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

88–967 PDF 2015

H.R. 445, H.R. 1785, H.R. 4119, 

H.R. 4901, H.R. 4979, H.R. 5086, 

S. 311, S. 476, AND S. 609 

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, July 29, 2014 

Serial No. 113–84 

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, July 29, 2014 ............................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Clyburn, Hon. James E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina .......................................................................................... 72 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 74 

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

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 2 

Dent, Hon. Charles W., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania ............................................................................................. 70 

Fortenberry, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Nebraska ................................................................................................... 68 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l, Prepared statement of ................................................... 3 

Johnson, Hon. Hank Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Georgia ...................................................................................................... 61 

Reichert, Hon. David G., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Washington ............................................................................................... 55 

Thornberry, Hon. Mac, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas .......................................................................................................... 34 

Tonko, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York ................................................................................................................ 75 

Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Massachusetts, Prepared statement of ....................................................... 83 

Van Hollen, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maryland, Prepared statement of ........................................................... 83 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Abernathy, Reverend Ralph David III, Atlanta, Georgia .............................. 64 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 66 

Abrams, Mary, Director, Department of State Lands, State of Oregon ....... 10 

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

Canan, Pat, Captain Game Warden, Wichita Falls, Texas ........................... 37 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39 

Ellis, Steve, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior ...................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Gorton, Hon. Slade, Bellevue, Washington .................................................... 59 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 60 

Hickman, Vanessa P., Land Commissioner, State of Arizona ...................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Ogsbury, Jim, Executive Director, Western Governors’ Association ............ 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Sachse, Allen C., Chair, Alliance of National Heritage Areas ...................... 77 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 78 

Spitler, Paul, The Wilderness Society ............................................................. 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Toothman, Stephanie, Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Partnerships and Science, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior ........................................................................................................... 47 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 48 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda, July 23, 2014 Letter submitted for 

the record on H.R. 4119 ................................................................................ 62 

GABEO—Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials, July 31, 2014 

Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 4119 ............................................ 96 

Page

IV 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record—Continued 

Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area Endorsement 

List, submitted for the record by Rep. Reichert ......................................... 57 

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, Cynthia Welti, Executive Director, 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1785 ............................................................... 84 

NAACP Washington Bureau, July 28, 2014 Letter submitted for the 

record on H.R. 4119 ...................................................................................... 64 

Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), July 22, 2014 Letter 

submitted for the record on H.R. 4119 ........................................................ 63 

Texas Farm Bureau, July 25, 2014 Letter submitted for the record on 

H.R. 4979 ....................................................................................................... 35 

Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, July 29, 2014 Letter 

submitted for the record on H.R. 4979 ........................................................ 36 

Western Governors’ Association Policy Resolution 13–01, submitted for 

the record by Jim Ogsbury ........................................................................... 95 

Wichita County, Texas, Woodrow W. ‘‘Woody’’ Gossom, Jr, County Judge, 

July 25, 2014 Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 4979 .................... 37 

Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, Thomas D. Rushin, Chairman 

of the Board of Directors, Prepared statement on H.R. 445 with 

attachments ................................................................................................... 87 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 445, TO AUTHORIZE A 

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA PROGRAM, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES, ‘‘NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA ACT OF 2013’’; 

H.R. 1785, TO ESTABLISH THE MOUNTAINS TO SOUND 

GREENWAY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA IN THE STATE OF 

WASHINGTON, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘MOUNTAINS TO 

SOUND GREENWAY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA ACT’’; 

H.R. 4119, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO 

CONDUCT A SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY OF THE WEST 

HUNTER STREET BAPTIST CHURCH IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘WEST HUNTER STREET BAPTIST CHURCH STUDY ACT’’; H.R. 4901, TO MAXIMIZE LAND 

MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES, PROMOTE LAND CONSERVATION, GENERATE EDUCATION FUNDING, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES, ‘‘ADVANCING CONSERVATION AND EDUCATION 

ACT OF 2014’’; H.R. 4979, TO PROVIDE LEGAL CERTAINTY TO 

PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG THE RED RIVER IN TEXAS, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘RED RIVER PRIVATE PROPERTY 

PROTECTION ACT’’; H.R. 5086, TO AMEND THE NATIONAL 

TRAILS SYSTEM ACT TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE 

INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A STUDY ON THE FEASIBILITY OF 

DESIGNATING THE CHIEF STANDING BEAR NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; S. 311, A BILL TO 

DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO STUDY THE 

SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF DESIGNATING SITES IN 

THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AREA IN THE STATE OF 

LOUISIANA AS A UNIT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

AREA STUDY ACT’’; S. 476, A BILL TO AMEND THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL DEVELOPMENT ACT TO EXTEND 

TO THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK COMMISSION; AND S. 609, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE 

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONVEY CERTAIN 

FEDERAL LAND IN SAN JUAN COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘SAN JUAN COUNTY FEDERAL LAND 

CONVEYANCE ACT’’ 

Tuesday, July 29, 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 10:04 a.m., in room 

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

Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Lummis, Tipton, 

Cramer, Hastings; DeFazio, and Grijalva. 

Also Present: Representatives Mullin; and Clyburn. 

2 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Mr. Grijalva is on his way, so he will be 

joining us shortly. The Chair notes the presence of a quorum. And 

so the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental 

Regulation is meeting today to hear testimony on many bills. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. I am not going to read this. Under the rules, opening statements are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Member. 

However, I ask unanimous consent to include any other Members’ 

opening statement in the hearing record, if submitted to the Clerk 

by the close of business today. 

I also ask unanimous consent that Members that are not on the 

full committee or the subcommittee be allowed to sit at the dais 

and take part in the proceedings. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. And hearing no objections, they will be so ordered. 

I am going to skip any kind of opening statement. We have a lot 

of bills to go through. I will give Mr. Grijalva the opportunity of 

giving an opening statement when he arrives. 

Mr. DeFazio, did you have an opening statement you wanted to 

give? 

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

Mr. DEFAZIO. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this markup. In particular, thanks for working 

together on H.R. 4901. I think it bodes well for other issues where 

we have common concerns in the Western United States that we 

were able to work out this legislation. 

And I wanted to welcome the State Director of Lands from 

Oregon, Mary Abrams. And I wanted to thank her for her help and 

consultation. You know, we know she knows well as do I, from my 

years as a county commissioner and representing the state, the difficulties of managing checkerboard landscapes. And the idea that 

we can benefit both economic development, economic activity, funds 

for counties and schools, and we can benefit conservation efforts in 

one piece of legislation is fairly extraordinary. So I thank her for 

her consultation and help. I thank the Chairman for all his work 

on this, and look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Appreciate that. We are going to go through a whole 

bunch of bills. We will start off with H.R. 4901, which is sponsored 

by Mr. DeFazio and myself, which means it is a perfect bill, and 

anyone who testifies against it will be escorted from the room for 

unnecessary display of ignorance. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. We will have H.R. 4979, the Red River Private 

Property Act by Mr. Thornberry, Senate Bill 609 by Mr. Udall— 

have to have a Senate bill in there, I apologize for that—H.R. 1785, 

Mr. Reichert, on the Heritage Area, H.R. 4119 by Mr. Johnson of 

Georgia about a study area, H.R. 5086 by Mr. Fortenberry about 

a trail, Senate 311 by Senator Landrieu about a potential feasibility study, and Senate 476 by Senator Cardin, also about a historical area commission, and H.R. 445 by Mr. Dent. 

3 

So, we will go through those areas and try and do them as quickly as we possibly can. Let me call up the first panel, if we could, 

that deals with H.R. 4901. We will ask Vanessa Hickman, who is 

a land commissioner in the State of Arizona; Jim Ogsbury, who is 

the Executive Director of the Western Governors’ Association; Mary 

Abrams, who was just introduced by Representative DeFazio, who 

is the Director of the Department of State Lands in the State of 

Oregon; Steve Ellis, who is the Deputy Director at the Bureau of 

Land Management; and also Paul Spitler from the Wilderness 

Society. 

So, I appreciate you there. You have the places. As I said, the 

written statements are part of the record. Most of you have been 

here, you know the drill before you. We ask for an oral statement 

that is limited to 5 minutes. If you can cut it shorter than that, 

we will love you for the rest of my life, and you can have my firstborn male child, because he is still costing me money. 

However, I am going to keep a strict limit on 5 minutes. If you 

are going over 5 minutes, I am going to cut you off. So watch the 

clock ahead of you. When the light goes from green to yellow, 

please hurry and quit. When it hits red, stop, even in mid-sentence. 

With that, before we start the testimony, I want to welcome Mr. 

Grijalva for being here. Sorry to rush you. Do you have—we waived 

statements. Do you have an opening statement you want to put in 

the record? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Just for the record. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Then we will do that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

I would like to thank Chairman Bishop for holding this legislative hearing on nine 

bills, four of which are sponsored by Democrats. There are even Republican bills 

that we can support. Out of all 9 bills, it looks like there is only one that we cannot 

support. I hope this is a sign of how all our hearings are going to be once we get 

back from August recess. 

Kidding aside, all of these measures are priorities for their sponsors and we 

appreciate holding a hearing before the long summer break. 

One of the Republican measures that I am especially pleased to hear more about 

is H.R. 445 by Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania. This bill is the long overdue programmatic statute for National Heritage Areas. Congress has designated 49 heritage areas but they are each governed by their enabling acts and there is no uniform 

standard for designation, management, or evaluation. 

H.R. 445 is an attempt at creating that standard and establishing the National 

Heritage Area System. 

My district is home to the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Areas, and it has 

provided clear economic and preservation benefits. While that Heritage Area has 

been authorized, I’ve been waiting 6 years for to designate the Santa Cruz Valley 

National Heritage Area. I’ve asked for a hearing and not received one. I know many 

other Members have asked for hearings on similar pieces of legislation to establish 

National Heritage Areas in their districts. I hope consideration of this bill means 

we can keep working together to guarantee that all heritage areas get the support 

and authorization they need to be successful and, ultimately, financially 

sustainable. 

I also want to thank the Chairman for including H.R. 4119 by my friend, Mr. 

Johnson of Georgia. The bill will authorize the National Park Service to study the 

feasibility of including the West Hunter Baptist Church as a unit of the National 

Park System. The Church was an important gathering place during the Civil Rights 

Movements, and we are fortunate enough to have the Reverend Ralph David 

Abernathy here with us today to tell us more about its story. His father oversaw 

the church during that important time in our Nation’s history. 

4 

Last, I would like to thank the Chairman for allowing us to consider three bills 

that originated in and passed the Senate. 

Hearing these bills is a recognition that we can start moving past the political 

impasse and start sending some more public lands legislation to the President’s 

desk. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, we will begin with the testimony on this bill. 

Let’s start with Ms. Hickman in the way I read the names off 

there. And then we will go through the questioning. 

Ms. Hickman, thank you for being here. You are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF VANESSA P. HICKMAN, LAND COMMISSIONER, 

STATE OF ARIZONA 

Ms. HICKMAN. Good morning, Chairman Bishop, Ranking 

Member Grijalva, and members of the subcommittee. For the 

record, my name is Vanessa Hickman, and I am the current Vice 

President of the Western States Land Commissioners Association, 

and I also serve as the Arizona State Land Commissioner. I would 

like to express my appreciation to the subcommittee for conducting 

this hearing to examine ways to resolve the land tenure issues between state school and institutional trust lands and Federal land 

ownership. 

I am before you today to support H.R. 4901 as a solution that 

will minimize the burden our school trust lands and Federal conservation lands have been facing for the past century. 

Today, 23 states continue to manage state trust lands as a result 

of the visionary acts of the congressional predecessors who valued 

permanent funding for these institutions. The Western States Land 

Commissioners Association is comprised of these 23 predominantly 

Western states, that share the common legal mandate of managing 

trust lands to generate revenue for schoolchildren and other institutions in our states. 

Today our member states manage over 447 million acres of trust 

lands. To put this in perspective, that area is roughly two-and-onehalf times the size of Texas. Through management of these lands 

for mineral, energy, grazing, commercial development, and a myriad of other uses, our combined educational trusts total more than 

$271 billion, generating an additional 3.8 billion for public schools 

in 2012. 

The Arizona State Land Department manages approximately 9.2 

million acres of state trust lands within Arizona. These lands are 

held in trust and managed for the sole purpose of generating revenue for its beneficiaries, the largest of which is Arizona’s K–12 

education. Legally, all uses of the land must benefit the trust, a 

fact that distinguishes it from the way public land, such as parks 

or national forests, may be used. 

Unfortunately, a host of factors make generating revenue increasingly difficult. One of the greatest challenges is management 

of state trust lands within federally designated areas. These designations obstruct opportunities to meet the fiduciary responsibilities that are central to our mission. 

5 

Let me please draw your attention to the slides. 

[Slide] 

An example of the land tenure challenges in Arizona is the 

Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, which contains over 

23,000 acres of Arizona State trust land. In all, over 1 million surface and subsurface acres of trust land are effectively removed from 

revenue-generating opportunities, because they are included within 

the boundaries of Federal holdings. 

The Western States Association has been working with Chairman Bishop, Congressman DeFazio, and many other stakeholders 

to craft H.R. 4901. We believe the bill will be an effective tool for 

allowing states to efficiently remove their lands from inside Federal 

conservation areas, and relocate these parcels to locations that will 

support our trust obligations. 

Additionally, the proposal will enhance Federal conservation efforts through contiguous landscapes by eliminating the state-owned 

inholdings. The acquisition and conveyance of lands would be conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969. However, when preparing an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement, the Secretary of the Interior 

would only be required to consider the proposed conveyance and a 

no-action alternative. 

The bill also proposes a streamlined process for appraising parcels valued at $300 per acre or less, through the use of a summary 

appraisal made by a qualified appraiser in accordance with the 

Internal Revenue Service standards, and because the qualified 

lands would be strictly limited to unappropriated public lands, special Federal land designations in areas such as national forests 

would not be affected. 

For almost a century, Congress has made decisions to reclassify 

Federal lands with a wide range of management and policy prescriptions that leave large amounts of state trust land without revenue-generating opportunities. In order to keep the solemn promise 

whereby the United States agreed to cede some of its land to the 

state in exchange for a commitment by the state to educate our 

schoolchildren, we must adopt and implement the progressive tools 

prescribed in the legislation. 

H.R. 4901 proposes a win-win solution for state land and 

Federal land managers. It gives Western states greater flexibility 

in managing and maximizing trust revenue, while simultaneously 

getting Federal land managers greater opportunities to meet their 

conservation and management objectives. 

I thank Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 

members of the subcommittee for your attention to this important 

matter, and look forward to working with you to gain broad support for the enactment of H.R. 4901 to better fund the education 

of our children. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am available for 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hickman follows:] 

6 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VANESSA HICKMAN, ARIZONA STATE LAND COMMISSIONER

AND VICE PRESIDENT, WESTERN STATES LAND COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION ON

H.R. 4901 

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

for the record, my name is Vanessa Hickman, and I am the current Vice President 

of the Western States Land Commissioners Association, in addition to my duties as 

the Arizona State Land Commissioner. I thank the subcommittee for conducting this 

hearing to examine how to resolve the land tenure issues between state school and 

institutional trust lands and Federal land ownership. I am before you today to support H.R. 4901 as an effective tool to manage our school trust lands and to improve 

the management of Federal conservation lands. 

Today, 23 states continue to manage state trust lands as a result of the visionary 

acts of the congressional predecessors who valued permanent funding for these institutions. The Western States Land Commissioners Association (‘‘WSLCA’’) is comprised of these 23 predominantly Western states who share the common mandate 

of managing trust lands to generate revenue for the schoolchildren and institutions 

in our states. Upon becoming a territory and/or statehood, our member states were 

entrusted with hundreds of millions of acres of lands and minerals to be managed 

specifically to provide funding for public education and other state institutions. 

Today, our member states manage over 447 million acres of trust lands. To put it 

in perspective, this area is roughly two-and-one-half times the size of Texas. 

Through prudent management of these lands for mineral and energy development, 

timber, grazing, agricultural production, commercial and residential development, 

open space, critical wildlife habitat, recreation, and a myriad of other uses, our combined educational trusts amount to over $271 billion, which generated an additional 

$3.8 billion for public schools in 2012. As evidenced by the vast amount of state 

trust land set aside for common schools and other public institutions, the architects 

of the West—and, indeed, the entire Nation—clearly placed a high value on the 

funding of public education. 

The Arizona State Land Department (‘‘ASLD’’) manages approximately 9.2 million 

acres of State Trust lands within Arizona. These lands are held in trust and managed for the sole purpose of generating revenues for the 13 State Trust land beneficiaries, the largest of which is Arizona’s K–12 education. In Fiscal Year 2014, the 

ASLD generated $259,357,190 from the management and sale of Trust land for 

Trust beneficiaries in the State of Arizona. In a little over 100 years of statehood, 

our permanent fund stands at over $4,000,000,000. 

Prior to beginning my tenure as Commissioner, I served as the Deputy State Land 

Commissioner and Deputy General Counsel to Governor Janice K. Brewer, who is 

a supporter of H.R. 4901 and prudent land management practices. Prior to my state 

government service, I worked in private practice in real estate litigation and land 

use law. 

My state’s path to statehood began on February 24, 1863, when the U.S. Congress 

established the Territory of Arizona and granted two sections of each township for 

the benefit of common schools. 

On June 20, 1910, when Congress enacted the Arizona New Mexico Enabling Act, 

it granted two more sections in each township to be held in trust for the common 

schools, as well as an additional 2 million acres to be held for other public institutions. In total, the new State of Arizona would enter the Union with over 10 million 

acres of State Trust land reserved for the sole purpose of generating revenue for 

the state’s 13 beneficiaries—the largest of which is K–12 education. 

The ASLD and the system by which Trust lands are managed were established 

in 1915 by the State Land Code. In compliance with the Enabling Act and the State 

Constitution, the State Land Code gave the ASLD authority to manage all Trust 

lands and the natural products from those lands. 

Since the ASLD’s inception, its mission has been to manage the Land Trust and 

to maximize its revenues for the beneficiaries. All uses of the land must benefit the 

Trust, a fact that distinguishes it from the way public land, such as parks or national forests, may be used. While public use of Trust land is not prohibited, it is 

regulated to ensure protection of the land and compensation to the beneficiaries for 

its use. 

To be clear, as envisioned by the founders and encoded in Federal and state law, 

the sole purpose of state trust land is to generate revenues for trust beneficiaries. 

Unfortunately, a host of factors make generating revenue increasingly difficult. One 

the greatest challenges to revenue generation is management of state trust lands 

within federally designated areas. 

Let me please draw your attention to examples in the State of Arizona, where 70 

percent of the land is under Federal control. The boundaries of the Grand CanyonVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:01 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04JY29 2ND SESS PRINTING\88967.TXT DARLEN
7 

Parashant National Monument include over 23 thousand acres of Arizona State 

Trust land. This is but one of many federally designated areas that impact the revenue generating mission of Arizona’s State Trust lands. In all, over 1 million surface 

and subsurface acres of Trust land are effectively removed from revenue-generating 

opportunities because they are included within the boundaries of Federal holdings. 

And please, let me respectfully remind you that the revenue generating mandate 

requires me to put these lands into production, whether it be for grazing, agriculture, mineral production, or development. 

Existing administrative and legislative solutions are costly, complicated, unpredictable, and time consuming. Administrative land exchanges with agencies within 

the Department of Interior or with the U.S. Forest Service are inadequate as the 

sole tool to complete land transfers between states and the Federal Government. 

The Department of Interior has implemented policies and guidelines that have made 

administrative exchanges nearly impossible to complete in any reasonable time 

frame. Moreover, the Department of Interior has failed to make the exchange process a priority and, therefore, funding has been woefully inadequate for years. Many 

states can cite specific examples of administrative exchanges taking longer than a 

decade to complete. 

For several years, WSLCA has been working with our member states, Chairman 

Bishop, Representative DeFazio, other Members of Congress, and outside organizations to craft H.R. 4901, a bill that we believe will be an effective tool to allow 

states to efficiently remove their lands from inside Federal conservation areas and 

relocate these values to locations that are more appropriate to fulfill our Trust obligations. Additionally, our proposal will enhance Federal conservation goals and 

management areas by eliminating the state-owned inholdings and providing for consolidated land management. We believe we have built a broad spectrum of support 

and we now turn to this subcommittee to pass this bi-partisan legislation that will 

implement our proposal. 

H.R. 4901 is a supplement to existing laws that permit exchanges and purchases. 

This bill is similar to the existing Federal statutes (43 U.S.C. 851–852) that permit 

state in lieu selections of Federal public lands. These statutes allow Western land 

grant states to select Federal lands in lieu of lands originally granted to the states 

that ended up not being available due to preexisting conveyances or Federal special 

purpose designations. By way of example, if the Federal Government had created 

an Indian reservation or issued a homestead patent before a state’s title to a particular state parcel had vested, the state was entitled to select an equal amount of 

available Federal land in lieu of the lands that were lost (in lieu selections are often 

synonymously referred to as ‘‘indemnity’’ selections). 

By creating new conservation designations that have limited the states from utilizing school lands for their intended purposes, the United States has in a very real 

sense failed to live up to the promise of the statehood land grants. H.R. 4901 will 

help rectify this situation by confirming the right of the states to relinquish state 

trust lands within Federal conservation designations to the United States and to select replacement Federal lands outside such areas. This will allow the Federal 

Government to obtain unified ownership and management authority over areas 

deemed important for conservation goals. Concerns also exist within many Western 

states about recent petitions to list threatened and endangered species. Where priority habitat for endangered species exists within these conservation designations, 

this circumstance would likely create additional constraints in managing state 

lands. This bill would facilitate another means by which states could relinquish 

lands constrained by threatened and/or endangered species considerations. 

The mechanism of relinquishment and selection has been utilized previously by 

Congress and should not be difficult to implement. Under H.R. 4901, states owning 

lands within Federal conservation designations would simply deed the lands back 

to the United States, subject to any existing rights. This conveyance would entitle 

the states to select replacement lands from the unappropriated Federal public lands 

within the state utilizing the existing process for such selections, as set forth in 43 

CFR Part 2620 (2010). 

Additionally, the bill incorporates important concepts that make it a more effective tool when compared to existing laws. The acquisition and conveyance of lands 

will be conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

and other applicable laws; however, the Secretary of the Interior, when preparing 

an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, will be required 

to consider only the proposed conveyance or no action. The bill also includes a 

streamlined process for appraising low value parcels, allowing the Secretary of the 

Interior to use a summary appraisal or statement of value made by a qualified appraiser in accordance with Internal Revenue Service standards when both parties 

agree that a parcel’s value is less than $300 per acre. And, because selections would 

8 

be limited to unappropriated public lands, the right to select lands would not extend 

to areas such as wilderness, national forests, and other conservation or special purpose designations. 

In conclusion, I would like to direct you to the U.S. Supreme Court in Andrus v. Utah, in which the Court held that ‘‘the school land grant was a solemn agreement 

which in some ways may be analogized to a contract between private parties. The 

United States agreed to cede some of its land to the state in exchange for a commitment by the state to use the revenues derived from the land to educate the citizenry.’’ For almost a century, Congress has made decisions to reclassify Federal 

lands with a wide range of management and policy prescriptions. While the Park 

Service approaches its 100th anniversary and the country now appreciates nearly 

50 years of designated Wilderness, the mandate for school trust lands has remained 

constant for over 200 years. Congressional actions and policy decisions over the decades have locked up millions of acres of school lands and minerals within National 

Parks, Wilderness Areas, Wildlife Refuges, National Monuments and other Federal 

designations. In order to keep the solemn agreement with the schoolchildren of our 

states, we must craft effective tools to move these trapped state trust lands and 

minerals from within constrictive Federal ownership into other locations where the 

generation of income is appropriate and acceptable. H.R. 4901 is an effective tool 

for moving these grid-locked state trust lands into productive use. 

I thank Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the subcommittee for your attention to this important matter and look forward to working 

with you to gain broad support for the enactment of H.R. 4901 to better fund the 

education of our children. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. You almost hit it straight on. 

Mr. Ogsbury, from the Western Governors’ Association, 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JIM OGSBURY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION 

Mr. OGSBURY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my 

name is Jim Ogsbury. I am the Executive Director of the Western 

Governors’ Association. WGA is an independent, non-partisan organization representing the Governors of 19 Western states and 3 

U.S. flag islands. The Governors appreciate very much the opportunity to testify today. 

Because you have a very ambitious schedule, and because I have 

submitted my written testimony for the record, and because you 

have assembled a Grade A panel of witnesses who can do a deep 

dive on the details of the legislation and the infirmities of the current land exchange process, I will be brief. But, Mr. Chairman, if 

I am under 5 minutes, I would really prefer not to have your firstborn child. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OGSBURY. I have, in fact, but one message to communicate, 

and that is the enthusiastic support of Western Governors for 

H.R. 4901. Like similar organizations, WGA has limited resources, 

and the Governors have directed the Association to focus its energies on those issues that are timely, actionable, priorities of the 

Governors, bipartisan, and Western in nature. Land exchange reform meets all of those tests. 

Reform of the land exchange process, particularly to facilitate 

sensible Federal-State exchanges remains a high priority of 

Western Governors. WGA Policy Resolution 13–01 states, ‘‘To improve management of both Federal and state lands in areas where 

there is checkerboarded ownership or state lands are completely 

9 

captive within the boundaries of a Federal management area, 

Western Governors call on Congress to simplify and expedite the 

Federal-State land exchange and sale process.’’ 

The resolution goes on to specifically embrace the effort contemplated by H.R. 4901: ‘‘The Governors encourage Congress to introduce and pass legislation that incorporates the proposed 

Federal-State land selection improvements proposed by the 

Western States Land Commissioners’ Association.’’ I would respectfully request that that resolution be made part of the hearing 

record. 

Governors are frustrated. The current land exchange processes 

are ineffective to effect sensible and even non-controversial government-to-government exchanges that would consolidate Federal conservation areas, provide states the economic benefit of trust lands 

that were granted at statehood to support public education, and remove the inefficiencies of managing contiguous parcels for entirely 

different purposes. Those processes are expensive, complex, timeconsuming, and often thwarted by inertia and competing priorities. 

H.R. 4901 creates a new process for the consolidation of lands 

within Federal conservation areas, and the selection by states of replacement lands from the vast inventory of unappropriated Federal 

land. The bill is not radical. Appraisals are still required to ensure 

that the subject lands are of equal value, and environmental requirements remain intact. 

H.R. 4901 is modest in scope, and will not solve the many problems associated with Federal land exchanges. The bill, however, 

does represent a common-sense approach to a problem that has 

seemed intractable for generations. And the Governors are delighted that, in this instance, Congress is stealing a page from the 

WGA playbook, crafting a bipartisan, pragmatic, comprise solution 

that accommodates the concerns of multiple stakeholders. The 

Governors applaud Representatives Bishop and DeFazio for their 

bipartisan leadership in advancing this bill, and pledge their continued support. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ogsbury follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES D. OGSBURY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WESTERN

GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 4901 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting the 

Western Governors’ Association (WGA) to testify today. My name is James D. 

Ogsbury and I am the Executive Director of the WGA. WGA is an independent, nonpartisan organization representing the Governors of 19 Western states and 3 U.S. 

flag islands. We are pleased to have this opportunity to testify in support of 

H.R. 4901, the Advancing Conservation and Education Act of 2014. 

The Association is an instrument of the Governors for bipartisan policy development, information exchange and collective action on issues of critical importance to 

the Western United States. Above all, the Governors use WGA to promote common 

sense and bipartisan solutions to Western policy challenges. In order to maximize 

the effectiveness of the Association, the Governors concentrate its resources on policy initiatives that are: timely, actionable, bipartisan, priorities of the Governors 

and Western in nature. Federal land exchange reform meets all of these tests. 

On a bipartisan basis, Governors throughout the West have called for reform of 

the Federal land exchange process, particularly to facilitate government-togovernment exchanges that benefit both parties. As you know, state land managers 

have a fiduciary duty to manage state trust lands to maximize their revenues for 

specified constitutional purposes, such as public education. Federal lands are managed for entirely different purposes. Where state lands are effectively trapped inside 

10 

Federal conservation areas, it only makes sense to effect exchanges so that the 

Federal Government can acquire and manage that land consistent with its purposes 

and the state can acquire land from which economic value can be realized. 

The problem, of course, is that the procedural burdens for executing a land exchange with the Federal Government are overwhelming. The time-swallowing bureaucratic requirements associated with appraisals, analyses and environmental 

reviews (and their staggering costs) operate to defeat otherwise sensible trades. 

It is critical that Congress enact legislation to expedite the process for sensible 

government-to-government exchanges, which should be presumed to be in the public 

interest. When such exchanges are executed, the Federal Government can consolidate conservation areas, contiguous parcels can be managed more consistently, and 

the state can realize value for the lands granted to them in trust. 

Accordingly, the Western Governors support H.R. 4901. The measure establishes 

a new process to consolidate both Federal and state land holdings, pursuant to 

which a state may relinquish state-owned lands within Federal conservation areas 

(such as national parks or federally designated wilderness areas) and then select replacement lands from the immense inventory of Federal lands that are suitable for 

economic development. Appraisals are required to ensure that the lands exchanged 

are of equal value, and Federal requirements for environmental review remain 

intact. 

The legislation represents neither a radical proposal nor a comprehensive solution 

to the problem that is the Federal land exchange process. It does, however, represent incremental progress, and it reflects a pragmatic and bipartisan approach to 

a problem that has seemed intractable for generations. 

Western Governors are especially pleased that, in this instance, Congress has 

taken a page from the WGA playbook, advancing a pragmatic solution to a Western 

challenge on a bipartisan basis. They commend Chairman Bishop and Ranking 

Member DeFazio for coming together to develop this practical approach to a serious 

public policy challenge. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, I appreciate that. If you don’t want the 

first, you can have the fifth-born kid. He still hasn’t finished college 

yet. 

Ms. Abrams, we welcome you from Oregon. Five minutes. You 

are on. 

STATEMENT OF MARY ABRAMS, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE LANDS, STATE OF OREGON 

Ms. ABRAMS. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Congressman 

DeFazio, for introducing the Advancing Conservation and 

Education Act of 2014, and for holding this hearing. 

For the record, I am Mary Abrams, I am the Director of the 

Oregon Department of State Lands, and I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. I am here today representing my agency, as well as the State of Oregon and the 

Western States Land Commissioners Association. I would like to 

testify in support of H.R. 4901 from a state-specific and a more 

general Western state standpoint. 

I will remind you that as settlers came West in the 1850s and 

beyond, Oregon needed to educate those children that were born in 

the new state. Recognizing this, the U.S. Government granted 

Oregon Section 16 and 36 of each township to generate money for 

the schools. These school trust lands have a very specific purpose 

that differentiates them from other public lands managed for a variety of uses. These lands are solely dedicated to making money for 

Oregon’s schoolchildren. The trust agreement for their use is laid 

out in the congressionally adopted Admissions Act for Oregon, as 

well as in our State Constitution. And revenues from these lands 

11 

are deposited in the Common School Fund, a trust fund specifically 

dedicated for Oregon’s public schools. 

As an example, in 2012 alone, revenues from these lands contributed $13 million to the Common School Fund, which, in its entirety, stands with a current value of about $1.4 billion. Although 

the Common School Fund distributions are small, they are an important part of Oregon’s school financing. The average annual 

distribution since 2008 has been $50 million a year. These funds, 

however, are sufficient to be the equivalent of 48 full-time teachers 

in a large district such as Portland, and 3 to 4 full-time teachers 

in small, rural communities. In other words, the money matters to 

Oregon students. 

While we strive to maximize revenue for our schools, the patchwork nature of the original land grant to Oregon has always been 

and remains a management challenge with our trust lands. The 

dispersed nature of the holdings caused inefficiencies, as it is easier 

to manage contiguous blocks with similar management goals than 

to manage small, non-consolidated parcels. 

So, how does the Federal Government fit in? First and foremost, 

you are our biggest neighbors. Most of the Western states trust 

lands are interspersed with Federal lands, which increasingly have 

fundamentally different management goals than state trust lands. 

The Federal land management has evolved from the early days of 

open range to designation for special land uses and an increased 

emphasis on multiple-use management, which differs from our 

management goal, which is to increase revenue for our schools. 

State trust lands surrounded by Federal designations can also be 

encumbered by Federal threatened and endangered species policies, 

access constraints, as well as unintended consequences of Federal 

fire protection policies. Therefore, state trust lands trapped within 

Federal conservation designations have a decreased value to the 

state’s school trust, depriving current and future generations of 

schoolchildren of valuable revenues that could help support their 

education. 

The Western states see the best remedy is to facilitate either exchanges or sales of land-locked state trust land parcels to the surrounding Federal agency. The Advancing Conservation and 

Education Act would allow state land managers to relinquish title 

to lands trapped within Federal conservation areas in exchange for 

Federal lands not already protected, and not otherwise appropriated. 

The Act would consolidate the Federal conservation and state 

trust mandates into two separate land management blocks. This 

fulfills the funding mandate for public education, while also providing Federal land managers with more easily managed conservation areas. 

The Advancing Conservation and Education Act is simple and elegant. It is really a win-win solution. It provides a mechanism for 

states to exchange state trust land affected by their landlocked position. It allows Federal land managers to more effectively manage 

their lands, and it accomplishes all of this using fewer assets, 

Federal and state, to process the exchanges than typical exchanges 

or purchases. 

12 

Remember, congressional and administrative decisions that affect 

Federal land management also affect our ability to maximize revenue for state schools. This Act will help Western states meet their 

constitutional mandates for education by increasing trust land 

management efficiency. With this Act, land assets can be unlocked 

to generate greater revenues for schoolchildren in the future. It 

also helps the Federal land managers to conserve and protect some 

of our Nation’s most valuable resources. 

Because of these advantages, I encourage you to support the 

Advancing Conservation and Education Act of 2014. It will help 

Western states like Oregon, but also the rest of the Nation, 

through increased government efficiencies at the state and Federal 

level. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Abrams follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY ABRAMS, DIRECTOR, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF STATE

LANDS ON H.R. 4901 

Thank you Chairman Bishop and Congressman DeFazio for introducing 

H.R. 4901 and for holding this hearing. 

For the record, I am Mary Abrams, Director of the Oregon Department of State 

Lands. I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. 

I am here representing my agency as well as the Western States Land 

Commissioners Association. Oregon is one of 23 member states in the organization. 

I would like to testify in support of H.R. 4901 from a state specific and more general Western states standpoint. 

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS

The Department of State Lands is the administrative arm of the State Land 

Board. The Board was established at statehood by the 1859 Oregon Constitution to 

oversee ‘‘school trust lands’’ (Trust Lands) granted by the Federal Government. The 

U.S. Government granted our land-rich, cash-poor state sections 16 and 36 of each 

township to generate money for schools. The Oregon Constitution names the 

Governor, Secretary of State, and State Treasurer as the members of the State Land 

Board. 

These Trust Lands have a very specific purpose that differentiates them from 

other public lands. These lands are solely dedicated to making money for Oregon’s 

schoolchildren. Revenues from these lands are deposited in the Common School 

Fund, a trust fund for schools. 

The estimated total market value of Oregon’s Trust Lands is between $500 and 

$600 million. In 2012 alone revenues from these lands contributed $13 million to 

the Common School Fund. 

FUNDING SCHOOLS

Oregon’s Common School Fund is managed by the State Treasurer and the 

Oregon Investment Council. Its market value is now about $1.4 billion and its earnings are dedicated to K–12 public education. All public school districts in Oregon 

receive two distributions a year from the fund’s interest earnings. The average annual distribution since 2008 has been about $50 million. 

Common School Fund distributions are a small but important part of Oregon’s 

school funding. These funds support the equivalent of 48 full-time teachers in a 

large district such as Portland, and 3 full-time teachers in a small coastal community. In other words, the money matters. 

Oregon’s goal has been to steadily increase our funding for schools through strategic land management planning. This includes implementing land exchanges and 

sales to maximize our high revenue producing lands while disposing of our nonproducing lands. 

CONTEXT OF MAXIMIZING REVENUE GENERATION

Revenue from Trust Lands over time has included both annual receipts from land 

management operations (timber harvest receipts and grazing leases) as well as 

funds from divesting of some land assets that are either underperforming or very 

13 

difficult to manage. Divested Trust Lands were either sold at auction or exchanged 

for higher performing lands. 

However because of the patchwork nature of the original land grant to Oregon 

(16th & 36th sections), there have always been management challenges with our 

Trust Lands. In addition, not all the granted sections were high value and the dispersed nature of the holdings caused inefficiencies as it is generally easier to manage contiguous blocks of land with similar management goals than it is to manage 

small, non-consolidated parcels. 

Because of these constraints, land sales and exchanges have been an important 

management tool for our real estate portfolio to maximize school revenue. We have 

divested or exchanged difficult-to-manage lands and reinvested the funds in lands 

with a higher revenue potential. 

WHY DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MATTER?

First and foremost because Federal lands are our biggest neighboring landowners! 

Most of Oregon’s remaining trust lands are interspersed with Federal lands (BLM 

or USFS). 

Federal land management has evolved over time from the early days of open 

range to designation of areas for special land uses (parks, scenic areas, wilderness 

areas, etc.) to an increased emphasis on multiple use management. This often 

means we have different management goals than our Federal neighbors. 

The modern era of Federal land management increases the complexity of Federal 

land exchanges that historically were a tool to resolve management challenges between state and Federal lands. Therefore congressional and administrative decisions 

that affect Federal land management do affect our ability to maximize revenue for 

schools, particularly when they reduce options for Trust Lands portfolio 

management. 

In Oregon we have just under 10,000 acres of Trust Lands that are surrounded 

by Federal lands with different management objectives. These lands are valued at 

roughly $8 million dollars. These Trust Lands can be encumbered by Federal land 

T&E species policies, access constraints, unintended consequences of Federal fire 

protection policies, and potentially other Federal actions that limit opportunities for 

generating revenues. 

Therefore, Trust Lands trapped within Federal conservation designations leave 

them virtually worthless to the state’s school trust, depriving current and future 

generations of schoolchildren of valuable revenues that could help support public 

education. 

THE SOLUTION

As we in the Western states see it, the best remedy to this situation is to either 

facilitate an exchange of these landlocked state parcels for Federal lands or sell 

them to the land-holding Federal agency. However normal Federal land exchange 

and sale procedures are lengthy, complex administrative processes that require 

money and time—both substantial drains on the states’ ability to manage their trust 

lands. 

The scarcity of Federal funds for land acquisition adds to the uncertainty and low 

likelihood of success in traditional land sales and exchanges with the Federal land 

management agencies. So the Western states support House Bill 4901 which proposes a different approach. 

IN LIEU SELECTION PROCESS AND A NEW TOOL

A further bit of background in land grants is needed to understand the benefit 

of H.R. 4901. At statehood some of the 16th and 36th sections granted to Oregon 

were already owned and therefore in actuality unavailable. For these sections, 

states were given ‘‘in lieu selection’’ credits that could be used in exchange for 

Federal lands. 

States have largely extinguished their in lieu selection credits but some are still 

outstanding. Oregon is still working with the BLM to finalize exchanges for our last 

1600 acres of credits. 

H.R. 4901 concept is based on the in-lieu selection model as a solution to trust 

land parcels landlocked by Federal lands. H.R. 4901 would allow state land managers to relinquish title to lands trapped within Federal conservation areas in exchange for BLM lands not already protected as a Federal conservation area, and not 

otherwise appropriated. 

The model provides a workable methodology for removing trust lands from 

Federal conservation areas. This fulfills the funding mandate for public education 

14 

and provides Federal land managers with conservation areas that are largely clear 

of inholdings. 

The H.R. 4901 process is simple and elegant—using the basis of an existing 

process. It is really a win-win: 

• It provides a mechanism for states to divest state trust lands whose management and value is affected by their landlocked position in Federal lands. 

• It allows Federal land managers to more effectively manage their lands. 

• It provides a viable option for removing state trust lands from the political 

debates surrounding conservation area creations within Congress. 

• It accomplishes all of this using fewer assets (Federal and state) to process 

the exchanges than typical exchanges or purchases. 

• The proposal is a streamlined, but transparent process. 

This proposal will help Oregon better meet its constitutional mandate for school 

trust lands by increasing management flexibility on almost 10,000 acres of such 

lands. Land assets worth $8–$10 million can be ‘unlocked’ to generate greater revenues for Oregon’s schoolchildren in the future. 

Because of these advantages, I encourage you to support H.R. 4901. It will help 

Western states, like Oregon, but also the rest of the Nation through increased government efficiencies at the state and Federal level. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Now we will turn to Steve Ellis from BLM. Five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE ELLIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. ELLIS. Appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4901, 

the Advancing Conservation and Education Act. I will briefly summarize my testimony, and ask that my entire statement be placed 

in the record. 

H.R. 4901 is a serious and thoughtful effort to resolve a longstanding problem facing Federal and state land managers throughout the West, and that is the often conflicting needs of Federal 

agencies charged with managing those lands, which have been designated for conservation purposes, and of state agencies charged 

with meeting differing management mandates. 

Today’s hearing is the beginning of a process to find common 

ground toward resolving these challenges. Chairman Bishop and 

Ranking Member DeFazio have demonstrated their commitment to 

find a bipartisan workable solution. The Department of the Interior 

and the BLM pledge to cooperate in reaching that goal. 

Each of the 13 states covered by H.R. 4901 have state laws governing the management of state trust lands. And, on the whole, 

they are dedicated to providing revenue to benefit education and 

other state purposes. 

While the somewhat random disbursement of state sections that 

exists today may have seemed logical in the 19th and 20th centuries, it has resulted in an ownership pattern of lands that makes 

management difficult and challenging for both states and the 

Federal Government. These ownership patterns can also prove confusing for many users of the public lands. 

Today, many of these state sections lie within conservation units 

established by Congress and the President. While these conservation designations only apply to Federal lands within those designated areas, the ability of states to fully access or develop their 

resources of these inholdings may be limited. 

15 

1The rectangular survey system was established by the Land Ordinance of 1785. It established a system of townships made up of 36 individual sections measuring 1 square mile. Each 

section is made up of 640 acres. 

The BLM does have the authority, under Section 206 of FLPMA, 

to exchange public land with states or other entities, if the 

Secretary of the Interior determines that the public interest will be 

well served by making that exchange. 

H.R. 4901 establishes a new mechanism for the states to relinquish state inholdings within federally designated conservation 

units, and then allowing the states to subsequently select other 

BLM-administered lands within the states for acquisition. The 

Department of the Interior endorses the concept, and would like to 

work with Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member DeFazio and 

other members of the committee to reach this goal, consistent with 

FLPMA, NEPA, and other important resource management laws. 

We believe this conversation must include not only Congress, the 

states, the BLM, but also tribes, local governments, user groups, 

and the public at large. There are a number of significant issues 

that will need to be explored, clarified, and resolved, in order to 

reach consensus on a way forward. And in my full testimony I have 

outlined many of these. 

We recommend continuing a dialog to develop a solution that 

protects the interests of all the American people and the individual 

states. And we hope that today’s hearing is just the beginning of 

that process, and that there will be opportunities for future conversations and future hearings. 

Be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE ELLIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

H.R. 4901, Advancing Conservation and Education Act of 2014 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4901 the Advancing Conservation and Education Act. This bill is a serious and thoughtful effort to resolve a longstanding problem facing Federal and state land managers throughout the West: the 

often conflicting needs of Federal agencies charged with managing lands designated 

for conservation purposes and of state agencies charged with meeting differing management mandates. Today’s hearing is the beginning of a process to find common 

ground toward resolving these challenges. Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

DeFazio have demonstrated their commitment to finding a bipartisan and workable 

solution; the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) pledge to cooperate in reaching that goal. 

Background 

The lengthy history of America’s westward expansion is complex. Much has been 

written about the story of the General Land Office and its successor the BLM, and 

the disposal of hundreds of millions of acres of public land through homesteading 

and other means. Ultimately, the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) set a new policy to retain the Federal lands and guides 

the BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield mandate. This testimony focuses on the 

situation we find ourselves in today with respect to state trust lands, the challenges 

that it presents, and the opportunities we may find to resolve those issues. 

The admission of Ohio into the Union in 1802 marked the beginning of congressional action to provide land to the individual states through their Enabling Acts. 

Beginning in 1848, new states tended to receive two sections of land in each township,1 generally sections 16 and 36. That increased to four sections with the admission of Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico who generally received sections 2, 16, 32, 

and 36. When Alaska entered the Union in 1959 rather than being assigned specific 

16 

sections, the provisions of the Alaska Statehood Act entitled the state to select over 

103 million acres of Federal land. 

Each of the 13 states covered by H.R. 4901—Alaska, Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, 

Utah, Washington, and Wyoming—has state laws governing the management of 

these lands. On the whole they are dedicated to providing revenue to benefit education and other state purposes. While the somewhat random disbursement of sections may have seemed logical in the 19th and 20th centuries, today it has given 

us an ownership pattern of lands that makes management difficult and challenging 

for both the states and the Federal Government. These ownership patterns can also 

prove confusing for the many users of the public lands. 

Today, many of these state sections—nearly 3 million acres with over half of those 

acres in Alaska—lie within conservation units established by Congress and the 

President. Among these are state lands within national parks, wildlife refuges, national monuments, National Conservation Areas, and designated wilderness areas. 

While these conservation designations only apply to Federal lands within those designated areas, the ability of states to fully access or develop the resources of these 

inholdings may be limited. 

The BLM has the authority under section 206 of FLPMA to exchange public land 

with states or other entities if the Secretary of the Interior ‘‘determines that the 

public interest will be well served by making that exchange.’’ Furthermore, FLPMA 

requires that all exchanges be of equally valued lands as determined by appraisals 

conducted according to the Federal Uniform Appraisal Standards. 

H.R. 4901, Advancing Conservation and Education Act 

H.R. 4901, the Advancing Conservation and Education Act, addresses the 

scattered nature of state land parcels in 13 Western states by establishing a new 

mechanism for the states to relinquish state inholdings within federally designated 

conservation units and then allowing the states to subsequently select other BLMadministered lands within the states for acquisition. The Department of the Interior 

endorses the concept and would like to work with Chairman Bishop, Ranking 

Member DeFazio and other members of the committee to reach this goal consistent 

with FLPMA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other important 

resource management laws. We believe that conversation must include not only the 

Congress, the states, and the BLM, but also tribal and local governments, user 

groups, and the public at large. 

There are a number of significant issues that will need to be explored, clarified, 

and resolved in order to reach consensus on a way forward. Following are some 

major concerns, with the understanding that the Administration is continuing its review of this significant piece of legislation. 

Valuation & Cost 

Equal value land transfers must be the cornerstone of any proposal. The Administration is committed to continuing its adherence to the Uniform Appraisal 

Standards for Federal Land Acquisition and Uniform Standards of Professional 

Appraisal Practice. While it may be appropriate to consider alternative methods for 

low-value parcels as envisioned by the legislation, we believe in general that adhering to existing FLPMA processes as much as possible is important. The provision 

in H.R. 4901 establishing ledger accounts is an interesting one that merits further 

exploration. 

Typically costs of land exchange transactions, including clearances, appraisals, 

surveys, and other requirements, are split equally between the state and Federal 

Government. This may be a viable approach here, and we would seek to assure that 

each benefiting Federal agency would necessarily be responsible for costs related to 

their conveyances. However, the Administration is concerned that language in the 

legislation allowing states to assume additional costs in return for land value could 

result in the Federal Government receiving dramatically less land value than would 

otherwise be the case. While this provision may appear to be an easy solution, it 

may result in the ‘‘payment’’ for processing costs with substantial quantities of land. 

This would not serve the interest of the American people. The ability to undertake 

what would be a massive land transfer is clearly a costly undertaking; a better 

source of resources will need to be found. 

Additionally, on lands with substantial mineral potential or with existing mineral 

leases, the Federal Government’s royalty interest should be protected. An overriding 

interest in the mineral estate is an option to consider. 

Lands Available for Exchange 

FLPMA establishes clear national policy that public lands should generally be retained in public ownership. However, section 203 of FLPMA allows the BLM to 

17 

identify lands as potentially available for disposal that meet specific criteria through 

its land use planning process. Such determinations are made after full public participation and are consistent with all applicable laws. Under FLPMA, disposal of the 

lands is discretionary and BLM must first consider local conditions and needs. Furthermore, under FLPMA the BLM is required to coordinate with tribal, state, and 

local governments; plans should be consistent with those governmental plans to the 

maximum extent consistent with Federal law. H.R. 4901 weakens both the general 

land retention policy of FLPMA and the open public process which BLM currently 

uses to make determinations on which lands would be available for disposal. 

H.R. 4901 specifies and prioritizes which lands the states may relinquish and 

which lands they may select. The bill defines ‘‘Federal conservation areas’’ as congressionally designated wilderness, NPS units, units of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, lands within BLMs National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), including national monuments, National Conservation Areas, and Wilderness Study 

Areas, and conservation units within the National Forest System. States may relinquish inholdings within these units and select ‘‘unappropriated public land.’’ The 

BLM and other land managing agencies—the NPS, Fish & Wildlife Service, and 

Forest Service—welcome the opportunity to consolidate holdings in these special 

places. However, we believe that the establishment of ‘‘priority conservation units’’ 

in addition to ‘‘Federal conservation areas’’ is unnecessary. The individual states 

and Federal agencies should work cooperatively to prioritize these land tenure adjustments within each state. This prioritization may vary based on individual circumstances and limiting flexibility is unnecessary. 

Likewise, we support flexibility on the selecting side within certain parameters. 

Focusing on lands already identified for disposal through the BLM’s land use planning process should be a priority. Additionally, we believe a priority should be 

placed on exchanging out to the state unencumbered mineral estate where the 

Federal Government is not the surface landowner, as well as areas in a checkerboard land ownership pattern and Federal lands interspersed with other lands. 

While the legislation places certain public lands off-limits for selection, such as 

lands within conservation designations and Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern, we would like to discuss other lands that we should consider limiting access to for selection. For example, the BLM has numerous developed recreation sites 

outside of conservation units, including campgrounds, trailheads, and designated off 

highway vehicle play areas. Taxpayer funds and user fees have been used to develop 

such sites which often receive high visitation and are popular with the public. 

The legislation also makes available for potential selection by the states lands 

with high mineral and energy development and transmission potential. This could 

include lands currently leased for oil and gas development, lands under consideration for future leasing, lands within designated Solar Energy Zones, and lands with 

existing mining claims. The appropriateness, cost-effectiveness, and viability of 

transferring each of these types of lands needs to be considered carefully. For example, the wholesale conversion of existing mining claims to state mining leases raises 

any number of issues, as does the failure to segregate proposed lands from entry 

under the mining law for state selection in order to avoid the proliferation of nuisance claims. Transferring lands with associated or developed oil and gas mineral 

estate raises issues of both valuation and protection of valid existing rights. These 

and many other issues deserve a careful public review. 

By creating a static definition of ‘‘unappropriated lands’’ the bill fails to take into 

account future needs or changing circumstances. ‘‘Unappropriated lands’’ implies 

unused lands. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. These BLM lands 

may already be in use for a wide variety of purposes, including grazing, hunting, 

fishing, wildlife habitat, and recreation. Transfer to the state could have consequences for these users and uses. Incorporating the state selection process into the 

BLM’s on-going land use planning process could help to avoid at least some of these 

conflicts. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2015 Budget included a proposal to reauthorize the 

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) which provided the BLM with 

an important tool to facilitate land tenure adjustments. FLTFA expired in 2011. Reauthorization would allow the BLM to sell lands identified as suitable for disposal 

in recent land use plans, and then to use the proceeds from those sales to acquire 

environmentally sensitive lands, including state trust land inholdings. We recommend that Congress move to reauthorize FLTFA. 

Time Frames 

While we certainly understand the concept that land tenure rationalization needs 

to be addressed in an expeditious manner, the time frames envisioned in H.R. 4901 

are unrealistically short. It is important to both the states and the Federal GovernVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:01 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04JY29 2ND SESS PRINTING\88967.TXT DARLEN
18 

ment that these land transfers be undertaken with full public participation and 

thoughtful consideration. The personnel the BLM would need to process these land 

transfers are the same personnel currently employed in a wide variety of other vital 

land management issues, including oil and gas leasing and monitoring, as well as 

processing renewable energy and transmission rights-of-way applications, and land 

use authorizations for community needs to name just a few. Short time frames will 

necessarily have serious consequences for a wide variety of other users of the public 

lands. Additionally, we recommend eliminating the 10-year sunset provision. Completing the projected scope of the legislation in that short time frame is unrealistic 

and doesn’t do justice to the goals of the legislation. 

State Variations 

Not surprisingly there are issues to be considered in H.R. 4901 that affect a single state. For example, Arizona’s State Constitution requires that state lands may 

only be disposed of through auction to the highest bidder or by exchange with other 

governmental entities. Because this bill does not provide for exchanges, but rather 

relinquishment and selection, it would appear that this could vitiate any benefit 

Arizona might receive from H.R. 4901. In Alaska, the BLM is continuing to fulfill 

its obligations to transfer millions of acres of mandated entitlements under the 

Native Allotment Act of 1906, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, and 

the Alaska Statehood Act. To date, the BLM has transferred in excess of 99 million 

acres of land under these and other laws. The BLM is working to complete the survey and transfer of the remaining 7 million acres in Alaska over the next 5–10 

years. H.R. 4901 could have the effect of dramatically slowing the pace of completion of these important entitlements. 

Conclusion 

The Department commends the Chairman and Ranking Member for the conscientious effort put into this proposal to date. We recommend continuing a dialog to 

develop a solution that protects the interests of all the American people and the individual states. We hope that today’s hearing is just the beginning of that process 

and there will be opportunities for future conversation and hearings. 

H.R. 4979, Red River Private Property Protection Act 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4979, the Red River Private 

Property Protection Act, which seeks to address potential conflicts in land ownership 

along the Red River in Oklahoma and Texas. The complex history of the Red River 

corridor presents Federal and state land managers, as well as private landowners, 

with many challenges. As we continue to work toward the responsible management 

of resources on public lands in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, the Department of 

the Interior (Department) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) remain committed to engaging Members of Congress, local, state, and tribal officials and members of the public in resolving potential land ownership disputes in the area. 

The Department shares the goal of providing legal certainty to property owners 

along the Red River. However, the Department cannot support H.R. 4979 as currently written because the bill could result in the transfer of Federal lands and mineral estate out of Federal ownership without adequate demonstration of private 

ownership or compensation to U.S. taxpayers. The Department is also concerned the 

legislation may adversely affect ownership interests of tribal nations in the area. 

The Department and BLM recognize the importance of identifying the status of 

lands along the Red River and look forward to working with the members of the 

committee and the public to ensure the appropriate management of lands in the 

public domain. 

Red River Boundary 

The public lands managed by the BLM along a 116-mile continuous stretch of the 

Red River originally came into Federal ownership as part of the Louisiana Purchase 

from France in 1803. A series of subsequent treaties with foreign governments in 

1819, 1828, and 1838 set the south bank of the river as the southern border of the 

United States and the northern border of what is now the State of Texas. In 1867, 

when a portion of this public domain was reserved for the Kiowa-Comanche-Apache 

(KCA) Reservation (Reservation), the ‘‘middle of the main channel’’ of the river between the 98th meridian and the North Fork of the river was established as the 

Reservation’s southern boundary. The remaining land between what is now called 

‘‘the medial line’’ and the south bank retained its status as public land, which continues to the present. 

In a series of decisions in the 1920s, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a method 

known as the gradient boundary method for determining the location of the border 

19 

between Texas and Oklahoma along the south bank of the river. In giving certainty 

to the boundary’s location and the extent of tribal holdings, the Court’s decisions 

also provided a basis for clarifying private land ownership on each side of the river. 

The terminology for determining the location of public domain lands and private 

property boundaries—medial line, cut bank, and gradient boundary—has been the 

accepted standard since the 1920s Supreme Court rulings. 

In 1981 and 1984, two separate Oklahoma landowners argued in U.S. District 

Court that under riparian law, changes in the river’s location had expanded their 

private holdings while reducing the acreage of the Texas landowners whose properties faced them across the river. In both cases, the District Court followed the 

Supreme Court’s established principles concerning the location of public and private 

lands. Private property in Oklahoma extended to the center of the river, while private property in Texas stopped at the ordinary high water mark on the south bank, 

with the remaining land being part of the original public domain located in 

Oklahoma. 

Despite the Court’s identification of a defined border, certain areas along the Red 

River remained in dispute. In 2000, the state legislatures of Oklahoma and Texas, 

along with tribal leaders from the neighboring Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache 

Tribes and Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations, attempted to resolve these remaining 

issues by agreeing to the Red River Boundary Compact. Congress later consented 

to the Compact, and in doing so, agreed to move the jurisdictional boundary between the states from the south bank gradient line to the south bank vegetation 

line. The Compact explicitly did not change the title of any person or entity, public 

or private, to any of the lands adjacent to the Red River. Although the Compact may 

have shifted the boundary between the states, the location and status of lands in 

the public domain remained unchanged. 

In addition to Federal, state, and private land in the area, the Chickasaw and 

Choctaw Nations also hold ownership interests east of the 98th meridian intermittently to the border between the states. Tribal land ownership extends from the 

north bank across the river to the gradient boundary on the south bank. There are 

no current estimates for the total tribal acreage in this area. 

The varied and, in places, uncertain ownership of lands along the Red River has 

recently led to concerns from local landowners that the BLM is seeking to expand 

its presence in the area or gain ownership of lands belonging to private parties. Neither the Department nor the BLM are expanding Federal holdings along the Red 

River. The current work underway by the BLM through its resource management 

planning process is intended to identify, with certainty, and propose management 

alternatives for lands which fall within the public domain but have never been patented, reserved, or disposed. 

Resource Management Planning in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas 

The BLM is currently in the initial stages of updating its Resource Management 

Plan (RMP) for public lands in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, which include the 

area along the Red River. The BLM estimates approximately 30,000 acres of public 

land exist along the Red River between the North Fork of the river and the 98th 

meridian. The resource management planning process will update the current RMPs 

covering this area, which were developed in 1994 and 1996, and establish a longterm plan articulating the BLM’s objectives and strategies for maintaining the 

health and productivity of public lands in the region. 

Plan updates are needed for public lands in the Red River area specifically to address issues ranging from potential oil and gas development to public access for 

recreation and various other uses. The BLM’s management focus along the Red 

River to date has been for oil and gas activities and livestock grazing on public land 

allotments in Oklahoma, though public land south of Waurika, Oklahoma, currently 

receives extensive recreational use. 

The process for updating land use plans involves numerous steps that allow for 

public input, analysis, and informed decisionmaking with regard to public resources. 

In order to ensure the appropriate consistency with other governmental planning efforts, the BLM has already engaged local, state, Federal, and tribal representatives 

as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the RMP. Multiple county governments and agencies of the States of Texas and Oklahoma have agreed to participate 

as cooperating agencies. Although the RMP does not apply to state or private lands, 

this process and outreach ensures full consideration of adjacent issues, including 

local uses of resources on public lands. 

BLM Management Authorities 

Public lands are managed by the BLM under a variety of statutes that provide 

the agency the authorities necessary to address issues and disputes in land ownerVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:01 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04JY29 2ND SESS PRINTING\88967.TXT DARLEN
20 

ship. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the 

BLM is authorized to transfer or dispose of lands that have been identified as potentially suitable for disposal in an approved land use plan or through an amendment 

to an existing plan. Through these authorities, the BLM has been able to effectively 

manage and resolve many land use conflicts. 

The Color of Title Act provides a unique mechanism to resolve certain private 

party claims on public land which may be applicable to issues along the Red River. 

Any individual, group, or corporation who presents evidence of having title to public 

lands may file a color-of-title claim with the BLM. Accepted filings grant the applicant a patent conveying clear title to the lands upon payment of a fair and reasonable sale price which reflects the current market value of the lands, but may be 

discounted to account for improvements made on the land or previous property taxes 

paid. Guidance for implementing the Color of Title Act is found in Department regulations, Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) decisions, and court decisions. The 

obligation to establish a valid color-of-title claim is upon the claimant. 

The BLM also has a number of other authorities under which it may seek to 

transfer or dispose of lands, including sales, exchanges, the issuance of rights-ofway, and the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP). 

Through the resource management planning process in Kansas, Oklahoma, and 

Texas, along with its existing authorities under FLPMA, the Color of Title Act, and 

the R&PP Act, the BLM will be able to identify and resolve land ownership issues 

associated with the Red River. 

H.R. 4979, Red River Private Property Protection Act 

H.R. 4979, the Red River Private Property Protection Act, attempts to resolve potential land ownership conflicts along the Red River by requiring the Secretary of 

the Interior (Secretary) to transfer public lands through quit claim deed to any 

claimants with official county or state records indicating that the claimant holds all 

right, title and interest to those lands. The legislation does not specify what types 

of documents constitute sufficient official county or state records to satisfy a quit 

claim request or how to handle competing claims to such lands, yet requires the 

Secretary to approve such transfers within 120 days of a claimant’s submission. 

The Department opposes several provisions within H.R. 4979, principally involving the bill’s requirement that the Secretary transfer what may be public lands out 

of Federal ownership without ensuring a fair return to the U.S. taxpayer. Federal 

law, including FLPMA, directs that it is the policy of the United States that public 

lands be retained in Federal ownership unless as a result of the land use planning 

process it is determined that disposal will serve the national interest. 

The bill also appears to propose the transfer of not only public surface ownership 

to claimants, but also the subsurface mineral estate. According to Section 209 of 

FLPMA, the United States generally retains mineral interests when transferring 

lands out of Federal ownership. Mineral interests in the Red River area are also 

uniquely addressed in the Act of June 12, 1926, and carry a trust responsibility 

that, if transferred, could result in a taking of Oklahoma and tribal mineral interests. Under existing law, 62.5 percent of the royalty revenue from the development 

of the Federal mineral estate between the 98th meridian and the North Fork of the 

Red River is owed to the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Tribes, with the remaining 

37.5 percent owed to the State of Oklahoma. The legislation may also adversely affect ownership interests of the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations in the area between 

the 98th meridian and the border with the State of Arkansas. 

The Red River area’s long history of oil and gas exploration would make transfers 

of interest in public land and the associated mineral estate to claimants problematic. Many sites in the area contain historic oil field equipment that may contain 

public health and safety and environmental hazards. The legislation is unclear if liability for these sites would be transferred to claimants. It is also unclear which 

public lands or mineral estate would be transferred under H.R. 4979 due to provisions in the bill preventing the BLM from completing its RMP to identify public 

lands, a step that FLPMA mandates precedes any disposal and must guide landuse decisions. 

Additionally, the legislation’s proposed requirement that the Secretary issue a decision within 120 days does not allow adequate time for the BLM to respond to quit 

claim requests, including arranging or executing surveys of affected properties, complying with the requirements of other applicable laws and performing research to 

validate the submitted claims. 

Finally, the Department is concerned H.R. 4979 does not provide a process for adjudicating disputes. Because it is not uncommon for land records to contain errors 

creating overlapping interests between two or more parties, disputes are likely to 

21 

arise among adjacent landowners and between private parties with leases to develop 

oil and gas resources. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4979. I will be glad to answer 

any questions. 

S. 609, San Juan County Federal Land Conveyance Act 

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on S. 609, the 

San Juan Federal Land Conveyance Act. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

supports S. 609, which provides for the sale of approximately 19 acres of public land 

in northern San Juan County, New Mexico, to a private party at fair market value. 

We support this legislation as passed by the Senate on July 9. 

Background 

In 1998, the BLM settled a lawsuit regarding protection of the southwestern willow flycatcher in New Mexico. In order to protect potential flycatcher habitat, the 

BLM agreed to exclude livestock grazing from riparian areas in New Mexico by fencing BLM-managed river tracts identified as having suitable flycatcher habitat. 

While surveying lands for fencing under the settlement agreement, the BLM discovered as many as 20 different cases of trespass on BLM-administered public lands 

in New Mexico. 

These trespass cases included a 14-acre trespass into the Bald Eagle Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) north of Aztec, New Mexico. In 1999, the 

Blancett family, who were actively farming these acres, was cited for trespass on 

approximately 19 acres of public lands. Despite resolution of many of the identified 

trespass cases—including cases with the Blancett’s neighbors to the north and 

south—BLM negotiation efforts with the Blancetts were unsuccessful. 

Following failed negotiations and an IBLA mediation attempt, the Blancetts sued 

the Department of the Interior in U.S. District Court in 2010. On February 27, 

2012, a settlement was reached between the Blancetts and the Department of the 

Interior, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. Under that settlement agreement, the Blancetts have 2 years to obtain a legislative solution to address the 

trespass situation. If a legislative solution is not obtained by March 5, 2014, or substantial progress toward that solution is not made by that time, the BLM will offer 

to sell the approximately 2-acre parcel with the family residence to the Blancetts 

and the BLM may immediately begin to fence and reclaim the remaining 17 acres 

for bald eagle habitat, which will remain in Federal ownership. Consistent with the 

settlement agreement, the BLM notified the Blancetts on May 30, 2014, that the 

introduction and congressional consideration of S. 609 indicates substantial progress 

toward a legislative solution. 

S. 609 

S. 609 provides for the direct sale of approximately 19 acres of BLM-managed 

public land in San Juan County, New Mexico, to the Blancetts pursuant to a 2012 

settlement agreement. The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to sell at fair 

market value approximately 19 acres of public land to the Blancetts upon their request, as outlined in the settlement. 

Under the bill, fair market value is to be determined by an appraisal conducted 

using the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and other 

standard provisions. Additionally, the bill requires the Blancetts to pay administrative costs associated with the sale, including the cost of the survey and appraisal. 

The BLM supports these provisions. 

All proceeds from the sale are to be deposited into a special account in the 

Treasury for use in the acquisition of land or interests in land to further the protective purposes of the Bald Eagle ACEC or for resource protection consistent with the 

purposes of the ACEC. Because these funds are derived from the sale of lands, the 

BLM believes these funds should be used solely to acquire other lands or interest 

in lands. BLM also recommends that Congress reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), as proposed in the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget, which 

includes a special account for the disposition of proceeds from land sales. Under 

FLTFA, proceeds would be used to fund the acquisition of environmentally sensitive 

lands and to cover the administrative costs associated with conducting sales. 

Reauthorization of FLTFA would help avoid the need for creation of multiple special 

accounts for similar transactions. 

The BLM supports this bill as it represents an opportunity to resolve a longstanding trespass issue and facilitates a reasonable and practicable conveyance of 

the lands to the Blancetts that is consistent with the 2012 settlement agreement. 

22 

Conclusion 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify in support of the San Juan Federal 

Land Conveyance Act. I would be glad to answer your questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Spitler from The Wilderness Society, welcome. Five 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL SPITLER, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

Mr. SPITLER. Thank you. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of The Wilderness Society in regards 

to H.R. 4901, the Advancing Conservation and Education Act. I 

would like to thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

DeFazio for their leadership on this important issue, and ask that 

my written testimony be made a part of the hearing record. 

The Wilderness Society works on behalf of its 500,000 members 

and supporters to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care 

for our wild places. H.R. 4901 is classic win-win legislation. It will 

preserve lands with outstanding ecological and recreational values, 

improve local economies, and provide new revenue for the benefit 

of public schools. The Wilderness Society supports this legislation, 

and urges the committee to advance it. 

In the past 50 years, Congress has protected 110 million acres 

of America’s most scenic landscapes as wilderness, and across the 

Western United States. Congress has established numerous parks, 

conservation areas, and other protected lands. These lands include 

some of America’s most iconic natural treasures, including such 

well-known gems as the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite, 

as well as lesser-known jewels like the Owyhee Canyonlands, Mt. 

Hood, and Cabeza Prieta. These lands serve many purposes, including protecting ecologically significant habitats and cultural resources, and providing wonderful outdoor recreation opportunities. 

However, within these wonderful protected lands are millions of 

acres of state inholdings. These state trust lands were granted to 

states to provide revenue for public education and are managed to 

maximize revenue, and activities like mining, oil and gas development, resource extraction, logging, and other forms of development 

are encouraged. 

The inclusion of these state trust lands in Federal conservation 

areas creates an inherent land management conflict. State trust 

lands are managed to maximize revenue, while Federal conservation lands are managed to maximize their conservation and recreational values. The development of these state lands is often 

difficult, due to their remote location, leaving states fewer opportunities to secure additional revenue. 

Further, the development of these state inholdings could undermine the protected areas within which they are located. Therefore, 

it is in the interest of the states and in the public interest to ensure that these state lands within existing Federal conservation 

areas are exchanged for other lands better suited to economic development. Facilitating such exchanges will help protect the values 

23 

of the Federal conservation areas, while providing states with new 

sources of revenue from its lands. 

While there is broad support for this concept, current mechanisms for completing such exchanges are deeply flawed. While 

Federal law permits land exchanges to be completed administratively, such exchanges are exceedingly cumbersome, costly, and 

time consuming. Land exchanges may also be completed through 

an Act of Congress. However, legislation can take many years to 

accomplish. 

As a result of these inadequacies, State-Federal land exchanges 

do not take place on the scale necessary to protect Federal conservation areas, or provide needed benefits to states. Clearly, a new 

approach is needed. The Advancing Conservation and Education 

Act presents a practical approach to expedite the exchange of state 

inholdings from Federal conservation for Federal lands with lower 

conservation value and higher economic development potential. 

Under this legislation, states would identify the inholdings they 

wish to convey to the Federal Government, with a special priority 

on inholdings within national parks and wilderness. After identifying lands to transfer to the Federal Government, a state would 

then identify Federal lands it wished to acquire. A state may only 

select lands from certain lands within the state that are managed 

by the Bureau of Land Management, and the legislation includes 

important safeguards to ensure that lands with high ecological and 

recreational value are not conveyed. 

After identifying lands to exchange, the state and Federal 

Government would negotiate the exact Federal and state parcels to 

be exchanged and the terms of the exchange. The actual exchange 

would only take place after compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, in consideration of public input. Strict timelines 

would govern the entire process, ensuring that the exchanges are 

completed expeditiously. No further action from Congress would be 

required. 

By expediting the elimination of state inholdings in wilderness 

areas, parks, and other Federal conservation areas, H.R. 4901 will 

help prevent incompatible development within these areas, while 

affording new economic development opportunities for states, and 

providing new sources of revenue for schools. 

H.R. 4901 is classic win-win legislation. The Wilderness Society 

supports this legislation, and urges the committee to advance it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spitler follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL J. SPITLER, DIRECTOR OF WILDERNESS CAMPAIGNS, 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY ON H.R. 4901 

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

thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of The Wilderness Society in regards to H.R. 4901, the Advancing Conservation and Education Act. I would also 

like to thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member DeFazio for their leadership 

on this important issue. I ask that my written testimony be made a part of the hearing record. 

The Wilderness Society works on behalf of its 500,000 members and supporters 

to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild places. We work 

to promote the preservation of public land in a way that provides opportunities for 

economic development of rural communities. 

H.R. 4901 is classic ‘‘win-win’’ legislation. It will preserve lands with outstanding 

ecological and recreational values, improve local economies, and provide new reVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:01 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04JY29 2ND SESS PRINTING\88967.TXT DARLEN
24 

sources to states for the benefit of public schools. The Wilderness Society supports 

this legislation and urges the committee to advance it. 

FEDERAL CONSERVATION AREAS AND STATE TRUST LANDS: A NEW APPROACH IS NEEDED

This year is the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. In the past 50 years, 

Congress has protected 110 million acres of America’s most scenic and vital landscapes as wilderness, and the National Wilderness Preservation System stands as 

a beacon to the world as a premier system of protected lands. 

Across the Western United States, Congress has also established numerous parks, 

conservation areas and other protected lands. These lands preserve some of 

America’s most iconic natural treasures. These include such well-known gems as the 

Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite, as well as lesser known jewels like the 

Owyhee Canyonlands, Mt. Hood, and Cabeza Prieta. 

These lands serve many purposes, including protecting ecologically significant 

habitats and cultural resources, providing wonderful outdoor recreational opportunities, and benefiting local economies. Their preservation is a gift to all Americans as 

well as future generations. 

However, within these wonderful protected lands are millions of acres of state 

inholdings. These state lands were granted to states to provide revenue for public 

education. These ‘‘state trust lands’’ are managed to maximize revenue and activities like mining, oil and gas development, resource extraction, logging, and other 

forms of development are encouraged. 

The inclusion of these lands in Federal conservation areas is detrimental both to 

the states, and to the Federal Government. The development of these lands is often 

difficult due to their remote location, leaving states fewer opportunities to secure additional revenue. Further, the development of these inholdings could undermine the 

protected areas within which they are located. 

There are numerous examples of state inholdings in Federal conservation areas, 

where development would be detrimental to the surrounding lands. In Grand Teton 

National Park, for example, the State of Wyoming owns two sections of land that, 

if developed, would lead to increased traffic, water and air pollution, and habitat 

degradation. Such development, if it were to take place, would forever mar one of 

America’s premier national parks. Similar developments on state inholdings elsewhere threaten similar results. 

Therefore, it is in the interest of the states, and the public interest, to ensure that 

the state lands within existing Federal conservation areas are exchanged for other 

lands better suited to economic development. Facilitating such exchanges will help 

protect the values of the Federal conservation areas, while providing states with 

new sources of revenue from its lands. 

States, Federal agencies, conservation organizations, and others support removing 

state inholdings from Federal conservation areas. However, current mechanisms are 

deeply flawed. While Federal law permits land exchanges to be completed administratively, administrative land exchanges are exceedingly cumbersome, costly, and 

time-consuming. Because administrative land exchanges are so difficult and timeconsuming to undertake, such exchanges are rarely completed. Land exchanges may 

also be completed through an Act of Congress. However, legislation is also a timeconsuming process and can take many years to accomplish. 

As a result of the inadequacies of current land exchange mechanisms, stateFederal land exchanges do not take place on the scale necessary to protect Federal 

conservation areas or provide needed benefits to states. A new approach is needed. 

THE ADVANCING CONSERVATION AND EDUCATION ACT

The Advancing Conservation and Education Act presents a practical approach to 

expedite the exchange of state inholdings from Federal conservation areas for 

Federal lands with lower conservation value and higher economic development 

potential. 

Under the legislation, states would identify the inholdings they wish to convey to 

the Federal Government, with a special priority on inholdings within national parks 

and wilderness. After identifying lands to transfer to the Federal Government, a 

state would then identify Federal lands it wished to acquire. 

States would likely seek to acquire lands with low conservation value and high 

economic development potential in order to maximize revenue. A state may only select from certain lands within the state that are managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management, and the legislation includes important sideboards to ensure that lands 

with high ecological and recreational value are not conveyed. 

After identifying lands to exchange, the state would negotiate with the Federal 

Government the exact Federal and state parcels to be exchanged and the terms of 

25 

the exchange. The Secretary of the Interior would retain the authority to accept or 

reject any proposed parcels to receive or convey. After the parties reach agreement, 

the actual exchange would take place only after compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act and consideration of public input. Timelines would govern 

the entire process, ensuring that state-Federal land exchanges proceed at a timely 

pace. 

The approach is significantly better than the current administrative or legislative 

land exchange processes. Upon enactment of the legislation, states would have a set 

time period to initiate the land exchange process for their inholdings. Strict 

timelines would help ensure the process stays on track and is completed expeditiously. No further action from Congress would be required. 

BENEFITS OF THE ADVANCING CONSERVATION AND EDUCATION ACT

H.R. 4901 will help to expedite the elimination of state inholdings in wilderness 

areas, national parks, and other Federal conservation areas. It will help prevent incompatible development within these areas, afford new economic development opportunities for states, and provide new sources of revenue for schools. By benefiting 

conservation, state economies, and public schools, the approach is a classic win-win 

solution. Here is who will benefit from H.R. 4901: 

• Public—Through their elected representatives, the public have protected 

some of America’s most spectacular landscapes as parks, wilderness, monuments, and other Federal conservation areas. These areas enjoy broad public 

support and provide important benefits to the American people. The public 

expects that these scenic wonders—like Yosemite and Yellowstone—will not 

be marred by inappropriate development within their boundaries. 

By removing state lands that are managed to maximize revenue production— 

not conservation—H.R. 4901 will help ensure that America’s scenic treasures 

are well-protected and secure. This will benefit the American public who has 

come to rely on these special places for recreation, enjoyment, and relaxation. 

• State Economies—State trust lands within existing Federal conservation 

areas are not currently maximizing revenue. By facilitating the exchange of 

these lands for lands that have greater economic potential and are appropriate for economic development, H.R. 4901 will provide new sources of revenue for states, as well as providing new jobs and revenue to local economies. 

• Public Schools—A portion of the revenue from state trust lands is dedicated 

to support for public education. By facilitating the exchange of state 

inholdings in Federal conservation areas for lands that have greater economic 

potential and are appropriate for economic development, H.R. 4901 will provide new sources of revenue for states, which will, in turn, benefit public 

schools. 

• Land Management—By consolidating state and Federal holdings and eliminating state inholdings in Federal conservation areas, H.R. 4901 will benefit 

state and Federal land management. 

We have several technical amendments to the legislation regarding sections 4(b) 

and 8(e) that we would like to address, and look forward to working with Chairman 

Bishop, Ranking Member DeFazio, and the committee to address these technical 

amendments as the legislation moves forward. 

CONCLUSION

H.R. 4901 is classic ‘‘win-win’’ legislation. It will preserve lands with outstanding 

ecological and recreational values, improve local economies, and provide new resources to states for the benefit of public schools. The Wilderness Society supports 

this legislation and urges the committee to advance it. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate all of you for being here 

with your testimony. We will start the questioning. Turn first to 

Mr. Grijalva for questions. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

hearing. 

Let me begin with Commissioner Hickman and Director Abrams. 

In Arizona and Oregon, what percentage of education spending is 

26 

represented by the revenue generated from state trust lands? Just 

a guess, a figure, if there is one? 

Ms. ABRAMS. Chairman, Congressman, the percentage in Oregon 

is quite small. It is about 5 percent of the overall spending. 

Ms. HICKMAN. Chairman, thank you. Chairman, Mr. Grijalva, 

the percentage in Arizona is also a smaller percentage. I can tell 

you that last year we generated over $300 million for education. A 

portion of that went into the permanent fund, and a portion directly to the beneficiaries. But, in terms of the overall spending 

that is necessary for K–12, that is a fairly small portion. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Either or both, do—the legislation that we are 

dealing with right now, do you see that as a facilitating instrument 

to providing—expedite exchanges that would, in turn, raise that 

percentage somewhat significantly? 

Ms. HICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Grijalva, I do believe 

that this would create a tremendous path forward to additional 

revenues generated for K–12. In the history of Arizona and the 

State Land Department, between 1915 and 2001, we generated 

$1 billion for the trust. Between 2001 and 2014, it has gone from 

$1 billion to $4.3 billion, based on additional opportunities and 

other types of land uses. 

So, having the opportunity to have more holdings in which we 

can authorize other revenue-producing land uses would only help 

us generate those monies for K–12. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Ms. ABRAMS. Chairman, Congressman, the same sort of situation 

plays out in Oregon, but to a smaller extent, just because we have 

a smaller amount of holdings in state trust lands. 

But, as an example, in a previous exchange we were able to exchange some isolated parcels with BLM for some area that is open 

for commercial and industrial development, which actually increases the economic development in one of our rural areas, as well 

as providing a big increase in the amount of money we can generate from those lands. So, yes, it does have the potential for a significant effect. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Commissioner Hickman, the BLM, in 

Director Ellis’ testimony, he mentions the fact that the Arizona 

State Constitution specifies that state trust land can only be disposed of through exchange or auction. Under H.R. 4901, states relinquish their school trust land and then select alternative Federal 

land in exchange. This is a technicality, I know, but it could mean 

that Arizona may not be able to take full advantage or gain full 

benefit from the expedited exchanges that are in this bill. 

Do you have any suggestion on that, or an opinion as to—is that 

a potential concern? 

Ms. HICKMAN. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Grijalva, 

that is an issue that we have looked at. And it is our position currently that we are able to explore an alternate mechanism outside 

of exchanges. While we have the ability to do exchanges in the 

Constitution and the Enabling Act, Congress can give us additional 

authorities in which we are able to relinquish lands and use that 

mechanism to consolidate land holdings. 

27 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Is there specific language, Commissioner, that you 

would be able to suggest to this committee as this legislation moves 

forward that would deal with that Arizona anomaly? 

Ms. HICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Grijalva, I am certainly happy to provide something supplemental in writing that we 

could look at adding to this legislation to make sure that it is clear 

that this would be an alternate mechanism available to—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Specific to the constitutional—— 

Ms. HICKMAN. Correct. 

Mr. GRIJALVA [continuing]. Issue. OK? 

Ms. HICKMAN. Yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. I don’t know if we are going to have a second round. 

Go on. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. No, I am just going to—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Mrs. Lummis, do you have questions for this panel? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of familiar faces in this room. I want to thank you all for being here. 

Question for Ms. Hickman. Can you list some of the difficulties 

with the current administrative process for land exchanges? 

Ms. HICKMAN. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman. The 

existing process with land exchanges is a topic that we spend a 

great deal of time at the Western States Land Commissioners 

Association discussing. There are multiple states that have been 

engaged in lengthy land exchanges that have taken more than 10 

years, and have still not reached culmination, and quite frankly, 

without a specific end date in sight. 

The State of Idaho has been working on an exchange that they 

were expressly authorized to engage in by Congress. They have 

been working on that since 2008, and that has not yet been completed. There are examples in Wyoming, where I believe there is 

an exchange that has been in process for at least 50 years that has 

not yet reached culmination. 

So, the process is lengthy, often is not completed. It is burdensome, in terms of staff time and cost. And we are looking for another mechanism, because the land exchange process is currently 

not working. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I can vouch for the voracity of that statement. The 

Grand Teton land exchange has been pending for a very long time. 

We set it up in four tranches, because there are first mineral rights 

that were bought out. Subsequently, a very small parcel. And then 

the two big gulps that we can’t get done are basically two full sections, one of which is surrounded on four sides by Grand Teton 

National Park, the other surrounded on three sides by Grand Teton 

National Park. The appraisals are in excess, for those two parcels, 

of $100 million. 

So, these are not small bites. And to the extent that they would 

go up the list on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, then 

they fall right back down, because they are just too big a bite to 

take. So I am pleased to see this bill being debated and discussed. 

It provides other options for boards of land commissioners, for 

states who wish to accomplish those types of exchanges that are 

beneficial to the state trust, and fulfills the state trust obligations 

that those boards of land commissioners have, and the fact that the 

28 

Federal Government would like to acquire, certainly, other lands 

that are within the borders of national parks. So there are specific 

circumstances. 

Now, is it possible, let me ask Ms. Hickman. For example, the 

land that is similar to the land we have in Grand Teton, and the 

land Arizona owns in the Grand Canyon, can these lands be put 

to productive use now, as is required of state trust lands, while 

they are surrounded by national parks? 

Ms. HICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to put many of these lands into productive 

use. Many of them are checkerboarded and landlocked. And although the designation does not necessarily overlay the state trust 

land, it surrounds those lands. And, therefore, we have access problems and an inability to market those lands for other opportunities. 

So, it is very rare that we are able to make revenue-producing 

opportunities from these lands because they are landlocked and, 

frankly, politically encumbered with the reason for the creation of 

the monument or the conservation area in the first place. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thereby violating the trust obligations of those 

who were entrusted to manage these lands for the benefit of the 

public schools. 

Ms. HICKMAN. Yes. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, that is exactly our point, that by not being able to make productive use of 

these lands, we are not fulfilling our fiduciary duty to the trust by 

leaving these lands in an unproductive state, and hindering the 

Federal management agency from doing their job, and preventing 

us from making money for the schoolchildren. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Ogsbury and Ms. Abrams, very quickly, do you 

have anything to add on the cost of these delays? 

Mr. BISHOP. You have 4 seconds to say it, though. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. ABRAMS. They are expensive. 

Mr. BISHOP. Good. Jim, do you—— 

Ms. ABRAMS. They are expensive. 

Mr. BISHOP. Jim, do you want to answer that very quickly? 

Mr. OGSBURY. I would repeat the very eloquent testimony of Ms. 

Abrams. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Let me ask a couple of questions, as we 

go through here. 

First of all, Ms. Hickman, can you approximate about how many 

acres Arizona school trust lands have that are currently trapped inside Federal conservation areas, roughly? 

Ms. HICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, the approximate acreage is 

500,000 acres of existing and pending conservation actions. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Ms. Abrams, Oregon has a different way of 

funding their education system than the rest of the Western states, 

which is a mineral extraction that is funding those. Does Oregon 

have this unique pattern of how they actually fund them? And does 

the education and timber community in Oregon support this 

concept? 

Ms. ABRAMS. Chairman, Oregon doesn’t have the mineral resources that many of the other Western states have. But the way 

we gather revenue off of these lands is either through grazing allotVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:01 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04JY29 2ND SESS PRINTING\88967.TXT DARLEN
29 

ments, much like the BLM does with their grazing lands, or 

through timber production on our timbered lands. 

And we do have the same sorts of constraints, because, for 

grazing, for instance, if for some reason grazing is not allowed on 

the Federal lands, if there are conservation areas around the state 

trust land, we are not able to release grazing leases for those lands, 

because the cattle can’t get on through the Federal conservation 

area. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Does there seem to be support amongst 

the education community and the grazing timber community in 

Oregon for this approach? 

Ms. ABRAMS. Yes, there is. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Ogsbury, if I could ask you, how important are trust lands 

for generating public education funds for Western Governors? 

Mr. OGSBURY. It is tremendously important, Mr. Chairman. This 

is one of those issues where, when I am with the Governors, with 

their staff, and we are trying to establish priorities for the efforts 

of WGA and the application of our limited resources, when we come 

to land exchange reform, every hand in the room shoots up. This 

has been a problem for generations. 

I was at Grand Teton National Park a couple weeks ago and 

learned how every generation of leadership tries to expedite that 

exchange so the Federal conservation areas can be consolidated, 

and a more productive use of those state lands be realized. So it 

is an extremely important issue on a bipartisan basis at WGA. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Spitler, does The Wilderness Society 

see these inholdings, these in-held trust lands, as a threat for potential development in parks, wilderness areas? 

Mr. SPITLER. Chairman Bishop, in some places we do. The 

presence of these lands, if they were to be utilized for their trust 

obligation purposes to generate revenue, would be fundamentally 

incompatible with the protection of the surrounding Federal lands. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. I thank you for that. All right, Mr. Ellis, let me 

now come here. You had very nice words for Mr. DeFazio and myself as far as the creation of this legislation, and then took four 

pages to bash it. Look, the system doesn’t work. That is the testimony we have heard all around here. We recently did a land exchange in Utah that took 5 years to complete, and it took 3 years 

to get BLM to pay their $300,000 for their half of the appraisal. 

Something is not working here, and there has to be a change. 

I would note that in FLPMA, to which you referenced, it gives 

some flexibility to the Department. It does say, ‘‘Upon mutual 

agreement of the parties to make adjustments to the relative values involved in an exchange transaction in order to compensate a 

party or parties to the exchange for assuming costs, responsibilities, or requirements which would ordinarily be borne by the other 

party or parties.’’ FLPMA does give some flexibility. 

In your instructional memorandum to FLPMA, you write in 

there, ‘‘The Department says the remaining entitlements of the 

various states are to be considered as an obligation and debt due 

to the state by the Federal Government.’’ It also further states that 

in indemnity selections BLM will consider the equities of the states 

to the greatest extent possible. 

30 

Bottom line is that is not happening. And it is becoming somewhat frustrating that those are some options that we are not 

looking at. We have to break the concept. 

So, the question I simply have is I am willing to work with the 

Agency, if your folks are willing to give the latitude to think outside the box and outside the current restraints to which we hide 

behind right now, because something has to change. What we are 

doing now does not work. And continuing on the status quo means 

it won’t work in the future. Is the Department willing to think creatively on this? 

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman, as I said in my testimony, we are willing to work with you and the committee and Ranking Member 

DeFazio on your legislation. The Agency, of course, we are required 

to follow Federal uniform appraisal standards in all our laws that 

we have. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am sorry, I am going to have to cut you off. And 

I will come back. There will be another round of questions. I will 

let you answer that, but I am out of time. 

Mr. LaMalfa, did you have any questions you want—Mr. 

Grijalva, go ahead. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me continue with Director Ellis. You know, we 

have been hearing not only here, but from the states that we represent, that we need a new process to facilitate certain land 

exchanges, to expedite them, because the current process is too 

burdensome, slow. And so, is the process in place now broken? Or 

does your agency not have the budget capacity to complete all the 

proposed exchanges that are in a timely manner and those that are 

already on the waiting list? Where do you see the issue? 

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I might respond this 

way. I understand, and I have heard today the states’ frustrations 

with the length of time it sometimes takes to complete exchanges, 

and their eagerness for a quick resolution. And the Bureau has an 

obligation to ensure extensive participation and input from a wide 

variety of interests. That includes tribal interests, it includes state 

and local governments, user groups, adjacent landowners, private 

individuals, as we go through this process. 

Now, there are many things, many competing things, for the limited resources that we have. For example, our realty specialists 

that work on these exchanges are the same realty specialists that 

process transmission line applications. They are the same realty 

specialists that work on right-of-ways for oil and gas leases that 

come in. And so, you know, they are the same ones that work on 

processing commercial permits for filming and other economic activities. These are the same people that we have. 

So, my experience in both my BLM and Forest Service career is 

these land exchanges, they do take time. They take time. Utah took 

time, we are working on others, the one Congressman mentioned 

here. These take time. But I might say that we also have had very 

many successes. I have seen in my career, most of which has been 

in the field, I have seen a lot of land exchanges that do come together, including states. But we, like every other thing we do, we 

have to prioritize. We have to prioritize exchanges, we have to 

prioritize other things that we do. And we are willing to work with 

you on this legislation. 

31 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Spitler, in your oral testimony you 

talked about incompatible development and use on state trust land 

inholdings in Federal conservation areas, or Federal areas. Just for 

the record, and for myself, give me an example of that incompatibility and why you are supporting this legislation. 

Mr. SPITLER. Mr. Grijalva, there are many examples of uses that 

would be permitted and encouraged on state trust lands that would 

be incompatible—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Given the fact that there are two different 

missions here, the Commissioner and the Director, their primary 

mission, in terms of the contribution to education, is revenue generation. And there is a corresponding mission of conservation of 

critical areas. And that is part of the incompatibility, I assume. But 

what is an example that I think people would look at and—— 

Mr. SPITLER. Oh. If you can imagine oil and gas development in 

the middle of a national park, that would be an example of incompatible development with the national park lands. It is not what 

the American public expects when they go visit a national park. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mrs. Lummis, do you have a couple more quick 

questions? Emphasis on quick. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I will make it quick, thank you. Mr. Ellis, don’t 

you think it is in the best interest of the American people to trade 

some checkerboard land for less monetary cost to the government? 

Mr. ELLIS. OK, Congresswoman, I will respond this way. You 

know, we have had instances in the Agency where we have done 

exchanges with states on various parcels, some more 

checkerboarded, but others not checkerboarded. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And you recommend a better source of resources, 

and not allowing states to pay more than half the administrative 

expenses. A better source of resources is just tax dollars, isn’t it? 

Mr. ELLIS. Help me understand your question, Congresswoman. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Well, your testimony has concerns with allowing 

states to cover additional administrative costs in return for more 

land, because that would result in the Federal Government receiving dramatically less land value. And as you put it, ‘‘This would not 

serve the interests of the American people.’’ 

Mr. ELLIS. Yes. And my point there is that generally you have 

the state—they have the cost—if the state took on more of the cost 

of the staff work in exchange for lands, then there would be less 

lands going in the Federal ownership, there would be less land 

area going into Federal ownership. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. I would yield to the gentleman from Utah. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Ellis, I will give you a chance to respond, but 

I think you basically responded to my question to Mr. Grijalva, but 

I will give you a second if you don’t want to. 

I will accept just as the basics here that you are willing to work 

with us. My problem is, and my concern, and I want this going 

back to the Department, is if you really want to work with us, you 

have to be willing to work with us. 

FLPMA and NEPA were passed when I was still wearing 

saddleback jeans. They were bell bottoms. I had platform shoes. My 

hair had color, it was parted in the middle, and covered more than 

just my ears. Those are still the rules about which the Department 

32 

is hiding behind. They don’t work. It takes too long. It is not 

happening. 

And the problem of the matter is if you own the land, or if the 

land is owned by the State of Arizona, it is the same damn taxpayers who own the land. The only difference is if you have it, kids 

are hurt; if she has it, kids are helped. We ought to be moving in 

that direction. So I will give you a chance to respond if you want 

to. I would welcome your assistance. I would welcome the help of 

the Department. But if we are going to insist on having those 

blinders on that keep us with the same constraints that are causing the problem now, it isn’t going to work. 

Mr. ELLIS. Well, Mr. Chairman, we do look forward to working 

with you and the committee on this bill. We do. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Well—— 

Mr. ELLIS. Yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. My time? What does that mean? Does that mean 

you have amendments to it? 

Mr. ELLIS. No, I have no amendments here for your bill. What 

we have recognized—I recognized in my career, for example, the 

example that came up in Owyhee County, Idaho that was brought 

up with the wilderness area in Owyhee County, Idaho, and the 

state sections in Owyhee County. We are working to try to do an 

exchange with Idaho so we can exchange with the state out of 

those lands. It has taken time. You are correct, I think—— 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And I am sorry for the interruption. You bet it 

takes time. It takes way too much gosh darn time. Because this 

Teton land exchange has been on the agenda since I was a little 

girl. And in my capacity as the former Director of the Office of 

State Lands and Investments in Wyoming, and my former capacity 

as State Treasurer, where I sat on the Board of Land Commissioners, in my former capacity where I was in the State Senate, 

and before that in the State House, we were working on this the 

entire time. The entire time. 

And I am going to tell you I sat in my first term as a Wyoming 

legislator when I was 24 years old. And next month I am turning 

60. I have been working on this my entire adult life, this one exchange. Time? It doesn’t take time, it takes lifetimes. And that is 

not good enough. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. This time I really do 

yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Are there any other questions for the panel? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Then we want to thank you for coming here. And 

I understand. I understand. I want to thank you for coming here 

and giving your testimony. I appreciate it very much. This panel 

is excused. And we are actually a little bit ahead of schedule, but 

not by a heck of a lot. 

We are now going to turn to H.R. 4979, I will invite a new panel 

to come up. Mr. Thornberry—Mac, if you would actually like to join 

us on the dais to give your testimony and ask questions, we will 

invite you up here. Sure. I am looking to the future—yes, come up 

here and be with us. 

We would also invite Mr. Ellis, if he would stay there, from BLM, 

and invite Mr. Pat Canan—I am sorry for the wrong emphasis 

there—the Captain Game Warden from Wichita Falls, Texas. 

33 

I appreciate you coming here. This is on H.R. 4979. Once again 

we will offer you your written statements are in the record. Anything else you want to add will be added to the record. Mr. Ellis, 

you are recognized to talk about this particular one, if you would. 

Actually, Mr. Ellis, to help you out here, you have the next one, 

as well. Yes, if you want to just do both bills at the same time and 

knock them out, you can. OK, please go. 

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior 

on two bills of interest to the Bureau of Land Management. I will 

briefly summarize my written statements and ask that they be submitted in their entirety for the record. 

H.R. 4979, the Red River Private Property Protection Act, seeks 

to address potential conflicts in land ownership on the 116-mile 

portion of the Red River in Oklahoma and Texas. The complex history of the Red River corridor presents Federal land managers, as 

well as private landowners, many challenges. As we continue to 

work toward the responsible management of resources on public 

lands in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, the Department and BLM 

remain committed to actively engaging Members of Congress, local 

state and tribal officials, as well as members of the public, in resolving potential land ownership disputes in the area. 

While the Department shares the goal of the legislation in providing legal certainty to property owners along the Red River, it 

cannot support H.R. 4979 as currently written, because the bill 

could result in the transfer of Federal lands and mineral state out 

of Federal ownership without compensation to the U.S. taxpayers. 

The Department is also concerned the legislation may negatively 

impact important subsurface mineral interests and revenue sources 

for tribal nations in Oklahoma. 

We recognize the importance of identifying the status of lands 

along the Red River, and are currently in active discussions with 

various parties, including the State of Texas, to clarify ownership 

and address resource management challenges. We look forward to 

working with the sponsor, members of this committee, and many 

interested stakeholders of the Red River to provide for an appropriate management of Federal lands in the public domain. 

Senate 609, the San Juan County Federal Land Conveyance Act, 

would provide for the sale of 19 acres of public land in Northern 

San Juan County, New Mexico, to a private party at fair market 

value. The BLM supports this bill as amended, which passed the 

Senate earlier this month. Enactment of S. 609 represents an opportunity to resolve a longstanding trespass issue consistent with 

a 2012 settlement agreement between the private party and the 

Department. 

We appreciate the committee’s work to help address this trespass 

issue, and thank you for inviting Department of the Interior to testify on these bills. I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Now, Congressman Thornberry, I am sorry. You were supposed 

to be able to go first on your bill. My bad, I just did the wrong 

thing. I will recognize you now, if you want to introduce your bill, 

late. Sorry. 

34 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAC THORNBERRY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. THORNBERRY. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

you and the committee holding a hearing on this, and giving me 

a chance to visit with you about it. Just to amplify a little bit about 

the history, any time the story starts out, ‘‘When President Thomas 

Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon Bonaparte,’’ 

you know that it is an interesting story. But that is exactly where 

this goes back to. 

In the Louisiana Purchase, the United States bought not only the 

Louisiana Territory, but the river bed went to the United States. 

And that was confirmed in treaties with the United States and 

Spain, the United States and Mexico, the United States and the 

Republic of Texas, that the boundary of Texas is the south bank 

of the Red River. 

Now, in the mid-1800s, there was an Indian reservation that was 

established in a portion of that area, but defining exactly where the 

south bank is was considered a challenge. So, in the 1920s, the 

Supreme Court says basically it is the south gradient bank, and 

they have a definition of what that means. 

The problem is the gradient bank required a survey to figure out 

where it was, and this boundary goes for 539 miles. That is how 

long the river goes between Texas and Oklahoma forming that 

boundary. So you would have to survey the whole 539 miles. The 

second problem is it changes all the time. And, as you know, as the 

river changes, the boundary changes. 

So, Texas and Oklahoma negotiated an agreement in 1999, and 

I was the sponsor of the bill that came to Congress that was ratified by Federal law, signed into law by President Clinton in 2000, 

that said we are not going to use the gradient boundary, we are 

going to use the vegetation line, because everybody can see it. And 

as it moves, then you know where it is. It is much easier to deal 

with. And so, that is the current law, as we have it. 

Now, just a side note. There was a local court case that was decided wrongly before the Red River Compact was established, and 

I think that the owner and the BLM are in discussions on how to 

rectify that situation, and I hope they do. 

But the bottom line is everything was going along pretty well 

until last year when the BLM announced that they were going to 

update their management plan for several states, including this 

area. They probably did not use the best communication. They said 

90,000 acres may be owned by the Federal Government. That sets 

off a panic. When you compound it with the situation out in 

Nevada, you had all sorts of folks who were up in arms about a 

Federal land grab. 

And so, what the status is today is that private landowners cannot borrow money on their land, because the title is clouded. They 

do not make improvements on the land. They can’t sell their land, 

because there is all this concern that the Federal Government is 

going to come in and make a claim on some portion of these acres. 

BLM has now said it is not really 90, it may be 30. But the point 

is the title is clouded. 

And I will say I represent seven counties along this 500-mile 

border. It is not just in the three at stake here that there is a 

35 

cloud. People up and down the river are panicked about whether 

their ownership rights will be protected. 

BLM says it is going to take until 2018 to figure out their management plan. So if you are an owner along the river, you have, 

at best, to 2018, where you can’t sell, you can’t borrow, you can’t 

improve your land. That is the status today. 

So, my bill tries to solve that and say if you can prove in the 

county records of either state that you own the land, if you have 

been paying taxes, BLM has to recognize that ownership interest, 

and put it to rest. 

Just two brief comments. The only thing I am trying to do is settle the land in Texas, south of the gradient vegetation line. There 

are issues that BLM has to deal with with the tribes and so forth 

north of that vegetation line and it is complicated. But I am only 

dealing with the area south that is in Texas. 

Last point is we have already had a gun-related group come hold 

a rally in this area. There are some groups using this controversy 

to gain attention for themselves, who want to inflame the situation. 

The last thing the landowners, the counties, the state, or BLM 

needs is for people to come in and try to make a big deal out of 

this to make some political points. The sooner it gets solved for the 

landowners and for everybody else, the better. Yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Thornberry, we would like you to 

stay to answer questions or to ask questions, but I don’t know what 

your commitments are elsewhere. I am sure we are a much better 

group than Homeland Security. So whatever you decide to do—— 

Mr. THORNBERRY. No, I appreciate it. If it is all right, I will stay 

around. 

And, Mr. Chairman, may I also ask unanimous consent that 

three letters be entered in the record in support of the legislation 

from Texas Farm Bureau, from Texas Southwestern Cattle Raisers, 

and from the County Judge of Wichita County? 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, without objection. No problem. 

[The letters submitted by Mr. Thornberry for the record follow:] 

LETTERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 4979 

TEXAS FARM BUREAU, 

WACO, TEXAS, 

JULY 25, 2014. 

Hon. DOC HASTINGS, Chairman, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: 

The Texas Farm Bureau supports the passage and enactment of H.R. 4979, by 

Congressman Thornberry. This legislation addresses a federal lands taking issue 

that has existed between the states of Texas and Oklahoma, and the Bureau of 

Land Management since 1984. Despite repeated attempts by the States, there continues to be controversy with the Federal Government claims and holdings. Hopefully passage of this bill will remedy the controversy and return formerly privately 

owned lands to rightful owners. 

The center of controversy between the states and federal government is the definition of ‘‘gradient boundary’’ dealing with the southern bank of the Red River. In 

spite of the actions by both the states of Oklahoma and Texas, in the Red River 

Boundary compact in 2000; the federal government continues to assert claims on 

private landowners. A specific instance involves the taking of an individual’s propVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:01 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04JY29 2ND SESS PRINTING\88967.TXT DARLEN
36 

erty through court action, and requiring that individual to continue to make payments for its purchase to another Federal agency. 

One question concerning H.R. 4979, is the reason for inclusion of the length of 

the 539 mile border between Oklahoma and Texas. It would appear that the only 

border in question involves approximately 116 miles. 

We applaud Mr. Thornberry for his efforts in introducing H.R. 4979, and hope to 

secure its passage at the earliest possible date. We look forward to working with 

the Committee as it continues its deliberations on this important issue. 

Sincerely, 

KENNETH DIERSCHKE, 

President. 

TEXAS AND SOUTHWESTERN CATTLE RAISERS ASSOCIATION, 

FORT WORTH, TEXAS, 

JULY 29, 2014. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: Support for H.R. 4979 by Representative Mac Thornberry—‘‘Red River Private 

Property Protection Act’’ 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP AND RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA: 

The Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) is a 137 yearold trade association and is the largest and oldest livestock organization based in 

Texas. TSCRA has a membership of more than 16,000 beef cattle operations, ranching families and businesses. These members represent over 50,000 individuals directly involved in ranching and beef production who manage over 4 million head of 

cattle on more than 76 million acres of range and pasture land primarily in Texas 

and Oklahoma, but throughout the Southwest. 

TSCRA strongly supports H.R. 4979—‘‘Red River Private Property Protection Act’’ 

by Representative Mac Thornberry. This legislation would save landowners legal expenses regarding property they have long owned along the Red River. H.R. 4979 

would also further support the Red River Compact and reaffirm many previous legal 

rulings. 

TSCRA opposes any federal control or management of land on the Texas side of 

the Red River. TSCRA is concerned that any such control and/or management will 

take away the long held and legally established private property rights of landowners in this region. Specifically, the proposal by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) could threaten ranchers’ and landowners’ ability to use their land for grazing 

livestock and could allow the public on privately owned land for recreation and 

hunting without the permission of private landowners. 

There are over 142 million privately owned acres in Texas, which represent a majority of the entire state. Numerous examples prove that the expansion of federal 

control and/or management of private land constitute the first step toward the erosion of private property rights. This will not only jeopardize the proud history that 

Texas landowners have, but it will seriously threaten, limit, and/or take away an 

important part of our state and national economies. Federal control and/or management of private land will also further challenge future generations from being able 

to own land and start and continue agricultural operations. 

As proud stewards of the land, ranchers and other agricultural producers in this 

region remain the most adversely impacted by this BLM proposal. 

TSCRA respectfully requests your favorable consideration of this legislation. 

Sincerely, 

PETE BONDS, 

President. 

37 

WICHITA COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 

WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS, 

JULY 25, 2014. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: Comments on H.R. 4979 by Congressman Thornberry 

DEAR CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS: 

Thank you for your consideration of H.R. 4979 to clarify and protect the private 

land holdings of Texas residents along the Red River area on Wichita, Wilbarger, 

and Clay Counties of Texas. In its effort to fulfill its administrative planning process, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has brought great concern to land owners by implicating that the government may take over land that has been in some 

Texas families for over a hundred years. In contacts and meetings with BLM representatives, landowners, and elected officials. there has been a great deal of discussion about possible boundary changes without clear definition. The BLM’s planning 

time to produce their document runs about three years during which time, the landowners cannot plan improvements or sell land that would have title questions. 

Local elected officials and land owners have met with Congressman Thornberry 

who developed H.R. 4979 to alleviate this situation and reinforce the doctrines of 

the Red River Compact which has been in place for a number of years. 

We pray that you will favorably consider this bill and move it along in the 

legislative process. 

Sincerely, 

WOODROW W. ‘‘WOODY’’ GOSSOM, JR., 

County Judge. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Canan. Is that right? That is closer? 

Mr. CANAN. Close. Canan. 

Mr. BISHOP. Canan. I am sorry, I will—you have to speak with 

small words to me. I apologize for that. 

You have 5 minutes; we welcome your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF PAT CANAN, CAPTAIN GAME WARDEN, 

WICHITA FALLS, TEXAS 

Mr. CANAN. Thank you. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify for you today. My name is Pat Canan, and I am 

a landowner along the Red River. I am also a Captain Game 

Warden with the State of Texas. So I come to you from a couple 

of different positions. 

The land that I currently live on is on the Red River, and it was 

deeded by the State of Texas on January 29, 1858. And this deed 

called the north side of this tract to a stake on the bank of the Red 

River. This description was coming from the south side of the river 

toward the river, and so the actual boundary of my property, as 

deeded by the State of Texas, is the south bank of the river. 

[Slide] 

I thought it might be helpful for the people gathered here today 

to see what I am talking about. And this picture on the TV up here 

is a picture I actually took from the back porch of my house, looking north. If you see that tree line just past that fence is the edge 

of the bluff. And all the land you see down there, below there, is 

actually the river bottom. And so, we are not talking about someVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:01 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04JY29 2ND SESS PRINTING\88967.TXT DARLEN
38 

thing that is narrow, we are talking about something that is a couple miles wide. 

It is hard to see on that picture, but kind of in the middle you 

see a little white speck. That is the barn just on the other side of 

the river. So the actual river is a mile-and-a-half from where my 

house is. If you will, go the next slide, please. 

[Slide] 

This is actually a slide taken 2 days ago when I went down to 

the river, and I am standing on what is commonly called the cut 

bank, and took a picture of the Red River. So you can see it is a 

meandering river, sandy. The next slide, please. 

[Slide] 

This is the actual cut bank. The definition established by the 

Supreme Court in 1923 recognized that the gradient boundary was 

the boundary between the State of Texas and the State of 

Oklahoma. The court defined the south bank as water-washed and 

relatively permanent elevation at the outer line of the riverbed 

which separates the bed from the adjacent upland. This, the bed, 

was defined as the area kept practically bare of vegetation. And 

you can see from the previous picture that the river bottom is essentially bare of vegetation. 

The bank of the Red River was a so-called cut bank, and this was 

established between Oklahoma and Texas under the Spanish 

Treaty of 1819. The cut bank effectively confines the water to the 

sand bed, except in times of flooding. This application of the gradient boundary has been accepted by all parties, and was actually 

surveyed in 1923, when oil was discovered along the Red River. 

In 2008, BLM entered upon my land and set some markers on 

that land. Could you please go to the next slide? 

[Slide] 

This is where—my house was just above this tree line. If you will 

notice on this picture, there is a small bank there, a berm, and 

then over on the right hand side is a tee post. Next slide, please. 

[Slide] 

This is the marker that was placed at that T-post point. And on 

the north side it says, ‘‘Oklahoma.’’ On the south side, it is Texas. 

So the BLM has established the gradient boundary at that point. 

That point is about 20 yards below my house, about 1.7 miles from 

the Red River, and 1.7 miles from the cut bank. Next slide, please. 

[Slide] 

This is a Google map of that. The approximate location of the 

benchmark is on the bottom part of that map, it is that yellow 

point. The Red River is 1.7 miles due north of there. And so the 

BLM entered upon my property and set a gradient boundary that 

does not meet the definition of the gradient boundary. 

The claim on the BLM has, as Representative Thornberry has 

stated, essentially stalled all development in the river bottom. Most 

of this land has been fenced and managed for livestock and farming 

since the late 1800s. And now many landowners along this stretch 

that make their living and support their families are on land that 

is now being claimed by the BLM. 

The passage of H.R. 4979 would clear up this issue along the 

Red River and re-establish the private property rights to landVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:01 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04JY29 2ND SESS PRINTING\88967.TXT DARLEN
39 

owners along this section of the river. Thank you for allowing me 

to testify, and I will open to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Canan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAT CANAN, CAPTAIN GAME WARDEN, WICHITA FALLS, 

TEXAS ON H.R. 4979 

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

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Patrick 

Canan, and I am a landowner along the Red River in Texas that falls between the 

98th meridian and the North Fork of the Red River. My property is more specifically 

located on the Clay County/Wichita County boundary and includes both river bottom lands plus land above the old ancient geological bluff. This land was deeded 

by the State of Texas by Patent dated January 29, 1858 and this Patent was filed 

of record in Clay County, Texas on June 27, 1881. The Patent description specifically calls the north side of this tract ‘‘to a stake on the Bank of the Red River.’’ 

Since this description was coming from the south side of the river and going north, 

the bank called for was the south bank of the Red River. 

In January, 1994 the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM), published an Oklahoma Resource Management Plan that addressed 

the Red River Management. In this document the BLM recognized that the lands 

along the Red River could not be defined until the U.S. Congress establishes the 

permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas. This jurisdictional boundary was subsequently established by the Red River Boundary Compact in 1999. The 

boundary agreed to was the continuous vegetation line along the south bank of the 

Red River. In the BLM Resource Management Plan of 1994, the boundary thus established was recognized to result in essentially no public domain along the Red 

River in the area in question. 

Recently the BLM has begun the process of a Resource Management Plan that 

again addresses the issue of public domain along the Red River. In the initial set 

of public hearings, the BLM stated that this would impact up to 116 miles of the 

Red River and could include up to 90,000 acres of public domain along the Red 

River. Assuming this estimate is correct, the average width of this public domain 

along these 116 miles will be 1.21 miles. So starting at the south part of the river 

bed, the BLM is claiming that the land an average of 1.21 miles into Texas is public 

domain lands. This is the same land that was deeded by the State of Texas in 1858. 

I understand that the BLM estimates of public domain land along the Red River 

is a moving target and the subsequent estimates by the BLM have reduced the 

numbers of public domain acres south of the medial line to 30,000 acres. However, 

this is still a huge impact to deeded land in Texas, including land on my property. 

The recognized boundary between the State of Texas and the State of Oklahoma 

is the gradient boundary along the south side of the Red River. This gradient boundary was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1923 and this was in response to oil 

that was discovered along the Red River in 1919. The court defined the south bank 

as ‘‘the water-washed and relatively permanent elevation or acclivity at the outer 

line of the riverbed which separates the bed from the adjacent upland, whether valley or hill, and serves to confine the waters within the bed and to preserve the 

course of the river, and the boundary intended is on and along such banks at the 

average or mean level attained by the waters in periods when they reach and wash 

the bank without overflowing it while the ‘‘bed’’ includes all area kept practically 

bare of vegetation by the wash of the waters from year to year, though parts are 

left dry for months at a time, but not the lateral valleys having the characteristics 

of relatively fast land, and usually covered by upland grasses and vegetation, 

though temporarily overflowed in exceptional instances, when the river is at flood.’’ 

The bank of the Red River constituting the boundary between Oklahoma and 

Texas under the Spanish treaty of 1819 is the so-called ‘‘cut bank’’ effectively confining the water to the sand bed, save in exceptional instances when the river is 

at flood and overflows, and not the range of bluffs marking the exterior limits of 

the valley through which the river flows. 

The application of the ‘‘gradient boundary’’ as defined by the Supreme Court was 

first applied along the Red River by surveyors Arthur D. Kidder and Arthur A. 

Stiles in 1924. These two men surveyed the area known as the Big Bend area along 

the river and then followed that with the Fort Auger area on the Red River. Both 

these areas are located northwest of the town of Burkburnett, Texas and this is the 

area where oil was discovered in 1919. No other areas were surveyed along the river 

by Kidder and Stiles as they did not receive any other requests by the United 

States. 

40 

In 2008 the BLM entered upon my land along the Red River to survey this land 

for any ‘‘Indian’’ lands that may have been in the river bottom. I allowed the BLM 

to enter through my gate at the front of my property so they would not have to walk 

in from the Oklahoma side of the river. This year after attending the public BLM 

hearings in Wichita Falls, I went down into the area that the BLM surveyed in 2008 

and found a cadastral survey marker that was placed on my property. This survey 

marker is shown on an attachment and this marker shows that the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma is at this point. The field notes state this corner ‘‘is located at the toe of slope to the outside of the left bank of the abandoned channel 

of Gilbert Creek, also, the abandoned channel is located adjacent to the bluff banks.’’ 

This point is over 1.7 miles south of the south bank of the river bed. The left bank 

that BLM is referring to in the field notes is actually a man-made berm that was 

pushed up in the early 1970s using a bulldozer to control the flow of water from 

several springs that flow at the base of the bluff. This survey marker shows that 

the BLM is claiming that the gradient boundary is located at the base of the ancient 

geological bluff and not at the actual gradient boundary that exists along the river 

bed. 

The claim by the BLM on the 90,000 acres or any acreage along the river has 

clouded the title to my land and has impacted my ability to manage this river bottom. Land sales along the river have come to a standstill and land values along the 

river have decreased. Private landowners along the river have been effective and 

conservative stewards of the land. Most of this land has been fenced and managed 

for livestock and farming since the late 1800s. Many of the landowners along this 

stretch of river make their livings and support their families on the land now being 

claimed by the BLM. This land has been bought and sold along the river up until 

this latest BLM claim. The passage of H.R. 4979 would clear up this issue along 

the Red River and the re-establish the private property rights to the landowners 

along this section of the river. 

ATTACHMENTS 

Cadastral Survey Marker 2008 


88967.001.eps
41 

Red River Bed—Picture taken from top of Cut Bank 

Cut Bank along edge of River Bed 


88967.002.eps 88967.003.eps
42 

River Bottom View from top of High Bluff 

Location of Kidder & Stiles surveys, Red River Bed and BLM survey 

marker 


88967.004.eps 88967.005.eps
43 

Tree line represents base of Bluff, green tee post on right shows location 

of survey marker set by BLM and slight incline shows dirt that was 

pushed up by dozer to control water from springs 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony, appreciate 

you taking patience with my ability to pronounce your name 

improperly. 

Mr. LaMalfa, you have been—do you have questions on either of 

these bills? 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Thornberry, do you have questions for either of 

these witnesses? 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am just here to answer 

questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Mr. Mullin, do you have questions? 

Mr. MULLIN. I have more of a statement. Chairman, thank you 

for letting me join your committee, and thank you for giving me 

this opportunity. 

I have heard from local tribes in Oklahoma who have approached 

my office with concerns of Congressman Thornberry’s bill. Their 

concern is that this could affect tribal land interest along the bed 

of the Red River in Oklahoma. I understand why Congressman 

Thornberry’s bill is needed to protect private landowners from 

BLM’s overreach along a segment of the land, the Red River in 

Congressman’s district, which also touches Oklahoma. 

The Red River Boundary Compact included a clear and explicit 

protection from property rights and governmental interests of the 

tribes along the Red River, including the Choctaw Nation and 

Cherokee Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that we could work together to 

make sure the concerns of the tribes are addressed, to make sure 

there are no unintended consequences of this legislation that would 


88967.006.eps
44 

negatively impact the tribe lands or the tribes east of the 98th 

meridian. 

I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that you would work with us and 

understand the concerns that the tribes have. The tribes, without 

question, support and are concerned with the BLM overreach, and 

support Congressman Thornberry’s bill, but we just want to make 

sure that their interest is protected, too. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Grijalva, do you have questions? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, and let me associate myself with the comments of the gentleman just now, in terms of those tribal concerns. 

That was one of the questions that I had, but it was better stated 

and asked by the gentleman. 

Mr. Ellis, a lot of opposition to BLM’s survey comes from ownership claims on 140 acres in the Red River area. I have other questions, so quickly, can you describe Federal ownership claims along 

that Red River? 

Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, as Congressman 

Thornberry mentioned, back with the Louisiana Purchase, this 

land became public domain. Then, I believe it was back in 1867, 

the Kiowa Comanche and Apache Reservation was established. 

And that was set, the southern boundary of that was set, as I understand it, at the median line, which is essentially the center line 

of the river. Everything, then, south of there to what was referred 

to as the gradient line is now public domain. And this approximate 

acreage, our staff tells me, based on their surveys, is approximately 

30,000 acres. 

So, this is the area that the BLM is now looking at, as part of 

their land use planning process, as part of the resource management planning process, is that piece of ground that essentially is 

along this 116-mile stretch from the 98th meridian on the east to 

the north fork of the Red River, west. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Which leads me to the next question. Is the 

Bureau looking to expand public lands through this, which is one 

of the other accusations, concerns that has come up, looking to expand public lands through this scoping process that you are going 

through right now? 

Mr. ELLIS. Congressman, we are not. How the scoping process 

works in any resource management plan we do, and I have done 

many of them in my career, the scoping process is where we go to 

the public, and we find out from the public what they feel about 

our proposed action. And then they identify issues. And those 

issues, then, are what we take—this is in NEPA—we take those 

issues, and then we develop a suite of alternatives. We develop a 

draft environmental impact statement with the suite of alternatives, and then we go back to the public. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Does the BLM have the administrative authority 

presently to clear up the ownership claims along the Red River? 

Mr. ELLIS. Well, there are—maybe I should discuss the options 

that would be out there. There are various options that I have 

seen, again, in my career to deal with various instances. I dealt 

with an issue in my last job in Ketchum, Idaho, where we had 

some landowners that—— 

45 

Mr. GRIJALVA. But did the options that you will describe—and I 

appreciate that, but I have a couple of other quick ones for you— 

do those imply that the Agency has the authority to clear up these 

claims? 

Mr. ELLIS. There are some options I can use. One is color of title. 

Some of the landowners out there may qualify for color of title. 

That is really outside the planning process. They can apply for 

color of title on these lands. 

The other is when we go through a land use planning process, 

if the lands—such as we are going through now—if lands are identified for disposal, then there are ways, we exchange those lands, 

sometimes we sell those lands for fair market value. So those are 

a couple of the options that are out there. But I believe there are 

some options to look at this. 

But I might also add that this is a public participation process, 

and so we have to consider the interest of all our public and our 

tribes as we address this 30,000-acre piece. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If this legislation passes, and the BLM is forced 

to recognize county or state deeds without further verification, as 

the bill intends, then this could result in this public land ostensibly 

being given away without any compensation to the rest of the taxpayers. Is that an assessment that you agree with, disagree with, 

want to react to? 

Mr. ELLIS. Well, I might react this way. We have a concern about 

competing claims on the same parcel of land. There are many landowners out there. I looked at them on the map. Lots of them. And 

there could be competing claims with overlapping interests, with 

two or more parties. And disputes may arise from adjacent landowners. So that is something that would have to be dealt with. 

If we get multiple claims to the same parcel, that could be something that we have to deal with. And another thing is the potential 

transfer of private owners of environmental liability for historic oil 

field equipment that may contain public health, safety, and environmental hazards. So these are all things that are not insurmountable, but they are things that we would have to deal with. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Canan, if I could just simply ask 

you, what impact would losing the deeded lands that you believe 

you have owned and you have been paying taxes on for generations, what impact would that have to the landowners in the surrounding communities? 

Mr. CANAN. Mr. Chairman, obviously, those lands have been 

farmed and ranched since the late 1800s. So the economic value of 

the ranching industry, the impact on all the local businesses that 

those families have in that area would all be impacted by losing 

that land. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Thornberry, it sent a chill up my spine when 

it was said one of the options would be that the BLM could sell 

these lands back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Well, I think that is—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Is that an option, to buy the land that you have 

been paying taxes on for years? 

46 

Mr. THORNBERRY. No, Mr. Chairman. I think that is exactly the 

point. Things were going along pretty well. All of a sudden the 

Federal Government says, ‘‘We may own 90,000 acres here.’’ 

People like Mr. Canan say, ‘‘Wait, I have had a deed to that since 

the 1850s, I have been paying taxes on it.’’ And now, one of BLM’s 

options is to buy it back. That is why there is such fear of a 

Federal land grab, and that is why, given the environment we are 

in, and other actions we have seen, there is such concern. 

And that is part of the reason, in addition to the landowners, it 

seems to me, for BLM’s sake, for the counties, for law enforcement 

folks like Mr. Canan himself, there has to be a resolution. Because 

this could escalate in ways that none of us want it to. 

Mr. BISHOP. And waiting until 2018 is simply not acceptable. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Well, would you want to own a piece of property that you couldn’t sell, borrow, make improvements on until 

2018, but, by the way, you better keep paying taxes on it the whole 

time? That is a taking of private land. And that is why it just 

seems to me we have to resolve this now. 

Mr. BISHOP. See, now you know what it is like to live in Utah. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Well, I have to say, Mr. Chairman, if you will 

allow me, it was depressing for me to listen to some of your previous conversation, with Mrs. Lummis talking about taking, what 

was that, nearly 40 years for a land exchange. You know, we can’t 

do that here. 

Mr. BISHOP. Does anyone have any other questions for this 

particular piece of legislation or the Udall bill? 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. I would just like to put one comment about—I like 

both pieces of legislation. The Udall bill does have, in our rules, an 

earmark problem that I would love to try and solve, because I 

think that would be an issue. To get that out of the way would be 

a wonderful thing, and help this guy—get that property back to 

you again would be a wonderful thing, as well. It does have some 

drafting problems that deal with that. 

And I appreciate you presenting this bill to us. We will move on 

with that. 

With that, I thank you both, especially coming here from long 

distances. I appreciate you traveling up here. And let’s hope we can 

solve this problem for you very quickly. Thank you, gentlemen. 

We will invite the third panel up here now, which will include, 

I am sorry, on mine it says The Honorable David Reichert. I am 

going to have a difficult time with that. 

Dave, if you would like to join us on the panel, up here on the 

dais, I would be more than happy to have you come up here. And 

because we have a lot of people here, we also have former Senator 

Slade Gorton, who is here. 

Hank Johnson, Congressman, I appreciate you being here on the 

dais with us. 

Reverend Ralph David Abernathy is invited up. Jeff Fortenberry, 

Congressman Fortenberry, is not quite here with us yet, right? All 

right. As soon as he is, we will try and get him up here on the dais 

as well, as well as Congressman Hoyer, and I believe I have one 

more on this panel. Stephanie Toothman from the National Park 

Service. 

47 

OK. Is Reverend Abernathy here? Yes, thank you, Reverend 

Abernathy, for joining us here. And, like I say, when Jeff comes in 

here, we will invite him to be up at the dais, as well. 

Let me go through these bills, bill by bill. But we ask you to be 

there on the dais, as well. 

Let me do this in the following order: Ms. Toothman, from the 

Park Service, if you would like to give the first opening comment 

and cover the entire thing, then we don’t have to keep coming back 

to you on each bill. And then we will go specifically first to H.R. 

1785, and then we will go to the next bill after that. But if you 

would like to cover them all at the beginning, you are recognized 

right now. 

Dr. TOOTHMAN. OK. Just to clarify, you would like me to testify 

on the Heritage Area bill, as well? 

Mr. BISHOP. If you would like to, whatever suits you. But we 

have several bills up here. If you want to get them all in one fell 

swoop, we can do that. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE TOOTHMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES, PARTNERSHIPS AND SCIENCE, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Dr. TOOTHMAN. OK, let me start with thanking you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to present the 

Department of the Interior’s views on six bills. I would like to submit our full statement on these bills for the record, and summarize 

the Department’s views. 

Starting with H.R. 445 with amendment, we support H.R. 445 

with amendments. This bill would authorize the National Heritage 

Area program within the National Park Service. We have long supported legislation to establish a National Heritage Area program 

that standardizes time frames and funding for designated National 

Heritage Areas and formally establishes criteria for new heritage 

areas. The amendments we are recommending are described in our 

written statement. We look forward to working with the committee 

on them. 

The Department supports the objectives of H.R. 1785, which 

would establish the Mountains to Sound Greenway National 

Heritage Area in the State of Washington. The Mountains to Sound 

Greenway Area has been found to meet the National Park Service’s 

interim criteria for designation as a National Heritage Area. However, the Department recommends that Congress pass National 

Heritage Area program legislation before designating any additional new heritage areas. 

The Department also recommends a technical amendment to provide for an official National Park Service map to accompany the 

legislation. 

The Department supports H.R. 4119 with amendments. The bill 

would authorize a special resource study of the West Hunter Street 

Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia. During the Civil Rights 

Movement, the West Hunter Street Baptist Church served as headquarters for many civil rights workers and organizers. It was the 

site of important leadership meetings, and it doubled as a school 

for non-violent protests during initiatives such as the Voter 

48 

Education Project and the Freedom Summer of 1964. It was also 

a spiritual refuge for the men and women who devoted their lives 

to the cause. 

The Department supports H.R. 5086 with a technical amendment. The bill would authorize a study of the feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail. The proposed trail would extend approximately 550 miles from Niobrara, 

Nebraska, to Ponca City, Oklahoma, following the route taken by 

Chief Standing Bear and the Ponca people during Federal Indian 

removal, and their return route from Oklahoma to Nebraska. 

The Department also supports Senate Bill 311 with an amendment. This bill would authorize a special resource study of sites in 

the Lower Mississippi River area in Louisiana. The study area 

would include Fort St. Philip and Fort Jackson, located on opposite 

sides of a bend in the Mississippi River, about 8 miles upstream 

from the town of Venice, Louisiana. 

Fort St. Philip was originally built in 1749, and the construction 

of Fort Jackson, named for Andrew Jackson, began in 1822. Fort 

St. Philip played an important defensive role in the Battle of New 

Orleans, and both forts were employed unsuccessfully to defend 

New Orleans and the Confederacy from Admiral Farragut’s Union 

fleet during the Civil War. We recommend an amendment to fund 

this study, consistent with other special resource studies. 

The Department supports Senate Bill 476, which would extend 

the authority of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission. The establishment of the Commission in 

1971 stems in part from the unique nature of the canal. It is unlike 

most areas administered by the National Park Service, as it is a 

linear park running along a 185-mile stretch of river shoreline, and 

is flanked by the Nation’s capital, suburban communities, and numerous small towns. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Toothman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. STEPHANIE TOOTHMAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES, PARTNERSHIPS AND SCIENCE, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

H.R. 1785, Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area Act 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the 

Interior’s views on H.R. 1785, a bill to establish the Mountains to Sound Greenway 

National Heritage Area in the State of Washington. 

The Department supports the objectives of H.R. 1785. The Mountains to Sound 

Greenway area has been found to meet the National Park Service’s interim criteria 

for designation as a National Heritage Area. However, the Department recommends 

that Congress pass program legislation that establishes criteria to evaluate potentially qualified National Heritage Areas and a process for the designation, funding, 

and administration of these areas before designating any additional new National 

Heritage Areas. The Department also recommends a technical amendment to provide for an official NPS map to accompany the legislation. 

There are currently 49 designated national heritage areas, although there is no 

authority in law that guides their designation and administration as a national system. National Heritage Area Program legislation would provide a much-needed 

framework for evaluation of proposed national heritage areas, guiding planning and 

management, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and standardizing time frames 

and funding for designated areas. 

H.R. 1785 would establish the Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage 

Area to include lands within the Yakima River basin upstream of Manastash Creek 

49 

and the cities of Ellensburg, Roslyn, Cle Elum, and South Cel Elum in Kittitas 

County. It would also include all lands in the Snoqualmie River, Cedar River, and 

Lake Washington watersheds, the Puget Sound near shore watersheds within and 

including the cities of Seattle and Shoreline, and 22 additional cities in King 

County. 

The proposed local coordinating entity would be the nonprofit corporation 

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust (Trust). 

NPS review of the Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area 

Feasibility Study completed by the Trust in March 2012, found that the study did 

not meet the NPS Interim National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Guidelines. The 

NPS requested the Trust provide a revised statement of national importance; 

themes and a list of associated resources; a summary of traditions, customs, beliefs 

and folk life; and a boundary justification. The NPS received the Addendum from 

the Trust on May 27, 2014, which (1) explained that the Mountains to Sound 

Greenway National Heritage Area is nationally important for its association with 

the expansion of our national transportation system and the creation of our modern 

timber industry; (2) identified three themes associated with the region’s national importance and their related historic and natural resources; (3) summarized the 

ongoing traditions, customs, beliefs, and folklife that interprets and celebrates the 

region’s national importance; and (4) justified the proposed boundary in relation to 

the strategic assemblage of resources and opportunities for conservation, recreation 

and education, as well as public interest in this national heritage area designation. 

The proposed Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area tells a nationally important story of how the Northern Pacific and Milwaukee railroads, and 

later the Sunset Highway and Interstate 90, created the final section of an historic 

transportation corridor that wove the Northwest into the Nation’s fabric, opened up 

trade between the United States and Asia, and led to the development of the 

Nation’s modern timber industry. 

Although the Puget Sound area was part of the United States by 1950, the 

Cascade Range isolated the region from the rest of the Nation, with little access to 

its abundant natural resources and sheltered deep-water ports. Chartered by 

President Lincoln in 1864, the Northern Pacific Railroad was constructed along a 

Native American pathway through the nearly impassible Snoqualmie Pass to reach 

Seattle 20 years later. The connection of the Eastern seaboard and Great Lakes 

with the farthest reaches of the continental United States reinforced the newly 

drawn American-Canadian border. The city of Seattle grew into a booming hub for 

shipbuilding and the trade of foreign goods and the region’s own wealth of natural 

resources, opening the country’s first trade routes on what we now call the Pacific 

Rim. Rail towns sprung up along the main lines with mill and coal towns on the 

spurs, while piers stretched into Puget Sound, attracting immigrant workers whose 

descendants live in the region today. 

The Milwaukee Road crossed the Cascades in the early 1900s using pioneering 

tunneling and electrification techniques. The high speed electric trains of the 

Milwaukee Road carried Japanese silk to New York, the Nation’s most precious rail 

commodity after gold and silver bullion, but the railroad made its money carrying 

passengers to ski, hike, and climb at Snoqualmie Pass. The conservation ethic that 

developed in the region from enjoyment of the region’s natural beauty is strongly 

held today. 

Washington’s modern economy is descended directly from the Northern Pacific 

Land Grant that was used to build the railroad. In place of public financing, the 

railroad received the largest Federal land grant in American history. The railroad 

was granted 40 million acres—every other square mile of land in a checkerboard 

pattern up to 40 miles on either side of the right-of-way. This consolidated ownership, as well as steam technology brought by the railroad, created the booming timber industry that helped rebuild San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake and 

fueled shipbuilding in World War I. Airplanes being produced for the military on 

a large scale for the first time were built from the region’s prized spruce trees. 

Demand for this aircraft led William Boeing to found a company in the region in 

1916 that supplies the Nation’s air transportation industry today. 

Plantation forestry involving sustained-yield harvest and reforestation was invented in 1937 by William Weyerhauser, who had amassed one-and-a-half million 

acres of Washington timberland. He established the first seedling industry at 

Snoqualmie Falls and began to manage timber across multiple harvests, a radical 

idea at the time. This remains the industry standard across much of the country 

today. 

The cultural heritage of the Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage 

Area is alive in the ethnic diversity of the region’s population, in the traditions, customs and celebrations, and in museums, festivals, historic sites, and interpretive 

50 

trails that both residents and visitors enjoy today. Following modern-day political 

and land-management structures, the proposed heritage area boundaries are pragmatic, thus offering the best formula for long-term success as communities seek to 

manage, enhance, and interpret resources across this landscape. 

H.R. 4119, West Hunter Street Baptist Church Study Act 

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

to appear before you today to present the views of the Department of the Interior 

on H.R. 4119, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource 

study of the West Hunter Street Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and for other 

purposes. 

The Department supports enactment of H.R. 4119 with amendments. However, 

we believe that priority should be given to the 24 previously authorized studies for 

potential units of the National Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, 

and potential additions to the National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System that have not yet been transmitted to Congress. 

H.R. 4119 authorizes a special resource study of the original location of the West 

Hunter Street Baptist Church, located at 775 Martin Luther King Junior Drive SW, 

Atlanta, Georgia. This study would evaluate the West Hunter Street Baptist Church 

and the surrounding area to determine whether they meet the National Park 

Service’s criteria for inclusion in the National Park System of national significance, 

suitability, feasibility, and need for National Park Service management. The study 

would also consider other alternatives for preservation, protection, and interpretation of the resources. We estimate the cost of the study to range from $100,000 to 

$200,000, based on similar studies conducted in recent years. 

Founded as the Friendship Baptist Church in 1881, the congregation moved in 

1906 to a stone building on West Hunter Street, which was later renamed Martin 

Luther King Jr. Drive. During the Civil Rights Movement, the West Hunter Street 

Baptist Church served as a headquarters for many civil rights workers and organizers, was the site of important leadership meetings, and doubled as a school for 

nonviolent protest during initiatives such as the Voter Education Project and the 

Freedom Summer of 1964. It was also a spiritual refuge for the men and women 

who devoted their lives to the cause. In 1973, the congregation moved to a new location on what was then called Gordon Street. Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., a leader 

of the Civil Rights Movement and an associate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 

served as pastor of the church from 1962 until his death in 1990. Subsequent to 

his death, the street in front of the church was renamed Ralph David Abernathy 

Boulevard in his honor. 

We recommend amending the bill and the long title to clearly define that the area 

to be studied will include the city block where the West Hunter Street Baptist 

Church is located. We will be happy to provide an amendment for this purpose. 

We also recommend a technical amendment to section 2(c) to reflect that the 

name of the National Park System General Authorities Act has been enacted into 

law. The amendment is as follows: 

On page 2, strike lines 21–24 and insert the following: 

‘‘subsection (a) shall be conducted in accordance with the National Park 

System General Authorities Act (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)).’’. 

H.R. 5086, To amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary 

of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the 

Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other purposes 

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

to appear before you today and present the Department’s views on H.R. 5086, a bill 

to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to 

conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National 

Historic Trail, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports H.R. 5086 with a technical amendment. However, we 

feel that priority should be given to the 24 previously authorized studies for potential units of the National Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and 

potential additions to the National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System that have not yet been transmitted to Congress. 

H.R. 5086 would amend Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act by directing the Secretary to conduct a study of the Chief Standing Bear Trail for consideration for inclusion in the National Trails System. We estimate the cost of this study 

51 

to be approximately $500,000 based on costs of similar studies previously conducted 

by the National Park Service. 

The proposed Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail would extend approximately 550 miles from Niobrara, Nebraska, to Ponca City, Oklahoma, following the 

route taken by Chief Standing Bear and the Ponca people during Federal Indian removal, and their return route from Oklahoma back to Niobrara, Nebraska. 

Chief Standing Bear was born around 1829 in the traditional Ponca homeland 

near the confluence of the Niobrara and Missouri rivers. About 30 years later, the 

tribe sold its homeland to the United States, retaining a 58,000-acre reservation between Ponca Creek and the Niobrara River. 

When the Federal Government created the Great Sioux Reservation in 1868, the 

Ponca Reservation was included within its boundaries, depriving them of title to 

their remaining lands. In 1877, the Federal Government decided to remove the 

Poncas to Indian Territory. Standing Bear, a tribal leader, protested his tribe’s eviction. Federal troops enforced the removal orders and the Poncas arrived in Indian 

Territory in the summer of 1878. 

After leaving Nebraska, one-third of the tribe had died and nearly all of the survivors were sick or disabled. This included Chief Standing Bear’s 16-year-old son, 

who died in late December 1878. Wanting to honor his son’s last wish to be buried 

in the land of his birth, Standing Bear gathered a few members of his tribe and 

started north for the Ponca homeland in early January 1879, reaching the reservation of their relatives, the Omahas, about 2 months later. Standing Bear carried his 

son’s bones with him to be buried in the familiar earth along the Niobrara River. 

Because Indians were not allowed to leave their reservation without permission, 

Standing Bear and his followers were labeled a renegade band. The Army, on the 

order of the Secretary of the Interior, arrested them and took them to Fort Omaha, 

where they were to be held before being returned to Indian Territory. General 

George Crook, however, sympathized with Standing Bear and his followers and 

asked Thomas Henry Tibbles, an Omaha newspaperman, for help. Tibbles took up 

the cause and secured two prominent Omaha attorneys to represent Standing Bear. 

The lawyers filed a Federal court application for a writ of habeas corpus to test 

the legality of the detention, basing their case on the 14th Amendment to the 

Constitution. The government disputed the right of Standing Bear to obtain a writ 

of habeas corpus on the grounds that an Indian was not a ‘‘person’’ under the meaning of the law. In a landmark decision, U.S. District Court Judge Elmer S. Dundy 

ruled in favor of Standing Bear, reasoning that he and his band were indeed 

‘‘persons’’ under the law, entitled to sever tribal connections, and were free to enjoy 

the rights of any other person in the land. The Government appealed Dundy’s decision, but the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the case, leaving 

Standing Bear and his followers free in the eyes of the law. Standing Bear died in 

1908 and was buried alongside his ancestors in the Ponca homeland. 

A study produced by the National Park Service would apply the criteria provided 

in the National Trails Act to determine inclusion in the National Trails System. We 

envision the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail study to focus on exploring 

recreational opportunities, defining historical aspects of the trail, and establishing 

methods for a working relationship with partners in order to identify facilities on 

adjacent lands that would contribute to the purposes of the trail. 

Finally, the Department recommends a technical amendment to reference an 

official NPS map for the legislation. 

H.R. 445, National Heritage Area Act of 2013 

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

to appear before you today to present the views of the Department of the Interior 

on H.R. 445, to authorize a National Heritage Area Program, and for other 

purposes. 

The Department supports H.R. 445 with amendments that are described later in 

this statement. We have long supported legislation to establish a National Heritage 

Area program within the National Park Service that standardizes time frames and 

funding for designated national heritage areas and formally establishes criteria for 

establishing new heritage areas. We would like to thank Representatives Dent and 

Tonko, the principal sponsors of this legislation, for their leadership on this issue. 

H.R. 445 would formally establish a system of National Heritage Areas to conserve, enhance, and interpret natural, historic, scenic, and cultural resources that 

together tell nationally significant stories representing our country’s heritage. The 

bill provides uniform national standards for conducting feasibility studies, designating National Heritage Areas, approving management plans and conducting evaluations; it specifies the authorities and duties of the Secretary of the Interior and 

52 

of the local coordinating entities in conducting these activities. It also authorizes appropriations for each individual national heritage area of up to $700,000 annually, 

along with $300,000 annually for the Secretary to conduct feasibility studies (with 

not more than $100,000 for any individual study) and $750,000 annually to conduct 

management plans (with not more than $250,000 for any individual management 

plan). Finally, the bill sets a sunset date for the National Heritage Area system that 

is 25 years after the date of enactment. 

National Heritage Areas further the mission of the National Park Service by 

fostering community stewardship of our Nation’s heritage, while not creating new 

national park units. Rather, the National Park Service partners with National 

Heritage Area local coordinating entities and provides technical assistance and 

matching Federal funds from Congress. The National Park Service does not assume 

ownership of land inside heritage areas or impose land use controls. 

National Heritage Areas expand on traditional approaches to resource stewardship by supporting large-scale, grassroots initiatives that connect local citizens 

through preservation, conservation, and planning processes. The areas represent a 

community-driven approach to heritage conservation and economic development. 

Through public-private partnerships and the facilitation of a local coordinating entity, National Heritage Areas support historic preservation, natural resource conservation, recreation, heritage tourism, and educational projects. Leveraging funds 

and long-term support for projects, these partnerships foster pride of place and an 

enduring stewardship ethic. Because heritage areas are lived-in landscapes, local coordinating entities collaborate with communities to determine how to make their 

heritage relevant to local interests and needs. Through their resources, National 

Heritage Areas tell nationally important stories that celebrate our Nation’s diverse 

heritage. 

The first National Heritage Area, the Illinois and Michigan Canal National 

Heritage Corridor, was designated 30 years ago. Since that time, Congress has authorized another 48 National Heritage Areas in 32 states across the country. 

Numerous bills to designate more National Heritage Areas are pending in Congress. 

While the earliest National Heritage Area bills had differing management and funding structures, National Heritage Areas created since 1996 have become more standardized in how they are studied, designated, managed, and funded. Regardless of 

when created, all designated National Heritage Areas strive for long-term 

sustainability. 

The need for and value of National Heritage Area program legislation has been 

well-considered and is supported in numerous studies. In 2005, the Administration 

identified the need for program legislation as part of an overall review of the program. In 2006, the National Park System Advisory Board report Charting a Future 

for National Heritage Areas recommended a legislative and policy foundation for the 

National Heritage Areas program. In 2009, the National Parks 2nd Century 

Committee reported on the value of National Heritage Areas as a collaborative 

model, recommending that they be recognized as long-term assets to the National 

Park System. Passage of legislation to authorize and define a nationwide system of 

National Heritage Areas was a key recommendation of the Committee’s 2009 report 

Advancing the National Park Idea. In 2011, in America’s Great Outdoors: A Promise 

to Future Generations, the Department of the Interior included a recommendation 

to ‘‘. . . establish through legislation clearly defined standards and processes to support a system of regional and community-based national heritage areas that promote locally supported preservation work, promote heritage tourism, and create 

jobs.’’ In 2012, National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis issued a Policy 

Memorandum on the National Heritage Areas Program stating that he endorses the 

recommendations of the National Parks Second Century Commission that ‘‘advocate 

creation of a clearly defined system of National Heritage Areas as well as funding 

at a level that will allow them to carry out their work.’’ Just recently, the National 

Park Service’s Cultural Resource Challenge (2014) expressed support for the passage 

of National Heritage Area program legislation and continued funding for National 

Heritage Areas. 

While we support enactment of H.R. 445, we recommend amending the bill in 

several areas: 

First, we recommend establishing the National Heritage Areas program as an ongoing responsibility of the National Park Service, reflecting the fact that the 

National Heritage Areas already designated by Congress do not sunset. As introduced, H.R. 445 provides a sunset of the National Heritage Area System established by the bill 25 years after the date of enactment. 

Second, we recommend amending the bill to clarify that the requirement for local 

coordinating entities to complete a management plan for a National Heritage Area 

would occur after an area has been designated by Congress, rather than prior to 

53 

designation. This would be consistent with the requirements that are standard for 

the existing National Heritage Areas. The bill should include a process for the approval of management plans by the Secretary of the Interior, which is also a standard requirement for currently designated National Heritage Areas. 

Third, we recommend including a requirement for evaluations of designated 

National Heritage Areas 3 years before their authorization of appropriations for heritage area program funding expires. These ‘‘3-year-out’’ reports, which have become 

a standard feature of National Heritage Area designation bills, are essential for 

helping the Department and Congress determine the future course of these areas. 

Fourth, we recommend deleting the authorization of a specified amount of appropriations for conducting management plans. Under current practice, management 

plans are developed by local coordinating entities. They are reviewed by the 

National Park Service as part of its routine work in assisting National Heritage 

Areas. It is infeasible to separate out the cost to the National Park Service of performing this work among the other technical assistance and guidance it provides to 

the areas. 

Fifth, we recommend changes to the authorization levels for individual National 

Heritage Areas and for studies of potential National Heritage Areas. We support including in the bill a total authorization for each individual heritage area of 

$10,000,000, to be made available over a period of 15 years. We also support a higher authorization level for studies than the bill provides: $750,000 as a total amount 

of funding, rather than $300,000; and $250,000 as a total amount for any single 

study, as opposed to $100,000. And, we recommend including an authorization for 

a modest amount of funding on an ongoing basis to support long-term sustainability 

for designated National Heritage Areas that have reached the end of their eligibility 

period for receiving funds under the Heritage Partnership Program. 

We would be happy to provide the committee and the bill’s sponsors with recommended language for these amendments, along with some other technical amendments which we believe are needed. We look forward to working with the committee 

toward enactment of this legislation this year. 

S. 311, Lower Mississippi River Area Study Act 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 311, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study 

the suitability and feasibility of designating sites in the Lower Mississippi River 

Area in the State of Louisiana as a unit of the National Park System, and for other 

purposes. The Senate passed this bill on July 9, 2014. 

The Department supports this legislation with an amendment described later in 

this statement. However, we feel that priority should be given to the 24 previously 

authorized studies for potential units of the National Park System, potential new 

National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails System and 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System that have not yet been transmitted to 

Congress. 

S. 311 would authorize a study of natural, cultural, historical, and recreational 

resources in Plaquemines Parish, located south of the city of New Orleans, for potential designation as a unit of the National Park System. The study area would 

include Fort St. Philip and Fort Jackson, located on opposite sides of a bend in the 

Mississippi River about 8 miles upstream from the town of Venice, Louisiana, and 

approximately 73 river miles downstream from New Orleans at an ancient ‘‘Head 

of Passes’’ site. The term ‘‘Head of Passes’’ refers to the site where the main stem 

of the Mississippi River branches off to the east, the south, and the southwest at 

its mouth in the Gulf of Mexico. The present day Head of Passes is just south of 

the town of Venice. The study is estimated to cost between $200,000 and $400,000 

based on similar studies. 

As passed by the Senate, S. 311 requires that the study either be conducted and 

be paid for from non-Federal sources, or that non-Federal funds be donated to the 

National Park Service to pay for the study. We believe that this funding requirement should not set a precedent for other study bills. There are many valuable natural, cultural, and historic resources in our country that may be good candidates 

for a National Park Service special resource study. We would not like to see a trend 

develop where those resources are not studied for their potential as national park 

units because of a lack of community or interest-group funding available to pay for 

a study. Further, if the study authorized by this bill is conducted by a non-Federal 

entity, the National Park Service still would be required to expend a modest amount 

of Federal funds to review the study to ensure that it complies with the requirements of section 3 of S. 311. We recommend an amendment to fund this study consistent with other studies. 

54 

Fort St. Philip was originally built in 1749, and the construction of Fort Jackson, 

named for Andrew Jackson, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, began 

in 1822. Fort St. Philip played an important defensive role in the Battle of 

New Orleans and both forts were employed unsuccessfully to defend New Orleans 

and the Confederacy from Admiral Farragut’s union fleet during the Civil War. Both 

Fort St. Philip and Fort Jackson have been designated as National Historic 

Landmarks, which attests to their national significance. Fort St. Philip, privately 

owned at the present time, is in ruins and overgrown with vegetation. Fort Jackson 

was operated by Plaquemines Parish as a historical museum until Hurricane 

Katrina caused extensive damage, and it has been closed to the public ever since. 

S. 476, To amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to 

extend to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park 

Commission 

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

present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 476, a bill that would 

amend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Development Act to extend the authority 

of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission. 

The Department supports S. 476. The establishment of the Chesapeake and Ohio 

Canal National Historical Park Commission (Commission) on January 8, 1971, 

stemmed in part from the unique nature of the canal. It is unlike most areas administered by the National Park Service as it is a linear park running along a 185-mile 

stretch of river shoreline and is flanked by the Nation’s capital, suburban communities, and numerous small towns. 

S. 476 would extend the authorization of the Commission for an additional 10 

years. The Commission’s authority to operate terminated on January 8, 2011. S. 476 

would extend the Commission’s authority to operate to 10 years after the date of 

enactment of the Act. 

The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, begun in 1828 and completed in 1850, runs 

continuously 185 miles from Georgetown in the District of Columbia to Cumberland, 

Maryland. Originally planned to link Washington, DC, and Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, as part of this Nation’s canal-building era, the canal was constructed 

to be a major commercial route. While the canal operated until 1924 when it was 

abandoned, competition from the newly constructed railroad and the National Road 

resulted in much less commercial success than its builders had hoped. In 1938, the 

United States purchased the narrow canal right-of-way from Georgetown to 

Cumberland, Maryland, and partially restored the lower end of the canal. 

In 1961, the C&O Canal Monument was created by Presidential Proclamation No. 

3391 but no funding was provided to develop the area or acquire adjacent lands. 

A proposal to construct a highway along the canal’s route met considerable public 

opposition led by U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. His support for 

preserving the canal ultimately led to the establishment of the Chesapeake and 

Ohio Canal National Historical Park, running the length of the original canal. 

When the park was established in 1971, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National 

Historical Park Commission was created. The 19-member Commission served to link 

the various jurisdictions along the length of the park. Under the 1971 legislation, 

the Secretary of the Interior or her designee was directed to meet and consult with 

the Commission at least annually on general policies and specific matters related 

to the administration and development of the park. 

The Commission performed a valuable service during its first 40 years in advising 

and assisting the National Park Service in the administration and development of 

the park. In the early years, the Commission served as the vehicle for public meetings in the development of the park’s general plan and several site-specific development concept plans. In the years since, the Commission has served as the public 

forum for discussing implementation of plans along the 185 miles of the park. 

The Commission represented not only the local park neighbors, but the national 

constituency as well. Many Commission members had a lifelong interest in the C&O 

Canal and the National Park Service. The Commission met quarterly and Commission members were only compensated for reimbursement of actual expenses for 

meetings. Individual members of the Commission served on various volunteer 

groups and participated in park-sponsored events throughout the year. The commissioners communicated directly with the park superintendent during meetings and 

individually throughout the year regarding park issues. 

The need for the Commission continues because the park is spread across 19 political jurisdictions. The Commission assisted park staff in reaching out to these numerous constituencies and ensuring that all their views were heard. As the work 

of managing C&O Canal National Historical Park continues, the public connection 

55 

to park management through the Commission should continue as well. We understand that the appointments for the existing commissioners have expired. If enacted, the Secretary would appoint or reappoint commissioners in accordance with 

the Act. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony. I would be happy to answer 

any questions you or any other members of the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate your comments, and we 

would ask you to stay, obviously, for questions as we go through 

each of these bills. 

So I am going to go through testimony and questions, bill by bill. 

So we will start first with H.R. 1785. Congressman Reichert, if you 

would like to introduce that. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID G. REICHERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Ranking Member Grijalva and members of the subcommittee. 

Thanks for including H.R. 1785 in your discussion this morning, 

Mountains to Sound National Heritage Area Act, on today’s 

agenda. 

I especially want to thank Senator Gorton, who is with us here 

this morning. He has taken a lot of time, traveled a very long 

distance to be here with us this morning to testify on this bill, been 

working on it for quite a number of years, and has been a staunch 

supporter and advocate. All of Washington, I will mention, 

especially the nearly 1.4 million residents within the Mountains to 

Sound Greenway, owe Senator Gorton a debt of gratitude for his 

foresight and work as Chairman of the Senate Interior 

Appropriations Subcommittee to protect this unique Washington 

landscape, and to ensure its economic vitality. 

This area is located along Interstate 90, a corridor that extends 

from Seattle all the way across the country, practically. But the 

section that we are talking about today extends from Seattle to 

Ellensburg, Washington. The 1.5 million-acre Greenway is a mix of 

public lands, rural farms, and working forests, as well as Seattle 

metropolis. 

Within this corridor, the history of Washington State is contained. From early exploration and settling of the region, mining 

and lumber operations to the birth of aerospace and high tech. 

Efforts to protect the native viewshed have made this a popular 

local and national and international tourist destination where people go to hunt, fish, camp, bike, hike, and among other activities. 

It has over 1,600 miles of recreational trails, including the Pacific 

Crest Trail, and provides clean drinking water for the entire 

region. 

Concerned about the future of the Greenway area, community 

leaders in 1991 brought together a coalition of government agencies, businesses, and citizen groups to form the Mountains to 

Sound Greenway Trust to create and implement a common vision 

that would balance economic growth with conservation of the local 

landscape. Using collaboration, negotiation, and compromise, the 

Trust, in its public-private membership, have maintained a vibrant 

and diverse economy, while conserving the environment and proVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:01 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04JY29 2ND SESS PRINTING\88967.TXT DARLEN
56 

tecting private property rights. The Trust encouraged local commitment to the land. 

Over 280,000 acres of land have been conserved. Tens of thousands of citizens have volunteered to plant trees, maintain trails, 

and care for these public lands. Each year, over 5,000 children get 

to leave the classroom and learn about the importance of our forests and our outdoor spaces and our community. 

In considering the future of the Greenway, the Trust conducted 

extensive public meetings. There were 145 meetings, to be exact, 

held with comments from over 1,000 individuals. And in these discussions, the conclusion was reached that the Greenway was a special place deserving of national recognition. 

My legislation will provide the Greenway with that special recognition as a National Heritage Area. It will help to further diversify the area’s economic base into the future. The designation will 

also build upon the area’s strong history of collaboration. It will 

allow communities to jointly market tourism activities, which especially are important to the small rural communities in my district, 

and it will help to promote better coordination among Federal, 

state, and local land managers, as well as law enforcement, to ensure the safety of visitors and recreation activities. 

My legislation also contains important protections for individual 

rights and private property owners. 

Here is what my legislation will not do. It will not allow the government to condemn any land. It does not alter any land use plan, 

including forest plans, does not force private property owners to 

participate in any activity, or provide any public access. It explicitly does not alter, modify, or extinguish treaty rights, affect water 

rights, or limit the authority of the state to manage fish and wildlife, including hunting and fishing. 

The result is a balanced bill that enjoys broad public support. 

Over 2,000 and counting elected officials and agencies and businesses, organizations, and individuals, support the Mountains to 

Sound Greenway National Heritage Area. My constituents are regularly contacting my office in support of this bill, and asking what 

they can do to get this proposal underway. 

I would like to include in my testimony a current list of individuals and organizations that support this designation. 

Mr. BISHOP. Without objection. 

[The information provided by Mr. Reichert for the record follows:] 

57 


88967.017.eps
58 

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1785 is the result of a grassroots movement. People have come together and planned this out 

very carefully. It began in the 1980s. The Greenway Trust has nurtured a spirit of cooperation and a vision that encourages businesses’ growth, and sound stewardship of our lands. I hope that 

this committee will recognize that record by supporting my legislation. I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Senator Gorton, we are happy to have 

you here. It is always good to see you on the correct side of the 

Capitol, over here on the House side. Thank you for traveling back 


88967.018.eps
59 

with us. You are recognized, as well, if you would like to speak to 

this bill. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SLADE GORTON, BELLEVUE, 

WASHINGTON 

Mr. GORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

and members of the subcommittee. It is my pleasure to be here to 

testify for H.R. 1785, the Mountains to Sound Greenway National 

Heritage Area Act. You already have my written statement, and I 

will ask that it be included in the record, together with a statement 

by Cynthia Welti, the Executive Director of Mountains to Sound 

Greenway Trust. But I will paraphrase it, then, just simply talk to 

you about the history and why this is such an appropriate National 

Heritage Area. 

Snoqualmie Pass is the lowest level pass through the Cascade 

Mountains from the east to west. It was the way through which 

Indian nations communicated and traded from time immemorial. It 

was a way for maybe a handful of early settlers to reach Puget 

Sound, though most of them came by water. 

President Lincoln, during the Lincoln administration, authorized 

the construction of a northern cross-continental railway. But it was 

a long time before any such railway was built. And it required a 

Federal gift of 40 million acres of land to the Northern Pacific 

Railroad, ultimately, to get that communication built. Later, Northern Pacific deeded that land to Plum Creek Timber, now the largest private landowner in the United States and, I may say, a 

member of the Trust and a supporter of this legislation. Sunset 

Highway went through Snoqualmie Pass, and ultimately Interstate 

90. 

In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, at the beginning of a new 

boom in the Pacific Northwest, normal citizens or corporations, 

landowners, farmers, timber harvesters began to be concerned 

about what could be preserved of this heritage. And in 1991, the 

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust was formed. 

Tens of thousands of individual citizens have volunteered hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of volunteer hours to help 

preserve the Greenway. As a matter of fact, I am almost certain 

there are many of them out there working today, planting trees, 

improving trails. Congressman Reichert has pointed out there are 

1,600 miles of trails within this Heritage Area. 

In one sense it is a peculiar one, because it includes this wonderful natural area from east to west, and it also includes the entire 

city of Seattle, 20 other incorporated cities, and 1.4 million people. 

It extends for more than 100 miles, from Ellensburg, east of the 

mountains, to Seattle, west of the mountains. It is truly a people’s 

organization. It is a wonderful opportunity for recreation for tens 

of thousands of people. It is an outdoor school for schoolchildren in 

the area. It is, in fact, our heritage in the Pacific Northwest. 

And so, this request comes not to create a heritage area so that 

people will make it such. It is to create it as a heritage area because it already is that, and the people of the region have shown 

it by their work and by their dedication to it. 

60 

So, it is my plea to you that you recognize this contribution on 

the part of individual people, and the fact that this is a great 

American heritage, and pass H.R. 1785. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gorton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SLADE GORTON, BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON

ON H.R. 1785 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee, I am 

pleased and honored to testify today for H.R. 1785, the Mountains to Sound 

Greenway National Heritage Area Act. 

The proposal for this Mountains to Sound Heritage Act is an expression of the 

Washington tradition of balanced, bipartisan legislation to conserve Washington’s 

most treasured public lands while continuing with the responsible economic development of the resources that our lands provide. That approach was enthusiastically 

built by my predecessors in Congress, happily adhered to during my career here and 

is carried forward today by Chairman Hastings and his Washington State 

colleagues. 

The proposed Mountains to Sound Greenway Heritage Area in Washington State 

includes 1.5 million acres on both sides of Interstate 90 from Puget Sound at 

Seattle, across the crest of the Cascade Mountains, to Ellensburg in central 

Washington. The Greenway includes public forests and parks, private rural farms 

and working forests, and much of the 15th largest metropolitan area in the Nation; 

900,000 of the 1.5 million acres are public land, but it also includes 1,600 miles of 

recreational trails, 28 cities, and more than 1.4 million residents. The Greenway 

provides easy access to outdoor recreation, including hunting, fishing camping and 

hiking for millions of people, a key to the quality of life in Washington State. 

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1785 is the result of a long, thoughtful process, led by the 

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust. The Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust is 

one of the earliest coalitions to come together to develop a coordinated approach to 

the interface of public and private lands in a growing urban region. The 1980s 

marked another Seattle area growth surge, with its new technology industries and 

an influx of population. Much of this growth would occur along the I–90 corridor 

east of Seattle. Community leaders, led by my close friend, Jim Ellis, formed a coalition of government agencies, business and other private sector leaders, and community activists to create and implement a common vision that would balance strong 

economic growth with a conservation ethic and founded the Mountains to Sound 

Greenway Trust. 

Since 1991, 281,454 acres have been conserved and 45,471 citizens have worked 

as volunteers to plant trees and build trails. During the 1990s this cause became 

so impressive that, over the course of 6 years the Congress made appropriations sufficient to conserve 76,254 acres of land for public use. All of these lands were 

acquired from willing sellers at market rates, as the Greenway as a voluntary association has never, and will never, take land by the use of eminent domain. 

Today, this Trust is a broad coalition that includes major employers including 

Plum Creek Timber Company, Weyerhaeuser, Puget Sound Energy, Recreational 

Equipment Inc., Boeing, and Microsoft, as well as local governments and individual 

citizens, most of which have worked together since 1991. 

The decision to move forward with a request for a National Heritage Area was 

reached after an extensive public involvement process that included 145 meetings 

and consultation with over 1,000 individuals. This is a proposal that will allow for 

economic development and conservation to exist side-by-side. This legislation will 

NOT add any new regulatory authority or other management restrictions over private lands. It will NOT require any private landowner to provide public access to 

its land or require it to participate in any activity conducted by the Heritage Area. 

It will NOT affect water, hunting, or fishing rights, nor will it add Federal Government oversight over local management decisions, nor does it legislate acquisition of 

new public lands. What this does do is to demonstrate the national significance of 

this landscape, provide national recognition to the work and dedication of those tens 

of thousands of volunteers, and empower local communities to unite to increase 

tourism and economic activity. 

Here in Washington, DC, it has benefited from the enthusiastic support of its primary sponsor, Congressman Dave Reichert, whose Congressional District includes 

the largest portion of the Trust area, and all of the other members whose districts 

include portions of that area, members Del Bene, McDermott and Smith. All of them 

have the gratitude of the Trust. 

61 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, H.R. 1785 is a well thought-out 

approach that has broad local support and will stand the test of time. I urge the 

committee to give this legislation positive consideration. In conclusion, I would ask 

that the committee include in today’s record, the statement by Cynthia Welti, 

Executive Director of the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for 

your testimony. We will now have questions on H.R. 1785. Mr. 

Grijalva, do you have questions on this one, specifically? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. No, I don’t. Just to congratulate the gentleman 

talking about that legislation today, sir, and the Senator, I think 

this Heritage Area is an example of what a unifying concept can 

be for many communities, and the overall economic and cultural 

impact that it has on a community. 

So, a piece of legislation I support, and thank you very much for 

bringing it to us. 

Mr. GORTON. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Reichert, do you have any questions for the 

Senator or for you? 

Mr. REICHERT. No, we talked a lot. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. REICHERT. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. He did a fine job 

with his testimony this morning, didn’t he? 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. I have no questions. Unless there are 

other questions, we thank you for being here, thank you for your 

testimony. If you would like to stay for the other three—we have 

five more bills, actually—you are welcome. If you have to go somewhere else, I will be offended by you leaving, but you can do that 

if you would like to. 

Same thing with Senator Gorton. Your testimony is over. If you 

would like to stay, you are welcome to. If you need to go somewhere else, I recognize that, as well. 

Let us turn now to H.R. 4119 by Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And 

I will recognize Mr. Johnson to introduce your bill. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HANK JOHNSON, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE ON CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, Chairman Bishop, 

and Ranking Member Grijalva, for allowing me to testify before the 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation. I 

am honored that the committee would include my bill, H.R. 4119, 

the West Hunter Street Baptist Church Study Act, that is part of 

today’s hearing. 

This is an important piece of legislation for the people of 

Georgia’s fourth congressional district who I represent, but also for 

the thousands of heroes who fought tirelessly during the Civil 

Rights Movement for equality in the South, and throughout the 

country. 

I would also like to thank you, the committee members, for your 

time and consideration of this bill. 

The West Hunter Street Baptist Church Study Act, with 76 cosponsors from both parties, would authorize the Department of the 

Interior to conduct a study of the West Hunter Street Baptist 

62 

Church in Atlanta, Georgia, to determine if it meets the requirements to become part of the National Park System. 

According to the National Park Service, a site may be considered 

for designation as a national park if it is associated with significant 

events and people in our Nation’s history, and contributes to the 

understanding of these historic events and figures. 

During the Civil Rights Movement, the West Hunter Street 

Baptist Church served as the headquarters for many civil rights 

workers and organizers. It was the site of many important leadership meetings, and doubled as a school for non-violent protest during the initiatives such as the Voter Education Project and the 

Freedom Summer of 1964. It was also a spiritual refuge for the 

countless men and women who devoted their lives to the cause. 

The Reverend Dr. Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., the church’s pastor, was a close associate of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He helped 

lead the bus boycotts after Rosa Parks famously refused to give up 

her seat. Reverend Abernathy, Sr. assumed his position at the 

church at Dr. King’s urging, following the success of the freedom 

rides. He was the pastor at West Hunter Street Baptist Church 

until his death in 1990. 

Passage of this bill will allow the Department of the Interior to 

assess how to more fully preserve and honor the contributions of 

all who played significant roles in advancing freedom and human 

rights. I urge the members of this committee to remember the pivotal nature of the Civil Rights Movement. When considering this 

bill, think of what the movement meant to our Nation and the 

world. As Dr. King said, the struggle for civil rights lifted our 

Nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of 

brotherhood. 

Finally, I would ask unanimous consent to submit these letters 

in support of the legislation from the Coalition for the People’s 

Agenda, the SCLC, and also the Washington Bureau of the NAACP 

into the record. 

Mr. BISHOP. Without objection. 

[The information submitted by Mr. Johnson for the record follows:] 

LETTERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 4119 

COALITION FOR THE PEOPLES’ AGENDA, 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 

JULY 23, 2014. 

Hon. DOC HASTINGS, Chairman, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HASTINGS: 

I am writing in support of H.R. 4119, the West Hunter Street Baptist Church 

Study Act. 

I, along with many Civil Rights leaders, organizers, and movement friends used 

West Hunter Street Baptist Church as a headquarters for important planning meetings, nonviolent trainings, and served as the bedrock for our Voter Education 

Project and Freedom Summer 1964 activities. While it served as a place for movement activities, it also served many members of the Metro Atlanta community as 

a place to worship and receive spiritual guidance. 

This Act will help preserve that history and deserves recognition and inclusion 

in the National Park system. The Civil Rights movement was a major contributor 

63 

to ensuring the implementation of democratic principles upon which this country 

was founded. West Hunter Street Baptist Church is one of a few of the places where 

the civil rights movement and its nonviolent principles were taught and used. We 

urge you to help protect and preserve this place so that future generations will be 

able to connect, not just from reading books about the movement, but will be able 

to experience and feel the actual place where history was made. 

Respectfully, 

JOSEPH E. LOWERY, D.D., 

Convenor. 

SCLC—SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE, 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 

JULY 22, 2014. 

Hon. DOC HASTINGS, Chairman, 

Hon. PETER DEFAZIO, Ranking Member, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HASTINGS, RANKING MEMBER DEFAZIO, CHAIRMAN BISHOP AND

RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA: 

The SCLC is writing in support of H.R. 4119, the West Hunter Street Baptist 

Church Study Act. We urge you to support this bipartisan and bicameral bill so that 

we can expeditiously move through the House Committee on Natural Resources and 

receive consideration by the full house. This is a bipartisan bill that was introduced 

in the Senate by Georgia’s two U.S. Senators (S. 2431) and has the House support 

of 62 bipartisan members of the House of Representatives, including members of the 

House Committee on Natural Resources. This bill is also supported by the NAACP 

as all major civil rights organizations understand the gravity of preserving history. 

This Congress, the committees has reported several ‘‘study acts’’ offered by Members 

of Congress from both parties and we urge your favorable consideration of this important bill. 

H.R. 4119, the West Hunter Street Baptist Church Study Act, will direct the 

Department of the Interior to determine whether the historic H.R. 4119, the West 

Hunter Street Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia meets the criteria for designation 

in the National Park System. 

During the Civil Rights Movement, the H.R. 4119, the West Hunter Street 

Baptist Church served as a headquarters for many Civil Rights workers and organizers. It was the site of many important leadership meetings and doubled as a 

school for non-violent protests during initiatives such as the Voter Education Project 

and the Freedom Summer of 1964. Moreover, the church served as a spiritual refuge 

for the countless men and women who devoted their lives to the cause. Presently 

Atlanta, Georgia is home to the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic site and 

several other private institutions that commemorate the important role Atlanta and 

its people played in the Civil Rights Movement. 

We believe the H.R. 4119, the West Hunter Street Baptist Church deserves recognition and its inclusion in the National Park System will help to complete the 

story of the Civil Rights Movement. 

The history of the Civil Rights Movement is a lesson in democratic ideals. The 

church serves as a living testimony to our internal strengths and the courage of all 

American people. We deeply believe that it is our duty to preserve these landmarks 

and share their significance with future generations. As our nation marks the 50th 

anniversary of the Freedom Summer and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, we urge you 

64 

to move this bill expeditiously and fortuitously to a conclusion before the House 

Committee on Natural Resources. 

Sincerely, 

DR. CHARLES STEELE JR., 

President & CEO. 

WASHINGTON BUREAU—NAACP, 

WASHINGTON, DC, 

JULY 28, 2014. 

Hon. HANK JOHNSON, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: NAACP Support for H.R. 4119, the West Hunter Street Baptist Church Study 

Act 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN JOHNSON: 

On behalf of the NAACP, our nation’s oldest, largest and most widely recognized 

grassroots-based civil rights organization, I am writing to thank you for your leadership in introducing H.R. 4119, the West Hunter Street Baptist Church Study Act 

and to express our strong support for this important legislation. The NAACP supports H.R. 4119 and any effort that promotes the preservation of the diverse history 

and culture that has contributed to the greatness of our nation. 

Located in Atlanta, Georgia, the West Hunter Street Baptist Church served as a 

headquarters for many civil rights workers and organizers and as the site of many 

important leadership meetings during the Civil Rights Movement. The church also 

doubled as a school for nonviolent protest training during initiatives such as the 

Voter Education Project and the Freedom Summer of 1964. Finally, it also served 

as a spiritual refuge for the countless men and women who devoted and risked their 

lives to the cause of ending racial segregation and discrimination. 

If passed, H.R. 4119, the West Hunter Street Baptist Church Study Act would direct the Department of the Interior to determine whether the historic West Hunter 

Street Baptist Church meets the criteria for designation in the National Park 

System. This year our nation commemorates the 50th anniversaries of both the 

1964 Civil Rights Act and of Freedom Summer. It would be fitting tribute to the 

progress that our country has made for Congress to enact H.R. 4119, and for our 

government to begin the process of considering the appropriate way in which to 

honor the role of the West Hunter Street Baptist Church in American history. 

Thank you again for your leadership; I look forward to working with you to ensure 

that our history is not forgotten. 

Sincerely, 

HILARY O. SHELTON, 

Director. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. I thank you for your time and consideration, and I would be pleased to take any questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Reverend Abernathy, we appreciate you joining us 

here. And at this time we would recognize you to speak toward this 

piece of legislation. 

STATEMENT OF REVEREND RALPH DAVID ABERNATHY III, 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 

Rev. ABERNATHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

DeFazio, honorable members of the committee. On behalf of the 

American Civil Rights Movement, a legacy steeped in the moral 

principles of non-violence and civil disobedience, and for the preservation of American history, I address you today. I speak with the 

65 

support of the honorable gentleman from Georgia, Congressman 

Hank Johnson, and Congressman Austin Scott, and 76 of their colleagues, members of this August body. And, most importantly, I 

speak with the support of the Vine City communities, and the 

Atlanta University in which this historic church resides on the 

Martin Luther King, Jr. corridor. 

Not only is this church historical, but the area is as well, in helping shape American society. This community became a think tank 

for the American Civil Rights Movement after Montgomery, 

Alabama and the West Hunter Street Baptist Church became the 

spiritual workplace. 

Across the street from the church, Pascal’s restaurant lounge and 

hotel became a place to convene with civil rights leaders, Dr. 

Abernathy and Dr. King, and activists, community leaders, educators, clergy, businessmen and women, black entertainers and actors and many others. The church held many civil rights mass 

meetings, strategy sessions, and non-violent conflict resolution 

trainings. 

Decisions were made at this church that had a direct impact on 

influencing American culture. For example, the decision was made 

at this church for the go-ahead for the Selma to Montgomery 

march on the Edmond Pettis Bridge on Sunday March 7, 1963, 

which is known in American history as Bloody Sunday, which 

changed the face of American policy with the passing of the Voting 

Rights Act in helping shape a more perfect union. 

When white students came from the North, to help register 

blacks in the South during what is known in history as Freedom 

Summer Voter Education Project, the church served as a training 

and workshop center for the Mississippi summer project where 

black students and white students attended non-violent workshops 

and conflict resolution seminars in an effort to conduct voter registration drives throughout the South with emphasis on Mississippi 

and Alabama. 

The church provided space for the Atlanta University student association called UMBU, United Movement for Black Unity, GetOut-the-Vote operations to elect Maynard Jackson as the first black 

mayor of a major city of in the South. And the church was a meeting place and conducted strategy and field operations to elect 

Andrew Young, first black congressman from Georgia. 

This historic preservation of West Hunter Street Baptist Church 

represents commitment to remembering the past and preparing for 

a sustainable future. By preserving historic structures, we are able 

to share the very spaces and environments in which the generations before us lived. Historic preservation is a visual and tangible 

conservation of cultural identity. 

In addition to solidifying a community’s past, preservation can 

help strengthen a community’s future. Historic buildings help create a vibrant, cultural area that draw tourism, art, festivals, and 

other activities which, in turn, draw investment, revenue, and economic growth. This museum/community educational resource center will be a centerpiece for the community. 

Local residents can also benefit through interactive components 

such as learning and educational resources that illustrate a special 

meaning between its past, present, and future. 

66 

The Ralph David Abernathy National Historic Center will become a hub for the community empowerment, and will feature 

interactive gallery tours. Our goal is to create and promote a learning environment of the moral principles of non-violence for the entire family. We will offer an educational resource center for student 

research on the Civil Rights Movement. Parents and K–12 students 

will have an educational resource center focused on the Civil 

Rights Movement and the six pioneers of that movement, with the 

‘‘Remember Them’’ monument to help bridge the gap between the 

past and the present generations. It is more than a historic site, 

it is a center for empowerment and transformation, a living legacy. 

The preservation of this last historic civil rights church site will 

also be a park, Freedom Plaza, to encourage families to gather, reflect, and interact with nature and history. 

My father, Dr. Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., and Dr. Martin King 

Jr., were co-founders and co-leaders of the American Civil Rights 

Movement. They started out together in Montgomery, Alabama, 

when my father was called to organize the first meeting around 

Ms. Parks’ arrest, and together, as civil rights twins, until the assassination of Dr. King, who died cradled in my father’s arms. My 

father, with the courage to walk alone, picked up the mantle of 

leadership and completed the work of the Civil Rights Movement. 

They have a date with destiny, Mr. Chairman, and a rendezvous 

with eternity, and I encourage the passage of this most important 

legislation in honor of their great American legacy. Thank you and 

God bless you. 

Any questions that you may have, I am available. 

[The prepared statement of Rev. Abernathy follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REVEREND RALPH DAVID ABERNATHY, III ON H.R. 4119 

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee: On behalf of the 

American civil rights movement, a legacy steeped in the moral principles of nonviolence and civil disobedience, and for the preservation of American history, I address you today. 

I speak with the support of the honorable gentlemen from Georgia, Congressman 

Hank Johnson and Congressman Austin Scott and 76 of their colleagues members 

of this August body and most importantly, I speak with the support of the Vine City 

communities and the Atlanta University community in which this historic church 

resides on the Martin Luther King Jr. corridor. Not only is this church historical, 

but the area is as well, in helping shape American society. This community became 

a think tank for the American civil rights movement after Montgomery, Alabama 

and the West Hunter Street Baptist Church became the spiritual work place. Across 

the street from the church, Pascal’s restaurant lounge and hotel became a place to 

convene with civil rights leaders, Dr. Abernathy and Dr. King and activists, community leaders, educators, clergy, businessmen and women, black entertainers and actors and many others. The church held many civil rights mass meetings, strategy 

sessions and nonviolent conflict resolution training. Decisions were made at this 

church that had a direct impact on influencing American culture. 

For example; the decision was made at his church for the go-ahead for the Selma 

to Montgomery march on the Edmond Pettis on Sunday, March 7, 1963 which is 

known in American history as ‘‘Bloody Sunday’’ which changed the face of American 

policy with the passing of the Voting Rights Act in helping shape a more perfect 

union. 

When white students came from the North, to help register blacks in the South 

during what is known in history as ‘‘Freedom Summer’’ voter education project, the 

church served as a training and workshop center for the Mississippi summer project 

where black and white students attended nonviolent workshops and conflict resolution seminars in an effort to conduct voter registration drives throughout the South 

with emphasis on Mississippi and Alabama. 

67 

The church provided space for the Atlanta University student association called 

UMBU, University Movement for Black Unity, Get-out-the-Vote operations to elect 

Maynard Jackson as the first black mayor of a major city of in the South. 

The church was a meeting place and conducted strategy and field operations to 

elect Andrew Young, first black Congressmen from Georgia. 

The Historic Preservation of West Hunter Street Baptist Church represents commitment to remembering the past and preparation for a sustainable future. 

By preserving historic structures, we are able to share the very spaces and environments in which the generations before us lived. Historic preservation is the visual and tangible conservation of cultural identity. In addition to solidifying a 

community’s past, preservation can help strengthen a community’s future. Historic 

buildings help create vibrant, cultural areas that draw tourism, art, festivals, and 

other activities which in turn draw investment, revenue, and economic growth. This 

museum/community educational resource center will be the centerpiece of the community. Local residents can also benefit through interpretive components such as 

learning and educational resources that illustrate a special meaning between its 

past, present and future. 

The RDA National Historical Center will become the hub for community 

empowerment and will feature interactive gallery tours. Our goal is to create and 

promote a learning environment for the entire family. We will offer an educational 

resource center for student research on the civil rights movement. Parents and K– 

12 students will have an educational resource center focused on the civil rights 

movement and the six pioneers of that movement and with the ‘‘Remember Them’’ 

monument to help bridge the gap between the past and the present generations. It’s 

more than a historic site, it’s a center for empowerment and transformation—a 

living legacy. The preservation of this last historic civil rights church site will also 

include a park, ‘‘Freedom Plaza’’, to encourage families to gather, reflect and interact with nature and history. 

My father Dr. Ralph David Abernathy, Sr., and Dr. Martin King Jr., were cofounders and co-leaders of the American civil rights movement. They started out together in Montgomery, Alabama when my father was called to organize the first 

meeting around the arrest of Ms. Parks and were together as civil rights twins until 

the assassination of Dr. King who died cradled in my father’s arms. My father with 

the courage to walk alone picked up the mantle of leadership and completed the 

work of the civil rights movement. 

They have a date with destiny and a rendezvous with eternity and I encourage 

the passage of this most important legislation in honor of their great American 

legacy. 

Thank you and God bless you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that. We will now turn to 

questions on this particular piece of legislation. 

Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No questions, just to 

thank my colleague, Congressman Johnson, for the legislation, and 

thank the reverend for his testimony today. 

You mentioned, Reverend, living legacy. How true. I think all of 

us know that the Civil Rights Movement made this Nation a better 

Nation, made all of us better people. And, as we go forward, this 

is not just a historic set-aside, it is indeed more than a reminder. 

It points the way to where this Nation still needs to go. And I want 

to thank you, and thank both of you, and yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Did you have any questions for the reverend? Congressman Clyburn, we welcome you here. Did you have 

a statement to make, or questions? You are on the Dent bill? OK, 

the next one. I am sorry. 

Any other questions for these witnesses on this particular bill? 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. If not, we appreciate you coming up and testifying 

for this. Congressman Johnson, thank you for joining us. Once 

68 

again, you are welcome to stay as long as you want to, but everyone else has rejected me, so I understand. 

Reverend, you can stay as long as you wish to, as well. But your 

part of the bill is over. I appreciate you coming here. 

Rev. ABERNATHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

committee. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let us turn now to Congressman Fortenberry for his 

bill, which is H.R. 5086. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes to introduce the bill. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF FORTENBERRY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

NEBRASKA 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you 

and Ranking Member Grijalva for holding this important hearing. 

And I appreciate having the opportunity to express my strong support for the feasibility study on creating a National Historic Trail 

in recognition of Chief Standing Bear. 

Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me for a few minutes, I 

would like to give you some background on Chief Standing Bear. 

He holds a very special place in Native American history, as well 

as U.S. history, as one of our Nation’s first civil rights leaders. Establishing a trail in his name would also be an outstanding way 

to recognize the contributions that he made to our country. 

He prevailed in one of the most important court cases for Native 

Americans in our Nation’s history. Chief Standing Bear was a 

Ponca chief. In the late 1800s, the Ponca Tribe made its home in 

the Niobrara River Valley in the area of northeast Nebraska. In 

1877, the U.S. Government pressured the Poncas from their homeland, compelling them to move to Indian Territory in Oklahoma. 

Not wanting to subject his people to any type of confrontation with 

the Government, Standing Bear obliged, and led them from their 

homes to the reservation in Oklahoma. 

Mr. Chairman, the journey was harsh and inhospitable. Nearly 

a third of the tribe died from starvation, malaria, and other illnesses, including Standing Bear’s little daughter, named Prairie 

Flower. And later his son, Bear Shield, also died. It is interesting 

to note, Mr. Chairman, that Prairie Flower is buried in a place 

near Neligh, Nebraska and fresh flowers still appear on her grave 

regularly, as a community there keeps vigil out of respect for her 

memory. 

And before his son, Bear Shield, died, Standing Bear promised 

Bear Shield that he would bury him in their native homeland in 

the Niobrara River Valley. Embarking on that trip in the winter 

of 1878, Standing Bear led a group of about 65 Poncas. Upon 

reaching the Omaha reservation, north of present-day Omaha, 

Nebraska, the U.S. Army stopped Standing Bear and arrested him 

for leaving the Oklahoma reservation without permission. 

He was taken to Fort Omaha, and held there to stand trial. In 

the meantime, Standing Bear’s plight attracted the attention of the 

Omaha Daily Herald, which is the predecessor of the current city’s 

newspaper, the Omaha World Herald, and this story became very 

well publicized. 

69 

At the conclusion of the 2-day trial, Standing Bear was allowed 

to speak for himself. Mr. Chairman, Standing Bear raised his hand 

and he had this to say, ‘‘That hand is not the color of yours. But 

if I pierce it, I will feel pain. If you pierce your hand, you will feel 

pain. The blood that will flow from mine will be the same color as 

yours. I am a man. God made us both.’’ 

With these words on that late spring day of 1879, Chief Standing 

Bear, I believe, expressed the most profound of American sentiments, the belief in the inherent dignity and rights of all persons, 

no matter their ethnicity, no matter their color. Judge Elmer 

Dundee then ruled that Native Americans are persons within the 

meaning of the law. Remember, this is 1879, and this is the first 

court ruling that Native Americans are persons within the meaning 

of the law. 

After the trial, Chief Standing Bear spent the next 4 years in the 

eastern part of the United States, promoting Native American 

rights, and seeking the return of his Niobrara homeland to the 

Ponca people. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the story of the great Ponca chief 

is one of strength and grace and dignity and the most basic protection of human rights. It is a story that I think needs to be told and 

told and retold and cherished by all Americans of coming generations. That is why I am so supportive of the establishment of the 

Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail that would both honor 

his courage and the great contribution to the freedom and civil liberties of our Nation. I believe this bill is an important first step toward establishing that trail, and I look forward to working with the 

committee, Mr. Chairman, and the National Park Service, as well, 

to make it a reality. 

Thank you so much for allowing me to testify today. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Do you have 

any questions for this one, as well? 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. I don’t either. I appreciate you coming, appreciate 

the testimony for the bill. Thank you. Unless you have any questions for yourself? 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I am satisfied with my own testimony, I 

think. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. You answered your own questions very, very well. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I do that on other occasions, though, just to 

let you know. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Appreciate it. I notice we have been 

joined by Senator Cardin here. 

We will give you some time, if you wish to, to speak to your bill, 

as well. 

First, are there any questions for Senate 311 for Ms. Toothman? 

That is the Landrieu bill. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. If not, we appreciate that. 

Mr. Cardin? 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. I am sorry, doesn’t exist. He is not here. Mr. 

Cardin’s bill. Are there any questions for his bill? 

70 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. If not, we appreciate that. You still have 

to sit around for one more bill. I apologize for that, Ms. Toothman, 

I appreciate that. 

We do have one other bill, then, to go through, which is H.R. 445, 

by Mr. Dent. Appreciate you joining us here, we appreciate the 

other two Members who were here. Let’s start with Mr. Dent. 

We will give you 5 minutes to introduce your bill, and then we 

will turn to Mr. Clyburn and Mr. Tonko, if you happen to have 

comments on this bill, as well. 

And also ask the dais—lost my page here—somebody else. Yes, 

Mr.—I am going to screw up your name again. Why don’t you just 

tell it to me? 

Mr. SACHSE. Allen Sachse. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Sachse—should be easy enough—from the 

Alliance for National Heritage Areas. We thank you for that. 

Mr. Dent, you are recognized first. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES W. DENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. First, I want to thank Chairman Bishop, 

and certainly Ranking Member Grijalva, for this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on H.R. 445, the National Heritage 

Area Act. I would also like to recognize and thank the co-lead of 

the bill, Congressman Tonko, who is seated here at the dais, as 

well, for offering testimony. 

I would also like to thank the rest of the subcommittee for their 

desire to learn more about the beneficial public-private partnerships around the country. And finally, again, I would like to thank 

my friend who is seated at the dais, as well, Allen Sachse, a longtime fixture of the Delaware Lehigh Heritage Corridor, and the 

current President of the National Alliance of National Heritage 

Areas, for offering his testimony today, too. 

As the subcommittee may know, the National Heritage Areas 

have proven a record of fostering job creation and advancing economic, cultural, historic, environmental, and community development. As it has been a few years since the subcommittee has 

addressed the issue of heritage areas, this will be the first time for 

many of you dealing with this issue. 

The National Heritage Area is a region that has been recognized 

by Congress for its unique qualities and resources. The National 

Heritage Area is in place where a combination of natural, cultural, 

historic, and recreational resources have shaped a very distinctive 

landscape. Our legislation, if it were enacted into law, would create 

a systematic framework in the National Park Service for maintaining the existing National Heritage Areas, while allowing for the 

possibility of creating future heritage areas. 

H.R. 445 accomplishes these goals, these dual goals, by permanently authorizing the current 49 National Heritage Areas, and requiring the heritage areas to have a viable management plan in 

place before any designation by Congress. 

I know some of you believe these areas should be temporary programs. However, we continually make the argument around here 

for stability and certainty for businesses. Well, I believe the same 

71 

should be the case for our heritage areas. Permanent authorization 

provides stability that enables these heritage areas to continue to 

leverage substantial private, local, and state investment in our nationally significant resources, stimulate community and economic 

development, and build sustainable communities. 

National Heritage Areas generate valuable revenue for local governments, and sustain communities through revitalization and heritage tourism. In fact, in a recent study of 12 heritage areas, all 

heritage areas met, in most cases exceeded, the 50 percent required 

match, used their National Park Service funds responsibly to meet 

program goals and leverage additional funds for heritage infrastructure to a ratio of about 4 to 1, which is pretty good. 

As a long-time supporter of the Delaware Lehigh Heritage 

Corridor and the Schuylkill River Heritage Area in eastern 

Pennsylvania, I have seen firsthand the impact these heritage 

areas have on our communities. As an example, when the Rails-toTrails Conservancy did an economic impact of the Delaware and 

Lehigh Trail, two property owners said they purchased their homes 

in close proximity to the trail. That was the principal reason. I 

bring this example up as one of the many positive things brought 

up by the heritage areas across our country. 

And while the specific impact may be local, the economic and 

recreational impact of each heritage area can reach national 

significance. 

Several members of the full committee have expressed concerns 

that heritage areas are earmarks. And I can assure you this is simply not the case. That is why we would like to see them permanently authorized. However, it is the responsibility of the entire 

country to preserve key historical sites for future generations of 

Americans to enjoy. 

Heritage areas play a fundamental role in this preservation, as 

well as a role in conservation efforts. Currently, we have 49 

National Heritage Areas, with pending applications for a few more. 

Although there are 49 of these heritage areas, presently there is no 

systematic process in place for Congress to determine if a heritage 

area should receive the same congressional designation. 

We continue to reauthorize existing areas on an ad hoc basis. 

Most recently, for example, we authorized 12 heritage areas as part 

of the Fiscal Year 2014 omnibus. Further, the designation of an 

NHA should be based on a nationally significant narrative and the 

collective resources that contribute to that history. Without these 

parameters in place, we have run into a situation where a heritage 

area, quite frankly, really didn’t have any business being 

designated. 

So H.R. 445, the National Heritage Area Act, addresses these 

issues by creating a systematic framework in the National Park 

Service, and this is a point in the legislation that requires a management plan to be presented and vetted prior to any designation 

from Congress. And I think that is a very important point to mention here. And Congress will maintain the responsibility of designation, which means that we maintain our appropriate role in the 

process. 

Finally, the heritage areas are not and would not become part of 

the National Park System. These areas would remain a vital pubVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:01 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04JY29 2ND SESS PRINTING\88967.TXT DARLEN
72 

lic-private partnership that spurs economic development, provides 

outdoor recreation, and conserves key areas of American historical 

importance. 

As mentioned previously, H.R. 445 would also permanently authorize any existing National Heritage Area, and our legislation 

will also encourage more involvement in the designation process as 

the local community members will have to weigh in and develop a 

management plan. 

The bill currently has 36 co-sponsors, with Members representing all parts of the country. This is especially true of the 

northeastern part of the United States. 

To address some previous concerns I have had about the bill, it 

would not impact private property rights. To address these concerns specifically, we included Section 11 of the bill, which directly 

states that H.R. 445 will not infringe on private property rights. 

And I would also like to say we are more than willing to work 

with the subcommittee and the full committee to strengthen the 

section of the bill to assuage any concerns some of you may have 

about the National Heritage Area Act’s impact on private property 

rights. 

And, in closing, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, 

I certainly work with my colleagues to ensure that all discretionary 

Federal spending is used in the most efficient manner by our agencies. At this time, the American public has not shown any sign of 

tiring of their national parks or desiring reductions in access to 

park space. 

To meet the seemingly incongruent realities, the National Park 

Service will be required to appreciably expand its current use of 

public-private partnerships. And as catalysts for community and 

economic revitalization, National Heritage Areas implement 

projects through public-private partnerships with a variety of 

stakeholders, and collaborate with private businesses, foundations, 

non-profit organizations, state and local governments, to ensure 

that the regional goals of cultural, historical, recreational, and resource conservation are met. And National Heritage Areas are an 

innovative approach to resource conservation, as they represent the 

future direction of the National Park Service in the 21st century. 

Again, I want to thank the Chairman and the subcommittee for 

the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the National Heritage 

Area Act, and I look forward to working with you to address your 

concerns and to advance this very important piece of legislation. 

I thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. We will go on to Mr. Clyburn, then Mr. 

Tonko, and then to our witness, Mr. Sachse, and we will do it in 

that order. 

Mr. Clyburn, you are recognized for any comments you may 

have. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank you and Ranking Member Grijalva for allowing me to appear 

before the subcommittee today. I also wanted to thank my colleagues, Representative Dent and Representative Tonko, the sponVerDate Mar 15 2010 12:01 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04JY29 2ND SESS PRINTING\88967.TXT DARLEN
73 

sors of the bill before us today, and co-chairs of the National 

Heritage Area Caucus, for their leadership on this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I began my professional career as a high school history teacher in Charleston, South 

Carolina. My teaching experience left me with a profound sense of 

the importance of young people having an understanding and 

appreciation of the history and culture of our country and its communities. I believe that historic preservation and restoration are 

urgent obligations, as once our national treasures are lost, they can 

never be restored. 

Throughout my congressional career, I have championed preservation programs that protect this Nation’s cultural heritage and 

national resources. National Heritage Areas fill a distinct niche 

among preservation programs. Instead of just protecting a specific 

building or a site, heritage areas seek to preserve and protect the 

traditions and folkways of entire communities. 

I am very familiar with heritage areas, having successfully 

sponsored legislation creating two of them. The first, the South 

Carolina National Heritage Corridor, was established in 1996. It 

runs through 17 of South Carolina’s 46 counties. With over 195 

community partners, it blends tourism, our state’s number-one 

industry, with preservation to link rural communities and businesses with historic buildings, sites, and traditions. Since its creation, the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor has leveraged 

over $50 million directly into communities in its service areas, impacting over 17,000 jobs in the state. 

Our second heritage corridor, the Gullah Geechee Cultural 

Heritage Corridor, established in 2006, has probably been the single most popular undertaking of my career. The mission of this corridor is truly an example of the unique capacity of heritage areas. 

Gullah Geechee is a blend of African and European language and 

traditions found along the coasts and on the sea islands of North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, where former 

slaves began their freedom in isolated and remote communities, 

where they nurtured and sustained a unique way of life for 

generations. 

Called Gullah in the Carolinas, and Geechee in Georgia and 

Florida, the culture is being threatened by the development that 

has boomed in these coastal communities. The mission of Gullah 

Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor is to preserve and protect 

these unique slices of living culture. It is more than just historic 

sites, but communities of living people. No other historic preservation program has the flexibility to take on this unique challenge. 

The management entity, the Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage 

Corridor Commission, is a grassroots organization made up of 

members of the communities in all four states. Through outreach, 

interpretation, education, and promotion, the Commission assists 

these communities in preserving their culture. 

Unfortunately, these programs face an uncertain future, especially in the current budget battles. The South Carolina National 

Heritage Corridor’s original 10-year authorization has been subsequently extended on a short-term basis. It thrives for now, but it 

needs significant engagement with the National Park Service, and 

74 

a more sustained commitment by Congress than that of the yearly 

Federal funding cycle. 

The Gullah Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor was authorized 

for 10 years in its original Act. Helping these communities preserve 

their way of life, however, is not a mission that can be quickly 

accomplished, nor should it be prematurely abandoned. A 2-year 

study authorized and funded by Congress has identified this cultural resource as worthy of protecting. Only through permanent engagement with the National Park Service can the objectives of the 

Corridor truly be achieved. 

Congress has invested valuable resources in these heritage areas. 

We must not lose the work they have done in communities across 

America. Passage of this Act would send a powerful statement of 

commitment by Congress to heritage areas as a permanent, sustainable preservation program. 

I look forward to working with you to support heritage areas. 

Thank you for having me here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clyburn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Good morning. I want to thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva 

for allowing me to appear before this subcommittee today. I would also like to thank 

my colleagues Charlie Dent and Paul Tonko, sponsors of the bill before us today and 

co-chairs of the National Heritage Area Caucus for their leadership on this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I began my professional career as 

a high school history teacher in Charleston, South Carolina. My teaching experience 

left me a profound sense of the importance of young people having an understanding 

and appreciation for the history and culture of our country and its communities. I 

believe that historic preservation and restoration are urgent obligations, as once our 

national treasures are lost they can never be restored. 

Throughout my congressional career, I have championed preservation programs 

that protect this Nation’s cultural heritage and natural resources. National Heritage 

Areas fill a distinct niche among preservation programs. Instead of just protecting 

a specific building or site, heritage areas seek to preserve and protect the traditions 

and folkways of entire communities. 

I am very familiar with heritage areas, having successfully sponsored legislation 

creating two of them. The first, the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor, was 

established in 1996. It runs through 17 of South Carolina’s 46 counties. With over 

195 community partners, it blends tourism, our state’s number one industry, with 

preservation to link rural communities and businesses with historic buildings, sites, 

and traditions. Since its creation, the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor 

has leveraged over $50 million directly into communities in its service areas, impacting over 17,000 jobs in the state. 

Our second heritage corridor, the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor, established in 2006, has probably been the singular most popular undertaking of my 

career. The mission of this Corridor is truly an example of the unique capacity of 

heritage areas. Gullah/Geechee is a blend of African and European language and 

traditions, found along the coasts and on the sea islands of North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, where former slaves began their freedom in isolated 

and remote communities where they nurtured and sustained a unique way of life 

for generations. 

Called Gullah in the Carolinas and Geechee in Georgia and Florida, the culture 

is being threatened by the development that has boomed in these coastal communities. 

The mission of the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor is to preserve and 

protect these unique slices of living culture. It is more than just historic sites, but 

communities of living people. No other historic preservation program has the flexibility to take on this unique challenge. The management entity, the Gullah/Geechee 

Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission is a grassroots organization made up of 

members of the communities in all four states. Through outreach, interpretation, 

education, and promotion, the commission assists these communities in preserving 

their culture. 

75 

Unfortunately, these programs face an uncertain future, especially in the current 

budget battles. The South Carolina National Heritage Corridor’s original 10-year 

authorization has tolled. It has been subsequently extended on a short-term basis. 

It thrives for now, but it needs significant engagement with the National Park 

Service and a more sustained commitment by Congress than that of the yearly 

Federal funding cycle. 

The Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor was authorized for 10 years by 

its original act. Helping these communities preserve their way of life, however, is 

not a mission that can be quickly accomplished nor should it be prematurely 

abandoned. 

A 2-year study, authorized and funded by Congress has indentified this cultural 

resource as worthy of protecting. Only through permanent engagement with the 

National Park Service can the objectives of the Corridor truly be achieved. 

Congress has invested valuable resources in each heritage area. We must not lose 

the work they have done in communities across America. Passage of this Act would 

send a powerful statement of commitment by Congress to heritage areas as a permanent, sustainable preservation program. I look forward to working with you to 

support heritage areas. 

Thank you for having me today. 

Mr. HASTINGS [presiding]. I thank the gentleman for his statement, and I will recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Tonko. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Chair Hastings, Chair Bishop, and 

Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the subcommittee. I 

thank you for holding this hearing and for giving me an opportunity to speak to you about H.R. 445, the National Heritage Areas 

Act, introduced by our colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative 

Dent. It is also good to see Allen Sachse in the audience, as he will 

be testifying also. He is a passionate voice for our heritage areas, 

and we thank him for that. 

Representative Dent and I founded and co-chair the Heritage 

Area Caucus. And it is a pleasure to be working with Representative Dent, who has done great work on this legislation to promote 

the great work of the heritage areas across the country. 

The birth and history of our Nation is told through many stories, 

stories of brave people, brave men and women who built this 

Nation through their grit and determination. The National 

Heritage Areas form a network across our country that highlights 

the special places in our culture and our history. Individually, they 

tell the unique story of their particular place or region. Together, 

they tell the story of our gradual expansion westward, and our 

growth from 13 original colonies to the 50 states of this world’s 

greatest Nation. 

Each of the 49 Heritage Areas provides the context for telling our 

story, stories about establishing settlements, initiating commerce, 

and struggling to build communities that would endure and thrive. 

The Eerie Canalway and Hudson Valley Heritage Areas have 

done great things for the 20th congressional district in Upstate 

New York. They have not only fostered job creation and economic 

development, but also strengthened our sense of place in New 

York’s 20th congressional district. They have highlighted the tremendous cultural, historic, and environmental assets of our local 

76 

communities, creating that sense of place that builds local pride 

and attracts visitors into our region, and shares and instructs generations to come. 

Congressmember Dent and I introduced H.R. 445 to bring additional continuity and support to the network of National Heritage 

Areas. Also, H.R. 445 responds to concerns that some have raised 

about how these sites were being established and operating, to define their relationship to the national parks and other lands and 

facilities managed by the Department of the Interior, and to outline 

the role state and local governments and private enterprise should 

play in the establishment and operation of these specific heritage 

areas. 

H.R. 445 gives the heritage areas a home in the National Park 

Service. Before the Secretary could establish a heritage area, a feasibility study would be conducted to evaluate the financial viability 

of the proposed heritage area. Local organizations are responsible 

for developing a management plan for each area, including the 

identification of a source of local funds for developing and operating 

these sites. To ensure each area is being well managed and operating in accordance with its management plan, each heritage area 

must undergo an independent review at least every 10 years. If an 

area is not meeting expectations, Federal support would be 

discontinued. 

Adding defined processes for establishment, operation, and independent evaluation will ensure that each area can stand on its 

own, and that it will contribute to this pattern of heritage area program. These required elements will strengthen the overall network. 

H.R. 445 brings the accountability and definition to this program 

that skeptics have asked for. 

Heritage areas make a very important contribution to their local- ities and regions. Each Federal dollar results in $5 of economic activity in the area. They promote tourism and create jobs and spur 

economic recovery. But they do something much more. As I said 

earlier, they give people a sense of place, pride in the unique role 

of their community and the role that that community played in 

weaving the fabric of our Nation, an inspiration to move forward 

and write the next chapters of our story. 

Last week the House passed the BrandUSA legislation to 

promote tourism and create jobs. By creating certainty and accountability for the Heritage Areas program, H.R. 445 makes an 

important contribution to these same goals. I do hope that the full 

committee will consider and support this important bill before the 

end of the 113th Congress. 

Again, I thank the Chair of the Committee, the subcommittee, 

and our Ranking Member, for this opportunity. And I thank 

Representative Dent for his partnership in establishing this legislation, and thank you all for your consideration and your kind attention to the matter. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I 

thank my colleagues for their comments. 

And now I want to recognize Mr. Allen Sachse, who is the Chair 

of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas, for his testimony. 

Mr. Sachse, you know that your full statement will appear in the 

record that we asked you to submit. If you keep your oral remarks 

77 

within the 5 minutes, we would appreciate it very much. And, Mr. 

Sachse, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF ALLEN C. SACHSE, CHAIR, ALLIANCE OF 

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS 

Mr. SACHSE. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Grijalva, and members of the committee. My name is 

Allen Sachse. I serve as the Chair of the Alliance of National 

Heritage Areas and I am here today in support of National 

Heritage Area Act, H.R. 445. 

First, I want to extend our sincere appreciation to Congressmen 

Dent and Tonko for their vision and leadership in crafting a bipartisan bill that has 36 co-sponsors today. The legislation addresses 

key issues to the National Heritage Areas by formalizing our partnership with the National Park Service, and partnerships are important to the National Park Service’s future. 

We understand the National Park Service has a daunting mission of interpreting America’s most significant resources. We also 

recognize the challenges of managing the Federal budget. However, 

the American public continues to want access to the national parks 

and public lands, and particularly in our urban centers. To help 

meet this sort of incongruent processes, the partnerships for the 

National Park Service are key to their future. 

The first National Heritage Area designated was signed into law 

by President Reagan 30 years ago next month. It was seen as farreaching. It was a locally driven, multi-discipline approach to saving nationally significant stories and related resources. 

Despite the fact that groups across the Nation started to emulate 

this innovative approach, the establishment has been slow to embrace this cost-effective approach to partnerships. Thus, we remain 

today without a viable National Heritage Area partnership program within the National Park Service structure. 

The present process of designation before all planning is completed is deeply flawed. It authorizes the life of a new National 

Heritage Area starts the day the Act is signed. But sometimes it 

takes 5 years before you have Secretary’s approval of that plan. 

This puts the new National Heritage Area in an awkward position 

of not being able to meet benchmarks established by Congress and 

the National Park Service, not to mention unfulfilled expectation of 

local partners because of the time process. 

When implementation depends on partnerships, there are a lot 

of variables in the planning process. It is not prudent practice to 

designate a National Heritage Area before the action plan is complete, before the roles are all defined, before local approvals are all 

received, and the management entity is up and functioning. 

Also, the planning process provides time for the local partners to 

truly study alternative approaches. Perhaps through the public discussion process, the best alternative is not a National Heritage 

Area; it may be something else. The framework under H.R. 445 

provides all appropriate planning documents be presented to 

Congress, along with the Secretary’s recommendation prior to congressional designation. And to assist local partners with the process of planning, H.R. 445 provides funding for the National Park 

78 

Service to work with up to three planning areas a year. This also 

puts control on the growth of new initiatives. 

The bill provides for National Park Service with ongoing authority to provide national financial assistance of National Heritage 

Areas. Of course, Congress still approves the level of heritage partnership funding each fiscal year, and the National Park Service 

would then apply any funding formula criteria they would have. 

But this brings needed financial stability to all National Heritage 

Areas, and will enhance our ability to sustain non-Federal funding 

sources. Also, the bill requires the National Park Service to do an 

evaluation of each National Heritage Area’s work every 10 years. 

The final point I would like to make is the bill does nothing to 

interfere with local authorities, Federal authorities, or state authorities of any agency, and it does nothing to interfere with private property rights. 

And also, if designation takes place after planning, that process 

of planning allows for any public concerns to come to the surface 

and to be addressed before a designation actually takes place. 

I think Director Jarvis said it best, that National Heritage Areas 

are places where small investments pay huge dividends, providing 

demonstrable benefits to communities across the country and in 

partnership with our national parks. 

I thank you for the opportunity to present testimony, and 

available for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sachse follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF C. ALLEN SACHSE, CHAIR OF THE ALLIANCE OF NATIONAL

HERITAGE AREAS ON H.R. 445 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, my name is Allen 

Sachse and I serve as Chair of the Alliance of National Heritage Areas (ANHA). The 

ANHA is a not-for-profit organization that serves the National Heritage Areas. 

Today 45 of the 49 National Heritage Areas are members of the ANHA. In 2012, 

I retired as President of the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor (D&L) 

in eastern PA, but I continue to serve the D&L in an advisory capacity. I am here 

today on behalf of the ANHA to offer support to H.R. 445—National Heritage Area 

Act of 2013. I thank Chairman Bishop for placing H.R. 445 on the hearing schedule. 

Last fall, I had the opportunity to visit Mormon Pioneer National Heritage Area and 

very much enjoyed experiencing many of the great accomplishments in the State of 

Utah by Mormon Pioneer. I also want to thank Ranking Member Grijalva for your 

continued support of the National Heritage Area movement and I had the pleasure 

of visiting Yuma National Heritage Area some time ago. Finally, I want to thank 

Congressman Cartwright, who serves on this subcommittee and represents part of 

the Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor for his support of the work of 

the corridor. 

Before I address the merits of this legislation, on behalf of the ANHA, I want to 

extend our sincere appreciation to Congressman Dent and Congressman Tonko for 

their vision, support, and leadership in crafting a bipartisan bill (H.R. 445), which 

was introduced by Congressman Dent. Also, we want to acknowledge the 35 cosponsors. We believe this legislation will address issues vital to the National 

Heritage Areas, but beyond that it will also establish an innovative partnership program so important to the future of the National Park Service (NPS). 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we all understand the NPS has 

a daunting mission of interpreting the most significant American stories and preserving the key resources related to those stories. We also recognize and appreciate 

the challenges of managing the Federal budget. No doubt, for the foreseeable future, 

the fiscal limitations will continue to affect all Federal agencies including the NPS. 

However, the American public has shown no sign of tiring of their national parks 

or desiring reductions in park opportunities. To the contrary, there is a demand for 

more service and accessibility to our public lands, especially near urban centers. So 

as we approach the second century of the NPS, how do we address these seemingly 

incongruent realities? A major part of the answer is that the NPS, without owning 

79 

everything that is nationally significant, will be required to expand its current level 

and use of public/private partnerships. 

Jon Jarvis, Director of the NPS, recognized the contribution NHAs are capable of 

when he stated, ‘‘National Heritage Areas are places where small investments pay 

huge dividends, providing demonstrable benefits in communities across the country 

and in partnership with our national Parks.’’ 

The Illinois & Michigan National Heritage Corridor, the first National Heritage 

Area, was designated by Congress and signed into law 30 years ago next month by 

President Reagan. Seen as an innovative approach to resource protection, it brought 

together the interests of preservation, conservation, recreation, and economic development for the first time to address a nationally significant story, which was woven 

throughout the living landscape. 

Unfortunately, the process for designation has changed very little over the past 

three decades, despite the fact there are now 49 National Heritage Areas. The major 

flaw is that most often the National Heritage Area designation takes place before 

the actual planning is completed. This immediately sets a National Heritage Area 

in the awkward position of failing to achieve certain benchmarks with both NPS and 

Congress, not to mention the unfulfilled expectations of local partners. It is not uncommon for the time period from the initiation of planning process to actually receiving the Secretary’s approval to take as long as 5 years. But the authorization 

life of the National Heritage Area starts from the date the act is signed by the 

President. There have been cases where as much as one-half of the new area’s authorization period has been consumed with planning, leaving little time for successful implementation. The outcome is that many, if not all, of the newer National 

Heritage Areas are at a significant disadvantage and will need to spend valuable 

staff time seeking extensions to their authorizations and less time on actual execution of their plan. 

Designation before planning creates a second major problem. Without the plans 

in hand, Congress has no verification of national theme, significance of resources are 

not documented, the boundary is often unclear, the action plan is unknown, the financial feasibility has not been measured, there is no business plan, and the local 

management entity may still be in question. However, H.R. 445 will change that 

by placing the responsibility of determining significance on the NPS and requiring 

the local management entity to demonstrating capacity before congressional designation is sought. One can understand how some Members of Congress may view 

the present designation with a great deal of skepticism. 

The proposed bill provides a framework for congressional designation of all future 

National Heritage Areas, which will be built on research, planning, capacity building, and public participation. Under H.R. 445 all appropriate documents related to 

Feasibility and Management Planning would be presented to Congress, along with 

the Secretary’s recommendation, prior to congressional action on the designation. 

Also, under H.R. 445 Congress may appropriate sufficient funds to NPS initiate up 

to three study projects annually, thereby controlling the growth of new area 

designations. 

Completing the management plan before designation allows for the NPS and local 

partners to truly study alternative types of technical services, program assistance, 

partnerships, management options, and designations. Perhaps the public planning 

process will reveal that the path to becoming a National Heritage Area is not the 

best choice for the local partners to pursue. 

H.R. 445 also provides the NPS with ongoing authority to provide financial assistance to individual National Heritage Areas. However, there will always be other factors to determine the specific amount of funding the NPS would provide to each 

National Heritage Area in a given fiscal year. First and foremost, Congress will approve the total level of funding available for the Heritage Partnership Program with 

the approval of the Interior Appropriations bill each fiscal year. Next the NPS would 

then apply the criteria of funding formula, which it has developed with input from 

the National Heritage Areas. Also, the bill requires the NPS to evaluate the accomplishments of each National Heritage Area at least every 10 years and report to 

Congress any appropriate changes to the level of NPS assistance in the future. However, the ongoing authorization provided by H.R. 445 ensures much needed stability 

to the partnership and assures the NPS remains a stakeholder. 

The approval of H.R. 445 will provide no special authorities or powers to the local 

managing entity of the National Heritage Area. Nothing in the Act changes existing 

authorities or statute of any Federal, state, or local government agency and nothing 

in the Act interferes with the rights of private or public property owners. In addition, requiring the planning before congressional designation provides the opportunity any private property concerns to be raised during the public participation 

80 

process. Thus, if there are concerns they will be address before designation is made, 

or perhaps this could even be a reason for denial/no action. 

The last point I would like to make is that the enactment will likely lead to standardized procedures and policies within the NPS related to National Heritage Areas. 

Presently, it is not uncommon for the NPS regional offices to provide different levels 

of technical assistance and guidance to the National Heritage Areas, making the 

work across the Nation inconsistent and arbitrary. 

We all know that change does not come quickly, particularly when it relates to 

governmental agencies. Similarly, new and innovative approaches will have both 

naysayers and advocates. The National Heritage Area movement has certainly faced 

its share of distractions. Approval of National Heritage Area Act of 2013 would finally put structure to this shared (Federal, state, and local agency) approach to resource preservation, conservation, interpretation, and management. It will recognize 

all existing and future National Heritage Areas as part of the National Park 

System. The new process will bring real merit and destination to the designation 

and stabilize other funding partners by eliminating the doubt and uncertainty the 

National Heritage Area faces with sunset. Going forward the NPS could expect 

the National Heritage Areas to become a viable component/partner in telling the 

American story. 

Despite the major flaws of the existing program and processes, the model has 

withstood this test of time and the naysayers. The National Heritage Areas that 

have had the benefit of time and funding support have established a high level of 

accomplishments. There is no doubt that a structured and viable National Heritage 

Program within the NPS will add continued value and resources in support of the 

mission of the NPS. The following points are just a few of the accomplishments that 

demonstrate the possibilities. 

There are many lessons to be learned about partnership management by studying 

the successes of the program as it has evolved over the past three decades. At the 

request of Congress, the NPS commissioned a series of evaluations of nine of the 

longstanding National Heritage Areas. The work was completed by Westat, an external evaluation firm. The evaluations have verified the accomplishments of the 

nine National Heritage Area partnerships to address the purpose defined in the legislative language and the original designation: the National Heritage Areas’ ability 

to leverage additional funds to meet program and infrastructure needs four to one 

(non-Federal to Federal) in most cases; the National Heritage Areas employed sound 

management and fiscal responsibility; the National Heritage Areas relied on public 

participation and created partnerships to carry out the work; the partners preserved 

nationally significant resources; and the NPS was an invaluable partner. 

The National Heritage Area approach is particularly well suited to address a nationally significant story that is spread across a very complex and lived-in landscape. One example, more than any other initiative affiliated with the NPS, the 

National Heritage Area approach has become the most practical framework for addressing de-industrialized landscapes in urban areas. Local National Heritage Area 

partnerships have emphasized the preservation of sites associated with labor and 

working class history. Abandoned industrial sites with national significance as well 

as superfund sites have been re-purposed for a variety of uses including commercial, 

clean energy, housing, tourism, trails, and even environmental education. 

The fact that heritage tourism represents a significant portion of the industry is 

sometimes overlooked. Heritage travelers includes both domestic and foreign 

visitors, all desiring to explore and learn more about America. Although National 

Heritage Areas are lived-in landscapes, they are places of authenticity where the 

stories of America are told and visitors want to explore. 

In February 2013, the Northeast Regional Office of the NPS (NER NPS) released 

a report titled The Economic Impact of National Heritage Areas. The NER NPS 

partnered with the ANHA and the Heritage Development Partnership, a non-profit 

501(c)3 subsidiary of the ANHA, to measure the economic impact of the National 

Heritage Area partnership work of within the region. Tripp Umbach, a nationally 

recognized firm specializing in research, strategy planning and economic impact 

analysis, was commissioned to undertake the study. Among the 21 National 

Heritage Areas within the northeast region, six were used as case studies. Data collection occurred in these six National Heritage Areas. The subsequent estimates and 

projections were made using IMPLAN economic impact software. The analysis and 

projections demonstrated that— 

81 

• The 21 NHAs within the Northeast Region of the United States combine for 

a projected annual economic impact of $5.4 billion. The National Heritage 

Areas in the Northeast Region support more than 66,880 jobs and generate 

$602.7 million in local and state taxes. 

• Additional analysis extrapolates the economic benefit of all National Heritage 

Areas sites in the United States. The projected annual economic benefit of all 

49 NHA sites on the Nation’s economy is $12.9 billion. The economic activity 

supports nearly 150,000 jobs, many of which are small businesses, and $1.2 

billion in Federal taxes from sources such as employee compensation, proprietor income, indirect business tax, households, and corporations. 

Often it is said by critics of the program that funding appropriated to National 

Heritage Areas is funding lost to the mission of the NPS. Nothing is further from 

the truth, for the benefits of leveraging funding and shared management will repaid 

many times over. The National Heritage Areas that have their essence from historic 

canals demonstrate this return to the NPS. 

Early canals connected the major maritime cities to the Great Lakes and on to 

the Mississippi River. Canals provided water power for mills; canals moved massive 

amounts coal and other raw materials to manufacturers of industrial products; canals transported the manufactured products to the consumers, improving commerce 

and trade; canals became the means to grow and expand our young nation. Before 

railroads, the canals were the transportation backbone necessary to ignite the industrial revolution. There are seven National Heritage Areas whose stories emanate 

from canals—Augusta Canal, Blackstone River Valley, Delaware & Lehigh, Erie 

Canalway, Illinois & Michigan, Ohio and Erie Canalway, and Schuylkill River. Each 

is working in partnership with the NPS, state, and local agencies to preserve and 

tell this nationally significant story. Collectively, the seven National Heritage Areas 

received approximately $3.7 million in NPS Heritage Partnership funding in Fiscal 

Year 2014, which is modest when one considers it is less than half of what it costs 

to own and operate a historic canal as part of the National Park System. Granted, 

one cannot accurately compare the cost of managing any given mile of a historic 

canal to another, for the resources vary greatly, as well as the level of care. However, one can easily see that local ownership and multiple partners sharing the 

management responsibility can pay significant dividends to the NPS. These 

National Heritage Areas partnerships are conserving approximately 1,000 miles of 

historic canal corridors and in the process, miles of watered canal have been saved. 

These historic corridors are becoming tomorrow’s network of trails and blue ways 

connecting population centers to parks and historical sites of national, state, and 

local importance. The waterfront towns along the way are experiencing re-purposed 

buildings, preserved neighborhoods, and small business development. This is all accomplished by leveraging the collective resources and the partners’ commitment to 

preserving their shared heritage and sense of place. 

As catalysts for community and economic revitalization, National Heritage Areas 

implement projects through public/private partnerships with a variety of stakeholders, and collaborate with private businesses, foundations, non-profit organizations, state and local governments to ensure that the regional goals of cultural, 

historical, recreational and resource conservation are met. National Heritage Areas 

contribute to the quality of life in communities where heritage and resource conservation become building blocks for community revitalization, job creation and 

tourism. National Heritage Areas provide ability for a community to maintain a 

unique sense of place, enhancing development opportunities while teaching about 

America’s history and culture. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in support 

of the National Heritage Area Act of 2013—H.R. 445. I ask that the committee approve this bill. This is not only important to the 49 existing National Heritage 

Areas, but it is important to the future of the NPS in these challenging fiscal times. 

I am available to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Sachse. I have no 

questions. I am pinch-hitting for Mr. Bishop, who was called to the 

Floor. And, as we speak, he is on the Floor. So I have no questions. 

However, I will just say that if there are questions from any 

members of the committee after this is over, and we send the question to you, if you would respond in writing we appreciate it very 

much. 

82 

Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, and I also want to join in thanking 

the two colleagues, Mr. Tonko and Mr. Dent, for the legislation. 

In the process of this committee dealing with the designation of 

new requests for heritage areas—we have the one today, 

Greenway—and this is why I appreciate this legislation—the issues 

that have been brought up as points of concern or areas of opposition have been the authorization process, which is hard to define 

how that process works. 

Mr. SACHSE. Right. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And it is addressed in the legislation by essentially creating a unit of heritage areas across the country, where 

there is going to be uniformity in terms of criteria, evaluation, and 

reinforces the overlay concept, which, what I mean by that is that 

it is a designation that overlays everything else that is in the area, 

with no jurisdictional controls or regulatory controls or property 

controls laid on top of that overlay. That has always been a point 

of opposition. 

The other area, I think, is, during that 10-year period, to require 

benchmarks, as the project moves along. 

I say all those things, because, as was mentioned earlier, before 

we consider future heritage areas—and there are some that have 

been—Santa Cruz Heritage Area in my district has been introduced now 8 years, four sessions in a row. I can name other 

Members who have that same situation. And it has been the lack 

of uniformity and the lack of criteria that has been the principal 

reason, and the authorization for how long of a period of time. 

I think this legislation begins to answer that. I think it is a good 

step forward. It kind of opens it up, not only for Greenway in this 

instance, but those that have been languishing for quite a while, 

waiting for some daylight to be able to be discussed at a hearing, 

and lets the proponents and the people that are backing them come 

and state the case for that private-private, private-public partnership, the buy-in of the community, and the safeguards regarding 

the overlay. And I think that this is a good step, and I would hope 

that this legislation moves forward. 

Let me ask you a question, Mr. Sachse, and for the 49 that exist, 

the legislation essentially codifies those 49 in terms of authorization from here into the future. If you look at heritages areas, there 

is the Yuma one in southern Arizona, some in New Mexico. But 

portions, particularly the West, don’t have the preponderance of 

heritage areas dedicated in some of those areas. So how would 

those new regional issues be dealt with? Does codifying 49 in a permanent status limit the ability down the road for new heritage 

areas to become part of? 

Mr. SACHSE. The way I read the bill it wouldn’t, no. And there 

are heritage areas in Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Alaska, also, 

and in Iowa. I guess the one thing in the bill, it does provide assistance for the Park Service to work with new areas, and it provides 

sufficient funding assistance for up to three areas a year, and 

maybe that is a limitation. 

But it certainly doesn’t prohibit new areas from being designated 

anywhere. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, designation being the first step and then—— 

83 

Mr. SACHSE. Right. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And a critical step, because you can’t convince the 

community that you are really on—have momentum, moving forward, unless you have that designation. 

Mr. SACHSE. Right. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the gentleman for his question, and I 

want to thank you very much for your testimony. I know Mr. 

Bishop started this, this has been a rather long hearing. He has 

covered a lot of ground. Whenever you get toward the end of the 

session, obviously, there are a lot of requests for legislation. And 

certainly this is an important hearing. I am glad that Mr. Bishop 

called it. 

So, if there is no further business to come before the committee, 

the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. NIKI TSONGAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS ON H.R. 445 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for holding this hearing today. I want 

to express my support for H.R. 445, the National Heritage Area Act. I am proud 

to co-sponsor this legislation, which was introduced by my colleagues on the 

National Heritage Area Caucus, Representatives Dent and Tonko. My home district 

is fortunate to have two Heritage Areas: the Essex National Heritage Area and 

Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area. 

And thank you to Mr. Sachse for your testimony outlining issues this legislation 

seeks to address. 

The National Heritage Area Program is an effective, high yield investment of 

Federal funds. According to the National Park Service, Heritage Areas match every 

Federal dollar with an average of $5.50 in other public and private funding. In fact, 

as public-private partnerships that protect nationally significant resources, Heritage 

Areas are among the most efficient and cost-effective programs within the Department of Interior and the entire Federal Government. Heritage Areas leverage their 

Federal funds to create jobs, generate revenue for local governments, and sustain 

local communities through revitalization and heritage tourism. 

And my home region is a great example of the many benefits of utilizing these 

public-private partnerships. According to a recent study conducted by the Alliance 

of National Heritage Areas and the National Park Service, the entire Northeast 

Region sees an economic benefit of approximately $5.4 billion annually thanks to 

our 23 Heritage Areas. They also support over 66,000 jobs and bring in over $600 

million in local and state tax revenues. 

So once again, thank you for holding this hearing today and I hope that the full 

committee will take up this legislation and report it to the House. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND ON S. 476 

Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, for the opportunity 

to express my strong support for S. 476, a bill to amend the Chesapeake and Ohio 

Canal Development Act to extend the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Commission. I appreciate the subcommittee’s consideration of this bill, 

which is the Senate companion measure to legislation I introduced in the House 

with Congressman Frank Wolf and Congressman John Delaney. 

The C&O Canal National Historical Park is a treasure of the National Park 

System. It follows the old C&O Canal and towpath about 185 miles from 

Washington, DC to Cumberland, MD, encompassing three states and the District of 

Columbia along the way. It passes through cities, towns, and rural areas, providing 

84 

a place for visitors to learn about the history of the canal and enjoy the natural 

beauty of the towpath. 

Because the park spans so many diverse communities, the C&O Canal National 

Historic Park Commission was established to ensure that its neighbors had a formal 

channel through which they could give input and advice on park policy. Though the 

Commission has no authority to make binding park policy, its serves a critical advisory role and has strengthened the relationship between the park and its surrounding communities. 

S. 476 seeks to restore the authority of the Commission, which expired in January 

2011 after being extended three times on a bipartisan basis. I look forward to working with you to extend this authority and allow the Commission to continue to serve 

the park and its neighbors. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MOUNTAINS TO SOUND GREENWAY TRUST, CYNTHIA

WELTI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ON H.R. 1785 

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

thank you for holding today’s hearing. I am Cynthia Welti, Executive Director of the 

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, and am pleased to offer these comments in 

support of H.R. 1785 to establish the Mountains to Sound Greenway National 

Heritage Area. The Trust would like to thank Congressman Reichert and his staff 

for their hard work with us and the National Park Service to develop the consensus 

legislation pending before the committee. We also appreciate the support the cosponsors of this legislation, Representatives Smith, DelBene and McDermott. A 

broad coalition of residents, businesses, government agencies, elected officials, and 

nonprofit organizations has come together in support of this designation effort because they are excited about the economic, cultural, and community benefits that 

National Heritage Area status will provide. This designation fits the Mountains to 

Sound Greenway for the major role this area played in the formation of our Nation, 

and continues to serve today as a model of natural areas in balance with economic 

growth. 

The Landscape 

The Mountains to Sound Greenway is located in Washington State and encompasses 1.5 million acres surrounding Interstate 90 from Seattle, across the crest of 

the Cascade Mountains, to Ellensburg in central Washington. The Greenway contains conserved public forests and parks, private rural farms and working forests, 

and the 15th largest metropolitan area in the Nation. The Mountains to Sound 

Greenway is a large, lived-in, iconic landscape, spanning three watersheds, with 

more than 900,000 acres of public land, 1,600 miles of recreational trails, 28 cities, 

and more than 1.4 million residents. The Greenway provides easy access to outdoor 

recreation and nature for millions of people, a key to the quality of life in 

Washington State. 

History 

The Mountains to Sound Greenway is nationally important for its association with 

the expansion of our national transportation system and the creation of our modern 

timber industry. Beginning with the foot paths that Native Americans used to cross 

the Cascade Mountains, Snoqualmie Pass has funneled cultural exchange between 

East and West for thousands of years. This unique geography shaped travel routes, 

drove commerce and culture, and inspired bold acts of development and 

groundbreaking conservation. 

The footpath over Snoqualmie Pass linked the Coast Salish tribes with Yakama 

people of the Columbia Plateau, and ultimately, through an extensive trading network, to the Great Plains. The route they established, following the lowest pass in 

the North Cascades, went on to shape how this region and the United States 

developed. 

The Oregon Treaty of 1846 which set the U.S. northern boundary west of the 

Rocky Mountains, included the Puget Sound area, key to the Nation’s future trade 

routes. However, the daunting natural barrier of the Cascades mountain range kept 

the region and its valuable assets isolated from the rest of the nation. While the 

mountains, forests, and waterways of the region were rich in natural resources, and 

offered extremely valuable deep-water harbors on the Pacific Ocean, these assets 

were not available because of the lack of overland connection to the established markets of the eastern United States. 

85 

In 1864, President Lincoln signed the charter for a northern transcontinental railroad, mandating that the terminus be on Puget Sound. Lacking cash to fund the 

massive construction effort, the United States awarded the Northern Pacific 

Railroad the largest land grant in American history. The government transferred 40 

million acres, or 2 percent of the contiguous United States, to the railroad as a subsidy for building the rail line. 

Construction of the Northern Pacific, and later the Milwaukee Railroad, through 

the Snoqualmie Pass area was crucial in connecting this remote corner to the rest 

of the Nation. This historic transportation corridor forged a singularly rugged traverse through the last frontier of the continental United States, before descending 

through vast stands of timber to reach the estuarine complex of Puget Sound. These 

East-West transcontinental rail lines, and later the Sunset Highway and Interstate 

90, connected the Atlantic seaboard and the Great Plains with Seattle and Puget 

Sound, weaving the Pacific Northwest into the Nation’s fabric and placing the last 

link in the chain allowing full trade between the United States and Asia. 

The towering rainforests are a defining feature of the Pacific Northwest, and the 

Northern Pacific Railroad land grant has been instrumental in shaping the timber 

industry as a cornerstone of the region’s economy. The privatization of massive 

quantities of Federal land in the Cascades changed timber’s business model, transforming the industry from a collection of small, temporary operations to long-term 

resource management of tree harvesting in the Cascades. This led to sustainable 

harvesting practices that have been replicated across the Nation. 

The Northern Pacific Railroad saw the potential value of the forests alongside its 

tracks, and was determined to capitalize on that resource. They created a timber 

subsidiary that became Plum Creek Timber, the largest private landowner in the 

Nation to this day. Some of the land was sold to other timber interests, including 

900,000 acres that launched the Weyerhaeuser timber company. Both Plum Creek 

and Weyerhaeuser are still based in the Seattle area. 

This wealth of timber that provided the resource base to complete our Nation’s 

rail system in the late 1800s went on to supply crucial construction materials to 

power the American war machine in World War I. Boeing was founded in the 

Seattle area to turn the region’s spruce trees into war planes, and Douglas Fir was 

used to build ships for the U.S. Navy. 

The railroads, and the network of logging roads that came with them, created access to the Cascade Mountains for a wide array of outdoor recreation. Citizens of 

the region flocked to the mountains for skiing, hiking, mountaineering, and other 

endeavors, and began forming a special bond with their natural surroundings that 

still defines the region’s culture today. 

By the mid-1950s, residents started to realize that it was possible for us to delve 

too deeply and overwhelm the natural bounty of the region. A new era of citizenled conservation began. Local citizens united to create a sewage-treatment authority 

to clean up Lake Washington in the 1950s—a groundbreaking antecedent to the 

Clean Water Act. In the 1960s, voters enacted the largest park-bond issue in the 

country at that time to preserve and expand a network of parks and boulevards. 

In 1979, citizens of King County voted to preserve prime farmland in the county, 

the first time voters anywhere in the Nation had voted to tax themselves to preserve farmlands. In the late 1980s, Washington State Parks acquired 300 miles of 

the defunct Milwaukee Railroad, leading to what is now the longest rail-trail conversion in the country. 

Greenway Coalition 

By the mid-1980s, the Seattle region was beginning to boom with new technology 

industries and the population was growing rapidly. Concerned citizens realized that 

much of this growth would sprawl out from Seattle along Interstate 90. In 1991, 

community leaders formed a coalition of agencies, businesses, and activists, the nonprofit Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, to create and implement a common vision that would balance strong economic growth with retaining the region’s defining 

characteristics: a dramatic physical landscape whose history is still very much intact, giving rise to and sustaining a unique ecological resource and a network of 

towns and cities inextricably tied to the land. 

In its first two decades of work, this Mountains to Sound Greenway coalition has 

rendered remarkable accomplishments. Working with large timber corporations and 

government agencies, partners have connected a major swath of public land, instituted new education programs, and involved hundreds of thousands of volunteers 

in trail renovation and ecological restoration. 

86 

Heritage Study 

After 20 years of successful collaboration in creating the Mountains to Sound 

Greenway, residents realized the time had come to gain official recognition of this 

special place in our Nation that deserves special care. The National Heritage Area 

program stood out as the best vehicle for this recognition, providing a flexible framework and tools for formalizing partnerships and interpreting resources—without 

affecting property rights or land management structures. In 2009, the Mountains 

to Sound Greenway Trust initiated the Heritage Study, a public involvement campaign to gain formal recognition of the landscape, and to lay a pathway for the upcoming decades. The Heritage Study was a stakeholder-driven process that included 

more than 150 meetings with more than 1,000 individuals. 

As a part of the Heritage Study, stakeholders from around the Greenway agreed 

upon boundaries. The boundaries of the proposed Mountains to Sound Greenway 

National Heritage Area are based on the history of the transportation corridor in 

the vicinity of Snoqualmie Pass, marked by the intersection of the Northern Pacific 

and Milwaukee Railroad transcontinental rail lines, the historic Sunset Highway, 

and today’s Interstate 90. The boundaries encompass many of the railroad spur 

lines that stretched north and south from these transcontinental lines in the center 

of the Greenway, comprising an assemblage of resources that tell the Greenway’s 

story with focus and integrity. 

The proposed boundaries are appropriate to the Greenway’s nationally important 

themes. They are pragmatic, realistic, and follow modern-day political and landmanagement structures, thus offering the best formula for long-term success as 

Greenway communities seek to manage and interpret resources across this diverse 

landscape. They are based in strong public interest and hold significant opportunities to enhance the resources of this land and its nationally important story. 

The Greenway Trust studied the feasibility of establishing a National Heritage 

Area and worked closely with the National Park Service. We met all the agency’s 

program criteria as reflected in the April 2012 Feasibility Study and the March 

2014 Feasibility Study Addendum. 

Community Support 

Nearly 2,000 elected officials, agencies, businesses, and individuals have expressed their support of the Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area, 

and are excited about the benefits of this non-regulatory approach to conservation. 

Major corporations, such as supporters Microsoft, Expedia, CH2M HILL, and 

Recreational Equipment Inc. (REI), see the advantages of locating near an inspiring 

landscape with easy access to mountains, lakes, and trails. Elected officials know 

the long-term benefits of engaging the whole community in local planning. The legislation has support from Governor Inslee, the entire King County Council, and all 

Kittitas County Commissioners. A wide range of nonprofits support designation, 

drawn by the opportunities to protect quality of life while conserving natural and 

historic resources and growing tourism. Between the Kittitas County Historical 

Museum in Ellensburg, the Museum of History and Industry in Seattle, the Association of King County Historical Organizations, and a dozen others, the campaign has 

robust backing from the historical community. 

This designation will help us keep the balance between urban and natural areas 

as people continue to move here. It will build an awareness of this unique landscape 

that highlights its historical contributions to the Nation and draws tourism dollars 

to local communities. Designating the Greenway as a National Heritage Area will 

also empower citizens, businesses, interest groups, and government agencies to work 

together more efficiently toward ensuring the Greenway remains a cornerstone of 

this broad community for generations to come. With National Heritage Area designation, we can promote a shared vision of the Greenway that will aid in raising 

private funds to leverage government grants and vastly increase the productivity of 

our efforts. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to share our region’s national significance 

with the subcommittee. We ask for your support and advocacy for the Mountains 

to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area Act. Those of us in the region know that 

our home and landscape have played a special place in America’s story, and we are 

ready to join Congress, the National Park Service, and the rest of the National 

Heritage Area network in sharing our stories with the Nation. We welcome any 

questions you may have. 

87 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF YUMA CROSSING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA, THOMAS D. 

RUSHIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ON H.R. 445 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and other distinguished members of 

the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony in support of 

H.R. 445 on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, as well as its many public and private partners. 

I am a life-long resident of Yuma, Arizona. I devoted my career to education, and 

most recently served as the Superintendent of Schools before retiring. 

NPS Director Jon Jarvis perhaps said it best when he called National Heritage 

Areas ‘‘places where small investments pay huge dividends.’’ Yuma is an excellent 

example. For decades, Yumans wanted to reclaim their riverfront along the Colorado River, which was infested with non-native vegetation, hobo camps and trash 

dumps. Beginning in 2000, the Heritage Area served as the catalyst for these efforts, bringing together a diverse set of partners to make our riverfront attractive 

and accessible. Riverfront parks . . . wetlands restoration . . . facilitating new private investment on the riverfront . . . saving Yuma’s state historic parks from closing. These are some of the many accomplishments of our heritage area. 

We support this bill because it will bring standards of accountability, which will 

strengthen the National Heritage Area program. We welcome clear criteria for inclusion, a method for a fair funding formula, and a process for rigorous evaluation for 

existing Heritage Areas. We have a proud record of accomplishment for which we 

invite examination and scrutiny. 

I am attaching expressions of support for the Heritage Area from the community, 

including resolutions from the Yuma County Board of Supervisors, the Yuma City 

Council, and the Quechan Tribal Council. 

I also wish to address a myth about the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area. 

Some allege that private property rights have been infringed here; nothing could be 

further from the truth. About 10 years ago, we worked through some misunderstandings with the farming community—and they are now our strongest supporters. 

Nothing expresses the solidarity of our community in support of the Heritage Area 

than a 2010 letter (attached) from our past Chair and current member, Patricia 

Ware, who comes from pioneer farming stock. 

I am also attaching a letter from the Yuma County Chamber of Commerce, which 

further puts to rest these questions surrounding private property rights. 

H.R. 445 not only strengthens the Heritage Area program. In fact, it strengthens 

the National Park Service as it approaches its second century by empowering local 

communities to tell America’s story and conserve our heritage. 

Thank you. 

Attachments 

88 

ATTACHMENT 1—YUMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION NO. 2014–08 


88967.007.eps 88967.008.eps
89 

ATTACHMENT 2—CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUMA RESOLUTION NO. R2014–08 


88967.009.eps 88967.010.eps
90 

ATTACHMENT 3—QUECHAN INDIAN TRIBE RESOLUTION R–65–14 


88967.011.eps
91 


88967.012.eps 88967.013.eps
92 

ATTACHMENT 4—YUMA CROSSING HERITAGE AREA LETTER TO THE HERITAGE

FOUNDATION


88967.014.eps
93 


88967.015.eps
94 

ATTACHMENT 5—YUMA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LETTER TO HON. JOHN

MCCAIN


88967.016.eps
95 

RESOLUTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY JIM OGSBURY ON H.R. 4901 

Western Governors’ Association 

Policy Resolution 13–01 

Federal-State Land Exchanges and Purchases 

A. BACKGROUND 

1. Congress granted lands to states as they were admitted into union to be held 

in trust for support of public schools. Over time, the federal government has 

created conservation areas such as national monuments, wildlife refuges and 

wilderness study areas on public lands that surround or affect many of these 

trust lands. Tribal reservations and military withdrawals have also created 

state enclaves within federal landholdings. 

2. Federal and state land managers, land users, the environmental community 

and the public all agree that the ‘‘checkerboard’’ land ownership pattern prevailing in much of the West is a major hindrance to effective and ecologically 

sound management of both federal and state lands. 

3. Currently, there are three methods of resolving the checkerboard land tenure 

issue in the West: (1) land exchanges under existing legislation, such as 

Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA); (2) the direct federal 

purchase of non-federal lands within federal management areas under 

Federal Lands Transfer Facilitation Act (FLTFA); and (3) individual acts of 

Congress. However, all three are lengthy, expensive, and inefficient. 

4. Federal land exchanges—whether with states or private interests—are 

conducted under the FLPMA. FLPMA requires that land exchanges be of 

equal value as determined by appraisal and that the public interest is ‘‘well 

served by making [the land] exchange.’’ The complex regulatory requirements 

associated with FLPMA exchanges create unintentional barriers to federalstate land exchanges. 

5. Generally, the estimated values of lands proposed for exchange are established through appraisals, which must be done in accordance with federal 

standards and other requirements. If the federal land value is estimated to 

be less than $150,000, an appraiser’s statement of value (a professional assessment that is based on more limited information than is included in a full 

appraisal) can be used. 

6. The FLTFA allows the Department of the Interior agencies and the Forest 

Service to use the proceeds from sales of surplus federal lands to acquire 

inholdings in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests and 

other designated areas, including the National Landscape Conservation 

System. FLTFA was passed in 2000 with a 10-year sunset. The act was reauthorized for one year in 2010, but was not extended at the July, 2011 

expiration. 

7. The Western States Land Commissioners’ Association (WSLCA) has drafted 

proposed legislation to solve part of the land tenure problems based on a process known as ‘‘in lieu’’ selections. In lieu selections are established by 43 

U.S.C. 851–852 and allow western land grant states to select federal lands 

in lieu of land originally granted to the states that became unavailable due 

to preexisting conveyances or federal special purpose designations. Under the 

WSLCA proposal, states would have the right to relinquish state trust lands 

within federal conservation designations to the United States, and select replacements lands from unappropriated federal public lands within the states. 

B. GOVERNORS’ POLICY POSITION 

1. To improve management of both federal and state lands in areas where there 

is checkerboarded ownership or state lands are completely captive within the 

boundaries of a federal management area, Western Governors call on 

Congress to simplify and expedite the federal-state land exchange and sale 

process. 

2. The Governors request Congress amend the FLPMA to add language to: 

• Index the existing $150,000 threshold for using an expedited exchange 

process for inflation since the $150,000 threshold was adopted in 1986; 

96 

• Allow use of a statement of value to replace the appraisal process in federalstate exchanges of similar rural lands; and 

• Presume any agreed federal-state land exchange as in public interest unless 

clearly countervailing factors are present (federal-private exchanges are not 

included in this presumption). 

3. The Governors request that Congress reauthorize the FLTFA with priority to 

be given to acquisition of state inholdings. 

4. The Governors encourage Congress to introduce and pass legislation that incorporates the proposed federal-state land selection improvements proposed 

by the WSLCA. 

C. GOVERNORS’ MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE 

1. The Governors direct the WGA staff, where appropriate, to work with 

Congressional committees of jurisdiction and the executive branch to achieve 

the objectives of this resolution including funding, subject to the appropriation process, based on a prioritization of needs. 

2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to develop, as appropriate and 

timely, detailed annual work plans to advance the policy positions and goals 

contained in this resolution. Those work plans shall be presented to, and approved by, Western Governors prior to implementation. WGA staff shall keep 

the Governors informed, on a regular basis, of their progress in implementing 

approved annual work plans. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 4119 

GABEO—GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF BLACK ELECTED OFFICIALS, 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 

JULY 31, 2014. 

Hon. DOC HASTINGS, Chairman, 

Hon. PETER DEFAZIO, Ranking Member, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HASTINGS, RANKING MEMBER DEFAZIO, CHAIRMAN BISHOP AND

RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA: 

Many of us are Lifetime Active Veterans of The Modern Day Civil Rights 

Revolution. We are writing in support of H.R. 4119, the West Hunter Street Baptist 

Church Study Act. We urge you to hold a hearing on this bipartisan and bicameral 

bill so that it can be expeditiously moved through the House Committee on Natural 

Resources and considered by the Full House. This is a bipartisan bill that was introduced in the Senate by Georgia’s two United States Senators (S. 2431) and has the 

support of 62 bipartisan members of the House of Representatives, including members of the House Committee on Natural Resources. The bill is also supported by 

two standard bearers of the Civil Rights Movement: the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the National Association for the Advancement of 

Colored People (NAACP). This Congress, the Committee has reported several ‘‘Study 

acts’’ offered by Members of Congress from both parties and we urge your favorable 

consideration of this important bill. 

H.R. 4119, the West Hunter Street Baptist Church Study Act, will direct the 

Department of Interior to determine whether the historic West Hunter Street 

Church in Atlanta, Georgia meets the criteria for designation in the National Park 

System. 

During the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, the West Hunter 

Street Baptist Church served as a headquarters for many Civil Rights workers and 

organizers. It was the site of many important leadership meetings and doubled as 

a school for nonviolent protest during initiatives such as the Voter Education Project 

97 

and the Freedom Summer of 1964. It was also a spiritual refuge for the countless 

men and women who devoted their lives to the cause. Atlanta, Georgia is already 

home to the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site and several other private 

institutions that commemorate the important role that Atlanta and its people 

played in the Civil Rights Movement, including the newly opened National Center 

for Civil and Human Rights. I personally am honored and blessed to have worked 

and still am in SCLC and The Movement led by Dr. King, Dr. Abernathy, Dr. 

Lowery, Rev. C.T. Vivian, and Dr. Charles Steele, Dr. Bernard Lafayette etc. 

We believe that the West Hunter Street Baptist Church deserves recognition and 

its inclusion in the National Park System will help to complete the story of the Civil 

Rights Movement. I spent many days and nights working with Dr. Ralph David 

Abernathy and Mrs. Juanita in the Old Historic West Hunter Street Baptist 

Church. Many movements were organized in this church. 

The history of the Civil Rights Movement is a lesson in democratic ideals. It is 

a testimony to the strength of our Constitution, and to the courage of our people. 

We deeply believe that it is our duty to preserve these landmarks and to share their 

significance with future generations. As our Nation marks the 50th anniversary of 

Freedom Summer and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, we urge you to hold a hearing on 

this bipartisan and bicameral bill so that it can be expeditiously moved through the 

House Committee on Natural Resources. 

We Shall Overcome 

Peace and Justice, 

TYRONE BROOKS, 

President. 

Æ