLM
wanted, BLM simply stopped trying to consult. After the failure of the
alternative dispute resolution, BLM announced that it was
``terminating'' the NHPA Section 106 process. Under the Advisory
Council's regulations, when the federal agency terminates consultation,
the head of the agency must formally request the Advisory Council to
file comments on the proposed undertaking. After the Advisory Council
comments, the head of the agency must ``take into account the Council's
comments in reaching a final decision on the undertaking.'' 36 C.F.R.
Sec. 800.7(c)(4). The requirements set out in the regulations are
based on section 110(l) of the statute, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470h-2(l),
which provides that, for any proposed federal undertaking that
adversely affects any property on or eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places, if the federal agency has not entered into an
agreement pursuant to the Advisory Council's regulations, then any
decision to proceed with the undertaking despite the failure to resolve
adverse effects must be made by the heads of the agency. The statute
says, ``The head of the agency may not delegate his or her
responsibilities pursuant to such section.''
The letter purporting to document that the head of BLM actually
considered the Advisory Council's comments was signed on January 16,
2009, by the person who was acting as Director of BLM. Regardless of
whether that action complies with the letter of the law, it subverted
the spirit of the law. The rationale for elevating this decision to the
head of the agency is to provide some degree of accountability--there
is no accountability when an administration makes such a decision on
its last working day in office.
The fact that this proposal has even been given serious
consideration by BLM and project proponents conveys the message to us
that the decision-makers in BLM do not understand the importance of the
Mojave Valley landscape for the cultural identity of each of the
Tribes. The Tribes continue to believe that an acceptable alternative
location could be found, if the proponents of the project really wanted
to.
We do not believe that the sanctity of a historic property that is
important for our freedom of religion and cultural identity should be
sacrificed to make way for a shooting range. We ask that this
Subcommittee put a stop to S. 3565.
Thank you for your consideration of our views on this matter.
Sincerely,
Wilfred Whatoname, Sr.
Chairman.
______
Statement of the Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies and Bear Trust International*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A listing of other undersigned groups have been retained in
subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Senators Bingaman and Murkowski: The undersigned
organizations, representing millions of hunters and recreational
shooters, are requesting that a hearing be held on S. 3565, the Mohave
Valley Land Conveyance Act of 2010. The legislation will transfer land
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the Arizona Game and
Fish Commission for use as a public shooting range.
The land transfer will bring to closure an exhaustive search and
planning effort to relocate a shooting range in Bullhead City, Arizona
that lost its site due to competition from other public land
recreational uses. It has taken more than a decade to complete the
process, which is now being threatened by administrative appeals that
could delay the transfer for another several years.
Our organizations have a long association with the BLM and the
other federal land management agencies through memoranda of
understanding (MOU) focused on protection and enhancement of
sportsmen's access to federal public lands. One of the MOU initiatives
is to find places for people to target shoot, to sight in their rifles
for hunting season, and to receive instruction on the safe and
responsible handling of firearms.
Often, federal lands are the only places for people to participate
in these traditional recreational activities. One of the first issues
presented to the MOU partners in 1999 was the closure of the Bullhead
shooting range. We have been strong supporters of, and have been
monitoring closely, the BLM and state efforts to locate a new shooting
range.
A similar bill, H.R. 2100, has received a hearing and we are hoping
your Committee will add S. 3565 to the hearing schedule as soon as
possible so that Bullhead City can finally have a shooting range
restored for the community's use and enjoyment.
______
Statement of Patrick D. Otto, President, Tri-State Shooting Recreation
Center Inc., Fort Mohave, AZ, on S. 3565
Dear Honorable Chairman, I would like this to read into the record
for the subcommittee hearing on S-3565. For the past 12 years we, the
Tri-State Recreation Shooting Range organization have been trying to
obtain land from the BLM for the purpose of building a shooting range
to serve the needs of Bullhead City and Mohave Valley in Arizona,
Needles, California and Laughlin, Nevada.
We had a shooting range on BLM land in Bullhead City. In 1998 BLM
asked us because of development encroachment to give up the existing
range with the assurance that BLM would provide another location away
from the rapidly developing area.
BLM has made a creditable effort to identify land for this much
needed facility. BLM efforts have been opposed from day one by the Fort
Mohave and Hualapai Tribes. Two representatives of the respective
tribes addressed the House Natural Resources subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests & Public Lands on February 25, 2010 and stated directly
to that body that they oppose any shooting range and refuse to make any
compromise to a shooting range in Mohave Valley. BLM has been 12 years
trying to find a location or mitigate any concerns the tribes have, to
no avail.
BLM finally after 12 years selected a site for the range and of
course this BLM decision was immediately appealed to the Interior
Bureau of Land appeals where it currently awaits action. We are
confident because of the extensive documentation and countless good
faith negotiations with the Tribes that IBLA will uphold the BLM
decision. We are aware that when that occurs the Tribes will then turn
to the judicial process to drag this proposal out for who knows how
many additional years.
In the meantime our public lands are being trashed by wild cat
shooting. The safety of other public land recreational users
compromised and our local law enforcement officers do not have a place
to train or maintain their necessary fire arms skills.
If the tribes oppose for specific reasons the site selected it
would be one thing but they oppose all sites for a shooting range, this
despite the fact that they have a range of their own on Tribal land in
Mohave Valley.
The Tri-State area, Arizona, Nevada and California have at present
time a population of about 70,000 people and growing every day. It is
essential for a whole host of reasons that a facility for the safe use
of fire arms be provided.
Senator John McCain with Senator Kyle as co-sponsor has introduced
Senate Bill 3565, ``The Mohave Valley Land Conveyance Act of 2010''.
Since our membership consists of Laughlin, Nevada residents and it is
conceivable that Nevada residences as far north as Searchlight will use
this facility, that you would consider co-sponsoring S3565 and help it
move forward. It is evident without Congressional action this issue
which has now drug on 12 years may not have a resolution in sight, not
to mention the needless expense caused by both Tribes' unreasonable
refusal to consider any resolution and to further inaccurately assume
that we are insensitive to their tribal culture.
We would really appreciate your help in resolving this urgent
matter and thank you again for you consideration.
______
Vermont Land Trust,
King Farm, Woodstock, VT.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
RE: S. 3612--Proposal to Add the King Farm to the Marsh-Billings-
Rockefeller National Historical Park in Woodstock, Vermont.
Dear Senators Bingaman and Murkowski, Thank you for this
opportunity to submit written testimony in support of S. 3612. My name
is Gil Livingston. I am the President of the Vermont Land Trust, a
statewide land conservation organization that in its 33-year history
has helped conserve more than 500,000 acres of productive farm and
forestland, wildlife habitat, recreational properties, and land
important to communities throughout the state of Vermont. In 1987, as a
result of a bequest from Francisca King Thomas, VLT made one of its
earliest and most significant acquisitions, the historic property known
as the King Farm in Woodstock, Vermont. The King Farm is an outstanding
example of an early 19th century Vermont hill farm, and is now listed
on the National Register of Historic Sites.
When Francisca King Thomas signed her will in the early 1980s, the
Vermont Land Trust was a regional organization known as the
Ottauquechee Regional Land Trust with its headquarters located in
Woodstock. The establishment of the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National
Historical Park was more than a decade in the future. Because
Francisca's objective was to assure that the property would forever
remain in agricultural, forestry, educational, and conservation use,
VLT was the logical recipient of her bequest at the time.
Since 1987, however, VLT has evolved into a statewide conservation
organization and in 1990 moved its headquarters to Montpelier, an
hour's distance from Woodstock. The National Historical Park came into
existence soon after, and in the intervening years has built an
outstanding relationship with the local community. When Woodstock
conducted a community visioning process several years ago, there was a
growing public interest in seeing the King Farm make a more active
contribution to the community and to conservation in general, through
historic preservation, trails, community gardens, control of invasive
species, as well as through educational and conservation programs with
the Vermont Youth Conservation Corps, Student Conservation Association,
Woodstock Union High School, and others.
To achieve the full potential of the King Farm as an historic,
environmental, educational, and community resource, the presence of an
on-site manager is required. With the Vermont Land Trust now
headquartered in Montpelier and the National Park staff located
immediately adjacent to the King Farm, a change in ownership seemed
almost self-evident. After our initial conversations with the Park
Service staff and an internal review within NPS, we took our proposal
to the community of Woodstock. As Exhibit D indicates, we made
extensive efforts to reach all corners of the community, including
direct contact with all neighboring landowners, conversations with
public officials and community leaders, articles in the local
newspapers, and an open house and a public hearing where all were
welcome. The response was universally positive.
We believe that this proposal not only furthers the educational and
conservation mission of the Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National
Historic Park and the Vermont Land Trust, but will honor and fulfill
the goals and legacy of Francisca King Thomas. This proposal will:
Improve the ability of the National Park Service to serve
its host community;
Achieve Francesca King Thomas' objectives more effectively
by creating the opportunity for additional robust conservation,
education, and working lands uses of the King Farm;
Provide for more rigorous stewardship of historic farmstead
buildings of National significance; and
With the continued aid of the Vermont Land Trust, support
innovative partnerships between the Park Service and community
organizations.
Thank you again for this opportunity to submit written testimony to
the Committee about this proposal. I have attached several documents*
that describe in great detail the historic, cultural, environmental,
and community attributes of this extraordinary property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All documents and exhibits have been retained in subcommittee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sincerely,
Gil Livingston,
President.
______
Statement of Jim Stratton, Alaska Regional Director, National Parks
Conservation Association, on S. 3820
The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) works to
protect, preserve, and enhance America's national parks for present and
future generations. On behalf of NPCA's 325,000 members, and especially
the national parks in Alaska, we appreciate the opportunity to submit
these comments for the record.
The National Parks Conservation Association generally supports the
purpose and basic concept behind S. 3820, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for a micro-hydro project in
the non-wilderness areas within the boundaries of Denali National Park
and Preserve and to acquire land for Denali National Park and Preserve
from Doyon Tourism, Inc.
This bill would help businesses in the Kantishna region of Denali
National Park & Preserve reduce their dependency on diesel powered
electrical generation in favor of power produced by micro-hydro sites.
As such, this switch to renewable hydro energy would also reduce the
number of trips that fuel trucks would have to make over the park road
to deliver diesel to power the existing generators. The micro-hydro
site proposed by Doyon for its Kantishna Roadhouse property would occur
on a stream that was mined as recently as 1995. This is definitely not
wilderness.
This bill would also direct the Park Service and Doyon to enter
into a land exchange agreement that would bring the land necessary to
support the micro-hydro site, and other lands adjacent to the existing
Doyon properties in Kantishna, into Doyon's ownership in exchange for a
Doyon-owned parcel identified by the Park Service as a priority for
acquisition and inclusion in the park.
We do have several changes we would recommend the committee to
consider:
1. While there is strong support for this bill, and
Congressional authorization is necessary for the Park Service
to ultimately issue a permit, the bill as currently written
says that a permit will be issued within 180 days. The ultimate
decision for this project must be left to the National Park
Service after it completes its NEPA review of the potential
environmental impacts. The bill should be clear that a NEPA
review is necessary. As such, the time limit should be removed,
and;
2.The word ``shall'' on page 3, line 15 should be replaced
with the word ``may.'' This gives the Park Service the
necessary discretion to complete its environmental review and
make an independent determination based on that analysis.
With these changes, not only is Doyon able to reduce its dependency
on diesel powered electrical generators, but the public is ensured that
it is done in the most environmentally friendly way possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
______
Statement of Daniel R. Barrone, Chairman, Taos County Board of
Commissioners, Taos, NM, on S. 3822
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: I appreciate the
opportunity to express my support and the support of the Taos County
Board of Commissioners for S 3822, the Carson National Forest Boundary
Adjustment Act of 2010. This legislation, introduced by our New Mexico
senators, Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, would expand the
boundaries of the Carson National Forest in Taos County to include the
nearly 5,000-acre Miranda Canyon property. I am pleased that the Obama
Administration and the Forest Service have testified in support of this
legislation during the committee's hearing on the bill on September 29,
2010.
If Congress were to pass the bill, the Forest Service would be
authorized to acquire the Miranda Canyon tract via appropriations from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The landowners and the public in
Taos County are strongly in favor of such an acquisition for
conservation purposes. The property has been proposed for development,
which would significantly impact the recreation, water, scenic and
wildlife resources that are found on this spectacular tract.
The Miranda Canyon property is located several miles south of Taos,
immediately adjacent to the Carson National Forest, and ranges in
elevation from 7,200 ft. to 10,801 feet--the summit of Picuris Peak.
The property has various vegetative types from low elevation sagebrush
and pifion juniper to high elevation mixed conifer forest containing
large aspen stands. There are also numerous meadows and riparian
vegetation that provide excellent habitat for wildlife. The protection
of this land would provide additional recreational opportunities for
hunting, sightseeing, camping, hiking, interpretation, and horseback
riding for the public.
The Miranda Canyon parcel encompasses nearly 5,000 acre within the
Arroyo Miranda watershed. This private parcel controls roughly half of
the area within the upper watershed while the other half is already
owned by the USFS. This watershed is an important recharge zone for the
underlying aquifer which provides domestic water for Llano Quemado and
Ranchos de Taos. The 1999 Bauer-Johnson paper from the New Mexico
Bureau of Geology and Natural Resources clearly defines the complex
hydrogeology of Miranda Canyon. Below the Canyon is the convergence of
the four major earthquake faults in New Mexico. These faults, according
to Bauer-Johnson, could lead to diversion or loss of the aquifers if
the area was developed and multiple domestic wells were drilled. This
project eliminates the chance of conversion to other uses and protects
the watershed's integrity.
The landscape has numerous ridges and peaks that provide
breathtaking views of the Rio Grande Gorge to the west and of Wheeler
Peak, the highest peak in New Mexico, to the north. The property also
contains historical features such as the Old Spanish Trail, a pack mule
trail that served as a link between land-locked New Mexico and coastal
California between 1829 and 1848, when other routes became more
popular. Recognizing the national significance of this historic trade
route, Congress designated it the Old Spanish National Historic Trail
in 2002. Other geological features on the property include a unique
small volcano and 1.7 billion year old rock outcrops that rival the age
of rock found at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
I want to thank Senators Bingaman and Udall for their work on
behalf of this important conservation project in Taos County. We have
an immediate opportunity, working with a willing seller landowner, to
protect Miranda Canyon for current residents and future generations.
This legislation is a very important step forward in the protection
process and I urge its enactment this year.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement in support
of the expansion of the Carson National Forest.
______
Statement of John L. Nau, III, Chairman, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, on S. 3565
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NI IPA) and its implementing regulations,
``Protection of Historic Properties'' (36 CFR Part 800), 1 am writing
to convey to you the final comments of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) on the proposed authorization of the Mohave Valley
(Tri-State) Shooting Range and land transfer near Boundary Cone Butte,
Mohave County, Arizona.
Background
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been consulting with the
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), Fort Mojave Indian Tribe,
Hualapai Indian Tribe, Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), ACHP, and interested organizations and individuals on the
proposed authorization to construct a firearm shooting range on BLM
land in Mohave County, Arizona. The shooting range would be constructed
after BLM transfers ownership of the proposed property to AGM. At issue
arc adverse visual and auditory effects the shooting range would have
to Boundary Cone Butte, a property determined eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places, and the related larger valley
landscape of religious and cultural significance to the Fort Mojave and
Hualapai tribes. This undertaking has been under consideration for a
number of years, with the BLM publishing a Notice of Intent to amend
the Kingman Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1999 and
inviting the ACHP and Arizona SHPO to participate in the Section 106
consultation regarding this undertaking in 2006.
The AGFD's original proposal was to utilize the Boundary Cone Road
location for construction of the shooting range, a site to which the
Fort Mojave and Hualapai tribes objected. BLM considered 10 parcels on
its lands as potential alternative locations for the shooting range,
but did not analyze them because they did not meet AGFD's criteria. As
a result of a BLM-sponsored Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
process in 2004-2005, seven additional alternative locations were
identified, but only one, the Willow Road location, was subject
to:further analysis by BLM. The tribes also objected to this location.
The Willow Road location required an easement across tribal land, and
contained numerous unevaluated archaeological sites, and BLM eliminated
that alternative as well. Among the alternatives discussed, but not
analyzed, was a state-owned parcel that met all the criteria, including
lesser adverse effects, fewer environmental concerns, and proximity to
the shooting community, because AGFD would be required to pay the
Arizona State Land Office for the property.
BLM subsequently determined that further consultation would not be
productive, and in accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.7(a) terminated
consultation and requested that the ACHP provide formal comment. In
developing our comments, on October 21, 2008, I conducted a series of
meetings with each of the stakeholders in this process, which were very
helpful in enabling me to better understand the issues and why
agreement could not be achieved. As part of the ACHP's deliberative
process, the ACHP also solicited public input through Federal Register
notice and invitations to known interested parties.
Findings
Boundary Cone Butte and its environmental setting is of premier
religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes.--Boundary Cone
Butte, recognized as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places, is a property of traditional religious and cultural
significance to the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Hualapai Indian
Tribe. There is a basic incompatibility between the land uses of a
shooting range and an area where tradition cultural use would be
disrupted by the audible intrusions of repeated gunfire. The
construction of a shooting range in this location would clearly result
in disruptions to traditional cultural use of the area and diminish
elements of the butte's integrity as a historic resource, such as the
visual setting and feeling of the area. According to the tribes,
Imlaintaining the sanctity of this property is crucial to the ability
of tribal religious practitioners to carry on traditional practices and
to pass these traditions along to younger generations.''\1\. The tribes
have further argued that ``[t]he noise caused by a shooting range would
severely disrupt the sanctity of Boundary Cone as well as visually
alter the landscape and burden the exercise of religious
practices.''\2\ This linkage between the recognized significance of the
butte under the National Register criteria and its premier role in the
traditional practices and values of the tribes is of critical
importance in meeting the ``take into account'' standard established
for federal agencies in Section 106 of the NHPA. We question whether
BLM in its review of this matter has met this standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letters from Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and Hualapai Indian Tribe
to ACHP, October 23, 2008.
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunities were missed for alternative dispute resolution to
benefit Section 106 consultation.--BLM should be commended for its use
of ADR as a way of brokering differences on this problematic issue. It
is regrettable that it was not more successful. We further acknowledge
BLM's long consultation record under Section 106. It is troubling,
however, that BLM did not recognize the obvious need to connect
consultation under Section 106 with its ADR effort, especially since
the two could have been mutually beneficial. It was not until a year
following the ADR effort that BLM initiated consultation with the
Arizona SHPO and the ACHP under Section 106. The nationwide
Programmatic Agreement that BLM operates under to meet its Section 106
responsibilities requires that BLM shall request the ACHP's review of
``highly controversial undertakings.'' Surely having to invoke ADR
would constitute a clear indication that an undertaking had met this
test, and ACHP involvement should have been sought.
Shortcomings in BLM's study of Boundary Cone Butte compromised
informed decision-making.--Because of religious, cultural, and
confidentiality considerations, the tribes were reticent about
providing sensitive information regarding the identification of
historic properties within the area of potential effects for the
Boundary Cone Road alternative. While this posed challenges for BLM in
its identification effort, this could have been overcome had BLM
undertaken an ethnographic study as the Fort Mojave tribe requested in
2003 and the ACHP additionally recommended in late 2006. Such a study,
undertaken by a trained ethnographer and carried out in a sensitive
manner that provides for any confidentiality concerns that the tribes
may have, would have allowed BLM to move forward in the Section 106
process in consultation with the tribes to apply the criteria of
adverse effect to historic properties with greater authority and
confidence. This presented another flaw in how BLM chose to meet the
Section 106 requirements.
Consideration of alternatives is inadequate.--We do not believe
that BLM has adequately explored other locations and uses, despite the
time spent on consultation. Viable alternatives that could have avoided
impacts to lands of religious and cultural importance to tribes were
dismissed based primarily on cost considerations, such as the need to
purchase state or private land, current lack of electricity or road
access, and need for additional archaeological inventory. While we
understand the need for cost-effective development, this should not
come unreasonably at the expense of historic properties.
Recommendations
In view of the above findings and in consideration of the facts in
this matter as we understand them, the ACHP offers the following
recommendations:
I. BLM should not transfer to the AGFD land for purpose of
construction and operation of the Tri-State Shooting Range and
associated buffer areas as long as the proposed site for this
development is the Boundary Cone Road site. It should assess
other possible alternatives outside of the Mohave Valley that
have potential to meet the goals of the shooting community and
AGFD without impacting the historic property. Only after these
alternatives have been exhausted should BLM reassess other
possible alternatives that were identified through the ADR
process that have potential to meet the AGFD goals, while not
doing so at the expense of historic properties. One such
alternative might be a partnership that would enable the BLM to
transfer land to the state land agency in exchange for making
available to the AGFD, without cost, the state lands that have
been identified as the most promising site for the shooting
range. Another alternative might be the consideration of Site
number 1 previously considered under ADR and presently
identified by the Fort Mojave and Hualapai tribes as an
alternative that might warrant further consideration.
II. To address the on-going concerns regarding the tribal
significance attached to this area, the ACHP recommends that
BLM explore with the tribes and other concerned parties its
options to begin managing BLM lands within the entire valley in
a manner that recognizes the significance of this important
historic resource and affords it the kind of consideration it
is due as such. These options include considering designation
of the area as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
or a National Landscape Conservation Area (NLCS), which may
afford additional protection. BLM has indicated its willingness
to provide funds for landscape level studies to generate
information that will allow future Resource Management Plans
(RMP) to ``avoid impacts to significant cultural resources,
including areas of traditional cultural importance to Indian
tribes.''\3\ BLM should prioritize funding to institute this
level of planning for the Mohave Valley to begin to address the
landscape that is of clear significance to the tribes. Now that
BLM has recognized Boundary Cone Butte as a historic property,
it should move forward to restrict uncontrolled shooting on
adjacent BLM lands to protect the integrity of this site of
traditional religious and cultural importance to the tribes and
further diminish audible intrusions into its use by
practitioners.
\3\ BLM's Progress Report on Section 3 of E.O. 13287, September
2008, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.7(c)(4), you must take into
account these comments of the ACHP, and respond to them, prior to
reaching a decision on the proposed shooting range. In accordance with
Section 1 10(1) of the NHPA and the Section 106 implementing
regulations, this responsibility cannot be delegated. We request a
response to these comments by December 12, 2008, so that sufficient
time is available to identify alternative locations that would allow
for better preservation outcomes for historic properties.