U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–012 PDF 2015

H.R. 1776, ‘‘CLEAR CREEK NATIONAL 

RECREATION AREA AND CONSERVATION 

ACT’’; H.R. 2175, ‘‘WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL PRAYER ACT OF 2013’’; H.R. 2489, 

‘‘OREGON CAVES REVITALIZATION ACT 

OF 2013’’; AND H.R. 3806, ‘‘GREAT SMOKY 

MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK AGREEMENT ACT OF 2013’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, May 20, 2014 

Serial No. 113–73 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Vance M. McAllister, LA 

Bradley Byrne, AL 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Katherine M. Clark, MA 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Vance M. McAllister, LA 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Vacancy 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 ............................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Oregon ....................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Allard, Wayne, Vice President for Government Relations, American 

Motorcyclist Association ............................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 44 

Johnson, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio .. 6 

Koretoff, Steve, California Trail Users Association ....................................... 38 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40 

Lago, Lenise, Deputy Chief of Business Operations, U.S. Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture ................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Meadows, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

North Carolina .............................................................................................. 22 

Shuler, Heath, Asheville, North Carolina ...................................................... 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Sheaffer, Bruce, Comptroller, National Park Service, U.S. Department 

of the Interior ................................................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2175 and H.R. 2489 .................................. 9 

Prepared statement on H.R. 3806 ............................................................ 29 

Rountree, Carl, Assistant Director, National Landscape Conservation 

System and Community Partnerships, Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................................. 30 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record: 

Department of the Interior, Map submitted for the record, Resource Management Amendment and Route Designation for OHV roads and trails . 47 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 53 

Material submitted for the record by Mark Meadows in support of H.R. 

3806 ................................................................................................................ 23 

Miscellaneous Letters submitted for the record in opposition of H.R. 

2175 ................................................................................................................ 48 

Public Land Council and Cattlemen’s Associations, Letter submitted for 

the record by Rep. Bishop in opposition of H.R. 2489 ............................... 5 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1776, TO ESTABLISH THE 

CLEAR CREEK NATIONAL RECREATION AREA IN SAN 

BENITO AND FRESNO COUNTIES, TO DESIGNATE THE 

JOAQUIN ROCKS WILDERNESS IN SUCH COUNTIES, TO DESIGNATE ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILD 

AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, 

‘‘CLEAR CREEK NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND CONSERVATION ACT’’; H.R. 2175, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF 

THE INTERIOR TO INSTALL IN THE AREA OF THE WORLD 

WAR II MEMORIAL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A SUITABLE PLAQUE OR AN INSCRIPTION WITH THE WORDS THAT 

PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT PRAYED WITH THE 

UNITED STATES ON JUNE 6, 1944, THE MORNING OF D-DAY, 

‘‘WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL PRAYER ACT OF 2013’’; H.R. 2489, 

TO MODIFY THE BOUNDARY OF THE OREGON CAVES NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘OREGON 

CAVES REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2013’’; AND H.R. 3806, TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 

AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE TENNESSEE VALLEY 

AUTHORITY, THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, SWAIN 

COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ‘‘GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS 

NATIONAL PARK AGREEMENT ACT OF 2013’’ 

Tuesday, May 20, 2014 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, Tipton, LaMalfa; Grijalva, 

Garcia, and DeFazio. 

Also Present: Representative Johnson of Ohio. 

Mr. BISHOP. This hearing will come to order. The Chair notes the 

presence of a quorum. Under the rules, the opening statements are 

limited to the Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask 

unanimous consent to include any other Members’ opening statements in the hearing record if submitted to the clerk by the close 

of business today. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Hearing no objections, that is so ordered. I want to 

thank you and welcome you to this particular hearing. We are talking about four specific bills. Actually, this was going to be a longer 

hearing with more bills. However, we had problems with Members 

and with witnesses who were not able to be here. So we will talk 

about H.R. 1776—nice number—H.R. 2175, H.R. 2489, 

H.R. 3806. 

2 

With that, I am going to waive any opening statement. Mr. 

Grijalva, do you wish to make an opening statement? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me just enter my statement 

into the record. But at this point I would like to yield the balance 

of my time to Ranking Member DeFazio for his legislation, legislation that—the Oregon Caves Revitalization Act, a top priority for 

the Member and the constituents he serves. 

With that, I would yield my time to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Actually, if you want to go now, you are the 

next one on the docket, anyway, so we will just assume that statements have been made. I appreciate all that. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you—— 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I welcome the opportunity to hear from members and the administration on these 

four important bills. 

First, I would like to welcome our distinguished Full Committee Ranking 

Member, Mr. DeFazio to the subcommittee. I hope that today’s hearing will be the 

first step in passing his bill, the Oregon Caves Revitalization Act. A bill that has 

been a top-priority for the Ranking Member and his constituents for many years. 

I also would like to welcome my colleague from California, Mr. Farr to the subcommittee. I would like to commend Congressman Farr for his tireless efforts to 

move his legislation forward. 

The bipartisan Clear Creek National Recreational Area and Conservation Act 

brings a broad-coalition of stakeholders together on one bill. Everybody from OHV 

users, conservationists, hunters, hikers and many others. I am especially pleased to 

see that a popular area known as the Joaquin Rocks would be permanently protected as Wilderness in this bill. 

Finally, I hope that today’s hearing will give us an opportunity to discuss the merits of installing a plaque at the World War II Memorial with a prayer that President 

Franklin Roosevelt recited to the Nation shortly after the D-Day invasion began. 

The Allied invasion on D-Day involved tens of thousands of servicemen many of 

whom never returned from battle. President Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the American people on June 6, 1944 to comfort and offer prayer to those anxiously awaiting 

news of the invasion. I believe it was admirable of President Roosevelt to speak directly to the American people and offer prayer, however, I do have concerns about 

whether having a prayer installed at the World War II Memorial would go against 

one of the countries founding principles, the separation between church and State. 

Also would this alienate some veterans who sacrificed their lives for this country 

but may not have shared the same religious beliefs as President Roosevelt or 

others? 

I look forward to the opportunity to hear from today’s witnesses and ask 

questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. We are going to turn to the first panel of witnesses. 

We have a couple here: Mr. DeFazio, who does have a bill, as well 

as Mr. Johnson is here and former Senator Allard is here with us 

on the first panel. We are going to add Mr. Farr, Mr. Meadows, 

and former Representative Shuler here when they arrive. So we 

will proceed on with that. 

Mr. DeFazio, if you would like to go first to recognize your bill, 

which has a number, and it is there somewhere, and I am sure it 

is wonderful. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, it is. You will like it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. You are recognized. 

3 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oregon Caves Revitalization Act, it was actually—President Roosevelt first proposed the 

Oregon Caves as a monument. It was actually not designated until 

the Taft administration, and by then they had shrunk the size from 

2,500 to 400 acres. The Park Service proposed as early as 1939 to 

expand the monument, and they proposed it again in 1949 and 

1999 for a couple of reasons. 

One is we now understand the extent of the caves, we understand the watershed that feeds the unique River Styx, which I invite people to visit. It is the only underground wild and scenic river 

that we have, and it is also a really great point we can crawl—you 

can put on a wetsuit and crawl up inside, that is really also very 

special. I haven’t done that part. 

And it has a unique, absolutely unique, chateau. If you go to 

visit, it is kind of like going back—they put in cable, but some people came and stole all the cable. But now they have gotten a radio 

telephone, that is it. It is a pretty isolated area. When you walk 

in the lobby, there is actually a point where a stream runs through 

the chateau, which is sided by a cedar bark, which is extraordinary, built in the 1930s. So it is an amazing, amazing place to 

visit. 

And we need to both preserve it for future generations, and potentially increase visitation in a very, very depressed area. We 

have an incredible range of support for this project, and I would 

submit some 30 letters from the local community and the counties 

in that area, if I could, to the record, in support of this. 

The Forest Service has no position on this issue. The Park Service is advocating for it. The major issue in contention is getting 

some fuel reduction work done. The Forest Service hasn’t had the 

budget to do that, and that is critical to the watershed of the caves, 

because this is a dry, hot part of Oregon—yes, we have those in 

the summer, anyway—and we are very worried about the threat of 

fire there. The Park Service has committed to going ahead with the 

needed fuel reduction work, should the management pass to them. 

So, we think that this would both benefit the area in terms of 

reducing fire risk, it would certainly benefit the caves, the water 

quality, the visitor experience, and give an opportunity for some 

recreational experience, in terms of hiking, which really doesn’t 

exist on the 450-acre monument, and the Park Service and the 

Forest Service hasn’t really developed trails into that area. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for hearing 

this bill, and I hope that the committee views it favorable. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And any written statement you have 

will be added to the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Thank you, Chairman, for holding this legislative hearing and for including 

H.R. 2486, the Oregon Caves Revitalization Act. This is important legislation to my 

district and State. 

The Oregon Caves, often called the ‘‘Marble Halls of Oregon,’’ is a spectacular 

place. The caves are located deep inside the Siskiyou Mountains and were created 

4 

over thousands of years as rainwater from the ancient forests above dissolved the 

surrounding marble and created one of the world’s few marble caves. The complex 

hydrology and geology found at Oregon Caves makes it home to some of the rarest 

plants and animals found on the planet. 

President Howard Taft protected Oregon Caves as a 480-acre national monument 

in 1909—using the authorities of the Antiquities Act. At the time, many believed 

the designation was too small because they rightly assumed the central cave was 

part of a much larger cave system. In fact, the initial proposed withdrawal by the 

Secretary of the Interior in 1909 was for more than 2,500 acres. 

Expanding the Oregon Caves National Monument to include the nearby caves and 

the surface streams—that impact the hydrology of the caves and provide drinking 

water for thousands of visitors every year—has been attempted numerous times 

since. National Park system staff proposed expansion in 1939—75 years ago this 

year. Expansion was proposed again in 1949. Most recently in 1999 the National 

Park Service finalized a general management plan that called for expanding the 

monument boundaries to include nearby caves, the surface streams, and parts of the 

surrounding watershed to safeguard this incredibly unique natural treasure. 

The monument is visited by more than 80,000 people per year—creating jobs, supporting local businesses, and serving as an economic engine in rural Josephine 

County and the town of Cave Junction. The monument also includes a Chateau, 

opened in 1934, a six-story hotel with 23 rooms that features local art work, 

produce, meats, wines, and an Oregon-must: local microbrews. A recent survey by 

the Park Service found that visitors would come more often and stay longer— 

meaning spend more money in the local community—if recreational opportunities 

around the caves were expanded. 

Mr. Chairman, I have been working on an expansion of the Oregon Caves 

National Monument for three Congresses and through a lot of hard work and collaboration with local stakeholders and agencies, the Oregon Delegation has produced a good bill. 

When the bill was first introduced in the 111th Congress, then-Oregon Senator 

Gordon Smith raised concerns about how the bill would impact the Park Service’s 

ability to conduct much needed fuel reduction work within the expanded boundary. 

I shared these concerns and we added language to direct the Park Service to revise 

the fire management plan for the Monument and to carry out hazardous fuel management activities as soon as possible. 

When we heard concerns from local recreational groups about hunting and fishing 

access, we added a specific section clarifying that the Secretary ‘‘shall permit hunting, fishing, and trapping on land and water within the National Preserve . . .’’ In 

fact, the expanded monument area would technically be designated as a ‘‘preserve’’ 

for that very reason. 

I have worked with the Forest Service at every level—national, regional, and local 

to clarify that this bill isn’t about taking land from one Federal agency and giving 

to another. It’s about rationalizing the management for the unique Oregon caves 

system, expanding recreation and tourism opportunities, and designating the first 

subterranean Wild and Scenic River—the River Styx. 

I also worked with the Forest Service on language to ensure that all existing 

Forest Service contracts within the proposed expansion area are preserved and executed through their completion, and we worked with the city of Cave Junction to 

carve out 4 acres for their water treatment plant. 

This bill is long overdue—having been introduced in multiple congresses, having 

received multiple congressional hearings, and having now passed out of the Senate 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee unanimously and without amendment. I 

am hopeful that we can quickly move forward to mark this bill up and move it to 

the Floor of the House. 

Mr. Chairman, I also ask for unanimous consent that 40 letters of support for this 

legislation, most of which are from small business owners in Cave Junction and 

Josephine County, be included in the official record. 

Finally, I would like to welcome my colleague Congressman Sam Farr to the 

Natural Resources Committee to testify on his bill, the Clear Creek National 

Recreation Area and Conservation Act. It’s my understanding that this bill has been 

a little controversial, but I am no stranger to controversy when it comes to building 

a broad coalition of stakeholders to accomplish something important for my district. 

I applaud him on his efforts and look forward to hearing from Congressman Farr 

and the rest our witnesses on today’s bills. 

5 

Mr. BISHOP. I also have a letter from the National Cattleman’s 

Beef Association, the Oregon’s Cattleman’s Association, and the 

Public Lands Council that will be added to the record, as well. 

[The letter submitted by Mr. Bishop for the record follows:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD ON H.R. 2489 

MAY 19, 2014. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: Livestock Industry Opposition to the Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2013 

(H.R. 2489) 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP, RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA AND MEMBERS OF THE

COMMITTEE: 

The Public Lands Council (PLC), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

(NCBA) and Oregon Cattlemen’s Association (OCA) oppose the Oregon Caves 

Revitalization Act of 2013 (H.R. 2489) as written. PLC is the only national organization dedicated solely to representing the roughly 22,000 ranchers who operate on 

Federal lands. NCBA is the beef industry’s largest and oldest national marketing 

and trade association, representing American cattlemen and women who provide 

much of the Nation’s supply of food and own or manage a large portion of America’s 

private property. OCA is a grassroots membership driven organization established 

in 1913; representing Oregon’s second largest agricultural commodity, cattle and 

calves, and beef producers who manage a majority of the State’s 16.5 million acres 

of farm land. 

The Oregon Caves Revitalization Act of 2013, sponsored by Representatives Peter 

DeFazio (D-Ore), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore) and Suzanne 

Bonamici (D-Ore) seeks to add approximately 4,070 acres of land surrounding the 

Oregon Caves National Monument to the existing designated monument area with 

the stated goal being ‘‘to enhance the protection of the resources associated with the 

Monument’’ and ‘‘to increase public recreation opportunities.’’ This expansion would 

only farther restrict multiple uses in the surrounding area, causing added economic 

harm to communities in Oregon. Our industry supports the continued multiple use 

management of our Nation’s public lands and generally opposes special designations 

which pick winners and losers on who can access resources on the those lands. 

In addition to expanding the monument, PLC, NCBA and OCA strongly oppose 

the provision which seeks to limit and potentially ultimately retire livestock grazing 

on the monument. On its face this bill seeks to ‘‘grandfather in’’ existing grazing 

practices. However, the trend over time is undeniable: grazing numbers are reduced 

either by direct agency decisions, or because the cost of doing business in the designated area simply becomes prohibitive. The same is true for ‘‘voluntary’’ grazing 

lease or permit relinquishment. Too often, ranchers feel that they have no choice 

but to ‘‘voluntarily’’ relinquish their grazing permits due to pressure from radical 

environmental groups, or rising and prohibitive costs to operating on public land 

within a specially designated area. This is concerning considering that 40 percent 

of the Nation’s cattle, and 50 percent of the Nation’s sheep herds spend some time 

on public lands. The diminished presence of ranchers and livestock on the range 

contributes to the degradation of range health on Federal lands, and encourages the 

ex-urban development of the associated private lands. PLC, NCBA and OCA oppose 

permanent retirement of grazing permits. 

Section 5(b) of H.R. 2489 states that the Secretary concerned ‘‘shall revise the fire 

management plan for the Monument to include the National Preserve and, in accordance with the revised plan, carry out hazardous fuel management activities 

within the boundaries of the National Monument and Preserve.’’ PLC, NCBA and 

OCA contend that livestock grazing is the most efficient and cost effective method 

of fine fuels reduction on the range, and should therefore be used as a preferred 

fire prevention tool on public lands—not diminished as this bill would no doubt lead 

to. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on behalf of our members—the 

Nation’s food and fiber producers. While we recognize the need to make boundary 

6 

adjustments on Federal lands we strongly oppose permanent retirement of grazing 

permits and request the provision allowing for this be removed before the bill is 

moved out of committee. We urge members of the committee to support ranching 

families and to oppose the grazing retirement language included in H.R. 2489. 

Sincerely, 

PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL

NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION

OREGON CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION

Mr. BISHOP. With that, we appreciate it. Let me turn now to 

Congressman Johnson, who has with us here number H.R. 2175, 

the World War II Memorial Prayer Act. I will give you 5 minutes 

to present that bill to us, if you would. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BILL JOHNSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking 

Member Grijalva, for having this hearing on this legislation that I 

introduced, H.R. 2175, the World War II Memorial Prayer Act. 

This legislation very simply directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

install at the World War II Memorial a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that President Franklin Roosevelt prayed 

with our Nation on the morning of the D-Day invasion. This prayer, entitled, ‘‘Let Our Hearts Be Stout,’’ gave solace, comfort, and 

strength to our Nation and to our brave warriors, as we fought 

against tyranny and oppression. 

The World War II Memorial was built to honor the 16 million 

who served in the armed forces of the United States during that 

great conflict, and the more than 400,000 who died during the war. 

Prior to introducing the legislation in 2011, I spoke to many World 

War II veterans in Ohio, and asked them if they thought putting 

this prayer on the memorial would be appropriate. The answer was 

a resounding, ‘‘Yes.’’ 

It seems to me that if the remaining veterans of World War II 

are supportive of the prayer being added, we, as a country, should 

honor their request. But you don’t have to take my word for it, because 2 years ago this subcommittee was honored to have a constituent of mine, Poppy Fowler, testify in favor of this legislation. 

Poppy is now 90 years old, and served 3 years, 10 days, 1 hour, 

and 10 minutes, according to his clock, in the U.S. Navy during 

World War II. He flew 35 missions in Air Group 15 on SB2C 

Helldivers, as both a rear gunner and photographer. 

I had the pleasure of escorting Poppy on an honor flight trip to 

visit the World War II Memorial, and we became friends. Here is 

a brief excerpt of Poppy’s testimony at the hearing, and I quote: ‘‘I 

feel with no doubt that it would be appropriate that this prayer be 

inscribed in some manner at the World War II Memorial. Those 

reading this prayer will be able to recall the sacrifices made by our 

military, also those on the homefront. This prayer came at a perilous time, yet it was answered in victory at a dear cost of lives. 

Today, this prayer can pertain to any military action, and under 

present circumstances it is also appropriate.’’ 

So, I don’t think that anyone in this body could be more succinct 

and articulate than Mr. Fowler. Like Poppy, I have no doubt that 

7 

the prayer should be included among the tributes to the Greatest 

Generation memorialized on the National Mall. 

The majority of our colleagues also agreed with Poppy that this 

prayer should be included on the memorial, because on January 24, 

2012, the legislation here at the House passed, by a vote of 386 to 

26. Despite the best efforts of Senator Rob Portman, the legislation 

never made it to the Senate Floor for a vote. Senator Portman has 

reintroduced the legislation with bipartisan support from Senator 

Landrieu. And hopefully, this is the year that we are able to get 

the legislation through both chambers of Congress and to the 

President’s desk. 

It is vitally important that we move this legislation as quickly as 

possible, because time is of the essence. As some of you may know, 

there is estimated to be just over 1.5 million World War II veterans 

still living. And, furthermore, it is estimated that roughly 600 

World War II vets are dying every day. 

In other words, each week that goes by that we do not pass this 

legislation into law, another 4,000 World War II vets will have 

passed away without seeing this prayer added to the memorial. 

So, again, I sincerely thank the Chairman for having this important hearing, and getting one step closer to getting this prayer 

placed on the memorial. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Appreciate that, Mr. Johnson. And you 

are invited to stay with us. Actually, we are going to have testimony, I think, very quickly about your bill, if you would like to join 

us on the dais. 

Senator Allard—and I don’t mean to insult you by calling you 

‘‘Senator,’’ but you are on the good side here. I am going to do an 

audible here. The bill you are about to discuss, the two Members, 

the two Members who will be talking about it, are scheduled to arrive around 10:00. 

Mr. ALLARD. I see. 

Mr. BISHOP. If you have a busy schedule, we will take your testimony now. If you would like to wait and do it at the same time 

they do, I will postpone it until then. 

Mr. ALLARD. As long as I get out in plenty of time before noon, 

there is not a problem. I do have a meeting at noon. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. If we are not done by noon—— 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate 

it. 

Mr. BISHOP [continuing]. We all turn back to glass slippers. 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. So let me ask you just to stay there for a minute, 

and then invite from the Interior Department Mr. Bruce Sheaffer 

up to one of the microphones. 

And I am going to mess up your name, I apologize. Is it Lenise 

Lago? 

Ms. LAGO. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. I didn’t mess it up? I will try and do that better next 

time. Ask you to come up here. 

8 

And, Mr. Johnson, if you would like to stay, they are going to be 

testifying about your bill. So I don’t know what your schedule 

is—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I have another hearing, Mr. Chairman. I have to 

run—— 

Mr. BISHOP. I know. This is personal. You are going to leave anyway, right? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate you being here. 

What I would ask you to do, then, start with Mr. Sheaffer. I 

think you are testifying to—on both bills, right, on the part of the 

Park Service? If you would just speak to the DeFazio bill and the 

Johnson bill only; you do not need to use the full time, but we will 

be talking about the other bills later. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE SHEAFFER, COMPTROLLER, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. SHEAFFER. All right, Mr. Chairman. I will have a statement 

for the record, which I believe you already have. I will read a summary of those—on those two provisions. 

The first, the 2175, World War II Memorial. H.R. 2175 directs 

the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War 

II Memorial a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that 

President Roosevelt prayed with the citizens of the United States 

on June 6, 1944, the morning of D-Day. 

The Department appreciates the importance of faith in the lives 

of Americans across the country, the leadership of President 

Roosevelt, and the courage and sacrifices of Americans during 

World War II and today. The World War II Memorial recognizes a 

period of unprecedented national unity during the defining moment 

of the 20th century, and is devoted to the service, commitment, and 

shared sacrifice of Americans. The Department supports the continued application of the Commemorative Works Act, which states 

that the Secretary of the Interior shall design, procure, prepare, install the plaque or inscription, adhering to the important design review process in public consultation. 

We look forward to working with the Commission of Fine Arts 

and National Capital Planning Commission in designating an appropriate inscription and logistical plaque location, should this legislation be enacted. 

Regarding H.R. 2489, the Oregon Revitalization Act, H.R. 2489 

would adjust the boundary of Oregon Caves National Monument to 

include the addition of approximately 4,000 acres to enhance the 

protection of resources associated with the monument, and to increase quality recreation opportunities. The lands that would be 

added are currently managed by the U.S. Forest Service, as part 

of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The Department supports H.R. 2489, which is consistent with the general management 

plan for the Park. 

The bill contains a number of provisions related to the transfer 

of land from the Forest Service to the Park Service. These concern 

fire management, hunting, fishing, and grazing. We would like the 

9 

opportunity to work with committee, the sponsor, Forest Service, 

and the Bureau of Land Management on grazing provisions. 

The bill would also designate the subterranean segment of Cave 

Creek as a scenic river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and 

it would authorize a study of several other river segments for wild 

and scenic river designation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheaffer on H.R. 2175 and H.R. 

2489 follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE SHEAFFER, COMPTROLLER, NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ON H.R. 2175 AND H.R. 2489 

ON H.R. 2175, ‘‘WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL PRAYER ACT OF 2013’’ 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to 

present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2175, a bill which directs the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II 

Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the 

words that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt prayed with the United States on 

June 6, 1944, the morning of D-Day. 

The Department appreciates the importance of faith in the lives of Americans 

across this country, the leadership of President Roosevelt, and the courage and sacrifices of Americans during World War II and today. The World War II Memorial 

recognizes a period of unprecedented national unity during the defining moment of 

the twentieth century, and is devoted to the service, commitment, and shared sacrifice of Americans. 

H.R. 2175 proposes adding a commemorative work in the area of the existing 

World War II Memorial. We support the continued application of the Commemorative Works Act (CWA). Section 2 of this bill states that the Secretary of the Interior 

shall design, procure, prepare, and install the plaque or inscription, thus allowing 

the NPS to determine the placement and design of the plaque. However, section 3 

of the bill requires a different method of designing and locating the plaque or inscription than is provided in the CWA. The CWA process incorporates important design reviews and public consultation. We support retaining the CWA as the vehicle 

for siting and designing this plaque or inscription. 

The World War II Memorial was authorized on May 23, 1993, by Public Law 103– 

32. In 1994, Congress approved its placement in the area containing the National 

Mall through Public Law 103–422. Its location at the site of the Rainbow Pool was 

approved in 1995 by the NPS on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). 

In July 1997, the CFA and the NCPC reaffirmed prior approvals of the Rainbow 

Pool site in recognition of the significance of World War II as the single-most defining event of the 20th Century for Americans and the world. Even so, there were 

challenges to the establishment of this memorial. The design we see today was 

painstakingly arrived upon after years of public deliberations and spirited public debate. 

The National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) reviewed a proposal similar to the one before the committee today at its meeting on September 

14, 2011, and determined that no additional elements should be inserted into this 

carefully designed Memorial. The American Battle Monuments Commission 

(ABMC), charged by the Congress in Public Law 103–32 to design and build the 

World War II Memorial, is represented on the NCMAC, and thus concurred with 

that determination. 

If directed by Congress pursuant to this legislation, the NPS will work to find an 

appropriate location for the plaque in accordance with the CWA process, as directed 

in section 3 of this legislation. 

That concludes our prepared testimony on H.R. 2175, and we would be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

ON H.R. 2489, ‘‘OREGON CAVES REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2013’’ 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2489, a bill to modify 

the boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports H.R. 2489, which is consistent with the General 

Management Plan (GMP) for the park. 

10 

H.R. 2489 would adjust the boundary of Oregon Caves National Monument to 

include the addition of approximately 4,070 acres to enhance the protection of resources associated with the monument and to increase quality recreation opportunities. The lands that would be added are currently managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) as part of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. 

H.R. 2489 directs the Secretary to revise the fire management plan for the Monument to include transferred lands and carry out hazardous fuel management activities under that plan. Existing Forest Service stewardship or service contracts would 

continue to completion under the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture. 

The bill would authorize the Secretary to permit hunting and fishing within the 

Preserve. It also provides flexibility in managing the resources within the preserve 

by allowing the Secretary, in consultation with the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, to limit hunting and fishing in designated zones and over certain time periods. Based on information collected during the public participation process for the 

GMP, we would prefer to terminate hunting within the preserve after 5 years with 

the acreage being converted to national monument status. Of the 892 comments received on the plan, only 8, less than 1 percent, expressed concern about the loss of 

hunting should the added acres be designated as part of the national monument. 

H.R. 2489 would authorize the Secretary to allow grazing to continue within the 

Preserve at a level not greater than authorized under existing permits or leases at 

enactment. It would also direct the Secretary to accept voluntary donation of a grazing lease or permit for the Big Grayback Grazing Allotment (managed by the USFS) 

and the Billy Mountain Grazing Allotment (managed by the Bureau of Land Management) and terminate the donated lease or permit and ensure a permanent end 

to grazing on the land covered by the permit or lease. Claim to any range improvements on those lands would be waived. It is our understanding that the same individual runs livestock on both the Big Grayback and Billy Mountain Allotments. We 

would like the opportunity to work with the committee and sponsor on minor modifications to these grazing provisions. 

This bill would also designate the subterranean segment of Cave Creek, known 

as the River Styx, as a scenic river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Additionally, the bill would authorize a study of segments of Cave Creek, Lake Creek, No 

Name Creek, Panther Creek and Upper Cave Creek—all within the Monument and 

Preserve—under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

In 1907, the Secretary of the Interior withdrew approximately 2,560 acres for the 

purposes of establishing a national monument. The 1909 Presidential proclamation 

establishing Oregon Caves National Monument included only 480 acres. The monument was managed by the USFS until its administration was transferred to the 

National Park Service (NPS) in 1933. The remaining withdrawal outside of the 

monument is administered by the USFS as part of the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest. H.R. 2489 would mirror the 1907 withdrawal and adds some additional lands to conform the monument boundary to the watershed. 

The explorer Joaquin Miller extolled ‘‘The Wondrous marble halls of Oregon!’’ 

when speaking about the newly proclaimed Oregon Caves National Monument in 

1909. Oregon Caves is one of the few marble caves in the country that is accessible 

to the public. This park, tucked up in the winding roads of southern Oregon, is 

known for its remoteness, the cave majesty and unusual biota. The stream flowing 

from the cave entrance is a tributary to a watershed that empties into the Pacific 

Ocean. This is the only cave in the national park system with an unobstructed link 

to the ocean. 

The caves are nationally significant and a favorite visit for school kids and travelers alike. They remain alive and healthy because of the watershed above them. 

The park recognized this when developing the 1998 GMP and accompanying Environmental Impact Statement. The plan recommended the inclusion of the watershed 

into the park to provide for better cave protection and to protect the surface and 

subsurface hydrology and the public water supply. 

If H.R. 2489 were enacted, there would be no acquisition costs associated with the 

boundary expansion and we estimate NPS’s management, administrative, interpretive, resource protection, and maintenance costs to be approximately $400,000 to 

$550,000 annually. The NPS has been coordinating with the USFS on new signage 

along the Caves Highway; on the operation of the Illinois Valley Visitor Center in 

Cave Junction; and on the annual agreement for wildland fire suppression and dispatch services at the Monument. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement on H.R. 2489. I would be happy to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

11 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Now, Ms. Lago, I understand you are 

only talking about 2489, right? 

Ms. LAGO. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. Does any—I don’t have any questions. Let me address simply to Mr. Johnson’s bill, 2175, about the World War II 

Memorial Prayer Act. Do you have any questions on that particular 

Act? I don’t. Mr.—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And that is the memorial? 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, the memorial. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. If I—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Sheaffer? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. You are recognized. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Sheaffer, one of the questions that 

was forwarded to our office—let me just—would installing a prayer 

at the World War II Memorial set any precedent? Have there been 

other efforts to do that? And are you aware of any other religious— 

any other religion to install plaques or inscriptions on memorials, 

that you know of? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. On the first question, this is very similar, if not 

identical, to the Bob Dole plaque that had been installed at the direction of Congress at the World War II Memorial. So it is clearly 

not a precedent-setting event here. 

Regarding religious inscriptions, there are numerous religious inscriptions on memorials, and even in Washington, DC. So that is 

not precedent-setting, either. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. It was raised as a separation issue in a communication we received. What you just stated there, in terms of it is 

not a precedent and here are other examples, if you could forward 

that to the committee, that would be very useful information, in 

terms of attempting to deal with that question. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. We would be happy to, Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Anything else? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. No. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, thank you. 

Then, Ms. Lago, we will ask for your testimony on 2489 on behalf 

of the Forest Service. 

STATEMENT OF LENISE LAGO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF BUSINESS 

OPERATIONS, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE 

Ms. LAGO. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking 

Member. In light of my colleague’s testimony on H.R. 2489, I 

would just like to point out a couple of issues of importance to the 

Forest Service. 

The first is that I would note that the bill provides for continuation for contracts that are already underway on the Forest 

Service-managed portion of the proposed monument. In addition to 

service and stewardship contracts, which are called out in the language, I would like to point out we have a watershed improvement 

contract work underway. We would just like the understanding and 

the flexibility to continue with more than just stewardship and 

12 

service contracts. Be happy to work with either the committee or 

the Park Service on tightening that up. 

In addition, we think there could be some improvements in the 

proposed boundary to better meet administrative needs between 

Forest Service and Park Service, squaring off corners, tying to natural features on the landscape. Again, we would be happy to work 

with the committee, the Park Service, on that. 

And finally, we would like to include in the bill language that the 

bill becomes self-executing upon enactment. We think that would 

greatly speed up the transfer between the two agencies and make 

it administratively easier to move forward. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lago follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LENISE LAGO, DEPUTY CHIEF, BUSINESS OPERATIONS, U.S. 

FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ON H.R. 2489 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to provide the Administration’s views on H.R. 2489, the Oregon 

Caves Revitalization Act of 2013. 

H.R. 2489 would modify the boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument, 

managed by the National Park Service (NPS), to include approximately 4,070 acres 

of land currently managed by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (Forest). 

The Monument would be designated as the Oregon Caves National Monument and 

Preserve, with the Preserve being comprised of the lands previously managed by the 

Forest. The bill would allow for termination of grazing use on a Forest Servicemanaged grazing allotment, a portion of which would be located within the Preserve. The bill would also designate a river segment as part of the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System. 

Ongoing Forest Activities that may be impacted by a transfer of jurisdiction include: 

1. The Sucker Creek Legacy Roads environmental assessment, which is scheduled to be completed in this fiscal year. Implementation of this project, as proposed, would restore and maintain approximately 13 miles of National Forest 

System roads and decommission 2 miles within the Preserve. 

2. The Pepperbuck Thinning and Fuel Reduction project, in cooperation with the 

non-profit organization Lomakatsi Restoration, would be entirely within the 

Preserve. In addition to hazardous fuels treatments, the project includes inprogress commercial and pre-commercial thinning in Late Successional 

Reserves (LSRs) stands. It would be desirable for these projects to continue. 

Other impacts of a transfer of jurisdiction may include: 

• The USFS Cave Creek Campground would be located in the proposed transfer. 

• The Forest has completed Wild and Scenic Rivers eligibility studies for the 

tributaries of the Illinois River and other rivers. Cave Creek is within the current boundaries of the Monument. Lake Creek and No Name Creek in the 

proposed expansion were also included in the eligibility studies. Any needed 

Eligibility studies and subsequent Suitability analysis requirements would 

transfer to the Preserve. 

Relinquishment and Retirement of Grazing Permit 

Grazing on the portion of the approximately 26,750-acre Big Gray back Grazing 

Allotment (BGGA), located in Josephine and Jackson counties, which would be in 

the Preserve, could continue at the current level and would be managed under laws 

applicable to the NPS. 

Section 6 would direct the Secretary concerned to accept any voluntary relinquishment of a grazing permit by the permit holder for grazing on the Forest Service 

managed BGGA, and if such a relinquishment is received, to end grazing on that 

area. Under H.R. 2489 only a small portion of the BGGA would become part of the 

Preserve, but the legislation would potentially end grazing on the large part of the 

BGGA located outside the Preserve if the grazing permittee relinquishes the grazing 

permit. We look forward to working with the committee to address grazing management issues. 

13 

Conclusion 

The expansion boundary, as currently proposed, could be adjusted in places so 

that the new boundary better facilitated future management by both Agencies. This 

adjustment will require further discussion between the Forest Service and NPS. We 

also would recommend that the bill be modified to be self-executing. 

Coordination will continue as we move forward to ensure that the best and most 

efficient resource management is accomplished. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, let me ask for questions on the DeFazio 

bill, 2489, specifically to that. Mr. Tipton, you have questions on 

that one? Mr. Grijalva, do you have questions on that one? Let me 

ask a couple if I could, here, just to satisfy. 

Ms. Lago, did the Forest Service provide any input in the most 

recent National Park Service Oregon Caves management plan? 

Ms. LAGO. The plan from 1990, we submitted comments. We 

didn’t work side by side with the Park Service. But in the ensuing—the last several years we have worked very closely with the 

Park Service on joint issues: fuels management projects, fire protection, signage for the local community, and things like that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Does that include the overall management plan, 

though? 

Ms. LAGO. Not the management plan specifically. No, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. In your testimony you wrote, ‘‘The expansion boundary is currently proposed, could be adjusted in places so 

the new boundary better facilitated future management by both 

agencies. This adjustment will require further discussion between 

the Forest Service and NPS.’’ This proposal has been around for a 

number of years. When do you expect these further discussions to 

continue with the Park Service? And how receptive has the Park 

Service been to your input? 

Well, let’s just do the first question. When do you expect, 

actually, these discussions to conclude, then? 

Ms. LAGO. So folks in the region and on the forest—in other 

words, the local Forest Service folks—have developed some alternatives to the current proposed monument boundary. They include 

sticking with natural features of the landscape. There is an old 

fence line. We are just suggesting that it would make it easier to 

survey. And because it would be easier to survey, it would be easier 

to post, and just be easier for folks to know when they are on what 

side of the boundary if we made some of these adjustments. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Sheaffer, let me do a couple for you. 

How would the Park Service approach to fire management be different from the Forest Service approach? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I believe what we would do—and I can’t tell you 

that it is different from what they have done, because I know there 

have been discussions on the ground. But, clearly, there would be 

a fuels management plan put in place immediately to mitigate fire 

impacts in the area. That has been a—what I thought was a fairly 

clear distinction in the way we were approaching it. But I don’t 

know for a fact that they are not amenable to that sort of approach. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Can you explain the danger that would be 

posed to the caves if continued Forest Service management? 

14 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I think it is best described that our concerns 

would be—our primary mission there would be to ensure the watershed preservation of the cave. I am not suggesting that they aren’t 

sharing that concern right now, but that clearly is a primary mission of the Park Service. And all of the activities that are allowed 

now at whatever levels would be reviewed to ensure that they 

could or should continue in the areas they are in, to ensure the 

preservation of the cave resource. 

Mr. BISHOP. Ms. Lago, does the Forest Service take that into 

consideration right now? The watershed. 

Ms. LAGO. Oh, yes, we do. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Sheaffer, why are you going to terminate 

hunting on the proposed monument expansion? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I think the bill allows for hunting to continue. 

The thought would be that there may be some areas where hunting 

is currently allowed that should be restricted. Actually, in the public input that we got in the general management plan preparation, 

hunting was not necessarily an activity that there was a great deal 

of enthusiasm for. So we would have to revisit all of those issues, 

and are committed to doing so, if this bill is enacted, to see where 

it would be best allowed, and had least impact on the cave resources. 

Mr. BISHOP. So is—what you are telling me is your preference is 

to terminate, even though it is not allowed in the—even though it 

is not mandated in the legislation? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I think it might be too early to say that, definitively. But I believe that the people on the ground would say there 

are some areas where it would be preferred to be phased out, yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. But your testimony clearly says that is your preferred option. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. It does. 

Mr. BISHOP. Even though your verbal statement does not. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. That is correct. I suppose that, in that regard, I 

am qualifying it a bit. But, yes, I think it is the preferred action 

of the people on the ground. 

But they also are committed to going through a public process 

before any final decisions are made. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, not if we pass it first, you won’t. But I appreciate that. 

I don’t have any other questions. Mr. Tipton. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just want to get a little 

clarity on the hunting. Is hunting currently allowed? 

Ms. LAGO. Yes, it is—— 

Mr. TIPTON. Hunting? Is that currently allowed in this area? 

Ms. LAGO. It is, outside the cave monument boundary, yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. OK. And when we are talking about some of the 

public comment, I was just trying to follow up on what I think I 

was hearing, that there wasn’t a lot of public interest in that, in 

terms of some of the comment period. If it is already allowed, why 

would they comment? Wouldn’t they assume that they could continue to hunt? 

Mr. SHEAFFER. No. I think probably that was—public comments 

are open and received, and that was one of the topics that they, 

the public, addressed. And again, this is a plan done back in 1998. 

15 

So the comments received then were not overwhelmingly in favor 

of hunting at all. In fact, there was a very limited number of people 

who were concerned with hunting continuing there. 

Mr. TIPTON. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that. I do see a couple of— 

I was waiting for Congressman Farr to be here, as well. He has not 

yet shown up. 

So, Mr. Allard, I am not going to let you wait any longer from 

here. We are going to take testimony, your testimony, on 1776. 

Could I ask the two witnesses if they would exchange for just a 

second here? Mr. Meadows and former Congressman Shuler— 

sorry. See how quickly you forget here? Let me ask you if you 

would come to the podium first. And, Mr. Allard, we will take your 

testimony on 1776. Then I will hear from Mr. Meadows on 3806, 

and Mr. Shuler on 3806, and then we will add the witnesses from 

the Park Service and the Interior Department—no, you are good. 

You are done, aren’t you? 

Ms. LAGO. Probably. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. You can stay as long as you want to, but you 

don’t have to. 

We will invite the Interior Department, as well as some other 

witnesses, back up here to talk about these two bills. 

So, Senator Allard, can I have you go ahead of Representative 

Farr and talk about this particular piece of legislation? 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE ALLARD, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. Good 

morning, Ranking Member Grijalva, and distinguished members of 

the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today in support of H.R. 1776, the Clear Creek National Recreation Area and 

Conservation Act. 

The Clear Creek Management Area, which I will refer to in my 

testimony as the CCMA, is of vital importance to the off-highway 

vehicle community in the West. The 75,000 acres of the CCMA 

have been ranked as one of the top 10 places to ride by Dirt Rider 

Magazine, the most popular motorcycle magazine of its type, and 

formerly hosted the Quicksilver Enduro, a nationally recognized 

event, for over 30 years, from 1983 until 2007. The event was designated the National Enduro by the American Motorcyclist 

Association. 

As you are aware, this bill would create the country’s first national OHV, or off-highway vehicle area, guaranteeing future access for off-highway vehicle enthusiasts who visit central California 

to ride in the management area. Representative Paul Cook’s bill, 

H.R. 1676, would also create a similar national OHV area to guarantee permanent access to Johnson Valley in Southern California. 

If the bill is not passed, the Bureau of Land Management’s 

Record of Decision issued in February of this year will stand. 

Under the current Record of Decision, the Serpentine Area of 

Critical and Environmental Concern, which I am referring to as the 

ACEC, would be closed to all off-highway vehicles, and be open 

only to street-legal, registered vehicles for 5 days per year. 

16 

The result of this closure would severely limit OHV access in the 

entire management area in several important ways. 

First, many staging areas are located in the Serpentine ACEC 

because it is one of the largest open areas that can accommodate 

riders. There are on-highway vehicles and OHVs, which generally 

require trailers and trucks to transport. As a result, under the current management plan, OHV enthusiasts are able to camp at the 

Jade Mill Campsite, which resides in the Serpentine ACEC, but are 

unable to use the campsite as a staging area, since no OHVs are 

permitted on trails or roads within the Serpentine ACEC. 

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the Serpentine area sits 

in the middle of the management area. Many trails run through 

the Serpentine area, and restricting access would fragment or 

eliminate many of these historically used OHV routes. 

Third, under the current RoD, visitors take part in motorized 

recreation, are allowed to enter the CCMA only 5 days per year, 

while non-motorized visitors can enter 12 days. Thus, riders are 

limited to potentially less than two weekends of visitation. This is 

an especially difficult pill to swallow, not only because it is discriminatory, but also because many riders travel long distances and 

arrive late on Friday and leave on Sunday. 

Finally, the RoD has the potential to limit the total overall number of visitors. It gives the BLM State director the ability to limit 

the total number of daily visitors to the area. Thus, with the administrative swipe of a pen, access can be denied to one of the best 

places to ride in the country. 

Representative Farr’s H.R. 1776 would fix all of these shortcomings. Reverting to the 2005 Clear Creek Management Area 

Travel Management Plan would still close some historical OHV 

trails. It would still establish a designated system of trails in the 

CCMA. However, the 2005 plan would ensure access to a network 

of routes 218 miles long, according to the 2005 plan. The routes 

would offer a variety of course combinations that can be varied 

from year to year. Competitive events would be allowed to return 

to the CCMA. 

Importantly, the Serpentine ACEC would remain open to OHVs. 

This would allow riders to use the Jade Mill Campsite as a staging 

area, and access longer and more challenging trails directly from 

camp. Additionally, it would relieve other trails from the possibility 

of over-use. 

The largest change from the 2005 plan is that the BLM would 

be required to charge fees to access the area. These fees would be 

used to maintain and improve the Clear Creek Management Area. 

By creating a special account for the fees, H.R. 1776 ensures the 

fees will be used at the recreation area for needed maintenance 

and enhancement, and not in projects across the country. Even in 

2005, the BLM recognized the areas for OHV recreation, even as 

the popularity of OHV riding has increased. 

I hope we can move this legislation, so that the 50,000 riders 

that enjoyed the Clear Creek Management Area in 2003 can do so 

again in 2014. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time. I look forward to 

answering any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allard follows:] 

17 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WAYNE ALLARD, AMERICAN MOTORCYCLIST ASSOCIATION

ON H.R. 1776 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and distinguished members of the 

committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today in support of H.R. 1776, the 

Clear Creek National Recreation Area and Conservation Act. 

The Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA) is of vital importance to the offhighway-vehicle community in the West. The 75,000 acres of the CCMA have been 

ranked as one of the top 10 places to ride by Dirt Rider magazine—the most popular 

motorcycle magazine of its type—and formerly hosted the Quicksilver Enduro, a nationally recognized event for over 30 years. From 1983 until 2007, the event was 

designated a National Enduro by the AMA. 

As you are aware, this bill would create the country’s first national OHV area, 

guaranteeing future access for off-highway-vehicle enthusiasts who visit central 

California to ride in the management area. Rep. Paul Cook’s bill, H.R. 1676, would 

also create a similar national OHV area to guarantee permanent access to Johnson 

Valley in southern California. 

If this bill is not passed, the Bureau of Land Management’s Record of Decision, 

issued in February of this year, will stand. 

Under the current record of decision, the Serpentine Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), would be closed to all off-highway-vehicles and be open 

only to street legal, registered vehicles for 5 days per year. 

The result of this closure would severely limit OHV access in the entire management area in several important ways. 

First, many staging areas are located in the Serpentine ACEC, because it is one 

of the largest open areas that can accommodate riders, their on-highway vehicles 

and OHVs—which generally require trailers and trucks to transport. As a result, 

under the current management plan, OHV enthusiasts are able to camp at the Jade 

Mill campsite, which resides in the Serpentine ACEC, but are unable to use the 

campsite as a staging area, since no OHVs are permitted on trails or roads within 

the Serpentine ACEC. 

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the Serpentine area sits in the middle of 

the management area. Many trails run through the Serpentine area, and restricting 

access would fragment or eliminate many of these historically used OHV routes. 

Third, under the current ROD, visitors taking part in motorized recreation are allowed to enter the CCMA only 5 days per year, while non-motorized visitors can 

enter 12 days. 

Thus, riders are limited to potentially less than two weekends of visitation. This 

is an especially difficult pill to swallow not only because it is discriminatory, but 

also because many riders travel long distances and arrive late on Friday and leave 

on Sunday. 

Finally, the ROD has the potential to limit the total overall number of visitors. 

It gives the BLM State director the ability to limit the total number of daily visitors 

to the area. Thus, with the administrative swipe of a pen, access can be denied to 

one of the best places to ride in the country. 

Rep. Farr’s H.R. 1776 would fix all of these shortcomings. 

Reverting to the 2005 Clear Creek Management Area Travel Management Plan 

would still close some historical OHV trails. It would still establish a designated 

system of trails in the CCMA. 

However, the 2005 plan would ensure access to a network of routes 218 miles 

long. According to the 2005 plan, the routes ‘‘would offer a variety of course combinations that can be varied from year to year.’’ 

Competitive events would be allowed to return to the CCMA. 

Importantly, the Serpentine ACEC would remain open to OHVs. 

This would allow riders to use the Jade Mill campsite as a staging area and access longer and more challenging trails directly from camp. Additionally, it would 

relieve other trails from the possibility of over use. 

The largest change from the 2005 plan is that the BLM would be required to 

charge fees to access the area. These fees would be used to maintain and improve 

the Clear Creek Management area. By creating a special account for the fees, 

H.R. 1776 ensures the fees will be used at the recreation area for needed maintenance and enhancement and not on projects across the country. 

Even in 2005, the BLM recognized that areas for OHV recreation were decreasing—even as the popularity of OHV riding has increased. 

I hope we can move this legislation, so that the 50,000 riders that enjoyed the 

Clear Creek Management Area in 2003 can do so again in 2014. 

Thank you for your time and I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. 

18 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Senator Allard, we have kept you here a while. 

And we have not talked about H.R. 3806 yet. Let me see if there 

are any questions specifically for Senator Allard first. Then, if you 

would like to stay, you are welcome to stay and participate. But if 

you need to go, you need to go. 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Tipton, do you have any specific questions on 

this bill for Senator Allard? Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. If I may, Senator Allard, you, along with others, the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Farr, have questioned the 

whole rationale for the closure, and have said that EPA—that the 

EPA risk assessment is overblown. Could you elaborate on the specifics of that risk assessment? In particular, where the EPA went 

wrong with the science? The issue being that naturally occurring 

asbestos in the area and some of the conclusions as to the risk to 

health, to public health. 

And, with that, if you wouldn’t mind, Senator? 

Mr. ALLARD. Well, it was in 2008 the Environmental Protection 

Agency put asbestos levels at unacceptably—an unacceptable use 

range. However, the off-highway motor vehicle recreation division 

of the California State Parks conducted a study focusing specifically on motorcycle recreation, which found that the levels of asbestos are substantially lower than the Occupational Health and 

Safety Administration’s daily permissible exposure limit, and the 

amount of ambient asbestos in the California study during periods 

of off-highway motorcycle riding was 20 times lower than the EPA’s 

estimate. This is lower than what the World Health Organization 

considers acceptable. 

The risk from asbestos in the CCMA is equivalent to smoking 

less than one cigarette per year, I am told. In fact, the EPA study 

found that all-terrain vehicles cause 3 percent more dust. However, 

under the current plan, ATVs are still allowed in the Serpentine 

ACEC, as opposed to motorcycles. 

There is also a study that I have. If the committee does not have 

that study, I would be glad to put it forward so it could be included 

as part of the record. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Make sure the committee gets a copy of that. 

It will be included as part of the record. 

Mr. ALLARD. I will, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. LaMalfa, do you have—— 

Mr. ALLARD. And the title of the study is, ‘‘Preliminary Analysis 

of the Asbestos Exposures Associated with Motorcycle Riding and 

Hiking in the Clear Creek Management Area at San Benito 

County, California’’. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. LaMalfa, do you have questions for this 

witness? All right. 

I do have just one simple one for you. And I appreciate the fact 

that this bill has been worked by local interest groups on the local 

level. It does create a definitive wilderness area, and it allows for 

off-road vehicle. Would you be opposed to strengthening that language, which would mandate and control the off-road vehicle levels, 

so it wouldn’t be changed administratively in the future? 

19 

Mr. ALLARD. Well, we would appreciate any effort to make sure 

that the off-highway vehicle opportunities remain as described in 

the bill. And—— 

Mr. BISHOP. So you would—— 

Mr. ALLARD. Whatever you—— 

Mr. BISHOP. I tried to strengthen that language? 

Mr. ALLARD. Well, if we can strengthen it, yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. 

Mr. ALLARD. Absolutely. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that. Senator, with that, we 

conclude the questioning for you. If you would like to stay here, we 

would be happy to have you. If you have other obligations, I recognize that at the same time. 

Mr. ALLARD. I do have other obligations, and I thank the Chairman for his consideration. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Representative Meadows, Representative Shuler, we 

appreciate you being here. We have not talked about H.R. 3806. 

You have the opportunity of presenting it fresh to us. 

Representative Meadows, you are recognized first to talk about 

your bill. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am prepared to 

testify. I would ask, if it meets with the Chair’s approval, to allow 

the distinguished gentleman from—the previous Member, Mr. 

Shuler, to testify first, to give a context of this, and then I would 

follow up. It is certainly up to the Chair. 

Mr. BISHOP. I will be more than happy to do that. It is good— 

Representative Shuler, it is good to have you back here. You are 

a former member of this committee? 

Mr. SHULER. Yes, I was. 

Mr. BISHOP. And you haven’t noticed this, but if you look directly 

at the room, I’ve got you on the proper side of this room right now. 

Mr. SHULER. Many times you tried. Sometimes it worked. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Let’s turn to you for the first 5 minutes 

to introduce the bill. 

STATEMENT OF HEATH SHULER, ASHEVILLE, NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. SHULER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity for me to share my thoughts on the importance of 

Congressman Meadows’ legislation, H.R. 3806, the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park Agreement of 2013. 

I want to tell a story about a small community in the mountains 

of North Carolina, the Appalachian region. Swain County, less 

than 10,000 people live in the community. Talking about dedication 

for the 1943 agreement to build the Lake Fontana. It was their 

dedication to help supply energy sources to the eastern part of 

Tennessee to be able to help build military planes for World War 

II. It was that dedication that they gave up their land, they gave 

up their homesites, their schools, their businesses, and left the 

gravesites of their loved ones behind. 

20 

With an agreement of North Carolina, TVA, Swain County, and 

the Department of the Interior, they flooded the land and created 

Fontana Lake Reservoir. Fontana Dam is still one of the largest 

dams east of the Mississippi, supplying energy for the TVA. When 

these individuals left the community, and traveled, and dispersed 

elsewhere, they were given an agreement that they would have a 

road built to replace NC–288 so they could go revisit the homesites 

and gravesites of their loved ones. That agreement was supposed 

to build this some 35-mile road into the Great Smoky Mountain 

National Park. That agreement still today has a community divided, whether or not we should pay for a settlement, or to build 

this road. 

Up until 2001, the appropriations triggered the National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing several options, including the completion of this road—an estimated $700 million—or cutting through 

the pristine Great Smoky Mountain National Park, or a monetary 

settlement. The National Park Service published a final environmental impact statement on October 2, 2007, which said that it 

would advocate a financial settlement in lieu of the construction of 

the road. 

A Record of Decision followed shortly, calling the monetary set- tlement to Swain County of $52 million as the National Park Service agency preferred alternative. With the support of both North 

Carolina and the Tennessee delegations, we secured $12.8 million, 

a partial settlement for the North Shore Road agreement in the 

Fiscal Year 2010 through the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. 

On February 10, a signed ceremony attended by Secretary Salazar, four parties agreed to the settlement, calling for a $52 million settlement to Swain County, to be paid out over a period of 

years, and this trust that Swain County gave, once again, to the 

Federal Government into keeping up their end of the bargain. But 

yet we find ourselves still asking for the remaining balance of the 

$52 million. 

I want to give you the statement that Secretary Salazar gave 

during this ceremony in Swain County. ‘‘It is not often that we can 

end the 67-year controversy with the stroke of a pen, but that is 

exactly what we are doing. The Federal Government is providing 

a fair settlement to the people of Swain County, while ensuring the 

protection of the Great Smoky Mountain National Park.’’ And a 

further press release that they gave says, ‘‘Secretary Salazar noted 

that the settlement is good for the people of Swain County because 

it generates much-needed revenue.’’ 

And not only was this reservoir Fontana Lake taken, but it folded in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, so it leaves that 

county with 83 percent federally owned land. So we have a low tax 

base. Again, Swain County was—there was an authorization in the 

Appropriations Act of 2012 for $4 million. And, through a technicality, that money is still sitting there today, has not been released 

to Swain County. 

I commend now my congressman, Mark Meadows, for his continued effort and his work and his dedication to the people of Swain 

County and to the people of that region, to be able to give back to 

that community. They have honored their agreement, and it is time 

21 

for the Federal Government to continue to honor its agreement and 

pay the money that is so needed for a community in Swain County. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I thank you for the opportunity 

for you and the Ranking Member Grijalva for allowing me to be 

here and testify and ask for your consideration and movement of 

this legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shuler follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HEATH SHULER, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, JANUARY 3, 2007–JANUARY 3, 2013, NORTH CAROLINA’S ELEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL

DISTRICT

H.R. 3806, THE GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK AGREEMENT ACT OF

2013 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to share with you my thoughts on the importance of 

Congressman Meadows’s legislation, H.R. 3806, the Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park Agreement Act of 2013. 

I had the honor and privilege of serving North Carolina’s Eleventh Congressional 

District from January 3, 2007, through January 3, 2013. The District includes 

Swain County, where I grew up and the subject of Congressman Meadows’s legislation. 

During my 6 years in office there was one local issue that rankled my constituents 

more than any other—the Federal Government’s broken promise dating back to the 

‘‘1943 Agreement’’ between Swain County, the U.S. Department of Interior, the 

State of North Carolina, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 

As the Federal Government geared-up World War II efforts, a dedicated power 

source was needed to supply facilities in eastern Tennessee that were building military planes. The Federal Government approached Swain County, North Carolina, 

with a plan to build Fontana Dam and Reservoir. The four aforementioned entities 

entered into what is known as the ‘‘1943 Agreement,’’ which allowed the creation 

of the dam with the promise that a new road to replace the flooded 34-mile stretch 

of NC–288 would be built along the north shore of the new lake. 

The original road was a critical lifeline to people in the area. It connected Bryson 

City, the county seat, to Tennessee, and was marked by churches, homes, family 

businesses, schools, and farms. Most of these Appalachian treasures disappeared 

under the rising water of the Fontana Lake and what wasn’t submerged was folded 

into the Federal Government’s control of the Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park. In fact, the Federal Government now owns 83 percent of Swain County’s land. 

In the 1960s, the National Park Service (NPS) constructed approximately 7 miles 

of the road before abandoning the effort due to environmental impacts and engineering problems. No further Federal funding was received for the road until a 2001 

appropriation triggered a National Environmental Policy Act analysis of several options, including either the completion of the road, estimated at $700 million and 

cutting through pristine areas of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, or a 

monetary settlement. The January 2006 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) that followed stated that the Environmentally Preferred Alternative was to 

resolve the 1943 Agreement through payment of a monetary settlement, valued at 

$52 million, in lieu of any further construction. Over 76,000 comments were received, the vast majority in opposition to construction of the road. The Park Service 

published its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on October 2, 2007, 

which said it would advocate for a financial settlement in lieu of constructing a 

road. A Record of Decision (ROD) followed shortly thereafter officially calling for a 

monetary settlement to Swain County as the National Park Service’s Agency 

Preferred Alternative. 

With the support of both the North Carolina and Tennessee Congressional 

Delegations, I secured a $12.8 million partial settlement for the North Shore Road 

Agreement in the Fiscal Year 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. 

In a February 2010 signing ceremony attended by former Secretary of the Interior 

Ken Salazar, the four parties signed a new binding agreement that called for a $52 

million settlement (including the $12.8 million partial settlement) to be paid to 

Swain County over a period of years in a special trust established for the County. 

Secretary Salazar stated, 

‘‘It is not often one can end a 67-year-old controversy with a stroke of a pen, 

but that is exactly what we are doing. The Federal Government is providing 

22 

a fair settlement to the people of Swain County while ensuring the protection of Great Smoky Mountain National Park.’’ 

The Park Service’s accompanying release continued: 

‘‘[Secretary] Salazar noted that the settlement is good for the people of 

Swain County because it generates much needed revenue; good for the department, because it protects the one of America’s most treasured parks; 

and good for the American taxpayers, since building the road would have 

cost several times more than the settlement.’’ 

Congress committed another $4 million toward the settlement in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2012, but NPS has to date refused to release the funds over 

what is at best a technicality. It claims it does not have proper authorization because the bill text does not refer to the County or the 2010 Agreement. However, 

the conference report included a prioritized project list, specifying $4 million for the 

North Shore Road settlement agreement, making congressional intent clear. Further, the Administration also included $4 million for the ‘‘North Shore Road 

Monetary Settlement’’ in its Fiscal Year 2012 Budget request. 

Congressman Meadows’s legislation, H.R. 3806, gives the National Park Service 

the explicit authorization it says it requires to release the funds. More importantly, 

H.R. 3806 has the power to end decades of distrust and cynicism between the people of Swain County and the Federal Government. 

I thank Congressman Meadows for his dedication to this issue and I thank the 

subcommittee for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I respectfully urge the subcommittee to approve the bill and expedite its consideration before the House. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that, appreciate you being 

here, and I will tag-team back to Representative Meadows. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK MEADOWS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To follow up, I want 

to thank Congressman Heath Shuler for not giving up. 

On January 2, when he was leaving office, his staff diligently 

was working to try to correct an injustice. And where is the injustice? Four million dollars was appropriated, and has sat there, and 

sits there, and sits there, and is yet to be paid to the people of 

Swain County. And we have worked diligently for the last 14 

months, trying to make sure that this money gets released. 

We have a GAO report. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we submit this GAO report for the record. 

Mr. BISHOP. So ordered. 

Mr. MEADOWS. This GAO report shows that, indeed, under their 

guidelines, that it is certainly within the rights of the Department 

of the Interior to release these funds, and to actually pay on this 

commitment. And yet, in talking to the comptroller, he has indicated that, without an Act of Congress, that this money is going 

to continue to sit there. 

Now, to put this in context, the original obligation to build this 

road was estimated to be $700 million. And yet, the settlement was 

just a fraction of that. Yet, Swain County has gotten just a fraction 

of that. 

So, I would like to offer two other pieces of information for the 

record. One is the press release that Congressman Heath Shuler 

mentioned, which Secretary Salazar announces the settlement on 

the North Shore Road. And the other is the memo of underVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:36 Mar 26, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04MY20 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88012.TXT DARLEN
23 

1 Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2012, Pub. L. No. 112–74, div. E, title I, 125 Stat. 786, 991– 

92 (Dec. 23, 2011). 2 In providing informal technical assistance, GAO is not executing its statutory authorities to 

issue appropriations law decisions and opinions. Consequently, GAO’s informal technical assistance may not be characterized as a legal decision, opinion, or conclusion of the Comptroller 

General. 

standing, which has all the appropriate parties, where they had 

signed on to this particular agreement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To go on further, the residents of Swain County, in the heat of 

the battle of World War II, did like most Americans did. They sacrificed. They said, ‘‘Sure, we are willing to be part of a greater effort,’’ to make sure that this was identified, and the land was given 

up. And yet, some 83 percent of their land is now on Federal lands. 

Their unemployment still hovers above 10 percent. And all they are 

wanting is for the American government, the Federal Government, 

to do what they said they would do. 

Going back to 1943, that obligation of building a road was never 

committed. Now, in 2010, an agreement was reached, a settlement 

of some $52 million, a part of which has been paid. But then we 

had another $4 million appropriated, and yet it continues to sit 

there. It is our understanding that H.R. 3806, being the authorization to release those funds, is what is now being required. We humbly ask for the consideration of this committee to approve this, so 

that we can get the payment given to the residents of Swain 

County, and that justice and fairness can once again prevail. 

And I stand ready for any questions, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information submitted for the record by Mr. Meadows 

follows:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED FROM GAO 

GAO,

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20548 

FEBRUARY 14, 2013. 

Timothy E. Murphy 

Assistant Solicitor—General Legal Services 

Office of the Solicitor 

Department of the Interior 

Washington, DC 20240 

Subject: Department of the Interior—Availability of Funds for Payment to Swain 

County, North Carolina 

Dear Mr. Murphy: 

This responds to your December 21, 2012 letter regarding GAO’s opinion, B– 

323699, Dec. 5, 2012. This opinion addressed the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) 

use of the National Park Service’s (Park Service) fiscal year 2012 construction appropriation 1 to make a payment to Swain County, North Carolina pursuant to the 

Memorandum of Agreement Relating to Non-Construction of North Shore Road entered into in February 2010 (2010 Agreement). We concluded that although DOI has 

no obligation under the 2010 Agreement to make the payment, DOI may, in its discretion, elect to make a payment from an appropriation available for that purpose. 

You have indicated that DOI is considering making a payment to Swain County 

from the Park Service’s 2012 Construction appropriation. 

In addition to providing legal decisions and opinions on appropriations law issues, 

GAO, because of its expertise and competence in this area of law, will provide informal technical assistance to agency officers and employees on appropriations law 

matters that may arise in agency operations.2 See GAO, Procedures and Practices 

for Legal Decisions and Opinions, GAO–06–1064SP (Washington, DC: Sept. 2006), 

24 

at 10. In that vein, I am happy to offer you my informal observations on your proposal based on the information set out in your letter. 

As we stated in our 2012 opinion, the limitation on the government’s contractual 

liability in the 2010 Agreement does not, by itself, render a lump sum appropriation 

unavailable to pay the claim settled in the Agreement. The limitation serves the 

government’s interest, and the discretion to waive the application of the limitation 

is committed to the government. An agency generally has discretion to decide how 

to carry out the objects for which a lump sum appropriation is made. So long as 

DOI determines that a payment to Swain County falls within the scope of the Park 

Service’s 2012 Construction appropriation, we have no objection to the use of the 

appropriation to make the payment you described in your letter. 

I trust you will find this information useful. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please feel free to contact me at (202) 512–2853 or Omyra M. Ramsingh, 

Assistant General Counsel for Appropriations Law, at (202) 512–6152. 

Sincerely, 

EDDA EMMANUELLI PEREZ, 

Managing Associate General Counsel. 

PRESS RELEASE 

• Trail Advisory 

Several trails in the park are temporarily closed. Please check the 

‘‘Backcountry Facilities’’ section of the Temporary Road and Facilities Closures page for further details. More (http://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/ 

temproadclose.htm) 

Secretary Salazar Announces Settlement 

on North Shore Road 

Date: February 6, 2010 

Contact: Bob Miller, (865) 436–1207 

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced today that a settlement has been 

reached in a dispute begun in 1943 over a proposed 34-mile stretch of road through 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Under the terms of the agreement signed 

today by the Department of the Interior, Swain County, North Carolina, and 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the Department of the Interior will pay up to 

$52 million into a trust fund established for the County. 

‘‘It is not often one can end a 67-year-old controversy with a stroke of a pen, but 

that is exactly what we are doing,’’ Salazar said. ‘‘The Federal government is providing a fair settlement to the people of Swain County while ensuring the protection 

of Great Smoky Mountain National Park.’’ 

Salazar noted that the settlement is good for the people of Swain County because 

it generates much needed revenue; good for the department, because it protects the 

one of America’s most treasured parks; and good for the American taxpayers, since 

building the road would have cost several times more than the settlement. 

National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis expressed strong support for the action 

that was accomplished without any impact on the Park Service’s budget. Congressman Heath Shuler (D-NC) also commended the Obama administration for their 

leadership. ‘‘This settlement will bring much-needed resources to Swain County for 

decades to come,’’ said Shuler. ‘‘The interest on these funds alone will greatly increase Swain’s annual budget and will help the commissioners in their efforts to create jobs, invest in Swain County schools, and improve the county’s infrastructure.’’ 

In 1943, the Department of the Interior, the State of North Carolina, Swain County North Carolina, and the TVA signed an agreement to provide for replacement of 

a 34-mile stretch of NC288 flooded during construction of the Fontana Dam and 

Reservoir. Completion of an alternate road was contingent upon Congressional funding. 

In the 1960s, the National Park Service constructed approximately 7 miles of the 

road before abandoning the effort due to environmental impacts and engineering 

problems. 

25 

Congress appropriated additional funds in 2001, triggering a National Environmental Policy Act analysis of several options including completion of the road or a 

monetary settlement. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), released 

in January 2006, stated that the Environmentally Preferred Alternative was to resolve the 1943 Agreement through payment of a monetary settlement in lieu of any 

further construction. Over 76,000 comments were received on the DEIS with the 

vast majority received via emails and faxes generated by conservation groups opposed to the road. Public meetings to develop the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) began in February 2003. On October 2, 2007, the Park Service 

published the FEIS, which identified the monetary settlement as the preferred alternative. The Park Service issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on April 8, 2008, selecting the monetary settlement to Swain County as the National Park Service’s 

Agency Preferred Alternative. 

Since the beginning of the EIS process two of the four parties to the 1943 Agreement—the Swain County Commission and the Governor of North Carolina— 

expressed support for a monetary settlement in lieu of the road. TVA agreed that 

the NPS identified the correct Environmentally Preferred Alternative but did not 

support any agency alternative. 

(http://www.doi.gov/) 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This agreement is made and entered into by and between TENNESSEE VALLEY 

AUTHORITY (‘‘TVA’’), a federal agency and corporation created by an act of Congress, the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA (‘‘North Carolina’’), acting by and 

through its Governor, SWAIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (‘‘Swain County’’), a 

political subdivision of the State of North Carolina acting by and through the Board 

of Commissioners for the County of Swain; and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (‘‘DOI’’), acting by and through the Secretary of the 

Interior (‘‘Secretary’’). 

II. RECITALS 

A. The parties entered into a prior agreement dated 30 July 1943 (the ‘‘1943 

Agreement’’) concerning the construction of Fontana Dam and related matters. 

B. As set forth under the provisions of the 1943 Agreement, the TVA acquired 

approximately 44,000 acres of land and transferred the same to the Department of the Interior for inclusion in the Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park and paid the State of North Carolina, in trust for Swain County, 

$400,000.00 to be used for the payment of the principal on outstanding county 

road bonds. Therefore, the parties recognize that TVA has fulfilled all of its 

obligations under the 1943 Agreement and undertakes no further obligations 

herein. 

C. North Carolina and Swain County have discharged their obligations under 

the 1943 Agreement. 

D. Swain County disputes whether the Department of the Interior has performed its obligations under the 1943 Agreement relating to the construction 

of the ‘‘North Shore Road.’’ 

E. Pursuant to the 1943 Agreement, the Department of the Interior committed 

‘‘as soon as funds are made available for that purpose by Congress’’ to ‘‘construct or cause to be constructed’’ a road, commonly referenced as the ‘‘North 

Shore Road,’’ from the eastern boundary of the Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park to a point on the Fontana Dam Access Road. 

F. Construction of the ‘‘North Shore Road’’ has not been completed. 

G. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws, the 

National Park Service (NPS), a bureau of the Department of the Interior, prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluating alternatives for 

the North Shore Road with its stated purpose being to ‘‘discharge and satisfy 

any obligations on the part of the United States that presently exist as the 

result of the 1943 Agreement.’’ The EIS evaluated a range of alternatives to 

fulfilling that purpose including renewing construction of the North Shore 

Road and entering into a monetary settlement of the 1943 Agreement with 

Swain County. 

26 

H. NPS approved a decision to ‘‘implement the Monetary Settlement Alternative’’ and to ‘‘convene a meeting of the signatories’’ to the 1943 Agreement 

on December 28, 2007. 

I. Section 1007 of the ‘‘Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010’’ P.L. 

111–118 (December 19, 2009), expressly authorized the Secretary to make certain payments to Swain County in connection with the non-construction of the 

North Shore Road: 

(1) Section 1007 authorized the Secretary to make a payment of four million 

dollars ($4,000,000.00) to Swain County, North Carolina upon the enactment of the Act; 

(2) Section 1007 authorized the Secretary to make an additional payment of 

eight million, eight hundred thousand dollars ($8,800,000.00) to Swain 

County, North Carolina subject to the Department of the Interior, Swain 

County, the State of North Carolina, and TVA entering into an agreement that supersedes the agreement of July 30, 1943. By the instant 

agreement (‘‘2010 Agreement’’) the parties intend to settle any and all 

claims under the 1943 Agreement, and to extinguish and supersede the 

1943 Agreement in its entirety. 

III. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

The parties hereby agree as follows: 

1. The 1943 Agreement is hereby extinguished and superseded and shall be of 

no further effect. 

2. The United States Department of the Interior shall pay or cause to be paid 

to or on behalf of Swain County (as hereinafter provided) as follows: 

a. Eight million, eight hundred thousand dollars ($8,800,000.00) within ten 

(10) business days after the ‘‘Obligation Date’’ which is one hundred 

twenty (120) calendar days after the execution of the 2010 Agreement by 

the last signatory hereto, as expressly authorized by Section 1007 of the 

‘‘Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010’’; 

b. Such additional sums, not to exceed thirty-nine million, two hundred 

thousand dollars ($39,200,000.00), as are hereafter appropriated by Act of 

Congress for the express purpose of effectuating the 2010 Agreement relating to the non-construction of the North Shore Road on or before 

December 31, 2020. 

3. All payments to or on behalf of Swain County shall be held, managed and disbursed by the Treasurer of the State of North Carolina pursuant to the terms 

of Session Law 2008–13 enacted by the General Assembly of North Carolina 

and signed into law on 25 June 2008. 

4. The full payment of such sums as have been and are hereafter appropriated 

by Act of Congress for the express purpose of effectuating the 2010 Agreement relating to the non-construction of the North Shore Road, as referenced 

in Paragraph 2, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, shall 

constitute full and complete settlement of all claims of Swain County, and all 

persons and entities claiming by, through or under Swain County against the 

United States of America, the Department of the Interior, North Carolina or 

TVA arising out of the 2010 Agreement and the 1943 Agreement. The parties 

agree that TVA has fulfilled its obligations and therefore has settled and disposed of all claims and demands which North Carolina and Swain County 

may have against TVA by reason of the flooding of North Carolina State 

Highway 288 and the construction, operation, and maintenance of Fontana 

Dam and Reservoir. 

5. This Agreement is enforceable only by the parties. This Agreement is binding 

upon the parties, by and through their officials, agents, employees, and successors. No person or entity is intended to be a third party beneficiary of the 

provisions of this Agreement for purposes of any civil, criminal, or administrative action, and, accordingly, no person or entity may assert any claim or 

right as a beneficiary or protected class under this Agreement in any civil, 

criminal, or administrative action. 

6. This agreement may be executed in duplicate copies, each of which shall be 

considered an original. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be 

executed by their proper representatives thereunto duly authorized as of the date 

first above set forth. 

27 


88012.001.eps
28 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Are there 

any questions for these two witnesses? Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Nothing—not any questions in particular, just a— 

welcome, my friend, Mr. Shuler, and the sponsor of the legislation. 

It is something that, when you were here, we thought we took care 

of, and long overdue, and good to see you again. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. We thank you for your testimony. We are now 

going to invite some others to testify about this bill and the one 

Mr. Allard was talking about. You are invited to join us here and 

stay for questioning, if you would like to. I don’t know what your 

schedule is. No one has ever taken me up on that option of actually 

staying here. I am getting used to being rejected. It is up to you. 

But notice that you are welcome to stay here. If you have other obligations, I recognize that, as well. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

leadership. I actually have another hearing where I need to go to 

right now. 

Mr. SHULER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Heard that one before. 


88012.002.eps
29 

Let me invite then, with appreciations, let me invite back Mr. 

Carl Rountree from the National Landscape Conservation System, 

who will talk about H.R. 1776. Bruce Sheaffer, from the National 

Park Service, will talk about H.R. 3806, and Mr. Steve—is not 

here. OK. Who—I am sorry. 

Well, Mr. Koretoff, we will take your written testimony. Apparently you had plane problems and are not here right now. 

So, I will ask those two, if you will come back up, testify about 

these two bills. Let’s start with H.R. 3806, if we could, and that is 

Mr. Sheaffer. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. H.R. 3806, Great Smoky Mountain National Park 

Agreement Act, would provide the Park Service the authority to expend $4 million to make a payment to Swain County, North 

Carolina. This legislation is necessary, because the Park Service 

currently has no authority to make this payment, which stems 

from a 2010 Memorandum of Agreement with Swain County, the 

Department, and TVA. 

The 2010 agreement provided for monetary payments subject to 

appropriations to settle an issue dating back to 1943 regarding the 

construction of a road along the North Shore in Fontana Lake, as 

former Congressman Shuler mentioned. Although the National 

Park Service had statutory authority to make previous payments 

to the county—that was the $12.8 million that they mentioned— 

there is no statutory authority to make the $4 million payment, 

what was requested in the 2012 appropriations. This bill would 

provide the necessary authority. 

We support the passage of this bill. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that. Any questions for Mr. 

Sheaffer on this? Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Grijalva? 

I have no questions on this particular legislation, either, which 

means if you would like to stay, you can. If you need to—everyone 

else is leaving, you might as well. 

Mr. SHEAFFER. I would set a precedent if I stayed, I guess. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheaffer on H.R. 3806 follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE SHEAFFER, COMPTROLLER, NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ON H.R. 3806 

ON H.R. 3806, ‘‘GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK AGREEMENT ACT OF

2013’’ 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 3806, a bill to authorize payment of funds in accordance with the agreement entered into by the 

Tennessee Valley Authority, the State of North Carolina, Swain County, North 

Carolina, and the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

The Department supports H.R. 3806. This bill would provide the National Park 

Service the authority to expend $4 million appropriated to the National Park Service in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112–74) to make a 

payment to Swain County, North Carolina. This legislation is necessary because the 

National Park Service currently has no authority to make this payment, which 

stems from a 2010 commitment to the county. 

In February 2010, then-Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Swain County, the State of North Carolina, and the 

Tennessee Valley Authority that provided for the Federal Government to make monetary payments not to exceed a total of $52 million, subject to appropriations, to 

Swain County to settle an issue dating to a 1943 agreement that provided that the 

Department would build a road along the North Shore of Fontana Lake in Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park. The 2010 Memorandum of Agreement provided 

30 

for the monetary settlement in lieu of road construction as the rugged terrain, higher construction costs and severe environmental impacts make constructing the road 

an untenable option. 

In Fiscal Year 2010, two payments totaling $12.8 million were provided to Swain 

County. These funds were derived from prior-year appropriations, and directed to 

Swain County in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 (P.L. 111– 

118), which included explicit authority for the Secretary of the Interior to make 

those payments to Swain County for non-construction of the road. After that amount 

was paid, up to $39.2 million of the $52 million stated in the Memorandum of 

Agreement remained. 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112–74) contained $4 million in 

the National Park Service construction account that potentially could have been 

used as payment for a portion of the remaining $39.2 million to Swain County, and 

in fact had been proposed for that purpose in the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget. However, unlike the previous amounts appropriated, there was no statutory provision in P.L. 112–74 to spend the funds for Swain County, and there was no other 

statutory authority for that payment to be made. Enactment of H.R. 3806 would 

provide the authority that is needed for the National Park Service to use those previously appropriated funds to make the $4 million payment to the county. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement on H.R. 3806. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions you or any members of the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. All right, let me turn now to Mr. 

Rountree to talk about 1776 and other issues that may come up. 

You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF CARL ROUNTREE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1776, the Clear Creek National Recreation Area and 

Conservation Act. 

H.R. 1776 would establish the Clear Creek National Recreation 

Area in San Benito and Fresno Counties in California, designate 

the Joaquin Rocks Wilderness on public lands near the proposed 

recreation area, and designate seven stream segments within 

BLM’s Clear Creek Management Area as wild and scenic rivers. 

Lands within the Clear Creek Management Area present complex resource management and public health and safety issues. 

While we support the bill’s proposed conservation designations, we 

cannot support provisions in the bill which would increase cancer 

risks to public land users and employees due to asbestos, a wellknown carcinogen, within the Clear Creek Management Area’s 

Serpentine Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

The Clear Creek Management Area is located in one of the largest naturally occurring asbestos deposits in the world. And until 

1979, asbestos was mined in parts of the management area at a facility that is now a superfund site. Since the 1970s, Federal and 

State health agencies have expressed concerns about how recreational use in the management area by hikers, campers, hunters, 

rock collectors, and off-highway vehicle users disturbs soils containing asbestos, and creates the potential for exposure and inhalation to airborne asbestos-based dust, increasing human health 

risks. 

31 

Because of these concerns, a 30,000-acre Area of Critical Environment Concern of the Clear Creek Management Area has been 

designated as the Serpentine ACEC. In 2008, an EPA report concluded that asbestos exposure for many recreational activities in 

the ACEC may result in excess lifetime cancer risks. The study 

noted that children are at greater risk than adults, because they 

are exposed to these high levels of asbestos at an earlier age. 

The study also showed that visiting the management area more 

than one day per year can put adults and children above the EPA’s 

acceptable risk range for exposure to carcinogens and increased excess lifetime cancer risk from many typical Clear Creek Management Area recreational activities, including off-highway vehicle use 

and hiking. 

Due to the identified health risks, the BLM strictly limits access 

to the Serpentine ACEC under the agency’s Clear Creek Resource 

Management Plan, which was finalized in February 2014. Under 

the management plan the BLM will re-assess recreation opportunities and travel management decisions if significant new information becomes available on human health risks from exposure to 

airborne asbestos fibers in the Clear Creek Management Area. 

In general, the Administration supports the promotion of responsible motorized and non-motorized recreation on public lands, including off-highway vehicle use in the Clear Creek Management 

Area. However, the National Recreation Area provisions are unclear as to whether the bill would result in increased motorized or 

other activities in the Serpentine ACEC and other parts of the 

Clear Creek Management Area. The BLM cannot support the provisions that could increase the risk of asbestos exposure to the public and its employees. And while the bill attempts to reduce BLM’s 

liability for such exposure, the risk to the public health still remains. 

H.R. 1776 would designate the 20,500-acre Joaquin Rocks 

Wilderness, and would add seven stream segments, totaling just 31 

miles to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system. The BLM 

supports these provisions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony for 

H.R. 1776. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rountree follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL ROUNTREE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM & COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS, BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ON H.R. 1776 

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department of the 

Interior (DOI) on H.R. 1776, which would establish the Clear Creek National 

Recreation Area in San Benito and Fresno Counties in California; designate the 

Joaquin Rocks Wilderness on public lands in San Benito and Fresno Counties; and 

designate seven stream segments within the Clear Creek Management Area 

(CCMA) as wild and scenic rivers. The BLM supports the conservation designations 

in the bill. While as written, the bill appears to expand recreational opportunities 

in the CCMA, the BLM has strong concerns regarding changes in management that 

could increase the exposure of public land users and employees to naturally occurring asbestos and expose the public to increased cancer risks described in an 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study. 

As a general policy, the Administration supports the goals of promoting responsible motorized and non-motorized recreation, including off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

use, while also protecting public safety, conservation, and other important uses of 

32 

public lands. However, the National Recreation Area provisions of the bill are unclear as to whether they would result in motorized or other activities in areas of 

the CCMA that are currently limited for health and safety reasons due to naturally 

occurring asbestos, a well-known carcinogen, in the area. 

BACKGROUND

The BLM manages approximately 63,000 acres of public lands in the 75,000-acre 

CCMA in southern San Benito and western Fresno Counties, California. The CCMA 

offers a variety of settings and landforms that host many diverse natural and cultural resources, and offers recreation and other multiple-use opportunities, including 

grazing. The CCMA also contains a 30,000-acre area of serpentine rock containing 

naturally occurring asbestos. Until 1979, asbestos was mined in parts of the CCMA 

at the Atlas Asbestos Mine and mill, which is now a Superfund site. 

Since the 1970s, Federal and State health agencies have expressed concerns about 

how recreational use in the CCMA by hikers, campers, hunters, botanists, rock collectors, and OHV users disturbs soils containing asbestos and creates the potential 

for exposure to and inhalation of airborne asbestos-laced dust, increasing the risk 

to human health. As a result of this concern as well as the presence of the San 

Benito evening primrose (a special status plant species), the BLM has designated 

this 30,000-acre area within the CCMA as the Serpentine Area of Critical Environmental Concern (Serpentine ACEC). ACEC designations highlight areas where special management attention is needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to 

important historical, cultural, and scenic values, fish, or wildlife resources or other 

natural systems or processes; or to protect human life and safety from natural 

hazards. 

Based on the concerns for the health of recreational visitors, the EPA initiated 

a risk assessment study in 2004 in connection with the clean-up of the Atlas 

Asbestos Mine Superfund Site, to evaluate visitors’ exposure to airborne asbestos 

fibers in the CCMA. The EPA’s Clear Creek Management Area Asbestos Exposure 

and Human Health Risk Assessment (completed in May 2008) concluded that asbestos exposure for many recreational activities in the ACEC may result in excess 

lifetime cancer risks. The study noted that children are at greater risk than adults 

because they are exposed to these high levels of asbestos at an earlier age. The 

study also showed that visiting the CCMA for a period of more than 1 day per year 

can put adults and children above the EPA’s acceptable risk range for exposure to 

carcinogens and increase excess lifetime cancer risk from many typical CCMA 

recreational activities, including OHV use and hiking. 

As a result of the EPA study, the BLM implemented a temporary closure of the 

Serpentine ACEC in May 2008 to all forms of entry and public use in order to protect public health and safety. The BLM collaborated with the EPA, stakeholders, 

and the public to incorporate the EPA’s health risk information into land-use 

decisions for the CCMA. Through an extensive planning process, with full opportunity for public comment, the BLM determined that limiting an individual’s time 

spent in the Serpentine ACEC is the most effective way to mitigate the health risks 

from asbestos exposure. Thus, the BLM limits high-risk activities within the Serpentine ACEC through its Clear Creek Resource Management Plan (RMP), which 

was finalized in February 12, 2014. Under the management plan, the BLM allows 

for a range of recreational uses and other activities in portions of the CCMA. It also 

limits the types of uses and places time restrictions during which an activity can 

take place within the Serpentine ACEC to minimize asbestos-related risk to public 

health and safety. Specifically, the RMP strictly limits vehicular and pedestrian access to the Serpentine ACEC. The BLM will reassess recreation opportunities and 

travel management decisions if significant new information becomes available concerning human health risks from exposure to airborne asbestos fibers in the CCMA. 

H.R. 1776

As noted earlier, H.R. 1776 would establish the Clear Creek National Recreation 

Area in San Benito and Fresno Counties; designate public lands in San Benito and 

Fresno Counties as the Joaquin Rocks Wilderness in those counties; and designate 

segments of five creeks within the CCMA as wild and scenic rivers. 

Clear Creek National Recreation Area 

Section 3 of H.R. 1776 establishes the Clear Creek National Recreation Area, to 

be managed by the Secretary of the Interior, to promote motorized and nonmotorized recreation, including OHV use, scenic touring, hunting and gem collecting. Under the bill, the Secretary would open the CCMA to the uses identified 

in the bill including motorized recreation, mountain biking, hiking, hunting and 

33 

camping. The bill provides direction for developing a comprehensive management 

plan that would provide for these activities. 

As written, it is unclear whether the bill’s provisions would result in increased 

activities in the Serpentine ACEC of the CCMA that are currently limited for health 

and safety reasons due to the risks from the carcinogen asbestos in the area. Public 

and employee health and safety has guided the BLM’s approach in managing the 

area, and the agency opposes provisions that could increase the risk of exposure to 

asbestos and pose significant potential risks to the public and employees. 

While section 4 of H.R. 1776 provides the BLM an exemption from responsibility 

for the public’s exposure to asbestos while recreating at the CCMA pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605), the bill does not reduce risk to 

the public; it only attempts to reduce liability to the BLM. As determined by the 

EPA, the potential public health risks are high in the Serpentine ACEC of the 

CCMA. In addition, the BLM is required to meet Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration standards for employees working in a designated hazardous asbestos 

area within the Serpentine ACEC, as well as meet Federal, State, and local air and 

water quality regulations designed to protect public health and safety from uncontrolled releases of hazardous airborne pollutants. 

Joaquin Rocks Wilderness Area 

Section 5 of H.R. 1776 proposes to designate 20,500 acres of public land in Fresno 

and San Benito Counties as the Joaquin Rocks Wilderness. The core of this area— 

more than 7,000 acres—has already been designated for special protection by the 

BLM as an ACEC. The centerpiece of the proposed wilderness area is the three 

large sandstone monoliths, known locally as Las Tres Piedras, which tower 4,000 

feet above the southern San Joaquin Valley. The rocks are home to a number of 

raptors, including the prairie falcon and the majestic California condor. Vernal Pools 

at the top of the rocks provide important seasonal habitat, and are also an important water source for wildlife in this arid region. Rock art sites throughout the 

proposed wilderness attest to earlier occupation and may even include ancient astronomical references. The BLM supports the wilderness designation in H.R. 1776, and 

would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor on minor boundary modifications and mapping issues. 

Wild & Scenic River Designations 

Section 6 of H.R. 1776 proposes to add seven stream segments totaling just over 

31 miles to the National Wild and Scenic River System within Fresno and San 

Benito Counties. All seven rivers find their origin in the Mountains of Southern San 

Benito County in the Diablo Range and each represent distinct watersheds. The segments are all free flowing and contain outstandingly remarkable values as required 

by the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The BLM supports these designations 

and would like to work with the sponsor to identify the most suitable classification 

for each of the seven segments. 

CONCLUSION

The BLM appreciates the work by Congressman Farr on H.R. 1776. Lands in the 

CCMA present complex resource management and public health and safety issues. 

While we support the proposed conservation designations, we cannot support provisions in the bill that could increase the exposure of public land users and employees 

to naturally occurring asbestos. We would like to continue working with Congressman Farr and the committee to address future uses at the CCMA, including the 

growing and popular activity of responsible OHV use in California and across the 

West. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be glad to answer any questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Are there questions for Mr. Rountree? Mr. 

LaMalfa, do you have questions on this particular one? Mr. 

Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. Mr. Rountree, did the revised resource management plan which was recently finalized adequately include the 

input of OHV users? And have any of these OHV users come forward to say they have concerns about the asbestos which you just 

outlined? 

34 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Thank you, sir. I can’t respond to your last question. Don’t know whether or not they have, with respect to the risk 

posed by asbestos. 

I will say that the resource management plan that was developed 

for the Clear Creek Management Area was done with a very extensive public involvement effort, including not only OHV enthusiasts, 

but other recreationists in the area. Also, in very close coordination 

with other Federal and State agencies, including both the OHV division and commission, as well as the California State Parks and 

Recreation Department. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. How common is it for BLM to collaborate with 

EPA on land use decisions out West? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. We will use the best available information for developing any kind of resource management plan for developing 

plans of action to govern our multiple use on public lands. EPA, we 

felt, was the most viable source. They spent 4 years studying this 

when they were examining the asbestos mine. And based on our 

conversations with them and others within State agencies, feel it 

is a very viable source of information for us to use in making these 

decisions. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. We have had testimony that the findings are overblown, inconclusive, and, therefore—and are such low levels that it 

poses no risk to public health. EPA finds it differently. Your recommendation and your testimony finds it differently. I think that 

is a central question to this piece of legislation, and would ask that 

any additional information that might not be part of the record of 

your testimony regarding that specific issue be forwarded to the 

committee. 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Absolutely. We will be happy to. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Also, we 

have just heard that one of the witnesses who was not here—his 

plane has arrived, he is in the building somewhere, and if Mr. 

Koretoff arrives we are going to ask him to come and actually give 

his testimony, as well. 

Mr. Garcia, do you have any questions on this one? 

Mr. Rountree, let me ask a couple of questions. Who did the 

study on the asbestos for you all? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. It was the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Mr. BISHOP. EPA. Do you have specific reference to the testimony 

that was given by Senator Allard that says that that study was exaggerated? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Have you seen Mr. Allard’s study? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. No, sir, I have not. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you have any comment about it? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Yes, sir. The IEFR report, as it is referred—I believe that is the report he may be citing in his testimony—was 

something that was considered by the Bureau of Land Management. In fact, the Bureau of Land Management, working with the 

California Parks and Recreation Division, as well as the OHV 

Department and the OHV Commission, discussed aspects of both 

the IEFR report, as well as the EPA report, and they found that, 

in terms of the values, the fact that Serpentine is found in this 

35 

area, the fact that asbestos is born in Serpentine, the reports are 

very similar. Where they differed were with respect to the risks. 

Mr. BISHOP. So BLM did do some study about this, but you rejected those recognitions of what the risk value is? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. We deferred to EPA. 

Mr. BISHOP. That is sad. Look, I understand what asbestos 

means. I taught school for 30 years across from the boy’s restroom. 

I understand what it means to be close to it, and how you can cover 

for that. 

I have one request, though, is that would you—obviously, the 

agency—please provide for the committee a map that shows where 

all the current OHV recreation roads and trails are located within 

this management area? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Absolutely. 

Mr. BISHOP. When can we get that? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. We will do that within the next week, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Because that has not been provided. We 

haven’t had a chance to look at that. 

Mr. Rountree, it has been a while since you had joined us. I do 

have a question that, obviously—several years ago there was a 

treasured landscape proposal that went out as people were just 

thinking off the top of their heads. Unfortunately, tomorrow, it 

seems like one of those thoughts that was just off the top of their 

heads will come into fruition—at least according to the press reports. Talking about Organ Mountain. 

Press stories indicate that the claims were made by the sponsors 

in the Senate, that they could somehow increase border security. 

There are WSAs that are down there that currently prohibit that 

kind of activity. Do you have some way to release the WSAs administratively in that area so the border can be better patrolled? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. No, sir, we do not. But it will take an Act of 

Congress to do so. 

Mr. BISHOP. So the press indications that claim that this announcement will increase that security, there is no way of actually 

implementing that? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. I haven’t read the proclamation, sir, so not sure 

exactly what they are saying. 

I will say we found that in Arizona, where we do have a number 

of national conservation lands, that the efforts along the border 

have actually been enhanced because of the attention that has been 

focused in these areas. And the close working relationship that we 

have developed with Border Patrol, in terms of managing these 

areas for illegal immigration. 

Mr. BISHOP. Has that improved since the CBO report came out? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. I am not sure what the CBO report is. I am 

sorry. 

Mr. BISHOP. We will come back to that, then. 

Can you tell me the timeline on the activities leading to the 

pending Organ monument announcement? When did BLM start 

working on this potential designation? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. BLM has not been working on a potential designation. 

36 

Mr. BISHOP. Even though it was part of the treasured landscapes 

proposal several years ago? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. That is correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. So you have done nothing specifically with the 

Administration on this? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. No, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you know of any special interest groups that 

have? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. I don’t know of any special interest groups. I will 

say that there have been people that have met with the Bureau of 

Land Management to express their concerns, also to express their 

support for this and other areas. 

Mr. BISHOP. Was the congressman who represents this area and 

has introduced legislation to conserve the area kept informed on 

each of the steps along the way? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. No, sir, not that I am aware. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, if you haven’t been consulted on the designation, 

how can the Administration be sure that all the issues that deal 

with 500,000 acres of BLM land have been reviewed and concerned, 

especially because the sponsors had specific provisions in there 

dealing with WSAs. They are obviously not going to be part of the 

announcement. They don’t have the power to change that, administratively. How are those issues being addressed? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. We have not seen a proclamation, Mr. Chairman. 

We will certainly work with the President once we have had a 

chance to review the proclamation, to work out whatever steps are 

necessary to—— 

Mr. BISHOP. With what authority? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. The proclamation. 

Mr. BISHOP. How can you work with the President to deal with 

things that can’t be done without congressional authorization? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Well, we will do everything we can within our 

power, working within the wilderness study areas, to assure that 

we provide whatever resources we can to make that happen. 

Mr. BISHOP. Wouldn’t that have been better to be done in a public process, before the announcement is made, rather than a postprocess? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Well, I can’t second-guess the President, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Why not? Everyone else does. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. But, actually, you are not second-guessing it, because the Interior Department already came out with this brainstorming idea when you did the treasured landscapes. 

So, you are telling me after the brainstorming went through 

nothing else was done to consider all these potential issues? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. No, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. The Senate actually introduced a bill that contained 

probably areas that could be worked on to improve the process, to 

improve the safety on the border, and yet none of those are being 

considered, and the President hasn’t gone through that, he hasn’t 

talked to you, he hasn’t talked to anyone else about it, he hasn’t 

talked to the Representative who represents this particular area. 

We are just going to do it? 

37 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Has not talked to us. No, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Maybe that is one of the reasons why we said there 

should be a change in process, so that these issues should be discussed ahead of time, not post-that time. 

Have you had the opportunity of being with us since the last— 

I remember the last time we were here we asked you some questions about the wild land legislation. Have you been here since that 

time? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. I have not. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Mr. Grijalva, do you have any other questions 

you want of this witness? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. No. 

Mr. BISHOP. Come on. I gave you an opening. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. No. 

Mr. BISHOP. It is—no, I didn’t mean to push you into it, it is OK. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. No, I just want to thank him for his—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Appreciate you being here. We appreciate all—now, 

do we know where—all right. What we will do—and I hate to do 

this when somebody has traveled this way to give us testimony, 

and not being able to do that, but, Mr. LaMalfa, maybe you can 

help me out of this awkward situation. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, I was kind of curious about this naturally 

occurring asbestos phenomenon. How much bearing does this have 

on not just this, but other land use decisions in other areas 

around—whether it is BLM or other Federal lands, what have you? 

Because I am curious. How much does this curtail activity, whether 

it is recreational, like we are talking about here, or other industry 

resource activities that would be going on? 

Because, you know, again, it is a naturally occurring substance. 

And so how much of this goes on? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Well, in this particular situation or across all 

public lands? Is your question about this specific—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, how much prohibition is there for the use 

of other public lands because of this? Is this a new thing, or is 

this—— 

Mr. ROUNTREE. This is a very unique occurrence. I think it is the 

largest serpentine deposit in the world, if I am not mistaken. So 

it is very rare. We have actually designated an Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern, which we do in our resource management 

planning, usually to protect cultural or native plant species and 

animal habitat. But we also do it in order to protect public health. 

And this is one of the few instances where we have done that. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So is there a parts per million figure that this has 

to rise to? Or what is the criteria in establishing—— 

Mr. ROUNTREE. I would have to defer to EPA, but would be 

happy to give you that information, if you would like. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Do you have it, then, or—— 

Mr. ROUNTREE. I do not. No, sir. But we can get it for you. 

Mr. LAMALFA. EPA has these numbers. 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LAMALFA. And how much time have they spent studying this 

zone, or others like it? 

38 

Mr. ROUNTREE. They studied this one for about 4 years. They 

started their efforts in 2004, and they completed it in 2008. 

Mr. LAMALFA. What prompted the study? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. The Atlas Mine site that was located within the 

Serpentine ACEC. 

Mr. LAMALFA. How far away is it from the site we are talking 

about? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. It is on the site. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I mean as far as recreation activity would be 

going on. 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Probably in and around the same area. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that. And we stretched this 

long enough. 

Mr. Koretoff—is that pronounced properly? 

Mr. KORETOFF. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate you coming from California. The Ranking Member will understand. I understand you got held up in 

Dallas? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, that was—— 

Mr. KORETOFF. Unfortunately, yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. I think the Ranking Member was with you in 

Dallas, trying to get in here. 

So, we apologize. I appreciate your patience and effort to actually 

make it here. You are the last witness we have. We are ready to 

have your testimony on H.R. 1776, please. 

Mr. KORETOFF. Yes. I am going to go ahead and read from my 

written testimony. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. KORETOFF. Yes, sorry. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, just pull it close to you. 

Mr. KORETOFF. Us farm folks are used to yelling over the tractor. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE KORETOFF, CALIFORNIA TRAIL USERS 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. KORETOFF. So, anyway, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today 

to share my views, the views of the Friends of Clear Creek Management Area, and the views of other multiple-use interests about 

this bipartisan land use legislation. My name is Steve Koretoff, I 

am a native of Fresno County, located in the heart of the Central 

Valley. My family has been farming in this area going on five generations. I am the general manager for the family’s organic almond 

packing facility. I currently reside in Fresno, California. I am a 

recreation and public land advocate who has championed responsible access to public lands for the last 10 years. 

I served on the BLM Central California Resource Advisory 

Council, which brings diverse interest groups together to offer land 

management advice to BLM. In addition, I have served as the 

Chairman of the OHV Subcommittee to the RAC, and I am currently still the chairman. There is a little typo there. It says 2009 

to 2013, and that is incorrect. It was 2006 to 2013. I have served 

39 

out a significant portion of one of my colleague’s terms, and then 

two terms on top of that of my own. 

So, I will proceed. Mr. Chairman, before getting into the substance of my concerns, I want to give the committee a quick overview of CCMA. In 2002, Dirt Rider Magazine listed Clear Creek as 

one of the top 10 OHV recreation sites in the country. It is located 

mostly in the southern San Benito County, and in the Coastal 

Mountain Range that separates the Salinas Valley from the 

Central Valley. 

As this committee knows, the BLM functionally closed this 

75,000-acre unit to all user groups in May 2008. Before the emergency closure, the unit was open for OHV use on approximately 

242 miles of designated routes from October 16 to May 31. This 

unit also contains approximately 25 miles of county roads. 

I have operated OHVs with family and friends, and club members in CCMA since the early 1990s. Many of our family and 

friends have been recreating in and around CCMA for over three 

generations. I consider many BLM employees on various units to 

be both personal friends and professional colleagues. 

I, and others in the OHV community, additional stakeholders, 

and the San Benito County found ourselves in strong disagreement 

with the Hollister Field Office’s initial decision to issue an emergency closure order in May 2008. I was actually notified of this 

on—leaving Washington, DC. I was here for some Ag-related business and kind of had a bomb dropped on me. I got a phone call 

from the Hollister Field Office and I was really surprised. 

So I will continue. Issued an emergency closure order in May 

2008 and its recent 2014 Record of Decision, which basically codifies that initial order and renders the unit functionally closed to 

OHV recreation. 

I believe H.R. 1776 strikes the right balance between access and 

safety by relying on proven management as signs and public outreach currently being used by sister land management agencies to 

caution the recreation public about the life-threatening hazards of 

rock climbing, snow skiing, swimming, and boating. 

Between 1981 and 2007, OHV recreationists through the 

California off-highway motor vehicle recreation grants program 

contributed approximately $7 million dollars to CCMA for trail and 

facility construction, route maintenance, resource protection, and 

law enforcement. No doubt, during that time period, millions of dollars of appropriated funds has also been spent to manage multipleuse recreation on that unit. 

I believe H.R. 1776 recognizes the investment of taxpayer dollars 

and users fees restoring OHV recreation on the unit using the 

NEPA-approved 2005 Clear Creek Management Area Travel Management Plan. I believe that H.R. 1776 recognizes that CCMA 

should be open for public use. 

I urge Congress to support this bipartisan legislation that designates 70,000-acre CCMA as a national recreation area with OHV 

recreation and other multiple-use recreation activities codified and 

protected in statute, including the 242 miles of routes and 400 

acres of open areas identified for motorized use in the 2005 CCMA 

Travel Management Plan. 

40 

On behalf of myself, the OHV community, and other access 

stakeholders, I thank the subcommittee for allowing me to testify 

on H.R. 1776. At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Koretoff follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE KORETOFF, CALIFORNIA TRAIL USERS ASSOCIATION

Statement in support of legislation to designate certain lands in Central California 

as the Clear Creek National Recreation Area (H.R. 1776) 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share my views, the views of the Friends of the Clear 

Creek Management Area, and views of other multiple-use interests about this bipartisan land use legislation. 

My name is Steve Koretoff. I am a native of Fresno County, located in the heart 

of the Central Valley of California. My family has been farming in this area going 

on five generations. I am the general manager for the family’s organic almond packing facility. I currently reside with my family in Fresno, California. I am a recreation and public land advocate who has championed responsible access to public 

lands for the last 10 years. 

I served on the BLM’s Central California Resource Advisory County (2009–2013) 

which brings diverse interest groups together to offer land management advice to 

the BLM. In addition, I have served as Chairman of the OHV Sub-committee to the 

RAC. 

Mr. Chairman, before getting into the substance of my concerns, I want to give 

the committee a quick overview of CCMA. In 2002, Dirt Rider Magazine listed Clear 

Creek as one of the top 10 OHV recreation sites in the country. It is located mostly 

in southern San Benito County in the Coastal Mountain Range that separates the 

Salinas Valley from the Central Valley. As this committee knows, the BLM functionally closed this 75,000 acre unit to all user groups in May 2008. Before the emergency closure, the unit was open for OHV use on approximately 242 miles of 

designated routes from October 16 to May 31. This unit also contains approximately 

25 miles of county roads. 

I have operated OHVs with family, friends, and club members in CCMA since the 

early 1990s. Many of our family and friends have been recreating in and around 

CCMA for three generations. I consider many BLM employees on various units to 

be both personal friends and professional colleagues. 

I and others in the OHV community, additional stakeholders, and San Benito 

County found ourselves in strong disagreement with the Hollister Field Office’s initial decision to issue an emergency closure order in May 2008 and its recent 2014 

Record of Decision which basically codifies that initial order and renders the unit 

functionally closed to OHV recreation. 

I believe H.R. 1776 strikes the right balance between access and safety by relying 

on proven management as signs and public outreach currently being used by sister 

land management agencies to caution the recreation public about the life threatening hazards of rock climbing, snow skiing, swimming, and boating. 

Between 1981 and 2007, OHV recreationists through the California OHMVR 

grants program contributed approximately $7 million dollars to CCMA for trail and 

facility construction, route maintenance, resource protection, and law enforcement. 

No doubt during that time period, millions of dollars of appropriated funds has also 

been spent to manage multiple-use recreation on that unit. 

I believe H.R. 1776 recognizes that investment of taxpayer dollars and user fees 

by restoring OHV recreation on the unit using the NEPA approved 2005 CCMA 

Travel Management Plan. 

I believe that H.R. 1776 recognizes that that CCMA should be open for public 

use. 

I urge Congress to support this bipartisan legislation that designates the 70,000- 

acre CCMA as a National Recreation Area with OHV recreation and other multipleuse recreational activities codified and protected in statute including the 242 miles 

of routes and 400 acres of open areas identified for motorized use in the 2005 CCMA 

Travel Management Plan. 

On behalf of myself, the OHV community, and other access stakeholders, I thank 

the subcommittee for allowing me to testify on H.R. 1776. 

At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions. 

41 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. LaMalfa, do you have any questions 

for this witness? 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes, thank you. Well, we all know what a struggle 

it is to have off-road lands available to people in the hobby, in the 

sport. And so I am sure you run into a lot of that frustration, yes? 

Mr. KORETOFF. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes. Money that is promised to go toward that 

ends up going to something else. 

Mr. KORETOFF. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Goes to environmental concerns, or this or that. 

A lot of that we see, right? 

Mr. KORETOFF. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So, with this proposal here, for this particular 

area, you are hearing about how asbestos is going to harm everybody that uses that. I mean how do we deal with that? 

And, by the way, I am on your side, conceptually, on this thing. 

But, you know, you are going to hear about how asbestos fibers are 

going to harm everyone. And so how do we answer that from your 

community side of it? 

Mr. KORETOFF. We find it quite interesting that BLM is using 

OSHA standards for the employees. However, they are using a 

much more stringent EPA standard for the public, which is quite 

unusual. Normally, OSHA standard would be much—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. So an OSHA standard might be used for somebody that is working there every day, 8 hours a day, 10 hours a 

day, whatever, with forestry or mining or whatever industry they 

might be in. Someone who is there all the time, versus somebody 

who is there occasionally, recreating on a dirt bike or what have 

you for a few hours on a weekend, three or four weekends a year. 

Is that kind of what you are paralleling there, sir? 

Mr. KORETOFF. Yes, I am paralleling the lack of exposure time 

by the recreational community, but also it seems that the public 

standard, or the risk analysis, is the public is being held to a much 

higher level. So, therefore, what EPA is stating is that the public, 

for whatever reason, cannot be exposed to the naturally—occurrences of asbestos minerals as the employees. And I find that a little perplexing. 

I have done a considerable amount of research over the last 8 

years. And the methodology that is used to determine the risk is 

considered very controversial. I can supply you gentlemen with 

some scientific analysis that states that EPA is over-estimating the 

risk by a substantial amount. And not only does it say that, but 

it states scientifically why they feel that way. 

So, one of the issues that the public had—and primarily the offroad community—was asking where is the physical evidence to 

back up the EPA risk analysis. And there is none. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. Thank you. I am sorry about the interruption 

there as we were—— 

Mr. KORETOFF. No, I understand. I came late—— 

Mr. LAMALFA [presiding]. Chairman Bishop did have another 

hearing, and so I had to take over for a moment. I will follow up 

here in a minute, but I would offer to Mr. Grijalva if you have any 

questions, sir. 

42 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No question for the 

witness that just provided the testimony. Thank you very much for 

making it, despite the wonderful stay in Dallas. Should compare 

notes. 

Mr. KORETOFF. Dallas is a wonderful place, by the way, I just 

didn’t want to get stuck there when I needed to be here. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Well, I—— 

Mr. KORETOFF. So no disrespect to the people of Texas or Dallas. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I won’t go as far. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. But anyway, I was going to—Mr. Rountree, to 

your knowledge, has this committee moved either the Senate or 

House proposal related to designating areas around Organ Mountain as a national monument? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. I am sorry. I didn’t understand your question, 

Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. There are proposals in the Senate and the House 

to designate areas around Organ Mountain as a monument, a legislative—have you seen—— 

Mr. ROUNTREE. The only thing I have seen has been the legislation that was introduced and that I testified on when I was before 

this committee last year. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Great. Do you—does the BLM have any authority 

to make a monument designation? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. No, sir. Only Congress or the President. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Do you believe that the White House coordinated 

with the Department of the Interior to gather information related 

to this monument designation? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. I would have to defer to the White House, Mr. 

Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. With that, I have no further questions. And thank you. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. Thank you again. So I say it properly, is it 

Koretoff? 

Mr. KORETOFF. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Koretoff. OK, thank you. Mr. Koretoff, do you feel 

that the OHV user comments were adequately considered in a decision like this? 

Mr. KORETOFF. No. 

Mr. LAMALFA. How long have you been recreating there yourself, 

have you and your family? 

Mr. KORETOFF. I started recreating there in 1992. 

Mr. LAMALFA. 1992. How do you feel? 

Mr. KORETOFF. I feel pretty good. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. 

Mr. KORETOFF. Actually, I am a little bit depressed, because I 

can’t ride on my favorite riding—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes, yes, OK. Well, all right. Yearning to breathe 

free there. 

So, to follow up on the previous thoughts—in your review, you 

think there is a double standard between EPA using one standard 

for off-roaders and OSHA has another for, say, professional industrial activity there. Right? 

43 

Mr. KORETOFF. Yes. It is a little bit confusing that BLM, for the 

Hollister Field Office staff, is using the OSHA guidelines. However, 

when it comes to the public, it is the EPA guidelines that are being 

used. So you don’t have similarities in that. 

One of the risk assessments is holding the public to a much higher standard and it is a much lower threshold. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. Well, Mr. Rountree promised he would supply 

us some of the EPA information for me and maybe other members 

of the committee on how they got there. Do you think that will 

shed much light on why there are two different standards, Mr. 

Rountree? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. I don’t know, sir. I will say that if the committee 

is interested, we have very, very stringent standard operating procedures for our employees out on the Serpentine ACEC, and I 

would be happy to provide those to the committee to give them a 

little better understanding of the efforts we take to ensure the safety of our employees. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Again, how many other areas do you know of 

around—do you know of other areas around the country where a 

naturally occurring asbestos phenomenon is causing people to not 

have access to lands? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. No, sir, not to my knowledge. 

Mr. LAMALFA. This is it. 

Mr. ROUNTREE. This is it, mm-hmm. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Do you see—— 

Mr. ROUNTREE. As far as the serpentine asbestos issue is 

concerned. 

Mr. LAMALFA [continuing]. Do you see more on the horizon? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. I—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Is EPA studying more of this, or your Department 

studying more of this? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. I have no idea. I would have to defer to EPA on 

that. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. Would you get that in the information you 

are going to supply the committee, too, please? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Absolutely. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. Well, sir, you came, again, a long way. You 

got held up in Dallas. I thought that just happened 150 years ago, 

but—would you have any more you would like to close with, since 

you did make the travel and the time here, on any area of this 

topic? I would like to offer that to you. 

Mr. KORETOFF. Yes. If I may just very briefly, I appreciate the 

ability that I have had to work with the Hollister Field Office and 

the State office. I have also been very appreciative of the former 

directors in the past that have always been willing to meet with 

me when I come to Washington, DC. I was hoping that that would 

continue with the current director. But, unfortunately, I was unable to get him to respond to my emails or my phone calls. 

In closing, what I would like to say is that San Benito County, 

which is the home of one of the largest asbestos mines in the western United States, just happens to have the third-lowest occurrence 

of asbestos-related disease in the whole State of California. This is 

why my colleagues and myself are a little bit perplexed. We see 

44 

that there are scientific experts that disagree with the EPA analysis. There is a lack of physical evidence. And our question is why. 

So, in closing, we would like a few more answers on that. But, 

at the same time, I would also like to convey my interest in continuing to work with the agency in some way or shape or form, 

finding some way to move forward. It is my hope that the legislation will pass. But, at the same time, we want to continue having 

a good working relationship with the agency. And I would like to 

convey that to Mr. Rountree at this time. 

And we, in the meantime, while we are waiting for that, it was 

voted unanimously by the Resource Advisory Council to BLM that 

areas outside of the ACEC, which is the Area of Critical Environmental Concern, which are not under the closure be made available 

to motorized recreation. 

And a final comment is the Atlas superfund, that area is in a remote part of Clear Creek Management Area, and is completely 

fenced and closed. There is no access into the former mine area. I 

really thank you for this time and this opportunity to be here. It 

is truly an honor, and it has been a humbling experience. And I 

thank you. 

Mr. LAMALFA. You are welcome. Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. No, I will just put it in writing. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. All right. Thank you again for your travel, 

Mr. Rountree. We look for those answers from EPA and others related to that. 

And, Mr. Koretoff, if you would like to submit to the committee 

some of your frustration with not getting your questions or your 

emails—response from agencies on that, direct them to us, please, 

to be able to look over and perhaps help you with that. OK? 

Mr. KORETOFF. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right—— 

Mr. KORETOFF. Would it be acceptable for me to forward some of 

the scientific opinions and things that I have that I have based my 

opinion on? 

Mr. LAMALFA. Of course. Please do. 

Mr. KORETOFF. OK, thank you. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. All right. With that, Members, we—no 

further questions or even committee members, thank you, the witnesses, again, for your travel. And I will ask that they respond in 

writing to all the questions submitted by subcommittee. There 

being no further business, without objection, the subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

H.R. 1776, THE CLEAR CREEK NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

AND CONSERVATION ACT

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

speak to you about H.R. 1776, the Clear Creek National Recreation Area and Conservation Act. I also want to thank our colleagues Mr. Valadao and Mr. Denham 

45 

for joining me as original cosponsors of this legislation, as well as, Mr. McClintock 

as a cosponsor. This bill truly represents a bipartisan collaboration and I am proud 

to have them join me in working to advance this modest bill. 

H.R. 1776 protects and enhances in three ways the public’s access to and enjoyment of some of the unique public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in central California. First, the bill re-designates the Clear Creek 

Management Area (CCMA) as the Clear Creek National Recreation Area (CCNRA) 

and reopens it to off road vehicle (OHV) recreation. Second, the bill designates the 

adjacent Joaquin Rocks landscape as wilderness and finally designates five BLM 

identified streams in the area as National Wild & Scenic Rivers. 

These actions together encapsulate the efforts of both the OHV community and 

California’s wilderness advocates and ensures that this legislation has a broad base 

of support from the community and local electeds. I would now like to take the opportunity to describe these three facets of the bill in more detail. 

CLEAR CREEK

The Clear Creek stream gives its name to approximately 65,000 acres of mountainous land managed by the BLM that lies in the Diablo Mountains between the 

coastal Salinas Valley and California’s great inland Central Valley. Designated by 

the BLM as the CCMA, this area includes a significant concentration of serpentine 

rock at the surface which leaves many stretches of open barren slope ideally suited 

to OHV recreation. BLM recognized this and managed approximately 30,000 acres 

of the CCMA for public OHV recreational use. As OHV recreation grew in popularity through the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s, Clear Creek became a haven for dirt bike 

enthusiasts and others drawn to its open spaces and challenging terrain. By 2005, 

annual use had grown to over 35,000 visitors, including hikers, campers, hunters, 

rock collectors, but primarily OHV users. 

In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a study that 

concluded the naturally occurring asbestos prevalent in the CCMA’s serpentine soils 

posed an unacceptable cancer risk to members of the public, especially OHV users, 

recreating within its boundaries. People familiar with the CCMA area had long understood that its serpentine rock contained uncommon concentrations of asbestos. 

Indeed, throughout the 1960s and ’70s, the Atlas Asbestos Company operated an asbestos mine in the CCMA. In 1984, the BLM designated approximately 31,000 acres 

within the CCMA that had the highest concentrations of serpentine soils as the 

Clear Creek Serpentine Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). 

In the years leading up to 2008, BLM increasingly had taken measures to minimize the recreating public’s asbestos exposure. However, until the EPA’s report, the 

BLM lacked any clear quantification of the risks associated with OHV use. With 

those risk numbers at hand, BLM leadership felt that it could no longer permit the 

OHV and other uses that it had up to that point. So on May 1, 2008, BLM issues 

a temporary closure order for the CCMA and initiated the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) process to reach a decision on a long term plan. In February of 

this year, the BLM completed that process with the release of its final Record of 

Decision for the CCMA. That decision allows limited public access to but makes permanent the 2008 ban on OHV use within the CCMA. 

The 2008 closure sparked an intense outcry from the OHV community. Obviously, 

people resented loosing access to one of the premier OHV locations in the western 

United States and one at which many of them had been riding at for years. The 

surrounding communities felt the loss of visitor income when people stopped traveling to Clear Creek. BLM’s public meeting on the subject of the closure regularly 

drew hundreds of people. Many argued that the EPA’s study over sampled the 

amount of asbestos an OHV user would typically be exposed to riding at Clear 

Creek. In 2011, the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation’s OffHighway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission even sponsored an alternative analysis of EPA’s data that concluded the health risk to OHV use in the CCMA was 

far less than that identified by EPA. 

H.R. 1776 stands for the proposition that the Americans ought to have a greater 

degree of freedom in judging the risks that they can accept while recreating on our 

public lands. I have no doubt that riding a motorcycle at Clear Creek is risky and 

that riders face additional risks from asbestos exposure. And I do not question the 

good intentions of BLM’s leadership in making the management decisions that they 

did in the face of the health risks outlined by EPA. It was an understandable reaction in today’s risk adverse world. But should we banish all risk from public lands 

recreation? Hunting, skiing, rock climbing, mountaineering, diving, boating, surfing, 

kayaking, and any number of other outdoor sports pose risks. In some cases, people 

lose their lives or suffer serious injury while engaged in one of these recreational 

46 

activities. Provided the risk is not so overwhelming and the person recreating knows 

the nature and magnitude of the risk, the Federal Government ought not to substitute its own judgment in place of the individual knowingly taking on the risk. 

H.R. 1776 establishes the CCMA as the Clear Creek National Recreation Area 

(CCNRA). It directs the BLM to reopen the CCNRA to OHV recreation. It provides 

for BLM to reuse its 2006 route plan developed prior to the 2008 shutdown on an 

interim basis while it develops a long term plan. Within these parameters, the bill 

provides BLM the broad discretion to implement measures to minimize the recreating public’s exposure to asbestos. It also gives the BLM the authority to levy a 

recreational user fee and apply the proceeds to the management of OHV recreation 

at CCNRA and to contract with qualified State or local government agencies to 

manage all or a portion of the CCNRA’s recreational activities. Finally, the bill requires an extensive public information effort to fully inform people recreating within 

the CCNRA of all known and suspected asbestos related health risks associated 

with recreation within the CCNRA. 

JOAQUIN ROCKS WILDERNESS AND WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS DESIGNATION

Just to the east of the Clear Creek Management Area and wholly outside the traditional OHV riding areas lays a little known natural wonder called the Joaquin 

Rocks. H.R. 1776 would designate approximately 21,000 acres of this feature and 

the surrounding ridgeline as Federal wilderness all which is located entirely on 

Bureau of Land Management administered lands in the southern Diablo Range. 

The area takes its name from the legendary Joaquin Murieta, believed by some 

to be a heroic figure in early California and an outlaw by others. The Joaquin Rocks 

are said to have provided a secluded hiding place for him and his band during the 

1850s. The area also shows archeological evidence of past Native American occupation. Rising up over 4,000 feet from the valley floor, the striking Joaquin Rocks are 

the centerpiece of this remote area. These three scenic 250′ tall monoliths are the 

eroded remnants of an ancient vaqueros sandstone formation. 

The area features numerous rugged canyons. Oak woodlands cloak the numerous 

spur ridges that descend down to the valley. Vegetation in the area includes, blue 

oak, California juniper, grey pine, chaparral, and native grasslands. Due to the cooler climate provided by its elevation, the area delivers outstanding displays of native 

wildflowers well into summer. The steep cliffs of the Joaquin Rocks—and the numerous other towering sandstone formations found throughout the area—are host 

to species of falcons, hawks and owls. These formations could also provide potential 

nesting habitat for the California condor which has been reintroduced into the nearby Gavilan Range. One of the peaks of the Joaquin Rocks—La Centinela—hosts a 

unique vernal pool supporting fairy and tadpole shrimp. 

H.R. 1776 also designates several streams outside the OHV riding area for 

National Wild and Scenic River Act protection. While the Clear Creek area receives 

very little rain, its boasts several year round and ephemeral streams. Its unique serpentine soils and unusual year-round flowing streams support numerous rare plants 

and sensitive wildlife species, while offering diverse outdoor recreation opportunities. As a result, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) identified several streams 

in the area as eligible for National Wild & Scenic River protection. These include: 

Larious Canyon—5.25 miles. Larious Canyon Creek possesses outstandingly remarkable historical and cultural values. Larious Canyon Creek also supports foothill 

yellow-legged frog (a BLM sensitive species), Idria short-tailed scorpion (a Statelisted species at risk), and San Benito fritillary (a sensitive plant). 

San Carlos Creek—5.51 miles. The East Fork supports several sensitive plants 

and its upper segment is located within the San Benito Mountain Research Natural 

Area and San Benito Wilderness Study Area. 

Cantua Creek—7.68 miles. Cantua Creek supports several sensitive wildlife and 

plant species, including foothill yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle, two-striped 

garder snake (a State species of special concern), and two sensitive plants—San 

Benito fritillary, and San Joaquin spearscale. It is also the second longest creek on 

public lands in the NRA. 

Picacho Creek—2.65 miles. Picacho Creek possesses outstandingly remarkable 

recreational and ecological values. The creek supports foothill yellow-legged frog and 

two-striped garder snake. 

White Creek and Tributaries—10.11 miles. White Creek and its tributaries possess outstandingly remarkable historical and cultural values. The creek supports 

foothill yellow-legged frog and the San Benito evening primrose (a sensitive plant). 

47 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, as the subcommittee moves forward to mark-up, I would like to 

request your assistance in making several changes to the bill. As with any piece of 

legislation, several suggested improvements have come to light since its introduction. Accordingly, I ask the subcommittee to accept the following amendments: 

1. An updated date for the proposed Joaquin Rocks wilderness to accommodate 

a new map that reflects a revised wilderness boundary to accommodate a proposed OHV trail; 

2. Additional language to remove the current wilderness study area status of the 

San Benito Mountain Wilderness Study Area; and 

3. Additional language to clarify the bill’s intention to maximize the feasible 

miles of OHV tail that the BLM would manage for OHV use within the 

boundaries of the newly designated Clear Creek national Recreation Area. 

In closing Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize several people who have played an 

important role in shaping this legislation. Don Amador from the Blue Ribbon Coalition and Gordon Johnson from the California Wilderness Alliance are the odd couple 

of California public lands policy. Their collaboration provided the initial inspiration 

for this bill and helped resolve countless details over the course of its drafting. I 

also want to thank the BLM’s local staff who has been extremely helpful and professional throughout this process. And finally I want to thank two constituents of mine 

who never let me forget how important Clear Creek was to them: Ed Tobin with 

the Salinas Ramblers Motorcycle Club is a tireless organizer who has kept the Clear 

Creek riding community focused on the public and political process; and Ron 

DeShazer, a forklift operator in Salinas and a long time Clear Creek rider, who has 

come to every one of my town hall meetings for the last 6 years to calmly ask for 

Congressional assistance to reopen Clear Creek to public OHV use. 

MAP OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT AND ROUTE DESIGNATION SUBMITTED

BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


88012.003.eps
48 

1 American Battle Monuments Commission (AMBC), National WWII Memorial, Facts, http:// 

www.wwiimemorial.com/default.asp?page=facts.asp&subpage=intro (‘‘Above all, the memorial 

stands as an important symbol of American national unity, a timeless reminder of the moral 

strength and awesome power that can flow when a free people are at once united and bonded 

together in a common and just cause.’’). 2 Religious Diversity in the U.S. Military, Military Leadership Diversity Comm’n, Issue Paper 

No. 22 (June 2010). 3See, e.g., Trunk and Jewish War Veterans v. city of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099, 1124–25 (9th 

Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 567 U.S. __ (2012). 4Legislative Hearing on Misc. Parks Bills Before the Subcomm. on National Parks of the S. 

Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, 113th Cong. (2013) (Statement for the Record from 

Stephanie Toothman, Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science, 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior) available at http://www.nps.gov/legal/ 

testimony/113th/S.%201044%20WWII%20Memorial%20Prayer%20Plaque%207-31- 

13%20final.pdf. 5 AMBC, National WWII Memorial Inscriptions, http://wwiimemorial.com/archives/factsheets/ 

inscriptions.htm. 6 National Parks Service, World War II Memorial Inscription Controversy available at http:// 

www.nps.gov/wwii/photosmultimedia/upload/ 

WWII%20Memorial%20Inscription%20Controversy%20web.pdf. This is not the first time that religion has generated controversy regarding inscriptions on the WWII Memorial. After the World 

War II Memorial Commission and the ABMC selected quotations to inscribe in the memorial, 

there was a ‘‘maliciously generated and widely distributed notion’’ that the phrase ‘‘so help us 

God’’ was removed from the quote selected from President Roosevelt’s address before a joint sesLETTERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD OPPOSING H.R. 2175 

ACLU, 

WASHINGTON, DC, 

MAY 19, 2014. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: ACLU Opposes H.R. 2175, World War II Memorial Prayer Act 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP AND RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA: 

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a non-partisan organization with more than a half million members, countless additional activists and supporters, and 53 affiliates nationwide dedicated to the principles of individual liberty 

and justice embodied in the U.S. Constitution, we write to express our opposition 

to H.R. 2175, which would require that an inscription of President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer be added to the WWII Memorial. 

This bill would detract from the stated purpose of the memorial—national unity.1

Memorials are designed to bring our country together in a unified reflection of our 

past. H.R. 2175, however, endorses the false notion that all veterans are honored 

by a war memorial that includes a prayer given from a specific religious viewpoint. 

Our nation is, and always has been, extraordinarily religiously diverse; this is one 

of our nation’s great strengths. Department of Defense reports show that nearly 

one-third of all current members of the U.S. Armed Forces identify as nonChristian.2 Likewise, many of our veterans and citizens come from a variety of religious backgrounds, or have no religious belief. Instead of being something that 

unites us as we remember the sacrifice of those who served, the inclusion of a prayer on the memorial is divisive: It ‘‘sends a strong message of . . . exclusion’’ to those 

who do not share the same religious beliefs.3 The First Amendment affords special 

protections to freedom of religion. Because of these protections, each of us is free 

to believe, or not believe, according to the dictates of our conscience. These beliefs 

are too precious to be used for political purposes, as this bill would do. 

The memorial ‘‘we see today, [which] was painstakingly arrived upon after years 

of public deliberations and spirited public debate,’’ 4 properly honors those who 

served. The World War II Memorial Commission and the American Battle 

Monuments Commission (ABMC) carefully chose the inscriptions that are integral 

to the memorial, which include quotes spanning from the beginning of U.S. involvement in the war following the attacks on Pearl Harbor to the war’s end, and already 

include a quote from D-Day and two quotes from President Roosevelt.5 These commissions thoroughly deliberated which inscriptions to include, selecting quotations 

that honor those who served and commemorate the events of World War II.6 Not 

49 

sion of Congress following the Pearl Harbor attacks. In fact that phrase was never part of the 

speech at all and was, therefore, not omitted from the quotation. Id. 7Senate Hearing, Statement for the Record from National Park Service. 

8 Commemorative Works Act, 40 U.S.C. § 8901 et seq. 9 40 U.S.C. § § 8904–05; see also Senate Hearing, Statement for the Record from National Park 

Service. 10 158 Cong. Rec. S3748 (June 6, 2012) (floor statement of Sen. Portman). 1 Hearing on H.R. 1980, H.R. 2070, H.R. 2621, and H.R. 3155 Before the Subcomm. on 

National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the H. Comm. on Natural Resources, 112th Congress (2011) (testimony of Robert Abbey, Director of the Bureau of Land Management); see also 

Hearing on S. 1044 by the Subcomm. on National Parks S. Comm. on Natural Resources, 113th 

Congress (2013) (statement of Stephanie Toothman, Associate Director, Cultural Resources, 

Partnerships, and Science, National Park Service, Department of the Interior) (‘‘Toothman testimony’’). 

surprisingly, the ABMC and National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, 

which was designated by Congress to consult on the design of the Memorial, have 

stated that ‘‘no additional elements should be inserted into this carefully designed 

Memorial.’’ 7

Not only does this bill set a precedent to authorize congressional second-guessing 

of the thorough, deliberative process required to establish memorials and tamper 

with memorials that were constructed and dedicated years ago, but it is also written 

to sidestep the Commemorative Works Act’s provisions.8 It would either override the 

authority established under the Act to approve the World War II Memorial’s design 

by adding an additional element nearly a decade after the memorial was dedicated 

or, if the prayer inscription is to be considered a new memorial, it would circumvent 

the Act’s stipulation that new memorials not ‘‘interfere with, or encroach on, an existing commemorative work.’’ 9

The assertion that the World War II Memorial needs to be improved to provide 

‘‘historical context to [the] memorial’’ and add ‘‘another layer of commemoration’’ 10

is simply not the case. 

Please contact Legislative Representative Ian Thompson at (202) 715–0837 or 

ithompson@aclu.org if you would like to discuss the ACLU’s opposition to 

H.R. 2175. 

Sincerely, 

LAURA W. MURPHY, 

Director, Washington Legislative Office. 

IAN S. THOMPSON, 

Legislative Representative. 

AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, 

WASHINGTON, DC, 

MAY 16, 2013. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: H.R. 2175, ‘‘The World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2013’’ 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP AND RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA: 

We are writing to voice our opposition to H.R. 2175, ‘‘The World War II Memorial 

Prayer Act of 2013,’’ which calls for the installation of a plaque or inscription with 

a prayer at the World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia. Inserting this 

prayer onto the Memorial would run contrary to the Memorial’s goal of uniting 

Americans and defy the designers’ judgments, which were ‘‘painstakingly arrived 

upon after years of public deliberations and spirited public debate.’’ 1 The Memorial, 

as designed, is purposely short on words in order to evoke a powerful message of 

unity. And, in contrast to some of the rhetoric that has accompanied this debate, 

the monument already acknowledges that faith was important to many soldiers durVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:36 Mar 26, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04MY20 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88012.TXT DARLEN
50 

2The monument quotes Walter Lord: ‘‘Even against the greatest of odds, there is 

something in the Human Spirit—a magic blend of skill, faith, and valor—that can lift men from 

certain defeat to incredible victory.’’ Thomas B. Grooms, U.S. General Services Administration’s Design Excellence Program in the Office of the Chief Architect, World War II Memorial 

Online Book 97 (2004), http://www.wwiimemorialfriends.org/images/docs/ 

WWII_Memorial_Book_Completed.pdf (emphasis added). 3 Id. at 25. 4 Id. at 65. 5 Id. at 76, 79. 6Toothman testimony, supra, note 1. 7 Id. 

8 Id. 

ing the war.2 There is no need to take extraordinary steps to reopen the design of 

the Memorial to add a prayer. 

Inserting This Prayer Contradicts the Main Message of the Memorial—Unity 

One of the main themes of the World War II Memorial is unity: ‘‘The memorial 

serves as a timeless reminder of the moral strength and the awesome power of a 

free people united in a common and just cause.’’ 3 Adding a prayer to the completed 

Memorial, however, does not serve this theme. Instead, it introduces an element to 

the design on which many Americans disagree—religion. America’s military, like the 

Nation itself, is extraordinarily religiously diverse. Our veterans, like our currently 

serving troops, come from many different religious traditions and some follow no 

spiritual path at all. Adding a prayer that represents some—but not all—veterans 

and members of the military defies the theme of unity and leaves many unrepresented. 

The Bill Defies the Judgments of the Monument’s Designers 

In adherence to the Commemorative Works Act (CWA), the original design process included ‘‘more than two dozen public reviews,’’ and ‘‘numerous informal design 

review sessions with members of the evaluation board and design competition 

jury.’’ 4 The monument’s designers called for ‘‘Fewer Words—Less Inscriptions,’’ and 

‘‘decided to reduce the number of inscription locations from 25 to 20 and to emphasize evocative quotations from World War II participants—including Roosevelt, Truman, Marshall, Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Nimitz.’’ 5 But H.R. 2175 calls for yet 

another inscription, clearly running counter to this goal, design, and aesthetic. 

Indeed, the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) ‘‘reviewed 

a proposal similar to the one before the committee today at its meeting on 

September 14, 2011, and determined that no additional elements should be inserted 

into this carefully designed memorial.’’ 6 The American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC), which Congress charged with designing and building the World War 

II Memorial, agreed with this decision.7

H.R. 2175 appears to call for the design of the new inscription or plaque to go 

through the CWA process, but it actually ‘‘requires a different method of designing 

and locating the plaque or inscription than is provided in the CWA.’’ 8 Nonetheless, 

calling for the plaque to go through the CWA process does not undo the fact that 

the Memorial’s design is being reopened and altered, or that the painstaking decisions made in the original CWA process are being overruled. The bill dictates that 

a specific inscription be added. Even if the exact location and the font of the inscription will be reviewed under the CWA, it does not cure the fact that the insertion 

of the plaque violates the original design process and, at a minimum, the spirit of 

the CWA. 

Such Meddling With the Design of a Memorial Is Nearly Unprecedented 

Redesigning critical aspects of a Memorial more than a decade after its dedication 

is nearly unprecedented. Congress did add an inscription at the Lincoln Memorial 

to commemorate Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘‘I Have a Dream Speech’’ and added a 

plaque near the visitor center of the World War II Memorial to thank Former 

Senator Bob Dole for his ‘‘tireless support of’’ the Memorial. But these plaques are 

wholly different. Neither the King nor the Dole plaque changed the content and 

message of the memorial to which they were added: they did not alter, remove, or 

add language, images, or emblems relating to the honoring of President Lincoln or 

World War II veterans. Neither second-guessed the designers, historians, architects, 

or public input regarding the best way to honor Lincoln or veterans at the memorials. Instead, they left the memorials intact. 

The plaque added at the Lincoln Memorial merely commemorated that spot as the 

site for an important historical event. In just a few words, the inscription commemorated Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech: the inscription includes the words ‘‘I HAVE 

51 

9Letters from Michael G. Conley, Director of Public Affairs, The American Battle Monuments 

Commission, Complaint letters to The American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) from 

the public and/or Members of Congress concerning battle monuments 3, http:// 

www.governmentattic.org/docs/ABMC_ComplaintLetters_2006-7.pdf. 10 Id. at 4, 25, 39, 51–52. 11 Id. at 3, 25, 38, 50, 71–73. 12 Id. at 3. 1See Misc. National Parks Bills Hearing Before the Subcomm. on National Parks of the S. 

Comm. Energy & Natural Resources, 112th Cong. (2012) (Statement of Senator Rob Portman) 

available at http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=a64e4f88-18d3-4489-96a0-b1a89b2b51e6 (86:15). 2 Religious Diversity in the U.S. Military, Military Leadership Diversity Comm’n, Issue Paper 

No. 22 (June 2010). 

A DREAM,’’ and acknowledges the speaker, the event, and the date. It does not add, 

detract, or change any aspects of the monument that reflect upon Lincoln. 

The plaque honoring Bob Dole also does not change any reflections upon World 

War II. It was not even embedded into the World War II Memorial. Instead, it was 

placed at the Memorial’s visitor center, approximately 25 yards away from the 

World War II Memorial itself. Indeed, you must turn away from the Memorial to 

even see the plaque. 

Inserting the prayer at the World War II Memorial, in contrast, would alter the 

content of the memorial and the message of the monument itself. 

It is true that ‘‘each visitor views the memorial through their own experience, 

which sometimes results in their questioning aspects of the design.’’ 9 Since the 

Memorial’s dedication, soldiers have requested amendments to add the Battles of 

Cassino, Bougainville, and New Georgia; asked for changes to recognize the Canal 

Zone; and advocated for the inclusion of campaign ribbons.10 These requests were 

denied.11 Indeed, this questioning, no matter how heartfelt, should not reopen the 

design process. As explained in a letter written in 2006 by the American Battle 

Monuments Commission, ‘‘The government agencies for the design of the memorial 

. . . consider it complete, recognizing that the full story can never be captured in 

a memorial.’’ 12

For all of the above reasons and more, we oppose the passage of H.R. 2175. 

Sincerely, 

MAGGIE GARRETT, 

Legislative Director. 

MAY 16, 2013. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP AND RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA: 

We, the undersigned organizations, write to express our concerns about 

H.R. 2175, the ‘‘World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2013.’’ This bill would require 

the Secretary of the Interior to add an inscription of President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer to the WWII Memorial. 

Religious freedom is a fundamental and defining feature of our national character. 

Given our robust, longstanding commitment to the freedom of religion and belief, 

it is no surprise that the United States is among the most religious, and religiously 

diverse, nations in the world. Our religious diversity is one of our Nation’s great 

strengths. 

This bill, however, shows a lack of respect for this great diversity. It endorses the 

false notion that all veterans will be honored by a war memorial that includes a 

prayer that proponents characterize as reflecting our country’s ‘‘Judeo-Christian 

heritage and values.’’ 1 In fact, Department of Defense reports show that nearly onethird of all current members of the U.S. Armed Forces identify as non-Christian.2

Likewise, many of our veterans and citizens come from a variety of religious backVerDate Mar 15 2010 15:36 Mar 26, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04MY20 2ND SESS. PRINTING\88012.TXT DARLEN
52 

3Press Release, Sen. Rob Portman, Portman Renews Effort to Commemorate FDR’s D-Day 

Prayer with the Nation at the WWII Memorial (May 23, 2013), http://www.portman.senate.gov/ 

public/index.cfm/2013/5/portman-renews-effort-to-commemorate-fdr-s-d-day-prayer-with-thenation-at-the-wwii-memorial. 4 American Battle Monuments Commission (AMBC), National WWII Memorial, Facts, http:// 

www.wwiimemorial.com/default.asp?page=facts.asp&subpage=intro (‘‘Above all, the memorial 

stands as an important symbol of American national unity, a timeless reminder of the moral 

strength and awesome power that can flow when a free people are at once united and bonded 

together in a common and just cause.’’). 5Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 309–10 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 

465, U.S. 668, 688 (O’Connor, J., concurring); see also, e.g., Trunk and Jewish War Veterans v. 

city of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099, 1124–25 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 567 U. S.__ (2012). 6 AMBC, National WWII Memorial Inscriptions, http://wwiimemorial.com/archives/factsheets/ 

inscriptions.htm. 7 National Parks Service, World War II Memorial Inscription Controversy, http://www.nps.gov/ 

wwii/photosmultimedia/upload/WWII%20Memorial%20Inscription%20Controversy%20web.pdf. 8Legislative Hearing on Misc. Parks Bills Before the Subcomm. on National Parks of the S. 

Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, 113th Cong. (2013) (Statement for the Record from 

Stephanie Toothman, Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science, 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior) available at http://www.nps.gov/legal/ 

testimony/113th/S.%201044%20WWII%20Memorial%20Prayer%20Plaque%207-31- 

13%20final.pdf. 9 Id. 

grounds, or have no religious belief; thus, it is inappropriate to honor the ‘‘power 

of prayer’’ 3 in a national memorial. 

Memorials are designed to bring our country together in a unified reflection of our 

past. Indeed, the WWII Memorial’s stated purpose is national unity.4 Instead of 

uniting us as we remember the sacrifice of those who served, the inclusion of this 

prayer on the memorial would be divisive: It would send a strong message to those 

who do not share the same religious beliefs expressed in this prayer that they are 

excluded and ‘‘not full members of the . . . community.’’ 5

The memorial, as it currently stands, appropriately honors those who served and 

encompasses the entirety of the war. The World War II Memorial Commission and 

the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) carefully chose the inscriptions already included on the memorial. The inscriptions contain quotes spanning 

from the beginning of U.S. involvement in the war following the attacks on Pearl 

Harbor to the war’s end, and already include a quote about D-Day and two quotes 

from President Roosevelt.6 These commissions thoroughly deliberated which inscriptions to include, selecting quotations that honor those who served and commemorate 

the events of World War II.7 As the National Park Service explained at the subcommittee hearing, ‘‘The design we see today was painstakingly arrived upon after 

years of public deliberations and spirited public debate.’’ 8 The ABMC and National 

Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, which was designated by Congress to consult on the design of the Memorial, have stated that ‘‘no additional elements should 

be inserted into this carefully designed Memorial.’’ 9

The First Amendment affords special protections to freedom of religion. Because 

of these protections, each of us is free to believe, or not believe, according to the 

dictates of our conscience. The effect of this bill, however, is to co-opt religion for 

political purposes, which harms the beliefs of everyone. 

Thank you for allowing us to share our concerns with H.R. 2175. 

Sincerely, 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU) 

AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE (AJC) 

AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE

CENTER FOR INQUIRY

HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION

INTERFAITH ALLIANCE

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN

UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, GENERAL BOARD OF CHURCH AND SOCIETY

53 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

—International Environmental Research Foundation, ‘‘Preliminary 

Analysis of the Asbestos Exposures Associated with Motorcycle 

Riding and Hiking in the Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA) 

San Benito County, California’’, by Richard Wilson, John Kelse and 

GL Nord, RP Nolan and AM Langer, March 8, 2011, submitted by 

Wayne Allard 

—Letters in support of H.R. 2489, ‘‘Oregon Caves Revitalization 

Act of 2013’’, (total of 38) submitted by Rep. DeFazio: 

CAVE JUNCTION BUSINESSES 

• Cave Junction Family Medicine 

• Oregon Caves Chevron 

• Chiropractic Wellness Center LLC 

• CJ Liquors 

• Coffee Heaven 

• Crossroads Animal Hospital 

• Dennis Strayer, Ret. Federal Agency Visitor Center Manager 

• Forest Edge Farms 

• Illinois Valley Family Coalition 

• Irene Guerrero-Acevedo, Farmers Insurance 

• Judith Zulliger, Ret. Exec. Dir. Illinois Valley Family Resource Center 

• Kaufman Wood Furniture 

• Martell & Associates 

• Northwest Hairlines 

• Rachel Goodman, L.M.T. 

• Renewable Energy Systems 

• Rogue Natural Living 

• Siskiyou Art 

• Siskiyou Mountain Herbs 

• Siskiyou Research Group 

• Subway 

• Suri Futures 

• WaterCycle Inc 

GRANTS PASS BUSINESSES 

• Hair Art Thou 

• Home Valley Bank 

• The Kitchen Company 

• Martin’s Design & Print Studio 

KIRBY BUSINESSES 

• The Dovetail Joint 

• Hampton’s Rock Shop 

• It’s a Burl Gallery Woodyard Shop 

• Yanase Jewelers 

SELMA BUSINESSES 

• Camp Forest 

• Clear Creek Family Practice 

• Dr. Dave Perry, retired professor of forest ecology 

54 

OTHER 

• Steve Siewart, Horticultural Services (Ashland, OR) 

• Bonanza Consulting (Bonanza, OR) 

• Callahan Seeds (Central Point, OR) 

• R.H. Ziller & Co. Inc (O’Brien, OR) 

Æ