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

74-876 PDF 2013

H.R. 624, H.R. 3640, H.R. 4109, 

H.R. 4334, H.R. 4484, H.R. 5319, 

H.R. 5958 AND H.R. 5987 

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 

SECOND SESSION 

Thursday, June 28, 2012 

Serial No. 112-118 

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 Democratic 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 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Mark Amodei, NV 

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 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Paul Tonko, NY 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic 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 

Mark Amodei, NV 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

John Garamendi, CA 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, June 28, 2012 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement on H.R. 5987 ........................................................... 4 

Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Mexico, Statement submitted for the record ................................. 111 

Kildee, Hon. Dale, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan, Prepared statement of ................................................................ 112 

Luja ́n, Hon. Ben Ray, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Mexico ................................................................................................... 5 

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

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

of California, Oral statement on H.R. 3640 ............................................... 51 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Campbell, Elizabeth Ainsley, Executive Director, Nashua River 

Watershed Association ................................................................................. 101 

Prepared statement on H.R. 5319 ........................................................... 102 

Cann, Kevin, Supervisor, Mariposa County, California ................................ 76 

Prepared statement on H.R. 3640 ........................................................... 78 

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

Delaware, Oral statement on H.R. 624 ...................................................... 44 

Carper, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, Oral 

statement on H.R. 624 ................................................................................. 45 

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

Utah, Oral statement on H.R. 4484 ........................................................... 50 

Curtis, Hon. John, Mayor, City of Provo, Utah ............................................. 93 

Prepared statement on H.R. 4484 ........................................................... 95 

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

California, Oral statement on H.R. 3640 ................................................... 43 

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

California, Oral statement on H.R. 4109 ................................................... 39 

Garrett, Billy G., Commissioner, District 1, Don ̃ a Ana County, New 

Mexico ............................................................................................................ 64 

Prepared statement on H.R. 4109 and H.R. 4484 ................................. 66 

Johnson, Ronika, Resident, Mariposa, California .......................................... 78 

Prepared statement on H.R. 3640 ........................................................... 80 

Knox, Victor, Associate Director for Park Planning, Facilities and Lands, 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ........................... 7 

Prepared statement on H.R. 624 ............................................................. 98 

Prepared statement on H.R. 3640 ........................................................... 75 

Prepared statement on H.R. 5319 ........................................................... 99 

Prepared statement on H.R. 5958 ........................................................... 100 

Prepared statement on H.R. 5987 ........................................................... 8 

Kolb, Ingrid, Director, Office of Management, U.S. Department of Energy 10 

Prepared statement on H.R. 5987 ........................................................... 10 

McClenahan, Heather, Executive Director, Los Alamos Historical Society 17 

Prepared statement on H.R. 5987 ........................................................... 19 
Page 

Statement of Witnesses—Continued 

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

Mexico ............................................................................................................ 47 

Prepared statement on H.R. 4334 ........................................................... 48 

Pen ̃ a, James M., Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .................................................... 88 

Prepared statement on H.R. 4109 ........................................................... 89 

Prepared statement on H.R. 4484 ........................................................... 93 

Petersen, Gary R., Vice President, Tri-City Development Council 

(TRIDEC) ....................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement on H.R. 5987 ........................................................... 12 

Rountree, Carl, Assistant Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Department of the Interior ........................................................................... 53 

Prepared statement on H.R. 4334 ........................................................... 54 

Rush, Matt, Executive Vice President, New Mexico Farm and Livestock 

Bureau ........................................................................................................... 62 

Prepared statement on H.R. 4334 ........................................................... 63 

Schickedanz, Jerry G., Chairman, People for Preserving Our Western 

Heritage ......................................................................................................... 56 

Prepared statement on H.R. 4334 ........................................................... 58 

Slavin, Timothy A., Director and State Historic Preservation Officer, 

State of Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs ................. 107 

Prepared statement on H.R. 624 ............................................................. 108 

Smith, Ray, Resident, Oak Ridge, Tennessee ................................................ 28 

Prepared statement on H.R. 5987 ........................................................... 29 

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

Massachusetts, Oral statement on H.R. 5319 ........................................... 40 

Turner, Hon. Robert, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New York, Oral statement on H.R. 5958 ................................................... 42 

Additional materials supplied: 

Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce, Letter submitted for the 

record on H.R. 4334 ..................................................................................... 68 

List of documents retained in the Committee’s official files ......................... 113 

(IV) 
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 624, TO ESTABLISH THE FIRST STATE 

NATIONAL PARK IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES. ‘‘FIRST STATE NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK ACT’’; 

H.R. 3640, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO 

ACQUIRE NOT MORE THAN 18 ACRES OF LAND AND INTERESTS IN 

LAND IN MARIPOSA, CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; 

H.R. 4109, TO DESIGNATE ADDITIONAL NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM 

LAND IN THE LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST IN THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA AS WILDERNESS, TO MAKE CERTAIN WILD AND SCENIC 

RIVER DESIGNATIONS IN THAT NATIONAL FOREST, TO DESIGNATE 

THE CONDOR RIDGE SCENIC AREA, TO ADDRESS OFF HIGHWAY 

VEHICLE USE IN THAT NATIONAL FOREST, TO FACILITATE A LAND 

EXCHANGE WITH THE UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ‘‘LOS PADRES CONSERVATION AND RECREATION ACT OF 2012’’; H.R. 4334, TO ESTABLISH A 

MONUMENT IN DON ̃ A ANA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES. ‘‘ORGAN MOUNTAINS NATIONAL MONUMENT ESTABLISHMENT ACT’’; H.R. 4484, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF A 

SMALL PARCEL OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND IN THE UINTAWASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST IN UTAH TO BRIGHAM YOUNG 

UNIVERSITY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ‘‘Y MOUNTAIN ACCESS 

ENHANCEMENT ACT’’; H.R. 5319, TO AMEND THE WILD AND SCENIC 

RIVERS ACT TO DESIGNATE SEGMENTS OF THE MAINSTEM OF THE 

NASHUA RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

MASSACHUSETTS FOR STUDY FOR POTENTIAL ADDITION TO THE 

NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES. ‘‘NASHUA RIVER WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY ACT’’; 

H.R. 5958, TO NAME THE JAMAICA BAY WILDLIFE REFUGE VISITOR 

CONTACT STATION OF THE JAMAICA BAY WILDLIFE REFUGE UNIT 

OF GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA IN HONOR OF JAMES L. 

BUCKLEY; AND H.R. 5987, TO ESTABLISH THE MANHATTAN PROJECT 

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK IN OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE, LOS 

ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO, AND HANFORD, WASHINGTON, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES. 

Thursday, June 28, 2012 D 

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 notice, at 9:10 a.m., in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Noem, Hastings 

(ex-officio); Holt, Tsongas, and Garamendi. 

Also present: Representatives Denham, Fleischmann, and Luja ́n. 

Mr. HASTINGS. The hearing will come to order. And the Chair 

notes the presence of a quorum. 

First, I ask unanimous consent that two of our colleagues that 

are not members of this Subcommittee be allowed to sit at the dais: 

Mr. Denham from California, and Mr. Fleischmann from 

Tennessee. 

[No response.] 

Mr. HASTINGS. And without objection, both Members will be able 

to sit at the hearing. 
2 

The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

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

our jurisdiction. Although today’s hearing will cover several bills 

that are non-controversial, we will also take up some bills that 

have some controversy. Because many of the witnesses have asked 

to testify today, I remind everyone that their time limit is limited 

to five minutes. 

Under the rules, the opening statements are limited to the 

Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous consent to include any Member’s opening statement at the hearing, if 

submitted to the clerk by the close of business today. 

[No response.] 

Mr. HASTINGS. And without objection, so ordered. We have a very 

busy day today, and I want to thank all the panels—this panel and 

ensuing panels—for complying with our request to move up the 

time period. We originally scheduled to start at 10:00. But because 

there are a few activities going on that I think most of the Nation 

is focused on, we appreciate your moving this up today, so some 

schedules could be accommodate later on. 

The first bill that we will take up today is H.R. 5987, ‘‘To Establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, Los Alamos, California, and in my home State—or New 

Mexico, Los Alamos, New Mexico. I knew better than that, I apologize. There may be a Los Alamos in California, but we are not talking about that one. We are talking about the one in New Mexico. 

And, of course, in my home State, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. 

I will recognize myself for fiveminutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. HASTINGS. Today’s hearing on this proposed legislation has 

taken many years and the efforts of a great many dedicated individuals in several communities across the country that were integral to the successful development of the Manhattan Project. It is 

appropriate that we have a witness representing each of the three 

communities that would become sites of this historical park, so that 

they can provide this Committee and the Congress with their 

unique perspective on how best to preserve and share the story of 

the Manhattan Project, and the tremendous contributions and 

achievements of thousands of Americans who made it a success. 

As I mentioned, I represent the Tri-Cities in the State of 

Washington where Hanford is located. I can literally see Hanford 

site from my backyard. So much of my statement will focus on 

Hanford, the B Reactor, and their role in the Manhattan Project. 

To provide a little background to the Committee, Hanford’s nuclear history began in the early 1940s, and played a pivotal role in 

our Nation’s defense for more than 40 years. As part of the Manhattan Project, the secret World War II effort to develop and construct the first atomic bomb and the work done at Hanford was an 

integral part in ending the Second World War. Later, nuclear 

weapons production at Hanford helped provide the nuclear deterrents to win the Cold War that led to the demise of the Soviet 

Union. 
3 

The B Reactor, specifically, was a key part of Hanford’s nuclear 

production success. Only months after Enrico Fermi first demonstrated that a controlled nuclear reaction was possible, ground 

was broken on the B Reactor, which, amazingly, only 13 months 

later, became the world’s first full-scale plutonium production reactor. As part of the Manhattan Project, the B Reactor produced the 

plutonium for the first-ever nuclear explosion, and later produced 

the plutonium for the bomb that helped end World War II. 

The community has worked hard over the years to protect B Reactor, and to prevent its demolition. In fact, at the end of the Cold 

War, when B Reactor faced the possibility of closure, the B Reactor 

Museum Association was formed to preserve the history of that reactor. Local groups, such as the Tri-City Industrial Development 

Council, or TRIDEC, the Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau, 

Hanford communities, and others, lent their support and persuaded 

leaders across Washington State to support the B Reactor preservation. 

Today, Hanford is a Department of Energy clean-up site. Under 

legally binding clean-up plans, Hanford’s historic B Reactor would 

be destroyed at a cost to taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars. 

In the case of B Reactor, protecting and preserving history is 

expected to save money, while at the same time increasing public 

access. 

B Reactor tours currently offered by the Department of Energy 

routinely fill up within minutes. And when I say that, when they 

announce that a tour is available, generally within minutes that is 

filled up for that year. Credit is due to the local DOE leadership, 

who has worked each year to increase access. Thousands now visit 

on an annual basis from every state, and from countries around the 

world. 

Today many will correctly point out that each of the three locations included in this legislation have distinct facilities and unique 

logistical considerations. Some historic Manhattan Project facilities 

like B Reactor are very accessible today. Others could be made 

readily accessible, while others it will take time, and possibly a few 

more years, before regular access is possible. 

However, the goal of this bill is to preserve these pieces of history from destruction, and to facilitate and enhance public access. 

Clearly, the nature and location of these facilities, especially those 

located on secured Department of Energy sites, presents a challenge. And this legislation aims to address this by ensuring maximum flexibility as steps are taken now and in the future to allow 

more public access. 

As we consider this legislation today it is important to note that 

similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate. Over the past 

several months, efforts have been undertaken to bridge the differences in initial drafts by myself and Chairman Senator Bingaman of New Mexico. Very real progress was made, and a consensus 

reached on the approach of the bills. While some differences remain 

between the House and Senate bills, there is genuine bipartisan desire in both the House and the Senate to advance this proposal into 

law. And we will do everything we can to make it happen this year. 

I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Bingaman, 

with Senators Murray and Cantwell from my State, and my fellow 
4 

sponsors of this legislation: Mr. Fleischmann from Tennessee, and 

Mr. Luja ́n from New Mexico. 

Now, I would really like to extend a special welcome to those who 

have traveled today, and specifically from Hanford, Oak Ridge, and 

Los Alamos, New Mexico—get that right—to appear here. And we 

will have a formal introduction later on. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, 

Committee on Natural Resources, on H.R. 5987 

Today’s hearing on this proposed legislation has taken many years and the efforts 

of a great many dedicated individuals in several communities across the country 

that were integral to the successful development of the Manhattan Project. It is appropriate that we have a witnesses representing each of the three communities that 

would become sites of this Historical Park, so that they may provide this Committee 

and the Congress with their unique perspective on how best to preserve and share 

the story of the Manhattan Project and the tremendous contributions and achievements of thousands of Americans who made it a success. 

In 2003, I introduced legislation directing the National Park Service to study preservation options for Manhattan Project sites. This legislation was signed into law 

the following year—enabling the Park Service to begin their work. The National 

Park Service ultimately recommended a Park Unit comprised of facilities at Hanford, Washington, Los Alamos, New Mexico and Oak Ridge, Tennessee to best tell 

the story of the Manhattan Project, and preserve and protect these national resources and pieces of our nation’s history. 

Work on preservation efforts, though, started well before 2003. We are at this 

point today largely because of the continued hard work and dedication of key leaders in each of these local communities. 

I represent the Tricities where Hanford is located. I can literally see the Hanford 

site from my backyard, so much of my statement focuses on B Reactor and the other 

Hanford facilities in this legislation. 

The historical significance of Hanford’s B Reactor’s has long been recognized by 

those in the surrounding Tri-Cities community. With local support, B Reactor was 

declared a Civil Engineering Landmark in 1968 and it was added to the National 

Register of Historic Places in 1992. In 2008, it was designated as a National Historic Landmark. 

The community has worked hard over the years to protect B Reactor, and to prevent its demolition. In fact, at the end of the Cold War, when B Reactor faced the 

possibility of closure, the B Reactor Museum Association was formed to preserve the 

history of the reactor. Local groups such as the Tri-City Industrial Development 

Council, the Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau, Hanford Communities, and 

others lent their support and persuaded leaders across Washington state to support 

B Reactor preservation. 

To provide a little background to the Committee, Hanford’s nuclear history began 

in the 1940’s and played a pivotal role in our nation’s defense for more than 40 

years. As part of the Manhattan Project, the secret World War II effort to develop 

and construct the first atomic bomb, the work done at Hanford was an integral part 

of ending the War. Later, nuclear weapons production at Hanford helped provide 

the nuclear deterrence to win the Cold War and end to the Soviet Union. 

The B Reactor, specifically, was a key part of Hanford’s nuclear production success. Only months after Enrico Fermi first demonstrated that a controlled nuclear 

reaction was possible, ground was broken on the B Reactor—which, amazingly, only 

13 months later, became the world’s first full-scale plutonium production reactor. As 

part of the Manhattan Project, the B Reactor produced the plutonium for the firstever nuclear explosion and later produced the plutonium for the bomb that helped 

end World War II. 

Today, Hanford is a Department of Energy cleanup site. Under legally binding 

cleanup plans, Hanford’s historic B Reactor would be destroyed at a cost to taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars. In the case of B Reactor, protecting and preserving history is expected to save money, while at the same time increasing public 

access. 

I’ve had the opportunity to tour B Reactor numerous times and it truly is like 

stepping back into the 1940’s. For those who didn’t live through World War II, B 

Reactor tells the story of the time and of the workforce that contributed to our na-
5 

tion’s defense for so many years, serving as an irreplaceable teaching tool for future 

generations. 

The B Reactor tours currently offered by the Department of Energy routinely fill 

up within minutes. Credit is due to the local DOE leadership who’ve worked each 

year to increase access each and every year. Thousands now visit on an annual 

basis, from every state and from countries far away. 

I’m especially pleased that in April the Department of Energy, for the first time, 

allowed schoolchildren under the age of 18 the opportunity to tour B Reactor. It’s 

encouraging that over 500 children have toured the facility since then, demonstrating a real interest in a hands-on history experience. Again, credit for this 

achievement is due to the Richland Operations Office for making this happen and 

I commend their ongoing work on this initiative. 

Today, many will correctly point out that each of the three locations included in 

this legislation have distinct facilities and unique logistical considerations. Some 

historic Manhattan Project facilities like B Reactor are very accessible today, others 

could be made readily accessible, while others will take time and care, and possibly 

a few more years, before regular public access is possible. However, the goal of this 

bill is to preserve these pieces of history from destruction and to facilitate and enhance public access. Clearly, the nature and location of these facilities, especially 

those located on secured Department of Energy sites, presents a challenge and this 

legislation aims to address this by ensuring maximum flexibility as steps are taken 

now and in the future to allow more public access. 

As we consider this legislation today, it’s important to note that similar legislation 

has been introduced in the Senate. Over the past several months, efforts have been 

undertaken to bridge differences in initial draft bills by myself and Chairman 

Bingaman. Very real progress was made and consensus reached on the approach of 

the bills. While some differences remain between the House and Senate bills, there 

is genuine bipartisan desire in both the House and Senate to advance this proposal 

into law—and to do everything we can to make that happen this year. 

I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman Bingaman, Senators Murray 

and Cantwell from Washington state and my fellow House sponsors of this legislation, Congressman Fleischmann representing Oak Ridge, and Congressman Luja ́n representing Los Alamos to establish the Park. We will all continue working together with local community advocates and leaders to accomplish our goal of ensuring these remarkable pieces of our history are preserved to tell the story of the Manhattan Project. 

Finally, I would like to extend a special welcome to those who have traveled here 

today from Hanford, Oak Ridge and Los Alamos to either appear as witnesses or 

join us in the audience. Thank you for coming and thank you for all your hard work 

and dedication. 

Mr. HASTINGS. With that, I yield back my time and recognize the 

distinguished gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Luja ́n. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank you 

for your leadership on this effort, and taking so much time with 

you and the Majority staff to work with Chairman Senator Bingaman on making sure that we were able to proceed in a very productive manner, Mr. Chairman. So, again, thank you very much for 

your leadership. 

Good morning, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here 

today, especially Heather McClenahan from Los Alamos Historical 

Society, for being here to testify on H.R. 5987, ‘‘To Establish the 

Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, Hanford in Washington.’’ Los 

Alamos National Laboratory, which is in my district, has played a 

large role in the Nation’s history, as well as contributed to the 

country’s national security. 

In its beginnings, Los Alamos Laboratory, known as Project Y, 

was conceived during the early part of World War II. The United 
6 

States wanted to build an atomic explosive to counter the threat 

posed by the German nuclear development program. Today Los Alamos is one of the country’s premier laboratories and has contributed greatly to modern physics, and has a great potential to be able 

to produce more engineers, great feats in our future in energy, 

science, and technology. 

We also have an opportunity more than 50 years after the creation of the laboratory to ensure that we tell the story of the Nuclear Age for both the good and the bad, and allow it to reflect on 

its own history, how it has changed the world and how we can 

move forward into the future, ensuring peace and prosperity for 

humanity. 

And, Mr. Chairman, there is a great opportunity, as well, as we 

look at the history of our national labs with the important contributions of the science, the physics, the great minds that were 

part of this project. But not to forget all of those that provided support in making sure that the building of these amazing complexes, 

families that have histories and ties to the land where these national labs were built and erected, and where the research took 

place. 

There is a young lady from my district, Mr. Chairman, a young 

lady that is completing her Ph.D. in her field that attended the 

same high school as I, that is doing a research project with many 

of these families, as well, some of which are her own family. And 

it is incredible to see the passion and the drive and the oral history 

that has been collected. And, so, we have a great interest in making sure that we preserve that, as well. Because, as we know, it 

is a story that is truly American. And I look forward to sharing this 

story with many when we open these areas under the National 

Park Service arrowhead. 

I am especially excited that we have our witnesses again here 

today, and we are going to be hearing on a wide range of bills, 

many dealing with designations for parks, rivers, and wilderness. 

We have a land conveyance for a well-known university icon in the 

West, the Mighty Y Mountain in Provo, Utah, and we are considering a study to include a once-polluted river to be part of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers. Another bill would create a new national park 

in Delaware. By moving this bill forward we will be including a national park site in every State. And I believe their colonial history 

is an important part of other history and stories that we will hear 

today. 

So, I look forward to a successful hearing today, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you again for your leadership. And I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Luja ́n follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Ben Ray Luja ́n, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of New Mexico 

Mr. Chairman, colleagues, and witnesses, thank you for being here today for our 

subcommittee hearing. 

I am thrilled to be here when we address the bipartisan bill on the Manhattan 

Project National Historical Park. 

Since I am one of the co-sponsors, along with the committee chair and our fellow 

member from Tennessee, I believe this bill crosses party lines and districts. 

It is a story that is truly American and I look forward to sharing this story with 

many when we open these areas under the National Park Service Arrowhead. 
7 

I am especially excited that we have so many witnesses from my home state 

today. I offer a special welcome to Ms. McClenahan from my district. 

Today we are hearing a wide range of bills, many dealing with designations for 

parks, rivers, and wilderness. 

We have a land conveyance for a well-known university icon in the west, the 

mighty Y Mountain in Provo, Utah. 

We are considering a study to include a once-polluted river to be part of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers. 

Another bill would create a new national park in Delaware. By moving this bill 

forward, we will be including a national park site in every state. I believe their colonial history is as important as other stories we hear today. 

I look forward to a successful hearing today and I yield back the remainder of 

my time. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the gentleman for his statement. And our 

first panel is a panel on—Mr. Fleischmann wanted to make the introduction. Is that correct, Mr. Fleischmann, you want to make the 

introduction of the witness from Oak Ridge, in lieu of an opening 

statement? Is that correct? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Good. Thank you very much. So our first panel 

today we have, in addition to the three members of the respective 

communities, we have Victor Knox, who is Associate Director for 

Park Planning, Facilities and Lands at the National Park Service. 

We have Ingrid Kolb, Director of Office of Management of U.S. Department of Energy, Heather McClenahan, Executive Director of 

the Los Alamos Historical Society, Gary Petersen, from the Tri-City 

Development Council, or TRIDEC, from my home State, and Mr. 

Ray Smith, whom I had an opportunity to meet when I was down 

in Oak Ridge. 

So, Mr. Knox, we will begin with you. And let me explain how 

those lights work. As I mentioned earlier, there is a number of 

bills, ensuing bills, later on. And again, I want to thank all of you 

for coming in earlier. But your full statement will appear in the 

record. But we have—as I mentioned, if you can confine your statements to five minutes, and the way those lights work, when the 

green light goes on you are doing exceedingly well. But when the 

yellow light goes on, that means you have one minute left. And 

when the red light comes on, that—you know, I would ask you to 

close up your thoughts, if you would. 

So, thank you very much. That is the way that works. And, Mr. 

Knox, we will start with you, and you are recognized for fiveminutes. 

STATEMENT OF VICTOR KNOX, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR 

PARK PLANNING, FACILITIES AND LANDS, NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

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

present the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 5987. I 

would like to submit our full statement for the record, and summarize our—the Department’s—position. The Administration supports 

H.R. 5987 with amendments. This bill would establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington. 

The development of the atomic bomb through the Manhattan 

Project was one of the most transformative events in our Nation’s 
8 

history. It ushered in the Atomic Age, changed the role of the 

United States in the world community, and set the stage for the 

Cold War. 

The park would be established by the Secretary of the Interior 

within one year, after entering into an agreement with the Secretary of Energy. 

We appreciate the language specifically providing for amendments to the agreement and a broad range of authorities for the 

Secretary of the Interior, as these provisions would give the National Park Service flexibility to shape the park over time, and 

maximize the promotion of education and interpretation related to 

the park’s purpose. We look forward to implementing this legislation in cooperation with the Department of Energy. 

While we support H.R. 5987, there are some areas we would like 

to recommend amendments. Among our concerns is the bill language regarding the written consent of landowners, land acquisition limitations, and activities outside of the park. We are continuing to review the bill for any technical issues, and we would 

be happy to work with the Committee to develop the appropriate 

language, and we will provide our recommendations in the near future. 

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

to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knox follows:] 

Statement of Victor Knox, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities and 

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

H.R. 5987, A Bill to Establish the Manhattan Project National Historical 

Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, 

Washington, and for Other Purposes. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 5987, a bill to establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, Washington, and for other purposes. 

The Administration supports H.R. 5987 with amendments. The development of 

the atomic bomb through the Manhattan Project was one of the most transformative 

events in our nation’s history: it ushered in the atomic age, changed the role of the 

United States in the world community, and set the stage for the Cold War. This 

legislation would enable the National Park Service to work in partnership with the 

Department of Energy to ensure the preservation of key resources associated with 

the Manhattan Project and to increase public awareness and understanding of this 

consequential effort. 

H.R. 5987 would require the establishment of the Manhattan Project National 

Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System within one year of enactment, 

during which time the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Energy would 

enter into an agreement on the respective roles of the two departments. The unit 

would consist of facilities and areas located in Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, or Hanford, 

as identified in the bill and determined by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, except for the B Reactor National Historic Landmark in Hanford, which would be required to be included in the park. The National 

Historical Park would be established by the Secretary of the Interior by publication 

of a Federal Register notice within 30 days after the agreement is made between 

the two secretaries. 

The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the named resources in Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, or Hanford. The bill would provide authority for 

the Secretary to enter into agreements with other Federal agencies to provide public 

access to, and management, interpretation, and historic preservation of, historically 

significant resources associated with the Manhattan Project; to provide technical assistance for Manhattan Project resources not included within the park; and to enter 

into cooperative agreements and accept donations related to park purposes. It would 

also allow the Secretary to accept donations or enter into agreements to provide vis-
9 

itor services and administrative facilities within reasonable proximity to the park. 

The Secretary of Energy would be authorized to accept donations to help preserve 

and provide access to Manhattan Project resources. 

H.R. 5987 is based on the recommendations developed through the special resource study for the Manhattan Project Sites that was authorized by Congress in 

2004 and transmitted to Congress in July 2011. The study, which was conducted 

by the National Park Service in consultation with the Department of Energy, determined that resources at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and Hanford, met the National 

Park Service’s criteria of national significance, suitability, feasibility, and the need 

for Federal management for designation as a unit of the National Park System. 

H.R. 5987 assigns the respective roles and responsibilities of the National Park 

Service and the Department of Energy as envisioned in the study: the National Park 

Service would use its expertise in the areas of interpretation and education to increase public awareness and understanding of the story, while the Department of 

Energy would maintain full responsibility for operations, maintenance, and preservation of historic Manhattan Project properties already under its jurisdiction, along 

with full responsibility for any environmental and safety hazards related to the 

properties. 

Because the Department of Energy would maintain and operate the primary facilities associated with the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, the study 

estimated that the National Park Service’s annual operation and maintenance costs 

for the three sites together would range from $2.45 million to $4 million. It also estimated that completing the General Management Plan for the park would cost an 

estimated $750,000. Costs of acquiring lands or interests in land, or developing facilities, would be estimated during the development of the General Management 

Plan. The Department of Energy has not yet assessed fully the operational difficulties in terms of security and public health and safety, applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and the potential new cost of national park designation at the 

sensitive national security and cleanup sites. 

The Department anticipates that the initial agreement between the two Departments likely would be fairly limited in scope, given the bill’s one-year timeframe for 

executing an agreement that would enable the Secretary of the Interior to establish 

the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. We appreciate the language specifically providing for amendments to the agreement and a broad range of authorities for the Secretary of the Interior, as these provisions would give the National 

Park Service the flexibility to shape the park over time and to maximize the promotion of education and interpretation related to the park’s purpose. 

The flexibility is particularly important because managing a park with such complex resources, in partnership with another Federal agency, at three sites across the 

country, will likely bring unanticipated challenges. Fortunately, we have already 

begun a partnership with the Department of Energy regarding the Manhattan 

Project resources through our coordinated work on the study. If this legislation is 

enacted, we look forward to building a stronger partnership that will enable us to 

meet the challenges ahead. 

While we support H.R. 5987, there are some areas where we would like to recommend amendments. Among our concerns are the bill language regarding the written consent of owners; land acquisition limitations; and activities outside of the 

park. We are continuing to review the bill for any technical issues. We would be 

happy to work with the committee to develop the appropriate language and will provide our recommendations in the near future. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I thank you very much. And because you did that 

in such a short time period, we do give out stars later on, and you 

will—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HASTINGS. I would now like to recognize Ingrid Kolb, the Director of Office of Management for the U.S. Department of Energy. 

You are recognized for fiveminutes. 
10 

STATEMENT OF INGRID KOLB, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Ms. KOLB. Well, thank you very much. I am hoping to earn a 

star, as well. I was considering just saying, ‘‘Ditto,’’ but I will say 

a little bit more than that. 

First of all, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, it is a 

pleasure to appear before you to discuss the proposal on the table, 

the Manhattan Project National Historic Park, as represented in 

H.R. 5987. Just to cut to the chase, I will say that the Department 

of Energy supports the establishment of this park at the three 

sites: at Los Alamos, New Mexico and in Hanford, Washington, as 

well as Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Department of Energy and the 

National Park Service have worked to come to this conclusion in 

partnership, and we look forward to working with the Park Service 

if this legislation is passed. And we will meet the timelines that 

are established in the legislation to make sure that the park is established in a timely manner. 

I will say that the Department has not yet had the opportunity 

to fully assess some of the operational challenges, in terms of security and public health and safety and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, as well as the potential costs that may be associated with the establishment of the park. However, we do feel 

that the proposed legislation does provide us with the flexibility to 

meet those challenges. And again, we would work with the National Park Service and with the Subcommittee to make sure that 

those challenges can be addressed successfully. 

So, thank you for your leadership and the leadership of the Subcommittee in proposing this legislation. And that concludes my remarks. And hopefully I will get my star. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kolb follows:] 

Statement of Ingrid Kolb, Director, Office of Management, 

U.S. Department of Energy, on H.R. 5987 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Ingrid Kolb. I 

serve as the Director, Office of Management at the U.S. Department of Energy. As 

part of our programmatic responsibilities, the Office of Management coordinates cultural resources and historic preservation activities across the Department and is the 

lead office coordinating DOE participation in the proposed Manhattan Project National Historical Park. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the proposed park 

and H.R. 5987, a bill to establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. 

The Manhattan Project National Park Study Act, Public Law 108–340, directed 

the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to conduct a special resource study to determine the feasibility of designating one or more 

Manhattan Project sites as a unit of the National Park Service. A park, the legislation noted, would have to be compatible with ‘‘maintaining the security, productivity, and management goals of the Department of Energy,’’ as well as public 

health and safety. In preparing the study, the Department’s Office of Management 

was an active partner with the National Park Service, and its staff participated 

fully, providing information, input, and comments. 

Following public meetings at the sites, extensive assessments of potential park 

boundaries and integrity of historical resources, the Department and the National 

Park Service agreed that a park was feasible, met the suitability requirement for 

creating a new park, and should be established. In October 2010, National Park 

Service Director concurred on the study, which contained the recommendation for 

a three-site park in Oak Ridge Tennessee, Hanford, Washington, and Los Alamos, 

New Mexico, in partnership with the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy would continue to manage and maintain its properties and control access to 

them. The National Park Service would provide interpretation, consult with the Department on preservation issues, and establish a visitor center and station rangers 
11 

in each of the three communities. In March 2011, the Deputy Secretary of Energy 

concurred on the findings of the study and provided assurances to the National Park 

Service that the Department would retain full access control to its properties in accordance with its missions and security requirements. ‘‘The Department of Energy 

is proud of its Manhattan Project heritage and recognizes that this partnership with 

the National Park Service would bring one of the most significant events in 20th 

century America to a wider public audience.’’ 

The establishment of a National Historical Park will represent a new era for the 

Department of Energy, particularly in certain areas of our sites that have been 

largely off-limits to the public to date due to national security concerns and potential impacts to our ongoing missions. The Department has not yet assessed fully the 

operational difficulties in terms of security and public health and safety, applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements, and the potential new cost of national park 

designation at our sensitive national security and cleanup sites. The proposed legislation, H.R. 5987, would give the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior the flexibility to establish the timeline, boundaries, and a suitable management plan for a National Historical Park that would allow us to ensure the continuance of public safety, national security, and the ongoing missions at our sites. We 

welcome the leadership of Chairman Hastings and the National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands Subcommittee in telling this important story, and we look forward to 

working with you as this legislation advances. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee. This 

completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Mr. HASTINGS. You indeed did. Thank you very much. 

Ms. KOLB. You are welcome. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I very much appreciate that very much. 

We will now go to the witnesses of the respective communities, 

and we will start with Gary Petersen from my home State of 

Washington. 

And I will note, by way of introduction, he is the Vice President 

of TRIDEC, which is an industrial—or an economic development 

organization. But by way of history, he was stationed at then-Camp 

Hanford on Rattlesnake Mountain, overlooking the site. And the 

Rattlesnake Mountain is another issue that this Committee has 

dealt with, from a standpoint of access. So Gary knows that area 

very well, and he knows the views you can see from the top of Rattlesnake Mountain. 

So, with that, Gary, Mr. Petersen, recognize you for five minutes 

for your statement. 

STATEMENT OF GARY PETERSEN, VICE PRESIDENT, 

TRI-CITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (TRIDEC) 

Mr. PETERSEN. I am hopeful that I get the extra two minutes 

from each of the previous speakers, because—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HASTINGS. Hope is, you know, is always good, but it does not 

work that way. 

Mr. PETERSEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is a pleasure to be here, speaking on behalf of this bill. And I want to thank 

both Congressman Luja ́n and also Congressman Fleischmann for 

cosponsoring the bill. 

I am here today to speak on behalf of the Tri-City Development 

Council, also the Tri-City Visitor and Convention Bureau, the Hanford Communities, and B Reactor Museum Association. But I want 

to do something a little bit different, and I want to say I am also 

here to speak on behalf of the roughly 1,500 people who were 
12 

moved off of that site in 1942. And I am also here to speak on behalf of the 50,000 people who showed up on that site to build the 

buildings on the site. 

So, as I speak, we know the names of Enrico Fermi. We know 

the name of Robert Oppenheimer and Hans Bethe. But I also want 

to speak about the people who built this thing, including my fatherin-law, Herman Francis Toner. When I say this, it becomes emotional, because these people came from all over the United States 

and the world to build the project. And in order to build that 

project, they had to start by building dormitories, mess halls, the 

sewage treatment plant. There had to be people who were stewards, who were bus drivers, who were engineers, who were physicists. And it is an amazing feat, when you consider the dates. 

August 13, 1942 was the formation of the Manhattan Project, 

August 13, 1942. August 14, 1945, the war was over. What happened in between that period and what happened to the families 

is an astounding piece of work. 

I brought with me today two—and I am very pleased that the 

Chairman is here—I brought a letter from the Brugaman family. 

I have not opened this envelope, but I am turning it over to Congressman Doc Hastings. It is in support of this bill, but the only 

remaining structure on the site that was private is the Brugaman 

Ranch. It is a hand-placed stone building. Doc has been out there 

to see this hand-placed stone building. The craftsmanship is so well 

done that when you look at the chimney, the chimney has a face 

built in to the chimney on all four sides. It is the only remaining 

structure from the private enterprise. So, Doc, I have a letter for 

you on that. 

As we talk through this, though, remember that they had to 

build this with no aid of computers. They had slide rules, they had 

hand-drafted blueprints. And my understanding is that the B Reactor, which was built, start to finish, in 11 months, was done before 

the last blueprints came off of the drawing board. 

So, as you do this bill, I want you to remember the individuals 

who did this work, and remember that some of them are now— 

their third generation is still working on the site. And, so, the same 

is true of my compatriots in these two communities. It is a—we 

want this bill to pass, we support this bill. We have tremendous 

support on the part of the communities. We have been working on 

this effort for more than two-and-a-half years. B Reactor is something that needs to be saved, but so are the other historical properties on site. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I conclude my remarks. My 

written testimony is in. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Petersen follows:] 

Statement of Gary R. Petersen, Vice President, Tri-City Development Council (TRIDEC), on H.R. 5987, on behalf of Tri-City Development Council 

(TRIDEC), Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau, Hanford Communities, B Reactor Museum Association 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 5987, a bill to establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New 

Mexico, and Hanford Washington. I also would like to thank the full-Committee 

Chairman, Representative Doc Hastings, the sponsor of the legislation, along with 

Representatives Ben Ray Luja ́n and Chuck Fleischmann for co-sponsoring this bill. 
13 

I am Gary Petersen, Vice President of the Tri-City Development. TRIDEC is the 

lead economic development organization serving a two-county region in southeastern 

Washington State. The Tri-Cities has a population of 258,400 and includes the communities of Kennewick, Pasco, Richland and West Richland and the counties of Benton and Franklin. 

I am here today to speak in favor of H.R. 5987 on behalf of the Tri-Cities Community in Washington State, and in support of community organizations in Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee and Los Alamos, New Mexico. All three of our communities have passed 

resolutions supporting the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, and we 

have been united in our support of this bill. 

Support for H.R. 5987 

It is easy for those of us who live in the communities of Oak Ridge, Los Alamos 

and the Tri-Cities to say that the Manhattan Project changed the world. 

On August 13, 1942 the Manhattan Project was established. Three years and one 

day later, August 14, 1945, the War was done! 

In between those dates, more than 100,000 men and women were brought to these 

three sites from all over the world. The majority of these young men and women 

had no idea what they were building. 

At Hanford, more than 2,000 residents—mostly farmers—were given just days to 

weeks to move off their land. This included moving, getting rid of thousands of animals, all the farm equipment and most importantly closing schools and moving families—lock-stock-and barrel! 

Once the land was acquired by the government, the workers had to be found— 

engineers, physicists, chemists, carpenters, electricians, iron workers, cement masons and a multitude of office workers, cooks, guards, and truck drivers. These same 

individuals first had to build their own town with dormitories, mess halls, water, 

sewer, roads and railroads. This had to be done BEFORE they could start construction on reactors, nuclear fuel manufacturing and chemical separation facilities. At 

Hanford, the construction camp quickly became the third largest town in the State 

of Washington, with 50,000 construction workers. 

Hanford construction stretched the imagination. Housing for 50,000 men and 

women; 386 miles of highway (including Washington State’s first four-lane highway); 780,000 yards of concrete, and 158 miles of railroad track. 

All of this was done without the aid of computers! These were the days of sliderules and handcrafted blueprints! 

Equipment, electronics and piping could not be bought off-the shelf. For the most 

part everything had to be fabricated on the Hanford site. 

B Reactor itself, the world’s first full-scale nuclear reactor, was built in just 11 

months start-to finish. The design was based on the success of Enrico Fermi’s ‘‘Chicago Pile 1;’’ and a pilot plant, the X–10 graphite reactor located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. B Reactor was designed to produce 250 million watts, a million times more 

powerful than Chicago Pile 1, which produced the first ever sustained nuclear fission chain reaction under the bleachers at the University of Chicago’s Staff Field 

in December of 1942. 

Most of the workers brought in to these three sites were among the most talented 

in their respective fields, whether it was physics or pipefitting. While we recognize 

the names of Enrico Fermi, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Hans Bethe, we also need 

to give recognition to individual workers, many of whom stayed on the job and in 

these communities after 1945. 

These are engineering feats and accomplishments that must be told to future generations! And, it needs to be told before all of the ‘‘old-timers’’ are gone. 

As these three sites in Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and Hanford are being cleaned up, 

and many buildings are demolished and removed, the history of scientific and engineering achievement at the birth of the Atomic Age must be preserved. 

The National Park Service, as it does with all of its sites, interprets the sites, and 

attempts to address ALL viewpoints to give a full and fair picture. We support such 

actions. This will not be a park that gives just a nuclear weapons viewpoint. We 

believe it is more about the thousands of men and women who built buildings, 

equipment and processes that became a turning point in the history of the United 

States and the world. The science of the Manhattan Project has transformed contemporary society with significant contributions in fields such as nuclear medicine, 

industrial isotopes, and nanotechnology. This historic park will tell all sides of the 

story of what occurred at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and the Hanford/Tri-Cities area, 

as was identified in the National Park Service Special Resource Study released last 

year. 

Our three communities have collectively worked toward this legislation for more 

than three years. In this process, we not only partnered with each other, but we 
14 

also worked closely with the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, 

the Atomic Heritage Foundation, the National Parks Conservation Association, 

State Historical Preservation Officers, the National Trust for Historic Preservation 

and the Energy Communities Alliance. 

There is no question of the importance of creating this new national park, nor of 

the public interest to view these former ‘‘secret’’ sites and preserve them for future 

generations. 

At Hanford, DOE hosted 8,000 visitors to B Reactor last year. These visitors came 

from all 50 states, and from 48 foreign countries. These numbers were the result 

of only ONE announcement by DOE that 8,000 seats to B Reactor would be open 

to the public last summer. The tours filled in less than 5 hours. This year DOE has 

increased the number of seats to 10,000. Unlike the National Park Service, DOE 

(except for the single announcement) does not advertise its tours. 

These visitor numbers also clearly demonstrate that designating these three sites 

as the Manhattan Project National Historical Park will create jobs and provide an 

economic development benefit for all three communities. Such designation will come 

at a time when all three communities are seeing downturns in federal employment 

as these sites are being cleaned up. Cleaning up these sites, and opening them to 

public viewing is of major importance to three communities that have been supporting national security missions since 1943. 

The Manhattan Project National Historical Park at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and 

Hanford is critical to the preservation of perhaps the most historic event of the 20th 

Century. 

Our community encourages you to move forward with this legislation this year. 

We have unanimity of our communities that the Park should be established in the 

near term in order to honor our Manhattan Project and Cold War veterans. 

We urge Congress to pass this National Park legislation. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to testify, and I look forward to responding to your questions. 

Attachments: 

Community Support Letter, May 8, 2012 
15 
16 
17 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Gary, I appreciate your 

testimony. And I know I share the passion with you, because I 

have been with you out at the site. 

Next we will hear from Heather McClenahan, the Executive Director of the Los Alamos Historical Society. You are recognized for 

fiveminutes. 

STATEMENT OF HEATHER McCLENAHAN, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOS ALAMOS HISTORICAL SOCIETY 

Ms. MCCLENAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman 

Luja ́n, and members of the Committee, for allowing me to testify 

today. I am Executive Director of the Los Alamos Historical Society, and among our many activities we operate the Los Alamos Historical Museum, and own in a life trust the World War II home of 

Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan 
18 

Project. Speaking about the history of Los Alamos is a passion of 

mine. 

I am here in support of H.R. 5987, a bill to establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. First, let me say how 

pleased we are that the National Park Service and Congress have 

recognized the magnitude of the history of the Manhattan Project. 

Historians have called it the most significant event of the 20th century. 

I have three points to make today: one, why this history should 

be commemorated in a national park; two, why it will have a positive impact on Northern New Mexico; and three, why partnerships 

are critical to making this park a reality. 

In 2007, recognizing the impact of a possible national park to our 

community, the Los Alamos County Council appointed an ad hoc 

committee to determine what a park might look like in Los Alamos. 

I served on that Committee, and the details of our recommendations are in my written testimony. In summary, we envisioned a 

downtown National Park center where guests would learn about 

the Manhattan Project and then be sent to existing venues at the 

laboratory and throughout the community to learn more, a recommendation that the Park Service adopted in its final report to 

Congress. 

Tied together under the auspices of a national park, the Manhattan Project industrial sites at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Hanford, along with the places where the soldiers and scientists lived 

and formed communities will create a full picture of the history. 

Some critics have said that a national park dedicated to the 

Manhattan Project will glorify the atom bomb or create a theme 

park for weapons of mass destruction. I disagree. I have never visited a national park that was anything like a Disneyland. In fact, 

the National Park Service, of all government agencies, is the most 

trusted for telling complete stories: the good, the bad, the painful, 

and the poignant. Parks and monuments that commemorate battles 

or massacres do not celebrate ugly moments in American history. 

They teach us about them, and they help us, as a Nation, to reflect 

and learn. 

So, in the rich tradition of the National Park system, the Manhattan Project National Historical Park will need to include stories 

about the devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the environmental damage, and the fear of atomic annihilation that are its legacies, along with the stories of great technical and scientific 

achievement, and the decisive ending of World War II. The Nation 

needs to understand the Manhattan Project from all sides, and the 

Park Service can do that. 

My second point is that the Manhattan Project National Historical Park will provide economic benefits to Northern New Mexico. 

With, by the Park Service’s own estimates, thousands of additional 

annual visitors, Los Alamos will need workers not only in tourism 

and service industries, but construction and other related businesses. As our ad hoc committee suggested, the story of the Manhattan Project isn’t just about world-class scientists. As Congressman Luja ́n pointed out, the story includes people from the rural 

communities and pueblos surrounding Los Alamos, mostly Native 

Americans and Hispanics who provided the backbone of the labor 
19 

force that built the laboratories and facilities, cleaned the houses, 

and drove the trucks. 

The Manhattan Project forever changed Northern New Mexico. 

And, in fact, the Manhattan Project National Historical Park will 

once again transform these communities, creating an economic 

driver based on heritage tourism that provides jobs, educational opportunities, and improved futures to traditionally under-served 

communities. 

Third, and finally, we appreciate with enthusiasm the statement 

in section three of this bill that one purpose of the park is to assist 

the Department of Energy and other interested parties in efforts to 

preserve and protect the historically significant resources that remain from the Manhattan Project. It is something we have been 

working on for 50 years. Partnerships and cooperative agreements 

between agencies, non-profit groups such as ours, and even private 

property owners, will make this park happen, bringing together 

widespread resources for the benefit of our Nation, much like the 

Manhattan Project did years ago. 

In sum, the Los Alamos Historical Society and our community 

partners fully support the establishment of the Manhattan Project 

National Historical Park in order to preserve and teach this history. We believe that it will have economic benefits for Northern 

New Mexico, and we are heartened to see the Department of 

Energy willing to work with the Department of the Interior and 

other partners to make this world-changing history accessible. 

At its heart, the story of the Manhattan Project is an amazing 

episode of our great Nation’s history. It brought together the 

brightest scientists, many of them immigrants who came to this 

country seeking freedom. They faced pressure to end the world’s 

most horrible war by creating something that had only been theory. 

It is a story about young people with a can-do spirit who brought 

about great technological and scientific achievement. It is a story 

of unleashing a mysterious force of nature, and fostering fear and 

uncertainty about the future of humankind. It is a story about creativity and about destruction. It is a scientific story, a soldier story, 

a spy story, and a human story. 

The story of the Manhattan Project is one that, from the perspectives of all who participated and all who were affected, must be 

told. 

Again, thank you for allowing me to testify, and I will be pleased 

to entertain questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McClenahan follows:] 

Statement of Heather McClenahan, Executive Director, Los Alamos 

Historical Society, on H.R. 5987, The Manhattan Project National 

Historical Park 

Summary: 

Historians have called the Manhattan Project the most significant undertaking of 

the 20th century. Employing hundreds of thousands at its peak, located in widely 

scattered, secret communities, the project brought an end to World War II and ushered in the atomic age. As an organization that has preserved Manhattan Project 

history for nearly fifty years, the Los Almos Historical Society is pleased to support 

this legislation. 

Key points in our testimony include: 

• The significance of this history and why it should justify a national historical 

park 
20 

• The broad support and cooperation this park has generated • The positive economic impact the park will have on northern New Mexico • The importance of partnerships in making this park a reality 

At its heart, the story of the Manhattan Project is an amazing episode of our 

great nation’s history. It brought together the brightest scientists, many of them immigrants who came to this country seeking freedom. They faced pressure to end the 

world’s most horrible war by creating something that had only existed in theory. It 

is a story about young people with a can-do spirit who brought about a great technological achievement. It is the story of unleashing a mysterious force of nature and 

of fostering fear and uncertainty about the future of humankind. It is a story about 

creativity and about destruction. It is a scientific story, a soldier’s story, a spy story, 

and a human story. The story of the Manhattan Project is one that, from the perspectives of all who participated and all who were affected, must be told. 

The Los Alamos Historical Society appreciates the Committee on Natural Resources’ Chairman Doc Hastings leadership in considering H.R. 5987, the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. We are also grateful for the leadership of Congressman Luja ́n and Congressman Fleischmann. 

I am Heather McClenahan, executive director of the Los Alamos Historical Society 

a non-profit organization whose mission is to preserve, promote, and communicate 

the remarkable history and inspiring stories of Los Alamos and its people for our 

community, for the global audience, and for future generations. Among our many 

activities, we operate the Los Alamos Historical Museum and own, in a life trust, 

the World War II home of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project. As the owner of this home in the Los Alamos Historic Distirct, we 

are property owners within the potential boundary of the park. Additionally, helping 

to establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park is one of seven planks 

in our strategic plan. 

My testimony is in support of S. 3300, a bill to establish the Manhattan Project 

National Historical Park. As long-time keepers of the history of Los Alamos, we 

fully support this bill’s efforts to ‘‘enhance the protection and preservation of such 

resources and provide for comprehensive interpretation and public understanding of 

this nationally significant story in 20th century American history.’’ 

I will make four key points. One, why this history should be commemorated in 

a national park; two, the broad community support this park enjoys; three, why this 

will have positive impact on northern New Mexico; and four, why partnerships will 

be critical to making this park become a reality. In 2007, recognizing the impact 

of a possible national park on our community, the Los Alamos County Council appointed an ad hoc committee to determine what such a park might look like in Los 

Alamos. I served on that committee, and the details of our recommendations are included in pages seven through nine of this document. In summary, we envisioned 

a downtown national park visitor center where guests would learn about the Manhattan Project and then be sent to existing venues to learn more, a recommendation 

the National Park Service adopted in its final report to Congress. 

Tied together under the auspices of a national park, the Manhattan Project industrial sites in Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Hanford, along with the places where soldiers and scientists lived and formed communities, will create a full picture of the 

history. 

Some critics have said that a national park dedicated to the Manhattan Project 

will glorify the atomic bomb or create a theme park for weapons of mass destruction. I disagree. I have never visited a national park that was anything like a 

Disneyland. In fact, the National Park Service, of all government agencies, is the 

most trusted for telling complete stories from all sides—the good and bad, the painful and the poignant. Parks and monuments that commemorate battles or massacres do not celebrate ugly moments in American history. They teach about them; 

they help us, as a nation, to reflect and learn. 

So, in the rich tradition of our national park system, the Manhattan Project National Historical Park will need to include stories about the devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, environmental damage, and the fear of atomic annihilation 

that are its legacies, along with the stories of great technical and scientific achievement and the decisive ending of World War II. The nation needs to understand the 

Manhattan Project from all sides. 

The communities called out in this legislation—Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Hanford—fully support this park. In 2008, our ad hoc committee held public meetings 

in Los Alamos as well as meetings with potential partners, from tour guides to the 

nearby pueblos. After some initial—and false—concern that the park service might 

take over the iconic Fuller Lodge in downtown Los Alamos as a park headquarters 

was resolved, the community came out fully in support of the park. The County 

Council passed a resolution to that effect in February 2010 (see pages ten and elev-
21 

en of this document), and, most recently, a group of community leaders sent a letter 

to Senators Bingaman and Udall as well as Congressman Luja ́n in support of this 

legislation (pages twelve and thirteen of this document). We have had several meetings with our counterparts in Hanford and Oak Ridge to discuss park possibilties. 

In short, we are excited about this park and are happy to assist the Department 

of Interior, the Department of Energy, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and others 

to make it happen. We believe it will be a benefit not only to Los Alamos but to 

nearby communities, as well. 

That leads to my third point, that the Manhattan Project National Historical Park 

will provide economic benefits to northern New Mexico. With, by the Park Services 

own estimate, hundreds of thousands of additional annual visitors, the region will 

need workers not only in tourism and service industries but in construction and 

other related industries. 

As our ad hoc committee suggested, the story of the Manhattan Project isn’t just 

about world-class scientists. The story includes people from the rural communities 

and pueblos surrounding Los Alamos, mostly Native Americans and Hispanics, who 

provided the backbone of a labor force that built and maintained the laboratories 

and facilities, cleaned the houses, and drove the trucks. The Manhattan Project forever changed rustic northern New Mexico. In fact, the Manhattan Project National 

Historical Park will, once again, transform these communities, creating an economic 

driver based on heritage tourism that provides jobs, educational opportunities, and 

improved futures to traditionally under-served communities. 

Finally, we appreciate with enthusiasm the statement in Section 3 of this bill that 

one purpose of the park is ‘‘to assist the Department of Energy, Historical Park communities, historical societies, and other interested organizations and individuals in 

efforts to preserve and protect the historically significant resources associated with 

the Manhattan Project.’’ Protecting these resources is something the Los Alamos 

Historical Society has been working on for nearly fifty years. Partnerships and cooperative agreements between agencies, non-profit groups such as ours, and even private property owners will make this park happen, bringing together widespread resources for the benefit of our nation as the Manhattan Project did years ago. 

Again, I urge you to view the recommendations from the ad hoc committee, specifically the section about partnerships. Manhattan Project resources, from museums to the laboratory and from tour guides to the famous ‘‘gatekeeper’’ office at 109 

E. Palace Avenue in Santa Fe, are dispersed and disorganized when it comes to the 

theme of Manhattan Project history. The national park will bring these resources 

together, along with those of Hanford and Oak Ridge, for visitors to understand a 

bigger picture. 

We are also especially pleased to see in the final section of the bill that both the 

Department of Interior and the Department of Energy will be able to accept monetary or service donations for the park. This is particularly important to restoration 

work at Los Alamos National Laboratory and will assist the lab in preserving a significant historic site. One individual has been waiting in the wings for years to donate to the site’s restoration but has had no mechnism for giving the money. The 

park will allow this preservation project to take place. 

In sum, along with many community partners who have worked on this project, 

the Los Alamos Historical Society fully supports the establishment of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in order to preserve and teach this important 

history. The park has tremendous support in our community. We believe it will have 

economic benefit to northern New Mexico. We are heartened to see the Department 

of Energy willing to work with the Department of Interior and other partners to 

make this world-changing history accessible. The Los Alamos Historical Museum is 

located in the building where Gen. Leslie Groves stayed when he came to Project 

Y, and it serves as the focal point of the community’s Historic District. We look forward to sharing our stories with the many visitors a national historical park will 

bring in addition to sharing our resources with the National Park Service to assist 

in creation of the park. Working with local, state, and national partners to help create the Manhattan Project National Historical Park is a long-term goal in the Los 

Alamos Historical Society’s strategic plan. We look forward to working with you to 

achieve that goal. 
22 

Recommendations to the Los Alamos County Council from the 

Manhattan Project National Historical Park (MPNHP) Ad Hoc Committee 

04/02/2008 

I. Purpose 

In 2004, Congress approved and the President signed legislation directing the 

NPS to conduct a special resource study to determine the national significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating one or more historic sites of the Manhattan 

Project for potential inclusion in the National Park System. This park could include 

non-contiguous sites in Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Hanford, and Dayton. The NPS held 

meetings in each of the communities during the spring and summer of 2006 to gather public input. 

In August 2007, Los Alamos County Council approved the establishment of an ad 

hoc committee to help determine what the proposed non-contiguous Manhattan 

Project National Historical Park might look like in Los Alamos. This committee is 

comprised of representatives involved in historic preservation and tourism from 

throughout the community, including Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). 

After approval by Council, the committee will present its plan to NPS representatives when they come to Los Alamos for a second round of community meetings in 

2008. 

II. Committee Conduct 

The committee began meeting bi-weekly in August 2007 and discussed several 

ideas, such as what ‘‘attractions’’ might be included in a national park and who locally might participate. These ideas were expanded upon and refined over time. A 

great deal of Manhattan Project history has already been preserved in our community in places such as the Los Alamos Historical Museum, the Bradbury Science 

Museum, and the Oppenheimer House. The committee members do not believe that 

the NPS needs to ‘‘reinvent the wheel.’’ 

In October, the committee took a special ‘‘behind the fence’’ tour of sites at LANL 

which may be included in the park, either as part of periodic tours or which may 

be open to more public access in the future. 

On Nov. 6 and 9, the committee held meetings by invitation and word of mouth 

for potential partners in the park. Approximately fifteen people attended the first 

meeting and ten attended the second. At both meetings, ad hoc committee members 

shared their vision for the park site (see III. below) Most of these potential partners 

were intrigued with the idea of a Manhattan Project National Historical Park within the community and looked forward to getting more information from the NPS. 

On November 13, the committee held an advertised public meeting in Fuller 

Lodge to discuss this vision for the park. Another fifteen people attended and added 

to the committee’s ideas. 

Based on input from these meetings, the committee has refined its vision and proposes the following: 

III. Park Vision 

A. Centralized Park Headquarters: At a central Visitor Center, which would 

include information and interpretation, a Park Ranger would greet visitors, tell 

them about the National Park and then direct them to other sites in the area where 

they would be able to see tangible historical sites and objects from the Manhattan 

Project (Ashley Pond, Lamy Train Station) as well as interpretation and information 

that is already taking place in the community (LA Historical Museum, Bradbury 

Science Museum). 

B. Tours 

a. Guided and Self-Guided: These would include ranger-guided walking tours 

through the downtown historic district and other sites; driving and walking 

audio tours; as well as guided tours that would show visitors accessible areas 

of LANL, historic downtown, the old Main Gate location, and other sites. 

b. LANL: With approval and coordination of LANL and the Department of Energy officials, periodic ‘‘Behind the Fence Tours’’ to V–Site, Gun Site, and 

other restored Manhattan Project-era buildings, similar to the tours held at 

Trinity Site. 

C. Partners 

Potential partners in this project are those who own, maintain or have some other 

association (such as tourist services or items) with tangible historical objects or 

buildings from the Manhattan Project—something that will enhance visitors’ experiences and increase their understanding of this time in history. The lists below are 

not all-inclusive. 

D. Potential Themes of Interpretation 
23 

1. People/Social History 

a. Scientists and their families 

b. Military 

i. In Los Alamos (SEDs, MPs, etc.) 

ii. In the Pacific, including POWs 

c. Local Pueblo and Hispanic populations whose lives were affected and 

who were an essential part of the project (stet) 

d. Local historical figures such as Edith Warner, Dorothy McKibbin, Evelyn 

Frey 

e. Stories of people affected by the bombings, both American and Japanese 

f. Responses to the bomb 

2. Science 

a. Bradbury Science Museum 

3. Impacts 

a. Science 

b. Northern New Mexico 

c. Military 

d. International Relations 

e. Cold War 

f. Environmental/Health 

g. Government 

i. Civilian control of nuclear resources (AEC, DOE) 

ii. The growth of government-run, multi-disciplinary science labs 

4. Growth of the town of Los Alamos 

5. What happened to people after the war? 

E. Potential Visitor Sites 

1. Local 

a. The Los Alamos Historical Museum 

b. The Bradbury Science Museum 

c. Oppenheimer House 

d. Ashley Pond 

e. Ice House Memorial 

f. Fuller Lodge 

g. Historic Walking Tour of Bathtub Row 

h. Periodic ‘‘Behind the Fence’’ Tours to V–Site, Gun Site, and other restored Manhattan-era buildings at LANL 

i. Unitarian Church (former dorm) 

j. Little Theater (former Rec Hall) 

k. Christian Science Church (former dorm) 

l. Hill Diner (WWII-era building) 

m. Main Hill Road/Main Gate area 

n. Last Sundt apartment building in Los Alamos (Dentist office on Trinity) 

o. Crossroads Bible Church (WW II-era Theater) 

2. Nearby 

a. Bandelier National Monument 

b. Pajarito Mountain Ski Area 

c. Valles Caldera 

d. Otowi Bridge 

e. Sundt apartments in Espanola on Railroad Avenue 

3. Santa Fe 

a. 109 E. Palace Ave. 

b. La Fonda 

c. Lamy Train Station 

d. Delgado Street Bridge and other spy-related sites 

4. Albuquerque 

a. Oxnard Air Field (Kirtland AFB) 

b. National Atomic Museum 

5. Future considerations 

a. Sculptures, outdoor art, and other monuments to the Manhattan Project 

era that are currently under consideration Insert graphics 2–5 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much for your testimony, and 

again, for your passion. 

I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Tennessee— 

a former member, by the way, of this Committee—for purposes of 

introduction. Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, everybody. I want to thank you all for participating in this great 

hearing. My name is Chuck Fleischmann. I proudly represent the 

great people of the third district of Tennessee, which encompasses 

all of Oak Ridge. We have OR&L there, Y-12, and a very vibrant 

clean-up mission, as well. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to especially thank you for the privilege 

of being back with your committee. I also want to thank you, sir, 

for visiting Oak Ridge recently, and sharing the wonderful history 

and present that we have at Oak Ridge. 
28 

I also want to thank Chairman Hastings and Congressman 

Luja ́n for cosponsoring this legislation. This is wonderful legislation. It is a privilege to be a cosponsor with you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today it is my distinct pleasure to introduce Ray Smith, one of 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee’s most beloved citizens, for his tireless efforts on behalf of so many groups and organizations. Ray writes a 

weekly newspaper column that highlights the rich history and significance of Oak Ridge, and has helped put together TV and video 

documentaries. 

With almost 42 years of service at the Y-12 nuclear security complex, he now serves as the Y-12 historian. Ray has worked tirelessly to help the Manhattan Project National Park become a reality. And I look forward to working with him and hearing from 

him today. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Smith, you are recognized for fiveminutes. 

STATEMENT OF RAY SMITH, RESIDENT, 

OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. I am really pleased to be here and give this testimony. I 

also want to thank you and Congressman Fleischmann and Congressman Luja ́n for sponsoring this bill. 

I am the historian at the Y-12 National Security Complex. I work 

for B&W Y-12, and it is a—on contract to the Department of 

Energy National Nuclear Security Administration. However, my 

testimony today will not be an official statement of my company, 

nor does it represent the official statement from the Department of 

Energy. Ms. Kolb is doing that for us. 

I am going to talk from the perspective of the historian. And it 

is my job to make history come alive. Obviously, I enjoy it. And I 

want to do that while, as you have mentioned, the text of my statement will be included. And it has details in it about what is happening in Oak Ridge today, what the conditions are pertaining to 

the involvement of some of the facilities in the park, and those details are there. But I want to take my time today to give you some 

insights into some of the things we are doing there, and some of 

the things that are so important about reflecting on the history of 

the Manhattan Project. 

So, first slide, please. And I will be showing you some pictures. 

I bring you, first, greetings from beautiful East Tennessee. What 

you see there is the Bear Creek Valley, with Y-12 nestled down in 

the base of that valley with Pine Ridge on one side, Chestnut Ridge 

on the other, a very beautiful setting. 

Next slide, please. I want you to know that without this man, Ed 

Westcott, we in Oak Ridge would not have nearly the information, 

nearly the capability to show our history as we do because of Ed. 

He was hired as the 27th person in the Manhattan Project. He was 

the only one with a camera. And he freely took pictures of both the 

city and of the sites during that time. So we owe a lot to Ed. 

Next slide, please. The alpha calutron magnets are in building 

9731. It is the first building completed on the site. These are the 

only alpha calutron magnets in the world. They are there with the 

express ability to show the people—when you walk into that room 
29 

and see those large magnets you understand. They also help to 

produce nuclear medicine. The first isotopes that were separated to 

become nuclear isotopes were in that calutron. They also had 67 

tons of silver that was there for a number of years. It operated 

until 1974. So very historical. 

Next slide. But what I want to tell you is just two or three stories, very quickly, the first one about a fourth-grade class that I 

was speaking to, and I talked for 45 minutes. Lunch time came, the 

young lady said, ‘‘Mr. Smith’’—and one of the students said, ‘‘Mr. 

Smith, if we go get our lunch and come back, will you keep talking?’’ And I said, ‘‘It is up to your teacher.’’ And of course, she said, 

‘‘Sure.’’ Well, they did. They went and got their lunch, they came 

back. And I talked for another 45 minutes. They were interested 

in and wanting to know about that. 

Second, we have completed a documentary called, ‘‘A Nuclear 

Family.’’ It has been very well received. It is 4 30-minute episodes. 

It was shown on National Public Television. And people are clamoring to get those DVDs. I have run out, I have had to order more. 

But it is—if well done, that history conveys to the next generation. 

And the oral histories, the people are in their nineties. We need 

to get them now. And the Y-12 History Center is ready at this time 

to receive visitors, and does so on a routine basis. So we already 

have some of the things that we need. 

Last slide, please. This one is Ed Westcott. If you look closely, 

Ed is in that second picture, the remake of the shift change. The 

first picture is one that he made. We remade it as the ending to 

the nuclear family. We have them walking away from the highly 

enriched uranium materials facility, where in the other one they 

were walking out of the plant. And when we asked Ed if he would 

come back—now, Ed is 90 years old, we celebrated his birthday 

just a few months ago, but we put him in the picture. He is standing there, and everyone else is walking by him. And Ed was delighted to be a part of that. 

Thank you very much for letting me testify to this bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

Statement of Ray Smith, Y–12 Historian, An employee of B&W Y–12 LLC, 

the managing and operating contractor for the Department of Energy 

National Nuclear Security Administration’s Y–12 National Security 

Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on H.R. 5987 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is my pleasure to have been invited by to testify on H.R. 5987, a bill to establish the Manhattan Project National 

Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico and Hanford, 

Washington. I also want to thank Congressmen Doc Hastings, Chuck Fleischmann 

and Ben Luja ́n, sponsors of this bill. 

I am Ray Smith, the B&W Y–12 Historian at the Y–12 National Security Complex 

in Oak Ridge, TN. 

My career at Y–12 spans 41 years, much of that time spent managing the maintenance and support of production operations at the nation’s Uranium Center of Excellence, the Y–12 National Security Complex. Over time, I have had maintenance 

responsibility for every building on the site. 

For the past six years, I have been the B&W Y–12 Historian and have focused 

my energies on helping to capture the heritage of Y–12 and present it in ways that 

Y–12 employees as well as the public can appreciate. The Y–12 History Center, multiple video documentaries, video oral histories and weekly newspaper articles have 

been among the varied mediums and methods I have used. 

My relationship with the concept leading ultimately to this bill began prior to the 

special resource study on several Manhattan Project sites for possible inclusion in 
30 

the National Park System. National park status for Oak Ridge has long been a 

dream of historians in the East Tennessee area. We understand the value the National Park Service brings to an area’s history—they understand how to properly interpret the people stories and the significant cultural influences. 

In the midst of Appalachia in East Tennessee, in 1942, General Leslie R. Groves 

and his Manhattan Project transformed Bear Creek Valley, Bethel Valley, Black 

Oak Ridge and East Fork Valley into a 60,000 acre military industrial experiment 

like none other ever conceived in the history of the world. First ever experiments 

soon were just run of the mill industrial activities and separating Uranium 235, 

something the rest of the scientific world knew was possible, but did not have the 

resources to accomplish, was being routinely done on a huge scale, using young 

women right out of high school! 

Those ‘‘Calutron Girls’’ represents but one of the amazing historical stories that 

exist in the Manhattan Project history. The ‘‘Calutron’’ itself, simply a name taken 

from ‘‘California University Cyclotron’’ as it was invented by Ernest Lawrence of 

the Radiation Laboratory at Berkley CA, can be explained simply and once understood puts the whole process of uranium separation within the grasp of even young 

children, as I have seen in classrooms with fourth grade students. 

The Manhattan Project National Historical Park is about the feats of scientific 

and engineering accomplishments developed at a unique time in the history of our 

country. Our back was against the wall, the world was at risk by a war that had 

grown into a worldwide conflagration. The Manhattan Project National Historical 

Park will tell all sides of the story of what occurred at Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and 

Hanford as well as Japan. 

At Y–12 there are two buildings that contain Manhattan Project electromagnetic 

separation equipment and artifacts. If a number of issues surrounding them can be 

successfully addressed such as cost, feasibility and security related issues, eventually both these buildings may potentially be considered as candidates to be included 

in the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. 

First, Building 9731, the first building completed on the site and used as the Radiation Laboratory’s Pilot Plant with two large Alpha (first stage) electromagnetic 

separators and two Beta (second stage) electromagnetic separators. The building 

holds two sets of huge magnets that have been designated as Manhattan Project 

Signature artifacts and has become a symbol of Y–12’s heritage. 

Second, Building 9204–3, also known as ‘‘Beta 3,’’ designated by the Department 

of Energy as a Manhattan Project Signature Facility, is one of nine large buildings 

constructed during the Manhattan Project to house the Alpha and Beta Calutrons. 

The magnets of four Calutrons in Building 9731 remain, have been recently repainted, and the entire building is being restored to its original condition. A tour 

route has been created through the building that features both sets of magnets as 

well as three nuclear weapons trainers and a display glove box allowing docents to 

bring the history of Y–12’s missions alive for the tour participants. 

The two Alpha magnets in Building 9731 are the only ones that exist and stand 

well over 20 feet tall. Standing next the huge magnets can give the visitor an overwhelming feeling of the power contained in the world’s largest magnets at the time 

that once contained 67 tons of silver in the windings because of a shortage of copper 

during the war. 

Both of these buildings are located inside the Y–12 National Security Complex 

and at present are only accessible with special security arrangements. Both have 

been visited by the public, with special arrangements, and without exception, the 

visitors have been amazed at the authentic ‘‘1945 atmosphere’’ of being near the actual equipment inside the actual buildings of one of the sites where the world’s most 

significant technological advancement took place. 

Visiting Building 9731, having already been prepared as a tour site that is routinely accessed by Y–12 business related tours, special school groups, area leadership groups, elected officials and official visitors, is like stepping back in time to 

1945. It is also open to the public through tours provided by Y–12 as part of Oak 

Ridge’s Secret City Festival on Saturday of the third weekend in June of each year. 

This past year, the third year of the building being included in the Y–12 public 

tour on Saturday of the festival, there were 739 visitors from 22 states. Reaction 

by the visitors remained highly complimentary for the opportunity to visit an authentic World War II relic facility and one with a Cold War and medical isotope association as well. 
31 
32 

Building 9204–3 (Beta 3) is less accessible at present than is Building 9731, as 

it is located in a more secure portion of the site. It contains more authentic equipment and larger historic displays including a Calutron simulator as well as examples of actual working control rooms, standby electromagnetic separators, cleaning 

stations and all necessary support that was used to maintain the World War II 

equipment in operation until 1998 separating stable isotopes and remaining in 

standby today. This building is currently not available for public access and may 

not be available for a number of years because of the complexity of the issues to 

be resolved, the potential high cost of preparing the facility for park status and 

other uncertainties. In fact the security access issue may be resolved before other 

potentially more costly issues can be successfully addressed. 

Additionally, Y–12 has the Y–12 History Center in the New Hope Center. This 

modern history museum and exhibit display area is being remodeled. The facility 

is being converted from an open space where historic artifacts have been on display 

for the five years the New Hope Center, Y–12’s official Visitor Center and public 

access area, has been in existence, to a new museum and multipurpose media room. 

The major renovation is complete. A request for proposals is being created for the 

museum exhibits to be designed and installed. A theme that coincides with the recently completed documentary film series, A Nuclear Family, is being used to feature the highlights of Y–12’s history in interactive video based exhibits. 

The new museum contains the John M. Googin Y–12 History Research Library, 

the Ed Westcott Video Theater and a large artifact exhibit area. A large timeline 

mural is being installed in the main entrance lobby and will include the media room 

and history center in the same theme. 

Artifact displays and video stations are also included in the side lobby and atrium 

making the New Hope Center a central display area for Y–12 history. This public 

access area including the Y–12 History Center can immediately be included in the 

Manhattan Project National Historical Park attributes. 

Y–12 is important to the Manhattan Project National Historical Park because it 

is one of a set of Manhattan Project elements located in close proximity in East Tennessee. In addition to Y–12 there are two other major Department of Energy facilities in Oak Ridge, TN. 

The X–10 site, or the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the K–25/East Tennessee Technology Park site exist today. A fourth site (S–50) existed during the 

Manhattan Project only. The city of Oak Ridge is also an integral part of the history 

of the Manhattan Project in East Tennessee and all together these sites and the city 

form the basis of the reason to locate a portion of the Manhattan Project National 

Historical Park here in East Tennessee. 

My primary focus for this testimony is Y–12. However, Y–12’s presence in Oak 

Ridge, along with two other Manhattan Project era facilities that are nearby, enhances its historical value. 

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, known during the Manhattan Project as ‘‘X– 

10,’’ is home to The Graphite Reactor, a National Historic Landmark (designated in 

1966) that served to prove the principle of producing plutonium in an industrial size 

uranium reactor. This reactor also functioned until 1963 to produce many of the nation’s medical isotopes and other useful scientific studies and products. 

The Graphite Reactor has been designated by the Department of Energy as a 

Manhattan Project Signature Facility and is a primary candidate to be considered 

to be included in the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. However, access 

is limited now and may remain so for some time into the future. 

The East Tennessee Technology Park, known during the Manhattan Project as 

the ‘‘K–25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant,’’ served the nation for 40 years. The plant producing highly enriched uranium that even today remains in the nation’s inventory 

as well as lower enriched uranium for nuclear power reactors and research reactors 

around the world. 

The highly enriched uranium needed to win the Cold War was produced by the 

same K–25 process building that has been designated by the Department of Energy 

as a Manhattan Project Signature Facility. This historic building, largest building 

in the world under one roof in 1945 at 44 acres, is being demolished and a small 

section of the building will be replicated on site for inclusion in the Manhattan 

Project National Historical Park. 

A fourth facility, no longer existing (only a pile of bricks that have been saved 

from the smoke stacks remain) was the S–50 Thermal Diffusion Plant. It was located at the K–25 site near what was the world’s largest steam powered electrical 

generating plant in 1945. S–50 is credited with shortening World War II by approximately three weeks as it provided slightly enriched uranium feed material to Y–12’s 

electromagnetic separators or Calutrons. 
33 

In addition to the three government sites, the city of Oak Ridge has assets that 

will contribute to the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. The Guest 

House/Alexander Inn is among the most historic structures in the Manhattan 

Project. It is in a sad state of disrepair now, but has been included in the latest 

draft of a memorandum of agreement for historic preservation of the K–25 site at 

East Tennessee Technology Park as an alternative historic preservation initiative 

complimentary to the other historic preservation actions. 

Other portions of the historic city of Oak Ridge may well serve as integral parts 

or guided tour portions of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, such as 

the Chapel on the Hill (first church), alphabet houses, Midtown Community Center, 

Jackson Square Town Site, the Children’s Museum of Oak Ridge, the Oak Ridge 

Public Library’s Oak Ridge Room and Center for Oak Ridge Oral History and the 

especially appropriate American Museum of Science and Energy. 

The museum has been the mainstay of Oak Ridge Manhattan Project and other 

related history exhibits since March 19, 1949, when the secret city of Oak Ridge was 

opened to the public for the first time as the gates to the main roads were removed. 

That same day, the American Museum of Atomic Energy, as it was known until 

1978, opened its doors for the first time and welcomed visitors. 

When the museum moved to its present location it also changed its name to the 

American Museum of Science and Energy and expanded its mission for exhibits and 

focus to a broader energy related theme. However, it kept its role as a primary 

source of Oak Ridge history. 

Today, the museum is the hub of tourist activity in Oak Ridge, being the first stop 

for most visitors and a must stop for all visitors. The museum’s Oak Ridge Room 

is THE place where visitors first understand the unique history of the people who 

were notified first through a phone call from their Senator Kenneth McKellar to the 

Oliver Springs High School principal telling him to tell the students to go home and 

tell their parents about the coming changes in their neighborhoods. Lester Fox, still 

living today, swears that is the way the 3,000 people living in New Hope, 

Robertsville, Elza, Scarboro and other small communities in this area first learned 

that 60,000 acres would be used for the Manhattan Project that would become Oak 

Ridge. 

The Manhattan Project National Historical Park, Oak Ridge location, will need a 

central location for operations. At present the American Museum of Science and Energy has been designated by the Oak Ridge Convention and Visitors Bureau’s June 

2007 heritage tourism master plan, Creating the Living Story of ‘‘The Secret City,’’ 

as the recommended hub of a ‘‘hub and spoke’’ strategy for the city and government 

sites heritage tourism. 

A more recent recommendation by the city has a combination of a new facility 

that would tie the Oak Ridge Public Library and the American Museum of Science 

and Energy into a single comprehensive Manhattan Project National Historical Park 

Interpretive Center. This concept is being studied and funding sought to realize the 

full potential of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park’s presence in Oak 

Ridge. 

Additional features in Oak Ridge already functioning with history related aspects 

that would complement the Manhattan Project National Historical Park are the Secret City Commemorative Walk—a self guided walking tour of plaques describing 

the seven years that Oak Ridge remained a ‘‘Secret City,’’ the Children’s Museum 

of Oak Ridge with its Ed Westcott Room of photographs that display the history of 

early Oak Ridge and the International Friendship Bell. 

The Secret City Commemorative Walk is centrally located near the Oak Ridge 

Public Library and the American Museum of Science and Energy as is the International Friendship Bell and are all in easy walking distance. The Children’s Museum of Oak Ridge is located near the center of the city atop Black Oak Ridge at 

the corner of Highland Avenue and West Outer Drive. 

Additionally, the city of Oak Ridge was designated as a Preserve America Community by the National Park Service in 2006. This designation is proudly displayed 

on signs at key locations within the city. Recently the city and the Oak Ridge Heritage and Preservation Association completed a project that commemorates the ‘‘Birth 

of the City: The History of Oak Ridge, Tennessee’’ by installing four large historical 

plaques near the entrance of the city’s municipal building that explain the process 

used to establish the City of Oak Ridge government. 

All these attributes are cited to illustrate that Y–12 exists within a much larger 

context. Oak Ridge has prepared the way for the Manhattan Project National Historical Park and is ready to move to the next level of heritage tourism. The Department of Energy has the responsibility to interpret the history of the sites where 

they have served the nation’s various needs over the years, but the National Park 

Service has the expertise to do this task well. Therefore the partnership being 
34 

formed in the Manhattan Project National Historical Park will demonstrate the 

value of such partnerships. Additionally, the Park Service is venturing into the 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education by directive 

of a recent study indicating the mission of the 21st Century National Park Service 

should move in the direction becoming more of a contributor to practical learning 

and education. The Manhattan Project National Historical Park may well become 

the cutting edge of this new direction of the park service. We already have a great 

start at Y–12 and welcome the challenge to be the pacesetter for change toward 

STEM educational support in practical and tangible methods that involve the actual 

locations where the world’s most significant scientific accomplishment took place, 

and where much is still taking place today. 

The history of Y–12 can be fully utilized by bringing students to the site of the 

most historic technological achievements in the history of the world to understand 

STEM education! With the inclusion of the other DOE sites and the cities of Oak 

Ridge, Los Alamos, and Hanford, this is far beyond the realm of a standard national 

park and the Manhattan Project National Historical Park may become the national 

park of the future. 

The recently completed congressionally authorized National Park Service study 

recommended that the best way to preserve and interpret the Manhattan Project 

and resulting technological advances is for Congress to establish a national historical park at the three sites where much of the critical scientific activity associated 

with the project and later advances occurred: Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and Hanford. 

As Congressman Doc Hastings declared, ‘‘There is a sincere and shared desire by 

Chairman Bingaman, Senators Murray and Cantwell, and our colleagues to establish the Park, and we’ll continue working together with local advocates to accomplish our goal of ensuring these remarkable pieces of our history are preserved to 

tell the story of the Manhattan Project.’’ 

This comment represents substantial interest in what may well be the single most 

significant scientific and industrial event in the entire history of the world. The locations where it occurred are being recognized for their contributions through this 

legislation to create a Manhattan Project National Historical Park. 

Oak Ridge Mayor Tom Beehan, Chairman of the Energy Communities Alliance 

has included in his statement to the Senate hearing on S–3300, ‘‘Among the biggest 

advocates of the National Historical Park are the people who worked at the three 

sites during World War II. It is important to remember that no one in our country 

knew what the workers were building at the sites—they were truly ‘‘Secret Cities.’’ 

Most of the young men and women working in these communities did not even know 

what the project was. These were among the nation’s best and brightest citizens 

from all walks of life.’’ 

Beehan continued, ‘‘National Historical Parks are developed to ensure that we 

protect our country’s assets and open them to the public to learn about our nation’s 

history. We should work to open this park while some of the Manhattan Project Veterans are still alive and able to see the recognition of their work recognized by our 

nation. These people played a valuable role in ending World War II and defending 

not only the United States but also democracies throughout the world. These true 

heroes, who dedicated their wartime service to the Manhattan Project, appreciate 

the legislation developed by your committee.’’ 

The National Park Service interprets all historical sites and attempts to address 

all view-points to give a full and fair picture and we in Oak Ridge support such actions by the National Park Service. We look forward to the FULL STORY of the 

Manhattan Project and its subsequent technological advances that have impacted 

our daily lives being interpreted in the most effective manner possible. 

Y–12 is an important part of the proposed Manhattan Project National Historical 

Park, and the legislation could serve as a 21st Century model for the National Park 

Service, one that is based on federal, state and community partnerships. We in Oak 

Ridge look forward to working together with all the parties involved in the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. 

Sincere appreciation is again extended to Congressman Chuck Fleischmann for 

his kind invitation to testify before this subcommittee and also for his sponsorship 

of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Bill, H.R. 5987. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much. I certainly appreciate your 

testimony, all of you. We will now start the question period, and 

I will recognize myself for fiveminutes. 

And I want to ask this to Mr. Petersen, Ms. McClenahan, and 

Mr. Smith, specifically. And you all touched on it a little bit in your 
35 

testimony. But is it fair to say that there is enthusiasm within 

your communities on the establishment—what this legislation will 

establish? And we will start with Mr. Petersen. 

Mr. PETERSEN. The answer, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely. I mean 

the entire community, we have signatures from all four mayors, 

two county commissioners, the port commissioners, on and on, saying this must happen. I mean we are looking forward to allowing 

the community to come out. 

There is a member of your staff, Tim, who was born and raised 

in the Tri-Cities. Tim said that he had never been out on the Hanford site until he became a member of your staff. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Great. 

Mr. PETERSEN. So there are many people in the community who 

have not had the opportunity. There is many people throughout the 

United States. We now have visitors from 50 States and 48 foreign 

countries who have come out to tour B Reactor. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Good. Ms. McClenahan. 

Ms. MCCLENAHAN. In my written testimony I have included a 

letter that was sent to Senator Udall and Senator Bingaman. And 

I believe Congressman Luja ́n also received one from our community 

about the full support. We have a new creative district, an arts and 

cultural district in Los Alamos, which is a state designation. And 

the entire group, which is all the cultural and arts providers and 

organizations, are fully in support and the county council. So, yes, 

very much in support of the park. 

Mr. HASTINGS. And Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. As a matter of fact, we have support from all 

the organizations in the city and on the site. We too have a large 

number of visitors coming. We have a public tour that we run each 

day through the summer. And you have to sign up at 9:00 in the 

morning and the tour leaves at 12:00. And it is a three-hour tour. 

And we fill that bus almost every day. So there is much interest 

in what we have there, the Y-12 History Center open to the public, 

and we are now on tour routes for people who bring tour buses by 

there and come in to see that history center. 

So, yes, sir. Full support. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Good. Well, I just wanted to get that on the 

record. You all alluded to it in your statements. 

Mr. Knox and Ms. Kolb, I want to ask you a question. As you 

know, my preference was to immediately establish a national park. 

Senate has a little bit different version. There is—it has a one-year 

time period for that to be established. Can you give me the assurance that we can meet that time frame of one year? And we will 

start with you, Mr. Knox. 

Mr. KNOX. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We feel confident we can complete the agreement with the Department of Energy within one 

year, and that is what is required to establish the park. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Good. And Ms. Kolb? 

Ms. KOLB. Yes. You have our commitment that, if the time frame 

is one year, we will meet that time frame, working in partnership 

with the Park Service. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Listen. I have to tell you I very much appreciate 

that. Because if all we are trying to do is work out an agreement 
36 

within one year, let’s keep in mind we built the reactor in less than 

a year. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HASTINGS. It seems to me we should be able to—this should 

not be a problem at all, it seems to me. 

Ms. KOLB. That is a very good point. We will keep that in mind. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, again, I simply wanted to get that as part 

of the record. And I do very much appreciate the enthusiasm. 

I might say that Secretary Salazar came out and visited the B 

Reactor. I think it was last fall, I forget the time frame. But when 

you sit in the operator’s chair—and I can just imagine sitting 

there—and then pressing the button—‘‘OK, we’re going hot’’—that 

had to be an incredible feeling at that time, because you didn’t 

know if it was really going to work. And yet you are right in that 

site that it happened. 

But one of the interesting parts of that tour, somebody made the 

observations—and I will paraphrase—well, let’s show the Secretary 

the computer. So we walked around the room, and somebody 

picked up a slide rule. That was the computer that built this reactor. I mean that is how significant this technology is. 

And, Ms. McClenahan, you are exactly right. What we are celebrating with this is the technology that allowed us to accomplish 

another event. 

So, thank you all. I will yield back my time and recognize the 

gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Luja ́n. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, as well. And 

Heather, as—I appreciate it very much in your testimony and that 

of Mr. Petersen, the importance of the conversations of those that 

worked on this site that maybe weren’t directly involved with the 

science and the research. Those are compelling stories that need to 

be told, from the little place that we call home in small communities like Nambe, which is where I live, and Pojoaque and 

Espanola, the surrounding pueblos where much of the workforce 

was recruited and where a lot of the land was acquired. 

How do you think that we can include those stories in the larger 

story that needs to be told? And, you know, I mentioned a young 

lady in my introduction by the name of Mariah Gomez, who is 

doing an amazing research project, who I have had the honor of 

speaking with on several occasions, collecting oral histories and 

doing a lot of the research. So I know that you also have some 

amazing people that you have worked with, with the historical society, but that are also up at the museum that have a lot of this institutional and historical knowledge. Can you talk a little bit about 

that? 

Ms. MCCLENAHAN. Yes, sir. We actually have been working with 

the Bradbury Science Museum, which is run by the laboratory and 

our own organization. We have collected a number of oral histories 

from folks in the Valley, video and just tape recorded, and have 

really been trying to capture those stories. You know, the lady who 

worked for Oppenheimer as his maid, and the people who were 

building the buildings. And, so, a lot of those stories we are working to capture. A lot of the families are realizing that they are losing those stories. And, so, they are getting them themselves, they 
37 

are having people write down their stories, or record them for 

them. 

And so, once we have those stories, I think it will be very important in the park and in our museums to make sure that people can 

see those, and understand that it is not just the story of the great 

scientists. Certainly it is. I mean there were great men who did a 

lot of great work—and women. But there is also this underlying 

story that they couldn’t have done it had they not had these support people. And, so, I think that those stories certainly will be part 

of the story. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Appreciate that. 

Mr. PETERSEN. May I add just a short bit? At B Reactor we actually have docents who are people who worked at the site, and who 

are telling the story. Now, unfortunately, as Ray says, most of 

them are in their late eighties or early nineties, and they are dying 

off. And, so, we are capturing those stories, as well. 

But currently, they are still telling the story directly to the 8,000 

to 10,000 people who come out to the site. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. That is great. That is great. Mr. Smith? And I have 

two other questions, so—— 

Mr. SMITH. This will be very brief. Thank you. We have a gentleman named Martin Skinner who stands by that alpha calutron 

and talks about how he worked it when we bring people through. 

We brought nearly 1,000 people through a couple of Saturdays ago. 

So we also included those oral histories. That is the basis for those 

documentary films. We have 25 of them online that you can go and 

listen to. 

One very quick story. A lady called me—— 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Well, Mr. Smith, we may have to get to that quick 

story. 

Mr. SMITH. Oh, that is fine. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Two important questions that I have. And, Heather, 

can you tell us the importance of why the legislation should consider the use of Federal funds to acquire properties? 

Ms. MCCLENAHAN. That is one of the differences between, I 

guess, the Senate bill and the House bill. And in Los Alamos, our 

community is a little bit different in that the original laboratory is 

mostly gone. But the sites that are left are far away from the 

downtown, because they were doing explosives work and they 

didn’t want to do that close to where they lived. 

The historic downtown, where Oppenheimer and Bethe and those 

gentlemen lived is mostly in private hands. These are private 

homes. And it is close to a lot of other activities that go on: our 

cultural center, Fuller Lodge, those kinds of places. But because 

they are in private homes, there is a concern in our community 

that it—you know, if the Park Service wants to have that centralized visitor center that they recommended, that they may need to 

have the ability to acquire those homes with, you know, monetary 

purchase. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I know that we are 

going through some tough economic times. But hopefully, as we 

move into the future, one, we can get this legislation adopted and 

passed, and then those are conversations that we can still consider 

into the future. And I very much appreciate us getting an oppor-
38 

tunity to have this hearing, but to move important legislation like 

this, to be able to capture these stories. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. I would yield, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HASTINGS. The mere fact that we have three distinct site and 

three distinct States, obviously, nothing—you know, we learn that 

one size doesn’t fit all many times, and this is just one of those examples. And we certainly are willing to work to get through that. 

That is what the intent is of, I think, everybody involved. And I 

thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. McClintock is recognized, if he wishes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Ms. McClenahan, you just mentioned that the 

Federal Government needed the ability to acquire private property. 

Are you talking about seizing it through eminent domain? 

Ms. MCCLENAHAN. No, sir. I don’t think the Park Service has 

seized anything since the 1970s, and I think they have absolutely 

no intention to do that. And I think—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Would this legislation give them the authority 

to do that? 

Ms. MCCLENAHAN. I don’t believe it does. In fact, I think there 

is a clause that, in fact, that it cannot be through that. So—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. The gentleman yield back? Yes. Ms. Tsongas? No 

questions? Mr. Holt? 

Dr. HOLT. If I may—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. Go ahead. 

Dr. HOLT [continuing]. Just very briefly to say, as someone who 

was educated and grew up as a physicist, I think it is really very 

important that we preserve in a national way all of the efforts that 

went into this with historic interpretation that will serve as an 

education in not only how research is done, but why research is 

done. And, in this particular case, how the research was used. And 

I think there are important lessons to be drawn from it that are 

very appropriate to this work. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Gentleman yield? 

Dr. HOLT. And I would—pleased to yield to the Chair. 

Mr. HASTINGS. And that is precisely the idea. When you look at 

this, you know, we tend to forget that we were involved in a war 

and we had no idea what Nazi Germany had, but we knew that 

we had to do something. 

And as Ms. McClenahan pointed out in her testimony, this is 

really a story of the ingenuity of America to respond to a very great 

threat at that time. And that is what the whole intent of this legislation is, is to put it in a historical context, what, in fact, did happen. And, so, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. 

Dr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman. And it is worth pointing out 

in this context that the phrase—the words ‘‘Manhattan Project’’ 

have become part of the American language. And it—and in many 

cases, people use it without an understanding of what the Manhattan Project really was, what it consisted of, its scale, and its importance, and the just enormous advances in science and engineering 

that took place there. 
39 

So, obviously, the details of something like this are tricky with 

multiple States and private ownership and public participation. I 

am not quite sure how we work it all out. But the idea is something that I can strongly endorse. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. The gentleman yield back? 

Dr. HOLT. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, I want to thank the panel very much for 

your participation. Many times there are questions that come up 

later on. And if there are those questions and they are sent to you, 

if you could respond in a timely manner I would very much appreciate. 

With that, I will dismiss the first panel. I would like to call the 

second panel to—and it is a Members panel—to speak on their respective piece of legislation. We have Senator Tom Carper from 

Delaware and Congressman John Carney from Delaware, Mr. 

Chaffetz from Utah, Mr. Denham from California, Mr. Gallegly 

from California, Mr. Pearce from New Mexico, and Ms. Tsongas 

from Massachusetts, and Mr. Turner from New York. 

I recognize that all Members—we all have schedules, and I recognize that. And so—and some of them have imminent schedules, 

and I have been advised of that. So I am going to start. And I recognize that if you finish your testimony and you leave, you are not 

being rude, you are simply trying to accommodate the responsibilities that you have. 

So, with that, we will start with Mr. Gallegly of California. Recognized for fiveminutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I really appreciate the opportunity to be here. And I understand your 

schedule this morning and I will be leaving quickly, and it will not 

be out of anything personal to this Committee that I had the honor 

to serve on for 24 years. 

Thank you for holding this hearing today on H.R. 4109, the Los 

Padres Conservation and Recreation Act. This legislation is the 

product of over two years of negotiations with various stakeholders 

and users of the Los Padres National Forest. As a result of this 

work, I am proud to stand here today and support the legislation 

coming from wilderness organizations, off-road vehicle organizations, local business and ag groups. This type of broad-based coalition is rarely achieved on this type of legislation. 

The groups endorsing H.R. 4109 include the Wilderness Society, 

California Wilderness Coalition, Pew Campaign for America’s Wilderness, Americans for Responsible Recreation Access, American 

Motorcycle Association, Motorcycle Industry Coalition, Ventura 

County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture, and Business, United 

Water Conservation District, Western States Petroleum Association, and the list goes on. 

This legislation will designate approximately 63,000 acres as wilderness, none of which will change anyone’s access to the forest. 

There is no off-road activity in any of this acreage, with much of 

it largely being managed as wilderness already. It will designate 

approximately 89 miles of waterways of wild, scenic, or recreational 
40 

rivers. This includes specific provisions to protect off-road trails 

that use rivers during the dry season, and protections for the California Department of Transportation to adequately maintain a vital 

California highway that travels through the middle of the forest. 

The bill will create 18,000-acre Condor Ridge Scenic Area, locking all current usage of the area and preventing any future development, allowing for the preservation of pristine viewshed of the 

California Coast and Pacific Ocean. In addition, this legislation will 

indefinitely preserve approximately 65,000 acres for off-road vehicle use through the creation of 2 congressionally designated areas. 

Both of these areas are already in use by the off-road community. 

I simply—it will simply be preserving these areas from possible closures in the future. 

This legislation will also allow for a long-awaited exchange to 

occur between the Forest Service and United Water Conservation 

District. This will allow United Water to reduce its operating costs 

at Lake Piru Reservoir, and pass these savings on to my constituents in the form of cheaper water. 

Finally, the legislation will also change the manner in which 

fires will be managed in the forest. Firefighters will be able to continue all suppressive activities within the entire forest, along with 

pre-suppression. And the act will allow for mechanized equipment, 

such as chain saws and bull dozers in the wilderness areas to help 

prevent and fight any fires from spreading throughout the forest 

and on to populated areas. 

This legislation will enhance the Los Padres National Forest for 

all users of all kinds of future [sic], and I urge the Committee to 

mark up this legislation and move it to the Floor as soon as possible. 

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close by adding one other 

comment, and raise another issue that is facing all of us right now. 

And, of course, that is the fires in our national forests. As you 

know, the wildfires are raging through national forest adjoining 

areas throughout parts of Colorado and your home in—well, in the 

home of the—of who I thought was going to be chairing the hearing 

this morning, Mr. Bishop’s home State of Utah. 

Firefighting systems are available to assist putting out these horrific fires, and have already killed one person, destroyed untold 

thousands of homes. As you know, one of the fires has caused the 

evacuation of the Air Force Academy. And I wanted to highlight 

this issue and request your support in urging the Forest Service to 

immediately call up all available units. 

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

time. Thank you for your consideration this morning. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Good. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I recognize the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Tsongas. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NIKI TSONGAS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Chairman Hastings. I want to thank 

you for holding this hearing today, and for providing me the opportunity today to share my remarks on H.R. 5319, the Nashua River 

Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2012, which I introduced in 

April of 2012. And I also want to thank Elizabeth Ainsley Camp-
41 

bell, the Executive Director of the Nashua River Watershed Association, who will be testifying today in support a little later today, 

and to also thank Congressman Olver for cosponsoring this legislation, since one of the towns along the river is in his district. 

The history and development of the towns and cities in the fifth 

district of Massachusetts has been defined by the many rivers that 

course through these unique communities. From the mighty 

Merrimack River that supported the birth of the Industrial Revolution in Lowell, to the Concord River, where a famous shot was 

heard around the world, our rivers continue to play an important 

role in connecting our communities. 

But time and development have not always been kind to these 

rivers. Beginning in the 1700s, and continuing to just a few decades ago, paper, shoe, and textile factories were constructed along 

the Nashua River and many other rivers in the area. The powerful 

currents of the rivers powered the factories and made their success 

possible. But at the same time, the factories were releasing industrial waste right back into the river, polluting the very source of 

their success. 

But in the mid-1960s, the Nashua River was one of the most polluted rivers in the Nation. In fact, the river would change color almost daily because of the inks and dyes released into the river by 

the paper factories. 

But in 1965 one fifth-district resident, Marion Stoddart, realized 

that something had to be done. Ms. Stoddart formed the Nashua 

River Clean-Up Committee to work toward cleaning up the river 

and protecting the land along its banks. Thanks to her work, and 

the continued work of the Nashua River Watershed Association, 

the Nashua River has come a long way. Pollution from the mills 

has been cleaned up. New sewage treatment plants now keep sewage out of the river. And more than 8,000 acres of land and 85 

miles of greenway along the river banks have been permanently 

conserved. I can’t praise enough Marion and all the dedicated residents, volunteers, and association staff who have spent countless 

hours working to make sure the Nashua River can once again be 

an asset to its communities. 

But there is much work to be done. And that is why I, working 

with the Nashua River Watershed Association, introduced a bill we 

are considering at this moment, a bill that would initiate a threeyear study to determine whether roughly 28 miles of the Nashua 

River and its tributaries can be designated as wild and scenic rivers. This study will allow the national park, the Watershed Association, and local governments and stakeholders to work together 

to form a plan to protect the river and make sure that it remains 

a great place for canoeing, fishing, and enjoying the great outdoors. 

Every two through which the river passes, in addition to several 

local environmental organizations, support the adoption of this legislation. And with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

submit their letters for the record. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Without objection, it will be part of the record. 

[NOTE: The letters submitted for the record by Ms. Tsongas 

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

Ms. TSONGAS. So, I urge a proper consideration of this legislation 

today. And I look forward to addressing any questions we may 
42 

have. But I thank you again, Mr. Hastings, for bringing this legislation forward. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Gentlelady yields back. Thank you for your statement. 

I know Mr. Turner has—everybody has a schedule, I understand. 

Not trying to pick sides, but I know Mr. Turner has a time frame. 

So I will recognize Mr. Turner for fiveminutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT TURNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Chairman Hastings. And thank the 

members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify today regarding H.R. 5958, which would rename the Jamaica Bay Wildlife 

Refuge Visitor Center of the Gateway National Recreation Area in 

honor of former New York Senator James L. Buckley. 

Senator Buckley not only represented New York in the Senate, 

he also served our country at the highest levels in all three 

branches of government, as well as the United States Navy during 

World War II. The bill recognizes Senator Buckley’s service to our 

country, and his efforts to create the Gateway National Recreational Area in New York and New Jersey, the first urban park 

space created by the Federal Government. 

Along with his fellow New York Senator, Jacob Javits, Senator 

Buckley had the vision to create a national wildlife refuge in an 

urban area, accessible to the millions of people in New York City, 

as well as the millions of other residents in the metropolitan area. 

In 1970, during his first days in the Senate, Senator Buckley, 

along with Senator Javits, introduced legislation to create Gateway, a more than 26,000-acre area spanning 3 boroughs, and 

stretching all the way to Sandy Hook, New Jersey. Senator Buckley 

was not satisfied with simply being a cosponsor of the bill, he was 

passionate and spoke on the Senate Floor on its behalf. 

This year, as it celebrates its 40th anniversary, Gateway welcomes more than 8 million visitors annually, from historic aircraft 

at Hangar B in Floyd Bennett Field, to America’s oldest lighthouse 

that was established in 1767 in Sandy Hook, New Jersey. 

Gateway offers a piece of history for visitors, and for ornithologists, a glimpse at over 325 species of birds as they stop over on 

part of the Atlantic flyway, which stretches from the north of Canada to the Caribbean. Senator Buckley, an ornithologist himself, 

not only helped provide a rest area for the birds, but a perch for 

his fellow bird watchers. And I am happily in that company. 

Senator Buckley’s environmental interests were not limited to 

New York. He cosponsored the 1972 Clean Water Act, a seminal 

law governing water pollution and contamination. He also cosponsored the Grand Canyon National Park Enlargement Act, which 

protected the majesty of one of our Nation’s greatest natural habitats. 

Senator Buckley was also eloquent by pointing out how progress 

and the environment can evolve together. He stressed that we 

should concentrate on developing environmental programs at 

achievable rates and costs by saying we must learn how modern 

technology can co-exist with the natural world. 
43 

I understand the National Park Service believes there should be 

a strong association between the park and the person being commemorated, and at least five years should have elapsed since the 

death of that person. This bill satisfies the first belief. I think Mr. 

Buckley has demonstrated his involvement and commitment in 

this. And I am sure that you may agree that Mr. Buckley should 

not be penalized for his longevity. He is in his 89th year. 

So, I hope you will join me in renaming the Jamaica Bay Wildlife 

Refuge Center after someone who served to protect his State, his 

country, and the environment. This is a fitting tribute to a man 

who spent most of his life sharing his intellect and his talent to 

serve others. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I thank you very much for your testimony. 

And next we will recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Denham, for his statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF DENHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing up this bipartisan bill. As you will remember, not only do I represent the 

great area of Yosemite, but my predecessor, George Radanovich, 

had an interest in this, as well. This is a bill that I am proud to 

sponsor. 

Very closely aligned with the bill that is under—or that Congressman Radanovich had introduced previously, but basically it 

takes Yosemite National Park, allows them to purchase 18 acres, 

which will take out the administrative accounting some of the jobs 

outside of the park, where you have people that are commuting 

over an hour drive every day each way. We need to have the park 

available to those that are working there and need to be in there 

on a daily basis, and move those that aren’t in the day-to-day business outside of the park, which will actually give us an opportunity 

not only in safety and less cars on the road and in the park, but 

actually create jobs within Mariposa County. 

This land—this bill is supported by all of—many local interests, 

including Supervisor Cann, who is here to testify today. Some of 

the supporters are also the Yosemite Conservancy, local elected officials, Mariposa and Madera Counties, park enthusiasts, National 

Park Service, the Mariposa Tourism Board, and the local Chamber 

of Commerce. 

The bill simply allows Yosemite National Park to acquire this 

parcel of land already held by the Yosemite Conservancy, a private 

citizen that is holding the property for the very purpose. The VFW 

and PG&E all are willing participants in this acquisition. And this 

bill specifically prevents any governmental taking of land for this 

purpose. 

In my discussions with the Park Service, this land acquisition 

will be paid for through the proceeds received by the park. The legislation will allow the park to provide better access to more than 

four million visitors, annually. Through this bill, Yosemite will be 

better equipped to manage the traffic and the continuing rise in the 

guest attendance at the park, providing more access, resulting in 

the park not having to turn people away at the gates, as they often 

do now. 
44 

Thank you again for allowing me to bring this bill up today and 

have it heard today in the Committee. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the gentleman for his statement. Now we 

have the Delaware Duo. We have two-thirds of the congressional 

representation here. 

And I am going to recognize Mr. Carney to make a determination 

who goes first, whether it is him or Senator Carper. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN CARNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Carper asked 

me to go first, so I will take the honors. I appreciate—— 

Mr. HASTINGS. Well, we will ask him if he confirms that when 

you give him a chance to there. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CARNEY. That is right. As a former Member of the House, 

a long-serving Member of the House, he has deferred to the lower 

chamber in this instance. 

I am delighted that you are holding the hearing this morning. I 

thank you for the opportunity to share a few thoughts with you. 

As the at-large and only congressman for the State of Delaware, it 

is my pleasure to speak to you on H.R. 624, the First State National Historical Park Act. 

Though Delaware was the first State to sign the Constitution 

and join the Union, she is the only State that does not have a national park. For the better part of the past decade, though, officials 

at every level of government in our State have worked with community members and activists to craft a proposal and a theme for 

a national park that is both appropriate for and unique to our 

State. 

In fact, one of the George W. Bush Administration’s final acts in 

January of 2009 was to issue a National Park Service Special Resource Study, which concluded that a national park should be established in Delaware. The Park Service has recommended a ‘‘partnership park’’ celebrating Delaware’s early Dutch, Swedish, and 

English settlements, and the events leading up to the State’s role 

in the founding of our Nation. 

In acknowledgment of all the hard work that has gone into this 

process, I was honored to pick up where my predecessor, Congressman Mike Castle, left off. In February of last year, I reintroduced 

the House companion to my friend Senator Carper’s legislation, 

S. 323. This iteration addresses questions and concerns raised during a legislative hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last Congress. H.R. 624 gives clear authority to 

the Park Service to negotiate site administration rights with site 

owners. It also designates historically significant sites in all three 

of Delaware’s counties. 

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Parks Subcommittee 

held a hearing on S. 323 in May of 2011. The full Committee 

marked it up favorably in November. And with your support I look 

forward to helping the House companion legislation move forward. 

Working together with Senator Carper, with Senator Chris Coons, 

I will continue to strive to bring this project to fruition. 
45 

Thank you again for holding this hearing today. I greatly appreciate your help in establishing a park in the State of Delaware. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I appreciate the gentleman’s testimony, and am 

very pleased to welcome Senator Carper back to this, the other side 

of the Rotunda. The gentleman is recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM CARPER, A UNITED STATES 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. It is great 

to see you. And I want to say again on behalf of Congressman Carney and myself, thanks for meeting with us to give us an opportunity to hear about the proposed national park, which, as John 

says, has been endorsed by not one administration, the current Administration, but also by the previous Administration. And we appreciate the great cooperation we had from Dirk Kempthorne, 

when he was Secretary of the Interior, and from Ken Salazar and 

his folks today. 

But I want to note, as John has, that our bill has been reported 

in the Senate out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee, and we hope that this Committee will quickly do the 

same. 

If adopted, this legislation would establish the first national 

park, as Congressman Carney has said, in the State of Delaware. 

We are the only State in the Union without a national park. We 

are the first State to ratify the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, for one 

whole week, Delaware was the entire United States of America, 

and we still are the only State without a national park. 

Sometimes people ask me what is the big deal about it, why do 

you want a national park so bad, and I would just say that the 

Chair of this Subcommittee is—Chairman Bishop, he is not here 

today. But his State, Utah, received in 2010 something like $617 

million worth of economic development activity benefits from their 

national parks, $617 million. The Ranking Member of this Subcommittee is Congressman Grijalva. And Arizona received over 

$700 million in economic activities. I think the State of 

Washington, I believe, was a little over $200 million, about $264 

million in 2010. So these are important considerations, as well, for 

us. 

But from Aulavik National Park to the Boston National Historic 

Park, national parks across 49 States tell an important story of our 

Nation’s history and culture. Every year, millions of Americans and 

visitors from other countries plan their vacations around their nations’ national park system. I was surprised to learn last year that 

the top tourist destination for people around the world, when they 

come to America, is to visit our National parks. Just think about 

that. Number one. And, as a result, these parks provide valuable 

economic tourism dollars, which I have described already. 

The first State, though, to ratify the Constitution, the first State 

of the Union, the State in which the Swedes, the first Finns came 

ashore, the first Dutch colonial settlement was established, where 

William Penn came ashore to establish the colony of Penn, which 

included, at the time, Delaware, all those things are part of our 

State’s history. And yet we have no national park. We may be 

small, but our national park was crucial to the birth of our great 
46 

Nation. And unfortunately, our State’s unique story is not being 

told. 

The First State National Historical Park of 2011 would create a 

park celebrating early American Dutch, Swedish, and English settlements located throughout Delaware, and Delaware’s role in leading—the events leading up to the ratification of our Constitution. 

This theme, built on an effort ongoing in my state for just about 

a decade—when it first came to the Senate, I knew Delaware had 

a rich history, a history that had yet to be told in any of our national parks. However, I was unsure what a national park in Delaware would look like. 

That is why, in 2002, I tasked a commission composed of Delaware State citizen leaders, activists, community leaders, State officials, to work together on a draft proposal for a park that could be 

embraced by the people of Delaware. And that proposal was finalized in 2004. I want to thank everybody that was a part of that 

effort, and particularly the commission and its late leader, Dr. Jim 

Soles, who was a mentor to both Congressman Carney and myself. 

But in part—thanks, in part, to the work of the commission in 

2006, Congress authorized a National Park Service Resources 

Study to examine the need for a national park in Delaware. The 

National Park Service used the commission’s proposal as the starting point for their own study. In January of 2009, the National 

Park Service finalized its study and agreed that, at long last, Delaware should have a national park, one of the last acts taken by the 

Bush Administration, as President George W. Bush left office. 

We took a majority of the suggestions by the Park Service, put 

them together in the legislation that is before you today. And not 

only will the Delaware national park tell an important story, but 

it will tell the story at a very low cost to taxpayers. We are told 

National Park Service has estimated that this park, if approved, 

will be one of the least expensive national parks in our national 

park system. 

We have also ensured that the Federal footprint of this park will 

be small, and given owners of the seven listed sites numerous options to be part of the park. Our legislation allows an owner of a 

site to reject an offer from the Park Service if they cannot come to 

an agreement with the Park Service that meets their needs. 

In closing, let me just add that Delaware may be small, but our 

little State was crucial to the birth of this great Nation. We believe 

we deserve the right to tell our story, which is really America’s 

story. I hope in the near future visitors far and wide will come to 

Delaware to hear our story, to learn our story through our national 

park. And I hope that the many visitors will end up returning to 

their own homes with lasting memories of how our small State 

helped launch the most enduring experiment in democracy the 

world has ever known, the United States of America. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. 

Mr. BISHOP [presiding]. Thank you, Senator. We are happy to 

have you on the true side of the Capitol here. 

We will next turn to Representative Pearce of New Mexico for 

your bill. 
47 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEVE PEARCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Holt. Like Mr. Gallegly, I used to be a member of the Committee 

until my grade point average fell too low to maintain that membership. But I am trying to get it back up. 

Members of the Subcommittee and Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for holding this hearing, and for inviting me to testify in support of H.R. 4334, the Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act. 

The Organ Mountains are a true natural treasure in Southern 

New Mexico, and one of our State’s most pristine, recognizable 

sites. Everyone believes that they must be preserved, and that is 

the intention of this bill. One of the most important aspects of this 

legislation is the strong local support for its end goal. It is imperative that any land management declaration have the backing of the 

local community. Ranchers, conservationists, public officials, and 

business owners have strong agreement with the aims of this bill. 

The Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce is supportive, 

and I would ask unanimous consent to insert into the record their 

letter of support. 

[No response.] 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Two witnesses you will hear from today, Dr. 

Jerry Schickedanz and Matt Rush, live and work in the community 

and have played a key role in garnering support for H.R. 4334. It 

is a local solution. Unfortunately, we see the ramifications of monument declarations by Presidential edict, and the effect that they 

have not only on the economic base of a community, such as the 

ongoing dispute over cattle grazing in the Grand StaircaseEscalante Monument in Utah, but a declaration with little public 

input causes a strain and cynicism between individuals and the 

Federal Government to fester. 

The U.S. Constitution grants the power to determine land management plans to the legislative branch under Article IV. This constitutional authority lends more credibility to the legislative process as a mechanism for making monument and other determinations. It serves as a check on the Federal Government and keeps 

it from abusing local authorities. The legislative process is a highly 

democratic method of making decisions with long-term policy implications. 

It is in this spirit that I sponsored H.R. 4334. It protects the 

Organ Mountains permanently from disposal. The monument will 

forever be a part of the national landscape conservation system. 

Mineral exploration will be banned permanently. It allows for motorized vehicles to stay on existing roads and trails designated for 

their use, allowing the elderly, families with small children, and 

the disabled to access this pristine area. It also allows for the use 

of mechanized equipment for standard ranching operations, and to 

make repairs to earthen dams for the sake of our watersheds. 

The agriculture community shows strong support for this legislation, as well. The bill protects current grazing permitees and ensures that future grazing permits will be issued. This injects regulatory stability into an industry that is often times left behind in 

the Washington game of special interest posturing. Our local 
48 

ranchers deserve a regulatory framework that takes their interests 

into account, along with the need to protect our lands. 

Existing water rights are also protected and Federal water rights 

are not expanded. Private land holders who have property surrounding the monument will have access to their land holdings. 

The State Government will continue to have jurisdiction over fish 

and gaming permitting, so that our sportsmen can continue to 

enjoy the outdoors. In short, the bill creates a framework for responsible recreation and expanded access all at once. It protects 

our resources, while guaranteeing that our sportsmen and other 

outdoor recreational activists can enjoy this natural way to the 

greatest extent possible. 

There are currently 12 national monuments in the State of New 

Mexico. In 11 there are no weapons or hunting allowed. This is— 

the hunting right must be protected in any management plan. 

I would ask unanimous consent to insert the rest of my statement into the record, and I have about a one-minute video that 

would show you that a competing plan in the Senate does not comply with the underlying language. Senator Bingaman has introduced a wilderness bill, and I would like to show that video at this 

time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Your statements are entered. Let’s start the video. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. PEARCE. Basically, what is happening, the bill—the bottom 

area shows you the actual map, and the airplane is flying along 

roads that exist in the area. The map above is the one that was 

presented to the Senate Committees, and actually deletes all of the 

roads that are in there. So technically, we feel like—that the wilderness bill that Senator Bingaman has proposed does not comply 

with the wilderness itself. It takes an area of 200,000 acres and 

puts it into wilderness. Our bill is less restrictive, allowing grazers 

to operate. 

And so, again, just the area that we are flying here is different 

areas in the national park that—or in the area suggested as wilderness in Senator Bingaman’s bill. And it just technically doesn’t 

qualify for wilderness designation. 

The—with that, I will yield back the balance of my time and 

thank the Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearce follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Steve Pearce, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of New Mexico, on H.R. 4334 

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

thank you for holding this hearing and for inviting me to testify in support of 

H.R. 4334, the Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act. The 

Organ Mountains are a true natural treasure in Southern New Mexico, and one of 

our state’s most pristine, recognizable sites. Everyone believes they must be preserved. And that is the intention of this bill. 

One of the most important aspects of this legislation is the strong local support 

for its end goal. It is imperative that any land management declaration have the 

backing of the local community. Ranchers, conservationists, public officials and business owners have strong agreement with the aims of this bill. The Greater Las 

Cruces Chamber of Commerce is supportive. Two witnesses you will hear from 

today, Dr. Jerry Schickedanz and Matt Rush, live and work in the community, and 

have played a key role in garnering support for H.R. 4334. It is a local solution. 

Unfortunately, we see the ramifications of monument declarations by presidential 

edict and the effect they have not only on the economic base of a community, such 
49 

as the ongoing dispute over cattle grazing in the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument in Utah, but a declaration with little public input causes the strain and cynicism between individuals the federal government to fester. 

Plus, the US Constitution grants the power to determine land management plans 

to the legislative branch under Article IV. This constitutional authority lends more 

credibility to the legislative process as a mechanism for making monument and 

other determinations. It serves as a check on the federal government, and keeps it 

from abusing local authorities. The legislative process is a highly democratic method 

of making decisions with long-term policy implications. 

It is in this spirit that I sponsored H.R. 4334. It protects the Organ Mountains 

permanently from disposal. The Monument will forever be a part of the National 

Landscape Conservation System. Mineral exploration will be banned permanently. 

It also allows for motorized vehicles to stay on existing roads and trails designated 

for their use, allowing the elderly, families with small children and the disabled to 

access this pristine area. It also allows for the use of mechanized equipment for 

standard ranching operations and to make repairs to earthen dams for the sake of 

our watersheds. 

The agricultural community shows strong support for this legislation as well. The 

bill protects current grazing permittees, and ensures that future grazing permits 

will be issued. This injects regulatory stability into an industry that is oftentimes 

left behind in the Washington game of special interest posturing. Our local ranchers 

deserve a regulatory framework that takes their interests into account along with 

the need to protect our lands. 

Existing water rights are also protected, and federal water rights are not expanded. Private landowners who have property surrounded by the monument will 

have access to their landholdings. The state government will continue to have jurisdiction over fish and game permitting, so that our sportsmen can continue to enjoy 

the outdoors. 

In short, the bill creates a framework for responsible recreation and expanded access all at once. It protects our resources, while guaranteeing that our sportsmen 

and other outdoor recreational activists can enjoy this natural area to the greatest 

extent possible. There are currently 12 national monuments in the state of New 

Mexico. In 11, there are no weapons or hunting allowed. This is a right that must 

be protected in any management plan. 

Another aspect that the federal government must take into account is the need 

to ensure law enforcement personnel can access federal lands in pursuit of criminals 

and for other emergency response needs. The close proximity to the Mexican border 

makes it even more important that we work to keep this area from becoming a drug 

or human smuggling corridor. We see in the Organ Pipe National Monument on the 

Arizona-Mexico border that Park Rangers have to carry weapons, and that tours are 

often limited to the daytime with armed Parks Service personnel guides. Many parts 

of the Monument are kept off limits from American tourists because of the danger 

of running into members of a drug cartel or human smugglers. The environmental 

degradation of these areas caused by gangs leaving trash and human waste behind 

is disturbing and sad for those of us who want to enjoy our natural heritage. Seeing 

what has happened Arizona, and wanting to keep it from happening in New Mexico, 

the Don ̃ a Ana County Sheriff, Todd Garrison, has endorsed H.R. 4334. 

Several potential amendments to the bill have been suggested by citizens in the 

county to enhance the hunting and security aspects of it. I welcome those suggestions, and am happy to accommodate. Similarly, it has been suggested that a name 

change to the Organ Mountains-Cox Family Memorial National Monument be considered. The Cox family is a local ranching pioneer family in Don ̃ a Ana County, and 

has been in the area for more than a century. I would gladly consider such a 

change, along with strengthening recreation language to ensure the greatest amount 

of responsible access. 

Once again, I would like to thank the Chairman, Ranking Member and the rest 

of the Committee members for the invitation today, and your willingness to consider 

the Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act. I look forward to your 

questions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Congressman Pearce, I appreciate doing 

that. You all—first of all, if you would like to stay for questions, 

you may. If you want to join us on the dais, I have only had one 

other person in the history of this Committee that has actually 

taken me up on that offer. I would be pleased to have a second. 

You have a chance of doing it. 
50 

Mr. PEARCE. I am thinking about my future, sir. I guess I will. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chaffetz, sorry to have you waiting this long for 

it. You have an issue with Yucca Mountain, I understand? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. No, not today. That is later. 

Mr. BISHOP. That is later? OK. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Would you introduce the Y Mountain bill for us, 

please? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JASON CHAFFETZ, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Chairman. I am here to testify on behalf of H.R. 4484, which is the Y Mountain Access and Enhancement Act. This was introduced in a bipartisan way, and myself, Mr. 

Faleomavaega, Mr. Flake, and Mr. McKeon introduced this bill, 

which has good, broad community support. I am joined—I know 

later will be testifying the Mayor of Provo. Mr. Curtis will be testifying on behalf of this bill. 

In short, if you go into Utah Valley, and you were to go to Provo, 

Provo is the home to Brigham Young University, one of the largest 

private schools in the State. And on the east side of the city is the 

beginning of what becomes the Y Mountain access trail. Decades 

and decades ago they painted a big Y up on the side of the mountain. It has just really become a fixture in our community. Our people like to hike a trail that takes us up to the Y. Some from the 

University of Utah like to climb that trail and paint it red. We try 

to keep it white down in Utah County. But nevertheless, people 

like to hike the trail. They use it year-round. 

Decades and decades ago, more than 50 years ago, Brigham 

Young University actually used to own about an 80-acre parcel that 

encompassed the Y that is there on the mountain. Now, with this 

bill, that would allow Brigham Young University to purchase that 

80 acres back from the Federal Government. 

So, if you were to go to the trail head and start to follow up the 

trail, the first half of that trip, roughly, you would be on property 

that is owned by Brigham Young University. What they simply 

want to do is be able to purchase that second half of the trail, so 

that there is some continuity. The idea here is that there would be 

better maintenance, better access. It would be better maintained. 

We think there are some safety issues, and what not. 

The bill requires that Brigham Young University must continue 

to allow access as there is today. But you can understand why the 

access issues are such that one-half of the trail owned by one and 

the other half owned by somebody else, there isn’t the continuity 

or the safety issues that are involved there. 

It is a fixture in our community, it is a pride of our community. 

I think everybody wants to see the continued access. But we do believe that this bill would allow people a better experience. There 

will be better maintenance, better control of this to make sure that 

the community of all sorts can enjoy this. The bill legislates or 

mandates that the BYU pay the fair market value for the land, 

that Brigham Young University cover administrative and appraisal 
51 

costs. And we just think that this is a well-crafted bill. It is—we 

are talking about 80 acres. 

We did introduce it in a bipartisan way, and we would encourage 

the community to look at this. I would be happy to answer any 

questions now or in the future about this. But we do encourage the 

passage of H.R. 4484, and appreciate the consideration. 

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

being here. And once again, the same invitation applies to you, if 

you would like to join us here on the dais as we go through your 

bill with the other testimony, we would be happy to have you here. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, you don’t have to. But we would be happy 

to have you here, if you would like to. 

I am going to turn to the Committee and see if there are any 

questions or statements for whoever is not here at this stage of the 

game. 

Mr. McClintock, do you have questions? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, would this be an appropriate 

time to make a statement on one of the measures before us? 

Mr. BISHOP. I will accept that, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we have before us 

today H.R. 3640, that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

acquire 18 acres in Mariposa, California, as the site of a new Yosemite visitors center and administrative office complex. I had the 

opportunity to meet with a group of county officials and business 

leaders earlier this year in Mariposa who were pursuing this 

project as a gateway to Yosemite. 

As Mariposa County Supervisor Kevin Cann will explain to the 

Subcommittee today, the advantages include moving more than 100 

Yosemite employees out of the park, and providing a one-stop center for park visitors to ‘‘get a full park ranger orientation, entrance 

passes, maps, and plan their trip before they enter the park.’’ 

The ultimate goal is to remove as many vestiges of human activity from the park as possible, stopping Yosemite-bound travelers in 

Mariposa, and then bussing them in for day trips. 

I am not taking a position on the bill as yet, but I do want to 

address a number of concerns. 

First among them is whether this plan has been fully vetted locally in Mariposa. A few weeks after I met with Supervisor Cann 

I was invited to a community meeting in Mariposa attended by several hundred Mariposa residents who raised the issue during a 

question and answer session, and expressed strong opposition to 

the project. Among their concerns were why 18 acres was necessary 

for an office complex, what negative impact such a complex would 

have on the quiet ambience of the town, and how the Federal Government could afford to take on new projects during an unprecedented fiscal crisis. I appreciate the Chairman granting my request 

to invite one of the organizers of this meeting to testify today. 

Of all the unresolved issues surrounding this, it is crystal clear 

that a consensus has not yet emerged locally. Second, and more importantly, is the impact of this proposal on park visitors and on 
52 

surrounding gateway communities. Mariposa is 30 miles from Yosemite. Moving employees and visitor services from the park means 

that they will not be available to visitors at the park. 

And Mariposa County is not the only gateway to Yosemite. It certainly serves visitors coming to the west entrance on Highway 140. 

But neighboring Tuolumne County serves as a gateway from the 

north on Highway 120, and Madera County is the gateway to the 

south entrance from the populous Southern California area on 

Highway 41. These counties have not taken a position on this legislation, but have expressed some concern. 

As Madera County Board of Supervisors Chairman Ronn 

Dominici wrote to Congressman Denham on April 10th of this year, 

‘‘As in Mariposa County, Madera County directly benefits from 

tourists traveling to Yosemite National Park. Eastern Madera 

County is comprised of many southern gateway communities, such 

as Oakhurst, who depend almost solely on tourism. The number of 

tourists that visit the park through the south gate entrance, more 

than 1.1 million of the 3.6 million total visitors in 2011, surpasses 

any other gate. Thus, we believe that our county should also be 

considered for any project that utilizes park fees for visitor services.’’ 

I would ask unanimous consent to place that letter in the record. 

Mr. BISHOP. So ordered. 

[NOTE: The letter entered into the record by Mr. McClintock has 

been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Tuolumne County’s government affairs representative voiced a similar concern. By removing visitor services 

30 miles to the west, travelers from both the northern and the 

southern parts of California would be diverted many miles out of 

their way to obtain services that they could otherwise access in the 

park, itself. Moreover, every visitor trip that Mariposa may gain by 

this project is a visitor trip lost to neighboring communities like Sonora and Oakhurst, whose economies are just as depending on Yosemite-generated tourism. 

So, I would hope that these issues can be addressed in a consensus bill that takes into account the wishes of park users, local 

community concerns within Mariposa County, as well as concerns 

of Mariposa’s neighbors that could be devastated, economically, if 

Congress begins picking winners and losers among Yosemite’s gateway communities. 

I thank you for the opportunity to address the issue, and yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Congressman. Mr. Holt, do you have any 

opening comments or questions? 

Dr. HOLT. Yes, if I may. 

Mr. BISHOP. Please, go ahead. 

Dr. HOLT. Just a very brief comment. I noted the testimony of 

the Senator and Representative from Delaware that for a period of 

time they were the United State—and I say, for the court reporter, 

singular—of America. And I think it is appropriate that we find a 

way for the State to have a national park. And I think a lot of good 

planning has gone into this one. 

I know the Chairman often talks about how much Federal land 

there is in his State. It may be that the Federal Government would 
53 

want to take some land in Utah and cede it to Delaware, increase 

the size of the State, give them a national park. But one way or 

another—that was, again, for the court reporter, delivered with a 

wink—the—I think it is appropriate that we try to find a way for 

a good national park presence in Delaware. And I yield back my 

time. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. We appreciate that. We will now turn to 

the next panel who is here, and talk about H.R. 4334, the Organ 

Mountains National Monument Establishment Area. 

If I could have Carl Rountree, who is the Director of the National 

Landscape Conservation System in BLM come up here, as well as 

Jerry Schickedanz, who is the Chairman of the People for Preserving our Western Heritage, Matt Rush, the Executive Vice 

President of the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, and Bill 

Garrett, a Commissioner in District 1 in Don ̃ a Ana County. I hope 

I pronounced the county right. Mr. Schickedanz, I hope I pronounced your name correctly. At least that is what you would say 

in German, anyway. If we had those gentleman come up here, I 

would appreciate it. 

Mr. SCHICKEDANZ. It took my brother to the second grade to 

learn how to spell it. 

Mr. BISHOP. Gentlemen, we are speaking just for this particular 

bill, the Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act. 

We will start with Mr. Rountree and then just go down the panel. 

I would remind you all once again that you have—your written 

statements are already submitted and included in the record. We 

will be hearing oral testimony. You have the timer in front of you 

there. You have five minutes. I would appreciate you keeping to 

that five-minute limit. The green light means everything is going 

well. The yellow light means you have a minute left. I would ask 

you to please conclude when the red light goes on or before, if you 

want us to be nice to you when we do the questions. 

And, Mr. Pearce, happy to have you here. If you actually want 

to come closer to us, we did bathe this morning. You can sit down 

there at the end, if you would like to. OK, fine. 

Anyway, Mr. Rountree, if you would start, please. 

STATEMENT OF CARL ROUNTREE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM, BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on H.R. 4334, the 

Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act. I will 

briefly summarize my written statement. 

The Department of the Interior strongly supports the protection 

and the conservation of the Organ Mountains in Southern New 

Mexico. This area is a national treasure, deserving the protections 

that come with designation as a national monument. Last year, the 

Department testified in support of S. 1024, the Organ Mountains 

Don ̃ a Ana County Conservation and Protection Act, before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Department 

recommends a number of changes to H.R. 4334, so that we can 

likewise support this bill in the future. 
54 

The Organ Mountains lie to the east of Los Cruces, New Mexico, 

dominating the landscape as they rise some 9,000 feet in elevation. 

Running generally north-south for 20 miles, the steep, needle-like 

spires resemble the pipes of an organ, and are an iconic fixture of 

life in Southern New Mexico. They are a popular recreation area 

with multiple hiking trails, a campground, opportunities for hunting, mountain biking, and other dispersed recreation. The mountain harbors more than 800 plant species, some of which occur nowhere else, and hosts hundreds of species of animals. They also 

contain the traces of ancient people and evidence of the area’s more 

recent past. 

H.R. 4334 would designate 58,500 acres of BLM-managed public 

land in the Organ Mountains National Monument—as the Organ 

Mountains National Monument. Generally, the purpose of this section of a national monument or a national conservation area designation establishes the conservation goals for the unit. In this bill, 

the purpose statement of H.R. 4334 includes resources that are undefined and unnecessary for the conservation of the area. And we 

recommend that they be removed from the purposes section. 

While the BLM supports the continuation of grazing within the 

proposed national monument, grazing and traditional uses should 

not be listed as monument purposes. 

The boundaries established for the Organ Mountains National 

Monument under H.R. 4334 reflect the boundaries that the BLM 

administratively established for the Organ Mountains Area of Critical Environmental Concern, ACEC, in 1993. In the nearly 20 years 

since that ACEC was established, numerous changes on the ground 

and in the local community have resulted in the BLM’s support for 

a larger national monument boundary with a different configuration. We would be happy to work with the sponsor and the Committee to modify the boundaries. 

Finally, section 9 of H.R. 4334 calls for the release of 3 wilderness study areas from WSA status. The BLM opposes this wholesale release, and instead recommends the designation of approximately 19,000-acre wilderness area within the proposed national 

monument, and the release of about 400 acres from WSA status. 

The Organ Mountains are not only a treasure for the State of 

New Mexico, but one of national significance to be protected and 

cherished by and for all of the people of the United States. The Department looks forward to working with the sponsor and the Committee to find solutions to the issues we have raised, so that the 

Organ Mountains get the full protection they so richly deserve. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rountree follows:] 

Statement of Carl Rountree, Assistant Director, Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 4334, Organ 

Mountains National Monument Establishment Act 

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on H.R. 4334, the 

Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act. The Department of the 

Interior strongly supports the protection and conservation of the Organ Mountains 

in southern New Mexico. This area is a national treasure deserving of the protections that come with designation as a National Monument. Last year, the Department testified in support of S. 1024, the Organ Mountains—Don ̃ a Ana County Conservation and Protection Act, before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. S. 1024 provides for the designation of the Organ Mountains as a National 
55 

Conservation Area (NCA) as well as a number of other conservation designations 

in Don ̃ a Ana County, New Mexico. The Department recommends a number of 

changes to H.R. 4334, so that we can likewise support this bill in the future. 

Background 

The Organ Mountains lie to the east of Las Cruces, New Mexico, dominating the 

landscape as they rise to over 9,000 feet in elevation. Running generally north-south 

for 20 miles, the steep, needle-like spires resemble the pipes of an organ and are 

an iconic fixture of life in southern New Mexico. This Chihuahuan Desert landscape 

of rocky peaks, narrow canyons, and open woodlands contain a multitude of biological zones, from mixed desert shrubs and grasslands in the lowlands, ascending to 

Alligator juniper, gray oak, mountain mahogany and sotol, and finally to ponderosa 

pines at the highest elevations. Consequently, the area is home to a high diversity 

of plant and animal life, and excellent wildlife viewing opportunities are present in 

the area. Visitors frequently see golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, peregrine falcons, 

Gamble’s quail, desert mule deer, coyote, cottontail, and collared lizards. Mountain 

lions and other predators are also present, but less frequently observed. 

There are six endemic wildflower species, including the Organ Mountains evening 

primrose. Seasonal springs and streams occur in the canyon bottoms, with a few perennial springs that support riparian habitats. 

The Organ Mountains are a popular recreation area, with multiple hiking trails, 

a campground, and opportunities for hunting, mountain biking, and other dispersed 

recreation. There are several developed recreation areas within the Organ Mountains, including the Dripping Springs Natural Area (formerly known as the Cox 

Ranch) noted for its ‘‘weeping walls;’’ the Aguirre Spring Campground, nestled at 

the base of the spectacular needle-like spires of the Organ Mountains; the Soledad 

Canyon Day Use Area; and many miles of hiking, horseback riding, and mountain 

biking trails. 

H.R. 4334 

H.R. 4334 would designate 58,500 acres of BLM-managed public land as the 

Organ Mountains National Monument. Each of the National Monuments and NCAs 

designated by Congress and managed by the Bureau of Land Management is 

unique. However, these designations have certain critical elements in common, including withdrawal from the public land, mining, and mineral leasing laws; off-highway vehicle use limitations; and language that charges the Secretary of the Interior 

with allowing only those uses that further the conservation purposes for which the 

unit is established. Furthermore, these Congressional designations should not diminish the protections that currently apply to the lands. 

Most of these standard provisions are included in H.R. 4334; however there are 

provisions that require amendment before the Department could support the legislation. Generally, the ‘‘purposes’’ section of a National Monument or NCA designation 

establishes the conservation goals for the unit. In this bill, the purpose statement 

for H.R. 4334 includes two ‘‘resources’’ that are undefined and unnecessary for the 

conservation of the area. Specifically, in section 5, both ‘‘livestock’’ and ‘‘traditional’’ 

are listed as resources to be conserved, protected, and enhanced, along with the 

more standard ‘‘cultural, archaeological, natural, ecological, geological, historical, 

wildlife, watershed, educational, recreational and scenic resources.’’ The inclusion of 

grazing and traditional ‘‘resources’’ in the purpose statement could prevent the BLM 

from adequately managing the area. 

Grazing exists on most of the BLM’s National Monuments and NCAs, as with 

most public lands, and is typically consistent with their management. However, 

grazing is not a stated purpose of any national monuments. Section 6(c) of 

H.R. 4334 mandates that grazing continue in accordance with the same law and executive orders that apply to grazing on other land under the BLM’s administrative 

jurisdiction, and we do not object to this provision. However, National Monuments 

and NCAs are intended for the protection, conservation, and restoration of nationally-significant resources, objects, and values of historic or scientific interest. Establishing livestock as a resource to be conserved and protected within this National 

Monument may, at a minimum, lead to confusion. A more extreme interpretation 

could create conflicting and inconsistent management standards for the grazing of 

livestock within the national monument compared to standards for grazing management on other lands managed by the BLM. This would be problematic from both 

a grazing management perspective, as well as a monument management perspective, and we oppose the addition of livestock as a monument purpose under the bill. 

Likewise, the term ‘‘traditional. . .resources’’ is an ambiguous term which the bill 

leaves undefined. The BLM has concerns about the scope of activities that this 

might include. In summary, while the BLM supports the continuation of grazing 
56 

within the proposed national monument, grazing and traditional uses should not be 

listed as monument purposes. 

The boundaries established for the Organ Mountains National Monument under 

H.R. 4334 reflect the boundaries that the BLM administratively established for the 

Organ Mountains Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in 1993. In the 

nearly 20 years since that ACEC was established, numerous changes on-the-ground 

and in the local community have resulted in the BLM’s support for a larger national 

monument boundary with a different configuration. 

For example, the BLM has made a number of significant land acquisitions in the 

area over the past 20 years, including 400 acres on the east side which make up 

the popular Soledad Canyon Day Use Area. These acquired lands, along with surrounding public lands, should be incorporated into the bill’s proposed monument to 

protect important resources. 

Also, the Army’s Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range borders much of the 

east side of the existing ACEC. Working with the local BLM, the Army has indicated a strong interest in transferring the Filmore Canyon area to the BLM for conservation and protection as part of a larger designation. Additionally, the Army has 

advocated for additional conservation lands on the south and east in order to prevent development adjacent to these army bases. In addition, the Army recommends 

military overflight language (similar to that included in S. 1024) as well as language on the compatibility of current and future military training and testing activities on DoD lands adjacent to the proposed national monument. 

On the south side of the existing ACEC, the BLM advocates both expanding the 

national monument in certain areas to protect important natural and historic resources, and also contracting the boundary in the vicinity of Anthony Gap to provide 

for an expanded utility and transmission corridor outside of a designated national 

monument. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these proposed boundary 

modifications in more detail with the sponsor and the Committee. 

Finally, section 9 of H.R. 4334 calls for the release from wilderness study area 

(WSA) status of three WSAs totaling over 17,000 acres. The BLM opposes this 

wholesale release and instead recommends the designation of an approximately 

19,000-acre wilderness area within the proposed national monument, and the release of about 800 acres from WSA status. The land currently comprising the Organ 

Mountains, Organ Needles and Pen ̃ a Blanca WSAs contains exceptionally high wilderness values. These three WSAs form the heart of the most rugged, isolated, and 

secluded sections of the Organ Mountains. Granite spires and red rhyolite cliffs are 

split by ribbons of green trees providing exceptional scenery for the visitor. This is 

what Congress envisioned when it passed the 1964 Wilderness Act describing areas 

with ‘‘outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation.’’ 

Conclusion 

The Organ Mountains are not only a treasure for the state of New Mexico, but 

one of national significance to be protected and cherished by and for all the people 

of the United States. The Department looks forward to working with the sponsor 

and the Committee to find solutions to the issues we have raised, as well as additional more technical issues, so that the Organ Mountains get the full protection 

they so richly deserve. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Schickedanz, please. 

STATEMENT OF JERRY SCHICKEDANZ, CHAIRMAN, 

PEOPLE FOR PRESERVING OUR WESTERN HERITAGE 

Mr. SCHICKEDANZ. My name is Jerry Schickedanz. I am Chairman of People for Preserving our Western Heritage, a coalition of 

791 businesses in Southern New Mexico. Our mission is to preserve, promote, and protect the farming, ranching, and rural heritage of our western lands. We support H.R. 4334, Organ Mountains 

National Monument Establishment Act. 

H.R. 4334 is a common-sense approach to permanently protecting the Organ Mountains. The picture-perfect backdrop of the 

City of Los Cruces, New Mexico has been an item of local discussion for many years. There have been various proposals for wilder-
57 

ness and national conservation areas that include the Organ Mountains and other outlying areas that have not gained full support, 

but have divided the community. 

The land area addressed by H.R. 4334 has been under BLM administrative protection since the early 1990s as an area of critical 

environmental concern. That includes three wilderness study areas. 

From the earliest attempts to permanently protect the Organ 

Mountains, proposals have grown from 58,000 acres within the Organs to over 600,000 acres throughout Don ̃ a Ana County, which 

would designate over one-fourth of the county as a national monument by Presidential proclamation. 

H.R. 4334 has brought the vision of permanently protecting the 

Organ Mountains back into the realm of reality and common sense. 

This proposed legislation would permanently protect the Organ 

Mountains, a single proposal with universal support throughout 

Don ̃ a Ana County. This legislation would properly conserve, protect, and enhance the many resources within these mountains that 

exist today because of the stewardship provided by the W.W. Cox 

Ranch family for over 124 years. Their love and care of the land 

is evident, and we have an obligation to preserve and protect the 

fruits of their labor. 

We must understand that the Cox stewardship occurred under 

the umbrella of a working cattle ranch, and H.R. 4334 is the only 

pending measure that properly acknowledges that fact. The bill 

would protect livestock grazing within the Organ Mountain National Monument, and allow ranching to continue for the benefit 

and enjoyment of generations to come. 

Lands west of the 100th meridian were settled through the development of natural water and water for windmills, pumps, and 

earthen dams. This bill recognizes and protects those water rights 

which are important to manage the land for livestock, wildlife, and 

recreation. No new roads would be built, unless they are determined by the Secretary to be necessary for the resource protection 

or public safety. Use of motorized vehicles will only be approved for 

the use on designated roads, as determined by the management 

plan. This will allow authorization for motorized vehicle use in 

standard ranching practice and construction and maintenance operation or management of flood control, or water conservation systems. 

Flood water management is of high importance in the desert 

southwest, with the lands being prone to flash floods during the 

monsoon season. Because we have a limited ability to predict the 

future needs, the bill provides for utility rights of way upgrades, 

renewal, and authorization if they meet the standards of NEPA 

and other terms and conditions specified by the Secretary. 

The bill also addresses the protection of other resources the community finds important, such as cultural, archeological, historical, 

and scenic values. I would hope that the merits of this bill will gain 

bipartisan support, and permanently protect our magnificent 

Organ Mountains. 

I have collected over 870 signatures in the last couple of weeks 

in support of this bill and opposing the movement to establish a national monument by proclamation. Therefore, we support the pas-
58 

sage of H.R. 4334 to settle once and for all the permanent protection of the Organ Mountains. 

We would further recommend that the title be changed to ‘‘Organ 

Mountains Cox Family National Monument,’’ as a lasting tribute to 

this stalwart pioneering family, and to the legacy of livestock 

ranching in the Southwest United States. 

I also have brought with me to be entered into the hearing’s 

record a letter from the New Mexico Federal Lands Council in support of this bill. Also, a letter and attached resolutions from the 

Chair of the Don ̃ a Ana County Commission and actions that are 

relative to this bill. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schickedanz follows:] 

Statement of Jerry G. Schickedanz, Chairman, People for Preserving our 

Western Heritage, on H.R. 4334, Organ Mountains National Monument 

Establishment Act 

I am Jerry G. Schickedanz, Chairman of People for Preserving Our Western Heritage (PFPOWH), a coalition of 791 businesses and organizations in Don ̃ a Ana 

County, New Mexico. The organization was formed in November of 2006, after a series of meetings among federal lands stakeholders organized by the County of Don ̃ a 

Ana and the City of Las Cruces to establish consensus on proposed wilderness designation for ten local areas. 

The mission of PFPOWH is ‘‘To preserve, promote and protect the farming, ranching and rural heritage of our western lands.’’ 

We support permanent preservation and protection of the Organ Mountains and 

other special areas in our county. 

We further support H.R. 4334, ‘‘Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act.’’ 

COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS 

During the stakeholder meetings held in 2006 and 2007, participants agreed on 

a list of nine community concerns and expectations for management of our public 

lands. Primary attention was focused on the Organ Mountains. 

1. Retention of open space 

Almost everyone is committed to the preservation of open space. 

2. Provision for planned economic and population growth. 

The population of Don ̃ a Ana County is going to grow. That growth will require 

some federal and state lands to be included within the scope of land use planning. 

3. Unrestricted application of Homeland Security and law enforcement 

activities. 

No prudent leader should tie the hands of law enforcement on or near the Mexican border. 

4. 2Prevention of unlawful use of off-road vehicles. 

Every group and every stakeholder representative supported the prevention of unlawful off-road vehicular traffic. 

5. Continued access for all segments of the public. 

Most participants were opposed to the closing of existing roads on public lands. 

6. Perpetuation of traditional ranching operations. 

There is a growing understanding that in-tact ranch operations are the best mechanism to maintain the viability of open space in the West. 

7. Access for flood control and water capture projects. 

Dona Ana County is part of a desert ecosystem. Most of our annual rainfall occurs 

during the months of July, August and September. Sudden flood, causing downpours 

are common. Our local Elephant Butte Irrigation District has initiated innovative 

measures to control those flood waters, protecting the populated areas from damaging floods by directing the runoff into the irrigation distribution and drain canal 

system where it recharges the Rio Grande aquifer and supplements irrigation water 

under the Rio Grande Compact. These initiatives are at risk under overly restrictive 

federal lands legislation. 
59 

8. Enhancement of wildlife and rangeland health. 

Scientific study has confirmed the improvements to plant and wildlife communities can result from prudently managed livestock grazing programs. Virtually all 

of the permanent water sources available to wildlife in Don ̃ a Ana County, other 

than the Rio Grande, are the result of livestock water facilities developed and paid 

for by livestock operators. 

9. Fidelity of Wilderness. 

Most of the proposed Don ̃ a Ana County Wilderness areas do not meet the fidelity 

standards of wilderness as described in the 1964 Wilderness Act. 

Concerns Generated by other proposals 

While there may have been consensus on community expectations, there has not 

been consensus on how to protect these lands in Don ̃ a Ana County. There have been 

proposals ranging from designating the 58,000 acre foot print of the Organ Mountains as a National Conservation Area, 240,000 acres of wilderness plus 100,000 

acres of national conservation area, to a 600,000 acre proposal of a national monument that would side step the legislative process through a proclamation to be 

signed by the President under the 1906 Antiquities Act. 

It is incredulous to think that there is an active proposal to restrict use on 

600,000 acres without the benefit of public hearings or debate. That proposal will 

impact 59% of the livestock grazing permits and 70% of the range cattle in the county. It would surround 24,000 acres of state trust lands and a large number of private land holdings. There has not been an opportunity for citizens who would be 

impacted to have any input into the proclamation or any type of explanation of the 

economic impacts that a land designation of this magnitude would have on the community of either positive or negative impacts. The New Mexico experience of National Monuments have important impacts that should be addressed (Appendix A). 

H.R. 4334, the Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment, would bring 

the proposals for protecting the Organ Mountains back into perspective and reasonableness. 

How HR4334 Addresses Concerns 

H.R. 4334, in its simplicity, deals with many of the issues surrounding previous 

proposals and narrows the scope of the protection to only the Organ Mountains 

(58,512 acres), instead of a potential 600,000 acres. 

Livestock and Grazing 

The purposes section identifies and names livestock and watershed as resources 

worthy of protection, conservation and enhancement. These are commonly ignored 

in other national monument designations. Grazing of livestock has been a recognized resource and use of public lands since the beginning of the recorded history 

of New Mexico with the first livestock brought to this area in 1598 by Don Juan 

de Onate. Livestock have been part of the landscape, economy and tradition since 

that time and are still important in Don ̃ a Ana County. 

H.R. 4334 would assure the continuation of ranching under the umbrella of this 

national monument, something not common to national monument designation. 

Livestock is recognized as a resource on equal footing with other named resources 

and grazing is specifically noted in Sec 6 (c) for continuation under the jurisdiction 

of the Bureau of Land Management. 

It is worthy to note that one family has continuously owned and operated ranches 

in the Organ 

Mountains since W.W. Cox arrived in 1888 and acquired the San Augustine 

Ranch, named for the San Augustine Peak located within the original ranch boundaries. Over time, and with the help of sons and daughters, Mr. Cox was able to expand his holdings into the Tularosa Basin. During World War II and at a time when 

family members were serving the country in foreign combat zones, one who would 

be lost in battle, the family ceded most of their holdings to the federal government 

for the establishment of White Sands Missile Range and the expansion of Fort Bliss. 

W.W. Cox was a prominent Don ̃ a Ana Count citizen, serving at one time as County 

Treasurer. Members of succeeding generations have played prominent roles in community and livestock organizations. We believe it would be most fitting to recognize 

the contributions of this pioneer family by naming this national monument in their 

honor. 

Water Rights 

Water has been a precious commodity in the settlement of the arid west. Water 

has been used for beneficial purposes in New Mexico prior to the settlement by the 

Spaniards. Coronado’s expeditionary record refers to the cultivation of crops such as 
60 

cotton and corn by the Pueblo Indians of the middle Rio Grande Valley and the watering of livestock from acequias as early as 1582. 

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 and the Gadsden Purchase in 1853 

specified protection of landowners and occupiers, under the laws of Spain and Mexico. Appropriation of water for beneficial use was further clarified in the New Mexico State Constitution in 1911. 

Section 3 of this bill protects the existing water rights of individuals and the 

United States government upon enactment of this act. 

Flood Control 

Massive flood events have occurred along the Rio Grande since the beginning of 

time. Through the years, man has worked to control the flood events and capture 

the valuable water for beneficial use for crops, livestock, and personal use. Early 

day treatments were to build massive dams to capture the flood water and then dispense it out for crop use over a longer period of time following the flood event. This 

method was to block the arroyos and canyons at the mouth. However; this did nothing to prevent the destructive force of flood water and did not address the cause 

of flooding up stream. Current strategy is to work further up the stream beds and 

watershed area with smaller flood control and water spreading structures. This requires the ability to have access up stream to construct flood water dams, maintain 

and repair existing structures and implies the need for vehicle access to accomplish 

the work. 

Section 6 (b) (2) addresses the use of motorized vehicles in the construction, maintenance, operation or management of flood control or water conservation systems. 

Motorized Vehicle Use 

Motorized vehicle use in production agriculture, recreation and travel has become 

a necessary part of modern society. The ability to compete in production agriculture 

requires the use of mechanized equipment and not animal drawn implements. 

Recreation on our federal lands has developed through the use of mechanized vehicles both to recreate and to travel back and forth to a camp or home. Off-road use 

by these vehicles is contrary to regulation and law. 

We are opposed to unauthorized off-road travel. The bill gives authorization for 

motorized vehicle use for construction and maintenance of range improvements or 

performing standard ranching operations. 

Roads 

The bill protects the national monument area from any new roads except for public safety or natural resource protection. This will protect the current character of 

the land that local citizens are concerned about. 

Rights of Way 

If it were to become necessary to consider a new utility rights-of-way in the monument, the bill would not preclude that. The monument would be protected under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which contain restrictive and stringent 

rules that must be complied with in the event that a right of way needed to be addressed. 

We do not have a crystal ball that can predict the future needs in the way of new 

energy development, and this bill has the foresight to recognize that and allow a 

solution. 

Land Withdrawal 

Land use is a very current topic in areas of growth and development such as Las 

Cruces and surrounding Don ̃ a Ana County. Protection of the Organ Mountains from 

commercial development and housing has been a topic of contention from the beginning of the stakeholder meetings. 

This bill protects land within the 58,512 acre boundary from disposal, trade, development, sale, mineral exploration, leasing or mining including geo-thermal. This 

will alleviate the concern of many in Don ̃ a Ana County relative to the possible detrimental use and destruction of the view shed of the Organ Mountains. 

Release of Wilderness Study Areas 

Major portions of the Organ Mountains have, since the early 1990’s, been under 

the designation of Wilderness Study Area. The designation protected the area from 

any use that would impair the wilderness character of the land until action by Congress. The bill will release the land areas in question from being under the jurisdiction of the wilderness study area regulations. These lands will continue to be protected from development and or disposal by inclusion in the proposed national 

monument. 
61 

Legislative Process for National Monument Designation 

The deliberate and seemingly slow process for something to be enacted into law 

can be very frustrating in the short term. However, the deliberate process allowing 

for public input and debate to be put into writing and voted on by both houses of 

Congress and signed by the President has stood the test of time. There are seldom 

mistakes in the result of this process because it is transparent and has many opportunities for improvement of the initial concept. We are in total agreement with this 

tried and true outcome described in the constitution developed by our forefathers. 

Bills that are passed through this type of scrutiny will generally stand the test of 

time. 

Therefore; we support the passage of HR4334 to settle once and for all the permanent protection of the Organ Mountains. 

We do, however, have three recommended changed to the bill: • Law enforcement should be guaranteed unfettered access to the monument • Hunting should also be guaranteed in the monument, and • The title should be changed to ‘‘Organ Mountains-Cox Family National Monument’’ as a lasting tribute to this stalwart pioneering family and to the legacy 

of livestock ranching in the Southwest United States. 

Attachment A 

Current Conditions on the 12 New Mexico National Monuments 

Organ Mountains Desert Peaks National Monument 

FACTS 

There are 12 National Monuments in New Mexico; New Mexico is second to Arizona with 18. 

10 of the National monuments are managed by National Park Service. 

2 of the National monuments are managed by Bureau of Land Management. 

HUNTING—No hunting in 11 New Mexico National Monuments, the Trackways 

Management Plan is being developed. NPS policy is to protect wildlife within their 

boundaries. 

GRAZING—No grazing in 11 New Mexico National Monuments, the Trackways 

Management Plan is being developed. NPS policy is to phase out commercial grazing whenever possible. 

Grazing was prohibited in 1930, Bandelier; 1940’s, White Sands; 1997, El Malpais 

PETS—In general, NPS policy for pets (except for guide dogs and hearing ear 

dogs) are prohibited from: entering national monument buildings (including visitor 

centers); ranger led activities; using trails, and all backcountry areas. In those instances where they are allowed on trails, they must be kept on a leash at all times. 

Pet regulations are strictly enforced—fines $50–250.00. 

RV CAMPING OVERNIGHT—No overnight RV camping at 10 of the 12 National 

Monuments in New Mexico. El Morro has 9 sites for RVs and Bandelier has 94 

sites, but no hookups for water and lights. 

BACKPACK CAMPING OVERNIGHT—No overnight backpack camping at 9 of 

the 12 National Monuments in New Mexico. White Sands has 10 established sites 

for tents and must have advance reservations. Bandelier has overnight backpack 

camping with a permit. El Malpais has tent camping 

FEES—Fees are charged at 9 of the 12 National Monuments, El Malpais, Prehistoric Trackways and Salinas Pueblo Missions do not charge a fee. 

FUEL WOOD GATHERING—Generally fuel wood gathering is prohibited. 

MOTERIZED VEHICLE USE—No motorized vehicle use on trails. Baby strollers 

are prohibited on trails at Capulin Volcano and bicycles are prohibited during regular hours on the road up Capulin. Trackways management plan is being written. 

NPS policy is to not allow motorized vehicles on trails because they violate the 

soundscape resource with unnatural sounds. 

HORSEBACK RIDING—Bandelier limits riding on trails and limits the number 

daily to 2 groups of 6 horses. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BORDER SECURITY 

Currently Law Enforcement and Border Patrol have access in the NMWA proposed Organ Mt.-Desert Peaks National Monument. However if done under a blanket proclamation the law officers could be blocked under National Monument rules 

that in Arizona have limited law enforcement routine patrols. 

National Park Service policy 2006 states’’that within the national park system 

boundaries, the Service will fulfill its law enforcement responsibilities using NPS 

employees’’. 
62 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. Make sure our clerk has a 

copy of those letters, and we will add them into the record. 

Mr. Rush, I believe. 

STATEMENT OF MATT RUSH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 

NEW MEXICO FARM AND LIVESTOCK BUREAU 

Mr. RUSH. Good morning, Chairman and members of the Committee. What an incredible day. Who would have ever thought that 

a farm boy from a New Mexico town of 125 people would be testifying before Congress? But I am honored to be here. Even more exciting is to be testifying on something that I am so passionate 

about. That is our support of H.R. 4334, the establishment of the 

Organ Mountains as a national monument. 

My name is Matt Rush, and I am Executive Vice President of 

New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau. And I represent the majority of the farmers and ranchers in Don ̃ a Ana County and in New 

Mexico. And I speak for them when I thank Congressman Pearce 

for this bill. 

This proposal has been a long-range goal of New Mexicans, dating back to 2005 when then-Senator Pete Domenici proposed protection of the Organ Mountains. That is, until he found out his proposal was too large and negatively impacted the citizens of Don ̃ a 

Ana County. 

In 2006, the Wilderness Alliance proposed land for preservation, 

but this time increased the ante from 217,000 acres to 325,000 

acres. Again, community stakeholders refused it because of the size 

and crippling effect on our way of life. 

In 2009, Senate Bill 1689 was introduced, aiming to reserve 

260,000 acres. Because of the same reasons as before, this bill died 

in committee. Then again, in 2011, the bill was introduced as SB 

1024, where it remains in committee today. 

But then, earlier this year, the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance 

began pushing a proposal to designate an astounding 600,000 acres 

as national monument in Don ̃ a Ana County. All this being done behind the scenes and out of the public eye, but pushed for approval 

under the authority of the Antiquities Act. 

Although you have been told that there is broad-based support 

for this large national monument designation, as you can see from 

the past history, the reality is that the majority of citizens of our 

area are not in favor of such a large designation that would take 

away literally 25 percent of our county. 

The stark reality is that Don ̃ a Ana County, New Mexico, and the 

surrounding area is already a wash in Federal lands, especially if 

you combine Fort Bliss to the McGregor Range to White Sands 

Missile Range to the White Sands National Monument to Holloman 

Air Force Base to the San Andreas National Wildlife Refuge to the 

Experiment Station to the existing WSAs. That total will give you 

4.7 million acres in protected Federal lands. Add this to another 

1.5 million acres that are tied up in conditional access, and you will 

find a total of 6.2 million acres. Almost 75 percent of the entire 

county is already under Federal control. Less than 15 percent is 

privately owned. We don’t need to exacerbate the problem by designating vast tracks of land as national monument. 
63 

And, furthermore, the other fear that we have is that the people’s voice will be lost and their needs swept aside with a simple 

stroke of the executive pen through that Antiquities Act. 

Now, rumor has it that the political climate right now might be 

a bit, shall we say, divisive or partisan. If that is true, then I would 

like to be the first to announce that I bear good news. Because the 

proposal before you today has one thing that everyone agrees on, 

from Democrats to Republicans to wilderness groups to farmers 

and ranchers. They all agree on the one thing that is at the heart 

of every proposal and every piece of legislation introduced, and that 

is protecting the Organ Mountains. 

The reality is no one is getting everything that they want. But 

isn’t that the art of compromise? Are we supposed to meet in the 

middle, agree to disagree with what we don’t agree but then agree 

on what we agree on and shake hands and walk away friends? 

That is why we support this bill, and urge you, the public servants, to do the same. This bill protects the culture and the historical use of the land. It is clearly defying the rights of ranchers to 

graze their cattle, like the Cox Family, who have been caretakers 

of these sacred lands for over 100 years, while protecting the hills 

from future development. In fact, as a testament to the rock solid 

foundation these mountains provide our county and the way of life 

they support, we urge you to rename the bill The Organ Mountain 

Cox Family Monument. 

H.R. 4334 does not get rid of water rights, nor expand the Federal water rights. Congressman Pearce definitely allows the use of 

equipment used for standard caretaking such as repairing windmills and mending fences, yet requires a plan for that caretaking. 

At the same time, this bill goes to the very heart of what everyone has wanted. It elevates the iconic feature of our State, the 

Organ Mountains, to the status they deserve, while protecting our 

culture, our tradition, and our mountain. 

Thank you very much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:] 

Statement of Matt Rush, Executive Vice-President, New Mexico Farm & 

Livestock Bureau which aimed to reserve 260,000 acres, on H.R. 4334, 

‘‘Organ Mountains National Monument Establishment Act’’ 

Chairman Bishop and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity 

to voice our support of HR4334, the establishment of the Organ Mountains as a National Monument. My name is Matt Rush and I am the Executive Vice-President 

of the New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau. I represent all of the farmers and 

ranchers in Don ̃ a Ana County and speak for them when I thank Congressman 

Pearce for his efforts to protect the Organ Mountains. 

Preservation of the Organ Mountains has been a long range goal of New Mexicans. In 2005, Senator Pete Domenici supported protection of the Organs—until he 

found out the proposal negatively impacted the citizens of Don ̃ a Ana County. 

In 2006, the Wilderness Alliance again proposed land for preservation but this 

time increased the ante from 217,500 acres to 325,000 acres. However, it was refused by community stakeholders. In 2009 Senator Bingaman introduced Senate Bill 

1689 which aimed to reserve 260,000 acres. This bill died in committee. In 2011 the 

bill was introduced as Senate Bill 1024, this bill is still in committee. 

Earlier this year the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance announced a proposal to 

designate 600,000 acres as a National Monument under the authority of the antiquities act. Although you have been told that there is broad-based support for national monument designation, the reality is that the majority of citizens do not want 

to designate a full 25% of our county as national monument. 

Dona Ana County is awash in federal land as it is. Combined with the surrounding area, there is already 4.7 million acres in protected federal lands. Add to 
64 

this another 1.5 million acres tied up in conditional access status. This totals 6.2 

million acres when you add: 

Fort Bliss, 

To McGregor Range, 

To White Sands Missile Range, 

To White Sands National Monument, 

To Holloman Air Force Base, 

To the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, 

To the Jornada Experimental Range, 

To existing Wilderness Study Areas. 

Almost 75% of the entire county is under federal control. Less than 15% of Don ̃ a Ana County is privately owned. While that is a common situation across the West, 

as evidenced in this slide, we don’t need to exacerbate the problem by designating 

even more land as National Monument. 

Wilderness designation changes the customs and culture of a region. An integral 

custom in our state is ranching. Grazing cattle has been a livelihood in our state 

since the King of Spain awarded land grants in 1598. Ranching is what sustains 

our rural communities and it is no different in our county. If alternative proposals 

are approved it would all but eliminate ranching in our county and a vital cowboy 

culture would be lost. The other fear that we have is that the people’s voice will 

be lost with a simple stroke of the executive pen through the antiquities act. The 

people’s voice needs to be heard. 

That’s why the majority of our citizens support Congressman Pearce’s bill. They 

understand the economic impact of ranching and how ranchers make other services 

such as doctors, grocery stores and truck dealers sustainable. And ranching can continue under HR4334. Congressman Pearce has clearly defined the rights of ranchers 

to graze their cattle and the possibility of new permits being issued in the future. 

This bill does not get rid of water rights nor does it expand federal water rights. 

He also definitively allows for the use of mechanized equipment and motorized vehicles for standard ranching operations such as dredging stock tanks, repairing wind 

mills and checking fences. 

This bill makes sense for the residents of Don ̃ a Ana County. It protects the Organ 

Mountains which are an iconic feature of our county, while protecting ranching 

which is an economic generator in our area. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. Garrett? 

STATEMENT OF BILLY GARRETT, COMMISSIONER, 

DISTRICT ONE, DON ̃ A ANA COUNTY 

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 4334. My name 

is Billy Garrett. I am a County Commissioner from Don ̃ a Ana 

County, New Mexico. 

Dona Ana County contains areas of exceptional beauty and significance. Most of our residents value this heritage and want to see 

it protected on a permanent basis. The breadth of that support is 

indicated in part by the legislation introduced by Congressman 

Pearce. However, H.R. 4334 does not adequately address the express needs and interests of Don ̃ a Ana County. 

For more than 30 years, county residents have worked to protect 

public lands that are important to our heritage. Over the past six 

years, Senators Bingaman and Udall have been particularly instrumental in this process. Countless community meetings, public hearings, and conversations with a diverse range of stakeholders have 

closely examined which lands should be protected, and how best to 

address areas of concern, including border security, vehicular access, storm water management, and ranching. 

In 2009 and 2011, Senators Bingaman and Udall introduced legislation that would have designated significant parts of our landscape as Federal wilderness and national conservation areas. 
65 

Twice, by unanimous vote, the Board of Commissioners of Don ̃ a 

Ana County passed resolution in support of these bills. 

Parallel to this legislative process, a number of local historians, 

business owners, elected officials, archaeologists, and sportsmen 

have developed a new proposal that would protect not only important natural areas, but also places that are noteworthy for their 

prehistoric and historic associations. This community-based proposal seeks to protect our heritage by using the 1906 Antiquities 

Act to establish an Organ Mountains Desert Peaks National Monument by Presidential proclamation. 

On May 22, 2012, the Board of Commissioners of Don ̃ a Ana 

County unanimously approved a resolution in support of that proposal. We agree with Congressman Pearce that the Bureau of Land 

Management is best suited to oversee a new national monument in 

Don ̃ a Ana County. As a multi-use agency, BLM is well equipped to 

develop management strategies that would conserve resources, 

maintain ranching interests, and support public uses, including 

outdoor recreation, hunting, and tourism. 

Throughout the history of conservation efforts in Don ̃ a Ana 

County, protection of the iconic Organ Mountains has always been 

a primary concern. While H.R. 4334 offers limited protection of the 

Organs, this legislation does not address other noteworthy locations, such as the Potrillos, Aden Lava Flow, Kilburn, and the 

Don ̃ a Ana Robledo and Sierra de las Uvas Mountains. These areas 

are importantly geologically, and as examples of desert landscape. 

They also contain thousands of petroglyphs and other archeological 

sites, as well as historic places as diverse as a Butterfield Stage 

Coach trail, a World War II bombing range, and a training venue 

for the Apollo astronauts. 

The window for protection of this heritage is closing fast. Don ̃ a 

Ana County is the second-fastest county in New Mexico, and could 

reach a population of 300,000 residents within the next 25 years. 

Our regional plan calls for strong economic growth, supported by 

planning and growth management strategies that—and I quote— 

‘‘recognize the value of our mountains, desert environment, rivers, 

agriculture, and private property rights, and the need to live within 

the limitations of this unique land and its natural resources.’’ 

To provide the facilities, infrastructure, and services that are 

going to be required, we need to know where development might 

best be encouraged. A comprehensive national monument could 

help in this effort by setting aside some of our Federal lands for 

conservation-related uses on a permanent basis. Don ̃ a Ana County 

does not have a land shortage. An establishment of a larger monument would not adversely affect economic development. In fact, a 

more comprehensive monument would protect the visual qualities 

that are important in our real estate market, and expand business 

opportunities associated with tourism, hunting, and outdoor recreation. 

In conclusion, while H.R. 4334 is a step in the right direction, 

it falls far short of local interests, in terms of the areas covered and 

protection of resource values. With that, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for your time, and would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garrett follows:] 
66 

Statement of Billy G. Garrett, Commissioner, District 1, Don ̃ a Ana County, 

New Mexico, on H.R. 4334, ‘‘Organ Mountains National Monument 

Establishment Act’’ 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 4334. 

Don ̃ a Ana County, New Mexico, contains a number of areas of exceptional beauty 

and significance associated with the Chihuahuan Desert, Southwestern pre-history, 

life on the American frontier, and emergence of the United States as an international power. 

I think it is fair to say that most of our residents value this heritage and want 

to see it protected on a permanent basis. 

The breadth of this support is indicated, in part, by the legislation introduced by 

Congressman Pearce. Unfortunately, H.R. 4334 does not adequately meet the needs 

of Don ̃ a Ana County. Compared with other proposals that have had extensive public 

input, this bill fails to protect almost 90% of the lands that our community believes 

should be protected, and seeks to remove the interim wilderness protection for 

19,667 acres of land within the Organ Mountains. 

For more than thirty years, residents of Don ̃ a Ana County have worked to protect 

public lands that are important to our heritage. Over the past six years strong support has emerged for a number of conservation proposals. Senators Bingaman and 

Udall have been particularly instrumental in this process—especially with respect 

to natural resources. Countless hours of community meetings, public hearings, and 

conversations with a diverse range of stakeholders have closely examined which 

lands should be protected, and how best to address issues of concern such as border 

security, vehicular access, storm water management, and ranching. 

These issues were substantially resolved through the diligence of our senators and 

in 2009 they introduced legislation that would have designated significant aspects 

of our landscape as federal wilderness and national conservation areas. Unfortunately that bill, along with many other pieces of bi-partisan conservation legislation, 

was not brought up for a final vote. In 2011, Senators Bingaman and Udall reintroduced their legislation and it is in the Senate today waiting for action as S. 1024. 

Twice, by unanimous vote, the Board of Commissioners of Don ̃ a Ana County 

passed resolutions in support of these bills. 

Parallel to this legislative process, a number local historians, archeologists, business owners, elected officials, and sportsmen developed a new proposal that offers 

an opportunity to protect not only important natural areas, but also places that are 

noteworthy for their pre-historic and historic associations. This community-based 

proposal would use Presidential authorities granted in the 1906 Antiquities Act to 

establish an ‘‘Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument’’ and would entrust oversight of this new monument to the Bureau of Land Management. 

On May 22, 2012, the Board of Commissioners of Don ̃ a Ana County unanimously 

approved a resolution in support of this proposal, which is significantly larger and 

more complex than the area covered by H.R. 4334. My comments today are based 

on that resolution. 

A number of individuals who support a larger national monument are with me 

today. They include: Oscar Vasquez Butler, former Chair of the Don ̃ a Ana County 

Commission; Fernando Clemente, a local businessman; Roberta Salazar-Henry, retired Deputy Director of the New Mexico Game and Fish Department, Ben Gabriel, 

an outdoor guide; and John Cornell of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. 

We agree with Congressman Pearce that the Bureau of Land Management would 

be the best federal agency to oversee a new national monument in Don ̃ a Ana County. As a multi-use agency, BLM has a long tradition of community involvement and 

is well equipped to develop management approaches that would conserve resources, 

maintain traditional ranching interests, and support public uses including outdoor 

recreation, hunting, and tourism. 

Let me underscore that point. Any national monument in Don ̃ a Ana County 

should be managed in a way that facilitates research, conserves resources, respects 

existing ranching interests, and provides for a wide range of uses such as outdoor 

recreation, hunting, and tourism. 

Throughout the history of conservation efforts in southern New Mexico, protection 

of the Organ Mountains has always been a primary concern. The Organs provide 

a backdrop for the entire Mesilla Valley and contain important natural resources 

that are currently protected through designation as National Wilderness Study 

Areas. 

While H.R. 4334 offers some protection for the Organs, the area covered in this 

bill is 30% smaller than the area outlined in the proposed Organ Mountains-Desert 
67 

Peaks National Monument and would reduce protection over the most pristine wild 

areas. Unfortunately, H.R. 4334 also fails to address other special places in our county 

that deserve preservation. They include: the Potrillo Volcanic Field and West 

Potrillo Mountains, Aden Lava Flow, Kilborne Hole National Historic Landmark, 

Broad Canyon, and the Don ̃ a Ana, Robledo, and Sierra de las Uvas Mountains. 

These areas are important geologically and as exceptional examples of 

Chihuahuan Desert landscape. They also contain thousands of petroglyphs and 

other archeological sites, as well as historical sites as diverse as the route used by 

the Butterfield Stage, a WW–II bombing range, and a training venue for the Apollo 

astronauts. 

All of these areas offer exceptional opportunities for students to learn about our 

desert environment, families to connect with their cultural traditions, and just about 

anyone to have a great outdoors experience. All of these places would be protected 

under the proposed Organ-Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. None are 

included in H.R. 4334. 

The window of time available for protection of this heritage is small and closing 

fast. Don ̃ a Ana County is the second fastest growing county in New Mexico and currently is home to more than 200,000 people. Between 2000 and 2010 our population 

increased by almost 20% and most sources project an additional increase to more 

than 300,000 residents within the next 25 years. 

Our regional plan, ‘‘One Valley, One Vision 2040’’, calls for strong economic 

growth supported by planning and growth management strategies. With respect to 

our heritage, the plan states, ‘‘As we map out our future we recognize the value of 

our mountains, desert environment, rivers, agriculture, and private-property rights 

and (the need to) live within the limitations of this unique land and (its) natural 

resources.’’ 

In order to provide for all the roads, schools, utilities, and public services—including fire and police protection—that are going to be required, elected officials need 

to know where development might best be encouraged. A new comprehensive national monument could help this process by clearly identifying some of the federal 

lands that should be left undeveloped on a permanent basis. H.R. 4334 misses the 

opportunity to provide this guidance simply because it is limited to the Organ 

Mountains. 

The area that would be protected by H.R. 4334 is simply too small when considered in the context of our county as a whole. By contrast, the monument proposal 

that has been endorsed by our Board of Commissioners would encompass an area 

of approximately 600,000 acres or 935 square miles. Roughly 83% of this area is currently under BLM management. Of the remainder, most are state-owned lands that 

could be exchanged for other federally owned property. 

Let me put the size of the proposed larger monument in perspective. Don ̃ a Ana 

County encompasses 3,804 square miles. That’s almost the size of Delaware and 

Rhode Island combined. About 12% of Don ̃ a Ana County is privately owned, another 

12% is state land, and the rest is federal. Setting aside 587,220 acres of public land 

for heritage conservation values would affect less than one-third of all federal lands 

in Don ̃ a Ana County and leave about 600,000 acres of current BLM lands open for 

other uses. 

Don ̃ a Ana County does not have a land shortage and establishment of a larger, 

more comprehensive monument would in no way adversely affect economic development. On the contrary, a larger monument would protect the visual qualities that 

are important to our real estate market, and expand business opportunities for tourism, hunting, and outdoor recreation. Personally, I would hope that a larger monument might also offer existing ranching families new opportunities for economic diversification, while respecting their core business activity. 

In conclusion, while H.R. 4334 is a step in the right direction, it falls far short 

of local interests and expectations in terms of geographic coverage and protection 

of wilderness areas such as those afforded in S 1024. 

With that Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I thank you for your 

time and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I will now turn to the Committee for 

questions. Mr. McClintock, do you have any questions for this 

panel? You don’t. Mr. Pearce, would you like to ask questions of 

this panel? 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would. And I would 

also like to submit—Mr. Garrett had suggested in his testimony 
68 

about the unanimous vote on the resolution. And subsequent to 

that, two of the commissioners began to receive more communications and then express concern. So I would like to ask unanimous 

consent to submit this letter from—signed by Karen Perez and Dolores Saldana-Caviness, both commissioners on the Don ̃ a Ana 

County Board of Commissioners, which—they now are questioning 

that vote that was unanimous. 

Mr. BISHOP. Without objection, it is going to be in. 

[The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Pearce follows:] 
69 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Rountree, you mentioned that grazing exists on 

most of BLM’s land, but it is not a stated purpose of any national 

monument. You express concern with the fact that we authorize 

grazing in this bill. Yet your BLM website says that ‘‘grazing is allowed and managed because it creates multiple environmental benefits that result from healthy watersheds.’’ So why is it that you 

are expressing concern over this grazing in this bill? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. We are not expressing concern over grazing in 

the monument itself, Congressman. We fully support grazing within the monument and the continuation of grazing. We fully support 

section 6 of the proposed legislation. The only objection we have is 

the inclusion of grazing in the purposes portion of the bill. 

Mr. PEARCE. I guess that that is a little bit too fine a distinction 

for me. It sounds like you are objecting to grazing. I mean when 

you object to grazing and then you say you don’t, I don’t care what 

section of the bill it is in. It sounds like you object to the grazing, 

and I just wonder why. 

Mr. ROUNTREE. No, sir—— 

Mr. PEARCE. Because the NEPA process has—doesn’t the NEPA 

process state that custom and culture is a very important thing? 

And if you understand the custom and culture of the West, it is 

about cows and grazing, and it is about ranching. It is about making your living off the land. And this, the Cox Family who used to 

own this land, can’t even get in and run a chainsaw. They can’t do 

anything in their ranch to continue the ranching operations. And 

that is the reason that we declare that, because we would like to 

protect it. We don’t want to see the development, but we want to 

protect this ranching family who the land used to belong to, and 

yet you are objecting to it. 

Mr. ROUNTREE. No, sir. I am not objecting in the least. Again, 

we strongly support the continuation of grazing in the monument. 

If you look at any of the legislation creating any national monument or national conservation area—there are something like 18 

bills that were passed for those designations—none of them include 

uses like grazing or traditional uses within the purpose section of 

the legislation. 

Mr. PEARCE. Maybe you should reconsider the other bills, instead 

of this one. 

The—also, you take objection to section nine, I think it is, in your 

testimony. Isn’t BLM supposed to have already concluded a study 

about wilderness study areas? When was that study supposed to be 

finished? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Those studies were finished decades ago. The 

recommendation on at least one of those WSAs was forwarded to 

Congress, I believe, in 1980. Two of the other wilderness study 

areas—— 

Mr. PEARCE. Now, did they all get unanimous approval? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. No, sir. They are still waiting for Congress’s action. 

Mr. PEARCE. No. I mean, did the BLM think that they qualified 

for wilderness? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. They thought that the one that was recommended to Congress as suitable had extraordinary—— 

Mr. PEARCE. Which one was that? 
70 

Mr. ROUNTREE. That would have been the Organ Mountains. 

Mr. PEARCE. The Organ Mountains. And yet your testimony 

seems to—I mean you saw the videos up here. There are ranches, 

there are roads, there are signs of human habitation that is simply 

not allowed in wilderness areas. And yet you can’t declare those to 

be non-wilderness compliant? 

I just think that that is something that I think people are tired 

of. Either yes, it qualifies, or no, it doesn’t. And we tried to show— 

we have an hour-long video showing the entire redrawing of the 

lines in there. So it just seems curious that the agency can’t find 

the evidence that maybe these don’t qualify for the definition under 

wilderness, which is one of the problems we have with the Senator’s bill. It takes 200,000 acres, rather than the 58,000-acre footprint that we have. 

So, what would it take for you all to say that something is not 

compliant with the wilderness—underlying wilderness legislation? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Well, let me respond to one portion of your question. The wilderness study areas that we are talking about are 

within the Organ Mountains and the footprint of the area of critical environmental concern. I am not prepared to talk about any of 

the wilderness study areas outside of the area under study of your 

legislation, but would certainly be willing to take a look at it. 

Mr. PEARCE. I think we should sit down and talk. And I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. We will sit down and talk more about that, 

because I think it is a very important distinction that we are making here. 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Certainly. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. We may have another round of questioning 

later on. Let me ask a couple, if I could. Mr. Rountree, if I could 

start with you, is the BLM or the Administration considering moving forward with any national monument designation, especially a 

massive national monument designation, as put forth by the New 

Mexico Wilderness Alliance, that would designate more than 

600,000 acres, or 25 percent of this county, as a national monument? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. No, I am not aware of any, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Earlier this week—talking about grazing—Juan 

Palma, who was the BLM director for Utah said that he wrote a 

letter to Senator Hatch saying the monument staff would retain 

authority but would hire a third party to conduct a study. Can you 

provide us with a list of those third parties that do range health 

or grazing studies for grazing plans either in New Mexico—in New 

Mexico, but also especially in Utah? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. No, sir, I cannot. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you know who those third parties would be? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. We will be happy to provide the Chair and the 

Committee that information at a later date, if we could, please, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. I would appreciate it. The last request I had is now 

three years in waiting. I hope you can do it in a little bit timelier 

fashion than three years. 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. Let me go on to another couple. 
71 

In your testimony, Mr. Rountree, you did say that you discussed 

New Mexico’s shared border with Mexico, and that this proximity 

makes it even more important that we work to keep the area from 

becoming a drug or human smuggling corridor, as has happened in 

other parts of the country. I recently published an op ed on this 

same subject and would be interested to know if New Mexico is already experiencing vandalism of lands by traffickers like that that 

takes place especially in Organ Pipe National Monument on the 

Arizona-Mexico border. 

Mr. ROUNTREE. I don’t have that information with me, sir, but 

we would be happy to work with New Mexico’s State office in providing you that information. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. I would appreciate that, as well. 

Mr. Garrett, have you been in conversation at all with the county 

commissioners in Garfield as to their experience with the Grand 

Staircase-Escalante Monument? 

Mr. GARRETT. No, sir. I have not. 

Mr. BISHOP. I would once again suggest you do that to see what 

the common experience has been in a Presidentially created national monument. That impacts things like ranching and livelihoods there, as well. 

In the 1906 Antiquities Act that you mentioned there are 3 specific criteria that must be used before a president can nominate 

those. Can you tell me what those three criterias are for this area? 

Let me go through them very quickly. What is the specific archeological or historical significant area that needs to be protected? 

Mr. GARRETT. We have a study that was recently completed that 

identifies those sites. There is extensive evidence of prehistoric use 

of the area. And beyond that, I would have to go and get more specific information for you to respond to that. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. The second criteria is it has to be in eminent 

peril. What is the peril that is imminent? 

Mr. GARRETT. As I mentioned, we are a very fast-growing area. 

And I believe that it is fair to say that as soon as this recession 

is lifted, that we are going to be faced with a great deal of pressure 

on development throughout the county. We already have—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Are you telling me these areas are not within wilderness study areas or protected areas right now? 

Mr. GARRETT. Those are unresolved. Those are still study areas. 

Mr. BISHOP. They are study areas. So what is the eminent peril. 

Mr. GARRETT. The—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Study areas is managed as if it actually was, in fact, 

that way. So what is the imminent peril? 

Mr. GARRETT. There are areas that are not included in those 

study areas that are part of the proposed monument. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you have a list? Are they not in part of the 

WSAs, as well? 

Mr. GARRETT. They are beyond that. 

Mr. BISHOP. They are not in the WSA? 

Mr. GARRETT. They are—yes, sir. They are beyond that. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Do you have a list of what those are? 

Mr. GARRETT. I can get that for you. 

Mr. BISHOP. I need that. The third of the criteria is it has to be 

in the smallest area possible. When it was discussed in Congress 
72 

they were talking about 100 to 200 acres as the area. What is the 

smallest area possible that you are talking about doing as far as 

a designation, if you did the Antiquities Act? 

Mr. GARRETT. The area that is encompassed within the boundary 

as proposed is 587,220 acres. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. That is a nice proposal. What is the smallest 

area possible? Are you telling me that is the smallest area possible? 

Mr. GARRETT. I believe so. 

Mr. BISHOP. And what is the biggest area possible? 

Mr. GARRETT. I believe that that is the right size. 

Mr. BISHOP. No, that is not what the law says. You have to have 

some ranges in there. 

Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, the—what I would say is that this is 

a proposal from citizens. It would be up to the Administration to 

work through how they want to vet this, in terms of putting it into 

proclamation. But that is our best proposal, in terms of submitting 

it to the Administration for that action. 

Mr. BISHOP. Sir, I would like you to give us, for the record, some 

specifics as to what these archeological areas are, where they are 

that are out of a protected zone right now, what is indeed the eminent danger, and what is the smallest area. The last time a president tried to go along using the 1906 Act and create something 

without specificity, we did create a national monument that was 

bigger than the State of Delaware. I don’t really want to do that 

again unless there is something that is specific. And we need that 

specificity. So does the President or the Interior Department, if 

they are actually going to go forward. And I appreciate, Mr. Rountree, you saying you are not moving forward in that particular direction. 

Mr. Pearce, do you have any other questions? 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rountree, the—you 

heard my testimony that in 11 of the 12 monuments in New Mexico they don’t allow hunting. What is the BLM’s stance? Do—would 

you support hunting in this particular area? 

Mr. ROUNTREE. Absolutely. And on every unit of the National 

Landscape Conservation System hunting is allowed. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Mr. Garrett, do you support hunting in the 

area described in this bill? 

Mr. GARRETT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. But you realize that it is not—it is obviously 

not allowed in every area? And the tendency is going to be not to 

allow it. And, so, that is one of the great concerns I have. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if you can realize what is going on 

here, but this Committee has been—is now in the middle of a dispute that is going on in New Mexico inside the county. Everybody 

agrees on the Organ Mountains. But the Senator Bingaman, and 

before him Senator Domenici, had suggested a very large wilderness area, and that is the proposed legislation they have, that is 

200,000 acres. 

And, so, then—and the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance suggested a bill of 600,000 acres to be—that is 938 square miles, by 

the way, that they would recommend be used to put into a Presidential designation for a monument. And, so, then we put our bill 

in that said let’s take the smallest footprint possible, let’s protect 
73 

the Organs. That is what everybody agrees on, and let’s not choose 

these other areas. People began to be alarmed that we weren’t 

going to be able to have—in a quarter of a county we are not going 

to have grazing and those activities by which we get much of our 

rural economy built on. 

And so, it is—that is kind of why we are getting these different 

suggestions here. Again, I don’t think that many of the areas that 

are described in the wilderness bill actually—Senator Bingaman— 

actually comply with the underlying requirements of wilderness in 

the enabling act. So we tried to find a pathway forward. Obviously, 

we don’t agree with taking 25 percent of the county, 938 square 

miles and sticking it into Presidential monument area where I 

don’t believe, long term, we would be able to graze or hunt or do 

many of the things. 

As the Chairman has adequately pointed out in the past, education suffers when we—the greater the restrictions on public land, 

the more education suffers. And, so, this chart—we have taken off 

of his webpage, but it is very well done and shows us one of the 

underlying principles that we have to fight against. It harms our 

education system, the more restrictive that the Federal lands get. 

Mr. Garrett, that Trackways National Monument, isn’t that a 

local guy that discovered that? Is that MacDonald? Is that his 

name? 

Mr. GARRETT. I don’t think that is his name, but it is a local—— 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, it is a local guy. He wrote a book about it. 

Mr. GARRETT. MacDonald? 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, he wrote—about 30 years ago. I think he has 

written a book about discovering the Trackways. And that is one 

of the areas with prehistoric sites. 

Now, you had talked about wanting to stop the plundering. And 

yet, in his book he has got him carrying out samples of those prehistoric whatever they are, fossils, and he backpacks them out. He 

ties them to his back. And he has got pictures of him doing that. 

Has the County Commission taken a position on him having taken 

those things out? 

In other words, you have a strong position about plundering. Is 

it OK for him to have done that? Have you all taken a position, 

I guess, on that? 

Mr. GARRETT. No, sir—— 

Mr. PEARCE. Is it possible—— 

Mr. GARRETT [continuing]. Not in my term. 

Mr. PEARCE. If I provide you the book and the copies of his description of what he did, would you all take that up as a consideration for the county? 

Mr. GARRETT. I think what we would have to do is look at the 

legal aspects of it, since—— 

Mr. PEARCE. I will take a look, because I think plundering is 

plundering. And, so, I would like to submit that to you. 

Mr. GARRETT. Congressman, one of the reasons that I think that 

we are concerned with protection of the areas on the west side of 

the county have to do with exactly that kind of thing. If you don’t 

have designation, if you don’t have some way in particular of communicating to the public at large that this is a special place where 
74 

conservation of the resources is important, it is very hard for people, I think in some cases, know what they can and cannot do. 

It is an issue. And it is one of the primary reasons, actually, that 

we are very much concerned with the larger area. 

Mr. PEARCE. You bet. OK, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and 

thanks again. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. McClintock, I skipped you on this round. Did— 

OK. 

Let me ask the last two questions then for Mr. Schickedanz and 

Mr. Rush, who haven’t had a chance to answer. 

As I hear the testimony so far, I understand that the proposal 

that Mr. Pearce has has unanimous consent, or at least consensus 

of everyone, as far as going through. The other proposals are contentious. Is that correct? Have I misstated that? 

Mr. SCHICKEDANZ. As far—excuse me. You are correct. There is, 

I would guess, unanimous consent in the community for protection 

of the Organ Mountains. And there is not full consent for a larger 

area. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Mr. Rush? 

Mr. RUSH. I would say the exact same thing. I mean if you look 

at the track history of what is going on dating back to 2009, you 

can see that there has been an attempt to do this. But every time 

the bill grew and grew and grew. But at the heart of every proposal, every piece of legislation was protecting the Organ Mountains, which, from the agricultural standpoint, that is one of the 

reasons that we are so in support of 4334, because it does exactly 

what has been at the heart of every bill that has been proposed or 

introduced since this process started. 

Mr. BISHOP. Then I am assuming you would be very supportive 

of making it crystal clear that grazing has to be protected in this 

area. 

Mr. RUSH. And, you know, and that goes to—yes, to answer specifically, and in the political—you know, since the clock is still ticking we got to keep talking, right? 

The answer is it goes to the culture of the county. I mean we talk 

about preserving these areas. But what about preserving the culture of an area? I mean grazing has been a piece of the West since 

the King of Spain gave lands away. And, so, when do we stand up 

and say, ‘‘Hey, you know what? We need to protect this part of our 

culture, because it has been here forever. It was here before the 

petroglyphs were here.’’ 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate that. I have no other questions. Is there any other for these witnesses? 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. If not, we appreciate you for being here and testifying to this particular bill. Thank you very much for traveling 

all the way back here to find an area just as hot as New Mexico 

but with a heck of a lot more humidity to make life miserable. 

Mr. RUSH. If you could ban that humidity thing we would like 

it a whole lot better. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. We had two percent in Utah over the weekend. 

I know the difference. Great to have you here. 

I would like next to deal with Mr. Denham’s bill. We would ask 

Victor Knox, who is the Associate Director for Parks—Park Plan-
75 

ning and Facilities with the Park Service, Kevin Cann, who is the 

Supervisor of Mariposa County, and Ronika Johnson—I am doing 

this without glasses—who is a resident of Mariposa County—I hope 

I pronounced that county name properly—if I could have you three 

come up to the dais, and we will go through that bill next. 

Appreciate you all. If you could take the conversations out of the 

room, and we can get going on the next bill. We are going to do 

this bill by bill. I am trying to do it as quickly as possible. So Mr. 

Knox, Mr. Cann, Ms. Johnson, I hope. 

Same rules apply on this particular one as with the last panel. 

I appreciate you being here. Your written testimony is in the 

record. This will be an oral testimony. The last panel was very 

good in keeping everything under five minutes. I hope you replicate 

that action. 

Mr. Knox, you are first up. And I would ask you only to deal with 

the Denham bill, if possible. 

Mr. KNOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

present the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 3640. I am 

going to submit our full statement for the record and summarize 

our position here very briefly. 

The Department supports H.R. 3640. The bill would authorize 

the acquisition of 18 acres of land in Mariposa, California. Acquired 

lands would be administered as part of Yosemite National Park, 

and would be used for development of a visitor contact station and 

administrative offices. There are no adequate facilities currently 

available in Mariposa to meet the park’s current and future needs. 

And expansion of our facilities at El Portal Administrative Site is 

infeasible. 

Permanent visitor transportation and administrative facilities in 

Mariposa would provide critical support for Yosemite National 

Park and address other long-term goals and needs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my statement, and I 

would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knox follows:] 

Statement of Victor Knox, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities and 

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

H.R. 3640, To Authorize the Secretary of the Interior to Acquire Not 

More Than 18 Acres of Land and Interests in Land in Mariposa, 

California, and for Other Purposes. 

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. 3640, a bill to authorize 

the Secretary of the Interior to acquire not more than 18 acres of land and interests 

in land in Mariposa, California, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports H.R. 3640. 

H.R. 3640 would authorize acquisition of land in Mariposa, California. It would 

also authorize the Secretary to partner with Mariposa County for land use planning 

related to acquired land and interests. The use of eminent domain would be prohibited. Acquired lands would be administered as part of Yosemite National Park. 

Consistent with Yosemite National Park’s planning documents, including the 

park’s General Management Plan, the National Park Service has been interested in 

providing visitor and administrative facilities in gateway communities that border 

Yosemite National Park, and reduce the need to provide government-owned housing 

and offices inside the park, for more than 30 years. Acquiring land as described in 

this bill would greatly help the bureau meet these objectives. Providing visitor and 

administrative facilities at this location in Mariposa would enhance the visitor’s experience by providing orientation and pre-visit services at a satellite visitor contact 

station. It will also promote stewardship of resources through educational and interpretive services prior to park entry. Visitor services in this location would encourage 
76 

regional economic development and transportation partnerships, which are important benefits for the National Park Service. Permanent visitor, transportation, and 

support facilities in Mariposa would also provide critical support for Yosemite National Park and address other long-term needs and goals. 

Options to expand the park’s El Portal Administrative Site are infeasible, and the 

site cannot accommodate future growth. Therefore, Yosemite National Park rents office space in Mariposa, California, to accommodate certain key administrative functions. Park facilities located in gateway communities have been identified in a number of planning documents, including the park’s General Management Plan, as an 

effective way to reduce the need for office space and to realize operational savings 

in Yosemite Valley. Relocating these positions and functions to a gateway community also helps to reduce traffic congestion and improve the quality of life for employees, some of whom had previously commuted over two hours a day for positions 

that can be performed remotely. Now, staff in over forty positions and functions 

work from Mariposa, and this transition has allowed the park to eliminate rented 

office trailers, while helping it to recruit and retain employees. Ideally, the park 

would like to provide work-space for 100–150 employees in Mariposa and this cannot be done with existing facilities. 

Administrative offices located in Mariposa support a continuity of services during 

emergencies such as rockfalls, major snow storms, and wildland fires. These types 

of events have previously disrupted core park functions because employees could not 

safely travel to their offices inside Yosemite. Finally, establishing facilities in 

Mariposa reduces the demand on administrative space in Yosemite Valley and at 

the El Portal Administrative Site, where building and accommodating employees 

comes at a high operational cost to the National Park Service. The park has explored leasing additional space; however, no adequate facilities are currently available in Mariposa to meet the park’s current and future needs. 

The Yosemite Conservancy, a fundraising group for Yosemite National Park, has 

purchased 11 acres for potential acquisition by the National Park Service. This land 

could be donated or purchased, with the passage of this bill, to support visitor information facilities, an administrative worksite, museum storage, and other possible 

purposes, that would benefit visitors, staff, and the partnership of Yosemite National Park, Mariposa County, and the State of California. In our view, this legislation would help to strengthen the relationship between the National Park Service 

and the gateway community of Mariposa, and could help to spur regional economic 

Development. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Cann? 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN CANN, SUPERVISOR, 

MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Kevin Cann, 

I am a Mariposa County, California Supervisor. Many times we are 

known as commissioners. Just recently elected to my second fouryear term. I obviously speak today in support of 3640, the Yosemite 

lands bill. I have previously submitted background and support 

statements for the record, but particularly from the Board of Supervisors, the tourism bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, and the 

Economic Development Corporation. But for today I just want to 

highlight a few additional important facts. 

The intent of—well, Mariposa County and Yosemite National 

Park have a long, mutually beneficial relationship. Over 70 percent 

of Yosemite’s visitors don’t overnight in the park. Most stay in one 

of the gateway communities located proximate to each of the park’s 

four main entrances. The Mariposa entrance, called the all-weather 

highway, is kept open at all costs during inclement weather, which 

regularly closes the other three entrances. 
77 

While the population of the town of Mariposa is only 2,000 in a 

very rural county of 18,500, over a million visitors a year enter the 

park driving right through town. A 2000 Sierra Business Council 

study estimated that as many as 88 percent of the paychecks generated in Mariposa County come first, second, or third-hand from 

the tourists visiting Yosemite. 

Expanded services in Mariposa will take tremendous pressure off 

the National Park Service to build more and more infrastructure 

for better access in Yosemite, as well as additional employee residences, work spaces, and work space in the crowded Yosemite 

Valley. 

The intent of Congressman Denham’s bill is simply to authorize 

the Secretary of the Interior to acquire up to 18 acres in Mariposa 

to create a more efficient, accessible, and safer Yosemite National 

Park. The legislation will undoubtedly improve park traffic and visitor access, and allow visitors to purchase entrance passes, receive 

orientation benefits before they enter the park. Additionally, administrative offices in Mariposa will greatly enhance recruitment 

retention, housing, and performance for over 100 employees who 

currently drive over an hour each way today—and this is a change 

from 20 years ago—to sit at a computer all day. There are over 700 

permanent NPS employees in Yosemite, and about 1,200 peak employment in the middle of summer. Importantly, non-essential administrative facilities in the park would be available for the much 

more important use. 

Since 1980, National Park Service plans have called for moving 

facilities out of the spectacular Yosemite Valley—and again, these 

are not visitor-serving facilities, just administrative facilities—and 

into the gateways to get them out of Yosemite Valley. Mariposa 

County, the Yosemite Conservancy, and Yosemite National Park 

have been planning and working toward establishing joint administrative and visitor service facilities outside the park for a decade. 

In 2004, importantly, President Bush signed legislation, H.R. 620, 

specifically authorizing park facilities to be located outside of Yosemite National Park and in the gateways for this exact purpose, 

visitor and administrative services. This bill, H.R. 3640, simply authorizes the required land acquisition to allow this to happen. 

With advances in technology, visitors who normally arrive in the 

gateway town the afternoon before their visit—and again, over 70 

percent of the visitors are not overnighting in the park, but are 

overnighting in a gateway—they will be able to get their full park 

orientation, entrance passes, maps, and plan their trip before they 

enter the park. This process should practically eliminate entrance 

station back-ups, which now reach two hours on busy weekends 

and severely limit access to this crown jewel national park. Actually, those back-ups last year were measured at over an hour on 

67 of the 100 busiest days. 

Please note no services that are currently provided in the park 

would be eliminated. And Congressman McClintock’s comments 

really note the challenges that we have in trying to fully communicate the exact intent and what the bill authorizes and what it 

doesn’t. 

In conclusion, many partners, both public and private, stand 

ready to provide facilities, the cost of which traditionally fall 100 
78 

percent on the National Park Service. H.R. 3640 specifically promotes public-private partnerships which will have a dramatic, 

measurable, and positive impact on park visitors and employees, as 

well as the economy of Mariposa County. 

Thank you much for your consideration on this. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cann follows:] 

Statement of Kevin Cann, Supervisor, Mariposa County, California 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Committee: 

My name is Kevin Cann. I am a Mariposa County, CA Supervisor recently elected 

to my second four-year term. I speak today in support of H.R. 3640 the Yosemite 

Lands Bill. I have submitted significant background and support statements for the 

record but wanted to highlight a few additional important facts. 

The intent of Congressman Denham’s bill is to simply authorize the Secretary of 

Interior to acquire up to 18 acres in Mariposa, California, to create a more efficient, 

accessible, and safer Yosemite National Park. The legislation will undoubtedly improve park traffic and visitor access and safety, and allow visitors to purchase entrance passes and receive orientation benefits before they enter the park. Additionally, administrative offices in Mariposa will greatly enhance recruitment, retention, 

housing and performance for over 100 employees. Importantly, non essential administrative facilities in the park would be available for more appropriate use or removal. 

Mariposa County and Yosemite National Park have a long, mutually beneficial relationship. Over 70% of Yosemite’s visitors do not overnight in the park. Most stay 

in one of the gateway communities located proximate to each of the park’s four main 

entrances. The Mariposa entrance, called the ‘‘All Weather Highway’’ is kept open 

at all costs during inclement weather which regularly closes the other three entrances. While the population of the town of Mariposa is only 2000, in a very rural 

county of 18,500, over one million visitors a year enter the park directly through 

town. A 2000 Sierra Business Council study estimates that as many as 88% of the 

paychecks generated in Mariposa County come 1st, 2nd or 3rd hand from the tourists visiting Yosemite. Expanded services in Mariposa will take tremendous pressure off the National Park Service to build more and more infrastructure to better 

access Yosemite as well as additional employee residences and workspace in crowded Yosemite Valley. 

Since 1980, National Park Service plans have called for moving facilities out of 

the spectacular Yosemite Valley and into the gateways to better serve the public. 

Mariposa County, the Yosemite Conservancy and Yosemite National Park have been 

planning and working toward establishing joint administrative and visitor service 

facilities outside the park for a decade. In 2004, President George Bush signed legislation (H.R. 620) specifically authorizing park facilities to be located outside of Yosemite National Park ‘‘for visitor and administrative services.’’ H.R. 3640 authorizes 

the required land acquisition. 

With advances in technology, visitors who normally arrive in the gateway town 

the afternoon before their Yosemite visit, will be able to get a full Park Ranger orientation, entrance passes, maps and plan their trip BEFORE they enter the park. 

This process should practically eliminate entrance station backups which now reach 

two hours on busy weekends and severely limit access to this Crown Jewell National 

Park. 

In conclusion, many partners both public and private, stand ready to provide facilities, the costs of which traditionally fall 100% on the National Park Service. 

H.R. 3640 specifically promotes public/private partnerships which will have dramatic, measurable positive impacts on park visitors and employees, as well as the 

economy of Mariposa County. 

Thank you for your time and consideration of the Yosemite Lands Act. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Johnson? 

STATEMENT OF RONIKA JOHNSON, RESIDENT, 

MARIPOSA, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ronika 

Johnson. I am a Mariposa resident. And it is an honor to be here 
79 

and represent the residents of Mariposa. The town of Mariposa is 

located approximately 30 miles from the western gate of Yosemite 

National Park. Our community, as most outlying communities are, 

dependent on our tourism. When the park suffers we suffer. Last 

year, during the debt ceiling crisis and under the threat of budget 

cuts, twice we faced park closure. This was a threatening time for 

us, as so many of our businesses who employ our residents would 

be affected. Our tourist season is dormant between the months of 

September and May, so a summer shut-down was especially frightening. We could very well face this possibility again in the future, 

as California is also in a financial crisis in facing more budget cuts. 

We are told that this may be the last year our county fair will 

take place, as the State can no longer afford to contribute. 

Mariposa is dramatically affected by the activity of the park and 

the tourists it attracts. Our largest business base is motels and restaurants to cater to the tourists who come through. I have worked 

in this industry for over 20 years in Mariposa, and I have managed 

restaurants and a hotel located in Mariposa and El Portal, which 

borders the park, so I am very familiar with the needs of our community and our park. 

While many of us recognize the need to accommodate our tourism industry, we are in opposition of the Federal Government purchasing more land in our county. They currently own 50 percent, 

and are now asking for 18 acres located right in the heart of our 

historic town. If you look at the projection map, you will see that 

the proposed Federal building, which includes a visitor center and 

parking lot, and possibly a discovery center, is three parcels which 

sit on approximately seven acres. Yet the bill asks for 18. Across 

the street is the remaining 11 acres, where they plan a walkway 

leading to private property whose owner is a developer proposing 

to build a convention center and a large hotel, a hotel which will 

likely provide a restaurant which both will dramatically affect and 

threaten our small businesses as a competition. 

This purchase of 11 acres is not necessary to accommodate the 

visitor center goal of providing service outside the park to make it 

easier for tourists to pay their entrance fees. I also question the 

need to relocate 100 employees to a building located 30 miles away 

from the park. I have to question why do we have 100 employees 

working 30 miles from the area they are supposed to be serving. 

And are they necessary? I would also like to add that this relocation will not create any more jobs for Mariposa. 

The proposed visitor center is located at the cross intersection of 

Highway 140 and 49. Both are two-lane roads which currently cannot manage the traffic impact that this proposal will affect. We 

have no street lights in Mariposa, and this particular intersection 

is only a four-way stop sign in town. This proposal will dramatically congest the intersection and roads going through our town. 

Next will be a proposed traffic light that the county has long fought 

against having. 

The residents of Mariposa oppose this bill, mostly due to the fact 

that they have not been given any details of the plan or an opportunity to voice their opinions. There has been no public forum or 

hearing. Most residents have not heard of the plan and question, 

again, the impact. Most of all, we have to question the spending 
80 

at this time. Neither the Federal Government, the county, nor the 

State are managing our money wisely. While we recognize need, we 

must also recognize the means. 

This bill does not offer any resources or limits as to how much 

money will be spent, or how it will be used. There are other issues 

that will dramatically affect our county, such as the road impact 

and the loss of a tax-base revenue from the land. There are other 

alternatives to development. However, those have not been addressed, as we have had no hearing or public input. The residents 

of Mariposa County deserve a voice. And I am here today to lend 

that voice to you and ask that this bill be stopped. 

Our hope is that this bill will not proceed further through the 

process until it is thoroughly researched. This includes public hearings, detailed proposed drawings, including roadways and transportation issues, the impact on local hotels and restaurants. We are 

not opposed to thoughtful growth and additional amenities to 

Mariposa County, but feel it has to be done in a fashion that indicates the best possible solution for those of us who call Mariposa 

our home. 

We thank you for your consideration, and ask that you oppose 

H.R. 3640. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

Statement of Ronika Johnson, Mariposa, California, on H.R. 3640 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address HR3640 before you and your committee. My name is Ronika Johnson, I am a resident of 

Mariposa, California and I am here to represent not only my view, but those of 

many residents who live in Mariposa County. 

To understand the sentiment of many of our town’s residents, it’s important to 

know a little bit about our history. Mariposa has a rich history and we are very 

proud of it. Once populated by Native Americans Mariposa came into existence almost overnight via the deluge of immigrants seeking their fortunes during the Gold 

Rush. The Gold Rush at one time created a population greater then what resides 

in Mariposa today. The result was the greatest migration for the search of riches 

that has ever occurred in the history of the world. Within the short five years after 

the discovery, more than 300,000 men, and at first it was mostly men, crowded into 

the wilderness of the Sierra Nevada, searching for the pot at the end of the rainbow. 

On February 18, 1850 Mariposa became the largest county of the original 27 California counties, and is known as the ‘‘Mother of All Counties.’’ Later the county was 

split up and now occupies 1,455 square miles of California’s rich Mother Lode country. Mariposa is the Spanish name for butterfly, and aptly named by Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga of the Mexican Army in 1806 for the swarms of butterflies he saw 

along Mariposa Creek. John C. Fremont, an early explorer, is responsible for founding the town whose many streets are named after his family members. In 1854 the 

famous courthouse was built on land donated by Fremont. Today, it is the oldest 

operating courthouse in California. 

In 1907 construction was started on the Yosemite Valley Railroad. The railroad 

employed as many as 1,500 men during the early years. The railroad ran from 1907 

until 1945 hauling logs, limestone and other mineral. In later years as Yosemite 

grew in popularity the railroad shuttled tourists to the new wonder. The railroad 

parallels the north bank of the Merced. A significant change occurred to the railroad 

in the early twenties by the construction of a large dam on the Merced River at Exchequer east of Merced Falls. That project required the relocation of 17 miles of 

track and the construction of 5 large bridges and 4 concrete-lined tunnels. 

Passenger business on the railroad peaked in the mid-twenties, dropping thereafter due to the increase in private automobile use, accelerated by the completion 

of the new All-Year Highway (now State Route 140) in 1926. The loss of the logging/ 

lumber freight business in 1942 and then the limestone/cement business in 1944 

eventually resulted in a request to abandon the railroad. The last scheduled run 

came on August 24, 1945; scrapping operations commenced shortly thereafter. 

Mariposa is known as the Gateway to Yosemite. Our businesses thrive on the 

tourism industry and the local economy feels it, especially now. We have many lo-
81 

cally owned restaurants & hotels mostly in our downtown area. Our small town is 

very historic and preserved to stay as such. To preserve our historic look, ordinances 

have been put in place, such as limiting the height of business signs to not obstruct 

views, and encourage natural or historic appeal. Business volume is very seasonal, 

traffic & tourism is heaviest May thru September. The off season is very detrimental to all businesses and layoffs are unavoidable for most small business owners, 

which is the general makeup of our businesses, those owned by the private sector. 

My main concern regarding HR3640 is that there has been no public hearing or 

input on the matter. Residents feel there is a lack of transparency and that it is 

being ‘slipped’ in with special interests. While it benefit’s the Park Service and their 

employees, it poses several implications and impacts to the community itself that 

have not been addressed. Most residents don’t even know about it. 

Currently the Federal Government owns 50% of Mariposa County. The proposed 

development is requesting 18 acres of land in the heart of Mariposa. Even this 

amount of acreage seems too much for the proposal of a Federal building, parking 

lot & possibly a museum. How much more does the Federal government need to 

take from Mariposa County before we are just an extension of Yosemite? Yosemite 

is approximately 30 miles from Mariposa. While we all realize the need to accommodate tourism, there are other alternatives and ways to meet these needs. However 

they have not been addressed. This is viewed as a Federal overreach and local government wants to promote a public/private partnership without a detailed plan offered to the public. What about the private business sector? Why not move this 

project into El Portal, where the land is already owned by Park service? Why spend 

at a time such as this? Our residents should have a say in how their community 

is developed, especially with tax payer funds. Mariposa’s Tax base revenue will be 

lost, traffic will be impacted and local businesses will be negatively effected with 

the expansion of a 4 Star Hotel and Conference Center. While broad vision, smart 

growth and planning is encouraged, the residents of Mariposa have not had the opportunity to engage these ideas nor have they been revealed in a public forum. 

The bill itself, HR3640 is vague and open ended, which leaves doubt and confusion as to the intent and direction of the bill. The prohibition of eminent domain 

remarked in the bill indicates that if it does not meet the requirement, then we 

question the intent and necessity. Mariposa residents oppose HR3640 and encourage 

the committee to deeply consider the impacts of this bill to the residents & town 

of Mariposa. 

Our hope is that this bill will NOT proceed further through the process until it 

is more thoroughly researched. This includes public hearings, detailed ‘‘proposed’’ 

drawings including roadways and other transportation issues, the impact (if any) on 

local hotels and restaurants. 

We are not opposed to thoughtful growth and additional amenities to Mariposa 

County, but I feel it has to be done in a fashion that indicates the best possible solution for those of us who call Mariposa our home. 

Thank you for your consideration to our historic town and the residents who care 

so deeply for it. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. All right. Questions for this 

panel. Mr. McClintock, we will start with you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Supervisor Cann, 

you mentioned the challenges in communicating your intent. And 

I think the challenges—because we seem to be hearing two very 

different stories. One is that this is just to move administrative employees out of the park into a separate office. They sit in the front 

of the computer all day and they don’t have any interaction with 

park visitors. 

Yet, on the other hand, it raises the question. Why is it, then, 

that we are seeking 18 acres of land for this administrative office? 

It also begs the question that was raised in a public meeting that 

I attended recently. When there are so many vacant office spaces 

in Mariposa that are going unleased, why is it we would have the 

Federal Government building yet another office facility? 

The other question that it raises is if this is just to move administrative officials that have no interaction with guests, then how 

does that comport with your statement that this is going to get a— 
82 

that this will enable park visitors to get a full park ranger orientation, entrance passes, maps, and plan their trip before they enter 

the park? Your words. Seems to me that is very much involved 

with visitor interaction, and that that would best be in the park 

itself, where people can access it, regardless of which gateway they 

are coming from. 

So, I am just—that may be the source of your problem in communicating intent is we are getting all sorts of very different communications, as far as the intent of this. And then I look back at the 

legislative history of this issue and find that, years ago, Congress 

was being asked to invest in a—was it an IMAX theater on the 

same parcel? 

Mr. CANN. Can I answer? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes, please. I—— 

Mr. CANN. I have no idea about an IMAX. And certainly that 

the—I can’t imagine the National Park Service building an IMAX. 

But let me go to your other questions. This bill has always, and 

the concept has always been for visitor services and for administrative purposes. The bill signed in 2004 specified both of those issues. 

There actually are no—there was one building in Mariposa that 

was able to be rented by the Park Service. And they, in fact, did 

that and have administrative offices. They moved payroll, budgeting—again, facilities and services that don’t have any visitor 

interactions. And that is the only ones that would ever be moved 

into—out into the gateway community. 

It is actually very common around crown jewel-type national 

parks, to try to do those things that don’t need to be done in the 

park in a gateway community. It is so much easier to provide those 

services, everything from—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Right, which raises the next issue. And that 

is, if we are moving visitor services out of the park and 30 miles 

west to Mariposa, what are the visitors supposed to do who are 

coming through Oakhurst or Sonora, for example? Are they—did— 

these are obviously visitor-related services that are being moved 

out of the park, and therefore will not be accessible to visitors entering the park through any other gateway, except Mariposa, which 

is the concern that has been raised by both Tuolumne County and 

Madera County. 

Mr. CANN. Actually, I believe that this model will absolutely become a model not necessarily needing Federal development, it 

just—the facilities don’t exist in Mariposa—but will quickly be copied in other gateway communities. 

Last year, as I said, 67 of the 100 busiest days had over an hour 

back-up. Many of those days had two-hour back-ups. People are 

turning around. You know, they are being excluded from our national park. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I agree that is a problem. But maybe that is 

an argument in favor of enlarging the entrance and services there 

in the park, and not moving them 30 miles outside of the park, outside of the range of visitors coming through Madera County, from 

Southern California, or coming through Tuolumne County, from 

Northern California. 

Mr. CANN. So the concept here is that since 70—more than 70 

percent are not overnighting in the park, they can get all of their 
83 

orientation that they normally get in line to get with that park 

ranger at the entrance station, and they want to question—you 

know, they have just driven from Kansas, or—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Right, but I think you are missing the 

point—— 

Mr. CANN. I am sorry. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK [continuing]. That both Madera and Tuolumne 

are raising, and that is, well, what about the folks that had been 

going though their communities? 

Mr. CANN. And the exact same type process is available. The 

Park Service—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But this is not a comprehensive plan that involves all the gateway communities. This is a plan that picks one 

winner out of many losers. And that is the concern that is being 

raised. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me—I am going to have to interrupt here. Mr. 

McClintock, if you would take the Chair for a second, we will go 

to Mr. Garamendi for questions, and then we will go to another 

round after that. 

Mr. CANN. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Garamendi, you have questions of this panel? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. First of all, the issue of the impact of visitors 

on the park, including the impact of administrative personnel and 

other services in the Valley has been muchly discussed for more 

than 40 years. And efforts have been underway for all that time 

to try to find a way to move as many services as possible out of 

the Valley, not to eliminate the visitor services, but rather to augment them outside the Valley. 

The plan, as I understand it, and as has been discussed for these 

many years, is to move the administrative services out of the Valley. There is no need for them to be in the Valley. There are certain 

things that will have to remain, certain policing services, some 

medical services, but not the normal administrative services. 

Second, there is no plan to eliminate in the Valley visitor services. They will remain. The point of this entire exercise is to take 

out of the Valley as much as possible, so that the Valley can remain as unencumbered by the thousands or tens of thousands of 

visitors that are there during the normal course of a day. 

Now, I understand the local community’s concerns about whether 

this is the right place, the right—and the rest. But something has 

to be done. There is no way that the Valley can continue in its 

present form. 

Just a couple of questions, Mr. Cann, and I appreciate your testimony. And I think you may have answered this, but the engagement of the public outside the Valley—and I want to make it 

clear—let me ask this of the Park Service. Do you intend to have 

visitor services continue in the Valley? 

Mr. KNOX. Yes. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So there will be visitor services under this plan 

at the major gateway—that is Mariposa—as well as in the Valley. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. KNOX. Yes, Congressman. And the primary purpose, as you 

just stated, is to provide administrative support facilities in 
84 

Mariposa with an ancillary purpose of providing visitor contact at 

that same facility. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Second, is it not the case that visitor services 

outside other parks is common? 

Mr. KNOX. Correct. And visitor services outside—yes. We provide 

visitor services outside parks all over the country in different situations. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. So this is nothing new. Is that correct? 

Mr. KNOX. That is correct. And we also have administrative offices outside of many parks. Grand Canyon is a good example. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think you get on a train some 40 miles or 30 

miles outside. And before you get on the train there is a visitor 

service. Is that correct? 

Mr. KNOX. That is correct. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. So this is not new. It is an effort to try to 

reduce the pressure on the site. That is, the park itself. And that 

is commendable. 

So, back to Mr. Cann. And thank you for being here and testifying. There is some concern that this would subtract from the 

community’s economic strength. Could you address that? 

Mr. CANN. Oh, happily. As I stated, the Chamber of Commerce, 

the Tourism Bureau, the Economic Development Corporation have 

all submitted letters in support, in addition to the Board of Supervisors, that they think just the opposite, that this would dramatically improve our ability to serve those visitors. Again, 88 percent 

of the paychecks in Mariposa County—I think we both stipulate to 

this situation—come first, second, or third-hand from the tourists 

on their way to Yosemite. 

With regard to the local community knowledge and input, there 

have been two newspaper stories about this. We have a weekly 

newspaper that is read by just about everyone. We had so many 

folks come to meet with Congressman Denham to—when this was 

the highlighted presentation—and, in fact, the only presentation— 

that we had to rent the fairgrounds building. This was in June of 

2011, before the Congressman introduced the bill. 

So, I would offer that we have really tried to beat the bushes in 

letting people know about this. And, as with all of us, we are constantly challenged of finding the ones that we haven’t. I was very 

happy to meet with Ms. Johnson on Monday to go over this exact 

whole process, and it was very beneficial. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. OK. Thank you. Just to wrap up my time, first 

of all, this is not new. This has been discussed, I know, for at least 

the last 20 years, because I was involved in the discussions 20 

years ago on this. And this is a plan that has been out there for 

at least two decades, including the visitor center. Certainly the administrative offices have been out there. 

And finally, the other communities will be able—people accessing 

the park from other communities will be able to access the visitor 

services in the park itself on the Valley floor. 

With that, I yield. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK [presiding]. Thank you. Ms. Johnson, if this is 

about just moving administrative services, as Congressman 

Garamendi has just suggested, why is it that we need 18 acres to 

do so? 
85 

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, that is our concern. I don’t believe we need 

18 acres. The parcels that are in question for the development of 

the visitor center is approximately seven acres. The remaining 11 

are across the street, about half a block away, that lead to private 

property where they plan to develop the convention center and the 

hotel. I am not arguing that there is a need for this, we just are 

opposed to the development, the ownership of more Federal land in 

our community. They already own 50 percent. 

And the fact that these extra 11 acres aren’t necessary is a concern. We are already losing a tax base off the seven parcels. And 

there is also the fact that our intersections and our roads are going 

to be majorly impacted. And the community, you know, it may be 

beneficial, but who is it really benefitting? The traffic that is 

backed up in Yosemite is now going to be backed up in town. We 

don’t even have traffic lights there. This is located at a four-way 

stop sign. 

There is issues that have not been addressed, and that is the 

major concern with the residents of Mariposa. This may have been 

a plan for 20 years, but we have only heard about it twice, through 

a newspaper ad. There has been no public forum, there has been 

no discussion allowing the public to have an input or opinions. I 

believe there is other alternatives to development. And more Federal ownership of our land is not always the solution. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So, basically, this will simply move the congestion from the west entrance to the center of town. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What do the residents that you talk to think 

about that? 

Ms. JOHNSON. They are not happy about it, because they haven’t 

had a voice in it. It has not been addressed. There has been no proposals. We don’t know how this is going to happen. There is really 

not a lot of area for development on the roadways. And, as I mentioned, you know, there is no traffic lights, there is—it is a fourway stop sign. And the fact that more land is being asked for raises 

a question on the intent of this bill and what is really in the future. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now, if this is just about moving administrative offices, as Congressman Garamendi has suggested, is there unleased office space in Mariposa? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Several. The county just left open, I believe, six 

different buildings. The leases remain open until 2015, is my understanding. The county just built a Federal—or, excuse me, our 

State human resources office on a stimulus grant just a couple of 

years ago without any public input, as well, and they left abandoned six or seven buildings. And it is just recently the National 

Park Service moved into one of those buildings, and they are paying over 12,500 a month for a leased building that is subleased 

through our county. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Why would administrative offices housing 100 

desk-bound employees require a adjoining conference and convention center? 

Ms. JOHNSON. They would not. That would just be beneficial, I 

believe, to the developer. I believe it would also harm our other 

businesses, which are made up mostly of restaurants, hotels that 

provide services for the tourists, and are very dependent on that. 
86 

We are not arguing that, you know—yes, the park there is congested as well, and there are needs. But to what extreme do we— 

you know, how much land does the Federal Government need in 

our county? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So it appears, despite the stated intent, that 

there is an intent to draw a great deal of additional visitor traffic 

through Mariposa that would come at the expense of existing communities like Sonora and Oakhurst, which, as we heard from the 

letter that I quoted from the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors 

in Madera, is almost entirely dependent upon that traffic. 

And again, I understand it is going to increase traffic—visitors 

to Mariposa. But that will be—come at the expense of traffic that 

would otherwise have been going through those other communities. 

And—— 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mariposa welcomes the tourist. And we need the 

business. We are hurting that way. I won’t argue that at all. I am 

just saying that there are other alternatives that have not been addressed, because the people haven’t had a voice to do that. 

I would also raise the question as why, you know, another developer can’t come in and build this visitor center, keep the land in 

Mariposa County and not in the hands of the Federal Government. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. They could easily lease—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. My time is expired. I just want to say I think 

that I like the overall objective, but I think it has to be done comprehensively. And the issues that are dividing the local community 

need to be resolved before it is brought to Congress. 

Congressman Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Oh, I am sorry. Congressman Tsongas—OK, 

Congressman Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of things. 

First of all, the bill does not mandate 18 acres be purchased. It 

says up to. The actual language is ‘‘not more than 18 acres.’’ 

Now, the other thing is this simply authorizes it. There is this 

little process which still is the law, although this Committee seems 

to want it kind of modified or eliminated. It is called NEPA. Nothing is going to get built until that process is completed. There has 

to be an environmental study. 

So, the issues of traffic, the issues of parking, the issues of traffic 

lights all have to be dealt with in that process. That is just the way 

it is going to be. So many of the concerns that have been expressed 

here will be thoroughly vetted in the NEPA process. That is what 

it is for. Not just the environmental issues, which will be dealt 

with, but also the community issues. And one of the great debates 

that rages in this Committee is the issue of do we keep NEPA in 

place. 

Now, the concerns that have been expressed here by the community, or at least the representative of the community, have to be 

addressed in that NEPA process. Whether it is 18 acres or 17.37 

acres or 7.3 acres, that is what the NEPA process is all about. It 

will have to be laid out. 

This bill simply says that the National Park Service has the authority to purchase up to 18 acres. Things are going to get worked 
87 

out here. Without a bill like this, the problems in the Valley will 

continue. And they are very, very serious problems of congestion 

within the Valley, both for Sonora, for Oakhurst, and for Mariposa. 

So, we are putting in place a step toward a process that will lay 

out and thoroughly vet the concerns that have been raised here 

about the community and traffic lights and so on and so forth. So, 

I think we are on the right track here. And I must tell you this 

has been debated ad nauseam. We have to move. The Valley is suffering as a result of the continuing debate back and forth about 

what to do. What to do, what to do? And nothing gets done, and 

the Valley suffers. The visitor experience in the Valley is degraded 

by the impact of administrative offices, by the impact of visitors 

trying to get into the visitor center within the Valley, since there 

is none outside. So we are moving forward here. 

And so, with that, if any of you would like to comment, let’s start 

with the Supervisor, and go from there. 

Mr. CANN. Thank you very much, Congressman. There is no real 

evidence that suggests that this will have any impact on the number of visitors that go through this corridor. It won’t—shouldn’t 

take a single visitor from any of the other corridors. You know, 

each corridor gets almost the same amount of visitors over the 

course of a full year. What this will do is it should dramatically reduce the entrance station back-ups. And once those folks hit Yosemite, they can go right where they want to go. They don’t have 

to go get any more orientation, unless they choose to. There will 

be—all the facilities and services that exist in Yosemite Valley will 

exist. Again, the Park Service is—already has been funding putting 

seasonal interpreters in each of the gateway communities, because 

this concept is so needed. 

I will respond that in 1958 Congress bought 1,200 acres in the 

community of El Portal, mentioned earlier, that was designated for 

this type of a development to move things out of Yosemite Valley. 

Unfortunately, as laws got overlayed on that—and particularly of 

late, the Wild and Scenic River Act—that became non-available for 

these facilities. 

Now, there is a wastewater treatment plant and a maintenance 

operation there, and there is no more space to build. But the 

need—I mean in 1958 the park probably had 20 percent of the employees that it has now. The need is exponentially greater. 

I would just last say that twice this issue came before the Board 

of Supervisors in published—pre-published public meetings to have 

this open discussion. There has been virtually no objection voiced 

in the community in these public meetings with the Chambers of 

Commerce, the people that we might think would be most impacted 

by this. So I do agree, as I said earlier, there—communication is 

never sufficient. And as we talked earlier, the—I made myself 

available to go anywhere anyone wants to talk about what the bill 

is and what it isn’t. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP [presiding]. Thank you. I appreciate that. Is there 

any other questions for this panel? 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. If not, I thank you—— 

Mr. CANN. Thank you. 
88 

Mr. BISHOP [continuing]. For being here. Next, Mr. Knox, we 

have a couple of other bills I think you are testifying—— 

Mr. KNOX. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP [continuing]. Will be testifying. So why don’t you 

stay there? Mr. Cann, Ms. Johnson, thank you for taking the time 

and effort to come all the way back here and testify to us. I appreciate that. 

Let me ask Mr. Jim Pen ̃ a, who is the Associate Deputy Chief of 

the National Forest Service if he will join us at the panel. Also, 

Mayor John Curtis, the Mayor of Provo, if he will come up, and we 

will deal with H.R. 4484 next. 

Let me have—actually, so we have room, Mr. Slavin and Ms. 

Campbell, let’s wait. And as soon as these two are done with their 

testimony we will bring you up and then you can have full shot at 

the panel here. So just Mr. Pen ̃ a and Mayor Curtis here. 

Mr. Pen ̃ a, can I have you actually address two bills in this particular one? I don’t think there is anyone else to talk about 4109, 

Representative Gallegly’s bill. If you will talk about that, as well 

as 4484, which is Y Mountain, if you will do those two, and then 

we will turn to Mayor Curtis on those two and see if there are 

questions for those. Thank you. 

Mr. PEN ̃ A. OK. Would you like me to do them in any order, 

or—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Why don’t you do—why don’t you get 4109 out of the 

way first, and then turn to Y Mountain? 

Mr. PEN ̃ A. OK. 

STATEMENT OF JIM PEN ̃ A, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, UNITED STATES FOREST 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. PEN ̃ A. Good morning, Chairman Bishop and—it would have 

been members of the Committee. My name is Jim Pen ̃ a. I am Associate Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, U.S. Forest 

Service. Thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding 

H.R. 4109, the Los Padres Conservation and Recreation Act of 

2012. 

We do not oppose the legislation designating these additional wilderness areas on the Los Padres National Forest. Each area is 

unique and would be a valuable addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System. However, we are concerned with changing the delegation of authority for deciding when wilderness can be 

entered with mechanized equipment during fire suppression activities. 

I know from firsthand experience that the current system works 

to quickly respond to a request, and provides a fair and balanced 

way of weighing the potential firefighting benefits with the potential impacts to wilderness. The Forest Service uses a minimum resource decision guide, or minimum tool analysis, to guide the appropriate response for addressing emergency situations. This process can and has authorized use of motorized equipment in wilderness on a case-by-case basis. 

We do not oppose the proposed additions to the National Wild 

and Scenic River Act—or Wild and Scenic River System in this bill, 

either. But there are some new segments which are inconsistent 
89 

with the classification findings in the eligibility and suitability 

studies. In addition, we would like to work with the Subcommittee 

to make the designation of Upper Sespe Creek more consistent 

with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. We find that it is important 

to maintain the integrity of the act, and that there are other options such as boundary adjustment available to meet the California 

Department of Transportation’s concerns on being able to maintain 

Highway 33. 

The Department does not support a legislative land exchange 

with United Water Conservation District of California, because 

Congress has provided the authority to conduct the land exchange 

administratively. We note that a public interest determination and 

an appropriate environmental review would provide for a fair exchange for both the United Water Conservation District and the 

American public. 

In addition, we would like to work with the Committee to develop a more detailed land exchange map that clearly identifies the 

parcels and their locations to be included in the legislation. 

One concern we have with legislated exchange is water rights. In 

the proposed exchange, the United States would convey water 

rights with the Federal property to be exchanged. Properties which 

would be—which would come to the Federal estate would do so 

without water rights. This does not appear to be an equitable exchange for the public. 

Last, I would like to discuss off-highway vehicle, or OHV, use. 

OHV use is a popular activity on the national forests, in particular 

on the Los Padres. And the Department supports the provision of 

diverse OHV opportunities for recreational users. However, designating new OHV areas and trails and opening existing trails to 

new uses without first conducting environmental analysis to determine potential resource effects, including threatened and endangered species, is a serious concern. 

If this legislation moves forward, the Department requests the 

Subcommittee require new designations to the—be subject to the 

Environmental Policy Act NEPA analysis, as well as funding availability to conduct the analysis. The mitigation measures identified 

in the NEPA process would provide appropriate enforcement plans 

and closures to ensure protection of the resources, including threatened and endangered species. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And my full remarks have been submitted for the Committee. 

I would be happy to take any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pen ̃ a follows:] 

Statement of James M. Pen ̃ a, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest 

System, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, on 

H.R. 4109, the ‘‘Los Padres Conservation and Recreation Act of 2012’’ 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the Committee, my 

name is Jim Pen ̃ a. I serve as the Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest 

System. Thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding H.R. 4109 the 

‘‘Los Padres Conservation and Recreation Act of 2012’’. H.R. 4109 is a large and 

complex bill that involves designation and specific management direction related to 

nearly 63,600 acres of new wilderness, designation of approximately 88.6 miles of 

new wild and scenic rivers, creation of about 18,500 acres of a new special management area, designation of two new OHV areas comprising close to 65,800 acres, and 
90 

execution of a land exchange with the United Water Conversation District of California. 

The Department does not oppose H.R. 4109, but would like to work with the bill 

sponsor and the Committee to address several concerns. 

TITLE I—ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION 

SYSTEM 

Consistent with the Wilderness Act and National Forest Management Act, the Department supports wilderness designation for areas that are dominated by the forces 

of nature, and that offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation. The majority of the land parcels proposed for Wilderness designation were recommended through the Land and Resource Management Plan for 

the Los Padres National Forest. These lands encompass expansive grasslands, chaparral covered slopes, rolling badlands, high elevation mountains, and deep, winding 

river canyons. Endangered Condors make their home here and unique plants like 

the Santa Ynez false-lupine exist here and nowhere else on earth. However, there 

are several key issues the Department would like to work on with the Subcommittee 

and Bill sponsor. 

The Department shares the concerns about wildfire suppression and pre-suppression with the community, the Subcommittee and the bill sponsor. However, the Department cannot support the prescriptive wildland fire language included in section 

102(e)(2) that changes the Forest Service delegation of authority. Under the current 

policy for suppressing and managing wilderness fires the Forest Supervisor is the 

responsible federal official who makes a verbal request to the Regional Forester for 

approval to use motorized equipment for suppressing the wildfire. This time-tested 

policy outlines the delegation of authority for use of motorized and mechanized 

equipment and allows the Agency to implement a wide range of activities in both 

administrative and emergency situations. Consistent with the National Incident 

Command System, the incident commander operates under a delegation of authority 

from the hosting agency for the purpose of managing the incident. The incident commander exercises the delegated authority of the agency during the incident. The Department would recommend that the current system of requests and approvals be 

continued for the Wilderness designated under this bill. 

Under existing authorities the Forest Service has successfully implemented a wide 

range of emergency and administrative activities in support of fire suppression and 

pre-suppression. The Forest Service has the capability under existing approval procedures to respond in a timely manner when authorizing motorized equipment and 

mechanical transport in wilderness areas. 

In addition, in section 102(e)(3), the bill refers to ‘‘post-wildfire hazards on the 

land’’. This term is unclear and the Department would like to work with the Subcommittee and the bill sponsor to clarify its meaning. The Forest Service uses a 

Minimum Resource Decision Guide (MRDG), or ‘‘minimum tool analysis’’ to guide 

the appropriate response for addressing emergency conditions within wilderness. 

Based on a case-by-case analysis, the ‘‘minimum tool’’ can authorize the use of motorized equipment with in wilderness consistent with section 4(c) of the Wilderness 

Act of 1964. 

In section 102(f), the bill refers to ‘‘expedited emergency lifeline repair projects.’’ 

If the road is outside of the wilderness boundary and the boundary is sufficiently 

set back to allow for anticipated maintenance-associated features such as culverts 

and retaining walls, then this language is unnecessary. The Department suggests 

that section 102 (j) should be changed to read that that the allowed right of way 

shall run with the land, rather than the lawful owner of such property shall be allowed right of way to their property. The Department would like to work with the 

Subcommittee and bill sponsor to further clarify our concerns. 

TITLE II—ADDITIONS TO NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM 

The Department generally supports the designation of additional rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. However, several of the new segment classifications are inconsistent with the classification findings in the eligibility and suitability studies for the proposed Wild and Scenic Rivers. There is also a discrepancy 

in the total mileage listed for Piru Creek and the sum of the mileages of the individual segments. The Department would like the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee and bill sponsor to change the segment classifications to be consistent 

with the eligibility and suitability findings and to clear up the Piru Creek mileage 

discrepancies. 

The Department would like to work with the Committee and the bill sponsor to 

identify an approach that is more consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

for the designation of Upper Sespe Creek. Subparagraph (B) of that designation ex-
91 

empts the effects of maintenance, repair or improvements of California Highway 33 

by the California Department of Transportation. As written, subparagraph (B) could 

reduce the Agency’s ability to ensure that activities in the wild and scenic river corridor are consistent with protecting river values, free flow and water quality present 

at the date of designation. The Department requests the opportunity to work with 

the Subcommittee on the concerns regarding Highway 33, while remaining consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

TITLE III—CONDOR RIDGE SCENIC AREA 

H.R. 4109 provides additional protections for 18,520 acres along the crest of the 

bucolic Gaviota Coast. The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Los Padres 

National Forest recommended Condor Ridge for Wilderness designation; however, 

the Department supports the creation of the Condor Ridge Scenic Area. In addition, 

the Department requests the Committee provide more time than three years to develop the comprehensive management plan. 

TITLE IV—OFF HIGHWAY VEHICLE USE 

Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use is a popular activity on the National Forests, and 

the Department supports the provision of diverse OHV opportunities for recreational 

users. However, designating new OHV areas and trails and opening existing trails 

to new uses without first conducting environmental analysis to determine potential 

resource effects, including threatened and endangered species, is a serious concern. 

If this legislation moves forward, the Department requests that the Subcommittee 

expressly clarify the new designations are subject to National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). The mitigation measures identified in the NEPA process would provide 

the appropriate enforcement plans and closures to ensure the protection of the resources, including threatened and endangered species in the area. 

TITLE V—LAND EXCHANGE 

The land exchange outlined in this bill directs an exchange with the United Water 

Conservation District (UWCD) of California. The United States would acquire 350 

acres (more or less) near Lake Piru on the southeastern edge of the Los Padres National Forest near the Ventura/Los Angeles county line, in exchange for the conveyance of 440 acres (more or less) of federal lands, including the Blue Point Campground along Piru Creek, a one-mile stretch of Piru Creek, several parcels of land 

along the lake’s shoreline, and all of the remaining federally-owned portions of the 

access road around the lake’s perimeter. 

The Department does not oppose a land exchange with the UWCD, but cannot 

support this land exchange as written. The Department prefers to allow the Forest 

Service to conduct this exchange administratively in order to ensure an equal value 

exchange, a public interest determination, and appropriate environmental review occurs. The Department would like the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee 

and bill sponsor to ensure that this exchange is in the public’s best interest. 

Section 502(a) requires the Secretary to enter into an exchange with the UWCD, 

while allowing ‘‘de minimis’’ changes to the parcels based upon public input from 

the NEPA process. In addition, section 502(d)(1) states that the lands to be exchanged are depicted on the overview map. However, the detail present on the overview map is not sufficient to inform either the Subcommittee or the Secretary of the 

parcels involved in the land exchange. The Department would suggest that a separate and discrete land exchange map, clearly identifying the parcels and their locations be included with the legislation as it moves through Committee. 

Section 502(g) excludes water rights, which presumably means the UWCD will 

continue to be able to use National Forest System lands for its water uses. By 

UWCD retaining water rights, the United States will not be in a position to determine the management activities on NFS lands, including managing resources and 

activities that require water. The Department respectfully requests that the Subcommittee amend this provision to ensure that the United States acquire all rights, 

title and interest in the lands, including water rights. 

In addition, the Department does not know if there are title issues related to the 

UWCD lands included in the exchange. The fact that it remains included in the legislation as a specific cost that the UWCD will not be responsible for concerns the 

Department that there may be title issues. Further, curing defects to title are the 

responsibility of the current landowner to resolve prior to conveyance to the United 

States. Since the Department of Justice Title Standards 2001 apply (502(d)(5)) 

which limit the ability of the United States to acquire land with defective title, it 

remains unclear why the United States would expend funds to clear potential title 

defects on property it does not yet own. 

In previous iterations of the land exchange, the UWCD was to pay for the construction of a parking lot allowing for public access to the Potholes Trail on National 
92 

Forest System lands. The current bill requires the UWCD to construct this parking 

lot, but section 502(d)(4) exempts the UWCD from paying for the costs of construction. The Department would like to work with the Committee, the bill sponsor and 

the UWCD to address this provision in a mutually satisfactory manner that addresses the need for public access and parking for the Potholes Trail. The bill also 

requires the proceeds from the equalization payment shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury. Utilizing Public Law 90–171, commonly known as the 

‘‘Sisk Act’’ (16. U.S.C. 484a), would allow for the deposit of proceeds received for a 

conveyance into the fund established under the Sisk Act for the acquisition of land 

or interests in land within the State of California. 

Map Concerns 

The Department has concerns regarding the overview map that is referenced in 

the bill. The Forest Service provided mapping services to the bill Sponsor, creating 

six detailed legislative maps of the proposed new wilderness areas/expansions, as 

well as the two proposed new OHV areas. Citing the more general overview map 

only, instead of the specific legislative maps, would likely open the door to future 

boundary disputes. Technically correct maps are vitally important to our on-theground management and implementation of Congress’s direction. The Department 

would like to work with the Subcommittee and bill sponsor to ensure the detailed 

legislative maps dated February 27, 2012, are included in the bill text. 

Summary 

In summary, the Department supports the intent of H.R. 4109 that would add additional outstanding landscapes to the National Wilderness Preservation System, 

additional miles of protected rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System, 

and provide additional OHV opportunities. However, my testimony outlined several 

critical concerns to the Committee with H.R. 4109 in its current form. The Department would like to work with the Committee and the bill sponsor to address our 

concerns. Furthermore, we understand that the Department of Justice may have 

concerns with the bill that it would like to with the Committee. 

This concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any questions you might 

have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And did you get 4484 in that, as well? 

Mr. PEN ̃ A. 4484, I can do that right now. 

Mr. BISHOP. Go. 

Mr. PEN ̃ A. I am still Jim Pen ̃ a. And I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify regarding H.R. 4484, the Y Mountain Access Enhancement Act. 

Over 100 years ago, the rivalry between the junior and senior 

class of Brigham Young University High School led to the creation 

of Y on Y Mountain. Since that time, the tradition of whitewashing 

the Y has been an important tradition at Brigham Young University. The trail to the Y is a popular hike in Utah Valley. BYU, the 

Forest Service, Provo City, and Utah County have worked together 

to manage this important site over the years. 

Mr. Chairman, I checked with sources and opinion-shapers in 

Utah and have found the one demographic that opposes this sale, 

possibly graduates of the University of Utah. So, with your indulgence, I suggest as a condition of the sale the Y on Y Mountain be 

illuminated crimson red during the University of Utah’s homecoming week. That might be something that could be considered. 

On a more serious note, though, the Department does not object 

to the conveyance of the two parcels to BYU. We would like to enhance the legislation by ensuring that the public has legal access 

to the trail and the trail head on the BYU campus. The Department request the Committee consider an amendment to allow the 

Secretary to obtain an easement from BYU for the trail head parking and for the trail on the portion that traverses BYU property. 

This access is beyond the Y, other trails on the national forest. This 
93 

would allow roles to be clarified in the areas such as maintenance, 

liability, and safety. 

This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to take any 

questions on this bill, as well. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pen ̃ a follows:] 

Statement of James M. Pen ̃ a, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest 

System, Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, on 

H.R. 4484 the ‘‘Y’’ Mountain Access Enhancement Act 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the Committee, my 

name is Jim Pen ̃ a. I serve as the Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest 

System. Thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding H.R 4484, the 

‘‘Y’’ Mountain Access Enhancement Act. 

H.R. 4484, the ‘‘Y’’ Mountain Access Enhancement Act, would direct the Secretary 

to convey to Brigham Young University (BYU) all right, title, and interest of the 

United States to two parcels comprising approximately 80.99 acres of National Forest System land in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest in the State of Utah, 

as shown on the accompanying map. The southern parcel is a split estate, so the 

United States would only convey what it owns (the surface estate). The United 

States does not own the underlying mineral estate. 

The Department does not object to the conveyance of the two parcels, but would 

like to work with the Subcommittee and the sponsor to address public access at the 

trailhead. The parcels are adjacent to land currently owned by the University. The 

trailhead and beginning portion of the ‘‘Y Mountain Trail’’ are located on land already owned by the University. Historically, the public has been permitted access 

to the trailhead and trail. Section 2(c) of the bill seeks to provide the same reasonable public access for the trail that historically has been allowed. To accomplish this 

objective, the Department recommends that section 2(c) be revised to provide for the 

reservation by the Secretary of an easement for public access for the portion of Forest Service Trail #2062 that would be conveyed to the University. Currently no legal 

public access to the trail exists at the trailhead and across BYU owned property. 

To ensure legal public access, the Department suggests the Committee consider an 

amendment to allow the Secretary to obtain an easement from BYU for the trailhead parking lot and the portion of trail that traverses across BYU property. 

As a technical matter, the legal description in Section 2(a) should be amended to 

correctly describe Lot 4. The legal description for this conveyance should be: SE1⁄4SE 1⁄4 of Section 32, T. 6 S., R. 3 E., and Lot 4 of Section 5, T. 7 S., R. 3 E., Salt Lake 

Base & Meridian. 

The bill provides for the conveyance of this land for consideration in the amount 

equal to the fair market value of the land. The bill also requires the proceeds from 

the sale shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury to reduce the Federal 

debt. Utilizing Public Law 90–171, commonly known as the ‘‘Sisk Act’’ (16. U.S.C. 

484a), would allow for the deposit of proceeds received for a conveyance into the 

fund established under the Sisk Act for the acquisition of land or interests in land 

within the State of Utah. 

This concludes our testimony and I would be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And as the University of Utah graduate 

here in the room, we will take your comments seriously. 

Mayor Curtis to the Y Mountain bill, please. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN CURTIS, MAYOR, CITY OF PROVO 

Mayor CURTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Greetings from the 

Great State of Utah and our two percent humidity. And it is a 

pleasure to be with you today and I appreciate your time on this 

important issue. I must tell you in all my wildest imaginations I 

never thought I would be in Washington, D.C. defending the BYUUtah rivalry, and with the suggestion that we turn that Y into a 

U. I am not sure I could return home unless I adamantly opposed 

that suggestion. 
94 

But that being said, I appreciate the opportunity to be here 

today. Let me also thank the U.S. Forest Service. If you will notice 

at the television screen up there to my left, you will see that we 

share a border with U.S. Forest Service through a high percentage 

of our city. And it has been a terrific relationship. We often find 

ourselves working with them in forest fires and rescues and land 

issues. And I believe it has been a terrific relationship. 

Well, Provo City has long been associated with a high quality of 

life. I like to brag that the Gallup Organization consistently recognizes the Provo Metro Area in the top two or three cities in the 

country for well-being. And at the heart of this is, in many cases, 

the priorities set by this community. And those priorities, in many 

ways, disseminate from Brigham Young University. Yesterday 

there was a fun announcement that I would like to share with you 

by Forbes Magazine, who ranked Provo City, the Provo Metro Area, 

the number one area in the entire United States for business and 

careers. And if I could just quote off their website, they say, ‘‘Topping our 14th annual list of the best places for business and careers is Provo, Utah. The $16 billion economy is thriving largely on 

the back of Brigham Young University.’’ And I found that very interesting, particularly given that—the relevant discussion today. 

BYU is a large part of our community. The Y on the mountain 

is very symbolic to the residents of the county. They find themselves feeling at home when they see that Y. It is symbolic of many 

things that we stand for. It has also become a large recreational 

use for our residents. 

Mr. Pen ̃ a referred to the rivalry that started in 1906. The Y has 

been on that mountain since 1906. And many residents are surprised to find out that Brigham Young University doesn’t own the 

entire property. And, in fact, they did at one point. And if you, here 

again, look up on the screen, you will see the BYU campus in the 

forefront. The green part of the mountain is currently owned by 

BYU, and managed by BYU. The two blue squares above are the 

80 acres in question, and once were owned by BYU, and through 

a series of events became—the ownership fell under the U.S. Forest 

Service. So, we are actually talking about something that would return to Brigham Young University something that they once 

owned. 

In addition, Brigham Young University has maintained a trail 

head and a trail that travels up through their property and across 

the U.S. Forest Service. And they have maintained that trail, and 

it is an incredibly popular destination for many people. And you 

can see, if you are an aggressive hiker, you can hike right up the 

mountain over the top of that to some other beautiful hikes 

throughout the area. 

And perhaps the largest reason for doing this is to actually ensure the long-term viability of that trial, and the access to that wilderness area for our residents. I believe that this is important, and 

I support this for several reasons. I mentioned the recreational access, the long-term sustained record of good stewardship by 

Brigham Young University, not only on this, but in many assets 

throughout the city. 

And I think it is a terrific opportunity to—and it is actually quite 

symbolic, I think, to the residents of Utah County who find them-
95 

selves quite conservative, that we are actually asking Congress to 

do something that relieves a burden from the U.S. Government and 

puts it on the private sector. And, in addition, puts funds to the— 

to reducing the deficit. And I think that is something that would 

also greatly please the residents. 

So, thank you for your time, and I look forward to exploring this 

with the U.S. Forest Service and their team, as well. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Curtis follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable John Curtis, Provo City Mayor, 

on Y Mountain Access Enhancement Act (H.R. 4484) 

Provo City has long been directly associated with its high quality of life and is 

consistently recognized as one of the most favorable places in the country to raise 

a family. This is largely due to the priorities we set as a community. At the very 

heart of those priorities is Brigham Young University—a world-renowned institution 

whose reputation is that of a responsible, creditable steward of resources. 

Recently, it has come to my attention that an option is available to transfer ownership of what Provo residents have referred to for years as ‘‘Y Mountain’’ from the 

Forest Service into the hands of Brigham Young University. 

The background to this story is both appropriate and necessary as you go through 

your decision-making process. 

Our Y is a signal on our eastern mountain to many people. In an interesting way 

it represents home. It identifies us and tells people that they have arrived to the 

site of something very unique and special. 

In 1906 Brigham Young University was a mere three year old institution still 

searching for its identity. On a spring day, a feud between the classes of 1906 and 

1907 would surprisingly lead to the creation of an enduring symbol of unity and 

identity. 

The members of the class of 1907 decided that they wanted to do something to 

stake their claim. They marched up the mountain due east of campus and carved 

the numbers 07 in the side of the mountain as a symbol of their class superiority. 

This irritated the senior class members who decided to take down the 7 and replace 

it with the 6 of their class. Physical altercations pursued which had to be broken 

up by then-President Brimhall. 

President Brimhall proclaimed that, instead of fighting, they would work together 

to construct one symbol both classes of students could rally around. He declared 

that they would replace the numbers on the mountain with the letters BYU which 

would stand for all students. 

On an April morning in 1906, students from both classes set out to construct the 

first letter—a 380 foot tall monumental Y. They formed a line and transported bags 

of a lime and sand mixture from the bottom of the hill to the top where students 

would dump the contents into the outline previously defined by drafting students. 

This process took significantly longer than anticipated. It took so long that many 

students questioned the benefit of completing their objective. While leaving the 

project one third complete—Y Mountain was born. 

This once BYU-owned 80 acre parcel, including most of the trail, is now under 

ownership of the United States Forest Service although Brigham Young University 

has managed the Forest Service’s portion of the trail for the past 50 years. 

The University has purchased the western most property and turned it into a 

well-maintained trailhead that marries perfectly with the upgrades, including signs 

and seating, it completed on the trail itself. From the perspective of the everyday 

observer, BYU owns and operates each interest of the mountain. 

Allowing Brigham Young to purchase this property would help preserve the trail 

for the short and long terms. It would provide a private owner with an impeccable 

record of sound stewardship of environmental resources to manage and maintain 

the trail. A BYU-owned trail offers a consistent and predictable ownership whose 

mission won’t change and whose vision for Y Mountain and access to the trail will 

not be disrupted. 

I, along with the residents of Provo City, support the Y Mountain Access Management Act and appreciate the language in the legislation which mandates BYU pay 

a fair market value for the property, covers administrative and appraisal costs, and 

uses the dollars to decrease our federal budget deficit. 

I look forward to working with Brigham Young University, the Forest Service, and 

their team members in continuing to make Provo City the best kept secret in the 

west. 
96 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Mayor Curtis, thank you for being here, for taking the time. Obviously, I 

think we all look forward to seeing BYU control the entire route 

up to Y Mountain. And I suppose, you know, when they find a conference, maybe there will be a rivalry again some time. But that 

is beside the point. 

And I also appreciate the Forest Service support of this particular project. I hope that we can move this one quickly. This is 

just a logical thing to do. And obviously, as someone who has been 

in that area a lot, I appreciate the approach in which we are going 

with that particular issue. Hopefully we can get that one done in 

this Congress. So thank you for being here, thank you on that. 

Mr. Pen ̃ a, I do have one question that deals with 4109, in a way. 

You stated in your written testimony the Forest Service has the capability under existing approval to respond in a timely manner to 

wildlife in wilderness areas with motorized equipment and mechanical transport. The problem we have is—or the question I had is 

that in the Los Angeles Times back in the beginning of June—I 

think June 3rd was the date—there was an article about the fire 

in New Mexico, the Whitewater-Baldy Fire there, in which an individual simply said that 70 percent of the fire is in wilderness area, 

and it is very tough to hike crews in. So we will see a point when 

containment slows down. 

If you already have the authority to respond in a timely manner, 

why was this gentleman indicating that wilderness designation 

slows the suppression efforts? 

Mr. PEN ̃ A. I don’t know why he would say that. It is not my experience. I have worked for the agency for over 34 years. Most of that 

time I have had either direct fire line experience or line officer experience overseeing large fire complexes. I have been—probably 

half of that fire experience has been in wilderness areas. 

When we look at what is needed to complete the suppression activity, to do it safely and do it effectively, we approve the minimum 

tool that is necessary. Generally, I have seen approval of helicopter 

use, water drops, chain saws, pumps, at a routine level, at the 

forest supervisor level. So there is very minimal time taken to do 

that. When you put a dozer on the ground in the wilderness, it requires that the regional forester approve that. In my experience as 

a deputy regional forester in California during the fire seasons of 

2008, 2009, and 2010, I responded to many requests for dozer activity, and we approved those in an operational time that allowed 

them to be successfully executed with the fire overhead team. 

Mr. BISHOP. You don’t know if perhaps in New Mexico there was 

a delay in that approval or not? 

Mr. PEN ̃ A. I have not heard of any delay. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. I do have—I appreciate that. I appreciate your 

explanation of that. I think I read the book ‘‘The Big Burn’’ that 

talked about the huge fire up in Montana a long time ago that precipitated part of the expansion of the Forest Service. And it was— 

indeed, one of the problems that they faced in that fire was their 

inability of having road access in that area to get in there to actually fight the fire, or to have an escape route once they found their 

efforts were—and the more roads we have along BLM land as well 
97 

as Forest lands will create access to fight those fires, as well as 

natural fire breaks in the process of being there. 

So, the more we have that, it would seem it would only be logical 

it would improve our efforts to try and combat what has become 

a devastating fire season in the West this time around. So I thank 

you. 

I appreciate you being here for both bills. Mayor, thank you once 

again for being here, and for taking the time to testify on this bill. 

We will see if we can move forward. 

Mr. Knox, if you would, stay there. And now we can invite Timothy Slavin—Slavin, I don’t know which way it is pronounced—who 

is the Delaware division historical—the Director of the Delaware 

Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs, and also Elizabeth 

Campbell, who is the Executive Director of the Nashua River Watershed Association to testify on two bills. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Knox, if we can go back to you, if you would 

deal with both H.R. 624 and I think H.R. 5319, I think those are 

the last two we have yet to talk about in this Committee. H.R. 624 

is, I think, the Delaware park bill. And H.R. 5319 is the Wild and 

Scenic River in Massachusetts, right? 

Mr. KNOX. Correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. If—oh, I am sorry. And there is also H.R. 5958, by 

Mr. Turner, to rename that park. If you would handle all three of 

those in your summation, I—in your next presentation, I would be 

appreciative. The Turner bill, the Tsongas bill, and the Delaware 

bill. 

Mr. KNOX. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the opportunity to 

present the Department of the Interior testimony on those three 

bills. I would like to submit our full statement for the record, and 

summarize our position quickly on each of these bills. 

The Department does not support H.R. 5958. This bill would rename the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Visitor Contact Station at 

Gateway National Recreation Area in honor of former Senator 

James L. Buckley. The National Park Service believes there should 

be a strong association between the park and the person being 

commemorated, and we don’t support commemoration until five 

years after that person’s passing. 

This basic principle is reflected in our National Park Service 

management policies. And we do not believe there is sufficient association between former Senator Buckley and the Jamaica Bay 

Wildlife Refuge to merit renaming the visitor center for him. And 

Senator Buckley is also currently living. 

The Department supports the enactment of H.R. 5319. This bill 

would authorize a wild and scenic river study of a segment of the 

Nashua River in Massachusetts, along with its tributaries. The 

river segment and tributary areas proposed for study exhibit the 

types of qualities and resource values that would make it a worthy 

and important candidate for a potential addition to the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

The Department strongly supports the establishment of a unit of 

the National Park System in Delaware, as proposed by H.R. 624. 

In 2008, the National Park Service completed a special resource 

study of the coastal area of Delaware, and identified a number of 

resources of national significance that were determined suitable 
98 

and feasible to administer as a unit of the National Park System. 

These resources, which are associated with the early Dutch, Swedish, and English settlement, and others associated with Delaware’s 

role as the Nation’s first State, would be eligible for inclusion in 

the park unit that would be established by the Secretary upon acquiring a sufficient amount of these resources to constitute a manageable park unit. 

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

to answer any questions you might have. 

Statement of Victor Knox, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities and 

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

H.R. 624, a Bill to Establish the First State National Historical Park in 

the State of Delaware, and for Other Purposes. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of the 

Interior’s views on H.R. 624, a bill to establish the First State National Historical 

Park in the State of Delaware. 

The Department strongly supports the establishment of a unit of the national 

park system in Delaware as proposed by H.R. 624. The Department testified in support of a similar bill, S. 323, on May 11, 2011. 

In 2008, pursuant to Public Law 109–338, the National Park Service completed 

a Special Resource Study of the coastal area of Delaware and identified a number 

of resources of national significance that were determined suitable and feasible to 

administer as a unit of the national park system. These included historic resources 

that were instrumental in early Swedish, Dutch, and English settlement in the 

United States, and others associated with Delaware’s role as the nation’s first state. 

Although the bill provides the Secretary of the Interior the discretion to determine 

which sites in the State would be included within the boundary of the historical 

park, we anticipate that only resources that met the Special Resource Study criteria 

for establishment as a national park unit would be considered for inclusion. 

In 1638, Peter Minuet led Swedish colonists to present day Wilmington, Delaware, and established New Sweden at a point known as ‘‘the rocks’’ on the Christina 

River. The settlers constructed Fort Christina at this location and this site is now 

a National Historic Landmark. In 1698, Swedish settlers established Holy Trinity 

(‘‘Old Swedes’’) Church near the fort, the oldest church building standing as originally built in the United States and also a National Historic Landmark. 

In 1651, Peter Stuyvesant led Dutch settlers from New Amsterdam and constructed Fort Casimir at a place he named ‘‘New Amstel,’’ in present day New Castle, Delaware. Conflicts between the Swedish and Dutch colonists resulted in changing occupations of the fort with the Dutch regaining control in 1655. In 1665, the 

English arrived at New Amstel and seized control of the settlement, renaming it 

‘‘New Castle.’’ William Penn landed in New Castle in 1682 and took possession of 

the city. In 1704, Penn established Delaware’s Assembly and New Castle remained 

the colonial capital of Delaware until 1776. The New Castle Historic District, which 

contains multiple resources from the time of earliest settlement through the Federal 

era, including the Old New Castle Courthouse, is a National Historic Landmark. 

Delaware’s representatives to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional 

Convention played important parts in the adoption of the Declaration of Independence and crafting of the United States Constitution. On June 15, 1776, the Delaware 

Assembly, meeting in New Castle, voted to sever its ties with the English Crown, 

three weeks prior to the signing of the Declaration in Philadelphia on July 4th. National Historic Landmarks associated with these early revolutionary leaders include 

the homes of John Dickinson (the ‘‘Penman of the Revolution’’), Gunning Bedford, 

Jr., and George Read. The Dover Green witnessed Delaware’s vote to become the 

first state to ratify the nation’s new Constitution. 

H.R. 624 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the First State 

National Historical Park consisting of any resources listed in Section 3(b) of the bill 

that the Secretary acquires. The staff of the new park would be authorized to interpret related resources outside of the boundary, within the state of Delaware. The 

Special Resource Study estimated annual operating costs for the park at $450,000 

to $550,000 and costs associated with a general management plan at $600,000. All 

funding would be subject to NPS priorities and the availability of appropriations. 

A study of additional resources related to the purpose of the park is also authorized 

to assess their potential eligibility for National Historic Landmark designation and 

options for maintaining the historic integrity of such resources. 
99 

H.R. 624 also proposes to allow including within the park boundary the Ryves 

Holt House—a part of the historic district in Lewes, Delaware. This district and the 

Ryves Holt House are listed on the National Register of Historic Places at the local 

level of significance and the National Register nomination for the district indicates 

that today its significance is based primarily on its fine examples of Victorian architecture. Although the bill provides the Secretary with the discretion to decide which 

properties may be included within the boundary of the park, the Department questions allowing the Ryves Holt House to be eligible for addition to the park boundary, 

since it is not a National Historic Landmark, does not meet the required national 

significance criterion for unit designation, and is inconsistent with the park’s purpose as outlined in Section 3(a) of H.R. 624. 

However, we note that Section 4(c) of H.R. 624 permits interpretation of resources 

related to the purposes of the park but located outside of its boundary. Any extant 

resources in Lewes, either within or outside of the historic district, which relate to 

early Dutch, Swedish, and English settlement or to Delaware’s role as the first 

state, would thus be eligible for interpretation without including this district in the 

park boundary. Such resources would also be candidates for further analysis as to 

their National Historic Landmark potential under the bill’s study provisions in Section 5. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy to respond to any 

questions that you or other members of the committee may have. 

Statement of Victor Knox, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities and 

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

H.R. 5319, To Amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to Designate a 

Segment of the Nashua River and Tributaries in the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts for Study for Potential Addition to the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System, and for Other Purposes. 

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

present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 5319, a bill to amend 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Nashua River and 

its tributaries in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. 

The Department supports enactment of H.R. 5319. The river segments and tributary areas proposed for study exhibit the types of qualities and resource values that 

would make it a worthy and important candidate for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. However, we feel that priority should be 

given to the 36 previously authorized studies for potential units of the National 

Park System, potential new National Heritage Areas, and potential additions to the 

National Trails System and National Wild and Scenic Rivers System that have not 

yet been transmitted to Congress. 

H.R. 5319 directs the Secretary of the Interior to study a 19-mile segment of the 

mainstem of the Nashua River, except a 4.8-mile segment that is currently the subject of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing proceeding for an existing 

hydroelectric facility (Pepperell Hydro Company, P–12721). It is the Department’s 

understanding that this excepted segment would appropriately allow the FERC to 

complete the ongoing licensing proceeding without the delay that a Wild and Scenic 

River Study would otherwise impose. As specified in the bill, the study would include unnamed tributaries of the Nashua River along the segment designated for 

study, in addition to the two named tributaries, the Squannacook and Nissitissit 

Rivers. The bill requires the study to be completed and transmitted to Congress 

within three years after funding is made available for it. 

The Nashua River, once severely polluted, played an important role in the nation’s river conservation history by inspiring support for both the state and federal 

Clean Water Acts. The transformation of the Nashua from a neglected and polluted 

waterway to one which now boasts the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, regionally 

significant paddling and fishing opportunities, a remarkable protected greenway 

system, and other important natural and cultural values, is a remarkable success 

story. The Squannacook and Nissitissit Rivers are two of eastern Massachusetts’ 

most significant remaining cold-water trout fisheries. 

If enacted, the National Park Service intends to undertake the study in close cooperation with the affected communities, the relevant agencies of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and interest groups such 

as the Nashua River Watershed Association through a partnership-based study approach. The partnership-based approach is recognized in Section 10(e) of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act as a means of encouraging state and local governmental par-
100 

ticipation in the administration of a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The partnership-based approach also allows for development of a proposed river management plan as part of the study, which helps landowners and 

local jurisdictions understand their potential future roles in river management 

should Congress decide to designate part or all of the rivers being studied. 

Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires the development of a comprehensive river management plan within three years of the date of designation, it 

has become the practice of the National Park Service to prepare this plan as part 

of a study of potential wild and scenic rivers when much of the river runs through 

private lands. This allows the National Park Service to consult widely with local 

landowners, federal and state land management agencies, local governments, river 

authorities, and other groups that have interests related to the river prior to determining if the river is suitable for designation. Early preparation of the plan also 

assures input from these entities as well as users of the river on the management 

strategies that would be needed to protect the river’s resources. 

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

any questions you or other committee members may have regarding this bill. 

Statement of Victor Knox, Associate Director, Park Planning, Facilities and 

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

H.R. 5958, A Bill to Name the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Visitor 

Contact Station of the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Unit of Gateway 

National Recreation Area in Honor of James L. Buckley. 

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

appear before you to present the views of the Department of the Interior on 

H.R. 5958, a bill To name the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Visitor Contact Station 

of the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge unit of Gateway National Recreation Area in 

honor of James L. Buckley. 

The National Park Service believes there should be a strong association between 

the park and the person being commemorated, and that at least five years should 

have elapsed since the death of the person. This basic principle has been in place 

at least since 1988, as reflected in our National Park Service Management Policies. 

Therefore, the Department cannot support H.R. 5958. 

In 1938 New York City Parks Commissioner Robert Moses proposed protecting Jamaica Bay’s waters and wildlife, and developing water-based recreation. In 1948, 

the Bay was transferred to the management of NYC Department of Parks. With the 

creation of Gateway National Recreation Area in 1972, the Jamaica Bay Wildlife 

Refuge became the only wildlife refuge in the National Park System. The Jamaica 

Bay Wildlife Refuge Contact Station is eligible for LEED certification, the first in 

the National Park Service’s Northeast Region. The Visitor Contact Station was completed in 2007 and incorporated portions of an older contact station into the new 

building. 

James Lane Buckley, a former United States Senator from New York was born 

in New York City, March 9, 1923. He went to school in Millbrook, New York, and 

graduated from Yale University in 1943; he received his law degree from Yale in 

1949. He enlisted in the United States Navy in 1942 and was discharged with the 

rank of lieutenant in 1946. He was elected to the United States Senate in 1970 and 

served from January 3, 1971, to January 3, 1977. Buckley introduced landmark legislation enacted by Congress to protect student records, the Family Education 

Rights and Privacy Act and the Protection of Pupil Rights Act, which requires parental consent prior to administration of student surveys on any of eight sensitive 

topics. 

Senator Buckley served as the under secretary for Security, Science, and Technology, United States Department of State from 1981–1982. Other high points of his 

career include president, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc. 1982–1985; and federal judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 1985–1996. 

These varied roles render him perhaps the only living American to have held high 

office in all three branches of the federal government. Senator Buckley is currently 

a resident of Sharon, Connecticut. 

National Park Service Management Policies 2006 state that the National Park 

Service will discourage and curtail commemorative works, especially commemorative naming, except when Congress specifically authorizes them or there is a compelling justification for the recognition, and the commemorative work is the best 

way to express the association between the park and the person, group, event, or 

other subject being commemorated. While Senator Buckley was a co-sponsor of the 

bill to create the Gateway National Recreation Area, and spoke in support of the 
101 

resources of the refuge, we do not believe there is sufficient association between him 

and the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center to merit renaming the Visitor 

Center at this time. 

Mr. Chairman this concludes my statement and I will be happy to answer any 

questions that members of the committee may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. Ms. Campbell, if you would 

like to speak about the Wild and Scenic River, and then we will 

ask Mr.—is it Slavin or Slavin? 

Mr. SLAVIN. Slavin. 

Mr. BISHOP. Slavin, Mr. Slavin. If you would, talk about the 

Delaware park proposal. 

Ms. Campbell, please. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH CAMPBELL, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, NASHUA RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony in 

favor of H.R. 5319, which would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act to designate segments of the Nashua, Squannacook, and 

Nissitissit Rivers in Massachusetts for study for potential addition 

to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The legislation 

would initiate a three-year study to establish whether these rivers 

meet the criteria for being designated as partnership wild and scenic rivers. 

I am Elizabeth Ainsley Campbell, I am Executive Director of the 

Nashua River Watershed Association. We were founded in 1969. 

We are an environmental non-profit that covers 530 square miles 

and serves 32 communities. 

In the 1960s the Nashua River was one of the Nation’s 10 most 

polluted rivers, with raw sewage and industrial discharge going directly into the waterway. We have a slide to put up. And I think 

you have already heard from Congresswoman Tsongas that it was 

Marion Stoddart who led local citizens to come together to advocate 

for a revitalized river corridor, and to also encourage the passage 

of the State and Federal Clean Water Acts. Recognizing that a 

long-term effort to fully restore the Nashua River was needed, and 

also to establish protected greenways along its banks, they formed 

the Nashua River Watershed Association. 

Today, a sparkling blue river runs through the watershed. The 

inspiring story of restoration and citizen engagement has been told 

in a documentary film titled, ‘‘Marion Stoddart, Work of 1000,’’ in 

a National Geographic Magazine special edition on water, where 

these photographs you see on the TV screen first appeared, and in 

the children’s book, ‘‘A River Ran Wild.’’ 

These vastly improved waters give rise to very special fish and 

wildlife habitat that has been recognized both on the State and 

Federal levels. On the State level, the Nissitissit and Squannacook 

Rivers are designated outstanding resource waters, and are coldwater fish resources that support native trout. Additionally, the 

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and endangered species program 

has delineated the rivers as part of living waters and Biomap 2 

core habitat areas. 

Further, the Nashua River runs through three connecting statedesignated areas of critical and environmental concern, ACECs. 
102 

The Nashua River, with an extensive permanently protected greenway buffer is a natural wildlife corridor, and it is critical to preserving thriving rare species populations in Central Massachusetts. 

There are over two dozen State-listed rare species in these ACECs. 

The Federal level has also recognized the significance of the 

Nashua River. The 1,600-acre Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, 

nearly 8 miles of the Nashua River corridor. The wetlands of the 

Nashua River and the tributaries have been identified as priority 

wetlands by both the North American Water Foul Management 

Plan and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act. That is due to 

their importance in supporting water foul of the Atlantic flyway. 

So, overall, the stunning recovery of the Nashua River has 

sparked tremendous recreational use of the Nashua River and its 

tributaries and conservation lands that abut the rivers. Recreation 

often involves, as you can imagine, birding and hiking along the 

rivers. There is a very popular 11-mile Nashua River trail that 

runs through 4 towns in the study area. And a four-mile trail is 

planned for along the Squannacook River. 

We have a slide showing that there are many canoe and boat access sites along the rivers. These rivers provide some of the best 

fly fishing within reach of Metro Boston anglers. There are several 

popular bass fishing tournaments, as well. Families are out on the 

river, as well as the fishermen. They are enabled in part by organizations such as the National Paddlers, which is a successful local 

family owned business. 

The river has also enabled important education programs. And 

every year thousands of students interact with the Nashua and 

Squannacook Rivers through our on-water classroom program. You 

see that up there in the bottom slide, students just thrilled to see 

a river otter or an American Bald Eagle. 

As a final point I want to mention that in addition to the other 

things, Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area, which is affiliated 

with the National Park Service, includes each of these communities. 

We are looking forward to partnering with the National Park 

Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, relevant Massachusetts 

agencies, affected communities, a myriad of stakeholders, and a coordinated effort to undertake a study and development of a comprehensive river management plan. All these factors—outstanding 

fisheries, wildlife, spectacular recreational value, rich history— 

make these rivers a strong candidate. I have submitted some detailed testimony. 

I want to thank Congresswoman Tsongas for her leadership, and 

the opportunity today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Campbell follows:] 

Statement of Elizabeth Ainsley Campbell, Executive Director, Nashua River 

Watershed Association (NRWA), on H.R. 5319: ‘‘Nashua River Wild and 

Scenic River Study Act’’ 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of the Nashua River Watershed Association, I thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on 

H.R. 5319, which would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Nashua, Squannacook, and Nissitissit Rivers in the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This legislation would initiate a three year study to establish whether 

these river reaches meet the criteria for being designated as Partnership Wild & 
103 

Scenic Rivers. We appreciate this opportunity to speak in favor of H.R. 5319 and 

to affirm the outstanding resource values of these special rivers. This legislation, 

which has strong local and state support, will help advance the protection of the 

entire river system as the Squannacook and Nissitissit are two of the main stem 

Nashua River’s most important and cleanest tributaries. 

The Nashua River Watershed Association is an environmental non-profit that 

serves as an educator, advocate, and steward for the 32 watershed communities covering over 530 square miles in north central Massachusetts and southern New 

Hampshire. Our professional staff works from our River Resource Center headquarters in Groton, Massachusetts. Founded in 1969, our mission is to work for a 

healthy ecosystem with clean water and open spaces for human and wildlife communities, where people work together to sustain mutual economic and environmental 

well-being in the Nashua River watershed. Our main goals include restoring and 

protecting water quality and quantity for people, fish, and wildlife. For over forty 

years we have worked with our many partners from the grassroots level to local, 

state and federal agencies on river conservation projects. In providing testimony 

today I’m going to touch on 1) the remarkable history of the restoration of the Nashua River; 2) the current status of water quality; 3) the special fish and wildlife habitat of the river reaches and river corridor; 4) the recreational and educational opportunities; 5) the rich tapestry of culturally significant sites along the rivers; and 6) 

partnerships as an essential approach to a comprehensive River Management Plan. 

1) History—a Legacy of Cultural and Historical Importance 

In the 1960s the Nashua River was one of the nation’s ten most polluted rivers, 

with raw sewage and industrial discharge going directly into the waterway, and was 

classified as ‘‘U’’—unfit to carry more raw sewage. The Nashua River’s recovery 

seemed an impossible task as the river was all but dead and one could smell the 

stench of the river from more than a mile away. The heavy concentration of paper 

mills and the use of dyes resulted in pollution that notoriously turned the river various colors downstream from the factories. Despite the deplorable state of the river, 

local citizens came together to see what could be done. They dared to envision the 

unthinkable: sparkling blue water with a ribbon of green along its banks. They 

formed the Nashua River Cleanup Committee in 1965 and advocated for a revitalized river corridor safe for people and wildlife alike. Led by Marion Stoddart, they 

galvanized the attention of towns, government agencies, businesses, and other residents. Together they worked to encourage the passage of the state and federal Clean 

Water Acts. As you know, these Acts made it illegal to pollute rivers and provided 

funding to build waste water treatment facilities to improve water quality. Recognizing that to clean up the rivers and protect the land along their banks would be 

a long-term effort, the Nashua River Clean-up Committee formed the Nashua River 

Watershed Association in 1969. Today, a sparkling blue Nashua River runs from 

central Massachusetts to southern New Hampshire, hosting some of the Commonwealth’s best fishing tournaments. Flora and fauna thrive in it, canoeists revel in 

it, and swimmers splash in it. 

This inspiring story of restoration has been retold in ‘‘A River Ran Wild: An Environmental History’’ by Lynne Cherry, a children’s non-fiction book published in 1992 

that is still frequently used in school curriculums throughout the country. In 1993 

National Geographic Magazine spotlighted the Nashua’s recovery in an article ‘‘The 

Promise of Restoration: New Ideas, New Understanding, New Hope ’’ in its Special 

Edition: ‘‘The Power, Promise, and Turmoil of North America’s Fresh Water’’ in 

which were published the dramatic ‘before’ and ‘after’ images of the Nashua River. 

The story of the Nashua River continues to be inspirational and informative. In 

2010 National Geographic published a collection of essays, ‘‘Written in Water: Messages of Hope for Earth’s Most Precious Resource,’’ which included an essay by Marion Stoddart on ‘‘Cleaning Up the Nashua.’’ 

Most recently, the story of Marion Stoddart and the Nashua River was made into 

an independent, critically acclaimed, documentary film by ExtraMile Design—‘‘Marion Stoddart: The Work of 1000.’’ The film speaks to a model for effective leadership 

and coalition building to achieve one’s vision and achieve positive change. 

It is especially gratifying and exciting that sections of the Nashua River, with its 

dramatic history of restoration, whose story is heard so widely & whose watershed 

approach has become a model, has become such a strong candidate for inclusion in 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System along with its tributaries the Squannacook and 

Nissitissit Rivers. 

2) Current Water Quality—the Basis for Healthy Aquatic Life 

The Nashua River Watershed Association’s water monitoring program, currently 

in its 20th consecutive year, has data showing that the Squannacook and Nissitissit 
104 

rivers have excellent to good water quality meeting state bacteria standards for 

swimming and boating almost all of the time. The Nashua River segment proposed 

for Wild and Scenic designation meets boating standards most of the time and 

swimming standards many times. 

Therese Beaudoin, MassDEP Watershed Coordinator, states ‘‘The Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection has studied water quality in the Nashua 

Watershed since the late 1960s. The Squannacook River has provided an ideal location for establishing least impacted conditions for both water quality and flow, and 

has served as a reference river for decades. A long term monitoring station was established here in 1998, with sampling conducted every two months; available data 

show that water quality and aesthetics in the Squannacook River have been consistently among the cleanest in Central Massachusetts.’’ 

In contrast, although vastly improved since the 1960s, the Nashua River currently 

is on the 303(d) ‘‘impaired waters’’ list and has had Total Daily Maximum Loads 

(TMDLs) developed for bacteria and phosphorus. The phosphorus TMDL noted that 

the primary cause of the impairment from phosphorous was attributed to discharges 

from the wastewater treatment plants. Treatment plants along the Nashua River 

are correspondingly improving their infrastructure to improve water quality. Bacteria impairment is being addressed upstream of the designated reaches in the City 

of Fitchburg, whose City Council just voted to expend over $70 million to separate 

sewers and upgrade its treatment plant. In addition, the Nashua River Watershed 

Association’s education and outreach efforts to citizens regarding what they can do 

to keep water clean will also result in long term water quality improvements. We 

believe that if H.R. 5319 were to be enacted, the resultant study and possible designation would play an important role in continuing to move toward healthier waters in the Nashua. 

3) Fish & Wildlife Habitat—Special Characteristics to Protect 

The 1975 Squannacook-Nissitissit Sanctuary Act (MGL 132A:17) prohibited new 

discharges of pollutants to the waterways and recognized the high value of these 

aquatic riverine ecosystems. The Nissitissit and Squannacook Rivers are state-designated Outstanding Resource Waters and are cold water fish resources. They are 

well-managed streams that support native trout, including brown, brook and rainbow trout reproduction. Brook trout spawn in the tributaries and travel to the 

Nashua River for part of each year. These rivers in their entirety within Massachusetts were designated ‘‘Living Water Core Areas’’ by the MA Natural Heritage and 

Endangered Species Program (NHESP). The NHESP has also delineated the entire 

length of the Nashua, Nissitissit. and Squannacook Rivers within Massachusetts as 

‘‘BioMap2 Core Habitat’’. The Living Waters area (with a focus on freshwater aquatic) and the BioMap2 area (with a focus on terrestrial) are roughly equivalent designations intended to guide strategic biodiversity conservation in the state over the 

next decade by focusing land protection and stewardship on the areas that are most 

critical for ensuring the long-term persistence of rare and other native species and 

their habitats, exemplary natural communities, and a diversity of ecosystems. The 

areas are also designed to include the habitats and species of conservation concern 

identified in the State’s Wildlife Action Plan. 

As we understand it, a goal the US Fish and Wildlife Service is pursuing for the 

Nashua River is to reintroduce Alewife and American shad to the Nashua River in 

the next ten years. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has stocked Alewife and American shad in an impounded pond on the Nashua River in New Hampshire. American 

eel exist in the Nashua and Squannacook Rivers, and upstream eel passage has 

been installed at Ice House Dam on the Nashua River. 

The Pepperell Dam creates an impoundment on the Nashua River from the dam 

to approximately four miles upstream of the dam. This river reach has been excluded from this proposed Wild and Scenic Study Act. Pepperell Hydro Company 

LLC is the owner of the Pepperell Dam and hydro facilities, which provides 8 Gwh 

per year of electrical power. PHC purchased the facility in 2004 and has been operating as a grandfathered facility since that time, as the dam and hydro facilities 

were constructed prior to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s existence. As 

we understand it, PHC is in the process of applying for a FERC license; exclusion 

of this river reach would allow FERC licensing to proceed. Up and downstream fish 

passage will likely be required by US Fish and Wildlife Service as a prerequisite 

to the FERC license. 

The Nashua River runs within three Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC’s) in Massachusetts. This is quite remarkable as there are only 30 state-designated ACECs in total in the state. The three that include the Nashua River are: 

the Central Nashua River Valley ACEC, the Squannassit ACEC; and the Petapawag 

ACEC. ACEC designation is a special recognition because of the quality, uniqueness, 
105 

and significance of its natural and cultural resources; it is also a real achievement 

stemming from years of research, outreach and community meetings with an emphasis on extensive public input and discussion and largely driven by volunteers. 

The Nashua River forms the ‘heart and backbone’ of these connecting ACEC’s and 

is adjacent to an extensive network of publicly and privately owned open space. The 

MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program describes the Nashua River 

as a natural wildlife corridor and focal point for wildlife concentrations in central 

Massachusetts. An excerpt from the Executive Summary pertaining to the Central 

Nashua River Valley ACEC designation says, ‘‘The river valley provides significant 

linkages between important wildlife areas. The relatively undeveloped nature of this 

area is critical to preserving thriving rare species populations.’’ 

There are at least 19 state-listed rare species in the Central Nashua River Valley 

ACEC, 16 in the Petapawag and 23 in the Squannassit ACEC. A few years ago the 

Stewardship Committee of the Petapawag and Squannassit ACECs encouraged the 

Nashua River Watershed Association to undertaker a multi-year biological control 

program to reduce non-native invasive purple loosestrife. The project benefits several high priority species of wetland-dependent wildlife including, but not limited to, 

the American Black Duck, Mallard, Wood Duck, American Woodcock, Eastern 

Kingbird, and Blandings Turtle. 

The Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, which consists of some 1,600 acres of southern New England flood-plain forest and wetland communities, abuts nearly 8 miles 

of the Nashua River corridor. The wetlands of the Nashua River and tributaries 

have been identified as priority wetlands by both the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, due to their 

critical importance in supporting waterfowl of the Atlantic Flyway, and are also listed in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Priority Wetlands of New England. A 

Visitor Contact Station is currently being completed on the refuge along the banks 

of the Nashua River in Devens. 

The Nashua River Watershed Association has worked in partnership with others 

for over four decades to establish a permanently protected greenway (naturally 

vegetated buffer area) along the Nashua River and its tributaries. While much more 

remains to be done to complete the vision, a very significant amount of the corridor 

has been protected. The width of the undisturbed river corridor is in some cases a 

few hundred feet, and in other cases a few miles wide. The result is a mostly intact 

wild river of great beauty, supporting a range of wildlife, contributing to better 

water quality, outstanding habitat and remarkable recreational opportunities. 

4) Recreation & Education—A Robust Result of River Recovery 

‘‘Recovery’’ has sparked recreational use of the Nashua River and its tributaries 

at places like the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge; Bolton Flats; the Squannacook 

River and the Nissitissit River State Wildlife Management Areas; the J. Harry Rich 

State Forest; the Townsend State Forest; and the Groton & Shirley Town Forests, 

to name but some of the conserved lands abutting the rivers and protecting the 

shorelines of the river segments included in H.R. 5319. Recreation often involves 

birding and hiking along the rivers. The very popular 11 mile Nashua River Rail 

Trail runs alongside the river through four Massachusetts towns in the study area, 

and a 4 mile soft-surface rail trail is shortly anticipated to be created along the 

Squannacook River. 

For decades these rivers have provided focal points for the local Squanatissit 

Chapter of Trout Unlimited projects such as: constructing a universal access facility 

on the Squannacook River, adopting the Nissitissit River under Massachusetts 

Adopt-A–Stream program, as well as assisting the MassWildlife staff when they conduct electro-shocking and fish sampling on these rivers. These rivers provide some 

of the best fly-fishing within reach of metro-Boston anglers. There are many formal 

canoe and boat access sites along the rivers, and there are several annual popular 

bass fishing tournaments hosted on the Nashua River by such groups as Yankee 

Bassmasters and Freedom Bass. In addition to recreation focused on fishing, others 

use the river for a variety of sports. For example, the Jack London Trail Race group 

holds and annual canoe race on the Nashua River. 

Families are out on the rivers enabled in part by Nashoba Paddlers LLC, a successful local family-owned business based in West Groton, offering canoe rentals, 

tours, and a Summer River Camp. Free boating is provided at two annual events: 

the River Festivals in Groton and Lancaster, Massachusetts. Such events are typical 

of the collaborative efforts already in place; for example the Groton Greenway Committee which sponsors the Groton River Festival is ‘‘charged with protecting river 

and stream frontage in Groton, particularly along the Nashua and Squannacook 

Rivers and educating townspeople of the environmental and financial importance of 

protecting riverfront lands.’’ We note the inclusion of ‘‘financial’’ importance, for 
106 

when the river’s rank odor could be smelled at a distance and its fumes pealed off 

paint, riparian real estate was worthless. Times have changed for the better on the 

rivers, and we believe that a ‘‘Wild & Scenic’’ designation would significantly increase the value of adjacent lands boosting local tax roles. 

The rivers also enable important environmental education programs. Every year 

thousands of students from throughout the region interact with the Nashua and 

Squannacook River segments through the NRWA’s environmental education programs, notably during our on-water River Classroom programs, on-shore ecological 

inventories, and our Summer Eco-Adventures programs. Students are thrilled to see 

a river otter or catch a glimpse of an American Bald Eagle soaring over the Nashua 

River. 

5) Another View of Culture & History—A Rich Tapestry 

The Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area includes each of the communities affected by H.R. 5319, and goes beyond them. The Freedom’s Way National Heritage 

Area describes itself as including ‘‘communities in Massachusetts and New Hampshire that share unique historical, natural, and cultural resources. The region is 

home to a series of historic events that influenced democratic forms of governance 

and intellectual traditions that underpin concepts of American freedom, democracy, 

conservation, and social justice. These 45 cities and towns share common themes 

that have contributed toward this special landscape of American History.’’ Freedom’s Way National Heritage Area is a member of the Alliance of National Heritage 

Areas and is one of 49 Heritage Areas affiliated with the National Park Service. 

By way of example, three significant cultural & historical sites in the study are 

are: 1) Fruitlands Museum, which abuts the Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge, is a 

Massachusetts and National Historic Landmark on the former site of a Transcendentalist utopian community; 2) a Shaker Village existed along the Nashua River 

in Shirley Massachusetts from the late 1700s to the early 1900s; and 3) two historic 

districts abut the Squannacook River in Townsend. Landmarks and historical sites 

abound along the rivers throughout the study area. 

6) Partnerships—An Essential Approach to a River Management Plan 

Since its founding in 1969, the Nashua River Watershed has always worked in 

partnership with local, state, and federal entities to achieve progress. For example, 

the Nissitissit and Squannacook Rivers sub-basins were the service area for a 2004– 

2009 ‘‘Protecting Today’s Water for Tomorrow’’ partnership project funded by a U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Targeted Watershed Initiative grant. The project 

helped protect valuable drinking water resources and surface water quality and promoted proactive land stewardship. The NRWA worked closely with a broad coalition 

of stakeholders, including property owners, to instill conservation approaches into 

management plans for privately held lands that helped protect water resources. The 

NRWA was the lead partner on this multi-year project, and actively involved over 

three dozen local, state, and federal entities in providing matching services toward 

the goals of the project. 

Although the Nashua, Squannacook and Nissitissit Rivers greatly contribute to 

the overall rural character of the towns through which they flow, at the same time, 

given their relative proximity to the metropolitan areas of Nashua, New Hampshire 

and Boston & Worcester, Massachusetts, these spectacular natural resources are 

also under the pressure of development associated with rapid growth and urban/suburban sprawl. Our area is characterized by the recent Mass Audubon report ‘‘Losing 

Ground II’’ as being on the ‘‘sprawl frontier’’. The NRWA encourages ‘‘smart growth’’ 

techniques to enable communities to meet their development goals and simultaneously protect their most important natural resources. 

The NRWA took a lead role in bringing the possibility of a Study pertaining to 

potential Wild & Scenic designation to the attention of the affected communities. 

Letters of support from these communities have been included with Congresswoman 

Tsongas’s testimony. We would welcome with great enthusiasm the opportunity to 

partner with the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the relevant Massachusetts agencies, the affected communities, and a myriad of involved 

stakeholders in a coordinated effort to undertake a Study and development of a comprehensive river management plan as part of determining if the river is suitable for 

designation. 

In conclusion, all these factors—outstanding fisheries, rare wildlife, recreational 

value, a rich history—make the Nashua, Squannacook and Nissitissit Rivers in 

Massachusetts a strong candidate for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Nashua River 

Watershed Association to the Subcommittee today. Thank you. 
107 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Slavin? 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY SLAVIN, DIRECTOR, DELAWARE 

DIVISION OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS 

Mr. SLAVIN. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and members of the 

Subcommittee, for allowing me to submit this brief testimony on 

behalf of H.R. 624, which would establish the First State National 

Historical Park in the State of Delaware. My name is Tim Slavin, 

and I currently serve as the Director of the Division of Historical 

and Cultural Affairs for the State of Delaware. In this capacity I 

oversee the management and stewardship of 41 historic properties, 

comprising 119 structures and more than 650 acres of cultural 

landscapes. In addition, I also serve as the State historic preservation officer, and oversee Cultural Resources’ review of all Federal 

projects undertaken in the State. 

I strongly support passage of H.R. 624. This bill is the result of 

untold number of hours of public consultations, meetings with 

State and private agencies, and conversations with our local residents. This has been a deliberate, arduous, and productive task, 

and the outcome could not have been more beneficial or useful. 

The concept of a multi-site historical-based national park is 

something which is valid for Delaware, and should be implemented 

by the National Park Service with the passage of this bill. The 

theme that has been selected of early settlement through birth of 

a Nation in Delaware is considered by many historians to be pivotal in conveying and understanding of Delaware’s unique role in 

American history. 

The National Park Service cited in its special resource study 

stating that Delaware provides an important lens on the subject of 

how early colonial leaders struggled with the notion of breaking 

free from England, and that Delaware exemplifies the character of 

an entirely new Nation as a result of that quest for freedom and 

independence. 

The multi-site design for the park, likewise, reflects that history. 

Delaware’s waves of settlement included the Swedish, Dutch, and 

English, all in different venues across a beautiful and sweeping 

coastal area. Under the proposed design, the hub of the park would 

be situated in New Castle, which includes one of the richest historic districts on the East Coast, as well as a community of preservation-minded residents and property owners who, in my opinion, 

are unparalleled in Delaware. The spokes of the park would then 

reach out and allow for the important stories that contribute to an 

understanding of the early settlement and birth of a Nation to be 

told in places such as Dover and Lewes, as well. 

Public acceptance of this proposed project and the amount of 

public input and enthusiasm for this bill should not go unnoticed. 

There has been a wellspring of sentiment and support from across 

Delaware, with citizens participating in hearings and discussions, 

and offering many of the ideas that we see outlined in the bill. The 

City of New Castle has not only accepted its new role as the site 

for the park’s hub, but has embraced that new role. As someone 

who manages historic properties and museums in New Castle, I 

can tell you that the specter of a national park in New Castle has 
108 

brought with it a whole new level of public support for history and 

historic preservation in New Castle. If the park is implemented as 

designed—and I do hope that it is—you will find a very conscientious and welcoming community in New Castle. 

Finally, there is a need for this park that deserves to be met. 

Delaware’s history is our Nation’s history. And we need to tell that 

story in ways that all Americans can access it. The fact that we 

currently do not have a national park in Delaware would, in my 

opinion, not be reason enough to simply create one. The fact that 

we have historical resources which the citizens of our Nation need 

to see and experience in order to understand and appreciate our 

Nation’s great history is something which we can no longer ignore. 

The need for this park is based on a need to tell our American history thoroughly and completely, and to include Delaware in that 

enterprise. 

I am a big fan of the National Park Service. My agency works 

hand-in-glove with the Park Service on an almost-daily basis 

through our work in carrying out the provisions of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. And through our joint efforts, we have 

raised the quality of life for all Delawarians. We consider the National Park Service to be an exemplary steward of our Nation’s heritage, and we are unblinking in saying that we are—they are partners that we are proud to do business with. 

But my admiration for the National Park Service is, at its roots, 

personal. My 17-year-old daughter was raised in Boulder, Colorado. 

And on my many monthly visits out to her over the course of 13 

years we claimed Rocky Mountain National Park as our own place. 

It is a place that we visited regularly, returning to some of the 

same footprints we left on previous trips. These visits have not only 

resulted in the two of us visiting other national parks, but more 

importantly, have shown my daughter the value of conscientious 

stewardship, and the role that each person can play in preserving 

our Nation’s heritage. We need to show the children of Delaware 

the importance of these values. And the passage of H.R. 624 gives 

us that opportunity. 

In closing, I strongly support this bill and encourage its passage 

and implementation, and stand ready to assist the National Park 

Service in any manner possible. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Slavin follows:] 

Statement of Timothy A. Slain, Director and State Historic Preservation 

Officer, State of Delaware, Division of Historical & Cultural Affairs, on 

H.R. 624, ‘‘First State National Historical Park Act’’ 

Chairman Bishop and members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, 

and Public Lands, thank you for allowing me to submit this brief testimony on 

H.R. 624, which would establish the First State National Historical Park in the 

State of Delaware. 

My name is Timothy A. Slavin, and I currently serve as the Director of the Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs for the State of Delaware. In this capacity, 

I oversee the management and stewardship of a state-wide campus of forty-one historic properties, comprising 119 structures and more than 650 acres of cultural 

landscapes. In addition, I also serve as the State Historic Preservation Officer and 

oversee the cultural resources review of all federal projects undertaken in our state, 

as well as other preservation related activities. 

I strongly support the passage of H.R. 624. This bill is the result of untold number of hours of public consultations, meetings with state and private agencies, and 
109 

conversations with local residents. This has been a deliberate, arduous, and productive task, and the outcome could not have been more beneficial or useful. 

The concept of a multi-site historical-based national park is something which is 

valid for Delaware and should be implemented by the National Park Service (with 

passage of this bill). The theme of ‘‘early settlement’’ through ‘‘birth of a nation’’ in 

Delaware is considered by many historians to be pivotal in conveying an understanding of Delaware’s unique role in American history. The National Park Service 

cited this in its special resource study, stating that Delaware ‘‘provides an important 

lens on the subject of how early colonial leaders struggled with the notion of breaking free from England’’ and that ‘‘Delaware exemplifies the character of an entirely 

new nation as the result of that quest for freedom and independence.’’ (National 

Park Service, Delaware National Coastal Special Resource Study and Environmental Assessment, November 2008.) 

The multi-site design for the park, likewise, reflects that history. Delaware’s 

waves of settlement included the Swedish, Dutch and English, all in different 

venues across a beautiful and sweeping coastal area. Under the proposed design, the 

‘‘hub’’ of the park would be situated in New Castle, which includes one of the richest 

historical districts on the east coast, as well as a community of preservation-minded 

residents and property owners who are unparalleled in Delaware. The ‘‘spokes’’ of 

the park would allow for the important stories that contribute to an understanding 

of the early settlement and birth of a nation theme to be told in Dover and Lewes, 

as well. 

The public acceptance of this proposed project and the amount of public input and 

enthusiasm for this bill should not go unnoticed. There has been a well-spring of 

sentiment and support from across Delaware, with citizens participating in hearings 

and discussions, and offering many of the ideas that we see outlined in the bill. The 

City of New Castle has not only accepted its new role as the site for the park’s hub, 

but has embraced that new role. As someone who manages historical properties and 

museums in New Castle, I can tell you that the specter of a national park in New 

Castle has brought with it a whole new level of public support for history and historic preservation in New Castle. If the park is implemented as designed—and I 

hope that it is—you will find a conscientious and welcoming community in New Castle. 

Finally, there is a need for this park that deserves to be met. Delaware’s history 

is our nation’s history, and we need to tell that story in ways that all Americans 

can access it. The fact that we currently do not have a national park in Delaware 

would, in my opinion, not be reason enough to simply create one. The fact that we 

have historical resources which the citizens of our nation need to see and experience 

in order to understand and appreciate our nation’s great history is something which 

we can no longer ignore. The need for this park is based on a need to tell our American history thoroughly and completely, and to include Delaware in that enterprise. 

I am a big fan of the National Park Service. My agency works hand-in-glove with 

the NPS on an almost-daily basis through our work in carrying out the provisions 

of the National Historic Preservation Act, and through their joint efforts, we have 

raised the quality-of-life for all Delawareans. We consider the NPS to be an exemplary steward of our nation’s heritage, and we are unblinking in saying that they 

are partners that we are proud to do business with. 

But my admiration for the National Park Service is, at its roots, personal. My 16- 

year-old daughter was raised in Boulder, Colorado, and on my many monthly visits 

to her over the course of thirteen years, we claimed Rocky Mountain National Park 

in Estes Park as our own place. It’s a place that we visited regularly, returning to 

some of the same footprints we left on previous trips. These visits have not only 

resulted in the two of us visiting other national parks, but, more importantly, have 

shown her the value of conscientious stewardship and the role that each person can 

play in preserving our nation’s heritage. 

We need to show the children of Delaware the importance of these values, and 

the passage of H.R. 624 gives us that opportunity. 

In closing, I strongly support this bill and encourage its passage and implementation and stand ready to assist the National Park Service in any manner possible. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, I appreciate that. Do we have questions? 

Ms. Tsongas, do you have questions for either of—any of these witnesses? 

Ms. TSONGAS. A brief one for Executive Director Campbell. 

Thank you so much for coming to Washington to testify on behalf 
110 

of a piece of legislation that I know you have worked so hard to 

make possible, as have the many volunteers who are deeply affected by the Nashua River, and who saw an opportunity to improve it, and have worked tirelessly to do so. So this is just the 

next step. 

It was quite a photo in which the river—showed how the river— 

the color of the water would change with the dyes that were let 

into it as a result of all the manufacturing that was taking place 

on its banks. So much progress has been made. And we hope that 

this study will protect that progress and encourage further 

progress. 

But I do have one question. And that is that, you know, we do 

often hear that one of the concerns that people sometimes have 

when we go about giving something an environmental designation 

is that opportunities for recreation will be limited. And you have 

spoken—be made more limited. And you have spoken about the tremendous recreational activities that have been taking place as this 

river has been cleaned up. 

But do you see a potential designation as a Wild and Scenic 

River impacting those activities in any way? Constraining future 

activities? I would love to get your thoughts. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. I certainly do not see the designation as constraining the activities. I am unaware of any way in which that 

might be the possible outcome of the study and potential designation. 

But on the other hand—and I am glad you asked this—I see a 

tremendous increase in recreational opportunities. I think as people have an opportunity to come together we are going to be putting some communities together who don’t always work together 

with Ducks Unlimited, the Squannassit Chapter of Trout Unlimited, many different sporting and recreation interests coming together. We are going to see increased exposure to the possibilities 

of the river, not only the use of the opportunities that are there already, but I would think some increased opportunities. 

And the whole process, which is quite exhaustive to get to the 

process—the town is voting on their interest in the potential designation. Wonderful publicity. And were it to be designated, tremendous publicity thereafter. I think people who are living right by 

the river don’t know it is there, those few people. And many others 

will come out and have more recreation. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, I commend the way in which many stakeholders have worked together. And I know that the study process 

will involve all stakeholders looking to the future. And I do think 

that as we focus on the environmental impacts and recreational impacts, you can never lose sight of the economic impacts of the river 

that runs throughout the many communities that abut it, the opportunities it presents to engage the river in the life of the community in a way that you would turn your back on when the river was 

as dirty as it once was. 

So, thank you for being here today. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. And thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. That is it? OK. OK, I want to thank the witnesses 

for coming here today. You didn’t travel quite as far as those from 
111 

California, New Mexico, and Utah did, but you can go back on a 

train system that is subsidized, so it is OK. 

We appreciate you being here for your testimony. For the witnesses, obviously, all the witnesses—those who are still here, and 

those who have been—we want you to potentially be available to 

respond in writing to any questions that may be submitted by 

Members to the Subcommittee. 

I further ask that written testimony submitted by Herbert 

Stump or Stoop be entered into the record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. BISHOP. And, without objection, so ordered. And if there is 

no further business, with our gratitude to the witnesses who have 

been here on these last three bills, as well as the other bills that 

have been before us, I thank you very much and we will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Martin Heinrich, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of New Mexico 

The Organ Mountains are one of the most iconic vistas in my home state of New 

Mexico, and I thank the committee for taking the time to consider the best way to 

provide them and other important natural and cultural resources in Don ̃ a Ana 

County permanent protection. 

I stand in strong support of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument proposal offered by citizens of Don ̃ a Ana County. This is an exciting proposal 

that reflects years of community discussions and has already received the endorsement of the Town of Mesilla and the Don ̃ a Ana County Commission as well as support from a diverse group of stakeholders ranging from sportsmen to veterans. This 

proposal reflects the best of southern New Mexico’s unique Chihuahuan Desert ecosystems as well as nationally significant American and Pre-American history. The 

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument would protect hunting, ranching and other valid and existing uses, while ensuring that future generations can 

enjoy this iconic American landscape as we do today. As the committee continues 

to consider the best way to protect the natural, cultural, and historical resources 

of Don ̃ a Ana County, I hope that this proposal will receive serious consideration. 

While I greatly appreciate Representative Pearce’s support for a national monument in Don ̃ a Ana County, I have several significant concerns regarding H.R. 4334. 

Currently there are eight wilderness study areas in Don ̃ a Ana County totaling more 

than 220,000 acres. There is broad community consensus to not only protect these 

areas but also to protect adjacent regions known for their diverse landscapes and 

important history. Unfortunately, H.R. 4334 falls short of a solution to protect these 

lands. It would reduce the amount of land to be protected in the Organ Mountains 

by over 30 percent as compared to other proposals that have been endorsed by numerous local elected bodies, including the Don ̃ a Ana County Commission. Furthermore, and most problematic, H.R. 4334 would take a big step backward by eliminating the three Wilderness Study Areas within the Organ Mountains, thereby removing protections that have been in place for decades. 

Permitted Uses 

Some have incorrectly argued that the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National 

Monument would negatively impact ranching and shut out important users like 

sportsmen. Both of these claims are false. Ranching continues to exist in all but one 

National Monument managed by the Bureau of Land Management created since 

1982 in 13 western continental U.S. states over 10,000 acres in size. Consistent with 

this trend and as has been repeatedly stated by supporters of the Monument proposal, the Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks National Monument would protect ranchers’ existing use of the designated area. 

In addition, hunting and motorized vehicle access continues today in all of the 

aforementioned National Monuments managed by the Bureau of Land Management. 

The Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks National Monument proposal would protect this 

access. In fact, numerous sportsman groups and individuals have endorsed the pro-
112 

posal specifically because of these protections as well as the protection of key regional habitat. The mountain ranges in the proposed monument include some of the 

most important wild game habitat in New Mexico. Mule deer, mountain lion, dove, 

quail, and many other species call the Sierra de las Uvas home. The Potrillo Mountains are especially significant with their ecological links to northern Mexico, and 

the Organ Mountains provide critical water resources to local wildlife. As proposed, 

the Organ Mountains–Desert Peaks National Monument would make access by 

sportsmen a central part of the area’s management and protection in perpetuity. 

That would ensure that when my sons are my age, they will be able to enjoy hunting for mule deer in the Las Uvas, or quail in the Robledos. 

Currently, the Bureau of Land Management manages the federal lands proposed 

for protection within the Organ Mountain-Desert Peaks National Monument, and it 

is the clear intent of local communities, supporters, and citizens to have the BLM 

continue to manage these public lands should they become a national monument. 

Claims that the Monument would no longer be managed by the BLM are false, and 

comparisons to the management of national monuments under the jurisdiction of 

the National Park Service can be very misleading. 

Size of the Monument 

The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument proposal’s goal is to permanently protect the region’s culturally rich public lands that have helped shape 

New Mexico’s diverse heritage and help tell America’s story. In order to protect this 

rich history and heritage and in accordance with the Antiquities Act of 1906, the 

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument proposal reflects the smallest 

size practicable. The boundaries have been carefully drafted to protect the region’s 

nationally significant historical and cultural objects, including: 

• Over 20 Miles of the historic Butterfield Stagecoach Trail, currently in consideration by Congress to be designated as a National Historic Trail 

• Over 5000 petroglyph and other rare archeological sites 

• World War II Aerial Targets 

• Apollo Mission Astronaut Training Sites 

• Geronimo’s Cave 

• Billy the Kid’s Outlaw Rock 

• The Gadsden Purchase International Boundary 

Additionally, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument would protect truly iconic and diverse Chihuahuan Desert public lands that have little protection and representation within America’s wilderness and national monument preservation systems. These public lands are nationally and internationally known and 

have helped shaped New Mexicans’ way of life for countless generations. These 

areas include: 

• Organ Mountains 

• Potrillo Volcanic Field 

• Kilbourne Hole (National Historic Landmark) 

• Robledo Mountains (also home to the Prehistoric Trackways National 

Monument) 

• Broad Canyon 

I look forward to working with the citizens of Don ̃ a Ana County, Congress and 

the president to permanently protect the nationally significant lands, heritage, and 

history within the proposed Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. 

Statement of The Honorable Dale Kildee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan 

Mr. Chairman, colleagues, and witnesses, thank you for being here today for our 

subcommittee hearing. 

Today we see a wide range of bills, many dealing with designations for parks, rivers, and wilderness. 

We have a couple land exchanges, one for a well-known university icon in the 

west. 

Most of these bills are easy for me to support, but one or two make me question 

the reasoning for the bill. 

I want to welcome our witnesses today. I appreciate you coming here to present 

on these issues which speak to you. 

I look forward to a successful hearing today and I yield back the remainder of 

my time. 
113 

[The documents listed below have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

• Atomic Heritage Foundation, Press release for the Record, H.R. 5987 

• Atomic Heritage Foundation, Statement for the Record, H.R. 5987 

• Atomic Heritage Foundation, Letter for the Record, H.R. 5987 

• Cooper, Tom and Carol, Letter for the Record, H.R. 4334 

• County of Madera Board of Supervisors Comments for the Record on 

H.R. 3640 

• Delk, Byron, Mesilla Valley Sportsmen’s Alliance, Letter for the Record in 

support of H.R. 4334 

• Dice, Jenn, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Statement for the 

Record, H.R. 4109 

• Dona Ana County Sheriff’s Department, Letter for the Record in support of 

H.R. 4334 

• Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District, Statement for the Record, 

H.R. 4334 

• Donham, B.J., Letter for the Record, H.R. 4334 

• Dowless, Linda, Letter for the Record, H.R. 4334 

• Energy Communities Alliance, Statement for the Record, H.R. 5987 

• Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce, Letter for the Record in support 

of H.R. 4334 

• Hartan, Cheryl, Letter for the Record in support of H.R. 4334 

• Huff, Fred, Letter for the Record in support of H.R. 4334 

• Jeska, Robert, Letter for the Record in support of H.R. 4334 

• Los Padres Forest Watch, Comments for the Record on H.R. 4109 

• Massachusetts Audubon, Statement for the Record, H.R. 5319 

• Massachusetts, Towns of Dunstable, Groton, Harvard, Lancaster, Pepperell, 

Shirley, Townsend, and Ayer, Letters for the Record, H.R. 5319 

• Mattiace, William, Letter for the Record, H.R. 4334 

• Mesilla Valley Sportsmen’s Alliance, Letter for the Record, H.R. 4334 

• National Parks Conservation Association, Statement for the Record, 

H.R. 5987 

• National Trust for Historic Preservation, Letter in support of H.R. 5987 

• Richards, Ralph, Letter for the Record, H.R. 4334 

• Richardson, Carol, Letter for the Record, H.R. 4334 

• Rio Grande Soaring Association, Letter for the Record, H.R. 4334 

• Sanchez, John, State of New Mexico, Letter for the Record in support of 

H.R. 4334 

• Stupp, Herbert, Statement for the Record, H.R. 5958 

• Westmont College, Letter for the Record concerning H.R. 4109 

• Wilderness Society, Letter for the Record on H.R. 4109 and H.R. 4334 

Æ