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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89-893 PS 2004

H.R. 280, H.R. 704, H.R. 1399, 

H.R. 1594, H.R. 1618, H.R. 1798, 

H.R. 1862 AND H.R. 2909

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, 

AND PUBLIC LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, October 16, 2003

Serial No. 108-69

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı

 ́

bal Acevedo-Vila

 ́

, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau

 ́

l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube

 ́

n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands, Ranking Democrat Member

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı

 ́

bal Acevedo-Vila

 ́

, Puerto Rico 

Rau

 ́

l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on Thursday, October 16, 2003 ........................................................ 1

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 9

Prepared statement on H.R. 2909 ........................................................... 11

McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement on H.R. 1399 ........................................................... 4

Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Schiff, Hon. Adam, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement on H.R. 704 ............................................................. 7

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

Colorado, on H.R. 1399 ................................................................................ 8

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bear, Leon D. Chairman, Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, Salt 

Lake City, Utah ............................................................................................ 55

Prepared statement on H.R. 2909 ........................................................... 57

Groene, Scott, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Washington, D.C. ....... 51

Prepared statement on H.R. 2909 ........................................................... 52

Hardiman, Mike, Legislative Director, American Land Rights Association, 

Washington, D.C. .......................................................................................... 63

Prepared statement on H.R. 704 ............................................................. 64

Hughes, Jim, Deputy Director of Land Management, Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. .......... 14

Prepared statement on H.R. 2909 ........................................................... 15

Johnson, Randy, Deputy Director of Planning for Public Lands, State 

of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah ...................................................................... 48

Prepared statement on H.R. 2909 ........................................................... 49

Loman, Jeffrey, Acting Director, Trust Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. .................................. 15

Prepared statement on H.R. 2909 ........................................................... 15

Pease, Gerald F., Jr., Associate Director for Ranges and Airspace, U.S. 

Air Force, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................ 18

Prepared statement on H.R. 2909 ........................................................... 19

Portantino, Hon. Anthony, Member, Santa Monica Mountains 

Conservancy Advisory Committee, La Canada Flintridge, California ..... 59

Prepared statement on H.R. 704 ............................................................. 61

Tiller, deTeel Patterson, Acting Associate Director, Cultural Resources, 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, 

D.C. ................................................................................................................ 20

Prepared statement on H.R. 280 ............................................................. 22

Prepared statement on H.R. 704 ............................................................. 25

Prepared statement on H.R. 1399 ........................................................... 26

Prepared statement on H.R. 1594 ........................................................... 28

Prepared statement on H.R. 1618 ........................................................... 30

Prepared statement on H.R. 1798 ........................................................... 32

Prepared statement on H.R. 1862 ........................................................... 35

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 280, TO ESTABLISH THE 

NATIONAL AVIATION HERITAGE AREA, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 704, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY OF 

AGRICULTURE TO CONDUCT A JOINT SPECIAL RESOURCES STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SUITABILITY AND 

FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING THE AREA KNOWN AS 

THE RIM OF THE VALLEY CORRIDOR AS A UNIT OF 

THE SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1399, TO REVISE THE BOUNDARY OF THE BLACK CANYON OF THE GUNNISON 

NATIONAL PARK AND GUNNISON GORGE NATIONAL 

CONSERVATION AREA IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1594, TO DIRECT 

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A 

STUDY OF THE SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF 

ESTABLISHING THE ST. CROIX NATIONAL HERITAGE 

AREA IN ST. CROIX, UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1618, TO ESTABLISH THE ARABIA MOUNTAIN NATIONAL HERITAGE 

AREA IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES; H.R. 1798, TO ESTABLISH THE UPPER 

HOUSATONIC VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA IN 

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1862, TO ESTABLISH THE OIL REGION 

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA; AND H.R. 2909, TO ENSURE THE CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF THE UTAH 

TEST AND TRAINING RANGE TO SUPPORT THE READINESS AND TRAINING NEEDS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

Thursday, October 16, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:07 p.m., in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George P. 

Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Radanovich, Duncan, Cannon, Peterson, 

Bishop, Tom Udall, Mark Udall and Bordallo. 

2

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands will come to order. 

Today, we are conducting a hearing on the following bills: 

H.R. 704, H.R. 1399 and H.R. 2909. Our first bill is H.R. 704, introduced by Congressman Adam Schiff of California. It authorizes 

the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resources study 

to determine the feasibility and suitability of establishing an area 

known as the Rim of the Valley as a unit of the Santa Monica 

Mountain National Recreation Area. Our second bill is H.R. 1399, 

introduced by our Committee colleague, Congressman Scott 

McInnis of Colorado, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to revise the boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National 

Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area in the State 

of Colorado. 

Our third bill, H.R. 2909, introduced by our Subcommittee colleague, Congressman Rob Bishop of Utah, would ensure the continued availability of the Utah Test and Training Range to support 

the readiness and training needs of the armed forces. In addition, 

the Subcommittee will receive testimony from the National Park 

Service on H.R. 280, 1594, 1618, 1862, and 1798, legislation to either establish a National Heritage Area or authorizing a study to 

establish a National Heritage Area. The Administration was unable to present its testimony before the Subcommittee on most of 

these bills on September 16. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California 

The Subcommittee will come to order. 

Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public 

Lands will conduct a hearing today on the following bills—H.R. 704, H.R. 1399 and 

H.R. 2909. 

Our first bill, H.R. 704, introduced by Congressman Adam Schiff of California, 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing an area known as ‘‘Rim of the 

Valley’’ as a unit of the Santa Monica Mountain National Recreation Area. 

Our second bill, H.R. 1399, introduced by our Committee colleague, Congressman 

Scott McInnis of Colorado, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to revise the 

boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge 

National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado. 

Our third bill, H.R. 2909, introduced by our Subcommittee Colleague, Congressman Rob Bishop of Utah, would ensure the continued availability of the Utah Test 

and Training Range to support the readiness and training needs of the Armed 

Forces. 

In addition, the Subcommittee will receive testimony from the National Park 

Service only on H.R. 280, H.R. 1594, H.R. 1618, H.R. 1862, and H.R. 1798, legislation to either establish a national heritage area or authorize a study to establish 

a national heritage area. The Administration was unable to present its testimony 

before the Subcommittee on most of these bills on September 16. 

I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Schiff be permitted to sit on the dais 

following his statement. Without objection, so ordered. 

I understand that our Ranking Member, Ms. Christensen will not be here today 

and I ask unanimous consent that her statement be submitted for the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

3

Mr. RADANOVICH.I would also ask unanimous consent that Mr. 

Schiff be permitted to sit on the dais following his statement. Without objection, so ordered. And I understand that our Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen, from the Virgin Islands, will not be here 

today, and I ask unanimous consent that her statement be submitted for the record. With no objection, so ordered. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Gentlemen, welcome to the Committee. Our 

colleague, Chairman of the Forest Subcommittee, Mr. McInnis, is 

with us. Scott, welcome to the Committee, and please begin your 

testimony on your bill. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT MCINNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I do thank you for holding the hearing on this 

bill, H.R. 1399, the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 

and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Boundary Revision Act of 2003. I introduced similar legislation in the 107th, and 

I appreciate the important step forward with today’s hearing. 

In 1999, I introduced legislation that established this Park and 

National Conservation Area, so my love of this place and belief in 

its continued protection is obvious. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I 

am a strong believer in local consensus and the preservation of 

Western values. The Park and the NCA were established on those 

ideals, and I am pleased that the bill I bring before you today continues on that path. H.R. 1399 does four things: first, it authorizes 

the Secretary to acquire up to 2,725 acres through purchase or exchange with three willing—and I stress willing—landowners. Second, it ensures that grazing rights are transferred with these exchanges. Third, it guarantees that water facilities used to irrigate 

the farm land in the Incompadre Valley remain available under the 

Bureau of Reclamation jurisdiction for the local water users association to operate. And last, the land incorporates BLM into the 

NCA that was in the process of being acquired prior to the passage 

of the 1999 legislation. 

Legislation was originally scheduled for a hearing last June, 

after Senator Campbell successfully sought it in the U.S. Senate. 

I pulled the bill, however, because I wanted to ensure that the 

water rights involved with those land transactions would remain 

protected for the people of the State of Colorado. After working 

with the landowners and the conservation fund, I am now comfortable with the commitment that the landowners have made and 

am eager to see this bill move forward. 

This bill seeks to protect valuable natural resources by working 

cooperatively with three local ranchers who have been good stewards on their land for years. Unfortunately, these landowners have 

hit hard financial times and were considering selling their parcels. 

Thankfully, they have put preserving the integrity of the Park over 

subdividing the land and building condominiums. Instead, they approached the Park Service and came up with innovative alternatives to sell outright, which required this legislation. Local county commissioners, the local Chamber of Commerce and the land 

trusts involved support these proposals, and the Park will develop 

4

additional public-private partnerships to manage this beautiful 

area. 

In short, the three landowners have entered into either equal 

value land swaps or agreed to conservation easements across that 

land. The Brandolet family has agreed to an equal exchange of parcels which will give them easier access while enhancing the landscape of the Park. The Allison family will exchange both a fee simple parcel of land and a conservation easement, providing the family with more acreage to their ranch while allowing the Park to 

protect a key area. Last, the Sandburg family plans to donate a 

portion of their property to the Park for a conservation easement 

to preserve their resource values they have protected for many decades. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to strongly emphasize that all of these exchanges came about at the request of the landowners. 

These families have lived and ranched in the area for many years, 

and this bill benefits them both through the land transfers and 

through the fact that it preserves the ranchers’ livelihoods by clarifying that grazing rights are retained through these transfers. As you know, Mr. Chairman, water rights in the West are vital to our livelihood, and even the murmur of losing control of them 

is enough to start a stampede. That is why the language has been 

included in this bill to guarantee that the Bureau of Reclamation 

retains jurisdiction and access to water delivery facilities. The 

Incompadre Valley Water Association is doing a great job ensuring 

that the valley is irrigated. I want to make sure that they can continue to keep the farmers in business. 

My 1990 bill establishing the Park did not intend to affect the Bureau’s jurisdiction in any way, and neither does this boundary 

modification. I am aware that the Administration has submitted a 

few technical amendments, which I would be glad to consider if the 

bill moves to markup. For instance, the acreage should be modified 

to 2,530 acres, as a portion of the property was transferred since 

the bill’s introduction. And we need to revise the date on the map 

that should go to April 2, 2003. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison Gorge is a national treasure enjoyed by all. The Park’s combination of geological wonders and 

diverse wildlife make it one of the most unique natural areas in the 

country. I am proud to represent the area and believe this legislation will greatly benefit those who live in the area and all of those 

who visit the Park. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that a written copy of my statement be submitted to the record and any revisions made thereof, and 

again, I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the privilege 

of appearing in front of you. [The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]

Statement off The Honorable Scott McInnis, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, on H.R. 1399

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on my bill, H.R. 1399, the ‘‘Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Boundary Revision Act of 2003.’’ I introduced a similar bill in the 

107th Congress and I appreciate this important step forward with today’s hearing. 

In 1999, I introduced legislation that established this Park and National Conservation Area, so my love of this place and belief in its continued protection is obvious. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am a strong believer in local consensus and the 

5

preservation of western values. The Park and NCA were established on those ideals, 

and I am pleased that the bill I bring before you today continues on that path. 

H.R. 1399 does four things. First, it authorizes the Secretary to acquire up to 

2,725 acres through purchase or exchange with three willing landowners. Second, 

it ensures that grazing rights are transferred with these exchanges. Third, it guarantees that water facilities used to irrigate the farmland in Uncompahgre Valley remain available under the Bureau of Reclamation’s jurisdiction for the local water 

users association to operate. Lastly, the bill incorporates BLM land into the NCA 

that was in the process of being acquired prior to the passage of the 1999 legislation. 

This legislation was originally scheduled for a hearing last June, after Senator 

Campbell successfully saw it through the Senate. I requested the hearing be put off 

for a period of time while I worked to ensure the transactions involving the water 

rights involved would protect the water rights and the transactions were fair for all 

involved. After working with the landowners, the Park Service and The Conservation Fund, I am now comfortable with the commitment that the landowners have 

made and am eager to see this bill move forward. 

This bill seeks to protect valuable natural resources by working cooperatively with 

three local ranchers who have been good stewards of their land for years. Unfortunately, these landowners have hit hard financial times and were considering selling 

off their parcels. Thankfully, they have put preserving the integrity of the Park over 

subdividing land and building condominiums. Instead, they approached the Park 

Service and came up with innovative alternatives to selling outright, which required 

this legislation. The local county commissioners, the local Chamber of Commerce, 

and the land trusts involved, support these proposals, and the Park will develop additional public/private partnerships to manage this beautiful area. 

In short, the three landowners have entered into either equal value land swaps 

or agreed to conservation easements across their land. The Bramlett family has 

agreed to an equal exchange of parcels, which will give them easier access while 

enhancing the landscape of the Park. The Allison family will exchange both a fee 

simple parcel of land and a conservation easement, providing the family with more 

acreage to ranch, while allowing the Park to protect a vulnerable area. Lastly, the 

Sanburg family intends to donate a portion of their property to the Park for a conservation easement to preserve the resource values that they have protected for 

many decades. 

Again, I want to strongly emphasize that all of these exchanges came about at 

the request of the landowners. These families have lived and ranched in the area 

for many years and this bill benefits them both through the land transfers and the 

fact that it preserves the ranchers’ livelihoods by clarifying that grazing rights are 

retained through these transfers. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, water rights in the West are vital to our livelihood 

and even the murmur of losing control of them is enough to start a stampede. That 

is why language has been included in this bill to guarantee that the Bureau of Reclamation retains jurisdiction and access to water delivery facilities. The 

Uncompahgre Valley Water User’s Association is doing a great job ensuring that the 

valley is irrigated; I want to make sure they can continue to keep the farmers in 

business. My 1999 bill establishing the Park did not intend to affect the Bureau’s 

jurisdiction in any way, and neither does this boundary modification. 

I am aware that the Administration has submitted a few technical amendments, 

which I will be glad to consider if the bill moves to markup. For instance, the acreage should be modified to ‘‘2,530 acres,’’ as a portion of the property was transferred 

since the bill’s introduction and the date on the map needs to be changed to 

‘‘April 2, 2003.’’

The Black Canyon of the Gunnison Gorge is a national treasure to be enjoyed by 

all. The Park’s combination of geological wonders and diverse wildlife make it one 

of the most unique natural areas in North America. I am proud to represent the 

area and believe that this legislation will greatly benefit those who live in the area 

and all who visit the Park. 

I ask that a copy of my statement be printed in the record. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Scott. I appreciate your testimony. 

Also here to speak is the Hon. Adam Schiff. Adam, if you want 

to begin your testimony, I will be happy to hear information about 

your bill. 

6

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SCHIFF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify before you today in support of H.R. 804, the 

Rim of the Valley Quarter Study Act. Earlier this year, the Senate 

unanimously passed S. 347, essentially identical legislation to 

H.R. 704, introduced by Senator Feinstein. I am very delighted 

also to have the support of the National Park Service with minor 

changes that they have recommended. H.R. 704 would call for a study by the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service of the feasibility and suitability of expanding the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. The 

Rim of the Valley consists of parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, 

the Santa Susana Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo 

Mountains, San Raphael Hills and adjacent connector areas to the 

Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests. 

The Rim of the Valley is a beautiful recreation area and home to very rare environmental treasures, including one of the most endangered habitat areas in the world, the Mediterranean Chaparral 

ecosystem, found only here and in South Africa, believe it or not. This beautiful, environmentally sensitive area is located in one of the most densely populated areas in the United States. The 

Greater Southern California metropolitan region has the nation’s 

second-largest urban concentration. About one in every 10 Americans lives in this region. At the same time, the area has one of the 

lowest ratios of park and recreation lands per 1,000 population of 

any area in the country. So this rapidly growing urban region is 

very underserved in terms of parks, open space and recreation. Unless action is taken soon, the situation will only grow worse, as the 

region continues to grow. 

Since Congress set aside the Santa Monica Mountains National 

Recreation Area in 1978, Federal, state and local authorities have 

worked in cooperation to manage what is the world’s largest urban 

park. Now, nearly a quarter of a century later and in the face of 

tremendous projected growth and development, Congress, by passing this bill, again will have the opportunity to safeguard and supplement the existing state and local parks, open space and recreational opportunities in Southern California. 

We have amended the bill in response to comments from the National Park Service. First, the bill now authorizes a joint study between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, since the Rim of the Valley incorporates some lands that 

are now managed by the Park Service and others by the Forest 

Service. Together, these two services can decide the most appropriate way to protect the land for future generations. 

And second, we eliminated from the bill explicit provisions for a 

17-member advisory commission. This provision was felt by the 

Park Service to be unnecessary, as this type of resource study conducted by the Park Service automatically entails extensive public 

outreach to communities and local governments. 

With these changes, we were pleased that the National Park 

Service testified in support of the identical bill in the Senate and 

supports the bill here with minor modifications. This legislation enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 May 04, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\89893.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
7

joys strong bipartisan support from Republican and Democratic 

members of Congress, whose members include portions of the Rim 

of the Valley, including Representatives Howard Berman, David 

Dreier, Buck McKeon, Brad Sherman, Hilda Solis as well as 

George Miller but also enjoys the support of largely Republican and 

Democratic communities, including La Canada, and we have a 

Councilmember from the largely Republican area of La Canada 

with us today, Anthony Portantino. 

I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the bill and 

ask for your support, and I would be glad to respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schiff follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Adam B. Schiff, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, on H.R. 704

Good afternoon, Chairman Radanovich and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today in support of H.R. 704, the Rim 

of the Valley Corridor Study Act. Earlier this year, the Senate unanimously passed 

S. 347—essentially identical legislation to H.R. 704 introduced by Senator Diane 

Feinstein. 

H.R. 704 would call for a study by the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest 

Service of the feasibility and suitability of expanding the Santa Monica Mountains 

National Recreation Area. The Rim of the Valley consists of parts of the Santa 

Monica Mountains, the Santa Susanna Mountains, the San Gabriel Mountains, the 

Verdugo Mountains, the San Rafael Hills, and adjacent connector areas to the Los 

Padres and San Bernardino National Forests. The Rim of the Valley is home to very 

rare environmental treasures, including one of the most endangered habitat areas 

in the world, the Mediterranean Chaparral ecosystem, found only here and in South 

Africa. 

This environmentally sensitive area is located in one of the most densely populated areas in the United States. The greater Southern California metropolitan region has the nation’s second-largest urban concentration; about one in every ten 

Americans lives in this region. At the same time, this area has one of the lowest 

ratios of park-and-recreation-lands per thousand-population of any area in the country. So this rapidly growing urban region is very underserved in terms of open space 

needs. Unless action is taken soon, this situation will only worsen as the region continues to be subjected to intense growth. 

Since Congress set aside the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Areas 

in 1978, federal, state and local authorities have worked in remarkable cooperation 

to manage what is the world’s largest urban park. Now, nearly a quarter-century 

later and in the face of tremendous projected population growth and development 

pressures, Congress, by passing this bill, again will have the opportunity to help 

safeguard and supplement the existing state and local parks, open space and recreational opportunities in Southern California. 

We have amended this bill in response to comments from the National Park Service. First, the bill now authorizes a joint study between the Department of Interior 

and the Department of Agriculture, since the Rim of the Valley incorporates some 

lands that are now managed by the Park Service and others managed by the Forest 

Service. Together, the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service can decide 

on the most appropriate way to protect these lands for future generations. A second, 

we eliminated from the bill explicit provisions for a 17-member advisory commission. This provision was felt to be unnecessary, as this type of special resource 

study, conducted by the National Park Service, automatically entails extensive public outreach to communities and local governments. 

With these changes we were pleased that the National Park Service testified in 

support of the identical bill in the Senate. 

This legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support by Republican and Democratic 

Members of Congress whose district includes portions of the Rim of the Valley 

Corridor, including Representatives Howard Berman, David Dreier, Howard ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon, George Miller, Brad Sherman and Hilda Solis. I thank you for your attention, and ask for your support for the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act. 

8

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Schiff, for your testimony. I appreciate that. 

Are there any other opening statements by any other members 

on the dais? John? Mr. Udall? OK. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. MARK UDALL. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to express my support for my colleague, Mr. McInnis’ important legislation. He has been, along with Senator Campbell, a father of the 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, and I know he has 

worked very hard to bring this bill back for a second time. I look 

forward to supporting it and working with him, and hopefully, we 

can convince the Senate to move with dispatch so that the adjustments to the boundary can be made, and that park can continue 

to thrive and be the great resource like Yosemite is in your district, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. There is no resource like Yosemite, Mark. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. I do not know if we want to go there or not. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Udall. I appreciate that. 

To speak on another bill, we have our colleague Mr. Bishop, from 

Utah. I am trying to see the bill number here. It is 2909. Mr. 

Schiff, is it possible—I think there may be a couple of other questions or something—well, let me take an opportunity just to ask a 

couple of questions. 

Are you aware of recreational opportunities that already exist on 

private property that is within the prescribed areas of the monument right now? I have been talking to some people that do provide 

recreation already, and I am wondering if you are aware of that, 

and does that have an impact on the expansion of this area? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure of the particulars. I 

would not be a bit surprised if there were private lands where 

there are recreational opportunities as well as the public lands. 

The Rim of the Valley incorporates, I think, into the study areas 

that are part privately held, part publicly held, probably in which 

there are recreation areas available on either. 

The advantage, should the Department of Agriculture and the 

Park Service determine that some of those areas should be included within the Recreation Area would be the opportunity to 

bring additional management resources to the area; the additional 

opportunity to work in public-private partnerships, should there be 

people who wish to sell property for the Recreation Area. As you 

know, there is no power of eminent domain, so none of those issues 

are implicated. But in answer to your question, I would assume 

that there are some recreational opportunities as you describe already there. This would study the possibility of augmenting those 

by incorporating the Rim of the Valley. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Can you give me an idea of the percentage of 

private property that would be within the proposed area boundaries here? 

Mr. SCHIFF. The Rim of the Valley incorporates—really, I guess 

it is probably easiest to conceptualize three areas. It would include 

the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, which is already in 

9

existence. It would include a chunk of the Angeles Forest; obviously, also public lands, and then, it would include areas of the 

Rim of the Valley that are in neither of those two categories. 

If you look at the area outside of the current Recreation Area 

that would be studied by this bill, I believe the percentage is 58 

percent public lands and 42 percent private lands, so that is the 

current composition of what would be studied. And obviously, the 

two departments working together could recommend that some, all 

or none of those areas are appropriately included in the Santa 

Monica Mountains Recreation Area, and to implement whatever 

recommendation they make, we would need to bring subsequent 

legislation before your Committee. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I appreciate, Mr. Schiff, your testimony. 

Any other questions of Mr. Schiff? We will let him go, so he does 

not have to wait. 

Adam, thanks. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, member. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right; sorry, Mr. Bishop. Thank you for 

your patience, and you are here, of course, to describe your bill, 

and welcome. Have at it. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate doing that. 

I am pleased to be able to present a bill that I think has bipartisan 

support, at least from the entire Utah delegation. It is similar to 

a bill that this body heard in July of 2001, but it is a significantly 

scaled-down version of that particular bill, because we have gone 

out to get input from the local government, environmental interests 

and the Native Americans who have an interest in this, and to 

those particular groups, I want to assure that as this bill goes toward markup, we will continue to work with those particular entities to make any kind of accommodations that are possible. 

I would like if I could, though—give me the chart—to simply 

speak first about the Utah Test and Training Range, so the record 

understands what we are talking about. This Utah Test and Training Range, which we will show you in a moment is the nation’s 

only complete land range training facility. It has both mountain, 

water, sand, desert facilities to provide live-fire target areas under 

real-time conditions. As former General Eberhardt of Air Force 

Combat Command said, we could not test or train our aircraft to 

operate standoff joint precision weapons without complete access to 

the Utah Test and Training Range. 

In addition to the Test and Training Range, the bigger area that 

is around that area is the MOA, or the air space that is essential, 

to implement the Test and Training Range concept that happens 

to be there. That is the area that planes need, and as planes get 

faster, and we start shooting missiles from a longer range, it is 

going to be necessary in the future to expand that area of air space 

that is essential to maintain the training facilities of the Utah Test 

and Training Range. 

In this particular bill, we are talking about wilderness areas 

that, it will be noted, are very limited. The only wilderness and wilderness study areas that we are talking about are those that are 

10

specifically impacted by the Test and Training Range. We are establishing no new precedents that would go forward for any other 

particular areas, but there is precedent for making some kind of 

applications; for example, the California Desert Protection Act; the 

Goldwater Training Range Act, both of them found that you can 

have complementary systems of wilderness and training if you 

properly plan for them. 

The cooperation on our range has had a good history, but it is 

also something that is sometimes very risky. The Mountain Home 

Range, for example; its efficiency was limited or totally eliminated 

by demands on limitations of flying times and altitude times that 

we do not want to see happening here. The Western Environmental 

Law Center filed a suit in the District Court in the year 2000 to 

ban all low-level flights of the Air Force over public lands. Congress, of course, reacted to that and stopped it, but it would be 

wiser to have a proactive position that could provide both shortand long-term solutions to these types of issues on this sensitive 

area. 

We are attempting to maintain status quo activity so that we can 

retrieve personnel and aircraft that are downed in a wilderness 

study area; that we can maintain tracking systems that are there 

and preexisting before any wilderness study area was established. 

You will hear evidence from the Goshute Nation who will come 

here as the leaders. We also have testimony from some other members who represent a minority view of those. This bill is in no way 

trying to provide enmity toward this group. 

When I was Speaker of the House in Utah, I was the first one 

that tried to bring the seven nations in Utah to the Legislature to 

establish dialog and had the Legislature in Utah travel to those 

particular reservations. We support other efforts the tribes are 

using to try to get economic activity in their particular area, but 

the bottom line is there will be 5,000 flights by the Air Force over 

areas in which they are presently living. There have been 24 aircraft and missile accidents so far, four within a mile of a proposed 

economic site which would be for nuclear spent fuel rods to be 

stored above ground. 

The Atomic Energy and Licensing Board has already issued some 

concerns as to the safety of those areas. The NRC will eventually 

come up with a recommendation, but we will present testimony 

that those concerns have a validity to them. The bottom line is 

there is one particular economic activity that is situated in such a 

place that it would do harm to the defense capability of this nation 

on an area that cannot be replicated anywhere else. 

Finally, the last thing I would like to say is the particular map 

you are looking at right now is talking about a proposed wilderness 

area that has a north, a central and a southern portion to it. It is 

a work in progress for those three parts. It is our intention to work 

from now until markup, to work with both the BLM, the Goshute 

Nation, environmentalists and local and state government to have 

a more finalized map that would protect private property rights, 

recreational hunting, Native American cultural rights, preserve 

BLM oversight and protect the land and the environment. 

But our primary—primary—issue is still to do that which would 

protect the viability of the military mission at the Utah Test and 

11

Training Range in a proactive way to preserve its function for the 

defense of this country forever. And Mr. Chairman, with that, I 

would, at some point—and I do not know when you would rather 

like to have that—ask unanimous consent to have seven other 

statements be part of the official record; if you would like for me 

to wait for some time, or if not, I would like to move that. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. There being no objection, so ordered. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

[NOTE: The statements submitted for the record by Mr. Bishop 

have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Utah, on H.R. 2909

Mr. Chairman: 

I appreciate this opportunity to testify regarding the H.R. 2909, the Utah Test 

Range Protection Act, and I thank the Chairman for allowing this important bill to 

be given a hearing. 

The language contained in H.R. 2909 is the product of years of work and, I 

strongly believe, is necessary to address encroachments and potential encroachments which negatively impact the military’s ability to test and train on the Utah 

Test and Training Range (UTTR). The bill takes a small step forward in a collaborative manner in working with all stakeholders in designating a total of approximately 106,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands on and near the 

Cedar Mountains as formal wilderness. I am pleased that the Utah Congressional 

Delegation has united in a bipartisan manner to introduce and support this legislation. 

At the outset, I recognize that the final boundaries and acreage of the proposed 

wilderness areas have not been agreed to by all parties to this legislation and, as 

the primary sponsor of the bill, I have agreed to try to work with them and the 

Committee, including the minority, to address those boundary issues prior to this 

bill moving to a markup. A map of the proposed Cedar Mountain Wilderness has 

been provided to all interested stakeholders as a starting point, including representatives of the environmental community, and is represented by what you see on the 

easel before you. This map represents the largest footprint of potential wilderness 

for the Cedar Mountains that is possible. However, as indicated, this map will be 

revised prior to markup to try and incorporate the legitimate concerns that surface, 

in large part, because of this hearing. 

As members of this Committee know, when it comes to wilderness designations, 

there are strong emotions on all sides of the issue. Unfortunately in times past, and 

in prior Congresses, the issues surrounding wilderness designation on BLM lands 

in the State of Utah and elsewhere have been very contentious and efforts at breaking a stalemate in Congress to enact Utah wilderness legislation has too often 

bogged down. 

This bill takes a small, but important, step forward towards establishing a framework whereby future wilderness legislation can be discussed and acted upon in a 

cooperative and collaborative fashion. 

To set the stage for this bill, I need to remind members of the fact that similar 

legislation was introduced in the 107th Congress by my predecessor, Chairman Jim 

Hansen, in the form of H.R. 2488, which was the subject of a hearing by the Subcommittee on July 26, 2001. That legislation, which was passed by the House of 

Representatives, was far more comprehensive in scope and far-reaching in its effects, and would have created formal wilderness areas in every instance where there 

exists a Wilderness Study Area (WSAs) today underneath the military’s air space. 

The present bill, H.R. 2909 is more modest in scope. It concentrates on the Cedar 

Mountain wilderness study areas where there seems to be a great deal of unanimity 

among affected parties as to the boundaries, and leaves the debate as to the other 

WSAs in Utah’s West Desert to a future time. Those other WSAs would remain unaffected by this bill. My office has sought opportunities, up-front, to involve representatives of the environmental community, in addition to local government leaders, tribal representatives, the military, recreational users, and private landowners, 

in the drafting of this language. And while it is not perfect, or as specific or detailed 

as I would personally prefer it to be in some areas, I believe that, as written, the 

12

language is acceptable in addressing the encroachments issues and also designating 

important wilderness. 

The bill can be divided into two parts. One part addresses the need for continued 

military emergency access, over flights and training activities affecting existing 

WSAs and wilderness areas in the West Desert of Utah underneath the ‘‘footprint’’ 

or Military Operating Area (MOA). The other part of the bill takes advantage of the 

opportunity to designate a portion of existing WSAs into BLM wilderness, taking 

a small step forward to resolving wilderness concerns in Utah’s West Desert. Why is this bill necessary? The UTTR is nothing short of an irreplaceable national defense asset. While the Air Force is here and can testify from the operational and 

readiness points of view on the qualities and uses of the UTTR, I believe it is important for members of the Committee to realize that the UTTR is truly unique. In the 

past, the Air Force has testified that the UTTR is an irreplaceable national asset 

and to its value, and I will ask that that testimony be entered into the record at 

the appropriate time. It is the largest overland test and training range in the lower 

48 states. In fact, the footprint of the airspace within the UTTR is larger than many 

Eastern States combined. It contains the largest and most flexible unrestricted air 

space of any range. Of current interest, the topography of the UTTR is similar to 

that in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the varied terrain provides pilot training opportunities unavailable elsewhere. The UTTR is also the only range under U.S. control 

with the size to adequately test our terrain-following cruise missiles. The UTTR also 

contains important munitions testing areas. Live-fire target areas are at the heart 

of training our pilots under real-time conditions. The UTTR is often the testing range of choice when it comes to proving and devel- oping cutting-edge weapons such as the MOAB, or largest conventional bomb ever 

built by the United States, which was recently used in Afghanistan. Its predecessor, 

the ‘‘Daisy-Cutter,’’ or BLU-82 conventional munition, was also tested on the UTTR. With U.S. military weaponry relying on larger and larger distances and increasing the ability to shoot from larger standoff distances, ranges such as the UTTR will 

become even more valuable for ensuring pilot and munitions readiness and thereby 

strengthen our national defense. As our population grows and developmental encroachments take their tolls on military training areas across the nation, the large 

and remote spaces that the UTTR provide will only become increasingly more valuable. 

At the same time, there are a number of wilderness study areas that underlie the existing MOA. Those areas are represented by the map before the Committee. Military use of the airspace over these areas predates the 1964 Wilderness Act and the 

Federal Lands Management and Policy Act (FLMPA), and it is true that so far, 

there have been few instances of conflict between wilderness, wilderness study areas 

and the military’s continued over flights and testing activities in Utah’s West 

Desert. However, there are beginning to be more and more instances of groups filing 

litigation based on the wilderness act, the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) or FLMPA to stop or curtail military uses of public lands or airspace that 

lies above public lands. 

For example, the Air Force was forced to agree to significant altitude and time 

of year restrictions within the Mountain Home Range Military Operating Area 

under threat of litigation by environmental groups. Those restrictions now include 

no military overflights below 5,000 feet in the airspace over ‘‘Little Jack’s Creek Wilderness Study Area’’ within a 12-mile diameter circle during the months of April, 

May and June, as well as other specified public lands areas attached to the Mountain Home range. 

Another example includes litigation filed by the ‘‘Western Environmental Law 

Center,’’ as plaintiffs, on behalf of other environmental groups, in federal district 

court against the U.S. Air Force in the year 2000 alleging that low-level flights and 

training did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and 

which attempted to severely restrict the ability of the military to continue to overfly 

public lands. 

Such altitude and time-of-year restrictions being imposed on the UTTR would 

prove disastrous to this national defense testing asset. 

This bill does not set a new precedent for wilderness and military use. It does 

not create a ‘‘lesser’’ category of wilderness. Congress has acted previously to enact 

language which protects wilderness values while also providing for continued military uses. For example, the California Desert Protection Act [P.L. 103-433] designated significant portions of BLM lands in Southern California as wilderness 

while still preserving the ability of the Army and other services to train at Ft. 

Irwin. In the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Act, Congress authorized military uses 

of the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness Area and Wildlife Refuge beneath the Goldwater 

Training Range in Arizona [P.L. 106-65]. 

13

This bill seeks to balance the interests and concerns of the necessity of military 

training and readiness, with those of preservation of public lands. 

In addition, one of the most serious encroachments upon the UTTR is a proposal 

by the Goshute Tribe on their reservation lands located in Skull Valley. At the 

present time, the Goshute Tribe has entered into negotiations with a private energy 

consortium (Private Fuels Storage, or PFS) to transport high-level nuclear waste for 

‘‘temporary’’ storage on their Reservation lands. The proposal is at present before 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for licensing. Further proceedings before 

the NRC have been delayed due to concerns raised by the NRC’s Safety Board 

which ruled that there was a significant enough of a risk of a military aircraft 

crashing into the above-ground storage as to warrant further closer review. 

If licensed, the PFS nuclear waste proposal would represent a serious encroachment upon the use and utility of the UTTR range. The entry point for the Southern 

portion of the UTTR goes directly over Skull Valley and the Goshute Reservation. 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that supersonic fighter planes loaded 

down with live bombs and above-ground storage of high-level nuclear waste located 

downwind less than 60 nautical miles from Utah’s populated Wasatch Front containing nearly 2 million people do not mix. In 2001, over 5,000 military aircraft flew 

over the Skull Valley site as low as 300 feet. Over half of these planes carried live 

ordnance, including 2,000 pound laser guided bombs. In the last 20 years, there 

have been over two dozen military aircraft or missile crashes on or near the UTTR. 

Four of these have involved crashes within a few miles of the Skull Valley proposed 

site. 

The Air Force has previously testified before the NRC that, if licensed, the facility 

would cause the Air Force to seriously curtail its use of the Southern portion of the 

UTTR, which would greatly diminish the capability and usefulness of this unique 

test asset. 

This legislation addresses this encroachment issue by prohibiting the BLM from 

issuing a right-of-way permit to construct a necessary rail spur across BLM lands 

to the Goshute Reservation. While I recognize that this prohibition would limit the 

tribe’s ability to provide rail access to its reservation, I remain optimistic that in 

working with tribal leaders prior to markup on this legislation, that we may identify 

proposals not involving high-level nuclear waste that would provide needed economic opportunities for the tribe, which may lead to a revision of this current prohibition. 

In conclusion, I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Appreciate it. 

Any other questions of the panel? 

If not, we will move on to our next panel. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Panel two, 

I would like to call up now, please. It consists of Mr. Jim Hughes, 

who is the deputy director of the BLM in Washington, D.C.; Mr. 

Jeffrey Loman, acting director of trust services, BIA, Bureau of Indian Affairs; Mr. Gerald Pease, Associate Director for Ranges and 

Airspace of the U.S. Air Force in Washington; and Mr. deTeel Patterson Tiller, acting director of cultural resources for the National 

Park Service. 

If you would like to come forward, gentlemen. Gentlemen, welcome to the Subcommittee. As you know, we are going to go by the 

5-minute rule here with the lights, and if you abide by that, please 

feel free to sum up on your comments, and of course, if you leave 

anything out, I am sure that this panel will bring it up in the form 

of questions afterwards. 

So we will go ahead and start with you, Mr. Hughes, and work 

every 5 minutes all the way across. Everybody will be given a 

chance to speak. And then, we will open up the panel for questions. 

Welcome, Mr. Hughes; you may begin. 

14

STATEMENT OF JIM HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the op- portunity to testify today on behalf of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2909, the Utah Test and Training Range Protection 

Act. The administration shares the goals of the sponsor of the legislation to support the continued operation of the Utah Test and 

Training Range and protection of public lands with special values. However, the Department has concerns with the bill. I will briefly discuss the provisions directly relevant to the BLM and then will 

defer to my colleague from the BIA on issues regarding the Skull 

Valley Indian Reservation. Section 5 of the bill proposes to designate the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area. The bill does not provide reference to a specific 

map or the acreage of the proposed wilderness. Based on information provided to BLM’s Salt Lake City Field Office, we understand 

that the legislation may contemplate an area substantially larger 

than the existing WSA. While some of this area may have wilderness characteristics ap- propriate for wilderness designation, many portions lack wilderness 

characteristics. Areas to the north of the existing WSA, in particular, lack wilderness characters. Only Congress has the authority to designate wilderness or new wilderness study areas. The 

lands encompassed in this bill contain acreage that was either 

found to be nonsuitable for wilderness during BLM’s wilderness 

suitability review or was never identified as having wilderness 

characteristics in the first place. 

For that reason, the Department does not agree with the broad 

designation. However, that being said, the Department recognizes 

that only Congress has the authority to designate wilderness, and 

Congress can choose to place wilderness restrictions on any Federal 

land without regard to the standards that were used in the administrative review process that the BLM used back in the 1980s. 

The Department wants the Committee to know that there is extensive motorized recreational use within parts of the area proposed for wilderness in this bill which would be prohibited by the 

bill upon enactment. 

Sections 2, 3 and 6 directly relate to the Utah Test and Training 

Range. We believe these sections need some modification. We are 

eager to work with the Committee and the Air Force in a cooperative fashion to meet military mission requirements. We are always 

concerned when exceptions to wilderness management are brought 

up in bills, and so, we look forward to working with people on that. 

It is possible that through discussions with the Committee and 

the sponsors, we think many of these could be addressed very easily. 

And the Department of the Interior would be happy to work with 

the Committee and the sponsors to protect both the important mission of the UTTR and the conservation values of BLM-managed 

lands in its vicinity. We do encourage the Congress to move forward on the designation of wilderness and release of WSAs, and as 

always, we would like to provide the sponsors and the Committee 

with information on the status of these lands and their current 

15

uses. We would welcome the opportunity to propose changes to the 

bill, to increase manageability of the wilderness and ensure that 

we are not inadvertently affecting important current uses or expectations. 

And finally, the final issue that we would like to talk about is Section 4(b), which prohibits the issuance of transportation rightof-ways under Section 501(a)(6) of the Federal Land Policy Management Act, FLPMA, as we know it, in certain areas of Utah until 

the year 2015. There are currently two pending applications for 

transportation right-of-ways in the approximately 250,000 acres 

covered by the prohibition. Those applications are from Private 

Fuel Storage, LLC, for a 30-mile railroad line on public land and 

from Broken Arrow Corporation for a two-mile access road, 100 feet 

on public land. There are also 12 existing 501(a)(6) rights-of-way in the proposed prohibition area. The Department of the Interior is concerned 

about the implication of this provision on existing right-of-way applications, future applications as well as potential amendments and 

renewals of existing authorized rights-of-way. With that, I will defer the remainder of our Department’s testimony to Jeffrey Loman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Hughes. Mr. Loman, welcome to the Subcommittee, and please begin your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY LOMAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, TRUST 

SERVICES, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. LOMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. You are welcome. 

Mr. LOMAN. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today. H.R. 2909 would frustrate an ongoing administrative process that began in 1997, when the Department of the Interior issued a 

conditional 20-year lease for a spent nuclear fuel storage facility 

that would be operated by Private Fuel Storage on the Skull Valley 

Indian Reservation, which is home to the Skull Valley Band of 

Goshute Indians. 

Section 4(b) of the proposed legislation would prohibit the trans- portation rights-of-way, including the 30-mile railroad that Private 

Fuel Storage has made an application for to transport spent fuel 

to the proposed storage facility. Continuation of the administrative 

process that has been ongoing and includes work by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. That process that is underway is important to determine if the proposed storage facility is viable, and that 

process would come to a halt if H.R. 2909 is enacted. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. 

[The joint statement of Mr. Hughes and Mr. Loman follows:]

Statement of Jim Hughes, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, and Jeffery Loman, Acting Deputy Director, Trust Services, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2909

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2909, the Utah Test and Training Range Protection Act. The Administration shares the goals of the sponsors of the legislation to support the continued operation of the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) and to protect public 

lands with special values. However, the Department has concerns with H.R. 2909 

for two reasons. First, the bill is not specific as to the lands that will be designated 

16

as wilderness, and, according to studies performed by the BLM, much of the area 

may not be suitable for wilderness designation. Second, the bill would frustrate an 

ongoing administrative review process that began in 1997 with the conditional approval of a 20-year license to receive, transfer, and store spent nuclear fuel on the 

Skull Valley Indian Reservation. 

Background 

The UTTR is located in northwestern Utah and eastern Nevada within the Great 

Salt Lake Desert. Operated by the United States Air Force, the UTTR provides air 

training and test services, large force training exercises and large footprint weapons 

testing. A unique facility, it has the largest overland block of protected airspace in 

the continental United States. The Cedar Mountains Wilderness Study Area (WSA) 

is located in Tooele County, Utah, and covers approximately 50,500 acres of BLMmanaged lands. On June 26, 1992, President George H. W. Bush submitted his Administration’s recommendations to Congress on wilderness suitability for BLM 

WSAs in Utah, including a recommendation that the entire Cedar Mountains WSA 

was not suitable for wilderness designation. The Skull Valley Reservation is located 

in Tooele County, Utah, approximately 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. In 

1996, the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians (Tribe) entered into a business lease 

with Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (PFS), a consortium of major utility companies, 

to provide a temporary storage facility for spent nuclear fuel on the Tribe’s reservation. 

In May 1997, the Department approved the lease subject to certain conditions, including a complete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) issuance of a license. Shortly thereafter, PFS 

filed its license application. In January 2002, the NRC issued a final Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed storage project. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Land Management, and the Surface Transportation Board 

serve as cooperating agencies with the NRC on the project. 

In April 2002, the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) began a series 

of local and statewide hearings that concluded on July 3, 2002. The major outstanding point of contention (environmental justice) was dismissed on October 1, 

2002. 

The ASLB issued three Partial Initial Decisions on three issues. First, on March 

10, 2003, the ASLB ruled that the probability of an aircraft crash into the proposed 

facility would be high enough that PFS must analyze the potential consequences of 

such a crash. On May 22, 2003, the ASLB determined that an earthquake would 

have no impact on the proposed facility. The NRC upheld this decision on August 

15, 2003. On May 27, 2003, the ASLB ruled that PFS is financially qualified to construct, operate, and decommission the proposed facility. 

H.R. 2909

Major provisions of this legislation include the designation of the Cedar Mountains Wilderness Area, protection of military operations in and around the UTTR, 

and the prohibition on the granting of certain transportation rights-of-way in Tooele 

County, Utah. Section 5 of the bill proposes to designate the Cedar Mountains Wilderness Area. The bill does not provide reference to a specific map or the acreage 

of the proposed wilderness. Based on information provided to BLM’s Salt Lake City 

Field Office, we understand that the legislation may contemplate an area substantially larger than the existing WSA. While some of this area may have the wilderness characteristics appropriate for wilderness designation, in the opinion of the 

local BLM land managers, many portions lack wilderness characteristics. Areas to 

the north of the existing WSA, in particular, lack wilderness qualities. 

The Administration has stated that only Congress has the authority to designate 

wilderness or new wilderness study areas. The Department of the Interior was delegated the authority to review and recommend wilderness in Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). That authority expired in 1993. 

During this review, the BLM identified over 20 million acres of lands with wilderness characteristics, but ultimately found many of those lands were not suitable for 

wilderness designation. As stated before, the BLM submitted its recommendations 

regarding suitability to President George H.W. Bush who, in turn, submitted them 

to Congress. These lands are now designated wilderness or have been released from 

WSA status by the Congress, or remain in wilderness study area status containing 

a combination of ‘‘suitable’’ and ‘‘nonsuitable’’ acres. The lands encompassed in this 

bill contain acreage that was either found to be nonsuitable for wilderness during 

that review, or was never identified as having wilderness characteristics in the first 

place. 

17

In general, the Department supports the designation of wilderness areas in Utah, 

but we would like the Committee to consider the impacts of designating wilderness 

areas where there may be ongoing incompatible uses. During the original WSA inventory process, and now when updating a land use plan and considering wilderness 

characteristics, the BLM generally looks at size, naturalness, opportunities for solitude and primitive (non-motorized) recreation, and other special features. The Wilderness Act of 1964 specifically prohibits motorized equipment in wilderness areas. 

The Department wants the Committee to know that there is motorized recreational use within parts of the areas proposed for wilderness in this bill. While 

Section 3 of the bill specifically authorizes certain military activities to continue notwithstanding any potential wilderness status, it does not do so for other uses. All 

other non-wilderness uses in the designated areas, including existing motorized recreational uses, would be prohibited by this bill upon enactment. 

Sections 2, 3 and 6 directly relate to the UTTR. We believe these sections need 

modification. The BLM will work with the Air Force in a cooperative fashion to meet 

military mission requirements. However, proposed exceptions to wilderness and 

WSA management raise concerns. It is possible that through discussions with the 

Committee and the sponsors of the legislation many of these concerns could be addressed. In addition, many of the issues raised could be worked out cooperatively 

between the BLM and the Air Force through the use of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). 

Planning for the public lands within the area surrounding the UTTR has been 

precluded by legislation for many years. We believe the goal of the legislation is to 

lift those prohibitions and to move forward on planning in a collaborative fashion 

in consultation with the Air Force. However, we believe that the language in the 

bill is confusing on this point and needs clarification. While Section 4(a) appears to 

provide direction to proceed with land use planning, Section 6(b) may contradict 

that by only lifting certain planning prohibitions on the proposed Cedar Mountains 

Wilderness Area but not on the rest of the BLM-managed lands in the area. Likewise, Section 6(a) is confusing and could be construed as negating other legislative 

language within the bill. 

Section 4(b) of the legislation prohibits the issuance of transportation rights-ofway under Section 501(a)(6) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA) in certain areas of Utah until at least 2015. There are currently two 

pending applications for transportation rights-of-way in the approximately 250,000 

acres covered by the prohibition. Those applications are from Private Fuel Storage 

LLC for a 30 mile railroad line on public land and from Broken Arrow Corporation 

for a 2 mile access road, 100 feet on public land. There are also 12 existing 501(a)(6) 

rights-of-way in the proposed prohibition area. The Department has concerns about 

the direct impact H.R. 2909 will have on the pending applications for rights-of-way, 

as well as potential amendments and renewals of existing authorized rights-of-way. 

The chronology of administrative actions illustrates the nature and scope of the 

administrative processes that have been completed to date. Likewise, the administrative processes that are pending would be dispositive regarding the proposed temporary storage facility. If, for example, the NRC does not issue a license, the project 

will not operate. Continuation of the ongoing administrative processes resulting 

from the Tribe’s business lease with PFS would provide the cooperating agencies 

with an opportunity to determine whether the proposed project is viable as an administrative matter only. Should Congress choose to enact H.R. 2909, the administrative process would come to a halt. However, if H.R. 2909 is not enacted, in the 

Spring of 2004, the ASLB is expected to render a decision and make a recommendation to the NRC regarding the dispositive administrative licensing issue. The NRC 

will then issue a Record of Decision and issue or deny the license. If the NRC grants 

a license, both the BLM and the Surface Transportation Board would issue Records 

of Decision regarding the pending railroad right-of-way application. The Department 

has worked closely with the Tribe to support them in their efforts to achieve some 

form of viable economic development on their reservation. 

Conclusion 

The Department of the Interior would be happy to work with the Committee and 

the sponsors of H.R. 2909 to protect both the important mission of the UTTR and 

the conservation values of BLM-managed lands in its vicinity. We encourage Congress to move forward on designation of wilderness and release of WSAs, and, as 

always, we would like to provide the sponsors and the Committee with information 

on the status of these lands and their current uses. We would welcome the opportunity to propose changes to the bill to address our concerns regarding the suitability of certain areas for wilderness designation, to increase the manageability of 

18

the designated wilderness, and to ensure that we are not inadvertently affecting important current uses or public expectations. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Loman. 

Next is Mr. Gerald Pease, the associate director for ranges and 

airspace, here to speak on H.R. 2909. Mr. Pease, welcome to the 

Subcommittee and please begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF GERALD F. PEASE, JR., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR 

FOR RANGES AND AIRSPACE, U.S. AIR FORCE, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

Mr. PEASE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to thank you also for including us in the Air Force and I will say 

DOD in these discussions. As you know, the DOD and the Air 

Force have the majority of the lands that we use for our training 

and testing are public lands, most of which are BLM lands, and we 

are very interested in public lands in general, so thank you very 

much. 

My responsibilities in the Air Force are to oversee Air Force 

ranges, special use air space and other air space designed for military use. This, as Congressman Bishop said, the Utah Test and 

Training Range is a very large range. It has the largest special use 

air space, piece of special use of air space measured from the surface or near the surface within the continental United States. It is 

about 100 by 200 miles. 

The air space is situated over 2,600 square miles of DOD-managed land, of which 1,500 square miles or so are managed by the 

Air Force, the rest managed by the United States Army. It is the 

primary training range for the pilots who fly F-16s out of the 388th 

Fighter Wing and the 419th Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base. 

However, all types of airframes from the military services fly and 

test and train at the Utah Test and Training Range. About 16,000 

sorties a year are historically flown there within the range air 

space. That includes test sorties, B-1 sorties, B-52; over 2,500 Navy 

and Marine Corps sorties and allied force sorties as well. We also 

do the majority of our cruise missile testing, ground weapons training, NASA support, industry testing as well as other support to 

universities and high school research projects. 

In general, when we look at wilderness bills as they relate to our 

testing and training, we look at four issues: provisions for overflights, existing instrumentation sites, access control on the lands 

adjacent to the ranges themselves for safety and security issues, 

and then, the potential to do compatible ground operations, if you 

will, for military. As it relates to H.R. 2909 specifically, the bill 

lacks language authorizing the managers of the public lands adjacent to the range to enter into an MOU to ensure access of those 

lands are consistent with safety and security requirements. The 

second, the designation of certain lands as wilderness would allow 

ground operations. We would like to see the designation of certain 

lands that would allow military ground operations for testing and 

training that are considered compatible with those areas, and also, 

we would like the provision in the designation to allow us to, if necessary, increase our communication and instrumentation sites if 

necessary to sustain future operations. 

19

We do all these things in other areas with the Bureau of Land 

Management. We believe that these issues can be worked at the 

local level in an MOU format. 

I will end by saying that access to our ranges is of vital importance to the Air Force, DOD, other national agencies and civilian 

institutions, also, that use these ranges. Although our geopolitical 

environment remains uncertain, one aspect continues to be critical 

for the United States: that we must continue to test and train on 

military ranges while striving to minimize the impact of our operations on the surrounding communities and the environment. Future air power weapons systems will continue to need sufficient 

land and air space to train crews and test our weapons systems, 

and your kind consideration of these comments concerning 

H.R. 2909 are appreciated, and we welcome the opportunity to continue to work with our partners in the other Federal land management agencies and this Committee. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pease follows:]

Statement of Gerald F. Pease, Associate Director for Ranges and Airspace, 

Directorate of Operations and Training, Office of the Deputy Chief of 

Staff for Air and Space Operations Headquarters, U.S. Air Force 

My name is Gerald F. Pease, Jr. I am the Associate Director for Ranges and Airspace, Directorate of Operations and Training, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff 

for Air and Space Operations, Headquarters United States Air Force, Washington, 

D.C. I am responsible for developing strategies and management policies to establish, modify and maintain Air Force ranges, special-use airspace, and other airspace 

designed for military use. Prior to my retirement from active duty, I served as a 

career Air Force fighter pilot. 

Comments on H.R. 2909

In general, during the process to designate Wilderness or other land use designations, we look at the Air Force and DoD operational requirements relating to four 

areas: 

1) Overflights, particularly as they relate to special use airspace and low-level 

routes; 

2) Existing instrumentation sites and the potential requirements for future 

ground sites; 

3) Access control of adjacent public lands for safety or security reasons; and 

4) Compatibility with ground operations that include assurance of emergency response capabilities. 

We are interested in ensuring that the Bill would preserve our ability to accomplish our test and training missions on the UTTR. In particular, we are concerned 

about access to adjacent public lands. Specific concerns include: 

1) The bill lacks language authorizing managers of public lands adjacent to our 

Air Force ranges to enter into an MOU with DoD to ensure access to those 

lands is consistent with safety and security requirements; 

2) The designation of certain lands as wilderness that would allow military 

ground operations for readiness testing and training activities that are considered compatible with those areas; and 

3) Wilderness designations could also preclude DoD from increasing communication and instrumentation sites, if necessary, to sustain future operations. 

The legislation does affirm that continued unrestricted access to special use airspace, military training routes, and to the range lands themselves, is a national security priority, and should be integrated effectively with other uses for land and associated air resources. 

The Utah Test & Training Range (UTTR) 

UTTR has the largest overland special-use airspace measured from the surface or 

near surface, within the continental United States (207 by 92 nautical miles). Of 

the total 12,574 square nautical miles comprising this area, 6,010 are restricted airspace, and 6,564 are Military Operating Areas (MOAs). The airspace is situated over 

20

2,624 square miles of DoD-managed land, of which 1,490 square miles are managed 

by the Air Force. 

UTTR is the primary training range for the pilots who fly the F-16 Fighting Falcon for the 388th Fighter Wing and the 419th Fighter Wing at Hill Air Force Base. 

However, all types of airframes from all the military services test and train at the 

UTTR. Approximately 15,800 sorties are flown annually within the range airspace. 

That total includes approximately 390 test sorties, 650 B-1B sorties, 380 B-52 sorties, 2,500 U.S. Navy/Marine Corps sorties, and 200 allied air forces sorties. Additionally, we conduct Cruise Missile testing, ground weapons testing, NASA support, 

industry testing, as well as support to universities and high school research projects. 

Conclusion 

Continued access to our ranges is of vital importance to the Air Force, DoD, other 

national agencies and civilian institutions and industry. The future geopolitical environment remains uncertain, but one aspect continues to be critical for the success 

of the United States—we must continue testing and training on military ranges 

while striving to minimize the impact of our operations on the surrounding communities and the environment. Future airpower weapons systems will continue to need 

sufficient land and airspace to train aircrews and test weapon systems. Your kind 

consideration of these Air Force comments concerning H.R. 2909 will be appreciated. We welcome the opportunity to continue working on these important issues 

with this Committee. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Pease. We appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. deTeel Patterson, here to speak on a lot of bills. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RADANOVICH. H.R. 280, 704, 1399, 1594, 1618, 1862, 1798, 

and please go that fast, because you have a lot of ground to cover. 

Mr. TILLER. I will do my best, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Actually, we will bend the 5-minute rule a little bit, since you have so many bills. 

STATEMENT OF DETEEL PATTERSON TILLER, ACTING 

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCES, NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. TILLER. Actually, I think I can get it in under that. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, good, good, more power. 

Mr. TILLER. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the Interior’s views on seven bills before you today. In 

the interest of brevity, I will summarize my testimony that I already submitted to the Subcommittee. 

H.R. 704 directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to 

conduct a joint resources study on the feasibility of establishing the 

Rim of the Valley Corridor in Los Angeles as a unit of the Santa 

Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. The Department supports the bill with a few minor modifications detailed in my submitted testimony. Santa Monica Mountains has become a national 

model of collaboration among local, state and Federal land managers and private property owners, all working as joint stewards of 

exceptional natural scenic, cultural and recreational resources. We 

look forward to working with the Department of Agriculture on this 

important undertaking. 

The Department also supports H.R. 1399, which revises the 

boundary of Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and 

Gunnison National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado. We 

support this, as the revision confers no significant increases of 

budget or staffing on the Service. The proposal completes the origiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 May 04, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\89893.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
21

nal land intentions of the Park’s authors, and the proposed increases are supported by willing sellers as well as key local elected 

officials, business organizations and local and national land trusts. 

In addition, H.R. 1399 clarifies important grazing and water rights 

matters. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the balance of the five 

bills as a whole in my remaining comments. H.R. 1594 directs the 

Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of creating the St. Croix National Heritage Area in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and the remaining four bills, H.R.s 1862, 1798, 1618 and 

280 establish respectively the Oil Region National Heritage Area in 

Pennsylvania, the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area 

in the State of Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; the Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area in Georgia; and 

last, the National Aviation Heritage Area in Ohio. 

The Department of the Interior supports the idea of national heritage areas and recognizes the success of the 23 already-designated 

Federal national heritage areas. We applaud this important, bottom-up, citizen-based movement to protect and preserve critical 

natural and historic places across this great nation, places that 

make each of our communities unique. Heritage areas can serve as 

critical local economic generators, all the while being cost-effective 

ways to preserve these places for future generations using creative 

partnerships and without, importantly, the necessity of costly Federal land acquisition. 

However, the Department recommends that the Committee defer 

action on these five bills and on any further individual heritage 

area designations or studies until such time as a general heritage 

area program bill, establishing a national program, is passed. We 

believe that it is time to step back to evaluate the existing heritage 

areas and to develop legislative guidance and standards that can 

shape any further heritage area designations before we go any further. 

An umbrella national heritage area bill will serve as a gatekeeper and national benchmark, making clear what qualities any 

proposed area must possess; standards under which a new designation will occur; and performance benchmarks for an area to measure its continued success, ultimately ensuring that public dollars 

are well-expended. 

We have almost 20 years of experience now in administering this 

exciting concept and 23 existing heritage areas to evaluate and consult. We have experience, and we have the models. We have offered 

six core tests or standards of a national heritage area program in 

my submitted testimony, tests that any prospective heritage area 

must meet in order to join the ranks of those already designated. 

The National Park Service and the Department of the Interior do 

not wish to unnecessarily slow down this important process, and 

we stand ready to work with the Subcommittee to develop such an 

umbrella program bill. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be pleased to 

answer any questions you or other Committee member may have. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Tiller follow:]

22

Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director for Cultural Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on 

H.R. 280

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the Department of the Interior’s views on 

H.R. 280, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the National 

Aviation Heritage Area and update the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act 

of 1992 special resource study. The Department supports the national heritage area program but recommends that the Subcommittee defer action on any individual national heritage area designation or study bill until generic national heritage area legislation is enacted. The 

Department supports updating the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 

1992 special resource study as outlined in Title II. 

Ideally, national heritage areas provide a cost-effective way to preserve nationally 

important natural, cultural, historic and recreation resources through the creation 

of a working partnership between federal, state and local entities. In addition, national heritage areas should be locally driven, locally supported, should not involve 

federal land acquisition or zoning, and should protect private property rights. At its 

best, this program embodies Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton’s ‘‘Four C’s’’—

Communication, Consultation and Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation. 

Some national heritage areas, however, have not met this ideal. For example, 

some national heritage areas have been designated without a clear indication of the 

ability of the management entity to assume responsibility for management of the 

area. The management entity subsequently has operated the area without a clear 

financial plan for achieving self-sufficiency without federal support. Consequently, 

it is time to step back, evaluate existing areas, and develop legislative guidelines 

that will shape future national heritage area designations. 

The Department believes that a generic national heritage area bill should serve 

as a gatekeeper—making clear what qualities the area must possess and parameters under which designation will occur. We have almost twenty years of experience in administering national heritage areas and twenty-three existing national 

heritage areas to evaluate. In the absence of formal legislation to guide the national 

heritage area program, National Park Service (NPS) also has developed specific critical steps, identified later in this testimony, that should occur prior to designation 

and interim criteria that should be used for national heritage area suitability and 

feasibility studies. These steps and criteria have been field-tested, have proven to 

screen out many unqualified areas prior to recommending designation, and should 

serve as a possible starting point for any discussions on generic national heritage 

area legislation. 

Based on our experience with the program, the Department would like to offer 

several considerations that we believe are key components of a successful national 

heritage area program. 

1. Studying the Area Prior to Designation. In addition to the broad parameters 

that can be achieved by legislation, it is critical to have a process that evaluates the specific qualities of the area. Requiring that a suitability and feasibility study or some equivalent be conducted with a positive finding prior to 

recommending a designation should be an essential component of any generic 

heritage legislation that moves forward. Many of the issues discussed below 

could be evaluated during a national heritage area study. 

2. Nationally Important Resources. In reality, most places in America have a special meaning to a particular group or are the site of some historic event. To 

be designated as a national heritage area, the area must contain nationally important natural, cultural, historic or recreational resources. Not all resources 

should be considered nationally important and, in some cases, designation as 

a state or local heritage area may be more appropriate. 

3. Local Support and Initiative. Local communities must not only support the designation in concept, but must be willing and interested in taking an active role 

in preservation efforts. They are responsible for developing and implementing 

the management plan for the area and should work towards a goal of achieving 

self-sufficiency. Given the important role local communities play in the success 

of national heritage areas, we also have concerns about the concept of establishing national heritage areas in places that contain large tracts of federal 

lands. We believe inclusion of large tracts of federal lands has the potential to 

create confusion and unneeded conflict between management regimes. Therefore, before studying any potential area that includes large tracts of federal 

lands, we recommend that consultation and concurrence of the land management agency should occur first. 

23

4. Private Property Rights. Private property owners should be provided reason- able protections. Such protections include prohibiting the federal government 

from acquiring land for the national heritage area or from imposing zoning or 

land use controls in national heritage areas. Private property owners also 

should be provided with specific protection from the management entity regulating land use zoning, hunting or fishing or using federal funds to acquire 

land. Zoning decisions should remain in control of local communities. The support of private property owners should be considered in the context of determining if sufficient local support exists for designation. 5. Partnerships and the Leveraging of Preservation Resources. Also integral to the success of national heritage areas is the development of a working partnership among the National Park Service, state entities and the local communities. The National Park Service should provide the communities with technical and financial assistance, but not acquire any land or impose any zoning 

requirements. The local communities should participate by developing and implementing the management plan that will serve as a guide for interpreting 

the national heritage area. 6. Achieving Self-Sufficiency/Limiting Limited Federal Resources. To date, self- sufficiency has yet to be achieved with any national heritage area, and the first 

four national heritage areas established have sought and received Congressional extensions of their funding. With federal dollars leveraging an average 

of 8.7 times that amount in non-NPS partnership funds, national heritage 

areas can be a cost-efficient way to preserve important resources. However, because of our commitment to support the President’s effort to address the deferred maintenance backlog, we must significantly limit the long-term commitment of federal funds to national heritage areas by requiring they become selfsufficient. To achieve this goal, we must study, prior to designation, whether 

an area has the resources and public support to achieve self-sufficiency over 

the long-term. Today, some of the national heritage areas have a cap of federal 

funding at $50,000, while others receive up to $1 million per year. Reasonable 

limitations on financial assistance from the Department should be developed 

and extensions to this funding should be avoided. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on translating these ideals into a generic national heritage area bill. Title I of H.R. 280 would establish the National Aviation Heritage Area. Few technological advances have transformed the American economy, society, culture 

and national character as the development of powered flight. The core area is defined by Montgomery, Greene, Warren, Miami, Clark and Champaign Counties in 

Ohio, as well as the Neil Armstrong Air & Space Museum in Wapakoneta, Ohio, 

and the Wilbur Wright Birthplace and Museum in Millville, Indiana. It would include the homes of pioneering aviators from the Wright brothers to the first man 

who walked on the moon; buildings associated with the aerospace industry from the 

first commercial factory to space-related manufacturing facilities; Wright-Patterson 

Air Force Base, which spans the history of military aviation; and sites associated 

with important events in the history of flight. The area demonstrates a strong tradition and offers inspiration through the stories of national heroes like Eddie Rickenbacker, John Glenn, Neil Armstrong and others. 

The bill designates the Aviation Heritage Foundation, Inc., a non-profit corporation chartered in the State of Ohio, as the management entity for the heritage area 

and outlines the duties of the management entity. It also authorizes the development of a management plan and authorizes the use of Federal funds to develop and 

implement that plan. If the plan is not submitted within three years of enactment 

of this title, the heritage area becomes ineligible for Federal funding until a plan 

is submitted to the Secretary. Additionally, the Secretary may, at the request of the 

management entity, provide technical assistance and enter into cooperative agreements with other public and private entities to carry out this purpose. The use of 

Federal funds may not be used to acquire real property or interests in real property. 

This legislation would allow all Federal partners, including the NPS, the United 

States Air Force (USAF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), and state and local groups to participate in the management of the major 

facilities and resources within the heritage area. 

There is a long history of coordination among the aviation-related historical sites 

in the potential national heritage area. Aviation Trail, Inc. was formed in 1981 to 

promote the aviation heritage sites within a multi-county area in southwest Ohio. 

Coordination and collaboration between those sites was further enhanced with the 

establishment of the Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission by Congress in 1992, 

which had some authority similar to the management entity of the proposed national heritage area. The success shown in the coordination of the sites is a positive 

24

indication that the national heritage area would be successful in accomplishing its 

objectives. This legislation is consistent with the recommendations of the Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission, which was charged under Section 202(b)(4) of Public Law 

102-419 ‘‘to propose a management strategy for a permanent organizational structure to enhance and coordinate such resources, and aviation-related properties, and 

institutions.’’ This year, the 100th anniversary of the invention of the first powered 

flight, there has been considerable public interest in the Wright brothers and the 

history of aviation. Successful events in Ohio and around the country have demonstrated the strong national support of the kinds of historical resources affected 

by this legislation. Recently, the Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission completed the Concept Study for the Development of a National Aviation Heritage Area (2002). This study, which 

included public hearings in Cleveland, Columbus and Dayton, Ohio, identified more 

than 300 sites, resources and stories from Ohio that have had a significant impact 

on the development of aviation in the United States. 

The establishment of the National Aviation Heritage Area would help the citizens of Ohio to understand better their rich and complex heritage, as well as share it 

with the many visitors to southwestern Ohio. It would also help to ensure the American public is informed, educated and supportive of this important component of our 

heritage, which also remains a significant sector of our nation’s economy. There are several steps the Department believes should be taken prior to Congress designating a national heritage area to help ensure that the heritage area is 

successful. They are: 1. Public involvement in the suitability/feasibility study; 

2. Completion of a suitability/feasibility study; 

3. Demonstration of widespread public support among heritage area residents for the proposed designation; and 4. Commitment to the proposal from the appropriate players which may include governments, industry, and private, non-profit organizations, in addition to the 

local citizenry. We believe the studies that have been completed meet the intent of these criteria. 

They are based on many years of work conducted by various governmental and community organizations. These studies and plans define a broad base of significant and 

related aviation resources within southwestern Ohio, as well as the importance of 

the Federal, state, local and private sectors partnering for the protection and preservation of these resources. However, at this time, we would like to focus our efforts 

on developing generic national heritage area legislation as mentioned earlier in this 

testimony. Title II of H.R. 280 would authorize the NPS to update the special resource study that was done several years ago and provide alternatives for including the Wright 

Company Factory property in the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical 

Park. The cost would be approximately $200,000 or less since these buildings were 

previously studied but not recommended when the special resource study was done 

in 1992. A recent change in the ownership of the Wright Company Factory property 

from General Motors to Delphi Corporation has provided an opportunity to reexamine the original buildings used by the Wright brothers to manufacture airplanes. 

The Delphi Corporation has not made commitments for the future of the plant, 

which includes the Wright Company buildings, but has indicated a willingness to 

participate in an exploration of alternatives regarding the preservation and interpretation of these buildings. 

This site is integrally connected with the other sites in the Dayton area. At the 

time these buildings were used to manufacture airplanes, the Wrights lived only a 

few miles away at a site near the current Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park. The planes built in the factory were tested at the Huffman Prairie Flying 

Field, now within the park unit. Congress recognized the importance of these buildings in 1992 when it passed the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act, and authorized a study to determine the feasibility and suitability of including them in the 

Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park. That study concluded that the 

buildings are ‘‘outstanding examples of a particular type of resource, and, potentially, they offer exceptional value in illustrating and interpreting important cultural themes of our nation’s heritage.’’ However, we did not recommend inclusion 

in the park at that time because they were inaccessible to the public. 

The Department supports Title II and recommends that the Subcommittee amend 

H.R. 280 to move only this part of the bill forward at this time. However, should 

the Committee move the bill as introduced forward, the Department recommends 

one amendment to H.R. 280, which is attached to this testimony. This amendment 

would authorize operational assistance to the public and private organizations withVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 May 04, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\89893.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
25

in the Heritage Area. This amendment is similar to language found in other Heritage Area laws and will facilitate the public/private partnerships that exist between 

the Dayton Aviation Heritage NHP and the designated Heritage Area. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Recommended amendment to H.R. 280: 

On page 15, line 22 redesignate subsection (b) as subsection (c) and insert the following new subsection: 

‘‘(b) OTHER ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide to the public 

and private organizations within the Heritage Area, including the management entity for the Heritage Area, operational assistance as appropriate to 

support the implementation of the Management Plan, subject to the availability of appropriations.’’

Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director for Cultural 

Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on 

H.R. 704

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department’s views 

on H.R. 704, a bill to direct the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to conduct 

a joint special resources study to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Rim of the Valley Corridor, in the Los Angeles region, as a unit of Santa 

Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Similar legislation, S. 347, passed the 

Senate on April 7, 2003. 

The Department supports H.R. 704 with the minor modifications explained in 

this testimony. We believe that this study would provide an opportunity to explore 

partnerships with a wide range of state, local, private and other federal entities for 

the purpose of protecting and interpreting important natural and cultural resources 

in the area the study would encompass. 

The National Park Service is in various stages of progress on 40 studies previously authorized by Congress, 31 of which are being funded through the special 

resource study budget. We completed five studies in FY 2003, and we expect to complete about 18 studies in FY 2004. Our highest priority is to complete these pending 

studies, though we expect to start newly authorized studies as soon as funds are 

made available. 

H.R. 704 directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to conduct a joint 

special resource study of the Rim of the Valley Corridor in Southern California. 

H.R. 704 further requires that the study evaluate the suitability and feasibility of 

establishing the area as a unit of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation 

Area. The Secretaries are directed to use the criteria for study of areas for inclusion 

in the National Park System and to consult with appropriate State, county and local 

governments. The study is estimated to cost approximately $500,000. 

The National Park Service generally conducts special resource studies to evaluate 

the suitability and feasibility of an area to become a new unit of the National Park 

System. We understand that the intent of this bill is not to establish a new park, 

but rather to study the Rim of the Valley Corridor as a potential addition for Santa 

Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. As such, we suggest that the term ‘‘resource study’’ be used in the bill rather than ‘‘special resource study.’’ We also recommend including language that makes it clear that the study is meant to evaluate 

a range of alternatives for protecting resources, as does S. 347 as passed by the 

Senate. 

The study would assess habitat quality, access to urban open space, low-impact 

recreation and educational uses, wildlife and habitat restoration and protection and 

watershed improvements along the Rim of the Valley Corridor surrounding the San 

Fernando and La Crescenta Valleys. This corridor consists of portions of the Santa 

Monica Mountains, Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo 

Mountains, San Rafael Hills and the connector to Los Padres, Angeles, and San 

Bernardino National Forests, which provide notable recreation opportunities close to 

the Los Angeles basin. We commend the U.S. Forest Service for the excellent job 

they have done in managing their lands over the years, and look to their lead for 

the lands under their administration. 

In addition to natural and recreational opportunities, the area also includes properties found on the National Register of Historic Places. Old stagecoach stops and 

images of the Wild West still exist. Amtrak’s Coast Starlight line travels past many 

of these rich cultural and natural motifs. The area supports a diverse system of 

26

plants and animals, including 26 distinct plant communities and more than 400 

vertebrate species. 

As the largest urban park area in the National Park System, the Santa Monica 

Mountains National Recreation Area includes 153,750 acres within its boundaries 

and provides recreational opportunities for approximately 530,000 visitors annually. 

During the 25 years since the national recreation area was authorized by Congress, 

this unit has become a model of collaboration of many local, state and federal public 

land managers, as well as many private property owners—all working together as 

stewards of the scenic, natural, cultural and recreational resources. 

Recognizing the limitation of federal resources for acquiring and managing additional lands, the study would have to examine a number of alternatives for protecting significant areas of open space in the Rim of the Valley Corridor, including 

those that involve minimal cost to the federal government. With the study area encompassing 491,518 acres, the study would emphasize public-private partnerships. 

Given the large size and the diversity of stakeholders in the area, the study undertaken by the National Park Service would involve extensive outreach with members 

of the public, private landowners, and local governments. It would likely entail extended comment periods, and extensive analysis. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director for Cultural 

Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on 

H.R. 1399

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the 

Interior’s views on H.R. 1399, a bill to revise the boundary of the Black Canyon of 

the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area in 

the State of Colorado, and for other purposes. 

The Department of the Interior supports H.R. 1399 with minor amendments to 

the legislation. The bill authorizes additions to both Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

National Park (‘‘Park’’), through three separate easement or exchange transactions, 

and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area (‘‘NCA’’). The revision of the national park boundary would not contribute to the National Park Service (‘‘NPS’’) 

maintenance backlog because the management and operation of the land added to 

the boundary would not result in any additional facilities, increased operating costs, 

or additional staffing. Costs involved with the land transactions are expected to be 

minimal. 

One transaction would involve the purchase of a conservation easement on 26.5 

acres, estimated to cost $100,000; however, the owner has pledged to donate the 

conservation easement, conditioned upon the Federal government being able to receive the donation by December 31, 2003. A second transaction would include an 

equal value exchange. The third involves the transfer of 480 acres of isolated Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land to the NPS and then the exchange of this 

parcel for a conservation easement on approximately 2,000 acres. The landowner 

has stated he is willing to donate any difference in value. 

H.R. 1399 amends the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-76). The boundary of the park would be revised to include the addition of not more than 2,530 

acres and the National Conservation Area (NCA) would be expanded by approximately 7,100 acres. These additions are reflected on a new map, dated April 2, 

2003, which supplements the boundary map referenced in P.L. 106-76. 

The bill authorizes the transfer of 480 acres of BLM land to the jurisdiction of 

NPS. The Secretary is authorized to acquire lands or interests in lands in accordance with P.L. 106-76 (by donation, transfer, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange) and lands cannot be acquired without the consent of the 

owner. 

H.R. 1399 also amends P.L. 106-76 to clarify grazing privileges within the park. 

If land authorized for grazing within the park is exchanged for private land, then 

any grazing privileges would transfer to the private land that is acquired. Also, the 

bill clarifies the length of time that grazing may be conducted on park lands by 

partnerships. 

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 

The boundary of the park will be expanded in three transactions. The first, locally 

referred to as Sanburg II, is located just south of Red Rock Canyon, one of the most 

scenic hiking opportunities into the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. The landowner 

27

agrees with the NPS that maintaining the rural character adjacent to the Red Rock 

Canyon trailhead is an important part of the wilderness experience. The landowner 

has previously sold conservation easements in this area (authorized by P.L. 106-76 

and a minor boundary revision) to The Conservation Fund, who subsequently sold 

to NPS. Once acquisition of a conservation easement on this 26.5 acre parcel is conveyed, the rural character of the Red Rock Canyon gateway will be insured. 

The second, the proposed Bramlett transaction, will authorize the exchange of a 

200-acre parcel of the Bramlett Ranch located on Grizzly Ridge, which overlooks the 

North Rim Road and North and South Rim overlooks. Although the landowner has 

proposed building cabins on the ridge top, he is willing to exchange this 200-acre 

parcel for land of equal value within the park and adjacent to his ranch headquarters. The equal value exchange will give the landowner land with easier access, 

and will add the ridgeline parcel to the park, thus protecting the natural landscape 

in that portion of the park. 

The third boundary adjustment, the Allison exchange, is located along the East 

Portal Road, on the park’s south rim. The landowner will exchange a combination 

of fee simple ownership and a conservation easement on up to 2,000 acres in return 

for fee simple ownership of up to 480 acres of the BLM parcel that will be transferred to NPS. The landowner has indicated that he will protect this parcel with 

a conservation easement should he acquire it. He has also indicated that he will donate any value above and beyond the value represented in the exchange. 

The Department believes these acquisitions are important for several reasons. 

Combined with the land authorized by P.L. 106-76, the present and future land requirements for the park will be met. The present landowners are all willing sellers 

and, in addition to them, this effort enjoys the support of the Montrose County Commissioners, the Montrose Chamber of Commerce, and local and national land trusts 

involved in the project. 

H.R. 1399 will also amend P.L. 106-76 regarding grazing within the park. 

P.L. 106-76 allowed for the continuation of grazing on the former BLM lands transferred to the NPS. Permits held by individuals can be renewed through the lifetime 

of the individual permittees. However, P.L. 106-76 requires that partnerships and 

corporations be treated alike regarding the termination of grazing permits. Partnerships and corporations now lose their permits upon the termination of the last remaining individual permit. 

H.R. 1399 will amend P.L. 106-76 to treat partnerships similarly to individual 

permit holders, allowing permits to be renewed through the lifetime of the partners 

as of October 21, 1999. Since the two partnerships affected are essentially family 

run ranching operations, the Department feels that they should be treated consistently with individual permit holders. 

H.R. 1399 will also allow grazing on land acquired in an exchange if the land 

being given up in the exchange currently has authorized grazing. This appears to 

be consistent with the intent of Congress when it authorized grazing in Public Law 

106-76. 

Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area 

H.R. 1399 also provides for the expansion of the Gunnison Gorge NCA managed 

by the BLM. A 5,759-acre parcel of land on the north side of the existing NCA was 

acquired in January 2000 from a willing seller through a land exchange. This acquisition was not completed in time to include the lands within the original NCA 

boundary. This parcel includes approximately five miles of the Gunnison River and 

provides important resource values and recreational opportunities. In addition, 

1,349 acres of preexisting BLM-managed public lands adjacent to the acquisition 

would also be added to the NCA. The addition of these BLM lands will create a 

more manageable NCA boundary and provide appropriate protection and management emphasis for this area’s resources. 

The legislation also makes some minor boundary adjustments to the NCA. In the 

process of completing surveys of the lands designated as the NCA by P.L. 106-76, 

the BLM discovered a few inadvertent trespass situations on the NCA land. In order 

to resolve these issues with the local landowners in a fair and equitable manner, 

slight boundary modifications need to be made so that exchanges can be effected. 

Without the benefit of this legislation, the BLM would be forced to take extreme 

punitive measures which are not in the best interest of the federal government or 

local landowners who previously were unaware of the encroachment issues. 

Water Delivery Facilities 

With the passage of Public Law 106-76 the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association expressed concern that access to water and related facilities might be limited. H.R. 1399 clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation will retain jurisdiction 

28

over, and access to, all land, facilities and roads in the East Portal and Crystal Dam 

areas for the maintenance, repair, construction, replacement and operation of any 

facilities relating to the delivery of water and power. 

We believe that the bill, as introduced, has a couple of confusing and unneeded 

sections. The Senate held a hearing on an identical bill, S. 677, on June 10, 2003, 

and we recommended amendments during our testimony at that hearing to clarify 

the language of the Senate bill. Our amendments were approved by the Committee 

and passed by the Senate on July 17, 2003. Since S. 677 is also pending before the 

Committee, we recommend that this bill be considered and approved by the 

Committee in lieu of H.R. 1399 to facilitate enactment of this legislation as soon 

as possible. 

That concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions that you 

or the members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director for Cultural 

Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on 

H.R. 1594

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1594, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to 

conduct a study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing the St. Croix National Heritage Area in St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands. 

The Department supports the national heritage area program but recommends 

that the Subcommittee defer action on any individual national heritage area designation or study bill until generic national heritage area legislation is enacted. 

Ideally, national heritage areas provide a cost-effective way to preserve nationally 

important natural, cultural, historic and recreation resources through the creation 

of a working partnership between federal, state and local entities. In addition, national heritage areas should be locally driven, locally supported, should not involve 

federal land acquisition or zoning, and should protect private property rights. At its 

best, this program embodies Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton’s ‘‘Four C’s’’—

Communication, Consultation and Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation. 

Some national heritage areas, however, have not met this ideal. For example, 

some national heritage areas have been designated without a clear indication of the 

ability of the management entity to assume responsibility for management of the 

area. The management entity subsequently has operated the area without a clear 

financial plan for achieving self-sufficiency without federal support. Consequently, 

it is time to step back, evaluate existing areas, and develop legislative guidelines 

that will shape future national heritage area designations. 

The Department believes that a generic national heritage area bill should serve 

as a gatekeeper—making clear what qualities the area must possess and parameters under which designation will occur. We have almost twenty years of experience in administering national heritage areas and twenty-three existing national 

heritage areas to evaluate. In the absence of formal legislation to guide the national 

heritage area program, National Park Service (NPS) also has developed specific critical steps that should occur prior to designation and interim criteria that should be 

used for national heritage area suitability and feasibility studies. These steps and 

criteria have been field-tested, have proven to screen out many unqualified areas 

prior to recommending designation, and should serve as a possible starting point for 

any discussions on generic national heritage area legislation. 

Based on our experience with the program, the Department would like to offer 

several considerations that we believe are key components of a successful national 

heritage area program. 

1. Studying the Area Prior to Designation. In addition to the broad parameters 

that can be achieved by legislation, it is critical to have a process that evaluates the specific qualities of the area. Requiring that a suitability and feasibility study or some equivalent be conducted with a positive finding prior to 

recommending a designation should be an essential component of any generic 

heritage legislation that moves forward. Many of the issues discussed below 

could be evaluated during a national heritage area study. 

2. Nationally Important Resources. In reality, most places in America have a special meaning to a particular group or are the site of some historic event. To 

be designated as a national heritage area, the area must contain nationally important natural, cultural, historic or recreational resources. Not all resources 

should be considered nationally important and, in some cases, designation as 

a state or local heritage area may be more appropriate. 

29

3. Local Support and Initiative. Local communities must not only support the des- ignation in concept, but must be willing and interested in taking an active role 

in preservation efforts. They are responsible for developing and implementing 

the management plan for the area and should work towards a goal of achieving 

self-sufficiency. Given the important role local communities play in the success 

of national heritage areas, we also have concerns about the concept of establishing national heritage areas in places that contain large tracts of federal 

lands. We believe inclusion of large tracts of federal lands has the potential to 

create confusion and unneeded conflict between management regimes. Therefore, before studying any potential area that includes large tracts of federal 

lands, we recommend that consultation and concurrence of the land management agency should occur first. 4. Private Property Rights. Private property owners should be provided reason- able protections. Such protections include prohibiting the federal government 

from acquiring land for the national heritage area or from imposing zoning or 

land use controls in national heritage areas. Private property owners also 

should be provided with specific protection from the management entity regulating land use zoning, hunting or fishing or using federal funds to acquire 

land. Zoning decisions should remain in control of local communities. The support of private property owners should be considered in the context of determining if sufficient local support exists for designation. 5. Partnerships and the Leveraging of Preservation Resources. Also integral to the success of national heritage areas is the development of a working partnership among the National Park Service, state entities and the local communities. The National Park Service should provide the communities with technical and financial assistance, but not acquire any land or impose any zoning 

requirements. The local communities should participate by developing and implementing the management plan that will serve as a guide for interpreting 

the national heritage area. 6. Achieving Self-Sufficiency/Limiting Limited Federal Resources. To date, self- sufficiency has yet to be achieved with any national heritage area, and the first 

four national heritage areas established have sought and received Congressional extensions of their funding. With federal dollars leveraging an average 

of 8.7 times that amount in non-NPS partnership funds, national heritage 

areas can be a cost-efficient way to preserve important resources. However, because of our commitment to support the President’s effort to address the deferred maintenance backlog, we must significantly limit the long-term commitment of federal funds to national heritage areas by requiring they become selfsufficient. To achieve this goal, we must study, prior to designation, whether 

an area has the resources and public support to achieve self-sufficiency over 

the long-term. Today, some of the national heritage areas have a cap of federal 

funding at $50,000 while others receive up to $1 million per year. Reasonable 

limitations on financial assistance from the Department should be developed 

and extensions to this funding should be avoided. 

We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on translating these ideals 

into a generic national heritage area bill. 

H.R. 1594 would authorize a study of the feasibility and suitability of designating 

as a national heritage area the island of St. Croix, which is located 40 miles south 

of St. Thomas and is the largest of the three islands that make up the territory of 

the United States Virgin Islands. This bill contains the criteria for making this determination that includes directing the Secretary to consult with State historic preservation officers, State historical societies, local communities, and other appropriate 

organizations. This criteria and the standard three-year time frame for conducting 

the study included in the bill are provisions included in other national heritage area 

studies that Congress has authorized in recent years. 

The natural and cultural resources of St. Croix have been recognized through the 

establishment of three units of the National Park System there: Christiansted National Historic Site, Buck Island Reef National Monument, and Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve. 

The area that would be studied would encompass the historic towns of Christiansted, built in 1734, and Frederiksted, built in 1752. Alexander Hamilton, the first 

Secretary of the Treasury, spent his young adult years in Christiansted and educated himself while working as a clerk in his mother’s small store. Christiansted 

is known primarily for its 18th and 19th Century Danish architectural design buildings; it has some of the finest examples of Danish architectural design in the West 

Indies. The town was laid out by Danish surveyors using a grid system and was 

the first in the West Indies that instituted both a building code and zoning. Street 

widths were regulated, easements were established, areas were zoned commercial 

30

or residential, and building materials were specified. This urban planning scheme 

is still visible today. Both Christiansted’s and Frederiksted’s historic architecture matured over a 100-

year span. Neoclassical government buildings and residences blend with Gothic Revival churches, combination shop-residences, and wooden shingle cottages. The three 

residential styles demonstrate Christiansted’s and Frederiksted’s colonial social 

structure in the late 1700 and mid-1800’s. 

Archeological evidence shows migratory South American hunters-gatherers on the 

island as far back as 2500 B.C. By 1425, Carib Indians reached St. Croix in their 

westernmost territorial expansion. On November 14, 1493, during his second voyage 

to the new world, Columbus arrived at an area that today is part of Salt River Bay 

National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve to look for fresh water. This is the 

only site where Columbus’ crew went ashore in the New World that is under the 

American Flag. St. Croix is also the site of the first recorded hostile encounter between Europeans and Native Americans. 

During European rule of St. Croix, there were 218 sugar plantations, typically between 250 to 300 acres, with about 100 windmills and 100 animal mills. Many of 

these plantations are still in evidence today with their great houses, slave houses, 

windmills and animal mills still in good condition. 

Also associated with St. Croix is Buck Island Reef National Monument, which was 

established by Presidential proclamation in 1961 to preserve one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea. The monument was expanded in 2001 by a subsequent proclamation to help ensure the viability of the marine resources there. Located one-and-a-half miles off of St. Croix, the 176-acre island and surrounding coral 

reef ecosystem support a large variety of native flora and fauna, and provide a 

haven to several endangered and threatened species. 

While these resources could be further examined during a national heritage study, 

the Department believes, as mentioned above, that action on legislation authorizing 

such a study should be deferred until generic heritage area legislation is enacted. 

Should the Committee decide to move the bill, however, we would recommend one 

amendment. Section 1(c) requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit a report 

to Congress ‘‘on the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study.’’ We 

have been informed by the Department of Justice that to the extent that this provision purports to require the Secretary of the Interior to make legislative recommendations to Congress, it appears to violate the Recommendations Clause of the 

Constitution, which reserves to the President the power to decide whether it is necessary or expedient for the Executive Branch to make legislative policy recommendations to the Congress. We would therefore suggest amending Section 1(c) 

to instead read: ‘‘...on the findings and conclusions of the study, as well as any recommendations the Secretary deems appropriate.’’

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director for Cultural 

Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on 

H.R. 1618

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 1618, to establish the Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area in the State of Georgia. 

The Department supports the national heritage area program, but recommends 

that the Subcommittee defer action on any individual national heritage area designation or study bill until generic national heritage area legislation is enacted. 

Ideally, national heritage areas provide a cost-effective way to preserve nationally 

important natural, cultural, historic, and recreation resources through the creation 

of a working partnership between federal, state, and local entities. In addition, national heritage areas should be locally driven, locally supported, should not involve 

federal land acquisition or zoning, and protect private property rights. At its best, 

this program embodies Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton’s ‘‘Four C’s’’—Communication, Consultation and Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation. 

Some national heritage areas, however, have not met this ideal. For example, 

some national heritage areas have been designated without a clear indication of the 

ability of the management entity to assume responsibility for management of the 

area. The management entity subsequently has operated the area without a clear 

financial plan for achieving self-sufficiency without federal support. Consequently, 

it is time to step back, evaluate existing areas, and develop legislative guidelines 

that will shape future national heritage area designations. 

31

The Department believes that a generic national heritage area bill should serve as a gatekeeper—making clear what qualities the area must possess and parameters under which designation will occur. We have almost twenty years of experience in administering national heritage areas and twenty-three existing national 

heritage areas to evaluate. In the absence of formal legislation to guide the national 

heritage area program, National Park Service (NPS) also has developed specific critical steps, identified later in this testimony, that should occur prior to designation 

and interim criteria that should be used for national heritage area suitability and 

feasibility studies. These steps and criteria have been field-tested, have proven to 

screen out many unqualified areas prior to recommending designation, and should 

serve as a possible starting point for any discussions on generic national heritage 

area legislation. Based on our experience with the program, the Department would like to offer several considerations that we believe are key components of a successful national 

heritage area program. 1. Studying the Area Prior to Designation. In addition to the broad parameters that can be achieved by legislation, it is critical to have a process that evaluates the specific qualities of the area. Requiring that a suitability and feasibility study or some equivalent be conducted with a positive finding prior to 

recommending a designation should be an essential component of any generic 

heritage legislation that moves forward. Many of the issues discussed below 

could be evaluated during a national heritage area study. 2. Nationally Important Resources. In reality, most places in America have a spe- cial meaning to a particular group or are the site of some historic event. To 

be designated as a national heritage area, the area must contain nationally important natural, cultural, historic, or recreational resources. Not all resources 

should be considered nationally important and, in some cases, designation as 

a state or local heritage area may be more appropriate. 3. Local Support and Initiative. Local communities must not only support the des- ignation in concept, but must be willing and interested in taking an active role 

in preservation efforts. They are responsible for developing and implementing 

the management plan for the area and should work towards a goal of achieving 

self-sufficiency. Given the important role local communities play in the success 

of national heritage areas, we also have concerns about the concept of establishing national heritage areas in places that contain large tracts of federal 

lands. We believe inclusion of large tracts of federal lands has the potential to 

create confusion and unneeded conflict between management regimes. Therefore, before studying any potential area that includes large tracts of federal 

lands, we recommend that consultation and concurrence of the land management agency should occur first. 4. Private Property Rights. Private property owners should be provided reasonable protections. Such protections include prohibiting the federal government 

from acquiring land for the national heritage area or from imposing zoning or 

land use controls in national heritage areas. Private property owners also 

should be provided with specific protection from the management entity regulating land use zoning, hunting or fishing, or using federal funds to acquire 

land. Zoning decisions should remain in control of local communities. The support of private property owners should be considered in the context of determining if sufficient local support exists for designation. 

5. Partnerships and the Leveraging of Preservation Resources. Also integral to 

the success of national heritage areas is the development of a working partnership among the National Park Service, state entities, and the local communities. The National Park Service should provide the communities with technical and financial assistance, but not acquire any land or impose any zoning 

requirements. The local communities should participate by developing and implementing the management plan that will serve as a guide for interpreting 

the national heritage area. 

6. Achieving Self-Sufficiency/Limiting Limited Federal Resources. To date, selfsufficiency has yet to be achieved with any national heritage area, and the first 

four national heritage areas established have sought and received Congressional extensions of their funding. With federal dollars leveraging an average 

of 8.7 times that amount in non-NPS partnership funds, national heritage 

areas can be a cost-efficient way to preserve important resources. However, because of our commitment to support the President’s effort to address the deferred maintenance backlog, we must significantly limit the long-term commitment of federal funds to national heritage areas by requiring they become selfsufficient. To achieve this goal, we must study, prior to designation, whether 

an area has the resources and public support to achieve self-sufficiency over 

32

the long-term. Today, some of the national heritage areas have a cap of federal 

funding at $50,000 while others receive up to $1 million per year. Reasonable 

limitations on financial assistance from the Department should be developed 

and extensions to this funding should be avoided. 

We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on translating these ideals 

into a generic national heritage area bill. 

H.R. 1618 would establish the Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area within 

the boundary defined by the map developed for the feasibility study for the heritage 

area. The legislation would name the Arabia Mountain Heritage Area Alliance as 

the management entity for the heritage area and provide for the Secretary of the 

Interior and the Alliance to carry out the legislation through a cooperative agreement. Provisions of the bill regarding the authority and duties of the management 

entity, the development of a management plan, and Federal technical and financial 

assistance that would be available to the heritage area are similar to provisions that 

have been included in legislation designating other heritage areas in recent years. 

The proposed Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area would include parts of 

DeKalb, Rockdale, and Henry Counties that lie within the eastern side of the Atlanta metropolitan area. The heritage area would encompass the Davidson-Arabia 

Mountain Nature Preserve, the City of Lithonia, the Panola Mountain State Conservation Park, portions of the South River, and several active granite quarries. 

The Arabia Mountain area, which is known primarily for its granite quarries, is 

rich in natural, cultural, and historic resources. Arabia Mountain and other nearby 

prominent granite formations have been linked to human settlement and activity for 

thousands of years, starting over 7,000 years ago with the quarrying and trading 

of soapstone. The area contains specific types of granite outcropping that are very 

rare and do not occur anywhere outside the Piedmont Region. Granite from this 

area has been quarried and used around the nation, including in buildings at the 

military academies at West Point and Annapolis. 

The area retains an open and small-scale character, in contrast to the more intensively developed areas closer in to the City of Atlanta. The rapid growth of the metropolitan area in recent years has prompted a recognition among those involved in 

this proposal that there may be only a narrow window of opportunity to retain open 

lands and protect important resources before land costs and economics of development make such efforts much more difficult. The local governmental entities in the 

proposed national heritage area and the State of Georgia support national heritage 

area designation for this area. 

In the view of the National Park Service, there are four critical steps that need 

to be completed before Congress establishes a national heritage area. Those steps 

are: 

1. completion of a suitability/feasibility study; 

2. public involvement in the suitability/feasibility study; 

3. demonstration of widespread public support among heritage area residents for 

the proposed designation; and 

4. commitment to the proposal from the appropriate players, which may include 

governments, industry, and private, non-profit organizations, in addition to the 

local citizenry. 

The National Park Service believes that those criteria have been fulfilled through 

the work that was done by the Arabia Mountain Heritage Area Alliance and other 

entities, including the National Park Service, in conducting the feasibility study 

that was issued in February 2001. However, at this time we would like to focus our 

efforts on developing generic national heritage area legislation as mentioned earlier 

in this testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director, Cultural 

Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on 

H.R. 1798

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

to appear before you today to present the Department’s views on H.R. 1798, a bill 

to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area in the State of 

Connecticut and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

The Department supports the national heritage area program but recommends 

that the Subcommittee defer action on any individual national heritage area designation or study bill until generic national heritage area legislation is enacted. 

33

Ideally, national heritage areas provide a cost-effective way to preserve nationally important natural, cultural, historic, and recreation resources through the creation 

of a working partnership between federal, state, and local entities. In addition, national heritage areas should be locally driven, locally supported, should not involve 

federal land acquisition or zoning, and should protect private property rights. At its 

best, this program embodies Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton’s ‘‘Four C’s’’—

Communication, Consultation, and Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation. 

Some national heritage areas, however, have not met this ideal. For example, some national heritage areas have been designated without a clear indication of the 

ability of the management entity to assume responsibility for management of the 

area. The management entity subsequently has operated the area without a clear 

financial plan for achieving self-sufficiency without federal support. Consequently, 

it is time to step back, evaluate existing areas, and develop legislative guidelines 

that will shape future national heritage area designations. The Department believes that a generic national heritage area bill should serve as a gatekeeper—making clear what qualities the area must possess and parameters under which designation will occur. We have almost twenty years of experience in administering national heritage areas and twenty-three existing national 

heritage areas to evaluate. In the absence of formal legislation to guide the national 

heritage area program, National Park Service (NPS) also has developed specific critical steps, identified later in this testimony, that should occur prior to designation 

and interim criteria that should be used for national heritage area suitability and 

feasibility studies. These steps and criteria have been field-tested, have proven to 

screen out many unqualified areas prior to recommending designation, and should 

serve as a possible starting point for any discussions on generic national heritage 

area legislation. Based on our experience with the program, the Department would like to offer several considerations that we believe are key components of a successful national 

heritage area program. 1. Studying the Area Prior to Designation. In addition to the broad parameters that can be achieved by legislation, it is critical to have a process that evaluates the specific qualities of the area. Requiring that a suitability and feasibility study or some equivalent be conducted with a positive finding prior to 

recommending a designation should be an essential component of any generic 

heritage legislation that moves forward. Many of the issues discussed below 

could be evaluated during a national heritage area study. 2. Nationally Important Resources. In reality, most places in America have a spe- cial meaning to a particular group or are the site of some historic event. To 

be designated as a national heritage area, the area must contain nationally important natural, cultural, historic, or recreational resources. Not all resources 

should be considered nationally important and, in some cases, designation as 

a state or local heritage area may be more appropriate. 

3. Local Support and Initiative. Local communities must not only support the designation in concept, but must be willing, and interested, in taking an active 

role in preservation efforts. They are responsible for developing and implementing the management plan for the area and should work towards a goal 

of achieving self-sufficiency. Given the important role local communities play 

in the success of national heritage areas, we also have concerns about the concept of establishing national heritage areas in places that contain large tracts 

of federal lands. We believe inclusion of large tracts of federal lands has the 

potential to create confusion and unneeded conflict between management regimes. Therefore, before studying any potential area that includes large tracts 

of federal lands, we recommend that consultation and concurrence of the land 

management agency should occur first. 

4. Private Property Rights. Private property owners should be provided reasonable protections. Such protections include prohibiting the federal government 

from acquiring land for the national heritage area or from imposing zoning or 

land use controls in national heritage areas. Private property owners also 

should be provided with specific protection from the management entity regulating land use zoning, hunting or fishing or using federal funds to acquire 

land. Zoning decisions should remain in control of local communities. The support of private property owners should be considered in the context of determining if sufficient local support exists for designation. 

5. Partnerships and the Leveraging of Preservation Resources. Also integral to 

the success of national heritage areas is the development of a working partnership among the National Park Service, state entities and the local communities. The National Park Service should provide the communities with technical and financial assistance, but not acquire any land or impose any zoning 

34

requirements. The local communities should participate by developing and implementing the management plan that will serve as a guide for interpreting 

the national heritage area. 6. Achieving Self-Sufficiency/Limiting Limited Federal Resources. To date, self- sufficiency has yet to be achieved with any national heritage area, and the first 

four national heritage areas established have sought and received Congressional extensions of their funding. With federal dollars leveraging an average 

of 8.7 times that amount in non-NPS partnership funds, national heritage 

areas can be a cost-efficient way to preserve important resources. However, because of our commitment to support the President’s effort to address the deferred maintenance backlog, we must significantly limit the long-term commitment of federal funds to national heritage areas by requiring they become selfsufficient. To achieve this goal, we must study, prior to designation, whether 

an area has the resources and public support to achieve self-sufficiency over 

the long-term. Today, some of the national heritage areas have a cap of federal 

funding at $50,000 while others receive up to $1 million per year. Reasonable 

limitations on financial assistance from the Department should be developed 

and extensions to this funding should be avoided. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on translating these ideals into a generic national heritage area bill. H.R. 1798 would establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area, encompassing 29 communities in western Massachusetts and northwestern Connecticut, extending 60 miles through the watershed of the upper Housatonic River, 

from Kent, Connecticut, to Lanesboro, Massachusetts. The bill would also identify 

the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area Inc. as the management entity 

for the national heritage area. The Upper Housatonic Valley, sometimes referred to as ‘‘the fourteenth colony,’’ is a singular geographical and cultural region that is characterized by significant 

national contributions in literature, art, music, and architectural achievements; its 

iron, paper, and electrical equipment industries; and scenic beautification and environmental conservation efforts. The region contains five National Historic Landmarks including the homes of W.E.B. Dubois, Edith Wharton and Herman Melville. 

Over 120 sites and 18 historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places 

dot the landscape. It was home to Nathaniel Hawthorne, painters Norman Rockwell 

and Jasper Johns, and sculptor Daniel Chester French, who sculpted the ‘‘Seated 

Lincoln’’ at the Lincoln Memorial. Among the Upper Housatonic Valley’s early iron 

masters was Ethan Allen, the hero of Fort Ticonderoga and an early mercantile activist. Important events related to the Revolutionary War, Shays’ Rebellion, and 

early civil rights activism also took place in the area. The region’s performing arts 

centers—the Boston Symphony Orchestra’s summer home at Tanglewood, Music 

Mountain, Norfolk Chamber Music Festival, Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival, Berkshire Theatre Festival, and Shakespeare & Company—are internationally known. 

The Upper Housatonic Valley contains a myriad of natural resources and has 

been the beneficiary of a long history of innovative environmental conservation initiatives that have been influential across the country. These include pioneering 

state parks and private nature preserves and the first village improvement society 

in America, the Laurel Hill Association, of Stockbridge, Massachusetts. Four National Natural Landmarks, including unique bogs and an old growth forest, have 

been designated here. The Appalachian National Scenic Trail follows the length of 

the Upper Housatonic Valley. 

The region was the site of pioneering endeavors in the iron, paper, and electrical 

generation industries. The iron industry, which was responsible for manufacturing 

75% of the cannons used by the Continental Army during the American Revolution, 

was active from 1735 until 1923. The first mill in America to make paper from wood 

pulp was located in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. 

Tied together by the Housatonic River, the region offers extensive opportunities 

for resource preservation, education, and tourism. The heritage area designation 

would link together several existing historic sites, such as protected iron smelting 

sites, to strengthen the understanding of the regional historical significance of the 

valley. The area also reflects the rich traditions and folkways of the Mohican Indians, Shakers, Yankee farmers, African Americans, and European immigrant groups. 

The educational and preservation value of the valley to residents was a major point 

of public support for designation. 

There is extensive citizen involvement in heritage activities in the Upper 

Housatonic Valley involving a broad array of municipalities, private organizations, 

and individuals. The non-profit organization, Upper Housatonic Valley National 

Heritage Area Inc., has a broad-based membership and a strong track record in organizing heritage initiatives. Comments at public meetings, and those received as 

35

the draft feasibility study concluded, indicate strong public support for national heritage area designation. In the opinion of the Department there are four critical steps that need to be 

taken and documented prior to the Congress designating a heritage area. These 

steps are: 

1. demonstration of widespread public support among heritage area residents for the proposed designation; 

2. public involvement in the suitability/feasibility study; 

3. commitment to the proposal from appropriate representatives from government, business, and private non-profit organizations, as well as local citizens; 

and 

4. completion of a suitability/feasibility study. 

The Department’s Draft Feasibility Study for the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area found that the Upper Housatonic Valley meets the Department’s ten interim criteria for designation of a national heritage area. The Upper 

Housatonic Valley is distinctive for having a landscape that includes a blend of industrial innovations, environmental conservation initiatives, and cultural achievements of national significance. However, at this time, we would like to focus our efforts on developing generic national heritage area legislation as mentioned earlier 

in this testimony. 

This completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

or any members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Statement of deTeel Patterson Tiller, Acting Associate Director, Cultural 

Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, on 

H.R. 1862

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

to appear before you today to present the Department’s views on H.R. 1862, a bill 

to establish the Oil Region National Heritage Area in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

The Department supports the national heritage area program, but recommends 

that the Subcommittee defer action on any individual national heritage area designation or study bill until generic national heritage area legislation is enacted. 

Ideally, national heritage areas provide a cost-effective way to preserve nationally 

important natural, cultural, historic and recreation resources through the creation 

of a working partnership between federal, state and local entities. In addition, national heritage areas should be locally driven, locally supported, should not involve 

federal land acquisition or zoning, and should protect private property rights. At its 

best, this program embodies Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton’s ‘‘Four C’s’’—

Communication, Consultation and Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation. 

Some national heritage areas, however, have not met this ideal. For example, 

some national heritage areas have been designated without a clear indication of the 

ability of the management entity to assume responsibility for management of the 

area. The management entity subsequently has operated the area without a clear 

financial plan for achieving self-sufficiency without federal support. Consequently, 

it is time to step back, evaluate existing areas, and develop legislative guidelines 

that will shape future national heritage area designations. 

The Department believes that a generic national heritage area bill should serve 

as a gatekeeper—making clear what qualities the area must possess and parameters under which designation will occur. We have almost twenty years of experience in administering national heritage areas and twenty-three existing national 

heritage areas to evaluate. In the absence of formal legislation to guide the national 

heritage area program, National Park Service (NPS) also has developed specific critical steps, identified later in this testimony, that should occur prior to designation 

and interim criteria that should be used for national heritage area suitability and 

feasibility studies. These steps and criteria have been field-tested, have proven to 

screen out many unqualified areas prior to recommending designation, and should 

serve as a possible starting point for any discussions on generic national heritage 

area legislation. 

Based on our experience with the program, the Department would like to offer 

several considerations that we believe are key components of a successful national 

heritage area program. 

1. Studying the Area Prior to Designation. In addition to the broad parameters 

that can be achieved by legislation, it is critical to have a process that evaluates the specific qualities of the area. Requiring that a suitability and feasibility study or some equivalent be conducted with a positive finding prior to 

36

recommending a designation should be an essential component of any generic 

heritage legislation that moves forward. Many of the issues discussed below 

could be evaluated during a national heritage area study. 2. Nationally Important Resources. In reality, most places in America have a spe- cial meaning to a particular group or are the site of some historic event. To 

be designated as a national heritage area, the area must contain nationally important natural, cultural, historic or recreational resources. Not all resources 

should be considered nationally important and, in some cases, designation as 

a state or local heritage area may be more appropriate. 3. Local Support and Initiative. Local communities must not only support the des- ignation in concept, but must be willing and interested in taking an active role 

in preservation efforts. They are responsible for developing and implementing 

the management plan for the area and should work towards a goal of achieving 

self-sufficiency. Given the important role local communities play in the success 

of national heritage areas, we also have concerns about the concept of establishing national heritage areas in places that contain large tracts of federal 

lands. We believe inclusion of large tracts of federal lands has the potential to 

create confusion and unneeded conflict between management regimes. Therefore, before studying any potential area that includes large tracts of federal 

lands, we recommend that consultation and concurrence of the land management agency should occur first. 4. Private Property Rights. Private property owners should be provided reason- able protections. Such protections include prohibiting the federal government 

from acquiring land for the national heritage area or from imposing zoning or 

land use controls in national heritage areas. Private property owners also 

should be provided with specific protection from the management entity regulating land use zoning, hunting or fishing or using federal funds to acquire 

land. Zoning decisions should remain in control of local communities. The support of private property owners should be considered in the context of determining if sufficient local support exists for designation. 5. Partnerships and the Leveraging of Preservation Resources. Also integral to the success of national heritage areas is the development of a working partnership among the National Park Service, state entities and the local communities. The National Park Service should provide the communities with technical and financial assistance, but not acquire any land or impose any zoning 

requirements. The local communities should participate by developing and implementing the management plan that will serve as a guide for interpreting 

the national heritage area. 6. Achieving Self-Sufficiency/Limiting Limited Federal Resources. To date, self- sufficiency has yet to be achieved with any national heritage area, and the first 

four national heritage areas established have sought and received Congressional extensions of their funding. With federal dollars leveraging an average 

of 8.7 times that amount in non-NPS partnership funds, national heritage 

areas can be a cost-efficient way to preserve important resources. However, because of our commitment to support the President’s effort to address the deferred maintenance backlog, we must significantly limit the long-term commitment of federal funds to national heritage areas by requiring they become selfsufficient. To achieve this goal, we must study, prior to designation, whether 

an area has the resources and public support to achieve self-sufficiency over 

the long-term. Today, some of the national heritage areas have a cap of federal 

funding at $50,000, while others receive up to $1 million per year. Reasonable 

limitations on financial assistance from the Department should be developed 

and extensions to this funding should be avoided. 

We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on translating these ideals 

into a generic national heritage area bill. 

H.R.1862 would establish the Oil Region National Heritage Area comprising all 

of Venango County and a portion of Crawford County in western Pennsylvania. It 

would establish a cooperative management framework to assist the state in conserving, enhancing and interpreting the significant resources of the region. The bill 

would also designate Oil Heritage Region Inc. as the management entity for the national heritage area. 

The Oil Heritage Region is known, appropriately, as ‘‘The Valley That Changed 

the World’’ due to the first successful oil well drilled by Colonel Edwin Drake with 

the assistance of William Smith, a Pennsylvania salt well digger, in 1859. This 

event had an overriding impact on the industrial revolution and continues to affect 

the daily life of the nation and the world. 

The region contains the world renowned Drake Well Museum in Titusville, Oil 

Creek State Park and portions of the Allegheny Wild and Scenic River, the latter 

37

designated by Congress in 1992, and administered by the U.S. Forest Service. It 

also contains six National Historic Districts, 17 sites listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places and an extensive collection of Victorian-styled architecture in 

Franklin, Oil City, Emlenton and Titusville. Remnants of the oil boom era, including 

McClintock Well #1, the oldest operating well in the United States, can be found 

throughout the region. The stories of early oil magnates and those who worked in 

the oil fields provide exceptionally rich interpretive opportunities related to the region’s natural and cultural resources. This important heritage contributes not only 

to our own national story, but also to the advancement of industries and transportation systems throughout the world. 

Oil Heritage Region is currently designated a State Heritage Park by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and its management entity, the Oil Heritage Region, 

Inc., is experienced in natural and cultural resources preservation and heritage-related programming. The management entity enjoys the support of local governments 

and organizations in the proposed national heritage area. Its board of directors is 

already representative of many interests in the region. The bill provides that the 

Secretary will confirm its expanded representation in approving the required management plan for the heritage area. 

In the opinion of the Department there are four critical steps that need to be 

taken and documented prior to the Congress designating a heritage area. These 

stages are: 

1. demonstration of widespread public support among heritage area residents for 

the proposed designation; 

2. public involvement in the suitability/feasibility study; 

3. commitment to the proposal from the appropriate representatives from governments, industry, and private, non-profit organizations, in addition to the local 

citizenry; and 

4. completion of a suitability/feasibility study. 

The Department has reviewed the existing heritage and interpretive plans undertaken by Oil Region Heritage, Inc. beginning in 1994 and, at the request of Representative John Peterson, conducted a week-long reconnaissance visit to confirm 

the region’s eligibility for designation in early August 2000. During the visit, the 

team met with the Mayor of Oil City, the Community Development Officers of Oil 

City and Franklin, the City Managers of Oil City and Titusville, two County Commissioners, a Regional Representative of the Governor’s Office, a State Legislator, 

the District Director of Representative John Peterson, and other local leaders and 

officials. Senior officials, working representatives of government agencies, and nonprofit leaders were also involved in meetings and informal visits. 

A feasibility report, entitled ‘‘Field Report on the Oil Region Heritage Park, Pennsylvania, as a National Heritage Area,’’ was issued subsequent to the reconnaissance visit on September 15, 2000. It concludes that the Oil Heritage Region had 

completed the above steps and met the interim feasibility criteria for designation 

as a national heritage area. At the suggestion of the Department, Representative 

Peterson also sponsored two public meetings in February 2001. At the meetings, 

there was overwhelming support for designation of a national heritage area. However, at this time, we would like to focus our efforts on developing generic national 

heritage area legislation as mentioned earlier in this testimony. 

That completes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

or any of the members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Patterson. We appreciate your testimony. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Udall, Mr. Mark Udall, for 5 minutes 

for questions. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If I might, I would like to direct some questions to Mr. Hughes 

and Mr. Pease on H.R. 2909. Could you describe the working relationship between the BLM and the Air Force in the Utah West 

Desert? 

Mr. HUGHES. If I might start, I know it is my understanding that 

we have at least three major MOUs, one dealing with the management of wild horses and burros. We also have an MOU regarding 

what happens if an aircraft goes down on BLM land. And then, I 

38

think we also have a major MOU regarding firefighting activities 

on public lands. 

Mr. PEASE. Sir, and I would say that is relatively standard in the 

three states where we have the largest land bases—we, I am saying the Air Force—in Utah, Nevada and Arizona. We have a very, 

very close working relationship with the BLM in those areas, and 

we do things like introduction of bighorn sheep up in areas very 

close to our—up in the Newfoundland Mountains, I believe, that 

were just reintroduced right in and around the bombing range and 

other things in other states. So it is a very, very close working relationship. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Excellent. Can either of you identify any specific problems that the wilderness study areas, the so-called WSAs, 

in the Utah West Desert have caused for the Test and Training 

Range over the last decade, say? Any specific problems that the 

wilderness study areas have caused in the Test and Training 

Range? 

Mr. PEASE. I am unaware of any problems that they have caused 

up until now. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. If we did not—I should put it more accurately. 

In the absence of H.R. 2909, which is the situation we are in right 

now, do you see anything that would prevent the BLM and the Air 

Force from continuing to work cooperatively? Mr. Hughes or Mr. 

Pease? 

Mr. HUGHES. No. 

Mr. PEASE. No. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. And you have outlined some of the great working agreements that you have, the MOUs and so on, that are in 

place, and if Mr. Gibbons were here, he would want to talk about 

the wild horses and burros for sure, since that is a significant challenge in his state and along the Utah-Nevada border. 

Moving on in my line of questioning, it sounds to me like the legislation that is being proposed is not necessarily going to solve any 

problems, because you all have not identified any problems, at least 

up to this point, in the hearing. Mr. Hughes? 

Mr. HUGHES. I think the issue that we are talking about designating actual wilderness study areas or actually designating a wilderness area, which I think some of us think may have a higher 

threshold. So I think we are trying to understand, I know in Utah, 

where they do not have these—how these issues have been handled, for instance, in the California desert and other areas. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Mr. Pease, would you like to comment on that? 

Mr. PEASE. Certainly; we realize that as we—I will tell you, as 

our relationship gets, in my estimation, and I have been doing this 

business for around 10 years, in uniform and now in the civilian 

sector within the civil service, our relationship is getting stronger 

and stronger with the Bureau of Land Management over that period of time. And we are learning a lot of things about how we operate. I believe that wilderness study areas, the disadvantage, if 

you will, of a wilderness study area is that it does freeze the status 

quo for a period of time. 

And so, we know that we cannot do some things in a wilderness 

study area until they are designated as wilderness. We have been 

successful in working with the Bureau of Land Management 

39

groups, states, this Committee, drafters of bills, of wilderness bills 

in California and Arizona, et cetera, to be able to preserve the compatibility of uses between the military and the land management 

agencies but also allow for a certain amount of flexibility to do our 

mission a little bit better, whereas, the letter of the law, perhaps, 

in the Wilderness Study Act would not allow us to do that, because 

those pieces of land are frozen, if you will, in time until they come 

to some wilderness bill one way or another. 

So that would be the advantage, if you want, of a wilderness bill 

itself. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. So in an interesting way, there is some uncertainty in the wilderness study area approach that if we had wilderness would be more easily determined what you can and cannot do 

and how you would work with the BLM? 

Mr. PEASE. It might be able to provide us with some flexibility 

for doing some things that would be compatible that the letter of 

the law would not allow us as it relates to the Wilderness Study 

Act. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. My last question as my time begins to end, 

and directed to Mr. Hughes, is: Are you saying that we might have 

to consider the Air Force’s needs if and when Congress considers 

legislation to designate the WSAs as wilderness? 

Mr. HUGHES. No, I think what I attempted to say, and if I did 

not, I apologize, that we are trying to understand—some of the 

lands that are included, that we think are included in wilderness, 

in the proposed wilderness area, we really have not looked closely 

at, because it was not part of our WSA. Those areas may be areas 

that there might be some ongoing activities in or some plans for 

some activities, so we are just trying to understand what the Air 

Force’s needs might be in the future and how that will play into 

the designation and what type of management schemes we can 

have there that can balance their need and the need for the military in the 21st Century versus our need to protect the resources 

out there. 

Mr. MARK UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, but 

I would just ask Mr. Hughes and perhaps Mr. Pease to consider a 

question that we could have answered, perhaps, later, which is it 

sounds like you might be making a case that the bill is premature 

at this point, that there is more work to do to understand where 

we might go. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. You are welcome. Thank you, Mr. Udall. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Bishop from Utah. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you again. Mr. Hughes, first of all, I would 

like to thank you for your testimony and thank you also for the 

help and the effort that you have done in all types of land issues 

in the State of Utah and with my office. And as the Congressman 

from Colorado has pointed out, there is a wonderful working relationship that we have right now which is the product of some very 

positive, proactive personalities that are down there. 

For obvious reasons, one of the reasons I would like to do this 

bill—and I will admit it—it is early on—is to make sure we take 

a proactive position to ensure this, which is the only land mass 

that we have to do these types of activities forever. So I want you 

40

to know first of all, I appreciate your invitation to continue to work 

with you as we have with the local leaders as we look especially 

at the proposed wilderness piece to maybe be creative in both the 

south as well as the north. 

Our starting point was obviously the bill that passed the House 

last year as to what would be designated as wilderness, and I 

would be more than happy to work with you, and I appreciate that 

opportunity to do so in the future as we look creatively at the 

southern piece as well as the northern piece so that you have the 

maximum ability to manage the property as well. 

Mr. Loman, I would like to ask you one question: as far as the 

testimony you gave, does the administrative process that you mentioned in your testimony as being frustrated by this legislation take 

into account any consideration of potential negative impacts of the 

PFS proposal on the Utah Test and Training Range or national security? 

Mr. LOMAN. Your question is does it take into account the negative effects? 

Mr. BISHOP. Potential negative effects that that activity may 

have, specifically on the UTTR and national security. 

Mr. LOMAN. I would have to say because the NRC completed an 

environmental impact statement for this project, the answer would 

be yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Pease, Colonel Pease, I appreciate your speaking. I guess the 

first question is simply this Utah Test and Training Range, for 

which we are talking about here, are there things that are done on 

there, types of training activities, that can be done nowhere else in 

the United States? 

Mr. PEASE. We do the predominant amount of our cruise missile 

testing there. It is a large range, and we have other ranges that 

can do some of those things, but most of the cruise missile testing 

is done right there at the Utah Test and Training Range. 

Mr. BISHOP. I understand that you have some other ranges that 

are over water that would give you the same kind of space that is 

here. Is there any other place that you have the same kind of land 

capabilities or air space capabilities that you have here? 

Mr. PEASE. Well, we know that we have unique military values 

on all of the ranges that we have in the Air Force. We have some 

places that have larger pieces of air space in Alaska, for instance. 

We have over land and all kinds of different combinations. As far 

as the combination of land and air space, the Utah Test and Training Range is as large as any one of them. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Colonel, in testimony that was given to 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, you stated the Air Force requires unrestricted access to this corridor in the severe MOU—that 

is the one that may be impacted. Approximately 70 to 80 percent 

of all fighter and bomber training missions use this southern portion. If military aircraft were restricted from flying in the vicinity 

of a storage facility, if that were a decision, that would delay tactical maneuvering and subsequently reduce the effective training 

for each sortie flown to the southern portion of the Utah Test and 

Training Range. 

41

If I may quote from the next page as well: degradation of our 

operational test and training capabilities would be unacceptable. 

Consequently, any proposed location must not restrict current 

UTTR operations. The Air Force’s interest is to ensure continued 

testing and training activities at this vital facility. Therefore, the 

Air Force opposes any restrictions that might result in the siting 

of the proposed PFS facility that would impair our ability to test 

equipment or train our military men and women on the land and 

the air space associated with the UTTR. 

Realizing that the final adjudication of whether a risk is or is not 

there has not been finally stated, and that still is open to some debate, do you still stand by these statements as to the impact and 

the importance to the UTTR? 

Mr. PEASE. Yes, sir, and this is consistent with our statement 

about our operations as they relate to other facilities of this same 

nature. The citing of the facility, our interest has not been necessarily on the siting itself but on the impact to our operations, and 

our position has been that we would not accept restrictions to our 

operations associated with a siting of a particular piece of infrastructure of this kind. 

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

Mr. Tiller, I actually have a question for you, so how are you? 

Mr. TILLER. Fine. Yourself? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Good, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my questions for this panel. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thanks, Mr. Bishop. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Tom Udall for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess my question is directed to Mr. Hughes and Mr. Loman. 

Your testimony indicates that the Department of the Interior has 

some vague concerns with the prohibition on rights-of-way contained in H.R. 2909. Can you be more specific as to what those 

concerns are? 

Mr. HUGHES. If I might, we have, as I indicated, two pending 

right-of-way applications. We also have 12 existing applications—

or 12 existing rights-of-way that could come up for renewal during 

this timeframe that the bill prohibits. They include, just to give you 

an example, the Union Pacific Railroad from Salt Lake City to Sacramento; old U.S. Highway 40; Interstate Highway 80, and those 

are the types of things that we want to work with the Committee 

on to make sure that they are aware that this sort of blanket prohibition may impact those rights-of-way at a future date. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. So what is your position on the bill prohibiting 

or denying the rights-of-way? 

Mr. HUGHES. Generally speaking, I think we generally dislike 

anything that prohibits administrative actions, you know, in a 

blanket way such as that. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. So today, you are taking a position against that 

prohibition in the bill? 

Mr. HUGHES. I think we would like to discuss that with the Committee. That is correct. 

42

Mr. TOM UDALL. Well, at first, I thought you seemed to say that 

you would disapprove of that. I am trying to figure out what your 

position is today with regard to the prohibition in the bill. And I 

thought you said that we would generally disagree with that kind 

of thing being inserted in the bill. 

Mr. HUGHES. Yes, yes, we have concerns about that being in the 

bill, for, again, some of the reasons I gave. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Well, I know you have concerns, but I would 

like to know: do you oppose it being in the bill, that kind of prohibition? 

Mr. HUGHES. I think that is probably correct. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. And Mr. Loman can agree with that, too? 

Mr. LOMAN. With respect to the prohibition that is going to prohibit the application for the proposed 30-mile railroad to the spent 

storage facility, we oppose that prohibition to that specific application for that transportation rights-of-way, because we believe that 

that is what will halt the ongoing process that will allow us to determine whether or not that proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility is a viable option for our Indian beneficiaries. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. So you oppose the prohibition on the rights-ofway in H.R. 2909? 

Mr. LOMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TOM UDALL. Yes. 

No further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Udall. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Duncan for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Tiller, the staff has provided a statement here 

that says the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is 

approximately 153,000 acres, and the Rim of the Valley Study Area 

is over 491,000 acres. If the conclusion of the study is in the affirmative, the Secretary would recommend tripling the size of the unit 

and, at the same time, placing thousands of private property owners within the boundary of a National Park unit. Is that statement 

correct, and do you know how many private property owners we 

are talking about? The staff says thousands. Do you have any specific number? 

Mr. TILLER. With respect to that question, sir, no, I do not, but 

we can provide that for the record afterwards. 

On the larger issue, I think a number of things. One of the 

things that I think makes the Santa Monica Mountains such a successful management area is it is a great complexity of public and 

private lands, and it is probably safe to say it is more in the model 

of the parks of now and parks of the future rather than large acquisitions in fee or in interest by the Federal Government. And I 

think that is what has made Santa Monica Mountains so successful 

to date. 

My guess, without preempting the study and the consideration 

be done jointly by the two departments; I suspect that you will see 

that the final recommendations will be in the neighborhood of little 

to no acquisition in fee or interest by the Federal Government and, 

like many of the heritage areas in which I have testified a little bit 

later in my comments, you will see joint management by many entities. So I think that the likelihood that this study will come out 

43

recommending large increases in the size of the park and in Federal ownership would be very unlikely. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me ask you this: a witness who will testify 

later says that he is submitting letters from 34 Los Angeles area 

residents, including property owners and recreational units in and 

near the proposed study region; all of these very strongly oppose 

H.R. 704, and he ends up and says in conclusion, H.R. 704 has 

significant regional opposition from property owners and public access community leaders. Up to this point, they have had no idea 

what the NPS and the Conservancy have had in store. Supporters 

should go back to the drawing board and, this time around, begin 

an inclusive discussion process. 

If somebody has been alerted because of this hearing about this 

going on, when would be the next opportunity for opponents to 

show up and express their disapproval about this? 

Mr. TILLER. I think probably the best indication, those of you 

who are familiar with the sorts of studies that we undertake in 

these sorts of situations; we usually build these things out somewhere in the neighborhood of $250,000 to do the study; we have 

recommended and anticipate more than doubling that in the case 

if this goes forward, and this bill is made law. Given the complexity 

of landownership, given the complexity of people interested in this, 

and given the density of the population, public consultation, public 

meetings, notices in newspapers, I think the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture will definitely guarantee you 

significant and multiple accesses for private property owners and 

everyone interested in this issue to participate in this process. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me ask you this: you have got what? 354 units 

in the National Park system or somewhere around that? 

Mr. TILLER. 388. 

Mr. DUNCAN. 388? All right; how many national recreation areas 

are there? 

Mr. TILLER. I am sorry, Congressman, I do not know off the top 

of my head. 

Mr. DUNCAN. How many national heritage areas are there? 

Mr. TILLER. There are 23 national heritage areas. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And there are what? Five more being proposed 

here today? 

Mr. TILLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And then, how many national conservation areas 

are there? 

Mr. TILLER. I am not sure, sir. We will get you that for the 

record. 

Mr. DUNCAN. How many wildlife refuges are there? 

Mr. TILLER. I am not aware of that either at the moment. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We always hear about the Park Service not having 

enough money and having backlogs in maintenance and so forth. 

It would seem to me that it would be better for the Park Service 

to try to take better care of what they have instead of continuing 

to expand, expand, expand and take over more property under 

whatever guise. But I do not know. 

Mr. Loman, let me ask you this on the Utah situation: are there 

no other economic options available to the Goshutes than the nuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 May 04, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\89893.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
44

clear waste storage? Because that storage apparently, from what I 

am told, is adamantly opposed by many, many residents of Utah. 

Mr. LOMAN. There are very few economic development opportunities, considering that the land is surrounded by waste facilities, the 

tribal land, including radioactive disposal sites and chemical and 

biological weapons depots. We are working with the band to identify other opportunities, and we have committed to the band that 

pursuing any such opportunity would not be a substitute for the 

proposed nuclear fuel storage facility. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right; thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. 

Ms. Bordallo, you are recognized for 5 minutes. No time? Great. 

Mr. Peterson, you are recognized for 5 minutes—I am sorry; Mr. 

Cannon. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Peterson was here 

a moment ago. He had to get a phone call. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am hearing and seeing different things here. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions. I think 

I will yield some time to Mr. Bishop. But I would like to thank the 

panel for being here today. These are great guys, especially, as Mr. 

Bishop said, Mr. Hughes has been very, very helpful on our public 

lands issues in my district as well. I wanted to thank him in particular. 

And with that, I would like to yield to Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Certainly. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Loman, I was concerned with the last answer that you just 

happened to give. I understand that even if there are other economic opportunities that are presented to the Goshute Band that 

they still would like to pursue this particular one that deals with 

PFS and nuclear storage, right? Even if anything else was out 

there, they would still be moving forward or have expressed to you 

their willingness to move forward still with the PFS proposal. 

Mr. LOMAN. I cannot speak for what they want to do. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right; well, I will ask them when they come up 

here. 

But are you aware of any other proposals that the band is currently seeking or currently working that would use their reservation land for other proposals that would not include this particular 

one? 

Mr. LOMAN. I am not, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, then, we will ask them, too, to find out more 

about what they are doing there. Thank you. 

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Schiff for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, and I will not 

take the 5 minutes. I just wanted to extend my thanks to the Park 

Service for their support of 704, and we would obviously invite the 

feedback that Mr. Duncan alluded to and look forward to having 

a full and public discussion of any issues concerning the bill. 

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. 

45

The Chair recognizes Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you very much. 

Pat, I would like to, I guess, have a dialog with you. Thank you 

for coming today, and I thank the Chairman for including this legislation on this hearing. My interest is H.R. 1862. I live five miles 

from Drake’s Well, where the first oil well was drilled and where 

the whole oil industry started. I mean, this is where every major 

oil company in this country has its roots. And I vividly remember 

a number of years ago when we started this process, the Park Service was reluctant, but they sent a team out. But they came back 

excited that if there is something, if there is a heritage area that 

ought to be, oil ought to be one, because it is the valley that 

changed the world, and it is the area that changed how—that 

started the Industrial Revolution in this country, and there is just 

rich history there. 

In your testimony, you stated several considerations that the 

Park Service believes to be key components—this is in your written 

testimony—of a successful national heritage area and, as well, four 

critical steps that need to be taken and documented prior to Congress designating a heritage area, the first being to study the area 

prior to designation. In September of 2000, the National Park Service issued a field report that stated based on the results of the 

analysis of the components of the study, the field reconnaissance 

and the information provided by the Oil Heritage Region, Inc., no 

additional study should be needed on this one; is that correct? 

Mr. TILLER. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. PETERSON. The second point in your testimony states that 

the area must contain nationally important, natural, cultural, historic or recreational resources. I do not think we have any disagreement that the Oil Heritage Region meets each and every one of 

these criteria, correct? 

Mr. TILLER. We do not. 

Mr. PETERSON. The third consideration is the concept of the local 

support and initiative, and in your testimony, you stated that at 

two public hearings held in February 2001, there was overwhelming support for the designation of a national heritage area. 

Mr. TILLER. That is correct. 

Mr. PETERSON. Fourth, you suggest that private property owners 

should be provided reasonable protection. Well, as a member of the 

Western Caucus, one of the few from the East, I wholeheartedly 

agree that property rights are an extremely important issue. And, 

however, the point of this bill is to preserve the history of the region. It is not my goal to provide a vehicle to steal Grandma 

Smith’s farm or enforce Federal zoning laws within the area. I 

have been a leading proponent of property rights since I came to 

Congress and will continue to be one. I strongly believe that this 

bill goes above and beyond in protecting the rights of property owners. 

Next, you state the development of a working partnership among 

NPS, state entities and the local communities are vital to the success of the region. During the field study done in 2000, the team 

met with numerous private, public and nonpublic officials, all of 

whom agreed to work together as partners to develop the area. FiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 May 04, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\89893.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
46

nally, you suggest that the designated areas must have a clear financial plan to obtain self-sufficiency. The Oil Heritage Area is already currently a self-sufficient operation in which, to quote the 

field report again, the ability to garner the much-needed financial 

support to preserve the significant assemblage of natural, historical 

and cultural resources would be enhanced with a national designation, because it has been a state designation since 1994. 

In the field report done in September, the Department stated 

that with the recommended changes which are reflected in 

H.R. 1862, the Oil Heritage Region should be designated as a national heritage area without further suitability or feasibility analysis. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. TILLER. That is correct. 

Mr. PETERSON. OK; and a letter sent to the former Chairman of 

this Subcommittee and Committee Chairman Hansen on October 

11, 2001, the Department stated that the following review of the 

study by the National Park Service leadership, the Department 

now has no objections to the establishment of the Oil Heritage Region. 

Mr. TILLER. That is my understanding, yes. 

Mr. PETERSON. I guess I just want to give one sales pitch here. 

I live near here. This area contains the world-renowned Drake Well 

Museum, Pit Hole Museum, Oil Creek State Park, Allegheny Wild 

and Scenic River Area; it also contains six national historic districts, 17 sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places, 

and the largest collection of Victorian homes in the country, and I 

live in one of those, and that has been a pleasure. It has not been 

cheap, but it has been a pleasure. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PETERSON. Remnants of the oil boom era, including McClintock Well No. 1 in Oil City, which is known as the oldest operating 

well in the world, and those kinds of sites can be found throughout 

the region. The stories of early oil magnates and those who worked 

in the oil fields provide exceptionally rich interpretive opportunities 

related to the region’s natural and cultural resources. 

This important heritage contributes not only to our own national 

story but also to the advancement of industries and transportation 

systems throughout the world, and I guess in my view, the debate 

around energy today brings back the relevance of what happened 

here many, many years ago. 

Yet, in your testimony today, you recommend that this Subcommittee defer action on this bill until generic heritage area legislation is enacted, even though H.R. 1862 has met or exceeded each 

and every one of your proposed criteria for the bill. 

Mr. TILLER. That is correct. 

Mr. PETERSON. Why should we wait, when everybody thinks it 

should have been done a long time ago, we should be collecting and 

getting the history of oil so all of Americans can understand it, our 

future generations can understand it? I live in an area that has 

been pretty hard-hit economically; to promote tourism, you know, 

why should we wait? 

Mr. TILLER. The potential Oil Heritage Area and others being 

considered today, like the Upper Housatonic, are, as you pointed 

out, spectacular nationally significant resources with great local 

47

support, and we are certainly sympathetic with the desire to get 

moving on that. 

As I said in my testimony, we have spent close to 20 years on 

this in the absence of any sort of administrative or regulatory 

framework. And I know it is the feeling of the Department, all the 

while not wanting to slow down this enthusiasm and the benefits 

that accrue from these things, that it is time to draw the line; work 

quickly with this Committee and with their counterparts in the 

Senate and to try to establish this framework. And we are very 

sympathetic with all of the great enthusiasm and energy in your 

district and the other ones in the area, but the Administration feels 

that it is time to get this program established after this time so 

that we can move forward. 

And we know that there are many more being considered out 

there across the country also, and it is the time. 

Mr. PETERSON. I think there have been lots of heritage areas proposed historically that in no way or pale in significance to the history of oil in this country, the history of oil in the world. 

I guess I want to thank you for your testimony and your graciousness and this good cooperation from the Department, but I 

guess I would like to say to the Chairman that I hope that that 

testimony is not heeded and that we can move forward. You know, 

the last session, this bill passed unanimously and was within minutes of being law in the Senate, and then, somehow, it got fumbled 

at the closing hours of the Senate, or it would have been law today. 

I find it troubling that we have to wait until—because I think 

this bill, the way it has been processed by the Committee, can be 

the pattern of how it should be done, and the legislation can be 

drafted after the fact as to here is how we ought to do them. And 

so, I guess I would want to thank everybody for your participation. 

But the Oil Heritage needs to be done sooner, not later, and I hope 

we can accomplish that. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Any other further questions? 

I want to thank the panel. The Committee thanks the panel for 

your testimony here. It is very valuable. And I appreciate your appearance here today. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. With that, I will call up our third panel, consisting of Mr. Randy Johnson, Deputy Director of the Planning for 

Public Lands of the State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Mr. Scott 

Groene, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Washington, D.C.; Mr. 

Leon D. Bear, Chairman of Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians 

in Salt Lake City; the Hon. Anthony Portantino, member of the 

Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Advisory Committee; and 

Mr. Mike Hardiman, Legislative Director for the American Land 

Rights Association in Washington, D.C. 

If you gentlemen would please take your seats. Gentlemen, 

thank you for being here today. What we will do is start with Mr. 

Johnson on my left and work through. Everybody has got 5 minutes. The lights are your guide there. Green means go, just like a 

traffic light; yellow means speed up; and red means stop. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RADANOVICH. So please abide by the rules, and keep your 

testimony within 5 minutes. And then, after that, we will open it 

up to questions from members here on the Committee. 

48

Mr. Johnson, welcome to the Committee. We appreciate your testimony on H.R. 2909. Thank you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF RANDY JOHNSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

PLANNING FOR PUBLIC LANDS, STATE OF UTAH, SALT LAKE 

CITY, UTAH 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Subcommittee members. I thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Committee on Resources regarding H.R. 2909, the Utah 

Test and Training Range Protection Act. By way of introduction, I 

serve as the state deputy director of planning and public lands specialist for the Governor’s Office and speak on behalf of the Governor’s Office of the State of Utah. 

Utah is a state of beautiful and widely diverse landscapes. Over 

70 percent of the State of Utah is public land. This makes for some 

very interesting and difficult economic challenges, due to the lack 

of private land base. It also makes Utah pretty much the poster 

child for public land management conflict issues. 

As we well know, Utah is divided by many interests concerning 

the management and enjoyment of our public lands. There are very 

passionate people on all sides of these issues, and collaboration on 

public land management has been extremely difficult if not impossible in the past. 

Bringing each relevant stakeholder to the table requires a lot of 

time and patience, and exacting a solution is even more difficult. 

We are here in support of this legislation, because it is the exception to the rule and represents a collaborative process that Congressman Bishop has begun and continues to diligently follow. The 

State of Utah recognizes this and supports this legislation as an example of achieving a balance between competing economic and environmental interests. Governor Leavitt has long been an advocate 

of a similar approach with his principles in the State of Utah and 

would be pleased to make progress on wilderness designation in 

this state. 

This legislation demonstrates that although there are diverse 

uses of our public lands, it is possible for these uses to overlap and 

coexist. We believe that this legislation achieves a balance between 

competing economic and environmental issues. The Utah Test and 

Training Range is of national significance. It is of vital and unparalleled value for all the branches of the military service that train 

there, and there are also areas nearby with significant wilderness 

qualities. 

By protecting both the UTTR and the Cedar Mountains, this legislation balances the interests of Utah’s fifth-largest employer as 

well as our national security with responsible land management 

practices. Most Utahns favor a balanced approach. In fact, in a recent poll, when given a choice as to whether we should protect the 

environment at the expense of the economy, the economy at the expense of the environment or whether we should be able to achieve 

a balance between the two, 75 percent of Utahns believed that we 

should and can achieve a balance. H.R. 2909 is a sincere effort to 

do just that. 

Another area of our support is toward the collaborative process 

involved in this legislation. We believe that this legislation could 

49

be a step forward in resolving conflicts on public lands and achieving some level of balance between many competing interests. Resolving conflicts on public land management issues is not easy in 

Utah. Solutions must be tailor-made to fit the actual conditions 

that exist on the ground. 

While this is arduous and difficult, it is important that this be 

the way we make progress on public land management issues. 

H.R. 2909 is an attempt to do just that. 

Now, being mindful of our basic support for this legislation, the 

State of Utah does have some concerns about this bill in its present 

form, and I would speak of two. First, H.R. 2909 does not address 

the ability of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to maintain 

existing water sources in the Cedar Mountains. The State installed 

21 guzzlers that provide water to wildlife in the Cedar Mountains 

area, and these guzzlers are crucial to maintaining healthy populations of wildlife because of the lack of available water resources. 

The State has a great interest in maintaining these water developments and would ask that the Congress include language preserving our ability to access and maintain them. 

Our second area of concern is that H.R. 2909 does not address 

the issue of water rights. Water is an extremely important resource 

in the desert areas of the State of Utah, and because of minimal 

water resources on the Cedar Mountains, a federally reserved 

water right would only impair the State’s ability to manage wildlife 

and truly would serve no useful purpose. The State would like Congress to include language clarifying that this legislation does not 

reserve or claim a Federal water right in the Cedar Mountain area. 

In summary, the State of Utah supports this legislation, because 

it attempts to balance competing environmental and economic interests. We also support this legislation because it is the result of 

a collaborative process. Governor Leavitt has often said that there 

is very little to be gained on the two extremes of any issue but 

much to be gained by drawing people together toward the larger 

center and honest efforts to reach workable solutions. 

We support any effort to move forward, reach balance, find solutions, and feel that this legislation makes an effort to work in that 

direction. We look forward to working with Congress and this Committee to resolve and clarify any concerns the State may have, and 

we are confident that we will be able to do exactly that. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

Statement of Randy Johnson, Deputy Director of Planning for Public 

Lands, State of Utah, on H.R. 2909

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: I thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Committee on Resources regarding H.R. 2909, the Utah Test and 

Training Range Protection Act. By way of introduction, I serve as the Deputy Director of Planning and public lands specialist for the Governor’s Office. I speak on behalf of the Governor’s Office of the State of Utah. 

Utah is a state of industrious, friendly, hardworking people. It is also a state of 

beautiful and widely diverse landscapes from the great salt flats in the northwest, 

to the red rock canyons and deserts of the southeast, to the alpine mountains of the 

northeast, to the rapidly growing communities of the southwest. Over 70% of Utah 

is public land. This makes for some very interesting and difficult economic challenges due to this lack of private land base. It also makes Utah the poster child 

for public land management conflict. 

50

As you well know, Utah is divided by many interests concerning the management 

and enjoyment of our public lands. These divisions have created much strife over 

the years and have resulted in endless deadlock. These controversial issues, however, are not the focus of my testimony today. There are very passionate people on 

all sides of these issues, and collaboration on public land management has been extremely difficult, if not impossible, in the past. Bringing each relevant stakeholder 

to the table requires a lot of time and patience, and exacting a solution is even more 

difficult. 

We are here in support of this legislation because it is the exception to the rule, 

and represents a collaborative process that Congressman Bishop has begun and diligently followed. The State of Utah recognizes this and supports this legislation as 

an example of achieving a balance between competing economic and environmental 

interests. UTTR is of national significance. It is of vital and unparalleled value for 

all of the branches of military service that train there. Governor Leavitt has long 

advocated a similar approach with his Enlibra principles. In fact, we have identified 

two main areas of support. The first is based on this area of balance, the second 

is based on the concept of collaboration. 

This legislation demonstrates that, although there are diverse uses of our public 

lands, it is possible for these uses to overlap and co-exist. We believe that this legislation achieves a balance between competing economic and environmental interests. 

By both protecting the Utah Test and Training Range and the Cedar Mountains, 

this legislation balances the interests of Utah’s fifth-largest employer as well as our 

national security with responsible land management practices. Most Utahns favor 

such a balanced approach. In fact, in a recent poll, when given the choice as to 

whether we should protect the environment at the expense of the economy; protect 

the economy at the expense of the environment; or if we can achieve a balance between the two, 75% of Utahns said that we can and should achieve a balance. 

H.R. 2909 is a sincere effort to do just that. 

Our second area of support is toward the collaborative process involved in this 

legislation. We believe that this legislation could be a step forward in resolving conflicts on public lands and achieving some level of balance between the many competing interests. Many have advocated one-size-fits-all solutions to resolving conflicts, but things are not that simple and easy in Utah. Solutions must be tailormade to fit the actual conditions that exist on the ground. While this is arduous 

and difficult, it is important that this be the way that we make progress on public 

land management issues. H.R. 2909 attempts to do just that. 

Being mindful of our basic support, the State of Utah does have some concerns 

about the bill in its present form. I will speak of two. First, H.R. 2909 does not address the ability of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to maintain existing 

water sources within the Cedar Mountains. The State installed 21 guzzlers that provide water to wildlife in the Cedar Mountains area. These guzzlers are crucial to 

maintaining healthy populations of wildlife in this area because of the lack of available water resources. The State has a great interest in maintaining these water developments, and would ask that the Congress include language preserving our ability to access and maintain them. 

Our second area of concern is that H.R. 2909 does not address the issue of water 

rights. Water is an extremely important resource in the desert areas in the State 

of Utah. Because of the minimal water resources in the Cedar Mountains, a federally reserved water right would only impair the State’s ability to manage wildlife, 

and would serve no real purpose. The State would like Congress to include language 

clarifying that this legislation does not reserve or claim a water right in the Cedar 

Mountains area. 

In summary, the State of Utah supports this legislation because it attempts to 

balance competing economic and environmental interests. We also support this legislation because it a result of a collaborative process. Governor Leavitt has often 

said that there is very little to be gained on the two extremes of any issue, but much 

to be gained by drawing people together toward the larger center in honest efforts 

to reach workable solutions. We support any effort to move forward, reach balance, 

and find solutions, and feel that this legislation makes an effort to work in that direction. 

We look forward to working with Congress and this Committee to resolve and 

clarify any concerns the state may have. We are confident that we will be able to 

do that. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

51

Mr. Scott Groene, welcome to the Subcommittee, and you may 

begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT GROENE, SOUTHERN UTAH 

WILDERNESS ALLIANCE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. GROENE. Thank you. My name is Scott Groene. I am a staff 

attorney with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. I speak 

today also on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the 

Wilderness Society and the Campaign for America’s Wilderness. 

In summary, we have serious concerns with H.R. 2909. There 

has been inadequate information provided to determine the effects 

of this legislation on public lands. We are also concerned with the 

adverse effect the existing bill would have on designated wilderness 

and wilderness study areas. H.R. 2909 covers hundreds of thousands of acres of Bureau of Land Management lands that qualify 

as wilderness in Utah’s basin and range country known as the 

West Desert and would directly affect at least nine wilderness 

study areas. 

These WSAs, which cover only a fraction of the West Desert’s 

qualifying wilderness, have outstanding scenic and biologic values. 

Each of these WSAs covers an isolated ecosystem, a biological island surrounded by desert playas where many unique species have 

evolved and survived after separation from a larger historic range. 

The legislation would also directly affect the Cedar Mountains. 

Over 20 years ago, the BLM performed a wilderness inventory of 

the central unit of this range and identified approximately 50,000 

acres that was designated the Cedar Mountains Wilderness Study 

Area. The agency subsequently acknowledged that this inventory 

was flawed and inadequate and in the late 1990s set about to conduct a comprehensive and accurate wilderness inventory for the 

State of Utah. In a 1999 document, the BLM reported that it had 

reconsidered the Central Cedar Mountain Unit and determined 

that it previously missed over 15,000 acres that qualified as wilderness there. 

Unfortunately, Secretary Norton has since reversed 20 years of 

BLM practice and precluded the agency from inventorying and protecting these sorts of lands in resource management plans. As a result, the BLM has not conducted accurate inventories for the North 

and South Cedar Mountain Wilderness Units. 

The Utah Wilderness Coalition has proposed that approximately 

110,000 acres of the Cedar Mountains be protected as wilderness 

as part of America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act. This is in the North, 

the Central and the Southern Units. 

Having briefly discussed the landscapes involved, I would like to 

raise our concerns with specific language in H.R. 2909. There is no 

map depicting the areas to be designated as wilderness in the 

Cedar Mountains, and we believe that it is premature to conduct 

a hearing when there is no means by which to measure the benefit 

or potential harm conveyed by the legislation. Nor is there proposed report language, although the legislation contains ambiguous 

language regarding construction activities inside the wilderness 

and wilderness study areas. 

Section 3(d) of the legislation allows the installation of new and 

continuation of existing communication sites in wilderness desVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 May 04, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\89893.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
52

ignated by the Act and existing wilderness study areas. This provision raises several problems. First, the construction and presence 

of such sites, including maintenance by helicopter, is inconsistent 

with the Wilderness Act and will diminish wilderness values. Second, the Act allows new sites to be constructed inside wilderness 

study areas. This is unprecedented language which dictates specific 

management of WSAs differently from that set out by Congress in 

the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act. 

Third, the language is ambiguous, and we are concerned that it 

could allow a creeping increase of sites in the wilderness. And finally, the Secretary of the Air Force is given consultation authority 

over decisions made regarding covered wilderness that it does not 

have over general public lands. 

In conclusion, we urge you to oppose this legislation unless these 

basic questions are addressed, and the West Desert Wilderness is 

given adequate protection. I would like to say that we do appreciate the discussions we have had with Mr. Bishop’s office, and we 

are willing to work with Mr. Bishop to address the concerns we 

have raised. And it is our hope that such efforts will be fruitful. 

But we will vigorously oppose the bill if it fails to address our concerns. 

We understand that H.R. 2909 would designate wilderness, at 

least in part, to prevent development of a transportation corridor 

necessary for a proposed nuclear waste storage site. We fully share 

the concern over the public safety issues raised by the proposed nuclear waste site. However, we urge the Utah delegation to pursue 

similar legislation that would effectively block this waste from coming into our state without the potential controversy raised by 

H.R. 2909. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak and for your attention to 

our concerns. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Groene follows:]

Statement of Scott Groene, Staff Attorney,

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, on H.R. 2909

My name is Scott Groene and I am a staff attorney with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. I speak today also on behalf of the Campaign for America’s Wilderness, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and The Wilderness Society. 

In summary, we have serious concerns with H.R. 2909. There has been inadequate information provided to determine the effect of this legislation on public 

land. We are also concerned with the adverse effect the existing bill would have on 

designated wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). 

H.R. 2909 covers hundreds of thousands of acres of Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) land that qualify as wilderness in Utah’s basin and range country known as 

the West Desert. The legislation is far reaching, as it would affect this wilderness, 

military use of the West Desert, and a potential rail line for transporting nuclear 

waste into Utah. 

The Affected Landscape: 

The WSAs: The legislation would directly affect at least nine existing Wilderness 

Study Areas, including the Deep Creek, Fish Springs, Swasey Mountain, Howell 

Peak, Notch Peak, King Top, Wah Wah Mountain and Conger Mountain WSAs. 

These WSAs cover only a fraction of the West Desert that qualifies as wilderness. 

The West Desert is roughly located between the Great Salt Lake and Nevada, and 

is characterized by rugged mountain ranges alternating with broad valley floors. 

About 20 million years ago the opposite motion of enormous plates of the earth’s 

crust began forming this landscape. Land east of California’s San Andreas Fault, 

where the plates meet, has since been stretched, creased and wrenched into shape 

like so much soft clay, forming the Sierra Nevada and the hundreds of ranges east 

53

to Utah’s Wasatch Mountains. Throughout the Great Basin, massive walls of rock 

rise abruptly, lifted at an angle approaching 60 degrees. The landscape is young 

geologically, and in the profound silence of the desert one may easily imagine that 

these mountains are still growing, which is precisely the case. 

Rising from the desert floor at an elevation of 4,800 feet to peaks over 12,000 feet 

high, the Deep Creek Mountains are among Utah’s most spectacular. For all their 

ruggedness, the Deeps also contain verdant alpine meadows and forested canyons 

that are an unexpected delight to desert travelers. The enormous vertical relief—

greater than that of the Teton Range from Jackson Hole—creates a variety of ecological conditions that foster biological diversity unmatched in Utah’s desert mountains. Eight perennial streams flow from the rough-hewn canyons, allowing deer, 

elk, bighorn sheep, cougar, bobcat, coyote and other wildlife to flourish. Due to their 

isolation from other similar environments, the Deeps also support a dozen plant and 

animal species found nowhere else. 

The Fish Springs Range rises like an enormous dorsal fin out of the flat desert. 

Steep, dry, craggy and remote, bisected by rugged canyons, the range offers solitude 

just a short distance from good roads. 

At over 9,600 feet, Swasey Mountain is the highest peak in the House Range and 

a prominent West Desert landmark. This wilderness includes limestone caves as 

well as a nationally significant fossil collecting site. 

The enormous western face of Notch Peak is the desert equivalent of Yosemite’s 

El Capitan. Notch Peak rises vertically almost 4,450 feet and is one of the highest 

cliffs in North America. Striking bands of gray and white limestone decorate the 

sheer rock face, and twisting canyons give it dimension. 

The King Top WSA of the Confusion Range contains unique Ordovician fossils, 

which have special scientific and educational value. King Top Mountain, with an 

elevation between 5,000 and 8,000 feet, supports wild horses and antelope and is 

well-used during autumn by deer hunters. Much of the area is a high plateau, rugged and sere, remote from human intrusion. 

Crystal Mountain at the northern end of the proposed Wah Wah WSA stands out 

against the gray limestone, as a pure white remnant of volcanoes that preceded 

basin-and-range faulting in this region. 

The Conger Ranges is an odd jumble of hills, mountains and rugged cliffs that 

culminate in the 8,000-foot summit of Conger Mountain. Creased ridgelines leading 

to a forested peak mark the view of Conger Mountain from the west, while the eastern side is sheer and rocky; more than a dozen canyons slice into the area. 

These WSAs include more than geologic splendor. Two tree lines, an upper and 

lower, define three life zones in the higher mountains of the Basin and Range. 

Above tree line in the Deep Creek Mountains, for instance, flowered meadows 

sprawl among the granitic peaks and glacial cirques. On the limestone soils of high 

ridges in the Wah Wah Mountains, House Range, and Deep Creek Mountains grow 

bristlecone pine trees, gnarled and tenacious, among the earth’s oldest living things. 

In sheltered slopes and valleys are clusters of spruce, subalpine and Douglas fir, 

limber pine, and aspen. 

At lower elevations, where available moisture diminishes, is a broad belt of pinyon 

pine and juniper woodlands, interspersed with patches of wiry mountain mahogany 

and sagebrush. Below this woodland are hills covered with sage, grasses and 

shadscale. Saltbush and greasewood dominate the benchlands, though in places 

spring-watered marshlands contrast with the arid surroundings. Finally, there is 

the enormous solitude of wide salt flats, their white alkali crusts and brackish water 

seeming to lead downhill only because of the earth’s curvature. 

Each of the mountain ranges in Utah’s Basin and Range Province is an isolated 

ecosystem, a biological island surrounded by desert playas, where many unique species have evolved or survive as relics after separation from a larger historic range. 

Several of these montane islands have been the subject of ecological studies. 

Six of the WSAs in the West Desert encompass habitat for the peregrine falcon. 

Eagles and many other uncommon birds also winter there. Trout Creek and Birch 

Creek in the Deep Creek Mountains support the rare Bonneville cutthroat trout. 

Both bighorn and antelope are native to the Basin and Range country. 

Several rich and well-documented habitation sites in Utah’s West Desert indicate 

human occupation by Desert Archaic and Fremont Indian cultures in the region for 

at least 10,000 years. The most important cultural sites are caves and rock shelters. 

Major cultural sites have been identified in the Deep Creek, Fish Springs, and near 

Granite Peak, but all of the ranges within the Utah Wilderness Coalition’s proposal 

have been only lightly inventoried, and it is probable that important finds await discovery. Other known archeological sites remain unpublicized to protect them from 

vandalism. 

54

The Cedar Mountain Wilderness: It is uncertain how much of the Cedar Mountain 

Wilderness, that is proposed for wilderness designation by the Utah Wilderness Coalition as outlined in America’s Redrock Wilderness Act (H.R. 1796), would be protected under H.R. 2909, as no map has been provided. The Coalition’s proposal 

would protect approximately 110,000 acres of the Cedar Mountains in three units 

(North Cedar Mountains: 14,718 acres; Central Cedar Mountains: 66,186 acres; 

South Cedar Mountains: 28,338 acres). 

In the late 1970’s, the BLM performed a wilderness inventory of the central unit of this range and identified roughly 50,000 acres that was designated as the Cedar 

Mountain WSA. The agency subsequently acknowledged that this inventory was 

flawed and inadequate and set about to conduct a comprehensive wilderness inventory for the State of Utah. In a 1999 document, the BLM reported that it had reconsidered the Central Cedar Mountain Unit and determined that it had previously 

missed over 15,000 acres that qualified as wilderness here, bringing the unit size 

to approximately 66,000 acres. In other words, on re-inventory, the BLM largely 

agreed with the Utah Wilderness Coalition’s central unit boundaries. Secretary Norton has since precluded the agency from conducting further wilderness inventories 

and protecting these lands in Resource Management Plans. Unfortunately, that 

means that the BLM has not conducted adequate inventories for the North and 

South Cedar Mountain wilderness units. 

The Cedar Mountain wilderness units lie on the eastern edge of the Great Salt 

Lake Desert and are situated just south of I-80, roughly a one hour drive west of 

Salt Lake City. These wilderness units display classic Basin and Range topography, 

are oriented in a north-south direction, with elevations ranging from 4,400 feet to 

over 7,700 feet at its mountain summits and ridgelines. Deep canyons, running east 

and west from the ridgelines are peppered with pinon pine and juniper forests. 

Mixed mountain brush communities dominate the north-facing slopes, while the 

south-facing slopes and ridge tops are dominated by sagebrush and native grasses. 

Rabbitbrush and greasewood are common in drainage bottoms and bench lands. 

The view from this range is spectacular, including the Silver Islands, Crater Island, and the Newfoundland Mountains, which are surrounded by the expansive 

playa salt flats of the Great Salt Lake Desert which was once covered by the ancient 

inland sea of Lake Bonneville around 15,000 years ago. Distant views of numerous 

mountain ranges are seen in every direction and include the Grouse Creek, Pilot 

Range, Deep Creek Mountains, Fish Springs Range, Dugway Range, Granite Peak, 

Promontory Mountains, Stansbury Mountains, Wasatch Mountains, Lakeside Mountains and Grassy Mountains. 

Wildlife is abundant in the Cedar Mountains. Mule deer, pronghorn antelope, coyote, bobcats, bats, an occasional mountain lion, ravens and reptiles all inhabit these 

units. This mountain range is also home to such raptors as the golden eagle and 

the red-tailed hawk. 

Several archeological sites have been identified in the northern portion of the 

range. However, in other locations comprehensive inventories are still needed to 

fully understand this resource. The Utah Wilderness Coalition’s proposed Cedar 

Mountain wilderness units provide exceptional solitude opportunities for visitors. In 

addition to being remote and seldom visited, vegetation and topography enhances 

a person’s outstanding sense of isolation and seclusion. Hiking, camping, backpacking, hunting, horseback riding, scenic photography, nature study and wildlife 

sightseeing are a few of the outstanding primitive recreation opportunities within 

the Cedar Mountains. 

Legislative concerns: 

We have several concerns regarding the legislation. 

Lack of map: There is no map depicting the areas to be designated as wilderness. 

It is premature to conduct a hearing when there is no means by which to measure 

the benefit or potential harm conveyed by the legislation. 

Lack of report language. There is no proposed report language, although the legislation contains ambiguous language regarding construction activities inside wilderness and other matters. 

New communications facilities allowed in wilderness. Sec. 3(d) allows the installation of new, and continuation of existing, communication sites in wilderness designated by the Act and existing wilderness study areas. This provision raises several 

problems: 

a. Conflict with wilderness: The construction and presence of such sites, including 

maintenance by helicopter, is inconsistent with the Wilderness Act and will diminish wilderness values, especially if located on peaks. 

b. Unprecedented WSA management language: The Act provides that new sites 

can be constructed inside Wilderness Study Areas. This is unprecedented language 

55

that dictates the specific management of WSAs differently from that set out by Congress in FLPMA. c. Uncertain need for exceptions, and breadth of exceptions: the Act provides that 

the Secretary of Interior can allow new sites when these collectively will create a 

‘‘similar impact’’ that does not expand the ‘‘size or significantly expand the numbers 

of such systems,’’ and does not require construction of a road. This language could 

allow a creeping increase of sites. The vagueness of the 3(d) language suggests the exceptions may not be necessary or could be narrowed by determining in the report language whether: there are existing systems within the ‘‘covered wilderness,’’ the locations of those systems, and 

whether there is a need to continue these systems. Further, it should be determined 

whether there is a need for any new systems in the region and, if so, the locations 

of these systems. The exceptions could also be narrowed by limiting the frequency in which mainte- nance could occur. 

d. Military given more authority inside wilderness than out: The Secretary of the Air Force is given consultation authority over decisions made regarding covered wilderness. The military does not have this authority over general public lands, and 

should not be granted this authority over designated wilderness. 

Conclusion: 

We urge you to oppose this legislation unless these basic questions are addressed 

and the West Desert wilderness is given adequate protection. 

We are willing to work with Mr. Bishop to address the concerns we have raised, 

and it is our hope that such efforts will be fruitful. But we will vigorously oppose 

the bill if it fails to adequately address our concerns. 

At the same time, we wish to underscore our ongoing concern with the potential 

public safety hazard that would be created by an above-ground nuclear waste storage site near the urban core of Utah’s population. We understand that one motivation behind the designation of wilderness in the legislation under consideration 

today is to prevent the development of the nuclear waste transportation corridor 

necessary for the proposed storage site. While we fully share the concern of this legislation’s chief sponsor with the public safety issues raised by the creation of the 

proposed nuclear waste storage site, we urge the Utah Delegation to pursue simpler 

legislation that would effectively block nuclear waste without creating other concerns for the conservation community. We would also urge a consideration of how 

to compensate the Goshute Nation for lost economic opportunities if the nuclear 

waste site is blocked. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this legislation and your consideration 

of our comments. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Groene. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Leon Bear, welcome to the Subcommittee. You may begin 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF LEON D. BEAR, CHAIRMAN, SKULL VALLEY 

BAND OF GOSHUTE INDIANS, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 

Mr. BEAR. Good afternoon. My name is Leon Bear. I am the 

Chief of the Squaw Valley Band of Goshute Indians and Chairman 

of the Squaw Valley Executive Committee. 

At this time, my testimony today is a summary of the written 

testimony that I have already submitted. I appreciate your invitation to testify before the Subcommittee on H.R. 2909. Whatever 

the intent, purposes of this legislation, I must advise you that several provisions in this bill, as introduced, would deny access to the 

Squaw Valley Indian Reservation, which was created pursuant to 

an 1863 treaty with the United States. 

As explained by this testimony, this bill is but the latest in a series of efforts by Utah political leaders, led by Governor Mike 

Leavitt, to deny Goshute treaty rights. The UTTR is superimposed 

across millions of acres of Goshute aboriginal territory, as deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 May 04, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\89893.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
56

scribed in the 1863 treaty. The treaty recognizes this area as 

Goshute homeland. In return for my ancestors’ permission for the 

cavalry, wagon trains, railroad or Pony Express to cross over these 

lands, the treaty did not relinquish Goshute title or use of this tribal homeland. 

At one point in time, the Goshutes had 20,000 members, but 

with the encroachment of non-Indians, today, our numbers are 

down to 500. 

In the recent years, the Utah West Desert has become home to 

all forms of toxic waste disposal, both military and commercial. 

There is currently no significant commercial development on the 

reservation. Most of our people have been forced to move away to 

seek employment. In 1996, we entered into a lease agreement to 

agree to lease 820 acres of tribal land with a consortium of utilities 

known as Private Fuel Storage to store the spent fuel rods from 

commercial nuclear reactors. 

The State of Utah has opposed this license application by intervening in this process, which the State is entitled to do. And now, 

we have H.R. 2909. To Congressman Bishop’s credit and unlike his 

predecessors, he has been willing to meet with the leadership of 

the band and to include us in discussions of this legislation. 

Section 4(b) expressly prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from 

issuing any rights-of-way across lands surrounding the reservation 

until the latter of the following: the completion of a full revision of 

the Pony Express Area Resource Management Plan; 2) January 1, 

2015, thus, for a minimum of 11 years and perhaps indefinitely, 

there can be no new industrial or transportation corridors to the 

reservation. 

The only current access to the reservation is the Squaw Valley 

Road, and the Governor and Legislature have been trying to gain 

control over that road, as to build a moat around the reservation. 

But nothing can justify cutting off access to the Squaw Valley Reservation, which was created pursuant to the treaty with the United 

States. The Goshute presence in the desert is as inconvenient now 

to the American people as it was in the 19th Century. If this bill, 

in its current form, receives favorable action from this Committee, 

then, I am afraid the answer is yes. This Congress will demonstrate that it has no reluctance to abrogate our treaty rights and 

treat our land as an uninhabitable wasteland. 

If tribal self-determination means anything, the Goshute people 

should be allowed to make their own decisions about economic development on their reservation land. If access to the reservation is 

denied by legislation such as H.R. 2909, they will never have that 

opportunity. 

I would like to turn the rest of my time over to Tim Vollman, 

our tribal attorney. 

Mr. VOLLMAN. Thank you. 

Congressman Bishop raised an issue with the Air Force witness 

about unrestricted access for UTTR. I would like to point out that 

the final environmental impact statement on the spent nuclear fuel 

storage facility on the Skull Valley Reservation, dated December 

2001, states: the Air Force agrees that an accident is unlikely and 

has asked that the FEIS state that there is no foreseeable reason 

57

why the facility owners or the NRC should ever require or seek any 

changes in the operation of the UTTR. 

The statement’s response to that is that no overflight restrictions 

are being contemplated to accommodate the proposed Private Fuel 

Storage facility. The issue of the safety of this facility is now, as 

pointed out by a number of witnesses, the subject of proceedings 

before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the issue of the 

consequences of a crash and the safety of overflights will be the 

subject of a hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, 

previously scheduled for this December, now postponed but likely 

to be early next year. 

I submit that, on behalf of the band, that this bill, to the extent 

that it tries to address these issues, is premature for the additional 

reason that we need to see what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will decide regarding these safety issues and that if it certifies 

this facility as safe with respect to the overflights by F-16s out of 

Hill Air Force Base that the provisions of this bill will be unnecessary. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bear follows:]

Statement of Leon D. Bear, Chairman,

Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, on H.R. 2909

I am Leon Bear, Chairman of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, who reside in the West Desert of Utah. I appreciate the Chairman’s invitation to testify 

before the Subcommittee on H.R. 2909. Whatever the intended purpose of this legislation, I must advise you that several provisions in the bill, as introduced, would 

deny access to the Skull Valley Indian Reservation, which was created pursuant to 

an 1863 Treaty with the United States. As explained by this testimony, this bill is 

but the latest in a series of efforts by Utah political leaders, led by Governor Mike 

Leavitt, to deny Goshute treaty rights. 

H.R. 2909 purports to be designed to ensure the continued availability of the 

Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) to support the readiness and training needs 

of the Armed Forces. The UTTR, as described in this bill, includes the Skull Valley 

Indian Reservation within its boundaries. But never mind. My family and I live on 

the Reservation, and almost daily, for many years, we have heard F-16s roar across 

the valley floor, often only a few hundred feet above our village. 

The UTTR is superimposed across millions of acres of Goshute aboriginal territory, as described in the 1863 Treaty. The Treaty recognized this area as the 

Goshute homeland, in return for my ancestors’ permission for the cavalry, wagon 

trains, railroad and pony express to cross over these lands. The Treaty did not relinquish Goshute title or use of this tribal homeland. Our leaders merely conveyed critical access to facilitate the westward continental migration of the people colonizing 

Indian Country. Now, without our consent, the non-Indian leaders of Utah continue 

to attempt to deny the Skull Valley Goshute people access to their own Reservation. 

But this is nothing new to the Goshute people. 

Notwithstanding the limited language of the 1863 Treaty, settlers, miners, missionaries and the military immediately encroached on Indian hunting and gathering 

grounds, pushing the Goshute people aside. By the early 20th century, their numbers had dwindled to a few hundred people. The Treaty authorized the President 

to set aside Reservations for our protection, but it was not until 1917 that President 

Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a reservation for the Skull Valley Band. Subsequent executive orders and statutes have identified a total of only 18,000 acres of desert at 

the foot of the Stansbury Mountains for our Reservation. 

Then came World War II and the Cold War. The military presence in the West 

Desert expanded to include, not just Air Force training, but the manufacture and 

testing of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. To the south of the Reservation 

lies Dugway Proving Grounds; to the east: Tooele Chemical Depot; to the west and 

north: the UTTR. 

Looking for weapons of mass destruction? You need look no further than Goshute 

territory. In the 1960s chemical weapons testing killed several thousand sheep 

which were secretly buried on the Skull Valley Indian Reservation. After their disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 May 04, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\89893.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
58

covery years later, the Tribe entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the Department of Defense to remove the contaminated carcasses. 

In recent years the Utah West Desert has become home to all forms of toxic waste disposal, both military and commercial. Indeed, Tooele County zoned the area surrounding the Skull Valley Reservation for toxic waste dumping. Little wonder that 

the Reservation has not been viewed as a prime area for economic development. 

Also, we have been isolated. The Reservation lies 25 lonely miles down Skull Valley 

Road south from Interstate 80. We are a 70-mile drive from the Salt Lake City Airport, on the west side of the Stansbury Mountains and the Deseret Peak Wilderness 

Area. There is currently no significant commercial development on the Reservation. 

Most of our people have been forced to move away to seek employment. In the 1980s the Department of Energy began offering grants to Indian tribes and other communities to explore the possibility of storing nuclear waste. The Skull Valley Band received two such grants from DOE, and we learned a lot about this subject. We learned the difference between uranium, plutonium and transuranic waste. 

We learned about enrichment of uranium, long before North Korea and Iran brought 

this issue to American headlines. We learned about this country’s dependence upon 

nuclear energy, and learned about the spent nuclear fuel rods from commercial nuclear reactors, which are stored in pools of water, on the Hudson River, not far from 

Manhattan Island; and on the Chesapeake Bay, not far from this hearing room. We 

learned about dry cask storage of these spent rods. We learned about the future 

technological potential for extracting valuable energy from this source. So, fully informed, in 1996 we entered into a lease of 820 acres of tribal land with a consortium of utilities (PFS) to store the spent fuel rods from commercial nuclear 

reactors. Construction and operation of the storage facility was dependent upon the 

issuance of a license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The licensing proceedings have been ongoing since 1997, and we are hoping that they will conclude 

with the issuance of a license early next year. The State of Utah has opposed the 

license by intervening in this proceeding. This the State was entitled to do. However, the opposition did not stop there. Governor Leavitt whipped the Utah 

electorate into a hysterical anti-nuclear frenzy. In 1999 he announced that he would 

build a ‘‘moat’’ around the Skull Valley Reservation. He was successful in the State 

Legislature over several years, obtaining laws which purported to give him control 

over Skull Valley Road, regulatory authority over the Reservation (and all Indian 

Reservations in Utah), and prohibiting the transportation and storage of high-level 

nuclear waste ‘‘within the boundaries of the State,’’ including Indian Reservations. 

In 2001, we joined with PFS to sue the Governor seeking to invalidate these laws 

as unconstitutional. We were successful. In July 2002, the U.S. District Court in 

Salt Lake City ruled in our favor, declaring these laws unconstitutional, specifically 

including the effort to build a moat around the Reservation. Skull Valley Band v. 

Leavitt, 215 F.Supp.2d 1232, 1248, note 10 (D. Utah 2002). The State’s appeal is 

pending. 

Meanwhile, the former Chairman of this Committee, Congressman Hansen, snuck 

a provision into the Defense Authorization bill last year, which would have cut off 

access to the Reservation by requiring that no land management planning could be 

conducted by the Secretary of the Interior without the concurrence of the ‘‘Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the State of Utah,’’ namely the Governor. 

This would have prevented any rights-of-way across either of the two Goshute Reservations in western Utah, in effect making the Goshutes the peons of the State of 

Utah. Fortunately, this provision was not included in the legislation which was enacted. 

Earlier this year, we discovered, based on a review of state public records, that 

Governor Leavitt has been funding attorneys representing Goshute dissidents since 

1997, including financing the creation of so-called Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia (OGD), 

which has been litigating with the Band and the Department of the Interior with 

numerous administrative appeals and lawsuits, none of which have been successful. 

Indeed, we found that the State has paid at least three sets of these attorneys 

$500,000 to keep up this effort in a blatant attempt to destabilize the tribal government, including the freezing of tribal bank accounts. 

Now we have H.R. 2909. To Congressman Bishop’s credit, and unlike his predecessor, he has been willing to meet with the leadership of the Band, and to include 

us in discussions of this legislation. But, as introduced, it contains many of the same 

odious provisions which appeared in the Hansen amendment to the Defense Authorization bill in the last Congress. 

Section 4(b) expressly prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from issuing any 

rights-of-way across the Federal lands surrounding the Reservation ‘‘until the later 

of the following: (1) The completion of a full revision of the Pony Express Area Resource Management Plan. ... (2) January 1, 2015.’’ Thus, for a minimum of eleven 

59

years, and perhaps indefinitely, there can be no new industrial or transportation 

corridors to the Reservation. The only current access to the Reservation is Skull 

Valley Road, and the Governor and Legislature have been trying to gain control over 

that road so as to build a ‘‘moat’’ around the Reservation. 

Section 5 of H.R. 2909 would create the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area, which, 

according to a draft map the Congressman sent to us, would include Federal lands 

adjacent to Interstate 80 to be crossed by a proposed rail line to the Skull Valley 

Reservation. The Department of the Interior has already determined that those 

lands are not even appropriate for designation as a Wilderness Study Area (WSA) 

under the Federal Land Management and Policy Act, much less for Congressional 

designation as wilderness. The inclusion of these lands in the wilderness proposal 

clearly appears to be an effort to prevent the Skull Valley Band from obtaining this 

rail line. 

This is done under the justification of military readiness. We are not opposed to 

the continuation of military flights over Skull Valley, and share military readiness 

concerns, and we are willing to work with Congressman Bishop on the language of 

his bill, as long as all provisions which block access to the Reservation are deleted. 

We believe we have a good relationship with the Air Force, and just last week I 

met with the new Brigadier General at Hill Air Force Base, who agreed to cooperate 

with the Band. We understand that the Air Force has taken no position on the construction of the PFS facility on the Reservation. We expect the NRC licensing process to certify that the project is safe. Any suggestion that the agency has already 

denied a license on that basis is false. The evidentiary process continues, and a 

hearing is scheduled for this December. 

But nothing can justify cutting off access to the Skull Valley Reservation, which 

was created pursuant to a Treaty with the United States. Is the Goshute presence 

in the desert just as inconvenient now to the American people, as it was in the 19th 

century? If this bill, in its current form, receives favorable action from this Committee, then I am afraid the answer is Yes. This Congress will demonstrate that 

it has no reluctance to abrogate our treaty rights, and treat our lands as an 

uninhabited wasteland. 

If tribal self-determination means anything, the Goshute people should be allowed 

to make their own decisions about economic development on their Reservation 

lands. If access to the Reservation is denied, by legislation such as H.R. 2909, they 

will never have that opportunity. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, sir. Would you please state your 

name and occupation for the record, if you would? 

Mr. VOLLMAN. I apologize. My name is Tim Vollman. I am an attorney out of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and I represent the Skull 

Valley Band, and I have provided the Committee with a disclosure 

statement in compliance with your rules. You have that information. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, sir, I appreciate your 

testimony and that of Mr. Bear as well. 

Mr. BEAR. Thank you. May I point out one other thing relative 

to the testimony? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am afraid you are out of time. So we will 

hope to get it up during the question and answer. 

Thank you very much. 

Next is Mr. Anthony Portantino, who is a member of the Santa 

Monica Conservancy Advisory Committee from La Canada and 

Flintridge in California. 

Mr. Portantino, welcome to the Subcommittee, and you may 

begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY PORTANTINO, MEMBER, 

SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE 

Mr. PORTANTINO. Thank you, sir. 

60

Mr. Chairman, honorable Members of Congress, my name is Anthony Portantino, and I am a Councilmember and the former 

Mayor of the City of La Canada-Flintridge, a city with a long history of respecting private property rights. 

Today, I am speaking on behalf of the Santa Monica Mountains 

Conservancy, of which I am an Advisory Committee member, in 

support of H.R. 704, the Rim of the Valley Trail Corridor Study 

Act. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is the principal 

agency of the State of California charged with the protection of 

open space and natural resources for almost three-quarters of a 

million acres surrounding the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. 

Since 1983, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has had 

the responsibility of acquiring park and open space land, building 

trails and providing other public access improvements within the 

Rim of the Valley corridor. The importance of the Rim of the Valley 

corridor is twofold: the striking natural scenery and open space 

that still encircles the Greater Los Angeles area and the proximity 

of those natural resources to the 10 million residents of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. 

In 1978, Congress established the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, acknowledging that it was a special area, 

almost unique in the Park System, in that the National Recreation 

Area would be administered cooperatively with the state, regional 

and local governments. That model has worked splendidly. There 

is now a seamless web of park land extending from the beaches of 

Malibu to the heights of Simi Peak, from the heart of downtown 

Los Angeles 50 miles west to Mugu Lagoon, which is one of the last 

of California’s unspoiled coastal wetlands. 

Although the Santa Monica Mountains NRA is far from complete, 

the outlines of its success are apparent. The Federal Government 

has provided both the material and intellectual resources that have 

coalesced and stimulated much wider movement for the protection 

of the area and making it accessible for public recreation opportunities. The original authorization for the SMMNRA was $155 million, but to date, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and 

California has almost tripled that, and the California State Parks 

Department has spent another $60 million or so and intends to 

spend more. 

There is every indication that including the Rim of the Valley 

Corridor within the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation 

Area will have the same positive effect upon the protection of the 

ecological communities and the well-being of the human communities in northern Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. However, 

this bill does not presuppose an outcome. It merely directs a study, 

and a cooperative study at that. The National Park Service model 

has worked well for the Santa Monica Mountains proper and can 

be readily adapted for most of the Rim of the Valley Corridor. 

In the eastern rim of the valley, there may be institutional arrangements that recognize the vital role played by the Angeles National Forest, America’s most visited National Forest, in protecting 

the San Gabriel Mountains, making them accessible for recreational purposes. By requiring a joint study by both the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, this bill 

makes it probable that what will emerge from the study is a methVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:03 May 04, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\89893.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
61

od of protecting and enhancing this special area that will use the 

best resources of the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service. 

Let me emphasize why H.R. 704 is so urgent. The satellite 

photos show a wreath of green, representing the Rim of the Valley 

Corridor. Land use decisions pending within the next few years can 

change all of that forever. Decisions will be made in that timeframe 

by major landowners whether or not to engage in park partnerships, and many times, sale for park and recreational purposes is 

a preferred choice for local property owners, or whether to commit 

the land to residential and commercial development. 

Local government and planning decisions need to be informed 

about whether their Federal Government is willing to protect this 

area. The introduction of similar measures in both Houses of Congress stimulated a rush of local interest and support. There is a lot 

of good will resting on the swift completion of this study. The Conservancy stands ready to commit up to $100,000 to fund this cost. 

On a personal note, this past Saturday, my city dedicated a trailhead access point that connects a residential neighborhood to the 

Angeles Crest National Forest. This property, our last and most 

vital resource, was dedicated because we did not identify it two 

decades ago. 

Although we worked collaboratively with property owners, the 

final cost to the taxpayers was three times what it should have 

been. This Saturday, Congressional representatives from David 

Dreier’s office, our Congressman, was there, and it exemplified how 

important it is to work with a vision toward the future. 

Ninety years ago, U.S. Senator Frank Flint worked with Teddy 

Roosevelt to develop our neighborhood. We are looking for Congress 

today to help us plan for our future. There is no community with 

a greater respect for private property rights than ours, and we are 

looking for help and working with Congressman Adam Schiff and 

being a stakeholder and working toward the future. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Portantino follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Anthony J. Portantino, Council Member, City 

of La Canada Flintridge, Member, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy 

Advisory Committee, on H.R. 704

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of Congress, my name is Anthony 

Portantino, I am a council member and former mayor of the City of La Canada 

Flintridge, and a member of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Advisory 

Committee; I am representing the Conservancy here today in support of H.R. 704, 

the Rim of the Valley Corridor Study Act. 

The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is the principal agency of the State of 

California charged with protection of open space and the natural resources of almost 

three quarters of a million acres surrounding the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. 

Since 1983, the Mountains Conservancy has had the responsibility acquiring park 

and open space land, building trails, and providing for other public access improvements within the Rim of the Valley Corridor. 

Successive state legislative amendments have expanded the territory of the Rim 

of the Valley Corridor so that it now encompasses a major portion of the Santa 

Monica Mountains, the Santa Susana Mountains, Simi Hills, Verdugo Mountains, 

San Rafael Hills, and the portion of the San Gabriel Mountains within the upper 

Los Angeles River watershed. This was done in recognition of the essential ecological unity of the mountains system in southern California and the artificiality of limiting protection to only a portion of it. 

62

The importance of the Rim of the Valley Corridor is twofold: The striking natural scenery and open space that still encircles the greater Los Angeles area, and the 

proximity of those natural resources to the ten million residents of Los Angeles and 

Ventura Counties. 

In 1978 Congress established the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, acknowledging that it was a special area, almost unique in the park system, 

in that the National Recreation Area would be administered cooperatively with the 

state, regional, and local governments. That model has worked splendidly. There is 

now a seamless web of parkland extending from the beaches of Malibu to the height 

of Simi Peak, from the heart of downtown Los Angeles fifty miles west to Mugu Lagoon which is one of the last of California’s unspoiled coastal wetlands. Although 

the Santa Monica Mountains NRA is far from complete, the outlines of its success 

are apparent. The Federal government has provided both material and intellectual 

resources that have coalesced and stimulated a much wider movement for the protection of the area and making it accessible for public recreation opportunities. The 

original authorization for the SMMNRA was $155,000,000, but to date the Santa 

Monica Mountains Conservancy of the State of California has almost tripled that, 

and the California State Parks Department has spent another $60,000,000 or so, 

and intends to spend more. 

There is every indication that including the Rim of the Valley Corridor within the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area will have the same positive effect upon the protection of ecological communities and the well-being of human communities in northern Los Angeles and eastern Ventura counties. However, this bill 

does not presuppose an outcome, it merely directs a study. And a cooperative one 

at that. The National Park Service model has worked well for the Santa Monica 

Mountains proper, and can be readily adapted for most of the Rim of the Valley Corridor. In the eastern Rim of the Valley there may be institutional arrangements that 

recognize the vital role played by the Angeles National Forest—America’s most visited National Forest—in protecting the San Gabriel Mountains and making them 

accessible for recreation purposes. By requiring a joint study by both the Secretary 

of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, this bill makes it probable that 

what will emerge from the study is a method of protecting and enhancing this special area that will use the best resources of the National Park Service and the U.S. 

Forest Service. 

Although the Administration expressed concern about the number of park studies being undertaken, it did not oppose the identical bill that passed the Senate earlier 

this year. Let me emphasize why H.R. 704 is so urgent. While the satellite photos of south- ern California still show the wreath of green represented by the Rim of the Valley 

Corridor, land-use decisions pending within the next few years can change all of 

that forever. Decisions will be made in that time frame by major landowners whether or not to engage in park partnerships—and many times sale for park and recreation purposes is a preferred choice for local property owners—or whether to commit 

the land to residential and commercial development. Local government planning 

and zoning decisions need to be informed by whether there will be a Federal initiative to protect this area. The introduction of similar measures in both houses of 

Congress last year stimulated a rush of local interest and support. There is a lot 

of good will resting on the swift completion of the study. 

The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy stands ready to help in any way we 

can. Our data bases, planning studies, and personnel will all be made available. 

Even more significantly, the Conservancy is prepared to match the federal government dollar for dollar (up to $100,000) to help fund the cost of this study. 

On a personal note—this past Saturday, my city, La Canada Flintridge, dedicated 

a trailhead access point that connects a residential neighborhood with the Angeles 

Crest National Forrest and the Rim of the Valley Trail. This property, our last and 

most vital trailhead, was threatened by development because my City did not spend 

the time and resources two decades ago to identify it’s importance. 

Although we worked collaboratively with the property owner, the final cost to taxpayers was three times what it should have been had we shown the foresight that 

Congress is now so laudably contemplating to enact. We have since rectified our 

lack of vision by establishing a Trails Resources and Protection Committee that is 

planning for the preservation and acquisition of open space for the next two decades 

much like you are considering doing today. 

Our success on Saturday, attended by Congressional Representatives and State 

Legislators, exemplifies how important it is to work with a vision toward the future. 

As the population of Los Angeles County continues to dramatically increase, it is 

so much better to plan in advance of that growth and its demands than to react 

to it. 

63

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I would be happy to address any 

questions the Committee may have. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. 

Portantino. 

Next is Mr. Mike Hardiman, who is Legislative Director for the 

American Land Rights Association here in Washington. 

Mr. Hardiman, you may begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE HARDIMAN, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN LAND RIGHTS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. HARDIMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The American Land 

Rights Association was founded in 1977 by private property holders 

in California. It now has membership in all 50 states concerned 

with both private property rights and public lands multiple use and 

access. I have been a land holder in Imperial County since 1990. 

I have submitted letters from 34 Los Angeles area residents, including property owners and recreational users in and near the 

proposed study region. All of these very strongly oppose H.R. 704. 

Mr. Chairman, there is a remarkable difference between the 

claims made by supporters of this bill versus the reality of National 

Park Service actions in this and other nearby park units under the 

same regional management. Recreation: H.R. 704’s sponsor, Congressman Adam Schiff, who is here today, said Los Angeles has, 

quote, one of the lowest ratios of park and recreation lands per 

thousand population of any area in the country. 

However, a Park Service regional takeover under H.R. 704 will 

most likely reduce recreational access. John Williams from San 

Bernardino, a former Park Service employee, writes to the Committee, quote: I am currently finishing a historic interpretive sign 

project on the old ridge route, the original highway that ran from 

Bakersfield to Los Angeles. Williams predicts that, quote, the Park 

Service’s excuse for shutting down this access route will be that it 

does not meet Federal highway standards and is a liability risk. 

This is what the Park Service did here in 1991, when he was employed by the Park Service, when they took over an old Boy Scout 

camp, shut down a road open since 1932, thus eliminating public 

access to that part of the recreation area. 

Ed Waldheim from Glendale, President of the California OffRoad Vehicle Association, writes that the National Park Service is 

anti-access and should not have an expanded role in Southern California, in particular considering its lack of maintenance of existing 

facilities. 

Mr. Chairman, the term recreation does not even appear in the 

bill as a need for the purpose of H.R. 704. Dealings with property 

owners: Pat Tiller of the National Park Service testified on March 

20, 2003, the that Santa Monica National Recreation Area has become a model of collaboration with many private property owners. 

Former Santa Monica Mountains resident Donald Scott may disagree. The reason I say former is because Donald Scott is dead. 

After Scott refused to sell his land to the Park Service, the NPS 

trumped up marijuana growing charges against him, led a raid on 

his home in October of 1992. Scott was shot and killed by a Los 

64

Angeles County Sheriff who had joined the Park Service on the 

raid. 

Eight years later, in 2000, the Park Service and the Sheriff’s De- partment jointly reached a multimillion-dollar wrongful death settlement with Scott’s widow, Frances. No drugs were ever found; no 

charges were ever made against the Scotts. Unfortunately, this disgraceful episode is not unique. On one of the Channel Islands, just 

off the coast of Los Angeles, the Graney family was running a successful recreation business of just the type that NPS claims it 

wants to see, including kayaking, mountain biking, hiking and bow 

hunting as part of a bed-and-breakfast operation. However, the NPS wanted the entire island to themselves and 

saw that the Graneys, who lived on the island since 1869, were not 

going to leave voluntarily. So they took things into their own 

hands. In January of 1997, the Park Service landed two helicopters 

with 20 armed agents on the island. As in the Scott case, once 

again, trumped up charges were used to justify the raid, which included misdemeanors such as an expired work permit and operating a stove without a license. This time, at least, no one was killed, but the Graneys’ business was ruined, because tourists were, understandably, petrified to go 

to the island anymore. It is only a study. Joe Edmonston of the Santa Monica Moun- tains Conservancy claimed in Senate testimony earlier this year 

that, quote, this bill does not presuppose an outcome. It merely directs a study. Well, consider this: when the Park Service began a 

study of the nearby Gaviota coast in Santa Barbara County in 

1999, they promised openness, but that is not what happened. Here 

is a confidential statement written by NPS Study Director Ray 

Murray just after the study began, quote: we can shield sensitive 

info in several ways away from freedom of information requests 

and subpoenas. I will clarify and lay out our options. Often, we can 

mark documents and materials as predecisional. 

Letters dating back as far as 1994 demonstrate that the Park Service was pushing for a park unit for the area many years before 

the study began. This study was slated for 3 years, but it is behind 

schedule and over budget and will take approximately 5 years to 

complete. This leaves property owners with a regulatory cloud over 

their land and with many plans on hold for all that time. In conclusion, H.R. 704 has significant regional opposition from property owners and public access community leaders. Up to this 

point, they have had no idea what the Park Service and the Conservancy have had in store. Supporters should go back to the drawing board and, this time around, begin an inclusive discussion process. There is no need for this bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardiman follows:]

Statement of Michael Hardiman, Legislative Director, American Land Rights Association, on H.R. 704

The American Land Rights Association was founded in 1977 by private property inholders in California, and now has membership in all fifty states concerned with 

both private property rights and public lands multiple use and access. I have been 

an inholder in Imperial County since 1990. 

I have submitted letters from thirty-four Los Angeles area residents, including 

property owners and recreational users in and near the proposed study region. All 

of these very strongly oppose H.R. 704. 

65

Mr. Chairman, there is a remarkable difference between the claims made by supporters of this bill, versus the reality of National Park Service (NPS) actions in this 

and other nearby park units under the same regional management. 

Recreation: 

H.R. 704’s sponsor Congressman Adam Schiff has said Los Angeles has ‘‘one of 

the lowest ratios of park and recreation lands per thousand population of any area 

in the country.’’ However, a Park Service regional takeover under H.R. 704 will 

most likely reduce recreational access. 

John Williams from San Bernardino, a former Park Service employee, writes to 

the Committee, ‘‘I am currently finishing a historic interpretive sign project on the 

Old Ridge Route, the original highway that ran from Bakersfield to Los Angeles.’’ 

Williams predicts that ‘‘the Park Service’s excuse for shutting down this Route will 

be that it doesn’t meet federal highway standards and is a liability risk. That is 

what the Park Service did here in 1991 when they took over an old Boy Scout 

camp—shut down a road open since 1932, thus eliminating public access to that 

part of the recreation area.’’

Ed Waldheim from Glendale, President of the California Off Road Vehicle Association, writes that ‘‘The National Park Service is anti-access and should not have an 

expanded role in Southern California, in particular considering its lack of maintenance of existing facilities.’’

The term ‘‘recreation’’ does not even appear in the bill as a need or purpose for 

H.R. 704. 

Dealings with property owners: 

Pat Tiller of the Park Service testified in March 2003 that the Santa Monica National Recreation Area ‘‘has become a model of collaboration’’ with ‘‘many private 

property owners.’’

Former Santa Monica Mountains resident Donald Scott may disagree. The reason 

I say ‘‘former’’ is because Donald Scott is dead. After Scott refused to sell his land 

to the Park Service, the NPS trumped up marijuana growing charges against him, 

and led a raid on his home in October of 1992. Scott was shot and killed by a Los 

Angeles County Sheriff, who had joined the Park Service on the raid. 

Eight years later, in 2000, the Park Service and the Sheriff’s Department finally 

reached a multimillion dollar wrongful death settlement with Scott’s widow, 

Frances. No drugs were ever found. 

Unfortunately, this disgraceful episode is not unique. On one of the Channel Islands just off the coast of Los Angeles, the Gherini family was running a successful 

recreation business of just the type that NPS claims it wants to see, including 

kayaking, mountain biking, hiking and bow hunting as part of a bed-and-breakfast 

operation. The NPS wanted the entire place to themselves, and saw that the 

Gherini’s, who had lived on the island since 1869, were not going to leave voluntarily. So they took things into their own hands. 

In January of 1997, the Park Service landed two helicopters with twenty armed 

agents on the island. As in the Scott case, once again trumped up charges were used 

to justify the raid, which included misdemeanors such as an expired work permit 

and operating a stove without a license. 

This time, no one was killed. But the Gherini’s business was ruined because tourists were petrified to go to the island anymore. 

It’s only a study: 

Joe Edmiston of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy claimed in Senate testimony earlier this year that ‘‘this bill does not presuppose an outcome, it merely 

directs a study.’’

Well, consider this. When the Park Service began a study of the nearby Gaviota 

Coast in Santa Barbara County in 1999, they promised openness, but that is not 

what happened. Here is a confidential statement written by NPS study director Ray 

Murray just after the study began: 

‘‘We can shield sensitive info in several ways from Freedom of Information Requests and subpoenas. I’ll clarify and layout our options. Often we can mark documents and materials as ‘Pre-Decisional’.’’

Letters dating back as far as 1994 demonstrated that the Park Service was pushing for a park unit for the area, many years before the study began. 

This study was slated for three years, but it is behind schedule and over budget, 

and will take approximately five years to complete. This leaves property owners 

with a regulatory cloud on their land, and with many plans on hold for all that time. 

In conclusion, H.R. 704 has significant regional opposition from property owners 

and public access community leaders. Up to this point, they have had no idea what 

66

the NPS and the Conservancy have had in store. Supporters should go back to the 

drawing board and this time around, begin an inclusive discussion process. 

[NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Hardiman’s statement have been retained in the 

Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Hardiman. That 

ends the testimony of the people invited to the Committee and 

opens up time now for questions from members of the panel. 

I am going to recognize Mr. Bishop from Utah to begin the questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson, I appreciate your being here and talking about the 

inclusion process. In the view of the states, can you think of any 

player that we have not tried to include in the process in coming 

up with this particular bill which we should have? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, I think you have been very thorough, and I 

congratulate you on your efforts to include everyone in those discussions. As you know as a Congressman, the Governor is in a very 

difficult situation, because he represents all of the stakeholders involved in these public lands issues, and so, he represents those who 

love wilderness, those who hate it, those who are wonderful members of the Goshute tribe who want nuclear, those who do not; 

those who want access; those who want no access, and you know 

how difficult of a balance that is. 

And so, having as many players at the table as you have and trying to carve this out in an appropriate way is to speak well of your 

efforts. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate your statement of support that the 

State has for the Utah Test and Training Range. As a former county commissioner of a county with a great deal of public and Federal 

lands within the boundaries of that county, even though we do 

have, at the present time, a warm working relationship between 

the Bureau of Land Management, the Air Force and other entities 

who are out there in that particular area, could you see an advantage for codifying that relationship to make sure that in the future, 

things do not change based on personalities who may change? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; I think that in the 10 years that I served in 

public office as an elected official, I saw many changes in perspective as agency personnel changed, as elected officials changed, and 

sometimes interpretations of rules and law are manifested in different ways. And it is always good to have surety in the management of these things. I think that the thing that stands out in my 

mind in our support of this is that Utah, with over 70 percent of 

its land base being public lands and being such a large provider of 

minerals that are essential not only to the State but to the Nation 

as well as the military applications and all of the other kinds of 

things that occur and are relied upon on public lands, it would be 

well for the State and the citizens of the State to have something 

that sets a good precedent that these things can coexist and operate side-by-side. 

And I think that is always a fear for, especially, local elected officials that, say, have a power plant in their county, or they have, 

you know, a coal mine in their county, or like the UTTR facility 

up there. It is always a worry that, you know, different encroaching 

67

rules and regulations are going to create economic difficulties and 

problems in continuing to function with those things, and surety is 

a very good thing. So, yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Groene, I noticed in your written testimony that you said the 

presence of such sites, meaning communication towers and facilities, are inconsistent with the Wilderness Act. That is exactly what 

you mean? You are sticking with that point? 

Mr. GROENE. Said that it would diminish wilderness characteristics. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK; so, as we look at that map, on anything that 

is Wilderness Study Area, which is shaded, everything that is a triangle is a communication site. So each of those diminish and, once 

again, is inconsistent with the concept of wilderness. 

Mr. GROENE. Well, our understanding has been that there are 

two sites right now inside wilderness study areas, and I am not 

quite sure on this, but I understand at least one of them, the understanding was put in that it would be removed if the area was 

designated as wilderness. 

Mr. BISHOP. Actually, every triangle is a site, so you have a 

whole lot more than just two that you are dealing with in this area. 

I also want to thank you for saying in your written testimony that 

you are willing to work with me to address the concerns that we 

have raised, and I hope those efforts will be fruitful. I hope you are 

standing by that. 

Mr. GROENE. Certainly. 

Mr. BISHOP. And I appreciate the effort of the Southern Utah 

Wilderness Alliance. They have met with me on three different occasions already. 

Could I just request, since you did request or refer to a clean bill 

that would be better, if the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

could provide us or at least my staff with a draft bill that you think 

would be a better way of stopping nuclear waste coming into Utah? 

Mr. GROENE. We would be happy to do that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Bear? 

Mr. BEAR. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. First of all, let me give a caveat here. I appreciated 

having the chance of meeting with you, and let me say that as we 

have been trying to work with different groups on this particular 

bill, I have an apology that we should have hit you up and your 

organization sooner than we did, and I apologize for that. But I appreciate having the chance of working with you and your attorney 

and staff, and you have been very kind. 

Mr. BEAR. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. And the words that you put in your written testimony about me, I appreciate that significantly. 

Can I ask two questions? The first one is, specifically, are there 

any kinds of cultural, native Goshute activities that you think 

should be included in any kind of wilderness proposal for the Cedar 

Mountains to be protected? 

Am I out of time, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Go ahead and finish your question, and then, 

we will move on. 

68

Mr. BISHOP. Well, let me give these last two ones, and I will do 

that. First, that was the first one, and maybe a yes or no would 

be easy. 

Second one is very simple to this one, and it is the Atomic Safety 

and Licensing Board talking about the proposed site said the Board 

said that there was a credible—that therefore, a credible event—

there was a credible possibility of an accident taking place on that 

site and therefore a credible event and that no license could be 

issued until PFC proves that its proposed facility could withstand 

such an accident. If PFC should choose to pursue the matter—and 

that is part of the issue that is still going before there—in addition, 

we have provided testimony that was presented by the State of 

Utah on September 18, which has six separate expert assessments 

of simulation aircraft accidents happening on this particular site, 

in each case on above-ground, high-level nuclear waste storage 

casks with catastrophic results, as decided by a system of scientists 

who are in Purdue, and that will be expanded in the future. 

If those studies are accurate that the level of safety is above the 

mathematical level of acceptability that the Atomic Safety Licensing Board will accept, is the Goshute Band still persisting or willing to continue on with their pursuit of this particular site? 

Mr. BEAR. OK; let me answer the first question, and the answer 

to that is yes, there are significant cultural and traditional affiliations to the land out there in the Cedar Mountain Range. Actually, the Goshute Tribe used to roam that area. We roamed in 7.3 

million acres of the West Desert. And so, that is a significant site, 

the Cedar Mountain Range. 

Second, yes, the tribe, as far as the economics, we will move forward, and apparently, we would have moved forward with this 

issue. We started this issue back in 1989 with the DOE, with the 

MRS, learning about storage of spent fuel, and the tribe has 

taken—has put in a lot of years on this training. And, of course, 

this process here, the license process, has taken longer than the 

tribe had expected. It has taken up to 7 years. And that is just to 

make sure that everything is kosher with the regulations and the 

NRC. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Bear. I apologize for throwing those 

out very quickly. 

And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to go over. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. That was the longest question I have ever 

heard, Mr. Bishop. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RADANOVICH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Schiff for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not use the full 5 

minutes. 

I want to thank the gentleman from La Canada, Councilmember 

Portantino, for coming and testifying today, and I would merely 

like to point out that this bill is not a new bill. We introduced this 

bill last session. It passed in the full Senate. It was reintroduced 

at the beginning of this year. It again passed in the Senate. 

So this is not a new idea, and we have encountered no regional 

opposition at all, notwithstanding the letter or two that has been 

provided to us today. In fact, the communities that we have inquired about in the region are all in support. The city of Burbank 

69

has passed a resolution in support. The city of Glendale has passed 

a resolution in support. La Canada has passed a resolution. Pasadena has. South Pasadena has. The representatives of the area, on 

a bipartisan basis, support the measure. And we have encountered, 

really, no opposition up until the comments of the gentleman from 

the American Land Rights Association. 

As the gentleman from the Park Service mentioned, if the study 

is approved, there will be an extensive public comment period, and 

there will be ample opportunity for anyone that has any concern 

to raise that. We really do not presuppose an outcome, but we 

would like to have these two agencies put their heads together and 

decide what best framework can manage and preserve the resources in the area, and we plan to be fully respectful of any private property interests and would very much look forward to the 

opportunity to work with the Committee on this legislation, and I 

thank the Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 

the witnesses for being here today, including Mr. Vollman, whom 

I have not seen for maybe 20 years but who gave me my introductory law course in Indian law some time ago. 

Mr. Groene, I received a phone call from your Executive Director, 

Larry Young, who indicated that your testimony would be slightly 

antagonistic but that he wanted to express your group’s view that 

you would like to work on the issue. 

I am not interested in where you want to end up, particularly, 

on this, but have you actually—let me just say that in recent years, 

the communications have been much better with the Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance, and I appreciate that. But in this case, 

have you all internally looked at where you want to end up, evaluated that in the context of what is possible, because there is very 

little that is new here today and are, in fact, interested in actually 

moving toward a—or do you think that there is a solution that we 

can agree on ultimately? 

Mr. GROENE. I can tell you that I think that our involvement has 

always been with the intent of trying to find a result that we could 

live with as legislation. 

Mr. CANNON. So we do not have anything new in mind as we go 

forward on this one. 

Mr. GROENE. I am sorry? 

Mr. CANNON. You do not have anything new in mind as we go 

forward on this one? 

Mr. GROENE. Anything new in mind? 

Mr. CANNON. That might lead us to an actual bill that would be 

passed, that you can support. 

Mr. GROENE. Well, I think that, as you say, the discussions, I 

think, have been good, you know, and between our offices, and we 

have appreciated that. 

On this, our position right now at the hearing has been that this 

may be premature, because we were not able to measure what this 

legislation would mean for the West Desert Wilderness absent a 

map and clarifications on some of the language. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you; I appreciate that. 

70

Mr. Johnson, you quoted the Governor talking about how the extremes do not ever work out and mentioned the Governor’s principles in Libra or in balance. I do not mean to put you on the spot 

particularly, but do you have a way of describing the extremes 

other than the position taken by parties that are most opposite 

that would, say, take into account the reasonableness of the positions at the philosophical extremes? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do I have a way of describing those extremes? 

Mr. CANNON. Or I heard the Governor talking about it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sitting with a tape recorder running, you are 

wanting me to describe the extremes? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, I think the Governor’s position and certainly 

mine in the years that I have been involved with this is that we 

tend to have polarized with really quite extreme views on both 

sides of these issues and that the result of that polarization is that 

we do not get anything done. 

I think on any issue, whether it is public lands or not, and it is 

most apparent in public lands issues, that really is unfortunate. It 

is very unfortunate. And I believe that we have slowly started to 

pull away from those polarized positions, and we are starting to 

work more toward some consensus-building and some collaborative 

efforts that are starting to erode, you know, that long polarization. 

I think that is good; it is healthy; and it is important that we do 

that. 

But this, in our opinion, we have largely been held hostage by 

extremes in the State of Utah for quite some time on public lands 

management issues, and I think we need to resolve that. I think 

the fact that Mr. Bishop has talked to so many people about this 

bill and that he is trying to create a situation where, you know, 

these economic issues and mineral issues and, you know, good, 

beautiful land issues can be proven to coexist side-by-side and 

sometimes overlap, I think that is a very good thing. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Cannon. 

I have got a couple of questions for Mr. Portantino. I just wanted 

to ask you, my experience in Washington and on private property 

rights issues have been interesting, and I have learned a lot from 

some of the folks who live in the Eastern United States, where 

there is a very small percentage of Federal landownership. And we 

were trying to demonstrate to them their idea when someone from 

New York puts in a bill to take half of Utah and put it in the public land system, and I always point out the state park, which is the 

Adirondack State Park in New York, which is a huge park, and 

suggest that they submit a bill putting that into the Federal park 

system, and they say, well, we feel that in New York, we can better 

manage our resources at the state level. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RADANOVICH. And, you know, it does come to mind on this, 

because I understand in your testimony that there was some state 

participation in the original Rim of the Valley legislation and 

would like to get an idea from you of why that—what is the history 

of it? Why do you think it should be national? 

71

It has been my experience, quite frankly, that the farther away 

the land manager, the more anti-access that they get and that you 

might not be realizing what you are getting by asking for more involvement in something like this. So I guess my statement or my 

question is what was the role of the State in the formation of the 

Rim of the Valley and why not seek a state level for the expansion 

of something like this? 

Mr. PORTANTINO. Well, I think I will take the second part first. 

This particular area has interest from local, state and national organizations. I mean, we are at the foot of the Angeles Crest National Forest. We are within the sphere of influence of the Santa 

Monica Mountains Conservancy. The local communities all have 

land within our jurisdiction that abuts this land. So I think when 

you have so many different interest holders touching each other 

and in some cases overlapping each other, it just makes sense to 

have a comprehensive plan to study how it impacts all of us, and 

my experience on the local level is most of our land disputes or, you 

know, I hate to use the word litigation or problems come about 

when we have not planned, when we have not identified a piece of 

property, when we have not informed the stakeholders, the property owners, of what is going to happen in the future. And that is 

when people are blindsided. 

So I do look at this as not presupposing an outcome and focusing 

on studies. And your question would be answered in great detail 

once you had all those stakeholders together to study the impact 

of this. And I think it is a rare location that has so many different 

interest holders, you know, basically on top of each other but with 

no comprehensive plan to pull them all together. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. You mentioned, too, in your testimony that the 

Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is far from complete. Does this represent, the map up there, represent more your 

view of what that Recreation Area ought to be, I would assume? 

Mr. PORTANTINO. Yes, it does, if you could put it back up. 

You know, again, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has 

been—initially was started just along the coast with the Santa 

Monica Mountains Conservancy. And as the ecological and the scientific community has supported habitat migration and how this 

whole region works together, the sphere of influence of the Conservancy has expanded eastward and, again, with support of local 

communities. And I think that is an important point to emphasize, 

is you do have the local communities welcoming this study with 

open arms and welcoming the possible expansion of these influences, and just to have everybody in the room is just—it is a winwin, we see it. I hope that answered your question. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Hardiman, from your testimony, I get the idea that the Park 

Service needs to address existing inholder matters before consideration is given to expanding the Recreation Area. Am I correct in 

this, and can you expand on that a little bit? 

Mr. HARDIMAN. Yes, thank you, Congressman. 

The Park Service generally—property owners that are legitimate, 

willing sellers are generally ignored by the Park Service. The Park 

Service holds their money aside to go after people who are unwilling sellers. 

72

Another thing I wanted to point out, Congressman Schiff mentioned several municipalities that have passed resolutions. By my 

reading of the map, all of those towns are exempted out of the 

study area. They are carved out of the area. So they are not affected by this Federal zoning overlay. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Meaning that—well, there are no cities or 

towns that are within that Recreation Area, right? 

Mr. HARDIMAN. This massive, proposed expansion includes all 

of—essentially all of the nonurban areas. So these towns passing 

these resolutions is very nice, because they are not going to have 

to deal with the National Park Service climbing down their throats. 

Mr. SCHIFF. If the gentleman will yield. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. I will tell you what: I will give you time afterwards. 

Mr. SCHIFF. OK; thank you. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If you would like, Adam. 

I would like to ask of the 42 percent that is private property 

ownership within the proposed area, do the property owners that 

are even within, you know, we know that this is not a line drawn 

anywhere yet officially, but do the people who are included in the 

proposed boundaries that are private property owners, do they 

have a good sense of the fact of whether they are in it or not yet? 

Mr. HARDIMAN. Well, I will refer to testimony submitted by Michael Lewis to this Subcommittee on September 27, a hearing you 

had out in the valley, which is in opposition to this legislation. Actually, the way it is now, even, the private landowners are the ones 

who provide most of the recreational access, sometimes in cooperation, for example, a trail head and a trail goes into the public 

lands, but for the campgrounds, equestrian, for the most part, the 

recreational access is permitted by private property owners, even 

as it is now. 

So it is a reverse situation of the more public lands you have, the 

less public recreation there is. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Hardiman. 

Just so I can get a consensus from the Committee—I am going 

to recognize you, Adam, for 5 minutes—will there be any other people asking questions? 

OK; you are recognized for 5 minutes, Adam. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a couple quick points. First of all, I do not think it is accurate to say that the cities are not included within the boundaries 

of the Rim of the Valley. There are some areas, for example, the 

Arroyo Seco that goes right down through the heart of Pasadena 

and South Pasadena. So these cities do very much have an interest 

in the management of the resources and having an ability to work 

cooperatively with authorities on the local, state and Federal levels. 

Moreover, you know, I think that the Chairman’s point is a very 

good one in the sense that many of these issues are very geographic-dependent, and in some areas, there has been a very positive relationship between the Park Service and the local communities and the private landowners; in some areas, it has not been 

very good. The track record in the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, I think, has been very good, as the gentleman from the 

Park Service alluded. 

73

There has been very strong cooperation within the existing area, 

which is, I think, why, on a bipartisan basis, the members of our 

delegation from Southern California are supportive of the legislation. Had it been otherwise, had there been a lot of problems in our 

region, I do not think that would have been the case. But the track 

record has been a positive one for the communities, whether they 

are very conservative, like La Canada, or they are more progressive, like Burbank, which is sort of half and half, are all supportive 

that have provided input, and I would assume that, in fact, I would 

be surprised if any of the communities took any position other than 

support. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If you would yield, I would have a question of 

you, Adam, and that would be are the private property owners that 

are included in the proposed boundary, do they live in any of the 

incorporated cities that have come out and endorsed this project? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I mean, there are certainly areas, I would 

imagine, and I have not gone parcel-by-parcel, but certainly areas 

within—I know, for example, which goes up into the foothills within La Canada, which is—are there areas of La Canada that are 

also within the Rim of the Valley? 

Mr. PORTANTINO. Yes; we have about 1,000 acres that go right 

into the Angeles Crest National Forest within our sphere of influence that are not developed currently, just 1,000 acres. And half of 

it is owned by public entities, and half of it is owned by private entities. 

And I had one other point, if I could, Mr. Schiff: we just bought 

a piece of property from a private property owner that was going 

to develop and deny access, recreational access, and by the city in 

cooperation with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy purchasing that access to the Angeles Crest National Forest, we are 

actually making it available for recreational use where it would 

have been prevented. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

You have the time, Adam. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I thank the gentleman. I really just wanted to 

add, in conclusion, to thank the Chairman for allowing me to participate on the panel as well as earlier, so thank you, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Certainly. 

I want to thank the gentlemen for your testimony here today. It 

has been very valuable. I appreciate your making the trip to Washington, and that concludes, since we have no more panels, all of the 

testimony that we are receiving today. I want to thank you very 

much, and this hearing is ended. 

[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

fi