U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

66-206 PDF 2011

H.R. 241, H.R. 290, H.R. 320, 

H.R. 441, H.R. 643, H.R. 686, 

H.R. 765, H.R. 850, H.R. 944, 

H.R. 1022, AND H.R. 1141 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS 

AND PUBLIC LANDS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, May 4, 2011 

Serial No. 112-28 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

David Rivera, FL 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

John Garamendi, CA 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, May 4, 2011 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 2 

Prepared statement on H.R. 686 ............................................................. 2 

Prepared statement on H.R. 765 ............................................................. 2 

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

of Arizona, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 3 

Sablan, Hon. Gregorio, a Delegate in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands, Prepared statement on H.R. 1141 ..... 4 

Young, Hon. Don, the Representative in Congress for the State of Alaska 35 

Prepared statement on H.R. 441 ............................................................. 35 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bachmann, Hon. Michele, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Minnesota .................................................................................................. 14 

Prepared statement on H.R. 850 ............................................................. 16 

Beaudet, Hon. David A., Mayor, City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota ...... 37 

Prepared statement on H.R. 850 ............................................................. 38 

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement on H.R. 320 ............................................................. 8 

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

California, Oral statement on H.R. 944 ..................................................... 9 

Ganz, Beth, Vice President of Public Affairs and Sustainability, Vail 

Resorts, Colorado .......................................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement on H.R. 765 ............................................................. 32 

Geissler, Curt, President, Lakeview Hospital, Stillwater, Minnesota ......... 44 

Prepared statement on H.R. 850 ............................................................. 46 

Harycki, Hon. Ken, Mayor, City of Stillwater, Minnesota ............................ 40 

Prepared statement on H.R. 850 ............................................................. 42 

Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement on H.R. 290 ............................................................. 6 

McCollum, Hon. Betty, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Minnesota, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 850 .............. 58 

Letter from Hon. Will Rossbach, Mayor, City of Maplewood, 

Minnesota, submitted for the record .................................................... 60 

Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement on H.R. 643 ............................................................. 11 

Prepared statement on H.R. 765 ............................................................. 11 

Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1022 ........................................................... 13 

Wagner, Mary, Associate Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture ..................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement on H.R. 241, H.R. 643, and H.R. 765 .................. 30 

Whitesell, Stephen E., Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities, and 

Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior .............. 19 

Prepared statement on H.R. 290 ............................................................. 20 

Prepared statement on H.R. 320 ............................................................. 21 

Prepared statement on H.R. 441 ............................................................. 21 

Prepared statement on H.R. 686 ............................................................. 22 

Prepared statement on H.R. 850 ............................................................. 23 

Prepared statement on H.R. 944 ............................................................. 25 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1022 ........................................................... 26 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1141 ........................................................... 28 

Additional materials supplied: 

Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 241 ................... 55 

Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Wisconsin, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 850 ................... 56 

List of documents retained in the Committee’s official files ......................... 57 

Rossbach, Hon. Will, Mayor, City of Maplewood, Minnesota, Letter 

submitted for the record by Congresswoman Betty McCollum ................. 60 

Schutt, Aaron, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Doyon, 

Limited, Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 441 ....................... 60 

(IV) 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 241, TO AUTHORIZE 

THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN NATIONAL FOREST 

SYSTEM LANDS IN THE LOS PADRES NATIONAL 

FOREST IN CALIFORNIA; H.R. 290, ‘‘WAR MEMORIAL 

PROTECTION ACT’’; H.R. 320, ‘‘DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS NATIONAL MONUMENT’’; H.R. 441, 

‘‘KANTISHNA HILLS RENEWABLE ENERGY ACT OF 

2011’’; H.R. 643, ‘‘SUGAR LOAF FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT LAND EXCHANGE ACT’’; H.R. 686, ‘‘UTAH 

NATIONAL GUARD READINESS ACT’’; H.R. 765, ‘‘SKI 

AREA RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2011’’; H.R. 850, TO FACILITATE A PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE LOWER ST. CROIX WILD 

AND SCENIC RIVER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; 

H.R. 944, TO ELIMINATE AN UNUSED LIGHTHOUSE 

RESERVATION, PROVIDE MANAGEMENT CONSISTENCY BY INCORPORATING THE ROCKS AND SMALL 

ISLANDS ALONG THE COAST OF ORANGE COUNTY, 

CALIFORNIA, INTO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL 

NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGED BY THE BUREAU 

OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AND MEET THE ORIGINAL 

CONGRESSIONAL INTENT OF PRESERVING ORANGE 

COUNTY’S ROCKS AND SMALL ISLANDS, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 1022, ‘‘BUFFALO SOLDIERS 

IN THE NATIONAL PARKS STUDY ACT’’; AND 

H.R. 1141, ‘‘ROTA CULTURAL AND NATURAL 

RESOURCES STUDY ACT’’. 

Wednesday, May 4, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m. in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, Lamborn, Rivera, Grijalva, 

Kildee and Garamendi. 

2 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chair 

notes the presence of a quorum which is outnumbered by the 

witnesses, but that is OK. 

The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

is meeting today to hear testimony on several bills that fall within 

our jurisdiction. Today’s hearing will cover a large number of bills; 

many are non-controversial, several have already passed the House 

in previous Congresses. 

Under the rules, opening statements are limited to the Chairman 

and the Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent to 

include any other Members’ opening statements in the hearing 

record if submitted to the Clerk by the close of business today. 

Hearing no objections, so ordered. 

I will actually forego my opening statement in order to go right 

to this and recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva, if he has 

an opening statement. 

[The prepared statements of Chairman Bishop follow:] 

Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Utah, on H.R. 686 

This bill passed the House by voice vote last Congress. It was requested by the 

Adjutant General of the Utah National Guard and is co-sponsored by Mr. Matheson 

and Mr. Chaffetz. 

The Utah National Guard is one of only a few states that met its recruiting and 

retention goals for the past several years. As a result, it is increasing its force structure end-strength by almost 600 personnel. In part because of this steady progress, 

the Utah Guard has run out of fee land. 

This land transfer will open access to property along the major transportation corridor with all the utilities and services necessary to support expanded military use. 

This proximity to the main transportation corridor means fewer and shorter new 

road networks are required and the environmental impact of development and use 

by the Guard lessened. 

The lands transferred under this act are already withdrawn for military use by 

the Guard. Placing the land in the State’s name for use by the National Guard consolidates ownership patterns in the headquarters area and allows the State of Utah 

to bond for future Guard facilities. 

The Utah National Guard already owns and operates several buildings, an air 

traffic control tower, and a tactical airfield on portions of this property. Transfer of 

title to these lands expedites the building and expansion of Camp Williams training 

facilities and reduces their cost. 

Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Utah, on H.R. 765 

H.R. 765, the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act also has extensive bi-partisan support. It will create jobs and encourage wholesome, family outdoor recreation by giving the U.S. Forest Service authority to permit year-round activities and expand the range of snow sports at ski resorts on National Forest System lands. 

H.R. 765 updates the Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 to reflect the range of recreational activities that are taking place today. Change is needed to recognize that 

newer sports such as snowboarding are now enjoyed in addition to alpine and nordic 

skiing. 

Additionally, the bill would authorize the Forest Service to allow year-round activities beyond the winter months. These changes will bring increased stability to 

seasonal economies and provide additional job opportunities throughout our mountain communities. 

3 

Year-round activities make better use of the existing infrastructure. Many resort 

communities have four-season visitor facilities but do not offer a full range of fourseason activities. 

Utah is a premier winter recreation destination and offers some of the best skiing 

in the world. The same mountains and unique geography that draw visitors from 

around the globe each winter also offer a vast array of off-season recreational opportunities. 

Although Congress can’t create jobs, we can act to lessen the governmental restraints that stand in the way of job creation. The American people are not currently receiving the full recreational or economic benefits our vast system of public 

lands can provide and this bill is a step in the right direction. 

Under H.R. 765, the Forest Service will continue to have discretion in decisionmaking on site-specific proposals for summer or year-round facilities. The Forest 

Service will also collect permit fees for revenues generated from summer and year 

round activities at ski areas. 

Similar legislation passed out of the House in the 111th Congress and was reported out favorably by the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources. 

However it, like many other public lands bills, failed to clear the Senate by the end 

of the Congress. 

The ski bill has bipartisan, bicameral support. Diana DeGette introduced it in the 

last Congress and Senators John Barrasso and Mark Udall are supporters in the 

Senate. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I will forego the statement and thank you for that, 

Mr. Chairman, and we can proceed with our colleagues. As you indicated, 8 of the 11 measures have gone through the process. There 

is one piece of legislation, I think H.R. 850, that will require additional scrutiny. And then we will go through that process. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. I want to thank our colleagues and the other 

witnesses who have agreed to testify today on the 11 bills that are 

on the Committee’s agenda. And that is, as I said, a lot to get 

covered. 

I will say for those who are here I realize you have tight time 

schedules, you have other commitments. So we will go through the 

testimony of the witnesses who are here on their particular bills. 

Then I intend to bring up the other witnesses and go through each 

bill in order. If you would like to stay to that time when your bill 

is discussed by both the Administration and the other witnesses 

you are welcome to stay. You are welcome to come back. We will 

try to be as accommodating as possible with that. 

So the first panel will be the sponsors of today’s bills. We will 

give you an opportunity to make a five-minute statement on behalf 

of the legislation. I ask—actually, Mr. Calvert, you are happy 

where you are? 

Mr. CALVERT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. We are not trying to discriminate against you 

and put you over on the other side. But you have experience in this 

room so I thought it is fitting. It is fitting. 

I will ask our colleagues to take their seats. And if others show 

up and they cannot fit on there, we will just take on the horseshoe 

at the same time. 

Let me do two things first of all. H.R. 241 is introduced by Mr. 

Gallegly who is not able to be with us today. The bill authorizes 

a small land conveyance affecting the Los Padres National Forest. 

And the bill passed in the House last year but was not taken up 

4 

in the Senate. Mr. Gallegly has submitted a written statement explaining the legislation. I ask unanimous consent that that be included in the record. 

Hearing no objection. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Grijalva, I think you have one also for Mr.—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Sablan. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. The testimony, the opening statement for Mr. 

Sablan. 

Mr. BISHOP. You are not on. 

OK, without objection, Mr. Sablan is not here, and we will ask 

that his opening statement be included in the record. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Without objection. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, a Delegate in 

Congress from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, on 

H.R. 1141 

Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, 

Thank you for placing my bill H.R. 1141, the Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act, on the Subcommittee’s agenda today and for allowing me to 

share my thoughts with the Subcommittee on this bill and ask for support of 

H.R. 1141. 

H.R. 1141 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 

feasibility of designating certain areas of prehistoric, historic, and natural significance on the island of Rota in the Northern Mariana Islands as a unit of the 

National Park System. As you know, this is a necessary step before Congress decides to designate any unit as part of the National Park System. 

The bill has garnered bi-partisan support in the House of Representatives for two 

consecutive sessions, support from local leaders representing the island of Rota, and 

support by the National Park Service. 

In the 111th Congress, the House of Representatives approved the Rota Cultural 

and Natural Resources Study Act, H.R. 4686, under a suspension of the Rules in 

July last year. There was no objection or controversy to the bill as it made through 

the House. Unfortunately, the other body did not have time on its agenda before 

the 111th Congress ended. 

The leaders of Rota unanimously support the study. With your permission, I am 

requesting to submit in the record the written letters of support from Honorable 

Teresita Santos, Rota’s representative in the Northern Mariana Islands House of 

Representatives, NMI Senate President Paul Manglona, who also represents the 

people of Rota, and Mayor of Rota, Mr. Melchor Mendiola. These leaders understand 

that Rota is at a crossroads because major land use changes are possible resulting 

from the development by the U.S. military on the neighboring island of Guam. This 

development is bound to spill over to Rota, as military families look for weekend 

getaways to Rota’s beaches and waters. The process of public input and discussion 

and the cataloguing of the natural and cultural resources will help the people of 

Rota determine which areas can be and need be protected. Moreover, these protected areas could be enhanced as eco-tourism destinations—places where cultural 

resources are respected and natural resources remain unspoiled. 

Finally, it is important to note that the National Park Service reconnaissance survey completed in 2005 recommended that the cultural and natural resources are 

truly of national significance and that the appropriate next step is a suitability and 

feasibility study. 

Again I would like to thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for 

their steadfast leadership and for understanding the importance of this bill. I ask 

that my colleagues support the Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Let us go to the other bills. And I see in 

the order of them written down here, first Mr. Hunter, H.R. 290, 

War Memorial Protection Act is introduced by Mr. Hunter. If you 

5 

would like to proceed, you know the details. There is the fiveminute clock. You can see that. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Thanks. 

Mr. HUNTER.—for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today on the topic of my legislation, H.R. 290, the War 

Memorial Protection Act. Also, I thank Ranking Member Grijalva 

and the other members of the Committee. Mr. Kildee, thank you 

for your interest in what is an important issue to the San Diego 

community and our nation’s military families and veterans across 

the country from Arlington National Cemetery to Fort Rosecrans. 

In San Diego America’s veterans are honored by headstones, 

monuments and memorials which serve to remind us all about the 

traditions, service and sacrifice that is ingrained in our history. 

Some of these markers and memorials display symbols of personal 

faith, including emblems that represent Christians, Buddhists, 

Mormons, Muslims and Atheists. The military is comprised of a diverse population of individuals. Something that is clear to anyone 

who walks through a national cemetery, anything like Arlington 

Cemetery. 

Personal faith is an important part of military life. It guides individuals through some of the toughest and most dangerous situations they will ever face. My time in the United States Marine 

Corps, serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan, help strengthen my 

own perspective. Marines, as do soldiers, sailors and airmen, often 

rely on their faith during long absences from home, and when the 

world is exploding around them. There is not much else in combat. 

And it is perhaps the biggest reason why crosses, for instance, are 

such common fixtures within the gates of national cemeteries and 

predominantly displayed on war memorials. 

But in San Diego, home to the Mount Soledad Veterans’ Memorial, this meaning and intent has been misidentified. The Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the 43 foot cross that 

sits atop the 2,700 black plaques is unconstitutional. Each plaque 

on the memorial, now under the ownership of the Department of 

Defense, tells a unique story of military service and shared sacrifice. Some show religious symbols of their own. The memorial was 

originally dedicated as a Korean War Veterans Memorial in 1952, 

but has since evolved into a standing testament to all American 

war heroes. The memorial honors uniformed members from all 

service branches, including the Coast Guard and Merchant Marines, who served during World War II. Several years ago, a legal 

challenge was initiated against the memorial alleging the presence 

of the cross serves as an endorsement of religion. The challenge 

also alleged the transference of the property to the Federal Government under Public Law 109-272, enacted in 2006, was in violation 

of the law. 

In 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns ruled that the 

cross represented only one element a much larger memorial 

dedicated to our military. Because of this ruling, the memorial has 

6 

remained intact despite ongoing litigation. The memorial now faces 

an uncertain future, at the direction of the Ninth Circuit. 

Still I am confident that as legal action proceeds, including the 

option of consideration by the Supreme Court, any final decision 

will properly acknowledge the memorial’s purpose for honoring generations of military service. Beyond the Mount Soledad Memorial 

ruling and possibly future instances of judicial activism along the 

same line underscores an existing threat to the preservation of war 

memorials. 

In cases where religious elements are present, the fact that these 

monuments stand as symbols of military service and sacrifice does 

not change—as much as a few individuals might try to misconstrue 

their meaning. The War Memorial Protection Act ensures this is 

not the case by creating a foundation in Federal law for the inclusion of religious symbols, all religious symbols, on war memorials. 

It should not matter if it is a cross, a Star of David, or a Wiccan 

symbol—which are among the 46 authorized emblems of belief 

through the Department of Veterans Affairs, War Memorials, including those with religious symbols deserve to be protected for 

what they are, testaments to military service. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

This is an important bill that resonates with veterans and families 

across America, and I look forward to working with you and our 

colleagues in the interest of ensuring that our veterans are rightly 

honored for their defense of our freedom. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Duncan Hunter, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 290 

Thank you Chairman Bishop for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today on the topic of my legislation, H.R. 290, the War Memorial Protection Act. Also, thank you Ranking Member Grijalva and the other members of the 

committee for your interest in what is an important issue to the San Diego community and our nation’s military families and veterans. 

Across the country, from Arlington National Cemetery to Fort Rosecrans in San 

Diego, America’s veterans are honored by headstones, monuments and memorials 

which serve to remind us all about the tradition, service and sacrifice that is 

engrained in our history. Some of these markers and memorials display symbols of 

personal faith, including emblems that represent Christians, Buddhists, Mormons, 

Muslims and Atheists. 

The military is comprised of a diverse population of individuals—something that 

is clear to anyone who walks through a national cemetery. Personal faith is an important part of military life. It guides individuals through some of the toughest and 

most dangerous situations they will ever face. 

My time in the Marine Corps, serving in both in Iraq and Afghanistan, helped 

strengthen my own perspective. Marines—as do soldiers, sailors and airmen—often 

rely on their faith during long absences from home and when the world is exploding 

around them. There’s not much else in war. And it’s perhaps the biggest reason why 

crosses, for instance, are such common fixtures within the gates of national cemeteries and predominantly displayed on war memorials. 

But, in San Diego, home to the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial, this meaning 

and intent has been misidentified. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently 

ruled that the 43-foot cross that sits atop 2,700 black plaques is unconstitutional. 

Each plaque on the Memorial—now under the ownership of the Department of 

Defense—tells a unique story of military service and shared sacrifice. Some show 

religious symbols of their own. 

The Memorial was originally dedicated as a Korean War Veterans Memorial in 

1952, but has since evolved into a standing testament to all American war heroes. 

The Memorial honors uniformed members from all service branches, including the 

Coast Guard and Merchant Marines who served during World War II. 

7 

Several years ago, a legal challenge was initiated against the Memorial, alleging 

the presence of the cross serves as an endorsement of religion. The challenge also 

alleged that the transference of the property to the federal government under 

P.L. 109–272, enacted in 2006, was in violation of the law. In 2008, U.S. District 

Court Judge Larry Burns ruled that the cross represented only one element of a 

much larger memorial dedicated to our military. Because of this ruling, the Memorial has remained intact despite ongoing litigation. 

The Memorial now faces an uncertain future at the direction of the Ninth Circuit. 

Still, I’m confident that as legal action proceeds, including the option of consideration by the Supreme Court, any final decision will properly acknowledge the Memorial’s purpose of honoring generations of military service. 

Beyond the Mount Soledad Memorial, the Ninth Circuit ruling and possibly future 

instances of judicial activism along the same line underscores an existing threat to 

the preservation of war memorials. In cases where religious elements are present, 

the fact that these monuments stand as symbols of military service and sacrifice 

does not change—as much as a few individuals might try to misconstrue their 

meaning. 

The War Memorial Protection Act ensures this is not the case, by creating a foundation in federal law for the inclusion of religious symbols on war memorials. It 

shouldn’t matter if it’s a cross, Star of David or Wiccan symbol, which are among 

the 46 authorized emblems of belief through the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

War memorials, including those with religious symbols, deserve to be protected for 

what they are: testaments to military service. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. This is an important bill that resonates with veterans and military families across America. I look 

forward to working with you and our colleagues in the interest of ensuring our veterans are rightly honored for their defense of freedom. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate it. 

Representative Calvert is here with H.R. 320, the ‘‘Distinguished 

Flying Cross National Monument’’ bill. He has been here before 

with this bill. It has been passed by our Congress. It has not been 

funded nor passed in the Senate yet. I am still not quite sure why 

our Committee keeps getting this particular bill, but we like it. So 

if you would, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking 

Member Grijalva and distinguished members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As a former member 

of the Natural Resources Committee, I am happy to be back among 

friends to talk about H.R. 320, a bill to designate a National Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial. I am seeking your support for 

the legislation. I am honored to represent the Inland Empire Chapter of the Distinguished Flying Cross Society, which is the primary 

sponsor of the memorial. 

I introduced H.R. 320, which would designate a memorial which 

is currently under construction at March Field Air Museum in 

Riverside, California, as a Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial. It honors all current and former members of the Armed 

Forces who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. 

The bill has strong support, with over 25 cosponsors. The legislation is supported by the Distinguished Flying Cross Society, the 

Military Officers Association of America, the Air Force Association, 

the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Viet Nam Helicopter Pilots Association, and the China-Burma-India Veterans Association. 

I would like to point out that language in the bill specifically 

states the designation shall not be construed, require or permit 

8 

Federal funds to be expended for any purpose related to the national memorial. Funds have been and will continue to be raised 

through private means for this purpose. Distinguished Flying Cross 

recipients have received the prestigious medal for their heroism 

and extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight 

while serving in the capacity of the United States Armed Forces. 

There are many well-known people who played a vital role in the 

history of military aviation and received the award. This group includes Captain Charles L. Lindbergh, former President George H. 

W. Bush, Brigadier General Jimmy Doolittle, General Curtis 

LeMay, Senator McCain, Jimmy Stewart, Admiral Jim Stockdale, 

just to name a few. March Air Force Reserve Base, which hosts the 

C-17As of the 452 Air Mobility Wing is adjacent to the location of 

the memorial at the March Field Air Museum—which, by the way, 

is the third oldest airfield in the United States. When completed, 

visitors will be able to witness active operational air units providing support to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan which is an 

appropriate setting that honors the many aviators who have distinguished themselves by the deeds performed in aerial flight. The 

memorial will be topped by a 2-foot by 2-foot Distinguished Flying 

Cross of polished bronze and models of the Spirit of St. Louis and 

Loening OA-1A amphibian aircraft. The OA-1A was chosen because 

the Pan American Good Will flights were made in five OA-1A aircraft by 10 pilots between 1926 and 1927. The pilots were the first 

recipients of the Distinguished Flying Certificate from President 

Calvin Coolidge. 

Again thank you. I hope you will support the designation of the 

National Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial at March Air Museum and H.R. 320 and hopefully we will get it through the Senate, our friends on the other side of the building. 

Thank you and have a good day. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, on H.R. 320 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As a former Member of 

the Natural Resources Committee I’m happy to be back among friends to talk about 

H.R. 320, a bill to designate a national Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial. I am 

seeking your support for the legislation. 

I am honored to represent the Inland Empire Chapter of the Distinguished Flying 

Cross Society which is the primary sponsor of the memorial. I introduced H.R. 320 

which would designate a memorial, which is currently under construction at March 

Field Air Museum, in Riverside, California, as the Distinguished Flying Cross 

National Memorial. It honors all current and former members of the armed forces 

who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. 

The bill has strong bipartisan support with 25 cosponsors. The legislation is supported by the Distinguished Flying Cross Society, Military Officers Association of 

America, the Air Force Association, Air Force Sergeants Association, the Vietnam 

Helicopter Pilots Association, and the China Burma Indian Veterans Association. I’d 

like to point out language in the bill that specifically states that the designation 

shall not be construed to require or permit federal funds to be expended for any 

purpose related to the national memorial. Funds have been and will continue to be 

raised through private means for these purposes. 

Distinguished Flying Cross recipients have received the prestigious medal for 

their heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight while 

serving in any capacity with the U.S. Armed Forces. There are many well known 

people that have played a vital role in the history of military aviation and have received the award This group includes: Captain Charles L. Lindbergh, former PresiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:19 Oct 31, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66206.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
9 

dent George H. W. Bush, Brigadier General Jimmy Doolittle, General Curtis Lemay, 

Senator McCain, Jimmy Stewart and Admiral Jim Stockdale to name just a few. 

The March Air Reserve Base, which hosts the C–17As of the 452nd Air Mobility 

Wing is adjacent to the location of the memorial at the March Field Air Museum. 

When completed, visitors will be able to witness active operational air units providing support to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is an appropriate setting that honors the many aviators who have distinguished themselves by deeds 

performed in aerial flight. 

The memorial will be topped by a two foot by two foot Distinguished Flying Cross 

of polished bronze and models of the Spirit of Saint Louis and a Loening OA–1A 

amphibian aircraft. The OA–1A was chosen because the Pan-American Goodwill 

Flights were made in five OA–1A aircraft by ten pilots between 1926 and 1927. The 

pilots were the first receipts of the Distinguished Flying Certificate from President 

Calvin Coolidge. 

Again, I hope you will join me in supporting the designation of the National Distinguished Flying Cross Memorial at the March Field Air Museum and H.R. 320. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that, Congressman Calvert. 

H.R. 944 is introduced by Mr. Campbell. It removes a 70-yearold reservation affecting several islands and rocks on the coast of 

Orange County, California. Mr. Campbell. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CAMPBELL, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this is one of 

those bills, as you mentioned, that passed this Committee and this 

House by voice vote last year, but the Senate ran out of time and 

so it was never taken up in the Senate. So we are reintroducing 

this year. 

What this bill does is, there are about 40-odd rocks, for lack of 

a better term. That is a picture of one. They are all two acres or 

smaller in size, but they are like big rocks, off the Orange County 

coast, which since the early 1930s have been under the purview of 

the Coast Guard for possible use as lighthouses or during World 

War II for possible use as gun emplacements against Japanese submarines. 

Neither of those uses are currently under any consideration. The 

Coast Guard no longer needs them. What this bill would do is 

transfer them from the Coast Guard to the California Coastal 

National Monument. There are 20,000 other similar such rocks up 

and down the California coastline which are currently a part of the 

California Coastal National Monument, but these 40-plus never got 

transferred. So, what this bill would do is transfer them to that 

Monument and protect them for enjoyment and beauty and wildlife 

in the future. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Campbell. I appreciate it. Once 

again, if you need to go, you can go. If you would like to stay when 

the other testimony comes for your bill, you are welcome to do that 

as well. 

H.R. 643, the ‘‘Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange Act.’’ Could you get more words in there, Mr. Polis? Mr. 

Polis, you are recognized. 

10 

STATEMENT OF HON. JARED POLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

Grijalva. I am glad to see my colleague from Colorado, Mr. 

Lamborn, on the panel as well this morning. I want to begin by 

thanking the Committee for considering this bill, H.R. 643. I will 

also briefly address H.R. 765. 

Let me begin by thanking the Committee for working last year 

and for unanimity with both Members and staff. That work resulted in both Committee and House passage by a voice vote. And, 

there is really no controversy involved with H.R. 643. 

Since the inception of the Sugar Loaf Fire District in 1967, their 

physical home has been an existing building on U.S. Forest Service 

land which they have a special use permit for. Now, while that special use permit is very valuable, and it has allowed it to operate, 

it is really critical that they have the autonomy to direct their own 

future and modernize their facility. So I would point out that one 

occurrence since the last time this bill came before the Committee 

is there has actually been devastating fires in the area. So these 

firemen and firewomen have been extremely heroic, putting their 

own lives at risk and many of the members of the fire department 

themselves have lost their homes in a recent fire, several months 

ago. 

And yet, because this is located on Federal land, they are not 

even allowed to upgrade their facilities to include a bathroom for 

use by the fire department. So, it is just a basic need. 

Last year Mr. John Winchester, our Battalion Chief for the 

Sugar Loaf Fire District, was able to attend the hearing and offer 

testimony. Unfortunately, he is not able to attend this year. He is 

still at work, recovering from the forest fire and helping the area 

restore. And he has served over 20 years with the department, and 

without objection, I would like to enter into the record his testimony from last year? 

Mr. BISHOP. So ordered. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. 

And finally, a Senate companion bill was marked up last Congress with changes suggested in the hearing by the U.S. Forest 

Service and the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District. Specifically, 

the Forest Service asks that the 120-day timeline be expanded to 

one year to conform with existing law. And the modifications to the 

structure wait until the exchange has taken place. Those changes 

and requests were included in the introduced versions of the bill 

in both Chambers and are the same as the bill that passed the 

Committee and the full House. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to briefly address H.R. 765, the 

‘‘Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act.’’ My district 

in Colorado, as Mr. Lamborn knows, is internationally acclaimed 

for its many resort communities, including Vail, Keystone, 

Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, and Winter Park. What this bill 

will do is allow for increased summer visitation in a correct way 

that really balances the environmental and educational benefits to 

allow resorts like Vail and many others to successfully attract tourists and build the facilities to do so in the summer as well as winter. I can’t emphasize to the Committee enough that time is of the 

11 

essence for this bill. Again, this bill passed the entire House by 

voice vote last year and that enacting this bill sooner rather than 

later directly translates into jobs in the state that Mr. Lamborn 

and I call home. Of course, while I would certainly argue that my 

Congressional District and Colorado as a whole is second to none 

for outdoor recreation, this issue is not just a Colorado issue. In 

fact, it is an issue for every ski area and every ski community be 

it from California to New Hampshire. Over 120 resorts and the 

businesses and communities they support would benefit from increased summer activities within current ski areas. This legislation 

represents a needed change for our land management and an important opportunity to create jobs in our district. I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify on these bills today, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Polis follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Jared Polis, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Colorado, on H.R. 643 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members of the Committee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment in support of H.R. 643, The Sugar 

Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange Act of 2011. 

Let me begin by thanking the Committee for considering this bill, as it did with 

great unanimity last year thanks to the work of many of the same members and 

staff here today. That work resulted in both Committee and House passage by a 

simple voice vote. The unanimity with which the Committee and the House have 

considered this bill in the past is telling of its foundation in common sense and local 

community need. 

Since the inception of the Sugar Loaf Fire District in 1967, their physical home 

has been in an existing building on U.S. Forest Service land under a special use 

permit. Later, a second building was constructed under another special use permit, 

both in important locations for accessibility to the few central roads in this mountainous area. 

While these special use permits have been incredibly valuable the Department 

must have the autonomy to better self-direct its future and the ability to modernize 

its facilities. Specifically, many of you may recall that this fire station serves a 

growing population and has become a community meeting location. Yet, because it 

is located on federal land, it can’t even upgrade its existing facilities to include a 

bathroom for use by the fire department or during community events. 

Last year, John Winchester, a battalion chief with the Sugar Loaf Fire Department, was able to attend the hearing and offer testimony. Unfortunately, he is unable to attend this year, but I would like to enter into the record his written testimony from last year. In his over 20 years with the Department, he has served four 

terms as fire chief and I hope his expertise on this issue proves valuable in the committee’s consideration. 

Lastly, a Senate companion bill was marked up last Congress with changes suggested in that hearing by the U.S. Forest Service and the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection 

District. Specifically, the US Forest Service asked that the 120-day timeline in the 

legislation be expanded to one year in order to conform with existing laws, and that 

modifications to the structures wait until after the exchange has taken place. These 

changes and requests were included in the introduced versions of this bill both last 

year and this year, and are the same as the bill that passed the committee and full 

House. 

As the bill’s sponsor, I hope to work closely with the U.S. Forest Service, the Committee, and the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District to address future needs, and ensure that this legislation will benefit the Fire District, the Forest Service and the 

communities they both serve. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to this committee today. 

Statement of The Honorable Jared Polis, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Colorado, on H.R. 765 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share with you my support for 

H.R. 765, the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act. 

12 

My district in Colorado is an internationally acclaimed playground where the 

world class resorts of Vail, Keystone, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, Winter Park 

and many other community favorites provide a place for individuals of all abilities 

and fitness levels to get great exercise, experience nature and take in the incredible 

landscapes that define Colorado’s character. 

In my district, skiing isn’t just an activity, it’s a way of life that supports businesses, provides jobs, sustains communities and has created a national industry of 

related fields. Not only do ski areas and resorts hire employees, but so do nearby 

hotels, rental shops and equipment retailers, restaurants, equipment manufacturing 

companies, magazines, nearby airports and every aspect of our local economies, all 

of which are reliant on the travel and tourism generated by these ski areas. The 

ability of ski areas to offer these benefits year round means the survival of communities and businesses not just in my district but across the country. It means a more 

stable economy, better communities and a better quality of life by balancing the influx of winter guests with the void of summer visitors. 

Increased summer visitation, done correctly, also has environmental and educational benefits. Our national forests are important reservoirs for our nation’s natural assets, and conservation of these forests must be a top priority. Ski areas are 

places where people can safely experience these lands and get a taste of nature even 

if limited by fitness, ability or outdoor know how. Nearly 20% of all national forest 

visitors are visitors at ski resorts, confining this usage to specific places and leaving 

other areas less impacted. They provide an important recreational and educational 

venue in a controlled environment, melding elements of nature with features of 

modern convenience. This melding should not take place everywhere and ski areas 

play an important role in confining this practice to specific and small tracks of land 

allowing a greater number of individuals to gain an introduction to nature. 

The National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 once allowed this industry to 

flourish and has ensured that the needs of a growing industry, local economies, and 

our national forest ecosystems are simultaneously met. Today however, the Forest 

Service is dealing with unclear directives from the National Forest Ski Area Permit 

Act. Things like snowboards and ski bikes were never envisioned when the law was 

originally written. Today we also face new consequences from climate change and 

an ever growing popularity in summer recreational activities that the original law 

does not adequately address. H.R. 765 is aimed at giving our vitally important ski 

areas the flexibility they need to provide an economic foundation all year round, in 

the face of a changing climate and changing ski season, while giving the Forest 

Service a proper and legal base on which to responsibly manage these areas. 

I can’t express upon the committee enough that time is of the essence for this bill 

and that enacting this bill sooner rather than later will mean that it will put people 

to work. We want to create jobs, and this bill will do that. 

Finally, while I would certainly argue that Colorado’s Second Congressional District is second to none for outdoor recreation, this issue isn’t a Colorado issue it is 

an issue for every ski area and every ski community in the country from California 

to New Hampshire. Over 120 resorts, and the businesses and communities they support, across the country would benefit from increased summer activities within current ski areas. Areas in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 

New Hampshire, New York, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, 

West Virginia and Wyoming, like in my district, are economic foundations of local 

communities. 

This legislation represents a needed change for our federal land managers and an 

important change and opportunity for the many communities, businesses, employees, and public lands lovers’ throughout the country. Once again I thank Chairman 

Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, Congresswoman DeGette and this subcommittee 

for hearing my testimony today. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, and your testimony on the 

last bill was brilliant. I have to add that. I appreciate that. 

Again, if you would like to stay for the other testimony, you are 

welcome to. If you have other obligations, you can do that as well. 

Ms. Bachmann, if you would like to join the panel too, we will 

eventually, you are two away from here. 

H.R. 1022, ‘‘Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act,’’ 

by Ms. Speier, from California. You are recognized for five minutes. 

13 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Bishop and Ranking Member 

Grijalva, members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to present H.R. 1022 to you. Last year, you will recall this 

bill was passed out of this Committee and off the House Floor by 

a voice vote, and again, got bogged down in the Senate like these 

other bills did. 

This bill would evaluate the feasibility of a national historic trail 

along the Buffalo Soldier route between the historic military post 

at San Francisco Presidio and Yosemite and Sequoia National 

Parks. The study would also identify properties that could be listed 

in the National Register of Historic Places or designation as 

National Historic Landmarks. 

The Buffalo Soldiers, as many of you know, were our very first 

park rangers. They understood what needed to be done to protect 

our public lands earlier and better than most, because it was their 

duty to understand it. Because of the color of their skin, however, 

they were all too often marginalized instead of respected for it. The 

Buffalo Soldiers traveled through my district on their way to the 

parks and I am proud to help shine a light on the history they 

helped build in our great State of California and many places 

across the country. All Americans should be able to learn about 

this neglected chapter in American history. The Buffalo Soldiers’ 

story is ultimately about the triumph, not just of African American 

troops over prejudice and injustice, but about the movement of our 

nation toward a more tolerant and courageous society. 

In short, this is an all-American story that should be made a 

greater part of our park system and I believe it will enhance the 

park experience for millions of visitors for many years to come. I 

respectfully ask the Subcommittee’s support for H.R. 1022 and I 

thank you for the opportunity to present today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Speier follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Jackie Speier, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 1022 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify today on my legislation, the Buffalo Soldiers in 

the National Parks Study Act. Last year, this Committee extended me the same 

privilege, and I was pleased to share the story of the Buffalo Soldiers in my testimony, which several of you already know so well. 

But much of the American public, including millions of our park visitors, are unaware of this great part of American history. The goal of my legislation, which is 

identical to the bill I introduced last year and which passed the House by voice vote, 

is once again to help bring that story to light. 

The Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act will allow the Department 

of the Interior to study the role the Buffalo Soldiers played in maintaining our earliest National Parks, before they were even designated National Parks. 

Specifically, the bill would evaluate the feasibility of a National Historic Trail 

along the Buffalo Soldier routes between their historic military post at the San 

Francisco Presidio, and Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks. The study would also 

identify properties that could be listed in the National Register of Historic Places 

or designation as National Historic Landmarks. 

The Buffalo Soldiers were among our very first park rangers. They understood 

what needed to be done to protect our public lands earlier and better than most— 

because it was their duty to understand it. Because of the color of their skin, however, they were all too often marginalized instead of respected for it. 

14 

It was the heyday of the gold rush that brought the first white visitors to Yosemite, many of whom were all too eager to poach, log, and overgraze the land. And 

it was African American soldiers who stood sentry at the parks’ edge. Guns were 

not allowed in the parks, and the Buffalo Soldiers were under no illusions that confiscating arms from whites seeking to bring them in would be without risk. But in 

the face of frontierism and racism, the Buffalo Soldiers not only weathered confrontation—they overcame it, they became neighbors and friends to the settlers in 

the park regions, and they made real inroads toward racial progress that were extraordinary for their day. 

Although they were assigned to watch over government property for only a relatively short time, the Buffalo Soldiers helped lay the groundwork for thoselands 

to be preserved forever. I am proud that the Buffalo Soldiers traveled through my 

district on their way to the parks. I am proud to help shine a light on the history 

they helped build in the great state of California and in many places across our 

great country. 

All Americans, from all walks of life, should be fortunate enough to learn about 

this neglected chapter in American history. The Buffalo Soldiers’ story is ultimately 

about the triumph not just of African American troops over prejudice and injustice, 

but about the movement of our nation toward a more tolerant and courageous 

society. 

In short, this is an all-American story that should be made a greater part of our 

Parks system, and I believe it will enhance the Parks experience for millions of visitors, returning and newcomers, for many years to come. 

I respectfully ask for the Subcommittee’s support for H.R. 1022, and I thank you 

for the opportunity to deliver my testimony today. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for your testimony, as well. If you have 

other obligations, if not you are more than welcome to stay as we 

go through this bill later on with other testimony. 

Mr. Young has introduced H.R. 441, which authorizes a land exchange needed for the microhydro power facility at Denali National 

Park. Mr. Young is not yet with us. When he is, I will entertain 

his statement at that particular time. 

H.R. 850 was introduced so that a needed replacement bridge 

can be constructed across the St. Croix River. Legislation has bipartisan support and it is needed to settle an issue whether or not 

this bridge is in compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Ms. Bachmann, you are recognized for five minutes for your bill. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHELE BACHMANN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Ms. BACHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Ranking 

Member Grijalva and also Chairman Bishop and members of the 

Committee. I want to thank you for your consideration of H.R. 850. 

It is a bill that I am very proud to sponsor. It facilitates the construction of a four-lane highway bridge over the Lower St. Croix 

River in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, that connects to St. Joseph, 

Wisconsin. 

Today’s hearing on the St. Croix River Crossing project is a 

much-needed step to preserve human safety, interstate economy 

and the beauty of our river crossing in Stillwater. I commend the 

House Committee on Natural Resources on the expedient manner 

in which they have addressed this long overdue project. It has been 

since the early 1970s that a broad coalition of multiple interests 

has discussed the construction of a new bridge that would replace 

the current lift bridge, built in 1931, now some 80 years old. 

The bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis in 2007 that led to the 

deaths of 13 people had a sufficiency rating of 50. The current lift 

bridge in Stillwater is listed as structurally deficient. It has a 

15 

sufficiency rating of 32.8 as inspected on July 16, 2009. The bridge 

simply cannot sustain the 16-18,000 daily drivers which are 

estimated to increase to 48,000 by 2030 on a structure that was 

designed for far less. 

Current crash rates are 50-90 percent higher than the state average. The pending proposal would provide a safe, reliable and efficient transportation corridor by reducing congestion, improving 

roadway safety and providing an adequate level of service for forecasted 2030 traffic volumes. 

Each time a bridge proposal neared approval, and even when the 

National Park Service approved the project in 2005, it was stopped 

through litigation brought about by outside special interests. The 

recommendations of a multi-member advisory group that included 

representatives from Federal and state regulatory agencies, local 

and regional units of government, environmental groups, historic 

preservation groups and chambers of commerce were trumped consistently by their objections of visual pollution by the special interest organization which chose to not join the stakeholder group 

when asked to do so. 

The visual pollution argument is quite disingenuous on its claim 

that a beautiful landscape would be marred by an environmentally 

designed new bridge, when the existing bridge is a short distance 

away from a sewage treatment plant, a power plant with a giant 

smokestack, as seen in the dual image poster, as well as the state 

prison facility. The single image poster shows artist’s rendition of 

the new bridge in its proposed location. Unfortunately, the project 

is currently at an impasse due to the March 2010 ruling from the 

United States District Court vacating the National Park Service 

Section 7A permit of 2005. Nothing in the March 2010 ruling allows for any possible bridge to be built in compliance with the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 because nothing in the Act allows 

the National Park Service to approve a bridge project unless the 

impact to the river values, wild scenic recreational are eliminated. 

This is impossible. Therefore, no bridge, not even the existing 

bridge, is compliant with Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It is impossible to measure the crippling economic impact that the St. Croix 

River Crossing project delay has cost our two states from a commerce and job standpoint. 

However, according to MinnDOT, if the project moves forward an 

estimated 22,970 jobs will be created per year, and at peak construction over 6,000 full time workers will be required. Over a 20- 

year period, the travel time savings and reduction of crash costs 

will significantly improve mobility and economic output to the tune 

of over $883 million. Every month the project is delayed, the cost 

escalates by over $3.17 million. What started out as an $80 million 

project in 1992, now has a cost estimate of nearly $700 million. 

The states of Wisconsin and Minnesota are working together to 

fund the project with a large portion of the bonding authority already set aside, I am pleased that my underlining bill does not appropriate a single dime. 

Therefore, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 

members of the Committee, I respectfully ask the Committee to 

take the necessary action to move this vital project forward. The 

St. Croix River Crossing project is no longer a matter of if it is necVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:19 Oct 31, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66206.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
16 

essary. That has already been determined. This is now an issue of 

how much we will pay in dollars and possibly lives before we act. 

The bill simply authorizes something that should have been decades ago, and I thank the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bachmann follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Michele Bachmann, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Minnesota, on H.R. 850 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for your consideration of H.R. 850, a bill that I am proud to sponsor, facilitating the construction of a four-lane highway bridge over the Lower St. Croix 

River at Oak Park Heights, Minnesota and St. Joseph, Wisconsin. 

Today’s hearing on the St. Croix River Crossing Project is a much-needed step to 

preserve human safety, interstate economy, and the beauty of the river crossing at 

Stillwater. I commend the House Committee on Natural Resources for the expedient 

manner in which they have addressed this long-overdue project. 

Since the early 1970’s a broad coalition of interested parties has discussed the 

construction of a new bridge that would replace the current lift-bridge built in 1931. 

The bridge is listed as structurally deficient, and has a sufficient rating of 32.8, as 

inspected on July 16, 2009. To put this in perspective, the bridge that collapsed in 

Minneapolis in 2007, that led to the deaths of 13 people, had a sufficient rating of 

50. While construction on a new bridge has been stalled by outrageous lawsuits and 

bureaucracy, the current lift-bridge continues to rust, twist, and sluff-off concrete 

into the river. The bridge simply cannot sustain the 16,000 to 18,000 daily drivers, 

which are estimated to increase to 48,000 by 2030, on a structure designed for far 

less. The four lanes of Highway 36 converge at this two-lane bridge with commuters 

and commercial drivers in gridlock during peak times or backed up through residential areas that house children. Emission pollution from idling vehicles hangs over 

the city, and current crash rates are 50 to 90 percent higher than the state average. 

The pending proposal would provide a safe, reliable, and efficient transportation corridor by reducing congestion, improving roadway safety, and providing an adequate 

level of service for forecasted 2030 traffic volumes. (According to MnDOT, 2030 traffic volumes are estimated to increase by over 30 percent on Stillwater Boulevard, 

70 percent on Osgood Avenue, over 100 percent on I–94, and over 50 percent on 

USH 8). 

Early on, funding was an issue, but in the 1980’s MnDOT, WisDOT, and the Federal Highway Administration began working with the communities of Stillwater and 

Oak Park Heights in Minnesota, and St. Joseph Township in Wisconsin to identify 

possible solutions for a replacement crossing. By 1992, Wisconsin and Minnesota officials had announced a decision to build a four-lane bridge over the St. Croix River 

near Stillwater. 

Following a multi-year Environmental Impact Study, a proposal to build a bridge 

was presented to the National Park Service for permitting. The project continued 

to move forward until the Sierra Club sued the National Park Service for failing 

to issue a Section 7(a) evaluation, prompting the National Park Service to issue the 

evaluation stating, ‘‘the bridge would have a direct and adverse effect on the scenic 

values that could not be mitigated.’’ MnDOT intervened and filed a cross-claim 

against the National Park Service stating the bridge was not a ‘‘water resources 

project’’ under Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The court ruled in favor 

of the National Park Service. 

In 2001, the US Institute of Environmental Conflict Resolution was created 

through the Federal Highway Administration to resolve environmental conflicts by 

gathering key interests, establishing a process for negotiations among the parties, 

providing recommendations, and setting an expected date of resolution. This institute helped facilitate the consensus to move forward with construction. Today, that 

consensus is stronger than ever with an even more diverse sector of members. 

However, even after a Section 7(a) mitigation package was approved by the 

National Park Service in 2005, the bridge is still not built. Every time a proposal 

started moving forward, the process was interrupted by a lawsuit brought by the 

Sierra Club. The recommendations of a multi-member advisory group that included 

representatives from federal and state regulatory agencies, local and regional units 

of government, environmental groups, historic preservation groups, and chambers of 

commerce, were trumped by the ‘‘visual pollution’’ cries of this organization. 

The ‘‘visual pollution’’ argument is quite disingenuous in its claim that a beautiful 

landscape would be marred by an environmentally-designed new bridge, when the 

existing bridge is a short distance away from a sewage treatment plant and a power 

17 

plant with a giant smoke stack, as seen in the dual-image poster. The single-image 

poster shows the artist’s rendition of the new bridge in its proposed location. Unfortunately, the project is currently at an impasse due to the March 2010 ruling from 

the US District Court vacating the National Park Service Section 7(a) permit of 

2005. 

Nothing in that March 2010 ruling allows for any bridge to be in compliance with 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 because nothing in the Act allows the 

National Park Service to approve a bridge project unless the impact to the river values (wild, scenic, recreational) are eliminated. This is impossible. Therefore, no 

bridge, not even the existing bridge, is compliant with the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act values. 

It is impossible to measure the crippling economic impact that the St. Croix River 

Crossing Project delay has cost our two states from a commerce and jobs standpoint. 

However, according to MnDOT, an estimated 2,970 jobs will be created per year, 

and at peak construction, 6,237 full-time workers will be required. Over a twentyyear period, the travel time savings and reduction of crash costs will significantly 

improve mobility and economic output to the tune of over $883 million. 

Meanwhile, the environmental mitigation package, agreed upon by the interested 

parties and approved by the National Park Service in 2005, will maintain the existing crossing as part of a unique bicycle/pedestrian tourist attraction, with the liftbridge as its centerpiece. Immediate emission rates with the new bridge are projected to be 45 to 56 percent lower than year 2000 emission rates. 

The St. Croix River Crossing Project was one of only seven, nationwide, addressed 

in a 2002 Presidential Executive Order (13274) to enhance environmental stewardship. The bridge is a cutting-edge design streamlined by federal environmental reviews and it demonstrates an extraordinary partnership between multiple interests 

to develop a sensitive solution. Each month that this project is delayed, the cost escalates by approximately $3.17 million. What started at $80 million dollars in 1992 

now has a cost of almost $700 million. The states of Wisconsin and Minnesota are 

working together to fund the project, with a large portion of the bonding authority 

already set aside. I am pleased that my underlying bill does not appropriate a dime. 

Therefore, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and Members of the 

Committee, I respectfully ask the Committee to take the necessary action to move 

this vital project forward. The St. Croix River Crossing Project is no longer a matter 

of ‘‘if’’ it is necessary. That has been determined. This is an issue of how much we 

will pay in dollars, and possibly lives, before we act. This bill simply authorizes 

something that should have been done decades ago. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, I appreciate your testimony. As I said 

with all the others, if you have pressing engagements you need to 

go to, we will understand. We will be taking up the bill with other 

witnesses in the course of this. You are welcome to stay, join us 

up here, whatever is your preference. 

Ms. BACHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member and the 

Committee. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. The last two items on today’s agenda 

that we have not yet talked about are mine. The first one is 

H.R. 686, the ‘‘Utah National Guard Readiness Act.’’ The bill was 

passed by a voice vote in Congress last year. It is sponsored by the 

entire Utah delegation. Utah is one of the few states that has actually met and exceeded its goal of recruitment, so there are another 

600 personnel for which facilities will be needed. This land is along 

a major transportation corridor, which would make it easy for the 

construction of buildings. The land in question has already been 

transferred to the military for use by the Guard. But this would 

consolidate the ownership patterns by the Guard. And the State of 

Utah cannot bond to build facilities on structures they do not have, 

on land they do not own, as well as the time line restrictions with 

land if it was still in the hands of the Department of the Interior 

would make it impossible to go forward with this kind of construction needs. As I said, the Utah National Guard already owns and 

18 

operates several buildings in this area. This would expedite the 

building process. 

The second bill, H.R. 765, was probably already discussed by Mr. 

Polis better than I will, but it is one of those things that will create 

jobs and family activities, wholesome family activities in recreation 

outdoors year-round. It updates the Ski Area Permit of 1986 to reflect the range of potential activities and will allow year-round activities beyond just the winter months currently authorized. So this 

is for a four-season visitor infrastructure to deal with the situation. 

Congress really can’t create jobs, but we can lessen the government 

restrictions, and restraints stand in the way of job creation. This 

is one that would do that. The Forest Service will continue to have 

discretion and decision-making on the site-specific proposal for 

summer or year-round facilities. The Forest Service will also collect 

permit fees for revenues generated from summer and year-round 

activities on the ski areas. 

This passed out of the House last session. It was reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

However, the Senate failed to find time to actually finish the job. 

The bill is bipartisan. Ms. DeGette of Colorado has introduced this 

last year and is on the bill again. Senator Barrasso of Wyoming 

and Senator Udall of Colorado are the supporters of the bill in the 

Senate. 

With that, it concludes the first panel. What I would like to do 

now is hear from the next panel. If we could have Stephen 

Whitesell, who is the Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities, 

and Lands of the National Park Service speaking for the Department of the Interior come up. And Mary Wagner, who is the Associate Chief of the Forest Service, testifying on behalf of the Department of Agriculture. And if I can do an audible and change it 

slightly here, is Beth Ganz here with us? Why don’t you come up 

and join this panel as well and we can go through these bills. She 

is Vice President of Public Affairs of Vail Resorts. 

All right, in front of you, the testimony we would like to hear 

from you, obviously all of your written testimony will be included 

for the record. If you could keep, therefore, your oral comments to 

five minutes. We are trying to fix the timing system there that is 

on and not working, as you can see. Can you see your time on your 

side? All right. In a second we will try and get that through. When 

you begin to speak, the green light ought to go on. When the yellow 

light goes on, you have a minute left. When you see the red light, 

we would like to ask you to conclude as quickly as possible. Once 

again, anything else that needs to be submitted for the record will 

be there. Is it on for your view? You can see the small one that has 

the time up there. OK. All right, we just can’t see how much longer 

we have. So, we will stumble through this as best we can. 

Mr. Whitesell, we are pleased to have you here. Ms. Wagner, this 

is your first meeting with us? We will try to make it memorable. 

Mr. Whitesell will go first with his testimony and then Ms. Wagner. Ms. Ganz, you are here for the ski link bill, specifically. We 

will ask you for your testimony and then open it up for questions 

as we go through that time. 

So, Mr. Whitesell, please. 

19 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN E. WHITESELL, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PARK PLANNING, FACILITIES, AND LANDS, NATIONAL 

PARK SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. WHITESELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before this Subcommittee to present the Department of the 

Interior’s views on the six National Park Service bills and the two 

Bureau of Land Management bills on today’s agenda. Robert 

Towne, Deputy Assistant Director for the Bureau of Land Management is accompanying me and will be happy to answer any questions regarding H.R. 686 and H.R. 944, the two Bureau of Land 

Management bills on today’s agenda. 

I would like to submit our full statements for the record on each 

of these subject bills and will summarize the Department’s positions on these bills. 

H.R. 290 seeks to ensure that memorials commemorating the 

service of the United States Armed Forces may contain religious 

symbols. It would apply to military memorials that are established 

or acquired by the Federal Government and to those to which the 

American Battle Monuments Commission cooperated in the establishments of the memorial. The Department defers to the American 

Battle Monuments Commission for a position on H.R. 290, since 

the purpose of the legislation appears to be to amend the portion 

of the United States Code that covers formation and operation of 

the Commission. And we would defer to the Department of Justice 

as to any First Amendment questions. 

H.R. 320 would designate a Distinguished Flying Cross National 

Memorial at March Field Air Museum in Riverside, California. 

This legislation explicitly states that this memorial is not a unit of 

the National Park System. We defer to the Department of Defense 

for a position on H.R. 320, since the purpose of the legislation is 

to further honor military personnel who have been awarded the 

Distinguished Flying Cross at a site which is not under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. 

H.R. 441 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue 

permits for microhydro projects in a limited area of the Kantishna 

Hills in Denali National Park. The legislation would also authorize 

a land exchange near the historic mining community of Kantishna 

that would be mutually beneficial to the National Park Service and 

Doyon Tourism, Inc., a subsidiary of Alaska Native corporation, 

Doyon Limited. The Department supports this legislation with suggested technical corrections. 

H.R. 686 would convey certain lands to the State of Utah for 

Homeland Security or other national defense purposes. While the 

Department does not oppose the bill, the Bureau of Land Management would like the opportunity to work with the Committee on 

modifications to the reversionary clause and the map referenced by 

the legislation. 

H.R. 850 would allow construction of a four-lane highway bridge 

over the Lower St. Croix River from Minnesota to Wisconsin to relieve heavy traffic on the current two-lane bridge. The Department 

does not support enactment of this legislation because it is inconsistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We are very concerned 

about the precedent that would be established by allowing a bridge 

project to go forward on a wild and scenic river when it is found 

20 

to have had a direct and adverse effect on the designated river. If 

the Committee decides to move H.R. 850 forward, we would like to 

work with you to revise the bill’s language. The bill must make 

clear that construction of the bridge over the Lower St. Croix River 

is being authorized as an exception to the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act. Any legislation must also especially require that the mitigation package be mandatory. 

H.R. 944 would add certain rocks and small islands along the 

coast of Orange County, California, to the California Coastal 

National Monument, managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The Department supports this legislation. 

H.R. 1022 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine most effective ways to increase understanding and public awareness of the critical role that Buffalo Soldiers, segregated units composed of African-American cavalrymen, 

played in the early years of the National Parks. The Department 

supports this legislation. 

H.R. 1141 would authorize a study of the suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest sites 

on Rota, in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

as a unit of the National Park System. Congressional authorization 

to conduct a special resource study will require a public process to 

actively engage organizations, residents and others in discussions 

of how best to preserve Rota’s significant cultural and natural resources. The Department supports this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Whitesell follow:] 

Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning, 

Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, on H.R. 290 

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. 290, to amend title 36, United States Code, to ensure that memorials commemorating the service of the United States Armed Forces may contain religious 

symbols, and for other purposes. 

H.R. 290 would amend chapter 21 of title 36, United States Code, to allow religious symbols to be included as part of either a military memorial that is established or acquired by the United States Government, or a military memorial not established by the United States Government, but for which the American Battle 

Monuments Commission (Commission) cooperated in the establishment of the memorial. H.R. 290 also defines a military memorial as a memorial or monument commemorating the service of the United States Armed Forces, including works of architecture and art. 

The National Park Service administers military memorials in the District of Columbia, which are subject to the Commemorative Works Act, and in other parts of 

the country. However, the Department would defer to the Commission for a position 

on H.R. 290 to the extent it involves memorials administered by the Commission 

or for which the Commission cooperated in the establishment. H.R. 290 may also 

affect memorials administered by the Department of Defense who should have the 

opportunity to offer their views. Additionally, the Department defers to the Department of Justice as to any potential First Amendment questions raised by H.R. 290. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer 

any questions you or any other members of the subcommittee may have. 

21 

Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning, 

Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, on H.R. 320 

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

present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 320, a bill to designate 

a Distinguished Flying Cross National Memorial at the March Field Air Museum 

in Riverside, California. 

The Department would defer to the Department of Defense for a position on 

H.R. 320 since the purpose of the legislation is to further honor military personnel 

who have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross at a site that is not under 

the jurisdiction of the Department. 

The Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded to a member of the United States 

armed forces who distinguishes himself or herself in support of operations by ‘‘heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight.’’ We applaud the effort of the March Field Air Museum to create a suitable memorial to 

the honor, bravery, and sacrifice of members of our Armed Forces who have earned 

this medal. 

This legislation explicitly states that this memorial is not a unit of the National 

Park System. As this language makes clear, the use of the title ‘‘national memorial’’ 

creates a reasonable expectation among the general public that it must have an affiliation with the National Park Service, which currently administers 27 national 

memorials across the country. This is not the first time this issue has arisen, nor 

is it likely to be the last, and the Department respectfully encourages only the most 

thoughtful and judicious designation of any future ‘‘national’’ memorials or other 

similar sites. 

That concludes my testimony Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to respond to any 

questions from you and members of the committee. 

Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning, 

Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, on H.R. 441 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 441, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior 

to issue permits for a micro-hydro project in non-wilderness areas within the boundaries of Denali National Park and Preserve, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports this legislation with amendments and recognizes improvements made from the similar bill introduced in the previous session of Congress. H.R. 441 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for 

micro-hydro projects in a limited area of the Kantishna Hills in Denali National 

Park. The legislation would also authorize a land exchange between the National 

Park Service (NPS) and Doyon Tourism, Inc. (Doyon) involving lands near the historic mining community of Kantishna that would be mutually beneficial to the NPS 

and Doyon. 

This legislation will reduce the use of fossil fuels in the park, and thus lessen the 

chance of fuel spills along the park road and at the Kantishna lodges. It will lower 

the number of non-visitor vehicle trips over the park road, lessen the noise and 

emissions from diesel generators in the Moose Creek valley, and support clean energy projects and sustainable practices while ensuring that appropriate review and 

environmental compliance protects all park resources. 

Doyon Tourism, Inc., a subsidiary of Alaska Native Corporation Doyon, Ltd., has 

requested permits from the NPS to install a micro-hydroelectric project on Eureka 

Creek, near their Kantishna Roadhouse. The NPS supports the intent of this 

project, however, neither the Secretary nor the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has the statutory authority to issue permits for portions of hydroelectric projects within national parks or monuments. We believe that the authorization contained in this legislation is necessary to enable the NPS to allow this microhydroelectric project within the park. 

The Kantishna Roadhouse, at the end of the 92-mile-long Denali park road, has 

been in business for 28 years, hosts approximately 10,000 guests per summer, and 

currently uses an on-site 100 kilowatt (KW) diesel generator to provide power for 

the facility. The proposed hydroelectric installation would reduce use of the diesel 

generator at the lodge. Currently, delivery of diesel fuel to the lodge requires a 

tanker truck and trailer to be driven the entire length of the Denali park road. 

Noted for its undeveloped character, the road is unpaved for 77 miles of its 92-mile 

length, crosses high mountain passes without guardrails, and is just one to 1 1/2 

lanes wide with pullouts. The road is justly famous for wildlife viewing opportuniVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:19 Oct 31, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66206.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
22 

ties and in order to protect wildlife as well as the road’s scenic wilderness character, 

vehicle traffic is limited. Reducing the amount of diesel fuel hauled over this road 

in tanker trucks protects park resources by reducing the risk of accident or spill, 

and simultaneously reduces overall vehicle use of the road. 

Eureka Creek is a 4-mile-long stream that drains a 5 square-mile watershed and 

discharges about 15 cubic feet per second (cfs) during the summer. Most of the floodplain has been disturbed by past placer mining, but no mining claims exist on the 

creek now and no other landowners besides Doyon and the NPS own any property 

near this floodplain. The project would include an at-grade water intake, with no 

impoundment, about one mile upstream of where Eureka Creek crosses the park 

road. 

Camp Denali, another lodge in the Kantishna Hills, is within the area addressed 

by this legislation. Camp Denali opened in 1952 and the owners installed a microhydro generator system prior to the 1978 Presidential proclamation that included 

Kantishna as a part of what is now Denali National Park. After 1978, Camp Denali 

became a private in-holding surrounded by the park, and found that parts of its 

micro-hydro power system were within the park, a situation that the NPS lacks the 

authority to permit or retain. This legislation, if amended, would allow the NPS and 

the owners of Camp Denali to work out permit conditions for those parts of the existing hydro project that are now on park land. Besides the Kantishna Roadhouse 

and Camp Denali, two other lodges in Kantishna may pursue similar projects in the 

future and thus would benefit from the authority granted in this legislation. 

Doyon owns 18 acres on the patented Galena mining claim in the Kantishna Hills 

and would like to exchange that acreage for park land in Kantishna of equal value 

near its other properties. The NPS would also like to pursue this exchange to consolidate land holdings in the area. Existing land exchange authority under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and other legislation is sufficient to affect this exchange. Thus, while we believe that this provision is unnecessary, we support its intent. 

Our concerns with the bill are as follows: 

1) The bill as introduced requires the Secretary to complete National Environmental Policy Act compliance within 180 days of enactment. While the Department supports a speedy response to the applicant, we suggest the 180- 

day clock start upon submission of a complete application to the NPS. 

2) The permitting authority provided by this bill would apply to several microhydroelectric projects in the Kantishna area, yet various elements of the bill 

as introduced appear to apply solely to a project by Doyon. Technical corrections to address this are identified in an attachment to this testimony. 

We believe that the permitting authority granted in H.R. 441 would provide a 

tool that the Secretary could use to lower fossil fuel use in Denali National Park, 

while protecting park resources, and that a land exchange would be hastened 

through passage of this legislation. We would welcome the opportunity to work with 

the sponsor and this committee to address our concerns and recommendations. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

ATTACHMENT 

The NPS suggests the following technical corrections to H.R. 441 

1) On p. 1, line 2 of the long title, strike ‘‘for a microhydro project in nonwilderness’’ and insert ‘‘for microhydro projects in nonwilderness’’. 

2) On p. 1, line 5, strike ‘‘2010’’ and insert ‘‘2011’’. 

3) On p. 3, line 1, strike ‘‘(i) the intake pipeline located on Eureka Creek, approximately 1⁄2 mile upstream from the Park Road, as depicted on the map;’’ 

and insert ‘‘(i) intake pipelines;’’ 

4) On p. 3, line 8, strike ‘‘line’’ and insert ‘‘lines’’. 

5) On p. 3, line 14, strike ‘‘PROJECT’’ and insert ‘‘PROJECTS’’. 

Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning, 

Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, on H.R. 686 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 686, the Utah National Guard Readiness Act. The Department does not oppose the conveyance of the lands identified 

in H.R. 686 to the State of Utah for homeland security or national defense purposes. However, we would like the opportunity to work with the Committee on 

modifications to the reversionary clause and the map referenced by the legislation. 

23 

Background 

Camp W. G. Williams is located approximately 25 miles south of Salt Lake City, 

Utah, in an area of expanding residential development. The 24,000-acre base is a 

National Guard training site administered by the Utah Army National Guard and 

includes training facilities for a variety of military purposes. Approximately 18,000 

acres of the base are comprised of public land that has been withdrawn for the benefit of the United States Army as a training facility for the Utah Army National 

Guard under the provisions of Executive Order 1922 and Title IX of Public Law 

101–628, the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990. 

H.R. 686 

H.R. 686 directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the State of Utah, at 

no cost, approximately 431 acres of the 18,000-acre withdrawal. Those 431 acres are 

to be used by the Utah Army National Guard. The legislation includes a reversionary clause to return the land to the ownership of the United States if attempt 

is made to sell the land or use the land for non-National Guard or non-national defense purposes. 

Because the public lands proposed for conveyance are currently withdrawn for the 

benefit of the United States Army, a portion of the overall withdrawal to the Army 

is revoked by this legislation in order that the lands may be appropriately conveyed. 

We defer to the Department of Defense on the partial revocation of the underlying 

withdrawal. 

The Department generally does not oppose this conveyance at no cost because the 

legislation provides that the land conveyed must continue to be used for important 

national security and defense purposes. However, we would note that these lands 

are already withdrawn for military uses to the U.S. Army for use by the Utah 

National Guard. It is unclear why it is necessary to convey these lands directly to 

the State of Utah for use by the National Guard. 

We would like to work with the Sponsor and the Committee on modifications to 

the reversionary clause. Specifically, the reversionary clause language is complicated, nonstandard, and would be difficult for the Department of the Interior to 

oversee. We would like to discuss placing responsibility for the reversionary interest 

with the Department of Defense in order to ensure that the land is only used for 

national security or homeland defense purposes. 

Additionally, we would like to provide a new map to be referenced in the legislation. The BLM in Utah completed work in 2008 that corrected past survey problems, 

and we would like to incorporate this up-to-date, accurate information in a new 

map. Furthermore, the Department of Justice advises us of a necessary modification 

to section 2(b) of the bill, which they want to address with the Sponsor and the 

Committee. Finally, we have some minor technical modifications we would like to 

address. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on H.R. 686. 

Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning, 

Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, on H.R. 850 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) regarding H.R. 850, a bill to facilitate a proposed 

project in the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, and for other purposes. 

This bill would allow construction of a four-lane highway bridge over the Lower St. 

Croix River from Minnesota to Wisconsin to relieve heavy traffic on the current twolane bridge. 

The Department does not support enactment of legislation that deems the proposed bridge to be consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Act). We are very 

concerned about the precedent that such legislation would establish given that the 

Department found the bridge project would have a direct and adverse effect on the 

designated river. 

The NPS determined that the St. Croix River Project would have a direct and adverse impact to the river and that certain of those impacts cannot be mitigated, as 

documented in its Section 7(a) Wild and Scenic Rivers Act evaluation of October 15, 

2010. 

The Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (Riverway) received protection as 

a ‘‘study river’’ with passage of the Act in 1968. Congress subsequently designated 

the upper 27-mile segment of the Lower St. Croix River as a Wild and Scenic River 

in 1972 and provided that if the Governors of the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin submit an application for the lower 25-miles the Secretary of the Interior 

24 

upon his approval shall designate that segment. The Governors did submit an application and the Secretary designated the lower segment in 1976. The Act established 

a method for providing Federal protection for some of our country’s remaining freeflowing rivers, preserving them and their immediate environments for the use and 

enjoyment of present and future generations. 

In Section 7(a) of the Act, Congress expressed the clear intent to protect river values. The Act prohibits Federal agencies from assisting in the construction of any 

water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values 

of a designated river. Section 7(a) states: 

‘‘. . .no department or agency of the United States shall assist by loan, 

grant, license or otherwise in the construction of any water resources 

project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which 

such river was established, as determined by the Secretary charged with its 

administration...’’ 

Pursuant to that statute, if the Department determines a direct and adverse impact would occur, the project cannot proceed absent congressional action. 

The Riverway is administered by the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin for 25 

miles and the National Park Service (NPS) for 27 miles. However, the Department 

of the Interior, through the NPS, has responsibility for evaluation of proposed Federal projects for the entire 52 miles of the designated river. The NPS is responsible 

for evaluating water resources projects under Section 7(a) of the Act to determine 

whether those Federal projects, including bridges, will have a direct and adverse effect on the Riverway’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. Each water resources project is evaluated independently on its 

own merits. 

The Riverway runs fast over sections of exposed bedrock, slow and deep over great 

depositional sediments left by the last glaciers, and throughout its course to the 

Mississippi River, the river carves through steep forested bluffs and rich valley 

bottomlands. Although solitude in natural settings is increasingly rare so close to 

a major metropolitan area, the Riverway offers natural solitude and abundant recreation. 

In 1995, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released a Record of Decision to construct a new bridge over the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway 

and in June 1996 the Sierra Club and Voyageurs Region National Park Association 

commenced a lawsuit against the United States Department of Transportation, the 

Federal Highway Administration, the Department and the NPS to enjoin construction of the project. They alleged that the Department had violated Section 7(a) of 

the Act by failing to determine whether the new bridge would have a direct and 

adverse effect upon the values for which the Riverway was established. In September 1996, the FHWA and its lead partner—the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)—applied for a Section 10/404 permit to place fill in the waters 

of the United States for bridge construction. Subsequently, the NPS prepared a Section 7(a) evaluation and determined that the project would have a direct and adverse effect on the Riverway’s scenic and recreational values because of its visual 

impacts and that no available mitigation measures could significantly reduce the 

negative effects of the proposed bridge. Therefore, permits could not be issued and 

the bridge project could not go forward. MnDOT, the Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation (WisDOT) and the City of Stillwater, Minnesota, intervened in the 

lawsuit as defendants. They alleged that the 1996 NPS Section 7(a) determination 

was arbitrary, capricious, and in excess of statutory authority. The court upheld the 

1996 NPS Section 7(a) determination, establishing case law that bridges are water 

resources projects subject to Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

In 1998, after discussions with legislators and other interested parties, the 

FHWA, MnDOT and WisDOT decided to revisit the issue of a river crossing near 

Stillwater. MnDOT facilitated a consensus-building process for a new bridge crossing of the Riverway. This process resulted in a new bridge alignment and design 

as well as a mitigation package. 

In 2000, the NPS prepared a Draft Section 7(a) evaluation for inclusion in 

FHWA’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This evaluation determined that 

the proposed bridge would have a direct and adverse effect on scenic and recreational values; however, the adverse effects were adequately offset by the mitigation package developed by the stakeholders. 

In 2001, the FHWA suspended that EIS process short of a final decision, citing 

insufficient funds for the implementation of the mitigation measures. 

In 2002, the FHWA and its two state partners again re-initiated a St. Croix River 

Crossing EIS process. A ‘‘Stakeholders Group,’’ made up of 28 representatives of diverse interests was formed to provide input to the transportation agencies in their 

25 

decision-making process. This process resulted in a new proposed bridge alignment 

(similar to the original 1996 alignment), a bridge design, and a mitigation package. 

In 2005, the NPS prepared an updated Section 7(a) evaluation that determined 

that the proposed crossing, when taken along with its mitigation package, would not 

have a direct and adverse effect on the scenic and recreational values, provided that 

the mitigation package remained intact. 

In 2006, the FHWA issued a new record of decision to allow the bridge to be built. 

The Sierra Club again sued the Secretaries of Transportation and the Interior, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 (40 U.S.C. 1653(f)), and the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. 

On March 11, 2010, the U.S. District Court of Minnesota found the 2005 NPS Section 7(a) evaluation ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ and vacated it. 

On April 6, 2010, the FHWA requested that the NPS prepare a new evaluation 

in response to the court’s decision. The NPS released its latest Section 7(a) evaluation on October 15, 2010. The evaluation determined that, due to visual impacts, 

the St. Croix River Crossing Project would have a direct and adverse impact to the 

river and that those impacts cannot be mitigated. 

NPS transmitted the 2010 Section 7(a) evaluation to the FHWA, stating that 

‘‘While the NPS believes the mitigation measures are not sufficient to eliminate the 

direct and adverse effects of the Project on the Lower St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway’s designated scenic and recreational values, the NPS strongly supports 

their implementation if Congressional action is taken to allow the Project to move 

forward. The mitigation measures are essential to meet the requirements of Section 

4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 and help the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin protect 

and enhance river values under Section 10(a) of the Act. Although the Act precludes 

authorization of a project that a river administering agency has determined will 

cause direct and adverse effects on a designated river, the FHWA can initiate a 

Congressional process for authorizing this specific project in accordance with a provision provided under Section 7(a).’’ 

Although we feel that placing a bridge in an area where one never existed would 

forever change the look of the river, our Section 7(a) analysis also referenced the 

authorization process that is provided for in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That 

process includes notification to the Secretary of the Interior sixty days in advance 

of requesting authorization or appropriations from Congress. If this process is followed, we feel strongly that any authorization or appropriations for this project 

should include the mitigation package developed by the ‘‘Stakeholders Group’’ to 

protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values of the Lower St. Croix 

National Scenic Riverway. 

If the committee decides to move H.R. 850 forward, the Administration would like 

to work with you to revise the bill’s language. As drafted, the bill states that this 

project is consistent with the Act. The Department is very concerned that stating 

that this project is consistent with the Act would set a precedent for other projects 

that have direct and adverse impacts on wild and scenic rivers. The bill must make 

clear that construction of the bridge over the Lower St. Croix River is being authorized as an exception to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We also believe that any 

legislation must also expressly require that the ‘‘Stakeholders Group’’ mitigation 

package be mandatory. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions from members of the committee. 

Statement of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 944 

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on H.R. 944, 

which would add certain rocks and small islands along the coast of Orange County, 

California, to the California Coastal National Monument managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM). The BLM supports H.R. 944. 

Background 

The California Coastal National Monument, part of the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System, was established by a Presidential Proclamation by 

President Clinton on January 11, 2000, to protect: 

‘‘all unappropriated or unreserved lands and interest in lands owned or controlled by the United States in the form of islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and 

pinnacles...within 12 nautical miles of the shoreline of the State of California.’’ 

26 

Covering more than 20,000 rocks and small islands spread along 1,100 miles of 

the California coastline, the Presidential Proclamation protects the Monument’s 

overwhelming scenic quality and natural beauty. The Proclamation specifically calls 

for the protection of the geologic formations and the habitat that these rocks and 

small islands provide for seabirds, marine mammals, and other plant and animal 

life, both terrestrial and marine. 

Some particularly significant public rocks and islands off the coast of Orange 

County in the Laguna Beach area provide important habitat for a wide variety of 

upper rocky intertidal species, as well as various shorebird species. Additionally, 

four rock locations—Bird Rock and Two Rocks off the City of Laguna Beach, San 

Juan Rocks off the City of Dana Point, and San Marcos Rocks off the southern portion of the City of San Clemente—provide important roosting habitat for seabirds 

(including cormorants and the Federally-listed brown pelican) and haul-out areas for 

seals and sea lions. 

In the process of working with local communities on planning for the California 

Coastal National Monument, the BLM discovered that the rock features off the 

coastline of Orange County were under Congressional withdrawals dating from the 

1930s and, therefore, were not included within the Monument. These withdrawals 

include more than 40 offshore rocks, small islands, exposed reefs, and pinnacles located within one mile of the coast of Orange County, California, totaling approximately two acres above mean high tide. More than 70 years old, the withdrawals 

were originally intended to temporarily reserve the Orange County offshore rocks 

and small islands for ‘‘park, scenic, or other public purposes’’ (1931 Act), and reserve 

three specific offshore rock clusters for the possibility of future lighthouses (1935 

Act), which were never built. These withdrawals were ultimately never utilized and 

are no longer needed. 

The Laguna Ocean Foundation has led a community-wide effort to include these 

significant areas within the California Coastal National Monument. The Foundation 

has worked with the City of Laguna Beach and other local groups, including the 

Audubon Society and the Surfrider Foundation, on a variety of city and area-wide 

coastal protection and monitoring projects, which resulted in H.R. 944. 

H.R. 944 

H.R. 944 would eliminate the existing withdrawals on these public lands off the 

coast of Orange County and place these features within the existing California 

Coastal National Monument. The BLM supports the revocation of the old withdrawals and the inclusion of these rocks, islands, and exposed reefs within the 

Monument. 

The BLM has been working with partners along the 1,100 mile California coast 

to create a series of California Coastal National Monument Gateway community initiatives. These Gateway initiatives are a means to support organized local stewardship of various California coastal areas through the development of a consortium of 

the area’s resource managers and advocates. The Laguna Beach community has expressed strong interest in developing a California Coastal National Monument Gateway initiative for the Orange County coastal area. Inclusion of these rocks and islands within the Monument will allow the BLM to work with the community to provide responsible, long-term stewardship of these valuable areas. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 944. We look forward 

to passage of this legislation which would place these significant features off the 

coast of Orange County within the California Coastal National Monument, thus ensuring their long-term protection and preservation, and paving the way for an important local community stewardship initiative. 

Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning, 

Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, on H.R. 1022 

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. 1022, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the 

early years of the national parks, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports H.R. 1022. However, we feel that priority should be 

given to the 40 previously authorized studies for potential units of the National 

Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the 

27 

National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic River System that have not 

yet been transmitted to Congress. 

H.R. 1022 would authorize a study to determine the most effective ways to increase understanding and public awareness of the critical role that the Buffalo Soldiers, segregated units composed of African-American cavalrymen, played in the 

early years of the National Parks. It would evaluate the suitability and feasibility 

of a National Historic Trail along the routes between their post at the Presidio of 

San Francisco and the parks they protected, notably Yosemite and Sequoia. The 

study would also identify properties that could meet the criteria for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places or designation as National Historic Landmarks. 

We estimate that this study will cost approximately $400,000. 

African-American 19th and 20th century Buffalo Soldiers were an important, yet 

little known, part of the history of some of our first National Parks. These cavalry 

troops rode more than 320 miles from their post at the Presidio to Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks in order to patrol and protect them. The journey across the 

state took sixteen days of serious horseback riding averaging over twenty miles a 

day. Once in the parks, they were assigned to patrol the backcountry, build roads 

and trails, put a halt to poaching, suppress fires, halt trespass grazing by large 

herds of unregulated cattle and sheep, and otherwise establish roles later assumed 

by National Park rangers. 

The U.S. Army administered Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks from 1891 to 

1914, when it was replaced by civilian management. The National Park Service was 

not created until 1916, 25 years after these parks were established. Commanding 

officers became acting military superintendents for these national parks with two 

troops of approximately 60 cavalry men assigned to each. The troops essentially created a roving economy—infusing money into parks and local businesses—and thus 

their presence was generally welcomed. The presence of these soldiers as official 

stewards of park lands prior to the National Park Service’s establishment brought 

a sense of law and order to the mountain wilderness. 

Less well known, however, is the participation of African-American troops of the 

24th Infantry and 9th Cavalry, the Buffalo Soldiers, who protected both Sequoia and 

Yosemite National Parks in 1899, 1903, and 1904. These troops and their contributions should be recognized and honored, and this bill does just that. 

When the new military superintendent for the summer of 1903 arrived in Sequoia 

National Park he had already faced many challenges. Born in Kentucky during the 

Civil War, Charles Young had already set himself a course that took him to places 

where a black man was not often welcome. He was the first black to graduate from 

the white high school in Ripley, Ohio, and through competitive examination he won 

an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1884. He went on 

to graduate with his commission, only the third black man to do so. 

In 1903, Young was serving as a captain in the cavalry commanding a segregated 

black company at the Presidio of San Francisco when he received orders to take his 

troops to Sequoia National Park for the summer. Young and his troopers arrived 

in Sequoia after a 16-day ride to find that one of their major assignments would 

be the extension of the wagon road. Hoping to break the sluggish pattern of previous military administrations, Young poured his considerable energies into the 

project. During the summer of 1903, Young and his troops built as much road as 

the combined results of the three previous summers, as well as building a trail to 

the top of Mt. Whitney—the highest point in the contiguous United States. 

The soldiers also protected the giant sequoias from illegal logging, wildlife from 

poaching, and the watershed and wilderness from unauthorized grazing by livestock. A difficult task under any circumstances, the intensity was undoubtedly compounded by societal prejudice common at the turn of the century. 

Although Colonel Charles Young only served one season as Acting Superintendent 

of a National Park, he and his men have not been forgotten. The energy and dignity 

they brought to this national park assignment left a strong imprint. The roads they 

built are still in use today, having served millions of park visitors for more than 

eighty years. The legacy they left extends far beyond Sequoia National Park, as they 

helped lay the foundation for the National Park System, which continues to inspire 

and connect people of all backgrounds to public lands and natural treasures to this 

day. 

In recent years the National Park Service has made an effort to chronicle the 

achievements of these men in San Francisco and in Sequoia and Yosemite National 

Parks. In the Presidio of San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation Area and 

the Presidio Trust have developed an education program using the historic stables 

that the Buffalo Soldiers actually used to house their horses. In Yosemite National 

Park, Ranger Shelton Johnson portrays one of the U.S. Army’s Buffalo Soldiers as 

part of his interpretation of Yosemite’s history. Sequoia National Park has a giant 

28 

sequoia named for Colonel Young in honor of his lasting legacy in that park. These 

isolated, but important efforts to educate the public on the important role of the 

Buffalo Soldiers could be heightened by this consolidated study. 

There is a growing concern that youth are becoming increasingly disconnected 

with wild places and our national heritage. Additionally, many people of color are 

not necessarily aware of national parks and the role their ancestors may have 

played in shaping the national park system. NPS can help foster a stronger sense 

of awareness and knowledge about the natural and cultural history preserved in our 

natural parks by connecting people, especially these audiences, to the critical roles 

of African-American Buffalo Soldiers in the protection and development of natural 

treasures like Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks. By amplifying the story of the 

Buffalo Soldiers, this bill could help bridge cultural divides and expand opportunities to appeal to an all-inclusive audience. As the 2016 centennial of the National 

Park Service approaches, it is an especially appropriate time to conduct research 

and increase public awareness of the stewardship role the Buffalo Soldiers played 

in the early years of the National Parks. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions that you or other members if the subcommittee may have. 

Statement of Stephen E. Whitesell, Associate Director, Park Planning, 

Facilities, and Lands, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, on H.R. 1141 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the 

Interior’s testimony regarding H.R. 1141, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and 

limestone forest sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as 

a unit of the National Park System. 

The Department supports H.R. 1141. Priority should be given, however, to the 40 

previously authorized studies for potential units of the National Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the National Trails 

System and National Wild and Scenic River System that have not yet been transmitted to Congress. 

H.R. 1141 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to complete a Special Resource Study of sites on the Island of Rota for potential inclusion in the National 

Park System. We estimate that this study will cost approximately $250,000 to 

$300,000. 

Rota, where the indigenous Chamorro and Carolinian people have retained their 

cultural heritage in its natural environment, is the southernmost island of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Spared the population displacement of other colonial islands and largely bypassed during World War II, Rota 

preserves striking examples of the three thousand-year-old Chamorro culture surrounded by the best remaining expanse of this island chain’s native limestone forest. 

The Mochon Latte Village, the Chugai Pictograph Cave, the Taga Latte Stone 

Quarry, and the Alaguan Bay Ancient Village prehistoric sites include architectural 

features unique to the ancient Chamorro culture and represent outstanding examples of the territory’s cultural resources. These sites possess a high degree of integrity in location, materials, workmanship and association. 

The limestone forests of Rota are the most intact and most extensive examples 

of primary, native limestone forest remaining on any island in the Mariana Archipelago. The forest provides and sustains habitat for endangered bird species, a 

threatened species of fruit bat, and numerous species of invertebrates that are proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. Several of these species are endemic 

to Rota. The significance of this unique biotic community cannot be overstated. 

Rota’s residents and legislative delegation have demonstrated an extraordinary 

commitment to the protection of the island’s environment. In 2004, Senator Diego 

M. Songao, Chairman of the Rota Legislative Delegation of the Fourteenth Commonwealth Legislature, formally requested planning assistance from the National Park 

Service (NPS). 

In response to this request, the NPS completed a reconnaissance survey of Rota’s 

natural and cultural resources in September of 2005. The reconnaissance survey 

found that the natural and cultural resources of the island of Rota are significant 

to island residents, the CNMI, and the entire nation and merit protection. It also 

made a preliminary finding that these resources are likely to be suitable and feasible for inclusion in the park system. 

At present, the people of Rota and their political leaders find themselves at a 

crossroads regarding the uses to which their lands are being put. Major land use 

29 

changes are continuing to take place in the form of residential and agricultural lots 

being subdivided out of the island’s public lands and transferred into private ownership. 

At this time, none of Rota’s resources are guaranteed protection for future generations. Congressional authorization to conduct a Special Resource Study will provide 

a public process to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, as a unit of the National Park System. The NPS would be pleased 

to actively engage organizations, residents and others in discussions of how best to 

preserve Rota’s significant cultural and natural resources. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer questions that you or other members of the committee might have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Ms. Wagner would you like to go over 

the Forest Service issues? 

STATEMENT OF MARY WAGNER, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, 

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

Ms. WAGNER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has submitted written testimony for the record. I am just going to offer several comments for 

each of the bills under consideration in front of you today. 

H.R. 241, to authorize the conveyance of National Forest System 

lands in the Los Padres National Forest is intended to resolve a 

longstanding encroachment of the White Lotus Foundation. The 

bill today differs from the bill introduced last Congress in that it 

provides a provision for a land exchange and requires the Foundation to pay survey, appraisal and other administrative costs associated with the exchange or the sale. We appreciate the Committee’s 

efforts to resolve this longstanding encroachment and to address 

previously identified issues we expressed during the last Congress. 

While we still have concerns about this bill, we are open to solutions and we are committed to working with the Committee to resolve this encroachment. 

H.R. 643, the ‘‘Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange’’ is a proposal to exchange or sell two parcels on the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest in Colorado to the Sugar Loaf Fire 

Protection District. We support this legislation and thank members 

of the Committee for addressing concerns expressed when we testified last Congress. We see H.R. 643 as a benefit to efficient management of the Arapaho National Forest and to promoting emergency services for citizens in the Fire Protection District. 

And last, the Department supports H.R. 765, the ‘‘Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act.’’ We appreciate the Committee’s efforts to address concerns expressed previously. Americans see ski areas and experience ski areas as portals to the 

National Forests and a means to greater appreciation of nature. 

Over one-fifth of the entire number of visits to National Forests 

occur in ski areas. This legislation encourages greater recreation 

use at our most developed sites, enhances the long-term viability 

of ski areas, and sustains the adjoining gateway communities. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, members of the Committee, this concludes my comments and I would be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner follows:] 

30 

Statement of Mary Wagner, Associate Chief, Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 241, H R. 643, and H.R. 765 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Mary Wagner, Associate 

Chief for the U.S. Forest Service. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you to provide the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on three 

of the bills that you are considering today. 

H.R. 241 TO AUTHORIZE THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN NATIONAL 

FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN THE LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST 

IN CALIFORNIA 

H.R. 241 is intended to address a longstanding encroachment by the White Lotus 

Foundation (Foundation) on National Forest System lands managed by the Los Padres National Forest in Santa Barbara County, California. The encroachment does 

not qualify for resolution under existing authorities, namely, the Small Tracts Act 

(P. L. 97–465). The Department appreciates this Committees’ efforts to resolve this 

issue; however, we do not support H.R. 241 because there would be limited benefit 

to the public from this conveyance. 

H.R. 241 differs from the bill introduced last Congress (H.R. 129) in that it includes the provision for a land exchange and the requirement that the Foundation 

pay for the reasonable costs of any surveys, appraisals, and any other administrative costs associated with the proposed land exchange or sale. This legislation would 

require the Secretary to exchange up to five acres of National Forest System land 

upon which the Foundation has encroached if the Foundation offers to convey a parcel of non-Federal land that is acceptable to the Secretary and if the Secretary determines that the public interest would be served by making the exchange. If the 

land exchange is not completed within 2 years following the date of enactment of 

the Act, the Secretary would have the option of selling the encroached-upon 

National Forest System land to the Foundation for fair market value. 

It is unlikely a land exchange could be completed within two years of enactment 

because the Foundation has not been in consultation with the Forest Service about 

potential properties to be exchanged and the normal time frame for these exchanges 

exceeds a two year time frame. For lands to become part of the National Forest System, a rigorous and thorough vetting process that includes title and boundary work 

as well as surveys for hazardous materials must be completed prior to the exchange. 

Currently there is a two to three year wait in the Pacific Southwest Region for land 

exchanges. Therefore, the provision for a land exchange would likely not be used 

and instead, after two years, the land sale option to convey the land to the Foundation would be utilized. 

Last Congress, the Department testified before this Subcommittee on H.R. 129 

which authorized the sale of the same lands to the Foundation. As previously stated 

on H.R. 129, our concern is that H.R. 241 would benefit only the Foundation with 

no public benefit. This legislation would serve only a small, select group of citizens— 

the White Lotus Foundation. In addition, the conveyance would legitimize the Foundation’s long standing encroachments on lands in the Los Padres National Forest 

by allowing the Foundation to acquire the encroached land through legislation for 

the Foundation’s private use and enjoyment. There are other adjacent landowners 

in the area with similar encroachments on National Forest System lands in the Los 

Padres National Forest. These landowners are following this legislation with interest, as a model for resolving their encroachment cases. Resolving the White Lotus 

Foundation encroachments through H.R. 241 would therefore set a precedent for 

resolution of other encroachment cases through case-specific legislation. 

H.R. 643 SUGAR LOAF FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT LAND EXCHANGE 

ACT 

H.R. 643 would provide for the exchange or sale of two parcels of National Forest 

System lands within the boundaries of the Arapaho National Forest in Colorado to 

the Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District (SLFPD). A portion of one parcel is currently 

being used by SLFPD as a fire station under special use permit. The other parcel 

was under a similar permit that has expired. The Department supports this legislation and wishes to thank the Members of the Committee for addressing the concerns 

expressed when we testified on the bill under consideration last Congress 

(H.R. 3923). 

The National Forest System lands proposed for conveyance have lost their national forest character. The lands that would be conveyed to the United States have 

suitable national forest character and would contribute to increased management efficiency. In addition, thanks in large part to previous work that has been done between the Forest Service (Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest) and The Sugar Loaf 

31 

Fire Protection District, we believe that the Forest Service and SLFPD will meet 

Congress’ intent to have the parcels exchanged within 1 year. 

The Department supports the work of the SLFPD and its efforts to improve facilities to deliver services more effectively. We view H.R. 643 as both benefitting management of the Arapaho National Forest and promoting emergency services in the 

fire protection district. 

H.R. 765 SKI AREA RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ENHANCEMENT 

ACT OF 2011 

H.R. 765 would amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 to authorize the Secretary to permit seasonal or year-round natural resource-based recreational activities and associated facilities at ski areas, in addition to those that 

support Nordic and alpine skiing and other snow sports that are currently authorized by the Act. The Department supports H.R. 765 and wishes to thank the Members of the Committee for addressing the concerns expressed when we testified last 

Congress on H.R. 2476. Like its predecessor, H.R. 765 would promote seasonal or 

year-round recreation opportunities at ski resorts on National Forest System lands 

and, by doing so, would expand the opportunities for ski areas to attract visitors 

during all four seasons. 

The additional seasonal or year-round recreational activities and associated facilities authorized by the bill would have to encourage outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature and, to the extent practicable, would have to harmonize with the 

natural environment. The bill specifies certain recreational activities and facilities 

that could, under appropriate circumstances, be authorized and those that would be 

excluded from authorization. The bill would make clear that the primary purpose 

of the authorized use and occupancy would continue to be skiing and other snow 

sports. 

There are 122 ski areas operating under permit on National Forest System lands. 

These ski areas occupy less than 1 percent of all National Forest System lands. Nevertheless, about one-fifth of all recreation in national forests occurs at these ski 

areas. The ski areas are some of the most developed sites in the national forests. 

However, for many Americans, ski areas are portals to the national forests and a 

means to greater appreciation of the natural world. 

Focusing more of developed outdoor recreational activities within ski areas is appropriate and would reduce impacts on less developed areas in the national forests. 

If H.R 765 is enacted, we would develop criteria for the types of seasonal or yearround activities that would be appropriate at ski areas to provide a basis for casespecific proposals at the local level in accordance with established law, regulations, 

and procedures including the Secretary’s duties to involve the public in his decisionmaking and planning for the national forests. 

In summary, this legislation would encourage greater recreational use of the national forests and would concentrate highly developed recreation in areas that are 

currently among the most developed sites in national forests. In addition, the legislation would enhance the long-term viability of the ski areas on National Forest System lands and the adjoining rural economies. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva and Members of the Subcommittee, this 

concludes my testimony. I’ll be happy to answer any of your questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Ms. Ganz, if you could speak to the one, 

I think you are here for the one bill, right? 

Ms. GANZ. Right. 

Mr. BISHOP. If you could speak to that, I would appreciate it. 

STATEMENT OF BETH GANZ, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC 

AFFAIRS AND SUSTAINABILITY, VAIL RESORTS, COLORADO 

Ms. GANZ. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva and members of the Committee, my name is Beth Ganz and I am the Vice 

President of Public Affairs and Sustainability at Vail Resorts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National 

Ski Areas Association and Vail Resorts in strong support of 

H.R. 765, the ‘‘Ski Area Recreational Area Opportunity Enhancement Act.’’ I would like to recognize Chairman Bishop for his leadership on this important legislation. 

32 

NSAA is an association of 326 ski resorts across the country, 121 

of which operate on public lands. Vail Resorts has six of these 

mountains in Colorado, California and Nevada, five of which are in 

the National Forest. Ski areas occupy less than one-tenth of one 

percent of Forest Service lands, yet they serve as one of the primary gateways to our public lands and the outdoors. The 60 million 

people who visit ski resorts annually represent 20 percent of all 

recreation visits to the National Forest. The partnership between 

the ski area operators and the U.S. Forest Service yields tremendous recreation opportunities while also providing economic, conservation and forest education benefits. 

H.R. 765 is intended to update some antiquated provisions in 

the Ski Area Permit Act, clarify the Forest Service’s authority, and 

provide guidance related to the permitting of appropriate seasonal 

and year-round recreational activities and facilities at ski areas. 

The bill also represents a unique opportunity to provide economic 

stimulus to the rural economies that surround the resorts. And to 

do so in an environmentally sustainable way. Ski resorts companies are frequently one of the largest employers in the small mountain regions in which they operate, as well as create other economic 

opportunities for the local population base. With the successful passage of this bill, ski areas and their communities can transform 

from winter season destinations into year-round destinations. Yearround visitation creates year-round employment opportunities and 

bolsters local government and state coffers with increased tourism 

revenues. Revenues to the Forest Service will also increase via 

year-round permit fees that public land resorts generate. 

As I mentioned earlier, there is also conservation value in allowing and encouraging year-round recreation at ski areas. Ski areas 

are developed recreation sites, with the infrastructure needed to 

support high levels of visitation. Such as parking lots, restaurants, 

rest rooms and other facilities. By providing high quality and accessible recreation at ski areas, the potentially undesirable impacts of 

unmanaged recreation can be avoided in other parts of the forest. 

The intent of this bill is not to change the nature of ski areas 

on public lands. We believe there is great potential for resorts to 

expand their offerings of seasonal and year-round recreational activities in a manner that fully appreciates the landscape of the forest. An activity or facility should primarily benefit from or utilize 

the natural features of the mountain, the way zip lines and alpine 

slides use the downward sloping contours of a mountain. 

We firmly believe that H.R. 765 will provide additional yearround activities that will greatly increase the public’s enjoyment of 

their national forests. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the Committee. NSAA and Vail Resorts stand ready to 

work with Chairman Bishop and the Committee to move this important legislation forward. Thank you. 

[The prepared statements of Ms. Ganz follow:] 

Statement of Beth Ganz, Vice President of Public Affairs and 

Sustainability, Vail Resorts, on behalf of the National Ski Areas 

Association, on H.R. 765 

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

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. On behalf of Vail Resorts 

and the National Ski Areas Association I am pleased to provide the following testiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:19 Oct 31, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66206.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
33 

mony in support of H.R. 765, the Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement 

Act. 

NSAA has 121 member ski areas that operate on National Forest System lands. 

These public land resorts are in the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming. Vail Resorts owns and operates six resorts in Colorado, Nevada and California of which five are located on public lands. 

At the outset, we would like to thank Chairman Bishop for his leadership on this 

bill. 

Background 

Public land resorts work in partnership with the US Forest Service to deliver an 

outdoor recreation experience unmatched in the world. Our longstanding partnership—dating back to the 1940s, is a model public-private partnership that greatly 

benefits the American public. The recreation opportunities provided at public land 

resorts help benefit rural economies, improve the health and fitness of millions of 

Americans, provide kids and families great outdoor experiences and promote appreciation for the natural environment. 

In addition to the recreation benefits that ski areas provide throughout the year 

there are economic benefits that must be considered. Resorts are frequently one of 

the largest employers in the rural regions in which they operate, providing important employment and other economic opportunities for their local population base. 

The presence of resorts provides a critical component of the economy in many areas 

of the country. 

Over the past five years, we have averaged 58.6 million skier/snowboarder visits 

annually, and about 60% of those visits occurred on public land. Yet ski areas occupy less than one-tenth of one percent of Forest Service lands. 

Ski areas are the perfect place to accommodate these large numbers of forest visitors and not just in the winter. It is important to remember that ski areas are developed sites. They inspire appreciation for the natural environment, but they also represent a built environment that is accessible and convenient for visitors. Ski areas 

already have the parking lots, bathrooms, trails and other facilities to accommodate 

millions of summer visitors. Use of developed ski areas during all times of the year 

allows the Forest Service to provide recreation opportunities to millions of visitors 

in a controlled and mitigated environment thus alleviating the impacts elsewhere on 

the forests. 

Summer and Year-Round Activities 

Summer and year-round activities are not new to ski areas. Resorts across the 

country have offered summer activities for decades, with scenic chairlift rides dating 

back to the 1960s. These activities include mountain biking, scenic chairlift rides, 

hiking, ziplines, alpine slides, climbing walls, Frisbee golf and others. Until very recently, the authorization of summer activities at public land resorts occurred without issue. Many ski area special use permits reference ‘‘year-round’’ or ‘‘four season’’ 

resorts. The Forest Service Manual expressly encourages the year-round use of resort facilities. Even Congress recognized the four-season nature of resorts back in 

1996 by including the term ‘‘gross year-round revenue’’ in our fee system (16 USC 

497c). Resorts have acted in reliance of these authorities, and the federal government has collected fees on summer activities, for decades. 

So why are we here? NSAA strongly supports H.R. 765 to create a national comprehensive approach to growing seasonal and year-round recreational opportunities. 

Such an approach will provide for more consistent decision making and more accurately reflect what is now taking place at modern four-season resorts. 

Summer and year-round recreation can transform ski areas and their rural communities from single season destinations into year-round destinations. Year-round 

visitation increases year-round employment opportunities in rural resort communities, creating a more stable workforce and local economy. It should also be noted 

that public land resorts generate permit fees for the Forest Service from all revenues generated by activities at ski areas. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed this last point in the 111th Congress stating that the bill would not negatively impact the federal budget and that it will minimally increase receipts to the 

Treasury. 

We believe that there is great potential for resorts to expand their offerings of seasonal and year-round recreational activities. According to NSAA statistics, the average resort’s non-ski season operations account for just 6.9 percent of overall revenues illustrating this point. H.R. 765 could prove to be an economic boost to many 

rural areas improving local employment, food and beverage receipts, lodging and 

providing gateway access to the public’s enjoyment of their public lands. 

34 

The Bill 

Specifically, H.R. 765 clarifies the Forest Service’s authority to permit appropriate seasonal or year-round recreational activities and facilities subject to ski area 

permits issued by the Secretary under section 3 of the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 USC 497b). The bill is also an opportunity to update the language used to describe snow-sports to better reflect the wide range of snow sports 

(including snowboarding, snow-biking, etc) taking place at modern ski-areas. NSAA 

notes and appreciates the discretion and guidance the bill provides to the Secretary 

to make site-specific decisions on appropriate activities and facilities that are natural resource-based, outdoor developed recreation that harmonize with the natural 

environment of the public lands. 

In the 110th and 111th Congress, the Administration testified in support of the 

bill and stated that further clarifications would assist the Forest Service in its interpretation and implementation of the bill. During consideration in the 111th Congress the legislation was amended with the input of the National Ski Areas Association, U.S. Forest Service, committee staff and other stakeholders. The bill as you 

see it today reflects those amendments as agreed to in the Senate which are largely 

similar to the House passed version of the bill. 

Thank you for your consideration of H.R. 765. This bi-partisan, no-cost and noncontroversial legislation is important to ski areas across the country and we encourage its swift passage. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank you for your testimony. What I would like 

to do is do this a little bit differently to try and expedite the situation. There are three bills that been testified to by the Forest Service, impact the Forest Service: H.R. 241, H.R. 643. H.R. 241 is the 

California Forest, H.R. 643 is the Colorado Fire issue, and 

H.R. 765, the Ski link bill. I have no questions on those three bills. 

I would like to deal with those first, and then we can go back to 

the other bills later. 

Are there questions specifically for those three, Forest Service. 

Ranking Member? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I have no questions on those. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Kildee, do you have a question on those three? 

On either of those three? The three that have the Forest Service 

impact, H.R. 241, H.R. 643 and H.R. 765. 

Mr. KILDEE. I want to ask about H.R. 850. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, let us wait for that one then. Representative, the gentleman from Florida, did you have any questions on 

these three bills? The gentleman from California. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Just on a related issue, and this question goes 

to Ms. Wagner. Representative Lungren and I have been working 

on a historic cabin located in the Mokelumne Wilderness Area. We 

have not had a satisfactory answer from the Forest Service on how 

it will protect and maintain that and we have withheld legislation 

pending a satisfactory answer. We may very well have to introduce 

legislation to compel a satisfactory answer. I would like your attention to that matter. Monty Wolf Cabin, Mokelumne Wilderness 

Area, California, in Mr. Lungren’s district. Thank you. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Are there any other questions, then on those three 

bills. If not, we appreciate the testimony. Ms. Wagner, hopefully it 

was painless. And Ms. Ganz, I appreciate you being here on those 

three issues. If you would like to leave now, you are free to. Mr. 

Whitesell, I hope you would stay here for a minute as we go 

through the Bureau of Land Management bills that are there. 

35 

As I said, Mr. Young has joined us now. He has, which one is 

yours, you are H.R. 441? H.R. 441. And I would recognize Mr. 

Young for his statement if he has one. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I will submit a statement for the record. This is a piece of legislation I am happy to say 

the Park Service supports. That makes me feel quite good. We have 

had our little differences in the past month, and Mr. Chairman I 

hope we can address those differences. This is the way something 

should work. This is helping everyone, it is a win-win situation. We 

have taken, we will replace diesel fuel with a microhydro situation 

that will make and produce clean energy and everybody will be 

happy. And I just hope, Mr. Chairman, that this bill moves forward 

in an expeditious way. And again I urge you and the Park Service 

to understand that we can work together as long as you listen to 

the people and not just the Park Service. I am very serious about 

that. If you just listen to the Park Service, you are going to have 

a dog-fight, because you are not always right—especially, when you 

sit here in Washington, D.C. or downtown Anchorage—listening to 

those who don’t know squat about the Park Service in Alaska. 

But this is a situation where, very frankly, I am quite pleased 

that they support it. It is good for the Doyon Corporation. It is good 

for the Park Service and we will have clean air using hydro as we 

should be able to do so. Mr. Chairman, with that, I just submit my 

statement for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Don Young, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Alaska, on H.R. 441 

Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for holding a hearing 

on this important legislation. 

H.R. 441, the Kantishna Hills Renewable Energy Act would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for a micro-hydro project within a non-Wilderness area of Denali National Park. Additionally, it will facilitate a small land exchange between the National Parks Service and Doyon, Ltd, which owns and operates the facilities that will take advantage of the proposed micro-hydro project. 

Roughly, only six acres of land would be affected. Doyon is one of thirteen Alaska 

Native Regional Corporations, formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act (ANCSA). 

Currently, the facilities at Kantishna, which is located at the end of the 90-mile 

park road, operate exclusively off diesel fuel. Not being connected to any grid system, the Roadhouse must produce all of its energy onsite. This means trucking thousands of gallons of diesel fuel over the long and treacherous park road. Energy created by this microhydro project could cut the Roadhouse’s diesel usage in half, and 

drastically reduce the need for these trips. 

Down the road at the new Eielson Visitors Center, the National Parks Service operates a similar microhydro project to great success, and the Kantishna Roadhouse 

seeks to take advantage of similar technology to help rid their reliance on costly diesel fuel. 

In conclusion, this legislation is a win-win that benefits the environment and all 

parties involved. Again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for including 

this bill in today’s hearing and I look forward to working with the Members of this 

Committee in advancing this bill. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. Now let me try and once 

again expedite this as we can. There are one, two, three, four, five, 

six, seven, eight bills to which you testified. Are there any quesVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:19 Oct 31, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66206.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
36 

tions? Let me go through the H.R. 290, the ‘‘War Memorial Protection Act’’ for this witness? What about the ‘‘Distinguished Flying 

Cross National Monument,’’ any questions to that one? Any question to deal with Mr. Young’s bill on Renewable Energy Act? Nope? 

OK, the ‘‘Utah National Guard Readiness Act.’’ 

I do have one statement to make and a question. You said there 

were two things you would like to do. If you do have a new map, 

I would be happy deal with that. If you want changes in the reversionary language, I really don’t care. But the language that is in 

there was requested of us last year by staff. So, you get them to 

like it, I will like it as well. 

H.R. 850 I believe is going to have more comments. Oh, I am 

sorry. I will come back to H.R. 850. OK. H.R. 945, H.R. 944 was 

the rocks in California. Any questions to that measure? And then 

H.R. 1022 was the ‘‘Buffalo Soldier in the National Park Study 

Act.’’ And then the final one is the ‘‘Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act,’’ any questions to that? OK, then last bill is 

then H.R. 850 and I am assuming there are going to be some questions to that. So, what I would ask, Mr. Whitesell, if you would 

stay there and let me have the other three panelists who are going 

to testify to that come up and join you there at the table, we will 

go through their testimony then ask questions of H.R. 850, if that 

is OK. Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. It may very well be that the issue that I have 

can be resolved with the question to the National Park Service, and 

not necessarily to the witnesses, so. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am sorry. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. My question goes to the National Park Service, 

but fine let us go ahead. 

Mr. BISHOP. On H.R. 850? Yes, OK. Mr. Young, you have something you want to submit for the record? 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I apologize, I would ask the consent 

that the testimony from Doyon Limited will be submitted for the 

record at this time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, without objection, so ordered. 

I would ask to come to the panel, Mayor David, I am screwing 

your name up, I apologize, Beaudet, of City of Oak Park Heights, 

and I believe that is in Wisconsin? 

Mr. BEAUDET. Minnesota. 

Mr. BISHOP. Minnesota, I am sorry. If you will come forward. 

Mayor Ken Harycki, of Stillwater, Minnesota, if you will come and 

join us. And Mr. Curt Geissler, President, Lakeview Memorial Hospital in Stillwater, if you will join us as well. And, I think the three 

of you are going to testify to H.R. 850. What I would like to do is 

hear your testimony, first on H.R. 850. Then we will open it up for 

all four of you to answer questions of the Committee. So, with that 

once again, I think we went through that. Your written statements 

will appear in the record. This is the oral part that we add. We ask 

you to keep it to five minutes. You can see in front of you the red 

light. It means that is when the time is up. The yellow, you got 

a minute left, so hustle. And the green says you are on. OK? So, 

Mayor Beaudet. Was that close? 

Mr. BEAUDET. Close. 

Mr. BISHOP. From Oak Park, you are recognized for five minutes. 

37 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID BEAUDET, MAYOR, 

CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 

Mr. BEAUDET. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the Subcommittee. I am 

David Beaudet, Mayor of the City of Oak Park Heights and testifying on behalf of myself. 

Mr. BISHOP. Can I have you speak a little bit closer to that mike? 

Mr. BEAUDET. Yes. The City is just under 5,000 people, is located 

along the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, exactly where the 

new bridge is proposed. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, to 

testify in opposition to House Resolution 850. We need a new 

bridge crossing the St. Croix River. But the bridge that is referenced in H.R. 850 is a project that is inflated out of scale. It is 

out of scale for the taxpayers who will pay for it, out of scale for 

the property owners who will live with the impact of the giant 

structure, and out of scale with the river itself and the Lower St. 

Croix River Valley. 

Of course, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed in 1968, 

an historic act, to actually preserve and protect selected, certain 

wild and scenic rivers. The Upper St. Croix was one of the original 

selected eight rivers to be included in the Act and the lower 52 

miles of the St. Croix River was proposed to be studied and then 

finally designated in 1972. 

Over the years, property owners have worked together to protect 

and improve the St. Croix Riverway, giving up improvements to 

their homes, businesses and the grading of land that would have 

harmed the river. It was the construction of the controversial Allen 

S. King plant, which Representative Bachmann showed in her photograph, that caused bridge to actually, caused the Lower St. Croix 

River to be included in the Riverway, in the Wild and Scenic 

Riverway, to protect the river. Northern States Power Company 

[NSP], then the utility, donated over 70 percent of the land that 

is now owned by the National Park Service in the Upper Wild and 

Scenic River area. NSP further decided not to build the second 

power plant there in due deference to its mistake. 

Let us not make another mistake of this critical magnitude on 

the St. Croix River. We have already made one. The river has been 

protected and people have been sacrificing and the Riverway has 

improved over the last 35 years. This project is out of sight in terms of cost and its scale. $700 

million of new borrowed money for the states to construct this 

project at a time when we don’t have enough money to support our 

current infrastructure needs within the State of Minnesota. The 

megabridge will crater the entire transportation corridor to Minneapolis, which will cost an additional $263 million in 2004 dollars 

to upgrade the corridor so that the new driving members coming 

across the bridge can be served adequately to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. 

The size of the bridge is out of scale and our region does need 

a lower, smaller scale bridge that will fit within the Riverway as 

it is today. 

The Wisconsin and Minnesota Department of Transportation did 

build, has built four new bridges across the Wild and Scenic River 

in existing corridors today without needing any special legislation. 

38 

The last large bridge was the Prescott, Wisconsin bridge. It was 

going to be a bridge that was going to be 150 feet above the 

Riverway, approximately one mile north of the existing corridor. 

The Governors of Minnesota and Wisconsin decided that was not 

in the best interest of the Wild and Scenic River and therefore, 

that bridge was reduced. And, it is a four lane bridge that runs 

through the City of Prescott. That is a photograph that is an attachment to my testimony showing approximately, where the new 

bridge is and you can see where the proposed about a mile north 

in that photograph would have been. 

More fundamentally, the Minnesota Department of Transportation is not the best authority for ascertaining environmental aspects of the impacts to the Lower St. Croix River. Indeed, MinnDot 

has twice proposed bridges that violate the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act. The 1995 bridge is just within the same location on the Minnesota side and slight different on the Wisconsin side. 

Furthermore, the National Park Service, in 1990, in a letter indicated that if a new river crossing was required, this crossing, and 

I will just read out from the letter, as a quote: ‘‘If a need for a new 

crossing is identified as a result of the above planning, we would 

recommend as a matter of general policy, such a crossing be placed 

in or near the existing transportation corridor. In the present place, 

this approximates a central corridor alternative as depicted on the 

draft document.’’ 

Mr. Chair, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed and the 

upper river protected under the original legislation. The lower part 

of the river was studied for inclusion and it is protected by Congress in 1972. Since then property owners have followed the rules 

of the Riverway Management Plan required under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. The government also must comply with those 

same rules, or the equal protection under the law will have no 

meaning. I urge the Subcommittee not to change the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to allow new river bridge crossings where none have 

existed before. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beaudet follows:] 

Statement of David A. Beaudet, Mayor, 

City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, in opposition to H.R. 850 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rau ́l Grijalva and members of the subcommittee, I am David Beaudet, Mayor of the City of Oak Park Heights Minnesota. 

My city, of just under 5,000 people, is located along the St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway exactly where this new bridge is proposed. I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify in opposition to House Resolution 850. 

We need a new bridge crossing the St. Croix River. But the bridge that is referenced in H.R. 850 is a project that is inflated and out of scale. It is out of scale 

for the taxpayers who will pay for it; it is out of scale for the property owners who 

will live with the impact of this giant structure; and it is out of scale for the river 

itself and the Lower St. Croix Valley. 

On October 2, 1968, the historic Wild & Scenic Rivers Act was signed and for the 

past 43 years over 200 Wild & Scenic Rivers, including the St. Croix are protected 

by this act which states ‘‘It is hereby declared to be the national policy of the United 

States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstanding remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and 

wildlife, historical, cultural or similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.’’ 

The upper portion of the St. Croix River was one of the original eight rivers included in the Wild & Scenic Act; and the Lower 27 miles of the St. Croix, where 

39 

this bridge is proposed, was designated Wild & Scenic in 1972. Over the years, property owners have worked together to protect and improve the St. Croix riverway giving up improvements to homes, building and the grading of land that would harm 

their River. It was the construction of the controversial A.S. King power plant that 

lead to ‘‘Save the St Croix,’’ a citizen’s initiative, which tried to protect the St. Croix 

River from the King Plant. After permits were granted, these citizens worked with 

other groups to get the entire St. Croix River protected from future damaging developments. After the King Plant was built, everyone agreed and realized that a mistake had been made by not including the Lower St. Croix in the original designation. Let’s not make that same mistake today by adding yet another oversized structure to this beautiful river. 

The cost of this project is out of scale and irresponsible, especially in this fiscal 

environment. The latest cost estimate for the bridge project is $574—$690 million. 

Minnesota’s project share is about $380 million and Wisconsin’s project share is between $250—$310 million. The State of Minnesota has one of the nation’s largest 

roadway systems and the Twin Cities region has one of our nation’s largest regional 

highway systems. We have many, many unmet needs for repair now, and the list 

is growing. Minnesota Department of Transportation reports that over the next decade it has unmet needs for pavement repair of $1.7 billion and can only meet 85% 

of the need for bridge repair. Building a costly new highway-style St. Croix Bridge 

would take money away from pressing repair needs across the state. 

And the fiscal issues in the state of Wisconsin have been the subject of national 

news. 

With the construction of the Mega Bridge the entire transportation corridor would 

collapse requiring millions of additional transportation dollars to be spent on connecting roads. In a May 2001 Minnesota Department of Transportation Study, the 

trip home from North St. Paul, Minnesota to Oak Park Heights Minnesota, would 

be 45 MPH, this same trip after a proposed bridge is completed would be at 32MPH 

for a road posted speed of 60 to 65 MPH. The cost to upgrade the road to a freeway 

is $43.5 (2000 dollars) from the City of North St. Paul to West edge of the City of 

Oak Park Heights, add $100 million (2004 dollars) to construct freeway thru the 

City Oak Park Heights. From the City of North St. Paul Minnesota to Minneapolis 

Minnesota an upgrade of the freeway system is required with an additional lane of 

traffic in each direction with a cost estimate of $120 million (2002 Dollars). 

So the cost of the bridge itself is just the beginning. 

The size of this bridge is out of scale with the need our region has now, and in 

the future, to move people to and from their jobs. And we have looked at smaller 

options in the past that would provide an adequate crossing and at the same time 

be in line with the Wild & Scenic River. 

The Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Transportation recommendation for 

a high level, (150) feet above the St. Croix River (bluff to bluff bridge) and approximately 1 mile upstream from the existing bridge, was proposed as the preferred alternative, B–1, despite the fact that this alternative would cost $20 million more 

than a replacement bridge next to the existing river bridge. The Riverway Managing 

Partners including the National Park Service, the state of Minnesota, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and others, objected to the plan and indicated the 

proposed bridge would have to comply with the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. Governors 

Anthony Earl of Wisconsin and Rudy Perpich of Minnesota announced that the 

states had selected a location for a replacement bridge in the corridor adjacent to 

the existing river crossing. The press release noted, ‘‘primary concerns include preserving the integrity of the St. Croix River Valley as a natural scenic waterway and 

the high cost of Corridor C.’’ The April FEIS noted the reasons why the preferred 

crossing was not chosen ‘‘were perceived as (1) required too many agricultural acres; 

(2) causing too many farm severances; (3) being detrimental to the aesthetic qualities of the federal designated recreational segment of the Wild and Scenic St. Croix 

River; or (4) having bridge construction cost that were too high.’’ The crossing has 

been open for more than 20 years serving the needs of the transportation system 

and the City of Prescott Wisconsin. 

Now that the National Park Service has been able to reevaluate this massive 

bridge project under a new administration, the agency has determined that alternative B–1 would irreparably harm the Lower St. Croix’s scenic and recreational 

values. 

More fundamentally, Minnesota Department of Transportation is not the best authority for ascertaining environmental impacts to the Lower St. Croix. Indeed, 

MnDOT has twice proposed bridges that would violate the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act. Because the National Park Service is the designated steward of the Riverway, 

we should place far much weight on their judgments. And the NPS has found that 

40 

construction of a massive bridge in the B–1 corridor would violate the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Furthermore, the National Park Service and other Riverway agencies in a DEIS 

comment letter dated July 10, 1990 stated, ’’ If a need for a new crossing is identified as a result of the above planning, we would recommend, as a matter of general 

policy, that such a crossing be placed in or near an existing transportation corridor. 

In the present case, this approximates the Central Corridor Alternative as depicted 

in the draft document.’’ 

This Central Corridor Alternative is the most cost effective choice as indicated in 

St. Croix Crossing, Benefit-Cost analysis Memorandum, dated May 5, 2004. The 

Central Corridor Alternative would be 20% more cost effective than the route selected. The St. Croix Riverway Agencies and Minnesota Taxpayers League President 

Phil Krinkie agree this proposed project is not in the taxpayer’s best interest. 

Building a bridge in this corridor would also be consistent with the Management 

Plan for the Riverway, which states that (a) new bridges should be located within 

or adjacent to existing transportation corridors, and (b) that any new bridge ‘‘must 

be of a scale and character that minimizes impact to the values for which the 

[Lower St. Croix] was designated under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

(scenic, recreational, geologic).’’ 

This Mega Bridge project would be detrimental to the people of The City of Oak 

Park Heights. In a study commissioned by the City in 2004, the city property tax 

base would be reduced by 17% and property owners viewing the St. Croix River 

would have home values reduced by up to 30%. This is equivalent to the Government taking 30% of the value of our homes, and this bill paves the way for just 

that. 

The start date of the proposed project in 2013 is 100 years after Congressional 

action allowed the building of the Hetch Hetchy Dam in Yosemite National Park. 

The bridge project over the St. Croix River, if approved by Congressional action, will 

turn out to be the Hetch Hetchy of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, potentially 

setting the stage to damage all Wild & Scenic Rivers. Mister Chairman, I invite you 

and the members of the committee to visit and view the St. Croix River from the 

Scenic Overlook in Oak Park Heights before passing the Resolution 850 and before 

the committee approves an exemption of bridges from the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act. 

When the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed and the upper St. Croix River 

protected under the original legislation, the lower part of the river was to be studied 

for inclusion. In 1972 Congressional action added the lower St. Croix River into the 

Wild & Scenic River System. Since then property owners have followed the rules 

in the Riverway Management Plan required under the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. 

The Government must also comply with the plan and the Federal Government or 

equal protection under the law will have no meaning. I urge the Subcommittee not 

to change the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act to allow new river bridge crossings where 

none existed before. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. We will now hear from Mayor Ken 

Harycki—I hope I put the emphasis in the right place on that— 

from Stillwater, Minnesota. You are recognized for five minutes. 

Pull the mike right into your face so we can actually here it. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN HARYCKI, MAYOR, 

CITY OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 

Mr. HARYCKI. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva and members of the Committee. I am Ken Harycki, 

the Mayor of Stillwater, Co-Chairman of the Coalition for the St. 

Croix River Crossing, a community organization formed to advocate 

for the new bridge. I also brought along pieces of our bridge today, 

some cement and some steel that came off of it. 

My home town, Stillwater, is a beautiful and historic city on the 

St. Croix River. It is protected by the National Register of Historic 

Places. The counties on both sides of the river are parts of the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area. In 1931, a lift bridge was 

built across the river as our communities grew. Through the 1940s 

41 

and 1950s, the bridge was able to handle the traffic. But by the 

1960s it was apparent that the traffic was exceeding the design. 

Now, in 2011, our bridge is dangerously outdated. The lift bridge 

was designed to handle 11,000 cars per day. But that has grown 

to 18,400 vehicles daily. In the summer, traffic can peak to 25,000 

vehicles. The road to the bridge has an accident rate double that 

of the state average. Many years and too much traffic have taken 

a toll on the existing bridge. Maintenance and flooding force traffic 

to divert elsewhere, sending tens of thousands of cars elsewhere 

throughout the region. 

This bridge is functionally obsolete, factually critical, meaning 

that if something fails on the bridge, it would collapse. The bridge’s 

sufficiency rating 33, is lower than that of the I-35W bridge before 

it collapsed in 2007, killing 13 and injuring 144. As you can see 

from our handout, it has been difficult to find the right plan that 

balances three very important laws—the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act, the Transportation Act of 1996 and the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The St. Croix River is an important natural resource and is recognized and protected as a Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Area residents want to continue to protect the river from over-development 

and to protect historic sites throughout the region. But we still 

need a safe and reliable crossing. 

The Udall Institute brought together 27 different stakeholders 

organizations to find a compromise, many years ago. The stakeholder group staffed by a team of engineering, environmental and 

design professionals worked together to study a multitude of options, designs and features. These organizations represented the 

community, state, Federal regulatory agencies, environmental organizations, historic preservation, economic development interests 

and local government. The City of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights 

and National Park Service were a very important part of this process. This diverse group looked at every possible idea and location 

of a new crossing. We even looked at tunneling under the river. 

Your handout includes a map of a dozen routes that were reviewed. 

The result was a plan that balances the three very important laws. 

All but one of the groups involved in the process supported the 

plan and we received a record decision that validated the work we 

did. 

Our plan and the communities vision are for more than just a 

new bridge. We will be using Federal and state highway funds to 

make significant park improvements and environmental remediation as part of the project. We will preserve the historic bridge, 

converting it into a key element of a new bicycle and pedestrian 

loop trail, giving people new and exciting ways to access and enjoy 

the river valley and this national park. Bluff lands where present 

day roadway is located will be restored. The pilings of the old coal 

barge terminal will be removed. The new bridge will decrease the 

amount of phosphorus pollution entering the river by 20 percent, 

a number one goal of the St. Croix River Basin team. 

The new crossing will also reduce dangerous levels of traffic and 

automotive pollution from our small, historic downtown. 

And finally, the bridge design and location. As you can see from 

our posters, the bridge is gorgeous. The stakeholders wanted a sigVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:19 Oct 31, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66206.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
42 

nature bridge that is worth of the St. Croix valley. Also note the 

location. We think it is appropriate to build the new crossing within the industrial part of the Riverway, next to a power plant, a 

sewage treatment plant and a marina. This portion of the river is 

assuredly not wild and not historic, like downtown Stillwater. It is 

the correct location for the crossing. The National Park Service has 

determined that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not allow 

them to grant a permit for any new construction in a designated 

Riverway. This is important. The National Park Service has not 

just blocked this bridge, has rejected any new construction in a 

Wild and Scenic Riverway. Only Congress is allowed to review and 

approve and review new construction. The longer we wait, the more 

expensive the solution will get and the greater risk that something 

tragic could happen. 

We are especially pleased to say that throughout the decades, we 

have received bipartisan support for this project. Now is no different with the Governors in Minnesota and Wisconsin and your 

Congressional colleagues, Representatives Bachmann and Kline 

supporting this project. I assure you the people who live and work 

in the St. Croix Valley have done everything possible to create the 

best plan for the entire region. We care deeply about the river that 

unites our communities. It is now up to you to take action and help 

us resolve this very important matter. I thank you for your time, 

and again, ask for your help and support. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harycki follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Ken Harycki, Mayor, 

Stillwater, Minnesota, on H.R. 850 

Chairman Bishop, ranking member Grijalva and members of the committee. 

My name is Ken Harycki. I am the Mayor of Stillwater, Minnesota, and also cochairman of the Coalition for the St. Croix River Crossing, a two-state regional community organization that has been formed to advocate for the new bridge project. 

My hometown is a beautiful and historic city located on the St. Croix River, which 

creates the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin. Our downtown is protected 

by the National Register of Historic Places, and the counties on both sides of the 

river are part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. 

Since even before 1848, when Wisconsin was admitted by Congress into the 

Union, communities on both sides of the river have been connected by a river crossing at Stillwater. 

In 1931, 80 years ago, a lift bridge was built across the river as our communities 

grew. Through the 1940’s and 50’s the bridge was able to handle the demands of 

people who needed to cross between our communities, but in the 1960’s it became 

apparent that demand was exceeding this design. 

Now, in 2011 our bridge is dangerously outdated. 

The lift bridge was designed to handle a capacity of 11,000 cars per day, but today 

it is overburdened by an average of 18,400 vehicles daily. In the summer, traffic can 

jump to over 25,000 cars a day. 

The road that leads up to the bridge has a traffic accident rate that is nearly 

twice the state average for comparable roadways. 

Cars idle for hours on both sides waiting to cross the bridge, creating pollution 

and making it challenging for residents and visitors to navigate Stillwater’s historic 

downtown. 

Too many years and too much traffic have taken a toll on the bridge. Flooding 

and maintenance force the bridge to close on a regular basis, sending tens of thousands of cars and trucks elsewhere. 

This bridge is a functionally-obsolete, fracture-critical structure, meaning that if 

something fails on the bridge, it would collapse. The bridge’s sufficiency rating of 

33 is lower than that of the I–35W Bridge before it collapsed in 2007, killing 13 and 

injuring 144 people. 

43 

As you can see from the handout that we’ve provided to the committee, it has 

been difficult to find the right plan that is consistent with three important federal 

laws. 

• Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; 

• Section 4 of the Transportation Act of 1996; and 

• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

In particular, the St. Croix River is an important natural resource that is recognized and protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Area residents want to continue to protect the river from over-development and protect historic sites throughout the region. But we still need a safe, reliable crossing. 

The project that we are asking the Congress to permit to go forward was developed through an unprecedented environmental mediation process that was administered by the Udall Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. 

To make sure every possible idea for a new bridge was considered, the Udall Institute brought together 27 different stakeholder organizations. They are listed in your 

materials, and also on the poster board behind us. The group met in Stillwater City 

Hall at least monthly for three years. 

The Stakeholder Group, staffed by a team of engineering, environmental and design professionals, worked together to study a multitude of options, designs and features. These organizations represented the community, state and federal regulatory 

agencies, environmental organizations, historic preservation interests, economic development interests, and local governments from both sides of the river. 

The City of Stillwater and our sister city, the City of Oak Park Heights were important parts of this exhaustive planning process. And so was the National Park 

Service. 

This diverse group looked at every possible idea and location for a new crossing. 

We even looked at tunneling under the river in order to protect the scenic views. 

Your handout includes a map of the dozen or so routes that were reviewed as part 

of the Stakeholder process. 

The Stakeholders considered ways to protect the river, to make this national resource more accessible to people, and respect the history of Stillwater and the 

region– all while making sure the metro area has a transportation resource that is 

capable of meeting current and future needs. 

The result was a plan that balances the three laws. All but one of the groups involved supported the plan. We received a Record of Decision by the Federal Highway Administration that validated the work we did and the final result. 

Our plan and the community’s vision are for more than just a new bridge. We’ll 

be using federal and state highway funds to make significant park improvements 

and environmental remediation as part of the project. 

The project will preserve the historic bridge by converting it into the key element 

of a new bicycle and pedestrian loop trail along and above the river, giving people 

a new and exciting way to access and enjoy the river valley and this national park. 

Bluff lands on both sides of the river where the present-day roadway is located 

will be restored. 

The pilings and the riverfront for the old coal barge terminal in front of the power 

plant will be removed. 

The new bridge will also decrease the amount of phosphorous pollution entering 

the river by 20 percent—the number one goal of the St. Croix River Basin Team. 

The new crossing will also reduce the dangerous levels of traffic and automotive pollution from our small, historic downtown area. 

And finally, the bridge design and location. As you can see from our posters, the 

bridge is gorgeous. It’s a modified cable stay design that has been built in only two 

other locations in North America. The Stakeholders wanted a ‘‘signature bridge’’ 

that is worthy of the St. Croix Valley. We believe it will become as iconic as the 

Lift Bridge. 

Also, note the location. We think it’s appropriate to build the new crossing within 

the industrial part of the riverway, next to a power plant, a sewage treatment plant 

and a marina. This portion of the river is assuredly not wild, and not historic like 

downtown Stillwater. It is the correct location for the crossing. 

The National Park Service has determined that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

does not allow them to grant a permit for any new construction in a designated 

riverway. This is an important point: the NPS has not just blocked this bridge; it 

has rejected any new construction in a Wild and Scenic Riverway. Only Congress 

is allowed to review and approve new construction. 

The longer we wait, the more expensive the solution will get and the greater the 

risk that something tragic could happen. Living in Minnesota, after the 35W bridge 

collapse, we are especially sensitive about our bridges. 

44 

It’s worth noting that support for the project is not universal. Like all large public 

projects, there will always be opponents. But make no mistake, the public strongly 

supports this new bridge. So do a majority of elected local officials in Stillwater and 

Oak Park Heights in Minnesota, and our counterparts in Wisconsin overwhelmingly 

support this project. All of our state legislators representing us on both sides of the 

river are in support for this project. 

And we are especially pleased to say that throughout the decades this support has 

been bi-partisan. Now is no different, with the Governors in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and your Congressional colleagues Representatives Bachmann and Kind 

supporting our project. 

I assure you that the people who live and work in the St. Croix River Valley have 

done everything possible to create the best plan for the entire region. We care deeply about the river that unites our communities. 

Together, with the help of federal and state officials, we have created a project 

that • Meets current and future traffic demands • Respects the river and its scenic beauty • Protects the historic lift bridge and historic sites throughout the region. 

It’s now up to you to take action and help us resolve this matter. I thank you 

for your time and again ask for your help and support. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Geissler, President of the Lakeview 

Memorial Hospital in Stillwater. 

STATEMENT OF CURT GEISSLER, PRESIDENT, 

LAKEVIEW MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 

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

Grijalva and members of the Committee. My name is Curt Geissler 

and I am the President of Lakeview Hospital in Stillwater and I 

am here today on behalf of our hospital and five clinics that operate in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. I also believe I speak on behalf of the majority of our patients, our employees and employers 

in both Minnesota and Wisconsin who badly need a new crossing 

to be built. 

I have also served on the Greater Stillwater Area Chamber of 

Commerce Board of Directors for seven years, three of them as the 

Board Chair. And, finally, like the Mayor I am also a board member of the bi-state Coalition for the St. Croix River Crossing. 

Lakeview Hospital was founded in 1880 and has always served 

the medical needs of people on both sides of the river. We are the 

only level-three trauma center serving the region. In addition to 

our Minnesota communities, our primary service area includes 30 

miles into western Wisconsin. Roughly one-third of our patients 

come from Wisconsin, as do about one-third of our employees. 

In round numbers, each year approximately 20,000 hospital patients and 70,000 clinic patients are dependent on the river bridge 

crossing. Additionally, about 350 of our doctors, nurses and other 

health professionals depend on the bridge to get back and forth to 

work. 

Our ambulances must cross the bridge daily to respond to and 

provide care in emergency medical situations. We are the only advanced life-support ambulance provider serving western Wisconsin. 

The current bridge causes significant delays to provide field and 

hospital care to patients. 

First of all, because the bridge operates every 30 minutes during 

peak summer areas, crossing delays are inevitable. Even though 

the bridge operator can be contacted to lower the bridge, the traffic 

backups that occur when the bridge is up cannot be quickly mitiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:19 Oct 31, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\66206.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
45 

gated. During daily rush hours and in summer months, traffic 

backups can be over a mile long. Because the 1931 bridge was built 

without shoulders, our ambulances cannot cross the bridge any 

faster than traffic can be cleared. 

To emphasize just how narrow the bridge is, we routinely break 

off side view mirrors off of our ambulance and other vehicles attempting to cross the bridge. So essentially, we either have to wait 

our turn in line on the bridge or travel 25 miles to reach a location 

that is visible from Stillwater across the river. 

Some opponents of this project have suggested that a new bridge 

is not necessary because the round-trip to the Interstate 94 bridge 

in Hudson is only 25 miles. Even ignoring the deterioration in the 

safety of the 80-year old lift bridge, I can tell you that a new crossing is desperately needed. For people in critical condition, minutes 

count. If this was your loved one, you would not want timely medical care to be dependent upon a lift bridge schedule or the amount 

of traffic on a particular day or time. Adding 25 miles to an ambulance ride is unacceptable. 

When we know that the bridge will be closed because of spring 

flooding or repair work, or that traffic will be snarled because of 

community festivals and events, we pre-position an ambulance in 

Wisconsin. That allows us to staff only one ambulance to serve 

western Wisconsin and prevents patients from being transferred to 

a hospital with a higher level of care. Only lower-level, critical care 

access hospitals exist in western Wisconsin. 

As a member of the Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce, 

I hear a great deal about the challenges business people have in 

getting the Wisconsin employees to work. Bridge traffic and frequent closures cause inefficiencies and delays that increase the cost 

of doing business on both sides of the river and is a real impediment to job creation. A long term bridge failure, one we ultimately 

will face in a matter of time, will have a negative economic impact, 

not only on our hospital and clinical care, but on the entire Twin 

Cities Metropolitan Area. 

This is a critical point. This section of the river is in an urban 

area. An urban area with a population of 3.2 million people. Washington County, where Stillwater is located, has a population of 

234,000 people. We are a vibrant and growing area and our transportation system must reflect that. This bridge is on the national 

highway system, the corridor is a major route to the east for a 

metro area. As I said with over 3 million residents. 

As well as the economic impacts, this has Homeland Security implications. When the lift bridge closes, the 18,000 cars per day currently crossing it shift primarily to the Hudson bridge for a total 

of 32,000 more cars each day. The Hudson bridge is the only major 

bridge crossing in our region and this level of traffic is nearly 30 

percent higher than what is presently forecast. There would be 

massive traffic problems on I-94 leading into and out of the 

St. Paul/Minneapolis area. 

While Lakeview Hospital and the Stillwater Clinic stand ready 

to care for the sick and injured, we cannot stand still and wait for 

a fractured, critical, functionally obsolete bridge to deteriorate further. A bridge failure that causes preventable injury or death 

would weigh heavily on our conscience. 

46 

In closing, I want to acknowledge that I have spoken a lot more 

about traffic than what the Subcommittee might be used to hearing, but it is important that you understand the substantial impacts of delaying action any further. We have had a river crossing 

in Stillwater since before our statehood. Our communities have 

planned and prepared and waited over 50 years for this bridge. The 

stakeholder group has created a project that balances pressing 

transportation needs, historic preservation and environmental protection. We only need Congressional approval for it to move ahead. 

We urge you not to delay the replacement of the bridge any longer. 

Please act this year to permit the St. Croix Crossing Project to go 

forward. Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Geissler follow:] 

Statement of Curt Geissler, President, Lakeview Hospital, on H.R. 850 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking member Grijalva and members, my name is Curt 

Geissler. I’m the President of Lakeview Hospital in Stillwater. I’m here today on behalf of our hospital and five clinics that operate in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. 

I also believe I speak on behalf of the majority of our patients, employees and employers in both Minnesota and Wisconsin who badly need a new crossing to be built. 

I have also served on the Greater Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce Board 

of Directors for 7 years, three of them as Board Chair, so I believe I can represent 

many employer positions in our economic region. 

And finally, like the Mayor, I am also a board member of the bi-state Coalition 

for the St. Croix River Crossing. 

Lakeview Hospital was founded in 1880, and has always served the medical needs 

of people on both sides of the river. Ironically the original hospital was built to provide health care for the lumber jacks working on the St. Croix River, the same river 

that needs our attention today. We are the eastern most hospital in the St. Paul/ 

Minneapolis Metropolitan Area, and the only level 3 trauma center serving the region. We are proud of the high quality of care and the significant level of medical 

service we give to our Minnesota and Wisconsin communities. 

In addition to our Minnesota communities, our primary service area includes the 

Wisconsin communities of Somerset, and New Richmond, 30 miles into Western 

Wisconsin across the St. Croix River. Roughly one-third of our patients come from 

Wisconsin, as do about one-third of our employees. 

In raw numbers, each year approximately 20,000 hospital patients and 70,000 

clinic patients are dependent on the river bridge crossing. Additionally, about 350 

of our doctors, nurses and other health professionals depend on the bridge to get 

back and forth to work. 

Our ambulances must cross the bridge daily to respond to and provide care in 

emergency medical situations. We are the only advanced life support ambulance 

provider serving the geographical area in western Wisconsin. The current bridge 

causes significant delays to provide field and hospital care to patients. 

First, because the lift bridge operates every 30 minutes during peak summer 

areas, crossing delays are inevitable. Even though the bridge operator can be contacted to lower the bridge, the traffic backups that occur when the bridge is up cannot be quickly mitigated. 

In summer months, traffic backups can be over a mile long for people waiting to 

cross the bridge in either direction. Because the 1931 bridge was built without 

shoulders, our ambulances cannot cross the bridge any faster than traffic can be 

cleared. We have to either wait our turn in line on the bridge, or travel the 25 miles 

through Hudson to reach a location that is visible from Stillwater across the river. 

Some opponents of this project have suggested that a new bridge isn’t necessary, 

because the round-trip to the Interstate 94 Bridge located in Hudson is only about 

25 miles. Even ignoring the deteriorating state and safety of the 80 year old lift 

bridge, I can tell you that a new crossing is desperately needed. 

For people with critical injuries or in critical conditions, minutes count. If this was 

your or my loved one, you would not want timely medical care to be dependent upon 

a lift bridge schedule, or the amount of traffic on a particular time or day. Adding 

25 miles onto an ambulance ride is unacceptable. 

When we know that the bridge will be closed because of spring flooding or repair 

work, or that traffic will be snarled because of community festivals and events, we 

pre-position an ambulance in Wisconsin. This is less than ideal and causes operVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:19 Oct 31, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\66206.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
47 

ational challenges. Also, it allows only one ambulance to serve Western Wisconsin 

and also prevents patients from being transferred to a hospital with higher level of 

care. Only lower-level critical access hospitals exist in western Wisconsin. 

As I mentioned, our hospital is a member of the Greater Stillwater Chamber of 

Commerce, and so we hear a great deal about the challenges that businesspeople 

have in getting their Wisconsin employees to work. Bridge traffic and frequent closures cause inefficiencies and delays that increase the cost of doing business on both 

sides of the river, and is a real impediment to job creation. 

A long-term bridge failure, one we ultimately will face in a matter of time, will 

have a negative economic impact not only on our hospital and clinical care, but on 

the entire Twin Cities Metropolitan economy. This is a crucial point: this section of 

the river is in an urban area, an urban area with a population of 3.2 million. Washington County, where Stillwater is located has a population of 234,000. We are vibrant and growing and our transportation system must reflect that. 

This bridge is on the National Highway System, the corridor is a major route to 

the east for a metro as I said with over 3 million residents. As well as the economic 

impacts, this has homeland security implications. 

But when the Lift Bridge closes, the 18,000 cars per day currently crossing it will 

shift primarily to the Hudson Bridge—for a total of 32,000 more cars each day. The 

Hudson Bridge is the only major bridge crossing in our region, and this level of traffic is nearly 30 percent higher than what is presently forecast. There would be massive traffic problems on I-94 leading in and out of St. Paul/Minneapolis. 

While Lakeview Hospital and the Stillwater Clinics stand ready to care for the 

sick and injured, we cannot stand still and wait for a fracture-critical, functionally 

obsolete bridge to deteriorate further. A bridge failure that causes preventable injury or death would weigh heavily on our conscience. 

In closing, I want to acknowledge that I’ve spoken a lot more about traffic than 

what this subcommittee might be used to hearing. But it is important that you understand the substantial impacts of delaying action any further. 

We have had a river crossing in Stillwater since before statehood. Our communities have planned and prepared and waited over 50 years for this bridge. The 

Stakeholder Group has created a project that balances pressing transportation 

needs, historic preservation and environmental protection. We only need Congressional approval for it to move ahead. 

We urge you to not delay the replacement of this bridge any longer. Please act 

this year to permit the St. Croix Crossing project to go forward. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank all the witnesses for your testimony. We will 

now turn to questions. We will start with Mr. Grijalva, unless he 

wants the other Members to go first on his side. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes, if I may. Mayor Beaudet, Mr. Geissler just 

argues that public health and safety are endangered by the current 

bridge situation. Can you talk about those concerns and do those 

concerns about public health and safety exist, to be quite frank? 

Mr. BEAUDET. It is, I think that the Hudson Hospital and the 

New Richmond Hospital would be jumping for joy that perhaps 

maybe they will be able to serve the township of St. George Township, which is the area that does not have ambulance service provided by either Hudson or New Richmond. Those two hospitals 

serve area much closer to the population involved. They also have 

advanced life support ambulances. But in Wisconsin law there is 

a little quirk. That is if you are affiliated with a hospital in Wisconsin, you have to pay a little property tax to support the ambulance service. Obviously, Lakeview Hospital provides that free to 

St. Joseph Township. And so, that is why no town board, it is up 

to the town board whether they are going to have an ambulance, 

if they are. And they are never going to jeopardize their residents 

health care and safety based on the fact of the existing bridge 

when they have two other hospital choices that can provide the 

same level of service. 

48 

If there is truly an automobile accident, all three hospitals air lift 

the person to Regions Hospital in St. Paul. That is where all the 

advanced trauma care is. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. What is the current cost estimate for the project 

that we are—— 

Mr. BEAUDET. The current cost estimate of the project is nearly $700 million of borrowed money split by the states of Minnesota 

and Wisconsin. And I know that Congresswoman Bachmann urged 

you rapid approval of this. There is money to start this project 

until the year 2013, at the earliest. And Governor Dayton has not 

committed the State of Minnesota’s borrowing authority to actually 

do the project, even in 2013. So there is still some question there. 

He supports the project, probably looks at it more as a jobs project. 

And if Congresswoman Bachmann would like to earmark the 

money, I am sure he would say he would take it. But, as I said, 

2013 would be the potential start date. And it is borrowed money. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Whitesell. The legislation includes the, does 

it include that so-called stakeholder mitigation provisions and why 

are those provisions so important—— 

Mr. WHITESELL. No. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. We were presented with the stakeholder group 

and I am certain they made recommendations. What happens to 

those provisions? 

Mr. WHITESELL. As written in H.R. 850, there is no mention of 

those mitigation measures. So, unless Congress were to add those, 

they would not be part of this bill. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So, but that has been one of the bigger points of 

selling the project, is that you went through this tremendous stakeholder, with great provisions about mitigation, etc., etc., etc., and 

they are not part of the legislation. 

Mr. WHITESELL. Correct. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. You reference a provision in Wild and Scenic Rivers in your testimony that allows a Federal agency to instigate 

Congressional consideration of a project like this one. Can explain, 

can you expand on that process and your understanding of how 

that would work? 

Mr. WHITESELL. Certainly. The law we believe is very clear on 

this matter. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is very clear. And that 

is that the sponsoring Federal agency, in particular case the U.S. 

Department of Transportation along with its local sponsors in Minnesota and Wisconsin, have the, we provide an evaluation of the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as to whether there are impacts to the 

Act as a result of the project that is being proposed. The project 

proponent, once they have that evaluation, and if it is negative, has 

the ability to come back before Congress and ask for an exception 

to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That has not happened as far 

as I know. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. So the Department of Transportation could come 

to Congress, do this bridge. We will pay for it, and you don’t have 

to go through the process of setting a precedent under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act? 

Mr. WHITESELL. That is correct. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Representative Kildee? 

49 

Mr. KILDEE. To follow up on a question asked by my colleague, 

Mr. Whitesell, are there objective criteria for the lessening of negative effects on the wild and scenic characteristics on Wild and Scenic designated rivers, such as the St. Croix. Are there objective criteria to measure the negative effects on—— 

Mr. WHITESELL. Congressman, if I might, I just want to make 

sure I understand the correctly. Are you asking within the Act 

itself or in terms of our evaluation that the Park Service does? 

Mr. KILDEE. The general bill on the question of Wild and Scenic 

Rivers? 

Mr. WHITESELL. Right. 

Mr. KILDEE. I was to sponsor a bill for Michigan. It set aside 500 

miles of designation of Wild and Scenic Rivers and 500 miles of 

study for that. In that organic bill, are you required to look at certain criteria to see how much it may affect the characteristics of 

that river that earn it the right to be designated as wild and scenic? 

Mr. WHITESELL. Right, as part of the designation of the wild and 

scenic river, there are outstanding remarkable values that are 

noted, of which, in the case of the Lower St. Croix River, it is the 

scenic value that is, is as a designated outstanding remarkable 

value. And so it is in evaluation of that scenic character that the 

National Park Service made its determination that there was a direct and adverse effect as a result of the proposed, if the bridge as 

proposed were to be constructed. As part of that, as well, there was 

this whole consideration of mitigation measures which came about 

as a result of the stakeholders group that others refer to. And those 

mitigation measures do not mitigate the direct and adverse impact 

to the scenic values. In fact, they are of value because they are, 

they provide mitigation to Section 4f of the Federal Transportation 

Act, which looks to minimize the impacts on lands and waters that 

would be impacted by this particular project. 

Mr. KILDEE. So they don’t reach the level that you would ordinarily require under the organic act and your authority? 

Mr. WHITESELL. Right. 

Mr. KILDEE. In other words, they fall short. 

Mr. WHITESELL. This bridge falls short of meeting, of being exempt or to be. I am sorry. It falls short of our being able to say 

there is not a direct and adverse impact. 

Mr. KILDEE. And that was why, when we passed the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act we really wanted to make it important that you 

look at those mitigating factors and sometimes, as in this instance, 

there was input from stakeholders or people around there, but they 

do not quite reach the level that you would want for mitigation. 

Mr. WHITESELL. We don’t believe there is any way for mitigation 

measure to be established that would mitigate the direct and adverse impact of this particular bridge design. Every proposal needs 

to be evaluated on the merits of the individual design as opposed 

to the entirety of the crossing. 

Mr. KILDEE. So this would not then meet the requirements we 

really put in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to make sure we did 

not adversely affect those qualities that give it the right to be designated as Wild and Scenic. 

Mr. WHITESELL. That is our belief, yes. 

50 

Mr. KILDEE. We are short of that then. 

Mr. WHITESELL. You are short, that is correct. 

Mr. KILDEE. I appreciate you answering that. May I address the 

Mayor. My mayor is in town today, too, so this is Mayor’s day, so 

I welcome you here. And I have great admiration for mayors. At 

least we can say blame the other 434 Members of Congress when 

something goes wrong, but the buck stops at your desk there. Congresswoman Bachmann mentioned that there were outside special 

interests. What were they and how far outside were they, the special interests that—— 

Mr. HARYCKI. They were 27 members on the stakeholders group 

and of them there was one that did not sign off on the approval 

to build a $633 million dollar bridge, which includes $110 million 

of contingency, and so I believe she was referring to the Sierra 

Club that did not, that was the one dissenting member of the 

stakeholders group and has also filed numerous lawsuits delaying 

it and forcing us to this position today where we literally need an 

Act of Congress to go forward. In fact, our own Governor Dayton 

won’t commit to the project until he has the Act of Congress and 

in conversations with him, he said once we have that Act of Congress, we are there, we are funded, we are fully funded at the State 

of Minnesota and Wisconsin is mostly funded and ready to go. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much and thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. We can have some other rounds if you want to stay. 

The gentleman from California? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually have two 

sets of questions. There are existing transportation corridors in 

which bridges and other transportation facilities could be built. Is 

that correct under the existing law? 

Mr. WHITESELL. Are you referring specifically to the Lower St. 

Croix? I don’t know, Congressman. I could find out and get back 

to you. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thought the testimony as I was trying to interpret it, that that is the case. If that is the case, then why are the, 

is the new bridge not in an existing corridor? I will take either of 

the two mayors. 

Mr. BEAUDET. That has been the difficulty with this entire process, that a bridge would be in the existing corridor would cost 

much less dollars. And for reasons not clear to anyone, at least 

from the Park Service river protection viewpoint it has been a mystery as to why, what was delineated in 1990 was never really seriously reviewed. And it would have, there would be, it depends on 

how you want to rank these. The Transportation Agency advocates, 

they want a large inter-regional corridor design which does not 

allow it to have a design like would be in the City of Prescott which 

is an existing bridge. And there are several other corridors. The 

highway, Interstate 94 bridge is only five miles away from the proposed existing bridge location that is on the Minnesota side. And 

there are other corridors. So Interstate 94, Prescott, which is another, and of course there are pipelines and power lines that do 

cross the river, those have been enlarged over the time when the 

Wild and Scenic Rives Act—— 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Good. Mayor? 

51 

Mr. HARYCKI. Yes, if I could address that. There was an, like I 

said, we had studied pretty close to a dozen possible routes, including using the existing corridor. And the problem we have is that 

the existing bridge is two lanes on each side of the river, you have 

four lanes of traffic. And we got to the point of why build a bottleneck? Why take four lanes, reduce it down to two and then expand 

it up to four? It would not accomplish anything. In fact, the preferred, the Sierra Club’s preferred alternative, I have a picture of 

it that I could circulate around, is to build a very much longer 

bridge, that would have a very drastic and severe impact on the 

view from downtown Stillwater. In fact, when we showed it to Governor Dayton, he said well, why would anyone want to build this, 

this is disingenuous. It is so ugly. And basically they want to 

stretch, from downtown Stillwater right now we have very green 

backdrop, it is a very scenic area. And they want to take and build 

a 40-foot high bridge, roughly about a mile in length across a diagonal of the river so that if you are in the Stillwater area, all you 

would see is bridges. And that is why we are looking at it and saying the best solution is to put it up against the power plant, close 

to the Mayor’s house, you know up against the sewage treatment 

plant. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So the real question here is whose backward is 

going to have a visual impairment? 

Mr. HARYCKI. Somewhat, and in fact that is why the original 

alignment of Highway 36 was chosen, when they put it in, it was 

to line up with the bridge. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. My district is a long way from there and I am 

not going to get into your local tit for tats, but I was curious why 

the existing corridors are not being used. And, frankly, the answers 

are insufficient. But, it is not my turf. What is my turf is the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Park Service has suggested that if 

this bill is to move forward that it be significantly modified so that 

this is not a project that is allowed under the Act but rather an 

exception to the Act. And second that the mitigation measures that 

are apparently connected as a result of the Department of Transportation’s requirements be built, be added to the Act so that we 

have assurances that at least those mitigations, which understandably don’t deal with the visual mitigation requirements of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act, that at least those go forward. So my question, and the author is not here, but I guess I am going to the 

Chairman here. If this bill is to move forward, that it be modified 

to address those two concerns. So, Mr. Chairman, if you would consider that in discussions with the author, it would seem to me that 

at least that would be taken care of. 

My question to the Department is, am I correct at least that part 

of your concerns? 

Mr. WHITESELL. You are correct, sir. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I leave it in your 

hands. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you have other questions you had? Or, we will 

come back again? Let me ask a few if I could. Starting with Mayor 

Beaudet. As I understand it, you are not opposed to a bridge, you 

are just opposed to this particular. 

Mr. BEAUDET. Yes, Mr. Chair. 

52 

Mr. BISHOP. And, so—— 

Mr. BEAUDET. Can I just expand a little bit? Mayor Harycki suggested that the current highway layout was for the current proposed bridge. Actually, the current highway layout was a replacement bridge in the central corridor, which the Park Service could 

support in the late ’50s and early ’60s and the City of Stillwater 

decided not to leave, not to have the traffic on its main street and 

wanted that bridge not to be built. So the original highway plan, 

at the time when that road was built was to actually have a central 

corridor bridge. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, but any bridge would then take some kind 

of a waiver? 

Mr. BEAUDET. No, that would not be true, Mr. Chair. There have 

been four bridges replaced in the Wild and Scenic River today, from 

the time that this act was created. Two bridges in the northern 

unit between Minnesota and Wisconsin. The Prescott Bridge was 

replaced and one of the bridges of Interstate 94 have all been replaced, all within, with approval of the administration of the 

National Park Service. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Whitesell, do you agree with that? 

Mr. WHITESELL. I am not, I don’t know the specifics of those 

other bridges. What I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that the Park 

Service would evaluate any bridge proposal on the merits of that 

particular proposal. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. I have some other questions for you later 

here. I do have a resolution, Mr. Beaudet, from Oak Park Heights 

regarding this, that says they have not taken a position on this 

particular bill. But it does show that they have concerns about the 

financing of this particular bill, so I am assuming that is what you 

are saying as well. I am asking now for consent to put that in the 

record. 

From the Stillwater mayor, if I could ask you, why were a smaller, maybe less expensive bridge option abandoned in favor of this 

current proposal? 

Mr. HARYCKI. It was quite simply we were looking at the future 

transportation needs of the region. And we did not want to build 

a bottleneck. We wanted to build something that would serve the 

needs of the region for many years to come. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, Mr. Geissler, it is mentioned that there are a 

couple of other hospital options that are in the area. Why is it important that residents have the access to your hospital as opposed 

to those that may be further? 

Mr. GEISSLER. The two hospitals in Wisconsin, which are also by 

the way part of our system of health partners, system of care. Both 

of those hospitals are critical access hospitals, so the capabilities of 

those facilities versus Lakeview Hospital in Stillwater are quite different. I would differ with Mayor Beaudet’s opinion about advanced 

life support. I do believe one of the communities does offer that, 

offer advanced life support, which is the furthest from our service 

area. I don’t believe the other does, but I could be wrong with that. 

And relative to transferring critical patients by helicopter, that 

works great when the helicopters are flying. Many times mechanical problems and weather prevents that. And, for example from 

53 

our hospital, we don’t ever use air transportation, it is always 

ground. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Whitesell, the power plant that is 

built there, was that built before or after the designation as a Wild 

and Scenic River? 

Mr. WHITESELL. My understanding was that it was before, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Before the designation. OK. And you took that into 

consideration when you created the, as far as the criteria—— 

Mr. WHITESELL. Keep in mind it was Congress that created the 

Wild and Scenic River, not the National Park Service. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, I know. Over the last couple of years, we have 

been doing a couple of those strange rivers in urban areas which 

have a difficult time meeting criteria. Let me ask you this. When 

the Park Service approved the bridge in 2005, it was based on a 

mitigation package which was the result of the negotiations from 

all those people. Do you now believe that there is no mitigation effort that will allow you to approve this bridge? 

Mr. WHITESELL. This bridge as designed, that is correct. There 

is no mitigation measure that we are aware of that would—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Can mitigation be used to allow exceptions to other 

laws, like the Wilderness Act? 

Mr. WHITESELL. I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. If you would find out and answer that in a written 

form, I would be appreciative of it. So tell me why you chose not 

to defend that 2005 evaluation. Who made the decision to completely reverse the course and abandon the work that you had done 

with the group? 

Mr. WHITESELL. If I might, the Park Service has always maintained that there is a direct and adverse impact to the bridges that 

have been proposed. That part has never changed. What changed 

from the 2006 decision, or 2005, was in regards to whether the 

mitigation measures mitigated those direct and adverse impacts. 

Based on what the Court’s evaluation in 2010 and in our own subsequent follow up to that we believe there was an error in the decision that was made in 2005. And we believe that, as we noted to 

the Department of Transportation, that while we believe that 

should Congress decide to grant an exception, that the mitigation 

measures needed to be added to that, those mitigation measures do 

not eliminate the direct and adverse impact to the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act. 

Mr. BISHOP. I have other questions, but Mr. Grijalva, do you 

have others? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Not at this time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Can I just finish off with you then? Mr. Whitesell, 

it would seem then that your request for the mitigation seems unusual in the fact that it does not ever solve any of your problems. 

You would have a problem with this bridge whether there is mitigation or not. 

Mr. WHITESELL. That is, we do. The mitigation is actually, are 

mitigation measures that would be needed to mitigate, as I mentioned before, Section 4f of the Federal Transportation Act. Separate issues. 

Mr. BISHOP. Like you say, it is a Congressional decision that 

would be made. That is why I find it unusual that you would insist 

54 

on having the mitigation when it has no impact on moving the 

project forward or not. Whether it is mitigation or not, you are still 

not going to like the bridge. 

Mr. WHITESELL. That is correct. But—— 

Mr. BISHOP. So, we will cram it down your throat but you still 

want us to pay on the side, as well. 

Mr. WHITESELL. We want you to make this project as, if it were 

to go forward, as visually unintrusive as possible. And so we are 

recommending to Congress, as part of our evaluation of Section 4f, 

that those mitigation measures be included. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, let us pretend that I am not a teacher and I 

was a business man, why would I want to support you when you 

are not going to help me out in the end? 

Mr. WHITESELL. I am not sure we are negotiating this matter, 

sir. All we are saying is that Congress has said to us to provide 

our best evaluation and our evaluation is that there is a direct and 

adverse impact. 

Mr. BISHOP. But we have precedents to waivers all over the 

place. I mean, every, in many Wild and Scenic Rivers there are 

waivers that have been added to do things. Even having a Wild 

and Scenic River in that urban setting does not necessarily meet 

the criteria of a Wild and Scenic River. And, as you told me, the 

power plant was there before the designation—— 

Mr. WHITESELL. That is my understanding. 

Mr. BISHOP. And that did not, you did not discriminate on that 

as a waiver of all impact before you created the Wild and Scenic 

River. It is difficult for me to understand the higher standard that 

you are trying to put on it now. And maybe that is simply because 

of the lawsuits that you have faced. But it seems strange. And I 

am sure that Congress will do what Congress will always do. 

Mr. Harycki, where will the new bridge be in relation to that 

power plant, and why does that new bridge help or hurt the scenic 

value of the area? 

Mr. HARYCKI. Well, in that area, just south of the power plant, 

Anderson Corporation has a very big factory. It is an industrial 

area of the river. You have the Anderson Plant, you go to the coal 

plant. There is a prison on top of the hill. There is a sewage treatment plant right at the base of the bridge. So the diagram shows 

the placement of the proposed bridge and it would be in that industrial area of the river versus the Sierra Club’s proposal and we can 

distribute this afterwards to put it downtown, where if you are 

standing in our parks or anywhere in the historic area of Stillwater, all you would be seeing is bridge structures. 

Mr. BISHOP. To create Wild and Scenic Rivers, we have different 

standards that have to be there. Recreation standards, that kind 

of stuff. Am I assuming that the objection to this particular bridge 

is only scenic and it does not impact recreation or any of the other 

crap that goes on in Wild and Scenic Rivers? 

Mr. HARYCKI. That would be correct. And in fact we are in support of this bridge, just to make that clear. It would add some access with the proposed mitigation package to put in bicycle trails 

and it would be a whole new group of people down to that section 

of the river to enjoy it. But like I said, right now it is a very industrial portion of the river. And so there is not, in my opinion, and 

55 

I think in the opinion of probably the stakeholders too, that particular section of the river is not scenic. It is certainly not wild. 

Mr. BISHOP. You said that there is a threat to health and safety 

of human life in that you are having all sorts of accidents that 

occur there because you are going from two to four then back to 

two, then back to four again. And this is in an area which, as far 

as its scenic beauty, is questionable at best. 

All right. I don’t have any other questions, unless Mr. Grijalva 

does. I thank the witnesses for your testimony, for your time with 

us here. And, with that, I do want to announce the consent to put 

this resolution in the record. I think I already did that. And, Representative Young has some questions that we would like to put in 

the record for various individuals. We would ask for your response 

in a timely for that. I appreciate your patience with being here. 

And, with that if there is no further business, obviously not. 

Without objection, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Elton Gallegly, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 241 

Thank you Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for scheduling this 

hearing today on my bill, H.R. 241. This bill would authorize the Forest Service to 

conduct a land exchange with the White Lotus Foundation for a small parcel of land 

located on the perimeter of the Los Padres National. 

The White Lotus Foundation, a non-profit organization, has been on San Marcos 

Pass Road, about six miles north of Santa Barbara, for the past 25 years. The Foundation’s property is adjacent to the Los Padres National Forest. 

Upon the purchase of this property, the Foundation began using the only road 

that allows White Lotus and the rest of the public access from San Marcos Pass 

Road to and from their property. Then, shortly afterwards the Forest Service notified the Foundation this short access road loops into Forest Service land and then 

back onto private property. 

In early 2008, the Forest Service sent a letter to the Foundation requiring them 

to remove all encroachments on Forest Service land by December 31, 2008, or they 

would begin enforcement action against the foundation. 

However, due to the very steep topography, the Foundation has no reasonable alternatives to move the portion of the access road that encroaches on the Forest 

Service property. The loops lies on flat ground, which has held equipment storage 

for fire and flood emergencies, and provided access to a water pump and other necessary equipment. There is no other flat ground on which to move these items, and 

without this space the Foundation will be forced to cease its operations. 

The actual loop area in question is approximately 2,000 square feet, or 0.05 acres. 

I think you can judge by the size of this encroachment that I am merely trying to 

solve this issue in a manner that will satisfy all the involved parties. 

My legislation will not cost the taxpayers. The White Lotus Foundation will pay 

for the land, the survey, and all administrative costs. There are no exemptions from 

NEPA or any other environmental laws. The land in question is not protected wilderness or any other specially designated area. And finally, my legislation doesn’t 

even mandate the Forest Service to do anything. It merely allows the Forest Service 

to conduct a land exchange with White Lotus within two years of the bill becoming 

law, then if no piece of land is found to exchange, the Forest will have the authority, 

if they so choose, to convey the land to White Lotus. 

It is also my understanding that the Committee will offer a minor technical 

amendment to this legislation during Committee markup. I am fully supportive of 

this amendment. 

I look forward to this hearing and your questions. Thank you. 

56 

Statement of The Honorable Ron Kind, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, on H.R. 850 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in regards to 

H.R. 850, a bill that would facilitate the construction of a bridge in the Lower St. 

Croix Riverway. A new bridge is a top priority for my constituents in Western Wisconsin and I have worked for more than 14 years to help resolve issues surrounding 

its design, development, and construction. While I understand the concerns some 

may have about this project, and its potential impact on the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act, there exists today a broad consensus that the current crossing is in need of replacement and that Congress must act to allow for the construction of a new bridge. 

I strongly support legislation that would authorize the St. Croix River Crossing 

Project to move forward, in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s 

2006 Record of Decision, which includes a detailed mitigation package developed in 

a unique stakeholder review process. 

Today, motor vehicles crossing the St. Croix rely on the Stillwater Lift Bridge, 

which was built in 1931. The bridge includes a vertical lift span that rises to allow 

boat traffic through the river. This historic 80-year old structure is closely identified 

with the Lower St. Croix Riverway and was placed on the National Registry of Historic Places in 1989. While an admirable structure and innovative for its time, today 

the Lift Bridge is woefully inadequate in handling the region’s transportation needs. 

The region immediately east of the current crossing has seen significant population 

and economic growth in recent years. We have also seen an increase in tourism as 

more and more Americans come to visit the St. Croix Valley and see this remarkable place, which I am proud to represent. The increase in motor vehicle traffic 

crossing the Lift Bridge has resulted in extensive congestion on both sides of the 

border. The roadways leading to the bridge are already at full capacity and simply 

cannot be expanded or improved under the status quo. Traffic is stopped on a regular basis to allow for the Lift Bridge to raise and allow boat traffic to pass through 

the river, again adding to the congestion. And just last month, as floodwaters rose, 

the Stillwater Lift Bridge was forced to close for 10 days and travelers were forced 

to detour 15 miles to the next nearest crossing. 

Aside from these concerns, the Lift Bridge suffers from severe structural, operational, and maintenance issues—not uncommon for an 80-year old structure. The 

Lift Bridge is ‘‘structurally deficient’’ due to its high potential for flooding, which 

requires closing the crossing; ‘‘functionally obsolete’’ due to its narrow lanes, lack 

of shoulders, and low vertical clearance; and ‘‘fracture-critical’’ due to a design that 

would lead to a collapse of the bridge if just one of its main trusses were to fail. 

I am very familiar with this Project and have worked closely with all stakeholders 

to generate consensus around a way forward. After an initial effort in 1998 was 

halted in 2001 due to lack of funding, I worked with the U.S. Institute of Environmental Conflict Resolution and the facilitation firm RESOLVE to bring together 28 

different stakeholders representing a wide variety of interests associated with the 

Project at the federal, state, and local level. In 2002, President George W. Bush 

helpfully contributed to this process by issuing Executive Order 13274, which 

sought to streamline the environmental review of seven transportation infrastructure projects, including the St. Croix River Crossing Project. 

I was pleased that all stakeholders faithfully participated in the process and 

meaningfully contributed to its improvement. As a result of their work, a new and 

different universe of alternatives was considered, featuring different locations, sizes, 

and types of bridges. The stakeholders carefully crafted extensive mitigation measures designed to restore some developed areas to a more natural state, preserve the 

riverway, implement growth management, and preserve historical resources. The 

new Project now featured a different location, with a shorter, more perpendicular 

river crossing. The initially proposed steel/concrete girder bridge was abandoned in 

favor of an extradosed bridge, which would have fewer piers in the water. These 

stakeholders met 19 times over the course of three years to work through all issues 

associated with the development of this Project. Every stakeholder made concessions 

to accommodate the concerns of others and I appreciate that 27 of the 28 organizations agreed to allow the newly redesigned St. Croix River Crossing Project to move 

forward. 

The Sierra Club North Star Chapter dissented and subsequently sued to halt 

work on the Project, arguing that the Project was in violation of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act. In March 2010, the U.S. District Court of Minnesota ruled that the 

National Park Service’s 2005 Section 7(a) evaluation was ‘‘arbitrary and capricious’’ 

in finding that its proposed mitigation package could offset a direct and adverse impact the new structure would have on the Riverway’s scenic and recreational value. 

The National Park Service then produced an updated Section 7(a) evaluation in 

57 

2010 that reversed key findings of its 2005 evaluation, now finding that the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act does not allow for any mitigation measures to offset the direct 

and adverse impact any new structure would have on the Riverway’s scenic and recreational value. As a result of this legal impasse, Congressional authorization is now 

needed to move the Project forward. 

Today, the organizations that are in opposition to this Project advocate for a 

‘‘lower, slower’’ bridge that has the potential to be less costly and have less of a visual impact on the viewshed of the Riverway. The suggestion underlying this notion 

is that the Stakeholder Review Process failed to consider an adequate range of alternatives in reaching its conclusion. This is simply not true. Stakeholders analyzed 

alternate locations and sizes and reached two major conclusions. First, the alternate 

locations would have a greater impact on Section 106 properties, Section 4(f) park 

properties, Section 7(a) bluff areas, floodplains and wetlands then the preferred 

project. Second, the alternatives would fail to meet the transportation needs of the 

project. It simply does not make sense to build an expensive structure that fails to 

address the immediate and long-term congestion problems facing the region. 

Furthermore, even if stakeholders were to design a ‘‘lower, slower’’ bridge, 

National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis has testified that such a bridge would 

still require Congressional authorization to overcome its direct and adverse impact 

on the Lower St. Croix Riverway. 

As a former member of the Natural Resources Committee, I am acutely aware of 

the importance of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and have consistently sought to 

ensure its integrity throughout this process. It is my understanding that the 

National Park Service will provide testimony identifying ways that this bill can be 

improved. I strongly believe that the Committee should work with the Park Service 

to make these changes to the bill’s language. It is essential that the Committee narrowly tailor the bill as this has the potential to set a precedent when needed transportation projects are found to be in conflict with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Today, residents throughout Western Wisconsin find the status quo to be simply 

untenable. Notably, of the seven projects that President Bush sought to streamline 

in his 2002 executive order, the St. Croix River Crossing Project is the only one that 

today remains incomplete. Suggestions that the Project needs to go through yet another redesign are not productive and will only result in further delaying construction and raising the cost of a much-needed replacement bridge. I look forward to 

working with the Committee, the National Park Service and the Department of 

Transportation to ensure that the St. Croix River Crossing Project is allowed to 

move forward as quickly as possible. 

The documents listed below were submitted for the record and have been retained 

in the Committee’s official files. 

• American Rivers, Letter to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva 

dated May 3, 2011, from David Moryc, Senior Director, River Protection Program 

• Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc., ‘‘Economic Impact of St. Croix 

River Crossing’’ 

• Letter in opposition to H.R. 850 from group of organizations for environmental 

protection (individual organizations listed below): 

Æ Alliance for Metropolitan Stability 

Æ Alliance for Sustainability 

Æ Audubon Minnesota 

Æ Carpenter /St. Croix Valley Nature Center 

Æ Clean Up the River Environment (CURE) 

Æ Duluth Audubon Society 

Æ Environmental Law and Policy Center 

Æ Fresh Energy 

Æ Friends of the Mississippi River 

Æ Institute for Local Self-Reliance 

Æ Izaak Walton League of America—Midwest Office 

Æ Izaak Walton League of America—Minnesota Division 

Æ Land Stewardship Project 

Æ Mankato Area Environmentalists 

Æ Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy 

Æ Minnesota Food Association 

Æ Parks and Trails Council of Minnesota 

Æ Sierra Club North Star Chapter 

Æ Sierra Club John Muir Chapter 

Æ St. Croix River Association 

58 

Æ St. Croix Scenic Coalition Æ St. Paul Audubon Society Æ Transit for Livable Communities Æ Voyageurs National Park Association • Manglona, Hon. Paul A., Senate President, Northern Marianas Commonwealth 

Legisalture, Letter to Delegate Gregorio Sablan dated March 15, 2011 • Mendiola, Hon. Melchor A., Mayor, Municipality of Rota, Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, Letter to Delegate Gregorio Sablan dated March 30, 

2011 

• Minnesota Department of Transportation, TH 36 Corridor Management Plan, 

dated May 2001 

• National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, ‘‘Section 7(a) 

Evaluation, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Proposed New St. Croix River 

Crossing’’ 

• Newspaper article, ‘‘Funding for bridge appears to be lining up’’ by Jeff 

Holmquist 

• City of Oak Park Heights, Memorandum to Oak Park Heights Business 

Community, regarding ‘‘Communication to City Businesses—STH 36/St. Croix 

River Crossing Project—Current Position of City of Oak Park Heights’’ dated 

October 15, 2010 

• City of Oak Park Heights, Resolution regarding H.R. 850 

• Photo, Old Bridge Crossing 2011 

• Photo, Powerplant 2011 

• Photo, Prescott Bridge 2011 

• Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, 

Testimony of John Winchester on H.R. 3923, Sugar Loaf Fire Protection 

District Land Exchange Act of 2009, dated April 27, 2010 submitted for the 

record 

• Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, 

Letter in support of H.R. 765 

• Santos, Hon. Teresita A., Representative, 17th Northern Marianas Commonwealth Legislature, Written testimony on H.R. 4686 dated April 27, 2010, 

submitted for the record by Hon. Gregorio Sablan regarding H.R. 1141 

• Santos, Hon. Teresita, Representative Marianas Commonwealth Legislature, 

Letter to Chairman Bishop 

• SRF Consulting Group, Inc., ‘‘St. Croix River Crossing Benefit-Cost Analysis 

Memorandum’’ dated May 5, 2004 

• United States Department of the Interior, Memorandum regardion ‘‘Section 7 

determination for proposed new crossing of the St. Croix River (Public Notice 

96-04143-IP-RJA)’’ 

• Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Photo of proposed St. Croix Bridge 

Statement of The Honorable Betty McCollum, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Minnesota, in Opposition to St. Croix Bridge Legislation 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, Members of the Subcommittee: 

Minnesota residents deserve a replacement for the existing, outdated lift bridge 

over the St. Croix River connecting Stillwater, MN to western Wisconsin. I strongly 

support a fiscally responsible, appropriately-scaled transportation solution for the 

St. Croix River crossing in Stillwater. There is consensus that a new bridge is needed. However, there is intense debate and controversy over the specific design and 

overall cost of the proposed replacement bridge that H.R. 850 would permit. Therefore, this legislation can only be described as a stalking horse for an excessively expensive mega-bridge to be built only six miles from the existing eight lane Interstate-94 St. Croix River crossing. 

While this debate is new to most Members of Congress, it is a debate that I have 

been involved in throughout my twenty-five year career in public service. In fact, 

the St. Croix crossing has been discussed locally for thirty years. During that period, 

numerous bridge replacement proposals have come and gone. Be assured, passage 

of H.R. 850 will not end debate or controversy over this proposed St. Croix crossing. 

Irrespective of the bridge proposal in question, this Committee should reject 

H.R. 850 as an unprecedented assault on one of the most successful laws to protect 

America’s natural treasures. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act preserves the nation’s 

finest rivers for future generations. The Act protects 11,000 miles of 166 rivers in 

38 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Inclusion in this system is a highly 

selective distinction: protected rivers amount to one-quarter of one percent of America’s rivers. The St. Croix is the only river in Minnesota protected under the Wild 

59 

and Scenic Rivers Act and gained this protection only after enormous effort from 

leaders such as former-U.S. Senator and Vice-President Walter Mondale. 

Since the Act was passed in 1968, only extremely rare modifications have been 

granted by Congress. Passage of H.R. 850 would set a new, dangerously low standard for granting exemptions to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that threatens every 

mile of every protected river in this national system. 

The legislation under review today capriciously ignores the legacy of stewardship 

that millions of Americans enjoy today because of the law. H.R. 850 uses only 41 

words to end over 40 years of federal protection for the St. Croix River. Regretfully, 

the effect of this legislation would be far less economical than its language. This legislation would ‘‘deem’’ a $700 million bridge over the St. Croix River to be consistent 

with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. But in October 2010, after careful review, the 

National Park Service determined this specific bridge proposal was not consistent 

with the Act. H.R. 850 simply disregards the Park Service finding and states fiction 

as fact. 

If Congress were to take the extraordinary step of granting an exemption to the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the bridge proposed in H.R. 850 is not deserving of the 

precedent. This $700 million bridge proposal is excessively expensive and would 

likely impose huge unfunded costs on the communities I represent. 

Following the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35 Bridge over the Mississippi River 

in Minneapolis, a new state-of-the art bridge was constructed in record time for 

$260 million (this figure includes a $27 million contractor bonus for early completion). The bridge H.R. 850 enables to be built would cost taxpayers nearly three 

times as much the Interstate 35W Bridge, but serve only a fraction of the traffic. 

(Currently, around 18,000 vehicles cross the St. Croix River in Stillwater each day.) 

In this time of record deficits at the federal, state and local level, elected leaders 

must carefully consider the value of every investment. The bridge in H.R. 850 fails 

every common-sense test of taxpayer value. 

Closer inspection of the proposed St. Croix Bridge reveals the true costs of the 

project may be much higher. There has been little attention paid to the traffic congestion that a new interstate-style bridge in Stillwater would add to the State Highway 36 corridor, including the cities of Oakdale, Maplewood, Mahtomedi, Roseville 

and North St. Paul. If there is enough traffic projected to justify building a bridge 

that costs nearly three times as much as the new Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis then the communities along State Highway 36 should expect to be overrun 

with thousands more semi-trucks, buses, and daily commuters. Expanding State 

Highway 36 to accommodate an interstate-style bridge in Stillwater could raise the 

true cost of the mega-bridge project close to one billion dollars. Local elected officials 

from communities along State Highway 36 are raising concerns over the unfunded 

costs that H.R. 850 could impose on their taxpayers. 

The full cost of the bridge proposed in H.R. 850 is unknown and the value of this 

public investment is deeply in doubt. Thankfully, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

is forcing a closer review of this proposal. The Act is safeguarding the environmental integrity of the St. Croix River and also protecting taxpayers from wasteful 

government spending. Granting an exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

would be nothing short of fiscally reckless and a violation of the principle of local 

control. 

It is possible to build a new bridge that meets the requirements of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act, solves the longstanding transportation problem in Stillwater, and 

guarantees state and federal taxpayers a responsible return on their investment. I 

strongly support construction of a bridge that satisfies these reasonable expectations. My experience—and plain Minnesota common sense—suggests the fastest 

path to a new bridge is the path of consensus and fiscal responsibility. The Interstate-35W Bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis is proof that Minnesota 

can build a new bridge in record time when there’s community consensus around 

a sensible plan. An affordable St. Croix bridge could be designed and constructed 

long before the interstate-style bridge proposal and offer taxpayers much greater 

value. 

I strongly urge Members of this Committee to support fiscal responsibility and 

environmental protection and oppose H.R. 850. 

Mr. Chair, I request permission to insert the attached letter addressed to the 

Committee from Maplewood, Minnesota Mayor Will Rossbach into the hearing 

record. 

60 

[The letter from The Honorable Will Rossbach, Mayor, City of 

Maplewood, Minnesota, submitted for the record by Ms. McCollum 

follows:] 

May 2, 2011 

To Members of the House Committee on Natural Resources, 

I am writing to ask your consideration of the difficulties which will be created for 

the local government units which lie west of the cities of Stillwater and Oak Park 

Heights along the Highway 36 corridor if the current proposal for a new freeway 

type bridge is approved as an individual improvement and not as a regional project. 

I want to be clear that a new bridge is absolutely necessary to cross the St. Croix 

River in the Stillwater, Oak Park Heights area. The existing bridge is in a condition 

which should have warranted its closure years ago and only is still in use due to 

the lack of ability to find common ground for an alternative. The current bridge rating is below the rating of the Interstate 35 Bridge when it collapsed into the Mississippi River. 

This being understood if a new bridge is approved without consideration of the 

impacts that will be had by all of the communities which share the Hwy 36 corridor 

the problems which are currently being experienced at the river will simply be 

transferred to the West and will create unnecessary burdens for those communities. 

The Highway 36 corridor is currently operating at or near capacity and the existing bridge carries 18000 vehicles per day. The 2030 projections for a new bridge indicate that approximately 30,000 additional trips will be generated in the corridor 

which passes through the communities which lie to the West of the area. There is 

not any plan in place at this time to deal with the additional traffic which will be 

generated in the corridor without a new bridge let alone with the addition of the 

additional traffic which a new bridge would create. This situation on a regional 

basis needs to be considered with the understanding that there are no approved 

mass transit corridors anywhere in the region which could be viewed as a means 

to help to reduce the future flow of traffic in the Hwy. 36 corridor. 

The current corridor is not currently at, nor is it currently planned, to have improvements constructed to bring it up to freeway standards in the 2030 planning 

period. Instead it is a corridor with limited lane volume restricted by several bridges 

and right of way which uses semaphores as traffic control devices a numerous intersections along its route. 

The cost that is currently being contemplated for the bridge is to me unbelievable. 

In the City of Maplewood we have been attempting to find funding to eliminate one 

of the existing semaphores which would be a project that would help to enhance 

traffic flow that is currently backed up by the intersection control for miles during 

rush hour, and have not to date been able to secure the 5 to 6 million dollars we 

need to supplement our funding to proceed with the project. It would be a poor use 

of funds to dedicate close to 700 million dollars to a bridge that would create lack 

of capacity all along the corridor it is intended to serve. A more reasoned approach 

would be to construct a bridge which would be sized to accommodate the current 

traffic flow along with the reduced projections which would be generated by a properly scaled bridge and at the same time make the improvements needed to provide 

a fully functioning corridor. 

You have an opportunity before you to resolve a dispute that has been ongoing 

for 20 to 30 years and desperately needs to have a solution, I urge you to find that 

solution but do so in a way that creates a fully functional traffic corridor and not 

waste such a large amount of funds over building one part of the corridor while creating numerous new problems along the entire length of the remaining corridor. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Will Rossbach 

Mayor, City of Maplewood 

Statement submitted for the record by Aaron Schutt, Senior Vice President 

and Chief Operating Officer, Doyon, Limited, on H.R. 441 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide written testimony on HR. 441, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the 

Interior to issue permits for a micro hydro project in non-wilderness areas within 

the boundaries of Denali National Park and Preserve, to acquire land for Denali 

National Park and Preserve from Doyon Tourism, Inc., and for other purposes. I 

would especially like to thank my home state Representative. Congressman Don 

61 

Young, former Chairman of this Committee and current Chairman of the Indian and 

Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee, is the sponsor of this legislation. My name is 

Aaron Schutt, I am the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Do yon, 

Limited. 

Doyon is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations, formed under the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA). Doyon has more than 

18,000 Alaska Native shareholders, and we are proud of our record on behalf of 

those shareholders. Our mission is to promote the economic and social well-being 

of our shareholders and future shareholders, to strengthen our Native way of life 

and to protect and enhance our land and resources. 

The issue that brings my interest to you today involves Doyon’s effort to improve 

our energy efficiency and environmental footprint on our in-holdings within the 

Denali National Park. The Kantishna Hills Renewable Energy Act provides an avenue for Doyon to develop a renewable energy system to provide electrical power to 

the Kantishna Roadhouse. The Kantishna Roadhouse is a full service wilderness 

lodge providing overnight accommodations to Denali National Park visitors. 

Owned and operated by Doyon Tourism, a wholly-owned Doyon subsidiary, the 

Kantishna Roadhouse is located on an in-holding within Denali National Park. 

Kantishna Roadhouse serves thousands of Park visitors each year. As it is located 

100 miles inside the Park,. the Roadhouse is not connected to any utility grid and 

must produce 100% of its electrical energy onsite. Currently, our power comes from 

a diesel generator. This system requires trucking several thousand gallons of diesel 

fuel through the Park each year. We run the generator on a twenty four hour basis 

through the entire operating season. Doyon Tourism strives to provide our services 

in the Park and on our lands in the most environmentally respectful way. 

Doyon is facing several problems with the construction of this renewable energy 

project, thus the need for this legislation. Of primary concern is the laud ownership. 

While Doyon currently owns the proposed location of the microchydro power plant, 

it does not own some of the laud needed for the project. This legislation addresses 

this problem. 

In early 2010, Doyon received a Tribal Renewable Energy Grant from the Department of Energy. We wanted to use part of that grant to install a micro-hydro power 

generation system at the Kautishna Roadhouse. However, due to time limitations 

on the use of those funds, restricted access periods to our facility inside the Park, 

the limited construction season in Alaska and the lack of an access point from the 

National Park Service we do not believe we will be able to make use of this grant 

at this time. Doyon remains committed to this project, however, if the laud ownership issues can be addressed. 

This micro-hydro project is modeled after the system installed at the Park Service’s recently renovated Eielson Visitors Center, also located deep within Denali 

National Park and Preserve. This renewable energy system would potentially provide up to half of our current electrical energy needs, offsetting an equivalent 

amount of diesel usage and its incumbent environmental footprint. 

Doyon has worked with the National Park Service for the past year to develop 

this legislation. HR. 441 has two parts. First, it allows the Park Serve to issue a 

permit to Doyon Tourism to build the proposed renewable energy project. Second, 

it calls on the Park Service to exchange lauds with Doyon so that all of the lands 

needed for the construction and operation of the micro-hydro project are owned by 

Doyon Tourism. In exchange, Doyon would provide an equivalent amount of acreage 

on a value-for-value basis from its other laud holdings in the vicinity of the 

Kautishna Roadhouse. Under the current agreement, six to seven acres would be 

exchanged between each of the two parties. 

In conclusion, I would like to reinforce my comments that this legislation is good 

for all the parties involved. HR. 441 will allow Doyon to move forward with a small 

renewable energy project. The project will substantially reduce all aspects of environmental footprint related to our current power generation system: fewer truckloads of diesel trucked in over the remote Park roads which in turn results in cleaner local air quality and less sound pollution in this remote area. Doyon believes this 

project mirrors the recent efforts of the National Park Service to achieve greater use 

of renewable energy at its facilities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the subcommittee today. I 

would be pleased to provide written responses to any questions the Members of the 

Subcommittees may have regarding the Kantishna Hill Renewable Energy Act of 

2011. 

Æ