U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

85–144 PDF 2014

H.R. 298, H.R. 1167, H.R. 1259, 

H.R. 1633, H.R. 1846, H.R. 2015, 

H.R. 2259, H.R. 2657, H.R. 2954, 

AND H.R. 3188 

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 

FIRST SESSION 

Thursday, October 3, 2013 

Serial No. 113–45 

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 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

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 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

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 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

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 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, October 3, 2013 .......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Amodei, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Nevada ....................................................................................................... 26 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 1 

Daines, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Montana ......................................................................................................... 28 

Letters and statements submitted by ...................................................... 29 

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

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

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

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 5 

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

Horsford, Hon. Steven A., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Nevada ....................................................................................................... 14 

Letters, resolutions and statements submitted by ................................. 14 

McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 35 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Anderson, John, City Councilor, Whitefish, Montana ................................... 46 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2259 ............................................................ 47 

Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Utah ............................................................................................................... 10 

Heck, Hon. Joseph J., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 25 

Larson, Hon. John B., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Connecticut .................................................................................................... 11 

Lee, John, Mayor, city of North Las Vegas, Nevada ..................................... 73 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2015 ............................................................ 75 

McMillan, Kristin, CEO and President, Las Vegas Metro Chamber of 

Commerce ...................................................................................................... 68 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2015 ............................................................ 71 

Miller, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida ............................................................................................................ 8 

Neikirk, William R., Founder, Mill Springs Battlefield Association ............ 37 

Prepared statement on H.R. 298 .............................................................. 38 

Partin, Tom, President, American Forest Resource Council ......................... 50 

Prepared statement on H.R. 3188 ............................................................ 52 

Rogers, Hon. Harold, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Kentucky ........................................................................................................ 9 

Ross, Steve, Councilman, City of Las Vegas, Nevada, Ward 6 ..................... 76 

Letters and resolution submitted by ........................................................ 77 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2015 ............................................................ 83 

Segarra, Pedro E., Mayor, city of Hartford, Connecticut .............................. 42 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1259 ............................................................ 43 

Titus, Hon. Dina, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 24 

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York ................................................................................................... 13 

Vogel, Morris J., President, Lower East Side Tenement Museum ............... 39 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1846 ............................................................ 41 

Whitten, Pat, County Manager, Storey County, Nevada .............................. 65 

Page

IV 

Statement of Witnesses—Continued 

Whitten, Pat, County Manager, Storey County, Nevada—Continued 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1167 ............................................................ 67 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Prepared 

statements on H.R. 1167, H.R. 1633, H.R. 2015, H.R. 2259, and 

H.R. 2657 ...................................................................................................... 88 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Prepared statements on 

H.R. 1633 and H.R. 2259 .............................................................................. 86 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 298, TO DIRECT THE 

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MILL SPRINGS BATTLEFIELD 

LOCATED IN PULASKI AND WAYNE COUNTIES, KENTUCKY, AND THE FEASIBILITY OF ITS INCLUSION IN 

THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1167, RESTORING STOREY COUNTY ACT; 

H.R. 1259, COLTSVILLE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK 

ACT; H.R. 1633, SMALL LANDS TRACTS CONVEYANCE 

ACT; H.R. 1846, LOWER EAST SIDE TENEMENT NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE AMENDMENTS ACT; H.R. 2015, 

LAS VEGAS VALLEY PUBLIC LAND AND TULE SPRINGS 

FOSSIL BEDS NATIONAL MONUMENT ACT OF 2013; 

H.R. 2259, NORTH FORK WATERSHED PROTECTION 

ACT OF 2013; H.R. 2657, DISPOSAL OF EXCESS FEDERAL 

LANDS ACT OF 2013; H.R. 2954, TO AUTHORIZE 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO CONVEY CERTAIN 

PROPERTY THAT WAS FORMERLY PART OF SANTA 

ROSA ISLAND NATIONAL MONUMENT AND THAT WAS 

CONVEYED TO ESCAMBIA COUNTY SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS ON USE AND RECONVEYANCE; AND 

H.R. 3188, TO EXPEDITE THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SALVAGE TIMBER SALES AS PART OF 

FOREST SERVICE AND DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES FOR LANDS WITHIN THE STANISLAUS NATIONAL 

FOREST AND YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK AND 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS ADVERSELY 

IMPACTED BY THE 2013 RIM FIRE IN CALIFORNIA 

Thursday, October 3, 2013 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

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

Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Tipton, Labrador, 

Amodei, Daines, LaMalfa, Smith, Grijalva, Holt, Horsford, 

Huffman, DeFazio. 

Also present: Representatives Heck and Titus. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. This hearing will come to order. The Chair 

notes the presence of a quorum. 

2 

Under the rules, the opening statements are limited to the 

Chairman and Ranking Member; however, I ask unanimous consent to include any other Member’s opening statement in the hearing record if submitted to the clerk by the close of business today, 

and hearing no objections, it is so ordered. 

Before we turn to the bills at hand, I want to simply comment 

on the events that have been occurring under our jurisdiction, especially on the Mall. Our new Secretary of Interior has—I may be 

wrong on this, but in my estimation, she has tried to bring an idea 

or an aura of new professionalism to her Department. 

In vast contrast to what she is attempting to do, I see nothing 

but cheap pettiness on the part of the Park Service, and it is more 

than just putting up barricades to stop World War II veterans from 

attending open-air monuments, putting on more Park Service personnel to keep people away from those monuments than they ever 

have working them when they are open, but it is a pattern of what 

the Park Service has been doing that we have been talking about 

this entire year. 

We have bills before us today where the Park Service has closed 

down annual church picnics in Washington because it makes too 

much noise for the park next door. We have experiences in Nevada 

where families have had to raise a great deal of money, go to court 

to try to get the ability of just going in and finding their relatives 

who have died on that Park Service property, and once the Park 

Service finally allowed that to take place, after a long period of 

time and after much money was raised, within a matter of days in 

the one instance and a matter of hours in the other, those bodies 

were actually located. 

We have an experience of a river that has been congressionally 

designated as a recreational wild and scenic river where the Park 

Service has banned any kind of paddling activity in that particular 

river. 

We have had the Park Service—Lincoln Park here in Washington 

has been open without ever having a Park Service person walking 

around it, but on Monday the playground was padlocked and 

chained, just the playground. 

What we are seeing in the Park Service is a history of inactions 

where they really don’t care about people. 

I am told the last time there was a government shutdown in 

1995, I believe it was, that the Interior bill was one of the bills that 

had been funded. They had their money. The Park Service shut 

down their parks just for the fun of it in a series of solidarity or 

whatever it was. 

What this Park Service has done is just unacceptable. When we 

hear about a farm in Virginia, Park Service land, but they don’t 

pay for the personnel, they don’t put any money into it, they have 

insisted that those people who are being paid by an outside group, 

still have to close their park down. And the last one is I heard that 

the parking lot at Mount Vernon, which is not Federal property, 

has just been barricaded. 

Now, if that indeed is true, then somebody should call for this 

Park Service Director’s resignation because that is just blatant political spirit and meanness, not an effort to try and help people out. 

I am disgusted with what the Park Service is doing, especially 

3 

when I contrast it to what I think this new Secretary of the Interior is trying to do to add a different level of professionalism in the 

Department. 

So having said that, I welcome our—no, I don’t. I will welcome 

you here, but you can’t talk yet. First I have to turn to the minority 

members for opening statements they may have. 

I will turn first to the Ranking Member of the full committee Mr. 

DeFazio, if he has a statement he wishes to present. 

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

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome our colleagues, and there are a number of bills that will be heard here 

today of which I am particularly supportive. 

I do want to address my remarks to one issue, and it will touch 

on what the Chairman raised about the shutdown or the impacts 

of it, and that is one of the bills that will be heard today, in particular Mr. McClintock, our colleague, is to deal with salvage of 

postcatastrophic fires in California. 

I have considerable experience with dealing with salvage. Early 

in my career I cowrote, negotiated legislation to actually do salvage 

after a catastrophic fire in Oregon, and it was necessary to legislate 

at that point in order to get it done on a timely basis. So I understand the concerns of the gentleman from California and the other 

gentleman from California Mr. Garamendi, who is, I guess, impacted by this, or quite close to it, has also raised concerns about 

how we might expedite salvage. 

We met with the Chief of the Forest Service earlier this week to 

discuss this, and here is the unfortunate thing. The Chief wants to 

go in, do a thorough survey of the damage, plot the whole mosaic 

of the burn, overlay all of the existing plans for those forests to determine what and where and how they might enter to do salvage, 

and that has all ground to a halt because of this shutdown. I don’t 

know the instances that the Chairman raised regarding the Park 

Service and all the facts, but in this case it is not mean-spirited, 

it is just reality that these are not—that they will still fight fires, 

they are going to still do some emergency restoration work before 

the snows or the rains set in. They have already started in Oregon, 

where I also had a very large fire that I wish to have the—in this 

case it happens to be the BLM, although there is a rather smaller 

fire which the Forest Service needs to look at in terms of potential 

for salvage. 

So, Mr. Chairman, as I said a couple of weeks ago on the floor, 

we have some common concerns. I am not certain that we need 

to—I don’t believe that we are going to go down the path of suspending all laws and judicial review to do the salvage, but salvage 

does have a sense of urgency about it. There are tools which the 

Forest Service can use. They have something called an ESD, which 

I just learned about this week, that they can use to expedite after 

appeals, or after they have done a plan to preclude appeals. And 

we might want to look at how we could further modify tools; if we 

could apply HFRA to forest fires, a bill we worked on on a bipartisan basis years ago to prevent fires, which unfortunately has 

4 

never been adequately funded by either a Republican or a Democratic administration, to prevent intense fires. 

So we have got a lot of work before us. I think we have some 

opportunity here to work together, and I just wanted to raise that. 

But I am hopeful we get this shutdown behind us so that the Forest Service can do an orderly plan; we get all the documentation 

we need that is necessary to look at where and how we could do 

salvage, what restoration activities are necessary; and then get an 

emergency appropriations of whatever we need to do to get it done. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETER A. DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Two weeks ago we were on the floor of the House talking about forest management and ways to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires. 

As I said then, there is common ground between Democrats and Republicans on 

this committee about the need for restoration to make our forests more resilient to 

fire and—in some cases—the need for post-fire activities to help put our forests on 

a sustainable, healthy path after a large fire. 

But those activities cost money. Implementing the Healthy Forest Restoration 

Act—which is bipartisan legislation that does reduce government costs and time 

spent developing projects—requires congressional appropriation. 

Putting together salvage projects to extract some economic benefit from post-fire 

events requires congressional appropriation. 

Restoring the landscape, replanting, and executing emergencies activities to protect communities post-fire requires congressional appropriation. 

Timber sales, hazardous fuels contracts, and stewardship contracts—all activities 

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle strongly support—require congressional 

appropriation. 

But none of these things are happening right now thanks to this illogical, irresponsible, completely unnecessary Government shutdown. I hope members of this 

committee understand that what is happening today in Washington is having real 

world, long-term, detrimental consequences on our land management agencies, our 

public resources, and on the communities and businesses that depend on these resources. 

I know my colleague from California, Mr. McClintock, is very concerned about 

possible delays in salvage operations in the Yosemite Rim Fire area. He recently introduced a bill, which is before the committee today, to expedite salvage timber 

sales by waiving all environmental laws and judicial review. 

I can understand the gentleman’s frustrations and anxiety about getting this work 

done. In fact, I have 100,000 burned acres in my district from 2013 fires. 

But I will tell you that the most immediate threat to delay in salvage operations 

in the Yosemite Rim Fire area is not process and potential litigation—it’s the Government shutdown. 

I talked to the Chief of the Forest Service on Tuesday. He has been forced to furlough all non-emergency personnel—some 18,800 employees total. The personnel 

that WOULD be working on planning for salvage and restoration in Yosemite aren’t 

working. 

The only work being done in Yosemite right now is emergency work to put out 

the last remnants of the fire, to stabilize soils, and to ensure public safety. That’s 

it. And when, or if, Forest Service employees return from this disruptive and expensive shutdown, they are going to be facing an even greater work backlog than they 

do now with declining budgets and reduced staff. 

You think these employees are just going to come back and pick up exactly where 

they left off? No. Congress is creating a mountain of paperwork for our Federal 

agencies because of the shutdown. 

I would counsel my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you want timely 

salvage operations in Yosemite or anywhere else in the country—if that’s really your 

goal—fund the Government. 

If you want to move forward with hazardous fuel projects to reduce the risk of 

catastrophic fires like the Rim Fire in the future, fund the Government. 

5 

And if you want to put your constituents back to work in the woods and make 

sure the timber infrastructure in your district or State is supplied with material, 

fund the Government. 

I am happy to work with my Republican colleagues on this committee on legislation that addresses fire and salvage. I don’t think we need to waive all environmental laws and judicial review to accomplish our mutual goals. We should be able 

to come together on legislation that provides our agencies with the tools they need 

to better prevent and respond to wildfires and the devastation wildfires can bring 

to communities and the environment. 

But those tools would be completely useless to our Federal agencies if they aren’t 

open for business. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. If I have time, I would, if the Chairman allows. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, if you have to, go ahead and do it. He actually 

has unlimited time for an opening statement. We were going to discuss this issue later. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. If the Chairman would prefer to discuss it 

later, but since the gentleman has referenced my legislation—— 

Mr. BISHOP. We are going to talk about your bill in detail. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. All right. OK. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me also turn to the Ranking Member of the subcommittee Mr. Grijalva for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit the statement in its entirety for the record. I want to thank our colleagues 

for being here today. 

Personally I am astounded that we are having the hearing to 

begin with. The Government is shut down, employees are locked 

out, and the public is locked out of their public places and national 

parks, and everything is not normal. And while there is legislation 

before us that I support, legislation that I would like to probe even 

further. There are consequences to this shutdown of this Government, and particularly the public lands. 

The incidents that the Chair pointed out that are going on are 

a consequence of the majority shutting down the Government; consequences that are unfortunate, painful to visitors who have 

planned for months to be here, to bring their families, to go to the 

Grand Canyon. The month of October is worth $32 million to the 

Grand Canyon from visitors and from all the business related to 

those visits. So $3.2 million a day disappears from the revenue of 

surrounding communities and the park itself, 400 employees locked 

out, 1,500 concession employees that work for concessionaires, the 

river runners closed, outfitters not doing business. And so there is 

a series of domino consequences to this shutdown, and while we 

can try to nitpick which one we should and which one we shouldn’t, 

we are looking at a wholesale shutdown of this Government, and 

we need to remedy it in that way. 

I appreciate the Republican majority investigating this Government shutdown, having detailed information. It reminds me of 

President George W. Bush investigating how we got into Iraq. 

The fact remains that this is a decision that was made and a decision that can be resolved. The Park Service needs to be open, the 

6 

American people need to see their lands that they pay for and sustain, and I hope as we go forward—and this hearing, while important to the people sponsoring the legislation and important to those 

communities that it represents, nevertheless this is a hearing in a 

vacuum and a hearing that, quite frankly, should occur once the 

Park Service is open and functioning and we can have their personnel here to react and give opinions regarding each one of these 

bills. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time, I yield back, and I will submit the full statement for the record. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank Mr. Grijalva for his statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

I’m astounded that we’re having this hearing today. The Government is shut 

down and we’re going to go on with business like everything is normal? Everything 

is not normal. Despite the rhetoric from the other side, this hearing is not normal. 

Because the Government is shutdown, we will not be able to hear from the administration on several highly controversial bills. That’s not how government should operate. 

While I appreciate that 3 democratic bills were included in today’s hearing, I’m 

wary about the motivation behind today’s meeting. 

On Monday, the majority voted to shut down the Government, shuttering our public lands, including the some of our Nation’s most beloved and visited National 

Parks. People wait all year to see the autumn leaves at Acadia National Park in 

Maine or enjoy cooler temperatures at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. This year, 

however, they are being turned away. 

October is a popular month in many of our National Parks, and local communities 

rely on seasonal income to get through the rest of the year. This seasonal income 

is at risk. In Arizona alone, over 50,000 people visit National Park units every day 

during the month of October. Visitation during October drives $3.2 million in economic activity. That’s $3.2 million being sucked out of the State every day this shutdown continues. 

Right now, people are being turned away from the Grand Canyon. People who 

planned for months, even years, have to cancel their plans and pack up their stuff. 

All roads and trailheads in the park are closed. Hotels on the rim of the canyon 

are forced to close. River launches have stopped. Concessions have stopped. The 

park has had to furlough over 400 employees, and that doesn’t even include the 

1,500 plus concession employees that will be out of work during this senseless shutdown. The shutdown has a serious ripple effect on gateway communities. Grand 

Canyon National Park generates $465 million per year in economic activity. Every 

day this shutdown continues the communities that rely on the park are losing over 

$1 million. 

Shutting down the Government has serious consequences and, like I mentioned 

at the beginning of my remarks, I cannot believe we are holding this hearing today. 

We can’t pretend everything is business as usual. We have to stop playing games 

with the American people. On Tuesday, the Majority held a vote to that singled out 

funding for the National Park Service, the Smithsonian, and the National Holocaust 

Museum. This was cute, but not an effective way to end this shutdown. I voted 

against this piecemeal strategy. We can’t pick out individual programs that make 

good sound bites and fund the Government piece by piece. People do care about 

funding the National Park Service. They also recognize a ruse when they see one. 

Under the individual CR to fund the park service, 81 percent of Department of the 

Interior would be still be furloughed. 

Several of the bills under consideration today are attempts to expedite the sale 

or transfer of Federal lands. Ignoring the public planning process has become a priority for the majority. But even if they had their way, under this shutdown they’ve 

orchestrated, there would be no one working to facilitate the sale of Federal lands. 

I just hope they appreciate that little bit of irony. 

Another bill we’ll be discussing today requires salvage timber sales in the recovery plan for the Rim Fire that burned nearly 80,000 acres in Yosemite National 

Park. Even though the impacted land in the park is primarily wilderness, the bill 

waives all environmental review, the Clean Water Act, and the Wilderness Act. OffiVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
7 

cials from Yosemite have publicly indicated that salvage logging is not necessary, 

but again, we aren’t able to hear from the administration because the Government 

is shutdown. Under the shutdown, there all of the staff that could facilitate salvage 

logging are furloughed. 

I spent this time to raise my concerns about the impacts of the shutdown and 

questioning the rationale for holding this hearing, but I would like to take a minute 

to thank the witnesses for joining us today. It’s not under the best circumstances. 

I recognize that, but I do look forward to your testimony. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. He is right that the administration is not here, but 

will submit their points on each bill for the record, especially as we 

move toward a markup. 

So I thank all of you, our colleagues, for being here. I actually 

appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Arizona as well, and 

for those of you who are coming here and asking to create a Federal facility in your State, I might just remind you that the State 

parks are still open and functioning very well. It’s an option. 

The bills we will be discussing today include H.R. 298 by Mr. 

Rogers of Kentucky to authorize a study of the Mill Springs Battlefield for possible inclusion in the National Park System; H.R. 1167 

and 1633 by Mr. Amodei to resolve issues and deal with small tract 

conveyances; H.R. 1259 by Mr. Larson to establish Coltsville National Historic Park in Connecticut; H.R. 1846 by Ms. Velazquez to 

have the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site Amendment Act; H.R. 2015 by Mr. Horsford—and by the way, we are 

happy to have you back here. You OK? 

Mr. HORSFORD. Great. 

Mr. BISHOP. You are not going to have any kind of medical issue 

with us while you are here? We are happy to have you back. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Stronger and healthier. 

Mr. BISHOP. Good. We are happy to have you back here. 

H.R. 2015 to provide for certain land conveyances in the State of 

Nevada; H.R. 2259 by Mr. Daines, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act; H.R. 2657 by Mr. Chaffetz—or Chavez, as I have heard 

you called all over the place—Disposable Excess Federal Lands Act; 

H.R. 2954 by Mr. Miller to authorize conveyance of certain property in some county in Florida—I can’t pronounce it, I am sorry; 

H.R. 3188 by Mr. McClintock to expedite salvage timber sales damaged in the 2013 Rim Fire. 

We are going to invite you to give your testimony for 5 minutes. 

It is in front of you there. We will then also ask you if you would 

like to join us at the dais for the rest of the procedures as we go 

through your bills. 

I also recognize the gentlelady from Nevada Ms. Titus, who has 

joined us here. We welcome you to the dais as well. I ask unanimous—oh, and Mr. Heck as well from Nevada. I ask unanimous 

consent that Members who are sponsoring bills as well as the other 

Representatives be able to join us on the dais and participate as 

well. Hearing no objections, we will proceed with that. 

Now, Mr. Miller, I understand that you are the one that has the 

most urgent need to go somewhere else. Even though we are going 

to invite you to stay, you are probably just going to blow me off and 

not stay anyway, but we will start with you, and then I will go 

8 

down the row as well, and you have got 5 minutes. Please, Mr. Miller, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to go down to the 

National Mall and remove some barricades. 

Thank you to the Chairman and members of the subcommittee 

for allowing me to speak on my bill, 2954, to authorize Escambia 

County, Mr. Chairman, to convey certain property that was on 

Santa Rosa Island that has been leased to individuals that have 

been living on the island. 

In 1947, the U.S. Government, pursuant to congressional action 

taken during the 79th Congress, removed Santa Rosa National 

Monument from the jurisdiction of the National Park Service and 

deeded the land located on Santa Rosa Island to Escambia County, 

Florida. Under the terms of the law, Escambia County was given 

the authority to transfer property on Santa Rosa Island with the 

caveat that they could not issue title to the property. Rather, the 

county could only lease the land or return it to the Federal Government. 

Shortly after Escambia took custody of the island, they began offering to lease the property to businesses and homeowners, who 

would pay a lease fee, but would not be charged property taxes. 

In the years since this land was given to Escambia County, 

Santa Rosa Island has grown from an undeveloped barrier island 

into a bustling community with thousands of residents, businesses 

contributing millions of dollars to the local community, and tourists 

from across the United States and around the world traveling to 

vacation on the island’s pristine white sand beaches. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a fairness issue. These significant developments on Santa Rosa Island necessitate a change in the original 

agreement between the Federal Government and Escambia County, 

and that is why the Board of County Commissioners of both 

Escambia County and Santa Rosa County passed resolutions asking me to introduce this bill that would allow the current Santa 

Rosa Island leaseholders the option of attaining fee simple title 

while protecting public access to the beaches and conservation 

areas on the island. 

H.R. 2954 is a simple solution that will allow current leaseholders the option of attaining fee simple title to their property if 

they so choose to do. Additionally, the bill would help ease management of the island by conveying land that currently falls in the jurisdictional boundaries of Santa Rosa County but is owned by 

Escambia County to Santa Rosa County. 

It is also vital to the many stakeholders in the current community that current agreements governing conservation, preservation, 

and public access or recreation on Santa Rosa Island are maintained, and that is why my legislation codifies these agreements 

into law in accordance with all resolutions that have been adopted 

by the county commission governments. This meets all the other 

criteria set forth to me by the Board of County Commissioners of 

Escambia and Santa Rosa counties, and it will help to ensure that 

individuals and businesses currently living and working on Santa 

9 

Rosa Island have the choice to attain title to their land while also 

upholding current conservation easements and public access to the 

island beaches. 

In closing, I want to add that my bill in no way affects the right 

to public beach access, nor does it in any way change the boundaries of the Gulf Islands National Seashore, nor negatively impact 

the mission of the National Park Service at the national park. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify this morning 

at this legislative hearing on H.R. 2954 and speaking before this 

subcommittee. I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

I appreciate now knowing how to say Escambia County, and you 

are welcome to join us if you would like to, and on your way down 

to the Mall take wire cutters. I am told the Park Service wired the 

barricades together today. Again, you are welcome to join us if you 

would like to. If you have other business, I understand that. 

Let me turn to Mr. Rogers. I think you probably have a couple 

of other things on the plate today as well. I will give you 5 minutes 

to talk about your study for the Mill Springs Battlefield. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. HAROLD ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you for this important hearing, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak before you. Truly our Nation is blessed. We have 

a remarkable array of natural beauty, which people from all over 

the world flock to see. Additionally we have a great number of historical sites which have been dutifully and faithfully preserved so 

that new generations can appreciate what this country has been 

through and what their forefathers cared for. 

I am proud today to introduce to you my friend Bill Neikirk— 

Bill, raise your hand so they can see who you are—Bill Neikirk, 

whom you will see in the next panel, I think. It seems like only 

yesterday, but more than 20 years ago Bill and a group of citizens 

in Wayne and Pulaski Counties in Kentucky grew concerned that 

the site of an important Civil War battlefield in our backyard was 

in danger of being lost forever. It was at that time that the U.S. 

Department of the Interior classified the site of the Battle of Mill 

Springs, one of the most important battles in the western theater 

of the war, as one of the most endangered battlefields in Kentucky. 

Today, thanks to Bill and the group he founded, the Mill Springs 

Battlefield Association, hundreds of acres of battlefields have been 

diligently preserved, acquired and preserved. Through a partnership of public and private funds, his association has constructed a 

fantastic 10,000-square-foot Mill Springs Battlefield Visitors Center 

and Museum, established interpretive signage, led driving and 

walking tours of the battlefield, but above all they have created a 

very vibrant tourist attraction which hosts thousands of visitors 

and students each year, preserving the memory of this historic battle for generations to come, including staging the reenactment of 

the battle every January. 

Mr. Chairman, the Mill Springs Battlefield Association has expressed its desire to turn over their tireless preservation work to 

the National Park Service and the people of this country so that 

10 

the joy of learning and of history will be enjoyed by many more 

people through the years. My bill, H.R. 298, would start this process by evaluating the feasibility of adopting this important site into 

the Park Service. I am proud to associate myself with their effort 

and to have this battlefield and generous group of citizens in my 

district. 

I thank this subcommittee for favorably considering this legislation. I hope it will be passed to the full committee, Mr. Chairman 

and Members, and thank you for the time allotted me, and I yield 

back what is remaining. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Rogers, and, again, if you would like 

to stay, you are welcome to it. I have a feeling you probably have 

other issues that you need to deal with. 

I also once failed to announce that H.R. 712, which is on the 

agenda, will not be discussed today, but will be reassigned to a different hearing time. 

Mr. Chaffetz, happy to have you back here again. Your bill, number 2657, is before us. Five minutes. Go for it. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON CHAFFETZ, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the Chairman and thank the Ranking 

Member for their consideration. 

As you know, over the course of years, the Federal Government 

has spent billions of dollars acquiring private property and making 

it public, and through that time back in 1997, the Clinton administration actually went through an exercise of assessing the BLM 

lands, and during that assessment they categorized them. They 

looked at mineral rights, they looked at road access, they looked at 

all the different uses of this public land. But there was a certain 

portion of the land that really didn’t serve any sort of public purpose. It didn’t have road access issues, it didn’t have mineral 

rights; it just was excess Federal land that served no public purpose. 

And as they did this assessment, the Clinton administration 

came to determine that just over 1 percent of that land didn’t really have any other purpose, and so what this bill says is let us take 

that little bit of excess that doesn’t serve a public purpose and let 

us put it up at fair market value and sell it back as private property. If it sells, if people find value to it, whether it is a conservationist or a private property owner, they could buy that, and it 

would go back as private property. 

Now, it ends up that would be about 3.3 million acres of land 

through a variety of States, mostly in the West. This is, again, half 

of 1 percent, 1⁄2 of 1 percent of all the Federal lands. 

So the number 3.3 million acres sounds like a lot, but in the context of how much Federal land is owned by the Federal Government, it is a very, very small amount of land. But in the Western 

States this becomes vital to the education of our children, because 

if you don’t have property tax, which is private property to generate the taxes that you need to educate your children, like we 

need in Utah—we have nearly 70 percent of our land owned by 

State and Federal Government. We have a hard time getting the 

money that we need to educate our children. So if we have excess 

11 

Federal land, just over 1 percent of the BLM, my bill suggests that 

we would sell that back to private property owners. 

H.R. 2657, the disposal of excess Federal lands, would responsibly dispose of nearly 3.3 million acres of land the Federal Government reported it does not need, and selling these lands could generate more than a billion dollars for the Federal Treasury. In addition, putting these lands to good use would generate economic activity, jobs, and even more Federal revenue. 

National treasures like national parks we have in Utah and particularly in Utah’s Third Congressional District deserve Federal 

protection; however, during the Clinton administration there was a 

portion of land under their assessment that they found suitable for 

disposal. This bill simply would allow that process to move forward. 

I appreciate the committee’s consideration of this bill. I would 

hope we would find support. I would be happy to answer any questions as we move forward, but I appreciate, Chairman, allowing 

this bill to move forward and the consideration of this committee. 

I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate you being here. Once again, 

we would extend you the opportunity to stay if you would like to. 

Mr. Larson, we are happy to have you here on H.R. 1259, the 

Coltsville National Historic Park. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN B. LARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Mr. LARSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

thank you, and Mr. Grijalva, and members of the committee, and 

certainly the committee staff, for the ongoing work that we have 

been involved in. We are honored to be here. You will be hearing 

in the second panel from the Mayor of Hartford. I thank you again 

for extending an invitation to him. This will be his second appearance before the committee as well. 

I can’t tell you how important this is to the State of Connecticut. 

I think for many States it is important for us to put this in the perspective of a small State. You can fit the State of Connecticut in 

most of your national parks, and yet we have this very significant 

historic spot that not only produced the gun that won the West, but 

also was at the heart of the industrial revolution, a revolution that 

ultimately—I know we are going to get some disagreement from 

New Jersey about this, and I have this argument on a regular 

basis with Mr. Pascrell as well, but this was a place in Coltsville, 

as it is called, where not only did they come up with the concept 

of the assembly line and interchangeable parts, but we had a 

woman who didn’t have the right to vote when her husband Samuel Colt passed away who actually was part of what would be back 

then in probably a Fortune 500 company in the United States. 

They became the first manufacturers to not only manufacture here, 

but the first American manufacturer to manufacture overseas as 

well. She developed the concept of firewalls. She introduced housing for employees there, as well as forms of insurance that ultimately led to a burgeoning insurance industry in Hartford, Connecticut, but also saw the production of the bicycle, the automobile, 

and the typewriter that were all part of what people commonly now 

refer to as the Gilded Age. 

12 

It is a great source of pride for the State of Connecticut, and I 

thank Ranking Member DeFazio, who visited recently and had a 

tour of the Colts building and was taken on that tour by Mayor 

Segarra, who you will be hearing from later as well. But it also has 

the full support of the community, from the Historic Society to the 

residents in the community, to the religious community, the Chamber of Commerce because of its vital importance and synergy with 

so many other State historic landmarks. 

And I take the Chairman’s admonition to heart, but as I have 

told him on many occasions, for Connecticut, and we consider ourselves a donor State to the Federal Government. By that I mean 

the amount of money that we send to the Federal Government 

based on what we receive back is quite disproportionate. And so 

this, of course, is something that I appeal to the committee’s genuine sense of fairness and understanding how prideful this is and 

what a great designation this would be to bring the prestige of a 

national park to the State of Connecticut. You know from your 

States how important it is to you and what that designation carries 

with it. We are talking about a very small parcel here that we are 

dealing with, and we are talking about 10,000 square feet where 

probably the best collection in the world of that period and that era 

of guns will be displayed. 

And so it is with a great source of pride that I come here today 

representing our community. We have been working on this for almost a decade now. I am proud of the National Park Service’s support and so many others, both of our United States Senators, and 

Senator Wyden who are supporting this as well. And I especially 

want to thank the Ranking Member Grijalva and the Chairman for 

taking the time with us and our staff and meeting with our staffs 

to work out some of the issues that you have expressed. 

We are willing to do anything and everything that it takes to 

gain this prestigious recognition, and I know it is a dear thing, and 

it comes dearly to these Members, but thank you for allowing me 

the opportunity to make this case before you today. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

And, John, once again, if you would like to join us, you will notice that no one has taken me up on that offer, but the offer is still 

there, and I would still remind the gentleman—— 

Mr. LARSON. It is not personal, I am sure, yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. I told you, you had to talk about the baseball diamonds out there. Too late, too late. You had your chance. 

Mr. LARSON. I just wanted to say and also the home of vintage 

baseball for Connecticut, where we have Colts Ball Field, which is 

right there on the facility and site. 

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Ms. Vela ́zquez, we appreciate you coming in here today. We recognize you for 5 minutes to talk about the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site. 

13 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member Grijalva, for holding this important hearing and 

taking up consideration of H.R. 1846, the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site Amendments Act. 

Since our country’s inception, immigration has been a driving 

force in shaping our Nation’s history. For hundreds of years people 

from every corner of the globe have come to the United States in 

pursuit of a better life. Their arrival has made us stronger with 

their valuable contributions in a wide range of fields. In my city, 

New York, immigrants have been an important part of the cultural 

fabric. From Little Italy to Chinatown, every one of the five boroughs has been enriched by the arrival of immigrants. 

Because of immigration’s important role in our country and in 

our history, there are a number of sites that recognize the millions 

who came here from abroad to start a new life and help build the 

American dream. I am sure members of this committee are familiar 

with Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty. 

In my district the Tenement Museum helps visitors remember 

the challenges immigrants have faced when they first arrived in 

the city and lived in the Lower East Side. Since being founded in 

1988, this local gem has helped recount the story of 7,000 workingclass immigrant families who lived in these structures. They demonstrate the challenges families faced in building a new life, assimilating to a new culture, and creating a brighter future. 

The stories told through the Tenement Museum range widely. 

The museum offers a glimpse into the lives of our first factory 

workers. It allows us to see how a Greek Sephardic family lived in 

the Lower East Side tenements. Exhibits allow visitors to experience the shops. Some of our earliest immigrants owned small businesses that provided goods and services to the area’s burgeoning 

immigrant population. 

The museum has been officially acknowledged as significant to 

our Nation’s history. Congress designated 97 Orchard Street as an 

affiliated site of the National Park System in 1988, and the Secretary of the Interior declared the museum a historic landmark in 

1994. 

As interest in the museum has continued to grow, there is an increasing need for additional space and greater accessibility. My bill, 

H.R. 1846, will help meet this growing need. By having the National Park System recognize the museum’s expansion at 103 Orchard Street, the bill will enhance the experience of those visiting 

the museum. Under H.R. 1846, the museum will be able to open 

a new visitors center and transform certain portions of the museum 

into additional educational exhibits and tours. This legislation is 

needed because it will make this valuable educational tool available to a wider audience. 

Mr. Chairman, the immigrant story is the American story. We 

have always been a Nation of immigrants, and all our communities 

are enriched by this infusion of new ideas and cultures. The Tenement Museum honors the men, women, and children who came 

here to carve out a better life and in the process improved our 

14 

country. H.R. 1846 will ensure the museum can reach an even 

wider audience and continue telling this uniquely American story. 

And I thank you for giving me this opportunity and for the consideration of this legislation. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Once again, 

the invitation to join us if you would like to, but I understand 

Members have other commitments other places. 

We will now turn to the introduction of bills that are sponsored 

by Members who are here on the committee and the dais as well. 

Mr. Horsford, let us turn to yours first, 2015. You are recognized 

for 5 minutes to introduce your legislation. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVEN A. HORSFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, to you and 

to the Ranking Member Mr. Grijalva, for scheduling this hearing 

today. 

The consensus on this important and bipartisan bill, H.R. 2015, 

truly is remarkable. I have dozens of letters, resolutions, and statements of support from countless elected officials, community leaders, and citizen groups who are all asking this Congress to recognize Tule Springs be designated as a national monument. And, Mr. 

Chairman, I would like to ask that they be included in the record 

with your permission. Permission to include those in the record. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. 

[The letters, resolutions and statements submitted by Mr. 

Horsford follow:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

CLARK COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, 

JUNE 17, 2013. 

To: NEVADA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION: 

THE HONORABLE HARRY REID, THE HONORABLE DEAN HELLER, THE HONORABLE

MARK AMODEI, THE HONORABLE JOE HECK, THE HONORABLE STEVEN HORSFORD, 

THE HONORABLE DINA TITUS. 

Re: S. 974 and H.R. 2015—Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. 

Please accept this letter as my support of S. 974 and H.R. 2015—The Las Vegas 

Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. 

Community support for Tule Springs legislation has been broad and inclusive, and 

it’s important to note that the entire Nevada delegation (three Republicans and 

three Democrats) co-sponsored this legislation. I encourage the swift passage of this 

legislation so the Tule Springs National Monument may begin to take place. In the 

northern outskirts of Clark County/Las Vegas, thousands of fossils or Ice Age creatures’ remains are buried. Founded in 2007, the Protectors of Tule Springs (POTS) 

has worked tirelessly to make certain this area is preserved and protected. I want 

future generations to enjoy all that is to be learned and seen in this wonderful area. 

I fully support designating this area a National Monument, managed by the National Park Service. It has the unanimous support of local elected officials, the 

United States Air Force, the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, tourism industry leaders, educators, scientists, conservation organizations, and community groups. In addition, 

thousands of people have registered their support. It is the right time and the right 

thing to do. 

Thank you, 

TOM COLLINS, 

Clark County Commissioner. 

15 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

CLARK COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, 

JUNE 4, 2013 

The Honorable HARRY REID, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

The Honorable DEAN HELLER, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

The Honorable MARK E. AMODEI, 

U.S. House of Representative, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

The Honorable JOSEPH J. HECK, 

U.S. House of Representative, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

The Honorable STEVEN A. 

HORSFORD, 

U.S. House of Representative, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

The Honorable DINA TITUS, 

U.S. House of Representative, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: S. 974 and H.R. 2015—Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil 

Beds National Monument Act of 2013 

DEAR CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION: 

I am writing in support of the above referenced act. The Upper Las Vegas Wash 

contains thousands of paleontological resources from the Pleistocene Epoch that are 

preserved in a unique geological context that are of national importance. Designation of this site as a National Monument would protect the unique fossil resources 

of the area and the geological context of those resources for present and future generations while allowing for public education and continued scientific research opportunities. 

In studies of the area conducted during the last decade, the Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service determined that the area likely contains the 

longest continuous section of Pleistocene strata in the desert southwest, which span 

multiple important global climate cooling and warming episodes. 

The Upper Las Vegas Wash is significant to the culture and history of the native 

and indigenous people of the area, including the Southern Paiute Tribe. 

The entire Nevada delegation along with Clark County and the cities of Las Vegas 

and North Las Vegas has shown its support for this legislation. 

This designation would protect the fossil specimens and, hopefully, lead to a new 

tourist destination as well. 

I request and urge the swift passage of the legislation so that the development 

of a management plan that provides for the long-term protection and management 

of the Monument can be accomplished soon. 

Sincerely, 

CHRIS GIUNCHIGLIANI, 

Commissioner. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, 

NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, 

JUNE 3, 2013. 

Honorable STEVEN A. HORSFORD, 

2250 Las Vegas Blvd North, Suite 500, 

North Las Vegas, NV 89030. 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN HORSFORD: 

The city of North Las Vegas City Council wishes to express our support for 

H.R. 2015, the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. We believe this legislation reflects a well-balanced approach to public land management policy in the Las Vegas Valley, and we urge you 

to support this important measure. 

The legislation would achieve important conservation goals by establishing the 

Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. Located at the northern edge of the 

Las Vegas Valley and within the boundaries of the Cities of North Las Vegas and 

Las Vegas (the ‘‘Cities’’) are the Tule Springs National Register Historic Site and 

an area known as the Upper Las Vegas Wash, a unique natural drainage channel 

16 

that carries storm water from the surrounding mountains toward Lake Mead. 

Found within these areas are significant paleontological sites containing numerous 

fossils demonstrative of the Pleistocene Ice Age that span geologic history from 

7,000 to nearly 200,000 years ago. These areas also contain endangered and imperiled plants such as the Merriam’s and Las Vegas Bearpoppy and the Las Vegas 

Buckwheat, as well as important habitat for threatened species such as the desert 

tortoise and burrowing owls. 

Recognizing the significance of these areas, the mayors and city councils of the 

Cities unanimously passed a resolution, in collaboration with the Clark County 

Commission and the Tribal Council of the Southern Nevada Paiute Tribe, requesting that Congress designate the area surrounding Tule Springs and the Upper Las 

Vegas Wash a unit of the National Park Service. We believe a national monument 

is the appropriate designation. Due to the large number and variety of resources 

that are available for study and viewing within the area it is expected that the national monument would attract visitors from all over the world with a wide range 

of interests, including educational, scientific, cultural and recreational. The Cities 

have worked closely with a broad range of stakeholders, including the U.S. Air 

Force, conservation groups, and NV Energy, to develop a boundary for the national 

monument that balances conservation and resource protection with the future 

growth needs of the Cities. 

The legislation also facilitates important economic development goals for the city 

by making surplus Federal land available for future job creation and development 

in accordance with local land use plans. The city expects the release of these lands 

to create thousands of jobs over the next decade. 

The city appreciates all you do for southern Nevada, and we thank you for your 

support of this important public lands legislation for the benefit of current and future generations of Las Vegas Valley residents and visitors. 

Sincerely, 

SHARI L. BUCK, 

Mayor. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS

MAYOR-ELECT, 

NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, 

JUNE 6, 2013. 

The Honorable HARRY REID, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

The Honorable DEAN HELLER, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC 20510. 

The Honorable MARK E. AMODEI, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

The Honorable JOSEPH J. HECK, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

The Honorable STEVEN A. 

HORSFORD, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

The Honorable DINA TITUS, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: S. 974 and H.R. 2015—Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil 

Beds National Monument Act of 2013. 

DEAR SEN. REID, SEN. HELLER, REP. HECK, REP. AMODEI, REP TITUS, AND REP. 

HORSFORD: 

I am writing to strongly urge you to support S. 974 and H.R. 2015—The Las 

Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 

2013. As Mayor-Elect of North Las Vegas, I believe the National Monument is not 

only culturally and historically significant, but has the potential to provide a positive economic affect on our city. 

The broad and overwhelming community support for the Tule Springs legislation 

matches the bi-partisan effort of the entire Nevada Congressional delegation. While 

on the campaign trail over the last several months, a countless number of people 

expressed their support and excitement for Tule Springs. Nevadans are excited and 

eager for the wonderful addition of the monument to our State. 

17 

I hope you will continue your work to quickly pass the Tule Springs Fossil Beds 

National Monument Act. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. 

Respectfully, 

JOHN LEE. 

Mayor-Elect, North Las Vegas. 

Clark County 

Board of County Commissioners 

RESOLUTION 

OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER 

A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION 

OF AN AREA KNOWN AS THE UPPER LAS VEGAS WASH 

AS AN URBAN NATIONAL PARK UNIT 

MANAGED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

WHEREAS, Americans have deep and enduring love for the National Park System, 

and places identified as national park units embody America’s highest ideals and 

values; and 

WHEREAS, America’s National Park System enjoys consistent and global goodwill, 

embraces more than 272 million visitors, generates more than $10 billion for local 

economies, and generates community pride; and 

WHEREAS, the Upper Las Vegas Wash has been deemed worthy of inclusion in the 

National Park System; and 

WHEREAS, the Upper Las Vegas Wash has been confirmed by scientists to have 

significant paleontological fossils demonstrative of the Pleistocene Ice Age, and these 

fossil findings appear to contain the longest continuous section of Pleistocene strata, 

spanning important global climate cooling and warming episode in the desert Southwest; and 

WHEREAS, a four-month intensive study of the area in 1962, chronicled by National Geographic, catalogued thousands of Ice Age mammal fossils including Columbian Mammoth, Ground Sloth, American Lion, Camelops, Bison and ancient species of Horse and found this area ‘‘greatly significant;’’ and 

WHEREAS, the significance of the Upper Las Vegas Wash area, established in 

1962, was re-confirmed in the past few years with the scientifically documented removal of thousands of fossils through recent paleontology studies and inventory contracted by the Bureau of Land Management, and through a 2009 study commissioned by the National Park Service; and 

WHEREAS, findings of Ice Age palynomorphs (plants) and invertebrates (animals) 

within the Upper Las Vegas Wash provide study opportunities uncommon in most 

fossil localities, and are thus are expected to attract international scientific interest 

and onsite research; and 

WHEREAS, the Upper Las Vegas Wash is significant to native and indigenous people and offers interpretive opportunities to show a broad range of history, from Ice 

Age through Native American history to contemporary culture; and 

WHEREAS, the vision for the Upper Las Vegas Wash as a new national park unit 

is expected to include state-of-the-art visitor facilities and amenities, working field 

sites in which the public can observe scientific research, paleontology curation facilities; and interpretive displays that engage visitors in area history, flora and fauna; 

and 

WHEREAS, the Upper Las Vegas Wash is expected to attract international and domestic visitors to bolster tourism revenues; and 

WHEREAS, the proximity of the new national park unit is expected to be used as 

an educational resource for the area’s schoolchildren, and integrated into plans for 

the northern campus of the University of Nevada Las Vegas; and 

WHEREAS, the protection and conservation of the natural, cultural and paleontological resources within an urban national park unit will enhance southern Nevada’s efforts for sustainable economic growth; and 

18 

WHEREAS, the American people have entrusted the National Park Service for 

nearly a century with the care of our most special places and treasures, and have 

recognized that creating national park units preserves special places in perpetuity, 

for our children, grandchildren and their children; and 

WHEREAS, it is a privilege to add a new park designation to 392 units within the 

National Park Service; and 

WHEREAS, the Clark County Board of Commissioners, the Las Vegas City Council, 

and the North Las Vegas City Council support establishing an area of the Upper 

Las Vegas Wash as a national park unit and recognize the rare opportunity to create a new urban national park unit, managed by the National Park Service; and 

WHEREAS, we intend for Clark County, the city of Las Vegas, the city of North 

Las Vegas, and the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe to work with local, State, tribal and Federal jurisdictions and agencies to collaboratively participate in the planning of the 

new urban national park unit; 

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Clark County Board of Commissioners urge the United State Congress, the U.S. Department of Interior, and the 

National Park Service to make a land management designation that is appropriate 

for the protection of the resources, done in a timely manner to avoid further degradation of the area, with appropriate funding to fully develop the scientific, educational and recreational potential. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS 99TH AIR BASE WING, 

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, NEVADA, 

NOVEMBER 13, 2009. 

Colonel HOWARD D. BELOTE, 

Commander, 

430 Grissom Ave, Suite 101, 

Nellis AFB, NV 8919.1 

Chairman RORY REID, 

Clark County Board of County Commissioners, 

500 Grand Central Pkwy, 

Las Vegas, NV 89106. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN REID, 

On behalf of Team Nellis, which comprises Nellis AFB, Creech AFB, Tonopah 

Test Range, and the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), I would like to express our ongoing support for the protection and conservation of the Upper Las 

Vegas Wash. We believe the various efforts to protect this sensitive region, such as 

your resolution, are integral to the sustainment of Team Nellis’s future by maintaining current and future air and ground military operations throughout the region. 

Team Nellis is one of our Nation’s most valuable military complexes. We conduct 

approximately 40,000 test and training flights each year. Our missions range from 

operational testing of new weapons systems and simulated combat during allied Red 

Flag operations, to ground combat operations and real-time combat missions flown 

from Creech AFB in Indian Springs. The Nellis Complex is truly a national treasure, and the unmatched testing and training capabilities it provides are critical to 

our ability to fight and win our Nation’s wars. 

Compatible conservation of the Upper Las Vegas Wash region presents a great 

opportunity to protect two different national treasures—the Wash and the Nellis 

Complex. As you know, the wash region contains significant paleontological, botanical, and cultural resources on the ground, which require long term protective measures. In addition, the area also provides critical airspace that supports Team Nellis’s 

air and ground operations. We have crucial low/high-level flight arrival, departure, 

and training routes throughout the wash region, and the area serves as a gateway 

to our testing and training ranges. By federally protecting the region with an associated military aviation reservation, we can ensure the sustainment of both critical 

habitat and military airspace, creating a truly win-win compatible future for Nevada. 

19 

Team Nellis remains committed to working with community leaders to develop 

processes that foster compatible growth solutions to secure Nevada’s future. My 

point of contact for this matter is Ms. Deb MacNeill, Director of Public Partnerships. 

HOWARD D. BELOTE, 

Colonel, USAF. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION

ASSOCIATION

10161 PARK RUN DRIVE, SUITE 150, 

LAS VEGAS, NV 89145, 

JUNE 3, 2013. 

TO: THE HONORABLE HARRY REID, THE HONORABLE DEAN HELLER, THE HONORABLE

MARK AMODEI, THE HONORABLE JOE HECK, THE HONORABLE STEVEN HORSFORD, 

AND THE HONORABLE DINA TITUS. 

RE: S. 974 and H.R. 2015—The Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs 

Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. 

FROM: THE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION. 

On behalf of more than 350 million visitors to America’s national parks, more 

than 800,000 members of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), and 

nearly 5,000 members and parks enthusiasts from Nevada who are actively engaged 

with NPCA, we thank all members of Nevada’s Congressional delegation for legislation to create Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. 

Legislation to protect this fossil-dense are in the northwest part of the Las Vegas 

Valley is expected to enhance educational opportunities for area school children, bolster the area’s tourism-based economy, and complement America’s national park 

system. The area—rich with Pleistocene-era fossils of Columbia mammoth, American lions and camels, saber-tooth cats, dire wolves, bison and sloth that span nearly 

200,000 years in geologic time—also provides scientists from multiple disciplines 

with rare opportunities for research. 

The legislation—which has been co-sponsored by all members of Nevada’s Congressional delegation—is endorsed by the cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, 

Clark County, business and tourism organizations, educational institutions, and 

conservation organization. Most recently, a resolution supporting the Federal legislation was passed near unanimously by the Nevada State Legislature. 

In addition, the legislation is endorsed by the U.S. Air Force for preserving an 

essential military air corridor above the proposed new national monument. 

NPCA is honored to playa part in seeing this significant Ice Age fossil site added 

to our national park system. We thank the Nevada Congressional delegation for recognizing this important opportune opportunity. 

Sincerely, 

LYNN DAVIS, 

Sr. Program Manager, Nevada Field Office. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

STATE OF NEVADA, 

CARSON CITY, NEVADA, 

AUGUST 12, 2011. 

The Honorable HARRY REID, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, D.C. 20510. 

DEAR SENATOR REID: 

I am submitting this letter in support of legislation to create a new National Park 

unit in Nevada for the area surrounding Tule Springs and the Upper Las Vegas 

Wash. As you know, thousands of Nevada citizens have expressed their support for 

a new national monument in this region. Additionally, the mayors and city councils 

of North Las Vegas and Las Vegas. the Clark County Commissioners, and the Tribal Council of the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe unanimously passed resolutions requesting 

Congress to designate Tule Springs as an urban national park. 

Legislation to establish the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument will not 

only protect the unique paleontological resources existing in the area, but also creVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
20 

ate new opportunities for economic development by attracting tourists and Nevada 

citizens to the region. I understand you have been working with Nevada’s Congressional Delegation to create legislation that accomplishes National Park designation 

and also considers the concerns and needs of various stakeholders. 

Thank you for your continued support of this effort. 

Sincere regards, 

BRIAN SANDOVAL, 

Governor 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE PROTECTORS OF TULE SPRINGS

NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV, 

JUNE 3, 2013. 

To: Nevada’s Congressional Delegation; The Honorable HARRY REID, The Honorable 

DEAN HELLER, The Honorable MARK E. AMODEI The Honorable JOE HECK, The 

Honorable STEVEN A. HORSFORD and The Honorable DINA TITUS. 

Re: S. 974 and H.R. 2015—Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil 

Beds National Monument Act of 2013. 

The Protectors of Tule Springs, a citizens group founded in 2006, have joined a 

diverse coalition of groups in advocating for the protection of the Tule Springs fossil 

beds in the northern Las Vegas Valley. We have a unique opportunity to create an 

educational laboratory in an urban area where students and visitors can learn about 

the last 250,000 years of ice age history and climate change. This new National 

Monument will be an economic boost for Las Vegas economy. 

We urge swift passage of these bills so that Tule Springs may receive the protection and preservation that it deserves. 

Respectfully, 

JILL K. DESTEFANO, 

President. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE LAS VEGAS ICE AGE PARK FOUNDATION

Helen Mortenson—President. Thalia Dondero—Vice President. 

Steve Rowland—Secretary. Bob Anderson—Treasurer. 

Paul Aizley—State Legislature. Harry Mortenson-Liaison 

Jill DeStaphano—Liaison, P.O.T.S. Samantha Rubinson—Liaison, State 

Stewardship. 

Sandy Croteau—Public Relations. Lonnie Hammargren—Public 

Relations. 

ICE AGE PARK

DEAR MEMBERS OF TBE NEVADA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION: 

Thank you for co-sponsoring S. 974 or H.R. 2015—The Las Vegas Valley Public 

Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. Our Board of 

Directors has been actively working for several years toward the establishment of 

an Ice Age Park, visitor center, and research center in the Upper Las Vegas Wash, 

and the creation of Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument will be a huge step 

in that direction. Such a park will provide a significant incentive for nature-oriented 

and science-oriented tourists to linger in Las Vegas for an extra day or two, instead 

of driving directly to Zion National Park, or Grand Canyon, or Death Valley. It will 

also contribute very significantly to the scientific and educational richness of southern Nevada. 

We strongly support the passage of S. 974 or H.R. 2015. 

Respectfully, 

HELEN MORTENSON, 

President—Las Vegas Ice Age Park Foundation. 

21 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE RED ROCK CANYON INTERPRETIVE

ASSOCIATION

6755 W. CHARLESTON BLVD. SUITE D, 

LAS VEGAS, NY 89146, 

JUNE 3, 2013. 

To: Nevada’s Congressional Delegation: 

The Honorable HARRY REID. The Honorable DEAN HELLER. 

The Honorable MARK E. AMODEI. The Honorable JOSEPH J. HECK. 

The Honorable STEVEN A. 

HORSFORD. 

The Honorable DINA TITUS. 

Re: S. 974 and H.R. 2015—Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil 

Beds National Monument Act of 2013 

On behalf of the Red Rock Canyon Interpretive Association and the Southern Nevada Conservancy, I want to express our support for passage of S. 974 and 

H.R. 2015—The Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. We appreciate the hard work of the Nevada delegation to draft the legislation and to jointly introduce the legislation. This collaborative effort among the delegation is deeply appreciated. 

The creation of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument is not only important to Nevada but to the entire nation and world community. This is truly an 

extraordinary resource, one of the most important paleontological sites in the world. 

Fossil findings in the Tule Springs area, chronicled over 250,000 years in geologic 

time, make this area unique and of great scientific and educational interest. There 

is no unit in the National Park System that spans such a long period where you 

can actually see how ecosystems have transitioned from warm climates to cold climates and back again through several ice ages. 

The mission of the Red Rock Canyon Interpretive Association is to enhance the 

recreational, educational and interpretive programs of the Bureau of Land Management, and other governmental agencies, by providing materials and services to the 

public which promote an understanding, and appreciation of, the natural history, 

cultural history and sciences of southern Nevada and specifically, Red Rock Canyon 

National Conservation Area. As an educational, interpretive and scientific organization, we are enamored with the opportunity that the Tule Springs National Monument offers for learning, especially among our youth. The Monument can be a great 

asset to the Clark County School District and to the university system as a place 

for authentic learning and science. 

Designation as a National Monument also helps broaden the economic base and 

public perception of Las Vegas. fn these tough economic times, it is critical that we 

look at broadening our economic base. The Monument would provide another reason 

to visit Las Vegas and can help lengthen the stay. 

Thanks for your hard work and we hope to see the legislation enacted during this 

session of Congress. 

Sincerely, 

BLAINE BENEDICT, 

Executive Director. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY SCENIC NEVADA

P.O. BOX 32, 

RENO, NEVADA, 89504, 

NOVEMBER 12, 2009. 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

Scenic Nevada would like you to consider supporting the resolution for the Upper 

Las Vegas Wash. Scenic Nevada is a 501(c) non-profit, non-partisan, conservation 

organization that works to preserve, protect, and enhance the scenic beauty of Nevada. 

Our principal activity is to educate the general public on the economic, social, and 

cultural benefits of scenic preservation by means of encouraging billboard and sign 

control, protecting and supporting scenic byways, promoting sound-wall alternatives, 

supporting open space and green-way plans, minimizing the impact of cell towers, 

preserving hill sides and drainage ways. 

22 

A Nevada LAST CHANCE Scenic Places is our publication which illustrates Nevada’s treasured landscapes and describes both pending environmental threats as 

well as their potential solutions. Scenic Nevada, in 2007, designated the upper Las 

Vegas Wash (Tule Springs) as one of Nevada’s 13 LAST CHANCE Scenic Places. 

Scenic Nevada requests that you support the resolution presented before you to protect the Upper Las Vegas Wash. 

Sincerely, 

DOUG SMITH, 

Board of Director’s Scenic Nevada; 

Member of the Scenic Nevada Board of Directors Statements. 

State of Nevada 

Executive Department 

A Proclamation by the Governor 

WHEREAS, the month of April each year has been designated as ‘‘Paleontological Awareness Month;’’ and 

WHEREAS, the study of paleontology seeks to find information about the history of the Earth through the study of fossils’ environment and evolution; and 

WHEREAS, the necessity for state and local officer’s, private and nonprofit 

groups and foundations, schools, businesses, and other. public and private entities 

to work toward the goal of preserving the paleontology resources of Nevada resides 

in the importance of understanding its earth history and its contribution to future 

business; and 

WHEREAS, the recognition of the important contribution of prehistoric fossils and other paleontological sites of Nevada also illuminates the impact of paleontological sciences and their importance in Nevada history and future; and 

WHEREAS, the paleontological sites in Nevada, including Berlin-Ichthyosaur 

State Park and Tule Springs, have contributed to bringing renowned scientists and 

producing distinguished research on the Ichthyosaur fossils and Pleistocene animals, making Nevada a notable area in paleontology science; 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BRIAN SANDOVAL, GOVERNOR OF THE 

STATE OF NEVADA, do hereby proclaim April 2011, as 

PALEONTOLOGICAL AWARENESS MONTH IN NEVADA

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS, 

UNLV 

DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCE, 

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, 

NOVEMBER 12, 2009. 

CLARK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

500 S. Grand Central Parkway, 

Las Vegas, NV 89155–1601. 

DEAR COMMISSIONERS: 

I fully support the designation of an urban national park unit in the Upper Las 

Vegas Wash. I am a paleontologist who has been conducting research in the Upper 

Las Vegas Wash for several years. The area has enormous scientific and educational 

potential, and it has the potential to attract a different type of tourist than we presently attract to Las Vegas. 

I urge you to approve the resolution in support of this new urban national park 

or monument. 

Sincerely, 

STEPHEN M. ROWLAND, 

Professor of Geology. 

23 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS, 

UNLV 

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, 

LAS VEGAS. NEVADA, 

NOVEMBER 10, 2009. 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

This letter is to express the support of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas for 

the conservation and preservation of the Upper Las Vegas Wash (Tule Springs) area 

with the creation of the Fossils Bed National Monument. The university has longtern plans to create a North Las Vegas Campus east of the proposed site and adjacent to the southern border of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge. Our plans for 

a campus focused on sustainability principles are enhanced by the potential monument, which would offer myriad opportunities for education, research, recreation, 

and partnerships. 

We initially envisioned higher education programs at the North Las Vegas Campus focusing on technology, business management, and elementary education, while 

our research interests included transportation and wind/solar energy. With the addition of the monument, we have the possibility of creating unparalleled science education and research in the areas of paleontology, conservation biology, vegetation 

and wildlife ecology, health, outdoor education, and recreation management. 

UNLV’s plans will co-exist with the future plans of the cities, county, tribe, and 

Federal agencies. Each entity will see plans bolstered by a seamless collaborative 

network of education, research, and recreation endeavors. 

We are hopeful the proposed monument will be given strong consideration. 

Sincerely, 

NEAL J. SMATRESK, 

President. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you. 

I also want to highlight just a few of those letters of support. In 

November 2009, three governmental entities, the Clark County 

Commission, and the mayors and city council members of Las 

Vegas and North Las Vegas unanimously passed resolutions asking 

Congress to make Tule Springs a part of the National Park System. H.R. 2015 and its Senate companion are cosponsored by all 

members of Nevada’s congressional delegation, and I am thankful 

that Congresswoman Titus, Congressman Heck, my fellow member 

here on the committee Congressman Amodei, and I all are here 

today to show support for this legislation, and I want to thank my 

colleagues in the Congress for their leadership and support of this 

important bipartisan bill. 

Our city and county officials did important groundwork by coordinating an active coalition of local supporters to define the 

boundaries in a way that will serve both the national interests and 

our local population. Additionally, we worked very closely with the 

U.S. Air Force on this legislation to carefully define a critical military air corridor between Nellis and Creech Air Force Bases by protecting airspace above the national monument. 

Finally, I want to point out that the administration testified in 

support of this legislation when our colleagues in the Senate examined this bill earlier in the year. Due to the current government 

shutdown, the Department of the Interior is not able to be here 

today to testify, but I would ask the Chairman to allow the administration to submit their testimony after this hearing once the government reopens. 

This area is indeed unique and definitely has a place as a new 

part of the National Park System. The local economic benefits are 

24 

clear. Tule Springs will increase tourism by attracting more travelers to southern Nevada, and by increasing their stay in our region. The area is expected to attract scientists from around the 

world and capture the imagination and interest of children and 

adults alike. Establishing the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National 

Monument would make the region a world-class destination for archaeological tourism that will revitalize southern Nevada’s economy and enhance the area’s quality of life. 

The monument is expected to generate jobs to build the monument’s infrastructure, and permanent jobs and businesses to support the monument’s gateway needs. In addition, community leaders intend to locate geosciences and technology businesses in the 

local area. Community leaders have also discussed design features 

for bordering development with plans for a nearby satellite campus 

for the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I must also point out that the region is 

an archaeological treasure. Colombian mammoths, massive beasts 

with tusks as long as 10 feet and molars the size of a human head, 

once roamed here as did prides of American lion and herds of 

bison, dire wolves and saber tooth cats, the sloth the size of a small 

sports car. 

Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument is significant for 

an array of national and historic resources, specifically fossils from 

the ice ages. Fossils discovered in this arid desert terrain harken 

back to a time when the area was lush with vegetation, a span of 

200,000 years of geologic time which offers rare scientific opportunities to study the rise and demise of ice age species. 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling today’s 

hearing and for accepting the request to invite our Mayor from the 

city of North Las Vegas, John Lee; Councilman Steve Ross, who 

has served as my councilman for my local area, and who represents 

the area of where Tule Springs will be located; as well as Las 

Vegas Metro Chamber President and CEO Kristin McMillan as 

witnesses on this important bipartisan legislation that grows our 

economy, creates jobs, and will have significant positive research 

and education opportunities for the region of southern Nevada. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing and to our 

witnesses who are here today. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Horsford, and as I said before, we 

are happy to have you back here, and hopefully you are feeling 

well. 

Mr. HORSFORD. I feel great. Thank you. Good to be back. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am going to do an audible here. Usually I would 

refer to Representative Titus and Representative Heck when we do 

the rest of the bill, but that is on the third panel, and I don’t know 

what your schedules are like, so were you wanting to make a statement on this particular bill? 

Ms. TITUS. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Please. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DINA TITUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy, and Ranking Member Grijalva. I am just here to briefly voice 

25 

my support for H.R. 2015, the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and 

Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act. 

Although the area in question is largely in North Las Vegas and 

unincorporated Clark County, not in District 1, I am joining the entire Nevada delegation in support of this bill because its provisions 

will certainly affect people who live throughout the valley, and 

there may be some people who travel to visit these fossils who will 

then want to come and stay on the Las Vegas strip, which is in my 

district. Just a little plug, Mr. Chairman. 

Although—you will hear from other witnesses, and you have 

heard from Mr. Horsford, this legislation is vital to the preservation of our region’s history, which dates back to the ice age. It includes a number of provisions that will enhance tourism and will 

also encourage economic development, job creation, and increase 

education and research opportunities. At the same time, it will protect some of Las Vegas’ most precious open spaces and its paleontological treasures. 

The support for this legislation runs the gamut from the chamber 

of commerce to the environmental organizations, local Native 

American tribes, educational institutions, and elected officials at all 

levels. I would urge your support of this bill, and I will hope you 

will move it forward without delay, and I thank you for the opportunity just to express my support. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Heck, I am assuming you are speaking to this 

one? There is a couple of other Nevada bills, but whatever you 

want to do, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOSEPH J. HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Dr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I thank the Chair 

and the Ranking Member for allowing me to testify in support of 

H.R. 2015, the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs 

Fossil Beds National Monument Act. H.R. 2015, offered by my 

friend and colleague from Nevada Mr. Horsford and supported by 

the entire Nevada delegation, is a commonsense piece of legislation 

that will protect and preserve our natural treasures, open up land 

for public use, and help create much-needed jobs in Nevada. 

Specifically, H.R. 2015 will create the Tule Springs Fossil Beds 

National Monument to protect those archaeological sites that contain remarkable fossils that date back to the ice age and have attracted international attention. 

As you all know, travel and tourism is the largest industry in 

southern Nevada, and this designation is incredibly important to 

our economy as it will help attract additional visitors to our State 

and provide opportunities for new businesses around the monument area. 

Additionally H.R. 2015 supports the public use of public lands by 

conveying roughly 1,200 acres of land in the Nellis Dunes area for 

an off-highway vehicle recreation park to be managed by Clark 

County, and designating approximately 10,000 acres of public land 

surrounding the park as an OHV recreation area. 

Furthermore, the bill includes a number of additional provisions 

and supported—recommended and supported by local stakeholders 

that will protect access to critical water and energy resources, supVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
26 

port the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Nellis Air 

Force Base, and the Nevada System of Higher Education by conveying land for future educational, research, and administrative 

needs. 

With the Las Vegas Valley bordered on all sides by Federal land, 

bills like H.R. 2015 are critical to allowing our community to expand and grow. This bill was worked, reworked, and worked yet 

again by stakeholders at the Federal, State, and local level of government and is an example of how public land bills should be created. 

For all these reasons I support H.R. 2015 and want to thank the 

subcommittee for holding this important hearing on this bill that 

is important to all Nevadans. And I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to take this moment to welcome our newest member 

to the subcommittee, Representative Huffman from California. 

Welcome. And I think his expertise and participation is going to be 

very good for this committee. 

Thank you for the time. 

Mr. BISHOP. We welcome you here. It is a learned experience. 

To the members of the Nevada delegation, I appreciate it. I have 

to do one other thing about your bill, though. I understand Tule is 

spelled T-U-L-E? There is a county in my State spelled T-O-O-EL-E, and anyone who doesn’t know it calls that Tule, which it is 

actually pronounced Tu-wil-a. So I am sorry, every time you all say 

Tule, I just want to blurt out, no, it is Tu-wil-a. So you are going 

to have to change the name of whatever it is if you want this bill 

to go forward. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Phonetically, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. I don’t care. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Call it whatever you want. I will accept that as 

a motion to do pass. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, we will work on that one, too. 

Mr. Amodei, since this is turning into Nevada month, you also 

have two bills that are before us, H.R. 1167 and as well as 

H.R. 1633. We will offer you time to introduce both of those if you 

will, and if you need extra time to do it since there are two bills, 

please feel free to use that extra time. 

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

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member. I will endeavor to be crisp. 

The first bill, which is the Quitclaim Surface Rights of Federal 

Land under the Jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management in 

Virginia City, Nevada, otherwise known as the Restoring Storey 

County Act, H.R. 1167, is a pretty simple story. 

As a result of the mining that occurred in the mid-1800s, there 

was not a lot of attention paid to township plots, parcels, things 

like that. Never really went back and fixed it. You have a county 

27 

manager and one of the county commissioners with some pretty 

deep roots in the county that will testify later as a part of a panel. 

I will just say this: The objective of the bill which, by the way, 

came at the suggestion of the BLM folks in Nevada, was to say 

there are a lot of title issues in Virginia City in those township 

areas, and we would just as soon be out of it. The objective of the 

bill is to remove the Federal Government from the title reports for 

those parcels that are in various incorporated, unincorporated 

urban areas of Storey County, if you will. 

So if somebody is concerned about this is going to give something 

away, there is still plenty of title work to do on those parcels in 

terms of the competing owners. And actually I will say this in front 

of the Storey County folks: Be careful what you ask for, we will be 

quitclaiming under this legislation to the county to let them basically step into the position of the Bureau of Land Management for 

purposes of all further title-clearance issues, and there are plenty. 

What it does, though, is it acknowledges the fact that these parcels have all been residential or commercial in nature in a small 

western town. Not the only instance in Nevada, but this is the one 

we are talking about today, allows the Federal Government to get 

off of people’s preliminary title reports and lets the landowners and 

the county with jurisdiction sort out the rest of it. 

The Bureau of Land Management in Nevada has not the resources nor the interest, according to my meetings with them, to 

engage in this. They have other things to be doing in a State which 

they own various portions of 86 percent of. I understand they are 

not here today. I can tell you that one of the accommodations made 

in it, though, is this is surface rights only; deals nothing in mineral 

rights. So that is what we are trying to accomplish with H.R. 1167. 

H.R. 1633, conveyance of small parcels, is meant to address another issue which is, at least in Nevada, and I believe in other 

Western States, if you have a State that is 33 percent owned by 

the Federal Government or more, which includes most of the West, 

including my colleague from California that I see is here today, and 

you have inholdings that are a quarter section or less that are in 

or near an urban area, which there are no environmental issues, 

it sets up a public process 18 months long where, in exchange for 

fair market value, those parcels can be sold into private ownership, 

or into municipal ownership, or into tribal ownership to put them 

in the stream of commerce. 

Now, we have limited the size to say this is not some subterfuge 

to buy multi-hundred-, multi-thousand-acre parcels, but when you 

are talking along the fringe of urban areas or things like that that 

don’t lend themselves to national forests management on a mega 

scale or BLM on that same scale, if you have cleared those, and 

there are no environmental NEPA type of issues, then if somebody 

wants to buy them, we ought to set up a process where at fair market value they can do that. 

So that is it in a nutshell, except the one thing that we have 

done that we think is kind of interesting is the proceeds of that, 

because of our earmark rule, are distributed for from each sale half 

to the State where the sale originated and then half to the other 

remaining Western States on a per capita basis for use to do things 

like comply with the Endangered Species Act, do things that are 

28 

resource related in those States so that we can hopefully in the 

West keep those funds working for the resource as a result of these 

parcels that are sold. 

That is it in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you, and I 

yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Amodei. 

I’ll turn to Mr. Daines, if you would like to present H.R. 2259. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVE DAINES, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Mr. DAINES. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

Grijalva, for hosting this hearing and carrying out our constitutional legislative duties even though the Government shut down. 

As we say in Montana, we just use pictures, words usually aren’t 

necessary, so we are going to talk about this bill. 

Agreement in our Government seems far gone these days. However, today, despite the dark clouds over DC, perhaps there is a silver lining. Today we are having a hearing on H.R. 2259. It is a bill 

I have introduced called the North Fork Watershed Protection Act. 

It is an initiative that I have joined my Democrat Montana colleague Max Baucus to support. In fact, as we saw the entire Nevada delegation, congressional, supporting it, I can tell you the entire Montana delegation supports it. I am the only one. 

My support for this bill marks the first time in almost 30 years 

that the Montana delegation, House and Senate, have supported 

public lands legislation in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion, and we 

are hoping to get this bill across the finish line. 

If DC looked a little more like Montana, I think we would have 

better government. At no cost to the American taxpayer, and in no 

loss in production of minerals, and in no loss in timber harvests 

and grazing rights, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act protects multiple use in a special part of our State from future energy 

development on 362,000 acres in the Flathead and Kootenai National Forests that border Glacier National Park. 

The current leases are held in suspension due to a 1988 Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held the Department of the 

Interior did not adequately complete environmental impact statements prior to issuing the leases. Current leaseholders are not paying rentals or royalties. Due to the sensitivity of the area—and you 

can just see the pictures behind me that made me explain that— 

and the low prospect of developing these leases, nearly 80 percent 

of the existing leaseholders have already voluntarily relinquished 

their leases. Though no production is taking place, in this bill we 

ensure that lawful leaseholders maintain the ability to produce on 

their leases should the Interior again seek to go through the environmental review process. 

Let me tell you why this is important for Montana. The North 

Fork of the Flathead River extends about 90 miles from its headwaters in southern British Columbia, and it moves south into Montana where it forms the western boundary of Glacier National Park 

through the watershed to British Columbia. The North Fork is 

widely treasured as a remote corner of our State. We harvest timber, we hunt elk, we catch trout, and we launch expeditions near 

the adjacent Glacier National Park. 

29 

This bill will sustain our local economy and strengthen long-term 

community stability. It is supported by a wide variety of stakeholders from local businesses, community leaders, and conservation 

groups. In fact, Mr. John Anderson, a Whitefish, Montana, City 

Councilman, is here today to testify about this bill’s importance to 

the Whitefish community and to the business community of the 

Flathead Valley as a whole. 

Lumber mills, like the longest family owned mill in the Flathead, 

Stoltze Lumber, find the bill important sustaining healthy forest 

management in the area. Though a witness from Stoltze Lumber 

wanted to testify today, they were not able to attend. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter testimony from Paul 

McKenzie of Stoltze Lumber into the record, as well as statements 

of support from Conoco Phillips, the Outdoor Alliance, Trout Unlimited, the Wilderness Society, the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce, and The Nature Conservancy. I would like unanimous consent to enter into the record. Unanimous consent to enter into the 

record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statements and letters of support follow:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY

1776 EYE STREET, NW. SUITE 700, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20006. 

OCTOBER 1, 2013. 

The Honorable STEVE DAINES, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR MR. DAINES: 

I am writing to express ConocoPhillips’ support for H.R. 2259, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013, which would conserve an area of Montana that has 

important economic and recreational qualities and is a gateway to Glacier National 

Park. 

ConocoPhillips was pleased to voluntarily give up its interest in 108 Federal oil 

and natural gas leases, covering 169,000 acres in the watershed. ConocoPhillips is 

confident that it could have developed those leases in a safe and environmentally 

responsible manner, but relinquished the acreage after considering the unique characteristics of the area. 

We hope that the Natural Resources Committee and the House will act expeditiously in its consideration of H.R. 2259. 

Sincerely, 

JIM FORD, 

Vice President, 

Federal and State Government Affair. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY F.H. STOLTZE LAND & LUMBER COMPANY

LUMBER MANUFACTURERS, 

COLUMBIA FALLS, MT 59912, 

OCTOBER 1, 2013. 

The Honorable ROB BISHOP, 

Chairman, 

U.S. House of Representative, 

Committee on Natural Resources, 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

RE: H.R. 2259—North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013 

30 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, 

Please accept the following testimony on behalf of F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber 

Co. regarding H.R. 2259, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013, sponsored by Congressman Daines from Montana. 

Clean air, clean water and robust wildlife habitats are valued by all Americans. 

The trans-boundary North Fork of the Flathead River valley has a long history of 

balancing resource development with residential and recreational uses while protecting the ecological functions of a unique landscape. H.R. 2259 is supported by a 

broad coalition of local businesses, community leaders and conservation groups and 

is fully supported by F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Co. H.R. 2259 is a logical step 

in ensuring that this balance of historic uses and ecological values can continue for 

future generations. 

The North Fork valley is home to one of the most robust wildlife and aquatic habitats in the lower United States. Threatened and endangered species including grizzly bear, bull trout, Canada lynx along with ungulates, wolverine, fisher, wolves and 

mountain lion thrive in the North Fork. These wildlife populations have thrived in 

concert with responsible timber management, grazing and recreational uses of our 

Federal landsmanaged by the U.S. Forest Service. 

The unique balance of use and conservation in the North Fork of the Flathead 

River Valley has been recognized internationally as a successful model of landscape 

management. To that end, our neighbors to the north have committed to preservation of the trans-boundary North Fork Flathead River Valley by limiting mineral 

and geothermal development on the Canadian side of the border. H.R. 2259 will fulfill the commitment made in an international agreement to similarly limit development on the U.S. side of the border to ensure the ecological integrity and function 

of the entire watershed. 

It is important to recognize that H.R. 2259 specifically protects historic uses such 

as forest management, livestock management and recreational uses. Eliminating the 

potential impacts of development of mining and geothermal will help ensure the 

continued viability of these historic uses. The restrictions in this bill only apply to 

Federal lands and will not affect activities or rights of private or state interests. 

The scope of the bill is narrow and focused. The bill does not include wilderness 

designation, closure of access or roads, limitation on historic uses or infringement 

on existing rights, private or public. 

It is my understanding that the potential for mineral and geothermal development is very low to non-existent in the area and that consultation with these industries has indicated they have no objection to the proposed bill. The bill as proposed 

will NOT affect any existing leaseholder rights in the area. Additionally, I understand that if the bill is allowed to be marked up, Rep. Daines is committed to 

strengthen protections of rights of existing leaseholders. 

F.H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Co. is the oldest family owned sawmill and forest 

management company in Montana. We recently celebrated our 100 year anniversary 

of operation in Montana. We believe strongly in the saying ‘‘healthy forests make for 

healthy communities and healthy families’’. The concept of Stewardship is central 

to our business and land management activities. We have proven and continue to 

demonstrate that active management of our natural resources is compatible with 

conservation goals, both on our own private timberlands and on those lands owned 

by other private and State interests. There is no reason we cannot balance use and 

conservation on our Federal lands as well. Balancing the needs for stewardship 

management and conservation has been an essential part of our 100 years of success 

as a company. H.R. 2259 is fully consistent with this balance that has ensured our 

long term success and the Montana way of life. 

For the last 12 months, I have been a participant in a citizen driven collaborative 

effort called the Whitefish Range Partnership to help develop a forest plan revision 

proposal for the U.S. Forest Service managed lands in the North Fork area. This 

broad collaborative includes representatives of conservation groups, wilderness advocates, timber managers, motorized and non-motorized recreation, North Fork residents, commercial recreation, local government and local business. This group spent 

endless hours discussing various topics, including the language included in 

H.R. 2259. This larger collaborative group has come to tentative consensus agreement to support the language in S. 255 and echoed in H.R. 2259 and will likely 

make final consensus agreement this next week at our next meeting. This is further 

indication of the broad based support for the proposed language. 

H.R. 2259 is an essential step in the stewardship of the natural resources on Federal lands in the North Fork Valley. Balance requires understanding of benefits and 

risks. In this situation, the benefits of protecting the North Fork Valley from potential impacts from new mining and geothermal development far outweigh the risk asVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
31 

sociated with lost opportunity. The collaborative support for H.R. 2259 is indicative 

of the wise use and balance needed to meet the needs of our local communities while 

ensuring ecological integrity and function for future generations. 

Please fully consider the benefits of H.R. 2259 and I encourage the committee to 

allow further deliberation and mark up of this important bill. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and I look forward to monitoring the progress of this 

legislation. 

Sincerely, 

PAUL R. MCKENZIE C.F., 

Lands and Resource Manager. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MONTANA TROUT UNLIMITED

MAIN OFFICE, PO BOX 7186, 

MISSOULA, MT. 59807, 

OCTOBER 1, 2013. 

The Honorable DOC HASTINGS, 

Chairman, 

Committee on Natural Resources, 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515. 

The Honorable PETER A. DEFAZIO, 

Ranking Member, 

Committee on Natural Resources, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

RE: H.R. 2259—North Fork Watershed Protection Act 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HASTINGS AND RANKING MEMBER DEFAZIO: 

We write on behalf of Trout Unlimited and its 3,600 members in Montana to sincerely thank you for scheduling a hearing on H.R. 2259, the North Fork Watershed 

Protection Act of 2013. 

Trout Unlimited strongly supports the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, and 

we thank Rep. Daines for his leadership on this important legislation. The bill 

would withdraw U.S. Forest Service land in the North Fork of the Flathead River’s 

watershed from future mineral leasing activities. The North Fork of the Flathead 

is one of Montana’s most special places to hunt and fish. The eastern half of the 

valley is comprised of Glacier National Park, the watershed provides critical habitat 

for bull trout and cutthroat trout, and hunting is a cornerstone of the region’s heritage and culture. World-class mule deer, elk and moose hunting opportunities, angling for native trout and the natural wonders of Glacier National Park attract visitors from across the country. This valley is truly one of the most wildlife-rich regions in the continental United States, and we believe that we should keep it as 

it is so that future generations will be able to experience this unique and special 

place. 

The North Fork Watershed Protection Act is an important step in ensuring that 

traditional land uses such as timber and outdoor recreation are protected in this 

valley. Oil, gas and hard rock mineral extraction in the North Fork would forever 

change this extraordinary place and pose a serious threat to water and air quality, 

trout populations, and big game habitat. That means big business in Montana, 

where hunters and anglers contribute $1 billion annually to the State economy. 

Moreover, Glacier National Park borders the withdrawal area and mineral extraction would negatively impact the economic engine created by 2 million tourists that 

spend over $150 million each year to experience the scenery, clean water and wildlife of Glacier National Park. 

The act also satisfies a Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Montana and the Canadian Province of British Columbia, under which British Columbia 

has already moved to withdraw its portion of the watershed from mineral development. 

A final reason we support H.R. 2259 is because it is a collaborative, bi-partisan 

solution. Montana’s entire Congressional delegation is working together to pass legislation that will protect this watershed from the threat of oil and gas development, 

and the act enjoys broad support locally and throughout our State. Moreover, several oil and gas leaseholders have voluntarily relinquished over 200,000 acres of 

leases in the watershed. We understand our need for fossil fuels and hard rock minVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
32 

erals, and we believe that part of responsible development is recognizing that some 

places are too special to be industrialized—Montanans from all walks of life agree 

that the North Fork is one of these places. 

Today there is a unique and timely opportunity to enact a model of collaborative 

conservation that will protect the North Fork of the Flathead and Glacier National 

Park and preserve our sporting traditions for future generations. H.R. 2259 is an 

essential piece of legislation to complete this legacy. 

Sincerely, 

DOUG HAACKE, 

Chairman, 

Montana Trout Unlimited. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION

P.O. BOX 1175, 

HELENA, MONTANA 59624, 

OCTOBER 3, 2013. 

The Honorable ROB BISHOP, 

Chairman, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

The Honorable RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, 

Ranking Member, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

RE: The North Fork Watershed Protection Act (H.R. 2259) 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP AND RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA: 

The Montana Wildlife Federation (MWF) is writing to thank you for holding a 

hearing on the North Fork of the Watershed Protection Act (H.R. 2259) and also 

to express our support for this important piece of legislation. 

Founded in 1936, MWF is Montana’s oldest and largest hunter and angler-based 

conservation group. We are comprised of over 5,000 hunters, anglers, landowners 

and other conservationists who share a mission to protect and enhance Montana’s 

public wildlife, lands, waters, and fair chase hunting and fishing heritage. MWF 

strongly supports H.R. 2259 and we appreciate Congressman Daines’s leadership to 

advance this important legislation. 

The North Fork of the Flathead valley is a special place and a cornerstone of 

Montana’s natural heritage. Flanked by Glacier National Park to the east, the 

Whitefish Range to the west and cut by the North Fork of the Flathead River, this 

valley is a sportsmen’s paradise as well as an economic driver for the region. The 

region abounds with wildlife: moose, elk, deer, grizzly bears, black bears, wolverines, 

eagles, bull trout and Westslope cutthroat trout are just a sampling of the wildlife 

inhabit the North Fork. Anglers can cast flies to native trout, hunters have ample 

room to roam on Forest Service lands that comprise the withdrawal area, and 2 million tourists flock to region every year, contributing over $150 million to the local 

economy. Put simply, in a State with many special places, the North Fork is near 

the top of the list. 

MWF supports responsible energy development in places where oil and gas drilling and hard rock mining are compatible with the conservation of fish and wildlife 

habitat. However, the North Fork of the Flathead is a place that deserves to be set 

aside for future generations. For this reason, protecting the North Fork of the Flathead has been a fixture of MWF’s work for over three decades. 

In 1982, the Forest Service leased lands in the North Fork for oil and gas development, sparking a controversy that we finally have an opportunity to resolve by passing H.R. 2259. Today there is a broad consensus among Montanans that protecting 

the North Fork is the right thing to do. Our entire bipartisan Congressional delegation supports legislation to withdraw Forest Service lands from oil, gas and hard 

rock mineral leasing and numerous business owners, sportsmen and women, municipal governments, organizations, local chambers of commerce and conservationists 

have all endorsed the North Fork Watershed Protection Act. Additionally, several 

oil and gas companies have voluntarily relinquished over 200,000 acres of leases. 

33 

Last, enacting H.R. 2259 will fulfill Montana’s agreement with British Columbia 

to prevent mining in the trans-boundary North Fork of the Flathead watershed. In 

2010, British Columbia banned development in their portion of the watershed and 

it is time for us to hold up our end of the agreement. 

Protecting the North Fork of the Flathead is an example of diverse interests coming together and uniting around a solution that will benefit future generations. 

Passing H.R. 2259 is the final step in a three decade effort to conserve this extraordinary place and MWF is hopeful that Congress will help us complete this work. 

Sincerely, 

SKIP KOWALSKI, 

President, Montana Wildlife Federation. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE OUTDOOR ALLIANCE

OCTOBER 2, 2013. 

RE: North Fork Watershed Protection Act 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DAINES, 

Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of five national, member-based organizations that 

includes Access Fund, American Canoe Association, American Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling Association, and Winter Wildlands Alliance. We write 

in support of your bill, H.R. 2259, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act. Many 

of our members and supporters know the North Fork Flathead watershed first 

hand, and we appreciate your efforts to protect this treasured landscape. 

The Flathead is one of Montana’s few Wild and Scenic Rivers and an important 

resource for the human powered outdoor recreation community. Any development, 

especially mineral, ought to take other values of the landscape into consideration. 

H.R. 2259 achieves this end, effectively limiting development and providing the watershed with the protection it deserves. Furthermore, we recognize and support your 

bill’s provision to preserve recreation access. 

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the clean water, clean air, abundant wildlife and spectacular recreation in the North Fork watershed. 

Best regards, 

Brady Robinson, 

Executive Director, 

Access Fund. 

Michael Van Abel, 

Executive Director, 

International Mountain Bicycling 

Association. 

Wade Blackwood, 

Executive Director, 

American Canoe Association. 

Mark Menlove, 

Executive Director, 

Winter Wildlands Alliance. 

Mark Singleton, 

Executive Director, 

American Whitewater. 

Adam Cramer, 

Policy Architect, 

Outdoor Alliance. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

32 S. EWING STREET, 

HELENA, MT 59601 

TO: House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and 

Environmental Regulation. 

DEAR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, 

The Nature Conservancy wishes to go on record in favor of H.R. 2259: the North 

Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013. 

At a time when so many issues seem to divide upon partisan lines, the North 

Fork Watershed Protection Act is a shining example of bipartisan cooperation to ensure clean water for many generations to come. The North Fork of the Flathead 

River isn’t just a sparkling natural treasure; it is the lifeblood of a huge segment 

of northwestern Montana’s economy. Flathead Lake, alone, brings millions of dollars 

a year to Montana’s tourism economy. People from across the United States and 

around the world fish the pristine waters, float the rapids, and are refreshed and 

renewed simply watching its calming flow. People count on it for clean drinking 

water for many miles downstream. 

34 

Americans have demonstrated their commitment by supporting protection of this 

precious waterway. This act ensures that the investment the public has already 

made in the river will endure for generations. 

We applaud the bipartisan supporters of this legislation for recognizing the importance of preserving the clean water and opportunities for recreation that the North 

Fork provides, not simply today, but as a legacy we are leaving to the generations 

to come. 

We also thank Congressman Daines for sponsoring this legislation, and we look 

forward to working with him on other common sense conservation solutions down 

the road. 

Respectfully, 

RICHARD JEO, 

State Director. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

H.R. 2259—North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013 

The Wilderness Society (TWS), representing over 600,000 members and supporters from across the United States, would like to go on the record as enthusiastically supporting H.R. 2259, the ‘‘North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013’’ introduced by Congressman Steve Daines of Montana. Glacier National Park, as well 

as many of the national forest lands addressed in this bill, are of national significance and H.R. 2259’s passage would benefit many Americans from all walks of life 

as well as future generations. In addition, passage of this bill ensures that the 

United States ‘‘acts by example’’ and fully engages in the coordinated, partnership 

approach requested by the province of British Columbia when they agreed in 2011 

to take action to protect the Canadian side of the North Fork Flathead from coal, 

oil and gas, and mining development. 

Also important is that this bill has almost no active opposition, as to our knowledge, no organized group, relevant elected official, Montana newspaper, or affected 

constituency has spoken out against H.R. 2259 or its Senate companion legislation, 

S. 233 (introduced by Senators Baucus and Tester, and which The Wilderness Society also enthusiastically supports). Instead, over the past several years there has 

been an impressive outpouring of diverse and formal support from local businesses, 

civic groups, Chambers of Commerce, City Councils, sportsmen and conservation 

groups, and others. From the Montana Logging Association and Citizens for Balanced Use to the North Fork Landowners Association and Glacier Raft Company, 

divergent interests have come together behind this bill. 

This bill will help protect the recreation and natural assets that support the growing local and regional economy in this part of the State. Consider that in a 4/5/2010 

letter to the Montana delegation, the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce praised this 

legislation (the Senate version) as ‘‘being good for business’’ further stating, ‘‘The 

Chamber wishes to ensure that Glacier Park, the North Fork River Valley, and Flathead Lake remain as economically productive as they are today. We think that oil 

and gas development in the Whitefish Range would be inconsistent with our interest 

to see the entire watershed protected from upstream (Canadian) pollution.’’ 

Though only a single page in length, this bill is nonetheless significant in two notable ways. First, it provides an important example of bipartisan cooperation, as it 

represents the first Montana focused public lands bill in decades where the entire 

State’s delegation, regardless of party, has ‘‘been in agreement and working to do 

the right thing for Montanans,’’ as Congressman Daines put it when he introduced 

H.R. 2259. Second, it is worth noting that major players in the oil and gas industry 

have already made important business decisions regarding protection of the North 

Fork Flathead watershed based on support for and assumed passage of this legislation. During 2011–2012, Conoco Phillips, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil subsidiary XTO 

Energy all voluntary agreed to relinquish their valid leases in the watershed, covering an area of almost 200,000 acres. 

Indeed, over the past 8 years, Congress has passed similar Federal legislation 

withdrawing sensitive national forest and/or BLM lands from new oil and gas leasing, mineral entry, and other forms of energy development for several other places. 

This includes 2005 bi-partisan legislation that withdrew the Valle Vidal area in 

northern New Mexico, 2006 legislation for Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front that 

was first introduced by then Senator Burns (R) but then moved by Senator Baucus 

(D), and most recently legislation introduced in 2008 (passed in 2009) by Republican 

Senator Barrasso of Wyoming (co-sponsored by Senator Enzi) that withdrew 1.2 million acres of national forest in the Wyoming Range. 

35 

TWS enthusiastically supports H.R. 2259 and sincerely thanks Congressman 

Daines for his dedication to protecting his nationally important watershed next to 

Glacier National Park and in the heart of the nationally significant Crown of the 

Continent Ecosystem. We equally thank the Congressman and Montana’s two Senators for their combined leadership and effective coordination on this important 

matter. We urge swift passage of the North Fork Flathead Watershed Protection Act 

as it will serve Montana and the Nation well for decades to come. 

Mr. DAINES. The first stakeholders, including the Montana Logging Association, the Citizens for Balanced Use, a multiple-use organization, the North Fork Landowners Association, the Glacier 

Raft Company, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, ConocoPhillips, 

XTO Energy, Chevron, and the Wilderness Society, they are all 

supporting this bill. In fact, we cannot list a single group that has 

organized opposition to this bill. I can say this: That list of supporters does not often agree on much, but we agree on this. 

In addition to protecting our way of life and supporting the local 

community in the Flathead Valley, H.R. 2259 upholds an international agreement we have already made with Canada. In February 2010, the province of British Columbia and the State of Montana signed an MOU to preclude mineral extraction along the Flathead. 

British Columbia completed prohibition of mineral development 

along the Flathead River in 2011. H.R. 2259 is necessary to uphold 

the United States’ end of that bargain. 

Mr. Chairman, I am happy my colleagues can learn about the 

importance of this legislation today. I urge support of this legislation. I look forward to working together to get it passed. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Now, Mr. McClintock, you may be last, but you are certainly not 

least in this pantheon of bills that we have. I would like to recognize you for your bill, 3888, that deals with salvage timber. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

for holding this hearing today and for the speedy consideration of 

H.R. 3188. 

It is estimated that up to 1 billion board feet of fire-killed timber 

can still be salvaged out of the forests that have been devastated 

by the Yosemite Rim Fire, but it requires immediate action. As 

time passes, the value of this dead timber declines, until after a 

year or so it becomes unsalvageable. 

The Reading Fire in Lassen occurred more than 1 year ago. The 

Forest Service has just gotten around to selling the salvage rights 

last month. In the year that the Forest Service has taken to plow 

through the endless environmental reviews, all of the trees under 

18 inches in diameter, which is most of them, have become worthless. After a year’s delay for bureaucratic paperwork, extreme environmental groups will often file suits to run out the clock, and the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has become infamous for blocking 

salvage operations. 

We have no time to waste in the aftermath of the Yosemite Rim 

Fire, which destroyed more than 400 square miles of forest in the 

36 

Stanislaus National Forest and the Yosemite National Park. It is 

the largest fire ever recorded in the Sierra Nevada mountains. 

The situation is particularly urgent because of the early infestation of bark beetles, which have already been observed attacking 

the dead trees. As they do so, the commercial value of those trees 

drops by half. 

Four hundred miles of roads are now in jeopardy. If nearby trees 

are not removed before winter, we can expect dead trees to begin 

toppling, risking lives and closing access. Although the Forest Service has expedited a salvage sale on road and utility rights-of-way 

as part of the immediate emergency measures, current law otherwise only allows a categorical exemption for just 250 acres. That 

is enough to protect just 10 miles of road. 

Now, earlier today we heard the Ranking Member Mr. DeFazio 

say that the sequester is delaying the U.S.—or pardon me, the 

shutdown is delaying the U.S. Forest Service review of salvage. 

What he didn’t explain was that process takes a year or more, and 

by the time the normal environmental review of salvage operations 

has been completed, a year from now, what was once forestland 

will have already begun converting to brushland, and by the following year reforestation will become infinitely more difficult and 

expensive, especially if access has been lost due to the impassability of roads. By that time only the very biggest of the trees will 

still be salvageable. 

Within 2 years, 5 to 8 feet of brush will have built up, and the 

big trees will begin toppling on this tinder. You couldn’t possibly 

build a more perfect fire than that: dry tinder at the bottom and 

large, dry logs at top. 

If we want to stop the conversion of this forestland to brushland, 

the dead timber has to come out. If we take it out now, we can actually sell salvage rights, providing revenue to the Treasury that 

could then be used for reforestation. If we go through the normal 

environmental reviews and litigation, the timber will be worthless, 

and instead of someone paying us to remove the timber, we will 

have to pay someone else to do so. The price tag for that will be 

breathtaking. We will then have to remove the accumulated brush 

to give seedlings a chance to survive, again, another very expensive 

proposition. 

This legislation simply waives the environmental review process 

for salvage operations on land where the environment has already 

been incinerated, and allows the government to be paid for the removal of already dead timber rather than having the government 

pay somebody else. 

There is a radical body of opinion that says, well, just leave it 

alone, and the forest will grow back. Well, indeed it will, but certainly not in our lifetimes. Nature gives brush first claim to the 

land, and it will be decades before the forest is able to fight its way 

back to reclaim that land. 

This measure has bipartisan precedent. It is the same approach 

as offered by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle a few years ago to 

salvage beetle-killed timber in the Black Hills National Forest. 

Finally, salvaging this timber would also throw an economic lifeline to communities that have already been devastated by this fire, 

37 

as local mills could be brought to full employment for the first time 

in many years. 

Time is not our friend. We can act now and restore the forest, 

or we can dawdle until restoration becomes cost prohibitive. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

I appreciate the Members who are here and those who are not 

here for presenting the bills before us. 

We are now going to turn to the second panel, which is some of 

the expert testimony. I would invite Bill Neikirk, who will talk 

about the Mill Springs Battlefield—from the Mill Springs Battlefield Association to come up to the microphones; Morris Vogel, who 

is the President of the Lower East Side Tenement Museum. I was 

going to say, we have two good German names there, but then we 

come up with Pedro Segarra, who is the Mayor of the city of Hartford. And you changed the pattern right there. Also invite John Anderson, who is a Councilman from White Fish, Montana; and Tom 

Partin, who is the President of the American Forest Resource 

Council. If they would join us at the panel to give testimony on individual bills. 

What we will do is go bill by bill and, after each presentation, 

ask if there are questions pertaining to that particular piece of legislation. 

So we will start with—and I will urge all of you, because we 

would like to be done fairly soon here, you have 5 minutes to make 

your presentations. We appreciate your time and effort to come 

here to do that. I want you to use the time wisely, but once the 

5 minutes are up, we want you to stop at that time, and then we 

will open up for questions afterwards. 

If you have not been here before, your written testimony is already part of the record. This should be additional oral testimony 

to that. And you will have the time clock in front of you, which will 

start timing down. If you see the yellow light come on, that means 

you have 1 minute left. Please stop when it goes red again. 

So we will first turn to Mr. Neikirk from the Mill Springs Battlefield Association. If you would give testimony on House bill 298. 

Mr. Neikirk. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. NEIKIRK, FOUNDER, MILL 

SPRINGS BATTLEFIELD ASSOCIATION 

Mr. NEIKIRK. Thank you, sir. I appreciate this opportunity to be 

here before the committee today. The Mill Springs Battlefield is a 

national historic landmark. It is located on both sides of Lake 

Cumberland in Pulaski and Wayne Counties, Kentucky. Mill 

Springs Battlefield Association is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation 

which was founded in 1992 by me and 20 other concerned individuals for the purpose of preserving, protecting, maintaining and interpreting the Mill Springs Battlefield. 

The significance of the Mill Springs Battlefield nationally, the 

Mill Springs battle was fought on January 19, 1862. It resulted in 

a decisive Union victory that ultimately drove the Confederates 

from Kentucky and enabled the Federal advance into Middle Tennessee in February 1862. The defeat of the Confederates at this 

battle helped secure Kentucky for the Union, a vital achievement, 

38 

and was the first major Union victory of the war, following the disastrous defeat at First Manassas on July 21, 1861. 

The defeat of Confederate General Felix K. Zollicoffer, who died 

during this battle, was the first of many victories for Union General George H. Thomas, who, at the end of the war, was the third 

highest-ranking Union general. 

In 1992, the National Park Service identified Mill Springs Battlefield as one of the 25 most endangered battlefields. Under the guidance of the American Battlefield Protection Program, the protected 

areas of the battlefield have been able to grow from 1⁄2 acre to over 

600 acres. To be on this list, the battle outcome had to have a significant outcome on the war itself, the land had not changed since 

the war, and it was in danger of being developed. The National 

Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program again this 

year in August 2013 put Mill Springs on that most endangered battlefield list as a category 1. 

Today the Mill Springs Battlefield Association is comprised of a 

15-member board of directors whose purpose is to preserve and interpret the battlefield for future generations of Americans. The 

board owns and administers over 600 acres of the battlefield land, 

along with a 10,000-square-foot visitor center built in 2006, which 

is located adjacent to the Mill Springs National Cemetery. 

Our proposal—in recognition of the National Park Service’s ability and expertise in generating tourism is asking this committee to 

support Congressman Hal Rogers’ House bill 298, which directs the 

Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to 

evaluate the significance of the Mill Springs Battlefield and the 

feasibility of its addition into the National Park Service as part of 

the Cumberland Gap National Park. Why Cumberland Gap? The 

same troops that fought at Mill Springs fought at the Battle of 

Cumberland Gap 1 month before that. 

Mill Springs is unique in that we are not asking the Park Service 

to take over undeveloped battlefield land. In contrast, we are offering the National Park Service 600 acres with miles of well-kept interpretive trails, a marked driving tour, a visitors center museum. 

MSBA has spent over $12 million to preserve and interpret the 

battlefield for future generations. The Mill Springs Battlefield Association will continue as a fringe group in support of the battlefield. Our dedication to preserve and protect the battlefield will not 

change when this becomes a national park. Thank you all. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neikirk follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. NEIKIRK, FOUNDER, MILL SPRINGS

BATTLEFIELD ASSOCIATION

H.R. 298 

INTRODUCTION

The Mill Springs Battlefield, a National Historic Landmark, is located on both 

sides of Lake Cumberland in Pulaski and Wayne counties, Kentucky. The Mill 

Springs Battlefield Association, a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation was founded in 

1992 by Association President William R. Neikirk and 20 other concerned individuals for the purpose of preserving, protecting, maintaining and interpreting the Mill 

Springs Battlefield. 

39 

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MILL SPRINGS BATTLEFIELD, NATIONALLY

The Battle of Mill Springs, fought on January 19, 1862, resulted in a decisive 

Union victory that ultimately drove the Confederates from Kentucky and enabled 

the Federal advance into Middle Tennessee in February 1862. 

The defeat of the Confederates at this battle helped secure Kentucky for the 

Union, a vital achievement, and was the first major Union victory of the war following the disastrous defeat at First Manassas on July 21, 1861. The defeat of Confederate Brigadier General Felix K. Zollicoffer, who died during the battle, was a 

first of many victories for Union General George H. Thomas. 

In 1992, the National Park Service identified Mill Springs Battlefield as one of 

the 25 most endangered battlefields. Under the guidance of the American Battlefield 

Protection Program (ABPP), the protected area of the battlefield has been able to 

grow from 1⁄2 acre to over 600 acres. 

The National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program published a 

Draft update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission on the Nation’s Civil War 

Battlefields, August 2013. The report states the Mill Springs Battlefield of Kentucky 

condition as ‘‘portions altered, most essential features remain. Previous CWSAC priority 1, new priority 1.’’ (See NPS publication Civil War Battlefields Update, August 

2013). 

MILL SPRINGS BATTLEFIELD TODAY

Today the Mill Springs Battlefield Association is comprised of a 15-member board 

of directors, whose main purpose is to preserve and interpret the battlefield for future generations of Americans. The board owns and administers over 600 acres of 

battlefield land, along with a 10,000 square foot visitor’s center built in 2006, which 

is located adjacent to the Mill Springs National Cemetery. 

PROPOSAL

The Mill Springs Battlefield Association, in recognition of the National Park Service’s ability and expertise to generate tourism, is asking this committee to support 

Congressman Harold Rogers’ H.R. 298, which would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to evaluate the significance of the Mill 

Springs Battlefield located in Pulaski and Wayne Counties, Kentucky, and the feasibility of its addition to the National Park System as part of the Cumberland Gap 

National Park. 

MSBA is unique in that we are not asking the Park Service to take over undeveloped battlefield land. In contrast, we are offering the NPS 600 acres with miles of 

well-kept interpretive trails, a marked driving tour, and a visitor’s center/museum. 

MSBA has spent $12 million to preserve and interpret the battlefield for future generations. The Mill Springs Battlefield Association will continue as a ‘‘friends group’’ 

in support of the battlefield. Our dedication to preserving and protecting the battlefield will not change when this becomes a National Park. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony and explanation of the bill, which is about authorizing a study of this area. 

Do any of the Members have questions on this particular piece 

of legislation? If not, I thank you so much. You are welcome to stay 

there as long as you want to, but if you need to return back or anything, you are free to do that. 

We will turn now to Mr. Vogel, talking about the Lower East 

Side Tenement Museum. Welcome. Happy to have you here. Same 

rules. You have 5 minutes to present the testimony about this particular act. 

STATEMENT OF MORRIS J. VOGEL, PRESIDENT, LOWER EAST 

SIDE TENEMENT MUSEUM 

Mr. VOGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for allowing me to speak on behalf of H.R. 1846. This legislation would expand the boundaries of our current National Park 

Service-affiliated site to include a recently purchased building two 

doors away. 

40 

It is my privilege to serve as President of the Tenement Museum, 

which since 1988 has been presenting the stories of immigrants 

who brought their dreams to the United States, made their homes 

on New York’s Lower East Side, built lives, established families, 

earned livelihoods, and lived the struggles common to many newcomers in difficult settings. 

In the case of the immigrants’ whose lives we present to 200,000 

visitors a year, that setting was an 1863 tenement at 97 Orchard 

Street purpose built to house the poor when that neighborhood, Mr. 

Chairman, was Kleine Deutschland, the largest concentration of 

German speakers in the history of this country. 

They lived in 325-square-foot apartments, as many as 8 or 10 or 

12 to a 3-room home, without indoor toilets, without heat, water or 

utilities. Seven thousand people lived in that building before the 

city of New York condemned it as unfit for human occupancy in 

1935. 

The museum uses that tenement to tell the stories of immigrants 

from Ireland and Italy, Poland and Greece, Austria, Russia, Germany and Lithuania. We use it to help visitors who come from 

across the United States and around the world understand how 

this Nation evolved, how people of many different backgrounds became the American people. 

Their children and grandchildren have moved out of the neighborhood for the most part. Their descendants have continued to 

play vital roles in shaping our common destiny. 

Earlier this week I visited the 9/11 memorial, our neighbor in 

downtown New York. There, among the nearly 3,000 names etched 

into the footprints of the towers, I found Frank Reisman, the greatgreat-grandson of Nathalie Gumpertz, who, as a single mother born 

in East Prussia, raised three children at 97 Orchard Street. Even 

more meaningfully, I found among those names individuals from 

more than 90 nations, who, like our tenement residents, brought 

their dreams to this land of promise. 

So many of those names identify individuals who joined our common destiny from the new immigrant waves of recent decades; from 

China, the Caribbean, Africa, Central America, South Asia. The 

museum can’t tell their stories at 97 Orchard Street because that 

building closed before those immigrant waves arrived. 

Our recently acquired building at 103 Orchard Street, which 

dates from 1888 and escaped condemnation because it met the 

city’s evolving life and safety standards, will allow us to broaden 

the story we tell. We began documenting Puerto Rican and Chinese 

families who lived in the building. We will be using the facts of 

their lives in the homes in which they actually lived to provide an 

account of the largest Puerto Rican community on the American 

mainland and the largest Chinatown in the Western Hemisphere. 

We have documented in that building as well a family of Holocaust survivors allowed into the United States under this country’s 

very first Refugee Act. 

Taken individually, those stories will allow us to respond to the 

Park Service’s injunction to tell America’s untold stories. Taken together, which is how we will present them, those stories tell about 

the people we have become. 

41 

I welcome your support to recognize the property that will let us 

undertake this historical presentation as an affiliated site of the 

National Park Service. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for 

your time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vogel follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MORRIS J. VOGEL, PRESIDENT, LOWER EAST SIDE

TENEMENT MUSEUM

H.R. 1846 

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

to appear before you today on behalf of H.R. 1846, the Lower East Side Tenement 

National Historic Site Amendments Act. 

The Lower East Side Tenement Museum was founded in 1988; for 25 years now 

it has preserved and interpreted the history of immigration through the personal 

experiences of the generations of newcomers who settled in and built lives on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, America’s iconic immigrant neighborhood. The Museum 

forges emotional connections between visitors and immigrants past and present 

through tours of its historic building at 97 Orchard Street, which was declared a 

National Historic Landmark in 1994. The historic site became an affiliated site of 

the National Park System (NPS) in 1998 in Pub. L. 105–378 and is part of the National Parks of New York Harbor, which includes the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, 

and Castle Clinton. 

The Museum now serves 200,000 visitors per year, including 40,000 school children. Visitors explore recreated apartments and hear the stories of real families 

from over 20 nations who lived in the building from 1863 until 1935, when the city 

of New York condemned the building as unfit for human occupancy. The Museum 

has transformed this everyday tenement into a National Historic Site, its worn hallways and tired homes a monument to how imaginative historic preservation can 

summon the ghosts of the past to explain America’s most cherished ideals. The Museum helps visitors explore how the tenement’s immigrant residents worked, raised 

families, kept house, built communities, accommodated to America’s promise, and 

built this wonderful country. 

The Museum purchased 103 Orchard Street, an 1888 tenement building, in 2007 

and renovated its lower floors as a visitor and education center. Unlike the Museum’s first historic structure, 103 Orchard Street did not close to residents in midcentury, and so provided homes to more recent immigrant waves. The Museum is 

now developing an exhibit to present stories of Jewish Holocaust survivors, post1965 Chinese families, and 1950s Puerto Rican migrants. Together, these will extend the Museum’s immersive historic interpretations beyond 1935, where they now 

end, into the present. 

This project is a direct response to former NPS Director Jon Jarvis’s ‘‘Call to Action’’ to tell America’s untold stories. The exhibit would be the first at a National 

Park Service site to interpret the history of Holocaust survivors rebuilding lives in 

America. It would also be one of the few telling the stories of Puerto Rican migrants 

to the mainland and post-1965 Chinese immigrants. The interpretation differs from 

ethnic museums in that it presents the larger narrative of how Americans came to 

be the people they are today; in presenting these three distinct cultural narratives 

side by side for the first time, the Museum will provide a powerful lens on how 

Americans moved beyond the race-based immigration quota laws of the 1920s. The 

new exhibit will provide the setting for a powerful narrative reflecting the experiences of contemporary Americans in the diverse communities that now constitute 

much of the Nation. 

House bill 1846 expands the boundaries of the National Park Service affiliated 

site at 97 Orchard Street to include this newer tenement building. Including 103 

Orchard Street is a direct response to the Department of the Interior’s 2006 General 

Management Plan for the site, which recognized the need for visitor orientation, administrative facilities, and additional exhibit space. It determined that any boundary adjustment include significant features related to the primary purpose of the 

site, address operational issues including access, or protect resources critical to the 

site’s mission. It also required legislation to adjust the site’s boundaries. 

These new exhibits are directly related to the Museum’s mission and allow visitors to see how immigration has continued to evolve into the present. We estimate 

42 

the expansion would allow it to accommodate 50,000 additional visitors annually, 

including 12,000 school students. Furthermore, these exhibits will be fully ADA accessible which the majority of the original exhibits are not. 

This legislation will secure a partnership between the new space and the National 

Parks of New York Harbor. NPS would be able to assist this site with education 

workshops, tours for New York City school children, and exhibition construction and 

preservation, just as it has done at the original site. This designation would help 

preserve America’s iconic immigrant neighborhood. It is critical to provide the Tenement Museum with the resources it needs to continue to educate our children and 

tell the important stories of our past immigrant experience. The immigration story 

is America’s story; New York’s Lower East Side has been a portal to freedom for 

countless generations of new Americans. 

The Lower East Side Tenement Museum has worked for 25 years to enhance appreciation for the profound role immigration has played and continues to play in 

shaping this country. Today we ask that you support H.R. 1846 and expand the affiliated site boundaries to include this second historic building and help ensure the 

Tenement Museum’s success for years to come. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate your testimony and coming here today. 

You actually had me on Kleine Deutschland when you got to that 

point there. 

Are there any other questions on this particular piece of legislation? If not, once again, we thank you for the testimony. Thank you 

for explaining it. We appreciate your attendance here with us 

today. 

Mr. VOGEL. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me turn to the mayor. We welcome you again. 

Mr. SEGARRA. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. As I said, you had German names, German names, 

and then you broke the pattern right here. But we thank you. We 

turn to you for testimony on H.R. 1259. And same rules. I appreciate it. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF PEDRO E. SEGARRA, MAYOR, CITY OF 

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 

Mr. SEGARRA. Thank you, Chairman Bishop. And it is indeed a 

pleasure to be here again to speak in support of House bill 1259. 

Thank you, Ranking Member Mr. Grijalva and other members of 

the committee. 

It is a pleasure to be here on behalf of the city of Hartford in 

support of House bill 1259, the designation of the Coltsville Historic District as a national park. I want to thank Congressman 

John Larson and Senators Blumenthal and Murphy for their tireless support of this critical and important initiative. 

This effort, which also has the broad support of the city’s business community, institutions and organizations, is critical to the revitalization of Connecticut’s capital city and will become a centerpiece of the city’s effort to increase its focus on heritage tourism. 

It would also stand as a model for future innovation. 

The Colt manufacturing facility and surrounding structures 

played a critical, if not essential, role in the national defense, defining the direction of the United States during a time of great exploration and innovation. It not only changed the face of national and 

international business and commerce, but also enhanced and further promoted the spirit of American business ingenuity and the 

role in the local community. 

43 

It is symbolic that we are now again presented with a monumental decision that, if approved, will help to shape and encourage 

an ongoing renaissance in the city of Hartford and further promote 

the historic and necessary investment that Governor Dannel 

Malloy has made to restore funding designed to promote Connecticut’s culture and tourism destinations. 

The city of Hartford, the State of Connecticut and collaborative 

and associated public and private entities are deeply invested in 

the Coltsville neighborhood. The city has already rebuilt two 

schools and improved housing stock in the immediate area, and has 

committed almost $3 million in matching funds to improve the surrounding streets in ways that will redefine space, improve visuals, 

increase safety, and enhance the overall vibrancy of the area. 

We also stand ready to assist with other developments and elements in the greater scope and definition as we add this to America’s first and arguably the most preeminent industrial zone. 

A commitment has also been made by Riverfront Recapture and 

the Capital Region Education Council to preserve and maintain 

and manage their properties in accordance with the National Park 

Service and Historic Preservation Guide. 

A national park at Coltsville will only require the Park Service 

to manage only 10,000 square feet designated in the East Armory. 

All other areas will be interpreted externally, or an agreement with 

the National Park Service will be established during the evaluation 

period. In other words, if anything shuts down, Congressman 

Bishop, we can manage this on our own. 

It is important to briefly recognize the number of jobs this effort 

will create and the overall impact to the economy. Not only will the 

trades benefit through an intense construction effort, but long-term 

job growth across the region and in the entire job spectrum. Not 

only does it benefit the leisure and hospitality sector, but also those 

critical indirect and secondary job markets. 

So far, with the investments we have made, 1,000 jobs have been 

added, and an additional $175 million has been brought to the local 

economy. If we get the designation, we estimate that an additional 

1,000 jobs and an additional $150 million will come to the local 

economy. 

I couldn’t finish also without mentioning to you that it is the 

home of vintage baseball. Congressman Larson wanted, and I also 

want, to extend an invitation to you and members of the committee 

to come see vintage baseball. It is civility at its best in sportsmanship. 

I want to thank you for your consideration as we move forward 

with this resolution not only because its recognition is past due, 

but because of many of the positive outcomes that will come from 

recognizing Coltsville as a national park. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Segarra follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PEDRO E. SEGARRA, MAYOR, CITY OF HARTFORD, 

CONNECTICUT

H.R. 1259—Coltsville National Historical Park Act 

Distinguished members of the committee, 

On behalf of the city of Hartford, I appear before you today in support of 

H.R. 1259, the designation of the Coltsville Historic District as a National Park. I 

44 

want to thank Congressman John Larson and Senators Lieberman and Blumenthal 

for their tireless support of this critical and important initiative. This effort, which 

also has the broad support of the city’s business community, institutions, and organizations, is critical to the revitalization of Connecticut’s Capital City, and will become a centerpiece of the city’s effort to increase its focus on heritage tourism. It 

will also stand as model for future innovation. 

The Colt Manufacturing facility, and surrounding structures, played a critical— 

if not essential—role in our national defense, defining the direction of the United 

States during a time of great exploration and innovation. It not only changed the 

face of national and international business and commerce, but also enhanced and 

further promoted the spirit of American business ingenuity, and its role in local 

community. It is symbolic that we are now again presented with a monumental decision that, if approved, will help to shape and encourage an on-going renaissance 

in the city of Hartford and further promote the historic and necessary investment 

that Governor Dannel Malloy has made to restore funding designed to promote Connecticut’s culture and tourism destinations. 

The city of Hartford, State of Connecticut, and the collaborative of associated public and private entities, is deeply invested in the Coltsville neighborhood. The city 

has already rebuilt two schools and improved housing stock in the immediate area, 

and has committed almost $3 million in matching funds to improve surrounding 

streets in ways that will redefine space, improve visuals, increase safety and enhance the overall vibrancy of the area. We also stand ready to assist with other elements as greater scope and definition are added to the revitalization of one of America’s first, and arguably most preeminent, industrial zones. A commitment has also 

been made by local businesses, property owners, and managers, such as the Colt 

Gateway, Riverfront Recapture and the Capitol Region Education Council, to preserve, maintain and manage their properties in accordance with the National Park 

Service and Historic Preservation Guide. A National Park at Coltsville will only require the Park Service to manage the 10,000 square feet designated in the East Armory. All other areas will be interpreted externally or an agreement with the National Parks Service will be established during the evaluation period outlined in the 

legislation. 

It is important to briefly recognize the number of jobs this effort will create and 

the overall impact to the economy. Not only will the trades benefit through an intense construction effort, but long term job growth for the region across the entire 

job spectrum; not only in direct benefits to the leisure and hospitality sector, but 

also those critical indirect and secondary job markets that will be added and supported as well. With an intense focus and commitment in these areas, the region 

has already seen over 1,000 new jobs created and the infusion of $175 million into 

the regional economy. This designation, critical to the further restoration of Colt 

Manufacturing, has been independently estimated to generate an additional $150 

million for the regional economy and create 1,000 additional jobs over the next 5 

years. If no further development occurs, it will only yield $30 million and 229 jobs. 

I thank you for your time and consideration and do hope that you will move this 

resolution forward, not only because this recognition is long past due, but because 

of the many positive outcomes that will no doubt result from Coltsville being designated as a National Park. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate you, Mr. Mayor, for being 

here again. 

Are there any questions for this particular witness? 

Mr. Holt. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Segarra, I want to commend you and Mr. Larson and the 

others for preparing a good piece of legislation. I think this will 

work well. I certainly appreciate the benefits that heritage tourism 

and recreation bring to a community and to an entire region. We 

certainly see that in New Jersey. 

And one of the things I like about the Coltsville presentation is 

it complements and in no way detracts from the Paterson Great 

Falls National Historical Park, the site of the beginning of the industrial revolution in America, and the site of the invention of the 

Colt revolver, and the first place where interchangeable-part manuVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
45 

facturing was undertaken, which was then developed so highly at 

Coltsville. 

In fact, just for the record, it was March 1836 that Samuel Colt 

started the Patent Arms Manufacturing Company in Paterson, 

New Jersey, and production of the pocket model Paterson revolver 

began in 1837. And in 1848, Colt started the Colt’s Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company in Hartford; in other words, a dozen 

years later. 

So I think they complement each other well, and I commend you 

for putting together a good proposal. 

Mr. SEGARRA. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Any other questions? 

Then we have—Mr. LaMalfa. Go ahead. Could I add one thing 

before you do that, Mr. LaMalfa? I appreciate it. 

And I also want to thank you for talking about the baseball field, 

because Paterson didn’t include their ballpark in their park. They 

screwed it up. 

Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. HOLT. We tried. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am excited to hear about this as well, as a longtime fan of Colt 

products here, the 1911 semiauto pistol, and AR–15, and going all 

the way back to the previous history in the beginning, the founding 

of America, and of the importance it was for the defending and 

taming of the West. It is a great history here, so I am excited that 

this is moving forward in Connecticut. 

And you did mention that only 10,000 square feet would be subject to the National Park Service, and the rest would be autonomous to the local area? 

Mr. SEGARRA. That is correct. We have made significant investments in restoring this park. We have built two schools. So the 

park is—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. How close are the schools to the—— 

Mr. SEGARRA. The schools are right within the region. It is over 

300 acres, but the park that would be the national park is only 

10,000 square feet. There is an armory portion to this, but there 

is also Armsmere, which is the old Colt mansion; and there is a 

park, which was basically the park for the workers. There is also 

housing, the Potsdam Cottages. 

So there are a lot of amenities within this district, but the National Park request that we are making is for the 10,000-feet museum portion, which will represent the history of all these different 

assets. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So the rest of the park would not be subject to 

Park Service barricades and things like that? You would be able to 

control that yourself, right? 

Mr. SEGARRA. That is correct. 

And I also failed to mention that in addition to baseball, something very important happened right within the proximity of this 

land, and that is that the first written constitution, the Magna 

Carta, was drafted right there. So not only did we draft the first 

written constitution, we also developed there the means, the manuVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
46 

facturing means, to build us this great country. So I think asking 

for 10,000 square feet in return is a small thing to ask. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Great. Great. OK. I would be excited to visit that 

someday here, catch a baseball game and see the Constitution, and 

especially enjoy the Second Amendment aspects of that—— 

Mr. SEGARRA. Absolutely. 

Mr. LAMALFA [continuing]. On the site there. So I think it is a 

great bill and will be happy to support it when it is time. 

Mr. SEGARRA. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you for 

being here, Mr. Mayor. 

Mr. SEGARRA. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. We will now turn to John Anderson, the Councilman 

from White Fish, Montana, if you would like to talk about Mr. 

Daines’ legislation. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ANDERSON, CITY COUNCILOR, 

WHITEFISH, MONTANA 

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

Grijalva, members of the subcommittee, and, of course, Congressman Daines. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak on this 

bill, H.R. 2259, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act. 

My name is John Anderson, and I am a City Councilor from 

White Fish, Montana. In White Fish, my wife and I are raising two 

young boys, and if all goes well, when I get done testifying here, 

I plan to spend the weekend hunting with my oldest boy. On Monday, he finished his hunter safety courses, so this will be his first 

trip, and we plan to hunt these same lands that are the subject of 

this bill. In addition to the deer and elk that we will be chasing, 

we hope to see moose, wolverines even, mountain goats, and with 

any luck we will run across a grizzly bear from a distance. 

One of the important aspects of these lands is, similar to my 

family, generations are able to enjoy the recreation there. It binds 

communities together, and it binds families together throughout 

Montana. 

An additional aspect of this bill is the continuation of existing 

recreational activities as well as natural resource management, 

such as livestock and forest management. And that is particularly 

important to me. Prior to going to law school at the University of 

Montana, I ran a logging company. I had little more than a 

chainsaw and a team of draft horses, and I made my living in the 

woods. And this bill allows this part of Montana to continue to 

enjoy its logging heritage. 

From my perspective this bill benefits the local economy as well 

as the local taxpayers. During the great recession, I was Chairman 

of the Board of the White Fish Chamber of Commerce, and I saw 

firsthand the difficulties of those times within my community. My 

friends lost their jobs, their businesses, many of them got divorced 

and suffered other tragedies. 

The city of White Fish itself experienced some very difficult 

budgetary times, but thanks to a mayor, city council and a talented 

city manager in Chuck Stearns, as well as his dedicated city staff, 

47 

the city of White Fish was able to balance their budget, and we 

have not raised property tax rates in 4 years. 

As a local official, my focus, similar to Mayor Segarra’s, I suspect, is the blocking and tackling of local government. We deal with 

fixing sewer lines, filling potholes and balancing the budget, and 

that, of course, is the most important thing we do in a local government. 

This bill helps us balance that budget. It protects our watershed, 

where we get our drinking water from. Our primary source of 

water is the mountain streams in Haskill Basin, which is just 

north of White Fish. We also draw from White Fish Lake, which 

is adjacent to our town and actually part of the city of White Fish. 

If these lands are subject to heavy extractive industries, our costs 

of treating that water will go up. We will find ourselves drawing 

more and more from the lake. And the cost of treating drinking 

water from that lake is about two-and-a-half times that of treating 

drinking water straight from those mountain streams. 

I hate to think about the decisions that we will have to make and 

the costs that we will have to pass on to our taxpayers should 

heavy mining and extractive industries take place there. As a matter of fact, on Monday on our council agenda is an item to consider 

the water usage fees. This is a very real issue, very pertinent and 

very timely to us in the local community of White Fish. 

That is why this bill makes sense. As Congressman Daines mentioned, it enjoys broad, diverse support. The industries, from the 

energy sector, such as ConocoPhillips and Chevron support it. The 

forest products industries supports it, Plum Creek and Stolze Lumber included. Stolze Lumber, as Congressman Daines mentioned, is 

one of Montana’s oldest family owned lumber companies, a stone’s 

throw away from these lands. 

Some of the other businesses that support this include the outfitters and guide services that have used these lands for decades, as 

well as the Glacier National Park concessionaire. 

I want to thank you for your time, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN ANDERSON, CITY COUNCILOR, WHITEFISH, MONTANA

H.R. 2259—North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013. 

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, members of the subcommittee, 

thank you very much for considering this important piece of legislation, H.R. 2259: 

The North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013. My name is John Anderson. I 

am from Whitefish, Montana, where I am a city councilor and where my wife and 

I are raising two young boys. 

When I return to Montana after testifying today, I will spend the weekend hunting with my oldest son on the same lands that are the subject of this bill. It is his 

first hunting season, so this will be his first time hunting rather than merely accompanying me. We hope to see not only the deer and elk we will be stalking, but also 

moose, mountain goats, wolves, wolverines, black bears, grizzly bears, and bighorn 

sheep, all of which are found here in one of our Nation’s most robust wildlife habitats. This bill will allow local hunters and anglers to enjoy these same lands that 

bind together not only my family, but also families and communities and throughout 

the State of Montana. 

This bill also provides for the continuation of recreational, livestock, and forest 

management activities currently allowed on these lands. This is particularly important both to me and to our local economy. Before attending law school, I owned a 

48 

logging company and made my living with little more than a chainsaw and a team 

of draft horses. Thanks to this bill, the area’s deep logging heritage can continue. 

From my perspective, this bill benefits not only the local economy, but also the 

local taxpayers. As Chairman of the Whitefish Chamber of Commerce during the 

Great Recession, I witnessed first hand the effects of unpredictability on the local 

economy. Many of my friends lost their houses, their businesses, and their sense of 

optimism. Some divorced and many suffered other personal tragedies. The city of 

Whitefish faced harsh budgetary prospects. Thanks to the mayor and city council, 

a talented city manager in Chuck Stearns, and a dedicated city staff, Whitefish 

passed balanced budgets and has not raised property tax rates for the last 4 years. 

We have been able to build reserves, stabilize services for our residents, and clear 

the path for continued success. 

As a local official, my focus is on the ‘‘blocking and tackling’’ of government. Our 

city council agendas are filled with issues such as repairing sewer lines, filling pot 

holes, and plowing snow. But perhaps the most basic job of local government is balancing the budget. H.R. 2259 helps us do that. It protects a significant portion of 

our watershed, obtained directly from mountain streams in Haskill Basin that run 

through the lands that are preserved by this bill. If these lands are not safeguarded, 

and water quality in turn suffers, Whitefish will be faced with spending more money 

to treat water obtained from Whitefish Lake or other sources. Treating water from 

the lake costs nearly 2.5 times as much as treating water from the mountain 

streams. Fortunately, the land above Whitefish Lake is also protected by this bill. 

Should this land be mined or subject to heavy extraction activity, the local taxpayers may face rate and tax increases they can scarcely imagine. 

That is why this bill makes sense. It enjoys especially broad, local support. A varied cross section of industries, business groups, local governments, hunting and fishing organizations, conservation groups, and the State of Montana have publicized 

their support. Additionally, the entire Montana Congressional Delegation unanimously supports this bill. 

Industry supporters include energy companies such as ConocoPhillips and Chevron and forest product companies such as Plum Creek and Stolze Land and Lumber, 

the latter of which is headquartered in nearby Columbia Falls, Montana, and is one 

of the Nation’s oldest family owned forest product companies. Our area’s largest private employer, Kalispell Regional Medical Center, also supports this bill, as does 

our world-class ski resort, Whitefish Mountain Resort. Additionally, local chambers 

of commerce and numerous small businesses support this bill. The small businesses 

range from long-standing guide services that make their living on these lands to the 

concessionaire in Glacier National Park, which is adjacent to these lands. The area’s 

largest tribal government, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, also supports this bill, as do the cities of Whitefish and Kalispell as well as local county governments. 

In the U.S. Senate, this bill received unanimous support from the Senate Energy 

and Natural Resources Committee without any opposition. I ask that you also 

unanimously support passage of this bill. 

As I mentioned previously, the State of Montana supports this bill. On February 

19, 2010, Montana and the Province of British Columbia signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding to preclude mining, oil and gas development, and coalbed methane 

extraction throughout the transboundary Flathead region on State and provincial 

lands in this area. Virtually the entire watershed in British Columbia is provincial 

property, and the Province of British Columbia has since legislated a mining ban 

on those lands. On the United States side of the border, some 90 percent of the 

North Fork watershed is federally owned. I now ask you to provide the same support to my community and my State as our neighbors to the north have received 

from their government. 

A significant benefit of this bill is that it protects private property rights. It does 

not affect current leases on these Federal lands. Section 3 explicitly provides that 

the withdrawal of Federal land is subject to existing rights. Several major energy 

companies, including ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Andarko, Pioneer, Allen, and Kirms, 

have voluntarily relinquished their existing leases on these lands. To date, approximately 80 percent of current leased acreage—more than 180,000 acres—has already 

been returned to the Department of the Interior, free of charge to the American taxpayer. 

In closing, I again urge you to unanimously support passage of this important bill. 

Its importance to my local community is evidenced by its local support. This comes 

from the people themselves. 

That concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you for your attention and for inviting me to speak. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

49 

Mr. BISHOP. Are there questions for this particular witness? 

Mr. DAINES. I do, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Daines, you are recognized. 

Mr. DAINES. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Anderson, thanks for being here. Congratulations to your 12- 

year-old son passing hunter safety. Good luck. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. DAINES. I remember my first hunt in Montana, and it is 

something you never forget. So enjoy your time with your son this 

weekend. 

Given you are a representative of the city of White Fish, I would 

like to focus on how important this bill is to your community. To 

my knowledge, there are three streams in the withdrawal area, the 

first, second and third creeks that are part of that water supply 

and the watershed for the city of White Fish. I understand the city 

has also already had to shut off the third creek due to some street 

runoff pollution. If the water doesn’t flow from these creeks, White 

Fish, as you mentioned in your testimony, must get its water from 

White Fish Lake, which is more expensive; is that correct? 

Mr. ANDERSON. That is correct. 

Mr. DAINES. And I think you said it was two-and-a-half times 

more expensive to get it from the lake than from the streams. 

You also mentioned that if the water quality in the tributaries 

and the city water supply are not protected, the city is going to 

have to increase taxes, potentially. How would a tax increase affect 

Montana families and how might it impact the city and county coffers? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, speaking as somebody who lives there and 

would be directly affected by those taxes, I think it would without 

a doubt have a detrimental effect on our local economy. That 

money that we would like to go to private businesses would have 

to go to the city to pay for things like cleaning the water. I think 

that money is probably better spent in our community otherwise. 

Mr. DAINES. You also mentioned, Mr. Anderson, how H.R. 2259 

is important to maintaining our hunting and our outdoor recreation 

heritage in Montana. Do you see H.R. 2259 harming those historic 

uses in the area in any way? 

Mr. ANDERSON. No, I do not. As a matter of fact, I think it helps 

to support those continued uses. 

Mr. DAINES. Thanks. 

You also mentioned that private property rights are important to 

you. Some may wonder about the right to produce on the existing 

leases that have not yet been relinquished. Will H.R. 2259 harm 

private property rights or the ability for these energy companies to 

produce? 

Mr. ANDERSON. My understanding is this bill has no effect on existing private property rights. 

Mr. DAINES. It is also my understanding that if this bill is 

marked up in committee, we are going to include an amendment 

to explicitly prohibit the bill’s impact on the ability for that suspension to be lifted. A similar amendment was adopted in the markup 

of Senator Baucus’ bill in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. So we will move that forward. And I plan on 

offering and including that amendment. 

50 

Mr. ANDERSON. Good. 

Mr. DAINES. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Are there—Mr. Holt? 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. 

First of all, I want to commend the author of this bill and those 

who have worked on it, the councilor and others. I was beginning 

to despair that we would ever see legislation from the State that 

had the endorsement of industry and those who want to protect the 

environment over the long term and both parties. It is remarkable, 

but my question is am I correct that this has some urgency because 

of the agreement that has been reached upstream in Canada that 

gives the opportunity to actually protect this area? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. That agreement is now over 3 years old, and 

most of the lands on the Canadian side of the border in this watershed are provincially owned. And Canada, or British Columbia specifically, has enacted legislation to fulfill its part of the MOU. But 

on the southern side of the boundary, roughly 90 percent of these 

lands are federally owned, and so that is why I am here today and 

so thankful that Congressman Daines and Senator Baucus and 

Tester have introduced this bill. 

Mr. HOLT. Well, thank you. I am pleased to see this for a variety 

of reasons. And, again, I would like to commend my colleague Mr. 

Daines for his part in putting together a bill with such broad support. 

Mr. DAINES. Thank you. 

Mr. ANDERSON. And also a very brief one, you will notice. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Are there any other questions? If not, councilman, we appreciate 

you being here with us. 

We now turn to Mr. Partin of the American Forest Reserve 

Council to—I am sorry—American Forest Resource Council—— 

Mr. PARTIN. Right. 

Mr. BISHOP [continuing]. Makes a difference—to discuss 

H.R. 3188 with us. Sir, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF TOM PARTIN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FOREST 

RESOURCE COUNCIL 

Mr. PARTIN. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and members of the subcommittee, and especially Mr. McClintock, for inviting me here today to speak on 

H.R. 3188. My name is Tom Partin. I am President of the American Forest Resource Council, and we are based in Portland, Oregon. 

I am here today, as I mentioned, to testify on H.R. 3188, a bill 

to expedite salvage and rehabilitation activities on lands inversely 

impacted by the 2013 Yosemite Rim Fire in California. 

The American Forest Resource Council represents the forest 

products industry in five Western States. We advocate for sustainable forest management on our public forests, which will help provide healthy forests, a vibrant forest products industry, and 

healthy rural communities and counties. 

Unfortunately, our Federal forests are far from being managed 

today in a sustainable manner. They are overcrowded, riddled with 

51 

insects and disease, and, as we have just witnessed on the Yosemite Rim Fire, a tinderbox ready to explode and destroy a quarter 

of a million acres in timber. 

This committee has on several occasions discussed with the 

Forest Service and BLM what actions need to be taken to prevent 

those catastrophic wildfires, and I encourage and applaud you to 

keep prompting these agencies to better manage their lands and 

find a new path forward. 

I am not here today to further those discussions, rather I am 

here to promote H.R. 3188, as I mentioned, that will immediately 

address the disastrous conditions that we are left with following 

the Yosemite Rim Fire. 

With the fire finally extinguished, we were left with as much as 

a billion board feet of charred timber and denuded watersheds, 

soon to be choked with ash, burn debris and soil coming off the hillsides from rains and snow. 

Disasters of this magnitude call for actions equal in scale. Waiting for months or even years to analyze all of the on-the-ground 

conditions before developing a plan, like we usually do when we 

have such large fires, is just not acceptable, and the horrific conditions left in the fire’s path calls for immediate action. 

H.R. 3188 allows for this immediate action by the Forest Service, 

BLM and National Park Service to promptly plan and implement 

salvage timber sales of dead, damaged or downed timber resulting 

from that wildfire, without doing time-consuming NEPA or other 

lengthy planning efforts. Salvage timber sales prepared under this 

bill will also not be subject to administrative review or judicial review by any court that can take months or years to resolve. 

Members of the committee, we need to quickly capture the value 

of this dead timber before it deteriorates in the coming months and 

put those dollars toward a massive regeneration and restoration 

program like none we have tackled in the past. As a sawmill manager, I know how quickly burnt timber deteriorates from blue stain, 

checking and insect borings. For example, a standing burnt tree 

today may have a value of $1,000. Twelve months from now, it may 

only be worth one-third of that value. Time is money when it comes 

to restoring a burnt forest. 

The Forest Service, BLM and Park Service have no reserve funds 

for planting burnt forests or doing much of their rehabilitation. 

Those dollars for replanting only come from the sale of salvaged 

trees from that burn. The more value that these agencies get for 

the sale of their burnt timber, the more acres of valuable watersheds can be restored. 

Finally, sawmills that can access wood from the Rim Fire located 

in Sonora, Chinese Camp, Lincoln and Terra Bella desperately 

need the wood now for continued operations and need the forest replanted for a long-term sustainable forest for the decades to come. 

For every 1 million board feet of timber harvested, approximately 

18 jobs of direct or indirect nature are created. This would be a 

boon for many of our rural California counties with double-digit unemployment, as well as reestablishing young, green, growing forests. 

The salvage of burnt trees on private land in California has an 

expedited process to capture the value under the California Forest 

52 

Practices Act. In these cases only a notification of salvage work is 

needed, not a full-blown timber harvest plan. H.R. 3188 would 

bring those expedited features to the public lands consumed by the 

Rim Fire by only requiring that the agencies plan and implement 

projects put forth by professional foresters on their staff, and those 

projects must at least comply with the standards put forth in the 

California Forest Practices Act. 

As I said before, extreme events call for extreme actions, and I 

strongly urge you to support H.R. 3188 for the rapid restoration of 

our forests, our watersheds and rural communities, where many 

jobs will be provided. Thank you very much for accepting my testimony. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for coming here and giving testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Partin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM PARTIN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FOREST RESOURCE

COUNCIL

H.R. 3188 

THE IMPACT OF CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRES ON WATERSHEDS, SUCH AS THE RIM FIRE, 

STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST

The Forest Service is hamstrung nationwide with the aftermath of catastrophic 

wildfire. Particularly in the West and specifically in the Sierra Nevada Mountains 

of California, the number, size and intensity of wildfires are increasing. Just in the 

last 25 years, the high severity burned acres has increased from 21 percent to 33 

percent of total acres burned. The fire behavior, particularly over the past year, has 

reached a new level. The Rim Fire expanded 35,000 acres on Day 4 and then an 

additional 50,000 acres on Day 5 and was burning in every direction throwing embers up to a mile. There’s never been anything like it and it’s, in large part, because 

of the ever-increasing tree density on the national forests coupled with long, dry fire 

seasons. Today, in the California Region on the national forests, productive forest 

lands have 266 trees/acre on a landscape that can only support about 40–100 trees/ 

acre. The Forest Service mechanical thinning and fuels reduction program only removes 7 percent of annual growth. The Forests are getting denser and denser and 

denser. It’s no surprise that we are seeing fire behavior like never before. 

Following a catastrophic wildfire, the Forest Service has short term burned area 

emergency rehabilitation (BAER) authority that is by definition part of the wildfire 

‘‘emergency’’. These short term activities (water barring dozer lines, rehabilitating 

other suppression-related activities on the landscape, putting hay bales across 

streams to try to reduce the sediment transport so that drainages don’t gully over 

the winter months and next spring, . . .) are very limited in scope. 

The longer term work of restoring the denuded watersheds is left to the Forest 

Service to figure out how to accomplish using normal NEPA procedures, ESA processes, and paying for it out of their normal appropriations (there is no special money 

for longer term watershed restoration). 

The priorities of the Rim Fire are: 

(1) Roadside hazard tree removal on about 400 miles of Forest Service system 

road inside the burn perimeter. This work is needed for public and administrative safety and to keep the road system open to perform the rehab and restoration work. If the hazard trees are not removed, there will be literally 

thousands of trees that fall across the roads during the coming winter and 

close the roads. 

(2) Because of the complexity of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/Endangered Species Act (ESA) processes and procedures, it generally takes the 

Forest Service, California Region about 10–12 months to complete an Environmental Impact Statement and Decision on what actions to take to maintain the integrity of the road system and restore the denuded watersheds. 

(3) Twelve months from now, brush will have already sprouted and the moderate-high severity burned acres on what was productive forest land will be 

well on their way to type converting to brushfields. If no salvage, site preparation and planting of seedlings occur within 12–20 months on these lands, 

they will be brushfields for many, many decades to come (likely until the next 

53 

wildfire burns the same acres again). Over the next 5–8 years, standing dead 

trees will rot off and fall over onto brush that could be 5–10’ high or higher. 

(4) The opportunity to save most of the existing road system is rapidly diminishing as winter approaches. Forest Service models predict that stream runoff 

could be 41⁄2 times greater than normal and the runoff will be mud and debris. None of the existing culverts in the road system were designed for these 

types of events. There’s a high probability that many culverts will plug, pond 

and blowout sending thousands of cubic yards of dirt down the stream channels and closing the roads for a long time to come. Closed roads mean no access to perform rehabilitation or restoration activities, even if planned and 

NEPA-cleared. 

Much of the existing road system has inside ditches; in just 2 weeks during the 

fire, dry ravel off the cut banks already filled miles of these ditches. On the fill 

slopes following the fire, dry ravel is eroding the fill slopes and exposing the pavement and crushed aggregate base on the mainline roads. 

These are just indicators of a catastrophe that is likely to happen during rain 

events this winter. 

The importance of rapid restoration of the denuded watersheds cannot be overstated. Activities begin with salvaging merchantable dead trees that will make lumber. The revenue from these trees generally can support cutting and piling of small 

trees and brush to help prepare the productive forest lands for planting of seedlings. 

Without rapid deployment of the salvage activity, the brush will quickly sprout 

and totally occupy the growing space. Replacing the brush with tree seedlings that 

will survive is an expensive process. Further, rapid salvage is necessary because the 

value of the merchantable trees rapidly declines from beetles, wood borers, and 

other insects. As the value declines, the opportunity for revenue from the salvage 

operation to pay for preparing the site for tree planting is lost. 

Reforestation on acreage the Forest Service deems important to watershed restoration has to occur within 12–20 months. This will enhance the opportunity to return the watershed to a ‘‘forest’’ rather than a brush field. 

The Rim Fire, Stanislaus National Forest, Vegetation Burn Severity Map 

(September 26, 2013) 


85144.001.eps
54 

Stanislaus National Forest Fire History Map 

Mr. BISHOP. Are there questions? 

Mr. McClintock, I am assuming? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Partin, I first want to thank you very much for coming out 

on very short notice to provide testimony for this hearing. As you 

know, time is of the essence on this. 

The first question I would have for you is what do you say to 

those that say, well, if we just leave it alone, it is all going to grow 

back? 

Mr. PARTIN. Well, we will have growth coming back, but in the 

meantime we are going to have a considerable amount of erosion. 

The growth we will get back will not be a conifer stand of trees, 

it will be brush. It will take decades to get trees regrowing on these 

sites, and in the meantime we are going to have some disastrous 

conditions. We are going to have harm to our watersheds. Our municipal watersheds that depend on water for drinking are going to 

get impacted. We don’t have the time. We need to take immediate 

action. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So if we listen to that advice, basically what 

we are doing is consigning what was once forestland to become 

brushland for the next several decades? 

Mr. PARTIN. Absolutely. There are a tremendous amount of examples of this on fires that have happened in California over the 

decades, where we do not have conifer stands established; we have 

brushfields. We are not going to get the value out of those forests 

for the long term, and we just have poor conditions. 


85144.002.eps
55 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So that 400 square miles of incinerated forest—of course, not all of it is incinerated, but much of it is. And 

the fire was severe, rated severe, I believe, at about 60 percent of 

that area. If we just leave it alone, that forest is not coming back 

in our lifetimes. 

Mr. PARTIN. It will not come back in our lifetime. And we have 

witnessed this time and time again. Case in point, up in Oregon 

the 2002 Biscuit Fire had very little salvage done. It is mostly a 

brush field right now. We do not have a forest coming back. It is 

going to take time to get trees established to compete with the 

brush, to get a forest back. 

And, again, as I say, the important thing is we have to get in 

there and manage those watersheds, or we are going to have some 

extreme events with soils in the creeks going down to the rivers 

and impacting our drinking water. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What is the effect of going through the normal 

NEPA process? We heard the Ranking Member say, well, we have 

got to reopen the Government—which we all agree we need to reopen the Government, and that is a great issue that is raging right 

now—but if we simply resumed the normal process for salvage 

sales, what is the prognosis for the Sierra Nevada? 

Mr. PARTIN. The normal NEPA process, I think, as you pointed 

out earlier, takes about a year to go through to either do an EIS, 

environmental impact statement, or an environmental analysis. 

Twelve months is a long time. On top of that, almost every one of 

our salvage sales are appealed by environmental groups, taking at 

least another 6 months to a year. You are left with 2 years after 

a burn, and almost all of the value at that point is gone. So having 

an expedited process, at least in this case, is very important. We 

have some unique circumstances out there right now that need 

some immediate attention. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now, when we put this dead timber up for salvage sale, you pay us to take it out; do you not? 

Mr. PARTIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And can you give us some example per acre 

of a typical salvage sale if it occurred in a timely manner where 

the trees actually retain their commercial value? 

Mr. PARTIN. Well, let us just take an example of if someone 

bought the timber for $200 per thousand, and there are 10,000 

board feet per acre. That would be $2,000 taken off of each acre 

in value. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So that would be $2,000 going directly to the 

Federal Treasury that could then be spent on reforestation of that 

acreage? 

Mr. PARTIN. I think that is the important part. We don’t have the 

dollars in hand, the Forest Service, BLM or Park Service, to do 

that replanting and rehabilitation. They need cash from someplace 

else. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We wait a year, we are already pretty much 

past the harvest season going into the next winter, so it will be 

about a year and a half to 2 years if we follow the normal process. 

How much is that timber going to be worth after 2 years for salvage? 

56 

Mr. PARTIN. I have spent my entire career either as a forester, 

or logging manager, or sawmill manager and watching the deterioration of fallen salvage, and it is a huge impact. You lose at least 

half of the value during the first year, and it can be more than that 

on small trees. Small trees deteriorate more quickly. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So after a year the most we could expect is to take $1,000 per acre out in salvage, and after 2 years pretty much 

nothing? 

Mr. PARTIN. There would be a little value after 2 years, but only 

in the larger trees that don’t have the checking or deterioration 

simply because of the size and there is so much mass inside. But 

we would lose over half of the value. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And after that, if we want to get that dead 

timber out of the forest, and it has been ordered to do reforestation, 

we would have to pay somebody to come in and haul it out because 

it then has no value. 

Mr. PARTIN. It has no value. The long-term impacts, you have a 

heavy fuel loading, standing snags all over the place, brush growing underneath, as you mentioned. These larger trees will tip over 

in time, and then you have even worse fire conditions in decades 

to come. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And without objection, I would like to enter two letters of opposition to the legislation, H.R. 3188, one representing Sierra Club Wilderness Society, Defenders of Wildlife and Earth Justice; and the 

other, Outdoor Alliance, representing various recreation advocacy 

groups, if there is no objection, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Without objection. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

If I may, Mr. Partin, one question, or for my own clarification 

here. In July 1985, Congress established an emergency salvage 

timber sale program. According to a GAO report from 1997, the 

elimination of the appeals associated with the salvage riders, as it 

came to be called, had little impact on the amount of timber sold 

and salvaged in the salvage sales. 

Has something fundamentally changed in those since that study 

that it is now necessary to eliminate administrative review for the 

Rim Fire? 

Mr. PARTIN. I think a lot of things have happened since 1985, 

particularly—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. 1995. 

Mr. PARTIN. Pardon me? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. 1995. 

Mr. PARTIN. 1995? Particularly when it comes to the length of 

analysis needed for a lot of these projects, what the agencies have 

to go forward in preparing their NEPA work, their EISs, their EAs. 

As I mentioned, it can take up to a year. 

We don’t have a year out here. These are extreme conditions in 

this particular area. I think it calls for extreme action. It calls for 

getting in there now, generating some funds that you can get from 

the salvage of this wood to put back into the ground, to help reVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
57 

plant some trees, to help reclaim these watersheds. We don’t have 

time, and this is a unique circumstance. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And just last, Mr. Partin, does the Resource Council or yourself, do you support logging in Yosemite National Park? 

Mr. PARTIN. I think there are places where a national park can 

benefit from taking material out. We have a lot of people visit these 

parks. We do not want to have a dangerous situation. We want to 

have a green forest. And what we can do to make their presence 

in these national parks a good experience for them, I think we need 

to do some work there. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I think, Mr. Partin, there a lot of reasons, but the 

iconic nature of the park that we are talking about, that the opposition to elimination of NEPA, Clean Water Act, the concern is that 

it is a precedent, number one, and because it is an iconic area, that 

the issue of expeditedness is an open question, but the point of 

eliminating, I think that is where there is a great deal of concern. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Partin, when we contrast, I will call it the response time on 

private land versus this process you have to go through on public 

land, how quickly are private landowners able to get on, recover 

timber that has value so that—again, we have all heard about how 

it works well to be able to make money off of what you are recovering instead of having to come out of either a private person’s 

profit or, in public land, on a Treasury that is already empty. What 

is that response time, contrasting the two—— 

Mr. PARTIN. Well, as I mentioned, under the California Forest 

Practices Act, when private landowners have a burn of any kind of 

magnitude, all they have to do is provide a notification to the forestry department they are going to take these actions. Again, all 

of the actions have to comply with the California Forest Practices 

Act, but there is immediacy and an urgency to get out there, oftentimes within weeks or a month or two after the fire has burned. 

So you are looking at a quick response time on private lands to 

capture the value, to get their lands back in production and get a 

new stand established. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Which means you have a property that is not subject to the erosion problems, wildlife are going to be returning, the 

trees will be growing, you can fly over it within X amount of years, 

and it will look like a pretty good stand of forest once again, yes? 

Mr. PARTIN. Absolutely. You will have trees established. You will 

not have the brush fields. And it is important to recognize getting 

out and maintaining these forests, you get to maintain the roads, 

you get to prevent the massive erosion that can occur on these unstable slopes, and there is a lot of environmental pluses for taking 

the immediate action, capturing the value, getting trees replanted, 

make sure we preserve our infrastructure. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So what have you seen in the past where there 

have been land swaps where public land has gone into private ownership? Has the land somehow become different on the way it 

regrows trees or the way it affects the environment when a private 

person replants it as opposed to—is there some kind of magic trick 

58 

here that because it is public property, that recovering the land, recovering the value, getting it replanted, or instead having to go 

through a year and a half, 2 years worth of hassle, why is it different on public land than private land? Is there something different about the soil or the air? What is the problem? 

Mr. PARTIN. Again, there is nothing different about the soil. 

There is nothing different about the trees. The lands are side by 

side. What is different is the time it takes to analyze, do the NEPA 

work, do the environmental impact statements to actually get to a 

project, and then you have the possibility—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. So if the American public understood what is 

going on with the ability to recover land quickly on the private 

level, and their public assets are languishing for 2 years, and then 

they don’t have the money anymore to do it. I can think of instances up in Trinity County and Shasta County in northern California where a fire has gone through and devastated—actually very 

close to the town of Weaverville and not far from Redding, et 

cetera, putting them in peril, but then just a few years later, because these areas weren’t managed, recovered, reforested, that they 

become brush fields; all the dead timber, all the snags, they become 

this tinderbox for another fire just 7 years later. 

Do you think if the American public understood all these different things, that they would think that this NEPA process is efficient, especially a jewel like the Yosemite area, where people come 

from around the world to visit? What do you think they would 

think of that? 

Mr. PARTIN. I would think they would think our rules are broken, and we need to do something to take immediate action. 

I would like to just say one thing. In 1973, I worked for the 

Forest Service, and I actually fought a fire inside the Rim Fire, it 

is called the Granite Fire, next to Cherry Creek Reservoir. Again, 

we are having reburns of these areas that haven’t been salvaged. 

It devastates the landscape. We return to them time and time 

again. 

Something has to change to, number one, get the value off these 

lands in a timely manner, to go back and reestablish growth, and 

to make sure we preserve our amenities out there such—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Quickly. I am running out of time. I appreciate it. 

The Ranking Member mentioned a 1995 congressional piece of 

legislation that was to expedite salvage, and mentioned that a survey or a report done on that showed very few acres have actually 

been recovered because of this bill to expedite the process. Do you 

know much about that bill, or do know why it isn’t working? Because if we are not getting the acres under the law intentionally 

done by the Congress to do so, I guess there is something wrong 

with the breadth of that law, right? 

Mr. PARTIN. Yes. I don’t know exactly that law. If it were the section 318 salvage rider, there was an immediate volume put up that 

had some timber sales moving forward in that year or 2 years. 

Since then it is out of date. 

As I say, we have a lot of rules and regulations that take time 

under NEPA, EIS and EA to get a project moving forward, and 

then it could be impacted by litigation in the courts, taking another 

year. It is a bad process. And there was the FERRA bill passed in 

59 

the House in 2005. Some of you might remember that, the Forest 

Emergency Recovery and Restoration Act. We have been trying to 

address this issue for many years, decades. We haven’t an answer, 

we haven’t a solution; hence, we are in this limbo land. This bill 

would at least get us beyond that for this project. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Are there any other questions? 

Before I do, I recognize Mr. Huffman. 

Lest I forget again here, we appreciate all of you being here. We 

would remind you that the record is still open. You may be asked 

to respond to written questions. If they come to you, we would ask 

you do that in a relatively short period of time. 

Mr. Huffman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the witnesses for their testimony. 

This is an incredibly broad bill. It covers a broad area of land, 

a lot of acreage that includes forestland, National Park Service 

land. Ninety-two percent of the area, I am told, that burned in Yosemite National Park is designated as wilderness. We have all 

sorts of various protected categories that apply to certain parts of 

this land, and yet this bill would basically mandate, or at least permit, salvage logging without any normal administrative procedures 

or judicial review, safeguards in every part of it. 

And so my question for you, Mr. Partin, is salvage logging appropriate everywhere? 

Mr. PARTIN. I think the projects that would be developed by the 

professionals in the Forest Service, BLM and the National Park 

Service would look at where salvage is appropriate. I think they 

have the expertise to know if we can’t get into wilderness areas, 

we can’t get into some areas, those wouldn’t be entered. But we 

have a tremendous amount of general forested areas that either 

need some help, need some rehabilitation, need some work done to 

make sure we have safety for our folks entering the forest, and I 

think those are the experts that really need to work to develop 

these projects. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. How will we know that they will apply the kind 

of rigor that you just indicated if we are waiving all normal procedures and judicial review? 

Mr. PARTIN. I think you have to look at it as these are professional folks, much like doctors, much like other professionals, that 

have a lot of history, that have a lot of experience, that are going 

to go forward and present professional projects. This is—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Would you agree, sir, that there are instances 

where salvage logging is not appropriate; where if it is not done 

right, you could actually worsen some of the things that you have 

mentioned in your testimony, things like erosion, water quality; 

that if it is not done right, there is even some science to suggest 

you could create greater fire-safety impacts? Would you agree with 

those propositions, that there are actually some studies from the 

Forest Service and others that suggest that improperly done, salvage timber operations can make things worse? 

Mr. PARTIN. Well, I am not sure it would make it worse for safety 

aspects, because what we are left with out there is a tremendous 

60 

amount of hazard. As far as could salvage done incorrectly on soils 

or on slopes have a negative impact? Yes, it could. I—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Again, if done incorrectly, if impacts are created, 

let us say water quality impacts for the city and county of San 

Francisco, who pays for that mitigation if there is no NEPA process, if there are no safeguards in place to address the issue of mitigation under this bill? Taxpayers? 

Mr. PARTIN. I think the taxpayers would, much like they are 

going to pay for the problems we are having right out there that 

were naturally caused by this fire. We have got 250,000 acres of 

a problem right now, and somebody has to address it. We don’t 

have the money—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. PARTIN. We don’t have the money—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I appreciate that. There is also a maxim about 

making sure that the cure is not worse than the disease, and proper procedures and safeguards are an important part of ensuring 

that. 

You have mentioned municipal water supply quality as one of 

the factors in support of this very open-ended salvage logging proposal. There is a very large municipal water supply we are talking 

about, the city and county of San Francisco. Has anybody asked the 

San Francisco PUC if they think open-ended salvage logging in 

their watershed is a good idea? That might be one of the many 

empty chairs that we would like to have filled so we could get some 

information. The other would be the Park Service, whether they 

think some additional logging is appropriate. 

I would note a very compelling part of your testimony, sir, is 

about the need for the roadside hazards to be addressed. I think 

we could all agree that we don’t want trees falling on roads all over 

watersheds; however, I have some information informally that 

those trees have been removed in Yosemite National Park already, 

again, one of many, many pieces of information that we would have 

to inform this debate if we had some of the empty chairs filled by 

folks from the Park Service, from the Forest Service and other authorities that are missing from this debate. 

There is a lot that needs to be said about this bill. There is not 

a lot of time, unfortunately, but I would suggest that a bill that 

waives every environmental law in this entire very important public area, including wilderness laws, roadless laws, endangered species, NEPA, is not going to pass, and I don’t think anybody seriously believes that it will. There are pieces of this that we could 

be working on in a cooperative way, and my hope is that eventually 

we will have a more practical discussion where maybe we can find 

common ground. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. AMODEI. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

Anything else on this panel. 

Mr. DAINES. Yes, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Daines. 

Mr. DAINES. I yield my time to Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

61 

Mr. Partin, first of all, doesn’t the bill direct the U.S. Forest 

Service and the National Park Service to develop plans according 

to their own best judgment? 

Mr. PARTIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So all of the concerns over protection of watersheds, what kind of temporary egress would be required to move 

this dead timber out, all of that would be subject to the restrictions 

imposed by the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service, 

correct? 

Mr. PARTIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Is there anything in this bill that attempts to 

micromanage them or to override their judgment in any respect? 

Mr. PARTIN. No. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is the professionals within each agency that would be doing the work. They 

have boundaries they have to work within, and they would be followed. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And they also have procedures that are well 

established that this bill does not affect; is that correct? 

Mr. PARTIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. This bill simply waives the more-than-year review process that makes salvage pretty much impractical. 

Mr. PARTIN. Waives the NEPA requirements for the long-term 

study and also the judicial review, which can take months or years 

as well. We are trying to expedite this, get it to a process that 

takes a couple of months rather than a couple years, capture our 

value, and get some stands reestablished. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But all of the professional foresters in their 

judgment, all of the biologists in their best judgment, all of the 

folks that manage these things for the U.S. Forest Service and the 

U.S. Park Service would be developing the plans for the salvage operations; is that correct? 

Mr. PARTIN. Absolutely. You would have teams from all walks 

within the Forest Service, wildlife, streams, watershed, timber, developing these plans with their best knowledge to put something 

forward that would work. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Could you speculate on the damage that we 

can expect if we simply do nothing for the next year? 

Mr. PARTIN. Well, we mentioned watersheds and water supplies, 

and I think we have to look no further than what happened to the 

Denver municipal watershed in the Hayman Fire. We had a reservoir that collected water for that city that was almost half filled 

with silt during the early 2000s fire that hit in that Denver watershed. These are examples, many examples, of what can and will 

happen if we don’t get out there and take some aggressive action. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now, if we do allow this to go to brushland, 

and we have the progression of events that can normally be expected through the policy of benign neglect, we are going to have 

5 to 8 feet of brush in the next couple of years covered by large 

timber-killed treefalls; is that correct? 

Mr. PARTIN. Brush is a very aggressive pioneer species. It comes 

in following a fire, does very well. It will outcompete the conifer 

trees. Unless the conifers are reestablished quickly, we will have 

brush fields. We will have a lot of large dead trees as a canopy. 

62 

Eventually they fall down and create a tremendous fuel loading for 

future fires. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That is how you build a fire in a fireplace. You 

put in lots of dry timber, and then you put the logs on top, and 

that is what we can expect. 

Now, from this fire I have seen estimates of just horrendous erosion and runoff as a result of expected rains just this year; is that 

correct? 

Mr. PARTIN. That is correct, and I witnessed firsthand the 

amount of erosion and runoffs from these fires once you have large 

events, whether it is heavy rain or snow. We are coming into the 

fall and winter season. We are going to get these runoffs. If we 

don’t have something to hold this water back—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So we can expect that this year through benign neglect, and then if there is another fire a few years from 

now, with all the brush and stacked dead timber that will be created by benign neglect, we can expect that again in the next few 

years. 

Mr. PARTIN. In the decades to come. As I mentioned, I was on 

the Granite Fire in 1973 within this area. I assume the conditions 

were not taken care of, they burned heavily, and we need to stop 

this process. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now, when you say that the conifers can’t 

compete with the brush, that means that about the only way that 

we are going to get the region reforested within our lifetimes is to 

go in there and do it ourselves, right? 

Mr. PARTIN. Well, absolutely. You have got an area of 250,000 

acres that has been burned. We don’t have a seed source naturally 

out there to redevelop, to reestablish these conifer trees. If we are 

going to get a conifer stand established, we have to go out and 

plant them, and we have to put the dollars up to get those young 

trees going. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now, can we plant them with the dead timber 

that is there now? 

Mr. PARTIN. We can, but, again, we are—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But then we don’t have the money to do it. 

Mr. PARTIN [continuing]. Playing with fire, anticipating other 

fires to happen in the future, which we have seen, destroying the 

young stands that we are planting right now. So the best alternative, let us get those trees off, those dead trees now; let us establish a new stand, have a healthy forest for the future. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. AMODEI. Anything else for this panel? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. A second round, sir. 

Mr. AMODEI. You have something? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Just a quick follow-up, Mr. Partin. When we were discussing discretion right now from Mr. McClintock’s question about that the 

professional land managers would have discretion as to what happened, and so this bill does nothing to that discretion. The assumption is that if it was, as Mr. Huffman said, an area in which salvage would do more harm than good, then that discretion would lay 

there in the legislation. It would be that permissive. 

63 

So, but as I read it, and it gets to the portion about—it says very 

specifically that with respect to affected Yosemite National Park 

and Bureau of Land Management lands, that professional ‘‘shall 

promptly plan and implement’’—implement—‘‘salvage timber 

sales.’’ That is a ‘‘shall’’ not a ‘‘may.’’ Would you think it should be 

a ‘‘may’’? 

Mr. PARTIN. I think it is ‘‘shall,’’ but I think it is also important 

to look at the professionals developing this that will—shall put a 

project out there, and those professionals will decide where it is appropriate and where not. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. But it is still required to have a prompt salvage 

sale? 

Mr. PARTIN. Yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. It kind of defeats the ‘‘shall/may,’’ huh? 

Anyway, the other point and the comparison, private property, 

expedited process, salvage, you use the California model, all they 

would have to do is the notice of intent, and we go forward. 

I think there is a marked difference. These are public lands, they 

are a shared asset of the American taxpayer, and the administrative reviews that are in place are to protect that asset. I mean, we 

are not talking about my personal land that I can do what I want 

with. We are talking about a shared asset of millions and millions 

of shareholders in it, and those reviews are there for that overall 

protection of that asset, and that is the biggest difference, and they 

are there for that reason. 

I just think that the ‘‘shall/may’’ is really—that there is only one 

option, and that is to salvage and sell; that there is no real discretion left to that professional staff that you indicated are so capable 

on those public lands. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PARTIN. If I may, this is not a unique approach. Tribal lands 

that are managed, tribal forestlands expedite their salvage. Lands 

owned by the State Department of Natural Resources in Washington State last year had a huge fire. Within a few weeks they 

were back managing, salvaging the lands that had burned. It is an 

exercise—— 

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Partin, I appreciate your response, but your 

time comes through the person that is questioning you, and Mr. 

Grijalva has yielded back. However, the next person is Mr. 

LaMalfa. If you would like him to answer the question, maybe—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Mr. Partin, please continue on your line there, 

and I will have another question or two after that. 

Mr. PARTIN. I was just mentioning other landowners, tribal landowners, State landowners go through an exercise very similar to 

what is in this bill to look at moving salvage forward quickly; to 

get replanting, rehabilitation done on the land so they have a forest 

to manage for the long term. It is not just unique to what is in this 

bill. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Let me follow up on this note. First, we are hearing about an asset, whether it is a public asset. I think any American that would see what is going on would say their asset is being 

poorly handled, poorly protected because it is so subject to a refire 

just a few years later. 

64 

So all you hear from the opposition are ways to obstruct. I have 

yet to hear a method that I would be open to for future legislation 

to say how do we follow a prescription for speedy salvage, because 

I liken this to a patient who has suffered an accident, has to be 

hurried to the emergency room, is bleeding out, and yet you run 

into somebody that has to sign you up on a Web site first before 

you can receive treatment, thereby losing the patient. In this case 

here you are losing the opportunity to salvage something that you 

would have positive value for instead of negative value 2 years 

from now. 

I have never heard yet a way for somebody that would like to 

work with those who think that expedited salvage would be a way 

to go. We just hear NEPA, judicial review, ways to obstruct and 

stop. 

What do we learn—I would like to hear from you, what do we 

learn from each NEPA, each EIS, each one of these lawsuits that 

we don’t already know from multiple go-rounds of this in the past? 

The bill Mr. McClintock is working on, this isn’t the first time this 

has happened with a fire like this on a public land, yet for years 

and years and years, haven’t we ever established a precedent that 

says, wow, we have had a fire on a public land. That means we are 

going to have to go and salvage some trees. Yes, there might be a 

stream here; we will probably want to stay away from the stream 

100 feet. There might be some old growth; maybe we will stay 

away from that. There might be an owl nest over here; we will figure out how to work around that. But there is a whole bunch of 

acres in between. 

It is like we are reinventing the wheel every single time, with 

new lawsuits, new obstruction, a new NEPA process. What do we 

learn from these processes and these lawsuits that we don’t already 

know and we can’t apply a prescription for? 

Mr. PARTIN. I don’t think we learn a lot. As you mentioned, each 

of the criteria on each forest are known by the professionals. They 

go through a good system to develop the plan. It should go forward. 

But I would like to go back to the FERRA bill that I think it was 

2005 or 2006, and one of the parts of that called for establishing 

up front some criteria on how to salvage once the fire gets established on each forest. And I would highly recommend the committee look at this, revisit it to get some kind of game plan for 

when we have these large fires and catastrophic events, because, 

as you mentioned, we go back to square one every time. It is the 

same NEPA process, lengthy EIS, lengthy EA, court battle taking 

as much as 2 or 3 years, and we never get past that. 

I do think there is a better way of doing it. We have a tremendous value and asset out there we need to manage, and I think it 

really behooves us to look at a better way of doing business. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes. It would seem a template for this like we 

have templates for other emergency measures in the country, how 

you respond, would make a lot of sense. 

So let me again come back to the treatment of private land, you 

know, fairly immediately. Now, do they have any of the problems 

after the treatment with water quality threats or some of the other 

concerns that the opposition always brings up that might affect? 

65 

Don’t they have to follow a prescription that would be quite similar? 

Mr. PARTIN. Well, yes. Like I say, these actions and projects have 

to follow the California Forest Practices Act. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So they are following—already established in our 

State a practice act whether it is private, and it always seems to 

work out, right? It doesn’t affect water quality because they have 

a wide zone of—— 

Mr. PARTIN. We have buffers. We have measures put in place to 

protect the resources. It is a matter of getting the value out, getting stands reestablished, making sure we have green forests for 

the future. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So you would be working with the Forest Service, 

you would be working with the Department of the Interior, you 

would be working with national parks on these—the people that 

have expertise that are already supposed to know their region, 

know their zone? 

Mr. PARTIN. Exactly. 

Mr. LAMALFA. You say, do this here, do that there, you would 

probably be fine. 

Mr. PARTIN. Exactly. 

Mr. LAMALFA. And so if we could follow that private pattern 

here, we would be saving and replanting and reforesting much 

sooner than we do now, correct? 

Mr. PARTIN. Absolutely. We would be bypassing the lengthy 

NEPA, the court injunctions, and get right to doing the salvage 

work and reestablishing a stand of trees out there. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I just don’t understand the obstructionism. But 

thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. PARTIN. Certainly. 

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you very much for your testimony. This 

panel is dismissed. 

Mr. AMODEI. The next panel is Pat Whitten, County Manager of 

Storey County; Kristin McMillan, President of Las Vegas Chamber 

of Commerce; John Lee, Mayor of city of North Las Vegas; and 

Steve Ross, Councilman from the city of Las Vegas. 

We want to thank the Silver State panel for your patience. We 

saved the best for last. 

Mr. Whitten, we are going to go ahead and start out with you. 

For all the witnesses, good to see you all. I see Mr. Horsford, my 

colleague from the old days, is here, as is His Honor, the Mayor 

of the city of Las Vegas, and I guess Kristin is here for South Las 

Vegas. Isn’t that how you refer to Las Vegas and North Las Vegas 

is South Las Vegas? 

Anyhow, Mr. Whitten, if you would proceed, you have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PAT WHITTEN, COUNTY MANAGER, STOREY 

COUNTY, NEVADA 

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you, Mr. Acting Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. And 

again, once again, specifically thank you, Congressman Amodei, for 

inviting me here today. I appreciate the honor and the opportunity 

to testify before you on H.R. 1167, the Restoring Storey County Act 

as introduced by Congressman Amodei. 

66 

I am Pat Whitten. I serve as the County Manager for the Storey 

County Commission in Nevada, and joining me to the back today 

is Commissioner Marshall McBride, Vice Chairman of the Storey 

County Board of Commissioners. 

Last April the Board of County Commissioners resolved to support H.R. 1167 by unanimous vote. Storey County is the smallest 

of 17 counties in the State of Nevada, and our history dates back 

to 1864, when miners discovered substantial amounts of underground gold and also the country’s first major silver deposits. During these boom days historians say almost 25,000 people lived in 

the area. 

After the decline of mining in the late 1800s, life became very 

quiet on the Comstock. Today we are a popular oldtown tourist destination with some small-scale mining also taking place. 

Virginia City and Gold Hill are located about 30 miles between 

our State capital and Reno. As far back as 1864, people have 

bought, sold, and/or built both commercial and residential buildings. Under normal circumstances this would pose no issues or concerns; however, errors occurring throughout our history creates detrimental impact on approximately 75 percent of the parcels in Virginia City and 100 percent of the parcels in Gold Hill. 

In 1867, the General Land Office survey of the Virginia City 

town site was approved, but subsequent required actions were 

never completed, and no Federal patent was ever issued. Without 

this patent proper ownership of surface rights fall under question 

as to who actually owns the land where our homes and businesses 

are located. This creates a situation where residents might be considered to be trespassing on Federal Government lands and also 

clouded title issues where individuals buying or selling real property cannot because of difficulty in obtaining standard title insurance. I want to stress that our issues lie only with resolving surface 

rights and do not involve any subsurface mineral rights whatsoever. 

On the Federal Government side, the Bureau of Land Management has the task of dealing with the fallout from these historic 

events. For almost 20 years we have patiently worked together 

seeking solutions. I want to state that at all levels of their organization, BLM has not only been good to work with, they have been 

great to work with, but like any government, they are bound by the 

laws of the land. Simply said, BLM cannot rectify this problem 

without authorization from Congress. Citizens wishing to obtain 

clear surface title rights would have to petition Congress as separate individuals. 

So BLM encouraged us to turn to our congressional Representatives for long-term solutions, and we were fortunate that Congressman Amodei was already familiar with our problems. Congressman 

Amodei has developed a simplified, streamlined approach to cure 

this issue. It, in essence, is give any interest the U.S. Government 

has in surface rights regarding the impacted properties to the local 

government for proper reparation and release to the respective lawful owners. 

There are approximately 1,285 parcels over 1,705 acres covered 

by our request. H.R. 1167 would rectify in one single act issues 

that have prevailed for over a century and a half. This approach 

67 

is also tremendously cost-efficient. Last year a BLM spokeswoman 

for their Nevada field office said, and I quote, trying to figure out 

how many properties may be in trespass and revolving discrepancies on a case-by-case basis would be a monumental task. She 

goes on to say, these issues extend back to the mid-1800s, and finding solutions would be at a cost of probably millions of dollars and 

several years, end quote. 

And that is why we are here today, to speak in full support of 

H.R. 1167. It is a logical, simple act that will restore property 

rights to Storey County citizens as the rightful owner. 

Mr. Chairman, committee members, and especially committee 

staff as well, who have been great to work with, we urge you to 

support and help us with H.R. 1167. 

I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you, Mr. Whitten. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitten follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAT WHITTEN, COUNTY MANAGER, STOREY COUNTY, 

NEVADA

H.R. 1167—Restoring Storey County Act 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, thank you for the honor 

and opportunity to testify before you today in support of H.R. 1167, the Restoring 

Storey County Act, introduced by Congressman Mark Amodei. 

I am Pat Whitten. I serve as the appointed County Manager for the local governing board of Storey County Commissioners in Nevada, and joining me today is 

Commissioner Marshall McBride, Vice Chairman of the Storey County Board of 

Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners resolved to support H.R. 1167 

by unanimous vote on April 2, 2013. 

Storey County is the smallest of 17 counties in the State of Nevada. Our history 

is rich and dates back to the days preceding our admission into the Union as America’s 36th State in 1864. In the late 1850s, Virginia City and the surrounding areas 

began its origin and boom when miners discovered substantial amounts of underground gold, and also the Country’s first major silver deposits. Monies gained from 

the gold and silver mines are said to have financed the Union’s efforts during the 

Civil War and built San Francisco. 

After the decline of mining in the late 1800s, there were a handful of brief upturns, but overall, life became very quiet on the Comstock. Fast forward to the 

dawning of the 1960s when two parallel events converged to bring us into our modern day history. First, on July 4, 1961, the National Park Service granted our request and established the Comstock Historic District as one of the Nation’s largest 

historic districts ever designated. This was truly monumental in preserving and protecting the Comstock’s mining heritage and history. At almost the same time, NBC 

aired a television series known as Bonanza. Running for 14 seasons and continuing 

in syndication today, Virginia City quickly became re-discovered as the town the 

Cartwrights rode into before they trekked back to the Ponderosa Ranch on the 

shores of Lake Tahoe. From our town’s perspective, it was a dream come true and 

today, almost 2 million visitors from around the world come to Virginia City to walk 

our streets and boardwalks where the Cartwrights once roamed. 

Virginia City and Gold Hill are located about 30 mountain miles in between our 

State capitol, and Reno. As far back as 1864, people have bought, sold, leased, 

rented, improved and/or built buildings for both commercial and residential purposes within the Virginia City and adjacent Gold Hill communities. Under normal 

circumstances, this would pose no issue or concern. However, errors and omissions 

throughout our history creates severe detrimental impact on approximately 75 percent of the land parcels in Virginia City and almost 100 percent of those in Gold 

Hill. 

In 1867, the General Land Office Survey of the Virginia City Townsite was approved. Unfortunately, subsequent requisite actions were never completed and no 

Federal patent was ever issued for the townsites of Virginia and Gold Hill. Without 

issuance of such patent, proper ownership of surface rights within the townsites fell 

and continue to fall under question as to who actually owns the land upon which 

68 

many of our citizens have purchased in good faith, and paid taxes on for decades. 

Not only does this create a situation where hundreds of residents might be considered to be trespassing on Federal Government land, the end result is what is typically termed as a clouded title issue where individuals wishing to buy or sell real 

property cannot because of insurmountable challenges in obtaining standard title insurance. This occurs when local and national land title underwriters move in and 

out of the market based on their risk comfort levels regarding true ownership of the 

property. This frequently occurs and results in a substantially reduced field of perspective insurers. It is critical to note that our issues lie only with ascertaining and 

resolving surface rights and do not involve any sub-surface mineral rights. 

As predominant trustees of Federal Lands in Nevada, the Bureau of Land Management has the unenviable task of dealing with the repercussions from these historic events. Over the last two decades, they have proactively worked with our local 

government officials to develop both short and long term solutions. I want to stress 

that at all levels of their organization, BLM has not only been good to work with 

. . . they’ve been GREAT. But, like any Federal, State or local government; they 

are bound by their own policies and of course, the law of the land. Simply stated, 

BLM cannot rectify this problem without authorization from Congress. Individuals 

wishing to fully and clearly obtain unclouded surface title rights would have to petition Congress separately under a large scale series of mini ‘‘Land Acts’’. Within their 

respective levels of authority, they have encouraged us to continue to find permanent solutions to clarify and rectify property ownership issues. We therefore turned 

to our Congressional Representatives and were fortunate to capture the interests of 

Congressman Amodei who was familiar with our problem based on his background 

as a Nevada State Senator and lawyer. Congressman Amodei has developed a simplified, streamlined approach to cure this centuries-old issue. It is, in essence: 

Give any interest the U.S. Government has in surface rights regarding the impacted properties to the local government for proper reparation and release to the 

respective lawful owners. 

Storey County has drafted its own simplified process to pass through any ownership rights via quit claim deed to the estimated 1,285 individual property owners 

on a low-to-no cost basis. Approximately 1,705 acres are constituted in our request 

and we have asked for inclusion of 40 additional acres in the contiguous community 

of Mark Twain covering 4 additional residential parcels that have been impacted 

due to conflicting surveys. H.R. 1167 would rectify and enable, in one single act, 

issues that have prevailed for over a century and a half. This approach is immeasurably cost efficient. In fact, a BLM spokeswoman from their Nevada State Field 

Office was quoted as saying: 

Trying to figure out how many properties may be in trespass and resolving discrepancies on a case-by-case basis would be a monumental task. These issues extend back to the mid-1800s, and finding solutions would be at a cost of probably 

millions of dollars and several years. (1) 

And that is why Commissioner McBride and I have traveled here today . . . to 

speak in full support of H.R. 1167 and ask for your support as well. It is a logical, 

simple act that will once and for all restore property rights to the people of Storey 

County as the rightful owners and end over a century and a half of confusion and 

frustration. 

Mr. Chairman and Congressmen; we thank you for your time and interest and 

urge this committee to support H.R. 1167, the Restoring Storey County Act. I am 

happy to answer any questions you might have or provide additional information. 

Mr. AMODEI. Ms. McMillan, welcome to low altitude, and please 

proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF KRISTIN MCMILLAN, CEO AND PRESIDENT, 

LAS VEGAS METRO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify here 

today in support of H.R. 2015. 

Mr. Chairman, I might start out by saying that we are now the 

Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce, so I am happy to report 

69 

that we represent both north and south as part of one big, happy 

partnership. 

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you for including the people to the south of 

North Las Vegas in your efforts. 

Ms. MCMILLAN. I want to first thank Congressman Horsford for 

introducing this legislation, and also Congressman Amodei, and 

Congresswoman Titus and Congressman Heck for cosponsoring this 

bill. We also want to thank Congressman Amodei for sponsoring 

H.R. 1167 and H.R. 1633. These bills are important to our State’s 

economic development as well. 

So it is an honor for me to speak here today on behalf of over 

5,500 employers in southern Nevada that comprise the Las Vegas 

Metro Chamber of Commerce. This represents close to a quarter of 

a million employees in southern Nevada. These are businesses in 

diverse industries, of diverse size. Over 85 percent of our businesses are small businesses. And for over 100 years the mission of 

the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce has been to promote a 

strong, healthy, and diversified economy, and over those 100 years, 

we have grown to be not only the largest business association in 

the State of Nevada, but also the third largest Metro Chamber in 

the United States. 

And I have only been here for about 21⁄2 years in this position. 

I was one of those 5,500 members of the business community 2 

years ago. I have been in Las Vegas for 24 years. I have been in 

business all that period of time. I was CEO of a company there. I 

was a volunteer Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce at one 

point in time. And while in private industry I did firsthand witness 

the devastation that we experienced that was delivered as a result 

of the recession, and as I was asked to step up into this role, I can 

say that I took it on with a commitment, a proud commitment, to 

be able to work with other organizations in the Las Vegas community as well as our local governments to help rebuild our economy. 

And I think it is our job to singularly focus on creating and maintaining good jobs in our community. 

Now, we are making some progress, but Las Vegas still, unfortunately, has an unemployment rate among the highest in the country. It is currently at 9.7 percent, and, as recently reported, we 

have only been able to recover about a third of the jobs that we 

lost during the recession. 

So our job—and I am looking to my colleagues as well—is to look 

at every viable opportunity to rebuild our economy and to put people back to work. And this is one of those opportunities. H.R. 2015 

presents a very unique and balanced opportunity whereby the preservation of our past can be an economic driver of the future, an opportunity to create jobs and expand our community. 

Congressman Horsford, you highlighted in a very good way many 

of the benefits of this legislation. I am not going to repeat those. 

I just want to focus and highlight a couple of the areas. 

First of all, preservation of natural history. This has been referred to as mammoth heaven. This is an opportunity to protect 

unique ice age fossils, enabling public education for generations to 

come and scientific research. We know that there have been geologists from the University of Arizona as well as archaeologists from 

California that have been studying these fossil beds for many, 

70 

many years, and it has taken them a while, but they have developed a case for preservation and curation of these important natural resources. 

The second thing is it creates economic opportunities for our core 

industry in Nevada, and that is tourism. This site is located, as you 

know, in close proximity to one of the world’s most popular tourist 

destinations, that being Las Vegas. Almost 40 million people visited southern Nevada last year. That generated about a $45 billion 

economic impact in southern Nevada, supporting about 400,000 

jobs, or about 47 percent of our workforce locally. So tourism remains and will continue to be a major driver in our community. We 

are continually looking for ways to capitalize on ways to diversify 

within that core industry, and particularly when it comes to job 

creation. 

I might add that international tourism has become a significant 

focus for southern Nevada, as it has in other areas of the country. 

You probably know that inbound travel into the United States is 

the number one service export. The U.S. Travel Association in 2012 

reported that nearly half of the international visitors to Las Vegas 

sought out nearby areas of historical or ecological significance to 

visit, such as Grand Canyon, Hoover Dam, Death Valley, Zion, 

Bryce Canyon. So this is going to add to the mix of those opportunities to diversify within the tourism sector and really points out that 

the popularity of ecotourism is really on the rise. 

In that vein, this bill also enables us to plan for our future, because it provides for land for flood protection in preparation of the 

proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport, which, of course, 

is designed to accommodate an increase in travel. 

In terms of general economic development, my colleagues will 

testify more to that area, but the creation of economic or commercial zones, development zones will enable the local communities, 

who will take upon themselves to determine the best uses of this 

land, of this Federal land, for jobs and for economic creation opportunities. 

It also provides, very importantly, land to UNLV, the University 

of Nevada-Las Vegas, as well as the Community College of Southern Nevada to expand their influence and their reach within our 

community. 

I want to take just a moment to reiterate the broad community 

support that Congressman Horsford talked about. Many community organizations have been at the forefront of championing this 

designation. Long-time community leaders Helen Mortenson and 

Thalia Dondero have tirelessly dedicated their efforts to educate 

our community through the Las Vegas Ice Age Park Foundation. 

Also thanks to another community group, The Protection of Tule 

Springs, that is just another example of a community organization 

that has come forward with tireless support for this initiative. 

The designation has the support, as you know, of State government, of local governments, the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Nellis Air 

Force Base, and even the local utilities in southern Nevada support 

preservation of the utility corridors for economic development and 

renewable energy components associated with the bill. 

The bill is widely supported because it makes sense. It strikes 

the right balance among preservation, education and economic deVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
71 

velopment, and presents a very unique and balanced opportunity 

where the preservation of our past can be an economic driver of our 

future. 

So, in conclusion, we would ask for and appreciate your support 

in a vote on this legislation. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

members of the subcommittee, for your time, for your consideration, and for the honor of testifying in front of this subcommittee. 

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McMillan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KRISTIN MCMILLAN, CEO AND PRESIDENT, LAS VEGAS

METRO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

H.R. 2015—Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds 

National Monument Act of 2013 

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

thank you for the opportunity to be here today. It is an honor for me to speak to 

you on behalf of the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce’s 5,500 member businesses representing diverse sectors within the economy and who employ more than 

230,000 employees in southern Nevada. 85 percent of our members are small businesses. 

Founded in the early days of Las Vegas, the Metro Chamber has a strong legacy 

of protecting and strengthening the southern Nevada business community, helping 

its member businesses grow and thrive, and providing a voice for those employers 

and employees in local, State and Federal Government for over 100 years. Today, 

the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce is one of the largest metropolitan 

chambers of commerce in the United States. 

The Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce is committed to serving and supporting the entire Las Vegas metropolitan area. Its mission is to promote a strong 

and diversified economy that will attract new businesses and industries, enable existing businesses to expand, and create good jobs and opportunities for all who call 

southern Nevada home. 

As a member-based organization focused on regional policy issues, I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2015, the Las Vegas Valley Public Land 

and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act. I want to thank Congressman Horsford for introducing this legislation and Congressman Amodei, Congresswoman Titus and Congressman Heck for co-sponsoring this bill. I thank each of Nevada’s House Members for their bi-partisan efforts to introduce this bill and to build 

support for this important land bill that will not only benefit southern Nevada but 

the entire southwest region. 

Land bills such as H.R. 2015 are an important component to the success of a vibrant and diversified economy to regions such as southern Nevada. This is true for 

many metropolitan cities throughout the western portion of the United States. Our 

State currently has an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent, among the highest in the 

country. We at the Metro Chamber have a responsibility to our employers and their 

employees to support bills such as H.R. 2015 because it would give us the enabling 

legislation to bring needed positive change to our region. This bill represents a 

unique opportunity where the preservation of our past can be the economic driver 

of our future. 

For the Metro Chamber, this bill would accomplish several objectives: preservation of our irreplaceable natural history; expansion of educational opportunities for 

our children and scientists; utilization of land for research, Nellis Air Force Base 

and outdoor recreation; and creation of much needed jobs for our community. This 

bill is broadly supported by the entire State of Nevada, including the business community. The Nevada State Legislature passed a resolution in support of this designation earlier this year. 

I want to highlight just a few of the many benefits: 

First, this bill will preserve a significant area of natural history. The Las Vegas 

Valley has one of the largest collections of fossils from the Pleistocene Epoch Period, 

or the ice age, in the northern edge of our valley. Archaeologists and scientists have 

been exploring this area for almost a century because of the vast amounts of fossil 

remains in the area. To date, almost 10,000 fossils have been removed and stored 

in facilities in San Bernardino, California. Some experts suggest that these finds 

only represent 1 percent of the fossils that could be potentially located in the Las 

72 

Vegas Upper Wash. The educational lessons that can be learned from these fossils 

are countless and priceless. 

The preservation value, educational benefits and economic benefit that would be 

gained has the potential to be an economic game changer for our eco-tourism industry in southern Nevada. For example, this bill will provide 1,211 acres for a park 

for off-roaders, which is part of 10,000 acres allocated for recreation. The creation 

of this park has the potential to be a major tourism draw for off-road enthusiasts 

in the Southwest. This bill also provides additional acreage to the Red Rock National Conservation Area, which is a natural treasure in southern Nevada. Both of 

these provisions support economic development and preservation in their respective 

manner. Second, this designation would create economic opportunities. Las Vegas is often 

referred to as the Entertainment Capital of the World because of its spectacular hotels, fine dining and breathtaking shows. According to the Las Vegas Convention 

and Visitors Authority, almost 40 million people visited southern Nevada last year 

and tourism generates a $45 billion economic impact in southern Nevada, which in 

turn supports almost 400,000 jobs or about 47 percent of the local workforce. Tourism remains the driver of our economy and we are continually looking for ways to 

capitalize on this core industry, particularly when it comes to job creation. 

Third, this bill will help economic development in our metropolitan area. While 

the bill will preserve some Federal land, it also gives Bureau of Land Management 

land back to the community for developmental purposes. The city of Las Vegas 

would receive 660 acres and the city of North Las Vegas would receive 645 acres 

for commercial development purposes. These additional lands would allow for the 

cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas to recruit new businesses to come to their 

communities and facilitate the expansion of existing businesses. This will result in 

new jobs for our region, additional revenue to the local tax base and the expansion 

of economic diversification efforts. 

Fundamentally, this bill allows us to plan for our future because it would provide 

Clark County with 2,320 acres near Primm, Nevada for flood protection in preparation of the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport. 

The Metro Chamber is also a strong advocate for higher education in Nevada and 

supports the provisions of the bill that would provide acreage to the University of 

Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), College of Southern Nevada and Great Basin College 

in Northern Nevada. This provision will allow UNLV to create a new regional campus to further serve the needs of our community. Currently, UNLV’s main campus 

has 335 acres, which services more than 28,000 students and 3,100 faculty and 

staff. The additional parcels would allow them to expand educational opportunities 

for the students in our state, create new programs and recruit new faculty to our 

state’s largest public institution of higher education. 

The Metro Chamber is also a partner in supporting the men and women serving 

in our military and works closely with the leadership at Nellis Air Force Base. This 

legislation recognizes and protects the important role that Nellis Air Force Base 

plays in our national security interests through the provisions regarding the military over flights. Nellis Air Force Base is an important part of our community and 

we need to help preserve their ability to continue their military objectives. We believe this bill preserves the mission of Nellis Air Force Base, while balancing the 

efforts between preservation, economic development and military needs. 

The bill designates a qualified electric utility corridor with a 400-foot right of way 

for the construction of a high-voltage transmission facility and a 100-foot right of 

way for the construction of a buried water conveyance pipeline. The local utilities 

in southern Nevada support the preserving of the utility corridor for economic development and renewable energy components associated with the bill. 

In addition to the support of our employers and their families, the designation of 

this area as a national monument has the support of local government entities such 

as the city of Las Vegas, city of North Las Vegas, Clark County and the Las Vegas 

Paiute Tribe and shows the broad support that this bill has in our community. 

Many community organizations have been at the forefront of championing this 

designation. Long-time community leaders Thalia Dondero and Helen Mortensen 

have tirelessly dedicated their efforts to educate our community about this important treasure in southern Nevada through the Las Vegas Ice Age Park Foundation. 

This group has actively advocated for the passage of this legislation because of the 

historical preservation value, the curating of the fossils and educational research opportunities associated with this site. 

As we continue to rebuild our economy and tackle the many challenges ahead, 

now, more than ever, your support of H.R. 2015 matters a great deal to the people 

of southern Nevada. If we can secure the designation of this area for a national 

monument, we will preserve fragile parts of our world’s natural history, while proVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
73 

viding a catalyst to create jobs, put people to work while sparking the fire for innovation and interest in the minds of students. Your interest, your vision and your 

commitment matter to the residents of southern Nevada. Thank you for your time 

and consideration, and for the honor of testifying in front of the subcommittee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

Mr. AMODEI. Your Honor. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN LEE, MAYOR, CITY OF NORTH LAS 

VEGAS 

Mr. LEE. Co-Chair Amodei, Cochair Horsford, friends, for the 

record my name is John Lee, and I am the Mayor of the city of 

North Las Vegas. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in 

support of H.R. 2015 and the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and 

Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. 

The legislation before us today enjoys the bipartisan support of 

the entire Nevada congressional delegation. I would like to thank 

Representative Steven Horsford, my Congressman and former colleague in the legislature, for his leadership on this legislation. I 

would also like to thank Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid and 

Dean Heller for all their hard work in crafting what I believe is the 

most significant public lands legislation in southern Nevada for 

over a decade. 

H.R. 2015 designates over 22,000 acres of Federal land in the 

northern part of Las Vegas Valley as a national monument. A significant portion of this acreage lies within the city of North Las 

Vegas. The city has worked closely for the past several years with 

Clark County, the city of Las Vegas, Nellis Air Force Base, local 

conservation groups and business communities to develop a consensus boundary for the monument that balances our desire for resource protection and our future plans for economic development. 

H.R. 2015 not only establishes a unique urban national monument, the bill creates opportunities for job creation and economic 

development. As policymakers I am sure you hear the buzz words 

in almost every hearing; however, H.R. 2015 provides critical economic development opportunities for our city. 

The bill includes over 1,300 acres set aside for job-creation zones 

to be used by the city of North Las Vegas and Las Vegas. Additionally, the urban national monument established by H.R. 2015 will 

provide a tremendous benefit to our tourist-dependent region. Our 

national parks attract over 350 million domestic and international 

visitors each year. We believe this new monument will appeal to 

a percentage of the 40-million-plus visitors southern Nevada hosts 

each year, in addition to attracting new visitors to our region. Our 

financially struggling communities could benefit from the fact that 

national park units typically generate at least $10 for nearby gateway communities for every dollar invested. 

North Las Vegas has struggled financially. One of our ZIP codes 

is nationally ranked as one of the top 10 for worst rates of home 

foreclosures. As the new Mayor of North Las Vegas, I believe 

H.R. 2015 is a gigantic step in the right direction toward our region’s economic recovery. I believe the establishment of the Tule 

Springs Fossil Beds National Monument will serve the dual purpose of protecting nationally significant paleontology resources and 

promoting economic development and tourism in North Las Vegas. 

74 

North Las Vegas is a diverse minority-majority city largely comprised of a vibrant Hispanic community, and the monument will be 

a place for our schoolchildren to visit and learn firsthand about our 

Nation’s and Nevada’s natural history. The location of the monument on the border of a large Hispanic community provides one 

possible exclusion to the National Park Service’s widely publicized 

effort to attract more minorities. The Service’s commissioned report 

found that only 1 in 10 of its visitors are Hispanic, the Nation’s 

fastest-growing demographic group. H.R. 2015 establishes an urban 

national monument that can act as a gateway for attracting nontraditional visitors to our national parks. 

While the national monument is clearly a focal point of 

H.R. 2015, there are several other provisions of the legislation as 

important to the future growth and development to the city of 

North Las Vegas. Section 4 of the bill conveys 645 acres of BLM 

land to the city for economic development purposes. The land is adjacent to the proposed UNLV North Campus, and a conveyance 

would allow the city to master-plan develop this area to provide ancillary services that support the mission of this new campus. 

Section 8 of the bill expands the Southern Nevada Public Lands 

Management Act disposal boundary for BLM-managed lands in 

North Las Vegas. The city intends to nominate these parcels for 

sale for the industrial development at a future BLM auction and 

thereby increase our local tax base by converting Federal lands into 

private ownership. We anticipate that hundreds of jobs will be created as a result of this industrial development. 

North Las Vegas is home of Nellis Air Force Base, and the city 

is proud to be home of many airmen and civilians who work at the 

base. The city has gone to great lengths to work with Nellis to develop joint land-use plans to allow for responsible development by 

the city while protecting the base from encroachment that would 

threaten its training mission. The city supports the provisions of 

the bill addressing military overflights, the transfer of BLM land 

to the Air Force to protect the important mission of Nellis. 

H.R. 2015 also creates an economic opportunity by establishing 

the Nellis Dunes Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area for outdoor 

enthusiasts. The city supports Clark County’s effort to establish 

the Nellis Dunes area on BLM land on the northeast side of Las 

Vegas Valley. Our community is in desperate need of these dedicated areas for this type of recreational activity. Since the city 

would be responsible for providing certain utility services to this 

area, we are pleased that the legislation provides for a memorandum of understanding between the city and Clark County before any economic development may occur in this recreation area. 

Mr. Chairman, like many other communities, the city of North 

Las Vegas has had its share of challenges over the past 4 years. 

As we focus on the future, I believe the establishment of the Tule 

Springs Fossil Beds National Monument will bring a tremendous 

benefit to North Las Vegas. H.R. 2015 is a critical piece of legislation that will protect an area that is currently subject to vandalism 

and unauthorized road vehicle use. It will provide a new destination for our visitors of southern Nevada, and will provide North 

Las Vegas residents with the sense of pride shared by all communities and are fortunate enough to have the National Park Service 

75 

as our neighbor. I urge you to support this important piece of legislation, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify. 

On a personal note I would like to thank both you gentlemen for 

what you are doing for our community and for our State. You are 

definitely a tribute to the things that we taught you in the Nevada 

Senate, and you are edifying that education, and I am very proud 

to call you friends and great Nevadans. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. AMODEI. Well, thank you very much, Your Honor. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lee follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN LEE, MAYOR, CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

H.R. 2015—Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds 

National Monument Act of 2013 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the committee, my 

name is John Lee, and I am the Mayor of the city of North Las Vegas. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify today in support of H.R. 2015, the Las Vegas Valley Public 

Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. 

The legislation before us today enjoys the bipartisan support of the entire Nevada 

congressional delegation. I would like to thank Rep. Steven Horsford, my Congressman and former colleague in the Nevada Legislature, for his leadership on this legislation. I would also like to thank Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator 

Dean Heller for all of their hard work in crafting what I believe to be the most significant public land legislation for southern Nevada in over a decade. 

H.R. 2015 designates over 22,000 acres of Federal land in the northern part of 

the Las Vegas Valley as a national monument. A significant portion of this acreage 

lies within the city of North Las Vegas. The city has worked closely for the past 

several years with Clark County, the city of Las Vegas, Nellis Air Force Base, NV 

Energy, local conservation groups, and the business community to develop a consensus boundary for the monument that balances our desire for resource protection 

with our future plans for economic development. 

H.R. 2015 not only establishes a unique urban national monument, the bill creates opportunities for job creation and economic development. As policymakers, I am 

sure you hear these buzz words in almost every hearing; however, H.R. 2015 provides critical economic development opportunities for our city. The bill includes over 

1,300 acres set aside for job creation zones to be used by the city of North Las Vegas 

and Las Vegas. 

Additionally, the urban national monument established by H.R. 2015 will provide 

a tremendous benefit to the tourist dependent region. Our national parks attract 

over 350 million domestic and international visitors each year. We believe this new 

monument will appeal to a percentage of the 40 million-plus visitors southern Nevada hosts each year, in addition to attracting new visitors to our region. Our financially struggling community could benefit from the fact that national park units 

typically generate at least $10 for nearby gateway communities for every dollar invested. North Las Vegas has struggled financially, one of our zip codes is nationally 

ranked as one of the top 10 for worst rates of home foreclosures, and as the new 

Mayor of North Las Vegas, I believe H.R. 2015 is a gigantic step in the right direction toward are regions economic recovery. 

I believe the establishment of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument 

will serve the dual purpose of protecting nationally significant paleontological resources and promoting economic development and tourism in North Las Vegas. 

North Las Vegas is a diverse minority-majority city largely comprised of a vibrant 

Hispanic community, and the monument will provide a place for our school children 

to visit and learn first hand about our Nations and Nevada’s natural history. The 

location of the monument on the boarder of a large Hispanic community provides 

one possible solution to the National Park Service’s widely publicized efforts attract 

more minorities. The Service’s commissioned reports found only 1 in 10 of its visitors are Hispanic—the Nation’s fastest-growing demographic group. H.R. 2015 establishes a urban national monument that can act as a gateway for attracting nontraditional visitors into our national parks. 

While the national monument is clearly the focal point of H.R. 2015, there are 

several other provisions of this legislation as important to the future growth and 

development of the city of North Las Vegas. Section 4 of the bill conveys 645 acres 

of BLM land to the city for economic development purposes. The land is adjacent 

76 

to the proposed UNLV North Campus, and the conveyance would allow the city to 

master plan and develop this area to provide ancillary services that support the mission of the new campus. Section 8 of the bill expands the Southern Nevada Public 

Land Management Act disposal boundary for BLM-managed lands in North Las 

Vegas. The city intends to nominate these parcels for sale for industrial development at a future BLM auction. and thereby increase our local tax base by converting Federal land into private ownership. We anticipate that hundreds of jobs 

will be created as a result of this industrial development. 

North Las Vegas is the home of Nellis Air Force Base, and the city is proud to 

be the home of many airmen and civilians who work on the base. The city has gone 

to great lengths to work with Nellis to develop joint land use plans that allow for 

responsible development by the city while protecting the base from encroachment 

that could threaten its training mission. The city supports the provisions in the bill 

addressing military overflights and the transfer of BLM land to the Air Force to protect the important mission of Nellis. 

H.R. 2015 also creates economic opportunities by establishing the Nellis Dunes 

Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area for outdoor enthusiasts. The city supports 

Clark County’s effort to establish the Nellis Dunes Area on BLM land on the northeast side of the Las Vegas Valley. Our community is in desperate need of a dedicated area for this type of recreational activity. Since the city would be responsible 

for providing certain utility services to this area, we are pleased that the legislation 

provides for a Memorandum of Understanding between the city and Clark County 

before any economic development may occur near the recreation area. 

Mr. Chairman, like many communities, the city of North Las Vegas has had its 

share of challenges over the past 4 years. As we focus on the future, I believe the 

establishment of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument will bring tremendous benefits to North Las Vegas. H.R. 2015 is a critical piece of legislation that 

will protect an area that is currently subject to vandalism and unauthorized off-road 

vehicle use. It will provide a new destination for visitors to southern Nevada, and 

it will provide North Las Vegas residents with the sense of pride shared by all communities that are fortunate enough to have the National Park Service as a neighbor. 

I urge your support for this important legislation, and I thank you for giving me 

the opportunity to testify today. 

Mr. AMODEI. That is the good news. The bad news is for the 

Councilman from the city of North Henderson, between Kristin and 

John, they used all of your time, so—— 

Mr. ROSS. I recognize that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. AMODEI. But on behalf of the city of Las Vegas, please proceed, Mr. Ross. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE ROSS, COUNCILMAN, CITY OF LAS 

VEGAS, WARD 6 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members 

of the committee. I am Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Ross, representing Ward 6 in the great Northwest, and fortunately my border borders a great deal of North Las Vegas, as you can tell. 

I am here today, of course, as we are here today, of course, to 

support and persuade you to support the Las Vegas Valley Public 

Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 

2013. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. It is actually quite 

an honor, because you are both Congressmen from Nevada, and my 

Congressman is sitting right there, Congressman Horsford. So, 

again, I want to echo what the mayor had said: Thank you for your 

service to our State. 

I also want to recognize the comments from Congressman Heck 

and Congresswoman Titus for their continued support of what we 

are trying to accomplish. 

77 

And, Congressman Horsford, you probably remember when we 

were kids going out to Tule Springs Park and what it has turned 

into today, so it is just awesome to be here. This is a real home 

run for Nevada. 

Some key points I want to make, though, and you have heard 

them before, but I want you to hear them again. This bill has huge 

community support. It will create jobs, and it will conserve and 

preserve this very important resource we have in the desert. You 

have already heard it, and it is rare for an elected official to have 

the privilege to work on legislation that is being supported by so 

many organizations, especially in the southern Nevada community: 

NV Energy; Nellis Air Force Base; the Las Vegas Metro Chamber; 

elementary and high school educators; area colleges and universities, including University of Nevada-Las Vegas; the Public Lands 

Institute; and, of course, environmental and conservation groups. 

Representatives from these organizations, among others, are working closely with a group of concerned citizens that have developed 

public support for this bill. Ms. McMillan mentioned them. They 

are The Protectors of Tule Springs. 

The Board of Clark County Commissioners, the Las Vegas City 

Council, the North Las Vegas City Council, the Nevada State Legislature, and the Tribal Council of the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe 

unanimously passed resolutions urging Congress to pass legislation 

creating a national monument, and for the record, and with your 

permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit those letters of 

support. 

Mr. AMODEI. That is fine. 

[The letters and resolution submitted by Mr. Ross follows:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

495 S. MAIN STREET, 

LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, 89101, 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2013. 

The Honorable ROB BISHOP, 

Chairman, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Committee on Natural Resources, 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

The Honorable RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, 

Ranking Member, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Committee on Natural Resources, 

Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BISHOP AND RANKING MEMBER GRIJALVA, 

On behalf of the city of Las Vegas, I write to whole-heartedly support the Las 

Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 

2013 ( S. 974/H.R. 2015). We worked closely with the Nevada Congressional Delegation to designate the Tule Springs area as a National Monument in the 112th Congress, and we look forward to moving the bill forward in this Congress. 

As you may know, this legislation enjoys broad support in southern Nevada and 

would result in many mutually beneficial outcomes. The city of Las Vegas supports 

swift passage of S. 974/H.R. 2015 as it is imperative to protect paleontological and 

sensitive plant resources. We also believe that the legislation would create opportunities for economic development and job creation while providing for responsible 

urban development of adjacent lands, and allowing for necessary infrastructure to 

service existing developed areas. 

78 

Again, we strongly support S. 974/H.R. 2015 and look forward to its successful 

passage. 

Respectfully, 

STEVEN ROSS, 

City Councilman, 

City of Las Vegas, Nevada, Ward 6. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS AND THE CITY OF

NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

JULY 9, 2012. 

The Honorable MARK E. AMODEI, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN AMODEI: 

We are writing to express our support for H.R. 6072, the Las Vegas Valley Public 

Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2012. We believe this 

legislation reflects a well-balanced approach to public land management policy in 

the northern part of the valley, and we urge you to cosponsor this important measure. 

The legislation facilitates important economic development goals for the Cities by 

making surplus Federal land available for commercial development in accordance 

with local land use plans. The Cities expect the release of these lands to create 

thousands of jobs over the next decade. 

The legislation would achieve important conservation goals by establishing the 

Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. Located at the northern edge of the 

Las Vegas Valley and within the boundaries of the Cities of North Las Vegas and 

Las Vegas (the ‘‘Cities’’) are the Tule Springs National Register Historic Site and 

an area known as the Upper Las Vegas Wash, a unique natural drainage channel 

that carries storm water from the surrounding mountains toward Lake Mead. 

Found within these areas are significant paleontological sites containing numerous 

fossils demonstrative of the Pleistocene Ice Age that span geologic history from 

7,000 to nearly 200,000 years ago. These areas also contain endangered and imperiled plants such as the Merriam’s and Las Vegas Bearpoppy and the Las Vegas 

Buckwheat, as well as important habitat for threatened species such as the desert 

tortoise and burrowing owls. 

Recognizing the significance of these areas, the mayors and city councils of the 

Cities unanimously passed a resolution, in collaboration with the Clark County 

Commission and the Tribal Council of the Southern Nevada Paiute Tribe, requesting that Congress designate the area surrounding Tule Springs and the Upper Las 

Vegas Wash a unit of the National Park Service. We believe a national monument 

is the appropriate designation. 

Due to the large number and variety of resources that are available for study and 

viewing within the area it is expected that the national monument would attract 

visitors from all over the world with a wide range of interests, including educational, scientific, cultural and recreational. The Cities have worked closely over 

the last 4 years with the Nevada Congressional Delegation and a broad range of 

stakeholders, including the U.S. Air Force, conservation groups, and NV Energy, to 

develop a boundary for the national monument that balances conservation and resource protection with the future growth needs of the Cities. 

The Cities appreciate all you do for southern Nevada, and we urge you to cosponsor this important public lands legislation for the benefit of current and future generations of Las Vegas Valley residents and visitors. 

Sincerely, 

CAROLYN G. GOODMAN, MAYOR, 

City of Las Vegas. 

SHARI BUCK, MAYOR, 

City of North Las Vegas. 

79 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS, CITY OF NORTH

LAS VEGAS AND NV ENERGY

MARCH 28, 2011. 

The Honorable HARRY REID, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, D.C. 20510. 

DEAR SENATOR REID: 

The cities of North Las Vegas and Las Vegas, in collaboration with NY Energy, 

have met to discuss the creation of a unit of the National Park Service in the area 

surrounding the Upper Las Vegas Wash. All parties are in complete agreement on 

(1) the need for legislation to make the area surrounding Tule Springs and the 

Upper Las Vegas Wash a unit of the National Park Service, and (2) that there is 

a proposal for a transmission corridor across the northern part of the valley linking 

NY Energy’s Northwest Substation and the Harry Allen Generating Station, and 

legislation should accommodate a transmission/utilities corridor that would adhere 

to all applicable local, State and Federal regulations. 

Legislation making these unique and significant areas a unit of the National Park 

Service will result in mutually beneficial outcomes, including: 

• Protect paleontological and sensitive plant resources, 

• Create opportunities for economic development and job creation by attracting 

national and international visitors from a wide range of interests including educational, scientific, cultural and natural resources, 

• Provide for responsible and orderly urban development of adjacent lands, 

• Allow for necessary infrastructure to service existing developed areas and future development 

We would like to lend our support to moving forward with legislation designating 

the area a unit of the National Park Service. 

Thank you for your continued support of this important project. 

Sincerely, 

SHARI L. BUCK, MAYOR, 

City of North Las Vegas. 

OSCAR B. GOODMAN, MAYOR, 

City of Las Vegas. 

MICHAEL W. YACKIRA, 

President and Chief Executive Officer NY Energy. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS, CITY OF NORTH

LAS VEGAS AND LAS VEGAS PAIUTE TRIBE

DECEMBER 21, 2011 

TO THE EDITOR: 

Earlier this mouth, more than 100 economists, including three Nobel Laureates, 

signed a letter to President Barack Obama urging Federal support to establish new 

protected areas such as national parks, wilderness areas and national monuments, 

particularly in the western part of the United States. Their reason: these projects 

have a substantial impact on economic growth and job creation. 

In southern Nevada, we have reaped tremendous economic and quality of life benefits from federally protected lands. Imagine how much benefit our residents and 

visitors get out of such public wonderlands as Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 

the Red Rock Conservation Area, and Mount Charleston and Lee Canyon in the 

Toiyabe Forest. We have another national treasure that has the same potential to 

be a major local and national attraclion—the proposed Tule Springs National Monument that encompasses the length or the entire northern section of the Las Vegas 

Wash. 

Not only is this site tilled with potential recreational benefit, out this section of 

the Las Vegas Wash is also internationally recognized as one of the most significant 

fossil bed sites in North America depicting life in the Ice Age, a period covering 

more than 200,000 years of climate change and biological adaptation. Fossils from 

prehistoric camels, woolly mammoths, giant sloths, lions and other animals have 

been unearthed at the site, along with fossils representing an abundance of marine 

and plant life 

80 

Recently, 1,500 members of the Vertebrate Paleontological Society held their annual meeting in Las Vegas precisely because of its proximity to this incredible site. 

As reported in the Review-Journal, one participant neatly summed up the need for 

the area’s protection: ‘‘It’s a world-class fossil site. You can actually see how ecosystems have transitioned from warm climates to cold climates and back again 

through several ice ages.’’ 

As the elected leaders of our respective local and tribal governmental entities, we 

are urging our congressional delegation to come together and act quickly to establish this National Monument and to provide the resources to turn it into a world 

class visitor site. The economic and quality of life benefits are tremendous. 

As the economists’ letter points out: ‘‘Today, one of the competitive strengths of 

the West is the unique combination of wide-open spaces, scenic vistas and recreational opportunities alongside vibrant, growing communities that are connected 

to larger markets via the Internet, highways and commercial air service. Increasingly, entrepreneurs are basing their business location decisions on the quality of 

life in an area. Businesses are recruiting talented employees by promoting access 

to beautiful, nearby public lands. This is happening in western cities and rural 

areas alike.’’ 

By protesting and creating recreational opportunities in our canyons, rivers, 

deserts and mountains, we also establish a unique and compelling environment that 

plays a pivotal role in attracting and retaining people and businesses. Public lands, 

such as the proposed Tule Springs National Monument, support activities like hunting, fishing and hiking that improve our quality of life, attracting visitors and supporting economic growth. 

We encourage Senator Reid, Senator Heller, Congresswoman Berkley, Congressman Heck and Congressman Amodei to join together and move for a swift action. 

We have a golden opportunity to do something today that will have immediate impact and that will positively affect generations to come. 

Sincerely, 

CAROLYN G. GOODMAN, MAYOR, 

City of Las Vegas. 

SHARI L. BUCK, MAYOR, 

City of North Las Vegas. 

TONIA MEANS, CHAIRPERSON, 

Las Vegas Paiute Tribe. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS AND THE CITY OF

NORTH LAS VEGAS

NOVEMBER 19, 2010 

Honorable HARRY REID, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, D.C. 20510–2803 

DEAR SENATOR REID: 

As you are aware, the mayors and city councils of the cities of North Las Vegas 

and Las Vegas unanimously passed a resolution, in collaboration with the Clark 

County Commission, and the Tribal Council of the Southern Nevada Paiute Tribe, 

requesting that Congress make the area surrounding Tule Springs and the Upper 

Las Vegas Wash a unit of the National Park Service, with a land management designation that is appropriate for the protection of the resources and that would be 

managed by the National Park Service. 

Due to the large number and variety of resources that are available for study and 

viewing within the area it is expected that the proposed National Park Service unit 

would attract visitors from a wide range of interests including educational, scientific, cultural and natural resources, and it is anticipated that visitors will be attracted from a broad geographical area; from local to international. 

The cities have, and continue to work diligently with all interested parties, including NV Energy, and are confident that resolution of all outstanding issues in regard 

to proposed legislation will be achieved in the near future. 

The cities look forward to the legislation that will make these unique and significant areas a unit of the National Park Service. We thank you for your support and 

81 

appeal to you to advance the legislation that will ultimately establish this national 

park monument. 

Sincerely, 

HONORABLE SHARI L. BUCK, MAYOR, 

City of North Las Vegas. 

HONORABLE OSCAR B. GOODMAN, MAYOR

City of Las Vegas 

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 1—ASSEMBLYMAN AIZLEY

ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION—Expressing the support of the Nevada Legislature for the designation of the Upper Las Vegas Wash as a national monument. 

WHEREAS, The Upper Las Vegas Wash contains thousands of Pleistocene 

mammal fossils of national importance, including Columbian mammoth, ground 

sloth, American lion, camel and horse fossils; and 

WHEREAS, Since 1933, the Upper Las Vegas Wash has been valued by scientists because of the significant paleontological fossils demonstrative of the Pleistocene epoch, commonly referred to as the ice age, that are located in the area; and 

WHEREAS, In 2004, during the preparation of the Las Vegas Valley Disposal 

Boundary Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Bureau of Land Management 

identified sensitive biological, cultural and paleontological resources determined to 

be worthy of more evaluation with respect to the protective status of the resources; 

and 

WHEREAS, The harsh desert environment of the Upper Las Vegas Wash supports unique and imperiled plants, including the Las Vegas buckwheat, Merriam’s 

bearpoppy, Las Vegas bearpoppy, the halfring milkvetch, Joshua trees and several 

species of cacti; and 

WHEREAS, The Upper Las Vegas Wash provides important habitat for the 

threatened desert tortoise, endemic poppy bees, kit foxes, burrowing owls and a variety of reptiles; and 

WHEREAS, In 2010, a National Park Service reconnaissance survey of the area 

determined that the area likely contains the largest continuous section of Pleistocene strata in the desert southwest; and 

WHEREAS, The Upper Las Vegas Wash is significant to the culture and history 

of the native and indigenous people of the area, including the Southern Paiute 

Tribe; and 

WHEREAS, Despite the findings and recommendations of the aforementioned 

Environmental Impact Statement and reconnaissance survey, the Upper Las Vegas 

Wash remains inadequately protected; and 

WHEREAS, Many irreplaceable fossil specimens in the Upper Las Vegas Wash 

have been lost to vandalism or theft; and 

WHEREAS, Designation of the Upper Las Vegas Wash site as a national monument would protect the unique resources of the area for present and future generations while allowing for public education and continued scientific research opportunities; now, therefore, be it 

RESOLVED BY THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, JOINTLY, That the members of the 77th Session of the Nevada Legislature 

hereby recognize that the Upper Las Vegas Wash contains unique, nationally important biological, cultural and paleontological resources; and be it further 

RESOLVED, That to conserve, protect, interpret and enhance for the benefit of 

present and future generations these unique and nationally important resources, 

the Nevada Legislature expresses its support for the designation of the Upper Las 

Vegas Wash site as a national monument; and be it further 

RESOLVED, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly prepare and transmit a copy 

of this resolution to the Vice President of the United States as the presiding officer 

of the U.S. Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each member of 

the Nevada Congressional Delegation, the Governor and the Director of the State 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and to the Director of the Department of Wildlife for distribution to the various conservation groups that have 

participated in the effort to designate the Upper Las Vegas Wash site as a national 

monument; and be it further 

RESOLVED, That this resolution becomes effective upon passage. 

Mr. ROSS. We are all concerned about jobs. One of the reasons 

this bill has such committed support is because it creates opportuVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
82 

nities for economic development and job creation. As government 

officials, it is important that we support policies that create jobs for 

our communities. The passage of this bill would attract national 

and international visitors from a wide range of interests, including 

educational, scientific, cultural, and natural resources. Las Vegas 

is one of the most recognized brands in the world. Last year we 

had nearly 40 million people come to Las Vegas. 

I would like to draw your attention to section 5 of the bill. This 

provision, known as the Las Vegas Job Creation Zone, will transfer 

land from the Bureau of Land Management to the city of Las 

Vegas to be made available for private development through competitive auction. This transfer of land from Federal control to private ownership will facilitate important economic goals for the city 

of Las Vegas by making surplus Federal land available for commercial development. The surplus land is ideally situated for development of a business and technology center that will support both 

Creech and Nellis Air Force Bases. 

Third, conserve and preserve this very important resource. The 

site is one of the most significant fossil beds in North America depicting life in the ice age. Fossils from prehistoric camels, 

mammoths, giant sloths, lions, and other animals and plants have 

been unearthed at this site. Thousands of Pleistocene-era fossils 

have been found in Tule Springs for examination and viewing. Fossils and fossilized pollen in the area nearly span 200,000 years of 

time, offering important insight into at least two ice ages and multiple warming and cooling periods of our planet. 

I have visited the site on a number of occasions and personally 

seen tusks bigger than me that came from ice age Columbian 

mammoths. This site should be set aside so other others can visit 

and learn from these resources. Tule Springs has allowed faculty 

from UNLV and other academic institutions to get students practical paleontological and geological experience. The site provides excellent educational opportunities within close proximity to our city 

and to the city of North Las Vegas for visiting school groups and 

the general public. This is a very unique situation for most fossil 

locations. 

Nevada is home to great institutions like the University of Nevada-Reno that is a national Tier 1 university, according to U.S. 

News and World Report. In southern Nevada the Desert Research 

Institute conducts cutting-edge applied research in air, land, life, 

and water quality across Nevada, the United States, and around 

the world. 

This isn’t just about us here today. It is about conserving and 

preserving a valuable resource for generations to come. The creation of a national monument would add to our ability to preserve 

a place in history. For these reasons, broad community support, job 

creation, and conserving important resources, I am honored to be 

here today to present this to you and ask for your support of the 

Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 2013. Thank you. 

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you very much, Mr. Councilman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ross follows:] 

83 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE ROSS, COUNCILMAN, CITY OF LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, 

WARD 6 

H.R. 2015—Las Vegas Valley Pubic Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds 

National Monument Act of 2013 

Good Morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the committee. 

For the record, my name is Steve Ross, City Councilman for the city of Las Vegas, 

Nevada, representing Council Ward 6 

I am here to support the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil 

Beds National Monument Act of 2013. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today 

about this important bill for our southern Nevada community. It’s an honor to testify before two committee members from the State of Nevada, Congressman Mark 

Amodei and Congressman Steven Horsford. 

There are three key points I will make: (1) This bill has broad community support; (2) it will create jobs; and (3) conserve important resources. 

First, Broad Community Support. It is rare that an elected public official has the 

privilege of working on legislation that is being actively supported by all sectors of 

a community. In particular, there is active support from NV Energy, Nellis Air 

Force Base, Las Vegas Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, elementary and high 

school educators, area colleges and universities, including the University of Nevada, 

Las Vegas, Public Lands Institute, and environmental and conservation groups. 

Representatives from these organizations, among others, are working closely with 

a group of concerned citizens and have developed public support for this bill. 

The Board of Clark County Commissioners, the Las Vegas City Council, the North 

Las Vegas City Council, the Nevada State Legislature, and the Tribal Council of the 

Las Vegas Paiute Tribe unanimously passed resolutions urging Congress to pass 

legislation creating a national monument. With your permission, I would like to submit their letters of support for the record. 

Second, Job Creation. One of the reasons this bill has such committed support is 

because it creates opportunities for economic development and job creation while 

providing for responsible urban development of adjacent lands, and allowing for necessary infrastructure to service existing developed areas. It would attract national 

and international visitors from a wide range of interests including educational, scientific, cultural and natural resources. 

I’d like to draw your attention to section 5. This provision, known as the ‘‘Las 

Vegas Job Creation Zone’’ will transfer land from the Bureau of Land Management 

to the city of Las Vegas to be made available for private development through competitive auction. The proceeds of the sale will stay with the Federal Government. 

This transfer of land from Federal control to private ownership will facilitate important economic goals for the city of Las Vegas by making surplus Federal land available for commercial development in accordance with local land use plans. The city 

expects the release of lands will create thousands of jobs over the next decade. This 

surplus land, supported by urban infrastructure and amenities, is ideally situated 

to provide development opportunities for businesses supporting Creech and Nellis 

Air Force Bases. 

Third, Conserve Important Resources. The site is one of the most significant fossil 

bed sites in North America depicting life in the ice age. Fossils from prehistoric 

camels, mammoths, giant sloths, lions and other animals and plants have been unearthed at this site. Thousands of Pleistocene-era fossils have been found in Tule 

Springs, and thousands remain for scientific excavation, examination and public 

viewing. Fossils and fossilized pollen in the area span nearly 200,000 years of time, 

offering important insight into at least two ice ages and multiple warming and cooling periods. 

I have visited this site on a number of occasions, and personally seen tusks bigger 

than me that came from ice age Columbian mammoths. This site should be set aside 

so others can visit and learn from these resources. Tule Springs has allowed faculty 

from UNLV and other academic institutions to get students practical paleontological 

and geological experience. The site provides excellent educational opportunities 

within close proximity to a large city for local students, visiting school groups and 

the general public. This is a unique situation for most fossil locations. 

For these reasons: Broad community support, job creation, and conserving important resources, I am honored to be here to ask you to support passage of the Las 

Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act of 

2013. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here. I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 

84 

Mr. AMODEI. I also want to indicate for the record the presence 

of former Representative Jon Porter, whose presence here is unknown to either one of the committee members here, but evidently 

he was in the neighborhood, thought he would stop by; and also to 

recognize Storey County Commissioner Marshall McBride, the 

nemesis of my high school basketball career in the last century. It 

is good to see you, and I am glad that we are both still alive. 

Any questions for this panel, Mr. Ranking Member? 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is good 

to say that. I think we would get a lot done on behalf of public 

lands if you and I had these positions. 

Mr. AMODEI. It is a Kodak moment. Somebody will be in here 

quickly to relieve us, I am sure. 

Mr. HORSFORD. I want to thank our representatives from Nevada, throughout the State of Nevada, for being here on a number 

of important public lands bills, and thank you for your leadership, 

because each of you have played an integral role over the months 

and years to get to this point, so we wouldn’t be here without you. 

So I want to thank you very much for your efforts. 

And I do want to just ask a couple of questions for the record, 

and I would like to first start by asking each of the panel to share 

just how extensive the support again is for this bill, and how did 

the community come together around this proposal? 

The Chairman and I on this committee hear all the time the 

need to do these local-Federal partnerships between the private 

sector and the public sector, but getting it done and making it happen isn’t as easy as it sounds. So can you share how the community 

was able to come together to bring the type of broad support that 

you have on the Tule Springs project? 

Mr. ROSS. If I may, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, Las 

Vegas City Council, Steve Ross, again for the record. Congressman, 

it is interesting you ask that question because it was the community support; it was the group of people, the Protectors of Tule 

Springs, if you will, that actually was the driving force behind this. 

This didn’t have to come from one of our offices. This came from 

the public. This came from the area of the city that I represent, 

and it is moving to know that we are here today because of that 

community support. And I think once it started gaining momentum, it certainly got all of our attention in our cities, certainly the 

Clark County Commission, and certainly with the Metro Chamber 

in regards to the opportunities that are there. 

More importantly, keep in mind that third point I made about 

preserving those artifacts; most significant, protecting that area. 

We have got youth groups that go out there and volunteer their 

time to pick up trash, to watch the desert, if you will, to make sure 

people aren’t out there disturbing these artifacts. 

It is a home run for our State, both economically and at the same 

time protecting that treasure that exists underground out there. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LEE. Also for your remembrance, the shooting range 14 years 

ago was brought to fruition by one man walking up in my driveway 

and saying, we need a shooting range. And from there we have 

built one of the finest shooting ranges in America there. 

85 

Congressman Horsford, in this particular case we had somebody 

who wanted to protect what she thought was one of the most valuable assets that she had ever seen in her life. Her name was Jill 

DeStefano. She started a group called The Friends of Tule Springs. 

It started with her and a friend, and pretty soon it just blossomed 

into the most interesting eclectic group of people I have ever seen. 

But they have been able to, as private citizens, drive the discussion 

on this, and we owe a big debt of gratitude to those wonderful females for seeing the future before we had an idea what was even 

available. 

Ms. MCMILLAN. Well, I think it is important to recognize this 

didn’t happen overnight. There was a lot of working and reworking, 

as Congressman Heck indicated to us earlier. But I think the 

unique circumstances here was there were a lot of groups with diverse interests who recognized the common ground, who recognized 

that there was more common ground here than there were differences, and I think Councilman Ross indicated what that common ground was. It was the preservation of a treasure that we 

have in our own backyard, something that we could preserve for 

not only our current children, but for future generations of our children balanced against what we are all here to advocate for, and 

that is jobs and economic opportunities for southern Nevada. 

So I think when these groups came together, even though they 

each had their diverse interests, they sat down over a period of 4 

to 5 years, and they worked out those differences because of those 

areas of common ground. And I know the Metro Chamber of Commerce has been involved in those discussions for probably the last 

few years. We have been coming to Washington for the last couple 

years to advocate for this issue as one of our Federal priorities, and 

I think it is a testament to the positive result that can happen 

when you start breaking down those silos and start working together. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I know Congressman Amodei and I both, having served on this committee, on a 

number of occasions have wanted to have the opportunity to show 

how partnerships can work and how our experience in Nevada 

demonstrates that. Private sector, public sector, local, State, Federal, and I am just honored and very proud that you all are able 

to exhibit that today. And I want to again commend you, and hopefully the Chairman of the overall committee and all the members 

of our Natural Resources Committee can use this as a model for 

how we, as the Federal representatives, can partner to do good 

things. Despite all of the partisanship and sometimes the gridlock, 

there are places where there is common ground and where we can 

get things done, and I think today is a perfect example. Thank you. 

Mr. LEE. Mr. Chairman, because there are so few of us here, and 

there is so many of us back here that care, might we be bold 

enough to ask you two who are working so closely with us if we 

could maybe get this to the hearing this year to the full committee? 

Mr. AMODEI. Well, you sure can, which is what you are doing 

right now, my dear colleague. 

Mr. LEE. For a vote. I mean for a vote. 

Mr. AMODEI. In case you are unaware of the procedures of the 

committee, we don’t do subcommittee markups, so the next time 

86 

you hear about this will be in markup before the whole committee, 

which is the stop before the floor. 

Mr. LEE. Will that be this year? 

Mr. AMODEI. And, by the way, if you really want to ask somebody 

in position of authority, you should ask somebody a lot older than 

either one of the people looking back at you here right now. 

But I can assure you that you have done a nice job. Pat, you 

have done a nice job on it. This committee has historically—in the 

time that I have been here has the reputation for moving bills that 

should be moved, and that does include Nevada bills in the past, 

and I expect it to include these ones. But thank you for that, although, as you recall from your time, it is usually us that asks you 

the question, not the other way around. 

Mr. LEE. I was bold, I know. 

Mr. AMODEI. Thank you very much. Pat, thank you for coming 

and bringing Marshall with you. Both good bills. I think you will 

see it reflected in markups later on this year, if I may be so bold 

as to have a prediction. But, of course, that is subject to other 

things going on which are a little bit above the pay grade of the 

folks floating around here. 

So with that, I want to thank everybody for their testimony and 

ask that all witnesses respond in writing to any written questions 

submitted by members of the subcommittee. 

Steve, I am going to submit one to you asking what it is that you 

and Mr. Horsford did in the desert when you were younger when 

you guys were hanging out out there. 

And if there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional Material Submitted for the Record] 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF THE FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

H.R. 1633—Small Lands Tracts Conveyance Act 

The Department opposes H.R. 1633. 

H.R. 1633 would provide States, units of local government, federally Recognized 

Indian tribes, and private land owners the opportunity to purchase up to 160 acres 

of National Forest System land or Federal lands if their property adjoins the Federal land. Eligible properties would include National Forest System lands or lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management that are located within the 

boundaries of an incorporated or unincorporated area with a population of at least 

500 residents, with certain limitations that are provided in the legislation. 

The bill further requires the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) to develop procedures for a purchase request, evaluation of the request, and 

an appeals process. Purchasers would pay market value if the Federal property requested is bounded by only one landowner. A competitive process would be used to 

determine purchase price if there are two or more landowners. None of the proceeds 

from the sale would return to the Federal Government. Half of the proceeds from 

the sale would be distributed to the State where the Federal property is located, 

and the remaining proceeds would be distributed equally to those States with more 

than 33 percent of Federal land ownership. States could only use the proceeds to 

purchase additional eligible parcels, or to comply with Federal requirements under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

As a condition of the sale, the Regional Forester or the Director of the Bureau 

of Land Management would require the purchaser to comply with local land use orVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
87 

dinances and master zoning plans. All properties would be conveyed by quitclaim 

deed with all rights held by the United States included. 

Our first concern is that the language defining eligible properties may be overly 

broad. The definition of populated areas that include incorporated and unincorporated areas with a population of 500 residents could be construed to include much 

of the area where NFS lands border non-Federal land. Even with exclusions provided for in the bill, areas such as those with endangered species habitat or areas 

with exceptional resources, trust lands held for the benefit of an Indian tribe or 

those lands that have an exceptional resource such as Wilderness or National Recreation Area, a large amount of the land along the Federal/non-Federal border would 

be eligible for transfer. After the property is transferred, the property along the new 

border would be eligible for transfer. This could result in a yearly expanding loss 

of the National Forest along it borders. 

The Department is also concerned with conveyance of National Forest System 

Lands without consideration. The proceeds from the sales would be distributed between the State where the sale occurred and all States where Federal Land ownership is greater than 33 percent of the total land area of the State. These funds could 

be used only to purchase additional land parcels or for the State to comply with Federal law. The benefits of the sale proceeds would go only to the States that receive 

the money, not the American public as a whole. 

H.R. 1633 specifies that market value will be established by an appraisal submitted by the applicant, subject to agency approval. Federal agencies are required 

to comply with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Acquisitions. Applicant 

appraisals not meeting these standards cannot be accepted. This could increase the 

time to achieve a compliant appraisal and the cost to the Federal Government because of requirements for a second appraisal. H.R. 1633 also imposes timelines for 

review of applications that would be difficult to meet in the best of circumstances. 

It would also require recipients of those proceeds to comply with certain Federal 

laws, with no means for ensuring compliance or enforcement. 

The Forest Service already has authority under the National Forest Townsite Act 

to sell up to 640 acres of National Forest System Land for fair market value to any 

qualifying county, city, or other governmental subdivision in the 11 contiguous 

Western States and Alaska. The lands would have to serve community objectives 

that outweigh the public objectives and values of retaining the lands in Federal 

ownership. These objectives include space for housing and for service industries, expansion of existing economic enterprises, new industries utilizing local resources 

and skills, public schools, public health facilities, community parks, and other recreation areas for local citizens. 

Other authorities are available to the Forest Service to sell or exchange NFS 

lands. Under the Small Tracts Act the Forest Service can sell lands, in part, to rectify innocent trespass problems. The Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005 allows for the sale of unneeded administrative sites. Additionally, land exchanges are authorized under a number of authorities and are the 

primary mechanism for land disposition. 

A key component of all of these authorities is a determination that the exchange 

or sale of the Federal Land is within the public interest. H.R. 1633 has no requirement for determining that the conveyance would be in the public interest. Further, 

it would require the use of categorical exclusions which we do not support. The 

Service uses its planning process and the NEPA process to provide opportunities to 

consider environmental impacts, public engagement, and mitigation opportunities, 

as well as to ensure that unknown or unforeseen issues are not overlooked. Failure 

to use these planning processes can result in a failure to provide relevant and useful 

information to the public and the decisionmakers. 

The Department is also concerned with the effect of removing parcels out of Federal ownership on an ad hoc basis. This would make boundary management much 

more difficult and expensive as the boundaries could change every year. The fragmentation that would occur along the borders of NFS land would exacerbate insect 

and disease management challenges. 

Additionally, USDA is concerned that enactment of H.R. 1633 would exacerbate 

the spread of homes and communities into areas prone to wildfire magnifying or 

multiplying an already increasing management challenge. Studies indicate that 

about one-tenth of the land area occupied by housing and about one-third of all 

housing units in the conterminous United States are located in the Wildland Urban 

Interface (WUI). Almost certainly, enactment of H.R. 1633 would open up more 

‘‘natural’’ areas for development, complicating and making more costly suppression 

tactics when a fire occurs. Purchase of these lands could also lead to an increase 

in the number of fires, since, in general, the more houses and people, the more 

human-caused fire ignitions occur. 

88 

H.R. 2259—North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013 

H.R. 2259 would, subject to valid existing rights, withdraw National Forest System (NFS) lands located in the North Fork and Middle Fork of Flathead River watersheds in the State of Montana which are primarily managed as part of the Flathead National Forest from location, entry and patent under the mining laws and 

from disposition under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws. H.R. 2259 would 

also withdrawal a small amount of land in the Kootenai National Forest. Currently 

there are 39 existing leases or claims in the North Fork comprising 56,117 acres 

and 18 existing leases or claims in the Middle Fork comprising 8,595 acres. 

While USDA supports H.R. 2259, I would like to clarify that although the Forest 

Service has surface management authority concerning mineral operations, the management of the Federal mineral estate falls within the jurisdiction of the Secretary 

of the Interior. We defer to the Department of the Interior on issues related to the 

status of the existing claims and leases. 

The Forest Service administers surface resources on nearly 193 million acres of 

NFS lands located in 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Forest 

Plan for the Flathead National Forest blends areas of multiple uses in the North 

Fork and Middle Fork with areas of specific or limited uses elsewhere on the Forest. 

Under current law, NFS lands reserved from the public domain pursuant to the 

Creative Act of 1891, including those in H.R. 2259 are open to location, entry and 

patent under the United States Mining Laws unless those lands have subsequently 

been withdrawn from the application of the mining laws. This bill would withdraw 

approximately 362,000 acres from the operation of the locatable and leasable mineral laws subject to valid existing rights. This includes approximately 291,000 acres 

on the Flathead National Forest and approximately 5,000 acres on the Kootenai National Forest in the North Fork watershed and 66,000 acres in the Middle Fork watershed on the Flathead National Forest. 

The majority of North Fork and Middle Fork of the Flathead has low to moderate 

potential for the occurrence of locatable and leasable minerals. A portion of the Middle Fork does have an area of high potential for oil and gas occurrence. Much of 

the North Fork and Middle Fork was leased for oil and gas in the early 1980s. Subsequently, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service were sued 

and BLM suspended the leases in 1985 to comply with a District Court ruling 

(Conner v. Burford, 605 F. Supp. 107 (D.Mont.1985)). Presently, there are no active 

locatable or leasable operations, including oil and gas, in the North Fork or Middle 

Fork. 

We recognize the bill would not affect the existing oil and gas leases because they 

would constitute valid existing rights. We also recognize the bill would not change 

the court’s order in Conner v. Burford requiring the BLM and Forest Service to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental 

Policy Act before authorizing any surface disturbing activities on the affected leases. 

The Flathead National Forest and Flathead County rely on the close proximity 

of local sources of aggregate to maintain roads economically and as a source of 

building materials. We are pleased this bill would not preclude the removal and use 

of mineral materials, such as aggregate. The ability to continue using those local 

mineral materials would allow us to more easily maintain local roads, thus reduce 

erosion related impacts to streams and lakes in the North Fork and Middle Fork 

drainages. 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF THE INTERIOR

H.R. 1167—Restoring Storey County Act 

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to provide testimony on 

H.R. 1167, the Restoring Storey County Act. This bill would direct the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) to convey approximately 890 acres of Federal surface estate in and around Virginia City, Nevada, to Storey County. The Department supports the goals of H.R. 1167, but opposes the bill’s exemptions from existing laws, 

and suggests other modifications described below. 

BACKGROUND

Virginia City is a community of about 855 people in Storey County, Nevada, approximately 25 miles southeast of Reno. Virginia City and Storey County contain 

major portions of the historic Comstock Lode, one of the largest gold and silver discoveries in the world. Virginia City once boasted 15,000 residents and was one of 

89 

the richest cities in North America in the early 1870s. Due to its economic wealth 

and importance for the development of the United States, including its association 

with notable people such as Mark Twain, as well as the preservation of many of 

its historic buildings and structures, Virginia City was designated a National Historic Landmark on July 4, 1961. Today, cultural heritage tourism contributes significantly to the local economy. 

Over 140 years ago, when thousands of people rushed to the area in search of gold 

and silver, title transactions on the part of Storey County occurred very quickly, 

often before proper surveying and identification of public land versus properly located and surveyed town site lots had been completed. This unique situation resulted in residential and commercial structures being constructed in whole, or in 

part, on lands that BLM records identify as public lands and county title documents 

indicate as privately owned. It also resulted in similar discrepancies with regard to 

undeveloped land. 

H.R. 1167—RESTORING STOREY COUNTY ACT

H.R. 1167 would direct the BLM to convey approximately 890 acres of Federal 

surface estate in and around Virginia City to Storey County. Under the bill, the 

BLM would be responsible for all costs associated with the conveyance. Since the 

Federal Government owns both the surface estate and mineral estate of most of 

these lands, the mineral estate would remain in Federal ownership under 

H.R. 1167. 

Due to the specific set of historical circumstances surrounding the residential and 

commercial development of Virginia City and Storey County, the Department supports the primary goal of H.R. 1167 to resolve the title inconsistencies described 

above. While the Department generally supports the conveyance of these lands to 

Storey County, we have several concerns with the bill. 

As written, H.R. 1167 would exempt the conveyance from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The 

Department opposes exemption from these laws, which provide opportunities for 

consideration of environmental impacts, public engagement, identification of mitigation, an informed decisionmaker, and identification of unknown or unforeseen 

issues. Given that much of this land lies within a National Historic Landmark, 

there is a high potential for cultural resources in the area that require careful attention under NEPA and NHPA. Failure to comport with NEPA, alone, can result in 

a failure to provide relevant and useful information to the public and the BLM decisionmaker. 

H.R. 1167 also would require the BLM to cover all costs and convey the identified 

lands to Storey County within 60 days of enactment. The Department believes that 

conveyance costs should be paid by the county, consistent with past legislation that 

has supported local community development. Additionally, we recommend more 

flexibility in timing to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and other applicable laws. 

Similarly, H.R. 1167 does not specify the payment of fair market value for the 

public lands that would conveyed. It is our understanding that the sponsor intends 

for the conveyance under the bill to be made without the payment of fair market 

value. The Department recommends that H.R. 1167 be amended to provide payment 

for the fair market value of any lands that would be conveyed. 

Furthermore, the Department would like to work with the sponsor and the subcommittee on some technical modifications to the bill, including protection of valid 

existing rights; the addition of a direct reference to monetary consideration; amendment of the map reference; and minor boundary changes. H.R. 1167 does not include 

language that makes the conveyance under the bill subject to valid existing rights. 

There are at least 12 existing land use authorizations on these lands, including 

rights-of-way for power lines, Federal highways, pipelines, and railroads, as well as 

Recreation and Public Purposes Act leases. There are also approximately 149 mining claims and two grazing allotments on these lands. Because the bill does not address grazing, the reduction in the existing grazing permits and removal of any authorized range improvements on these lands ordinarily would be carried out in accordance with FLPMA and the BLM’s grazing regulations (43 CFR part 4100). However, the bill’s 60-day timeframe for conveyance conflicts with FLPMA and the operation of the grazing regulations. 

The bill also currently references a legislative map entitled ‘‘Restoring Storey 

County Act,’’ and dated July 24, 2012. It is our understanding that the sponsor intends to change the reference to a map dated November 20, 2012. The more recent 

map informs the Department’s position on the legislation. In addition, the Department recommends some minor changes to align the conveyance boundaries with exVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
90 

isting lots that already have been surveyed. We would be happy to work with the 

sponsor and the subcommittee on these changes and other, more minor, technical 

corrections. 

Last, the Department of Justice recommends that the bill be revised to make absolutely clear that the County would have to agree to the proposed conveyance, as 

requiring the County to accept the land without consent might raise constitutional 

concerns. This change might be accomplished by adding ‘‘, and subject to the agreement of the County’’ before ‘‘the Secretary shall convey to the County’’ in section 

4(a) of the bill. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1167. The bill is important 

to the people of Virginia City and Storey County, and the Department looks forward 

to working with the sponsor and the Subcommittee on modifications so we can fully 

support the bill. 

H.R. 1633—Small Lands Tracts Conveyance Act 

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on H.R. 1633, the 

Small Lands Tracts Conveyance Act. The Department of the Interior opposes 

H.R. 1633 as it applies to lands under the administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM). The BLM has the authority to dispose of public land 

as appropriate with full public involvement; H.R. 1633 circumvents that critical public process. The Department defers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for lands 

under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. 

BACKGROUND

The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land primarily in 12 

Western States. Our mission is to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of 

the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. As 

the Nation’s largest Federal land manager, the BLM administers the public lands 

for a wide range of multiple uses and sustained yield, including energy production, 

recreation, livestock grazing, conservation use, forestry, and open space. The 1976 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) provides the BLM with a clear 

multiple-use mandate which the BLM seeks to implement through its land use planning process. Additionally, FLPMA includes policy direction that the United States 

should generally retain Federal lands in public ownership. This was a departure 

from previous land disposal policies of the U.S. Government and FLPMA repealed 

many of those former disposal laws. 

BLM’s Land Disposal Authorities 

The FLPMA is the BLM’s primary authority for disposals of Federal lands 

through exchanges, sales and various conveyances. Section 203 of the FLPMA allows the BLM to identify lands (though the land use planning process) as potentially 

available for disposal by sale if they meet one or more of the following criteria: 

• Lands consisting of scattered, isolated tracts that are difficult or uneconomic 

to manage; • Lands that were acquired for a specific purpose and are no longer needed for 

that purpose; or • Lands that could serve important public objectives, such as community expansion and economic development, which outweigh other public objectives and 

values that could be served by retaining the land in Federal ownership. 

Section 206 of FLPMA provides land exchange authority. To be eligible for exchange under FLPMA, BLM-managed lands must have been identified for disposal 

through the land use planning process. Land exchanges are a tool the BLM uses 

to acquire environmentally sensitive lands while transferring public lands into private ownership for local needs and the consolidation of scattered tracts. 

The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) is an extremely popular authority used by the BLM to help States, local communities, and nonprofit organizations 

obtain public lands at no or reduced cost for important public purposes. Examples 

include parks, schools, hospitals and other health facilities, fire and law enforcement 

facilities, courthouses, social services facilities and public works. Over the last 5 

years, the BLM has sold nearly 9,000 acres of public land through R&PP conveyances and leased an additional 10,000 acres of public land under the R&PP Act. 

Another important law for the facilitation of land disposals over the last decade 

is the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA). The administration 

strongly supports reauthorization of the FLTFA, which expired on July 25, 2011. 

91 

Under the FLTFA, the BLM could sell public lands identified for disposal prior to 

July 2000 through the land use planning process, and retain the proceeds from 

those sales in a special account in the Treasury. The BLM and the other Federal 

land managing agencies were then able to use those funds to cover processing costs 

for future land sales and to acquire, from willing sellers, lands within or adjacent 

to certain federally designated areas that contain exceptional resources. The National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Forest 

Service (FS), and the BLM were all able to acquire lands with FLTFA funds. Over 

the life of the FLTFA, approximately 27,000 acres of BLM-managed public lands 

were sold under this authority and approximately 18,000 acres of high resource 

value lands were acquired. These acquisitions consolidate land ownership, frequently providing access to increased recreational opportunities for the public and 

reducing costs to the Federal Government in areas with fragmented land patterns. 

BLM’s Land Use Planning Process 

Many of the decisions about how best to manage the public lands entrusted to the 

BLM’s stewardship are made through the land use planning process. The BLM’s 

field offices document these decisions in 157 individual Resource Management Plans 

(RMPs) developed with full public participation at the local level. These RMPs provide the foundation for every on-the-ground action taken or authorized by the BLM 

and include inventories and assessments of a broad range of resource values and 

public land uses. Among the many decisions made through the RMP process is the 

identification of lands that are potentially available for disposal. Extensive public 

involvement is a critical component of this process. 

Each RMP is unique to the local situation and the local community. The RMP 

identifies lands as potentially available for disposal by various means. For example, 

lands may be identified as available for sale or they may be identified as available 

for exchange (e.g. to further particular resource goals). 

The process of identifying lands as potentially available for disposal typically does 

not include the clearance of impediments to disposal such as the presence of threatened and endangered (T&E) species, cultural or historic resources, mining claims, 

oil and gas leases, rights-of-way and grazing permits. Also not included in this identification process is an appraisal of values or a specific survey of the lands. Furthermore, because land use plans typically extend over many years, lands identified as 

potentially available for disposal at one point in time may be found later to be unsuitable as a result of subsequent changes, such as oil and gas leasing, listing of 

T&E species, and establishment of extensive rights-of-way or other encumbrances. 

For this reason, the BLM normally conducts site-specific NEPA analysis prior to disposal of a particular tract or tracts of public land. The Department uses the NEPA 

process to provide opportunities to consider environmental impacts, public engagement, and mitigation opportunities, as well as to ensure that unknown or unforeseen issues are not overlooked. Failure to use the land planning process, and the 

associated NEPA review, can result in a failure to provide relevant and useful information to the public and the BLM decisionmakers. 

H.R. 1633

H.R. 1633 would provide for the sale of ‘‘eligible Federal lands parcels’’ to adjacent 

landowners at their request. The bill defines ‘‘eligible Federal lands parcel’’ broadly, 

as BLM-managed public lands that share a boundary with non-Federal land, are 

within an area with a population of more than 500 persons, do not contain ‘‘exceptional resources,’’ do not provide habitat for an endangered or threatened species, 

and are ‘‘not subject to existing rights held by a non-Federal entity.’’ Adjacent landowners could petition for up to 160 acres annually under the legislation. Within 30 

days of receiving a request for sale, the BLM would have to make a determination 

as to whether or not the parcel met the eligibility criteria established in H.R. 1633. 

If a parcel were determined to be eligible, the purchaser would be required to pay 

the BLM the fair market value for the land as well as the costs of the conveyance. 

Determination of fair market value under the bill would not require an appraisal 

completed under the ‘‘Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions.’’ 

The proceeds of the sales would be deposited into an account in the Federal Treasury and distributed by a formula to States in which the Federal Government owns 

more than 33 percent of the land area in the State. 

The Department of the Interior opposes H.R. 1633. The BLM is committed to a 

process for the disposal of public land rooted in the core principle of public participation. H.R. 1633 excludes tribes, States, and local governments, as well as user 

groups, and the public at large from the process of land disposal and undermines 

key tenants of FLPMA. Furthermore, H.R. 1633 provides a blanket exemption from 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and circumvents BLM’s 

92 

land use planning process. Failure to comport with FLPMA and NEPA, alone, can 

result in a failure to provide relevant and useful information to the public and BLM 

decisionmakers. Furthermore, while it excludes units of the National Landscape 

Conservation System (NLCS) and other environmentally sensitive lands from eligible sale lands, H.R. 1633 does not limit lands to be sold to those preliminarily identified for disposal through the public land use planning process, and broadly redefines lands eligible for transfer to include significant amounts of land along the Federal/non-Federal border without determination that the conveyance is in the public 

interest. A 30-day window to make a determination on whether or not requested 

lands meet the eligibility requirements excludes the public and likely makes a thorough, thoughtful process nearly impossible. 

H.R. 1633 effectively establishes new criteria for lands eligible for disposal that 

are inconsistent with established FLPMA criteria. Many of these new criteria are 

confusing and unclear. For example, section 2(a)(3)(C) provides that eligible lands 

do not include those ‘‘subject to existing rights held by a non-Federal entity.’’ Typically, administrative and legislative sales of lands are subject to ‘‘valid existing 

rights.’’ This provision protects established rights such as power lines or roads, but 

does not prohibit the transfer of such lands. On the other hand, the bill does not 

address other existing uses of the land that are not rights, such as livestock grazing 

and unproven mining claims, which would be considered during the land planning 

process under FLPMA and NEPA. 

When determining the value of public lands, the BLM and the Department are 

committed to using the ‘‘Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions’’ and the ‘‘Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.’’ To deviate 

from these long-established procedures, which apply across the Federal Government, 

would expose the process to uncertainty, inconsistency, and irregularities. 

Additionally, the Department opposes the establishment of a new fund in the 

Treasury and the proposed distribution of land sale revenues to certain States, rather than the public as a whole. Under current law, typically 96 percent of the value 

of land sales are returned to the Treasury and typically 4 percent distributed to the 

individual states as required by individual statehood acts. 

CONCLUSION

The BLM’s land use planning process, as directed by FLPMA and NEPA, ensures 

that all of the users of the land have an opportunity to participate in the public land 

management process. tribes, States, local governments, user groups, conservation 

groups, and the public at large become actively involved in these processes and final 

decisions made by the BLM are better and stronger because of that involvement. 

We oppose efforts, however well intended, which would undermine that process. 

H.R. 2015—Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds 

National Monument Act of 2013 

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to present this statement 

on H.R. 2015, the Las Vegas Valley Public Land and Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Act. The Department generally supports H.R. 2015 and would welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor and committee on modifications to 

provisions of the bill. 

BACKGROUND

The Las Vegas Valley is home to nearly 2 million people, the famous Las Vegas 

Strip, spectacular desert landscapes, and historic, cultural, and paleontological 

treasures. Balancing the protection of these important natural, cultural, and scientific resources with economic development and growth is a challenge embraced by 

the Nevada delegation. Over the last 20 years, a number of laws have been enacted 

to help maintain that balance. Among these are: the Red Rock Canyon National 

Conservation Area Establishment Act (Pub. L. 101–621); the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (Pub. L. 105–263); and the Clark County Conservation 

of Public Land and Natural Resources Act (Pub. L. 107–282), several of which are 

the subject of today’s hearing. 

H.R. 2015

Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument (Section 2) 

H.R. 2015 would designate a new unit of the National Park Service (NPS)—the 

Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. This bill would transfer administrative jurisdiction of approximately 22,650 acres of public land from the Bureau of 

Land Management to the National Park Service. The bill would establish the Tule 

93 

Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Advisory Commission to provide guidance 

for the management of the Monument. 

The Department supports the establishment of the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument and the Advisory Council. The NPS does not currently have a 

park designated specifically to protect and interpret Pleistocene fossils and the creation of this site would comprise the most significant Pleistocene paleontological resources in the American Southwest. However, since a special resource study has not 

been completed, there are many outstanding questions regarding the most efficient 

and effective means for managing this area. 

The NPS completed a Reconnaissance Report for the Upper Las Vegas Wash/Tule 

Springs area in June 2010. Preliminary findings from this report indicated that the 

resources in this area appeared to be nationally significant and suitable for inclusion in the national park system but further study would be needed to compare the 

resources of Tule Springs to other similar areas that represent nationally significant 

resources of the late Pleistocene epoch. Preliminary findings also indicated that the 

area is potentially feasible but that the initial determination would greatly benefit 

from a full study of alternatives that would more fully examine site issues such as 

vandalism, unauthorized removal of fossils, and ORV use that may affect future options for management and protection of the area. Additionally, the report recommends an analysis of operational costs, particularly those associated with an active paleontology management program involving the preparation and curation of 

fossils, such as collection storage equipment, materials and supplies, dedicated 

curation space, and staff time to prepare fossils. 

Section 2(d)(5)(B)(IV) directs the NPS to include a travel management plan for the 

national monument that may include existing public transit. Although it is unclear 

what is being proposed by this language, this proposed monument is on the border 

of the cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas and transit options for existing residents will be taken in account during the planning process. 

Finally, section 2(e) provides for a renewable energy transmission corridor to be 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on the north side of the new 

National Monument. The BLM recommends that this narrow strip of land be withdrawn from the mining and mineral leasing laws, and that access to these lands 

be limited to administrative uses in order to avoid incompatible activities. 

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Additions (Section 3) 

First established by an Act of Congress in 1990, the 196,000-acre Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA) is located 17 miles west of the Las Vegas 

Strip. The NCA welcomes over 1 million visitors annually who are looking to explore 

the natural wonders beyond the traditional Las Vegas experience. The Red Rock 

Canyon NCA offers opportunities for hiking, rock climbing, horseback riding, biking, 

and photography. A 13-mile scenic drive provides an up close look at this spectacular desert landscape. 

The BLM supports the provisions of H.R. 2015 (section 3) which propose to expand the boundaries of the NCA by approximately 1,540 acres. We would like to 

work with the Sponsor and the Committee on some minor boundary modifications 

to improve manageability of the NCA addition. 

Conveyances to the Cities of North Las Vegas & Las Vegas (Sections 4 and 5) 

H.R. 2015 (sections 4 and 5) provides for the conveyance of public lands to the 

city of North Las Vegas (645 acres) and the city of Las Vegas (660 acres) respectively at no cost. The lands proposed for conveyance are within the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) (Pub. L. 105–263) boundary established by acts of Congress. Under these provisions of the bill, the two local governments would then be able to sell, lease, or otherwise convey these lands at fair market value to third parties. All revenues derived from these conveyances would be 

distributed consistent with direction under SNPLMA as if the conveyances had been 

undertaken by the BLM under its existing authorities. Additionally, the bill would 

allow these governments to retain some of the lands for uses consistent with those 

allowed under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, such as for schools, 

parks and fire stations. All costs related to the initial transfer of land to the city 

governments or from them to third parties would be the responsibility of the cities 

of North Las Vegas and Las Vegas. 

SNPLMA identified these lands for disposal, and specified the use of the proceeds 

from the sale of these lands. By transferring the lands to the cities of North Las 

Vegas and Las Vegas, the bill will allow those communities to determine the development of the lands within their boundaries, while requiring fair market value for 

subsequent conveyances. The BLM does not oppose these transfers, but recommends 

amending this section to eliminate the leasing option. Such leases are difficult to 

94 

oversee and manage; by only allowing reconveyance by the cities through sale or 

R&PP conveyance, we can better protect the integrity of the process. 

Expansion of Police Shooting Range (Section 6) 

The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 

(Pub. L. 107–282) transferred 176 acres of BLM-managed public land to the Las 

Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for a shooting range. H.R. 2015 (section 6) 

would transfer an additional 80 acres of BLM-managed lands to the Las Vegas Police Department. 

The BLM supports this conveyance, which will allow the Police Department to establish long-range shooting and training facilities. We recommend that the legislation specify that the transfer will be subject to valid existing rights. 

Spring Mountain National Recreation Area Withdrawal (Section 7) 

The Department of the Interior defers to the Department of Agriculture on the 

Spring Mountain National Recreation Area provisions of H.R. 2015 (section 7), 

which affect lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service. 

SNPLMA Boundary Modification (Section 8) 

The SNPLMA, as amended, was designed to provide for the responsible disposal 

of BLM-managed public land within the Las Vegas Valley. Under the act, funds 

generated from the sale of these lands are deposited into a special account to be 

expended consistent with the provisions of the act. Funds from SNPLMA lands sales 

have been used for a variety of purposes as stipulated by the act, including: acquisition of high value environmentally sensitive lands; establishment of parks, trails, 

and natural areas; creation of new conservation initiatives; and a number of other 

projects. To date, nearly 45,000 acres have been conveyed out of Federal ownership 

under the provisions of SNPLMA, and approximately 39,500 acres remain to be considered for disposal under SNPLMA. 

H.R. 2015 (section 8) proposes to modify the SNPLMA disposal boundary by removing approximately 9,950 acres of public land currently inside the boundary and 

by adding approximately 6,795 acres of public land currently outside the boundary, 

resulting in a net reduction of lands within the SNPLMA boundary of approximately 

3,158 acres. Total public land acres within the SNPLMA boundary would be 36,890 

acres if H.R. 2015 is enacted. The acres proposed for removal are lands that 

H.R. 2015 would transfer (section 2) to the National Park Service for inclusion in 

the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument. The acres proposed for addition 

to the boundary are primarily on the northeast and northwest sides of the Las 

Vegas Valley, and the most significant current uses are for the mining of aggregate 

materials for construction. The BLM supports section 8 of S. 974. 

Conveyances to Nevada Colleges and Universities (Section 9) 

The Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), a subdivision of the State of 

Nevada, provides for the education for over 125,000 students throughout the State 

at 8 different colleges and universities. The NSHE is seeking to expand the capacity 

of three of those schools in southern Nevada in order to improve higher education 

opportunities. 

H.R. 2015 (section 9) provides for the conveyance of three parcels of public land 

for three of these colleges and universities in southern Nevada at no cost and for 

uses consistent with those allowed under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

(R&PP). All costs associated with the transfers would be paid by the NSHE. The 

three conveyances include approximately 285 acres for the Great Basin College in 

Pahrump, Nevada, 41 acres for the College of Southern Nevada, and 1,886 acres for 

the University of Nevada-Las Vegas (UNLV). 

The R&PP Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease or convey public 

lands at nominal costs for recreational and public purposes, including for educational facilities. The BLM generally supports appropriate legislative conveyances 

at no cost if the lands are to be used for purposes consistent with the R&PP Act, 

and if the conveyances have a reversionary clause to enforce this requirement. 

The BLM supports these conveyances for higher education in H.R. 2015 and 

would like to work with the Sponsor and the Committee on minor and technical 

modifications to these provisions. Specifically, we recommend the addition of a 

clause allowing the Secretary to add reasonable terms and conditions to the transfer. For example, the lands proposed for transfer for the Great Basin College are 

adjacent to the BLM’s Pahrump Fire Station. In the conveyance documents we may 

want to include building height restrictions in areas closest to the helipad to ensure 

safe aerial fire activities. The addition of a ‘‘terms and conditions’’ clause would 

allow the agency to address this and similar situations. 

95 

Ivanpah Airport Conveyance (Section 10) 

The Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act (Pub. L. 106–362) provided 

for the sale of approximately 5,750 acres of public land to Clark County for the construction of a future airport. The completion of the sale of the land and construction 

of the airport is contingent on a number of factors, including approval by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). H.R. 2015 (section 10) provides for the conveyance, at no cost, of approximately 2,350 acres to the east of the proposed airport 

for flood mitigation projects related to the airport. The land would not be conveyed 

unless and until the FAA approves the airport project. 

H.R. 2015 also reserves to the Federal Government the mineral estate (potentially 

valuable sand and gravel) of the 2,350 acres to be conveyed for the airport, except 

that the county may construct flood control facilities and remove aggregate following 

flood events under the bill. The BLM supports these provisions. However, provisions 

providing that the county pay all costs associated with this transfer and a terms 

and conditions clause (similar to those in section 9 of H.R. 2015) should be added 

to this section as well. We would note, that there are desert tortoise concerns in 

this area, and the BLM and the Fish & Wildlife Service would like to continue to 

work with Clark County to address them. 

Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area Release (Section 11) 

The Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area (ISA) lies to the east of Las Vegas. The 

9,700-acre area has been managed by the BLM to protect these lands for possible 

future wilderness designation as required by law. Over the last decades, and most 

recently in 2009, the Congress has legislatively released portions of the Sunrise 

Mountain ISA from those protections, but the BLM does not have the independent 

authority to release the remaining acres. 

The BLM supports the provisions of H.R. 2015 (section 11) which would release 

the entire Sunrise Mountain ISA from interim protected status, thereby allowing 

the consideration of a full range of multiple uses. The Sunrise Mountain ISA does 

not possess significant wilderness characteristics. Furthermore, it is the assessment 

of the BLM that this area is appropriate for the expansion of high-voltage transmission lines, including those for renewable energy transmission, as well as a possible interstate natural gas and water pipelines. 

Nellis Dunes Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Recreation Area (Section 12) 

The Nellis Dunes OHV area is a popular recreation area with over 100,000 visits 

annually. H.R. 2015 (section 12) would promote the further development of this area 

as a destination OHV site. OHV use is a popular and growing activity in Nevada 

and across the West. The BLM welcomes opportunities to support this type of recreation in appropriate locations. 

Studies conducted by the UNLV at the request of the BLM have indicated that 

there are high levels of naturally occurring arsenic in the Nellis Dunes area. While 

the area is presently open to OHV use, the BLM makes visitors aware of these potential health concerns. Currently, the UNLV is conducting a health risk assessment of the area in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s human 

health risk assessment processes and protocols. The BLM expects to receive a completed study by late 2014, and believes that it is premature to make permanent decisions about the Nellis Dunes area prior to receiving the final report. Therefore, 

the BLM recommends deferring sections 12(a), (b), and (c) until the final report is 

available. 

However, if Congress elects to move forward with these provisions of H.R. 2015, 

the BLM recommends a number of substantive modifications. The bill (section 12) 

allocates uses in Nellis Dunes in three parts. First, it establishes a BLM-managed 

Nellis Dunes Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area on approximately 10,000 acres 

of public land. Second, it transfers approximately 960 acres of public land to Clark 

County for a more intensively managed OHV Recreation Park. Third, it establishes 

an ‘‘Economic Support Area’’ adjacent to the other two areas. 

The BLM could support the establishment of the Nellis Dunes OHV Recreation 

Area if our safety concerns are appropriately addressed. Likewise, we could support 

the transfer of land to Clark County for an OHV Recreation Park if the transfer 

and management of those lands is done consistent with the R&PP Act, and if the 

transfer addressed issues outlined in our discussion of section 9 regarding similar 

no cost conveyances. Finally, the BLM does not object to the establishment of an 

Economic Support Area; however, we strongly urge that these 290 acres be sold to 

the county at fair market value, rather than setting up a system of revenue sharing 

between the county and Federal Government for private enterprises on these lands. 

The BLM does not typically participate in commercial activities such as these and 

we do not believe that it would be appropriate in this case. 

96 

The BLM would like to work with the sponsor and committee on perfecting these 

sections of H.R. 2015, provided the human health risk assessment determines that 

establishing an OHV park in this area is appropriate. 

Expansion of Nellis Air Force Base (Sections 12(d) and 13) 

H.R. 2015 (sections 12(d) and 13) provides for the expansion of Nellis Air Force 

Base though withdrawal, reservation, and transfer of administrative jurisdiction of 

approximately 1,120 acres of BLM-managed public lands. The administration supports the future use of these lands by the Department of the Air Force for national 

security purposes. However, these sections permanently transfer administrative jurisdiction over these lands to the Air Force, rather than withdrawing them from the 

public land and mining laws and reserving them for the military’s use for a specific 

time period, as is more typical and consistent with adjacent military lands. The Administration could support these provisions if they were amended to withdraw and 

reserve the lands for military use, including terms and conditions of past legislative 

withdrawals, and if they were subject to valid existing rights. The BLM would also 

like to work with the Sponsor, the Committee, and the Department of Defense to 

ensure appropriate access for several mining companies that have long-term contracts for the use of some lands in this area in a manner consistent with the requirements of Nellis Air Force Base. 

Military Overflights (Section 14) 

Section 14 of the bill would address military overflights over new units established by the bill. Providing for such military overflights requires a careful balancing of conservation and national defense requirements and is highly factually 

specific. The Department of the Interior believes it needs to conduct additional discussions with the Department of Defense with regard to the specific circumstances 

of flights over the lands covered by this bill before determining whether legislative 

guidance is needed and, if so, what form that guidance should take. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department’s views on H.R. 2015. 

We look forward to working with the sponsor and the committee to resolve the outstanding issues. 

H.R. 2259—North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement on H.R. 2259, the North 

Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013. The Department of the Interior supports 

H.R. 2259, which would withdraw Federal lands within the North Fork watershed 

of Montana’s Flathead River from all forms of location, entry, and patent under the 

mining laws and from disposition under all laws related to mineral or geothermal 

leasing. Enactment of H.R. 2259 would mark an important milestone in the work 

occurring across multiple jurisdictions to help preserve the remarkable resources in 

the Crown of the Continent ecosystem. 

BACKGROUND

The Flathead River Basin, a key portion of an area known as the Crown of the 

Continent ecosystem, spans the boundaries of the United States and Canada. It includes part of the United States’ Glacier National Park and borders Canada’s 

Waterton Lakes National Park. These two parks comprise the world’s first International Peace Park as well as a World Heritage Site. The U.S. Forest Service’s 

Flathead National Forest is also located within the Flathead River watershed. The 

Bureau of Land Management manages the Federal mineral estate underlying the 

Flathead National Forest. 

Running along the west side of the Continental Divide, the North Fork of the 

Flathead River enters the United States at the Canadian border and forms the 

western border of Glacier National Park until its confluence with the Middle Fork 

of the Flathead River near the southern end of Glacier National Park. The North 

Fork watershed, a sub-basin of the Flathead River watershed, includes areas currently managed by the National Park Service, the State of Montana, the U.S. Forest 

Service, and some private landowners. 

The Flathead River Basin is recognized for its natural resource values, including 

wildlife corridors for large and medium-sized carnivores, aquatic habitat, and plant 

species diversity. The area is rich in cultural heritage resources, with archeological 

evidence of human habitation starting 10,000 years ago. Several Indian tribes, including the Blackfeet, the Salish, and the Kootenai, have a well-established presVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:46 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\04 PUBLIC LANDS & ENV\04OC03 1ST. SESS\10-3-13 P\85144.TXT MARK
97 

ence in the area. The area also has celebrated recreational opportunities, including 

hunting, fishing, and backcountry hiking and camping. 

There has been interest in protecting the Crown of the Continent resources for 

some time. On February 18, 2010, the State of Montana and the Province of British 

Columbia executed a Memorandum of Understanding which addresses a myriad of 

issues related to the Flathead River Basin on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border. 

The intention of part I.A. of that memorandum is to ‘‘[r]emove mining, oil and gas, 

and coal development as permissible land uses in the Flathead River Basin.’’ 

The Flathead River Basin contains federally owned subsurface mineral estate 

under National Forest System lands that the Federal Government has leased for oil 

and gas development. At the time legislation was initially proposed in 2010, there 

were 115 oil and gas leases in the North Fork watershed that the BLM issued between 1982 and 1985. The leases, which cover over 238,000 acres, are inactive and 

under suspension as part of the 1985 court case Conner v. Burford. At the request 

of Montana Senators Max Baucus and John Tester, leaseholders have voluntarily 

relinquished 76 leases consisting of almost 182,000 acres. The BLM has not offered 

any other leases in the Flathead National Forest since the Conner v. Burford litigation suspended the existing leases in 1985. 

The U.S. Forest Service is responsible for the surface management of National 

Forest System land; however, as noted earlier, the Secretary of the Interior and the 

BLM are responsible for administering the Federal subsurface mineral estate under 

the Mining Law of 1872, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, and various mineral leasing acts. With respect to locatable minerals and oil and gas resources, the Forest 

Service has authority to regulate the effects of mineral operations upon National 

Forest System resources. The BLM only issues mineral leases for locatable minerals 

and oil and gas resources upon concurrence of the surface management agency and 

always works cooperatively with the agency to ensure that management goals and 

objectives for mineral exploration and development activities are achieved, that operations are conducted to minimize effects on natural resources, and that the land 

affected by operations is reclaimed. 

H.R. 2259

H.R. 2259 withdraws all Federal lands or interest in lands, comprised of approximately 430,000 acres of the Flathead National Forest, within the North and Middle 

Fork watersheds of the Flathead River from all forms of location, entry, and patent 

under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws related to mineral or 

geothermal leasing. We note that National Park acreage within the watershed is already unavailable for mineral entry. H.R. 2259 does not affect valid, existing rights, 

including the 39 leases in the North Fork watershed that are suspended under the 

Conner v. Burford litigation. H.R. 2259 also does not restrict existing recreational 

uses, livestock management activities, or forest management activities. The Department fully supports H.R. 2259 as it furthers the goal of preserving the important 

resources of this region. 

The Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, which extends from Canada into 

the United States, is one of the great protected ecosystems on the North American 

continent. A 2010 World Heritage Center/International Union for the Conservation 

of Nature Report noted that the International Peace Park is ‘‘one of the largest, 

most pristine, intact, and best protected expanses of natural terrain in North America. It provides the wide range of non-fragmented habitats and key ecological connections that are vital for the survival and security of wildlife and plants in the 

Waterton-Glacier property and the Flathead watershed.’’ Retaining this expanse of 

natural landscape in the Crown of the Continent ecosystem is of vital importance 

for providing ecosystem connectivity, which is essential for the growth and survival 

of plants and animals in the region. H.R. 2259 will help accomplish this goal. 

The Department of the Interior is also committed to maintaining the ecological 

integrity of Glacier National Park, one of the most noteworthy natural and cultural 

treasures of our Nation. Preserving the region’s and the park’s water resources is 

also critical. The rich aquatic ecosystems provide breeding and feeding habitats for 

a variety of important species, and the Department recognizes the importance of 

maintaining critical habitat corridors when planning for resources uses. H.R. 2259 

will help protect and preserve the important resources of the greater Crown of the 

Continent ecosystem, including those within Glacier National Park. 

CONCLUSION

The Department supports H.R. 2259 and commends the many parties involved in 

protecting the North Fork of the Flathead River and the important resources shared 

by the United States and Canada. We hope that this legislation and the efforts of 

98 

the Federal and State/provincial governments add to the important legacy of conservation in the Glacier/Waterton Lakes area and Flathead River basin. 

H.R. 2657—Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2013 

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on H.R. 2657, the 

Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act. The Administration strongly opposes 

H.R. 2657 and instead encourages the Congress to reauthorize the Federal Land 

Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) which has a proven track record of providing 

for the thoughtful, efficient, and economical disposal of appropriate public lands. 

BACKGROUND

Congress has long recognized the national interest in preserving and conserving 

the public lands for present and future generations of Americans. In 1976, Congress 

declared it the policy of the United States that ‘‘. . . the public lands be retained 

in Federal ownership, unless as a result of land use planning . . . it is determined 

that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest’’ (Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA); Public Law 94–579). Section 203 of 

FLPMA allows the BLM to identify lands as potentially available for sale through 

the land use planning process, provided they meet one or more of the following criteria: 

• Lands consisting of scattered, isolated tracts that are difficult or uneconomic 

to manage; • Lands that were acquired for a specific purpose and are no longer needed for 

that purpose; and 

• Lands that could serve important public objectives, such as community expansion and economic development, which outweigh other public objectives and 

values that could be served by retaining the land in Federal ownership. 

The BLM oversees the public lands through 157 Resource Management Plans 

(RMPs). Since 2000, the BLM has completed 75 RMP revisions and major plan 

amendments. Additionally, the BLM is currently working on planning efforts for 57 

new RMPs. Each land use planning document is unique and typically identifies 

lands as potentially available for disposal through sale, exchange (typically to further particular resource goals), or for conveyance under the Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act (R&PP) for public purposes such as schools, fire stations, and community parks. Lands identified for potential disposal may be available for any or all 

of these purposes. The BLM may only dispose of lands that are identified for disposal in the appropriate land use plan unless otherwise directed by Congress. 

Lands that are identified for disposal in RMPs do not represent a Federal ‘‘multiple listing service’’ and there may be substantial impediments to disposal. The 

process of identifying these lands as potentially available for disposal in an RMP 

typically does not include site-specific identification of impediments to disposal, such 

as the presence of threatened or endangered species, cultural or historic resources, 

mining claims, mineral leases, rights-of-way, and grazing permits. Also not included 

in this identification process is an appraisal to establish market value or a specific 

survey of the lands. Furthermore, because land use plans typically extend over 

many years, lands identified as potentially available for disposal at one point in 

time may be found later to be unsuitable because of new circumstances such as oil 

and gas leasing, the listing of threatened and endangered species, the establishment 

of rights-of-way, or other encumbrances. 

Disposal of BLM-Managed Lands 

A number of authorities and mechanisms currently exist that provide for the disposal of BLM-managed public lands. The BLM has the authority under FLPMA 

(section 203) to sell lands identified for disposal. The proceeds from sales are deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury. Typically these sales have been for low 

value lands, for example isolated parcels surrounded by private land. 

FLPMA (section 206) also provides the agency with administrative land exchange 

authority. To be eligible for exchange, BLM-managed lands must be identified for 

disposal through the land use planning process. Exchanges allow the BLM to acquire environmentally sensitive lands while transferring public lands into private 

ownership for local needs and to consolidate scattered tracts. 

Congress also has provided specific direction to the BLM through legislated land 

exchanges. For example, the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2009 (Public 

Law 111–53) mandated the exchange of specific public lands in Grand and Uintah 

Counties in Utah for State lands in those same counties. Another example is the 

Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (Public Law 105–263, as amended), 

99 

whereby Congress provided for competitive auction of public lands in the Las Vegas 

Valley with the proceeds from those sales used to acquire environmentally sensitive 

lands and other purposes. 

The R&PP Act is an extremely important authority utilized by the BLM to help 

States, local communities, and nonprofit organizations obtain at no or low cost lands 

for important public purposes. Examples include parks, schools, hospitals and other 

health facilities, fire and law enforcement facilities, courthouses, social services facilities, and public works projects. Over the last 5 years, the BLM has sold nearly 

9,000 acres of public land through the R&PP process and leased an additional 

10,000 acres of public land under the act. 

Finally, enactment of the FLTFA in 2000 (Public Law 106–248), which expired on 

July 25, 2011, allowed the BLM to sell public lands identified for disposal through 

the land use planning process prior to July 2000, and retain the proceeds from those 

sales in a special account in the Treasury. The BLM could then use those funds to 

acquire, from willing sellers, inholdings within and adjacent to certain federally designated areas that contain exceptional resources, including areas managed by the 

National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. 

Forest Service (FS), and the BLM. Approximately 27,000 acres were sold under this 

authority and over 18,000 acres of high resource value lands were acquired. 

1997 Lands Report to Congress 

In 1996, the Congress (Public Law 104–127, section 390) directed the Secretary 

of the Interior to report to Congress on lands that may be suitable for disposal or 

exchange to benefit the Everglades Restoration effort in Florida. The Department 

of the Interior’s May 27, 1997 report to Congress included a list of BLM-managed 

lands that had been identified for disposal through the BLM’s land use planning 

process, while excluding lands that had been withdrawn, segregated, or identified 

for other specific purposes detailed in the report. The report was a general countyby-county summary and did not provide individual parcel information, though it did 

include a list of potential impediments to disposal, including lack of legal access; the 

presence of mineral leases and mining claims; threatened and endangered species 

habitat; historical and cultural values; hazardous material contamination; and title 

conflicts. No appraisals or surveys were conducted of the lands included in the 1997 

report. Lands were not identified in California or Alaska because public lands in 

those States that were identified for disposal were committed to needs identified 

under other acts of Congress. 

H.R. 2657

H.R. 2657 directs the Secretary of the Interior to sell at competitive sale, for no 

less than fair market value, all lands included in the Department of the Interior’s 

1997 Report to Congress. The bill excludes from consideration lands that are no 

longer identified for disposal, under an R&PP application, identified for state selection, identified for tribal allotments, or identified for local government use. Under 

the bill, proceeds from the sale of these lands are to be deposited in the U.S. Treasury. While a timeframe for sales is not established, a report to Congress is required 

4 years after enactment that includes a list of unsold lands and the a reason lands 

have not been sold. The bill provides no exceptions to the requirement to dispose 

of identified Federal land for resource or value reasons. 

Before any parcels could be sold at auction, the BLM may need to undertake reviews of every parcel (including cultural resource and threatened and endangered 

species inventories), and a survey and appraisal of every parcel. These actions would 

be both time-consuming and costly, requiring the BLM to redirect limited resources 

from other more critical priorities. With limited resources and competing priorities 

such as oil and gas leasing, and renewable energy rights-of-way, a mandate to sell 

large blocks of land would severely affect the BLM’s ability to respond to the Nation’s energy needs and the needs of local communities. In many cases, the end result would be costs in excess of any value realized, and further deflated land values 

in struggling western communities. 

Furthermore, the bill could negatively affect public land ranchers. Many of the 

lands identified for disposal are within existing grazing allotments. In the past, 

grazing permittees have frequently declined to acquire these lands when they are 

offered for sale, for financial or other reasons. Moving these lands into other private 

hands could have a deleterious effect on ranching communities. 

Many of the lands that BLM has identified for potential disposal through the land 

use planning process are isolated, rural parcels with minimal market value. Others 

are in or adjacent to communities that have seen a dramatic erosion of land values. 

Flooding those markets with additional land could further undermine the economic 

health of those communities. Still others may have important historic or cultural 

100 

sites that deserve to be protected for future generations. Important energy resources 

may yet be tapped on other lands which could provide a revenue stream to the 

Treasury and State governments. 

The administration strongly opposes H.R. 2657. H.R. 2657 would be costly, harmful to local economies and communities, and undermine important resource values. 

It also would be unlikely to generate significant revenues to the U.S. Treasury. 

The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act addressed many of these impediments to disposal by providing a careful, thoughtful process for land disposal together with a mechanism for funding that disposal. Furthermore, the proceeds of 

the sale of BLM-managed lands under the FLTFA are used to acquire inholdings 

from willing sellers in the most environmentally sensitive areas. Thus, the longterm interest of the American public and future generations is protected. The administration continues to urge the Congress to reauthorize the FLTFA and allow the 

BLM to continue with a rational process of land disposal that is anchored in public 

participation and sound land use planning, while providing for land acquisition to 

strengthen this Nation’s conservation heritage. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We would like to work with Congress 

so that the thoughtful, efficient and economical disposal of public lands appropriate 

for disposal can go forward. 

Æ